SUBSCRIBE TO OUR DAILY RSS FEED!
Facebook
Date posted: January 30, 2012

Dr Sushil Vats
Dominating symptoms of any case are the reflection of underlying dominating miasm. Therefore miasm is not outside the way we are understanding and treating a case .But big question is do we really understand it as simply as the above statement convey, certainly not. Dr. Viajaykar does it for us and how simply he does it is the cause of writing this article.

Dr. Vijayakar has nothing special to offer neither he claims so ,but the way this fellow narrate the miasms and compare this concept with disease causing process of modern medicine prove behind doubt that homoeopath can achieve very special understanding of his patients if he is willing to learn. Vijayakar give us also a very strong argument where by it is very easy to explain to allopaths the concept of homoeopathy.

In his third book on his pet concept of Predictive Homoeopathy ,Vijayakar says that the study of modern advances made in Pathology & Embryology has helped to decode the actual meaning of what Hahnemann could have meant by Miasm. …Homoeopaths have been treating cases of colds, cough, skin diseases and arthritis with ease. But their limitations have incidentally remained the same as their allopathic counterparts. The cases of diabetes, hypertension, cancer and AIDS do not respond to their treatment. Then what was the great idea pf proposing a new science which Hahnemann did if the limitations were to remain the same. This means Homoeopaths have missed on to something important and not understand something which Hahnemann wanted to convey .Vijayakar quotes Hahnemann saying that his greatest discovery is the discovery of miasms as the base of chronic maladies, without the miasm theory, homoeopathy remains defective or imperfect.

Vijayakar says that we have to vindicate him [Hahnemann] in terms of modern advances in science and a day shall come when we homoeopaths shall be acknowledged as more scientific than our allopathic counterparts.

Miasm at Cellular and Genetic Level; Vijayakar has an idea and he uses the fundamentals of modern medicines to create a module for our understanding. He questions if disease is in body it has to be first in the cell and if miasm is in body it has to be in the cell. If one wants to understand Man, his disease mental or physical, one has to understand the Man at cellular level and genetic level.

The idea of individualization has its root in every cell. Can a homoeopath afford to neglect it? The genetically ruled programmes of metabolism, of differentiation and specialization concerning physical looks, functioning and attitudes of the person find its root in every cell .i.e. .in the genetic apparatus of the cell. All physical diseases can be traced to ‘Organ injury’. Virtually all forms of ‘Organ injury’ starts with physiological, molecular or structural alterations in the cells. The cause at the cellular level or glandular, secretary level is definitely ‘genetically’ governed as it is obvious that in ‘similar conditions’ and with ‘similar food’ all the individuals on the earth will not show the same symptoms.
Vijayakar quotes Robins Pathology[2000 edition] that most of the diseases in organs are caused by derangements at cellular level .And derangements or disorders like inflammation, growth , destruction etc. are due to defense mechanism of cells.
Thus Vijajakar is ready with new understanding that “Disease Manifestations are Basically Defense Mechanism at Work”.

Here in Vijayakar turns the theory and here in is his contribution that widens our understanding of Miasm.
Symptoms produced by the body are as a response to external invasive or irritating forces or agents. These comprise of disease manifestation. The symptoms of pain, inflammation , swelling , redness, or stiffness ,indiscretion , growth and destruction of tissues are nothing but result of the body’s defense mechanism at work .The changes , which occur in the cells and tissues in order to defend or repair the damage may essentially form the so called ‘pathology’ of that disease Changes which have occurred at a particular level of tissue or cell is a response not only of that individual cell or tissue only , but a response governed by the ‘genes’ of that ‘man’ as whole.

It is his ‘genome’ which prompts every individual cell whether in response to an invasion by bacteria or fungus or virus the cell should inflame ,indurate, or destroy itself, for the well being of the person or individual concerned as a whole.

Cell injured body is diseased

Vijayakar has concentrated on cell to emphasize and mature our understanding that basically every phenomena in the disease process is emanating at cellular level and therefore Hahnemann’s understanding of causes of chronic disease .i.e. is Miasm is something which has its first expression at the level of cell.
The cell attacked not only by animate but also inanimate things. Symptoms produced due to this combat are what are identified as Diseases. Vijayakar mentions various factors [10 in fact but could be more] which can injure a cell, Physical agents, Oxygen deprivation, Ischemia, Chemical agents and drugs , Infectious agents , Immunologic reactions ,Genetic derangements , Nutritional imbalance , Benumbing agents , and Any foreign proteins .

Cell defends :
According to this theory there are three means available for a cell to defend .
A. Physiological defense
B. Morphological – constructive defense
C. Morphological – destructive defense

Vijayakar says that according to modern science:
The inflammatory and irritative pathologies seem to emanate from the physiological defense. This according to him is Psora at cellular level.
The growth pathologies seem to emanate from the constructive defense. This according to him is Sycosis at cellular level.
The destructive pathologies seem to emanate from the destructive defense. This according to him Syphilis at cellular level
Thus Vijayakar come to another important conclusion that “THE CELL HAS ONLY 3 DEFENSIVE RESPONSES AND THERE CAN BE ONLY 3 MIASMS”

First defense:
Inflammation is the physiological defense response; it is used to get rid of the invasive stimuli. It is preceded by increased sensitivity and irritation. Inflammatory response is closely intermingled with the process of repair. Inflammation serves to destroy, dilute or wall off injurious agents and in turn set up series of events which heal and reconstitute the damaged tissue. Without inflammation, infections would go unchecked. Wound would never heal and injured organs and tissues might remain permanently ulcerated and damaged. This is Psora.

Second defense:
After the first defense has failed to get rid of the toxins or pathogens it decides to go in for a second line of defense. There is shift in gears of defense. After the limit of reversible physiological changes is crossed, certain changes take place in the genes, which induce irreversible changes in the morphology or structure of the cells. The pathology, which can arise out of such a defense include growth or thickening pathologies such as polyps, warts, cysts, tumors, atherosclerotic plaques, deposition of pigments and minerals. This is Sycosis.

Third defense: When body find it difficult to defend itself by either physiological changes or the constructive changes. The cell may under go changes at the genetic level. It shifts its gear to defend or to save the whole organism by destroying a part of it. The pathological conditions that arise out of such defense include al destructive pathologies like gangrenes, necrosis, and ulcers etc .This is syphilis Miasm at work.

This is just the foundation of Vijayakar’s work, in the next issue I will discuss how he enlarges the canvas, ever simple but also with deep understanding. [Predictive Homoeopathy part 3 can be had from

Additional miasms:
Vijayakar is at his fantastic best in explaining why there is no need of fourth miasm [tubercular miasm] .He writes there is lot of hue and cry about ‘tubercular miasm ’and ‘cancer miasm’ etc. There can be two possibilities:

1. Hahnemann was right when he propagated that there can be only three miasms. Our theory of miasms as defense confirms Hahnemann’s observations.
2. Hahnemann was wrong and there are more miasms which Hahnemann did not think of. It is highly improbable that Hahnemann ever have missed to recognize common diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, leprosy, typhoid etc .having original tendencies to cause diseases and stamping them as miasm.

There are only 3 miasms & all diseases originate their:
Hahnemann states that ‘miasm is at the root of all diseases’. Modern pathology also confirms that cell defense response is of three types. Hahnemann’s description of itch [Psora], figwarts[Sycosis] and chancre[syphilis] matches with the three basics defense by cells, namely physiological defense [Psora], constructive defense[Sycosis] and destructive defense[syphilis].Theory of three miasms has thus stood the test of time for 200 years.
This phenomenon once understood explains tuberculosis and there is not better description available than the lines written by Viajaykar:

Tuberculosis of lung is a disease which at pathological level expresses in three different stages:
1. Inflammation of the pleura [pleuritis] or the lungs at the onset of infection with tubercular bacilli.
2. Tubercle formation in the lungs.
3. Cavitations in the lungs.

This shows that defense mechanism is physiological and therefore psoric in the stage 1. In the stage two defense mechanism changes to constructive defense giving rise to tubercles, therefore is Sycosis. In the third stage the destructive pathology prevails to give cavitation showing that the defense mechanism is destructive .Thus tuberculosis involves all three defense mechanisms and hence is a product mixture of all three miasms. Thus it is proved that so-called tubercular miasm is a Psore-syco-syphilis.

In conclusion Vijayakar likes to carry Hahnemann’s Trinity of Miasms theory.

In nutshell I would like to add that Vijayakar is a terrific homoeopath of our time, and we should endeavor to pass his message to homoeopaths who drastically need this knowledge. Let’s not name him Einestein of homoeopathy but leave him as one fantastic fellow who for our good luck is a homoeopath.Thanks Mr.Vijayakar.

Dr.Sushil Vats
Co-editor- Vital informer
Email : drvats@rediffmail.com

Comments

One Response so far.

  1. Dr. Subhasish Ganguly says:

    Dear Sir,
    Your mode of correlation of miasm and cancer is nice. But it is my humble request that what you have said about the three probable theories of cellular defenses,is there any reference for the above and in case of number 2 defense, is the term constructive is appropriate ?

1. Comments will be moderated. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name, to   avoid rejection.
2. Comments that are abusive, personal, incendiary or irrelevant cannot be published.
3. Please write complete sentences. Do not type comments in all capital letters, or in all   lower case letters, or using abbreviated text. (example: u cannot substitute for you, d is not   'the', n is not 'and')


*

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.