|
 Several of you asked for this so here goes.
Anything in quotes comes either from Cats: Homeopathic Remedies
or Dogs: Homeopathic Remedies by George Macleod, MRCVS This is the protocol I used for the first couple of litters. The only nosodes I could find at the time were a combination (which did not thrill me) of Distemper, Hepatitis and Parvo in a forte (from 6x to 200C). Later I found both Parvo and Distemper in a liquid. The last litters I used a liquid forte of parvo and distemper. I started it in the water as soon as I was able to leave water with the litter, about 4 weeks. I continued daily in the water until they were 6 weeks. I then went to weekly for 6 weeks, and I'm continuing monthly for the six months. In a brief explanation of the differences Macleod says, "There is a fundamental difference between conventional vaccination by injection and that using the oral route. The former involves the subcutaneous or intramuscular injection of an antigen (vaccine material) which after an interval produces antibodies in the blood stream against the particular antigen. While in most cases by this method a degree of protection against the particular disease is established, the procedure can be criticized on two grounds. 1) The defense system of the body is not fully incorporated by this means and 2) there is a risk of side effects due to the foreign nature of the protein involved in the vaccine material. This aspect of conventional vaccination has been well documented in many species." #2 has been on increasing concern of mine. Hope this helps all of you understand better how the vaccine works, now for a brief explanation of nosodes. "Oral vaccination on the other hand gives a more solid immunity inasmuch as it incorporated the entire defense system, which is mobilized as soon as the vaccine is taken into the mouth and builds up protection with each further dose. This procedure is equivalent to what is known as "street infection" viz. ingestion of virus, etc., during daily contact with other animals, when immunity would be built up in the same way. This does not interfere with the presence of any maternal antibodies." This last part is one of the reasons I cringe when someone says that Show Dogs and dogs that go to the park etc, need more vaccine, they need less due to the normal natural pushes their system receives every day. Nosodes are defined in homeopathy as : Homeopathic remedies prepared from the infected tissue, disease discharge or casual organisms. This is as opposed to the use of a similimum.(A substance that created the same symptoms) In less the list owner objects, feel free to pass this along to other lists, if you feel the explanation would be helpful. Betty Macey
Can you explain further what homeopathic vaccination is? My very imperfect understanding has thus far been that dis-ease, imbalance in the vital force, can be restored by the correct prescription of the homeopathic remedy, addressing the *individual* and not the *dis-ease*. (Diagnosis: the vital force is out of balance -- only one diagnosis; with an infinite number of possible curative non-substances in varying strengths for varying amounts of time with potentially variable and not entirely predictable results.) It is a bit confusing to think one can administer the needed remedy *in advance* of a specific virus "causing" a specific problem in a specific individual, thus preventing the virus from affecting the vital force of the organism -- the individual organism -- in question. My concept had been that it was not the *virus* that caused the disease, but the weakness/imperfection/imbalance in the vital force of *the individual*. How am I unclear on the concept? What am I missing? Should I be thinking we can address an entire class of animals (canines, e.g.) and protect against a very specific disease (distemper, e.g.)? Shari Mann
When giving a nosode you are not trying to "cure" the patient by rebalancing the vital force. What you are attempting to do is to take advantage of the principle that 2 similar dis-eases cannot co-exist. If 2 similar diseases are presented to the vital force, only the stronger will manifest and the weaker will cease to be. Thus with a nosode you are producing a stronger "medicinal" disease (an energy picture that is imprinted on the vital force with a nosode if there is susceptibility just as there is an imprint of a medicinal disease when a regular remedy is used; this medicinal disease does not manifest on the physical plane) than the natural disease and are preventing the physical symptoms of the natural disease. The nosode will only affect the vital force if there is a flaw or an imbalance that corresponds to the disease/nosode. If there is no susceptibility there can be no effect on the vital force. If there is a susceptibility, it will be balanced temporarily by the nosode and this prevents the natural disease from imprinting on the vital force and manifesting physical symptoms. As I said the principles of nosodes are confusing, so I hope this has helped. Glen Dupree, DVM
Thanks for your explanation. As with all explanations, it raises at least as many questions as it attempts to address. First and foremost, what are "similar" dis-eases? And how do you know they are similar? (How do you know how the vital force perceives them?) Are just viral diseases similar? As opposed, say, to joint problems? What about immune problems? What about that single diagnosis that the VF is messed up, and the means the VF has of displaying that is in the symptoms; but symptoms aren't treated, only the imbalance is; the individual and not the dis-ease gets the energetic rebalancing. How can you "cure" in advance of the dis-ease? I guess I'm thinking "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? How can you tell in advance what stresses and strains the VF might be facing in the future, and at what point in the future? Couldn't you be risking harm by attempting repair in advance that which only might be damaged? Surely the potential for varying sorts of damage exists throughout the process we call "life." How is it possible to predict the potential point of damage in this concept we humans have called "future" (which actually coexists with present and past . . . oh, nevermind)? For how long is this sort of prevention of disease effective? To put it another way, define "temporarily." (You said "If there is a susceptibility, it will be balanced temporarily by the nosode and this prevents the natural disease from imprinting on the vital force and manifesting physical symptoms"). To go a bit further, why aren't there nosodes to protect a dog against cancer, for example? If preventing dis-ease from existing in an animal is good for distemper or rabies, surely the concept of prevention would hold through the balance of the spectrum of possible ills facing the physical organism at any point on the mythical time line? If you give nosodes, are you suppressing dis-ease by preventing it from being and then going through the homeopathic curative process seemingly essential from the Hahnemannian point of view? Is it possible that this suppression is, or at least could be, as damaging as an allopathic suppression? If not, why not? On the other hand, if dis-ease can be prevented, should that not be done instead of relying on cure after the fact? Do you, personally, believe in preventing dis-ease (nosodes) or in curing it after it happens (homeopathic remedies)? Do you recommend/use nosodes with your clients? With your own animals? Are there nosodes for different species (i.e. pigs, chickens, cows, horses, etc.) or only dogs? Cats? Nosodes for humans? For what dis-eases? Are more to be developed? If not, why not? I don't vaccinate. I don't use nosodes. Do you think my animals would be less at risk if I bought the "nosode insurance"? What's your recommendation ? Shari
First and foremost, what are "similar" dis-eases? And how do you know they are similar? (How do you know how the vital force perceives them?) Are just viral diseases similar? As opposed, say, to joint problems? What about immune problems? Okay, here we go. Similar dis-eases can be of 2 forms. One is a naturally occuring disease that elicits similar symptoms from the patient as the patient's original dis-ease. The other is a medicinal dis-ease imposed by the remedy. In naturally similar diseases you probably would not know when one had been replaced by a stronger similar disease, other than maybe in the intensity of the symptoms, since they are by definition similar in presentation. The medical disease you know because you give it. You use the symptoms seen in the patient and match them with the symptoms of the remedy as listed in the various materia medicas and as established by the provings of the particular remedy. You give the remedy in a potency that is stronger than the natural disease so that it replaces the natural disease. The advantage of doing this is that you remove the natural disease, replace it with a medicinal disease which is very short lived, and leave the vital force balanced when the medicinal disease wears off. This is the same procedure regardless of the causative physical agent of the patient's disease and the regardless of the manner in which the dis-ease manifests. What about that single diagnosis that the VF is messed up, and the means the VF has of displaying that is in the symptoms; but symptoms aren't treated, only the imbalance is; the individual and not the dis-ease gets the energetic rebalancing. How can you "cure" in advance of the dis-ease? I guess I'm thinking "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? How can you tell in advance what stresses and strains the VF might be facing in the future, and at what point in the future? Couldn't you be risking harm by attempting repair in advance that which only might be damaged? Surely the potential for varying sorts of damage exists throughout the process we call "life." How is it possible to predict the potential point of damage in this concept we humans have called "future" (which actually coexists with present and past . . . oh, nevermind)? These questions go back to the nosode question. The difference between using nosodes and using classical, constitutional prescribing to cure chronic dis-ease is that you are dealing with a potential with the nosodes and with an actual dis-ease picture with the constitutional remedy. With nosodes you are trying the remove the potential for an acute, fixed miasm (a miasm that has a physical causative agent and that is fixed in its presentation from patient to patient). You are trying to fill a potential void in the vital force to a specific acute disease by giving the nosode. You are not seeking a cure as your goal as you do when you treat chronic dis-ease. You are only interested in a narrowly-defined set of potential symptoms that can be satisfied with the specific nosode. Because you are not curing the problem, and because the medicinal disease of the nosode has such a short life, you must repeat the nosodes on a regular schedule either until the patient is out of the critical age frame or until you begin constitutional treatment. If you have followed all of this you will see that the use of nosodes is more of a palliative approach than of a curative approach. And you will also see that the nosodes only work if there is the underlying potential for that particular acute fixed miasm. For how long is this sort of prevention of disease effective? To put it another way, define "temporarily." The schedule for nosode therapy is somewhat arbitrary ranging from giving the nosodes daily to monthly. There is no definition of "temporary" within this framework. As with allopathic vaccines, nosodes are given sequentially in the theory of covering the susceptibility as it arises (a timing that varies with the individual). To go a bit further, why aren't there nosodes to protect a dog against cancer, for example? If preventing dis-ease from existing in an animal is good for distemper or rabies, surely the concept of prevention would hold through the balance of the spectrum of possible ills facing the physical organism at any point on the mythical time line? Again nosodes are used to try to prevent acute fixed miasms for the period of time that the individual is at greatest risk. Problems like cancer, tumification, ankylosis, or any of the other end stage conditions are not acute or fixed but are chronic end stage pathology that is the result of chronic dis-ease left unchecked. If you give nosodes, are you suppressing dis-ease by preventing it from being and then going through the homeopathic curative process seemingly essential from the Hahnemannian point of view? Is it possible that this suppression is, or at least could be, as damaging as an allopathic suppression? If not, why not? Nosodes are palliative and not suppressive. Their use does not alter the symptoms but temporarily prevents their expression. The nosode must be given repeatedly and in increasing potency to be effective. If not given this way the original susceptibility returns unchanged. This is the major difference between nosodes and vaccines. The nosodes do not effect lasting changes. Vaccines are more prone to imprint a permanent miasm (permanent until treated correctly and deeply). On the other hand, if dis-ease can be prevented, should that not be done instead of relying on cure after the fact? Prevention leaves the susceptibility. Cure removes the susceptibility permanently. Which do you think is preferable? Prevention is good for herd or litter situations and with infants when you don't have clear individualizing symptoms to prescribe on and when you know the individual(s) is/are at risk of contracting an acute fixed miasm. Cure is the ultimate goal for the true healer. Do you, personally, believe in preventing dis-ease (nosodes) or in curing it after it happens (homeopathic remedies)? Do you recommend/use nosodes with your clients? With your own animals? Are there nosodes for different species (i.e. pigs, chickens, cows, horses, etc.) or only dogs? Cats? Nosodes for humans? For what dis-eases? Are more to be developed? If not, why not? No I don't use or recommend nosodes but that is a personal belief. Many good Homeopaths advocate their use. Again this goes back to the preferences and the comfort zones of the care giver and the prescriber. Nosodes can be made for any "infectious" disease and can be used in any animal that is susceptible to that disease as long as the symptoms of that disease are fixed. Otherwise a nosode has to be made and used on the particular individual from products of that individual's disease. I hope this answers some of the questions. Let me know what others it brings up. Glen Dupree, DVM
One of the rules of using nosodes is that they be given to healthy animals only, and be used primarily around the time of maximal exposure to the illness at which the nosode is being directed. If the animal displays any symptom of dis-ease after the use of nosode, then the nosode should be stopped and the case treated on a deeper level (a constitutional level, some homeopaths call this). And so, regardless of whether these puppies developed diarrhea after conventional vaccination or after nosode use, they are trying to tell us something. And in treating these cases of diarrhea, the relationship to the vaccination/nosode is one of the most important pieces of information that a homeopathic prescriber will use - more important than the fecal colour, texture, consistancy, relationship to any food type,.... All too often in my practice I see animals who are being treated with nosodes that are being inappropriately used. The most common manner in which I see this happening is by giving nosode to animals who display symptoms of dis-ease , usually chronic dis-ease. In that manner, nosodes are no different than conventional vaccinations. With the exceptions of the use of nosodes is very specific situations such as outbreaks or epidemics, most homeopaths will agree that it is not appropriate to give nosodes to animals who have symptoms of chronic dis-ease. They are for use in truly healthy individuals only. And so they are, in that respect, similar to conventional vaccinations. In fact, their repeated use in these circumstances can be as harmful (perhaps more so) than can the use of conventional vaccinations. So the same "rules" hold, whether you are using nosodes or conventional vaccinations. You need to vaccinate/nosode a healthy animal only. Ear, eye, skin, gastrointestinal, reproductive, musculoskeletal, allergic, thyroid, seizure, behavioural,........... problems and symptoms should preclude the use of vaccinations or nosdoes in our animal companions. If the animal is overtly healthy and the vaccine or nosode allows the imbalance to manifest (puppy/kitty/pony pimples, ear discharge, itchiness, diarrhea,.......), then we need stop the vaccination or nosode, take a step back, re-examine the case, and treat the underlying imbalance if the Vital Force. This is an important issue, and one which generate much discussion among my veterinary (and human ) homeopathic colleagues. It is something that anyone considering the use of nosodes needs to seriously ponder. (Repertorization hints,...Rectum, diarrhea, vaccination after; Generalities, vaccination after,...) I hope this has been of some use to you,.... And Joy, I know you didn't open this can of worms on purpose,.... Regards, |
