Please note, some information is in Adobe Acrobat format
If you do not already have it, Acrobat can be downloaded for free here

QUICK DATA LINKS ON EPIDEMIC DISEASES:

Click here to see Sally’s powerpoint presentation on historical data of the use of homeopathy in epidemic disease

Great page summarizing comparisons of homeopathic vs allopathic (conventional) treatment in epidemics: click here

Click here for review of the most pertinent double-blind placebo controlled research in homeopathy

The Logic of Figures, Dr. T. Bradford, 1900. (must see)

Articles:

• Homeopathy In Influenza — A Chorus of Fifty In Harmony
  by W.A. Dewey, MD., University of Michigan.
  The Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, May 1921.  This is a PDF file of the original article, illustrating the tremendous success homeopathic doctors enjoyed in the 1918 flu pandemic.  While they lost only 1% of their cases, their allopathic colleagues’ mortality rate exceeded 30%.
• The treatment of influenza and its complications as seen in the present epidemic.” The British Homoeopathic Journal. December 1918, No.12.Vol. V111
• Article on effectiveness of Homeopathy during Epidemic Diseases

http://www.similia.lv/interesanti/par-homeopatiju/lives-saved-by-homeopathy/

Homeopathy has been a boon to the patients of scarlet fever, typhus fever, yellow fever, Pneumonia, Cholera, Influenza, Hepatitis, Dengue, Leptospirosis and Conjunctivitis during the times of pandemics and epidemics.

• Bach Flower Essences in Influenza
  by Sally Tamplin B.Ed (Hons.) DSH, MARH, PCH, BFRP
  Learn about the use of Bach and Australian Flower essences in flu cases.
• Pandemic Survival Guide
  by Jacob Mirman MD and Sally Tamplin B.Ed (Hons.) DSH, MARH, PCH, BFRP
•  Homeoprophylaxis
  This is a controversial but very interesting issue.  This article summarizes various trials of prevention of epidemic disease in large populations using homeopathic remedies.  This approach has serious public health considerations.  Unfortunately, it is too often pitted against the required vaccinations, which creates the controversy.  The authors of this site are not against childhood vaccinations.
• Powerpoint presentation, discussing the symptoms of ebola, its similarity with influenza and septic shock, and implications for homeopathy.  It also discusses the use of homeopathy in numerous epidemics
• Cholera in Haiti.  This article describes the work of a homeopath Edouard Broussalian on the ground in Haiti following the earthquake, illustrating the process of finding the best remedy and success of homeopathy.

Research Articles

While one can say all they want about virtues of this or that treatment, it is the scientific method, that allows one to know whether something really works.  Double-blind placebo-controlled studies are the gold standard by which treatments are evaluated in our age of Evidence-Based Medicine.  Several good quality studies of homeopathic remedies vs. placebo have been published in peer-reviewed medical journals.  The Appendix section of Dr. Mirman’s on-line book Demystifying Homeopathy lists several such studies and presents the reader with their abstracts.  Here is one of them.

Ferley, J.P., A Controlled Evaluation of Homeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like Syndromes, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1989, 27, pp. 329-335.
(click on the link to get a PDF file of this article)

1. A controlled clinical trial was conducted to assess the effectiveness of a homeopathic preparation in the treatment of influenza-like syndromes.
2. 237 cases received the test drug and 241 were assigned to placebo. Patients recorded their rectal temperature twice a day, and the presence or absence of five cardinal symptoms (headache, stiffness, lumbar in articular pain, shivers) along with cough, coryza and fatigue.
3. Recovery was defined as a rectal temperature less than 37.5° C and complete resolution of the five cardinal symptoms.
4. The proportion of cases who recovered within 48 h of treatment was greater among the active drug group than among the placebo group (17.1% against 10.3%, P=0.03).
5. The result cannot be explained given our present state of knowledge, but it calls for further rigorously designed clinical studies.