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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
Table 1: The Effectiveness of HP – Statistical Trials in Humans
|Year||Researcher*||Numbers of Participants||Length of Survey||Effectiveness %|
|< 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|
|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
Table 2 Summary of Results of a Fifteen Year Study into Long-Term Homeoprophylaxis
|Measures of Reactions & Effectiveness, After Follow-Up Surveys|
|Series 1-5||Series 6-10||Series 11-15||Totals|
|1. Previously vaccinated|
|2. Definite reactions to remediesReactions per person|
Reactions per dose (est.)
|3. Definitely suffered from diseases coveredby the main program (a measure of failure)||18||11||11|
|4. Definitely exposed to diseasescovered by the main program|
|5. Definitely suffering diseases, afterdefinite exposure and after taking the|
appropriate remedy (a measure of failure)
|6. Definitely not suffering diseases, afterdefinite exposure and after taking|
appropriate remedy (a measure of success)
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
|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
|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
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|
|2 months||Pertussin||200, 200, 200||A1|
|4 months||Pneumococcinum||200, 200, 200||G1|
|5 months||Lathyrus Sativus||200||C1|
|6 months||Lathyrus Sativus||200, 200, 200||C1|
|8 months||Haemophilis||200, 200, 200||H1|
|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.
 Golden I (2004) Homeoprophylaxis – A Fifteen Year Clinical Study. Isaac Golden Publications. Gisborne. Vic.
 Golden I. (2005) Vaccination & Homeoprophylaxis: A Review of Risks and Alternatives. 6th ed. Isaac Golden Publications. Gisborne. Vic.
 Golden (2004). Table 13, page 31.
 Golden (2005). Section 4.3. pp. 180-181.
 Golden I. (2005). pp. 243-262.
 Golden (2004). Section 4.4. pp. 19,20.
 Golden (2004). Table 18, pp. 134-142.
 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.