AN EXAMINATION INTO THE  ATURE OF T
AN E3XAMINATION INTO TEE NATURE OF TE 
PREVAILING SYSTEM OF MEDICINE;
AND
AN EXPOSITION OF SOME OF ITS CHIEF EVILS;
OITTH
A REMEDY FOR THE EVIL.
KY
SAMUEL COCKBURN, M. D.,
LIOENTIATE OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGREONS, EDINBURGH.
FIRST AMERICAN EDITION.
PHILADELPHIA:
RADEMACHER & SHEEK, No. 239 ARCH STREET.
NEW YORK:
WILLIAM RADDE, 300 BROADWAY.
1'85 7.








BIG' 
AS EXAMINATION INTO THE NATURE OF TEE
PREVAILING SYSTEM OF MEDICINE;
AND
AN EXPOSITION OF SOME OF ITS CHIEF EVILS;
WITH
A REMEDY FOR THE EVIL.
BY
SAMUEL COCKBURN, M. D.,
LIOENTIATE OF TEE ROYAL COILEGE OF SURGEONS, EDINBURGH.
FIRST AMERICAN EDITION.
PHILADELPHIA:
RADEMACHER & SHEEK, No. 239 ARCH STREET.
NEW YORK:
WILLIAM RADDE, 300 BROADWAY.
1857.








PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
THE peculiar feature of our system, which
distinguishes it from what is called the " orthodox" branch of the profession, is sustained
by an ample array of erudite and convincing
literature: enough, we think, to commend it
to the notice and emen serious consideration
of all medical men who have a single desire
for the development of truth and the advancement of science; so that they are left without excuse, and remain subject to judgment:
" they  who are blind le tthem be blind still!"But while this is the case, there is a decided
lack of works which may appeal directly to
the popular, or non-professional, mind of the
community. The people, as a whole, will
necessarily cling to an ancient faith, whether
ethical, or philosophical, and for no better
3




4                PREFACE.
reason than that it is ancient, and in the ascendant, till cogent and convincing reasons
force the more reflective and intelligent portion to dissent in such numbers as shall
attract the vast masses who, unthinkingly,
follow the leaders: and this we find not unfrequently the case, while they despise the
feebleness and decrepitude, and distrust the
ability to aid them in their need, of the miserable superstition which they cannot shake
off. The Homceopathic -school, though it has
gained the confidence and approbation of
many thousands, by the efficacy and success
of its treatment, wherever its aid has been
summoned,-too often only in the hour of
extremity and despair,-has yet made few
decided and commanding efforts to attract
popular attention  by such  arguments as
shopld be likely to gain consideration for its
claims, before the hour of absolute hopelessness urges it as a last refuge.
It is therefore with much pleasure we wel



PRMEACE.               5
come the republication of Dr. Cockburn's
little work in this country, as it appears to
us to be pre-eminently calculated to supply
the vacuum hitherto overlooked by the members of our school. It is peculiarly adapted
to the popular mind, being learned without
pedantry, analytical without being abstruse,
and scientific without technicalities. No intelligent person can give it an unprejudiced
perusal and remain indifferent to the vast
importance of the subject under cdnsideration. We sincerely trust that every member of the profession in the country will
place a copy of it in the hands of every
family of intelligence within the circle of his
professional and social acquaintance; an(l
should they act upon our suggestion and follow
our example-for wue do as we teach-we will
venture to predict that it will prove to. be
"bread cast upon the waters which they shall
find after many days." But should many
whom Homoeopathy feeds and clothes re



6               PREFACE.
fuse to aid in thus attempting to spread its
principles more widely, we have the consolation still left that our art shall still flourish
while they live upon it, and with renewed
vigor when they are no more:-the vine,
when stripped of its exuberant foliage and
withered branches, glows with greener verdure and bends with the weight of more
luxuriant clusters, —the sun has more room
to lend its blessings to the crop, to dress
it with beauty and endow it with strength.




CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
ALLOPATHY AND tHOMCEOPATHY.
Allopathy a system of crude dogmas-Shuns investigationAllopathic intolerance-Liberty of conscience-Necessity of
learning before judging-Misrepresentation-Enmity to homceopathy —Popular faith in allopathy like that in
paganism..........................................................      11
CHAPTER II.
ALLOPATHY.
Origin of medicirne-Medical theories-Allopathy a mixture of
old theories —Allopathy made no real progress for 2000 years
— Relation between allopathy and the collateral branches of
medicine-Allopathic experience-Allopathic specifics-Allopathic palliation —Evils of —Allopathic sheet-anchors-Artificial drug-diseases — Allopathic medicines shorten the
duration of life........................................................ 20
CHAPTER III.
BLEEDING.
Its origin-A sheet-anchor —Inflammation-Notions about —
What Inflammation is not-What it is-Bleeding  inf ilam(3)




4                     CONTENTS.
mation-Importance of the blood in the economy-Apoplexy
-Notions about the disease-What is the cause of apoplexy
-Effects of bleeding in apoplexy-Bleeding calculated to
produce the disease-Bursting of a blood-vessel-Cause ofEffects of bleeding in such cases-Bleeding a man in the jaws
of death-Diseases brought on by bleeding —Combe's opinion
of bleeding-The "hbuffy coat" on inflammatory bloodBleeding in inflammation of the lungs —Dr. Tod's opinion
of —Injurious  effects  of..............................................  36
CHAPTER IV.
DOCTORS DIFFER.
Contradictory opinions about the nature and treatment of fever
-Pericarditis-The effects of squills-Of opium —Doctors
differ, case of-Contradictory opinions about consumptionAbout delirium tremens-Treatment of rheumatic fever, &c.
-Causes of these contradictions-Remedy for............... 61
CHAPTER V.
THE HOMMEOPATHIC LAW.
Prevailing ignorance on medical subjects-Prejudice in favour
of allopathy-Origin of-Study of homueopathy-The curative relationship between a disease and the medicine which
cures it-This relationship is the homoeopathic law-Nature
of disease-Pathogenetic effects of drugs-How to find out
the curative relationship-Primary and secondary action of
drugs-Doctrine of antipathy-Doctrine of similarity-Its
relationship to facts-Proving of drugs on the healthy bodyImportance of-Of no use to allopathy-Doctrine of antipathy impracticable-The homoeopathic law the only safe and
certain guide-All natural phenomena guided and regulated
by law................................................................ 70




CONTENTS.                       5
CHAPTER VI.
OBJECTIONS AGAINST HOiM(EOPATHY
Contradictory nature of-Hotnceopaths cure by imagination and
by attending to diet and regimen-Homoeopaths few in number-Homeopathy, if true, would have been sooner disco.credi-Some homceopathists have recanted-Homoeopathy
denies all the laws of physic and chemistry-The killing and
curing powers of medicine-The small doses-These doses
do not constitute homceopathy-Different degrees of susceptibility-Iom ceopathbic ren medies prepared to suit these-The
dose must vary according to the effect to be produced-Dangerous and deadly effects of large doses-The power of small
doses proved by experience-Erroneous information about
small doses-Hornceopathy opposed to common sense-And
to the experience of the profession-Homoeopathy proved a
failure by Dr. Andral............................................... 86
CHAPTER VII.
EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF IOM(EOPATIHY.
The practice of homceopathy not perfect-The law is-Allopathic scepticism in regard to evidence-Testimony of Htufeland-Rau-Hartmann-Evidence from general statisticsFrom a comparison of statistics in inflammation of the lungsIn pleuritis-In peritonitis-In yellow fever-Value of homceopathy in violent and dangerous diseases-Allopathic
speculations about the nature and treatment of cholera-Destructive nature of allopathic treatment in that disease-Allopathic treatment in favour of camphor-Homceopathy and
the Board of Ilealth —Di. Alaclaughlin's testimony in favour
of homoeopathy-Allopathic and homceeopathic statistics conpared......................................        110
A2




6                    CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VIII.
OPPOSITION AND PERSECUTION.
Case of Ambrose Par6-of Dr. Greenfield-Collegiate opposition
to Homoeopathy-And Denunciation of Homoeopaths-Editorial Defamation and Slander-Dr. Combe and our opponents
-Medical Directory and Homceopaths —Cause of Persecution......................... 138
CHAPTER IX.
ALLOPATHIC REVELATIONS.
Different Classes of Medical Men-Confessions of Dr. Forbesof Bichat-Dr. Guy-Boerhaave-Gardner-Andrew Combe
-Adam Smith-Dr. Routh-Paris-Professor WidekindHufeland-James Johnson-Franks-Reid-Krueger Hansen-Sir Astley  Cooper-Keiser-Addison-AbernethyProfessor Gregory-Dr. Bailie-Dickson-Brown-LeesonThe Editor of the Lancet-The Medical Circular-Dublin
Medical Journal-Medical Times......................... 152
CHAPTER X.
PROGRESS OF HOM(EOPATHY.
The necessity for Medical Reform-Progress of-Interest of the
Public in this Reform-Allopaths must investigate Homeeopathy,  &c.,.......................................................  174




PREFACE.
THE subject of Medical Reform is one that
has agitated the Medical Profession for many
years. All thinking men in the profession
felt the need of reform, though none seemed
to know the right remedy. At all events the
profession could never agree among themselves as to what was necessary. Twenty-two
years ago, an attempt was made to introduce
a bill into Parliament to regulate the practice
of medicine in this country; it failed. Repeated attempts have been made since then,
but with no better results.
In the beginning of 1852, the Provincial
Medical and Surgical Association for England
proposed a Draft Bill, which was to represent
the wants of the profession generally; but in
place of that being the case, opposition bills
were drawn out by the Scotch and Irish Universities, and by Sir John Forbes. The result
was, that the Home Secretary was puzzled,
not knowing what measure to support; and
so dismissed them all.
During the present year a Medical Reform
(7)




8               PREFACE.
Bill emanated from the Edcinburgh University;
but, as on former occasions, another bill was
drawn out by the College of Surgeons in opposition to it. In May last, a deputation
waited upon Sir George Grey. Sir George
told them that, "on one occasion he remembered two deputations coming on one day,
each representing, as they said, the general
body of the profession, but they each espoused
totally different principles-and, in fact, the
bill to which he referred had been torn to
pieces by the profession." No wonder that
Lord Palmerston, on one occasion, intimated
to a deputation that, the profession would
require to learn to agree among themselves,
before Parliament could do anything for them.
It appears to us that not one of all these
bills could do any real good; even though
they had passed into law. They would not
have altered the practice of medicine one pin's
point-that practice would just have continued
to be what it has always been. And how
could it be otherwise? The grand evil that
lay at the root of all the others in practical
medicine, was altogether overlooked and ignored by these bills. The great reform which
was needed, was one which should make the




PREFACE.               9
practice of medicine safer in its application,
and more successful in its results. No doubt
there are many things connected with medicine
that might be improved; but this is the first
and most essential reform that is required in
medicine. And our object in the following
pages shall be to assist in bringing about such
a reform; not by an appeal to Parliament, but
to the judgment and good sense of the public.
In doing this it will be absolutely necessary to make an examination into the nature
and extent of the evils and deficiencies which
exist in the prevailing practice of medicine,
so as to show that a great reform is actually
required. And though in doing so, we may
have occasion to use plain language, we distinctly and emphatically declare, that we have
no personal bad feelings towards any in the
profession, neither do we wish to give occasion
to any one to entertain any personal animosity
towards us. And though there may be many
in the profession who have an hostile feeling
towards the reform which we advocate,
namely, homeeopathy, still there are, we believe, some who, though differing from us in
their views, are willing to give us a fair field,
and meet us on common ground.




10             PREFACE.
Homoeopathy and allopathy must in their
nature ever continue to be antagonistic to
each other, and wide as the poles apart; still
we believe that the present odious distinction
which exists between homoeopaths and allopaths is a great evil, and in the meantime to
some extent injurious to the public.  And
for ourselves, we see no good reason why all
duly-qualified medical men should not as
such, co-operate harmoniously together; and
agree to discuss the relative value of their
systems, exclusively on their own merits. In
this way the good and the true in medicine
would be much sooner known and more generally acted upon; and what is false and injurious, sooner discovered and discarded.
We doubt not but that certain ulterior
advantages will accrue to homceopathy by a
continuation of the present sectarian distinctions, still we would gladly extend the right
hand of fellowship to medical men of every
creed and persuasion, and under one standard,
though with different weapons, agree to do
war against a common enemy.
SAMUEL COCKBURN, M. D.
Dundee, January, 1856.




CHAPTER I.
ALLOPATHY AND HOMaEOPATHY.
Allopathy a system of crude dogmas-Shuns investigation —
Allopathic intolerance-Liberty of conscience-Necessity of
learning before judging —Misrepresentation-Enmity to homoeopathy —Popular faith in allopathy like that in paganism.
THE present state of the world is allowed by all to be
one of great enlightenment, and such as demands a
thorough revolution in all those fabulous and theoretical systems, which ignorance and self-interest
have originated and kept alive. The supporters and
advocates of such tradit.ionary systems and practices
assume the position and title of being wise, and condemn as silly and foolish everything that opposes
their prejudices and inherited opinions. This has
been, and still is the case, in regard to the supporters and advocates of the allopathic or orthodox
system of medicine.
This system is a thing of the past, a product of the
dark ages, and bears on its front the stamp of the
times which gave it birth.  It shuns the light and
cannot stand investigation.  Its advocates acting as
judges, and condemning all who hold an opposite
opinion, have assumed the prerogative of infallibility)
(11)




12          SHUNS INVESTIGATION.
and by so doing, put a stop to all improvement.
Like the priests in bygone ages, the medical hierarchs have done everything in their power to keep
the world in ignorance of the true nature of their
system, as a matter in which it had no concern;
and in this they have but too well succeeded.  All
the other cognate sciences have been, and are still
being, presented to the intelligent public in a form
in harmony with the intellectual development of the
age; elucidated and explained by more abundant
and convincing modes of reasoning and induction;
and supported by more self-evident and palpable facts
which have been brought to light by the various
discoveries in the arts and sciences.  The allopathic
system, on the contrary, stereotyped in notions the
most obscure and dreamy; in speculations the most
fanciful and unreasonable; in dogmas the most crude
and absurd; is still kept concealed from public gaze
in monkish seclusion, as a subject far beyond the
comprehension of ordinary mortals, which none but
those who have been initiated into the mysteries of
the profession, and who have obtained the second
sight, can at all pretend to understand.  This has
been the chief ground of condemnation of every false
system of science and philosophy. Instead of courting investigation, by giving out its doctrines and
principles in a clear and plain language, allopathy
has all along shunned scrutiny: everything has been




INTOLErAANCE.                13
wrapped up in a dark and unmeaning phraseology.
And as a proof and consequence of this, there exists
at this present time, the most complete and universal
ignorance in regard to the principles and doctrines
of allopathic medicine among all classes of the community.  No lack of knowledge in regard to the
practice of the system; too many have learned this
by a dear-bought experience.  Those who can boast
ignorance on that head are indeed a happy few.
It is a strange anomaly in history, that an individual, after having gone through a regular prescribed
course of medical studies under prescribed teachers,
and having been declared by a board of examinrators
to be thoroughly qualified to practice medicine, and
having obtained a diploma to that effect, as a
guarantee to the public, should yet, after that, be
proscribed and branded as a quack and impostor, by
the very same parties who gave the diploma; and
that merely because the individual had added to
his other medical attainments a knowledge of the
principles and practice of a new system called homoco.
pathy, and had so much honesty and candour as to
declare his conviction of the superiority of that new
system, over the principles and practice of the old
or allopathic system; and yet it is true.  This fact
is in the highest degree humiliating to some of our
university corporations and medical associations, and
can be accounted for only on the ground that they
B




14          LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE.
knew very little about homceopathy; or, that actuated by a spirit of intolerance, they imagined that
something very decided must be done ex cathedra,
in case this new system should ultimately turn the
world upside down, and bring their craft in danger.
Every medical man has a right to form an opinion
of his own, but before passing judgment on any
subject, it is his bounden duty to study the matter
thoroughly and impartially. Without such a study,
his opinion is a mere expression of his prejudice or
ignorance.  Allopathists are quite at liberty to differ
from us, both in their creed and practice, so are we
honceopathists at liberty to differ with them.  We
have no desire to force our views on any one, neither
will we passively submit to the authoritative dictum
of any party that differs from us.  We allow to all
the liberty we claim to ourselves, and wish to do to
others as we wish them to do to us.  Let the advocates. of the old school come forward and expose
homoropathy to the world. There ought surely to be
some among such a large number who should be able
to give a full exposure of the system, if it is either
a delusion or quackery.  One or two of no mean
standing in the profession have attempted to do so,
but the signal manner in which they have failed has
deterred others from  the task.  ilany who know
nothing about homeopathy, properly speaking, are
very decided in their talk against it, and would be




NECESSITY OF LEARNING BEFORE JUDGING.  15
very glad to expose it if they were able; not a few,
who know something of the system, have their
doubts and misgivings on the subject. They would
not like to have their names handed down to posterity as opposing what might after all turn out to
be a great truth; or as defending a system which is
avowedly rotten and without foundation. They have
their fears that homceopathy may, on some day not
far distant, be so universally known and approved of
throughout the world, as to become the ruling system and practice of medicine, and their names, alas!
would be associated with dishonour.
Most of us have studied allopathy theoretically
and practically for years.  How long have any of
our opponents studied homceopathy? Have any of
them studied it closely for even one year, or even for
six months? Have any of them had any practical
experience of the system? If not, it is the height of
presumption to pronounce against it.  In coming to
the study of homeopathy, it is not required to give
up anything really useful, that has been learned
either from experience or tuition; not at all.  The
more knowledge the better. But by all means come
to a thorough understanding of the fundamental
principle of the new system, become intimately acquainted with the facts and evidences on which it
rests. If it is found to be untrue, there will be no
difficulty in exposing its fallacy. And if found to be




16            MISREPRESENTATION.
true, hold fast by it, and flinch not from advocating
it.  Do not condemn the system and abuse its advocates, while ignorant of the true character of both.
There are some medical men who seem to have
peculiar notions about the responsibility which lies
upon them  when they speak about homeopathy.
They spread reports about the system, and give
explanations to others as to its nature and its power
over disease, which we fear many of them must know,
and what all of them ought to know, to be altogether
untrue.  There are even some, who are known to
be men of high moral rectitude in other matters,
who, nevertheless, are in the habit of making statements in regard to homoeopathy, which are the very
reverse of truth.  Their ignorance of the system is
not only no cloak to their blameworthiness in this
matter, but is an aggravation of it.  They ought to
take the trouble to learn and know before they speak.
Who of our opponents has done this? Who can lay
his hand on his heart and say that he is free from
blame in this matter? Who has overcome the power
of self-interest? Who has resisted the power of
custom and prejudice in searching after the truth of
homceopathy? Let those answer who can. This is
not a subject to be trifled with, or lightly laid aside,
the health and lives of our fellow-men are at stake,
and call aloud for serious, inquiring, and earnest
investigation.




ENMITY TO HOMCEOPATHY.             17
There are some men in the profession, the violence
of whose opposition to homoeopathy is more of the
nature of enmity than anything else. It is they who
have raised the cry, " Away with it, away with it. It
is all humbug, quackery, charlatanery, imposture —
its advocates are base impostors, and deserve nothing
but extinction, root and branch." To such men we
have little to say. They have had their analogues
in all past ages, and in all time-serving systems.
They have been, and still are, blots in society. But
the day which shall try us, shall also try them.
As we are always ready to communicate to others
what we have learned ourselves, so are we ever ready
to receive instruction from those who have it to give;
but kings and popes in medicine we do not acknowledge. That we must think and practice in this or
that way merely because a certain party says so, under
penalty of confiscation and excommunication, savours
too much of the dark ages for us to listen to. We
value the right of private judgment and freedom of
conscience too highly, to become the slaves or tools
of such despotism. Private judgment in the investigation, embracing, and defending of any new truth, is
at once the right and privilege of every rational and
intelligent being. And to that tribunal homaeopathy
makes its appeal.  Every one has a vital interest in
the relative merits of the two opposing systems of
medicine; therefore be honest and sincere in investiB2




18      POPULAR FAITH IN ALLOPATHIY.
gating the subject. We pretend to no mysterious or
secret knowledge, but are guided by plain, simple
truth, which we desire others to share with ourselves.
Did you ever hear of allopathic doctors inviting the
public to investigate the truth of their system of
practice? Did you ever hear of any one of them who
ever made an attempt to prove the truth of their
system?  No, never.  They dare not attempt it,
because they know full well that it is impossible;and
their evident object now is, as it has always been, to
keep the public in ignorance by scholastic jargon,
making them believe that they know far more than
they really do.
The public at this moment are fearfully deluded in
regard to allopathy, in imagining that they believe
in its truth, when in reality they know nothing about
it, and therefore cannot have any intelligent belief in
it.  Who knows anything about the foundation of
the old system of medicine? Does any one? Let
its advocates give a clear and intelligent statement
and explanation of their principles and practices,
apart from all mysticism, and thus give the public
sufficient data to judge from.  At present all such
data are wanting, and the adherence to allopathy by
the bulk of the public, has no better foundation
than that given to paganism-it is purely of a traditionary character. In an age like this, such should
not be the case.  Every one should, in this matter,




SPIRIT OF ENQUIRY.            19
follow the example of the Bereans, and search in
the book of facts, and diligently inquire into the
volume of reason, to ascertain the truth for himself,
no matter what the opinion of others may be. It was
by following this course that Galileo discovered that
the earth revolved round the sun, and not the sun
round the earth.  In the same way Columbus discovered America, and in this way Harvey discovered
the circulation of the blood, and Jenner the use of
vaccination. These and many other great discoverers
dared to think for themselves; they were not content
to follow the beaten path of those who had preceded
them. They did not believe that whatever their
fathers taught and believed must be true. They
brought old-established theories to the test of experience-facts, and found them wanting. They proclaimed to the world their own discoveries, and
invited men to examine them and test their truth.
Each of these in his day suffered much persecution
and ridicule. But the storms of ignorance and selfinterest have died away, while the truths which they
discovered still remain, and we enjoy the benefit of
them. So will it be in regard to homeeopathy.




20             ORIGIN OF MEDICINE.
CHAPTER II.
ALLOPATHY.
Origin of medicine-Medical theories-Allopathy a mixture of
old theories-Allopathy made no real progress for 2000 years
-Relation between allopathy and the collateral branches of
medicine-Allopathic experience-Allopathic specifics -Allopathic palliation-Evils of —Allopathic sheet-anchors —Artificial drug-diseases-Allopathic medicines shorten the
duration of life.
THE allopathic system of medicine, although upwards of 2000 years old, is very little, if at all, understood even among the best informed portion of the
community, and with the great mass it is not understood at all. We are however not astonished at this,
for besides the studied secrecy and mysticism in
which that system has been shrouded, it is in itself
essentially a confused, unscientific, and contradictory
jumble of facts, theories and assertions, entirely
destitute of any settled fundamental principle, by
which the incongruous mass can be reduced to order
and harmony.   In the present chapter we shall
endeavour, as briefly and clearly as the nature of the
subject will admit of, to present the reader with some
information on the subject, in order that he may be
able to form an intelligent opinion as to its merits.




MEDICAL THEORIES.             21
The practice of medicine in its origin, must have
been in the highest degree, empirical. But man
being endowed with a reflective mind, began to form
vague speculations about the phenomena which he
observed, and hence, at a very early period, medical
hypotheses were invented. The first recorded theory
is that of Hippocrates, who imagined that the cure
of disease was to be effected by the evacuation from
the system of certain diseased humours, called the
Humoral Theory.  Much of this system prevails at
the present day, and forms the basis of the physicking
doctors. Of these humours there were supposed to
be a great variety, to each of which names were
given. Galen reduced these to four cardinal humours, namely, blood, bile, pituita, and melancholia,
and his theory flourished for a long time. After
this, about the beginning of the sixteenth century,
Paracelsus appeared and introduced a great many
wild and fanciful notions; many of which were too
grossly absurd to gain anything like universal credit
among the profession. Still he succeeded in establishing a chemical theory decidedly opposed to that
of his predecessors. The humoral and chemical
theories prevailed till the middle of the seventeenth
century, when the immortal Harvey discovered the
circulation of the blood. All diseases were then referred to the energy or fulness of the heart, and upon
this the mechanical and hydraulic theories were




22            MEDICAL THEORIES.
instituted. About the beginning of the eighteenth
century, Dr. Stahl propounded a new theory called
Animism, decidedly opposed to the mechanical
theorists. According to this theory all the motions
of the body were produced by the rational soul, and
diseases were generally regarded as salutary efforts
of this presiding principle to avert the destruction of
the body. Among the followers of this system were
some men of great eminence; they trusted almost
entirely to the power of nature in the cure of disease,
using only the most harmless and inert substances.
They were the originators of what is now called the
expectant system.  The celebrated Dr. Sydenham
held this notion of nature curing disease. Dr. Hoffman introduced a modification upon this theory;
asserting that all diseases took their rise in the nervous system. Van Swieten, Haller, and others adopted
and improved this system. The famous Dr. Boerhaave
next introduced a very elaborate theory founded upon
the humoral, and modified by the other prevailing
notions.  The well-known Brown next introduced
his theory. General increase of action, or debility
in each individual case, was the principle he
adopted; and his practice in every case, was either a
stimulant or a sedative; this system met with many
supporters. Lastly, the system of Broussais appeared; he taught that almost all diseases were




ALLOPATHY A MIXTURE OF OLD THEORIES. 23
owing either to an excess or a deficiency of irritability! bleeding was his chief remedy.
With all these fanciful and conflicting theories, no
decided improvement had ever taken place in the
practice of medicine. There was no law-no fixed
principle which could guide or assist the physician
in selecting a remedy to cure disease. In this respect not a single step in advance had taken place
from the time of Hippocrates. And it will require
very little discrimination to see that, the practice of
medicine prevailing in our day though neither entirely
according to the one or the other of these theories, is
yet nothing more nor less than a disorderly mixture
of all of them. We have the humoral theorists with
their physic and alteratives-we have followers of
Paracelsus and the Alchemists with their powerful
minerals and metals —we have the resuscitated doctrine of Animism in the modern expectant, or donothing system, with their bread pills and toast water
-we have Brunonians with their artificial stimulants
and sedatives-and we have the followers of Broussais
with the leech and lancet.  Strange that all these
systems though more or less directly opposed to each
other should have existence together; but stranger
still that almost every so-called orthodox practitioner
in Europe makes a public profession of his faith in
each and all of these opposing systems by following
them in his practice! This is the reason why the




24      NO PROGRESS FOR 2000 YEARS.
practice of medicine now a days is so complicated
and contradictory, being composed of such a jumble
of opposing theories.
Intelligent people are astonished to hear it stated
that the practice of medicine in the hands of allopaths
has made little or no progress for the last 2000
years. They have heard so much about the discoveries and improvements in and connected with medicine that they have always thought that the practice
of medicine had undergone great improvements, and
had mightily progressed —that in fact in our day it
was in a highly perfected condition. In place of
that, when we examine it and compare the practice
of to-day with that of Hippocrates, we are inclined
to think that the great father of medicine was not far
behind any of his disciples. True, medical men have
in the course of ages collected a vast mass of details
and facts, but being linked together by no law or
general principle, this heterogeneous mass is of little
or no use to the profession; at most they can only
add fresh material to the vast pile. The science of
medicine proper is not to be confounded with the
collateral branches. In surgery and the elementary
branches of medical education, there have been many
and great improvements; so much so, that at this
time their progress is in harmonious keeping with the
age we live in. But;-while these branches-anatomy,
physiology, chemistry, and pathological anatomy




ALLOPATHY AND THE COLLATERAL SCIENCES. 25
have made great and rapid advances, materia medica,
(the knowledge of the medicinal properties of drugs,)
and therapeutics, (the knowledge of the proper application of medicine in disease,) are wofully deficient; scarcely any progress at all has been made
in these. As regards therapeutics, the progress has
been so trifling, and its various parts so discordant,
that no one can call it a science at all. And then
the material composing the materia medica, is so
meagre and so devoid of all method, as to render it,
comparatively speaking, of little value in the treatment of disease.
Still we are told again that great advancement and
progress have been made of late years in various
departments of medical science. We remember one
day having occasion to defend the claims of homoeopathy against the attack of a clever allopath, and this
was one of his objections (quite as appropriate by the
way as most others that are generally advanced.)
You homceopathists, said he, have made no great
discoveries in medicines, while allopaths have made
many; this shows that there are no great men among
you.  Now waiving for the present the fact that
homoeopathists have made more real and substantial
discoveries in medicine during the past sixty years,
than all the medical men that ever lived have done
during the past two thousand, (but of these our
aspiring allopath was profoundly ignorant,) what real
C




26 ALLOPATHY AND THE COLLATERAL SCIENCES.
practical good has resulted from these allopathic discoveries?  One, like this gentleman, will instance
Kiernan's discoveries in the structure of the liver,
with which we homeeopathists are quite familiar.
But what good, we ask, is derived from this discovery
in practice? Are allopaths more successful in their
treatment of diseases of that organ now, than they
were before such a discovery was made? This is the
great question. Do they make more cures now than
they formerly did? Facts say no. And in regard to
discoveries in the anatomy and functions of the lungs
and other organs, diseases of those parts are quite as
fatal under allopathic treatment as they used to be.
Such discoveries are not, and cannot possibly be of
any service in the treatment of diseases. They teach
us nothing about the properties of medicine, nor of
their proper use in removing suffering, and that is
what is wanted.  All the collateral branches of
medicine are highly useful in their own places, and
the more we know of them the better; but a man
may be a first-rate anatomist or chemist, and yet be
practically ignorant of the treatment of disease: he
might not be able to distinguish a case of measles
from one of scarlatina, much less to treat the one or
the other successfully.
But still we do not deny that there are some
changes in practical medicine for good; they are
becoming more and more apparentand in one sense




ALLOPATHIC EXPERIENCE.           27
we rejoice to see them. First, there are a number of
homoeopathic remedies filched from the system of
Hahnemann now somewhat extensively used in allopathic practice, and at times to good purpose, and
second, there is much less medicine used and not
a tithe of the bleeding practiced.  These are great
and important changes; but how have they arisen?
Are they the development of allopathic progress?
Assuredly not. For the two latter facts the world
has in a great measure to thank homoeopathy,
and for the former, give the honour to whom it is
due.
The allopathist examines his patient in order to
form his diagnosis.  The homaeopathist examines
his patient in order to find out every, even the
most minute symptom of the complaint, so as to
be able to select a remedy suitable for the entire
disease.  In the former case, the name alone is
wanted, and the medicine is indicated as a matter of
course, without any intelligent discrimination on the
part of the physician. It is indigestion, it is bile, it
is rheumatism, it is consumption, says the old-school
doctor, and accordingly a medicine is given for the
conventional name, and not for the exact and true
disease under which the patient is labouring. On
this account very little is gained by experience, even
when the opportunities of gaining valuable information are most abundant. The following report affords




28         ALLOPATHIC EXPERIENCE.
a striking proof of this. The French Academy of
Medicine have given a report of their experience in
the treatment of typhoid fevers. The medical attendants, consisting of Andral, Louis, Bouilland, and
others, physicked one hundred patients, without the
slightest regard to symptoms, age, sex, or stage of
the disease.  They bled another hundred on the
same plan: and with another hundred they did
nothing.  Now what could be learned from such
indiscriminate, wholesale work as this; it is perfectly absurd. No one of any judgment could place
any dependence at all on the results of experience
like this.
The illustrious Zimmerman relates the experience
of a physician of his own acquaintance, who used to
arrange all his patients, between fifty and sixty in
number, every morning into four divisions.  To
the first he prescribed bleeding; to the second, a
purgative; to the third, a glyster; and to the fourth,
a change of air! such is allopathic practice. The
success of the painter lies in his catching the individual features and lineaments of his subject, and
transferring these to his canvass.  Even so the
success and skill of the physician lie in his distinctly
observing all the individual symptoms and peculiarities of each patient, and being able to select
a remedy which corresponds to all these symptoms
and peculiarities. This is the only scientific mode of




A LLOPATHIC SPECIFICS.         29
practicing medicine. Nanies are useful enough in
their own place, but we protest against their being
made guides in practice.
Allopaths do occasionally make cures. Every
medicine in their Materia Medica is valuable when
properly applied, and they do from time to time
stumble upon one which happens (in so far as their
choice is concerned, by mere accident) to be homoeopathic to the case, and thus unwittingly to themselves a homoeopathic cure is effected. In their practice there are a number of remedies, the so-called
specifics,which are frequently applied to good purpose. But, such remedies owe their existence in
allopathic practice to mere accident. They are not
the legitimate offspring of the system, they are isolated and estranged agents forced into an unnatural
system, and in most instances applied to purposes for
which they are not at all adapted. As a rule, these
medicines are applied purely empirically without any
knowledge of the ground of their adaptation. And
cases are daily occurring in which the empirical doctor is baffled and confounded even while using those
remedies which according to his orthodox motions
ought to have been specifics for the disease. When
we compare the little good that is done by the use of
these remedies in the hands of allopaths, with the immense amount of evil that has been entailed upon suf-.
fering humanity by their abuse, it becomes a serious
c2




30         ALLOPATHIC PALLIATION.
question as to whether it would not be better to give
up the use of such remedies altogether; at all events,
until some decided reformatory change should take
place in the mode of employing them. Sir John
Forbes says, " It would fare as well, or better, withpatients, in the actual condition of the medical art,
as more generally practiced, if all remedies, at least all
active remedies, especially drugs, were abandoned."
The main stay of the old system in maintaining
its sway over the public, is the practice of palliation.
No one can form anything like a correct idea of the
vast amount of mischief produced by this practice
alone; but the subject is so important, and leads into
such a large field, that we refrain from dwelling upon
it here at any length. No part of the system is so
successful as this in deceiving the sick and establishing the position of the medical adviser. The immediate apparent benefit generally derived from the use
of these palliatives is such, as to lead the patient,
who knows no better, to imagine that the doctor
understands his complaint, and knows how to cure it.
Alas! alas! that this should not be the case. The
temporary benefit produced by such medicines is soon
succeeded by a return of the old complaint, which
again calls for a renewal of the old palliative. This
goes on till the case becomes worse and worse, and
also more complicated, so as entirely to destroy the
comfort, and greatly to impair the usefulness of the




ALLOPATHIC PALLIATION.            31
individual; or, some new and more dangerous disease becomes developed, which suddenly destroys tho
patient; or, a truce for life is to come between the
patient and his palliative, for the mere extension
of a miserable existence. This system of palliation,
of which at the very least three-fourths of the prevailing practice consists, fosters and harmonizes with
the prevailing evils of the age. Present gratification
is wanted; temporary indulgence, regardless of consequences. The world cries, Give us our stimulants, give us our purgatives, our stomachics, our
tonics, our alteratives, our sleeping draughts, our
soothing drops, our anti-spasmodics, our carminatives. Against one and all of this fraternity we
protest; they are the enemies of health, the generators of disease, and the prolific sources of death!
The resources of the old school, though nominally
very extensive, are practically, exceedingly limited.
Take away their three great sheet-anchors —bleeding,
purging, and giving of opium,-and what have they
left?  What could they do? Without these their
occupation's gone. These form their chief stock in
trade; all the other paraphernalia are the mere trumpery appendages of the three great idols. In fact
one would be quite safe to say that, there is not a case
of any serious disease in any part of the world under
allopathic treatment, in which at least one, if not all
of these destructive agents have not been employed.




32        ARTIFICIAL DRUG DISEASES.
In a very important sense these agents constitute
allopathy; were they relinquished, the system is
done to all intents and purposes. Bleeding, being by
far the most important, and perhaps the most de.
structive of these agents, we shall address ourselves
chiefly, if not exclusively, to the consideration of that
subject. Before doing so, we shall say merely a word
upon a subject that has been already adverted to,
namely, the injurious effects of drugs on the constitution. The allopath knows nothing about the artificial diseases which the powerful drugs he is daily
in the habit of using are capable of creating; and he
never can know, until he takes the trouble to study
homeopathy. He never dreams that in a great many
instances, he is physicking the patient for the cure of
a complaint which his own misapplied drugs have
already produced; and yet cases of this kind are
numerous. A vast number of patients are labourinug
under complicated drug diseases, produced entirely
by long-continued allopathic treatment.  Such persons are never in a state of sound health, and are
seldom out of the hands. of the doctor. Renewed
doses of some new medicine frequently have a palliative effect and give temporary relief, and in this way
the evil is made worse and worse, until the constitution of the patient is either entirely and permanently
ruined, or some other more dangerous disease, induced
by the former malady seizing upon a more vital organ,




ARTIFICIAL DRUG DISEASES.          33
generally leading on to a fatal termination-so-called
liver complaints, hypochondriasis, congestive headaches, rheumatic bone pains, &c., are frequently
produced by allopathic drugging.  Such patients
have no chance whatever of getting better, until the
true cause of their sufferings is understood, and proper
remedies prescribed to destroy the baneful effects of
the poison A physician, in Breslau, has a large collection of bones, in the cellular tissue of which, numerous globules of pure mercury are to be seen. In
this country many instances of this kind are recorded.
A vast proportion of the most common and stubborn diseases are, to a great extent, manufactured by
*medical men. Thus an individual accidentally becomes confined in the bowels, (perhaps, by the way,
a very salutary accident,) and he gets physic from
the doctor. The primary action of the physic in
opening the bowels is soon followed by renewed constipation more stubborn than before, and for this
more physic must be taken. In this way the indications of nature are frustrated, and the constipation
becomes confirmed-chronic; or, as the unfortunate
patient is made to believe, constitutional. But the
evil does not always stop here. The physic has an
injurious effect on the rest of the system; upon the
stomach, in producing a great variety of painful and
uncomfortable symptoms. generally classed under the
head of dyspepsia or indigestion. For these again,




34        ARTIFICIAL DRUG DISEASES.
bark, or some other so-called tonic, must be given.
The little relief afforded by these is of short duration;
and besides a return of the former complaint, we
frequently find so-called nervous and congestive
headaches produced directly from the abuse of these
fine tonics. Not only is this true in regard to strong
drugs, such as mercury, arsenic, bark, &c., but it is
equally true as regards the most simple and innocent
medicines.  Magnesia, for example, an article frequently recommended by doctors, and extensively
used among children, produces most dangerous
after-effects.   On this point we shall quote the
opinion of an influential allopathic journalist:"' That which is called the most innocent medicine
may be the source of the utmost harm. Thus magnesia has been productive of fatal consequences.
Masses unchanged have been found after death,
closely collected together, or patches of the powder
adhering with the utmost pertinacity to the intestines.  Some very curious instances of this kind are
upon record; and some of the cases have been, from
the apparently suspicious circumstances, made subjects of investigation; for even deaths have been
attributed to arsenic, when post-mortem examinations
have shown that magnesia taken medicinally, net
arsenic given as poison, was the destroying power."
Think of this, you that are in the habit of using or
giving magnesia.




ALLOPATHIC DRUGS SHORTEN LIFE.    35
A report of the Medical Society of London for
I3th October, 1849, contains the following important remarks, bearing on this very point. Dr. Crisp
said, " But as it regards the action of colchicum, I
think the profession has yet the lesson to learn as
to the ultimate effect of particular medicines on the
duration of life, and I make this observation now in
consequence of a remark made by Dr. Stokes, in
Dublin;'he had never heard of persons who had
taken much colchicum living to a great age."'
Dr. Thompson also said, "I cannot refrain from
referring to the observation of Dr. Crisp, as to the
great importance of considering the ulterior effects
of medicines." Take warning from this, you drug
consumers-the ultimate effects of the use of particular allopathic medicines is to shorten the duration
of life.
Dr. Wood, in a recent publication on Neuralgia,
thus expresses himself on this very subject. " Some
of the most melancholy cases of Tic Doloureux
which I have witnessed, have been where opium has
been given to mitigate the pain. Time after time
the dose has increased, until, to the original morbid
state, inducing the Neuralgia, has been superadded
the marasmus of slow opium poisoning." Dr. Wood
is an opponent of homoeopathy and no doubt speaks
within the truth in regard to allopathic practice, he
is one of its teaching professors, and would say




36                  BLEEDING.
nothing against it that was not too true, and yet from
his testimony we are led-to the conclusion that, the
allopathic exhibition of opium in neuralgia, is such,
as to induce the marasmus of slow poisoning-the
gradual decay of slow and insidious poisoning. Dr.
Wood says, he has seen cases of the kind. No doubt
others halve done the same. Who would take opium
to mitigate pain, with this solemn fact staring them
in the face; slow but sure poisoning?
CHAPTER III.
BLEEDING.
Its origin-A sheet-anchor-Inflammation-Notions aboutWhat Inflammation is not-What it is-Bleeding in inflartmation-Importance of the blood in the economy-Apoplexy
-Notions about the disease-What is the cause of apoplexy
-Effects of bleeding in apoplexy-Bleeding calculated to
produce the disease —Bursting of a blood-vessel-Cause ofEffects of bleeding in such cases-Bleeding a man in the jaws
of death-Diseases brought on by bleeding-Combe's opinion
of bleeding-The "buffy coat" on inflammatory blood —
Bleeding in inflammation of the lungs —Dr. Tod's opinion
of-Injurious effects of.
THE origin of the practice of bleeding is wrapped
in mystery.  Whether it was the result of theoretical reasoning, or the adventurous stroke of daring




BLEEDING A SHEET ANCHOR.           37
empiricism, is difficult to ascertaid. One thing is
certain, that it is not necessarily the product of any
of the theoretical speculations of which the practice
of medicine is composed. And yet, strange to say, it
is practised by the propounders and advocates of every
opposing theory.  They all-carry the lancet, as one
of the many instruments of their art.
To say that bleeding may be dispensed with, in a
great many cases in which it is at present had recourse to, no one will deny; but to affirm that it may
and ought to be dispensed with in all cases, even
those of acute inflammation and apoplexy not excepted, would appear to some as the height of madness. We once thought so too, and so did many others
so long as the mere opinion of our teachers was our
guide; but experience, and an impartial examination
of facts, have convinced us of our error. We shall
now endeavour as concisely as possible to present the
subject in its true light, and leave the reader to digest
the facts, and draw his own conclusions therefrom.
Requiring no skill in its performance, bleeding has
ever been in practice one of the most convenient
resources of the ignorant and unreflecting. In any
sudden emergency, it does not much matter what it
may be, one according to the orthodox faith and prac.
tice can scarcely ever be wrong to bleed. This, in
fact, seems to be an axiom in the practice of a large
majority of medical practitioners. When called to a
D




38              INFLAMMATION.
case in which the pulse is full, rapid and bounding,
all nature labouring under the influence of some hostile invader, bleed; remove a portion of the life and
strength of the patient, in order to enable him the
more successfully to struggle against and overcome
the enemy: if one bleeding does not suffice to put an
end to the strife, bleed again! or, if called to a case of
accident, a blow or a fall, when the natural powers,
stunned and enfeebled, are nearly at a stand still,
bleed; bleed profusely, the blow has not completely
taken away the life of the man, draw away some
more life by bleeding, if the blood will run, so as to
give him a better chance of rallying! Has a person
been suddenly frightened, the heart throbbing strong
and violently, bleed. If he has fallen down in a
faint, the action of the heart all but stopped, bleed.
Truly bleeding is a sheet anchor.
But an enquirer says, what would you do in a case
of inflammation? you must bleed. People have got
strange notions into their heads about this terrible
thing they call inflammation. Thanks to their medical advisers for these. Before answering the question;
can you tell us now what you understand by inflammation? this something which you and we dare say
every one else thinks he knows well. For the most
profoundly ignorant, and the learned, alike speak of
it as though they knew all about it most intimately.
Can you give us a definite answer as to what it is-.




WIAT INFLAMMATION IS NOT.          39
what it consists in? Try it before going any further.
Do try, and you will find that all your notions on
the subject are but vague and dreamy fancies, destitute of all definiteness and precision, and having no
foundation in fact; supposing a thousand individuals promiscuously without having any intercourse
together, sat down to give their answer to this question, what a pretty set of answers we should have,
to be sure! Before speaking of the treatment, we
must supply an answer to the question, what is inflammation? what does it consist in? First then,
as to what it does not consist in.
It does not consist in, neither does it depend upon,
unnatural rapidity of the heart's action, consequently, nor of the rapidity of the circulation.  For, the
action of the heart, and the rapidity of the circulation can be, and often are vastly increased by mental emotions, and by exercise, while the individual
is at the same time entirely free from all inflammatory action.
Second; it does not depend upon an increased
quantity of blood in any particular part or organ.
For, in the familiar act of blushing, the quantity of
blood in the cheeks is frequently increased.  Holding a part also before the fire for some time has the
same effect.  So also the reaction that takes place
when a chilled part has been brought into a warmer
atmosphere.




40         WHAT INFLAMMATION  IS.
Third; it does not consist in the presence of too
much blood in the body. For, during the inflammatory condition, there is no more blood in the body
than there was previous to the inflammation. And
it is absurd to think that there could possibly be too
much blood during the inflammation, when, only an
hour before, the person was in good health, and had
not too much.
To bleed, then, under the idea that inflammation
consists either in the one or the other of these conditions, would be the height of madness; but to the
answer. You will scarcely believe when we tell you
that, inflammation immediately depends upon an
enfeebled state of the circulation, a diminution in its
force and frequency, so much so, that in fact the
blood-corpuscles actually begin to adhere to the
sides of the capillary vessels, and ultimately stagnate
there altogether. The minute arteries, owing to paralysis, or a state of exhaustion of their nerves, lose
their natural healthy power of contraction, become
relaxed and enlarged. Dr. Hooper accounts for this
condition of inflammation in this way.  "'It is a
general rule," he says, " that all stimuli applied to
any part of the body call that part into action for a
time, and that that action is dependent upon nervous
influence; but the nervous influence suffers exhaustion proportioned to its intensity and duration, and
that exhaustion produces in the part affected, a con



BLEEDING IN INFLAMMATION.           41
dition the very reverse of that which existed when
the nervous power was in full force. The stimulant
applied to a part determines the nervous influence to
the small vessels of that part, and the function of
those vessels-viz., their contractility, is for the time
called into full play; exhaustion ensues, and then.that same function is paralysed: in other words, the
vessels lose their contractility, and yield to the blood
that flows in them." The state of contractility,
mark you, is not that of inflammation, it is the relaxed, exhausted, paralysed state that is inflammation. The Doctor thus further expresses himself.
"There is then, no such thing as increased action
of the arteries, in the sense in which that term is
commonly used: that which used to be called increased action, is in fact diminished action."
This being the case then, that in inflammation
there is diminished action, that is diminished contractility of the small vessels, and that the want of
contractility is owing to a want of nervous power,
how is it'possible that blood-letting can in any way
restore the blood-vessels to their former state of contraction? Just consider what is the cause of the
relaxed condition of the blood-vessels. Is it the presence of their natural contents, the blood? surely
not. Why then remove the blood? But an objector
might say, the blood is in a bad state, that is the
cause of it, and therefore we bleed. Well, we do
D 2




42       IMPORTANCE OF THE BLOOD.
not deny that the blood may be in a bad state.
During inflammation all the secretions become viti.
ated, not only the blood, but those of the bowels,
kidneys, and skin. But none of these are the cause
of the inflammation, they are the effects. But besides,
what good could possibly be effected upon the impure blood by bleeding? Could the removal of any
quantity make what was left behind any better?
Nothing but the exhibition of suitable remedies can
possibly have any beneficial effect on the relaxed
condition of the nerves on the one hand, and upon
the vitiated state of the secretions on the other.
One of the chief causes of the great prevalence of
bleeding among the old school doctors, is their erroneous views regarding the use and importance of the
blood in the economy. It is scarcely possible to overestimatethe importance of the blood. It is in a very
significant sense the life of the being. And every
ounce the doctor takes away, is nothing less than so
much of the vivifying principle removed. As corroborative of this view, we shall give you the testimony
of the celebrated German chemist, Liebig; at page
264 of his Organic Chemistry, he says, "The vivifying agency of the blood must ever continue to be
the most important condition in the restoration of a
disturbed equilibrium, which result is always dependent on the saving of time; and the blood must
therefore be considered, and constantly kept in view,




APOPLEXY.                  43
as the ultimate and most powerful cause of a lasting
vital resistance, as well in the diseased as in the unaffected parts of the body." Any comment of ours on
such testimony as this would be quite superfluous.
But the objector continues, what is to be done in
cases of apoplexy, surely nothing but bleeding will
do there? This has always been the clincher of the
advocates of bleeding: and many a time have we
had this question advanced by well-informed individuals, who could not get over the idea of bleeding
being dispensed with in such cases. They spoke
really as though they knew all about the nature of
the disease, and as if they understood all about the
how, and the why, bleeding was such an indispensable requisite in such cases.  But on putting a few
simple questions to such individuals, it soon becomes
apparent that they are entirely ignorant of the whole
subject, and have merely learned to re-echo the unfounded assertions of those interested in maintaining
the orthodox practice.
Knowing that this is one of our opponent's strongest positions, we shall be at some pains to show, not
only that the practice is erroneous, but that it is
most pernicious and destructive. The most erroneous
ideas exist in regard to the real cause and nature of
apoplexy; and it is upon the assumption of the truth
of these notions that bleeding is so extensively practised. The two principal ideas in connection with




44           CAUSE OF APOPLEXY.
apoplexy are, first, that there ispressure on the brain,
and second, that there is too muach blood in the brain.
How very learnedly and consequentially do these
wiseacres speak about pressure on the brain, and too
much blood in the head. These have been two most
successful and convenient fabrications for imposing
on the credulity of the public. There is pressure
on the brain, therefore of course bleed to remove the
pressure; there is too much blood in the head, therefore bleed to diminish the quantity. How very plau.
sible does this sound. Can you believe it that this
so-called pressure on the brain never occurs, that in
fact there is no such thing, excepting perhaps in the
doctor's own head, where there must often be pressure enough. Among other authorities we refer you
to Dr. Hooper; at page 71 of his manual, he says,
"' Mere pressure then, does not affect the functions
of the brain; when blood, serum, or lymph are found
on the surface, or in the ventricles, or a tumour in
the substance of the brain, or a larger quantity of
blood than usual in some of its vessels, death is said
to be occasioned by pressure. This statement is incorrect; pressure there is none." Dr. Hooper, mind you,
is no homceopathist, but a standard allopathic teacher.
The true cause and condition of apoplexy in place
of being dependent on an excess of vital action,
and a redundancy of arterial blood is, like inflammation, dependent on an entirely different and opposite




CAUSE OF APOPLEXY.             45
condition, namely diminished action, that is, diminished contractility of the small vessels, and this
diminished contractility owing to a deficiency of
nervous power. We shall give you evidence from
the well-known Dr. Latham, which bears on this
very point. It is taken from the doctor's official report drawn up at the request of government, after an
enquiry into the cause of the great mortality in the
penitentiary.  "An ox's head," he says, "weighing
eight pounds, was made into soup for 100 people,
which allows one ounce and a quarter of meat to each
person. After they had been living on this food for
some time, they lost their colour,flesh,'and strength,
and could not do as much work as formerly. The
affections which came on during this faded, wasted,
weakened state of body, were headache, vertigo, delirium convulsions, apoplexy." Was there too much
blood, or an excess of vital energy in those persons'
heads, think you? assuredly not. They were in that
very condition in which a person is after being profusely bled; exactly so. And you can easily perceive that, as the faded and exhausted' condition
brought on by want was a cause of apoplexy, so bleeding, as it puts a person in the very same condition,
also becomes a cause of apoplexy. In this exsanguined state, the arteries being deprived of their
natural contents, become relaxed; the circulation
through the brain becomes languid, and the capillaries




46    EFFECTS OF BLEEDING IN APOPLEXY.
pour out serum into the ventricles or on the surface,
and the patient dies comatose. In such a case, a post
mortem examination would reveal this effusion, inl
or on, the brain; and this would at once be pointed
out as the cause of the disease, whereas, in truth it
was the consequence of the bleeding. Cause of death
it may have been; but who was to blame for that?
We will now turn to facts and observations, in
order to ascertain what evidence they give on this
point.  Sir Geo. Lefevre in referring to the treatment of apoplexy, and the increasing prevalence of
paralysis, says. "It is not improbable that the universal system of blood-letting upon all such attacks,
and even threatenings of them, has converted revmedi'al into itecurab1e diseases, paralysis has somrnetimes immce((iatelly followed the depletion intendedl
to prevent apoplexy."
The well-known Dr. Clutterbuck in his article on
apoplexy in the Cyclopedia of Medicine, says, "as
mere matter of experience, there is reason to believe
that blood-letting does much less good, and the
omission of it less injury than is generally supposed."
Although this is necessarily very guardedly expressed,
you can easily see what effect experience and observation had produced on Dr. Clutterbuck's mind.
IDr. Tod also thus expresses himself, in the medical
circular for I2th April, 1854, " all cases of apoplexy
are made worse by bleeding; we lessen the power of




EFFECTS OF BLEEDING IN APOPLEXY.   47
the system so to speak to throw off the disease." And
then Dr. Copeman's cases. The Dr. had no fewer
than 250 cases in his note book, though he gives us
the specific treatment of only 150 of these. The
following are the results: -
Number bled..........129   Cured.........51   Died..........78
Number not bled..... 26   Cured........18   Died......... 8
In his own words, he says "Of one hundred and
fifty-five cases particularly specified, one hundred and
twenty-nine were bled, and twenty-six were not; of
the former number fifty-one recovered, and seventyeight died; that is, nearly two-thirds. Of the latter, eighteen were cured, and only eight died; that
is, somewhat less than one-third. In two cases, the
temporal artery was opened, and both proved fatal;
in fourteen cases, leeches were applied, ten died and
four recovered; eighty-five patients were copiously
bled with the lancet, fifty-seven died, and only twenty-eight recovered.  "From these facts," continues
the author, "it appears that bleeding, generally
speaking, is so ineffectual a means of preventing a
fatal termination of apoplexy, that it scarcely deserves the name of a remedy for the disease-that
the' treatment without loss of blood was attended
with the most success, and the mortality of the disease increased, in proportion to the extent to which
bleeding was carried-the more copious the loss of
blood, the more fatal the disease."




48   EFFECTS OF BLEEDING IN APOPLEXY.
The following case, too, which occurred lately,
is also a striking proof of this view of the subject.
We quote from a clinical lecture of Dr. Tod, physician to King's College Hospital. The case of a
poor man, seventy years of age. "Though a wellmarked case of apoplexy, he had none of the usual
predisposing characteristics; none of what the Germans call' habitus apoplecticus;' he had none of
that full habit of body, with short neck, popularly
known as belonging to apoplexy. On the contrary,
he was thin and half starved;" as corroborative of
that, the Dr. goes on to say that " his habits of
living were described by his friends as miserly in the
extreme, and we found he had two fits before, as he
fell down in the street not long previously." In
spite of the treatment the patient died, a post mortem examination took place, and among other facts
observed, the doctor mentions the following: "The
brain atrophied (wasted) the convolutions so to speak,
shrunken, the subarachnoid space both large and
containing a considerable quantity of blood," and
further on, he continues, "in the left crus cerebelli
a large blood clot."  Now here is a well-marked
case of apoplexy, with decided effusion of blood and
fluid in the brain, evidently brought on by a weakened and impoverished state of the whole system.
How could there possibly be too much blood in that
man's body, or any rush of blood to the brain? the
very idea of anything of the kind is absurd.




EFFECTS OF BLEEDING IN APOPLEXY.   49
The following case, to, is also in point.  Toussaint L'Overture, who was incarcerated in the
Chateau de Joux, by Napoleon the First, after being
kept for a length of time on the lowest prison allowance, which in reality is just a slow process of starvation, was left for three whole days entirely destitute
of food; when visited by his jailer, he was found
dead in his cell  After.examination, it was found,
as certified by medical authority, that the immediate cause of his death —was apoplexy.
Thbe, evidence given is most conclusive against the
practice;of bleeding in cases of apoplexy. No doubt
there will always be- some fatal cases resulting from
this disease, under anymode of treatment, but all the
chances of success are against bleeding. No one can
possibly conceiveof the dreadful havoc that the lancet
has wrought-in this disease alone, it is fearful. And
then just thik-for amoment of the number of un.
fortunate creatures that are oruelly subjected to this
dangero6s treatment, even when there is no such
thing as apoplexy about them. A person is suddenly
seizedwith a-fit, fails to the ground, the face is distor.
ted, the brows- knit the eyes fixed and staring, or
turnedFup under the lids showing only the whites;
the arms are tossed about, and the hands clenched;
the' breathing is gasping, and foam issues from the
mouth; he face is turgid and livid; the patient lies
motionless and insensible; the doctor is sent for, and
E




50   DISEASES MISTAKEN FOR APOPLEXY.
comes in all haste, in an- instant the lancet is unsheathed, and the work of destruction then commences.
The friends think that it is apoplexy, the doctor
knows they expect him to draw blood, and the deed is
done. Real and fatal apoplexy is either developed, or
incurable paralysis is the consequence. Whereas, the
mere application of cold water, and the exhibition
of a suitable remedy might have saved the patient.
Do not imagine that doctors cannot be mistaken in
this disease, they are frequently mistaken, though the
public know nothing of it.  The following case of
Dr. Graves, of Dublin, related by himself proves this;
and when he made the mistake, you will not surely
wonder at others having not a tithe of his knowledge and experience, falling into even greater blunders. "The gentleman," Dr. Graves goes on to say,
"had slept well till four o'clock in the morning,
when he was awakened by a general feeling of
malaise, shortly after which he complained of chilliness, nausea and headache, after these symptoms
had continued about an hour, his skin became extremely hot, the pain of the head intense, and drowsiness was complained of, which even ended in
perfect coma, with deep snoring and insensibility;
-in fact, he seemed to be labouring under a violent
apoplectic fit. He seemed to derive much advantage
from bleeding and other remedies, and to my surprise
was perfectly well when I visited him in the evening.




BURSTING OF A BLOOD VESSEL.         51
The day but one after, at the very same hour, the
very same symptoms returned, and were removed
by the very same remedies." And was it cured now,
think you? no, the symptoms again returned, and
the Dr. goes on to say, that it was not till a third
attack came on that he discovered his mistake, it
being a case of fever and not of apoplexy at all.
Had his patient died after the first or second attack,
apoplexy would have got the blame, and not the
bleeding, certainly not.
The following short statement from the Medical
Circular, vol. 5, p. 107, also illustrates the same
point.  "Here to-day we find Rosina Schatta, age
37, said to die from apoplexy, but the medical man
attached to the court has made a post mortem examination, and it turns out no apoplexy, but pneumonia."
The objector might ask again, what can be done
in cases of haemorrhage-bursting a blood-vessel?
Could anything but bleeding do any good? Here
again the most erroneous notions prevail. It is generally thought that, in such cases there is an excess
of vital strength and a redundancy of blood, and, of
course, bleeding must be had recourse to, in order
to diminish these. Now in place of this being true,
bursting of blood-vessels is invariably owing to debility.-It is a diseased condition, owing to a deficiency of vital energy and strength. Who are the
subjects that are most liable to hemorrhage? Is it




52      BURSTING OF A BLOOD VESSEL.
the strong and healthy? no, but the delicate and
the consumptive; these are undoubtedly the most
frequent subjects of it. Almost every patient labouring under consumption, is at one time or other subject to haemorrhage from the lungs. Strong, healthy
lungs are not subject to hoemorrhage; and more than
that, no part or organ of the body whatever can become the seat of haemorrhage, unless in a diseased
and consequently weakened state.
It is contrary to all experience to think that such
a class of patients, and a disease of such a nature,
could possibly be benefited by bleeding. Is it at all
reasonable to think that, the opening of a new bloodvessel would be in any way likely to stop one that
was already opened, and pouring out its contents in
another part of the body? But hear what the celebrated Dr. Heberden says on this very point.  " It
seems probable," he says, " from all the experience I
have bad of such cases, that when the hemorrhage
proceeds frond the breach of some large ~ein or artery,
then the opening of a vein will not stop the afflux of
blood, and it will stop without the help of the lancet,
when it proceeds from a small one. In the former
case, bleeding does no good; and in the latter, by an
unnecessary waste of the patient's strength, it will do
harm. But, if the opening of a vein be intended to
stop a haemorrhage by deprivation or revulsion, may
it not be questioned whether this doctrine be so clearly




EFFECTS OF BLEEDING.            53
established, as to remove all fear of hurting a person
who has already lost too much blood, by a practice
attended with the certain loss of more?" Dr.
Heberden was long known as a first-class physician
in London, and had an extensive practice; his judgment in this matter is therefore of much importance.
The following case from the Lancet is quite to the
purpose, and may be taken as a fair specimen of all
others of this class. The man had been quarrelling
with his master about wages, when all at once he
" turned deadly pale, and fell speechless and insensible for a time, breathing heavily until his neckerchief was loosed. In falling, his head struck the edge
of a door, and received a deep wound three inches
long from which blood flowed enough to soak through
a thick mat on the floor." The man's wife immediately sent for a doctor, and got her husband conveyed to his own house, where he complained of pain
in his head. The doctor came, and what did he do,
think you?-bled him fearfully. One of the witnesses swore, that " she thought that about three
and a fifth pints of blood were taken, besides what
was spilt on the floor. The bleeding, she calculated,
occupied twenty minutes." The consequence, as
might be expected, was, that he never rallied from
this bleeding, and died on the third day.
In the Times newspaper of the 22nd December,
a case is given, which shows in a striking light the
E2




54   BLEEDING AT THE POINT OF DEATH.
wretchedly absurd character of the routine practice
of bleeding.  "Mr. -., surgeon, stated, that he
was called upon to attend deceased, and found him
at the point of death.  He attempted to bleed him,
but ineffectually, and in less than a minute from
witness's arrival deceased expired. Witness not
being able to give any opinion as to the cause of
death from the symptoms that then exhibited themselves, he afterwards, with the assistance of Dr.
Ridge, 37 Cavendish Square, made a post mortemn
examination, and found that a large cavity attached
to the large vessel of the heart, containing blood,
had burst, and that was the cause of death." Now
here is a surgeon, called in to a serious case, about
the nature of which he knows no more than the man
in the moon, even according to his own confession,
and yet, under the blind guidance of a false system,
he has the hardihood to attempt to bleed the man,
when in the jaws of death! This is no solitary case;
it often happens that the lancet is employed when
the medical attendant is entirely ignorant of the
nature of the disease.
The diminution of pain generally brought about by
bleeding, is a proof of the injury done to the nervous
system; it produces partial paralysis of the nervous
centres; it robs the system of part of its normal life
and nutriment, and also deprives the heart of its normal and necessary amount of stimulus. Disease is in




DISEASES BROUGHT ON BY BLEEDING.   55
consequence of this, more able to overpower the vital
force, and establish itself in the system, hence the
many chronic complaints after bleeding. But it also
gives rise to a great many serious complaints, among
others, Darwin says, "a paroxysm of gout is liable to
recur on bleeding."-John Hunter mentions " lockjaw and dropsy."-Travers has observed "blindness
and palsy."-Marshall Hall, " mania."-Blundell,
"dysentery."-Broussais," fever and convulsions."Majendie, " pneumonia, and an entire train of what
people are pleased to call inflammatory phenomena;
and mark,-" he says, " the extraordinary fact, that
this inflammation will have been produced by the
very same agent which is daily used to combat it."
You see that there is a superabundance of testimony
to the evil effects of blood-letting; but, as the subject is one of paramount importance, we shall still
further adduce evidence against the practice.
Our first authority is the talented and highly esteemed Dr. Combe. Speaking of the old school
practice, in a letter which appeared in the British
and Foreign Medical Review, he says, "Relying
upon the testimony of an incomplete fact, the moment
the practitioner ascertains the existence of inflammlation, he pulls out his lancet and bleeds his patient
copiously. The oppressed vessels being then partially emptied, much relief is experienced, and both
patient and physician are pleased with the hope that




56      COMBE S OPINION OF BLEEDING.
the disease will be'cit short.' In a few hours, however, the vessels have contracted, and they and the
heart have adapted themselves to their diminished
contents, and nature thereupon resumes the attempt
to carry the disease through its proper stages. The
pain returns, the pulse rises, and the oppression augments. Bleeding is again resorted to with immediate relief, and the same phenomena recur."  He
then goes on to add, that with a good constitution
and good management the person may survive, but
if the constitution is not robust, he " falls into chronic disease," with an impaired constitution, "his
strength permanently shaken," and " ultimately
dies." Such is Dr. Combe's opinion of bleeding in
inflammatory diseases.
The facts connected with the case of Lord Byron
are also full of interest on this point. During his
last illness, it was with the most intense reluctance
that Byron would consent to allow himself to be
bled, when he at last did consent, Mr. Millengen
writes "We seized the moment, and drew about
twenty ounces. On coagulation, the blood presented
a strong buffy coat; yet the relief obtained did not
correspond to the hopes we had formed; and during
the night the fever became stronger than it had been
hitherto, the restlessness and agitation increased,
and the patient spoke several times in an incoherent
manner. On the following morning, the 17th April,s




THE " BUFFY COAT " ON BLOOD.          57
the bleeding was repeated twice (!!) and it was
thought right also to apply blisters to the soles of
his feet."-the rest of the tragedy is soon told, he
died the next day. Mr. Millengen and Dr. Bruno,
were Byron's medical advisers; besides being misled
by the false theory about inflammation, the presence
of the so-called buffy coat, misled them still further.
This buffy coat they (and so do many still) looked upon
as an infallible sign of inflammation, and an indication for a further bleeding.  Now the truth is that,
the buffy coat is no sign of inflammation at all; for we
find it distinctly present in certain states of the svstem when there is no inflammation whatever. Dr.
Hooper says " a genuine and well-marked buffy coat,
with retracted and puckered edges, may be found in
the blood, although there be no inflammatory disease
present." The mere presence of the buffy coat, therefore, is by no means an indication of the existence
of inflammatory action.
Inflammation of the lungs being a disease of fre.
quent occurrence, and one in which bleeding is generally had recourse to, we will now examine the results
of such treatment, in order to find out whether it is
beneficial or injurious. Dr. Tod, late professor of
medicine in King's College, thus expresses himself
on this subject: " The plan of treatment which has
been recommended by some of our highest authorities, I need not tell you, is that of bleeding and tartar
emetic; you bleed early from the arm, and, if neces



58        BLEEDING  IN INFLAMMATION
sary, you bleed a second and a third time, and if under this treatment, resolution (cure) does not rapidly
take place, you bleed locally by leeches and by cupping, and likewise give tartar emetic more or less
freely; to all which, counter-irritation (by blisters)
may be superadded in the more advanced stages. I
have had ample experience," he says " of this treatment, and I must confess, that experience has so
little satisfied me with it, that I have for some years
ceased to adopt it; for under the treatment I have seen
too many die; and where recovery has taken place,
in too many instances has it been with a tedious,
lengthened convalescence."
Speranza, in his annals of medicine has published
some remarkable observations, which show that, the
number of deaths in cases of inflammation of the
lungs, is in direct proportion to the number of
bleedings. In one hundred cases in which bleeding
was had recourse to more than nine times, sixtyeight died; and in one hundred cases in which
bleeding was had recourse to from three to nine
times, twenty-two died; and in one hundred cases
in which  only three bleedings were resorted to,
nineteen died; and in one hundred cases in which
there was no bleeding, only fourteen died. These
cases stand thus:100 cases, above 9 times bled.............68 deaths.
100 cases, from 3 to 9 times bled.........22  "
100 cases, only 3 times bled............... 19  "
100 cases, not bled at all...................14  "




OF TIIE LUNGS.                 59
Average mortality of the three hundred cases that
were bled, 33.9 per cent.; average mortality caused
directly by the bleeding, 19 per cent! In the first
one hundred bases, the prodigious number of fiftyfour! were sacrificed by bleeding, how dreadful!
fifty-four human beings put to death by the lancet.
Well might Sir Charles Bell declare towards the
end of his career, that the lancet was the death of
thousands.
Dr. Dietl, of Vienna, no homoeopathist, mind,
has also made very important experiments relative
to the influence of bleeding and tartar emetic id
inflammnation of the lungs. Eighty-five cases were
bled, and of these, seventeen died. One hundred
and six were treated with tartar emetic, and of
these, twenty-two died. One hundred and eightynine cases were left to unaided nature, and of these
only fourteen died.
Thus, 85 cases, bled..................... 17 died   20'4 per cent.
"  106 cases, tartar emetic..........22 "    20'7   "
"  189 cases, left to nature...14......."  4   c"
Dr. Dietl further adds, "we cannot forbear this
expression of our belief, that venesection favours the
spreading of hepatization, and favours it all the surer
the oftener it is repeated, and the poorer the patient
is in blood,-so that many pneumonias, both intense
and extensive are pushed to their height by venesection-progressed and throve, so to speak, under




60       BLEEDINGS IN INFLAMMATION.
the lancet."  And still further on he adds, "we
have not unfrequently remarked, that a single venesection, apparently well indicated, had, as consequences, striking sinking of strength, profuse sweat,
miliaria, vibrating pulse and a rapidly fatal termination;" and also "that venesection has its certain
and not unimportant share in the great mortality
of pneumonia."
The mortality in Dietl's cases are not nearly so
great as those of Speranza, and for this simple reason, that he did not push the bleeding to the same
extent. We may look upon Dietl's success as being
equal to that of the best practitioner's of the same
class, namely, twenty per cent. deaths. Taking this
view, we have thirteen out of every hundred destroyed by this treatment; what an enormous number must be killed in the course of fifty years by
allopathic interference. No wonder that Dr. Reid
in his Essays, was constrained to say, " that less
slaughter is effeeted by the lance than by the lancet.-that minute instrument of mighty mischief."
Further evidence of this kind could be given, but
we consider that enough has already been adduced
to convince any unprejudiced mind, that the allopathic practice of bleeding, is not only unnecessary, but that it is highly injurious; and in a great
many cases deadly in its effects.




CONTRADICTIONS ABOUT FEVER.           61
CHAPTER IV.
DOCTORS DIFFER.
Contradictory opinions about the nature and treatment of fever
-Paricarditis-The effects of squills-Of opium —Doctors
differ, case of-Contradictory opinions about consumptionAbout delirium tremens-Treatment of rheumatic fever, &c.
-Causes of these contradictions-Remedy for.
THE fact that medical men do differ from each
other is one proverbially notorious, though the true
nature and extent of that difference is not generally
known.  Some imagine that it is a mere difference
in opinion and theory, and not one that pervades
and characterises the whole of their practice. We
shall therefore adduce a few of the differences that
prevail among our orthodox allopaths.
"Fever," says one, "is nothing but debility;"
" fever is nothing but inflammation," says another;
"fever is a mobid condition of the stomach and
bowels," says a third. One gives wine, the other draws
blood, and the third gives purgatives, while another
party of the same school, disgusted with such contradictory ideas, and such empirical practice, prefers
leaving nature to herself, believing with a wellknown American physician, that "those who are
left to God's providence and cold water have the best
F




62      CONTRADICTIONS ABOUT FEVER.
chance of success." Another says that " all fevers
arise from inflammation or irritation of the mucous
membrane of the intestinal canal," which is proved
from the post-mortem examination of patients who
die of fever; and the true practice is to keep the
patient on low diet, with cooling drinks and gum
water. Another says that " fevers are caused by inflammation of the brain," and therefore the patient's
head must be shaved, ice applied, and a dozen of
leeches to the temples, besides he must be bled
freely from the arm, and get a brisk purge.
Dr. McLeod, a Fellow of the Edinburgh College,
relates what came under his own observation in the
Edinburgh Infirmary, in regard to the treatment of
fever.  "Three young persons, each about the same
age, ill of typhus fever, were admitted into the
infirmary on the same day. The disease was in the
same stage and of equal severity in each case, but
they were each under the charge of different physicians. One would naturally expect that in the
same institution, and at the same period of time, the
three similar cases would have met with similar
treatment.  But no, the one patient was bled with
lancet and leech, the other was physicked with
drastric purgatives, and the third got whisky, wine
and opium." So much for uniformity in practice in
the nineteenth century, and for the result of being
guided by so-called  " general principles," (pure
fancies.)




CONTRADICTIONS ABOUT FEVER           63
In the University a learned professor was lecturing
on the subject of pericarditis-inflammation of the
investing membrane of the heart.  He spoke of the
general practice of giving mercury in large doses, so
as to bring the system under its action as speedily
as possible; combining the mercury with small doses
of opium. " This practice," he says " I believe to be
erroneous; for I have observed the progress of the
disease unchecked, even during profuse salivation.
The most efficient remedy-in fact our sheet anchor
in this disease, is tartar emetic. You will have noticed the large doses I have given of this remedy,
and yet the patient seems not to suffer from it."
Four nights after, another professor in the same hall
happened to lecture on the same subject, and expressed himself to this effect, " It is a remarkable
thing that, there should be any difference in regard
to the treatment to be pursued in such a case as
this.  I believe it is the Italian and French schools
which advocates so very strongly the employment
of tarter emetic; but I would strongly urge you
to put no confidence in this remedy; for, if you
do so, you will lean on a broken reed; our sheet
anchor in this disease is mercury."  These are
specimens of the instruction! that young men receive
at our Universities, as well as specimens of the
practice they are to follow! Surely when we find such
contradictions among teachers and professors, we




64              DOCTORS DIFFER.
need not wonder to find still more glaring contradictions among ordinary practitioners, who can have
no pretensions to the deep lore of teaching professors.
Dr. Neligan, a standard authority, says, in regard
to squills, that, in consequence of its stimulating
effects, it is inadmissible where there is any tendency
to inflammation. Dr. Christison, on the other hand,
a no less accredited authority, says, that " it never
stimulates the circulation, neither is there any sound
reason for avoiding it in acute affections of the chest,
on account of its supposed stimulant operation." We
leave the reader to judge which of the two gentlemen is right. The whole domain of medical science
abounds with similar contradictions, which if only
half known would astound men by their enormity,
and startle them from their fancied faith in the
allopathic practice of medicine.
Dr. Pereira, in his Elements of Materia Medica,
says, Dr. Murray and Dr. Thomson believe that
opium is a stimulant; Dr. Cullen regards it as a
sedative; Dr. Mayer thinks it is both stimulant and
sedative; Orfila thinks it is neither the one nor the
other.
Dr. Bordeu, in his researches upon mucous tissues,
tells us that he made the fourth doctor called in to
consult about a patient labouring under fever, pain
in the side, and bloody expectoration. "' It is easy to
understand," he says " that I had no advice to offer;




CONTRADICTIONS ABOUT CONSUMPTION.  65
one of the gentlemen insisted on a third bleeding, (it
was the third day of the disease,) the second upon a
compound purge and emetic, and the third upon a
blister to the thighs. The debate raged high; neither
would yield an atom, and for myself, I could have
sworn that each one was right in his turn." Patients
and relations know nothing about these so-called
medical consultations; the policy of the physician
requires the external semblance of unity and harmony before the public, while within all is contradiction and confusion.
Stahl, attributes the frequency of consumption to
the introduction of Peruvian bark; Morton, considers
the bark as an effectual cure for that complaint.
Reid, ascribes the frequency of the disease to the use
of mercury; Brillionet asserts, that it is curable by
this metal only. Rush says, that consumption is an
inflammatory disease, and should be treated by bleeding, purging, cooling medicine, and starvation;
Salvadori says, it is a disease of debility, and should
be treated by tonics, stimulating medicines, and a
generous diet. Galen, recommends vinegar as the
best prevention of consumption; Desault and others,
assert that consumption is often brought on by a
common practice with young people of taking vinegar to prevent obesity. Dr. Beddoes, recommends
foxglove as a specific in consumption; Dr. Parr,
found foxglove more injurious in his practice than
F2




66 CONTRADICTIONS ABOUT CONSI.UMPTION.
beneficial. Dr. Young, an author on this subject,
says, that " the want of proper nourishment is the
most frequent cause of consumption." Dr. Lamb, a
no less trust-worthy observer, asserts that "an excessive use of animal food is among the most prominent and prevalent procuring causes of the disease."
Doubtless there are many more contradictions equally
glaring as these, even in regard to this single disease.
Consumption is at all times a dangerous malady,
and difficult to treat successfully; but really, with
such contradictory ideas about the nature and treatment of the disease by allopaths, it is not to be
wondered at that they are entirely baffled with it.
Of late years this disease has been greatly on the increase.  From  the Registrar General's Report, it
appears that, sixty thousand die every year of this
complaint in the British Isles; besides the great
numbers that leave the country and die abroad. In
the town of Glasgow alone, with a population under
400,000, 2,133 die of consumption every year!
Armstrong thinks that delirium  tremens, is a
venous congestion of the brain and liver, consequent
upon the activity of the heart and arteries increased
by irritation. Playfair, thinks it arises from a morbid
state of the liver and intestinal secretions.  Golden
says, it has its seat in the solar and coeliac plexuses,
and looks upon the affection of the brain as being
merely sympathetic.  Clutterbuck, thinks it is the




DELIRIUM TREMENS.              67
consequence of inflammatory action in the arachno'd
and pia mater. Hufeland, believes it to be only a
passive nervous delirium. Stokes again says, there
are two kinds of it, one consisting in diminished
irritability, the other in increased excitement. Every
one has his own peculiar theory, and thereon he
builds his practice.  It is not the sufferings of the
patient that indicates the kind of treatment, but the
doctor's theory.
In rheumatic fevers, one will give colchicum;
another mercury; another trusts only to purgatives;
another has faith only in sudorifics; another, again,
has no faith in anything but opium; another prefers
quinine; another thinks that nothing but bleeding
will do any good; another will give alkalies; another
holds by lemon juice; and many again believe that
all kinds of treatment are alike useless.  Of this
number was the late Dr. Warren, who, when asked
his opinion about the best way to treat rheumatic
fever, laconically replied, " six weeks."
Even in the investigation of diseases, we find the
greatest difference and contradictions prevailing
among allopaths.  The celebrated Sydenham, in
speaking of the examination of dead bodies, in order
to discover the nature of diseases, says, "It must be
confessed there is some specific property which no
contemplation reduced from the speculations of the
(dead) human body can ever discover; —whereby




68              DOCTORS DIFFER.
that man should not so place the main of the business upon the dissection of carcasses, as if thereby
the medical art might be rather promoted, than by
the diligent observations of the natural phenomena,
and such things as do good and hurt." On the
other hand, Dr. Bailie says, "The dead body is that
great basis on which we are to build the knowledge
that is to guide us in distributing life and health to
our fellow creatures."
Dr. Billing, in his Principles of Medicine, thus
expresses himself: -  "The so-called systems of
Cullen, Brown, Braussais, 1Rasori, &c., seemed mere
individual opinions, totally differing from each other:
and which was I to follow? Each of their originators seemed confident; while their followers almost
came to blows, arguing as much for victory as the
love of truth."
It would be endless to trace out all the differences
that exist among old-school practitioners, both in
theory and practice; the history of medicine is full
of instances of the kind. One man's opinion or
theory is just as good as another's; and as the practice of each is founded on the special theory, so the
practice of the one is just as good as that of the
other; they are all different; can they all be right?
The cause of all these differences is, that, in allopathy there is no settled, no fixed principle by which
the practitioner can be guided in his practice —there




ORACULAR MEN.                69
is no certain nor definite data, all is conjecture
and theory.  Even the use and virtues of certain
remedies frequently employed, are of a very doubtful
and fanciful origin. Tomni told Dick, who handed it
over to Harry, that such and such a medicine was good
for the jaundice. Jenkins informed Robertson, who
handed it over to Brown, that he heard it from the
celebrated Stiggins, that such a medicine was a cure
for the rheumatism. Each one must just be led by
the theories or practice of some other one whom he
looks up to. Evety one has his own favourite or favourites, and that or these he follows, right or wrong.
Every age has had its oracular men, its Stiggins, and
Jenkins, and so has the present.  Dr. L. after physicking away at his patient for many years to no
good purpose, sets off in his extremity to Professor S.,
as if he were the veritable Delphian Oracle, and
from him gets some novel prescription. Or may be,
he goes to Professor C., another of these oracles, (the
teaching Professors already referred to), and laying
aside any judgment of his own, allows himself to be
guided entirely by the prescription of his master.
One oracle says one thing; another oracle says
another and a very different thing, and so the game
goes on.
The remedy we propose for all this, is one both
simple and efficacious: —One that introduces order
and harmony, in place of confusion and disorder:



70 PREVAILING IGNORANCE OF MEDICINE.
that gives precision and confidence, in place of doubt
and uncertainty; that delivers the physician, from
the bondage and servility of being obliged to make
the mere dictum and fancy of others his only guide
in practice; and supplies him with data, by which
he can, if he exert himself, choose with certainty,
the curative remedy in any given case. This remedy
is Homeeopathy, the nature of which we will explain
in the following chapters.
CHAPTER V.
THE HOM(EOPATHIC LAW.
Prevailing ignorance on medical subjects-Prejudice in favour
of allopathy-Origin of-Study of homoeopathy-The curative relationship between a disease and the medicine which
cures it-This relationship is the homoeopathic law-Nature
of disease-Pathogenetic effects of drugs-How to find out
the curative relationship-Primary and secondary action of
drugs-Doctrine of antipathy-Doctrine of similarity-Its
relationship to facts-Proving of drugs on the healthy bodyImportance of-Of no use to allopathy-Doctrine of antipathy impracticable-The homoeopathic law the only safe and
certain guide-All natural phenomena guided and regulated
by law.
THE wide-spread and almost total ignorance that
prevails among the public in regard to the properties




PREJUDICE IN FAVOUR OF ALLOPATHY.  71
of medicine and the nature of disease, is one of the
most important causes of the entire want of progress
in the healing art; we have no wish that every man
should be his own doctor, certainly not; but still we
hold that, every man ought if possible, to put himself in possession of such an amount of knowledge
of these subjects, as shall enable him intelligently to
choose his medical attendant, and not be left entirely
to the tender mercies of chance and empiricism;
There are thousands, who will discuss for days together, almost any of the most difficult points in theology, who at the same time know nothing at all
about the constitution of their own bodies, or the
diseases to which they are exposed, or of the means
of curing themselves. Surely, if men of ordinary
intelligence are capable of understanding subjects so
exalted, and necessarily so difficult, they ought to be
equally capable of understanding the constitution of
their own bodies, the nature and principles of medical treatment. Once get the public enlightened
on this subject, and their pressure will to a certainty
compel the abettors of the orthodox faith, to bestir
themselves and keep in advance, otherwise they will
be pushed aside.
People have always had the notion that the doctor
is acquainted with certain specific remedies for every
disease; and that the disease only requires to be
known, for the doctor to go at once for the exact spe



72                 ORIGIN OF
cific. Pity it is, that this is not true. No wonder the
public are prejudiced in favour of the orthodox faith
of their fathers.  No sooner is a child born, than it
must have a cleansing with castor oil; no sooner does
the little thing begin to fret, perhaps in consequence
of some indisposition or indiscretion of the mother,
than it must be drugged with Dalby's Carminative or
Soothing Drops. For every little ailment that shows
itself during teething, it must have its rhubarb, calomel, or jalap, or perhaps all three combined. No
sooner does he reach boyhood, than his blood must
be cooled and purified, by regular doses of calomel,
salts, senna, &c. In youth and manhood, he is gradually, and it may be unconsciously, initiated into the
faith that, bleeding, blistering, purging, vomiting,
and sweating, are the only true and proper means for
curing disease. When attacked with sickness, he
submits himself to this orthodox system, merely
because he has been taught that it is orthodox. But
he never thinks of making an enquiry as to whether
this system is really true in itself, and therefore
likely to be beneficial in its application; or whether
it is fallacious in its whole structure, and, therefore,
necessarily injurious in its consequences. And what
in times past has been true of the public in this
respect, is not less so of the profession. They will
not be prevailed upon to study the claims of homoeo.
pathy; they have decided against it in ignorance,
and there they take their stand.




THE CURATIVE RELATIONSHIP.         73
In coming to the investigation of the truth of
homceopathy, there is one fact that must be clearly
understood and kept in view, namely, that medicines
really have the power of curing disease, and that,
betwixt the disease on the one hand, and the medicine
that cures it on the other, there must be some relationship, on the ground of which the medicine does cure
the disease. It is this relationship which in any
particular case, forms the groundwork of adaptation
between the medicine and the disease. In practice,
it is of paramount importance, nay it is indispensable
that we should know this adaptation. It will not do,
in any case, to go on trying this medicine, and that
medicine, and then something else, and leave the
adaptation to mere chance; or merely hope that the
one or the other medicine may be adapted for the
cure of the disease. This is opposed to all scientific
practice, and fatal in its consequences to the sick.
As already stated, practical medicine must have been
in its origin, purely empirical and experimental, but
it will never do for us to go back to the rudeness and
ignorance of the uncivilized savage. Though we
shall by and by show you, that we have the advocates
and followers of such practice among us yet, differing only in the mysticism and technical lore they
have succeeded in throwing around their practice.
The nature of the disease, including its structural
and functional phenomena; the properties of the
G




74    PATHOGENETIC EFFECTS OF DRUGS.
medicine, including the various effects that it is
capable of producing upon the structure and functions of the body; and lastly, the curative relationship that subsists between medicine and disease, must
all be known, before medicine can be safely and successfully practiced.  Homoeopathy as a system  includes all these; but, as the two former naturally
develop themselves from the curative relationship,
our object at present will be to establish the lattergenerally called the Homceopathic Law.
All disease consists of, either functional derangement, or structural change; and these it is the duty
of the physician most carefully and minutely to investigate. The functional derangement and structural change, are termed the symptoms, and when all
taken together, they constitute the entire disease.
Every medicinal substance, when taken by a person
in health, alters and disturbs in some way the natural healthy functions; and also, when continued for
any length of time in considerably large doses, produces structural change. This alteration of function,
and change of structure produced by the medicine,
is called its pathogenetic effects.  The terms medicinal property, and artificial, or drug disease, mean
the very same as pathogenetic effects. Apart from
these pathogenetic effects, or the disease-producing
power, no medicinal substance possesses any virtue
in the cure of disease; and it is only when this




THE CURATIVE RELATIONSHIP.           75
disease-producing power is properly applied, that it
becomes a health-producing power, or curative agent.
It is obvious that, to apply medicine properly, we
must first be acquainted with its disease-producing
property.  It is true that, one may chance at a time
to make use of a medicine, the properties of which
he is entirely ignorant of, and yet do good with it;
but such a mode of practice is pure haphazard work,
and entirely unscientific.
On making a comparison between all the symptoms
functional and structural, of any natural* disease on
the one hand; with all the symptoms structural and
functional of an artificial or drug disease on the
other, we find one of the following relationships existinog-lst, Either a similarity between these symptoms, or 2nd, a contrariety or opposition, or 3rd, a
dissimilarity, but not contrariety. There cannot possibly be another, and it must be on one of these
three, that the true healing art is based.  In any
given case, a medicine that effects a cure, must do
so, on the ground of one of these three relationships;
and our present object will be to find out which of
these it can possibly be.
Every medicinal substance, as has been already
stated, when taken into the system, produces a ditinct and direct train of symptoms peculiar to itself,
* The term natural disease, means any disease that occurs in
the course of nature, such as scarlet fever, measles, cholera, &o.




76         DOCTRINE OF ANTIPATHY.
which are called the pathogenetic effects of the medicine; but, we find that, after a short time, a reaction of the system takes place against the drug,
whereby the primary effects of the drug are displaced, and a condition the very opposite of the first
effects of the medicine is established.  In  other
words a secondary action takes place, the very opposite of the primary action.  (See the reason of this
by Dr. Hooper, at page 40, line 22.) Suppose, then,
that a medicine, the symptoms of which are contrary
to those of the disease, be given to cure that disease;
it follows, as a rule, that, if the dose of the medicine
be of sufficient strength, the symptoms of the origi-'
nal disease are for the time being stopped; but that
the disease itself is not cured, is evident from the
fact that, so soon as the primary effects of the remedy
are over, the secondary, opposite effects make their
appearance along with a renewal of the disease, and
that generally, in an aggravated form. This is true
in regard to every kind of medicine when given on
this principle; and is familiar to every one in the
case of purgatives being succeeded by constipation,
astringents by looseness, stimulants by depression,
narcotics by restlessness, &c. They all generally
answer the purpose for which they are taken, and
that is, for the time being to palliate, though in the
long run, they invariably aggravate the complaint,
and exhaust the vital powers. It is evident, there



DOCTRINE OF SIMILIARITY.           77
fore, that this cannot be the curative relationship,
and that therefore a system of medicine founded on
this relationship, must be destitute of all curative
power; this the experience of the past 2000 years
has proved to be the case.
Then as regards the other relationship, namely,
that of dissimilarity only, it will be at once manifest
that, if the symptoms of the drug are neither similar
nor opposite to those of the disease, the action of the
drug must affect entirely different functions, and in
many cases also, be expended on entirely different
organs and tissues from those which are affected by
the disease, and that such a want of all correspondence or adaptation, must of necessity imply a total
want of all curative agency.
In regard to the third relationship, namely, that of
similarity it is evident, when in any given case, a
medicine is administered which is known to be capable of producing on the body, a condition similar to
that of the disease, that the two forces, namely, that
of the natural disease on the one hand, and that of
the artificial drug disease on the other, must, on the
ground of their similarity in kind and place of action,
come in direct contact with each other. The result
of this is, that a reaction of the vital powers takes
place in the very seat of the disease, and this reaction being the opposite of the primary action, is
nothing less than a reaction in favour of health-in
G 2




78         DOCTRINE OF SIMILARITY.
short, a return of healthy action, and by sustaining
this reaction for a time by a proper reception of the
curative remedy, the disease is entirely removed,
and healthy action permanently established. It is
this word reaction that explains the matter. When
the symptoms of the medicine are the opposite to
those of the disease, the reaction, being always the
opposite of the primary action, must be an action in
favour of the disease, as so well tended to establish it
in the system, even though its primary action has for
a little, an apparently opposite effect. Even so, when
the symptoms of the medicine are similar to those of
the disease, the reaction being always the opposite
of the primary action, must be an action in favour
of health, and will tend to establish health in the
system, notwithstanding that its primary action
seemed to have an opposite effect. This is the relationship between medicine and disease, which constitutes the basis of the homoeopathic system.-This is
the spirit of the homceopathic law. We invite you
to study it and examine it with the strictest scrutiny.
Do not, however, connect it with any of its accidental
accompaniments, subordinate appendages, and it
may be useless incrustations, examine the grand
primary essential principle by itself, in the light of
observation and facts.
In still further establishing this point, we would
appeal to well ascertained and indisputable facts, and




ITS RELATIONSHIP TO FACTS.         79
submit these to an examination, both analytical and
synthetical.   On making a collection of all the
authenticated cases of cure that we can find, which
during the past two thousand years, have been
effected by the use of one medicinal agent, or, in
which the cure could in each case be distinctly traceable to the use of one agent; and making a comparison between the medicinal properties of these
different remedies, so far as we at present know them,
and the symptoms of the disease which they each
severally cured, it is truly remarkable that, in so
far as this examination has been made, the relationship of similarity is most distinctly pointed out; and
not that of contrariety as advanced by the old school.
And, further, all the medicines which are at present
recognized by the old school to have a direct and
undoubted curative effect in any given disease;the so called specifics for example, are found to possess the same relationship of similarity to the
disease they cure. This has been most significantly
pointed out over and over again.
Again, there are now, not one or two merely, but
thousands of highly-educated physicians in all parts
of the world, who give their testimony that, when
guided by this relationship of similarity alone, they
select a remedy for any given case in which this
relationship exists, they are successful in effecting a
cure with that remedy.  Every homeeopathist is




80            PROVING OF DRUGS
guided by this relationship every day in the choice of
his remedies, and every one can attest to the success
of such a mode of practice in effecting cures.  We
have then, first, the deduction of the principle of
similarity from the analysis of recorded facts; and
second, we have the reproduction of similar facts by
acting upon this principle. What evidence could be
stronger than this. Had there been only one or two
facts to corroborate either of these points, or only one
or two observers, there might have been some room
for doubt; but when there are millions of facts in the
form of cures effected, and thousands of observers,.
who could not possibly be supposed to be all mistaken, the evidence becomes most conclusive.
But further, the first allopathic authorities are now
agreed, as to the necessity of making experiments
with drugs on persons in health, in order to find out
their pure medicinal properties. No experiments of
this kind deserving the name, have hitherto been
made by allopathists; so that at present, they are
almost entirely ignorant of the pure medicinal properties of the drugs they are daily in the habit of
using. But supposing that properly conducted experiments of this kind were made, and the medicinal
properties of several drugs ascertained by them for
the first time, what use could they make of such
information? how would they know how to make
use of the various symptoms that each of the reme



ON THE HEALTHY BODY.           81
dies produced? To use them on the principle of
contrariety would be impossible, perfectly impossible. Supposing the medicine produce as one of its
symptoms, pains in the head as if it would burst;
what use could they make of that in practice? What
is the opposite of a pain in the head as if it would
burst? We never hear of such a state as a feeling of
pleasure in the head as if it would be crushed together. Or supposing it produced " burning or inflammation of the eye;" or "a pain in the stomach;" or
in fact any other kind of pain; what use could they
apply it to? The truth is, the principle of opposition
or contrariety cannot be carried out in practice; there
is no opposite state to a pain in the head, in the stomach, or to any other kind of pain. There is only one
way in which these symptoms can be made use of in
practice. The fact that a medicine has the power of
acting on any particular organ or tissue of the body,
shows that that medicine ought to be used in affections of that particular organ or tissue, and not in
affections of such organs or tissues upon which the
medicines does not act at all. And further, as it is
not possible for any medicine to produce the opposite
of any of all the thousand pains and aches to which
mankind is liable, it follows that, in any given case
we are to make use of such a medicine, as is known
to possess the power of producing in the body, a
condition similar to that of the disease.




82  IMPORTANCE OF THE HOM(EOPATHIC LAW.
But some objector may say, we care not about
principles nor relationships; it is facts we want.
Very well, we grant that facts are great and stubborn things, and it is mainly on the ground of facts
that homoeopathy has made such mighty progress.
Many can appreciate the force of facts, who cannot
so easily comprehend the force of reasoning on first
principles. With them, and we'take the great bulk
of the public to be included in that class, the facts in
connection with homeopathy are everything in the
matter. But not so with the practitioner and those
who are interested in the advancement and full development of the system. An individual that has been
cured of any disease, is more interested about the
cure itself, than about the way in which it has been
accomplished.  But the chief consideration ought to
be, how is such a cure to be repeated?-how are we
to make other cures? We cannot take this case, and
act upon it as a precedent in others. Diseases, constitutions, and circumstances differ so much in individual cases, that precedents in that sense there can
be none; and to be guided by such a principle would
in reality be no better than chance work. The
orthodox practitioners have been very much guided
by -this doctrine of precedents, but the consequence
is, a world of confusion and. contradiction. Dr. S.
tried such andesuch a medicine for such a complaint,
and found it very successful. Dr. C. has also tried




IMPORTANCE OF THE tHOM(EOPATIIIC LAW.  83
it extensively in the same complaint, and found it
of no use. Professor C. strongly recommends such
and such a medicine in such a complaint, but Professor A. has also tried it, and found it most injurious.
And so in regard to every medicine given on this
ground. We will give you proofs of this by-and-by.
The only certain and trustworthy course is, to be
guided by that principle which has led us and led
others, to the choice of the proper curative medicine
in numberless cases before. That convenient and
easy mode of practice drawn from precedents, if
followed by homoeopathists, would ultimately destroy the system, as it would then differ little from
allopathy. We must, if we wish to be really successful in curing safely and thoroughly, be guided
entirely and constantly by the curative relationship
and not depart from it.  It costs the practitioner
much labor and close study, but his patients reap
the reward of these.
It is truly astonishing, not only that medicine
should have been so long practiced, but that it should
still, in this enlightened age, be practiced by men
who are not only not guided by any fixed, definite
principle in choosing their medicines, but who are
at the same time almost entirely ignorant of the
medicinal properties of the drugs they use. No
wonder that medical men have so little faith in
medicine-that there is so much diversity of opinion




84         ALL NATURAL PHENOMENA
among them in regard to the treatment of any one
disease, and that such diversity of treatment should
lead to such unsuccessful results.
In every department of nature we find law and
order. All the various phenomena which we observe,
both in the arts and sciences, are the natural expressions of certain definite laws or principles, in
harmony and in accordance with which all their
varied phenomena take place. There is nothing
fortuitous or irregular. The very winds and storms,
with all their apparent caprice and disorder, are
regulated by certain well-known principles, which
the skilful mariner knows how to take advantage of.
The starry orb of heaven, with all its apparent confusion and disorder, is controlled and guided by a
constant and fixed law; which, when understood and
applied, shows all this sparkling throng in perfect
order and regularity, each moving in its own sphere,
in beautiful harmony with all the rest. Matter tends
to matter everywhere in harmony with a law, the expression of which is the same all over the world.
And so of motion, atomic attraction, chemical combination, the expansion of steam, electrical phenomena.  All these occur according to well-known
fixed and definite laws, each being certain and infallible in its own sphere. The dyer mixes his ingredients in certain fixed proportions, and the same hue
is brought out now, that was a century ago. The




GUIDED BY LAWS.              85
steamboat pushes its course across the wide Atlantic
to an hour. The locomotive wends its way along
the rail to a second; and the deadly shell bursts
over a given spot two miles distant, because the laws
which regulate the expansion of steam and powder,
and the falling of bodies being known and acted
upon, are found to be invariable.
The astronomer, guided by the fundamental law
or principle on which his science rests, can foretell
new phenomena and facts not previously observed, as
necessary results of that principle.  The sailor trusts
his life and fortune to the steadiness of the needle,
and is not deceived-The merchant trusts a message
to the electric telegraph which if wrongly transmitted might ruin him. In fact, turn where we will,
and we have law and order. Some of these laws are
very obvious and easily discerned, and doubtless
there are many more unknown to us. And is the art
of medicine-the curing of the sick, the most important and vital of all others, the only science for
the guidance of which no law nor principle has been
provided?-Is this the only department of nature in
which utter disorder and confusion was intended to
reign, in place of order and harmony?-Never,
never. There is a law of healing-a law for the curing
of disease, which when known and implicitly followed, will not deceive nor disappoint us.  Without
a knowledge of this law, the physician is set adrift
/5




86    OBJECTIONS AGAINST HOM(EOPATHY.
on the public with a parchment license in his pocket,
but without a compass; and the great misfortune is
that, it is not himself merely that he is in danger of
making shipwreck of, but the lives of hundreds, nay,
it may be thousands who commit themselves to his
care.
CHAPTE-R VI.
OBJECTIONS AGAINST HOMICEOPATHY.
Contradictory nature of —Homoeopaths cure by imagination and
by attending to diet and regimen-Homceopaths few in number-Homceopathy, if true, would have been sooner discovered-Some homoeopathists have recanted-Homoeopathy
denies all the laws of physic and chemistry-The killing and
curing powers of medicine-The small doses-These doses
do not constitute homoeopathy-Different degrees of susceptibility-Homeeopathic remedies prepared to suit these-The
dose must vary according to the effect to be produced-Dangerous and deadly effects of large doses-The power of small.
doses proved by experience-Erroneous information about
small doses —Homoeopathy opposed to common sense-And
to the experience of the profession-Homceopathy proved a
failure by Dr. Andral.
OUR object will now be, to consider the various
objections that are generally brought against homceopathy by its opponents. At first sight, one would
think, from the great talk some would-be-learned




CONTRADICTORY NATURE OF.          87
individuals make against the ssystem, that there were
in reality a great many substantial bona-fde objections, but the truth is, that after we begin to examine
these, almost all (that against the small doses being
excepted) turn out to be mere clap-trap expedients,
shifting and changing to suit every variety of character and circumstance. One day, for example, the
editor of the Lancet, on hearing, it may be, of some
individual that has died while under homceopathic
treatment, will cry out most lustily, that these
homceopaths, in place of giving doses of medicine
which are quite harmless, do actually give dangerous
and poisonous doses of the most potent drugs; and
his simple-minded dupes, pleased with the statement,
merely because it cuts against homceopathy, taking
no thought as to its'being true or false, re-echo it
far and wide, hence the origin of this objection.
Next day, again, while his attention is drawn to the
progress of the new system, and the unprecedented
success attending the homceopathic treatment, he is
obliged (not being able to deny the fact), to explain
them away, by maintaining that the medicine used
by homceopathists is no medicine at all, and that the
doses are utterly incapable of producing any effect.
This, too, his credulous disciples are quite ready to
swallow down, and they quickly re-echo the reporthence the origin of this contradiction.
Now what can we make of objections like these;




88        CONTRADICTORY NATURE OF.
to maintain that the practice of homeopathy consists
in the giving of large and dangerous doses of powerful drugs, and at the same time to say that, the
medicine which homoeopathists pretend to give is
totally inert,-or in fact, no medicine at all, but
only " the name;" is just flatly to contradict oneself,
and to hold both to be true is a glaring absurdity;
and yet this is done by many of our opponents. The
redoubtable Dr. Routh, a well-known opponent of
homoeopathy, has pursued this very course. In one
place he accuses homoeopathists of giving doses of
medicine so powerful and dangerous as to be sufficient
to cause death, and again, in another place, in order
to explain away the immense superiority of the system, as proved by an examination of statistical reports, he assumes that the medicine is devoid of all
power, and the treatment equivalent to nothing at
all. All prejudiced opponents take in both of these
contradictory assertions as being true, and bring
forward the one or the other, just as circumstances
call for. The public however are not always to be
deceived by expedients of this kind; expedients
having the semblance, but not the reality of valid
objections.
Another objector, in accounting for the greater
number of cures affected by homoeopathy, and not
feeling inclined to retail such contradictions as the
above, says, that we cure by imagination and by at



HOM(EOPATHS FEW IN NUMBER.         89
tending to diet and regimen. This objection, though
frequently advanced is not worth the refuting, for,
even supposing that the statement was true (which
it is not), it is most obvious that, the objection tells
most decidedly against allopathy. If we, merely by
attention to diet and regimen, are able to make more,
nay, even as many cures as allopaths can, does not
this prove that, all their strong remedies-their
bleedings, blisterings, and purgings are utterly useless? Who would not much rather be cured by
imagination and attention to diet, than by bleeding,
blistering, and purging? no comparison, surely.
The sooner allopaths throw their physic to the dogs,
and learn to cure by imagination and attending to
diet, the better.
It is also said, that we have few great men in our
ranks, and that our numbers are small. Some intelligent individuals have advanced this as an objection,
but really we cannot see what connection it has with
homceopathy at all. Homceopathy is not a system
of rank and numbers, (even though in these respects
it now holds a very formidable relationship to its
antiquated predecessor.) The system was as true
when first propounded by Hahneman, and advocated
by himself alone, as it would have been even
though believed in and advocated by the whole
medical faculty in Europe. The circulation of the
blood, when first discovered and propounded by
n2




90      IF TRUE, SOONER DISCOVERED.
Harvey was just as true then, when the whole faculty
was against it, as it is now, when universally believed
in. Truth is truth, independent of the rank and
numbers of those who are either with it or against it,
The majority of the world are even now Pagans; but
who would advance this as any proof in favor of
paganism?
It is also objected, that if homceopathy was true
it would have been much sooner discovered. This,
too, is no valid objection, for, the same might be
advanced against every discovery whatever. How was
it that the circulation of the blood was so long in
being discovered? a simple self-evident fact like that
could scarcely remain long unobserved; and yet it
was not till the seventeenth century, that Harvey
demonstrated the true nature of the circulation in
opposition to the fanciful theories of the ancients,
who imagined that the arteries contained air.  So
also in regard to the law of attraction; people had
from the beginning of the world, observed many phenomena about stones and apples falling to the ground,
and thought no more of them. But, it was not till
Newton, who, on observing these same facts, was
enabled to rise from these to a universal law, which
at once became the linking and guiding principle in
all similar phenomena. And so in regard to the
steam-engine, railways, and the electric telegraph.
In these and all other discoveries, we ought not to




SOME HOMCEOPATHISTS HAVE RECANTED. 91
decide either for or against, until we become
acquainted with the facts or principles on which
the discovery is said to rest; and being fully satisfied as to the truth or falsity of these, let us then
reject or adopt, but not till then.
Dr. Routh and some of his followers have advanced
as an objection that, some homceopathic practitioners
have seen through the deception of homeeopathy, and
written against it. This may or may not be true.
Every other system which puts the moral character
of its supporters to the test, has had its recanters.
The only case of the kind, in regard to homoeopathy
that we are acquainted with, is that of a Dr. Fickel,
a German. This individual, while professing an
attachment to homceopathy, was openly convicted of
deception and imposture, by those with whom he
professed to identify himself. The consequence was,
that out of revenge for this exposure, he wrote an
article, trying to prove the nothingness of homoeopathy. Shortly after this, he was apprehended by
the civil authorities for swindling, and put in gaol.
-So much for the character of one who is brought
as a witness against us. Professor Simpson in his
attack on homceopathy, also introduces this case;
but the truth is, that Fickel never wa~ a true homoeopath, and it is creditable to the cause, that such
an individual was not able to maintain a false posi



92 DENIES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY.
tion in such company, but was obliged to go back to
his true place.
The following objection is taken from the Leadfer
Newspaper.  1st, "It," (homoeopathy) "denies all
"the established laws of physics and chemistry.
"When anything does this, we at once call it a
" delusion. It asserts, that matter of a certain kind,
" increases in power as it decreases in bulk. We
"know the contrary.  We know the greater the
" quantity the greater the power, and in exact pro"portion. * * Also, if a man can carry only one
" cwt. of coals, he never finds that by adding another,
"the weight becomes lighter; it is always the con" trary. Matter acts physically in proportion to its
" quantity." This is the physical law, which according to our objector, homoeopathy denies. How the
gentleman came to make such a discovery as this
we know not; but we must compliment himn on it;
as to us it is something perfectly new. Perhaps by
the same process, he will discover that homoeopathy
denies that a pound of feathers is as heavy as a
pound of lead.  It is evident, that our objector
entertains entirely wrong views in regard to the
nature of power; he confounds it with that of mere
physical wAeght. The power of a razor to cut is not
increased, by increasing the thickness of its edge;
although it would weigh heavier. But his peculiar
notions about power will be better seen when we




THE POWERS OF MEDICINES.          93
take his second objection. " 2nd, Chemically, a drop
"of sulphuric acid makes a pleasant draught, if put
"into a tumbler of water; but use much and you are
"killed, use more and you are made into a cinder.
"The more used, the more determined the result.
"How  can it be otherwise?" Aye, how can it be
otherwise? But, if there is any truth at all in our
opponent's objections, it ought to be otherwise; for,
mark how  the gentleman confounds things that
entirely differ, and destroys his own position. The
power of one drop of sulphuric acid in a tumbler of
water is, to afford a " pleasant draught;" very good,
we do not deny it, but, according to objection number
one, the addition of five drops ought to afford a
draught five times more pleasant, and ten drops, a
draught ten times more pleasant; and so on, the
more you add, the more pleasant the draught. But
is this true? Certainly it is not; for, our objector
states, and we most fully agree with him that, in
place of the power of the small dose, in affording a
pleasant draught, being increased by increasing the
quantity of the material, it has not the same power
at all. In fact it loses its rower of affording a pleasant draught altogether, and acquires an entirely
different power-namely, that of killing. This is a
point of very great importance, and one on which we
have all along insisted when dealing with our allopathic opponents, that, while a small dose of any




94            THE SMALL DOSES.
remedy when properly given, may exercise a beneficial effect upon a patient, that is no reason to expect
that a dose double the weight of the first, should
have an effect doubly beneficial. The evidence of
facts is entirely opposed to such an expectation.
There is a mighty difference between killing and
curing: from being burnt to a cinder, and from being
made whole. So is there also a wide range between
the small dose that cures, and the large dose that
kills. Allopaths make a boast of using large doses,
and many of them often give monstrous doses, such
as prove directly fatal. In fact, such cases are by no
means of rare occurrence. This is not to be wondered
at, when we consider that allopaths hold such opinions
as those advanced by our objector. One grain of a
drug is capable of doing some good - five grains will
do five times more good; ten grains will do ten times
more good; fatal doctrine! You that are partial to
the large doses, take warning from the statement of
our objector; there is such a dose as will kill, and
there is such a quantity as will burn you to a cinder;
but rest assured that, the curative dose does not lie
near the confines of either the one or the other.
We will now consider that most common of all
objections advanced against homoeopathy-namely,
that of the small doses. Our adherence to, and
advocacy of these, has exposed us to the ridicule and
abuse of a vast number of professional and lay




SMALL DOSES, NOT HOM(EOPATHY.    95
opponents. It is a mighty obstacle in the way of
our progress; we know that. But, being convinced
by our own experience and observation, as well as
that of thousands of other practitioners who have
put the subject to the test, that these small doses
are the most successful in the curing of disease, and
therefore, the best for the patient, we advocate and
defend their use. Apart from this great superiority in the curing of disease, what interest could
we have in giving the small, in preference to the
large doses? what possible advantage can it be to
ua? we know of none. The great disadvantage of
the small doses, is most apparent from the great opposition manifested against them: in fact, up till
now, they have been the opprobrium and bugbear
of homceopathy everywhere.
Many who have heard of homoeopathy only from
our opponents, and are entirely indebted to that source
for anything they know, or think they know of it,
imagine that the system consists merely in the exhibition of small doses of medicines; now this is a
great mistake. However important the small doses
may be in bringing about the speedy and remarkable
cures, homceopathy itself is not to be confounded
with these doses. No one is a homoeopathist in any
sense, no matter how small his doses may be, unless
he at the same time chooses his medicine on the
ground of its homceopathic relationship to the dis.




96        DEGREES OF SUSCEPTIBILITY.
ease; and every one is a homoeopathist, just in so
far as he is guided by this relationship in the choice
of his remedies, no matter how large or small the
dose may be.
Different individuals have different constitutions,
some are exceedingly sensitive to external impressions; others are the very reverse. Some are exceedingly excitable; others are the very reverse.
Of these again there are a great many shades, varying in intensity. Each of these too, when under
the influence of any particular disease, is affected in
a way peculiar to itself.  So also is there a very
marked difference in the effects of remedial agents
on these different constitutions. On this accountthere is a great variety in the preparation of our
remedies in order to suit the various shades of constitutions, and the various degrees of intensity of
disease. In the homceopathic system, there are medicines varying in strength from the most highly at.
tenuated drop or globule, down to the lowest trituration and mother-tincture of the raw drug. The
success of the practitioner does, in many cases, depend entirely upon the selection of the most suitable
dose, even after he has found the proper medicine.
The repetition of the remedy too, has a great deal
to do with the success of the treatment. The truth
is, that the most appropriate dose of any given medicine, is not such a simple matter as some people




EFFECTS OF DOSE TO BE PRODUCED.    97
imagine; much remains to be learned on this
point.
The dose of any medicine must vary according to
the particular object the prescriber has in viewaccording to the effects he wants to produce.  Supposing an allopath was to give a drug, not to burn
the patient to a cinder, nor yet quite to kill him, but
to affect the system so powerfully as would just fall
short of the killing effect, it is evident that the dose
must of necessity be large.  It is often difficult just
to hit the precise quantity for this nice practice, as
we frequently hear of patients being killed by such
doses.  But if it is desired to produce only one or
two of the poisonous effects of the drug, say purging
or vomniting, they the dose need not be quite so
near the killing point, but still it must be sufficiently
large to bring the system  under the poisonous
influence of the drug.  Let us take mercury as the
medicine, and suppose for example, that our object is
to produce salivation, just suppose this, for in practice
homoeopathists neither give mercury, nor any other
medicine to produce salivation, how much would we
give for a dose? If we had no experience of our own
on this point, we ought certainly to be guided by the
advice and experience of those, who had been long in
the habit of using that drug to produce that effect.
And so we would give such a dose, and at such
intervals, as had been in the experience of others
I




98                THE DOSE.
found to be sufficient for that purpose. Then again,
if we wanted to give mercury to act as a purgative,
we would certainly, in the absence of sufficient experience of our own in this matter, be guided by the
experience of those who had been in the habit of
using the drug to produce that effect; and give the
dose they had found to be most suitable. In the
same way, if any one wanted to administer any
medicine on the homoeopathic principle, he ought, in
the event of his having had no experience in that
way himself, to be guided in selecting the dose of
the medicine by the advice and experience of those,
who had been long in the habit of acting on that
principle. This is the course which reason and
common sense alike point out for one to follow.
Allopaths having had no experience whatever in
the use of homoeopathic medicines, are not qualified
to decide upon the proper dose of such medicines,
neither have they any right to object to the doses
employed by homceopathists, until they condescend to
try them properly. Hahnemann himself, even after
he had discovered the homoeopathic law, was entirely
ignorant of the power of the small doses; (no such
doses having been used before his time,) accordingly,
being guided by what he had formerly learned from
experience, he gave his medicines in doses quite as
large as those generally employed by the old-school
doctors. He soon found, however, that such doses




TEE DOSE.                 99
were by far too large —that they often produced very
serious consequences, and on this account, he gave
smaller doses. By a process of preparation discovered
by himself alone, he gradually reduced his medicines
to that form in which they are now generally given.
These small doses are adhered to by homoeopathists,
because they are found to be the best that have yet
been tried; should a better be discovered, we will
gladly give them up.
The homceopathist never prescribes a medicine
with the object of producing any of the poisonous,
artificial effects of the drug.  His only object is to
give such a medicine as will act on the diseased part,
and in such a quantity, as shall suffice to bring about
a natural reaction of the system against the disease;
and such a medicine he prescribes, in such a form,
and at such intervals, as shall maintain the reaction
sufficiently long to destroy the entire malady.  In
disease, the part affected is far more sensitive than
it was when in a state of health, and far more easily
affected by external influences. A very small amount
of the natural stimulus, light, acting on an inflamed
eye, causes severe pain; and in many cases any degree of light at all is intolerable; whereas, a sound
healthy eye, is not in the slightest degree affected
by the broad light of day. Even so, if in any disease,
a medicine be given, which is capable of acting on
the part affected, and that in a way similar to the




100   DEADLY NATURE OF LARGE DOSES.
disease, it is evident that, the sensibility of the part
being very much excited, a very minute quantity of
the medicine indeed, will materially affect the diseased part.  This we would reasonably expect,
and experience establishes the fact. In the present
state of our knowledge of the remedial powers of
medicines, it would be wrong, dogmatically to say,
what ought to be the highest, or what ought to be
the lowest potency in which any medicine should be
used. In this matter we must be cautious in adopting any one-sided views. Two things are at present
certain, namely, that the large doses used by allopaths
are not only unnecessary, but that they are highly
dangerous, and often attended with fatal consequences; and second, that doses infinitely smaller than
those used by allopaths, when properly applied, are
most efficacious in curing disease, and also, entirely
free from danger. Medical literature abounds in instances of patients being poisoned by allopathic doses
of medicines, though a fraction of the reality on this
point, never comes to the light of day. The Medical
Gazette, startled by an examination of this subject,
makes the following statement. ".'We could present,"
it goes on'to say, "rather a serious tragedy, if we
were to collect all the cases of poisoning by huge
doses of powerful medicines, by the disciples of this
physician, and of sanguinary homicide by the imitators of that bold surgeon, though they may both




POWER OF SMALL DOSES.           101
enjoy high repute." The doctor gives his physic;
patients die. And what often passes off as a case of
natural death from disease, is nothing less than a
case of poisoning from over-drugging.
But even small doses of certain substances are very
often productive of serious results, as the following
letter, writen by an allopath, Wm. Herapath, of
Bristol, proves. " To the Editor of the Times-Sir,
your number of yesterday, in some remarks upon Mr.
Scoffner's patent for purifying sugar by sulphurous
acid, left the public in doubt, as to what quantity of
lead might be taken by human beings without injurious effects. Some time since, in the west of England,
a river, the water of which had been used from time
immemorial by the inhabitants of a village on its
banks, without injury, was found to affect their
health. Symptoms of indigestion abounded, with
loss of flesh and appetite, and there were some few
cases of colic; they believed that it arose from the
river water, and those who used water drawn from a
spring at some distance, were not so affected. I was
requested to analyze the river water, and found in it
1,500,000th part of carbonate of lead, which arose
from a mine which was worked at the distance of three
or four miles from the village, on the other side of a
range of lime-stone hills. Your paragraph leaves it
doubtful, whether one and a quarter grains of lead
taken in a week, would be injurious. In the case 1
I 2




102        PROVED BY EXPERIENCE.
relate, there would be only one grain in nine gallons
of'water, and yet the health of the neighborhood was
seriously affected." When such a very small quantity
as this, was capable of producing such injurious
effects on individuals in perfect health, is it to be
wondered that, equally small, or even smaller
quantities of medicinal agents should, when properly
applied produce a beneficial effect on individuals in
a state of disease? In every department of nature,
there are numerous examples of so-called infinitesimal
quantities of various agents, producing the most
astounding, and often fearfully fatal results. Look at
the potatoe miasm-the Indian jungle xniasmn-the
Pontine marsh miasm-or that of cholera, measles, or
small-pox. Who ever weighed or determined the
quantity of any of these subtle agents which is
capable of producing their respective diseases? Who
can say in regard to any of them, that this or that
is the smallest quantity that can produce any effect?
Who ever saw or weighed the amount of material
that rises from a flower in the form of odour? and
yet who denies its presence and its power on that
account?
No a priori argument or reasoning from analogy
can satisfactorily establish the value of the small
doses used by homloeopathists. The only perfect and
infallible test of their efficacy is, in their power of
controlling and curing disease. We have evidence




TESTIMONY IN FAVOUR OF SMALL DOSES. 103
from thousands of practitioners, in all parts of the
world, who have over and over again observed the
unmistakable power of these doses, in arresting and
curing the most rapidly fatal diseases that exist. And
this is the test we wish our opponents to try it by.
Alany of these not being able to shut their eyes
against the fact that we are more successful with the
small, than they are with the large doses, have begun
to use some of our medicines, and that with success;
while at the same time they are giving much smaller
quantities of their allopathic mixtures. These are
good omens, and we rejoice to see them; but, until
the law or principle of homceopathy be properly
understood and acted upon, any change in the doses
they administer, will be a matter of secondary importance. The small doses naturally spring ofit of
the homoeopathic law of relationship. Professor
Jorg, an allopath, makes the following remark on
this point: —" Medicines operate most powerfully
upon the sick when the symptoms correspond with
those of the disease." And of this he gives several
instances; after which he adds, " yet why should I
occupy time in adducing more examples of a similar
operation of medicines, since it is in the very nature
of the thing that a medicine must produce a greater
effect when it is applied to a body already suffering
under an affection similar to that which the medicine itself is capable of producing."




104        ERRONEOUS INFORMATION
We shall close this part of our subject, by giving a
specimen of the false and erroneous information,
which our opponents spread in regard to the small
doses. In an article in Chambers' Journal for 23d
June, 1855, the author by way of giving his readers
information regarding the small doses used by homceopathists, thus delivers himself: " Take a grain of
aconite, for example, and mix it up with a certain
quantity of water; then take a drop of this water,
and diffuse it through a similar quantity of pure
water; then let a drop of water again be diluted in
like manner; and so on for thirty times, in which
ease, it is arithmetically demonstrable, that you have
that original grain diffused through a mass of water
many millions of millions of times larger than the
whole earth."  We take this as a fair specimen of
the kind of information that is given to the public by
our opponents, on subjects connected with homceopathy. It is not abusive, neither is it disrespectful,
but it is monstrously untrue. It bears out that, when
one grain of aconite is diluted thirty times, the whole
mass of water in which the grain is so diluted, is
many millions of millions of times larger than the
whole earth. The author says, it is arithmetically
demonstrable, that this ig the case. Let us see what
simple arithmetic says to it.  Thus-take one grain
of aconite, and mix that in ninety-nine drops of




ABOUT SMALL DOSES.              105
water;* tarke one drop of that mixture, and mix it in
another ninety-nine drops of water, go on in the
same manner for thirty times; and query how much
water there is in the thirty mixtures? The author
jil Chambers' Journal says, it is arithmetically
demonstrable, that you have the one grain diffused
through a mass of water mtany millions of millions
of times larger than the whole earth!  Allopaths
are accustomed to swallow large doses; but surely
there must be some difficulty in getting this over.
Many have a swallow large enough for anything that
comes from an orthodox laboratory, and will feel convinced that it is true, merely because it is opposed to
homoeopathy; but surely, this outrage on their
understanding, must stagger them. Unless intended
as a joke, (against which we protest;) it is nothing
less than an imposition on credulity itself. The
truth is, (and any one can count it for himself,) the
entire mass of water in the whole thirty mixtures,
does not amount to two gills! and yet a special
pleader against homeeopathy, will have the audacity
to say, that it amounts to a mass many millions
of millions of times larger than the whole earth I!
After this we are prepared for anything, no matter
how grossly absurd. 0, the miserable trash that
allopaths are served with, by way of information on
X Homceopathists do not employ water in the preparation of
their medicines.




106       OPPOSED TO COMMON SENSE.
this important subject;-when will they break down
the barriers that shut out the light of truth, and
shake off the trammels that bind them to an old
and worn out system.
In a letter issued by the Brighton Medical Association, condemnatory of homceopathy, there are three assumptions brought forward, as objections against the
system. First, homceopathy is'opposed to common
sense;' second, it is' opposed to science;' and third, it
is at' variance with the experience of the profession.'
We should have liked exceedingly to have got a
specimen of the logic by which the first two of these
objections were substantiated; the association, however, found it much more convenient to assume than
to prove the objections. We shall meet these assumptions in a very few words; first, that homoeopathy is
opposed to common sense. This is a very captious
statement, and one very generally advanced by our
opponents; no less a personage than Professor
Simpson makes use of it. We shall not enter into
the philosophical meaning of the term common
sense, but, shall take what, if you please we shall
call a more cotmmon sense view of the objection. If
the gentlemen of the association mean that, homceopathy is opposed to the common sense of those who
are either entirely ignorant of the subject, or who
possess most erroneous notions thereupon, then, we
doubt not, they are right, and they are welcome to




ALLOPATHIC EXPERIENCE.          107
make the most of the fact. But, if they mean, that
homceopathy is opposed to the common sense of those
who understand the subject, then, we must beg to
differ from them, and demand the proof. We can
point to hundreds, nay to thousands of highly educated and talented physicians, who after studying
and becoming acquainted with the system practically,
(the only way to know it properly,) have found and
declared it to be true. We can point to thousands,
nay to millions of the laity, who, after testing the
system as to its practical worth, have found it to be
true, and therefore we maintain, and justly so, that
the common sense of those who alone are qualified to
give an opinion, is in favour of homceopathy.
Second, they say that homoeopathy is opposed to
science. To what kind or department of science
homoeopathy is in any way opposed, we are at a loss
to discover; and the gentlemen of the association
thought it the wisest policy Aot to enlighten us on
this point. The only scientific truth that any objector
has brought forward as being opposed to homceopathy,
is contained in the objection of the correspondent to
the Leader Newspaper, at page 83, to which we
refer the reader.
Third, they say that homoeopathy is at variance
with the experience of the medical profession. In
this we believe they are in one sense right, and to
this we must plead guilty. But, the experience of




108          DR. ANDRAL' S CASES.
the medical profession, what is it?-To what has it
attained?   Let the talented Sir J. Forbes give the
answer, "What difference of opinion," he says,
"what an array of alleged facts directly at variance
with each other; what contradictions; what opposite
results of a like experience; what ups and downs;
what glorification and degradation of the same
remedy; what confidence now-what despair anon
in encountering the same disease with the very same
weapons; what horror and intolerance at one time
of the very opinions and practices which previously
and subsequently we cherished and admired." Such
is allopathic experience. And with such homoeopathy
is directly at variance; forbid that it should ever be
anything else.
It has frequently been advanced as an objection
by medical men, that homoeopathy was tried in Paris
by Dr. Andral, and found to be a failure. Now it is
quite true that Andral did make some experiments
upon fifty-four cases at La Ftiie, in Paris, a report
of which was published, not by himself, but by his
clinical assistant. Dr. Irvine, of Leeds, (British
Journal of Homeopathy, vol. 2, page 50,) has
analyzed these experiments, and fully exposed their
utter worthlessness, as being in any sense tests of
homoeopathy. The medicines prescribed were not at
all suited for their respective complaints, and no one
with even a very moderate knowledge of homoeopatl:,y




DR. ANDRAL'S CASES.            109
could have made such absurd experiments. Andral
we believe was perfectly honest, and did the best he
could under the circumstances; but unfortunately,
even according to his own confession, he never had
read one of Hahnemann's works, and knew nothing
about our materia medica.  How then could he practice homeeopathy with any chance of success? He
had learned something of the new system from some
French authors, sufficient no doubt to arrest his
attention, but not sufficient to qualify him in putting
the system to a practical and critical test.
It is now twenty-two years since these experiments
were made, and at that time there was no translation
of Hahnemann's writings in the French language,
so that Andral was so far excusable. But what is
most conclusive against his experiments, is the fact
of Andral himself having, in 1851, confessed to Dr.
Dunham, of New York, (North American Journal of.omceopathy, vol. 2, page 213, et seq. ) that these
experiments were not so extensive and accurate as
the nature of the subject deserved, and he did not
now think these experiments conclusive.  This confession sets Andral's boasted experiments entirely
aside, and whatever the gentleman may at one time
have thought of them, we are satisfied that he does
not now consider them as being conclusive against
homoeopathy; and neither could any other man who
has any knowledge of homoeopathy at all.  It was
Andial's failure, not that of homceopathy.
K




110  EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF HOM(EOPATIIY.
CHAPTER VII.
EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF HOMCEOPATHY.
The practice of homoeopathy not perfect-The law is-Allopathic scepticism in regard to evidence-Testimony of Hufeland-Rau-Hartmann-Evidence from general statisticsFrom a comparison of statistics in inflammation of the lungsIn pleuritis-In peritonitis-In yellow fever-Value of homoeopathy in violent and dangerous diseases-Allopathie
speculations about the nature and treatment of cholera-Destructive nature of allopathic treatment in that disease-Allopathic treatment in favour of camphor —Homoeopathy and
the Board of Health-Dr. Maclaughlin's testimony in favour
ef homeeopathy-Allopathic and homoeopathic statistics compared.
IN adducing evidence in favor of the truth of ho-.
mceeopathy, it is not to be supposed that we look upon
that system as being perfect, in the sense that it is
infallible. The curative relationship subsisting between disease on the one hand, and medicine on the
other, being a principle or law of nature, we believe
to be not only true, but perfect.  The practice of
homoeopathy, meaning by that, the application of the
principle in the treatment of disease, being entirely
dependent upon the amount of our knowledge of
disease on the one hand, and of the medicinal properties of drugs on the other, cannot be perfect; as our




ALLOPATHIC SCEPTICISM.           111
knowledge of disease and of the virtues of drugs are
always increasing. In one sense, namely, that the
system as a whole is harmoniously adapted to the
law of cure, it is perfect; but, that it is at present so
fully developed in practice, that it never can at any
future time be more successful, in that sense it is not
perfect. We all maintain that, while homoeopathy
as at present practiced is vastly superior to the old
system; it is, by the light and guidance of scientific
principles, capable of being made more and more
successful in the cure of disease.
There are a great many sceptics whose minds are
So thoroughly prejudiced, that no amount of evidence
will be allowed to tell upon them. Upon such
individuals we can hope to make but very little impression. Let Professor S. or Professor C. of the
allopathic school, make any statement merely upon
their own authority, and these very sceptics are ready
at once to take it in, and give it implicit credit.
But, let Hahnemann, or fifty, or a hundred, or a
thousand of his followers state what they have in
experience found to be true, and these sceptics are all
incredulity together;-the statements are doubted by
some, denied by others, and rejected by all. Showing
that extremes of credulity and scepticism are closely
allied to each other. What kind or what amount of
evidence would satisfy our opponents in regard to the
truth of homeopathy it is impossible to understand.
No other great truth was ever ushered in with a




112 EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF HOMCEOPATHY.
greater amount of evidence —was ever proclaimed to
the world with a more overwhelming testimony in its
favour. About four thousand regularly educated
physicians, in various parts of the world, have fairly
and honestly tested the system; and from incontrovertible evidence, stood forward boldly in the midst
of much opposition, calumny and persecution, and
proclaimed it to be true. Millions of individuals of
every race and clime, of every rank and condition in
life-rich and poor, young and old-learned and
unlearned — ministers and teachers — judges and
rulers-kings and queens have been the subjects of
its healing power, and all testify in its favour. What
court of law could desire stronger evidence? what
individual, or what body of men with unprejudiced
minds could resist such evidence? And yet, our
allopathic opponents, merely because the system is
opposed to all their preconceived notions and prejudices, have pledged themselves to oppose it. All
enquiries put to them by their simple-minded supporters in regard to homceopathy, are met, by the
very convenient answer, that it is all quackery
and imposture, and thus the subject is disposed of.
Very different is the testimony of those who have
honestly studied and understood the system. Hufeland, the Hippocrates of Germany, in speaking of
the system, says, " Homceopathy seems to me to be
particularly valuable in two points of view; first,
because it promises to lead the art of healing back to




TESTIMONY IN FAVOUR OF HOMIEOPATHY. 113
the onljy true path of quiet observation and experience, and gives new life to the too much neglected
worth of symptomatology; and secondly, because it
furnishes simplicity in the treatment of disease."
HIufeland was no homceopathist, but he recognized
in homoeopathy the evidences of a great truth.
It is a rule in all-opathic practice that, the more
experience a physician has in the practice of medicine, the less faith he has in it; and not a few lose all
faith in it whatever. This is not the case in homoeopathic practice. The more experience one has in
the new mode of practice, the more he becomes
convinced of its truth.  Dr. Rau says, "After
twenty-two years labour in this new field of science,
(homeeopathy) I am thoroughly convinced of its
truth, and pay no attention to the uncourteous language of those blind defenders of the old dogmatisms,
who would willingly crush and trample under foot
the forth-coming bud of this young plant, but in
vain." Dr. Hartman, too, thus expresses himself,
"I have practiced homoeopathy for twenty-eight
years, and my practice has been very extensive. As
regards the fundamental principles of our art, I can
truly say, that I am more than ever convinced of
their truth." Every homeeopathist of any experience,
could furnish testimony to the same effect, but in
place of taking up more space ivith evidence of this
nature, we shall finish this part of our subject, by
an appeal to the testimony of statistics.
E 2




114             GENERAL STATISTICS.
The following TABLE is an Extract from a Collective
REPORT of seven European HOM(EOPATHIC HOSPITALS, up to the end of the year 1848, as published
in the North American Journal of fomoeopathy,
vol. ii. page 151
Disease.             I          
Apoplexy.................   21   11   6   4
Bleeding from the Lungs.........   138 112   9  17
"   from the Stomach......       11   10   0   1
"4  from the Womb.........    41   40   0   1
Burns and Scalds...........    53   50   0   3
Catarrh of the Chest, acute...  161 158   0   3
Cough, Hooping............   41   34   0   7
Cholera..................   59   55   4   6
Convulsions...............    56   40   0  16
Cramp of Stomach............    129  121   1   7
Croup.......................  6    6   0   0
Diarrhcea....................  3!0 255   3  52
Dysentery....................    98   91     
Erysipelas of the Face.........    349 337   3   9
6     of the Feet and Legs...   68   64   0   4
Enlargement of Liver............             3   0   0
Fever, Catarrhal...............   304 294   4   6
so Inflammatory                      58   53   2   3
"   Bilious and Gastric......... 1010 991   9  10
Brain..................            7    6   1   0
"   Typhus, (severe)..........     1895 1437 289 169
*",'    Mild and Nervous.  231 210   4  17
"   Continued..............  294 279  10   5
"   Intermittent............. 1071 972   5  94
Fever, Rheumatic...........       39/ 9 362   0  37




GENERAL STATISTICS.                 115
Disease..  -
Fever, Scarlet....... 102 94  3  5
Gout, (Acute and Chronic).......  319 293   5  21
Inflammation of Joints, Acute.....  390 366   6  18
"     of Bladder.........      8    7   0    1
" of Brain...........   54  25   3  26
"     of Air Tubes........    56  40   1  15
"     of Bowels and Peritoneum............  211 191  13   7
"     of Kidneys.........      4    3   0   1
"     of Liver............  45  33   0  12
"     of Lungs..........  710 629  45  36
"     Pleura............ 371 351   5  15
"     Spinal Marrow......   14  13   0   1
"     Spleen......... 9...   9    8   0   1
"     Testicles..........   10  10   0   0
"     Throat... 5....... 596 583   1  12
"    Womb       1........... 15   11   0   4
"     Glands........ 24  24   0   0
Jaundice.................  96  85   0  11
Insanity.................  23  14   0   9
Injuries, Contusions...........    48  43   0   5
Concussion of Brain.........    7    5   1   1
Lock Jaw.............    6    3   3   0
Measles....................  102   96   2    4
Small Pox....................  211 195   6  10
Chicken Pox..................  141 140   1   0
St. Vitus's Dance............  11   10   0    1
Vomiting, Bilious...............    8    8   0   0
1      " Chronic............   48,  48   0   0




116            GENERAL STATISTICS.
REPORT of the HALF-ORPHAN ASYLUM, New York,
(a Homoeopathic Institution,) from August, 1842,
to 1848.
Diarrhoea....................        52    2    
Dysentery.....................    22  22  0  0
Croup.......................   18  18  O  O
Fever, Remittent..........     14   14  O 
"   Gastric............7    7  0  i
" Brain......... 4  4 O O0
Scarlet............... 11   10   1 
"   Typhus.................             2  O   O
"   Continued............... 1 13 130   O
Inflammation of Bowels........            3 8    O  O
"     of Lungs........       7    7   O  0
"     of Brin...........        1       1   O
"     of Air Tubes.....   1    1  O 
i"    of Stomach......    2    2  0  O
"     of Pleura (Pleurisy)..   5    5  O  O
"     of Throat (Quinsy)...    7    7  0  O
"     of Eyes,  Scrofulous
Catarrhal......  255 248  0   7
Catarrh of Lungs and Air Tubes..     92   92  O 
Erysipelas....................     7    7  O  O
Concussion of Brain.............    2    2  O 
Hip Disease..................       3   2  0   1
Consumption.............. 2    O  O  0
Colic.......................    2   2   O  O
Mumps...................... 3   3   O 
Sciatica................. 1    1  O  O
Cholera...................    2   2  O  O
Canker (Sore mouth).............     9   9  O  O0




GENERAL STATISTICS.                    117
Disease.              | v.
*   Q /
Scrofula......................    3    3   0   0
Scrofulous Abscesses..........          8    8   0   0
Eruptions, of various kinds.......  232  224   0   8
Rheumatism......................    2    2   0   0
Jaundice.....................    6    6   0   0
Convulsions.....................           0   1   0
Marasmus (Wasting)..........             3    3   0   0
Total...................  869  849   5  15
REPORT of the same INSTITUTION from 1848 to 1852.
Typhus Fever...............            96   92   4   0
Diarrhcea and Cholera.........         135  130   5 
Dysentery...................... 86   86   O    O
Mumps........................   16   16   0    0
Inflammation of the Eyes, Scrofulous and Catarrhal.156  134   0  22
Ilooping Cough.21   21   0    0
Eruptions.....................  210  180   0  30
Cholera, Asiatic.42   32  10    0
Abscesses, large.                         2    2   0    0
Measles........................ 22   22    O   0
Erysipelas -....................    5    5   0   0
Scarlet Fever.33   33   0    0
Quinsy......................    4    4   0   0
Sprains........................         4    4   0    0
Total......................  838  767  19  52
_J




118             GENERAL STATISTICS.
REPORT of the HOME FOR THE FRIENDLESS, in the
City of New York, during the year 1851.
Disease.
Canker (Sore Mouth)............     10  10  0   0
Dropsy, General...............         1   1  0   0
Eruptions-Scald Head.......... 60  54  0   6
it     Itch..................  5  5    0  t 
"6    Varioloid.....                  5  0   0
"     Small Pox........           1   1    
Fever, Catarrhal and Gastric.....       9   9  0   0
"   Remittent...............        1   1  0   0
"   Scarlet............    2   2  0   0
Inflammation of Eyes, Scrofulous...   44  37  0   7, of Eyelids.........          7   6  0   0
" of Lungs..........    6   6  0   0
"c    of Stomach.........    2   2  0   0
c"    of Pleura....             1   1  0   0
of Tonsils.........    6   6  0   0
" of Knee-joints, Scrof.         1   0  0   1
Menses, Suppressed.2   2  0   0
Mlumps........................    8   8  0   0
Otorrhea.......................   2   2  0   0
Ulcers of Cornea................       6   4  0   2
of Feet, Scrofulous....            7   7  0   0
Total..................20  191  0  17
The foregoing statistics as a whole will stand a
comparison with those of any other similar institutions; though they are by no means indices of the
best results from  homoeopathic treatment.  We will




COMPARISON OF STATISTICS.          119
now take a comparative view of the statistics
afforded by the two modes of treatment, in some of
the more important diseases.
Of 909 cases of inflammation of the lungs, treated
by Grisolle, Briquet, Skoda, and in the Edinburgh
Infirmary, 212 died-that is about 23 per cent. or
nearly I out of every 4.  Whereas of 299 cases
treated homoeopathically by Dr. Fleischmann, only
19 died —that is little more than 6 per cent. or 1 in
15. Further, of 111 cases of pleuritis treated in the
Edinburgh Infirmary 14 died, that is about 13 per
cent. or 1 in every 8 cases.  Whereas of 224 cases
treated homoeopathically by Fleischmann, only 3 died
-that is little more than I per cent. or 1 in 100
cases. Again, in the Edinburgh Infirmary, out of
21 cases of peritonitis, there were 6 deaths-that is,
about 28 per cent., or above 1 in every 4. Whereas,
of 105 cases treated by Fleischmann, only 5 deaths
occurred-that is, less than 5 per cent., or less than
one in every 25 cases.* In a tabular form the
figures stand thus:INFLAMMATION OF THE LUNGS.
Cases. Died.
Treated allopathically    909 212 1 above 23 per cent. or
nearly 1 in 4.
"  homoeopathically 299  19 about 6 per cent. or 1
l   l          in 1 in 15.
* Introduction to the Study of Homoeopathy.




120        REPORT OF YELLOW  FEVER.
PLEURITIS.
Cases. Died.
Treated allopathically    1 111  14 I above 13 per cent. or 1
I        I         in  8.
"  homesopathically 1 224   3! about 1 per cent. or 1
I l        l     in 100.
PERITONITIS.
Cases. Died.
Treated allopathically   21    6 above 28 per cent. or 1
I   l    I         in4.
"  homceopathically  105    5 less than 5 per cent. or 1
l~ ~ l   |  in 25.
In two of the most deadly scourges of the human
race, namely, yellow fever and cholera, we have
overwhelming evidence in favour of homoeopathy;
as will be seen from the following figures:Report of the homoeopathic treatment of yellow
fever in Rio de Janeiro, in 1851, by Dr. Martin,
(from the British Journal of Homceopathy for July,
1851.)
No. of cases, 3,256. Cured, 3,029. Died, 227. Less than 7 per cent.
From New Orleans, where yellow fever raged so
fearfully two years ago, we have the following report
from Dr. Davis and Dr. Holcombe, showing what
homoeopathy could do for that disease, even in its
worst form, (from  the North American Journal for
1853, page 503.)
No. of cases, 555. Cured, 522. Died 33. Less than 6 per cent.
Under the best allopathic treatment, the mortality
was from 20 to 30 per cent.




HOMCEOPATHY IN DANGEROUS DISEASES.  121
* Dr. Jewell, an allopath, gives a report from
Philadelphia, of
No. of cases, 44. Cured, 10. Died, 34. Above 77 per cent.
In the Medical Circular, vol. ii., p. 233, we have
the following report of the allopathic treatment of
yellow  fever on board H.  I. ship Dauntless, at
Barbadoes.
No. of cases, 158. Cured, 79. Died, 79. 50 per cent.
Before giving a statistical view of the treatment
of cholera, it will not be out of place here, to put
on record some of the views held by allopaths, in
regard to the nature and treatment of that dreadful
disease. It is often repeated by a certain class of
medical men that, homoeopathy may do very well in
trifling complaints, but it will not do at all in dangerous diseases; nothing but the old system will do in
such cases. We have frequently listened to statements of this kind from men who pretended to know
all about homeopathy, but the truth is, it is mere
talk, having its origin in pure conceit and prejudice.
Recorded facts, and the experience of thousands of
physicians prove, that the value of homceopathy is
pre-eminently manifested in diseases of the most
violent and dangerous character; and it is exactly
in those very diseases, that allopathy is sure to be, not
only a total failure, but to be highly hazardous and
pernicious. The medicines employed, it is true, are
* See New York Journal of Medicine, vol. xii., p. 149.
L




122  ALLOPATHIC TREATMENT OF CHOLERA.
strong and powerful, but they are just for that very
reason the more destructive and deadly. The public
is not yet sufficiently alive to the fact, that while
medicines have the power to cure, they have also
the power to kill. But to proceed with our record
of the views and opinions of allopaths, in regard to
cholera and its treatment. In the Medical Times and
Gazette, for 8th October, 1853, we have the following
passage.  "'After two epidemics of cholera have
passed away, medical men are almost as uncertain and
divided as to the most successful manner of treating
the disease as they were before. Bleeding and transfusion of blood-calomel in large doses, and calomel
in small-calomel alone or sometimes with opiumopium alone or combined with calomel-tartarized
antimony-emetics-cold water and ice —brandy and
cayenne-the wet sheet-cold bath and Douchesinapisms, burnt brandy, blisters and the hot air
bath-electricity, salines by the mouth or rectuminjections of salines, hot water, opium, quinine,
&c.-injections into the veins —the inspiration of
oxygen and nitrous oxyde —ammonia, camphor,
musk, phosphorus, strychnine, essential oils, aromatics, and vegetable astringents-acetate of lead,
sulphate of copper, quinine, arsenic, iron, and a host
of other remedies have been tried, and the result
has been a sorry one." An account of the treatment of cholera, still more deplorable than this, is




ALLOPATHIC TREATMENT OF CHOLERA.  123
to be found in Dr. Bushman's book, on "' Cholera
and its Cures."
All the ordinary medical theories and speculations,
have entirely failed in leading to any beneficial
results, in the treatment of this disease.  Medicines
the most potent and dangerous, have been given at a
mere venture, and unfortunate cholera patients have
been made the subjects of the most undisguised
experimentation.  One remedy after another has
been brought forward and extolled, and each has in
its turn been demolished by some new upstart. According to the various theories on the nature and
treatment of this disease, one would imagine that the
cure of cholera, was a very simple matter indeed.
All these theories differ from each other, and still
each one seems to have so much confidence in his
own notions, that, really,provided persons apply in
time, there is no room for death at all.  Lately since,
a writer in the Medical Circular, in attempting to
demolish the theory and practice of some previous
adventurer, (who advocated the employment of
purgatives in cholera,) with the view of establishing
his own pet dogma on its ruins, boldly asserts that,
"astringents administered in due time, hermet'cally
seal up the bowels, entirely dissipate the poison,
and restore the patient to health."  We have seen
it somewhere recommended (whether in joke or
earnest we aver not,) to plug up the anus in order




124 ALLOPATHIC TREATMENT OF CHOLERA.
to stop the discharge from the bowels; but surely
this modern discovery of hermetically sealing up the
bowels, must be by far the more effectual method.
The opinion that choleraic diarrhoea can always be
effectually removed by the ordinary allopathic astringents, when taken in time, is one that very
generally prevails among a certain class of the community.  It is an opinion, however, having no
foundation in truth, and entirely opposite to experience. Were it true, cholera as such, with all its
dreadful horrors, might soon have no existence but in
remembrance. Every individual would merely require
to provide him or herself with a bottle of astringent
cholera mixture, to be able to defy the foe. Mr.
Greenhow, who had the management of the cholera
patients in the borough jail of Newcastle, gives us
the result of his experience in the treatment of that
disease.  "The notion very generally prevails," he
says, c" and has been much insisted, that the stage of
diarrhoea can always be successfully cured by appropriate treatment. But though this is very frequently,
it is by no means invariably true. In the prison
some cases of diarrhmea passed rapidly into the stage
of collapse, in spite of the careful employment of
remedies which in other cases often proved perfectly
and rapidly successful. My experience convinced
me that the exhibition of brandy and other powerful stimulants, was not useful, and in some cases




DESTRUCTIVE NATURE OF.           125
was distinctly injurious."*  No better opportunity
than this could possibly be found, for trying the
efficiency  of any particular mode of treatment.
The patients were entirely under the command of the
medical attendant; and the medicines prescribed,
were carefully given; and still the result proves
that astringents fail in curing premonitory diarrhoea.
At a meeting of the Medical Society of London,
held 12th Nov., a discussion upon the treatment of
cholera took place. The well-known Dr. Clutterbuck
said, "He had come to the conclusion, that the
employment of very active medicants in cholera,
added to the danger; and that more persons were
destroyed by the treatment than were saved-if any
were —which he very much doubted. He condemned
large doses of calomel and opium." t
There are many others beside Dr. Clutterbuck
who believe that, numbers are destroyed by the
treatment. Even the innoxious castor oil, which was
introduced with some plausible prospect of success,
has been found in the hands of allopaths equally
unsuccessful, if not equally destructive in its results.
The whole subject connected with the treatment of
cholera, has now become so miserably hopeless that,
the editor of the Medical Circular, has from an
honest necessity, been obliged to confess thal, "' The
* Medical Circular, vol. iii, page 4f 1,
t Lancet, 17th November, 1849.
L 2




126       IDESTRUCTIVE NATURE OF.
subject of cholera has now merged in that of drainage,
and the battle of tile drainage, versus stone and
brick sewers, has supplanted the battle of thera.
peutics."* In vol. v, page 181 of the same journal,
the editor thus again expresses himself. "' The cause
of cholera has been the radiant bubble which physiologists, like children, have pursued through all the
devious paths of philosophic investigation, found
everywhere yet nowhere, and vanishing like a spectre when apparently found in some earthly shape."
Mr. Cox, in writing upon the treatment of cholera,
says " My experience of the malady in question,
during 1849, was very great; and I enjoyed very
extensive opportunities of witnessing the result of
various modes of treatment on a large scale." The
following are some of the conclusions he came to,
" that stimulants of every class and description are
in the highest degree pernicious, and this in propor.
tion to their potency, the most powerful stimulants
being the most hurtful and dangerous. Turpentine
was given by myself, in nine cases of which seven
proved fatal, and I witnessed it administered in
twenty more cases, sixteen of which resulted in
death. In fact, (excepting the saline mode) it is by
far the most murderous mode of treatment yet
adopted or suggested."t
* Medical Circular, 13th September, 1854.
t Medical Circular, vol. iii., page 149.




ALLOPATHIC EXPERIENCE.         127
Many medical men of the first standing in the
profession confirm Mr. Cox's opinion in regard to
the injurious influence of stimulants in cholera; and
it is not, mark you, that these remedies do no good,
but they are confessedly pernicious and murderous
-they kill many who might recover; this is the
dreadful fact connected with the treatment. What
would you think of any one recommending saw-dust
in cholera? not much, we presume; and yet sawdust would actually be better than these allopathic
drugs, for, though it could not possibly do any
good, murderous it could not be, while the others
are proven by experience to be so. Notwithstanding
this, there are many medical men who will neither
open their eyes nor their ears to learn the truth,
but who doggedly adhere to old prejudiced opinions
and practices. A gentleman, whose modesty prevented him giving his name, residing in a small
village on the south bank of the Tay, wrote to the
editor of the Medical Circular about his mode of
curing cholera. His infallible is " tincture of ginger
or cayenne pepper, made with either brandy or good
malt whiskey, and given in a little warm water and
sugar, with the grating of nutmeg, particularly if
there is much diarrhoea present."  On summing up
his experience (sic) with the mixture, he says "I
have never known it to fail."
Mr. Hunt, who had large experience in the treat



128       TREATMENT WITH CAMPHOR.
ment of cholera, stated at a meeting of the Medical
Society of London, that " he thought cholera seldom
or never checked, or at all cured,"-that is by allopathic treatment.
Dr. Priest imagines that, because chloride of lime
decomposes all poisonous gases out of the body, it
will destroy the poison of cholera in the bodycholera being a poison that acts only on the bowels.*
The gentleman relates a case of cholera in which he
imagined the chloride was successful. But in place
of the medicine being given pure and by itself,
(so as to secure its true action,) as it certainly ought
to have been, had the gentleman had any faith in
it; we find five ounces of camphor-water mixed with
one ounce of the chloride of lime, and of this a
large tablespoonful was given every half-hour. The
patient to whom this was given, recovered; but had
the gentleman been acquainted with the remarkable
power of camphor in controlling the disease, he
would never have dreamt of attributing the success
of the treatment to the chloride. The camphor was
undoubtedly the curative agent.
Another gentleman of the same school, in a former
number of the same journal, assuming that cholera
was a poison which produced a species of decomposition in the body, fancied that, as sugar was a capital
thing for pickling pork, it would on the same prin* Medical Circular, vol. v, page 153.




TREATMENT WITH CAMPHOR.          129
ciple, cure cholera, by preserving the body from the
decomposing influence of the cholera poison. This is
the way that allopaths theorise about the nature and
treatment of disease. This gentleman, strange to
say, gave his sugar, mixed with camphor, and in
practice found it successful. Ah! gentlemen, how
did you come to think of giving camphor in cholera?
Have you no vague recollections of sundry reports of:ts success in the hands of these heretical home.
opathists? Do be prevailed upon, gentlemen, to take a
single leaf, in place of a sentence, out of homceopathy, and rest assured you will have a more satisfactory
guide in the cure of disease than you have at present.
A number of allopaths, not able entirely to blind
their eyes to the fact, that the camphor treatment
had been more successful than any other, have employed various mixtures, in which camphor formed
an important ingredient. We are glad to see good
done by any means, but at the same time we lament
to see that medical men will not, for reasons best
known to themselves, make themselves fully acquainted with the principle on which homoeopathic
remedies are given, and the proper manner of giving
them.  Camphor, like many other of our remedies
used by allopaths, is not only to a great extent prevented from exerting its true curative action, by
being mixed with other drugs, but it is often used in
cases in which it is not at all indicated. No one




130             CHOLERA  STATISTICS.
unacquainted  with the principles and practice of
homeopathy, can understand how, and when to use
camphor to the best advantage in cholera.
We will now take a view of the results of the
homeopathic and allopathic methods of treating
cholera, by an examination  of statistics.  In doing
so we must premise that, there has been no aim
whatever, at any particular method in their arrangement, and as regards completeness, we have given
all the statistics of any importance of which we had
correct reports in our possession.
Treated allopathically.
In Bavaria......12,753 cases. 6,163 deaths. 481 per cent.
Treated homoeopathically.
In Bavaria*-......1,269 cases.    85 deaths.  6Q per cent.
Treated allopathically.
In Paris............6,543 cases. 3,374 deaths. 51~ percent.
Treated homoeopathically.
Cincinnati, Ohio 1,116 cases.    35 deaths.   3 per cent.
Treated allopathically,
Dundee Hospital...157 cases.    87 deaths. 61' per cent.
Treated homoeopathically.
In Liverpoolt...... 175 cases.    45 deaths. 24J percent.
Treated allopathically.
In Stockholm.....4,143 cases. 2,447 deaths. 59* per cent.
* These cases were reported by Dr. Rath, who was sent by
the king of Bavaria to collect authentic information regarding
the homceopathic treatment of cholera.
t In Liverpool most of the cases were virulent, and many in
a state of collapse before being seen.




CHOLERA  STATISTICS.                    131
Treated homoeopathically.
In Edinburgh*.....173 cases.    48 deaths.  27;} percent.
Treated allopathically.
In Christiana.....2,318 cases. 1,506 deaths.   65 per cent.
Treated homceopathically.
In  Lancaster,
Torquay, and       76 cases.      6 deaths.    8 per cent.
Glasgow.......
Treated allopatlically.
In Helsingfors,  3,328 cases. 1,607 deaths.  481 per cent.
Russia.......   3
Treated homoeopathically.
In Vienna.......... 380 cases.    49 deaths.  121 per cent.
Treated allopathically.
In Copenhagen...7,515 cases. 4.047 deaths,  55* per cent.
Treated homoeopathically.
In Vienna, Moravia, Bohemia,  1,093 cases.    95 deaths   8J percent.
and Hungary..
Treated allopathically.
In Paris Hospitals.4,203 cases.  3,144 deaths.  741 per cent.
Treated homoeopathically.
In Russia, Austria, Berlin and  3,016 cases.   264 deaths.   8J per cent.
Paris.............
Treated allopathically.
In Sweden........1,165 cases.   735 deaths.   63 per cent.
Treated homoeopathically.
In Russiat......1,270 cases.   108 deaths.   8~ per cent.
Treated allopathically.
In Dantzic.........900 cases.   555 deaths.  61 per cent.
In Berlin.........1,285 cases.   832 deaths.  64; per cent.
* In Edinburgh, besides the disease being very virulent,
many of the subjects were abandoned drunkards.
t These cases were collected from various parts of the Russian Empire, by the Consul General, Hon. Alexis Eustaphieve.




132         HOMEOPATHY AND THE
Last year, when cholera prevailed to such an
extent in London, the General Board of Health,
impressed with the solemn fact that, the ordinary
treatment of that disease had on previous occasions
been attended with woful results, issued printed
forms to the various public hospitals in the city, in
order to find out the exact nature of the treatment
pursued in the different institutions, with the results
of the treatment in each individual case. The Board
intended to examine most minutely into the returns
received from the different institutions, with the
view, if possible, of coming to a satisfactory conclusion as to what mode or means of treatment was
attended with the greatest success; and to make the
result known to the profession generally, for the
benefit of the public.
The result of the treatment pursued in the different
hospitals, as shown by the report of the Board, was
anything but satisfactory; the deaths in severe cases
under the most successful treatment were at the rate
of 36-2 per cent. and in some cases nearly the double
of that; while, in the London Homceopathic Hospital, the deaths were only 16 4 per cent.  But
strange to say, the returns of the Homoeopathic
Hospital, which were duly sent to the Board of
Health, were not included in the general report
issued by the Board; and so the government and the
public at large were kept in ignorance as to the




BOARD OF HEALTH.              133
relative merits of the different kinds of treatment
pursued in cholera; though it was the avowed purpose of the Board to obtain and supply such information for the public good.
There is one very important fact in connection
with the treatment of the cholera patients in the
Homoeopathic Hospital, which deserves to be extensively made known, and it is this: The medical
officers of that hospital, desirous that the nature and
severity of the cases received there, as well as the
treatment pursued, should be witnessed and recorded
by some neutral party, invited Dr. Macloughlin, a
medical inspector appointed by the Board of Health,
and one who was always strongly opposed to homoeopathy, to watch the cases. He did so, and we
cannot better convey an idea of the effect which
was produced upon his mind by what he observed
in the hospital, than by giving an extract of a letter,
which he himself wrote to one of the surgeons of
the Homceopathic Hospital:*
" You are right," he says, " I did tell you I would
report to the General Board of Health the opinion I
had formed of the manner the poor cholera patients
were cared for in your hospital, and the success of
your treatment; but finding that I could not enter
into the details relative to your hospital without
entering also into details relative to allopathic hospi- British Journal of Homceopathy, vol. xiii, page 681.
M




134         HOM(EOPATHY AND THE
tals, which would lead me into considerations foreign
to the sanitary question before me, I therefore merely
gave the result arrived at in yours, along with the
results arrived at in other establishments, reserving
to myself the liberty to say more in detail, what is
the impression on my mind as to your treatment of
cholera cases, when Ipublish a monograph on cholera.
" You are aware that I went to your hospital prepossessed against the homoeopathic system; that you
had in me, in your camp, an enemy rather than a
friend, and that I must, therefore, have seen some cogent reason there, the first day I went, to come away
so favorably disposed as to advise a friend to send a
subscription to your charitable fund, and I need not
tell you that, I have taken some pains to make myself acquainted with the rise, progress, and medical
treatment of cholera; and that I claim for myself
some right to be able to recognize the disease, and to
know something of what the treatment ought to be;
and, that there may be therefore no misapprehension about the cases I saw in your hospital, I will
add, that all I saw were true cases of cholera, in the
various stages of the disease; and that I saw several
cases which did well under your treatment, which I
have no hesitation in saying would have sunk under
any other.
"In conclusion, I must repeat to you, what I have
already told you, and what I have told every one with




BOARD OF HEALTH.             135
whom I have conversed, that although an allopath by
principle, education, and practice, yet was it the will
of Providence to afflict me with cholera, and to
deprive me of the power of prescribing for myself, I
would rather be in the hands of a homoeopathic
than an allopathic adviser."
Now here is a gentleman, an allopath and an
opponent of homieopathy, who had the candour,
honestly to investigate the truth of the system, and
with open eyes to go and witness its practical effects
in one of the most deadly of all diseases, and the
effect upon his mind was such, that he declared, that
should he ever be afflicted with cholera, and deprived
of the power of prescribing for himself, he would
rather be in the hands of a homceopathic than an
allopathic adviser. This we are satisfied is the
conclusion every one will come to, who can divest
himself of prejudice, and investigate homoeopathy
in earnest.
That the returns from the homoeopathic hospital
should have had no effect upon the Committee of the
Board of Health, is not to be wondered at; for it has
come out in correspondence that, they had previously
agreed and resolved, not to publish the returns from
homoeopathic practitioners, for, said they, by so doing.
"' they would give an unjustifiable sanction to an
empirical practice, alike opposed to the maintenance
of. truth, and to the progress of science." They had




136         THE BOARD OF HEALTH.
in ignorance settled that homoeopathy was a delusion,
and its statistics unworthy of notice. The evidence
of their own medical inspector, in regard to what he
saw in the homoeopathic hospital, must surely have
touched the conscience of some of the members of
that Board.
We are surprised that the medical gentlemen,
who drew out the general report, should in such a
momentous matter, have allowed themselves to be
so far guided by prejudice and sectarianism, as to
conceal from the public, the important facts made
known to them in the returns of the homoeopathic
hospital.  Surely sectarian prejudice beclouds the
reason and intellect, and shuts out the light of truth.
All impartial judges would agree that, that system
which saved the most lives was the system which
was most in harmony with the maintenance of truth,
and the progress of science.  The committee appointed by the Board of Health, with Dr. Paris as
its president, decided otherwise, and withheld from
the Parliament and the country at large, the
knowledge of the important fact that, during the
prevalence of cholera last year in London, while the
mortality  under the  most successful allopathic
treatment, was 36.2 per cent., under homoeopathic
treatment, it was only 16.4 per cent.-less than
one-half!




STATISTICS COMPARED.                 137
COMPARATIVE view of the two modes of treatment, taken from the Homoeopathic Reports already
given on the one hand, and from the Reports of the
Dundee Infirmary from 1850 to 1854 on the other.
Treated allopathically.
Inflammation of Lungs 77 cases. 51 discharged. 20 deaths. 26
per cent. 6 under treatment.
Treated homoeopathically.
Inflammation of Lungs 199 cases. 180 cured 19. deaths. 9~ per
cent.
Treated allopathically.
Scarlet Fever 29 cases. 23 discharged. 6 deaths. 201 per cent.
Treated homoeopathically.
Scarlet Fever 46 cases.   45 cured.   1 death. 2* per cent.
Treated allopathically.
Inflammation of Brain* 10 cases. 3 cured. 7 deaths. 70 per cent.
Treated homoeopathically.
Inflammation of Brain 54 cases. 25 cured. 3 deaths. 5~ per cent.
26 under treatment.
Treated allopathically.
Apoplexy 6 cases.   1 cured.  5 deaths.  83 per cent.
Treated homoeopathically.
Apoplexy 21 cases.  15 cured.  6 deaths.  29 per cent.
Treated allopathically.
Vomiting of blood 8 cases.  4 cured. 4 deaths.  44 per cent.
Treated homoeopathically.
Vomiting of blood 11 cases.   10 cured.  1 under treatment,
These statistics might be easily extended if it
were necessary: but we consider the above as amply
sufficient. They demonstrate from beginning to end
* A disease in which strong measures are looked upon as
indispensable.
I 2




138      OPPOSITION AND PERSECUTION.
the great superiority of the homoeopathic over the
allopathic mode of treatment; and more especially
in those diseases which are allowed by all to be the
most dangerous and speedily fatal.  Opponents may
distort and twist these figures as they please, it is of
no use.  The facts remain unaltered and unalterable,
and speak for themselves.
CHAPTER VIII.
OPPOSITION AND PERSECUTION.
Case of Ambrose Par6-of Dr. Greenfield-Collegiate opposition
to Homoeopathy-And Denunciation of Homceopaths -Editorial Defamation and Slander-Dr. Combe and our opponents
-Medical Directory and Homoeopaths —Cause of Persecution.
It will not be necessary to advance many proofs
to substantiate a fact like this, that is so generally
known —namely that, homeopathists have been and
are still very much persecuted and defamed by their
allopathic brethren. The fact is patent to every one
who is to any extent acquainted with the past history and present condition of homoeopathy, either at
home or abroad.
At first sight, one feels inclined to wonder that
this should be the case. That one medical man,




AMBROSE PARE.              139
should persecute and defame his brother practitioner,
who is in every respect as well qualified as himself,
merely, because the latter has, to his other medical
attainments, added a knowledge of a new and better
system of medicine called homoeopathy; and has the
honesty and courage to declare his preference for
that new system, and to follow it out in his practice!
And yet on due reflection our wonder ceases. Almost
all great improvements and discoveries which have
been opposed to the prevailing customs of the age,
have met with severe opposition, and the authors of
them with persecution. To give only one example
out of many; look at Ambrose Pare, the Father of
French surgery, who first introduced the practice of
arresting the bleeding from arteries arising from
accident or after operation by the ligature, in place
of the prevailing barbarous practice, of besmearing
the part with boiling oil or hot pitch! what difficulties and opposition he had to contend against in
making his discovery known! He was positively
forbidden from publishing an account of his discovery; and only succeeded after years of earnest
pleading in obtaining a special permit from the king
directly, in opposition to the efforts of the then
reigning medical faculty. The case of Dr. Greenfield too is worthy of mention.  This gentleman
was put in jail by the president of the College of
Physicians, merely because he gave cantharides in
diseases of the bladder.




140         COLLEGIATE OPPOSITION.
In every age of the world there have been individuals or parties who, in regard to every innovation
or improvement in their particular province, have
felt it to be their interest to oppose and resist to the
very last every such improvement; and to excite
and stimulate to the same opposition all those over
whom their influence extended. This has been precisely the case with allopaths in regard to homceopathy.  Collegiate corporations, and  educational
functionaries, whose very existence were bound up
with the permanency and establishment of allopathy,
have felt it to be their interest to condemn and
oppose that new and aspiring innovation-homoeopathy; and to draw over to the same opposition the
great mass of practitioners, who are ever at the beck
and nod of their leaders, ready to catch up and reecho whatever note is sounded in their ears. Those
allopathic colleges and journalists, knowing the
rotten and indefensible nature of the system which
they have pledged themselves to teach and support;
have seen with alarm the gradual rise and progress
of that new and flourishing system, in the discovery
and development of which they themselves have had
no part nor lot; and knowing that the system
differs entirely from all those time-serving and
ephemeral novelties which had dazzled the eyes of
the profession in bygone ages-that it is no amere
addition to the old system of practice, but that, it




TO HOMCEOPATHY.              141
strikes at the root of all the fallacies and imperfections of the prevailing system; and has for its aim
and end the entire and final overthrow of their
orthodox faith and practice; have determined to
make use of every means in their power to crush this
new system by force. Had they attempted to refute
the claims of homoeopathy on scientific or rational
principles; or, to demonstrate the superiority of the
old over the new mode of treatment, their course
would have been in the highest degree consistent
and praiseworthy.  But, in place of that, they met,
in council and decided without even a show of reason
that, homoeopathy was a delusion and quackery, and
its supporters were cheats and impostors. The decision harmonised with the prejudices of the profession generally, and the cry of delusion and quackery
soon spread through almost their entire ranks. The
mass of the laity too knowing no better, caught the
infection and joined in the cry. From that moment
a system of defamation and persecution of the
lowest and meanest character was maintained against
homoeopathists, who, notwithstanding, have stood
firm in the faith, and have flinched not from the
cause of truth and humanity.
The medical faculties of the Universities of St.
Andrew's and Edinburgh, supported by the Royal
College of Physicians, resolved to refuse the degree
of doctor of medicine to all students who would not




142      OPPOSITION TO HOM(EOPATHY.
pledge themselves not to practice homceopathy; and
the Provincial and Surgical Association of Brighton
published a manifesto to the effect,"that, homeopathy
as propounded by Hahnemann, and practiced by his
followers, is so utterly opposed to science and common
sense, as well as so completely at variance with the
experience of the medical profession, that it ought to
be in no way or degree practiced or countenanced by
regularly educated medical practitioners." It would
have redounded much more to the honour and credit
of those several bodies, had they attempted to disprove the truth of homceopathy on well established
scientific principles. This, however, for a very sufficient reason they did not find convenient to do.
Like their great prototype, they found it much more
convenient to issue a bull, denouncing the new system
as an innovation not to be tolerated. The system,
say they, is " opposed to science and common sense,"
and " at variance with the experience of the profession." These are strong expressions, and heavy-like
charges: and had they been proven would very
properly have been highly damaging to the cause of
homoeopathy. But they turned out to be merely bare
assertions, unsupported by even a shadow of proof.
What scientific truth homceopathy denies we have
never been able to find out. Surely the gentlemen
might have given us one example as a specimen.
The objection that homoeopathy opposes science and




EDITORIAL DEFAMATION.          143
common sense has been already considered. That it
is at variance with the experience of the profession
will not be wondered at when we come to examine
the nature and results of that experience found in
the confessions of some of the foremost allopathic
authors.
The editor of the Lancet having taken a prominent
part in connexion with homceopathy and homoeopaths,
we shall give a few quotations from his articles as
specimens of editorial persecution.  " In a series of
articles," that lion of editors says, "' we have endeavoured to expose the folly and knavery of homoeopathy, and to make evident the sordid motives of its professors." "' These men must have hearts harder than
the nether millstone, and consciences seared with guilt
to be able to persevere in a life of such infamy and
horror. Conscious of their own falsehood, practising
an admitted lie, without compassion and without
remorse."
Such is the horrible language of one who is a leader
and teacher in the Allopathic School. What kind of
treatment can we look for at the hands of those who
are under the influence and training of such a leader?
The malicious ravings of this gentleman at the progress of homceopathy, though in the highest degree
palatable to those of the profession, who had minds
similar to his own, produced feelings of unmingled
disgust in many of those who deservedly stand high



144        EDITORIAL DEFAMATION.
est in the profession, and who were not under the
influence of sectarian rancour, but were willing to
extend to us the same liberty of judgment which
they claimed to themselves. Not a few of these,
though in no way practising homoeopathy, yet, treated
homoeopathists as gentlemen; and, as occasion presented itself, met with them in professional consultation as brethren, notwithstanding the violent opposition of the faculty generally. This gave mortal offence
to the editor of the Lancet, who accordingly came out
with another leader in the following strain:-" We
have endeavoured in previous numbers of this journal
to rouse the great republic of doctors to a sense of
the monstrous laxity of opinion and conduct which has
prevailed in the highest quarters of the profession, on
the subject of irregular practice. We have reason to
believe that we have not unsuccessfully done so; that
the culprits are more observant of themselves, and if
not grown better, are at least more prudent. But we
tell them again that mere prudence will not satisfy
us; our vow is made, to extirpate without mercy this
low-toned behaviour. * * *  It is not easy to conceive an honest homeeopath. * * *  No intercourse
whatever can be held-no terms must be kept with
men who are slack in understanding what honour and
duty so plainly require, and are willing to live under
a load of obloquy and shame." In this shocking
quotation we have the admission that there are men




DR. COMIBE AND OUR OPPONENTS.    145
in the highest quarters of the profession who are
favourable to homoeopathists.
There are a number of other articles of the same
venomous character, which it is not necessary to
quote. It is true, that of late the editor has calmed
down very much, and we no more meet with those
violent expressions of storm and rage which characterise his former lucubrations. How very different
from this despotic editor and his colleagues, was the
course pursued by men of a truly philosophic spirit.
Dr. Combe for example in a letter to Dr. Forbes on
this very point thus expresses himself. " I press all
these considerations upon you, not from any particular leaning towards homeopathy, or any other new
and disputed branch of knowledge, but because of
the transcendant importance of cultivating science in
a right spirit, and offering truth a ready and unprejudiced welcome from whatever quarter it may come.
Ridicule and declamation may be rightfully employed
to explode errors after they shall have been proved to
be so; but they are most unfit instruments for the
primary investigation of truth, and as such ought to
be banished for ever from scientific discussion, and a
candid spirit of philosophical inquiry be instituted in
their room." If, in regard to homeopathy, medical
men had followed the advice of Dr. Combe, how
different would the practice of medicine have been
at the present moment; and what a blessing it would
N




146            OUR OPPONENTS.
have been to mankind.  But self-interest, and a
spirit of opposition dictated a very different course.
If they would even now lay aside all party spirit and
heartburnings and begin to study the merits of
homeopathy in right earnest, a great and glorious
reform in medicine would very soon be brought about.
But it is just because the great bulk of medical men
either dare not, or will not be at the trouble to investigate for themselves, that opposition to the cause of
homoeopathy still continues. That they possess an
intelligent conviction of the truthfulness of allopathy and of the fallacy of homeopathy, is not true.
No medical man who understands his profession ever
maintained that allopathy was a true system of
medicine founded on any established law of healing.
No one was ever so blind as to imagine this. And
no one who has studied homoeopathy in such a way
as thoroughly to understand it, has ever found it out
to be fallacious or deceitful. The truth is that, apart
from the stigma of small doses, (and on this their
knowledge is excessively perverted and erroneous,)
few allopaths know anything about hommeopathy at
all; and from the course which they have pursued it
is scarcely possible to conceive of their having any
consciousness of being in the possession of truth.
Every one who knows that he has right on his side,
feels, not only that he is impregnable against all the
arts and wiles of his opponents, but that he is in




OUR OPPONENTS.              147
possession of an instrument which must eventually
triumph over and destroy all opposition.  Our opponents, instead of maintaining a position of high moral
confidence in the defence of their system, have stooped
to the lowest and meanest position that man can
occupy. They have branded us with every opprobrious
and hateful name, they have heaped upon us calumny
and abuse without measure. They have, in as far as
they had the power, excommunicated us from all the
rights and privileges of professional men, and left not
a stone unturned in trying to injure our good name in
the estimation of the public. They will not allow us
to write in their periodicals —they have clandestinely
given to their adherents garbled and most imperfect
views of this great question, and debarred all free
discussion and investigation. Our course has ever
been the reverse of this. The pages of our periodicals
are open to all; and, we hold ourselves at all times
open to conviction, and ready to learn. While we
are candid and faithful in the exposure of what we
believe to be erroneous and dangerous to the public
good, we at the same time impute to no man nor
party principles which they disavow. And while
we freely and fearlessly express our own convictions
of what we believe to be true, we usurp no authority
over those who differ from us, but invite them to hear,
examine, judge and decide for themselves.
The persecuting and hateful spirit which exists




148  MEDICAL DIRECTORY AND HONIEOPATHY.
among a large class of allopaths, was painfully
manifested a few years ago, when a general medical
directory for Great Britain was being published.
The compilers anxious to give satisfaction to the
profession at large, were not quite sure as to the
propriety of publishing the names and titles of those
medical men who openly professed to practice
homeeopathy, and accordingly the mind of the profession was taken on the subject. The following
are some of the answers returned to the question,'should the names of homceopathists be inserted in
the Directory?'
" No list of homoeopathic'quacks and humbugs,'
I will not have my copy if you do."
"No; unless published to warn us of all such
empirics."
"No; swindlers."
"No; strike the renegades out of all lists."
"No; send them to -."
" No; omit the names of the apostates altogether."
"No; unless you like to publish the vagabonds
in a distinct list of quacks and humbugs."
There were many other answers given similar to
these, but the specimens here are sufficient to show
the animus of the men who are leagued against us.
We can well afford to pity those men who could
entertain and give expression to such vile sentimnents; and only lament that the profession of




CAUSE OF PERSECUTION.           149
medicine should be stained and disgraced by such
members.
It is but justice to record here, and we do so
cheerfully, that the answers given by those gentlemen
who occupy the highest position in the profession,
were of a very different stamp; and, that by the
influence of these gentlemen the names of homoeopathists were published in the Directory.
There is a certain class of men among our opponents with whom no kind nor amount of reason will
have any effect. They have already made up their
minds that we are wrong-that we are rebels, and
they will give us no quarter. True, they have no
law to punish the heretic and heterodox in medicine
with death, the spirit of our times would not allow
it. But still there is a species of newspaper and
journal defamation-of professional and collegiate
calumny —of medical society gossiping, all intended
to injure our reputation and destroy our usefulness.
And considering that this conduct is on our part
altogether undeserved, it is not less criminal than
imprisonment or banishment.
And what, let us ask, is the cause of all this persecution and opposition? Are we deficient in any of
the qualifications which go to constitute the regular
practitioner? No; we have gone through the same
courses of study-have been educated in the same
schools, and are in possession of the very same cerN2




150         CAUSE OF PERSECUTION.
tificates, degrees, and diplomas with themselves. Are
we less in earnest about the health and welfare of
the community? Verily no; every one who knows
anything about homceopathy, knows the great amount
of toil, deep research, and close study that are required in its practice. Are we less successful in
curing disease than they are? Let facts speak and
examine our statistics. Is the practice of homoeopathy
hazardous? No; it never can be; while that of
allopathy is proverbially and eminently so. Would
the prevalence of our system operate injuriously on
society? No; it strikes at the root of many of the
abuses and corruptions of the age; while allopathy
in many instances ministers to these and fosters
them. Is allopathy more consistent with reason and
facts than homeopathy? We invite them to the
investigation and proof of the subject.
The true cause of this persecution is not to be
found in one nor in all of these. It is to be found
in the prejudice, self-interest and fear of public
opinion, on the part of our opponents on the one
hand, and in the inherent truth of homoeopathy on
the other. We hear of no such opposition to any
other system, nor to any thing else belonging to
medicine.  Some medical men, it is true, class homieopathy with Holloway's pills and other quackeries
of the same kin. Others again class it with hydropathy, mesmerism, and other novelties. But do any




CAUSE OF PERSECUTION.          151
of these other quackeries or novelties meet with such
opposition as homceopathy? No: none of them!
And why? Medical men know full well that these
will soon find their level, and cannot in any marked
degree affect their craft.  But homeopathy! ah,
there is something in that which staggers them. It
is unlike all past impositions-all ephemeral systems
which have come to an early death. There is something in homoeopathy which troubles and annoys
them exceedingly.  They now begin to see and
feel that there is a vital principle in it which will
prevent its natural death, and therefore, they must
try to crush it by force. They will not let it alone,
nor give it a fair field. Calumny, defamation and
persecution must be had recourse to in order to
destroy it, but all to no purpose-it lives and thrives
still. Having buckled on the armour of truth we
are confident of victory. We have gained much,
and are conquering still; and, though we may not
be inclined always to submit to the unjust persecution of our opponents, we will not stoop to throw
back the sentence of exclusion or condemnation
upon any.  We invite and encourage all to come
and join with us in the cause of truth.




152       ALLOPATHIC REVELATIONS.
CHAPTER IX.
ALLOPATHIC REVELATIONS.
Different Classes of Medical Men-Confessions of Dr. Forbesof Bichat-Dr. Guy-Boerhaave-Gardner-Andrew Combe
-Adam Smith-Dr. Routh-Paris-Professor WidekindHufeland-James Johnson-Franks-Reid-Krueger Hansen-Sir Astley Cooper-Keiser-Addison-AbernethyProfessor Gregory-Dr. Bailie —Dickson-Brown-LeesonThe Editor of the Lancet-The Medical Circular-Dublin
Medical Journal-Medical Times.
THE advocates of the old system of practice having
so violently condemned and opposed homceopathy;
one would naturally expect that they;would have
some confidence in the system they themselves
practiced-that they would have some faith in it as
being a system based on true and sound principles,
and therefore highly beneficial to society. One would
really expect this, for it is equally true, that no system
of error can possibly tend to the commonweal, however strongly it may be advocated, or however much
it may appear to benefit a class; and that every system based upon truth, must contribute to the public
good, no matter how much it may be denounced, or
how much it may appear to injure a particular party.
To say that medical men of the old school have no




CLASSES OF MEDICAL MEN.          153
enlightened confidence in the practice they pursue,
may be within the bounds of truth; but to say that,
as a rule, they knowingly practice a fraud on the
public, we do not believe to be true.
In order however, to have something like a correct knowledge of the real condition of allopathic
practice, we shall take an unprejudiced view of the
evidence of the profession itself on this subject.
The great mass of allopaths may be divided into
three classes. 1st, Those who follow their profession
merely because it is their profession —because they
have learned it; who take no pains whatever to
ascertain whether their practice is based on truth or
error-easy-minded individuals, who are quite indifferent on the subject. There is no lack of this class.
2nd, those who are intent on making money; whose
grand and only criterion of the good or the true in
medicine is a lucrative practice-sharp fellows, who
have generally a vocabularly knowledge of all popular
systems, which they can explain, denounce, or approve of, just as it may happen to suit the " main
chance." This too forms a numerous class. 3d,
those who, by hard and long-continued study, have
made themselves masters of their profession —men of
a high intellectual stamp, guided by an innate love
of scientific and philosophic research, who have carefully examined the claims of the system they practice,
and narrowly scrutinized the evidences of its truth



154      CONFESSIONS OF DR. FORBES.
fulness. Of these there is a goodly number. And
as these are the only men whose judgment in regard
to the true nature of the allopathic system of practice
would be worth receiving; to them we will appeal
for evidence.  The first of these we shall consult is
Dr. Forbes, one of the court physicians, and a gentleman of European celebrity. In the Foreign and
British Medical Review he thus expresses himself:"lst. That in a large proportion of the cases
treated by allopathic physicians, the disease is cured
by nature, not by them.
" 2nd. That in a lesser, but still not a small proportion, the disease is cured by nature, in spite of
them; in other words their interference opposing,
instead of assisting the cure.
"3rd. That consequently, in a considerable proportion of disease, it would fare as well, or better,
with patients, in, the actual condition of the medical art, as more generally practiced, if all remedies,
at least all active remedies, especially drugs, were
abandoned. * *
"Although homoeopathy has brought more signally into the common day light this lamentable
condition of medicine regarded as a practical art, it
was one well known befoW to all philosophical and
experienced physicians.
"It is in fact a truth of such magnitude-one so
palpably evident, that it was impossible for any care



DR. FORBES.                155
ful reader of the history of medicine, or any long
observer of the progress of disease, not to be aware
of it. What, indeed is the history of medicine but
a history of perpetual changes in the opinions and
practice of its professors, respecting the very same
subjects —the nature and the treatment of diseases?
And, amid all these changes, often extreme and
directly opposed to one another, do we not find these
very diseases, the subject of them, remaining (with
some exceptions) still the same in their progress and
general event? Sometimes, no doubt, we observe
changes in the character and event, obviously depending on the change in the treatment, and alas!
as often for the worse as for the better; but it holds
good, as a general rule, that amid all the changes in
the treatment, the proportion of the cures and deaths
has remained nearly the same, or, at least if it has
varied, the variation has borne no fixed relation to
the difference of treatment." And further on while
speaking on the same subject, he adds, " Things have
arrived at such a pitch, that they cannot be worse.
They must mend or end."  Such is Dr. Forbes'
estimate of allopathy.
But this is not all, at page 258-9 of the same
Review when speaking of the comparative powerlessness and uncertainty of allopathic medicine, he adds,
"What difference of opinion, what an array of
alleged facts directly at variance with each other;




1 56             DR. FORBES.
what contradictions; what opposite results of a like
experience; what ups and downs; what glorification and degradation of the same remedy; what
confidence now-what despair anon, in encountering
the same disease with the very same weapons; what
horror and intolerance at one time of the very opinions and practices which, previously and subsequently, we cherished and admired."
Ask one of the gentlemen of the second class, and
what a different report he will give of the present
state of medical practice.  He will tell you of this
wonderful discovery, and of the other wonderful
discovery-of this great improvement, and the other
great improvement-of this new medicine and the
other new medicine: in fact, of a host of things, to
persuade you that the profession has made great
progress; and that medical men now-a-days are far
more able to cure diseases than they used to be.
The great thing with these gentlemen is, to make
people believe that medical men know far more than
they really do  Not so with Dr. Forbes: he believes that medical practice is now in such a deplor.ble state, that it "cannot be worse;" and, from
the evidence before us, we suspect that he is right.
The celebrated Bichat, after many years experience thus describes the allopathic system:-" To
what errors have not mankind been led in the
employment and denomination of medicines? They




BICHAT.                 157
created deobstruents, when the theory of obstruction
was in fashion, and incisive when that of thickening
of the humors prevailed. The expressions of diluents
and attenuants were common before this period.
When it was necessary to blunt the acrid particles,
they invented inviscants, incrassants, &c. Those who
saw in diseases a relaxation or tension of the fibres,
the laxum and strictumre as they called it," (medical
jargon,) "employed astringents and relaxants. Refrigerants and heating remedies, were brought into
use by those who had a special regard in diseases to
an excess or a deficiency of caloric. The same identical remedies have been employed under different
names, according to the manner in which they were
supposed to act. Deobstruent in one case, relaxant in
another, the same medicine has been employed with
all these opposite views; so true is it that the mind
of man gropes in the dark, when it is guided only
by the wildness of opinion."
"' Hence, the vagueness and uncertainty our science
presents at this day, an incoherent assemblage of incoherent opinions, it is perhaps of all the physiological sciences, that which best shows the caprice of the
human mind. What do I say?  It is not a science
for a methodical mind. It is a shapeless assemblage
of inaccurate ideas, of observations often puerile, of
deceptive remedies, and of formula as fantastically
conceived as they are tediously arranged."
0




158                 DR. GUY.
Such. is allopathy. In its exterior, both before and
since Bichat's time, it has been ever changing; but in
its real nature it has been ever the same. Dr. Guy,
a living author, accounts for this sad state of things in
this way. "That in health and, (by natural inference,) in disease every function of the body varies
within wide limits of intensity. This fact is the key
to the imperfections of medicine as a science, and to
its deficiency as an art." This is a mere palliative
excuse, quite in keeping with the allopathic mode of
treating evils. It ignores the true root of the evil,
which is entirely in the rottenness of their system of
medicine, and its inefficiency to cope successfully
with disease in all its varying forms. A true system
of medicine ought to be capable of adapting itself
to the ever varying symptoms of disease, and the
changing functions of the body, for these variations
and changes will ever continue to exist. It is simply ridiculous to throw the blame of the imperfections and deficiencies of allopathy upon the varying
functions of the human body.
Boerhaave says, " If we compare the good which
half-a-dozen true disciples of Esculapius have done
since their art began, with the evil that the immense
number of doctors have inflicted on mankind, we must
be satisfied, that it would have been infinitely better,
if medical men had never existed."
The following confession of Dr. John Gardner, an




DR. GARDNER.               159
opponent of homoeopathy, is of great importance, as
showing the total inefficiency of allopathy in the treatment of scarlet fever on the one hand, and the successful results of homceopathic treatment on the other,
he says: "In the course of many years' experience I
have had many times reason to feel deeply the want
of a remedy against scarlet fever. It will, I suppose,
be admitted by all, that this disease is the result of
a specific poison; and that the general principles of
treatment, as applicable to other fevers, whether
arising from aerial poisons or other causes, often
disappoint us in scarlet fever. During the prevalence
of this epidemic at certain seasons a more malignant
character seems impressed on the disease. Our best
means fail, and our patients die, apparently wholly
unaffected by our treatment. Such at least has been
my experience. I have seen whole families thus
swept off, in spite of every effort, and the united
councils of many practitioners."
This same Dr. Gardner, having at a later period
been induced to try belladonna, (a homeeopathic
remedy,) in this disease, thus relates his experience
with it.  "Without reckoning slight cases of scarlet
fever and sore throat, I have treated 30 cases with
symptoms more or less grave, by means of the belladonna. In very many of these I should formerly
have entertained no hope of seeing the patient pass
through the attack, the approach of the disease being




160    BELLADONNA IN SCARLET FEVER.
marked by a malignant aspect. I need not enumerate the peculiar symptoms which characterise fatal
scarlet fever, they are well known to every practitioner. In the absence of the belladonna I have watched
with great anxiety these fatal tokens; they allow
little room for our anticipations being negatived.
But with the belladonna I have not yet met with a
fatal case." Dr. Gardner is a well known allopathic
physician, one who knows his profession well; and
as he has had practical experience in the subject
of which he has written, his testimony is most decisive, at least in so far as his experience went.
Belladonna is a well known homoeopathic remedy in
certain forms of scarlet fever, and its efficacy, as
witnessed by Dr. Gardner, was such that he had
never known it to fail, even in those cases in which
he could have entertained no hope when using allopathic remedies. The efficacy of belladonna however
in curing scarlet fever, is not any more remarkable
than that of all the other remedies in the homeeopathic materia medica, when these remedies are
properly used. It is no mere accident or coincidence
that belladonna cures scarlet fever. Experiments
of the most satisfactory character on healthy individuals, prove beyond a doubt that belladonna actually
does produce on the healthy body a diseased condition,
having a striking resemblance to that form of scarlet
fever which it is found to cure. And it was on the




DR. COMBE.                161
ground of its being able to produce this artificial
state of disease, resembling scarlet fever, that it was
first employed and recommended by homoeopathists
in the treatment of that malady; and its successful
results in practice prove the truth of the principle
which first lead to its use.  There are certain forms
of scarlet fever for which belladonna is not suited,
but every true homoeopathist knows how to select
the proper remedy for every form of the complaint.
The highly accomplished Dr. Andrew Combe on
reviewing the pre ent condition of medical practice
was constrained to make the following confession.
1" In fact," he says, " medicine as often practiced by
men of undoubted respectability, is made so much
of a mystery, and is so nearly allied, if not identified
with quackery, that it would puzzle many a rational
onlooker to tell which is the one and which is the
other." Dr. Combe was well known to be a most
accurate observer of facts, and a most highly talented
physician; his evidence is therefore valuable. -
Another authority of almost equal importance,
namely the well known Adam Smith, makes a confession nearly to the same purpose as Dr. Combe.
He says, " The great success of quacks in England
has been altogether owing to the real quackery of
the regular physicians."
The following statement of Dr. Routh of London
shows the deception that is practiced, and affords au
o02




162      DR. ROUTH AND BREAD PILLS.
instance of the loose and vague language employed
by allopaths.  He says, that some of his "most
remarkable cures" were effected by bread pills 
Now, for any one to believe that he has cured a
disease with bread pills, is simply to believe an
untruth.  Bread.is an alimentary, nutritive substance, and is no medicine; it has a nutritive and
not a medicinal action on the organism. The confession of Dr. Routh is however an important one,
though we by no means approve of the practice of
deceiving a patient by palming bread pills upon him
in place of proper medicine; still, the more of the
remarkable cures the better, and certainly the more
bread pills, and the less allopathic drugging, the
better for the public. We would hear of more remarkable cures, if allopaths generally would abandon
their physic, and give instead Dr. Routh's bread pills.
In speaking of those horrid mixtures which allopaths are daily in the habit of prescribing, Dr. Paris
says; " The file of every Apothecary would furnish
a volume of instances where the ingredients of the
prescription were fighting together in the dark."
Professor Widekind, an opponent of Honioeopathy,
says: "In our present mixture practice we may get
grey, and if God pleases, white hair, but never experience. If, however, Homoeopathy induces us to give
less medicine, to change it less frequently, and not to
mix many drugs toyether, we may some day, with




DR. HUFELAND.              163
careful observations, glory in medical experience
which we unhappily cannot do at present."-RHufeland's Journal, 1828.
And that the public would upon the whole be benefitted bywa total abandonment of every allopathic
medicine whatever, we have the testimony of no less
an authority than Dr. Hufeland, of Berlin, he says:
"' My opinion is, that more harm than good is done by
physicians; and I am convinced, that, had I left my
patients to nature, instead of prescribing drugs to
them, more would have been saved." This strengthens Dr. Routh's evidence, in favour of bread pills.
How would the great mass of allopathic physic takers
feel if a law were passed, entirely prohibiting the use
of all kinds of drugs, and nothing but bread pills to
be used in stead? What would the opium eater do,
when he had neither opium, nor morphia, nor laudanumn to flee to? What would the pill-consumer do,
when all his pills were taken away, and he had
neither salts nor senna, nor jalap tobetake himself to?
What would the tonic and stomachic mixture drinker
do, when his quinine was gone, and no bark, columba,
quassia, nor ginger was to be got? How would these
and a thousand others relish the bread pills, in
place of their accustomed dose of orthodox physic?
We fear they would think it was all up with them,
that they could never survive without drugs. And
yet the evidence of Dr. Hufeland, Dr. Routh, and




164              DR. JOHNSON.
others would lead us to believe that the change to
bread pills would be for the benefit of the sick, more
patients would lte saved, and more remarkable cures
effected.
Dr. James Johnson also corroborates this in the
following terms: "' I declare," he says, " it to be my
most conscientious opinion that, if there were not a
single physician, or surgeon, or apothecary, or manmid-wife, or chemist, or druggist, or drug in the
world, there would be less mortality amongst mankind than there is now." These are startling statements and we can conceive of no motive whatever
these gentlemen could have in giving expression to
them, but a sincere conviction of their truth. We
have testimony from the allopathic camp that, there
is something more dreadful than this still in connexion with allopathic practice.
Frank says, "The medical police, is restricted to
public business, and directed against contagion,
epidemics, quacks, &c. But it is not considered,
that thousands are slaughtered in the quiet sickroom.
Government should at once, either banish medical
men and their art, or, they should take proper
measures, that the lives of people may be safer than
at present, when they look far less after the practice
of this dangerous art, and the murders: committed
in it, than after the lowest trades."-System  der.ediz. Poliz., vol. i., 6.




SIR ASTLEY COOPER.            165
Dr. Reid too makes the following horrifying confession.  "More infantile subjects," he says, "are
perhaps, diurnally destroyed by the mortar and
pestle than, in the ancient Bethlehem, fell victims
in one day to the Herodian massacre."
The well-known Sir Astley Cooper too, bears testimony on this subject in language not to be misunderstood.  "The science of medicine," he says "' was
founded on conjecture, and improved by murder."
" I know very well," says an old practitioner,' that perhaps more than seven-tenths of mankind
die, not from disease, but from the unsuitableness
and excess of medicine." —Algem. Anzeiger. d.
Deuschen, 1833, 235.
Keiser says, " In most cases, the proverb is true, that
the remedy is worse than the disease, and the doctor
more dangerous than the disorder." —Syst. der Mediz.
Though the great mass of the public have never
dreamt of the horrors connected with allopathic
practice, there have always been a few who knew
them well. Among these, we cannot but here refer
to Addison, who, in a number of the Spectator, gives
a picture of the actual practice thus: "If we look
into the profession of physic, we shall find a most
formidable body of men; the sight of them is enough
to make a man serious, for we may lay it down as a
maxim, that when a nation abounds in physicians, it
grows thin of people. Sir William Temple is very
much puzzled to find out a reason why the northern




166                ADDISON.
hive as he calls it, does not send out such prodigious
swarms, and overrun the world with Goths and
Vandals as it did formerly; but had that excellent
author observed that there were no students in physic
among the subjects of Thor and Wodin, and that this
science very much flourishes in the north at present,
he might have found a better solution for this difficulty
than any of those he has made use of. This body of
men in our country may be described like the British
army in Caesar's time; some of them slay in chariots
and some on foot. If the infantry do less execution
than the charioteers, it is because they cannot be carried so soon into all quarters of the town, and dispatch
so much business in so short a time. Besides this body
of regular troops, there are stragglers, who, without
being duly listed and enrolled, do infinite mischief to
those who are so unlucky as to fall into their hands."
Abernethy says'There has been a great number
of medical men of late years, but, upon my life
diseases have increased in proportion." Professor
Gregory declares, " that medical doctrines are little
better than stark-staring absurdities."
Dr. Bailie declares that he has no faith whatever
in medicine.
Dr. Dickson says "so far as my experience of medical matters goes, few people are permitted to die of
disease. The orthodox fashion is todieof the doctor."
In case the reader should now be beginning to
think that he has had a sufficiency of confessions of




TREATMENT OF CONSUMPTION.          167
this sort for the present, we shall introduce here a
published specimen of allopathic treatment. Professor S. H. Bennet, (an opponent of homoeopathy,) in
speaking of the allopathic treatment of consumption
goes on to say, " Thus it is by no means uncommon
to meet with patients who are taking at the same time
a mixture containing sqjuills and ipecacuanha to relieve the cough; an anody/ne draught to cause sleep
and diminish irritability; a mixture containing catechu, gallic acid, tannin, or other astringents, to check
diarrhoea; acetate of lead and opium pills to diminish
heemoptysis; sulphuric acid drops to relieve the sweating; and cod-liver oil in addition. "1 I have seen," he
adds, " many persons taking all these medicines and
several others at one time, with a mass of bottles and
boxes at the bedside sufficient to furnish an apothecary's shop." No wonder that consumptive patients are
incurable under such monstrous treatment as this!
how can they? It is fashionable with some doctors,
at the present day, to give their consumptive patients
iodine to paint over the chest. Poor deluded patients,
they may just as well paint the soles of their feet.
The entire system of allopathic therapeutics, and
almost the whole of their materia medica are now
ooked upon by men of science as destitute of all
value. Dr. Brown says, he " wasted more than twenty
years in learning, teaching and diligently scrutinizing
avery part of medicine." Twenty years of such study;he doctor looked upon as so much time wasted.




168       TESTIMONY OF DR. BROWN.
Mr. Leeson, an opponent of.homceopathy, thus
expresses himself on the same subject. " There are,"
he says, " about four hundred and ten preparations
in the pharmacopoeia of the Royal College of Physicians, which no doubt are considered by that learned
body as useful for medicinal purposes, or else they
would not have been mentioned there. It is from this
collection that the medical youths qf this country are
instructed to cull their remedies, and apply them in
every form of disease. Now, any practical man of
ten or twenty years' standing must have found that
fozur hundred of these preparations are of little or
no value whatever in the treatment of any form of
disease; and, that about the remaining ten might
have assisted him in reducing at one time or other,
cases occurring in every department of his practice.
"Nearly all the waters, confections, decoctions, extracts, infusions, liquors, mixtures, essential oils, spirits, tinctures, have little or no influence over any form
of disease, when used as internal or external remedies.
"Many of the mineral preparations are absolutely
injurious in their effects under every circumstance,
while the retention of other remedies is burlesque
and nonsense.  Why, then, divert the mind of the
student by compelling him to study the natural history, preparation, properties, composition, effects and
uses of such a farrago of worthlessness; while the
higher and more philosophical walks of medical
science are entirely kept from his grasp? Now this




TESTIMONY OF LEESON.            169
system must be adopted either by design or ignorance;
if by the former, the person to whom the legislature
baye entrusted their confidence should be discharged
from their several appointments with fine and imprisonment; or, if from the latter, be discharged as
incompetent, &c."*
Such are the conclusions to which some of the best
and foremost in the profession have come to in regard
to the allopathic mode of medical treatment.  The
public in general know nothing of this. They see
the outer garb of the profession all fair and promising; its advocates clothed with professional dignity,
dispensing their nostrums and mysterious medical
advice with that decision and assumption as though
they had commission and authority from the veritable
medical St. Peter himself. These confessions give a
peep behind the scene, and reveal the hidden deformities of that wretched system.
But we are not yet finished with this head. There
is a class of men who, from their peculiar position do
undoubtedly exercise a powerful influence over the
profession, and who to a great extent give to it its
general tone-we mean editors of medical periodicals.
And as most of these gentry have had ahit at homoeopathy, we shall take one or two of them to task, and
hearwhat they have to say in behalf of their own syse Liebig's physiology applied in the treatment of functional
derangement and organic disease.
P




170     CONFESSION FROMI THIE LANCET.
temrn of practice. The most prominent of these is the
editor of the Lancet, we shall therefore take him first.
"The subject of specifics," he says, " briefly
noticed in our last number leads us, this week, to the
consideration of empiricism in medicine, with which
the use of specific remedies has in general been
intimately associated. The true meaning of the term' empiricism' is precisely equivalent to experimentation, the system of making trials, in order to find out
what are the facts connected with a given subject. It
has been too much the custom to oppose what is called
rational or empirical medicine, as if there were really
anything discrepant in their nature;' whereas, empiricism, is the most rational thing in the world." * * *
" The vast extent of the sciences connected with
medicine, the intricacies of the inquiries which they
involve; and above all, the extreme difficulty of
bringing the truth of rational science into immediate
and profitable relation with the phenomena of life,
have conspired to render the progress of medical theory exceedingly slow; and it must be confessed that
with all. our science, the practice of medicine owes a
very great partof its efficiency to simple experience."
" A majority of our most potent means of combating disease are derived from simple experience,
and we are unable to give anything like a satisfactory
explanation of their mode of action."
This expounder and teacher of medical science
holds and teaches that, empiricism and experimenta



THE LANCET AND EMPIRICISM.         171
tion are equivalent terms, and that the system  of
experimentation and empiricism is the most rational
thing in the world. We fully agree with the gentleman that experimentation is highly, yea most rational
in its own place. But where is its right place? that
is the question. What is to be the nature of, and
who are to be the subjects of our experiments? Is
it the sick, the afflicted and dying, that are to be the
subjects or who is it? The truth must come out:
the sick, the afflicted, and the dying, are, in reality,
the subjects of allopathic empiricism  and experimentation. How dreadful! Wretched creatures! i
No wonder that the history of medicine furnishes us
with such tales of woe. How can it be otherwise?
Here is a medical teacher of the first stamp advocating the practice of making the sick and the dying
the subjects of empiricism  and experimentation:
well may the public cry out "save us from our
friends!"   We deny that the sick are the proper
subjects of experimentation. These apply to us to be
cured and not to be experimented upon.
The same redoubtable editor in one of his more
calm and serious moments-free, for the time being
from the dangerous beat and excitement of controversy-arrested it may be by the accumulating facts
in favour of homceopathy, takes an impartial view
of the miserable system which he himself advocates,
and feels compelled by sheer necessity to make the
following confession.  "How little do we know of




172     CONFESSION FROM THE LANCET.
disease compared with what we have yet to learn!
Every day developes new views-teaching us that
many of what we before thou/ght immutable truths
deserved only to be classed with baseless theories; yet
dazzled with the splendour of great names (authorities) we adhere to them. On these theories which have
USURPED THE PLACE OF TRUTH, a system of routine or
empirical practice has grown up —vacilating, uncertain, and often pilotless in the treatment of disease."
It is scarcely possible to understand how, in the
face of such confessions as these, men will still
continue to advocate and defend a system so
deplorable.  Surely it is not from a love or regard
to truth or humanity; what then can it be? Reader
can you understand the why?  Baseless theories in
the place of immutable truths, knowing them to be
so, and still adhering to them; a routine and etmpirical system of practice founded on these baseless
theories, palmed on the publid as if true-what, can
we think of it? Is it not full time that an entire reform in medicine should take place? That this routine empirical system of baseless theories called allopathy, should as a system be discarded and given up?
The editor of the Medical Circular also makes the
following confession, " We will not deny," he says,
"there are many prejudices among professional men,
and that stupendous folly will have a better chance
of being received, if it comes from an hospital
physician, than an important truth, if it be merely




FROM THE MEDICAL CIRCULAR.         173
recommended by a modest and humble name." And
further when referring to their theoretical reasonings
he says, " If medical men would consent to discard
their habit of theorizing, which exhibits itself in a
great variety of disguises, and content themselves
with a simple observation and record of facts, the
profession of medicine would rapidly acquire definiteness and accuracy, and rise to the rank of an exact
science." So say we; and until such a reformatory
change takes place, the science of medicine will still
continue to be what it is now —a mass of stupendous
follies. The baseless theories which form the foundation of the allopathic system, must first be abandoned
before any reform can take place. Homoeopathy as
a system, is a faithful and simple observation and
record of facts; and that is the reason why it post
sesses definiteness and accuracy, (both of which
allopathy wants) and therefore deservedly ranks as
one of the exact sciences.
The same editor makes a fuller confession still, no
further back than September last, he says, " Let the
truth be honestly confessed-the practice of medicine is empirical to this day."
The editor of the Dublin Medical Journal is still
more candid than his English cotemporaries. "Assuredly he says, " the uncertain and unsatisfactory
art that we call medical science, is no science at all,
but a mere jumble of inconsistent opinions, of conclusions hastily and often incorrectly drawn, of facts
r2




174           THE MEDICAL TIMES.
misunderstood or perverted, of comparisons without
analogy, of hypotheses without reason, and of
theories not only useless, but dangerous."
The editor of the Medical Times too, calmly but
firmly reveals the present condition of allopathic
practice in these words, "The most profoundly
learned members of the profession begin to waver
about the positive efficacy'of their art, preferring in
the greater number of instances to become silent
lookers on in their attendance on the sick,'rather
than hazarding the risk of impertinent meddling with
the grand and all-efficient workings of the human body."
CHAPTER X.
PROGRESS OF HOM(EOPATHY.
The necessity for Medical Reform-Progress of-Interest of the
Public in this Reform-Allopaths must investigate Homceopathy, &c., &e.
WHo, after perusing these confessions, can have the
slightest doubt that the old system of medicine is one
entirely destitute of truth; pernicious and destructive
in its effects, and therefore unworthy of support.
These confessions are solemn legacies given to the
world by men who could not be suspected of being actuated by any other motive, than a sincere conviction
of the truth of what they said. They were men too,
who, from their experience and position must have
known their profession most thoroughly; better, infinitely better than the great mass of practitioners who




PROGRESS OF HOMCEOPATHY.          175
are ever ready to make a boast before the public, and
to hoodwink them by a display of professional lore.
The collateral branches, such as anatomy, chemistry, physiology, pathology, &c., as already mentioned, are of paramount importance, and do not in
any sense or degree constitute allopathy.  It is the
allopathic practice of physic that requires to be
reformed.  It is that routine and emrpirical system
of medication, founded on baseless theories that ought
to be abandoned. It is altogether impossible to
improve such a system, so long as it has such a
foundation; and once remove the foundation, and
the  entire  superstructure  falls to the  ground.
That foundation of baseless theories is entirely incompatible with that simple observation and record
of facts which is peculiar to homoeopathy, and
which gives it all that eertainty and precision which
entitle it to rank among the exact sciences.
That allopaths have been instrumental in doing
good no one will call in question; some of their
remedies, unknowingly to them, act homoeopathically,
and in this way occasional cures have been, and will
still no doubt be effected. But, oh! who can estimate the vast amount of mischief and misery which
their system  has wrought in the world.  The confessions given, dreadful as they certainly are, are but
faint indices of the painful realities. But such a sad
state of things will not, cannot always continue; they
must " mend or end." We believe they will mend.




176         NECESSITY FOR REFORM.
A great reform called homceopathy has already
begun, and is steadily going forward. Taking its
origin little more than fifty years ago, in the centre
of Germany, it has spread with amazing rapidity all
over Europe. In Great Britain, there are seventy
homoeopathic dispensaries and two public hospitals.
In London alone, there are 63 practitioners, and in the
provinces 138. In France, there are between 400
and 500 homesopathic practitioners. In Paris alone,
there are, 56.-In Vienna, 40.-In Madrid, 17.In Berlin, 11. —In Dresden, 11.-In Leipsic, 10.
Besides proportional numbers in the smaller towns
all over the continent.
In Europe, there are 45 homoeopathists who are
Professors in Universities.  31, who are court
councillors. 20, who are court physicians; and 15,
who are medical councillors.
The reform has also extended itself to Asia, Africa,
and America. In the latter country, homoeopathic
practitioners are counted by thousands. In the State
of New York alone, there are upwards of 300 legally
qualified practitioners. The reader can at once see
from this short statement of progress, that homceopathy is a great fact in the world-a living reality,
having a broad and firm footing; though our allo.
pathic opponents would have the public believe that
it is dead or well nigh defunct.. Our gqod ship has
been steadily progressing; already the rippling of the
changing tide is seen on the waters, and our full




PROGRESS OF HOMEOPATHY.          177
spread sails beginning to fill with the first breeze of
that favouring gale which shall carry us safely over
the rugged breakers of time-hallowed custom and
prejudice, and which shall leave our self-confident
opponents, unless they take timely warning, on the
shallows and quicksands; and like their brother alchymists of a bygone age, be compelled to administer
their decoctions and elixers to the moles and the bats.
This great reform in medicine is intended to
benefit the public, and not the faculty. The present
system answers their individual purposes well
enough, and therefore they will be the last to cry out
for any change. Indeed, no system could be conceived which would answer the purpose of the doctor
better than one of routine, empiricism, and experimentation, and therefore they will not alter a peg
until forced to it by public opinion. This reform
when accomplished, shall not only rid the world of
an immense amount of suffering and misery, but shall
greatly contribute to the well-being of the human
race, both in a physical and moral point of view.
The best interests of the public being at stake,
they have a right to demand of the profession a calm,
careful and impartial investigation of the claims of
homoeopathy. It will not do now to turn round and
say that homceopathy is all" humbug." The public
now know that homoeopathy is no humbug; but that
it is a matter of fact, and they have a right to insist
upon knowing, if allopaths have put homoeopathy to




178     HOMCEOPATHY FOR THE PUBLIC.
the test; and if they have, how and by whom. If
they have not, their opinion and denunciation under
such circumstances, must be set down as the offspring
of presumption or ignorance, and as an attempt to
impose their dictum on the credulity of the public,
right. or wrong.
In order to understand and test homoeopathy aright,
allopaths would require to devote a very considerable
time to the study of it. Rash and unguarded trials
only expose the folly and ignorance of their author.
Hahnemann was a hard student. The great object
he had in view was, the curing of the sick; and to
this he devoted all the powers of his great mind. He
toiled and laboured for nearly half a century in a
way in which he has left few equals; sacrificing ease
and comfort, enduring the sneers and persecutions
of many enemies.  Few of his opponents have ever
read his works, and those who have done so, have
evidently had only one object in view, namely, to
misrepresent and scandalize.  The facts recorded in
homceopathic writings are different or opposed to
those found in allopathic books, therefore they are
wrong. This is the way in which many have discussed the subject. They never seem to have
thought of the propriety of taking the trouble to
prove the truthfulness of the facts by the only
method pointed out by the founder of the system.
Homoeopathy is not like a question in mathematics
or metaphysics, which a man may reason out sitting




HOMCEOPATHY MUST BE STUDIED.   179
in his arm-chair; it is a simple matter of fact, and
as such, must be proved or disproved, as all other
facts of the same kind are, namely, by experiment.
What would we think of the man who on reading
about the astronomical discoveries of Herschel,
should deny the facts, merely because they were
entirely different from what he was previously acquainted with; and who should brand the discoverer
as a fool and an imposter? and yet this is just the
way that homceopathy and its discoverer have been
treated, by the great mass of allopaths.  We have
frequently heard of homoeopathy having been tried,
and found wanting; but give us the facts connected
with the trials, and let us see what they are worth. A
man may rub his eyes and eagerly look up to the sky
on a fine starry night, and yet entirely fail to verify
the facts of the astronomer; but this would not
invalidate the facts in the least, certainly not.  He
must, if he really is in earnest about proving the
facts of the astronomer, have a proper telescope, and
not only so, but he must learn how, and when to use
it properly. Even so in regard to homoeopathy; he
must first fully understand the principle, and then
he must acquaint himself with the method of putting
it in practice properly.  No facts of this kind disproving the truth of homoeopathy have ever yet been
published, while thousands have, been published
provring its truth.  Indeed the evidence in its favour will stand any amount of investigation. Thou



180     ATTACHMENT TO HOM(EOPATHY.
sands of regularly qualified practitioners have thousands of times in the course of their daily practice,
extending over many years, put it to the test of experience, and found it to be true.
It is not possible to conceive of any sufficient
object that any of us could have in view in declaring
our attachment to homoeopathy, unless we had most
indubitable evidence of its truth. We are all as well
qualified to practice allopathy, as any of our opponents; indeed most of us havt done so bef6re we
studied homoeopathy, and have all the rights and
privileges to do so. By doing so, we could greatly
benefit ourselves in a worldly point of view; we
would have a mighty deal less study; less trouble;
less care and anxiety; fewer heartburnings, and
slightings from professional brethren; less of the
cold shoulder, and less of the evil tongue. But,
however painful and unpleasant'all these things are,
even though they were ten times more we would not
flinch from advocating what we believe and know to
be true.  We value truth more than applause, and a
good conscience more than many friends. And yet we
have great encouragement in our labours. The cause
of truth is steadily gaining ground. Thousands who
have experienced the healing virtue of homoeopathy
hail us as benefactors; thousands more are at this
moment deriving health and healing from it, even
after all other resources had failed, and increasing
thousands shall yet taste of its inestimnable blessings.