Page 5 - Spring 14

many others where the underlying cause had not been conventionally discovered. He men- tioned the metaphysical where bad effects were noticed in places here terrible events of the past had taken place. Geopathic stress has been shown conclusively to lower serotonin levels in as shorter time as 10 minutes. Among the interesting facts was that the median
human brain electromagnetic resonance of 7.83Hz is the same as that of the solar particles meeting the earths ionosphere- called the Schwann resonances apparently. Also about 30% of buildings were regarded as ‘sick’ by the people who worked in them. He mentioned the British Association Of Dowsers who runs regu- lar courses on the techniques for relieving geo-
pathic and metaphysical stresses. A very inter- esting talk despite the brevity. Many of us do use dowsing sometimes to try and find a rem- edy and this talk showed that there are many more ways we might help our patients. One delegate was heard to say “I wish I’d known about this a few years ago, it might have helped a lot”. An excellent day. T
cats were vaccinated upon arrival at this facil- ity, yet there were continuing problems with canine parvovirus and feline upper respiratory disease (cat flu). The woman who managed the facility was open to my suggestions, and I rec- ommended a simple method of using nosodes to see if we could improve resistance to the dis- eases. I made up a liquid dilution of combina- tion nosodes for the cats and dogs, mimicking the combination vaccines. These were disease nosodes, not vaccine tautodes, as I was attempting to prevent disease. The dog nosode contained distemper, parvovirus, adenovirus, parainfluenza virus, and leptospirosis. The cat nosode contained panleukopenia virus, her- pesvirus (rhinotracheitis virus), calicivirus, and Chlamydia. I instructed the manager to put a dropper-full of the nosode into a gallon milk jug of water (just under 4 liters). Each animal was to be given a small amount of this upon entry, and then they were to put a small amount into the water bowls in each cage one day a week.
Within a month, the numbers of parvovirus and cat flu cases had dropped dramatically. Everyone was impressed. Of course, it could have been coincidental, but there is more to the story. About three months after initiating this protocol, the facility manager decided to leave, and the city appointed a temporary manager. This man decided that the nosodes were unsci- entific and ordered the staff to stop using them. But after another month, the parvovirus and cat flu cases were rising, and staff members asked the manager if they could reinstitute the nosodes, with the idea that surely no harm could come from that. He agreed. Down again went the numbers of parvovirus and cat flu cases. Next, the city hired a permanent man- ager. You can guess what came next: the same scenario. Nosodes stopped, cases of disease increased, staff requested permission to restart nosodes, cases of disease reduced. Three cycles of instituting nosodes, each one causing a dramatic decrease in disease, in a facility wherein these diseases were endemic. Thus, clear evidence of effect.
Of course, we also have Chris Day’s nice study and paper showing protection against kennel cough using a nosode, and the study indicated that protection even surpassed that from vaccines. I have also seen good response clinically when using a kennel cough nosode for dogs who go in for occasional boarding. There was one study in the US by Ron Schultz
Continued on page 4
Using Nosodes for Disease Prevention:
Do They Work? Yes, but. . . by Don Hamilton, USA
This question seems to arise with some regu- larity on the Academy of Veterinary Homeopathy email forum here in the US, but I also hear it elsewhere from time to time. We all wish for some substitute for vaccination that is safer yet still effective at preventing diseases that are a real threat, but for which vaccination also is a real threat. It is my understanding that vaccination prevents acute diseases by intro- ducing a chronic disease, so I do not recom- mend vaccination despite the risks of disease. I will say though that I also do not normally rec- ommend nosode use for prevention, but I will sometimes offer this for guardians, who cannot make the leap to trusting their companion ani- mals’ immune systems on their own. Additionally, there are times, such as a known or highly likely exposure to a contagious dis- ease, when some protection might be helpful.
This, of course, brings the question: Do nosodes protect against infectious diseases? My experience is that yes, they absolutely do provide some protection, but they do not work like vaccines. I’ll first give an overview of my understanding, and then further explanation and experiences will follow this. Finally, I’ll recap and expand upon my experience-based recommendations.
Nosodes are homeopathic medicines, and so all they can do is induce a short-lived medic- inal disease, just the same as Lycopodium, for example. With nosodes, though, the medicinal disease is similar to the natural disease, so the likelihood is that the nosode can occupy the susceptibility to the natural disease for some hours or days, blocking the natural disease from gaining entry to the body. At least this is my hypothesis. The next question is: how long does this medicinal disease block the natural disease from filling the susceptibility? My work- ing assumption is that this is maybe two days or so, given that a wrong remedy may cause a short-term reaction we can see and that this usually lasts only 24 -72 hours in my experi- ence. I realize we can have longer aggrava- tions, and we can have proving symptoms that show up much longer than this (Lachesis and Hering’s wife come to mind), but in these situ- ations we have a greater susceptibility to the remedy, whereas when we give nosodes to pre-
vent disease we must assume the shorter reac- tion times, as most animals will not have such susceptibility.
So if this is true, then a nosode can only prevent disease if given somewhat near the exposure to the disease. I’d say within two or three days with reasonable certainty, perhaps longer. And I suspect they are more effective shortly after exposure to the natural disease than before exposure, as I think that there is a window of time during the incubation period when the organism can be knocked out of the way, so to speak. Thus my hypothesis is that, probably from two days prior to three days after exposure, maybe a bit more, the nosode can prevail, as the medicinal disease is stronger than the natural disease according to Hahnemann, albeit shorter-lived.
We also know, from work with “normal” remedies, that higher potencies require more accuracy in prescribing, therefore fewer indi- viduals will respond to a high potency than a low potency of the same remedy. By contrast, lower potencies, being closer to physical form, will affect a greater percentage of those who take them. I therefore tend to use 30C poten- cies for disease prevention, as I consider 30C to be on the low side.
Putting together the potency with my sur- mised window of protection of 5-6 days, I use 30C nosodes once a week if I want to provide ongoing protection in puppies (or rarely kit- tens). But I will only do this until the animal is six months old, or eight months old at the most. Of course, a more intelligent application is upon known or presumed exposure, but we do not usually know this unless it is an animal going to a puppy class or into a boarding kennel. I think one of the largest risks for parvovirus in dogs, for example, is exposure to recently vaccinated puppies, who often shed virus which has reverted to virulence. In these cases, we can give a dose of nosode before and after the class or the boarding, or after exposure to another puppy, as in a dog park.
Let me digress slightly to an experience I had that confirms this protection. Twenty-some years ago, I was on the managing board of an animal control facility for a small region of per- haps 150,000 human inhabitants. All dogs and
3