Miasms

I have been thinking a lot about miasms, and gathered some more information after class and from pondering. Hahnemann was not attempting to categorize all the diseases into these categories. Since there was so little information back then, miasms were his attempt to analyze, categorize and describe the "modern cause" of prominent diseases of his day. Miasms are microbes that infect us at one point or another. Not everyone that is infected exhibits the disharmony of the miasm. This, of course, is dependent on biological, environmental terrains, etc. In other words, just bc you have HPV does NOT mean you will need a sycosis remedy. Also, you may have healed from syphilis, but the "dance" may still inhabited your Vis. Some practitioners have kept trying to categorize illnesses/people by making more and more miasms. This is not 100% productive since the word miasm has lost it's meaning. Miasm = microbe, not patient profile. Using miasms in your practice, will ultimately depend on what school of thought you decided to subscribe to: Miasm = infectious dz or Miasm = dz characterics / description of a person. Dr. Taylor no long uses the word. And by denying the word, do we not also deny it's meaning, in whole or in part? What does the word mean to you? In summation, this is a theory, not concrete science. Not only is there no way to be sure which of the infected people will express the miasm's disharmony, but the word itself has undergone a dictionary facelift. Replies are welcomed and encouraged :D Since this is just what my brain computed, and we are all toddlers at this science.