Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / October 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Some History Of The Treatment Of Epidemics With Homeopathy

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.