Hahnemann, in his clinical discussion of psora, writes the following paragraph:.
These ailments and infirmities are merely descendants of one and the same vast original malady, the innumerable symptoms of which form but one whole and are to be regarded and to be medicinally treated as the part of one and the same disease in the same way as in a great epidemic of typhoid fever.
Thus in the year 1813 one patient would be prostrated with only a few symptoms of the plague, a second patient would show only a few, but different ailments, while the third, fourth, etc., would complain of still other ailments belonging to this epidemic disease, while they were, nevertheless, all sick with one and the same pestilential fever and the entire image of the typhoid fever raging at the time could only be obtained by gathering the symptoms of all or at least of many of the patients. Then the one or two remedies, found to be homoeopathic, cured the whole epidemic and therefore showed themselves specifically helpful with every patient, though the one may have been suffering from symptoms different from those of others and almost seemed to be suffering from different diseases.
Since psora, as explained in my paper on Vitamins and Psora, is not an infection, but an avitaminosis of alimentary deficiency, and since in one and the same family its members for. the most part eat the same foods which may be deficient, it is logical to conclude, that they become affected by the same polymorphic constitutional malady which Hahnemann called psora.
The toxins introduced or generated by foods in the organism of a man may be either of one or of several types and, accordingly, may indicated one or several remedies. In one and the same family very often one type prevails. The symptoms which it produces in the members of the family may be either the same and consequently require the same remedy, or they may be different, but still belong to the same remedy.
A few cases may serve as an illustration. One of them struck me in this respect very forcefully for the first time 10 years ago.
A boy of 18 years came crying into my office. He was accompanied by his mother. Doctors had told him that he suffered from pulmonary tuberculosis and that nothing could be done for him as one of his lungs was entirely destroyed. My clinical examination did not show the lung so entirely destroyed and I concluded that there was still hope. The homoeopathic examination pointed unmistakably towards Lycopodium. But, Lycopodium being a perfidious remedy, I wanted to be absolutely sure before administering it.
Corroboration could be looked for only in his mother. So I examined her too and found more than I expected. The mother presented just as strong Lycopodium symptoms as the boy, though not the same. Together they gave the most complete picture of Lycopodium I have ever seen. Only incidentally I shall mention that I told the boy that he would be cured in two months, and he was cured in two months.
Another case: A boy of 8 years suffered from epileptic fits. He exhibited some Phosphorus symptoms, yet not numerous enough to warrant to safe prescription. To get more information, I examined his mother and father also. This time it was the farther who had many strong Phosphorus symptoms. I gave this remedy to the boy in full confidence that it would not disappoint and it did not disappoint. The boy was cured from his epilepsy.
The third and last case: A married couple, both 78 years old, both suffering from weak hearts and obesity and whom I had attended for eight years, presented many symptoms pointing towards Pulsatilla and Sulphur. Their symptoms were not the same. but when put together they completed either the picture of Sulphur or of Pulsatilla each time I prescribed for them, These two remedies always cured their troubles in the shortest time.
This couple have been married a number of decades, have lived an identical life, eating the same foods, drinking the same water, breathing the same air. No wonder they developed identical constitutions with identical psoric attributes which indicated identical remedies.
Knowing one of them, one found no difficulty in prescribing for the other.
In the two other cases the same security in prescribing was obtained by the knowledge of the constitution of the father and mother respectively, who both presented symptoms belonging to the remedies indicated for the sons. In these two cases not only diet, but also heredity may have played a part in the production of the identical constitutional changes. Since metabolic characteristics and weaknesses of organs and tissues of the parents are inherited by their children, one might suppose heredity to be a great factor in modeling the organisms in such a way that identical remedies would be required.
Though heredity should not be underestimated, its importance as a pathogenetic factor is far less than that of deficiency toxicosis. The experience that the nursing child needs for the most part the same remedy as its mother, is in accord with the most primitive reasoning, but it is also known that as soon as the child is weaned, even if only partially, it may develop constitutionally symptoms belonging to some other remedy. It may need this particular remedy all through its early years of life.
Then, as it grows older, it may and mostly does take up the diet and dietetic mistakes of its parents and may so shape its constitution similarly. Just how much the heredity and how much the diet would be responsible for the remedy, is impossible to say nor is it necessary for practical purposes to know. It is only necessary for us to have our attention turned towards the possibility of this identity as it helps in the search for the remedy.
The kind of cases as here reported make up psora. Heredity and dietetic inadequacies produce psoric constitutions. Accordingly, it is easy to understand why two or more members of the same family may need the same psoric remedy.
There are other factors which may affect several members of the same fraternity in the same way and create indications for the same remedy. These factors are infections, infractions of general hygiene, climatic and seasonal changes, physical and mental fatigue, emotional disturbances, etc.
Yet they are of minor importance and mostly give rise to symptoms only when the constitution in psoric. Consequently they are secondary to psora, require acute remedies and often lead to remedy identity quite after the fashion of Hahnemanns typhoid fever cases.
These reflections permit the obvious conclusion that, in treating a child for an acute or chronic trouble, it may be important to examine several or all the other members of the family in order to make possible the finding of the remedy for the child under treatment or to confirm its choice. All too often we do not take the trouble to do it because we do not think of it. To exhort you to adopt the habit of examining the whole family when treating only one child, has been the main purpose of this paper.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH.
DISCUSSION.
DR. GRIMMER: The doctor has certainly given us two good papers. We may differ on some viewpoints, but this is a very excellent paper. The other was, also, in many respects, although we dyed-in-the-wool homoeopaths could hardly throw over the observations and teachings of Hahnemann of 140 years for a new theory, however well based it was on observation.
In this paper, though, the doctor has shown the close relationship between heredity and environment. Undoubtedly heredity plays an important part. It is the same old story. We have one class of thinkers who say that everything is simply the result of environment, but we must remember it is in the individual or in his family, but more especially the individual. It is his reactions to environment that give us the indications for our remedies, regardless of a great many other things. Heredity is the basis underlying psora conditions upon which these so-called chronic manifestations of psora crop out.
DR. FARRINGTON: This paper is an evidence of Dr. Bellokossys skill in prescribing and his loyalty to homoeopathic principles. This, and the paper this morning, I think should be welcomed in our midst, even though the ideas expressed are not according to our former beliefs, perhaps not according to the teaching we believe is contained in the Organon and Chronic Diseases, because papers of this sort stimulate discussion.
It has been my experience through all the years that even the most loyal Hahnemannians have a very vague idea of what psora really is.
Even aside from all the theories, they speak of it as taken for granted. A psora, a chronic miasms that persists in the patient until death and is transmitted to his offspring–I think you can cut the Gordian knot and can solve the whole problem by saying that the essential idea contained in Hahnemanns concept of chronic disease, his theory of chronic disease is that psora, which represents all non-venereal chronic diseases, is all dyscrasia, all the susceptibilities that we find in human beings.
