It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Largest Government Study of it's Kind: Homeopathy Proved! Vaccination a Con?

page: 1
15

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Well this seems pretty conclusive.

Why so little MSM Coverage?

If you ask me the scale and results of this study, rather in situ modality of "vaccination" it was effective.

This is imho HUGE news and I am working to firm up the original study, but it seems 100% legit.

Amazing:



A report of the largest study of homeopathy ever undertaken, based on data from over 11 million people (the entire population of Cuba), is published in the journal Homeopathy.1 It provides fascinating evidence that a highly dilute substance, prepared according to homeopathic principles, may contribute to the prevention of Leptospirosis.


To me that is reserved but the source is playing it down a bit, being in the traditional medicine market themselves, ie big pharma:


In late 2007, in response to a developing epidemic, and with only enough vaccine to treat 15,000 high-risk people, the government decided to treat the entire population of the region, over one year of age, with a homeopathic medicine. This was prepared from the inactivated causative organism by the Cuban National Vaccine Institute.


So they basically then vaccinated WITH HOMEOPATHY 2.3 million people in certain provinces of the country adjoining each other, Where the homeopathy was used it was the areas usually worst affected by Weal's disease, and the rest of the country was vaccinated as usual with Modern Vaccines Mercury and all.

So it is the perfect study, not in a lab, in the real world enforced and such like.

The results are in my mind staggering:


Within a few weeks the number of cases had fallen from the forecast 38 to 4 cases per 100,000 per week, significantly fewer than the historically-based forecast for those weeks of the year.


So Within Weeks of using homeopathy instead of the historical data from years previous when Normal Modern Vaccine was used, it went down.

Homeopathy was more effective than Big Pharma Vaccines!

Also when they used the same historical data to predict the infection rate in the other provinces, with the vaccines the results came in as expected!

It also was not a one off:


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%.


Medical News Today

Now I know Placebo will play a large part of this, but the results are showing much more than any placebo, it is more effective than placebo and vaccinations of the big pharma kind, something active, real, physical is happening.

Have just posted this quick as found it, and thought ATS would like it.

Will firm up sources and get actual study onto ATS media within day or two.

Kind Regards,

Elf




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Great post.
lets see how long it stays on ATS?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Communist dictatorships aren't exactly known for the truth.
I'd take that with a tumbler of salt.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 


Thanks for this! I Am a huge believer in homeopathy and the fact that the body can heal and cure itself with the proper support. Homeopathy saved my dogs life when he was given 3-5 months to live. They wanted to put him on conventional meds to suppress his immune system. I decided to go the homeopathy path and he lived another happy 3 years!



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
Communist dictatorships aren't exactly known for the truth.
I'd take that with a tumbler of salt.


Well that's your right,

PUBMED seems to support the Results!

Let's hear what they say eh?


Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control.
Bracho G, Varela E, Fernández R, Ordaz B, Marzoa N, Menéndez J, García L, Gilling E, Leyva R, Rufín R, de la Torre R, Solis RL, Batista N, Borrero R, Campa C.
Source

Finlay Institute, Ave. 27, La Lisa, Havana City, Cuba. gbracho@finlay.edu.cu
Abstract
BACKGROUND:

Leptospirosis is a zoonotic disease of major importance in the tropics where the incidence peaks in rainy seasons. Natural disasters represent a big challenge to Leptospirosis prevention strategies especially in endemic regions. Vaccination is an effective option but of reduced effectiveness in emergency situations. Homeoprophylactic interventions might help to control epidemics by using highly-diluted pathogens to induce protection in a short time scale. We report the results of a very large-scale homeoprophylaxis (HP) intervention against Leptospirosis in a dangerous epidemic situation in three provinces of Cuba in 2007.
METHODS:

Forecast models were used to estimate possible trends of disease incidence. A homeoprophylactic formulation was prepared from dilutions of four circulating strains of Leptospirosis. This formulation was administered orally to 2.3 million persons at high risk in an epidemic in a region affected by natural disasters. The data from surveillance were used to measure the impact of the intervention by comparing with historical trends and non-intervention regions.
RESULTS:

After the homeoprophylactic intervention a significant decrease of the disease incidence was observed in the intervention regions. No such modifications were observed in non-intervention regions. In the intervention region the incidence of Leptospirosis fell below the historic median. This observation was independent of rainfall.
CONCLUSIONS:

The homeoprophylactic approach was associated with a large reduction of disease incidence and control of the epidemic. The results suggest the use of HP as a feasible tool for epidemic control, further research is warranted.

2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Comment in

Homeopathy. 2010 Jul;99(3):153-5.

PMID:
20674839
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PUBMED

That's the official US Gov med site!

The study is solid.

Kind Regards,

Elf



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 


Good that it's verified.
Just be wary.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 


Very interesting. I use a couple of homeopathic remedies now and then, and they do give me good results. I had wondered if I was getting an actual or placebo effect, (not that it would bother me either way as long as they worked and had really no side effects) and this kind of tips it towards they actually DO work.

Nice find.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Toseekthetruth
 


good for you. i too am curing my dog with homeopathy. there is no cure in western vet medicine, only symptom relief.

he is almost cured now, just a little tweaking on remedies. ...and less than $50 total .......vs $200 per month forever.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 


Originally posted by MischeviousElf
PUBMED seems to support the Results! That's the official US Gov med site! The study is solid.

Appearance on PubMed is not an endorsement by the government. PubMed doesn’t pick and choose; I believe it puts on line references to all NIH-funded research published in any journal.

This study was published in Homeopathy, the July 2010 issue. It says so in your post. It is no more to be trusted than any other self-serving magazine article.


edit on 1/6/11 by Astyanax because: the PubMed facts needed correcting.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 

This study was published in Homeopathy, the July 2010 issue. It says so in your post. It is no more to be trusted than any other self-serving magazine article.


How is an actual study, of the largest in its kind than a "self serving magazine article"

You are trolling.

The study way published in the Journal you say, however the Study was not endorsed by them or funded by them.

This study has as much legitimacy as any other medical study done today.

Show me in any way how it has been shown to be not so in acedemia, not by unknowns on an message board.

The fact this is on MedLine Pub Med show this study is real and not just Constructive Journalism.

Kind Regards,

Elf



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 


How is an actual study, of the largest in its kind than a "self serving magazine article".

The magazine, Homeopathy, is published by and for people who believe in a form of medical treatment based entirely on faith with no scientific support whatsoever. The editorial policy of such a magazine is obviously sympathetic to the belief system of its publishers and readers; you cannot possibly expect a disproof of homeopathy in it, could you? Neither can any claimed proof of homeopathy published in it be trusted without close, sceptical srutiny.

Homeopathy exists to promote homeopathy. That is what I mean by ‘self-serving magazine article’.


You are trolling.

Please don’t be silly.


The fact this is on MedLine Pub Med show this study is real and not just Constructive Journalism.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘constructive journalism’, but I don’t believe a word of it and neither should you.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
Communist dictatorships aren't exactly known for the truth.
I'd take that with a tumbler of salt.


and western governments are shining paragons of virtue are they?

Thousands of examples of governments lying to their populace, and it's only the "communist dictatorship" chestnut that gets thrown around.

How very silly.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



The magazine, Homeopathy, is published by and for people who believe in a form of medical treatment based entirely on faith with no scientific support whatsoever. The editorial policy of such a magazine is obviously sympathetic to the belief system of its publishers and readers; you cannot possibly expect a disproof of homeopathy in it, could you? Neither can any claimed proof of homeopathy published in it be trusted without close, sceptical srutiny.

Homeopathy exists to promote homeopathy. That is what I mean by ‘self-serving magazine article’.


Honestly, by that way of thinking we might as well cast doubt upon the big bang theory because some science journal that supports the big bang model published an article about it.


I don’t believe a word of it and neither should you.


I'm personally still on the fence about this myself, but what specific issue do you have with the Cuban study on homeopathic intervention and it's effectiveness against this disease?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Homeopathy is illogical as a medicine. It is so diluted that none of the original ingredient remains, so you may as well be drinking water or eating dust. The placebo effect, however, is very powerful and it's interesting to view it in a mind over matter scenario such as this. I hope this doesn't convince people to start relying on homeopathic medicines.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by DeepThoughtCriminal
 


Oh yes,

Lets not let the largest in situ proof of this effectiveness in the real world with actual and ongoing results, blind us from the truth of Big Pharma.

Sorry you are right,

Move on nothing to see here.

If you refuse to move on you will be prescribed with Psychoactive drugs for life to control this bizarre behavior of researching the truth.

Kind Regards,

Elf



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Methinks the OP could stand to practice a bit of reading comprehension and basic scientific edification.

If you read the actual study, you'll see that this was no, in fact, "homeopathy" as practice by homeopaths, but rather simply a dilute vaccine following standard medical vaccine production. Homeopathy is based on dilution to the level that the original agent is no longer detected, but that the water retains "memory" (despite all physical, chemical, and biological proof that this is not true). This vaccine, on the other hand, was diluted, but still had detectable levels of inactivated bacteria present. In other words, it's no different than most bacterial vaccines: a small amount of inactivated bacteria are injected, allowing your immune system to "prime" itself against the real-deal.

Remember, the motto of ATS is to deny ignorance. Selectively reading portions of articles and spreading ignorant interpretations is not desirable here.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Honestly, by that way of thinking we might as well cast doubt upon the big bang theory because some science journal that supports the big bang model published an article about it.

Indeed you could. Not only that, you should. If the big bang theory wasn’t so well supported by other, independent evidence, we should certainly do well to doubt the word of its promoters. The trouble with homeopathy is that both scientific theory and independent evidence indicate that it doesn’t work; under these circumstances, one is entitled to take ‘studies’ conducted by interested parties with more than a grain of salt.


I'm personally still on the fence about this myself, but what specific issue do you have with the Cuban study on homeopathic intervention and it's effectiveness against this disease?

Homeopathy does not and cannot work. Yes, that’s an uncompromisingly blunt statement. I stand by it, nevertheless, and it will take more than anecdotal evidence and reinterpretation of placebo effects to change my mind. Spurious studies about the ‘memory of water’ won’t change it either. Call it prejudice if you like; a prejudice in favour of scientific rationality and empirical evidence. At any rate, it absolves me from any need to analyze the Cuban study and point out its flaws; I know without looking that they must be fatal, and am confident that, if and when the supporting data become available, they will prove it so.

Addendum
My thanks to VneZonyDostupa for his explanation. So there was nothing wrong with the study per se; the claim of support for homeopathy was false, a misunderstanding or a lie. How typical of Above Top Secret. Sometimes I wonder why I still waste time on this site when all but a tiny remnant of intelligent life has fled.


edit on 3/6/11 by Astyanax because: of an edit.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Indeed you could. Not only that, you should. If the big bang theory wasn’t so well supported by other, independent evidence, we should certainly do well to doubt the word of its promoters.


Meh, I wouldn't go so far as to say there is any real strong evidence these days in favor of the theory. If we looked solely at large scale structures and quasars in our universe instead of supernova's, we would never have thought the theory to be valid in the first place. Now scientists are scrambling to explain how large scale structures could develop in the short time span of the BBT when under current physics understanding these structures would require a much older universe, or how quasars show no time dilation at all.


The trouble with homeopathy is that both scientific theory and independent evidence indicate that it doesn’t work;


I do certainly agree and it's just like many claims of ESP, astral projection, and other such nonsense we see on ATS everyday. The science says it's not possible and yet people who believe in these concepts continuously find some means of confirming these concepts to themselves, just like the big bang model. Even science itself can be guilty of faulty logic and reasoning and often it is. Hell, we can even apply this to the concept of time, something that doesn't actually exist as described by Einstein and yet something that is deeply rooted in standard cosmology.


under these circumstances, one is entitled to take ‘studies’ conducted by interested parties with more than a grain of salt.


How do we define an "interested party"? Obviously we both don't believe homeopathy to be real thing that works beyond placebo effects; but does casting skepticism on studies conducted by "interested parties" only have to occur with those parties we disagree with?


Addendum
My thanks to VneZonyDostupa for his explanation. So there was nothing wrong with the study per se; the claim of support for homeopathy was false, a misunderstanding or a lie.


Guilty of not reading the article myself too. Wish I had because I def would have pointed this out myself. One of my pet peeves is lack of reading comprehension. Something the editor of the article and the OP are guilty of for not catching that themselves.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
fulltext indexed by Google, hosted by a French language Canadian homeopathic group(Syndicat Professionnel des Homéopathes du Québec).

www.sphq.org/pdf/leptospirosis_epidemic.pdf




top topics



 
15

log in

join