Indications of Bowel Nosodes

indications for the use of Bowel nosodes In diseases….


My remarks will be addressed, on this occasion, to those doctors who have no means of obtaining bacteriological reports on stool culture, but who may wish to try out the use of these nosodes in their practice.

I suggest that we divide the cases to be considered into two groups:-

(1) New Case. A patient who has not received homoeopathic treatment.

(2) old Case. A patient who has been under homoeopathic treatment but who may not be responding to the treatment given.

In using the bowel nosodes it must always be remembered that they are deep acting remedies and cover the totality of symptoms from the higher level, the “mentals”, to the lowest of “gross pathology” and that they also ever the life history of a patient from must be earliest childhood to adult life or old age.

The taking of the case history” is therefore of great importance in the choice of the nosode for a particular case, and attention given to the “past” as well as the “present symptoms.

New Case. Where there is a definite symptoms picture which points to a remedy, this should be given, and not a nosode. In many cases, however, the choice may lie within a number of possible remedies and it is in this difficulty that one may use the list of remedies and the associated bowel nosodes.

If, for example, Sulphur, Calcarea reference to the table would show that the Morgan-pure (Paterson) was related to each of these and could be considered to over the totality of the symptoms. In practice this is found to be so and proves the bowel nosodes to be deep and broad acting remedies.

As another example, the choice might lie within the group of remedies Mercurius viv., Phosphorus, Silicea, in which case the nosode Gaertner (Bach) would be indicated.

In this way it is possible to the choose the nosode from the list of possible remedies for a given case, but the next question to decide is that of potency and repetition of dose.

As in general homoeopathic practice the more obvious the “mentals” the higher the potency, but if there are marked pathological symptoms the general rule is to employ the lower potencies.

With outstanding “mentals” I prefer the nosode in 1m potency or higher, if obtainable, but if there is obvious evidence of advanced pathological conditions such as advanced rheumatoid arthritis, or malignancy, I would employ the 6c potency and give this in a daily dose over a period, the duration of which would be determined by clinical observation and evidence of reaction.

Between these extremes there is an intermediate level of potency-the 30c-which I have found useful where there is a combination of acute and chronic, e.g. in acute broncho-pneumonia superimposed upon a chronic condition, with a miasmatic background, a tubercular diathesis.

The number and frequency of the doses of the chosen nosode can be determined only by clinical observation and experience.

The higher the potency chosen the less frequent the repetition and number of doses, is a good working rule for the use of the nosodes, but it has been found a useful practice to complement the action of a nosode in single high potency dose, with repeated doses of the low potency of an associated remedy. As example, a case of skin eruption may call for a single dose of Morgan-pure (Paterson) 1m but the intolerable itch may also call for Sulphur in the 3x to the 6c potency in repeated doses.

Also in chronic arthritis after a dose of the appropriate nosode for the case, considerable benefit to the patient may follow by the use of low potency remedy, chosen from the list of associated remedies, and given over a considerable period of time.

Old Case. This is where the patient may have had homoeopathic treatment over a period and received a considerable number of remedies with a varying degree of success of failure. These are difficult cases, even from the nosode point of view; when there is no evidence available from stool culture to give a clue to the group of remedies like to be useful, or as to the phase in which the patient is at the moment. It must be remembered that the potentized remedy can after the bowel flora and that in an “old case” potentized reedy can alter the bowel flora and that in an “old case” the remedies given may have caused a positive phase, i.e. changed the B. Coli to non-lactose fermenting bacilli, and consideration must be given to the extent of this change. If I find a percentage of non-lactose fermenting organism in a stool greater than 50 per cent, I at once determine that the administration of a bowel nosode is contra-indicated and experience has shown that a nosode given at such a time produces a negative phase with a corresponding period of vital depression in the patient.

With the uncertainty in an old case, which has had potentized remedies within one month, it is wiser to use a nosode in the 6c potency in the first instance, and so avoid the chance of a violent negative reaction.

The choice of a nosode for any can be determined by a study of the clinical history and noting the remedies which have given the greatest, although not sustained, effect. Tabulate this list of remedies and compare it with the Nosode list and the associated remedies and choose the nosode which has the greatest number within its group. In many cases there may not be apparent effect from the nosode, but it would seem that the giving of the nosode had in some manner readjusted the case, because thereafter considerable benefit follows the remedy previously given whether much effect. If there seem no apparent benefit from the nosode, do not be disappointed but repeat the remedy which has given the evidence of partial reaction before, and this time you can expect more permanent action.

One last remark, and that of warning, do not repeat a bowel nosode within three months; but if it is necessary to prescribe, select a remedy within the group, and give the remedy in high or low potency as you find indicated from the symptoms present. Finally, do not expect too much from these bowel nosodes, and then be disappointed in their use. They are valuable therapeutic agents when properly used, and their great value is in the treatment of chronic disease, the cases which are generally considered to be very resistant to any form of treatment.

John Paterson
John Paterson 1890 – 1954 was an orthodox physician who converted to homeopathy. John Paterson was a Microbiologist, who was married to Elizabeth Paterson, also a Microbiologist. They both worked at the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital and at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital.
John Paterson was President of International Homeopathic Medical League in 1939.
John Paterson wrote The Bowel Nosodes, and he was responsible for introducing them into British homeopathy n the 1920s.