The influence of homœopathy on general medicine since the death of Hahnemann / by R.E. Dudgeon.

  • Dudgeon, R. E. (Robert Ellis), 1820-1904.
Date:
1874
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The influence of homœopathy on general medicine since the death of Hahnemann / by R.E. Dudgeon. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    14/40 (page 14)
    years, inflammatory diseases iuu &u e -S tppm A •_ tvDe that, whereas patients labouring under them formerly Squired to be treated by depletion, they could uo now and debilitating treatment, but needed to be supported and strengthened by tonics In short human nature, it was asserted, had so altered t the self-same disease which was formerly a proof of exces¬ sive strength demanding all sorts of weakening processes was now an evidence of excessive weakness calling 01 manner of strengthening remedies. to reflect matter of iust pride to a graduate of Edinburgh to le that to ingenious theory was first put forward by the professors of his alma mater. . . , • i 1 This “ chaime of type55 notion was received with accla mation by medical writers and journalists, and at one time seemed on the point of being universally accepted as the true solution of the difficulty, and a ready method o accounting for the change of practice without admitting the influence of homoeopathy in the matter. £0 any one disposed to be cynical, it was as ludicrous a s & ness the wild enthusiasm of old and grave doctors over the delation of this scientific mare’s nest, and the intelle - tual capers they cut round the supposed dead b y homoeopathy, as it must have been to his townsmen to see the great mathematician rushing naked through the stieets, and^shouting “eureka!” like a maniac. But theie was an excuse for Archimedes which our allopathic opponen s did not possess, viz., that his was a real discoveiy. ft enabled him to detect the fraud of the king s goldsmi , but the imaginary discovery of Alison and Co. did enable them to convict their homoeopathic biethien o ** The chorus of mutual congratulations on the wonder¬ ful discovery had scarcely subsided, when the who e theory was upset by a few unenthusiastic sceptics, wo pertinently—or as some thought impertinently—asked tor proofs of the alleged change of type of disease lhese were, of course, not forthcoming, so that the talk about “ change of type” quickly subsided into ignominious ob¬ livion, and its authors found themselves covered wit 1 ridicule, in place of glory.