Hello Everyone,

Chronic Diseases has a good list of active and latent symptoms for psora. There isn't much in the way of a list of active and latent sypmtoms for Sycosis or Syphilis.

Any suggestions on where I might find more on Sycosis and Syphilis?

I've got Herbert Robert's book, and he writes extensively about sycosis and syphilis. On Syphilis, he jumps between pure syphilitic symptoms and tuburcular. There are symptoms sprinkled throughout, but no mention of active or latent states - not in relation to other miasms and how to distinguish what is the active miasm at a given time.

Or, I wonder, can one tell if sycosis or syphilis is active by:
1) determining which symptoms of psora are latent (provided there are no active sx's of psora - i.e. making sure it is latent)
and by doing so
2) looks at the remaining sypmtoms and determines if they are sycosis or syphilis?

And, that leads me to ponder - if some psoric symptoms are active- and some are undeniably and strongly syphiltic - then this would clearly be a tuburcular case...right. But, what about if some psoric symptoms are clearly active and some sypmtoms are clearly indicative of sycosis? What kind of state is that?

Just pondering through all this. (working on an assignment)

Also, I understand (rightly or wrongly?) that in order to be susceptible to the sycotic or syphilitic miasm/s one must have psora - the soil in which the other two take root. Without psora, one will not be susceptible to the sycotic or syphilitic miasm/s. Would like to hear others thoughts on this.

Surely, everyone must be psoric - whether it's dormant or active. I know in CD, Hn says about 80% of cases are psoric. Wonder if this still holds true today...or is everyone psoric (it seems so because it's so contagious..).

Another thing that has occurred to me: Since the tuburcular miasm is a marriage between the syphilitic miasm and the psoric, it would seem to me that one could never be purely syphilitic. Or, can one? I suppose if one were infected directly with syphilis (as opposed to inherited?)- and it were suppressed and took hold of the interior, then that might be a scenario where one could be purely syphilitic? Hmmm, but what about psora lurking latent?

I've heard:
a) that psora can be cured completely.
b) psora can only be cured in each instance it crops up (becomes active). And, that's why it's called hydra-headed -- because it's always there, and keeps coming up when something provokes it into activity.
c) And, I've heard it cannot be cured, but only controlled (I suppose this is similar to the above - that it's hydra-headed and keeps coming active at various junctures).

It seems to me, that by the use of the words 'active' and 'latent' that one could not ever rid a person of a given miasm, but only cure each state as it arises with the homeopathically appropriate remedy....thereby strengtening the vital force to handle those situations that provoke the miasms into activity in the first place. i.e. lessen or eradicate a susceptibility that trips someone into an active state of X symptoms.

These are the things I've been pondering since studying this more in depth recently.
I would like to hear what others experiences are - and what they have learned.

Regards,
Lisa

[ 07. October 2003, 17:30: Message edited by: LisaAnnan ]

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

You've either been smoking too much dope or you need to smoke some dope.

Seriously..I was just told that the reason there is a paucity of symptoms for syp and syco is because they are surpressed by antibiotics before we can see how they would develop.

Very funny Carol. Not. (but you got me laughing)

Perhaps when one is infected with them - in the now - and is treated with antibiotics....

But this isn't really what I was talking about .

[ 07. October 2003, 17:52: Message edited by: LisaAnnan ]

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

I don't have any answers for you. However, I'd sure like to hear people's take on this, especially Hans, David, Opium and Dr. Leela

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Dear Lisa,
You have asked many good questions and I don’t aspire to answer them. The miasms is an area, which has been expanded greatly in homeopathy today, and my thoughts are, being trained as a Hahnemannian, to question the relevance of this expansion with regards to the book of Chronic Diseases.

It is right what you say about how to recognise the sycotic & syphilitic miasm; we have a good working list of active & latent psoric symptoms in the book of Chronic Diseases. If your disease symptoms were not to be found there, you would investigate into the possibility of another miasm being involved, very simple.

Otherwise the symptoms of gonorrhoea & syphilis are described in Chronic Diseases, or a good medical book.

Basically a miasm is an epidemic, as Hahnemann realized when well-indicated remedies failed to work in certain cases. But more specifically they are A COLLECTION OF SYMPTOMS OBSERVED WHICH HAVE BEEN CURED BY ANTI-MIASMATIC REMEDIES.
At that time both syphilis and gonorrhoea were operating at epidemic levels, in the footnote of page 13 of Chronic Diseases Hahnemann talks of how easily cured they are. Changes over 150yrs mean antibiotics, which have robbed disease of external expression, have greatly suppressed Sycosis.
Arthritis, migraines, infertility; are secondary expressions, and there are multiple expressions. Third stage expressions are pathological changes in organs. No longer are they easily identifiable. The true extent of syphilis & TB is also unknown because of these treatments.
I think that is a very important point because it raises the practical problem of how anti miasmatic remedies can treat miasms successfully when their symptoms are to a very large extent hidden.

You asked:
“But, what about if some psoric symptoms are clearly active and some sypmtoms are clearly indicative of sycosis? What kind of state is that?”

This is psora complicated with Sycosis. You see this where gonorrhoea has been treated with anti-biotics and psora is already present. It’s this combining ability, which makes it difficult to cure. When dealing with Sycosis (or syphilis) look in and see what fires it; usually it is psora. Clever psora holds up a mirror when complicated with other miasmas, pretends its Thuja. Psora is the host and gives guest room to others, as they work in its favour. Treat with anti-psorics, then clear Sycotic symptoms arise. Perhaps in the mouth or genitals, they can be brownish, greasy, and cheesy. See page 93 of Chronic Diseases (top) for Psora complicated with drugs; this stands true. The complication, which means the ability to combine, happens with ONLY with active psora, not latent.

You said:
“Also, I understand (rightly or wrongly?) that in order to be susceptible to the sycotic or syphilitic miasm/s one must have psora - the soil in which the other two take root.”

On the second paragraph of page 6 of Chronic Diseases Hahnemann talks of how the primary stage of psora always goes into the second stage NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, no matter how healthy the diet or lifestyle happens to be. Psora is a disease that FIRES ITSELF. This is unlike Syphilis and Sycosis, which in themselves are not life threatening if let run their course.

What speaks against new ‘miasms’ such as the ‘tubercular’ is a few paragraphs from the book of Chronic Diseases (see page 8). Here Hahnemann says that Psora is so large to produce ‘so many chronic maladies, each of which seems to be essentially different from the others, but really is not; as may readily be seen from the agreement of several symptoms common to them which appear as the disease runs it’s course, and also through their being healed by the same remedy.’
Looking at the list of active psoric symptoms it can be seen that TB is Psora.

You said:
“Surely, everyone must be psoric - whether it's dormant or active. I know in CD, Hn says about 80% of cases are psoric. Wonder if this still holds true today...or is everyone psoric (it seems so because it's so contagious.)”

Although it is true that psora is extremely pervasive, see page 33 of Chronic Diseases; Psora is caught at the most appropriate moment, in a single moment, and contagion works through the life force.

It would seem an assumption to believe that no psora free individuals exist. Likewise that Psora is necessarily longstanding in any given case. We can only decide what is psora or not by looking at the history of the disease, and sometimes it’s not even possible to judge.
What persuaded me recently that psora free individuals do actually exist was reading a book of accounts from women who gave birth at home (that means drug free). From the dozens of stories told (Ireland only), there are a few testimonies of completely PAIN FREE labours and births.

Psora is most closely related to sulphur, says Hahnemann.
Beonninghausen says Thuja is most closely related to Sycosis, in his article ‘Anamnesis of Sycosis’ page 148 of his Lesser Writings. But Beonninghausen leaves scientific ground here. It is a constructed conclusion and therefore invalid, one that he can’t back it up with cases. Herring expanded it. Kent took it from there, Ortega followed etc.

Sycosis in the second stage can be contracted through vaccination, although Hahnemann wouldn’t have been aware of that. Some guy from Berlin (no name sorry) noticed this after a smallpox vaccination and giving Thuj, Lyc, and Merc.etc. If one didn’t work he just gave the next. This has historical significance as the Americans picked it up and Ortega gave Sycosis equal rights in his book. That’s how it has been made of equal importance to Psora, but the clinical experience of many homeopaths can confirm Hahnemann’s observation that 8 out of 10 cases are psoric.

Conclusion: Leave it with Hahnemann: Sycosis is gonorrhoea; sometimes it can complicate with psora; rarely it complicates with syphilis.

Hi Louise,

Thanks ever so much for answering some of my questions. It makes a lot of sense. I'll go through CD again - with all the references you mentioned - and restudy again.

Warm regards,
Lisa

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

one of the reasons that tb is thought associated with the syphilitic miasm as well as the psoric is because when treating the tb patients in paris, hahnemann used mercury and cinnabaris a fair bit [according to handley's book.] whether the inference is a fair one is uncertain.

a question arising in a modern context is: 'from whence do sycotic and syphilitic elements in a case arise?" there appear sometimes sycotic/ syphilitic elements in cases without a personal history of stds. it is not clear from whence the venereal miasms would have been aquired in such cases - maybe from in-utero contagion? - maybe from genetic inheritance? maybe from vaccinations? - or a mixture? as far as one can tell, hahnemann only thought of the venereal miasms as arising from venereal contagion or contagion of the foetus/infant by the affected mother or wet-nurse. the vaccination/ genetic ideas expand on what hahnemann knew about.

when many patients present and their full cases taken, there can be many symptoms and evidence suggestive of more than one chronic miasm in action over the years.
initially, all you need to focus on is what is the most ailing problem to the patient in the present, with its direct concomitants. analyse that symptom-complex and it might be miasmatic or not - giving a hint about what type of opening remedy will work best for the patient. if the well-selected remedy fails to act though, and there is a clear history of a certain miasm, it can be useful to use an anti-chronic-miasmatic remedy to facilitate the action of the well-indicated remedy [e.g. see boger's boenninghausen's characteristics, sulfur.]

Thanks, Louise. I'm going to have to get out my CD and try to digest all you've said. I asppreciate the thought and effort that you contributed.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

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.

Dear Opium,

I appreciate your post very much. While your English translation isn't always easy to follow, I find if I read your posts carefully, I can understand them. So, please don't worry about that. And don't let it stop you from contributing!

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that all remedies are antipsoric, antisycotic and antisyphilitic. I suppose there is truth in this -- because we have to individualise each case and choose the remedy based on the presenting totality of symptoms. And, theoretically, it could be any number of remedies....but.....
And you're also saying, if I understood you correctly, that psora is the main disease that will come up for treatment - and not to worry with the other miasms(?).

A couple of thoughts, as I still mull all this over in my mind. Yes, Hahnemann did use Merc for Syphilis - Thuja and Nit Acid for Sycosis -but Boenninghausen expanded on the two venereal miasms later on (Lesser Writings by Boenninghausen) when Hahnemann couldn't carry out his promise to do so. There were more remedies than just those few for the venereal miasms as I understand it thus far.

What I'm learning at the moment about the venereal miasms is there are hardly ever any cases of pure syphilis or gonnorrhea anymore. I mean straightforward infections that Hahnemann said were fairly easy to treat.

So, that leaves us with suppressed syphilis for example - still being passed on through sexual contact. The person would exhibit symptoms in whichever stage it was passed on. In other words, the person A would not have sx's of the primary stage if his partner had sx's of the secondary stage of syphilis - because that's what Person A was exposed too. The same seems to go for inherited miasms too --- if the mother exhibits secondary sx's of syphilis - then she passes this on to the foetus during pregancy and after delivery. This is my understanding so far. But, I'm not nearly finished with delving into all this. A lot of what I'm reading is mindblowing. And, I'm still wary that some of it may or may not be accurate. So, I keep referring back to Chronic Diseases. I'm getting there though.
Anyhow, there seems to be a huge division in thought on psora ---- and --- the venereal miasms. Some say that there are rarely any syphilitic or sycotic cases -- and that the tuburcular doesn't exist. Some say that almost everyone has a combination of two or three and rarely see pure psora.

My thoughts are all over the place because I read some lengthy articles on this subject today and I'm still digesting it all.

But, I'll end this post by saying that I think understanding the miasms is very important in understanding what needs to be cured - what is active - what is latent - and using the experience of Hahnemann, Boenninghausen and others to aid in case management. So, I intend to carry on studying this aspect in depth. And, I do appreciate hearing other peoples' understanding of this subject. Thanks again for posting.

Best wishes,
Lisa

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham