Well said, Similibus. 10 stars, bloke!

That’s not intentionally patronizing or anything like that. It’s just one of my ways of expressing approval. Homeopaths don’t really have any teachers, just colleagues, and we teach each other, so my apologies if it seemed that way without this edited addition. It was well explained, and I wanted to pass the question to you, anyway. Isn’t it interesting that you better answered it at the same time I submitted my response to her question?

I missed the boat about her question, though, and I don't think I've ever read a better explanation of what's meant by dynamic suppression. Truly, 10 stars, bloke. You should publish that in a formal journal. I only recommend the ZKH for Hahnemannian contributions, so good luck, but I don't think you'll need it even though it could easily be expanded over the years to a masterwork under your pen. How often does that happen? Yeah, 10 stars, sir.

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa

Simbilus

I greatly respect your theory on why many people do indeed succumb generation after generation to the same diseases

I agree that many people today use all manner of allopathic means of treatments

However there plenty of us who shun all forms of allopathy and know that our parents and grandparents never suppressed eruptions or took steroids etc anyway so how then do their offspring develop more and more problem diseases

That's more your kind of questions, dear. He's doing just fine, and I'm busy. I wanna be amazed again. However, the simple answer is that every allopathic intervention of any kind is suppressive and complicates natural chronic diseases and turns them into iatrogenic diseases, so it doesn't make any difference what century you're talking about. All allopathic drugs and procedures are suppressive, period.

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa

Dear Myankle,

I wish I could take credit for the theory - it is the daily experience of every competent homeopath in our times. We see this sort of thing in just about every case we take. Thank goodness we have finally found a voice thanks to forums such as these, and that people are truly listening.

I am not sure if I have encountered a situation such as you describe. One would not expect to see a deteriorating constitution after three generations free from any kind of suppressive treatment.

The suppressed 'miasms' of Syphilis and Tuberculosis are both known to cause birth defects and abnormalities. It might only require one ancestor to have suppressed one of these diseases, at any point in your family history, to give rise to an inherited condition such as you describe. But to my mind this would not explain a deteriorating constitution through subsequent generations in the absence of further suppressive treatment. Perhaps it is possible, but I don't think so.

My first instinct would be to question whether such a family truly had an unblemished medical history. For example, perhaps a grandparent contracted gonorrhoea (Sycotic miasm) during an extra-marital affair, or even prior to meeting their spouse. It is reasonable to assume that it would have been quickly treated with antibiotics and never spoken of to anyone within the family.

If it were an absolute certainty that there had been no suppressive treatment whatsoever throughout three generations, I would have to put it down to such things as the chemicals that permeate the food that we eat, the water that we drink, the air that we breathe, or perhaps the vastly increasing levels of radiation that we are exposed to in our daily lives.

There have been ideas put forward in homeopathy as to the existence of petrochemical and radiation miasms, and I believe also a heavy metal miasm (nothing to do with rock music!). These 'synthetic miasms' are clearly not a part of classical homeopathy, and it is unclear to me at present whether it is helpful to give these things consideration. Thank you for bringing them to consciousness again.

Kind Regards,
Sim

__________________
These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

Dear Albert

Thank you for your kind remarks. You have yet to make an inacurate statement about homeopathy, as far as I am aware.

Best wishes,
Sim

__________________
These are my personal views and not necessarily my professional views.The content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as medical advice. ALWAYS CONSULT YOUR LOCAL PHYSICIAN.

No, that's not true, and he's simply being extra careful given what I said, but he forgot the first part of it. I repeat: It turns out that psora is simply another word for chronic diseases.

How many of these words and terms do we have? "It's congenital, ma'am." Does that not mean it's chronic? Sure it does. "It's a terminal illness." Does that not mean it's chronic? Sure it does. "It's a deteriorating disease." Does that not mean it's chronic? Sure it does. "It's an auto-immune disease." Does that not mean it's chronic? Sure it does. There are a lot of them, and people simply don't notice because allopathic medicine doesn't make any sense, and they cloud issues with complex constructs nobody else understands.

Wait a second. Do they understand them? No, and any real homeopath can demonstrate in seconds that they're ignorant fools. My favorite one goes off the scale. Ready, set, go. They make statements based upon 10% knowledge of something, which they admit. Ah, what? Yeah, they do it all of the time, too. Nobody else notices. We do. We have lots and lots of rocks for those mongrels and mass murderers, and it looks like we could run out of rocks on the Earth because allopaths keep coming like this gang of flies you constantly shoo off and curse without effect. That's how big their brains are, too. Ah . . . Ruff!

Incidentally, I recently readopted that helpful diddy, but it will again wear out -- or maybe not this time -- so leave me alone. Ah . . . Ruff! I find it quite funny, so it may take years for me to abandon it again. Ah . . . Ruff! Just saying it is hilarious because it speaks volumes about the mongrels. Ah . . . Ruff! I can't stop myself. It's stuck in playback mode. Ah . . . Ruff!

I've never heard that term before, but you're damn right that synthetic miasms are part of the classical theory of homeopathy. Yeah, sure, because they're iatrogenic diseases, and they're all eventually chronic because the exposure to deadly toxins numbering over 200,000 (2500 new ones every year) is ubiquitous thanks to murderous allopathic bastards and bitches from Hell. Where do you think those deadly toxins came from, the Moon? No, allopaths and their allopathically minded cohorts in the natural sciences as presently understood have done this to us and will until we stop their crimes against humanity. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen, though, for servility rules today. "Doctor says . . ." Yeah, well, "Teacha tole me" is still idiocy if it doesn't make any sense and doesn't work.

Oops, I think I got them yet again, and I wasn't even trying, but they're such easy prey to the Truth because they don't have any. They arrogantly go (deep voices of authority always), "Ah, science has been advancing for over 400 years." Sure thing, Jethro. Go over there and play in your sandbox you call a lab, and I'll go over here and help these loving people who want help from actual doctors. You can't properly define that, either, can you? Ah . . . Ruff!

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa

one thing which is true ,no one is born criminal, terrorist,thief,robbers,priest like various forms of mindset people. I think they build themselve according to environment they live since infancy. it is also true personility plays an important role .

Those are very good and philosophically probing and profound statements, sir. Restate it, please, and in more detail so that I understand your assumptions and other stuff. Just edit it for the expansion, and I'll edit this and use this space for my response. Please also try to explain what you're responding to, for I don't recall what was said in this thread and don't have time to reread all of it.

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa

I reread this stuff, and I noticed what I consider a mistake buried in there. I already knew you know this, so I just want to point out a stipulation that corrects it.

You said, "chronic disease is a result of mismanagement (suppression) of certain (specific) more superficial disease manifestations." No, not quite. Those are part of chronic diseases, the very worst ones, too, but you're suggesting that they all arose or arise from iatrogenic ("physician-induced") causes. No, but the problem is that they all are today, so it's also true, and I already know you knew that, so this is just to protect your butt from inadvertently misleading others.

That's why Myankle asked you that question. I didn't realize it until I reread that. I love her, so I noticed the source of her confusion. She simply didn't ask her question with the kind of precision that would have allowed you to answer it.

As for where they come from and how they arise, I've already explained that many times in this forum. It's rather complex, so I leave it alone here. The most important fact involved in chronic diseases is that the organism is doing it to itself, which allopaths now also admit, so the only way to cure them is with the ultramolecular ("beyond-molecules") simillimum ("thing most similar"). That's why allopathic medicine will never -- not from now 'til the end of God -- cure any of them, period. In fact, it's quite insane to believe that chemical drugs or physical procedures could ever cure something that arises in the invisible realms of being. [Edited Addition: A man dies, and something's gone; where was it? That's the first question of the physician, which of course no allopath or anyone enamored with the natural sciences as presently understood can understand, but -- slamo! -- all children can, you morons. There are obvious, invisible levels of being, and every child can understand this as a self-evident fact. I've already many times addressed the scientific explanation for this, so I leave them there.] Allopaths are self-admitted quacks and mass murderers, and all of the natural sciences as presently understood back up their lunacy and unscientific stances and mislead everyone. Why everyone allows themselves to be misled is an insoluble problem keeping us stuck in the tail end of the Dark Ages. Isn't that sad?

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
www.GiggleBoggleJabbleGooby.com/HaHa

And so I am going through Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases for the umpteenth time!

Page 3: Hahnemann justifies the need for a Theory of Chronic Disease in homeopathy

"When such a relapse would take place the Homœopathic physician would give the remedy most fitting among the medicines then known, as if directed against a new disease, and this would again be attended by a pretty good success, which for the time would again bring the patient into a better state. In the former case, however, in which merely the troubles which seemed to have been removed were renewed, the remedy which had been serviceable the first time would prove less useful, and when repeated again it would help still less."

There is an interesting omission here: Hahnemann makes no mention of increasing the potency. What would a modern homeopath do when faced with this situation? Could this simply have been a matter of incorrect potency?