The Dreadful Facts about Homoeopathy
How many lives have been lost due to ignorance about homoeopathy? How many people have died because they didn’t know better? How many people, with a serious condition, could have lived if they had made a better decision about using homoeopathy?
If you were coughing blood and felt like you were going to die, would you go to a homoeopath? Let’s say not knowing any better, on the advice of a friend, you did . . and miraculously got better. Would that be a recommendation for homoeopathy? Fractionally, of course it would. But how do you know you didn’t just get lucky, you were getting well anyway? What if there was a thousand people coughing blood and feeling like they were going to die who went to the same homeopath and did die, and you were the lucky one . . ?
Well, there’s no belief in a quack medicine that a good epidemic can’t cure. RIght? Well, maybe not . .
Epidemics and pandemics are the ultimate large cohort studies for the effectiveness of any particular medicine. Therefore, if homoeopathy is the quackery it’s esteemed and credentialed critics say it is, then its performance in epidemics will surely determine whether or not it’s evertything its quacked up to be. It should also reveal, by comparison, if there is a performance to be seen in the accuse. IF there was such a thing then there should be a record of it and just how well it did perform.
Well actuallythere is such a thing.
Thomas Lindsley Bradford
And the Logic of Epidemics
A Review of It
Ladies and gentlemen: The problem facing us today is not that a quiet, little, mysterious and misunderstood system of medicine called homeopathy, or more correctly homoeopathy, doesn’t work. No, the problem is that homoeopathy does work, as The Logic of Figures by Thomas Bradford painfully reveals. If it didn’t work, its critics (who I suspect make more money bashing it than homoeopaths do practicing it) wouldn’t have jobs. They’d be taking their penmanship out on cardboard signs to hoist on street corners, not rubbing the keys on their keyboards blank over “homeopathy,” as they do now.
In my last journal entry, The Threat of Homeopathy , it was convincingly shown that allopathy (medicine that isn’t homoeopathic) is conducting mass murder on the premise that there’s nowhere else to turn, and so when they land in the jackpot and are criminally indicted and literally fined billions, they take it out on the orphan (homoeopathy) . . sort of like the man who has had a hard day’s work, comes home and beats up his wife.
NOW WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?
It is because the big drug companies are afraid. They’re afraid that people might go sniffing around a homoeopath’s door when they get cancer, or a diagnosis of diabetes, or any particular complaint, from autism to zoonosis.
The masterpiece was ended by implying that one good epidemic leads to another, unless you stop them with something that works. And what most people in the murder-by-drug business are afraid to hear, is that (believe it or not) homoeopathy works, and epidemics prove it on a mass scale.
The punchline here is that by the technical definition of the word, “homoeopathic” is what the small pox vaccine actually is.
Allow me to reiterate this disturbing fact: What modern medicine complains about as a cockeyed theory and dangerous in one hand is being used in a clumsy way in the other.
What everyone is having a hard time recognizing is that the most effective vaccines, such as the small pox vaccine, are literally homoeopathic, and therefore it can be said, and it should be said over and again, as it is startling true, that modern medicos saved the world from its most terrible scourge with the unwitting use of crude homoeopathy. This can be seen prima facie in the use of attenuated lymph from cow pox eruptions in cattle, the original “vaccine.”
Hahnemann, who announced homoeopathy the same year Jenner announced his own discovery in 1796, makes 42 references to smallpox and Jenner in the 1842 Organon of Medicine; but, you don’t need the Organon to know that it’s true.
Anyone who isn’t blinded by the prejudices taught by allopathy, will have to admit that the basic principle of immunization is the same guiding principle of Hahmemannian homoeopathy: A similar, stronger, temporary artifical disease is inseminated in the patient so as to cure a more chronic insidious one. This is exactly what is done in the use of the small pox vaccine in a posologically more crude way . . In other words, the major difference between the “conventional” use of vaccines is that doctrinal homoeopathy makes conscious use of the principle, whereas allopathy isn'[t aware of it and in epidemioloigcal problems like small pox, homoeopathy, even crudely done as it is, is the only thing that works!
To see just how effective the concious use of homoeopathy is epidemiologically, let us briefly examine Thomas Lindsley Bradford’s book “The Logic of Figures.”
This is a shocking record of deaths from various hospitals, comparing homoeopathic treatment with allopathic treatment (allopathic means non-homoeopathic, patented, invasive, oppositional and heroic “medicine” such as chemotherapy, radiation, leeches, bloodletting, unnecessary surgery, electroshock and poisoning) usually what we take for granted, what we are told is the only
thing that can save us.
Bradford’s Logic of Figures is a real show stopper, medicine show stopper, that is. In case after case, comparison after comparison, homoeopathic treatment has been unexpectedly better than allopathic .
You can download the PDF, print it out and hold it close to your face. Or just skim through it online. Either way I think you will be in for a disturbing surprise.
Take Yellow Fever for example. Here’s Bradford’s comparisons of treatments for it, homoeopathic and that other thing, the one most people go for, what Hahnemann called allopathic . . heroic medicine?
Let us now review these figures . . let’s put it this way: Is Bradford saying that the mortality rate for non homoeopathic medical treatments for Yellow Fever in over half a century of reporting (1803-1864) is approx. 44%, and that the mortality rate from the same disease, when treated by homoeopathy, is lower than 6%?
Is that not a huge difference?
I trust that the anomaly of this is clear to you. I hope that it is overwhelmingly clear to you: A doctrine which is now in 2010 being threatened with defunding by the NHS in the UK has reportedly had a staggering success rate in comparison to its medical cousin, which is oft most practiced today in treating all diseases. But using homoeopathy, which the Chief Scientist of the UK, John Beddington, says has no scientific validity, by Dr. Bradford’s reckoning, could have saved almost 90% of those who died of Yellow Fever.
DO THEY WANT TO MAKE YOU THEIR HEALTH SLAVE
I hope you get it. There’s something drastically, dramatically wrong here. Bradford’s accounting is not an isolated one, as will be demonstrated to anyone who makes a deeper inquiry and more thorough investigation, part of which follows.
Prof. Edzard Ernst of Exeter University [ who will predictably be terminated for academic misconduct] has also been particularly vociferous about denouncing homoeopathy, especially in its use in preventing disease. Ernst is the professor of Complimentary Medicine at the University of Exeter in the UK. His complaint, like that of all others of his ilk, is that the physic of homoeopathy is impossible and therefore a placebo. However, to the contrary, there are biochemical tests that destroy the hypothesis, tests that Ernst avoids discussing.
There is another interesting validation. If Bradford was doing a whitewash, you would not suspect him of plugging a dead horse. But he is fair, so when homoeopathy fails, he says so. Homeopathy did not come out superior to allopathic medicine is ALL regards. In some it came out about the same. And in treating dropsy of the brain, it was a washout (a dead horse) as one might expect in diseases of deposition and deficiency, and not as effective as surgery in removing neoplasms.. But in all others, infectious diseses, epidemioloigcally it did more than remarkably well. It’s results in some situations, especially epidemics, was stunning.
Publication of Bradford’s book was too early to include the performance of homoeopathics in the 1918 Influenza pandemic, accused of being the Spanish Flu, although there is some evidence it couldn’t be blamed on the Spanish because it may have come from a hog farm in Kansas, or Hot Springs, Arkansas.
The 1918 epidemic was a compelling spectacle which I have documented on my website, scienceofhomeopathy.com. It reached into just about every far corner of the Earth and its morbid effects were dazzling, incredible . . (I’m running out of unused superlatives for this entry). It left entire aboriginal villages dead. In the cities, people were dying in pools of blood as their immune systems went berserk, dissolving the lungs, spewing fountains of purple blood at the horrified staff of hospitals. It was swift and it was deadly. Influenza could drop you in a day. Some targets, standing alive one moment, would be lying dead the next. One day you’d be whistling Dixie, the next, ready for planting.
Here then is an exquisite example for the ultimate test within the ultimate trial. How well did homeopathy perform during the Influenza Pandemic of 1918?
You can read the more grisly details yourself in my article on the treatment of the influenza in 1918, when homoeopaths lost approximately 3% of their patients, while the non-homoeopathic physicians lost about 30% of their victims.
Homoeopathy performed TEN TIMES BETTER than allopathy in the worst disease outbreak known to man.
According to the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (Stern), Leptospirosis is “the most widespread bacterial zoonosis worldwide.”
On August 3, 2010, the Cuban government reported “the largest study of homeopathy ever undertaken, based on data from over 11 million people (the entire population of Cuba), is published today in the journal Homeopathy. It provides fascinating evidence that a highly dilute substance, prepared according to homeopathic principles, may contribute to the prevention of Leptospirosis.” (Faculty of Homeopathy report here)
During the Leptospirosis season of 2007, the Cubans had enough Leptospirosis vaccine to treat 15,000 high-risk people. That was when the government decided to treat everyone in the region at risk with homeopathy, except for babies under one year. This would be a population of 2.3 million, the world’s largest homeopathic study group to date.
“Within a few weeks the number of cases had fallen from 38 to 4 cases per 100,000 per week,” says the Faculty, “significantly fewer than the historically-based forecast for those weeks of the year. The 8.8 million population of the other provinces did not receive homeopathic treatment and the incidence was as forecast. The effect appeared to be sustained: there was an 84% reduction in infection in the treated region in the following year (2008) when, for the first time, incidence did not correlate with rainfall. In the same period, incidence in the untreated region increased by 22%.”
Allow me to highlight those last few words: Leptospirosis infection in the untreated region increased by 22%.
Homeopathic prophylaxis of leptospirosis in Cuba reduced infection by 84% !
That is HUGE.
The Faculty report followed publication of the Cuban’s report in their July issue of Homeopathy. The abstract is available on PUBMED. Bracho, “Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20674839
Here’s a video interview with the report’s eponym, Dr. Gustavo Bracho, http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=61C0884F69B56C3C70D20A52E526B6B2
Curator for the Hahnemann Medical College of Philadelphia library, 1894.
What will you do? What will you say? This is about a huge number of human lives at risk.
Without homeopathic treatment, they are sure to die.
There’s a cholera epidemic in Haiti right now. Will the Haitians have the benefit of homeopathy . . for that?
And speaking of insanity . .
And here is what is even more interesting. Go back and read Bradford’s report on Yellow fever. The percentage of people saved in the Cuban leptospirosis is nearly as high as those saved in Bradford’s entire 19th century record of Yellow Fever . .
This is dumbfounding.
Yes, there’s nothing a good epidemic can’t cure, such as mass stupidity. Perhaps homoeopathy has been suppressed such as it has as a measure of population control. You have to forgive me, for my mind is grasping at signals, for a scrap of logic as to why you have allowed this continue as it has. Well, maybe not you in particular, I don’t wnato embarass you infornt of your own eyes, but it certainly is working itself around to you, coming to an immune ssytem near you, soon enough. There are all kinds of epidemics, chronic and acute. It’s the chronic ones tht sneak up on you, or that are already well in place. Like cancer. That’s an epidemic. And anyone who doesn’t die of a heart attack first will probably die of cancer, sooner or later.
Homoeopathy, the practice of medical similitude, is informational medicine. That’s how it works, by informing the immune system of the nature of the disease. So really, the biggest epidemic of all is stupidity.
Now you know.
Some seeds fall on barren ground, some are eaten by birds. Some are ground under foot. Some pop, take root, spring up, then die from lack of water. But every now and then the planted becomes the planter.
One mind can make all the difference in the world. I hope it’s yours.
Thanks for reading, thanks for writing. And thanks most of all for taking action.
John Benneth, PG Hom (Hons.)
Hahnemann College, London
“In spite of all scientific speculations and experiments regarding smallpox vaccination, Jenner’s discovery remained an erratic blocking medicine, till the biochemically [emphasis J.B.] thinking Pasteur, devoid of all medical classroom knowledge, traced the origin of this therapeutic block to a principle which cannot better be characterized than by Hahnemann’s word: homoeopathic.
“Indeed, what else causes the epidemiological immunity in sheep, vaccinated against anthrax than the influence previously exerted by a virus, similar in character to that of the fatal anthrax virus? And by what technical term could we more appropriately speak of this influence, exerted by a similar virus than by Hahnemann’s word ‘homoeopathy’? I am touching here upon a subject anathematized till very recently by medical penalty: but if I am to present these problems in historical illumination, dogmatic imprecations must not deter me.” – Emil von Behring, the first man to win the Nobel prize for Physics and Medicine
Now let us have your witness!