A Second Reply to George Vithoulkas

I appreciate GV’s approach to this debate. I will attempt to address his response with the following four points.

1. George said – “The main question should be: Do we have a way of protecting people from epidemic diseases in a reliable way to come out publicly and declare to the world that we have the “alternative” solution to vaccination? If we DO, well and good, come out and give the results and take the responsibility”.

This is totally appropriate, and anyone who has read my material knows that I take responsibility for the following statement: homoeoprophylaxis (HP) offers a comparably effective alternative to vaccination, and is non-toxic. Recent research confirms that its long-term safety is high.

At times I have had to respond to parents whose child used my HP program and actually contracted a targeted disease. A level of non-protection is inevitable, just as it is with vaccination, but does not prove that HP is ineffective, just that it is not completely effective. These are the moments which directly clarify ones preparedness to accept responsibility, which I am happy to accept because I have observed and recorded the safety and efficacy of HP over many years.

I personally support a dual system of immunization, where parents are given a free choice between vaccination and HP. My doctoral research showed that this would both increase the level of protection against targeted diseases due to a higher combined immunization rate, and decrease the general level of chronic disease due to a lower use of vaccination – a “win/win” situation.

2. GV asked the following question – “Did we try the homoeoprophylaxis in countries with the epidemics and then compared them with the non vaccinated groups?”

Once again, a fair question, and the answer is yes. The earliest records of HP described by Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, etc were precisely of use within epidemic situations. Clinical results were regularly reported in the years following. The first significant statistical study that I am aware of was by Dr. Eaton in 1907 during the smallpox epidemic in America. He studied 2,806 patients and calculated HP effectiveness at 97.5%. He used the nosode.

The most recent was a very thorough study by Dr. Mroninski and others in 1998, who used the nosode Meningococcinum as a preventative during an outbreak to protect 65,826 children. There was a control group of 25,539 unvaccinated children. The efficacy of HP was 95% after 6 months, and 91% after 12 months follow-up.

I have heard of similar large studies in India, but have been unable to obtain the actual raw data to confirm the findings. Every human study that I am aware of which attempted to quantify the effectiveness of HP came in with a measure around 90%. My own single figure measure was 90.4%. These studies, plus our own history where we “cut our teeth” on the plagues of infectious diseases in Europe, and then later India, are why I see no inevitability in GV’s “mass tragedy” scenario if HP was widely used, and in fact the reverse – we have much to offer.

3. GV stated that well known examples of short-term HP prevention were really just “curing early cases” and “a curative response was misunderstood and misinterpreted as prophylaxis”. This is an important point because some practitioners, who disagree with the use of long-term prevention, still accept and use short-term prevention.

In my first reply, I pointed out that Hahnemann’s statements regarding prophylaxis were not ambiguous, and that his use of Belladonna given prior to exposure had provided protection. The examples cited in point 2. above also show that HP remedies given in advance of exposure do work. They further show that nosodes are effective prophylactics. This is a vital point because the nosodes are rarely the genus epidemics remedies in epidemics, and in fact are often seen as inappropriate remedies to use for acute treatment. This shows that short-term HP is not always early treatment. Prevention is a fact.

4. Finally, I wish to attempt to address the philosophical basis of our debate. GV states that “in homoeopathy we know the mechanism that cures” …”Do we have a similar convincing explanation for the way the remedies are preventing epidemics?”.

We don’t have an explanation of homoeopathic treatment which orthodox medicine accepts. Similarly, we don’t have an explanation of HP in orthodox terms. I have attempted to provide an explanation of HP in earlier writings, and I have a 5,800 word article in the June 2007 Homeopathic Links which outlines an energetic model of both homoeopathic treatment and prevention.

At the risk of being overly brief, and therefore not totally clear, I believe that:

(i) We are all sick to a greater or lesser degree depending upon the activity or dormancy of our miasms. These miasms are what prevent our vital force (VF) from maintaining homoeostasis.
(ii) When we are exposed to an external morbific agent (e.g. a polio virus), we are influenced according to our individual idiosyncrasy. Symptoms will NOT arise (a) if the VF is able to fully respond to the specific stimulus, OR (b) if the VF is too weak to respond (e.g. GV stated that “Vaccinations prevent epidemics by compromising the immune system which is then unable to develop the epidemic fever”).
(iii) Appropriate HP will clear that part of our miasmic picture which corresponds energetically to the potential morbific agent (the polio virus), so that IF the patient is exposed to the morbific agent, the VF will be able to fully respond to that stimulus, remembering that the first response is an energetic one to the energy of the agent, and this occurs before any biochemical changes occur (antigens and antibodies).
(iv) If the patient is already clear of this weakness, then a proving may result due to over stimulation (although the HP doses and therefore the reactions are infrequent). Provided the remedy is discontinued, no lasting problems will arise, just as in conventional provings.
(v) The real advantage of HP is that it works by making the patient LESS UNWELL in a very specific area, unlike vaccines which work in the opposite way. This is why it can be safely given as a long-term preventative (and is why my doctoral research showed that appropriate HP is associated with improved long-term health).

GV said that “But as we all know, the remedy can act only when the symptoms are present, not before they appear”. This is a fundamental point in our debate, and I disagree. Hahnemann observed the actions of medicines (aphorisms 32, and 108 following), and in the real world we know that remedies can cause changes before symptoms appear simply by observing provings.

I believe that every energetic stimulus we are exposed to has an impact on our system. Most effects are so slight that we are not even aware they have occurred and they have negligible impact. Some stronger effects may be noticed, but our VF deals with them efficiently and quickly. Some stimuli have a lasting impact, and they may or may not be noticed at the time of stimulus. It all depends on each individual’s level of idiosyncrasy or susceptibility.

GV says “To say that the homoeopathic remedy prevents the organism from mobilizing its defenses when it is under certain stimulation from a bacteria or virus is, to say the least, arbitrary”. I agree, because this is NOT what I say (the HP pathway is NOT similar to the vaccination pathway – they are totally different).

HP remedies work by changing a person’s level of idiosyncrasy as it relates to the energetic stimulus of the targeted infectious disease. They improve health by removing specific impediments to the action of the VF. We are in effect treating an existing weakness, but one which will remain dormant unless exposed to a very specific stimulus. If successful, the patient will “become immune” to the stimulus because the VF is freed to fully respond to it.

As with homoeopathic treatment, HP cannot ensure lifelong changes. We are constantly exposed to stressors on every level, including new miasmic exposure at times. People often become changed/weakened due to their life choices and experiences. As with treatment, HP at times needs to be repeated. And as with treatment, the HP remedies chosen and the potencies and frequencies used must be appropriate.

I do hope that George is willing to continue this debate, as his experience and thoughtful input is most valuable for us all.