Scientific Research

The Latest Research Into The Effectiveness and Safety of Homeoprophylaxis

The Latest Research Into The Effectiveness and Safety of Homeoprophylaxis

Introduction

I have been collecting data on the safety and effectiveness of long-term homeoprophylaxis (HP) since 1985, when I first developed a 5 year program for the long-term prevention of targeted infectious diseases. The Status Sheet accompanying my current program is shown in Figure 1, and outlines the suggested main program of remedies. In 2004 I completed a 4 year Doctoral research program at Swinburne University examining different aspects of this subject.

A summary of the statistical findings has been published in Homeoprophylaxis – A Fifteen Year Clinical Study[1]. The entire subject, including a description of the nature of the infectious diseases under consideration, the risks and benefits of both vaccination and homeoprophylaxis, and a balanced comparison of the two methods, is covered in detail in Vaccination & Homeoprophylaxis? A Review of Risks and Alternatives, 6th ed[2]. The purpose of this article is to share the major findings of the long-term research with readers.

A Summary of Findings

There have been a range of statistical studies into the short-term efficacy of HP since 1907. These are summarized in Table 1, as well as the results of my two published long-term studies.

A more detailed summary of my findings is shown in Table 2. The data is based on questionnaire responses from parents whose children used my HP program. Each response covered one year of a child’s life. Some parents returned questionnaires over 6 years, and some only for the first year of the program. Fifteen data groups were divided into three groups of five, based on slight differences in the HP programs used. The third group (Series 11-15) was studied in greater detail in order to validate the findings of the earlier Series. Seven different tests were performed on Series 11-15 data. These tests, and the results, are shown in Table 3.

The overall effectiveness of the long-term program was 90.4%. The tests shown in Table 3 further validated the findings of effectiveness.

The long-term safety of my long-term HP program was firstly tested by examining comments by parents of children using the program regarding the general health of their child. The comments were 92.3% positive, and 7.7% negative. Further, the data showed a per-dose rate of reactions to medicines in the program of less than 2%. Further analysis showed that the reactions were typically mild and brief[3].

Long-term safety, in children aged 4-14 years, was further tested by comparing (i) the rates of certain chronic conditions such as asthma, eczema, ear/hearing problems, allergies and behavioral problems, with (ii) different types of disease prevention, including vaccination, HP, general/constitutional prevention and no prevention at all. The results are shown in Table 4. They clearly indicate that long-term safety of HP was high, using the incidence of the targeted chronic illness as markers of overall wellness.

Finally, the new research showed that not all HP programs yield comparable results[4]. There is not an uniquely “correct” long-term HP program. However the onus is on programs using the protocols that are significantly different to those covered by my research (200 – 10M potencies, single remedies for each disease, infrequent doses of each remedy) to demonstrate safety and effectiveness. I certainly have seen examples of HP programs over the years that have left me wondering.

Of course, many in the homeopathic community wonder about the whole concept of HP itself. Further research, as well as open-minded discussion, is needed to help re-establish HP into the mainstream of homeopathic practice. I have shown elsewhere that HP has its roots in the practices of Hahnemann himself, as well as H.C. Allen; C.M.F. Von Boenninghausen; J.C. Burnett; J.H. Clarke, and many other important figures from the history of homeopathy[5]. Still, because many homoeopaths were not taught about HP in their Colleges, it is necessary to reconcile the apparent contradictions between homoeopathic treatment and homoeopathic prevention. This reconciliation has taken place in Australia over the last 15 years through vigorous debate, and examination of actual research findings (rather than speculation). It will benefit all when the debate is held internationally.

Conclusions

The latest results measuring the effectiveness of my long-term HP program remain very consistent with earlier figures, and with estimates of HP effectiveness by other authors. The seven additional tests performed on the data reinforce the results.

The new research measuring the long-term safety of my HP program reinforces the fact that an appropriate HP program is associated with an improvement in the general health of participants, and that there is no evidence of any long-term weakening of the vital force as a consequence of using an appropriate long-term HP program.

Whilst this article provides a very brief summary only of the available data, the data shows that practitioners who wish to use an appropriate long-term HP program may do so with great confidence, and in turn pass that on to inquiring parents.

Supporting Tables

Table 1: The Effectiveness of HP – Statistical Trials in Humans

Year Researcher* Numbers of Participants Length of Survey Effectiveness %
1907 Eaton

2,806

< 1 year 97.5
1950 Taylor-Smith 82 (12 definitely exposed) < 1 year 100.0
1963 Gutman 385 < 1 year 86.0
1974 Castro &Nogeira HP 18,000Not HP 6,340 3 months 86.1
1987 English 694 2 years 87.0 – 91.5
1987 Fox 61 5 years 82.0 – 95.0
1998 Mroninski et al HP 65,826Not HP 23,539 6 months12 months 95.091.0
1997 Golden

593 children

1,305 questionnaires

10 years 88.8
2004 Golden 1,159 children2,342 questionnaires 15 years 90.4

* References for these studies may be found in Vaccination and Homeoprophylaxis – A Review of Risks and Alternatives, 6th edition[5]

Table 2 Summary of Results of a Fifteen Year Study into Long-Term Homeoprophylaxis

Measures of Reactions & Effectiveness, After Follow-Up Surveys

Data Series

Series 1-5 Series 6-10 Series 11-15 Totals
Total Responses

708

817 817 2342
1. Previously vaccinated

73

102 110 285

10.3%

12.5%

13.5%

12.2%

2. Definite reactions to remediesReactions per person

Reactions per dose (est.)

50

83 82 215

7.1%

10.2%

10.0%

9.2%

1.2%

1.7%

1.7%

1.5%

3. Definitely suffered from diseases coveredby the main program (a measure of failure) 18 11 11

40

2.5%

1.3%

1.4%

1.7%

4. Definitely exposed to diseasescovered by the main program

177

127 113 417

25.0%

15.5%

13.8%

17.8%

5. Definitely suffering diseases, afterdefinite exposure and after taking the

appropriate remedy (a measure of failure)

18/177

11/127

11/113

40/417

10.2%

8.7%

9.7%

9.6%

6. Definitely not suffering diseases, afterdefinite exposure and after taking

appropriate remedy (a measure of success)

159/177

116/127

102/113

377/417

89.8%

91.3%

90.3%

90.4%

NOTE: each response covers on year of a child’s life.

Table 3: Tests to Validate the Measure of the Effectiveness of Long-Term HP[6]

No Test Result
1 The accountability rate (the % of those surveyed who responded) of the final 5-years’ data was calculated to see whether a significant level of accountability (>70%), and thus greater reliability of results, was achieved. >70% accountability of first year responses was achieved
2 Non-respondents were surveyed to ensure that the questionnaires that were received gave responses that were reflective of the entire survey population. Responses from non-respondents were consistent with respondent replies.
3 Respondents who reported acquisition of a disease were surveyed to verify the accuracy of their initial report. High level of accuracy of initial reports was found.
4 Respondents who reported exposure to a disease were surveyed to verify the accuracy of their initial report. High level of accuracy of initial reports was found.
5 A more detailed statistical analysis of the data was undertaken to determine confidence limits for the figure for the efficacy of HP. Confidence limits were:CI = 87.6% – 93.2% (P=95%)
6 The accuracy of the measurements of efficacy based on notifications of and exposure to diseases was tested by calculating the sensitivity and specificity of the data (statistical measures of accuracy). High levels of sensitivity (disease = 90.9%, exposure = 95.6%), and specificity (disease = 98.1%, exposure = 99.2%).
7 A comparison with national disease attack rates was undertaken to provide an effective control group against which to compare results. Weighted average national disease attack rate = 79%;HP associated with reduction in disease, P > 99%.

Table 4: Additional Research Supporting the Safety of Long-Term HP[7]

1. Absolute safety of HP If the Odds Ratio < 1 for every condition studied, then HP is not associated with a higher level of the condition:

Odds Ratio for Asthma = 0.12; P = 0.0004

Odds Ratio for Eczema = 0.38; P = 0.015

Odds Ratio for Ear/hearing = 0.92; P = 0.8

Odds Ratio for Allergies = 0.55; P = 0.07

Odds Ratio for Behavior = 0.45; P = 0.17

2. Relative safety of HP

Compared to vaccination, general/constitutional protection, or no protection at all.

Asthma – safest; P = 0.0004

Eczema – safest; P = 0.015

Ear/hearing – 3rd safest; P = 0.8

Allergies – 2nd safest; P = 0.07

Behavior – 2nd safest; P = 0.17

(P = Chi squared probability. Significant result if P<0.05. Thus results for Asthma and Eczema were highly statistically significant, the results for ear/hearing were not, and for allergies and behavioral problems moderately significant.)

3. Accumulated parental rankings of general health of their child

HP is associated with the highest level of health over all rankings.

Figure 1: Homeopathic Preventative Program Against Infectious Diseases

STATUS SHEET[8]

Name ______________________________________. is being protected against the following infectious diseases using high potency homeopathic remedies. Clinical studies over 200 years indicate that this program is comparably effective to conventional vaccines, and is non-toxic. The following chart indicates the current program status of the patient and has been dated and signed by the parent, and signed by the homeopath who prepared the program.

AgeRecomm /Given Remedy Potency Remedy Label Date of Admin. Administered By
1 month Pertussin 200 A1
2 months Pertussin 200, 200, 200 A1
3 months Pneumococcinum 200 G1
4 months Pneumococcinum 200, 200, 200 G1
5 months Lathyrus Sativus 200 C1
6 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, 200, 200 C1
7 months Haemophilis 200 H1
8 months Haemophilis 200, 200, 200 H1
9 months Meningococcinum 200 I1
10 months Meningococcinum 200, 200, 200 I1
11 months Tetanus Tox 200 B1
12 months Tetanus Tox 200, 200, 200 B1
14 months Pertussin 10M, 10M, 10M A3
16 months Pneumococcinum 10M, 10M, 10M G3
18 months Lathyrus Sativus 10M, 10M, 10M C3
20 months Haemophilis 10M, 10M, 10M H3
22 months Meningococcinum 10M, 10M, 10M I3
24 months Tetanus Tox 10M, 10M, 10M B3
26 months Pertussin 10M, 10M, 10M A3
30 months Pneumococcinum 10M, 10M, 10M G3
36 months Lathyrus Sativus 10M, 10M, 10M C3
40 months Haemophilis 10M, 10M, 10M H3
44 months Meningococcinum 10M, 10M, 10M I3
48 months Tetanus Tox 10M, 10M, 10M B3
52 months Pertussin 10M, 10M, 10M A3
58 months Pneumococcinum 10M, 10M, 10M G3
64 months Lathyrus Sativus 10M, 10M, 10M C3
70 months Haemophilis 10M, 10M, 10M H3
76 months Meningococcinum 10M, 10M, 10M I3
84 months Tetanus Tox 10M, 10M, 10M B3

Remedy-Disease Relationship: Pertussin — Whooping Cough; Tetanus Toxin — Tetanus;

Haemophilis — Hib Influenzae; Lathyrus Sativus – Polio; Pneumococcinum – Pneumococcal Disease; Meningococcinum – Meningococcal Disease.

[1] Golden I (2004) Homeoprophylaxis – A Fifteen Year Clinical Study. Isaac Golden Publications. Gisborne. Vic.

[2] Golden I. (2005) Vaccination & Homeoprophylaxis: A Review of Risks and Alternatives. 6th ed. Isaac Golden Publications. Gisborne. Vic.

[3] Golden (2004). Table 13, page 31.

[4] Golden (2005). Section 4.3. pp. 180-181.

[5] Golden I. (2005). pp. 243-262.

[6] Golden (2004). Section 4.4. pp. 19,20.

[7] Golden (2004). Table 18, pp. 134-142.

[8] Golden I. (2005). Table 4.4, p. 154.

Dr. Isaac Golden has been a practicing homeopath since 1984. He was awarded the Australian Homeopathic Association’s Distinguished Service Award in 1999. He is the author of 8 books on homeopathy, including 3 on homeoprophylaxis He is Principal of the Australasian College of Hahnemannian Homeopathy which has provided accredited distance education in homeopathy since 1990. He was Faculty Head of Homeopathy at the Melbourne campus of the Australian College of Natural Medicine from 1989 to 2004. He completed 20 years research into homeoprophylaxis with a further 4 years research at Swinburne University, leading to a PhD in 2004.

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