Did you know that reliable public health records from around the world have been examined by several medical experts to see what impact, if any, homeopathy had during the deadly epidemics of the past?
The main findings of this research: when homeopathy was employed during these deadly events, mortality rates were routinely very low. This constancy remains regardless of the homeopathic physician, time, place or type of epidemical disease, including diseases carrying a very high mortality rate, such as cholera, smallpox, diphtheria, typhoid fever, yellow fever, influenza and pneumonia.
Let’s look at an example...
Do you know which epidemic was humankinds’ most deadly?
The Great Flu Pandemic of 1918-19. It’s estimated that more than 50 million people died during that epidemic – the vast majority from flu complicated with pneumonia.
Fifty million …and once a person became infected – death often came swiftly... (see this brief PBS video to see more: PBS video on flu pandemic)
Yet, patients in the care of homeopaths during this epidemic fared dramatically better than those treated by ordinary physicians.
- Mortality rates for flu patients working with a homeopath averaged 0.70%. For those patients suffering with flu complicated by pneumonia – the death rate averaged 3.4% or less.
- The mortality rate for patients with the flu in the care of ordinary medical doctors averaged 6%, and for those with flu complicated by pneumonia – between 25% and 30%.
How is that possible, you ask?
Many skeptics of homeopathy claim the only reason homeopathic physicians did so well and had such remarkably low mortality rates during the Great Pandemic of 1918-19 was because they did no harm...that they gave “placebo drugs” - and did not prescribe aspirin as ordinary physicians did.
Simply put, their claim is this: homeopaths used only expectancy or the “expectant method” to cure. In the view of skeptics - patients treated by homeopaths were not given medications of any therapeutic value or submitted to any “active” treatment in the form of conventional drugs. Any cures therefore had to be due "to natural forces" only.
Interestingly - based on this claim - many ordinary medical doctors in the late 1800s, having witnessed the remarkable results produced by homeopaths with pneumonia patients, tried the “expectant method” (ie, nursing care only plus waiting and watching) with patients suffering from pneumonia. The result - their patients continued to suffer death rates of between 14% and 30% - results slightly better to the same as those achieved using the ordinary active medical treatments of the day.
So let’s get back to the Great Flu Pandemic of 1918-19...
During that crisis, the chance of surviving the flu complicated with pneumonia – the condition that killed 50 million people - was 148 (surviving) to 1 (death) for patients working with a homeopath.
The odds of surviving if one worked with an ordinary medical doctor?
And it was found that pregnant women were particularly vulnerable to harm during the Pandemic. What were their odds of surviving?
Public health records show the odds for pregnant women of surviving flu complicated with pneumonia during this crisis were 135 to 1 under homeopathy and just 2 to 1 under ordinary care. Pregnant women were 41 times more likely to die if their care was provided by an ordinary physician.
If you would like to learn how you can use homeopathy to treat family members with symptoms of the flu - read more here: homeopathy for treating flu-like symptoms. If you would be interested to learn more about these statistics – and the remarkable record of homeopathy – you can read more here: Homeopathy and deadly epidemics.
*James Rogers. On the Present State of Therapeutics, with Some Suggestions for Placing It Upon a More Scientific Basis. London: John Churchill and Sons, 1870, 180.
*Jules Le Beuf. Étude critique sur l’expectation. Paris: Adrien Delahaye, 1870, 22.
*Arthur Mitchell. Contribution to the statistics of pneumonia. Edinburgh Medical Journal 1857; 3: 398-406.
*Eldridge C. Price. Therapeutic efficiency in the treatment of epidemic influenza. Hahnemannian Monthly 1919; 54: 721-739.
*John Hutchinson. Prescrition factors. Discussion: Influenza: a favoable mortality and publicity. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1919-1920; 12: 807-813.
*Lewis P. Crutcher. Now is the time. Pacific Coast Journal of Homoeopathy 1919; 30: 274- 275.
*W. F. Edmunson. Discussion: Influenza: a favorable mortality and publicity. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1919-1920; 12: 598.
*Eli G. Jones. Some interesting facts. Homoeopathic Recorder 1919; 34: 11-15.
*John C. Calhoun. A “flu” experience. Hahnemannian Monthly 1919; 54: 738-739.
*Crawford R. Green. The treatment of Influenza in children. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1919-1920; 12: 1102-1112.
*E. E. Vaughan. Clinical comment of influenza. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1918-1919; 11: 682-684.
About Dr. Lisa Samet:
Dr. Lisa Samet N.D. provides Washington Homeopathic Products with a weekly column on using homeopathy for the family. She's a naturopathic physician who specializes in homeopathic medicine and she's a partner with Dr. Andre Saine N.D. Dr. Samet graduated from the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine in 1998 and has been practicing in Montreal since then. She was born and raised in New York.
Dr. Samet has chosen to focus on homeopathy because in her experience it is the deepest healing modality available in that it does not just soothe or palliate symptoms but can actually stimulate the body to start to heal itself. Dr. Samet sees patients in her Montreal office as well as remotely all over the world using Skype. Learn more here: Dr. Lisa Samet