Originally Posted by Jacob

Dear Teagan, there are many diseases which are termed (correctly or incorrectly) as miasms, and this varies greatly from practitioner to practitioner, and country to country. Most, if not all of them, only affect the patient (and not his offspring) and therefore can only be considered acute miasms. All these diseases, however, are more a sub-section of miasmatic theory, and do not represent the true concept.

The TRUE concept of miasmatic disease is that there are only four chronic miasms, viz: Psora, Syphilis, Sycosis, and Tuberculosis, and it is these which are usually referred to when one merely sees the word 'miasm(s)' in Homoeopathic literature. They are the basis of all chronic conditions, INCLUDING susceptibility to the acute miasms listed above.

Vaccinosis indeed is already known as a miasm in Homoeopathy, and would be termed an acute miasm, as there is no evidence it is passed from generation to generation, except when there is a bad reaction to vaccination during pregnancy, which can cause birth defects.

A toxic miasm? hmm. Certainly there are many drugs which can cause 'blockages' to Homoeopathic treatment, so I guess this could be very LOOSELY termed a miasm, but the effects of these are not passed from generation to generation, so this would only be termed acute, if it was termed as such at all.

Drugs which cause genetic damage to a developing fetus, that's a different story, but these are very few and far between, and will eventually correct themselves in suceeding generations (as evidenced by Thalidomide), so cannot be considered as miasmatic. They would fall under what we call corporal affections or conditions having an external basis (much like living conditions, accidents etc), as they have a very distinct, non miasmatic cause. It would be interesting though to see if potencies of the drug which caused such damage would hasten the process of gene repair.

Some interesting points you raised, thankyou.


-Jacob.