Isaac Golden's article which was referenced in this discussion
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:22 pm
http://www.lyghtforce.com/HomeopathyOnL ... golden.htm
Homeopathic Disease Prevention
by Isaac Golden
1. Introduction
The first documented use of specific homoeopathic medicines to prevent
specific infectious diseases, a method known as Homoeoprophylaxis (HP), was
in 1801.
In that year Dr Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homoeopathy, wrote an
essay titled The Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever in which he described
his success with the use of the remedy Belladonna 30 to treat patients with
scarlet fever. He also described how he used the remedy to prevent
infection in others.
The remedy was chosen because of the similarity between the symptoms which
Belladonna was known to produce when given to healthy people, and the
common symptoms of scarlet fever. This use of the Law of Similars - the
foundation law of homoeopathy - to select remedies for both the treatment
and prevention of diseases has been used by homoeopaths since 1801 to offer
disease-specific prevention.
The list of practitioners who have described their use of HP remedies to
prevent specific disease reads like a who?s who of master homoeopaths.
However there has been opposition both from orthodox medical practitioners
and from some homoeopaths to the use of HP. The former claim it does not
work, (something which they also claim of homoeopathic treatment), while
the latter claim it is philosophically inappropriate or should only be used
in acute situations.
We shall examine both viewpoints in the following sections. First we shall
present evidence showing the safety and the efficacy of HP. Second we shall
outline the main objections to the use of HP and attempt to fully answer
all these objections. In this way we hope to present a balanced view of
this difficult and at times controversial topic.
2. The Historical Evidence Supporting Homoeoprophylaxis
As mentioned above, many homoeopaths since Hahnemann have described their
use of HP. They include the greatest practitioners such as Boenninghausen
1849 (p. 303), Burnett 1884, Kent 1900 (p. 229), Close 1920 (p. 20),
Shepherd 1967, Sankaran 1972, Speight 1982, Eizayaga 1991 (pp. 282-286) and
many many others (see list of references below).
This list should cause homoeopaths who oppose the use of HP to carefully
consider why they believe that Hahnemann and these other masters were
wrong, yet they themselves are correct!
It is relevant here to describe briefly my own experience with HP. I have
been offering parents an HP program since 1986. I began collecting
statistical information at this time, and I have recently reanalyzed the
first 10 years of questionnaires which have been returned by parents whose
children used my program.
Over this period I have collected 1,305 questionnaires, each of which
covered one year of a child?s life. The analysis is not statistically
perfect due to a response rate below 70% (a statistically significant
cut-off point), but it does contain a great deal of unique practical
information.
Apart from the contact with parents using my program, I am regularly called
by other parents and other practitioners. I have also published two books
on the subject, and have written many articles and appeared on major media
outlets. Thus while the provision of HP is a very minor part of my income,
it occupies a major part of my time and energy.
Table 1 describes the program I am currently using, and Table 2 summarises
my accumulated results to date:
3. The Safety and Efficacy of Homoeoprophylaxis
(a) Safety
All sides of the debate agree that HP remedies, like all homoeopathic
potencies, are non-toxic. This does not mean however that they cannot at
times cause reactions. Just as with homoeopathic treatment, so with HP, the
medicines may stimulate the patient?s healing energy and they may have a
clearing or detoxifying effect.
My research indicates that about 10% of children who used my program
reacted in some way. The majority of reactions were very mild and very
brief. Of great interest were a number of comments linking disease exposure
and reaction to remedies. For example, the parents of a number of children
who reacted to the remedy Diphtherinum (the Diphtheria Nosode) reported
having had the disease diphtheria in their childhood. The remedy had a
clearing and also, most probably, a healing effect.
An analysis of comments made by many parents at the end of their
questionnaires showed that the overall health of children using the program
was generally excellent, and time and again parents stated that their
children were much more healthy than their peers.
So there was no evidence in my survey to suggest that the use of HP in any
way lowered the general health of those children using the program. The
reverse was true. Therefore we may conclude that HP does offer a non-toxic,
non-invasive method of disease prevention.
(b) Efficacy
My survey suggests that HP provides an 89% rate of protection. This
includes reports of diseases which were so mild that at times there was
uncertainty whether the child had actually contracted the disease
mentioned. I believe that 89% is a conservative estimate of efficacy.
This level of efficacy is more than comparable with the rates of protection
for vaccines suggested in medical journals. These rates range from 75% to
95%, and may be considered best estimates. Nothing on this planet can offer
100% protection against an infectious disease.
The real importance of my study is that it supports the historical evidence
of the efficacy of HP. Even though no other major long-term studies have
been undertaken there is considerable clinical evidence over 200 years
showing a high level of protection using HP.
My own study and experience, as well as that of others, strongly suggests
that HP does offer a higher level of disease-specific prevention than
methods of general prevention which do not target specific diseases.
This is what we would intuitively expect, and in no way lessens the great
value of methods used to generally improve immune competence - methods such
as good diet, a stable emotional environment, chiropractic and osteopathic
corrections, and most importantly anti-miasmic constitutional homoeopathic
treatment.
( c) Conclusion
It is apparent from the above information that HP offers a non-toxic method
of disease-specific prevention, that it does stimulate the healing response
which at times leads to mild reactions in users, and that it does offer a
significant level of protection at least comparable to that of vaccines.
If nothing else , it is therefore reasonable to conclude that HP is a
genuine alternative to vaccination.
The next question is whether we should actually give such protection, and
if so whether HP is the best method available.
To answer this we shall now consider arguments against HP by some homoeopaths.
4. Arguments Against Homoeoprophylaxis by Some Homoeopaths
Some practitioners believe that HP is not based on homoeopathic principles.
As stated earlier, the selection of homoeopathic medicines in treatment is
based on the Law of Similars. However the selection of the remedies used in
HP is based on the same Law, i.e. the HP remedy is capable of producing in
a healthy person symptoms which are similar to the common symptoms of the
targeted disease or is capable of removing in an unwell person such common
symptoms.
In homoeopathic treatment remedies are administered according to the Law of
Minimum Dose, which states that only the smallest amount of remedy needed
to induce a healing response is used. In my HP program the same Law is used
in selecting the dose for each individual disease/remedy combination, i.e.
I use the smallest dose of each remedy which I believe will induce a
reliable medium-term protective response to the targeted disease.
Thus it is not correct to state that HP is inconsistent with the
homoeopathic principles developed by Hahnemann. This is why Hahnemann
himself used HP, and was a strong advocate of disease prevention in some
situations.
Some practitioners believe that we should allow patients to contract
infectious diseases, and then treat the resulting symptoms, rather than try
to prevent the disease.
In part this argument derives from the idea that HP is inconsistent with
homoeopathic principles, whereas we have shown that it is not.
It is true that many infectious diseases are quite mild in healthy
children, and that they are easily treated using homoeopathic medicines.
This of course presumes that an experienced practitioner is readily
available, a situation which often does not exist in geographically large
countries such as Australia.
It also presumes that the child already has a reasonable immune competence,
something which a malnourished child living in unsanitary conditions often
does not enjoy.
However it is true that the process of acquiring and combating simple
infectious diseases helps to mature a child?s immune system over the early
years.
I am not aware of any evidence which suggests that a child must get all
infectious diseases to be fully healthy. In fact such a proposition sounds
and is quite silly.
Personally I have no problems with allowing healthy children to contract
diseases such as measles and mumps, and then treat. This is what I do with
my own children. However I also have no doubt that I would rather prevent
diseases such as whooping cough in a tiny infant rather than have to treat
(which I of course have done many times), even though homoeopathy does
provide excellent treatment. The process is potentially traumatic to both
the child and the parents.
I make it clear in my program that it is the parent?s decision which
diseases they want to prevent.
The issue of parent?s choice is the next one to consider.
Some practitioners believe that parents should not be allowed to choose the
method of disease prevention for their children.
At first this will sound like an appalling suggestion to many readers.
However some homoeopaths sincerely believe that (a) constitutional
treatment is the only sound method of disease prevention and/or (b) that
allowing a child to acquire an infectious disease and then treat is the
only true homoeopathic method.
These practitioners believe they have a duty to guide the parents to what
the practitioner believes is best for the child, and if at first the
parents do not understand or agree then they should be persuaded by the
practitioner.
Of course the validity of this approach depends in the first instance on
the practitioner?s views being correct. I for one do not agree with either
(a) or (b) above, nor apparently did the founder of homoeopathy who used HP.
I do believe that the issue of disease prevention is one of the most
difficult that any parent can face. If a parent does what they genuinely
believe is best for their child, after considering differing points of
view, then they can do no more. I personally feel happy to support such
parents whatever their decision.
I have patients who vaccinate their children. I am ready to help them
irrespective of my personal views on vaccination. I have patients who use
only constitutional treatment and not HP, some who use HP, and some who
only use homoeopathy for acute problems and employ no method of disease
prevention. They all have my support.
Some practitioners believe that it is disruptive to give a patient
homoeopathic remedies when there is no disease present.
In practice our knowledge of homoeopathic remedies is based on the process
called provings . A complete proving is in fact a double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial.
This process involves giving people homoeopathic potencies when there is no
disease present.
Hahnemann himself said that properly conducted provings will do a person no
harm, and in fact will help improve a patient?s health.
Similarly, there is no reason why the effect of judicious use of HP
remedies will be any different to that of regular provings and, as I stated
above, my empirical research makes it clear that children using my program
enjoyed excellent general health.
Another point here is that many practitioners who argue that HP is
disruptive to a child?s health would at the same time agree that well
managed challenges by infectious diseases help to mature a child?s immune
system.
It has been suggested by some that use of appropriate disease-specific
remedies actually provides a challenge similar to a very mild attack of the
disease. This suggestion is supported in part by reports of antibody
stimulation after the use of disease-specific remedies in some cases (there
are also reports where antibodies were not stimulated).
If this is correct then the judicious use of HP should also help to safely
mature a child?s immune system. This possibility is consistent with
parent?s reporting a high level of general health and well-being in their
children using my HP program.
Some practitioners believe that we should only use constitutional treatment
to prevent infectious diseases.
This follows from the knowledge that constitutional treatment will increase
resistance in general to all diseases, and lessen the severity of the
symptoms if a disease is contracted.
In my own practice I have a number of patients who do not use HP remedies
at all, and rely totally on constitutional treatment for infectious disease
prevention. I am very happy with this because the parents know and
understand what they are doing, and share my confidence in the validity of
this approach to their child?s health.
However many parents do not feel comfortable with using only constitutional
treatment (many who approach me have no idea what homoeopathy is). Once I
explain homoeopathy to the best of my ability, I do not believe it is then
my job to either make them change their minds or refuse their reasonable
request to use a reliable disease prevention method which is safer than
vaccination.
I tell the parents what their options are, and it is their decision what to
do next.
I wish to state clearly again that I do believe that constitutional
treatment is very effective and is the best one can do over time to give
one?s child the best possible total health. I also believe that
constitutional treatment does not prevent individual infectious diseases as
effectively as the correctly chosen disease-specific remedy.
When I have parents who wish to use both constitutional treatment and HP,
then the former takes precedence over the latter, and the HP remedies are
timed to fit in with the constitutional doses. The HP program is simply
delayed when appropriate to do so. Any suggestion that I would not use the
constitutional treatment until the HP program is complete is totally
incorrect.
Some practitioners believe that my program contains too many doses of
remedies.
These practitioners may agree that HP does work, but think that the dosages
are too frequent, or that the potencies are too high.
The main program directs remedies to be given on 28 occasions over five
years, on average one dose every two months. In practice doses are
frequently given less often than every two months because many parents do
not cover for every disease on the program, and many are late with doses.
But of course this is not the issue for parents who follow the full program
exactly.
I regard the triple dose of a 200, M and 10M over 24 hours as effectively a
single powerful dose of the remedy. A triple dose works as such in
treatment, and does so in prevention.
The remedies given most frequently in the program, Haemophilis, Lathyrus
Sativus and Tetanus Toxin, are given on only five occasions over the five
years - on average less than once a year. In practice, homoeopaths find
that dosing problems usually occur only when a remedy is administered at
repeated short intervals - the critical interval depends greatly on patient
sensitivity.
Annual dosing is hardly likely to cause such a problem, or cause a
?proving? type aggravation. Once again I refer to the practical experience
noted in my survey which shows no evidence of long term health problems
which overdosing would cause.
The reason for the initial single dose of 200c for each remedy is to detect
any hypersensitive patients for whom the triple dose may be too strong.
Their dosing regime is then modified appropriately.
Some practitioners believe that we should only use HP remedies to prevent
infectious diseases when there is an epidemic.
They correctly state that most of the references to HP in the literature
are to the use of the remedies in acute epidemic situations. This fact does
not in any way demonstrate that the remedies cannot be used for longer-term
prevention.
In fact it is more a reflection of the nature of many of the epidemics
which spread in clearly identifiable and predictable waves across Europe in
the 1700s and the 1800s.
Homoeopathy ?cut its teeth? on the successful treatment and prevention of
such epidemics. It is a great shame that this historical fact is not taught
in all medical as well as naturopathic and homoeopathic colleges. If it was
there would be less debate about, and more acceptance of HP today.
At present in many developed countries some diseases are constantly present.
In Australia whooping cough is always present, whether or not it is
mentioned hysterically in the media. So is measles. Polio is also a
potential threat in countries which use the oral polio vaccine.
So the dilemma for those who wish to confine the use of HP to epidemics is
this: They believe HP works; they believe it should be used to prevent
certain diseases in ?epidemic? situations; some of these diseases are
constantly present in our community.
The questions they must answer are - When is there an epidemic? How many
children need to acquire the disease (which the practitioner wanted to
prevent) before the practitioner decides it is OK to give the preventative?
How many requests for the preventative should the practitioner refuse
before giving it? Is it appropriate to refuse to give a medicine if a
parent thinks there is enough evidence of a disease being present?
Despite claims to the contrary, I have never heard a satisfactory answer to
these questions.
My answer is simple. If there is an infectious disease for which prevention
is requested, and if the disease is present in the community even though
the activity of the disease may fluctuate, then use HP.
It is available, inexpensive, safe, and highly (although not completely)
effective.
Some practitioners believe that HP remedies have not been proven to be
effective or safe.
The question of what constitutes proof is an interesting one. Many
modalities of traditional medicine had been shown to work in practice for
decades or centuries before ?medical science? accepted the fact. Until
?medical science? was able to prove in its own terms that the modality had
an understandable mechanism of action, it refused to accept the practical
reality of its clinical efficacy.
Modalities such as herbal medicine, acupuncture, naturopathic dietary
advice were all ridiculed by ?medical science? and are now being belatedly
accepted as effective.
Homoeopathy is presently being ridiculed by medical scientists, and in time
it will be proved by them to work. Millions who use homoeopathy on a daily
basis of course already know it works. They have proved the fact in the
most important laboratory of all - the real world.
True science would not be so prejudiced or closed-minded. If a method
worked, despite not being understood in terms of current medical models, a
true scientist would see this a challenge to explore a new frontier.
I began to practice homoeopathic medicine for two reasons: (a) it was
philosophically well founded and complete, and (b) I observed that it did
work.
This was all the proof that I and thousands of other homoeopathic
practitioners have needed to use the modality with confidence, and with
success. This proof applies to both treatment and prevention.
It is surprising to find a few homoeopaths who claim that HP does not work
because it has not been proved in ?scientific? terms. It has not - and
neither has homoeopathic treatment (just ask most doctors).
One homoeopath I know went to great lengths to offer a pseudo-scientific
debunking of the historical evidence showing the effectiveness of HP. He
later recanted and stated that short-term HP probably worked. Later still
he confessed that he actually would use short-term HP.
However he concluded that he had shown that long-term HP was
?unscientific?. What he showed was his erratic thought process, and he
actually proved nothing.
Some practitioners in all modalities of traditional medicine feel we need
to appear to be ?scientific?. I believe we need to be true to our own
system of medicine, and become as truly competent as possible. Science will
catch up in time.
I am not suggesting that we should not be rigorous, or do research, or
collect data. Readers know that I have attempted to do this myself. I
believe the considerable body of data which I have collected does offer
additional proof of the safety and efficacy of HP, even though it is not
scientifically perfect.
Homoeopathy is not a theory - it is a practical discipline. It has proved
its worth in its action, so let us be proud of being homoeopaths, not
apologetic because it is not accepted by another model which has no
philosophical basis and which has many practical flaws.
Some homoeopaths believe that to suggest a need for HP is playing on the
fears of some parents.
They draw a parallel between the obvious fear campaigns which orthodox
medicine uses to try to increase vaccination rates, and my statement that
HP is a safe and comparably effective alternative to vaccination, and that
I personally would prefer to prevent some diseases than have to treat.
I can understand how those practitioners who rigidly adhere to some of the
views expressed above could have this opinion.
The fear associated with using a method (vaccination) which at times has
more devastating consequences than the disease it targets is considerable.
HP can lessen or remove that fear because it is non-toxic.
As to the fear of contracting an infectious disease - as I argued above
this is justified in some cases, and unjustified in others. I do not
believe that parents? fears are increased by offering them proven options,
and by supporting their decisions.
In practice I often find that parents using my program tell me how great
their relief is when they find a safe and relatively effective method of
disease prevention.
I, like most practitioners, have had to deal with the effects of
?fear-mongering? on parents, and I do not believe the sensible use of HP
plays on parent?s fears. In fact those few vocal homoeopathic opponents of
HP appear to be creating considerable doubt (and therefore fear) in
parents? minds when no doubts are really necessary concerning the safety
and efficacy of HP.
to part 3
5. How Does Homoeoprophylaxis Work?
As with conventional homoeopathic treatment, it is not possible to provide
an explanation of the mechanism of action of HP in present-day orthodox
scientific terms.
Developments in the field of Quantum Mechanics, in the ?memory? of water
molecules, in the action of enzymes, and/or other such fields will
eventually provide orthodox science with a model which they will understand
and accept.
Homoeopathic medicine has been a safe and effective healing modality for
200 years. It works for treatment. It works for prevention. These are
demonstrable facts to all except the ardently closed-minded observer.
The mechanism of action of HP can be explained homoeopathically in terms of
predisposition or sensitivity - something homoeopaths call idiosyncrasy.
We know that there is something prior to the molecular reactions to
antigenic exposure. For example, Europeans brought what were to them simple
diseases to South Sea Islanders when first contacts were made. Many of the
Islanders died, many more fell ill, and a significant minority showed no
sign of the disease despite certain exposure.
They had not been vaccinated and did not have circulating antibodies - so
what protected that minority?
Similarly, why do many of us exposed to the flu, glandular fever, even the
common cold, remain well when others around us do not- or vice versa.
In homoeopathy we say that if a person is not idiosyncratic to the dynamic
challenge of the antigen (every physical substance has a unique energy
profile), the physiological reaction which medicos call the ?disease? will
not occur.
A person?s level of idiosyncrasy can be generally changed through
constitutional treatment, or specifically changed through antigen-specific
remedies.
So an appropriate remedy will alter the recipient?s disease-specific
sensitivity or idiosyncrasy to the dynamic challenge of the specific
antigen, which will then prevent or lessen in intensity the physiological
changes triggered by that dynamic stimulus.
For example, if a patient is allergic (hypersensitive or idiosyncratic) to
Rhus Tox trees, then by administering a potency of Rhus Tox over time the
patient?s sensitivity will lessen and, possibly disappear. In other words
the properly administered potency of the antigen can change the patient?s
level of idiosyncrasy to the antigen.
In the same way, properly administered potencies of the measles antigen can
change the recipient?s level of idiosyncrasy to the antigen. This is how HP
works in simple terms. A more complete explanation of the mechanism of
action is beyond the scope of this paper.
Some readers may find this explanation "unscientific" and totally
unacceptable. This is understandable. They should remember however that the
bottom line for any health related modality is whether it works in practice.
HP has worked for 200 years, it works now, and it will still work in 200
years time for one simple reason: -- it is founded on natural law. The
validity of the Law of Similars is unchanging.
6. Conclusions
The purpose of this paper has been to give readers a brief introduction to
the use of my HP program, and the research which I have conducted over 12
years to support the safety and efficacy of the program.
This research has been shown to support the 200 years of clinical
experience during which homoeopathic medicines have been used successfully
to both treat and prevent infectious diseases.
We have considered the principal criticisms or questions concerning HP
raised by some homoeopaths. I believe I have offered a reasonable response
to all concerns - but only the reader can make that final assessment.
I believe in flexibility within law. HP is based on the Law of Similars -
the foundation law upon which the practice of homoeopathic medicine is
based. Its use can be varied according to need. Its use can accommodate a
wide range of patient needs - from patients who use HP only in acute
epidemics, to those who employ medium-term prevention against a range of
infectious diseases.
HP can be used in conjunction with constitutional treatment if required. It
can be used by patients who have no idea of what homoeopathy is. In
practice I have found it to be a useful introduction point for many parents
into a more general use of homoeopathic medicine for their families.
It is a non-toxic method, and very safe if used correctly. It has proven to
be generally (although not completely) effective over 200 years.
I believe that homoeopaths can be both proud and grateful that through the
efforts of Samuel Hahnemann we have a healing modality which not only
offers safe and effective treatment for disease, but both general and
disease-specific prevention.
HP will continue to be, for those who understand its use, a small but
highly significant part of the great healing modality which is homoeopathic
medicine.
References to Homoeprophylaxis in the Literature
The most useful review of the literature is in the following booklet by Dr
P Sankaran, where he lists the recommendations of 92 noted homeopaths.
Sankaran, P 1971, Prophylactics in Homoeopathy. Hom. Medical Publishers
Other references include the following.
Boenninghausen, C, 1849, ?Brief Instructions for non-physicians concerning
the prophylaxis and treatment of asiatic cholera?, Lesser Writings, Jain,
1986.
Burnett, J 1884, Vaccinosis and its Cure by Thuja; with Remarks on
Homoeoprophylaxis, repub. WHL 1992.
Kent, J 1900, Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy, repub. Jain, 1954.
Close, S 1920, The Genius of Homoeopathy, repub. Jain 1991.
Shephard, D 1967, Homoeopathy in Epidemic Diseases, Health Science Press,
1981.
Speight, L 1982, Homoeopathy and Immunisation, Health Science Press.
Eizayaga, F, 1991, "Treatise on Homoeopathic Medicine", E Marecel, Buenos
Aires.
Homeopathic Disease Prevention
by Isaac Golden
1. Introduction
The first documented use of specific homoeopathic medicines to prevent
specific infectious diseases, a method known as Homoeoprophylaxis (HP), was
in 1801.
In that year Dr Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homoeopathy, wrote an
essay titled The Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever in which he described
his success with the use of the remedy Belladonna 30 to treat patients with
scarlet fever. He also described how he used the remedy to prevent
infection in others.
The remedy was chosen because of the similarity between the symptoms which
Belladonna was known to produce when given to healthy people, and the
common symptoms of scarlet fever. This use of the Law of Similars - the
foundation law of homoeopathy - to select remedies for both the treatment
and prevention of diseases has been used by homoeopaths since 1801 to offer
disease-specific prevention.
The list of practitioners who have described their use of HP remedies to
prevent specific disease reads like a who?s who of master homoeopaths.
However there has been opposition both from orthodox medical practitioners
and from some homoeopaths to the use of HP. The former claim it does not
work, (something which they also claim of homoeopathic treatment), while
the latter claim it is philosophically inappropriate or should only be used
in acute situations.
We shall examine both viewpoints in the following sections. First we shall
present evidence showing the safety and the efficacy of HP. Second we shall
outline the main objections to the use of HP and attempt to fully answer
all these objections. In this way we hope to present a balanced view of
this difficult and at times controversial topic.
2. The Historical Evidence Supporting Homoeoprophylaxis
As mentioned above, many homoeopaths since Hahnemann have described their
use of HP. They include the greatest practitioners such as Boenninghausen
1849 (p. 303), Burnett 1884, Kent 1900 (p. 229), Close 1920 (p. 20),
Shepherd 1967, Sankaran 1972, Speight 1982, Eizayaga 1991 (pp. 282-286) and
many many others (see list of references below).
This list should cause homoeopaths who oppose the use of HP to carefully
consider why they believe that Hahnemann and these other masters were
wrong, yet they themselves are correct!
It is relevant here to describe briefly my own experience with HP. I have
been offering parents an HP program since 1986. I began collecting
statistical information at this time, and I have recently reanalyzed the
first 10 years of questionnaires which have been returned by parents whose
children used my program.
Over this period I have collected 1,305 questionnaires, each of which
covered one year of a child?s life. The analysis is not statistically
perfect due to a response rate below 70% (a statistically significant
cut-off point), but it does contain a great deal of unique practical
information.
Apart from the contact with parents using my program, I am regularly called
by other parents and other practitioners. I have also published two books
on the subject, and have written many articles and appeared on major media
outlets. Thus while the provision of HP is a very minor part of my income,
it occupies a major part of my time and energy.
Table 1 describes the program I am currently using, and Table 2 summarises
my accumulated results to date:
3. The Safety and Efficacy of Homoeoprophylaxis
(a) Safety
All sides of the debate agree that HP remedies, like all homoeopathic
potencies, are non-toxic. This does not mean however that they cannot at
times cause reactions. Just as with homoeopathic treatment, so with HP, the
medicines may stimulate the patient?s healing energy and they may have a
clearing or detoxifying effect.
My research indicates that about 10% of children who used my program
reacted in some way. The majority of reactions were very mild and very
brief. Of great interest were a number of comments linking disease exposure
and reaction to remedies. For example, the parents of a number of children
who reacted to the remedy Diphtherinum (the Diphtheria Nosode) reported
having had the disease diphtheria in their childhood. The remedy had a
clearing and also, most probably, a healing effect.
An analysis of comments made by many parents at the end of their
questionnaires showed that the overall health of children using the program
was generally excellent, and time and again parents stated that their
children were much more healthy than their peers.
So there was no evidence in my survey to suggest that the use of HP in any
way lowered the general health of those children using the program. The
reverse was true. Therefore we may conclude that HP does offer a non-toxic,
non-invasive method of disease prevention.
(b) Efficacy
My survey suggests that HP provides an 89% rate of protection. This
includes reports of diseases which were so mild that at times there was
uncertainty whether the child had actually contracted the disease
mentioned. I believe that 89% is a conservative estimate of efficacy.
This level of efficacy is more than comparable with the rates of protection
for vaccines suggested in medical journals. These rates range from 75% to
95%, and may be considered best estimates. Nothing on this planet can offer
100% protection against an infectious disease.
The real importance of my study is that it supports the historical evidence
of the efficacy of HP. Even though no other major long-term studies have
been undertaken there is considerable clinical evidence over 200 years
showing a high level of protection using HP.
My own study and experience, as well as that of others, strongly suggests
that HP does offer a higher level of disease-specific prevention than
methods of general prevention which do not target specific diseases.
This is what we would intuitively expect, and in no way lessens the great
value of methods used to generally improve immune competence - methods such
as good diet, a stable emotional environment, chiropractic and osteopathic
corrections, and most importantly anti-miasmic constitutional homoeopathic
treatment.
( c) Conclusion
It is apparent from the above information that HP offers a non-toxic method
of disease-specific prevention, that it does stimulate the healing response
which at times leads to mild reactions in users, and that it does offer a
significant level of protection at least comparable to that of vaccines.
If nothing else , it is therefore reasonable to conclude that HP is a
genuine alternative to vaccination.
The next question is whether we should actually give such protection, and
if so whether HP is the best method available.
To answer this we shall now consider arguments against HP by some homoeopaths.
4. Arguments Against Homoeoprophylaxis by Some Homoeopaths
Some practitioners believe that HP is not based on homoeopathic principles.
As stated earlier, the selection of homoeopathic medicines in treatment is
based on the Law of Similars. However the selection of the remedies used in
HP is based on the same Law, i.e. the HP remedy is capable of producing in
a healthy person symptoms which are similar to the common symptoms of the
targeted disease or is capable of removing in an unwell person such common
symptoms.
In homoeopathic treatment remedies are administered according to the Law of
Minimum Dose, which states that only the smallest amount of remedy needed
to induce a healing response is used. In my HP program the same Law is used
in selecting the dose for each individual disease/remedy combination, i.e.
I use the smallest dose of each remedy which I believe will induce a
reliable medium-term protective response to the targeted disease.
Thus it is not correct to state that HP is inconsistent with the
homoeopathic principles developed by Hahnemann. This is why Hahnemann
himself used HP, and was a strong advocate of disease prevention in some
situations.
Some practitioners believe that we should allow patients to contract
infectious diseases, and then treat the resulting symptoms, rather than try
to prevent the disease.
In part this argument derives from the idea that HP is inconsistent with
homoeopathic principles, whereas we have shown that it is not.
It is true that many infectious diseases are quite mild in healthy
children, and that they are easily treated using homoeopathic medicines.
This of course presumes that an experienced practitioner is readily
available, a situation which often does not exist in geographically large
countries such as Australia.
It also presumes that the child already has a reasonable immune competence,
something which a malnourished child living in unsanitary conditions often
does not enjoy.
However it is true that the process of acquiring and combating simple
infectious diseases helps to mature a child?s immune system over the early
years.
I am not aware of any evidence which suggests that a child must get all
infectious diseases to be fully healthy. In fact such a proposition sounds
and is quite silly.
Personally I have no problems with allowing healthy children to contract
diseases such as measles and mumps, and then treat. This is what I do with
my own children. However I also have no doubt that I would rather prevent
diseases such as whooping cough in a tiny infant rather than have to treat
(which I of course have done many times), even though homoeopathy does
provide excellent treatment. The process is potentially traumatic to both
the child and the parents.
I make it clear in my program that it is the parent?s decision which
diseases they want to prevent.
The issue of parent?s choice is the next one to consider.
Some practitioners believe that parents should not be allowed to choose the
method of disease prevention for their children.
At first this will sound like an appalling suggestion to many readers.
However some homoeopaths sincerely believe that (a) constitutional
treatment is the only sound method of disease prevention and/or (b) that
allowing a child to acquire an infectious disease and then treat is the
only true homoeopathic method.
These practitioners believe they have a duty to guide the parents to what
the practitioner believes is best for the child, and if at first the
parents do not understand or agree then they should be persuaded by the
practitioner.
Of course the validity of this approach depends in the first instance on
the practitioner?s views being correct. I for one do not agree with either
(a) or (b) above, nor apparently did the founder of homoeopathy who used HP.
I do believe that the issue of disease prevention is one of the most
difficult that any parent can face. If a parent does what they genuinely
believe is best for their child, after considering differing points of
view, then they can do no more. I personally feel happy to support such
parents whatever their decision.
I have patients who vaccinate their children. I am ready to help them
irrespective of my personal views on vaccination. I have patients who use
only constitutional treatment and not HP, some who use HP, and some who
only use homoeopathy for acute problems and employ no method of disease
prevention. They all have my support.
Some practitioners believe that it is disruptive to give a patient
homoeopathic remedies when there is no disease present.
In practice our knowledge of homoeopathic remedies is based on the process
called provings . A complete proving is in fact a double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial.
This process involves giving people homoeopathic potencies when there is no
disease present.
Hahnemann himself said that properly conducted provings will do a person no
harm, and in fact will help improve a patient?s health.
Similarly, there is no reason why the effect of judicious use of HP
remedies will be any different to that of regular provings and, as I stated
above, my empirical research makes it clear that children using my program
enjoyed excellent general health.
Another point here is that many practitioners who argue that HP is
disruptive to a child?s health would at the same time agree that well
managed challenges by infectious diseases help to mature a child?s immune
system.
It has been suggested by some that use of appropriate disease-specific
remedies actually provides a challenge similar to a very mild attack of the
disease. This suggestion is supported in part by reports of antibody
stimulation after the use of disease-specific remedies in some cases (there
are also reports where antibodies were not stimulated).
If this is correct then the judicious use of HP should also help to safely
mature a child?s immune system. This possibility is consistent with
parent?s reporting a high level of general health and well-being in their
children using my HP program.
Some practitioners believe that we should only use constitutional treatment
to prevent infectious diseases.
This follows from the knowledge that constitutional treatment will increase
resistance in general to all diseases, and lessen the severity of the
symptoms if a disease is contracted.
In my own practice I have a number of patients who do not use HP remedies
at all, and rely totally on constitutional treatment for infectious disease
prevention. I am very happy with this because the parents know and
understand what they are doing, and share my confidence in the validity of
this approach to their child?s health.
However many parents do not feel comfortable with using only constitutional
treatment (many who approach me have no idea what homoeopathy is). Once I
explain homoeopathy to the best of my ability, I do not believe it is then
my job to either make them change their minds or refuse their reasonable
request to use a reliable disease prevention method which is safer than
vaccination.
I tell the parents what their options are, and it is their decision what to
do next.
I wish to state clearly again that I do believe that constitutional
treatment is very effective and is the best one can do over time to give
one?s child the best possible total health. I also believe that
constitutional treatment does not prevent individual infectious diseases as
effectively as the correctly chosen disease-specific remedy.
When I have parents who wish to use both constitutional treatment and HP,
then the former takes precedence over the latter, and the HP remedies are
timed to fit in with the constitutional doses. The HP program is simply
delayed when appropriate to do so. Any suggestion that I would not use the
constitutional treatment until the HP program is complete is totally
incorrect.
Some practitioners believe that my program contains too many doses of
remedies.
These practitioners may agree that HP does work, but think that the dosages
are too frequent, or that the potencies are too high.
The main program directs remedies to be given on 28 occasions over five
years, on average one dose every two months. In practice doses are
frequently given less often than every two months because many parents do
not cover for every disease on the program, and many are late with doses.
But of course this is not the issue for parents who follow the full program
exactly.
I regard the triple dose of a 200, M and 10M over 24 hours as effectively a
single powerful dose of the remedy. A triple dose works as such in
treatment, and does so in prevention.
The remedies given most frequently in the program, Haemophilis, Lathyrus
Sativus and Tetanus Toxin, are given on only five occasions over the five
years - on average less than once a year. In practice, homoeopaths find
that dosing problems usually occur only when a remedy is administered at
repeated short intervals - the critical interval depends greatly on patient
sensitivity.
Annual dosing is hardly likely to cause such a problem, or cause a
?proving? type aggravation. Once again I refer to the practical experience
noted in my survey which shows no evidence of long term health problems
which overdosing would cause.
The reason for the initial single dose of 200c for each remedy is to detect
any hypersensitive patients for whom the triple dose may be too strong.
Their dosing regime is then modified appropriately.
Some practitioners believe that we should only use HP remedies to prevent
infectious diseases when there is an epidemic.
They correctly state that most of the references to HP in the literature
are to the use of the remedies in acute epidemic situations. This fact does
not in any way demonstrate that the remedies cannot be used for longer-term
prevention.
In fact it is more a reflection of the nature of many of the epidemics
which spread in clearly identifiable and predictable waves across Europe in
the 1700s and the 1800s.
Homoeopathy ?cut its teeth? on the successful treatment and prevention of
such epidemics. It is a great shame that this historical fact is not taught
in all medical as well as naturopathic and homoeopathic colleges. If it was
there would be less debate about, and more acceptance of HP today.
At present in many developed countries some diseases are constantly present.
In Australia whooping cough is always present, whether or not it is
mentioned hysterically in the media. So is measles. Polio is also a
potential threat in countries which use the oral polio vaccine.
So the dilemma for those who wish to confine the use of HP to epidemics is
this: They believe HP works; they believe it should be used to prevent
certain diseases in ?epidemic? situations; some of these diseases are
constantly present in our community.
The questions they must answer are - When is there an epidemic? How many
children need to acquire the disease (which the practitioner wanted to
prevent) before the practitioner decides it is OK to give the preventative?
How many requests for the preventative should the practitioner refuse
before giving it? Is it appropriate to refuse to give a medicine if a
parent thinks there is enough evidence of a disease being present?
Despite claims to the contrary, I have never heard a satisfactory answer to
these questions.
My answer is simple. If there is an infectious disease for which prevention
is requested, and if the disease is present in the community even though
the activity of the disease may fluctuate, then use HP.
It is available, inexpensive, safe, and highly (although not completely)
effective.
Some practitioners believe that HP remedies have not been proven to be
effective or safe.
The question of what constitutes proof is an interesting one. Many
modalities of traditional medicine had been shown to work in practice for
decades or centuries before ?medical science? accepted the fact. Until
?medical science? was able to prove in its own terms that the modality had
an understandable mechanism of action, it refused to accept the practical
reality of its clinical efficacy.
Modalities such as herbal medicine, acupuncture, naturopathic dietary
advice were all ridiculed by ?medical science? and are now being belatedly
accepted as effective.
Homoeopathy is presently being ridiculed by medical scientists, and in time
it will be proved by them to work. Millions who use homoeopathy on a daily
basis of course already know it works. They have proved the fact in the
most important laboratory of all - the real world.
True science would not be so prejudiced or closed-minded. If a method
worked, despite not being understood in terms of current medical models, a
true scientist would see this a challenge to explore a new frontier.
I began to practice homoeopathic medicine for two reasons: (a) it was
philosophically well founded and complete, and (b) I observed that it did
work.
This was all the proof that I and thousands of other homoeopathic
practitioners have needed to use the modality with confidence, and with
success. This proof applies to both treatment and prevention.
It is surprising to find a few homoeopaths who claim that HP does not work
because it has not been proved in ?scientific? terms. It has not - and
neither has homoeopathic treatment (just ask most doctors).
One homoeopath I know went to great lengths to offer a pseudo-scientific
debunking of the historical evidence showing the effectiveness of HP. He
later recanted and stated that short-term HP probably worked. Later still
he confessed that he actually would use short-term HP.
However he concluded that he had shown that long-term HP was
?unscientific?. What he showed was his erratic thought process, and he
actually proved nothing.
Some practitioners in all modalities of traditional medicine feel we need
to appear to be ?scientific?. I believe we need to be true to our own
system of medicine, and become as truly competent as possible. Science will
catch up in time.
I am not suggesting that we should not be rigorous, or do research, or
collect data. Readers know that I have attempted to do this myself. I
believe the considerable body of data which I have collected does offer
additional proof of the safety and efficacy of HP, even though it is not
scientifically perfect.
Homoeopathy is not a theory - it is a practical discipline. It has proved
its worth in its action, so let us be proud of being homoeopaths, not
apologetic because it is not accepted by another model which has no
philosophical basis and which has many practical flaws.
Some homoeopaths believe that to suggest a need for HP is playing on the
fears of some parents.
They draw a parallel between the obvious fear campaigns which orthodox
medicine uses to try to increase vaccination rates, and my statement that
HP is a safe and comparably effective alternative to vaccination, and that
I personally would prefer to prevent some diseases than have to treat.
I can understand how those practitioners who rigidly adhere to some of the
views expressed above could have this opinion.
The fear associated with using a method (vaccination) which at times has
more devastating consequences than the disease it targets is considerable.
HP can lessen or remove that fear because it is non-toxic.
As to the fear of contracting an infectious disease - as I argued above
this is justified in some cases, and unjustified in others. I do not
believe that parents? fears are increased by offering them proven options,
and by supporting their decisions.
In practice I often find that parents using my program tell me how great
their relief is when they find a safe and relatively effective method of
disease prevention.
I, like most practitioners, have had to deal with the effects of
?fear-mongering? on parents, and I do not believe the sensible use of HP
plays on parent?s fears. In fact those few vocal homoeopathic opponents of
HP appear to be creating considerable doubt (and therefore fear) in
parents? minds when no doubts are really necessary concerning the safety
and efficacy of HP.
to part 3
5. How Does Homoeoprophylaxis Work?
As with conventional homoeopathic treatment, it is not possible to provide
an explanation of the mechanism of action of HP in present-day orthodox
scientific terms.
Developments in the field of Quantum Mechanics, in the ?memory? of water
molecules, in the action of enzymes, and/or other such fields will
eventually provide orthodox science with a model which they will understand
and accept.
Homoeopathic medicine has been a safe and effective healing modality for
200 years. It works for treatment. It works for prevention. These are
demonstrable facts to all except the ardently closed-minded observer.
The mechanism of action of HP can be explained homoeopathically in terms of
predisposition or sensitivity - something homoeopaths call idiosyncrasy.
We know that there is something prior to the molecular reactions to
antigenic exposure. For example, Europeans brought what were to them simple
diseases to South Sea Islanders when first contacts were made. Many of the
Islanders died, many more fell ill, and a significant minority showed no
sign of the disease despite certain exposure.
They had not been vaccinated and did not have circulating antibodies - so
what protected that minority?
Similarly, why do many of us exposed to the flu, glandular fever, even the
common cold, remain well when others around us do not- or vice versa.
In homoeopathy we say that if a person is not idiosyncratic to the dynamic
challenge of the antigen (every physical substance has a unique energy
profile), the physiological reaction which medicos call the ?disease? will
not occur.
A person?s level of idiosyncrasy can be generally changed through
constitutional treatment, or specifically changed through antigen-specific
remedies.
So an appropriate remedy will alter the recipient?s disease-specific
sensitivity or idiosyncrasy to the dynamic challenge of the specific
antigen, which will then prevent or lessen in intensity the physiological
changes triggered by that dynamic stimulus.
For example, if a patient is allergic (hypersensitive or idiosyncratic) to
Rhus Tox trees, then by administering a potency of Rhus Tox over time the
patient?s sensitivity will lessen and, possibly disappear. In other words
the properly administered potency of the antigen can change the patient?s
level of idiosyncrasy to the antigen.
In the same way, properly administered potencies of the measles antigen can
change the recipient?s level of idiosyncrasy to the antigen. This is how HP
works in simple terms. A more complete explanation of the mechanism of
action is beyond the scope of this paper.
Some readers may find this explanation "unscientific" and totally
unacceptable. This is understandable. They should remember however that the
bottom line for any health related modality is whether it works in practice.
HP has worked for 200 years, it works now, and it will still work in 200
years time for one simple reason: -- it is founded on natural law. The
validity of the Law of Similars is unchanging.
6. Conclusions
The purpose of this paper has been to give readers a brief introduction to
the use of my HP program, and the research which I have conducted over 12
years to support the safety and efficacy of the program.
This research has been shown to support the 200 years of clinical
experience during which homoeopathic medicines have been used successfully
to both treat and prevent infectious diseases.
We have considered the principal criticisms or questions concerning HP
raised by some homoeopaths. I believe I have offered a reasonable response
to all concerns - but only the reader can make that final assessment.
I believe in flexibility within law. HP is based on the Law of Similars -
the foundation law upon which the practice of homoeopathic medicine is
based. Its use can be varied according to need. Its use can accommodate a
wide range of patient needs - from patients who use HP only in acute
epidemics, to those who employ medium-term prevention against a range of
infectious diseases.
HP can be used in conjunction with constitutional treatment if required. It
can be used by patients who have no idea of what homoeopathy is. In
practice I have found it to be a useful introduction point for many parents
into a more general use of homoeopathic medicine for their families.
It is a non-toxic method, and very safe if used correctly. It has proven to
be generally (although not completely) effective over 200 years.
I believe that homoeopaths can be both proud and grateful that through the
efforts of Samuel Hahnemann we have a healing modality which not only
offers safe and effective treatment for disease, but both general and
disease-specific prevention.
HP will continue to be, for those who understand its use, a small but
highly significant part of the great healing modality which is homoeopathic
medicine.
References to Homoeprophylaxis in the Literature
The most useful review of the literature is in the following booklet by Dr
P Sankaran, where he lists the recommendations of 92 noted homeopaths.
Sankaran, P 1971, Prophylactics in Homoeopathy. Hom. Medical Publishers
Other references include the following.
Boenninghausen, C, 1849, ?Brief Instructions for non-physicians concerning
the prophylaxis and treatment of asiatic cholera?, Lesser Writings, Jain,
1986.
Burnett, J 1884, Vaccinosis and its Cure by Thuja; with Remarks on
Homoeoprophylaxis, repub. WHL 1992.
Kent, J 1900, Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy, repub. Jain, 1954.
Close, S 1920, The Genius of Homoeopathy, repub. Jain 1991.
Shephard, D 1967, Homoeopathy in Epidemic Diseases, Health Science Press,
1981.
Speight, L 1982, Homoeopathy and Immunisation, Health Science Press.
Eizayaga, F, 1991, "Treatise on Homoeopathic Medicine", E Marecel, Buenos
Aires.