From time to time I come in contact with a person or a book wildly enthusiastic about a non-Hahnemannian miasm theory and a prescribing method tied to such a theory, and I do not like the experience.
I have written editorially on this before and some readers will doubtlessly roll their eyes and say, “Here he goes again . . .” - and they would be right, it is the same story, and I am very likley to declaim my feelings again in the future, too, because it is an issue on which I feel very strongly.
In this Homœopathica is quite a long article by the brilliant French homœopath Jacques Hui Bon Hoa (unfortunately now dead) on his experiences in successfully treating people with running noses probably associated with allergy like hayfever. Does he consider which miasm is involved when working to find an effective prescription? He does not. Would he have obtained even better results if he had analysed each case for miasms? Definitely not, I say.
The three chronic miasms described by Hahnemann are simply the never-well-since syndrome following syphilis, genital warts (sycotic miasm) and skin complaints (psoric miasm) and what may have been harmful methods of treatment applied to these very real medical conditions. The idea was not wholly original to Hahnemann; similar concepts were common in his day.
Later miasmatologists have either failed to understand Hahnemann, or have chosen to use his terms as labels to give unwarranted endorsement of totally different concepts of their own devising. The most common form this takes is to hold that syphilis (the miasm) is a negative, breaking-down, erosive energy; sycosis is a positive, stimulating, growth-promoting energy; and psora is a static, do-nothing, fail-to-act-appropriately energy.
This is not Hahnemann’s idea at all, though thousands of people graduating from homœopathic courses will have been so misinformed they will believe it is so. The origins of these non-Hahnemannian concepts are hard to trace, but similar ideas are found in some Eastern medical systems; for example the Samkhya philosophical school which underpins ayurvedic medicine has its triguna theory, and Tibetan medicine has desire, aversion and bewilderment as the progenitors of disease.
Now to return to Hui Bon Hoa’s rhinitis study. To which miasmatic category does rhinitis belong? There is a discharge, often stopping running freely and becoming obstructive at night, sometimes there is ulceration, sometimes it is accompanied by hypertrophied tissue. Which of these phenomena whould be considered paramount? If several are identified, in which order should they be treated?
I say maism theory does not matter the tiniest bit when selecting a remedy. The core of homœopathic method is the strategy of matching the totality of the patient’s meaningful present symptoms, or the cause of these symptoms, with a remedy picture established by provings or based on sound knowledge of the medicinal substance’s action in crude form.This is easily described, often hard to apply; but it gets results with greater success than being side-tracked by consideration of fanciful miasmatic analysis.
I will even go so far as to challenge anyone to produce a case in which a successful cure was made using a remedy which could not have been found by following the traditional, classical, method, but by following a modern miasm theory. A new book on treating animals with homœopathy has the assertion, “Identifying which miasm predominates in a patient can also help to reduce the number of possible remedies in a case. Using Hahnemann’s original three miasms alone will reduce the remedy shortlist correspondingly.”
This is pernicious poppycock of course, demonstrating appalling ignorance of Hahnemann’s chronic disease theory, and likely to lead to poor choices of remedies.
Bruce Barwell