Miasms: An Introduction

Hahnemann stated that the cause of all chronic disease regardless of name and variety is the underlying miasm. As a result, his conclusion, written in 'chronic diseases', was that a remedy based on the totality of symptoms as well as the underlying miasm should always be the remedy of choice. While this directive is accepted as truth, it is not always put into clinical practice.

Often practitioners will prescribe a series of remedies, one for the similimum and one for the miasm. Sometimes an anti-miasmatic remedy is given as an inter-current while at other times it is given to close a case. In some cases an anti-miasmatic remedy is even given at the beginning of a case, to theoretically remove a miasm before moving on to treat the disease. However, Hahnemann never indicated that the treatment of disease and the treatment of miasms were two separate issues and he did not state they are two separate entities. It is true that he believes one - the chronic disease, comes from the other - the chronic miasm, but this is a flow on effect and not two separate life forces.

The miasms are our inherited strengths and weaknesses, the weak links in the chain that like all weak links, require extra attention and energy. When we have enough to supply the extra energy needed by these weak links, we are free from signs and symptoms but if we do not, aches and pains begin and will turn into pathology if the energy supply is not remedied quickly. To see miasms as separate and distinct from disease is to miss the point, as chronic disease is the result of the miasm. This means we need an encompassing remedy not a separate one. An encompassing remedy is one that includes the miasm as well as the totality of signs and symptoms.

Hahnemann of course was quite familiar with totality. His treatment of acute disease saved the lives of thousands of people during the epidemics of his time, and yet he states quite clearly in 'chronic diseases' that totality alone is not sufficient to treat chronic disease. The remedy selected must include the miasm as well as the totality - they are not two distinct prescriptions.

Over time, other authors like Kent, Allen and Roberts added to our knowledge and understanding of miasms until now, our contemporary model is as much about motion as it is about disease. By the end of Hahnemann's contribution, the miasms had been divided into three distinct groups; psora, sycosis and syphilis, created by infection and made systemic by medical mismanagement. Although by Hahnemann's definition psora was by far the most dominant and destructive, this interpretation had changed slightly by the time it came to Roberts.

As well as pathology, contemporary miasms are described by action and force. Psora pushes outward toward the skin, while sycosis moves in a circular motion to imprison invaders and toxins. Syphilis is inward and destructive, hitting the bones and nervous system because they are deep.

These motions and forces are vital in the understanding of the miasms because they break from the microbial model. Understanding miasms as forces shifts the paradigm from acquired infection, to infection response. In this manner, the emphasis switches from pathological outcomes or ultimates as Kent called them, to how the immune system manages and responds to disease and stress.

Rather than mismanaged leprosy, psora is now defined by an immune response that pushes disease to the circumference in a centrifugal manner. In the same way, sycosis imprisons disease into specific areas to ward off systemic infection. While syphilis is characterised by a defensive immune response that conserves and limits.

While Allen and Roberts stop at this point and do not refer to miasms as immune responses, much can be gained by doing so. It is true that both these authors characterise the miasms by force and motion, but they attribute this motion to the nature and quality of the infection itself. However if we look at it from a different point of view, that is, as the action of the immune system rather than the nature of the microbe, a completely new picture emerges.

Firstly it helps explain why the miasms are attributable to chronic disease rather than both acute and chronic. Hahnemann already was a master of the similimum and yet acute prescribing methods alone could not be used in chronic disease and a new approach and formula had to be developed. My belief is that acute disease is an external invasion or infection, while chronic disease is an internal immune response that has become dysfunctional. This means miasms are responses to infection but not an infection itself. In short, they are the type of immune system we inherit.

This brings miasms in line with contemporary understanding regarding motion and the forces of nature. Our universe is three dimensional because of the forces that drive it. Up down and around are the only movements energy can make and they come together to create time, space and matter.

Hahnemann, being an observer of nature saw these forces at work. Psora is outward motion, sycosis is circular motion and syphilis is inward motion. This means psora is an attacking or offensive immune response, sycosis is a fixing and imprisoning immune response and syphilis is a defensive and conserving immune response.

Understanding miasms in this light explains the lack of infection in chronic disease and creates a homoeopathic model based on individual balance. It emphasizes the need to work with the body and to see our medicines as enhancers of health rather than killers of infection.

This article was first published in Homeopathic Heritage in June 2007 and is printed in Homeopathic Horizon with permission from VCCH. For more information about Homœopathic Facial Analysis (HFA) please see the Victorian College of Classical Homœopathy website www.vcch.org