Coventional meds have precise doses as do h/pathy ones, they come in different strengths, there is no difference! Except, as we all know, h/pathy can do no harm :)
Oral corticosteroids have very presice doses to be taken at very specific times & for specific durations. And aren`t there many drugs that have to be taken 8/6/4hrs apart??
* what has this got to do with Nosodes????? *

It came about because you said *that this need for strict compliance makes it unsuitable for the average punter to use * & *The ease of failing to comply also provides a handy excuse for any failing in the treatment.*

And I`ve been explaining how strict compliance is necessary in conventional vax/meds & how the manus have a handy excuse for the non failure of them as well :)

Christine, Spain.

It really hasn't got anything to do with Nosodes, in my book, as to me it is not a choice between the two, if I decided not to vaccinate I would just do nothing.

Christine have you any evidence at all that nososes work?

Why are you asking Jas? From your previous posts I`m assuming you`re against h/pathy, if I`m right why not start a new thread & keep this one on topic & at least answer the poster one way or the other :)
And sorry if I`m wrong :)

Christine, Spain.

I'm not against homeopathy. I think its harmless. I also think it is useless. I'd have thought that evidence IS relevant to a thread asking for advice on nosodes, but I'll start a new one.:)

PS - I mean harmless in the sense that it doesn't do the person/animal who gets the homeopathic 'remedy' any harm. Of course a puppy that gets parvo because the owner believes in nosodes and doesn't vaccinate proprly comes to a lot of harm. So does the level community resistance when too many people don't vaccinate with something that works. And if the person/dog given homeopathic remedies has something serious and treatable wrong with them they will also come to harm from believing in homeopathy.

I think homoeopathy is harmless too in terms of side effects but as you say practioners can cause harm if they encourage the neglect of conventional preventatives and treatments.  Another harm, highlighted perhaps in another current thread, is the  exploitation of the desperate who are perhaps beyond the help of conventional medicine.

What about the pups/dogs that get parvo after they`ve been vaccinated? Or even worse disease than parvo that the vaccines can cause????

Christine, Spain.

What proportion of pups get parvo after they are fully vaccinated? What is your evidence?

What proportion get "worse disease than parvo" and what is the evidence that the relationship is causal?

Sterile Idiopathic Nodular Panniculitis, proven By Dr Dodds to have been caused by the vaccine.

I think from reading your previous posts that is one case involving your own dog?

While I do genuinely sympathise, that is one case of a very rare condition and the very name of the condition - ideopathic - means that we don't understand what causes it, so I'm interested to know how Dr Dodds proved that it was due to a vaccine.

Now why don`t I get the feeling you are genuinely really interested how she proved it Jas??? Even your sympathy doesn`t quite have a ring of sincerity to it.....

By the way have you answered J/G further question about memory cells?

Christine, Spain.

I don't mind who answers it, Christine. If you know the answer then please tell me, because I truly want to learn.

This link might help explain them J/G, I`ll see if I can find a spare copy of one of the seminars I went to with some data in it, if not ask John if he can do you you a copy :)

http://www.translationdirectory.com/article23.htm

Christine Spain.
this one is a bit more in depth
http://gsbs.utmb.edu/microbook/ch001b.htm

Yes, I have my copy sitting by my computer. If you like to PM me your Address Jan I'll photocopy it and post it too you.

Best wishes, John

PMed, John. Thanks!

Thanks J :)

Christine, Spain.

Course Notes from the seminar on their way to you JG. :)

Best wishes, John

Thank you John.
:)

Thanks Christine! In my brief scan of that article (before I go to work - I'll read it properly tonight) it appears that they are lymphocytes. :) My teacher must have been pretty good! I should be able to make sense of it now.
:)

I think that is unfair Christine, nobody could be unmoved by what happened to you but the need to place it in proportion remains.

Please don't question my sincerity Christine. I have lost dogs myself to unpleasant conditions and I am most genuinely sympathetic to ANYONE who has been through the same thing.

I am interested in how Dr Dodds proved that your dog's INP was due to vaccination. Although I oppose it I am truly interested in alternative practices if only because I want to understand how people come to believe in them unreservedly, without any evidence that they work. What really puzzles me is why believers become dismissive or even aggressive when asked straightforward questions or challenged in any way.

I'll answer JG's question later. As she said herself, she only has 'O' level biology and I'm having bother framing a reply that is understandable but neither condecscending nor incomplete. Perhaps you could help me? :)

*Perhaps you could help me?*
I get the impression you can manage that without any help from anybody, let alone me!  :)

Christine, Spain.

And the scientific evidence that vaccines are only effective at round about 60% of the dogs they are used on, with people unaware of whether or not their dog is one of the protected ones is also very relevant.

Christine, Spain.

Gosh, thats dropping it was 65 or 70% yesterday :) still better than no protection.

Knew I could count on you to correct me Isabel ;)
*still better than no protection.* Who/how/why is it better for???

Christine

.....the 60,65 or 70% that are protected even the 30,35 or 40% benefit from the herd result.  But why do you appear to be continuing to avoid any talk of nosodes, which is what this thread is supposed to be about, on the other thread where a very specific question was asked about them you dismiss it as a rhetorical question why not just contribute to that subject as vaccinations have been covered many times before?

Ermmm think I`ve been talking about nosodes haven`t I????
As you reminded me yourself Isabel *nosodes feedback yes or no* and I answered that q very early on.
And why I won`t talk further is because I do believe anyone interested in h/pathy for their dogs should consult a h/pathic vet & I`ve also said that many times before!

Christine, Spain.

>Ermmm think I`ve been talking about nosodes haven`t I????

Not for many a post :D
And shall we just leave it as those wishing to vaccinate should consult their vet? ;)

Christine, something that concerns me is the easy availability of homoeopathic remedies, with no dosages given. Going back to the experience with the company supplying fragaria (a company with a very well-known name) who said that dosage doesn't matter, and you saying that the correct dosage is important, I've become even more confused than I was before. My problem, I know!
:)

Which is why I say consult a h/pathic vet :)

Christine, Spain.

So perhaps it would be a good thing if h/p remedies were prescription only, and nobody else ever recommended which ones to try?

If homeopathists and other 'alternative practitioners' were regulated in the same way that conventional practitioners are, and if alternative treatments had to pass the same tests of effectiveness that conventional medicines do, I'd have no problem with them.

H/pathic vets & drs have done more studying & qualifying before they are allowed to practise h/pathy.

Christine, Spain.

Back in 2000 the Lords published a report on the regulation of alternative or complementary therapies are were pretty much in agree with you Jas, however, they did have these reservations about homoeopathy

>Of all the professions in our Group 1, homeopathy carries the fewest inherent risks in its practice, at least in relation to the consumption of homeopathic medicines. We are also aware that there is unusually strong contention about the evidence available for its efficacy. These two points could be seen as arguments against statutory regulation which could be considered unnecessary due to the limited risks and could also be seen as awarding a degree of legitimacy to a therapy about which much of the conventional scientific world has strong doubts and reservations

Hi Isabel, I agree that homeopathy is 'safe' in that it does nothing at all and so has no side-effects, but if a medical/veterinary practitioner misses something treatable then (s)he is responsible. I'd like to see the same applied to all alternative practitioners. And conventional medicines - which I freely admit do have side-effects - not only have to be shown to be 'safe', but also effective. I'd have thought that was a good idea for the multi-million pound business of 'alternative treatments' and I'd like to see that applied to all of them.

I do however take their Lordships point when they say "statutory regulation .... could also be seen as awarding a degree of legitimacy to a therapy about which much of the conventional scientific world has strong doubts and reservations".

It would be a very good idea for people who are really interested in homeopathy to learn about it first :)

Christine, Spain.

And also where is the EVIDENCE for boosters??? Isn`t that also relevant????

Christine, Spain.

My concern is not so much for people who don't booster. I do think there is evidence to suggest that full vaccination against the viral diseases lasts much longer than one year, and possibly is lifelong - with or without nosodes. My worry is about people who don't vaccinate pups and/or give the first booster. A good proportion of pups that are not protected by thier puppy vaccines have extended maternal immunity, thus the need for the first booster. And my worry is ESPECIALLY about those who advise others not to vaccinate puppies conventionally, without a scrap of evidence that their preferred homeopathic nododes have any effect whatsoever. As I'm sure you well know, the evidence for the effectiveness of conventional vaccination against CPV and CDV is overwhelming.

Hi Dizzypapillon,

This is a very difficult subject! However this homoeopathic vet clearly states that nosodes are not vaccine replacements.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for that link JG.  I haven't read Dr Loops before!  His vaccination info is interesting!  He says "The Risk of Exposure should be the main guideline for consideration of whether to vaccinate and what to vaccinate against." because of the potential side effects,
My conventional Vet wants to vaccinate everything.  I give nosodes after listening to a lecture by Chris Day, the Homeopathic Vet, and here's another Vet who says do nothing unless there's a threat!  Just goes to show that in all fields there will be experts who disagree.

Did he give any guidance on how to quantify the risk to anything other than a housebound dog, whose owners never leave the house or receive visitors :)

Isabel my vets quantify risk by area. We live in a low risk area for parvo and distemper because there is a small population of dogs and a high vaccination rate but we are at a high risk of distemper because it is a rural area with lots of rats about. The youngest partner tells me that he has only seen a couple of cases of parvo since coming to the area but saw at least one a week in his previous city practice. But as you say that way of assessing risk depends on the dog never being taken out of the area and no one ever coming in. I mentioned friends  who lost a whole litter to parvo recently. Although they live in a very low population density area of the Highlands, the parvo was brought in by a visitor to the farm.