Category Archives: miasm

Understanding Miasms.

There has been little understanding of Hahnemanns 12 year study of Chronic Diseases and the isolation of three infecting agents and the disease progression and processes that can be passed down through the generations.

Only by studying the writings of Hahnemann and following the step by step conclusions he came to, will the profession be able to see the validity of his observations and treatment protocols.

Understanding Miasms in the modern vernacular and comprehending the scientific principles which are mirrored in current medical understanding of chronic disease process, will give us the tools to treat utilising the potentised medicines and fix a patient.

Some homoeopaths use the Kentian model of attributing a miasm to certain diseases, usually based on Kents theory of moralness, whereas Hahnemann showed clear directions in a clinical comprehension. 

One comment. When Boenninghausen was writing his Materia Medica and categorising each remedy to a miasm, Hahnemann told him to put all the remedies together.

Food for thought.

Explained in our Seminars. 




Kents incorrect interpretation of Miasms.

The IHM present the Hahnemannian view in its lectures and seminars with references and commentary.

by Peter Morrell

The theory of miasms originates in Hahnemann’s book The Chronic Diseases which was published in 1828, around the same time that he decided to fix 30c as the standard potency for all homoeopaths. He declared that the theory was the result of 12 years of the most painstaking work on difficult cases of a chronic character combined with his own historical research into the diseases of man.

The three miasms given in that work are held to be responsible for all disease of a chronic nature and to form the foundation or basis for all disease in general. This latter aspect was then to receive considerable amplification from Kent. Kent was also able to clearly identify those remedies that relate to each miasm.

Though now generally accepted by most homeopaths without question, at the time, the theory was generally greeted with disbelief and derision from all but the most devoted followers. This can be explained in part by the primitive nature of medical science at that time, which was not really very willing accommodate any theory for the origin of disease, least of all such a grand and all-embracing one.

The word miasm means a cloud or fog in the being. The theory suggests that if 100% of all disease is miasmatic, then 85% is due to the primary and atavistic miasm Hahnemann called Psora. The remaining 15% of all disease he held to be either syphilitic or sycotic, being derived from suppressed Syphilis or suppressed Gonorrhoea. Hahnemann unlike Kent later attached no moral dimension whatsoever to the sexual nature of the two latter miasms. Kent of course, emphasised this a great deal. Which is hardly surprising in the somewhat Puritanical atmosphere of nineteenth century small town America.

Taking them in reverse order, we can depict the main characteristic features of each miasm.


This miasm is held to be responsible for many sexual and urinary disorders, and affections of the joints and the mucous membranes. Also those conditions worsened by damp weather and by contact with the sea. Thus arthritis and rheumatism, asthma, catarrhs, bronchitis, cystitis and warts are all regarded as partly or mainly sycotic in character. The wart came to be seen as the underlying archetype of this miasm as it is also held to be responsible for all warty excrescences and growths. Chief remedies are Thuja, Lycopodium, Natrum sulph, Causticum, Kali sulph, Staphysagria, Calc and Sepia amongst many others.


This miasm is held to be responsible for many diseases of the nervous system, the blood and skeleton as well as a range of psychological disorders, including alcoholism, depression, suicidal impulses, insanity, loss of smell and taste, blindness, deafness and ulcerations. It is also associated with many heart conditions, some vesicular skin eruptions and diseases that have a definite nocturnal periodicity. Chief remedies are Arsenicum, Aurum, Mercury, Phosphorus and Lycopodium, Nitric acid, amongst many others.


The word Psora is derived from the Hebrew ‘Tsorat’ and Greek ‘Psora’ and means a groove or stigma. Hahnemann held that all non venereal chronic diseases are Psoric. That includes most diseases of a chronic nature, all skin diseases, most mental illness other than syphilitic ones, allergies, varicose veins, haemorrhoids, most dysfunctional diseases of organs and systems, etc.

He lists among others, catarrhs, asthma, pleurisy, haemoptysis, hydrocephalus, stomach ulcers, scrotal swelling, jaundice, swollen glands, cataract, diabetes, tuberculosis, epilepsy, fevers and suppressed urine as all being typically psoric manifestations. Plus, of course, the whole gamut of skin problems.

Chief Psoric remedies he suggests include Sulphur, Natrum mur, Calc carb, Arsen alb, Lycopodium, Phosphorus, Mezereum, Graphite, Causticum, Hepar sulph, Petroleum, Silica, Zinc and Psorinum amongst many others.

Hahnemann also claimed that Psora was the most ancient and insidious miasm, and that it was derived from skin eruptions of various types in the past, such as scabies (Itch), leprosy and psoriasis. These had been contracted by ancestors or in one’s own early childhood. The suppression of these conditions especially through the use of ointments he held to be the primary cause of Psora.

Kent, in his Lectures, then greatly enlarged upon the theory, proposing that Psora was the foundation of all other illness, without which mankind would be pure and healthy both in mind and body, as in the Garden of Eden. He thus regarded Psora as being equated with the ‘Fall of Man’ and with original sinfulness. He portrayed Psora in this highly moralistic light as also being the foundation of the sexual miasms that came later.

I think it is abundantly clear from these quotes that Kent took a very puritanical and moral line about the origins of disease within the human race and he apparently felt that Psora was equivalent to Original Sin or the Fall of Man.

Hahnemann also pointed out the origins of his theory and the remedies that he decided had the power to eradicate the symptoms of a particular miasm.

The lists of miasmic remedies that Kent gives on page 1406 of his Repertory are as follows:

SYPHILIS : Arg-m., Ars-i.ars-s-f., ars., asaf., Aur-m-n.Aur-m.Aur., bad., benz-ac., calc-i., calc-s., carb-an., carb-v., cinnb., clem., con., cor-r., crot-h., fl-ac., guai., hep., iod., kali-ar., kali-bi., kali-chl., Kali-i.Kali-s.lach., led., Merc-c.Merc-i-f.Merc-i-r.Merc.mez., Nit-ac., petr., ph-ac., phos., Phyt.sars., Sil.staph., Still.sul-i., sulph., Syph.thuj.

SYCOSIS : Agar., alum., alumn., anac., ant-c., ant-t., apis., aran., Arg-m.Arg-n.aster., aur-m., aur., bar-c., bry., calc., carb-an., carb-s., carb-v., caust., cham., cinnb., con., dulc., euphr., ferr., fl-ac., graph., hep., iod., kali-c., Kali-s.lach., lyc., mang., Med., merc., mez., Nat-s.Nit-ac., petr., phyt., puls., sabin., sars., sec., sel., Sep.sil., Staph.sulph., Thuj.

These are exactly the same as the lists given on p86 of Speight’s work on the miasms.

Hahnemann lists the following as Psoric remedies in the Chronic Diseases:
agar, alumina, ammon carb, ammon mur, anacardium, antimon crudum, arsen alb, aurum, aurum mur, bar carb, borax, calc carb, carbo an, carbo veg, caust, clem, colocynth, conium, cuprum, dig, dulc, euphorbium, graph, guaj, hepar, iodium, kali carb, lyc, mag carb, mag mur, manganum, mez, mur ac, nat carb, nat mur, nitric acid, nitrium, petroleum, phos, phos ac, platina, sars, sepia, silica, stannum, sulph, sulp ac, zincum.

To discover the true psoric remedies we must add together the remedies listed in the Repertory for a range of ‘psoric’ conditions. This means checking carefully all the symptoms and repertorising for all of them, gradually building up a master list of remedies that fit Psoric conditions. This exercise was highly recommended by Kent as a sure way of fixing in the mind the remedies of a particular miasm. It is also an excellent introduction to the miasms generally and is good for revision purposes. With computer programs like Radar and Cara this task become a lot easier than it was in Kent’s or Hahnemann’s day.

Taking some of Hahnemann’s list of psoric conditions given above we can find the corresponding remedies as follows:

Phthisis (Kent p879) : Acet-ac., Agar., ant-t., ars-i., ars., bar-m., brom., bufo., Calc-p.calc-s., Calc.carb-an., carb-s., carb-v., card-m., chlor., con., dros., dulc., elaps., ferr-i., ferr-p., fl-ac., graph., guai., Hep., hippoz., Iod., kali-ar., Kali-c.kali-n., kali-p., Kali-s.kreos., lac-d., lach., led.,, merc., mill., myrt., nat-a., nat-m., nit-ac., ol-j., ox-ac., petr., ph-ac., Phos.plb., Psor.Puls., samb., sang., Senec.seneg., sep., Sil.Spong.Stann., still., sul-ac., Sulph.Ther.Tub.Zinc.

Hayfever (Kent p326) : Ail., All-c.ars-i., ars., arum-t., Arund., bad., brom., carb-v., cycl., dulc., euphr., gels., iod., kali-bi., kali-i., kali-p., lach., naja., Nat-m., nux-v., Psor.puls., ran-b., Sabad.sang., sil., Sin-n.stict., teucr., wye.

Diabetes (Kent p691) : Acet-ac., all-s., alumn., am-c., aml-n., arg-m., ars., benz-ac., Bov.calc-p., calc., camph., carb-ac., carb-v., chel., chin-a., chin., coff., colch., conv., cupr., cur., elaps., ferr-m., Helon.hep., iris., kali-chl., kali-n., kali-p., kreos., lac-d., lach., lact-ac., lec., lith., Lyc.lycps., lyss., mag-s., med., morph., mosch., nat-s., nit-ac., op., petr., Ph-ac.Phos.pic-ac., Plb.podo., rat., sal-ac., sec., sil., sul-ac., sulph., Tarent.Ter.thuj., Uran., zinc.

Varices lower limbs (Kent p1223) : Ambr., arg-n., Arn.ars., calc-f., calc-p., Calc.carb-s., Carb-v., card-m., caust., clem., crot-h., ferr-ar., ferr., Fl-ac.graph., Ham.hep., kali-ar., kreos., lac-c., lach., Lyc.Lycps.nat-m., plb., Puls., sabin., sars., sil., spig., sul-ac., sulph., thuj., vip., Zinc.

Eczema (Kent p1312) : Alum., am-c., am-m., anac., ant-c., arg-n., Ars-i.Ars., astac., aur-m., aur., Bar-m., bell., bor., brom., bry., calad., Calc-s.Calc., canth., carb-ac., carb-s., carb-v., caust., Cic., clem., cop., Crot-t., cycl., Dulc., fl-ac., Graph.Hep., hydr., iris., Jug-c.Jug-r.kali-ar., kali-bi., kali-c., kali-chl., kali-s., lach., Lappa-m., led., lith., lyc., merc., Mez., nat-m., nat-p., nat-s., nit-ac., Olnd.Petr., phos., phyt., Psor.ran-b., Rhus-t., rhus-v., sars., sep., sil., staph., Sul-i.Sulph.thuj., viol-t.

Psoriasis (Kent p1316) : Alum., am-c., ambr., Ars-i.ars., aur., bor., bry., bufo., calc-s., calc., canth., carb-ac., chin., clem., cor-r., cupr., dulc., iod., iris., kali-ar., kali-br., kali-c., kali-p., kali-s., led., lob., Lyc., mag-c., mang., merc-c., merc-i-r., merc., mez., nit-ac., nuph., petr., ph-ac., phos., Phyt.psor., puls., ran-b., rhus-t., sarr., sars., Sep.sil., sulph., tell., teucr., thuj.

Herpetic skin eruptions (Kent p1312) : Acet-ac., agar., alum., am-c., ambr., anac., anan., apis., ars-i., Ars., aster., aur., bar-c., bar-m., bell., berb., bor., Bov.bry., bufo., cadm., calad., Calc-s.Calc., caps., carb-an., Carb-s.carb-v., caust., chel., cic., cist., Clem., cocc., com., Con., crot-h., crot-t., cupr., cycl., dol., Dulc.Graph., grat., hell., hep., hyos., iod., iris., kali-ar., kali-c., kali-chl., kali-i., kali-n., kali-p., kali-s., kalm., kreos., lac-c., lach., led., Lyc., mag-c., mag-m., manc., mang., Merc., mez., mosch., mur-ac., nat-a., nat-c., Nat-m., nat-p., nat-s., nit-ac., nux-v., olnd., par., petr., ph-ac., phos., plb., psor., puls., ran-b., ran-s., Rhus-t., rob., rumx., ruta., sabad., sars., Sep.Sil., spig., spong., squil., stann., staph., sul-ac., Sulph., tarax., Tell., teucr., thuj., valer., viol-t., zinc.

The idea is then to compact this data down by deleting all those remedies that only occur once or twice and then totalling up all the scores until we get a master list of 40 or so highest scoring remedies. It is these that are the major Psoric remedies. In essence, this is the method Hahnemann himself used to establish both the miasms and their corresponding remedies.

Since the 1950’s it has been claimed that Tuberculosis and Cancer have developed into new miasms in their own right, most probably as offshoots of what Hahnemann termed the ‘Hydra headed Psora miasm’ (The Chronic Diseases, p14).

59 symptoms and major conditions were selected and repertorised using Kent’s Rep. The symptoms were as follows:

TB (p879), TB incipient (p879), TB pituitous (p879), scabies (p1318), pso riasis (p1316), dandruff (p114), hair loss (p120), leprosy (p1314), cancer (p1346), cancer lupus (p1346), leukaemia (p1370), diabetes (p691), cataract (p236), blindness (p281), long sightedness (p280), short sightedness (p283), lack of reaction (p1397), takes cold easily (p1349), swollen neck glands (p474), indurated glands neck (p472), swollen tonsils (p469), swollen axillary glands (p880 1), buboes (p541), goitre (pp471), tooth decay (p431), deafness (p323), insanity (p56), asthma (p763), liver (p563), haemorrhoids (p619), itching anus (p622), offensive stools (p640), varicosities (p1223), numbness (limbs p1035), chilblains (p955), sweaty feet (p1183), offensive foot sweats (p1183), halitosis (p409), nasal crusts (p330), perianal moisture (p623), hayfever (p326), foul flatus (p618), cracking joints (p970), worms (p634), ulcers on legs (p1231), ringworm, Haemoptysis (p813), Hydrocephalus (p128), Stomach ulcers (p531), Scrotal swelling (p712), Jaundice (p1307), Dysuria (p656), Eczema (p1312), Psoriasis (p1316), Herpetic skin eruptions (p1312), Crusty skin eruptions (p1310), pleurisy (p836), epilepsy, swollen inguinal glands (p603),

These symptoms were chosen as they are in the list given by Hahnemann as of ‘latent psora’ or they are major diseases of modern life, which I have assumed to be predominantly more psoric than syph or sycotic. I have assumed, like Hahnemann, that they are derived from suppressed scabies, leprosy or plague. They are disorders mentioned in Hahnemann’s Chronic Diseases as often being the products of suppressed itch, or they are skin disorders in their own right. To an extent one major justification for choosing these symptoms is that they have all increased during for choosing these symptoms is that they have all increased during this century, which many take to be a confirmation of the Psora doctrine. The symptoms come from Chronic Diseases pp52 77 and include the expanded list he gives plus those listed by Juncker. Also included are those symptoms as major past or present diseases. All of these are assumed to be broadly psoric in accordance with Hahnemann’s descriptions of the miasm.

If the symptoms used in this analysis are truly psoric; if Kent’s Repertory is generally accurate; if the scoring system adopted here is OK; and if Hahnemann’s list, expanded list, the assertions of Juncker and my own observations regarding Psorinum and conditions are all correct then the following remedies cannot be seriously considered as being truly Psoric remedies.

These are Am m, anac, ant t, arg m, aur m, borax, bovista, bromium, camphor, cantharis, carb ac, cistus, clematis, occculus, colchicum, colocynthis, crot h, digitalis, euphorbium, ferrum, ferr phos, guaj, kali chlor, kali nit, ledum, mag carb, mag mur, manganum, merc c, mur ac, nat ars, nat phos, platina, podophy, sang, sarsap, secale, selenium, spigelia, spongia, tarantula, veratrum. They are important remedies but they are not truly psoric.

This exercise now reduces Hahnemann’s original list of 47 antipsorics to 32. It is possible that Hahnemann based his list of 47 on what he knew about them at that time. He simply fitted maybe? the symptoms of latent psora to those remedies he had proved at that time. The result was his list of 47.

I believe the claims made above are correct and that the remedies listed are not antipsorics. If a remedy is incapable of scoring more than 22 points out of a maximum of 120, then it cannot seriously be considered to cover that range and depth of major human diseases and is thus NOT a very profound remedy. And to be considered psoric a remedy must be profound. It must cover the major diseases of humanity as well as the symptoms of latent psora.

The preliminary results of repertorisation can be given as follows:

agar, alum, anac, ant c, ant t, apis, arg m, ars, ars i, ambr, aur, bar c, bar m, bov, brom, bry, bufo, CALC, calc p, calc s, canth, carb ac, carb an, carb s, carb v, caust, cham, chel, chin, cist, cocc, colch, con, crot h, cupr, dulc, fl ac, graph, hep, iod, kali ar, kali ci, kali carb, kali i, kali p, kali s, kreos, LACH, led, LYC, mag c, mag m, med, merc, merc c, mez, nat ar, nat c, nat m, nat p, nat s, nit ac, nux, petr, ph ac, PHOS, phyt, plat, plmb, podoph, psor, Puls, sang, sec, sep, SIL, spig, spong, stann, staph, SULPH, sul ac, tarent, thuja, tub, verat a, zinc.

However, this is not the full results for the entire run. It just indicates the main thrust. There are many remedies here that fail to match up in range or depth to our expectations of a truly psoric remedy.

An alternative method using the page-length entry of the entry of each remedy in Hahnemann gives the following:

agar, alumina, am c, anac, ant c, ARS, aur, aur m, bar c, CALC, carb an, CARB V, caust, con, cupr, dulc, graph, hep, iod, KALI C, LYC, mag c, mag m, mez, nat c, nat m, NIT AC, petr, PHOS, ph ac, plat, SEP, SIL, stann, SUL, sul ac, zinc

Two other problem about miasms relate to a) where the miasms are stored and what they actually are and b) to how the miasms can be used in practice. On the first point it may be that the miasms are archetypes in the unconscious mind, or it may be that they are stored in the DNA or some other large molecule within the organism. These are just possibilities. Many would say ‘what does it matter?’

On the point about the use of miasms in treatment, many people routinely give the corresponding nosode. For example to a child born with syphilitic skin vesicles, they might give Syphilinum rather than the simillimum say Merc. This would tend to be seen as an inappropriate use of the miasm concept, as the simillimum is what the patient needs, not the nosode. The routine use of Psorinum, Medorrhinum and Syphilinum is in general frowned upon because it is the simillimum that the patient needs and that will cure. Certainly the nosodes can do good work, but it should be used when it be comes the simillimum not just routinely.


The miasm theory presents at least two main problems. The first is whether it is real or not and the second is how it has been variously interpreted in homoeopathy and how it continues to be interpreted in the clinical situation and for guiding and interpreting the unfolding of symptoms in a case receiv ing treatment. Clearly, if all chronic disease is miasmatic then surely all curative remedies must be miasmatic remedies. Thus Nux vom, Aconite, Bella donna and Rhus tox, etc cannot cure any chronic disorders. So what if they do cure such conditions? Does this prove the theory wrong or are they bigger remedies than people thought?

Another problem is whether all the so called ‘miasmatic remedies’ are really as important as they appear to be. How many people actually use Manganum, Iris, Am c, Am m, etc. Do such cases ever crop up in regular practice? If so, only very rarely. If they don’t correspond to many persons then why are they classed as Psoric? Could it not be that they are more likely ‘lesser remedies’ that ape some of the features of true psorics?

Maybe modern homoeopaths should more seriously question its validity. Though we do not have space here to discuss this in any great depth, the theory does present these two problems and all I can do here is to outline their nature.

The miasms doctrine has also become unfortunately and perhaps unnecessarily tangled up both with Hering’s Law and with Kentian metaphysics. Both of which are suspect on a number of grounds relating directly to actual practice. Hering’s Law claims that symptoms get better under treatment in the reverse order of their appearance, from top downwards and from centre to circumference. Is this true? Under the influence of deep constitutional ie miasmatic remedies the law should be confirmed in this way. What l ie miasmatic remedies the law should be confirmed in this way. What if it isn’t? Does that mean that the case is not cured or that the law is inaccurate? If the cure does not proceed in this way is it a true cure or merely a suppression? Is the remedy the true simillimum? Questions of this kind can lead straight into a wilderness of thorns and brambles where everything seems uncertain and painful!

Finally, on Kentian grounds the miasms and their remedies are regarded as ‘high homoeopathy’, the ultimate and only true homoeopathy, acting in that hallowed and rarefied realm of disease causation. This somewhat snooty view of homoeopathy has been questioned before. Is it a real claimant of the high ground or a pretender? Again, many years of observant practice are required to answer this question for yourself.

Danciger, Elizabeth, 1993, Letter re Vital Force, The Homeoopath, 50, pp.92-4
Hahnemann, Lesser Writings
Hahnemann, 1828, The Chronic Diseases,
The Homoeopath, 1995, Long Term Treatment & Chronic Disease, Issue 59, pp.453-460.
Kent, James Tyler, c1900, Repertory of Homoeopathic Medicines, Jain
Kent, 1900, Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy
Kent, 1900, Lesser Writings, Aphorisms and Precepts, Jain
Miles, Martin, 1995, Homoeopathy In The 21st Century, Prometheus Unbound 2:1, Autumn 1995, pp.35-37
Morrell, Peter, 1984, Homoeopathic Health Revolution, The Homoeopath 4:3, London
Morrell, Peter, 1983, On the nature of life, The Homoeopath 3:3, London
Morrell, Peter, 1987, Psorinum, The Homoeopath, 6:4, London
Norland, 1991, The Roots of Suffering: Buddhism and the Miasms, The Homoeopath 11:3, Sept 1991, pp.77-82
Shemmer, Yair, 1993, Vital Force: a view to the future, The Homoeopath 13:2, june 1993, pp.66-70
Speight, Phyllis, 1948, A Comparison of The Chronic Miasms, C W Daniel Co

Further thoughts on Psora

A lot of reflective thinking today. If disease development follows infection along a pathway, for example Tuberculosis, there is a known pathology in the aetiology. We expect a singular disease expression. However, Hahnemann opened the concept that all non venereal disease could be linked in some way. He attributed it to skin ailments which could cause internal problems, and of course has had thousands of years to modify.

Conceptually, I accept the link. How it works even evaded Hahnemanns thinking, so he left the matter open for further investigation and consideration.

Here is where I am with it all. Its my thoughts and I take full responsibility if Im wrong…

There is nothing to prevent mankind from being susceptible to all things that affect mankind. Some diseases will overcome the immune system without mercy. SOME individuals will escape the effects but generally, mankind per se will be affected.

In real terms, we as Earths inhabitants, get sick, locally and globally. Some diseases affect nations of certain ethnic characteristics more than another and some nations have no immunity to other nations diseases at all. Yet in this day and age, the world is pretty much an open field as far as disease is concerned.

I postulate the theory that humans to a lesser or greater degree, carry genetically and biologically, the capacity to develop ANY disease as we are predisposed to them, and as such ALL disease share a link. There is no such thing as a PSORA infection. There however is the ability to contage an infection from someone who carries bacteria, or a virus, or a fungus which is PART of the connected worldwide disease source which is classified as Psora. Genetically, I am sure we pass on susceptibility which is triggered when we get infected.

Hahnemann stated that he himself never had Psora. Which logically means that he never contaged a connected disease, but was susceptible to annual acute diseases of no deeper connection.

This allows for people to stop looking for the missing infection of Psora… It is not there. IT never has been. Once infected with certain disease causations, we are open to everything, dependent on our immunity and level of health.

I welcome thoughts on this topic.

Causal Medicine and homoeopathy. (1 of 2)

The Thrust of modern medicine is to find causes of disease conditions and to  remove them with the idea that by removing the cause the effect will cease and result in cure of a disease.

According to the thinking of mainstream medicine,  three things have been pointed  out as causal factors  of  diseases, e.g.,  pathological structure,  pathological  function  and  indirectly pathogenic bacteria capable of producing disease conditions.

Science postulates the  cause is  the invariable,  unconditional  and immediate antecedent of the effect or the sum-total of conditions, positive and negative, taken together which  are sufficient to produce the  effect without the presence of any  other antecedent  or in other  words,  in scientific investigations,  the  cause must be regarded as the entire aggregate of conditions or circumstances requisite to the effect.

However it can easily be demonstrated that neither structure, nor function or  micro-organisms possess the  properties of cause (strictly according to the  canons of logic), which are as  follows:

  • when the cause appears the effect must always follow it;
  • when the cause  disappears the  effect must always disappear;
  • when the cause varies the  effect must always  vary accordingly;
  • the  cause precedes the effect.

Since the principle of causation is a  hypothesis which up till  now has not been proven  in  practice and is theoretically unjustified, all  the researches devised for the purpose of finding causes  (prima causa morbi)  must be inconclusive. Little wonder,  then,  that despite the enormous amount of work done we have been unable to find the original causes of diseases and that  medical   theories  succeed one another with such extraordinary  rapidity.

The  claim of the orthodox system of medicine of being  a rational scientific one because of its being based on the principle of causality, fails.

Here  Homoeopathy  steps  in.  Hahnemann  gave  up  the attempt to  base his system of medicine on a causal basis. To him association or sequence of phenomena was enough. He presented Homoeopathy, based on the Law of Similars as  a descriptive  science,  based on  phenomenalism and not concerned  principally with causal explanations.  It is also  to be noted that  we find  Hahnemann’s ideas in accord with the most advanced conceptions of physical science.

Here, we must pause and reflect, ask questions and rationalize.  Is Hahnemann saying that Bacteria and Virii are not the cause of a disease? No. Hahnemann was among the first to describe bacteria as “living” creatures that carry disease inducing infection. After studying his words for 35 years, I have come to see that he divides causality and individual disease as two separate entities.

You can remove the cause, the bacteria, the virus, the fungus, and yet Dis-ease itself will continue to be present in the organism. Many times I have seen Gonnorhea infection ( Neisseria gonorrhoeaeremoved from a person, and yet health declines. Sometimes even the partners health can decline and no trace of gonorrhoea can be detected.

So a situation arises within homoeopathy and understanding of what Hahnemanns theory of Miasms is refering to. In my experience, 95% of all explanations are simply wrong. I bring Miasms into this discussion simply because it answers how we as homoeopaths can relate to the subject of causality and disease.

It took me a number of years of reading and re-reading the Chronic Diseases and the Organon to gain insight into the explanation of Hahnemanns words. For those of us with a training in homoeopathy that included Kents interpretive and religious overlay, it required a leap of faith to put aside the philosophy of Swedenborgianism and just look at Hahnemann without that veil. Once done, the meaning of Hahnemanns words became clear.

Miasm is an infecting agent.

Miasmatic Disease is the resultant illness after being infected. It is NOT the infecting agent.

So. following the logic, once infected a disease process starts up. This is no longer dependent on the infecting agent, and is a direct reaction to BEING infected. Removing the primary infection prevents a CONSTANT infection state, but does not stop the reactive disease production that has started.

We will discuss further in another article.



By John Henry Clarke, M. D.

Hahnemann’s Doctrine of the Chronic Miasms.

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)     By “chronic disease” Hahnemann did not mean exactly the same thing as is now generally understood by the phrase – a disease that lasts a long time and is incurable. To make his meaning clear, I can not do better than quote Hahnemann’s own definition of acute and chronic diseases, from paragraph 72 of his Organon :-

     “The diseases to which is liable are either rapid morbid processes of the abnormally deranged vital force, which have a tendency to finish their course more or less quickly, but always in a moderate time – these are termed acute diseases ; or they are diseases of such a character that, with small, often imperceptible beginnings, dynamically derange the living organism, each in its own peculiar manner, and cause it to deviate from the healthy condition in such a way that the automatic life energy, called vital force, whose office it is preserve the health, only opposes to them at the commencement and during their progress, imperfect, unsuitable, useless resistance, but must helplessly suffer (them to spread and ) itself to be more and more abnormally deranged, until at length the organism is destroyed ; these are termed chronic diseases. They are caused by infection from a chronic miasm.”

     By “miasm” Hahnemann means an infectious principle, which, when taken into the organism, may set up a specific disease. According to Hahnemann, there were not only miasms of acute disease, like the infectious principle of scarlatina, for example, but also of chronic diseases. Among the latter he recognised three-syphilis, sycosis and psora. The first is the lues venerea, which is recognised by all schools alike. The second is allied to this, but is distinguished by the production of characteristic warty growths. The third is a discovery of Hahnemann’s, about which there has been the greatest misconception.

Dr Samuel HAHNEMANN (1755-1843)     Before giving an account of what Hahnemann meant by “psora,” I will give a familiar instance of a chronic miasm – the disease set up by vaccination. Vaccinia or “Cow-pox,” as the late Dr. Matthews Duncan pointed out, is extremely analogous to syphilis in many of its characters, and not the least in the appearance of secondary disorders after the primary illness is over. The course of the disease is well known. The virus having been introduced through an abrasion of the skin, in about a week inflammation occurs at the spot. Then there appears first a vesicle, then a pustule, then a scab, and finally a scar when the scab drops off. During the time that this series of events is occurring, constitutional symptoms manifest themselves, chiefly in the form of fever and undefined malaise. When the healing has taken place, three may be nothing more occur. The organism may have reacted perfectly and discharged the miasm. But this is not often the case. The diminished susceptibility to small-pox infection shows a change of a deep constitutional character. This constitutional change has been named “vaccinosis” by Burnett, and, as I can attest, is the parent of much chronic illness. Often skin eruptions occur, lasting for years, or various other kinds of ill-health, lasting, it may be, as long as life lasts, and not seldom shortening life. When such a series of disorders occurs, it is not (according to Hahnemann’s doctrine, though he did not use this illustration) a succession of new diseases, but different evolutions of one and the same disease, the “miasm” of Vaccinia producing the chronic malady, vaccinosis.

     In the early years of his homeopathic practice Hahnemann noticed that in certain cases the remedies he gave only produced temporary benefit. In these cases he found that the homśopathically of the remedies given was not complete. There was some factor in the case which had not been matched. It became apparent to him, then, that he had not only to take account of the malady from also of previous and apparently different maladies. And he found the remedies which corresponded, in their action, to the whole course of the pathological life of a patient were needed for a cure ; and through his provings he discovered what these deeply acting remedies were.

     Many cases he met with in practice in which the ill-health dated from the suppression of a skin disease, probably years before. That skin disease, said Hahnemann, is really a part of the present disorder. To take a common example, asthma is often found to appear after the “cure” by external means of a skin disorder. The patient is not suffering from two diseases : there is, according to Hahnemann’s pathology, one chronic miasm at work producing the two effects.

     The large majority of chronic diseases Hahnemann traced to the chronic miasm he termed “psora,” and he maintained on the skin of the miasm was an eruption of itching vesicles, of which the itch vesicle was a type. It has of which the itch vesicle was a type. It has been started that Hahnemann ascribed to the itch the production of nine-tenths of chronic diseases, and he has been accused of ignorance in not knowing that itch was caused by an insect. But Hahnemann not only knew of the itch-insect, he actually figured it in one of his works. But he maintained that, in spite of the presence of the insect, this was not the whole of the disease – just as the tubercle bacillus is not the whole of pulmonary consumption. If it were, no doctors would escape consumption, since they inhale the bacillus constantly from their patients. “The itch,” Hahnemann maintained, “is chiefly an internal disease’. ‘Psora is an internal disease – a sort of internal itch – an may exist with or without an eruption upon the skin.’ ‘Psora forms the basis of the itch.’ To the reckless suppression of the chief external symptoms of psora Hahnemann ascribed the prevalence of chronic disorders.

     To put it in other words, the psora doctrine of Hahnemann is practically the same as the doctrine of certain French authorities who ascribe a great variety of chronic diseases to what they call a ‘herpetic diathesis’, that is to say, a morbid state of the organism liable to manifest itself on the skin by an itching vesicular eruption.

     The essential truth of Hahnemann’s doctrine may be seen by taking a glance at the history of individuals and families. The skin eruptions of childhood, the late development of bones and teeth, the anaemia of puberty, and the consumption which finally carries off the patient, are not so many different diseases, but different manifestations of one and the same disease, whether we call it ‘psora’ with Hahnemann, or ‘herpetic diathesis’ with the French. Then, again, take a family : one member has enlarged and inflamed glands, one ulceration of the eyes, one a chronic cough, one hysteria, one eczema. They are all children of the same parents, with the same elements of heredity, and their diseases are essentially one and the same, only manifesting itself differently in different individuals. This disease Hahnemann called a ‘chronic miasm’. The seat of its operations is the vital force, which can only be freed from it by dynamically acting homśopathic remedies.

     In his study of the chronic miasms Hahnemann found many other very characteristic symptoms besides the occurrence of eruptions on the skin; and he found remedies having corresponding symptoms, which he gave to patients with signal success. Among those remedies which he found to produce symptoms likest to those occurring in psoric patients, Sulphur takes the foremost place.

     Hahnemann’s great works on Chronic Diseases gives the symptoms of these remedies at length. This work, of which the full title is “The Chronic Diseases : their Specific Nature and Homśopathic Treatment,” is the crowning work of Hahnemann’s career.

     It will be seen from the above sketch that Hahnemann’s theory of disease is profoundly philosophical and intensity practical. It is as far as possible removed from tentative and fragmentary theories of disease current in his own and in our day. Hahnemann’s pathology goes hand in hand with treatment, and is thus checked at every step by the test of practice.


The maladies of Homeopathy

It always makes me sad when I see what modern and improved methods of practising homoeopathy has done to our therapy. It has all but destroyed it in the West.

When I read Hahnemann and see the scientific basis for a medical practice, and then see what people do in his name today, it is not good.

Take something as simple as the Miasms. I say simple because it is a treatise on Infection and the resultant diseases that arise from infection. It is the exact same model that is used In modern medicine except using different names.

There has arisen a whole cultish attitude around the Miasms, to the point where certain individuals have made it almost a mystical energy, originally based on the Swedenborgian notion of original sin and divisions within mankind of deviations from health. So much so that people base prescriptions solely on the assumed ‘Miasm’ and look at the ‘miasmatic remedies’ of that miasm only. In Mexico, miasms are labelled psora = 1. Sycosis = 2 and Syphilis = 3. Then complicated methods of analysis are made and the patient is assigned grading in miasms eg. 312 or 231 etc.

“ Miasms” do not only account for pathological tendencies but also for the attraction towards certain people, their affinity to each other and the (dis-) harmony of relationships. Ortega opined that “any relationship between people is realized tropism. We always pursue that which is analogous, something which prolongs our existence or whose existence we prolong. It is logical that, in the miasmatic realm, we are linked to those who correspond to us, and this correspondence will also be a function of miasmatic characteristics. A psoric-sycotic-syphilitic (or 1-2-3, according to the relative contribution of each miasm) will, in theory, be perfectly complemented by another person represented miasmatically by the numbers 3-2-1, so that the characteristic modes of expression of the one can be fused with those of the other by virtue of continuity, of interlacing, within the overall need of analogy. The expression of their characteristic qualities forms a sort of circle of complementarity and succession whose outcome is a persistent harmonic movement.”

A read of the Chronic Diseases by Hahnemann shows everyone he treated with a miasmatic infection or disease, HAD TO BE PRIMARILY INFECTED with the disease causing agent. This means you had to have been infected with Psora, Syphilis or Gonorrhoea There is no case of him treating anyone born from infected people with a so called miasmatic principle simply because infecting agents are not passed in childbirth. Just the results of the parents disease. The child has to be infected with one of the three infections to become infectious, and the disease passed on itself is not infectious and therefore not a miasm (infection), just the results. It is treated in the same manner as ANY OTHER CASE.

After Boenninghausen wrote his treatise on Psoric diseases and remedies, and was writing on the others, Hahnemann instructed him to just put all the remedies together rather than differentiate simply because the principle of like cures like and case taking method outlined by him still held good.

If you have Syphilis or gonorrhoea from a primary infection, you will be treated in the way outlined by Hahnemann in his writings, probably with mercurius or Sulphur and Thuja and then with whatever other medicines are indicated.

The passed on disease state, is usually limited and developed to the maximum and does not normally progress much further.

There is no mystical magical ethereal meaning to Miasm.

Sadly the West is attracting wanna be healers rather than physicians who want to practice a proven medical speciality.

No wonder the therapy is scorned.


Hahnemann’s Conception of Chronic Disease, as Caused by Parasitic Micro-organism

samuel_christian_hahnemannWe all know the joy of seeing sicknesses of definite symptoms yield, almost miraculously, to the remedy of like symptoms. We thrill to the triumphs of Homoeopathy in Cholera-in Dysentery-in Ptomaine poisonings-in Pneumonias-in Broncho-pneumonias-in hundreds of conditions, trivial and severe and then!…..we all come across cases which, after apparent yielding to the seemingly indicated remedy, recur :-do less well :-finally cease to respond. Why is this?…..

This was also Hahnemann’s experience. Bu that indomitable Pioneer did not merely shrug his shoulders, and dub them, “Old Chronics!” Neither did he accept the suggestion of his followers that “perhaps not enough remedies had been discovered and proved to cover all cases of disease”….This he says he “rejected, as a mere subterfuge.

But-he stuck to his guns! “In spite of failures in the case of some chronic non-venereal diseases, the Doctrine of Similars has been, and ever will be, founded on the unshaken pillars of truth. Facts have confirmed its excellence-year-if this may be said of human things, its infallibility.”

“Why, then”, he asks, “should the continued homoeopathic treatment of the non-venereal chronic diseases have been so unsuccessful? Why should Homoeopathy have failed in thousands of cases to cure thoroughly and forever such chronic ailments?”

Continue reading