Generally travellers are confronted with the harsh choice of taking vaccinations or homoeopathic prophylactics for their ventures into foreign parts. More and more people are wary of the former and are looking to homoeopathy for the safe alternative. However should I be advising people to take the nosodes – malaria, polio,hep a etc as a preventative policy or to pack with them groups of remedies that would probably be relevant should the disease symptoms appear? Indeed can one really rely on any one group of remedies to be appropriate to malaria and then another for typhoid etc, is this not a little wishful thinking and indeed going away from the original “individual”concept of homoeopathy? I also note that some pharmacies supply multi remedy tablets, i.e. polio, malaria, typhoid etc all contained in the one tablet. Is taking them individually to be preferred? Is this multi remedy tablet widely used? If we are to adhere to the true classical way should the traveller be only taking one remedy anyway? I am confused about this whole issue there seems to be a number of theories on this topic. My feeling tends to go with the idea that you treat the symptoms when they appear. However this seems so impractical, what is the traveller supposed to do? Take a box of 50 or more remedies along with him, and then self diagnose when he falls ill? What advice should we be giving these people? Please help!
I am sure all this has been discussed on the BB before but I am new to this, so many apologies if the topic is becoming tiresome.


------------------

At the end of the day, it's down to the patient as to whether they want to try homoeopathic prophylaxis.
It is not strictly homoeopathy to treat symptoms before they arise. But the theory is suggestive that homoeopathic prophylaxis could work. See Roberts Art of Cure chapters on susceptibility and that book on Epidemic Diseases by one of the venerable English lady homoeopaths whose name escapes me.
Anecdotal evidence is mixed, with instances of patients developing malaria even after taking the homoeopathic nosode, and others who took the nosode being immune to malaria even when all his/her travelling companions contracted it.
I'd say that homoeopathic prophylaxis has some value but, like all immunisations including conventional, it is not fail-safe.
If the traveller could take around with her/him a full set of homoeopathic remedies, and have a link to his/her prescriber, then yes, that would be better, but since that doesn't happen, the nosodes can be of use.
In the UK, Helios pharmacy are helpful in suggesting sensible dosages, usually a 30c weekly prior to and during travel to the danger region.
An interesting and useful book for the traveller is called Homoeopathy and the World Traveller. It has guidance for diagnosis of tropical diseases and notes on what is a risk in which region, as well as emergency prescribing ideas. Ainsworths supply a travel kit to accompany the book.

Book is by Dr Colin Lessel. Not pure homeopathy but good info - now in cheap paperback. Worth looking at.

The other one to look at which is 1/2 the price ( and 1/4 the size!!) is A handbook of Homeopathic Alternatives to Immunisation by Susan Curtis.

Ricky, that one by Curtis is pretty mindless. I am not sure, but I think that Curtis is not even a trained homoeopath. The book comprises a formulaic outline of each disease and then a recommendation to take the nosode of it in 30c for prophylaxis. The kind of info you want to know such as where the disease is prevalent and what are the key symptoms for recognition and how to differentiate between the main the remedies for treating it are wholly absent.
Have you seen it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anna Bryant:
Ricky, that one by Curtis is pretty mindless. I am not sure, but I think that Curtis is not even a trained homoeopath. The book comprises a formulaic outline of each disease and then a recommendation to take the nosode of it in 30c for prophylaxis. The kind of info you want to know such as where the disease is prevalent and what are the key symptoms for recognition and how to differentiate between the main the remedies for treating it are wholly absent.
Have you seen it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



------------------

Thankyou very much Anna, Frank, and Ricky for your input, I am now much clearer on this issue, cheers.
Richard S

------------------

I have a question regarding communicable illnesses also. My homeopath says that if I am in good health, my immune system fights off disease, he believes that vaccines essentially don't work and may contribute to development of chronic diseases. But, for instance, I was exposed to eboli. Does my immune system fight that off? Is there a certain point that immune systems can't compete with certain illnesses?

Anna - I actually have both books!!

The immune system is allopathic interpretation of the vital force. Dis-ease is just that and a name like 'eboli'is again allopathic. Need to remember that both are energetic in nature.

Homeopathic conception of contagion is identical to allopathic with one important revision. Contagion is first energetic in nature and what the allopaths see as the cause are the results of a battle that has already been lost on a dynamic level.

Susceptability to contagion is a factor but given sufficent dynamic stimulus contagion can occur. In a dis-ease the amount of energy required depends on how similar it is to individual.

The more similar, the less energy is required to effect contagion. Given sufficent energy contagion occurs in most people as the vital force becomes derranged. In a proving an artificial 'epidemic' dis-ease state is created in much the same way. Hahnemann observed that more people were effected more of the time by artifical dis-ease agents than natural ones.

The 1918 influenza pandemic is a good example of such a dynamic dis-ease. However such epidemic diseases respond well to homeopathy using the 'genus epidemicus' in the Organon. Both Hahnemann and Boenninghausen's results are ample proof of that.