10/05/2026
Prophylactic Aspect of Homeopathy
Another advantage that homeopathy offers to pneumonia patients is that every homeopathic intervention is at the same time prophylactic.
Prophylaxis, which in infectious diseases consists first in preventing diseases before they develop, and second in mitigating the severity and complications of diseases once they come under treatment, is an important consideration for weighing the overall benefit of any therapeutic approach. The first aspect of homeoprophylaxis was briefly addressed earlier in this paper; I will now also briefly address the second one.
Toward the end of the NIP in January 1919, Dr. A. H. Grimmer of the Hering Medical College in Chicago wrote, that under genuine homeopathy it is rare for pneumonia to develop and that during ―a great scientific pow-wow here in Chicago to discuss strategies for dealing with the current influenza epidemic, ―one of the visiting officials at this convention frankly admitted that the over zealous treatment of pneumonia had undoubtedly killed many patients and advised less or no medicine, stating that the role of the physician should rather be that of an entertainer to divert the patient‘s mind from his illness and give old Mother Nature a chance to do the curing.
These things are mentioned to show the weakness and folly of a supercilious and arrogant system of medicine which seeks to inflict its false and perverted methods on all and which would, through control of the public press and legislative bodies compel all those whose teaching and methods differ from theirs to submit without question to their dictum. Such procedure must drive out all other methods of treating the sick from the field and thus stifle competition and progress. The testimony from the homeopathic side presents an amazing contrast in the positive curative results obtained, in the infinitesimal death rate and shortened time of illness. Out of reports gathered from various sections of the country from a goodly number of our prescribers a list of about forty of our proven remedies is noted which pretty nearly completely covers the epidemic. Out of this group of forty, a smaller group of seven remedies is named which covered about
ninety percent of the straight influenza cases—not the pneumonias. It is a rare thing for a pneumonia to develop if a good homeopathic physician is called during the first twenty four hours of an attack of influenza.
In 1919, soon after the end of the NIP, Dr. O. S. Haines, professor at Hahnemann Medical College of Philadelphia, pointed out that this second prophylactic aspect of homeopathy is a universal experience among homeopaths and is far from being negligible:
―The phenomenal success attained by homeopathic practitioners during the epidemics of influenza that have swept over this country, and, especially during the epidemic of 1918, is deserving of more than passing notice. The reason that our practitioners have been enabled to show a very low mortality rate is because, in the great majority of instances, they relied upon the homeopathic method in the treatment of this disease. They looked askance at such palliatives as aspirin—at such very doubtful measures as the serums and vaccines; and they stuck to the law of similars as the safest and surest guide. This simple law of drug selection made us sure when otherwise we might have been doubtful.
It enabled the homeopathic physicians to start their treatment of the initial stages of the disease, promptly. They lost no time. This was important because an influenza checked or mitigated in its incipiency, becomes less dangerous in its later manifestations. The remedies used were simple ones, that did not depress nor deplete the vitality of the patient; but rather tended to strengthen the vital resistance of the influenza victim.
Our practitioners did not seem to be so much concerned and confused by the various opinions expressed regarding the nature and pathological eccentricities of the disease in its fatal stages. They were only concerned in preventing it from reaching that stage. Probably not more than a half-dozen simple remedies were found necessary, but these were almost invariably used by all our practitioners, because the indications for their employment were so apparent. Three things must surely have impressed those of you who relied upon the law of similars in your treatment of uncomplicated influenza: First, that convalescence started easily and early. Second, that complications were not apt to supervene during the convalescent period, in those cases that called you early. Third, that the final recovery was really quite complete and clear-cut, and sequelae were not common. It is a great thing to be able to select remedies for the sick that will not only assuage immediate suffering; but, that will at the same time favorably influence a progressive pathology, in its infancy.
We should all recognize the prophylactic power of homeopathic therapy, for it is real.
By treating an individual from birth to old age, homeopathy is able to correct, along the way, deviations from health, including epidemic disease, whether old or new. In a 1920 paper entitled The Place of the Homeopath in the Public Health, Dr. L. K. Van Allen of Ukiah, California, noted the central role homeopathy can play in a society: ―A large percentage of the unfit physical cases of adults dates from some childhood illness. Just here is where the homeopathic treatment wins many of its laurels. It has been fully demonstrated that under proper homeopathic treatment a very small percent of children suffering from diseases of childhood go through life invalided or semi-invalided.
This one matter alone puts society in debt to the homeopath.
―Nor is it in childhood alone that the homeopath wins out. But [sic] diseases of adults yield to his care fully as readily. Many an epidemic has been robbed of its high mortality rate under his treatment. The recent influenza epidemic has demonstrated this fact again in a very forceful way. It has shown us that with homeopathic remedies we of today can do the same wonderful things that the early homeopaths did in the cholera and scarlet fever epidemics of their day.
―Now the logical question to ask is, ‗Why does not the public demand universal homeopathic treatment?‘ and the logical answer is that they do not know what homeopathy
can and does do for them. …
―There is another field where the health of the public would be greatly helped were homeopathy to be employed. That is in the government service, in both army and navy. We have to hang our heads in shame when we mention the medical branch of our
army medical service. We are justly proud of the sanitary, prophylactic, and surgical branches but the medical branch is a disgrace. We know that if homeopathy could be adopted as the official medical treatment we could be proud of the medical branch also. Is it being too bold to demand such a thing? We live in a time when the unusual and the impossible are being done. Why not have a little faith and back it up by more action and do what we know is our duty to our country by having homeopathy officially recognized by our government.
Influenza: brief comments. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1918-1919
Novella-Saine Post-Debate Q & A
http://www.hhf.net.in/research-pdf/historical_evidences_in_epidemics.pdf
