Minutus

There isn't much on Typhoidinum, as you stated.

I did find the following references
from Will Taylor
"The potential role of the nosode Typhoidinum in treating Typhoid disease primarily, secondarily or prophylatically is an interesting question. There is precious little reference to Typhoidinum in our literature; I was able to find only 4 references (detailed below) in a search of Encyclopedia Homeopathica, and could find no references to it in a search of Reference Works.
JH Clarke, in ?The Prescriber?, chapter Enteric Fever, Typhoid Fever, wrote:
?At the very commencement.
Typhoidinum 30 - 200, 4h.
(This may be continued throughout.When typhoid is epidemic, this may be given on the first indication of internal derangement.)?
- but he then goes on to describe guiding symptoms for the prescription of Baptisia, Pyrogenum, Echinacea, Bryonia, Rhus tox, Arsenicum, Belladonna, Hyoscyamus, Gelsemium, Agaricus, Muriatic acid, Phosphoric acid, Phosphorus, Ipecacuanha, Hamamelis, Terebinthiniae, Mercurius corrosivus, Mercurius cyanatus, and Lachesis.
Chatterjee, in ?Fundamentals of Homeopathy...
discussing the treatment of epidemic disease with the genus epidemicus, wrote: ?However, there are cases where the nature of the disease is almost independent of the variable factors and exhibit the same symptoms in development of the disease. In such cases, the prophylaxis would remain the same, though there may be variation in the mode of treatment. Lathyrus in polio, Parotidinum in mumps, Morbillinum in measles, Typhoidinum in typhoid are some of the examples.?
Whether Typhoid is truly as invariant as he suggests here tho, is rather questionable.
Nash?s highly detailed experience would particularly seem to contradict the notion of a relative invariance of Typhoid.
Bhatia, in ?Influenza and its Homeopathic Treatment?, mentions Typhoidinum briefly among remedies:
?For cases ?Never-well-since? influenza?
Foubister, in ?The Significance of Past History in Homeopathic Prescribing?, relates a case in which:
?Shortly after the war I was treating an elderly man for fibrositis of the lumbar region and troublesome Paresthesia of the lower limbs. ... he did not respond to treatment at all until he received Typhoidinum 200 on account of typhoid fever he had in 1886.?"

----------------------------------------------
Imagine Peace

One of the reasons that the older writers described such diversity in typhoid is that they were lumping at least two distinctly different acute conditions under one name. Now we know that the disease properly called "typhoid" (now generally referred to as "food poisoning" or, more specifically, "salmonellosis"), usually transmitted by spoiled food, is a very different disease from "typhus" (now generally called by a variety of "spotted fever" names, and transmitted by fleas or ticks). Their course and pathologies are very different, but they begin as such sudden severe diseases involving fever, vomiting, headache, prostration, etc... , that it's understandable how they weren't teased apart in the medical literature until the early 20th century when more became known about micro-organisms. In any case, since some of the symptom descriptions and recorded clinical treatments in our literature before that time were treating typhus and some were treating typhoid, I assume that Typhoidinum would have only been partially useful, perhaps discouraging any meaningful research into its symptoms -- and also leading to a welter of remedies that were effective against different diseases (all called "typhoid") at different times.
Rosemary