Cuba Gives Whole Population New Homeopathic Remedy for Covid-19

Cuba is officially giving the whole population a homeopathic remedy called PrevengHo Vir for the prevention and treatment of Covid19. In 2009 a homeopathic remedy called NoDEGRIP was administered to the Cuban population against influenza A (H1N1).

Cuba´s Center for State Control of Medicines, Equipment and Medical Devices (CECMED by its Spanish acronym) approved the use of the new homeopathic medicine PrevengHo® Vir in compliance with established regulations and provisions, 

Since Cuba has had an embargo against them importing pharmaceutical drugs they have established manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and natural medications and have done many trials on homeopathic remedies.

CECMED clarifies “that as a therapeutic modality of Natural and Traditional Medicine, homeopathy has been recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) since the approval of the World Assembly Resolution on adopted traditional medicine in 2009 and is included in the strategy for the 2014-2023 period”.

Cuba has been using homeopathic remedies for the prevention and treatment of Dengue fever, Cholera, Leptospirosis and others.They claim to have had good success with homeopathy and these diseases and have strict epidemiological protocols.  The population of Cuba is about 12 million people.

One Source: Radio Rebelde

Homeopathy Has a Great Track Record Treating the Flu

The conventional medical strategy of avoidance and containment instead of real bonified effective treatment of patients with the Covid19 flu has left economies and businesses in terrible straights. It has virtually shut down many areas of certain countries in order to “slow down” (not stop) the spread of the virus.

As the WHO and Medical Doctors become the de facto government leaders in many countries, 100s of thousands of able bodied people and their families are suffering from loss of jobs and  businesses. The toll on the health and mental well being of these individuals is becoming a public health crisis in itself..  

Yet homeopathic treatment was incredibly effective and safe during the 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic. The positive results of homeopathic treatment was well documented. Homeopathic treatment is a proven treatment modality that saved lives.

Julian Winston was a historian and chronicle homeopathy success in the 1800s and 1900s. The following is an extract of the chapter on the influenza epidemic of 1918:

by Julian Winston

“It was called “the Great White Plague.” It is hard to imagine the devastation caused by the Flu Epidemic of 1918-19. People who lived through it reported that some one who was up and well in the morning could be dead by evening.

Dr. H. A. Roberts was a physician on a troop ship at the time. Another boat pulled alongside to get any spare coffins- it’s mortality rate was so high. On his return to port, the commander said to Roberts, “used all your coffins?” To which Roberts, who had been treating his ship with homeopathy, replied, “Yes, and lost not one man!”

The following is an extract from an article entitled “Homeopathy In Influenza- A Chorus Of Fifty In Harmony” by W. A. Dewey, MD that appeared in the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy in 1920.

Dean W. A. Pearson of Philadelphia collected 26,795 cases of influenza treated by homeopathic physicians with a mortality of 1.05%, while the average old school mortality is 30%.

Thirty physicians in Connecticut responded to my request for data. They reported 6,602 cases with 55 deaths, which is less than 1%. In the transport service I had 81 cases on the way over. All recovered and were landed. Every man received homeopathic treatment. One ship lost 31 on the way. H. A. Roberts, MD, Derby, Connecticut.

In a plant of 8,000 workers we had only one death. The patients were not drugged to death. Gelsemium was practically the only remedy used. We used no aspirin and no vaccines. -Frank Wieland, MD, Chicago.

I did not lose a single case of influenza; my death rate in the pneumonias was 2.1%. The salycilates, including aspirin and quinine, were almost the sole standbys of the old school and it was a common thing to hear them speaking of losing 60% of their pneumonias.-Dudley A. Williams, MD, Providence, Rhode Island.

Fifteen hundred cases were reported at the Homeopathic Medical Society of the District of Columbia with but fifteen deaths. Recoveries in the National Homeopathic Hospital were 100%.-E. F. Sappington, M. D., Philadelphia.

I have treated 1,000 cases of influenza. I have the records to show my work. I have no losses. Please give all credit to homeopathy and none to the Scotch-Irish-American! -T. A. McCann, MD, Dayton, Ohio.

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.

Three hundred and fifty cases and lost one, a neglected pneumonia that came to me after she had taken one hundred grains of aspirin in twenty-four hours. -Cora Smith King, MD, Washington, DC

I had a package handed to me containing 1,000 aspirin tablets, which was 994 too many. I think I gave about a half dozen. I could find no place for it. My remedies were few. I almost invariably gave Gelsemium and Bryonia. I hardly ever lost a case if I got there first, unless the patient had been sent to a drug store and bought aspirin, in which event I was likely to have a case of pneumonia on my hands. -J. P. Huff, MD, Olive Branch, Kentucky.

In reading the accounts of the epidemic it seems that most of the deaths were caused by a virulent pneumonia that was especially devastating to those who depressed their system with analgesics-the most common being aspirin.

The Physician from whom I first learned homeopathy, Raymond Seidel, MD, HMD, said that he decided to be a homeopathic doctor during the flu epidemic when he was working as a delivery boy for a homeopath in New Jersey. He said, “I saw that the people who were taking aspirin were dying, about half those who were drinking a lot were dying, and those that received homeopathic remedies were living.”

See your local registered homeopath for effective treatment.

Global Outrage Over Australian Buried Report on Homeopathy

The first conclusions of the Australian Research Council were positive about homeopathy. As a result, known anti-homeopathy members of the Council squashed the report and then released a very negative report.

You can positively deal with this outrage now and get the Australian Government and Council (NHMRC) to release the first report. Releasethefirstreport.com  is a web site you can go to make your voice heard and read about the whole controversy.

The Society of Homeopaths in the United Kingdom reports: “Homeopaths in Australia have launched a global campaign calling on the government there to publish the first version of a review of homeopathy which they claim was deliberately ‘buried’.

The existence of the first report only came to light through a Freedom of Information request (FoI), although its contents have not been published. Campaigners say that the decision to suppress it and use a different methodology for the second review raises serious questions.

Justifying its decision not to publish the first report, NHMRC said its quality was poor, despite the research being carried out by the scientist who had written the council’s own guidelines on conducting evidence reviews.

The new campaign, Releasethefirstreport.com, is calling for the publication of the original, publicly-funded review in the name of transparency and to give the public access to all available evidence about homeopathy ‘so that they can make informed choices about their healthcare’.

An earlier Your Health, Your Choice campaign which highlighted the ‘flaws’ in the published report and drew public attention to the need to protect access to complementary and alternative medicines in Australia, led to 87,000 people signing a petition.

Releasethefirstreport.com is appealing for support from around the world and is asking people to sign up at its website.”

Homeopathy Research Institute Reveals Flaws in Australian Study

The HRI or Homeopathy Research Institute does an incredible amount of scientific analysis and research.

The anti-homeopathy report published by the Australian Research Council has been questioned by their scientific experts and others. The HRI make some impressive points and bring up significant doubts about the report’s validity which have yet to be addressed by the Australian Council.

  • NHMRC did the homeopathy review twice, producing two reports, one in July 2012 and the one released to the public in March 2015.
  • The existence of the first report has never been disclosed to the public – it was only discovered through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.
  • NHMRC say they rejected the first report because it was poor quality despite it being undertaken by a reputable scientist and author of NHMRC’s own guidelines on how to conduct evidence reviews.
  • FOI requests have revealed that a member of NHMRC’s expert committee overseeing the review process – Professor Fred Mendelsohn – confirmed the first review to be high quality saying –  “I am impressed by the rigor, thoroughness and systematic approach given to this evaluation [….] Overall, a lot of excellent work has gone into this review and the results are presented in a systematic, unbiased and convincing manner.” 
  • NHMRC said the results of the second report published in 2015 were based on a “rigorous assessment of over 1800 studies”. In fact results were based on only 176 studies.
  • NHMRC used a method that has never been used in any other review, before or sinceNHMRC decided that for trials to be ‘reliable’ they had to have at least 150 participants and reach an unusually high threshold for quality. This is despite the fact that NHMRC itself routinely conducts studies with less than 150 participants.
  • These unprecedented and arbitrary rules meant the results of 171 of the trials were completely disregarded as being ‘unreliable’ leavingonly 5 trials NHMRC considered to be ‘reliable’. As they assessed all 5 of these trials as negative, this explains how NHMRC could conclude that there was no ‘reliable’ evidence.
  • Professor Peter Brooks, Chair of the NHMRC committee that conducted the 2015 review, signed conflict of interest formdeclaring he was not “affiliated or associated with any organisation whose interests are either aligned with or opposed to homeopathy”,despite being a member of anti-homeopathy lobby group ‘Friends of Science in Medicine’
  • NHMRC’s guidelines state that such committees must include experts on the topic being reviewed, yet there was not one homeopathy expert on this committee.

 

Public Health Expert Criticizes USA’s FDA for New Homeopathy Regulations

Public health expert, Dana Ullman has written an article on Mercola.com that is critical of the United States Food and Drug Agency for going after homeopathic remedies instead of dealing with the pharmaceutical industry’s serious problems.

On this web site we have written a number of articles on how the pharmaceutical industry and medical industry attacks homeopathy to deflect the dangerous effects of pharmaceutical drugs. Even though homeopathy has a remarkable 200 year history of safety, the FDA, which is supposed to deal with these issues, is doing the same. This is to deflect its inability to deal with pressing issues that are causing serious harm and death such as the opioid crisis and conventional pharmacuetical drugs that have caused thousands of serious side effects including death for those taking them. Since homeopathic remedies have such a profound history of safety, (especially relative to the pharmaceutical industry), the only way they can create more regulations for homeopathic remedies is to judge that homeopathic remedies “might” cause problems.

Dana Ullman, MPH, Masters of Public Health says:

The FDA does not have a history of going after any Big Pharma company on the grounds that a drug “might” cause problems (some potential problems of the FDA prohibiting access to certain homeopathic medicines based on theoretical grounds are discussed later in this article). The previous FDA guidelines have been in use since 1988, and these guidelines provide specificity as to how homeopathic medicines can be marketed and sold.
In contrast, the new guidelines seem to allow the FDA to provide enforcement based on a vague and undefined “risk/benefit” that could change from one year or decade to another. Further, homeopathic medicines have an impressive record of safety, with relatively rare exceptions.

Read more in his article…

 

Homeopathy is Safe and The Lancet Medical Journal Promotes Dangerous Placebo Surgical Procedures

The Lancet, a medical journal here in the UK, has published a study concerning heart stents. Half the participants received a surgical procedure with a stent installed but then half got a “placebo” surgical procedure and in the end, did not get the heart stent put in. The results showed that both those with a stent and those without continued to experience angina heart pain after the procedure.

The study is problematic on two counts. First, tens of thousands of patients have procedures where stents are put in with the idea that it will reduce heart pain and now it is found that putting in a stent is all but useless for that.

Second, ethically, The Lancet gave approval to this study where there were serious complications from a “placebo” surgery, but surgery none the less.  As the study said: “Serious adverse events included four pressure-wire related complications in the placebo group, which required PCI, and five major bleeding events, including two in the PCI group and three in the placebo group.”

In contradistinction, Homeopathy has an over 200 year record of safety and efficacy. And the pharmaceutical, medical industry represented by The Lancet is in a fight against safe and effective homeopathy. The Lancet published a poorly cobbled together study on homeopathy, knowing the author was biased against homeopathy and the study poorly done. Experts have called the study a sham but Lancet continues its fight against safe homeopathy and supports dangerous procedures to show that double blind studies are the only arbiter of efficacy.

With Homeopathy having very positive clinical results, popularity and an increase in its market share in emerging economies the medical industry had a great fear. As a result, the conventional pharmaceutical industry started a subterfuge campaign against homeopathy stating it was unscientific and therefore more dangerous than conventional medical drugs and procedures. This was without any real substantiation. They would have you believe that it is more dangerous to take a homeopathic remedy than to get surgery. And obviously it has come to the place where the standard of care for The Lancet medical journal is surgery over safe alternatives, even sham surgery that injures.

There is Now Proof Australian Research Council Rigged Their Study of Homeopathy’s Effectiveness

At the end of the new documentary on homeopathy “Just One Drop,” there is a section on the 2015 study about the scientific validity of homeopathy done by The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The Research Council published a negative conclusion that got world wide press.

As reported in the documentary, a subsequent investigation done by an Australian individual and other Australian homeopathy groups showed that the Council’s researchers involved in this study were terribly biased and even lied about their impartiality. The initial chair of the study was a leading outspoken skeptic of homeopathy.

At first, an impartial company with a group of researchers were fired by the Council when they presented a report that concluded that homeopathy was effective. Then the subsequent research group, under the Council’s direct guidance, created criteria for evaluating studies of homeopathy that were never used before in the evaluation of other scientific studies. This unprecedented procedure effectively blocked all studies of homeopathy that had a positive result. In response, one of the researchers interviewed on camera belligerently justified these actions by claiming ‘it was homeopathy!’ they were evaluating.

There are many dramatically positive scientific studies validating homeopathy’s effectiveness and none of these were included in their report. Many are described on this web site.

Even though there have been many complaints to the Research Council, after 2 years, there is still no substantial results of their supposed review of the lack of integrity and dishonesty by their own researchers. For more detailed information see the documentary Just One Drop.

New Film on Homeopathy Released

A new film on homeopathy has been released by Laurel Chiten (Blind Dog FIlms) who is the Producer and Director. “Just One Drop” explores the people who have been dramatically helped by homeopathy as well as the history and controversy of homeopathy.

 

Successful Experiment Shows Homeopathic Arnica Stimulates Wound Healing Genes

arnicaA new complex scientific experiment tested Arnica montana to see if it would change genes that are related to wound healing. As the authors said: “This work tested Arnica m. effects on gene expression using an in vitro model of macrophages polarized towards a “wound-healing” phenotype” The experiment showed that even highly diluted and potentized Arnica had a noticable effect!

Arnica montana prepared homoeopathically has been used for over 200 years by homeopaths and consumers to heal injuries especially bruises.

Here are some excerpts from the successful experiment:

Given the central role of macrophages in tissue repair and regeneration, we formulated the hypothesis that one of the cellular targets of Arnica m. action is the macrophage, and accordingly decided to evaluate this plant’s effects in vitro on the THP-1 human cell line, a widely used model for immune modulation [15,16]. This cell line is widely used in laboratories for the study of macrophage biochemistry and molecular biology. The advantage of a cell line resides essentially in the easier reproducibility of experiments in the same conditions, avoiding the variations due to individual sensitivity of different donors. Since we used very low doses of drugs—even with the highest Arnica m. 2c dilution, in assay medium the sesquiterpene lactones are in the 10−8 Mol/L dose—we expected small effect sizes and so preferred to use a highly reproducible model. THP-1 cells resemble primary monocytes, but when treated with low doses of phorbol esters (PMA) they differentiate to cells with the morphological and functional features of tissue macrophages. On the basis of environmental cues and molecular mediators, macrophages differentiate to either a pro-inflammatory type (M1) or to an anti-inflammatory or pro-reparatory type (M2) [1720]. Accordingly, we used THP-1 macrophages polarized by interleukin-4 (IL-4) treatment to a phenotype that takes on characteristic properties functional to immune regulation, wound healing, and tissue remodelling [16,21].

The results of this work indicate that Arnica m. acts on macrophages by modulating a number of genes and by increasing cell motility. RNA-seq analysis allowed the identification of several genes which are particularly sensitive to ultra-low doses and high dilutions of this plant extract. Molecular analysis of gene expression suggests that a primary action of this medicinal plant is the stimulation of tissue matrix synthesis. These findings provide new insights into wound-associated molecular events and specifically point to macrophage fibronectin production as a potential therapeutic target of Arnica m. for the treatment of wound repair.

See the full research article in the highly regarded PLOS ONE: Arnica montana Stimulates Extracellular Matrix Gene Expression in a Macrophage Cell Line Differentiated to Wound-Healing Phenotype

Depression Fastest Growing Condition in UK and Homeopathy Can Help

In spite of billions of GBPs and billions of dollars spent on pharmaceutical medication for depression, it is growing at an alarming rate and poorly controlled.  The Society of Homeopaths reports:

According to a recent report in GP online(1) depression is now the fastest growing condition in the UK.

470,000 new cases were reported in 2015/16, which exceeded obesity, hypertension and diabetes. This leaves the total number of patients over the age of 18 with recorded depression standing at 3.8m people, or 8.3% of the population.

The report is based on analysis prevalence data from Quality and Outcomes Framework(QOF), published in NHS digital.2 In the meanwhile, waiting times for patients to access talking therapies such as Cognigive Behavioural Therapy is, according to the General Practitioners Committee deputy chairman Dr Richard Vautrey unacceptably long.

Homeopathy and depression

Given that women are up to three times more likely to develop major depressive order, findings from a recent trial where homeopathy was given to peri-menopausal and menopausal women with depressive symptoms is very interesting.

This randomised, placebo controlled trial took place in Mexico and included 133 women. 54.5% of women responded positively to homeopathic treatment, which was similar to the response to fluoxetine but significantly higher than from placebo. Only homeopathic treatment led to a reduction on menopausal symptoms, which is in line with its whole person effects.

1. http://www.gponline.com/depression-fastest-growing-condition-gps-record-470000-new-cases-2015-16/mental-health/depression/article/1414006

2. http://content.digital.nhs.uk/QOF

3. Aguilar-Faisal L, Asbun-Bojalil J (2015) IndividualizedHomeopathic Treatment and Fluoxetine for Moderateto Severe Depression in Peri- and Postmenopausal Women (HOMDEP-MENOP Study): A Randomized,Double-Dummy, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0118440. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118440