Here are some controvercial excerpts from "The Chronic Diseases" by Dr. Hahnemann. Considering that miasms have been given a dynamic cover these issues have been discussed before. We invite your views and your understanding on these excerpts. The comments in bracket are mine.

Page 39: "....Neverthlees they were scratched continually because of their unbearable itching and thus the fluid was diffused around and the psoric miasm(or bacteria?) was communicated more certainly and more easily to many other persons(spread of infection or miasm?) the more it was concealed; for the things(inanimate 'THINGS' transmitting dynamic miasms??) rendered unclean by the psoric fluid infected the persons who unwittingly touched them....."

Page 79: "..It is communicated so easily that even the physician, hurrying from one patient to another, in feeling the pulse has unconciously inoculated other patients with it. ... or the babe recieves this unlucky infection throught the hand of the midwife..(a mere touch!)

Page 80: " The nerve which was first affected by the miasma has already communicated it in invisible dynamic manner to the rest of the body...."

What do you think regarding the mode of spread of miasms?????

[This message has been edited by dr_bhatia (edited 06 December 2000).]

No Takers!!!!

Dr. B
Although I am not YET a student of homeopathy, the above description of Miasm spread was interesting, and I question if it might relate to what I just read. Tell me what you think of this:
I was looking through the AIDs proving information link off the HH homepage and I saw that they had made the remedy from the blood of an AIDS patient. Now if an individual's blood was also along with the virus...wouldn't there be some risk of potentiating the individual's genes, experiences, personality...etc? (memories after-all being more than just all in our heads)Then these too being introduced to the remedy taker along with the virus/bacterial component?
I suppose this would apply to ANY nosode type remedy where the original substance from which the remedy is made being directly taken from a person or animal and not grown strictly in the laboratory and the bacteria or virus first separated out from the saliva, sputum, blood...etc.
Am I making sense? When I read the MM on this proving...I couldn't help but wonder if the prover was actually manifesting aspects of the personality of the patient from which the blood came...and not really the virus.

Zmyst

Hello Zmyst,
The question U have asked is good enough to need some pondering. It does not only needs a personal view but a logical thought too. Too many ideas coming to my mind right now, I will sort them and then get back here.
dr B

[This message has been edited by dr_bhatia (edited 10 January 2001).]

Good question, Zmyst.
A way to test that (from an analytical perspective ) would be the following: Draw blood from a patient with a full-blown case of AIDS, and use some to isolate viral particles. You then create potentized remedies from both the whole blood containing the virus, and the purified virus alone. Conduct provings with both remedies on a control group, and note the differences in symptoms manifested (if any).

RF

Back here Zmyst,

Logically I agree with RF regarding that differentiation, but there are some built in problems with that. Firstly, isolating and crystalising the viruses is difficult and costly work. A proving with them will cost a million dollars atleast. Secondly, the viruses do not manifest there pathogenic power outside a living being. What that proving will be worth, I am not sure. And here are some more of my sorted thoughts

1. Strong Emotions do have the power to induce certain pathological changes, but I am not sure if they affect the genetic makeup of a person. And I don't think that emotions, experiences, and peronality can be potentised, because they are primarily controlled by the higher centers of brain, with input from other parts of body. They reside in the totality of a person and not his parts. Secondly, experiences and personality are nothing concrete or objective. They are our perceptions. I may find somebodies personality pleasing, U may find it appaling. There is no way that peronality and experience of a person, from whome the substance for proving is obtained, can make much difference to a proving.

2. Yes definetly, the genes and the rest of the components of the diseased blood do get potentised in this aids proving and same with all other nosodes. But Nosodes are diseased products, not disease causing organisms. Since in AIDS patients the blood is primarily affected, whole blood is what is ideal for proving. And since the AIDS virus affects the blood in more or less the same way in all persons, I doubt if there would be any significant difference in the provings using blood from different persons. May be potentising the affected C4 lymphocytes would be a better idea, because only these cells are affected by the AIDS virus.

3. On a broader scale, All our medicines are prepared not from the active ingredient of the substance, but the whole part. China is made from Cinchona bark and not from quinine. Bell and Aconite are made from their whole parts, not to their active ingredients like atropine etc. And I personally think, using the whole part, is the reason why our medicines show such wide range of actions. One medicine is able to manifest a whole spectrum of symptoms, because the part from which its prepared has more than the active principals....it has all the things that are needed for life, the cells, the connective tissues, ...the genes....its individuality. I think that is the reason why we are able to see that distict individuality in all our medicines. The chemical molecules, that are found in nature without a life support(ie they are not made by some living organism)also have their own individuality(phsio-chemical). And if U notice the more an element or its salt is required in health, the more curative power it has in disease(the natrums, the kalis, the mags, zinc...etc). the less they are used in health, the less imporatnt they become in disease(usually).

And one last thing Zmyst, Homeopathy needs people like U who really are interested in Homeopathy, who want to know more, who like to look for answers. Your question was excellent and it made me think a lot. We need such thought provoking activities here. I will say, "Join the Band-wagon as soon as possible"
With reagrds,
Dr. B.

------------------
GOD grant me the SERENITY to accept the things I cannot change, The COURAGE to change the things I can, And the WISDOM to know the Difference.

[This message has been edited by dr_bhatia (edited 11 January 2001).]

DR. B
Have you ever read the book called "Change of Heart"? (I can't remember the author at the moment...but I have the book at home so can let you know who wrote it if you are interested).

It is a true story about a woman who receives a heart and lung transplant...and later finds herself seemingly manifesting some aspects of the donor's personality, including food preferences, etc. She thinks she is going a bit crazy, but later joins a support group for transplant recepients and find they too have had similar changes come over them after the transplant.

For the most part the book is pretty convincing (when the traits were coming up BEFORE she found out about the donor's personality). Unfortunately, near the end of the story it almost seems they are looking for coincidences.

Zmyst

Dr. Bhatia, thanks for you lengthy responses and analysis. A lot of good points to consider. Some rebuttals from the lay-point of view, if you don't mind:

1) Viral purification from whole blood is a rather inexpensive and simple process that's done in labs with many commercially available kits. So the cost is mainly inherent to the cost of any proving. Such a controlled proving may shed some light as to what's more critical in the potentization process: The offending particle or genetic material itself (you're right, a virus is no more than a single-stranded molecule of DNA encapsulated in a protein sheath, which only becomes active after invasion of it's host), or rather the actual interaction between virus & host. Since homeopathy deals with a quantum environment, it's hard to pinpoint which quantum profile is key.
I'm also willing to bet that there is no change in the DNA; again, the forces we're dealing with are quantum, not physical.

2) T cells, correct?

3) This got me thinking about the tub. miasm; what if an ancestor of yours contracted TB AFTER he/she had children? Is the miasm transmitted regardless? If so, is it the potential for the miasm that's transmitted? And by extension, couldn't this also imply that the potential for infection (expressed in a quantum signature) within the viral particle itself be potentized in a remedy rather than infected whole blood? Just wondering.

RF

Zmyst,
I have heard of that book, but haven't read it. Please send me the authors name, publisher and book's ISBN if possible.

------------------
GOD grant me the SERENITY to accept the things I cannot change, The COURAGE to change the things I can, And the WISDOM to know the Difference.

Hi RF,
Your rebuttals are welcome, here are mine

1. Please explain in detail what do U mean by "Quantum environment", "Quantum profile", and "Quantum signature"??? I coudn't comprehend them very well. "Quantum" can have lot of meanings.

2. I will try to find out the exact cost for crystallisation of AIDS virus. May be Zmyst can also tell. Can U Zmyst????

3. I said in my previous post that I logically agree with U. Such work on differentition of the effect of the infective organism and the whole source will definetly enrich our understanding of the homeopathic medicines. But I told U my doubts regarding that proving. Outside the body and inside the body, viruses are two totally different things. Leave aside viruses, even bacterias and other disease producing agents are known to change their physiological characteristics, when they are not being hostile to us. Also, what ever drug comes out of such proving will not be a Nosode. One more thought, we can try to do a proving using china mother tincture and purified quinine. Lets see if something special comes up. I am a bit hypersensitive prover and cannot risk doing it for the coming few months due to some personal commitments. But may be after May.

4. lymphocytes are of two types T and B, with some sub varieties. T helper lymphocytes have a receptor on their surface, called CD4 receptor. The AIDS virus can get entry into a cell using only this receptors. So CD4 lymphoctes are primarily affected in AIDS and all other affects are secondary to falling immunity. So These cells are called CD4 cells/ C4 cells/ CD4 lymphocytes/ CD4 T lymphocytes/ CD4 T-helper lymphocytes/ CD4 TH cells......All names for the same thing

5. In your 3rd point U have said, "This got me thinking about the tub. miasm;". I can't get it....What made U think of tub miasm. In my third point(of previous post), I wrote nothing to make anyone think of tub miasm. I am puzzled...What do U mean by "potential for the miasm" ????....And I don't think now-a-days its necessary for the parent to get actual Tb to get that miasm. Tub miasm is primarily a mixed miasm and can be present without the history of tub disease. And how U created an anology between the tub miasm and the potential of infection is a puzzle...sorry! mystery o me. I coudn't catch U at all. Please be more explanative. ...And as far as the idea of potentising the potential of infection is concerned....I think that viruses or bacterias etc do not wage a war against us. They do not have any special or purposeful potential of infecton, which can be potentised. All they are trying to do is to live and carry forward their species. They find our body a suitable place for that is another matter. They don't know they are in OUR body or that they are doing damage to us. And How are we supposed to extract that "Potential of Infection" from a virus and potentise it?????
I think I have got U all wrong on your last point. Please put your thoughts in detail...so I can comprehend them.
DR. B.

------------------
GOD grant me the SERENITY to accept the things I cannot change, The COURAGE to change the things I can, And the WISDOM to know the Difference.