What is Homeoprophylaxis

Homeoprophylaxis is used protect individuals from the effects of infectious diseases. In contrast to conventional vaccination, homeoprophylaxis does not rely on antibody formation, but on changing the susceptibility of the child or adult to disease. The philosophy behind homeoprophylaxis is different from conventional vaccination in that the micro-organisms are not in themselves seen as the sole cause of disease, but rather the interplay between the micro-organisms and the individual susceptibility of the child or adult: the healthier the patient, the less susceptible he or she is to a disease.

Disease prevention in homeopathic history and today

Homeopathy is used to address the individual’s expereince of disease states and to prevent individuals from falling ill. The founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, wrote in 1801 on scarlet fever: ‘Who can deny that the perfect prevention of infection from this devastating scourge, and the discovery of a means whereby this divine aim may be surely attained, would offer infinite advantages over any mode of treatment, be it of the most incomparable kind soever?’ The principle of homeoprophylaxis basically states that what will address the expereience of a diseased state according to the law of similars will also prevent individuals from falling ill from these kinds  of diseases. Famous homeopaths have practised according to this principle during the centuries: Boenninghausen, Kent, Burnett, Tyler, Blackie, Boger and others. In modern times, it has been Dr Isaac Golden from Australia, who has addressed this issue in a systematic manner. See www.heilkunst.com/disease.html

Evidence

• Historical:

Homeopathic prevention of disease is 200 years old, and has always been an integral part of the practice of homeopathy. Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy achieved a success rate of 100% in treating 183 typhus patients; at that time typhus was considered incurable.

Scarlet fever was treated and prevented by Hahnemann using the homeopathic remedy Belladonna.

During the European cholera epidemics of the mid-1800s the death rate was between 54% and 90%, while the rate amongst persons who received homeopathic treatment was between 5% and 16%.

Mortality rate in the 1918-1920 Influenza (Spanish flu) epidemic in the US was 30%; the rate among those treated homeopathically was 1%.

Dr Andre Saine is currently working on a large study comparing the success rate of homeopathic treatment in epidemic diseases with that of conventional medicine.

• Large scale field studies:

Study 1

In 1974, during a Meningococcal epidemic in Brazil, 18,640 children were given HP for protection against Meningococcal, and 6,340 were not. The following results were obtained:

• 18,640 protected homeopathically – 4 cases of Meningococcal infection.

• 6,340 not protected – 32 cases of Meningococcal infection.

Based on the infection (attack) rate in the unprotected group, 94 cases of infection would have been expected in the homeopathically protected group. Instead, there were only four cases of Meningococcal, showing that the homeopathic option was 95% effective against the meningococcal disease.

Study 2

The results of the first study led to the Brazilian government to fund a larger study in 1998. It was conducted by two Professors of Medicine from the University Foundation in Blumenau, Brazil, and a Blumenau specialist physician and Health City Secretary.

A total of 65,826 people between the ages of 0-20 were given HP for protection against Meningococcal while 23,532 were not. Over a 12 month period, the following results were obtained:

• 65,826 protected homeopathically – 4 cases of Meningococcal infection.

• 23,532 not protected – 20 cases of Meningococcal infection.

Based on the infection (attack) rate in the unprotected group, 58 cases of infection would have been expected in the homeopathically protected group. Instead, there were only four cases of meningococcal. Statistical analysis showed that HP offered 95% protection in the first six months and 91% protection over the year against meningococcal disease.

Both of these studies used only low to medium range potencies of Meningococcinum for protection and only one oral dose per person was given. One would anticipate longer and possibly increased rates of protection if higher potencies and more than one dose had been given; this has certainly been clinical experience elsewhere and indicated by recent research conducted in Australia.

Long-term scientific research on homeopathic immunisation

Dr Isaac Golden from Australia is the world authority on homeopathic immunisation (or homeoprophylaxis), and has undertaken the world’s largest long-term study of parents using such a programme. In 2004 he completed a Ph.D. research programme at the GSIM, Swinburne University, Melbourne, studying homeoprophylaxis. The results for individual immunisation will be displayed below.

Efficacy

No protection against targeted diseases is certain (including natural immunity). HP has a consistency of results of 90%. We have clear figures for 3 diseases:

Whooping cough: 88.3%; Measles: 91%; Mumps: 94.1%. When the disease arises, they are much less severe than they would be without the protection.

Through Dr Isaac Golden’s work we have

a) the largest study of long-term HP ever undertaken in the world, showing the effectiveness and the safety of the method.

b) A comparison of the effectiveness and safety of vaccination, HP, constitutional prevention, and no preventive method at all.

c) A comparison of the effectiveness and safety of different HP programmes.
Detailed findings by Dr Isaac Golden:

We are only presenting two relevant tables here showing evidence that homeoprophylaxis works. For a detailed discussion on statistics and related issues, please consult:

• Isaac Golden: Homeoprophylaxis – A Fifteen Year Clinical Study, Isaac Golden Publications, Daylesford, Australia.

• Isaac Golden: Vaccination & Homeoprophylaxis. A Review of Risks and Alternatives (6th edition), Isaac Golden Publications 2005, pp. 159-181.

Table 1: Summary of Results – Long-Term Homeoprophylaxis
Measures of Reactions & Efficacy Data after Follow-Up surveys Data Series Series 1-5 Data Series Series 6-10 Data Series Series 11-15 Totals
Total Responses 708 817 817 2342
1. Previously vaccinated 73 102 110 285
  10.3% 12.5% 13.5% 12.2%
2. Definite reactions to remedies 51 81 81 213
Reactions per person 7.2% 9.9% 9.9% 9.1%
Reactions per dose (est.) 1.2% 1.7% 1.7% 1.5%
3. Definitely suffered from diseases covered by main programme (a measure of failure) 18 – 2.5% 11 – 1.3% 11 – 1.4% 40 – 1.7%
4. Definitely exposed to diseases covered by main programme 177 – 25.0% 11 – 1.3% 113 – 13.8% 417 – 17.8%
5. Definitely suffering diseases, after definite exposure and after taking the appropriate remedy (a measure of failure) 18/177 – 10.2% 11/127 – 8.7% 11/113 – 9.7% 40/417 – 9.6%
6. Definitely not suffering diseases, after definite exposure and after taking appropriate remedy (a measure of success) 159/177 – 89.8% 116/127 – 91.3% 102/113 – 90.3% 377/417 – 90.4%

Copyright: Dr. Isaac Golden

Table 2: National Attack rates and the Efficacy of homeoprophylaxis
Disease Attack rate, Unimmunised % Attack Rate, Homeoprophylaxis % Efficacy of Homeoprophylaxis %
Whooping cough 85.0 11.7 86.2
Measles 90.0 9.0 90.0
Mumps 70.0 5.9 91.6

Copyright: Dr. Isaac Golden

Safety of H.I.P.

As part of Dr Golden’s doctoral studies at Swinburne University between 2001 and 2004 he collected a two page questionnaire from parents of 781 children aged between 4 and 12 years of age.

This retrospective study used measures of the child’s health experience such as the incidence of asthma, eczema, ear and hearing problems, allergies and behavioural problems, as well as the parents’ evaluation of their child’s general health. Cases of whooping cough, measles and mumps were recorded, as well as the child’s hospitalisation experience.

Four types of immunisation history were questioned. They were:

  • Homeoprophylactically protected with disease-specific medicines.
  • Vaccine protected
  • ‘Constitutionally’ protected, (i.e. any general health measures intended to improve overall health, and thus improve overall immunity against all infectious diseases)
  • No specific or general protection against infectious diseases.

Golden summarises the statistically significant findings (P<0.05) for each condition as follows:

  • Asthma – we can say with 99% confidence that HP-only is 15 times safer than vaccination and 6 times safer than no method of protection.
  • Eczema – we can say with 98% confidence that HP-only is 1.8 times safer than no method of protection.
  • Allergies – we can say with 94% confidence that HP-only is 5 times safer than vaccination, and with 99% confidence that HP is 2 times safer than no method of protection.
  • Behavioural problems – we are not able to draw conclusions about the safety of HP-only with a greater than 95% confidence that the conclusion is correct. However, we can say with 95% confidence that doing nothing is twice as safe as general protection. We can say with 94% confidence that HP-only is the safest option.
  • Ear/Hearing problems – we are not able to draw conclusions about the safety of HP-only with a greater than 95% confidence that the conclusion is correct. However, we can say with 95% confidence that vaccination is 3.9 less safe than doing nothing.

2% of children show mild adverse reactions to HP.

Requirements for Homeoprophylaxis

Assessment

    • The first step is to asses the health of the child in order to see whether the child’s needs homeopathic treatment first, or whether the programme can be started immediately. The assessment also includes a discussion on what diseases should be covered by Homeoprophylaxis

Prevention

  • At this stage a list is drawn up of the immunisations agreed upon between homeopathic practitioner and parents. The immunisations are sent out with the appropriate documentation.

Documentation:

  • Consent forms (2)
  • Covering letter
  • Copy of complete programme (main and supplementary)
  • Research forms
  • Homeoprophylaxis Status sheet

Support

  • Support is available via phone consultations and email
A note of caution to those who believe that unjustified therapeutic claims are being made on this website. Please, read the following carefully:
Since homeopathy is used to address the individual’s experience of diseased states, disease names mentioned here are purely used for shorthand purposes. Homeopathy recognises that diseases differ from individual to individual even if they have been given the same label, such as ‘rheumatoid arthritis’, for example. Hahnemann himself suggested not to speak of  ‘ague’, ‘nerve fever’ or ‘dropsy’, but as a kind of ague, a kind of nerve fever, a kind of dropsy. (Organon of the Medical Art, footnote to section 81) Homeopathy does not treat disease names, it addresses the experience of an individual suffering from kinds of diseases.