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.

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.