When I first saw this press-release, I thought it was a hoax. After all, it came from a most dubious homeopathic source. Then I read it again and was no longer sure.
What do you think?
Here it is in full:
Santa Clara, Cuba, April 3,2020 (Prensa Latina) The homeopathic medicine Prevengho-VIR began to be administered as a measure to confront the Covid-19 in this province of central Cuba.
Dr. Mirtha Rosa Hernandez, head of the Department of the Elderly in Villa Clara, reported that the supply of the preparation began in the Grandparents’ Homes and Elderly Homes of the territory, which has 184,000 people over 60 years old, 23.9 percent of the local universe. The medicine is administered by doctors and nurses of the basic working group where the Grandparents’ Homes and Nursing Homes are located in the 13 municipalities of this province.
This homeopathic medicine comes in a 10-milliliter bottle, and the daily dosage is 5 drops, thrice a day; while on the tenth day a reactivation of the initial dose is performed. It is aimed at preventing the respiratory diseases in this risk group, in addition to other medical conditions, such as dengue.
In the upcoming days it will be extended to the Maternal Homes. It is administered by the doctors and the nurses from the basic work group of the senior homes.
She said, that besides avoiding the new coronavirus the formula is also aimed at preventing respiratory diseases in this risk group, in addition to others such as dengue fever.
This medicine can also be administered to children under 10 years old, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and patients with liver disorders.
Anas berberiae 200
Baptisia tinctora 200
Eupetorium perf 200
Arsenicum Album 200
As I said, I was not sure whether this was for real. Is it possible that even officials are so stupid, brainwashed or gullible to go for homeopathy in such a serious situation?
In an attempt to find out, I did a little search and quickly found that the story has been reported by multiple media. This, for instance, is what the Miami Herald reported:
As scientists around the world speed up clinical trials to find a cure or vaccine for the coronavirus, the Cuban government will begin distributing a homeopathic remedy to the elderly and other vulnerable people to “prevent” the spread of the disease, a top health official said.
Dr. Francisco Durán, national director of Epidemiology at the Ministry of Public Health, said in a press conference on Sunday that “sublingual drops” of the compound PrevengHo-Vir “prevent different diseases such as influenza, the common cold, dengue, and emerging viral infections such as this one.”
On Monday, Durán tried to correct his statements and said that the product “does not prevent contagion” but rather “increases resistance, the body’s defenses against a certain virus.”
Several state media outlets reported that PrevengHo-Vir is already being used in various Cuban provinces to treat the elderly and other groups vulnerable to the coronavirus. There is no internet record of PrevengHo-Vir, other than press reports about the announcement of its distribution in Cuba.
So, it’s not a hoax!
In this case, let me try to predict what will happen next:
- When the pandemic is over, the Cubans will publish mortality rates achieved with their homeopathic prevention [A].
- They will compare them to data from a cohort that did not receive the homeopathic treatment [B].
- Neither of the data-sets will be transparent and nobody will be able to check its reliability.
- The comparison will yield a significant difference in favour of homeopathy.
- The Cubans will use this to market their remedy.
- The world of homeopathy will use it as a proof that homeopathy is effective (it wouldn’t be the first time).
Nothing wrong with that, some will say. Others who understand research methodology will, however, point out that these data are less than convincing.
In such case/control studies, one large group of patients [A] is compared to another group [B]. Group A has been treated homeopathically, while group B received no homeopathy. Any difference in outcome between A and B might be due to a range of circumstances that are unrelated to the homeopathic treatment, for instance:
- group A might have been less ill than group B,
- group A might have been better nourished,
- group A might have benefited from better hygiene,
- group A might have received better care,
- group B might have received treatments that made the situation not better but worse,
- the researchers might have prettified the data to make group A look better.
Such concerns are not totally unfounded; after all, Cuba seems to have a long history of making irresponsible claims for their homeopathic products.
On reading this I immediately thought of the PRC. , where arguably TCM was promoted as a cheap alternative to health care. In other words centrally controlled countries. But of course SCAM can be found all around the world, countries rich or poor, democratic or not. So clearly “woo” knows no boundaries although I am not sure about countries run based on religion – I am thinking about Iran for example. Anybody know?
I guess flying fox at those concentrations is never going to hurt anyone
Pangolin however… Have you ever step wise diluted a mole of pangolin?
I would start with a mole of a mole.
This message will make the mouth of homeopaths water.
When will Dr. Hümmer show up rejoicing? Any bets?
never bet on a homeopath!
You would rather bet on a vaccine? Silly.
If the ominous RPGNo1, who must have any fears of not being honest with his name, calls, I cannot do else as immediately be on the spot [spitting water]
1. In my eyes, nothing sounds wrong with the statements that are made regarding the remedy
2. But of course there is no homeopathic prophylaxis against corona [where there are no symptoms, there is no remedy] – but if there are fears of infection with corona, then Ars does not sound completely wrong
3. Unfortunately, there are no crucial remedies such as Lob-p (read after you skeptics [for example on my blog], then you will notice striking similarity to ARDS….), Ant-t and Ant-ars with which many very prompt improvements in breathlessness were already recorded [within 1/4 hour, means far beyond placebo-effect]
4. Time will tell, just like in the homeopathic hospitals in New York in 1918 …..
“In my eyes, nothing sounds wrong with the statements…”
I did not know that homeopaths hear with their eyes – but it might explain a lot!
But seriously, time will not tell because a case-control study cannot establish causality; time to brush up your clinical epidemiology a bit, I fear.
45 min. No bad. But hopefully it will be even faster next time.
And please, stop your attempts to provoke me by insisting on my real name in this or any other blog. It makes you look like a grade-schooler.
why is Hahnemann quoted when this is nothing to do with any of his writings. i can assure you that homeopaths will not be watering at the mouth. perhaps you know why?
Here’s an excerpt from my ebook, “Evidence Based Homeopathic Family Medicine” (https://homeopathic.com/product/1-ebook-evidence-based-homeopathic-family-medicine-4/) This section is from the chapter on Leptospirosis:
The Cuban Health Ministry has been studying incidence rates of Leptospirosis since 1981. They have observed that incidence rates go up with increased rainfall and at times of flooding or natural disasters, at which time public water sources may be contaminated. The Finlay Institute (in Cuba) developed a conventional vaccine for Leptospirosis, but despite its use for the past 10 years, disease incidence has remained the same. In late 2007, in response to a developing epidemic, and with only enough vaccine to treat 15,000 high-risk people, the government decided to treat the entire population of the region over one year of age with a homeopathic medicine (Bracho, Varela, Fernández, 2010). This was prepared from the inactivated causative organism provided by the Cuban National Vaccine Institute.
In 2007, Cuba’s Finlay Institute developed a homeopathic nosode, called “noso-Lep” from different strains of Leptospira from sick people. Each strain was isolated and cultured for viability. Each strain was potentized to the 29C individually and then combined all together for the 30C. Subsequent potencies were derived from this combination. The remedy was then potentized to 200c.
In the fall of 2007, Cuba was hit with two hurricanes, Dean and Felix. As with most hurricanes that pass over Cuba, most of the damage occurred in the eastern provinces. The Finlay Institute decided to introduce the nosode into the population in the provinces of Las Tunas and Holqiun for preventative measures. In early fall of 2007 in the midst of the hurricane impact, the 200C was delivered to local health clinics. Patients received a dose of the mixture orally; this treatment was then repeated seven days later.
The homeopathic medicine was given to the 2.3 million population in the provinces usually worst affected. Within a few weeks the number of cases had fallen from 38 to 4 cases per 100,000 per week, significantly fewer than the historically-based forecast for those weeks of the year. The 8.8 million population of the other provinces did not receive homeopathic treatment and the incidence was as forecast. The effect appeared to be sustained: there was an 84% reduction in infection in the treated region in the following year (2008) when, for the first time, incidence did not correlate with rainfall. In the same period, incidence in the untreated region increased by 22%.
The process was repeated in 2008 prior to hurricanes Gustav and Ike that devastated the region in September of that year. In 2007, 99.1 percent of the population in these provinces was given the nosode. At the end of a 40 week study period there were found to be only 379 suspected cases and 49 confirmed cases of Leptospirosis (numbers are lower than expected for the amount of rainfall). When the procedure was repeated in 2008 with the 10M, 98.1% of the population received the nosode and there were 251 cases suspected, with only 2 confirmed cases. Though the incidence of Leptospirosis was expected to increase in 2007 and 2008, the incidence of disease in the two provinces of Las Tunas and Holguin, where the nosode had been administered, dropped to nearly 0 cases.
In comparison in the other provinces in the same vicinity where the nosode was not used, disease incidence in 2007 and 2008 increased as predicted. The cost of the production, storage, and administration of the vaccine runs about $3,876,126 Cuban pesos (CUP) whereas the relative cost of the vaccine nosoLep from manufacturing to application is $22,207 CUP (Eight Cuban pesos (CUP) equal twenty USA pennies. Therefore, the cost of the conventional vaccine was $484,516, while the cost of the homeopathic nosode was $2,776).
Dr. Peter Fisher, Editor of the journal, Homeopathy, notes “This is a very large study and its results, if confirmed, have huge potential impact. We need more research into the effectiveness of homeopathic preparations in preventing infectious diseases, complications, and the economic viability of a homeopathic approach.”
A homeoprophylactic formulation was prepared with homeopathic potencies made from dilutions of four circulating strains of Leptospirosis.
The researchers concluded that the homeoprophylactic approach was associated with a large reduction of disease incidence and control of the epidemic. The results suggest the use of HP as a feasible tool for epidemic control, further research is warranted.
Bracho G, Varela E, Fernández R, et al. Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control. Homeopathy 2010; 99: 156–166. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20674839
have you counted how often this ‘study’ has been debunked?
I am afraid, you merely disclose yet again your understanding of trial methodology.
sorry, but this post is not going to score any points, my dear.
All studies have their limitations…but epidemiological studies with large numbers, like this study, still provide some important insights…and considering the cost of this study and considering the lack of alternatives (for preventing Lepto OR preventing Covid), it is simply SMART for governments to explore whatever works.
Now is not the time to grint axes…and staying at home is not a long-term solution.
OH DEAR, DANA!
I see you are having a bad day.
case-control studies are rubbish at establishing cause and effect.
and staying at home is not a long-term solution, but that does not even remotely imply that homeopathy is an option.
you have never been very good with the fundamentals of logic, but today you are surpassing yourself with lack of logic.
Oh Eddie…are you REALLY trying to rubbish the field of epidemiology? Wow! You’re THAT wacko and obviously have a huuuuge axe to grind.
My sincere sympathies…
what makes you think that?
I have published more original research in epidemiology than you have in homeopathy [in case you doubt it, do a Medline search with my name and ‘MONICA’]
I questioned your understanding of epidemiology because treating 2.3 million people in a year provides relevant data, though like all data, it has certain limitations. People who choose to ignore relevant data, even with certain limitations, are choosing to be blind or ignorant or both.
“treating 2.3 million people in a year provides relevant data”
perhaps but not about cause and effect
Dana Ullman said:
Please enumerate these limitations.
@ Mr. Ullman,
Quote:“ considering the lack of alternatives (…), it is simply SMART for governments to explore whatever works.”
As I recall, you are not a great fan of president Mr. Trump. Well, we are in agreement in this regard. Unfortunately, I saw his press conference yesterday (where he -amongst other moronic statements- blamed the WHO for the problems that the US faces (he, of course, acted perfectly).
Well, at this press conference, he strongly advocated the use of the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID19. This drug currently is being subject of several randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) all over the world, but the outcome of these trials is not clear yet.
As the reason for his strong advocacy, Trump cited the “beautiful” personal experience of a democrat representative named “Laura” that he had heard of. He said “it´s a great thing to try” hydroxychloroquine, also because of the lack of proven effective treatments.
(see 1:22:50 to 1:27:00)
Mr. Ullman, I wonder:
*Do you understand why this is a VERY, VERY STUPID thing to say and to rely on case reports like this as the basis for treatment recommendations?
*Do you understand why we need RCTs BEFORE (!) we can judge if hydroxychloroquine is useful for COVID19 treatment?
*Do you understand why this is a GENERAL PRINCIPLE, that applies to homeopathic (and any other) remedies and other health conditions?
Dear dear Jashak…
My real sympathies for your confusion.
My post above made reference to an epidemiological study of 2.3 million Cubans and compared their infection rate the years BEFORE and AFTER homeopathic treatment.
Needless to say, this is a LOT different that Trump referring to a SINGLE case.
I diagnose serious case of DAFT-NESS here.
@ Mr. Ullman,
is this endless name-calling really necessary?!
It was of course not my intention to claim that case-control studies are “the same” as single case reports. Misrepresenting my position and then patronizingly calling me daft is quite obviously a strawman fallacy.
I was specifically referring to your statement: ”considering the lack of alternatives (…), it is simply SMART for governments to explore whatever works.”
This sentence reminded me of Trump´s press conference (that´s why I quoted it…). You both seem to advocate some form of treatment which lack evidence for efficacy, because we currently do not have an efficient treatment for COVID19.
I tried to point out that it is unethical to promote ANY treatment, before it has been shown to have a positive benefit vs. risk balance via SOLID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!
Although case-control studies might be somewhat more relevant than just a single anecdote, such a study is still NOT SUFFICIENT to decide if a treatment works or not, as EE and others pointed out many times before.
Even if times are desperate, it is very dangerous to conclude that you should just try stuff because you think (for good or bad reasons) that it COULD work.
Let me add one last thought:
From a Bayesian point of view, nosodes are of course far less likely to cause any effect than a drug like hydroxychloroquine. So before even considering nosodes as an option for COVID19 prevention, you would have to provide massive amounts of solid data in favour of this magical shaken water.
So please, provide at least SOME solid RCT-evidence before promoting nosodes. An unreliable case-report (which has not been replicated), is not good enough.
With this, I let you continue with your ad hominen attacks…
Gad…I said you were experiencing CONFUSION…that is not an ad hom.
Then, I said this was a diagnosis of daftness…you clearly are confused.
And then, you repeated your same confused statement. Saying it twice doesn’t make it (or you) any better. Sorry.
According to modern understandings of GOOD science, there are many types of worthwhile studies besides double-blind and placebo controlled trials.
Sadly and strangely, people here have serious blinders on.
I can’t do anything more than offer you my sympathies.
@ Mr. Ullman,
quite funny that you do not even seem to be able to avoid an ad hominem (“(…) doesn’t make it (or you) any better”) while trying to deny your tendency towards ad hominem attacks. ?
Also funny that you, who believes in magical shaken water and undetectable “nanoparticles”, think that you are in a position to lecture about “GOOD science”. Not sure that you are qualified to give advice on this topic.
But anyways, I am still waiting for you to provide any RCT-based evidence about the efficacy of nosodes (preferably without another personal attack).
A shame it’s not a normal publication, Dana. I’d have ordered it from Amazon. We’re running short on lavatory paper.
Lenny…the special benefits of having an ebook on evidence is that it is a dynamic body of information…and I add to it every month.
Whatever “ebook” you ordered via Amazon is NOT the ebook that I referenced…but heck, thanx for your support.
Like him or not, in a televised telephone interview Tuesday evening, President Trump told Sean Hannity that he had a good conversation with Prime Minister Modi of India about treating the Covid virus. (It mainly concerned the manufacture of Hydroxychloroquine in India and their reluctance to export a large supply of this anti malaria drug) to the U.S.
To paraphrase, further along in the interview,Trump said that” Prime Minister Modi has very interesting ideas on health care for his Country”. I would like to imagine and hope that the subject of homeopathy and the free dispensing of remedies to the elderly in India was included in that conversation! It’s possible!
Your thoughts on that Dana?
I’ll give you mine, Sandra.
Modi’s a fool. Same as anyone who imagines homeopathy to have any therapeutic effects beyond placebo. Trump’s a fool as well. But I doubt that even he’s big enough an idiot to embrace homeopathy.
If homeopathy had any role to play in the treatment of epidemic disease it would be out there being used widely. It doesn’t and it isn’t. Dana can continue to wave around another of his long-derided pieces of nonsense. It will remain of no consequence. Your and his dreams of significance will remain just that. The rest of the world is laughing at you.
Hahaha, the standart answer – placebo. 🙂 It is very interesting – people go to an allopath and he treats them with synthetics with little or no effect and often with side effects, but he does not give them placebo to cure them, although it is so effective, according to some people, why?! 🙂 Why don”t allopaths cure their patients with placebo, but leave it to homeopaths to do this?! And yes, after being unsuccessfully treated by the standard medicine, they come to us and, of course, we give them *placebo* and, voila – they are fine. 🙂 The same with animals and babies. 🙂 Well, I don’t mind using *placebo* to make my human and animal patients feel better, maybe our allopathic colleagues should try it too. 🙂
Thank you sir, for confirming what I’ve been saying here for many many months.
That is, that SBM results benefit from placebo effect, same as homeopathy and CAM.
Welcome to the forum.
@ Atanas and RG
Your cumulative understanding and insight into modern medicine leaves everything to be desired. It is saddening to see people who managed to get through medical school, only to waste their talents and education and spend their carreer on make-believe-medical-entertainment fuelled by the shaken-water industry.
I hope you two do not cause serious harm to unsuspecting customers with your incompetent cosplay.
Regarding the red banner warning on this blog, which we are obliged to heed. I do not fell that I need to support my evaluation of the of you two, afficionados of artificial medicine, with evidence. I simpky refer to that what has been amply applied previously here on this blog, in order to support and corroborate our common criticism of ‘shaken-water shamanism’ (yet
another telling term for homeopathy 😉 ).
If you feel the urge to throw the well worn tantrum about “ad-hominem” (a term you evidently do not understand) back at me, please spare us such tiring tirades.
My words are absolutely not ‘ad hominem’. I truly and honestly respect and feel compassion with my fellow human beings, even those afflicted with serious delusions. But I do not spare my words for those who deceive patients in need. My crtiticism is wholeheartedly ‘ad errores’, not ‘ad hominem’.
lol… you speak to me as if I’m a child, and you are the wizard of oz.
Please Bjorn, SBM and the Pharma industry has already done far more harm to unsuspecting patients than homeopathy and CAM will ever do.
I think you have just proven him right
So with the Covid-19 illness, the odds are that if a patient in need uses a ventilator, has an 88% mortality rate. The same patient in need chooses not to use the ventilator will have a 95% mortality rate.
This is a perfect example SBM, failed failed failed.
If you think those odds are something to be proud of, you are sick.
It doesn’t sound as if you have ever spent any time caring for very sick people. By the time anybody gets to ITU they are very ill indeed. They are all looking Death in the face, and their chances of surviving at all without intensive care are very slim indeed. By your figures, for roughly 1 in 14 people who are ventilated for Covid-19 it is a life-saver (in addition the 1 in 20 who might have survived without ventilation).
Whether or not this sounds good depends entirely on your expectations. The portrayal of ITU in soap operas and movies, or resuscitation from cardiac arrest, for that matter, has led to very unrealistic expectations on the part of the general public about what sort of outcomes to expect. For instance, the public telephone box outside my local village also houses a defibrillator. The nearest hospital is either Bath or Swindon, both 10 – 15 miles away, and the defibrillator itself is a good few minutes’ sprint from the Church and the pub, which are the only places that people congregate, and further still from most of the houses. The chance of anybody suffering a cardiac arrest in the village, being defibrillated and making it to hospital are miniscule, but somebody clearly thought is was worth spending money on.
If you imagine that ITU is somewhere where the dead are routinely brought back to life again, then an 88% failure rate isn’t very good. However, to my mind bringing 12% of people back from the brink of certain death is a worthwhile thing to do.
Having survived a respiratory arrest due to infection followed by a week on a ventilator myself, three years ago, I certainly think so.
Actually I think your figures are a bit pessimistic, and the survival after ventilation for Covid-19 in most units is closer to 50%. Clearly this depends on the age demographic of the population treated, and what the criteria are for admitting them for intensive care (the availability of ventilators is also an important factor).
Since posting the above I have found where RG’s figure of an 88% mortality rate comes from. This is a report just published in the Journal of the Americal Medical Society (JAMA) here:
This looked at patients admitted to 12 hospitals in New York between 1st March and 4th April with Covid-19. There were 5,700 altogether, of whom 2,364 had outcomes that could be assessed (death or recovery, defined as discharge alive from hospital). 320 of those received mechanical ventilation, of whom 282 died (88.1%).
From these figures alone, taken out of context, I can see why you might conclude that ventilation was not very effective treatment in this situation. However:
1. Of the 5,700 patients admitted there are 3,336 for whom we don’t have outcome data.
2. 553 patients died altogether; the median time from admission to death was 4.8 days
3. 2,081 patients were discharged; their median duration of stay was 3.9 days
4. The date on which the outcome measures were assessed was 4th April, the final day of the study.
The 3,336 patients for whom we don’t have outcome data were therefore still alive and in hospital on 4th April, and presumably many of them were being ventilated at that time. Unfortunately we don’t have the median duration of ventilation, stay in ITU or hospitalisation of those patients who required ventilation and were subsequently discharged. Without that information it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the impact of ventilation on mortality (which in any case is not what this paper is about – it is primarily looking at patient characteristics in relation to outcomes). I don’t have the figures for New York, but for the US as a whole, the total number of Covid-19 cases at the start of the study period was 75, and at the end of it was 315,141. Given that New York is the most heavily-affected city in the US we can reasonably conclude that the number of cases in this report are heavily skewed towards the end of the study period.
So those who are admitted to hospital and die tend to do so within 4 days or so and will be captured in the New York figures.
Those who are admitted to hospital, don’t require ventilation and recover quickly will also be captured.
UK data (see below) suggest that it takes 30 days from admission to ITU for Covid-19 to know the final outcome. Therefore those who are admitted, require ventilation and then return to the ward for further recovery prior to discharge will nearly all still be among the 3,336 patients for whom we don’t yet have outcome data, and not among the 2,364 for whom we do.
So the 88.1% of patients who died with ventilation is not representative of patients ventilated as a whole, a large number of whom we can expect are still on the road to recovery and will be reported as such in due course when the data are mature.
What about the UK?
The ICNARC report on all UK patients admitted to ITU with Covid-19 up to 16th April can be downloaded as a PDF here:
I am not going to go into the same level of detail here – you can read the paper yourselves. However:
1. They have so far been notified of 6,664 admissions to Critical Care with Covid-19
2. Cumulative patient outcome data suggest that the outcome is known in nearly all patients by 30 days.
3. They have 30-day outcome data for 2,936 patients
4. 1,437 (49.8%) are alive and 1,499 (51.2%) are dead
5. 1,795 received mechanical ventilation at some point during their admission (65.4%)
While this doesn’t tell us what proportion of patients receiving mechanical ventilation eventually died, it is clear that it is much more than 88%.
And in the UK, roughly HALF OF ALL PATIENTS ADMITTED TO ITU for Covid-19 RECOVER.
I have spent about two hours looking at outcome data from patients admitted to ITU with coronavirus from New York and from the UK. I have summarised this in another post which I don’t expect you to read as I know you don’t understand numbers. The underlying data were not difficult to find with a Google search, and I have provided links to the original publications for anybody interested in reading them, which I know you never do.
Your figure of 88% mortality after ventilation is immature data taken out of context and does not represent the true picture, which is that about half of all patients admitted to ITU for Covid-19 eventually recover.
I would have preferred to spend this time playing Bach, particularly as I won’t get another chance to do any music practice for a few days as I will be in the middle of my cancer treatment.
I, for one, would appreciate it if you could spend more time checking your facts before posting, and not just rely on headlines written by journalists who don’t really understand what they are writing about.
I apologize to you, but it wasn’t meant to be a math equation.
The point was that one of the prime resources that most country states for combating the effects of Cobid-19 has been the the focus on the machines, especially those that prescribe to SBM have put high hopes in ventilators.
The scramble to obtain and build thousands and thousands of ventilators was a bit misplaced.
Now MD’s have changed their thinking about the use of the machines. Some believe that in spite of saving some lives, damage is done to the lungs.
Sorry doc, but I stand by my 88% numbers…. scroll down a bit.
You are claiming that your 88% numbers mean that 88% of patients ventilated for covid-19 die, which is simply not the case. The data from this study were collected over a period of just over a month, during which time the number of cases in the USA rose exponentially by a factor of 4,000. This means that a very large proportion of the patients reported on were admitted during the final week of the study. The median time from admission to death for the patients who died was about 4 days, so most of the deaths would be captured. However, we know from the UK data and other studies that it takes 30 days from admission for critical care to identify most of the survivors, so apart from the few who were admitted at the beginning of the study the vast majority of the people who would go on to survive ventilation would be categorised as outcome unknown.
From UK data, for patients who were ventilated on whom there is 30 days of follow-up available, the death rate is 51%. I have not seen similar data for the US, but I would be surprised if it were greatly different.
Can you not see that your 88% does not refer to the outcome of ventilated patients as a whole? Though in all fairness to you a lot of journalists seem to have made the same erroneous interpretation of the data
You then provide a link which is a Google search. What is that supposed to show me? You live in the US and I live in the UK, so the same search terms in Google will search a different set of data.
Google also remembers every search you have made (I’m not sure whether that is based on your TCP/IP address or something more specific such as the serial number of your motherboard, which Microsoft uses to identify software licenses). It then bases your search results on whatever you have clicked in the past, so, for instance, if you view a lot of conspiracy theory sites, then conspiracy theories is what it will give you. Google is a great tool for reinforcing whatever beliefs you may already have. It isn’t very good at finding objective evidence.
There has been an interesting development in the UK, which is that CPAP machines designed for home treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea are being modified for use in patients with breathing difficulties but not requiring formal ventilation (I understand the masks fit more closely and the machines are delivering oxygen rather than air; I assume this means oxygen-enriched air as pure oxygen is hardly ever used for ventilation, and I am guessing that they are being run at higher-than-normal pressures). This seems to be quite effective at reducing oedema in the lungs (literally squeezing the excess fluid back into the circulation) and improving breathlessness and gas exchange within as little as 15 minutes. Possibly this will reduce the number of patients requiring ventilation but we will have to see.
quit making attempts to spin the numbers.
“From UK data, for patients who were ventilated on whom there is 30 days of follow-up available, the death rate is 51%.”
In SBM, a 50% mortality rate would never ever even get close to being considered for an approved treatment…. done.
The sheer depth of your blinkered, dogmatic and wilful stupidity is at times quite breathtaking.
Thankfully, you and your hubris will have no role in patient care. Ever.
I don’t think RG understands the concept of ‘ventilator’ or its use. He seems to be echoing something from fake health sites that sounds ominous to those idiots.
I’m sure Bjorn. The concept of a ventilator is something only the medically educated might be capable of comprehending…. hehe
lol…. now listen to who sounds like he is “mentally unstable” …you Bjorn.
? I wasn’t addressing you, dear “RG”, but thank you for proving me right once again. Try reading the article you linked, this time slowly and trying not to let your contempt of doctors and prejudice against medicine get in the way of understsnding the message. This article is not saying what you think it does. Well, it is probably too complicated for you and the author does not have a good grasp of the subject either. If I had the time, I would try to find a simple explanation of what is going on with ventilators, but other more important issues await my attention. Cheers ?
I am actually trying to un-spin the numbers.
You clearly have no idea of the reality of treating very sick people. When the mortality rate without treatment approaches 100% then something that reduces it to 50% will be approved.
In any case, we are not discussing a specific treatment. What is helping here is the totality of critical care, of which mechanical ventilation is an essential component. The reason there has been so much fuss about ventilators it that without enough of them it will not be possible to keep the mortality as low as 50% in this group of very sick people. Ventilators alone aren’t much use on their own, though, without the staff trained to use them and the rest of the facilities of an intensive care unit.
I doubt it. He seems to be an astute politician whose primary concern is for his power base rather than the people he is responsible for.
I can’t disagree with you here.
Only time will tell whether Trump or Modi end up doing more damage to their respective countries.
Dear Mr. Ullman, it is a waste of time to try to convince conventional minds in the power of something, that they DO NOT want to accept or try to understand. After 28 years of experience as M.D. – four of them in the field of conventional medicine and 24 with homeopathy, I can assure you – even some close friends of mine and colleagues, that have heard of and seen miracles with homeopathy, still call it “quack” and refuse to acknowledge its success and power. It has been the same since the time of Dr. Hahnemann. Just conserve your energy for people who will benefit from it. There is a Chinsese saying: A closed mind is like a closed book – just a block of wood. Best wishes, Atanas
A closed mind is one which continues to put anecdote above proper evidence. One which put fingers in ears and goes “LALALA” when confronted with scientifically-established fact.
I will happily change my position on homeopathy if a number of well-conducted clinical trials by different groups of researchers provide empirical and mutually-supportive evidence of its effectiveness. None have yet been forthcoming.
What will make you change yours? A number of well-conducted clinical trials by different groups of researchers provide empirical and mutually-supportive evidence of its lack of effectiveness? They already exist, Atanas. But you ignore them because they conflict with your quasi-religious faith in the magic powers of shaken water.
What, then, would make you change your mind on the effectiveness of homeopathy?
Nothing will. You are a True Believer. It is YOU who has the closed mind.
Homeopathy. There is no reason to suppose it should work, no way it can work, and no proof that it does work.
Hi, my practice is the best proof for me; I do not need for myself any so-called clinical trials. Time and time again I have seen homeopathy working wonders not only for people, but for animals as well. In acute and in chronic cases – not just suppressing symptoms, but curing and changing quality of life. 🙂 Do you think I would spend 24 years of my life chasing winds?! I am very practical as far as treatment results are concerned. I have succeeded in helping so many people – children and adults, to whom the standard medicine offers just synthetics or surgery. Homeopathy is not just about prescribing homeopathic remedies, but a holistic vision of man and assessing very carefully the changes and progress on all levels – physical, emotional, mental. I have so many friends and acquaintances who are standard doctors and I know well the difference between the two approaches. Sometimes they refer to me patients, who they cannot cope with. Homeopathy and allopathy are for different brands of people and there will always be this differentiation, until people realize that they are something much more than just cells, hormones, organs, systems that need to be treated separately.
I remember a case. Years ago a colleague of mine, pediatrician, as a last resort, came to consult me for his son, who had been coughing for months and he had not been able to help him with all the standard medical knowledge, available to him – antibiotics, antihistamines, cortisone, whatever… I gave him a homeopathic remedy and the boy stopped coughing after three days. Well, that man never came back to ask how was this possible, what was the method that helped his son, when standard medicine with all its “scientific” power and knowledge could not! This is an example of a closed mind. In the long run I am completely satisfied with the results of my practice. Just read the Organon by Dr. Hahnemann – it is an amazing piece of work. Best wishes, Atanas
Tales of things getting better on their own. Regression to the mean.
Yes. Because if you’re looking for some good ones to support your delusions, you won’t find any.
As I say, a closed mind.
I was trained in conventional medicine for treating human beings. What brand of people are you treating? Changelings, perhaps?
The Coronavirus Pandemic has arrived in Cuba. The country where the rulers far from humility, noble dedication and transparency; it prides itself in affirming that it is: a medical power. Which is an error of appreciation that submits a country and its doctors and scientists; to a kind of impairment, scrutiny and suspicions.
Grotesque manipulations and biases make the handling of this pandemic in Cuba show signs of fallacious dedication; despite having an adequate and professional health system, of proven dedication and selfless commitment.
Inusuales recomendaciones en Cuba para la prevención y el control del Coronavirus (COVID-19).
HOMEOPATHY´S TRACK RECORD IN EPIDEMICS
EPIDEMIC MORTALITY MORTALITY
THYPHUS 1813 30% 1,5%
CHOLERA 1830 40% 7-10%
CHOLERA 1854 59% 9%
YELLOW FEVER 1850 15% 6%
YELLOW FEVER 1878 50% 5.6%
DIPHTERIA 1862-1864 83% 16,4%
CHOLERA 1892 42% 15,4%
SPANISH FLU 19!8 30% 1,05%
Quelle/Source: Influenza 1918
Homeopathy to the Rescue
by Julian Winston
modifiziert nach REAL IMMUNITY
nice to hear that the pigeon is still flying
if, even in the face of the dramatic events, someone still thinks it it´s necessary and important to cynically exclude and discredit any possible additional help, then the answer can only be:
I’d rather fly than die!
I could agree with that statement.
except that homeopathy is NOT a ‘possible additional help’.
Ok…no “cause and effect”? Are you actually saying that there is NO benefit from evaluating and comparing the results of treating 2.3 million people with previous and forthcoming years? Are you THAT claptrap closeminded? Are you really ignoring an entire body of epidemiology? Are you also therefore saying that MANY vaccine studies are WORTHLESS? (This last question is particularly important, especially in the light of the paucity of double-blind and placebo controlled trials on the VARIOUS vaccines)!!!
In fact, in this light, please reference one of your writings where you provided strong critique of a vaccine study that wasn’t double-blind and placebo controlled.
OR are you simply showing that you have a HUUUUGE axe to grind…and that you selectively use a much much higher bar of scientific acceptability for homeopathy than you do for conventional medical practices. When one considers that conventional medical practices are considerably more dangerous and considerably more expensive, ANY rational person would have a HIGHER bar of “scientific acceptability” for such medical treatment…but then again, you just pretend to be rational until the Wizard of Oz is found to be a fraud.
“Are you actually saying that there is NO benefit from evaluating and comparing the results of treating 2.3 million people with previous and forthcoming years? ”
No Dana, I am saying such comparisons can be most interesting, BUT THEY DON’T LEND THEMSELVES TO ESTABLISHING CAUSE AND EFFECT.
[they might lend themselves to formulating a testable hypothesis; in homeopathy, this hypothesis has never been tested; if i am wrong, show me the test]
I had hoped you had got that by now.
So, the study with 2.3 million Cubans “just happened” to lead to a sharp declined in incidences of Leptospirosis?…and that THIS experience was so impressive that the Cuban government is now using homeopathic medicines to prevent Covid-19 in the elder community. Here’s an effect and an effect.
It is amazing how often this “effect” is related to the prescribing of a homeopathic medicine
geow up Dana, listen to the ones who understand science and learn
Study after study which you claim shows the effectiveness of your favourite nonsense. Year after year you wave them about.
And how often have they had any influence on proper care?
Let me think now..
Medicine knows homeopathy is utter bunk. It knows how to appraise studies. It knows how science works.
(Unsurprisingly, these are three areas of particular ignorance in your case)
You can continue to be Rumpelstiltskin, stamping and shouting to absolutely no consequence. We will continue to point out exactly why you are wrong. And you will continue to deny it. Because you are a fool, Dana.
All of mainstream science and medicine says so. And has done for 200 years.
Run along now you silly little man.
Lenny…thanks for verifying the unscientific attitude that you embody so well. My most sincere sympathy to you and to anyone who takes you seriously
Oh, I take Lenny serious. He has good arguments.
You, on the other hand, have nothing. You are a laughing stock, although you try to ignore it.
My patient was able to stop the psychotropic drugs he had been taking for 7 years in 3 months.
One patient has succeeded in suppressing seizures in epilepsy, and has been able to reduce his medication and lead a healthy life.
My most familiar patient with asthma is now enjoying life as a marathon runner.
A girl who had a terrible hallucination every time she had a fever stopped having the fever. I also stopped explaining and discussing the benefits of homeopathy like this to the denialists.
Over the years, I’ve come to think that it would be nice if people around me were related to good homeopaths.
I have learned that, as in today’s world, the beneficiaries are always part of the people.
Agree with you completely Pieta..seen results myself…and hope the world recovers from this negativity…towards Homeopathy….though no one can convince the Denialists….its a pity..
nobody is a denialist here, I think.
a denialist is someone who ignores evidence. you have no evidence. anecdotes are not evidence; and the true evidence is negative.
why do you think that is so?
PERHAPS YOU ARE THE DENIALIST?
Are you drunk, RG? You do not make any sense.
The physicist Niels Bohr in 1913 stated in his second postulate that “to change a lower orbital into a higher one, the electron has to absorb an adequate quantum of energy”. I propose that this “adequate quantum of energy” required to shift an electron to a higher orbital can be provided by the process of succussion of a homeopathic medicine during the process of potentisation. In other words, the process of succussion acts to provide the impetus to shift the electrons of the homeopathic substance to a larger (or higher) electron orbital. In this way, the speed of the oscillatory motion of a substance (i.e. its wave aspect) is increased and this results in a larger Bohr radius. From a homeopathic perspective this can be interpreted to mean an increased level of potency. Thus it is the case that with each subsequent succussion and dilution (dilution will be explained shortly), the electron jumps to a higher orbital. This is how homeopathic medicines increase in potency through the increasingly larger electron orbital size or longer Bohr radius. This is why there is no limit to the potency that a homeopathic medicine can exist in, since electron orbital size is by nature infinite. Therefore I define a homeopathic potency as “a homeopathic potency represents a higher electron configuration, the higher the homeopathic potency, the larger the size of the electron orbital and the larger the informational field size of the orbital”. Don’t believe the homeopaths? What about the scientist Niels Bohr, father of Quantum Mechanics!
Complete bilge, Paula.
This, Paula, is what is known as Quantum Flapdoodle – Physicist Murray Gell-Mann coined the phrase to refer to the misuse and misapplication of quantum physics to other topics.
As quantum physicist Professor Jim Al-Khalili has said: “Let me make this very clear: if you think QM allows for homeopathy, then you’d better take a proper course in QM”.
@ paula wynburne
You plagiarised all but the final two sentences of that quantum flapdoodle from Christina Munns, an Australian homeopath and author.
When an electron changes its energy it does this by either emitting or absorbing a photon. It can only move to a higher orbital (which entails a specific increase in energy) by absorbing a photon of exactly the right energy (or frequency or wavelength – they are different ways of saying the same thing). This is essentially the photoelectric effect; in 1905 Einstein realised from measurements of the absorption of light and the emission of electrons that light must come in packets of exact amounts of energy, which he called photons or quanta, and therefore consisted of particles. For this he was awarded his Nobel prize (not for relativity).
The energy imparted to a homeopathic medicine by succussion is kinetic energy, which then becomes randomly distributed among the molecules of the solution when we call it heat. It is far too diffuse to be absorbed by an electron, which requires the energy to be concentrated into a photon. If you want to increase the energy of an electron you would be much more likely to succeed by firing x-rays at it.
I’m not at all sure what you mean by this. It takes a finite amount of energy to remove an electron completely from an atom, a process known as ionisation. Imparting more energy than this to the electron will increase its velocity.
The orbital of an electron refers to the solution of its wave equation, which gives the probability of it being found at any given location. There is a tiny, but not zero, probability of it being found anywhere in the universe, without having to absorb any additional energy to get there, though the likelihood is that it will be within a specific region within its atom. When it increases its energy state and jumps to a different orbital (by absorbing a photon) it is now governed by a different wave equation and the region where it is likely to be found changes, though there remains a tiny probability that it could be momentarily be a very long way away.
I think maybe you are confusing energy states with spatial location.
You can propose or define whatever you like, but nobody will take you seriously unless you make testable (i.e. falsifiable) predictions. However, before you do so I suggest that you learn some physics.
What you have suggested is a nonsensical jumble of scientific terms. It’s logic reminds me of some LSD-fueled lyrics from the Beatles’ album Abbey Road:
homeopathy did not work all that well in Cuda, did it?