Homeopath: Psora can progress to syphilis

[Zep]

Barb, let me try and help explain our problem.

It is as though you are using the word "car" in an explanation to mean car, wagon, truck, semi-trailer, fork-lift, railway carriage, bicycle, roller-skates or anything that vaguely travels on wheels. The word "car" has some quite specific meanings for most people. So using it in such a vague manner only serves to confuse.

Now, you are using the terms "miasm" and "itch" and "psora" to mean a whole bunch of very vague and mostly invented symptoms and conditions that Hanhemann may (or may not) have meant them to mean, beyond even what the words meant at the time. Whereas these words have much more specific meanings to most other people, especially to the medical specialists on this forum.

What is more, many of Hanhemann's terms are actually ancient terms for medical conditions that were vague in themselves even then. They were literally words used to describe the appearance of illnesses on the patient, failing anything else more specific. "Psora", for example, described ANY sores on the skin, regardless of the illness. Smallpox produced psora, so did measles, cholera, cowpox, allergies, eczema, and a whole bunch of things.

psora

Itch \Itch\, n. 1. (Med.) An eruption of small, isolated, acuminated vesicles, produced by the entrance of a parasitic mite (the Sarcoptes scabei), and attended with itching. It is transmissible by contact.

2. Any itching eruption.

3. A sensation in the skin occasioned (or resembling that occasioned) by the itch eruption; -- called also scabies, psora, etc.

4. A constant irritating desire.

psora

\Pso"ra\, n. [L., fr. Gr. ?.] (Med.) A cutaneous disease; especially, the itch.

www.dictionary.com

So it is no good simply trotting out Hanhemann's terms time and again to describe what is going on with homeopathy - they can mean literally anything and nothing to anyone else.

(The problem really is that Hanhemann stuffed up the whole homeopathic terminology thing in the first place with his whimsical use of vague terms he simply borrowed from the quacks and charletans of the time, and applying them haphazardly to his unsubstantiated notions on diseases.)

 

[Barbrae]

Barb, let me try and help explain our problem.

It is as though you are using the word "car" in an explanation to mean car, wagon, truck, semi-trailer, fork-lift, railway carriage, bicycle, roller-skates or anything that vaguely travels on wheels. The word "car" has some quite specific meanings for most people. So using it in such a vague manner only serves to confuse.

Now, you are using the terms "miasm" and "itch" and "psora" to mean a whole bunch of very vague and mostly invented symptoms and conditions that Hanhemann may (or may not) have meant them to mean, beyond even what the words meant at the time. Whereas these words have much more specific meanings to most other people, especially to the medical specialists on this forum.

What is more, many of Hanhemann's terms are actually ancient terms for medical conditions that were vague in themselves even then. They were literally words used to describe the appearance of illnesses on the patient, failing anything else more specific. "Psora", for example, described ANY sores on the skin, regardless of the illness. Smallpox produced psora, so did measles, cholera, cowpox, allergies, eczema, and a whole bunch of things.So it is no good simply trotting out Hanhemann's terms time and again to describe what is going on with homeopathy - they can mean literally anything and nothing to anyone else.

(The problem really is that Hanhemann stuffed up the whole homeopathic terminology thing in the first place with his whimsical use of vague terms he simply borrowed from the quacks and charletans of the time, and applying them haphazardly to his unsubstantiated notions on diseases.)

Well, I thought I had defined hahnemans terms - but willl do again.

Psora - the miasm (predisposition of certain disease) that is caused by the suppresion of a skin eruption. The symptoms of psora fall into a certain category so if a person has these symptoms you then look towards remedies useful for the psoric miasm.

syph - the miasm (predisposition of certain disease) that is caused by the suppression of the STD syph. The miasm exhibits certain symptoms that have been categorized and classified under the syph miasm.

 

[Rolfe]

Try again. If the syphilitic miasm isn't syphilis, and it isn't just some sort of metaphor for genetic susceptibility to disease or something like that, what in tarnation is it?

Rolfe.

 

[Barbrae]

It is, indeed a predisposition to certain disease (I said that). But since homeopaths don't really deal in "disease" but rather symptoms it is a predispostion to a certian symptoms. The list of symptoms is long - I already offered a handful that fit under this heading.

Oh, look what I found....

http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/pm_miasm.htm

 

[Barbrae]

so, do I believe in miams...do I believe in miasms...do I.....

well, that's a tricky one. I do believe that we do have predispositions to certain ailments. That some people develop anxiety from a stressor while another person develops headaches or depression. I believe some of these predispositions are genetic but that for others it may be soemthing altogether different. Perhaps something we haven't found yet. I believe that looking at the miasms while taking a homeoapthic case can be helpful and have found it to be so. If I have a client with several sycotic symptoms I find it useful to take a very close look at those remedies that cover the sycotic miasm. Of course with any case you look at the remedies that cover the symptoms, with miasms it is a nice way to categorize the remedies for each - it makes things easier. Intead of sifting through soem 3000 remeides you can cut it down to 30 or so.

I do think that the predispositions do run in families. (part of the miasmatic theory)

I do think that supression of one symptom can lead to others(part of the miasmatic theory).

I do also believe that germs cause illness - goes against miasmatic theory - (whether it be fungal, bacterial or viral) BUT that even with these there is often a factor of "predisposition". For instance, there are kids in my daughter class that get repeated bouts of strep throat, over an dover again. They have a wekness that predisposes them to suffer fromt he strep, without that weakness they wouldn't keep getting it - likewise without the streptoccocal bacterium they wouldn't get it either.

So do I believe in the entire miasmatic thinking established 200 years ago - no. Do I beleiev in parts of it, or do I find it has value as a homeopath, am I able to see it as it relates to modern day knowledge - yes.


Okay, none of this is posted as a claim, nor as evidence for anything nor as a way to convince anyone of anything so no need to ask for proof or evidence or to even get into a debate about it. Rolfe and CF asked my opinion on the topic - this is it - simple.

 

[Rolfe]

I do believe that we do have predispositions to certain ailments. That some people develop anxiety from a stressor while another person develops headaches or depression. I believe some of these predispositions are genetic but that for others it may be soemthing altogether different. Perhaps something we haven't found yet.

Indeed, no disagreements there. Except that it is becoming ever more likely that far more of these things will turn out to be genetic than we even suspected 20 years ago.

I believe that looking at the miasms while taking a homeoapthic case can be helpful and have found it to be so. If I have a client with several sycotic symptoms I find it useful to take a very close look at those remedies that cover the sycotic miasm. Of course with any case you look at the remedies that cover the symptoms, with miasms it is a nice way to categorize the remedies for each - it makes things easier. Intead of sifting through soem 3000 remeides you can cut it down to 30 or so.

I'm trying to see how that's helpful, but not succeeding. You've gone directly to talking about "the sycotic miasm" as if we all agreed what it was and it had been defined. But really, it's just homoeopath-speak that so far has failed to mean anything at all to us.

I do think that the predispositions do run in families. (part of the miasmatic theory)

But far more rationally explained by modern genetics - why do you need miasms here?

I do think that supression of one symptom can lead to others(part of the miasmatic theory).

And again we're back to homoeopath-speak that seems not to be describing anything that really happens in the real world. I think you'd need to go into "the miasmatic theory" in a lot more detail before we had a hope of understanding what you mean, and if it has any objective reality.

So do I believe in the entire miasmatic thinking established 200 years ago - no. Do I beleiev in parts of it, or do I find it has value as a homeopath, am I able to see it as it relates to modern day knowledge - yes.

So you reject parts of the 200-year-old doctrine, but try to retain others. This does rather raise the question as to why you find any need to retain any of it at all, as none of it is necessary to explain any observed phenomena.

However, it's the part about relating the parts you retain to modern-day knowledge I'm just not getting. You say things that are quite sensible, like certain people have genetic predispositions to certain diseases, but you don't explain in any meaningful way how what you later assert about miasms relates to that or to any other part of real-world knowledge.

Originally, you posted the whole nine yards, without any qualification as to whether you yourself believed it or not. I think it's helpful that you're starting to clarify that a bit now, but I still don't understand why you see any need to espouse any of the miasms stuff. What does it explain for you that no rational explanation can? If it's just a system of classifying remedies, then maybe that's it, but you still seem to by saying you think it has more validity than that. Do you understand why both I and Psiload reacted with stunned incredulity to the idea that anyone in the 21st century with enough brain to turn on a computer could believe what you intially posted? Why do you still need to keep any of this partly-discarded nonsense?

Rolfe.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I'm going to let Barb slightly off the hook on this one and explain why I have generally not bothered to engage and criticise homeopaths and their talk of miasms.

First off let me state that I think they are fairy stories, but that doesn't make them 100% wrong and that is the reason for their potency and persistence, but I think it is an almost irrelevant territory for us to fight over.

As far as I can see, "miasms" esentially provide a structure on which to hang rather woolly and vague overall judgements of a person's condition. To that extent they provide a descriptive framework that lies parallel to a proper medical description of someone's persona;ity. But, there lies the rub, they may apply with some accuracy as a description of personality, but they then are made to aplyto physical diseases. Now, we accept thta there are loose connections between psychology and physical disease, but they are just that, loose. Once you start trying to make specific statements about disease then it is no god describing someone as having the "syphilitic miasm" and to explain why they are prone to stomach ulcers. They have H. pylori and are prone to stomach ulcers. You may ask why they have H. pylori and why in that person H. pyolori causes an ulcer, but not in another person, but there you have to leave a description in terms of miasms far behind.

It's already been brought up, but Mal-Aria is not in itself a term denoting a false observation, but it is a term denoting an incomplete understanding. What the homeopaths have done is shackle themselves to a 200-year old misconception and over-extend the analogies that it has created.

In other words, the notion of miasms as a descriptor of psychological and physiological states is not 100% wrong, but it is more than 90% wrong and fails uttery once you start asking more detailed questions. But the homeopaths keep a firm hold of the vague ring of truth miasms have about them, which then restricts their ability to learn anything new.

Thus, there are links between eczema and asthma, and there are hints of those links in a miasmatic description of hem, but that description is completely useless if you want to understand the mechanisms and treatments of these conditions.

As ever, homepathy was frozen 200-years ago and any attempt to bring it into the modern world causes it to fracture, which is why it will not be possible for Barb to rationally explain why and how she aplis some parts of miasmatic theory and not others. If you apply modern thinking to nay part of it, the whole lot goes.

Finally then, miasms are not literally true, nor are they a metaphor, they are an antique way of describing disease that has been kept alive by homeopaths.

 

[Mojo]

I believe that looking at the miasms while taking a homeoapthic case can be helpful and have found it to be so. If I have a client with several sycotic symptoms I find it useful to take a very close look at those remedies that cover the sycotic miasm.

Barb, you defined "psora" and the "syph miasm" in one of your posts yesterday, but not this one. How do you define the sycotic miasm?

 

[Barbrae]

Barb, you defined "psora" and the "syph miasm" in one of your posts yesterday, but not this one. How do you define the sycotic miasm?

Mojo, it represents the same thing as far as beig a predisposition to certain conditions go. It is caused or triggered by suppressed gonhorrhea though, like with syph it doesn't necessarily mean anyone had that STD for generations - just somewhere down the line. Like with psora and syph there are specific cymptoms that are listed under this heading and many are related to urinary or sexual organs, WARTS or any WARTY-LIKE growths are a keynote symptom. Moles too. AN affinity for mucous mmembranes - and a hundred other symptoms. The personality features are secretive, fixed, unmovable. Always trying to hide and cover up their weaknesses. They have routine habits, routine states - follow routines in everyday life. They have a guitly conscience, and are always afraid something bad will happen. They feel they will fail so they don't take up responsabilities. This is my favorite miasm.

now, many modern homeopaths have extended the miasm theory to include several other miasms including: cancer miasm, Tubercular miasm, and even an "acute" miasm. I don't know if this widely accepted or not.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It is caused or triggered by suppressed gonhorrhea though, like with syph it doesn't necessarily mean anyone had that STD for generations - just somewhere down the line.

Now this is where we part company.

What is the basis for this assertion? Why should we believe this to be true?

It would, of course, be unlikely that you could find anyone without one of those STD's in their family tree if you dig back far enough.

 

[Barbrae]

This does rather raise the question as to why you find any need to retain any of it at all, as none of it is necessary to explain any observed phenomena.

I find it very useful as a homeopath, in case taking and remedy selection. When I see a client who is reserved, suffers from vaginal warts, has many moles and has anxiety based upon not being able to do their job well I think, "hmmm...sycotic miasm" I then get out my rep and MM and begin searching for the leading remedy for the case. There are also relations among the miasms which is helpful with cases too. When you may see one miasmatic state ina persons past but it doesn't quite fit the current picture - you ask yourself "well, where are we now, if they were cleary sycotic before could they have gon e into a cancer maismatc state - the cancer miasm lies between a sycotic and syph state.

 

[Barbrae]

Now this is where we part company.

What is the basis for this assertion? Why should we believe this to be true?

It would, of course, be unlikely that you could find anyone without one of those STD's in their family tree if you dig back far enough.

I am not even saying I do believe that to be true - it is the definition of sycotic which was what was asked for. The only reason to believe it to be true would be based on Hahnemanns work regarding the miasms.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I am not even saying I do believe that to be true - it is the definition of sycotic which was what was asked for. The only reason to believe it to be true would be based on Hahnemanns work regarding the miasms.

Please don't start playing that game again. You said;

" It is caused or triggered by suppressed gonhorrhea though, like with syph it doesn't necessarily mean anyone had that STD for generations - just somewhere down the line."

That is a plain assertion. You can't just say "I am not even saying I do believe that to be true" and shrug off responsibility for the content of the assertion.

And put some mental effort in, for goodness sake. You pass the blame back to Hahnemann. If I say that these were equally baseless assertions when he made them, what basis of argument or evidence are you going to come up with to rebut me? Are you really utterly incapable of showing independence of thought? Hahnemann just made this stuff up.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I find it very useful as a homeopath, in case taking and remedy selection. When I see a client who is reserved, suffers from vaginal warts, has many moles and has anxiety based upon not being able to do their job well I think, "hmmm...sycotic miasm" I then get out my rep and MM and begin searching for the leading remedy for the case.

Which is entirely consistent with what I said about miasms. They are a label you use to describe a set of symptoms. Obviously you are going to find people to whom you can stick that label. They have persisted for 200 years and if they didn't function as labels they would have fallen into disuse.

It makes no real practical difference to the management of the case because they all get sugar pills anyway and the disease goes whatever merry way it was going anyway.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

Sorry for the rewind, I have been busy for a couple of days.

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.

Wrong? Leela VERY clearly (provided she writes standard English) stated that miasms progress to syphilis. Somebody asked her to clarify, and she confirmed it. I, and somebody else have asked again, but she has not answered so far. So I suggest you stop guessing what Leela means (unless YOU are Leela ).

My discussion of miasms IS IN NO WAY OFFERED AS A "SINGLE SHRED OF RELEVENCE IN MODERN MEDICINE".

Good for you . ......But then, why do you think it will interest us?

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.

OK, enough disclaimers, move on

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.


Hey? This post is all disclaimers???

Uhhhh, what were you going to say????

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

No, sorry, it does not. Leela did not say "syphilistic miasm", she said "syphilis".

But I understand from your convoluted, and rather desperate explanations that, although you evidently hate to say so, you disagree. Well, good for you .

I frankly don't give a damn what Hahnemann believed, but the STD syphilis does not come down the ancestorial three. It is an INFECTION.

May I suggest you simply quit the hand-waving and admit that one of your collegueas is off the deep end? I mean, we don't really expect you to agree with EVERYTHING any homeopath on the planet says. Actually, since they are rather busy contradicting each other, SOME of them gotta be wrong, SOMETIMES .

Hans

 

[Barbrae]

Please don't start playing that game again. You said;

" It is caused or triggered by suppressed gonhorrhea though, like with syph it doesn't necessarily mean anyone had that STD for generations - just somewhere down the line."

That is a plain assertion. You can't just say "I am not even saying I do believe that to be true" and shrug off responsibility for the content of the assertion.

And put some mental effort in, for goodness sake. You pass the blame back to Hahnemann. If I say that these were equally baseless assertions when he made them, what basis of argument or evidence are you going to come up with to rebut me? Are you really utterly incapable of showing independence of thought? Hahnemann just made this stuff up.

BSM - that is it's definition - to define the sycotic miasm it is th epredisposition of certain symptoms caused by the suppression of the STD. Whether or not it is baseed on fact has nothing to do with the definition which is what I was asked for.

I can aslo define God, ghosts, demons, angels.... a miariad of other things that have no bearing on whether or not I believe in them - it is their definition. I wasn't asked by mojo what I think or believe or anything, just to define it.

 

[Barbrae]

No, sorry, it does not. Leela did not say "syphilistic miasm", she said "syphilis".

But I understand from your convoluted, and rather desperate explanations that, although you evidently hate to say so, you disagree. Well, good for you .

I frankly don't give a damn what Hahnemann believed, but the STD syphilis does not come down the ancestorial three. It is an INFECTION.

May I suggest you simply quit the hand-waving and admit that one of your collegueas is off the deep end? I mean, we don't really expect you to agree with EVERYTHING any homeopath on the planet says. Actually, since they are rather busy contradicting each other, SOME of them gotta be wrong, SOMETIMES .

Hans

No, I actually don't disagree with leela. I do think that those symptoms that fall under the heading of psora can indeed be suppressed or left alone enough to transcend to syph. Many of us say syphilis when describing the miasm instead of the syphilitic miasm. Hahnemann didn't believe the STD was passed on through the ancestorial tree either, I said that. You are egtting hung up on the STD, the syph miasm (what is passsed on) has nothign to do with syph other than somewhere sometime someone had it - the STD is not the miasm and the STD is nto what is passed on.

 

[Barbrae]

Hans,

My discussion of miasms IS IN NO WAY OFFERED AS A "SINGLE SHRED OF RELEVENCE IN MODERN MEDICINE".

you ask why then I even wrote it -why would I think it interested you. Because YOU asked me to explain it!!!! Helllloooooo??? YOu didn't ask me to prove anything but you asked me to explain what leela meant. That is why I thought it would interest you, because YOU asked.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

BSM - that is it's definition - to define the sycotic miasm it is th epredisposition of certain symptoms caused by the suppression of the STD. Whether or not it is baseed on fact has nothing to do with the definition which is what I was asked for.

I can aslo define God, ghosts, demons, angels.... a miariad of other things that have no bearing on whether or not I believe in them - it is their definition. I wasn't asked by mojo what I think or believe or anything, just to define it.

Yeah right. So this hypothetical thing defined by Hahnemann has no relevance to your modern practice. Except;

" I find it very useful as a homeopath, in case taking and remedy selection. When I see a client who is reserved, suffers from vaginal warts, has many moles and has anxiety based upon not being able to do their job well I think, "hmmm...sycotic miasm" I then get out my rep and MM and begin searching for the leading remedy for the case. There are also relations among the miasms which is helpful with cases too. When you may see one miasmatic state ina persons past but it doesn't quite fit the current picture - you ask yourself "well, where are we now, if they were cleary sycotic before could they have gon e into a cancer maismatc state - the cancer miasm lies between a sycotic and syph state."

So this thing that you are prepared to define but not prepared to admit you believe in is nonetheless "very useful... in case taking and remedy selection".

Oh dear, oh dear.

Perhaps, instead of all this shilly-shallying around the terms of the discussion, you could state clearly what it is that you do believe to be true and explain the reasons why. You see, unlike the rest of homeopathy, which you claim to believe in because of experience, you cannot claim to have experienced the effects of syphilis affecting people, yay even unto the 5th generation, or whatever. If you believe it, it is because you believe Hahnemann verbatim even though he advances no reasons for this superstitious nonsense. Why would any sane person do that?