Vol. 21 No. 3 June 2001

by Johanna E. G. Brieger

The physician’s aim is the relief of suffering, restoration of health, and prevention of disease. To this end all his skill, inventiveness and resources are harnessed.

“The proof of the pudding is in the eating” is a popular saying and provided the mixture does not contain poison, the physician can do worse than follow this maxim.

Efforts to reduce the incidence of upper respiratory tract infection in children and adults, particularly those who suffered attack on attack following each cold, had been relatively unsuccessful. Where asthma was present the situation looked even blacker, particularly when the patient was geographically inaccessible.

Constitutional prescribing, though procuring some improvement of general health and stamina, had done little to alter the pernicious pattern; nor had the use of Bacillinum or Nelson’s Influenza Vaccine given either according to their instructions or more frequently, any striking effect. On the contrary, the use of the latter not infrequently produced reactions which discouraged patients from taking it.

Protection against secondary infection seemed desirable and a mental review of the aetiology of these conditions led to the preparation of what is known at Nelson’s as “Dr. Brieger’s Vaccine”. Let me hasten to say at this point that it had not been my intention to give birth to a child so precipitously, particularly as my awareness of offending against all scientific principles was acute.

As well as H. influenza A and B, the vaccine contains Baccillinum, Streptococcin and Staphylococcin in the thirtieth centesimal potency. As it seemed desirable to get an effect quickly, patients were advised to take 4-6 doses once a fortnight or in severe cases once weekly in winter months. My shame at this procedure was great and fear of the consequences, should my colleagues take cognizance of this unscientific procedure, acted as blinkers and stopped me registering results. However, it was patently obvious that my phone rang less this winter than ever before. The reasons for this might be many, but as it turned out they were not what they might have been. In other words, those infections and relapse-prone individuals hardly recognize themselves. As they now order this vaccine themselves, my practice may in fact shrink, giving me cause to regret the birth of this child.

This winter it has also proven useful in the treatment of the acute infection itself. It is perhaps even more difficult to justify its use there, for there are no doubt appropriate remedies. But telephonic prescribing is not to my liking and this vaccine seemed to fit the bill better than a remedy prescribed with inadequate indications. It seemed to work, and patients who feared from previous experience to be laid up with bronchitis were pleasantly disappointed.

Those who would from the consideration of homœopathic principles reject a multiple formula may take refuge in the thought that others have trodden this path before me, in this country very few only, so that their faltering footsteps have barely left a mark. On the continent it is very broad indeed! The compulsion to relieve, if not to cure, overruled all valid objections. An autogenous vaccine would in my opinion be an even better way of combating the pernicious pattern of recurrent respiratory infection with or without spasm. In practice this is more difficult and expensive. Finally accept my apologies for the apparent arrogance of christening a remedy with my name. This indeed had not been my intention. As, however, a placebo effect cannot be completely discounted, it might be best to accept this situation at least for the time being.

from the British Homœopathic Journal, April 1977