2 April 2008

Homoeoprophylaxis – a Proven Alternative to Vaccination by Dr Isaac Golden

Visit Nourishedmagazine for the full report of a doctor’s analysis of data on the use of homeopathic remedies to build up immunity to specific diseases:

By Dr Isaac Golden

“I prepared my first formal program of homoeopathic remedies to prevent infectious diseases in 19861. In the following 20+ years, tens of thousands of Australian children have been immunised homoeopathically – a method called homoeoprophylaxis (HP) – using programs from myself as well as other practitioners across the country. The method itself is over 200 years old, and has considerable clinical and research experience to support its claims.

In 2004, I integrated 18 years of data collection from parents of children using my program with 4 years of doctoral research at Swinburne University in Melbourne. The purpose of this article is to share with you the findings of this and other research into the effectiveness and safety of HP.

He concludes:

The Safety of Homoeoprophylaxis

Homoeopathic medicines are usually prepared using a series of dilutions and succussions (firm striking of the container holding the liquid remedy against a firm surface). The remedies are called “potencies” because at each stage they become energetically stronger. After the 12c potency, no molecules of the original substance remain, yet the remedy is energetically stronger. Pharmaceutical advocates cannot understand this, because their paradigm forces them to believe that as the number of molecules of a substance decreases in a medicine, the medicine becomes weaker. This is true if the kinetic energy of the succussion is not correctly applied, and a simple dilution only is prepared. But we are making much more than a simple dilution.

Doctors agree that homoeopathic potencies cannot be toxic, and so physical safety is not an issue. However, some homoeopaths have expressed concerns over the years as to whether the long-term use of the remedies in my HP program is energetically safe. Many people who are not bound to the pharmaceutical paradigm understand that energy can produce real and tangible effects, and if misused can cause problems. One important part of my research at Swinburne was to check the long-term safety of HP.

This was done by examining 5 markers of overall wellbeing in children aged between 4 and 12 years of age – asthma, eczema, ear/hearing problems, allergies and behavioural problems. These were compared to a range of early childhood markers, including breastfeeding status, birthweight, APGAR scores, as well as to 4 possible immunisation methods – vaccination, HP, general/constitutional prevention, and no prevention at all. That gave 20 (5 x 4) possible combinations of health conditions and immunisation methods. The data was processed using Odds Ratios and Chi Squared Probability tests.

Once again, the full results are reported in detail elsewhere8, but the main findings are as follows:

  1. In 19 of the 20 possible measures of health, vaccinated children were less healthy than other children, usually by a significant amount (the 1 measure favouring vaccination was not statistically significant). The most dramatic single finding was that vaccinated children have a 15 times greater chance of becoming asthmatic than children using HP, with P>99%, a highly statistically significant finding.
  2. Children using HP were generally at least as healthy (and often more healthy) as children who used constitutional/general immunisation or no immunisation at all. The HP group were not exclusively from people who were extremely health conscious. Regularly, parents using my HP program say that it is their first introduction to homoeopathy and to natural medicine in general.
  3. Parental estimates of general wellbeing were very high in the HP group – at least as high as in other groups.
  4. Not all HP programs give consistent results. When comparing children using my HP program to those using other HP programs, the levels of both effectiveness and safety were lower in the group using other programs. So it is advisable to check the basis of a HP program before committing to it. Programs using daily doses of low potencies provide less effective long-term prevention than programs using infrequent doses of (appropriately selected) high potencies.

We may conclude from the parts of my data which were statistically significant (P?95%), that HP is associated with an improvement in general health, compared to other immunisation methods (as well as no immunisation at all), and that this figure is significantly better when compared to vaccinated children. Therefore we may conclude that the evidence suggests that the use of an appropriate long-term HP program does not lessen the health of children, and evidence suggests that it may in fact assist the maturation of the immune system by gently challenging the system in the first 5-6 years of life.”



  1. Is it worth mentioning at any stage that “p>95%” means that this is an impressively useless finding even if you assume there’s no correlation at all? p<0.05 is statistically significant; p<0.001 for preference.

    Comment by Andrew — 4 April 2008 @ 11:30 pm

  2. I think you are on very dangerous ground here. There is not one iota of evidence to support homeopathy let alone Homoeoprophylaxis. How can you “assist the maturation of the immune system by gently challenging the system” on the one hand and then say that “no molecules of the original substance remain” on the other. The simple fact is that this type of pseudoscientific nonsense puts lives at risk. You are encouraging parents not to vaccinate their children. If the Dr in your title is from a medical degree then this is down right unethical.

    Comment by Bunny — 7 April 2008 @ 10:30 pm

  3. Personally, I prefer treating children constitutionally so that common infectious diseases are suffered mildly and they are less likely to suffer more serious diseases. Hahnemann noticed in his considerable experience that if some members of a family were suffering an infectious disease, if he gave the same remedy to the non-infected members as well they were less likely to become infected. I have used this technique with my family.

    Comment by homeopathy4health — 14 April 2008 @ 2:16 pm

  4. I think this is quite interesting but as stated by Andrew, such small testgroup can never be considered convincing evidence I’m afraid.. the likelyness of the results being purely coincidental is huge. Although I personally have a strong tendency to ‘believe’ in a strong bond between matter and energy, I consider homeopathy potentially relevant. On the other hand I am a scientist and have to conclude that when experimenting with the workings of homeopathy one should carefully consider the risks of such experiments too.. I could only advise to try homeopathy as it will not harm you but to run to conventional medicine as soon as a risk of irreversable health-damage pops up.

    Comment by i want to believe — 10 May 2013 @ 12:54 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: