An essay on the bite of a mad dog, in which the claim to infallibility of the principal preservative remedies against the hydrophobia is examined / by John Berkenhout, M.D.

Berkenhout, John, 1730?-1791.

Date:: 1783

Credit: An essay on the bite of a mad dog, in which the claim to infallibility of the principal preservative remedies against the hydrophobia is examined / by John Berkenhout, M.D. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by University of Bristol Library. The original may be consulted at University of Bristol Library.

27/92 (page 23)

$ftomach. In this laft part of his theory, he followed the opinion of Arthemidorus, Ju- Arteritis, and the difciples of Afclepiades. i\i c. i4. 36. Dr. Mead was perfuaded, that the Mecbau. feat of the difeafe is in the nervous fluid, Poifom. contaminated by the faliva of the dog a£t- E^ay' 3 ing as a ferment, and gradually affirmlat- jng the whole to its own degree of morbid acrimony. 37. Dr. James ridicules thefe opinions, and roundly declares, that *' he does not P. 37. believe one fyllable of the modern doctrine of nervous juices and nervous diftempers. Previous to the difplay of his own theory, in order to render it intelligible to readers unacquainted with anatomy, he tranllates, from Boerhaave's preface to his collection of authors on the venereal difeafe, a minute defcription of the cellular membrane; to which he adds two pages more, on the fame fubject, from Chefelden. The firfl of thefe begins thus— This membrane' is of a vafcular <c contexture, &c. This is certainly not true. If Dr. James had ever read fo com- mon a book as Haller's Primes Linece, he C 4 would$