http://www.simillimum.com/Thelittlelibrary/Homoeopathicphilosophy/prophylaxis.html

PROPHYLAXIS IN HOMOEOPATHY

THE ORIGIN OF HOMOEO-PROPHYLAXIS

Hahnemann of Prophylaxis

  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 for the first time a coherent theory of constitution, susceptibility, defense responses and acute and chronic contagious diseases. It also introduces the first clinical record of stress disorders and adaptation syndromes, autoimmune diseases, and immunodeficiency disorders. These were watershed years as they perfected the single pellet dose wait and watch philosophy of case management and applied it to the treatment of chronic disease.

  Over the next 14 years Samuel Hahnemann developed a new liquid delivery system which he claimed could speed the cure to 1/2, 1/4 the time of cure of his former methods. The Old Master applied his medicinal solutions of the centesimal potency of the 5th Organon (1833) as well as the LM potency of the 6th Organon (1843). The use of the centesimal and LM potency in solution greatly expands the therapeutic range of the homeopathic system.

  It is said by the ancients that, "An once of prevention is worth a pound of cure". What did Samuel Hahnemann have to say about the prevention of contagious diseases? Does homeopathy have anything to offer in this field? What is the original of prophylaxis? Let's refer to Hahnemann's Lesser Writings to the article called, The Prevention and Cure of Scarlet Fever (1801). The following is from a paragraph titled "Prophylaxis".

  "Who can deny that 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 scarletina, I was so fortunate as to discover".

  Dr. Hahnemann again refers homeoprophylaxis in the 6th Organon of the Healing Art in the note to aphorism 73 note 73b which discusses acute miasmic disease. Here he discusses his use of Belladonna for prevention of scaler t fever and Aconite for roodvonk (pupura millaris). In The Chronic Diseases Hahnemann speaks of Bryonia and Rhus tox as two specific remedies for the acute miasm of typhus in 1813. These acute specifics represents early *genus epidemicus remedies* chosen by the totality of the symptoms of many group suffering the same miasm. Vide page 33.

  "nevertheless, all sick with one and the same pestilential fever reigning at the time could only be obtain 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.

  The Old Homeopath continued to study the actions of the miasmic diseases on the population and postulated that the suppression of these miasm would lead to new virulent strains, more complicated forms of social diseases and new complex chronic disorders. He suggested that the inner effects of the miasms will continue to mutate into deeper chronic degenerative states, auto-immune diseases and immuno deficiency disorders which are incurable by orthodox medicine. His predictions continue to come true. Universal suppression causes new virulent miasm and new complex chronic states.

Aetiology in Homoeopathy

  Hahnemann give insight into the nature of causation and the miasms in The Medicine of Experience (1806). He carefully explains that miasms are diseases which have "one and the same cause" which may have a fixed character. This is because they rely on the same contagious principles. Some miasm mutate very rapidly while others tend toward fixed character. This special condition calls for special measures. Vide Hahnemann..

  "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, 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."

  Hahnemann was the first to postulate a complete theory of susceptibility, infection and the defense mechanism. Homeopathic philosophy is still much more advanced in this area then its orthodox counter. 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 had a causative factor which involves microorganisms he called "animalcule". So we can see right from the beginning of homeopathy Hahnemann was already deeply investigating these causative factors and their relationship to the human constitution and miasmic infections. The non-miasmic and chronic complex disease depends on multiple internal and external causation with the body and mind rather then a single constant factor. 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 form 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 affect by innumerable, and still for the most part, unknown

influences of external agencies, and by almost as many forces from within."

  Hahnemann carefully points out the nature of external and internal causation and multiple aetiologies. Complex diseases are based on a "combination of several dis-similar causes" i.e. the ancient Greek idea of an aetiological constellation. This statement is further enhanced by the first rendition of the information later found in § 33 to §42 of the 5th and 6th Organon which deal with how dissimilar disease repel, repress or combine with one another. These aphorisms hold the key to susceptibility, layers and the pathogenic timeline as well as the Hering's laws of cure. Homeoprophylaxis is based on understanding constitution, causations, pathology, provings and symptomatology from the homeopathic point of view.

  Chronic diseases involving multiple causations produce layers of disharmony within the vital force which derange vital functions leading to complex pathology. The treatment of such cases demands careful individualization and constitutional case management. True susceptibility lies in the predisposition of the human constitution. For this reason constitutional treatment is one of the best prophylactic remedies. There is growing world wide resistance to antibiotic antiseptic treatment being reported. Old miasms are returning, present miasms are rapidly mutating and new zoomatic miasms are crossing species lines. The long term suppression of the miasms is increasing virulency of epidemic disease at an incredible rate. Homeopaths, Dare to Know!

  Hahnemann was supportive of the work of Jenner suggested that other animal miasms my be useful to prevent human diseases. Hahnemann's casebooks (Handley's-Later Hahnemann) clearly record the acute side-effects of vaccination but knowledge of its chronic affects still was mostly unknown. It was Wolf, Boenninghausen and Hering who realized that the orthodox vaccination was causing an iatrogenic chronic miasm named Vaccinosis. This caused the first generation of homeopaths to deeply investigate the homeopathic alternative to orthodox vaccinations. A disease cause by orthodox immunization is called *Vaccinosis* in homeopathy. This establishes an iatrogenic miasm (man made infection) in the organism.

  The method to find specific homeoprophylaxis is the *remedy epidemicus*. This provides protection to epidemic diseases for the general population. This remedy is specifically chosen by the symptoms patterns of the prevailing miasms and those of a fixed character. In this method the homeopath makes a group picture of all cases of the acute miasm in question and tries to find the most appropriate remedy (or remedies) for prevention. (Org. § 100-103). This method is called the group anamnesis. In this way constitutional protection can 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 overcrowding, unhygienic places and contaminated food and water as well as the most careful personal hygiene and diet.

The Use of Idem in Classical Homoeopathy

  The advent of Hahnemann's Doctrine of the miasms caused great interest in the chronic diseases and their anti-miasmatic remedies. One of the direct consequences of the publication of The Chronic Diseases (1828) was the development of the use of miasmic organisms as potentized homeopathic remedies for the treatment and prevention of disease. It seems that shortly after Hahnemann published his chronic disease theory, Hering performed the first proving of a nosode on himself.

  It was Hering's idea to use miasmic agents as potentized remedies. The Greek word "Noso" is a prefix which is added to give the idea of a disease indicating its morbid root. This term is also connected with the Latin word "noxa", the root of the term noxious. This implies the use of potentially dangerous noxious materials as a basis for a potentized remedy. That is why Hering called these remedies "nosodes". As you can see by their very nature these remedies must be used correctly.

  Hering is responsible for greatly expanding the Homeopathic 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 (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 nosodes for the prevention of infectious diseases (homeoprophylaxis by nosodes).

5. The use of homologous organs, tissue and secretions (sarcodes).

6. The use of the chemical and nutritional elements innate to the organism (chemical and elemental relationships)

7. The use of potentized disease vectors for remove infestation, e.g. potentized weed seeds to get rid of weeds and insects to remove infestations. (isodes)

  Hering continued to experiment with nosodes of acute and chronic miasms and invited others to conduct provings. He was the first to recommended the use of potentized psorine (psorinum) gleet-matter (Medorrhinum), pthisine (Tuberculinum) and syphiline (Syphilinum) as 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 prevent of the itch miasm.

Study Guide: For a deeper understanding of contributions of Constantine Hering please refer to Hering, Idem and Homoeopathy by David Little @simillimum.com

Boenninghausen's Contribution

  The use of specific remedies has been a part of homeo-prophylaxis since the days of Hahnemann, Hering and Baron von Boenninghausen. It was Boenninghausen who was the first to clearly point out the dangers of orthodox immunizations. The Baron, and his colleague, Dr. Wolf were very well aware of the dangers of the man-made Vaccinosis miasm and actively searched for a better alternative. The Baron's first experience was his successful use of Thuja as a genus epidemicus remedy for the prevention and treatment of small-pox. Vide Concerning the Curative Effects of Thuja in Small-pox from 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 experiment with Thuja, the Baron went on to study the effects of Hering's nosode made from the small-pox virus, Variolinum. His preventative use of this nosode made from the small-pox virus was very successful. This lead the Baron to say;

"Variolinum 200th is far superior to crude vaccination and absolutely safe."

  Homeopathy has no objection to the use of control 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. The clear problem with orthodox immunization is the method of production, the delivery system, and the posology. Are we really utilizing homeoprophylaxis in the manner which is suggested in the original homeopathic writings and the subsequent works?

  Study Guide: For a more complete review of the Baron's ideas on this subject please refer to Boenninghausen's Life and Works, Chapter Four, Why?, Prophylactic Remedies, by David Little

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. In the Medical Advance 1904 there is a wonderful discussion of constitutional prevention versus specific prophylaxis with nosodes. I will post this for reference as Homeoprophylaxis 1-a.

Testimony of Great Homoeopaths

  Many great classical homoeopaths have used homoeopathic remedies to prevent disease. The testimony of such luminaries such as Hahnemann, Hering, Boeinnghausen, Kent, Allen and Boger can be found throughout homoeopathic literature. Here is just a small sampling of the experiences.

1. Hahnemann suggested in Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever (18O1) that Belladonna can be used to prevent scarlet fever. In Cause and Prevention of the Asiatic Cholera (1831) Hahnemann noted that the skillful use of Camphor, Cuprum Met and Veratrum Album.can prevent as well as cure cholera.

2. In 1833 Dr. Hering wrote a paper in which he discussed the potenital of Psorine to prevent an infection of the itch miasma (arch. xii, 3).

3. The Baron von Boenninghausen was a keen practitioner of homoeo-prophylaxis. Vide Concerning the Curative Effects of Thuja in Small-pox from 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 experiment with Thuja, the Baron went on to study the effects of Hering's nosode made from the small-pox virus, Variolinum. His preventative use of this nosode made from the small-pox virus was very successful. This lead the Baron to say; "Variolinum 200th is far superior to crude vaccination and absolutely safe."

4.. 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 centiesimal potency, whenever small-pox was about, and I have thus far not seen any one so far treated get variola'.

5. James Taylor Kent wrote in his Lectures on Homoeopathic Materia Medica (page 1000) that the Tuberculin nosode has the potential to prevent TB from 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 tuberculsosis many be immuned from their inheritance and their resilency will be restored."

6. Willaim Boericke wrote in the Pocket Manuel of Homoeopathic Materia Medica that the Baptisia has a prophylatic power over typhoid, clears carrier of the disease, and could be of service in a iatrogenic typhoid miasma produced by orthodox immunizations.

  "Baptisia in low dilutions produces a form of anit-bodies to the bacteria typhosus, viz., agglutinins. Thus it raises the natural bodily resistiance to the invasion of the bacilary intoxication, which produces the typhoid syndrome. Typhoid carriers. After inoculation with anti-typhiod 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 homeopatihc doctors in Iowa during a small-pox 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. Small cases after taking Variiolinum was 14

4. Efficacy 97%

  Of his experience Eation said, "We must not do Homeopathy the injustice of giving this, one of its most sucessful and useful outgrowths, a partial and equivocal recongnition, just because it happens to be strange to us. This splendid peice 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 recongnise its value just because we happen not to have been coversant with it"

9. Dorothy Shepherd wrote "Nosodes of disease products of the actual disease are often most active preventative". She then goes on to give several examples for her long career. She did clinic trials in boading schools were 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. Diptherinum was used by Allen for 25 years as a prophylactic and he never saw a case in a person who had contacted the disease. He challenged the profession to test this assertion and publish their failures.

11. This is a quote from C.M Boger on Homeo-prophylaxis from the Homeopathic Recorder under 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 ye ole homeopath who prepared the Boger's Boenninghausen Repertory, Boger's Synoptic Key and General Analysis in a card file repertory. A man of vast experience. Our generation of homeopaths must investigate the words of such a wise grandfather.

12. Dr. Grimmer, famous for his work in cancer, perfered the use of a single of a high potency which he claimed could provide protection up to a year. This was the fruit of his experience.

13. Dr. P Chavan (Paris 1932) demonstrated the Schick reaction in the laboratory with the unproven nosode Diptherotoxinum 4M and 8M. After one to two months the antitoxins were measured in the blood of those taking the nosode. A Dr. Roux repeated the experiment in 1946 and got the same results. This unproven nosode provided laboratory confirmation of lasting immunity. The blood antitoxins seemed to last up to 5 years with one dose.

14. In August 1974 in Guarantingueta, Brasil there was a severe epidemic of menningitis. 18,640 children were given Menningococcinum 10CH while 6,340 children did not recieve this unproven nosode. Out of the 18, 640 children 4 cases of menningitis developed. Out of the 6,340 children 34 cases were noted. This is the type of clinical trial that will show homeopaths whether nosodes have the potential to prevent epidemic diseases or not.

Posology Questions

  The question of posology and case management in prophylactic homoeopathy is quite a deep subject. First of all, much depends on the personal and social situations as well as the nature of the miasmic epidemics involved. A primary principle of homoeopathy is the minimal dose and minimal intervention. It is important to only administer those prophylactics which are necessary to protect someone from a clear and present danger.
The fear induced by the scare tactics asssociated with universal vaccinations should not be the reason for giving homoeopathic remedies. Imitating the allopaths by giving an infant a 3 to 5 year schedule of nosodes and genus epidemicus remedies in the first formative years is not the best way to protect a child. Such a long schedule delays constitutional treatment which is the central method of homoeoprophylaxis and is prone to over medication.

  Constitutional treatment strengthens vitality and increases the general resistance of the host to diseases while specific prophylaxis works against a single miasma. Nevertheless, these two methods are complementary when used correctly. Specific homoeoprophylaxis is a form of clinical provings of remedies on the healthy subjects and must be done carefully so that no unnecessary symptoms are stimulated. Over medication with such epidemic remedies and nosodes has the potential to produce a "remedy miasm" very similar to the disease state that one wishes to avoid. Such a situation is worse then the natural diseases as one may never get it in the first place. So how do we administer homoeopathic remedies for prophylaxis in a safe and effective manner?

The homoeopath who uses prophylactic remedies must understand the nature of the human constitution, remedial powers of potencies, and the proving techniques associated with the materia medica. In this way they may apply this information to the administration of preventative remedies. The primary action of homoeopathic remedies stimulate a secondary action from the vital force which produces the immunity to diseases. Homoeo-prophylaxis is very similar to a homoeopathic proving but the primary goal is not to produce extensive symptoms.This is best carried out by administering the C and LM remedies in medicinal solution and the split -dose if and when necessary.

  The potency and amounts should be chosen by the sensitivity factors of the individual constitution and temperament (Hahnemann's sensitivity scale of 1 to 1000). The first dose must be a single unit test dose of the chosen potency and the client should be put under observation for a period of time. If there is the production of the symptoms as in a homoeopathic proving the single dose should be left to act alone. This indicates that the individual is quite sensitive to the prophylatic remedy and the preventative process has already begun. There is nothing to do but wait and watch for the symptoms to recede. The single dose provers are those individuals who are most likely to get the disease as they show the strongest susceptibility. This excessive susceptibility to the targeted disease can be remove by the prophylatic remedy.

Study Guide: For a review of Hahnemann's Sensitivity Scale §281 click here

  In those cases which produced no symptoms on the single dose, the remedy should be continued in a split-dose. The intervals between doses must be judged by the vitality and sensitivity of the individual constitution. Those who appear weak and sensitive should not be given a long series of doses. Each dose must be carefully assessed before the next dose in the series is given so that no major provings symptoms are produced. The remedy should be given until the homoeopath observes the first signs of a preventative proving and then the remedy should be stopped. 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 desired immune response. Depending on the nature of the disease involved a follow up 'booster' dose can be given to extend the periods of protection. Always cease administering the dose on 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 amounts and succussions of the medicinal solution and potency have been increased over a reasonable period of time, yet no symptoms are produced, the person is most likely already immune to the disease in question. The remedy may be stopped.

  Those who are the most sensitive and idiosyncratic to the prophylatic remedy that are the most susceptible to the similar remedy. It is essential to explain to the client the nature of homoeopathic provings for the materia medica and the subclinical provings elicted for prophylaxis. The client or parent must be an active observer and keep a journal of the process of homoeo-prophylaxis. The aim is only to elicit a subtle reaction which demonstrates that the process of prophylaxis is beginning. Only a slight malaise, a feeling of uneasiness, or a sense that something is happening is enough. This shows the person is sensitive to the preventative remedy and the primary action is sufficient. All symptoms which are produced during the process of homoeo-prophylaxis should be recorded in the journal. This is essential when unproven nosodes are being administered. Such symptoms offer insights into the remedial powers of the nosode and will help complete its therapeutic symptom image. If the individual volunteers to continue as a prover they will certainly offer new insights that will benefit others. Such an individual can rest assured that they will be immuned to the diseases in question in the future.

  Hahnemann proved many, many remedies on himself. This is one the reason the early homoeopaths really knew their remedies well. They felt the changes the remedies produce in their own body and mind. This is the true 'living materia medica". The Founder credited his long life and good health to the provings he preformed over a period of 47 years. There is little danger in homoeo-prophylaxis if the process is done with small amounts of a properly made and administered medicinal solutions. The slow, graduated LM potency scale (0/1, 0/2, 0/3 up to 0/30..) is very 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 not the long durations which produce prolonged aggravations. They are less prone to getting out of control than the 1M, 10M, 50M, CM, etc., yet at the same time, they are just as deep acting when used correctly.

  When the centesimal potencies are used they must be administered in the medical solution of the 6th Organon. Random amounts of dry pills are very dangerous. They accumulate in the vital force producing unneeded aggravation and can easily cause a 'remedy miasm' that is similar to the disease being prevented. This is worst situtation because it will last life long, whereas the natural disease may never come, and if it does, there is always chance of full recovery. The grafting of dynamic remedy symptoms on the vital force is something to be avoided. Better safe then sorry. Remember the the first Hippocratic maxim is "Physician, Do Not Harm".

PROPHYLAXIS IN HOMOEOPATHY

THE ORIGIN OF HOMOEO-PROPHYLAXIS

Part Two

Homeoprophylaxis, The Medical Advance,

May, 1904, page 242.

Hello Homeolist,

  This interesting debate explores the pros and cons of homoeoprophylaxis. It is carried out by the editor of The Medical Advance who is supports the use of the nosode, Variolinum, and a pure constitutional homoeopath who believes 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 and 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 DL.

  "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 clean living conditions. The true susceptibility is in the predispositions of the physical constitution and mental temperament. This includes inherited an acquire diathesis and miasms as well as the stress of life on the mind and body. Homeopathic treatment of the individual removes the underlying predispositions and causations providing a healthy vitality which is more resistant to stress and infectious diseases. Back to our article."

Dr. Guil-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 boun.

Commentary by DL.

  It has been the experience of many great homoeopaths, including Boenninghausen, Hering, and Boger that Variolinum was extremely effective at preventing small-pox. Boger was so confident of his prophylaxis that he did not separate the contacts within the house. He never saw as case even in households were the children sleep in the same bed. There are many other testimonials and statistics on this subject. I would like to say that homeoprophylaxis is a form of sub-clinical proving of remedies on healthy individuals. There were reports of aggravation, the production of skin eruptions and other symptoms produced by Variolinum. So Ms. Leggett cautions about producing 'remedy miasms' should be taken into consideration when administering genus remedies and nosode for prophylaxis.

  Such remedies may produce signs and symptoms on sensitive constitutions and those individuals with whom they an affinity. These, of course, are proving symptoms which 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 things should be taken seriously. Back to our Lady of Homeopathy."

Ms. Leggitt:

  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.

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.

  "Your can see that the good doctor is not denying that proving symptoms will be produced by the administration of nosodes. He feels that the aggravations produced are less uncomfortable and of danger then the disease being prevented. This is true within reason. Nevertheless, it shows how careful you best be if your giving genus remedies and nosodes for prophylaxis. I would recommend a study of the provings and the section in Organon dealing with this subject. It is always wise be to be prudent, patient and cautious when giving such powerful remedies to children and adults. "

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.

  'Our editor reminds the readership that they also know the preventative powers of constitutional homeopathy but they are dealing with social health conditions which make such treatments impossible due to the numbers involved. It would be impossible to treating every individual constitutionally during an epidemic. If reliable homoeopathic protection can be given by nosodes to masses such a method should be cultivated. This is a matter of a public health program for the masses. The needs of the individual and society may be different depending on the situation. This is a very balanced view.

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 of 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

  "This is a man who has done his time in public service. You can see the practical approach he has to social medicine. He is quite correct. It takes an good homeopath and a intelligent patient to understand classical homeopathy. It also takes money and time. Most folks have neither the money, access nor time to find a homeopath for private treatment. This practitioners were facing a major small-pox epidemic in the general populace of their cities and towns. For them Variolinum provided a group specific that made it possible to protect 1000's.

  Here is another example of a homeopathic prophylaxis in the masses. In August 1974 in Guarantingueta, Brasil there was a severe epidemic of meningitis. 18,640 children where given Menningococcinum 10CH while 6,340 children did not received 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 public health campaign could not be done with constitutional homeopathy.

The Advance editors goes on:

  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 this editors point about prophylaxis being similar to provings is well taken as they are both preformed on the healthy human organism. If the posology of the proving is administered in a careful manner the affects of the proving only strengthen the general constitution to diseases. Hahnemann attributed some of his long life and health to the proving of his remedies over a 50 year period. 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 the proving the symptoms. If a remedy is used in to large a dose dose, too high a potency, and repeated when not needed, their is a chance that too many signs and symptoms will be produced. If such over medication is continued their is a chance of producing a remedy miasma in that individual. Some mishandled provings did produce pathology and remedial diseases. Best to be 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. Most chronic degenerative diseases are based on an aetiological constellation rather then a single common causation. In cases of multiple internal and external causation the specific homoeopathic remedy is found by the totality of the characteristic symptoms of the mistuned vital force of the individual human organism (Org. §153).

  There are, however, disease of strong common cause and fixed symptom character that affect human genus groups. This includes certain acute and chronic miasms, as well as certain endemic environmental factors (atmospheric, telluric, nutritional, toxic) which affects the populace as a whole. In this case the homeopathic specific 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 common cause and fixed character may be found in Organon §100, 101, 102, 103.

  As it is in homeopathic treatment, it is in homeoprophylaxis. There are two methods, i.e. the constitutional specific and the group specific. Constitutional remedies can be a better option then specific prophylaxis as that homeopathy is has been recorded. Even the editor of the Advanced admitted:

  "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..."

  The doctors using Variolinum also stated that homeopathy was a safe, effective alternative that can replace of constitutional treatment is an important tool in epidemic medicine. That such methods are a viable alternative to orthodox immunization on a mass scale was quite well demonstrated by the homoeopaths at the turn of the 20th century.

  What guides to the choice of the constitutional or epidemicus remedies? The situation! For example, I was just in with my family at New Delhi, North India. The rather nice house I was staying in was adjacent to an area which was having cholera. I relied on careful hygiene, pure food and water sources, and constitutional remedies for my family. If I was called in to treat the cholera I would have looked for the specific genus remedies for that epidemic and given them to everyone. I also would have made a confirmed sample for a possible nosode Cholera, Delhi, 1998.. If my family was more closely expose to contaminated food and water, and the conditions associated with the cholera, I may have used specific remedies as added insurance for my family.

  This, of course, brings the subject of childhood diseases? Should we try to prevent the most common of them? How do we prevent them? Should we try to prevent each and every possible disease by giving several remedies and doses over a 5 year period? Should we just do constitutional treatments and ignore the subject? Should we use constititional remedies as a basis of treatment, and administer specific preventative remedies as needed when their is a clear and present danger? What if the proposed 'constitutional remedy' is not really a deep simillimum? Will it really offer much protection? Would a specific remedy give more assured resistance against a potential miasmic threat? Should we use genus remedies and nosodes for social healing campaigns against the ravages of TB, malaria, other killers now? What is the safest and most effective posology for homeoprophylaxis?

  Many good questions-few good answers. Perhaps, such things should be discussed on the homeolist, by our societies, and in our journals and schools.

Similia Minimus

Your sincerely, David Little

© David Little 1998. All rights reserved. Private parties may make copies and share this information with those interested in Homeopathy. No publication of these materials are allowed without the written permission of the author.

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.