Vol. 22 No. 5 November 2002

About every five years there is a revival of the belief that there are homœopathic preparations that work pretty much the same as conventional vaccinations. Sometimes the source of this canard is a person selling “vaccination” kits; more often it is people whose enthusiasm for homœopathy oversteps the realm of reality. Recently in Australia health authorities became concerned because vendors of homœopathic “vaccination” had been sufficiently active to dent the rate of children participating in immunisation campaigns.

The New Zealand Herald newspaper read of this and one of its writers set out to see what the situation was here. As a quirk of fate would have it a pharmacy he went to asking for homœopathic vaccines supplied him with a bottle labelled “Meningo coccus meningitis vaccine” – which, of course, he took to mean the bottle of drops was being sold as a vaccine against meningococcal disease rather than containing (I presume) a combination of Meningococcus nosode and potentised meningitis vaccine for other uses.

The health reporter concerned, seemingly not one to let a fact get in the way of a good story, later spoke to me and the manager of the pharmacy. Both of us tried to tell him he had misinterpreted the wording on the label and tell him the prime reason such a remedy would have been made, but this dampening bit of information never appeared in print – until I wrote a letter to the editor reiterating the missing clarification.

All-in-all a sorry episode; the only good point being publicity of the fact that there are no such things as homœopathic equivalents to orthodox vaccines. To ram the point home, this being the era of the sound bite, I told the reporter I thought that the vendors of bogus vaccines should be tarred and feathered. I relate all this to emphasise how much care is needed in dealing with people who may be looking for something which will cause homœopathy to be seen in a bad light.

In the whole history of homœopathy there has been only one trial worthy of consideration that could be construed as supporting vac- cination by homœopathy. This is the experimenting of Paterson and Boyd published in the British Homœopathic Journal of December 1941. Here is a summary of that work:
The two doctors, connected with the homœopathic hospitals in Glasgow, Scotland, first tested their subjects for immunity to diphtheria with the best test available at the time (the Schick Test), then gave potentised Alum Precipitated Toxoid (Sharp and Dohne) or potentised membrane from the throat of a diphtheria patient. These membranes have the texture of wet cellophane and can block a throat quite easily. The infected material had been supplied to the Boericke and Tafel pharmacy in Philadelphia many years before by Dr Charles Gottleib Raue (1820-1896).

Forty-four subjects, adults and children, were tested for immunity to diphtheria; seven of them were found to have immunity. The 25 without immunity were given either Diphtherium 200c or Alum Precipitated Toxoid 30c as powders, two doses 24 hours apart. Three weeks after this everyone was again Schick tested and four found to react as if they had immunity. A week after this 23 subjects were dosed as before, and tested three weeks later; nine reacted as if immune.
Then 14 went through the same procedure and seven had their reaction change. The report says: “From this . . . it will be seen that of 33 positive cases tested following doses, 20 became negative, i.e. 60.6% acquired immunity, a much greater number than could be expected under any ordinary circumstances, the remaining susceptibility being 39.4% as against 100% susceptibility to begin with.” The authors came to these conclusions:

Based on the use of the Schick Test as an indicator of immunity, this research has shown:

That homœopathic potencies of a material attenuation of the order of 1×10-30 and more, can have an appreciable clinical action on certain cases as indicated by the Schick Test.
That as there can be no material quantity of the original substance, owing to the method of preparation used, in the potencies, the effect must be due to an immaterial action selective, but of a type physically unknown.
That an immunity to diphtheria of the degree indicated by a negative Schick Test can be produced, following an original positive result, in a number of cases greater than the normal Schick fluctuations, by the administration of potencies made from Alum Precipitated Toxoid and from diphtheric membrane.
That the percentage of cases immunised is, with the dosage tested, not sufficient to justify substitution for A.P.T. injection where lasting immunity of the accepted type is desired, nor should such dosage be accepted as producing in every case short and lasting standard immunity without a subsequent Schick Test.
That nothing in this research is to be taken as indicating whether potencies of A.P.T. or diphtheric membrane may or may not have an action which increases the tissue resistance to diphtheric infection by means other than by the production of immunity as indicated by the Schick Test and which acts only in the presence of a morbidity stimulus.
The trial is open to a great deal of criticism. For instance it is not spelled out who got what of the two medicines used, nor is it clear if all people who showed immunity left the trial or whether some went on for more doses of homœopathy, and a really major flaw is that no one received just the series of Schick tests and no homœopathy. What do homœopaths think about conventional vaccination?

There is no standard view. Some of the great homœopaths of the past, including Hahnemann, were enthusiastic advocates of inoculation with cowpox. Others, notably Compton-Burnett, saw the practice as harmful. The Faculty of Homœopathy in London has issued a statement urging the use of commercial vaccination. The official view expressed in the past by the NZ Homœopathic Society is that until absolutely convincing proof of the efficacy and safety of so-called homœopathic vaccination is available any advocacy of this method is to be strongly condemned.

As for conventional vaccination, this is not endorsed carteblanche, the need for it and its risks and benefits have to be considered on a case-by-case basis – which is what should be done with any medical procedure; informed consent is necessary in every context.

The Society wishes to record its gratitude for a gift of books by Rick Allender. Such donations are very welcome.

Bruce Barwell