Homeopathy Papers

Homoeoprophylaxis – a further reply to Rudi Verspoor and George Vithoulkas

Homoeoprophylaxis – a further reply to Rudi Verspoor and

Comment on Rudi Verspoor’s Contribution

I appreciate Rudi Verspoor’s response in the continuing HP discussion.

He makes an interesting differentiation between homoprophylaxis (using the nosode), and homeoprophylaxis (using the genus epidemicus). I think it will be a difficult job gaining acceptance of the different terms, given that homoeopathy/homeopathy is spelt differently according to one’s training and place of residence. However Rudi’s differentiation is valid.

Regarding the mechanism of action of HP, I have a feeling that our ideas are very close, despite coming from different philosophical backgrounds. And this is, of course, as it should be. If something is well founded upon Natural Law, then any philosophical systems which are based on truth should provide similar explanations of the one phenomenon, despite employing different language.

I don’t feel it is appropriate to take the discussion regarding the mechanism of action of HP any further at this point, given that it would enter a somewhat speculative and definitely esoteric realm. This might detract from the hard data which we have regarding HP. The results of HP are not speculative or esoteric. I believe that Rudi and I totally agree on this point.

Hopefully, a discussion regarding what is happening energetically with homoeopathic medicines, both with treatment and prevention, might emerge elsewhere in the journal one day.

Comment on George Vithoulkas’ Contribution

I had hoped that George Vithoulkas (GV) would have continued with our discussion regarding HP, instead of simply sending in his video lecture which basically restated what he had said previously. I would like to respond to points in his lecture regarding HP and vaccination.

1. GV cites Hahnemann discussing prophylaxis, saying it was a misunderstanding. Was Boenninghausen also incorrect; was Kent also incorrect, etc, etc? GV ignores our history, and he has an obligation to say why our old masters were wrong and he is right. For example:

Boenninghausen: “thousands of men have through the use of these homoeopathic prophylactics escaped cholera”, [From the essay, Brief Instructions for Non-Physicians Concerning the Prophylaxis and Treatment of Asiatic Cholera].

Kent: “We must look to homoeopathy for our protection as well as for our cure.”

“Now you will find that for prophylaxis there is required a less degree of similitude than is necessary for curing. [Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy. Jain, 5th Edition, 1954, p. 229].

2. GV says we should wait until 6 or 9 people fall ill, then we can work out a genus epidemicus and provide early treatment for other people. I reply – why wait until a disease we want to prevent has claimed some victims, when we can provide substantial protection before the epidemic hits? Why does GV continue to ignore the empirical research that we do have supporting HP, such as Mroninski’s huge study, and my 20 years of data?

3. GV is very worried about the damaging effect on homoeopathy of an article in the Times about HP. The article was a very negative one, and I understand his general concerns. Firstly, practitioners who are not experienced in HP, and who cannot immediately quote the evidential data that we do have, should not speak about HP to journalists. Secondly, I looked at some other articles by the same journalist, and they were of the same negative and scurrilous tone as his article on homoeopathy. Such articles will always happen. Would GV stop practicing homoeopathic treatment simply because an esteemed professor in a respected medical journal rubbishes homoeopathy (much less an undistinguished journalist)? Of course he would not.


GV was correct in saying that vaccination has done damage. He was not correct to say that vaccination got rid of polio, smallpox etc. He needs to examine the statistical evidence showing long term disease trends (reproduced in my Vaccination & Homoeoprophylaxis? 6th ed).

GV was correct in saying that vaccination brings down the level of the recipient’s health. I don’t know whether he was correct in saying that this is the only way it works, and that the stimulation of antibodies has no effect – others can debate this with GV.

GV talks about discovering which children can be safely vaccinated. What a shame, when the perfect option to vaccination is already in his own medicine cabinet.

GV refers to supporters of HP, and therefore me, as “crazy”. I feel it would be more appropriate if such a distinguished member of our community actually addressed the issue with facts, and with a complete historical perspective, rather than apparently avoiding a direct discussion of “inconvenient truths” about data showing the safety and efficacy of HP, as well as its historical use.


About the author

Isaac Golden

Isaac Golden

Dr Isaac Golden Ph.D, D.Hom., N.D., B.Ec(Hon) Deputy Chair and Research Member, National Institute of Integrative Medicine Director, Australasian College of Hahnemannian Homoeopathy. Isaac Golden has been a homoeopathic practitioner since 1984, and teacher since 1988. He founded the Australasian College of Hahnemannian Homoeopathy in 1990. Isaac is a regular contributor to local and international academic journals, and is the author of eleven books on homoeopathy.

He is a world authority on homoeoprophylaxis - the use of homoeopathic medicines for specific infectious disease prevention. He was an Honorary Research Fellow, Faculty of Science, Federation University Australia from 2013 to 2016. He is the Australian contact person for Liga Medicorum Homoeopathica Internationalis. He co-founded the Health Australia Party in July 2015.
Isaac was President of the Victorian branch of the Australian Homoeopathic Association - Australia’s largest national organization of professional homoeopaths - from 1992 to 1998. In March 1999 he was awarded the Association’s Distinguished Service Award.

Leave a Comment