The effectiveness of HP is shown consistently to be about 90%1, which is comparable to any vaccine.-
Introduction: Because of increasing pressure from the allopathic world against homeopathy, we are at a time when the linking of arms by homeopaths worldwide is becoming vitally important. In the public whom we serve, there is a growing demand for a nontoxic alternative to disease prevention, perhaps especially among parents of young children. Parents are becoming educated about what is out there and have strong opinions about what they want for their little ones. The idea of using homeopathy as a prophylactic is unfortunately still controversial among many homeopaths. Considering the increasing evidence regarding vaccines, it would be wise to give Homeoprophylaxis (HP) fair consideration so that one can present it as an option to consider, and at the very least, refer the requesting patient/client on to a practitioner who can provide them with this option.
Key words: Homeoprophylaxis, choice, option, alternative nontoxic, research, education
Care for the health and well-being of our children is reflective of the care we place on society itself. Ultimately, for infants and children, the choice of whether or not to pursue prophylaxis of any form should, in nearly every case, be left to the parents.
There already exist many places on the web that address vaccine history, content, and the many questions that people are realizing they can and should ask about these. We are working with a public that has access to untold amounts of information. And education is key to change. Hence, what I hope to present in this essay is information to help elucidate and solidify in a single place what homeopathic prophylaxis is, what it is not, what it has a solid track record of doing, and why it should be considered for children as a method of educating the immune system.
As I have been teaching about Homeoprophylaxis throughout the United States and in Europe, some things have become unmistakably clear. One is the ever increasing desire of people to know that there is a nontoxic alternative when it comes to disease prevention. Another is a profound misunderstanding or, perhaps better said, a lack of education among many regarding HP.
To begin, there are a few things to be fundamentally understood. First, the idea of using homeopathy prophylactically is nothing new, being in use since Hahnemann’s time. There is also no single way that it is practised—including administration; dosage potency; choice, and frequency; and types of remedies/nosodes used. In my travels, the vast majority of homeopaths I have met who utilize HP do so following foundational homeopathic principles, including minimum dose and the Law of Similars. The effectiveness of HP is being shown fairly consistently to be about 90%1, which is comparable to any vaccine. With this in mind, too, those who utilize homeoprophylaxis work to help their clients understand fundamentally that disease is generally not to be feared—that disease-causing pathogens are a necessary part of our environment and that the body generally becomes healthier once it has been exposed to a disease and has worked its way through it.
A brief run-down of my own story may help explain my passion regarding HP.
My first exposure to homeoprophylaxis coincided with the beginning of my homeopathic studies nearly twenty years ago. About this time, my second son was diagnosed with autism. Also at that time, the idea of a connection between vaccines and autism was finding more solid ground and was being spoken of with increasing vigor. I first denied this possibility, feeling I was doing everything “right” for my children, especially regarding those ever so important vaccinations. However, because I kept hearing of this possible connection, I realized I needed to look into this myself. Call it the beginnings of doubt, if you will.
I very soon realized there were questions which were not specifically addressed on the information sheets I’d been given at the doctors’ offices. These included: What are the actual success rates of these vaccines? Why only the simple references to possible minor side effects, when there were clearly an increasing number of stories emerging referencing severe damage after vaccination? Where are the actual statistics regarding infant mortality rates2? And, since vaccines are so safe and effective, should this not be next to zero, especially in countries like the United States, where the number of vaccines targeted for infants was becoming very large?
As I located the websites for the CDC and certain vaccine makers (including Merck and GlaxoSmithKline), I quickly found that answers to these questions were not as readily available as I had assumed they would be and the wordage I did find was quite vague.
The thought struck me that, if disease prevention is so important, surely there must be an alternative to vaccination. Why were the only conversations about disease prevention in reference to vaccines? I decided to go ahead and do yet another search, this time with the words, “vaccine” and “alternative”. That’s when I first came across the term, Homeoprophylaxis, and, with this, the name of a homeopath in Australia who had been researching this since the mid-1980’s. His name—Dr. Isaac Golden.
What I found of Dr. Golden’s work was profound. This happening at the beginning of my homeopathic studies, I could still clearly see how this concept followed fundamental homeopathic principles. It was nontoxic. And, from what he was sharing, was working very, very well—study after study was showing an effectiveness of about 90%. And it was Hahnemann himself who had discovered the idea of using homeopathy as a prophylactic two centuries earlier.
A few years ago, I was honored to connect with Isaac Golden. He first helped me work with my son, who is now doing remarkably well. And, beyond that, with his assistance, and with guidance from both Cilla Whatcott and Kate Birch through the organization they co-founded, Free and Healthy Children, International, HP is right now easily the busiest part of my homeopathic practise. Which brings us to today.
My passion regarding spreading the word and helping people learn about homeoprophylaxis led to my becoming the co-founder/director of the first international conference of its type in the world—Homeoprophylaxis: A Worldwide Choice, which took place in Dallas, Texas, USA in October, 2015. Isaac Golden was our keynote speaker. We had homeopaths and other healthcare professionals from around the world come and present about HP, the immune system, vaccines, and the importance of allowing choice. The conference was a profound success and helped open the door for the education of HP. (Conference recordings are available to purchase here: Homeoprophylaxis: A Worldwide Choice.) Because of the success of this conference, more conferences are scheduled, which will help people learn even further about HP.
In short, I have been honored to be presenting about HP in many places throughout the United States and in Europe. I am getting calls and/or emails almost daily from people, especially parents, who are very interested in learning more about this nontoxic alternative. Everywhere I have been presenting, both lay people and professionals have been coming up to me saying, “I had no idea!” The time is now for people to know fully about homeoprophylaxis.
As I began presenting in Europe, I came quickly to the discovery that, for many homeopaths and healthcare professionals, HP is nothing new—but they have been pleased to learn of the increasing interest being shown in this.
A Brief History of HP
In Hahnemann’s Lesser Writings, is found his essay, “Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever”3. He begins this essay by sharing that he hoped “to excite a great interest in a subject of so much importance to humanity as this is. . .” After describing scarlet fever in detail, he describes his “fortunate” discovery of a prophylactic use of the remedy, Belladonna, for this disease. The story, as he shares it, is of how, in July of 1799 (“. . . when the scarlet-fever was most prevalent and fatal. . .”), a mother of a large family unwittingly managed to bring the scarlet fever miasm into her home, and her 10-year-old daughter contracted it. Hahnemann came and, evaluating the entire scene before him in this house, resolved “to obtain a remedy whose peculiar mode of action was calculated to produce in the healthy body most of the morbid symptoms which (he) observed combined in this disease”—thus, he determined Belladonna would actually be the most appropriate. He gave this to the girl, who was very sick, and the next day she was “lively, ate and played again, and complained of nothing.” Two other children then began showing the symptoms of scarlet fever, and Hahnemann successfully helped these with Belladonna as well. There were five more children in this family whom he treated prophylactically with Belladonna, and they did not contract the disease.
After what happened with this family, Hahnemann learned of another family, wherein three children came down with the “bad” scarlet fever. The eldest daughter, however, who had already been taking Belladonna for a certain acute affliction, did not come down with this fever—even though, in previous epidemics, she had always been the first to be struck by it. There were five more children in this family who had not yet contracted this scarlet fever. Hahnemann treated these with Belladonna, and none of them got the disease. Hahnemann makes reference to this in the sixth edition of the Organon, in Aph. 73, FN b. Additionally, in his Lesser Writings Hahnemann also speaks of the effective prophylactic use of homeopathy against cholera4, which also was frequently epidemic in his time.
It is interesting to note the timing between this discovery of Hahnemann and the discovery of what we know today as the “vaccine” by Dr. Edward Jenner in England. Jenner’s story will not be elaborated upon here, except to note a not often mentioned experience that happened with the young Prince Wilhelm of Prussia (1795-1861) in 1799. When word of Jenner’s discovery began to spread, the Kaiser of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm III, decided to have his son, then just 4 years old, inoculated with the smallpox vaccine. The little prince, however, became gravely ill, and remained so for eight days. To his parents’ great relief, the young lad managed to survive5. Later, the royal doctor, Christoph Wilhelm von Hufeland, learned of Hahnemann’s work and became convinced of the power of homeopathic prophylaxis, writing in his journal about it in 1826 (“The Prophylactic Power of Belladonna against Scarlet Fever”). He explained about this to the Kaiser, who then, in 1838— likely feeling a profound sense of gratitude to now know of a nontoxic prophylactic source—ordered that Belladonna be used against Scarlet Fever for the entire kingdom of Prussia6.
From Hahnemann’s discovery, continuing through to today, research has been ongoing into HP. This is reflected in the writings of many homeopaths. A few quotes are listed here:
- Boenninghausen himself saw promise in HP in 1849, noting, in his own Lesser Writings, its effectiveness against cholera.
- Kent said, “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.” (JT Kent, Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy; © 1954; B. Jain, India; p. 229 [as quoted in Vaccination & Homoeoprophylaxis: A Review of Risks and Alternatives [Isaac Golden] 7th edition © 2010; Isaac Golden Publications, Australia; pg. 366].)
- Dorothy Shepherd, in her work, Homoeopathy in Epidemic Diseases, notes, “. . . inoculation with any type of serum in any of these infectious diseases is harmful and can easily and safely be replaced by a remedy or remedies, proved according to our Law of Similars that ‘like cures like’ on healthy individuals. Nosodes or disease products of the actual disease are often most active preventives. . . the homoeopathic preventives are much safer in use, and absolutely certain in their effects. Even should the infectious disease develop, it will be in a much milder form.” (Shepherd, Dr. Dorothy, Homoeopathy in Epidemic Diseases; © 1981, The C.W. Daniel Company, Ltd. (England); pp. 15, 16.
- M. Blackie, in The Challenge of Homoeopathy in 1976, wrote, “The results . . . of Homoeopathy in preventative medicine are justifiably based on experience rather than experiment.” (Blackie, Dr. M., The Challenge of Homoeopathy; © 1981, Unwin, pg. 184 [as quoted in Vaccination & Homoeoprophylaxis: A Review of Risks and Alternatives [Isaac Golden] 7th edition © 2010; Isaac Golden Publications, Australia; pg. 368].)
- Andrew Lockie, in his work, The Family Guide to Homoeopathy (published 1989), shares, “. . . most homoeopaths prefer to take the route of boosting general resistance to disease, rather than exposing a child unnecessarily to the influence of powerful disease organisms. That said, homoeopathic immunisation has never damaged anyone.” Lockie, Dr. Andrew, The Family Guide to Homeopathy; Guild Publishing, pg. 17 [as quoted in Vaccination & Homoeoprophylaxis: A Review of Risks and Alternatives [Isaac Golden] 7th edition © 2010; Isaac Golden Publications, Australia; pg. 369].)
Many other homeopaths have been noted and quoted in their favorable use of HP. Even Dr. Harry van der Zee, who has been doing remarkable work in Africa with the Amma Resonance Healing Foundation (ARHF), has shared what his findings have been, regarding the prophylactic use of homeopathy, with a slight re-wording of what is commonly said regarding the founding “like cures like” principle of homeopathy— “A remedy that can cure an epidemic, infectious, or contagious disease, can also be used to prevent it.”
This takes into account the phrase I learned from Isaac Golden, in reference to what happens through the use of homeoprophylaxis— that HP is a means to “educate the immune system”. To illustrate this, consider that Dr. Richard Hiltner in California has told me, in his many years of using HP, he has seen just one single case of chickenpox develop. I’ve learned a parallel record from Martin de Munck, a homeopath in the Netherlands. My good friends and colleagues in Germany, Dr. Ravi Roy and his wife, Carola Lage-Roy, have been utilizing HP, which they learned through the study of Hahnemann’s works, for more than 35 years, seeing great success with this as well. Understanding HP is acknowledging that immunity is a whole body response, not simply the presence of antibodies. And educating the immune system, as happens through the proper use of HP, encourages whole health. This will be further addressed later.
Again, in many nations, including Germany and India, homeoprophylaxis has been a standard part of homeopathic curriculum. Study of this is also offered to those pursuing other forms of healthcare as well. Whether or not any of these professionals actually utilize HP in their individual practises has always been an individual choice. In Germany and for those in German-speaking lands, Ravi and Carola offer specific training in the utilization of HP. This is also done, in English, by Golden and has recently been introduced by Kate Birch with Free and Healthy Children International. Dr. Muhammed Rafeeque, a homeopath in India who is very active in using and promoting HP there, shared with me that this is done in his country as well. And something that will hopefully become ever more common in this world: the government of India actually encourages HP as a choice in disease prevention, for epidemics as well as other infectious diseases.
Methods of HP Administration
One of the “loudest” arguments against HP comes from a misunderstanding of the methods used for administration. Indeed, without a full understanding of homeoprophylaxis, to simply look at the charts that can sometimes be found on the internet presents a very daunting picture. Most important to be known and understood is that, with each dosing method, homeopathic principles are still at the foundation. Here is a quick overview of what I have found. I will present a picture of what is being utilized. These are all ideally done under the direction of a specifically-trained homeopath or health care provider. Frequently seen is the protocol Isaac Golden utilizes. This is a once monthly method, where one single remedy/nosode is introduced at potency. If following, for example, a pediatric regimen that lists several nosodes, it will be the next month that either a larger dose of that same nosode is taken, or the next nosode is introduced. For pediatric HP, this is cycled through until all nosodes in the protocol are taken, the higher potency being started after the lower potency is completed. A booklet is provided to the clientele to keep track of these.
Ravi and Carola, in Germany, have taught for years and utilize a very careful regimen of introducing a nosode at potency, repeating this shortly thereafter, then repeating this in specified time periods, generally bi-annually. When several nosodes are used— again, as is often the case with pediatric HP— subsequent nosodes are introduced about a half month later. Then the higher potency is introduced. Things are cycled through this way as well, as far as pediatric HP. A booklet is also provided for clientele for record keeping.
A homeopath I know in Holland works out an individualized HP program with each of his clients. Then he sends them home with a bag full of the desired nosodes, a set of instructions, and a means of documenting what they will be doing. I also know of a homeopath who combines all the desired disease nosodes into a single remedy and administers this.
HP for those who travel is worked out even more individually, depending on where they are going, what time of year they are going, which diseases may or may not be present at the time, and how long they are staying. Also taken into consideration is the amount of time before travel that the client will begin the HP regimen. There are homeopaths who strictly utilize the dry dosing method for HP. Others, the water dosing method. Some combine these two, using the water dosing primarily for the infants. Some have utilized olfaction successfully for HP for their most sensitive clients.
Ravi and Carola, in Germany, have shared with me that, in the 35 years they’ve been doing HP, they’ve found the method of introduction simply doesn’t matter, so long as careful homeopathic principles are followed.
The Role of Disease in Health
In my presentations, I work to build an understanding of the essential role of disease—that wellness is not the absence of sickness. Rather, it is the strengthening and maintaining of the constitution. Disease pathogens are always going to be a part of our environment—they are living creatures that want to survive, so will never be “eradicated”, but will adapt and mutate as they need to do so. These pathogens also play a vital role in our health.
Regarding the benefits of diseases specifically in reference to cancers, here is a small sampling of what I share:
- Naturally occurring mumps protects against ovarian cancer (Aug, 2010) (Daniel W. Cramer, et al.): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2951028/
“. . . Mumps parotitis may lead to expression and immune recognition of a tumor-associated form of MUC1 and create effective immune surveillance of ovarian cancer cells that express this form of MUC1. . .”
- Previous exposure to infectious diseases such as influenza, mumps, measles, chicken pox protects against malignant melanomas (Sep, 1992) (Kölmel, K.F., et al): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1450674
“. . . The study confirms the hypothesis that an inverse relationship exists between febrile infections and malignant melanoma. . .”
- Varicella/Zoster (chickenpox/shingles) Virus Infection leads to reduced risk of brain tumor (glioma) (1997) (Margaret Wrench, et al.): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14119369_Does_Prior_Infection_with_Varicella-Zoster_Virus_Influence_Risk_of_Adult_Glioma
“. . . This suggests that adults with glioma were less likely than controls either to have had prior varicella-zoster virus infection or to have an immunoglobulin G antibody response adequate to indicate positivity. . . .“
I emphasize, when I present, that it is never pleasant to contract a naturally-occurring illness—that’s how it should be. And when health is regained, one normally in many ways manifests greater vitality, because one’s immune system and entire body has been strengthened—or “educated” in the process.
Often heard, as well, is the argument that it is healthier to allow a child to simply contract a disease and let his system be strengthened as it overcomes what it was going to contract anyway. Along with this is frequently heard the supposition that HP was only intended to be used during an epidemic, such as that of scarlet fever and even cholera, which were quite frequent during Hahnemann’s time.
These are fair points deserving consideration as well.
I will not argue with a parent’s or anyone’s philosophy, as far as illness. Illness, as I have said is, generally speaking, a good and very necessary thing with quite positive results. Again, it is the allopathic world that has instilled a fear into us. Why? Because, again, when one considers the research that is still quite readily available showing the health benefits of diseases, one can justly assume it boils down to that they have a product to sell. Health, by and large, has returned to society as a result of cleanliness, good hygiene and sanitation, clean water, and whole food, not as a result of vaccination7.
Along with this, however, it is also good to ascertain the specific danger of the diseases that are present. By and large, diseases such as the chicken pox, measles, and even mumps are mild, especially in areas where there is access to good sanitation and clean water. Even the seasonal flu, until just recently, has simply been an unpleasant occurrence we planned for each year, reminding people to wash their hands, eat well, and stay home if they feel something coming on. However, pertussis can be very dangerous for infants8. So if it can be avoided for them, that is a good thing. Additionally, meningococcal meningitis can kill within 24 hours after contraction9. So this is also a good thing to avoid, if possible.
(The homeopathic nosode for prophylaxis against meningitis, Meningococcinum, has been in use since 1998, a study from Brazil showing remarkable results, with about a 90% effectiveness rate10. Whereas, a vaccine against meningitis was not introduced to common use in the public until 200511.)
Considering the idea of HP being only intended for an epidemic, the question to this can be presented: What, exactly, is an epidemic? And when is an epidemic supposed to get “bad enough” to then warrant the use of something to eradicate it? How many people must suffer until this point? It takes from six months to a year to develop a vaccine, once a disease outbreak begins and a pathogen has been identified. And this generally will not allow for sufficient testing. With this in mind, considering homeoprophylaxis, once a Genus Epidemicus can be determined, a homeopathic nosode can be made within 2 weeks. And it has also been repeatedly shown that, when the symptoms of a disease outbreak are similar, the same remedy or nosode can effectively be used again and again. So, in response to the idea of waiting for an epidemic to be in place before considering homeoprophylaxis, Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, a homeopath in New Zealand said it quite simply, waiting for a not clearly defined moment of an epidemic when it could be avoided altogether would be unethical. If a disease can be effectively prevented from becoming epidemic, this would be the best thing to do. And with HP to promote wellness before signs of an epidemic need even begin, this is possible.
To this, I will also present an interesting study Isaac Golden conducted. This is shared in his book, The Complete Practitioner’s Guide to Homeoprophylaxis (pg. 92). Being struck by the consistent effectiveness he was seeing in his studies of homeoprophylaxis, he decided to try looking at it from another direction. The effectiveness of HP was proving quite consistent for many diseases. But he wanted a broader sample of how HP may be affecting the health of children. So he determined five afflictions for which there were no vaccines: asthma, eczema, ear and hearing issues, allergies, and behavioral issues. For comparison of these, he grouped the subjects into four categories: those treated only with HP, those treated only with vaccination, those coming from homes where only holistic measures were taken (e.g. organic foods, natural supplements, and the like—here titled “General”), and those for whom nothing at all was done, as far as disease prevention. When he initially started compiling the data from this study, he was certain that the healthiest scores would come from the “General” group. What resulted, however, surprised him, as, in nearly every case, the highest scores were in the group who had received HP only. In fairness, Golden says this is not at all conclusive. However, he feels—and I fully agree—that it clearly warrants further research.
There is also the Precautionary Principle to keep in mind when looking at conditions such as disease occurrence, prevention, and prophylaxis against disease. The Precautionary Principle states that, if there is any question as to positive results of an action, the burden of proof should lay on the presenter, not on what will result after consequences of something they propose. The risk is on those proposing, not those subject to what the proposal may entail12. Expanding on this, I will present the idea that, if harm from a natural disease can effectively be avoided in a nontoxic manner that may to be promoting of overall health, this avenue should not only be used, but encouraged.
Ultimately, homeoprophylaxis has been in use since the days of Hahnemann. What is apparent when one considers the entire picture, noting the meticulous studies that have been and are yet being done as well as the current increasing demand of people worldwide— perhaps especially parents— for a nontoxic alternative for disease prevention, it truly makes sense to be promoting homeoprophylaxis. Our children are the most vulnerable in our society and deserve our utmost attention and concern. Not every practitioner needs to utilize HP. However, because there are many who do, support of this should be encouraged. It is an alternative people deserve to know about so that they can make an educated choice, and health for our society, especially our children, can be promoted.
A FEW additional more recent studies include:
- 1999/2000 – Japanese Encephalitis study (20 million children) – India: Referenced, Vaccination & Homoeoprophylaxis: A Review of Risk and Alternatives (see below)
- 2007/08 – Leptospirosis Study – Cuba: Referenced, Vaccination & Homoeoprophylaxis: A Review of Risk and Alternatives (see below)
- 2011 – Flu Study – Brazil: Lyrio, Carlos, et al.; Brazil The use of homeopathy to prevent symptoms of flu and acute respiratory infections: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial with 600 children from Brazilian Public Health Service; Int’l J Dilution Res 2011; 10(36): pp. 174-176; Proceedings of the XXV GIRI Symposium and VIII CBFH; 2011 Sep 04-07; Foz do Iguaҫu (Brazil)
David Little – Essay on HP:
Email list for practitioners utilizing or seriously studying HP: