Sycosis- Is It Miasm Of Gonorrhoea, Or Human Papilloma Virus? Or, A Mixed Miasm That Confused Hahnemann?
by Chandran Nambiar
I think we have to re-invent ‘miasm of sycosis’ of Hahnemann on the basis of modern understanding of gonorrhoea and Human Papillomma Virus infections.
We are taught that ‘sycosis’ is the miasm of gonorrhoea. But on closely observing the symptoms said to be of ‘sycotic miasm’, we can understand that many of those symptoms like warts belong to human papilloma virus infection. Gonorrhoea and HPF comes mostly as mixed infections. Since much information was not available during Hahnemann’s time about HPF as the causative agent of ‘ano-genital warts’ or ‘figwart disease’ and ‘uterine fibromas’, he attributed all these complaints and symptoms to gonorrhoea, and called it ‘sycotic miasm’. In most occasions he refers his miasm of ‘sycosis’ as ‘miasm of figwart disease’, not ‘miasm of gonorrhoea.. ‘Figwart disease is not gonorrhoea; it is Human Papilloma Virus disease. It is obvious that hahnemann was confused about gonorrhoea and figwart disease. Since he could not differentiate between gonorrhoea and HPF, he wrongly considered ‘figwart disease’ as part of gonorrhoea.
In Chronic Diseases : Para 9, Hahnemann says: "In Europe and also on the other continents so far as it is known, according to all investigations, only three chronic miasms are found, the diseases caused by which manifest themselves through local symptoms, and from which most, if not all, the chronic diseases originate; namely, first, SYPHILIS, which I have also called the venereal change disease; then sycosis, or the fig-wart disease, and finally the chronic disease which lies at the foundation of the eruption of itch; i. e., the PSORA; which I shall treat of first as the most important”.
See, here hahnemann does not even mention gonorrhoea when introducing ‘sycosis’. He said “sycosis, the figwart disease”. Obviously, he is confused between ‘figwart disease’ and ‘gonorrhoea’ as the causative infectious agent behind sycotic miasm.
Gonorrhoea has nothing to do with ‘figwart disease’, which hahnemann considers as the basis of ‘sycosis’. Based on above discussions, it is obvious that what hahnemann considered ‘miasm of sycosis’ was actually the miasm of ‘human papillomma virus infection’, which is a sexually transmitted disease, commonly appearing as mixed infection along with gonorrhoea. Most of the symptoms attributed to ‘sycosis’ are actually the long term effects of antibodies generated in the organism against HPV, rather than gonorrhoea.
by Chandran Nambiar
I think we have to re-invent ‘miasm of sycosis’ of Hahnemann on the basis of modern understanding of gonorrhoea and Human Papillomma Virus infections.
We are taught that ‘sycosis’ is the miasm of gonorrhoea. But on closely observing the symptoms said to be of ‘sycotic miasm’, we can understand that many of those symptoms like warts belong to human papilloma virus infection. Gonorrhoea and HPF comes mostly as mixed infections. Since much information was not available during Hahnemann’s time about HPF as the causative agent of ‘ano-genital warts’ or ‘figwart disease’ and ‘uterine fibromas’, he attributed all these complaints and symptoms to gonorrhoea, and called it ‘sycotic miasm’. In most occasions he refers his miasm of ‘sycosis’ as ‘miasm of figwart disease’, not ‘miasm of gonorrhoea.. ‘Figwart disease is not gonorrhoea; it is Human Papilloma Virus disease. It is obvious that hahnemann was confused about gonorrhoea and figwart disease. Since he could not differentiate between gonorrhoea and HPF, he wrongly considered ‘figwart disease’ as part of gonorrhoea.
In Chronic Diseases : Para 9, Hahnemann says: "In Europe and also on the other continents so far as it is known, according to all investigations, only three chronic miasms are found, the diseases caused by which manifest themselves through local symptoms, and from which most, if not all, the chronic diseases originate; namely, first, SYPHILIS, which I have also called the venereal change disease; then sycosis, or the fig-wart disease, and finally the chronic disease which lies at the foundation of the eruption of itch; i. e., the PSORA; which I shall treat of first as the most important”.
See, here hahnemann does not even mention gonorrhoea when introducing ‘sycosis’. He said “sycosis, the figwart disease”. Obviously, he is confused between ‘figwart disease’ and ‘gonorrhoea’ as the causative infectious agent behind sycotic miasm.
Gonorrhoea has nothing to do with ‘figwart disease’, which hahnemann considers as the basis of ‘sycosis’. Based on above discussions, it is obvious that what hahnemann considered ‘miasm of sycosis’ was actually the miasm of ‘human papillomma virus infection’, which is a sexually transmitted disease, commonly appearing as mixed infection along with gonorrhoea. Most of the symptoms attributed to ‘sycosis’ are actually the long term effects of antibodies generated in the organism against HPV, rather than gonorrhoea.
In Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann says about SYCOSIS as follows:
“First, then, concerning sycosis, as being that miasma which has produced by far the fewest chronic diseases, and has only been dominant from time to time”.
“This figwart-disease, which in later times, especially during the French war, in the years 1809-1814, was so widely spread, but which has since showed itself more and more rarely, was treated almost always, in an inefficient and injurious manner, internally with mercury, because it was considered homogeneous with the venereal chancre-disease; but the excrescences on the genitals were treated by Allopathic physicians always in the most violent external way by cauterizing, burning and cutting, or by ligatures”.
“These excrescences usually first manifest themselves on the genitals, and appear usually, but not always, attended with a sort of gonorrhoea from the urethra, several days or several weeks, even many weeks after infection through coition; more rarely they appear dry and like warts, more frequently soft, spongy, emitting a specifically fetid fluid (sweetish and almost like herring-brine), bleeding easily, and in the form of a coxcomb or a cauliflower (brassica botrytes). These, with males, sprout forth on the glans and on, or below, the prepuce, but with women, on the parts surrounding the pudenda; and the pudenda themselves, which are then swollen, are covered often by a great number of them. When these are violently removed, the natural, proximate effect is, that they will usually come forth again, usually to be subjected again, in vain, to a similar, painful, cruel treatment. But even if they could be rooted out in this way, it would merely have the consequence, that the figwart-disease, after having been deprived of the, local symptom which acts vicariously for the internal ailment, would appear in other and much worse ways, in secondary ailments; for the figwart-miasm, which in the whole organism, has been in no way diminished, either by the external destruction of the above-mentioned excrescences, or by the mercury which has been used internally, and which is in no way appropriate to sycosis.”
From the above paragraph, it is clear that hahnemann was talking about “figwart disease” or Human Papiloma Virus infection. Since it “appear usually, but not always, attended with a sort of gonorrhoea from the urethra”, he confused it as gonorrhoea itself, as in his time, HPV infection was not known as such, where as gonorrhoea was well known.
“First, then, concerning sycosis, as being that miasma which has produced by far the fewest chronic diseases, and has only been dominant from time to time”.
“This figwart-disease, which in later times, especially during the French war, in the years 1809-1814, was so widely spread, but which has since showed itself more and more rarely, was treated almost always, in an inefficient and injurious manner, internally with mercury, because it was considered homogeneous with the venereal chancre-disease; but the excrescences on the genitals were treated by Allopathic physicians always in the most violent external way by cauterizing, burning and cutting, or by ligatures”.
“These excrescences usually first manifest themselves on the genitals, and appear usually, but not always, attended with a sort of gonorrhoea from the urethra, several days or several weeks, even many weeks after infection through coition; more rarely they appear dry and like warts, more frequently soft, spongy, emitting a specifically fetid fluid (sweetish and almost like herring-brine), bleeding easily, and in the form of a coxcomb or a cauliflower (brassica botrytes). These, with males, sprout forth on the glans and on, or below, the prepuce, but with women, on the parts surrounding the pudenda; and the pudenda themselves, which are then swollen, are covered often by a great number of them. When these are violently removed, the natural, proximate effect is, that they will usually come forth again, usually to be subjected again, in vain, to a similar, painful, cruel treatment. But even if they could be rooted out in this way, it would merely have the consequence, that the figwart-disease, after having been deprived of the, local symptom which acts vicariously for the internal ailment, would appear in other and much worse ways, in secondary ailments; for the figwart-miasm, which in the whole organism, has been in no way diminished, either by the external destruction of the above-mentioned excrescences, or by the mercury which has been used internally, and which is in no way appropriate to sycosis.”
From the above paragraph, it is clear that hahnemann was talking about “figwart disease” or Human Papiloma Virus infection. Since it “appear usually, but not always, attended with a sort of gonorrhoea from the urethra”, he confused it as gonorrhoea itself, as in his time, HPV infection was not known as such, where as gonorrhoea was well known.
Post a Comment