Some states in the US are making vaccinations compulsory:
Why? Conventional medicine does not have the tools to treat the strong symptoms that come with a vigorous natural response to infectious disease.
19th century homeopaths were effective in treating these infectious diseases: Read full article here
“From its earliest days, homeopathy has been able to treat epidemic diseases with a substantial rate of success, when compared to conventional treatments
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 an 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was 33% “and on account of this extraordinary result, the law interdicting the practice of Homeopathy in Austria was repealed.”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%”
Note: Ben Goldacre would like you to believe (notice the word ‘believe’) that the low mortality rate of homeopathy was due to it’s ‘no effect’ effect and the high allopathic mortality rate was due to dangerous practices: ‘Homeopathic sugar pills won’t do anything against cholera, of course, but the reason for homeopathy’s success in this epidemic is even more interesting than the placebo effect: at the time, nobody could treat cholera. So, while hideous medical treatments such as blood-letting were actively harmful, the homeopaths’ treatments at least did nothing either way.’ Then why was there such fear of such epidemics, all everyone needed to do was ‘do nothing’? Nonsense again, Ben.