Homoeopathic Disease Prevention

By Isaac Golden Ph.D (MA)

The first documented use of specific homoeopathic medicines to prevent specific infectious diseases was in 1801. The method is called Homoeoprophylaxis (HP).

In 1801 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 the symptoms that Belladonna was known to produce when given to healthy people, were similar to the common symptoms of Scarlet Fever. This use of the Law of Similars is the foundation Law of homoeopathy. It is used to select remedies for both the treatment and prevention of diseases.

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 doesn’t 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. Firstly we shall present evidence showing the safety and the efficacy of HP. Secondly we shall briefly outline the main practitioner objections to the use of HP. Only a brief consideration of this complex topic can be given here. However, we hope to present a balanced view of this difficult and at times controversial topic.


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, Burnett, Kent, Close, Shepherd, Sankaran, Speight, Eizayaga and many many others.

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 contained in my book Vaccination? – A Review of Risks and Alternatives – 5th edition. This is my main publication for parents who wish to compare vaccination and HP in infectious disease prevention.


My own experience using Homoeoprophylaxis

It is relevant here to describe briefly my own experience with HP. I have been offering parents an HP program since 1986 and spent thousands of hours discussing the method with parents and practitioners since that time. Whilst it is a very small part of my business, it occupies a significant part of my time.  In 2001 I began further research as part of a Doctoral program at Swinburne University in Melbourne.

I began collecting statistical information in 1986 from parents whose children used my HP kit – a formal 5 year program of prevention. In 1997 I re-analysed the first 10 years of questionaires that have been returned by parents whose children used my program.

Over this period I had collected 1,305 questionaries, each of which covered one year of a child’s life. The detailed results are published in the monograph Homoeoprophylaxis – A Ten Year Clinical Study. The analysis is not statistically perfect, but it does contain a great deal of unique practical information. At time of writing in 2002 I have collected nearly 2,000 responses.

My statistical evidence, combined with the historical evidence, shows clearly that an appropriate HP program offers a genuine choice to parents who wish to prevent specific infectious diseases in their children.


Table 1 describes the program I am currently using.




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 own 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 diseases and 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 general 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.


Remedy-Disease Relationships   

Pertussin  —  Whooping Cough
Tetanus Toxin  —  Tetanus
Parotidinum  —  Mumps
Haemophilis  —  Hib Influenzae   
Lathyrus Sativus — Polio
Diphtherinum —  Diphtheria
Morbillinum  —  Measles
NOTE: The program used singles doses of an M potency up to 1991, and the current program has used triple doses of ascending potencies since then.


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.


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. So we can see that HP remedies DO offer protection against specific infectious diseases.

The question as to whether we should actually give such protection is a large and complex one and outside the scope of the present article. However, it is true that not all infectious disease are “killer diseases” if a child is healthy, and parents do have choice.

The final issue concerns arguments against HP by some homoeopaths. We do not have space here to consider the arguments in full, but a list of the issues is given in the following section, with a very brief response.


Arguments against Homoeoprophylaxis by some Homoeopaths

• Some practitioners believe that HP is not based on homoeopathic principles. The selection of homoeopathic medicines in treatment is based on the Law of Similars, and remedies are administered according to the Law of Minimum Dose. However, the selection and administration of the remedies used in HP is based on the same Law. 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. I believe that it is the parents’ decision which diseases they want to prevent.

• Some practitioners believe that parents should not be allowed to choose the method of disease prevention for their children. I believe that parents carry the responsibility for what happens to their child, and that practitioners should support, not lecture parents.

• Some practitioners believe that it is disruptive to give a patient homoeopathic remedies when there is no disease present. My documented research findings give no support to my program causing any disruption, in fact the opposite is true – many parents volunteered how well their children are on the program.

• Some practitioners believe that we should only use constitutional treatment to prevent infectious diseases. This is a genuine option, but does not give as much disease-specific cover as HP. The choice is the parents’.

• Some practitioners believe that my program contains too many doses of remedies. As above, evidence does not support this concern.

• Some practitioners believe that we should only use HP remedies to prevent infectious diseases when there is an epidemic. The question becomes, when is there an epidemic? How many children need to acquire the disease (which the parents 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 giving the medicine if a parent thinks there is enough evidence of diseases being present?

• Some practitioners believe that HP remedies have not been proven to be effective or safe. We have 200 years of experience showing HP is safe and very (but not 100%) effective. My research conservatively suggests an efficacy of 95%.

• Some homoeopaths believe that to suggest a need for HP is playing on the fears of some parents. My experience is that having HP available lessens parents ‘fears – they can protect without harm.

For those readers interested in the above arguments, my booklet Homoeoprophylaxis – A Practical and Philosophical Review 3rd ed. contains detailed responses to the above concerns.

The bottom line to me is this - 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. 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.


Published in byronchild/Kindred, issue 3, September 02


Isaac Golden  PhD(MA), D.Hom., N.D., B.Ec(Hon)., has been a homoeopathic practitioner for 18 years. He is a founder and Principal of the Australasian College of Hahnemannian Homoeopathy, which offers specialist distance education in Homoeopathic medicine.
He is Homoeopathic Faculty Head at the Melbourne College of Natural Medicine. Victoria’s largest Government accredited naturopathic college. He was president of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Homoeopathic Association Inc, Australia’s largest association of professional homoeopaths from 1992 to 1998, and holds that Association’s Distinguished Service Award.
Any comments will be gratefully received by the author if sent to P.O. Box 155, Daylesford, Australia. 3460.  Telephone (03) 5348 3667.
The author’s following publications are available from the above address. For postage within Australia allow $4.00 for one book or $6.00 for 2 or 3 books.
Vaccination? A Review of Risks and Alternatives - revised 5th edition, 1997. $A25.00.
Homoeoprophylaxis - A Practical and Philosophical Review - 2nd edition, 1997. $A10.00.
Homoeoprophylaxis - A Ten Year Clinical Study. 1997. $A15.00.