wholife logo
Wholeness & Wellness Journal
of Saskatchewan Since 1995
  Home | Events | Classifieds | Directory | Profiles | Archives | Subscribe | Advertise | Distribution | Our Readers | Contact

Volume 22 Issue 5
January/February 2017

Ayurveda – A Personalized Guide to Good Health and Nutrition

Vaccines vs Nosodes – Can They Compare?

Achieve “Thinner” Peace

A Surprisingly Simple Solution to Weight-Management: Mindful Eating

The Power of the Quest and Stepping into More!

The Cost of Sparking Your Potential

Book Review


Vaccines vs Nosodes – Can They Compare?
Carol Thompsonby Carol Thompson

Recently, it was announced that Dr. Mark Loeb of McMasters University is heading up a study to test the efficacy of homeopathic nosode remedies. He is attempting to prove that they do not elicit an immune response and consequently would not provide protection against disease. Since there is a substantial number of families who are becoming wary of pharmaceutically-produced vaccines, many of them are turning to homeopathic nosode remedies instead–often referred to as homeopathic vaccines, better known in homeopathic circles as homeopathic prophylaxis. The trouble is that homeopathy has already been studied and rigorously tested. There is a 40+ page online book called The Evidence for Homeopathy that summarizes some of these studies which in many cases have been published in prestigious medical journals.

In the past, however, studies revealing favourable results for homeopathy are almost never mentioned in/on mainstream media. For example, how many people know that in 2007 the Cuban Finlay Institute embarked upon the largest homeopathic study ever, involving 2.4 million people. The Cuban health care system decided to try the homeopathic nosode prophylaxis for the leptospirosis bacteria that affected the water supply in two provinces during their hurricane season, instead of using the pharmaceutically-produced vaccine that is both extremely expensive and disappointingly ineffective. Not only is the homeopathy a fraction of the cost (about 1/25 of the price), the reported outcomes were overwhelmingly impressive with near 100% improvement, only a couple cases of the sickness, and not even one death. Where was the media when this happened?

Another absolutely astonishing study took place in 2014 when Nobel Prize winner virologist Dr. Montagnier demonstrated conclusively in a double blind, peer reviewed study that water—such as that of a homeopathic preparation—has a memory and is capable of capturing and emitting electromagnetic signals/waves. In his experiment, through a process called transjection, Montagnier captures the electromagnetic signals on a computer file of a homeopathic preparation of HIV DNA made from an infected patient. This file was then sent electronically to another lab 1,000 km away where the electromagnetic signals were infused into a vile of water. The water was then placed in a test tube which contained nucleotides and a catalytic enzyme. To their utter amazement, a DNA helix 98% identical to the HIV virus was reconstructed simply from electromagnetic signals. Again, what happened that the media did not report this jaw-dropping news? Imagine the possibilities of being able to send a medicine across the world in an electronic sound file. Imagine, also, the consequences to one of the most profitable and largest industries in the world.

Even with such convincing scientific experiments, there are people who would still argue that water is just water—H2O—and is incapable of retaining electromagnetic information. A number of professors throughout the world who support the water memory theory say water defies what are considered generally accepted laws of physics. They agree that we know very little about water and suggest we are just barely scratching the surface. Professor Rustom Roy of the University of Pennsylvania explains that water’s chemical components—H2O—has nothing to do with it, rather it is the structure of water. The way the water molecules organize themselves into clusters which work as memory cells with up to 440,000 information panels per cluster with which to imprint its interactions and relationship to the world around it. With such compelling studies already completed, is it really important to continue to condemn the validity of homeopathy?

Therefore, is Loeb’s desire to show that there is no immune response and no antibody production with homeopathic prophylaxis especially relevant? Is antibody production completely necessary? Was there antibody production in Cuba when there was nearly 100% protection against leptospirosis? Does it matter? There was undeniably protection. Is antibody protection the only way to protect a population? Most of us can think of a situation where we have been in a crowded room or in very close proximity to someone who is sick with a cold/flu and we remained healthy and untouched yet undoubtedly contagious since others became sick. Why is that? Is it because of passive antibody production or previous exposure? Doubtful. Is it because we were not susceptible at that time to that virus? According to homeopathic philosophy, sickness only prevails when one is susceptible to the sickness. This, then, begs the question, can we cohabitate with viruses in such a way that we simply do not get sick? Can we live in peace instead of waging a war to fight diseases? Can we carry or emit an electromagnetic signal that perhaps repels a virus or puts us into a state where we are not susceptible to certain illnesses?

Instead of fervidly trying to put another nail in the coffin of homeopathy, could it be time to admit that science actually lacks the technical ingenuity to provide an explanation that satisfies everyone? Why, then, continue to automatically dismiss homeopathy and demonize those who believe in it as fraudulent charlatans? It might be helpful to broaden our mind and remember that many scientists from the past were ridiculed and persecuted for holding fast to their own opinions and challenging the status quo. Where would we be today if Columbus did not insist the world was round? Time and again homeopathy has proven its efficacy. Isn’t it time to accept these studies as valid? Rather than trying to discredit them, invest in the research to better improve our understanding of homeopathy and why it appears to work, even though it calls into question what is considered to be the accepted scientific laws? Let the research compare efficacy and safety instead of antibody production. And always, the research needs to be completed by third party researchers who are not influenced by stakeholders; to date, the bulk of research has been done by the very companies that stand to profit enormously. Only then will parents truly have the bona fide evidence with which to make a properly informed decision.

Carol Thompson, who lives in Saskatoon, has engaged in healthy lifestyles and holistic living her entire adult life. Her passion for health and healing lead her to studies in homeopathic medicine with the Devon School of Homeopathy in England, health sciences at the University of Saskatchewan, and childbirth/midwifery/fertility education. Her enthusiasm for health is reflected in her lifelong work as a teaching assistant in the department of obstetrics/gynecology at Royal University Hospital, Saskatoon, health coach and homeopathic consultant, director with a fertility related non-profit organization, doula/midwife, and political and community activist in client-centred health care. To contact her, call (306) 280-2160 or email: cadithompson@hotmail.com.


Back to top

Home | Events | Classifieds | Directory | Profiles | Archives | Subscribe | Advertise
Distribution | From Our Readers | About WHOLifE Journal | Contact Us | Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2000-2016 - Wholife Journal. All Rights Reserved.