Reply to Dr. J. Dickson Smith's pamphlet on "Lobeliaism" / by M.S. Thomson.

  • Thomson, M. S.
Date:
1860
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Reply to Dr. J. Dickson Smith's pamphlet on "Lobeliaism" / by M.S. Thomson. 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.)

    14/20
    tion of statistics. It is needless to say that this constitutes the true difference between Allopathy as understood by Dr. Smith and Thorasonism as understood and practiced by us, the one di- minishes and svMues the vital processes, the other furthers and supports'''1 them, and great though the difference in result be as between the treatment pursued by those two gentlemen, it is not less marked here, we make bold to say—between Allopathy and Medical Keform ; so much so indeed is this the case in some sec- tions, and so well known is the fact, that many of the most intel- ligent planters and farmers in the country would no more think of entrusting a bad case of pneumonia to an Allopathist with his depleting appliances, than they would of having it to bury if they called a Reformer with his invigorating and supporting means! and if Dr. Smith is curious as to instances he can be pointed readi- ly to cases in which ruin stared men in the face in consequence of the loss of patients by the dozen al most, under Allopathic treatment where the hand of death was staid as if by magic on the appearance of the true Reformer. So that whatever Dr. Smith may say to the contrary, there is a revolution taking place in medicine, and Thom- sonism if not in name, in very fact, is in a fair way of being universally adopted, and we have not the slightest doubt that fifty years hence the medical doctrines of the immortal Thomson, whether credited to him or not, will pervade the world and be everywhere received as medical truth, and that his identical views are being expounded and insisted on by the highest medical au- thority, hailing from the highest seat of medical learning— the University of Edinburgh, that counts its students by the thou- sand—is itself a triumph, for whether, for the present, that great exponent Bennett, be considered the text book of modern medi- cine or not, he is still the occupant of the most advanced position, medically, in the world it is believed, and acknowledgedly honors that position by its occupancy; and the facts of the case are so appa- rent of themselves that it seems to us that the effort of Dr. Smith to impress'''1 his readers with the idea that these plain statements are not veritable but a ihoax' and ad captandum' trick'' on our part, is an attempt on their 'gullibility not at all complimentary to their understanding or character for common sense, and is so plain a case of an attempt at 'trick'ery and 'hoax'ing on his part that it carries its own 'deceit'fnl character indellibly stamped upon its face! While we do not feel ourself specially called on to reply to the Doctor's remarks—referring to Prof. Bennett's position,—predica- ted upon his non appreciation of the difference between the pres- ent and the future tense, and the trick of slipping in an is for a will, in the »w*-quotation he made, (itself an old Hrick ' of his,) we may yet remark that the Appendix referred to,—contain- ing as it does the objections to the new theory and his replies to them—but confirms all we said of them and is perhaps the most