Isaac Golden's article on homeopathic vaccination

[Guest guest]

For Tuesday, October 12

his is what I've been referring to that I do NOT AGREE with

You will see the HUGE list of things he uses in Table 1

Sheri

http://www.lyghtforce.com/HomeopathyOnLine/text/golden.htm

Homeopathic Disease Prevention

by Isaac Golden

1. Introduction

The first documented use of specific homoeopathic medicines to prevent

specific infectious diseases, a method known as Homoeoprophylaxis (HP), was

in 1801.

In that year Dr Hahnemann, the founder of homoeopathy, wrote an

essay titled The Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever in which he described

his success with the use of the remedy Belladonna 30 to treat patients with

scarlet fever. He also described how he used the remedy to prevent

infection in others.

The remedy was chosen because of the similarity between the symptoms which

Belladonna was known to produce when given to healthy people, and the

common symptoms of scarlet fever. This use of the Law of Similars - the

foundation law of homoeopathy - to select remedies for both the treatment

and prevention of diseases has been used by homoeopaths since 1801 to offer

disease-specific prevention.

The list of practitioners who have described their use of HP remedies to

prevent specific disease reads like a who’s who of master homoeopaths.

However there has been opposition both from orthodox medical practitioners

and from some homoeopaths to the use of HP. The former claim it does not

work, (something which they also claim of homoeopathic treatment), while

the latter claim it is philosophically inappropriate or should only be used

in acute situations.

We shall examine both viewpoints in the following sections. First we shall

present evidence showing the safety and the efficacy of HP. Second we shall

outline the main objections to the use of HP and attempt to fully answer

all these objections. In this way we hope to present a balanced view of

this difficult and at times controversial topic.

2. The Historical Evidence Supporting Homoeoprophylaxis

As mentioned above, many homoeopaths since Hahnemann have described their

use of HP. They include the greatest practitioners such as Boenninghausen

1849 (p. 303), Burnett 1884, Kent 1900 (p. 229), Close 1920 (p. 20),

Shepherd 1967, Sankaran 1972, Speight 1982, Eizayaga 1991 (pp. 282-286) and

many many others (see list of references below).

This list should cause homoeopaths who oppose the use of HP to carefully

consider why they believe that Hahnemann and these other masters were

wrong, yet they themselves are correct!

It is relevant here to describe briefly my own experience with HP. I have

been offering parents an HP program since 1986. I began collecting

statistical information at this time, and I have recently reanalyzed the

first 10 years of questionnaires which have been returned by parents whose

children used my program.

Over this period I have collected 1,305 questionnaires, each of which

covered one year of a child’s life. The analysis is not statistically

perfect due to a response rate below 70% (a statistically significant

cut-off point), but it does contain a great deal of unique practical

information.

Apart from the contact with parents using my program, I am regularly called

by other parents and other practitioners. I have also published two books

on the subject, and have written many articles and appeared on major media

outlets. Thus while the provision of HP is a very minor part of my income,

it occupies a major part of my time and energy.

Table 1

http://www.lyghtforce.com/HomeopathyOnLine/text/golden_t1.htm

describes the program I am currently using, and Table 2

http://www.lyghtforce.com/HomeopathyOnLine/text/golden_t2.htm

summarises my accumulated results to date:

(see end of article for Table 1 & Table 2)

3. The Safety and Efficacy of Homoeoprophylaxis

(a) Safety

All sides of the debate agree that HP remedies, like all homoeopathic

potencies, are non-toxic. This does not mean however that they cannot at

times cause reactions. Just as with homoeopathic treatment, so with HP, the

medicines may stimulate the patient’s healing energy and they may have a

clearing or detoxifying effect.

My research indicates that about 10% of children who used my program

reacted in some way. The majority of reactions were very mild and very

brief. Of great interest were a number of comments linking disease exposure

and reaction to remedies. For example, the parents of a number of children

who reacted to the remedy Diphtherinum (the Diphtheria Nosode) reported

having had the disease diphtheria in their childhood. The remedy had a

clearing and also, most probably, a healing effect.

An analysis of comments made by many parents at the end of their

questionnaires showed that the overall health of children using the program

was generally excellent, and time and again parents stated that their

children were much more healthy than their peers.

So there was no evidence in my survey to suggest that the use of HP in any

way lowered the general health of those children using the program. The

reverse was true. Therefore we may conclude that HP does offer a non-toxic,

non-invasive method of disease prevention.

( Efficacy

My survey suggests that HP provides an 89% rate of protection. This

includes reports of diseases which were so mild that at times there was

uncertainty whether the child had actually contracted the disease

mentioned. I believe that 89% is a conservative estimate of efficacy.

This level of efficacy is more than comparable with the rates of protection

for vaccines suggested in medical journals. These rates range from 75% to

95%, and may be considered best estimates. Nothing on this planet can offer

100% protection against an infectious disease.

The real importance of my study is that it supports the historical evidence

of the efficacy of HP. Even though no other major long-term studies have

been undertaken there is considerable clinical evidence over 200 years

showing a high level of protection using HP.

My own study and experience, as well as that of others, strongly suggests

that HP does offer a higher level of disease-specific prevention than

methods of general prevention which do not target specific diseases.

This is what we would intuitively expect, and in no way lessens the great

value of methods used to generally improve immune competence - methods such

as good diet, a stable emotional environment, chiropractic and osteopathic

corrections, and most importantly anti-miasmic constitutional homoeopathic

treatment.

( c) Conclusion

It is apparent from the above information that HP offers a non-toxic method

of disease-specific prevention, that it does stimulate the healing response

which at times leads to mild reactions in users, and that it does offer a

significant level of protection at least comparable to that of vaccines.

If nothing else , it is therefore reasonable to conclude that HP is a

genuine alternative to vaccination.

The next question is whether we should actually give such protection, and

if so whether HP is the best method available.

To answer this we shall now consider arguments against HP by some homoeopaths.

4. Arguments Against Homoeoprophylaxis by Some Homoeopaths

Some practitioners believe that HP is not based on homoeopathic principles.

As stated earlier, the selection of homoeopathic medicines in treatment is

based on the Law of Similars. However the selection of the remedies used in

HP is based on the same Law, i.e. the HP remedy is capable of producing in

a healthy person symptoms which are similar to the common symptoms of the

targeted disease or is capable of removing in an unwell person such common

symptoms.

In homoeopathic treatment remedies are administered according to the Law of

Minimum Dose, which states that only the smallest amount of remedy needed

to induce a healing response is used. In my HP program the same Law is used

in selecting the dose for each individual disease/remedy combination, i.e.

I use the smallest dose of each remedy which I believe will induce a

reliable medium-term protective response to the targeted disease.

Thus it is not correct to state that HP is inconsistent with the

homoeopathic principles developed by Hahnemann. This is why Hahnemann

himself used HP, and was a strong advocate of disease prevention in some

situations.

Some practitioners believe that we should allow patients to contract

infectious diseases, and then treat the resulting symptoms, rather than try

to prevent the disease.

In part this argument derives from the idea that HP is inconsistent with

homoeopathic principles, whereas we have shown that it is not.

It is true that many infectious diseases are quite mild in healthy

children, and that they are easily treated using homoeopathic medicines.

This of course presumes that an experienced practitioner is readily

available, a situation which often does not exist in geographically large

countries such as Australia.

It also presumes that the child already has a reasonable immune competence,

something which a malnourished child living in unsanitary conditions often

does not enjoy.

However it is true that the process of acquiring and combating simple

infectious diseases helps to mature a child’s immune system over the early

years.

I am not aware of any evidence which suggests that a child must get all

infectious diseases to be fully healthy. In fact such a proposition sounds

and is quite silly.

Personally I have no problems with allowing healthy children to contract

diseases such as measles and mumps, and then treat. This is what I do with

my own children. However I also have no doubt that I would rather prevent

diseases such as whooping cough in a tiny infant rather than have to treat

(which I of course have done many times), even though homoeopathy does

provide excellent treatment. The process is potentially traumatic to both

the child and the parents.

I make it clear in my program that it is the parent’s decision which

diseases they want to prevent.

The issue of parent’s choice is the next one to consider.

Some practitioners believe that parents should not be allowed to choose the

method of disease prevention for their children.

At first this will sound like an appalling suggestion to many readers.

However some homoeopaths sincerely believe that (a) constitutional

treatment is the only sound method of disease prevention and/or ( that

allowing a child to acquire an infectious disease and then treat is the

only true homoeopathic method.

These practitioners believe they have a duty to guide the parents to what

the practitioner believes is best for the child, and if at first the

parents do not understand or agree then they should be persuaded by the

practitioner.

Of course the validity of this approach depends in the first instance on

the practitioner’s views being correct. I for one do not agree with either

(a) or ( above, nor apparently did the founder of homoeopathy who used HP.

I do believe that the issue of disease prevention is one of the most

difficult that any parent can face. If a parent does what they genuinely

believe is best for their child, after considering differing points of

view, then they can do no more. I personally feel happy to support such

parents whatever their decision.

I have patients who vaccinate their children. I am ready to help them

irrespective of my personal views on vaccination. I have patients who use

only constitutional treatment and not HP, some who use HP, and some who

only use homoeopathy for acute problems and employ no method of disease

prevention. They all have my support.

Some practitioners believe that it is disruptive to give a patient

homoeopathic remedies when there is no disease present.

In practice our knowledge of homoeopathic remedies is based on the process

called provings . A complete proving is in fact a double-blind,

placebo-controlled trial.

This process involves giving people homoeopathic potencies when there is no

disease present.

Hahnemann himself said that properly conducted provings will do a person no

harm, and in fact will help improve a patient’s health.

Similarly, there is no reason why the effect of judicious use of HP

remedies will be any different to that of regular provings and, as I stated

above, my empirical research makes it clear that children using my program

enjoyed excellent general health.

Another point here is that many practitioners who argue that HP is

disruptive to a child’s health would at the same time agree that well

managed challenges by infectious diseases help to mature a child’s immune

system.

It has been suggested by some that use of appropriate disease-specific

remedies actually provides a challenge similar to a very mild attack of the

disease. This suggestion is supported in part by reports of antibody

stimulation after the use of disease-specific remedies in some cases (there

are also reports where antibodies were not stimulated).

If this is correct then the judicious use of HP should also help to safely

mature a child’s immune system. This possibility is consistent with

parent’s reporting a high level of general health and well-being in their

children using my HP program.

Some practitioners believe that we should only use constitutional treatment

to prevent infectious diseases.

This follows from the knowledge that constitutional treatment will increase

resistance in general to all diseases, and lessen the severity of the

symptoms if a disease is contracted.

In my own practice I have a number of patients who do not use HP remedies

at all, and rely totally on constitutional treatment for infectious disease

prevention. I am very happy with this because the parents know and

understand what they are doing, and share my confidence in the validity of

this approach to their child’s health.

However many parents do not feel comfortable with using only constitutional

treatment (many who approach me have no idea what homoeopathy is). Once I

explain homoeopathy to the best of my ability, I do not believe it is then

my job to either make them change their minds or refuse their reasonable

request to use a reliable disease prevention method which is safer than

vaccination.

I tell the parents what their options are, and it is their decision what to

do next.

I wish to state clearly again that I do believe that constitutional

treatment is very effective and is the best one can do over time to give

one’s child the best possible total health. I also believe that

constitutional treatment does not prevent individual infectious diseases as

effectively as the correctly chosen disease-specific remedy.

When I have parents who wish to use both constitutional treatment and HP,

then the former takes precedence over the latter, and the HP remedies are

timed to fit in with the constitutional doses. The HP program is simply

delayed when appropriate to do so. Any suggestion that I would not use the

constitutional treatment until the HP program is complete is totally

incorrect.

Some practitioners believe that my program contains too many doses of

remedies.

These practitioners may agree that HP does work, but think that the dosages

are too frequent, or that the potencies are too high.

The main program directs remedies to be given on 28 occasions over five

years, on average one dose every two months. In practice doses are

frequently given less often than every two months because many parents do

not cover for every disease on the program, and many are late with doses.

But of course this is not the issue for parents who follow the full program

exactly.

I regard the triple dose of a 200, M and 10M over 24 hours as effectively a

single powerful dose of the remedy. A triple dose works as such in

treatment, and does so in prevention.

The remedies given most frequently in the program, Haemophilis, Lathyrus

Sativus and Tetanus Toxin, are given on only five occasions over the five

years - on average less than once a year. In practice, homoeopaths find

that dosing problems usually occur only when a remedy is administered at

repeated short intervals - the critical interval depends greatly on patient

sensitivity.

Annual dosing is hardly likely to cause such a problem, or cause a

“proving” type aggravation. Once again I refer to the practical experience

noted in my survey which shows no evidence of long term health problems

which overdosing would cause.

The reason for the initial single dose of 200c for each remedy is to detect

any hypersensitive patients for whom the triple dose may be too strong.

Their dosing regime is then modified appropriately.

Some practitioners believe that we should only use HP remedies to prevent

infectious diseases when there is an epidemic.

They correctly state that most of the references to HP in the literature

are to the use of the remedies in acute epidemic situations. This fact does

not in any way demonstrate that the remedies cannot be used for longer-term

prevention.

In fact it is more a reflection of the nature of many of the epidemics

which spread in clearly identifiable and predictable waves across Europe in

the 1700s and the 1800s.

Homoeopathy “cut its teeth” on the successful treatment and prevention of

such epidemics. It is a great shame that this historical fact is not taught

in all medical as well as naturopathic and homoeopathic colleges. If it was

there would be less debate about, and more acceptance of HP today.

At present in many developed countries some diseases are constantly present.

In Australia whooping cough is always present, whether or not it is

mentioned hysterically in the media. So is measles. Polio is also a

potential threat in countries which use the oral polio vaccine.

So the dilemma for those who wish to confine the use of HP to epidemics is

this: They believe HP works; they believe it should be used to prevent

certain diseases in “epidemic” situations; some of these diseases are

constantly present in our community.

The questions they must answer are - When is there an epidemic? How many

children need to acquire the disease (which the practitioner wanted to

prevent) before the practitioner decides it is OK to give the preventative?

How many requests for the preventative should the practitioner refuse

before giving it? Is it appropriate to refuse to give a medicine if a

parent thinks there is enough evidence of a disease being present?

Despite claims to the contrary, I have never heard a satisfactory answer to

these questions.

My answer is simple. If there is an infectious disease for which prevention

is requested, and if the disease is present in the community even though

the activity of the disease may fluctuate, then use HP.

It is available, inexpensive, safe, and highly (although not completely)

effective.

Some practitioners believe that HP remedies have not been proven to be

effective or safe.

The question of what constitutes proof is an interesting one. Many

modalities of traditional medicine had been shown to work in practice for

decades or centuries before “medical science” accepted the fact. Until

“medical science” was able to prove in its own terms that the modality had

an understandable mechanism of action, it refused to accept the practical

reality of its clinical efficacy.

Modalities such as herbal medicine, acupuncture, naturopathic dietary

advice were all ridiculed by “medical science” and are now being belatedly

accepted as effective.

Homoeopathy is presently being ridiculed by medical scientists, and in time

it will be proved by them to work. Millions who use homoeopathy on a daily

basis of course already know it works. They have proved the fact in the

most important laboratory of all - the real world.

True science would not be so prejudiced or closed-minded. If a method

worked, despite not being understood in terms of current medical models, a

true scientist would see this a challenge to explore a new frontier.

I began to practice homoeopathic medicine for two reasons: (a) it was

philosophically well founded and complete, and ( I observed that it did

work.

This was all the proof that I and thousands of other homoeopathic

practitioners have needed to use the modality with confidence, and with

success. This proof applies to both treatment and prevention.

It is surprising to find a few homoeopaths who claim that HP does not work

because it has not been proved in “scientific” terms. It has not - and

neither has homoeopathic treatment (just ask most doctors).

One homoeopath I know went to great lengths to offer a pseudo-scientific

debunking of the historical evidence showing the effectiveness of HP. He

later recanted and stated that short-term HP probably worked. Later still

he confessed that he actually would use short-term HP.

However he concluded that he had shown that long-term HP was

“unscientific”. What he showed was his erratic thought process, and he

actually proved nothing.

Some practitioners in all modalities of traditional medicine feel we need

to appear to be “scientific”. I believe we need to be true to our own

system of medicine, and become as truly competent as possible. Science will

catch up in time.

I am not suggesting that we should not be rigorous, or do research, or

collect data. Readers know that I have attempted to do this myself. I

believe the considerable body of data which I have collected does offer

additional proof of the safety and efficacy of HP, even though it is not

scientifically perfect.

Homoeopathy is not a theory - it is a practical discipline. It has proved

its worth in its action, so let us be proud of being homoeopaths, not

apologetic because it is not accepted by another model which has no

philosophical basis and which has many practical flaws.

Some homoeopaths believe that to suggest a need for HP is playing on the

fears of some parents.

They draw a parallel between the obvious fear campaigns which orthodox

medicine uses to try to increase vaccination rates, and my statement that

HP is a safe and comparably effective alternative to vaccination, and that

I personally would prefer to prevent some diseases than have to treat.

I can understand how those practitioners who rigidly adhere to some of the

views expressed above could have this opinion.

The fear associated with using a method (vaccination) which at times has

more devastating consequences than the disease it targets is considerable.

HP can lessen or remove that fear because it is non-toxic.

As to the fear of contracting an infectious disease - as I argued above

this is justified in some cases, and unjustified in others. I do not

believe that parents’ fears are increased by offering them proven options,

and by supporting their decisions.

In practice I often find that parents using my program tell me how great

their relief is when they find a safe and relatively effective method of

disease prevention.

I, like most practitioners, have had to deal with the effects of

“fear-mongering” on parents, and I do not believe the sensible use of HP

plays on parent’s fears. In fact those few vocal homoeopathic opponents of

HP appear to be creating considerable doubt (and therefore fear) in

parents’ minds when no doubts are really necessary concerning the safety

and efficacy of HP.

to part 3

5. How Does Homoeoprophylaxis Work?

As with conventional homoeopathic treatment, it is not possible to provide

an explanation of the mechanism of action of HP in present-day orthodox

scientific terms.

Developments in the field of Quantum Mechanics, in the “memory” of water

molecules, in the action of enzymes, and/or other such fields will

eventually provide orthodox science with a model which they will understand

and accept.

Homoeopathic medicine has been a safe and effective healing modality for

200 years. It works for treatment. It works for prevention. These are

demonstrable facts to all except the ardently closed-minded observer.

The mechanism of action of HP can be explained homoeopathically in terms of

predisposition or sensitivity - something homoeopaths call idiosyncrasy.

We know that there is something prior to the molecular reactions to

antigenic exposure. For example, Europeans brought what were to them simple

diseases to South Sea Islanders when first contacts were made. Many of the

Islanders died, many more fell ill, and a significant minority showed no

sign of the disease despite certain exposure.

They had not been vaccinated and did not have circulating antibodies - so

what protected that minority?

Similarly, why do many of us exposed to the flu, glandular fever, even the

common cold, remain well when others around us do not- or vice versa.

In homoeopathy we say that if a person is not idiosyncratic to the dynamic

challenge of the antigen (every physical substance has a unique energy

profile), the physiological reaction which medicos call the “disease” will

not occur.

A person’s level of idiosyncrasy can be generally changed through

constitutional treatment, or specifically changed through antigen-specific

remedies.

So an appropriate remedy will alter the recipient’s disease-specific

sensitivity or idiosyncrasy to the dynamic challenge of the specific

antigen, which will then prevent or lessen in intensity the physiological

changes triggered by that dynamic stimulus.

For example, if a patient is allergic (hypersensitive or idiosyncratic) to

Rhus Tox trees, then by administering a potency of Rhus Tox over time the

patient’s sensitivity will lessen and, possibly disappear. In other words

the properly administered potency of the antigen can change the patient’s

level of idiosyncrasy to the antigen.

In the same way, properly administered potencies of the measles antigen can

change the recipient’s level of idiosyncrasy to the antigen. This is how HP

works in simple terms. A more complete explanation of the mechanism of

action is beyond the scope of this paper.

Some readers may find this explanation " unscientific " and totally

unacceptable. This is understandable. They should remember however that the

bottom line for any health related modality is whether it works in practice.

HP has worked for 200 years, it works now, and it will still work in 200

years time for one simple reason: -- it is founded on natural law. The

validity of the Law of Similars is unchanging.

6. Conclusions

The purpose of this paper has been to give readers a brief introduction to

the use of my HP program, and the research which I have conducted over 12

years to support the safety and efficacy of the program.

This research has been shown to support the 200 years of clinical

experience during which homoeopathic medicines have been used successfully

to both treat and prevent infectious diseases.

We have considered the principal criticisms or questions concerning HP

raised by some homoeopaths. I believe I have offered a reasonable response

to all concerns - but only the reader can make that final assessment.

I believe in flexibility within law. HP is based on the Law of Similars -

the foundation law upon which the practice of homoeopathic medicine is

based. Its use can be varied according to need. Its use can accommodate a

wide range of patient needs - from patients who use HP only in acute

epidemics, to those who employ medium-term prevention against a range of

infectious diseases.

HP can be used in conjunction with constitutional treatment if required. It

can be used by patients who have no idea of what homoeopathy is. In

practice I have found it to be a useful introduction point for many parents

into a more general use of homoeopathic medicine for their families.

It is a non-toxic method, and very safe if used correctly. It has proven to

be generally (although not completely) effective over 200 years.

I believe that homoeopaths can be both proud and grateful that through the

efforts of Hahnemann we have a healing modality which not only

offers safe and effective treatment for disease, but both general and

disease-specific prevention.

HP will continue to be, for those who understand its use, a small but

highly significant part of the great healing modality which is homoeopathic

medicine.

References to Homoeprophylaxis in the Literature

The most useful review of the literature is in the following booklet by Dr

P Sankaran, where he lists the recommendations of 92 noted homeopaths.

Sankaran, P 1971, Prophylactics in Homoeopathy. Hom. Medical Publishers

Other references include the following.

Boenninghausen, C, 1849, ‘Brief Instructions for non-physicians concerning

the prophylaxis and treatment of asiatic cholera’, Lesser Writings, Jain,

1986.

Burnett, J 1884, Vaccinosis and its Cure by Thuja; with Remarks on

Homoeoprophylaxis, repub. WHL 1992.

Kent, J 1900, Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy, repub. Jain, 1954.

Close, S 1920, The Genius of Homoeopathy, repub. Jain 1991.

Shephard, D 1967, Homoeopathy in Epidemic Diseases, Health Science Press,

1981.

Speight, L 1982, Homoeopathy and Immunisation, Health Science Press.

Eizayaga, F, 1991, " Treatise on Homoeopathic Medicine " , E Marecel, Buenos

Aires.

******

TABLE 1

Table 1:

A Homoeopathic Preventative Program

Against Infectious Diseases

Age Recommended Remedy Potency

1 month Pertussin 200

2 months Pertussin 200, M, 10M

4 months Lathyrus Sativus 200

5 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M

6 months Haemophilis M

7 months Haemophilis M, M, M

9 months Diphtherinum 200

10 months Diphtherinum 200, M, 10M

11 months Tetanus Toxin 200

12 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M

13 months Pertussin 200, M, 10M

14 months Morbillinum 200

15 months Morbillinum 200, M, 10M

16 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M

17 months Haemophilis M, M, M

19 months Parotidinum 200

20 months Parotidinum 200, M, 10M

22 months Diphtherinum 200, M, 10M

24 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M

26 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M

28 months Haemophilis M, M, M

32 months Pertussin 200, M, 10M

41 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M

46 months Haemophilis M, M, M

50 months Diphtherinum 200, M, 10M

54 months Morbillinum 200, M, 10M

56 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M

60 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M

Remedy-Disease Relationship: Pertussin -- Whooping Cough; Tetanus Toxin --

Tetanus; Parotidinum -- Mumps; Haemophilis -- Hib Influenzae; Lathyrus

Sativus ­ Polio; Diphtherinum ­ Diphtheria; Morbillinum -- Measles:

TABLE 2 (view at webpage for better formatting)

http://www.lyghtforce.com/HomeopathyOnLine/text/golden_t2.htm

Table 2:

Summary of Accumulated Results for 10 Years to 1997

Measures of Side-Effects & Efficacy Series 1-5 Series 6-10 Totals

Total Responses 698

607

1305

1 Previously vaccinated 66

77

143

9.5%

12.7%

11.0%

2. Definite reactions to Kit 45

88

133

6.4%

14.5%

10.2%

3. Definitely suffered from diseases covered by the main program (a measure

of failure) 21

9

30

3.0%

1.5%

2.3%

4. Definitely exposed to diseases covered by main program 163

104

267

23.4%

17.1%

20.5%

5. Definitely suffering diseases after definite exposure and after taking

the appropriate remedy (a measure of failure) 21/163 9/104 30/267

12.9%

8.7%

11.2%

6. Definitely not suffering diseases after definite exposure and after

taking the appropriate remedy (a measure of success) 142/163 95/104 237/267

87.1%

91.3%

88.8%

Only a small number and percentage of children in the program suffered from

diseases covered by the program. More significant, however, is how many of

those had been exposed to infection. The figures show that only 11% of

children on the program exposed to an infection contracted a disease, and

89% did not.

NOTE: The program used singles doses of an M potency up to 1991

(Questionnaire series 1-5), and the current program has used triple doses

of ascending potencies since then (Questionnaire series 6-10). The latest

survey compares both programs, as shown in Table 2. These figures will be

useful in the following sections where we shall examine the safety and

effectiveness of HP, as well as the practical applications of the method.

The analysis applies equally to remedies used for protection against

various diseases encountered by world travellers.

to part 1