New Publication
Homeopathy in Intensive Care
and Emergency Medicine
Homeopathy First Magazine
Best Vitamin C Drink 
Learn More With Caralyn 


Homeopathy World Community

Creating Waves of Awareness

Let us have a look into the terminology. Hahnemann used contemporary medical terminology when he used miasma in the context of the organon and the chronic disease.

The physician Boissiere de Sauvage (1707 – 1767) was an opponent of theory and follower of simple experience.
Boissiere wrote the following (in “Nosologie methodique“):
Miasmatic diseases are those diseases, which are caused by miasmatic matter. Miasmatic matter is an evaporation which contains invisible destructive particles.”
Boisiere classes as “Viral diseases”: syphilis, scabies, lepra, finn and tetters. They are created in the body and are transferred directly.

Hahnemann was familiar with his work: “Nosologie methodique“, which he used at the time of his own dissertation.
Definition: (deducted from organon and CD)
Disease which are transmitted from Human to human or animal to human are called miasmatic diseases. = acquired diseases.

Acute miasms: epidemics, childhood diseases, = duration determines
Chronic miasms: chronic forms of miasmatic diseases such as Psora, Syphilis, Sycosis

Tuberculosis is not an independent miasmatic disease but falls by its symptoms into Psora.

In the absence of Psora, syphilis and sycosis are acute miasmatic diseases. If the individual was actively psoric at the time of contraction of syphilis or sycosis, then syphilis or sycosis can combine with psora and become a chronic combined disease. (CD)

Likewise, if the individual is actively psoric diseased and is subjected to vaccination at the same time, then a chronic combination disease is likely to be established = Vaccine damage.

Likewise, if the individual actively diseased with psora is subjected to ongoing allopathic treatment a combination disease is likely to be established, whereby even after cessation of allopathic medication the adverse effects of these medicines will not stop but gradually increase.

Miasmatic diseases are recognized by their symptoms. In acute cases like measles, it is simple to diagnose; In chronic cases it is more difficult, as the start may have not be noticed.

All three chronic miasmatic diseases are of a cyclic nature. They have in common:
Stage One: a skin leason / eruption followed by
Stage two: a latency period with only very discreet symptoms, followed by
Stage three: Manifest disease symptoms.

They can also return from stage 3 to stage 2 (frequently seen) and possibly to stage one.

In the case of psora, which is a very common chronic miasmatic disease Hahnemann listed the symptoms of each of the stages in his book on chronic diseases. By those symptoms Psora is recognizable. (not by facial analysis)

If we know, that it is psora, what is to be dealt with, we know, that unless remedies are used which have the capacity to cure psora there will only be a amelioration of the disease. We also know, that for the cure of Psora different antipsoric remedies are necessary one after another. This observation nullifies the idea of ONE constitutional remedy which will cure the whole malady and also that constitution is disease.

In later years there were many interpretations of a religious or philosophical nature particularly in the 19th century America and 20th century south America. A deviation from the above simple definition was (kent) that Psora was seen as wrong thinking, sycosis as wrong wishing and syphilis as wrong doing reflecting the moral of middle upper class east coast America at the end of the 19th century. The practitioner became a healer by that, liberating humanity from evil. The old belief in inherited sin finds its counterpart in the idea, that psora can be inherited and therefore be handed down from one generation to another.

This goes along with a significant shift of what is to be cured; Hahnemann in his works always refers to the disease as something ultimately separate from the person, Kent et al. referred to the entire person to be cured, and therefore proclaimed that all symptoms, present or past, disease or non-disease be indicative for the selection of the remedy.

Another tendency is to create chronic miasms such as: Tuberculosis or Cancer or ringworm as independent chronic miasms ignoring that their symptoms are already included in Hahnemann's Psora and that these diseases are only different expressions of active psora.

There would be utter confusion, if all these miasms could be there at the same time and active so a theory was formed, that they exist in layers, and that they have to be pealed away like an onion by anti miasmatic remedies always selected from the class relating to the layer. But this fails often because it was quickly found out that there are remedies which are classed in various miasms, and that there are disease symptoms which can belong to different miasms.

I studied Hahnemann's Paris casebooks representing his last and most advanced methods. I found, that there was no reference made to either Psora, Syphillis or Sycosis.

Remedies were determined, (as far as we were able to follow) by the NOW present disease symptom picture. Some cases have Hahnemann's repertorisations included.

Often remedies were changed according when the symptom picture slightly changed when using C-potencies. The changes were less frequently using Q-potencies.

This does not surprise me at all, as the idea of diagnosing and determining remedies according disease- names was already criticized by Hahnemann, calling it a speculative / allopathic procedure.

At some late stage Hahnemann realized,. that by the growing numbers of remedies found to be useful in psora, the remedy selection was not made easier and the results did not improve as dramaticly as he wrote in the introduction to the Chronic Disease. From 1838 on Hahnemann started looking for the solution fof the problem elsewhere. He started to experiment with higher potencies, different modes of application.

The break through came with the Q-potencies.

Results in his cases improved dramatically (compare DF13 and 14 with DF4, 5).

I can confirm from my own experience in the past 20 years, that the Q-potency is an important milestone in the ongoing treatment, speeding up the recovery fourfold.

This raises the question: what is the value of the miasm theory nowadays?

My answer is:
It has no bearing on the remedy selection, it has no value if it comes to homeopathy in its pure unaltered form. There is no practical value at all and seriously aren't the homeopaths becoming the laughing stock going around telling people they are miasmatic?

It is one of those historic whims, which have done more harm to homeopathy than good.

Views: 13305


You need to be a member of Homeopathy World Community to add comments!

Join Homeopathy World Community

Comment by Dr Muhammed Rafeeque on January 5, 2011 at 11:27pm

Hahnemann has clearly mentioned when to give sulphur, merc sol, thuja, nitric acid, hepar etc.


Comment by Dr. Rajiv Chopra on January 5, 2011 at 12:00pm

Dear All,

This is a subject often misunderstood and misinterpreted. In fact this calls for a debate on whether or not the miasms are relevant today !

The present day thinking these days [at least in India] as interpreted by the newer Homeopaths is that these occur in the sequence as Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis. In other words the diseases travel from one miams to another if suppressed. Hence cure must take place in the similar sequence in the reverse order. Which would mean that if a Syphilitic patients starts manifesting symptoms of sycosis during the treatment the Cure has begun ! Or for complete cure it must end up at Psora. Possibly  meaning the layers of diseases as mentioned by Hans. But if one is practical we cannot prescribe Thuja to a sycotic patient unless there are symptoms of Thuja. Hence miasmatic prescribing makes us biased for a particular remedy, which is not what Hahnemann has written !

Thus it is good only for classification of disease not prescribing.


Comment by Dr Muhammed Rafeeque on December 28, 2010 at 5:44am

Thanks for providing the links.

Dear dr, when you are very sure and confident about your views on miasms, you are supposed to comment on the above statements. They may be "polarity questions", but are the basic things!

Comment by Hans Weitbrecht on December 26, 2010 at 6:51am

Dear Dr. Rafeeque

Your question regarding statements 1 - 5 cannot be answered as they are polarity questions.

( yes - no manner )

If you like to find out what a miasm is read above article and take it as a starting point when studying Hahnemann and his contemporaries.

My findings and views regards MIASMS are expressed in great detail in my previous comments.


The study guide can be found in my blogs, but for those who find it difficult to locate it here are the links:



Hans Weitbrecht




Comment by Dr Muhammed Rafeeque on December 22, 2010 at 11:25pm

Please provide a link to hapthy study guide, so that those who follow this discussion can easily go through that. Thanks for reminding my forgotten comments! I really felt that work useful.

Please go through the following statements and tell me the one you follow:

1. miasms do not exist.

2. selection of a remedy on the basis of miasm is not practical

3. antimiasmmatic remedies do not work

4. miasmmatic approach is difficult, hence should be ignored

5. initially, it was possible to treat mono miasmatic diseases, but now we have miasmatic blends that cant be treated on the basis of miasmatic approach.

6. all dynamic medicines work on the miasmatic level.

Comment by Hans Weitbrecht on December 22, 2010 at 11:47am

Dear Dr Rafeeque

You wrote in an earlier comment:

 >> Nice article doctor. Though I am a qualified homoeopath, on several ocassions I have felt that I should rejoin my college to study homoeopathy more deeply. While reading your article, I felt that I am
repeating the graduation course i have already done.

Do you remember? it was part one of the homeopathy-study-guide.


in the homeopathy-study-guide, I explained methodology in a step -by -step way.

-- feel encouraged to follow it, (and of course anybody who wants to become a homeopath)

Comment by Dr Muhammed Rafeeque on December 21, 2010 at 11:55pm

Thank u Dr Jonathan for joining the discussion. Theoretically everthing works. But, practically only the right method overtakes others!


@Dr Hans: Please tell us about the methodology you are using.

Comment by Jonathan Shore MD on December 21, 2010 at 2:24am

Well I must be in that 1%

Many things work. I do believe though that you would not cite the fact that something works as a reason for inclusion under the rubric ' homeopathic '

Comment by Dr Muhammed Rafeeque on December 21, 2010 at 12:08am

Dear Hans,

With due respect, I can’t agree with your words, “Choosing homeopathic remedies because they belong to a miasmatic list and not by symptom similitude lies outside homeopathic rules and principles”. I am also sure that 99% of HWC members cant agree with you. The antimisamatic drug is selected from the group of similar drugs. So, naturally is covers the similarty, but a higher level of similarity to the case. When Hahnemann prescribed the seemingly indicated similar drug for several years, he found that the symptoms were only temporarily disappeared, followed by recurrence. This observation took him to the miasm theory. If miasm concept was not introduced, homeopathy would have vanished automatically, because, it was like a piece of wood handed over to a sinking person!

Comment by Hans Weitbrecht on December 19, 2010 at 5:53pm

Dear Dr. Rafeeque.

The homeopathic principle cure by symptom similitude governs the selection of remedies should they be homeopathic.

Selecting remedies on other grounds, like: belonging to a miasmatic group or kingdom or realm or element group, will lead to an allopathic  selection.

It may be the lucky hit, you are referring to in your last contribution, that by coincidence the remedy chosen was homeopathic. May luck remain on your side, however as far as i am concerned -- when promoting homeopathy --my choice is to promote rocksteady homeopathic rules and principles, to enable the practitioner to select a remedy which will cure.


And honestly if those remedies mentioned by you are known to us by their symptomatology, we can use them with the comfort of knowing, tht aplied according the principles and rules they will CURE and not SUPPRESS, or PALLIATE.

Choosing homeopathic remedies because they belong to a miasmatic list and not by symptom similitude lies outside homeopathic rules and principles.

We are in a unique position, that Hahnemann left us with unambiguous rules and principles and a clear outline of what HOMEOPATHY  is and many of misconceptions only arise because practitioners haven't studied and applied such principle , but think they know it anyway.

And a last word: ALLOPATHY  works, selection for  a remedy: by throwing a hand full of them into the air and the first to touch the ground is the right one works.

but there is one difference, -- if the remedy is selected according homeopathic principles it most likely cures, if it is not -- then it is a shot into the dark.

A practitioner is not a homeopath, because he / she goes around telling others that they are, -- they qualify to be a homeopath by what they do and what they advocate.

By their deeds they will reveal themselves as what they are.

HWC Partners


© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...