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

YearResearcher*Numbers of ParticipantsLength of Survey Effectiveness %
1907Eaton

2,806

< 1 year97.5
1950Taylor-Smith82 (12 definitely exposed)< 1 year100.0
1963Gutman385< 1 year86.0
1974Castro &NogeiraHP 18,000Not HP 6,3403 months86.1
1987English6942 years87.0 – 91.5
1987Fox615 years82.0 – 95.0
1998Mroninski et alHP 65,826Not HP 23,5396 months12 months95.091.0
1997Golden

593 children

1,305 questionnaires

10 years88.8
2004Golden1,159 children2,342 questionnaires15 years90.4

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

708

817 8172342
1. Previously vaccinated

73

102110285

10.3%

12.5%

13.5%

12.2%

2. Definite reactions to remediesReactions per person

Reactions per dose (est.)

50

8382215

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)181111

40

2.5%

1.3%

1.4%

1.7%

4. Definitely exposed to diseasescovered by the main program

177

127113417

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]

NoTestResult
1The 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
2Non-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.
3Respondents 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.
4Respondents 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.
5A 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%)
6The 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%).
7A 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 /GivenRemedyPotencyRemedy LabelDate of Admin. Administered By
1 monthPertussin200A1
2 monthsPertussin200, 200, 200A1
3 monthsPneumococcinum200G1
4 monthsPneumococcinum200, 200, 200G1
5 monthsLathyrus Sativus200C1
6 monthsLathyrus Sativus200, 200, 200C1
7 monthsHaemophilis200H1
8 monthsHaemophilis200, 200, 200H1
9 monthsMeningococcinum200I1
10 monthsMeningococcinum200, 200, 200I1
11 monthsTetanus Tox200B1
12 monthsTetanus Tox200, 200, 200B1
14 monthsPertussin10M, 10M, 10MA3
16 monthsPneumococcinum10M, 10M, 10MG3
18 monthsLathyrus Sativus10M, 10M, 10MC3
20 monthsHaemophilis10M, 10M, 10MH3
22 monthsMeningococcinum10M, 10M, 10MI3
24 monthsTetanus Tox10M, 10M, 10MB3
26 monthsPertussin10M, 10M, 10MA3
30 monthsPneumococcinum10M, 10M, 10MG3
36 monthsLathyrus Sativus10M, 10M, 10MC3
40 monthsHaemophilis10M, 10M, 10MH3
44 monthsMeningococcinum10M, 10M, 10MI3
48 monthsTetanus Tox10M, 10M, 10MB3
52 monthsPertussin10M, 10M, 10MA3
58 monthsPneumococcinum10M, 10M, 10MG3
64 monthsLathyrus Sativus10M, 10M, 10MC3
70 monthsHaemophilis10M, 10M, 10MH3
76 monthsMeningococcinum10M, 10M, 10MI3
84 monthsTetanus Tox10M, 10M, 10MB3

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

Isaac Golden PhD, DHom, ND.
Isaac Golden PhD, DHom, ND. Isaac has been teaching homoeopathy for 25 years. He is founder and Director of the Australasian College of Hahnemannian Homoeopathy, and Honorary Research Fellow in the School of Science, Information Technology and Engineering at Federation University, Australia. He is the author of ten books on Homoeopathy. Isaac Golden is a world authority on homoeoprophylaxis and has done the largest long-term study of parents using such a program. Dr. Isaac Golden may be contacted at either; Postal: P.O. Box 695 , Gisborne, 3437. Phone/Fax: (03) 5427 0880. E-mail: [email protected]

Leave a Comment