Medical Forum / General / Alternative / October 2008
Some History Of The Treatment Of Epidemics With Homeopathy
|
|
Thread rating:  |
rpautrey2 - 18 Oct 2008 02:50 GMT Some history of the treatment of epidemics with Homeopathy by Julian Winston
From its earliest days, homeopathy has been able to treat epidemic diseases with a substantial rate of success, when compared to conventional treatments. It was these successes that placed the practice of homeopathy so firmly in the consciousness of people world-wide.
There is a story told about Joseph Pulte, one of the earliest homeopaths in Cincinnati. When he began his practice, many people were so angered by a homeopath being in town that they pelted the house with eggs. He was becoming discouraged enough to think of leaving. His wife said, "Joseph, do you believe in the truth of homeopathy?" He replied in the affirmative. "Then," she said, "you will stay in Cincinnati."
Shortly after, when the Cholera epidemic swept through, Pulte was able to boast of not having lost a single patient-- and he was accepted into the community. In the Epidemic of 1849, people crowded to his door and stood in the street because the waiting room was full.
In 1900, Thomas Lindsley Bradford, MD, wrote a book called "The Logic of Figures" in which he collected the statistics he could find that would compare the conventional therapeutics with homeopathic ones. Many of the figures cited below are derived from Bradford's work.
One of the earliest tests of the homeopathic system was in the treatment of Typhus Fever (spread by lice) in an 1813 epidemic which followed the devastation of Napoleon's army marching through Germany to attack Russia, followed by their retreat. When the epidemic came through Leipzig as the army pulled back from the east, Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, was able to treat 180 cases of Typhus-- losing but two. This, at a time when the conventional treatments were having a mortality rate of over 30%.
In 1830 as the cholera epidemic was reported coming from the east, Hahnemann was able to identify the stages of the illness, and predict what remedies would be needed for which stages.
When Cholera finally struck Europe in 1831 the mortality rate (under conventional treatment) was between 40% (Imperial Council of Russia) to 80% (Osler's Practice of Medicine). Out of five people who contracted Cholera, two to four of them died under regular treatment. Dr. Quin, in London, reported the mortality in the ten homeopathic hospitals in 1831-32 as 9%; Dr. Roth, physician to the king of Bavaria, reported that under homeopathic care the mortality was 7%; Admiral Mordoinow of the Imperial Russian Council reported 10% mortality under homeopathy; and Dr. Wild, Allopathic editor of Dublin Quarterly Journal, reported in Austria, the Allopathic mortality was 66% and the homeopathic mortality was 33% "and on account of this extraordinary result, the law interdicting the practice of Homeopathy in Austria was repealed."
Homeopathy continued to be effective in the treatment of Epidemic Cholera. In 1854 a Cholera Epidemic struck London. This was a historically important epidemic in that it was the first time the medical community was able to trace the outbreak to a source (a public water pump), and when the pump was closed, the epidemic soon ceased. The House of Commons asked for a report about the various methods of treating the epidemic. When the report was issued, the homeopathic figures were not included. The House of Lords asked for an explanation, and it was admitted that if the homeopathic figures were to be included in the report, it would "skew the results." The suppressed report revealed that under allopathic care the mortality was 59.2% while under homeopathic care the mortality was only 9%.
It is hard today to comprehend what kind of scourge such an epidemic was. As was seen in the later Flu Epidemic of 1918, one could be healthy in the morning and be dead by evening-- it moved that rapidly. Many books were written about the Homeopathic treatment of Cholera during these times, among them: Cholera and its Homeopathic treatment, F. Humphreys (1849); Homeopathic Treatment of Cholera, B.F. Joslin (1854); Homeopathic Domestic Treatment of Cholera, Biegler (1858); Epidemic Cholera, B. F. Joslin (1885); Asiatic Cholera, Jabez Dake (1886).
The success of homeopathic treatment continued with the later cholera epidemics. In the Hamburg epidemic of 1892, allopathic mortality was 42%, homeopathic mortality was 15.5% During the 1850s, there were several epidemics of Yellow Fever in the southern states. This disease was eventually found to be transmitted by mosquito. Osler, says that the allopathic mortality from Yellow Fever is between 15-85%. Holcome, a homeopath, reported in 1853 a mortality of 6.43% in Natchez, and Dr. Davis, another homeopath in Natchez, reported 5.73%. In 1878 the mortality in New Orleans was 50% under allopathic care, and 5.6% (in 1,945 cases in the same epidemic) with homeopathic care.
The two best books on this topic were: Yellow Fever and its Homeopathic Treatment, Holcome, (1856) and The Efficacy of Crotalus Horridus in Yellow Fever, C. Neidhard, (1860).
Another epidemic disease which was treatable with homeopathy was Diphtheria. Since the advent of widespread vaccination, it is a disease not often seen in our modern world. Diphtheria appeared periodically, and rarely had the same presentation. It was, therefore, very important for the practitioner to individualize the treatment in each specific case or generalized epidemic. A remedy which had been effective in treating it one year might not be the same remedy needed the next year.
In the records of three years of Diphtheria in Broome County, NY from 1862 to 1864, there was a report of an 83.6% mortality rate among the allopaths and a 16.4% mortality rate among the Homeopaths. (Bradford)
Perhaps the most recent use of homeopathy in a major epidemic was during the Influenza Pandemic of 1918. The Journal of the American Institute for Homeopathy, May, 1921, had a long article about the use of homeopathy in the flu epidemic. Dr. T A McCann, from Dayton, Ohio reported that 24,000 cases of flu treated allopathically had a mortality rate of 28.2% while 26,000 cases of flu treated homeopathically had a mortality rate of 1.05%. This last figure was supported by Dean W.A. Pearson of Philadelphia (Hahnemann College) who collected 26,795 cases of flu treated with homeopathy with the above result.
The most common remedy used was Gelsemium, with occasional cases needing Bryonia and Eupatorium reported. Dr. Herbert A. Roberts from Derby, CT, said that 30 physicians in Connecticut responded to his request for data. They reported 6,602 cases with 55 deaths, which is less than 1%. Dr. Roberts was working as a physician on a troop ship during WWI. He had 81 cases of flu on the way over to Europe. He reported, "All recovered and were landed. Every man received homeopathic treatment. One ship lost 31 on the way."
Closer to our present time, there were the Polio epidemics in the mid-1950s. Dr. Alonzo Shadman, a homeopath in the Boston area, emphasized that until *actual paralysis* was observed, it was hard to distinguish the prodromal symptoms of Polio from those of the common cold-- and he treated many "summer colds" during the time. Were they incipient polio? No one can tell.
Dr. Francisco Eizayaga or Argentina, tells of a polio epidemic in Buenos Aires in 1957, where the symptoms of the epidemic resembled those of the remedy Lathyrus sativa. The homeopathic doctors and pharmacies prescribed Lathyrus 30c as a prophylactic, and "thousands of doses" were distributed. "Nobody registered a case of contagion." Eizayaga points out that in other epidemics of polio, Gelsemium was the indicated remedy-- emphasizing, again, the need for individualization.
Homeopathy has been very effective in treating many of the epidemics during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Why the successes are not better known is a subject for conjecture. It could be that, like the physician quoted below, most would rather not see the ineffectiveness of the conventional therapeutics nor accept the efficacy of homeopathy. From "Homeopathy In Influenza-A Chorus Of Fifty In Harmony" by W. A. Dewey, MD (Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, May 1921):
One physician in a Pittsburgh hospital asked a nurse if she knew anything better than what he was doing, because he was losing many cases. "Yes, Doctor, stop aspirin and go down to a homeopathic pharmacy, and get homeopathic remedies." The Doctor replied: "But that is homeopathy." "I know it, but the homeopathic doctors for whom I have nursed have not lost a single case."--W. F. Edmundson, MD, Pittsburgh.
http://www.whale.to/v/winston.html
Hawki63@sbcglobal.net - 18 Oct 2008 07:16 GMT holy sh.t man...
do you not believe that such "evidence" of one to two centuries ago...means nothing...nothing...
pool water then is the same as pool water now...
doing nothing then..
and do tell what the "allopathic treatment" was then??
> Some history of the treatment of epidemics with Homeopathy > by Julian Winston [quoted text clipped - 184 lines] > > http://www.whale.to/v/winston.html rpautrey2 - 18 Oct 2008 07:18 GMT Drunken & Drugged Up Kook!
On Oct 18, 1:16 am, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> holy sh.t man... > [quoted text clipped - 197 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Citizen Jimserac - 18 Oct 2008 14:03 GMT On Oct 18, 2:16 am, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> holy sh.t man... > > do you not believe that such "evidence" of one to two centuries ago...means > nothing...nothing... Actually it means SOMETHING.... SOMETHING.
It means that a lucky number of people had their LIVES SAVED by Homeopathic remedies in a deadly cholera epidemic in London in the pre modern drug era.
A commonly seen fallacy, as seen in your misguided comments, is that because the allopathic treatments of the era were so bad (they were pretty pathetic, but that was the standard "science" of the day, just like vaccines now) Homeopathy worked because it was essentially doing nothing.
The statistics, forced by an order of Parliament, EXPOSE THIS FALLACY easily.
Doing nothing in a cholera epidemic gave a mortality rate of something like 50-60%. This is well known.
Going to an allopathic doctor actually helped, a little, and they had a mortality rate, in general of around 30% or worse.
But getting Homeopathic treatments gave the best chance of survival of all, a mortality rate of around 15% or LESS.
And, the English Pariliament, due to public outcry after the epidemic, demanded that the Homeopathic statistics be included in the National Health report and by order of pariliament those figures were released and recorded.
Somehow, with their little "nothing" pills, the Homeopaths had a mortality rate twice as low as the allopaths. THE NOTHING WAS A SOMETHING.
In addition, one of the standard medical doctors, an avowed enemy of Homeopathy was sent to investigate the London Homeopathic hospital's treatment of patients in the cholera epidemic. AFTER his investigation he stated unequivocally that he bad started the investigation as a complete skeptic, convinced that their treatments were a sham but after investigating numerous patients in various stages of the disease under the care of the Homeopathics, this standard medical doctor stated openly that he was convinced of the efficacy and superiourty of the Homeopathic treatments and state that if he were to get cholera he would entrust his own care to the Homeopaths.
Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 18 Oct 2008 15:10 GMT > On Oct 18, 2:16 am, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Citizen Jimserac Add epidemics to the list of things that Paulie and Jimmy are ignorant of.
D. C. Sessions - 18 Oct 2008 15:23 GMT > It means that a lucky number of people had their LIVES SAVED > by Homeopathic remedies in a deadly cholera epidemic > in London in the pre modern drug era. How did patients do who got the same nursing care, but didn't get the "remedies?"
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
D. C. Sessions - 18 Oct 2008 15:25 GMT > A commonly seen fallacy, as seen in your misguided comments, > is that because the allopathic treatments of the era were [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Doing nothing in a cholera epidemic gave a mortality rate > of something like 50-60%. This is well known. Nice try, but that's pure fabrication. I already posted the actual numbers from the same sources you're using for the rest, so it follows that pulling in the "50-60%" *estimate* in place of the actual figures was deliberate.
In other words, an attempt to mislead by misrepresentation. Commonly called a "lie."
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
Citizen Jimserac - 19 Oct 2008 00:19 GMT > > A commonly seen fallacy, as seen in your misguided comments, > > is that because the allopathic treatments of the era were [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > | chance that someone will see the light. | > +- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> -+ D.C. the numbers were RECORDED IN THE MINUTES OF PARLIAMENT - please don't make me go look that up.
Also, I gave the quote regarding the allopathic doctor who investigated the London Homeopathic Hospital cholera treatment methods. He became so convinced of the efficacy of these methods that he stated he would entrust his own care to the Homeopaths if he got cholera. I posted his exact quote not long ago - would you like me to repeat it? You're not going to call THAT a fabrication too are you DC?
Citizen Jimserac
D. C. Sessions - 19 Oct 2008 01:47 GMT >> > A commonly seen fallacy, as seen in your misguided comments, >> > is that because the allopathic treatments of the era were [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > D.C. the numbers were RECORDED IN THE MINUTES OF PARLIAMENT - please > don't make me go look that up. No, Scooter, you gave an unrelated *ESTIMATE* of the case mortality for "untreated" cholera. I gave the actual numbers, from those *EXACT* *SAME* *OFFICIAL* *RECORDS* for cases and deaths.
And they don't match your fabricated "estimates."
So, yes, DO go look them up. Of course, if you do you won't mention it here because that would mean admitting that you were duped (or lying, pick one) and you're not man enough to do that.
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
Citizen Jimserac - 19 Oct 2008 13:09 GMT On Oct 18, 8:47 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in response to Citizen Jimserac's
>>Doing nothing in a cholera epidemic gave a mortality rate >>of something like 50-60%. This is well known.
>Nice try, but that's pure fabrication. I already posted the >actual numbers from the same sources you're using for the rest, >so it follows that pulling in the "50-60%" *estimate* in place >of the actual figures was deliberate. FABRICATION?? OK D.C. here are some links regarding the TYPICAL MORTALITY RATES IN CHOLERA EPIDEMICS:
From Todar's Textbook on Bacteriology: Untreated cholera frequently results in high (50-60%) mortality rates. http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/cholera.html
or this:
Mortality/Morbidity
If untreated, the disease rapidly results in dehydration and can result in death in more than 50% of infected individuals. The mortality rate is increased in pregnant women and children. from http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic351.htm
SO FIRST OF ALL D.C. - YOU WILL PLEASE UPDATE YOUR OWN MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS FACT AND CONCEDE THAT THE TYPICAL MORTALITY RATE FOR UNTREATED CHOLERA IS 50-60%.
Once you get past that we will proceed.
Citizen Jimserac
D. C. Sessions - 19 Oct 2008 15:18 GMT > On Oct 18, 8:47 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote > in response to Citizen Jimserac's [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > OK D.C. here are some links regarding the > TYPICAL MORTALITY RATES IN CHOLERA EPIDEMICS: Screw "typical." What was the mortality rate in the EXACT SAME EPIDEMIC that you keep posting about?
One might suspect that you have a reason for avoiding that detail. One might wonder why.
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
Citizen Jimserac - 19 Oct 2008 15:47 GMT > CitizenJimseracwrote: > > On Oct 18, 8:47 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > | chance that someone will see the light. | > +- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> -+ DC WILL YOU AGREE THAT THE MORTALITY RATE FOR UNTREATED CHOLERA IS 60-70% FOR ANY CHOLERA EPIDEMIC INCLUDING THE ONE IN QUESTION?
Citizen Jimserac
D. C. Sessions - 19 Oct 2008 17:24 GMT > DC WILL YOU AGREE THAT THE MORTALITY RATE > FOR UNTREATED CHOLERA IS 60-70% FOR ANY > CHOLERA EPIDEMIC INCLUDING THE ONE IN QUESTION? No.
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
Citizen Jimserac - 19 Oct 2008 21:30 GMT > > DC WILL YOU AGREE THAT THE MORTALITY RATE > > FOR UNTREATED CHOLERA IS 60-70% FOR ANY [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > | chance that someone will see the light. | > +- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> -+ That should have been 50-60% but you still don't agree - right?
Could you at least provide a link on your view of the cholera mortality for the epidemic in question?
CJ
D. C. Sessions - 19 Oct 2008 22:04 GMT >> > DC WILL YOU AGREE THAT THE MORTALITY RATE >> > FOR UNTREATED CHOLERA IS 60-70% FOR ANY [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That should have been 50-60% but you still > don't agree - right? I don't give a drying duck what it "should have been." I care about what it *WAS* -- and that was a lot less than you're claiming.
> Could you at least provide a link on your view > of the cholera mortality for the epidemic in question? <bejqq5-731.ln1@news.lumbercartel.com>
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
Citizen Jimserac - 20 Oct 2008 06:36 GMT > CitizenJimseracwrote: > >> CitizenJimseracwrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > <bejqq5-731....@news.lumbercartel.com> OK, I am researching this - it has brought up a number of interesting discoveries - and infectious diseases such as cholera are one of my interests so pardon me if pursue this, DC.
I found your postings from last Sept. in which you examine the total 19th century English cholera deaths figure and deduce a 20% mortality, MAX, for it hence your position vehmently objecting to the 50-60% number typical and and found in textbooks- I do NOT agree with your conclusion as I easily find statistics for the 1831 epidemic that put the number of deaths, sadly, at 30,000 or so. And so for the rest of the century, the total cholera deaths would have to be around 20,000 to support your 50,000 or so figure - unlikely old dude but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and continue searching.
That's not the interesting part and I'm surprised that you did not latch on to it. The cholera bacterium is adaptive and eventually finds it way deep into the mucosal lining of the Small Intestine - if so, HOW IN THE HELL could a Homeopathic remedy stop it. And yet the numbers clearly show that it did. This will require my reading up on their curious concept of disease, my next adventure awaits.
Do try to keep the lid on the teapot old dude, if by some absurd chance you turn out to be correct, full credit will be given.
Citizen Jimserac
Richard Schultz - 20 Oct 2008 08:06 GMT : OK, I am researching this - it has brought up a number : of interesting discoveries - This is CJ-speak for "I will never acknowledge that I was mistaken."
----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Jan Drew - 21 Oct 2008 02:21 GMT On Oct 19, 5:04 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote: > >> CitizenJimseracwrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > <bejqq5-731....@news.lumbercartel.com> OK, I am researching this - it has brought up a number of interesting discoveries - and infectious diseases such as cholera are one of my interests so pardon me if pursue this, DC.
I found your postings from last Sept. in which you examine the total 19th century English cholera deaths figure and deduce a 20% mortality, MAX, for it hence your position vehmently objecting to the 50-60% number typical and and found in textbooks- I do NOT agree with your conclusion as I easily find statistics for the 1831 epidemic that put the number of deaths, sadly, at 30,000 or so. And so for the rest of the century, the total cholera deaths would have to be around 20,000 to support your 50,000 or so figure - unlikely old dude but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and continue searching.
That's not the interesting part and I'm surprised that you did not latch on to it. The cholera bacterium is adaptive and eventually finds it way deep into the mucosal lining of the Small Intestine - if so, HOW IN THE HELL could a Homeopathic remedy stop it. And yet the numbers clearly show that it did. This will require my reading up on their curious concept of disease, my next adventure awaits.
Do try to keep the lid on the teapot old dude, if by some absurd chance you turn out to be correct, full credit will be given.
Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 20 Oct 2008 11:07 GMT > > CitizenJimseracwrote: > > >> CitizenJimseracwrote: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Citizen Jimserac- Jimmy, save time and typing, just write, "My "mind" is made up and no fact can possibly change it."
You'll postpone your case of CTS.
Jan Drew - 21 Oct 2008 02:23 GMT On Oct 19, 5:04 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> CitizenJimseracwrote: > >> CitizenJimseracwrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > <bejqq5-731....@news.lumbercartel.com> OK, I am researching this - it has brought up a number of interesting discoveries - and infectious diseases such as cholera are one of my interests so pardon me if pursue this, DC.
I found your postings from last Sept. in which you examine the total 19th century English cholera deaths figure and deduce a 20% mortality, MAX, for it hence your position vehmently objecting to the 50-60% number typical and and found in textbooks- I do NOT agree with your conclusion as I easily find statistics for the 1831 epidemic that put the number of deaths, sadly, at 30,000 or so. And so for the rest of the century, the total cholera deaths would have to be around 20,000 to support your 50,000 or so figure - unlikely old dude but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and continue searching.
That's not the interesting part and I'm surprised that you did not latch on to it. The cholera bacterium is adaptive and eventually finds it way deep into the mucosal lining of the Small Intestine - if so, HOW IN THE HELL could a Homeopathic remedy stop it. And yet the numbers clearly show that it did. This will require my reading up on their curious concept of disease, my next adventure awaits.
Do try to keep the lid on the teapot old dude, if by some absurd chance you turn out to be correct, full credit will be given.
Citizen Jimserac
D. C. Sessions - 20 Oct 2008 15:22 GMT >> CitizenJimseracwrote: >> >> CitizenJimseracwrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the 1831 epidemic that put the number of deaths, > sadly, at 30,000 or so. And here you go again trying to distract from the 1854 epidemic, which is the one where you claim a 50-60% case mortality but the actual numbers are 21.5% of reported cases -- and not all nonfatal cases were reported.
> And so for the rest of the century, > the total cholera deaths would have to be around 20,000 > to support your 50,000 or so figure - unlikely old dude > but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and continue > searching. No "rest of the century" required, just stick to the same epidemic and same report that you are waving around.
Keep trying to distract from the dishonest attempt to pick facts to fit the theory and ignore others from the same source.
> That's not the interesting part and I'm surprised > that you did not latch on to it. > The cholera bacterium is adaptive and eventually > finds it way deep into the mucosal lining of the Small Intestine - > if so, HOW IN THE HELL could a Homeopathic remedy > stop it. And yet the numbers clearly show that it did. No, they don't -- and THAT is what I'm "latching onto."
Well, that and mildly interesting question of whether you're dumber than a box of rocks or, alternately, knowingly telling lies. I'd ask you except that the nature of the question means that your answer wouldn't really help.
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
Citizen Jimserac - 20 Oct 2008 23:34 GMT >And here you go again trying to distract from the 1854 epidemic, >which is the one where you claim a 50-60% case mortality but >the actual numbers are 21.5% of reported cases -- and not all >nonfatal cases were reported. NOW DC, will you stop that - YOU KNOW WHAT I SAID WAS THAT UNTREATED (NOTE THE WORD "UNTREATED".... HERE LET ME SPELL IT FOR YOU..... U-N-T-R-E-A-T-E-D) PEOPLE IN ANY f.cking CHOLERA EPDIDEMIC - NOTE THE WORD "ANY" (HERE LET ME SPELL IT FOR YOU - MAYBE THAT WILL HELP A-N-Y) WHICH INCLUDES THE 1854 EPIDEMIC WILL HAVE A 50-60% MORTALITY RATE.
You keep giving us a 21% figure for the REPORTED cases but SEEM NOT TO TELL US IF THIS FIGURE, FOR WHICH YOU GIVE NO LINK, IS FOR TREATED, UNTREATED OR A COMBINATION OF THEM.
NO MATTER WHICH WAY YOU LOOK AT IT THE HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENTS STILL WIN.
Have you got that straight in your head yet cuz if not, I can send you a sledghammer and you can sort of pound it on your noggin a little to shake things up and see if you can figure out what I was saying.
OR....if you like, we could use Blogziddnwerwdy - an interesting language in which Homeopathic denialists can express their exact "refutations" of ANYTHING they disagree with including the texbooks description of the UNTREATED CHOLERA MORTALITY STATISTICS IN AN A CHOLERA EPIDEMIC - here for example would be the translation of DC's comments :
Homeopathy? glubb blah blubb blubb...gloBOTTz grub dub blub....
See!?
Citizen Jimserac
rpautrey2 - 21 Oct 2008 01:04 GMT CJ, Several homeopathic strategies were applied to the cholera epidemic but Camphor/Camphora was the main remedy (material doses - tincture/1x). See the following:
THE CURE OF ASIATIC CHOLERA http://www.minutus.org/library/article_read.asp?id=55
ASIATIC CHOLERA EPIDEMIC 1830 AND HOMEOPATHY http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/quinine/cholera1830.html
Lectures on Materia Medica - James Tyler Kent (Camphor) http://www.hpathy.com/materiamedica/kent-lectures/camphora.asp
Success With Cholera http://books.google.com/books?id=1FwGuCn4X7kC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=homeopathy+camph or+cholera&source=web&ots=yjU3d4h0W2&sig=r2klKXn76Rit6avoijqBTvm_FZk&hl=en&sa=X& oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
CAMPHORA (Camphor) http://www.homeoint.org/books/boericmm/c/camph.htm
Camphora Officinarum http://abchomeopathy.com/r.php/Camph
Paul
> >And here you go again trying to distract from the 1854 epidemic, > >which is the one where you claim a 50-60% case mortality but [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Citizen Jimserac Peter Bowditch - 21 Oct 2008 04:02 GMT >>And here you go again trying to distract from the 1854 epidemic, >>which is the one where you claim a 50-60% case mortality but [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > >Citizen Jimserac Don't forget to wipe the froth off your monitor. If you let it dry it can be hard to remove.
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
rpautrey2 - 21 Oct 2008 04:30 GMT Quackpot!
> >>And here you go again trying to distract from the 1854 epidemic, > >>which is the one where you claim a 50-60% case mortality but [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Mark Probert - 21 Oct 2008 11:21 GMT > Quackpot! All those college degrees in action.
> > >>And here you go again trying to distract from the 1854 epidemic, > > >>which is the one where you claim a 50-60% case mortality but [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - rpautrey2 - 22 Oct 2008 00:06 GMT Jealous Quackpot!
> > Quackpot! > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Mark Probert - 22 Oct 2008 03:03 GMT > Jealous Quackpot! Moi? Jealous of you? Do not make me laugh!
OOPS! Too late,
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> > > Quackpot! > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - Jan Drew - 22 Oct 2008 04:35 GMT >BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No wonder you were disbarred.
Sandra must be proud, and of course your sons. Which you lied and said you did not have.
Citizen Jimserac - 21 Oct 2008 13:00 GMT > CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>And here you go again trying to distract from the 1854 epidemic, [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Don't forget to wipe the froth off your monitor. If you let it dry it > can be hard to remove. Don't forget, next time there is a Homeopathy conference in you neck of the woods, to show up and explain to anyone who will listen that it is all nonsense. Keep talking as the security men grab you and carry you out the door - offer to show them the Homeopathic sleeping pills as they slam the door in your face.
Citizen Jimserac
Mark Probert - 21 Oct 2008 13:46 GMT > > CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>And here you go again trying to distract from the 1854 epidemic, [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > that it is all nonsense. Keep talking as the security men grab you > and carry you out the door - Excellent point there Jimmy. Altie medicine, regardless of what it is, is afraid of anyone who refutes their mantra. Thus, they will censor people.
Finally, you have demonstrated a modicum of insight.
offer to show them the Homeopathic
> sleeping > pills as they slam the door in your face. Typical violent response.
Jan Drew - 22 Oct 2008 04:41 GMT While he wife is working supporting the family. He does not know when to shut up!
Martin - 21 Oct 2008 19:28 GMT >> CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>And here you go again trying to distract from the 1854 epidemic, [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >and carry you out the door - offer to show them the Homeopathic >sleeping pills as they slam the door in your face. Yes, that could be what happens. I noticed homeopaths and their fans (like you) don't respond very well to criticism. In stead of countering it with things like, oh, evidence, they ignore or try to silence their critics. It's quite telling you know.
>Citizen Jimserac Jan Drew - 22 Oct 2008 04:44 GMT "Martin Rady
Gang member claims he is here to please. Poor over weight it on *my space*.
D. C. Sessions - 21 Oct 2008 04:22 GMT > NOW DC, will you stop that - YOU KNOW > WHAT I SAID WAS THAT UNTREATED [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > FOR WHICH YOU GIVE NO LINK, IS FOR TREATED, UNTREATED > OR A COMBINATION OF THEM. That's the total. According to you, the ones who received "conventional" treatment had much higher case mortality than that. So, as I originally wrote (with citation, even if you didn't recognize it) the only to square those totals with your fanciful assumptions is if almost every single one of the 250,000 cases were treated by your "homeopathic hospitals."
It's easy enough to put the three case morality figures that you're trying to sell into a spreadsheet and play with the assumed distribution of "conventional," "homeopathic," and "untreated." Go ahead and get back with the magic numbers that work for your fantasy.
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
Citizen Jimserac - 21 Oct 2008 23:23 GMT > CitizenJimseracwrote: > > NOW DC, will you stop that - YOU KNOW [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > That's the total. THE TOTAL WHAT - TREATED, UNTREATED, MIXED??
WHERE IS YOUR LINK PROVIDING DOCUMENTATION OF THIS FIGURE?
?According to you, the ones who
> received "conventional" treatment had much higher > case mortality than that. So, as I originally [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Go ahead and get back with the magic numbers that > work for your fantasy. Where is the link for your figures?
Citizen Jimserac
D. C. Sessions - 22 Oct 2008 02:41 GMT >> CitizenJimseracwrote: >> > NOW DC, will you stop that - YOU KNOW [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > THE TOTAL WHAT - TREATED, > UNTREATED, MIXED?? Total, all of the above.
> WHERE IS YOUR LINK PROVIDING > DOCUMENTATION OF THIS FIGURE? RTFR.
> ?According to you, the ones who >> received "conventional" treatment had much higher [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Where is the link for your figures? RTFR.
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
Citizen Jimserac - 22 Oct 2008 13:53 GMT > > Where is the link for your figures? > > RTFR. Thank you for confirming that your position was untenable!
Citizen Jimserac
D. C. Sessions - 22 Oct 2008 15:47 GMT >> > Where is the link for your figures? >> >> RTFR. > > Thank you for confirming that your position was > untenable! All we've confirmed is that you can't read.
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
Citizen Jimserac - 22 Oct 2008 20:46 GMT > CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > All we've confirmed is that you can't read. Feel free to indulge yourself in insults, distractions, anything except your failure to counter the statistics regarding homeopathy success in cholera epidemics!
Citizen Jimserac
drceephd@insightbb.com - 23 Oct 2008 00:54 GMT > Feel free to indulge yourself in insults, > distractions, anything except your failure > to counter the statistics regarding homeopathy success > in cholera epidemics! > > Citizen Jimserac Say, Citizen, you do realize that the poison of choice for the allopaths during the cholera epidemics was....ta da... mercury. Calomel to be exact.
DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus and poisons....especially mercury!
Richard Schultz - 23 Oct 2008 06:58 GMT : Say, Citizen, you do realize that the poison of choice for the : allopaths during the cholera epidemics was....ta da... mercury. : Calomel to be exact. I see that your advanced training on Mars did not include an explanation of the difference between mercury and calomel.
----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Citizen Jimserac - 25 Oct 2008 12:03 GMT > In article <3635524c-da32-45b7-8108-86daac450...@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ----- > "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." Calomel is 85% mercury - big f.cking DIFFERENCE you idiot, still poison.
Citizen Jimserac
Martin - 25 Oct 2008 19:43 GMT >> In article <3635524c-da32-45b7-8108-86daac450...@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Citizen Jimserac I see you got caught, yet again, saying something extremely stupid and all you can do is namecalling.
Richard Schultz - 26 Oct 2008 02:24 GMT :> In article <3635524c-da32-45b7-8108-86daac450...@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
:> : Say, Citizen, you do realize that the poison of choice for the :> : allopaths during the cholera epidemics was....ta da... mercury. :> : Calomel to be exact.
:> I see that your advanced training on Mars did not include an explanation :> of the difference between mercury and calomel.
: Calomel is 85% mercury - big f.cking DIFFERENCE you idiot, : still poison. I see that you too do not know the difference between mercury and calomel. I suggest that you start with a high school chemistry textbook and read up to the part where it explains about "oxidation states."
----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
rpautrey2 - 28 Oct 2008 00:01 GMT RS, I'm not a chemist but I know how to read.
PA
http://books.google.com/books?id=jekGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA465&dq=calomel+mercury+medici ne&as_brr=1&ei=o0YGSYbwNJbKMI-ggMML#PPA466,M1
The Elements of Medical Chemistry By John Ayrton Paris
866. PROTO-CHLORIDE OF MERCURY. Sub-muriate of Mercury. - Calomel. This salt is prepared by triturating the sulphate with metallic mercury, until the globules of the latter disappear; common salt is then added, and the mixture is submitted to heat in earthen vessels, by which the proto-chloride is formed and separated from the mass by sublimation ; it is afterwards ground to a fine powder, and then well washed with distilled water. If we consider corrosive sublimate as a bi-permuriate, Calomel must be regarded as a proto- . muriate ; in which case, the former is converted into the latter by losing half of its acid and oxygen, by the affinity of the metallic mercury for these bodies. But if we concur with modern chemists, and consider corrosive sublimate as a bi-chloride, the changes that take place during its conversion into calomel, are merely that one-half of the chlorine unites with the fresh portion of mercury added, so that the bi-chloride is converted into proto-chloride. Regarded as a Muriate^ Calomel consists of Muriatic acid 11 -86 or 1 atom of acid . . . . = 28 Protoxide of Mercury 88- 14 — 1 of protoxide = 208 100- .. Weight of its atom =236 Considered as a Proto-chloride^ it is composed of Chlorine 15-25 or 1 atom of Chlorine. == 36 Mercury 84- 75 — 1 of protoxide = 200 100-.. Weight of its atom =236 867. Calomel is inodorous, insipid, and insoluble in water; its specific gravity is 7' 175 ; by the long continued action of light, it assumes a dark colour, owing to partial decomposition. It is decomposed by the alkalies, and lime, but very imperfectly by their carbonates. By nitric acid it is converted into corrosive sublimate. By the action of the alkalies, a prot. oxide is separated. If we consider it as a muriate, the explanation of the decomposition is simply that the muriatic acid has a greater affinity for the alkalies than for the protoxide, in consequence of which the former unite, and the latter is excluded ; but if we regard it as a proto-chloride, we must in that case suppose that water is decomposed, and that its oxygen is transferred to the metal, and its hydrogen to the chlorine.
> In article <2cb7453a-5588-45b2-aebe-eaade5b27...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > :> In article <3635524c-da32-45b7-8108-86daac450...@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > ----- > "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." Mark Probert - 28 Oct 2008 20:54 GMT > RS, > I'm not a chemist but I know how to read. Objection! A fact not in evidence.
> PA > > http://books.google.com/books?id=jekGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA465&dq=calomel+mer... > > The Elements of Medical Chemistry By John Ayrton Paris Anthing from the 20th Century?
rpautrey2 - 29 Oct 2008 02:21 GMT MP, Grow up.
PA
> > RS, > > I'm not a chemist but I know how to read. > > Objection! A fact not in evidence.
> > RS, > > I'm not a chemist but I know how to read. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Anthing from the 20th Century? Mark Probert - 29 Oct 2008 02:53 GMT > MP, > Grow up. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > Anthing from the 20th Century? Thanks for the proof.
Citizen Jimserac - 26 Oct 2008 04:20 GMT On Oct 22, 7:54 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
> On Oct 22, 3:46 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You cannot secure nor restore health with pus and > poisons....especially mercury! The last vestige of the old school medicine, in its worst aspects are vaccinations and chemotherapy.
The mere description of HOW the vaccines are manufactured is enough to send chills up your spine, likewise a consideration of WHAT goes in them - yet somehow that's OK to the Auntie's and they're big concern is some distilled water which has been diluted and shaken.
One idiot apparently thinks there is some major significance in the fact that Calomel is only 85% Mercury.
Those are supposed to be the "scientists". Wow.
Citizen Jimserac
Richard Schultz - 26 Oct 2008 07:33 GMT : One idiot apparently thinks there is some major significance in the : fact that Calomel is only 85% Mercury. I have not seen anyone make that claim. Even Perry Mason knew the difference between Calomel and mercury (well, to be specific, between calomel and mercuric chloride), for whatever that's worth. I'm surprised, however, that you object to mercury as a medicine, given that the use of mercury in medicine predates homeopathy by several hundred years.
Since you seem to be such a big fan, I'll ask you once again -- do you believe that "Dr." Cee is telling the truth when he claims that he received an M.D. and a Ph.D. from an institution located on the planet Mars?
----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_
drceephd@insightbb.com - 28 Oct 2008 00:57 GMT > In article <76f9b1e0-4972-4d25-8c59-71153f7c6...@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > however, that you object to mercury as a medicine, given that the use of > mercury in medicine predates homeopathy by several hundred years. Uhh, Schlutz, calomel is not mecuric chloride. It is mecurous chloride. You know mercury in the +1 oxidation state. The chemical formula is Hg2Cl2, that is one mercury to one chlorine.
What I would like to know, from the historical record, is how may hundreds of thousands of humans have you allopaths killed with this poison????
Certainlty 100's of thousands with smallpox, more thousands with syphilis, more thousands having cholera...need I go on?
The fact that the use of this mercurial poison predates homeopathy by several hundred years....is why Hanneman discovered homeopathy. That is , you jerk allopaths were killing far to many ill humans with your treatments.
> Since you seem to be such a big fan, I'll ask you once again -- do > you believe that "Dr." Cee is telling the truth when he claims that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." > -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ Every time you post you prove your ignorance of the truth.
DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus and poisons
Martin - 26 Oct 2008 09:41 GMT >On Oct 22, 7:54 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: >> On Oct 22, 3:46 pm, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >to send chills up your spine, likewise a consideration of WHAT goes >in them Yes, monkeypus. Never forget the monkeypus!
> - yet somehow that's OK to the Auntie's and they're big >concern is some distilled water which has been diluted and shaken. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Citizen Jimserac D. C. Sessions - 27 Oct 2008 02:27 GMT > The last vestige of the old school medicine, in its worst aspects > are vaccinations and chemotherapy. Well, actually those are much newer than homeopathy, which is truly "old school" since it's based on the same humoral theories of health that led to bleeding and purging.
The key difference is that newer approaches to medicine discard previous practices when they are either found to not work (e.g. the "milk for an ulcer" thing) or when a method comes along that works better (e.g. antibiotics for an ulcer.)
Now, CJ, what kind of homeopathic practices have been abandoned or replaced because they were found to not work?
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
D. C. Sessions - 27 Oct 2008 02:29 GMT > The mere description of HOW the vaccines are manufactured is enough > to send chills up your spine, likewise a consideration of WHAT goes > in them - yet somehow that's OK to the Auntie's and they're big > concern > is some distilled water which has been diluted and shaken. Shall we discuss the disgusting origins of some homeopathic preparations? Will you condemn them for their constituents?
Then there's drinking water ...
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
Citizen Jimserac - 28 Oct 2008 23:14 GMT > CitizenJimseracwrote: > > The mere description of HOW the vaccines are manufactured is enough [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Then there's drinking water ... DcUCKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Willl you PLEASE provide the links to support your statistics on the cholera epidemic of 1854 or else admit that you have none?
Citizen Jimserac
D. C. Sessions - 29 Oct 2008 04:07 GMT >> CitizenJimseracwrote: >> > The mere description of HOW the vaccines are manufactured is enough [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> Then there's drinking water ... I notice you don't want to discuss the topic you yourself brought up, "HOW the (preparations) are manufactured is enough to send chills up your spine, likewise a consideration of WHAT goes in them - yet somehow that's OK"
> Willl you PLEASE provide the links to support > your statistics on the cholera epidemic of 1854 > or else admit that you have none? Already did. Sorry you can't follow them.
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
Citizen Jimserac - 30 Oct 2008 02:07 GMT > CitizenJimseracwrote: > >> CitizenJimseracwrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Already did. Sorry you can't follow them. Well, Dcucky, there's the thing - if this link is SO GOOD and supports your position why are you so reticent about posting it?
You really think I'm going to search through some other thread where you mention some link and wade through your nonense. What the hell are you too stupid to post it or just ashamed of it.
It's sort of like Ernst's alternative medicine "credentials" he talks about it but what are they?
Are ALL the arguments of the Aunties based on vapor and hand waving -> Oh! It's somewhere over there dude, go look.
Oh yeah, SURE.
Citizen Jimserac
Jan Drew - 21 Oct 2008 02:19 GMT On Oct 18, 8:47 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in response to Citizen Jimserac's
>>Doing nothing in a cholera epidemic gave a mortality rate >>of something like 50-60%. This is well known.
>Nice try, but that's pure fabrication. I already posted the >actual numbers from the same sources you're using for the rest, >so it follows that pulling in the "50-60%" *estimate* in place >of the actual figures was deliberate. FABRICATION?? OK D.C. here are some links regarding the TYPICAL MORTALITY RATES IN CHOLERA EPIDEMICS:
From Todar's Textbook on Bacteriology: Untreated cholera frequently results in high (50-60%) mortality rates. http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/cholera.html
or this:
Mortality/Morbidity
If untreated, the disease rapidly results in dehydration and can result in death in more than 50% of infected individuals. The mortality rate is increased in pregnant women and children. from http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic351.htm
SO FIRST OF ALL D.C. - YOU WILL PLEASE UPDATE YOUR OWN MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS FACT AND CONCEDE THAT THE TYPICAL MORTALITY RATE FOR UNTREATED CHOLERA IS 50-60%.
Once you get past that we will proceed.
Citizen Jimserac
Hawki63@sbcglobal.net - 18 Oct 2008 16:37 GMT On Oct 18, 2:16 am, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> holy sh.t man... > > do you not believe that such "evidence" of one to two centuries > ago...means > nothing...nothing... Actually it means SOMETHING.... SOMETHING.
It means that a lucky number of people had their LIVES SAVED by Homeopathic remedies in a deadly cholera epidemic in London in the pre modern drug era.
A commonly seen fallacy, as seen in your misguided comments, is that because the allopathic treatments of the era were so bad (they were pretty pathetic, but that was the standard "science" of the day, just like vaccines now) Homeopathy worked because it was essentially doing nothing.
OMG....REREAD YOUR LAST SENTENCE...ESSENTIALLY DOING NOTHING?? ANY CLUE WHAT THAT MEANS?? IT DID NOTHING..THEREFORE HOW CAN YOU CLAIM IT WAS BETTER////
NOTHING IS NOTHING...
The statistics, forced by an order of Parliament, EXPOSE THIS FALLACY easily.
Doing nothing in a cholera epidemic gave a mortality rate of something like 50-60%. This is well known.
Going to an allopathic doctor actually helped, a little, and they had a mortality rate, in general of around 30% or worse.
But getting Homeopathic treatments gave the best chance of survival of all, a mortality rate of around 15% or LESS.
And, the English Pariliament, due to public outcry after the epidemic, demanded that the Homeopathic statistics be included in the National Health report and by order of pariliament those figures were released and recorded.
Somehow, with their little "nothing" pills, the Homeopaths had a mortality rate twice as low as the allopaths. THE NOTHING WAS A SOMETHING.
In addition, one of the standard medical doctors, an avowed enemy of Homeopathy was sent to investigate the London Homeopathic hospital's treatment of patients in the cholera epidemic. AFTER his investigation he stated unequivocally that he bad started the investigation as a complete skeptic, convinced that their treatments were a sham but after investigating numerous patients in various stages of the disease under the care of the Homeopathics, this standard medical doctor stated openly that he was convinced of the efficacy and superiourty of the Homeopathic treatments and state that if he were to get cholera he would entrust his own care to the Homeopaths.
Citizen Jimserac
Citizen Jimserac - 18 Oct 2008 07:18 GMT > Some history of the treatment of epidemics with Homeopathy > by Julian Winston [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > practice of homeopathy so firmly in the consciousness of people > world-wide. OUTSTANDING and interesting posting, many thanks!
One interesting addendum on the matter of the 1854 cholera epidemic. Additional details have been brought to light by the blogger laughingmysocksoff at the following link:
http://laughingmysocksoff.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/sock-horror-in-cholera-statistics/
in a blog entitled "Sock Horror in Homeopathic Cholera Statistics.
As vaccinations and other now archaic medical procedures still being used continue to weaken immune systems and otherwise sabotage large segments of the population, it is just a matter of time before serious epidemics, for which the only hope of salvation lies in systems such as Homeopathy, will arise.
A good knowledge of history, for example that the widespread use of aspirin HASTENED THE DEATHS rather than helped during the Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918, will prove invaluable to us in the future.
Citizen Jimserac
rpautrey2 - 18 Oct 2008 07:20 GMT Good point.
> A good knowledge of history, for example that the widespread use of > aspirin > HASTENED THE DEATHS rather than helped during the Spanish influenza > epidemic > of 1918, will prove invaluable to us in the future.
> > Some history of the treatment of epidemics with Homeopathy > > by Julian Winston [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Citizen Jimserac rpautrey2 - 27 Oct 2008 21:06 GMT CJ, This is how Hahnemann treated cholera. He even used camphor enemas. This is an excerpt from The Lesser Writings Of Boenninghausen. It's from a phamplet written by Hahnemann.
http://books.google.com/books?id=3_FLAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=lesser+writ ings&ei=zLoESaa-CIvCMrmF3McL#PPA279,M1
The Cure of Asiatic Cholera and Protection from the Same. INTRODUCTION. A prescription has been published, which is reported to have been so effective in Duenaburg against Cholera that only one case out of ten is said to have died. The chief remedy is Camphor, of which ten times the amount of the other ingredients is used. But not one-tenth, not one out of a hundred patients would have died, if the injurious and obstructive ingredients were taken away and the Camphor alone would have been used and used immediately at the start ; for it is only so useful if used alone and at the beginning of the disease. But when the physicians as usual come too late to the patients when the favorable time for the use of Camphor has already passed, and the second stage has come in which Camphor is of no more use, then the physicians use their Camphor in vain ; the patients have to die even though the Camphor is used. Therefore everyone must use Camphor at once as soon as any of his family are taken sick with Cholera, and must not wait for the help of the physician, which, though it might be good, would 3Tet be too late. I have received quite a number of accounts from Galicia and Hungary from persons not physicians who restored their beloved ones as by a miracle by means of the Camphor which I had recommended. Wherever Cholera comes first, it usually in its first stage appears in its tonic convulsive character: suddenly all the vital force of the patient collapses, he can not stand up any more, his expression is perturbed, the eyes sunken, the face is bluish and icy cold as well as the hands, also the rest of the body being cold. There is a helpless despondency and anguish as if he would suffocate expressed in all his gestures; half benumbed and insensible he moans or cries out in a hollow, hoarse tone, without making a definite complaint, except when questioned; burning in the stomach and the throat; cramps in the calves and in other muscles; when touched in the pit of the stomach he cries out; he is without thirst, without nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea. In this first stage rapid help by Camphor is possible; but the family of the patient must themselves attend to the matter, as this time quickly passes, either being followed by death or by the second stage, which then is much more difficult and cannot be cured with Camphor. In this first stage the patient must receive as frequently as possible, at least every five minutes, a drop of Spirits of Camphor (made by dissolving half an ounce of Camphor in six ounces of alcohol) on a lump of sugar or in a spoonful of water. Spirits of Camphor is poured in the palm of the hand and • rubbed into the skin of the arms, the chest and the legs; he may also receive a clyster of half a pound of water to two good cofEee- spoonfuls of Spirits of Camphor injected into the rectum; now and then some Camphor may be evaporated on a hot tin, so that if the mouth is already partly closed by cramps of the jaws, and he is unable to take things by the mouth, he nevertheless receives enough vapors of Camphor with his respiration. The more quickly all this is done at the very first sign of the primary symptoms of the disease, the more quickly and surely the patient will get well, often in a few hours*; he again receives warmth, strength, consciousness, rest and sleep and is saved. But if this stage so favorable for recovery has been allowed to pass without the use of Camphor, then the outlook is worse. Then Camphor will no more do any good. There are, however, cases of Cholera, especially in the northern regions, where we can see but little of this first stage of a tonic convulsive character, and the disease almost from the first appears in its second stage, of a clonic convulsive character: Frequent discharges of a watery fluid with whitish, yellowish or sometimes with reddish flakes mixed in, and attended with insatiable thirst and loud rumbling in the stomach, great masses of a similar watery fluid are vomited up with increasing anxiety, groaning and yawning, icy coldness of the whole body even of the tongue and a marble like blueness of the arms, the hands and the face, with staring sunken eyes, diminution of all the senses, slow pulse, very painful cramp of the calves and of the limbs. In such cases the Camphor- spirits, given every five minutes, must be continued only so long as there results from it a manifest improvement (which in a remedy which acts as quickly as does Camphor, will show already within a * There were cases in which from lack of the use of Camphor in the first stage a person who may seem to have passed away and been removed as dead, still might move a finger; in such a case a little spirits of Camphor mixed with oil, put into the mouth is said to have recalled the person seemingly dead back to life. quarter of an hour). So if there is not very soon a striking improvement we must not hesitate a moment to at once proceed to the remedy for the second stage, i. e. , two or three pellets of the medicine of refined Copper. * This is prepared from metallic Copper according to the directions given in part 2 of my work on " Chronic Diseases; " of this we give the 4. potency, moistened with a little water, on a spoon every hour or half hour, until the vomiting and diarrhoea cease, and warmth and restfulness return. But during this time no other medicine must be used, no herb-tea, nor baths, nor Spanish flies, nor fumigation, no venesection, etc., else the remedy will be of no effect. A like good effect will be obtained from white helleborej'( Veratrum alb. 4. potency; but the preparation of Copper is far preferable, and more effective, and sometimes one dose will be sufficient for a cure; this medicine should be allowed to act undisturbed so long as the patient continues to improve under iO. f All the patient's wants should be supplied with moderation. If the aid has been delayed for several hours, or the patient has first taken wrong medicines, the state passes over into a kind of typhoid fever with delirium. Then Bryonia 2. or Rhus tox. 2. will do most good. The preparation of Copper will also be of use joined with good, very moderate dietetic living and proper cleanliness for a sure protection and prophylaxis. When Cholera has come tc the place, or is very near it, a person should take a pellet of Cuprum 1. every day before breakfast for a week, without drinking anything immediately after it. A healthy person's health will be in no way affected thereby. I myself or any other Homoeopathic physician will give information where the above medicine can be * If the expensive and rare (and often adulterated) oil of Cajeput is really so useful in cholera that out of 100 hardly one dies, it owes this virtue to its resemblance to Camphor (it is merely to be valued as a fluid Camphor, and the other fact that it comes from the East Indies in copper bottles from which it takes up particles of copper, wherefore in its unrefined state it has a blu ish-green color). In Hungary it is also asserted that whoever wears a piece of copper sheeting on the bare skin, remains free from cholera. f Similar diseases, but caused by immoderate eat ing of indigestible food are best removed by several cups of strong cof fee. found, excepting the Camphor, which as already mentioned can be found in every drug store.* Camphor will not protect persons who are still in good health from the attack of cholera, but only the preparation of Copper. After taking the Copper the vapors of Camphor must be avoided, as these antidote the Copper, f DR. SAM. HAHNEMANN, Aulic Councillor. Coe then, Sept. 10, 1831. Extract From a Letter From Dr. Hahnemarln to the Editor.
> > Some history of the treatment of epidemics with Homeopathy > > by Julian Winston [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Citizen Jimserac Mark Probert - 28 Oct 2008 13:38 GMT > CJ, > This is how Hahnemann treated cholera. [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > Coe then, Sept. 10, 1831. > Extract From a Letter From Dr. Hahnemarln to the Editor. So, he gave enemas to people who had a disease mainly characterized as having profuse watery diarrhea.
Well, "like cures like", and homeoquackery is full of diarrhea.
Jan Drew - 31 Oct 2008 23:21 GMT On Oct 27, 4:06 pm, rpautrey2 <rpautr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> CJ, > This is how Hahnemann treated cholera. [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > Coe then, Sept. 10, 1831. > Extract From a Letter From Dr. Hahnemarln to the Editor. D. C. Sessions - 28 Oct 2008 14:13 GMT > Wherever Cholera comes first, it usually in its first stage appears > in its tonic convulsive character: suddenly all the vital [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > muscles; when touched in the pit of the stomach he cries out; he > is without thirst, without nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea. Whatever that is, cholera it isn't. Which explains a lot about the supposed case mortality rate for homeopathy (camphor) as a cure for cholera: they weren't even treating the same disease.
| The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+
Citizen Jimserac - 29 Oct 2008 19:40 GMT ...
OK, good post.
Now to follow up on camphor, I'm becomming interested in this so called "dark matter" microsocopy and the work of (yes I know, discredited) Gunther Enderlein.
Read.
During WWI a German zoologist, Guenther Enderlein, volunteered to work as a bacteriologist in a military hospital. In 1925 he finished a book called The Life Cycle of Bacteria. He used darkfield microscopy to view microorganisms in the human blood which he named “endobionts.” Enderlein identified three life-cycle phases of these endobionts – colloid, bacteria and fungus. He hypothesized that these life forms could mutate into pathogenic creatures that would cause disease.
Gaston Naessens is a Canadian researcher who continued the work of the earlier men. He invented a “somatoscope,” a microscope that weaves two light sources together to produce a third frequency which allows for a greater resolution of life matter. He named his tiny form visible under his “somatoscope” a “somatid”. He believes that the organism could change its shape through 16 life cycle stages (hence the term “pleomorph”), and that it was a precursor life form. Gaston Naessens was prosecuted and fined in 1956 for practicing medicine without a license. He was arrested in Quebec in 1989 and charged with four counts of illegal practice of medicine and one count of contributing to the death of a patient. He was acquitted on all counts. His treatment for cancer is now available to Canadian patients, 714-X, a form of camphor.
I'd be interested if anyone knows of current research on this.
Citizen Jimserac
|
|
|