Little Mountain Homeopathy, 351 E. 39th Ave., Vancouver, BC V5W 1K3
Phone: (604) 677-7742 Email:

Little Mountain Homeopathy

Classical homeopath in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Award-winning holistic natural health practitioner.


Research on Coronavirus

Part 1: Introduction to the research, the registrants who were involved, and the basic concepts of the research

This is a review of research done by Kate Birch, certified classical homeopath, on the use of a homeopathic coronavirus nosode, over a 6 month period, starting in March 2020.

The presentation covers research design, the number of registrants and the follow-up, proving symptoms from the coronavirus nosode, prior and active cases in those who were exposed, remedy response outcomes, and overall health outcomes.

This is a study on the effects of Novus-CV 1M in dilution in relationship to disease expression. This is also the largest homeopathic proving ever done. It was a real-time homeoprophylaxis application in an epidemic

The study resulted in improved health outcomes and no adverse events. 

Research goals: To determine the safety, effects/response, and efficacy of Novus-CV 1M.

About the Coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19) Nosode (Novus-CV)

Nosodes are homeopathic attenuations of pathological disease products sourced from infected individuals. 

The coronavirus nosode was made from samples of nasopharyngeal swabs, alveolar lavage fluid, and sputum of active human cases of COVID-19, authenticated and checked for cross contamination by a third-party lab. 

The remedy, Novus-CV, was made from samples that passed authentication. The remedy was potentized by a homeopathic pharmacy in the traditional way of trituration, dilution, and succussion.

Coronavirus Nosode Research Design

An intake was done with all research participants, and their overall health was assessed, as well as whether they had recent or active disease, and they were separated into age groups. There were follow-up surveys done 2 weeks after starting the protocol, then 3 months after starting the protocol. Note that there were no placebos used and there was no blinding done in this study. 

A number of participants reported having a strange sickness in November 2019, and they were placed in a separate group from the other participants.  And there were also a number of people who upon registration had active symptoms. 

The participants were clients who had done the childhood homeoprophylaxis (HP) program with their supervisors, and their friends and family.  There were 33 supervisors who registered participants in the study. A total of 1169 people registered which represented 348 families, but of those who registered only a total of 817 people took the nosode.

Participants ranged in age, but most were in the 0-5 and 30-49 age range. 10 pregnant women also participated. There were no issues (no adverse reactions) that occurred with the pregnant women or with the 5 elderly people 80+ who participated. According to the results of this study, this nosode is safe for all age groups. The 30-49 age range tended to have the highest amount of proving/immunological responses (side effects) from the remedy. Participants lived in mostly the USA, in various states. They were also mostly (80%) Caucasian. 

The Circle of Disease

When we are using a nosode we are activating an immunological process. So what does that immunological process look like? There’s a prodromal period, then fever comes, which capitulates the immune system to move towards a discharge, then there’s often an eruption, and then there’s often some sort of resolution through sweat. This is known as the circle of disease.

This immunological process can be compared to the action of infectious disease in the general population. First there’s a prodromal period, moving towards the peak of the epidemic, then at some point there’s a transformational change, and collectively immunity starts to develop, and this is the theory of herd immunity. When you are giving the nosode in an epidemic, you are diving into the problem, to help activate the seed of consciousness to move towards a resolution. 

Note that homeoprophylaxis can ameliorate symptoms but it can also cause proving symptoms (side effects). For those who are new to the concept of homeopathic provings, click on this link to learn more.

Part 2: Dosing, active cases, and remedy responses

Dosing directions

Participants took a single dose (3 pellets) of the 1M potency of the COVID nosode. A week later, they took a triple dose (3 doses) of the 1M potency of the nosode within a 24 hour period. Participants were instructed to repeat the triple dose of the 1M potency (3 doses in a 24 hour period) if they were exposed to the virus or if they had COVID-like symptoms. If they found the nosode dose to be too strong, participants were told to put a single dose of the nosode in a full glass of water and sip it throughout a 24 hour period until symptoms subsided. 

Kate Birch has spoken with the researchers at the Central Council for Research in Homeopathy in India, who has done research on using the Dengue nosode for Dengue Fever, and they found that it is best to use a potency of 200C or higher, due to an increased chance of aggravation symptoms (side effects) from potencies of 30C or lower.

Kate Birch had concerns that clients would have more side effects/aggravation symptoms if she used potencies that were too low of the COVID nosode, so she decided to use the 1M potency. 

Most participants did their first dose late March, and then they took the triple dose a week later in early April 2020. So most of these doses were taken by participants prior to the peak of deaths from COVID in mid April. Then these same families were instructed to take another triple dose of the nosode in October – note that some took the 1M potency and some took the 10M potency (families who took the 10M were those families who elected to take the 10M during the summer for added risk reduction). 

Active cases

Some participants (a total of 63) had active acute symptoms upon registration such as fever, body aches, headaches, coughs, runny nose. A lot of the symptoms were intermittent and many of these participants had difficulty breathing and wheezing. Most of the fevers were very low grade. Many of the symptoms were intermittent or recurring or slight. There was lots of fatigue.

Participants who already had active symptoms often had an increase in fever symptoms after taking the nosode; however, their sinus, cough, and headache symptoms often improved. What homeopaths are doing, when we give the nosode, is that we are pushing forward the immunological process of the circle of disease. The participants who had active low fevers upon registration were stuck in a prodromal period, then when they took the nosode, the fevers were pushed to higher temperatures, which burned out the discharge and moved them towards a resolution of their illness. 

The COVID nosode can be a good remedy for the symptoms of post-COVID syndrome because it helps intermittent symptoms pass through. 

The suggested miasms for COVID-19 are malaria (intermittent) or typhoid (effort and collapse).

Remedy responses

Immunological symptoms, if any, that participants experienced after they took the COVID nosode, were mild and short-lived. Immunological symptoms that participants reported after they took the nosode included runny nose, sore throat, and headache. 314 respondents had immunological symptoms after the single dose, and 219 respondents had immunological symptoms after the triple dose. 

Common words used or immunological symptoms experienced by respondents after they took the nosode

Sharp, sore, glassy, trickle, prickling, scratchy, high pitched noises, itching, burning. An irritating feeling. 
Heat, red, flushed, dry.
Tight, stiff, blocked, congested, plugged. 
Nausea, gagging, vomiting, burning, bubbling, gurgling, reflux, violent, cramping, tension, belching gas, bloated, loss of appetite, anxiety in stomach. (Lots of GI symptoms).
Gas and loose stools, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, pungent, voluminous stools. 
Shortness of breath, out of breath, inefficient breath, suffocation, labored, winded, restricted, wheezing, elephant, tightness, heaviness, pressure, burning, wetness, congestion, junky. 
Cough, slight, minor, short, dry, shallow, intermittent, occasional, seldom. 
Increased sleep, deep sleep, profound sleep, drowsy, sleepier, insomnia, sleepless, difficulty falling asleep, restless. 
Tired, exhausted, profound fatigue, deep fatigue. 

Organs of affinity: head, nose/sinus, throat, lungs, stomach, rectum, lungs/respiration/cough, sleep, energy.

Main side effects/proving symptoms experienced by participants who took the COVID nosode

Felt out of touch and a little unhinged. 
More vulnerable, profound sensitivity; crying at any reproach. 
Hyperventilating, weeping episodes. 
Irritability, cranky, seemed extra tired and grouchy. 
Tight chest – anxiety? 
Anxiety, fear, dread, paranoia – death, disease, family. 
Heart palpitations when I woke up with fear.
Panic after being in public. Shortness of breath.
Apathy, lack of motivation, exhausted.
Extremely emotional. Feel tortured by my partner – impossible to communicate, mishearing him and getting extremely frustrated. 

Resolved symptoms experienced by participants who took the COVID nosode

Immediate sense of peace.
Sense of more strength in immune system.
Felt pleasant as if slightly altered.
Felt more energetic and increased libido after feeling tired and cranky since other symptoms.
Breakthrough – she expressed her aspirations and purpose clearly; enabled ability to cope and vent. 
A feeling of being connected to others.
Improvement of depression/brain fog. 
Feel very well – and excited to be doing this.
Felt a positive surge of energy after dose.
I feel more protected now that I have taken the CV nosode. I believe that it has provided me with some level of immunity. I am privileged to have access to it, when others are continuing to be fearful.

Main mental symptoms/side effects experienced by participants who took the COVID nosode

Lack of motivation. Mentally unfocussed.
Racing thoughts, clear head, busy working until 11:30pm (usually in bed by 9:30pm).
More restlessness set in due to the daily change in state of affairs.
A little fuzzy thinking for a few hours. Brain fog. 
Lightheaded, vertigo, dizzy. 
Memory problems (can’t remember some words) from first dose. I take supplements for memory (forget words). They eliminated the problem until I took the nosode.
Felt like I was drunk for an hour at noon. It passed quickly. 

Improvements experienced by participants who took the COVID nosode

Greater clarity, attention, motivation, really good mood.
Improvement of brain fog and depression. 

Some themes of the COVID-19 nosode

I felt the collective emotions. Again, paralyzing fear, great sorrow, grief, profound sadness, and an out-of-control feeling. All of the symptoms went away within 24 hours. Profound peace, bliss, awareness, and the ability to ground the collective emotions followed. I honestly feel like a different person. This nosode has changed me for the better. 

Felt really good after taking the remedy, fear of the virus completely went. Felt optimistic, like the virus is here to help humanity transform. Feelings of elation and freedom, expansive energy, soaring.

Part 3: Exposure, contraction, and long-term health outcomes

Of the 817 respondents who took the nosode, 96 people had previous COVID-like symptoms and/or 63 people had active immune symptoms when they took the nosode and 130 people had exposure to people who had COVID. A total of 28 participants took the COVID test during the study and they all tested negative.

96 participants had previous COVID-like sickness between Nov 2019 to registration. Of those, 78 people had symptoms that resolved before the study started, and 16 had active symptoms upon registration. 38 participants developed symptoms during the study period, and 14 had relapsed symptoms. 12 respondents were tested, all negative for COVID. The homeopathic success rate for unresolved/relapsed symptoms was 97.3%.

63 registrants had active symptoms, of which 16 had previous disease. 40 of those with active symptoms developed symptoms during the study period. 60 people with active or previously unresolved symptoms resolved with the remedy. 2 people did not participate in the follow-up surveys. The homeopathic success rate was 95%.

Examples of registrants who had active symptoms upon registration, whose symptoms resolved after taking the COVID nosode

Fever 101 degrees, body aches, runny nose intermittently. Intermittent headache. Upon breathing, chest hurt near top of trachea; intermittently for 5 days, intense fear and anxiety about having COVID. All symptoms resolved after first dose of the nosode.

Had been sick for more than a month with sinus symptoms and a cough. After taking the doses all symptoms went away.

Runny nose for a few days, dry cough, lasted a couple of weeks. At the time, the symptoms I experienced felt unfamiliar, not like colds I usually get. All symptoms resolved after first dose. 

I had low grade fever, tightness in chest, difficulty in breathing. Had fatigue the first day after taking it. I had been experiencing chest symptoms that felt like I couldn’t take a full breath on inhalation. Low grade fever and chills. Great fatigue on day 4, lasted all day. Tightness lessened but came back after a few days. And then tightness and heaviness; chest symptoms, couldn’t take a full breath, on inhalation went away. Seldom, dry cough went away after. Moderate headache, alternating sides went away. Anxiety about disease, death, family went away.


130 people who enrolled in the study were exposed to COVID. 57 of those people developed short term symptoms during the study. There was a 98.7% resolution rate of symptoms during the study. 

Of the 130 with definite exposure, 56 did not respond to the survey and 74 people did not get the disease. Of the 434 people who responded to the 3-month survey, 0 people contracted the disease. Survey follow up was open until October 1, 2020. 

Participants’ attitudes about and response to covid exposure before and after taking the nosode

Prior to taking the first dose, I was feeling fearful and anxious. I felt like the unknown was making me crazy. Not knowing if I was going to get the virus and get sick. Not knowing how sick I would get if I got the virus. I just wanted to get the damn virus and get it over with!

The day I took the first dose, I went food shopping before taking it. This was probably at least my third time in a food store that week. I got to a point in the store where the space becomes tight and there were no windows. My fear and anxiety started to come in and I started to think that my shopping was sick. I felt vulnerable and exposed. It was excessive and unnecessary. I thought, “This is sick. It’s sickening.” I realized I was actually saying this out loud. I felt down, dragged down, frustrated. I worried that all of us in there were just going to make each other sick. I wanted to get out but felt the need to finish. I returned home. My mother, my daughter and I all took the nosode together. We said a few encouraging words, almost like a pep rally. About an hour after taking the nosode I started to notice that my mood changed. My fear and anxiety dissipated throughout the next couple of hours until it was gone. I felt lighter, clear. I felt like I was somehow above it all, I felt expansive. It was wonderful. To this date that initial level of fear and anxiety have not returned. I also no longer feel the desire to get the virus in order to move on. I feel like I have moved on, somehow…

On May 21, 2020 I was potentially exposed. I came in contact with one of my students’ families, 4 of whom had COVID at the time (one of them died in June of COVID). The student hugged me and I was in close range of two of the sick family members. I repeated the triple dose of the nosode at that time. I did not get sick. 

The COVID nosode decreased the feeling of fear in study participants

Fear was a predominant symptom that most participants experienced, especially before the study began. During the dosing, most participants noticed a lessening of their fear overall. 3 months after the dosing, very few participants were still fearful and there had been a shift collectively towards a feeling of well-being.

A strong and resilient immune system

Our immune system reflects how we live on this planet. When we have a healthy immune system, we can say that our degree of autonomy will mirror that; our volition, and what it is that we are doing in life. 3 months after the taking the COVID nosode, the vast majority of participants felt that their immune system was strong and resilient. Also, according to the responses of the 434 people 3 months after dosing, there was no worsening of previous chronic health conditions after taking part in the study. 

Words of gratitude/testimonials from participants

We love HP! I am a critical care paramedical nurse and wish you could integrate HP and homeopathy into emergency medicine.

I was symptom free, no aggravations. I’m assuming that all is well since I’ve had no bad reactions. Thank you for doing this research. I have been using homeopathy for 25+ years.

I’ve been around many persons with COVID both in hospital where I work and outside of work. I feel confident that this nosode helped me to fight it off and not contract it. 

The shift in my overall well-being has been enormous; most significantly, my emotional-psychological vitality, my ability to communicate with and connect with others, my capacity to keep perspective, set boundaries, consistently self-care, confidently pursue my work and passions: all have had a significant amelioration. 

I am grateful to have had access to this nosode. I am certain it alleviated my anxiety about getting sick. The anxiety was quite bad. I am fascinated by the lessons of the illness and became entrenched in my desire to learn more about the illness and myself during the early phase when I first took the nosode. I hope to get back to it and grow with the energy of this epidemic. 

COVID Nosode Overarching Proving Theme/Lesson

The overarching theme or lesson of the proving of the Novus-CV nosode is “The Shattered Mirror.” What it means is that whatever illusions that we’ve had, we’ve looked in our mirror and however it is that we saw it; what we thought life was about, it’s changing, it’s not that anymore. 

It reminds us of the homeopathic remedy Spectrum, which is made up of all the colours of the rainbow. Somehow, in the fragmentation of this, we have an opportunity to come together and create a better situation. We’ve been living with divisions between us and separation and isolation, and really what needs to happen is cohesion, to come together, on how it is that we are living on this planet and with each other, and taking care of each other. 

When the mirror has shattered and the illusions about who we are have dissolved, we can’t recognize ourselves in others. This is a collective reckoning for all of us to come to know who we are and how we can live together in a way that is in harmony with how nature intended for us. And once we heal the individual, we can heal the collective. 


Coronavirus homeoprophylaxis research review Part 1 (16 min)

Coronavirus homeoprophylaxis research review. Part 2 (27 min)

Coronavirus nosode research review. Part 3 (27 min)

Disclaimer: Nosodes are not intended to be an alternative to vaccination. The CHPA cannot recommend the use of any homeopathic medication, in lieu of conventional medical vaccinations. To their knowledge, there have been no homeopathic substances thoroughly tested as consistently effective replacement therapeutics for conventional medical vaccinations. Nosodes should only be used in consultation with a professional homeopath. Health Canada has not authorized any NHP to treat, prevent or cure COVID-19. The information in this article is not intended as medical advice and does not substitute for the advice of a health practitioner. 

Homeoprophylaxis Against Leptospirosis in Cuba

by Dr. Isaac Golden and Dr. Gustavo Bracho

Originally published in

Hahnemann first used a homoeopathic potency of Belladonna, selected using the Law of Similars, to prevent Scarlet Fever in 1798. Since then homoeopathic immunisation, or homoeoprophylaxis, has been used by tens of thousands of homoeopaths. Results have been described in our literature, but there has been relatively little formal statistical analysis of results. Further, most interventions have been by individual practitioners with relatively few people. This paper provides a graphical description of the use of homoeoprophylaxis by a government’s medical institute to protect literally millions of people. This experience has the potential to change the way homoeoprophylaxis is viewed by parents, practitioners and governments around the world.


The use of homoeoprophylaxis (HP), or homoeopathic immunisation, has been debated in this journal. Some homoeopaths oppose it on philosophical grounds (see the debate between Professor Vithoulkas and Dr Golden), some on more technical/political grounds (see the views of Dr Fisher which have been contested by Dr Golden). However HP has considerable support internationally being, as it is, part of Hahnemann’s “classical” method based squarely on the Law of Similars, and first used by him in 1798.

Irrespective of conceptual issues, the principal question is whether HP is effective and safe. Both aspects have been thoroughly researched and the evidence published. The question of safety is relatively easy given the absence of toxic materials in potentised remedies; however the question of effectiveness and efficacy remains hotly contested by orthodox scientists. They say that homoeopathy in general is “implausible” because “nothing is there” and therefore both treatment and prevention cannot work irrespective of the evidence. Whilst this is a very unscientific response, it remains the responsibility of advocates of HP to show convincing evidence that it does work.

Due to the recent massive HP interventions in Cuba, we can now offer four main types of evidence to support the effectiveness of both short-term and long-term HP, being:

  1. The historical use of HP from Hahnemann in 1798 to the present day, widely evidenced throughout the homoeopathic literature, and used by many “masters” of homoeopathy
  2. Short-term use of HP in epidemic situations. One of the most thorough of such studies has been by Morinski and colleagues in 1998. A review of such research points to an effectiveness of around 90%.
  3. Long-term use of HP in non-epidemic situations. Golden showed an effectiveness of 90.4% in his research from 1986 to 2004.
  4. The massive and highly successful HP interventions in Cuba involving millions of people from 2007 to 2010.

It is this latter piece of evidence that we will now examine further.

Leptospirosis in Cuba

Leptospirosis is a zoonotic disease which is endemic in Cuba. It usually worsens during the hurricane and high rainfall seasons from October to December each year when the infection is spread via infected water, although rodent urine will also carry the disease.

The three eastern regions of Cuba, Las Tunas, Holguin and Granma (IR = Intervened Region) usually have a much greater incidence of the disease per head of population than the rest of the country (RC) as is clear from Figure 1 which shows the average weekly incidence of leptospirosis for 2003-2006 in IR (2.4 million people) and RC (8.8 million people), weighted per head of population figure for both regions (Average x population in Cuba/population in region).

Figure 1: Leptospirosis, IR and RC, 2003-2006 weekly average weighted per head of population

In both 2007 and 2008 the RC was hit by severe hurricanes. In 2007 the Cuban Government, through the Finlay Institute which manufactures most vaccines used in Cuba, decided to homeopathically immunise the bulk of the population in IR due to a severe spike in the incidence of the disease.

Figure 2 shows the Incidence of the disease in 2007, and the impact of the two-dose HP program which was conducted in Week 45. Once again a weighted per head of population figure is shown, which illustrates the impact of the intervention even more clearly.

2007 was already a worse than average year for residents of IR, and became dramatically so following the hurricanes. However the outbreak “broke” in IR in Week 47, 2 weeks following the HP intervention, although it continued in RC where there was no intervention.

Figure 2: Leptospirosis in IR and RC, 2007, weekly, weighted per head of population

A second two-dose round of HP was administered in 2008 to the residents of IR, this time using a higher potency of the remedy (200C in 2007, 10,000C in 2008 – 2 doses a week apart). Figure 3 shows that the disease remained contained in IR (once again, the most at risk region), but continued as expected in RC apart from a significant single incident in Week 42.

Figure 3: Leptospirosis in IR and RC, 2008, weekly, weighted per head of population

The impact of the HP intervention is clear from the above Figures, but was also demonstrated when comparing the actual progression of the disease in IR in 2007 with the expected number of cases derived using a predictive model based on rainfall experience over time, plus other factors. Figure 4 has been reproduced in other studies of the intervention,,.

Figure 4: Leptospirosis in 2007, actual and predicted incidence

One issue regarding this diagram was the reliability of the predictive model used. Further examination revealed that the model used was quite reliable in IR, but less so in RC.

One final examination of the leptospirosis data from 2004 to 2008 is presented in Figure 5, showing the incidence of the disease for both regions. It shows clearly the seasonal peaks and troughs over the years, with a breaking of the seasonal trend in IR in late 2007, and the substantial reduction of the disease in IR in 2008 despite IR remaining the region most at risk due to severe hurricanes in IR in 2008. It also shows the 2007 prediction for IR shown in Figure 4 (without the HP intervention factored in), but this time shown in monthly figures rather than weekly as in Figure 4.

At this time a predictive trend for 2008 excluding the influence of the HP interventions is not available, but it certainly would show a higher incidence of the disease than that which occurred in RC. However the data which is available clearly shows the positive impact of the interventions. (See Fig. 5 below)

Figure 5: Leptospirosis cases in IR and RC from 2004 to 2008

Concluding Comments

The HP intervention against leptospirosis in IR in 2007 and 2008 has been an unqualified success. The details of the effective intervention were mentioned in the Cuban Assembly. Following on this experience a decision was made to undertake a massive HP immunisation of the total population against Swine Flu in 2009/10 involving over 9.8 million people. The results of this intervention will not be known until 2011 when data can be assembled and analysed.

It is clear that the Cuban initiative in safe, effective, and low cost infectious disease prevention, making the Cubans world leaders in this area of immunisation, will be followed with great interest by both practitioners and public health scientists around the world.

i. George Vithoulkas and Isaac Golden, in, April – September, 2007.
ii. As evidenced in the debate between Dr Fisher and Ben Goldacre. Natural History Museum.
iii. Golden I. A Respectful Challenge to Dr Peter Fisher Regarding Vaccination. J. Hom Med Assn. May, 2009.
iv. Hahnemann S. The Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever. Lesser Writings. B.Jain Publishers.
v. Golden I Vaccination & Homoeoprophylaxis? A Review of Risks and Alternatives. 7th edition 2010. Isaac Golden Publications, Cherokee, Victoria, Australia.
vi. For a summary of some major references see Golden I, Homoeoprophylaxis, A Practical and Philosophical Review. Isaac Golden Publications, Cherokee, Victoria, Australia.
vii. Mroninski C, Adriano E, Mattos G. Meningococcinum: Its protective effect against meningococcal disease. Homoeopathic Links Winter, 2001. Vol 14(4); pp. 230-4.
viii.Golden I. Homoeoprophylaxis: A Fifteen year Clinical Study. Isaac Golden Publications, Cherokee, Victoria, Australia. 2004.
ix. Campa C, Bracho G, Cruz R, Menendez J, Martinez R, Gilling E, Wella R. Homoeoprophylaxis: Cuban Experiences on Leptospirosis. Nosodes 2008, International Meeting on Homoeoprophylaxis, Homoeopathic Immunisation and Nosodes Against Epidemics. Havana, Cuba. 10-12h December, 2008.
x. Bracho G, Varela E, Fernández R, Ordaz B, Marzoa N, Menéndez J, García L, Gilling E, Leyva R,Rufín R, de la Torre R, Solis R, Batista N, Borrero R ,Campa C. Massive Application of Highly Diluted Bacteria as Homeoprophylactic Formulation for Leptospirosis Epidemic Control. Homeopathy. 2010. 99, 156-166.
xi. Golden I, Bracho G. The Homoeopathic Prevention of Leptospirosis in Cuba. J.Am. Institute of Homeopathy. Summer. 2010.

Dr Isaac Golden is Business Manager Academic Operations at Endeavour College of Natural Health. He has been in homeopathic practice since 1984, and has conducted the world’s largest long-term trial of homoeoprophylaxis, which formed the basis for his Doctorate in 2004, the first time a mainstream Australian University awarded a PhD in a homeopathic topic. He has authored 10 books on homoeopathy and many articles in Australia and internationally.

Dr Gustavo Bracho is Advisor to the President and General Director of Finlay Institute, Havana, Cuba, and head of the Homeopathy and Biotherapic Projects at the Institute. He is an experienced researcher in molecular and cellular biology, and has headed the Adjuvant Group within the Immunology Department of Finlay. In 2005-2006 he was a researcher in a Collaboration Project with the Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia, examining vaccine production methods. He has pioneered the use of homoeoprophylaxis in Cuba as both an adjunct to or an alternative for orthodox vaccination. He is widely published in his area.

Dr. Isaac Golden’s Homeoprophylaxis Research Overview

Homeoprophylaxis – A Proven Alternative to Vaccination

By Dr Isaac Golden

I prepared my first formal program of homeopathic remedies to prevent infectious diseases in 1986. In the following 20+ years, tens of thousands of Australian children have been immunized homeopathically – a method called homeoprophylaxis (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.


The use of HP was first described by Dr Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, in 1801. 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 homeopaths used HP to prevent a variety of infectious diseases, mainly in acute epidemic situations.

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 homeopathic 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%.

Whilst many homeopaths 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 Homeoprophylaxis

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 summarized 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).

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 elsewhere, 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 18,000
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 children1,305 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, 6th edition

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 randomized 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 homeopaths 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

Homeopathic 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 homeopaths 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 immunization methods – vaccination, HP, general/constitutional prevention, and no prevention at all. That gave 20 (5 x 4) possible combinations of health conditions and immunization methods. The data was processed using Odds Ratios and Chi Squared Probability tests.

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

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

We may conclude from the parts of my data which were statistically significant (P?95%), that HP is associated with an improvement in general health, compared to other immunization methods (as well as no immunization 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 immunization 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 antithesis 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 immunization 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”. 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 homeopathic 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 immunization method, for the benefit of their own children and of the entire community.

For a more thorough review of the history, statistics, science and research of Homeoprophylaxis, visit the Little Mountain Homeopathy Homeoprophylaxis Information Page


Golden I. Homoeoprophylaxis – A Fifteen Year Clinical Study. 2004. Isaac Golden Publications. Daylesford.

Golden I. Homœoprophylaxis – A Practical and Philosophical Review. 2001. Isaac Golden Publications, Daylesford, Australia. 3rd edition.

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.

Golden I. Vaccination – A Homoeopathic Perspective. Nature & Health. Vol 7. No.3. Sept 1986, pages 67-70.

Golden I. Vaccination and Homoeoprophylaxis – A Review of Risks and Alternatives, 6th edition. 2005. Isaac Golden Publications. Daylesford.

Hahnemann S. The Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever. 1801. Republished in Lesser Writings. B Jain Publishers, New Delhi; pp. 369-385.

Mroninski C, Adriano E, Mattos G. Meningococcinum: Its protective effect against meningococcal disease. Homoeopathic Links Winter, 2001. Vol 14(4); pp. 230-4.

National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC). The Australian Immunisation Handbook, 8th Edition. 2003. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

About the Author…

Dr Isaac Golden has been in homeopathic practice since 1984. He has written 8 books on homeopathic topics and currently consults in Gisborne, Victoria. Since 1990, he has been Principal of the A.C.H.H., a correspondence college teaching homeopathy and has recently been appointed as Adjunct Professor of Homeopathy at the Australian College of Natural Medicine. He is a world authority on the use of homeoprophylaxis, 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.


Nosodes are not intended to be an alternative to vaccination.

The CHPA cannot recommend the use of any homeopathic medication, in lieu of conventional medical vaccinations. To their knowledge, there have been no homeopathic substances thoroughly tested as consistently effective replacement therapeutics for conventional medical vaccinations

Scroll to top