Minutus

I think a true chronic miasm in Hahnemann's sense behaves like a
chronic infection such as syphilis, ie, it is both persistent and
progressive, not only persistent as such states as inherited mental
traumas, heavy metal and other drug toxins etc.
I find Sankaran's miasms quite helpful at times but I wish he'd
called them 'states' or something other than miasms, it causes
confusion with the Hahnemannian chronic miasms.
The late Pritam Singh talked of "miasms and dyscrasiae" the latter
being the toxic hangovers from mercury etc. I find this useful.

Hi everyone.
Have you guys had many patients on which two or more
miasms were equally present? I seem to have one who
has both psora and sycosis VERY latent, equally. I'm
wonderig if I'm wrong and it is always only one that
should be predominant.
regards,
Eric.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Hi Eric,
(I think you mean "very *active*"--"latent" means something like
"sleeping", or not expressing.) You can definitely see more than one
miasm expressing at a time. I suppose that's an example of a "complex"
disease, but I think pretty common these days. So--ideally you will
find a remedy that *also* covers both miasms, and/or zig-zag as needed.
(At least, that's my understanding.)
Shannon

Hi Eric, the only way to know which miasms is predominant is to look
at the chief complaint. The pathology of the chief complaint is an
indication to which miasm is dominant and which one is latent.
IF both are latent, then your pateint is asymptomatic.
Is that what you are saying?
D.r leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Eric Millan wrote:

Hi Shannon and dr Leelah,
In the observed case, the patient is not asymptomatic but the prescription of the right remedy has done little for him over time, having seen many homeopaths in the last ten years with no improvement. I think it's time to treat him miasmatically. Hopefully he would respond to the similimum after that. This patient's chief complaints seem to be divided among psora and sycosis specifically.
Thanks,
Eric.

doctorleelah2h wrote:
Hi Eric, the only way to know which miasms is predominant is to look
at the chief complaint. The pathology of the chief complaint is an
indication to which miasm is dominant and which one is latent.
IF both are latent, then your pateint is asymptomatic.
Is that what you are saying?
D.r leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Eric Millan wrote:
ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.

****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, you can simply change your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a single daily digest.
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "minutus" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Eric,
IF the pateint is not asymptomatic, then he is not in latency 0r - A
symptomatic patient cannot be in latency.
Latency means that there are no symptoms and the person looks to be
apparently in good health.

YEs if a well indicated remedy is not working, one has to consider a
lot of factors:
SOme mechanical obstruction
Some block - either medicinal or miasmatic
The remedy may be close but not the similimum
Low susceptibility: hence - The potency is not right or the frequency
of repetition is not right.

Often HAhnemann repeated frequently (once to twice a day) wiht
increasing qualtities of water doses for a few days TILL a reaction
was observed before he stopped frequent repetition.

There is a latent period in peopole with low suscpetibility (before
they respond) that requires repetition and higher potency till a
reaction is observed.
Hope his helps,
d.r leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Eric Millan wrote:
prescription of the right remedy has done little for him over time,
having seen many homeopaths in the last ten years with no
improvement. I think it's time to treat him miasmatically. Hopefully
he would respond to the similimum after that. This patient's chief
complaints seem to be divided among psora and sycosis specifically.
look
wrote:
Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no
representations regarding the individual suitability of the
information contained in any document read or advice or
recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email
postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use
remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its
individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and
howsoever caused.
change your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to
receive a single daily digest.
Service.

I think the emphasis here is on "looks" to be in apparently good
health. There are huge degrees of ill health and a diseased state has
to begin somewhere but because we have been taught to tolerate our
clients are much further down this line than they should be often. So
exactly when and where a miasmatic influence that was once latent
begins to show sx is often missed. This is slightly off tangent to the
question asked.

Best, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Eric wrote:

the right remedy has done little for him over

Hi Eric, all,

How do you define the simillimum?
Is this the picture bases on the characteristics of the person?
Suppose this 'well selected remedy' is the exact remedy for the patient on a
personal level, but when is does not act this proves this remedy isn't the
simillimum (any more). The disease progressed from this functional area to a
deeper different level, which apparently is miasmaticly out of reach of this
remedy.
So let it be clear this remedy isn't the simillimum.
We must not prescribe on characteristics that have no relation to the
current disease.
We must always look at the current chief complaints and what they mean for
the patient, this also helps to define the miasm. This present state as a
whole will lead us to the simillimum, which is much more and deeper then a
miasmatic remedy to 'clear the case'.
On pathology alone one cannot define the miasm, just like we can't select a
remedy on pathology.
Classification with the three miasms is to rough and doesn't help to find
the simillimum for the current state.
Mixed miasm and complex disease is just a way of looking at disease, but in
reality all present predominating symptoms come from one disturbance and one
(in between) miasm, which corresponds with the simillimum.

Kind regards, Piet

Hi Piet, I think its importnat at the outset to realise that your
statements below are not in line with what "miasmatic management" is
about - HAhenamnian and later ones that followed.

There has yet to be clincial documentation of the idea that
the "central disturbance" is the (more specific) "miasm" that is to
be cured and whether the miasm has in fact been cured with the choie
of the remedy chosen in such a manner. If it does, I'm delighted. BUT
till this is clearly documented, I think stating it as a fact is
adding to the confusion that already exists.
You views are taken from a tangential extension of the original
concept in a particluar direction. It helps with remedy selection,
but its important not to add it to the confusion that already exists
re: miasms and their management. HAve you documented proof of
miasmatic improvement or progression with such a "similimum"?

With due respect (as I have probably stated i the past) to your
learning and experience - new (tangential) ideas on miasm can only be
built up and properly understood on a good foundation and knowledge
of the old.
regards,
Dr. leela

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Piet Guijt wrote:

to find
disease, but in
disturbance and one
Namens Eric
look
wrote:
Service.

Dr. Leela wrote:
Dear Leela, All,

This is your opinion, I don't agree.
Hahneman used a group of anti-psoric remedies (genus epidemicus), but for
Sycosis and Syphilis he only used a few specific remedies. Hahnemann
prescribed on the individual part with antipsoric, most mineral remedies and
by doing so, he didn't had to individualize his Sycosis and Syphilis
remedies.
Kent and other later added more individualized (genus epidemicus)
anti-Sycosis and Syphilis remedies. But in fact those remedies represent
nothing more then mixed Psora/sycosis or Psora/syphilis remedies.
So when you say I deviate from what Hahnemann did, OK maybe, but the later
ones that followed him started this.
I didn't say that that the "central disturbance" is the (more specific)
"miasm" that is to be cured.
I said all present predominating symptoms come from one disturbance AND one
(in between) miasm.
The complete active miasm modifies the individual pattern, to a synergetic
new pattern which one can call the "central disturbance"
I don't think it adds to the already existing confusion, but that this makes
more clear what really is going on.
In fact this approach results in a Genus epedemicus remedy, because it is an
individualized mixed-antimiasmatic remedy.
ie. Cloudhury gives in his book on miasms also a list of mixed
anti-miasmatic remedies.
Vijayakar also says that there are mostly mixed constitutions,
Psora/Sycosis, Syco-Syphilic defence etc.
Such a simillimum is exactly the same kind that Vijayakar is prescribing,
you know him, so why are you asking me for proof?

In your article no3 you also mention the mulimiasmatic expression of
patients.

You also write;
"Disease response is found to evolve over time and is a multimiasmatic
process. Each individual often presents a Combined Miasmatic Disease
Expression in any number of permutations and combinations. But at any given
point of time, one miasmatic expression predominates."

This is not always the case

Hahnemann states in Aph 42:

"Nature herself permits, as has been stated, in some cases, the simultaneous
occurrence of two (indeed, of three) natural disease in one and the same
body. This complication, however, it must be remarked, happens only in the
case of two dissimilar disease, which according to the eternal laws of
nature do not remove, do not annihilate and cannot cure one another, but, as
it seems, both (or all three) remain, as it were, separate in the organism,
and each takes possession of the parts and systems peculiarly appropriate to
it, which, on account of the want of resemblance of these maladies to each
other, can very well happen without disparagement to the unity of life".

More active disease at the same time form one complex disease, because there
is a unity.
Treating the predominating partial miasm is an option, but even then we hope
to address the other active miasms at the same time, because most of our
remedies are multi-anti-miasmatic. So this isn't really different from what
I'am saying
I almost read every book or article on the subject, there are many possible
strategies, but we must strive to find the best.
In your article no2 you write: "Miasmatic expression is not merely a
reflection of disease caused by an infective organism."
Isn't this also a new (tangential) idea on miasm ?

Kind regards, Piet