Morbillinum

I am afraid I have set the bar very high by choosing to talk about Morbillinum because it is a particular product, belonging to the class of nosodes – i.e. a dynamization of a pathological product.

However, it is impossible to prescribe rationally this category of medicines without having fully understood homeopathy, under penalty of regressing to the level of magical thinking which would consist here in giving the identical to treat the identical.

 Introduction

Totality of symptoms

This kind of simplistic view has even been set up as a system, such as the “sequential therapy” which consists in administering to the patient a series of dynamized vaccines, on the assumption that these substances alone would be responsible for all the ills, and that the administration of the vaccine in dynamized form would magically act as a stroke of the gun to “remove” the vaccine from the organism in some way.

This ignores the fundamental notion of the totality of symptoms, which includes the physical constitution, the intellectual temperament, the etiology, the miasms, the suppressions, all the probable causes, events, chronic diseases, medications, immunizations, iatrogenic diseases, traumas and their signs and symptoms, which are reviewed in their order of appearance (Organon 5, 6,7,8). To all this is added, to complete the totality, the objective signs and subjective symptoms of the patient as well as the search for obstacles to recovery.

Susceptibility

Secondly, these practices misuse the notion of individual susceptibility, a fundamental concept that is completely unknown to classical medicine, which still believes, for example, that simple contact with a viral particle can make a person ill.

When individual susceptibility is innate, we speak of idiosyncrasy: “fatty foods make me sick”, “I can’t stand having my head exposed to the cold”, etc. But the abuse of chemical substances, the use of alcohol, the use of drugs, the use of alcohol, etc., all have a negative impact on our health.

But the abuse of chemical substances, whether it is sea salt, tobacco, a vaccine, or any allopathic drug introduced into the body on a daily basis will eventually induce a susceptibility to the said substance. In this case, the administration of the homeopathically prepared substance, i.e. dynamized, will almost certainly provoke a strong outbreak of symptoms, a reaction on the part of the vital force which will delight the half-homeopath who prescribed it, seeing in it the proof of the patient’s cure.

Some patients will even be delighted to see themselves so affected, thinking that this is the manifestation of the curative action of the medicine. But in reality, all that has happened is a violent experiment without any benefit for the patient.

Vaccine

A third point that will have escaped no one is that the administration of a pathological product to treat the same pathology is similar to the idea of a vaccine. Knowingly or unknowingly, all doctors who practice medicinal prophylaxis practice homeopathy.

It is by giving a man an attenuated disease similar to the one we want to preserve him from, a real drug disease, that we immunize him against it. In this case, it is by giving a healthy man a benign disease, similar to smallpox, that we immunize him against this disease.

It all started with variolization, a technique that was common in the Greek community of Constantinople in the 18th century, probably imported from Circassia, but already known to the Chinese. By exposing very young children to smallpox, it was hoped to reduce the impact of the disease, which was likely to develop in a benign manner.

This notion of identical disease mitigated as a prophylaxis is a form, admittedly monstrous, of homeopathy by identical. There was about a 1 in 50 chance of dying from it. In 1721, Lady Montagu, wife of the English ambassador to Constantinople, introduced the process to the upper echelons of English society.  Variolization for measles and even syphilis was tried, using convicts to conduct experiments. We already find here the dubious ethics of the allopathic approach.

On May 14, 1796, Edward Jenner vaccinated – literally “cows” – James Philips, his gardener’s child, then 8 years old, with cowpox.  A few weeks later, he variolizes him, deliberately exposing him to the wild virus of smallpox.

Jenner’s questionable ethics were then exacerbated when it came to maintaining the cowpox pustule from arm to arm: never mind, children from orphanages were used. The fatal risk falls to about 1/200 but for the first time the notion of population and related statistics appears.

Once the politicians were involved with the industry, all this became a real ideology that swept everything in its path.  The term “vaccination” has a heavy meaning, because by dint of injections under the pretext of prevention, it is really about the progressive transformation of humans into submissive, reactive cattle, and considered as such by the authorities – as the Covid affair has shown us.

Right from the beginning, we find the seeds of the totalitarian messianism of classical medicine: it doesn’t matter who the individual is as long as “science” progresses – everything has to bend before the ideal to be reached and imposed on all.

In reality, when I say “science”, I also mean the advent of the first large-scale health business.  After two centuries of fraud, coercion, and other manipulations that have led to the worldwide apotheosis of Covid and the crime against humanity constituted by the forced injection of experimental gene treatments, I ask: can anything good come out of allopathy?

To this question Arthur Koestler had already answered in The Zero and the Infinite: “There are only two conceptions of human morality, and they are at opposite poles. One of them is Christian and humanitarian, declaring the individual to be sacred, and asserting that the rules of arithmetic should not be applied to human units – which in our equation represent either zero or infinity.

The other conception starts from the fundamental principle that a collective end justifies all means, and not only allows but requires that the individual be in any case subordinated and sacrificed to the community – which can dispose of him either as a guinea pig to be used in an experiment, or as a lamb to be offered in sacrifice.”

Time to talk about homeopathy

Now that I’ve done my pruning, I have to sew it up! But how to describe in a few words such a vast and complex picture? Homeopathy can only be called as such if its cardinal principles are observed, namely:

1) like cures like,

2) the single dose,

3) the minimal quantity,

4) the dynamized remedy.

 Like cures like, dynamization, non material contagion

If homeopathy -pressed without doubt by Hippocrates- could not be applied otherwise than marginally since the dawn of time, it is because the administration to the patient of a substance capable of producing a state similar to his own provokes an absolutely terrible reaction of aggravation.

As we have seen above, there is then in the subject a particular affinity, an intense susceptibility to the substance capable of mimicking his condition. Literally the totality of the patient and the potential of the drug attract each other with an extraordinary force.

This phenomenon escapes common sense because routine allopathic administration of substances that have nothing to do with the patient’s condition does not cause this kind of reaction and large and ever-increasing doses must be administered.

Only Hahnemann had the idea of attenuating matter by successive fractions, thus discovering the world that we would call energy today, through this process of dynamization. An eminent chemist, who maintained a correspondence with Lavoisier, Hahnemann understood very well that he was discovering a new continent. The Founder writes (note to §249):

“Experience proves that it is almost impossible to reduce the dose of the perfectly homeopathic medicine enough so that it is not sufficient to produce a noticeable improvement in the disease to which it is appropriate (§160 and §279).”

He further writes (§269):

“The homeopathic system of medicine develops for its special use a process quite unprecedented and never before experienced, which releases and liberates the immaterial medicinal virtues inherent in the crude substances.

By this means alone, these substances acquire medicinal virtues and an immeasurably penetrating efficacy, even those which in their raw state do not give the slightest sign of medicinal action on the human body”.

Homeopathy thus transforms the worst poisons into medicines. It unifies the notions of disease and medicine since the medicine is only an artificial disease. For example, the dynamization of infectious germs makes it possible to transform them into a new medicinal substance, correlated with the signs and symptoms of the disease they cause.

Totality of symptoms and vital force

The homeopathic medicine achieves a dynamic contagion – that is, energetic and immaterial – felt by the patient’s vital force because there is a predisposition to feel this influx.  Thus, a toxic administered in weighted doses poisons everyone, the dynamic signal is only perceived if it meets the right conformation in the patient.

This is the famous question “Does alcohol make you drunk?”, which cannot be answered without the two interrelated factors of the quantity of alcohol and the susceptibility of the subject.

These fundamental dynamic notions -first expounded by Hahnemann around 1796  are still very little taught today and even less understood. It is regrettable that few physicians develop their own sense of observation in front of their patients.

They are even taught that their point of view is worthless.  However, the notion of a totality of symptoms makes sense: when a person is ill, whether acutely or chronically, a totality of symptoms presents itself to the observer. It is composed of: :

– Common symptoms of the acute disease – acute miasm in our jargon

– Common symptoms of chronic active miasm (see below)

– Possibly pathognomonic signs of the disease,

– Objective and subjective symptoms specific to the patient – without forgetting the symptoms given by the entourage, and

– The characteristic signs of the patient.

The first question that comes to mind is what to think of a medicine that arrogates to itself the right to treat only one symptom extracted from this totality? This arbitrary approach is compatible with the Taylorization of an industry, but it is the opposite of the science that the proponents of current medicine claim to believe in.

The second is more subtle: if such a totality exists and is maintained as such, then it must be attributed a fundamental cause upstream of the organs. In other words, the presence of a totality of symptoms automatically leads to the notion of an energetically disturbed vital force.

The signs and symptoms we see are produced by this energetic disharmony which is not directly perceptible – the disease is the indirect imprint of an energetic disharmony.  Corollary: only a dynamic influx can really heal a pathology.

A third question arises here, but it goes beyond the scope of our article: if the organism “deems” it useful to maintain a certain set of symptoms, what is the general impact of suppressing one or more of them by an artificial chemical process?

Hostile Dynamic Influxes

At last we come to the heart of our presentation of Morbillinum. Physics has accustomed us to the notion of duality between wave and particle. Depending on the experiment, the same observed object behaves in a wave or corpuscular way – this is the case of light for example.

The old medicine, purely materialistic, is still considering the germ alone as responsible for the disease. The work of the late Professor Montagnier, confirming Hahnemann’s discoveries, has shown what we call the dynamic aspect of contagion: thus a germ is also associated with a dynamic imprint. We call this imprint miasm – a Greek word meaning “stain”.

On the acute level, innumerable living organisms “vibrate” with their energetic imprint; these are the acute miasms. Montagnier has shown that a solution containing germs carries a vibration that can be recorded and re-emitted, making possible the digital transmission of bacterial DNA.

It is highly probable, although I cannot prove it, that it is first the dynamic influx that is felt when one gets sick and then the germ grows in the organism. This is an elegant way of explaining the notion of incubation period.

It also explains how a dynamized dose of Bryonia, for example, is capable of making a patient perfectly apyretic in a few hours, whereas all the blood cultures were teeming with pneumococci. A whole new dynamic biology – quantum? – must be created.

On the chronic level, Hahnemann showed that all chronic diseases come from the transmission to the offspring of the energetic imprint of infections that the organism never manages to get rid of.

Tuberculosis, syphilis, certain forms of gonorrhea, and scabies are the 4 known chronic miasms. Not content with revolutionizing medicine, Hahnemann thus created the first form of epidemiology in history.

A patient of tuberculosis descent, for example, will show strong mental instability, with an aversion to routine and a great need for change. Physically, he will be thin but eat very well, be prone to allergies, and now to autoimmune diseases.

All these symptoms are common to this chronic miasm. Acutely, an illness that progresses very quickly to severity indicates the activity of a chronic tubercular miasm. Thus the chronic miasm, grafted onto the vital force in the manner of an energetic parasite, is capable of influencing the course of an acute phenomenon.

As often, the distinction between acute and chronic is purely academic. Thus the invasion of the organism by an acute miasm can leave a permanent imprint. This creates an energetic stratum which expresses itself through its own symptoms, and which prevents any progress towards healing, even if the indicated medication is administered on all the symptoms.

This is where nosodes shine, with Morbillinum at the forefront of them, because it was not uncommon to see strong measles either causing complications or inducing a chronic condition from which the patient did not recover.

The development of nosodes

One of the direct consequences of Hahnemann’s publication of Chronic Diseases (1828) was the development of the use of miasms as dynamized remedies for the treatment and prevention of disease. It was shortly after the publication of the book that Hering performed the first proving of Psorinum on himself. The contents of the scabies blister was the first nosode to be tested.

Hering is credited with a great expansion of the Homeopathic Medical Materia Medica. Dudgeon reports that Hering created seven new categories of homeopathic remedies.

1.The use of venoms of insects, snakes and other venomous creatures (animal poisons).

2.The use of remedies obtained from miasmas (nosodes).

3.The introduction of dynamized miasmas and morbid secretions taken directly from the patient (auto-nosodes).

4.The use of homologous organs, tissues and secretions as remedies (sarcodes).

5.The use of products prepared from dynamized miasmas in the prevention of infectious diseases (Homeoprophylaxis by nosodes).

6.The study of the periodic table and the chemical and nutritional elements present in the human organism (biochemical relations)

7. Hering suggested dynamizing seeds of weeds or dangerous plants to destroy them and using dynamizations of animals or insects to eliminate and prevent infestations of these dangerous species (public health measures).

One of the important things to remember is the “heroic” nature of nosodes. These are diseases responsible for millions of deaths and their picture is well known. For this reason, we have at our disposal a mass of information on such disorders because they are diseases of frequent etiology and similar symptoms that affect large groups of populations. A study of epidemic infectious diseases yields much information because they behave as a natural experiment of the nosode.

Dr. Swan, who experimented with Medorrhinum, was asked if it was legitimate to use unexperimented nosodes in the homeopathic sense. His answer was that the miasmas had achieved a natural proving of infectious diseases on a very wide variety of constitutions. Therefore, miasmas are responsible for disease states that are similar to what they cure, including their rarer complications.

For this reason, a remedy like Morbillinum (the measles nosode) has cured meningitis, lupus erythematosus, conjunctivitis, and spontaneous abortions when the symptoms agree. All of these conditions are similar to the complications of measles miasm in the population.

We prescribe nosodes based on the “natural” experience of the disease they cause, but they should be tested on healthy subjects, in dynamized form, to know their full potential, their complete picture. Unfortunately, this has not yet been done, and not by a long shot!

Hering had noticed that certain symptomatic characteristics of nosodes were related to their indications. He defined the indicating symptoms of nosodes, which are as follows:

– Never well since such and such an infection. Sometimes a person never fully recovers from an acute illness resulting in constitutional symptoms. The effect of this acute miasm remains imprinted in the life force, forming a layer of “detuning” in the defense system. This new, stronger layer represses the constitutional image and impedes healing.

– Lack of response to well indicated remedies: well chosen remedies do not work, suspend their action, or only modify the symptoms.

– Permanent change of symptoms,

– Fragmentary images of constitutional remedies: it happens that one has very few symptoms to prescribe on. This situation occurs in defective, pauci symptomatic cases, where a strong miasmatic layer has suppressed the capacity of the constitution to show symptoms. Apart from signs related to pathology and miasma, there is little on which to base a constitutional prescription. This condition may be due to a combination of trauma, miasma, suppression, and drug-related adverse effects

– Regional miasmatic signs with few characteristic symptoms. The case is so muddled that it boils down to only local manifestations with no characteristics to prescribe a conventional drug.

 Indications for Morbillinum

I hope that I will be forgiven for the above developments, as they seemed to me to be essential for understanding what is being done when prescribing a nosode. I can no longer bear to see homeopathy reduced to some “alternative medicine” or other galimatias on the level of Madame Soleil’s horoscope.  If homeopathy finally brings the long-awaited revolution in medical treatment, it requires rigor of mind, perseverance at work, and intellectual honesty.

Prophylaxis of epidemic measles

Before mass vaccination -I cannot dwell on this barbarism- Morbillinum was an easy preventive to prescribe, with very good results. Its administration to a whole class prevented the first case from contaminating the others.

Here Morbillinum satisfies the susceptibility to the acute measles miasm to which it is very similar. The epidemic susceptibility being extinguished, the natural disease can no longer affect the vital force. The indication of nosodes as prophylactics is absolutely immense.

Sequelae or neurological complications of measles

Everyone will have understood that the genius of the drug is related to the after-effects of measles, in cases where the acute disease has so strongly impacted the organism that its imprint remains.

It is perhaps the only drug capable of achieving results in SSPE (subacute sclerosing pan encephalitis). Early symptoms of SSPE may include poor school performance, memory loss, temper tantrums, dizziness, insomnia and hallucinations.

Sudden convulsions of the arm, head or body may occur afterwards. It is a dreadful condition with no known medicine in old medicine. In the homeopathic literature there are proven cases of recovery with Morbillinum.

Guillain Barré syndrome is one of the classic complications of MMR vaccines, for example, and is an excellent indication for Morbillinum, provided that the patient is hospitalized.

The cerebral tropism of the virus makes Morbillinum a drug of choice whenever a child develops a fever after vaccination. It should then be prescribed systematically, and there is a chance to act curatively where a banal paracetamol will only mask the fever.

Despite the titanic efforts of the industry to deny it, the relationship between autism and MMR is absolutely obvious. I recommend reading Robert Kennedy Jr.’s Children Health Defense website to learn more about the subject. In these terrible family dramas, the standard narrative is that the child developed a fever after his first MMR, the allopath on duty prescribed Doliprane. Nothing helped, the fever continued, so much so that at the time of the recall the child was still feverish.

Once the second injection was given, the fever went away, convulsions occurred, and the child started to regress. All this should have been treated immediately with Morbillinum. Those who have not had these grieving mothers in front of them or in their arms, those who deny these obvious facts, are dangerous psychopaths and should do something other than medicine.

In autism already constituted, Morbillinum is to be prescribed as an intercurrent drug, often with the effect of making the picture of a classical homeopathic drug appear more clearly.

Mucous membranes of the upper airways

One is often at a loss when there are no clear symptoms and the patient, adult or child, presents only with nasal and ocular catarrh with fever. Hoarse cough, altered voice, lacrimation. Diffuse bronchial rales. In short, it is something like the beginning of measles. Here Morbillinum offers spectacular results when apparently there was no apparent remedy indicated since the case has no characteristics.

Morbillinum is remarkable in cases of asthenia, weakness of the eyes, chronic blepharitis or conjunctivitis following measles.

Exanthemata

The cutaneous manifestation that corresponds to that of Morbillinum is the macular exanthem that begins on the face or behind the ears. I remember a case of lupus erythematosus where in desperation I gave Morbillinum on the sole notion that the case had started with a symmetrical saddle rash on both sides of the nose.

It will be rightly objected that this is an almost pathognomonic sign of the disease, but in this patient there was the notion of a strong measles which had kept him in bed for weeks. The simple intake of a single 200 globule provoked a fever of 39°, which was expected, and the patient was formally instructed to do nothing.

After two days these general signs ended, and then a sort of scaly peeling over the whole body appeared. Gnawing at myself – the most difficult thing in medicine is to do nothing! – I waited for new signs to appear. The patient became hotter and hotter, hungry even at night, and needed to uncover his feet at night.

The Sulfur that I had prescribed as a first remedy, without any effect, worked brilliantly this time. Almost 20 years later, there is still no clinical or biological sign of lupus.

Tired and coughing children

Here we begin to see indications that are not necessarily related to measles in the past. That is to say, the proper picture of the substance is beginning to be known. All those anemic, skinny children who cough at the slightest exposure to the cold, and who easily develop bronchitis, deserve at least one dose of Morbillinum. This is the kind of case where one would find Tuberculinum indicated but there is no restlessness, bad mood on waking, sweating head, and exaggerated appetite. This is where Morbillinum saves us!

Clinical indications

The following indications for Morbillinum are derived from the manifestations seen in measles. Whether or not a history of measles is present is not a problem for the prescription, it is the tropism of the preparation that dominates.

– Repeated miscarriage: here again it is a picture where the patient does not present a clear picture, where the main complaint is the tendency to abortion.

– An active tuberculosis suddenly becomes worse or the tuberculosis infection seemed to be controlled and then reappears. This indication derives from the affinity of the measles virus for the mucous membranes of the upper airways. I have not had the opportunity to test it myself but the Indian literature is full of cases.

– Chronic inflammation of the eye.

– Chronic otorrhea.

– Swelling of the neck ganglia.

– Chronic inflammation of the periosteum or joints.

 Conclusion

Industrial medicine is ready to vaccinate against anything and everything, as the Covid plague has once again confirmed. On the homeopathic side, the temptation is great for all those who have never studied it, to also prescribe nosodes in turn, according to each infectious episode in the patient’s history for example. In both cases, the approach is erroneous.

A germ only thrives in an organism that is previously dysregulated. You are not sick because you have pneumonia. You get pneumonia because you are sick. It is therefore inept to try to give the nosode of the acute miasm without understanding that the totality of the patient’s symptoms – which must be covered with a constitutional drug – must be addressed.

In the best of cases, the nosode will limit the susceptibility to the germ but will not cure the general disorder that generated the susceptibility. Finally, the last level of similarity, the cure of the patient, to be complete, will require taking into account the chronic active miasm.

Pandemic or epidemic, the homeopath gives us unlimited means to face any eventuality. The true homeopath can be recognized by the fact that he goes to his patients’ bedside with a smile!

As the great Ivan Ilich predicted, materialistic medicine, armed with all-powerful technology, has caused medicine to regress, and it is now back to where it started when Hahnemann wrote (Organon, §1): “It is high time that those who call themselves doctors stopped deceiving poor humans with their gibberish and finally started to act, i.e., to really help and heal.”

Yes, it is high time that this changes…

Author note: I’m grateful here to David Little who was my mentor in this matter. This chapter On Development of the Nosodes owes much to the work “Nosodes and Sarcodes” by Dr. Gaurang Gaikwad.