Minutus

At 02:41 AM 7/17/2005, you wrote:

If one read the Chronic Disease there is little doubt that Hahnemann
taught that psora was transmitted host to host in the form of a skin
infection, which was usually suppressed. The vectors included were scabies
(mites), herpes (viruses), tinea (fungi) and pimple, boils, erysipelas,
leprosy, etc (bacteria). Hahnemann makes it very clear that between the
moment of infection and the first sign of the primary symptoms the
derangement becomes constitutional in nature. The suppression of these skin
lesions often causes a period of latency until either time or added stress
factors produce the secondary symptoms with pathology. He also makes it
clear that the nature of the final pathology is conditioned by the
inherited predispositions related to the constitution. That is why psora
can produce such a wide variety of disease states given so many different
names in texts of pathology. This is the essence of Hahnemann's psora.

The four stages of disease (prodrome, primary, latent and secondary
stages) are inherent in the human constitution. That is why one sees a
similar pattern in both miasmic and non miasmic disorders. Nevertheless,
the pathway, time and progression of miasmic and not miasmic diseases are
different. In non-miasmic disease the pathway is the neuro-endocrine
system and to the whole organism. The primary medium for the pathological
damage is the organisms own pro and anti inflammatory hormones. In miasmic
diseases the primary pathway is the immune system and mediium of damage is
the organisms own antibodies and immune substances. Of course, these
systems are closely related and effect one another synergistically. This is
the difference between miasmic and non miasm degenerative diseases although
they share the similar constitutional nature.
It is the nature of the human organism to reverse the time-line by
which the disease state developed and externalize diseases. This is true in
all cases of disease because it is part of the way the human constitution
reacts under the influence of homeopathic remedies. The only way one can
develop a diagnosis of whether such a symptom was based on psora or not is
to study the family tree as well as the symptoms of the patient. Did their
parents, grand parents, etc., suffer from obvious psoric infections? Was
there time in their life that they suffered a skin infection? Was this
infection treated in a potentially suppressive manner and followed by
symptom sequels? If one can confirm such causes, symptoms and circumstances
the case is based on psora. If not, the cases may be based on some other
cause.
How microorganisms become pathological is related to susceptibility
factors based on constitution, predispositions and inner terrain. Everyone
carries a pool of microorganisms which increase resistance and adaptation
when the organism is relatively healthy. In fact, modern studies show that
excessive use of anti-sceptics and antibiotics actually lower resistance
and increases auto-immune reactions. When there are stress factors like
prolonged grief, depression, hysteria, overwork, over exposure to natural
elements, bad diet, physical trauma, etc, it lowers resistance and then the
person gets sick because of immuo-deficiency. This shows that there is
rarely one single isolated cause. Such complex states are built up on what
Hippocrates called the "aetiological constellation". This is how
constitution and miasma interact to produce more complex states.

The suppression of sweat, the application of potentially toxic
chemicals on the skin, the use of topical antiseptics in a routine manner
may suppress natural discharges and terrain that lead to degenerative
disease without being psora. This shows how the human organism externalizes
potentially harmful substances and the blockage of these natural pathways
can lead to degenerative internal states. This does not necessary have
anything to do with psora but blocking eliminatory functions of the skin
may lead to a terrain that skin infections thrive. So again, it is a matter
of dependent origin not an exclusively single cause. Each situation must be
investigate in its own rights to see how the individual and collective
causes might be involved. This helps in gaining knowledge of disease
states, which it the first requirement of the Organon.
Yes, this includes all miasms. Homeopathic remedies harmonize the
derangement of the vital force and balance the inner terrain in such a
manner that it increases resistance to the point that the infection is
removed and homeostasis is restored.
Healing is most important! Nevertheless, you say cause is not important
but then you say there is a difference between nutritional deficiency based
on lack of food and mal-assimilation. If one mistakes lack of proper
nutrition for internal mal-assimilation then one would not suggest
improving the diet. That would be mistake because a remedy is not going to
remove cause. A remedy will only remove the deficiency when the person has
amble food but can't digest it. This shows the important of cause related
to proper treatment and case management. This shows the importance of
understanding cause in healing.

In the 1st to 3rd Organon Hahnemann stressed the symptoms and down
played causation. In the Chronic Diseases and the 5th and 6th Organon
Hahnemann emphasized the importance of exciting, fundamental and
maintaining causes and stressed the fact that the case should be based on
originating causes (when they can be known), miasms, symptoms, and
attendant circumstances like physical constitution, character, lifestyle,
habits, social and personal relationships, etc. This greatly expanded the
case taking methods as did the introduction of the individual and group
anamnesis and anti-miasmic remedies. This opened up the study of disease to
individual and collective causes, heredity, constitutional predispositions,
miasms and situational circumstances. These are the basis of Hahnemann's
advanced methods.
This may be your opinion but it is not what Hahnemann taught from 1828
to 1843 as show in aphorism 5, 6, 7, 18, 24, etc. of the Organon. IMO, you
have gone TOO far into the anti-causal doctrine and have lost the middle
path proposed by Hahnemann. He shared some (not all) of your opinions from
1805 to 1816 but this started to change radically by 1817 and by 1828 he
introduced the homeopathic view of causation in great detail. He wrote
extensively about individual and collective moral and physical causes,
exciting causes of acute diseases, fundamental causes of chronic disease
and maintaining causes of long term degenerative states. His balanced view
includes originating cause (when it can be known), symptoms and attending
circumstances

If you are going to treat serious infectious miasms you better know
what you are treating!!! One can't treat TB safely if they don't know or
care that the patient has tuberculosis! It is always better to know the
cause so one knows the nature of the disease state and knows what to
expect! Knowledge of such diseases DOES play a role in selecting remedies
and forming a case management strategy. To think cause and attending
circumstances play no important part homeopathic diagnosis and remedy
selection is wrong.

To treat TB without knowing or caring it is TB would be irresponsible.
Why? Because one needs to know as much about the nature of the disease
state as possible to treat it safely and effectively. The same can be said
of typhoid, cholera, malaria, rabies, gonorrheal sycosis, syphilis,
hepatitis ABC,etc, HIV/AIDS, vaccinosis, cancer and the like. Maybe you
don't treat such diseases in their active, infectious states but I DO and I
study all the modern books so I know what I am looking and what pathology
is involved. On top of this I study the group symptoms in all patients and
look for the genus remedies.

I see the active, infectious acute and chronic miasms all the time just
like Hahnemann did in somewhat similar conditions! When I see typhoid I
better know it is typhoid and understand its three phases and pathology
well so I know how to treat it! The infectious miasms are not some abstract
concept lost in time to me! In my clinical world miasms are very real and
they still kill millions of people worldwide!
Hippocrates taught that all chronic diseases are constitution in nature
and Hahnemann followed his lead. This was taught in all edition so the
Organon in one form or another. Suppression of natural symptoms cause
complications in all states. It is innate in the human constitution to
externalize disease and reverse symptoms. The constitution is the number
one conditioning factor. The psora you are refuting is not the psora I am
studying. As it has become all things to all people it has become nothing
useful to them.

That is why I keep my definition of psora simple and in its original
context. Psora is the inherited or acquired affects of the suppression of
skin infections and their constitutional sequels. When the case history and
symptoms show psora to be the cause then its psora. And YES, I have
confirmed in MANY cases based skin infection that were suppressed and then
the patient's health declined. In many cases the skin symptoms returned as
full health was restored! And YES, I constantly treat people with serious
psoric primary infections caused by scabies, herpes, staph, strep even
leprosy! And YES, I have confirmed many cases of psora by cause, symptoms
and the returning of old symptoms. In these cases I know psora is the
fundamental cause although proximate cause is always more complex as it
usually involves interdependent origin.

Do I think that 7/8s may cases are based on psora like Hahnemann in
1828? No, I don't but there are a good number of cases that can be
confirmed by causal incidents and the symptoms. Do I think all my cases
based on psora or the chronic miasms? No, I don't. By making miasms
everything they end up being nothing and the wisdom of the collective group
cases and acute and chronic genus remedies becomes meaningless.

That homeopathy is a system of flexible response that can treat
diseases when the cause is obscured is indeed wonderful! This, however,
does not negate the importance of assessing the exciting cause of acute
diseases, the fundamental causes of the chronic diseases, and the
maintaining causes of long term degenerative conditions. To under stand
cause helps to understand the essential nature of the disease state and
find remedies. In my opinion your throwing the baby (Hahnemann's vitalist
causal doctrine1828-1843) out with the bath water (the mechanistic concepts
of causation)
Hahnemann did not know it all but what your are saying sounds more like
the early 1st-3rd Organon than the Chronic Diseases and the 4th, 5th and
6th Organon. It is almost as if one is frozen in time in 1816 and has not
been able to integrate all the research Hahnemann introduced from 1817-1843
in any practical manner. In the first paragraph of the 5th and 6th Organon
Hahnemann taught that as long as human beings have existed they have been
exposed, individually and collectively, to disease of moral and physical
causes. This situation has been greatly acerbated by improper medical
treatment and the affects of rapid modernization.

On this basis Hahnemann taught that there are individual and collective
physical and moral causes, exciting causes, fundamental cases and
maintaining causes that should be studied not ignored. This is the bases of
the individual and group anamnesis. This helps one understand the essential
nature of the symptoms which expands our knowledge of the disease state and
helps in the selection of remedies and case management. This is all quite
profound and this information needs to be brought up to date for our times
not ignored.

The negative trends that Hahnemann pointed out in 1833 have
logarithmically increased in the last 50 years and has produced an increase
of diseases of civilization. At the same time, the abuse of antiseptics,
antibiotics, antifungals, steroids, etc., has caused the miasms to mutate
into more resistant and virulent strains than nature would not have evolved
on Her own. For such reasons, it is time to take a second look at what
Hahnemann taught in the paradigm he taught it and bring it up to date!

If you think cause doesn't matter in homeopathic treatment it is not
important for YOU. I, however, know that homeopathic case taking includes
a study of the originating causes (when they can be know), objective signs,
coincidental befallments, and subjective symptoms as well as the attending
circumstances like the condition and make up of the physical constitution,
the emotional and intellectual character, habits, lifestyle, personal and
social relationships, occupational factors, sexuality, etc. . These causes
and circumstances do have an effect on selecting remedies when combined
with they symptom expression.This is what is taught in aphorism 5, 6, 7,
18, 24, etc., of the 5th and 6th Organon as well as the Chronic Diseases

I will continue to study Causa, symptoms and attending circumstances as
I find Hahnemann's complete system beneficial in finding remedies and
managing difficult cases. I will also continue the study the collective
symptoms of the acute, half-acute and chronic miasms and their specific
genus remedies. I would advise students and colleagues to take these
subjects very seriously, especially if they wish to be full
homeopathicians. Hahnemann's advanced methods are much more than just
looking at the symptoms in a one sided manner.

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

David-

I think we both are barking up slightly different trees here...
I never said that diagnosis is not important and if I sounded like
that it was my poor English may be...

Nobody had ever accused me of giving up on pathology and diagnosis-
after all my background is an allopathy... I am one of the famous
mongrels...

Like you said "flexible response" of homeopathy is what I meant...
And what we call as wholistic prescription taking care of all the
local conditions is what I meant... Also how many of our provings
have gone to the extent of causing an infection or an actual
disease? How do I prescribe for typhoid - for example - is that
because my Arnica or Psorinum or Baptisia have caused Typhoid? It is
because of a similarity of the symptoms-for that particular set of
symptoms whether you knew the diagnosis or not I would have given
the same medicine- diagnosis aids our "homeopathic" treatment -
never dictates- IF it did we would have specifics- I once gave
Capsicum for a malaria - not because I knew it was malaria - the
diagnosis had been done long back.... but as I have mentioned
diagnosis would help in knowing the progress of the disease if the
medicine did not work... and what to do next... and to find out if a
symptom is really valuable ( as a PQRS) or a symptom of pathology
and so may not be that important in the final analysis...

And I have always given importance to causation - in fact even
published one in the postings here...

Even though I have not pored over unadulterated hahnemannian case
books and organon like you might have, I have done my share of
Organon thumping and am not stuck in Organon 1st edition -even
though you might think I were-

but neither am I stuck in the idea that whatever was said 200 years
back was the final word on anything...esp on infection and what you
call neuro endocrine and immunologic responses...

You say that you follow True Hahnemannian Psora definition of
suppression of skin INFECTIONS- I have no problem with that... I
have always had problem assimilating just the infection part of the
definition and I hold on to that... because such suppression is not
always traceable ...I am happy going along my merry way...and I know
that many people from Hahnemann's time till now have felt that way...

I am glad that you study modern texts as well... I was concerned you
got stuck in olden day texts of Hahnemann's time for clinical
presentations as you were so acerbic about modern medical
literature...

I agree with you when you said "this information needs to be brought
up to date for our times

Any way thanks for your erudite responses...

I am tired of this already... let us move on if we may...
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, David Little wrote:
skin
that
only
cures
suggest
osteo
bite.
Hahnemann
skin
scabies
erysipelas,
between the
these skin
added stress
makes it
psora
different
psora.
secondary
sees a
Nevertheless,
diseases are
endocrine
pathological
miasmic
damage is
these
synergistically. This is
although
have
of
line by
is true in
constitution
one can
or not is
Did their
infections? Was
this
by
circumstances
other
suppressing
susceptibility
Everyone
adaptation
show that
resistance
like
natural
then the
there is
on what
manner
degenerative
externalizes
pathways
have
the skin
a matter
situation must be
collective
disease
applicable
of
such a
infection is
deficiency...
take
problem
supplement...this is
said
due
important
deficiency based
proper
going to
person has
related
of
down
Organon
based on
lifestyle,
expanded the
group
disease to
predispositions,
Hahnemann's
case is
the
from 1828
IMO, you
middle
opinions from
1828 he
wrote
causes,
disease
balanced view
attending
know
know or
know the
to
remedies
attending
remedy
irresponsible.
disease
be said
syphilis,
Maybe you
DO and I
pathology
patients and
time just
typhoid I
pathology
abstract
real and
place in
of
up
reiterate -
constitutional -
treat
in a
in nature
the
cause
constitution to
number
psora I am
nothing
original
suppression of
history and
have
and then
returned as
serious
even
symptoms
the
as it
Hahnemann in
cases
miasms
collective group
treat
however,
acute
stand
state and
vitalist
concepts
his
knowledge is
not
that
put
more like
5th and
has not
1817-1843
6th Organon
have been
physical
medical
collective
bases of
essential
state and
all quite
our times
increase
antiseptics,
mutate
have evolved
what
date!
is not
includes
objective signs,
attending
constitution,
personal and
These causes
combined
6, 7,
Diseases
circumstances as
and
collective
specific
these
just
needs no more
Homoeopathic

At 09:03 AM 7/18/2005, you wrote:

Mongrels are often stronger than pedigrees!
I do not agree that knowledge of cause and disease state is ONLY useful
if the medicine did not work and to think of what to do next, etc. That is
all hindsight. Knowledge of cause and disease state can also offer
foresight into the selection of the remedy in many cases. Our repertory and
MM contain many etiological rubrics. Why? Because they can be important in
selecting the remedy. If someone's symptoms started after they fell on
their head this can be important in selecting a remedy. If a person has
suffered since a fright, shock or horror this can be important in remedy
selection. If a person is suffering from a collective acute miasm like
typhoid knowledge of the collective group cases and genus remedies can be
important in selecting a remedy. In diseases of common cause and similar
symptoms like fixed miasms collective symptoms can be important in finding
curative, abortive and preventative genus remedies. Now in some cases such
information may be very applicable and some other cases they may not be
known or have great importance. Why not be open to all possibilities? Why
does it have to be "symptoms vs cause"? Why not use cause, symptoms and
attendant circumstances where applicable?
.
By the way Capsicum is a 2 out 3 in the rubric Malaria and is one of
the known genus remedies whether one knew it or not. That is because it has
many of the collective symptoms of malaria. What I really like is when I
find a remedy by the symptoms that is completely unknown for the cause and
disease state. Yes, I have done this also when led to the remedy by a
striking set of characteristic symptoms. Then I noted this remedy for a
clinically curing the state and study its symptoms more closely in
relationship to the cured disease and similar disorders. Perhaps, it was a
one time occurrence and perhaps not. In may opinion it is always important
to know as much as about cause, symptoms and circumstances whenever possible.

As to knowledge of that a patient has TB or typhoid? In TB and some
other states, certain remedies can be very dangerous at certain stages. If
one id not know or care if the patient has TB one would not know this. And,
yes, it is good to know that the patient is suffering from a collective
miasm like typhoid because then one can bring the collective experience of
many homeopaths to bear on the subject. One also can then construct a group
anamnesis of the presiding epidemic and find curative and *preventative
remedies*. As Hahnemann said it is better the prevent than have to cure
such diseases! So there are many reason why one should study causation
closely. To think it never plays a part in the selection of curative,
abortive or preventative remedies is a misnomer. To think cause can always
be found and is always more important than the symptoms and circumstances
is also a misnomer.
I am only speaking of your views on causation not YOU as a homeopath.
You are already into the 7th Organon! When one says that causal rubrics are
of no use in *selecting* a remedy they are reflecting certain aspects of
the 1st Organon when Hahnemann was stressing the symptoms and refuting
allopathic causation. Even at this time, however, he was already
investigating individual and collective causes and what he called "fixed
miasms". By 1828 Hahnemann introduced a sophisticated system of homeopathic
etiology that includes single causes, collective causes, exciting causes,
fundamental causes, and maintaining causes. Causal rubrics are part of the
totality of the symptoms and can be of aid in selecting a remedy. If a
patient is really never-well-since a severe fright, accident, grief, a
poisoning, an over exposure, the suppression of an active miasmic
infection, etc., these rubrics can be assessed in the repertory and MM and
used during the process of selecting are remedy. Knowledge of such causal
rubrics may have a bearing on selecting a remedy when included with the
totality of the symptoms and attendant circumstances.
Studying the pathways of disease from the modern perspective is
bringing ideas introduced 177 years ago up to date. Such models are
sometimes helpful guides in understanding disease states and symptoms.
/this helps the difference between a general constitutional reaction to
stress and an immune response to infection in modern terms. Nevertheless,
there is no final word on anything except the fact that all patients die
sooner or later and so do we! Taxes? Well, sometimes they can be avoided!
As I said, I like to keep my definition of psora simple. Psora is the
inherited or acquired affects (symptoms) of unresolved skin infections and
their suppression and sequels. When I can clearly find causal indications
and the characteristic symptoms of psora I consider the case based on
psora. When such causes are not documentable I leave the causal issue
open. I don't try to make psora the cause of anything and everything. To
blame all chronic diseases on some unknown, distance mysterious infection
lost in time or call psora the"original sin" that caused the fall of
humanity is not part of my approach. I try to keep my thoughts and actions
grounded in some confirmable clinical realities.

Hahnemann stated that case taking should be based on causation (when is
knowable), symptoms and attending circumstances (p. 5. 6. 7., 18, 24, etc).
When causation is not knowable we can proceed to work with the symptoms and
attendant circumstances alone. Even here we can make certain hypotheses
about causation from the symptoms and circumstances but we will never know
for sure. Many times proximate cause is not knowable as the uncertainty
principle rules! This does not negate the importance of the study of
causation and the fact that sometimes it can be helpful in the selection of
a remedy.

The only thing I do not agree with you is that causal rubrics are only
useful when a remedy doesn't work, etc. You say causal rubrics never have a
place in selecting a remedy. In many cases there are clear causal rubrics
because some patients are never well since mortification, grief, fright,
injury, immunization, surgery, suppression, VD, etc. Certain remedies are
well known for such causes and their effects and can influence the choice
of a remedy. The reason I do not support such absolutism is because causal
rubrics are found in the repertory and materia medica and have helped me to
select remedies that have cure many cases.
If you ever see my complete writings you will see that I have my feet
grounded of Hahnemann's teachings and other great homeopaths and my hands
in modern sciences and my eyes focused on the future. Just because I stated
that Hahnemann had a good idea about the nature of infection is not being
negative about the material contained in modern literature. Nevertheless,
modern literature is long on data and short of integrative understanding
because it is still too controlled by the mechanistic paradigm. Without a
background in vitalist philosophy this data is too fixed in one-sided
reductionism which leads to medicines like antibiotics, anti-fungals,
steroids and other immuo-suppressive measures that are often counter
productive in the long run.
We are only disagreeing on one point. You believe that causation is only
useful if a remedy does not work and for what to do next, etc. It is my
experience that causal rubrics are an integral part of case taking, the
repertory and materia medica and can be helpful in selecting remedies in
many cases. In some other cases cause many not be known or very important
and we can proceed by the symptoms and attending circumstances.
Yes, I felt this way after I wrote my last post. We are breaking not new
ground and our thoughts on the subject are already clearly aired.
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 David

Firstly , a big THANK YOU for all the teaching your giving us on Minutus - I
really appreciate it.

You said
"I like to keep my definition of psora simple. Psora is the inherited or
acquired affects (symptoms) of unresolved skin infections and their
suppression and sequels. "

A lot of infectious diseases (eg childhood diseases) had strong skin
eruption symptoms with various degrees of itching.

We know for example as in the case of Chickenpox that it can remain dormant
for a long time and then at the time of stress to erupt again in the form of
shingles/Zona.
(There is your dormant miasm)

Also that if for example in a case of chickenpox, there are too few skin
eruptions, the patient is not really externalising the disease symptoms and
could be in trouble (Bry is often well indicated in such cases).

So could it be the PSORA is the inherited or acquired affects (symptoms) of
homoeopathically unresolved infections and their suppression and sequels?
(I have added the word HOMOEOPATHICALLY and removed the word SKIN to your
original statement).

Regards

Soroush

But, Soroush, why did you want to remove the word "skin" from your definition? You were clearly discussing a miasm/ disease that involves eruptions in your example. Uresolved veneral infections or tubercular ones, in contrast, for example, would produce other miasmatic taints than Psora. Rosemary

Dear Rosemary

My notion is that the skin symptoms are only sign of internal trouble.

So e.g. chicken pox is not a 'skin infection'.

I say again, I think Hn just grouped together everything that caused skin
eruptions, itch etc and called it PSORA.
In effect where as HPV(and Gon perhaps), Syphilis and Tub are specific named
diseases leading to their own miasms of Syc, Syph and Tub, Psora is a
collective name.

And perhaps that explains why Hn had so many 'anti-psoric' remedies.

Rgds
Soroush

Dear Soroush,

I agree with you, of course, that these disorders, like all disease states, involve internal derangement, so are not strictly speaking "skin" problems. Just out of curiosity, however, what "psoric" disorders have initial manifestations that do not involve the skin, and that people are likely to suppress? For some reason, I'm drawing a blank at the moment in trying to list some. Rosemary

I once treated a severe case of long term depression
with Bell-p due to a history of a severe abdominal injury
(dragged on rocks by a bullock that he was walking to pasture)
Other symptoms fit but I never would have considered Bell-p otherwise.

Roger

Check out my website including the tree healing page.
www.canhealyourself.com
www.canhealyourself.com/amsoil.htm
www.canhealyourself.com/trees.htm

Dear David,
I am sorry I missed this whole discussion while I was away. Thank-you and all others for your excellent discussion.
You mentioned that psora is inherited. How do you know this? VD inherited seems quite clear, but psora because it is so common, is not so clear to me.
Blessings,
Ellen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 10:37 PM 7/18/2005, you wrote:

Chickenpox appears to be what Hahnemann called a half-acute miasma in
the Chronic Diseases sin that it is not self limiting in a short period
like the acute miasms as it may have prolonged sequels in the form of
shingles. Chickenpox, your example, is passed by droplets and contact with
skin lesions. That patient is most infective before the skin lesions
appear. In psora the vector of transmission is from host to host through a
primary skin infection. It is never passed by droplets and aspiration, etc.
This makes psora different from the childhood eruptive diseases like
measles, chickenpox, etc.
Hahnemann did not group together "everything" take causes skin
symptoms. For example, sycosis and syphilis have their characteristic skin
lessions such as condylomata accuminata (sycosis) and the chancre and
condylomata lata (syphilis). He also did not include acute miasms that have
skin eruptions. Where have to be a little more specific when making up our
revised lists of classifications. There is a different in the nature of
acute, half-acute and chronic miasms.

Hahnemann did, however, group together several chronic skin lesions. He
listed several vectors that transmit psora in the Chronic Diseases where he
gave examples like leprosy (Lepra and TB bacteria), erysipelas
(staphylococcus), pimples, boils (staphylococcus), herpes (herpes viruses),
tetter (tinea) and itch (mites). These are the transmission vectors by
which the disease is passed from by skin to skin or skin to infected
articles to skin. These are exclusively contact diseases that are not
passed by droplets like the childhood acute and half acute miasms like
measles and chickenpox. One must not mix the acute and half acute miasms
with the chronic miasms as their nature and transmission vectors are
different.
Yes, Hahnemann did list an number of vectors for psora but they all
share the same primary pathway of the disease, which is a cutaneous primary
eruption which acts as a medium for transmission from host to host by
contact not by droplets or aspiration. That is what makes the Psora
different than sycosis, syphilis, TB,. hepatitis or HIV/AIDS. Sycosis also
seems to involve more vector, for example gonococcus, HPV, clamdiya,
trictamonous, etc. It is very possible that some miasms include a group of
microorganism that share a similar band of susceptibility and pathway of
disease. There are some fungi that produce symptoms in the lungs that are
almost identical to TB. Miasms also tend to "piggyback" one upon the other
as seen in HIV/AIDS, etc.

So as you can see this areas is very interesting and needs to be
brought up to date. This is one reason why I keep my definition of miasms
in line with its original meaning as acute, half-acute and chronic
infectious diseases. When we de-link the miasms from infection and make
them the same as the primordial homeomeries we lose a very special aspect
of homeopathy, which is vitalist epidemiology. This study offers
preventative, abortive and curative remedies for active acute, half-acute
and chronic infections as well as the long term sequels and affects of
their suppression and maltreatment.
First of all, Hahnemann's original list of psora symptoms and its
secondary diseases in the Chronic Diseases in 1828 included some symptoms
of the pseudopsora-TB as well as sycosis. While constructing his first
group anamnesis he mixed up some of the symptoms miasms. In some cases he
may have been looking at mixed miasms without realizing it.

Hering stated that Hahnemann was separating the symptoms of psora and
pseudo psora and we know from Boenninghausen that he was working on new
list of symptoms for sycosis. Unfortunately, these symptoms lists have not
be recovered. What we see in the 1828 Chronic Disease needs to be corrected
and brought up to date. Hering, Boennighausen, J.H. Allen, Kent and others.
In the process the symptoms of psora and TB miasms have become more
clarified and the images of sycosis and syphilis expanded. Therefore,
anatural evolution of the pictures of the miasms have taken place although
a few new mistakes have been made along the way.

Now, returning to psora. Yes, there are four major vectors of psora
based on bacteria, fungi, viruses and mites. One might called these types
psora 1,..2.,, 3, and 4. And yes, this may be one of the reasons there are
so many antipsoric remedies! All these vectors share the fact that their
transmission is by host to host by skin contact or skin to infected
material to skin. They are not spread by droplets and contact like the
childhood eruptive infections like measles and others like smallpox, etc.,
which are all acute miasms. Chickenpox, however, has much longer sequels
than these acute miasms and may be a half-acute miasma that is a bridge
between the acute and chronic miasms. That you brought up this particular
example is rather astute. I have been contemplating its nature and
classification for some time.

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