The Biotherapics are medicines prepared from products of microbial origin, of secretions or excretions which are pathological or not, of tissues of animals or vegetables and allergens. These include Nosodes and Sarcodes….

Some definitions

The decision of the Government of France of 21st December, 1948 defines a category of medicines “called Nosodes” which was submitted for the authorisation of the Commission of Serums and Vaccines. But the Commission have never agreed to give the authorisation, the Nosodes were therefore suspended and replaced by the Biotherapics which obtained a visa of Specialities under well defined conditions.

The monograph of the Codex had defined these medicines which becomes officialised:

“The Biotherapics are some medicines prepared in advance and are obtained from products of microbian origin which is not chemically defined, of secretions or excretions which are pathological or not, of tissues of animals or vegetables and allergens. These different substances then carry the name of the stocks for Biotherapics”

Biotherapics may be divided into three categories:

—The biotherapics of which the basis are serums, vaccines, toxins or anatoxins which are officialised.

—The Biotherapics of which the base is of pure microbian cultures.

—The complex Biotherapics, defined only by the method of their preparations of the method of obtaining them. In this last category are found the Biotherapics (ex-nosodes) of which the most important are: Pyrogenum, Luesinum, Psorinum, Medorrhinum.

The nosodes and isopathics

The same legislation defines:

“The Nosodes sont des preparations in Homoeopathy obtained from microbian cultures of virus, secretion and excretions which are pathological.” and is added further:

“The biotherapics are called the nosodes of which the stock comes by the patient himself”

There is therefore a new precision: Legally one cannot consider as Isopathics but the substances that come from the patient himself and is prepared for him (autogenous origin), to the exclusion of all substances exterior to the patient (exogenous). The last ones are therefore some special preparations of which the stocks vary according the choice of the doctor and used according to his demand.

There are however some different ordinary magistral preparations because the stocks are individual and is often given by the patient himself (dust, flowers, flours, hairs of goods of cats, of horses etc.)

Should these substances are to be considered as allergens? But what are allergens in fact? Do they exist, are they some substances of definite chemical composition, of biological action, precise, constant, and measurable on animals?

Certainly not because the allergens produces only some reactions in the persons who are allergic to these substances. Then these allergens act in individuals only whose individuals organism play an important part in cases of allergy. A patient becomes sensitive to an allergen but another patient may not be sensitive to an allergen.

If this is the case than legislation of biotherapics from allergen is an impossibility. And as these substances have not pathogenesis it is also impossible to individualise its action.

From the practical point of view and in order that we should conform to the legislation, we should only those substances as Isopathics or Isotherapics that which are supplied by the patient himself.

Can we place the Nosodes in the same category of Isotherapics? We know that the isotherapics are specifics of some particular diseases. But can we call Psorinum, Tuberculinum, Medorrhinum, Syphilinum specifics? Yes, we may call them as specifics but at the same time they are well experimented on healthy human body and they have some complete pathogenesis, which prove well that the nosodes may be used in different other diseases than those from which they have originated. For this reason Pierre Schmidt defines a nosode as “Application of an attenuated dose of a pathogenous product for cutting the disease from which it has originated. If it is used after having been experimented on the healthy human body it becomes “Nosode”. (Hahnemann’s Organon, 6th edition, Glossary, p. 20)

The preparation of Isopathics.

(a) Collection: The collection should be made aseptically, and is received, either in a dry sterile phial or in a phial containing diluted sterile glycerine.

We have chosen this mixture because it assures, at the same time a perfect lysate of figured elements, better conservation of biological liquids.

Generally the simple sterile phials are reserved for the squams, crusts, urine, or any other substances without the fear of being weakened or dessicated.

The phials containing glycerine are utilised for the blood, the pus and generally for all substance that may become weakened. In the case where the collection is done in a swab which is sterile, the swab is introduced soaked with the collection in a phial containing the glycerine. It is the liquid of maceration thus obtained which will be the stock.

Mauritius Fortier-Bernoville
Mauritius (Maurice) Fortier Bernoville 1896 – 1939 MD was a French orthodox physician who converted to homeopathy to become the Chief editor of L’Homeopathie Moderne (founded in 1932; ceased publication in 1940), one of the founders of the Laboratoire Homeopathiques Modernes, and the founder of the Institut National Homeopathique Francais.

Bernoville was a major lecturer in homeopathy, and he was active in Liga Medicorum Homeopathica Internationalis, and a founder of the le Syndicat national des médecins homœopathes français in 1932, and a member of the French Society of Homeopathy, and the Society of Homeopathy in the Rhone.

Fortier-Bernoville wrote several books, including Une etude sur Phosphorus (1930), L'Homoeopathie en Medecine Infantile (1931), his best known Comment guerir par l'Homoeopathie (1929, 1937), and an interesting work on iridology, Introduction a l'etude de l'Iridologie (1932).

With Louis-Alcime Rousseau, he wrote several booklets, including Diseases of Respiratory and Digestive Systems of Children, Diabetes Mellitus, Chronic Rheumatism, treatment of hay fever (1929), The importance of chemistry and toxicology in the indications of Phosphorus (1931), and Homeopathic Medicine for Children (1931). He also wrote several short pamphlets, including What We Must Not Do in Homoeopathy, which discusses the logistics of drainage and how to avoid aggravations.

He was an opponent of Kentian homeopathy and a proponent of drainage and artificial phylectenular autotherapy as well.