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 the whole of medical science would be out-of date, which of course has not been the case up to this moment.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.
