The websites Homeopathy Plus! and have been ordered to remove information suggesting “homeopathic immunisation” is as effective as vaccination and issue a retraction following a complaint made to the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

Dr Ken Harvey, a lecturer at Latrobe University School of Public Health, who authored the complaint (read the full complaint as a pdf here), objected to claims on the website that “homeopathic immunisation is effective against poliomyelitis, chicken pox, meningococcal disease, hepatitis (all types), Japanese encephalitis, Hib, influenza, measles, pneumococcal disease, smallpox, typhoid, cholera, typhus, whooping cough, rubella, mumps, diptheria, malaria, tetanus, yellow fever, dysentery and many other epidemic diseases”.

8921_1181441710749_1669387510_30807012_4628159_nThe websites, classified as advertisements for the purposes of the complaint, also claimed that “recent research conducted at Swinburne University by Australian homeopath, Dr Isaac Golden confirmed that homeoprophylaxis provides the same degree, or better protection, than vaccines with none of their side effects or complications.”

About influenza, the websites state that the homeopathic preparation, “Anas Barbariae relieves the intensity and shortens the duration of flu symptoms better than anti-virals…..without the side effects” and “symptoms are sometimes removed in a few hours”.

In reference to the claims about the positive results of Isaac Golden, Dr Harvey noted these claims are directly contradicted by the thesis from where they are sourced. Golden’s thesis contains the statement; “the effectiveness of the homeopathic immunisation programme could not be established with statistical certainty given the small sample size..”. In spite of this, and in lieu of providing further evidence,  the complainant stated (in part) that the thesis had “indeed reached a positive conclusion with a high degree of confidence”.

The findings from The Complaints Resolution Panel stated that although the complainant cited references for homeoprophylaxis, they “did not provide complete copies of the papers cited.” Further, the material on the websites was deemed “misleading”,unverified” and “abused the trust or exploited the lack of knowledge of consumers” (my emphasis).

The Panel found that none of the material supplied by the advertiser supported claims made on the websites, and therefore the information was misleading and “likely to arouse unwarranted expectations” from consumers. The Panel ruled for Homeopathy Plus! and to remove the misleading material and issue a retraction on their websites which is to remain for 90 days. The advertiser has 14 days to comply with the ruling.

Claims about efficacy of homeopathic immunisation are in direct contravention to statements from the National Council for Homeopathy London which “strongly supports the conventional vaccination programme..”. In Australia, The Executive Director of the Australian Natural Therapies Association said “no properly qualified natural therapist would recommend homeopathic immunisation as an alternative to conventional immunisation”.

This comes at a time when NSW Health authorities have issued a warning about meningococcal disease following the death of a woman in Sydney, and a spike in cases in NSW, with eight reported in December 2009, in Sydney.

For more information about homeopathy, see the 10:23 campaign. To participate in a mass homeopathy suicide attempt in Australia, see the events page on Facebook.


Subscribe to comments Comment | Trackback |
Post Tags: , , , , , , ,

Browse Timeline

  • Pingback: central park bike()

  • Pingback: The importance of critical thinking in discerning reputable sources | Losing In The Lucky Country()

  • Pingback: Vacinas homeopáticas são uma prática consciente e responsável? | COMCEPT()

  • Pingback: Pseudoscience homeopathy can get you a health sciences degree at Australian universities. The end of the world is nigh! « Sans Science()

  • Pingback: » Homeopathy Plus! jumps a flotilla of sharks()

  • sounds great..

  • Paul G

    Oh my.


  • Paul G

    Fear not, sibling synapses.

    I should have been clearer with my intro’.

    What a delight to find more lies about Isaac Golden’s “research”.

    It’s top shelf self-serving Peacock Piffle. I popped the same link on <a href="SAVN", 15 mins later.

  • AndyD

    From the same interview…
    “Dr. Isaac – I agree that long-term HP is like a proving, in that remedies are given to people who do not need the remedy for treatment. However the purpose of HP is NOT to produce symptoms, as with a proving, but to provide protection against a possible antigenic challenge. But the analogy with a well conducted proving may explain why the research data shows that people using appropriate long-term HP are very healthy. Hahnemann said that participating in well run provings will improve health. We now see that using an appropriate long-term HP program has similar positive long-term health effects.”
    So, homeoprophylaxis is just like a proving because you give it to healthy people – except that it isn’t like a proving because it doesn’t produce symptoms of illness which is what supposedly happens if you give homeopathic concoctions to healthy people but not when you call it homeoprohylaxis because then it isn’t intended to cause symptoms, it’s intended to prevent them whereas when you call it a proving you intend it to cause symptoms, so it does. It’s not about provings or prevention or vital forces at all. It’s all a matter of intent.
    Last week I reversed my car into a concrete pillar but the vehicle wasn’t dented because I didn’t intend to crash it. Of course, if it was dented I’d have just driven it into another concrete pillar to induce a like-causes-like healing effect.

  • 1) Where are these results published. Surely if they were as accurate and well vetted as you make them out to be you would have no issue, with your research and findings being loved by the scientific community worldwide due to its groundbreaking finds.
    2) Safety of doing nothing? Could you explain exactly what you mean by “vital force”? As far as I’m aware this is a meaningless term. What is it? How is it measured? How did you gather your data? What controls did you have in place?
    3) But the research is out there, if you’d just take a few moments to look.

  • Chris

    Why should we believe you?

  • Paul G

    What a delight to find;

    Dr. Isaac – There is so much that could be said, but I would say that the three most significant findings are:
    (1) The consistency of measures of the effectiveness of HP over 200 years, both for long-term and short-term protection – at around 90%. This is a very strong figure, and very consistent with vaccine efficacy. My own data was collected from 1986 to 2004, and vetted by a Professor of Medicine and a medical epidemiologist during my Swinburne research. So it means we can offer people a safe alternative with a demonstrated effectiveness.

    (2) Evaluation of the overall safety of long-term HP was an important new aspect of my Doctoral research at Swinburne University from 2000 to 2004, and the results were excellent. Some of my colleagues had quite reasonably questioned whether the use of my long-term program could cause any weakening of the Vital Force over time, and the data unambiguously said “no” to that question. It further showed that my long-term HP program was associated with an improvement in general well being– a result that pleased, but also surprised me to some extent.

    (3) How damaging vaccination is over the long-term. Once again, the results are unambiguous, and are fully consistent with the very few long-term studies of the impact of vaccination on overall wellness. The fact that the orthodox community has done so little genuine research into long-term safety of vaccination is to their eternal discredit.