Hi Lisa: You ask on one of the darkest points of the doctrine homeopática and I do not believe that it is possible an exact response to each of his questions. Hahnemann in a beginning, when it names to the Psora, he says that it is not the reason of the venereal miasmas not of the acute ones. But Kent says that the Psora is the reason of all the diseases, included the syphilis, the sycosis and the acute ones. Allen, mentions Hahnemann and says that the criterion of the Psora is like a general susceptibility, but it does not mention of where it extracted the appointment, which one does not find in any Hahnemann's text. Schmidt, when he translates Kent's philosophy, it explains the difference of criteria like originated in Kent's deep meditations on Hahnemann's work and very specially on the paragraphs 80 and 206, in which Hahnemann recognizes to the Psora as the reason of "almost" all the diseases, and supports that, in his time, already they were the rarest the cases of syphilis and sycosis pure. Nevertheless, it is enough that the small some existed in order that it was not possible to to identify to the Psora with the susceptibility. Allen says also, refiriendose to the list of diseases mentioned by Hahnemann since of origin psórico, that in all that they are studied, they find in them symptoms of syphilis and of sycosis. Also he says, though it does not make clear it, that the Psora does not produce injuries, depending the appearance of the injuries of the venereal miasmas. Since come, the oppositions of the doctrine and the emptinesses, they are impossible to resolve without an interpretation, and it leads us immediately to the discord between currents homeopathycs.
For my, the coherent interpretation of all that, the Dr. Masi Elizalde has her. It would suggest the reading of the Dr. Masi to him in the Minutes of the International Institute of High Studies Homeopáticos James Tyler Kent, of extraordinary content, in where response will find to his questions, at least, some possible answers.
Psora primary it is for us, the morbid affectation of the vital force, that is to say, the susceptibility. It is as if out the blemish that limits us in our functions, which prevents us, with regard to the body, keeping it immune and giving him form and size owed. Psora is what makes us capable and mortal. Logically, from this point of view, the primary Psora cannot treat(recover). But la Psora can be of in force or latent form.
Psora primary in force it is the one that we suffer, when we live without resolving or solving badly our vital conflict, it is for this way to say it, our particular vital distress. Psora primary latent, it continues being the susceptibility, but lived in the correct resolution of our existential conflict, for what it stops the distress. The distress also can disappear for therapeutic action, initiating a movement that it allows together with the acquisition of the necessary knowledges, to solve our individual existential conflict. Con la Psora primary latent, the force or vital energy is increased eurritmicamente to decrease later in equally harmonious form. Con la Psora primary in force, the increase or the energetic degradation are realized in intensive form and disrítmica. The primary Psora is so, the susceptibility, and his expression sintomatológica, is constituted by the idiosyncrasy or individual way of living through the conscience of his vulnerability that has every human being.
Syphilis and Sycosis, is reactions, actually, both only possibilities you reactivate of the primary Psora. As if we should say the "mistaken" way that takes the human being in an unsuccessful(bankrupt) attempt of solving the existential distress of his primary psora. As for the acute miasmas, they are from this point of view, exasperations of the miasmal dynamics, that is to say, of the relation that the subject establishes with the way, when it tries to resolve as he was saying, the conflict psórico primarily. As to what one is capable, everyone will react of destructive form in Syphilis or of form hipertrófica in Sycosis.
The confusion in Hahnemann's texts, comes from that Hahnemann names with the term "miasma" two different things: a few times it refers to the morbid affectation of the vital force and others to entities nosológicas clearly definite. It calls something previous Psora to any entity nosológica, but simultaneously, also it names this way to certain diseases somáticas, as the mange. But Hahnemann knows perfectly that it refers to different things and of different hierarchy. When Hahnemann fails with the specific medicines for the venereal and acute miasmas, one sees obliged to admit that the reason of they, he is in that, practically there is "neither "almost" any Syphilis's case nor Sycosis in which the Psora is not situated present with hierarchy of determining of the persistence of the disease, and which only with the treatment of the Psora, there is obtained the definitive recovery of the health. Hahnemann like that returns to the need of the therapeutic individuality, in doubt in some paragraphs of his writings.
And if it supports that any cases should not have to the Psora behind, it is because Hahnemann treats some cases with a specific, for example Mercurius for the syphilis and Thuja or Nitricum acidum for the sycosis, and treats them definitively, without need of a later antipsórico. This could be because it was giving to himself the coincidence of which in these cases, the patient had like simillimum deep antipsórico, the remedy that Hahnemann him gave as specific. This is what defends the Dr. Masi and what I believe. Today already nobody discusses, or this way it I believe, that there are no remedies psóricos, syphilíticos and sycóticos, but all the remedies are antipsóricos, antisyphilíticos and antisycóticos. The body, it is hierarchically low and there is subordinated a little Superior who encourages it, cannot present structural different modifications of which it demonstrates this slightly top. Then the morbid manifestations of the body, they are a representation in another level of the morbidity of the quite indivisible one.
What since homeopaths we have the potential of treating it is the primary Psora, to reduce her to condition of latency, only this way, we realize a deep and lasting treatment. If we do not prune, we will treat in other levels, but knowing that before or later, we will have to confront the treatment of the primary psora, since this it is the only disease worth being cured. I expect to have given him a bit of light in spite of my bad translation the Englishman. In any case, it is alone one more interpretation, I do not have exact answers not categorical to his mysteries.

Regards.