Homopati har løsningen

Per RamstadPer Ramstad Innlegg: 4

Når et friskt menneske prøver et middel og blir syk så... kan man bruke det samme midlet til å styrke imunforsvaret

  • These doses were prescribed in the evening and the treatment followed on the next day with the same potency and same interval and after 2 more doses, his prostration completely changed to a normal energy state. The doses’ interval was increased to 5 hourly and later to 8 hourly and after a total dose of 9, complete recovery happened. Phos: One more patient was referred to us after 18 days of hospitalization. Despite being on medication, he had severe cough and also extreme weakness. His presentation also didn’t match with Camph and upon the totality of the symptoms he was prescribed Phos 30 right from the beginning.

A dramatic response occurred within 24 hours and on the 2nd day of the treatment he was almost symptom free with a very well improved energy level. Homeopathy treatment stopped on the 3rd day. What was that duration of recovery with homeopathy?

Once they started homeopathic treatment, the recovery time for almost all cases, irrespective of their health situation, has been between 5-6 days.https://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/update-of-the-prior-study-of-homeopathy-for-coronavirus-covid-19-infection-in-iran-by-dr The Swiss Government's Remarkable Report on Homeopathic Medicine

The Swiss government's report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government and was just published in book form in English.https://www.huffpost.com/entry/homeopathic-medicine-_b_1258607?ec_carp=2420753928125867374


  • Per RamstadPer Ramstad Innlegg: 4

    mye juks innen forskningen - det spørs hvilke forkere man kan stole på https://www.holdpusten.no/artikler/om-vann-og-hukommelse/379991«Hahn har – etter å ha gjennomgått forskningen på homeopati – skrevet at for å ende opp med konklusjonen om at hom eopati bare er placebo, er man nødt til å bruke urimelige eksklusjonskriterier.» Ideology Plays a Part

    The reader of this literature must be aware that ideology plays a part in these meta-analyses. For example, Ernst [7] makes conclusions based on assumed data [6] when the true data are at hand [3]. Ernst [7] invalidates a study by Jonas et al. [18] that shows an odds ratio of 2.19 (1.55-3.11) in favor of homeopathy for rheumatic conditions, using the notion that there are not sufficient data for the treatment of any specific condition [6]. However, his review deals with the overall efficacy of homeopathy and not with specific conditions. Ernst [7] still adds this statistically significant result in favor of homeopathy over placebo to his list of arguments of why homeopathy does not work. Such argumentation must be reviewed carefully before being accepted by the reader.

    The most believable of the meta-analyses is still Linde et al.'s work from 1997 [2] along with the associated consideration of study quality [3] as the authors appear to maintain a reasonable balance between exclusion and statistical power. The follow-up analyses by Cucherat et al. [9] and Shang et al. [10] rest on such extensive exclusion of data that the conclusions are based on only a tiny fraction of the published studies. These meta-analyses are good examples of how the same data can yield results that are statistically in favor and not in favor of homeopathy, and having a negative result is most likely when making conclusions based on as little material as possible. Applying funnel plots to a heterogeneous mix of remedies and diseases is another example of playing around with data. If this approach is statistically correct, all further clinical trials would have to include the same number of patients regardless of the expected clinical effect. Alternatively, all treatments must exert the same effect. If not, the funnel plot is flawed. https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/355916

  • Per RamstadPer Ramstad Innlegg: 4

    historien viser at homopatien er mer effektiv enn skolemedisin Dengue Fever 1996: The Central Council of Research in Homoeopathy reported that a homeoprophylactic was administered to at least 39,200 people in the Delhi area during an epidemic of dengue haemorrhagic fever. The follow-up of 23,520 people, 10 days later, revealed that only 5 people (0.125%) had developed mild symptoms, with the rest showing no signs or symptoms of the disease. v (During epidemics of dengue, attack rates among the susceptible are often 40-50 %, but may reach 80-90 %, World Health Organisation)vi  1849: Dr Clemens von Boenninghausen treated and prevented “untold” numbers of cholera infections with the above remedies recommended by Hahnemann during the 1849 European epidemic. While a death rate of 54-90% occurred with conventional treatment, Boenninghausen’s patients had a mortality rate of only 5-16%.iii 

  • Per RamstadPer Ramstad Innlegg: 4

    historien viser at homopati er mer effektiv enn skolemedisin kommer ifra denne lenka,- og det er mange flere eks for dem som gidder å lese https://homeopathyplus.com/Homeoprophylaxis-Human-Records-Studies-Trials.pdf

Logg inn eller Registrer deg for å kommentere.