[Presented by title before I.H.A., Bureau of Obstetrics and Pediatrics, June 8, 1935….

There is, I believe, no more fertile field for the homoeopathic physician than the soil provided by this great band of little sufferers. I have always marvelled at the fortitude of these infants. An adult, in the throes of the same amount of itch becomes eloquent and if he does not drive his physician to drink he drives him to worse – that is, the too frequent changing of the remedy. Not so the infant. He licks his lips after any stray granules of the treat you have provided and manages a gurgly smile in the course of his writhings and scratchings.

Before he comes to us Johnny has had skin tests. Johnny cant wear wool, Johnny cant wear silk, Johnny cant wear cotton, Johnny must become nudist. Unfortunately nudists cannot ignore the decorations of the inner man as they do those pertaining to he outer man; and more unfortunately still Johnny cannot eat this and Johnny cannot eat that. It would seem as though Johnny needed remodelling. This is just what the right homoeopathic remedy will do for Johnny, and how very often this remedy is Sulphur!.

Two of my most interesting patients were little colored boys, sent to me by one of the paediatricians of the Infants Home, who had been treating them (not homoeopathically) fifteen months. When she called me up I said, “I have never seen eczema in a colored child”, and she replied, “Neither had I and ins awful”. The older child was three and he had a mild dry eczema. He had one powder of Sulphur 1M. in November, and in January the foster-mother reported he was free of itching, although the skin was dry and scaly in patches, but by March he was quite clear. There was a slight recurrence in May and he was given the second dose of Sulphur which completed this case.

It was the case of the younger child of twenty-one months that the doctor had designated as “awful”. The eruption was copious, especially on the extremities. The eczema was of the “weeping” type and as it had become infected in places there were large pustular areas. The arms were bandaged and when the bandages were removed the scabs came too, and bleeding was so sudden and profuse that we had to wipe up our floor. There were enlarged glands in both axillae and groin. His first visit was November 5, and he was given a dose of Sulphur 1M. He was brought to the office again on November 25.

The eruption was now dry – no bleeding nor moisture and he received Sac. lac. On December 27, the rash was much better and the glands much smaller. He was again given Sac. lac. The next visit was March 3 and the eruption was quite better. There were paler areas of skin where the rash had been and there were only two glands palpable, and these much reduced. On May 18, he received his second dose of Sulphur 1M. as there was a little eczema returning in the bends of his elbows. On July 20, he had his third and last dose of Sulphur 1M. as there was a slight recurrence when his two-year molars erupted. The foster mother said to me, “Why didnt they send me to you in the first place?”.

I saw a year-old child on April 2, who had had a patch of eczema on her cheek and some on her trunk for four months. I gave her a powder of Sulphur 1M. and on May 2 they reported she was entirely clear.

On April 14, 1930, I saw an infant of four months who had suffered with eczema for three months, on the face, neck and chest. The eruption was moist and bleeding behind the ears. There were frequent boils and pustules. From the above date until Feb., 1931, he was treated by my father and myself with Sulphur, Merc. viv., Calc. carb., etc., with periods of exacerbation and no lasting improvement. At this time I had become interested in Wheelers little book on the so-called “nosodes”.

ON Feb. 3, I sent this child Morganus 200, and on March 26, he was entirely free of eczema for the first time, but had three boils; Sac. lac. was sent him. On April 10, there was a little eczema on the face again and he received his second dose of Morganus 200. He had no more eczema until a year later when he had a few spots on his hands following measles. He then received his third dose of Morganus 200, and has been clear ever since – a matter of three years.

A few years ago a three-months-old infant was brought to the office. She had had eczema on her face five days. Here was one case brought along without delay. However, there was a reason for this, I had cured a brother of eczema seven years previously; he had been a Sulphur baby. Dec. 5, Sulphur 1M. Dec.20, eczema much worse, breaking out on hand now; Sac. lac. given. Jan. 6, there has been improvement but worse now, Sulphur 1M. Jan. 27, improving; Sac. lac. Feb. 2, eczema much worse for last three days, and oozing now, Sulphur 1M. April 7, eczema very bad, Mutabile 200. April 24, there was wonderful improvement. This was evidently not a Sulphur baby.

I wish to call attention to these two latter remedies which we had previously mentioned in relation to asthma. They were both used empirically, as I have found no modalities for their use so far.


M Beatrice Becker-Beardmore