Homeoprophylaxis, sometimes wrongfully dubbed “homeopathic vaccination”, has been around in some form since Hahnemann himself. The clinical research and practice of Dr. Isaac Golden, PhD, led to the systematisation of Homeoprophylaxis after many years of intense work and comparison with the conventional medical system of vaccination.
I have followed his work almost since its beginning, offering it to patients who required some form of “protection” for their children, or for themselves when travelling in endemic countries, without having to comply with the pressures of their GPs or other authorities. Interestingly, I had, and still have very few of those requests, therefore, I do not have a statistically significant number of cases to draw guidelines of my own.
One drawback of Homeoprophylaxis is the large number of doses of different nosodes to be taken at specific times, and repeated multiple times, which led some of my few patients to either completely refuse to proceed, or abandon while going through it.
In a December 2006 interview conducted by Dr Manish Bhatia and published in the online journal Hpathy.com, Dr Golden said: “I have changed the basic program three times since 1985. Going from (1) single doses of M to (2) the 200 filter, then triple doses of 200, M, 10M, to (3) the 200 filter, then a triple dose of 200, then triple doses of 10M.” and “Since 2004, I have used (for long term prevention) a single dose of 200 to filter out those few children who are very sensitive to the remedy.
Then a month later a triple dose of 200 (unless they reacted to the single dose), and then a year later a triple dose of 10M. My experience since 1985 suggests that the 200 is appropriate to give protection for 12 months, and the 10M appropriate for maybe a 5–10-year protection. A second triple dose of 10M another year later should give a 10+ year level of protection.”
Given the large number of patients treated by Dr. Golden and adding to that the results from the worldwide use of his system, there is no argument about the success and the validity of the method.
And yet… I am a very simple-minded practitioner; complicated protocols, as flexible as they can be within limits, tend to create an intellectual allergic reaction in my mind characterised by an almost obsessive-compulsive repetitive question “how could I make things simpler, easier and more palatable for more people, while remaining effective?”.
I love simplicity; it is a distinctive mark of my past as a surgeon: open the patient, if it is normal, leave it alone, if it is not, take it out or repair it (a bit schematic, but basically correct). It is that desire and research for the “Ikebana” of my practice that led me to start using the new system of the Fibonacci Series of potencies since 2006, which has been proven pretty successful, even if I say it myself.
This, of course, led to a contradiction with the potencies recommended by Dr. Golden. I could not use two different systems in parallel if I wanted to keep my honesty and integrity as a practitioner, especially when claiming that F potencies and system are superior. I decided to tweak the homeoprophylaxis’ system to fit within the Fibonacci principles (see details in the book “Fibonacci Potencies. The final words”).
Every nosode of every disease we want to “homeo-immunise” against would be given in only 5 doses: 34C, 55C, 89C, 144C and 233C; one dose a day, five days, Monday to Friday, done. If there is a reaction after one dose, stop, wait, repeat the same potency, or go to next one; if there is still a reaction, I consider the patient as immune and there is no need to continue the administration of the nosode.
Wait one week for stabilisation, or just wait the weekend if in a hurry, before travelling for example, then go to the next nosode. That should be enough (theoretically) to create persistent immunity, but to be safe, in case of a local epidemic, a repetition of the indicated nosode would be at the very least a reassuring prescription.
Why start with 34C? For the simple reason that in New Zealand, we did not have access to potencies lower than 30C… purely practical, and “simpletonian”.
I have only treated a few dozen children and travellers with that system; therefore, I cannot vouch for its validity for now. I have received no complaints; there have been no aggravations or side-effects reported; nobody has complained their children or themselves having caught any of the diseases they were prescribed for… which does not mean anything, maybe they were not exposed, or their natural immunity dealt with it on its own.
Is it a valid system? I believe so, but belief is not science and is not proof.
This is where you, the reader and practitioner come into play. Try it, collate the cases and let’s see the results. Are you game?
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD & Certified Simpleton.
Hello Joe.
There is a big difference between thirty+ years of research leading to a PhD and ‘a few dozen children and travellers.’
Could you please clarify your statement ‘Why start with 34C? For the simple reason that in New Zealand, we did not have access to potencies lower than 30C…’
Thanks,
Sarah Penrose
New Zealand
Brilliant. I too have followed Dr Golden’s work from the beginning and while I have used his system for my children and patients, I have long felt we were too rigid in adhering to the flawed medical system of immunisation and that there must be a simpler way. Over the years I have altered how I follow these ideas with similar results (ie not one of my cases developed any of the illnesses) but it would be impossible, as your comments suggest, to gauge just who may or may not have developed the illnesses anyway. I do believe though, that a lower potency combined with a one-off dose of a very high potency is the way to go.
However, I did have the chance to prove homeoprophylaxis with more than one dis-ease, at the fore being TB. It has claimed the lives of a number of my own family in South Africa and my eldest child, covered with homeoprophylaxis, married her beautiful husband, both unaware he had advanced TB of the brain and bones until he collapsed on tour with his group (Soweto Gospel Choir). I of course sent treatment for him, to which he responded by walking out of the hospital having been given up for dead.
His pathology was clear even though months previously he was cachexic and aphagic, unable to walk or even use his arms. My daughter had been given Tuberculinum 1M twice in her life and once before flying back to South Africa. As my own mother had suffered with TB, I supposedly had no immunity to it according to medical tests; my grandmother and aunty both having passed from its effects, I did not play lightly with their lives.
She remains free of TB, as do we all. Unfortunately, despite his tests prior to his final panel doctor visit to obtain a visa, showing 100% lung, bone and brain clarity, he was administered an unknown injection which proved fatal within hours. We have been unable to obtain those records, but even autopsy showed he did not have TB lesions.
Other instances include my children being exposed to others displaying various so-called contagions, without experiencing any follow up health issues themselves. I have had numerous patients use homeoprophylaxis to travel, most recently to India, where all of my younger daughter’s travel buddies obtained every vaccination offered, yet due to my daughter’s obstinacy and vital health, all came back followers of homeopathy – it helped that they all visited integrative hospitals and saw homeopathy at work!
This same daughter wrote a paper on homeopathic treatment of TB which today medical scholars still claim is not effective yet there is a plethora of work out there proving it is. The university did not want to grade her paper as she was doing pre-med, so she went to the Dean to argue her case. She received a high distinction and invitation to publish it. It was well written and I believe if embraced it could have changed the course of TB treatment in the west but sadly, when she took a break, the paper was taken down from the uni portal and she lost it forever (had not saved it). I am hoping she is able to find it as I believe it is important.
Thank you for reminding me there is always room to continue to grow and that what we are taught or believe, can be changed. I am all for simplicity!