Dear Homeolist,

The following post was written by Will Talyor who I respect greatly. As to his views about the sycotic miasm, I respectfully disagree. The following is Will's public letter with my commentary added below his statements. I invite others to comment on this subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Taylor Venereal wart disease (Hahnemann's fig-wart disease, sycosis) is *not* gonorrhea

I will have to disagree with Will on this one. Hahnemann often spoke of sycosis and its gonorrheal discharge as well as its excrescence. There are many such quotes. In the Chronic Diseases Hahnemann says: "The gonorrhea dependant on the fig-wart disease miasma, as well as the above-mentioned excrescences (i.e. the whole sycosis) is cured, mostly surely and most thoroughly through the internal use of Thuja..." He is certainly speaking of both a gonorrheal discharge and various excrescences that appear to come together. He also notes Thuja has removed BOTH symptoms many times. So now, we have to see how this fits together before we take them apart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Taylor Gonorrhea is a bacterial disease, communicated by Neiseria gonorrhea, the "gonoccoccus". Venereal wart disease is communicated by Human Papilloma Virus, which was only identified as a discrete entity in the 1980's (tho its viral origin was suspected much earlier).

Hahnemann included both gonorrhea and excrescence under the same miasms. I think Will is missing some important points here. That is similar susceptibility, similar pathways of the disease and similar signs and symptoms. Sycosis may well include gonorrhea and HPV as well as some other infective agents and symptoms. They come together in a band of susceptibility and share a similar pathway of disease where one leads to the other. Those with inherited and acquired gonorrhea have HPV warts and some others have flecks and moles and other growths and brown discolorations that do not involve HPV at all!

How is it that some people have the complete sycotic syndrome never had HPV genital warts but they do have the moles, fishy smells, dark hairy patches and the brown spots as well as the catarrhal discharges and joint pains. All these signs and symptoms come together as one syndrome that is called sycosis. Some of these cases resolved with the return of a gonorrheal discharge showing the original cause. This is all *without HIPV*. It simply cannot be the only agent of sycosis. Nor has it been show that HPV alone can produce all the latent and tertiary symptoms associated with sycosis while gonorrhea has!

I and other have also confirmed cases where the patient had gonorrhea and then developed all the classical signs of sycosis without any infection of genital warts caused by HPV. If one thinks in terms of bands of susceptibility the entire syndrome including both is possible. I don't think narrowing it down to one entity can explain all that we observe clinically. That is too linear and somewhat allopathic in thinking. Sycosis is first and foremost a family of confirmed symptoms that have been removed. Many times their removal has ended with the return of a gonorrheal discharge. These are clinical facts not theories. I have seen this prove in the form of a glass full of yellow-green pus-like matter!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Taylor The two obviously frequently co-occur, as they are both common communicable venereal diseases.

These states comes together because they share similar susceptibility and a similar pathway of disease. Their suppression may lead to a similar syndrome because of this relationship. It is not that they are two completely different entities just because they involve different infective agents. They are in the same ban of susceptibility, share similar pathways and their suppression may tend to produce similar symptoms. ?This will have to sorted out clinically by observing the progression of symptoms under the disease and the reversal of symptoms during cure. The complete picture of genitourinary and constitutional symptoms of gonorrheal-sycosis can not be explained away so easily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Taylor Gonorrhea is a sub-acute miasm that may have a long latency and prolonged clinical course. Venereal wart disease is a chronic miasm - a permanent engraftment on the constitution.

Gonorrhea is also a life long chronic diseases, especially when suppressed. It is not self limiting like the other half-acute miasm Hahnemann mentioned, which was rabies. It is not just an infection of the urogenital tract. It can spread in the tissues, blood and lymph system to joints and organs and produce arthritis-like compliants and other constitutional symptoms The drip may resolve in time but the systemic symptoms do not, especially when suppressed, which is usually the case.

Neiseria gonorrhea is not a self limiting bacteria like an acute or sub-acute disorder. When it is suppressed the patient never recover completely. As has been shown with psora the original infective agent can be killed by suppression but the syndrome continues until death You can kill the mites or bacteria but the internal mistuning continues. This is the same with gonorrhea. Thinking of it in term of live bacteria only is a mistake made by the allopaths.

The gonorrhea infection in the female is often insidious and the patient may experience only a slight leucorrhoea that is not considered serious. In the female the urethra may or may not be involved and many times there are not the painful symptoms that are associated with the male anatomy. In many cases the onset is fairly mild but the vagina, cervix and urethra are usually involved to some degree. The patient often experiences itching and tickling sensations as well as a burning, smarting urination that irritates the mucous membranes. Some patients don't feel anything until much, much later.

In the more severe forms there may be discharge of mucus and pus and sensations of heat, swelling, fullness and itching. Small superficial ulcers may form on the mucous membranes, which become red and inflamed. The symptoms may spread to the bladder causing cystitis with discharges of blood or bloody urine. The inflammation may also spread to the labia, Bartholin’s glands, vagina, and cervix, neck of the uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries. In some cases there may be severe complications such as salpingitis, uterine hemorrhage, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) or arthritis.

Occasionally there is bacteremia where the gonococcus enters the bloodstream producing fever, malaise, and flitting joint pains and scanty pustular or petechial skin lesions on the periphery of the limbs. This has the potential for serious sequels such as pericarditis, endocarditis, meningitis, or perihepatitis that can be very dangerous. A baby born of a women infected with gonorrhea may suffer from neonatal infections of the eyes. All these symptoms are included in the traditional list of sign and symptoms caused by sycosis.

Sycosis, like psora is not gone just because someone took a drug and there are "no more bacteria". That is how the allopaths think not homeopaths. All of the above symptoms are mimicked by the sycotic miasma when the original discharge is suppressed by antibiotics.The suppressed miasm produces all these states even if the bacteria has been killed because the pathways of the suppressed miasms are similar to the symptoms of the active infection and its complications. These effects can then be transmitted by heredity to the next generation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Taylor Hahnemann never completed his promised anamnesis of sycosis, & his brief description in Chronic Diseases conjoins several common venereal diseases (likely HPV, gonorrhea, Chlamydia, etc.). Boenninghausen made a significant contribution toward this, in his Anamnesis of Sycosis (in his Lesser Writings). Our current "understanding" of sycosis unfortunately has intermixed symptoms of Venereal Wart Disease and Gonorrhea within it.

Psora's primary eruptions are a soft tissue infection of the skin that can be caused by several infective agents. In the CD Hahnemann mentions pimples and boils (staph-bacteria)), leprosy (bacterial TB), tetter (fungi), scabies (mites) and tinea (viruses), etc. All these vectors share the same pathway of disease and produce a similar psoric syndrome on suppression. This means that psora is NOT caused by one agent. Sycosis may not relate to only one agent either. Like psora sycosis may have a number of microorganisms involved.

It is possible may include gonococcus, chlamydia, trichomoniasis as well as HPV other homogeneous infective agents that share a similar pathway and produce similar constitutional symptoms on suppression. All of this must be shorted out over time. I have confirmed this in some cases of chlamydia. The patient became "sycotic" after suppression and produced many of the symptoms in the classical symptoms list. The disappear on the return of the original discharge under homeopathic treatment. Many sycotic cases have reversed to a gonorrheal discharge showing the origin of the symptoms. These are clinic facts not theories about one microorganism versus another.

In my opinion sycosis covers a number of possibilities and it opens one to a certain ban of susceptibility. Yes, it might well include gonococcus, chlamydia, HPV and other agents just like psora has more then one primary vector (bacteria, fungi, mites, viruses). Chronic sycosis produces a ban of susceptibility that leads to being affected by more sycotic agents and symptoms. The simple venereal wart caused by HPV does not explain away all constructional symptoms of sycosis found on the skin and internally. The wart is not the miasm but just one member of the greater syndrome.

If one wished to split hairs - I would say the sycotic symptoms are more similar to gonorrhea than HPV. HPV has been linked to cervical cancer in females and almost nothing in men. It also has NOT been documented to produce the wide set of constitutional symptoms associated with sycosis while gonorrhea and its complications have been shown to make up the complete classical picture of sycosis. The suppressed sycotic miasm mimics all these complications and sequels.

I, however, am not going to separate such things because they sometimes come together and go together clinically in some cases and in other cases they do not. Nearly all cases show some sort of dark hairy spots, moles, flecks, and other discolorations with concomitant fishy smells, stiff joints, painful muscles, weaken heart, etc., whether HPV or is or not!

As to what has been mixed up. When Hahnemann described the "figwarts" he gives a description of condylomata lata, which is actually caused by syphilis. He does not describe condylomatoa acumminata, which relates venereal and other warts, flecks and moles, etc. The people he was describing most likely had both sycosis and syphilis. Remember he said he had not seen that many cases. It was later homeopaths who carefully separated the symptoms of gonorrheal sycosis with condylomata accuminata from syphilis and condylomata lata. The classic figwarts Hahnemann described are caused by the gummata of syphilis. Simple HPV does not make figwarts, which really look like figs! Take a look in a medical book.

So...over the years homeopaths have done a very good job of finishing up where Hahnemann left off. The use of anti-sycotic remedies and the reversal of symptoms have confirmed the gonorrhea-sycosis hypothesis clinically. Limiting a grand syndrome like the sycotic miasm to HPV warts alone does not fit with the clinical symptoms or reversal of symptoms during cures over the years.

I and others have seen cases where the patient had a gonorrheal discharge that was suppressed and then they developed all the classical signs of sycosis over time. During treatment these collective symptoms reversed until the original discharge returned. The symptoms did not reverse to a venereal wart! We homeopaths have many such examples. You can not explain away all this clinical data by only pointing out gonorrhea and genital warts are caused by two different microorganism. They are related in a greater venereal syndrome known as sycosis which includes similar susceptibilities, similar pathways of disease, and similar signs and symptoms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Taylor Thuja is clearly a centrally-sycotic remedy, the most centrally sycotic remedy we have in our Materia Medica. Medorrhinum is not highly concordant with it - tho it does clearly have some sycotic aspects, it really has much closer concordances with our Tubercular remedies.

I do not agree with this either. It is true that Medorrhinum does have some TB-like symptoms but it is clearly made up of gonorrheal substances and has many sycotic symptoms. It has many more gonorrheal symptoms than TB symptoms. A good number of reinstated gonorrheal discharges, the removal of various excresences and arthritic-rheumatic syndromes have confirmed this remedy as a powerful anti-sycotic. The following symptoms have been confirmed in the clinic many times. These are from Allen's Keynotes.

"- For the constitutional effects of maltreated and suppressed gonorrhoea, when the best selected remedy fails to relieve or permanently improve.

- For persons suffering from gout, rheumatism, neuralgia and diseases of the spinal cord and its membranes_even organic lesions ending in paralysis_which can be traced to a sycotic origin.

- For women, with chronic ovaritis, salpingitis, pelvic cellulitis, fibroids, cysts, and other morbid growths of the uterus and ovaries, especially if symptoms point to malignancy, with or without sycotic origin.

- For scirrhus, carcinoma or cancer; either acute or chronic in development, when the symptoms correspond and a history of sycosis can be traced.

- Bears the same relation to deep-seated sycotic chronic affections of spinal and sympathetic nervous system, that Psorinum does to deep-seated affections of skin and mucous membranes."

Medorrhinum has been given on these indications when the concomitants agree and have cured a host of cases. Notice the great similarity of the symptoms to the sequels of a constitutional infection of gonococcus. The miasm can produce these symptoms even if the gonococcus has been suppressed and the disease is considered cured by the allopaths. Some of these cases resolved with the return of the original gonorrheal discharge.

I don't often disagree with Will but I think he is missing the point by only thinking in terms of one single infective agent per miasm. That is certainly NOT the case with Hahnemann's description of Psora in the CD, which sets the pattern for all other miasms. Think of the miasms as syndromes involving spectrums of agents, similar pathways of disease and similar constitutional symptoms and the matter is more clear. Will also in not paying attention to the host of case histories with complete sycotic constitutional symptoms that resolved with the return of the original gonorrheal discharge. Kent, Allen and others (including myself) have confirmed this clinically. This is clinical proof that transcends ideas about what causes what.

Sincerely, David Little

PS Anyone got Will's email address. I want to send him this post.



Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

Hi David,

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Quote: Venereal wart disease (Hahnemann's fig-wart disease, sycosis) is *not* gonorrhea I will have to disagree with Will on this one.

Let's modify the statement: it is *not* gonorrhea in the way we define the two diseases to-day. This seems to be a indisputable fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David [From homeopathic clinical experience it also seems a fact that the two - at least in their chronic manifestations - are interrelated.

However - that may be jumping to conclusions:

Thuja et al cover the sx of both diseases - no saying whether that is because they are at root the same or whether they just happen to do so (as Sulphur and Hepar cover most of the manifestations of "psora").

So, if you give say Thuja for the fig-wart-disease - there is no tag on the rx telling it where to apply. If that person also had had gonorrhea (which is always very likely) Thuja would of course also address the latter.

And the observable and observed fact that the two diseases very often occur together can also be explained without pre-supposing an interrelationship: at sexual intercourse the conditions for simultaneous infection with both - if the partner carries both diseases - is very likely.

Let's face it: Hahnemann's miasm theory is weak to ludicrous. This does not detract from his genius: it is a lot better than any of the other disease theories of his time (and maybe as good as or better than those of to-day).

He just did not have the knowledge.

Look at what he writes about Syphilis:

************

The disease is not cured except when through the effect of the internal remedy alone, the chancre is cured; but it is fully extinguished, as soon as through the action of the internally operating medicine alone (without the addition of any external remedy) the chancre is completely cured, without leaving any trace of its former presence.

I have never, in my practice of more than fifty years, seen any trace of the venereal disease break out, so long as the chancre remained untouched in its place, even if this were a space of several years *(for it never passes away of itself)*1, and even when it had largely increased in its place, as is natural in time with the internal augmentation of the venereal disorder, which increase takes place in time in every chronic miasma.

But whenever anyone is so imprudent, as to destroy this vicarious local symptom, the organism is ready to cause the internal syphilis *to break out into the venereal disease*2, since the general venereal disease dwells in the body from the first moment of infection.

*************

*1 This statement is quite a surprise to me. At naturopathic school we had to cram venereal diseases for the License Exam. I am sure I would remember if that had been part of the Syphilis picture. Does anyone know??

*2 what does he mean by that???

And as to contemporary miasm-theories - well: which one do you mean?

Regards

Luise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Let's modify the statement: it is *not* gonorrhea in the way we define the two diseases to-day.

Dear Luise,

There is much more to the gonorrhea cum sycosis-excrescence miasm than what the allopaths think it is! What Hahnemann wrote was only his fragmentary early observations. Over the last 180 years much clinical information has been collected on this subject. So many cases that developed all the classic signs of sycosis (fishy smells, yellow-greenish catarrhal discharges, kidney stones, moles, flecks, hairy spots, stiff joints, heart problems, memory loss, etc.) had their cases resolve when a gonorrheal-like discharge returned under homeopathic treatment. These are clinical facts and we have many case histories that confirm this. I have had such cases. I think this information is very important. It is this data and the cases histories that support it that is most important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Thuja et al cover the sx of both diseases - no saying whether that is because they are at root the same or whether they just happen to do so (as Sulphur and Hepar cover most of the manifestations of "psora").

All I can say is that they have the similar root in the fact that the patient was susceptible to the both these manifestations. Not all people catch HPV or gonorrhea, or any other venereal disease, even on contact. It is a question of susceptibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise So, if you give say Thuja for the fig-wart-disease - there is no tag on the rx telling it where to apply. If that person also had had gonorrhea (which is always very likely) Thuja would of course also address the latter.

Diseases that have a similar band of susceptibility are removed my similar remedies. Hahnemann pointed out that what people call many so-called "different diseases" can be related to one miasm. In other cases, they may be complex miasms involving more than one dissimilar cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise And the observable and observed fact that the two diseases very often occur together can also be explained without pre-supposing an interrelationship: at sexual intercourse the conditions for simultaneous infection with both - if the partner carries both diseases - is very likely.

I have seen cases where both the symptoms of the suppressed gonorrheal discharges and the warts resolve under treatment. I have seen cases where gonorrhea was suppressed and the classic sycotic symptoms appear without any HPV warts. I think such clinical experiences are more important than theory. As to the final proof about what really constitutes sycosis - I certainly don't have all the answers!

More than one so-called disease can be related to a single chronic miasm like psora, etc. Hahnemann pointed out that pimples, boils, even lebrosy (bacteria) as well as tetter (fungi), herpes (viruses) and scabies (mites) can all produce the psoric syndrome when suppressed. That means he did NOT link psora to one specific microorganism. I believe these skin infections produce a similar chronic syndrome when suppressed because they share a similar susceptibility, a similar pathways of disease, and similar chronic signs and symptoms. The same may be true with sycosis, etc. This is what we have to check out through clinical observation and the reversal of symptoms under successful treatment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Let's face it: Hahnemann's miasm theory is weak to ludicrous. This does not detract from his genius: it is a lot better than any of the other disease theories of his time (and maybe as good as or better than those of to-day).

Well, I am have to disagree with you here as to the words "weak to ludicrous". Hahnemann is the Founder of modern epidemiology and he introduced some very profound ideas that have been brought up to date by generations of homeopaths. He was the first to work out a coherent hypothesis of susceptibility, primary infections, latent states, and secondary and tertiary symptoms. This is neither weak nor ludicrous. Some of the details may be wrong or need improvement but the central thesis is very profound.

What is the essence of the miasm theory? It is that suppressing the primary symptoms and skin lesion leads to a host of life long chronic symptoms. That is what it is all about. Secondly, he pointed out that the symptoms of these miasms reverse toward their original cause under homeopathic treatment. These ideas have proven quite accurate in the clinic over the last 180 years. This information alone is worth its weight in gold!!!

His basic observations about the suppression of skin disease and its constitutional sequels have been confirmed in the clinic. I have had many serious chronic cases resolved when a suppressed skin lesions returned to the skin and then passed away. This is really quite profound and practical rather than weak or ludicrous. It is these clinical confirmations that I trust the best. Sure all the details don't fit perfectly as he was dealing with completely new ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise He just did not have the knowledge.

Hahnemann's information on the suppression of skin infections is massive, detailed and very accurate in its clinical observations. A few of the details may be wrong or questionable but the over hypothesis have proved very important and very accurate. His work on sycosis was fragmentary at best and some of his statements on syphilis seem odd. Nevertheless. his insights into the outcome of the suppression of the primary symptoms and skin lesions are very profound and accurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Look at what he writes about Syphilis:

This has been done more than once. Syphilis has been cured by internal homeopathic remedies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise I have never, in my practice of more than fifty years, seen any trace of the venereal disease break out, so long as the chancre remained untouched in its place, even if this were a space of several years *(for it never passes away of itself)*1, and even when it had largely increased in its place, as is natural in time with the internal augmentation of the venereal disorder, which increase takes place in time in every chronic miasma.

Yes, this does not conform to the symptom pattern of syphilis as commonly understood. It is taught that the chancre usually passes off on its own but it usually leaves a discoloration. This then leads to the latent and tertiary symptoms. We are not sure, however, exactly what the pattern was in the early 1828s. Modern syphilis has changed its infection pattern. These days many cases no longer develop a chancre and the disease passes right into the latent state. I read several studies on this. This is very dangerous because the patient doesn't know they have syphilis. This means there larger pool of syphilis cases that is commonly understood. This is because of suppression by modern antibiotics, etc.

Read H. Coulter's work, which is named something like AIDS and Syphilis, the Hidden Link. It has some of these studies. Syphilis is the great masquerader as well as the master of mutation. It has constantly changed it symptom pattern since the 1400s, when it could actually kill Europeans quite quickly. Hahnemann said in 1828 the chancre never passes off by itself, in 1940s and 50s they said it passes away on its own, and now they say many times the chancre doesn't even appear! There is more to syphilis than meets the eye. What's next???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise And as to contemporary miasm-theories you mention below - well: which one do you mean?

First of all, Hahnemann is the Founder of the miasm doctrine. To this has been added the experience of several generations of homeopaths over the last 180 years. Boennighausen, Kent, J.H. Allen, H.C. Allen and others have written about this. His basic idea that the suppression of the primary symptoms and skin lesions of the miasms leads to more complicated chronic diseases has been well confirmed. His assertion that these symptoms will reverse toward their original cause under proper homeopathic treatment has also been confirmed. I have seen this in cured cases many times This is the essence. Some of the newer ideas are those of Sankaran and others. They may diverge on the details, even what they think the miasms really are, but the relationship of suppression to chronic disease remain coherent. This is what is most important

Sincerely, David Little

Hi David,

there is some basic idea reoccurring through your mail, which I do not understand.

It is the matter of susceptibility and (chronic) miasms.

The way I read it you are saying "susceptibility = miasm"

To me it is:

susceptibility + pathogenic agent results in infection which results in the miasm.

This is what Hahnemann said.

(Let's forget in this connection about hereditary miasms: for one thing it would not change the matter as far as basic definition is concerned, for another: Hahnemann wrote about hereditary miasms only at one place, and that statement cannot be found in the original manuscript of the 6th Organon in the handwriting of H. or the copyist - it is only there in Haehl's handwriting. (I can reference this if anyone is interested).

I am not familiar with the writings of v. Boenninghausen or Allen on miasms, Kent's in this respect seems to be in line with H.

Regards

Luise

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise there is some basic idea reoccurring through your mail, which I do not understand.

Dear Luise,

No, I am not saying that susceptibility is the miasms. I am saying that susceptibility is that which opens one up to contracting a miasm. If ten people come in contact with scabies or a staphylococcus infection perhaps only 4 or 5 contract the psoric disease. These 4 or 5 individuals share a similar susceptibility while the other 5 or 6 did not share that susceptibility. Susceptibility comes first, then the primary infection, then usually suppression, then the latent state, then the secondary symptoms. So I think we agree?

Quote:

(Let's forget in this connection about hereditary miasms: for one thing it would not change the matter as far as basic definition is concerned, for another: Hahnemann wrote about hereditary miasms only at one place, and that statement cannot be found in the original manuscript of the 6th Organon in the handwriting of H. or the copyist - it is only there in Haehl's handwriting. (I can reference this if anyone is interested).

The paragraph in question is aphorism 78 of the 6th edition.

Here is the important part it in German.

In den bluehendsten Juenglingsjahren und beim Anfange geregelter Menstruation, gepaart mit einer fuer Geist, Herz und Körper wohltätigen Lebensweise bleiben sie oft mehrere jahre unkenntlich; die davon Ergriffenen scheinen dann in den Augen ihrer Anverwandten und Bekannten, als wären sie völlig gesund und als wäre die, ihnen durch *ansteckung* oder *erbschaf* eingeprägte Krankheit völlig verschwunden----

Here is the same in English.

"These afflicted appear in the eyes of their relatives and acquaintances as if they were completely healthy and as if the disease, implanted in them through *infection or heredity*, were completely vanished. However, it inevitably comes to the fore again in later years and with adverse events and relationships in life."

Research contained in The Organon of the Medical Art by O'Reilly, 1996 refers to Schmidt's research. There are 7 different handwritings in the 6th Organon and related documents. Most of these insertions are minor involving grammatical changes, the addition of a word or two for the purpose of clarification and grammatical corrections. Schmidt says in the standard edition some of these to be dictations and carry a few notes by Hahnemann and appear authentic.

There are a few insertions noted in the passages that stand out as major changes. One of these is in an unidentified person's writing and the four others are by Haehl. These passages are found in the middle of aphorism 270 and its footnotes fn270g, fn270f. The others are changes in the footnote to 265 and the footnote of 284.

I, and my German colleagues, have checked the Organon der Heilkunst Textkritische Ausgabe der von samuel Hahnemann fuer die sechste Auflage vorgesehen Fassung- Bearbeitet, herausgegeben und mit Vorwort versehen von Joseph M. Schmidt Haug Verlag. We have gone to the text critical version in German and read exactly what Schmidt wrote about the footnote to aphorism 78.

The Schmidt's text critical version says that the footnote to aphorism 78 was written on a separate sheet of paper in italics and placed in Hahnemann's Organon but he did not say it was written in Haehl's handwriting. It is Schmidt's opinion that the statement about heredity of psora in aphorism 78 was written in Hahnemann's handwriting. The footnote to aphorism 78 was not contested by Dr. Schmidt.

The contested passage dealing with heredity is the second half of the footnote to §284. The first half §284 is in the handwriting of Hahnemann were he speaks of transmitting psora through the breast milk if it has not been already passed "by inheritance from the mother". So Hahnemann mentioned "inheritance" twice in his own handwriting. The second half if §284 is written in Haehl's handwriting and is where the text speaks of giving Sulphur to the mother to eradicate psora while she is pregnant and prevent the hereditary transmission of psora to the offspring. This is the contested part of the passage written in Haehl's handwriting.

Dr. Schmidt wrote that the first part of this passage was consistent with what Hahnemann wrote in footnote to §78, which speaks of psora being imparted by “infection and heredity”. In the foreword to the edition, in footnote 63 (p.XXVII) Schmidt explicitly quotes the footnote to aph. 78 as confirming what is written in Haehl's handwriting in the footnote to 284 about heredity through the mother. This statement is also in Hahnemann handwriting and is not contested.

In order to prove that Hahnemann wrote the footnote to aphorism 78, we will now quote exactly what Schmidt wrote in German:

"In § 78, Anm.1 schreibt Hahnemann, daß "chronische Krankheiten" durch Ansteckung oder Erbschaft eingeprägt werden können."

English translation:

"In § 78, footnote 1, Hahnemann writes, that "chronic diseases" can be imprinted through infection or heredity (Erbschaft)".

Turner's Dictionary, published in Leipzig, Germany in the 1830's defines Erbschaft in the following manner.

(1). Erbschaft - heritage, inheritance, succession, heirdom.

In 1840 Hahnemann used the word, Erbschft, to mean inheritance in the sense of biological heredity. At that time, Vererben only meant "to leave or transfer" and had nothing to do with inheritance. Vererbung is used as a modern scientific term in 2004 for inheritance in reference to "transferring" the genetic code. The nature of the DNA was not known in the days of Lamarck and Hahnemann.

I would also like to point out that Hahnemann used the term "hereditary disposition" (Erb-anlagen) in the Chronic Diseases in 1828 when explaining how constitution, temperament, hereditary predispositions and environment, etc., conditioned the symptoms of psora in individuals.

"The awakening of the internal Psora which has hitherto slumbered and been latent, and as it were, kept bound by a good bodily constitution and favorable external circumstances, as well as it breaking out into more serious ailments and maladies, is announced by the increase of the symptoms given above as indicating the slumbering Psora, and also by a numberless multitude of various other signs and complaints. *These are varied according to the difference in the bodily constitution of a man, his HEREDITARY DISPOSITION the various errors in his education and habits, his manner of living and diet, his employment, his turn of mind, his morality, etc.* (BJain publishing, New Delhi). Capitals by DL.

Here is the same passage from the German edition of the Chronic Diseases:

- verschieden je nach der verschiednen KÖRPER - KONSTITUTIONEN
Koerper-Konstitution des Menschen, seiner ERB-ANLAGEN, den verschiednen Fehlern in seiner Erziehung und seiner Angewohnheiten, seiner Lebensweise und Diaet, seiner Beschaeftigungen, seiner Geistes-Richtung, seiner Moralitaet u.s.w." Capitals DL.

1. Körper -konstitutionen means bodily constitutions
2. Erb-anlagen means inherited tendencies

Erb-Anlage was translated by a German-English translator I spoke to as: *hereditary disposition*. which agrees with Tafel's translation.

(1). First of all, Hahnemann used the term "Koeper-Konsititutionen", which is based on the Latin root, constituto, which is the same root as the English word, constitution. This definitely shows that Hahnemann used the term *physical constitution* in the Chronic Diseases and considered it a major conditioning factor along with the *hereditary disposition*, mental character, habits, diet, etc., in the way that psora and other miasms developed different symptoms in individuals. This shows that a study of innate constitution and temperament and their relationship to environment is an important part of homeopathic medicine.

Normally, Hahnemann uses the German word "Beschaffenheit", which general means the "make up" of something. I know that you, Luise, disagree with the definition of this word as constitution in the English translation of the Organon, etc.. Nevertheless, here is how the W. Turner’s Dictionary, published in Leipzig, Germany in the 1830s during the lifetime of Samuel Hahnemann, defines the German term in English.

Beschaffenheit, as nature, quality, temper, condition, constitution, disposition and circumstance.

Therefore, the term Beschaffenheit may include any condition, quality or circumstance related to the nature of the constitution, disposition and temperament when used as a medical term. This show how the term was used in Hahnemann's lifetime in a classical sense. Therefore, in homeopathic medicine, Beschaffenheit, may mean the nature or quality, condition of the constitution, disposition or temperament. The homeopathic usage is related directly to the practice of medicine not the common usage of a lay person on the street. Modern German may no longer clearly convey this meaning.

(2). Secondly, Hahnemann used the term *Erb-anlgen* (Hereditary disposition) in the Chronic Disease and the term, Erbschaft (Heredity) in fn 78. Both these words begin with and share the root *Erb* in German, which is the root for the word inheritance. In Hahnemann's medical usage Erbschaft and Erb-anlgen are terms used by Hahnemann for hereditary factors. Hahnemann did not use the term, Vererbung, in his statements on heredity in the Organon or Chronic Diseases because in the 1830s it only meant "to leave, transfer" not inheritance.

Hahnemann taught that psora (and the miasms) can be imparted in three manners.

1. Direct contact with an infected host.
2. Through infection such as by mother's milk or milk of a wet nurse.
3. By heredity through family (inheritance).

So Luise, I suggest you check Schmidt's text critical version to confirm what I have written. There are some German speaking persons on the list who can also confirm the above. There has been a lot of dis-information and rumors on this point but I believe Dr. Schmidt can be taken as today's most trusted scholar on this subject.

Quote:

I am not familiar with the writings of v. Boenninghausen or Allen on miasms, Kent's in this respect seems to be in line with H.

Boenninghausen wrote an article called Anamnesis of Sycosis in his lesser writing in which he used the symptoms of Thuja as characteristic for syscosis and compare some other remedies with it in order to expand the anti-sycotic remedies. Kent did some great work on sycosis! J.H. Allen wrote a fantastic book on called the Chronic Miasms Volumes 1 and 2. His writings on sycosis are brilliant.


I have cut the rest of the thread to make space for my extensive
comments on the heredity of psora


"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

Hello everyone,

I am a typographical mistake in this part of my post.

The contested passage dealing with heredity is the second half of the footnote to §284. The first half §284 is in the handwriting of Hahnemann were he speaks of transmitting psora through the breast milk if it has not been already passed "by inheritance from the mother". So Hahnemann mentioned "inheritance" twice in his own handwriting. The second half if §284 is written in Haehl's handwriting and is where the text speaks of giving Sulphur to the mother to eradicate psora while she is pregnant and prevent the hereditary transmission of psora to the offspring. This is the contested part of the passage written in Haehl's handwriting.

Dr. Schmidt wrote that the first part of this passage was consistent with what Hahnemann wrote in footnote to §78, which speaks of psora being imparted by “infection and heredity”. In the foreword to the edition, in footnote 63 (p.XXVII) Schmidt explicitly quotes the footnote to aph. 78 as confirming THE MISTAKE IS HERE [what is written in Haehl's handwriting in the footnote to 284 about heredity through the mother] This statement is also in Hahnemann handwriting and is not contested.

The last two sentences should say.

Schmidt wrote that the first part of this passage was consistent with what Hahnemann wrote in footnote to §78, which speaks of psora being imparted by “infection and heredity”. In the foreword to the edition, in footnote 63 (p.XXVII) Schmidt quotes the footnote to aph. 78 as confirming what is written in the first part of 284 about heredity through the mother. This statement is also in Hahnemann handwriting and is not contested.

In order to prove that Hahnemann wrote the footnote to aphorism 78, we will now quote exactly what Schmidt wrote in German:

"In § 78, Anm.1 schreibt Hahnemann, daß "chronische Krankheiten" durch
Ansteckung oder Erbschaft eingeprägt werden können."

English translation:

"In § 78, footnote 1, Hahnemann writes, that "chronic diseases" can be imprinted through infection or heredity (Erbschaft)".

Turner's Dictionary, published in Leipzig, Germany in the 1830's defines Erbschaft in the following manner.

Sincerely, David Little

Hi David,

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Little I am a typographical mistake in this part of my post.

No - this is not written in Hahnemann's handwriting but in "Kanzleischrift". By someone unknown.

Schmidt says about it:

The portions written in Kanzleischrift again not rarely contain additional inserts or changes in Hahnemann's own handwriting. Obviously they are dictations, which were revised by H. himself and therefore - at least in those cases - can be considered authentic. Portions in this script that do not contain additions by Hahnemann for the most part are merely new versions of text also existent in Hahnemann's handwriting or purely corrections of syntactic matters. The only exception which is relevant as to the content is that of the footnote to aphor 284, which is in "Kanzleischrift" and states that
"psora could also be inheritable", which, however, is in concordance with a remark in Hahnemann's own handwriting (footnote to aphor 78)

(Schmidt ...., 1999 edition, page XVII)

As to the rest - see my other post.

Regards

Luise

Hi David,

I wish I could answer this post and the previous one as fully as it merits. However, until about March I am in a deadline squeeze with a totally different project, so I have to keep the answer short. Also, because of it, I can only take time for the emails as a break or when I am too tired for concentration -- and again, the topic would merit - and need!;-) - full concentration.

Perhaps it will come up again next year or so. I definitely find it interested - the more so since I have never paid too much attention to the matter of miasms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Little Quote: there is some basic idea reoccurring through your mail, which I do notunderstand.

Yes - but then there are parts in your previous post which I do not understand. But for now I shall have to let it slide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Little Quote: (Let's forget in this connection about hereditary miasms: for one thing it would not change the matter as far as basic definition is concerned, for another: Hahnemann wrote about hereditary miasms only at one place, and that statement cannot be found in the original manuscript of the 6th Organon in the handwriting of H. or the copyist - it is only there in Haehl's handwriting. (I can reference this if anyone is interested). The paragraph in question is aphorism 78 of the 6th edition.

You are quite right. I was being sloppy - for the reasons stated at the top I failed to check and relied on my memory.

Here, in short, is the way it is:

There are 3 references to inheritance of psora in the 6th Organon. Two of them are rather lengthy and make up the footnote to aphor 284. None of them is in Hahnemann's handwriting. The first is by an unknown writer. There is no clue as to whether Hahnemann has ever read it (to this see my other post - the reply to your "errata"). The second is in Haehl's handwriting.

The only other reference to inheritance of psora is in H. own handwriting, but consists of only one word "Erbschaft - inheritance".

**********

....als wäre die, ihnen durch
> *ansteckung* oder *erbschaf* eingeprägte Krankheit..

**************

The English translation

**********

as if the disease, implanted in them
> through *infection or heredity*,

************

is correct, except for "implantet". "Eingeprägt" is more like "engrafted" - which may or may not make a difference.

Since to-day I was at the library, I did some research. And it seems that at Hahnemann's time it was taken for granted by all and sundry that disease could be inherited.

There is e.g. a quotation from Goethe's "Goetz von Berlichingen" (a drama - 1771) which is still cited quite commonly - I for one grew up with it - my mother liked it:-).

********

Es erben sich Gesetz und Rechte als eine ewige Krankheit fort

**********

Translated

********

Law and prerogatives get inherited as an eternal illness

***************

(Your German collegues may protest - I was surprised myself. The quotation seems to have changed through general usage to " Law and prerogatives are *transmitted* like an eternal illness. But I read it this way in Grimm's German-German Dictionary of 1868)

These are the facts.

The following is my opinion.

It seems to me that H. did not agree with this theory or that he did not consider it important. The reason for my opinion is that in his CD he insists that every case of psora has in its history a suppressed skin eruption -

****************

when I discovered, even in the beginning, that the obstacle to the cure of many cases which seemed delusively like specific, well-defined diseases, and yet could not be cured in a Homoeopathic manner with the then proved medicines, seemed very often to lie in a former eruption of itch, which was not unfrequently confessed; and the beginning of all the subsequent sufferings usually dated from that time. So also with similar chronic patients who did not confess such an infection, or, what was probably more frequent, who had, from inattention, not perceived it,. or, at least, could not remember it. After a careful inquiry it usually turned out that little traces of it (small pustules of itch, herpes, etc.) had showed themselves with them from time to time, even if but rarely, as an indubitable sign of a former infection of this kind.

-----< Page - 7 >-----

These circumstances, in connection with the fact that innumerable observations of physicians,* and not infrequently my own experience, had shown that an eruption of itch suppressed by faulty practice or one which had disappeared from the skin through other means was evidently followed, in persons otherwise healthy, by the same or similar symptoms; these circumstances, I repeat, could leave no doubt in my mind as to the internal foe which I had to combat in my medical treatment of such cases

CD -Theoretical Part, pages 7/8

*********************

This would not make sense if he considered it likely that the patient might have inherited the psora.

>From the quote from the CD you give below

****************

These are varied
> according to the difference in the bodily constitution of a man, his HEREDITARY DISPOSITION the various errors in his education and habits, his manner of living and diet, his employment, his turn of mind, his morality, etc.* (BJain publishing, New Delhi). Capitals by DL.

*************************

"hereditary disposition" is not the miasm but the *susceptibility to the miasm*. We agreed above that susceptibility to the miasm is not the miasm - in order to become the miasm it needs contact with the miasmatic agent, infection by it, and, in the case of the chronic miasms, a skin eruption and suppression of that.

I agree that H. considered the *disposition* to be hereditary.

So, by referring to the "inheritance" in aphor 78 he may have meant this disposition. Or it may just have meant: "by whatever means" - just as we use this phrase to-day and mean to say: "for the purpose of what I am saying here it makes no difference how it came about."

Seeing that everyone around seemed to believe in the inheritance of disease this could very well be the case.

End of the opinion-part:-)

-----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by David (1). First of all, Hahnemann used the term "Koeper-Konsititutionen", which is based on the Latin root, constituto, which is the same root as the English word, constitution. This definitely shows that Hahnemann used the term *physical constitution* in the Chronic Diseases and considered it a major conditioning factor along with the *hereditary disposition*, mental character, habits, diet, etc., in the way that psora and other miasms developed different symptoms in individuals. This shows that a study of innate constitution and temperament and their relationship to environment is an important part of homeopathic medicine.

No - I do not disagree at all.

Beschaffenheit can mean all that. As I said before again and again: "Beschaffenheit" means "the way something is". As such it can also mean constitution where constitution is used in the sense of "the way something is". But this is not the broad way the English word constitution is used.

Quote:

Therefore, the term Beschaffenheit may include any condition, quality or circumstance related to the nature of the constitution,

Exactly! It would then be "Beschaffenheit der (Konstitution)" or whatever constitution was used for in the context. We could e.g. say: "seine Konstitution ist so "beschaffen..." which would be translatable as: "his constitution is such..."

In your quotes you can see for yourself that, when Hahnemann means "constitution" in the braod sense, he uses the word "Konstitution" - this covers the other part of the English word "constitution".

Regards

Luise

Dear Luise,

I understand how it is to be busy and I really appreciate what you wrote about aphorism fn 284 as I want to clear up the matter if possible. I also can only post on the list on occasions due to a heavy workload. I certainly will not repeat the statement that Hahnemann mentions inheritance or heredity "twice" in his own handwriting until the matter is clarified one way or the other. He only mentioned it once, which is found in fn 78, where he speaks of psora being engendered by "infection or heredity".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise There are 3 references to inheritance of psora in the 6th Organon. Two of them are rather lengthy and make up the footnote to aphor 284. None of them is in Hahnemann's handwriting. The first is by an unknown writer. There is no clue as to whether Hahnemann has ever read it (to this see my other post - the reply to your "errata"). The second is in Haehl's handwriting.

What you have written is a little unclear. You say there are 3 references to inheritance in the 6th Organon. 2 are in fn 284. theh you say "none of them is written in Hahnemann's handwriting'. I think you mean neither of these 2 are in H's writing. The first one in the first part you say is written by an unknown hand and the second is by Haehl. The 3rd reference to inheritance is in fn to aphorism 78, which speaks of psora being engendered by "infection or heredity".

This must be what you mean as Schmidt did not contest the footnote to aphorism 78. He says it was written by Samuel Hahnemann on a separate piece of paper in italics and place in the Organon. That means 1 reference is written in Hahnemann's handwriting, which says that psora may be ngendered
by "infection or heredity".

Quote:

Since to-day I was at the library, I did some research. And it seems that at Hahnemann's time it was taken for granted by all and sundry that disease could be inherited.

The Frenchman, J. B. P. A. de Monet de Lamarck (1744-1829), formulated the first modern theory of biological inheritance and published his finding in 1809 and 1815-22. Lamarckism was based on the idea that species developed through the effort of organisms to adapt to new conditions. The Lamarckian concept that characteristics acquired in this manner could be passed on by inheritance was discussed enthusiastically in educational, political and progressive medical circles in the 1820s. It was natural that Hahnemann and his students would be discussing the ideas of diseases being passed by inheritance. The idea is not new as Hippocrates spoke of it in the 5th century BC.!

Hahnemann would not have made any statements about heredity if he did not believe in inheritance. That would be out of character. If he did not believe in it he would not have included it in the Organon or the Chronic Diseases. The first in the case of he stated that psora could be transmitted by "infection or heredity" and the second he was speaking of "hereditary dispositions".

You are quite correct to think that psora has to start somewhere, and in the inherited version of the miasm, the eruption must have been suppressed in an ancestor and the negative affects passed onward. I believe he included the idea of inherited psora to explain those cases which did not seem to ever have suffered suppression of skin eruption. As I can not talk to Samuel I can not ask him *how* important it was to him but it has become very important in modern science and contemporary Homoeopathy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise I agree that H. considered the *disposition* to be hereditary.

I was pointing out that Hahnemann taught hereditary disposition had a large role to play in the conditioning of symptoms suffered by an individual. This is very important and quite ground breaking in the 1820s. In fact, the inherited constitution plays a role in condition an individual symptoms in all states of disease. Inheritance (nature) seems to be number 1 with environment (nurture) a close second. This statement is very
insightful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise So, by referring to the "inheritance" in aphor 78 he may have meant this disposition. Or it may just have meant: "by whatever means" - just as we use this phrase to-day and mean to say: "for the purpose of what I am saying here it makes no difference how it came about." Seeing that everyone around seemed to believe in the inheritance of disease this could very well be the case

Hahnemann never uses his words lightly. He clearly says that psora can be a engendered by "infection or heredity". He would not have made this statement unless he meant it just as it is written. He says absolutely nothing about inherited dispositions in this passage or anything that implies for "by whatever means" or "makes no difference how it came about". It simply says psora may be engendered by "infection or inheritance" in black and white. His statement in the Chronic Disease is clearly about the hereditary disposition conditioning the symptoms of psora. This means he discussed to two aspects of inheritance, i.e. heredity psora and hereditary dispositions. This is really quite profound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Exactly! It would then be "Beschaffenheit der (Konstitution)" or whatever constitution was used for in the context. We could e.g. say: "seine Konstitution ist so "beschaffen..." which would be translatable as: "his constitution is such...

According to the Turner Dictionary published in Lipseg in the 1830s Beschaffenheit means "nature, quality, temper, condition, constitution, disposition and circumstance". First of all we must look exactly at the usage in the Organon, which is a medical text. Medical terms are used differently than the words of a lay person on the street. When using constitution as a medical term in English it does means the nature, quality, condition or disposition of the body or mind or both as a unit. You seem to think it means something quite different in English? This IS using the word constitution in the sense of "the way something is (here the human organism)".

According to the English-German dictionary of 1830 Beschaffenhiet may simply mean constitution, disposition or temper in English. In aphorism five Hahnemann says to take into account the details of the "Leibes-Bechsaffenheit", which has been translated into English as the "body constitution". Here the bodily constitution simply means the *condition or nature of the body*. It does mean "the way the body is" in English and agrees with what you are saying. Are they fat, thin, weak, shrivelled up, bilious, etc. You seem to think constitution means something else in English? When speaking medically the physical constitution means the bodily nature, quality, condition, disposition, etc.. This all seems to agree with your definition.

By the way, my information was presented to me by German colleagues. So not all Germans think the same way you do? As there is a disagreement among what Germans think it is not just my lack of understanding of German or your lack of understanding of English. I am willing to change my opinion if our German colleagues decide what I have said can not to be true under any circumstances. So....what do the other Germans out there on the list think. I will retract my statements if I am wrong! OK?
..
Sincerely, David Little

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Quote: The contested passage dealing with heredity is the second half of the footnote to §284. The first half §284 is in the handwriting of Hahnemann were he speaks of transmitting psora through the breast milk if it has not been already passed "by inheritance from the mother". No - this is not written in Hahnemann's handwriting but in "Kanzleischrift". By someone unknown.

Dear Luise,

Thank you for this information as I don't want to be passing on any mistakes. Nevertheless, I think the main point I raised is that the footnote to aphorism 78 is in Hahnemann's handwriting.That means that the following statements are the teaching of Samuel Hahnemann.

In German.

In den bluehendsten Juenglingsjahren und beim Anfange geregelter Menstruation, gepaart mit einer fuer Geist, Herz und Körper wohltätigen Lebensweise bleiben sie oft mehrere jahre unkenntlich; die davon Ergriffenen scheinen dann in den Augen ihrer Anverwandten und Bekannten, als wären sie völlig gesund und als wäre die, ihnen durch *ansteckung* oder *erbschaf* eingeprägte Krankheit völlig verschwunden----

English translation by W. O'Reilly.

"These afflicted appear in the eyes of their relatives and acquaintances as if they were completely healthy and as if the disease, implanted in them through *infection or heredity*, were completely vanished. However, it inevitably comes to the fore again in later years and with adverse events and relationships in life."

That means that Hahnemann taught that psora could be contracted by "infection and heredity" as the fn to aphorism 78 is his pen. Therefore there is a precedent to speak about *inherited miasms". That is the main point.

There seems to be a disagreement with what O'Reilly says about the footnote to aphorism 284. Wenda writes:

In fn 284, Hahnemann discusses the administration of medicines to infants through breast milk. This is also discussed in the Chronic Diseases and I found a case in the Paris casebooks which confirms that he used the method. He gave the wet nurse and the baby the remedy in this instance. My wife and I am working on translating entry from French to English. According to O' Reilly this passage is in Hahnemann's handwriting and includes the statement:

"Psora is usually communicated through breast milk in most nursing infants, if they do not already possess it by inheritance from the mother. Therefore, nursing infants can be antipsorically protected in the same way - by means of medicinal milk."

Then O'Reilly says that the rest of the passages is in the handwriting of Haehl which begins with:

"However, the case of mothers in the first pregnancy a is indispensable. This should be done by means of a gentle antipsoric treatment, especially with sulphur in the new dynamization.......

[further down the passage it says] Psora (which is the engender of most chronic diseases) has already been imparted to mothers through inheritance and it is almost always present in them."

So she is stating that the first half of the passage which includes the words "Psora is usually communicated through breast milk in most nursing infants, if they do not already possess it by inheritance from the mother." is in Hahnemann's handwriting and the second part of the passage about protecting the infant prophylactically, which also includes a statement about inheritance, is written in Haehl's handwriting.

So, can you, Luise, or anyone else with access to data about aphorism 284 please look further into the matter??? I do not want to be passing along the wrong information and I am sure Wenda, who studied at Harvard, does not wish that either. I believe we should look deeper into the matter as Wenda is a very serious scholar and most likely has some source. I will try to email her also.

Can we find some clarification of the complete nature of the footnote to aphorism 284? Anyone have more details?

Sincerely, David

PS. When you go to Stuttgart please do check out just when Hahnemann started to give Sulphur to around and Hepar Sulphur to most of his first appointments. Seem to be running around Sulphur in 60% of the Paris casebooks with Hepar somewhere between 10% and 20% at times. Did that start around 1828 or what??? I will also notify my colleagues to check this the next time they are at the RBI. I will share any imput I get with you, of course. If you have anything you would like me to check confirm in the French Casebooks let me know and I will try.

---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000