CHRONIC MIASMS ARE PROVEN FACT
CHRONIC MIASMS ARE PROVEN FACT
(CRITIQUE OF CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHY-12)
If Hahnemann had died without discovering the Chronic Miasms, someone else would have discovered them: might he be Hering, Boeninnghausen, Farrington or anyone from among the dignitaries of his learned disciples. As homeopathy was destined to survive as an alternative therapeutics, some definite concepts of disease were imperative for its application. No therapeutics can survive without incorporating a solid knowledge of the science of pathology. Without the knowledge of pathology no one can know the real meaning and the drift of the symptoms complex. So without a definite science of pathology no therapeutics can be valid. Without diagnosing a definite disease from the collection of symptoms, the totality of symptoms will remain a bouquet of incongruous shoots and flowers, without any definite pathologic red strand binding the whole.
It was this drawback that convinced Hahnemann that there must be some definite factor behind the presentable symptoms that is overlooked by simple symptoms covering under the law of similia. He was puzzled by the recurrence of the symptoms, times and again, after being annihilated by the similar remedy. So he concluded that similia is not all sufficient for acquiring permanent cure. There is definitely something that is not dealt with effectively with simple symptoms covering. So he postulated the theory of chronic miasms.
If homeopathic law of cure was the ‘apple of Newton’, the theory of miasms was the ‘theory of relativity of Einstein’. With the discovery of miasms homeopathy has got the solid foundation of pathology. But the homeopaths’ duty and ordeal has been redoubled thereby. In every chronic case he has to determine the miasm behind the symptom complex and also the organismic pathology on the basis of laboratory investigations. So the simple run of homeopaths that are being churned out by our institutions would fall very short of that standard. These neophytes become an easy pray to the unfathomable lust of homeopathic pharmaceutical industry, the world over; and become patents mongers because of their inborn sloth. They have then no need to study miasms and no need to acquire knowledge of the science of pathology. These grave diggers of homeopathy—these pharmaceutical houses—make them self sufficient in every way. They are disgrace to the profession, and doing lethal disservice to homeopathy. But for the timely discovery of miasms by Hahnemann, homeopathy would have fallen to oblivion with a single nudge from modern medicine—nihil ad rem. It was a moment of divination that the master found the inkling of the chronic miasms. Homeopathy stands and falls with the miasms.
Dealing and eliminating the self-limited diseases (I mean ‘acute diseases’) is no hall-mark of homeopathy. It is the success in curing the chronic diseases that homeopathy is known for. But it is the dealing in the former class of diseases that keeps the patients coming to the same doctor again and again. Acute diseases, or the acute ripples of chronic diseases, keep coming, in the same or different forms, and successful dealing by the doctor, by superficial homeopathy, makes the patient-doctor bond ever stronger, and the doctor more and more popular.
Miasms should be the basis of prescription in homeopathy, especially in chronic practice. Homeopathy stands and falls with the efficacy or defect of the theory of miasms. Modern technology and laboratory analysis and pathologic-o-histological investigations have laid bare many drastic defects and weaknesses of classical homeopathy. When homeopathy was discovered or conceived there were no modern means of diagnosing the diseases and checking the internal working of the body, viz. X-rays, Ultrasound, MRI, EEG, ECG, and legion others, even stethoscope and sphygmomanometer. So the totality of symptoms consisted of what the patient told and what the doctor discovered on his own with his unaided and unequipped senses.
Now I relate a case. A talented girl, aged 14, always getting distinction in exams and taking active part in school’s activities, as speech competitions, etc. She one day had severe headache which could not be mitigated by usual painkillers—her father, being a medical doctor, got suspicious of her complaint. He checked her B.P., and it was very high for her age. Investigations started. Blood tests showed high creatinine and urea. Ultrasound was taken, and it revealed that she congenitally had single kidney and that too was not working normally. She had no apparent symptoms of this gross pathology and congenital anatomical anomaly. Now classical homeopathy, prior to the discovery of the miasms, could not do anything here with this drastic paucity of symptoms. She does not confess that she is ill in any respect. She is wary of her parents anguish and their instructions for limiting her activities. Similarly, in another case, a patient of rapidly failing sight was diagnosed as having PDR (proliferating diabetic retinopathy), was to undergo routine laser treatment. During the process, he went into coma owing to brain hemorrhage. Detailed investigation revealed that a cancer was developing behind the retina of one eye, and that it got burst under the duress of laser therapy that caused hemorrhage.
So we conclude that the totality of symptoms is comprised of: symptoms told by the patient plus symptoms discovered by the physician plus the pathologies discovered by detailed laboratory analyses. A homeopath is further expected to determine another factor: i.e. the miasmatic pathology of the case for comprehensively and successfully dealing the case. Mere symptoms covering of classical homeopathy won’t do. And as the patient has nothing to tell, as she doesn’t feel any malaise, the doctor would have no means to judge the progress of recovery except by repeated laboratory analyses and examinations of the patient.
Prescribing by miasms is a great stride in homeopathic practice. And zoic medicines are deeper and longer acting than the mineral and metallic, and the latter are deeper and longer acting than the herbal. From among the zoic medicines nosodic medicines aremore germane for therapeutic purposes than any other. They give you the pathologic similimum—asif—as the great Burnett has suggested. This would be the right and strongly indicated nosode, and would act as a broad-based prescription that can suffice singly and solely to wipe away the total morbid phenomenon; and can make you free from the need of any other therapeutic agent. It can even save you the drudgery of repertorization.
In my practice of chronic diseases almost 80% of the computerized cases remain, subsequently, unchecked and unused—the miasmatic remedy overrides all the jumble of symptoms included therein, in a miraculous way. Never forget to determine pathological family history of the patient. A strong clue to the pathologic past of the patient saves some 95% of the drudgery for the search for the similimum. First determine the miasm and then go to the relevant anti-miasmatic drug-list and determine as to which, from among the listed remedies, is most close to the case, on the basis of similia, that bears the strongest similarity. Try to choose a nosode than a remedy from any other realm: e.g. chemical, mineral or herbal.