Homoeoprophylaxis – a Proven Alternative to Vaccination

[Guest guest]

Homoeoprophylaxis – a Proven Alternative to Vaccination

_http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/homoeoprophylaxis-%e2%80%93-a

-proven-alternative-to-vaccination_

(http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/homoeoprophylaxis-–-a-proven-al\

ternative-to-vaccination)

By _Dr Isaac Golden_

(http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/author/igolden/)

I prepared my first formal program of homoeopathic remedies to prevent

infectious diseases in 1986 _1_

(http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/homoeoprophylaxis-–-a-proven-al\

ternative-to-vaccination#a) . In the

following 20+ years, tens of thousands of Australian children have been

immunized

homoeopathically – a method called homoeoprophylaxis (HP) – using

programs from myself as well as other practitioners across the country. The

method

itself is over 200 years old, and has considerable clinical and research

experience to support its claims.

In 2004, I integrated 18 years of data collection from parents of children

using my program with 4 years of doctoral research at Swinburne University

in Melbourne. The purpose of this article is to share with you the

findings of this and other research into the effectiveness and safety of HP.

Background

The use of HP was first described by Dr Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of

homoeopathy, in 1801 _2_

(http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/homoeoprophylaxis-–-a-proven-al\

ternative-to-vaccination#a) . He used the remedy

Belladonna 30 to successfully treat patients with the disease Scarlet

Fever, but fortuitously found that the remedy also helped to prevent the

disease. He then used HP to prevent such diseases as Cholera and Typhoid. In

the

decades following, many leading homoeopaths used HP to prevent a variety of

infectious diseases, mainly in acute epidemic situations _3_

(http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/homoeoprophylaxis-–

-a-proven-alternative-to-vaccination#a) .

The largest trial of the short-term use of HP was against an outbreak of

Meningococcal disease in Brazil. The researchers gave 65,826 children the

homoeopathic remedy Meningococcinum. Another 23,539 were not protected. The

effectiveness of HP after 6 months was 95%, and after a 12 months follow-up

was 91% plum _4_

(http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/homoeoprophylaxis-–-a-proven-al\

ternative-to-vaccination#a) .

Whilst many homoeopaths also use HP for long-term prevention (mainly in

Australia and the Indian subcontinent), there had been very little formal

statistical research into the long-term use of HP prior to 1985. The data I

have collected since that time provides a useful guide as to the

effectiveness and safety of long-term HP. It confirms that the findings

regarding

epidemic use also extend to long-term use, with an average effectiveness of

around 90%, and a very high level of safety. These findings are presented

below.

The Effectiveness of Homoeoprophylaxis

As mentioned above, we have a considerable amount of clinical evidence

showing that HP provides a high level of protection against targeted

infectious diseases. This is supported by a small number of statistical trials

which

are summarised in Table 1 below. These show an average effectiveness of

around 90%, which certainly is comparable to measures of vaccine

effectiveness, which range from 70% to 99%, depending on the individual

vaccine, and

the type of trial used to measure efficacy (real-world experiences show lower

rates than clinical trials) _5_

(http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/homoeoprophylaxis-–-a-proven-al\

ternative-to-vaccination#a) .

These figures confirm that no method of disease prevention is ever 100%

effective.

No statistical study is ever perfect, and of course the reliability of my

data is open to question. So as part of my Swinburne research, I applied

seven statistical tests to validate the long-term data I have been collecting

since 1985. These are described in detail elsewhere_6_

(http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/homoeoprophylaxis-–

-a-proven-alternative-to-vaccination#a) , and they did show a high level of

reliability. For example, my

single figure measure of long-term HP effectiveness was 90.4%, with 95%

confidence limits of 87.6% - 93.2% (i.e. it can be stated with 95% confidence

that the efficacy lies between 87.6% AND 93.2%), a very strong result.

Table 1: The Effectiveness of HP – Statistical Trials in Humans

Year

Researcher*

Numbers of Participants

Length of Survey

Effectiveness %

1907

Eaton

2,806

< 1 year

97.5

1950

Taylor-Smith

82 (12 definitely exposed)

< 1 year

100.0

1963

Gutman

385

< 1 year

86.0

1974

Castro & Nogeira

HP 18,000Not HP 6,340

3 months

86.1

1987

English

694

2 years

87.0 - 91.5

1987

Fox

61

5 years

82.0 - 95.0

1998

Mroninski et al

HP 65,826Not HP 23,539

6 months12 months

95.091.0

1997

Golden

593 children

1,305 questionnaires

10 years

88.8

2004

Golden

1,159 children 2,342 questionnaires

15 years

90.4

* References for these studies may be found in Vaccination and

Homoeoprophylaxis – A Review of Risks and Alternatives, 6th edition_7_

(http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/homoeoprophylaxis-–

-a-proven-alternative-to-vaccination#a)

So those in pharmaceutical medicine who state that there is no evidence

supporting the effectiveness of HP are clearly wrong. It is not essential to

rely only on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to provide evidence, and in

fact the findings of many RCTs are shown to be questionable over time (e.g.

drugs such as Vioxx that were tested in RCTs, then later withdrawn from

use because of side-effects not discovered or acknowledged during the RCTs).

Thus homoeopaths can confidently say that HP provides a definite level of

protection against targeted infectious diseases, which is not 100%, but

which is comparable to that of vaccines.

The Safety of Homoeoprophylaxis

Homoeopathic medicines are usually prepared using a series of dilutions

and succussions (firm striking of the container holding the liquid remedy

against a firm surface). The remedies are called “potencies†because at

each

stage they become energetically stronger. After the 12c potency, no

molecules of the original substance remain, yet the remedy is energetically

stronger. Pharmaceutical advocates cannot understand this, because their

paradigm

forces them to believe that as the number of molecules of a substance

decreases in a medicine, the medicine becomes weaker. This is true if the

kinetic energy of the succussion is not correctly applied, and a simple

dilution

only is prepared. But we are making much more than a simple dilution.

Doctors agree that homoeopathic potencies cannot be toxic, and so physical

safety is not an issue. However, some homoeopaths have expressed concerns

over the years as to whether the long-term use of the remedies in my HP

program is energetically safe. Many people who are not bound to the

pharmaceutical paradigm understand that energy can produce real and tangible

effects,

and if misused can cause problems. One important part of my research at

Swinburne was to check the long-term safety of HP.

This was done by examining 5 markers of overall wellbeing in children aged

between 4 and 12 years of age - asthma, eczema, ear/hearing problems,

allergies and behavioural problems. These were compared to a range of early

childhood markers, including breastfeeding status, birth weight, APGAR scores,

as well as to 4 possible immunization methods – vaccination, HP,

general/constitutional prevention, and no prevention at all. That gave 20 (5 x

4)

possible combinations of health conditions and immunization methods. The data

was processed using Odds Ratios and Chi Squared Probability tests.

Once again, the full results are reported in detail elsewhere _8_

(http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/homoeoprophylaxis-–

-a-proven-alternative-to-vaccination#a) , but the main findings are as follows:

1. In 19 of the 20 possible measures of health, vaccinated children

were less healthy than other children, usually by a significant amount (the 1

measure favouring vaccination was not statistically significant). The most

dramatic single finding was that vaccinated children have a 15 times

greater chance of becoming asthmatic than children using HP, with P>99%, a

highly statistically significant finding.

2. Children using HP were generally at least as healthy (and often

more healthy) as children who used constitutional/general immunization or no

immunization at all. The HP group were not exclusively from people who were

extremely health conscious. Regularly, parents using my HP program say that

it is their first introduction to homoeopathy and to natural medicine in

general.

3. Parental estimates of general wellbeing were very high in the HP

group – at least as high as in other groups.

4. Not all HP programs give consistent results. When comparing

children using my HP program to those using other HP programs, the levels of

both

effectiveness and safety were lower in the group using other programs.. So

it is advisable to check the basis of a HP program before committing to

it.. Programs using daily doses of low potencies provide less effective

long-term prevention than programs using infrequent doses of (appropriately

selected) high potencies.

We may conclude from the parts of my data which were statistically

significant (P?95%), that HP is associated with an improvement in general

health,

compared to other immunization methods (as well as no immunization at all),

and that this figure is significantly better when compared to vaccinated

children. Therefore we may conclude that the evidence suggests that the use

of an appropriate long-term HP program does not lessen the health of

children, and evidence suggests that it may in fact assist the maturation of

the

immune system by gently challenging the system in the first 5-6 years of

life.

Concluding Comments

What began as a limited study 20 years ago has grown, for me, into an

ongoing attempt to make parents, as well as health professionals, aware of the

wonderful opportunity that homoeoprophylaxis offers to provide protection

against target infectious diseases, without risking the long-term health of

their children. It may be safely used by adults.

Not every infectious disease is a dire threat to a healthy infant. I

personally don’t believe that immunization against every infectious disease

is

essential. But I do believe that the right to choose which diseases should

be prevented should belong to the parents of each child. We can confidently

say to parents that they can provide a high (but not complete) level of

protection against targeted diseases, without risk, by using an appropriate HP

program.

We can also say to those within the pharmaceutical industry who disparage

HP as being untested and uncertain - take the time to study the facts

available. Criticism without facts is the anthesis of the true scientific

method, yet it is the response we continually get from pharmaceutical medicine

when it comes to HP.

I concluded my doctoral thesis by saying that “a national immunization

system, where both vaccination and HP were available to parents, would

increase the national coverage against targeted infectious diseases, and reduce

the incidence of some chronic health conditions, especially asthmaâ€_9_

(http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/homoeoprophylaxis-–

-a-proven-alternative-to-vaccination#a) . The data is unambiguous, and it is

time that

those who run the health services of this country get serious about long-term

health, and fully support the use of the best of what natural medicine in

general, and homoeopathic medicine in particular, has to offer.

Vaccines offer a level of protection against targeted infectious diseases,

but involve a long-term risk that has never been adequately measured.

Evidence shows that vaccination is a factor in the increase in asthma (and

other chronic diseases) shown earlier. We can achieve a comparable level of

protection, without this risk, by using an appropriate long-term HP program. It

’s time that those parents who search for facts to inform themselves

before vaccinating are encouraged, and not attacked by agents of the

pharmaceutical industry. It’s time that parents are supported in their choice

of

immunization method, for the benefit of their own children and of the entire

community.

1 Golden I. Vaccination – A Homoeopathic Perspective. Nature & Health. Vol

7. No.3. Sept 1986, pages 67-70.

2 Hahnemann S. The Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever. 1801. Republished

in Lesser Writings. B Jain Publishers, New Delhi; pp. 369-385.

3 Golden I. Homœoprophylaxis – A Practical and Philosophical Review.

2001. Isaac Golden Publications, Daylesford, Australia. 3rd edition.

4 Mroninski C, Adriano E, Mattos G. Meningococcinum: Its protective effect

against meningococcal disease. Homoeopathic Links Winter, 2001. Vol 14(4);

pp. 230-4.

5 National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC). The Australian

Immunisation Handbook, 8th Edition. 2003. Commonwealth of Australia,

Canberra.

6 Golden I. Homoeoprophylaxis - A Fifteen Year Clinical Study. 2004. Isaac

Golden Publications. Daylesford.

7 Golden I. Vaccination and Homoeoprophylaxis – A Review of Risks and

Alternatives, 6th edition. 2005. Isaac Golden Publications. Daylesford.

8 Golden I. Homoeoprophylaxis - A Fifteen Year Clinical Study. 2004. Isaac

Golden Publications. Daylesford.

9 Golden I. The Potential Value of Homœoprophylaxis in the Prevention of

Infectious Diseases, and the Maintenance of General Health in Recipients.

2005. Swinburne University Press, Melbourne.

About the Author...

Dr Isaac Golden has been in homoeopathic practice since 1984. He has

written 8 books on homoeopathic topics and currently consults in Gisborne,

Victoria. Since 1990, he has been Principal of _the A.C.H.H._

(http://users.netconnect.com.au/~i_golden/) , a correspondence college teaching

homoeopathy

and has recently been appointed as Adjunct Professor of Homoeopathy at _the

Australian College of Natural Medicine_ (http://www.acnm.edu.au/) . He is a

world authority on the use of homoeoprophylaxis, and has completed the

world’s largest long term trial of the method. He was awarded a PhD from

Swinburne University in 2004 as a result of the research on HP he has undertaken

over the last 20 years. Click _here_ (http://www.homstudy.net/) for

further information about Dr Golden and his publications.