Were I suffering with a pneumonia and were no Homoeopathic doctor at hand, I would prefer to be treated by a layman or woman of average intelligence armed with one of our books and remedies than by the most famous orthodox diagnostician and lung specialist.


AN orthodox authority says that “ten per cent of all deaths in the civilized countries are due to pneumonia and that practically thirty per cent. of all pneumonia cases are sure to die.” When pneumonia is treated homoeopathically less than five per cent. die. These two averages are for adult cases, of all classes and all ages. What I have to say to you regarding the terrible difference in death risks demands your earnest and immediate attention.

The mortality statistics prove many things. The orthodox figures are taken from their own records. They were complied for the guidance of their own men and this guarantee likewise holds when homoeopathic figures are given. The very great difference in death rates shows the serious extra risk you run if you are being treated by orthodox methods. You are much safer if you employ homoeopathy.

Of course you should try and obtain the services of a doctor practising homoeopathy, but if you cannot obtain a homoeopathic doctor you will fare better if you take a homoeopathic materia medica or family manual and match the personal symptoms of any given case, speaking now of pneumonia, and then give or take the homoeopathic remedy which produces most nearly the disease symptoms found at the moment.

It is the “peculiar personal symptoms” of any patient which point to the one drug required. Diagnosis, which may be incorrect, is of secondary importance. Nature speaks with exactness through the patients expressions of suffering and these must be matched exactly with what we homoeopaths have recorded in our materia medicas.

Were I suffering with a pneumonia and were no Homoeopathic doctor at hand, I would prefer to be treated by a layman or woman of average intelligence armed with one of our books and remedies than by the most famous orthodox diagnostician and lung specialist.

There is much to be said on the subject, all of vital importance. I have several points to make:.

(1) To prove that there is a very great difference in the death risks between the two schools of medicine, orthodox and homoeopathic.

(2) To make my second point I must quote the bewildered groping of orthodoxy as to their own drugs, the use of which results in a thirty per cent. death loss. At the same time I must register some of the orthodox warnings as to the actual dangers of their own drugs and, note well, we homoeopaths never give warnings about any drug we use because we have no need to do so. There is no danger in any medicine we employ, and babies may be given any drug we name.

(3) To offset the dangers of orthodox medical measures I must lay before you a clear but brief description of a few important homoeopathic remedies which enable us to save so many lives. Each homoeopathic drug will portray clearly a particular type of phase of a pneumonia process and it is necessary to match the patients symptoms with one of the drugs described when an amelioration or cure will ensue. If you select correctly, you cannot fail.

Homoeopathy never indulges in such weak expressions as this or that drug “may be tried” which is common to many orthodox medical works. This bespeaks a bungling and bewildered groping.

Now for the contradictions and dangers of orthodoxy. It was no less a man that Dr. Blumgart who in his five public lectures sponsored by the Faculty of Medicine of Harvard University Medical School stated that “thirty per cent. of all pneumonia cases are sure to die”. He, an orthodox doctor, speaking for the “second to none” medical school in U.S.A. gave his message to the laity and we are following suit now with our side of the question and testimony.

The late Sir William Osler (Oxford University) put their orthodox death risk at higher than this thirty per cent. (see statistics). Note well that all my statistics are taken from public institutions and not from private practice. The classification and diagnoses were all made at the bedside, with many onlookers present, including the nurses, and many nurses are exceedingly intelligent.

So doctors are not likely to make too many errors in diagnosis. In fact that work is left to well- known diagnosticians. We may take it that the mistake of the disease pneumonia is not often made. When death occurs, the physicians cannot be expected to enter the cause of death as Digitalis, Strophanthin, or some antipyretic or serums. So the cause of death is put down to pneumonia.

Therefore we may take it that the mortality rates of the hospitals are as stated. The type or class of pneumonia which kills is more or less a matter of personal opinion. There are at present four classes or types of pneumonia. I read last week that some diagnostician has divided one class into twenty-seven varieties, though he did not pretend that this reduced the mortality one iota, and so it goes on ad infinitum, with a fairly constant death rate of orthodoxy of thirty per cent, which has held good for the last fifty years.

How many tens of thousands of lives could have been saved in this half century had homoeopathy only been employed?.

Homoeopathy has a guiding rule, Similia, to help the prescriber. Orthodoxy has no rule. It relies on personal opinions. Their works on medicine are out of date every few years as the second- hand bookshops will tell you. This quick change is not advance. It is bewilderment.

Homoeopaths, both professional and lay supporters, know what medicine to give and exactly why.

Sir Farquhar Buzzard, when addressing the Birmingham University Medical School in 1929, said to graduates and undergraduates: “If our profession as a whole is to attain its rightful position, let us cease to profess to cure.” I ask you not only how this strikes you, but what effect it must have had on all the undergraduates soon to be let loose on the suffering public?.

An Oxford University Medical Textbook (orthodox, of course), states: “In fifty years to come the lay people will stand aghast at the barbarities perpetuated in the name of medicine to-day.”.

Dear orthodox colleagues (for I know that some of you reads this journal) and my unknown lay readers, I am fighting and “HEAL THYSELF” is fighting to save peoples lives. So do not treat this information lightly, or you may live to regret it.

Listen to this levity on the part of an orthodox leader. The late Sir William Osler, Regius Professor of Medicine, Oxford University, a man at the top of the orthodox medical tree, said (see page 278, Practical Medical Series, 1931): “The family as well as the patient must be treated, and any concoction with a striking colour, a definite taste and pleasant smell, and finally above all being perfectly harmless, will often aid not only the family, but indirectly the patient and the physician.” This serves to show us all how little the orthodox believe in their medicines.

The Public Health Department of Massachusetts, U.S.A., compiled the very latest information as to the orthodox practice in treating pneumonia. They inform the orthodox profession “that their much vaunted sera have fallen into disuse in consequence of their obvious disadvantages, such as the immense dosages necessary, the technical difficulties of their administration … the very serious reactions (deaths) following serum sickness being common … Theoretically sera ought to do good but they have failed.

We (the orthodox) lack a serum free from defects due to the amount of protein present in horse serum, which gives frequent and violent chills, as well as very high temperatures and a number of fatal cases immediately following injections have been reported (and how many such deaths not so reported?) Specific treatment of pneumonia by serum is by no means solved.” So seemingly is the knell sounded on the much vaunted serum “experiment” of orthodoxy, and what of the recipients of such treatment? Many are beyond making any sort of report.

I only mention a few drugs in everyday use by the orthodox in their pneumonia cases. They carry innumerable and very grave warnings issued by the authors to the orthodox profession.

Heroin is a preparation derived from Morphia. It has hosts of trade names. It allays cough. I can vouch for this personally as I was treated thus in France during the War and I nearly “turned my toes up to the daisies.” It stopped my cough by drying up the secretions in the lungs which should have been coughed up.

I nearly suffocated. Fortunately I was able to crawl out of my bed and get hold of my own homoeopathic remedies. It surely stops coughs; but the patient is found to be in a worse plight than before. He has a pneumonia plus a drug disease.

Orthodoxy warns its practitioners thus about Heroin: It has a depressant action on the cord and especially on the respiratory centre, very much greater than that of Morphia. It is advisable to commence with very small doses as some persons are easily affected by it. Repeated doses have produced poisonous symptoms. It is a highly dangerous drug which ought not to be allowed in practice.

Digitalis. Nearly every case of pneumonia in orthodox hands receives this drug. Let us examine as briefly as possible some of its terrible risks, which would fill a book. I have read some important orthodox medical works of reference in which not one word was said of the cumulative action of Digitalis.

Yet others emphasize that its action does pile up in the patient to a most dangerous degree. This danger being known, it is little short of wickedness when this is not stated as a warning. The following are brief extracts from a number of standard orthodox medical works:.

“There is no evidence of benefit from Digitalis in pneumonia, except in a possible 5 per cent. of cases. There is actual harm to the patient if the drug is given until its toxic symptoms appear. There is no justification for its routine use as is the custom in so many hospitals. There is considerable danger in prescribing Digitalis. Digitalis requires the greatest caution to avoid toxic (poisonous) symptoms. (From Massachusetts Board of Health warnings to the profession.).

Blumers edition of Billings-Forcheimer (Therapeutics of Medicine, Vol. II, p. 782 et seq.), frankly advises thus: “It is sufficient to Digitalize the heart (which flatly contradicts the warnings of the former authority and these contradictions appear throughout orthodox medical works.).

At this point I must quote what a very great homoeopathic author and college professor had to say about Digitalis. In his materia medica Dr. J. Tyler Kent pictures the drug thus: “Digitalis has done more mischief in orthodox hands than any other drug. Every patient who has a fast beating heart or anything the matter with the heart is given Digitalis. It has caused more deaths than any other drug.

The orthodox call it a sedative; yes, it is a sedative. It makes the patient very sedate. You have seen how sedate a patient looks after he has been in the hands of an undertaker and has on his best clothes.” That is what Digitalis does and yet it is one of the three chief drugs of the orthodox for pneumonia.

When an average orthodox doctor thinks he dare not give another drop of Digitalis he turns at once to Strophanthin, or Strophanthine. It is mentioned in all their medical works.

Strophanthine (Massachusetts Board of Health advice, page 148). This drug is warmly advocated by Meara and others, but it should not be given in a case of pneumonia when Digitalis has been given JUST PREVIOUSLY, as instances of sudden death following its use have been recorded.

The action of Strophanthine is but little more prompt than Digitalis and because of the danger attending its use it seems to be of little value, etc.” Keeping in mind and having to guess at what is meant by “not just previously” I turn to the Quick Reference Book of Medicine and Surgery, by Dr. Rehberger of Johns Hopkins University, sixth edition and read that “it must not be used for at least two days after Digitalis has been administered.

It may cause paralysis of the voluntary and involuntary heart muscle by direct action (and this is printed notice is found under Strophanthine, yet under Digitalis there is no word of warning that Strophanthine must not follow on Digitalis. Here indeed is a very great danger and who waits “two whole days” in any pneumonia case to give the next dose of medicine?.

In this connection one more quotation is absolutely necessary and if anything I suggest that it almost puts the last two authors in the “criminal negligence category.”.

I read in Blumers Billings-Forcheimers Therapeutics of Internal Diseases, Vol. II, p. 792. “Never give Strophanthine to those who have had Digitalis. Cases of death follow. Strophanthine should under no circumstances whatever be given if Digitalis has been employed any time within at least a week.” Here are some death dealing eros in standard orthodox professional works having International sue and very large sales.

My dear orthodox colleague please explain to me, what happens to all those thousands of patients who get the two drugs after “two days interval”, whilst the number who have had the combination of these two drugs though “not just previously” whatever that may mean, why – God help them and the orthodox men who follow that advice.

If the authority who demands that “full seven days must elapse between Strophanthine and Digitalis or they will kill” is correct then many have been just “plain killed-by-misadventure-or- ignorance” and perhaps this explains the 30 per cent. death rate in some degree.

Having quoted from American authorities, I must now quote a British source, as this is mainly fro a British reading public. Turn to The Principles and Practice of Medicine written by the late Sir William Osler, Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford University and formerly of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and later at McGills University at Montreal, professorships which proclaim his pre-eminence in orthodox matters. Recent editions are by Dr. McCrae. It has run to the eleventh edition with well over a quarter of a million copies sold.

A weak feature in this work is that “may be tried is used, as also “may be given” which sounds like experiments on the sick. For pneumonia this work advises Optochin, a Quinine derivative, explaining that “experiments on the sick. For pneumonia this work advises Optochin, a Quinine derivative, explaining that “experimentally on mice its value is encouraging but scarcely good enough.” Further an overdose of this drug causes disturbances of vision.

Bleeding is again in fashion (orthodox) to be done. “late in the disease”. If my memory does not play me false, Sir Clifford Allbutt (Regius Professor or Medicine at Cambridge University) suggests bleeding early. So the profession may toss up, having equal authority, early or late, whatever happens.

Oslers book advises Serum,contrary to many U.S.A. authorities. Vaccines are of no value “now”, though they had their experimental rage a few years ago.

Here is a jar for the profession (and some patients). Osler and McCrae advise Digitalis and Strophanthine for pneumonias in adjoining lines (page 105, eleventh edition) with absolutely no mention of any dangers. There is, moreover, no mention of any cumulative power and danger when speaking of Digitalis, and as their dose of this drug when given is XV minims three or four times daily, one must wonder what has happened to thousands of pneumonia cases so treated.

To quieten the nervous system Osler and Co. advise Bromides, Chloral hydrate, Morphia, Barbital (so recently sternly warned against by Sir William Willcox). Osler and Co. also advise Codein, Heroin, and Morphia to quieten the cough and they warn that “expectorant drugs upset the stomach”. There is not much comfort to be gained from a survey of this book which has been sold well in excess of 250,000 copies.


I will now describe some homoeopathic remedies for pneumonia with a clearness of detail absolutely unknown an any orthodox medical work. I think a few orthodox medicos may read these lines. To such I say: Have you every watched one of your own family die, feeling that the illness need not, should not, have ended in death? Did you ever, in the chill silent hours of a long sleepless night wonder what those homoeopaths would do for such a case which was weighing you down ? Perhaps you even cursed your orthodox Materia Medica teachers and all your medical works. Well, you can learn what the homoeopaths would do and have done.

To the laity I say: Whilst you are waiting to obtain a professed homoeopathic doctor study homoeopathy seriously and “HEAL THYSELF” will help you. With care you cannot lose half the cases that the orthodox practitioner does. Shun all “fever-breakers”. They kill. The heart burdened by a pneumonia cannot stand the extra load of a fever-breaker not Digitalis, Strophanthine, Heroin, etc.

The following homoeopathic remedies help us to keep our death rate at under 5 per cent. in public hospitals though in private practice I thoroughly believe the death rate is very much lower.

Aconite (3x, 6x to 30). At the first possible moment, when it is thought that a chill has been contracted, which may turn into many things and when shivers and shudderings are first noted, take doses of Aconite every fifteen minutes. As favourable reaction is felt take every two hours.

Stop medicine the moment the patient feels better. Let the drug work on. It may be found in a few hours that the chill has been conquered and the normal restored. So always have a bottle of homoeopathically diluted Aconite on hand. When a chill is more serious, besides the shiverings some fever will be felt. Continue the Aconite until it is felt that there is some local congestion, when another drug must be considered whose symptoms compare with the new disease symptoms.

The new and local symptoms will fix the attention of the patient or the attendant so consider them at once. It is not necessary to wait until pneumonia is apparent. This cannot be told well under twenty-four hours, when precious time has been lost, but of Aconite has been taken immediately the slightest chill has been felt any threatened trouble will have been reduced in severity or thwarted entirely.

The most common serious symptoms requiring Aconite are as follows. Mind: Great fear and anxiety; fears he will be ill a long time, very restless. Head: Fullness, heavy, hot, bursting pain, burning heat, vertigo, worse on rising and in extreme cases the mind may wander even to some delirium. The eyes feel hot and dry. Face is red, hot, flushed, or one cheek is red and the other pale (this is more often seen in the very young). Chest: oppressed breathing, shortness of breath, hoarse dry cough, with all symptoms worse at night and after midnight.

Heart beats felt, pulse full and hard, tense and bounding, arteries easily felt, especially in the temples and throat. There will be very marked thirst. The skin will be hot and dry to the touch. There will be shudderings which merge into tiny shivers. Such are the chief symptoms of an acute chill. Aconite taken early enough will thwart many such attacks overnight.

I have for many years relied on using in alternation Aconite and Belladonna which is the only instance in my work of using two drugs almost at one time. I have used them all through my four years War work and since. To mix ones drugs as a rule weakens ones judgment. Professor Hempel said that Aconite controls and corrects the arterial circulation, whilst Belladonna acts in same manner on the venous circulations.

I have adopted his life-long method of alternating Aconite with Belladonna in the 3x or 6x potency in every case of chill or suspected chill, which, if not stopped, might run on into pneumonia, bronchitis, pleurisy etc. These two drugs are given fifteen minutes apart, alternately, for some five or six doses each, then drop to two hours apart during waking hours, not being like the night nurse who woke her patients regularly to give them their sleeping medicine.

If Aconite has been given, or Aconite and Belladonna in alternation, the original symptoms will probably be soon replaced by a different disease picture, which calls for a remedy matching these new symptoms. A few examples will show how a subsequent medicine is selected.

Bryonia Alba 3x, 6x or 30. Bryonia cures or alleviates the following symptoms: “Stitching cutting pain in various parts of the chest of lungs. Patient is irritable and fretful. Pains grow worse and at last become tearing in character. A child too young to speak will vaguely try to place it hands on the painful region. The cough is very dry and hurts acutely and, most important, the patient will try by every means to lesson the movement of the chest wall of lungs. Bryonia is particularly indicated in pneumonia, rheumatism, etc., if the patient is worse by movement.

A sick man needing Bryonia lies absolutely still and as pressure relieves he lies on the painful side. Another characteristic is great thirst for large quantities of fluid, due to dryness of membranes, lips dry and parched, mouth and tongue dry, tongue coated yellow or brown. The Bryonia-needing patient is usually constipated and had dry stools. Phlegm raised by much coughing is very tough and stringy. The pains of the patient needing Bryonia are particularly of a stitching character. Bryonia is all-important in pleurisy and should be prescribed for the symptoms mentioned, whether there is pleurisy or not.

Ethelbert Petrie Hoyle
BIO: Dr. Ethelbert Petrie Hoyle 1861 – 1955 was a British orthodox physician who converted to homeopathy. He served as editor of the International Homeopathic Medical Directory and Travelling Secretary to the International Homeopathic Society.