The God Question and its Relationship to Homeopathy

The God Question and its relationship to Homeopathy

 

 

 

Richard Pitt

Summary:

The influence of the modern scientific paradigm in our society and in medicine in particular has led to challenges on the position of traditional religion and also on the validity of homeopathy and other holistic forms of healing. This is part of a larger struggle between secular, materialistic philosophies, and religious/spiritual philosophies and homeopathy has found itself, again, stuck in the middle and especially in the U.K. has found itself under much scrutiny and attack. This article explores some of the philosophical and political influences that have led to this situation, ideally clarifying the position of homeopathy and its role in integrating spiritual and scientific ideals.

Keywords: God, Religion, Secularism, Materialism, The Enlightenment, Reason, Fundamentalism, Homeopathy, Holism.

 

God and Religion, are they the same thing?

It is clear that the majority of white English people have given up on religion. The Church of England has also given up the Ghost, meandering into benign oblivion, leaving their flock to find new pastures. Many feel this is all well and good and part of the natural evolution of things as society re-evaluates its relationship to redundant belief systems and redefines its spiritual values. Most of Western Europe has followed a similar trajectory, even such Catholic countries as Italy and Spain. The United States is an exemption to this direction in Western civilization, but the battle lines are also there between secular and religious forces.

 

A number of problems arise during significant social transitions. What do you put in its place when you relegate a cultural belief system to the dustbin and what does it mean here about the larger question of God itself? Is God the same as religion and if God is to go as well, then what next? A variation of the good old benign humanism, or something more radical instead? Communism was tried and simply became another religion and then religion came back as the door on communism closed – at least in Russia. You can have God without religion but most people condemning religion find it easier to condemn God as well and which fits into their own philosophical paradigm.

 

Our historical relationship to religion

This is not the first time in relatively modern history that society has turned its back on traditional religion. Perhaps most dramatically during the French Revolution, the bible was outlawed for a while and any person expressing Christian beliefs could face the death penalty. Notre Dame was dedicated to the cult of Reason and the revolution adopted a strict atheistic society. Religious freedoms were soon re-instated but still under the mandate of reason. At the same time, William Blake in England was making similar, if less violent arguments about the role of religion and church in society. Similar waves of rebellion against religious orthodoxies occurred in the 1840’s-1850’s, being influenced by many intellectuals and philosophers, perhaps most famously Marx and Engels. And again, at the turn of the 20^th century, as technological advances profoundly altered society, another wave of secularism took root in European society, leading to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

 

Most recently, during the social revolution of the 1960’s, many social and cultural restraints were challenged and broken down, leading to radical changes in society including the role of religious beliefs and churches. As this impulse has continued since the 1960’s, it has taken many turns and in Europe has more profoundly changed the formal influence of the Christian church than in the United States where the power of religion has continued to be strong, especially in the evangelical church. In Europe, while many indigenous Christians have discarded their beliefs, many immigrants have brought their own religion with them, Islam and Hinduism being the two largest religions practiced. The relationship between Islam and Christianity has been a difficult one, beginning most significantly during the 1^st Crusades in the late 11^th century and then erupting most recently and most devastatingly during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Muslims have felt a justifiable cause against the abuses of Christianity and, in the name of Allah, significant atrocities have been meted out to Christians and other non-believers.

In the United States, the events of 9/11 and the subsequent wars in the Middle East fueled the more evangelical movements within the Christian church, as well as the secular parts of society, despairing at the religious inspired depravity and the polarization of religious beliefs into ever increasing fundamentalisms. A growing polarization in religious and social values has been seen in the United States, with both the main political parties reflecting this widening cultural war.

 

Where do people go when they give up on religion?

In Europe, since the 1960’s and 1970’s, most people who have given up on traditional religion have moved in one of three main directions.

 

1. The belief in science, rationalism and materialism – that part of European intellectual history, beginning most significantly with Bacon, Descartes and Newton and now seeing an expression in the fields of medical politics and the mostly secular media.
2. A (non) position of benign agnosticism or practical utilitarianism to explain things and the challenges of modern society. Not particularly religious/spiritual and not particularly partisan to the god of rationalism, it seeks simply the evolution of society through a combination of practicality, rationalism and individual freedom.
3. An exploration of alternative forms of religious and spiritual forms, incorporating eastern religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism, Shamanism and other spiritual and lifestyle philosophies. Included in this would be the plethora of alternative medical therapies, forms of healing, spirit beliefs, environmentalism, alternative lifestyles, organic agriculture and broad forms of pantheism in which nature in its pristine glory is celebrated. A growing suspicion of scientific rationalism is often expressed here and the underlying guiding principles people follow are more holistic and would incorporate some form of spiritual belief.

 

Of course, these categories are not rigid and people can inhabit aspects of all of them. However, there is perhaps a growing polarity between the first and third group, as seen in the growing attacks on alternative medicine by a radical group of “scientific reductionists,” who have become increasingly intolerant of any form of healing that does not conform to a narrow rationale of what they think works.

The Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor, in his book A Secular Age alsodescribed the struggle between the secular and the spiritual as a three-cornered battle.

 

(1)    Secular, exclusive humanists with Enlightenment values who deny transcendence and the notion of God.

(2)    Anti-humanists who deny and attack claims of the power of reason to find scientific, objective truths of reality. This is the domain of much of post-modern thinkers. They challenge the Enlightenment but don’t seek meaning in religion or the transcendent.

(3)    Believers in transcendence, who have some conviction in a higher reality or transformation possible, even beyond human perfection.

 

Likewise, he sees shifting and overlapping alliances between the three groups. (1) And (2) are anti-spiritual. (2) and (3) share forces against the naïve optimism and belief in progress of (1). (1) and (3) are both opposed to the relativism and nihilism of (2).

In the arena of healthcare and the attacks on many forms of holistic methods, influenced by secular society and also the tendency to increasing fundamentalism as a whole, there has been an alignment of various groups:

 

1. Medical professionals who believe that the domain of science is best served by only allowing the most conventional of medical practice to be accepted and who by default dismiss the vast majority of alternative healing from a basic philosophical position.
2. “Big Pharma.” A powerful lobbying influence whose agenda is to maintain their power and profits and who seek to influence the discourse of what is acceptable in medicine and healing.
3. Radical secularists, who have a burning passion to dismiss anything that is seen as “non-rational” or “non-scientific.” This would include all notions of God and spirituality, as well as forms of alternative healing, astrology and other similar belief systems. People included in this group include part of the secular intellectual movement as well as traditional left wing “Marxist” groups who follow Marx’s basic materialistic doctrine, whether it is right or left wing in the ever-changing boundaries of cultural and political expression.

 

In this movement of increasing criticism against non-orthodox forms of healing and spiritual beliefs, one has seen a growing alignment of forces that in other times would be on other sides of the fence, that is, the capitalist forces of the medical/industrial complex and secular atheists that normally would be seen in more socialist circles and critics of the cultural class-based culture. However, in this case, the values of science have been distorted and used to support not only the advance of science and medicine but also a broader belief system in which there is no room for God or anything that acknowledges a broader holistic and spiritual dimension to life, in which the “unknown” or “unknowable”, in whichever form that may take is seen as unacceptable. Also, it is part of a political and economic attack on the challenge to the authority of orthodox medicine to control access and availability of all forms of healthcare, a broad-based agenda to maintain its dominant position. This is at a time when the health care system in many countries, especially in the United States, is facing huge economic and political challenges and the iatrogenic impact of a drug-based health system is taking a huge toll.

 

This alignment has expressed itself most strongly in the United Kingdom, where religious indifference and a powerful secular movement, along with a sympathetic media, have seen the most virulent attacks on homeopathy and the broader “holistic” movement. These attacks have been widely supported by conservative forces in the medical profession and also by elements of the pharmaceutical industry. In the United States there has not been such an alignment, in the main because secular forces are not so dominant. The conventional medical paradigm is also still in a dominant economic and political position, in spite of the plethora of alternative therapies being practised and they have not felt such a burning need to condemn and threaten many of the alternative therapies practised, unless that is, one of their own steps too far outside the norms of medical practice.

 

The polarization between religious and secular beliefs has created a predicament for many who would ideally have affinity for the secular movement’s ideas and also the belief in science but who also feel there is room for other ways of believing and healing which cannot be explained by conventional scientific methods. The many previous attempts to dismiss religion and God tend to create another set of fundamentalisms and rigid beliefs, all expressions of the human condition and our attempt to create order out of disorder, meaning from emptiness and social forms that allow society to function harmoniously.

In the view of the philosopher Charles Taylor, secularism is not simply the opposite and rejection of religion and spirituality but challenges the historical relationship to and role of formalized religion and religious ritual, but which can still leave room for authentic spiritual enquiry. There are more options now in the secular age than preceding times and the context has changed. Personal experience and subjective relationship to spirituality have taken the place of the externalization of religious conviction in the form of God and formalized religious ritual dominated by religions. Taylor challenges the assumption that secularity has now simply replaced traditional religion, saying that it gave the opportunity to redefine individual experience and spiritual enquiry. It didn’t have to be defined only in the context of formal religion. He described the gradual transition from the Middle Ages when the world was seen as an enchanted cosmos, and the self was embedded within a social and cosmic order. Gradually this enchanted cosmos became disenchanted and in this process the world came to be seen as constituted by individuals, and nature itself as separate from human thought and experience. The Cartesian model slowly became the dominant reality, subject and object more clearly pronounced.

Taylor describes the effect of secularism in three ways: Universalization, where through the influence of the Enlightenment and the power of reason, science could pursue objective truths with universal validity. The second way he described as Psychologization, where greater awareness of internal individual mental and emotional experience, as apart from merely being part of the larger cosmos. The third way is Individualization, where spiritual experience is no longer intrinsically related to society. The spiritual path becomes a personal search.

 

The first modern scientists and their relationship to God

 

In the face of the growing development and power of science and medicine, it is perhaps not as easy as it was in Newton’s time to span both religious belief and a deep conviction in scientific materialism. Also, as God has been dominated by the more rigid orthodoxies of traditional religion and the influence of Jesus and Mohammed in the largest two religions, the blanket dismissal of God is perhaps the inevitable conclusion to the challenge of religious orthodoxy and fundamentalism. What began over 500 years ago, when the first scientific explorations of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler challenged the religious orthodoxies of the day, with the implications that we were not the centre of the known universe, but just swimming in the mix, can lead to the conclusion that there cannot be any God at all as stated by traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. This conclusion is the result of 500 years of scientific and philosophical enquiry and for many makes total sense. Ultimately the universe is random and the selfish gene dominates.

However, the findings of these early scientists were not attempts to overthrow the power of religion or God and in fact to begin with, these insights were seen in specifically religious contexts. To quote the American philosopher Richard Tarnas in his book “Cosmos and Psyche”:

 

“After the discovery of the heliocentric theory… the deep mysteries of the universe were suddenly unfolding within the awestruck minds of the new scientists through the grace of a sovereign deity whose glory was now dramatically unveiled. The stunning mathematical harmony and aesthetic perfection of the new cosmos disclosed the workings of a transcendental intelligence of unimaginable power and splendour. In that epiphany, the human intelligence that could grasp such workings was itself profoundly altered and empowered.”

 

Before that time, stated Tarnas:

“The true nature of life had come to be seen as fundamentally beyond the capacity of the human intellect to understand. Concerning heavenly and divine matters, it seemed only the Bible could reveal the truth.”

 

Copernicus was well aware that the possible consequences of these revelations could upset the traditional order, creating a wave of reaction, not only from the religious but also from the secular intelligentsia. However, Copernicus and those that followed did not dismiss God, and not just for political reasons. They were able to make their revelations understood within the context of the “workings of a transcendent intelligence of unimaginable power and splendour.” However, as the full consequence of the heliocentric theory unfolded over decades and centuries, the result became a fundamental revision of man’s relationship to the world around him. Instead of being seen as part of the whole, a connected interplay in which man was merely the smallest part, immersed in the whole stream of life; all meaning and intelligence in the world now belongs to man, which is separate and distinct from the “objective, non human world.”

 

Move forward five hundred years and we now have science standing on a threshold. On one level, we have tremendous breakthroughs in knowledge in many fields of scientific research, from the basic research into matter in physics to an ever more nuanced understanding of human physiology and our ability to manipulate it, reaching into the very foundations of DNA construction. At the same time, we have a science that still often sees itself as abstract from nature, separate from that which it is observing and manipulating, as part of a larger cultural mindset in western society that still maintains that as humans we have dominion over the planet, a premise established from biblical time. This profound conclusion in which man separates himself from and has dominion over nature ironically lays the foundation for the development of the modern scientific method even if many espousing the value of this method deny religion, which makes a similar conclusion.

As the scientific method developed and refined it’s ideas, the classic mechanistic-reductionist model of the world took hold, one in which the only reality is that which we can see and understand with our technology and in which all meaning is reduced to a bio-chemical analysis of the human “machine.” The concept of other levels of reality or consciousness whether one calls it Vitalism, Chi, Prana or some form of energy recognized as being the substrata of biological function is fundamentally denied. What is also implicitly denied is the concept that ALL things are somehow connected; that the human organism is a cohesive whole and that our relationship to the planet in which we live is a symbiotic one, where energetic threads weave a coherent whole, and which includes the whole cosmos. By default, the mechanistic model reduces things to their smallest component, seeking understanding of the whole through the smallest detail of biological function. This model also denies (as it cannot see it) any other level of reality that simply exists in the form of consciousness. This consciousness or energy infuses matter but science can’t see it so it can’t exist, the same as God can’t exist.

The question is whether there is room in the current scientific paradigm to incorporate a more holistic worldview and methodologies that would support this and how long the conservative forces in science and medicine can resist the challenges these views represent.

 

 

The power transition from religion to science and beyond

The humanistic/secular movement in western society has directly challenged the role and significance of religion in western culture, which by default, has included the very concept of God itself. As science and “scientism” has reached a certain peak of cultural influence, it has required the dismissal (for some) of that which represented the previous central structure of political and cultural power – religion. Taylor makes the case however that this is only one view of the influence of secularism. Many would argue that although science has come to understand much that previously was in the domain of religion, the blanket dismissal of God (or the unknown) leaves an existential vacuum. If not God, what? The attempt of the secular elite to put “Science” in its place does not work, even when those who support it act as much as “true believers” as the religious powers they are seeking to transplant.

This attempt to transplant one ideology with another has always happened in the evolution of cultures and society in general and has been clearly elucidated in a book by Ken Wilber called A Brief History of Everything. In this book he is using the theories of “Spiral Dynamics” and its stages of development or “memes” as society moves beyond particular paradigms of thought.

One of the ideas he elucidates which he borrows from some modern “evolutionary” thinkers, especially Don Beck and Clare Graves, is a model of evolutionary steps, termed “The Spiral of Development” within which there are eight to ten stages, or “memes”.  Meme is a word that has been used by various thinkers who are exploring evolutionary stages of development. It is a pattern or dynamic that constitutes a collective theme. Each stage pertains to a period of evolution and a colour is given for each meme, although each colour given does not have any real significance.  The stages are as follows:  (1) Beige: Archaic-instinctual stage in which basic survival is the strongest impulse: (2) Purple: Magical-Animist stage where the powers of magical spirits and ancestors are crucial, bonding tribe and community: (3) Red: Power Gods stage where magical=mythic spirits and primitive powerful beings, feudal lords, egocentric heroes exist and the basis of feudal empires; (4) Blue: Mythic Order is dominant, manifest in the power of religion and the all powerful Other (God), where laws and principles are absolute, where right and wrong are clear, and is the seed of much of conventional religion and fundamentalisms across the world: (5) Orange: Scientific achievement is the new God, including the mechanistic views of the world, rationalism, the modern economic capitalist system, individualism and high achievement all taking priority, and finally (6) Green stage: The sensitive self, where connection, community, sharing and dialogue dominate, with influence from  post-modern thinkers with their new-found social and cultural relativism and also the growing influence of holistic ideas, of environmentalism and the interconnectedness to the planet is recognized.

Wilber states that after the green meme, human consciousness is poised for a quantum leap into “second-tier thinking”. At this point, the possibility of thinking both vertically and horizontally is possible. He states that one can, for the first time, vividly grasp the entire spectrum of interior development and thus see that each level, each meme, each wave is crucially important for the health of the overall spiral, instead of seeing each layer or meme separately, which is the condition while still in first-tier thinking.

However, while still in first tier thinking, each wave transcends and includes its predecessor.  This can be seen from a basic microbiological level – a cell transcends but includes molecules, which transcend but include atoms.  Just so, each wave of existence is a fundamental ingredient of all subsequent waves, and thus each is to be cherished and embraced. Each wave can be activated when necessary. It is not a linear model that once left is never to be returned to. Depending on circumstances the dynamics of one model may be more appropriate than another. Wilber then makes a very important point:  “But what none of the first tier memes can do on their own, is fully appreciate the existence of the other memes. Each of the first tier memes thinks that its worldview is the correct or best perspective. It reacts negatively if challenged, using its own tools whenever it is threatened.” He states that with second tier consciousness, there is an appreciation of the necessary roles of all the various memes. Even the green meme that seeks to be inclusive and pluralistic does not have a fully integrated and holistic view; it is still putting the pieces together. This is important as second tier thinking prevents seeing each meme in a judgmental, hierarchical way but acknowledges the importance of all of them. One other important point to emphasize is that within any system of thinking, all the different memes may be evident at different times and that it is important that each meme can be expressed as a particular evolving system.

 

The main point here to understand is that the next ascending meme of thought seeks to transcend the former. At this point in history, we are poised between the orange meme of scientific development and the green meme, with a growing appreciation of interdependence and challenging conventional structures of power and especially that of scientific reductionism. It can be seen therefore that in the current debate – seen more in Europe than in the United States, there is a philosophical and political battle between the orange meme thinking and the blue meme thinking which represents the former influence of traditional religion. However, what is also happening is that the orange meme dominance is being deeply challenged by the green meme paradigm, which is challenging the mechanistic model of the universe, including the premise of our detachment from the planet, and our right to exploit the planet for the short term benefit of man and his appetites. Included in this challenge is the role of conventional, western medicine in relationship to more holistic alternatives, in which the concepts of consciousness and “energy” medicine is foundational to its understanding.

 

This is why the very people who are attacking the validity of “alternative” forms of healing are often the same people who are challenging the concept of God. In fact, notions of God and belief in systems of healing such as homeopathy and acupuncture, and also astrology and psychics are all put under the same rubric as that which is unknown or possibly unknowable, that cannot be proven by the scientific method and which challenges the edifice of scientific reductionism. Therefore they have to be dismissed as idiosyncratic beliefs that all have their root in superstition and “mediaeval” ignorance. One well-known doctor in the UK said, “Homeopathy is worse than witchcraft.” One wonders whether he would advocate burning homeopaths at the stake! The attacks on alternative medicine have been growing in recent years, and while one could in theory say that it is due to the machinations of “Big Pharma” and its connivance with political interests (a too easy generalization to make), it also reveals the allegiance of those who are “true believers” in modern science and medicine, and committed atheists. As mentioned earlier, it has also seen an allegiance between those whose political affinities would be traditionally left wing with those who support more right wing values, especially when seen in the business of medicine.

 

The Enlightenment and its modern adherents

 

In Dan Hind’s book, The Threat to Reason, Hind questions this strange allegiance and traces some of its impulses to people who believe that in attacking God, religion, alternative medicine, environmentalism and the whole post-modern movement, they are defending the true spirit of the Enlightenment and Rationalism. He discusses how this can take place, and why by putting science at the peak of human development, it allows them to dismiss anything that doesn’t fit within its narrow analysis of life. However, his critique is that the powers of modern capitalism and neo-liberalism have captured the ideas of the Enlightenment and are a much greater threat to society than such “new-age” ideas and philosophies as homeopathy and astrology, as well as the blanket dismissal of religion. Without really defending the latter, he is asking the question that those who are part of the modern rationalist movement are actually defending values which are not truly representative of the Enlightenment. They have reduced the ideas of the Enlightenment to the narrow values of materialism, rationalism and neo-liberal capitalism.

The value of the book is in seeing how some of these modern critics of holistic ideas really believe that they represent a true scientific philosophy but in so doing seem more concerned about the damage that astrology is doing than in the abuses of “Big Pharma” when it covers up its abuses with drugs such as Vioxx, (1) along with the broader iatrogenic crisis within modern medicine.

 

For those practitioners of methods of healing such as homeopathy, acupuncture, psychotherapy and all kinds of “energy” based therapies, as well as practitioners of astrology and eastern philosophies and religion, there is more in common with some religious beliefs than in the materialism and reductionism of the atheistically inclined rationalists. While many of the so called “new-age” type therapies may not have much in common with the tenets of traditional religion and its rigid  orthodoxies, they are somehow forced into an alignment based if on nothing other than the idea that there will always be some kind of mystery to life (Transcendence) and that there is some form of supra consciousness pervading all things, and that another world of “spirit” may exist, in whichever form it may take.

Further, there is a commonly held conviction that blind adoration to “scientism” is a great error and lacks the imagination of the human spirit and reduces everything to an empty, disconnected, detached void of nothingness, a universe without intrinsic order or meaning.

 

The implications for the future of science and God

Many of those who practice alternative medicine would say that their methods are scientific and that if only the reductionists would widen the goalposts, and in the true spirit of science which is the pursuit of knowledge and not just the pursuit of what people want to believe in, it would allow many other therapies and ideas to be included.

It could also begin to embrace the idea of interconnectedness, of synchronicity, of consciousness itself and that the mystery of life can be experienced more directly, not trying to simply fit it into a test tube. Instead of  relying on a narrowly defined “evidence based medicine” which is often being used to support only “evidence” deemed acceptable from a materialistic view, , a radical empiricism could take place where all systems of thought and therapies can be tested by direct experience and this evidence can be collated and reviewed in whichever way is acceptable. Of course this doesn’t exclude all forms of scientific investigation but it doesn’t start from the prejudiced position of denial. To do this, funds would have to be made available for much more research into holistic models of healing, and scientific and medical journals would have to be much more open to publishing this research. In the last few years, The Lancet, one of the most respectable medical journals in the U.K., has taken a virulent anti-homeopathy position, even heading one of its editorials, ”The Death of Homeopathy”. This happened when publishing the “Shang et al” report, (Lancet 366), which purportedly showed that in 110 homeopathic trials,, compared with allopathic trials, homeopathy did not work, attributing any homeopathic effect to merely placebo. However, the conclusions were drawn from only 8 of the 105 papers studied. Whatever the disputes of the agenda and methodology of the report’s authors, the fact that the Lancet would follow it with such a dramatic editorial comment makes it clear where they stand and their willingness to believe reports on homeopathy, even if the “Shang et al” study brought up as many questions as answers.

 

The implications of opening up the field of research into all forms of holistic thinking would also include a “scientific” exploration of all forms of belief, including the concept of God. From a holistic view, God may not be limited to a traditional Judeo-Christian model but could simply mean that there is a “universal consciousness” in which all things are connected and in which there is an inherent order to all things. This type of universal holism would then be used to explore the human body in a much more integrated way, recognizing that all functions of mind and body are connected and are a reflection of an “energetic” life force. The implications of this kind of research could help bridge more religious/spiritual impulses with a scientific perspective, opening up the boundaries of science and also challenging limited views of the concept of God.

 

Real evolution happens when new ideas are constantly challenging the old ways of being and it is crucial that room be given for these new ideas to develop. However much this challenges the old structures, so be it, and they can’t be allowed to suppress and deny the impulse toward a more inclusive and truly holistic paradigm,, one which incorporates the highest expression of human understanding and development. This is vital in the field of healthcare and also in the understanding of our relationship to the planet, where the tendency to manipulate and exploit the planet for narrow interests simply cannot work much longer. We are at a crossroads and the overlapping areas of concern may come down to our understanding that it is all connected. We are not separate from nature or from each other. Science and much of conventional religion has believed in this separation but the existential, political and environmental crises of the modern age are forcing us to redefine these ideas as we move toward a truly holistic view of the world we live in.

(1)    Vioxx was the anti-inflammatory drug made by Merck and Co, which was withdrawn because of serious side effects, including heart disease. However, Merck withheld information it had about these side effects for five years, leading to up to 60,000 deaths worldwide. However, Merck by then had made over $2.5 billion in sales revenue from the drug.

References:

Taylor, Charles: A Secular Age.

Tarnas, Richard: Cosmos and Psyche.

Wilber, Ken: A Brief History of Everything.

Hind, Dan: The Threat to Reason.

 

Richard Pitt

275 Grandview Ave, #102

San Francisco, CA 94114

USA.

Richardwpitt@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The homeopathic treatment of Lyme disease.

The treatment of Lyme disease may be one of the more challenging of diseases for homeopathy to treat. Known to be caused by a spirochete bacteria, Borrelia burgdorfi, it is now known to  be compounded by a number of co-infections including viruses, parasites, fungi and molds and other bacteria. It seems the primary bacteria is able to allow the unleashing of other disease causing factors. Also, in more alternative circles it has been recognized that the underlying constitutional issues of mental/emotional distress, childhood traumas and illnesses, heavy metal toxicity, environmental pollutants and stresses etc all compound the susceptibility to Lyme and the reactive capacity of the organism.

None of this is new information for the homeopath, who in looking at root causes, generally focuses more on the soil of the individual than on the contagious factors that have precipitated the condition. However, is it enough to simply find the correct “constitutional” remedy for a person or do other protocols need to be covered, including remedies for the most obvious acute symptoms, or for the serious chronic neurological complications, or nosodes to cover both chronic miasmatic conditions and the actual nosode for the spirochete bacteria.

Also, given the focus on the psycho/dynamic factors of each person, is it more important to address the emotional patterns of conditioning that may be predisposing a person to sickness in the first place, especially if these are deep seated and chronic in nature. Is it also important to look at adjunct therapies to help support the treatment, whether it is the use of herbs, minerals, vitamins and various detox supports to protect the organism during the struggle against the disease.

Within mainstream classical homeopathy, there is a tendency to always look for the “golden nugget”, the one remedy that will cover all the mental and physical conditions in one and to give the minimum dose necessary to stimulate the organism’s capacity to combat all of the conditions above, however complex that may be. While in some cases, that may be enough, will it always work, even if one has found the correct remedy, or given the complexity and the intensity of chronic Lyme cases, is that really enough. Perhaps there is an over reliance on this methodology at the expense of looking for supportive and more adaptable methods of looking for a complete therapeutic profile.

It has been recognized that Lyme disease looks very much like Syphilis. Both diseases are spirochete bacteria, both have distinct phases of action, affecting similar areas of the body – joints, bones, nerves, mental functioning. Both are elusive diseases and “arrived” on the scene as if from nowhere. Both have a “mercurial” aspect to them, and especially now with Lyme disease, the confusion in the medical community about how to treat the condition and even the diagnosis of it is similar to how people first struggled to accept and recognize Syphilis and its cause. The syphilitic component to the disease needs to be recognized as a key to the possible treatment of the condition, both in remedies used and adjunct therapies possibly needed.

The conventional use of antibiotics for the conditions is controversial if done long term which some Dr’s recommend, in some cases for 1-2 years. The evidence suggests that long term antibiotic therapy alone is not effective and the risks of side effects and immune suppression are very apparent. Short term use of antibiotics is more justified if they are given soon enough after primary infection. However, even then, perhaps 30-40% of people have some kind of chronic sequelae. Also, the conventional tests for Lyme do not count for much and are often wrong. Both Western Blot and ELISA tests often fail to register antibodies to the bacteria if done in the first two weeks of infection or after eight weeks. Also, they can register false positives. However, for many people who have not been given any diagnosis of their condition and simply told they have chronic fatigue, knowing that it could be Lyme disease is a relief. It is now being realized that people who were being diagnosed as having Chronic fatigue, Epstein Barre, Multiple sclerosis, Parksinons, Depression, Bi-polar disorder and many others are in fact the result of Borrelia infection and therefore have Lyme disease.

It is also being seen that the initial acute red rash around the bite (erythema migrans) and consequent acute reaction – fever, aching, joint pains etc is being seen less and less and more and more people have a variety of the chronic symptoms. Similar to many diseases, including Syphilis and AIDS, the disease has moved on, morphing into a more chronic picture. However, with Lyme disease, we are still in a period in which more and more people are getting it, and it is threatening to become one of the major diseases of our age.

The fact of why such a disease should manifest now brings up interesting questions, some of a more philosophical and spiritual nature, as well as looking at the shifting environmental influences of weather patterns and changing climates. Are there more ticks now because of climate change or because natural predators have been destroyed by pesticides, or is it because man’s relationship to the land has reached a point of exploitation and disconnect that this disease is a feedback mechanism of nature. Is it also simply the Syphilitic impulse needing a new vent as AIDS is being controlled and perhaps suppressed.

Whatever it is, the fact is that as homeopaths we need to be prepared in how to address this condition and to share this information. In exploring the various methodologies from other more alternative practitioners, it brings up the same questions again for homeopaths. The difficulty with some methodologies from a homeopathic point of view is that it seems too reductionist, with therapies for the many facets of the problem: for the bacterial infection itself, to dealing with neurotoxins, and other co-infections, to stimulating the immunity of the person, addressing the psycho-dynamic issues, dealing with existing heavy metal toxicity in the body etc. The detoxification process can seem to be very complex, especially using methods such as Dr. Klinghardt’s, a well-known Lyme specialist Dr.

Also, by admitting to the underlying issues of susceptibility, including genetic predisposition, childhood trauma, environmental pollution, ancestral baggage etc, it brings up the possibility of there being many ways to approach dealing with the condition. From a conventional homeopathic approach, treating the dynamic roots – the constitutional/miasmatic predisposition would then seem to be even more justified, even when looking at the multi pronged approach of Dr. Klinghardt. However, it is most likely that the constitutional approach will be more effective in more chronic cases, once the Lyme has been active for a while, revealing underlying susceptibilities. If one sees a case where the initial symptoms are clearer, ideally with a clear etiology and history of the Erythema migrans rash, then a more local remedy like Ledum may well be the first step to take in treatment. As always, the symptoms need to be followed, whether physical or psychological.

The approach advocated by Wolf Storl in his book Healing Lyme Disease Naturally speaks very highly of the use of Teasel root as a radical treatment to address the spirochete infection. He explores other natural methods, especially the use of other herbs and also looks at the way Syphilis was treated effectively in the Americas by native people – advocating frequent sweats, vigorous exercise, the use of Guaicum resin in large doses and a strict diet. He gives evidence that this effectively cured Syphilis. Could it do the same for Lyme disease is a good question.

Based on this, the following is a suggestion of possible approaches to treating Lyme disease. The compiling of data of people’s experiences in this area will bring more knowledge as to how effective homeopathy can be and what the best approach may be. For simplicity, the disease is separated into 3 areas, based on the stages of development of the disease.

1^st Stage:  The bite, the local eruption and acute picture of fever, aching and local joint inflammation, with stiffness of the back, neck and flu like symptoms. (It should be noted that in 50% of Lyme cases, this initial stage is not seen, or is missed). It may be that a simple fever is seen and no bite is detected. That may then go away and then later, there may be a lacking in energy and general depletion. Other cases may see no bite or initial fever but then one joint may become stiff, painful and inflamed.

Homeopathic Remedy:   Ledum palustre is the well-known remedy to give both prophylactically and curatively for any bite, especially in Lyme disease. It will help prevent the disease developing. The earlier it is given the better. A 30c three times daily for one week is sufficient in the beginning. If symptoms of joint inflammation and pain, wandering pains and other characteristics of Ledum are present, then a 200c may be needed, given once a day for one week or until symptoms have improved.

Borrelia nosode 30c should be given SD for 5 days in order to help prevent the disease developing. It is more useful prophylactically than curatively.

Kalmia and other remedies from the Ericaceae family can be considered.

Other “flu” type remedies may well be considered, especially Eupatorium perfoliatum (recommended in a tea form for treating the co-infection of Babesia)

2^nd Stage: More chronic joint pain, wandering pains throughout the body in muscles and joints, exhaustion, general depletion, depression, chronic fatigue type conditions. There may be some nerve paresis, neurological problems, facial paralysis, numbness, tingling, and mild encephalitis. This stage often gets missed as it can look like so many diseases that Lyme is often not considered. Any case of chronic fatigue type of symptoms should be considered for Lyme disease. If chronic fatigue is seen with any neurological condition, then that is a strong indicator.

Homeopathic Remedy:   Ledum again is a strong consideration.

Guaicum should be considered, based on its used in Syphilis in the past. It could be tried in a low potency, repeated frequently.

A “chronic” remedy based on the whole symptom picture. This would include many of the “fatigue” remedies, such as the acids, Kali phos, Zincum, Gelsemium etc and neurological remedies as well.  It would also include the correct constitutional remedy if that could be found.

3^rd Stage: Neurological symptoms, various forms of paralysis looking like MS, RA, Parkinsons, Dementia, Depression, bi-polar conditions, Lupus, Scleroderma later stage syphilis, psychosis etc. Heart symptoms can also occur

Homeopathic remedies:                The 3^rd stage reflects the more strong syphilitic influence in the case, requiring a more syphilitic remedy that could be the deepest constitutional remedy for the person or it could be remedy that most closely covers the strong pathology in the case. Ideally it would be both. Remedies to consider would be Guaicum, Mercurius, Plumbum, Platinum, Argentum metallicum etc. However, any neurological remedy should be considered. The German homeopath Peter Alex in his book Healing Lyme, recommends the remedy Aurum arsenicosum as a possible genus epidemicus remedy for Lyme, at least in Germany.

The nosode Syphilinum would have to considered here also, perhaps as an intercurrent.

Adjunct therapies:

Based on the work of Wolf Storl in Healing Lyme Disease Naturally, the following protocol should be employed as well.

The use of steam baths, on a daily basis. The temperature should not exceed 42 degrees, with exposure between 15-30 minutes. (Caution should be taken with not giving too much heat too quickly as this may create some aggravation and dissipation of energy. Build up slowly).

Fairly vigorous exercise to keep the body active and heated up.

The use of Teasel root, the dose varying, from 3 tsp to 3 tbl 3 times a day. In very sensitive cases, it can begin with 1 drop in water on day 1, to 1 drop twice on day 2, one drop thrice on day 3, and following on adding one drop daily, but always taking it 3 times a day until on the 9^th day, it is 3 drops 3 times a day.

Artemesia in a tea form can also be used daily in cases that have the Babesia co-infection. In these cases, symptoms may resemble Malaria, with intermittent fever, weakness, aching and general fatigue. (Some people recommend Artemisinin, the extract from Artemesia. However, the whole plant used is generally better handled by the body).

Cats claw can also be used along with or after the teasel as necessary.

Japanese knotwood (Fallopia japonica). This is used when neurotoxins are prevalent and is recommended as one the most important remedies in the treatment of Lyme complications.

There are other herbs mentioned in the book by Storl (Healing Lyme Disease Naturally)

A Rife machine can be used also when symptoms are strong or there is a relapsing condition. This technology is discussed in the book Out of the Woods, by Katina Makris.

Mineral supplementation:             There is evidence that with Lyme and its co-infections serious depletions in various minerals, vitamins takes place. Copper, magnesium and manganese are depleted with Borrelia and iron is depleted with Babesia. Selenium is also often required and Iodine is mostly needed. Supplementation with high quality individual minerals may therefore be needed, both to support the immune system and help any detoxification process in the body.

Buhner also suggests the following supplements:

–        Vitamin C

–        Zinc picolinate with copper

–        Silicium

–        Glucosamin sulphate

–        Pregnenolene (a precursor to all steroid hormones of the human body.

–        DHEA (anti ageing hormone, produced by the adrenal gland. A forerunner of the sex hormones.

–        ALA (alpha lipoic acid).

–        Selenium

–        Vit B complex

–        Vitamin E.

Diet: An anti-inflammatory diet should be given, minimizing or ideally eliminating sugar and simple starchy food. Also dairy food should be minimized. More alkaline food should be given with fresh vegetable juices being added. Red meat should be avoided and ideally a more vegetarian diet.

References:

Wolf Storl: Healing Lyme Disease Naturally, North Atlantic Books.

Katina Makris: Out of the Woods.

Dr Diedrich Klinghardt: Lyme-Borreliosis, A Look Beyond Antibiotics

Stephen Buhner: Healing Lyme

The Significance of Etiology in Homeopathic Prescribing.

For most homeopaths, a complete case taking requires a detailed overview of the most significant experiences in life, beginning with pregnancy and birth and from there getting all the details of both physical and mental traumas that may impact a person’s life. This can stem from a never been well since an illness (NBWS), whether it is measles, whooping cough or any particular condition, to any emotional trauma, e.g. physical or mental abuse, history of abandonment, grief, shock, fear, loss, violence etc, or  other physical trauma, whether at birth or later.

Any significant event can be analyzed as part of the complete chronic/constitutional picture and often one sees a correlation between the type of trauma and the chronic pattern of susceptibilities that become part of the overall analysis. At times it is not easy to tell whether an initial trauma established a particular susceptibility or whether a basic susceptibility allowed a trauma to take hold and become more significant as a factor in the case.

However, it seems to be true that the significance of etiology in prescribing and the finding of particular remedies that fit this etiology is often subordinated to an analysis of overall psycho/dynamic and general constitutional factors in the make-up of a person and preference is given to this information at the expense of specific physical or other traumatic causes. Ideally, the complete picture of etiology and underlying susceptibility is taken together and a remedy found to cover the complete picture.

However, there are many cases when addressing specific etiology should take precedent over other information and that there should be a greater acknowledgement that certain influences impose a “layer” upon the case, which needs to be addressed before applying a more broad based analysis.

This strategic debate is not new to homeopathy. There has always been a dichotomy of sorts between those who basically believe that only one remedy should be needed to cure a person, including all psycho-physical conditions and those who believe a more layered approach is necessary in some cases. However, in recent years, the concepts of essence, core delusion and the Sensation approach to prescribing has tended to focus on the one remedy theory, which has captured the imagination of many classically oriented homeopaths. On the other extreme some people have advocated a radical approach to layering in prescribing, one form of which is called “Sequential Prescribing” which seeks to antidote every and any possible trauma or superimposed affect on the body/mind by systemically giving mostly nosodes to counteract any affect of nearly every illness a person may have had, irrespective of their being clinical data or perceived effect.

Perhaps both of these perspectives are rather polarized positions when looking at the complexities of homeopathic prescribing. Perhaps a middle ground is needed where specific etiologically based prescriptions can be given to address specific situations, and then followed up with more constitutional or root form of prescribing, including the traditional miasmatic considerations in a case.

One method that has been applied to address these issues is that proposed by the late homeopath, Dr. Tinus Smits, when looking at treating children on the Autism Spectrum Disorder. He devised a method of prescribing called CEASE (Complete Elimination of Autistic Spectrum Expression). In this method outlined in his book Autism: Beyond Despair, Cease Therapy, Smits advocates the use of isopathic remedies to antidote any noxious influences e.g. drugs taken during pregnancy, vaccines, chemicals and other environmental toxins etc to begin homeopathic treatment, and then followed up with more miasmatic and constitutional care and supplemented with Orthomolecular medicine, especially the use of Vitamin C, Magnesium, Zinc and fish oil. He devised his own methodology of giving 30c, 200c, 1m and 10m in ascending potencies to detoxify a person, although no doubt, there are other methods of application. He would do the nosode first and then follow on with other remedy. Other ways of prescribing may involve giving a nosode 2-3 times a week and then giving a more constitutional based remedy as a daily dose at the same time. In this way, the case may move more quickly, but it will be more difficult to assess specific affect.

The main point is to recognize the significance of possible toxic affects on the development of children in utero and soon after birth, especially that of drugs taken, toxins exposed to and vaccines used on mother and child.

This last factor has been one of the most hotly debated possible causes of the huge increase in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), with figures of around 1:100 children diagnosed with ASD being quoted. (See the book review of the Vaccine Epidemic in the previous edition of the journal). This massive increase in ASD cannot be totally due to the increase in vaccines given over the last 20 years, but it is very likely to be one of the major factors, especially in the USA, where there has been a huge increase in the number of vaccines given to children. The Hepatitis B vaccine, introduced around 1990 initially had large doses of Mercury in it, and soon after the spike in ASD’s began to happen.(1) Therefore, the possible connection between the number of vaccines given and the increase in a wide range of psycho/physical disorders may make the use of nosodes/isopathic remedies a vital part of treatment. So far, this approach has been more piecemeal and not applied very systematically. It may be important to document this approach and many homeopaths have already attested to the result of using isopathic remedies when there is evidence of harm done and where especially behavioral and developmental issues in young children may implicate the many vaccines given.

Smits also mentions how any drugs used during pregnancy, including alcohol, should be considered as toxic and addressed with appropriate isopathic remedies. Obviously this needs to be clinically verified and at times, a simple constitutionally based remedy may be enough. However, given the increasing complexity of cases in young children, especially in the area of developmental delays and general behavioral issues, all considerations should be given to possible etiological causes.

Smits states that in autism, even though it is often considered genetic, in many cases, it is not. There are many substances that may affect a baby – food, plastics, parabems, ethyl glycol, phthalates, bispenol A, medications, vaccines etc. He mentions using homeopathic Fenoterol (a drug used to deal with premature labor) as well as all the vaccines given.

This obviously is just one approach to addressing all matters of homeopathic prescribing but is a good example of how by paying close attention to the possible etiological causes of disease, one can find other remedy options.

One can say that the stronger the etiological cause, the less significant are the constitutional factors. Obvious intense situations like a war situation, earthquake or virulent epidemic bacteria or virus will superimpose their impact upon many people, irrespective of their individual make up. That is the nature of any disease of epidemic proportions and how Hahnemann understood finding the genus epidemicus in an epidemic disease. The individual predisposition is made much less significant in such situations of extraordinary etiological influence, including vaccine damage. Of course, the long term effects of any etiology has to be influenced by fundamental factors of constitution, and the longer one is away from the initial trauma, the more other more chronic symptoms and factors need to be put into the equation.

However, there are many cases, where even 40 years later, prescribing on the symptoms of an initial trauma totally cures, even many years later. The original wound/trauma is still a memory in the cells and vital force of the person and is not predicated by time. It exists outside of time and is a layer or memory that simply needs antidoting.

Therefore, the main etiologies that often need to be considered include the following:

1. Drug nosodes, Antibiotics, steroids, antidepressants, hormones, the pill, etc.
2. Vaccine nosodes for NBWS any vaccine.
3. Chemical isopathic remedies, e.g. pesticides, plastics, etc.
4. NBWS certain illness, e.g. measles, chicken pox, mumps, whooping cough, meningitis etc.
5. Physical trauma, e.g. head injuries, physical shock or any trauma.
6. Mental/emotional etiology, e.g. shock, loss, grief, fear, violence.
7. Traditional miasmatic etiology, with a personal of family history of a particular disease, e.g. gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, tuberculosis, requiring nosodes and other remedies.
8. Family history of illness, physical or mental trauma, requiring nosodes or even remedies that members of the family would have needed. In these cases, the etiology/miasm is passed through the generations.

 

In many cases, the isopathic remedy or nosode is the remedy of choice to combat a particular etiology. In other cases, it maybe a particular remedy that covers the symptom complex that is the result of an etiological cause.

Therefore, by including a more nuanced view of the role of any toxins and etiological influences on a case, remedies can be given to combat the specific effect of these causes. In today’s world, where people are being continually bombarded by damaging external causes, from vaccines, drugs, chemicals and other environmental factors, this methodology may need to be applied much more commonly than currently considered.

 

The following quotes are taken from the book Vaccine Epidemic and reviewed in Vol 14 #2 of the California Homeopath.

The next chapter, #18, discusses the issues of high mercury levels in the childhood vaccination schedule. Needless to say, until the government began to even think about this issue, the amount of mercury given to babies through vaccines by the two month period was up to 500 times the safe level of Mercury that the government itself had stipulated in guidelines to mercury exposure. However, the government then dismissed that there was a risk due the mercury in vaccines and that any danger was insignificant in comparison to the threat of childhood diseases.

 “The mercury concentration in the previously used thimerosal-containing vaccines and the current flu vaccines is exponentially larger than what is considered hazmat material or that is even allowed in safe drinking water, as outlined in Pediatrics:”

0.5 parts per billion (ppb) of mercury kills human neuroblastoma cells.

2 ppb of mercury is the U.S. EPA’s limit for mercury in drinking water

20 ppb of mercury destroys neurite membrane structure.

200 ppb of mercury is the level in liquid that the EPA classifies as hazardous waste

25,000 ppb of mercury is the concentration in the hepatitis B vaccine administered at birth in the United States from 1990 to 2001.

50,000 ppb of mercury is the concentration in multidose DTaP and Hib vaccines, administered four times each in the 1990’s to children at two, four, six, twelve, and eighteen months of age; it is also the current “preservative” level in multidose flu vaccines (in 94% of the supply), meningococcal vaccines, and tetanus vaccines (for children age seven and older). This can be confirmed by analyzing the multidose vials.”

So, as the author points out, it is OK to vaccinate your child with a toxic dose of mercury, but if some spills on the floor, it would require immediate evacuation of the building!!

The author then points out that the government recognizes “encephalopathy” (brain disorder, brain damage or change in brain functioning) as an outcome for the combination MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) or for the DTap (Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis) vaccines, but when symptoms of encephalopathy are diagnosed, it is diagnosed as Autism and not as a vaccine effect. The author then describes a situation in which a child became autistic very soon after having 9 vaccines in 5 shots in one go. The government accepted liability but then refused to diagnose it as autism, the head of the CDC at the time fudging the facts for the media, admitting that a vaccine could produce autism like symptoms in a child susceptible to the vaccine due to a preexisting condition but that in fact, vaccines do not create autism!! In accepting that susceptible children could suffer autism symptoms after vaccines, and that now 1% of all children in the USA are being diagnosed on the autism-spectrum disorder, why aren’t children being screened beforehand for signs of susceptibility? The child described above had been diagnosed as having a mitochrondrial disorder before getting the vaccines.

Homeopathy: Freedom model v. licensure

 

 

I think there are two main challenges facing homeopathy today – the education of competent practitioners who can practice the art of homeopathy and secondly, the recognition of homeopathy as a distinct profession.  There is obviously a connection between these two concerns.  To ask people to make the commitment to study homeopathy without being legally recognized as a homeopath at the end is not easy.  The current reality is that there are precious few people who are training to be homeopaths.  It is not satisfying for people to practice homeopathy under another license in which homeopathy is not truly recognized, or without a license and existing in the twilight of the law, however good a homeopath the person may be.

 

Therefore, one option is for homeopathy to become licensed as other professions have and carve its own position in the pie of medical therapies.  However, that is easier said than done, and the particular history of homeopathy being practiced by physicians within current medical licensure creates a unique challenge for that goal.

Also, the history of medical licensure brings up a number of questions.  The fact is that licensure creates an exclusive right to practice for those who are licensed.  It is not legal for non-licensed practitioners to practice any licensed therapy.  The standards that determine licensure are mandated by the state with the enforcement of these standards under state jurisdiction.  The question has to be asked whether we want homeopathy to go down that route.

 

There is an argument that licensure has now become more important for a profession in protecting its turf and its practitioners from accountability than it has in maintaining standards and protecting the public. Another concern is that licensure can actually dilute the standards of practice as the board exams are written by people outside of the profession, and which, especially for alternative and holistic professions leads to the dilution of the very principles that make it distinct from conventional medicine.  Do we want to forfeit that independence and control?  Do we as a profession also want to dictate to all homeopaths what is acceptable homeopathy?  On the other hand, do we want to see homeopathy subsumed within the scope of practice of other professions, where the quality of training and practice would be diluted and compromised?

 

Therefore, another solution may be needed, one which would also be consistent with the philosophy of homeopathy.  Let the individual practitioner and the individual patient determine the context of the relationship.  Let people choose who they want to see as their practitioner.  Let the profession of homeopathy take responsibility for determining its own standards of practice and professionalism.  Keep the offices of the state out of the business of determining health standards for homeopathy.  Let the profession look after its own concerns, define its own standards and regulate itself.   Surely this is more consistent with homeopathic philosophy, one that encourages autonomy and responsibility, not one that encourages dependency and power over the patient and public.

 

Ivan Illitch, in his book, “Limits to Medicine,” wrote in 1976 that “a recovery from society-wide iatrogenic disease is a political task, not a professional one.  It must be based on a grassroots consensus about the balance between the civil liberty to heal and the civil right to equitable health care.  During the last generations the medical monopoly over health care has expanded without checks and has encroached on our liberty with regard to our own bodies.  Society has transferred to physicians the exclusive right to determine what constitutes sickness, who is or might become sick and what shall be done to such people.”

That was written in 1976 and today it is even worse.  The medical statutes in each state were written deliberately to give a monopoly of control to physicians for all health care concerns.  Licensure is an integral part of that control.  Homeopathy needs to be part of a movement that moves away from this kind of dominance.  We need to work to allow homeopathy and other therapies to be practiced freely without been overseen by state and other beurocratic controls.  We need to help empower people to take responsibility for their own health concerns.  This does not mean giving up our standards.  We need to continually develop standards of competency for homeopathy, to work toward a united homeopathic profession.  The current situation where homeopathy is “Balkanized” within a variety of other professions does not help our cause.  We have to be able to practice freely as professional homeopaths and for the public to be able to choose any homeopath they wish.  It is an injustice to the potential of homeopathy for it to exist in its current legal ambiguity.  We have to take it to the next level, to create the political changes that would allow thousands more people choose to become homeopaths and to choose homeopathic treatment.

The Freedom To Heal

 

 

Healing is a word that evokes many different impressions.  It can be said that to heal is to love, or to love is to heal. The healing power of love as seen between two lovers, among the members of a family, or within a community or church is a liberating act that belongs to no one person and cannot be defined, measured or regulated.  It is free.  However, healing is also part of many models of medical/healing practices and as such it becomes a prescribed part of the relationship between healer/physician and patient/client.  It is a different aspect of healing than the simple yet profound expression of love, yet it is not fundamentally different.  It is defined by a similar impulse to help and to reach out.

 

Defining who has a right to heal becomes part of the dialogue about the role of the myriad forms of healing in our society, from physicians and hospitals to the complex and endless variety of physical and psychological therapies that we have available in modern society.  We find ourselves between the polarities of seeing healing as a free expression of love and the regulated and highly structured medical system we have today.  These are clearly not exclusive to one another but represent the spectrum in which healing takes place in our society

 

Physicians have always enjoyed a unique role in most cultures.  They have a certain authority, a form of knowledge and power given to them as determined by the personal, social and cultural needs of each society.  Often this knowledge is a privileged and private one, requiring complicated initiations for the practitioner.  This is equally the cases in industrial and more primitive societies.  However, at the same time, there has often been a powerful healing dynamic within the wider culture, often found with the women of a society and with other authorities such as priests and midwives.  They have often fulfilled the needs of their communities when physicians were not available, did not know what to do, or where the skill needed was beyond their domain.

 

In modern societies, an increasing level of control over much of life has led to a greater regulation of healing and medicine, including who is allowed to perform these duties.  In the United States, every state has a statute that defines who can and cannot practice medicine.  As the medical profession has become more regulated, the training and scope of practice of physicians has become more clearly mandated.  The only problem with this situation is that in so doing, the statutes in nearly every state have defined all forms of healing as medicine, and therefore monopolizing all healing within the domain of medical practice.  Unless there are explicit exemptions in medical statutes that allow for particular healing modalities, ALL healing by default is defined as “the practice of medicine” and therefore is under the exclusive domain of physicians, whether they are trained in these modalities or not.  Healing and medicine become the same thing instead of seeing medicine as just one part of the healing dynamic.

 

The main way to circumnavigate these exclusive statutes is to create a separate legal identity for other healing modalities.  This is typically done through registration or licensure and it must be done individually for each of the myriad forms of alternative and complementary forms of healing.  This has occurred for such therapies as acupuncture, chiropractic, naturopathy, psychological therapy and massage therapy.  However, many other non-regulated healing modalities exist outside of any legal identity and in theory are therefore illegal if performed by a non-physician, irrespective of training.

 

This is the current state of affairs in most states.  However, in 2003, California enacted a new law that clarified this situation.  This law was passed as California senate bill SB577.  It simply states that if a person is practicing a non-regulated form of healing modality that doesn’t involve the practice of conventional medicine, or compromise any other exclusive domain of practice; and if this modality is basically non-harmful, then a person should be freely allowed to practice their skill without interference and without requiring permission from the state.  In addition, each practitioner must give a disclosure form to their client, clarifying their training, experience and specifying that they are not a doctor and that their role is complementary to other medical practices.  The client must sign this disclosure form, must be given a copy, and the practitioner keeps another copy in their records. In this way, the client is given some  knowledge and assurance as to the experience and role that the healer will take in their care, and the healer has also clearly defined his or her responsibility to the client.  As in any contractual agreement, both parties are responsible and any disputes can be addressed appropriately within existing legal parameters.

 

The significance of this law should not be underestimated.  It liberates many effective and complementary forms of healing from the dark clouds of possible prosecution.  It rebalances what had become a monopolistic law that was strangling the very idea of healing and limiting it in a narrow way.  The old legal setting imposed the authority of the state on clients, narrowing their healing possibilities and therefore suppressing their freedom of choice and personal responsibility.  In so doing, it was actually protecting the power of one medical group over another rather than protecting the public from the abuses of bad medicine.

 

The freedom to heal needs to be seen as a fundamental right, not just a privilege ordained by the state.  The legitimacy of any law needs to be measured by its actual utility.  Does it serve the greater good or merely a narrow interest group? This truth is essential in the wonderfully diverse world of healing because it expresses the most human of all impulses, the desire to enable the healing of another person.

 

The legal and political identity of Homeopathy.

 

Overview

 

Homeopathy has been practiced for over 200 years, and since its inception has adhered to a basic set of principles and practice as established by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18^th century.  This extraordinary consistency and identity of homeopathic practice has clearly identified homeopathy as a unique form of medicine.  However, in this time it has never defined itself legally and politically as an independent profession but has existed as a method of treatment within the broader umbrella of general medicine or as a medical art practiced by those outside of medical licensure or by other health professionals.

 

Its lack of recognition within general medicine and the general lack of legal recognition for its practice outside of medicine have led to the relative marginalization of homeopathy within the larger health care movement.  In other countries it has garnered more respect, either in cultures in which scientific materialism does not hold such sway, such as Brazil, Mexico or India, or in countries that allow the practice of homeopathy outside of medical licensure e.g. the UK, Holland, Canada, Israel, Norway, Australia and New Zealand.  The result of this marginalization has been a profession without a clear identity, struggling for recognition as an independent and legal profession.

 

The legality of homeopathy in the United States is an issue that concerns both licensed and unlicensed practitioners of homeopathy.  Whilst it would seem that unlicensed practitioners are more at risk of being accused of practicing medicine without a license, licensed practitioners, including MD’s, take the potential risk of being accused by their own licensing boards of practicing a system of healing outside the scope of practice of their license.  Whilst the specter of illegality has fallen more on the unlicensed professional homeopath, the fact remains that in the United States, many licensed practitioners are also at risk.  The current legal situation can be generally summarized as follows: homeopathy is not medicine when practiced by a medical doctor or other licensed practitioner, but is medicine when practiced by a non-licensed practitioner.

 

Current legal developments.

 

However, there are currently two legislative agendas that potentially impact homeopathic practice:

a)     The Health Freedom Movement that is seeking to define the rights and freedom to  practice many alternative therapies.

b)     The Naturopathic Medicine movement that is seeking to establish licensure for naturopathic doctors in a number of states.

 

Homeopathy has always been part of the scope of practice of naturopathic doctors but the issue of licensure bills brings up several questions.

 

1)     Is the licensure movement in Naturopathic Medicine going to legally subsume homeopathy under the umbrella of Licensed Naturopathic Medicine?

2)     Does restricting the practice of homeopathy in general only to those licensed in another healing art help homeopathy or does it threaten the identity of homeopathy as a unique model of healing?

3)     Does the Health Freedom Movement and practice by dedicated, talented but unlicensed practitioners have a place in promoting, developing and safeguarding the practice of excellent homeopathy?

4)     Should the homeopathic profession seek other legal means to define itself as an independent profession?

 

Who should be able to practice homeopathy in the United States?

 

It should be open to anybody who can safely and competently practice homeopathy.  It should not be restricted to one group or profession or regulated by medical licensure.  A poorly trained licensed practitioner is no compensation for someone who has trained hard and who shows proven competency in homeopathy.

 

There are many dedicated and excellent practitioners who are licensed as naturopaths, medical doctors, nurses, acupuncturists, physician’s assistants, chiropractors, vetinarians and others.  There are also a large and growing number of effective, dedicated non-licensed homeopaths that practice in this and many other countries.  The emergence of professional non-licensed homeopaths as a distinct community and profession in the United States follows the development of homeopathy in other countries, including Canada and the United Kingdom.

 

Given the current diversity of homeopathic “identities” there is a need to develop homeopathy as an independent, legal profession, equal to many others and to employ the institutional and legal means to achieve this.  While the integration of homeopathy into other medical professions makes sense, considering its historical identity as part of medicine and also naturopathic medicine, that is not enough to ensure its survival.  Homeopathy should not be seen as only one specialty amongst many other modalities.  Homeopathic education in medical and naturopathic institutions will not be adequate to guarantee competence.  Recognized full-time homeopathic training programs are the best way to train homeopaths effectively and professionally.  The core criteria for the mandate to practice should only be the ability to practice safely and competently.

 

What are the implications for homeopathy with the passing of scope of practice licensure bills for naturopathic medicine and other medical systems?

 

Licensure bills carve out specific legal domains of practice, ostensibly to protect the public from danger.  When licensure bills are created, they usually define scopes of practice for the profession being licensed, and exemptions and penalties for those practicing any of the modalities within that scope of practice.

 

Most would agree that licensure is necessary when potentially dangerous modalities are being practiced and that educational standards can be enforced through a regulated profession.  However, a problem arises if licensure limits a particular therapy to one specific profession, especially when there is little risk involved in that therapy, one of the main reasons for licensure in the first place.  This issue relates to the definition and practice of homeopathy within naturopathic medicine and also within conventional allopathic medicine.

 

To use the example of naturopathic medicine: most naturopathic students gain a maximum of 150-200 hours of homeopathic training.  Homeopathy is but one of many modalities taught.  One of the criticisms of the naturopathic model is that it is too broad, with no opportunity to truly explore systems as complex as homeopathy.  Most qualifying naturopaths don’t practice homeopathy, or only a little, and in general homeopathy does not hold great sway within Naturopathic Medical Schools, in spite of the committed efforts of homeopathic teachers.

 

There are however some excellent homeopaths that have through come through naturopathic training.  The more relevant issue though is what is the future for homeopathy if it is seen and becomes the exclusive domain of Naturopathic Medicine or medicine in general. It will likely be relegated to being just one modality of many under another legal umbrella, being marginalized once more under an environment that doesn’t fully recognize the energetic paradigms of homeopathic thinking.

 

The history of various health professions once they become licensed and “integrated” into more mainstream medicine is not good.  Osteopathic Manipulation has nearly disappeared since they gained recognition as a medical license, most osteopaths practicing conventional medicine.  Midwifery has suffered greatly whilst under the mandate of conventional medicine.   There is a great challenge to retain the integrity of the philosophy of the practice whilst existing in an allopathic medical orthodoxy.

 

This is the challenge for homeopathy now as it has always been.  Homeopathy is a system of medicine based on holistic principles and guidelines.  The application of these principles is the cornerstone for the survival and health of homeopathy.  Greater social and medical recognition at the expense of these principles is not acceptable.

 

Legislation: This is where the philosophical rubber hits the road.  Where do we stand?

 

Last year, a Naturopathic Medicine Bill passed in Kansas.  Although defined as a registration bill, it is in all but name a licensing bill.  The passage of the Kansas Bill has meant that all practicing naturopaths who are not licensed are not able to practice their craft.  This bill is limiting to professional non-licensed homeopaths as well.

 

There are currently four naturopathic licensing bills under consideration in different states: California, North Carolina, Florida and New York.  Three of them are scope of practice bills, whilst the California bill is defined as a Title Act.  Although each of the bills is different, designed to satisfy the political situation of each state, the scope of practice bills especially are a threat to homeopathy as they seek exclusive rights to much or all of “natural medicine”, which would include homeopathy.

 

Therefore, if these bills pass as written, only licensed practitioners would be able to practice homeopathy.  The Florida bill is particularly aggressive as it is seeking prescribing privileges similar to a medical doctor and also making it a felony offense for the unlicensed practice of naturopathic medicine, including homeopathy.

Both the New York and North Carolina bills are seeking a similar exclusive domain of practice and all these bills have been pushed forward aggressively without any consultation with the homeopathic and other natural medicine community.

 

In California it is a different story.  The Naturopathic bill being proposed is being represented as a Title Act, which in theory means that they are only seeking domain of the title Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine, not trying to carve out an exclusive domain of practice.  However, they still do have scope of practice language in the bill.  They make reference in their bill to the Health Freedom Bill, SB577, which passed the legislature last year, protecting the practicing rights for non-licensed practitioners.  Whether they would have written a bill acknowledging these rights if SB577 had not been passed is an interesting question.  Given the type of other naturopathic bills and the history of licensure in general it is doubtful.  When it comes to legality and licensure, the tendency is to grab as much territory as possible.  However, a Title Act is much more compatible than licensing bills that seek to have exclusive rights and in theory is not inconsistent with the principles behind the Health Freedom Movement.

 

It should be of concern for the homeopathic community that homeopathy could be legally subsumed under the umbrella of naturopathic medicine or any other medical licensure that is not primarily homeopathic.  The huge resurgence of interest in homeopathy in the last few years has come from the non-licensed community.  Most schools training homeopaths are made up of this group.  The financial survival of homeopathic organizations and pharmacies is dependent on this part of the profession.  The largest certification and registration organizations have a majority of professional non-licensed practitioners. It is imperative therefore that we protect the rights of practice for ALL homeopathic practitioners and not limit homeopathic practice to any one profession.

 

There is an onus on the whole homeopathic community now to look at how we want to see homeopathy in 10-20 years.  We need a strong, independent, vital profession that has as great a popularity as any other profession, one that is identifiable as an independent profession, available to all.  We cannot wait and watch homeopathy continue its existence on the margins of legality and acceptability.

 

There is now a huge groundswell away from the limits of allopathic medicine.  People are looking for alternatives and homeopathy is not yet institutionally ready to answer the call.  It is imperative for the profession to acknowledge that homeopathy will only evolve if we can have the vision of homeopathy as an independent profession and one that recognizes the vital contribution of the professional non-licensed community.  Insisting that homeopathy should only be practiced under existing medical and naturopathic licensures will doom homeopathy to insignificance and that would be a tragedy for the profession and for the whole of society.

 

We now have an opportunity to make a difference.  This will only happen if the profession stands behind this vision.   It is unacceptable for professional non-licensed homeopaths that have years of training and experience not to be fully recognized within the homeopathic profession.  The excuse of illegality and apparent lack of medical training is not an acceptable excuse.  The growing Health Freedom Movement is only recognizing what is already happening – thousands of people are out there every day practicing homeopathy and doing it well.

 

 

Homeopathic Prophylaxis: Science or Fiction and its relevance for a new flu epidemic.

 

 

The question of the effectiveness of homeopathy as a prophylactice treatment has been debated since the beginning of homeopathy.  Hahnemann himself advocated it and even tried to market Belladonna as a specific prophylaxis and treatment for scarlet fever, with mixed results.  The most documented effectiveness of homeopathic prophylaxis perhaps is in the use of Variolinum against smallpox.  Historically, way before Edward Jenner created the smallpox vaccination with attenuated cowpox, various cultures had performed a form of inoculation called variolation in which a small amount of infectious material was put under the skin and which prevented serious consequences of the disease.  This was performed mainly in the Middle East but did spread to Europe, even amongst the Royalty of England.  The use of the homeopathic remedy Variolinum showed that it helped prevent people getting the disease and also prevented fatalities in those that did acquire smallpox.  To quote from P Sankaran:

 

In the same number of the “Recorder” Dr. Martin Deschere says: “I have never seen variola to occur in individuals to whom I had given the 3rd of Vaccininum or Variolinum, even if they had been in close proximity to small-pox. I have taken it myself when treating small-pox. I have given it to my children, who had been actually exposed to small-pox.” He has found this treatment to be a perfect prophylaxis.

This observation is not made with the view to giving a statistical verification of malandrinum but rather to raise the question “Is a Hahnemannian physician and member of this association justified in the routine use of malandrinum. Variolinum or Vaccinium as a prophylaxis to small pox or as an antidote to vaccination. I have done so, may do so again. Is it justifiable? Would you do it?

Z. T. Miller: – If you give small-pox virus you get small-pox; and we have a right to take variolinum as being a better prophylaxis than the inoculation method.

 

A distinction needs to be made between the words prophylaxis and prevention as it pertains to homeopathic treatment.  Any serious constitutional homeopathic work by definition is preventative as well as curative as a more regulated immune system is going to work more effectively.  In regards to prophylaxis, what is being discussed is the possibility of giving a homeopathically potentized remedy before any signs of a specific disease has become manifest.  If it is possible to have a remedy work prophylactically, how does this work and how does one choose the correct remedy.

To answer the first part of the question, we can assume that all homeopaths agree that before any symptoms develop for any condition a change in the vital force has taken place for a period of time before manifest symptoms.  This is the case in chronic disease and in acute disease, even in virulent acute infections.  The causative agent in an infectious condition – bacteria or virus – only exists in terrrain suitable for it to work.  This we know.  However, even before the bacteria takes effect, the vibrational terrain has to be conducive.  Every bacteria and virus behaves according to its own DNA nature and for a multitude of reasons, some of us, some of the time collide with this terrain.  It may be the Flu, childrens’s diseases, the Common Cold, Meningitis, Tuberculosis, Hepatitis etc.  In some conditions the external terrain is very important, for example, in getting Tuberculosis or Hepatitis, whilst in others, virtually everyone can potentially be affected irrespective of their situation, for example, the flu or other widespread epidemics like the Plague.  However, it can be said that every disease only exists in situations suitable to it and even epidemics like the flu and the Plague exist due to both accepted biological factors of infectious dynamics as well as deeper cultural and social imbalances.  For example, in looking at the flu, it is not too much to state that the emotion of fear is a key component of the disease.  Perhaps the 1918 flu pandemic was due as much to the energetic “vitalistic” trauma of the 1^st world war as to the specifics of widespread contagion due to troop movements throughout the world.  How can we explain otherwise how outbreaks of the flu occurred fairly simultaneously in many different parts of the world.  Surely there has to be an energetic consciousness to this.  The fact that so much of the world was affected by the war,  that a world-wide consciousness had been affected, meant that everyone was potentially susceptible.  However, we also know that even in the most violent epidemics, not everyone gets sick.  However, who does get sick is not always predictable – in the 1918 pandemic, it was often healthy people who were more afflicted, at least in western countries – and not always consistent with homeopathic philosophy in that those with stronger immune systems will inevitably be better off.

The apparent dichotomy of individual and collective consciousness is something that homeopaths have been debating since homeopathy was created by Hahnemann.  Whilst the majority of our focus is given to that of the uniqueness of each individual, with each treatment adapted to this individuality, we also have always considered treating epidemics as something different, and in which the external dynamics – geographical terrain, bacteria, virus, collective shock etc takes precedence over individuality.  It can be explained virtually as a mathematical formula.  The stronger the external dynamic (force, terrain), the less significant the internal terrain (individual susceptability, miasm, constitution).  In some situation, we are all susceptible in similar ways as we share the same basic genetic pattern.  We are the same.   This is why it is possible to find 1-3 genus epidemicus remedies for particular conditions.

Finding which remedies for such conditions can be easy and also can be hard.  We know that Camphor, Veratrum album and Cuprum fitted the vast majority of Cholera cases.  We know that Arnica works so well at the beginning stages of most injuries, that Aconite and Gelsemium work in most acute cases of shock.  However, how do we find which remedy addresses a particular disease epidemic.  As already mentioned, Variolinum, a nosode, was proven effective against smallpox so the question of using the specific nosode of a particular disease needs examining.  Can a homeopathic nosode induce an antibody response, similar to a vaccination?  The answer is not clear and hasn’t been proven, but perhaps it can, but perhaps it only works on the vitalistic area creating a vital immunity but with the same effect.

It would perhaps make sense to use the nosode of a particular disease as part but not the only form of prophylaxis against a disease.  For example, the evidence that a nosode of malaria can prevent malaria is mixed.  An article in LINKS magazine in 1994 spoke of case in which a person got malaria in spite of taking malaria nosode.  However, there are practitioners in Africa that recommend this as part of broader approach to preventing malaria.  The use of the nosode of a disease has shown some efficasy historically and perhaps can be used again in the face of a possible violent flu outbreak.

It is difficult to know what the risks of a new flu pandemic are.  As homeopaths, our reaction is often to dismiss these fears as projections of a fear based medicine and being manipulated by media, government and the medical profession for their own agendas.  However, if we take the case of the planet right now, there are many symptoms that indicate that such a thing could take place.  The fear itself is not only a delusion perhaps on a cultural level, but already a symptom of the energetic change in planetary consciouness.  Since the turn of the century, with the fear of Y2K, we’ve had 9/11, other terrorist attacks, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, many hurricanes, and other natural disasters as well as outbreaks of infectious diseases which have caused much concern.  All of these factors seem to indicate that something is happening on the dynamic plane, and that we should take heed of this.

If we were to look for a prophylactic treatment for a possible avian flu epidemic, what would we use?  It would make sense to first attempt to get a nosode made of the avian flu.  Given that it would be a different virus than the normal flu, one which humans would have no genetic immunity to, then a regular flu nosode would not be effective.  For example, it seems that Oscillococcinum is effective in both preventing and treating regular flu outbreaks.  Made from the liver and intestines of a duck, it has properties that connect it to most flu variations we get.  We know how difficult it is to find the exact viral match for each year’s flu outbreak.  Most years, the flu vaccination is not that effective for that reason.  Oscillococcinum seems to infer some general immunity prophylactically and helps mitigate more serious symptoms of the flu.

Why is a nosode more useful than a conventional remedy or genus epidemicus?  If we are to think prophylactically, then the advantage of the nosode is that it matches the exact energy of the disease.  Similar to a nosode being used on a never been well since basis, it fits the precise dynamics of the disease.  As mentioned, clinical experience with nosodes such as Variolinum, Malandrinum,  Medorrhinum, Tuberculinum, Staphyloccinum, Streptococcinum etc has shown its affinity to both the specifics of the infectious disease, it’s chronic consequences and broader miasmatic pattern and inheritance.

However, one can also look for a complementary specific remedy and genus epidemicus to treat the flu, even the avian flu.  We know from clinical experience that in ordinary influenza, the two most significant remedies initially are Gelsemium and Eupatorium perfoliatum.  If we see an outbreak of the flu and a patient feels they are coming down with it, but symptoms are not clear, one can still be justified in giving Gelsemium and also Oscillococcinum, even alternating them if necessary.  It may be that one or the other may be sufficient, but it is difficult to know.  If we have knowledge of a different remedy that fits a more genus epidemicus theme of the outbreak, then that remedy can be used instead.  Gelsemium, however, fits most of the physical symptoms of common flu as well as the concomitant dynamic of fear, which seems to be such a corollary in the flu picture. Here also Aconite is a remedy that has to be seriously considered, as the etiology of fear is so strong.

However, each disease also has stages of evolution and so we need to identify remedies for each stage.  Looking at the 1918 flu pandemic, we saw a distinct picture of a disease with a very sudden onset, with violent symptoms developing quickly, from high fever to extreme debility and weakness and then to serious lung symptoms, involving increasing hemorrhage with pneumonia.  Given that avian flu is a different type of virus than common flu and that the vast majority of people would have little genetic immunity (hence its seriousness), then a remedy like Oscillococcinum may well be ineffective.  A nosode can only work when it fits quite precisely the viral cause of the disease.  Exceptions to this may be in the use of nosodes Psorinum and Tuberculinum, which tend to work on the underlying chronic miasmatic dynamics.  Therefore, a nosode from the avian flu would be most effective.  However, getting this remedy is another matter and also brings up issues of safety for such a potentially virulent virus.  There is evidence that the 1918 Spanish Flu virus is quite similar to the H5N1 avian virus and therefore a nosode from that virus may be somewhat effective.

However, given the severity of this flu virus, it does not seem enough to only give a nosode as a prophlylactic but one should look at one or more remedies as well.  The first remedy to consider would be Aconite, given the suddeness of the symptom outbreak and violence of the symptoms.  Also, Aconite’s affinity for states of fear and shock are well known.  Other remedies to consider can be based on which symptoms or stages are predominating.  The following suggestions of remedies and stages are a first attempt to look at the practicalities of treating an avian flu.  For a detailed review of the 1918 flu pandemic and the remedies used, it is recommended that readers review the book, The Homeopathic Treatment of Influenza by Sandra Perko.  This is an excellent book on the history of the flu pandemic and homeopathic remedies that were used at that time.  However, analyzing which remedies would be most effective is not easy  to find the correct remedy for the various symptoms, even using this book.  Also, if homeopathy is to be used by the general public, especially in the face of inadequate public health measures, including the dubious effectiveness of antivirals and lack of effective vaccine, then a simple and clear homeopathic option should be available.

Prophylaxis:

Avian flu nosode/Spanish flu nosode 30c/200c

Aconite 200c/1m

Other known genus epidemicus

1^st stage of symptoms when high fever predominates. (order according to heat intensity)

Aconite 1m – Intense heat, thirst, fear, anguish, restlessness

Belladonna 1m – Intense heat, thirst or no thirst, burning, dryness, wildness, red face, delirium

Bryonia 1m – Heat, with dryness, delirium, stupor, intense thirst, averse people, wants to be still.

Hyoscyamus 1m – Intense heat, restlessness, delirium, picking at bedclothes, paranoia

Arsenicum album 1m – heat, chill, restlessness extreme, fear, anxiety

Rhus tox – 1m – heat, chill, < uncovering, blue face, shaking,  busy restlessness, less fear.

1^st stage with fever but body aching predominates.

Gelsemium 200c – Aching of body < back, chills up and down back, heaviness, drowsiness, no thirst, trembling, fear.  (compare with Eup perf, Baptisia)

Eupertorium perfoliatum – Intense aching all over, as if in bones, often in back, chill violent, shaking, vomiting, bitter, of bile, more thirst

Baptisia 200c – Aching, heaviness, prostration, bed feels too hard, a low weak state, drowsy, languid  (compare with Arnica, Gels, Mur ac, Op, Rhus tox)

Bryonia 200c – Aching, sore < motion.  Want to keep still. Fever, delirium, says wants to go home (compare with Rhus tox, Arnica, Baptisia)

Rhus tox 200c – Aching with restlessness, fever with chill. (compare Arsenicum, Arnica

Arnica 200 – Aching, sore, bruised feeling, averse to touch, being approached,, bed feels too hard, tosses and turns, drowsiness, thirst in chill, (compare with Baptisia, Pyrogen)

2^nd stage – When weakness, exhaustion and depletion predominate  (Check rubric for typhoid)

Baptisia 200c

Gelsemium

Eupatorium perfoliatum

Arnica

Arsenicum album

Echincea

Eucalyptus

Sarcolaticum acidum

Muriatic acidum

3^rd stage when lung symptoms predominate, including hemorrhage and pneumonia

(beginning in rough order of severity, based on images of pneumonia in the 1918 flu epidemic)

Crotalus horridus – desperate state, with hemorrhage of lungs and other parts of body.

Lachesis – similar to Crotalus

Phosphorus 200c – Intense, hacking, tickling cough, hemorrhage, of lungs, from nose. Either lobe affected,

Antitomonium tart – Rattling cough and respiration, much mucous in lung, only little hemorrhage, as if drowning.

Laurocerasus – Very weak, depleted, hemorrhage from lungs, cyanosis (blueness of face and body)

Carbo Vegetabalis – exhaustion, coldness, cold perspiration, low states, cyanosis, rattling of mucus, burning in lungs.

Veratrum viride – cyanosis, some hemorrhage, congestion in lungs, early stage of pneumonia.

Arsenicum album – Weakness, restlesssness, coldness, anxiety, anguish

Belladonna – Sudden onset, high fever, hemorrhage of lungs and nose, burning of skin, dryness etc.

Aconite – Sudden onset, high fever, extreme thirst, restlessness, fear, congestion.

Tuberculinum – to complement other remedies.

Opium – Cyanosis, unconsciousness, low death like states

4^th stage when recovery is slow or when chronic problems develop.

(In the 1918 flu, there was widespread encephalitis lethargica (sleeping sickness) and also conditions such as Guillain-Barre Syndrome)

Sarcolacticum acidum (also consider all other acid remedies)

Scutelaria

Tuberculinum

Psorinum,

Opium,

Gelsemium,

Kali phosphoricum

China

Sulphur

This is not meant to be a complete list but to give an idea of some of the main remedies indicated.

 

 

 

The defining of Medicine and the challenge for homeopathy in the 21st century.

 

 

Homeopathic medicine came to light at the end of the 18^th century, through the work of Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician, chemist and scholar.  He practiced medicine for a number of years in Germany (or what was then a variety of mini-states in Central Europe), but gave up his medical practice from frustration at its lack of effectiveness.  Much of medicine then consisted of blood-letting ( the extraction of blood by cutting a vein or using leeches), based on the notion that most diseases were due to too much blood; or by the use of strong toxic substances such as mercury compounds, that often left the patient in a state of profound anemia.  Medicine as we know it today only began to exist in the 20^th century, and especially after 1950, when the use of antibiotics became commonplace.

 

Hahnemann became a medical translator to support his family and he was translating a thesis by a Scottish physician named Cullen, who was exploring the healing ability of Quinine in the treatment of Malaria.  Hahnemann was not convinced of Cullen’s theory – in which he attributed its success due to its astringent qualities – and decided to take a small dose of Quinine on himself to see what it would do.  Strangely, it produced symptoms similar to the disease of Malaria.  After further research in taking small doses of natural substances on himself, his long suffering family, friends and fellow physicians, he formulated the theory behind homeopathic medicine – that of Like Cures Like – which states that a substance that can create certain symptoms in a healthy person will cure SIMILAR symptoms in a person who is sick.

 

Hahnemann documented his work in a book entitled “The Organon of the Medical Art”, first published in 1810, and leading to 5 further editions.  As a result of this medical breakthrough Hahnemann began to practice medicine based on this principle and through his work and also his teaching at a Medical institution in Leipzig, he began to attract the interest of other physicians.  Within 20 years, homeopathy had spread to the rest of Europe and then was brought to the United States by 1830.  The first homeopathic medical school was established in 1833 in Allentown, Pennsylvania and the first medical association in the United States was formed in 1844, called the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH).  Three years later, another medical association was created, the American Medical Association (AMA), partly from the perceived threat they felt from this new form of medicine that was influencing physicians.  Homeopathy quickly spread to most other states, with homeopathic medical boards and medical schools being established.  The Hahnemann Medical School in Philadelphia still carries the name of the founder of homeopathy, and in Washington DC, a statue to Hahnemann is in a prominent square near the White House, the only statue to a physician and also to a non-citizen in the capital and one of the only statues to a non-military person.

 

For the remainder of the 19^th century homeopathic medicine was practiced widely, along with other forms of medical practice, including the traditional allopathic form (what is now today seen as the regular medicine), and a variety of eclectic and indigenous forms of healing.  Homeopathy was by far the most popular and established of the alternatives and vied with allopathic medicine for the very defining of what medical practice should be.

 

The success of homeopathy was clearly documented, first in Europe in the 1820’s and 1830’s during cholera and typhoid epidemics as well as in the United States during the deadly flu pandemic of 1918, where statistics showed that homeopaths had a death rate of only 1.05%, in comparison with over 30% under allopathic care, and even up to 60% at times. (1)  In the 1^st World War, there was a homeopathic medical corps, staffed by 100 nurses, 22 physicians and two dentists, nearly all homeopaths.  In 1922, President Harding, whose father served as a homeopathic physician in the Civil War, hosted a convention of homeopaths at the White House.

 

However, in spite of its proven success and its rapid inclusion into the medical practice of thousands of physicians homeopathic medicine had a profound decline in its use from the 1920’s on.  For about 50 years, homeopathy was kept alive in the United States by a small number of practicing homeopathic physicians and a larger group of the public, committed to homeopathy and using it for themselves and their families.  It is only since the 1970’s that it’s use has increased again, both within and outside of medical practice.  The reasons for such a decline are interesting and can be instrumental in understanding the dynamics within medicine today and the future of therapies such as homeopathy and other forms of natural/holistic health-care.

 

The reasons for the decline in homeopathy were both philosophical and political.  Homeopathy and allopathic (conventional) medicine have always been at philosophical loggerheads.  Samuel Hahnemann was an intense critic of the barbarism passed off – in his opinion – as conventional medicine.  From blood-letting (which killed President Washington) to toxic compounds of drugs, to primitive surgery, he never let up in his criticism and his writings have many lambasts at the ignorance and malfecience of conventional physicians.  This tendency was continued by his followers and fellow medical practitioners, who were converts to this new system of thinking.  To the remainder of the medical population, homeopaths became virtual apostates and were privately and publicly shunned.  Everything was attempted to quash homeopathic medicine from the scope of medical practice and a struggle ensued for the very soul of what medicine should be.  By the turn of the 20^th century, the political struggle began to be won by the conventional school.  The developing pharmaceutical organizations – evolving from the earlier apothecaries and small pharmacies – became more organized and obviously supported allopathic doctors who were dispensing their medicine.  The other major factor was the Flexner Report of 1910.  Abraham Flexner was commissioned  by the Carnegie Foundation – with the support of the American Medical Association –  to report on the education of doctors in the United States.  By this time, the state of American Medicine was very chaotic.  Medical schools of all sorts were springing up, the regulatory mechanisms through licensure being very haphazard and in some states non-existent  (the legality of such licensing boards having been often challenged in courts in many states as being antithetical to freedom of choice and basic constitutional rights).  Schools could simply train doctors and send them on their way without much assessment of their competency.  The economic turf war between various medical modalities was intense.  The United States had more than 4 times the doctors per capita than in Germany (2), and the various medical sects vied with one another for legitimacy and success.  Homeopathy was only one of these, Chiropractors, Osteopaths, Eclectics, Hydropaths, Naturopaths, Herbalists all striving in the market place and competing with the developing dominant ideology of drug based medicine.

 

The evolution of drug based medicine saw a great transformation between 1850 and the early 20^th century.  Oliver Wendell Holmes, addressing the Massachusetts Medical Society in 1860 made the famous remark that if all drugs could be sent to the bottom of the sea, “it would be better for mankind and all the worse for the fish.” (3)  By the turn of the 20^th century, however, modern science was beginning to take shape, and greater attention spent on laboratory techniques and their connection to clinical outcomes.  Abraham Flexner was a supporter of this movement and the results of his report reflected his views.  His views may have been further enhanced by the fact that an AMA representative traveled with him on many of his trips to medical schools. (4) However, he had ample material to work with.  He traveled for months to many medical schools of all types, interviewing deans, inspecting classrooms and laboratories.  In many instances, he was appalled by what he found.  At the Georgia College of Eclectic Medicine and Surgery he reached the conclusion that “nothing more disgraceful calling itself a medical school can be found anywhere.”  (5)  He also stated that medical education in general was “sordid, hideous, unintelligent even where honest.”  And there is so little “that is even honest”, he said  (6).   The results of his research were published in a report called Medical Education in the United States and Canada.  He didn’t mince his words in his report, and as a result received anonymous letters that he would be shot if he set foot in Chicago, was threatened with lawsuits and was sued for libel for $150,000.  (7)

 

Although a man who strove to be objective in his analysis of medical schools, whatever their particular philosophy and method of practice, the result of his report had much more impact on the sectarian or alternative medical schools than that of the orthodox (allopathic) schools.  Homeopathic schools shrank in number from twenty two at the outset of the century to two in 1923. (8).  However, many regular medical schools were affected and in Chicago (“a  plague spot of the country in respect to medical education”, according to Flexner), fifteen medical schools were consolidated to three.  Within two decades, the number of medical schools had been halved.  (9).  While some of what happened can be seen in the public and the medical profession’s interest, one other result was the consolidation of medical practice clearly within the philosophy of medical materialism, with it’s emphasis on drug based therapy.  It did also consolidate Flexner’s own opinions on medical practice and his strong convictions on the authority of the idea of “scientific medicine”(as appose to any other system that didn’t practice this).

 

Whatever the original intent of Flexner and his funders in the Carnegie Foundation and with the support of the AMA, the result was a consolidation of power within one group of medical practitioners and laid the foundation for the evolution of the economic control of medical practice in North America to be in the hands of pharmaceutical organizations and various medical bodies, including the AMA.  It also limited the types of  race and class that practiced medicine, and limited access of poorer people to physicians.  Leo Galland, in his 1997 book The Four Pillars of Healing, stated that the Flexner Report “succeeded in increasing the social and intellectual homogeneity of the medical profession, driving out the lower classes and the immigrants, reducing the number of blacks and women, and, initially, of Jews.” (10).

 

For the homeopathic profession and other similar professions – including Osteopathy, Chiropractic, Naturopaths and others, the Flexner report was seen as the machinations of one form of medical orthodoxy seeking dominance and which today is still viewed with suspicion.  Decades after the Flexner Report  the AMA attempted to destroy the Chiropractic profession, under its Committee on Quackery, which eventually was stopped through the Chiropractors suing the AMA and the case being resolved in the U.S. Supreme Court.  Harris Coulter, a homeopathic historian who wrote a three-volume study on the history of Medicine including Divided Legacy: The Conflict Between Homeopathy and the American Medical Association wrote “The finding of the Flexner Report, and the ongoing evaluation of medical schools by the American Medical Association, were soon accepted by state examining boards which decided to bar the examination of graduates of schools receiving a low rating – regardless of the candidate’s own knowledge or proficiency.  The refusal of examining boards to admit the graduates of schools which the AMA held in disfavor was the death-knell for these schools, and in this way the AMA acquired a whip hand over the whole medical education system, not only allopathic, but homeopathic and eclectic as well, a power which it had been seeking for decades.” (11)

 

The evolution of medicine in the 20^th century saw the consolidation of the strength of medical materialism under the broader banner of “Modern Science”, with some striking advances in medical knowledge and practice.  The advent of antibiotics in the 1940’s and 1950’s was perhaps the most dramatic of these advances, but other pillars of modern medicine – including vaccination, diagnostic techniques, some surgeries, other drug therapies such as diabetic treatment, modern anti-depressants and other drugs for emotional and mental disorders are held up as crucial developments in modern medical care.  Most significantly, modern medicine was able to capture the public imagination into believing in it’s own authority, a cultural value system, based on the symbolic power of the belief in “man” to overcome the adversities of a malign natural world.  This power has been most fervently believed in the United States, the pioneering, “rocket to the moon” ebullience that has invested heavily in the belief of modern science and medicine to find a solution to society’s most intractable diseases.  Adopting a quasi-martial terminology and declaring war on a slew of diseases has only further fueled this pioneering spirit in medicine, sometimes with dramatic results, while at others throwing vast resources toward a much more complex situation than medicine can hope to solve – the war on cancer being the prime example.  The belief in the scientific purity of modern medicine has been especially important given that it has justified the criticism on other     medical  modalities even though this authority is not based on such solid ground.  (In 1983, the U.S. office of Technology concluded that of all the medical techniques and therapies on the market, only about one in five was actually backed by scientific evidence.)  (12)

 

Given all these factors, one would imagine that alternative/complementary forms of medical care would have fast faded into historical obscurity, but strangely enough, many forms of alt/comp medicine have seen a renaissance of interest in the last 30 years, homeopathy included.  This interest has been partly fueled by the broader critiques of the “system” by those politicized in the 1960’s to 1980’s and also by the fact that in spite of many advances, modern medicine has not been able to give satisfactory answers to many acute and chronic health conditions.  One of the most extraordinary dissents of the authority of modern medicine came from Sociologist Ivan Illitch who in 1975, published Medical Nemesis, and who struck at the core of the machine by condemning medicine for causing more disease than it cured, creating a culture of iatrogenesis (drug induced disease) which he said had three levels – clinical, cultural and social.  In other words, medicine was invested in itself, an elite branch of power that sought control and dominion over the lives of people and their bodies, from the cradle to the grave.  Given the statistics we see today, with 1 in 10 children on drugs for ADD and most elderly people on a cocktail of drugs, Illitch’s position has only been further affirmed.  The Journal of the American Medical Association reported in 2002 that 80% of adults in the United States now take some form of medication each week, with 50% taking a prescription drug. (13)

 

One of the main reasons that alternative/complementary forms of medicine and healing have prospered again is in the recognition of a more holistic view of healing, recognizing the bodies own healing power and seeking a more complete view of the human being than the atomized view of materialistic medicine.  Being seen as a human being seemed to make people feel better and less as a cog in a huge machine.  Further, they seemed to offer real relief for many conditions in which drug therapy seemed both limited and potentially dangerous.  Critics of the limits of modern medicine did not only come from those outside the mainstream but a growing number of physicians joined the chorus of those recognizing that things had got totally out of control, Larry Dossey and Andrew Weil being just two of these physicians.  One of the historical threads that many of the critics have made reference to is a concept central to holistic thinking – an energy, power or force that somehow infuses the body and which is instrumental in the healing power of the body to maintain balance or homeostasis.  Homeopaths have tended to call this “energy” the Vital Force, while acupuncturists use the term “Chi” and in Indian philosophy is termed “Prana” or breath.  In the annals of western philosophy and science the concept of vitalism can be traced back to the ancient Greeks and their concepts such as a transcendent primordial mind (Nous) which set the material universe into motion and gave it form and order.  Greek thinkers such as Socratoes, Plato, Pythagoras and

Hippocrates struggled with the paradoxes of matter and spirit or essence and this dialectic continues until the present day, being expressed in philosophy, pyschology, medicine and other discplines.  In the realm of healing terms such as anima, elan vital, vital force, vital principle, orgone energy, have been used to describe this phemomena and attempts to measure this energy field have often been attempted, from Kirlean photography to BioFeedback.

 

Many body-work techniques and hands-on healers use this phenomenon of energy as the basis of the healing work being done, as well as systems of medicine such as homeopathy and acupuncture.  In the annals of psychology, a similar division between materialists and vitalists has occurred, the behavioral school of psychology representing the more materialist school while Jung and his ideas of synchronicity represent the other school of thinking.

 

Homeopathy is also a good example of seeing how significant it’s own ideas of its identity is and the metaphorical underpinnings used to maintain this identity.  One of the most significant consequences of the scientific revolution in the last three centuries and seen as a crucial part of the Age of Enlightenment has been the separation of God and Science.  The scientific quest has been to explain the material universe, to understand its workings and to use this knowledge for human evolution.  Language has developed to reflect this journey and the building of the edifice of materialistic method and reference to concepts of God or any kind of universal energy, knowledge or consciousness are rarely found.  However, in Hahnemann’s writings and subsequent homeopathic thinkers, the word vital force is used often as an expression of a type of universal consciousness, as part of an energetic pulse or as the greeks described it, a cosmic mind state (nous) that permeates the material world and maintains the material world in a state of dynamic equilibrium or homeostasis.  In Hahenmann’s time, he used the word God or Almighty to describe this concept and while today’s homeopaths may not choose the same language to describe such a reality, the idea of the vital force of an individual being but part of a larger vital force of the planet and for that matter, the universe, is not seen as too far out.  Many other thinkers in other scientific and philosophical fields, from Rupert Sheldrake and his morphogenetic fields to the Gaia theory of the earth are saying much the same thing.

 

The problem for homeopathy has been the difficulty to embrace concepts that in the last few hundreds of years have been seen to be mutually exclusive, a variation on the theme of the separation of church and state.  This is specifically the case when homeopaths have sought to give legitmacy to it’s idea of the Vital Force or energy.  The challenge to accepting this concept of energy is difficult, if not impossible for conventional science as it questions the very foundation of the materialistic paradigm, which is why the arguments between the two camps become more about philosophical doctrine than merely empirical or statistical proof.  Simply put, from a materialistic point of view, the concept of energy or Vital force cannot be proven to exist because it cannot be seen and measured.  It is merely a belief and a superstitious one at that, and can be discarded into the bin of wacky, quasi new age theory (even if these ideas do go back many hundreds of years.)  The fact remains that in the last two to three hundred years, the dominion of belief, especially in western cultures, has been dominated by the materialistic view point, having captured the imagination of thinkers of all hues, and supported by an ever increasingly powerful orthodoxy of institutional authorities – whether it is the AMA or various government bodies.  But in spite of this, systems of healing that espouse a more vitalistic paradigm have continued to thrive and prosper, some of them achieving a level of political recognition through licensure, much to the chagrin of conventional medical power bases.  Another wake up call to conventional medicine came from a study published by Harvard professor David Eisenberg in the New England Journal of Medicine, which surveyed the world of alternative and complementary therapies.  The paper demolished the notion that only poor, uneducated people used “unproven” medical treatments.  Eisenberg estimated that around $13 billion was being spent on everything from acupuncture to yoga, more out-of-pocket money than people were spending on conventional health-care. (13)

 

One result of this revelation has been a resurgence of interest in certain therapies and techniques within conventional medical protocol – the use of acupuncture for pain control being one example – the introduction of “integrative medicine” into medical curricula and more money given to research into various modalities, often through the National Institute of Health Office of Alternative Medicine, a branch of the more well-known National Institute of Health (NIH).  Some of this motivation is purely economic – observing the hemorrhaging of dollars to alternative therapies as a threat to the economic dominance of traditional medicine – while it also woke medicine up to the possibilities of many therapies, with many thousands willing to pay for these services and experience their benefits, even if it can’t be proven by conventional scientific protocol.  Most patients/consumers are a lot less concerned about the proof criteria than those skeptics found in traditional positions of medical authority.  One of the quandaries has been attempting to validate many therapies according to traditional scientific techniques, the double-blind trial being the bench-mark method used.  One of the problems has been that the very nature of many alternative therapies, with the concept of a vital force and a holistic paradigm that embraces the uniqueness of each person – therefore each therapeutic maneuver being by definition a unique event – and challenges attempts to control all variables and replication of events,  important factors in conventional trials.  The questions brought up by theorists in modern physics also question the very notion of the objective, dispassionate observer, recognizing that such separation of object and subject is not so easy, especially when dealing with such complex phenomena as human beings.

 

However, in spite of these hurdles, many attempts to scientifically verify the efficacy of many therapies has been done, including homeopathic medicine, one of the more challenging of therapies to accept because of the principles of the energetic dilution of substances, which according to homeopaths leaves only an energetic imprint of the original substance, with no material remaining of the substance being given.  This one fact alone about the nature of homeopathic remedies has been enough to dismiss homeopathy as a medical heresy of the worst kind, in spite of its being widely practiced by physicians on every continent and it’s establishment within the medical practices of many countries – India, Brazil, United Kingdom, Argentina and France being a few examples.  However controversial the history of homeopathy has been in the annals of modern medicine, the accusation that it cannot be proven has been found not to be true, the evidence of the efficacy of highly diluted substances challenging the foundation of conventional scientific belief.  A French allopath and researcher, who had no convictions about homeopathy, published a paper on the effect of ultra dilutions.  He found that ultra dilutions in excess of Avogadro’s number (the point at which no material substance remains) could consistently have the same effects as the original solute substance – but only if the dilution process was accompanied by vigorous agitation of the solution (similar to the homeopathic process of shaking the dilution – termed succussion.).  He published his paper in the well-known British scientific journal, Nature, called “Human Basophil Degranulation Triggered by Very Dilute Antiserum Against IgE” (Benevista88), (14).  In spite of the scientific rigor and statistical validity of his research, his conclusions caused a massive backlash and he was subjected to continued controversy and derision by skeptics, including the editors of Nature, who could not accept his results.  Eventually he lost his research funding and laboratory and only in 2001 was he vindicated when another group of scientists backed up Benvenista’s original research.  This was just one example of the double-standards often applied to alternative therapies.  They are accused of not being proven therapies, yet when evidence does emerge, it is condemned and researchers vilified by producing the very evidence that critics say is missing.  For many in alternative medicine, it confirms the belief that much of modern medicine is as much about an orthodox belief system as it is about scientific objectivity.

 

While it is true that there is by no means as much experimentation and evidence to confirm the validity of alternative therapies – often because hospitals, drug companies and government bodies are not willing to spend the time and money – much evidence does exist that prove the efficacy of homeopathy as well as other therapies.  In a study published by Jennifer Jacobs MD in a 1994 issues of Pediatrics, she proved that childhood diarrhea in Nicaragua could be effectively treated by homeopathic remedies and subsequent stool analysis showed that homeopathy was most effective when bacteria and viruses were found.  She successfully replicated her diarrhea study with a second trial conducted in Nepal. (15).  Given that childhood diarrhea is one of the most deadly diseases for children in developing countries, the fact that homeopathy has been proven effective should lead to much more interest than has taken place.  One of the main reasons for this is the general lack of acceptance of homeopathy as a valid therapy within the realms of the medical elite and government bodies that work with medical institutions.

 

Each form of alternative medicine has to find its own way to legitimacy within the regulatory frameworks that control the legality of many forms of healthcare.  All physicians who graduate from medical school have to take a licensing board exam in the state they wish to practice in.  At times, if they move states, physicians have to take the state boards of that state even if they have already practiced in another state.  Licensure is the most accepted way of defining legality, and the reason for it stems from the need to control and measure the skills of medical practitioners and therefore protect the consumer from the dangers of badly trained practitioners.  Given the inherent dangers in drug based therapy and diagnostic and surgical techniques of physicians, effective licensure is necessary to regulate the medical profession.  However, one result of the use of licensure as a method of regulation is that it serves to protect the legal and economic base of that profession, and not of the consumer.  It can maintain the culture of knowledge and elitism within one group of people, disempowering ordinary people from making their own health care choices, leading to greater iatrogenesis and dependency.  However, alternative therapies such as Acupuncture, Naturopathy and Chiropractic have also used licensure as a means to legitimize themselves and also which suits government bodies in regulating such professions.  Given the fact that acupuncturists break the skin, chiropractors manipulate the body and even naturopaths who give potentially strong herbs, it can make sense to use licensure as a form of regulation.  However, licensure as a model of regulation suits those therapies that are more intrinsically risky and dangerous to an unwitting public, and therefore it is questionable whether it is the best model for many other “natural” therapies.  Licensure also acts to define the exclusive right for one group to practice their particular skill, leading to turf wars over who has the right to manipulate or massage the body or who has the right to practice naturopathic techniques such as giving herbs, nutritional advice, hydrotherapy etc.  Most licensure bills seek to carve out as much territory as possible for the therapeutic system seeking regulation, and it is often the case that the motive is to protect the economic base of the profession, not the protection of the consumer.  In this situation, alternative therapies do exactly the same thing as conventional medical institutions.  In other words, they look after their own.

However, conventional medical statutes in most states take the cake in carving out a monopoly of all medical practices, defining medicine in the broadest way possible and then stating that only physicians can practice medicine (even if that involves giving your grandmother an aspirin for a headache – strictly speaking this is breaking the law as you are giving a drug to induce a health effect).  Therefore, most alternative therapies have to carve out their own domain of expertise outside of conventional medical practice, otherwise, by default it becomes part of medicine in general, even if doctors are not trained at all in a particular therapy.

 

Homeopathy has had a unique role in this situation, in that it was established within medicine in the 19^th century, was practiced predominantly by physicians and therefore competed for the very definition of medicine.  However, homeopathy is not taught to any level in any medical school in the country, physicians and others having to find training in private schools or through apprenticeship.  So homeopathy has found itself in a legal no-mans land – historically seen as medicine, practiced by physicians, yet not recognized by mainstream medicine, having no separate regulatory body defining it’s legality.  There has never been the same momentum as within other therapies such as Acupuncture and Chiropractic to get independent licensure as most homeopaths were physicians and wanted to see homeopathy practiced within medicine with a greater level of recognition.  However, a growing number of homeopaths practice without a medical license, in theory breaking the law – the risk depending on the state and county in which one practices.  There has always been a tradition of homeopathy being practiced outside of medical licensure, and in some countries such as England, Holland, Australia, New Zealand and parts of Scandinavia, the laws defining medical practice have been much more liberal and accepting of homeopathy and other alternative medicines being practiced outside of medical licensure.  In the United States, the history of homeopathy and the legal definitions of medicine have made this more difficult, compounded by the fact that homeopathic remedies are controlled by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and defined as a drug, an act of Congress in 1938 establishing the manufacture and dispensing of homeopathic medicines in this way.  This is in contrast to herbs and supplements which are defined as a food.  One advantage though is that it maintains a strict quality control in the manufacture of homeopathic medicines, and also homeopathic medicines always have their Latin name, which is the same in every country in the world.

 

The issue of licensure as a means to transfer legitimacy to a profession has long been debated in a variety of alternative professions.  Naturopathic medicine is one such system that is now licensed in over 15 states but which has had a long internal struggle with people who work as naturopaths but who don’t want the profession to become licensed and all that involves – like going to a 4 year full time training program, including two years of medical study.  They counter that to practice the majority of naturopathic techniques, one doesn’t need to study as much medicine as licensed naturopathic doctors and that it distracts from naturopathic techniques.  The argument for licensure is that those who’ve gone to a 4 year training are trained to be physicians, and that their training – including minor surgery – means they should be licensed and regulated, reflecting their training and also the level of potential danger if unregulated.  Both positions have validity but there has been little accommodation between the two camps, the result often being that in states where Naturopathy is licensed, non-licensed practitioners cannot practice legally, fueling the argument against licensure in that it only protects the schools and graduates who become licensed, not the needs of the community or the basic right to heal  using natural methods of healing.  Similar arguments exist within Herbal Medicine, Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Massage Therapy and a variety of other alternative therapies.  The main difference is that Naturopathy has succeeded in becoming licensed in some states and is actively seeking further states in which to become licensed.  One other concern of many alternative therapists is that as Naturopathy includes the practice of many other therapies – homeopathy, nutrition, herbs, acupuncture, hydrotherapy amongst others, licensure bills that define a scope of practice – which most do – will exclude the right of others to practice their systems of healing and that Naturopathy, by default, will become the broad umbrella for many techniques, broadly seen as “natural medicine”.  This concerns many practitioners, including homeopaths, who feel many naturopaths are not well trained in many of the therapies they study, superficially covering them as they cope with such a broad curriculum.

 

Recently, in 2005 Naturopathy managed to pass a licensure bill in California, a key asset for Naturopaths and a huge new market in which to practice.  One of the main Naturopathic schools, Bastyr University in Seattle, Washington, was having problems as Washington was saturated with Naturopaths and  a new market for practitioners needed to be found.  California was the most obvious and perfect choice for this and after a long effort, the profession succeeded in achieving licensure.  However, one other key development occurred in California before Naturopaths achieved licensure.  A health freedom bill was passed in 2003, which in effect legitimized the practice of many alternative therapies that were not currently licensed and which fell into the legal black hole established by monopolistic medical statutes that defined all healing as medicine and the domain of physicians only. The bill clarified the real distinction between conventional medical practice as it is practiced today and the wide variety of techniques and therapies that doctors know nothing about and that are widely used, are self-regulated and which are basically non-harmful in nature, not requiring state imposed licensure and its subsequent regulation and policing that any licensure involves.  The health freedom bill attempted to balance the rights to heal by people and the rights of the consumer to have knowledge of what is being offered.  It established the position of their being a type of contract between healer and client, with a disclosure form given to the client and a clarification of the role of the healer, making clear the distinction that the client is not practicing medicine and that clients should maintain an appropriate relationship with a primary care physician.  The role of the healer is not primarily to diagnose disease but to offer services which can be both an alternative and complementary to conventional medical care.  The bill therefore satisfied both health freedom advocates who feel it is constitutional right that people have the right to choose healers of their choice and that all people have the right to heal and that this right is not dependent on the permission of a regulatory body or the medical profession to give.  It also satisfied the concerns of the legislature and the medical profession in clarifying the roles of alternative and complementary practitioners and helped further protect the consumer using existing civil laws without creating another level of bureaucracy to maintain.

 

The health freedom movement in California was an extension of the national health freedom movement, based in Minnesota, which passed one of the first health freedom laws in the country.  Since then, an active national movement has sprung up, and health freedom bills are being actively pursued in many other states.  Each state has it’s own political language and culture, requiring a long-term concerted strategy.  As has been commonly quoted in many situations, power does not give up anything without a demand, and this demand is often a legal one in the United States.  The wider issue though is in asking the question of who has the right to heal, how much responsibility does the consumer/citizen make in their own health care choice, how much power should any one group have in determining this choice and how much should the government be    involved in controlling and regulating medicine and healing in general.

 

This leads to a broader question of how medicine should be seen as part of the social fabric of modern society, and potentially to a reevaluation of our relationship to health and disease.  Given the ever increasing specialization in medicine and it’s dominant position in defining our attitudes to our own health and the choices we therefore make, society at large is now finding itself in a challenging position.  Inspite of the extraordinary technological advances in medicne and the huge financial resources given to modern medicine, sickness continues unabated, and in some ways seems to worse today, to the point where the whole medical structure is cracking under the pressure.                                          While these problems are not just medical, but social and political issues, the solution does not just ly with the type of medicine being practiced, yet it can be useful to begin to question our relationship to being sick and the implications this may have on our health care choices.

 

Disease, from a holistic view, is not something simply to be conquered with a drug, but to be understood and seen as a tool and mechanism for change, something to be accepted and ideally transcended, not to be suppressed by drugs and in the process to become dependent on them.   The culture of dependency and the medicalization of all aspects of life have had the effect to make medicine an addiction and a prop, not a liberating force toward greater health and freedom.  This phenomena is not an issue only to do with the type of medicine being practiced but the economic, political and institutional structures that now exist, whose main concern is the preservation of itself and the power in its own institutional authority.  One can say the system is truly broken, like the human body itself, when it feeds off itself and the structure becomes more important than the original reasons for it’s creation in the first place (like a cancer).  In the modern world, medicine has become a huge drain on the national economy, chronic disease seems to be growing, placing ever increasing demands on the system and on the economy and it is becoming so expensive that it is literally bankrupting the country – and yet little is done as the power structures are so entrenched.  Even now, in the wake of the Democrats winning back congress in 2006 heads of all the pharmaceutical companies are meeting to strategize how they can protect their profits in the face of a democratic congress wanting to negotiate the price of drugs through Medicare and Medical.

 

The challenge for alternative and complementary medicine is in finding it’s appropriate place in the equation of the health care needs of the nation.  What can it offer and how should people have access to it.  No one system is complete and can answer the ails of all people.  There is a need for a diverse set of options that gives choice and also that can offer true alternatives.  Some alternative therapies work better than others, while it also very much depends on the skill of the practitioner, the same as in conventional medicine.  One of the ongoing challenges of alternative therapies  is in the protection of their more holistic principles in the face of greater acceptance within conventional medicine.  It has been observed that when certain practices become licensed and more regulated there is a movement toward greater levels of allopathic knowledge at the expense of traditional knowledge.  This has been most clearly seen in osteopathic medicine, which is now little different than most conventional medical training, as well as in Naturopathy, Chiropractic other therapies.  Homeopathy has also struggled with this dilemma, some practicing some homeopathy and allopathy together, or practicing homeopathy in a more allopathic diagnostic way.  The same dilemmas are found in most natural  therapies as they square up to the behemoth that is mainstream medicine.

 

However, many natural therapies feel that a more holistic form of health care will be both curative and preventative at the same time, leading to overall greater health and therefore to less of a tendency to need the services of conventional medicine and its crisis infused model of medicine.  After all, if we are happier in our lives and feel better about ourselves both physically and emotionally then we won’t need to see our doctor so much.  The doctor will be less burdened and everyone saves money, apart from the drug companies.  There will be less diagnostic procedures, which are often done to protect against legal threats, less unnecessary treatments for the same reasons, and all in all, there will be less done.  Even in the midst of our current health care crisis, the argument is mainly over how medicine should be given, not how to prevent illness.  Although the social value of having a socialized medicine makes so much sense and would relieve both citizens and businesses from the exorbitant costs and risks of being sick in America, having access to free but dangerous and dependent drugs as a first response to a medical need will achieve precious little.  The need is to have access to affordable and effective systems of healing that embrace a holistic value system.  That is the challenge for the natural systems of healing who feel excluded from the equation and also for the medical and governmental elites that dictate much of the medical policy of the country.  Leaving it to market forces is one way, but that playing field has been so manipulated over the years that it resembles more of a backroom swindle than it does an open discussion of the health care needs of the nation.

 

Therefore, all the systems of medicine and healing that purport to be an alternative or complementary or integrative to  conventional model have to further prove their efficacy and show that they can be effective.  This is no doubt happening within the established licensed professions such as Acupuncture, Chiropractic and Naturopathy, although criticisms do arise regarding the economic agendas of practitioners, who insist on selling expensive supplements to their main treatments, and who insist on frequent return visits to “maintain’ health.  Like any other form of business, establishing and maintaining a business is a challenge and with ever increasing numbers of practitioners, the economic imperative can take over from the healing agenda.  Being a practitioner of a natural or holistic therapy doesn’t immunize a person from their ethical responsibility.

 

Homeopathy has a amazing track record in treating disease of all sorts for over two hundred years.  Most significantly, it embraces a holistic vision that sees the body/mind as one and as an integrated whole and that seeks the support the body’s own innate healing power.  It’s footprint on the planet is very light and it offers the possibility of a cheap, affordable, accessible medicine to be available to the world at large, in both developing and developed countries.  It also offers the possibility of helping treat acute infectious diseases that threaten life to the most subtle levels of psycholgical well-being.  The homeopathic profession has it’s own challenge therefore to make itself available to people and to find ways to create the kind of legitimacy that will enable its growth and in so doing protect it’s authenticity as a unique form of medical care in the world today.

 

(1)  Perko, Sandra, The Homeopathic Treatment of Influenza: Surviving Influenza Epidemics and Pandemics Past, Present, and Future with Homeopathy, Benchmark Homeopathic Publications, San Antonio, Texas (1999).

(2)  Brown, Chip, Afterwards You’re a Genius, Faith, Medicine, and the Metaphysics of Healing, Riverhead Books, (Penguin Putnam Inc), New York, (1998)  P. 30

(3)  Ibid, P. 30.

(4)  Ibid, P. 31

(5)  Ibid, P. 31

(6)  Ibid, P. 32,

(7)  Ibid, P. 32

(8)  Ibid, P. 33

(9)  Ibid, P. 33

(10) Ibid, P. 33

(11) Lansky A. Impossible Cure, The Promise of Homeopathy,  R.L. Ranch Press 2003.  P 8.

(12) Brown,  Afterwards You’re a Genius, p 36.

(13) Ibid, P. 47

(14) Lansky, Impossible Cure, p 189

(15) Ibid, 174

 

Reading:

 

Dossey, Larry, Reinventing Medicine.

Illitch, Ivan, A Medical Nemesis.

Dubos, Rene, A Mirage of Health.

Robbins, John, Reclaiming Our Health

Hahnemann, Samuel, Organon of the Medical Art.

Lansky, Amy, Impossible Cure

Brown, Chip, Afterwards You’re A Genius

The Development of Miasmatic Theory, from Hahnemann to the Present Day.

 

Part One: The Beginning

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Some homeopaths speculate that syphilis and sycosis could not exist without psora, as psora is the root of all disease, similar to the original sin idea.  However, all three diseases are very different in origin and have their own bacterial imprint, disease manifestation and secondary sequelae.  Psora is more elusive, given that the nature of psoric infection is not as specific as that of sycosis and syphilis and also that there is not just one contagious microbe or parasite.  Scabies, the disease, from which the remedy Psorinum is made, is NOT the origin of psora.  There was much confusion in Hahnemann’s time as to the original cause of scabies, some medical theorists thinking that scabies was one of the most virulent of constitutional epidemics.  Martin Gumpert, in his book on Homeopathy called “Hahnemann, The Adventurous Career of a Medical Rebel “ states that Hahneman was incorrect in making a similar assumption as scabies was merely the effect of an unhygienic lifestyle and the cause was just a parasite.  It was not a reflection of a deeper internal state of disease, and even if Hahnemann knew that it was an infectious disease due to a small living creature, he seemingly drew similar conclusions to many other physicians of his time and stated that “No skin eruption, whatever its nature, should be removed by external remedies…In every case, an improper condition of the whole body, of the entire living organism, is at the root of the trouble, and should be removed by internal remedies….Thereupon the eruption will disappear… and often more speedily than by external remedies.” (Gumpert., p. 198).  However,  destruction of the mite did not necessarily mean the activation of secondary psora.  It is a product of a psoric state, of an unclean situation and it prospers in such situations.  That is why, similar to many psoric conditions, changing the environment and external surroundings appeases much of psora’s primary expressions WITHOUT secondary symptoms being expressed.   One could postulate though that once one disease manifestation has been appeased, another one will arise to take it’s place, which here would lead us to consider the impact of inherited sycosis and syphilis but that is something Hahnemann never contemplated and can be disputed as just speculation.

 

Although Hahnemann did not state that scabies was the only cause of the psoric miasm and that many other skin eruptions with different bacterial, parasitical or viral origin could also be involved, the fact is that he chose scabies to make the first nosode from and which has become the “archetypal” nosode of the psoric miasm.  Furthermore, the current theories of the time as to the state of scabies being so formidable a disease can only have influenced Hahnemann in his attempt to find some universal principle in seeking the underlying roots of illness.

 

Hahnemann also equated leprosy with being a primary form of psora and observed how when the eruptions were virulent on the skin, the internal suffering was much less.  While this is an example of the “psoric” philosophy of the movement from the external to the internal, it is questionable whether leprosy can be classified as psoric.  It has its own bacteriologic origin, it’s own nosode and its own symptom expression.  It also has it’s own broader “gestalt” of mental and physical dynamics and therefore perhaps deserves it’s own miasmatic classification, as some homeopaths have done.  However, within the broadest classification of psora, one could argue that it represents a purely unadulterated psora, free from any constraints of suppression.

 

Two other important points regarding miasmatic contagion and psora are discussed by Dimitrialis (p. 27) when he discusses Hahnemann’s amazing description of the infectious mechanism of a miasm, how in the instant of infection, the whole person is infected and nothing can be done to reverse it.  This observation has been confirmed by modern science in understanding the incubation periods of disease after initial infection.  The second point, which has always been controversial, is Hahnemann’s contention that the disposition to being infected with psora, “the itch” is almost universal,  “No other chronic miasma infects more generally, more surely, more easily and more absolutely that the miasma of itch…it is the most contagious of all”.   The controversy is amplified as Hahnemann stated that he was one of the few people who were not infected with the psoric miasm, his acute exacerbations being true acute diseases as apposed to acute expressions of a chronic miasmatic disease.

 

The description of the infectious mechanism of a miasmatic disease also reveals the dispute between the idea of a miasm as an infection and that it is also a “dynamic” influence, a “vital disturbance” of the whole organism.  It is of course, both, which Hahnemann made clear, but here the fact of their being an actual contagious principle does not take away from the common understanding that all diseases are primarily disturbances of the vital force.

 

Given that Hahnemann made such claims as to the universality of psora and that it could be so easily caught, and so easily suppressed as historical time passed, and also because of the fact that the primary “itch” expression seemed rather vague and often merely presumed to have been there in some cases, it is little wonder that Hahnemann’s theory of chronic disease was so questioned by his fellow homeopaths at the time and since that time has still been one of the most debated aspects of homeopathic thinking.  Furthermore, as mentioned regarding the disease scabies, one has to ask what exactly is the origin of the infectious matter that Hahnemann refers to when discussing the infectious nature of psora.

 

Dimitrialis discusses this in his next chapter, “The Itch Miasm”, in which he states Hahnemann describes it as the following: Herpes (Herpes virus infection; simplex/zoster viruses), Tinea Capitis (Fungal infections), Milk Crust (cradle cap) and Tetter (general term to describe herpes, eczema, psoriasis and herpes).  As is stated in the chapter, Hahnemann was not talking specifically about the disease scabies, although he was very aware of its existence and even postulated the cause being due to small living insects or mites (Dimitrialis p. 32).  This point has been much confused in homeopathic literature and Dimitrialis points out that Hahnemann did not equate psora with the disease scabies, quoting authors such as Richard Haehl (Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, vol 2, p. 160) and Otto Lesser (Textbook of Homeopathic Materia Medica., p. 32).

 

One can therefore understand how some confusion has ensued from this, especially in regard to the fact that Psorinum, the remedy made from a scabies nosode is the traditional nosode for psora.  Also, as Dimitrialis points out, milk crust is now known not to be an infectious disease and therefore cannot be a cause for the spread of the psoric miasm.  Dimitrialis states that Hahnemann describes the “itch” eruptions of psora as being 1. an itching vesicular eruption which compels the patient to rub violently enough to open up the vesicles and infect the surroundings, and 2.  the peculiar bitter-sweet itching which began with a voluptuous itch compelling the patient to rub and resulting in a long continued burning sensation.  (Hahnemann, Chronic Diseases, Vol 1, pp. 38-39).  From this description, generalized skin eruptions such as eczema, psoriasis, milk crust etc cannot be included, leaving such skin eruptions such as tinnea, herpes etc.  From this analysis, Dimitrialis concludes that Hahnemann’s attribution of the “universal” ubiquitous nature attributed to the psora miasm is not accurate.  This is important as it forces us to question some of the underlying presumptions about psora and the subsequent generalizations made about it’s universal nature, being “the soil of all disease”.

 

Perhaps the main thing to be taken from Hahnemann’s attempt to understand the roots of disease and his explanations in Chronic Disease is that the key to understanding the evolution of secondary psora (the complex disease pictures listed in Chronic Diseases) is that it is the internalization of the disease process, from the skin to the interior of the body, from the outside to the inside, reversing the order of where the body is trying to go when expressing itself on the skin.  When an eruption is expressing, it is the whole body affected, but the disease is able to express on the skin.  If that avenue is prohibited, disease will express elsewhere.  This we know is true and that is really the legacy of understanding that Hahnemann gives us when describing psora and miasms.  However, Hahnemann also stated that even the spontaneous disappearance of skin eruptions can lead to the development of secondary psora.  Similar to what he said earlier when stating that improved hygiene that alleviates skin disease that then leads to more easy suppression, he is making a conclusion that implies that an unfettered expression on the skin is better for the long term health of a person than a mild eruption which is then suppressed or even disappears spontaneously.  This has to be somewhat of a questionable presumption.

 

Furthermore, this conclusion has led some more modern homeopaths to conclude that we are now sicker in our society than we were in Hahnemann’s time. (George Vithoulkas, A New Model of Health and Disease, p. 1., introduction).  The internalization process has led to the development of chronic, degenerative disease previously unseen, auto immune diseases, psychological diseases and many other physical, mental and social ills that can be understood to be caused by the suppression of primary disease expressions.  This is a contentious and complex discussion.  The reasons for many modern diseases are not straight forward and while it is clear that powerful conventional medications can suppress disease and that it part of the story of why we have more chronic degenerative disease today, it doesn’t answer the whole picture.  The evolutionary impulse of human society, leading to huge changes in our personal and collective lives over the last two hundred years, has led to many changes, including in our health, some for the better, some for worse.  It can be said that certain diseases express something about the culture and about the time in which they arise.  To imply that we are simply in a downward spiral of physical, mental and moral dis-ease is too simplistic.  The challenges are merely different and as evolution moves inexorably and technology changes and our exposure to environmental toxins changes, then diseases will manifest as an expression of that time.   However, the concept of suppression still stands and will be discussed further later on when looking at the other miasms and how we interpret them in the modern age.

 

The fact is that all of us have some susceptibility to disease.  This goes without saying.  However, when external factors are favorable, and our emotional state is in balance, there may not be any outward signs of disease.  However, as circumstances change, underlying states are revealed and our chronic susceptibilities exposed.  These signs and symptoms are specific to each of us and Hahnemann describes this as signs of latent psora.  Latent doesn’t mean the total absence of symptoms, but symptoms based on the affect of circumstances.   We see many people who have a great susceptibility to certain conditions, e.g., frequent colds, headaches, skin conditions etc,. all of which get better or worse depending on circumstance.  It should be considered that in Hahnemann’s time, there were probably a lot more skin eruptions than today, but mainly because circumstances and hygiene were so much worse than today.  How much they were indications of active psoric disease needs to be questioned.  However, these so-called “latent” symptoms do indicate the unique susceptibility to disease that each of us has and what has commonly been described as the constitutional diathesis.  But, Dimitrialis clarifies that this susceptibility or diathesis is not due the psoric miasm.  The miasm is merely the contagious factor that can initiate disease.  Susceptibility and reaction to the psoric miasmatic contagion will depend on “the bodily constitution of a man, his hereditary disposition, the various errors in his education and habits, his manner of living and diet, his employments, his turn of mind, his morality etc”(Hahnemann, Chronic Diseases, vol 1, p. 51)  Therefore, Hahnemann did not mean to state that psora is the root of all disease as suggested by other homeopaths, including of course, Kent.

 

What is perhaps most important though in Hahnemann’s theory of miasms is the fact that unless a homeopathic remedy is given that matches the depth of the miasmatic disease, a lasting cure cannot be found.  This we find today as Hahnemann did in his time, in spite of our thorough case taking and analysis.  The remedy needs to match both the breadth and depth of a case and whether one calls it a miasm or not is secondary.  One simply has to understand the whole individual and the complexity of symptoms within this and find the remedy that addresses this the best.  We take this for granted now but it was Hahnemann in his writings that made it clear what we were dealing with and the unfortunate controversies surrounding his miasmatic theory often distracted from this basic fact.

 

One of the most important aspects of miasmatic theory has been the inherited influence of miasms, that a family history of certain diseases predisposes a person to certain other conditions, including even the specific disease that represents the miasm, e.g., Tuberculosis.  Interestingly enough though, Hahnemann did not mention that the actual miasmatic disease itself can be passed on through inheritance.  Dimitrialis explains this clearly and quotes from authors who said it was something that could be passed on from one generation to another.  What is being stated is that the actual miasm (the infectious condition) cannot be passed on, using the definition of the miasm as an infecting agent, and not a predisposition to disease.  We know that the influence of the miasm is passed on through DNA or forms of inherited influence, but not the actual contagion itself.  Dimitrialis states that nowhere in Hahnemann’s writings (apart from a mistranslated quote from Boericke’s 6^th edition of the Organon) does he use the word “inherited”.  The main distinction (perhaps rather academic to some) is that where the psoric disease (or syphilis or gonorrhea) cannot be passed on to the next generation, some of its effects can be passed on, even in the most general way, affected behavior and habits.  This last fact is important though as this is how many homeopaths have looked at miasmatic thinking, how a certain “dynamic” influence, a unique gestalt or pattern unique to each miasm does pass from one generation to another and that the actual miasmatic disease (Psora, Sycosis, Syphilis etc) is merely the “mitochondria in the cell of the miasm,” or just one factor, a central key but by no means the complete picture of the spreading influence of the miasmatic disease on all aspects of physical and emotional disease as well as the broader social/cultural dynamic in which miasmatic expression can take place.  One other important aspect of the question of inherited influence is that as the actual miasmatic disease cannot be passed on with it’s own destructive tendencies, what is inherited is more a predisposition or vulnerability to other disease states and not the active disease itself.

 

Much of modern writing on miasms, including some of the articles in this journal, explore more this gestalt of influence of various miasms.  However, understanding what Hahnemann was trying to say in the first place is important as a foundation to understand miasmatic theory.  The clinical relevance of this understanding is where various homeopaths have different opinions.  Dimitrialis concludes that what Hahnemann really gave us in these explorations into the nature of disease was the need to explore the characteristic totality of symptoms throughout a person’s life, as, according to his conclusions, most of these symptoms belonged to a single disease state, which he called psora for the vast majority of conditions.  Whether one calls it psora or not he felt was not crucial and furthermore, it implies (according to Hahnemann’s own conclusions) that the complex myriad diseases all belong to one source, which cannot really be proven.

 

One further and important point that Dimitrialis brings up is how to identify certain remedies with each of the miasms.  While that is possible with syphilis and sycosis where there is a single contagious miasmatic cause and a specific set of primary and secondary symptoms, it is much harder with psora as there is not one miasmatic contagious cause and where the sheer variety of symptoms of secondary psora make it very difficult if not impossible to be sure, at least according to how Hahnemann defined it. Also, Hahnemann did not make it emphatic that a history of skin eruption had to have been present in order to define it’s psoric identity, as it was often impossible to verify one way or the other.  This only further compounded the difficulty in creating a definable symptom identity for psora. Hahnemann attempted to find remedies that he felt covered the most significant disease states of secondary psora, which he termed anti-psoric but as has been discussed by many homeopaths, this list is by no means complete, and therefore has been one of the impetuses by subsequent homeopaths to refine our interpretation and understanding of miasmatic theory and the relationship of certain remedies to different miasmatic states.  The second part of this article will seek to explore how other homeopaths have grappled with this issue since Hahnemann.

 

Part Two: The Development

 

As has been discussed, Hahnemann made a vital and significant contribution to our understanding of the contagious nature of diseases, to the unifying principles of seeking common threads of symptoms in complex disease states, to the idea of suppression and to that of inherited influences of certain diseases.  Although, as mentioned, Hahnemann didn’t mention the word inherited when it came to understanding the influence of his miasmatic diseases, by default, his own conclusions led future generations of homeopaths to consider this one of the most important parts of miasmatic theory.  It also led them to create remedies from other disease states and through the clinical use of nosodes has allowed us to understand much more about the picture of the broader miasmatic influence.  As mentioned earlier, Hahnemann did not use Medorrhinum, Syphilinum, Tuberculinum or Carcinosin and therefore only had a very limited knowledge of the unique image of the influence of these miasmatic diseases.

 

As the thinking of miasms developed, some new ideas developed based on the ideas of miasms not only as specific diseases based on infectious agents, but also as archetypal potential, that impacted both physical and mental symptoms and also behavioral dynamics and more categorical themes of human conditioning.  The development of seeing miasmatic influence pass on through generations allowed homeopaths to develop and broaden their knowledge of the pictures of various miasms and their study and use of nosodes of different miasms further developed their uniqueness in homeopathic prescribing.  While some homeopaths would question the need to create new miasms or the type of generalized classifications of miasmatic influence, they are worth exploring to understand the potential significance for prescribing.

 

One of the modern interpretations of miasmatic theory has been that of Proceso Sanchez Ortega, in his book “Notes on Miasms”.  The main thread of what Ortega meditated on and wrote about is the predispositions to disease that a miasmatic influence gave and the patterns of expression that each of the three “big” miasms created, revealing, according to Ortega, universal expressions of form and function.  He felt that Hahnemann had (inadvertently) revealed a new schema of biological function that could be used to understand health and disease and which could be compared with other “systemic” orders and methodologies.  Dimitrialis questions this jump in theoretical speculation and makes it clear that this is not what Hahnemann was implying at all.  He furthermore critiques certain assumptions made about each of the miasms, that Psora = functional disease, that Sycosis = overgrowth (proliferative) disease (tumors, warts etc) and that Syphilis = Destructive disease (necrosis, ulcerations) etc.  He states that in Hahnemann’s descriptions of secondary psora, there are many examples of proliferative and destructive diseases.  However, one of the retorts to this is that it is very difficult to define what is truly secondary psora and much easier to do it with sycosis and syphilis which have a clearer symptom picture and specific infectious factor to them.  Also, it is often understood that the earlier in life that proliferative and destructive conditions arise, the more likely it is to be due to a sycotic or syphilitic miasm, or a combination of more than one miasm.

 

The question still remains whether the listed categorizations above have some validity or not and whether it is of practical use to make such distinctions, as also whether it is useful to speculate about the true underlying causes of disease.  As homeopaths tend to be philosophical types and because, thanks to Hahnemann, we have embraced a complex system, requiring precise individuation of every case, often of a dizzying array of symptoms, sensations and stories, any system that allows us to categorize and link certain phenomenon together may be of use.  Here Ortega pays homage to other theorists who have sought to understand the function of the human organism in similar ways, by ordaining certain diatheses and other intrinsic qualities to the function and form of human health and disease.  The fact that Ortega veers much further a field than Hahnemann was inclined to go does not invalidate it even if he presumes Hahnemann meant more than he actually did in his own work.  Even if Ortega was not accurate in his analysis of what Hahnemann meant by miasm, what he and many other homeopathic and non-homeopathic writers did was to attempt to understand the complex influences, including hereditary/genetic ones that predisposed people to illness and that could be seen in physical and mental disease, body typology, normal characteristics of personality and social and cultural dynamics that reflect the “dynamic” influence of the chronic miasms.

 

It is interesting that Ortega quotes some of same basic passages from Hahnemann that Dimitrialis does to example that Hahnemann was talking about diathesis in disease potential (Ortega, p. 28-30).  Hahnemann was speaking how even when some minor event occurred, there would arise a violent internal reaction to it that would reveal a “psoric diathesis, the fundamental and most common cause of chronic disease”.  Therefore, for practical purposes the distinction between the miasmatic infection and subsequent chronic miasmatic disease does establish a diathesis or disposition to subsequent illness.  The main distinction is that the person who has experienced a primary infection with a miasm is at the mercy of an active disease state whose mechanism is one of continuing internalization and overall health deterioration.  This factor, Dimitrialis explores and makes the distinction between this dynamic and the more “static” susceptibility of those who’ve inherited certain predispositions to illness based on these primary infectious diseases.  However as Dimitrialis mentions, Hahnemann was influenced in his development of these ideas by observing the effects of Syphilis on people, from which he modeled his theory of psora (Dimitrialis p. 29).  He observed the inexorable decline in syphilitic cases and from this made similar conclusions about the nature of all chronic disease, the most prevalent of which he connected to the “itch”, to psora.

 

Ortega focuses predominantly on the miasmatic disease state, not the immediate consequences of miasmatic infection.  His interest is in the terrain, the diathesis and susceptibility that has been influenced by the miasm.   Ortega examples this approach by a case example in which he felt a patient needed Calcarea carbonica as a “constitutional” remedy, as apposed to Mercury, which seemed to superficially fit the symptoms.  Here is one example of what many of us take for granted in practicing homeopathy today.  We always look for a “constitutional” based remedy, that is, a remedy indicated for the whole person as much as possible.  That is why it is baffling when studying some of the old books of the 19^th century, including much of the therapeutics, where any individual characteristics of the person are not included, much of the information justifying a remedy being based on certain physical characteristics only.

 

Ortega and his quoting of other famous South American homeopaths, including Thomas P. Paschero, making the categorizations of Hahnemann’s miasms of Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis into broader diatheses and dyscrasias, is based on a level of experience that Hahnemann couldn’t have.  They had a much deeper understanding of the significance of the sycotic and syphilitic miasm, which as mentioned earlier, Hahnemann didn’t have, not using the nosodes Medorrhinum and Syphilinum, and were able to identify in the 3 miasms, unique dynamics consistent with each, which reflected a broader universality of structure and function.  Furthermore, one of the main ideas of miasmatic influence is that it weaves its way into the constitutional pattern, giving an extra broad dimension or expression to the constitution.  One of the key aspects of homeopathic prescribing is being able to identify constitutional patterns and any general miasmatic influence.  Some cases will present a clear miasmatic pattern while others will not.  The miasmatic influence will not lead to an individual remedy, unless a nosode is clearly indicated but it will help orientate the direction of search for an appropriate remedy.  It is but one tool that we use, more important in some cases than others.

 

The contribution that Ortega defined in his descriptions of miasmatic themes, based on work by Paschero and others, was that the three “big” miasms reflected certain fundamental alterations of normal cellular function, which were classified as Deficiency (Psora), Excess (Sycosis) and Perversion (Syphilis).  He is stating that the original miasmatic diseases that Hahnemann explored can be seen as representative of 3 fundamental expressions of imbalance which are intrinsic possibilities of dis-ease expression.  These are inbuilt possibilities or diatheses of a constitution, the degree and intensity of each depending on the inherited influence that all of us are influenced by.  He is not describing, as Dimitrialis points out, the expressions of the miasmatic infectious disease, manifesting in Syphilis, Gonorrhea or Psora, that Hahnemann spoke of.  However, within those diseases lies the kernel to the broader miasmatic expression.  But as the influence of these diseases pass through generations, their influence and expression is diluted, modified and broadened and become wedded to normal and abnormal constitutional function.  Another contribution of Ortega is identifying 3 primary colors to each miasm, blue for psora, yellow for sycosis and red for syphilis.  To accept this analysis, one has to accept the idea of a miasm as a theme, gestalt or pattern.  If one moves in this direction, then other more archetypal qualities can similarly be categorized.

 

One other way to consider miasms and constitutional remedy is to say that a remedy reflects a strategic relationship to life, it reveals both the good and not so good ways in which the body/mind struggles to evolve.  The miasmatic influence affects the intensity of this expression – the basic struggle of psora, the intensity and exaggeration of sycosis and the desperateness and violence of syphilis.  The same can be identified with tuberculosis and cancer and perhaps other miasmatic classifications.  One can also see a miasm as a solar system.  The sun is the nosode of the miasm and the planets surrounding the sun are various remedies, each of which reflect a specific strategy or expression of that miasm.  That way, one can understand the miasm as a large potentiality and each remedy reflects merely one part of that totality, circling around the sun and influenced by the nosode, the original place from where the miasm began.  In this way, one can gain a deeper understanding of the miasm by studying the nosode and at least one other remedy of that miasm.  In Psora we have Psorinum and Calcarea carbonica (Ortega’s choice of remedy), in Sycosis we have Medorrhinum and Thuja (the classic anti-sycotic but perhaps its significance is exaggerated – typical sycotic) and Syphilis we have Syphilinum and Mercury (the obvious one and of course the closest to our sun!).   By studying the miasms in this way, we gain an understanding of the essential ideas of the nosode and its bacterial origin, as seen by Hahnemann, and the miasmatic thematic influence as perceived through certain remedies.  One can also study the actual effect of the original infection, especially the diseases Gonorrhea and Syphilis and from there gain an understanding of the “dynamic” influence of these diseases on various constitutions.  This, as has been explained earlier, is much harder to do for Psora because of the lack of specificity of infection for this miasm, one of the weaknesses in Hahnemann’s own theory of Psora.  According to his own analysis, Psorinum the nosode of the disease Scabies, is only one of the possible infectious agents of psora, leprosy being another and herpes and tinea being possibly others.  Each of those infections has it’s own characteristic DNA and morbific influence.  Therefore Psorinum can be said to be one of the examples of psora, but interestingly the picture of this remedy does give a very clear image of some of the essential characteristics of the miasm.

 

To summarize the themes of psora and that of the remedy Psorinum, we have the words deficiency or under function.  In the remedy we have a fear of poverty, of being homeless, despair, hopeless, anxiety, great forsaken feeling, coldness and hunger.  The whole feeling is one of a state of passive despair and a feeling that there will never be enough to go around, the actual social reality for most of the planet still, and an experience not that far removed from a majority of people in the advanced countries of the world.  In other words, it represents a state within the archetypal consciousness of all humans, the fear of starvation and not having a home.  It is an existential anxiety often, and in cases these symptoms are obviously more important when it is not the reality of a person, more a delusion, but which feels real all the same.  To extend this theme, it can therefore be said that those people whose focus is predominantly on the struggle to be, to define themselves in the context of their immediate situation – home, work, family, structure, and who find these issues particularly challenging, are under the dynamic influence of the psoric miasm.  This is very clearly portrayed in the remedy Calcarea carbonica, the inside of the oyster shell, where the person needing this remedy experiences the delusion that there is no shell, leaving them feeling exposed, anxious, fearful of the great unknown of the ocean, the dark depths with horrible images, making them feel cold, shivery, fearful, apprehensive and exhausted with the struggle to re-find the shell.  Lycopodium experiences it as an existential anxiety whether he is worthy of his position, a situation he continually stresses over and doubts, especially when having to prove himself he actually OK.  Sulphur doesn’t have such concerns.  His ego is now intact but he suffers from the lack of impetus to actually manifest this ego.  For Sulphur, isn’t the fact that it’s there enough.  Why bother to do anything about it and why bother to let others know.  For Sulphur the challenge is the integration of the self into the larger context of family and society.  Each of these remedies represent a basic struggle and because we are looking at deficiency here, the expression of these states will never be too violent or extreme, even if it seems to be written in the books that each of these remedies can show extreme emotions.  In reality, they rarely do, there is not the impetus or drive.

 

Whereas in the sycotic miasm, as seen in the remedy Medorrhinum, the theme of exaggeration or excess produces many inflammatory states, with an exaggeration of function.  The expression is intense and focuses on areas of the body to do with water, communication and expansion – sinuses, chest, joints, kidneys and bladder, skin and heart.  Mentally there is a tendency to extremes, unpredictability, intensity, addictions, everything is too much.  There is focus on how one is seen and the ambition to become, not merely content to be as in the psoric miasm.  The degree of egocentricity is that much greater, although of course one sees that with Sulphur, the grand antispsoric (but as is the case, polycrest remedies by definition are influenced by more than one miasmatic influence).  There can be violence, all sorts of extremes and antisocial dynamics in mental behavior, and in physical areas, a tendency to distortion or incoordination in function, especially in earlier years of life than one would expect, e.g., congenital deformities, joint inflammations, urinary tract inflammations, asthma, abnormal skin growths, early heart pathology etc.  Thuja, the archetype of this miasm, shares many of these qualities but reveals its own unique strategy of having to cover up a feeling of distortion or wrongness.  Anxiety, guilt, shame and secrecy are feelings and strategies used to deal with a sense of separation and stigma they can feel.  They feel alone, and don’t know really why and imagine something must be wrong with them.  Again, this fits an archetypal experience – how does one fit into a family, a society, a culture, what strategies do we have to employ to do so.  Thuja is only one remedy that examples this struggle.  To see the sycotic miasm in this light, one can say that now that the ego is clearly identified and expressed, what do we have to do connect to the whole, to everyone else.  This struggle of individuation and then connection is a contrast of opposites, two poles of an archetypal theme of consciousness.

 

In the syphilitic miasm, as seen in the remedy Syphilinum, we see the themes of despair, hopelessness with suicidal ideation, violence and destruction in all spheres, anti social behavior, addictions, compulsions.  We see destructive processes physically, with an affinity toward ulcerations, bone decay and pain, congenital disorders, especially to the structure of the body and basically symptoms very similar to syphilis in both acute and chronic forms.  Mercury, Hahnemann’s great antisyphilitic shows symptoms similar to this, with a particular affinity for destructive processes to the mucous membranes, nerves and bones.  Mentally, there is suspiciousness, paranoia, violence, with great sensitivity and intensity.  They don’t feel they fit in, they feel threatened by a malevolent world and feel the need to retreat to a safe, secure place.  So here, we have another archetypal expression, this time once of violence and possible mayhem.  Whereas in Psora the threat is one of not having enough food and of basic survival, here it is a threat of imminent violence, of destruction.  In our society the most profound influence of this miasm is seen in people who cannot fit into society, become degenerate to one level of other, often imploding in self violence or violence to others.  Our prisons are full of people whose expression is a syphilitic one.  In some ways, the feeling of the syphilitic miasm is to do or die.  The need is that much more desperate than the other miasms, and if a person cannot find a socially acceptable way to express this energy – the classic genius, idiot savant or similar person who has a one pointed expression in life, an ability to focus extraordinarily intensely on one thing, often excelling in it, but when that energy cannot find an appropriate expression in a “normal” social form, it can become inverted in a self destructive energy that “eats away” at the person.  It is a thwarted expression that because of its intensity is thrown back at the person.  Interestingly, in Syphilinum, there are pains like a line, a fine, piercing pain, which is a similar sensation to that of the overall Syphilitic state – intense, violent, focused, extreme – life is seen from that perspective.

 

In these descriptions, what is being described is both the physical and mental symptoms that can be related to the specific diseases mentioned as well as a broader gestalt of phenomenon which moves beyond the personal to the collective.  If we are talking of miasmatic influence moving through many generations, then its effect becomes more general and less specific, influencing both physical and mental expression in more diffuse and diverse ways.  This is one reason why the major nosodes are so useful in prescribing and also why they can easily be overused.  One of the justifications for giving a major nosode is when more than one remedy seems to be indicated and also when a well indicated remedy does not seem to work.  Here it is inferring that the influence is more insidious and hidden, more occult and less expressing itself in specific keynotes or essence of the particular nosode itself.  In that sense, it becomes more of an “atmosphere”, similar to the dictionary definition of a miasm.  In this way, a miasm is behaving more like a field effect, similar to the morphogenetic fields described in the work by Rupert Sheldrake.  (See Rupert Sheldrake, A New Science of Life)  In his work, he postulates that all things that have a similar structure (DNA, atomic structure etc) can connect and communicate with one another based on sharing similar “fields” of consciousness and that these patterns of consciousness are past on through time, through generations and have a ”cumulative influence which acts across both space and time.” (P. 13).  So the imprint of the past is past on into the present and the future.  He is postulating this connection for all systems, not only in organic but also inorganic forms.  The hypothesis he makes from this he calls “formative causation”.  In the context of miasmatic conditioning, we are considering the fact that patterns of influence are past on through countless generations, stemming from one or more original infectious diseases, the memory of these original diseases being transplanted in myriad forms through genetic and “vibrational” imprinting, leading to a wider and more generalized influence on human health and behavior.  This imprinting creates a propensity to illness, dependent on other constitutional susceptibilities and external factors that can stimulate this susceptibility into action, manifesting in a multitude of disease patterns and symptom complexes.

 

One of the most important practical aspects of this analysis is that it allows a homeopath to organize what seems to be chaotic or random symptoms into a more coherent pattern, enabling connections to be made within a given symptom picture and also allowing the roots of certain conditions to be revealed.  One of the biggest challenges in homeopathy is to see both the breadth and depth of symptoms.  Many symptom pictures look alike, but with a clear understanding of materia medica, one can use it to decipher symptom pictures into clearer totalities and knowledge of miasms and nosodes can be an essential part of this analysis.  Because a nosode is made from diseased material, the potentized nosode has a unique pattern to it, as all remedies do, but the source of the remedy does make it somewhat different.  If the root of a disease e.g., childhood asthma, stems directly from a history of gonorrhea, even a few generations ago, then often, only Medorrhinum will ultimately cure it and take the susceptibility away.  No other remedy will do this.

 

Part Three:  The progression.

 

The next major stage in the development of miasmatic thinking has been the introduction of other miasms.  If the three major miasms, stemming from the primary afflictions that Hahnemann spoke of – to the thematic expressions that Ortega and others described – act as a foundation, then practically speaking, the miasms of Tuberculosis and Cancer belong in a very similar category.  However, there are distinct differences between the two miasms, the most important one being that Cancer is the only miasm that does not stem from an infectious disease.  The other four all have an infectious disease or contagion principle involved in it.  However, for all intensive purposes, it conforms to all the other major criteria for a miasm, in that there is a distinct inherited disposition to it, there is a clear nosode with a profound remedy image and there is a larger pattern of physical and mental symptoms and behavior connected to it.  In other words, there is a systemic totality.  Historically, Tuberculinum was made and proven around the same time as Medorrhinum and Syphilinum and by the same prover, Swan, who conducted provings of these remedies between 1880 and 1885.  Carcinosin, on the other hand, did not having any substantive provings, most of the information coming from clinical anecdotes and observations of Donald Foubister, an English homeopath, who wrote about the remedy in his book Tutorials on Homeopathy.  However, Burnett did a self-proving of Scirrhinum around the time that Tuberculinum and the other nosodes were being used.

 

When studying tuberculosis, the two key remedies are the nosode Tuberculinum and the remedy Phosphorous.  The image of the tubercular miasm is well-known, the disease itself providing a clear image of one part of its picture, the affinity for the lungs, the breaking down of tissue and the formation of tubercules in the lungs; the chronic cough, night perspiration, emaciation and affinity for other glands in the body and also the bones.  Also, the “tubercular age” gave us the dynamic influence of the disease, affecting the romantic poets and the travelers of the world, exploring far flung places just because it was possible, endlessly optimistic and determined to experience as much as possible before burning out.  The tubercular miasm (as well as the cancer miasm) are interesting to study from the point of view of the circumstances and historical time of their ascendance.  Although there is evidence of TB’s existence for many thousands of years, its proliferation in the 19^th century of industrial cities and urban congestion and pollution is a direct reflection of the nature of the disease and miasm – a feeling of oppression, pressure, restriction with the consequent desire to escape, to travel, to get away from the imposed restrictions and limitations.  The tubercular person wants to breathe and if they can’t, they implode, like the sunken narrow chest of the classic consumptive.  In the remedy Tuberculinum, one sees these desires, the extremes of craving to travel, to move onto something new, the restlessness and then the dissatisfaction, irritability and destructiveness when they can’t have that.  The latter symptoms can look like all the other major miasmatic pictures, but the former symptoms are more unique to the tubercular miasm.

 

Phosphorous expresses the unfettered, freed up tubercular state.  Sensitive, refined, delicate, romantic, open and vulnerable, the person needing Phosphorous floats through life relatively unscathed by the vicissitudes of traumas, like the tubercular nature that in its optimism and openness moves onto the next thing.  However, in Phosphorous we see the physical burn out of the tubercular miasm, the depletion and exhaustion, the affinity for all sorts of chest conditions as well as the liver, the bones and nerves.  Phosphorous can go all the way to actual tuberculosis and complications of all chest infections, however long ago they may have occurred.  Calcarea phosphorica however, possesses much of the classic mental dissatisfaction of the tubercular state, but less of the classic physical condition, its affinity more for the joints and bones than the lungs.

 

The cancer miasm is the newest of the big five but perhaps has become the most important of all the miasms in the modern age.  We live in the age of cancer.  It is the disease we all fear and that has traumatized the modern world.  It’s causes are complex which adds to it’s complications as a homeopathic miasm.  Not all cancers are inherited miasmatic conditions.  Many are caused by modern environmental toxicities, including especially hormones, both natural and synthetic, especially the estrogens, petroleum based toxins found in the atmosphere and in pesticides etc and and increase in radiation exposure, like x-rays, nuclear exposure etc.  However, we also see a theme identified in the cancer miasm that can predispose some people to cancer and to the broader miasmatic condition.  This is clearly seen in the remedy image of Carcinosin, the nosode and also in cancer remedies such as Arsenicum album, Nitric acid and Conium.  It has been stated by Rudolph Steiner and others that there are two biological expressions: inflammation and tumor formation.  One represents the expressive outward manifestation that we see in a fever, an inflammatory process, and the other is an internalization process, one that “eats away” at itself, manifesting ultimately in tumor formation.  Therefore conditions in which there is excessive inflammation or no inflammation at all, or where there is a morbid internalization, a suppression of normal physical and mental expression, indicates the cancer miasm.

 

In other words, there is a great tension and polarity between the dynamics of expression and suppression, an actual confusion of identity on a cellular, emotional and existential level.  One of the keynotes of Carcinosin is when there is a history of domination, of oppression in which the person passively accepts this domination, often out of guilt, morbid responsibility and duty or weakness, which is then followed by periodic expressions of fever, rage, dancing, travel, romance, escape, wildness, violence etc.  After a while, the morbid internalization or suppressed emotions seek an escape valve which is then expressed in the ways described.  In any given case though,  a person may be anywhere in this continuum, which may make it harder to see the remedy.  More than any other nosode Carcinosin can look like many other remedies, sometimes all at once.  This is an aspect of the confusion prevalent in its dynamic.  In one stage its all about suppression, denial, morbid grief, something is “eating away” at the person, and the next it’s raging, wild, dancing, traveling, full of romantic ideas.  Control is another key expression here, manifest in the chronic constipation and insomnia.  They can’t let go.  In many ways, it can look similar to the tubercular miasm picture, the main distinction being that the tubercular dynamic will not let the person become so morbidly suppressed.  They will seek escape a lot earlier than in the Carcinosin picture.  However, in practice, it is not always so easy to distinguish between them.  Carcinosin, the remedy, is made from breast cancer tissue, traditionally from one woman, although a new remedy from multiple breast cancer tissue has been made.  There are other cancer remedies as well, including cancer from the stomach and Scirrhinum.  The remedy Conium is one of the great clinical remedies for cancerous conditions and represents a key aspect of the cancer miasm, which is the process of internalization and suppression of feelings, until there is a great slowing and hardness of emotional states, leading to the growth of hard cancerous tissue.  Arsenicum album, on the other hand, as well as Nitric acid expresses the morbid anxiety that can be found in the cancer miasm, the kind of intense anxiety and worry that eats away at the person.  Both remedies are very good remedies for a variety of cancers.

 

The remedy Carcinosin is now used widely, although even twenty years ago,  Vithoulkas and the Greek homeopaths as well as many in the United States rarely used it.  Its use was mainly popularized by British homeopaths, beginning with Burnett and then by Foubister in the 1960’s.

 

Two books that describe well these five main nosodes and the broader miasmatic picture are Dr. H Choudhury’s book, Indications of Miasms and Henny Heudens Mast, The Foundation of the Chronic Miasms in the Practice of Homeopathy.  Choudhury’s book is a very clear explanation of Hahnemann’s original thinking, when he spoke of  the infectious origin of miasms, preempting modern bacteriology and germ theory.  However, Choudhury also proceeds to list many of the secondary symptoms of psora as defined by Hahnemann, which for many homeopaths seems rather vague and generalized and not that helpful in general clinical practice.  There are also some rather questionable descriptions of the characteristics of the psoric state, e.g., “He is a man of hide and seek nature.  In most times the psoric patient is a dishonest man, privacy, wickedness and impurity play a good deal in him.” Also, his list of anti-psoric remedies suffers from similar confusion that Hahnemann’s and subsequent lists have.  He describes, using the source of various authors, the characteristic qualities for the other miasms, including tubercular and cancer miasms.  Some of these descriptions are consistent with commonly accepted qualities, while others are more dubious, e.g., “All the vicious individuals on earth – thieves, robbers and murderers, are the products of Sycosis.  It makes a beast out of man.” (Dr P.N. Bannerjea)  He gives an exhaustive list of the secondary symptoms of the Tuberculosis miasm, and in so doing, merges the original ideas of Hahnemann’s secondary symptoms of psora, which Hahnemann perceived as the inexorable internalization of an active disease state after suppression of the primary infection with the inherited disposition and “diathesis” of chronic disease possibilities.  This further confuses the argument between infection and diathesis presented earlier on by Dimitrialis.  The problem with giving so many symptoms of secondary symptoms of the tubercular miasm as well as secondary psora is that it takes away from understanding the main thematic dynamics of each miasm and compounds some of the more dubious symptom classifications that Hahnemann identified with the psoric miasm.

 

One of the other main ideas that Hahnemann put forward was being able to identify symptoms in a case belonging to various miasms and having to choose a remedy based on which miasm seemed more active.  For example, if there was an active psoric and sycotic influence at the same time, one would begin with a psoric remedy and then follow up with a sycotic remedy and then finish up with a psoric remedy again.  In many cases, this entailed Hahnemann beginning a case with Sulphur, perhaps alternating with Hepar sulph or Nux vomica. He may then follow with a sycotic or a syphilitic remedy if he perceived that miasm to be active.  In his time he was seeing many cases in which acute and chronic symptoms of gonorrhea and syphilis were present and therefore would have been dealing with much more graphic images of symptoms based on these miasmatic influences.  However, the difficulty of looking at cases from this mixed miasmatic perspective is that it can lead homeopaths to somewhat artificially separate individual symptoms from the collective totality and somehow numerically add up the number of symptoms attributable to each miasm.  This can miss the whole point in understanding the value of miasmatic thinking which is to identify if there is one overriding miasm present, which may help identify a remedy and or consider a nosode.  It needs to be emphasized that in many cases, knowing the remedy picture is enough.  There is no need at all to identify which miasm is present or which portion of a case is related to which miasm.

 

In Henny Heudens Mast book, she approaches cases by identifying clearly which miasm is active in any given case and recognizing the mixed miasmatic components of various remedies, which can help in perceiving which remedy is the most similar, not just based on specific symptoms, but on the dominant miasmatic and constitutional complexity of both the characteristic symptoms and the overall case.  Her main point is that if we can identify the complete miasmatic picture it will allow us to understand the case as it unfolds over time and how miasmatic layers may be revealed during treatment.  However as in many forms of systemic analysis, a miasmatic perspective may or may not help and it is always possible that it can create confusion for homeopaths that misidentify which miasm seems most prominent.  This especially can happen when individual symptoms are misidentified, which is more likely than when one is analyzing the miasmatic “gestalt” of the whole case.  Heudens Mast discusses how one can learn the symptoms of the miasms to identify them in the different remedies.  This she bases on the classifications that Ortega outlined but uses the words too little = psora, too much = sycosis and destructive = syphilitic.  Her analysis of  which symptoms belong to which miasm is interesting and perhaps would not be agreed on by different homeopaths.  It is not always that straightforward as also is  the argument about which remedy belongs to which miasm.  She identifies Nux vomica as psoric whereas other people would say it has a strong syco-syphilitic aspect.  Similarly, in the repertory, in Generalities there are rubrics for Sycosis and Syphilis but not Psora.  Heudens Mast states that remedies not in either list can generally be classified as Psoric but she does not question or critique the list of remedies in these rubrics and how questionable their miasmatic classification really is.  Therefore, her miasmatic perspective in cases, as outlined in the book, reveals both the strength and weakness of miasmastic philosophy in homeopathic prescribing.

 

One of the challenges of identifying certain themes of behavior and broader personality qualities as belonging to one or other miasms is that, as with the classifying individual symptoms, it can easily look like a broad overgeneralization in making this classification.  For example, she states that Psora likes consolation and will ask for support (based on the overriding theme of psora being weak).  However, for many people Natrum muriaticum is psoric (struggling for identity and emotional integration) which as we know does not like consolation.  Also, that most guilt is psoric, whereas for some guilt is extremely sycotic.  Also she discusses which professions and which cars a psoric person would have, which seems to be one further step removed from simply looking for the truly characteristic symptoms in any given case.  Some other aspects of her classification of characteristic symptoms of each miasm suffers from similar over generalizations e.g., “Many butchers are syphilitic” (as syphlitic people choose professions where they can use a knife; “cracks in the skin are syphilitic and can be very painful.” (many non syphilitic remedies have strong cracks e.g., Graphites.)  “Blue sclera is a tubercular symptom” (whereas it is also a symptom of the cancer miasm.)

 

However, the value of defining miasmatic themes in such a broad way is that it can give a good impression or flavor of the dynamic of each miasm and how this generalized dynamic permeates the story of a case and from this can help in the process of the type of remedy one can look for.  Clinically speaking, this is useful as if one sees a strong thread of violence in a case, whether its in dreams or in the life experience, the recognition of the depth of the experience in the case is helpful in identifying a remedy with a similar depth, in this case the syphilitic miasm.  In this way, one can see beyond mere symptoms to include a more complete analysis.

 

Interestingly, in Heuden’s Mast book, when describing the syphilitic miasm, she uses the word not to describe the disease itself which is how Hahnemann originally defined the term miasm, as described by Dimitrialis earlier.  Her description of the various miasms is in fact a description of the miasmatic susceptibility and impact of the original disease, and not the disease itself.  This conforms to the general understanding of the word miasm as its used in regular homeopathic discourse, even if it is different to Hahnemann’s original meaning.  It is however not clear whether Heudens Mast is talking of Syphilis the disease or the miasm when she states that we have all seen the Syphilitic disease is the 3^rd stage, probably without knowing it was the disease – this is when we see “dullness, an inability to express emotions, depression or physical disturbances.”  What she is describing is most likely NOT the disease syphilis but merely the miasmatic influence of the Syphilitic miasm.  Her descriptions only further confuse the difference here.  She also states that when syphilis is there, psora  is already there.  As has been discussed earlier, this is open to dispute, especially in the way that Hahnemann originally meant it when he saw each miasm (disease) as being distinct from one another, not built up out of the base of psora.  That interpretation only took real root with Kent’s interpretation of miasms.

 

Heudens Mast has taken on some of Kent’s analysis in describing the impact of Syphilis, as the mechanism of catching Syphilis is an act of will, leading to “a sense of wickedness or corruption and the desire to hide it’s evidence.”  This is very debatable.  No doubt people didn’t feel good about having Syphilis but in the early years of syphilitic outbreaks in Europe, people were alienated by mainstream society, similar to the way lepers were.  The alienation was due to the social stigma, not an inbuilt guilt and sense of wickedness.

 

One of the unique aspects of homeopathic theory, especially as it relates to miasms is the concept of suppression.  As conventional medicine, and also much of supposed holistic healing focuses on symptomatic treatment, leading mostly to suppression, the understanding that the disease is only being pushed to a deeper level is not recognized.  It is seen as a “different” disease state, not connected to the former one.  In homeopathy, of course, we draw the connection between the two, and an understanding of miasmatic susceptibility gives homeopaths an enlightened perspective on why certain diseases and mental states occur after other more superficial diseases have been suppressed.  Miasmatic theory especially allows us to recognize why certain people react in certain different ways to similar circumstances, for example, the syphilitic drunk, who becomes violent and deranged after one drink, as apposed to the psoric drunk, who merely sits in the corner becoming more befuddled but with none of the violence or wild exuberance of the syphilitic or sycotic miasm.  This aspect of miasmatic thinking is well described in Heudens Masts book, recognizing the way miasmatic influence affects symptom development after suppression of more superficial states.

 

The concept of suppression by superficial homeopathic treatment is often discussed in the book.  This is a point of debate within the profession.  Some homeopaths, Heudens Mast included, feel that homeopathy can easily suppress symptoms to a deeper level of miasmatic depth.  However, it can also be argued that in many cases, a superficial remedy may well palliate and not cure, and mostly the effect won’t last and the symptoms will return, similar to many situations in homeopathic treatment – including Hahnemann’s experience – when the remedy simply isn’t the most correct one.  It can be argued that the concept of homeopathic suppression is rather exaggerated and as a result it can lead to a more fearful relationship to prescribing.  George Vithoulkas often talks about the damaging effect of superficial homeopathic treatment, which can create confusion or suppression in a case.  However, many argue that the so-called damage created by the “incorrect” remedy is exaggerated leading to a more fearful and inhibited relationship to prescribing.   One other controversial area discussed by Heudens Mast (p. 105) is the idea that repetition of the remedy too early disturbs the original dose and that one can’t hurry the remedy any more than the stimulative effect of the original dose unless it is obviously clear that the remedy has relapsed or been antidoted.  She gives an example of a case in which the remedy, Lauroceraus, was only repeated once in four years.  For many homeopaths, the experience is that repeating a remedy once every 1-3 months – even if the case has not relapsed – further assists the case, or if it is not needed, it doesn’t interfere.  It is rarely the situation where repetition of the previous remedy that worked well interferes with the action in the case.  Either it works or does nothing.  It is very difficult to know in long term cases when the remedy has ceased its action and therefore “judicious” repetition can be an appropriate strategy.  Heudens Mast takes a very conservative perspective on this, preferring to wait for extremely long periods of time than to repeat a remedy.  The fact that this area of homeopathic strategy is debated so strongly is an interesting aspect of our homeopathic work.

 

Heudens Mast’s detailed descriptions of each miasm is a very good study of some of the most important themes for each miasm.  It is helpful for students and practitioners to read this material, along with other sources, including of course studying the materia medica of the main nosodes and complementary remedies, in order to be able to more clearly recognize the main themes of the miasms in cases.  As mentioned earlier, there can be a tendency to over generalize certain themes and also, as is found with miasmatic comparisons, the distinctions are not always that clear.  In spite of the attempts to clearly delineate the main thematic functions of each major miasm – under function, exaggeration and distortion being common words used, in practice the distinctions are not always so clear and there can be many overlaps, similar to the challenge of differentiating between nosodes in clinical practice.  When discussing the tubercular miasm Heudens Mast states that it can only exist when ALL three of the main miasms are present to some degree.  It can’t exist if only two of the miasms are present.  Similar to her position that sycosis and syphilis can only exist if psora is present, she builds a case of the tubercular miasm lying on top of the other miasms. She further states that for the cancer miasm to be present, the other four miasms must be present.  This can clearly be discussed, especially from the original perspective of the miasm as an infectious disease (cancer excepted), with each miasm having a unique signature that can be traced to the original disease and the bacterial origin of that disease.  In analyzing miasms in this way, we can make a case that each of the miasms are unique and not dependent on one another.  The tubercular can manifest in a similar way to the sycotic miasm in the symptom and behavior presentation but it is a different miasm with a different origin.  It does not depend on the existence of the other miasms.  In Heudens Mast’s opinion, there are few people who are infected with only one miasm.  Most people have at least two, which implies that they need at least two remedies to cure the person, ending with an anti-psoric remedy to address the fundamental root.  This is similar to the concept of finding a basic constitutional remedy that may lie underneath a “lesional” or “fundamental” remedy needed for the presenting symptoms.  However, many homeopaths seek the one remedy that seems to be indicated for the complete picture, and teachers present cases in which just one remedy is given.  This apparent division between the idea that there is only one remedy and more layered approach, whether miasmatically inflected or not, is another of the interesting dichotomies in homeopathic prescribing.

 

The implication that each of the miasms are built on top of one another means that if, for example, the cancer miasm is present, a remedy will be needed not only for the cancer miasm but then for at least some of the other miasms afterwards.  However, in practice, that is not seen that often.  Perhaps there is no susceptibility on the other levels and only a cancer miasm remedy is needed.  This again reflects some interesting differences in analysis of complex cases and how much emphasis is put on miasmatic classification.

 

Since these “big five” miasmatic states have been well defined and the requisite nosode used along with other complementary remedies, there has been debate about the classification of new miasms, whether they exist separately or are only another expression of one or more of these miasms.  One such possible miasm is the AIDS miasmatic disease.  AIDS erupted onto our world in the late 1970s and 1980’s.  Initially it killed many thousands of people in the United States and Europe, focusing it seemed on the gay population in major urban areas.  The whole evolution and development of AIDS is highly controversial and political.  The inability to isolate the virus and reproduce it to find a vaccine and the highly differentiated symptom complex has confounded the medical profession and society at large.  The stigma of it affecting certain parts of the population more than others – gays, prostitutes, vulnerable people with weak immune systems, like hemophiliacs requiring blood transfusions, has only created further problems in identifying characteristic behavior qualities of the virus and it’s expression.  For homeopaths, it has seemed remarkably like “syphilis revisited”, sudden, violent disease expressions, passed on through sex, leading to destructive changes and often found in cases where their has been a history of suppression of the diseases gonorrhea and syphilis.  There is no doubt some truth to this theory, based just on observing how the disease initially manifested in the west.  However, it also has a unique pattern to it, different to the primary expression of syphilis.  A study of possible causes of the virus causing AIDS is also interesting in this regard.  There is quite a lot of evidence that the virus could have been man made, stemming from contaminated vaccine material that had been incubated in monkey’s kidneys.  The simian virus contamination, crossing the animal/human barrier through vaccines has received a lot of attention, and while dismissed by mainstream medical thinkers, remains a possibility when looking at how a new disease suddenly manifested in certain elements of the population.  Heudens Mast discusses the development of AIDS as a result of the suppression of other diseases, as mentioned above, but especially gonorrhea and syphilis and when mixed with tubercular dynamic, then AIDS may be the result.  No doubt there is truth in this, but it is also important to consider the actual infectious element in this disease.  Some medical theorists (see the work of Peter Duesberg) have even disputed the fact that the virus exists at all, attributing the disease to only the consequences of a suppressed immunity due to lifestyle factors.  However, the sudden explosion of the disease does make us question that a viral factor was involved, that acted as a vector and initiator of the miasmatic susceptibility.  The man made possibility adds an interesting element to the equation here, and perhaps fits into a broader theme of the AIDS miasm.  This is discussed in Peter Fraser’s book, The AIDS Miasm, in which he identifies the qualities of a breakdown in boundaries, a confusion on all levels of personal and collective identity, a symptom of a broader global consciousness in which boundaries on personal, societal and cultural levels are broken down.  Apart from the disease AIDS, other diseases such as CJD/Alzheimers can be said to be part of this miasm, again reflecting a breakdown in boundaries (as CJD is caused from prions created by feeding livestock animal products never designed to be eaten by animals, a form of cannabilism).  In Fraser’s work, he takes the description out of the personal infectious level – as described by Hahnemann and also further than the broader miasmatic themes as described by Heudens Mast – and describes the miasm as part of a broader social, cultural, phenomenological dynamic.  In other words, the disease is a reflection of the culture changes and challenges at any given time, which often express at times of transition and stuckness.  They are symptomatic of societal change and express the energetic vibrations of a cultural consciousness.  As Fraser says, miasmatic diseases can be seen as “acute diseases of society itself”.

 

This way of understanding disease gives another perspective to our understanding of miasms, as expressed both in individual disease and the collective consciousness of society.  It is also a contrast to some extent to the perspective of Heudens Mast and other homeopaths that see the progression of miasms – psora, sycosis, syphilis, tuberculosis, cancer, aids, as expressions of a deeper degeneration and suppression, leading to ever further degradation of health and by implication moral well being.  In Fraser’s analysis, these diseases reflect the cultural challenges of the day and although the concept of miasmatic suppression has truth to it, it is not the only way to explain the advent of these diseases.  They are a reflection of a rapidly changing culture, an inexorable change in which opportunities for evolution occur at the same time as disease manifests.  In spite of ourselves, the human species is moving forward (perhaps back as well) and new situations and technologies will evolve, out of which new diseases and mental and emotional challenges will arise.  Nothing exists in a vacuum, and these “new” diseases will manifest as we are all challenged in the ever changing dynamic of evolutionary change.  This perspective adds another dimension to the otherwise depressing analysis of the degeneration of the human species through the suppression of primary expressions of various diseases.

 

The AIDS miasm conforms to most criteria of miasmatic thinking, including there being a nosode of AIDS, taken from the blood of a man with AIDS.  However, it’s use has not been verified to anything like the degree of other major nosodes and right now, a unique inherited disposition based on AIDS has not been clearly defined.  It will take another generation or two before any unique patterns may be seen.  However, given the dubious origin of the AIDS virus, it might not pass onto future generations in a similar way to other miasms, and may die out much quicker.  If one sees all disease as merely expressions of energy, then the energy that created AIDS may just go to another disease.  Right now, we are seeing the explosion of Lyme Disease, in some cases acting like neurological AIDS cases.  There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that this disease is also a man made disease, which would lead it to be identified within the AIDS miasm, connected to the breakdown in boundaries between species, in this cases the mutation of a bacteria found on ticks.  As is known, the bacteria is a spirochete, not dissimilar to the spirochete of Syphilis.

 

Recently there has been the suggestion of other miasms, based on a combination of a connection to specific disease states, mostly with a nosode attached and a characteristic set of symptoms and also remedies that fit that miasm.  Rajan Sankaran has been the main exponent of these miasms and Roger Morrison explains the qualities that Sankaran identified with these miasms.

 

1)Each remedy is assigned to a specific miasm and only one.
2) Each miasm was given extremely clear and tight defining characteristics — both physical and mental — which are readily identifiable in the homeopathic interview.
3) Each patient has only one miasm evident at any time.

 

Some of his thinking is very similar to how Hahnemann defined a miasm, which is of a disease. Hahnemann described a cholera miasm and Sankaran describes a typhoid miasm for example.  Hahenmann also described certain diseases as fixed miasms, which were the childhood diseases such as measles, mumps and chicken pox as these diseases only occurred once in a lifetime.  However, much of Sankaran’s classification is based more on a thematic dynamic than just the disease symptoms, extrapolating a more metaphorical and broader gestalt than just the symptoms connected to the disease.  His first miasm he classifies as an acute miasm, which is purely thematic, not connected to any particular disease or nosode.  He was looking at remedies such as Aconite, Belladonna and Stramonium as part of this miasm.  Interestingly, he includes Lyssin in this miasm, which Hahnemann described as a half-acute miasm, meaning that the disease of rabies has a long prodrome and then a sudden violent action.  We don’t tend to see the rabies miasm (with Lyssin as the nosode) as a broader miasm as not many people in the past survived the acute disease and its impact is much more limited and less prevalent than the other diseases.  The typhoid miasm is clearer to identify according to conventional miasmatic thinking and also has a nosode attached – typhoidinum – although it’s use is more limited to when someone has never been well since having typhoid and not so much as a chronic hereditary disposition.  So it still belongs more in an acute miasmatic influence.  The next new miasm he introduces is the ringworm miasm, with the nosode ringworm attached to it, a remedy he proved himself.  Again, its definition and use is more identified thematically than as an inherited disposition.  He posits it in between psora and sycosis.  Hahnemann identified ringworm as an expression of the psoric miasm but clinically speaking it does make sense to put it in between the two major miasms as many fungal diseases have a sycotic flavor to them.  He then introduces the malaria miasm, which could be said to be a classic Hahnemannian classification, with a clear miasmatic infectious diseases, a clear primary state and well defined secondary states if the primary condition is internalized into the body, leading to chronic problems.  This is how Hahnemann saw the venereal diseases, although Hahnemann saw malaria as part of the psoric miasm, along with most other acute diseases that would have exacerbations at intervals, becoming chronic disease states.  The other new miasm he introduces is the leprosy miasm, with its nosode being Leprominum, a remedy proven by Prakash Vakil, from India.  Hahnemann identified Leprosy as a form of pure psora,  a kind of psora unplugged, no longer leashed in but allowed to flourish on the skin, the centrifugal energy manifesting with an intensity not often seen in psora because of suppression and how disease used to manifest before it was controlled by “civilized” behavior.  This was described earlier on in this article, with the somewhat challenging concepts of the consequence of allowing leprosy to be mollified by hygiene, diet and general good living, leading it to be more easily suppressed and then leading to secondary symptoms of psora.  This has to be said to be somewhat challenging to fully accept and reflects perhaps Hahnemann’s own confusion in establishing the true causes and expressions of psora.  In modern miasmatic thinking, leprosy clearly shows aspects of the syphilitic miasm and as such Sankaran puts it in between the tubercular and syphilitic miasm.  However, even though a chronic disease condition, and one experienced through the ages, Leprosy has not become a chronic miasm with a broader inherited susceptibility as the other major miasms.  It’s image and dynamic has been somewhat split between the psoric and syphilitic miasm.  However, in studying its disease manifestation, one can get a good idea of its broader image and “gestalt” and how certain remedies can be identified with the miasm, e.g., Hura brasiliensis.

 

As mentioned earlier, one of Sankaran’s qualifications has been to identify a remedy more exclusively with a certain miasm.  While that can be done in the manner in which he classifies miasms, it is very different to the way other people classify the miasmatic classification of remedies.  Heudens Mast talks of the percentage of different miasms within certain remedies and most homeopaths understand that so-called “polycrest” remedies have qualities of more than one miasm in them.  To limit each remedy to only one miasmatic influence does seem to be an oversimplification of the whole idea of miasmatic influence.  Similarly, to state that only one miasm can be evident at any one given time contradicts some of the writings and experiences of many homeopaths.  In many cases, it can be seen how a miasmatic influence is affecting the picture that is being presented but  it may be apparent that another remedy picture, essentially belonging to a different miasm may be seen underneath.  However, it is true that usually only one miasm will be prominent and will require a specific remedy.

 

There could be said to be other miasms relating to specific diseases, with different bacterial/viral origins.  Some homeopaths have used nosodes from various diseases like Staphyloccinum, Streptococcinnum, Pneumococcinum and also the bowel nosodes, which have been part of the homeopathic materia medica for many years.  The bowel nosodes have their own picture attached to them, taken mainly from clinical observations of disease symptoms and the appearance of these bacterias in bowel flora.  The nosodes from disease bacteria are often used when a person has never been well since a particular diseases and examples a specific and occasionally useful form of prescribing.

 

However, for most of our prescribing, the use of the big five nosodes and the impact of the broader miasmatic influence dominates our use of miasmatic prescribing.  The influence of these diseases through many generations and their unique patterns found in many different symptom pictures and disease conditions makes an understanding of miasmatic theory of great significance and validates Hahnemanns’ original postulates about the origin of disease.  The fact that we have taken his thinking much further and developed broader images of the other miasms and even refuted some of his ideas of the origin of psora do not take away from his original thinking.  It is a unique and vital part of homeopathic thinking, one that in time will be revealed to the rest of medicine as a great contribution to the evolution of medical thought and disease classification.

 

The Evolution of Homeopathy

The Evolution of Homeopathy

The Evolution of Homeopathy

We have all wondered why homeopathy is not a more popular form of medicine. Even taking into consideration our own prejudices, homeopathy is one of the most effective medical therapies being practiced. From treating serious pathology and acute infectious illnesses, to the subtlest levels of psychological evolution, homeopathy has a potential answer. Therefore, why isn’t it practiced successfully on every street corner? Have we explored all the answers to this? We know the most obvious reasons – the political swing toward allopathy at the turn of the 20th century, the divisions within the homeopathic profession, the Flexner Report (in the USA) in 1910, the advent of more effective allopathic drugs, the dominance of a mechanistic view of the world – all of these are valid reasons but perhaps we can take a look at this question from another perspective.

The goal of this essay is to analyze the underlying patterns of homeopathic history in an attempt to understand our situation better. In order to see how the evolution of homeopathy over 200 years has taken place, it is useful to look outside of the field of homeopathy, to explore broader patterns of cultural, social and philosophical evolution and from this to see how this has impacted homeopathy. Nothing exists in a vacuum. So much has happened within all world cultures since Hahnemann’s time that has profoundly affected us all, including our understanding of homeopathy.

There is a polarization within homeopathy between the thread of tradition with the original thoughts and conclusions of Hahnemann and his followers, and the movement to push the boundaries of homeopathic practice, incorporating both new and old philosophies and methods. There has always been various ways of applying the Law of Similars, some more esoteric than others and this has consistently challenged the unity of the profession and some would say the very existence of homeopathy. My main purpose is to show that these various methods and philosophies are a reflection of much broader societal shifts that affect our perception and understanding of what we are doing as homeopaths. It can give us a perspective as to why Hahnemann drew the conclusions he did in his time and why there may be different conclusions drawn today. In some ways, I’m not talking about different methodologies, but different conclusions and rationalizations of what we are doing, that reflect the prevailing philosophies of the day. I am also looking at how this may help us in bringing homeopathy to a larger audience, how by looking at our own “stuff” we can help integrate homeopathy more effectively into the community. This is especially the case when exploring the areas of personal, spiritual development and how our own personal evolution can impact homeopathy at large.

One of the most original thinkers in the last 20 years has been Ken Wilbur. He has developed a map of human evolution, synthesizing the work of many thinkers and disciplines. He has been able to merge a huge amount of knowledge – from eastern religion to western spirituality, from developmental psychology, physics, sociology and politics – and to be able to write about it in an accessible way.

His goal is to create an “integrated” view of human evolution, one that includes both cultural and social evolution along with a spiritual dimension of human potential. In doing this his model of evolutionary thinking can be used to analyze and understand many issues facing our world today and to see how this knowledge can help give a more holistic understanding to the complex issues facing humanity. He acknowledges there have been many other thinkers that have developed various evolutionary models, but many he feels stay within a “flatland” or “horizontal” approach in that they don’t incorporate a “vertical” approach that acknowledges the evolution of human consciousness within a truly integrative model of evolution.

Wilbur has written extensively on these ideas in the following books: Sex, Ecology and Spirituality, A Brief History of Everything and A Theory of Everything, amongst others.
The first book is his opus in many ways, the other two being a synthesis of some of the major ideas being presented. One of the ideas he elucidates which he borrows from some modern “evolutionary” thinkers, especially Don Beck and Clare Graves, is a model of evolutionary steps, termed The Spiral of Development within which there are 8-10 stages, or “memes”. A meme is a word that has been used by various thinkers who are exploring evolutionary stages of development. It is a pattern or dynamic that constitutes a collective theme. Each of these stages pertains to a period of evolution. A color is given for each meme, although each color given does not have any real significance. The stages are as follows:

• Beige: Archaic-Instinctual. This stage is on the level of basic survival; food, warmth, water, sex etc. The key motive is survival. This stage is seen in first human societies, newborn infants, senile elderly, late-stage Alzheimer’s victims, starving masses, etc. He approximates this consists of 0.1 of the adult population of the world, with 0 percent of the power.

• Purple: Magical-Animistic. The forces at play here are magical spirits, good and bad, animistic, where ethnic tribes are formed. The spirits exist in ancestors and bond the tribe. Kinship and lineage establish political links. Although it may seem holistic, it is atomistic: “There is a name for each bend in the river but no name for the river.”
This stage is seen in belief in voodoo-like curses, blood oaths, ancient grudges, family rituals, magical ethnic beliefs and superstitions, strong in third world settings, gangs, athletic teams and corporate “tribes.” It has 10 percent of the population and 1 percent of the power.

• Red: Power Gods. First emergence of a distinct self from the tribe: powerful, impulsive, egocentric, heroic. Magical-mythic spirits, dragons, beasts, and powerful people. Archetypal gods and goddesses, powerful beings, forces to be reckoned with, both good and bad. Feudal lords protecting underlings in exchange for obedience and labor. The basis of feudal empires – power and glory etc.
Where seen: the “terrible twos”, rebellious youth, frontier mentalities, feudal kingdoms, epic heroes, James Bond villains, gang leaders, New Age narcissism, wild rock stars, Attila the Hun, Lord of the Flies. It has 20 percent of the population and 5 percent of the power.

• Blue: Mythic Order. Life has meaning, direction and purpose, with outcomes determined by an all-powerful Other or Order. This righteous order enforces a code of conduct based on absolutist and unvarying principles of “right” and “wrong”. Violating the code or rules has severe repercussions. The basis of ancient nations. Rigid social hierarchies, paternalistic; there is one right way to think about everything. Law and order; impulsivity controlled by guilt; concrete-literal and fundamentalist belief; obedience to the rule of order: strongly conventional and conformist etc.
Where seen: Puritan America, Confucian China, Dickensian England, Singapore style discipline, totalitarianism, codes of chivalry and honor, religious fundamentalism, “moral majority”, patriotism. It has 40 percent of the population and 30 percent of the power.

• Orange: Scientific Achievement. The self escapes from the herd mentality of blue, and seeks truth and meaning in individualistic terms – hypothetico-deductive, experimental, objective, mechanistic, operational, and scientific in the typical sense. The world is a rational and well-oiled machine with natural laws that can be learned, mastered and manipulated for one’s own purposes. Highly achievement oriented. The laws of science rule politics, the economy, and human events; market place alliances; basis of corporate states.
Where seen: The Enlightenment, Wall St, The Cold War, emerging middle classes around the world, cosmetic industry, trophy hunting, colonialism, materialism, secular humanism, liberal self-interest. It has 30 percent of the population and 50 percent of the power.

• Green: The Sensitive Self. Communitarian, human bonding, ecological sensitivity, networking. Care for the planet, against hierarchy, emphasis on dialogue, relationships. Basis of value communities. Importance for consensus, reconciliation, human potential, spiritual concerns, egalitarianism, pluralistic relativism, subjective, nonlinear thinking etc.
Where seen: deep ecology, postmodernism, humanistic psychology, liberation theology, cooperative enquiry, Greenpeace, animal rights, ecofeminism, post-colonialism, politically correct behavior, human rights issues, Foucault/Derrida influenced, diversity movements. It has 10 percent of the population and 15 percent of the power.

Wilbur states that after the green meme, human consciousness is poised for a quantum leap into “second-tier thinking”. At this point, the possibility of thinking both vertically and horizontally using both hierarchies and heterarchies (both ranking and horizontally). He states that one can, for the first time, vividly grasp the entire spectrum of interior development and thus see that each level, each meme, each wave is crucially important for the health of the overall spiral, instead of seeing each layer or meme separately, which is the condition while still in first-tier thinking.

Each wave transcends and includes its predecessor. This can be seen from a basic microbiological level – a cell transcends but includes molecules, which transcend but include atoms. Just so, each wave of existence is a fundamental ingredient of all subsequent waves, and thus each is to be cherished and embraced. Each wave can be activated when necessary. It is not a linear model that once left is never to be returned. Depending on circumstances the dynamics of one model may be more appropriate than another. Wilbur then makes a very important point. “But what none of the first tier memes can do, on their own, is fully appreciate the existence of the other memes. Each of the first tier memes thinks that its worldview is the correct or best perspective. It reacts negatively if challenged, using its own tools whenever it is threatened.” He states that with 2nd tier consciousness, there is an appreciation of the necessary roles all the various memes. Even the green meme that seeks to be inclusive and pluralistic does not have a fully integrated and holistic view; it is still putting the pieces together. This is important as 2nd tier thinking prevents seeing each meme in a judgmental hierarchical way but acknowledges the importance of all of them. One other important point to emphasize is that within any system of thinking, all the different memes may be evident at different times and that it is important that each meme can be expressed as a particular system is evolving. Wilbur then describes the next two waves that are 2nd tier levels of consciousness.

Yellow: Integrative. Life is a kaleidoscope of natural hierarchies or holarchies, systems and forms. Flexibility, spontaneity and functionality have the highest priority. Differences and pluralities can be integrated into interdependent, natural flows. Egalitarianism is complemented with natural degrees of ranking and excellence. Knowledge and competency supercedes power, status, or group sensitivity. The prevailing world order is the result of the existence of different levels of reality (memes) and the inevitable patterns of movement up and down the dynamic spiral. It has I percent of the population and 5 percent of the power.

Turquoise: Holistic. Universal holistic systems, holons/waves of integrative energies; unites feeling with knowledge; multiple levels interwoven into one conscious system. Universal order, but in a living, conscious fashion, not based on external rules (blue) or group bonds (green). A “grand unification” is possible, in theory and in actuality. Sometimes involves the emergence of a new spirituality as a meshwork of all existence. Turquoise thinking uses the entire spiral; sees multiple levels of interaction; detects harmonics, the mystical forces, and the pervasive flow-states that permeate any organization. It has 0.1 percent of the population, 1 percent of the power.

Wilbur states that currently second-tier consciousness is relatively rare because it is now the “leading edge” of collective human evolution. In fact, the very premise of this level of consciousness as a possible reality for more than a handful of humans can be questioned. In the annals of history, it can be argued that we are nowhere nearer this stage than say 5,000 years ago, bringing into question the very structure of these hierarchies. According to Wilbur and others, second-tier thinking has to emerge in the face of much resistance from first-tier thinking. In fact, a version of the postmodern green meme, with its pluralism and relativism has actively fought the emergence of more integrative and holistic thinking. Yet, without second-tier thinking, humanity is destined to remain victim of a global “autoimmune disease” where various memes turn on each other in an attempt to establish supremacy. This is why so many arguments are not really a matter of the better objective evidence, but of the subjective level of those arguing. No amount of orange scientific evidence will convince blue mythic believers; no amount of green bonding will impress orange aggression etc. Scientific materialism (orange) is aggressively reductionistic toward second-tier constructs, attempting to reduce all interior stages to objective neuronal fireworks. (Doesn’t that relate to our experience trying to validate homeopathy?). Green accuses second-tier consciousness of being authoritarian, rigidly hierarchical and patriarchal. Green has been in charge of cultural studies for the past three decades and although it has embraced a more pluralistic, inclusive and holistic-ish agenda, it still resists the movement toward a more holistic, integral consciousness. It essentially embraces “subjectivism” where the domain of truth lies within individual personal experience – “I have my truth and you have yours”. Wilbur quotes one of the modern “integral” theorists Clare Graves as saying “This system sees the world relativistically. Thinking shows a radical, almost compulsive emphasis on seeing everything from a relativistic, subjective frame of reference.” In academia, this has been the dominant school of thought, influenced by deconstructionist thinkers such as Foucault and Derrida.

One of the strongest points Wilbur makes of the downside of the green meme is the tendency to narcissism, which he terms “Boomeritis.” He feels this condition has seeped into the popular culture to a large degree and instead of an evolutionary cycle toward less self-interest and “declining egotism” which he sees as an evolutionary expression, narcissism creates more self-interest and pathological egocentricity. Much of what is seen in popular culture is affected by this dynamic today. A good example is the obsession of the personalities of politicians and the cultic adoration of pop singers and actors.

During times of transition from one meme to another, there is always potential for both growth and a negative backlash due to the insecurities and threats that are perceived by the dominant powers of the time. This is constantly happening throughout the world, both on a planetary level as well as a multitude of smaller levels, from an individual to a nation. One could make the argument that the current regime in the United States represents a coalition of blue and orange meme power, insisting on its supremacy in the threat of a more global, green development where the old political and economic hierarchies are challenged. This is what makes this time so challenging. Some political analysts support this dominance though based on the premise that a breakdown in order will only lead to a regressive tribalism away from the stability of nation states. However, this analysis does not include a truly holistic paradigm where the internal “spiritual” development of people needs to be included in the evolutionary potential of a shift in old power structures.

The question for homeopathy is how can we analyze the history of homeopathy by using this model. This can be done by looking at the overall evolution of homeopathy and how different aspects of homeopathy reflect different memes or stages. The following analysis is based on the premise that within homeopathy is the potential for a truly holistic “turquoise” expression of consciousness. The fact that homeopathy works according to clear principles and that recognizes a holistic paradigm of reality using the concept of the “vital force” (energetic consciousness) lays the foundation for 2nd tier expression of a truly holistic view. The expression of the homeopathic law is a confirmation of a holistic reality. It is proof of the connection of all phenomena on an energetic level, and that as homeopaths we are actively participating in this conscious process. This holistic view is one reason why homeopathy has not gained the level of respect and recognition that it merits so far. The implications are too radical. Therefore it is not our time yet, but we should work to develop all the myriad parts of the homeopathic profession to the point that its expression on all levels reflects this level of consciousness and potential. This requires the development both within the system of homeopathy itself and the level of individual consciousness that we all bring to our work.

Hahnemann was born at a time when the blue meme was in full swing. The age of enlightenment had begun, with the orange meme appearing on the horizon, but the forces of religious, moral and cultural absolutism were still in charge. There is one right way and one wrong way to think about everything. There are fixed laws and order. Obedience is maintained through guilt, it is strongly conventional and conformist. As mentioned earlier, this meme is seen in Puritan America, Dickensian England as well as totalitarian states. So, although Hahnemann created the system of homeopathy with its green-yellow-turquoise potential, his own dominant influences and references of understanding were that of the blue meme. One can see this in his own writing, in which there is no deviance from the true path, in which the all seeing provider (God) is recognized and which maintains order at all times. I make a distinction here between the philosophical conclusions that Hahnemann made in his writings from the basic principles that he established. Hahnemann’s expression and experience of homeopathy was affected by the time in which he lived, one dominated by the “blue” order of things. In this time, there is an absolute view, which seems holistic, as it expresses itself in a God or an order that transcends the individual, but it is still within a horizontal and strictly hierarchical model. Kent further expressed this thinking, and also confirmed the qualities of guilt and sin into the equation (“Man is little better than a moral leper”), stalwarts of blue meme thinking. However, what Hahnemann achieved, based on both blue and orange thinking was to establish a clear paradigm of understanding that defines homeopathic practice. The principles and guidelines he established have stood the test of time and remain as true today as they were then. However, what has changed since then is the language that attempts to explain and integrate the practice of homeopathy into changing frameworks of reference. Also, in attempting to define the boundaries of homeopathy, the profession has been going through its own internal struggles that reflect both individual perspectives and the larger definitions of homeopathic practice.

One of the challenges of homeopathy has been the years of the orange meme, one that homeopathy found hard for any expression. As homeopathy has embraced more the realm of subjective experience (individualization and the role of phenomenological experience) and had its legacy in the thinking of the blue meme, it found it difficult to express the dynamics of the orange meme, and all attempts to validate homeopathy by orange meme methods (double-blind controlled “scientific” trials) have had little impact. One of the ways that homeopathy has attempted to define itself by orange meme methodology can be found in some of the approaches of the “French” school of thinking, which has sought to establish a more objective method of application of the homeopathic law, paying more attention to the symptoms of overt pathology and disease categories. This philosophical and clinical polarization between the subjective and objective aspects of homeopathic practice lie at the root of much of the tension within homeopathy today, but which do reflect legitimate positions on the application of the homeopathic law.

The development of green meme thinking in the last 30 years has coincided with a renaissance in homeopathy, both inside and outside of the medical profession. Many of the new generation of homeopaths come from a green meme generation – politically progressive, holistic thinking, vegetarian, interested in eastern philosophy etc. This is why at homeopathic conferences there is often an interesting mix of traditional “conservative” people representing blue meme thinking and then the progressive liberal types representing green meme thinking. You don’t see too many “suits” of the orange meme. The commonality between the two memes is the interest in a more spiritual perspective, one that has obvious holistic second-tier implications. Within each meme is the possibility of a movement toward a holistic paradigm but it is constricted within the boundaries of each meme. The blue meme’s holism is that of a hierarchical authority, be it in God or a strong authority figure. All others are subordinate to this authority. In the green meme, the holism is more a pluralistic acceptance of different ways of thinking and experiencing, which in homeopathy is seen in the various methods of homeopathic thinking and analysis and moving away from the so-called traditional conclusions.

There is currently a big movement in homeopathic thinking inspired by green meme dynamics. Much of the current innovation from original thinkers expresses more “subjective” forms of analysis – for example, looking for knowledge of remedy pictures outside of provings, although they would say it is just as objective, merely another method. In so doing, it challenges some of the more traditional tenets and foundations of homeopathy. This expression has then led to a backlash from the “traditionalists” who pay homage to the traditional values and feel that the subjective “interpretations” of some of these homeopaths compromise and betray the “truth” of homeopathy as defined by Hahnemann and the “Masters”.

Using Wilbur’s analysis, one can see how this can happen and how it is part of the evolution of homeopathy as seen as part of a broader social, cultural and philosophical evolution within society as a whole. It is not an isolated phenomenon within homeopathy. Also, it is then obvious that both sides have valid points; there is not just one right way. However, the traditionalists tend to express themselves in more absolute ways – consistent with this meme – and are more condemning of the new thinkers, who they feel betray the fundamental tenets of homeopathy. They evoke the spirit of Hahnemann to emphasize their point. The new thinkers tend to be more inclusive, avoid condemnation and take the position of being more accepting, even if they are not.

One of the risks of the new green meme homeopathy is that it can become too subjective, where the analysis becomes the domain of just a few people who may seem to be extremely innovative, but where it is very difficult for this thinking to be translated to a broader application. The quest for continuing innovation and uniqueness may push the boundaries of homeopathic thinking, but at a price of becoming overly interpretative. The original quest for objectivity and scientific rigor, which in a way expressed homeopaths desire for recognition within the orange meme thinking, may seem to be threatened by models of thinking that rely on more anecdotal, metaphorical forms of analysis.
If new thinkers take a position in always seeking to think outside the old paradigms then there is a risk of taking a fixed position that reflects another form of prejudice, no different from the one they are challenging. As Wilbur stated earlier, the development of new ways of thinking and new memes tends to happen by challenging that which preceded it and not recognizing the evolutionary cycle that they are part of. Correspondingly, those that seek to establish a strict hierarchy of homeopathic influence, always seeking refuge in an apparent “halcyon” time of homeopathy, diminish the significance and importance of homeopathic evolution as part of a broader societal evolution.

Based on this analysis, it is important to recognize and be faithful to the traditional forms of thinking and also be open to new ways of understanding that reflect the new memes, which is reflected in new remedies and new methods of analysis and understanding. Even the movement toward understanding remedy patterns as part of families and systems is but one more expression of the influence of the green meme thinking that is looking for a more inclusive interpretation of homeopathic thinking and its holistic implications. It is an attempt to apply homeopathic thinking in the changing consciousness of the planet. As mentioned before, it is not an isolated phenomenon.

The concept of “holism” is central to homeopathic philosophy, yet we can see how different the interpretation of holism has been through the life of homeopathy. In Hahnemann’s and Kent’s days, the holistic paradigm was couched in terms of religiosity, God and morality. The fact of remedies working according to an immaterial force was explained in traditional, if somewhat esoteric terms, but still consistent with the thinking of the day. Today, holism is defined in more green, ecological and pantheistic language, seeing the symbolism between the consciousness of nature and man as expressions of a larger whole that recognizes the connectedness of all things. Writers such as Fritof Capra with his “Web of Life” and Rupert Sheldrake with his “Morphogenetic Fields” express similar thinking as that expressed by some modern homeopaths, looking at “field patterns” of connections between all things. Joseph Chiltern Pearce in his book The Biology of Transcendence describes many aspects of thinking using the concepts of fields. “Use of the word field indicates a habit of our mind to group disparate events, to create from them some unity, a mental category, a taxonomy that lifts the apparent chaos of nature in the order of our thinking.” “A field is a kind of universal for its particular category of phenomenon, and the answers or responses drawn from a field are the specifics or diversity of that universal.” Some homeopaths even evoke more shamanistic images, evoking the spirit of the purple meme, with its magical-animistic imagery. This is the world where magic spirits, ancestral powers, ethnic tribe etc hold sway. As Wilbur states though, it may sound holistic but is usually atomistic. However, there is a more subjective holism within each meme and this is mirrored somewhat in homeopaths evoking a more shamanistic image of homeopathy. Wilbur states though that a truly integrative holism only occurs in 2nd tier memes, which are distinct from the relative holism of the other memes, even the green one. The challenge for homeopathy is to elucidate and move toward this vision, and not get stuck in disputes and analyses that are limiting to this vision.

The premise for this discussion is the conclusion that within the practice of homeopathy is the potential of a truly integrative model of healing – a “new model of healing” – one that expresses and synthesizes the scientific and artistic parts of the homeopathic system. In giving the energy pattern of a substance found in nature to resonate with the energy pattern or consciousness of a human being in and of itself expresses the fact of connection, of oneness, of a universal consciousness that clearly examples a unified reality of all things. The whole universe is one conscious whole, with infinite threads of relationship, susceptibility and interaction that create a dynamic, throbbing expression of life. By this equation, all things have a level of consciousness, from a rock at the beach to each human being and to the brightest star in the sky. Homeopathic action is simply the way in which we use the Law of Similars to match these energy patterns together.

The Law of Similars, being a law, necessarily stands alone, outside all our methods, rationalizations and explanations. It is not unique to homeopathic thinking, but exists as a phenomenological reality. Hahnemann elucidated and systematized the fact that this law can be utilized as a healing force. How we find our own way to utilize the Law of Similars is part of the interesting debate today within homeopathy.

Some modern thinkers increasingly understand this holistic concept. In the field of medicine, one of those thinkers is Larry Dossey, well known as the Editor of Alternative Therapies, the peer review magazine for Alternative and Complementary Medicine. In one of his latest books called Reinventing Medicine, he discusses the concept of the non-local mind, with its manifestation as the power of the mind to heal from a distance. He is looking at testing this idea on patients with cancer and heart disease and attempting to verify the effects scientifically. Here, we have yellow-turquoise meme thinking bridging with orange meme scientific verification. Dossey has been influenced by Wilbur’s thinking as have other progressive thinkers in the medical field. One irony of this development is that quite a few of these people seem to skip over homeopathy, not realizing the philosophical implications of homeopathy. Partly this is because of its mixed-meme metaphors, and its apparent similarities to conventional medicine – “giving a pill for an ill.” One of the challenges of homeopathy therefore is to reconcile its historical roots with its philosophical implications and to find its place as an integrative holistic system of healing.

Physics has been leaning heavily into the direction of a holistic paradigm for some time, elucidated by thinkers such as David Bohm in his book “Wholeness and the Implicate Order” and Michael Talbot in “The Holographic Universe.”

One other factor in this analysis is the role of individual teachers within homeopathy. There has always been a lineage in homeopathy, the influence of individual teachers being paramount in homeopathy’s evolution. The shadow of Hahnemann is still very strong but in some ways perhaps hovers over the system of homeopathy like a rain cloud as much as it does a beacon of light in the darkness of scientific reductionism. To elucidate this, one of the challenges of homeopathy has been establishing itself as an objective system of healing that is greater than the sum of its parts, or even the sum of its great teachers. The continuing dependence on individual teachers and at times the cult like adoration given to them can act to subsume a more integrated view of homeopathy as an objective system of healing. This tendency has been there since the time of Hahnemann, and although may express itself differently today, still reveals a unique dynamic within homeopathy. It could be argued that homeopathy will truly evolve when the significance of individual teachers is lessened and there is a greater confidence in the system of homeopathy itself

Various teachers within homeopathy will continue to have a unique role to play, in attempting to influence the evolution of homeopathy. However, the tendency for a cultic following to take over the process, an issue stretching all the way back to Hahnemann, may become less over time. This is easier said than done. Many homeopaths are still insecure in their professional and social position and therefore look for authority figures to give necessary confidence. If the motives of teachers is for their own ego gratification, then their impact will be mixed given the integrative paradigm of Wilbur, as the ultimate goal of a yellow-turquoise transition is a movement toward less egocentricity, or a deep recognition of being part of a greater whole.

This is also the case and challenge for homeopathic practitioners. If we accept Wilbur’s premise that a 2nd tier evolution is predicated on a more spiritual, less egotistical consciousness, then all homeopaths, teachers or not, have to be willing to question their motives and ego attachments. We all have to embark on the journey of self-knowledge and realize that being a healer can be a position of power and authority, a position easily corrupted by an unhealthy ego attachment. However, in 2nd tier thinking, homeopathy itself is limited by our collective inability to rise above the limits of egocentricity and self-delusion. There is a growing awareness of the need for all of us as homeopaths to “know thyself” and accept the spiritual implications of our actions and role as homeopaths. This has obvious implications for our ability to perceive what needs to be cured in a patient and depths of perception necessary to heal people to the deepest levels.

This analysis can be challenged when looking at the reality of our lives. It is definitely possible to be an excellent practitioner and at the same time have some serious delusions about oneself. Being rather egotistical doesn’t seem to get in the way of finding the correct remedy and being a sensitive, astute practitioner. However, if there is a movement toward a 2nd tier reality, then the onus our own spiritual evolution does become more significant.

Therefore, the current challenge is to move toward a new expression of holism and integration within homeopathic practice. As we challenge old ways of understanding and have moved toward more subjective thinking and innovation, we will have to move beyond this again to a more complete and new objective understanding of homeopathic practice. This will involve a movement through the more subjective, individualistic expression of homeopathic thinking (green meme) to a holistic understanding of objectivity, one which includes the individual interpretation and experience but sees it as part of a larger truly holistic paradigm. This will be seen in the consulting room where the recognition of the uniqueness of the moment and the interaction between patient and homeopath will be an expression of both the unique “subjective” experience of that situation and the objective reality and “truth” of homeopathy. In other words our ability to perceive what is true will grow and we will be able to rely more on pure experience and not on any fixed theory or ideas. This may take time as the evolution of homeopathy moves through the more subjective green meme influence, but the goal is to understand how we are moving toward an integrated expression of homeopathy, from the dynamics of the consultation to the choice of the remedy and to the changing consciousness and understanding of both patient and healer.

This developing holistic view can be seen from another model that Wilbur has created, a four-quadrant model in which a multidimensional kosmos consists entirely of sentient beings, or “holons”, which spans from atoms to amoebas to every human being. All holons can be perceived from at least four fundamental perspectives.

Individual

Subjective objective
“I” “It”

Interior Exterior
Cultural Social
“We” “Its”

Collective

The upper left quadrant represents the reality of the subjective “I”, the interior reality of the individual. This connects to the realm of the sensation in the patient, the realm of mentals and generalities so important in homeopathy. This is the realm so ignored by allopathic medicine and science in general. Opposite this in the upper right quadrant is the view of the holon from an exterior or objective point of view. This is described as an “it” and is the realm of the objective phenomenon in disease, characterized more as specific symptoms, disease labels, and also the objectification of the internal sensation. This area is more the domain of allopathic protocol but also of homeopathy as it connects to the whole person and expresses part of the whole picture.
The lower left quadrant represents a collective of “holons” as a “We” or “intersubjective” society. This reflects the broader “fields” in which all of us exist and relate to the interdynamic influences that affect our thoughts, ideas and present realities. It is an expression of the interplay between the inner consciousness of the individual with that of the broader family and culture in which we belong. In homeopathy, this can be understood by looking at the sphere of influence of an individual’s life, the dynamics that may exist in our biological family or their work environment, the inherited miasms that affect physical and psychological realities and the broader cultural conditioning that influences all of our individual lives. The acceptance of this as part of the homeopathic picture can be very important in seeing an individual person as part of a larger
”gestalt”, one which both reflects and expresses the internal “consciousness” of each individual.
The lower right quadrant represents a collective viewed from the outside, as an “Its” or interobjective society. This is less pertinent for homeopathic analysis, more in the realm of sociology and perhaps forms of psychology, but it is the social expression of the cultural dynamics that connect us. As it is part of the whole, it still expresses the consciousness of the individual and the environment in which we all live. It is all part of the holistic paradigm.
In homeopathy, our quest is to explore all these areas as a way of gaining the most complete understanding of the individual. We do not live in isolation, and in seeking a broad and deep view of an individual’s life and the challenges that have impacted his/her health, we need to look at all the quadrants to make the correct analysis.
This way of thinking is essential for any truly integral view of reality according to Wilbur.

One other dimension to the changing consciousness within homeopathy is how it may change a homeopath’s perception of what needs to be cured and the understanding of how remedies may fit more precisely. As the consciousness of humanity has changed in the last 150 years, the symptoms and disease patterns also have changed, reflecting the new challenges we are all facing. This is more likely in modern urban areas than in rural areas where life has not changed so much and is more manifest in mental and emotional symptoms, which have been the focus of much modern thinking. As homeopaths we recognize that we are connected to the patients we treat. We are not just observers, separated from our patients by a glass wall but share in the shifting patterns of consciousness. As such we are perceiving new dimensions to our understanding and looking toward both new remedies and more refined understanding of existing ones. This is one reason why even veteran prescribers are challenging their own assumptions and why the practice of homeopathy is constantly evolving. Once we stop challenging ourselves, then we are denying that life is evolving and that as homeopaths we are part of this evolution. So, although there is a valid argument that fundamentally nothing has changed in human consciousness and that the same remedies are used throughout the world and in different cultures, an equally strong argument can be made that shifts of consciousness continue to occur, reflecting the fact that life is constantly changing, and is demanding new things from all of us. As we know, symptoms and disease patterns reflect our inability to adapt to these changes, which may require new remedies or new ways of perception to address these situations and to help facilitate further evolution.

The argument of the validity of using any other basis of knowledge outside of legitimate provings for the homeopathic prescription will perhaps become less relevant. Arguments can be made on both sides that both provings and anecdotal/ metaphorical bases of remedy justification are both fraught with interpretation and lack “scientific” rigor. What will become more significant is the investigation of whether it is working in the light of “pure experience.” Pure experience is the objective reality of homeopathic action, one that will have to confirmed through the integrity, honesty and objectivity of the homeopath. The goal therefore is the integration of both the rational and empirical threads of homeopathic philosophy and practice, or the subjective and objective dynamics of our experience. This puts that much greater onus on the homeopath to pursue Truth for its own sake and not for his/her own edification, Truth being an expression of Hahnemann’s most important statement, the first aphorism of the organon.

Therefore, using Wilbur’s and other thinker’s paradigms of evolutionary theory, with the goal toward a truly holistic, integrative practice, this can act as a focus for the homeopathic profession as it moves in this direction. Understanding that homeopathy is just one part of this evolutionary process can help us see our situation in a much larger context. We need to look outside of our own situation for reference. This can happen when all of us who practice homeopathy begin to express a greater understanding of the fact of a holistic interconnected universe. This has to happen on both an individual and collective level. However, an understanding of an integrative practice will allow us to recognize the interconnectedness between the many facets of homeopathic evolution, both individually and collectively and that as individuals we have a opportunity to express this in both our professional and personal lives.