Injuries are very difficult to estimate, because in many cases where injury to the patient results from the delivery death takes place not as a result of shock or injury, but owing to the fact that the bruised tissues becomes infected; death is usually due to septicaemia (blood poisoning).

A STUDY of this disease provides at least four classical lessons of the world value of homoeopathy.

The :first lesson” proves how an accurate prescription can be made without knowing the actual name of the disease attacking a patient. this gains much valuable time, thus saving many lives.

A “second lesson” is conveyed by a comparison of the vastly lower death rate in cholera when treated homoeopathically, than has ever been possible with orthodox methods. As cholera is endemic (ever present) in the British Empire (India) this is surely of value to the Indian people as well as to all taxpayers, and to you, the laity, who after all are the ones who may run the risk.

A “third lesson” is proved by the fact that it is possible to always have the few necessary and inexpensive medicines at hand, even in the most inaccessible places, as these remedies can be carried in a pocket, for instant use. This “lesson” of “immediate medication” holds good in any acute disease.

A “fourth lesson” is provided by the unchanging homoeopathic therapeutics, against which we will show the everchanging and weird methods of orthodoxy, proving their therapeutics lack a “Law of Cure”.

the then totally “unknown disease”, which we now know to have been true Asiatic Cholera, first invaded Europe in 1831, and it may occur again, if climatic conditions are ever ripe.

In 181 Hahnemann, the founder of homoeopathy, practising then in Germany, received most urgent appeals from his colleagues at Vienna, who had learned homoeopathy at his feet, imploring Hahnemann to tell them what remedies to use for this unknown and terrible disease which was killing its 66 per cent. and over. These Vienna doctors had previously been taught by Hahnemann how to minutely observe and record the precise individual symptoms of all their cases. Thus, when they wrote to Hahnemann they were able to outline precisely the three prominent, yet totally different “types” of symptoms which their epidemic cases provided them with.

Hahnemann, knowing his “drug symptoms” (in 1831) immediately wrote to his fellow workers accurately prescribing one remedy for each of these types or phases of the same epidemic disease, and the three remedies them named by Hahnemann, each for its own particular type, are of classic importance and exactness to this day, and will be so until the end of time. Such is the precision of homoeopathy, which the laity should remember, and the orthodox doctors as well. Nothing like this exactness in medicine has ever been given to the world. Later I will detail these three remedies with their peculiar symptoms.

But to better set forth this superiority of homoeopathic prescribing, it is imperative that you be told of the weird indecision of orthodox therapeutics. You must also know that orthodoxy has refused to study homoeopathy at any time since 1831, though our work has been an open book for them to buy and study. The consequent unnecessary loss of life has been terrific. If you have any friends in any cholera areas, send them a copy of this journal, and let them learn what reduces the death risk from 50 per cent. and 66 per cent. down to about 16 per cent.

Which is your choice? The therapeutics of orthodoxy, as learned from their own standard works written for their own professional guidance, is one series of everchanging “personal ideas or plans” of how this diseases may be treated. And these gropings without any “law” express some fear and even self-confessed failure. How different is homoeopathy. Hahnemann once said, “When life is at stake, ignorance is a crime”!.

If any homoeopath doctor was to state in word or print that “50 per cent. might be expected to die, with or without his medicine” as Sir Cambridge University has stated in his System of Medicine by many writers (col. x; page 908 et seq), if a homoeopath had said this, we would immediately be crushed out of existence by public opinion aided by the Daily Press, as incompetent, even if we were not sent to prison for “culpable homicide” or whatever the legal term is for this sort of dangerous stupidity. This would be our just award. I refer the readers attention to our statistics.

For the guidance (?) of the orthodox profession Allbutt outlines at great length four great “plans ” of the treatment of cholera, and in the light of what he writes it would seem that a “medical plan” is nothing more than a guess or wild groping of himself or some other doctor. LEt us then consider the “lesson” of these “plans”.

In number one plan he advocates astringents, mineral or vegetable, in combination with opium, anti-spasmodics, even presented by him to be given by the the mouth and rectum, yet-at the end of many pages of instructions how to employ them, he winds up thus, “It is doubtful whether the checking of these discharges (stools and vomit) is, as a dominant principle, a sound basis of action” (!!).

Number two is termed the “eliminative plan”. After some pages informing the orthodox the orthodox profession how to proceed, he winds up by saying, “As a matter of fact, Sir George Johnsons castor oil treatment has been extensively tried and found wanting, and the stimulation of the kidneys by diuretics has also been tried under the guidance of this hypothesis has also been tried under the guidance of this hypothesis (meaning a “guess”) and found to do more harm than good” (!!!).

Number three is Allbutts “Antiseptic plan”, and full instructions as to drugs, doses, and methods aiming at neutralizing the poison in the intestines, he winds up thus, “Acids and germicides of many kinds have been tried with this view (not according to any law of cure, and these experiments have always been on the sick and perhaps dying!). This plan” says Allbutt, “may simply result in adding poison to poison, irritant to irritant, and in hindering a process of salutary decomposition or in destroying leucocytes or other innocuous organisms and their products, which may be doing good work. Practically this plan has failed to cure cholera” (!!!).

Number four is Allbutts “stimulative plan” which simply endeavours to avert death from exhaustion. Alcohol, ammonia, and ether to be administered by the mouth, rectum or hypodermically, are the “favourites” (!) of this class, as he puts it, winding up this section of advice thus, “This plan is not without its drawbacks. Gastro-intestinal irritation may be increased; mischief may arise during the reactive stage and undue disturbance of the collapse stage may be hurtful” (!!!). What then is left to orthodoxy to help their practitioners and their cholera patients?

On page 911 Allbutt says, “It may be asserted with confidence that at the present stage of our knowledge, no single principle or plan of treating cholera has met with much success.” Whilst their patients are dying like flies in the autumn they might have tried what “those homoeopaths” do.

What would happen if the death rates of the two schools of medicine were reversed?.

You must allow me to draw your attention to another great British medical authority, viz. Sir William Oslers Principles and Practice of Medicine, 6th edition, pp. 233. Practically all the drugs he advocates for professional help are summed up as being of “negative value”, whilst the following gem is strikingly funny, and worthy of Punch, if it were not so tragic and fatal to some, “Irrigation of the bowel not so tragic and fatal to some, “Irrigation of the bowel (in cholera) should be used, 3 or 4 litres (roughly 32 to 42 quarts) to be given; it may be slowly injected.

Not only is the colon (large intestine) cleaned out, but the small bowel may be also reached, as shown by the fact that the tannic-acid solutions have been vomited” (!!!). Nom de Dieu! and what use this is to the profession and the laity (their patients) is shown by Oslers prognosis “that 30 to 80 per cent. may die with cholera”. If any homoeopathy wrote such information it would be not only disgustingly tragic… it would be highly criminal.

Hahnemann told the world in 1831, including Sir C. Allbutt and Sir William Osler, what to do for cholera, and his treatment is exact to this day, and which brought the death rate in this disease down to about 16 per cent. Whose is the blame? It is recorded that Dr. Rubini of Naples, following Hahnemanns information never lost a case of cholera in the city hospitals, when he was called in early in the disease.

It is only fair to Osler to mention that he gives the method of Major-General Sir Leonard Rogers “Hypertonic Saline” injection, which has some measure of success. At this method requires all the outfit and precision of a first class hospital and highly trained staff to compound and administer this saline, it falls far short of practical value, as but a small percentage of cholera cases occur in the vicinity of such hospitals, where technique, ingredients and machinery are sine qua non, whereas the few tiny vials of homoeopathic remedies can be carried to the end of the world, and coast but about one shilling a bottle, and anyone can learn how to use them. Besides which our medicines enjoy a lower death rate than even this hypertonic saline can produce.

In no orthodox work have I ever read to any remedy being given for any individual symptoms when discussing a disease, thus all prescriptions of the orthodox fall short of actual needs. This individual prescription is well stated by Dr. Guy Buckley Stearns, Associate Professor of the New York Homoeopathic Medical College, thus:

1st, that each individual reacts to the infections according to the laws of his own being; 2nd, That his symptoms are the result of that reaction, and that they represent the bodys attempt to get well; 3rd, that the body reacts as a whole, each tissue doing its part, and the totality of the symptoms represents a single effort and requires a single drug for a cure; 4th, that the curative remedy is that one which stimulates a reaction in the body like the one the body already is attempting, in other words, causes symptoms like those already present; 5th, that the curative reaction of the body is a positive effort, therefore minute doses of the similar or curative drug must be used, because of the fact that small amounts of drugs stimulate while large symptoms suppress reaction, and aggravate existing symptoms of disease.

I now offer the orthodox and the laity a condensed but exact knowledge of how homoeopaths cure cholera, begging the orthodox to think of the words of orthodox Sir William Crookes, “To stop short of any research that bids fair to widen the gates of knowledge, to recoil from fear of difficulty, or adverse criticism, is to bring reproach on Science”.

So the obvious thing for orthodoxy to do instantly, is to test homoeopathy, for reasons best understood by a study of the comparative death risks of the two schools of medicine. The reader may not fear an attack of cholera; it is the lessons of homoeopathic precision here given which hold good in any disease.

For the three chief phases of Cholera Asiatica Hahnemann prescribed as follows, and his prescriptions made in 1831 have remained unchanged to this day, microbes notwithstanding.

(1) Camphor is to be given for the first stage of this disease only if the following symptoms are observed. Vomiting, great dry coldness of the external surface; sudden collapse, with complete prostration of all vital forces. The chief point to note is that along with symptoms the body surface must be dry. Rice-water stools may not yet be profuse. The Camphor patient objects to being covered, no matter how cold the body surface may be. Then dry cold collapse, vomiting and watery stools sum up Camphor. It is on record that Dr. Rubini of Naples treated 592 first stage cholera cases without a death with this remedy.

If Camphor in homoeopathic potency is not to be had then employ Spirits of Camphor, giving 2 or 3 drops on a little sugar, every ten minutes, until bodily heat is felt to be returning. If this spirit is dropped into water it will at once crystallize out of the spirit. Besides giving this internally, rub some spirit of camphor on chest, abdomen, and under the arms. If you have caught the disease in the dry stage, this will cure. N.B.–Store this Camphor quite apart from all other homoeopathic drugs. It has the power of destroying some vegetable drugs if in contact.

(2) Veratrum album (3x, 6x, or 30) for second stage. Note well the remarkable difference. There must be icy cold sweat. There will be the same collapse, rapid sinking of forces, skin blue, purple and icy chill; skin wrinkled, and remaining in folds when pinched, but — there must be seen the icy cold sweat, first seen on the forehead, which makes all the difference calling for this drug. In this second stage the rice-water stools and vomiting are more frequent and profuse; stools dribble continually. The face becomes more pinched, eyes sunken, nose pointed, and all the body bathed in icy cold sweat.

The breath is felt to be icy cold. The pains are worse than in the first stage, even drinking to some delirium. Keynote — icy cold sweat, which indicates this drug apart from Camphor, yet both sorts are true cholera.

(3) Cuprum metallicum (6x, 12x to 30). Hahnemann in his great wisdom chose this for quite another phase, yet still cholera. Here the cramps and spasms predominate and characterize this remedy beyond and doubt. The cramps are terrible, generally beginning in the extremities working towards the body. At each stool the abdominal cramps are excruciating.

The belly muscles are contracted and knotted. Vomiting brings on more cramps. There are the same rice-water stools and vomiting but it is the cramps and convulsions which predominate, and if such cramps are seen in other diseases think immediately of Cuprum met. (our name for Copper). For more details of any of these three remedies, should such be wished, read up you Homoeopathic Materia Medica, and rely on the Law of Similars, which is Homoeopathy.

Brother orthodox man, quit the “plans” and guesses of your own books and test homoeopathy, which is simple, sane, and safe, especially so form your patients. You have nothing like the above precision in any book written by an orthodox doctor. The three remedies chosen by Hahnemann are of supreme importance and value, but each in its own particular sphere. They are not interchangeable.

Here is a little side information on Copper as a “preventive” of cholera. A thin oval disc of bright copper worn suspended round the neck so that it will rest on the skin over the stomach should at all times be worn when there is cholera about. If you have no such copper, then rub bright with sand some local copper coins and use these in the same manner. It has been noticed in many countries that workers of copper and also of copper salts have always been exempt from cholera, though the B.M.J. for September 16th, 1865 did call this a “silly practice”.

All suspected or contaminated water should be boiled in brightly scoured copper vessels as wanted for kitchen or drinking purposes, but dont slip up and wash your salads in unboiled water, thus defeating your precautions.

Many of the rank and file of orthodoxy wish to openly study and employ homoeopathy; many such actually send their families to homoeopathic practitioners on the quiet; this I know from many personal conversations, but they one and all fear the old men of the G.M.C., and other so-called “Leaders” in orthodox medicine. To these I suggest that they should from a new medical society which should allow an open trial of homoeopathy, instead of using that orthodox medicine so often decried by their own men.

Nursing in cholera– a most important rule is to apply heat. If no hot water bottles are to be bad, why not use wine, beer, or whisky bottles, as we often had to do in the War, for the collapsed wounded. Place same in each armpit, to feet and between the legs, sides of the body and to the abdomen. Seven such points of heat are none too many. Cover every bottle with clothes of any sort, and pin same on securely, as the patients cannot warn of too much heat, and serious burns can thus occur. Keep bodily warmth up by every means possible.

Fluids must be given to replace those lost by the bowels and mouth. Whey is best, so keep rennet tablets on hand. Milk can be “cut” with sherry. This whey stimulates the kidneys, which is all-important. Egg Albumin water is also important. Put the white of one egg in four ounces of boiled and cooled water. Shake very well and it is ready for drinking. It is nourishment as well as drink. Avoid solids for some time after recovery. Vegetable bouillon is also good later on when the attack is over. This will supply the mineral waste caused by the disease. Meat extracts are taboo.

Now for the “lesson of statistics”. All the world of business is guided by the law of averages, and this should also apply herein.


ORTHODOX Mortality percent.

Oslers Practice of Medicine, p. 232.. .. 30.80

Allbutts System of Medicine, vol. I, p. 908, with or without treatment.” 50.00

Logic of Figures, p. 118 (Dr. Bradford). Admiral Mordoinow, President of the Imperial Council of Russia, stated that in 1831-32 the mortality under orthodox treatment was.. 40.00

p. 118 (Bradford) Dr. Wilde, orthodox editor of the Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medicine, in his book on Austrian epidemics says the orthodox death rate was 66.00

p. 137 (Bradford) Dr. Mc-Loughlin, an orthodox physician and Inspector of British Cholera Hospitals presented a “missing” report to the House of Commons, which report had been suppressed in the evidence of the Royal Commission formed to draw up Statistics of the various methods employed in treating cholera in Great Britain in 1854. This report showed that the orthodox mortality was.. 59.20

vide Hawleys Report on Life Insurance, 1866, New York, orthodox mortality was .. .. 40.00

Average percentage guaranteed for the Century by the American Institute of Homoeopathy orthodox mortality.. 49.57

Hamburg epidemic, 1892, see Dr. Puhlmanns Handbook of Homoeopathic Practice, p.526, orthodox mortality .. 42.00

See Lancet, July 5th, 1913, p. 60, Japanese epidemic of August, 1912, 1,083 cases with 696 deaths, or .. 64.33

HOMOEOPATHIC Mortality percent.

vide Logic of Figures of Dr. Bradford, p. 116 et seq; Dr. Quin, London, reports mortality of ten homoeopathic hospitals in 1831-32 as.. 9.00

Dr. Roth, an orthodox physician to the King of Bavaria, reported officially and with reluctance that the homoeopathic mortality in 1831-32 was .. 7.00

Report of the Hahnemannian Academy of Medicine showed that the New York mortality in 1849 was.. 6.00

p. 118, Logic of Figures (Bradford). Admiral Mordoinow in same report had to admit that the homoeopathic mortality was .. 10.00

The homoeopathic death rate for same period was.. 33.00 “and on account of this extraordinary result the law interdicting the practice of homoeopathy in Austria was repealed”

All the cases concerned in the homoeopathic statistics were certified to as genuine by Dr. Mc- loughlin, the Government Inspector, who wrote to this effect, and also “that he would chose to be treated homoeopathically were he taken ill with cholera” The “missing report” alluded to in the opposite column, showed, when brought before the House of Commons that the homoeopathic mortality was only .. 16.40

ditto, “Hawley” and the homoeopathic death rate was less than .. 9.00

and the same century loss guaranteed by the Am. Institute of Homoeopathy was for the Homoeopathic loss only.. 16.83

Same epidemic (Hamburg) same work, p. 526, the homoeopathic loss at one hospital was.. 15.50

See Homoeopathic Review, London, June, 1866, p. 338. Dr. Rubini had 200 cases at the Royal Alms House at Naples, attested by public officials, with NO DEATHS.

Injuries are very difficult to estimate, because in many cases where injury to the patient results from the delivery death takes place not as a result of shock or injury, but owing to the fact that the bruised tissues becomes infected; death is usually due to septicaemia (blood poisoning). Most of the grave injuries result from hastening unduly the delivery. As a matter of fact the two generally go together.

To extract the head situated at the outlet is comparatively simple and safe, and at worst will only result in a slight tearing of the perineum which can be easily repaired; but to apply forceps while the head is high in the pelvis, especially if it is still within the neck of the uterus, is a different matter. No one can ever pull down the head with forceps as well as Nature can drive it down Infinite patience is necessary in many cases.

The busy general practitioner says he has not time to wait, and after some years he persuades himself that not only is more convenient to himself to deliver with forceps as soon as possible, but that it is actually in the interests of his patients that they should not be allowed to remain in labour longer than necessary. Further, and this is a very important matter, many individuals, particularly of the artisan class, appraise the value of the accoucheur by the promptitude with which he delivers them and relieves them of their suffering. This hurrying of a delivery with forceps cannot be too strongly condemned –PROFESSOR J.M. MUNRO KERR, in British Medical Journal, June 12th, 1926.

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.