Homeopath: Psora can progress to syphilis

[Zep]

Quote:

Originally posted by Barbrae
Well, I thought I had defined hahnemans terms - but willl do again.

Psora - the miasm (predisposition of certain disease) that is caused by the suppresion of a skin eruption. The symptoms of psora fall into a certain category so if a person has these symptoms you then look towards remedies useful for the psoric miasm.

syph - the miasm (predisposition of certain disease) that is caused by the suppression of the STD syph. The miasm exhibits certain symptoms that have been categorized and classified under the syph miasm.

The problem is, Barb, that these definitions don't match those commonly used by the majority of the medical profession, and the public.

What's more, your definition of "psora" and "syph" are based on your definition of "miasm", another borrowed word (it is actually theword "miasma"). And again, THAT word has a different "common" meaning to the one you are using:

Quote:

mi·as·ma

1. A noxious atmosphere or influence: “The family affection, the family expectations, seemed to permeate the atmosphere... like a coiling miasma” (Louis Auchincloss).
2.
1. A poisonous atmosphere formerly thought to rise from swamps and putrid matter and cause disease.
2. A thick vaporous atmosphere or emanation: wreathed in a miasma of cigarette smoke.

Do you see the problem we are having? You are using well-known terms with known definitions quite inappropriately. The process you call "miasm" - predisposition of certain disease - is NOT what "miasm" means; it's nothing like it. But the problem is not yours - it is Hanhemann's. He's the one who gave them to you wrong.

Now let's look at the word "suppression", root word "suppress":

Quote:

sup·press

1. To put an end to forcibly; subdue.
2. To curtail or prohibit the activities of.
3. To keep from being revealed, published, or circulated.
4. To deliberately exclude (unacceptable desires or thoughts) from the mind.
5. To inhibit the expression of (an impulse, for example); check: suppress a smile.
6. To reduce the incidence or severity of (a hemorrhage or cough, for example); arrest.

Do you agree that to suppress anything means that it does NOT appear? Does NOT show? So if any disease is suppressed, it means it does NOT show any symptoms? Any suppressed disease will show no "psora" at all, otherwise it is NOT suppressed. So how can ANY homeopathic disgnosis involve "suppression" of any symptoms? It can't - it's a nonsensical notion. At the logical extreme, just by way of illustration, a perfectly well patient could be suppressing EVERY symptom of EVERY disease.

So this all leaves your definitions of these diseases in a bit of a poor state, I fear. They are confusing, self-referential, and contradictory. Again, not that this is your issue - it is Hanhemann's for inventing them like that.

But do you see the problem we are having? Such vague and nonsensical descriptions do nothing to help anyone understand homeopathic disgnosis and procedures. So do you then appreciate that we think that it is purely gobbledegook invented to make the homeopathic practioner sound learned just to comfort the patient?

[Mojo]

Quote:

Originally posted by Barbrae
Mojo, it represents the same thing as far as beig a predisposition to certain conditions go. It is caused or triggered by suppressed gonhorrhea though, like with syph it doesn't necessarily mean anyone had that STD for generations - just somewhere down the line. Like with psora and syph there are specific cymptoms that are listed under this heading and many are related to urinary or sexual organs, WARTS or any WARTY-LIKE growths are a keynote symptom. Moles too. AN affinity for mucous mmembranes - and a hundred other symptoms. The personality features are secretive, fixed, unmovable. Always trying to hide and cover up their weaknesses. They have routine habits, routine states - follow routines in everyday life. They have a guitly conscience, and are always afraid something bad will happen. They feel they will fail so they don't take up responsabilities. This is my favorite miasm.

now, many modern homeopaths have extended the miasm theory to include several other miasms including: cancer miasm, Tubercular miasm, and even an "acute" miasm. I don't know if this widely accepted or not.

Thanks for the definition, Barb. But I didn't ask how Hahnemann defined this, I asked how you define it.

Quote:

originally posted by Mojo
How do you define the sycotic miasm?

You said, among other things, "this is my favorite miasm." Then when challenged on it by BSM, you backtracked. Do you believe in this stuff or not?

[Barbrae]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo
Thanks for the definition, Barb. But I didn't ask how Hahnemann defined this, I asked how you define it.You said, among other things, "this is my favorite miasm." Then when challenged on it by BSM, you backtracked. Do you believe in this stuff or not?

Oh, give me a break MOJO. YOu said I defined psora dn asyph but left out sycotic - Obviously my defineitopn of the other two came from Hahnemann as well - as clearly indicated when I said that Hahnemann defined it as... So when you said "how do you define" sycotic I think it was quite clear you were asking for the definition. I define it the same way Hahnemann did because HE came up with the definition, that is the defintiion of it - whether the whole thing is imaginary or not is irrelevant to what the definition of it is.

I am not backtracking anything. I stated in answer toi Rolfe that I do acept soem of the theory and reject other parts. One of the rejected parts is the concept of it stemming from and STD or eruption - it was that point I was "backtracking" on with BSM. Actually I have no clue if there is any validity to the idea that it arose from suppression and there is no way for me to find out so it means nothing to me.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Barbrae
I stated in answer toi Rolfe that I do acept soem of the theory and reject other parts.

Why? Explain the basis for that judgement.

[MRC_Hans]

Quote:

Originally posted by Barbrae
No, I actually don't disagree with leela. I do think that those symptoms that fall under the heading of psora can indeed be suppressed or left alone enough to transcend to syph. Many of us say syphilis when describing the miasm instead of the syphilitic miasm. Hahnemann didn't believe the STD was passed on through the ancestorial tree either, I said that. You are egtting hung up on the STD, the syph miasm (what is passsed on) has nothign to do with syph other than somewhere sometime someone had it - the STD is not the miasm and the STD is nto what is passed on.

I see. Well, everything goes easier when you can define your own language .

So: Leela is right, it is just that she is talking about something imaginary. Ooookay.

Hans

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Barbrae
No, I actually don't disagree with leela. I do think that those symptoms that fall under the heading of psora can indeed be suppressed or left alone enough to transcend to syph. Many of us say syphilis when describing the miasm instead of the syphilitic miasm. Hahnemann didn't believe the STD was passed on through the ancestorial tree either, I said that. You are egtting hung up on the STD, the syph miasm (what is passsed on) has nothign to do with syph other than somewhere sometime someone had it - the STD is not the miasm and the STD is nto what is passed on.

I've been reading this with mounting incredulity, but I don't suppose we'll get much further untl Barb has time to return to the thread.

First, as an aside, I understand that syphilis (the regular STD) can in fact be vertically transmitted (infection passed from parent to child, acquired in utero) and that a child who is conceived from a mother (or I understand a father) who has syphilis is likely itself to be infected. However, whether that has anything to do with what Hahnemann wrote, I have absolutely no idea. So far as I know, none of the other conditions that have given their names to the "miasms" can be vertically transmitted.

However, my main point in posting here is to signal that I still don't have the faintest clue what Barb is talking about. She uses words, but she gives us no idea what she means by them.

First, one might imagine that the "miasms", however they were named, are simply convenient homoeopath-speak for certain collections of symptoms, useful in selecting the remedy perhaps. But then we learn that one set of symptoms may lead to another. In what way? We know how chicken-pox may lead to shingles, for example, or endocarditis to aortic thromboembolism, but is that the sort of thing Barb is talking about? How can we tell, because we have nothing else to define these "miasms" other than as collections of symptoms, so no rational reason why one set might lead to another.

Then we learn that a patient may have a miasm because it is inherited. So is it a metaphor for genetically-determined disease susceptibility? This seems much at odds with the definition of the maism as a collection of symptoms, and many homoeopaths deny this interpretation. And what is the connection between the miasm and the STD of the same (or similar) name? Sometimes Barb seems to be saying there is none, then again I think she might be saying that the miasm is an indication that one of the patient's ancestors had the actual STD infection. Which, as BSM remarked, is quite likely for most people if you go back far enough.

The main point at issue is that when I read what Hahnemann says about miasms, it means nothing to me. I literally have no clue what he is talking about, no clue about what observations he is trying to explain, and it all just sounds like a bunch of words strung together in an attempt to sound profound. So when Barb, who does in some respects speak the same language as I do, indicates that she believes at least part of this stuff to be true, I have some hopes she might be able to explain what she means in terms I can understand.

But no. Even though she does reject some of the theory, when she starts to explain what she thinks about the bits that she believes in, she simply retreats to copying out what Hahnemann said. This is where the semi-rational homoeopaths, like Barb, start to look even sillier than the complete lunatics like Albert. At least Albert lived in a self-consistent world. It might have been pure imagination, but he really did believe that his explanation of the way things worked was the true one, and because he never allowed himself to slip into accepting the slightest little factoid relating to what is now known about biochemistry and physiology and pathology and medicine, it was all one story.

Homoeopaths like Barb, on the other hand, are caught in a cleft stick. On one hand they see they have to agree that bacteria and viruses cause a lot of disease, and that genetic susceptibility accounts for a lot more, and that insulin is necessary to save the life of a type I diabetic for example. But then they still think they can say these words like miasm and syph and sycotic and psora and suppression and so on, and mean something by them.

News flash. They don't mean anything. They are as devoid of meaning as your sugar pills are devoid of active ingredient. The fact that you feel using these terms allows you to better select between the 3000 or so identical bottles with different labels doesn't confer any legitimacy on them. If you accept what biochemistry and physiology and pathology have to teach you, you at least have to be able to explain what you mean in terms which relate to these true and valid ways of describing the workings of the body.

Barb, given how seriously at sea you appear to be in all this, dosn't it give you even a moment's pause on the question of whether all you're doing is providing a sympathetic ear and a kind word?

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Bumpity Bump!

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Bump