Books

The Science of Homeopathy – page 122

the patient’s ancestors.

It should be made clear that Hahnemann did not consider the actual microbes, the spirochete or the gonococcus, to be the specific cause of the venereal miasms. These microbes, as with all disease-causing agents, were considered to have morbific influences on the dynamic plane as well. If the patient is weakened by the Psoric Miasm and then ends up exposing himself to a venereal disease through illicit sexual conduct, this combination then leads to the illness and subsequent mi- asm. Not everyone who actually acquires the disease gonorrhea neces- sarily progresses into the Sycosis Miasm; only a relatively small per- centage develop it, but once this “taint” becomes engrafted upon the dynamic plane of the organism, it will be passed on from generation to generation.

A common misunderstanding about the miasmatic theory is that specific pathological conditions result from specific miasms. For ex- ample, it is often said that eczema is a psoric disease, ulcers are syphi- litic, and that cancer, psoriasis, and others result from a combination of all three miasms. In reality, however, all three miasms can result in any pathological change. Cancer, diabetes, insanity, imbecility, etc., can arise from the last stage of any of the miasms, or from any combina- tion of them.

The degree of chronic weakness of the defense mechanism is a direct result of the intensity of the miasmatic influences. If we contrast two patients with leukemia, for example, the age at which the disease occurs is a measure of the number of miasms involved. If it were to develop at the age of 70 after a lifetime of good health, it is likely that only the Psoric Miasm is involved. If, on the other hand, it was to arise in childhood, very likely three or more are implicated. While evaluating any individual case, having an idea of the number of mi- asms involved has important prognostic significance; the more miasms are involved, the slower the response to treatment.

Since Hahnemann’s time, the miasmatic theory has been largely misused or misunderstood by the homeopathic profession. Many ho- meopaths simply ignored the concept as being too simplistic or of little practical value. Many adopted the theory uncritically, simply as an act of faith in the Master who had made such massive contributions. Un- fortunately, such blind faith prevented a real understanding of the idea and further elaboration of it in actual clinical practice. Consequently, there are presently two basic schools of thought in the homeopathic profession regarding miasms: one which ignores the idea altogether, and another which accepts it thoughtlessly and therefore adopts a rou- tine of prescribing in an attempt to “clear” the case of miasms. The