To keep the bowels free and open with brown bread and fruit, and to use packing, or hot-air bath, to throw off the retained waste and diseased matter, are very important. In some diseased conditions of the liver there is great constipation. The retained waste matter is diffused through the system in the effort to eliminate it, and it forms often the basis of typhus. The use of hot air, or sweating packs, to cleanse the system is therefore all important.

“It will be from my narrative that the tumour, or what some call lumps in the liver, can be dissipated entirely. From the end of my seven months fast, I have never had an hours suffering from my liver”.

Although this work is intended to give my own experience only in the medicinal cure of tumours of the breast, I think the foregoing personal narrative of the sufferer herself eminently instructive. Some of the statements I do to quite agree with, and I think the power of diet is often much over-rates, still the subject is too important for us to be able to omit such as excellent personal testimony.

My objection to diet by itself lies in the fact that many are too weak to bear dieting, and very rigorous diet uses up normal tissue as well as morbid. I know of no case of tumour of the female breast cured by diet, but I lately had the following case under observation, and it exemplifies the wisdom of Natures own little ways, that some of the soft patent and sinful moderns are trying to upset. Only conceited soft-put-downs would dream of thwarting Natures efforts.



A lady of 32 had a little adenoid tumour in her left breast of the size of a marble. As she was enceinte, I recommended her to do but little for so small a thing, but to be sure to well suckle her child when it came. This she did with very praiseworthy perseverance, though she had but very little milk, and the process had to be materially supplemented by the bottle, and at the end of the fourth month of suckling the tumour had entirely disappeared. It is true I gave her a few medicines also with reference to the tumour and for other ailings, still I conclude that the baby helped to draw off the tumour, causally because of the short duration of its waning; the mammilla of that side had always been retracted, which, though a small circumstance, deserves attention.

Personally, were I a woman with baby, I would suckle it from purely selfish motives, merely to depurate my own blood and organism, for a woman who had a family and does not suckle her offspring, is drawing a bill on the future of her organism which she is likely to be either unable to meet at all or to do so with great difficulty. Mother Nature suffers no tampering with her provisions; with her it is simply and emphatically, Obey; or suffer disease or extinction.


The case I am about to tell about is psychologically and sociologically interesting, as my readers will see.

On December 15th, 1884, a married lady, 44 years of age, mother of one child, then 16 years old, came to place herself under my care.

She had noticed a swelling in her right breast, and was naturally much frightened. An intimate friend of hers (in fact, her former governess) had been cured of a mammary tumour by me with medicines, and so Mrs. came off to London to place herself under my care, but when arrived, her metropolitan friends quite laughed her out of it, telling her it was all nonsense to trust herself to my tender mercies, first, because of my homoeopathic proclivities, which they adequately despise and actively hate; and then “it was well known that no medicines (and least of all, homoeopathic ones) were any good at all in tumours”.

The poor frightened thing of course yielded, was hurried off to what I suppose I must call eminent men, who declared it to be cancer, and urged immediate operation in order to save her life. The operation was duly performed in April, the whole right breast being completely ablated by Sir. The wound healed up quickly and well, and the lady was sent home to her husbands country CURED (!!) and the case, no doubt, continues to stand as one of the CURES (1) of the eminent operator. The social value of medicinal cures of tumours is slander and contempt.

However, the cutting-off process was rose than useless, as in a few months another tumour appeared in the remaining breast, which confirmed the pinion of the operator that it was a case of cancer.

Was it cancer? No, I think not, but an irritable tumour of utero-ovarian origin. Indeed, I am quite sure this is the correct diagnosis. Our operating surgeons are mad; the biggest and best are clean mad. No sooner does a poor woman get a lump in her breast than she is frightened out of her wits by consultations between these eminent and eminently ignorant knife-people, whose diagnostics are confined to feeling, seeing, and the microscope.

My treatment of this recurrent tumour lasted three years, and the following remedies were used: Psor. 30 Hydrastis canadensis O, Bellis per. I, Ranunculus sceleratus 3x, Psor. c., Thuja occidentalis 30m Bellis perennis O, Solanum tub. 6 and 12, Aurum muriaticum nat, 3x, Cundurango I; and on February 7th, 1888, the breast was normal and the remarkable thoracic hyperaesthesia had at last disappeared, and this had for years on patients chest caused her to wince and shrink from contact.

To give all the notes of these three years of treatment would fill a little volume, and so I am compelled to narrate it in these few words. But I again state that it was not a case of cancer, but the lumps came in the breasts-first in the one was cut off, and then in the remaining one-from a wrong state of the uterus and ovaries, and in precisely the same physiological way as the milk comes into the breast after child-birth.

The origin of the first tumour was curious: the lady was getting out of their carriage when she fell against one of the buttons of her husbands coat. When I first saw the left breast it was red, hard, and very painful. The lady had been vaccinated four or five times, the last twice unsuccessfully. She was very found of salt. She had had much grief and worry. Her confinement was very severe, owing to size of foetus. She subsequently had a good deal of congestion of the womb and leucorrhoea, for which her surgeon and physician gave her local treatment. This is the usual thing: at first a poor ladys constitution is wrong; Nature, kind clever Nature, sets about righting it with leucorrhoea, ulcers at the os uteri, and uterine congestion; the doctor (poor brainless creature) cauterizes, gives injections, and cures (drives back); then it concretes in the breast as a tumour, which is cut off, and-apres ca le deluge!.

I told the lady straight away that hers was not a case of cancer at all, but as she had had the opinions of the greatest living authorities on tumours and cancers she did not believe me.

What do her husband, family, and friends now say of the diagnosis and the cure by remedies? I do not know, I merely have been made aware that they now poke fun at the duration of the cure. “When are you going to leave off going to your doctor? surely you are well, you look it!” And these were the very people who prevented her from coming to me in the first instance, and morally compelled the poor frightened lamb to have one of her breasts ablated!.

When I was a student and used to watch my professors paint tumours with iodine, give their bearers tonics, fail to do any good, and then explain authoritatively how that medicines were useless in tumours, and how that nothing but the surgeon;s knife was of any real avail; when I used to see and listen to all this, I often dreamed day dreams of trying to find a solvent for tumours, and so avoid the cutting business, of which I have, and ever have had, an instinctive horror. And in the beginning of my professional career I tried hard and long to find such a solvent for tumours, but, of course, never found any. Why?.

Just because the thing is impossible. And why impossible? Simply because the organism GROWS tumours vitally, and anything that is to cure, really cure, must bring back the perverted VITALITY of the part to the normal, and, fortunately, the semeiology and symptomatology of the sufferers, when read in the light of homoeopathy, give us a good stout hand-rope to guide us in our search for the right remedies.

If we reflect upon the subject, we shall readily come to the conclusion that to attempt to cure tumours by locally-applied absorbents or by operation is like trying to cure an apple-tree of its apples by painting the apples with iodine, or performing an operation on the apple-tree for “apples”.

The only difference between the two processes of apple-growing by apple-trees, and tumour-growing by human organisms, lies merely in the fact that the apple-growing is a part of the normal biology of the apple plant, whereas the growth of tumours by the human body is morbid. This difference is, of course, a very great one, but what I am driving at is to show that tumour-growing is, though certainly morbid, yet nevertheless quite as much a vital process as if it were purely a biological process within the four corners of the normal physiological life of the individual.

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.