The Latest Research Into The Effectiveness and Safety of Homeoprophylaxis

Introduction

I have been collecting data on the safety and effectiveness of long-term homœoprophylaxis (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 Homœoprophylaxis  – 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, 6^th 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 18,000           Not 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  65,826           Not HP 23,539	6 months 12 months		95.0     91.0
1997	Golden	593 children        1,305 questionnaires	10 years		88.8
2004	Golden	1,159 children        2,342 questionnaires	15  years		90.4

* References for these studies may be found in Vaccination and Homeoprophylaxis– A Review of Risks and Alternatives, 6^th 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 remedies     Reactions 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 covered    by the main program (a measure of failure)	18	11	11		40
	2.5%	1.3%	1.4%		1.7%
4. Definitely exposed to diseases      covered by the main program	177	127	113		417
	25.0%	15.5%	13.8%		17.8%
5. Definitely suffering diseases, after    definite 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, after   definite 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.

Age Recomm /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.