Coronavirus 2019-nCoV

Coronavirus 2019-nCoV = Covid-19/= Sars-CoV-2

http://paulherscuepidemics.blogspot.com/2019/

https://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2020-02/ausbreitung-coronavirus-lungenkrankheit-epidemie-faq

https://navigator.web.de/mail?sid=39423365542af68558f4e70fc78283be21098580f506eaa7e69471252dde116e334e6a2e101373ad333bcfa245ed66eb

https://www.arhf.nl/coronavirus/

Vergleich: Siehe: Krankheiten + Viren + Pneumonia + Influenzinum Anhang 2 + Anhang (Dr. Aditya Kasariyans, Iran) + Anhang 2 (Harry van der Zee)

Der Wirkstoff Chloroquin (Quelle: remedia.at) könne vielleicht in Kombination mit dem Antibiotikum Azithromycin (Quelle: remedia.at) gegen das Coronavirus eingesetzt werden.

[Vivekananda Chakravorty]

Tub.: It is often observed in clinics that patients visiting with complaints of dyspepsia before development of pulmonary Koch [Pulmonary Tuberculosis] or the vice versa.

It is not a new observation, but rather it was found in older times when there was not much development of modern drugs for tuberculosis and diagnostic tools.

[Hpathy: Elaine Lewis]

Shares her thoughts on dealing with the current COVID-19 epidemic. These include nutritional approaches like high dose vitamin C, monolaurin, elderberry and homeopathic remedies. Isn’t there something we can do besides wash our hands and over-shop for items we don’t need?

The Corona Virus, or COVID-19, is presumed to have come from a bat in Wuhan, China where, coincidentally, there is a microbiology lab that handles viruses in the same area! Is this, yet, one more man-made catastrophe like GMO’s, bee-killing pesticides and Global Warming? The New York Post thinks so:

“Xi didn’t actually admit that the coronavirus…had escaped from one of the country’s bioresearch labs. But the very next day, evidence emerged suggesting that this is exactly what happened, as the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology released a new directive titled: ‘Instructions on strengthening biosecurity management in microbiology labs that handle advanced viruses like the novel coronavirus.'”

https://nypost.com/2020/02/22/dont-buy-chinas-story-the-coronavirus-may-have-leaked-from-a-lab

Dieses Virus wird geführt unter mehrere Namen u.a.!!!:

Corona

Covid.

SARS-CoV-2

COVID-19

Ergebnisse aus Befragungen in John Hopkins Hospital:

Kein Geruchssinn (vor Fieber) Search https://abchomeopathy.com/search.php under smell lost

Kein Geschmackssinn (vor Fieber) Search https://abchomeopathy.com/search.php under taste lost

Aktuelles zum CORONA-Virus COVID 19

Chloroquin ist möglicherweise ein effektives antivirales Therapeutikum gegen das Coronavirus 2019

Eine jüngst veröffentlichte Studie, erstellt in Zusammenarbeit mit der berühmten Stanford University, kam zu folgendem Ergebnis:

"Recent guidelines from South Korea and China report that chloroquine is an effective antiviral therapeutic treatment against Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Use of chloroquine (tablets) is showing favorable outcomes in humans infected with Coronavirus including faster time to recovery and shorter hospital stay.

US CDC research shows that chloroquine also has strong potential as a prophylactic (preventative) measure against coronavirus in the lab, while we wait for a vaccine

to be developed. Chloroquine is an inexpensive, globally available drug that has been in widespread human use since 1945 against malaria, autoimmune and various

other conditions."

"Jüngste Erfahrungen aus Südkorea und China bestät richten, dass Chloroquin eine wirksame antivirale therapeutische Behandlung gegen die Coronavirus-Krankheit

2019 ist. Die Verwendung von Chloroquin (Tabletten) zeigt bei mit Coronavirus infizierten Menschen günstige Ergebnisse, einschließlich einer schnelleren Zeit bis zur Genesung und eines kürzeren Krankenhausaufenthalts. US-amerikanische CDC-Untersuchungen zeigen, dass Chloroquin auch ein großes Potenzial als prophylaktische S(vorbeugende) Maßnahme gegen Coronavirus im Labor hat, während wir auf die Entwicklung eines Impfstoffs warten. Chloroquin ist ein kostengünstiges, weltweit verfügbares Medikament, das seit 1945 beim Menschen gegen Malaria, Autoimmunerkrankungen und verschiedene andere Erkrankungen weit verbreitet ist."

Flussdiagramm zur Einschätzung, ob man Kontaktperson ist oder nicht.

Illustrationen von Annick Ehmann, Grafik von Paul Blickle, Alisa Schröter und Jakob Wittmann

Hinweis: Unsere Empfehlungen orientieren sich an den Angaben des Robert Koch-Instituts (RKI), ergänzt durch eigene Recherchen. Der Entscheidungsbaum ist nur für

die persönliche Orientierung im Alltag gedacht. Bei der Nachverfolgung von Infektionsketten unterteilt das RKI Kontaktpersonen in drei Kategorien. Kategorie III ist für

Personal im Gesundheitssektor bestimmt und findet sich nicht in unserer Ansicht wieder. Für Reisende, die sich in Risikogebieten aufgehalten haben, gelten andere Regelungen.

Gerade gelesen: Bambusa für Isolierten

Metformin (=1,1-Dimethylbiguanid/Quelle: remedia.at) was rediscovered in the search for antimalarial/Coronavirusinfektion = ähnlich

[Waltraud Isenbügel, Heilpraktikerin]

Schlägt folgende Mitteln vor:

Ars.

Gels.

Ant-t.

[Paul Herscu ND, MPH]

There are three specific observations I would like to make now, involving the current viral illnesses.

The first involves what is likely the common cold. Unlike the cold that I reported on a few years ago which led to numerous first time asthmatic crisis, in people who did not previously have asthma, this one seems to mostly present in the common fashion. What is unique about it though is how bad It is. The symptoms that we see are a runny nose, mostly with a bland clear discharge, a great deal of frontal sinus pressure, which leads to a congestive headache, extreme weakness, wiped out, exhausted, and some body aches. Low fever of 99-I00.5 F. In any ways, this is a slightly altered version of the remedy Gelsemium. My main comment here involves what happens after you take Gelsemium. Most often when you take the remedy at this time, the next day it appears as though ‘nothing happens’. You are still sick. And this is why I want to highlight

an error here.

But first, as background, here are some numbers for what is typically found in the common cold, what the natural progression is:

1. Fever can last up to 7-9 days.

2. Sore throat can last up to 9 days

3. Cough can last 2 weeks and even more.

4. Runny nose can last 2 weeks and even more.

5. The body aches can last 10 days to a couple of weeks.

[Alan V. Schmukler]

Corona Virus –– February 2020 – Includes speculation on the Genus Epidemicus

The world is now bracing itself for the coronavirus, and doctors are wondering what other plagues are in store for the planet. Such threats may result from: overuse of antibiotics, cutting down rainforests, global warming (increases the range of disease vectors), contamination of water supplies, poverty and overcrowding, and the manipulation of viral material in laboratories. The U.S. government recently lifted its ban on funding research for how to make microbes more lethal.

While the medical community is scratching its head looking for a solution to current and future epidemics, one already exists. It’s just so simple, conceptually, that they can’t see it. As most of our readers know, homeopathy has a long and incredibly successful history in treating +/o. preventing epidemics including smallpox, cholera, diphtheria, malaria, yellow fever, meningitis, polio, leptospirosis and the deadly Spanish Flu of 1918. During that flu, which killed up to 50 million people worldwide, homeopaths had

a 98% cure rate.

Being also effective against viruses, which antibiotics are not, homeopathy offers a powerful, safe, effective and fast response to epidemic diseases. In a given outbreak, homeopaths can determine the symptoms affecting the majority of patients and then arrive at one or a few remedies which cover most cases. Those “genus epidemicus” remedies will often work to prevent the disease as well.

The entire process of determining the remedy and making it in sufficient quantity could be accomplished rather quickly. It’s so inexpensive to manufacture that the poorest country could easily afford to medicate an entire population. Medical professionals and even lay people could be quickly instructed in its use.

What if homeopathic pharmacies and organizations determined the genus epidemicus remedies for the Coronavirus in Wuhan, and offered the Chinese government thousands of doses and instructions on how to proceed. That government would have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

Meanwhile, Prof. Aaron To Ka Lun (PDHom, MARH), president of the Hong Kong Association of Homeopathy has gathered data from 30 homeopaths and tentatively speculated on a few possible genus epidemicus remedies:

Gelsemium, Bryonia and Eupatorium perfolatum. Dr. Paul Herscu is considering Gelsemium, Mercurius and Eupatorium. We may need to assess more cases to be sure, but soon we will know. The virus may manifest with some differences in other countries and require different remedies. This knowledge needs to be shared with the world.

Preventative recommendation:

Gelsemium 30c once a week in areas where outbreak is not near.

Gelsemium 30c daily for seven days in an area where outbreak is near (like Wuhan), and then twice per week.

In the U.S. renowned homeopath Paul Herscu published his genus epidemicus findings. His #1 is also Gelsemium, followed by Mercurius and then Eupatorium perf.

[Zeit-Online]

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019

Coronavirus 2019-nCoV

Was ist das Virus 2019-nCoV?

Sowohl die Atemwegserkrankungen Sars (severe acute respiratory syndrome) als auch Mers (Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome) werden von Coronaviren verursacht,

die ihren Ursprung in Tieren haben. Während der Sars-Pandemie infizierten sich in den Jahren 2002 und 2003 etwa 8.000 Menschen, mehr als 750 starben.

Mit dem Mers-Virus haben sich seit seiner Entdeckung 2.400 Menschen angesteckt, jeder Dritte ist daran gestorben. Insgesamt gibt es aber mehrere Hundert Arten von Coronaviren. Viele von ihnen betreffen die Atemwege und können zum Beispiel Erkältungen verursachen.

Welche Coronaviren sind bekannt?

Sowohl die Atemwegserkrankungen Sars (severe acute respiratory syndrome) als auch Mers (Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome) werden von Coronaviren verursacht, die ihren Ursprung in Tieren haben. Während der Sars-Pandemie infizierten sich in den Jahren 2002 und 2003 etwa 8.000 Menschen, mehr als 750 starben. Mit dem Mers-Virus haben sich seit seiner Entdeckung 2.400 Menschen angesteckt, jeder Dritte ist daran gestorben. Insgesamt gibt es aber mehrere Hundert Arten von Coronaviren. Viele von ihnen betreffen die Atemwege und können zum Beispiel Erkältungen verursachen.

Wer hat sich infiziert und was sind Symptome?

In China sind mehrere Hundert Personen erkrankt, mehrere Patienten -vermutlich mit Vorerkrankungen- sind an einer Lungenentzündung infolge des Virus gestorben. Britische Experten vermuten rund 4000 Infizierte in Wuhan. Die ersten Infektionsfälle außerhalb Chinas wurden in Thailand, Japan und Südkorea bekannt. Es handelte

sich um Reisende, die vorher in Wuhan gewesen waren. Am 21. Januar meldeten US-Behörden die erste Infektion bei einem Touristen, der aus Wuhan zurückkam.

Typische Zeichen einer Infektion sind Fieber, Husten und Atembeschwerden. Das Virus kann eine Lungenentzündung verursachen, die tödlich enden kann.

Da es sich um eine virale Krankheit handelt, helfen Antibiotika nicht.

Symptomen: Fieber, Husten und haben Entzündungen der Atemwege und Lungen.

Wie kann man sich anstecken?

Die WHO geht davon aus, dass das Virus von Mensch zu Mensch übertragen werden kann. Chinesische Behörden haben mehrere solcher Übertragungen bestätigt,

nachdem auch etwa ein Dutzend Fälle bei medizinischem Personal bekannt wurden. Wie genau und vor allem wie schnell sich das Virus aber ausbreitet, ist noch nicht bekannt. Die WHO empfiehlt daher, generelle Hygieneregeln zu beachten: Man solle sich häufig die Hände waschen und engen Kontakt zu Personen mit Atemwegserkrankungen und wilden Tieren meiden.

Wie gefährlich ist das Virus?

Die Weltgesundheitsbehörde geht davon aus, dass das Virus von Mensch zu Mensch übertragen werden kann. Chinesische Behörden haben mehrere solcher Übertragungen bestätigt, nachdem auch etwa ein Dutzend Fälle bei medizinischem Personal bekannt wurden. Wie genau und vor allem wie schnell sich das Virus aber ausbreitet, ist noch nicht bekannt. Die WHO empfiehlt daher, generelle Hygieneregeln zu beachten: Man solle sich häufig die Hände waschen und engen Kontakt zu Personen mit Atemwegserkrankungen und wilden Tieren meiden.

[Interview: Nike Heinen]

Der Berliner Virologe Christian Drosten hat den Schnelltest für das Coronavirus entwickelt. Er weiß genau, was den Erreger so anpassungsfähig und gefährlich macht.

Frage: Wir erleben gerade Evolution live: Ein Coronavirus, das wohl aus einer anderen Säugetierart stammt, versucht die Menschheit zu besiedeln.

Wie macht so ein Virus das, Herr Drosten?

Christian Drosten: Man könnte sagen, sie haben gut vorgesorgt: Coronaviren sind mit einem breiten Sortiment an genetischen Varianten über viele Säugetierarten vertreten.

Das ist ein Pool der Möglichkeiten, der ständig bereitsteht und sein Glück bei neuen Wirten versucht. Und manchmal klappt es dann eben auch.

Frage: Und warum sind sie so variabel? Mutieren sie besonders schnell?

Drosten: Im Gegenteil. Sie sind viel ruhiger veranlagt als zum Beispiel Grippeviren. Das sind ebenfalls RNA-Viren, die aber ihre Gene und damit die Oberflächen, die nach diesen Vorlagen gebaut werden, ständig verändern. Das ist bei den Coronaviren anders. Ihre Gene und auch ihre äußere Struktur sind vergleichsweise veränderungsresistent.

Frage: Die Virus-RNA muss in der Wirtszelle kopiert werden, um neue Viren zu erzeugen. Dabei gibt es automatisch Lesefehler. Was machen die Coronaviren anders?

Drosten: Sie haben ein Reparatursystem dabei, das diese Fehler korrigiert. Ihre Gene verändern sich trotzdem, aber langsamer – und sinnvoller. Wenn man auf Ablesefehler setzt, nimmt man in Kauf, dass viele der erzeugten Veränderungen Totgeburten sind. Hat man dagegen ein Korrektursystem, dann bleibt noch ein anderer Mutationsmacher: Sobald sie eine Wirtszelle teilen, kombinieren die Gene der verschiedenen Coronaviren untereinander. Die Mutationen, die da herauskommen, sind viel sinnvoller, die beteiligten Schnipsel waren ja sozusagen schon einmal erprobt. Über die Zeit sammelt sich ein relativ großer Pool von stabilen Varianten an.

Frage: Coronaviren sind nicht auf Säugetiere beschränkt, es gibt sie bei allen möglichen Wirbeltieren, sogar bei den biologisch sehr weit entfernten Fischen. Heißt das, diese Viren sind genauso alt wie die ersten Wirbeltiere?

Drosten: Das ist denkbar. Aber sie könnten sich diese verschiedenen Wirte auch nachträglich erschlossen haben. Das sind sehr lange Zeiträume, über die wir da reden. Es ist schwierig, das nachzuvollziehen.

Frage: Sie arbeiten selbst an "Evolutionskarten" von Coronaviren. Gemeinsam mit australischen und englischen Kollegen haben Sie bei westeuropäischen und ostasiatischen Nagetieren Coronaviren eingesammelt und deren Erbinformation im Labor ausgelesen. Was kann man daraus schließen?

Drosten: Wir können damit abschätzen, wann das erste Coronavirus in diese Gruppe gekommen ist. Und ob es sich dann linear mit den Nagetierarten entwickelt hat oder

ob es häufige Artsprünge gab. In diesem Fall waren alle Viren auf einen einzigen Vorfahren zurückzuführen …

Frage: … der sozusagen die Urmaus mal besiedelt haben muss …

Drosten: Ja. Es sieht auch so aus, als ob seine Nachfahren dann recht häufig zwischen den Wirtsarten hin- und hergesprungen sind.

Frage: Und was darf man aus den RNA-Sequenzen Ihrer Meinung nach für Schlüsse für heute ziehen?

Drosten: Wenn man es richtig macht, kann man schon auch etwas für zukünftige Pandemien lernen. Wie sich Viren nach einem Artsprung verhalten zum Beispiel.

Bei dem Sars-Virus gab es 2002, in den ersten Wochen des Ausbruchs, ein bestimmtes Protein, das das Virus wahrscheinlich ansteckender machte. Dann verschwand

dieses Protein plötzlich.

Frage: Das ist erst mal das Gegenteil von dem, was man annehmen würde. Das Protein war ja nützlich für das Virus?

Drosten: Trotzdem ist es logisch. Wenn sich ein Virus eine neue Wirtsart erschließt, dann ist das so, als würde ein einzelnes Brutpaar Vögel mit seinen Nachkommen eine

neue Insel besiedeln, auf der es diese Art noch nicht gibt. Wir wissen, dass dann die Fitness im Vergleich zur Ursprungspopulation sinken kann, weil sich da auch zufällige ungünstige genetische Varianten durchsetzen können. Die Sars-Viren waren genau wie die Nachkommen eines solchen versprengten Brutpaars. Wo sie siedelten, gab es

keine anderen Vertreter ihrer Art, mit denen sie sich im Konkurrenzkampf bewähren mussten. Zufällig verloren einige von ihnen das wertvolle Protein. Sie verbreiteten

sich trotzdem weiter – während die gefährlichen Viren wohl auf Isolationsstationen der Krankenhäuser ausstarben.

Frage: Jetzt sind wir aber mitten in der aktuellen Lage. Sie erklären gerade aus der Perspektive eines Evolutionsforschers, warum es beim Auftreten eines neuen Virus essenziell ist, Infizierte konsequent zu isolieren: um die Brutvögel auf die Insel zu schicken.

Drosten: Ganz genau. Die neuen Virustypen sollen keine Chance bekommen, eine menschheitsweite, konkurrenzstarke Population aufzubauen, auch weil sie dann gefährlicher bleiben oder werden könnten.

Frage: Im Moment hört man überall, dass das neue Coronavirus zwar nicht so gefährlich wie Sars, wohl aber auch schon vor den ersten Symptomen sehr ansteckend ist.

Und vielleicht auch noch, nachdem die Kranken wieder gesund sind. Ist Isolation da denn noch sinnvoll?

Drosten: Ja, dieses Virus ist überraschend anders als der damalige Sars-Erreger. Ich sehe das mit großer Sorge, aber auch Optimismus: Das Virus wird wahrscheinlich deshalb besser übertragen, weil es die Menschen weniger krank macht.

Frage: Menschen, die befürchten, sich mit dem Coronavirus angesteckt zu haben, müssen in Berlin zu den gleichen Einrichtungen, in denen sich etwa Reisende ihre Schutzimpfungen abholen. Eine ideale internationale Drehscheibe für die Viren. Fehlt es an Planung?

Drosten: Ich sehe da im Moment kein Problem. Zurzeit halten sich einfach sehr viele Leute für Verdachtsfälle, ohne es zu sein. Sie werden also die Reisenden sehr wahrscheinlich nicht anstecken. Und planlos ist niemand: Es gibt das Infektionsschutzgesetz mit einer klaren Meldekette und außerdem Pandemiepläne. Seien Sie sicher,

dass im Gesundheitsamt gerade eine Taskforce sitzt, die das vorbereitet. Die ganz normalen Wartezimmer als erste Anlaufstelle sind Teil dieser Pläne. Anders geht es in Deutschland einfach nicht, alles ist dezentral organisiert.

Woher kam das neue Coronavirus?

Frage: Die WHO hat gerade den Notstand ausgerufen. Hilft das, um die Lage international besser zu kontrollieren?

Drosten: Das hilft dabei, zwischenstaatliche Entscheidungen zu synchronisieren und auch zu rechtfertigen. Reisewarnungen können dann leichter ausgesprochen werden.

Frage: Und für die deutsche Situation?

Drosten: Nur indirekt. Das meiste haben wir selbst in der Hand. Und ich sehe hier tatsächlich eine -winzige- Lücke. Nach aktuellem Recht müssen Ärzte nur bestätigte Fälle melden. Das ist zu spät für eine Übersicht der Lage. Das wird aber gerade geändert: Ganz bald werden schon Verdachtsfälle meldepflichtig werden.

[Paul Herscu ND, MPH- Herscu Laboratory]

] 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV):

January 27 2020 update Part 1

In writing about epidemics over the past 3 decades, my first goal has been to create information scaffolding for readers so that you have sound context to receive and understand the bombardment of information about any epidemic. If you want a broad and deep understanding of the concept of epidemics, which I strongly suggest, take some time to review the highlights here.

First Things First. The Immune System with Relation to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

In understanding a patient’s reaction to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), it helps to think of the challenges it presents as twofold.

1^st the damage that the virus causes by itself upon the body.

2^nd perhaps more importantly, there is the damage, which may be lethal, which is caused inadvertently by one’s own immune system responding to the virus.

This is a very important point to highlight. Though the virus is particularly virulent at this moment, not everyone dies. It is thankfully, only a very small fraction of those exposed who perish. There is an additional small fraction that become quite ill, and the rest become ill in a usual flu manner. And for some people, the damage that the immune system causes upon the individual, is perhaps worse than the insult caused by the bug itself.

There are different professions that have focused, since their inception, on supporting the immune system, and helping patients develop an appropriate immune response. Naturopathic physicians form one such profession. To be clear, this is not to claim that we have experience with the killing of this virus. What we do have, for over a 100 years, is a great deal of experience with helping the immune system respond appropriately, read: not over-respond or under-respond, to certain situations. And while the germ has its own virulence, which I discuss below, what I want to highlight is that helping the immune system develop an appropriate response is paramount. This is something we can support our patients doing and do for ourselves. While on the one hand this is a lifelong exercise for everyone, there are some things to do right now.

The simplest one is to make sure that your immune system is not being stressed by other illnesses. In other words, try to get other chronic ailments under good control.

In most years, those with prior chronic illnesses are more at risk of a lethal form of any influenza or virus than those that were previously healthy.

Please see Dr Amy Rothenberg’s writing on how to help here (https://paulherscuepidemics.blogspot.com/2020/01/naturopathic-recommendations.html), including diet, botanical, nutritional supplements, sleep, etc. By so doing, if exposed to this virus you will hopefully suffer a lesser course of the disease rather than the lethal course.

This part is within our control. To be sure this will not be enough by itself, absolutely not enough, but it will help! It’s not nothing!

While this has been the main domain of naturopathic physicians, most other medical professions have also taken up this call. Homeopaths since the time of Hahnemann, osteopathic physicians, chiropractic doctors and increasingly medical doctors are offering whole-person, natural medicine modalities as non-pharmaceutical interventions

for some of our most troubling chronic conditions, focusing on appropriate immune response. This is important work overall and becomes even more important during times

of epidemics.

2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV):

At this point, late January 2020, it appears as though the virus is both novel and very problematic to our health. By problematic I mean two separate things.

1^st how infectious it is. In other words, if someone carries the disease, how many people will they pass it to? 2^nd how severe the symptoms are for some people.

With regard to the first point, how easily is 2019-nCoV passed? In medical terms we are referring to its basic reproductive number. The higher the number, the worse it is for the spread. At this moment, 2019-nCoV is estimated to have R0 of 2-5, meaning that each person may infect 2-5 people. This number is concerning. If these numbers actually hold, then this bug will go global and will be difficult to stop. Think of the flu every year, which has a slightly lower R0 number and skips easily around the world. As of this writing reposted cases in China are estimated at around 6000. There is very good reason for me to believe that this number is closer to 40-50,000. That said, it is still very early in the epidemic and the R0 number will likely rise or drop precipitously.

In contrast, during the 2014 Ebolavirus epidemic, early on I commented that, amongst other things, this was not the epidemic to really fear for the world. The main reason was that Ebolavirus, for the most part, was and is a direct transmission bug. It does not generally pass via airborne transmission. The ones we have to fear are the airborne droplet transmission epidemics which is what we have with 2019-nCoV. These are almost always worse than direct transmission infections.

I believe in coevolution, that basically, the virus in most instances will evolve to become less virulent over time. Which is what happened with SARS, where the transmission dropped over time. Let’s hope for the same here. We need to keep track of and see how succeeding generations of the virus evolve and how the R0 number shifts.

The second point, how sick do people get and what percent of those that are exposed and become ill will die. It is possible that the number that is floated around just now may near 5-10%. If these numbers are true then this does not bode well at all. But it is also extremely possible that the number will be much, much less. As an example, during the influenza pandemic a decade ago, where many people were terrified about this new flu strain, the patients I attended seemed to have a milder form than usual. In other words, while more people got the flu, they suffered less from it. It took a year before that overreaction to the flu that actually occurred was discussed (though I wrote about it within the first weeks). So, severity is the other number you want to keep track of, the actual percent of people who have the disease who die. And for a variety of political reasons, the most important numbers are the ones that come from outside China, not from inside China, as the succeeding generation of the virus unfolds, we will want to keep track of see how lethal it really is. Personally, I believe that this number will be much lower than currently thought.

Until you have accurate numbers, prudence is in order, but not panic. Take care of your overall health, practice good public health measures, and let’s see how this develops.

The Physical Crisis

I want to focus on those patients that develop the worse form or presentation, the sad, scary, side of this infection. Here, I do not care if we are talking about millions, thousands, or even a single individual, the principles are the same, and they are general, not just to this virus. Accordingly, this section describes the serious health crisis itself, which has three related parts, none of which are being discussed at length at this time but ought to be:

A. the direct damage of the virus upon the organs, such as the lungs

B. the cytokine storm that threatens the life of the patient

C. the after-effect of the cytokine damage, which is potentially most dangerous

A. The direct damage to the lung is partially related to the viral load. Here finding the specific antiviral will limit the damage. Short term damage may have occurred and has to be dealt with, with or without the virus present. In other words, even if all the virus is gone, we have to address the acute damage to the tissues. It is like someone who has severe smoke inhalation, but survives. There is damage there, even after the smoke is gone. Only focusing on the virus at such a point is not enough. This is true if you use pharmaceutical agents, or natural medicine products.

B. With regard to the cytokine storm, I believe there are two major ways to deal with this life threatening reaction to the virus. First is to try to stop the storm itself. In fact,

I don’t believe that the science is fully there yet, but it is possible that a combination of medications may be of use. The second approach would be to actually remove enough of the cytokines from the blood stream to shorten the length and severity of the storm. We have the technology to do this now! Though the technology is not readily available, this is one solution alongside other therapies. Remove enough of the cytokines to let the body’s immune system deal with the infection, but not kill itself in the process.

There is an easy way to do this now, though not yet considered by the treatment teams. And in time, it will be cost-effective, if provided to those that are severely ill or predicted to become severely ill.

C. I would like to highlight the damage itself. One of the most likely lethal natural courses is the development of lower lung involvement, leading to pneumonia, followed by Acute Lung Injury (ALI,) then Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS,) and possibly death. To be clear, here the problem is not so much the bug itself, but the damage that has been caused by the immune system interacting with the bug, effectively drowning the patient with fluid in their lungs. I wrote and spoke about this during the SARS epidemic, and believe this to be true here, too.

Since the first time I wrote about this kind of damage to the body from infections, I have been involved in a number of different projects. Most importantly was a study on patients with sepsis, many with ALI and ARDS. Our hypothesis was that the inflammatory response used up too much C1-INH and that patients were dying due to drowning in lung fluid since enough C1-INH was missing to limit vascular permeability. The clinical trial was successful and the paper was published in Critical Care Medicine.

Later, a post hoc analysis showed the same results when we looked at only the ALI/ARDS patients. In layman’s terms our hypothesis was this: In the midst of an inflammatory response, different molecules create vascular permeability opening up spaces to let more of your immune system into the damaged area. C1 is one of those molecules. At a certain point you have to close the gaps to stop the fluid from pouring into the area. That is the job of C1-INH. What we found, in a clear dose dependent manner, is that when you use up too much of the C1-INH, you might develop a ‘relative deficiency’, and when that occurs, fluid just keeps pouring into the inflamed area, here the lungs. By measuring the levels of C1-INH, in relationship to the other inflammatory markers, it may be possible to predict who is likely to have their infection turn lethal. If this test could be administered it could be essential information to understand who is most at risk. Sadly, they are not measuring this molecule yet, but this week,

we have sent a letter to stakeholders and hope that they begin to measure this in the blood of patients with 2019-nCoV.

This information is not only a predictive diagnostic tool, but could impact the treatment of those patients with severe illness. Such patients can be given C1-INH so that they are no longer deficient. We did this in 9 ICUs and found a large statistically significant benefit to these patients over those normally treated, when looking at the usual 28 day all-cause mortality numbers. Further, we hypothesized, though did not test for this in our trials, that C1-INH may help remodel the cell surfaces in the lung, assisting recovery from the damage itself.

This is one way to think about those in the most dire situations, and an area to explore to make this and other potential epidemic less lethal.

The role of those practicing in naturopathic, homeopathic, and integrative medicine settings in general and during the time of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in January 27, 2020:

The highest level of any physician should be to function at the primary prevention level. Dr. Amy Rothenberg described basic preventive measures in her short article. Aside from those comments, the natural medicine community has a role to play.

The natural medicine community, like any organization of individuals can and should bring its political voice to bear urging politicians in charge of the purse strings to adequately fund prevention protocols.

Like every other medical and nonmedical organization, civic group or religious community, at the very least, we can assist in the collection and distribution of products needed to decrease exposure. Here I mean even simple cleaning agents such as soap. Assisting with the removal of potentially exposed substances and surfaces will also be needed. Please remember that these ‘simple’ acts will and most often save the most number of lives. This has been true in every epidemic to date.

Further, those trained in public health measures can assist within the current public health command. This means everything from assisting in surveillance, finding both exposed and sick individuals, transporting exposed and ill patients while limiting travel of those individuals and providing quarantine assistance, helping with communication of status in a defined area, and assisting in the safe removal and processing of the remains of the deceased. Simply put, as is true in every large-scale emergency, either be part of the larger command and control or try to stay out of the way. There is always a great deal of confusion on the ground; we do not want to add to it. Very often integrative practitioners are ‘outside’ the basic command and control and hierarchy of public health. Our medical societies should integrate within the larger community. For example, in the naturopathic community, which are regulated by state boards, the state boards should be in close communication with the state public health authorities and funnel information up and down the chain of command.

Integrative practitioners can help provide lower level medical support such as rehydration and palliative care. And if during this time, one has the opportunity to treat an ill patient and/or presented with a person who was exposed to the virus, then I believe that an integrative or natural medicine approach, such as a homeopathic remedy, or a combination of botanical medicines, etc., can and should be given. The FDA is in support of many therapies that may yet to be proven during times of epidemics. Indeed this is why so many antiviral drugs as well as many other pharmaceuticals are currently being tried with patients though research has not supported their use.

Anything short of allowing access is an example of the ‘tomato effect’ seen in people acting unscientifically, and not in keeping step with the rest of science at the moment as it relates to 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). In fact, I would say that in the circumstance I described above, where the patient is receiving the best care possible, given the resources available, it would be interesting for everyone to test out whether a safe natural or integrative approach like homeopathic medicine actually provides benefit. This would be interesting for all; likewise, if the substance is completely useless, this would be valuable information, too. Join me in this call for a rational approach, unfettered by bias. Rational prudent thought should prevail.

The response of all natural or integrative approaches to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) epidemic should be to help highlight and advocate for prevention, assist in identification of those infected, stabilization and quarantining of exposed and ill individuals, and support cleaning and disinfection processes, as well as providing natural and integrative aid where and when appropriate. There should be a push from every medical community to their government to support relief efforts.

In the next update, we focus on some of our main treatment options.

In health,

Paul Herscu ND, MPH [Paul Herscu ND]

2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV): Part II

February 2, 2020 update Part 2

This is the second piece of writing on this current epidemic. Please read Part 1 for context and also, please read my other writing in this site for a larger context on the overall topic of public health and epidemics. For this epidemic, I will keep the sections consistent.

First Things First. The Immune System with Relation to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

Over this period of days, we have seen more and more articles from medical journals moving in the direction previously highlighted. Both focusing on your immune system, and highlighting that people who had worse outcomes were people who already had a disease burden that made them susceptible. This will remain true. Supporting your immune system to be the most efficient and effective it can be remains important and is a place where you and your patients have some control. Today! Read what

Dr. Rothenberg and I mentioned here last time.

Comments I shared here last week remain true and are seen in the writings coming from across the globe. I want to focus on why this is of outmost importance to you!

While the current official numbers of infected are around 14,000, other medical journals are estimating the numbers to be closer to 75,000. This would be in keeping with the numbers I mentioned last week of 40,000-50,000 as the true numbers last week. And at this time the official death toll is around 300 people, with the first person to die outside of China. I mentioned that the mortality rate and disease burden outside China is the one that really matters to science, and to us. Here’s why:

First the numbers. Every year, regardless of the epidemic in question the numbers reported out of China are a fraction of those seen in the rest of the world. This is known. And really, a great deal of work is being done to help the current situation. For example, China has, give or take, 1.3 Billion people. The USA has 350 million. The USA vaccinates a high percent of the population for influenza. China hardly vaccinates. Nevertheless, the annual dead toll of influenza in the USA is around 20,000-60,000, depending on how you count it with let’s say 50,000 on average. And in China where the toll should be at the very least 4 times greater, the official numbers are always extremely low. China reports only death caused directly by influenza whereas the USA reports not just those numbers but also those who succumb in the aftermath of the influenza. For example, if you develop pneumonia afterwards and succumb to it, it is reported as part of the flu related death in the USA but not in China. But aside from this reporting difference, getting the real numbers is always tricky. Both for science, but this time also because of politics, which I am not commenting on. The point being, knowing the real number of infected is important for modelling how average or how highly infectious this epidemic is. Because we do not have this number from inside China, we can make better predictions from those infected outside China.

The related second point is trying to understand what percent of those infected have to be hospitalized for a severe form of the infection and what percent die from the infection. Again, while we know the death number is around 300, we do not really know the full extent inside China. If it is true that the official infected numbers are 14,000 and 300 died, that would be a lethal rate of 2.1%, and if this were true we are in for a horrible period of time. However, if the 300 that died are out of 75,000-100,000 people, then the mortality rate would only be 0.3%. A bad number for sure, but MUCH less severe than any horrific epidemic. Also, the official Chinese estimate that 20% of those infected develop a horrible form of the disease, and if that were true, we are also in it for a very bad period of time. But again, the numbers do not add up for me. Regardless, we are starting to get a pretty good idea of the reality of it. And while no one is saying it yet, I would like to share some thoughts and numbers.

My first problem with the official numbers is this. We have around 200 people outside China who are confirmed with this strain of the coronavirus.

Problem #1. One person has died from all these folks, which would place the mortality rate near 0.5%, much less than the 2% estimated.

Second, it seems as though mostly, these folks have not easily passed the germ to many other people, which would be a good sign in terms of what the actual Ro number

is now.

The related number, which is a VERY important number, though it has not been shared with us yet, is what percent of those infected, outside of China, actually developed

a serious form of the disease. Again, the official numbers were 20% inside China, but in fact, I have not heard of any numbers disclosed by any country outside of China as

to how severely ill attended patients are. I hope enough pressure is brought on officials to release this number as it will help for public health preparedness and government response.

As I mentioned last week, personally, I believe that these numbers will be much lower than currently thought.

Until we have accurate numbers, prudence is in order, but not panic. Take care of your overall health, practice good public health measures, and let’s see how this develops.

The Physical Crisis:

Regarding the actual disease, when it shows itself in a severe form we see:

A. the direct damage of the virus upon the organs, such as the lungs

B. the cytokine storm that threatens the life of the patient

C. the after-effect of the cytokine damage, which is potentially the most dangerous

A. It seems as though there are reports that some specific antivirals are working well enough for the situation at hand. Not perfect, but perhaps well enough. Recall the natural antivirals, too.

B. With regard to limiting the cytokine storm, I think looking a specific removal of these immune components, by adapting the sort of technology that Cytosorbents uses is not out of reach.

C. Here, I still believe both checking the level of serum C1-INH in the most ill patients and then giving those with a relative deficiency of plasma C1INH more C1-INH is a workable, affordable, targeted solution. I hope they will soon start to measure C1-INH in severely ill patients, using it as a sort of biomarker for treatment and prognosis.

The role of those practicing in naturopathic, homeopathic, and integrative medicine settings in general and during the time of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), February 2, 2020:

The main point I made earlier is still relevant: understand that during this or any epidemic, sound logic should rule the day. Testing any number of interventions (pharmaceutical, botanical, homeopathic, etc.,) that might help should lead to a workable solution. This at least is how most of science works, when one is at the academic/regulatory level. However, at the public perception level, it does not always play out so well. Often, when someone suggests a solution that may exist in the integrative medical world, it is ridiculed, at least until there are so many people using such approaches that ridicule stops. We saw this with acupuncture in the past generation. During this generation we have seen the same with prolotherapy/stem cell work, moving from ridicule to standard of care. Sadly, there is time delay here and in that time delay, missed opportunities abound.

An example of this was seen last week when a section of the Indian government said that since, at this time, there does not seem to be good treatment or prevention method available, they would like to utilize homeopathic/herbal/naturopathic prevention options that are generally recognized as safe and have a track record of human use for hundreds of years. But by the next day, the media backlash brought upon the government was relentless which made them walk back their recommendation. What is especially sad here is that much of the negative criticism came from people who did not even read the recommendations, as their comments missed the recommendation completely.

This type of overt bias has no place in science.

What news sources reported was that the Indian government was suggesting that you don’t have to take basic precautions but rather only use homeopathy. In fact, this

was not at all the case, as you can see from their official proclamation. They suggested what every government, NGO, and WHO, and CDC suggested. But along with

that, for prevention they added other interventions that might or might not help, just like adding any drug to be tested at this time.

I would like to juxtapose this with the most common recommendation being to wear a mask, as can be seen by so many photographs of China and really around the world.

In most instances these masks are at best useless. The virus passes through these easily enough and would not prevent transmission of this virus. Ironically, these kinds of masks present several real problems. They trap germs inside the mask, and unless you continually change them daily, you might become sick from wearing them rather than preventing illness. But for me, the biggest threat to people using masks is false security. And in so doing, they are not practicing all the other things that could really help, the basic public health measures that are in your control. I cannot think of a better way to exemplify this than by the two articles I just referred to. In the one critical of the Indian government, the authors refer to these most agreed upon WHO recommendations as the “usual hygienic niceties” thereby diminishing their strengths. Whereas, in the Indian government proclamation they place public health measures at the top of the list, where they belong.

As important, the Indian government attempted what the other governments did not, when tackling the tricky question of the face masks. While the regular face masks that

are sold do not really work, the R95 masks do, which they highlighted. Of course, with this mask, the main problems with them is wearing them improperly and not changing them regularly.

The role of those practicing homeopathic in general and during the time of 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in February 2, 2020:

I want to start by saying that the comments I made last week are still the most important ones for us. Good public health measures that you can take will slow down and eventually stop this epidemic. They will help to keep you safe. Every organization has the same comments. Keep to them, and share them with your patients. They are important to you and to your family. But onward now.

I have to say that it is unlikely that there is any homeopath who has treated any patient with 2019-nCoV at this time. That said, using the comments I made last week, as

well as the ones I made discussing past epidemics, we have to segregate those exposed into at least 4 groups: a. Those exposed and not developing symptoms or having subclinical manifestations, b. those that develop a life-threatening or life-altering manifestation, c. those who present with a worsening of their chronic symptoms and lastly,

those that develop an acute manifestation. A lengthy discussion on this topic can be found on this website in prior writing, as well as in Herscu Letters #33-38.

The reason I want to start with this, as I had in the prior epidemics, is that for the most part, most of what I have heard from the homeopathic community is preparation for

the horrific presentations, whereas MOST of the people who contract 2019-nCoV, will not develop such symptom pictures at all. If you are using homeopathy, most of the people you will encounter will need their constitutional remedy. As I wrote about this last month before the 2019-nCoV became an issue, the main remedies at that time were Gelsemium, Bryonia and Eupatorium perfolatum and bit of Nux-v. At this time, Gelsemium is still being used, but so is Bry, Bell, but most especially, a person’s chronic remedy.

Many patients that you will see, will fit one of these remedies at this time. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, this is not specific to 2019-nCoV, but rather to the URIs that are occurring across the USA at the time of this writing.

The Whole Epidemic:

Epidemiologists say, and it seems true to me over these past 30 years, that every epidemic is unique. One aspect often overlooked is one that a classical homeopath should consider. We look at the whole individual - mentally, emotionally, and physically. That said, during an epidemic, I find that many people abandon that philosophical foundation. They stop thinking critically, and like many others, react to news of the epidemic is a way that is emblematic of the remedy state! By which I mean when looking at the whole population, we can see, at this time, an extreme panic, and also, sadly, a sort of hysterical xenophobia against people from China. I might blame it on this or that reason. For example, I can blame it on the ignorance of most of evolutionary biology, population density, etc., but the bottom line is that it is occurring at this time.

And for the classical homeopath, one should consider this fear and xenophobia as part of the case, when looking for a genus epidemicus. I wrote a great deal on this topic during the Anthrax scare, which you can read on this site in the 2001 writings on Anthrax. Don’t simply try to explain it away but be observant of this reaction.

When and if we have the opportunity to use homeopathic remedies with people who have this virus, this feature may well play into our remedy choices.

The bottom line as of now, is do the hygienic measures that are within your control. Wait until we get the number outside of China to see how problematic this epidemic will be, and take appropriate action. I believe these lethal percentages will begin to diminish in this first wave.

By the next episode I expect that most of you will begin to lose interest in this epidemic, as it will begin to wind down in terms of the lethality. At least this is what I believe to be the case. That said there are important considerations I would like to discuss, more from a global sense not just this particular epidemic. In any case, stay tuned!

In health,

Paul Herscu ND, MPH

[Dr. Manish Bhatia]

Homeopathy is based on the principle that a drug will prove curative in a condition, if it can produce similar signs and symptoms in a healthy human being during a drug trial.

In case of epidemics, a general remedy is selected on the basis of the symptoms of the existing patients and that remedy, known as Genus Epidemicus, can be given to the affected population group for that particular epidemic. The Genus epidemicus will change from year to year if the presenting symptoms change. Not just the symptoms, but also the sequence and intensity of specific symptoms can change the indicated homeopathic remedy.

Based on the epidemiological and clinical studies done so far, we know the following symptoms, which our homeopathic remedy should cover:

Fever

• Chilliness

• Dry Cough

• Pneumonia

• Shortness of breath

• Tightness of chest

The sections below about steps for identifying the Genus epidemicus are technical. Non-medical people can skip the sections below and jump to the section

‘Which homeopathic remedy should I take for Coronavirus?’

Order of symptoms

The ideal remedy should be indicated for dry cough with fever. We have many remedies that cover dry cough, which remains after an acute cold. Such remedies will

not be indicated. Other remedies which are known to be effective in allergic dry cough are also unlikely to work.

Absent Symptoms

We see the Nasal Discharge is absent in most patients or is a late and minor symptom. Hence our indicated homeopathic remedy should not have a presenting picture with acute runny colds.

Based on the CT findings

The CT findings suggest that usually the lower lobe of lungs are getting affected; most lesions are peripheral, near pleura and there is predilection for the right side.

We need a remedy which is right sided, symptoms evolve from right to left, is known to affect lower lobes and cause pleuro-pneumonia.

The CT findings have also revealed absence of lung cavitations and hemorrhage in most patients, so remedies known to cover such symptoms are less likely to be indicated.

Converting the Symptoms into Repertorial Rubrics

Some of the possible rubrics from the Complete Repertory:

[Complete] [Chest] Inflammation:Lungs, pneumonia:Weakness, with:

[Complete] [Cough] Dry:Fever:During:

[Complete] [Chest] Constriction:

[Complete] [Chill, Chilliness] Heat:With:

[Complete] [Chest] Inflammation:Lungs, pneumonia:Base, lower:

[Complete] [Chest] Inflammation:Lungs, pneumonia:Pleura-pneumonia:

[Complete] [Chest] Inflammation:Lungs, pneumonia:Right:

[Complete] [Generalities] Right:Left, then:

There is a possibility to add slightly different rubrics and more rubrics but the aim of repertorisation is to just reach a probable group of remedies. After that we have to use our knowledge of materia medica to filter out the right ones.

Another possible criticism could be that most of the symptoms are ‘common’ while homeopathic prescriptions are usually based on the ‘uncommon’ symptoms. To this I would say that a true simillimum usually covers both the common as well as uncommon symptoms. Many diverse common symptoms and their specific combination is itself unique, which can be used to reach the desired group of remedies.

Repertorisation Results:

Another study showed, patients had clinical manifestations of fever (82 [83%] patients), cough (81 [82%] patients), shortness of breath (31 [31%] patients), muscle ache (11 [11%] patients), confusion (nine [9%] patients), headache (eight [8%] patients), sore throat (five [5%] patients), rhinorrhoea (four [4%] patients), chest pain (two [2%] patients), diarrhoea (two [2%] patients), and nausea and vomiting (one [1%] patient). According to imaging examination, 74 (75%) patients showed bilateral pneumonia, 14 (14%) patients showed multiple mottling and ground-glass opacity, and one (1%) patient had pneumothorax. 17 (17%) patients developed acute respiratory distress syndrome and, among them, 11 (11%) patients worsened in a short period of time and died of multiple organ failure.[iv]

It seems to start with a fever, followed by a dry cough.

After a week, it can lead to shortness of breath, with about 20% of patients requiring hospital treatment.

Notably, the COVID-19 infection rarely seems to cause a runny nose, sneezing, or sore throat (these symptoms have been observed in only about 5% of patients).

Most patients have showed bilateral lung involvement, with lesions mainly located peripherally and subpleurally with diffuse distribution.

The predominant pattern of abnormality observed was bilateral (64 [79%] patients), peripheral (44 [54%] ), ill-defined (66 [81%] ), and ground-glass opacification (53 [65%] ), mainly involving the right lower lobes (225 [27%] of 849 affected segments).

Leukocytosis was detected in 26 (32%) patients and lymphocytosis in 54 (67%) patients. Concentrations of C-reactive protein and serum amyloid A protein were elevated in most patients.

In case of epidemics, a general remedy is selected on the basis of the symptoms of the existing patients and that remedy, known as Genus epidemicus, can be given to the affected population group for that particular epidemic. The Genus epidemicus will change from year to year if the presenting symptoms change. Not just the symptoms, but also the sequence and intensity of specific symptoms can change the indicated homeopathic remedy.

Based on the epidemiological and clinical studies done so far, we know the following symptoms, which our homeopathic remedy should cover:

Fever

Chilliness

Dry Cough

Pneumonia

Shortness of breath

Tightness of chest

The most likely homeopathy remedies are Phos. Bry. Lyc. Ars. Sulph. Iod. Bell. Kali-c. Merc. Chin. Lach. Anti-t. Chel. Gels.

Now we need to apply our knowledge of Materia Medica to filter out the remedies that match the sequence and pace of symptoms.

The remedies that have dry cough with fever are our primary candidates. These include:

Acon. Bry. Ip. Kali-c. Phos. Ars. Nux-v. Sabad. Lyc. Sulph. Carb-v. Lach. Puls.

In this epidemic, the symptoms are taking time to evolve, so we need to remove remedies that have rapid pace like Acon. Bell. Nux-v. Ars. We also need to remove remedies that tend to produce runny colds as initial symptoms.

After this filtering, we are left with the following remedies from our reportorial results:

Bry. Phos. Lyc. Merc. Kali-c. that seem to cover the laterality, sequence and pace of symptoms reasonably well.

Phos. and Merc. can be ruled out because they are known to be indicated in hemorrhages and pneumonia with cavitations. They might be indicated in a few cases.

Out of these, the remedy that covers the initial symptoms better is Bryonia alba and I believe, this remedy will work well as prophylactic too.

This season favors Bryonia because it is known to work well when the days are warm and nights are cold, the kind of weather transition after winter we are currently in.

The remedy that covers the later symptoms best is Lycopodium and could be expected to help a large majority of people who develop Pneumonia.

Respiratory Symptoms of Bryonia from Phatak’s Materia Medica

Cough; DRY, HARD, VERY PAINFUL, at night as of from stomach, must sit up worse eating and drinking. Wants to take deep breath, but cannot or it excites cough. Expectoration; rusty blood streaked or tough. Bronchitis. Asthma. Pneumonia. SHARP STITCHES IN CHEST or at right scapula, worse deep breathing and coughing. Pleurisy. Coming into warm room excites cough. Holds chest, or presses the sternum when coughing.

Lycopodium homeopathy medicine for pneumonia

Respiratory Symptoms of Lycopodium from Phatak’s Materia Medica

Craves air but is chilled by it. Short, rattling breathing < lying on back. Cough; dry, tickling, teasing; in puny boys with emaciation; day and night; deep hollow; as from sulphur fumes, < on descending; with emaciation; < empty swallowing, stretching the throat; deep breathing. Salty greenish-yellow, lumpy or foul expectoration.

Unresolved pneumonia. Brown yellow spots on chest. Abscess of the lungs, tuberculosis. Difficult respiration due to hydrothorax +/o. hydropericardium, with flapping

of alae nasi. Feeling of tightness in chest with burning.

Lycopodium is also complementary (drug relation) to Bryonia.

For more detail symptoms of both remedies, refer to Hering’s Guiding Symptoms.

Both these remedies are polychrest and other individualizing symptoms must be taken note of before prescribing.