morrells-miasms

7/27/2019 morrells-miasms

1/12

1

Miasms, Nosodes and Essences by Peter Morrell

Title: Morrell's Miasms

# Name: Morrell's Miasms# Edition: 5

#*Miasms, Nosodes and Essences*

#The Book*Miasms, Nosodes and Essences*

This article attempts to use a short discussion about miasms and nosodes as alaunching pad into a deeper discussion of homeopathic views about disease and cure, as

basically aspects of essentialism.When Hahnemann announced his miasm theory in 1828 it was greeted with shock,

disbelief, uproar and derision by the entire medical world. Even many homeopathsblushed with shame and completely ignored the idea as preposterous. It was hard to seewhere Hahnemann was coming from. The grand scheme of the miasms, so familiar today,

seemed just like words from an alien language. If you start from symptom totality, thenyou can just about reach the even wider concept of a miasm as a grouped entity derivingfrom hundreds of cases. But if you start from the familiar allopathic terrain of a 'disease'

affecting whole populations, then the idea of miasms as internalised and inheriteddyscrasias seems very hard to grasp. The conceptual challenge is simply one of breadth

of view. Each individual case, upon which homeopathy is based, was henceforth to beviewed in the light of another totality - the family legacy of Psora, S yphilis and Sycosis.

The theory of miasms originates in Hahnemann's book The Chronic Diseases, [1]

published around the same time that he also decided to fix 30c as the standard potency forall homeopaths. He declared that the theory was the result of 12 years of the most

painstaking work on difficult cases of a chronic character combined with his ownresearch into the historical diseases of man.

The three miasms given in that work are held to be responsible for all disease of a

chronic nature and to form the foundation for all disease in general. This latter aspect wasthen to receive considerable amplification from Kent. Kent was also able to more clearly

identify those remedies that relate to each miasm. Though now generally accepted bymost homeopaths without question, at the time, the theory was generally greeted withdisbelief and derision from all but the most devoted followers. This can be explained in

part by the primitive nature of med ical science at that time, which was not really verywilling to accommodate any theory for the origin of disease, least of all such a grand and

all-embracing one.The word miasm means a cloud or fog in the being. Its meaning can be expanded and

seen as a primary defect; a root cause; a shadow, fragment or internalised relic of an

actual disease passed down the genetic line; a vaccine defect; a pre-disposition[dyscrasia] towards a predictable pattern of certain diseases and disorders within a

family, race or the human race; and a defect of the vital force.


2/12

2

The theory suggests that if 100% of all disease is miasmatic, then 85% is due to theprimary and atavistic miasm Hahnemann ca lled Psora. The remaining 15% of all disease

he held to be either syphilitic or sycotic, being derived from suppressed Syphilis orsuppressed Gonorrhoea. Hahnemann, unlike Kent later, attached no moral dimension

whatsoever to the sexual nature of the two latter miasms. Kent, of course, emphasised

this moral aspect a great deal, which might not be that surprising in the somewhatPuritanical atmosphere of nineteenth century small town America.

Taking them in reverse order, we can depict the main characteristic features of eachmiasm.

SycosisThis miasm is held to be responsible for many sexual and urinary disorders, and

affections of the joints and the mucous membranes. Also those conditions worsened bydamp weather and by contact with the sea. Thus arthritis and rheumatism, asthma,

catarrhs, bronchitis, cystitis and warts are all regarded as partly or mainly sycotic incharacter. The wart came to be seen as the underlying archetype of this miasm as it is also

held to be responsible for all warty excrescences and growths. Chief remedies are Thuja,Lycopodium, Natrum sulph, Causticum, Kali sulph, Staphysagria, Calc and Sepiaamongst many others.

SyphilisThis miasm is held to be responsible for many diseases of the nervous system, the

blood and skeleton as well as a range of psychological d isorders, including alcoholism,depression, suicidal impulses, insanity, loss of smell and taste, blindness, deafness and

ulcerations. It is also associated with many heart conditions, some vesicular skineruptions and diseases that have a definite nocturnal periodicity. Chief remedies areArsenicum, Aurum, Mercury, Phosphorus and Lycopodium, Nitric acid, amongst many

others.Psora

The word Psora is probably derived from the Hebrew 'Tsorat' and Greek 'Psora'meaning a fault, groove or stigma. Hahnemann held that all non-venereal chronicdiseases are Psoric. That includes most diseases of a chronic nature, all skin diseases,

most mental illness, other than syphilitic ones, allergies, varicose veins, haemorrhoids,most dysfunctional diseases of organs and systems, etc. He lists among others, catarrhs,

asthma, pleurisy, haemoptysis, hydrocephalus, stomach ulcers, scrotal swelling, jaundice,swollen glands, cataract, diabetes, tuberculosis, epilepsy, fevers and suppressed urine asall being typically Psoric manifestations, including, of course, the whole gamut of skin

problems. Chief Psoric remedies he suggests include Sulphur, Natrum mur, Calc carb,Arsen alb, Lycopodium, Phosphorus, Mezereum, Graphite, Causticum, Hepar sulph,

Petroleum, Silica, Zinc and Psorinum amongst many others.Hahnemann also claimed that Psora was the most ancient and insidious miasm,

deriving primarily from skin eruptions of various types in the past, such as scabies (Itch),

leprosy and psoriasis. These had been supposedly contracted by ancestors or in one's ownearly childhood. Their subsequent suppression, especially through the use of ointments,

he held to be the primary cause of forcing skin conditions inwards to cause theinternalised Psora miasm. Psora, he says, "is that most ancient, most universal, most


3/12

3

destructive, and yet most misapprehended chronic miasmatic disease which for manythousands of years has disfigured and tortured mankind...and become the mother of all

the thousands of incredibly various chronic diseases." [1; 9]Kent, in his Lectures, then greatly enlarged upon the theory, mostly in a moral sense,

proposing that Psora was the foundation of all other sickness, without which mankind

would be pure and healthy both in mind and body, as in the Garden of Eden. He thusregarded the acquisition of Psora as being equated with the 'Fall of Man' and with original

sinfulness. He portrayed Psora in this highly moralistic light as also being the foundationof the sexual miasms that came later.

We can see that Hahnemann must have obtained his original idea of miasms throughan extension of the very fruitful threads in his thinking about similars and poisonings,with which he was deeply immersed in the original construction of homeopathy. His

mind simply must have been drawn towards seeing the wider patterns in cases. Forexample, Hahnemann "suggested, in 1789, that Mercury...displaced the syphilitic disease

by imposing a similar illness," [2; 3]. He "had taken his time to formulate his firstintuitive deduction [similia] in fact seven years...[he] clung obstinately to the everyday

world of common sense...and had no use for the theories of pathology thencurrent...[being, in fact] dissociated from theories of physiology and pathology," [2; 4].

The notion of Psora has many facets; for example, "seven-eighths of all the chronicmaladies prevalent are ascribed by Hahnemann to Psora..." [3; 1, 142] He did not confineits meaning solely to Scabies; "Psora...was widely known in Hahnemann's time, as the

general term for a whole series of skin troubles of the most varied kinds..." [3; 1, 143] Itsunderlying significance was even broader: "to Hahnemann Psora is a disease or

disposition to disease, hereditary from generation to generation for thousands of yearsand it is the fostering soil for every possible diseased condition." [3; 1, 144] However, themiasm theory should not be viewed too literally as meaning that everyone needs to be

dosed up with Psorinum, Syphilinum or Medorrhinum; rather it means that the broadoutline of the miasms need to be kept in mind when observing the symptoms of a specific

case or family.For example, in a family with some evidence of alcoholism, deafness, blindness, bone

disorders and insanity, one is entitled to believe a syphilitic streak is present. It should not

dominate one's view of each case, but it is useful background information. It guides onetowards certain remedies, and away from others, but should never wholly dictate practice.

Such would be to fall prey to medical speculation, which Hahnemann certainly regardedas "arid and obfuscating scholasticism." [4; 62] and "the elaborate manipulation ofhollow symbols." [4; 62]. The dim view he took of medical speculation presumed that

that too often it is disengaged from practice, lacking efficacy and encourages harmfulpractices.

Homeopaths should resist the temptation to allow miasms, like some cuckoo in thenest, to exclusively dominate its conceptual base in the way 'evolution' has come todogmatically dominate biology, or the way genetics and bacteria have come to totally

dominate allopathy. Allowing such 'soiling of its own nest' might be to indulge adelusion, a monistic theory, and to allow the subject to be well and truly hijacked by one

idea, or even to comprise a lamentable waste of otherwise objective talent. Kentbeseeches us to resist the temptation o f allowing excessive dominance to be granted to


4/12

4

one idea or theory. Such advice applies equally to the miasm theory, which should bebalanced against other homeopathic views.

NosodesOn the point about the use of miasms in treatment, some people routinely give the

corresponding nosode. For example, to a child born with fine syphilitic skin vesicles, they

might wish to give Syphilinum rather than the s imillimum, say Mercury. This would tendto be seen as an inappropriate use of the miasm concept, as the simillimum is what the

patient needs, not the nosode. Such routine use of Psorinum, Medorrhinum andSyphilinum is therefore frowned upon. Certainly, the nosode can do good work, but it

should be used more as an occasional inter-current remedy, or when it becomes thesimillimum - not just routinely.

Nosodes in general have a chequered history in homeopathy. Some of the more

pathological prescribers [e.g. Hughes & Dudgeon] denounced them from the start. Yet,other homeopaths have taken a far more generous view: "the indispensable curative

service of the products of disease...safely administered in sickness;" [6] "for the past fiveyears I have regularly used the bacillus virus as part of my daily practice...with great

satisfaction;" [7] "I think very highly of Koch's remedy...I use it in high potency..." [8] Inparticular, nosodes can be used to neutralise o ld internalised illness states [dyscrasias] orremove invisible 'taints' [blockages] that prevent ordinary remedies from working: "the

nosode has removed the miasmatic block." [9] Then "the remedy will work again afterthe block is removed with a nosode." [9] This much at least is the empirical observationof many who use them in regular clinical practice: nosodes were not so well proven as

"well-known polychrests...but have been so successful;" [9; 317] their use "depends moreon clinical experience...[which has] accumulated for many years and has been checked by

the experience of so many practitioners that it is considered trustworthy." [9; 317]

Miasm, Holism and Essence

While the miasms require a certain conceptual 'leap in the dark' for the averagehomeopath, they are even stranger to the allopath who takes a generally less holistic view

of the organism in health and disease. Comparisons of this type are very stimulating andrewarding.

The upshot of the miasms theory is very interesting as it illuminates so much about

homeopathy and what distinguishes it as a unique medical system in its own right, andalso so much about the subtlety of Hahnemann's observational powers and thinking

processes. As soon as you have a mode o f medical thinking that regards disease cause ingross, tangible and molecular terms [germs, bacteria, molecules, dud organs, genes] thenit is natural not to look much beyond such matters, but to regard "the cure" of disease, i.e.

the removal of symptoms, solely in tangible and molecular terms. Such is allopathy.There seems on this basis to be no need to look beyond the tangible and the molecular.

But when you have, by contrast, a more subtle medical mentality that regards the tangibleand the molecular as valid so far as they go, but that this view of disease is not a primaryor fundamental one, but a secondary manifestation of a deeper and intangible, non-

molecular realm of causes, then you are more likely to have modes of cure that employsimilarly subtle, intangible and non-molecular concepts and techniques. This really

demarcates the major dividing line between allopathy and homeopathy.


5/12

5

While we might term the former as an entirely 'phenotypic' medical attitude andtherapeutic system, rooted solely in the tangible and the molecular, so the latter reaches

behind and beyond the gross phenotype [secondary expression] of disease to consider thedeeper, hidden 'genotypic' realm of primary or true causes. It is precisely in this latter

sense that the great medical philosophers of homeopathy - Hahnemann, Kent, Boger and

Close - have come to regard disease. Whether this appraisal flows entirely from empiricalstudies, from clinical experience and experiments, or whether it flows from a subtle

inclination of mentality, is immaterial, and is probably a mixture of both, but theessentialist nature of this position is ultimately clear for all to see.

Like the dwellers in Plato's caves [see Plato, The Republic], trying to make sense ofshadows moving on a wall, homeopaths have been consistently reluctant to accept themolecular and tangible as the sole cause of itself, but always look deeper for non-

molecular and intangible root causes of the events observed at the surface, in the tissuesand cells, and in the physiology of organ systems, never accepting solely tissue events as

causes of themselves, which is precisely where allopathy draws a halt in its search forcauses of disease phenomena, satisfied that there is nothing beyond that. Clearly, the

miasm theory follows the same line of thinking.Further positions flow naturally from these two divergent medical philosophies. Forexample, the phenotypic view does not need to see or fix the whole person because a

tangible and discreet portion of the whole can be hived off as "the disease" and fixed inisolation from the whole, and this has come to be regarded far too unquestioningly as aperfectly valid therapeutic approach. But to the genotypic attitude, events in the body are

always seen as inextricably interconnected and as expressions of deeper events in thenetwork of vital processes that lies behind the tangible and molecular expression of

symptoms, and as a whole, and therefore it is not legitimate in such a mode of medicalthinking to merely 'fix things' at the molecular level or to do so in a localised manner forspecific groups of symptoms isolated from the whole and conveniently labelled as "the

disease".Indeed, such an approach may conjure up an apparition of cure in the short term, but

the deeper pattern of causes has not been touched or removed and must still be presentand active. Therefore, one feels justified in saying that one single 'disease event' might beseen as the cause [or the effect] of any another 'disease event' all linked together in a

chain, while the deeper cause has been left un-tackled. The tonsils may have beenremoved, but the deeper cause of the tonsillitis has not. The deodorant may have masked

the smell, but the essence [cause] of the smell is still there - its deeper cause is stillpresent and active. It is precisely in this manner that Hahnemann describes thedevelopment of diseases in the ongoing life of the person [or family, or race, or

humanity] mutating through time ["the hydra-headed miasm"] and able periodically tothrow to the surface very different 'disease events' springing forth from the same hidden

root cause in the invisible and intangible realm of the non-molecular. This describes veryclearly his depiction of the true nature of the miasms: a hidden realm of disease cause,and a genotype from which the expressed and visible symptoms, the phenotype of

disease, periodically erupt at the surface and which we see before us as separate'diseases'.

With so much of their work being grounded solely in the subtle, the holistic and thenon-molecular, it is only natural for homeopaths to be suspicious of and unsatisfied with


6/12

6

the solely molecular, mechanistic and tangible explanation or technique of crudedrugging for specifics [allopathy]. Being daily used to seeing into the realm of the subtle

and intangible, with their more subtle form of vision, it is only natural for them to seekout deeper root causes in such a realm that lies behind and beyond the solely molecular

realm, which seems so satisfying to allopaths and scientists. By employing intangible and

non-molecular remedies and seeing their often spectacular effects in the clinical sphere, itis not so surprising that they have come to develop such deep respect for non-molecular

theories of life, disease causation and cure.

EssentialismEssentialism is "the belief in essences independent of the phenomena of appearance,"

[11; 304-5] and which are conceived as "non-dimensional phenomena," [11; 407]. The

idea is common to Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle and dominated philosophy forcenturies, almost into the modern era. Goethe, for example, seems to have achieved a

"fusion of Plato's essentialism with aesthetic principles." [11; 457] An appreciation ofessentialism involves the belief that objects and living things each contain an underlying

and immaterial essence that can only be known through a form of reflection upon thenature of the substance or organism. Natural selection, for example, seems "meaninglessto an essentialist, for it can never touch the underlying essence; it can only eliminate

deviations from the type," [11; 517] that is operate at the physical level of the organism.The essentialist position of homeopathy runs through all these ideas like miasms,

nosodes and vital force. It runs through the 'potency energy' of the drug; it runs through

the idea of the nosode as containing some subtle essence of the disease it is made from;the idea runs through the whole concept of miasm as a defect resident in the life force;

and it runs through the whole concept of the vital force as a coordinator of wholeorganism events. In all these senses it can be seen that homeopathy is riddled withessentialism, a belief in subtle essences that lie behind and beyond the visible, physical,

tangible or molecular realm of ordinary life. This belief comes very close to the Platonicidea that behind each phenomenon we see lies a discreet and corresponding essence or

'noumenon' that exists in the 'realm of ideas' and from which the physical object flowsand with which it corresponds or resonates. The realm of ideas is therefore also, as Kentwould say, the realm of causes. It is as if each substance, species, individual, rock,

mineral, insect, plant - carries within it an invisible imprint, hidden from view. This ideacan also be seen to permeate the 'doctrine of signatures'.


7/12

7

Miasms and nosodes are suggestive of the idea of disease being caused not by the"morbific particles" [12] on the material level, as allopaths contend, but by some

internalised 'subtle essence' carried by the germ and transferred through potentisation tothe nosode. Kent makes it very clear that homeopathy has a vitalistic rather than a

materialistic view of disease: "the microbe is not the cause of disease. We should not be

carried away by these idle allopathic dreams and vain imaginations but should correct theVital Force." [10; 679] And that "the Bacterium is an innocent feller, and if he carries

disease he carries the Simple Substance which causes disease, just as an elephant would."[10; 660] Such an idea clearly resonates with the medieval view of substance as equally

'alive.' An idea not as distant as we might think from the effect of potentisation onsubstance.

In Kent's dictum of 'the higher the deeper' and the concept that 'disease essence' [=

miasm] can only truly be neutralised by the highly potentised drug - what van Helmontcalled the 'drug archeus' [10] - then we can see a broad and very strong parallel between

the metaphysical views of van Helmont and 'transcendental homeopathy' concerning atriad of 'spirits' - vital force, drug essence and disease archeus.[10] To which we might

add that therapeutic resonance [sympathy] between these three spheres operates as'similia similibus curentur' as well as 'similia similibus causam' - diseases being bothcured and caused by similars. "There is not one law for contagion and another one for

proving. They are both one;" [5] "the quality of contagion is similar in nature to the cure."[5; 660] Such a notion then places Hahnemann's system absolutely in a line with theprevious vitalist systems of Paracelsus [1493-1541], van Helmont [1577-1644] and Stahl

[1660-1734].Undoubtedly, many modern homeopaths point to nosodes and high potencies as

providing ample confirmation of the metaphysical remarks made by figures likeHahnemann, Kent and van Helmont, regarding the inherent 'genotype' of matter [potencyenergy], of disease [disease archeus or miasm] and of living things [vital force]. They

seem justified, therefore, in claiming that the corpus of homeopathic expertise of the lastcentury and a half fully validates such concepts as potency energy, vital force and disease

cause as a spiritual essence [miasm] that temporarily invades and 'poisons' the spirit ofthe person, inducing symptoms. While transcendentalists [and homeopaths] interpret thegerm idea as spiritual contagion by essence, the allopaths interpret it as physical

contagion by microbes. That is what divides us.It is also clear that vital force and miasms are 'inferred entities' just as the electron is an

inferred entity. That does not mean it exists or does not exist; it just means it sits in thatborderland between what is observably tr ue and what is inferred or suggested by the factsthat are known with greater certainty: "unless our theories and observations confirm one

another, they will be still little more than the most probable conjectures...while themechanical theories give rise to certain inferences regarding the minute structures of the

body, we lack any concrete verification of these inferences," [13; 527] For it remainsclear that "theory without verification is mere speculation rather than science. Theoryalone cannot guarantee truth...conjecture and extrapolation, however probable, [are] not

the same as concrete demonstration." [13; 528] In that important sense it becomespossible that "crude empirical observations [might] masquerade under the cloak of

theory," [13; 538]. This genuine tendency is just as likely in "real science" as it is in


8/12

8

homeopathy, where 'facts' are fitted together into a 'bigger picture' using the 'glue' ofassumptions and inferred entities.

The evidence supporting such inferred entities varies in quality, but the inference initself in each case is still strong and valid as it flows naturally from a field of data unique

to the particular field of study, whether it is astronomy [e.g. black holes], physics [e.g.

quarks and muons] or homeopathy. Even those inferred entities, which aremathematically provable, are not intrinsically any more real than the inferred entities of

vital force, potency energy or miasms in homeopathy. In both cases, valid ideas andmethods flow from belief in the inferred entities - it is as if they are real and that is

usually sufficient to settle the matter in every case as a working construct or model of theway things are.

Discussion

A miasm is clearly an internalised change in the essence of the person, their vitalforce. Such a change is acquired as an internal relic or shadow only from certain virulent

diseases that have especially strong essence or power to cause disease. Classically, theseinclude Syphilis, Gonorrhoea and Psora [suppressed skin eruptions]. Some homeopaths

would go even further than this and add Cancer, TB and Influenza to the list as sub-miasms or even recent miasms in their own right. Others would also add Diphtheria,Polio, Tetanus, Typhoid and Smallpox as minor miasms and also Birth Pill and vacc ine

damage as taints and blockages, which again are internalised imprints of disease thatcomprise changes in the vital force capable of preventing remedies working right[blockages] or acting as sources of symptoms in the person's ill-health. Such taints and

blockages can be removed with the appropriate nosode and each miasm represents asymptom-causing element acquired into the fabric of the vital force. A miasm can be seen

as a hardened portion of the psychophysical network, rather like a fixated proving, arigidified section of the life force, and an aspect of contagion that has become too solidlyinternalised.

The miasm is the internalised shadow of a big disease; with its own strong essencesuch a disease has imprinted itself upon the vital force. The shadow it leaves behind is

therefore a shadow in the vital force. This concept of the miasm as merely a damaged orderanged vital force [= essence] is very clearly the view of Hahnemann, Close, Kent andBoger, who repeatedly state that contagion and cure are the same - i.e. reversible changes

in the vital force - and nothing more or less than that. Therefore cure is but the reversal ofthe process of contagion - the reversal of a change in the vital force - by which symptoms

once caused are then brought to a halt [subdued] by the neutralisation of the change inessence that first elicited the original disease. Neutralisation proceeds by similars - whatcauses can cure.


9/12

9

Much understanding can be gained about miasms from considering the nature of the vitalforce, disease and cure. For example, "the dynamic potentised drug is the chief factor in

both proving and healing," [14] which implies that there is a reciprocal ac tion betweendisease and simillimum. As Close says, disease cause therefore also exists solely in "the

realm of pure dynamics;" [15; 39] what he calls the "sphere of homeopathy is limited

primarily to the functional changes from which the phenomena of disease arise," [15; 40-41] Therefore, the removal [correction might be a better word] of the internal damage

[miasm] is the removal of the cause; which is not the same as removing the symptoms:"In faithful treatment, it is sought to accomplish an end far more subtle than the

mechanical removal of bacilli." [16] Symptoms are not seen by homeopaths as thedisease, but as the results, the end-products, of deeper dynamic disease processes: "tissuechanges...are but the results of disease;" [10; 672] "a cure is not a cure unless it destroys

the internal or dynamic cause of disease." [10; 673]When Close states that the "real cure...takes place solely in the functional and

dynamical sphere," [15; 42] he means it is not the physical symptoms but views diseaseprimarily as a "dynamic derangement of the life force," [18] a derangement of process,

which precedes any derangement of structure. Disease "is the suffering of the dynamis."[15; 70-72] Close devotes considerable intellectual energy to clearly defining disease; aneffort that repays close study. For example, he says that "homeopathy does not treat

disease; it treats patients." [15; 51] Disease, he claims, is "an abnormal vital process;"[15; 60] "a dynamic aberration of our spirit-like life;" [15; 67] "a perverted vital action;"[15; 72] it is "not a thing, but only the condition of a thing;" [15; 72] that in the last

analysis disease is "primarily only an altered state of life and mind." [15; 72]Close lays bare its deeper nature when he says disease is "primarily a morbid

disturbance or disorderly action of the vital powers and functions," [15; 73-4] or "purelya dynamical disturbance of the vital principle." [15; 73-4] Furthermore, he logicallypronounces that because "disease is always primarily a morbid dynamical or functional

disturbance of the vital principle," [15; 88] so in turn it is clear that "functional ordynamic change always precedes tissue changes," [15; 72] and that cure has been

established only "when every perceptible sign of suffering of the dynamis has beenremoved." [15; 73-4] For Close, it is precisely upon such reasons and definitions that "theentire ed ifice of therapeutic medication governed by the law of Similia,"[15; 71] has been

conceived and constructed. All these insightful statements elaborated by Close might besaid to derive from Kent, but, as he insists, they also flow naturally from Hahnemann's

own sentiments in the Organon: [17] "let it be granted now...that no disease...is caused byany material substance, but that every one is only and always a peculiar, virtual, dynamicderangement of the health." [19]

The remedy for these sickness processes is equally dynamic and ne bulous - thepotentised drug - which gives rise to the comment by Kent: "lower potency...less fine and

less interior than the higher,"[10; 674] meaning the higher the potency, the deeper itpenetrates into the hidden realm of disease causes.

Such a mode of medical conception is most interesting when you consider that

conventional medicine never even enters the realm of essence [true causes] at all and soall its so-called cures are false; they are mere rearrangements of the deck-chairs on the

Titanic - superficial window-dressing that does not reach into the deeper realm of diseasecause and that does not bring about [indeed, is fundamentally incapable of] the radical


10/12

10

type of true cure that can only ensue from direct healing within the realm of essence, thatis "the subtle realm of disease cause or simple substance," [5]. Being rooted mostly in

contraries and the molecular realm of symptom suppression, rather than cure, soallopathy again looks like mere window-dressing, not true cure. It is a mere tinkering

with symptoms.

The remedy must be similar in essence to the patient totality and in degree ofattenuation to the miasm, both to induce any change in the case at all, and to reach deep

into the essence realm itself. Only intangible remedies can reach the equally rarefied,nebulous and intangible realm of essences [miasms, vital force]. Similarity between

remedy and disease [= patient totality] establishes the primary resonance between thetwo, such that any healing action is possible at all, and potentisation establishes thesecondary link between similar drug and the depth of disorder within the essence state.

While similars might be seen as concerning quality and properties, potency seems moreconcerned with matching the energy or intensity of the drug with that of the derangement

in the life force [miasm]. Such a view also echoes Kent when, regarding potency, he saysthat "the higher the deeper," [5] meaning that only the higher [more intangible] potencies

of the right remedy [simillimum] can reach deep enough into the intangible depths of thevital force where the true miasmic derangements lie hidden, i.e. the realm of essence.Therefore, acting only at the surface, superficially, the low potencies can only act upon

acute superficial miasms.All this flow of reasoning is concerned mostly with medical inference based around

the concepts of homeopathy, which in turn flow naturally from its engagement with

clinical practice and the cure of cases. It is therefore a mix of pure empiricism [rawobservation] combined with inferential rationalism [inference or reasoning], for "what we

cannot see directly with the corporeal eye, we may yet be able to perceive indirectly, bythe eye of reason," [20; 23] It is similarly true in homeopathy that "the distinctionbetween observation and inference, between empiricism and rationalism, is basically

artificial, since neither can exist without a substantial share of the other...in almost everystatement, some observation and some inference are involved...the further we get from

direct observation, the more we depend on inference and reasoning," [20; 22-23] And tobe sure the realm of essences and miasms, and vital force is a realm of inference,illuminated and visible almost solely by the "eye of reason." Inference and reasoning act

like map and compass or a lamp that lights an unseen path and by which we can probe theworld and navigate through uncharted waters. Only in this way can we gain our bear ings

and obtain the deeper understanding we crave from the patterns in events. Only in thisway can we gain understanding of raw empirical data flowing from observation andexperiments.

In all subjects of study we employ a mix of both observation and inference [theoreticalmodels] in order to make sense of our world. And as Berlin states, "the concept of fact is

itself problematic...all facts embody theories...or socially conditioned, ideologicalattitudes;" [21] there is no fact without its adherent body of theory, or as Darwin oncestated it - "without speculation there can be no good and original observation." [22] And

as Galileo and Luther relied upon very different 'rows of books' from the Church [23], tosubstantiate their views - in all such notions there is a confluence of ideas about the

nature of knowledge [epistemology], and they therefore make important statements abouthow we come to know and how we don't. Theory and method move crab- like, shackled in


11/12

11

harness, in a perpetual form of unison, in everything we do and study or try tounderstand. Vital force, essence, miasm and potentised drug - in the last analysis, these

are all inferred entities visible only with the inner "eye of reason."Hahnemann basically agrees with van Helmont and Paracelsus that the root causes of

sickness are not to be found in the outer, tangible and visible aspects of disease

manifestations, the phenotype, but rather in the deeper essence or genotype. Therefore,they all concur that no radical or genuine change in the tangible and visible [disease

symptoms] can of itself constitute a cure, or truly remove the causes within the deeperrealm of essences, which are the root causes of disease and therefore the arisal of disease

is not terminated by such chemical tinkering. This can only truly be achieved byemploying techniques that do delve deeper into the realm of essences, the realm of rootcauses where disease can be cut off at its true root. Thus, Paracelsus and van Helmont

state just as clearly as Hahnemann himself that drugs must be selected that match thedisease [patient totality] upon the basis of their essences and not according to outward

physical and chemical properties, which of themselves are only, and at best, indicative oftheir deeper, essential qualities. It also follows that this means holism because it means

the whole person and not just for localised symptoms or using disease labels or namedconditions.Clearly therefore, all these vitalist physicians concur that mere tinkering at the level of

symptoms [being results not causes] is a futile undertaking rather like rearranging thedeck-chairs on the Titanic, as it does not penetrate deep enough into the essential realm ofcauses where true changes can be induced. Through superficial methods, only superficial

changes can be brought about. As long as the deeper cause remains present, so diseasecan always at any time spring forth and flow from it. Such a notion is confirmed by Kent,

Close and others who chorus that remedies cure the patient in the deeper essence state ofvital force and miasm only when potentised to a higher degree of similarity in essencestate as that of the vital force and the miasms themselves.

Only by such matching of drug picture and patient totality, in their deeper essencestate, can the deeper realm of causes be roused into useful activity, so as to throw disease

off by the organism's own efforts. This also echoes the sentiment that cure, like contagionitself, has to be an active process on the part of the organism, engaged in by the vitalforce, by the whole organism, and not by any external agent, through molecular

intervention or by treating localised parts. Cure is brought about by the vital force, andnot by the remedy. The remedy acts merely to stimulate the vital force into renewed

therapeutic activity. Any alleged therapeutic effort that fails to engage the effort of thevital force must therefore be doomed to fail and to be suppressive. Such is the whole ofallopathy. It is mere tinkering with symptoms, with effects not causes, as Kent, Close and

Boger all concur. And one important and deeper aspect of 'patient totality' has to be theadded dimension provided by the theory of miasms.

Sources[1] Samuel Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, 1828[2] Frank Bodman, Lecture to Osler Society, Oxford, Brit. Homeo. Jnl 44.2, 1955, 2-8

[3] Richard Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann His Life and Works, 2 vols[4] Isaiah Berlin The Sense of Reality - Studies in Ideas and Their History, London:

Pimlico, 1996, 49


12/12

12

[5] J T Kent, Lesser Writings, New Remedies, Aphorisms & Precepts, Philadelphia:Erhart & Karl, 1926, 679

[6] P A Nicholls, Homeopathy & the Medical Profession, London: Croom Helm,1988, 233

[7] James Compton Burnett, New Cure of Consumption by its Own Virus, London:

Homeopathic Publishing Co, 1890, iv[8] Burnett, vi

[9] Luc De Schepper, Hahnemann Revisited: A Textbook of Classical Homeopathyfor the Professional, Santa Fe: Full of Life Publications, 1999, 321

[10] Walter Pagel, Van Helmont's Concept of Disease, Bull Hist Med 46.5, Sept 1972,419-454; see also Walter Pagel, The Religious and Philosophical Aspects of VanHelmont's Science and Medicine, Bull Hist Med Supplement No 2, 1944, 44 pages

[11] Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, Harvard: Belknap Press, 1982[12] K D Keele, The Sydenham-Boyle Theory of Morbific Particles, Medical History,

18, 1974, 240-248; see also Pagel, 1972, & Pagel, 1944[13] Lester S King, George Cheyne - Mirror of 18th Century Medicine, Bull. Hist.

Med. 48, 1974, 517-39[14] Henry C Allen, Materia Medica of the Nosodes, 1909, Calcutta: Sett Day, 1942,528

[15] Stuart Close, The Genius of Homeopathy, Lectures and Essays on HomeopathicPhilosophy, New York, 1924

[16] C F Nichols, Homeopathy in Relation to the Koch Controversy, Science, 17 : 429,

April 24, 1891, 233-234[17] Hahnemann, Organon, Aphorisms 11 [9, 10], 15 and 16

[18] see Close, 37-8, 74[19] Organon, Introduction, 10[20] Lester S King, The Growth of Medical Thought, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press,

1963[21] Sir Isaiah Berlin, Alleged Relativism in Eighteenth Century Thought, in The

Crooked Timber of Humanity, Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1999, 89[22] anecdotal aside; no source found[23] see Patrick A. Heelan, William Gaston Professor of Philosophy, Georgetown

University, Galileo, Luther, and the Hermeneutics of Natural Science, pp.363-375 in TheQuestion of Hermeneutics, ed. by T.J. Stapleton (Boston, Dordrecht: Kluwer 1994)

morrells-miasms

Documents

Transcript of morrells-miasms