By Roger Morrison
Miasm is staging a comeback. After nearly sinking into oblivion, Hahnemann’s
concept is receiving tremendous attention in many locations. Harry van der Zee
published his, Miasms during Labor describing the miasms in terms of
Grof’s psychological insights. Jeremy Sherr recently published his scholarly
book, Dynamic Materia Medica: A Study of the Syphilitic Miasm. Rudolph
Ballentine’s new book, Radical Healing deals mainly with miasm. And Rajan
Sankaran has been slowly evolving his concept of miasm for the past 10 or more
years. Why this sudden rebirth of interest in the concept that Hahnemann
proposed 175 years ago?
A Little History
Hahnemann published Chronic Diseases in 1828, bringing to the world his
theory of miasm. Hahnemann had been grappling with the question of the frequent
failure of homeopathy in chronic conditions. He writes, “Why, then, cannot this
vital force, efficiently affected through Homeopathic medicine, produce any true
and lasting recovery in these chronic maladies even with the aid of the
Homeopathic remedies which best cover their present symptoms…?” (Chronic
Diseases) In other words, Hahnemann was searching for the reason that chronic
cases relapsed after benefiting from homeopathic treatment. He says he began to
consider this problem in depth from 1817 or 1817 and after many years of thought
and effort he came to the discovery of miasm, “To discover this still-lacking
keystone and thus the means of entirely obliterating the ancient chronic
diseases, I have striven night and day, for the last four years, and by
thousands of trials and experiences as well as by uninterrupted meditation I
have at last attained my object. Of this invaluable discovery, of which the
worth to mankind exceeds all else that has ever been discovered by me, and
without which all existent Homeopathy remains defective or imperfect, none of my
pupils as yet know anything.” (Letter to Baumgartner) He felt he had unlocked a
great truth. Eventually in 1827 he revealed his theory to Stapf and Gross – his
two closest students.
Hahnemann had a special understanding of the word miasm. Miasm is understood to
be a derangement of the vital force that predates and is more fundamental than
the current illness the patient suffers from. The job of the physician is to try
to understand the whole of the true disease inside the patient – not just its
current manifestation. To do so he must “find out as far as possible the whole
extent of all the accidents and symptoms belonging to the unknown primitive
Hahnemann felt that there were three of these primitive maladies. He calls these
miasms psora, sycosis and syphilis. Of these three, he concluded that psora was
the most fundamental. “The monstrous chronic miasm of psora is immeasurably more
widespread, and consequently more significant….” (Chronic Diseases)
Hahnemann believed that the miasms were both contagious and hereditary.
Especially psora he believed to be virulently contagious. “The itch disease is,
however, also the most contagious of all chronic miasmata, far more infectious
than the other two chronic miasmata…. The miama of the itch needs only to touch
the general skin, especially with tender children. As soon as the miasma of itch
for example touches the hand, in the moment when it has taken effect, it no
longer remains local. Henceforth all washing and cleansing of the spot avail
nothing.” (Chronic Diseases) After the itch appears on the patient, it is almost
always suppressed into the deeper parts of the patient. The symptoms that then
occur were considered by Hahnemann to be “secondary” psora.
It was Hahnemann’s opinion that the external manifestation of itch (or other
signs of infection in the other two miasm) came about only after the patient was
thoroughly diseased by the miasm. He felt that the miasmatic infection was
communicated almost instantly to the whole vital force. “The nerve which was
first affected by the miasma, has already communicated it in an invisible
dynamic manner to the nerves of the rest of the body and the living organism has
at once, all unperceived, been so penetrated by this specific excitation that it
has been compelled to appropriate this miasma to itself until the change of the
whole being to a man thoroughly psoric…” (Chronic Diseases) Thus he believed
that the miasm is a dynamic, energetic entity.
After laying forth these theoretic principles in his Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann
then goes on to describe in detail the symptoms of patients infected with each
of the three miasms. He described in detail the known symptoms of syphilis and
gonorrhea (which he connected to figwarts). Then he gave a more in depth
description of psora and its main characteristics. Today very few homeopaths
have bothered to read the full list of symptoms that Hahnemann ascribes to psora
that goes on for over 25 pages. Anyone who has made the effort will admit that
they cannot keep even a fraction of this extensive list of symptoms in mind.
Some homeopaths (see H. A. Robert’s Art of Homeopathy) tried to clarify the main
symptoms of psora. Most merely repeated Hahnemann’s lists. Kent (Lectures on
Homeopathic Philosophy) devotes two entire chapters to psora without ever
specifying a single symptom of the miasm – though his next two chapters on
sycosis and syphilis are quite illuminating about the characteristics of those
miasms. Boericke only mentions the word psora under three remedies in his
materia medica while listing over 120 remedies as syphilitic! It seems clear
that psora was for many an elusive concept.
It should be noted that Hahnemann and other great homeopaths saw the miasms as a
living, spiritual force. They described especially the Psoric miasm as something
malign and almost consciously destructive of mankind. At other times,
homeopathic authors have declared that the miasms could not have existed if man
was not already himself evil. “Psora is the underlying cause and is the
primitive or primary disorder of the human race. It is a disordered state of the
internal economy of the human race. This state expresses itself in the forms of
the varying chronic diseases, or chronic manifestations. If the human race had
remained in a state of perfect order, psora could not have existed. The
susceptibility to psora opens out a question altogether too broad to study among
the sciences in a medical college. It is altogether too extensive, for it goes
to the very primitive wrong of the human race, the very first sickness of the
human race, that is, the spiritual sickness…” (Kent’s Lectures on Homeopathic
But let’s return to Hahnemann and his Chronic Diseases. After laying forth the
symptom lists which would lead us to suspect that a patient is either psoric,
sycotic or syphilitic, Hahnemann tries to give us clues as to how to cure the
miasm in the patient. The therapeutics were quite simplified for sycosis and
syphilis. Hahnemann states that Thuja is specific for sycosis (that is any
patient who is sycotic should be cured by this remedy). Likewise he felt that
Mercurius was specific for syphilis. However for psora he gives a much more
extensive list of remedies which he called, “antipsorics”. This list of remedies
is essentially all of the remedies found in Chronic Diseases except for Thuja
and Mercurius. The remedies he detailed as antipsorics were:
Agar. Alum. Am-c. Am-m. Anac. Ant-c. Ars. Aur. Aur-m. Bar-c. Bor. Calc. Carb-an.
Carb-v. Caust. Clem. Coloc. Con. Cupr. Dig. Dulc. Euph. Graph. Guai. Hep. Iod.
Kali-c. Kali-n. Lyc. Mag-c. Mag-m. Mang. Mez. Mur-ac. Nat-c. Nat-m. Nit-ac. Petr.
Ph-ac. Phos. Plat. Sars. Sep. Sil. Stann. Sulph. Sul-ac. Zinc
From perusing this list one can easily see that of the 90 some remedies then in
use in homeopathy, many were not included here. These were the remedies which
Hahnemann either felt applied to the “various acute miasms” (such as Belladonna
for Scarlet Fever) or he was uncertain as to which miasm they applied. These
undesignated remedies included:
Aconite. Ambra. Angustura. Argentum Nitricum. Belladonna. Bismuth. Bryonia.
Camphora. Cannabis Sativa. Capsicum. Chamomilla. Chelidonium. Cicuta Virosa.
Cina. Cinnabaris. Cyclamen. Drosera. Euphrasia. Ferrum. Helleborus. Ignatia.
Iecacuanha. Ledum. Menyanthes. Moschus. Nux Vomica. Oleander. Opium. Pulsatilla.
Rheum. Rhus Toxicodendron. Ruta. Sambucus. Spigelia. Spongia. Squila.
Staphysagria. Stramonium. Sulphur Iodatum. Taraxicum. Veratrum. Verbascum.
(It is interesting to note that many of the remedies on this list are considered
by Sankaran as falling into the acute or the typhoid miasms – thus confirming
Hahnemann’s excluding them from the chronic miasm list – but more on that
Hahnemann instructed us to use one of these antipsorics when the case had the
features he had described for psora. Unfortunately, Hahnemann never stated
explicitly whether a remedy could belong to more than one miasm – though no
remedy is listed as relating to more than one. Nor did he ever state that the
remedies he had listed as antipsoric were the complete list. Nor did he ever
suggest that any other remedies could apply to the sycotic or syphilitic miasm
than Thuja and Mercurius respectively. These missing statements have left the
understanding of how to use the miasmatic concept in some confusion.
One might suppose that homeopaths throughout the world would have embraced
Hahnemann’s discovery and proclamation about the miasms with joy. This was not
the case. Perhaps it was the difficulty in understanding the nature of the
psoric miasm from the long list of symptoms that prevented its use. Certainly
many did not see any practical application of the discovery. Thus the result was
that the majority of the homeopathic world either shrugged their collective
shoulders or thought the 75 year-old master was past his prime.
Hering himself wrote: “What important influence can it exert whether a homeopath
adopts the theoretic opinions of Hahnemann so long as he holds the principle of
the master and the materia medica of our school. What influence can it have
whether a physician adopts or rejects the psoric theory so long as he searches
for the most similar medicine possible?” This attitude more or less summed up
the majority opinion: simply search for the simillimum and forget the rest.
Yet Boenninghausen wrote, “And yet the much reviled and ridiculed theory of the
three miasms laid down by the founder of our Homeopathy is nothing else than a
consequential application of the doctrine of anamnesis of chronic disease, as
this is most plainly laid down in aphorism 5 and 206 of the Organon (5th
edition). It is therefore totally incomprehensible how this has been so
overlooked, unless other, by no means praiseworthy motives, have been brought
into play. For all the fair phrases about the exact obedience to the fundamental
principles of homeopathic Therapy cannot deceive the experienced practitioner
and persuade him that he may at all times select the most appropriate remedy by
means of whole sheets of images of the disease in which there is nothing
“I do not wish to deny by any means that there may be perhaps beside the three
above mentioned anamnestic indications, and beside the medicinal diseases, one
or another additional miasm to which may be ascribed a similar influence upon
health. Nevertheless such a miasm has not so far proved by means of
demonstrative documents and it must therefore be left to future investigation. ”
(Allg. Hom. Zeit Vol. 65). Thus Boenninghausen makes two points: First he says
that long lists of symptoms often do not help us to find the simillimum –
something is missing which for him (and Hahnemann) is the knowledge of the miasm
of the patient and of our remedies. Second he explicitly states that there may
be other miasms beside the original three mentioned by Hahnemann which he leaves
for future investigators.
There were many others besides Boenninghausen who took Hahnemann’s ideas very
much to heart. The most prominent of these was HC Allen (not Timothy Allen who
edited Allen’s Encyclopedia) who wrote a three volume work entitled, The
Chronic Miasms. This work was to be the first of a series of nearly
religious writings and ideas about miasm. Allen gives and alternate list of
symptoms which correspond to the three miasms and an alternate list of the
remedies which apply. Thus we see that there was no uniformity in the view about
what symptoms constitute a psoric or sycotic or syphilitic constitution. There
was thus no uniformity about which remedies belonged to which miasm.
Boenninghausen states, “… it is on the other hand not to be denied that this
circumstance has given an additional difficulty to our practice, as we have not
so far any certain signs by which we can distinguish certainly the domain of the
one miasma from that of the other.” (Allg hom Zeit Vol 65.). Thus theoretic
squabbling became the norm. The 1st aphorism was effectively thrown
out of the window as homeopaths argued abstractly about many facets of miasms.
For example a fierce debate sprang up about tuberculosis. Some adherents said it
was psora combined with syphilis. Others argued just as certainly that it was
sycosis and syphilis. Almost no one dared to suggest that there might be a miasm
that Hahnemann missed. Like many of Hahnemann’s other ideas, his pronouncements
about miasm became almost gilded in bronze. No one was allowed to alter or add
to his lists of symptoms or remedies.
There were some few who tried to improve upon Hahnemann’s work on the miasm. For
example Boenninghausen wrote extensively about sycosis, adding many
characteristic symptoms of the miasm (such as the well know characteristic,
fixed ideas) as well as many new remedies to the antisycotic list (including
Anac, Ant-C, Puls, Sil and many others).
Thus we can see there has been almost no general agreement about the need for
the miasmatic concept nor the characteristics of the various miasms.
This brings us to our next important point of discussion: the remedies. The
creators of our repertories were those most known for their knowledge and
experience in homeopathy. By looking at the remedies they list for each miasm we
can hope to learn what they thought and how they used Hahnemann’s important
discovery. And yet when we look at several important repertories we are struck
by the differences and inconsistencies we find. Below are the rubrics for
sycosis and syphilis from Kent’s Repertory (note that Kent does not have a
rubric for psora at all!).
Generalities; SYCOSIS: Agar., Alum., Alumn., Anac., Ant-C., Ant-T., Apis, Aran.,
Arg., Arg-N., Aster., Aur., Aur-M., Bar-C., Bry., Calc.,
Carb-An., Carb-V., Carbn-S., Caust., Cham., Cinnb., Con.,
Dulc., Euphr., Ferr., Fl-Ac., Graph., Hep., Iod., Kali-C.,
Kali-S., Lach., Lyc., Mang., Med., Merc., Mez.,
Nat-S., Nit-Ac., Petr., Phyt., Puls., Sabin., Sars.,
Sec., Sel., Sep., Sil., Staph., Sulph., Thuj.
Generalities; SYPHILIS: Arg., Ars., Ars-I., Ars-S-F., Asaf., Aur.,
Aur-M., Aur-M-N., Bad., Benz-Ac., Calc-I., Calc-S., Carb-An.,
Carb-V., Cinnb., Clem., Con., Cor-R., Crot-H., Fl-Ac.,
Guai., Hep., Iod., Kali-Ar., Kali-Bi., Kali-Chl., Kali-I.,
Kali-S., Lach., Led., Merc., Merc-C., Merc-I-F., Merc-I-R.,
Mez., Nit-Ac., Petr., Ph-Ac., Phos., Phyt., Sars.,
Sil., Staph., Still., Sul-I., Sulph., Syph., Thuj.
When we examine these two rubrics we see that fully 22 of the 89 remedies listed
are in both rubrics (underlined). Furthermore, compared to Hahnemann’s
original 48 antipsorics, 31 are listed as either antisycotic or antisyphilitic
Next we turn to Boenninghausen’s repertory.
Generalities; Constitution; PSORIC: Ant-C., Bar-C., Brom., Calc.,
Calc-P., Carb-An., Carb-V. Cupr., Graph., Hep., Iod.,
Kali-I., Lyc., Nat-C., Nat-M., Nit-Ac., Petr., Psor., Sil., Sulph.,
Generalities; SYCOSIS: Apis, Arg., Arg-N., Ars., Calc., Caust., Dulc.,
Fl-Ac., Graph., Kali-S., Med., Nat-S., Nit-Ac., Sel., Sep.,
Generalities; SYPHILIS: Am-C., Aur., Carb-An., Cinnb., Iod., Kali-Ar.,
Kali-I., Kali-S., Merc., Nit-Ac., Phyt., Sars., Sil., Syph.,
Here we see there are only 8 remedies double categorized in two miasms –
somewhat more consistent than in Kent’s repertory. Furthermore, Boenninghausen
tries to correct Hahnemann’s original list by reclassifying some of the original
antipsorics (eliminating some 32 of Hahnemann’s original 48 remedies and adding
4 remedies to the list). Also of great interest is how different Kent and
Boenninghausen’s lists appear. Kent has 41 more remedies than Boenninghausen
listed as antisycotics, and only 15 of the remedies are on both lists.
Finally we can look at Knerr’s repertory.
General; Constitution; PSORIC : Ars-I., Calc., Graph., Hep., Kreos., Psor.,
General; Constitution; SYCOTIC: Aran., Aster., Med., Nat-P., Nat-S., Nit-Ac.,
General; Constitution; SYPHILITIC : Ars., Asc-T., Aur., Benz-Ac., Clem., Cor-R.,
Crot-H., Cund., Euph., Ferr-I., Fl-Ac., Guai., Kali-Bi., Kali-I., Merc., Merc-C.,
Merc-D., Merc-I-R., Mez., Nit-Ac., Petr., Ph-Ac., Phos., Phyt., Sars.,
Sil., Still., Sulph., Syph., Thuj.
If Knerr has eliminated even more of Hahnemann’s original 48 antipsorics,
leaving only 4 of the original remedies. He adds 3 new remedies, of which two
were not included by Boenninghausen. Furthermore, Knerr lists only 8 antisycotic
remedies, three of which are not mentioned by Kent or Boenninghausen. He
similarly adds 9 remedies as antisyphilitic which are not listed in Kent or
Boenninghausen and does not list 7 of Boenninghausen’s 15 antisyphilitic
remedies at all.
The three repertories only concur about 4 antipsoric, 4 antisycotic and 8
Thus we can see that there is almost no agreement about which remedies apply
to which miasm.
With all of this confusion about the meaning of miasms and the remedies that can
apply to the miasms, it is little to be wondered that homeopaths stayed away in
droves. Most practitioners could not name more than a handful of remedies that
clearly pertained to a specific miasm. In my own training in homeopathy, we paid
very little attention to the miasm of remedies except in glaring cases (that is,
if the patient had a history of gonorrhea and recurring gleet or warts, we would
strongly consider Medorrhinum, Thuja or Natrum Sulphuricum). But of those
frequent cases to which Boenninghausen refers as “whole sheets of images of the
disease in which there is nothing therapeutically characteristic” we did not use
and did not know of the tool of miasm. And this was generally true of most
homeopaths from the time of Kent until the middle of the twentieth century.
The next move forward was in the LIGA meeting of 1944. The renowned Mexican
homeopath F. Ortega put forward his concept of miasm. He maintained the concept
of Hahnemann’s original three miasms (something nice about 3). However he
attempted to make a clear and simple delineation of the mental and physical
characteristics of each miasm, He described the main characteristics of the
three constitutions in this way:
Psora = inhibition
Sycosis = excess
Syphilis = destruction
The benefit of this simplified view of the miasm was that the main thrust of the
patient and his constitution could readily be identified much of the time. Thus
the practitioner could readily categorize his patient into one of the groups.
The concept became widely accepted.
There were many inconsistencies with this concept. For example, the remedy Aurum
Muriaticum Natronatum had generally been considered as antisyphilitic was famous
for excessive tumor growth (i.e. sycotic). The remedy Mercurius (which is
antisyphilitic) is often found to be inhibited in its expressions (psora) where
Sulphur (antipsoric) is often audacious and flashy. So when the theory came
against actual remedies, we could see much variation.
Perhaps more importantly, we still had no clear idea of what constituted a miasm
– that is no clear definition of miasm. And once again we are hampered by the
fact that no consistent agreed upon list exists for which remedies belong to the
Some further intellectual progress was made by Vithoulkas in his book,
Science of Homeopathy. Vithoulkas points out that there is no reason
(echoing the words of Boenninghausen) that we are limited to three miasms. He
states that rather than postulate that tuberculosis is a combination of two
miasms, why should it not represent a fourth chronic miasm. Further, Vithoulkas
points out that the first step should be a clear definition of miasm. “Based
upon what has been said thus far, we can now present a definition of miasms: A
miasm is a predisposition toward chronic disease underlying the acute
manifestations of illness 1) which is transmissible from generation to
generation and 2) which may respond beneficially to the corresponding nosode
prepared from either pathological tissue or from the appropriate drug or
vaccine.” (Science of Homeopathy)
The work of each successive homeopathic scientist brings further clarification
of the basic concept brought forward by Hahnemann. Thus, by the time of
Vithoulkas’ writings we had three characteristics for miasm:
Infectious – a miasm must be contagious.
Hereditary – a miasm or the susceptibility to a miasm must be transmissible from
parent to child.
Nosode – a nosode must be obtainable from the miasmatic disease.
Vithoulkas stated clearly and for the first time that Tuberculosis was a
separate miasm since it fit all of these criteria. He gave us a means for
discovering new miasms. However he considered miasm as mainly a way of looking
deeply at our science but did not consider the miasm to have tremendous clinical
application except in cases where the miasm was obvious – and not always then.
Thus by the end of the 1980’s we were pretty much where Hering left us: What
difference does it make since we have to choose the similimum by the symptoms
Most modern homeopaths in Europe and North America used miasmatic
relationships in only a limited way.
Finally in the 1990’s Sankaran made some logical and yet revolutionary steps in
the understanding of miasm. He created a new paradigm for miasm. Specifically he
made three rather astonishing postulates:
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
3) Each patient has only one miasm evident at any time.
The value of these postulates, if correct, is clearly enormous. Most importantly
from a practical standpoint, the ability to eliminate from consideration all but
the remedies assigned to the miasm of our patient is of inestimable value. Just
as we can eliminate all warm-blooded remedies when a patient is very chilly, we
can limit the field of inquiry by knowing the miasm. Furthermore, by knowing the
miasm, we can understand the emphasis of both physical and mental symptoms for
In doing this, Sankaran and his coworkers assigned to date nearly 250 remedies
to specific miasms – each remedy being assigned to only one miasm. For details
of Sankaran’s work on miasms, refer to his books, System of Homeopathy
and Insight into Plants.
So where do we stand today in our understanding of miasm? Many homeopathic
authorities have proposed new miasms – exactly as Boenninghausen predicted.
Foubister proposed a cancer miasm in the 1950’s. In the late 1980’s Vakil proved
the remedy Leprominium. Sankaran has proposed four new miasms – bringing the
total of miasms currently discussed to 10.
He also added and defined three new miasms bringing the total to ten. Here is
the list as I see it at present. The name in parenthesis is the person who first
proposed the miasm as a separate entity:
Acute miasm (Hahnemann) – also called the Rabies miasm by some.
Malarial miasm (Sankaran)
Ringworm miasm (Sankaran)
Psoric Miasm (Hahnemann)
Sycotic miasm (Hahnemann)
Cancer miasm (Foubister)
Tubercular miasm (Vithoulkas)
Leprosy miasm (Vakil)
Syphilitic miasm (Hahnemann).
How do we know that the remedies specified for each of these proposed miasms
Here the answer is strictly pragmatic and experiential. Since a miasm cannot be
seen with a microscope nor identified by any laboratory test, it is necessarily
an invention. No prover ever volunteered the information, “I am feeling quite
syphilitic since I began proving this remedy.” Therefore the distinctions of the
miasm are useful only if they have clinical relevance – that is if they help us
to find the correct similimum. In a sense, it does not matter if the proposed
miasm is “real”. If the definition of the miasm is clear and easily determined
by all trained observers in the patient, and the remedies can be more easily
identified by this grouping or categorization, then the concept is useful. The
proof, as they say will be in the pudding.
How can there be so many miasms that were missed for so many years?
Probably the answer lies as usual in language and terminology. For example, many
of the remedies that Hahnemann considered as part of the acute miasm are now
placed in the typhoid miasm by Sankaran and his coworkers. And the remedies of
the Tubercular miasm were likewise grouped in the psoric and other miasms. It
seems to be more a process of differentiating useful distinctions than unknown
The question then becomes, “Are these refinements and further differentiations
useful?” Or is it just further theorizing?
The answer to that question must be made in the clinic – as with all ideas and
observations. For my part, I have been working with Sankaran’s miasmatic
observations and categorizations for the past 5 years. I can state that my
results have improved substantially during that time. I consider this work to be
the greatest contribution to our science of the past 20 years – that is since
the pioneering work of Vithoulkas.
Below is a rather shorthand summary of the characteristics of the miasms and the
most important remedies for each miasm. I should note that these ideas are
founded on Sankaran’s approach but supplemented by my own experience – so please
take the mistakes below as my own and give the credit for the original concept
to Sankaran as his due.
Originally, these remedies were used during acute illnesses such as scarlet
fever, pneumonia and delirium. Later it was found that they are useful in
chronic conditions where the sensation of the patient is identical to the
sensation of an acutely ill patient. The patient feels as if he were reacting to
a sudden, unexpected, life-threatening situation (illness, attack, accident,
etc). The patient is in an almost “primitive” state usually accompanied by great
fear and child-like reaction. There is no compensatory mechanism except fight or
flight. He seeks reassurance and protection. Often mania states require remedies
from the acute or typhoid miasm. Severe phobia disorders also frequently fit
within this miasm.
Known Remedies f the Acute Miasm
Aconite. Arnica. Belladonna. Cactina. Calendula. Camphora. Chocolate. Coffeinum.
Croton Tiglium. Digitoxin. Elaterium. Ergotaminum. Hydrogen. Hypericum. Lithium.
Melilotus. Morphinum. Oenanthus. Stramonium. Strychninum. Veratrum.
Nosode: Lyssinum. Morbillinum. Diptherinum.
Also known as the subacute miasm. Remedies in this miasm were originally
used for typhoid fever – that is high, unremitting fever often associated with
prostration from violent diarrheas or other infections. The infections are
slightly less rapid in their onset (like all our descriptions of Bryonia) than
the remedies in the acute miasm. Now we find these remedies can be useful in a
variety of chronic conditions such as colitis, Crohn’s disease, collapse states,
psychosis. Patients in this miasm who have acute or recurring psychotic breaks
have good prospects from homeopathic treatment. The patient feels himself to be
in an urgent, life-threatening situation requiring his full capacity to survive.
The patient is willing to use any means to return to a secure position:
Violence, scheming, flight, lying, etc. Willful children who demand their
desires so strongly that parent’s cave in often require remedies from this
group. The patient’s goal is to conserve every resource to combat the threat.
Thus materialism and business struggles are a strong component. The feeling is,
“If I can just get through this crisis, I have it made and I can rest.” He seeks
rest and a secure position.
Known Remedies of the Typhoid Miasm
Abelmoschus. Acetic Acid. Aethusa. Ailanthus. Anantherum. Argemon. Asclepias
Tuberosa. Baptisia. Benzoic Acid. Bryonia. Carbo Animalis. Carbo Vegetabilis.
Carnegia gigantea. Chamomilla. Doryphora. Euphrasia. Gallic Acid. Gambogia.
Helleborus. Hyoscyamus. Ipecac. Lycopus. Mancinella. Nux Moschata. Nux Vomica.
Paris. Petroleum. Polystyrene. Podophyllum. Pyrogenium. Rheum. Rhus Tox.
Sacchrum Album. Sulphuricum Acidum. Thyroidinum. Veratrum Veride. Viscum.
In malaria, the situation is still less severe. The patient is suffering but
not in immanent danger for his life. Instead he finds himself repeatedly
accosted by highly uncomfortable conditions. These conditions leave him weak and
vulnerable between the attacks. He is partially crippled by the condition
causing him to be dependent on those around him. His forward progress is
arrested as he deals with these harassing attacks. For chronic conditions, the
remedies of the malarial miasm feel they are facing recurring attacks from life
– they feel stuck in a situation where nothing goes right and he is never truly
well. He can do little more than complain or act out. Patients in this miasm
often feel miserable and make those around them miserable from their negative
outlook. The patient especially suffers with intermittent fevers, recurring
hemorrhoids, recurring or allergic asthma, migraines, neuralgia, rheumatism.
Known remedies of the Malarial Miasm
Ammonium Muriaticum. Angustura. Antimonium Crudum. Aurum Muriaticum Kalinatum.
Berberis. Boletus. Cactus. Capsicum. Cedron. Chelidonium. China (and it’s
salts). Cina. Clematis. Colchicum. Colocynthis. Eupatorium Perfoliatum.
Eupatorium Purpureum. Iris. Kalmia. Magnesia Muriatica. Menyanthes. Natrum
Muriaticum. Peonia. Prunus. Ranunculus Bulbosus. Sarracenia. Spigelia. Sumbulus.
Ringworm and fungal disorders are annoying but not at all life-threatening.
These conditions often get better very slowly but slip back in at the first
vulnerable moment. It is a constant effort to combat the condition. The theme
for ringworm miasm is struggle against an external object but alternately
feeling optimism or pessimism. The patient often repeatedly uses the word,
“trying.” The feeling is that he must try and try and yet he never quite gets
there though never quite gives up.
Known Remedies of the Ringworm Miasm
Actea Spicata. Allium Sativa. Calcarea Fluorica. Calcarea Silicata. Calcarea
Sulphurica. Dulcamara. Fagus. Gossypium. Magnesia Sulphuric Opunta vulgaris.
Pseudotsuga. Rhus Venanata. Sarsaparilla. Taraxicum. Teucreum. Upas. Veronica
officianalis. Viola Tricolorata.
Nosode – Ringworm nosode.
The theme for psora according to Sankaran is struggle against an external
problem but with a feeling of optimism. Paradoxically, since many of the
remedies and characteristics of psora have been differentiated into other
miasms, few remedies are left in this category. Many have noted the similarity
between Sankaran’s description of this miasm and his description of the ringworm
Known Remedies of the Psoric Miasm
Calcarea. Cuprum. Ferrum. Graphites. Kali-Carbonicum. Lycopodium. Niccolum.
Gonorrhea is a condition that is not life-threatening but is shameful and
embarrassing. The remedies used to combat gonorrhea and gleet also treat the
ailments of suppressed gonorrhea. All of the diseases that respond to this group
of remedies are fixed and intractable: They do not go away but they do not
progress. The patient spends a great deal of time trying to cover up or
compensate for the illness. Thus we have the well-known characteristic of the
sycotic miasm: secretiveness. The patient is often riddled with guilt and
insecurity. Inferiority complex is a common finding in this miasm. The physical
conditions often center around the urinary or genital tract. Also common is
asthma, tumors and neoplasms, eczema, genital herpes.
Known Remedies of the Sycotic Miasm
Argentum Metallicum. Borax. Bovista. Calcarea Bromata. Cannabis Indica.
Caulophyllum. Crocus Sativa. Digitallis. Gelsemium. Kali Bichromicum. Kali
Bromatum. Kali Sulphuricum. Lac Caninum. Lac Delphinum. Natrum Sulphuricum.
Palladium. Pulsatilla. Sabadilla. Sanguinaria. Silica. Thuja.
When a patient receives a diagnosis of cancer, it is obvious that the
condition is life threatening. The patient and the family feel there is almost
no hope but yet they do not give up. They search high and low for a new drug
trial, a new surgery, or even a farfetched alternative like homeopathy. The
feeling is one of desperation, of holding on to hope with the fingernails. The
patient who needs a remedy from this miasm feels he must carry out his life
perfectly – one failure of duty, one lapse in cleanliness, one cheat of the
proper diet and all will be lost. Perfectionism and the need for control with
the feeling of being strained to one’s very limit are the normal presentation.
Physically the cancer miasm is often found in patients with a history of cancer
but many other physical ailments can be produced. Anorexia nervosa is often
treated by remedies of this miasm. Tumors of any sort, neurological disorders
such as multiple sclerosis are often found in this miasm.
Known Remedies of the Cancer Miasm
Agaricus, Anacardium. Anhalonium, Argentum Nitricum, Arsenicum Album. Asarum.
Baryta Arsenica, Bellis Perenis, Calcarea Arsenica, Calcarea Nitrica, Causticum,
Conium. Ferrum Arsenicum, Ignatia, Kali Arsenicum, Kali Nitricum, Natrum
Arsenicum, Nitricum Acidum, Opium, Physostigma, Ruta, Sabina, Staphysagria,
Tabacum, Viola Odorata.
Nosodes: Carcinocin, Scirrhinum
The feeling of the miasm relates to the ever encroaching and eventually
fatally suffocating infection. The patient rebels, struggles, longs for freedom
from his condition. He hurries to live his life even as he intuits that it is
burning away from him. He feels the walls closing in upon him. His loved ones
cannot be trusted. He suffers from respiratory conditions, persecution complex,
Abrotanum. Acalypha. Apis. Aranea. Arsenicum Iodatum. Atrax. Balsamum. Brucea.
Bromium. Calcarea Iodata. Calcarea Phosphorica. Cereus Bonplandii. Cimicifuga.
Cistus. Coccus Cacti. Coffea. Drosera. Elaterium. Euonymus. Ferrum Iodatum.
Ferrum Phosphoricum. Fluoric Acid. Ginseng. Iodum Kali Phosphoricum.
Latrodectus. Magnesia Phosphorica. Mygale. Myristica. Myrtus Communis. Natrum
Phosphricum. Oleander. Phelandrium. Phosphorus. Pix. Rumex. Salix Niger.
Sambucus. Senega. Succinic Acid. Tarentula. Theridion. Ustilago.
Nosode – Bacillinum. Tuberculinum (in all its preparations). BCG vaccine.
Lepers have suffered enormously through history. The condition is slowly
progressive and eventually leads to death. However, even more disturbing to the
patient is the reaction of those around him. He is reviled by his friends and
community. Where they looked at him with affection they now feel loathing. This
results in a desperate state of self-disgust and self-hatred. He feels contempt
with his condition and towards himself or others. He desires to tear, mutilate
or bite himself. He suffers from suicidal thoughts or impulses, depression,
Known Remedies of the Leprosy Miasm
Agraphis. Aloe. Ambra. Androctonus. Aristolochia. Aurum Sulphuricum.
Azadirachta. Baryta Iodata. Baryta Sulphurica. Cereus Serpentinus. Cicuta. Coca.
Codeinum. Comocladia. Curare. Cyclamen. Fumaria. Gratiola. Homarus. Hura.
Hydrastus. Hydrocotyle. Indolum. Kola nut. Lac Defloratum. Laurocerasus. Ledum.
Mandragora. Mephites. Ocimum sacntum. Rhus glabra. Secale. Sepia. Skatolum.
Solanum Tuberosum Aegrotans. Spiraea.
Nosodes – Leprominium. Psorinum.
Syphilis was an inexorable death sentence in the pre-antibiotic era. The
condition is utterly destructive – either physically or mentally. Extreme
nihilism marks the patient in the uncompensated state. The diseases are
destructive of bone and tissue leading eventually to death. The patient reacts
to his illness or his perceived life situations as though under a death
sentence. He is prone to feelings of violence and revenge. Suicide or homicidal
feelings are common. Destructive addictions often result. Physical conditions
include advanced cardiac conditions, aortic disease, aneurysm, alcoholism.
Known Remedies of the Syphilitic Miasm
Alumina. Anagallis. Aurum. Cenchris. Clematis. Crataegus Echinacea. Elaps. Hepar
Sulphur. Hydrocotyle. Lachesis. Lathyrus. Leptandra. Mercurius. Origanum.
Osmium. Naja. Platinum Plumbum. Plutonium. Psilocibe. Stillingea.
Nosode -- Syphilinum