I must say from the beginning that I appreciate whatever new ideas and theories are coming in to Homeopathy, but those who venture doing this must be prepared to withstand critical remarks when these remarks are well intentioned and most of all when they are for the benefit of the patient, the society and the science. If someone says, “you are stupid, narrow minded or unable to understand” he is rude; but if he says “your idea does not make sense because of this or that reason” then the criticism is within the necessary limits of scientific discussion. This is what I have tried to do within this discussion and if I fail it is most probably due to my bad English.
Our science, as it is still in the process of developing, has a peculiarity that we do not see in other sciences. Because our working ground is bordering on the level of energy and not the physical and directly perceptible phenomena, it may easily admit two kinds of ideas: ones that are bordering on phantasy, i.e., “we do not need a proving, we can imagine it” ; or the supernatural, i.e., “we can sleep over a potentized remedy under the pillow and attribute the dreams to the remedy”; or even the delusional, i.e., we can potentize a stanza or a song or we can put a glass of water over a paper on which we wrote the remedy name and the potency and the water is potentised – and you can give it to the patient and cure him!! Nobody is able to refute such ideas with logical arguments but only with sweeping aphorisms.
The other group of ideas that are coming after much consideration and research are worthy of an answer.
Golden did some research for which he is to be praised. Whether the results are true or not it is another matter.
Golden was basing his initiative in Hahnemann’s ideas of prevention and for that he should also be praised. The main question though should be: Do we have a way of protecting people from epidemic diseases in a reliable way so as to come out publicly and declare to the world that we have the “alternative” solution to vaccination? If we do, then well and good, come out and give the results and take the responsibility. If we do not have it, is better to keep quite.
This claim was the last straw for the person writing an argument against Homeopathy in the TIMES article. He accused us of bragging that we have an alternative to the vaccinations when actually we did not, therefore his conclusion was that we are liars and homeopathy is no better than voodoo medicine. If he did not have this argument, this article would be different and in any case much weaker and the impression to the public less dramatic.
But let us see whether such prevention is possible through the potentised remedy.
The conventional vaccines have a known mechanism: they create antibodies that prevent the epidemic. Do we have something similar in homeopathy? If we do not, can we explain what the mechanism is which protects the organism in homeoprophylaxis?
In homeopathy we know the mechanism that cures: the organism in its efforts to re-establish balance is producing a totality of symptoms, the remedy due to its similarity is strengthening this effort and a cure results. Do we have a similar convincing explanation for the way the remedies are preventing epidemics? Golden says in his reply to me, “We can also say, as part of the same Law of energetic interaction, that a substance which can produce symptoms in a healthy person can prevent similar symptoms in another person.”
But as we all know, the remedy can act only when the symptoms are present, not before they appear. The remedy acts once the defense mechanism has been mobilized and not before this. To say that the homeopathic 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.
One may think that I am in favour of vaccinations! This is of course not true at all.
When I was writing my book, The Science of Homeopathy in the 70’s, I gave an analysis of the “vaccination question”, which I still maintain is true. The main argument was:
Vaccinations prevent epidemic diseases by compromising the immune system which is then unable to develop the epidemic fever. If one wants to read the whole argument, one can go to the book The Science of Homeopathy, p.113 Grove Press. But even if we do not ask for a possible explanation of the mechanism of homeoprophylaxis do we have enough evidence that a real prevention for a considerable number of people will take place under the homeopathic remedy?
Did we try the homeoprophylaxis in countries with the epidemics and compare them with non vaccinated groups? But even if some appear to be protected, how do we know that the supposedly “protected subjects” were protected in any case by being in a state of chronic condition? According to my theory of the levels of health a person with a chronic condition cannot easily develop an epidemic with high fever. Even Hahnemann said the same thing in aphorism 36.
But there are further consequences of such claims. Let us suppose that due to a wrong evaluation of the research, if not tested properly, our results are false positive. Let us suppose that the world believes that we have an alternative to vaccinations and they implement it. Who can then take the responsibility of a mass tragedy when people thought to be protected were not and instead were infected by the epidemic in a massive way? What happens if some of them die?
The fact that the existing vaccination policy gives horrendous side-effects, sometimes initiating chronic conditions like these in autistic children, does not justify us in jumping into the picture. We are offering an alternative that does not really exist.
Golden implied (maybe I am wrong) that the people who were supervising the research were conventional scientists. Will these scientists come out and tell us if they find to their satisfaction that the research protocols followed were correct for such a serious matter and whether the results were reliable? Were the results such as to indicate with certainty that there is reason to believe that the proposed prophylaxis is reliable and can be suggested to the governments as an official policy?
We may have an advantage in curing early cases of an epidemic over the conventional medicine but we should not confuse this with homeoprophylaxis.