Can Homeopathy be used for Vacciantion (2 Q&A)

Hi Ellen,

You are right in thinking that Belladonna is not the automatic go-to remedy for Scarlet Fever (this is a mistake that was made during Hahnemann's time too). It's presentation changes between outbreaks and its virulence has also decreased over time. Belladonna is still useful sometimes but other remedies may be better indicated.

As for the choice of prophylactics used in the pdf - In some of the studies they chose the genus epidemicus and in others, it was the nosode of the disease.

In many of the reports it is not clear why they chose a particular remedy for prophylaxis. One would hope it was because of symptom similarity.

The genus epidemicus is the the best matching remedy according to symptom similarity from those already infected - it can be used for either treatment or prevention and not just in families or small communities but across large numbers of people. 

Of course, it is only effective for each individual if their symptoms (or susceptibility to the disease) are similiar to the characteristic symptoms emerging from most of those infected as the epidemic develops. 

It is not unusual for epidemics to have more than one genus epidemicus and there will always be individuals whose symptoms (or potential symptoms) are different to those of the group and who will need a different remedy to the genus epidemicus.

From my perspective, the most reliable way to offer prophylaxis is:

1. Ahead of a pending epidemic before the genus epidemicus for that remedy is known (as in the Cuban leptospirosis example), use the nosode if mass prophylaxis is necessary or desired.
2. Once the epidemic or outbreak is in progress, identify the genus epidemicus and then use it (or them) if mass prophylaxis is necessary or desired.
3. OR, offer individualised prophylaxis as determined by the person's constitutional needs and the symptoms of the emerging epidemic.

Number 3 is not possible when rapid mass prophylaxis is needed and as always requires a degree of accuracy and finesse.

While there is a tendency to think that the nosode will always be the best mass prophylactic, we do have some evidence that that may not necessarily be so.

The good news is, as can be seen by several of the reports in the pdf, any remedy that matches the symptoms makes a good genus epidemicus or prophylactic, nosode or not - and there can be multiple remedies for the one epidemic.

And one of the reasons why mass prophylaxis should be considered in some situations rather than the individualised treatment is that not only will it protect large groups quickly, it can also be used to break the back of the epidemic - stop the outbreak from spreading and infection passing to the unprotected. 

For developing communities in which health resources are limited, this is vital. Dengue haemorrhagic fever for example requires ICU or high level management and these beds are rapidly taken during an epidemic with the result that others, from dengue or other causes, needlessly die. Cuba is one country that has been able to reduce the strain on its health resources by pro-actively protecting during a dengue outbreak.

And as a final comment, in some of the studies in the pdf a combination prophylactic was used but there is nothing to indicate that the combination provides better protection than the nosode or genus epidemicus. In fact the reverse is quite possibly true.

I also meant to add that it is so important to get this information into the hands of people confronting these epidemics, along with the basic understanding of how to prepare a homeopathic remedy.

If people know how to do this then it will be possible for them to rapidly prepare their own prophylactics on the go, so to speak. It would not involve the mass distribution of pharmaceutically prepared remedies. The information and remedies could pass quickly from person to person, community to community.

And while we think this may only be relevant to less developed countries which frequently have to cope with epidemics without adequate health infrastructure, the day may come when we in more developed countries also need this knowledge. Epidemics travel fast and can catch any of us unprepared.

Kind Regards, Fran Sheffield

~~~~~~

Hi Fran,

I think that the unreliability of nosodes may argue for difficulty with homeopropolaxis as public-policy in developed countries.

You know Paul Herscu has a site gathering epidemic information.  In his letters, he spends 4 letters describing why he is not a proponent of homeopropolaxis as public policy.  He has experienced personal health problems because of over-vaccination and his own children are not vaccinated.  Yet, because of the practical problems that I alluded to in my previous email (lack of hospitals, competent homeopaths, formal distribution networks, information gathering networks) he is not pro-homeopropolaxis.  I think his arguement may hold water in a developed country.  Especially in a country like the United States where homeopathy is not supported publicly,  As an ND, he faces serious practical problems if he is expected to work with an uneducated unvaccinated public. Obviously if you look at his site he is working towards homeopropolaxis.  

I am guessing that at court you weren't required to discuss the problems with implementation.

Ellen Madono