Vaccinosis in Animals

Publishing a post on vaccine damage is something akin to walking into fire.  However, I felt prompted to write this particularly as a result of a recent discussion where someone asked if it could really take seven years of non-vaccination to produce a ‘clean’ litter (specifically referring to natural-rearing breeding – of any domestic species, although dogs were the primary subject) through species appropriate diet; my response was, not necessarily.  I intimated that via the use of homeopathic “clearing remedies” vaccinosis could be reversed.  I think it was a response not particularly understood and likely created more confusion as other things (primarily essential oils) were suggested as being able to do the same regarding clearing the vaccinosis.  This post then is my in-depth response as I did not feel it appropriate to do so within that group.  In order to understand this to the depth it needs to be, several issues should be addressed…therefore this is quite a long post.

Vaccinosis used to be a fringe term reserved just for us holistically-minded ‘quacks’.  However it is now being recognized by conventional veterinary medicine as one or more conditions that may occur after vaccination, taking the form of any number of auto-immune conditions and can result in development of a tumor.  Even many so-called natural health advocates (including naturopaths) think of vaccinosis as a result of “too many” vaccines and is equated with the term “vaccine damage”.  Charles Loops, DVM states:  “Vaccinosis is a disease syndrome caused by a weakness that is precipitated by vaccination.”1  One of the primary differences between these two camps of thought is that, according to the conventional side, vaccine damage or vaccinosis generally only occurs within a relatively short period of time following a vaccination; and at least some of us within the natural health camp recognize that the phenomenon can occur any time – even years following a vaccine or years after vaccinations have been halted.  Conventional medicine addresses vaccinosis if it results in a tumor by surgically removing the evidence and calling it a “cure”, although many times the tumor is never acknowledged as being precipitated by vaccination.  For non-neoplastic vaccinosis symptoms, conventional medicine will typically suggest some suppressive drugs; and if it is truly recognized as vaccinosis, perhaps some supplements or herbs with a “I don’t know what else to do” prognosis.  The natural health camp, including those that straddle the fence (e.g. “holistic” vets), views vaccinosis as another assault upon the life force and will attempt to mitigate its effects by use of species-appropriate diet changes (if not already done), various supplements, herbs, essential oils, and some will use homeopathy in a classical manner (one remedy given based upon the individual’s symptoms).  Natural health does not look to “cure” vaccinosis, buts sees its remediation as a healing process that takes place solely within and by the body; it is viewed as the opposing answer to conventional medicine’s suppression of symptoms (which they call “cure”).

I am an animal naturopath and homeopath yet I could not disagree more with both streams of thought on this subject, as well as the entire debate of healing vs cure as it is commonly bandied about.  In order to understand these phenomena and how to reconcile the seeming disparities, we need get a better understanding of what is happening now and what occurred historically to bring us to this point…this is a bit of a journey going back upstream, to borrow a phrase from Henri Bortoft (Taking Appearances Seriously), which is a process I find helpful in coming to understand many aspects in life.

The first stop on our upstream journey is understanding the fact that even though conventional medicine and natural health appear to be opposing factions, the two are in actuality the flip side of the same coin, so to speak.  They both operate in abstractness; conventional medicine speaks of disease and cure, declaring that it has “cured” something when it no longer sees any symptoms but can’t manage to connect the dots to any other symptom.  The natural health system on the other hand, has no concept of disease and therefore eschews any reference to curing.  Natural health sees that the only way to achieve a state of health is by bolstering the life – or “vital” – force of the body, allowing it to heal itself.  And thus, we find within natural health there is only a concept of dis-ease, or imbalance. The conventional system, on the other hand, doesn’t even understand what a state of health truly is.  Conventional medicine has hijacked both terms (disease and cure), falsifying both; it does not allow anyone without a so-called medical degree (veterinary or human) to use these terms.  Yet this is not true medicine, and that is the caveat – the terms they hold sway over are not the same terms as defined within true medicine (we will get to that in a moment).  Conventional medicine does not follow the laws of nature, it opposes them in every way.  On the flip side, natural health abstracts the laws of nature into one overarching idea.  This is what is generally seen as the “holistic” view – everything is a whole and it cannot be broken down into parts.  Or even worse, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  Not sure how that can happen.

The natural health system today along with the current incarnation of homeopathy (aka ‘classical’) views homeopathic remedies as substances to help to ‘balance’ the immune system or the ‘vital force’ as many like to call it.  The paradox is that everyone also seems to recognize that homeopathic remedies contain no crude substance as they exceed Avogadro’s number…yet this ‘stuff’ (the remedy) that contains no actual substance is relegated to being able to influence the substance that we know as the physical body.  The further conundrum is that some people at least in the natural health system are not comfortable with the metaphysical aspect, yet homeopathy is accepted as a natural healing modality which would seemingly ignore the fact that the (initial) action of a homeopathic remedy is nothing but metaphysical.

That brings us to another stop on the upstream journey – back a couple hundred plus years ago.  Here we find a true, complete system of medicine and a much deeper understanding of curing and healing, and paradoxically, much clarification compared to what we have today.  The knowledge of this dynamic system of medicine was initially given to us in the late 18th century.  Paracelsus had the idea of it 250+ years earlier but could never bring forth the knowledge of how to use crude poisons in a curative manner; but it was Samuel Hahnemann who was able to bring this knowledge into conscious thought.  In the ensuing years a few others have given us even greater insight into the work that Hahnemann was not able to finish in his lifetime: Antoine Bechamp, Wilhelm Reich, Gunter Enderlein, among several others – but in particular, Rudolf Steiner who brought the work of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe into a much deeper and broadened perspective.  Unfortunately homeopathy became disenfranchised after Hahnemann’s death, to the point it no longer belongs to the system of medicine he originally laid out.  What we have today is a mere ghost of the extensive work he did and the insight he set forth in his writings, of which the Organon was a part of a more complete whole.  As opposed to the abstract ‘vital force’ that the current version of homeopathy sees, Hahnemann recognized a duality of the living power; and he recognized that disease itself has a duality.  What he saw as disease has nothing to do with the labels that are placed upon physical and mental conditions today, but before we define what disease really is, we need to come to at least a brief understanding of these polarities that exists in the living power of a being – including the ‘being’ of a disease.  What follows is an abbreviated version.

We – and our animals – have two, interpenetrated aspects that allow the living body to function as we know it.  One is the sustentive aspect: this is the realm in which food nourishes and in which the body (if healthy enough) can heal itself.  This sustentive realm is one of mostly automation – which please do not translate that into meaning not intelligent, it is, very much so.  There must be communication within this realm at all levels – cellular, tissue, organ – or else nothing would get accomplished including the fact that digestion would not happen.  For instance, when the body suffers a trauma such as a cut or wound, it will make every attempt to heal itself.  The caveat to this is that if the wound is significant enough, the sustentive power ‘knows’ that it can sacrifice lesser important parts to save a vital one.  To put this into perspective, this is the principle that allows an animal caught in a trap to chew its leg off in order to survive.  This is the action in which the body will slough off dead tissue that is no longer needed.  There is no disease involved here (at least at this immediate point).  These are healing actions completely under the control of the sustentive power.  If we never interfered, a healthy body would continue to function as it should, healing itself when needed.  Of course what happens in reality is that we do interfere and many times wind up suppressing the healing action of the body, then we start having all kinds of complications.  On top of that, we actually cause many of the events that generate healing actions in the body.

The other realm of the living power is what we call the generative aspect.  This is the realm of disease.  Hahnemann saw disease as an entity, a life force of its own – he called it a wesen.  By the same token that the body can become impregnated with another life, it can become impregnated with a disease life.  And yes, males have a female aspect that allows this to happen.  A disease is an impingement upon the animal’s life force by another living force, it does not arise directly out of imbalance (within the sustentive realm) as conventional medicine would have you believe…although if imbalance continues unabated it will cause the organism to become susceptible to disease impingement.  The natural health system (including classical homeopathy) on the other hand, sees nothing but this imbalance (dis-ease) arising out of the sustentive power, and as discussed above, never recognizes any kind of actual disease.

Hahnemann further broke down the disease process…another duality, into two types of diseases.  Please understand this is not reductionism as conventional science practices – this is actually a view of multiplicity in unity; parts within a whole, which all of the parts reflect the whole.  Hahnemann saw there existed both constant (or chronic as he often called them) diseases and variable diseases.  The constant diseases are relatively few and he did not spend much ink writing about them in the Organon with the exception of a few mentions in principle; most of the constant diseases he discussed within the compilation of the Lesser Writings as well as the two volume The Chronic Diseases.  The Organon is devoted primarily to the discussion of the variable diseases, what we call the ‘pathic’ disease; and this is where much of the misinterpretation concerning homeopathy has stemmed from – both the fact that the Organon was incorrectly translated until Stephen Decker’s version and the fact the most homeopaths don’t even know about or have not read Hahnemann’s other works.  Hahnemann taught that we always need to find the etiology of any condition if we possibly can, and thus he further saw that all variable (pathic) diseases had a deeper underlying cause – meaning the constant or chronic diseases.  This is also what we can refer to as getting to the essence of a given situation as opposed to just treating symptoms, the latter being what conventional medicine does only.  We can say that pathic (variable) diseases are always spawned by an underlying constant disease, so when we remove the constant disease many times the pathic disease will abate on its own as it no longer has anything to ‘fuel’ it.  What we also need to understand, however, is that this constancy resides at the level of the disease’s essence; it may take slightly different forms – such as the so-called various forms of influenza, but this does not mean that it is a variable or pathic disease.

The really important distinction here is that within the framework of classical homeopathy (and natural health), there is no distinction between the patient and the disease – they are in essence one and the same.  This is not what Hahnemann taught.

Let’s translate this constant vs pathic disease concept into simple terms.

For the constant diseases, we always use the same remedy; i.e. there is a constant relationship between disease and remedy.  For instance whenever there is an involvement with the nerves we always use Hypericum; whenever there is blunt force trauma, we always use Arnica.  This concept also forms the basis for homeopathic first aid prescribing.

For the pathic or variable diseases we will need to consider the individual symptomology in order to determine the correct remedy.  This is the process of so-called ‘classical’ homeopathy.

Hahnemann was very aware of the laws of nature, or jurisdictions as we might call them; indeed this knowledge formed the basis of his dynamic medical system.  What has become abstracted throughout the years following his death, however, is the concept that there is only the Law of Similars.  And this is indeed the only law of nature that is effective in treating disease and belongs to the generative side; but he also recognized the Law of Opposites, which belongs to the sustentive side.  This Law of Opposites is what we utilize when we use supplements, etc – we are opposing a deficiency or excess.  This also includes the entire concept of nutrition.  There is a third jurisdiction that Hahnemann recognized, and that is the Law of Truth, or education as we might call it.  So let’s sum this aspect up:

Medicine – this falls under the Law of Similars and utilizes a potentized “like” substance that then creates a medicine of closest similarity; this is the realm of the generative power

Regimen – this is the realm of the sustentive power and includes the four cardinal aspects that sustain the physical body: nutrition, dormition (sleep), hydration, and activity/exercise; this realm embraces the Law of Opposites

Therapeutic Education – this is a realm that is used with humans, not animals for obvious reasons; our animals are subject to our false beliefs, not theirs – they have none, their beliefs are true to their nature; this is the area a practitioner will get into, for instance, in teaching the owner the aspects of a species-appropriate diet; we can utilize both the Law of Similars and the Law of Opposites here…it really all depends upon the situation

There is one more polarity concept from Hahnemann that I want to address before we begin going back downstream…and that is the dual action of a remedy.  Classical homeopathy has no real concept of this and so there remains a fear-based notion that if the wrong remedy is selected havoc can result; this is also the false belief that allows homeopaths to say things like…”nosodes have their down-side” and should not be given unless necessary.  This could not be further from the truth.  There are always two actions of a remedy: the initial action, and the counter action – which we can call the healing action.  Keep in mind there is not a definitive divide between the generative power and the sustentive power – they reside within the same body.

Initial action – belongs to the generative power; this is the first thing that occurs when a remedy is given and constitutes the action of the remedy upon the similar disease, i.e. the removal of the disease; most of the time this process goes unnoticed, however sometimes an aggravation can occur…such as ‘fighting fire with fire’, a short-lived flare-up can happen

Counter (healing) action – belongs to the sustentive power; this is the body’s attempt to fill the void left by removal of the disease; in diseases born of nature this healing action is typically minimal; unfortunately when we get into removing the man-made diseases (e.g. vaccines) that is when we can get the strongest healing actions, and some of this intensity also depends upon both the current as well as historical regimen of the animal

Let’s now start our journey back downstream and begin putting all these concepts together into an understanding of vaccine damage in our animals.  The first concept to understand is the difference between vaccine damage and vaccine disease.  As we discussed above, this has been abstracted into one singular idea.  When we vaccinate we are engendering an iatrogenic disease (which is a constant disease), there are no two ways around it.  We can call this vaccinosis if you like, but to keep things clear let’s simply call this vaccine disease.  The vaccine damage follows the impingement of the disease itself, and the damage in turn is what causes the symptoms we see.  As we can imagine if this is never corrected – i.e., the disease never removed – the damage can be passed onto future generations.  And that in a nutshell, is why some people think it takes up to seven generations of species-appropriate regimen to remove vaccine damage.

We refer to removing the vaccine disease as ‘clearing the timeline’ of that particular event.  In actuality, all traumatic timeline events should be cleared; however vaccination and drugs are by far the most damaging to our animals.  Now there are no guarantees that even when clearing the vaccine damage in a given individual that a state of health will automatically ensue.  Again, please remember that the animal is not an island – they are influenced by our emotions and false beliefs; their history of regimen will influence the ability to recover, and so on.

Lets’ take a couple of illustrative examples – Fido and Fifi (and this will apply to any species…dog, cat, horse, etc, but I will use dog as example).

Fido is a young dog, only about three or so; he had one round of rabies vaccine as a pup and has been raw-fed his entire post-weaning life; he was bred from a naturally-reared sire and dam that had minimal vaccination.  Clearing the timeline of Fido should be relatively straight-forward and with little consequence, and even though the sire and dam were never cleared of vaccine disease, there would very likely not be any inheritance of Fido’s offspring of vaccine damage.

Fifi on the other hand is a pure bred dog, about five years or so, that was adopted out because the owner could no longer take care of her; it is obvious that she has not only been vaccinated according to schedule (multiple times/year) she has also suffered emotional trauma; she was kibble fed all her life until her new owner took her in about a year ago, and it is a safe assumption that she comes from generations of kibble-fed dogs.  Clearing her timeline of traumatic events including the vaccine diseases, along with the now safe environment and appropriate diet, will certainly help her regain health; nevertheless one has to consider that the previous damage done may be too great for the sustentive power to effect complete healing; e.g. she may always have itchy skin or conjunctivitis flare-ups no matter what else is done.  She is a dog that would quite likely go thru fairly intense healing actions during timeline clearing, and that is a specific reason to go slowly in a situation like this.  I would also just about guarantee this dog, given her history, would pass along vaccine damage to offspring…in other words, she is a dog that should never be bred no matter how lucrative her blood line appears.  And this is where the problem lies so many times…the stock that keeps being bred does nothing but exacerbate and continue the vaccine damage.

 In the above example, if you bred Fifi and bred her offspring for the next seven generations without appropriately clearing the timeline (i.e. you only used proper nutrition, essential oils, supplements, etc), yes you may eventually see a reduction in the symptoms of the vaccine disease, but the disease itself remains.  What can – and does – happen in a situation like this is that some kind of event will trigger the vaccine disease out of its latency…one of the future generation pups is sold to a person that does not completely adhere to natural rearing principles, perhaps is forced by local law to give a rabies vaccine or the owner is gone for a week or so and the sitter feeds kibble, etc.  That is when the suppressed disease will rear it ugly head.

This is a long, complicated post especially for those that are not familiar with these concepts; I invite honest questions and discussion, however if all you wish to do is bash what I say here, then please do so else where.  Thank you.

If you wish to obtain a consult with me concerning timeline treatment, please see the Consultations page.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s