Immunity and Susceptibility in Homeopathy

With what I share here, I hope to make a few things very clear – as what I will share is, I feel, especially timely and appropriate for us who practise homeopathy today.

To begin, many terms we, even in homeopathy, freely use are based on conventional understanding – they technically and fundamentally have no foundation in homeopathic medicine.

I present a few appropriate terms from conventional medicine for comparison’s sake. But please be assured that I do not intend to fault or demean these or anything regarding these, nor do I discourage study of them. It is absolutely good and important to have a working knowledge of these.

It is simply important to understand the fundamentals/foundations of where and how homeopathy views what these terms, in conventional medicine, are referencing.

Recognizing Conventional Definitions

To begin this essay, I share here, for consideration, a few appropriate definitions, as found in Webster’s Medical Dictionary – New Revised Edition (© 2009). These are clear, concise conventional definitions relating to the idea of “immunity”/disease prevention. These are presented alphabetically as follows:

antibodies – a protein produced by the body which reacts specifically with a foreign substance in the body
contagious – germs or diseases which are easily transmitted by contact
disease – “sickness or ailment caused by germs or viruses with consistent results”
- [NOTE: the etymology of the English word, “disease” is literally the two words, “dis-“ and “ease”]¹
illness – ailment
This dictionary does not provide a definition for “ailment”, so here is this:
- ill – not healthy, diseased
Immune – protected against disease
- Immunity – ability to resist infectious disease
infect – to contaminate with organisms
- infection – implantation of a germ; spread of a disease
- infectious – liable to be transmitted by infection

Conventional medicine categorizes what it recognizes as disease-causing agents into four groups: viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites (which can also be further broken down as protozoa and helminths, or worms)².

This same Merck Manual Home Health Handbook (© 2009) presents the idea that disease-causing agents are “invaders” of the body.³ As with most conventional medical texts, this book seems to prefer referencing these items using terminology that can incite fear and a desire for aggression towards these “invaders”. This is fine, as the conventional idea envelopes the idea of fighting off disease.

Even the founder of homeopathy himself, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843), referred to sometimes “murderous”⁴ substances that can cause illness to come upon the body. However, he was very clear in how these are most appropriately viewed – that illness was not caused by something outside the body. Rather, the body will present symptoms commensurate with its susceptibility to what these agents present and how receptive to these our bodies are.

Rather than presenting a “history lesson” here, I feel what is best today is for practitioners of homeopathy to keep in mind is the fundamental differences in understanding, as will be discussed. As Hahnemann presents in the Organon, we must begin our assessments with health first.

Homeopathic medicine promotes, maintains, and protects health. With this in mind, it is not, necessarily, a good idea for the body to avoid illness. Rather, the body desires to be healthy. What, exactly, does this mean? And how do we best promote this?

Homeopathic View of Health

First, allow me to present what I feel is the homeopathic view of health.

In Aphorism 9, of his Organon, Hahnemann presents things brilliantly and concisely, as far as how he felt health should be viewed. He shares, here, that it is the vital force (“dynamis”) “animating the human organism (that) reigns in supreme sovereignty”, maintaining the homeostasis of “all the parts of the living organism in a harmony that obliges wonderment.” He concludes this Aphorism with the statement that it is the “reasoning spirit” inhabiting this organism that, when things are running well, is allowed to “reach the lofty goal of human existence.”⁵

I present here that, these “lofty goals of human existence” do not include the fantastical idea of avoiding every disease. The idea of “health” is not so simply defined as being able to avoid sickness. There are, indeed, certain diseases that are best avoided, when possible (such as pertussis in infancy and meningitis). And, of course, it is also fully understood that there are those who have been ill from birth, or who have certain physical ailments and weaknesses, and so on. We all know that working with individuals such as these and their unique needs can be quite effectively done through homeopathy – but that is a discussion that can happen another time.

Hahnemann presents in the footnote to Aphorism 8 in his Organon (6^th edition), his thoughts compared to those shared by Dr. Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland, the chief medical officer to the king of Prussia himself and a very highly-recognized medical authority at the time. Hahnemann notes that Hufeland commented that, while homeopathy can remove symptoms of a disease, somehow the disease will remain.

Hahnemann essentially called this nonsense, saying that this presents a “materialistic conception of disease”. His emphasis ever remained what we must ever remember in homeopathy: that disease is what happens when the vital force of a person is disturbed, it is an internal, “dynamic” reaction to a substance.

Homeopath, James Burnett, explains further about this idea of dynamism and how it works in health, making it more relevant to our subject here. In his book, Vaccinosis and its Cure by Thuja¹⁵ (©1884) Compton shares how it is nonsensical to vaccinate a “perfectly healthy individual who has never been vaccinated” as this person is “liable to catch small-pox”. (At the time this book was published, this was still the only vaccine in common use.)

After vaccinating this “perfectly healthy” individual, him not contracting smallpox is then, according to conventional medical authorities, seen as evidence of the effectiveness of the smallpox vaccine. Burnett makes very clear that, “no one can be more than perfectly healthy” [pg. 5] and that any modification of this necessarily involves a “minus” from the “perfect healthy” the person had been enjoying. Burnett presents that what this actually presents is that “the protective power of vaccination is due to a diseased state of the body.” [ibid]

In other words, a person enjoying good health should be noted for this, not for a potential or possibility that he/she may get sick. Illness will and does happen, even to the most resilient. But this is not because the body may be missing an outside “thing”, but because the body, in its innate wisdom, realizes that there is something it must learn.

To insert a foreign substance in an unnatural way to the body (in this case, through an injection) for the purpose of eliciting an “immune-type” response from the body is a blanket approach that presents faults from its beginning, because it does not abide by natural ways that have worked since the beginning of time.

I encourage consideration of what this presents as we continue.

Many here are familiar with Jay Yasgur’s work, Yasgur’s Homeopathic Dictionary and Holistic Health Reference⁶ – a book I highly recommend having on hand for definitions of things or things relating to things homeopathic.

In this dictionary, Yasgur offers no definitions for the terms, “antibody”, “contagious”, “illness”, “immune”, “infect” or any words containing these. Many reasons can be offered for his decision to have done so. This is not intended to be a conventional “medical dictionary”, by itself – and there are plenty of good ones of these.

See also

Simple Is As Simple Can Be

But this is part of the point I am working to make here. These words are not founded in homeopathy or homeopathic medicine – they are based in conventional medicine, approaches, and understanding. With a complete understanding of homeopathic medicine, I dare say, we may not need to utilize any of these terms.

Do we get sick? Of course we do. Do some of us get sick more often and/or more severely than others? Of course. But avoiding illness altogether will not allow us to obtain our fullest potential. Many studies have been in place and are still being done that confirm how the body, once it contracts and sees itself through a disease, will often, in ways, be more healthy than it was before⁷.

What, exactly, is disease or illness, as viewed and understood within homeopathy? Let us venture into this.

Disease and Illness – Viewed Homeopathically

In his book, Yasgur presents this: “Disease – a lack of ease. Simply, an illness or sickness; a disturbance in structure or function of an organ, organ system, or part of the body. An abnormal condition of an organism or part thereof as a consequence of stress, infection, inherent weakness, or environmental stressors which impairs the normal functioning of the organism.

A state of disease is present if two of the following are present: consistent anatomical alternations, a recognizable etiological agent, or the identification of signs and symptoms. . . According to Hahnemann, disease is a derangement of the vital force. . . a vast limitless concept to explore. . .”⁴

The German language presents these terms: Krank for sick, and Krankheit for illness or disease (a “state of being sick”). My German dictionary⁸ (not a German-English dictionary – a straight German dictionary) defines “Krank” as being an organic or functional disorder of health in which health is impaired; an impairment to health.

And, interesting, in this dictionary, the term “Krankheit” is defined essentially the same, but with an emphasis that this refers to body (Leibe-) as well as spirit (Gest-), and even the mind (Gemüt-). How this idea of “disease” works is understood on another level within homeopathy.

Understood here must be that this was first explained by Hahnemann, who had no access to electron microscopes, no concept of things like germs or viruses. But he observed things – observation has always been fundamental to homeopathy.

To point to germs, viruses, parasites as what have always caused disease is ignoring the fact that homeopathic medicines have been working very effectively prophylactically since the time of Hahnemann. There is much more to things relating to immunity and prophylaxis than this.

In Aphorism 11. Hahnemann shares quite clearly that it is only when the vital force is “untuned” through the influence of a “hostile disease agent” that “the disagreeable sensations and abnormal functions that we call disease” can occur. He further shares, in the lengthy footnote to this (6^th ed), about the dynamizing (“potentizing”) of homeopathic medicines as well as likening these to how magneticism works.

No one can see it, yet what visible mechanism tells you to lift your arm? This is the powerful dynamism within the body at work. So it is with what works unseen. How was it that he found homeopathically-prepared Belladonna presents effective prophylaxis against scarlet fever?

He observed the symptoms – the similar symptoms between what this medicine caused in a healthy prover to what he was observing in those contracting the scarlet fever where he was. Somehow taking this medicine – in a whole, natural, homeopathic way – allows the “unseen” energies in the homeopathic medicine to interact with the “unseen” energies within the person, that are working to keep the person healthy. This provides, on this energetic level, nontoxic yet highly effective prevention against the ravages a disease can present.

Will it provide protection in every case? Of course not. But because this is energetic, the effectiveness of homeopathic prophylaxis is recording consistently high – right about 90%, when known exposure to disease has taken place.

This, then, brings us to the idea of susceptibility. More than an idea of a person not being “immune”, we will now speak of what Hahnemann saw homeopathic medicine does and desired to be promoting of doing – reducing susceptibility.

In the definition for “susceptibility”, Yasgur provides in his Dictionary⁶, he says, quite succinctly, that “. . . Homeopathy . . . (aims) to decrease a person’s susceptibility/sensitivity to disease-producing influences. . .”

The idea of “immunity” is working to avoid something – in medicine, this is understood as avoiding contracting a disease, or getting sick. On the other hand, homeopathy addresses the idea of wellness, not by avoiding something but by promoting, maintaining, and protecting health.

Of course, there are certain illnesses that are very good to avoid, when possible. These include pertussis (“whooping cough”) in infants, who are the most vulnerable to this, and meningitis, which can kill within 24 hours of contracting it.

Beyond issues such as these, it is best seen from the homeopathic perspective, that it is good, for the promotion of health, to not only work to reduce susceptibility, but also to prepare for and work with these illnesses, because they are and ever will be a part of our environment and are not going to simply “go away” with promotion of this idea of mass immunity.

Contraction of an illness or disease happens inside, not outside. This is why, as contagious as a disease may be, still, not everyone will contract it. This is also why among those who do contract a certain disease, not everyone will display symptoms to the same degree of severity. This is also why, from the homeopathic or holistic point of view, the idea of being “a-symptomatic” implies you simply do not have a certain disease.

Let’s explore just a few ideas that we, within homeopathy, are good to be sure we separate ourselves from a conventional understanding. Not to ignore things, of course – but to work with these differently.

1 – The “IMMUNE SYSTEM”: This is not like the respiratory system or the circulatory system or any of the other “systems” conventional medicine has broken the body down into. When looked at for what it is and contains, it is fascinating – and it also essentially covers the entire body. Indeed, there are some key components, including bone marrow, the thymus, the spleen, lymph nodes, tonsils, and the appendix.⁹ But basically, just about everything else, in one way or another, effects or is affected by the body when it deems an “immune” reaction is appropriate.And nephrologist, Dr. Suzanne Humphries points out in her book, Dissolving Illusions, that, “The more scientists learn about the immune system, the more they realize their profound lack of understanding. . .”¹⁰
2 – The idea of “ANTIBODIES”: Studying cells and cell functions is also quite fascinating. However, it must be understood that it was only relatively recently that these – antibodies – were determined to be the “key” indicator of immunity. They are not. Let’s discuss this just a bit.

The name “antibody” was coined by the German scientist, Paul Ehrlich around 1900. The had found a form of immunity happening in an animal serum from which they were removing all cells. Not having a name for it, Ehrlich coined the term, „Antikörper” (antibody) to likely simply be a “place holder”, until a more appropriate term was found. Yet, in spite of its odd sound and actually, in 1903, being called, “weird”¹¹, this term, “antibody” has stuck.

The antibody was first given recognition as the “fundamental unit of immunity” in 1950.¹² Yet there has developed a double-understanding of the role these play in protection from disease. Any more (since 2020), it has become accepted that the presence of antibodies are indicators of immunity, whether or not this is actually demonstrated. Historically, the presence of antibodies has been seen as an indication that one has been exposed to disease, nothing more. {REF: https://www.bitchute.com/video/tnYwT34EddFZ/] Supporting this, several studies have concluded that the presence of antibodies does not necessarily equate to immunity. For example, in the case of pertussis, “. . . Laboratory measurement of antibodies has not demonstrated a level that corresponds to protection.”¹³

It has also been determined that the absence of antibodies does not indicate a lack of immunity. [Table 1]

Perhaps it can be of interesting note that, because of how things have been changing in the world over these last couple of years, there is more question regarding whether antibodies should be considered the sole indicator of immunity. Which is a good thing.

But the idea of antibody production has never been one to be expected of the prophylactic use of homeopathic medicines. What simply happens is that, under proper use, homeopathic prophylaxis does encourage the body to learn what it needs to so it can move on. And it has been shown that, after proper use of homeoprophylaxis, about 90% of the time, the body will not produce symptoms when known exposure to a disease has taken place.

Science and Truth

The idea of “science” ceases to be science when ideas are no longer explored or questioned. The idea of “truth” presents religious thought – but, more pertinent to here, it also presents things that do not change, in spite of time and in spite of question. Fundamental homeopathic principles have remained unchanged since the time of Hahnemann – and this form of medicine continues to provide marvelous results.

Along this line and pertinent to note here is the nearly century-long gap between the time Edward Jenner first introduced the idea of vaccination for smallpox in 1796 until the anthrax vaccine was introduced in 1881. Reasons for this are several, but homeopath, Robert Ellis Dudgeon in 1853, stated quite clearly in a lecture presented in 1853 that, “Beyond vaccination. . . the allopathic school of the present day does not concern itself much with medicinal prophylactics”¹⁴ – so disease prevention was not a priority for conventional medicine.

In 2021, Davin Packer of the College of Medicine at Ohio State University addressed this question, regarding a reason, from the conventional side, for this “long delay. . . could be attributed, at least in part, to inadequate disease theories.”¹¹

Yet, since Hahnemann found the prophylactic effectiveness of homeopathic medicines in 1799, research into this has continued to the present day. Some ideas continue, which are good to grasp within homeopathy, as the view from “within” still remains unchanged.

Dr. Christoph Wilhelm Hufeland (1762-1836), was recognized as “the” chief medical officer during Hahnemann’s time, and was the chief medical officer to Friedrich Wilhelm, III, the king of Prussia himself. He and Hahnemann knew one another.

In his Organon, Hahnemann references him specifically in the footnote to Aphorism 8. Here, Hahnemann shares that Hufeland purported that, “homeopathy can remove the symptoms, but the disease remains”⁵ Today, conventional medicine continues to present that disease comes from outside – that viruses and other “disease-causing agents” enter the body and, with themselves, bring illness.

Hahnemann responds in this footnote, by saying he feels this view is nonsense. When the body is well, it is well. He shares that Hufeland’s view is a “materialistic conception of disease” and that disease is “a state of being of the organism dynamically untuned by a disturbed vital force, as an alternation of its state of health. . .”⁵

Again, Hahnemann makes it clear that disease-causing agents can, indeed, be horrid – and we do need to be cautious and prepared because of this. However, it is the condition of the body that determines if infection will happen and how mild/severe this infection will be, if the body will show any symptoms at all. This is where the focus is best kept, as far as the promotion of health.

This idea of promoting health, so central to homeopathy, was further expounded upon, in reference to prophylaxis, by Burnett, Vaccinosis. He wrote this work during the time when the vaccination for smallpox was still what was primarily done – hence his focus, for this work, on the homeopathic remedy of Thuja.

But he knew there were many other homeopathic medicines that worked prophylactically for various diseases. While making it clear that he did not consider himself “anti-vaccination”, Burnett shares in this work quite clearly the idea that, with the homeopathic view and understanding of health, it seems nonsensical to vaccinate a “perfectly healthy individual who has never been vaccinated” simply because this person is “liable to catch small-pox”.

He shares that it should also make no sense that, after vaccination, this “perfectly healthy” individual, then not succumbing to smallpox provides evidence of the effectiveness of the smallpox vaccine. Burnett states quite clearly that, “no one can be more than perfectly healthy”¹⁶, and that any modification of this state must, therewith, involve a “minus” from the “perfect health” the person had been enjoying. To summarize, Burnett presents that it must be understood that “the protective power of vaccination is due to a diseased state of the body.”¹⁷.

It is vitally important that we observe this within homeopathy – that susceptibility is what must be observed and worked with, so that health can be the focus.

Observing things homeopathically

As far as the idea of avoiding disease altogether, this is an idea best approached quite cautiously. First to recognize, of course, is the idea of fear, which opens the door to susceptibility to just about anything. Unfortunately, along with this, must be recognized that avoiding getting ill – so trying to say we are healthy because we never get sick – does not make sense for proper health either.

Is “immunisation” the most appropriate word to be utilizing when it comes to the idea of prophylaxis within homeopathy? I present that it may not be, if “immunity” is thought of as avoiding the contraction of a disease, not allowing the body to get sick.

Hahnemann makes no secret of recognizing that certain diseases can be quite dangerous and, indeed, be “fatal”. Throughout his Organon, he refers to certain diseases with terms such as “murderous” (pg. 377) and the like. However, he makes meticulous note of what homeopathy, at its heart, is all about – he notes the symptoms he observed when studying illness.

In his Lesser Writings, there are two writings which he devotes to scarlet fever¹⁸ as well as one to cholera¹⁹ Each these, alone, testifies how important it was to him to know the symptoms. He makes a chart of in his second writing on scarlet fever – this chart comparing what is found in the “old genuine scarlet fever” and the “new red miliary fever”, which was being called scarlet fever. From this, it is very easy to tell that, what was being observed as “scarlet fever”, was clearly not¹⁸.

Immunity and Susceptibility in Homeopathy

About the author

Cathy Lemmon

Leave a Comment X

You may also like

About the author

Cathy Lemmon

Leave a Comment X