Minutus

Hi Hahnemannian,
I'm interested in the pros and cons of miasm theory, and would like to
hear more of your thoughts! Specific questions below:
Whenever someone says "I don't believe in...", my first question is
always, "How do you *define* this ____ that you don't believe in?" I'm
not being facetious... What is it in miasm theory that you find
questionable? My basic understanding of what "miasm theory" is (which
seems to me pretty straightforward and useful) is this: A miasm is a
disease whose effects have not been thrown off (have become chronic),
and which may be either inherited or passed along to desccendents.
From this standpoint it's easy enough to allow miasms other than the
main ones, since there are indeed other factors that can leave lasting
effects, and be inherited or passed on. (It may well be that
understanding is too simplistic...)

The main usefulness, in my understanding, is that it is a sort of
shorthand way of expressing a range of process, which is part of the
makeup of action of certain remedies, but is not part of the makeup of
the action of others. (E.g., I think I can safely say that Aconite has
nothing of the sycotic in it? It's not about discharge, instability
between extremes, etc.) So if the picture in front of me is "very
sycotic", then my mind should go quickly to remedies that can also
cover this sort of process. After all, so far as I'm aware that is the
only way that remedies are "assigned" to a miasm--by looking thru their
symptoms and scope of action etc., and seeing which miasm(s) those
suit.

Do you "believe in" these ideas, and what is it, then, that you don't?
It doesn't *explain* the fact that complaints have gone chronic, it's
simply a descriptive name for the fact that they *have*. If symptoms
are entirely healed by the body, then no miasm is involved!
So far as I can see that's the same basic idea. (Except that I don't
think you'd be starting *every* syphilitic case with mercury, would
you? Nor every psoric one with sulphur--tho from Luise's descriptions,
maybe we should!) (And what would your other primary starting points
be--is thuja one, or ?)

Shannon

Shannon-
I subscribe to the basic idea that there are suppressions and "never
well since" phenomena. I do not have problems with that. I have
practised with that basic premise in place. But I do not believe in
dissecting each disease and saying oh this is a sycotic one and this
is going from psora to sycosis etc. That is where most of the
confusion comes in. And some people saying this kind of emotion is
sycotic, this is the basic delusion of syphilis - I feel like come on
get a grip.

What is the use? Finally everything boils down to symptom similarity.
How would you classify any new medicine as sycotic or syphilitic or
whatever? Once again if I talk about it broadly probably if it causes
ulcerations, bone pains etc as syphilitic and with discharges, joint
effects as sycotic. But why classify at all? If a patient comes with
bone pains you will be searching only from the medicines that have it
and so you already get to the medicince without bothering to classify.

If you look at all the literature of miasms - right from hahnemann to
the writings of the Mexican homeopaths to French etc. you can see
that there is such a disparity in understanding this.

I like the way ML Tyler prescribed her nosodes.May be that is all
there is to it. Now we understand that even if there is an influenza
it can leave a depression behind. Is it psoric or no? Will a dose of
Influenzinum after the indicated medicine remove this effect? if yes
then I have treated antipsorically without knowing whether it is
psoric or not. And remember an antimiasmatic medicine can be
prescribed in conditions not related to that miasm. Can we say that
Sulphur cannot be given in acute conditions?Of course not - all the
medicines in the MM can be given in acute conditions - then in that
case does Sulphur work only as an acute medicine or antimiasmatically?
Even if given for acute it should work against the miasm - right? So
there are many more medicines like that that work against miasms (
known and unknown). So why have a classification and cause confusion?
You said-
A miasm is a
chronic),
as I said I do not have problems with this except that we might be
better off saying what disease caused this - post-influenzal state,
post-sypilitic state, post-amebic state etc. At least this carries
some meaning. In Hahnemann's time when lab diagnosis was a problem
this could not have been possible ,Now we have over-diagnosis if
anything and this might things easier to handle.
Regarding inherited miasm - who is free of miasm? I do not believe
even Hahnemann was,with all his greatness. So this does not have any
meaning in the modern world.
Regarding aconite, Indian Aconite has been used for many chronic
conditions and homeopathic aconite has been the victim of the miasm
theory in being relegated to the acute category. I think JH Clarke
makes the same comment - in his MM or so. I do not have the book so
please refer.

You are well aware that any kind of classification brings in pigeon
holing and unconscious prejudice. Once Aconite is considered as acute
you will never even think of it in chronic conditions from then on.

I have seen so many posts in this group where people say " they do
not have an Ars anxiety - so I cannot prescribe it" This is another
way of classifying and not prescribing something where it is
indicated because of a negative symptom.

What culd we call this - Myths ( Holy cows) of Homeopathy?
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
to
I'm
(which
a
chronic),
the
lasting
the
of
has
instability
the
their
don't?
it's
symptoms
Babel
own
their
if
talking
with
any
don't
would
descriptions,
points

Well, some people say otherwise (Hahnemann among them)...
I assume you're familiar with his history in Chronic Diseases? Where
he talks about how how he developed miasm theory, and how over and over
he saw diseases *at first* removed by matching symptom similarity, but
over a period of years the remedies that *had* worked for this or that
person's maladies, stopped working, and at that point he found that he
needed to prescribe on a broader / deeper similarity, such that the
prescribing picture also included aspects such as family and personal
medical history--what he called the miasm. What's your understanding
of that history?
As I said--by reviewing all that is known about its action, and see
which miasm(s) it seems to meet. (Tho some remedies are said to *not*
be anti-miasmatic, and I confess that I don't understand how that
works... So when Hahnemann's initial prescriptions were failing to
cure "deeply" enough, that was the reason given I think--that they
suited the symptom picture, and so were effective palliatives, but were
not "deep acting" enough to cure the miasm...)
Yes... I have to say I'm only guessing on this point; I was taught to
"honor and respect" miasms ... As I said, I am seeing it as a
sort of "shorthand" for describing aspects of the remedy's action. I
suppose if you're looking for a remedy to cover bone pain, and you're
considering a remedy that is not well described but *does* include
spreading ulcers, you might feel reassured that you're in the right
neighborhood. Which might be more appropriate than just looking up
"syphilitic remedies" on a list, I don't know.

I shouldn't try to argue it; all I could do is parrot what I've been
told, and throw out some guesses--not very useful. But I'll be
interested to hear your thoughts about the reasons *why* Hahnemann
developed miasm theory, and his observation that deep cure of returning
ailments needs to be met with an appropriate "anti-miasmatic".
?? Okay... I am starting to get tangled up in semantics... People who
"believe in miasms" might have a hard time coming up with an
acute that *didn't* have some relationship to an underlying miasm...
Obviously it does both.
I wouldn't necessarily *assume* that, but I'm sure that sometimes it's
the case.
(Confused) But that is exactly what the miasmatic classification
does--syphilitic miasm is post-syphilitic, etc. Tho not necessarily in
the patient him/herself. Why is it more useful to say "post-syphilitic
state" than to say "syphilitic miasm"?
Hahnemann felt that it was possible to do so thru the symptom picture
(individual and familial). However usually it's just an assumption--I,
for instance, haven't the faintest idea whether any of my ancestors had
syphilis or "fig wart disease" or "itch"... But I guess the odds are
pretty good that some of them did!
? Not if we're talking about an inherited miasm.

Regarding inherited miasm - who is free of miasm? I do not believe

Do you mean, since we all have it anyway, why even talk about it?
Yet it *does* have meaning (tho of course only in a general way) if we
say someone comes from a "very syphilitic background", or is "very
psoric", etc. Why is it better to instead say "comes from a background
that had a lot of violence, alcoholism and mental illness;" or "he has
this huge picture of under-functioning glands and
poverty-consciousness" or whatever? If we *want* to give details we
can, but I don't see why it would be better to not have the terms?
Especially since they *are* meaningful, in some situations.
Yes, I've heard that.

Well, unless you've heard the rebuttal... I did in fact try Aconite
for a chronic case, based on having read something like what you've
said. (It didn't work, but that's beside the point.)

I know that's a pitfall. I guess we just need to keep remembering,
that we need to remedy to cover the *patient's* picture, not for the
patient to display every symptom of the remedy. But I think that
problem has nothing to do with miasms, does it?

Shannon

prescribing picture also included aspects such as family and personal
medical history--what he called the miasm. What's your understanding of that history?
As just history. Interesting but should be part of history. Now any kind of case taking and analysis involves ( even in allopathy where they do not talk about "miasms") going into genetics etc. and asking about what our parents suffer from etc. Everyone even the general public knows that what we see is not what it may actually be. We are living in a post-Darwinian, post-Freudian society. Do you think after Freud anyone even doubts about suppression etc? Yes many acutes have a chronic behind and now that is part of any medical practice. We know that many infections leave their footprint behind and need to be cleaned up. Not just psoric skin suppression…>>
suited the symptom picture, and so were effective palliatives, but were
not "deep acting" enough to cure the miasm...)>>> >Yes the moral of hahnemann's initial attempts is - take the case more thoroughly and do not think that just covering the presenting symptoms and resting on your laurels is enough. We do not have to blame the poor souls inhabiting the family tree with syphilitic taint… That is the reason I think we need to think in terms of more than the 3 miasms and in fact generalize and go beyond these confusing ideas based on 200 year old observations. >>What do you think would have happened if someone had jaundice in 1820? Good clinical observations but no corroborations otherwise. Nobody would have followed up with antibody titers and diagnosis would not have been in terms in viruses causing this. Now we know how to look for not just the symptoms but to look inside and verify what is happening after the remedy. We still give importance to symptoms ( mainly because that is what our MM are based on) but there are other kinds of analyses possible.
the reasons *why* Hahnemann
developed miasm theory, and his observation that deep cure of returning
ailments needs to be met with an appropriate "anti-miasmatic">>> >His observations are usually golden or we would not be having a discussion group. I am also not saying that treat just the superficial symptoms. Generally for treating we look for patterns. 2 types of them.>> In acutes it might not be possible to see patterns but even there there are patterns.>>Fever coming at 4 `o clock, always >If we analyze these patterns we can get the remedy. I do not know if you have studied the case of Lac Caninum and Lippe's prescription of it where he treated successfully a case with Lac caninum based on " never well since" a case of diphtheria 10 years back when the throat symptoms alternated side to side rapidly.( He did not bother to find the " antimiasmatic" remedy though he speaks of suppressions)- but based on symptoms. This is what is meant by looking into the case without just thinking of any miasmatic orientation.>>
"believe in miasms" might have a hard time coming up with an
acute that *didn't* have some relationship to an underlying miasm...>>> >Sure – that is why I am saying getting into miasms confuses so much
(Confused) But that is exactly what the miasmatic classification
does--syphilitic miasm is post-syphilitic, etc. Tho not necessarily in
the patient him/herself. Why is it more useful to say "post-syphilitic
state" than to say "syphilitic miasm"? >>> >You are only talking about syphilitic "miasm"- I am generalizing about this to cover all the ones that occur after any infection or affliction. Moreover miasm has become overloaded with extra meanings. We are NOT connecting psora and syphilis and sycosis when we talk of states. We would not be talking about psora going on to become syphilis and about diabetes being an antisycotic disease and asthma being one. If Nat.suplh is frequently indicated in diabetes we need not say it is because it is antisycotic but because it is indicated– whether it is due to constitutional action or local action on some organ. ( After all we are not saying Gonorrhea by itself causes diabetes or Nat.sulph is treating Gonorrhea at this point) So still the indication is based on some symptom that Nat.sulph is capable of causing and so curing.>>
Hahnemann felt that it was possible to do so thru the symptom picture
(individual and familial). However usually it's just an assumption--I,
for instance, haven't the faintest idea whether any of my ancestors had
syphilis or "fig wart disease" or "itch"... But I guess the odds are
pretty good that some of them did!>>> >And we need not suspect the fidelity of our forefathers…

.

Do you mean, since we all have it anyway, why even talk about it?
Yet it *does* have meaning (tho of course only in a general way) if we
say someone comes from a "very syphilitic background", or is "very
psoric", etc. Why is it better to instead say "comes from a background
that had a lot of violence, alcoholism and mental illness;.>>> >This only leads to labels. (AND what you are saying is not what Hahnemann spoke of as miasms.) What does this short-cut get you? Does it help in understanding his/her condition or in treating? No.>>> >I would always think the current population is always carrying all miasms. In my mind it is like ":possibilities to get some specific forms of disease" due to a weakened/maligned vital force? Everyone has problems of all kinds and is there any unadulterated miasm in any one – that is why we all end up saying that someone has moved from psora to sycosis. When there is a lot of confusion what is psora, syphilis and sycosis - using this to classify and then using this to predict prognosis is like what – building castles in air?>>> >If we are not going to have some specifics for these then what is the use in classifying? Ultimately whatever meager help such miasmatic classification gives us is offset by the enormous confusion that it causes. > >Even in Hahnemann's time there were people who questioned this miasmatic approach. I have never analyzed all the symptoms of any patient ever in terms of miasma and have had good successes in my practice and treated many chronic conditions and "brought" a number of items "from within out" just basing prescriptions on the present, predominant and persistent symptoms.>>> >By all this I do not mean to say that I am doing the right thing and all those who follow miasma theory are faulty. What I am saying is that I have never followed it, I have successfully prescribed for all kinds of what would be "miasmatic diseases (including diabetes and hypertension, hydronephrosis, acute and chronic renal failures), there is no convincing evidence that it is in any way useful or needed in current day practice and leads to a lot of hair-splitting all over; and it is one more thing that we need to defend. And this is one thing that I feel Hahnemann would have revised definitely if he were to be here today and knew about immunology, genetics and infections and all the diagnostic possibilities that modern day research could provide.> >> >> >
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]