Hi,

I'm totally confused.

I've decided against vaccinated dd (7 months) and opted for homoeopathic vaccines. I went to a homoeopath who deals with this kind of thing regularly. She gave me three little bottles with childhood diseases in them and instructions to use the daily for a week, then rest, daily for a month then rest again, then use every six months for a year.

She also gave me something that she said to use until dd is 8 years old.

Now, my question is this... along the way I've ask another homoeopathic his thoughts and he replied that it is dangerous to use homoeopathics as a preventative. He said homoeopathics should be used to treat a patient *with* the disease (or ailment etc) because that's what they're designed for.

Pleeeeaaassee help me someone... I wish to do what's best for my dd. I have stopped using the homoeopathics until I get some more answers.

Thanks in advance for *any* info.

Barbra

The lates is correct,stupid use of homeoaptic remedies like that, will cause big problems.

------------------
Homeopat MNNH Geir E.T. Marcussen
email: getm@eunet.no
http://www.homeopati.no

GM what do you advise if there is a local epidemic of, say whooping cough or mumps- use the nososde prophylaxis then? Or not at all and only treat developed cases? I am thinking of Shepherd's book on Epidemic diseases.

Here is the bit from David Little's site that I think is the most relevant.

Methodology of Prophylaxis

The classical tradition has developed three major methods of homeoprophylaxis. These are the constitutional remedy, the remedy epidemicus and the idem nosode.

1. The primary form of homeoprophylaxis is the *constitutional remedy*. This is selected from the characteristic mental, general and particular symptoms with a focus on that which is strange, uncommon and peculiar to the individual sufferer (aph 82-104). This strengthens the vital force in a holographic manner by removing predispositions, increasing vitality and raising general immunity to stress and disease. This remedy is universal in it applications and unequaled in it 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.

2. The second method of homeoprophylaxis is called the *remedy epidemicus* which provides protection to epidemic diseases. This remedy is specifically chosen by the symptoms patterns of the prevailing miasms. In this method the homeopath takes a group picture of several cases of the acute miasm in question and tries to find the most appropriate remedy (or remedies) for the prevention. (aph 100-103). In this way constitutional protection can then be complemented by a specific prophylactic. This method is useful when there is a clear and present danger to domestic or social health conditions. It 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 homeoprophylaxis is the use of *similar nosodes*. In this method a nosode of the threatening miasm is given as a preventative to the specific disease. Unlike the remedy epidemicus, the specific causation of the offending miasms must be known and a proper stock available. Homeopathic nosodes have a wider band of action then orthodox immunization. Old stocks of nosodes from a previous epidemics are often effective. The nosodes of most common miasms are available from reputable pharmacies. An example of such a prophylactic remedy is Pertussin, a nosode made from the whooping cough virus. Some miasms mutate very quickly making previous epidemic nosodes ineffective. It may be necessary to make a nosode of the prevailing strain of miasma.

The nature of the situations is what must guide to the approach used by a homeopath. For example when the small-pox epidemics were treating the USA at the turn of the 20th century, the homeopaths used Variolinum as a preventative treatment for the masses. This was because there is no way during an epidemic each every adult and child can be treated as an individual. They must be treated as a group as neither time nor logistics allow for constitutional prophylaxis. For this reason many homeopaths involve in public campaigns against smallpox used Variolinum as it could be distributed to the masses as a specific preventative.

Homoeopaths involved in the wide spread use of Variolinum believed also constitutional treatment provided protection but that the use of nosodes was more appropriate for epidemics where there is a danger to public health. Constitutional analysis takes hours of individual cases management. If you must protect an entire village or town from a virulent epidemic this would not be possible. To prove the effectiveness of specific prophylaxis the homeopaths did trials in the field

Ok, but just admitt that it is only used, when theres a confirmed epedemic going on, not wildly as in her case. Its the constantly use i say is dangerous, it will give proovings.

Hello, My daughter is 6 months old and I just started her on homeopathic vaccines. They were recommended to me by my homeopath, whom I trust (he is a teacher at the college of Naturopathic Medicine). Is there any proof that these vaccines might be dangerous? And if so, in what way? I am rather nervous at the thought of not giving her anything as a sort of "protection". We are often travelling and I would not always have remedies available, if she was in contact with someone who was sick.

Thanks for any info.
Cynthia

Nathuropathy and Homeopathy are two different things, Im traind in both, in the country where these therapies is originated, and i do not mix them, this use of homeopatic remedies, is a popularisation made by certain Naturopahts, who know not the potenital of homeopathy, ( but they want the glory of homeopathy) and they can be dangerous, used wrongly, and this is wrongly use, it is allopahty.

Barbra,
The short of it is that there is still considerable debate about homeopathic vaccination. On one side are people who use it and say that they get great results. On the other side are people who, for philosophical reasons, feel that we are better off only interfering with the health of a person when required, otherwise leaving the person's vital force alone is deemed to be the wisest course of action.
Like many things in this world, both sides have a certain validity. It's not a black and white issue (well, only to purists of either camp!).
Isaac Golden has done more research on this aspect of homeopathy than anyone else that im aware of. He has an article at http://www.lyghtforce.com/Homeopathy...ext/golden.htm
In view of his experience it seems that it works, but dont expect the controversy to end!
Ideally perhaps, we have an expert homeopath on hand to deal with every sickness before it becomes dangerous, but practically...? Like i said, its not a black and white thing.
Hope that helps put perspective on where all these contrasting views are coming from.
Good luck!
Stephen.