Homeopathy Papers

The Myth of Psora

Arnoldo Rivera
Written by Arnoldo Rivera

Dr. Arnoldo Rivera explores Hahnemann’s psora and concludes that infection with itch (psora) is not the cause of all chronic non-venereal diseases as Hahnemann taught. The psoric miasm Sarcoptes scabiei is only one of the exciting causes that interact with the constitutional predisposition to result in disease.

In his work “The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homoeopathic Cure”, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann teaches that psora is a chronic infectious disease[1] which begins with a contagion with itch[2]. In Hahnemann’s times, producers of infections (microbes) were named “miasms”.

Hahnemann used to say that miasms were “excessively minute, invisible living creatures or animated beings” or “miasmatic animated beings.”[3] So, psora was considered a miasmatic or infectious chronic disease.

Although Hahnemann also associated other miasms (microbes) to the miasm of itch, as producers of psora, such as the miasms (microbes) of herpes, tinea capitis[4], leprosy[5], and erysipelas[6], he most frequently referred to the miasm (microbe) of itch as the main producer of psora. (Among the psoric cases that Hahnemann quotes from other authors[7] in the above mentioned work, 73 depend on the suppression of itch, 17 refer to tinea capitis and one to herpes).

On tracking the history of psora, Hahnemann relates it to scabies. He says[8]:

“In Leviticus, not only in the thirteenth chapter, but also (chapt. 21, verse 20) where it speaks of the bodily defects which must not be found in a priest who is to offer sacrifice, malignant itch is designated by the word garab, which the Alexandrian translators (in the Septuagint) translated as  psora agria, but the Vulgate  as scabies jugis. The Talmudic interpreter, Jonathan, explained it as “dry itch spread over the body”; while the expression, yalephed, is used by Moses for “lichen, tetter, herpes” (see M. Rosenmueller, Scholia in Levit., p. II., edit. sec., p. 124).

The commentators in the so-called English Bible-work also agree with this definition; Calmet, among others, saying: “Leprosy is similar to an inveterate itch with violent itching.”

The ancients also mention the peculiar, characteristic voluptuous itching which attended itch then as now, while after the scratching a painful burning follows; among others Plato, who calls itch glykypikron, while Cicero marks the dulcedo of scabies.” And Hahnemann also, when referring to examples of chronic diseases which originate in a suppression of itch, quotes Juncker’s work “Dissertatio de Damno ex Scabie Repulsa”[9].

Some colleagues think that the itch of Hahnemann’s times was different from the itch we presently see, as this more recent version is less intense because it does not produce pustules.

Richard Haehl says that Hahnemann very well knew about the existence of the acarus as producer of scabies and so, when he was referring to itch, he was referring to another disease and not to scabies, but in the previous lines I have shown that our master clearly refers to scabies when he mentions the itch disease.

I checked this theme and I found that presently the itch also produces pustules, so, trying to follow Hahnemann’s thoughts, one can conclude that itch, and thus, psora too, are produced by the miasm (microbe) which presently we call Sarcoptes scabiei.

Here, problems begin, because Hahnemann thought that the miasms (microbes) are embodied or incorporated in the organism of the human being during the incubation period of the infection[10]. Referring to the incubation period of the infectious diseases Hahnemann wrote:

“What then did nature do with the received miasma (microbe) during the intervening days? What else but to incorporate the whole disease (miasm, microbe) of measles or scarlet fever in the entire living organism…”

and he also wrote[11]:

“…are not the chronic miasmas disease-parasites which continue to live as long as the man seized by them is alive…”

Hahnemann claims that the miasm (microbe) of itch (sarcoptes scabiei) penetrates the human organism. He speaks about this fact in a commentary referring to antipsoric medicines[12]:

“The antipsoric medicines treated of in what follows contain no so-called isopathic medicines, since their pure effects, even those of the potentized miasma of itch (Psorin) have not been proved enough, by far, that a safe homoeopathic use might be made of it.

I say homoeopathic use, for it does not remain idem (the same); even if the prepared itch substance (which supposedly includes the Sarcoptes scabiei, I add) should be given to the same patient from whom it was taken, it would not remain idem (the same), as it could only be useful to him in a potentized state, since crude itch substance (Sarcoptes scabiei, I add), which he has already in his body, as an idem is without effect on him.” I remark: “Since crude itch substance (Sarcoptes scabiei, I add) which he has already in his body…” (In German Hahnemann wrote: “Weil roher Krätzstoff den er sa schon an sich hat” Is it not clear that to Hahnemann Sarcoptes scabiei penetrates into the interior of the organism as a parasite?)

Please read the next comment by Hahnemann [13]:

“All chronic diseases of mankind… have for their origin and foundation constant chronic miasms (microbes), whereby their parasitical existence in the human organism is enabled to continually rise and grow.”

But this matter does not finish here. As a corollary we must accept, with Hahnemann, that the following chronic diseases (and only to name a few) which he considered to be psoric, are produced by Sarcoptes scabiei:

Tuberculosis[14] (now we know it is caused by tubercle bacillus or Mycobacterium tuberculosis) Malaria[15](intermittent fever, now we know it is caused by Plasmodium) Pneumonia[16] (now we know it is caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, virus, fungi) Tetanus[17](now we know it is caused by Clostridium tetani) Pian[18] (now we know it is caused by Treponema pallidum pertenue) Cancer of the uterus[19] (now we know cancer of the cervix is caused by a kind of human papilloma virus) Ulcer of the stomach[20] (now we know it is caused by Helicobacter pylori)

So, according to Hahnemann’s way of thinking, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, plasmodium, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Clostridium tetani, Treponema pallidum pertenue, human papilloma virus, Helicobacter pylori and many other microbes penetrate the body through the skin together with Sarcoptes scabiei (accompanying it), in order to produce the diseases they can cause, as also Stuart Close thought. He wrote[21]:

“Many superficial critics have ridiculed the idea that the itch, known even before Hahnemann’s day to be due to a minute but visible animal parasite, the Acarus scabiei, was the cause of any other than a local disease of the skin. They did not consider that even if this were true, it might be the host or carrier of another smaller, infectious microorganism, in the same way the flea and the mosquito are carriers of infection.”

According to what I have written up to this point in this article, psora theory, from a modern microbiological point of view, is wrong and unable to explain the nature of chronic non-venereal diseases, because the miasm (microbe) of itch (Sarcoptes scabiei) cannot produce the enormous quantity of chronic (infectious or not) diseases which Hahnemann grouped under the name of psora.

Sarcoptes scabiei cannot produce what Hahnemann called the hydra-headed psora. Hahnemann chose the term psora by being it the oldest term found in old books in relation to the itch. If the contagion with itch (scabies) is not the cause of chronic diseases, then the term psora is incorrectly used to refer to them; or in other words, psora, then, does not exist.

Referring to this theme, Müeller-Kypke of Berlin, wrote[22]:

“The unfortunate part about Hahnemann’s doctrine of psora – which otherwise must be considered ingenious and far in advance of his times – is the word psora itself”.

Here we can also say, that any modern sophisticated concept constructed on psora theory is also incorrect.

Notwithstanding, the clinical facts and teachings which we find in Hahnemann’s work on chronic diseases are undeniable and very important and can help us better understand the theme of chronic diseases. For example, although Hahnemann quotes many cases of diseases which were produced by the suppression of itch[23], he also makes us understand that the suppression of any kind of eruption can produce chronic diseases. He says[24]:

“no cutaneous eruption of whatever kind it may be, ought to be expelled through external means by any physician who wishes to act conscientiously and rationally.”

This means that not only the suppression of itch produces chronic diseases but that the suppression of any eruption produces chronic diseases. Hahnemann teaches that the kind of diseases so produced depends not on the eruption which is suppressed, but on many other factors. Hahnemann wrote[25]:

“These (maladies, signs, complaints) are varied according to the difference in the bodily constitution of a man, his hereditary disposition, the various errors in his education and habits, his manner of living and diet, his employments, his turn of mind, his morality, etc.”

He also adds other causes[26]: frequent pregnancies, excessive nursing of infants, extraordinary hardships, exhausting erroneous medical treatment, debauchery, etc. Out of these factors, Hahnemann gives special importance to the different constitutions of people. Referring to psora, he says[27]:

“…it has so much increased in the extent of its pathological manifestations -an extent which may to some degree be explained by its increased development during such all inconceivable number of years in so many millions of organisms (say constitutions) through which it has passed…”

Our master is still much more emphatic with respect to the importance of constitutions in the production of diseases, when quoting Juncker’s opinion on this theme. Hahnemann wrote[28]:

“A brief survey of the manifold misfortunes resulting thence is given by the experienced and honest Ludwig Christian Juncker in his Dissertatio de Damno ex scabie repulsa. He observed that with young people of a sanguine temperament the suppression of itch is followed by phthisis, and with persons in general who are of a sanguine temperament it is followed by piles, hemorrhoidal colic and renal gravel; with persons of sanguino-choleric temperament by swellings of the inguinal glands, stiffening of the joints and malignant ulcers; with fat persons by a suffocating catarrh and mucous consumption; also by inflammatory fever, acute pleurisy and inflammation of the lungs… Phlegmatic persons, as a consequence of such suppressions, suffered chiefly from dropsy, delayed menses… persons inclined to melancholy were sometimes made insane.”

We know that temperaments are related to constitutions, so constitutions determine the kind of diseases people suffer by the suppression of cutaneous eruptions and other kinds of stimuli.

We also know that constitutions are hereditary and that because of this condition there are familial tendencies or predispositions to suffer from a special disease. So, several members of a family can suffer from the same disease, say, diabetes, cancer, schizophrenia, etc.

These diseases related to familial predispositions not always need a suppression of an eruption as a requisite in order to appear. Simply, as people advance in age, the familial constitutional predisposition which any person has, begins to develop (although sometimes excited by any of the other factors which Hahnemann mentioned: psychological, educational, occupational, of habitat, dietetic, etc.)

This is why Hahnemann (although, as always, referring to what he considered psora to be) says[29]:

“But still, even in such favorable external relations, as soon as these persons advance in age, even moderate causes (a slight vexation, or a cold, or an error in diet, etc.), may produce a violent attack of (however only a brief) disease.”

What we frequently see in our clinical work is that as people advance in age, familial predispositions begin to develop, sometimes excited by external factors and sometimes only by the advance of age.

Some authors have classified constitutions and associated some diseases to them. For example: The picnic type or picnic constitution predisposes to manic-depressive psychosis, diabetes, gall-stones, high blood pressure; the athletic type, to epilepsy; the leptosomic, to tuberculosis, gastric ulcer, schizophrenia.

There are still some diseases which are present since a child is born, without him or her having had an eruption suppressed, such as: congenital hypothyroidism, phenylketonuria, cystic fibrosis, galactosemia, (to name a few).

There are, then, many hereditary diseases which become manifest without people having had any eruption suppressed.  Some homoeopaths think that psora is hereditary. Hahnemann never said that psora is hereditary.

The section of the note to paragraph 284 of the Organon, where information referent to a hereditary psora is found, was not written by Hahnemann, as Wenda Brewster comments on page 279 of the work “Organon of the Medical Art”, but appended by Richard Haehl (Hahnemann’s biographer).

That our master gave more importance to the infectious character of psora than to the influence of hereditary constitutional or familial predispositions in the production of diseases, is clearly manifested by him when he wrote[30]:

“It was more easy to me, than to many hundreds of others, to find out and to recognize the signs of the psora as well when latent and as yet slumbering within, as when it has grown to considerable chronic diseases, by an accurate comparison of the state of health of all such persons with myself, who, as is seldom the case, have never been afflicted with the psora, and have, therefore, from my birth even until now in my eightieth year, been entirely free from the (smaller and greater) ailments enumerated here and further below, although I have been, on the whole, very apt to catch acute epidemic diseases, and have been exposed to many mental exertions and thousand fold vexations of spirit.”

Thus, our master denies any possibility of the existence of diseased conditions he could have inherited from his parents. And although Hahnemann refers to a hereditary disease in the note to paragraph 78 of the Organon, in his work on chronic diseases he clearly refers only to a congenital kind of transmission of the psoric infection. He wrote[31]:

“a babe, when being born, is infected while passing through the organs of the mother, who may be infected (as is not infrequently the case) with this disease…”

And here I take advantage of this last quotation to say that it was the enormous frequency of the presence of itch in many patients, joined to the frequent suppression of it by physicians of Hahnemann’s times, that guided him and some of his contemporaries to make a relation between the infection with itch and the appearance of acute and chronic diseases.

On this respect, Hahnemann gave more importance to the infection with itch than to the reaction of the different organisms (say constitutions) to  the stimuli of the infection, and gave to constitutions a secondary importance, considering them only as determinants  of the kind, type or class which chronic diseases emerging from the suppression of itch must have, and gave to other external factors (psychological, dietetic, environmental, occupational, gestational, etc.) only the character of awakeners of psora. Psora is incapable of producing the thousands of chronic diseases Hahnemann said it can produce, because psora, following Hahnemann’s thoughts, is caused by the suppression or spontaneous disappearance of scabies which is caused by Sarcoptes scabiei, as I have been saying in this article and, as we know, this parasite is incapable of penetrating the interior of human organisms producing thousands of psoric diseases.

Other authors have given more importance to constitutional predispositions or familial pathological tendencies than to the supposedly existent infectious psora. So, although Hahnemann thought that the thousands of chronic non-venereal diseases were caused by the contagion of itch, being the difference among these thousands of chronic diseases (following Hahnemann’s way of thinking) due to the multiple different constitutions of human beings, the reality is that these diseases are produced by the reaction of  these human constitutions to  many external factors (psychological,  environmental, suppression of cutaneous eruptions, dietetic, hardships, etc.) or are the consequence of the natural development (due to the advance of age in  human beings) of the familial predispositions related to the different human constitutions. Please read the following quotations related to this theme which appear in the work “Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work”, by Richard Haehl (Hahnemann’s biographer):

“Medical officer Dr. Burkhard, homoeopathic physician in Berlin, expresses his view as follows:

… It has been said that what we nowadays understand by the term predisposition, natural tendency – the great unknown “X” of Pettenkofer – is nothing else than Hahnemann’s psora…

It is possible that Hahnemann had a vague impression of what we nowadays call predisposition, and which we can certainly explain as little as he could. But as a matter of fact, he does not mention it…What he said and what he meant is quite clear; why impute to him something he has not said or meant?… The Hahnemann psora theory is wrong, it is unscientific; and so, we shall serve our cause better than if we try to support artificially a theory which is not to be supported, merely out of veneration for our master.” [32]

Windelband, of Berlin [33] says:

“that the founder of homoeopathy was mistaken in his speculations – Hahnemann’s conception (of psora, I add) is a gross error – he may be forgiven for it, he is not the only one in error among his learned contemporaries, who frequently committed far greater errors.

Hahnemann can be all the more readily forgiven for his error, as underlying his conception we find a deep intellectual thought, this is, that there are certain constitutional anomalies, which form the soil for severe illnesses. We call them predispositions, cell weaknesses or anything else, and that against these anomalies he has found remedies (incorrectly named antipsorics) by means of the law of similars… The so called antipsoric remedies are nothing but remedies, which chosen in accordance with the law of similars, cure chronic diseases.”

Here it is necessary to say that Hahnemann called antipsorics the remedies which can cure chronic non-venereal diseases because he considered these diseases to be parts of what he called psora; but if psora does not exist, then the term antipsorics is incorrect.

When Hahnemann was looking for the nature of chronic diseases, he observed that patients suffering from chronic diseases had some similar symptoms among them[34]. He collected these similar symptoms and grouped them in the list of symptoms of latent psora and the list of symptoms of developed psora.

These similar or common symptoms represent a synthesis of the pathological sufferings of human beings, that is, of the pathology of mankind. Hahnemann endeavored to find remedies which could have the ability, through the law of similars, to cure specially these similar symptoms and he was successful in this search. And as he thought that these similar symptoms were a production of the psora, he called antipsorics the remedies which can cure these similar symptoms. So, although Hahnemann’s doctrine on psora is wrong (as we have seen through this article) as far as its etiology and its name (psora), Hahnemann’s discovery of these similar symptoms is of enormous importance and it is one of the most important discoveries ever made in benefit of the health of humankind, as also the remedies which our master found as a consequence of this discovery. Without this discovery we surely could not have remedies as Lycopodium, Natrum muriaticum, Phosphorus, etc.[35]

Let us see other opinions on Hahnemann’s psora:

Altschul, of Prague:

“It would do no harm to homoeopathy if instead of psora we put dyscrasia, and instead of antipsoric, anti-dyscrasia[36].”

Please observe that Altschul did not say “psoric dyscrasia” nor “anti-psoric dyscrasia”, but only “dyscrasia” in substitution of “psora” and “anti-dyscrasia” in substitution of “antipsoric”.

Emil Schelegel, of Tübingen[37]:

“Exactly as Hahnemann described psora in its activities and its connections, inherited predispositions to diseases behave in general. They are latent disturbing elements of life and soon become manifest when pernicious circumstances arise internally or externally.”

Bastanier, of Berlin:

“Hahnemann meant by psora those diseases which were comprehended as dyscrasiae and metastases, and are today called diathesis[38]

Conclusions:

  1. Psora does not exist as a multi-disease. It only exists as scabies. Then, Hahnemann’s psora theory is wrong. Hahnemann said that herpes, tinea capitis,[39] leprae,[40] and erysipelas,[41] are produced by the same miasm (microbe) which produces the itch (sarcoptes scabiei). This commentary by Hahnemann creates more confusion if we analyze it from a microbiological point of view.

To this respect, Hahnemann wrote in quotation 39:

“….as also the herpes which has this peculiar itching and which becomes humid when rubbed (the tetter), as also the tinea capitis–these alone can propagate this disease to other persons, because they alone contain the communicable miasma of the psora.”

  1. As psora does not exist and psora theory is wrong, then antipsoric remedies do not exist either. Sulphur, Lycopodium, Silica, etc. are only homoeopathic remedies, not antipsoric remedies.
  2. As psora does not exist, any modern sophisticated notion constructed upon psora theory is null.
  3. The common or similar symptoms which Hahnemann found among many patients show a common way of suffering, which exists in humankind and is not psoric, as it does not originate in a contagion with Sarcoptes scabiei. This parasite (miasm, microbe) is only one of the multiple factors which pathologically act upon the constitutions of human beings. Many of these factors are miasmatic or infectious and others are psychological, environmental, etc.
  4. In spite of the existence of these similar symptoms among people, which reveals the existence of a common way of suffering among them, each sick person should be treated individually[42] as, besides the common symptoms he or she shares with other persons, each sick person has particular symptoms which make him or her unique.
  5. A general term which could embrace the innumerable chronic diseases of humankind (syphilis and sycosis included), especially the quoted similar symptoms, could be “common chronic human disease” or simply “the chronic human disease, instead of the term psora”. This disease depends on a common human constitution which all human beings share, besides the particular constitutional characteristics of each person. The common human constitution which exists in all persons reacts against many stimuli (miasmatic or infectious, psychological, environmental, etc.) producing the mentioned similar symptoms which Hahnemann incorrectly attributed to the psoric (itch) infection with Sarcoptes scabiei and classified them in symptoms of latent and developed psora. These symptoms compose the chronic diseases. Hahnemann wrote[43]: “These are some of the leading symptoms… They are… the elements, from which (under unfavorable external conditions) the itch-malady (say the common human disease)… composes the illimitable number of chronic diseases, and with one man assumes the one form, with another, according to the bodily constitution, defects in the education, habits, employment and external circumstances, as also modified by the various psychical and physical impressions.”

For these similar symptoms and the chronic diseases they compose, which were supposed to be of psoric origin, our master indefatigably worked to find remedies through the law of similar and discovered many. According to his ideas, he called them antipsorics.

  1. As psora does not exist, it is incorrect to speak about a “psoric constitution”, a “psoric dyscrasia”, a “psoric diathesis”, a “psoric chronic disease”, etc.
  2. Much less is it correct to use the term “chronic miasm” to refer to all kind of chronic diseases as it refers only to chronic infectious diseases. If in the future time, science can show that all chronic diseases are of an infectious character, then the term chronic miasm could be used to particularly name each disease, for example, the chronic miasm of diabetes, the chronic miasm of schizophrenia, etc.
  3. In this article I have not denied the importance of the suppression of cutaneous eruptions in the production of diseases, nor the returning of health after the reappearance of such eruptions. What I explained is that the infection with itch (psora) is not, in my opinion, the cause of all chronic non-venereal diseases as Hahnemann taught.

Richard Haehl wrote[44]:

“Jahr, one of the keenest pupils and admirers of Hahnemann, relates that he has seen protracted affections resulting from the outward expulsion of the itch, yet he thinks it very doubtful that all chronic diseases, which have not their origin in syphilis, should originate from the itch and should not proceed from other sources.”

  1. If it were not by the mistaken psora theory, homoeopaths would, most probably, not know remedies such as Lycopodium, which was traditionally used for the plica polonica, which Hahnemann considered to be psoric, or of Phosphorus, of which our master made a proving because of its similarity in nature of his leading antipsoric, Sulphur, or Natrum muriaticum, as the common salt was traditionally used in large doses to arrest some hemorrhages, which were also considered by Hahnemann to be psoric.[45]
  2. What really originates all diseases is the binomial composed by external causes (many of miasmatic or infectious character, including the itch or psora miasm, psychological, environmental, etc.) and internal causes (constitutional predispositions). I think that, unfortunately, Hahneman gave more importance to only a fraction of one side of the binomial, the itch infection, thus creating a mistaken psora theory.

The psoric miasm (microbe, Sarcoptes scabiei) is only one of the innumerable occasional or exciting causes which pathologically stimulate the reaction of the efficient or fundamental cause: the inherited, constitutional predispositions of human beings.

Any comment on this article will be welcome: [email protected]

Acknowledgments: Thanks to Evelyn Aron for having revised the English version of the present article and also to Mauricio Rivera for his assistance with computer skills.

Bibliography

Haehl, Richard. Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work. London: Homoeopathic Publishing Company. Edited by J.H. Clarke, MD and F. J. Wheeler, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.

Hahnemann, Samuel. The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure.  Translated by Louis H. Tafel. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishing Co., Reprinted in India, 1981.

Hahnemann, Samuel. Organon of Medicine, sixth edition. Translated by William Boericke M.D. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers. 46th Impression: 2015.

Hahnemann, Samuel. Organon of the Medical Art. Edited and annotated by Wenda Brewster O’Really based on a translation of the sixth edition of Dr. Samuel Hahnemann’s work by Steven Decker. Bridged Press, 1996.

Hahnemann, Samuel. The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. Collected and translated by R. E. Dudgeon, M.D. New York: William Radde, ed., 1852.

The Genius of Homeopathy. Lectures and Essays on Homoeopathic Philosophy. Second edition, 2005, B. Jain Publishers (P) LTD.

[1] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 12.

[2] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 6.

[3] Hahnemann, Samuel. The Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann, 758, 761.

[4] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 31, 39.

[5] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 13.

[6] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 10.

[7] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 18-31.

[8] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 10.

[9] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 17.

[10] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 33.

[11] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 35 note.

[12] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 152.

[13] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 9.

[14] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 16, 67, 78.

[15] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 27.

[16] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 17.

[17] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 78.

[18] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 143.

[19] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 16, 67, 78.

[20] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 78.

[21] The Genius of Homeopathy. Lectures and Essays on Homoeopathic Philosophy, 126

[22] Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, Vol. II, 170.

[23] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 18-31.

[24] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 101.

[25] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 51.

[26] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 48.

[27] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 9-10.

[28] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 17.

[29] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 48.

[30] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 44 note.

[31] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 37.

[32] Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, Vol. I, 150-151.

[33] Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, Vol. II, 169-170.

[34] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 7.

[35] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 144.

[36] Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, Vol. II, 168.

[37] Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, Vol. I, 15.

[38] Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, Vol. II, 170.

[39] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 31, 39.

[40] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 13.

[41] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 10.

[42] Hahnemann, Organon of Medicine, par. 82.

[43] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 77.

[44] Haehl, Samuel Hahnemann, His Life and Work, Vol. II, 163.

[45] Hahnemann, The Chronic Diseases, Their Peculiar Nature and Their Homeopathic Cure, Vol. I, 144.

About the author

Arnoldo Rivera

Arnoldo Rivera

Dr. Arnoldo Rivera is a Mexican Homeopath who was born in Sabinas Hidalgo, N.L., México in 1949. He studied at Escuela Nacional de Medicina y Homeopatía, in México City and also at Homeopatía de México, A.C. (an association offering education in classical homeopathy). He graduated in 1975 and has practiced since then. He believes that students of Homeopathy should first carefully study and analyze Hahnemann's works before going on to other authors' writings, in order to build for themselves a firm basis if this science which will help them not stray from its core.

4 Comments

  • Well reasoned and a reflection on the scientific knowledge of the time . The importance of revision of thought together with clinical observation is vital.A good argument and food for though for those who take his teachings as gospel .The results and observation are more important than any theory or dogma

  • This makes some sense in the context of Pasteur’s ideas, which have become overwhelmingly conventional (since Flexner). I do not think one should rely on Pasteur.

    I wonder if SH’s ideas are a better fit with the concept of the Somatids (a somatid “somatide” is a concept arising from Naessens’ work on enhanced microscopes. It is a tiny energy particle below the usual range of optical microscope. Neassens is not very welcome in the conventional world, but his ideas meld well with Antoine Béchamp’s ideas. Béchamp – now largely forgotten – was a rival of Pasteur, far better qualified, except that he was a lesser self-publicist and didn’t falsify his notebooks.)

  • Why is formatting removed from comments?
    Is it deliberately to make them less readable?

Leave a Comment