Posted October 15th, 2008 by admin
Medorrhinum was introduced by Samuel Swann in 1842, with provings most notably by Swann, Berridge (published 1889), and O.Julian (1971). The remedy is prepared "... from the gonorrheal virus. There are two preparations; the acute and chronic. From the virus of the acute stage to the chronic, or gleet stage, both of which are supposed to contain the gonococcus." (Henry Clay Allen, 1910, The Materia Medica of Some Important Nosodes). O.Julian recorded "The stock is obtained from purulent urethral secretion taken during the period of discharge from several patients, otherwise healthy and have not yet been treated by antibiotics or sulfanilamide. This secretion is examined under microscope. (a) Cytological examination showing very numerous polynuclear and epithelial cells. (b) Examination according to Gram, putting in evidence the presence of Neisseria Gonorrheae, as well as epithelial cells." (O.Julian, A Materia Medica of Nosodes with Repertory, 1971).
It should be clear from these descriptions, that Medorrhinum is the nosode of the disease we today call Gonorrhea, attributable to the gonoccoccus, Neisseria gonorrhea, one of "the other common gonorrhoeas [which seem] not to penetrate the whole organism, but only to locally stimulate the urinary organs" (Hahenmann, Chronic Diseases, p.83).
Medorrhinum is decidedly NOT the nosode of Sycosis - which is the disease we today call condyloma accuminata, or venereal wart disease, attributable to the human papillomavirus.
There is however considerable confusion regarding this, in our homeopathic literature. A search using Encyclopedia Homeopathica software, of a library consisting of 848 books & journals, reveals 286 "hits" for co-mention of medorrhinum & sycosis. Kent mentions "sycosis" 7 times in his description of Medorrhinum in his Lectures on Homeopathic Materia Medica; Clark (Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica) recorded "Its chief use has been in the treatment of chronic ailments due to suppressed gonorrhea; or where there is a sycotic history."
These are errors in our literature, which arise from confusion between "gones + rrhoia" (="urethral discharge") and "Gonorrhea," and the resulting mistaken assignment of Medorrhinum as a nosode of Sycosis.
This error has filtered down into contemporary literature - e.g., "Medorrhinum is a nosode. It represents the heart of the sycotic miasm." (Rajan Sankaran, The Soul of Remedies); "It is a sycosis that has gone through from generation to generation ..." (George Vithoulkas, Talks on Classical Homeopathy; The Esalen Conferences, part 2, chapt.13); &c.
Most contemporary attempts to describe the Sycotic miasm, have suffered from attempting to include the pathogenesis of Medorrhinum in their descriptions - stretching the real features of Sycosis to include the features of this decidedly non-sycotic remedy.
Although Gonorrhea is apparently an acute miasmatic (infectious) disease, Medorrhinum's pathogenesis lends its use as a similimum in the treatment of chronic disease; but it is decidedly not Sycotic in nature. I'll get to the details later, but the punchline is, that Medorrhinum is highly Tubercular in nature. This will make sense as we address the Tubercular miasm later on; for now, it might be instructive to compare the major features of the pathogenesis of Medorrhinum with that of Tuberculinum.
I'll leave this now well-worn topic, but will likely need to return to it, when we get around to looking at the description of Sycosis. This description will need to be built up cautiously, with care to avoid the accumulated historical errors in our literature frequently merely copied from author to author.
