Please save me and Homeopathy from miasms 2
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:09 pm
At 05:31 AM 12/1/2005, you wrote:
Hello all,
There is nothing in my posts that strengthens the position of
"hahnemannian2002" that the study of the miasms should be purged from
homeopathy. When logic, data and examples of practical clinical
applications are meet with sarcastic and hyperbole one can only
say......?? Actually, I feel that all this sarcastic use of a person's
name borders on bad taste.
Sir, you DID expound the idea that causation plays no role in
prescribing. You DID expound the idea that all one needs to do is record
the presiding symptoms without mentioning the importance of attending
circumstances. You DID say knowing a patient has "malaria" (pathology)
plays no role in prescribing. This was also discussed on this list and ALL
of this on record. If you have changed your mind that is good because
homeopathic case taking is much more than only recording the presiding
symptoms. It includes the complete case history, causes, miasms, symptoms
and attendant circumstances (Organon, aph 5). All of these areas may have
some bearing on prescribing a remedy depending on the circumstances.
If you agree with miasm as infections and that unresolved infections may
produce sequels and have used intercurrent remedies and nosodes then your
post supports my position much better than the idea that the miasms should
be purged from Homoeopathy. No miasms no sequels to infection no nosodes.
1. The debate is here: Your position is the traditional homoeopathic
study of the miasms should be purged from homeopathy because this study is
useless. Our position is that the clinical study of miasms is useful for
finding remedies and nosodes that may prevent, abort and treat the affects
of the acute, half-acute and chronic miasms. The division of the miasms
into acute, half acute and chronic has proven exactly correct in modern
science and is useful in the clinic. This knowledge of disease states is
essential to good practice.
2. Hahnemann knew that miasms were caused by microorganisms although he
did not know all the exact details. He also taught that the suppression of
soft tissue infections like scabies, tetter, herpes, erysipelas, leprosy,
etc., caused a syndrome he called psora. Every disease he pointed out as
carriers of primary psora in the Chronic Diseases is based on
microorganisms. The word, psora, has been used from the time of ancient
Greeks as a word for skin complaints. In fact, Hahnemann is the Father of
modern epidemiology as he wrote the first coherent texts that includes
constitutional factors, predisposition, susceptibility, the moment of
infection, the prodrome, the primary stage, latent stage and secondary
stage,etc. We should give credit where credit is due and bring this
material up to date for our times.
Homeopaths of the past recorded the symptoms of several viral diseases
AND found remedies for their prevention and cure. Every time the homeopath
prevents or cures mumps he is preventing or curing a viral disorder. They
called such things "mumps miasma" in the 1800s. Allopaths may no more
details about the cellular pathology of viruses but in 2005 they still have
no safe and effective way to treat them!
3. Hahnemann never said that the chronic miasms were limited to 3. He
said that psora, sycosis, and syphilis were what he was seeing in his
practice. We have not stopped with the three major miasms introduced by
Hahnemann. Some of us have gone on to study TB, chronic hepatitis, AIDS,
etc., through the homoeopathic group case method, etc.
The study of the acute, half-acute and chronic miasms through the
group anamnesis offers much more valuable information than biochemical test
alone. Lab tests are helpful but the collective and personal case taking
methods provide the key to cure. That is because this study includes
causes, objective signs, subjective symptoms and attendant circumstances as
well as a complete review the mental, general and particular symptoms. You
will not find such expanded and exacting details in allopathic texts nor by
laboratory results. The homeopathic method not only provides the
characteristic details, it also provide a group of homogenous remedies and
nosodes that have the potential to prevent, abort and treat the target
miasms. Just taking an individual case by the presiding symptoms does not
provide this information. That is the difference between the collective and
individual case taking methods. To treat the miasms correctly the
practitioner needs both!
1. Dream and meditation provings are a different subject. I will leave that
for others to discuss if they wish.
2. On the basis of poisonings (where available), symptoms proven in
relatively healthy volunteers, and symptoms collected from patients under
treatment (all methods discussed in the Organon), one can form a reasonable
hypotheses about the medicinal powers of new remedies and their miasmatic
correspondences. If a remedy shows the grand characteristics of a miasm or
miasms then it may be tested against those states in clinical trials. If
the new remedy removes the symptoms consistently then it may be considered
an anti-miasmic remedy for those states. We have the tools to assess new
remedies but one has to know how to use them.
Homeopaths working with bringing the miasms up to date ARE using modern
pathology texts as background research material. Nevertheless, this
allopathic material is very long on cellular pathology but very short on
detailed symptomatolgy and attendant circumstances. The homoeopathic method
of taking the collective symptoms is FAR superior to the allopathic method
of recording symptoms. The allopathic method does not provide a detailed
study of the mental, general or particular symptoms nor offer extensive
lists of sensations, modalities, concomitants and attending circumstances.
The allopathic school only supplies a review of the cellular pathology with
the more common symptoms of the disease. You seem to extol the allopathic
schools methodology while showing little understanding of the depth of the
traditional homoeopathic methods of studying infectious diseases (miasms).
Allopathy, allopathy, allopathy??? Serious researchers ARE studying
what modern texts have to offer in terms of data but we are applying this
material in conjunction with the vitalist paradigm and information gathered
from the collective case and field trials. The allopathic study of
infectious disease is too crude to be depended upon alone. The homoeopathic
study using the collective case provides much better symptomology and leads
to much better remedies. The truth is that the traditional material of the
miasms is NOT useful to YOU because YOU don't understand it or know how to
use it! It is VERY useful to me and others who understand it clinically!
1. To speak of two similar pathological ultimates in animals in an
effort to refute the entire homoeopathic study of infectious diseases and
their sequels in human beings is ruse to say the least. The study of the
acute, half-acute and chronic miasms in human beings provides much more
detailed information than just an "ulcer" or "tumor" It offers the clear
picture of the mental, general and particular symptoms that lead to a host
of pathological ultimates. That a single pathological ultimate can be
produced by more than one cause is common knowledge, but the pathway each
disease follows to reach that lesional stage can be different. One can't
understand the entire process only by looking at the final stage or a
single pathological ultimate. Each miasm has a unique symptom pattern and
disease progression with characteristic symptoms that may lead to a great
number of pathological ultimates. To think otherwise is the mentality of an
allopathic school.
2. As to plants, animals and humans - they are all organic carbon based
structures that share the "Anima Mundi" or vital principle. There are bound
to be similarities in the functions although each species may suffer from
differing disease conditions although some infections are shared by animals
and humans. The similarities found in plants, animals and humans has more
to do with the homeomeries (the similar building blocks from which all
things are made) than the human miasms. All life shares certain similar
basic building blocks, dynamic functions, and pathological progressions.
They all are born, they all grow, they all get old, they all get sick, and
they all die. This is the wheel of life.
3. To point out the most extreme metaphysical views of the miasms in an
effort demand that all views of the miasms are purged from homeopathy is
reminiscent of gimmicks used by political spin-doctors. Many of us have a
very clinical view of the miasms that is perfectly in line with modern
medicine yet more sophisticated because it is based on the vitalist
paradigm and homoeopathic case taking, which includes the group and
individual anamnesis. In this way, it is possible to find remedies and
nosodes with the potential to prevent, abort and treat the acute,
half-acute and chronic miasms. This a scientific, practical and effective
methodology that has proved its worth in the clinic when used properly.
1. Miasms are the affects of acute, half-acute and chronic infections.
These are not nebulous characters. They are typhoid, ebola, cholera
(acute), rabies (half-acute) and complications of soft tissue infections,
TB, gonococcus, syphilis, hepatitis, AIDS, etc (chronic). It also includes
endemic miasms that are passed by animal hosts like malaria, etc. These
diseases are killing 1,000,000s of people every year and we traditional
homoeopaths have methods that can help prevent, abort and treat all these
states. These are practical health issues with serious ramifications. Those
who understand the miasms as the affect of infections have methods to
approach these conditions directly.
2. The miasms ARE named in accordance with their genus such as measles
miasma (acute), rabies miasma (half-acute) and syphilis miasma (chronic).
Hering suggested that we could note the subspecies of psora which could
include tinea-psora, scabies-psora, leprosy-psora, etc. We DO study the
history, the host factors and infectious process of acute, half-acute and
chronic infections. That IS what the traditional study of miasms is all
about!!! We DO list what remedies are most similar to specific infections
in our repertories, materia medicas and commentaries. Your post is
supporting our clinical view of the miasms much more than the idea that the
miasms should be purged from homeopathy. You just don't seem to know how to
use this material in any practical way so you reject it. That is not our
problem!
3. Homeopathic remedies have broad medicinal powers and some have
multi-miasmic relationships. We study the remedies to see in what miasms
their powers are more developed and we grade them accordingly. It is a
question of degrees not absolutes. For example, Sulphur affects all three
original major miasms but it is graded stronger for its power over psora
(3) than its power over venereal miasms (1). The gradation of remedies is a
common practice in homeopathy. What appears like contradictions to some
people is often based on a lack of proper knowledge of the subject.
If homoeopath had absolutely no epidemiological studies it certainly
could be called unscientific.Those that have a CLINICAL approach to the
miasms are using scientific observations and the collective case taking
method to assess the acute, half acute and chronic miasms. This allows for
a deeper understanding of remedies and nosodes that may prevent, abort and
treat the target miasms. This is the work of classical masters and many of
us are following in their footsteps in an effort to bring this material up
to date rather than throwing the baby (the clinical study of the miasms)
out with the bath water (misunderstandings).
In truth, nothing in my post supports "hahnemannian2002" position on
the miasms, which seems to be prefer the allopathic texts over the
homeopathic methods. In the name of modernity the essence has been lost and
the foundation destroyed so it no wonder there is confusion. I have
provided data on the miasms and homoeopathic case taking, constructing
miasmic rubrics for the materia medica, and clinical methodologies that can
be used to prevent, abort or treat the infectious miasms and their sequels.
I will leave it up to others to decide who is being rational and scientific
and who is getting carried away with sarcasm and exaggerations without
providing any useful data.
The clinical study of the acute, half acute and chronic miasms is a
wonderful contribution of the healing arts not "moonshine" and serious
researcher in the field are not a "conference-hall-fly-by-night" people. I
work under very difficult clinical conditions in Asia where acute,
half-acute and chronic infections abound and I know what I am talking
about. To paint all researchers in a field with negative labels is a
technic used by lawyers, politicians and those with an agenda to discredit
others. First they make up their own definitions of the works of others and
then they refute their own delusions as if they are real. This "tar and
feather" method is not going work on thoughtful hard working researchers
with years of experience behind them. I would advise students and
colleagues to avoid such smear campaigns and study the material on the
miasms with an open mind.
Sincerely, David Little
PS. I will direct any posts on the subject of the miasms to list at this
point as I think it is best to agree to disagree with Hahnemannian2002. I
have said all I can say to this person I and don't feel like getting into
sarcastic mud slinging.
Hello all,
There is nothing in my posts that strengthens the position of
"hahnemannian2002" that the study of the miasms should be purged from
homeopathy. When logic, data and examples of practical clinical
applications are meet with sarcastic and hyperbole one can only
say......?? Actually, I feel that all this sarcastic use of a person's
name borders on bad taste.
Sir, you DID expound the idea that causation plays no role in
prescribing. You DID expound the idea that all one needs to do is record
the presiding symptoms without mentioning the importance of attending
circumstances. You DID say knowing a patient has "malaria" (pathology)
plays no role in prescribing. This was also discussed on this list and ALL
of this on record. If you have changed your mind that is good because
homeopathic case taking is much more than only recording the presiding
symptoms. It includes the complete case history, causes, miasms, symptoms
and attendant circumstances (Organon, aph 5). All of these areas may have
some bearing on prescribing a remedy depending on the circumstances.
If you agree with miasm as infections and that unresolved infections may
produce sequels and have used intercurrent remedies and nosodes then your
post supports my position much better than the idea that the miasms should
be purged from Homoeopathy. No miasms no sequels to infection no nosodes.
1. The debate is here: Your position is the traditional homoeopathic
study of the miasms should be purged from homeopathy because this study is
useless. Our position is that the clinical study of miasms is useful for
finding remedies and nosodes that may prevent, abort and treat the affects
of the acute, half-acute and chronic miasms. The division of the miasms
into acute, half acute and chronic has proven exactly correct in modern
science and is useful in the clinic. This knowledge of disease states is
essential to good practice.
2. Hahnemann knew that miasms were caused by microorganisms although he
did not know all the exact details. He also taught that the suppression of
soft tissue infections like scabies, tetter, herpes, erysipelas, leprosy,
etc., caused a syndrome he called psora. Every disease he pointed out as
carriers of primary psora in the Chronic Diseases is based on
microorganisms. The word, psora, has been used from the time of ancient
Greeks as a word for skin complaints. In fact, Hahnemann is the Father of
modern epidemiology as he wrote the first coherent texts that includes
constitutional factors, predisposition, susceptibility, the moment of
infection, the prodrome, the primary stage, latent stage and secondary
stage,etc. We should give credit where credit is due and bring this
material up to date for our times.
Homeopaths of the past recorded the symptoms of several viral diseases
AND found remedies for their prevention and cure. Every time the homeopath
prevents or cures mumps he is preventing or curing a viral disorder. They
called such things "mumps miasma" in the 1800s. Allopaths may no more
details about the cellular pathology of viruses but in 2005 they still have
no safe and effective way to treat them!
3. Hahnemann never said that the chronic miasms were limited to 3. He
said that psora, sycosis, and syphilis were what he was seeing in his
practice. We have not stopped with the three major miasms introduced by
Hahnemann. Some of us have gone on to study TB, chronic hepatitis, AIDS,
etc., through the homoeopathic group case method, etc.
The study of the acute, half-acute and chronic miasms through the
group anamnesis offers much more valuable information than biochemical test
alone. Lab tests are helpful but the collective and personal case taking
methods provide the key to cure. That is because this study includes
causes, objective signs, subjective symptoms and attendant circumstances as
well as a complete review the mental, general and particular symptoms. You
will not find such expanded and exacting details in allopathic texts nor by
laboratory results. The homeopathic method not only provides the
characteristic details, it also provide a group of homogenous remedies and
nosodes that have the potential to prevent, abort and treat the target
miasms. Just taking an individual case by the presiding symptoms does not
provide this information. That is the difference between the collective and
individual case taking methods. To treat the miasms correctly the
practitioner needs both!
1. Dream and meditation provings are a different subject. I will leave that
for others to discuss if they wish.
2. On the basis of poisonings (where available), symptoms proven in
relatively healthy volunteers, and symptoms collected from patients under
treatment (all methods discussed in the Organon), one can form a reasonable
hypotheses about the medicinal powers of new remedies and their miasmatic
correspondences. If a remedy shows the grand characteristics of a miasm or
miasms then it may be tested against those states in clinical trials. If
the new remedy removes the symptoms consistently then it may be considered
an anti-miasmic remedy for those states. We have the tools to assess new
remedies but one has to know how to use them.
Homeopaths working with bringing the miasms up to date ARE using modern
pathology texts as background research material. Nevertheless, this
allopathic material is very long on cellular pathology but very short on
detailed symptomatolgy and attendant circumstances. The homoeopathic method
of taking the collective symptoms is FAR superior to the allopathic method
of recording symptoms. The allopathic method does not provide a detailed
study of the mental, general or particular symptoms nor offer extensive
lists of sensations, modalities, concomitants and attending circumstances.
The allopathic school only supplies a review of the cellular pathology with
the more common symptoms of the disease. You seem to extol the allopathic
schools methodology while showing little understanding of the depth of the
traditional homoeopathic methods of studying infectious diseases (miasms).
Allopathy, allopathy, allopathy??? Serious researchers ARE studying
what modern texts have to offer in terms of data but we are applying this
material in conjunction with the vitalist paradigm and information gathered
from the collective case and field trials. The allopathic study of
infectious disease is too crude to be depended upon alone. The homoeopathic
study using the collective case provides much better symptomology and leads
to much better remedies. The truth is that the traditional material of the
miasms is NOT useful to YOU because YOU don't understand it or know how to
use it! It is VERY useful to me and others who understand it clinically!
1. To speak of two similar pathological ultimates in animals in an
effort to refute the entire homoeopathic study of infectious diseases and
their sequels in human beings is ruse to say the least. The study of the
acute, half-acute and chronic miasms in human beings provides much more
detailed information than just an "ulcer" or "tumor" It offers the clear
picture of the mental, general and particular symptoms that lead to a host
of pathological ultimates. That a single pathological ultimate can be
produced by more than one cause is common knowledge, but the pathway each
disease follows to reach that lesional stage can be different. One can't
understand the entire process only by looking at the final stage or a
single pathological ultimate. Each miasm has a unique symptom pattern and
disease progression with characteristic symptoms that may lead to a great
number of pathological ultimates. To think otherwise is the mentality of an
allopathic school.
2. As to plants, animals and humans - they are all organic carbon based
structures that share the "Anima Mundi" or vital principle. There are bound
to be similarities in the functions although each species may suffer from
differing disease conditions although some infections are shared by animals
and humans. The similarities found in plants, animals and humans has more
to do with the homeomeries (the similar building blocks from which all
things are made) than the human miasms. All life shares certain similar
basic building blocks, dynamic functions, and pathological progressions.
They all are born, they all grow, they all get old, they all get sick, and
they all die. This is the wheel of life.
3. To point out the most extreme metaphysical views of the miasms in an
effort demand that all views of the miasms are purged from homeopathy is
reminiscent of gimmicks used by political spin-doctors. Many of us have a
very clinical view of the miasms that is perfectly in line with modern
medicine yet more sophisticated because it is based on the vitalist
paradigm and homoeopathic case taking, which includes the group and
individual anamnesis. In this way, it is possible to find remedies and
nosodes with the potential to prevent, abort and treat the acute,
half-acute and chronic miasms. This a scientific, practical and effective
methodology that has proved its worth in the clinic when used properly.
1. Miasms are the affects of acute, half-acute and chronic infections.
These are not nebulous characters. They are typhoid, ebola, cholera
(acute), rabies (half-acute) and complications of soft tissue infections,
TB, gonococcus, syphilis, hepatitis, AIDS, etc (chronic). It also includes
endemic miasms that are passed by animal hosts like malaria, etc. These
diseases are killing 1,000,000s of people every year and we traditional
homoeopaths have methods that can help prevent, abort and treat all these
states. These are practical health issues with serious ramifications. Those
who understand the miasms as the affect of infections have methods to
approach these conditions directly.
2. The miasms ARE named in accordance with their genus such as measles
miasma (acute), rabies miasma (half-acute) and syphilis miasma (chronic).
Hering suggested that we could note the subspecies of psora which could
include tinea-psora, scabies-psora, leprosy-psora, etc. We DO study the
history, the host factors and infectious process of acute, half-acute and
chronic infections. That IS what the traditional study of miasms is all
about!!! We DO list what remedies are most similar to specific infections
in our repertories, materia medicas and commentaries. Your post is
supporting our clinical view of the miasms much more than the idea that the
miasms should be purged from homeopathy. You just don't seem to know how to
use this material in any practical way so you reject it. That is not our
problem!
3. Homeopathic remedies have broad medicinal powers and some have
multi-miasmic relationships. We study the remedies to see in what miasms
their powers are more developed and we grade them accordingly. It is a
question of degrees not absolutes. For example, Sulphur affects all three
original major miasms but it is graded stronger for its power over psora
(3) than its power over venereal miasms (1). The gradation of remedies is a
common practice in homeopathy. What appears like contradictions to some
people is often based on a lack of proper knowledge of the subject.
If homoeopath had absolutely no epidemiological studies it certainly
could be called unscientific.Those that have a CLINICAL approach to the
miasms are using scientific observations and the collective case taking
method to assess the acute, half acute and chronic miasms. This allows for
a deeper understanding of remedies and nosodes that may prevent, abort and
treat the target miasms. This is the work of classical masters and many of
us are following in their footsteps in an effort to bring this material up
to date rather than throwing the baby (the clinical study of the miasms)
out with the bath water (misunderstandings).
In truth, nothing in my post supports "hahnemannian2002" position on
the miasms, which seems to be prefer the allopathic texts over the
homeopathic methods. In the name of modernity the essence has been lost and
the foundation destroyed so it no wonder there is confusion. I have
provided data on the miasms and homoeopathic case taking, constructing
miasmic rubrics for the materia medica, and clinical methodologies that can
be used to prevent, abort or treat the infectious miasms and their sequels.
I will leave it up to others to decide who is being rational and scientific
and who is getting carried away with sarcasm and exaggerations without
providing any useful data.
The clinical study of the acute, half acute and chronic miasms is a
wonderful contribution of the healing arts not "moonshine" and serious
researcher in the field are not a "conference-hall-fly-by-night" people. I
work under very difficult clinical conditions in Asia where acute,
half-acute and chronic infections abound and I know what I am talking
about. To paint all researchers in a field with negative labels is a
technic used by lawyers, politicians and those with an agenda to discredit
others. First they make up their own definitions of the works of others and
then they refute their own delusions as if they are real. This "tar and
feather" method is not going work on thoughtful hard working researchers
with years of experience behind them. I would advise students and
colleagues to avoid such smear campaigns and study the material on the
miasms with an open mind.
Sincerely, David Little
PS. I will direct any posts on the subject of the miasms to list at this
point as I think it is best to agree to disagree with Hahnemannian2002. I
have said all I can say to this person I and don't feel like getting into
sarcastic mud slinging.