That would be about the one-hundredth part of a grain of Phosphorus at a dose, or rather less.

I called the next day, about eighteen hours thereafter, and my patient opened the door herself, slightly screening her eyes with her hand, and quite able to bear a moderate amount of light. The inflammation was nearly gone; the next day it was quite gone.

Patients amazement was great indeed; in all the twenty years of these ophthalmic attacks she had suffered much, and had had a number of doctors, including London oculists, to treat her, but to no purpose. And yet she had been treated actively, and there had been no lack of physic and leeches, and also no lack of medical skill; but there was lacking in their therapeutics the one thing needful.. . . THE LAW OF SIMILARS.

How was it that I, with no very special knowledge of the eye or of its diseases, and with only usual practical experience, could thus beat skilled specialists and men of thrice my experience ?.

Was it, perhaps, greater skill, deeper insight into the disease, more careful investigation of the case? By no means . . . It was just the law of similars, patiently carried out n practice.

My dear allopathic confrere, WHY are you so very simple that you leave us homoeopaths with this enormous advantage over the best of you? Any little homoeopathic David can overcome the greatest allopathic giant if he will only keep to his Materia Medica, and the directions of Hahnemann.

And the good thing lies so near, and is so constantly thrown at you. If we homoeopaths were only to make a secret of our art, you would petition the Government to purchase it of us !.

But revenons a nos moutons. My patient was naturally very grateful, and said, “If that is homoeopathy, I wonder if it could cure my cataract?” On examining the eyes now with some care one could readily perceive that there were opacities behind the pupils, that of the right being the much more extensive. She then informed me that she had had cataract for some years, and was waiting for it to get ripe so as to undergo an operation. She had been to two London oculists about it, and they agreed both as to diagnosis and prognosis, and eventual operative treatment.

She had waited a year and gone again to one of these eye surgeons, and been told that all was satisfactorily progressing, although butt slowly; it was thought it might take another two years before an operation could be performed. Her vision was also getting gradually worse, and she could not see the parting in her hair at the looking-glass, or the names over the shops, or on the omnibuses in the street; could see better in the dusk than in broad daylight.

In answer to her question as to the curability of cataract with medicines, I said I had no personal experience whatever on the subject beyond one case, and I thought that from the nature of the complaint, one could hardly expect medicines to cure it, or even affect it at all. Still, some few homoeopaths had published such cases, and others had asserted that they sometimes did really succeed in curing cataract with homoeopathic treatment.

I added that, inconceivable as it was to me, yet I had no right to question the veracity of these gentlemen, simply because they claimed to do what seemed impossible.

In fine, I agreed, at patients special request, to try to cure her cataract with medicines given on homoeopathic lines !.

I must confess that I smiled a little at my own temerity. But I consoled myself thus: What harm could it do to treat her while she was waiting to get blind. At the worst I should not prevent it !.

So it was agreed she should report herself every month or so, and I would each time prescribe for her a course of treatment.

All this was there and then agreed to.

She took from may 29th to June 219th 1875, Calcarea carbonica 30, and Chelidonium I, one pilule in alternation three times a day. Thus she had two doses of the Calcarea one day, and one the next, and conversely of the Chelidonium.

There was indications for both remedies, though I cannot defend the alternation: I hope I alternate less frequently now.

Then followed Asafoetida 6, and Digitalis Purp.3.

Then Phosphorus 1, and subsequently Sulphur 30, and then Calcarea and Chelidonium.

Thus I continued ringing the changes of Phosphorus, Sulphur, Chelidonium, Calcarea carbonica, Asafoetida, and Digitalis, till the beginning of 1876.

On February 17th, 1876, I prescribed Gelsemium 30 in pilules, one three times a day. This was continued for a month.

Then I gave the following course of drug treatment: Silicea 30 for fourteen days; Belladonna 3 for fourteen days; Sulphur 30 three times a day for a week; and then Phosphorus 1 for a fortnight.

A month or so after this date March 20th, 1876 I one morning heard some very loud talking in the hall, and my patient came rushing in and crying in quite an excited manner that she could almost see as well as ever.

She explained that latterly she seemed able to discern objects and persons in the street much better than formerly but she thought it must be fancy, but that morning she suddenly discovered that she could see the parting in her hair and she at once started to inform me of the fact and, en route, she further tested her vision by reading the names over the shops which she previously could not see at all.

I ordered the same course of treatment again, and in another two months the lenticular (or capsular) opacities completely disappeared, and her vision became and remained excellent.

She had never any recurrence of the ophthalmia, and she remained about a year and a half in my neighbourhood in good health. She then went abroad again, and in her letters to her friends since, she makes no mention of her eyes or sight, and hence I fairly conclude that she continues well.

The patients age is now about fifty r fifty-one.

I have detailed this case somewhat circumstantially, so that my conversion to a belief in the medicinal curability of cataract may appear to others as it does to me.

This case made a considerable stir in a small circle, and a certain number of cases of cataract have since come under my care in consequence, and the curative results I have obtained in their treatment are extremely encouraging.

And I may add that I published this in the year 1880, and since then I have partially or completely cured a number of cases of cataract with remedies, and this power I possess because I am privileged to be a homoeopath.

James Compton Burnett
James Compton Burnett was born on July 10, 1840 and died April 2, 1901. Dr. Burnett attended medical school in Vienna, Austria in 1865. Alfred Hawkes converted him to homeopathy in 1872 (in Glasgow). In 1876 he took his MD degree.
Burnett was one of the first to speak about vaccination triggering illness. This was discussed in his book, Vaccinosis, published in 1884. He introduced the remedy Bacillinum. He authored twenty books, including the much loved "Fifty Reason for Being a Homeopath." He was the editor of The Homoeopathic World.