Minutus

The Prevention of Epidemic Diseases by Homoeopathy by David Little

http://simillimum.com/education/little- ... rticle.php

The Prevention of Epidemic Diseases by Homoeopathy
You are: / Home / Education / Little Library /
© David Little 1996-2007, all rights reserved.
Tools: Print Printable Version
Part One : The Origin of Homeoprophylaxis

Hahnemann 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,
Hahnemann was using dry pellets, olfaction, and
pellets dissolved in a spoonful of water.

Over the next 14 years Samuel Hahnemann 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 (c. 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 once of prevention
is worth a pound of cure". How does this apply to
Homoeopathy? What did Samuel Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann'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 soever?" And: "The
remedy capable of maintaining the healthy
uninfectable by the miasm of scarlatina, I was so fortunate as to discover".

Dr. Hahnemann 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
roodvonk (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 Hahnemann wrote that he
used Bryonia and Rhus tox as specific remedies
during an epidemic of acute typhus miasm in 1813.
Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann College who
collected 26, 795 with similar results supported
this figure. (Some History of the Treatment of
Epidemics with Homeopathy by Julian Winston.)

Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann’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 ---"

Hahnemann 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. *

Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann 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”. Hahnemann
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!

Hahnemann 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

Hahnemann 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, Hahnemann’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, especially 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

Hahnemann’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. Hahnemann 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 quarantine.
Hering’s Contribution

The publication of Hahnemann'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
Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann,
Hering and Baron 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:

"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 three methods of
homoeo-prophylaxis. These are the constitutional
remedies, the genus epidemicus remedies and the use of nosodes.

The first 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”

2. The second 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.

3. The third 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. Hahnemann
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 Hahnemann,
Hering, Boenninghausen, Kent, Allen and Boger can
be found throughout homoeopathic literature. Here
is just a small sampling of their experiences.

1. Hahnemann 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)
Hahnemann 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. Baron 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. THEY ARE 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
the good doctor states, “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 Hahnemannian 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 anti-bodies
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 Hahnemann, 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.

In the 1940s Elizabeth Wright-Hubbard used
nosodes 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.

Hahnemann 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. Hahnemann 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 neighborhood.”

This quote offers a number of insights into
Hahnemann’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 neighborhood”.
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, Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann’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
Hahnemann’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.

Samuel Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann’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. For example,
Lathyrus Sativus is reputed to prevent
poliomyelitis; Chelidonium is reputed to prevent
hepatitis; and China, Natrum Muriaticum and
Malaria Officinalis are reputed to prevent
malaria; Cuprum is reputed to prevent cholera;
Crotalus Horridus is reputed to prevent yellow
fever; Pulsatilla is reputed to prevent measles;
Belladonna is reputed to prevent meningitis;
Drosera is reputed to prevent whooping cough;
Eupatorium Perfoliatum is reputed to prevent
dengue fever; and Baptisa is reputed to prevent
typhoid. The India government tested the use of
Belladonna to prevent Japanese Encephalitis and
noted that the mortality was greatly reduced.

Nosodes are also very useful in protecting
individuals from the identical infectious
disease. For example, Pertussin is reputed to
prevent whooping cough; Diphtherinum is reputed
to prevent for diphtheria; Morbilinum is reputed
to prevent measles; Rubellinum (Rubella nosode)
is reputed to prevent rubella; Parotidinum is
reputed to prevent mumps; Varicellinum
(chickenpox nosode) is reputed to prevent
chickenpox; Tetanus Toxin is reputed to prevent
tetanus and Meningococcinum is reputed to prevent
meningitis. Influenzinum is reputed to prevent
flu; Haemophilus is reputed to prevent
Haemophilus influenza type B; and Pneumococcinum
is reputed to prevent pneumonia.

Tuberculinium is reputed to help prevent
tuberculosis in place of BCG. Cholera nosode is
reputed to prevent cholera; and Typhoidinum is
reputed to prevent typhoid. Various hepatitis
nosodes are reputed to prevent hepatitis. Lyssin
is reputed to prevent hydrophobia (rabies).
Variolinum is not commonly used as smallpox is no
longer present but it would prove useful in the
case of bio-terrorism. The above prophylactic
remedies cover all the main components of the
orthodox immunization program like Polio vaccine,
DPT, MMR, measles, chickenpox, mumps, etc. It
also includes remedies for a number of infections
found outside developed Western countries. Those
living in the West should investigate exactly
what risks they may face when traveling to Asia, South America, Africa, etc.

Certain remedies can be used at the time of
exposure to prevent complications and infections
while promoting rapid healing. For example,
Arnica given for a serious accident is reputed to
prevent septic infections; Ledum is reputed to
prevent tetanus in a puncture wound while
Hypericum is reputed to prevent tetanus in wounds
and crush injuries; Calendula is reputed to
prevent infections in ragged wounds; Staphysagria
is reputed to prevent infections in sharp cuts
like those from a knife; and Cantharis is reputed
to prevent infections in burns. Arsenicum Album
is reputed to prevent gastroenteritis caused by
food poisoning. Many remedies known for acute
exposures, accidents and injuries have
prophylactic power over complications. Although
this list of remedies not complete in itself, the
suggestions included in this article form the
basis of the prevention of infections by homoeo-prophylaxis.
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.

Letter to the Editor, from S. L. Guild-Leggett,
Syracuse, New York, in The Medical Advance, Vol.
XLII, No. 5, May 1904, page 242.

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 Hahnemann! 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 Hahnemann 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.
Hahnemann’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 Hahnemannian
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 Hahnemann 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.
Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann 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.
- - - Finis - - -
Simillimum.com | © David Little, HOE: 1996-2007,
all rights reserved. Home | Top of page

does anyone want to discuss homeopathy?
comments?

The Prevention of Epidemic Diseases by Homoeopathy by David Little

http://simillimum.com/education/little- ... rticle.php

The Prevention of Epidemic Diseases by Homoeopathy
You are: / Home / Education / Little Library /
© David Little 1996-2007, all rights reserved.
Tools: Print Printable Version
Part One : The Origin of Homeoprophylaxis

Hahnemann 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,
Hahnemann was using dry pellets, olfaction, and
pellets dissolved in a spoonful of water.

Over the next 14 years Samuel Hahnemann 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 (c. 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 once of prevention
is worth a pound of cure". How does this apply to
Homoeopathy? What did Samuel Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann'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 soever?" And: "The
remedy capable of maintaining the healthy
uninfectable by the miasm of scarlatina, I was so fortunate as to discover".

Dr. Hahnemann 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
roodvonk (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 Hahnemann wrote that he
used Bryonia and Rhus tox as specific remedies
during an epidemic of acute typhus miasm in 1813.
Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann College who
collected 26, 795 with similar results supported
this figure. (Some History of the Treatment of
Epidemics with Homeopathy by Julian Winston.)

Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann’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 ---"

Hahnemann 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. *

Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann 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”. Hahnemann
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!

Hahnemann 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

Hahnemann 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, Hahnemann’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, especially 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

Hahnemann’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. Hahnemann 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 quarantine.
Hering’s Contribution

The publication of Hahnemann'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
Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann,
Hering and Baron 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:

"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 three methods of
homoeo-prophylaxis. These are the constitutional
remedies, the genus epidemicus remedies and the use of nosodes.

The first 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”

2. The second 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.

3. The third 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. Hahnemann
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 Hahnemann,
Hering, Boenninghausen, Kent, Allen and Boger can
be found throughout homoeopathic literature. Here
is just a small sampling of their experiences.

1. Hahnemann 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)
Hahnemann 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. Baron 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. THEY ARE 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
the good doctor states, “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 Hahnemannian 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 anti-bodies
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 Hahnemann, 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.

In the 1940s Elizabeth Wright-Hubbard used
nosodes 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.

Hahnemann 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. Hahnemann 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 neighborhood.”

This quote offers a number of insights into
Hahnemann’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 neighborhood”.
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, Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann’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
Hahnemann’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.

Samuel Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann’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. For example,
Lathyrus Sativus is reputed to prevent
poliomyelitis; Chelidonium is reputed to prevent
hepatitis; and China, Natrum Muriaticum and
Malaria Officinalis are reputed to prevent
malaria; Cuprum is reputed to prevent cholera;
Crotalus Horridus is reputed to prevent yellow
fever; Pulsatilla is reputed to prevent measles;
Belladonna is reputed to prevent meningitis;
Drosera is reputed to prevent whooping cough;
Eupatorium Perfoliatum is reputed to prevent
dengue fever; and Baptisa is reputed to prevent
typhoid. The India government tested the use of
Belladonna to prevent Japanese Encephalitis and
noted that the mortality was greatly reduced.

Nosodes are also very useful in protecting
individuals from the identical infectious
disease. For example, Pertussin is reputed to
prevent whooping cough; Diphtherinum is reputed
to prevent for diphtheria; Morbilinum is reputed
to prevent measles; Rubellinum (Rubella nosode)
is reputed to prevent rubella; Parotidinum is
reputed to prevent mumps; Varicellinum
(chickenpox nosode) is reputed to prevent
chickenpox; Tetanus Toxin is reputed to prevent
tetanus and Meningococcinum is reputed to prevent
meningitis. Influenzinum is reputed to prevent
flu; Haemophilus is reputed to prevent
Haemophilus influenza type B; and Pneumococcinum
is reputed to prevent pneumonia.

Tuberculinium is reputed to help prevent
tuberculosis in place of BCG. Cholera nosode is
reputed to prevent cholera; and Typhoidinum is
reputed to prevent typhoid. Various hepatitis
nosodes are reputed to prevent hepatitis. Lyssin
is reputed to prevent hydrophobia (rabies).
Variolinum is not commonly used as smallpox is no
longer present but it would prove useful in the
case of bio-terrorism. The above prophylactic
remedies cover all the main components of the
orthodox immunization program like Polio vaccine,
DPT, MMR, measles, chickenpox, mumps, etc. It
also includes remedies for a number of infections
found outside developed Western countries. Those
living in the West should investigate exactly
what risks they may face when traveling to Asia, South America, Africa, etc.

Certain remedies can be used at the time of
exposure to prevent complications and infections
while promoting rapid healing. For example,
Arnica given for a serious accident is reputed to
prevent septic infections; Ledum is reputed to
prevent tetanus in a puncture wound while
Hypericum is reputed to prevent tetanus in wounds
and crush injuries; Calendula is reputed to
prevent infections in ragged wounds; Staphysagria
is reputed to prevent infections in sharp cuts
like those from a knife; and Cantharis is reputed
to prevent infections in burns. Arsenicum Album
is reputed to prevent gastroenteritis caused by
food poisoning. Many remedies known for acute
exposures, accidents and injuries have
prophylactic power over complications. Although
this list of remedies not complete in itself, the
suggestions included in this article form the
basis of the prevention of infections by homoeo-prophylaxis.
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.

Letter to the Editor, from S. L. Guild-Leggett,
Syracuse, New York, in The Medical Advance, Vol.
XLII, No. 5, May 1904, page 242.

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 Hahnemann! 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 Hahnemann 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.
Hahnemann’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 Hahnemannian
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 Hahnemann 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.
Hahnemann 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 Hahnemann 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.
- - - Finis - - -
Simillimum.com | © David Little, HOE: 1996-2007,
all rights reserved. Home | Top of page