Contemporary Homeopathy

We can not continue to use, in homeopathy, a language, a vocabulary, concepts that are either incomprehensible to the "outside world" or possess in this external world a meaning completely different from the homeopathic meaning and lead, in this way, to made, inevitably to the misunderstanding.

The respect due to the spirit of homeopathy does not imply a respect for its letter when it is approximate, vague and confusing.

The worst is that some terms do not even have an unambiguous meaning in the homeopathic world. Take the example of the concept of miasma. This one cumulates, if I can say, all the defects.

For the classical medical world, it has an obsolete, anachronistic meaning and refers to "an unhealthy emanation considered in ancient times as the source of contagious diseases". (Larousse dictionary, French reference dictionary). And here is what Wikipedia says, "The miasma theory (from the ancient Greek μίασμα:" pollution ") is an epidemiological theory today invalidated attributing to miasma, a harmful form of" bad air ". Falling into oblivion, the term "miasma" immediately throws discredit on homeopathy and confers on it an archaic and obsolete side.

The problem is aggravated by the fact that even within the homeopathic world, the term "miasma" does not have an unambiguous meaning. Indeed, the meaning attributed to him by Dr. Rajan Sankaran of Bombay is very different from the original one given by Hahnemann and retained by "classical" homeopaths. And I will not speak of the miasmatic conception of Dr. Masi, of Argentina, which is, again, different.

But the worst is that this term does not even understand, in itself, what are heard with him, Rajan Sankaran, Hahnemann or Masi. Therefore, each of these authors has given new content to the word miasma.

The simplest would be, perhaps, to understand that when a word, on the one hand, has a "negative" meaning, that each gives it a different meaning and that, in order to use it, it must be redefined entirely, it is, quite simply, that it is not adapted.

I will therefore propose to rephrase what these three authors have sought to say without betraying anything (in any case it will be my concern) for their thought. Thus, I hope, homeopathy will be clarified and its understanding, internal and external, greatly facilitated.