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.
Background
The use of HP was first described by Dr Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homoeopathy, in 18012. He used the remedy Belladonna 30 to successfully treat patients with the disease Scarlet Fever, but fortuitously found that the remedy also helped to prevent the disease. He then used HP to prevent such diseases as Cholera and Typhoid. In the decades following, many leading homoeopaths used HP to prevent a variety of infectious diseases, mainly in acute epidemic situations3.
The largest trial of the short-term use of HP was against an outbreak of Meningococcal disease in Brazil. The researchers gave 65,826 children the homoeopathic remedy Meningococcinum. Another 23,539 were not protected. The effectiveness of HP after 6 months was 95%, and after a 12 months follow-up was 91%4.
Whilst many homoeopaths also use HP for long-term prevention (mainly in Australia and the Indian subcontinent), there had been very little formal statistical research into the long-term use of HP prior to 1985. The data I have collected since that time provides a useful guide as to the effectiveness and safety of long-term HP. It confirms that the findings regarding epidemic use also extend to long-term use, with an average effectiveness of around 90%, and a very high level of safety. These findings are presented below.
The Effectiveness of Homoeoprophylaxis
As mentioned above, we have a considerable amount of clinical evidence showing that HP provides a high level of protection against targeted infectious diseases. This is supported by a small number of statistical trials which are summarised in Table 1 below. These show an average effectiveness of around 90%, which certainly is comparable to measures of vaccine effectiveness, which range from 70% to 99%, depending on the individual vaccine, and the type of trial used to measure efficacy (real-world experiences show lower rates than clinical trials)5.
These figures confirm that no method of disease prevention is ever 100% effective.
No statistical study is ever perfect, and of course the reliability of my data is open to question. So as part of my Swinburne research, I applied seven statistical tests to validate the long-term data I have been collecting since 1985. These are described in detail elsewhere6, and they did show a high level of reliability. For example, my single figure measure of long-term HP effectiveness was 90.4%, with 95% confidence limits of 87.6% - 93.2% (i.e. it can be stated with 95% confidence that the efficacy lies between 87.6% AND 93.2%), a very strong result.
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 Homoeoprophylaxis – A Review of Risks and Alternatives, 6th edition7
So those in pharmaceutical medicine who state that there is no evidence supporting the effectiveness of HP are clearly wrong. It is not essential to rely only on randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to provide evidence, and in fact the findings of many RCTs are shown to be questionable over time (e.g. drugs such as Vioxx that were tested in RCTs, then later withdrawn from use because of side-effects not discovered or acknowledged during the RCTs).
Thus homoeopaths can confidently say that HP provides a definite level of protection against targeted infectious diseases, which is not 100%, but which is comparable to that of vaccines.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- Parental estimates of general wellbeing were very high in the HP group – at least as high as in other groups.
- 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.
Concluding Comments
What began as a limited study 20 years ago has grown, for me, into an ongoing attempt to make parents, as well as health professionals, aware of the wonderful opportunity that homoeoprophylaxis offers to provide protection against target infectious diseases, without risking the long-term health of their children. It may be safely used by adults.
Not every infectious disease is a dire threat to a healthy infant. I personally don’t believe that immunisation against every infectious disease is essential. But I do believe that the right to choose which diseases should be prevented should belong to the parents of each child. We can confidently say to parents that they can provide a high (but not complete) level of protection against targeted diseases, without risk, by using an appropriate HP program.
We can also say to those within the pharmaceutical industry who disparage HP as being untested and uncertain - take the time to study the facts available. Criticism without facts is the anthesis of the true scientific method, yet it is the response we continually get from pharmaceutical medicine when it comes to HP.
I concluded my doctoral thesis by saying that “a national immunisation system, where both vaccination and HP were available to parents, would increase the national coverage against targeted infectious diseases, and reduce the incidence of some chronic health conditions, especially asthma”9. The data is unambiguous, and it is time that those who run the health services of this country get serious about long-term health, and fully support the use of the best of what natural medicine in general, and homoeopathic medicine in particular, has to offer.
Vaccines offer a level of protection against targeted infectious diseases, but involve a long-term risk that has never been adequately measured. Evidence shows that vaccination is a factor in the increase in asthma (and other chronic diseases) shown earlier. We can achieve a comparable level of protection, without this risk, by using an appropriate long-term HP program. It’s time that those parents who search for facts to inform themselves before vaccinating are encouraged, and not attacked by agents of the pharmaceutical industry. It’s time that parents are supported in their choice of immunisation method, for the benefit of their own children and of the entire community.
1 Golden I. Vaccination – A Homoeopathic Perspective. Nature & Health. Vol 7. No.3. Sept 1986, pages 67-70.
2 Hahnemann S. The Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever. 1801. Republished in Lesser Writings. B Jain Publishers, New Delhi; pp. 369-385.
3 Golden I. Homœoprophylaxis – A Practical and Philosophical Review. 2001. Isaac Golden Publications, Daylesford, Australia. 3rd edition.
4 Mroninski C, Adriano E, Mattos G. Meningococcinum: Its protective effect against meningococcal disease. Homoeopathic Links Winter, 2001. Vol 14(4); pp. 230-4.
5 National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC). The Australian Immunisation Handbook, 8th Edition. 2003. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
6 Golden I. Homoeoprophylaxis - A Fifteen Year Clinical Study. 2004. Isaac Golden Publications. Daylesford.
7 Golden I. Vaccination and Homoeoprophylaxis – A Review of Risks and Alternatives, 6th edition. 2005. Isaac Golden Publications. Daylesford.
8 Golden I. Homoeoprophylaxis - A Fifteen Year Clinical Study. 2004. Isaac Golden Publications. Daylesford.
9 Golden I. The Potential Value of Homœoprophylaxis in the Prevention of Infectious Diseases, and the Maintenance of General Health in Recipients. 2005. Swinburne University Press, Melbourne.
About the Author...
Dr Isaac Golden has been in homoeopathic practice since 1984. He has written 8 books on homoeopathic topics and currently consults in Gisborne, Victoria. Since 1990, he has been Principal of the A.C.H.H., a correspondence college teaching homoeopathy and has recently been appointed as Adjunct Professor of Homoeopathy at the Australian College of Natural Medicine. He is a world authority on the use of homoeoprophylaxis, and has completed the world’s largest long term trial of the method. He was awarded a PhD from Swinburne University in 2004 as a result of the research on HP he has undertaken over the last 20 years. Click here for further information about Dr Golden and his publications.
Apr 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 am
My son, who is now 27, was not vaccinated for anything, but was given appropriate homoeopathics at the right times, as set out in this article. He had mild cases of all the normal childhood illnesses and was not exposed to the risks of standard vaccination.
Apr 8th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Can you tell me please where your PhD thesis has been published? Have any of your studies been published in respected peer reviewed scientific journals?
Apr 15th, 2008 at 5:36 am
Majikthyse,
What would you consider “respected” and “peer reviewed?” Perhaps you can follow the links or contact Swinburne University. Either may be helpful.
Good luck in your search!
Apr 15th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Dear Majikthyse,
Data published in repected, peer-reviewed homoeopathic journals - e.g. Homoeopathic Links, J.Am.Hom.Assn., Similia
Thesis on the Swinburne Uni website
Isaac
Apr 15th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Everett: I would hope that anyone working in science should know what peer reviewed means. Could you just give me the journal citations for the research studies presented here?
Apr 15th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Isaac: I really mean respected by the general scientific community. The claims made here would probably win you a Nobel Prize if true. The problem I have is that for a homeopathic journal the peer reviewers are other homeopaths. Your claims are so ground-breaking that they need to be reviewed by experts in the science you are challenging.
Apr 15th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Here is what the abstract for the PhD thesis says:
“The effectiveness of the program could not be established with statistical certainty given the limited sample size and the low probability of acquiring an infectious disease. However, a possible level of effectiveness of 90.3% was identified subject to specified limitations. Further research to confirm the effectiveness of the program is justified.”
Should I find this convincing?
Apr 16th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Dear Majikthyse
You ask whether you should find this convincing? I have no doubt you know the answer, but its a fair question to which I am happy to reply for the benefit of others.
No statistical trial is ever 100% definite. A PhD thesis by its nature must be couched conservatively, so if I had claimed more, I would have been (quite properly) failed.
All evidence is a balance of probabilities. The efficacy of HP is supported by (1) clinical experience of homoeopaths, most of whom were also doctors of medicine, since 1798, showing consistent clinical results (2) statistical analyses of epidemic uses of HP, including one rigorous trial where over 65,000 chilidren used the homoeopathic preventative for meningococcal disease, and over 25,000 children in the same community did nothing (efficacy 91% after 12 months). (3) my long-term data. All these pieces of evidence from thousands of people over hundreds of years point to a consistent result - and efficacy around 90%. People reading this can make their own minds up as to the value of this accumulated body of information.
IF you claim that the only evidence worthwhile is the randomised clinical trial (RCT), then orthodox literature is full of evidence showing the limitations of this tool - the publications by Prof Harald Walach and colleagues on the “efficacy paradox” will explain this simply to interested readers (google it). However we know in the real world, that every years drugs that have passed RCT testing are withdrawn from circulation because of effects not discovered by the RCT. The greater the internal validity of any RCT trial, the lower its general validity in the real world.
Re scientific review - there is a considerable bias in what medical journals will accept. There is also no point in submitting evidence to someone who says (before reading the material) that homoeopathy can’t possibly work. The reason I did a PhD with my research was to get “scientists” to scrutinise what I did. One supervisor was a Professor of Medicine, the other was a medical epidemiologist. My two examiners (we had to send the thesis to USA) were both medical doctors, with PhD’s in science, both worked at mainstream universities, and both had some understanding of homoeopathic principles. Remember that the WHO atlas of CAM use recently published, showed that homoeopathy was the most widely used CAM medicine internationally in users with average incomes over $12,000 - mainly because of its extensive use in Europe, frquently by “scientifically trained” doctors of medicine. The Aust. medical community is way behind.
I hope that is a fair reply to your question Majikthyse
thank you Isaac
Apr 16th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Thank you Isaac. I’m afraid there is nothing new in the arguments you present. Please provide the journal reference for the `rigorous trial’ you present here. Size is not necessarily a measure of rigour (quite often the reverse). Do you think we should accept uncontrolled `clinical experience’ as evidence for all medical treatments? I think the regulatory authorities would have something to say about that. The RCT is not the preserve of medicine. The controlled experiment is common to all science and is the basis of objective investigation of the universe. If you repudiate the RCT you put yourself outside science and thus outside reality.
But there are no guarantees in medicine, or in science in general. The system is good but not perfect, and things go wrong sometimes. There are risks and benefits, but so far I think we (ie scientific medicine) have come out on top. We have rendered smallpox an extinct disease. We have closed the tuberculosis sanatoria because we don’t need them any more. Cancer is now survivable. You will probably want to argue with these facts but they are true.
I could not count the number of people who have complained to me that medical journals won’t publish their work because it doesn’t fit with the current paradigm. On investigation the vast majority have never tried - they prefer the sympathetic audience they get with CAM journals. But it simply isn’t true that mainstream journals don’t publish homeopathy studies. Just go to PubMed and see. Beneveniste got his paper published in Nature and we all know what happened to that.
It’s hard to discuss your PhD thesis any further as I can’t see the full text. But I am not criticising the quality of the work, I am challenging the conclusions. It is perfectly reasonable to gain a PhD by doing inconclusive work. That’s how science advances - sometimes we learn something, sometimes we don’t. What concerns me is that you seem to be basing a massive claim on an insignificant result. That’s not me saying it’s insignificant, it’s you.
Argumentum ad populum is the bedrock of the homeopath’s `evidence’. About a billion people believe that bread and wine become human tissue with the right incantations, but that doesn’t make it true.
I am not spending my time writing this in order to change your mind, because I know you won’t. I am doing it because other readers need to know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that’s what I am asking you for. So far you have only provided insignificant evidence. What worries me is that there is potentially huge danger in what you are promoting, if people on your advice refuse proven protection against dangerous illnesses.
Apr 16th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Dear Majikthyse
I think we are now wasting each others time, since there is also nothing new in your criticisms, although I’m suprised that you raised Beneveniste as the response by Nature sending in a journalist, a scientist without expertise in the area, and a magician was just a joke.
I totally agree that scientific medicine has come out on top - when you see that pharmaceutical companies spent 30 billion dollars in the year 2000 on advertising and lobbying in the USA alone, it is easy to see why.
The disgraceful rates of chronic disease in this country explain why now 60% of Australians are using some form of CAM.
But it was nice talking to you. I am sure readers will look at the data and make their own minds up how proven either form of protection is, and make an informed choice. That is, after all, their right.
Isaac
Apr 21st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Thanks Isaac for publishing my last response. I didn’t think you would. It’s never a waste of my time to tell the truth. I don’t get paid for doing it, but it’s still worth doing. I still await the reference to the peer reviewed paper that supports your claims. How can readers look at the data if you won’t provide it? If you care to read the truth about the Beneveniste affair you will see that the reason for the flawed research was nothing whatever to do with knowing anything about basophil degranulation, and everything to do with study design. Beneviste delegated all the measurements to his assistant, who knew which samples were the homeopathically-treated ones and which were controls. Assessment depended on microscopic observation and grading of cells, which was open to observer bias. When the assistant was blinded to the samples the effect disappeared. This is school level science - the most basic of controls against bias were not used. The joke was that INSERM could allow it to happen.
Apr 22nd, 2008 at 8:10 am
Dear Majikthyse
The reference you asked for is in my article above - obviously you didn’t read it carefully!
Let me ask you for a reference, as I have never been able to find it - I am after the reference to any RCT measuring the long term impact of any vaccination on the overall wellbeing of recipients, (not just single effects), i.e. I am looking for a “scientific” reference to the true long-term safety of vaccines.
I am sure that truth seekers like yourself would never say that vaccines were safer than the diseases they aim to prevent if you had not measured long-term safety - so I will be most grateful for your help Majikthyse. Two references would be even better
Re Beneveniste - did the same alledged error occur in the other 4 labs where the experiment was repeated?
You feel no problems with Nature using a magician?
thanks
Isaac
Apr 23rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Isaac - I am sorry that you continue to misunderstand me. When I ask for a reference, I mean the citation for the paper in a peer reviewed journal. Books are not the same, and I am not going to buy a book about homeopathy just to look up references. I’ll make it easy for you - where was the Meningococcinum in Brazil study published? Above you give 9 references and not a single one is from a scientific journal publishing research findings.
You also misunderstand the principle of evidential support for claims. I have not come to your site making claims about vaccination. I found your site while researching the field in general and I am genuinely interested in whether there is truth in your claims. I can only do this by reading original research results. I am not here to defend the pharmaceutical industry, I am here to challenge your claims in the true spirit of science.
No, I don’t have the slightest problem with Nature using a magician to investigate a matter of logic. He entertains by misleading people, and knows how it’s done. As for the other studies, without examining them in detail I can’t say what errors occurred. If I have time I’ll look at them and come back to you. I won’t dismiss what you say out of hand, but I think you have agreed that the Benveniste study was flawed, and that’s what I was talking about.
I just want to thank you for publishing this exchange as the vast majority of homeopaths purge dissenting comments from their sites.
Apr 24th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I agree that the onus of proof should be on the pharmaceutical industry. I for one am not convinced. I have never immunised any of my children and am aware of the risks in that choice.
Are parents who immunize their children aware of the risks in their choice?
I mitigate the risks I take by ensuring their bodies fulfill the potential of their DNA to it’s utmost. I do this by nourishing them as their ancestors (who did not suffer the diseases modern people do) were nourished. I am adequately convinced by the scientific and anthropological studies Weston Price and his peers undertook that superior nutritionally, dense food will create superior immune systems. While other children may succumb to common ailments, bone breakages, dental decay and communicable disease, mine have not. That’s proof enough for me.
Many of the articles and posts on this website don’t have the level of proof science requires.
In a perfect world, scientific exploration would have, long ago, proven many of the recommendations we make. Who, though, will pay for scientific study that proves Homoeopathy is cheaper, more effective and less damaging than pharmaceutical drugs? Do we really have time to wait until someone does? Homoeopathy is a developing science/art and is much older than many of the medicines that are NOT working and that ARE harming humans. The principles that form Homoeopath were used by ancient healing systems, that worked. How arrogant are we to assume that modern science based medicine is the only way to heal? And How Wrong?
Apr 24th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Dear Majikthyse,
I didn’t misunderstand you, and I was not trying to make you buy my book. The reference you ask for is shown in my article (reference 4). If you are not aware, Homoeopathic Links is possibly the foremost international homoeopathic journal, and is strictly peer reviewed, usually by medical practitioners who are also homoeopathic practitioners (as many are in Europe).
I am pleased that you speak in a spirit of goodwill, and in the same spirit let me ask my question again, because I am yet to have any “scientific” person answer it - “I am after the reference to any RCT measuring the long term impact of any vaccination on the overall wellbeing of recipients, (not just single effects), i.e. I am looking for a “scientific” reference to the true long-term safety of vaccines.”
I am sure you can appreciate my question, because if in fact there is no answer, it makes the “scientific” argument supporting the relative safety of vaccination one of simple hypocrisy, not science.
Thanks
Isaac
Apr 24th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Joanne - let me begin replying to you in reverse order of your questions. I for one am not claiming “that modern science based medicine is the only way to heal”. Indeed in my posts here I have not claimed a thing. I am just challenging the claims others are making. I can’t see your logic regarding the longevity of homeopathy. Firstly, it’s not that old - only about 200 years. Claims that it’s linked somehow with the writings of Hippocrates are fanciful (I have checked). Secondly, why does old = good? Hahnemann already had an established reputation as a quack before he invented homeopathy. The court physician at Brunswick wrote this:
“….never have I known a local physician who was so avaricious or practised so much charlatanism as Dr Hahnemann. ”
This was in relation to his supposed cure for epilepsy. Hahnemann then turned to psychosis, an enterprise which ended with his last patient threatening Hahnemann with death and setting his house on fire. This prompted yet another relocation, one of 18 in the first 24 years of his professional career. But enough of Hahnemann’s chequered life story - read it yourself: http://www.minimum.com/b.asp?a=samuel-hahnemann-haehl.
You seem to be unaware of the amount of clinical research that has been carried out on homeopathy. It’s not true that we lack evidence because of lack of research. We lack it because the research has been done and it doesn’t show anything. I don’t have the space or the time to list the whole lot, but look up the Cochrane Collaboration meta-analyses involving 16 trials and over 5,000 patients, the Linde et al meta-analysis of 1999, and the Shang et al one of 2005. All showed no significant effect of homeopathy.
Now, what is proof? Well in fact there is no such thing as proof, there is only a level of confidence. Isaac here claims that homeoprophylaxis is proven, yet on his own admission he can only present a result that is statistically non-significant. This means that we have very low confidence that there is anything genuine happening. As I have said, I am not here with an axe to grind for the pharmaceutical companies, but all they are doing is providing data to the regulatory authorities that meet standards laid down in legislation. Yes of course they have a burden of `proof’, but there is no `always’ or `never’ in medicine and doubt can’t ever be eliminated. You might argue about how rigorous the standards are and that’s a perfectly reasonable argument. Do you not agree though that the same burden of `proof’ should be borne by anyone making a claim? In particular, because there are robust data for the efficacy of most vaccines (how else did we render smallpox extinct?), some would perceive dangers in avoiding vaccination. This has actually happened in the UK when there was a drop in MMR vaccination - the prevalence of measles in particular increased, and it’s a potentially dangerous disease. So claiming that vaccination is unnecessary is an extraordinary claim, and it requires extraordinary evidence (Carl Sagan 1934-1996) - which I don’t see here.
To return to the `ancient wisdom’ argument: Would you want to be operated on by a medieval surgeon?
DISCLAIMER:
I don’t have any connections with vaccine companies.
Apr 25th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Dear Joanne,
May I respectfully suggest that before you rush to reply to Majikthyse that we both wait until he replies to my question. If he doesn’t do that, then his true position will be established for all to see.
We know he is a completely biased commentator, e.g. (1) he kept asking me for a refernce which anyone who had carefully read my article would have seen (2) the Meta analyses he quotes are not all anti-homoeopathy (3) we know that Hahnemann was attacked, many times, and it is easy to find negative quotes, and the reason why he was attacked was because he was costing the pharmacists of his day money (a bit why Majikthyse gets on web sites like this) because he was proving low costs medicines to people, (4) and he said “Isaac here claims that homeoprophylaxis is proven, yet on his own admission he can only present a result that is statistically non-significant”, but of course that is also untrue - he quoted an abstract of my thesis (the caution of which I explained above), in fact IF he had read my thesis he would have read on page 113 that “Thus we can say with 95% confidence, based on the data provided, that the effectiveness of Golden’s long-term HP program ranges between 87.6% and 93.2%” - this is a very strong result within the accepted level of confidence of 95%.
But Majikthyse is a spoiler, he says he is not associated with pharmaceutical companies, but we can’t know that. But even if he is not, it is now his turn to answer the following question before we say anything else. I will repeat it
“I am after the reference to any RCT measuring the long term impact of any vaccination on the overall wellbeing of recipients, (not just single effects), i.e. I am looking for a “scientific” reference to the true long-term safety of vaccines.”
best wishes
Isaac
Apr 25th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I think the term is ‘troll’, Isaac. I don’t intend to respond to uncreative, nay-saying. It is now obvious to me that Majikthyse hasn’t read any of this website and is unaware that many in this community are no longer entranced with the promise of certainty that science wants to give us.
We are here to learn to create our lives based on the wisdom of the ancients: wisdom which has been swept aside by rationalists with small minds and superiority complexes. Of course, the ancestors of whom I speak are not medieval surgeons indulging in barbary but pre-industrial people who faithfully followed the directives of their elders and managed to live extremely healthy, robust, useful lives into old age - accidents bared. They also birthed easily offspring who expressed perfectly and with great beauty and grace their genetic blueprint for many hundreds of generations. We here can clearly see that this is no longer happening and we are grateful for any knowledge we can gleen from each other that will help return us to our physical and spiritual glory.
I’m pretty sure readers are not interested in arguing the points raised. We’ll leave that to other sites. Thanks for your patience Isaac. The discussion was interesting but no longer fits the purpose of this gathering of human minds and hearts.
Apr 26th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Yep, one big FAT TROLL!
Apr 30th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I think the aruments are healthy. We question, they question, its fair and educational. I was dissapointed in the personal slander. Surely we are more enlightened. As a university student , I see where Majikthyse is comming from, thats how we do it at uni.I can see Issacs side as well, I want some long term studies too. I think of all those studies done in the past, with the then, best science had to offer; we learn more, or find more specific tests and we re-evaluate. Thats why its important to do long term studies, the cover the social changes that affect our health (WHO, Social determinants to health).I have looked at one of thoses studies, Majikthyse mentioned, the Belladonna control.Iam dissapointed in the results, deeply. They did all the things , double blind, Homoeopathic preperation(30c),administered on healthy individuals, and no individuals from the Homoeopathic control group, PROVEd the remedy. Homoepathy as I understand it was borne from the treatment of infectious disease, and the reason we know what the remedies do, is because we administered them to healthy individuals until symptoms are produced. lets keep this talk going.Try to meet each other half way and demonstrate using other research, what neither of you can Prove. Ill get back to you with some studies, if any
Kylie
May 19th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I would just like to say thanks to Issac for your work, and all contributors to this discussion on both sides. It has been very informative for me.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Majikthyse, maybe you need to do a quick search of the Cochrane Collaboration database just so you can get some idea of how much current medical treatment, both surgery and medication has little good quality scientific data to back its use. A large part of current medical treatments are simply not evidence based, so how can you expect 100% of CAM treatments to adhere to this principle.
Not to mention medications such as Prozac(a single example) where the data is intentionally distorted and studies showing side effects or lack of efficacy are hidden away and not published. Is this the type of peer reviewed, double blinded, placebo, cross over, controlled clinical trials that CAM should aspire to?
Isaac, thankyou for all of your hard work and dedication. I reccomend your books to all my clients who are questioning vaccination because your approach is so straight down the line and commonsense. Questioning whether to vaccinate their child or not is usually a difficult time for parents and I feel their is an overuse of scare tactics by both sides of the debate. I love your grounded approach.
Warm regards
Sarah