MODERN HOMEOPATHY ITS ABSURDITIES AND INCONSISTENCIES BY WILLIAM w. BROWNING, A.B., LL.B., M.D. BROOKLYN, N. Y. LECTURER UPON AND DEMONSTRATOR OF ANATOMY, LONG ISLAND COLLEGE HOSPITAL ; MEMBER OF THE KINGS COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY, AND OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF MEDICINE. "Truth, crushed to earth, will rise again— The eternal years of God are hers; While Error, wounded, writhes in pain, And d ies amidst his worshippers.” Bryant PHILADELPHIA PRESS OF WM. F. FELL & CO. 1220-1224 SANSOM STREET 1894 This essay was awarded the prize of $100, offered by Dr. Geo. M. Gould, of Philadelphia, and is designed for distribution by physicians in order to disseminate more enlightened views upon the subject of which it treats. Copies of the pamphlet may be ordered of Dr. Geo. M. Gould, 119 South Seventeenth Street, Philadelphia, at the rate of fifty cents a dozen, delivered. The unexpected popularity of the large first edition has warranted the printing of this still larger second edition, and has made possible a reduction in the price. — —L PREFACE. As a rule, the claims of Homeopathy are, without proper investigation, either enthusiastically admitted or contemptuously rejected. Many practitioners of the system are unable to give even an intelligent resume of its doctrines, while very few of its patrons, though convinced in their own minds of its practical worth, have but the remotest conception of the theories upon which it is founded. Though practitioners of the prevailing system cannot reasonably he expected to undertake an experimental test of Homeopathy, they certainly should investi- gate its claims to scientific recognition ; if not with the hope of obtaining material to aid in constructing the temple of truth, that they may, at least, as- sist in clearing away the obstructions of error. Their patrons, too, have a right to expect that their inquiries concerning a system which has been received with so much popular favor shall be met with something besides ridicule. It is intended in this essay to present, in a form which may be understood by any intelligent person, the reasons why the medical profession reject the preten- sions of this so-called system of medicine ; and, in order that those who have inclined to regard it with favor may satisfy themselves that the subject has not been presented from a prejudiced standpoint, or may pursue their investigations further than the limits of this paper will permit, quotations from various books and pamphlets have been freely indulged in. Aside from those definitely men- tioned in the text, the following been consulted :— “ The Organon of the Healing Art” (5th edition), by Samuel Hahnemann. “ The Medical Index,” by Boericke and Tafel, of New York. “The Encyclopedia of Pure Materia Medica,” by Dr. Timothy F. Allen, of New York. “ The American Homeopathic Pharmacopeia. “ The Pharmacopeia Homeopathica Polyglottica. ” , “ The United States Pharmacopeia.” /**' £ “ Homeopathy,” by Dr. Worthington Hooker. / “ Medical Heresies,” by Dr. Oonsalvo C. Smythe. / “ The Encyclopedia Britannica” (9th edition). / MODERN HOMEOPATHY: ITS ABSURDITIES AND INCONSISTENCIES. In the year 1810 Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician, issued a work called The Organon of the Healing Art, in which he announced wrhat has since been known as the “ homeopathic ” system of medicine. Although graduated in medicine from Erlangen in 1779, he abandoned medical practice ten years thereafter, and devoted himself to chemical investigation and the translation of medical works. While thus engaged he claims to have had his attention arrested by the variable effects of the same medicines, and thence- forth to have entered upon a line of investigation which resulted in the pro- duction of the Organon. Subsequently, during his life, he continued to publish numerous essays, becoming more and more extravagant in his expressed views. Their extreme nature may be illustrated by reference to his theory that the common itch insect was “ the only fundamental cause and source of pains of every variety.” His alleged discoveries met almost universal condemnation and were severely ridiculed by the medical fraternity. For these or other reasons he led a somewhat nomadic life, acquiring neither wealth nor fame, and died at Paris in the year 1843. Since his death his disciples have continued to publish the Organon, the sa- cred book of their faith,1 with little or no modification. The following extract from that volume will serve to furnish the reader with an idea of its style, viz.: “ Our vital force, that spirit-like dynamis, cannot be reached or affected except by a spirit-like process resulting from the hurtful influence of hostile agencies from the outer world acting upon the healthy organism and disturbing the harmonious process of life. Neither can the physician free the vital force from any of these morbid disturbances—i. e., disease—except likewise by spirit-like, alterative powers of the appropriate remedies acting upon spirit-like vital force.” (Organon, p. 69.) By three hundred pages of this pseudo-philosophizing the author seeks to es- tablish the following propositions :— 1. Similia similibus curanlur (or, translated, likes are cured by likes) is the only therapeutic law that is to say, the only salutary treatment is that method ac- cording to which “ a . . . disease is combated by a medicine . . . capable ot creating in the healthy body symptoms most similar to those of the . . . disease.” (Organon, p. 103.) 2. file totality of the symptoms is the only guide to the physician in the ad- ministration of remedies that is to say, “ all that a physician may regard as curable in disease consists entirely in the complaints of the patient, and the morbid changes in his health perceptible to the senses.’’ (Organon, p. 103.) 3. The only true method enabling the physician to select the proper remedies in disease is to prove them upon persons in health—that is to say, every drug, before it may be properly employed in treating disease, must first have been ad- ministered to a person in health, and the symptoms produced thereby recorded, in order that their similarity or dissimilarity may be compared with those from which a patient may be suffering for whose relief a drug is sought to be administered. Hahnemann, moreover, taught, as deductions from the foregoing principles, tint, in any given case, one drug only should be selected and administered ; and, also, that local or external applications should never be made, as they were not only in no sense beneficial, but liable to interfere with the progress of a homeo- pathic cure Although, admitting the truth of the principles, the deductions were certainly logical, they will be forthwith dismissed from further considera- t.on with the remark that, practically, in these respects, Hahnemann’s disciples lave, uniformly, gone counter to his instructions. , There remains to be mentioned another feature of homeopathy, which, though undoubtedly the most characteristic of the system, is, nevertheless, in no way ai essential part of it. Reference is made to the custom of administering drugs ir infinitesimal quantities. So peculiar to the system is this practice that the adjective “homeopathic” has come to be used, in ordinary conversation, as synonymous with the terms “ exceedingly small ” or “ minute.” Still, the true homeopathist is entirely free to use drugs in as large quantities as he may see fit provided only he proceeds according to the rule, Similia similibus curanlur. Why he does not avail himself of this privilege will become apparent as the sub- ject is more fully considered. The minute subdivision, or so-called “ dynamization,’’ of drugs was an after-thought of Hahnemann ; it was, in reality, a plank thrown out to rescue from destruction his system of medicine, which, otherwise, would have been shipwrecked by its inherent defects. That so absurd a measure has floated it for three-quarters of a century is evidence that Hahnemann did not, at least, over- estimate the credulity of the human mind. 4 The author of Homeopathy was not the originator of the doctrine Similia similibus curantur. Three hundred years before his time it was announced in the same words by Paracelsus, the “ Prince of Quacks,” who also declared it to be the sole law of cure. As early as 400 years B. c., Hippocrates, the father of medicine, made the observation that some diseases are best treated by similars- Nevertheless, upon this doctrine, as a corner-stone, Hahnemann erected the superstructure which he christened Homeopathy. It may be supposed that this term was adopted by Hahnemann to distinguish his system from one already existing, known as “ Allopathy.” This is not tine. The term “ Allopathy” was also invented by Hahnemann. It was by him, as it has since been by his disciples, applied to the prevailing system of medicine. The careless acquiescence of the profession in its use has led to a popular belief that they practise an exclusive system properly designated by that term. On the contrary, there is not now, neither has there ever been, an allopathic system of medicine. When a practitioner thoughtlessly admits that he is an allopath, he simply means that he is a member of the regular profession, and not an advocate of any exclusive system. Medicine, as practised by regular physicians, rests upon the accumulated knowledge of the centuries, and, as distinguished from others, might properly be called the rational system ot medicine. Rational physicians do not claim to have discovered any law of universal application either of similars or contraries; according to which drugs act in their influence upon the human system. Many persons believe that the regular profession, on the one hand, and homeopathists, on the other, have each a definite, though di- verse, plan for the treatment of the various recognized diseases. This is in no sense true, of the former at least. The rational physician is expected to le familiar with the effects of drugs, when administered, and to apply that knowl- edge to the control or modification of the destructive processes which are act re in the morbid condition of the system called disease. The Old School is another term derisively applied to the regular profession by the adherents of exclusive systems. The word “old” is not here used ui the sense of age. Its age cannot be denied. It has witnessed the birth of eveiy exclusive system, and the death of most of them. Age, to any science, is a* element of strength ; but by the use of the phrase “ old school” it is intended to create the impression that the regular profession is dominated by antiquated ideas, and refuses to be influenced by the light of modern investigation. This charge is so manifestly false as to be clearly malicious. The regular profession, having no pet theory to maintain, hails with enthusiasm every new discovery in the domain of medicine. Nay, more ; it appropriates to its own use every truth, no matter how or by whom discovered. It forgives the errors of discoverers, and writes their names, with honor, upon its annals. Thus, exclusive schools, robbed of whatever truth they possess, wither and die. The bitter enmity oi homeopathists, as well as the separate existence of their system, depends upon 5 the fact that they have been unable to impress upon the profession that Hahne- mann discovered a single valuable truth. In describing the operation of the law of similia, Hahnemann tells us that nature, unaided, cannot throw off disease ; that medicines are, therefore, essen- tial ; that by administering to a patient a drug which has the power of produc- ing in a healthy person symptoms similar to those from which he is suffering (the greater the similarity the more appropriate the drug), an artificial disease, or drug-disease, is substituted for the natural disease. This dm (/-disease, though somewhat more intense, he affirms that nature can easily throw off. (Organon, pp. 74 and 75.) Why nature can so easily cope with and destroy the stronger ot the two elements, while she sits powerless in the presence of the weaker, he does not deign to inform us. Let this doctrine he fully understood. It means that a drug which will pro- duce in a person who is well certain symptoms will cure a disease which mani- fests itself by similar symptoms. We are informed that the doctrine is that likes are cured by likes, and not that the same is cured by the same. It is not proper, therefore, to maintain that the fatigue of a long walk will be overcome by a short walk, or that the effects of gormandizing will be removed by eating a little more. The distinction, however, is almost too refined for the ordinary mind to grasp. For example : a physician is called to the bedside of a patient suffering from an overdose of opium. If the patient be exact in the description of his symptoms, and the physician familiar with the effects of drugs, opium will, cer- tainly, according to the law of similars, be the drug selected ; but if a certain quantity of opium be sufficient to cause dangerous symptoms, what person pos- sessed of ordinary common sense can be induced to believe that a little more will remove them? If it be objected that opium-poisoning is not a disease, it may be answered that the condition demands treatment as much as any disease, and what is to be the guide but the symptoms if similia be a law ! In any case, if a. disease or a drug cause the same or similar symptoms, aud one be superadded to the other, it is hard to see how any effect can be produced other than an aggravation of the condition. Indeed, it was the observation of this fact which led Hahnemann to adopt the infinitesimal dose, one which, fortunately, is so small that if Nature, unassisted, is able to overcome the malady, no additional burden is thereby imposed upon her. More fortunate still for suffering humanity s the fact that, in the presence of alarming cases, the modern homeopathist abandons his theory of similars and falls back upon the scientific discoveries of rational medicine. Instead of supporting his doctrine by an appeal to the results of carefully con- ducted experiments, Hahnemann resorts to a species of reasoning, plausible in its nature, but founded upon the loosest analogies. One illustration by which he aims to establish his law is that the rising sun obscures the light of the bril- liant planets. Another is that the fear caused in the mind of the soldier by the 6 sound of the enemy’s cannon is overcome by the beating of drums. Still another is that grief is forgotten when we hear of another’s greater misfortune. These are so very absurd as to call for no comment. He also calls attention to the fact that some people cure a frozen member by the application of. frozen “Sauer- kraut.” Inasmuch as the custom of rubbing a frozen limb with snow is some- times still cited as a proof of the operation of the law, it may not he improper to devote a few lines to pointing out in what the fallacy consists. In the treat- ment of frost-bite the object is to restore the circulation of the part. If this is accomplished too suddenly it is attended with great pain and sometimes results in serious inflammation. The school-boy knows this, and, avoiding the fire, thrusts his tingling fingers into his pockets and trusts the more moderate warmth of his body. No one would think of packing a frozen limb in ice or snow, but the patient having been removed to a warmer atmosphere, friction is applied to the injured part, the snow being used simply as a medium to prevent the too rapid return of the warm blood. Opium will control pain. Quinine will reduce fever. Alcohol and ammonia will relieve faintness. Now if similia be a law, opium ought to cause pain in the healthy; quinine, fever ; alcohol, faintness, etc.; but this is not the case. Hahne- mann, to be sure, states that cinchona bark caused in him the symptoms of ague, a disease it possesses a remarkable power to cure, but by repeating the experi- ment upon himself, anybody may safely prove that the case of Hahnemann must have been highly exceptional. So much for the doctrine Similia similibus curantur. If it be true, it is certainly a most wonderful medical discovery. It is the corner-stone upon which Hahne- mann founded his system. It is the very keystone of the homeopathic arch. It is to homeopathy what gravitation is to the celestial bodies. If it be false, this so-called system of medicine, deprived of its cohesive principle, must fall apart and crumble into atoms. Homeopathy does not attack disease, but addresses itself to the amelioration or removal of the symptoms attendant upon it. Says Hahnemann : “When the symptoms are removed the patient is cured.” (Organon, p. 68.) By symptoms are understood those manifestations of an unusual character which accompany disease. They vary greatly in their significance. There are those for a knowl- edge of the existence of which the physician is wholly dependent upon the statements of the patient. Such are the situation and nature of pains, and, in fact, of all sensations whatever. These are known as subjective symptoms, and by rational physicians are regarded as having but little relative value. When individual peculiarities are taken into consideration, and the difference depend- ent upon age and disposition, the little importance attached to this class of symp- toms is readily understood. There are other symptoms which the physician must observe for himself. Such are : the color and condition of the skin ; the force and rhythm of the pulse ; the steadiness of the gait, etc. While these, called objective symptoms, are much more significant than those of the first class, even their value varies within wide limits, according to the acuteness of observation or accuracy of judgment of the physician. Another class of symptoms are those elicited with the aid of instruments and methods of precision. The clinical thermometer and chemical reagent cannot lie. The speculum, the microscope, the stethoscope, the ophthalmoscope, and the laryngoscope furnish methods of investigation, the results of which are of themselves the least liable to mislead. Homeopathy, however, reverses this order and directs particular attention to the morbid sensations of the patient. “ All that a physician may regard as curable in diseases,” says Hahnemann, “ consists entirely in the complaints of the patient and the morbid changes of his health perceptible to the senses.” (Organon, p. 103.) These form the totality of the symptoms and are the “ only indications” to guide the homeopathic doctor in the selection of a remedy. (Organon, p. 70.) No account is taken of the causes of symptoms or the patho- logic conditions underlying them. No matter how different such causes or how diverse such conditions, if only the symptoms “ perceptible to the senses” he similar, the remedy is the same. The alarming symptom may be a conserva- tive, nay, even a vicarious process of nature ; nevertheless, it is to he removed in order to effect a cure. To the rational physician, on the other hand, symptoms are but the outward manifestation of some perhaps unseen cause. To discover this cause has ever been his task. “ They fancied,” says Hahnemann, “ they could find the cause of disease, hut they did not find it because it is unrecognizable and not to he by far the greater number of diseases are of a dynamic (spirit-like) origin and nature ; their cause, therefore, remaining unrecognizable.” (Orga- non, p. 18.) But Hahnemann to the contrary notwithstanding, the zeal of the regular profession in this field of investigation has been abundantly rewarded. The causes of many, if not most, diseases are as well known to-day as other scientific facts. The prevention of disease has thus become as much the province of the physician as its cure. If the totality of the symptoms is the only guide to the physician in his selection of remedies, the art of medicine is reduced to a charming simplicity. Anatomy, physiology, and chemistry are not the foundation-stones of a medical education, but, at the most, useless accomplishments, while the study of pathol- ogy is absolutely a waste of precious time. But many homeopathists will inform their patrons that the sciences of anat- omy, physiology, chemistry, and even pathology are taught in their colleges ; that they are deemed of as much importance by them as by the regular profes- sion ; that they differ with the “ old school ” in its method of treatment only. Now, it is admitted that these sciences are taught, or at least assumed to be taught, in homeopathic colleges ; to exclude them would be suicidal, for their importance is fully recognized by the people. The public, indeed, demands 8 that every physician shall he instructed in them. It is not denied that many calling themselves homeopathists are fairly well instructed in these departments of knowledge ; but that they are in no way essential to the practice of medi- cine, if the totality of the symptoms is the true index for treatment, is most emphatically affirmed. The very object of the study of these sciences is to enable the physician to discover the nature and seat of disease; but if, by cancelling its signs and disturbances, disease itself is removed, why concern ourselves with its internal causes ! The business of the physician is not to pry into the secrets of Nature, but to cure his patients of their ailments as “ easily and promptly” as possible. Hahnemann reproved physicians for their efforts to discover the hidden causes of disease. Dr. Sharpe, of Rugby, England, one of his most eminent disciples, says of him that he passionately rejected pathol- ogy and morbid anatomy. (Encyclop. Brit., 9th ed., vol. xii, p. 127.) Early homeopathists, consistently, designated the time devoted to these important branches in regular colleges as wasted, and those of the present day cannot con- ceal the fact that many prominent members of their school are outspoken in their denunciation of pathology. {American Homeopathist, March, 1878.; Undue regard for symptoms is, unquestionably, one reason why homeopathy gains so much popular favor. The greatest recommendation a doctor can possess, in the opinion of many, is abounding sympathy. Nothing renders him more unpopular with sensitive patients than an apparent disinclination to listen to a detailed account of aches and pains, of tingling and numbness, hot flashes, sounds in the ears, etc. Morbidly sensitive and very conscious of their un- pleasant feelings, these seem to them of the-greatest importance. They do not understand the object of many inquiries addressed to them by their medical advisers. Questions as to their age and habits, their whereabouts and family history, seem to them to be prompted by idle curiosity. Mentally, they resent what they regard as an impertinent inquisition. Such questions, however, if truthfully answered, reveal facts upon which the physician may lean with con- fidence, while subjective symptoms are very frequently the fancies of a dis- ordered sensorium, and of little value in furnishing the information necessary to enable him to afford the desired relief. With Similia similibus curantur as a rule for treatment, and the totality of the symptoms as the guide in the administration of the remedy, the only subject de- manding study in order to fit a person to practice homeopathy is a knowledge of the power of medicines to produce peculiar morbid sensations. “These,” says the Organon (p. 103), “are recognized most distinctly and purely by testing medicines upon the bodies of healthy persons. ” This method of pro cedure is denominated “proving.” Without doubt, much information valuable to the physician may be obtained by carefully observing the effects of drugs upon persons in health. Indeed, this is one, though by no means the only or most important of the methods employed 9 by the regular profession in determining the physiologic action of drugs. To he ol any scientific value all such experiments must be conducted with the utmost care. The temperament, the physical and mental condition, and the environ- ment of each subject must be attentively considered. The source of the drug must be ascertained and its purity determined. The dose must be measured with exactness. The changes in feeling experienced by the patient should be received with great caution. As far as possible, instrumental methods should be resorted to to determine changes in the organism. No just conclusion can be formed, except after a vast number of experiments and a complete classification. Even then only such effects are to be attributed to the drug as are of an unusual character and are present with a considerable degree of uniformity. As homeopathists depend solely upon “provings” for the information con- cerning medicines so essential to the practice of their system, surely these pre- cautions should be observed with more than ordinary faithfulness. Fifteen pages of the Organon are devoted to this important subject. According to that preeminent homeopathic authority, drugs are to be administered “in moderate quantities” (p. 120), but to “disclose the wealth of their latent powers, are to be taken in highly attenuated state.” The totality of the symptoms that a drug is capable of producing “ is brought near perfection only by manifold experiments upon individuals of both sexes and of various bodily and mental constitution.” (Pp. 127-131.) Excesses of eating, drinking, mental and bodily exertions are to be avoided during as many days as the observation of the effects of the drug requires. This time varies with the drug taken, some extending their influence as long as seven weeks. If these directions are com- plied with, “all sensations observed must be regarded and noted as properly the effects of the drugs, notwithstanding they are such as the prover has experi- enced, spontaneously, some time before.” (P. 127.) In order that nothing may escape attention, the prover “ is to assume various postures, in order to observe if the sensations are increased, lessened, or made to vanish by motion of the affected part; by walking in the room or in the open air ; by standing, sitting, or lying ; or whether it returns when he assumes the original position. He should also observe if the symptom is changed by eating, drinking, talking, coughing, sneezing, or some other bodily function. Particular notice should also be taken of the time of the day or night at which each symptom usually appears, in order to discover its peculiarities and characteristics.” All sensa- tions, no matter how trifling, experienced by persons differing in age, tempera- ment, and surroundings, following doses of every conceivable size, extending over periods varying from hours to weeks, are noted and mustered without classifica- tion, and the drug is “proved.” The collection of symptoms attributed to many of the more commonly used drugs is enormous, in some cases exceeding 2000. To illustrate the nature of the observations, the following symptoms attributed 10 to the taking of one dose of one drop of the third dilution of the tincture of red onion are appended: “Crawling in the right nostril, as before sneezing; must frequently blow thin mucus out of the nose (one hour after). Swelling of the cheeks with toothache. Pressive toothache in the right upper and lower back teeth, with the inclination to bore the tongue into and suck them, which relieves, lasting an hour, after traveling against the northwest wind (fifth and sixth days). Slight pressure in the right back teeth on going into a warm room. At breakfast (with warm cocoa) painful; relieved by cold water (the seventh day). At breakfast the back teeth pain from eating bread, so that only soft food can be taken. A pressive pain remains for some time afterward. Toward noon, the pain disappears on the right side and settles in the root of the left eye- tooth ; the gum around the tooth is inflamed ; the pain frequently ceases suddenly and commences in an instant in a right back tooth ; in the eye-tooth it is pressive, growling ; cold water, cold in general, relieves (the eighth day). The pressive toothache comes on after walking against the north wind, is relieved by poking and sucking with the tongue ; is much aggravated on eating warm soup, and disappears after a swallow of cold water; always the same after repeated experi- ments. Pressive pain in the left eye-tooth disturbs the sleep, the cheeks led swollen (ninth day). During sleep, feeling as if back teeth were too long with some pain ; disappears on rising, two nights. Dull pain below the breast-bone, more to the right side on moving in bed, evening at ten (after five minutes). Pain below the sternum on stooping (morning). Distention of the abdomen before dinner. Lower abdomen very heavy as if it were pressed upon, before and after standing ; disappeared after bathing (ninth day). Numb sensation in the left elbowT-joint, worse on slight motion (forenoon). Numb sensation in lelt elbow-joint with headache. In right elbow-joint pain as from a blow (seventh day at noon). Sleep disturbed by toothache. During sleep, teeth feel too long.” (Ency. Pure Mater. Med., vol. i, pp. 146-159.) Most of these symptoms came on “after traveling against the northwest wind.” Would it not be more sensible to attribute them to that cause, especially if the teeth were decayed, rather than to taking a drop of a highly rarefied tincture of the harmless onion? Following are a few of the symptoms attributed to smelling of the thirtieth dilu- tion of aloes : “In the afternoon of the fourth day he works with a will without a mid-day nap. Toward the evening of the fifth day he is uncommonly aroused by inspiriting joyful news. On the eighth day he has cold feet all night ; sleeps little, though ordinarily he is sleepy evenings. This same day a pustule which had formed on the edge of the upper lip, left side, healed. On the ninth day he had extremely painful tearing stitches in the second joint of the left fore- finger. On the tenth day he has a longing for juicy food, fruit, but not for water. On the eleventh he has canine hunger, and after a meal becomes sleepy. In the afternoon of the twelfth day he is uncommonly thirsty, has a 11 swashing and gurgling in the howels, audible to him, and in the evening is inclined to work. On the thirteenth day he has a pale, sickly look. Iu the afternoon of the fourteenth, on walking in boots, he gets a pain in the right little toe, as if frozen. In the morning of the fifteenth he lies till toward eight o’clock. On the seventeenth, the concave edges of the teeth, which have had a yellowish cast for many days, seem sharp and hurt the tongue.”2 (Ency. Pure Mater. Med., pp. 163-192.) Symptoms attached to the same drug range from the most frightful, as “a fre- quent desire to kill himself by stabbing his heart through and through,” to the most insignificant, as ‘‘she walks further than she needs to do.” They are often contradictory, as “inclined to gayety ” and “ sad and depressed, ” “consti- pation ” and “ diarrhea.” Again, all the commonly used drugs seem capable of producing the same symptoms, as “headache, nausea, vomiting, etc., etc.” Substances which when taken in large quantities are positively inert, are de- clared, when administered in minute subdivision, to be capable of producing a long list of morbid sensations.3 In response to the urging of their master, most homeopathic doctors have en- gaged zealously in collecting this kind of material. So industrious have the provers been that it takes ten large octavo volumes, of about 700 pages each, to contain the accumulated wisdom. This work is denominated the Encylopedia of Pure Materia Medica. It is edited by Dr. Timothy F. Allen, Professor of Materia Medica in the Homeopathic College in New York City, and, judging from the list of its subscribers, is the authority “ par excellence” among prac- titioners of that school. What little there is of value in it, however, lies buried under such a mass of trash as to he entirely inaccessible ; for indiscriminately mingled with the legitimate effects of drugs are sensations experienced long after they have been eliminated from the system : those attributed to inappreci- able doses, and those due to circumstances entirely independent of the medicine. But suppose it is true that every drug, though taken in minute quantities, is capable of exciting a train of symptoms peculiar to itself; if now a drug be administered to a person, it ought to be possible to recognize it by the symptoms it produces. This, indeed, seems to be a philosophic test. There is one instance upon record in which it was tried. In this instance sets of ten vials were pre- pared, one of which contained the thirtieth dilution of some drug, and the other nine, plain alcohol. Of seventy-three homeopathic doctors who were induced to make the trial, only ten reported ; and of these, nine selected the wrong vial. This was what might have been expected as a result of guessing. (Proceedings of Milwaukee Academy of Medicine, 1880.) According to Hahnemann, upon this doctrine of “proving” “depends the life, death, sickness, health of human beings, the success of the art of healing, and the welfare of all coming generations.” (Organon, pp. 124, 125.) 12 If a drug having the power to cause certain symptoms should he administered to a person in whom they had been already excited by some other cause, the reasonable conclusion is that there would be an aggravation of the condition. Hahnemann admitted this and observed (what is evident) that “ the smaller the dose, so much the smaller and shorter the aggravation.” Now, if Hahnemann had been laboring in the cause of science, he would have accepted this pheno- menon as the best evidence of the fallacy of the proposition, Similia similibus curantur; but he had assumed to found a system of medicine, and it was too late to retreat. Instead of abandoning similia, then, he cast about with his usual versatility for something wherewith to sustain it. In the administration of drugs in infinitesimal quantities he certainly conceived a plan worthy of his genius ; for whatever their power for good, they were, at least, positively inca- pable of aggravating the symptoms or of forming any obstacle to a cure by natural vigor. This method of administering medicines has become the leading characteristic of homeopathy, and, though everybody understands the homeopathic dose to be a small one, very few have the remotest idea of its extreme attenuation. In order that this subject may be fully appreciated, a little space will here be devoted to a description of how homeopathic medicines are prepared. Of such substances as are supposed to be soluble in alcohol, a strong tincture is first made. This is called the “ mother tincture.” For making the dilutions the “centesimal scale” was introduced by Hahnemann, and is that most used. Its principle is that the first potency must contain x£-0- part of the strength of the remedy ; the succeeding potencies each part of the preceding one. (Phar- macopeia Homeopathica Polyglottica, p. 24.) Dry substances, the virtues of which cannot be extracted by alcohol, are first reduced to as fine a powder as possible. They do not seem in this form to have received any designation whatever, but, from analogy, might be called the mother powders. The first trituration is made from these powders by mixing them with milk-sugar, the centesimal scale also being used. Hahnemann stated that the third trituration of these insoluble substances, by a method hitherto unknown to chemistry, became soluble in both alcohol and water, and, therefore, one grain of the third trituration is dis- solved (?) in one hundred drops of the medium to make the fourth dilution, and, thereafter, both dry and liquid medicines are carried up in the same manner. Attenuations above the thirtieth are termed “ high potencies.” It wil 1 be perceived that the quantity of medicine in each successive ‘ ‘ potency ’ ’ decreases according to what is known as geometric ratio, the common ratio being one hundred. Calculation, however, is rendered unnecessary by a table found in the Pharmacopeia, by which we are informed that the third potency contains a millionth part of the drug ; the sixth, a billionth ; the ninth, a trillionth; and so forth up to the thirtieth, which contains a decillionth— 13 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 —part of the drug.4 It is to be feared that these hare figures do not convey much of an idea to the reader. Let us adopt an illustration : Weigh out a grain of any substance ; it can he held on the point of a penknife. To make the third “potency ” the grain must be dissolved in one hundred pints of fluid. This is equal to about half an ordinary barrel. If the grain were dissolved in our city reservoir, the water drawn from our faucets would equal about the sixth “potency.” If it were dropped into some lake, about two miles in circumference, the water would equal in strength the ninth “ potency.” Sprinkle the grain on the bosom of “ old ocean ” and the waters of the seas would become medicine of about the twelfth “potency.” How are we to carry the illustration further? It is unnecessary. It will be sufficient to remark that if the whole grain were to be made up into the thirtieth “ potency ” it would require more liquid in volume than the bulk of the visible universe. In view of these facts, what is to he thought of the TBS, the -5BB, the and even the -xrcny “ potency ” ? They are simply incon- ceivable. But these medicines, attenuated though they be, are not to be administered without undergoing additional dilution. The little pellets or globules furnish a method by which medicines are still further attenuated, and inasmuch as they are, perhaps, the most familiar homeopathic objects, it may he interesting to know how they are prepared. The globule most used is about the size of a common bird-shot, and is made of sugar. A bottle is two-thirds filled with these globules, the “potency” dropped into it, the bottle corked and shaken so that they are all equally moistened. It is then turned upside down and left standing for from nine to twelve hours. After this time the cork is loosened, to allow the liquid in the neck of the bottle to escape. The globules are, in a few days, dry and ready for filling smaller bottles. (Pharm. Homeo. Polyglot., pp. 40, 42.) Hahnemann claimed that they retained their virtue un- impaired for twenty years. (Organon, p. 224.) Imagine one of these pellets medicated with the -j-jW ‘‘potency ;” yet some homeopathic medicines in com- mon use contain even less of the drug than would such a pellet, for experiments made by various persons, including homeopathists, have demonstrated that the arbitrary law announced by Hahnemann, that certain metallic and insoluble sub- stances triturated to the third potency become soluble ,is false in fact. All liquid potencies of such substances, therefore, contain absolutely no medicine whatever. “ The genuineness, purity, and strength of homeopathic pharmaceutical pre- parations,” say Boericke & Tafel, the oldest homeopathic pharmacists in the tJnited States, “ cannot, as a rule, be demonstrated by, or are unsusceptible to, the ordinary chemical tests ; hence, these qualities in them cannot be deter- mined by the usual methods of analysis applied to drugs or chemicals.” 14 Admitting this premise, none will assume to dispute their conclusion that the “reliability [of these medicines] depends solely on the character and reputation as to probity of those preparing and putting them up.” (Boericke & Tafel, Medical Index.) Hahnemann insisted upon the efficacy of the high dilutions, and named the thirtieth as the one to he commonly used. (Organon, p. 179.) He accused those homeopathic doctors who continued to use the low dilutions of lack of know- ledge, and distinctly said that if their medicines were homeopathically selected they would do more harm than good. (P. 181.) The homeopathic school is greatly divided upon this subject; some use only the high, and some only the low dilu- tions ; but that there is a demand for the former is evidenced by the announce- ment of Boericke and Tafel, already referred to, that “their thirtieth having given good satisfaction, they have carried a large number of drugs up to the scr