Additional homeopathic treatment in cases of influenza and
Corona virus (COVID 19) infection
The author is a specialist in pediatrics with long experience in intensive care medicine, who knows both the possibilities and the limits of conventional medicine. To renounce the possibilities of a homeopathy without side effects – even if only additive – is an expression of a self-imposed inhibition to think. We also conform to the guidelines of the RKI and national health authorities in the handling and treatment of the coronavirus!
Epidemia and pandemia are as old as the medicine itself. So the homeopathic treatments of these diseases are as old as the origin of homeopathy itself. Since the Battle of Leipzig 1830, during the so called Napoleon Wars, there was the beginning of a cholera epidemia, which S. Hahnemann treated in a whole successful way. 
It’s amazing that even in the homeopathic treatment of the so called spanish influenza – after the first World War (1918) – there are reports of good results. 
New researches have shown, that also this Spanish Pandemia was caused by an aviare virus. [1, 8]
So it’s obvious, that these experiences and observations – also in connection with homeopathic treatment – have to be reflected in a future battle against these diseases.
Epidemia, pandemia, spanish influenza – avian influenza, SARS, MARS, coronavirus (COVID-19) homeopathic treatment.
In order to get to a deeper assessment and evaluation of the above mentioned diseases and to derive possible therapeutic strategies, a look into the history is very helpful.
One of the biographers of Samuel Hahnemann – Herbert Fritsche- describes the cholera epidemic at that time and the therapeutic approach of S. Hahnemann and his successes as follows: 
“Soon the people in Prussia die the terrible death by cholera and lie around as corpses in the typical fencing position. In Köthen fear breaks out. The proud spokesmen of official medicine, who have just taken action against a danger to public health, keep their mouths shut carefully. Now public health is really at risk and at the same time the galenic Latin of their only legitimate guardians is at an end.
Hahnemann took his chance. In four months he wrote four treatises on the prevention and cure of the disease, which he has – for the sake of its widespread distribution – thrown into the masses without any fee.
What can one expect from the fanatical old man? He will portray cholera as a genius epidemicus which reveals itself in certain symptoms and against which some high potency must be applied.
If he had done so, no one would be able to reproach him for it. We do not yet know the pathogenic microorganisms, nor does anyone suspect that external or internal disinfection is necessary to destroy such pathogens.
The Leipzig semi-homoeopaths accuse Hahnemann of having become rigidly and blindly dogmatic in his old days. When cholera reached the gates of Köthen, Hahnemann had already found the right therapy to deal with it. At least every five minutes the sick person receives one or two drops of camphor spirit. The rationale is so amazingly modern, so boldly beyond the scope of other homeopathic prescriptions, that it must be quoted literally:
The camphor, above all other medicines, has the power to kill the finest animals of the lower order quickly by its vapour, and so cholera miasm (which probably consists of a living being of a murderous kind that escapes our senses and attaches itself to the skin, hair, etc.) is a very serious disease. (which probably consists of a living being of a murderous nature, escaping our senses and attaching itself to the skin, hair, etc. of people or their clothing, thus passing invisibly from person to person) will be able to kill and destroy the fastest, and thus free the sufferer from the same and the disease it causes, and produce it. – For this purpose the camphor must be used in full extension’.
Is this still homeopathy?
Doesn’t the causal thinking of the clinic and even its doctrine of massive, directly chemically attacking medication play a very clear role here? Even still strange : While the clinic does not have the healing methods and remedies against cholera at its disposal, Hahnemann takes the way that is so strange to him – without any reflection.
The sufferings of the sick are eradicated, but doesn’t the purity of the idea have to suffer all the worse instead? He himself tries to answer this question:
The camphor is such a special medicinal substance that one could easily be tempted to think of it as an exception to everything else, for it makes an impression on the human body that is powerful but only superficial, and at the same time more temporary than any other, so that in its homeowayic application one has to repeat the small medication almost immediately if the healing is to have lasting success. This renewal of the small medication in homeopathic use, which is often so necessary for the camphor, gives him the image of a great gift, and this procedure the image of a palliative treatment, which it is not, since in such cases the healing success remains permanent and completely achieves its purpose, which a palliative, by its very nature, can never do (as a means to counteract the effects of a disease), because it always produces only a temporary illusory help in the great, even increased dosages, and the evil in its aftermath can only renew itself again and again and leave itself behind all the more intensifying. ’
The plea is not convincing. Unexpectedly Hahnemann got into a different way of thinking than the homeopathic one. His own medical genius played a trick on him. He finds and completes the only possible cholera therapy of his time – but he finds and completes it outside the magical realm of his simile, which he otherwise holds so resolutely. Salus aegroti suprema lex, „the salvation of the sick is the supreme law.
For the late stages of cholera he again uses genuine homeopathic remedies, copper, nutmeg, bryony turnip and poison ivy in high potencies. However, camphor must be given a special position in the doctrine of medicine, no matter how it turns and becomes as it wishes. Even before the time of cholera, however, he noticed that camphor is a matter of its own importance; the “Pure Doctrine of Medicines” reports about it. Here, however, in the case of cholera, the emphasis of the action is even on a medicinal effect taking place outside the homeopathic framework.
The problem is not as strange as it may seem from afar. Hahnemann is always willing to allow direct medical intervention, causal-technical action, where foreign bodies and mechanical obstacles stand in the way of healthy processes, from torn splinters to broken bones. Now the same man who sets the limit for his similieu himself when foreign forces must be physically removed from the organism has the good fortune and bad luck to recognize the invisible pathogens of cholera. They are also tiny, albeit living, “foreign bodies”. He removes them by means of rapidly successive doses of camphor, which he knows and wants to destroy the invading troublemakers. A splinter is removed by pulling it out; a microscopic pathogen by killing it.
The apparent inconsistency of the cholera doctor Hahnemann is in truth only an extension of his own acknowledged exceptions to the pathogenic diseases he can already treat when others do not even suspect them. It remains significant that Hahnemann only attacks the pathogen directly by means of camphor where the disease is still fresh and can be eliminated in flagrante delicto. If, on the other hand, the organism’s biological confrontation with the pathogen is in full swing, then a purely homeopathic remedy is taken as usual.
Some moan: so much quote !, such a long quote ! But it is absolutely important to quote the whole thing here, because the essence [emphasized by the authors in thick print] is expressed so clearly: first the direct destruction of the pathogen – so to speak in flagrante – with the aseptic camphor drops in the mother tincture (e.g. from the company DHU), then – when the individual symptoms appear – the homeopathic remedies Bryonia, Cuprum, Rhus toxicodendron and Veratrum. So to speak a two-phase procedure of the master himself!
In this context, A. v. Gebhardt reports on the success of homeopathy in the treatment of the above-mentioned disease: 
In 1830 and 1831, 1270 patients received homeopathic treatment in the governorates of Saratoff, Tambtoff and Tver, which had been seized by cholera: 1162 of them nosedived, 108 died. This means that for every 100 people affected there were 91 3/5 convalescents and 8 2/5 deaths, and it is very strange that this ratio is almost identical to the results of homeopathic treatment of cholera in Hungary, Moravia and Vienna.
The Royal District Physicist Dr. Strecker in Dingelstedt saved 54 of 58 homeopathically treated cholera patients in a village in Eichfeld and presented the results of his procedure to the Royal Government in Erfurt. (Cf. Schweickert’s newspaper from 1832, no. 50).
At Mühlhausen in Thuringia, 214 of 400 allopathically treated cholera patients died within 11 weeks (according to official reports), while only 10 of 43 homeopathically treated cholera patients died by the surgeon Wohlleben from Körner (in Gotha). (Cf. “Allg. Anzeiger d.D.” from 1832, No. 335.)
When cholera came to Palermo in 1854, 1513 soldiers fell ill there; people who were as equal as possible in terms of food, clothing, housing, employment, physical strength, age and, in short, all kinds of conditions. Of these, 902 were allopathically treated and 386 died, i.e. over 42%; 611 were homeopathically treated, of whom only 25 died, i.e. barely 4%. In the above-mentioned year, cholera also affected the Caribbean islands, and on the “pearl” of these islands, Barbados, 2113 people fell ill. Of 346 allopathically treated persons, 154 died, but of the 1767 homeopathically treated persons only 370 died. In the same year, 1371 people fell ill with cholera in Raab, Hungary. Of these, 1217 entrusted themselves to allopathic doctors, and 578 of them died, while of the 154 patients of the homeopathic doctor Dr. Bakody only 6 died.” About a hundred years later – and again in the wake of an even more horrific war – an even more horrific pandemic occurs: the Spanish flu. According to recent studies, the so-called Spanish Flu of 1918 was an avian flu virus that killed over 20 million people, a variant of the avian flu virus A/H1N1 [1, 8]. For the German Reich alone, the number of deaths due to the Spanish flu is estimated at almost 300 000 ( 8 )
This pandemic was actually not Spanish flu, but Spain was the first country to announce the appearance of this disease during the chaos of war. The actual scene was Kansas, where a country doctor observed in early 1918 that the flu did not, as it does every year, claim many victims among the old and weak, but that people of young age and of a vigorous nature also died of it. From Kansas, the infection quickly found its way to the American East Coast, where soldiers were embarked for Europe. The symptoms of this disease are described in the FAZ as follows: [11, 12]
“People fell ill – often after only a few hours. At first they felt a dull pain in the head, eyes were burning, the body was shaken by a violent fever. Nevertheless, the patients froze, and soon they could hardly move. Then their faces turned brownish-violet, their feet black. Finally, the doomed men gasped for breath, spitting blood as their lungs filled with reddish liquid.”
The well-known medical historian R. Jütte describes the symptoms of that time in a similar way: ( 8 )
The disease began as a flu-like infection, but soon other symptoms appeared. On the cheeks mahogany-coloured spots appeared, which indicated cyanosis. Most patients also developed severe pneumonia, for which there was no effective remedy at that time. The patients spit up blood and often died a cruel death by suffocation. The sight of the dying soldiers, who were all in their prime and in perfect health, must have been so horrible that Colonel Victor C. Vaughan, the chairman of the American Medical Association, who was called upon to help among other medical luminaries, later wrote in his memoirs: “These memories are horrible, I would like to tear them out of my brain and destroy them, but unfortunately that is not in my power.
The successful search for and reconstruction of this virus is also described by R. Jütte as follows ( 8 ) One of the rather quiet heroes of this history of discovery is the American pathologist Johan Hultin. As a young student, he came up with the idea of searching for traces of the virus in corpses preserved by the permafrost in Alaska. His first expedition in 1951 was not crowned with success. It was not until 1997, when Hultin had long since retired, that he returned to the site where the frozen corpses had been found and provided the American molecular biologist Jeffrey Taubenberger with another building block for the complete genetic decoding of the killer virus. Taubenberger, who had read the book by the American medical historian Alfred W. Crosby about the 1918 flu of 1918, which had long been suppressed from public awareness, came up with the brilliant idea at the beginning of the 1990s to search the huge pathological collection of the American army for tissue samples from soldiers who had fallen victim to the flu in 1918. After several failures, he and his team succeeded in reconstructing the virus that had caused the death of millions of people at the time using molecular biological methods. It is remarkable that the author just quoted, who incidentally wrote an excellent Hahnemann biography (9), and is a well-known medical historian, does not in any way refer to a possible therapy from the side of homeopathy. ( 8 ) The clinic of infection with avian influenza (A/H5N1) avian flu is described in the German Medical Journal as follows: 
“Human infections with avian influenza A viruses (subtypes H5N1, H7N7) can lead to diseases with life-threatening progression. The main focus here is on infections with the virus of subtype H5N1.
The incubation period of avian influenza A (H5N1) may be longer than for other known influenza infections. The clinical picture is usually characterised by high fever, coughing and shortness of breath, and there is also diarrhoea, vomiting, abdominal pain, pleuritic pain and bleeding from the nose and gums. Laboratory findings often include leukopenia, lympho- and thrombopenia. Almost all patients have clinically manifest pneumonia, which then often leads to lung failure and death. However, asymptomatic and atypical progressions also occur. The mortality of hospitalized patients is high, and the mortality of infected persons is likely to be significantly lower overall.
As soon as a patient presents with symptoms listed above, a travel history should be taken. If he has been in an area with known cases of avian influenza A (H5N1) in birds, it should be checked whether the case definition for a suspected case of avian influenza A (H5N1) is met. For the case definition, the clinical picture and epidimiological exposure should be clarified.
Clinical criteria that must all be met are (1) acute onset of disease, (2) fever (>38°C) and (3) cough or dyspnoea (or death from unexplained respiratory disease). In addition, the epidemiological exposure must be positively assessed, e.g. by staying in a zoonotically affected area with direct contact to live or dead animals or by direct contact with a human being with an infection that has been proven by laboratory diagnosis. Feathers and bird products may also be considered infectious. Influenza viruses can be easily thermally inactivated, so that heated food is considered free of infectious viruses”.
H1N1, in other words, a “bad brother” of the bird flu virus of today (H5N1), was thus the trigger of the devastating epidemics of all time.
In this context, it is immediately obvious to search for and reflect on homeopathic remedies that proved their worth back then – i.e. in 1918:
In the homeopathic library of the Robert Bosch Foundation in Stuttgart we found the AHZ issue 167 from 1919 . There the Swedish doctor Sjögren, from Solleftea (Sweden), reports that the following remedies were mainly used in the treatment of the Spanish flu in his district:
“Mainly rheumatic pain. The patient feels all over his body like bruised, often has coughs and rhinitis; feels great restlessness; cannot lie still, but turns and turns around despite pain, tiredness and fever, which is often very high. This subheading covers about half of the 805 cases recorded.
“Predominantly chest symptoms. Severe, dry, aching cough, often with stinging and stabbing, which is why the patient lies motionless in bed, because the slightest movement irritates to a nagging cough. This is often accompanied by headaches and back pain, as well as high fever. This subheading covers about 290 cases. The Bryonia cases seem to have become more numerous in October to November, while the Rhus cases predominated in the first months”.
Mainly cerebral symptoms, severe headaches, dizziness, sometimes delirium. The face flaming red. Often sore throat, torn ears. Usually high fever. There are about 86 cases in this area.”
“Predominantly gastrointestinal symptoms. Vomiting and diarrhea. “Mostly high fever. …29 cases.”
For this we find a source at Julius Mezger. ( 10)
In the homeland of Baptisia – North America – wild indigo was used against fever, scarlet fever and dysentery. The focus is on limitations of consciousness up to apathy, stupor and the feeling as if the body is divided into several pieces. Infectious diseases with a typhoid course and septic conditions are still the main indication of Baptisia in homeopathy today. Celis – quoted in J. Metzger – has successfully used Baptisia, Bryonia and Veratrum viride for decades in the treatment of typhoid abdominalis.
Sjögren  describes in detail the following homeopathic approach:
“Rhus is one of the best remedies for the rheumatic form of the Spanish disease; pain throughout the body, great fatigue, usually high fever, often a cold and a slight cough. If the headache is severe and dizziness is present, Aconitum is exchanged for Belladonna D 3, and if the cough is severe and painful, with or without stinging, Bryonia D 3 is given instead of Rhus. If pneumonia is also present, other remedies are needed: Phosphorus D 6 or Tartarus emeticus D 6, and for vomiting, diarrhoea and stomach pain, Arsenicum D 6 or Ipecacuanha D 3, among others. only two pills may be taken alternately on the same day, but never Aconitum and Belladonna at the same time, not even Rhus and Bryonia. Two of the aforementioned pills are taken alternately in intervals of two or three hours. If the fever is high, it is best to give them in solution.
For example, three pills of Rhus are dissolved in half a cup of boiled and lukewarm water, of which half a tablespoonful is taken several times in one hour and, for example, Belladonna, dissolved in the same way, is taken in another hour.
During the epidemic, tens of thousands of cases were treated in this way by homeopathic doctors, with a mortality rate far lower than that of other treatments”.
Thus, in addition to the above-mentioned product, aconitum, arsenicum, tartarus emeticus and phosphorus were also used in the treatment of Spanish flu.
In our experience, the following medicines should be considered in addition to the above-mentioned remedies for the homeopathic treatment of influenza and the above-mentioned virus diseases:
Arsenic C30, Eup-per C30; gels C30; Nux-v C30; Ant-t C30; Sang C30, China C 30, Ph-ac C30 and of course in case of aggravation in high and highest potencies C 1000 to X M.
(Perhaps Arsenicum iodatum can be used to influence more important, destructive processes).
Note: In this context we would rather recommend LM potencies – depending on the clinical picture and the practical experience of the treating colleague.
In the case of herbal remedies such as Aconitum, Belladonna, Ipecacuanha, Rhus toxicodendron, Veratrum, etc. we would recommend higher potency (so9 , because according to our observations the environmental toxins have arrived in the plants: what 30 years ago caused a Belladonna D 12, must today create a Belladonna C 200 or even C 1000.
With the LM-potencies (or better Q potencies) – we would immediately resort to LM VI or LM XII for the more serious diseases – in our experience you can get around chemistry well, i.e. you can still make a difference in patients who are under antibiotics, cortisone, ibuprofen, Imurek etc.(5)
The discussion I have just outlined concerns homeopathic remedies which have proved their worth, but we do not know what will prove their worth in the future in the event of a coming pandemic or epidemic. Nevertheless, these are well documented experiences and observations from our homeopathic predecessors. We must of course supplement these observations and experiences, in accordance with the demands for the totality and epitome of the symptoms: Hahnemann, the spiritual father of us all, called this more than 150 years ago in his groundbreaking work “Organon” (§§ 7, 8, 17, 18) the totality of symptoms, the epitome of symptoms, the complete symptom: the outwardly reflected image of the inner essence of the illness. This totality of the patient’s symptoms – from the mental-spiritual and physical area – which is of course more than the sum of its parts, must be grasped and placed in a similar relationship to the drug picture. (5)
Nevertheless, we can start from the idea of a genius epidemicus, i.e. a few predominant homeopathic remedies that may be indicated in the event of a pandemic – in the majority of patients. In orthodox medicine, the treatment of avian influenza includes Tamiflu, which acts as a neuraminidase inhibitor. The neuraminidase inhibitors (see below) prevent the spread of viruses that have already multiplied in the cell. For further antiviral therapy and its serious side effects, see the medical journal .
In this context it is extremely important to point out that the administration of the homeopathic remedies that we recommend cannot be called the destruction of the viruses – we do not want to compete with the actual established orthodox medicine – but an increase of the body’s own defence, but without the price of possible life-threatening side effects. Our approach lies on another level: homeopathy works by increasing the “vital force” – as Samuel Hahnemann called it – and can therefore be seen as a therapy that directly stimulates the body’s defence system. To say it again more clearly: as we also emphasize with Ca-diseases, cerebral seizure disorders and other serious chronic diseases: not an either/or but as an both/and, which has nothing to do with arbitrariness.
So it may well be, for example, that in certain situations we need Tamiflu, antibiosis for secondary superimposed bacterial infections, etc. In this light, the reader may recall the above quote from F. Fritsche on the practical approach of S. Hahnemann. The wonderful findings of orthodox medicine about the influenza viruses and their relatives with pandemic potential were skilfully compiled in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) and are quoted below; they are orthodox medical facts, but so condensed and well presented that we would like to quote them: [11, 12]
“Influenza viruses are enveloped RNA viruses with eight genome segments. They were first described in the 1930s. Due to their antigenic properties, they are divided into types A, B and C, whereby only types A and B can cause a seasonal influenza epidemic in humans. However, physicians are primarily interested in the behaviour of two type A surface proteins: haemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N). With the help of haemagglutinin, the virus penetrates the cell, and the neuraminidase is then important for the spread of the virus in the body. Subtypes of both proteins are known, which can be detected as soon as an infected person has produced antibodies against them. There are at least 15 subtypes of haemagglutinin and nine of neuraminidase. They are numbered so that the viruses can be classified: The census began in 1918 with strain A/H1N1. In 1957, a new combination called A/H2N2 appeared. The 1968 pandemic was caused by A/H3N2.
Since 1977, mainly viruses of the two known subtypes A/H1N1 and A/H3N2 as well as type B have been circulating in ever new variants, so that a new vaccine has to be developed every year. The reason for these changes are constantly occurring mutations in the surface antigens haemagglutinin and neuraminidase. Science speaks of antigen drift. However, two of the three major pandemics (1957 and 1968) were caused by an antigenic shift: genetic information was exchanged between different influenza strains, and a virus with new subtype combinations developed. This happens through the simultaneous infection of a host cell, for example in a pig. In theory, even a severe mutation could lead to a severely altered influenza virus with pandemic potential.
The current medical journal contains the following information on the coronavirus: (14)
The novel corona virus is a so-called beta-corona virus, which is related to the triggers of SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome). The origin is considered to be a now closed and disinfected fish and poultry market in Wuhan. A current study suspects a recombinant of a bat coronavirus and a variant presumably derived from snakes. The symptoms are unspecific. Fever and coughing are most likely to occur, shortness of breath, rhinitis, sore throat, myalgia and general feeling of illness may also occur. The distinction from other respiratory diseases and influenza is therefore not easy to make. An infection should be suspected in all persons who have entered the country from affected regions or who have had contact with infected persons. Treatment of the symptoms and pneumonia is purely symptomatic.
According to our current experience with the current severe influenza diseases, especially the central nervous form of belladonna – face bright red, frontal headache, improvement through darkness and rest – is very common.
Gelsemium– headache, dizziness, shaky weakness and in the pulmonary progressive form Bryonia – irritability, excessive thirst, improvement through firm counter-pressure and absolute need for rest used as well as Eupatorium for severe limb pain and China with the modalities known for this. However, the choice of homeopathic remedies must always be made according to the totality of the symptoms (Organon § 7,8) and the respective modalities – and this in all strictness with a great deal of practical experience!!!, with the theoretical knowledge based on Samuel Hahnemann.
A hint from Dr. E. Stahl/Heidelberg.
Deadly chill without shivering, but overpowering the system. Paralysis of lungs and resultantpoisoning with carbonic acid gas; vomiting and coma. Acts very like Bapt. in low typhoid conditions and seems to neutralise the poison of influenza.
It is remarkable that since Samuel Hahnemann epidemics/pandemics can be successfully treated homeopathically with only a few remedies. These remedies, among others Aconitum, Arsenicum, Baptisia, Belladonna, Bryonia, Cuprum, Eupatorium perfoliatum, Ipecacuanha, Phosphorus, Rhus toxicodendron, Tartarus emeticus and Veratrum appear again and again, but do not relieve us of the responsibility to individualize or to take responsibility for future epidemics/pandemics. to consider the paragraphs of the Organon (among others: §§ 7, 8, 17, 18) within the genius epidemicus.
Finally, two more lines from our great German mystic Angelus Silesius, the “Angel from Upper Silesia”, who in his genius condenses what we are laboriously trying to put into paragraphs:
“The sick body cannot free itself from suffering, It has to be the vital force in the game”
(Angelus Silesius, doctor, poet and mystic from Upper Silesia; died 1674)
 Deutsches Ärzteblatt: Saisonale Influenza, Vogelgrippe und potenzielle Influenzapandemie. Empfehlung zum Einsatz insbesondere von antiviralen Arzneimitteln und Impfungen. Jg. 102, Heft 49, 09. Dezember 2005.
 Deutsches Ärzteblatt: Aviäre Influenza. Diagnostik und Management von Infektionen des Menschen. Aktuelle Empfehlung des Robert Koch-Institus bei Infektionen mit A/H5(N1)1, Jg. 102, Heft 42, 21. Oktober 2005.
 Fritsche, H.: Hahnemann. Die Idee der Homöopathie. Bad Pyrmont 1942.
 Gebhardt, A. v.: Handbuch der Homöopathie, Leipzig 1929.
 Genneper, T., Wegener A.,: Lehrbuch der Homöopathie. Grundlagen und Praxis, Heidelberg 2001.
 Hadulla, M.M., Richter O.: Unsere homöopathische Apotheke. Die wichtigsten Arzneien aus der Praxis für die Praxis, Staufen- Pharma Göppingen 2002.
 Hadulla, M.M., Richter O.: Die homöopathischen Arzneien, Bd.1und 2: Wesen und Essenz, ML – Verlag, Uelzen 1999.
 Jütte, R.: Verzweifelter Kampf gegen die Seuche, in Deutsches Ärzteblatt, Jg. 103 Heft 1-2, 9. Januar 2006.
 Jütte, R.: Samuel Hahnemann. Begründer der Homöopathie, dtv- Verlag, München 2005.
 Mezger, J.: Gesichtete homöopathischen Arzneimittellehre, Haug- Verlag, Heidelberg 1999.
 Schmitt, P.-P.: Der Sprung auf den Menschen, FAZ, 17. November, 2005.
 Schmitt, P.-P.: Grippeviren mit Pandemie-Potential, FAZ, 17. November, 2005.
 Sjögren, H.W.: Über die „Spanischen Krankheit“ (Grippe), deren verschiedenen Typen und ihre Behandlung, Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitung, Band 167, Leipzig, Januar 1919, Seite 99-104
 Lenzen- Schulte, M.: Vorgehen bei 2019nCoV- Verdacht, Deutsches Ärzteblatt, Jg.117, Heft 5, 31. Januar 2020.