Minutus

Hi,
I am wondering if people can recover from infections without treatment? For example, urinary track infection, ear infections, respiratory track infection...etc..

Just wondering for people who live in places where medical facilies are not available (eg. poverty stricken places). If people are down with infections, would just water and plenty of rest be able to recover them?

--
Priscilla

Oh my, YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ever infection (including illnesses as well as local infections) provide "training" for the immune system. Immune system *strength* is provided by nutrition, sunlight, rest (with a hand from genetics and etc.). Someone who has always had treatment via medicines for every small ill, the immune system might not be strong or "well trained"; I would not try to make a *radical* change such as suddenly stopping all assistance when the person is ill. But I would *definitely* aim, quickly and forcefully, to begin moving in that direction. Learn to use herbs, vitamin C, cell salts, homeopathics, water therapy (wet sock treatment, hot baths, etc.), and save chemical meds for a last resort!

Shannon

Of course. Any animal species including the human one would probably die out if it wasnt able to recover from infections without "treatment" (undefined). Who hasnt had any one of those "tract" infections and recovered?

Homeopathy just stimulates the body's natural ability to recover from infections much quicker, with a "gentle rapid cure" (baring a homeopathic aggravation at the start of treatment, which is rare for acute treatment; these aggravations are unheard of in placebo treatment). No natural ability to recover from infections then no homeopathy (or any other type of medicine for that matter).

The only way to tell the difference between homeopathy and placebo in acute (self-limiting) diseases is by the rapidity of cure e.g. the Pediatrics journal article showing that childhood diarrhea resolved one-third quicker with homeopathy than with placebo.

Roger

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Priscilla Tan wrote:

Hi, Roger --

You've made some very good points in the discussion about multiple remedies and recovery/cure in acute illnesses. It strikes me that your statement below about there being no way to distinguish between recovery and cure in genuinely acute diseases may be unnecessarily pessimistic, though.

The kind of study that you quoted an example of commonly uses a single measure (with maybe some anecdotal observations thrown in for interest) of outcome. That's so simply because that's the most straightforward way to present the results and makes them directly comparable not only with placebo but also with allopathic approaches, which of course use only that single measure. But it's not the only way it could be done.

Other possibilities that might distinguish the nature of the improvement (in a placebo-controlled or comparative study) include:

• using a fixed measure of the patient's strength at the time of admission, at the time of treatment, and at several times after treatment;

• possibly controlling for confounding variables affecting that measure, such as how many days the child had had diarrhoea for, or how much mass he had lost;

• devising a fixed scale of patient alertness, to be used in a similar fashion; and

• devising a questionnaire exploring likely concomitant symptoms and using it both before and after treatment to assess changes in those symptoms.

I'd guess that by using one or two such tools, the cures would soon shine amongst the recoveries.

Cheers!

John

You are probably right on that. If one can decide on a
good metric for the "height of the peak" of the illness
I wouldnt be surprised that the peaks for curative treatments
would be lower on average.

Roger

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote:

Of course people heal on their own. Do you treat every cold or cough that you or your family may have?
There are many conditions, usually acutes, that will go through their process and exit. Sore throats for
instance heal on their own. Headaches go away. Cuts and bruises which have mild infection will heal
if kept clean ususally.
Usually rest and liquids and/or light food is what people will eat if having a fever or cold. That is often
enough assist to heal.
There are conditions that do not do that well when left alone. Conjunctivitis is better treated as it can
be infectious, as an example.
Ones general health, though, has much to do with resistence and ability to heal. People whose immune
systems are weak, whose diet is very deficient dont' fare as well. The body is not strong enough to fight
the infection without assistance. Look at people in hospitals. They go there because of a weakness and
are susceptible to everything that seems to pass them; ie, MRSA or fungal infections that get picked up
in hospitals by those in weakened state.
In poor countries, people will use herbs and energy healing to help assist healing. And these are often
traditions passed down through the generations so that most people will have this knowledge to use.
tanya

The difference between a chronic illness and an acute illness
_by_definition_ is that an acute illness will resolve on its
own either by recovery or death. A chronic illness will continue
to worsen over time with no complete recovery without a healing intervention (it can also be suppressed more or less successfully by a non-healing intervention).

Occasionally an acute illness will have sequelae (lasting
chronic consequences of the acute e.g. post-polio syndrome) but that is considered a new chronic disease.

Many chronic illnesses have acute flareups: brief
periods where seemingly acute symptoms arise, like a cough that occurs annually during the winter months, that
are actually part of the chronic disease state. These are called
chronic acutes or maybe acute-chronics.

So certainly you may recover from acute infections without treatment, by definition. But not from chronic infections, also by definition.