It seems Facebook has been all aglow with concerns spread by Jean Dodds that parvo nosodes do not protect puppies from parvovirus.
She cites a paper (out of print) published by none other than Dr. Ron Schultz, PhD, a well known immunologist of the University of Wisconsin and veterinarian Susan Wynn.
Jean, a hematologist, boldly says,
5 out of 7 nosode treated dogs against parvovirus passed away. Let’s get this clear. Homeopathic nosodes are not effective against parvovirus. Nosodes were tested in a clinical trial where the dogs were literally exposed to parvovirus after receiving nosodes. The majority of dogs died.”
In conclusion, she quotes Susan Wynn: “Until well designed studies are completed…nosodes remain an unknown quantity, and I do not recommend using them…”
The key words here are “well designed studies.”
I’ll show you why this study, causing all the uproar (and even censorship by Jean for those who’ve had only positive experiences with nosodes) clearly does not meet that worthy goal.
The Flawed Study
Every scientific paper has a Materials and Methods section within it.
It tells us exactly how the researchers conducted their study.
As the study Jean Dodds cited was published in 1998, in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, and their available database only goes back to 2000, it effectively means we may never see the study.
Which means we may never know exactly:
-
Where the parvo nosode originated
-
What protocol of administration was used
-
WHEN the final nosode dose was given before the live virus was unleashed
That last point turns out to be critical, and, according to my inside source, Dr. Don Hamilton, likely why the nosode failed to protect the animals against the parvovirus they were challenged with.
You see, one of the known limits of nosodes is that they have a short window of protection.
Somewhere along the lines of several days to a week.
Now, I say “known” but you’ll still find people, even so-called homeopaths, who don’t understand this.
A common nosode protocol in the past that apparently originated from an allopathic-minded homeopathic veterinarian, George MacLeod, is still in use today.
So, when Jean Dodds says…
Parvovirus nosodes given orally and in ascending potencies in a manner recommended by veterinary homeopaths…
…what she’s referring to is this old protocol that went something like this:
-
A 30C potency of the nosode is given daily for a week, then
-
A 200C potency of that nosode is given weekly for a month, then finally
-
A higher potency, probably 1M or 10M, is given every few months.
This is very allopathic thinking applied to homeopathic remedy use.
While a high potency of a simillimum (i.e. a person’s constitutional remedy) might have positive effects lasting for months, a nosode is a very dissimilar medicine to the person or pet taking it.
It’s only highly similar to the disease, not the patient.
In other words, its effects are only based on the similarity between the disease organism itself and the nosode made from the disease discharge, in this case parvovirus laden stool.
That similarity is why nosodes work well against infectious diseases, but only when used properly.
Warning! (Ignored by the Chief Researcher)
In Episode 22 of the Vital Animal Podcast, my homeopathic colleague Don Hamilton points out that Susan Wynn, before undertaking this parvo nosode study, discussed it with him.
He was a wise choice for Susan to consult with, as he’s been close to nosode use for years, and had first hand experience with them in a kennel setting. (You can tune into the episode for those interesting details)
As Don recalls, they were planning to vaccinate one group of pups, use nosodes on another, and after a two week waiting period, expose them to live parvovirus.
Don explained in no uncertain terms that this protocol was doomed to fail.
Nosodes don’t work that way, he explained.
Sadly, for the pups who died unnecessarily (and for you, perhaps, being seeded with doubt that nosodes are a sound alternative to vaccines), Susan ignored his warning.
The study, flawed as it was, proceeded in spite of Don’s explanation.
And then, even knowing that, she published and she to this day still tells people that we studied nosodes, and they don’t work. And this study was simply set up incorrectly.” — Don Hamilton, DVM, in Episode 22
Is Truth a Product of Repetition of a Falsehood?
Here we are today, 24 years since the study was published, and Jean Dodds is quoting this same research as “proof” that nosodes don’t work.
Is Jean a homeopath, capable of evaluating this study critically?
Clearly not.
If the study was set up incorrectly, the advice of a homeopathic expert ignored, and the puppies improperly given nosodes died, what conclusion should be drawn?
Only one, in my mind: the research proved clearly that nosodes do not provide long term protection.
But we who’ve studied nosodes and used them in practice, already know that and have for decades.
MacLeod was wrong, assuming monthly or semi-yearly nosode administration would protect against infectious disease long term.
Does Jean Dodds think she’s doing a service to animal owners by trotting out this poorly designed study over and over again?
In repetition, does misinformation somehow become true?
What would you call this if not misinformation?
Hey Facebook censors, where are you now?
An Age of Caution
We live in an age where anyone can state anything as fact.
We’ve seen the gross manipulation of the media recently assuring the world that the COVID-19 “vaccine” was both safe and effective, while neither has been borne out in the real world.
Like the main stream media, “influencers” and “experts” can spread misinformation widely and a certain segment of the populace will take it as truth.
Now, probably as never before in our history, information has to be looked at very carefully, from more than one source, and judged critically before you act upon it.
If your choice is to vaccinate, that’s fine, but do so intelligently, knowing there are very real safety concerns.
Know also, without a doubt, that there’s zero logic to repeatedly vaccinating your animals throughout their adult lives.
That just plain doesn’t even work, according to veterinary immunologists, chief among them, Dr. Ron Schultz.
And if you choose to use nosodes as an alternative, use them with a clear understanding of their limits as well as their potential to help keep your youngsters safe.
The protocol I advise was arrived at by a “think tank” of homeopathic vets back in the mid-90’s, hosted by Don Hamilton.
Relying on flawed studies by “experts” will get you nothing but trouble for those animals you seek to keep safe.
Let us know in the comments: have you used nosodes? Properly? To good effect? Or have you been scared away from them, perhaps, by false warning flags like the Wynn study?
