An answer to the homoeopathic delusions of Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes / by Charles Neidhard.

  • Neidhard, C. (Charles), 1809-1895.
Date:
1842
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: An answer to the homoeopathic delusions of Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes / by Charles Neidhard. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    7/40
    ganon all the discoverable symptoms so clearly that the founder of Homoeopathy himself shall find no flaw in the accu- racy of the inquirer, (it is understood, that each is a case, for which a similar homoeopathic specific may be found, as made known by its peculiar symptoms) then apply the most suita- ble homoeopathic medicine, pure and unmixed, to the existing disease, in such small proportion as this doctrine prescribes, but, as the precept expressly declares, with the removal of all foreign medicinal influence upon the patient, and then if you afford no relief, speedy, mild, and lasting relief, put to shame, I say, by the production of the authenticated docu- ments relating the whole history of the cures, after the strict observation of the rules prescribed by the homozopathic doc- trine, that doctrine so openly and earnestly menacing the ancient darkness. But beware, I beseech you, beware of any deception ! all knavery will come to light and brand you with an indelible mark. If then, after your conscientious trials, every other medical inquirer, in like manner, conscientious and careful, shall find a similar result—if all that the Homoeopathic doc- trine promises does not come to pass, after the most faithful fulfilment of all its instructions, then is Homoeopathy as good as lost—it is lost, if it is not beneficial—if it is not bene- ficial in the very highest degree. The main points, on which Dr. Holmes' whole discussion ought to have rested, he has therefore set aside, and he has consequently deprived himself of the most powerful means to crush (if that was his object as we must suspect,) the new doctrine. What were the other points left, open to him, and how has he made use of them ? He ought to have given a logical and faithful history (although it might have been con- cise) of the homoeopathic doctrines from the time of their dis- covery to the present day; distinctly stating the main doctrines, which must be entirely separated from their theories, which even Hahnemann does not consider of much importance, with their progressive development in the course of fifty years, their changes and reformations. This we conceive would 1*