Research of Homeopathy by Hahnemann Part 4

Part 4

However, from Hahnemann’s understanding of the infectious nature of psora, where the term psora was taken from the Hebrew word, Psorat, or fault, and from his description of Psora as that “most ancient, most universal, most destructive and yet most misapprehended chronic miasmatic disease which for many years has disfigured and tortured mankind,” one gets the idea of a fundamental affliction of mankind. No wonder that some homeopaths, Kent included, attribute this affliction to some variation of original sin, a moral affliction of sorts, even if Hahnemann never meant to say this. Richard Grossinger, in his book, Homeopathy, The Great Riddle, equates Hahnemann’s writings at this time with Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents, a negative portrayal of the human condition, motivated by frustration and failure as much as anything else. While that may seem somewhat overly critical, given the proven significance of miasmatic theory, he does make a point when discussing what would have happened if Beethoven had been given his appropriate anti-syphilitic remedy. Would all of his music been completed or would Van Gogh painted in the way he did.

However, an even more challenging concept in Hahnemann’s own thinking is explored by Dimitrialis on p. 24 of his book. Here he states that Hahnemann traces psora back through biblical time, suggesting that its original expression as leprosy was modified over hundreds of years due to hygiene, diet and general modes of living, so the expressions of psoric disease were seen only as a mild itch. However, Hahnemann concludes that the internal psora has not changed in any fundamental way, and that now the more mild itch is able to be more easily suppressed, “allowing easier development of a legion of secondary symptoms both cutaneous and otherwise.” (Dimitrialis p. 25) In this way, the latent conditions are activated by the suppression of the primary cutaneous expression. By implication, he is saying that an unadulterated expression of psora, especially in the form of leprosy is better for the overall health of a person and society as it cannot so easily be suppressed, leading to more serious expressions of diseases seen as secondary symptoms of psora, which include, according to Hahnenmann, 7/8ths of all diseases known to man.

This conclusion, it needs to be said, is highly speculative on Hahnemann’s part. As Dimitrialis points out, Hahnemann could not know whether 7/8ths of all disease stem from psora and Hahnemann himself changed his position on whether psora was the cause of ALL or MOST non-venereal disease. Furthermore, the conclusion that modification of leprosy through diet, hygiene and mode of life throughout hundreds of years only allowed psora to be more easily suppressed, leading to more serious secondary disease has to be questioned. Perhaps, over the many hundreds of years the original more “acute” expressions of psora on the skin evolved into being a mere itch and that it did indicate that the internal psora was also being tamed. Therefore, suppression of the primary itch expressions would not lead to the level of suppression that Hahnemann thought. One other point to consider here is the influence of the other two miasms, syphilis and sycosis. Hahnemann addresses them in light of their infectious miasmatic origin, with their clear acute and chronic symptom picture. He doesn’t make the connection between them and psora and that perhaps the spread of these diseases and the inherited susceptibilities subsequent to this may have overshadowed the impact of psora and diseases that originate with it. In other words, perhaps the other two miasms deserved more attention in Hahnemann’s time and all the disease he attributes to psora could equally be laid at the feet of syphilis and sycosis, not to mention tuberculosis.

Read More

Research of Homeopathy by Hahnemann Part 3

Part 3

One of the most significant points Dimitrialis makes in his book is then discussed in the next chapter “Itch” (p. 15) when he quotes Hahnemann in Chronic Diseases referring to a history of an “itch” of some kind in chronic non-venereal disease, and that this itch was due to a former infection. Dimitrialis emphasizes that the infectious nature of chronic disease, including “itch” is central to Hahnemann’s understanding of miasms and that of psora, but that Hahnemann defined the word infection in a broad sense, meaning an affection from an external stimulus and that it is the vital force that is primarily affected by this external stimulus. The revelation that Hahnemann had though was that he could begin to identify numerous disease states and symptoms as being simply part of psora, connected to a primary itch eruption. However, most of the disease states he was seeing were classified as secondary symptoms, not primary, a distinction that he made over many pages in Chronic Diseases. The fact that Hahnemann attributed so many chronic disease conditions to that of psora led to criticism of his miasmatic theory and was one reason why many homeopaths did not take up his thinking in a serious way. The other major point revealed here by Dimitrialis pertains to the concept of original causation, and he quotes Hahnemann as follows - “ailments which if they do not belong to the two venereal diseases are but part of the ancient miasma of leprosy and itch; i.e., merely descendants of one and the same original malady (italics mine), the almost innumerable symptoms of which form but one whole and are to be regarded as the parts of one and the same disease in the same way as the great epidemic of typhus fever.” Here, Hahnemann is seeking to understand the true root of most, if not all non-venereal chronic disease.

Dimitrialis again emphasizes an important point in Hahenmann’s own definition of a miasm, that it is indeed an infectious agent and he used that term to mean any infectious substance dangerous to health. (Dimitrialis p. 18), including acute diseases such as Cholera. He then quotes Hahnemann from his Lesser Writings in which Hahnemann explains clearly how gradually, immunity to certain acute diseases can be developed by exposure to the infectious miasm which over time allows people in a community not to become too seriously sick. His observations in such matters again show the clarity of his mind and power of observation in looking at the dynamics of disease expression. The most important observation though, one often quoted, is that Hahnemann when referring to infectious agents was talking about parasites, bacteria or viruses, observations which preceded a bacterial knowledge of many diseases by as much as 50 years. One of the main points being emphasized by Dimitrialis is that the miasm is not the disease but merely the infectious agent, and he quotes B.K. Sarkar in his Essays on Homeopathy, that Kent’s writings on the matter confused the two states. The miasm is not the disease. The internal psoric disease is different than the psoric miasm, which is the infectious agent.

Dimitrialis states that any tendency to use the word miasm to describe a dyscrasia, diathesis, taint or tendency to disease is wrong. It is only to mean the infectious agent causing a disease, mainly an internal psoric condition. While it is important to understand this fact in terms of defining what Hahnemann meant, the distinction may seem to be an academic one as Dimitrialis then continues to describe how infection with a miasm leading to internal psora can create a greater tendency to get many other diseases. This fact is representative of how miasmatic theory has developed since Hahnemann’s time when a miasmatic influence, often originating in the actual miasmatic disease perhaps generations ago leads to the predisposition to many diseases, some chronic, some acute, some sporadic. This concept of susceptibility, not explored by Hahnemann in this way, as apparent in the way Dimitrialis describes Hahnemann’s own evolution in thinking, is exactly how many homeopaths practically use an understanding of miasms to seek a deeper totality and roots of disease. Therefore, many people would feel the distinction is mainly one of the definitions of the word miasm. All the consequent effects of an infection and disease states and subsequent susceptibility to other disease states conform to most homeopaths ideas of a “miasmatic influence.” However, it does make a clear distinction between how Hahnemann originally used the word miasm and how it has been used by homeopaths since then, some of whose ideas will be discussed later. It also reveals how far from Hahemann’s original thinking many more modern interpretations have gone. This is not a bad thing as much information and experience has been achieved and one of the most important shifts has been that, instead of seeing miasms as merely negative disease states, infections or influence, we can now appreciate that miasmatic influence expresses itself in broader, thematic ways, including even in positive, more evolutionary expressions. This is far from where Hahnemann was in his own exploration, naturally focusing on the fundamental causes of suffering.

Read More

Research of Homeopathy by Hahnemann Part 2

Part 2

This movement away from the specific infectious origin of the miasm to seeing them as fundamental classifications of both disease possibilities and broader social/cultural dynamics has been the most important development in our understanding of miasms. Also, the clinical knowledge of the relevance of nosodes of various miasms has maintained the importance of understanding miasms in prescribing, in spite of ongoing debate as to the relevance of miasmatic theory. The fact that the major nosodes in homeopathy – Psorinum, Medorrhinum, Syphilinum, Tuberculinum and Carcinosin are used so much in our prescribing, especially in children, only gives more weight to the need to understand what Hahnemann had begun to explore and that needs to be taken further.

However, it is important to look at what Hahnemann was grappling with when faced with the issues he was looking at. A very good book that explores this issue is “The Theory of Chronic Disease According to Hahnemann” by George Dimitriadis. In this book Dimitriadis attempts to reveal what Hahnemann said in his writings about miasms and chronic disease and distinguish it from the many theories that have developed since his time. I will refer to this book for the first part of this discussion as it represents a particular position in homeopathic thinking in attempting to clarify exactly what Hahnemann was saying at the time and not exploring the broader interpretation of miasmatic theory, which will be left to later on. The book begins by mentioning a few points crucial to the evolution of Hahnemann’s thinking: 1. that apparently disparate disease states were expressions of single disorder, sharing a common cause, which at that time were mainly infectious “miasmatic” maladies such as hydrophobia, venereal disease, yellow fever, measles etc. 2. That the internalization of itch vesicles in wool manufacturers through local treatment led to deeper, more intense disease states. This was the beginning of his understanding into recognizing patterns of symptoms as a connected whole with the same underlying cause and the fact of suppression of disease states, which lies at the foundation of miasmatic theory, especially regarding Psora.

Again, it has to be emphasized that the core of his theory of Chronic Disease relates predominantly to psora. Although he treated venereal diseases as an acute infectious disease and saw chronic sequelae to these diseases, his attention was in seeking to understand the roots of all non-venereal chronic disease. Hahnemann observed how chronic disease conditions would be alleviated with good homeopathic care, and yet symptoms would return if circumstances were unfavorable e.g. fright, grief, violent exertion, exposure to cold weather etc. and repeated doses of the same medicine would have a gradually diminishing effect. (Organon, aph 78, footnote).

Hahnemann himself questioned whether this was merely due to the lack of an appropriate remedy, one more suited to the disease totality, whether such a remedy even existed, or whether an underlying cause of the disease complexity had yet to be revealed. Many homeopaths who followed Hahnemann simply took Hahnemann’s first point, even though he himself stated that it was not the case of simply not enough remedies. However, many homeopaths who practice in a comprehensive way do so without much heed to a miasmatic perspective. The consideration has to be made whether Hahnemann’s case taking at the time was not detailed enough to reveal the true “chronic” state of the person and therefore the most accurate remedy. In some ways, we practice differently today than in Hahnemann’s time and our understanding of materia medica has also developed, allowing us to distinguish between similar remedy images by recognizing that certain remedies may work more deeply than others. Dimitrialis does not discuss this, but simply explores where Hahnemann was going in his evolution of thinking. However, this is exactly what he quotes Hahnemann saying “’He, therefore, must find out as far as possible the whole extent of all the accidents and symptoms belonging to the unknown primitive malady’ before he can hope to discover one or more medicines which may homeopathically cover the whole of the original disease by means of its peculiar symptoms.” (P 13. Dimitrialis) What is implied here is that ALL relevant information in a case needs to be considered, not merely the presenting symptom picture. However, what has to be recognized is the fact that Hahnemann was understanding that all the phenomena in the patients’ experience are connected, an idea radical enough at the time, but even today is simply not recognized by allopathic medicine. Any disease state is an imbalance in the whole person, and has an effect on the whole person.

Read More

Reaserch of Homeopathy by Hahnemann Part 1

Part 1
As is well known, one of Hahnemann’s last contributions to homeopathy was his theory of the origins of Chronic Disease, documented in his book The Chronic Diseases. A summation of many years of work, it was his attempt to understand the roots of disease and to find homeopathic solutions to this situation. After many years of revelation after formulating the Law of Similars and the development of provings as a key part of the methodology of homeopathic science, Hahnemann still struggled with many cases that seemingly would not respond to “well-indicated” remedies. This led him to seek a deeper understanding of why more lasting cures were not being obtained. The conclusions he drew from this study led him to consider that there were three chronic disease states that were the cause of the underlying disease manifestations. These are Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis. Hahnemann’s attention however was much more focused on Psora, which he attributed 7/8ths of all diseases to. This focus tended to obscure the relevance of the venereal disease miasms, further compounded by the fact that Hahnemann never used the nosodes Medorrhinum or Syphilinum, a key factor in really understanding the full spectrum of the miasms. For the latter two miasms, his concerns were much more focused on the immediate disease implications of these diseases, more than the inherited vulnerabilities that resulted.

Since Hahnemann’s time, miasmatic thinking has developed considerably, with much more information given to the two main venereal miasms mentioned and to the inclusion of two more miasms, Tuberculinic and Carcinogenic, and more recently a few more miasmatic categorizations, mostly with a specific nosode identified for each. During this evolution in thinking, from the original ideas of Hahnemann that the roots of disease can be connected to a specific infectious moment in the patient’s life, his original theory has been developed to include a much broader analysis of miasmatic thinking, especially including the hereditary influence of the original infectious disease state and to understanding miasmatic states as a “gestalt” or pattern of disease symptoms, mental states, characteristics and predispositions, and also to susceptibilities to certain conditions. In other words what has been developed is a whole pattern of expressed mental and physical phenomena and also a recognition of potential states or susceptibilities to such states based on inherited dispositions.

Read More

DXN Ganoderma

There are many companies, who provide ganoderma lucidum but
DXN Ganoderma produces products that keep a man fit and healthy. Ganoderma is simply a substitute for health research and preparation that is used while undergoing modern day health care professional treatment. Ganoderma products extracted from DXN are no doubt a wonderful discovery. These are natural herbs that help in maintaining your body to a greater level and is well known to be a detoxification product. They are specially made to keep your body strong and full with stamina in no time. These products are cultivated in nature and are 100% innate and pure which gives wellness to the body. It has no side effects and the exceptional components of the product does wonders to your health.

This medicine was founded around 4000 years ago in china and till date it has expanded immensely around the globe. Using Ganoderma regularly helps you to prevent the health hazards faced by the world today. It is one good product that stays and last forever in your body. Therefore for any everlasting health benefits DXN Ganoderma plays an important role that changes your health problems and improves your day to day life. You just can't imagine how good it is to your body and your livelihood. However you have to keep in mind that it has a slow progression yet it provides a long lasting benefit for the body. The company makes sure that the standard of the DXN Ganoderma is very high and the quality provided is the best for the consumer.

Read More

Is Ganodarma Lucidum Kings of Herbs?

Ganoderma Lucidum is the "Miraculous King of Herbs" (Reported to be even more powerful than ginseng) The reishi mushroom (Ganoderma Lucidum) is one of the most revered herbs in traditional Chinese and Japanese medicine, with a documented history of over 2000 years. Known as Ling Zhi in China, there are references to its use as far back as 100 B.C. where it was referred to as the 'Herb of Spiritual Potency' and the 'Ten-Thousand-Year Mushroom'.

Ganoderma Lucidum is one of the most highly regarded medicinal supplements and is probably the best choice when looking for a general health tonic to improve overall health and increase longevity. Modern clinical research about Ganoderma also supports many of the uses for this mushroom as described in traditional medicine. It is known to have cured various diseases including throat cancer. It benefits immune health, cardiovascular health, and liver function. Because of its superior oxygenation properties, Ganoderma Lucidum is also frequently used by mountain climbers to combat altitude sickness and is contained in many of the performance-enhancing herbal formulas used by Chinese athletes.

Its main function is to promote blood circulation and increase the metabolic activities of cells (detoxification) and also help the proper functioning of all internal organs (balance the body functions). Lingzhi can be taken daily, for long periods, without any adverse side effects. Long term use of Lingzhi can help normalize body function and empower the immune system to fight disease. 

              It is not merely a medicinal mushroom that heals diseases such as cancer, but is considered to be an adaptogen, that is it helps to regulate and mobilize all bodily functions. To achieve the highest ranking, an herbal medicine must satisfy the following conditions: It should be non toxic (have no side effects), its effects should not be limited to a specific part, or organ of the body. It should be able to normalize all of the body's functions.

Ganoderma may help to :

* Provide more energy & vigor less fatigue
* Rejuvenate and make you feel young and alert
* Detoxify the body & promote wellness
* Strengthen the body's immune system
* Reduce unhealthy cholesterol levels

Four Basic Principles in Ganotheraphy :

* Illness is caused by 2 sources; toxins in our body and disharmony in body functions.
* Ganoderma Lucidum does not cure illness but it can help balance up our body system and improve immunity against diseases such as cancer etc...
* Any reaction that takes place is caused by our body system and not by the intake of Ganoderma.
* The Dosage of Ganoderma taken is irrelevant to diseases.

Read More

Advantages of Homeopathy

Main Advantages of Homeopathy:

• Homeopathy is effective and safe treatment system that aims at stimulating body’s own healing mechanism to counter the manifesting disorders.
• The system is curative, not suppressive with many advantages.
• Homeopathic medicines have no known harmful side effects. They are much safer during pregnancy and for children of all ages and can be chosen according to modalities.
• Homeopathy is effective in both acute and chronic diseases and can successfully cure many diseases without surgery including even some of the dental diseases.
• Homeopathy treats the individual as a whole, not part by part or organ by organ and covers very wide range of symptoms from light fever and sore throat to chronic and complicated diseases.
• Homeopathy is especially useful for treatment of those diseases that have no known cause because homeopathy considers all the symptoms, which automatically takes care of the underlying cause.
• Takes care of the modalities, which is yet another wonder of homeopathy.
• In many cases it works quicker than other treatments.
• Apparently the disease may though be the same in different individuals, their symptoms might be different to each other. Homeopathy has a great range of medicines covering such conditions.
• Homeopathy is especially useful for treatment of those diseases that have no known cause or are considered incurable by other healing systems. Due to symptomatic approach of homeopathy, the underlying cause is automatically taken care of and treatment of such diseases is not a dream. They can actually be treated by taking all the symptoms in to account according to condition of the individual. Homeopathy is in fact the ultimate hope for those who have been disappointed by other systems.

Homeopathy is an alternative healing system but it is gaining popularity all over the world. In South Asia particularly in Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka homeopathy is preferred by a large section of the population because it is simpler, economical, safe and yet effective. In certain cases it is found to be more effective than any other healing system. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact us.

Read More