Miasmatic Repertory/Andy 2
Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 3:07 pm
At 12:33 AM 11/29/2004, you wrote:
Dear Nadar,
Nice to hear from you.
I think that Hahnemann's work on these miasms was very fragmentary. He
took 12 years to put together his discourse on psora. Obviously, he did not
deal with these VD miasms in the same depth. He told Boenninghausen that he
was going to do a larger work on sycosis but it was never completed nor
have any notes be found (yet?). Hempel said that Hering told him that
Hahnemann had divided the symptoms of psora into psora and pseudopsora like
he had earlier done with syphillis and sycosis. We have not found these
notes either. If one looks at the 1828 symptoms of psora it is obvious that
at first Hahnemann had mixed both the affects of suppressed skin eruptions
with TB, which has a different pathway of disease, etc. This has all been
sorted out over time.
One must remember that until Hahnemann all venereal diseases where
considered one miasm. It was Hahnemann that first tried to separate VD into
two categories. In fact, as we know today, the situation is much more
complicated! When he wrote the Chronic Diseases in 1828 in Germany he said
he had not seen that much sycosis. It was a completely different story when
he moved to Paris! The Paris casebooks saw lots of syphilis and gonorrhea
in his last 14 years. I think what he wrote was very fragmentary and may
have included condylomata lata of syphilis (true figwarts) as well as
gonorrhea. The few cases he based his theory on may have had both miasms.
There are acute more or less self-limiting gonorrheal-like discharges
and there are chronic gonorrheal discharges. This the difference between an
acute and chronic miasm.
In the Paris casebooks some of the gonorrhea case sound just like the
gonorrhea of today! I just reviewed a case where patient under treatment
had sex and then developed gonorrhea symptoms quite quickly without any
excrescence. Hahnemann stated the case with Cannabis for the most acute
symptoms and then went to Thuja and Cinnabaris to complete the cure.
I do not understand what you mean by "(although I agree with Dr. Taylor
that sycosis of Hahnemann is HPV
and gonorrhea on sycosis is due to Herpes simplex infection)" ??? Is this a
typographical error? I don't understand? Are you speaking between the acute
self limiting types of discharges versus the chronic discharges here???
Is it that you don't think suppressed gonococcus can cause chronic
disease? Well we have around 150 years of cases that say otherwise. I have
many, many cases that show this! Some of them ended with the return of the
original discharge. What about gonococcus? We know has been very wide
spread since ancient times. Gonorrhea is not a self-limiting acute disease
or a half acute miasm. It is not just a disease of the urethral tract. It
can spread through the blood and lymph and affect the joints and heart as
well as other organs. This is in the medical books.
Gonococcus can cause constitutional symptoms. Most of the homeopathic
literature since Hahnemann's time is really about gonococcus-sycosis not
HPV. Take a look at Kent and J.H. Allen's works, etc.. This is because
gonococcus-sycosis is very, very wide spread and causes chronic diseases.
From what I have seen in Hahnemann's casebooks there are some
gonococcus-sycosis cases and may be HPV-sycosis cases. Hahnemann says
sycosis sometimes come with, and sometimes does not come with, a discharge
but HPV does NOT ever produce a gonorrheal-like discharges described by
Hahnemann. If this is the case then HPV alone CANNOT be the sycosis of
Hahnemann. He also must have been looking at more than one microorganism
under the title "sycosis". Remember it is not the microorganism that
produces the symptoms. It it the reaction of the vital force that does. If
the reaction is homogenous in these venereal complaints like the reaction
to soft-tissue infections of the skin are homogeneous, then there is NO
problem.
I think Hahnemann was looking at mixed cases also and did not know it.
HPV does not produce a gonorrheal discharge! He only had the most
fragmentary knowledge of non-syphilitic VD. I personally have seen the
classic symptoms of sycosis (the memory loss, the suspicion, the still
joints, the sore muscles, the fishy smells, etc.) cause by both chlamydia
and gonorrhea. To me there is chlamydial-sycosis and gonorrheal-sycosis
just like there is scabies-psora, tinea-psora, staphylococcal-psora, etc.
If the pathway of disease is similar and the constitutional symptoms
produced are similar the remedies are similar. Why separate what comes
together naturally? I think more than one non-syphilitic VD has be
categorized under the title sycosis just like more than one skin infection
was title under Psora by Hahnemann. If the symptoms they produce are
coherent then the remedy found by the group anamnesis are coherent.
I think most of the literature on sycosis is mostly about gonorrhea
because it is so popular! Yes, most of the information collected on sycosis
is about gonococcus-sycosis and its sequels. That is GOOD! It has been
proven to be a chronic disease. It is very common and many patients are
affected by the acquired and inherited affects of this disease. And YES,
those affected with gonorrheal-sycosis seem to develop many excrescences
such as warts, flecks, moles and the like.
Many of these excresences fall off under treatment and many times the
original discharge is reinstated. So the overall symptoms are coherent.
HPV, as of yet, is not documented for many constitutional symptoms in
modern medicine. In women it my cause cervical cancer but we have very
little else. I think it is fine to categorizes infections that have a
similar pathway of disease and similar constitutional states together just
like Hahnemann did with psora caused by mites, tinea, bacteria, etc.
If we start just separating everything just because of the
microorganisms involve we might fall into an allopathic trap. We have to
look at similar susceptibility, similar pathways of disease, and similar
constitutional syndromes. Then test the remedies and see what the reversal
of symptoms ends up with. That is what Hahnemann did with psora. If most
soft tissue infections produce the chronic symptoms of psora, then there is
no reason to separate the whole "skin suppression syndrome" microorganism
by microorganism.
It is the overall reaction of the immune system to the soft-tissue
infections that really counts because this is what produces the symptoms.
the same may be true with what we know call sycosis, etc. What is important
is observing the pattern of potential new miasms and taking a group case so
we can really uncovered its symptoms. Then we can find a group of
homogenous remedies and test them on the patient and see where the reversal
of symptoms takes us as they more toward cure. That is how Hahnemann did it.
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000
Dear Nadar,
Nice to hear from you.
I think that Hahnemann's work on these miasms was very fragmentary. He
took 12 years to put together his discourse on psora. Obviously, he did not
deal with these VD miasms in the same depth. He told Boenninghausen that he
was going to do a larger work on sycosis but it was never completed nor
have any notes be found (yet?). Hempel said that Hering told him that
Hahnemann had divided the symptoms of psora into psora and pseudopsora like
he had earlier done with syphillis and sycosis. We have not found these
notes either. If one looks at the 1828 symptoms of psora it is obvious that
at first Hahnemann had mixed both the affects of suppressed skin eruptions
with TB, which has a different pathway of disease, etc. This has all been
sorted out over time.
One must remember that until Hahnemann all venereal diseases where
considered one miasm. It was Hahnemann that first tried to separate VD into
two categories. In fact, as we know today, the situation is much more
complicated! When he wrote the Chronic Diseases in 1828 in Germany he said
he had not seen that much sycosis. It was a completely different story when
he moved to Paris! The Paris casebooks saw lots of syphilis and gonorrhea
in his last 14 years. I think what he wrote was very fragmentary and may
have included condylomata lata of syphilis (true figwarts) as well as
gonorrhea. The few cases he based his theory on may have had both miasms.
There are acute more or less self-limiting gonorrheal-like discharges
and there are chronic gonorrheal discharges. This the difference between an
acute and chronic miasm.
In the Paris casebooks some of the gonorrhea case sound just like the
gonorrhea of today! I just reviewed a case where patient under treatment
had sex and then developed gonorrhea symptoms quite quickly without any
excrescence. Hahnemann stated the case with Cannabis for the most acute
symptoms and then went to Thuja and Cinnabaris to complete the cure.
I do not understand what you mean by "(although I agree with Dr. Taylor
that sycosis of Hahnemann is HPV
and gonorrhea on sycosis is due to Herpes simplex infection)" ??? Is this a
typographical error? I don't understand? Are you speaking between the acute
self limiting types of discharges versus the chronic discharges here???
Is it that you don't think suppressed gonococcus can cause chronic
disease? Well we have around 150 years of cases that say otherwise. I have
many, many cases that show this! Some of them ended with the return of the
original discharge. What about gonococcus? We know has been very wide
spread since ancient times. Gonorrhea is not a self-limiting acute disease
or a half acute miasm. It is not just a disease of the urethral tract. It
can spread through the blood and lymph and affect the joints and heart as
well as other organs. This is in the medical books.
Gonococcus can cause constitutional symptoms. Most of the homeopathic
literature since Hahnemann's time is really about gonococcus-sycosis not
HPV. Take a look at Kent and J.H. Allen's works, etc.. This is because
gonococcus-sycosis is very, very wide spread and causes chronic diseases.
From what I have seen in Hahnemann's casebooks there are some
gonococcus-sycosis cases and may be HPV-sycosis cases. Hahnemann says
sycosis sometimes come with, and sometimes does not come with, a discharge
but HPV does NOT ever produce a gonorrheal-like discharges described by
Hahnemann. If this is the case then HPV alone CANNOT be the sycosis of
Hahnemann. He also must have been looking at more than one microorganism
under the title "sycosis". Remember it is not the microorganism that
produces the symptoms. It it the reaction of the vital force that does. If
the reaction is homogenous in these venereal complaints like the reaction
to soft-tissue infections of the skin are homogeneous, then there is NO
problem.
I think Hahnemann was looking at mixed cases also and did not know it.
HPV does not produce a gonorrheal discharge! He only had the most
fragmentary knowledge of non-syphilitic VD. I personally have seen the
classic symptoms of sycosis (the memory loss, the suspicion, the still
joints, the sore muscles, the fishy smells, etc.) cause by both chlamydia
and gonorrhea. To me there is chlamydial-sycosis and gonorrheal-sycosis
just like there is scabies-psora, tinea-psora, staphylococcal-psora, etc.
If the pathway of disease is similar and the constitutional symptoms
produced are similar the remedies are similar. Why separate what comes
together naturally? I think more than one non-syphilitic VD has be
categorized under the title sycosis just like more than one skin infection
was title under Psora by Hahnemann. If the symptoms they produce are
coherent then the remedy found by the group anamnesis are coherent.
I think most of the literature on sycosis is mostly about gonorrhea
because it is so popular! Yes, most of the information collected on sycosis
is about gonococcus-sycosis and its sequels. That is GOOD! It has been
proven to be a chronic disease. It is very common and many patients are
affected by the acquired and inherited affects of this disease. And YES,
those affected with gonorrheal-sycosis seem to develop many excrescences
such as warts, flecks, moles and the like.
Many of these excresences fall off under treatment and many times the
original discharge is reinstated. So the overall symptoms are coherent.
HPV, as of yet, is not documented for many constitutional symptoms in
modern medicine. In women it my cause cervical cancer but we have very
little else. I think it is fine to categorizes infections that have a
similar pathway of disease and similar constitutional states together just
like Hahnemann did with psora caused by mites, tinea, bacteria, etc.
If we start just separating everything just because of the
microorganisms involve we might fall into an allopathic trap. We have to
look at similar susceptibility, similar pathways of disease, and similar
constitutional syndromes. Then test the remedies and see what the reversal
of symptoms ends up with. That is what Hahnemann did with psora. If most
soft tissue infections produce the chronic symptoms of psora, then there is
no reason to separate the whole "skin suppression syndrome" microorganism
by microorganism.
It is the overall reaction of the immune system to the soft-tissue
infections that really counts because this is what produces the symptoms.
the same may be true with what we know call sycosis, etc. What is important
is observing the pattern of potential new miasms and taking a group case so
we can really uncovered its symptoms. Then we can find a group of
homogenous remedies and test them on the patient and see where the reversal
of symptoms takes us as they more toward cure. That is how Hahnemann did it.
Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."
Samuel Hahnemann
Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000