Is There anything in Sulphur - DM ?

By Edward W. Berridge, M. D.
Presented by Sylvain Cazalet

Probably Dr. Richard Hughes and his seven co-workers

would answer this question in the negative, seeing that they
arbitrarily exclude from their Cyclopedia of Drug
Pathogenesy all symptoms obtained from potencies above
the 12th decimal unless confirmed by low potencies'
provings. Indeed, to such a length has their prejudice
carried them that they have excluded Dr T. F. Allen's high
potency provings of Lactic acid, even though the latter
declares (New York Journal of Homopathy, p. 102), "The
effects were so positive and uniform in different persons,
that even the most skeptical of the class were convinced of
the effect of tho 30th." Yet this caricature of a Materia
Medica, this miserable abortion, has received the
endorsement and patronage of the two great professedly
homopathic institutions of the English-speaking nation I
Whether they will continue to endorse it after reading my
analysis of this work, now appearing in the Homopathic
World, remains to be seen. Possibly they will, for Quern
Deus vult perdere, prius dementat.

Dr Richard Hughes

But all these theoretical objections of pseudo-philosophers and self-glorified agnostics

("Agnostic" is a good word ; it sounds so much better than its Latin equivalent of "Ignoramus.")
are completely overthrown by a few simple facts, and of these facts one of the most convincing
is, that patients, have detected the medicine given them by its pathogenetic effects upon them. I
propose, therefore, to record a few cases in point.

Dr Joseph Kidd

Mr. B---., t. 60, consulted me for chronic varicose

ulcers on legs. His medical history is peculiar and
instructive Ten or twelve years before he saw male,
consulted Dr. P---., a mongrel, who treated him in vain
for two months ; this Dr. P---. sent him to Mr. Cooper
Foster, a celebrated allopathic surgeon who deservedly
snubbed the mongrel by refusing to meet him in
consultation. Mr. Foster lanced the leg, evacuating pus
and blood. Afterward more allopathic treatment, but
without benefit. About eight months before I saw him he
consulted a "wise woman," who professed to cure
diseased legs ; she applied her ointment which brought
away pus, but he lost appetite, and has never been so
well since-a very common effect of the dangerous
practice of external medication, which pseudo
homopaths, as well as allopaths, are so fond of. Still
more recently a local allopath gave him Mercury and
Conium, but without benefit. He also consulted Dr.
Joseph Kidd, the chief of the pseudo homopaths in
Great Britain, but Kiddopathy, this time of the form of
Pyrophosphate of iron, did no good.

On December 19th, 1882, I gave him Sulphur dm. a dose twice a day for eight days.
On December 30th, he reported a general improvement, saying that "this medicine had acted
like magic, quite different to former treatment." On December 19th, after the first dose, reaching
with the right hand across body to the left caused acute pain in cardiac region for about 15
minutes ; has had this before, but never so severely ; had a similar symptom on 22nd, and any
sudden motion caused catching pains in loins and stomach. On 20, blisters broke out on upper
lip, lasting three days ; says he thinks he is taking Sulphur, because years ago he had a similar
eruption when using the Mexican Hair Restorer.
He continued to improve considerably under this medicine and some other. Syphilinum dm.
removed the symptoms. "Cough < when lying on right side." Unfortunately, in March, 1884, he
caught cold and had pneumonia and jaundice. Being then helpless, his wife who hated
Homopathy, sent for an allopath, who speedily sent him into another world scandium artem. Of
course, the widow was consoled by the allopathic assurance that "everything had been done for
the dear departed."
August 29th, 1876 : I gave Mr. M---., t. 75, a dose of Sulphur 23 mm. twice a day. On
September 6th he reported improvement but asked if I had given him Sulphur, because on the
second day he felt an emptiness in stomach with decreased appetite and did not enjoy his food.
He said that he always used to have these symptoms when he took brimstone and treacle, or milk
of sulphur. This 20 mm. potency was made by a continuous flow of water into the diluting vial
for 14 days.

March 23rd, 1881 : I gave one does of Sulphur mm to a lady suffering from piles end
prolapsus ani. Like the former patients she was not told what she was taking. On March 30th she
reported as follows : On 24th felt a difficulty in swallowing solids, just as she had a year ago
while taking repeated doses of Sulphur cm. The food seemed to scrape over the throat ; she has
had it more or less every day since, but it is now decreasing. On 25th, 26th, 27th drowsiness
about eleven A M. (one of the great characteristics of Sulphur), so that she lay down and had a
full sleep for an hour and a half, which refreshed her. With this there was an improvement in the
piles and prolapsus.
On March 30th, I gave her one dose of DM, and on April 7th she reported that the drowsiness
about 11 A. M. had recurred for two or three days, but less ; the throat symptoms did not return.
In "Homopathic Physician," IV, 290, I published another voluntary proving of Sulphur mm.
in which 11 lines from top "when I came" read "at 3 A. M."
If patients can detect the medicine from the effects of high potencies thereof, what becomes
of the theoretical objections of pseudo-savants ? "Your pseudo-philosopher, who will always
think he has plumbed the ocean with his silver topped cane, is a great bore sometimes."

Clinical cases.
By Edward W. Berridge, M. D.
Presented by Sylvain Cazalet

Teplitz and Petroleum :

Jan 20, 1872. Mr. ---. For three days, red (erysipelatous) spot on left cheek ; it looks like a
collection of pimples, and the skin there is thick and hard ; it burns when indoors, after being in
the cold air ; cold water the makes it burn. It itches at times. Eight or nine years ago had
erysipelas like this in forehead, which lasted seven to ten days. For two days shooting in various
parts of head, behind ears across forehead. The shooting behind ears seems to come outwards.
Diagnosis. No remedy seemed to cover all the symptoms, therefore, I selected the medicine
according to the headache, which was the latest symptom. My Mss. Head Repertory gives under
shooting across forehead. Teplitz. As this remedy also has shooting across forehead, I give one
dose of 200.
Jan. 27 : The pains in head did not return, but has had shooting from behind ears to temples,
and an acute pain in forehead, which extended as a dull pain to vertex, but not since 24. Face got
better at once, and has been well since 23. Lazily perspires on walking, especially under arms.
This morning pain in right scapula, eyes water in open air. Bowels rather irregular. Face feels hot
all over after food (for two weeks). Food does not taste well. Since the face got bad, at times
feels as if skin over bridge of nose was drawn stiff and tight.
Diagnosis : Tightness of nose, according to Bnninghausen's Repertory is found under Asaf.,
Cantharis. Capsicum. Carbo-an. Chelid., Chin., Graphit., Menyanth., Mercur., Petrol., Phos-ac.,
Ran.-bulb., Thuja, Viol.-od.
Out of these the following (with 34 others), according to my Mss. Eye repertory, have
lachrymation in open air Canthar., Chelid., Graphit., Mercur., Petrol., Thuja.
Of these only Petrol, has heat efface after meals. Petrol 200 was given ; three doses to be
taken in 24 hours. Patient did not return, but on March 27th he sent a friend to consult me, who
told me the medicine had quite cured him.

Sarsaparilla : Mr. ---. for nine months has noticed a swelling of spermatic cords ; when
swollen, they ache, and are painful to touch. He has noticed this four times in the last three
weeks. These symptoms come on when sexually excited.
According to my own symptoms when proving Sarsaparilla, I gave one dose of cm. In five
days the cords were well, the same circumstances no longer affected them. Cured.

Kali Carb. : March 16, 1872. Mr. ---, caught cold by changing his dress. For five days,
frequent desire to swallow saliva, but often cannot do it, and it then causes a choking in throat.
Can swallow food and drink. When this comes on, heart beats quicker, and he feels weak. At
first this came on only at night, but today by day also. When lying on right side, heart feels
suspended to left ribs, and seems dragging them to right side. This morning pain as if lower lobe
of right were adhering to ribs. With the choking is difficulty of breathing. For three nights has
only been able to sleep sitting up, because otherwise, the saliva would run down throat. Heart's
action irregular and tumultuous. Systolic murmur heard loudest at apex. Kali-carb. M, one dose
at 10 P. M.
March 17, 5 P. M. : Throat nearly well. Slept well, and could lie down. Heart quiet all night
and ever since. No pain at chest Auscultation shows heart to be regular and quiet, and systolic
murmur less. Stronger.
Sometime afterwards, he consulted an eminent West-end allopathic physician for a diagnosis.
He told him the heart was sound. There was undoubtedly a systolic murmur when I examined
him, and he had been refused by a life insurance company though his health had otherwise been
good Therefore. Kali carb. must have the honor of curing a systole murmur.

Aloes : This case (my own) was given in the American Journal of Homopathic Materia
Medica (case 545), but as the potency was misprinted, I quote it here.
Just on June 9, 1870 in the afternoon and before midnight I had diarrha, brown, watery, with
thin fecal matter ; during stool, soreness of anus ; after stool, dryness of throat. The hot weather
had just commenced. For some years I have been subject to diarrha in hot weather, and it
would last several days.
About midnight, I took an olfaction of some globules of cm No return of diarrha, though the
weather continued hot, nor has the hot weather caused any return of it to this day, Aug. 72.

Case of gravel.
By Edward W. Berridge, M. D.
Presented by Sylvain Cazalet

1881, November 11th. Mr. O---., t. 24. (This is the patient whose case is reported in the
Homopathic Physician Vol. I, pp. 450-2, He reports now that the old symptoms soon ceased
entirely, without further treatment, and never returned) has been suffering from gravel, at
intervals, for nearly 2 years. Pour years ago had rheumatic fever badly ; was treated
allopathically, which was followed by weakness and nervous irritability. Last year went to
Hamburg and drank the waters, since which he has been somewhat better, but the waters
weakened him. (I often meet with patients who have been injured by taking mineral waters,
sometimes prescribed by professed homopaths. These mineral waters are most powerful
medicines, and should never be prescribed except in accordance with their provings, and then
only in he dynamized form).
Present Symptoms. -At times stiffness in renal regions, especially on right side ; worried by
(noise) interruption in business ; brings up wind after eating and feels mentally depressed and
physically weak till it comes up ; then he passes a small quantity of very fine red sand ; after this
all the above symptoms pass off. The first attack was with intense pains beginning in right
kidney, and going down ureter, relieved by passing a piece of sharp brown gravel ; the pain was
so great that he took Opium to relieve it ; for six months afterward his nervous system remained
shaken by it. His father suffers from stone and gravel. Bowels usually act alternate days ; during
the nervous condition for the six months following the first attack, he used to feel well the days
they acted and better when they did not act. During the attacks of gravel, feels full even after a
little food. The attacks come on usually every six weeks in summer and every eight weeks, or
longer, in winter ; has passed a little gravel this morning.
The fullness after eating a little, the red sand, and the pains affecting first the right side then
the left, pointed to Lyco. I gave him a daily dose of Lyco CM for seven days.
Nov. 18 : The stiffness in renal region has been felt at times during past week, but no gravel ;
less worried ; has few much better during week ; very much less flatulence after food ; stools
much more regular can work harder and has better spirits. No medicine.
Nov. 25 : Passed a little gravel on 20th, but none since ; stools just as last Week, very small,
the size of a finger ; otherwise much bettor can go without food without feeling faint, as
formerly ; can work better and without exhaustion.
Dec. 2 : Has had very slight sediment in urine one day ; stools still small on alternate days ;
otherwise the improvement continues.
Dec. 9 : No more gravel, stools alternate days, but rather more free and larger ; a little
stiffness in left renal region. No other symptoms.
Dec. 16 : Has caught a bad cold from the wet weather ; not more gravel ; stools more natural
and more in quantity ; sometimes bowels will not act for two consecutive days ; no return of

pains or stiffness in kidneys ; he now tell me that he can eat cheese with impunity ; formerly it
would cause fullness of stomach, relieved by copious eructations ; then troubled sleep, and
coated tongue next morning ; with the fullness, a sense of coldness ; (This case, therefore, adds
Lyco. to the remedies having "aggravation from cheese"). As the chronic symptoms were steadily
lessening, I gave no medicine for the cold, as Hahnemann directs.
Dec. 23 : No return of gravel ; up to two days ago bowels acted daily and freely, quite
naturally ; yesterday there was a little stiffness in kidneys and bladder, none today ; no stools for
the past two days, but natural relief today, though not very copious ; catarrh almost gone. He
now informs me that for the last 18 months, the bowels would sometimes not act for two
consecutive days, and on these occasions, on the second day, the feeling of stiffness of bladder,
followed next day by a stool, after which the stiffness went off.
1882, Jan. 10 : Wrote to say that he had a slight return of the old symptoms. Lyco. MM every
other morning for 14 days.
Oct. 9 : Writes, "My health is decidedly better. I very seldom pass gravel, and then only in
very small quantities.

The Millwaukee adress at the American Institute of

Homopathy.
By Edward W. Berridge, M. D.
Presented by Sylvain Cazalet
(Read before I. H. A., annual meeting, June 1880.)

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, through the courtesy of our president I have been
invited to address you on some subject connected with our beloved science and art. I will
attempt, however imperfectly, to present for your kind indulgence and consideration a few
thoughts on that subject we all profess to have at heart, namely, "How can we best advance
homoeopathy?"
It cannot be denied that homoeopathy has not advanced, and is not advancing, as rapidly as
we could desire, nor as rapidly as we once had just and reasonable grounds for expecting it to
advance. In the United States, where it has taken the firmest root, and where its spreading
branches most widely overshadow the land with healing in their leaves, the old school is yet
triumphant in point of numbers; and to this day the rules of medical trade unionism,
euphemistically called professional etiquette, are brought to bear upon us by our opponents. In
Great Britain we have but 275 avowed homoeopathic physicians and this number includes not a
few who have not the slightest claims to this honorable title ; and while there are many colleges
and universities empowered by the State to grant degrees in medicine, we have not one legally
recognized school of homoeopathy. In the Continent, matters are in the same unsatisfactory
condition. More than forty years have elapsed since Hahnemann penned the fifth edition of his
Organon; more than eighty since he first announced the law of similia, and yet how little fruit has
his life-work borne in comparison with what should have been. Why is this? To what causes are
we to attribute the fact that the profession and the public have not more universally accepted
homoeopathy?
There are those amongst us who have a common answer to this
question. Hahnemann, they say, was too dogmatic, too
uncompromising, too visionary; and as a panacea for all the
unbelief which now pervades the allopathic mind, they
recommend that we should give up what they call our "sectarian
attitude"; that we should drop and disavow the name of
homoeopathy; that we should repudiate as untenable that which
they call the extravagances of Hahnemann, such as his doctrine of
chronic disease, etc., and finally, that we should claim for similia
similibus curentur not the position of an universal law, but only
that of a very good and useful rule of practice to which there may
be many exceptions. "Do this," they say, "and the old school will
advance to meet us half-way; the medical millennium will arrive,
and the lamb will lie down with the lion." Yes, truly! but the lamb
will be inside the lion. The experiment has been tried both in the
Dr Samuel Hahnemann
United States and in Great Britain, and with what result ?
Fortunately for our school, there has been no acceptance of the proffered amalgamation. On the

contrary, the old school repulsed these ideas with scorn and contempt. And so it will ever be. Do
not let us be mistaken in this matter. Our allopathic brethren are not all fools; they can discern
the difference between true gold and its counterfeit; they are honest, though in error, and they
will always reject the overtures of men who are not true in practice to the principles which they
profess, or who show signs of wavering in the presence of the enemy. If they wish the old school
to amalgamate with our own, it will never be effected by compromise. Truth and error cannot coexist. No man can serve two masters. No man can halt between two opinions without suffering
the natural consequences of his indecision. If homoeopathy be false, let us at once relinquish our
distinctive name, and avow ourselves eclectics; if it be true, let us stand firm, not yield a single
inch of our vantage ground. Magna est veritas, et praevalebit. Truth has no occasion to descend
from her lofty eminence and ask permission to be heard.
I speak unhesitatingly on this subject, because I speak from experience. My friend and coeditor of our Anglo-American quarterly, "The Organon", was a leading allopathic physician, well
versed in all the science of which the old school boasts. He was one of the bitterest opponents of
homoeopathy, and a strong supporter of that law of the Liverpool Medical Institution which
enacts that no homoeopathist should be eligible for membership, and that, should any member
adopt that system, he should thereby forfeit his membership. I cannot wonder at it. He had seen
the so-called homoeopathy practiced in that city; he knew how utterly false were the pretensions
of many of its nominal adherents. Is it to be wondered that he made no distinctions; knowing
none, he classed all under the same category. But when we became acquainted with each other,
and then I explained to him what the true homoeopathy of Hahnemann was, he listened
attentively, put the matter to the practical test, became convinced of its truth, sent in his
resignation of the Liverpool Medical Institution as he was compelled to do under the law, and is
now, as we all know, one of the most enthusiastic and uncompromising of Hahnemann's
followers. Long afterwards he said to me, "If you had not been a Hahnemannian, you could
never have converted me."
Such has been the effect of our wavering upon the minds of
our allopathic brethren. What effect has it had on ourselves?
Ever since that fatal error was committed by one whose
memory we nevertheless hold in honour, of proclaiming
absolute "liberty in medical opinion and action", a change for
the worse has taken place in our own ranks. Ever since the
name of Carroll Dunham has been held to sanction every kind
of empiricism, forgetting that he himself in his teaching and
practice, was a true Hahnemannian. Men have eagerly caught
at his well-intentioned, though mistaken, perhaps
misunderstood, words and even banded themselves together to
overthrow those that remained true to the teachings of the
master. I need not recount the various phases of the struggle,
they are all well known to you; suffice to say that the crisis is
past, and convalescence has commenced. There are indications
both here and in my own country of a desire to return to a
purer faith and a truer practice. How can we best accomplish

Dr Carroll Dunham

that great work? How are we to advance homoeopathy, and render it the sole and universally
received science and art of therapeutics?
The answer is simply this: we must go to the fountain head, and there drink of the water of
life freely. We have neglected this; we have thought we are wiser than our teacher; we have
attempted to run before we are able to walk, and the usual consequences have ensued. We must
undo all this; we must be willing to begin again like little children and learn the ABC, and when
we have mastered the alphabet, we may try our hand at reading, and perhaps in time even writing
an original work. The great error of the present race of homoeopathists is their neglect to study
the Organon of Hahnemann, and it is to this great work, the very bible of homoeopathy, that I
especially desire to draw your attention. I do this with the more earnestness, because I find there
are so many who have never read it, much less studied it. "The Organon", they say, "is full of
Hahnemann's theories". Leave out the theories then; Hahnemann merely gave them for what they
were worth, as the best explanation he could give of certain facts. His theories were based upon
his facts, not his facts upon theories. To know the true meaning of a fact is of scientific interest,
but it is not essential to the fact itself. Destroy all Hahnemann's theories if you choose, you will
not thereby shake one single stone of the temple of homoeopathy. Yet even to the present day we
find men wasting their time in writing against Hahnemann's theories. Perhaps they do so because
his facts are too strong for them.
"But", says another, "we have the law; what more is needed?" Aye, the law! but of what use is
a law unless you know how to apply it? You meet with a chronic case which is benefited by your
remedy; the symptoms cease, then return in a milder form. What are you going to do now? Will a
mere knowledge of the law help you ? If you have not the rules of Hahnemann to guide you, you
will probably repeat the medicine, and so do harm, whereas if you have studied his writings, you
will know that such periodical exhibitions are of frequent occurrence, and that the remedy must
be allowed to act without interference. Will the law alone tell you how long to wait before
deciding that the medicine will not act, and is therefore incorrectly selected? Will the law alone
tell you that in all periodical diseases the best time to give the dose is just after the paroxysm?
You talk of the law of similia, but do you know what is the "like"? To judge from the
prescriptions frequently made, the sole idea of like in the minds of many appears to be a vague
pathological resemblance, instead of the minute semeiotic correspondence taught by
Hahnemann. Pathology is not without its use, but that use is not in the problem of selecting the
most appropriate remedy. Pathology does indeed often tell us whether a new symptom is of
favorable or unfavorable import, and hence whether it requires to be treated or not; but in the
actual selection it is not of the slightest value, not only because it is theoretical and hence more
or less uncertain, but because, even at its best. it can only generalize and not individualize.
Were there only one utterance that I could make during this visit to your mightly continent, it
would be "Study the Organon of Hahnemann." Read it again and again. Those who study it the
most, testify that it never wearies them, that it seems ever fresh, that something new, or
something the full force of which they never grasped before, at each fresh perusal meets their
mental eye. Do not be led astray by the utterances of those who would would have you first
study fallacious manual on pharmacodynamics and therapeutics, or essays written by men whose
object is to glorify themselves at the expense of a system which they have never comprehended,
though they are indebted to it for the very reputation they possess. Do not be led astray by the

fallacious dictum that the Organon should be placed "for frequent perusal and as a trusted guide,
in the hand not perhaps of the student but of the educated, earnest practitioner." On the contrary,
I maintain that the Organon of Hahnemann is the very first book which the student should read,
without which he can really learn nothing of homoeopathy. The Organon is like the mariner's
compass, without which the finest ship is in danger of being wrecked. You may know your
Materia Medica by heart, but without a knowledge of the rules by which to apply it, your success
will be imperfect; but with this knowledge, and with a faithful adherence in actual practice to the
teachings of Hahnemann, your success will be certain.
It is not as a blind bigot, or a fanatical enthusiast, or a mere heroworshipper, that I urge these
matters upon your attention. I am as ready as any man to worship a hero, but his right to the title
must be first demonstrated to me. Since I first discovered how I was misled in early days by
teachers, and taught to believe implicitly much that reason and maturer judgment have compelled
me to reject as fallacious, I have become sceptical in all things, and require absolute proof,
before I accept a statement as absolute true. And my absolutely and unwavering acceptance of
the truth of the practical teachings of Hahnemann is based upon experience. It is now eighteen
years since I first commenced the study of homoeopathy. I have compared it with allopathy and
eclecticism. I have tested it in the most severe acute diseases threatening life, in the most chronic
and inveterate diseases which had baffled all other treatment, and in incurable cases, when only
euthanasia was possible, and I have never once found Hahnemann's teaching to be wrong. Nay
more, though Hahnemann's faithful followers have made many discoveries in the same field in
which he laboured, so vast was his insight and so profound his genius that there is scarcely a
single therapeutic discovery of modern times of which you will not find at least the germ in his
writings.
Hahnemann's system is the true, the only science of therapeutics, and if my words will
persuade any of you who may have departed from his standard, to adopt a purer practice and a
truer faith, I shall feel that my visit to you has not been in vain.
June 22, 1880.