Blogging the Organon

January 16, 2008

10-15: Hahnemann’s Organon Of Medicine

Filed under: Hahnemann,homeopathy,homoeopathy,organon — gimpy @ 8:45 am

§ 10 Fifth Edition

The material organism, without the vital force, is capable of no sensation, no function, no self-preservation 1, it derives all sensation and performs all the functions of life solely by means of the immaterial being (the vital force) which animates the material organism in health and in disease.

1 It is dead, and only subject to the power of the external physical world; it decays, and is again resolved into its chemical constituents.

§ 10 Sixth Edition

The material organism, without the vital force, is capable of no sensation, no function, no self-preservation 1, it derives all sensation and performs all the functions of life solely by means of the immaterial being (the vital principle) which animates the material organism in health and in disease.

1 It is dead, and only subject to the power of the external physical world; it decays, and is again resolved into its chemical constituents.

§ 11 Fifth Edition

When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic 1 influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on the organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer and physician, that is, by morbid symptoms, and in no other way can it make itself known.

1 Materia peccans!

§ 11 Sixth Edition

When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere present in his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic 1 influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on the organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer and physician, that is, by morbid symptoms, and in no other way can it make itself known. 2

1 Materia peccans!

2 What is dynamic influence, – dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy, carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific, pure energy and action of he one substance upon the other substance.

For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever, to attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically, and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.

In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot communicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not measles. These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in substance. That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.

It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated, specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has become through the dynamization.

Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner? If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?

§ 12 Fifth Edition

It is the morbidly affected vital force alone that produces disease1, so that the morbid phenomena perceptible to our senses express at the same time all the internal change, that is to say, the whole morbid derangement of the internal dynamis; in a word, they reveal the whole disease; consequently, also, the disappearance under treatment of all the morbid phenomena and of all the morbid alterations that differ from the healthy vital operations, certainly affects and necessarily implies the restoration of the integrity of the vital force and, therefore, the recovered health of the whole organism.

1 How the vital force causes the organism to display morbid phenomena, that is, how it produces disease, it would be of no practical utility to the physician to know, and will forever remain concealed from him; only what it is necessary for him to know of the disease and what is fully sufficient for enabling him to cure it, has the Lord of life revealed to his senses
§ 12 Sixth Edition

It is the morbidly affected vital energy alone that produces disease1, so that the morbid phenomena perceptible to our senses express at the same time all the internal change, that is to say, the whole morbid derangement of the internal dynamis; in a word, they reveal the whole disease; consequently, also, the disappearance under treatment of all the morbid phenomena and of all the morbid alterations that differ from the healthy vital operations, certainly affects and necessarily implies the restoration of the integrity of the vital force and, therefore, the recovered health of the whole organism.

1 How the vital force causes the organism to display morbid phenomena, that is, how it produces disease, it would be of no practical utility to the physician to know, and will forever remain concealed from him; only what it is necessary for him to know of the disease and what is fully sufficient for enabling him to cure it, has the Lord of life revealed to his senses.
§ 13

Therefore disease (that does not come within the province of manual surgery) considered, as it is by the allopathists, as a thing separate from the living whole, from the organism and its animating vital force, and hidden in the interior, be it ever so subtle a character, is an absurdity, that could only be imagined by minds of a materialistic stamp, and has for thousands of years given to the prevailing system of medicine all those pernicious impulses that have made it a truly mischievous [non-healing] art.
§ 14

There is, in the interior of man, nothing morbid that is curable and no invisible morbid alteration that is curable which does not make itself known to the accurately observing physicians by means of morbid signs and symptoms – an arrangement in perfect conformity with the infinite goodness of the all-wise Preserver of human life.
§ 15 Fifth Edition

The affection of the morbidly deranged, spirit-like dynamis (vital force) that animates our body in the invisible interior, and the totality of the outwardly cognizable symptoms produced by it in the organism and representing the existing malady, constitute a whole; they are one and the same. The organism is indeed the material instrument of the life, but it is not conceivable without the animation imparted to it by the instinctively perceiving and regulating vital force (just as the vital force is not conceivable without the organism), consequently the two together constitute a unity, although in thought our mind separates this unity into two distinct conceptions for the sake of facilitating the comprehension of it.
§ 15 Sixth Edition

The affection of the morbidly deranged, spirit-like dynamis (vital force) that animates our body in the invisible interior, and the totality of the outwardly cognizable symptoms produced by it in the organism and representing the existing malady, constitute a whole; they are one and the same. The organism is indeed the material instrument of the life, but it is not conceivable without the animation imparted to it by the instinctively perceiving and regulating dynamis, just as the vital force is not conceivable without the organism, consequently the two together constitute a unity, although in thought our mind separates this unity into two distinct conceptions for the sake of easy comprehension

Advertisements

21 Comments »

  1. 10 – this is either ‘when we’re alive we’re alive and when we’re dead, we’re dead’ or it’s claiming that this ‘vital force’ exists and is like the soul, namely a supernatural force acting on the body but not of it. So it’s either a platitude or it’s rubbish.

    Comment by tom p — January 16, 2008 @ 11:06 am | Reply

  2. tom p, I think given the knowledge of his day, hypotheses about a vital force are legitimate. Of course with our modern day understanding we can see the Hahnemann is wrong but such concepts were in vogue at the time. I think the ignorance of the time is amply demonstrated by his words on magnetism. He attributes magnetism to some unknown energy but we now know is to do with the alignment of electrons in a substance. To somebody lacking the huge depth of knowledge we have now it might have seen logical to create a concept of energy that can be equally applied to magnets as to the transmission of smallpox. Remember there was no germ theory of disease at this point in time. Of course for anybody to believe now that magnetism and disease are related would be absurd.

    Comment by gimpy — January 16, 2008 @ 11:15 am | Reply

  3. 11 – ah, so the ‘vital force’ is like the soul.

    11 footnote 1 – “Materia peccans” translates as “Spoiled humours”.

    11 footnote 2 – he’s saying it’s analogous to gravity. It’s amazing how homeopaths, to this day, still imitate this technique of explaining how they think homeopathy works with reference to the latest theories in physics. Of course, it’s understandable, before germ theory and people knowing what viruses or genetic mutations are, that he might make the mistake of thinking that it’s an invisible force that causes us to become ill, but anyone who can be bothered to look nowadays can see the causative agents for bacterial infections (all you need is a microscope that can magnify ~100x)
    To be precise, hanneman says (just after having talked about a magnet affecting a steel needle) “just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is, infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the magnetic property.” This has been proven to be completely wrong.

    Comment by tom p — January 16, 2008 @ 11:25 am | Reply

  4. And if one raises his arm, does it occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy of his will which raises it?
    Didn’t H know about muscles and tendons? He should, because they were known for a long time then already.

    Comment by Elennaro — January 16, 2008 @ 11:35 am | Reply

  5. More on 11 (2)
    “These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of the medicinal substances…”
    Nuh uh. There are hundreds and thousands of studies where you see a medicine binding to a receptor, thus communicating material parts of the medicinal substance. Of course, he couldn’t have known this then, but homeopaths should be aware of this now.
    “…thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines,…”
    Oh, really? And why would this be? Is there any evidence to back up this claim or at least a plausible thoery with some proper calculations?
    “… in which there can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind,…”
    Avogadro gave it a good go though, didn’t he?
    “… than by large doses of the same medicine in substance. That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed, conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.”
    Even if this theory were true, it doesn’t explain why you wouldn’t want more dynamised medicine than less.

    Comment by tom p — January 16, 2008 @ 11:35 am | Reply

  6. Gimpy – it looks like we were cross-posting. You’re absolutely right in what you say, however, as Elennaro pointed out, Hanneman does seem to have been pretty wilfully ignorant of other well-established (even in his day) areas of medicine.

    Comment by tom p — January 16, 2008 @ 11:37 am | Reply

  7. I really should do some work, but this is just priceless
    12 (1) “How the vital force causes the organism to display morbid phenomena, that is, how it produces disease, IT WOULD BE OF NO PRACTICAL UTILITY TO THE PHYSICIAN TO KNOW, AND WILL FOREVER REMAIN CONCEALED FROM HIM.” (my caps)
    I take back all the platitudes I said about Hanneman. He was an intellectual midget, even for his time, and he had no real curiosity, just an over-active imagination and an over-inflated sense of his own intellect. Arrogant fool.

    Comment by tom p — January 16, 2008 @ 11:42 am | Reply

  8. There’s very little to say on this really, we’ve drifted a long way from the previous sound advice into the realm of pure speculation that no longer has any relevance. As tom p says in comment #7, the real crime here is in the baseless assertion that we will never know what causes disease and that it would be of no benefit to know. This is deeply unscientific; once you’ve made a statement like that it’s very difficult to withdraw and could well lead you to reject solid new findings for the sake of your pride.

    The interesting question is the degree to which modern homoeopaths base their thinking on the same assumptions (1 – it’s the “vital force”, 2 – we’ll never know the proximal causes of disease). If they do uncritically accept these statements then they’ve genuinely rejected science, and dissuading people from using homoeopathy should be as simple as pointing out these 200-year-old magical, unscientific underpinnings of their trade. If they do accept more modern findings such as germ theory, then they should answer the question “What do you think happens when someone takes a homoeopathic remedy?”

    Comment by flimflam_machine — January 16, 2008 @ 12:47 pm | Reply

  9. Hahnemann started to study medicine at the University of Leipzig in 1775, but left in 1776 without ever completing his studies. This could explain his ignorence re Elennaro’c comment at 4

    Comment by Nash — January 16, 2008 @ 1:57 pm | Reply

  10. “Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner?”

    There’s two crucial points right there. A direct reference to “our age” – so H is specifically talking about the late 18th century. And a sweeping generalisation about “daily phenomena which cannot be explained in any other manner”. Many of those phenomena now CAN be explained.

    Then, no-one knew how a magnet attracted a steel needle or how the Earth kept the Moon in orbit or how the Moon caused the tides or how smallpox was transmitted from one person to another. It was not unreasonable to say that, as all of these seem to be caused by some invisible, undetectable agent, why could there not be a similar invisible, undetectable agent which affected people’s health.

    Now that all these things can be explained, such a logical leap is no longer valid and nor is any system of medicine based on it.

    This really is eye-opening stuff. Do trainee homeopathists ever query this in class, I wonder because it’s a pretty obvious question.

    Comment by MJ Simpson — January 16, 2008 @ 2:28 pm | Reply

  11. So I am curious. How does the Earth keep the Moon in orbit? How does the Moon cause tides? Not what the word is that we call it, but HOW does it?

    -GG

    Comment by GaleG — January 16, 2008 @ 2:40 pm | Reply

  12. GaleG, as I understand the answer to your question is gravity, which is the name given to the observed phenomenon where objects of mass cause a curvature in spacetime resulting in an attraction towards each other. You might find this a useful starting point.

    MJ Simpson, Hahnemann must have been aware of Newton’s work on gravity. Surely? Newton did a pretty good job of explaining celestial motions, I’m surprised Hahnemann doesn’t take this into account

    Comment by gimpy — January 16, 2008 @ 2:56 pm | Reply

  13. GG – I think you’r referring to gravity? This is well off-topic but it’s worth examining.

    Before Newton came along, the best explanation going was divine intervention. So that instead of a simple two-body interaction, (Earth, Moon) you now have three entities involved (Earth, God, and Moon). There is a philosophical principle called “Occam’s Razor” which says one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything; and it is not helpful to invoke God to explain gravity.

    Newton gave a very simple explanation, Einstein made it even simpler, and throetical physicists are still trying to simplify the explanation further.For more about gravity, please look in Wikipedia.

    The relevance of this to Hahnemann’s work is the principle of Occam’s Razor. H creates a number of spurious entities – miasms, vital force, morbid agents – which cannot be measured, quantified, or predicted and which, therefore, do not assist in the explanation of disease. Modern science therefore dispenses with them, and instead uses entities such as germs and congenital predisposition; with greater success.

    Comment by mugsandmoney — January 16, 2008 @ 3:06 pm | Reply

  14. GaleG’s questions are answered here:
    http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_earth.html

    More detailed links are here:
    http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/national_standards_5_8.htm

    I would suggest that you also go to your library and ask to see where the general science books are kept. You may even want to check out a book or two on history of science, and some biographies of scientists. I recently read Out of the Shadows, Contributions of Twentieth Century to Physics, which not only gave short biographies but discussed the discoveries they made and how they related to the rest of science. There are also several other good books about basic science with good graphics available at your local library.

    Comment by hcn57 — January 18, 2008 @ 1:04 am | Reply

  15. Personal favourite – Bill Bryson’s “A short history of nearly everything”
    ISBN-10: 0552997048

    Comment by mugsandmoney — January 18, 2008 @ 9:45 pm | Reply

  16. Comment by Nash — January 16, 2008 @ 1:57 pm :
    Hahnemann started to study medicine at the University of Leipzig in 1775, but left in 1776 without ever completing his studies. This could explain his ignorence re Elennaro’c comment at 4

    Hahnemann was awarded the degree of Doctor of Medicine on 10 August 1779.

    Comment by Ohreally — January 18, 2008 @ 11:17 pm | Reply

  17. For your information:
    “Miasm” was Hahnemann’s term for an infecting agent, such as bacteria and viruses. He identified the symptoms of cholera as a consequence of infection by a living organism some 60 years before Koch saw it through a microscope.
    “Vital force” is defined by Hahnemann (if you read what he says) as a non-material property of a material living object, which cannot exist independently of that object (though it is convenient to consider it separately as a concept). As such it is specifically not a “soul”. The fact that no biological or chemical change takes place at the point of death is demonstrable by the fact that for a short time after death a body can be revived. Death happens BEFORE the boiological and chemical changes start to take place.
    “Morbid agents” is a collective term for any number of influences towards illness on an organism, including infectious organisms, emotional upsets, poor diet and living conditions, poisons, and so on.

    Hahnemann had extensive knowledge of medicine, chemistry and languages, and invented the first method of producing colloidal suspension.

    Comment by Ohreally — January 18, 2008 @ 11:34 pm | Reply

  18. Ohreally: “The fact that no biological or chemical change takes place at the point of death is demonstrable by the fact that for a short time after death a body can be revived. Death happens BEFORE the boiological and chemical changes start to take place.”

    I think the definition of point of death is an important point to raise given this comment. Clearly there is a lot of debate about what definition of death is truly appropriate medically. There are changes in chemistry and physiology that occur during the process of ‘death’ irrespective of whether the individual may be revived or not.

    “Hahnemann had extensive knowledge of medicine, chemistry and languages, and invented the first method of producing colloidal suspension.”

    A colloidal suspension of what? Colloidal gold has reportedly been used as far back as ancient Rome and certainly Paracelsus was documented to have produced colloidal suspensions centuries before Hahnemann was born. This very notable achievement seems to be conspicuously absent from biographies that I’ve seen as well – care to offer a source?

    Comment by thenanoscientist — January 21, 2008 @ 5:11 pm | Reply

  19. It’s probably bad form to come back to this thread after more than a week, but I’ve got a life as well.

    Ohreally said: “He identified the symptoms of cholera as a consequence of infection by a living organism some 60 years before Koch saw it through a microscope.”

    I’ll have to ask you to back that up. So far as I can tell, the words “cholera” and “infection” don’t even appear in the same paragraph in the Organon, so you must have a different source.

    And – it’s important to remember that many words had very different meanings in 1810 than they do today. From Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (1755)
    Infect – to taint, to poison, to pollute
    Infection – a contagion, a corrupt effluvium

    There was no suggestion at that time that infection could be caused by a living organism. Hahnemann theorised that infection was caused by a miasm, but there is nothing in his writings to equate “miasm” with a living organism which is invisible to the naked eye.

    ——————————————————————–

    You also suggest that Hahnemann used the word “miasm” to describe bacteria and viruses. Again, I don’t find support for this in the organon. The principle miasm is “psoric” – I suppose corresponding to modern day psoriasis – this is certainly not caused by either bacteria or viruses. He also names chronic miasm as a cause of epilepsy; once more, no bacterial or viral cause.

    The important thing with any concept is whether it can lead on to something which can be observed, measured, or predicted. 200 years on from Hahnemann’s time, “miasm” cannot be observed, measure, or predicted – and therefore it is of no use in medical diagnosis or treatment.

    On the other hand, a bacterium such as the one which causes cholera can be observed & measured. Its behavour can be predicted – it is water-borne and infection occurs by ingestion of contaminated water. Boiling the water kills the bacterium (.. and the results can be observed and measured) and makes the water safe to drink. No theory of “miasms” can explain this.

    Comment by mugsandmoney — January 28, 2008 @ 10:40 pm | Reply

  20. Mugsandmoney, the reference is as follows from a pamphlet (Appeal to Thinking Philanthropists Respecting the mode of Propagation of the Asiatic Cholera) published in Leipzic in 1831, reprinted in Samuel Hahnemann, The Lesser Writings (New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers Pvt. Ltd, 2002) pp. 758-759:
    “On board ships – in those confined spaces, filled with mouldy watery vapours, the cholera miasm finds a favourable element for its multiplication, and grows into an enormously increased brood of those excessively minute, invisible, living creatures, so inimical to human life, of which the contagious matter of the cholera most probably consists – on board these ships, I say, this concentrated aggravated miasm kills several of the crew; the others, however, being frequently exposed to the danger of infection and thus gradually habituated to it, at length become fortified against it, and no longer liable to be infected.”

    Psora is the itch disease derived from scabies.

    The word miasm has changed its meaning since Hahnemann’s day. Homeopaths generally use the term disease agents where he used miasm, and the word miasm for the state of health after a disease has been suppressed instead of cured. This state of disposition to disease may be explicable as a purely functional disturbance (at least at first) in the absence of chemical or mechanical change. The possibility of such an explanation involves the very recent mathematical ideas of chaos and fractals (see Bellavite and Signorini), which are already starting to be applied to biological systems. You can imagine that in the absence of the term “functional disturbance”, Hahnemann had to create a terminology of his own, and the footnote to paragraph 31 is an attempt to describe this change of state which is real (not hyperphysical) but without a material form.

    Paolo Bellavite M.D. and Andrea Signorini M.D., The Emerging Science of Homeopathy; Complexity, Biodynamics, and Nanopharmacology (Berkley: North Atlantic Books, 2002)

    Comment by Ohreally — January 30, 2008 @ 1:04 pm | Reply

  21. Hi, Ohreally – that’s interesting.

    He was wrong in some respects – there is no connection between cholera and confined spaces, or vapours. And he has hedged his bets by saying “probably” which suggest to me that he may have been picking up on the work of van Leeuwenhoek or Bassi, rather than proposing a new theory. It’s a pity he didn’t follow through on it – Hahnemann’s name doesn’t feature in articles on the “Germ Theory of Disease” which I have been able to trace. So I think your assertion is a bit strong.

    Thanks for your improved explanation of the meaning of “miasm”. It still doesn’t lead to anything which can be observed, measured, or predicted though; so it’s a useless concept.

    If you substitute modern concepts like “immune deficiency” or “genetic predisposition” instead of “Miasm” then you have causes of disease which can be observed and measured, and which lead on to testable predictions about treatment methods and outcomes.

    Comment by mugsandmoney — January 31, 2008 @ 1:45 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: