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: 13315


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

Join Homeopathy World Community

Comment by Dr Muhammed Rafeeque on December 17, 2010 at 11:10pm

There may be some loopholes or human errors in theory! But, in practice, miasm theory is still working. Most of the homeopaths do not even think about miasm when they see the patient for the first time. Finally, when the indicated drugs do not work properly, then only they think about miasm. This is the real story! Some times, our patients loose confidence on us, they even “threaten” us for a result. Believe me, judicious use of tuberculinum, sulphur, thuja, mercsol, medorrhinum, etc. (as per the miasmatic indication) has saved hundreds of our difficult cases (infact saved us from the consumer court). We still practice homeopathy because it works. Similarly, miasm theory also works, hence we follow that!

Comment by Hans Weitbrecht on December 15, 2010 at 7:08am

Dear Dr Raffeque

should we follow Hahnemann's path? assume miasms having an epidemic character?

Then we should proceed according the instruction from the Organon and seek out the genius epedemicus and those remedies associated to it.

Hahnemann did exactly the same thing when he established the remedy base for the chronic miasms.

Experience thought us, that every epedemic when it comes around next time chances its symptom picture somehow, necessitating the use of different remedies for its cure. (boenninghausen observed this  many times)

As thsi matter applies to the chrnic miasms in the same way as to the more acute, it is reasonable to say, that, remedies beeing found antimiasmatic initially may not be suitable today, and others, which initially had not relation to a given miasm are their best counterparts at the moment.

This is reflected in Hahnemann's case books where he had best results with remedis like Pulsatilla , Bryonia, Lachesis in psoric cases.

From above it is easy to see why the remedy database for the miasms is outdated and missleading.

This adds another potential for faulty remedy selection to an already doubtful basis.


In conclusion here are my main points:

---basis of miasmatic diagnosis is unsure

-- definition of miasms is too broad to be decicive

-- remedies are listed under several miasms by different authors

-- remedies previously associated with a particular miasm are not suitable any more.



Comment by Dr Muhammed Rafeeque on December 13, 2010 at 11:28pm

When we give a potentized remedy, naturally it reaches the miasmatic level. A few homeopaths do not consider miasm; others give great importance. Ultimately both are targeting the miasms - intentionally or unintentionally!

Comment by Hans Weitbrecht on December 12, 2010 at 11:10am

dear Dr Sarswat

The terminology has been set out precisely in my article. Regards the term miasma I refer to my documented sources. Please read carefully before commenting.

You may want to confirm for yourself that symptoms given by Allen for tubercular state  are part of Hahnemann's list of Psoric symptoms.

Allen did not do this. Otherwise he would have realized, that a separate tubercular miasm does not exist.

In a nutshell Hahnemann knew Syphilis and Sycosis in advance of his "discovery" of Psora. He defined Psora as that miasmatic disease, which is not syphilitic and not sycotic, but has cyclical, chronic character not tending to heal itself. the group of man-made-chronic disease were kept seperate. We would class Psora nowadays as a SYNDROM ( a class of seperate diseases).

therefore, there cannot exist more than 3 chronic miasms in Hahnemann's miasm theory.

(BTW. one of my subjects when lecturing post grad.)

>> The conditions that are considered under each of these classes range from Functional or Allergic (Psora), Proliferative or new growths (Sycosis), Degenerative and slow healing processes and healing by fibrosis/ intense allergic or idiosyncratic state (Tubercular), and Necrosis or destructive leading to irreversible changes and finally death (Syphilis).

this is not what Hahnemann thought.

This is Swedenbourgian mythology introduced by Kent, --

It is beyond the miasmatic approach, even and beyond homeopathy at large, to determine in advance of treatment the reversibility / irreversibility of a condition.

If there is anything like "Hahnemannian Pathology", it was not mentioned by him, in fact he disregarded pathological findings for the selection of a remedy. His understanding was expressed in the "liveforce / living principle" realm, there he observed, there he got the clues, and there he found answers and solutions for restoring the sick to health.

Comment by Dr Ravindra Saraswat on December 12, 2010 at 10:32am

“Miasm is an old word used even before Hahnemann’s time. Hahnemann retained this word in homeopathic literature. It means ‘Disordered state of the internal economy’. It is essential that the homeopathic physician grasp the basic understanding of this internal deranged state. Hahnemann classified this into Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis. Pseudo Psora or Tubercular state is a post Hahnemannian thinking, although Hahnemann had included many of its features under Syphilis. The conditions that are considered under each of these classes range from Functional or Allergic (Psora), Proliferative or new growths (Sycosis), Degenerative and slow healing processes and healing by fibrosis/ intense allergic or idiosyncratic state (Tubercular), and Necrosis or destructive leading to irreversible changes and finally death (Syphilis). Even with changing times and addition of new information to our knowledge, these basic concepts have remained the same. This shows the sagacity of Hahnemann. Today, we understand the concepts by the name ‘Hahnemannian Pathology’. This has a great prognostic value. Reversibility or irreversibility of conditions can be determined from this and the treatment can be instituted as curative or palliative. (Chronic Miasms- Allen; Notes on Miasms- Ortega)”

Comment by Hans Weitbrecht on December 11, 2010 at 2:45pm

Dear Alias Azhar

My homeopathy- study- guide gives you all the neccessary information how to establish this for yourself.

Comment by Alias Azhar on December 11, 2010 at 1:25pm

peace wasalaman my dear hans,

"having gained an accurate MMP knowledge"  could u please elaboret tihs statement?

peace wasalaman

Comment by Hans Weitbrecht on December 11, 2010 at 7:56am

good comment and thanks for expressing what many homeopaths feel.

Miasmatic prescribing becomes less and less workable (leave aside, that it is unfit for remedy decision as shown above) with the increasing numbers of remedies associated to each of them. things get even more confusing if remedies are listed under the 3 major miasms,

-- what, -- if any --, accuracy is in that approach?

Hahnemann realized that problem and went beyond in his last years.

Boenninghausen after initially following Hahnemanns idea of classification (1835) came off the idea and amalgamated both repertories into one and by that ending the classification.

Jahr,-- probably one of the closest to Hahnemann, remember he compiled most of the late editions of the CD and the Organon-- saw the miasmatic classification unfit for selection of homeopathic remedies (1856).

Only Kent tediously hung onto it followed by other swedenbourgian homeopaths of the period, because it suited his religious beliefs, where --in fact-- he was the very one who ignored all miasms and gave the remedies indicated by the NOW present Disease Symptom Picture.

Praying after Kent and repeating his early lectures relentlessly inhibits the clear perception where the early masters left it.

The feeling that homeopathy is lacking and needs improvement reflects the unawareness where Hahnemann and contemporaries actually had left it.

Having studied their cases, having gained an accurate MMP knowledge, Working with their tools according to the principles and rules, leaves me with results where nothing more is to be desired.




Comment by Dr Muhammed Rafeeque on December 11, 2010 at 6:21am

Physicians at the time of Hahnemman were lucky to have mono-miasmatic diseases, but now we have cases with blends of miasms. Even newborn babies are carriers of such miasmatic blends.

Comment by Dr Muhammed Rafeeque on December 11, 2010 at 6:04am

I do agree that there is lack of clarity in the classification of anti miasmatic drugs. Most of the polycrest drugs cover all miasms. Hence, the application of miasm should be done at the end. It will help the final selection of the similimum from a group of similar drugs.


In the example you have given, Nux v may be the similimum at that particular time. Nux is not considered as an anti syphilitic drug, still, it has less syphilitic features. How a drug becomes antimiasmatic? How we classify them? It is by comparing the symptomatology with the charecters of the miasm. The syphilitic features of nux is less compared to ars. But, it does not mean that nux is not anti syphilitic.

HWC Partners


© 2019   Created by Debby Bruck.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...