Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- en:misc:talk-saine-novella-question01-part02 [2013/07/29 15:41]
legatum
+++ en:misc:talk-saine-novella-question01-part02 [2013/07/29 15:49]
legatum
@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 )]
-Dr. Lewis P. Crutcher of Long Beach, California wrote on this point, “The new schools of practice, including the homeopathic,  were given to understand, by the medical powers that be in  the military army of our government, that none of their un- orthodox ‘nonsense’ would be tolerated, even though soldiers  and sailors by the thousands preferred heterodox treatment,  and those professional patriots of the new schools of practice  who went into active service, were compelled to subscribe to  and put into practice the methods outlined by the ‘majority  party.’ ” [(31)]
+Dr. Lewis P. Crutcher of Long Beach, California wrote on this point, “The new schools of practice, including the homeopathic,  were given to understand, by the medical powers that be in  the military army of our government, that none of their un- orthodox ‘nonsense’ would be tolerated, even though soldiers  and sailors by the thousands preferred heterodox treatment,  and those professional patriots of the new schools of practice  who went into active service, were compelled to subscribe to  and put into practice the methods outlined by the ‘majority  party.’ ” [(Lewis P. Crutcher. Now is the time. //Pacific Coast Journal of Homoeopathy// 1919; 30: 275.)]
 However, a very small minority of homeopaths found ways to treat their patients homeopathically and were thus able to report their results.
-It is important to also note that the US army kept very precise reports from individual camps, such as this one from Camp Bowie in central Texas, “There were received at the detention camp during the course of the epidemic 4,108 drafted white men and 2,360 drafted colored men. Among white men, 252 per thousand men who were exposed developed the infection, 114 per thousand developed pneumonia. Not every case pneumonia patient gave a history of an antecedent influenza infection. Among the 795 cases of pneumonia, a history of influenza within the preceding month was obtained in 728. No deaths were attributable to uncomplicated influenza. The total deaths in the 833 cases of pneumonia, numbered 156, a mortality of 18.7 per cent.” [(32)]
+It is important to also note that the US army kept very precise reports from individual camps, such as this one from Camp Bowie in central Texas, “There were received at the detention camp during the course of the epidemic 4,108 drafted white men and 2,360 drafted colored men. Among white men, 252 per thousand men who were exposed developed the infection, 114 per thousand developed pneumonia. Not every case pneumonia patient gave a history of an antecedent influenza infection. Among the 795 cases of pneumonia, a history of influenza within the preceding month was obtained in 728. No deaths were attributable to uncomplicated influenza. The total deaths in the 833 cases of pneumonia, numbered 156, a mortality of 18.7 per cent.” [(J. C. Greenway, C. Boettiger, H. S. Colwell. Pneumonia and some of its complications at Camp Bowie. //Archives of Internal Medicine// 1919; 24: 1-34.)]
-Of all the many available statistical reports from the numerous camps and troops of the US army stationed in different countries or on ships during different waves[(33)] of the NIP, we will look at the two largest ones.
+Of all the many available statistical reports from the numerous camps and troops of the US army stationed in different countries or on ships during different waves[(There were essentially four waves during the NIP, spring/summer of 1918, fall of 1918, winter/spring of 1919 and winter/spring of 1920. The second wave, in the fall of 1918, was the most severe wave. The third wave, in the winter of 1919, was the second most deadly wave.)] of the NIP, we will look at the two largest ones.
-The first one comes from the Surgeon General’s Office for the troops stationed in the US during the autumn of 1918. It has been estimated that during the 1918 autumn wave of the epidemic “one out of every four men had influenza” in the United States Army Camps, and “one out of every twenty-four men encamped in this country had pneumonia. … During the four autumn months of 1918, 338,343 cases of influenza were reported to the Surgeon General’s Office; there were 61,691 cases of pneumonia. … During the same period 22,186 men were reported to have died from the combined effects of influenza and pneumonia [a 6.6% mortality rate for the CIP]. This means that among the troops in this country one out of every sixty-seven died [from CIP].” [(34)]
+The first one comes from the Surgeon General’s Office for the troops stationed in the US during the autumn of 1918. It has been estimated that during the 1918 autumn wave of the epidemic “one out of every four men had influenza” in the United States Army Camps, and “one out of every twenty-four men encamped in this country had pneumonia. … During the four autumn months of 1918, 338,343 cases of influenza were reported to the Surgeon General’s Office; there were 61,691 cases of pneumonia. … During the same period 22,186 men were reported to have died from the combined effects of influenza and pneumonia [a 6.6% mortality rate for the CIP]. This means that among the troops in this country one out of every sixty-seven died [from CIP].” [(Warren T. Vaughan. Influenza: An epidemiologic study//.// //American Journal of Hygiene//. Monographic Series No. 1. Baltimore, 1921.)]
-The second large statistical report regards the //entire// US armed forces for the autumn of 1918, “In the United States Army there was a total of 688,869 admissions for influenza. The total deaths ascribed to the disease are 39,731 [from CIP].” [(35)]
+The second large statistical report regards the //entire// US armed forces for the autumn of 1918, “In the United States Army there was a total of 688,869 admissions for influenza. The total deaths ascribed to the disease are 39,731 [from CIP].” [(Warren T. Vaughan. //Influenza: An epidemiologic study.// //American Journal of Hygiene//. Monographic Series No. 1. Baltimore, 1921.)]
 | | **Number of cases with influenza** | **Number of cases of CIP** | **Number of cases with pneumonia** | **% of pneumonia cases** | **Number of deaths from CIP** | **% of deaths from CIP** |
@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 | **Entire US army, Fall of 1918** | **688,869** | | | | **39,731** | **5.8** |
-These numbers are similar to the ones of other armed forces stationed overseas. For instance, for the American Expeditionary Forces, the case fatality from CIP in the period between July 1, 1917 and April 30, 1919 was 6.06% out 220,971 cases; for the British Expeditionary Forces, the case fatality from CIP was 6.75% out of 113,801 cases between September 28, 1918 and April 19, 1919, and in the French army in the “Zone of the Army” between September 20, 1918 and April 30, 1919 it was 7.21% out of 145,992 cases.[(36)]
+These numbers are similar to the ones of other armed forces stationed overseas. For instance, for the American Expeditionary Forces, the case fatality from CIP in the period between July 1, 1917 and April 30, 1919 was 6.06% out 220,971 cases; for the British Expeditionary Forces, the case fatality from CIP was 6.75% out of 113,801 cases between September 28, 1918 and April 19, 1919, and in the French army in the “Zone of the Army” between September 20, 1918 and April 30, 1919 it was 7.21% out of 145,992 cases.[(Edwin O Jordan. //Epidemic Influenza. A Survey//. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1927.)]
-Prior to the major wave of influenza in October 1918, Dr. S. Anson Hill of San Francisco predicted the outcome that should ensue from homeopathy, as it is a principle instead of an empirical based treatment, “Without  having yet seen a case of the present epidemic we predict  that careful selection of drugs according to the homeopathic principle will shorten the duration of an attack, permitting an early crisis or rapid defervescence by lysis, will  decrease the frequency of complications, and will show the  lowest mortality of any form of treatment.” [(37)]
+Prior to the major wave of influenza in October 1918, Dr. S. Anson Hill of San Francisco predicted the outcome that should ensue from homeopathy, as it is a principle instead of an empirical based treatment, “Without  having yet seen a case of the present epidemic we predict  that careful selection of drugs according to the homeopathic principle will shorten the duration of an attack, permitting an early crisis or rapid defervescence by lysis, will  decrease the frequency of complications, and will show the  lowest mortality of any form of treatment.” [(S. Anson Hill. “Spanish flu.” //Pacific Coast Journal of Homoeopathy// 1918; 29: 505-509.)]
-Dr. Ralph Mellon, doctor of public health and of medicine, and editor of the //New England Medical Gazette,// wrote in December 1918, immediately after the most deadly wave of NIP of the opportunity to collect large numbers of cases in order to compare therapeutic outcomes, “In this city (Rochester, N.Y.), the impression prevails in some quarters that patients on the whole  have fared better under homeopathic than under ‘regular’  treatment. Three men claim that of three hundred and seventy- five odd cases under their care, no deaths have resulted, and a  very low percentage of pneumonias occurred. It may be argued  that we do not know how many of these cases were true influenza and how many just common colds, but it is fair to  assume that in the midst of a raging epidemic a generous percentage of them conformed to the clinical entity known as influenza. One leading allopathic physician reported a mortality  of 25-40 per cent of his cases, under 40 drop doses of the tincture of digitalis every four hours. We may conjecture, if we  do not know, that such dosage is the result either of ignorance  or a hysterical state of mind resulting from a consciousness of  therapeutic impotence. These instances are not related for the purpose of drawing  conclusions nor for the purpose of holding a brief at this time  for the superiority of any form of therapy, be it vaccines, convalescents' serums, or drugs; but the opportunity is presented  for those treating large numbers of cases to report their findings,  if records were kept. Such a widespread epidemic will make  such reports of much greater value than those of a few cases covering several seasons. It is only from thousands of cases that we  can finally arrive at some estimate of the worth of the various  therapeutic agents employed. It is to be earnestly hoped that  the reports will contain the data necessary for their scientific  employment, inasmuch as so many case reports must be regarded only as anecdotes.” [(38)]
+Dr. Ralph Mellon, doctor of public health and of medicine, and editor of the //New England Medical Gazette,// wrote in December 1918, immediately after the most deadly wave of NIP of the opportunity to collect large numbers of cases in order to compare therapeutic outcomes, “In this city (Rochester, N.Y.), the impression prevails in some quarters that patients on the whole  have fared better under homeopathic than under ‘regular’  treatment. Three men claim that of three hundred and seventy- five odd cases under their care, no deaths have resulted, and a  very low percentage of pneumonias occurred. It may be argued  that we do not know how many of these cases were true influenza and how many just common colds, but it is fair to  assume that in the midst of a raging epidemic a generous percentage of them conformed to the clinical entity known as influenza. One leading allopathic physician reported a mortality  of 25-40 per cent of his cases, under 40 drop doses of the tincture of digitalis every four hours. We may conjecture, if we  do not know, that such dosage is the result either of ignorance  or a hysterical state of mind resulting from a consciousness of  therapeutic impotence. These instances are not related for the purpose of drawing  conclusions nor for the purpose of holding a brief at this time  for the superiority of any form of therapy, be it vaccines, convalescents' serums, or drugs; but the opportunity is presented  for those treating large numbers of cases to report their findings,  if records were kept. Such a widespread epidemic will make  such reports of much greater value than those of a few cases covering several seasons. It is only from thousands of cases that we  can finally arrive at some estimate of the worth of the various  therapeutic agents employed. It is to be earnestly hoped that  the reports will contain the data necessary for their scientific  employment, inasmuch as so many case reports must be regarded only as anecdotes.” [(Ralph R. Meelon. The influenza epidemic. //New England Medical Gazette// 1918; 53: 562-564.)]
-Homeopaths used this opportunity by making certain efforts in assembling large numbers of therapeutic outcomes. After the second and third waves of the NIP, which occurred in the fall of 1918 and winter of 1919 and were the more severe ones, American homeopathic physicians conducted several surveys among their members to obtain statistical outcomes of treatment. Dr. William Pearson, dean of the Hahnemann Medical College in Philadelphia, reported in a survey made among the members of the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH), that 88 physicians reported having treated 26,795 patients with a loss of 273 cases, a mortality of 1.02%. 24 of these 88 physicians reported no deaths in 3,519 cases. Dr. Pearson wrote, “The object of this contribution is to present reliable data  in regard to the actual mortality of the epidemic when patients were treated by homeopathic physicians. … The original reports are on file for  inspection of all interested. I am only sorry that a larger  number of physicians did not report their results, but physicians are very poor correspondents. It is evident that the above data are fairly representative of the results obtained by all homeopathic physicians, and it  only remains to compare the results with the colossal epidemic influenza mortality (average mortality about 30% [for the pneumonia cases]) to  realize how very much better chance a patient had when  treated by a homeopathic physician. Since the mortality as reported all over the country includes the much lower mortality had by homeopathic physicians, the comparison with official records becomes still more  favorable for homeopathic physicians.  All reports received have been tabulated and no attempt  made to report only the more favorable results.”[(39)]
+Homeopaths used this opportunity by making certain efforts in assembling large numbers of therapeutic outcomes. After the second and third waves of the NIP, which occurred in the fall of 1918 and winter of 1919 and were the more severe ones, American homeopathic physicians conducted several surveys among their members to obtain statistical outcomes of treatment. Dr. William Pearson, dean of the Hahnemann Medical College in Philadelphia, reported in a survey made among the members of the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH), that 88 physicians reported having treated 26,795 patients with a loss of 273 cases, a mortality of 1.02%. 24 of these 88 physicians reported no deaths in 3,519 cases. Dr. Pearson wrote, “The object of this contribution is to present reliable data  in regard to the actual mortality of the epidemic when patients were treated by homeopathic physicians. … The original reports are on file for  inspection of all interested. I am only sorry that a larger  number of physicians did not report their results, but physicians are very poor correspondents. It is evident that the above data are fairly representative of the results obtained by all homeopathic physicians, and it  only remains to compare the results with the colossal epidemic influenza mortality (average mortality about 30% [for the pneumonia cases]) to  realize how very much better chance a patient had when  treated by a homeopathic physician. Since the mortality as reported all over the country includes the much lower mortality had by homeopathic physicians, the comparison with official records becomes still more  favorable for homeopathic physicians.  All reports received have been tabulated and no attempt  made to report only the more favorable results.”[(William A. Pearson. Epidemic influenza treated by homeopahic physicians. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-1920; 12: 11-13.)]
-In the discussion that followed the presentation of this paper before the 1919 annual meeting of the AIH, many doctors who had not yet reported by writing began reporting verbally some of their experience and statistics. One after the other, physicians reported among other things the number of cases treated and deaths. Dr. Pearson, who was chairing the Bureau, eventually put an end to the discussion by saying, “We might go on for an indefinite length of time. We have shown clearly that the mortality rate of influenza patients treated by homeopathic physicians is possibly one-third less than when they were treated by physicians of the other school. If we had an open-minded jury, we would have no difficulty in convincing it of the value of our methods.” [(40)] This one-third lower mortality estimated by Pearson is either a very charitable estimate, or a stenographer’s mistake, as we can now see.
+In the discussion that followed the presentation of this paper before the 1919 annual meeting of the AIH, many doctors who had not yet reported by writing began reporting verbally some of their experience and statistics. One after the other, physicians reported among other things the number of cases treated and deaths. Dr. Pearson, who was chairing the Bureau, eventually put an end to the discussion by saying, “We might go on for an indefinite length of time. We have shown clearly that the mortality rate of influenza patients treated by homeopathic physicians is possibly one-third less than when they were treated by physicians of the other school. If we had an open-minded jury, we would have no difficulty in convincing it of the value of our methods.” [(William A. Pearson. Discussion: Influenza: a favorable mortality and publicity. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-1920; 12: 599.)] This one-third lower mortality estimated by Pearson is either a very charitable estimate, or a stenographer’s mistake, as we can now see.
-Dr. Ernest F. Sappington reported that during a symposium on influenza held in November 1918 fifteen physicians of the Homoeopathic Medical Society of the District of Columbia reported having had 15 deaths among 1,500 patients, a mortality of 1 percent despite the difficult working conditions. He said, “This bears out Dr. Pearson’s average as the average of homeopathic physicians all over the country. Recoveries in the Homeopathic Hospital in Washington were 100 per cent. The physicians in the District of Columbia had an unusually hard time. Those who were not familiar with conditions in Washington during war times could hardly appreciate our housing conditions. One doctor found thirteen war workers sleeping in an attic room. This room had only two small windows. Seven of those girls came down with influenza. It was impossible to get nurses, so the other six volunteered to nurse the sick. I escaped without any mortality in that attack. The experience could be multiplied many times in the District of Columbia.” [(41)]
+Dr. Ernest F. Sappington reported that during a symposium on influenza held in November 1918 fifteen physicians of the Homoeopathic Medical Society of the District of Columbia reported having had 15 deaths among 1,500 patients, a mortality of 1 percent despite the difficult working conditions. He said, “This bears out Dr. Pearson’s average as the average of homeopathic physicians all over the country. Recoveries in the Homeopathic Hospital in Washington were 100 per cent. The physicians in the District of Columbia had an unusually hard time. Those who were not familiar with conditions in Washington during war times could hardly appreciate our housing conditions. One doctor found thirteen war workers sleeping in an attic room. This room had only two small windows. Seven of those girls came down with influenza. It was impossible to get nurses, so the other six volunteered to nurse the sick. I escaped without any mortality in that attack. The experience could be multiplied many times in the District of Columbia.” [(Ernest F. Sappington. Discussion: Influenza: a favorable mortality and publicity. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-20; 12: 588.)]
-In another survey, Dr. Herbert Roberts of Derby reported that thirty physicians in Connecticut had lost 55 out of 6,602 patients treated, a mortality of 0.83 percent. He said, “There were 21 cases of meningeal form of influenza, and 496 cases of pneumonia.” [(42)]
+In another survey, Dr. Herbert Roberts of Derby reported that thirty physicians in Connecticut had lost 55 out of 6,602 patients treated, a mortality of 0.83 percent. He said, “There were 21 cases of meningeal form of influenza, and 496 cases of pneumonia.” [(H. A. Roberts. Discussion: Influenza: a favorable mortality and publicity. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-1920; 12: 591.)]
-Professor Guy Beckley Stearns of the New York Homoeopathic Medical College reviewed reports of 16,913 cases treated by the members of the International Hahnemannian Association (IHA)[(43)] with 67 deaths, a mortality of 0.4 percent.[(44)]<sup>,</sup> [(45)] These last numbers must be fairly representative of the results obtained by genuine homeopathy, as they received 79 responses out of about 130 active American members of the IHA. Dr. Stearns reported that it was notably difficult to obtain replies from many physicians, especially in such busy times, and the tallying sent in probably represents the usual average outcome of the members of the IHA. In fact, subsequent conversations held by Dr. Stearns with many who had not answered showed about the same mortality average as given in the compilation.[(46)]
+Professor Guy Beckley Stearns of the New York Homoeopathic Medical College reviewed reports of 16,913 cases treated by the members of the International Hahnemannian Association (IHA)[(Members of the IHA were known to practice genuine homeopathy.)] with 67 deaths, a mortality of 0.4 percent.[(Guy Beckley Stearns. //Treatment of influenza//. New York: New York Homœopathic College, 1919, 3.)]<sup>,</sup> [(D. C. MacLaren. President’s address. //Proceedings of the International Hahnemannian Association// 1919: 16.)] These last numbers must be fairly representative of the results obtained by genuine homeopathy, as they received 79 responses out of about 130 active American members of the IHA. Dr. Stearns reported that it was notably difficult to obtain replies from many physicians, especially in such busy times, and the tallying sent in probably represents the usual average outcome of the members of the IHA. In fact, subsequent conversations held by Dr. Stearns with many who had not answered showed about the same mortality average as given in the compilation.[(Donald Macfarlan. Materia medica meeting. //Homoeopathic Recorder// 1920; 35; 262-265.)]
-Professor Willis A. Dewey of the University of Michigan reported in a survey of 30 homeopathic physicians a loss of 17 among 9,250 patients, a mortality of 0.18 percent.[(47)]
+Professor Willis A. Dewey of the University of Michigan reported in a survey of 30 homeopathic physicians a loss of 17 among 9,250 patients, a mortality of 0.18 percent.[(W. A. Dewey. Homeopathy in influenza—A chorus of fity in harmony. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1920-21; 13: 1038-1043.)]
-Dr. L. A. Royal reported the results of a survey conducted among the Central Iowa Homeopathic Association, “In all we asked twenty-eight physicians, with the flattering results that we heard from eighteen with a  report of five thousand thirty two cases, (5,032) enough surely to be of some importance in making a report. … Only one hundred and  thirty-seven cases developed pneumonia. … However we should be  proud of the small percentage that developed pneumonia less  than 3 percent against an estimated 30 per cent of the old -school. The majority of these cases were reported as coming  on the fifth or sixth day. With about the following history: the attack of influenza would be practically well in three days  the patient then against orders would over expose themselves  with a result that on the fifth or sixth day they would develop  this so called pneumonia, and you would immediately have a very sick individual on your hands. … In all five thousand thirty two  cases were reported quite a few were able to send in reports  with no deaths at all (I am sorry that I am not among that  number) but I am more than proud to give the others the wonderful results, for in all there were only eighteen deaths reported [a mortality rate of 0.36%]. I challenge any other school of medicine to show as good  percentage in as many cases.” [(48)]
+Dr. L. A. Royal reported the results of a survey conducted among the Central Iowa Homeopathic Association, “In all we asked twenty-eight physicians, with the flattering results that we heard from eighteen with a  report of five thousand thirty two cases, (5,032) enough surely to be of some importance in making a report. … Only one hundred and  thirty-seven cases developed pneumonia. … However we should be  proud of the small percentage that developed pneumonia less  than 3 percent against an estimated 30 per cent of the old -school. The majority of these cases were reported as coming  on the fifth or sixth day. With about the following history: the attack of influenza would be practically well in three days  the patient then against orders would over expose themselves  with a result that on the fifth or sixth day they would develop  this so called pneumonia, and you would immediately have a very sick individual on your hands. … In all five thousand thirty two  cases were reported quite a few were able to send in reports  with no deaths at all (I am sorry that I am not among that  number) but I am more than proud to give the others the wonderful results, for in all there were only eighteen deaths reported [a mortality rate of 0.36%]. I challenge any other school of medicine to show as good  percentage in as many cases.” [(L. A. Royal. Influenza and its results under homeopathic care in Central Iowa. //Iowa Homeopathic Journal// 1919-1920; 13: 194-198.)]
-We can find throughout the homeopathic literature many individual reports of outcomes without any indication as to whether they have been included in one of the above surveys. As an example, Dr. W. B. Stewart of Indianapolis wrote in May 1919, “Homeopathic treatment surely in this epidemic kept the mortality to a minimum. I treated about six hundred cases of what was erroneously named Spanish flu. I say erroneously because the Spanish people never had studied this disease, they never named it, nor did it originate in Spain. All the cases I treated are alive with one exception, and that case died of simple metastatic meningitis. I had seven cases of pneumonia as a complication, and they all recovered.” [(49)]
+We can find throughout the homeopathic literature many individual reports of outcomes without any indication as to whether they have been included in one of the above surveys. As an example, Dr. W. B. Stewart of Indianapolis wrote in May 1919, “Homeopathic treatment surely in this epidemic kept the mortality to a minimum. I treated about six hundred cases of what was erroneously named Spanish flu. I say erroneously because the Spanish people never had studied this disease, they never named it, nor did it originate in Spain. All the cases I treated are alive with one exception, and that case died of simple metastatic meningitis. I had seven cases of pneumonia as a complication, and they all recovered.” [(W. B. Stewart. Duffels. //Homoeopathic Recorder// 1919; 34: 297-307.)]
 The compilation of these five different surveys conducted among American homeopathic physicians shows that there were 445 deaths among 66,092 cases (a mortality of 0.7 percent) from a mixed population of private and hospitalized of both civilian and non-civilian patients who had been treated homeopathically during the fall-winter of 1918-1919.
@@ Line 119: / Line 119: @@
  Such a paroxysmal epidemic of Neisseria meningitidis is uncommon, but because this microorganism spread easily in overcrowded living conditions, it claimed a lot of victims once it had begun. Without antibiotics the mortality rate sometimes exceeds 80 percent in children. Much like the polio virus, Neisseria meningitidis produces far more “silent” carriers than symptomatic infections. This is a factor that helps fuel hysteria in populations already shaken by the precipitous, seemingly random appearances of gruesome cases.
- During this epidemic in Guaratingueta, a city with a population of 78,000 in the state of Sao Paulo, 18,000 children received one drop of Meningococcinum A and C 10 Centesimal, but only once during the entire length of the epidemic. Within the first three months 5 of these 18,000 children fell sick with meningitis. Given that one child fell sick two days after receiving homeoprophylaxis (suggesting that he was already infected) only four cases actually proved a failure, or 0.021 percent compared to 10 cases in a control group of 6,364, a morbidity rate of 0.15 percent or seven times greater incidence (odds ratio) in the ones who didn’t receive homeoprophylaxis with a //P//= 0.0009. This highly significant fact means that in a population of 100,000 people, the morbidity rate would have fallen from 150 to 21 cases, despite the fact that the posology employed was totally inadequate in such an epidemic. [(50)]
+ During this epidemic in Guaratingueta, a city with a population of 78,000 in the state of Sao Paulo, 18,000 children received one drop of Meningococcinum A and C 10 Centesimal, but only once during the entire length of the epidemic. Within the first three months 5 of these 18,000 children fell sick with meningitis. Given that one child fell sick two days after receiving homeoprophylaxis (suggesting that he was already infected) only four cases actually proved a failure, or 0.021 percent compared to 10 cases in a control group of 6,364, a morbidity rate of 0.15 percent or seven times greater incidence (odds ratio) in the ones who didn’t receive homeoprophylaxis with a //P//= 0.0009. This highly significant fact means that in a population of 100,000 people, the morbidity rate would have fallen from 150 to 21 cases, despite the fact that the posology employed was totally inadequate in such an epidemic. [(David Castro, Jorge W. Galvao Nogueira. Profilaxis de la meningitis con meningococcinum. //Homeopathia// 1974; 41 (5): 6-11.)]
-Homeoprophylaxis is free of side effects compared to conventional vaccination with its introduction directly into the blood stream of microbial toxins and other known and unknown biological and non-biological contaminants such as mercury, aluminum or other very toxic preservatives and agents. The short and long-term consequences of such assaults particularly in immunocompromised persons or in infants with immature immune systems have been poorly studied. While few scientists seem to be interested in investigating such the side-effects of vaccination, they are significant with up to 3 percent of 2 to 6 month old infants developing moderate to severe local reactions, and up to 37 percent developing a fever following the conventional method of vaccination with the meningococcal group C vaccine.[(51)]
+Homeoprophylaxis is free of side effects compared to conventional vaccination with its introduction directly into the blood stream of microbial toxins and other known and unknown biological and non-biological contaminants such as mercury, aluminum or other very toxic preservatives and agents. The short and long-term consequences of such assaults particularly in immunocompromised persons or in infants with immature immune systems have been poorly studied. While few scientists seem to be interested in investigating such the side-effects of vaccination, they are significant with up to 3 percent of 2 to 6 month old infants developing moderate to severe local reactions, and up to 37 percent developing a fever following the conventional method of vaccination with the meningococcal group C vaccine.[(M. B. Rennels et al. Safety and immunogenicity of four doses of Neisseria meningitidis group C vaccine conjugated to CRM197 in United States infants. //Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal// 2001; 20 (2): 153-9.)]
-A second example of homeoprophylaxis on large segments of population has been reported in India where epidemics of Japanese encephalitis have been recurrent since 1970. From 1987 to 1989 there were 5,172 deaths among 16,871 cases of Japanese encephalitis, a mortality rate of 30 percent. In 1991, a single dose of Belladonna 200 C (the genius epidemicus) was given as a prophylaxis to 322,812 persons in 96 villages in four districts of India. Follow-ups with 39,250 persons were conducted and it was found that none reported any signs or symptoms of Japanese encephalitis. The research team also treated homeopathically 223 patients with encephalitis in remote areas who had not received any treatment, as well as 14 other patients who had been discharged from hospitals and were suffering from sequellae of encephalitis, such as convulsions (7 cases), unconsciousness (6 cases) and opisthotonos (3 cases). All the 223 patients received symptomatic relief and improvement was seen in varying degrees in almost all the symptoms in the second group of 14 patients. Four out these 14 experienced complete recoveries.[(52)]
+A second example of homeoprophylaxis on large segments of population has been reported in India where epidemics of Japanese encephalitis have been recurrent since 1970. From 1987 to 1989 there were 5,172 deaths among 16,871 cases of Japanese encephalitis, a mortality rate of 30 percent. In 1991, a single dose of Belladonna 200 C (the genius epidemicus) was given as a prophylaxis to 322,812 persons in 96 villages in four districts of India. Follow-ups with 39,250 persons were conducted and it was found that none reported any signs or symptoms of Japanese encephalitis. The research team also treated homeopathically 223 patients with encephalitis in remote areas who had not received any treatment, as well as 14 other patients who had been discharged from hospitals and were suffering from sequellae of encephalitis, such as convulsions (7 cases), unconsciousness (6 cases) and opisthotonos (3 cases). All the 223 patients received symptomatic relief and improvement was seen in varying degrees in almost all the symptoms in the second group of 14 patients. Four out these 14 experienced complete recoveries.[(D. P. Rastogi and V. D. Sharma. Study of homoeopathic drugs in encephalitis epidemic (1991) in Uttar Pradesh (India). //Central Council for Research Quarterly Bulletin// 1992; 14: 1-11.)]
 A third example of homeoprophylaxis on large segments of the population was conducted in Cuba in 2007 during an epidemic of Leptospirosis, which 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. The symptoms caused by Leptospirosis infection are extremely variable and potentially dangerous, they include meningitis, pneumonitis, hepatitis, nephritis, mastitis, myocarditis, hemorrhagic crisis and multi-organ failure, with a reported mortality varying between 4 and 50%.
@@ Line 135: / Line 135: @@
 There was a significant decrease (84%) of the disease incidence in the intervention provinces, while incidence rose in the non-intervention regions by 22%—despite significantly higher risk of disease in the intervention regions.
-The cost of homeoprophylaxis was about 2% of the one for the conventional vaccine even though that the world’s only commercially available vaccine against Leptospirosis is manufactured in Cuba.[(53)]
+The cost of homeoprophylaxis was about 2% of the one for the conventional vaccine even though that the world’s only commercially available vaccine against Leptospirosis is manufactured in Cuba.[(Gustavo Bracho, et al. Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control. //Homeopathy// 2010; 99: 156-166.)]
-During the NIP, homeopathic physicians applied homeoprophylaxis, as they have commonly done in all epidemical diseases since Hahnemann. Many reports on homeoprophylaxis during the NIP can be found in the homeopathic literature. For instance, Dr. W. A. Pearson, dean of the Hahnemann Medical College in Philadelphia, wrote, “Just previous to the epidemic of influenza the Hahnemann Unit of  the Students Army Training Corps was organized. Dr. G. Harlan Wells was chief Medical Officer and was directly responsible for the health of our students. Gelsemium 3 Decimal was  given to every student four times a day as a prophylactic and  not a single serious case of influenza developed, and, of course, no deaths, while the Spring Garden Institute Unit, which was  housed in the same armory with the Hahnemann Unit, had  seven deaths directly attributable to influenza. This is even  more remarkable since our senior and junior students were  released for one week to do emergency work with influenza  patients, and many of them worked day and night during this  period.  During the epidemic when all the nurses in the Hahnemann  Hospital were working day and night without any consideration for their own health, a total of fifty-seven of them at different times had to finally go to bed, and a large proportion  of these had influenza, but not a single one of them developed  pneumonia. It is perfectly proper to state that these nurses  were under the care of Dr. William R. Williams. How would it be possible to convince any one of the merits of homeopathy if he failed to believe that homeopathic  physicians had a much lower mortality that the average? Homeopathy requires no apology. Its practical value is its  greatest asset.”[(54)]
+During the NIP, homeopathic physicians applied homeoprophylaxis, as they have commonly done in all epidemical diseases since Hahnemann. Many reports on homeoprophylaxis during the NIP can be found in the homeopathic literature. For instance, Dr. W. A. Pearson, dean of the Hahnemann Medical College in Philadelphia, wrote, “Just previous to the epidemic of influenza the Hahnemann Unit of  the Students Army Training Corps was organized. Dr. G. Harlan Wells was chief Medical Officer and was directly responsible for the health of our students. Gelsemium 3 Decimal was  given to every student four times a day as a prophylactic and  not a single serious case of influenza developed, and, of course, no deaths, while the Spring Garden Institute Unit, which was  housed in the same armory with the Hahnemann Unit, had  seven deaths directly attributable to influenza. This is even  more remarkable since our senior and junior students were  released for one week to do emergency work with influenza  patients, and many of them worked day and night during this  period.  During the epidemic when all the nurses in the Hahnemann  Hospital were working day and night without any consideration for their own health, a total of fifty-seven of them at different times had to finally go to bed, and a large proportion  of these had influenza, but not a single one of them developed  pneumonia. It is perfectly proper to state that these nurses  were under the care of Dr. William R. Williams. How would it be possible to convince any one of the merits of homeopathy if he failed to believe that homeopathic  physicians had a much lower mortality that the average? Homeopathy requires no apology. Its practical value is its  greatest asset.”[(William A. Pearson. Epidemic influenza treated by homeopahic physicians. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-1920; 12: 11-13.)]
-The second way of homeoprophylaxis relates to the prevention of the development of the complications and the later stages of an epidemical disease as soon as homeopathic treatment is initiated. When genuine homeopathic treatment is administered to persons experiencing the first symptoms of an epidemical infection the progression of the infection is soon mitigated, and it would therefore be very unlikely for such persons to develop the more advanced stages of morbidity and complications, the ones leading to death. Professor A. H. Grimmer of the Hering Medical College in Chicago, who was known to be a Hahnemannian, pointed out while in the midst of the NIP, “It is a rare thing  for a pneumonia to develop if a good homeopathic physician is called  during the first twenty-four hours of an attack of influenza.”[(55)]
+The second way of homeoprophylaxis relates to the prevention of the development of the complications and the later stages of an epidemical disease as soon as homeopathic treatment is initiated. When genuine homeopathic treatment is administered to persons experiencing the first symptoms of an epidemical infection the progression of the infection is soon mitigated, and it would therefore be very unlikely for such persons to develop the more advanced stages of morbidity and complications, the ones leading to death. Professor A. H. Grimmer of the Hering Medical College in Chicago, who was known to be a Hahnemannian, pointed out while in the midst of the NIP, “It is a rare thing  for a pneumonia to develop if a good homeopathic physician is called  during the first twenty-four hours of an attack of influenza.”[(A. H. Grimmer. Remedies frquently indicated in the recent epidemics of Spanish influenza and pneumonia. Clinique 1919; 40: 11-16.)]
-Dr. John McBride of Zanesville, Ohio remarked, “During the epidemic of 1918, when in my city the death rate was very high, it was the other fellow who kept the undertakers busy, so that they said our profession did not have cases of pneumonia. I do think our treatment prevented the development of pneumonia.” [(56)]
+Dr. John McBride of Zanesville, Ohio remarked, “During the epidemic of 1918, when in my city the death rate was very high, it was the other fellow who kept the undertakers busy, so that they said our profession did not have cases of pneumonia. I do think our treatment prevented the development of pneumonia.” [(John McBride. Discussion. A study of the comparative value of the homeopathic treatment and other methods of treatment in lobar pneumonia. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1922-1923; 15: 541-550.)]
-A good example of this aspect of homeoprophylaxis is found in the survey mentioned earlier that was conducted in Central Iowa among homeopathic physicians, in which Dr. L. A. Royal reported that, out of 5,032 cases of influenza, only 137 developed pneumonia, which is 3% instead of the 30% reported under allopathic care.[(57)] This 27% difference could also be related to other factors, such as the promotion of pneumonia and other complications of influenza from the use of the allopathic interventions used during the NIP.
+A good example of this aspect of homeoprophylaxis is found in the survey mentioned earlier that was conducted in Central Iowa among homeopathic physicians, in which Dr. L. A. Royal reported that, out of 5,032 cases of influenza, only 137 developed pneumonia, which is 3% instead of the 30% reported under allopathic care.[(L. A. Royal. Influenza and its results under homeopathic care in Central Iowa. //Iowa Homeopathic Journal// 1919-1920; 13: 194-198.)] This 27% difference could also be related to other factors, such as the promotion of pneumonia and other complications of influenza from the use of the allopathic interventions used during the NIP.
-The third way that homeoprophylaxis takes effect is through the heightened resistance to the causes of diseases in people who have already been under homeopathic care for some years prior to an epidemic. Dr. R. F. Rabe pointed out this aspect of homeoprophylaxis in his September 1919 editorial of the //Homoeopathic Recorder//, “It is an undoubted fact that patients accustomed to good homeopathic prescribing, have been more resistant to the infection of influenza, or for that matter, to the infection of any other disease. When such patients do become ill the illness is likely to be less severe and more quickly and easily overcome. For this reason homeopathic physicians are often charged with having the easy cases, when in reality they prevent them from becoming difficult. This is at the same time an advantage, as well as a disadvantage of homeopathy, for to the uninitiated it appears so ridiculously simple that to their minds there can be nothing in it.”[(58)]
+The third way that homeoprophylaxis takes effect is through the heightened resistance to the causes of diseases in people who have already been under homeopathic care for some years prior to an epidemic. Dr. R. F. Rabe pointed out this aspect of homeoprophylaxis in his September 1919 editorial of the //Homoeopathic Recorder//, “It is an undoubted fact that patients accustomed to good homeopathic prescribing, have been more resistant to the infection of influenza, or for that matter, to the infection of any other disease. When such patients do become ill the illness is likely to be less severe and more quickly and easily overcome. For this reason homeopathic physicians are often charged with having the easy cases, when in reality they prevent them from becoming difficult. This is at the same time an advantage, as well as a disadvantage of homeopathy, for to the uninitiated it appears so ridiculously simple that to their minds there can be nothing in it.”[(R. F. Rabe. Editorial notes and comments. //Homoeopathic Recorder// 1919; 34: 426-427.)]
-In the same editorial pages, Dr. Rabe added, “Homeopathy, being [based on] a law of nature and working in harmony with her, raises resistance by gradually restoring the physiological balance, in other words, by bringing about a state of health. //Real// homeopathy does not suppress, change or distort disease manifestations. The cure is never worse than the disease! … The homeopathic treatment of such bacterial diseases as influenza, pneumonia, typhoid fever, erysipelas, etc., amply proves that bacteria need have no terrors for him who understands the art of homoeopathic prescribing. Such a prescriber raises the resistance of his patient to bacterial attacks, increases the phagocytic power of the leucocytes; or, in plain language, enables the sufferers to //throw off// the disease.”[(59)]
+In the same editorial pages, Dr. Rabe added, “Homeopathy, being [based on] a law of nature and working in harmony with her, raises resistance by gradually restoring the physiological balance, in other words, by bringing about a state of health. //Real// homeopathy does not suppress, change or distort disease manifestations. The cure is never worse than the disease! … The homeopathic treatment of such bacterial diseases as influenza, pneumonia, typhoid fever, erysipelas, etc., amply proves that bacteria need have no terrors for him who understands the art of homoeopathic prescribing. Such a prescriber raises the resistance of his patient to bacterial attacks, increases the phagocytic power of the leucocytes; or, in plain language, enables the sufferers to //throw off// the disease.”[(R. F. Rabe. The power of resistance. //Homoeopathic Recorder// 1919; 34: 427-429.)]
 **Confounding factors**
@@ Line 155: / Line 155: @@
 The higher percentage of patients presenting with complications, such as pneumonia, or meningitis, would certainly be the major factor to explain mortality differences. Patients with compromised health, e.g. respiratory diseases (tuberculosis, asthma, emphysema, silicosis), or cardiac or renal failure, at the time of influenza are rarely mentioned and would affect outcome negatively for homeopaths who treated mostly civilian populations. Lastly, could the numerous inoculations given to US soldiers during WWI have affected their immune response to the influenza virus and subsequent bacterial infections, and played a role in the higher morbidity and mortality of the military versus the civilian populations?
-During the NIP, the University of Michigan had two departments in its school of medicine, one homeopathic and the other allopathic. Dr. W. B. Hinsdale was the dean of the Homeopathic Department of the University of Michigan Medical School at that time and rightly pointed out that confounding factors must be examined in order to come to a correct assessment of the differences in mortality between the homeopathic and allopathic departments of the university, “No matter how good a comparison we can make as to recoveries and deaths, it was a staggering experience. Our homeopathic record is not particularly a piece of work of which to be proud, although somebody else did considerably worse. At the best it is only a negative consolation that we derive from comparison. As we had it at the university, with about two hundred students, it melted the heart to see even one side. … With him who treated three hundred cases of influenza without a death or  with him who reported twenty-seven deaths out of one hundred and eighty-five cases, it is not recorded whether the influenza was simple or complicated. The reports would have very much more value if we could know this and just how many pneumonia as well as influenzas the one lost and the other saved.”[(60)]
+During the NIP, the University of Michigan had two departments in its school of medicine, one homeopathic and the other allopathic. Dr. W. B. Hinsdale was the dean of the Homeopathic Department of the University of Michigan Medical School at that time and rightly pointed out that confounding factors must be examined in order to come to a correct assessment of the differences in mortality between the homeopathic and allopathic departments of the university, “No matter how good a comparison we can make as to recoveries and deaths, it was a staggering experience. Our homeopathic record is not particularly a piece of work of which to be proud, although somebody else did considerably worse. At the best it is only a negative consolation that we derive from comparison. As we had it at the university, with about two hundred students, it melted the heart to see even one side. … With him who treated three hundred cases of influenza without a death or  with him who reported twenty-seven deaths out of one hundred and eighty-five cases, it is not recorded whether the influenza was simple or complicated. The reports would have very much more value if we could know this and just how many pneumonia as well as influenzas the one lost and the other saved.”[(W. B. Hinsdale. Thw “black death” of 1918-919. //Homoeopathic Recorder// 1920; 35: 314-323.)]
 However, the more one examines the various existing therapeutic outcome reports on the NIP, no clear or significant confounding factor seems to emerge, and the more the //consistency// of the results obtained by homeopathy and allopathy are confirmed regardless of the place, population, circumstance or wave of the epidemic.
-This consistency is very clear for anyone perusing the homeopathic literature as expressed in 1920 by Dr. Crawford Green, a pediatrician from Troy, N.Y., “From every corner of  our great country, wherever homeopathy is practiced and wherever there is opportunity for the exact study of comparative  statistics, there comes indisputable testimony of the wonderful  efficacy of homeopathy. Parallel groups of cases everywhere  show a homeopathic mortality almost negligible when compared  with any other system of therapy.”[(61)]
+This consistency is very clear for anyone perusing the homeopathic literature as expressed in 1920 by Dr. Crawford Green, a pediatrician from Troy, N.Y., “From every corner of  our great country, wherever homeopathy is practiced and wherever there is opportunity for the exact study of comparative  statistics, there comes indisputable testimony of the wonderful  efficacy of homeopathy. Parallel groups of cases everywhere  show a homeopathic mortality almost negligible when compared  with any other system of therapy.”[(Crawford R. Green. The treatment of Influenza in children. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-1920; 12: 1102-1112.)]
-Dr. H. O. Skinner, a pediatrician from St. Paul, Minnesota, similarly remarked, “The remarkable thing about the homeopathic record in  this epidemic is not so much its low mortality, as the fact  that it was made by physicians widely separated, even to different countries and without inter-communication, with the  same line of treatment and the same drugs. When it is considered that this epidemic was unlike anything which had  ever preceded it, that it came on so suddenly as to forbid any  study (to say nothing of the fact that subsequent study has  not yet revealed much) and that it had, therefore, to be met, not specifically, but on general principles, the uniformity of  the homeopathic treatment the world over and the uniformly  good results there from, demonstrating homeopathy's ability  to cope with this protean emergency, when the other schools  of medicine failed utterly, behooves us no more by apathy  than by design to permit it to perish from the face of the earth.”[(62)]
+Dr. H. O. Skinner, a pediatrician from St. Paul, Minnesota, similarly remarked, “The remarkable thing about the homeopathic record in  this epidemic is not so much its low mortality, as the fact  that it was made by physicians widely separated, even to different countries and without inter-communication, with the  same line of treatment and the same drugs. When it is considered that this epidemic was unlike anything which had  ever preceded it, that it came on so suddenly as to forbid any  study (to say nothing of the fact that subsequent study has  not yet revealed much) and that it had, therefore, to be met, not specifically, but on general principles, the uniformity of  the homeopathic treatment the world over and the uniformly  good results there from, demonstrating homeopathy's ability  to cope with this protean emergency, when the other schools  of medicine failed utterly, behooves us no more by apathy  than by design to permit it to perish from the face of the earth.”[(H. O. Skinner. Influenza in children. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1920-1921; 13: 505-514.)]
-A clear illustration of the consistency of the results obtained by the two schools of medicine is found in the following report from Dr. E. B. Finney of Lincoln, Nebraska, “I know of a physician on the border line of Kansas and Nebraska  who reported to Kansas and Nebraska 700 cases without a single death  when he was taken sick and had to go to bed. The disease was very  virulent. There were forty deaths in one week which speaks well for  his treatment as he was the only homeopathic physician in that city.”[(63)]
+A clear illustration of the consistency of the results obtained by the two schools of medicine is found in the following report from Dr. E. B. Finney of Lincoln, Nebraska, “I know of a physician on the border line of Kansas and Nebraska  who reported to Kansas and Nebraska 700 cases without a single death  when he was taken sick and had to go to bed. The disease was very  virulent. There were forty deaths in one week which speaks well for  his treatment as he was the only homeopathic physician in that city.”[(E. B. Finney. Discussion: Influenza: a favoable mortality and publicity. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-1920; 12: 590.)]
 **Age**
-The fact that the outcome of the entire army is related to a population of young men between 18-40 years old who were in relatively good health prior to the epidemic would tend to disfavor the homeopaths who treated an overall less healthy and more susceptible population, which included infants and the older segment of the population. Statistics support this hypothesis, as it can be seen in the District of Columbia where the Commissioners kept good records during the epidemic and reported that in 1918 the average case mortality rate for influenza and pneumonia was 8.6%, but was 20% for the ones under 1 year-old, 7.3% for the ones between 20-29 years, 14% for the ones between 60-69 years, and 33% for the ones with 70 years and over. [(64)] Similarly the average case mortality for the entire US civilian population was about twice as much for infants and the older segment of the population, as it was for the 20-39 year-old segment (1.9% for the ones between 20-24 years, 3% for the ones between 25-29 years, and just above 2% for the ones between 30-39 years, but was about 5% in infants, and about 4% for people over 65 years). [(65)]
+The fact that the outcome of the entire army is related to a population of young men between 18-40 years old who were in relatively good health prior to the epidemic would tend to disfavor the homeopaths who treated an overall less healthy and more susceptible population, which included infants and the older segment of the population. Statistics support this hypothesis, as it can be seen in the District of Columbia where the Commissioners kept good records during the epidemic and reported that in 1918 the average case mortality rate for influenza and pneumonia was 8.6%, but was 20% for the ones under 1 year-old, 7.3% for the ones between 20-29 years, 14% for the ones between 60-69 years, and 33% for the ones with 70 years and over. [(Annual Report of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia Year Ended June 30, 1919. Volume 3. Washington, 42.)] Similarly the average case mortality for the entire US civilian population was about twice as much for infants and the older segment of the population, as it was for the 20-39 year-old segment (1.9% for the ones between 20-24 years, 3% for the ones between 25-29 years, and just above 2% for the ones between 30-39 years, but was about 5% in infants, and about 4% for people over 65 years). [(Wade Hampton Frost. The epidemiology of influenza. //Public Health Reports// 1919; 34 (33): 1823-1836.)]
-Also, regardless of the different conditions associated with the armed forces, such as inoculations and confined spaces, it appears that the same demographic group was similarly affected in the civilian population. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company based in New York City found that the disease killed 3.26% of its insured US industrial workers aged 25--45, a population of young men most similar demographically to the one of the armed forces. [(66)] Given that 25--40% of the population contracted the disease, the case mortality can be estimated to have been between 8--13% in that population.[(67)]
+Also, regardless of the different conditions associated with the armed forces, such as inoculations and confined spaces, it appears that the same demographic group was similarly affected in the civilian population. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company based in New York City found that the disease killed 3.26% of its insured US industrial workers aged 25--45, a population of young men most similar demographically to the one of the armed forces. [(John M. Barry. Pandemics: avoiding the mistakes of 1918. //Nature// 2009; 459 (7245): 324-325.)] Given that 25--40% of the population contracted the disease, the case mortality can be estimated to have been between 8--13% in that population.[(Edwin O Jordan. //Epidemic Influenza. A Survey//. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1927.)]
 Age and being a civilian do not therefore appear to explain the higher case mortality of 5.8-7.21% for the different armies versus the much better results of 0.7% reported by the homeopaths.
-Dr. H. O. Skinner, a pediatrician from St. Paul, Minnesota, reported having loss not a single child out of several hundred cases. [(68)]Dr. Plumb Brown, a pediatrician from Springfield, Massachusetts, said, “My experience was entirely outside of the hospital. I was in general practice. Fortunately the Board of Health obliged us to report our cases. Afterwards by looking up the records we were able to differentiate and find what percentage of cases were children. I found that 44 per cent of my cases were in children below the age of 14, many in young infants. The mortality in all cases was 16 per cent [for Springfield]. Ten per cent of all the cases developed pneumonia. I did not lose a single child.”[(69)]
+Dr. H. O. Skinner, a pediatrician from St. Paul, Minnesota, reported having loss not a single child out of several hundred cases. [(H. O. Skinner. Influenza in children. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1920-1921; 13: 505-514.)]Dr. Plumb Brown, a pediatrician from Springfield, Massachusetts, said, “My experience was entirely outside of the hospital. I was in general practice. Fortunately the Board of Health obliged us to report our cases. Afterwards by looking up the records we were able to differentiate and find what percentage of cases were children. I found that 44 per cent of my cases were in children below the age of 14, many in young infants. The mortality in all cases was 16 per cent [for Springfield]. Ten per cent of all the cases developed pneumonia. I did not lose a single child.”[(Plumb Brown. Discussion: The treatment of influenza in children. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-1920; 12: 1107.)]
-Dr. Stella Q. Root, a homeopathic obstetrician from Stamford, Connecticut, reported, “I only had 91 cases of influenza altogether, and 20 per cent of these  were among children; 25 per cent of the children had pneumonia. I  had no deaths among the children, and but one death in the 91 cases.” [(70)]
+Dr. Stella Q. Root, a homeopathic obstetrician from Stamford, Connecticut, reported, “I only had 91 cases of influenza altogether, and 20 per cent of these  were among children; 25 per cent of the children had pneumonia. I  had no deaths among the children, and but one death in the 91 cases.” [(Stella Q. Root. Discussion: The treatment of influenza in children. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-1920; 12: 1108.)]
-Dr. J. G. Dillon of Fargo, North Dakota further remarked, “The children cases I saw were  those in general practice, as well as the patients at the Institution  known as the North Dakota Children’s Home. … Sixty-seven cases developed [influenza] at the Children's Home without any  complicating pneumonia or death; most of these cases were on Bryonia and Gelsemium, which seemed to be successful in carrying them  through to complete recovery.” [(71)]
+Dr. J. G. Dillon of Fargo, North Dakota further remarked, “The children cases I saw were  those in general practice, as well as the patients at the Institution  known as the North Dakota Children’s Home. … Sixty-seven cases developed [influenza] at the Children's Home without any  complicating pneumonia or death; most of these cases were on Bryonia and Gelsemium, which seemed to be successful in carrying them  through to complete recovery.” [(J. G. Dillon. Discussion: The treatment of influenza in children. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-1920; 12: 1110.)]
-Also some particular segments of the civilian population were greatly more affected than the members of the armed forces. For instance, it was known that the mortality of coal miners was much higher for the same age-male population. For instance, the death rate in coal miners from the 1918 flu epidemic was 36% higher than the same age-adjusted population.[(72)] Dr. Geo Krepreka of Stacyville, Iowa reported in a paper on pneumonia secondary to influenza, “During the months of October, November and December, as  an assistant surgeon in the U. S. Public Health Service, approximately 2,000 cases of influenza were thrust into my hands, and as a result, received at least some form of homeopathic treatment. About one half the time was devoted to the coal mining  camps in the vicinity of Albia and Ottumwa, while the other half  was spent in towns where the residing physicians were either  stricken with the disease themselves, or were in the army. During  this time I had visited 15 different localities, so that I undoubtedly  must have come in contact with the disease in all forms of its  virulence. The death rate under homeopathic treatment, as we  all know, has been exceedingly low, in fact I know of but four  deaths out of the list wherein homeopathic treatment failed.” [(73)]
+Also some particular segments of the civilian population were greatly more affected than the members of the armed forces. For instance, it was known that the mortality of coal miners was much higher for the same age-male population. For instance, the death rate in coal miners from the 1918 flu epidemic was 36% higher than the same age-adjusted population.[(E. B. Starr. Excessive mortality from influenza-pneumonia among bituminous coal miners of Ohio in 1918. //American Journal of Public Health// 1920; //10// (4): 348-351.)] Dr. Geo Krepreka of Stacyville, Iowa reported in a paper on pneumonia secondary to influenza, “During the months of October, November and December, as  an assistant surgeon in the U. S. Public Health Service, approximately 2,000 cases of influenza were thrust into my hands, and as a result, received at least some form of homeopathic treatment. About one half the time was devoted to the coal mining  camps in the vicinity of Albia and Ottumwa, while the other half  was spent in towns where the residing physicians were either  stricken with the disease themselves, or were in the army. During  this time I had visited 15 different localities, so that I undoubtedly  must have come in contact with the disease in all forms of its  virulence. The death rate under homeopathic treatment, as we  all know, has been exceedingly low, in fact I know of but four  deaths out of the list wherein homeopathic treatment failed.” [(George Krepreka. Clinical varieties of pneumonia as secondary to influenza. //Iowa Homeopathic Journal// 1920; 13: 253-258.)]
 **Pregnancy**
@@ Line 185: / Line 185: @@
 The fact that it is widely recognized that the case mortality was highest in pregnant women enhanced the value of outcomes reported by homeopahts, as this population wasn’t present in the army.
-According to a survey sent to all the physicians in Maryland, it was reported that the case mortality was 27% in 1,350 pregnant women with influenza. About 50% of the pregnant women with influenza eventually developed pneumonia, and 54% of these died. Miscarriages occurred in 26% of the ones without pneumonia and in 62% in the ones with pneumonia. 60% of the ones who developed pneumonia in the last three months of pregnancy died. [(74)]
+According to a survey sent to all the physicians in Maryland, it was reported that the case mortality was 27% in 1,350 pregnant women with influenza. About 50% of the pregnant women with influenza eventually developed pneumonia, and 54% of these died. Miscarriages occurred in 26% of the ones without pneumonia and in 62% in the ones with pneumonia. 60% of the ones who developed pneumonia in the last three months of pregnancy died. [(John W. Harris. Influenza occurring in pregnant women. //Journal of the American Medical Association// 1919; 72; 978-980.)]
-Despite these outstanding and difficult odds, the consistency of results under homeopathic treatment was maintained in the population of pregnant women, as it was reported by many homeopathic obstetricians. Dr. Stella Q. Root, a homeopathic obstetrician from Stamford, Connecticut, said, “I did not complete my record  in time to write Dr. Huntoon, and so I brought it with me. It is  comparatively simple.  I only practiced six weeks of the influenza period. During that  time I had 91 cases of influenza, with 23 cases of pneumonia. I had  42 pregnant women, varying from two months to term. Of these 42  pregnant cases, a little less than 25% had influenza, and only three of  these ten had pneumonia. I only lost one case out of the 91. I thought  until I heard the statistics this morning in the Bureau of Homeopathy  that my record was nothing but luck, but now I hope it was due to  homeopathic therapeutics. The case I lost was a woman four months  pregnant. She induced an abortion on herself, had been flowing for  five days and was almost exsanguinated. Her home conditions were  such, that although the hospital was well filled with pneumonia I had  no alternative but to take her there. She stood the curettage well  and was in fair condition when I sent her home in an ambulance at  the end of a week. A week from the time she went home she developed influenza, and almost immediately pneumonia. We felt that a  week was rather long for the exposure if she had contracted it from  cases in the hospital. She died within four days. The fetus was  stillborn. There were four others with influenza delivered during this period.  One had pneumonia quite severely but did not have premature labor,  but a few days after her temperature went to normal she was normally  delivered. Two others had influenza but not pneumonia, and were  delivered almost immediately after the subsidence of the temperature, with no bad symptoms afterwards. One was delivered who had influenza with mild pneumonia after her delivery. Of the other five cases  three have since been delivered safely. Two were only about two  months pregnant at the time of the influenza and are still not delivered.  This was not the experience of Stamford Hospital generally. Of  course a good many cases were sent in in rather extreme conditions, but the superintendent told me that the feeling at the hospital was  that if a woman had influenza and was pregnant, or had a miscarriage, it was practically a fatal case. The cases I treated were all treated  homeopathically, so I give all the credit to homeopathy.” [(75)]
+Despite these outstanding and difficult odds, the consistency of results under homeopathic treatment was maintained in the population of pregnant women, as it was reported by many homeopathic obstetricians. Dr. Stella Q. Root, a homeopathic obstetrician from Stamford, Connecticut, said, “I did not complete my record  in time to write Dr. Huntoon, and so I brought it with me. It is  comparatively simple.  I only practiced six weeks of the influenza period. During that  time I had 91 cases of influenza, with 23 cases of pneumonia. I had  42 pregnant women, varying from two months to term. Of these 42  pregnant cases, a little less than 25% had influenza, and only three of  these ten had pneumonia. I only lost one case out of the 91. I thought  until I heard the statistics this morning in the Bureau of Homeopathy  that my record was nothing but luck, but now I hope it was due to  homeopathic therapeutics. The case I lost was a woman four months  pregnant. She induced an abortion on herself, had been flowing for  five days and was almost exsanguinated. Her home conditions were  such, that although the hospital was well filled with pneumonia I had  no alternative but to take her there. She stood the curettage well  and was in fair condition when I sent her home in an ambulance at  the end of a week. A week from the time she went home she developed influenza, and almost immediately pneumonia. We felt that a  week was rather long for the exposure if she had contracted it from  cases in the hospital. She died within four days. The fetus was  stillborn. There were four others with influenza delivered during this period.  One had pneumonia quite severely but did not have premature labor,  but a few days after her temperature went to normal she was normally  delivered. Two others had influenza but not pneumonia, and were  delivered almost immediately after the subsidence of the temperature, with no bad symptoms afterwards. One was delivered who had influenza with mild pneumonia after her delivery. Of the other five cases  three have since been delivered safely. Two were only about two  months pregnant at the time of the influenza and are still not delivered.  This was not the experience of Stamford Hospital generally. Of  course a good many cases were sent in in rather extreme conditions, but the superintendent told me that the feeling at the hospital was  that if a woman had influenza and was pregnant, or had a miscarriage, it was practically a fatal case. The cases I treated were all treated  homeopathically, so I give all the credit to homeopathy.” [(Stella Q. Root. Discussion: Influenza and pregnancy. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-1920; 12: 931-932.)]
-Similarly, Dr. Anna Johnston of Pittsburgh reported the same consistency of results in pregnant women, “Before I left home I was  too busy to fill out the questionnaire. I had 266 patients and did not  lose a single case. I had 12 cases of pneumonia, mostly among children. Part of those were in the hospital. We had some very sick  children there who had come in from different families. They had  originally had influenza but developed pneumonia. One child ran  a temperature of 106.6, and the worst one had a temperature of 107, pulse 180, respirations 80. She got well. I had eight pregnant cases, two were seven months pregnant. The peculiarity of one case was  that she was practically over the influenza when she developed pernicious vomiting. The vomiting was very severe and lasted for days. We had to resort to rectal feeding. We thought we would lose her, but she recovered. I did not lose any of those cases. All went through  to term, were delivered, and everything was all right.”[(76)]
+Similarly, Dr. Anna Johnston of Pittsburgh reported the same consistency of results in pregnant women, “Before I left home I was  too busy to fill out the questionnaire. I had 266 patients and did not  lose a single case. I had 12 cases of pneumonia, mostly among children. Part of those were in the hospital. We had some very sick  children there who had come in from different families. They had  originally had influenza but developed pneumonia. One child ran  a temperature of 106.6, and the worst one had a temperature of 107, pulse 180, respirations 80. She got well. I had eight pregnant cases, two were seven months pregnant. The peculiarity of one case was  that she was practically over the influenza when she developed pernicious vomiting. The vomiting was very severe and lasted for days. We had to resort to rectal feeding. We thought we would lose her, but she recovered. I did not lose any of those cases. All went through  to term, were delivered, and everything was all right.”[(Anna Johnston. Discussion: Influenza and pregnancy. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-1920; 12: 933.)]
-Dr. L. A. Royal of West Liberty, Iowa reported in the survey of homeopathic physicians from Central Iowa that was mentioned earlier, “Another complication or condition that complicated the ‘flu’ was pregnancy. I had a report of about fifty cases. Four of  which miscarried. Two poorly developed blue babies were reported where the mother had the ‘flu’ late in her pregnancy. I  had six cases with the combination of pregnancy, ‘flu’ and  pneumonia at the same time with no mortality. In fact of the  forty some cases reported of pregnancy complicated with ‘flu’ and pneumonia there was no mortality reported. This  is a striking contrast between no deaths out of fifty and the reports by Harris in the A. M. A. journal, volume 72, page 978 where  he recorded 1,350 cases of ‘flu’ and pregnancy of which 54  per cent resulted fatally and 62 percent aborted.” [(77)] In the survey from Harris in JAMA, out of 678 pregnant women with pneumonia 365 died.[(78)]
+Dr. L. A. Royal of West Liberty, Iowa reported in the survey of homeopathic physicians from Central Iowa that was mentioned earlier, “Another complication or condition that complicated the ‘flu’ was pregnancy. I had a report of about fifty cases. Four of  which miscarried. Two poorly developed blue babies were reported where the mother had the ‘flu’ late in her pregnancy. I  had six cases with the combination of pregnancy, ‘flu’ and  pneumonia at the same time with no mortality. In fact of the  forty some cases reported of pregnancy complicated with ‘flu’ and pneumonia there was no mortality reported. This  is a striking contrast between no deaths out of fifty and the reports by Harris in the A. M. A. journal, volume 72, page 978 where  he recorded 1,350 cases of ‘flu’ and pregnancy of which 54  per cent resulted fatally and 62 percent aborted.” [(L. A. Royal. Influenza and its results under homeopathic care in Central Iowa. //Iowa Homeopathic Journal// 1919-1920; 13: 194-198.)] In the survey from Harris in JAMA, out of 678 pregnant women with pneumonia 365 died.[(John W. Harris. Influenza occurring in pregnant women. //Journal of the American Medical Association// 1919; 72; 978-980.)]
-Also homeopaths had their share of difficult cases in pregnant women. Dr. Susan J. Fenton of Oakland reported several difficult cases with late stage pneumonia, as in this pregnant woman with double bronchial-pneumonia, “Mrs. H., mother of three, had been under another [allopathic]  physician’s care for one week when I was called. I found a  complication of seven-month pregnancy with double bronchial pneumonia, temperature, 102-103 degrees, pulse 110-120, respiration 50-60. The patient was unable to breathe except  by having the head rose on three pillows, mild delirium was  present, and great restlessness. She has no nurse except a  sister who attended her by day while the husband was at work, and he took care of her at night. On the eighth day, her baby was delivered, weighing four  pounds. A wet nurse was secured and the child is well and  thriving. Fortunately the lungs began to clear after delivery,  and while she made a slow recovery, she is now well.” She concluded, “I had thought my record pretty good with only one  death in 100 cases during the first epidemic, and none in the  same number of cases for the second, until I read in some  journal of one homeopath who reported 2,000 cases without  a single death.”[(79)]
+Also homeopaths had their share of difficult cases in pregnant women. Dr. Susan J. Fenton of Oakland reported several difficult cases with late stage pneumonia, as in this pregnant woman with double bronchial-pneumonia, “Mrs. H., mother of three, had been under another [allopathic]  physician’s care for one week when I was called. I found a  complication of seven-month pregnancy with double bronchial pneumonia, temperature, 102-103 degrees, pulse 110-120, respiration 50-60. The patient was unable to breathe except  by having the head rose on three pillows, mild delirium was  present, and great restlessness. She has no nurse except a  sister who attended her by day while the husband was at work, and he took care of her at night. On the eighth day, her baby was delivered, weighing four  pounds. A wet nurse was secured and the child is well and  thriving. Fortunately the lungs began to clear after delivery,  and while she made a slow recovery, she is now well.” She concluded, “I had thought my record pretty good with only one  death in 100 cases during the first epidemic, and none in the  same number of cases for the second, until I read in some  journal of one homeopath who reported 2,000 cases without  a single death.”[(Susan J. Fenton. Experiences during influenza epidemic. //Pacific Coast Journal of Homoeopathy// 1919; 30: 142-144.)]
 **Complications and Mortality Rates in Military versus Civilian Populations**
-Whether the percentage of complicated cases and the ensuing death rate were higher in the military versus the civilian population is not obvious at first glance. However, there are more indications that the mortality rate was overall actually higher in the civilian population, of which about 90% received allopathic treatment and 10% received homeopathic treatment. For instance, following the NIP, the Health Commissioner of Buffalo conducted a very thorough survey with more than 2,000 public school teachers at  his command for a house-to-house canvass. He was able to establish the fact that during the influenza epidemic practically all influenza cases in the city of Buffalo had been  reported. He wrote regarding the verification of their statistics, “Much has been said and  written about the inaccuracy of morbidity statistics  relative to influenza. … With 2,000 teachers at my command I was enabled  to accomplish much which otherwise would have  remained impossibility. First, I was enabled to  check up the reported cases. As a result of this comparison I found that fully 95 per cent of all the cases  were reported, the remaining 5 per cent, being practically those in which the patients were only slightly ill,  therefore deeming it unnecessary to call a physician, or  those in which, for some reason or other, it had been  impossible to obtain a physician.” Out of 31,842 cases of influenza and pneumonia there were 28,663 recoveries and 3,179 deaths, a mortality of 10%. [(80)]
+Whether the percentage of complicated cases and the ensuing death rate were higher in the military versus the civilian population is not obvious at first glance. However, there are more indications that the mortality rate was overall actually higher in the civilian population, of which about 90% received allopathic treatment and 10% received homeopathic treatment. For instance, following the NIP, the Health Commissioner of Buffalo conducted a very thorough survey with more than 2,000 public school teachers at  his command for a house-to-house canvass. He was able to establish the fact that during the influenza epidemic practically all influenza cases in the city of Buffalo had been  reported. He wrote regarding the verification of their statistics, “Much has been said and  written about the inaccuracy of morbidity statistics  relative to influenza. … With 2,000 teachers at my command I was enabled  to accomplish much which otherwise would have  remained impossibility. First, I was enabled to  check up the reported cases. As a result of this comparison I found that fully 95 per cent of all the cases  were reported, the remaining 5 per cent, being practically those in which the patients were only slightly ill,  therefore deeming it unnecessary to call a physician, or  those in which, for some reason or other, it had been  impossible to obtain a physician.” Out of 31,842 cases of influenza and pneumonia there were 28,663 recoveries and 3,179 deaths, a mortality of 10%. [(Franklin C. Gram. The influenza and its after-effects in the city of Buffalo. Journal of the American Medical Association 1919; 73: 886-891.)]
-These numbers are not dissimilar to the ones of another reliable larger scale report from the Public Health Service conducted in the District of Columbia: “The total number of cases of influenza reported to the Public Health Service from October 1, 1918 to February 1, 1919 was 33,719, and the total number of deaths from that disease was 2,215, a mortality of 6.6%. In addition to the number of deaths from influenza during this period, 680 deaths resulted from pneumonia, probably largely due also to influenza.”[(81)] Without including the pneumonia cases, the cases mortality rate is similar to the ones reported by the different armies. However, by including the pneumonia cases as it was done in the army, the mortality was significantly greater at 8.6%. Unfortunately, the statistics of the outcomes from both the homeopathic and allopathic health care are mixed together in this civilian population, and can’t be used for comparison. However, as the homeopaths had significantly less mortality throughout the country as well in the District of Columbia, as seen in the survey mentioned earlier, [(82)] the case mortality average for this civilian population would even be higher by subtracting the homeopathic outcome.
+These numbers are not dissimilar to the ones of another reliable larger scale report from the Public Health Service conducted in the District of Columbia: “The total number of cases of influenza reported to the Public Health Service from October 1, 1918 to February 1, 1919 was 33,719, and the total number of deaths from that disease was 2,215, a mortality of 6.6%. In addition to the number of deaths from influenza during this period, 680 deaths resulted from pneumonia, probably largely due also to influenza.”[(Annual Report of the Commissioners of the District of Columbia Year Ended June 30, 1919. Volume 3. Washington, 17-18.)] Without including the pneumonia cases, the cases mortality rate is similar to the ones reported by the different armies. However, by including the pneumonia cases as it was done in the army, the mortality was significantly greater at 8.6%. Unfortunately, the statistics of the outcomes from both the homeopathic and allopathic health care are mixed together in this civilian population, and can’t be used for comparison. However, as the homeopaths had significantly less mortality throughout the country as well in the District of Columbia, as seen in the survey mentioned earlier, [(Ernest F. Sappington. Discussion: Influenza: a favortable mortality and publicity. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-20; 12: 588.)] the case mortality average for this civilian population would even be higher by subtracting the homeopathic outcome.
 **Percentages of Cases with Complications**
@@ Line 205: / Line 205: @@
 It is possible that homeopaths as a whole had less cases of influenza that developed complications (pneumonia, meningitis, etc.), as homeopathic treatment will prevent influenza from further progressing as soon it is implemented and will thus greatly prevent the incidence of complications.
-However, homeopaths did have their share of complicated cases as Dr. C. Martz of Fort Wayne, Indiana pointed out, “During the influenza epidemic I was busy day and night, treating the most serious and complicated conditions of this disease. However, throughout the entire run of the epidemic I had no serious developments of pneumonia, no bad ‘after effects’ of the disease, and not one death. This is sure proof of the efficiency of homeopathic treatment, as I treated all cases strictly homeopathically.”[(83)]
+However, homeopaths did have their share of complicated cases as Dr. C. Martz of Fort Wayne, Indiana pointed out, “During the influenza epidemic I was busy day and night, treating the most serious and complicated conditions of this disease. However, throughout the entire run of the epidemic I had no serious developments of pneumonia, no bad ‘after effects’ of the disease, and not one death. This is sure proof of the efficiency of homeopathic treatment, as I treated all cases strictly homeopathically.”[(C. Martz. Discussion. A study of the comparative value of the homeopathic treatment and other methods of treatment in lobar pneumonia. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1922-1923; 15: 541-550.)]
-Similarly, the assumption that physicians didn’t see fulminant cases in the civil population is clearly contradicted by Dr. Royal H. S. Hayes’ experience, who wrote in the winter of 1919, “I would say that Waterbury [Connecticut] was one of the hardest-hit cities in the country and there were many cases of pneumonia here of that malignant type during October with occasional cases since. … Dr. George Royal furthermore says he studied but could not find a simillimum for these desperate cases.[(84)] If we turn to the Hahnemann’s provings of Cuprum metallicum, it will be seen that Cuprum metallicum is exactly the remedy. It has, in fact, checked many of the cases for me, and quickly, the cure being more rapid than the progress was downward, sometimes. If the condition is so far advanced that the rattling has become extensive in both lungs and the pulse above  120, Cuprum metallicum can only palliate, and often with borderline cases careful observation and dexterity is necessary to bring reactions to the viable point. I have had no experience with potencies lower than the 200th, preferring after some observation to hit hard at once with the 40 M or 50 M.”[(85)]
+Similarly, the assumption that physicians didn’t see fulminant cases in the civil population is clearly contradicted by Dr. Royal H. S. Hayes’ experience, who wrote in the winter of 1919, “I would say that Waterbury [Connecticut] was one of the hardest-hit cities in the country and there were many cases of pneumonia here of that malignant type during October with occasional cases since. … Dr. George Royal furthermore says he studied but could not find a simillimum for these desperate cases.[(Dr. Hayes was referring to Dr. George Royal who had previously reported that during the NIP he had difficulty finding the genius epidemicus, and recommended that homeopaths should never stop proving medicines in order to be able to face any upcoming contigencies (George Royal. Drug proving: why and how should homeopaths prove drugs. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1918-1919; 11: 727-733).)] If we turn to the Hahnemann’s provings of Cuprum metallicum, it will be seen that Cuprum metallicum is exactly the remedy. It has, in fact, checked many of the cases for me, and quickly, the cure being more rapid than the progress was downward, sometimes. If the condition is so far advanced that the rattling has become extensive in both lungs and the pulse above  120, Cuprum metallicum can only palliate, and often with borderline cases careful observation and dexterity is necessary to bring reactions to the viable point. I have had no experience with potencies lower than the 200th, preferring after some observation to hit hard at once with the 40 M or 50 M.”[(Royal H. S. Hayes. Influenza: brief comments. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1918-1919; 11: 846.)]
 In an article written in 1921, Dr. Hayes described several such cases with fulminant pneumonia he treated during the NIP, “ ‘Black’ cases and swift ensuing deaths raged in certain neighborhoods as if struck by overwhelming fate. Cuprum metallicum was the genius of the ‘Spanish’ strain of influenza here and often, turned the vitality streaming back where the apparently indicated Bryonia had not availed.
@@ Line 231: / Line 231: @@
 “A striking cure: Boy, 6 years. October 25th. Projectile vomiting, bloody. Sweaty and flushed all over. Beating frontal headache ameliorated by holding it with the cold hand. Averse to touch or motion. Delirium about his play; appears wild. Dozing and starting, escaping from bed. P. 144, T. 103. Belladonna 1 M, one dose (was not then familiar with Cuprum metallicum) That evening: active delirium, great muscular strength, could hardly be held down by two strong women, constant attempts to escape, constant stream of talking and screaming, tears running down face, drenched with sweat; insatiable thirst but taking only small drinks, pain in epigastrium, rapid running of tongue out and in, gnashing teeth, right lung involved. T. 106, P. about 160. Cuprum metallicum CM, one dose at noon. Next day his temperature was 100 and he was sitting at the table eating soup notwithstanding which he made a rapid recovery. His mother said that she could see him improve each hour until at night he fell asleep.
-“Cuprum metallicum made the most brilliant and sensational cures of severe or prolonged cases besides curing the mild ones at every turn. It is difficult to resist the temptation to report them but we will close by reporting one or two actions of the remedy in sequelae or imperfect recoveries. … There were many cases of debility persisting weeks or months after allopathic treatment presenting more or less clear symptoms for Cuprum metallicum and the remedy acted quite satisfactorily.”[(86)]
+“Cuprum metallicum made the most brilliant and sensational cures of severe or prolonged cases besides curing the mild ones at every turn. It is difficult to resist the temptation to report them but we will close by reporting one or two actions of the remedy in sequelae or imperfect recoveries. … There were many cases of debility persisting weeks or months after allopathic treatment presenting more or less clear symptoms for Cuprum metallicum and the remedy acted quite satisfactorily.”[(Royal H. S. Hayes. Using Cuprum in “flu,” etc. //Proceedings of the International Hahnemannian Association// 1921: 280-286.)]
-Mario DiCecco of Litchfield, Connecticut reported having discussed with his grand-father, Dr. Royal Hayes, the great influenza epidemic, and Dr. Hayes had told him that after losing a few cases at the beginning of the epidemic he discovered that Cuprum metallicum was the //genius epidemicus// for the area, and subsequently didn’t lose any more case in over 900 patients, of which 69 presented with the “malignant” type of pneumonia. [(87)]
+Mario DiCecco of Litchfield, Connecticut reported having discussed with his grand-father, Dr. Royal Hayes, the great influenza epidemic, and Dr. Hayes had told him that after losing a few cases at the beginning of the epidemic he discovered that Cuprum metallicum was the //genius epidemicus// for the area, and subsequently didn’t lose any more case in over 900 patients, of which 69 presented with the “malignant” type of pneumonia. [(Personal communication, July 5, 2013.)]
-It is known that patients, even in the most advanced and desperate state of pneumonia, or any other acute infections, will recover under the simillimum if it is properly administered. Dr. C. A. Dixon of Akron, Ohio described such a desperate case of pneumonia he saw being treated by a more experienced colleague during the NIP, “The patient was in complete collapse, jaw dropped, tongue black, breathing irregular, unconscious defecation, etc. A desperate case I think you will all admit. The homeopath who had it in charge did not resort to morphine, nor to digitalis, nor anything but the indicated remedy, which in that case we thought was Lycopodium. That was given I think in a 50 M. The lady made a complete recovery from that deathbed scene, and is now well, very much to the surprise of even the nurse who was on the case.”[(88)]
+It is known that patients, even in the most advanced and desperate state of pneumonia, or any other acute infections, will recover under the simillimum if it is properly administered. Dr. C. A. Dixon of Akron, Ohio described such a desperate case of pneumonia he saw being treated by a more experienced colleague during the NIP, “The patient was in complete collapse, jaw dropped, tongue black, breathing irregular, unconscious defecation, etc. A desperate case I think you will all admit. The homeopath who had it in charge did not resort to morphine, nor to digitalis, nor anything but the indicated remedy, which in that case we thought was Lycopodium. That was given I think in a 50 M. The lady made a complete recovery from that deathbed scene, and is now well, very much to the surprise of even the nurse who was on the case.”[(C. A. Dixon. Discussion. Some indicated remedies in pneumonia. //Central Journal of Homeopathy// 1921; 2 (7): 32-35.)]
 **Case Fatality in Pneumonia Cases**
-As we are more interested in pneumonia cases, not all returns from homeopaths separated the cases of pneumonia from the ones of uncomplicated influenza. However, there are a sufficient number of reports from homeopaths indicating the total numbers of influenza and pneumonia cases and deaths //with the same consistency of outcome//, as the following one from Dr. T. O. Barnhill of Findlay, Ohio, “We had a whirlwind in Ohio, which lasted until the first of January. I treated four hundred and fifty-five cases of influenza and twenty-six of pneumonia. I lost not a case.” [(89)]
+As we are more interested in pneumonia cases, not all returns from homeopaths separated the cases of pneumonia from the ones of uncomplicated influenza. However, there are a sufficient number of reports from homeopaths indicating the total numbers of influenza and pneumonia cases and deaths //with the same consistency of outcome//, as the following one from Dr. T. O. Barnhill of Findlay, Ohio, “We had a whirlwind in Ohio, which lasted until the first of January. I treated four hundred and fifty-five cases of influenza and twenty-six of pneumonia. I lost not a case.” [(T. O. Barnhill. Discussion: Influenza: a favoable mortality and publicity. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-1920; 12: 595.)]
 **Comparative Records Between the Two Schools Within the Same Locality**
-When physicians were practicing in the same town with the exact same population this consistency of results is again observed, as it was reported by Dr. H. H. Crum of Ithaca, New York, “I had three hundred cases with one death. One good homeopathic doctor had two hundred and seventy- five cases and no deaths [0.17% mortality for the combined outcome from these two homeopathic physicians]. I am the health officer for the city of Ithaca and had all cases reported to me. In October and November 1918, twenty-four hundred cases of influenza were reported. Seventy-five died [3% mortality for the combined homeopathic and allopathic outcomes]. Of the twenty-four hundred cases, between nine and ten hundred were Cornell students, eight hundred of them belonging to the army. They were students of military tactics and all of them were cared for by army doctors. They were hospital cases. The dormitories were turned into hospitals. The treatment was entirely allopathic. Students of the army class were healthy but, even so, forty-five of the seventy-five deaths occurred among those nine hundred students [5% mortality]. Private patients fared much better. In going over the records of deaths, I found that I had but one death while the old school man next to me, who has patients of the same class as mine are, had fifteen deaths among the same number of cases. Think of it! Two hundred and ninety-four cases with fifteen deaths! [5% mortality] …  There are other homeopaths in Ithaca and we feel that we have a right to be proud of losing so few patients.”[(90)]
+When physicians were practicing in the same town with the exact same population this consistency of results is again observed, as it was reported by Dr. H. H. Crum of Ithaca, New York, “I had three hundred cases with one death. One good homeopathic doctor had two hundred and seventy- five cases and no deaths [0.17% mortality for the combined outcome from these two homeopathic physicians]. I am the health officer for the city of Ithaca and had all cases reported to me. In October and November 1918, twenty-four hundred cases of influenza were reported. Seventy-five died [3% mortality for the combined homeopathic and allopathic outcomes]. Of the twenty-four hundred cases, between nine and ten hundred were Cornell students, eight hundred of them belonging to the army. They were students of military tactics and all of them were cared for by army doctors. They were hospital cases. The dormitories were turned into hospitals. The treatment was entirely allopathic. Students of the army class were healthy but, even so, forty-five of the seventy-five deaths occurred among those nine hundred students [5% mortality]. Private patients fared much better. In going over the records of deaths, I found that I had but one death while the old school man next to me, who has patients of the same class as mine are, had fifteen deaths among the same number of cases. Think of it! Two hundred and ninety-four cases with fifteen deaths! [5% mortality] …  There are other homeopaths in Ithaca and we feel that we have a right to be proud of losing so few patients.”[(H. H. Crum. Discussion: Influenza: a favoable mortality and publicity. //Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy// 1919-1920; 12: 595.)]
 Dr. Martha I. Boger of Portsmouth, New Hampshire reported, “During the first  epidemic, I treated 531 cases with two deaths. One patient  committed suicide. The temperature had become normal, but  there was insanity in the family. The other patient was mahogany colored, having been pronounced as dying by the  regular physicians who preceded me. In spite of that, she  lived five days longer. Had I been a better prescriber, I believe she would have recovered.  In the second epidemic, I have not kept so close a record, but I have lost but one, also diagnosed by my predecessors as  hopeless. However, two other cases with similar verdict recovered. Dr. Stone of the Kittery, Portsmouth U. S. Sanitary  Zone, said that I had the lowest death record in the community. This sounds boastful, but I have openly declared  that it was not my luck, but the therapeutics which I have  practiced.” [(91)]

Legatum Homeopathicum

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools