Homeopath: Psora can progress to syphilis

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homeopath: Psora can progress to syphilis

Actually, I did mention before that a yeast infection was not what Hahnemann menat by "itch" -

(Edited to fix Barb's shift key....)

But you don't explain what Hahnemann DID mean by "itch"! Since he had no knowledge of yeasts or their role in disease, or any way to determine whether an "internal itch" reported by a patient was caused by a yeast or by something else, then why is it not legitimate to infer that at least some of the time when "internal itching" is mentioned, the cause as we understand it today would indeed have been a yeast infection?

So, what DID he mean, and how do you know he wasn't actually referring to a yeast infection?

Rolfe.

 

[Barbrae]

Hans,

so since the topic was about psora and syph I won't bother with sycosis (my favorite).

SO were did I leave off? Okay - so you have this family "stain" or "taint", in modern terms you can think of it as familial tendencies, or even genetic tendencies, We have known for decades that alcoholism can run in families but only very recently have we seen a gene responsable. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS THE SAME THING - NO NEED FOR EVEYONE TO GET ON MY BACK ABOUT GENETIC TENDENCIES, JUST AN ANALOGY. Now, what Leela was refering to and is clearly stated in her post is that the miasm of psora, if left untreated or suppressed can progress or worsen to the spyphilitic miasm. That does not mean a person with psora will suddenly develop the disease syphilis. Hang on ... kid calling

 

[Psiload]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homeopath: Psora can progress to syphilis

Okay - I am going to state this very very very c l e a r l y!!!!! My comments are in response to Hans questions and his wrong assertation that Leela believed that psora causes syphilis. My discussion of miasms IS IN NO WAY OFFERED AS A "SINGLE SHRED OF RELEVENCE IN MODERN MEDICINE".

I was asked to explain the basics of miasm.relation to syphilis and Hans comment. That is all this post is meant to do.

IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE OF ANYTHING, NOR IS IT TRYING TO LEGITIMISE ANYTHING OR ANYTHING CLOSE TO THAT - IT IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, INFORMATION THAT WAS REQUESTED.

Posts replying to this such as yours are not only unecessary but unrelated to the topic.

I find it utterly depressing that I can be asked a question for information to clear up something, give that information, say NOTHING about that information relating to being evidence of anything and yet that is how it is interpreted. I suspect this is just one reason why the homeopaths that come here leave. they are asked a question, they reply to said question and the response is something like that above. Makes me wonder why I am so stupid to continue to reply to specific requests for info.

ANyway - to reiterate - THIS POST IS FOR INFORMATION REGARDING THE MIASMS ONLY, NOTHING ELESE.

I apologize... I just assumed that since you're a practicing homeopath, you would just naturally agree with the central tenants upon which homeopathy was founded. It just seems kinda foolish to reject the baby, but swallow the bath water. But hey... foolish is what homeopaths do best.

So even you, a homeopathy proponent, can't bring yourself to endorse the whole 'miasm' load of bullcrap? Whew... that's a relief. There may be hope for you yet.

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homeopath: Psora can progress to syphilis

So even you, a homeopathy proponent, can't bring yourself to endorse the whole 'miasm' load of bullcrap? Whew... that's a relief. There may be hope for you yet.

She hasn't said that. Wait for it.

I have now asked her twice to clarify her position, whether she believes that this stuff is "bullcrap", or indeed that it is a true representation of the transmission and progression of disease. She hasn't answered yet.

Rolfe.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homeopath: Psora can progress to syphilis

She hasn't said that. Wait for it.

I have now asked her twice to clarify her position, whether she believes that this stuff is "bullcrap", or indeed that it is a true representation of the transmission and progression of disease. She hasn't answered yet.

Rolfe.

All it takes is a "yes" or "no".

Why is that so hard?

 

[Barbrae]

Hans,

so since the topic was about psora and syph I won't bother with sycosis (my favorite).

SO were did I leave off? Okay - so you have this family "stain" or "taint", in modern terms you can think of it as familial tendencies, or even genetic tendencies, We have known for decades that alcoholism can run in families but only very recently have we seen a gene responsable. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS THE SAME THING - NO NEED FOR EVEYONE TO GET ON MY BACK ABOUT GENETIC TENDENCIES, JUST AN ANALOGY. Now, what Leela was refering to and is clearly stated in her post is that the miasm of psora, if left untreated or suppressed can progress or worsen to the spyphilitic miasm. That does not mean a person with psora will suddenly develop the disease syphilis. Hang on ... kid calling

Okay, so someone has the psora miasm and it has progressed to the syphilitica miasm, now a person with tendencies to one set of symptoms, like psoriasis, asthma, and mental illness has worsened to another state - she now has suicidal tendencies, perhaps alcoholism (these are just examples BTW). that is what Leela meant. That the severity of syph is depper and worse than that of psora and that psora can lead to syph. Doe sthat clear up Leela statemnt?

Now, in a sorta unrelated sorta related topic. Homeopaths have long believed that asthma is caused by or at least related to a suppressed skin eruption (ezcema). You can see this in the relation of the conditions covered by the psoric miasm. SO anyway, since Hahnemanns time they have held this belief. Just recently the allopathic communtiy have found a connection to the two conditions as well. There is a large scale study being done at a childrens hospital near me on children with ezcema and their development of asthma. the thinking in the allopathic communtiy is the opposite though. They want to see if the ezcema is treated by creams early on if that will lesson the occurance of asthma - I think the allopathic theory is something along the lines of bacteria or viral infection of the lesions getting into the system (I admit I am jumbling that). The homeopathic theory is that it is the supression of the "itch" that leads to the diesease going deeper - into an asthmatic state. It will be interesting when the study results are finished.

Anyway - please note this is a very elementary and tiny view on the topic of miasms and is not meant to lead to further discussion on the topic- I am not interested in that. I was simply clearing up a misunderstanding of Hans, that we don't think the STD magically appears outta nowehere from psora.

 

[Sarah-I]

Rolfe,

All homeopathic remedies are Miasmatic and this can help in remedy differentiation. I use this in my practice, so if I have a patient whom I feel is predominantly Sycotic, then I will go for a Sycotic remedy. This happened with a patient recently. I took her case and I came down to Lycopodium and Pulsatilla as remedies. I decided to give Pulsatilla, as Pulsatilla is a predomonantly Sycotic remedy, whereas Lycopodium is tri-miasmatic.

You were also talkig about the Germ Theory earlier. I suggest that you read this book by Trevor Gunn called Mass Immunisation A Point in Question. He talks about germ theory and other things in this book. He has a BSc degree in medical biochemistry and is a qualified and practicing homeopath.

 

[Barbrae]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homeopath: Psora can progress to syphilis

(Edited to fix Barb's shift key....)

But you don't explain what Hahnemann DID mean by "itch"! Since he had no knowledge of yeasts or their role in disease, or any way to determine whether an "internal itch" reported by a patient was caused by a yeast or by something else, then why is it not legitimate to infer that at least some of the time when "internal itching" is mentioned, the cause as we understand it today would indeed have been a yeast infection?

So, what DID he mean, and how do you know he wasn't actually referring to a yeast infection?

Rolfe.

Becuasse when he refered to the Itch he meant psora - it was a generic term for psora which encompasses a whole list of symptoms. aAlso specifically scabies was the itch that when supressed lead to psora - other conditions as well but scabies in particular.

I am not ignoring your quesiton about my beliefes BTW - didn't see the posts while I was posting. I will answere it a bit later this evening - It's not a yes or no answer because there are other parts to the miasm theory that were not stated.

 

[Rolfe]

so you have this family "stain" or "taint", in modern terms you can think of it as familial tendencies, or even genetic tendencies, We have known for decades that alcoholism can run in families but only very recently have we seen a gene responsable. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS THE SAME THING - NO NEED FOR EVEYONE TO GET ON MY BACK ABOUT GENETIC TENDENCIES, JUST AN ANALOGY. Now, what Leela was refering to and is clearly stated in her post is that the miasm of psora, if left untreated or suppressed can progress or worsen to the spyphilitic miasm. That does not mean a person with psora will suddenly develop the disease syphilis.

This doesn't really seem to help.

I have indeed heard homoeopaths (when pushed into a corner) declare that "miasms" were just Hahnemann's term for genetic diseases or genetic predispositions to disease. However, this is not a point of view accepted by homoeopaths as a group. And indeed, in the one long exchange I ever had with Leela, when I traced the underlying causes of Addison's disease right back to the histocompatibility tissue type that has the antigen on the adrenocortical cells which is a close enough molecluar mimic to a similar antigen on an as-yet-unidentified bacterium to allow antibodies raised against that bacterium to cross-react and destroy the adrenal cortex, and asked if that was her "underlying cause" of the disease that she kept declaring homoeopathy could treat, she said no, it wasn't.

And of course we know that there are probably quite a lot of conditions which have no significant genetic proponent at all, which homooepaths will still lump under "miasms".

So, miasms aren't genetic susceptibility, not according to homoeopathic doctrine, and not according to Leela, and apparently not according to Barb either, since she says it's only an analogy.

So what are they? We're grown-ups here, Barb. We don't have to be addressed in terms of allegory or metaphor. If miasms describe something which is actually going on in the physical or physiological world, please explain them in clear terms without recourse to analogies which you acknowledge are not the truth.

Even just tell us whether you personally believe that they exist or not, for a start.

Rolfe.

 

[CFLarsen]

Barbrae,

Look, it is extremely simple:

Do you believe that the theory of "miasms" is valid, and a true representation of the reality of disease transmission and progression, or is it a part of homoeopathy you personally discard and give no credence to?

Don't go off, explaining an unrelated topic. Stay on the topic we are discussing.

You complain yourself about unrelated comments. Now is your chance to set the record straight.

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homeopath: Psora can progress to syphilis

Becuasse when he refered to the Itch he meant psora - it was a generic term for psora which encompasses a whole list of symptoms. aAlso specifically scabies was the itch that when supressed lead to psora - other conditions as well but scabies in particular.

But given that Hahnemann had no access to diagnostic tests or even the knowledge of what yeasts were and how they differ from other causes of "internal itching", how do you know that at least some of the time, the condition he was seeing as "internal itching" wasn't actually caused by a yeast?

I think this was actually HC's original point. Hahnemann places so much emphasis on all this "internal itching" business, and bases most of the miasms stuff on it as far as I can see, but in fact he had no way to know whether any individual case wasn't caused by a yeast infection. So where does that leave his theorising?

Rolfe.

 

[Psiload]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homeopath: Psora can progress to syphilis

She hasn't said that. Wait for it.

I have now asked her twice to clarify her position, whether she believes that this stuff is "bullcrap", or indeed that it is a true representation of the transmission and progression of disease. She hasn't answered yet.

Rolfe.

It occurs to me that I once had the exact same type of discussion with a Scientologist. I asked the Scientologist to explain to me how an "e-meter" worked, and they launched into a long explanation about "body thetans", auditing "negative energy", removing "suppressive thoughts", and "achieving clear". When I asked them, "And you believe all of this?" I got the same reaction as I just got from Barb... "Did I say I believed it?! You asked a question, and I answered your question. I'm not trying to sell anyone on anything!"

Weird.

 

[Rolfe]

He has a BSc degree in medical biochemistry ....

So have I, sunshine. Does that mean that you'll tell people to read my book and believe every word I say?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Anyway - please note this is a very elementary and tiny view on the topic of miasms and is not meant to lead to further discussion on the topic- I am not interested in that. I was simply clearing up a misunderstanding of Hans, that we don't think the STD magically appears outta nowehere from psora.

But you haven't clarified anything at all. You have, as far as I can understand it, implied that Leela was using the terms as an analogy, not actually meaning what she was saying. However, there seems to be at least some reason to feel that she might not agree with you there.

You have then gone on to post a garbled and barely-understandable load of stuff about one thing leading to another and parallels with particular medical situations regarding genetic disease and asthma/eczema, none of which seems to cast any light on how any of these conditions develop or interact, but mainly seeming to imply that it's all a metaphor.

Well, metphor may be occasionally useful to explain something to a child or a poorly educated adult patient, but it doesn't count for much in any real attempt to explain how diseases are transmitted or progress.

You've stated that you don't want to go into this further. Well, I think you should. Because I sense a very deep division in your thinking. You parrot the homoeopathic line about miasms, and it all sounds fine and dandy if nobody challenges you to explain what you're talking about. But when you are challenged you realise that you can't do that, because any attempt at explaining this in the terms of the real world reveals that it's a pile of bullcrap, to borrow Psiload's excellent expression.

So, less of the "what we believe is this, sort of, this is an analogy or a metaphor anyway, but it's sort of similar to this one instance of real medicine, but don't please make me declare in clear what I actually think about the subject", and a bit more simple explanation of just what your take on this matter actually is, without analogies, metaphors or even non-representative examples.

Who knows, you might start to understand a bit better what you yourself think, if you try to do this.

Rolfe.

 

[Barbrae]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homeopath: Psora can progress to syphilis

But given that Hahnemann had no access to diagnostic tests or even the knowledge of what yeasts were and how they differ from other causes of "internal itching", how do you know that at least some of the time, the condition he was seeing as "internal itching" wasn't actually caused by a yeast?

I think this was actually HC's original point. Hahnemann places so much emphasis on all this "internal itching" business, and bases most of the miasms stuff on it as far as I can see, but in fact he had no way to know whether any individual case wasn't caused by a yeast infection. So where does that leave his theorising?

Rolfe.

His term of "internal itch" meant the whole gamut of psoric symptoms it was the stain of psora - it could be mental illness, psoriasis, allergies, asthma... Actually most vaginal issues fell under another miasm altogether, not the miasm he called "itch". It was a term, not a symptom when he refered to it. I am trying to explain this clearly but apparently am not doing a good job.

 

[Barbrae]

But you haven't clarified anything at all. You have, as far as I can understand it, implied that Leela was using the terms as an analogy, not actually meaning what she was saying. However, there seems to be at least some reason to feel that she might not agree with you there.

Huh, and I thought I did a pretty good job of answering Hans question. Leela wasn't using an analogy. I'll repeat what I said before - she was saying the psoric miasm, caused by supressed skin disease in most cases, can worsen or lead to the syph miasm. there are hundreds of actual symptoms which fall under the heading of psora and hundreds under the heading of syph. So in the miasmatic theory, suppressed skin issues(psora) could lead to nervous disorders (syph) - for example . The only time the actual STD disease of syphilis comes into play is the somewhere down the line of the ancestorial tree Hahnemann believed somebody must have had suppressed syph. this could have come from a hundred years ago.

hans, please reply if this cleared up the confusion for you about psora actually causing the STD syph or not.

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Homeopath: Psora can progress to syphilis

His term of "internal itch" meant the whole gamut of psoric symptoms it was the stain of psora - it could be mental illness, psoriasis, allergies, asthma... Actually most vaginal issues fell under another miasm altogether, not the miasm he called "itch". It was a term, not a symptom when he refered to it. I am trying to explain this clearly but apparently am not doing a good job.

No, and that's not trying to be critical, it's just an observation.

You have to remember that although most of us here have read a great deal about homoeopathy and even what Hahnemann himself wrote, his miasms stuff bears so little relationship to the real world that it's very difficult for us real-world types to understand what he meant. It's always possible to say, Hahnemann said this, and then just repeat it or paraphrase it. And that's what you seem to be doing. But it doesn't get us anywhere.

Can you not try to explain what you, as an educated 21st century woman who understands what infectious disease is, and understands the terminology of real medicine, understand by "miasms". In terms we can actually follow, rather than assuming the validity of Hahnemann's own terminology and resorting to it?

Rolfe.

 

[Barbrae]

You have then gone on to post a garbled and barely-understandable load of stuff about one thing leading to another and parallels with particular medical situations regarding genetic disease and asthma/eczema, none of which seems to cast any light on how any of these conditions develop or interact, but mainly seeming to imply that it's all a metaphor.

Sigh, I didn't realize I was "garbled and barely understandable." You complain I didn't cast any light on how any of these conditions develop or interact. I did say how they developed, psora, suppressed skin disease - syph - suppressed syph. I was not here to delve into the hows and whys just to explain the whats. Hans asked a very specific question, which I was reluctant to get into in the first place but I do think I answered his question quite well.

 

[Rolfe]

Huh, and I thought I did a pretty good job of answering Hans question. Leela wasn't using an analogy. I'll repeat what I said before - she was saying the psoric miasm, caused by supressed skin disease in most cases, can worsen or lead to the syph miasm. ....

This is actually a good example of the problem. You are using Hahnemann's own terminology, as if the terms were valid and were describing things we all agree exist. What we are asking is, what did he mean by those terms, and do they describe anything that actually exists or has any validity as regards thinking about disease states.

You can't explain any of this by presupposing that we understand what you mean by these "miasms", or agree with you about what they are.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I'll have another go. You dispute that when Leela says "syphilis", she means the STD. You tell us that she means something else. But so far you haven't defined or explained that something else except in terms of analogies and metaphors, or in explanations which merely presuppose that there is some other meaning to the term.

So it's still very hard to understand what you think Leela means, in real terms. If she doesn't mean real syphilis, and it isn't a metaphor or analogy, and you can't explain it without presupposing the very terms we're trying to clarify, I fear you have a problem.

Rolfe.