Creating Waves of Awareness
Let us have a look into the terminology. Hahnemann used contemporary medical terminology when he used miasma in the context of the organon and the chronic disease.
The physician Boissiere de Sauvage (1707 – 1767) was an opponent of theory and follower of simple experience.
Boissiere wrote the following (in “Nosologie methodique“):
Miasmatic diseases are those diseases, which are caused by miasmatic matter. Miasmatic matter is an evaporation which contains invisible destructive particles.”
Boisiere classes as “Viral diseases”: syphilis, scabies, lepra, finn and tetters. They are created in the body and are transferred directly.
Hahnemann was familiar with his work: “Nosologie methodique“, which he used at the time of his own dissertation.
Definition: (deducted from organon and CD)
Disease which are transmitted from Human to human or animal to human are called miasmatic diseases. = acquired diseases.
Acute miasms: epidemics, childhood diseases, = duration determines
Chronic miasms: chronic forms of miasmatic diseases such as Psora, Syphilis, Sycosis
Tuberculosis is not an independent miasmatic disease but falls by its symptoms into Psora.
In the absence of Psora, syphilis and sycosis are acute miasmatic diseases. If the individual was actively psoric at the time of contraction of syphilis or sycosis, then syphilis or sycosis can combine with psora and become a chronic combined disease. (CD)
Likewise, if the individual is actively psoric diseased and is subjected to vaccination at the same time, then a chronic combination disease is likely to be established = Vaccine damage.
Likewise, if the individual actively diseased with psora is subjected to ongoing allopathic treatment a combination disease is likely to be established, whereby even after cessation of allopathic medication the adverse effects of these medicines will not stop but gradually increase.
Miasmatic diseases are recognized by their symptoms. In acute cases like measles, it is simple to diagnose; In chronic cases it is more difficult, as the start may have not be noticed.
All three chronic miasmatic diseases are of a cyclic nature. They have in common:
Stage One: a skin leason / eruption followed by
Stage two: a latency period with only very discreet symptoms, followed by
Stage three: Manifest disease symptoms.
They can also return from stage 3 to stage 2 (frequently seen) and possibly to stage one.
In the case of psora, which is a very common chronic miasmatic disease Hahnemann listed the symptoms of each of the stages in his book on chronic diseases. By those symptoms Psora is recognizable. (not by facial analysis)
If we know, that it is psora, what is to be dealt with, we know, that unless remedies are used which have the capacity to cure psora there will only be a amelioration of the disease. We also know, that for the cure of Psora different antipsoric remedies are necessary one after another. This observation nullifies the idea of ONE constitutional remedy which will cure the whole malady and also that constitution is disease.
In later years there were many interpretations of a religious or philosophical nature particularly in the 19th century America and 20th century south America. A deviation from the above simple definition was (kent) that Psora was seen as wrong thinking, sycosis as wrong wishing and syphilis as wrong doing reflecting the moral of middle upper class east coast America at the end of the 19th century. The practitioner became a healer by that, liberating humanity from evil. The old belief in inherited sin finds its counterpart in the idea, that psora can be inherited and therefore be handed down from one generation to another.
This goes along with a significant shift of what is to be cured; Hahnemann in his works always refers to the disease as something ultimately separate from the person, Kent et al. referred to the entire person to be cured, and therefore proclaimed that all symptoms, present or past, disease or non-disease be indicative for the selection of the remedy.
Another tendency is to create chronic miasms such as: Tuberculosis or Cancer or ringworm as independent chronic miasms ignoring that their symptoms are already included in Hahnemann's Psora and that these diseases are only different expressions of active psora.
There would be utter confusion, if all these miasms could be there at the same time and active so a theory was formed, that they exist in layers, and that they have to be pealed away like an onion by anti miasmatic remedies always selected from the class relating to the layer. But this fails often because it was quickly found out that there are remedies which are classed in various miasms, and that there are disease symptoms which can belong to different miasms.
I studied Hahnemann's Paris casebooks representing his last and most advanced methods. I found, that there was no reference made to either Psora, Syphillis or Sycosis.
Remedies were determined, (as far as we were able to follow) by the NOW present disease symptom picture. Some cases have Hahnemann's repertorisations included.
Often remedies were changed according when the symptom picture slightly changed when using C-potencies. The changes were less frequently using Q-potencies.
This does not surprise me at all, as the idea of diagnosing and determining remedies according disease- names was already criticized by Hahnemann, calling it a speculative / allopathic procedure.
At some late stage Hahnemann realized,. that by the growing numbers of remedies found to be useful in psora, the remedy selection was not made easier and the results did not improve as dramaticly as he wrote in the introduction to the Chronic Disease. From 1838 on Hahnemann started looking for the solution fof the problem elsewhere. He started to experiment with higher potencies, different modes of application.
The break through came with the Q-potencies.
Results in his cases improved dramatically (compare DF13 and 14 with DF4, 5).
I can confirm from my own experience in the past 20 years, that the Q-potency is an important milestone in the ongoing treatment, speeding up the recovery fourfold.
This raises the question: what is the value of the miasm theory nowadays?
My answer is:
It has no bearing on the remedy selection, it has no value if it comes to homeopathy in its pure unaltered form. There is no practical value at all and seriously aren't the homeopaths becoming the laughing stock going around telling people they are miasmatic?
It is one of those historic whims, which have done more harm to homeopathy than good.