Escola de Homeopatia de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Research Center, Graduation Program in Environmental and Experimental Pathology, Universidade Paulista-UNIP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Homeopathy. 2022 May;111(2):105-112. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1733972. Epub 2021 Oct 19.
COVID-19 quickly became a serious public health problem worldwide, with serious economic and social repercussions. Homeopaths around the world have been studying to find a (GE) medicine that might help in the prevention and treatment of this disease.
To compare the incidence of COVID-19 between employees who received or did not receive a homeopathic GE medicine for disease prevention.
Retrospective cohort analysis. The study population comprised all employees of a service sector company in São Paulo, Brazil, and followed up by the corporate Occupational Health department. Intervention consisted of administering 30cH in a one-weekly dose. Primary outcome was incidence of COVID-19 during 3-months' follow-up (April to July, 2020).
We analyzed 1,642 of 1,703 employees without previous diagnosis of COVID-19 at onset of the study period: 53.34% of employees were referred to telework at home and did not receive intervention (Group 1, G1); 24.66% remained working on-premises in the state of São Paulo and received the intervention (Group 2, G2); 21.98% remained working on company premises in other states and did not receive intervention (Group 3, G3). Incidence rate of COVID-19 was respectively 13.35%, 0.74%, and 67.87% ( < 0.001). The odds ratio of being infected in (1) G3 versus G1 was 13.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.21 to 18.39), (2) G3 versus G2 was 283.02 (95% CI, 88.98 to 900.18), and (3) G1 versus G2 was 20.66 (95% CI, 6.53 to 65.39).
The present is a retrospective analysis of a real-world experience. We could not ensure direct observed treatment, and neither could we control adherence to general prevention measures outside company premises.
The incidence of COVID-19 was significantly lower amongst on-premises employees who received the GE medication in comparison to workers who did not receive the intervention (those either at other company premises or teleworking at home).
COVID-19 迅速成为全球严重的公共卫生问题，造成严重的经济和社会影响。世界各地的顺势疗法医生一直在研究寻找一种可能有助于预防和治疗这种疾病的顺势疗法药物。
比较接受或未接受顺势疗法 GE 药物预防疾病的员工中 COVID-19 的发病率。
回顾性队列分析。研究人群包括巴西圣保罗一家服务行业公司的所有员工，并由公司的职业健康部门进行随访。干预措施包括每周服用 30cH。主要结局是在 3 个月的随访期间（2020 年 4 月至 7 月）COVID-19 的发病率。
我们分析了在研究期间无 COVID-19 先前诊断的 1703 名员工中的 1642 名：53.34%的员工被安排在家远程工作且未接受干预（第 1 组，G1）；24.66%的员工仍在圣保罗州现场工作并接受了干预（第 2 组，G2）；21.98%的员工仍在其他州的公司现场工作且未接受干预（第 3 组，G3）。COVID-19 的发病率分别为 13.35%、0.74%和 67.87%（ < 0.001）。（1）G3 与 G1 相比，感染的优势比为 13.70（95%置信区间[CI]，10.21 至 18.39），（2）G3 与 G2 相比，感染的优势比为 283.02（95%CI，88.98 至 900.18），（3）G1 与 G2 相比，感染的优势比为 20.66（95%CI，6.53 至 65.39）。
本研究为真实世界经验的回顾性分析。我们不能确保直接观察治疗，也不能控制公司以外的一般预防措施的依从性。
与未接受干预措施的员工（在其他公司场所或在家远程工作的员工）相比，接受 GE 药物治疗的现场员工 COVID-19 的发病率显著降低。
