This is a well known controversy with a host of subdivisions of theories. Each choice is loaded with potential risks. The only widely accepted method of childhood disease prevention is the use of actual vaccinations.

It sounds like Shawna was looking for testimonials that were pro-nosode type vaccinations, that is what Snoopy provided with the story about her own child.

On the one hand, it certainly is dangerous advice. We know this choice could produce the risk of contracting serious contagious diseases due to inadequate evidence. Also, this type of prescribing could open up the subject to intolerance from the M.D.s.

On the other, discussing this important matter with educated Homeopathic doctors may allow exposure to new theories that could provide benefits for the next generation.

Dear Hans,

Thank you for the civil reply. I really do wish people would learn to speak respectfully to one another. Austin, at the time, some 6 years ago, Mathur's book must have been required reading because I never would have bought this book otherwise; the point is, I had two reputable sources for the protocol of giving the nosode when the disease is in the school or in the vicinity as a means of prevention; also to give at the start of the disease when there are no clear symptoms indicating a remedy.

Snoopy

Hi Shauna,

The idea about not vaccinating and using homeopathy doesn't mean you should substitute vaccines for "nosodes" used randomly to prevent a disease.

It means that, instead of relying on vaccines to protect you against specific diseases (for which no proof of their efficacy exists, truly) you treat your children with homeopathic medicine should they come down with ANY illness.

In homeopathy, if we don't have symptoms on which to prescribe, we can't prescribe. In the case of epidemic disease, we can follow some "rules" about genus epidemicus prescribing in order to administer a good Genus Epidemicus remedy as a prophylactic against the epidemic disease--but each epidemic is different, and must be understood before this can be done. So, again, its a case of having some symptoms manifest first before we can cure by giving a medicine which causes similar symptoms.

So giving nosodes instead of vaccines is just a useless practice, infuriating because it can easily become dangerous. I don't think there is controversy about this; it's pretty clear.

Instead of using vaccines, you can choose to seek out homeopathic medical care for your child. That means using homeopathic medicine as a first line of treatment.

Some of the diseases parents are convinced into vaccination use against are really simple childhood diseases that our grandparents used to try to expose us to--so that our bodies would have the necessary opportunity to create resistance to such diseases and become far more efficient at "treating" and "curing" itself. Once these diseases are endured, the host is never susceptible to them again...and generally, susceptibility to any type of disease is lessened considerably. Homeopathic medicine just helps the body to deal with disease and establish this lack of susceptibility.

Giving a remedy when no disease is present only creates an artificial disease, and is unnecessary. Your best option is to treat with homeopathic medicine because it is effective when it needs to be, and allows the body to depend on, nurture, and strengthen its own ability to heal itself. Find a really good homeopath and stick with her!

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Dear Snoopy,

The protocol of using nosodes if the disease is prevalent in the surroundings has been advocated with great energy in the veterinarian world..........after they stopped advocating using nosodes for prophylactic purposes instead of allopathic vaccines. I remember Will Taylor (who is much respected in the US)saying he would take a high dose of ledum if he thought Lyme's was close by, as a preventative, probably less than a year ago on lyghtforce. I think there are many opinions and that those opinions have changed over a very short time.

As for Austin.....this person has a great deal of difficulty being respectful and seems at his/her best when making very personal attacks (have your read his/her posts?)on a person far afield from the discussion...all the while saying it isn't personal. (In my next life, I want that assurance of always being completely righteous. It must be a wonderful feeling.) It always makes me chuckle to read the posts.....makes one wonder who is this person, who with no posted credentials feels so free to critique/condemn others. Even to the point of *telling* you what is or isn't reading material for a homeopathic course. Sounds awfully George Bush(y) (I am always right!!!!)........to me. Love to have some details of the cases s/he has handled.........wouldn't you?

(Ledum not being a nosode of the disease but intended as a preventative.)

[ 25. February 2003, 02:52: Message edited by: gpm ]

__________________
Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.

shauna,

Divina put it all in a nutshell.......and very nicely, too, might I add!

But only a short time ago, all the "homeopathic" vets (!) were telling us something different and we were knocking ourselves out finding suppliers for every disease nosode. I have a shelf full of them, never opened.

__________________
Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.

[ 25. February 2003, 03:23: Message edited by: carolorr ]

The following is from:
The Conquest of Disease
A. C. French, MD, Corpus Christi, TX;
Corpus Christi Printing, 1943

Few Homeopathic doctors get to air their troubles in a Health Board Trial. But doing so, when odds seem against you, and still you are vindicated acts as a boost and benefit.

One winter, a number of years ago in our city, we had at one time over seventy-five cases of smallpox. The city health physician and local doctors recommended immediate vaccination, in the arm, of all school children.

Here I was, a regularly licensed physician in Oklahoma, but I believed in internal (homeopathic) vaccination. Though it seemed mandatory that the vaccination be external, I fortified myself with legal information and began giving internal vaccination. My first fifty patients I gave one powder of Variolinum 12x, three times daily for three days. I took these powders myself. After the first fifty patients, however, I decided to change to Vaccininum 12x, three powders each day for three days. During this epidemic it fell my lot to treat twenty cases, and to these twenty cases I gave two powders of Variolinum 30x for four or five days. Among these twenty cases, two were black or confluent smallpox. One of my cases, a woman, had black, hemorrhagic smallpox. She was very low for nine days; all her hair came out, and all the tissue fell off her nose and ears. She was a hideous looking sight, more like a corpse than a living person.

Nearly one-half of my cases were treated in the city pest-house, and here especially there was a chance for comparison of the homeopathic and the "old school" (allopathic) method. Not one case receiving homeopathic care died, while the "old school" doctors lost twenty percent of their cases.

I gave about three hundred internal vaccinations, 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.

During this epidemic we had, in our city, a regular licensed, "old school" physician who vaccinated himself on the arm with the glycerinated virus point. It did not take, and two weeks later he vaccinated himself again. It took in a very mild form. A year later, to make sure he was immune for life, he took varioloid. Within two years, however, he took smallpox in a very severe form and nearly died.

About the third or fourth week of this epidemic I had a peculiar experience. I had left some of the internal vaccination powders for a man in a rooming house. He was in first class physical condition, but seemed to have an idiosyncrasy for the powder. By the third powder he had a headache, was sick at his stomach with a desire to vomit. On the second day he broke out, with a small, red rash. I was called, and diagnosed it as a physiological disturbance caused by the powder, a term known as vaccinoid. A couple of hours later the city health officer called on my patient and diagnosed it as varioloid and much to the patient's disgust, removed him to the city pest-house. The same day I was handed a summons to appear before the city health board charged with failure to report a case of smallpox which has been taken to the pest-house. I was asked to prove that the insignificant looking little powders I was giving were as effective as the arm point vaccination.

I hired a fine lawyer, and he began studying smallpox and internal vaccination. To my surprise the second morning after taking the case, he told me that he wanted to take the powders. He visited my patient with me at the pest-house. We found, eighteen hours after the vaccination powders had been removed, that the eruption had entirely disappeared. Together, my lawyer and I studied, in minute detail, the preparation of the glycerinated virus. When the trial started he was "loaded to the brim" with information on smallpox.

He cross-examine the city doctor until he was completely befuddled. He pointed out that this was a severe epidemic, and that he, the city doctor, had lost a lot of cases. The doctor answered truthfully that he had lost about twenty. The lawyer asked if the case of mine had ever scaled off, or if there was ever any desquamation, and the doctor replied, "No." When asked if he knew what vaccinoid was, the doctor replied, “Yes, it's a fine, little powder which Dr. Bonnell states will make you immune to smallpox." Whereupon, my attorney told him that, according to his information, varioloid was a mild form of smallpox, and vaccinoid was a constitutional disturbance, produced upon a healthy body by giving, in a triturated, minute dose, the active pus from a small pox pustule.

The court's attention was then called to similar cases in other courts, proving that homeopathic vaccination was equally as good, or better than the old school form of vaccination. He showed the court that more than twenty percent of the "old school" doctors’ patients had died, and that all those treated homeopathically had lived. He proved that internal vaccination was safe and effective, and that our city physician was not as well informed on smallpox as he should have been. At his suggestion the case was promptly thrown out of court.

On page 246 of the book there is the legal case of Ed Canning vs. the Board of Health of the City of Council Bluffs Iowa; the Independent School District of Council Bluffs, Iowa; and the members of its Board of Education. The case was held in the District Court of Pottawattamie County, Iowa on the 19th of October 1905. The court found that while the Board of Education has the right to require students to be vaccinated against smallpox when an epidemic is prevailing, the Board did not have the power to specify and enforce any recognized method of vaccination to the exclusion of others "recognized and practiced by any Standard School of Medicine, authorized or established under the laws of this State." Since the homeopathic "school" was recognized (it had a department at University of Iowa), and since "internal vaccination" is "equally or more effective than vaccination by the scarification method," the court found that the schools could not exclude children who had been given an internal vaccination.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

I agree with Carol. But seriously, thanks
Shirley, that was really interesting!

Snoopy

Hi All, thank you for the replies. This is such a contraversial topic with so many people. Although everywhere I look in the health community (not medical) I find "don't vaccinate your children." I am listening. And Divina, thank you for once again telling me to stick with a good homeopath.

I have found a very nice young man, and he has helped with 2 illnesses with the children thus far, and successfully. He considers himself classical, in a sense that not 15 different remedies are given. It would maybe be 1 or 2 at a time, and small doses, 3 times a day, for a week or 2, it's always been different, but effective. The reason he gave me for this type of treatment was because there are so many antidotes out there, to make sure that the remedy has taken hold, or whatever the wording was. Makes sense to me, I guess because that's what's worked for us.

He has, however, offered, when I asked about them, "homeopathic vaccinations" that are available, and there's a paper on a 5 year study done on these, which I would like to read, but took no interest at the time.

I have little to choose from in doctors in Wpg, so I think I'll stick with what's worked. It's so great to visit a doctor that actually LISTENS to you!!!!

I read an article in a popular Canadian magazine titled "Should you Vaccinate your Kids? Yes! Here's Why." What a load of $#@%. I wrote them a letter suggesting to print an article titled, "alternatives to childhood vaccinations". I don't expect a response!

It's always nice to hear people say that I'm doing the right thing.

God Bless

shauna

Snoopy, I apologise -- you referred to two sources. My mistake.

Gpm,
Your reactions to posts that you read are YOUR reactions. And, you seem to show great difficulty in being able to see when someone is challenging an idea. And realising that challenging an idea is not a personal attack.

If someone's advice, ideas, or claims are challenged -- it is NOT about that person - it is NOT personal --- it's about the idea, the advice or the claim. If you choose to see it as a personal "attack" --- I don't know what else to tell you except that it's your problem.

I take the Devon Course along with MANY other posters. Nothing "George Bushy" about verifying if a book is on the booklist or not.

It seems awfully "George Bushy" of you to label and categorise someone personally without knowing them.

Anyone is free here to challenge ideas. I'm not the only person who questions things for themselves.

So, I'll rephrase -- and perhaps you might give the benefit of the doubt that the 'tone' is not 'rude' or 'self righteous', though I don't hold much hope because you seem so ready to pounce on me personally (that's okay..do what you like):

This is not a widely accepted practise - contrary to Snoopy's first postings which were a bit misleading.

Should we believe everything we read in every book without scrutinizing it?

Should we not digest what we read/learn and then compare it to the principles in the Organon to see if it matches up?

Should we not realise that any advice we give to people asking for help here has some impact on them should they take the advice?