MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

The current issues of ‘homeopathy 4 everyone’ (April 2016) carries several articles on homeoprophylaxis, the use of homeopathic remedies for the prevention of mostly infectious diseases promoted by homeopathy as a safe and effective alternative to immunizations. They are worth reading – but watch your blood pressure! Here I will give you a flavour by citing from one of these articles:

“…As I have been teaching about Homeoprophylaxis (“HP”) throughout the United States and in Europe, some things have become unmistakably clear.  One is the ever increasing desire of people to know that there is a nontoxic alternative when it comes to disease prevention.  Another is a profound misunderstanding or, perhaps better said, a lack of education among many regarding HP…

The effectiveness of HP is being shown fairly consistently to be about 90%1, which is comparable to any vaccine.  With this in mind, too, those who utilize homeoprophylaxis work to help their clients understand fundamentally that disease is generally not to be feared—that disease-causing pathogens are a necessary part of our environment and that the body generally becomes healthier once it has been exposed to a disease and has worked its way through it…

My passion regarding spreading the word and helping people learn about homeoprophylaxis led to my becoming the co-founder/director of the first international conference of its type in the world—Homeoprophylaxis: A Worldwide Choice, which took place in Dallas, Texas, USA in October, 2015.  Isaac Golden was our keynote speaker…

Frequently seen is the protocol Isaac Golden utilizes. This is a once monthly method, where one single remedy/nosode is introduced at potency.  If following, for example, a pediatric regimen that lists several nosodes, it will be the next month that either a larger dose of that same nosode is taken, or the next nosode is introduced.  For pediatric HP, this is cycled through until all nosodes in the protocol are taken, the higher potency being started after the lower potency is completed. A booklet is provided to the clientele to keep track of these…

Ultimately, homeoprophylaxis has been in use since the days of Hahnemann.  What is apparent when one considers the entire picture, noting the meticulous studies that have been and are yet being done as well as the current increasing demand of people worldwide— perhaps especially parents— for a nontoxic alternative for disease prevention, it truly makes sense to be promoting  homeoprophylaxis.  Our children are the most vulnerable in our society and deserve our utmost attention and concern.  Not every practitioner needs to utilize HP.  However, because there are many who do, support of this should be encouraged.  It is an alternative people deserve to know about so that they can make an educated choice, and health for our society, especially our children, can be promoted.”

END OF QUOTE

By now, you are probably wondering who wrote this article. It was Cathy Lemmon, BA, C.HP, D.Psc,  Co-Founder/Director of Homeoprophylaxis: A Worldwide Choice for Disease Prevention, she is also working on future conferences for the promotion of HP. She has studied HP with Isaac Golden of Australia and Ravi Roy and Carola Lage-Roy of Germany. She also has certificates in homeopathic treatment of vaccine injury as well as, through the ARHF in the Netherlands, treatment of epidemics and trauma. She completed studies at the School of Homeopathy and is completing specialized homeopathic studies through Gesundes Bewußtsein in Germany as well as post-graduate work in homeopathy through the College of Practical Homeopathy in London.

With all these ‘qualifications’, she has obviously escaped any education in real science and evidence-based medicine; if not she would know that her views are not just wrong but also dangerous. To Be clear:

  • Homeoprophylaxis is not biologically plausible.
  • There is no evidence that it works.
  • The concept misleads people to think that conventional immunizations are superfluous.
  • This has the potential to kill thousands.

20 Responses to Understanding homeoprophylaxis: it is dangerous nonsense!!!

  • If only Isaac Golden’s claims could be assessed by a court or something ans we could find out if they have any merit.

    Oh, look! https://luckylosing.com/tag/isaac-golden/

  • why are they not fined for advertising and promoting this fake vaccine to replace scientifically and clinically proven vaccines?

  • As HP is being given to normal individuals before infection then according to homeopathy it should induce symptoms of the disease, as it doesn’t it thus ‘proves’ homeopathy doesn’t work.

    It also throws away any allegiance of homeopaths to their much vaunted individualisation which they claim invalidates most of the negative clinical trials.

    This part of homeopathy shows it to clearly be a scam and a dangerous practice which should be outlawed.

  • “why are they not fined for advertising and promoting this fake vaccine to replace scientifically and clinically proven vaccines?” Where do you get such studies? I would love to hear this… because those studies just do not exist. You are uninformed and follow a mainstream mass conception. Thát’s dangarous. As are toxic vaccines.

    • Where do you get such studies? I would love to hear this… because those studies just do not exist.

      Please take a look at this link for a start.

      The Cochrane database lists 52 systematic reviews of vaccine clinical trials (that’s reviews of multiple studies of the type you say ‘just do not exist’)

      A search of Medline for the keywords ‘vaccine’ and ‘clinical trial’ produced 11,826 hits, indicating the true scope of the studies you claim ‘just do not exist’.

      Happy to fulfil your ‘love to hear this’ request.

  • This write up does nothing to show any proof that homeoprophylaxis is false. Instead, he attacks her education and calls her a quack with no foundation to this writing to back himself up.

    To be clear…
    Homeoprophylaxis is not biologically plausible. How so? You did not back this up with anything whatsoever. Prove your thesis.

    There is no evidence that it works. Really? Have you even looked, or are you just being mainstream and whining about something that is undermining the $$ you get from giving ‘real’ vaccines with dangerous adjuvents in them.. hmmm..
    And if you HAVE looked, where is that evidence that it DOESN’T work? The writer of this article is leaving this article incomplete without said evidence.

    The last two of your ‘to be clear’ are opinions with no backup. Homeoprophylaxis has been around for over 100 years, it is NOT NEW. There should be something for you to express yourself better here. And no, I am no anti-vaxxer, but someone who likes truth in reporting. You can do better than this!

    • what a comment!
      yes I have looked
      and no, we do not have to prove that anything does not work in medicine – it is the other way round.
      why don’t you familiarise yourself with the basics before commenting nonsense?

      • It’s not like that in a court of law…which is what all $$$pharmaceutical companies$$$ hide behind. They’re always innocent until proven guilty. You can only prove their drugs work in a lab and stupid “double blind” placebo controlled studies. Have you ever taken an experimental psychology course or quantitive/qualitive statistics and analysis course? It can’t really be done… it’s not translatable to real life. There’s physics, entropy, and energy in everything. It transfers…to cellular levels. That’s how this works

        • congratulations!
          you have just realised that healthcare is not a court of law and functions differently

        • Quote: “Have you ever taken an experimental psychology course or quantitive/qualitive statistics and analysis course?” well, yes, I took the latter. Actually I am a computational biologist and that is a hell lot more stats than just one course. Actually I *work* in that field at a university and have published peer reviewed papers. I have seen hundreds of studies. You are correct, RCTs don’t really reflect real life. They reflect ideal conditions. In that sense, results (especially effect sizes) in RCTs tend to get smaller in real life conditions. I have never seen an effect in a real life setting that was not detectable in an RCT. If such happens, something went really wrong with your observational study design.

          And no, homeopathy does not translate into entropy, energy and everything. In fact it violates these very theories to the core. And no, Judy, homeopathy does NOT work.

        • @Judy

          There’s physics, entropy, and energy in everything. It transfers…to cellular levels. That’s how this works.

          Thank you for this erudite explanation. It will surely augment and enhance understanding of medicine.

    • jesusknight said:

      There is no evidence that it works. Really? Have you even looked, or are you just being mainstream and whining about something that is undermining the $$ you get from giving ‘real’ vaccines with dangerous adjuvents in them.. hmmm..

      What $$ are they then? And have you any clue about Prof Ernst?

      But ‘vaccines with dangerous adjuvents in them’… You did not back this up with anything whatsoever. Prove your thesis.

      Homeoprophylaxis has been around for over 100 years, it is NOT NEW.

      LOL! But if you believe homeoprophylaxis ‘works’, please feel free to present your evidence.

      • I never said I believed in homeoprophylaxis, or even in anti-vaxxing. I am neither. And, I never knew what the former was until just before I came to this site. I was suggesting that he back up his claim that it is false, period. I came for info – not propaganda – either way.

        What do you mean, you don’t have to prove that anything doesn’t work in medicine? Are you nuts? Then what in the world are trials for, if not to prove (or disprove) what is being tested?

        • “… back up his claim that it is false…”
          it is false because there is no evidence to support it – is that so difficult to understand?

        • @jesusknight

          “What do you mean, you don’t have to prove that anything doesn’t work in medicine? Are you nuts? Then what in the world are trials for, if not to prove (or disprove) what is being tested?”

          The way the scientific process works, as you clearly understand, is for someone to do experiments to investigate their hypothesis. (Experiments are ideally designed to disprove the hypothesis.) That’s the way we try to distinguish reality from nonsense. But please note, it is for the proposer of a hypothesis to do the experiments (and to do them well): anyone can suggest an idea then say “prove I’m wrong!”

          That’s why your initial comment provoked a strong negative reaction: you’re asking other folk to prove someone’s belief/theory is wrong, and that’s not how things work in science. If you make a claim (e.g. that homeoprophylaxis works) you need to supply the evidence to back up the claim. In the case of homeoprophylaxis there is zero supportive evidence.

          You asked a perfectly fair question, which I hope I’ve now answered.

        • jesusknoght said

          I never said I believed in homeoprophylaxis

          I never said you did. I said if you believe…

          Frank and Edzard have answered the rest of your comment.

    • Well, jesusknight, Hahnemann himself propagated Belladonna as homeoprophylaxis against scarlet fever. This was a HUGE hype in the 19th century – that is until JW Begbie looked into the mortality – which did NOT drop. That is a very robust proof that homeoprophylaxis does not work.

      Aside that quote: “And if you HAVE looked, where is that evidence that it DOESN’T work?” It doesn’t work like this. YOU have to prove it works.

    • Anothher thing, jesusknight. If you think about undermining $$ one gets from vaccines, well. Boiron (one of the biggest manufacturers of homeopathic drugs) has a profit margin of 20%, i.o.w. exactly as a normal pharma company. It has a far better profit/risk ratio because there is no risky research expenses involved. In fact, some stakeholders of pharmaceutical companies hold stakes in homeopathic companies. Homeopathy works *exactly* as the normal pharma industry, or as Natalie Grams put it: Globuli are not brushed down from biologically raised trees.

      • The worth of Boiron stocks has been increasing almost relentlessly for years. There was a small setback in 2012 when they had to pay millions of dollars to settle a class-action lawsuit in the US because they couldn’t prove homeopathy works! After that their stocks have been increasing in worth at a far greater rate than big pharma.

        Have a look at Bloomberg Markets for Boiron stocks Choose a five year diagram and try entering some pharma-companies in the comparison field. For example Merk ( MRK:US), Pfizer (PFE:US) and Glaxo (GSK:US).
        You will see that Big Homeo seems to be a very much more lucrative business. Not the least considering the only bulk raw materials they need is water and sugar and their R/D consists mostly of paying homeopaths to write up biased made-for-marketing studies in homeopathy journals.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer the following: *

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories