Sycosis- Is It Miasm Of Gonorrhoea, Or Human Papilloma Virus? Or, A Mixed Miasm That Confused Hahnemann?

<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br> <b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Sycosis- Is It Miasm Of Gonorrhoea, Or Human Papilloma Virus? Or, A Mixed Miasm That Confused Hahnemann? by chandran nambier</span></b><br> <br> <br> 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<br> .<br> 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.<br> <br> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">In Chronic Diseases : Para 9, Hahnemann says: </span><br> <br> “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”.<br> 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.<br> <br> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;">In Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann says about SYCOSIS as follows:</span><br> <br> “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”.<br> <br> “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”.<br> </div>

Sycosis- Is It Miasm Of Gonorrhoea, Or Human Papilloma Virus? Or, A Mixed Miasm That Confused Hahnemann?

Sycosis- Is It Miasm Of Gonorrhoea, Or Human Papilloma Virus? Or, A Mixed Miasm That Confused Hahnemann? by chandran nambier I think we ...

Read more »