PSORA THE REAL CRUX IN HOMOEOPATHY


PSORA THE REAL CRUX IN HOMOEOPATHY. Not infrequently phthisis passes over into insanity, dried up; ulcer into dropsy or apoplexy; intermittent fever into asthma affections of the abdomen into pains in the joints or paralysis; pains in the limbs into haemorrhages etc.; and it was not difficult to discover that the latter diseases must also have their foundations in the original malady and can only be part of a far greater whole.


The real crux in Homoeopathy is Hahnemanns Psora theory. Considerable agitation on this taken place since despite their good percentage of right scoring in medicine,are inclined either to disbelieve or misunderstand the Psora theory senile day dream of an octogenarian, some others misunderstand in their own different ways. But the delectable ridicule comes from those that try to reorient Hahnemanns Psora theory, as if it is in would to be changed and shaped according to ones own mans reasoning and ex-explain the unchangeable, eternally fixed truth, with a new light added to it. You may call it dogmatism: call it or not, this is diamond truth that knows no trunk than distort his maxims or discard them completely.

A similar occasion arises in the clever discourse of Dr.Koppikar, published in the August 48 Number of The Homoeopathic Recorder. S.P. Koppikar, M.D., B.H.M.S: Psora, The Homoeopathic Recorder, LXIV; 2 aUG.1948), p.27. The board of editors have given first priority to this essay and rightly, too, in my opinion, as the subject is one of the basic ones in Homoeopathy and Dr.K.Koppikar has disavowed Hahnemann in an ingenious way, which though it looks brilliant on the first sight,m re-opens the old mater only.

Hahnemann says, “I spent twelve years in investigating the source of this incredibly large number of chronic affections, in ascertaining and collecting certain proofs of this great truth, which had remained unknown to all former or contemporary observers and in discovering at the same time the principal antipsoric remedies” (Organon, 6th ed., p. 1678, footnotes), which speaks of the tremendous task laboriously accomplished in the course of twelve years in discovering the4 real cause of so many chronic diseases. Can all these years of uphill efforts prove futile at last ? Dr.Koppikar also takes not of this phenomenon in his second paragraph.

It is not unfortunate that Hahnemann laid the sole emphasis on Itch in defining the nature and origin of Psora. Like a historian he traced the origin of Psora down to the age of Moses, about 3550 years ago,and quotes Calmed, saying “Leprosy is similar to an inveterate Itch with violent itching”, and himself remakes. “The ancients also mention the peculiar characteristic voluptuous itching which them as now, which after the scratching a painful burning follows; among others Plato, who calls the itch Glykypikron, while Cicero marks the Dulcedo of scabies” (Chronic Diseases, P. 36, footnote, C.Ringer & Co. ed.)

He traces the different transforming stages of the Itch-miasm through different centuries, which sometimes appeared as itch or scabies, sometimes as leprosy proper, some other times as erysipelas. The transformation made no difference, as the essential nature of the Itch-miasm was maintained in all the out breaks and like broad daylight, the Itch showed itself equivalent to Psora. Apart from his scholarly investigation, Hahnemann approached the subject as a scientist-bacteriologist, too. man approached the subject as scientist-bacteriologist, too. Dr.Koppikar rightly quotes Hahnemann. “These exceedingly small animals are a kind of mite.”

In the mode of propagation of the Asiatic cholera,m published in his lesser Writings, Hahnemann describes comma bacilli as “:excessively minute, invisible, living creatures,so inimical to human life” In the Chronic Diseases, p. 99, footnote, he observes, “Psora. . .which causes its germs to develop,” and the same work, p.,75,footnote, records, “chronic-miasmas are diseases parasites and infectious”,. and the parasitic nature of acute eruptive diseases also.

Though any suitable microscopic was not available in the days of Hahnemann, yet he has looked upon miasmas as bacterial contents. And whatever the bacterial nature different cutaneous eruptions may be, the peculiar nature of the said affections from “a few vesicles” on the skin to the most horrible leprosy is essentially the same. Homoeopaths of all climes and ages have noticed the peculiar transforming character of cutaneous eruptions., the one leading to the other, and we are thoroughly convinced when Hahnemann uses Itch: as a synonym for “Psora.”.

Hahnemanns chronic miasmas have nothing to do with suppurations for their chronicity. All the cutaneous eruptions,save and except the acute eruptive diseases like small- pox, measles etc., are chronic from the very commencement if there infective life and the vital principle can not extricate itself from their evil influences be it in latent or active form, in a patients life time without the aid of anti-psoric remedies furnished by the most humane art of Homoeopathy. Similarly,Sycosis and Syphilis are chronic miasms from the beginning of their infection and never depend upon suppressions for their chronicity, as they last a patients whole life time in their original seat if unattended to.

Only suppression drives them inwards to fall upon newer and newer organs and create newer and newer troubles in the human organism to the detriment of the patients health. Further, when suppressed they affect newer and newer organs only because they are chronic in nature from the beginning. A disease is the vital principle not being able to extricate itself from it with out the aid of human art (Org., 6th ed., secs. 78, 79).

So Dr.Koppikars remark, “Gonorrhoea and Syphilis become chronic only if their early manifestations are . . . suppressed (para 17)., is going against the findings of more than a century of homoeopathic investigations and is like placing the carriage before the horse. Hahnemann laid as much emphasis on the chronic nature of the three miasms as on their suppressions. We may subdue an emphasis to suit out own purpose; but Hahnemann must be studied in his own real context.

Hahnemann was fully aware of all forms of suppressions and artificial diseases. Of drug disease created by the antipathic treatment he speaks at length in the organon. In the Chronic Diseases, P.30, footnote, he says.

Not infrequently phthisis passes over into insanity, dried up; ulcer into dropsy or apoplexy; intermittent fever into asthma affections of the abdomen into pains in the joints or paralysis; pains in the limbs into haemorrhages etc.; and it was not difficult to discover that the latter diseases must also have their foundations in the original malady and can only be part of a far greater whole.

Further, to Hahnemann absence of seminal discharges of youths, accompanying subdue sexual pleasure, was a dangerous as excessive pollutions. In the chronic diseases, P.121, footnote 2,we find,”With healthy chaste young men, palliations naturally only take place every twelve or fourteen days,without any attending troubles, and they are followed by cheerfulness and a feeling of strength and serenity.”

About diseases following mental onslaughts like “anxiety, worry,vexation,wrong and then he frequent occurrences of great fear and fright”: which naturally lead to suspension of moral and emotional alone in the human mind, and in many instances oppressed and suppressed feelings, about such conditions Hahnemann has dealt at length insect. 210-23o of his monumental; work, Organon of Medicine. Many similar instances may be cited. That he did not lay emphasis on the “other suppressions”, as alleged by Dr.Koppikar, is not real.,

But he looked at the subject from a different angle of vision from Dr.Koppikars as is evident from the above. He was fortunate enough to stroke at the root of the evil. Psora,the hydraheaded monster,the mother of the limitless woes of making, which when awake is the real cause of newer and newer affections of the human organism (save, of course,the typical nonvenereal ones). therefore the other (non-venereal) suppressions were not of any special import to Hahnemann.

They were only the off springs of Psora,since much a suppression to be transformed into newer and newer maladies must have Psora in he background. when the most prolific mother has been caught hold of, what use of bothering about the miniature babies? Hahnemann did not deem it logical to place the “other suppressions”. as Dr.Koppikar pouts it, on an equal footing with the hydra-headed monster.

To a careful mind that goes through how two masterly theoretical works on medicine, Organon of Medicine and The Chronic Diseases,the following clinical Doctors SHINE IN bold OUTLINES:.

A.NATURAL DISEASES;.

(a) Acute-if left alone developing and passing off after a short while or taking away the patient, but leaving no after- effect.

(b)Chronic-(1) Psora, (2a) Syphilis (3) Sycosis,the three. principal chronic diseases,and the causes of all others, to which innumerable names are given,and which are newer self- curable by the vital principle alone.

B.Drug diseases by antipathic treatment causing manifold harms to mankind,but never transforming into never and newer diseases as in the cases of psora.

These three major divisions are divided and sub-divided again in their various aspects, with Hahnemannian s unparalleled elucidations upon them. Their classify in process is evidently based upon the scientific recognition of the distinct geniuses of the existing groups of diseases. Hahnemann never made them one but kept them quite apart from each other, as they themselves are because of their characteristic affections and manifestations. But Dr.koppikar bungles and mismanages the whole affair. He puts all the divisions under one head,mixes them up and treats all suppressions on an equal footing.

Drug diseases like mercurial and lead poisoning, suppressions of feelings and passions,and even venereal suppressions are placed on the pedestal of Psora, giving them the one name, Psora. He seems to draw much inspiration from Fried, who, however much revered in world opinion, has nothing to do with Homoeopathy. If Freuds psycho-analyses becomes the sole clue to diseases. the whole of medical science would be out-of date, which of course has not been the case up to this moment.

Dr.Koppikar defines Psora as “an obstruction in the normal curative defense mechanism of the body and the clogging of the eliminative and curative processes leading to a condition where the diseases spreads from less important to more important organs, from without inwards,and from the circumference to the centre,” and affirms “it has nothing to do with itch as such unless it is suppressed, producing that condition in the body where more vital organs are affected.” In another place Dr.koppikar proposes to treat itch, barber;s itch, fungus as local diseases, and advises us to apply external applications,which must not causes any harm to the interior.

We would be happy if there would be any congruity between his assertions. Hahnemann never dreamt that any of his followers, to whatever age he might belong, would propose to treat itch locally. The itch-miasms comprises two-thirds of Hahnemanns chronic diseases,as Psora has more terrific effects than Sycosis and Syphilis.

Nay, these last two miasms can affect newer and newer organs only in the psoric background. Psora, “the mist scientist, most universal, most destructive and yet most misapprehended chronic miasmatic disease. . . . . . the mother of all the thousands of various (acute and) chronic (non- venereal) diseases,etc.” may be manifest either in purulent ulcerative processes, if on a “few vesicles,” only, on fingers or it may go latent within because of antipathic suppressions or of its own accord,or the hydra-headed monster may develop into million fold woes of mankind. It is as dangerous to suppress an itch as a leprosy.

This fundamental truth about Hahnemann;s chronic disease has been challenged by Dr. Koppikar. If Hahnemann lived in these days, he would surely dub external treatment of the internal itch-miasm,be it acarus itch or barbers or be it fungus, as a “spurious: method. Dr.. Koppikar has become original indeed in this sphere,but this singular originality makes poles of differences between an established truth about Homoeopathy and his recent personal findings mentioned above.

We can borrow morphine and the hypodermic syringe from our brothers of the opposite school as much as we can borrow from them cibazol or penicillin ointment. In the vein of an English poet of the nineteenth century I would rather say to Hahnemann, “Bright star, would I were stead-fast as you are.” Any way, let the treatment go by its name., Let Dr. Koppikar establish a parallel Paths to Homoeopathy, but let him not inflict ravages on the person of the divine mother, Homoeopathy.

Dr. Koppikar has rightly differentiated the realistic method of Hahnemann from the metaphysical approach of Kent. But Dr.Kent only tried to give as much new meaning to Hahnemanns Dr.Koppikar himself. To out mind Dr,Kent is complete and simple enough in his own sphere and even his mystic “Simple Substance” appears before our eyes as crystal. Dr.Koppikar would have been more convincing if he himself would be less metaphysical than is apparent from his generalization,”Gonorrhoea and Syphilis are also essentially psoric”, desire the provisionary “because”!.

The itch is a mite and w can not but acknowledge it. Hahnemann looked at the itch-miasm like all other miasms from the bacterial point of view. the “invisible, spirit-like (conceptual infection” of the miasm depends as much upon the microscopic, invisible entities as upon their non-chemical non-physical, but biological-dynamic action against the vital principle and an immediate instructive reaction from it. The itch infection, to Hahnemann, is never local, but internal, Constitutional (as in the case of all other miasms, acute or chronic) and so can never be treated locally in the hand of a true homoeopath.

The only exception where Hahnemann directed us to opposite local methods to an internal malady is in the case of warts. But I m confident, if Hahnemann lived in out day, he would have taken back the said lines from his text. ?For in thousands of clinical chases is it being daily verified by homoeopaths all over the world that, while Thuja, causticum Medorrhinum, etc., are failing in lower attentions,the higher and the highest (10M, 50M, CM,. DM,etc.) in repeated doses are working miracles encases of warts,tumours,and such other growths, If Hahnemann could have sharpened his weapons more and more by higher and the highest attentions, he could have achieved the desired effect by internal medication alone.

The vital principle, weakened by previous illness or mental aberrations, or un hygienic living (and consequently in the lower tides of power) is more susceptible to any miasms, acute or chronic,be it itch or anything else.

From this it does not necessarily follow that the acarus itch is a local disease, as claimed by Dr.,Koppikar. Hahnemann laid the real emphasis on the weakened state of the vital principle prior to it dynamic infection by the said miasm. He speaks of the prepared soil only before the bacterial dynamic seed is thrown about. It is unfortunate that a thinker of Dr.Koppikar;s calibre should misunderstand him.

HOMOEOPATHY is the science of careful individualisation not of sweeping generalizations. what is true of one patient is the opposite in another. One patient is relieved in diarrhoea,an other in constipation, one infesting,another in gluttony., It is very, very unsafe and against all Homoeopathic principles to say that the elimination of all auxins through the various discharges of the body is a pre-requisite condition for successful treatment. Think of a case of tuberculosis. The instinctive,unimaginative vital principle is struggling hard to excrete through all the organs all the toxins in circulation.

There is the night sweat,the diarrhoea,the excessive mucopurulent discharges from the site If affection which all come in such a violent manner that,m instead of doing any good to the patient,they imperil his life. Natures instinctive elimination of toxins designed to relieve he patient here is dont harm than good. In cholera,also,the toxins are eliminated through alvine discharges. Do you want to imitate this method of blind Nature in all cases of diseases or on all cases of individual suffering and hasten your wretched patient to his grave. typhoid,too,this elimination process is lurks frightful.

Dr.Allen in his fevers, p. 554, notes, “Danger lurks in diarrhoea,especially in purgation”. He quotes Jahr (same page) as saying, “I have not yet lost a single patient, in whom,up to the time of the time of the crisis,the bowels remained costive, inactive” Dr.Hering,the father of Homoeopathy, also remarks, “I said the same more than twenty years ago,and can repeat it now; even in the third week the non-appearance of a stool is significant. The same applies in child-bed”.

Hahnemanns magnanimous genius as proved the Psora theory from facts and figures, from books and experiences. If any one wants to alter or discard it,he must in the same manner prove his proposition from facts and figures. How wonderfully exploring and factual are Hahnemanns foot notes? In one of these he throws the challenge to the non-believers.

. . . so long as the doubters of this Psora doctrine cannot show me any other source which is at least as probable for a (non-venereal) ailment, which despite of favorable external conditions, correct diet, good morality and vigorous bodily constitution never-the-less increases every year, . . . ; so long as I have on my side an over-powering analogous probability, i.e., 100 to 1, that also the individual cases of chronic disease, which show a like progression, probably also are, must be, of a Psoric nature, although the patient can not or will not remember a preceding infection!.

Therefore the residuary work that is yet to be done in this respect,after all that Hahnemann has done, is to determine precisely the difference in the nature of the manifestations of the three distinct miasms, Psora, Syphilis and sycosis,and to re group symptoms accordingly, under their proper head. For the heading of Psora. But to our mind this seems improper as baldness is more a manifestation of syphilis, and polypus of Sycosis,than of Psora proper.

Dr.J.H.Allens work on chronic miasms has been a step further in this direction; yet there is more to be done, or else one overcautious disciple of Hahnemann may slyly glance at the three-fourths-hairless,shining head of his Master, and discern how much of Psora or Syphilis is there! Really, judging from his own criterion,”Psora-free” Hahnemanns smooth head presents a problem before us his followers in this atheist world.

Other peculiar problems may crop up in like manner before the individual followers of Hahnemann. Hahnemann says, and Dr.Koppikar also quotes him properly, “The miasma of the other common Gonorrhoea seems not to penetrate the whole organism, but only to locally stimulate the urinary organs”. This may lead to the misconception that Hahnemann kept the “common Gonorrhoea” apart from the fig-wart Gonorrhoea, for being treated locally with medicinal douches and other external being treated l,locally with medicinal douches and other external appliances.

But this is obviated from the assertion of Hahnemann, “And very little reflection will suffice to convince us that no external malady (not occasioned by some important injury without) can arise persist, or even grow worse without some internal cause, without the co-operation of the whole organism, which must consequently be in a diseased state. . . .No eruption on the lips,no whitlow can occur without previous and simultaneous internal ill-health” (Organon, 6th ed., sec. 189).

And Hahnemann never advises us to treat the said acute “:common Gonorrhoea” locally,but suggests :parsley juice, Cannabis or Cantharides” in the “higher and highest dynamizations.” In differentiating the “common Gonorrhoea” from the more pervading,more deep-acting,and more frightful figwart gonorrhoea, which from the beginning is chronic and ineradicable by the vital principle along, producing newer and newer affections when in combination with Psora, Hahnemann probably had before him the acute cystitis or urethritis of modern Pathology.

Hahnemann probably had before him the acute cystitis or urethritis of modern Pathology. He rightly observed that this “common Gonorrhoea” is rather semi-chronic than chronic,and has not the other constitutional effects of sycotic gonorrhoea. But when suppressed this “common gonorrhoea,” l;Okla. all other miasms acute or chronic goes inwards and combines with Psora which-and which along-produces newer and newer ailments, according to the nature and degree of the provocation present, to the effect that a secondary gonorrhoea remains. what else than anti-psoric remedies can cure this dyscrasia named secondary gonorrhoea?.

But Dr.Koppikar tries to establish Psora as a synonym for suppressions. All suppressions-suppurations of Psora, Syphilis and Sycosis, of acute diseases, eruptive or not,of drug diseases like mercurial or lead poisoning-0are treated by him as Psora., But, as stated above,Psora has no reference to suppression: it is the original Itch-miasm, suppressed or not;l it is the chronic malady growing within the human organism and culminating in its fruition upon the skin; it is that which remained as such in the beginning and remains so in the end.

If not annihilated by homoeopathic treatment, or if treated allopathically, or recedes after some time and goes inwards, latent and slumbering or awake and pernicious, as the case may be; and when awake, internally invades newer and newer organs, produces newer and newer maladies,along or in combination with other suppressions, acute or chronic maladies (which again provoke it to rise from the slumbering state), So,according to Hahnemann, Psora has as much a primordial existence as human beings or wild animals or the green vegetation.

It is a seed,a disease miasma rather,as distinct from its mishandling in the human hand; it is the seed, out of which a mighty tree grows. But Dr.Koppikar not only treats the manifestations of suppressed Psora as Psora proper, not only treats the tree as the seed, but considers the other suppressed conditions also as one with psora. It is not only like treating a mango-tree as a mango-seed, but also like treating other trees also as a mango-seed,but also like treating other trees also as a mango-seed. so Dr.Koppikars arguments suffer from at two-fold fallacy.

It is a plausible theory that all miasms, natural or artificial, from the very inception of their dynamically infective life cause a plague spot on the organism whence emanate all the power and focus of disease against the vital principle.

A miasm remains there as if a seed,and breaks forth under favorable circumstances against the vital principle which, in its reaction of defense, causes the symptoms to come to light. The more does the seed break forth into newer and newer off-shoots and branches and foliage, and the stronger the resistance offered by the vital principle,the more manifest do the symptoms become. But all seeds are not alike, as all trees are not one. They differ exclusively from each other in character,nature, and manifestation. Similarly when suppressed they take back their manifestations and recede inward; but no two are alike in suppressions as also in manifestations.

S M Bhattacherjee
S.M. BHATTACHERJEE, M.A., P.R.S.M.. BERHAMPORE.