Genus
epidemicus Anhang
[Peter Alex]
Borreliose neu zu überdenken. Auf der Suche nach dem „Genus Epidemicus“, demjenigen homöopathischen Mittel, das am ehesten der Seuchensymptomatik um das
Beschwerdebild Borreliose speziell in Deutschland entspricht, stieß Dr. Alex auf das Mittel Aur-ars. (eine Vereinigung der zwei antisyphilitischen Hauptmittel Aur-met.
und Ars.), das die depressive Grundstimmung des Scheiterns auf vielen Ebenen in unserer Gesellschaft widerspiegelt.
Die Anwendung erfolgt zunächst pauschal: je 1 Teelöffel von einer Lösung aus 1 Globulus Ledum C 30 auf 1 Glas Wasser am Tag des Zeckenstiches und an den 2
darauffolgenden Tagen, dann am 6. und 12. Tag nach dem Stich 1 Teelöffel aus einer Lösung von 1 Globulus Aur-ars. C 200 auf 1 Glas Wasser (Glas zugedeckt im
Kühlschrank aufbewahren). Bei eventuell auftretenden Symptomen sofort einen Homöopathen aufsuchen.
[David Little]
Part One: The Origin of Homeoprophylaxis
H. first published the doctrine of the miasms in “The Chronic Diseases”
(1828) and “The 4th Organon of the Healing Arts” (1829). These works
contain the first coherent
theory of constitution, temperament, predisposition, susceptibility and
acute and chronic contagious diseases. It also introduces the first clinical
record of a stress adaptation
syndrome as well as autoimmune diseases and immunodeficiency disorders.
These were watershed years as they perfected the single dose wait and watch
philosophy of
case management and applied it to the treatment of chronic disease.
At this time, H. was using dry pellets, olfaction, and pellets dissolved in a
spoonful of water.
Over the next 14 years H. developed a new case management philosophy
that he claimed could speed the cure to ½ to 1/4 the time of cure of his former
methods. In this system any visibly strikingly and progressive amelioration is
a sign that the dose should not be repeated as long as this state lasts. In
cases where a single dose only produces nominal healing action, the remedy
should be repeated a suitable intervals to speed the cure. At the same time,
the Founder developed an improved liquid delivery system
that reaches more nerves increasing the action of remedies. The Old
Master applied his new medicinal solutions to higher centesimal potencies in
the 5th Organon (1833) and suggested the “divided doses” to speed
the cure in the Paris edition of the “Chronic Diseases” (1837).
A similar delivery system was used for the olfaction and oral doses of
the LM potency in the 6th Organon (1842-1843). The use of the
centesimal and LM potency in aqueous solutions greatly expands the therapeutic
range of the homeopathic system.
There is an old saying, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure". How does this apply to Homoeopathy? What did H. have to say about
the prevention of serious contagious diseases?
What is the original of a first safe and effective system of
prophylaxis? Perhaps, one can find some answers in H.'s “Lesser Writings” in an
article called, “The Prevention and Cure of Scarlet Fever” (1801). The
following is from a paragraph titled "Prophylaxis".
"Who can deny that the perfect prevention of infection from this
devastating scourge, the discovery of a means whereby this Divine aim may be
surely attained, would offer infinite advantages over any mode of treatment, be
it of the most incomparable kind so ever?" And: "The remedy capable
of maintaining the healthy uninfectable by the miasm of scarlatina, I was so
fortunate as to discover".
H. again refers to homoeoprophylaxis in the 6th Organon of
the Healing Art in aphorism 73, footnote 73b that discusses acute miasmic
disease. Here he discusses his use of Belladonna for prevention of scarlet
fever and Aconite for Masern (purpura miliaris). Dudgeon reported in his
Lectures on the “Theory and Practice of Homoeopathy” the experience of ten
allopathic doctors who gave Belladonna to 1646 children who were exposed to
scarlet fever of whom 123 contracted the disease, which is under 1%..
The normal attack rate in unprotected children was as high as 90%.
In The Chronic Diseases H. wrote that he used Bryonia and Rhus-t. as
specific remedies during an epidemic of acute typhus miasm in 1813. H. treated
180 cases and only
lost two patients. The mortality rate of the orthodox doctors was 30%.
These acute specifics represents early *genus epidemicus remedies* chosen by
the totality of the symptoms of many persons suffering the same infectious
disease. Vide page 33.
"--- the entire and
complete image of the typhus fever reigning at the time could only be obtained
by gathering together the symptoms of all, or at least of many of these
patients."
This group picture of an acute miasm provides remedies that have both
curative and prophylactic qualities. These homeopathic "specifics"
were not chosen by the name of the disease alone, but rather, by the grand
totality of the symptoms of the entire epidemic in a greater number of people.
The effectiveness of Homoeopathy in acute epidemics was again confirmed
during the great influenza pandemic of 1918. The Journal of the American
Institute of Homeopathy, May 1921 reported the following data. Dr. T.A. McCann
of Dayton, Ohio recorded that in 24, 000 flu cases treated by orthodox medicine
the mortality rate was 28.2% while those treated homoeopathically was only
1.05%. The Dean of H. College who collected 26,795 with similar results
supported this figure. (Some History of the Treatment of Epidemics with
Homeopathy by Julian Winston.)
H. continued to study the actions of the miasmic diseases on the
population and postulated that the suppression of these miasms would lead to
new virulent strains, more complicated forms of social diseases and new complex
chronic disorders. He suggested that the inner affects of the miasms will
continue to mutate into deeper chronic degenerative states, which includes
autoimmune diseases and immunodeficiency disorders that are incurable by
orthodox medicine. His prediction that the universal suppression of infectious
disease will lead to more virulent infections and more complex chronic states
has come true. The abuse of antibiotics and antiviral agents has increased
resistance and helped to create increased susceptibility to new virulent stains
of microorganisms.
Causation in Homoeopathy
In one of H.’s earliest works, the Medicine of Experience, the Founder
offered several insights into the subject of causation and the nature of the
infectious miasms. He carefully explains that miasms are diseases that have
"one and the same cause". This is because these infectious diseases
rely on the same contagious principle. Some miasms mutate very rapidly while
others tend toward relatively fixed character. This is a special condition that
calls for special measures. Vide the Medicine of Experience.
"We observe a few diseases
that always arise from *one and the same* cause, e.g., the miasmatic maladies;
hydrophobia, the venereal diseases, the plague of the Levant, yellow fever,
small-pox, cow-pox, the measles and some others which bear upon then the
distinctive mark of always remaining diseases of a *peculiar character*; and
because they arise from a contagious principle that always remains the same,
they also always retain the same character and pursue the same course ---"
H. was the first to postulate a complete theory of susceptibility,
infection and how such diseases may confuse a human being’s defense mechanism.
Homeopathic philosophy
is still much more advanced in this area than its orthodox counterpart. The
Old Healer goes on, "These few disease, at all events those first
mentioned (the miasmatic), we may therefore term specific, and when necessary
bestow on them *distinctive appellations.*
H. realized very early in his career that miasmic infectious diseases
are based on a causative factor that involves microorganisms, which he once
called "animalcule".
Right from the beginning H. was deeply investigating causative factors
in relation to infectious diseases and the human constitution. Most non-miasmic
diseases that lead
to protracted diseases depend on multiple internal
and external causes rather than a single infectious factor that remains
constant. Vide The Medicine of Experience.
All the other innumerable diseases exhibit such a difference in their phenomena,
that we may safely assert that they arise from a combination of several
dissimilar causes (varying in number and differing in nature and intensity).
The number of words that may be constructed from an alphabet of twenty-four
letters may be calculated, great though that number be; but who can calculate
the number of those *dis-similar* diseases, since our bodies can be affected by
innumerable, and still for the most part, unknown influences of external
agencies, and by almost as many forces from within.
In these quotes H. carefully explains the difference between diseases
with a single cause such as the infectious miasms and diseases based on
multiple causes, which may include internal and external factors. Many diseases
are complex as they are based on the "combination of several dis-similar
causes". According to Hippocrates, diseases caused by multiple factors
were said to have an “aetiological constellation”. H. later elucidated how
dissimilar diseases interact in § 33 to §42 of the 5th and 6th
Organon. These aphorisms explain how dissimilar diseases repel each other,
repress one another, or after acting for longer periods, may combine with one
another to form complex disorders. These aphorisms hold the key to
understanding susceptibility, disease layers, and the reversal of the symptoms
as explained in Hering's law of cure. Homoeo-prophylaxis is based on
understanding the nature of the human constitution, the nature of the
infectious miasms, the method of proving remedies on the healthy, and studying
group symptoms in homogeneous groups of sufferers.
Susceptibility and predisposition to infectious diseases is based on the
internal terrain of the constitution and the strength of the vital force. For
this reason constitutional treatment that acts globally
is one of the best prophylactic methods. Complex chronic diseases
involve multiple factors that produce layers of disharmony that derange vital
functions leading to organic pathology. The treatment of the chronic state
demands the most careful individualization of the symptoms and personalized
case management. Constitutional and anti-miasmatic treatment does not only
provide resistance to infectious diseases. They also prevent predispositions
toward certain diseases from growing into full-grown organic conditions in
later life. If one removes the seeds and roots of the complaint, the trunk and
branches never develop, and one does not suffer the fruits of predispositions.
There is growing resistance to antibiotic and antiseptic treatment being
reported worldwide. It seems that old miasms we once thought we had conquered
are returning while contemporary miasms
are rapidly mutating into more dangerous forms. New miasms carried by
animal hosts are crossing species lines, and infections are spreading to new
areas as global warming and environmental degradation increases. At the same
time, the suppression of the infectious miasms by inappropriate medicines is
increasing the virulence of microorganisms and their resistance to treatment at
an incredible rate. Some researchers are saying that man-made chemicals have
increased the deadly power of infectious diseases in a manner that Nature by
herself could not. Many predict that the development of new antibiotics will
not be fast enough to keep up with the increase of resistance. At some point,
the orthodox school may find itself impotent in the face of ever-increasing
epidemic disorders. In the future homoeopathic remedies may be the only
medicines that will work. It is essential to public health to understand how to
prevent, abort and treat epidemic diseases. Homeopaths, Dare to Know!
H. was supportive of Jenner’s attempt to prevent smallpox by
vaccination. He suggested that other animal miasms might be useful in the
prevention of infectious diseases affecting humans. It was
his personal opinion that the cowpox inoculation had lowered the number
of smallpox cases during his lifetime. His case histories record patients
suffering side effects from Jenner’s vaccination but he thought the danger of
smallpox outweighed the risks of immunization. He suggested that Sulphur could
be used to lower the risks of side effects by preventing the transmission of
Psora by vaccination. This offers another methodology, i.e. the use of
Homoeopathy to neutralize the side effects of orthodox immunization at the time
of inoculation.
The Symptoms of Vaccinosis
H. did not write about the long term negative effects of vaccination nor
speak out against the method. It was Wolf, Boenninghausen and Hering who
observed that Jenner’s vaccination was causing a man-made chronic miasm. For
this reason, H.’s followers began to seek remedies to remove the side effects
of immunization and search for better alternatives to prevent smallpox. Today
all diseases caused by immunization are called *Vaccinosis* although this word
originally was used only for the vaccination against smallpox.
An acute vaccine reaction may include fever, convulsions and other
serious complaints in the form of an immediate crisis. A mild acute reaction
may only cause a mild fever, fussiness, or drowsiness, but after months or
years the vaccine miasm may still produce more severe symptoms. Some vaccine
reactions may be more insidious in nature and not show symptoms for a long
time. In most cases, these illnesses will be blamed on other causes or be
considered idiopathic. The chronic effects of modern immunization are producing
three syndromes associated with brain damage, Post Encephalitic Syndrome (PES),
Post Vaccinal Encephalitis (PVE), and Minimal Brain Damage (MBD). Harris Coulter
documented the Post Encephalitic Syndrome (PES). It has been said that PVE has
become the most common cause of encephalitis in the USA and other
industrialized countries. MBD is closely associated with ADHD, the Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Hyperactive children are 10 times more likely
to end up in reform schools or to become felons in their later lives. They are
more likely to start smoking, drinking and abusing drugs at an early age than
other children. All three of these syndromes have been linked to a tremendous
increase in autism, dyslexia, hyperactivity and learning disabilities since the
introduction of the mandatory vaccination programs.
Vaccinosis produces four major sets of symptoms. These are autism,
dyslexia, hyperactivity and neurological disorders, although they have also
been associated with allergies and other hypersensitivities. The signs and
symptoms may include:
Autism and autism-like symptoms such as unresponsiveness to human
contact, avoids direct eye contact, prefers peripheral vision; avoid proximity
of people; chewing motions and grinding of teeth; confusion of the senses like
auditory and visual disturbances; mutism; obsessive need to keep uniformity of
environmental changes, passive states, quietness and undemanding if not
disturbed but aggravated by interruption, which may cause anxiety and rage;
repetitive acts and ritualistic behavior; retarded cognitive development
(language, dysphasic speech; rocking motions; banging of the head; childhood
schizophrenia);
Dyslexia and dyslexia-like symptoms like children with normal
intelligence that seem to have learning disabilities; confusion of orientation
of letters and numbers; difficulty telling right from left; feeling different
than others, difficulty in understanding linear logic but good with seeing the
overall picture.
Hyperactivity and hyperactive-like symptoms like impulsiveness, suddenly
does one thing and then another; inability to concentrate on one thing with
short span of attention; irritability where the child dislikes being picked up
and often stiffens and pushes away; learning disabilities; disordered motor
coordination; restlessness of an extreme nature, can’t keep still, always in
motion, restless leg syndrome, wringing of the hands; willful and disobedient.
Neurological disorders like EEG abnormalities; Gullain-Barre syndrome
(GBS); epilepsy; eyes disorders; poor visual coordination; speech impediments;
hearing impediments; violent behavior; infantile spasms; learning disabilities;
mental retardation; brain damage; motor impairments; seizures; tics; tremors;
spasms; loss of motor control; paralysis; multiple sclerosis (MS); transverse
myelitis; demylinating neuropathy; idiopathic brain and nervous diseases, etc.
Reactions to specific immunizations include the following.
DPT: Skin reactions; fever; vomiting; diarrhea; cough; runny nose; ear
infection; Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) high pitched screaming,
persistent crying; excessive sleepiness; collapse; shock-like episodes; brain inflammation;
seizures; convulsions, epilepsy; infantile spasms; loss of muscle control;
blood disorders, thrombocytopenia, hemolytic anemia; diabetes; hypoglycemia,
etc.
Pertussis vaccine: Brain damage; breathing problems; collapse;
convulsions; inconsolable bouts of crying; diarrhea; encephalopathy; grand mal
epilepsy; high fevers; pain; high pitched screaming (cri encephalique);
seizures; shocks; Sudden Infant Deaths Syndrome (SIDS); sleepiness; projectile
vomiting; coughing, respiratory complaints, etc.
Tetanus: reoccurring abscess; anaphylactic shock; loss of consciousness;
demylinating neuropathy; inner ear nerve damage; fever; etc.
Measles vaccine; aseptic meningitis; ataxia; learning disabilities;
mental retardation; seizures; multiple sclerosis, Reye’s syndrome,
Gullain-Barre syndrome (GBS); blood clotting disorders; juvenile onset
diabetes; Cohn’s disease; ulcerative colitis.
Mumps vaccine: Bruising; encephalitis; itching; rashes; seizures of a
febrile nature; unilateral nervous deafness; swollen glands, etc.
Rubella vaccine: Arthritis; anthralgia; polyneuritis; numbness; pain;
paralysis, etc.
MMR: Fatigue, sore throat, cough, runny nose, headache, dizziness, fear,
rash, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea; sore lymph nodes; anaphylaxis; convulsions; encephalopathy;
otitis media; conjunctivitis; nerve deafness; thrombocytopenia; purpura; optic
neuritis; retinitis, arthritis; Gullain-Barre (GBS); subacute sclerosing
panencephalitis. Symptoms of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines combined.
Varicellla vaccine (chickenpox): cellulites; transverse myleitis;
Guillian-Barre syndrome (GBS); herpes zoster. Documented cases of transmission
of vaccine virus from child to household contacts, including a pregnant woman,
etc.
Polio vaccine: fever; headache; neurological complications; pain in the
joints; paralysis, of lungs, of one or more limbs, sore throat; stiffness, of
back, of neck; vomiting; weakness of muscles; Werdig-Hoffman disease; SV40
infection (Salk vaccine was contaminated with SV40 between 1955-1963); polio-like
symptoms; etc.
Hepatitis B: Up to 17% report weakness, headache, arthritis and fever
more than 100F. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS); Guillian-Barre (GBS);
demyelization including transverse myelitis, optic neuritis, multiple sclerosis
(MS); chronic arthritis; immune system dysfunction, etc.
It has been noticed by homœopaths that vaccinations may lead to changes
of personality, sleep patterns, eating patterns, bowel patterns and other
alterations of natural cycles. Each vaccine has acute symptoms, latent symptoms
and chronic symptoms. The acute symptoms are those that are mostly recorded by
the orthodox school. They do not look for or wish to acknowledge the fact that
immunization may produce latent states that create chronic organic pathology
over the long term. When such states appear they view the pathology as a new
independent disease, and do not see the connection between the distant cause
(vaccination) and the recent events (new diseases). Each vaccine has the
potential to produce an insidious syndrome of symptoms somewhat similar to the
diseases from which they are made. For this reason, the homœopath must study
each vaccine and the target disease for a deeper understanding of the symptoms
and possible remedies.
The Methodology of Homeoprophylaxis
H.’s method for finding specific homoeoprophylaxis is based on the
*genus epidemicus remedies*. These genus remedies are found by studying the
signs and symptoms of the target miasm in a group of patients. This method
provides remedies that can prevent, abort, and treat the prevailing miasm. The
same genus remedy that will prevent the disease will usually abort the early
stages of the illness before the more dangerous symptoms develop. This is a
valuable technique in the early stages of serious contagions when the symptoms
are more common, and it is not wise to wait for the more dangerous yet
characteristic symptoms to appear. The same remedy that will prevent and abort
dangerous infections will also treat a good number of developed cases although
other genus remedies may be needed according to the symptoms and the stage of
the disease.
The development of a collective picture is the most suitable method for
finding remedies for diseases of common cause and similar symptoms that affect
a homogenous group. This method can be used on epidemic miasms that have a
unique nature as well as those which are of a fixed character. H. explains his
methods for making a collective picture and finding group remedies in aphorism
100 to 103 of the Organon. This method is called the group anamnesis.
The group anamnesis is very useful when there is a clear and present danger of
infectious diseases. Dr. Carol Dunham wrote: "The selection of the
prophylactic remedy must, to some extent, be governed by the nature of the epidemic,
and therefore the best preventive cannot always be determined until the
epidemic has appeared, and its peculiar nature has been ascertained."
At the same time, health workers should seek to remove unhygienic
conditions that support epidemics. Individuals should avoid high-risk behavior
and avoid contaminated people, food and water. Those suffering from extremely
contagious diseases should observe a self-regulated quarantaine.
Hering’s Contribution
The publication of H.'s The Chronic Diseases (1828) caused great
interest in the nature of chronic miasms and their anti-miasmatic remedies. One
of the direct consequences of these teachings was
the development of the use of miasmic agents as remedies. Not long after
H. published his new discoveries, Hering begin to experiment with the use of
the potentized miasms. He called these new remedies "nosodes". The
Greek word "Noso" is a prefix that refers to the morbid roots of
disease. This term is connected with the Latin word, "noxa", which is
the root of the word, noxious. This name is harmonious with the idea of using
infectious materials as a basis for healing. This method had been used
occasionally in the past but it was an extremely dangerous undertaking before
the advent of potentized remedies.
Hering is responsible for greatly expanding the homoeopathic materia
medica as well as adding seven new categories of potentized remedies. For
example, Hering introduced:
1. The idea of using poisons taken from insects, snakes, and other
venomous creature as remedies (animal poisons).
2. The use of remedies made from miasmas (nosodes).
3. The introduction of potentized miasmas taken directly from the
patient's body (auto-nosodes).
4. The use of potentized miasmic products for the prevention of
infectious diseases (homoeo-prophylaxis by nosodes).
5. The use of homologous organs, tissue and secretions (sarcodes).
6. The use of the chemical relationships and nutritional elements innate
to the organism (biochemics).
7. The use of potentized disease vectors for the removal of infestations
e.g. potentized weed seeds to get rid of weeds and potentized insects to remove
insects (isodes).
Hering continued to experiment
with nosodes of the acute and chronic miasms and invited his colleagues to
conduct provings. He was the first to recommend the use of potentized itch
vesicles (Psorine cum Psorinum); potentized gonorrheal discharges
(Medorrhinum); potentized tuberculosis (Pthisine cum Tuberculinum) and
potentized syphilis (Syphiline cum Syphilinum) as remedies.
He noted that such medicines could be used as curative medicines and
intercurrent remedies in chronic diseases. In 1830 Hering proposed the use of
Hydrophobinum for the prevention of rabies, Variolinum for prevention of
smallpox, and Psorine for the prevention of the itch miasm.
Boenninghausen's Contribution
The use of specific remedies has been a part of homoeo-prophylaxis since
the days of H., Hering and von Boenninghausen. Boenninghausen was one of the
first to point out the dangers of orthodox immunizations. The Baron, Wolf and
Hering were very well aware of the dangers of the vaccination and actively
searched for better alternatives. The Baron's first experience was his
successful use
of Thuja as a genus epidemicus remedy for the prevention and treatment
of smallpox. He wrote about this experience in Concerning the Curative Effects
of Thuja in Small-pox, which is found in Boenninghausen's Lesser Writings.
"The decidedly favorable results caused me not only to use the same
remedy with all the following small-pox patients, but to also use the same
remedy in several houses where small-pox had broken out, as a prophylactic, and
lo! also here the result was favorable, and no case came to my knowledge where,
after using Thuja, any other member of the family had been infected.”
After his experiments with Thuja, the Baron went on to test Hering's
idea of a nosode made from the smallpox virus. This nosode is called
Variolinum. He found that a nosode made from smallpox was very successful in
preventing the disease. This led the Baron to say:
[David Little]
"Variolinum 200th is far superior to crude vaccination
and absolutely safe."
Homeopathy has no objection to the use of controlled disease exposure,
which is also at the base of orthodox immunizations. Where a homeopath differs
from the orthodox practitioner is in the preparation and methods of giving the
dose to the patient. Some problems involved with orthodox immunization include
products contaminated with chemicals and other viruses, the crude nature
of the delivery systems, and compound inoculations. This is combined
with giving too many immunizations too quickly at too young of an age. Today
orthodox authorities in the USA suggest up to 25 or more immunizations by the
age of 5. This includes multiple vaccinations for Hepatitis A; Hepatitis B;
Rotavirus; Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus (DPT); Haemophilus (Hib); Peumococcal
vaccine; Polio; Influenza (yearly); Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR); Varicella
(chickenpox); and Meningococcal infections. Although some of these vaccinations
may produce some immunity they are not without risks and side effects.
Three types of Homoeoprophylaxis
Homoeopathy has developed 3 methods of homoeo-prophylaxis. These are the
constitutional remedies, the genus epidemicus remedies and the use of nosodes.
1st method of homoeoprophylaxis is constitutional treatment.
These chronic remedies are chosen by the essential nature of the totality of
symptoms that tend to reduce susceptibility toward infectious disorders. The
chronic remedy is selected by the personal anamnesis, which emphasizes careful
individualization. This study includes a detailed assessment of the mental and
physical symptoms of the patient with special attention to that which is
striking, extraordinary, uncommon and oddly characteristic of the individual.
These remedies strengthen the vital force, remove predispositions to infection,
increase vitality and raise general immunity. Constitutional remedies are
somewhat universal in their applications and unequaled in manifold preventative
powers.
When combined with good hygiene, nutrition and stress management
programs, constitutional treatment forms the first line of defense against all
forms of infectious disease. Pierre Schmidt opined that constitutional remedies
given in early childhood is an ideal method of protecting the individual from
common childhood diseases (Mathur. K.N., Principles of Prescribing).
In Homoeopathy and Immunization L.J. Speight recorded the following
statement by Dr. Pulford.
“No disease will arise without an existing predisposition to that
disease. It is the absence of the predisposition to any particular disease that
makes us immune to it. Homœopathy alone is capable of removing these
predispositions”
2nd method of homoeoprophylaxis is called the *the genus
epidemicus remedies*. These are specific remedies chosen for protection against
targeted infectious diseases. Genus remedies are selected the essential nature
of the totality of the symptoms as expressed in a homogeneous group of suffers
of the same infectious miasm. These remedies are selected by the group
anamnesis.
They are effective in preventing, aborting and treating the targeted
miasm. This method is based on the collective picture as reviewed in aphorisms
100 to 103 of the Organon. The traditional Homoeopathic method has been to
strengthen the constitution by constitutional treatment in ordinary times, and
then use specific prophylaxes when there is a clear and present danger. The
treatment must be combined with avoidance of overcrowded, unhygienic places and
contaminated food and water as well as the most careful personal hygiene and
diet.
3rd method of homoeoprophylaxis is the use of *identical
nosodes*. In this method a nosode of the threatening miasm is given as a
preventative of the same disease. In this way, the infectious miasms carry
their own cure. For example, the nosode, Pertussin, is reputed to prevent
whooping cough. Unlike the remedy epidemicus, the exact nature of the miasms
behind the epidemic must be known and a proper stock available. Homeopathic
nosodes have a wider band of action than orthodox immunization. For example,
nosodes from previous flu epidemics are often effective against new epidemics.
If this is not the case, new nosodes can be made from patients suffering from a
new infectious disorder. The nosodes for a good number of epidemic disorders
are available in homoeopathic pharmacies.
The key to good homoeopathic prophylaxis lies in knowing when to use the
individual anamnesis and when the group anamnesis might be more appropriate.
Good constitutional treatment removes
a host of predispositions that are linked to the susceptibility to acute
and chronic infectious diseases. If the inner terrain is healthy the patient is
more resistant to infection in general and increases immunity. To delay
constitutional treatment while giving every possible specific for every known
infectious disease may be counter-productive. H. made it very clear that
specific prophylaxis should only be used when there is truly a clear and
present danger of infection. In this way general protection provided by good
constitutional treatment can be complemented by a specific prophylaxis.
Nevertheless, there are times when dangerous epidemics threaten the
populace and specific protection may be necessary. For example, when the USA
was threatened by smallpox epidemics at the turn of the 20th century,
homeopaths used Variolinum as a preventative for thousands of people. Under
such conditions it is not practical to give everyone individualized treatment.
For this reason, those involved in public campaigns against smallpox used the
nosode, Variolinum, because it could be distributed to the masses as a specific
preventative. There is a very good discussion of these issues found in a magazine
called the Medical Advance from 1904. Homoeopaths have conducted many trials in
the field to test the effectiveness of constitutional and specific prophylaxis.
Testimony of Great Homoeopaths
Many great classical homoeopaths used homoeopathic remedies to prevent
disease. The testimony of such luminaries as H., Hering, Boenninghausen, Kent,
Allen and Boger can be found throughout homoeopathic literature. Here is just a
small sampling of their experiences.
1. H. suggested in Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever (18O1) that
Belladonna could be used to prevent scarlet fever. In Cause and Prevention of
the Asiatic Cholera (1831) H. noted that the skillful use of Cuprum 30C
prevents cholera.
2. In 1833 Dr. Hering wrote a paper in which he discussed the potential
of Psorine to prevent an infection of the itch miasma (Stapf, arch. xii, 3).
3. von Boenninghausen was a keen practitioner of homoeo-prophylaxis. He
would sometimes give the same remedy he gave a person suffering an epidemic
disease to the contacts of the patient.
He also used genus epidemicus remedies and nosodes to prevent disease.
The Baron wrote the following in the Characteristic Value of Symptoms found in
his Lesser Writings.
“Homoeopathy has the most sure and approved prophylactics, and these
indeed are the very same which have the power of healing those diseases when
they have developed. Therefore, when we find in a family a case of infectious
typhoid fever, there the same remedy which has been given to the patient in
accordance with his symptoms, will also be sure to protect those in house from
infections, as it destroys the natural disposition thereto, and it will even in
the shortest time, restore those with whom there may have already been apparent
the beginning of the disease. This last fact is the more important as these
first beginning are usually so poor in symptoms that no certain choice can be
founded on them: but the known occasional causes fully makes up for what is
lacking.”
4. James Kent, who many consider the Father of Constitutional
homoeopathy, wrote:
"The great prophylactic is the homeopathic remedy. After working in
an epidemic for a few weeks, you will find perhaps that half a dozen remedies
are daily indicated and one in these remedies in
a larger number of cases than any other. This one remedy seems to be the
best suited to the general nature of the sickness. Now you will find that for
prophylaxis there is required a less degree of similitude than is necessary for
curing. A remedy will not have to be so similar to prevent disease as to cure
it, and these remedies in daily use will enable you to prevent a large number
of people from becoming sick. We must look to homeopathy for our protection as
well as for our cure".
Kent also wrote in his Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica (page
1000) that the Tuberculin nosode has the potential to prevent TB infection in
those predisposed toward the miasma.
"If Tuberculinum bovinum be given in 10m, 50m, and CM potencies,
two doses of each at long intervals, all children and young people who have
inherited tuberculosis may be immuned from their inheritance and their
resiliency will be restored."
5. In 1884 Dr. Burrnet wrote:
"Speaking for myself, I have for the last nine years been in the
habit of using vaccine matter (Vaccininum) in the 30 homeopathic centesimal
potency, whenever small-pox was about, and I have thus far not seen any one so
far treated get variola."
6. William Boericke wrote in the Pocket Manuel of Homoeopathic Materia
Medica that Baptisia has a prophylactic power over typhoid, clears carriers of
the disease, and could be of service in typhoid Vaccinosis caused by orthodox
immunizations.
"Baptisia in low dilutions
produces a form of anti-bodies to the bacteria typhosus, viz., agglutinins.
Thus it raises the natural bodily resistance to the invasion of the bacillary
intoxication, which produces the typhoid syndrome. Typhoid carriers. After
inoculation with anti-typhoid serum."
7. Dr. Wheeler suggests that a nosode in 30th potency will provide
protection from a specific infectious disease for at least a fortnight.
8. In 1907 Dr Eaton collated the results of several homeopathic doctors
in Iowa during a smallpox epidemic and reported the result to a paper read at
the American Institute of Homoeopathy.
1. Persons given Variolinum 30c was 2806
2. Definite exposures to small-pox was 547
3. Smallpox cases after taking Variolinum was 14
4. Efficacy 97%
Of his experience Dr. Eaton said,
"We must not do Homeopathy
the injustice of giving this, one of its most successful and useful outgrowths,
a partial and equivocal recognition, just because it happens to be strange to
us.
This splendid piece of practice is not new; it has it roots in the past,
though we may not have known it. And we must not injure the cause by refusing
to recognize its value just because we happen
not to have been conversant with it"
9. Dorothy Shepherd wrote:
"Nosodes of disease products of the actual disease are often most
active preventatives".
She then goes on to give several examples from her long career. She did
clinical trials in boarding schools where epidemics were rampant. References to
these experiences can be found in her book, Homeopathy and Epidemic Diseases.
She also confirmed the effectiveness of the nosode, Pertussin, in the
prevention of whooping cough.
10. H.C. Allen wrote in Allen’s Keynotes the following on page 300 in
his discussion of
Variolinum:
"As a preventive of, or protection against small-pox, Variolinum
200th is far superior to crude vaccination and absolutely safe from sequelae,
especially septic and tubercular infection. The efficacy
of the potency is stumbling block to materialists. But is it more
difficult to comprehend than the infectious nature of variola, measles and pertussis?
Those who have not used it, like those who have not experimentally tested the
laws of similars, are not competent witnesses. Put it to the test and publish
the failure to the world."
11. This is a quote from C.M Boger on homoeoprophylaxis from the Homeopathic
Recorder under the remedy, Psorinum.
“It (psorinum) is useful in suppressed itch, in fact, all nosodes seem
to be most successful in types of disease similar to the ones from which they
have been derived or in helping to clear up and bring about reaction in
imperfectly cured cases of the same disease; thus Tuberculin does its best work
in incipient consumption, pneumonia and other respiratory affections which do
not react properly.
ALSO USED AS PROPHYLATICS, INDUCING A MORE CERTAIN IMMUNITY THAN CAN
OTHERWISE BE OBTAINED; this is especially true of Variolinum, the small-pox
nosode which I have tested to my entire satisfaction, even allowing
unvaccinated persons under its influence to nurse and sleep with the small-pox
victim, the children of the family doing the same; out of more than a dozen of
such exposures I have not had a single infection.”
This is the experience of a great homeopath that prepared the
Boenninghausen Repertory, The Synoptic Key and General Analysis in a card file
repertory. Boger was a man of vast experience.
Our generation of homeopaths must investigate the words of such a wise
grandfather.
12. In The Collected Works of Arthur Hill Grimmer: “lathyrus has given
the most certain protection in thousands of exposed cases of polio through many
epidemics in the last forty years”.
It is said that his study included 30, 000 over the years and to his
knowledge no one suffered any side effects. Dr. Grimmer preferred the use of a
single dose of a high potency, which he claimed could provide protection up to
a year. This was the fruit of his experience.
13. Dr. P Chavanon (Paris 1932) administered Diphtherinum 4M and 8M and
after one to two months the antitoxins were measured in the blood. He noted
that 45 children changed from Schick test +ve (no antibodies against
diphtheria) to shick test ve (antibodies present) (Chavanon, P. La Dipterie,
4th edition. St. Denis, Niort: Imprimerie 1932.). Patterson and Boyd repeated
this text in 1941, and 20 out of 33 children were observed to produce
antibodies to diphtheria by Schick test (Patterson, J and Boyd WE.
"Potency Action: A Preliminary Study of the Alteration of the Schick Test
by a Homeopathic Potency." British Homeopathic Journal 1941; 31:
301-309). Dr. Roux repeated the experiment in 1946. This nosode provided
laboratory confirmation of lasting immunity.
The blood antitoxins seemed to last up to 5 years with one dose.
(Eizayaga, F. "Tratamiento Homeopatico de las Enfermedades Agudas y Su
Prevension." Homeopatia 1985; 51(342): 352-362.).
Allen used Diphtherinum for 25 years as a prophylactic and no one he
treated in such a manner contracted the disease. He challenged the profession
to test this assertion and publish their failures.
14. In August 1974 in Guarantingueta, Brazil there was a severe epidemic
of meningitis. 18,640 children were given Meningococcinum 10CH while 6,340
children did not receive the nosode.
Out of the 18,640 children 4 cases of meningitis developed. Out of the
6,340 children 34 cases were noted. Such a large-scale public health campaign
cannot be carried out with individualized treatment. This study implies that
the success rate of Meningococcinum was 95%. (Castro, D and Nogueira GG.
"Use Of The Nosode Meningococcinum As A Preventive Against
Meningitis."
JAIH 1975; 68: 211-219.)
On the basis of the 1974 trial, the Brazilian government funded a larger
study in 1998. The study was conducted by two professors of medicine from the
University Foundation in Blumenau, Brazil, Blumenau specialist physician, and
the Health City Secretary. The field trial lasted one year. 65, 826 persons up
to 20 years old were given homoeo-prophylaxis, while 23, 532 were used as a
non-medicated control group. Out of the 65,826 cases give homoeo-prophylaxis
only 4 suffered from meningococcal infection. Out of the 23,532 unprotected
individuals there were 20 cases of meningococcal infection. Applying a similar
ratio based on the number of infections in the non-immunized group to the 65,
826 treated people should yield around 58 cases yet there were only 4 cases.
The study showed that homoeo-prophylaxis was 95% effective in the first six
months and 91% effective over a full year. (Meningococcin, its Protective
Effect against Meningococcal Disease, Homoeopathic LINKS Winter, 2001 Vol 14
(4) 230-4 Mroninski C, Adriano E, Mattos G.)
16. Dr. W.L. Bonnel, M.D. presented a paper to the International H.ian
Association on June 1940 on homoeoprophylaxis. He stated:
"Not one case receiving
homeopathic care died, while the 'old school' doctors lost 20 percent of their
(smallpox) cases... I gave about 300 internal vaccinations (homeopathic
remedies), five to adults acting as practical nurses; to the man who installed
the telephone and lights in the pest house; to mothers who slept with their
children while they had smallpox in its severest form. All of these people,
exposed daily, were immune."
Posology and Case Management
The strategy, posology and case management methods for
homoeo-prophylaxis are a unique study. This is because the remedy is being
given to prevent rather than treat symptoms. First of all, the practitioner
must take into account the health of the individual and their domestic and
occupational situation. Is the child being breastfed? Breastfeeding is a
natural form of prophylaxis as the mother transmits antibodies to the baby
through her milk. It also supplies love and attention, which are important to
the physical and emotional health of the child. Children that are not breastfed
run more risk of infection. The use of formulas in the 3rd world has
been disastrous on two counts. First of all, the child receives no protection
from the mother’s milk, and secondly the formulas are often made with
contaminated water. This is a form of double jeopardy.
Other questions include the following. Is the patient relatively healthy
or chronically ill with some complaint? Do they have a good diet, overeat, or
are they malnourished? Do they have a clean water source? Do they live under
good hygienic conditions or are they directly affected by poor sanitation? Do
they live a healthy lifestyle or do they have a number of bad habits? What is
their occupation and working conditions? Do they live in the countryside or in
overcrowded conditions in a city? Is the person going on a trip where they may
be exposed to infectious diseases not present in their home country? The health
worker must do all they can to remove those exciting and maintaining causes
that increase the chance of infection. To remove those causes and conditions
that promote disease is the duty of the friend of health.
One of the principles of Homoeopathy is minimal intervention in that the
practitioner should do only what is necessary. For this reason, the homoeopath
should only try to prevent those diseases that are a clear and present danger
to the patient. There are some persons who have adopted the treatment plan of
orthodox medicine, or are following the suggestions of allopathic doctors when
traveling. Since Polio is no longer present in the USA and Europe, is there any
real risk of contracting this disease? Other diseases may be present in certain
populations but children run no appreciable risk of contracted the infection.
For example, hepatitis B is transmitted congenitally through mother, sexual
intercourse, contaminated bodily fluids through blood and infected injection
needles. If the mother does not have hepatitis B then the child will not have a
congenital infection. Other than this those at high risk are promiscuous
persons practicing unprotected sex, drug users, and health professionals like
doctors, nurses, ambulance personnel, etc. How many newborn babies have sex,
inject drugs, or work in a hospital? For this reason, giving remedies to
prevent such a disease at this age is unnecessary.
Orthodox doctors often advise persons traveling to foreign countries to
take a number of immunizations for diseases that are not present in the
locality or during the season they are visiting. For example, the chance of
catching malaria in the winter in the Himalayan regions of India is nil. Going
to South India or West Bengal in the monsoon is another matter! For this
reason, it is important to study the situation before leaving the country.
The common childhood diseases like measles, mumps, chickenpox and
whooping cough are still common. Homoeopathy is reputed to have effective
methods of preventing and treating theses acute miasms. Whooping cough is quite
common and can produce serious long lasting symptoms that are uncomfortable and
potentially dangerous. The orthodox immunization does not seem to work entirely
as many children with the shot still contract the disease. In the average child
measles, mumps and chickenpox respond well to acute treatment. Perhaps,
whooping cough is the most prolonged and dangerous of these acute miasms. I
have found, however, that homoeopathy can work wonders in such cases. I cured
whooping cough in two of my children with single doses in a matter of few days,
one with Belladonna LM 0/3 and one with Cuprum 200C.
For many years there has been a debate in the homoeopathic community
over whether one should use homoeo-prophylaxis against such complaints. Some
one-sided constitutionalists claim that homoeo-prophylaxis is not part of
classical homoeopathy. They say homoeopathy is only for treating symptoms not
preventing diseases. This, obviously, is not true as H., Hering,
Boenninghausen, Kent, Boger, Allen and others all used and taught this method.
Others say that suffering the childhood diseases is good for the child as it
increases their immunity. They don’t seem to realize that the successful
prevention of these diseases also increases resistance to similar diseases.
Some of these infected children may experience much suffering, and go on to
experience serious sequels or never-well-since syndromes. When it comes to
dangerous or crippling infections, the child may die or suffer lifelong damage.
This in itself is good reason for providing as much protection as possible.
At the other extreme are practitioners who try to imitate the orthodox
school’s immunization program by putting children on a great number of
prophylactic remedies for several years. Some persons are proposing a series of
28 remedies in 44 doses in high potencies over a period of five years. This
delays constitutional and anti-miasmatic treatments, which are central methods
of homeoprophylaxis. Chronic remedies remove predispositions to infection,
strengthen vitality, and increase the resistance of the host to diseases. For
example, those with the tuberculin miasm are predisposed to chest infections
like pneumonia and respiratory flu. If the miasm is well treated the patient’s
internal terrain will change in such a manner that they will not be susceptible
to such diseases. What we find when we study traditional historical sources is
that there is a middle path that avoids the extremist views of the one-sided
constitutionalists and the excessive use of specific prophylaxis.
There are close relationships between the chronic miasms and acute
miasms. In this way, constitutional and anti-miasmic treatment are used to
strengthen general resistance and specific prophylaxis can be used a complement
to prevent those infectious miasms that pose a high risk. Some persons never
get flu, or if they do, it is only of the mildest, easy to treat nature. Does
such a person need
to take remedies to prevent seasonal influenza? No, not really. How
about persons who are weakened by chronic conditions and prone to respiratory
complaints, pneumonia, and complications?
Yes, such a person may benefit from constitutional treatment as well as
the use of specific preventative remedies during flu season until they no
longer get flu.
Elizabeth Wright-Hubbard used nosodes in the 1940s to circumvent the
enforcement of mandatory vaccination laws for smallpox. She would administer
the nosodes as intercurrent remedies at longer intervals during constitutional
treatment and record that she had immunized the patient. The method allowed for
both constitutional treatment and protection from smallpox with specific
remedies used as intercurrents. Perhaps, her methods offer clues to the
integration of constitutional treatment with the intercurrent use of specific
prophylaxis. It may well be possible to treat infants with constitutional
remedies as a primary method and use specific preventative remedies for those
serious infections that pose a long-term threat. If an acute epidemic enters
the area then specific genus epidemicus remedies and nosodes can be
administered as intercurrent remedies at that time.
Specific homoeo-prophylaxis is a form of sub-clinical provings on the
healthy subjects and must be done carefully so that no unnecessary or overly
strong symptoms are produced. Overmedication with such epidemic remedies and
nosodes has the potential to produce a strong medicinal disease similar to the
disease state that one wishes to avoid. Such a situation may be worse than the
natural disease as the duration may last longer than many acute miasms. If the
patient is given too many preventative remedies in too large a dose too many
times it could cause long lasting problems. So how do we administer
homoeopathic remedies for prophylaxis in a safe and effective manner?
To use homoeo-prophylaxis the homoeopath must understand the process of
proving remedies on the patient and apply these principles to preventative
applications. Homoeo-prophylaxis is very similar to a homoeopathic proving but
the primary goal is not to produce overt symptoms. The first phase is a study
of the nature of the patient’s constitution, the nature of the remedy to be
tested, and nature of the potential medical reactions that may be elicited.
Before carrying out homoeo-prophylaxis the practitioner must take a complete
cases history to assess the condition of the patient. They must also study the
nature of the remedy that are going to administer to the patient. This is so
that they understand the nature of the symptoms they are trying to prevent, and
the potential symptoms that might be activated in the patient.
The primary action of a homoeopathic remedy replaces the susceptibility
to the targeted natural disease with a subtle, yet stronger remedial mistuning.
From this time forward, the stronger homoeopathic potency repels the targeted
natural disease. The primary action of the prophylactic remedy stimulates a
specific secondary action of the vital force that provides further resistance
to the target miasm. Thus both the primary action of the remedy and the
secondary action of the vital force are protective in nature. If the primary
action of the remedy is too strong the individual will prove the remedy and
produce signs and symptoms. For this reason, the practitioner must be very
careful not to overmedicate the client by using too large a dose, too high a
potency, or giving the remedy too many times when it was not necessary.
In aphorism 281 of the Organon the Founder wrote that sensitivity varies
in a ratio of 1 to 1000. This means that a dose and potency that would cause no
impression in a number 1 hyposensitive will cause dangerous aggravations in a
number 1000 hypersensitive. An average person would be around 500 on the scale.
This means that the size of the dose and the degree of the potency best be
individualized in accordance with the predispositions of the patient and the
time and circumstances. In mass public campaigns where individualization is
more difficult, the recipients should take small doses of a moderate potency.
In our opinion homoeopathic prophylaxis is best carried out with the use of the
C and LM potencies in medicinal solutions and in divided doses, if and when
necessary. This is because this method allows the patient to adjust the remedy
to the sensitivity of the constitution in a manner not possible with the dry
dose.
H. gave very clear instructions on his method of homoeo-prophylaxis in
an article called Cure and Prevention of Asiatic Cholera in 1831 on page 755.
He received reports from homoeopaths treating the disease and constructed a
group anamnesis to find genus epidemicus remedies to prevent, abort and cure
cholera. The Founder recommended Cuprum as a preventative remedy for the
disease.
H. wrote:
“The above preparation of
copper, together with good and moderate diet, and proper attention to
cleanliness, is the most certain preventive and protective remedy; those in
health should take, once every week, a small globule of it (cupr. X [30C]) in
the morning fasting, and not drink anything immediately afterwards, but this
should not be done until the cholera is in the locality itself or in the
neighbourhood.”
This quote offers a number of insights into H.’s preventative methods.
First of all, he suggests that one should not take Cuprum for the prevention of
the epidemic until “cholera is in the locality itself, or in the
neighbourhood”. Therefore, one only uses homoeo-prophylaxis when there is a
clear and present danger of infection. There is no reason to allow the fear
campaigns of the orthodox school to scare individuals into taking remedies for
diseases when there is little or no risk. Secondly, H. states that a single
dose of the 30C once every 7 days while there is a threat of infection is
sufficient to prevent the target disease. This offers an idea of how often one
might have to repeat a 30C during an epidemic. Thirdly, he recommends that the
individual eats a healthy, moderate diet and keeps good hygiene.
In H.’s article on cholera he suggests that 1 small pellet of Cuprum
should be taken in the morning on fasting. In the same article he advises that
the dry pellets be moistened in water, which he normally did in a spoonful of
water, that he gave the patient. Later he changed the delivery system of the
remedy to the full medicinal solution in a bottle. The medicinal solution and
split-doses is an excellent way to give a remedy for homoeoprophylaxis. This is
because medicinal solution can be succussed each time before ingestion to
slightly raise the potency so that the individual never receives the exact same
potency twice in succession. A remedy prepared in this manner acts deeply and
smoothly on the vital force and poses less risk of aggravation on repetition.
The choice of the dose, potency and repetition is an important aspect of
homoeo-prophylaxis. It was H.’s experience that the 30C potency should be
repeated around every 7 days in the average person with moderate sensitivity.
Wheeler stated that he found a dose of a nosode was sufficient to prevent a
disease for at least 2 weeks. Dr. Eaton noted that Variolinum 30C was 97%
effective in preventing smallpox in 1907. Burrnet also found Variolinum 30C
very effective. These potencies seem sufficient for epidemic disorders that
pose a threat for a few weeks or months. Boenninghausen used Variolinum 200C in
a similar way.
The duration of the 200C is more long lasting than the 30C and should be
effective for at least 2 to 4 weeks. Higher potencies like 1M should provide
protection for longer periods like many weeks
to months. The French studies in 1932 and 1946 showed that
Diptherotoxinum 4M and 8M produces antitoxins in the blood for up to 5 years!
Such a long acting potency may be very good for some persons but those who are
sensitive may be strongly aggravated. In general, one might opine that 30C is
sufficient to protect a person for shorter periods, 200C for moderate periods,
and 1M for longer periods. Ultra high potencies like 10M may produce resistance
for years. Lower potencies are suitable for shorter-term threats while higher
potencies might be better for longer-term dangers. Nevertheless, the potency
used should be appropriate for the physical condition, age, and sensitivity of
the patient so that the remedy does not produce a proving with troublesome
symptoms. Those who are hyposensitive might need the remedy more often while
those who are hypersensitive might not tolerate the remedy repeated at such
short intervals.
The graduated LM potency scale (0/1, 0/2, 0/3 up to 0/30) is well suited
to the preventative use of homoeopathic remedies. This is because they have the
depth of the higher centesimal potencies (200C, 1M, etc), but if properly
prepared and administered do not produce prolonged aggravations. Most
aggravations caused by the LM potency wear off in a short period of time. The
LM potencies act as deeply as the higher centesimal potencies, although all
things being equal, they may not act as long. The LM potencies are less prone
to getting out of control than the 1M, 10M, 50M, CM and MM. In general, it is
very important to individualize the potency factors in accordance with the
patient’s sensitivity and the strength of their vital force.
It is most prudent to administer a single test dose of the chosen amount
and potency and put the individual under observation for a reasonable amount of
time. This is because one does not know how the patient will react to the
remedy, dose and potency. The persons that are most likely to produce
noticeable symptoms are those who are most susceptible to the target miasm.
When a single dose produces symptoms the remedy should not be repeated for the
time being, as there is no need for further stimulation. This indicates that the
individual is very sensitive to the prophylactic remedy and the preventative
process has already begun. These persons are what might be called “single dose
provers” and their situation must be handled very carefully. If such a person
is given too large a dose of too high a potency too many times they may suffer
symptoms for long periods. They are the most at risk to the target miasm as
well as overmedication by the preventative remedy. This is because they are
hypersensitive to the remedy and the similar disease.
Those individuals that produced no observable symptoms on the single
dose may be given the remedy in split-doses if necessary. The intervals between
doses must be judged according to the sensitivity of the individual
constitution and the degree of the potency. Those who appear weak and sensitive
should not be given high potencies or a long series of doses. Each dose must be
carefully assessed before the next dose in the series is given so that no major
proving symptoms are produced. Sometimes a person may be susceptible to the
target disease yet constitutionally hyposensitive and tend not to react to
stimuli. Such persons will need a series of divided-doses over a period of time
to attain protection. In general, individuals that show no symptoms even if the
dose is repeated in relatively short intervals are not particularly susceptible
to the remedy or the target disease.
To insure that prophylaxis has been attained the remedy may be given
until the homoeopath observes the very first signs of a preventative proving
and then the remedy should be stopped immediately. The aim is only to elicit a
subtle reaction that demonstrates that the process of prophylaxis is beginning.
If the patient tells you that they “feel” the remedy they are taking that is enough
action for the time being. Some patients may feel positive effects; others
might feel a slight malaise, a feeling of uneasiness, or a sense that something
is going to happen. This shows the person is sensitive to the preventative
remedy and the primary action is sufficient. At this time, the client is again
put under observation to see if the symptoms develop further or cease of their
own accord.
It is in this waiting period that the secondary response of the vital
force begins to produce the constitutional immune response to the target
disease.
Depending on the nature of the disease and chance of exposure a follow
up “booster dose” can be given to extend the periods of protection. Always
cease administering the dose on first subtle signs of the arousal of signs and
symptoms. There are those who do not produce any signs or symptoms of a proving
during the process of prophylaxis. If the doses of the medicinal solution have
been adjusted over a reasonable period of time, yet no symptoms are produced,
the person is most likely already immune to the disease in question and the
remedy may be stopped.
It may be helpful to explain to the client the nature of homoeopathic
provings and make clear that taking a prophylaxis is a sub-clinical proving.
The individual or parents must be active observers and keep a journal of any
symptoms that may arise. All symptoms that are produced during the process of
homoeo-prophylaxis should be recorded in this journal. This is particularly
helpful when unproven nosodes are being administered. Such symptoms offer
insights into the remedial powers of the nosode and will help fill out its
therapeutic image. If the individual volunteers to further prove the remedy the
process will certainly offer new insights that will benefit others. A properly
carried out proving strengthens the individual’s overall resistance and
actually can increase their state of health. One must, however, always be very
careful during such a process, as overmedication during a proving can cause
long lasting symptoms. The symptoms should never be allowed to become too
strong producing unneeded stress and strain on the body and mind.
H. proved a great number of remedies on himself. The Founder credited
his long life and good health to the provings he performed over a period of 50
years. Taking part in provings is one reason the early homoeopaths understood
the process of testing remedies on the healthy very well. They felt the change
that remedies produce firsthand on their body and mind. This is a way of
experiencing the 'living materia medica". There is little danger in
homoeo-prophylaxis if the process is done slowly and carefully with moderate
potencies and the doses are kept within reasonable limits.
The medicinal solution is very suitable for a prophylactic remedy as it
can be given in single and infrequent doses or repeated as split-doses at
shorter intervals if needed. The medicinal solution is succussed just prior to
administration so that the patient never receives the exact same potency twice
in succession. This method helps to reduce aggravations and makes the remedy
act smoother
and longer. The use of a random number of dry pills, especially of the
higher potencies, frequently causes medicinal symptoms to appear. If one is
using the dry dose it is best to follow H.’s 1831 recommendation and only use 1
pill and not to repeat the remedy too often! Too many dry pills accumulate in
the vital force and may produce a “remedy miasm”. The grafting of dynamic
remedy symptoms on the vital energy is something best avoided. Better safe then
sorry. Remember the first Hippocratic maxim is "Physician, Do No
Harm".
Remedies for Specific Homoeoprophylaxis
There are two types of epidemic miasms, those that mutate greatly from
year to year, and those that are of a relatively fixed character. There is also
the potential for new infections to cross species lines at any time. The genus
epidemicus method is the best method for finding preventative remedies for
quickly mutating strains and new infections. The genus epidemic remedies can be
tailored
to suit the presiding symptoms according to the group case. For
infectious diseases that are of a more fixed character, there are certain
specifics that have proved useful over many years.
Part Two: Homeoprophylaxis, The Medical Advance
May, 1904, page 242.
The following material is based
on an article published in The Medical Advance in the USA in May 1904. This was
a time when homoeopaths were in the frontlines in the prevention and treatment
of smallpox during wide-spread epidemics. This interesting debate
explores the pros and cons of homoeo-prophylaxis. This discussion is between
the editors of The Medical Advance, who supported the use of the nosode,
Variolinum, and a pure constitutionalist who believed that such methods are
quite questionable.
I am somewhat amazed at a seeming discrepancy in the principles laid
down in some of your recent editorials; particularly those recommending the
universal use of Variolinum as the best preventive of smallpox.
Now why pursue the old method of making people sick to get them well;
"giving them fits" because one is "death on fits?" Is that
a homeopathic law? Surely, it would be far better to spread abroad the fact
that Homeopathy can prevent smallpox, and then teach students that diseases, of
whatever kind, can be prevented by placing the subject under the influence of
the medicine indicated and so restoring him to perfect health; or in other
word, that perfect health, or progress in that direction, is the best
protection from contagious diseases. Surely, you believe that if a medicine
such as Sulphur, Hepar, Silica, Thuja, etc., we found indicated in a given
case, and subsequently prescribed, there would be no further need of preventive
medicine, except perfect sanitation which is but another name for perfect
cleanliness. Then why not teach that Homeopathy can prevent smallpox and all
other contagious diseases, and simply show homeopaths how to do it?
Even the old school admits that a man cannot be attacked by infection
[or as they put it, germs] except when his vital forces are low. While we know
that the entire organism, or its parts, are out of harmony when we find sick
symptoms; and furthermore, that in such cases, the vital force has lost
control. Why then not harmonize these discordant forces and restore the control
of that vital dynamic, thus permitting it to exercise the best and highest form
of prophylaxis.
Commentary by David Little
Ms. Guild-Leggett represents the pure constitutional position in the
debate between the constitutional and nosode method. She has seen in her
experience that the use of the individual remedies provides homeoprophylaxis to
contagious diseases. As in all preventative medicine this must be combined with
good diet, careful hygiene and sanitation, and healthy living conditions.
Innate susceptibility resides in the predispositions of the physical
constitution and mental temperament. Poor diet, stressful emotional conflict,
trauma, abuse and poor living and working conditions may further aggravate
these innate predispositions. Predispositions include inherited and acquired
diatheses and miasms as well as the effects of the stress of life. Homeopathic
treatment of the individual removes the underlying predispositions providing a
strong vitality, which is more resistant to stress as well as infectious
diseases. Constitutional treatment is the central method of homoeo-prophylaxis.
Genus epidemicus remedies and nosodes only work against one target disease
while constitutional remedies prevent manifold conditions. Constitutional
remedies work in such a manner that they can prevent heart attacks, cancer and
other serious diseases from developing in later years. They also change the
internal terrain so that there is less susceptibility to infectious diseases,
or at least reduce their severity so they are easy to treat.
Dr. Guild-Leggett continues:
I confess to being unable to see
why this wholesale feeding of Variolinum will not, eventually, cause more
sickness than it prevents. Its very potentization gives it a power unknown to
the crude;
and though probably avoiding the fault of cross mixtures of other
poisonous substances, it is quite capable of more insidious work. Teach, then,
that Homeopathy holds the best means of preventative medicine, but do not try
to fix these means. Remember that there are no specifics for disease, and I
much doubt whether there are for prophylaxis - except perfect health or
progress toward that much desired boon.
As to your later editorial
relating to the cure of leprosy, I believe that is all that it should be in
relation to the true principle of healing all such diseases which, however much
the case may resemble one another, must be treated individually. I think you
know how when you try.
Commentary by DL
Dr. Guild-Leggett appears to be questioning whether the prevention of
epidemic diseases is actually a homoeopathic method. She also states that the
wide scale use of Variolinum will cause more sickness than it prevents. She
reminds the editor that there are “no specifics for disease”. With all respects
to the doctor, it must be pointed out that the origin of homoeo-prophylaxis
lies with no other personage than H.! Hering, Boenninghausen, Burrnet, Boger,
and others, all tested the safety and effectiveness of Variolinum over many
years. Boger was so confident of his prophylaxis that he did not separate the
contacts within the house. He never saw a case even in households where
children slept in the same bed. There are many other testimonials and
statistics on this subject.
The good doctor seems to forget that the proving of remedies on the
healthy does not cause harm if the testing process is carried out correctly.
The application of remedies for prophylaxis is a sub-clinical proving that
should be even safer than provings that are intended to bring out symptoms. She
also does not seem to understand that H. taught that there are specifics
remedies for the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases. These
specifics are also chosen by the totality of the symptoms, but rather than in
one individual, the remedies are chosen on the basis of a collective case
involving numerous patients. This method is very effective in diseases of
common cause and similar symptoms that affect a homogeneous group. H.’s case
taking methods include the personal anamnesis of individual diseases, and the
group anamnesis for collective disorders. With this in mind, one may easily
declare that homoeo-prophylaxis is an integral part of classical Homoeopathy.
Homeoprophylaxis is a form of sub-clinical proving of remedies on
relatively healthy individuals. It is true that there were reports of proving
symptoms such as skin eruptions and other complaints caused by Variolinum. So
Ms. Leggett’s cautions about producing “more sickness” should be taken into
consideration when administering genus remedies and nosode for prophylaxis.
Such remedies may produce signs and symptoms on sensitive and weakened
constitutions and those individuals with whom they have a special affinity.
These, however, are no different than proving symptoms and should be recorded
as they give therapeutic insights. The ones with the most potential for
reaction are those who need the protection the most. Those who show little
reaction are those who have little susceptibility and are probably immune
naturally. In the science of preventative healing all these factors should be
taken seriously.
The Response of the Medical Advance
Commentary On The Above Letter To The Editor
We are glad that Dr. Leggett has
criticized the ADVANCE so frankly, for her article brings up for discussion a
most important truth; one in regard to which we believe she will agree with us
in the main, in spite of the "seeming discrepancy" of some of our
utterances. First of all, she objects to our recommending the "old
fashioned" way of "making people sick to get them well." In
reply to this, we can only say that it is God's way, not ours. It was God who
turned Adam and Eve out of Paradise into a less comfortable place, in order
that He might make them better; and though we believe that our friends, the
allopaths, have misunderstood God's ways of working, and make people a great
deal sicker than they need to in trying to make them well and comfortable, we
still believe that there are times that the only way to help a man get well is
to make him feel a little sicker for a while. Nor is this heresy, for if there
is one thing more notorious than any other in regard to high potency
prescribing, it is that in dealing with chronic diseases, deep-rooted and
obstinate ailments, it sometimes produces a very severe though temporary
aggravation before its curative work begins. So, in pleading as we have for
homeopathic vaccination, we are simply suggesting that those who are exposed to
smallpox, and are sickly enough to really be in danger of taking it, should for
a little while be made to suffer pain to protect them against still more
serious ills.
Commentary by DL
The editor is not denying that proving symptoms may be produced by the
administration of nosodes for prevention. He feels that these aggravations are
less uncomfortable and dangerous than the disease being prevented. This is true
within reason. Nevertheless, this shows how careful one should be when using
genus remedies and nosodes for prophylaxis. It would be wise to study provings
and the section in Organon dealing with this subject, and apply related
information to homoeo-prophylaxis, as the methods are similar. It is always
wise be to be prudent, patient and cautious when giving these powerful remedies
to children and adults, especially if ill, weak or old. If the practitioner
uses reasonable potencies in medicinal solution, and does not overmedicate
patients, proving symptoms can be reduced to a minimum if not totally
eliminated.
The Editor continues:
We heartily agree with Dr.
Leggett when she says that "perfect health or progress in that direction
is our best protection." But it seems to us that she overlooks the fact
that vaccination with Variolinum would itself help in bringing about just that
progress toward a more perfect health of which she speaks; for the medicine
would doubtlessly take very little effect except on those patients who were, to
some extent, in need of the stirring up which homeopathic vaccination would
give them. But Dr. Leggett, evidently realizing that we might dodge the
accusation which she had made, has asked a further question which is
exceedingly full of interest, for she says: "Surely you believe that if a
medicine like Sulphur, Hepar, Silica, Thuja, etc., were indicated in a given
case, there would be no further need of preventive medicine?"
Here it seems to us that she is
most emphatically right for we believe that there are many cases in which some
one of our polychrests - those which have a deep constitutional power - would protect
even more perfectly and for a much longer period of time than Variolinum, and
we believe the time will come when our most invaluable and omniscient boards of
health will give to each competent physician the power to protect his patients
in such a way as seems to him most fitting. But that time has not yet come; and
so we are foolish enough to believe that it is better to accept a half-loaf
than none, and internal vaccination is certainly a step in the right direction,
even if it is not ideally perfect.
Commentary by DL
The editor reminds the readers that he also understands the preventative
powers of constitutional homoeopathy but in dealing with social health
conditions, such treatments are impossible due to the numbers involved. It
would be unfeasible to treat each individual constitutionally during a serious
epidemic or pandemic. Under these circumstances it is much more efficient to
treat the masses with genus remedies and nosodes. Sometimes, what is
appropriate for an individual may be different than the needs of society. It is
our opinion that the editor has a very balanced view. He also notes that those
who produce the most symptoms after taking a remedy are those who are the most
sensitive to remedy. These are the persons who are in most danger of
contracting the related miasm. They are the persons who need the nosode or
genus epidemicus remedy the most! The editor feels that such a proving is
healthy for the individual in the long run. Within reason, he is right.
Nevertheless, excessively strong prolonged aggravations are not healthy as they
not only cause pain, but also drain vitality. In extreme cases there is danger
of producing pathology. For this reason, it is important to take the entire
matter seriously and be as prudent as possible.
The Editor continues:
Variolinum may not be in most
cases the true simillimum that is needed to protect every one but we venture to
say that in many cases, it is just as truly homeopathic as a large portion of
our so-called good and successful prescriptions. It is not the best way,
always, this we freely admit, but it is better than old fashioned vaccination,
a thousand fold, and so is worthy of commendation, since the fact is well known
that most physicians have not the patience or the skill to find a true simillimum,
even if the board of health would let them.
Nor is this all. There is yet
another factor to be taken into consideration, which is the fact that the
finding of a simillimum takes time and brains and money, and most people are
not willing to pay the money, nor are most doctors willing to sacrifice their
time and health, gratis, simply for the sake of giving to every one an ideal
vaccination for which they are not willing to pay. And yet, we do most
profoundly believe that when the public finds that Variolinum does protect, and
that it works by the law of similia, they will be sure to look with a more
friendly eye on all forms of homeopathic treatment and thus will be more and
more likely to come to us for assistance.
Commentary by DL
The editor is a man who has done
his time in public service and has a very practical approach to social
medicine. He is quite correct. It takes a well-trained homoeopath and
well-informed patient to do individualized treatment. Some persons do not have
the knowledge, time or money to access a homoeopath for private treatment.
These practitioners were facing a major smallpox epidemic in the general
populace of their cities and towns. For them Variolinum provided a group
specific that made it possible to protect thousands of people. Dr. Eaton’s
study showed that the use of Variolinum can protect up to 97% of persons taking
the nosode. How many homoeopaths have a 97% rate for finding the correct
constitutional remedy capable of preventing every type of serious infection in
one session? I must confess I cannot claim such a thing! Remember, this is
during a major epidemic where one has very little time and no ability to reach
the masses.
From the studies I have seen nosodes are quite effective in preventing
the diseases from which they are made. This method is very simple if the nature
of the epidemic is known and a nosode can
be purchased or manufactured. In South Brazil in 1974 Meningococcinum
10CH was given to 18,640 children and only four children fell ill with the disease.
At the same time, 34 out of 6,340 undedicated children fell ill with the
disease. It simply was not possible to take a constitutional case of 19,000
children under threat of infection. Such a public health campaign could not be
done with constitutional remedies.
The Advance editors continues:
We, ourselves, would rather be protected by some remedy still more
homeopathic to our own individual temperament and frailty than even Variolinum,
but we are trying to look upon this matter
in a charitable light; and yet, Dr. Leggett, having for the moment
convinced herself that we have turned traitor to our H.ian principles, is very
earnest in pleading with us to repent, and so she gives yet another reason why
we should hesitate to use Variolinum.
She writes: "Its very potentization gives it a power for [mischief]
unknown to the crude." Here we cannot help thinking that she is slightly
mistaken; for the history of provings with high potencies seems to show that
though they may for a while create a great deal of discomfort and some very
obstinate aches and pains, they seldom, if ever, do real injury; and H. says,
often improve the health of the prover. So it seems to us that this objection
is not well taken. But we agree with her, when she says that it is not best to
try to fix once for all, the homeopathy is the best prophylactic for smallpox
or any other disease. For all that we have tried to do is to point out the fact
that there is a remedy, which [in a somewhat imperfect way] is so really
prophylactic in thousands of cases,
for a short time, at least, that it is worth remembering and is likely
to become an entering wedge by which state boards of health will be induced to
look upon homoeopathy.
Commentary by DL
I think the editor’s point about prophylaxis being similar to provings
is well taken as they are both performed on the healthy human organism. If the
posology of the proving is administered in a careful manner the effects of the
proving only strengthen the general constitution to diseases. H. attributed some
of his long life and health to the proving a great number of remedies. In
homeoprophylaxis the same principles come into play. The problem is that those
who need the protective remedies the most are those who are most susceptible to
proving the symptoms. If a remedy
is used in too large a dose, too high a potency, and repeated when not
needed, there is a chance that too many signs and symptoms will be produced. If
such over medication is continued there is a chance of producing a “remedy
miasma” in that individual. Some mishandled provings have produced pathology
and remedial diseases. Best to be very careful and conservative in such
matters.
The Editor:
To her closing words about leprosy, we say a most hearty
"Amen"; and may God grant to us the privilege of hastening the day
when hosts of busy workmen from one end of this great land to the other, shall
be searching out the really best remedy for each of their patients and trying
to individualize every case. But, the world moves slowly, and as some one has
quoted, "God is for some a
good reason an evolan intelligentis dealings with the world," and
so we cheerfully bid Godspeed to any movement which is bringing men a little
nearer to the ideals which we love.
In this connection it is very pertinent to mention the fact that H. in
his Organon, Par. 100 definitely calls attention to the fact that smallpox,
measles, etc., are epidemics in which the contagious principle always remains
the same, and even though some of our readers may be inclined to challenge this
statement that even here the poison varies from one epidemic to another quite
markedly, there received certainly a very important truth in what he says. -
Commentary by DL
I think this discussion expresses both sides of the debate between constitutional
and specific prophylaxis. Every experienced practitioner knows the power of
constitutional and anti-miasmatic treatment. Most chronic degenerative diseases
are based on an aetiological constellation rather than a single common cause.
That is why it is very difficult (if not impossible) to find specific remedies
for individualized complaints. Such remedies are found by the essential nature
of the totality of the characteristic symptoms, with emphasis on the striking,
extraordinary, uncommon and oddly characteristic symptoms of the individual.
(Org. §153).
There are, however, diseases of common cause and similar symptoms that
are of a relatively fixed character. This includes the miasm as well as certain
environmental disorders, endemic nutritional deficiencies, mass exposure to
toxins and specific telluric effects. It is possible that the group anamnesis
may be applied to other group conditions such as group hysteria and mass panic.
In this
case the collective remedy is found by the totality of the
characteristic symptoms of the entire suffering group. The instructions on how
to make the group anamnesis for diseases of singular cause
and relatively fixed character are found in Organon §100, 101, 102 and
103.
There are two major methods of preventing infectious diseases. The first
is the use of the individual constitutional medicine and the second is the use
of specific genus epidemicus remedies and nosodes. There are two forms of
extreme view that may be called the one-sided constitutionalists and the
one-sided specificists The one-sided constitutionalist opines that all a person
needs is the
one grand constitutional medicine that works on both the acute and
chronic symptoms. They believe that such a method provides total protection.
While it is true that constitutional remedies do strengthen resistance there is
no guarantee that it will prevent virulent infections all the time and under
every circumstance. If the patient still catches colds, coughs, flu or an
occasional infection,
they are still susceptible to infectious miasms.
The one-sided specificist will give a great number of genus remedies and
nosodes for nearly every infectious disease known to humanity over several
years while they delay any other form of treatment. Persons of this persuasion
also tend to give specific remedies and nosodes for every orthodox immunization
or childhood illness the patient suffered. The last thing on their minds seems
to be constitutional treatment, which they find difficult. If not
careful, such methods run the risk of serious overmedication and a gradual
weakening of the vital force through too many reactions. They do not seem to
understand that proper constitutional treatment can remove a host of lingering
symptoms caused by immunizations and unresolved effects of infection.
At the same time, some one-sided constitutionalists don’t seem to
understand that specific remedies and nosodes can be very helpful in removing
obstacles to the cure that block constitutional remedies. It is our opinion
that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. We believe that both methods, i.e.
the constitutional and specific, both have their values and can be used
together within the paradigm of traditional Homoeopathy.
What guides one to the choice of the constitutional or epidemicus
remedies? The situation of course! For example, I visited New Delhi, India in
1998 with my wife and children when there was cholera in the city. I was
staying in an area that was near a neighborhood with cholera cases. As cholera
is transmitted by fecal contamination; I relied on careful hygiene, bottled
water, well-cooked food, and the constitutional remedies I was giving my family
for protection. If I were treating the cholera epidemic, I would start giving
individual acute remedies while I constructed a group case
to discover the specific genus remedies for prevention and treatment. If
possible I would prepare a sample from patient to make a nosode of Cholerinum,
Delhi, 1998. I would administer genus epidemicus remedies as my lead medicines
and give individual remedies to atypical cases. I would give the major genus
epidemicus remedy to the contacts of the ill patients. I would distribute the
genus remedy to the people living in the neighborhood. If a nosode was
available it could be used in a similar manner. If my family and I were more
closely exposed to contaminated food and water, and other conditions associated
with the cholera, I would have used specific remedies to complement the ongoing
constitutional treatment.
Vorwort/Suchen. Zeichen/Abkürzungen. Impressum.