Homœopathic prophylaxis never causes anaphylaxis or shock, never results in secondary infection, never leaves in its wake serum or vaccine disease or any other severe reaction; it simply protects surely and gently -Dr. A.H.Grimmer
What is presented here is not a scientific study. Rather, it is a compilation of information that speaks quite clearly, I feel, of the need to recognize that the effective use of homeopathic medicines prophylactically has been recognized and touted since Hahnemann’s time. Along with this is the need once more for the recognition of this invaluable nontoxic immunization option – perhaps on an even more urgent level. We live in a day when only one immunization option is spoken of and recognized by the public at large. And this, to a great degree, is proving detrimental, for, as the saying goes, “Whenever the medical profession once adopts a fad it is powerful slow in breaking away.” The prophylactic use of homeopathy was spoken of widely in the US until the first part of the 20th Century, as will be noted. Some strong voices present that homeopathic medicines are only for cure and any consideration of using these prophylactically should only arise in cases of epidemic. Unfortunately, what we have in popular use in conventional medicine today for prophylaxis has become very toxic and is taking a very negative impact1 that, if not brought in for re-evaluation and cleansing, will have a lasting negative impact on humanity. This has been warned about within homeopathy for at least a hundred years.2 Because I have had the opportunity to work with homeopaths around the world who also utilize homeopathic medicines prophylactically, I want to take this opportunity to make sure some things are clear about “Homeoprophylaxis”.
From the Foundations
The idea of “prophylaxis” is a very old one. The term itself.3 was coined in the early nineteenth century, combining the Latin word, “pro”, meaning before, and the Greek word, “phulaxis”, meaning act of guarding1. Indeed, the idea of preventing unpleasant and sometimes dangerous illnesses is something that has been sought since medicine began.
Samuel Hahnemann himself pursued prophylaxis, or simply prevention. Indeed, at the beginning of his essay on the “Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever” (originally published, 1801), Hahnemann, referencing the idea of prevention, mentions that, “. . . one of my chief aims (is) to excite a great interest in a subject of so much importance to humanity as this is. . . “4 Written specifically about prophylaxis and scarlet fever, I feel Hahnemann’s great vision likely encompassed much more than this single disease when he penned this thought here.
The pursuit of prophylaxis transcends any boundaries, be they political, geographic, economic, racial, cultural,and so on. No one enjoys illness. Additionally, no one wants to be negatively affected by any form of prophylaxis. So why would pursuing prophylaxis via inherently safe homeopathy be seen as controversial?
It is often expressed among even homeopaths that the only time homeopathic medicine should be used is at a time of need – that prophylactic use of any homeopathic medicine should only be considered during an epidemic. There is definite point in this. However, I do feel Hahnemann intended the prophylactic use of homeopathic medicines to be considered on an even broader term. The inspired and successful use of homeopathically-prepared belladonna as a prophylactic against the beginning epidemic of scarlatina, or scarlet fever, is what spawned Hahnemann’s beginnings into the study of the prophylactic use of homeopathic medicines. Subsequent trials of the use of homeopathic medicines prophylactically during his lifetime – for example, for cholera5 – were also done during epidemics.
While it has been noted that, as significant as Hahnemann’s noted scarlet fever experience was, later instances of scarlet fever epidemics were staved off by different remedies. However, this does not necessarily discount the effectiveness of belladonna as a prophylactic for scarlet fever. A remarkable book was published in 1900 – The Logic of Figures – or Comparative Results of Homoeopathic and Other Treatments, by Dr. Thomas Lindsley Bradford. This book is a compilation of information he collected from both allopathic and homeopathic hospitals as well as other institutions throughout the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Russia. Not an exhaustive work, it yet presents quite clearly how well homeopathy works. On page 31 of this book, he presents about a study compiling the efforts of some 15 homeopaths who had learned of Hahnemann’s experience with homeopathic belladonna as a prophylactic. They each performed their own experiment – and each one had very successful results.
This was taken, in part, from what was shared in the first volume of The British Journal of Homoeopathy, published in 1843. Indeed, when what was published in this journal is more closely considered, we find a presentation by Dr. Francis Black6, wherein he first states that, “The homoeopathic law applies not only to the cure of disease, but also to its prevention. In several remedies, this has already been well proved, and, no doubt, future experiment will increase the number. . .” This is followed by documentation of what Bradford shares in his book. These further trials of belladonna as a prophylactic against scarlet fever took place from 1812 through 1829, and each one of these proved significantly successful.3
To this, we can add the thought that has been explored by homeopaths since Hahnemann’s time –prevention following a slight modification of the homeopathic principle, “like cures like”. Indeed, there are several strains of scarlet fever, each one bearing unique symptoms. However, there are yet some striking similarities, which can help solidify the fact that, as has been shown with the doctors in these many studies, belladonna can work preventively for many forms of scarlet fever, regardless of its strain. This has been shown to bear true for many diseases with homeoprophylaxis, including influenza. In other words, like also prevents like.
With this in mind. however, let us look at society today. In short,we live at a time wherein an incredible fear of disease has been greatly propagated. I feel, in large part, this has resulted from a multi-billion (US) dollar industry7 with a product to sell. Many venues exist today where further ideas about this are being pursued, and to a very effective degree.So I will not make much discussion of this here.What must be considered is the fact that this fear of disease has managed to engender a demand for prevention or immunization. And this form has become commonly associated with only one word –vaccination.
Principally speaking, we live at a time where the wanton and I will say extreme use of vaccinations to blanketly immunize people against an ever-growing list of diseases and other maladies, to the point that these are, in many places, being mandated. And this is being done in seeming disregard of the fact that vaccines do, indeed, contain many toxins, including mercury8 aluminum9, and other ingredients which have not been tested.
With this in mind, certain vaccines are being touted by the CDC itself as being important for pregnant women to take.10 regardless of the fact that these have not been tested on and are only recommended for pregnant women “. . . if clearly needed”, as stated right on many of the package inserts for these vaccines11.
Because of this, and because people, in large numbers, want to be able to trust what they are being told, it is important that people know that there, indeed, is a form of prophylaxis available through homeopathy that, through more than 200 years, has been proven to be effective and inherently safe12.. Until people know and understand the value and inherent necessity of many diseases and, indeed, of getting ill and healing from this, it is important that they know there is a nontoxic option for immunization which is found in homeopathy.
I am finding a very great and steadily growing interest in a nontoxic alternative to immunization. I have presented about homeoprophylaxis (“HP”) in many places in the US as well as in several nations. I started Homeoprophylaxis: A Worldwide Choice (www.HPWWC.org), and, with this organization, work through various means to ensure public knowledge of HP increases.Because of what I have been doing with homeoprophylaxis, as well as the fact that I havecolleagues in the US and many other countries who also utilize HP– many of these for nearly half a century – what I am presenting here, I feel, makes a fair presentation about why the pursuit of a homeopathic form of prophylaxis, or homeopathic immunization, is a very worthy idea.
My call is certainly not for every homeopathic practitioner to utilize this. Rather, there must be recognition, once again,that a very effective form of prophylaxis exists within homeopathy, and that there are a growing number of homeopaths and other health care practitioners who are receiving training in HP and are utilizing this. Along with this, there is a steadily growing demand for it in their practises. When people are desiring immunization and are looking for a nontoxic option for this, they should fairly be told there is an effective homeopathic means for this and where and how they can access this. This is the other primary mission of HPWWC –encouraging the use of HP by linking up trained practitioners and provide connection for these with those who are seeking access to HP.
Making the Case
There are two words interchanged in the English language, as if they were the same word – these are “immunization” and “vaccination”. Vaccination is a form of immunization. But homeopathic prophylaxis is a form of immunization as well. With this being understood, the use of the term “homeopathic vaccination” is best avoided, as it is not informative of what it really is. Homeopathic immunization is a much better and more complete term to use.
“No, today it can be difficult for some to see the proper use of homeopathic immunization as anything but a reaction to the vast overuse of vaccination, as some homeopaths want to assume13. And this is clearly understood, within the homeopathic mind, as Hahnemann himself also states in Aphorism 1, that the “. . . physician’s high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed.”4 As homeopaths, we understand the power of homeopathy to cure diseases. We also understand the vital role that an illness plays in strengthening the body – in educating the immune system. With the evergrowing number of vaccines promoted and utilized in the USA alone, there is also an ever growing number of people within society who are learning about dangers inherent in vaccines and are feeling alone because they choose not to utilize these. Daycares, schools, medical institutions, and more are making it increasingly difficult to not be immunized with vaccinations. It is important to encourage the general public to be educated, as far as the importance of diseases, allowing them to choose how they would like to be helped, if they desire this – whether they would like to allow their children to be exposed to the naturally occurring form of a mild disease (like chicken pox or measles) or if they would want to pursue a nontoxic homeopathic form of immunization for this. I simply want homeopathic prophylaxis known about, understood, and utilized. Why? Let me quickly explain.
The terms, “disease” and “illness” refer, generally, to what is sought to be prevented via a form of prophylaxis or immunization. These terms also tend to be interchanged in common usage. And, when preceded by the word “communicable” or “infectious” or even “contagious” they work to provide the primary reason for a need for immunization.There are different views within homeopathy, as far as what we will consider unwellness. We prefer to not utilize terminology such as “illness” or “disease”, but rather look at and consider symptoms. And here we have introduced the concept of genus epidemicus. Hahnemann defined this (though the term came later) in Aphorisms 101 and 102. In short, he writes,
- “. . . but the whole extent of such an epidemic disease and the totality of its symptoms (the knowledge whereof, which is essential for enabling us to choose the most suitable homeopathic remedy for this array of symptoms is obtained by a complete survey of the morbid picture) cannot be learned from one single patient, but is only to be perfectly deduced . . . and ascertained from the sufferings of several patients of different constitutions.”15
In other words, the use of a carefully ascertained remedy or nosode for prophylaxis when an epidemic is happening, should only be done when a similarity of symptoms within a certain populace is established. For those who support the use of homeopathy prophylactically only for epidemic situations, it makes sense to pursue it this way, as it is what Hahnemann spoke directly about in his essay.
However, in this same essay, speaking of finding a prophylactic means against the “murderous children’s pestilence” of severe scarlet fever, Hahnemann also wrote, “Who can deny that the perfect prevention of infection. . . 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?”16
Additionally, James Tyler Kent is known for what he said in this regard. “We must look to homoeopathy for our protection as well as for our cure. . . and these remedies . . . will enable you to prevent a large number of people from becoming sick.”17
This seems quite clearly to state both Hahnemann and Kent’s opinions, that, as solid of a medicine that homeopathy is – as wonderful as it is to be able to cure – the idea of prevention is actually a better idea. And why should this not be so, especially when it comes to horrible diseases, such as scarlet fever, which he was looking at, or cholera or yellow fever or meningitis or any of these diseases that carry a more severe potential of lasting damage and even death?
And Dr.Arthur Hill Grimmer (1874-1967), former president of the American Institute of Homeopathy as well as the International Hahnemannian Association,, said, as quoted in 1949, “As the Law of Similars excels in the power to cure, it excels more forcibly and certainly in the art of disease prevention.”18
With this being noted,we currently live at a time when we are working with many things Hahnemann may never have even dreamed of, as far as practises within common/conventional medicine. And because there are those who would rather make money than heal people and keep them well, this is the reason I strongly present that we must advocate the fact that homeopathy offers a nontoxic form of immunization. Be it for epidemics, for short term (e.g. seasonal flu or travelling), or even for long-term protection, not just homeopaths and natural healthcare practitioners, but several additional parties must be aware of this as well. One is the realms of conventional medicine, including not only the practicing practitioners, but also schools, and even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)and the World Health Organization (WHO), as well as those at the customs offices at the ports of entry in the various nations of the world. The other is the populace – those who seek our help. When these people come to us desiring immunisation, it must be clearly explained that there are two documented forms of this – vaccination as well as homeopathic prophylaxis.
Along with these, our governmental agencies must know as well. Lawmakers can be key to instituting health care practises. It is essential they not only know about homeopathy, but also about its prophylactic use.
Homeoprophylaxis – In Noted, Recorded, and Current Use in the World
It has already been noted, historically, that homeoprophylaxis has been spoken of within homeopathic realms in the US through the better part of the 20th century. But it goes even beyond this – and not simply in the US, but worldwide.
In her book from 1967, Homeopathy in Epidemic Diseases, British homeopath, Dr.Dorothy Shepherd (1885-1952), states that, “. . . the Homoeopathic preventives are much safer in use, and absolutely certain in their effects.”19 She speaks of the prophylactic use of homeopathic medicines against many common mild illnesses such as measles and whooping cough.
Dr. Ravi Roy and Carola Lage Roy of Germany have been utilizing homeopathic prophylaxis within their practise for nearly half a century themselves. Their extensive experience with homeoprophylaxis includes the use principally of nosodes in certain potencies. They educate German-speaking homeopaths in the use of this and have their own publishing company, the Lage-Roy Verlag, through which they have published extensively on this subject20.
Dr. Richard Hiltner of California has been utilizing homeoprophylaxis for about 40 years with tremendous success. He utilizes potentized vaccines for prophylaxis,which can seem controversial to some. However, he has documented a tremendous amount of effectiveness with this21.
Some colleagues of mine did some work with Lyssin in an Asian country and had tremendous success – 100% – at, interestingly, both the prevention and cure of rabies. Unfortunately, local authorities in this nation have forbidden them to talk about this, and, because of this, I regretfully cannot share the names of these practitioners here, only that their work there was very successful.
Dr. Torako Yui introduced homeopathy to Japan. A powerful voice for homeopathy in her country, she also spoke at the 2017 HPWWC conference. She has been utilizing homeopathic prophylaxis in Japan for many years, incorporating this into what she calls Zen Homeopathy. She also publishes about this22
Dr. Isaac Golden has been researching homeoprophylaxis since the mid-1980’s. His actual PhD is in the prophylactic use of homeopathic medicines. He is a renowned researcher of homeoprophylaxis and is known for his tireless work. He offers online training in the use of homeoprophylaxis, which been taken by practitioners in many countries. He also works to educate the lay people on the homeopathic option for immunization.
I have been able to work closely with Dr. Golden. He has presented about HP at the HPWWC conferences. He travels to a great degree in the promotion and education of homeoprophylaxis. Dr. Golden has stood steadfastly for homeopathic prophylaxis for many years, having written several books and many articles on this. Having served as president of the Victorian branch of the Australian Homoeopathic Association, Australia’s largest national organization for professional homoeopaths, from 1992 to 1998, he also will defend HP as being homeopathic rom its roots. He is currently running for political office within Australia’s fairly recently-founded Health Australia party.
The remarkable Cuban experience with leptospirosis and HP in 2007 and 200825 is often spoken of with reference to Golden. It is important to note, however, that the chief medical person in charge of this experience was Dr. Gustavo Bracho, of Cuba. Of certain note, at this point, is to mention Golden’s interactions with George Vithoulkas. Vithoulkas is to be honored and respected for all he has done and is yet doing for homeopathy. When one tries looking him up regarding his views on HP, a recording is found24, as well as the written text from this. While he shares some things very noteworthy here, it seems that, regarding homeoprophylaxis, it would be very good for him to have a broader understanding of the proper practise and use of this that is happening worldwide.
(This being said, however, I will note here that a current student of one of Vithoulkas’ homeopathic training courses recently shared with me that he is under the impression that Vithoulkas’ views on this may be beginning to evolve into a bit of acceptance.) And Dr. Isaac Golden has shared with me that, regarding HP, they have agreed to respectfully disagree.
Dr. Muhammed Rafeeque, a medical doctor and homeopath in India, makes frequent presentations about HP. Heshares that homeopathic prophylaxis is recognized by the government of his country as an acceptable alternative for immunization. Not a replacement for vaccination, it is simply recognized by the government of India that, when it comes to immunization, one may choose either traditional vaccination or homeopathic prophylaxis. Those who make vaccines and those who work homeopathically may work on building and promoting their own medicines. But they must not speak or present in any public manner against the other.Dr. Rafeeque also shared that, as recently as July 2017, to reduce time off for illness, a call was made for all government employees in a district in his state of Kerala to utilize homeopathic medicine prophylactically.
Dr. Rafeeque also notes that, in his state of Kerala, there is an organization, RAECH (Rapid Action Epidemic Control Cell Homeopathy). Established by governmental order in 2004, RAECH was begun to utilize homeopathy prophylactically for epidemics, and has successfully done so many times already. It is also used for educating the public. The RAECH program has been so successful that it has even provided training for the national Indian homeopathic organization, the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy (CCRH). The CCRH, which was established in 1978, ”undertakes, coordinates, develops, disseminates and promotes scientific research in Homoeopathy.”26
In 1998, one of the largest studies of homeoprophylaxis ever done took place in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. This involved some 20,000,000 children. Occurrences of Japanese Encephalitis (JE) had become quite frequent in that state, and many others in India. Dr. Srinivasulu Gadugu, another homeopath from India, shared with me more about this. JE was first reported in Andhra Pradesh in 1979 and, by 1990, it was declared to be an unmanageable problem. Between 1993 and 1999 more than 5000 cases were reported, which resulted in more than 1000 deaths, this happening in spite of vaccination attempts. An HP program was implemented in 1999, the results being so dramatic that, by 2002, there were no further deaths reported from JE – and no further cases of JE were reported in 2003 and 2004.27
Dr. Srinivasulu Gadugu
Cost for Homeoprophylaxis
Noting the often extreme cost of making and distributing vaccines7, 28, it is very worthwhile to note the literal pennies HP costs in comparison.For the HP treatment of the 20,000,000 children in Andhra Pradesh in India, Dr. Gadugu reports, the cost was a mere $50,000 USD.
The cost for treating the 2.4 million people with HP in the Cuban experience of 2007 and 2008 – Dr. Golden and Dr. Gustavo Bracho, estimate that the entire intervention, which was the treatment of some 2.4 million people, summed up to be about 1/20th the cost of seasonal vaccine interventions in Australia.
Dutch homeopath and medical doctor, Harry van der Zee, who does a lot of work in Africa, has shared with me that he loves that he can literally treat an entire village – either curatively or prophylactically – for the cost of a bottle of water.
Gaining Recognition – at All Levels in the US
I have begun conversations with parties within homeopathy who can help make a difference for its prophylactic use. Within the United States, this includes members of the HPUS. I am in legal counsel, as far as the best approach to amend how things are currently stated, regarding access to nosodes in the US.
I have been told that there is nothing stated in the HPUS regarding the prophylactic use of homeopathic medicines. Along with this, what is stated on the website of the American Association of Homeopathic Pharmacists regarding the use of Influenzinum for prophylaxis against the flu is noteworthy. On January 23, 2014, they issued a statement including the following:
- “. . . There is no homeopathic literature, nor clinical trials, which adequately support a homeopathic drug, and more specifically homeopathic Influenzinum, for use as prophylaxis for influenza. In addition, any product labeled for prophylaxis of flu is prescription in nature, according to FDA’s drug labeling guidelines, and is an inappropriate use of any product sold over the counter (OTC or nonprescription). . . it is inappropriate for a homeopathic drug product to be sold OTC while being promoted in any way for any such infectious disease.”29
This statement was made when there was an apparent shortage of the actual influenza vaccine and was to emphasize that homeopathic medicines are for the treatment of a diseased state manifesting symptoms indicative of certain remedies. It is stated that, “. . . homeopathic medicines are used principally for the treatment of presented symptoms and are less associated with causative agent of those symptoms. . .” It states that homeopathic Influenzinum is found to be helpful with symptoms produced by the flu. And it properly states that “. . . websites and marketers selling homeopathic medicines as OTC products for epidemic and infectious diseases may be in violation of federal and state law. . .”
I will present that, when it comes to actual prophylaxis using homeopathic medicines – whether they are nosodes or remedies – it is important that this action be overseen and not allowed OTC. However, this does bring in to certain question what is currently being discussed, as per the proposal made by the US FDA in December 2017. In this proposal30, the FDA wants to rescind the CPG Sec. 400.40031 and overtake the labelling of all “drug products labeled as homeopathic”. This alone cannot be allowed to happen, as homeopathic medicines are energetic, inherently safe, and are not risk-based. Conventional medicine does not understand and has not historically understood the principles of homeopathic medicine. Yet the wording of the AAHP in this statement leaves the door open for the FDA to be the sole judge of all drugs sold for prevention, including homeopathic medicines.
There is a clear issue here, when record shows that homeopathic medicines work prophylactically. Isaac Golden has shared with me that he has been using Influenzinum (in Australia) as a preventative very successfully in his practise for about 25 years. I have personally had many clients who started utilizing Influenzinum prophylactically who have told me how well this has been working for them. A health care office in the Dallas (Texas) area has enjoyed using Influenzinum prophylactically so much that they have actually begun their own test. Because immunization against the flu is required at this practice, for this study, they are allowing their employees to make a choice between utilizing Influenzinum prophylactically or receiving the flu shot. They will be making careful analyses of what they see, making sure of actual flu diagnoses and all. They are looking forward to what they will be finding – and I look forward learning about and sharing further what they will share with me.
The influenza vaccine is by far the biggest selling vaccine on the market, with well over a billion doses marketed from the US alone32. Because mercury (through Thimerosal) is still used in the multi-dose vial of many flu vaccines33, and because people are scared and looking for a means of prevention, in this case, of specifically the flu, it is unwise on many levels to not be evaluating things further, to allow a more open meanssharing with people that there is a nontoxic option for immunization against the flu within homeopathy.