PRICE 37 1-2 CENTS.


     AN
      \  EXAMINATION
 wbk
"R693 e
 iasi


    €he   €»ttutue
IN REGARD TO
INFINITESIMAL  DOSES.
ft  i &
■  ;i;
/
BY
WM. W. RODMAN, A. M., M. D.
j  P
  WATER BURY, CT.,

WILLIAM PATTON.

     1851.
E. B. COOKE AND CO....PRINTERS. 
 
/
AN
EXAMINATION
€\)t   t&vibtntt
IN REGARD TO
INFINITESIMAL  DOSES.
        BY

W. W. RODMAN, A. M., M. D.
   WATERBURY, CT.,
PRESS OF E. B. COOKE & CO.
      1851. 
WBK
■K6><?3e
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1851, by
              W. W. RODMAN,
 in the Clerk's office of the District Court of Connecticut.
r 
NOTICE.
  Although  in adducing facts to establish the several positions herein taken, I have
generally referred to standard Allopathic authorities, and only quote from Homoeopathic
works when it is expressly stated that they are such, it should be remarked that it is in
the  latter class of works alone that the subjects are fully treated.  To one disposed to
pursue the enqxiiry, an unlimited amount of material is accessible, much of which bears
directly on the different doctrines and  positions which in the following pages are inci-
dentally brought to his notice.
387417 
 
             EVIDENCE

                  IN REGARD TO

INFINITESIMAL  DOSES.
                     INTRODUCTION.
   It would seem to be a maxim among physicians, that
 those holding conflicting opinions should not come to-
 gether to compare their several views, and modify their
 practice.   Nay, that  they must be an exception to the
 rule that  " it becomes all men to maintain peace and the
 common offices of humanity and friendship in the diver-
 sity of  opinions."  If this is so, it is a duty which all
 intelligent men  owe  to themselves and to others not to
 be deterred from entering the difficult labyrinths of med-
 ical evidence, but to listen to their respective claims, and
 sit as umpires between the discordant doctors.   From
 such, and  especially from the medical profession of every
 school, I would ask a candid decision  on  the following
 pages.  The effects of medicines and the treatment of
 disease  are subjects in which  all men  have a personal
 interest.  The principles of medical science are not so
 settled,  the honest opinions  of its  professors  are not so
 united as  to make it improper for  any man to examine
 any mode whereby it  is proposed to allay pain or  cure
 disease.
                Statement of the question.
  The question I propose to examine may be thus stated.
Certain practitioners assert that medicines have valuable
properties in doses much smaller than has usually been
                         1* 
G
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
thought possible.   That these properties are distinct from
the cathartic, emetic and other disturbing effects of the
remedy.   That in doses much smaller even than those
whereby are usually obtained the " alterative or deob-
struent" effects of  medicines, there  is  an  alterative
power having definite relations to the effects of the same
remedies in larger doses.  To this power they give the
name Homoeopathic, and the doses in which it is claimed
to exist are often so small that the term " infinitesimal"
has been adopted to characterise them.  Has this power a
real existence,  and if so, can it be made available in the
cure of disease ?   Such a question it  would seem might
easily be settled.
  The advocates of these doses moreover avow the belief
in certain theories, which wilh the evidence  on which
they are based, constitute, as they claim, a system  of
medical science.  The truth of the theories  will depend
first on the truth of the asserted facts, and secondly, on
the correctness  of the reasoning upon them.  As the
character of a process of reasoning depends on the ac-
curacy, and is  liable to the fallacies, of human judgment,
I shall pay  but little attention to the mere theoretical
claims of the  homoeopathic  system,  and  shall content
myself with examining the  truth of their assertions on
the single point, viz : that their medicines in  the doses in
which they use them are effective as medicines.
               Definition of Infinitesimal.
  In using the term  infinitesimal it is hardly necessary
to say that I do not have any reference to infinity in the
absolute or in the mathematical sense.   Nor  do I include
the extreme dilutions used  by  some  homoeopathists.
Among  themselves it is an interesting question, how
far  the division  of the dose may be carried, but as the
present issue is with others,  such enquiries are irrele-
vant. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
7
  But I do mean, 1st, such doses as, according to ordinary
views may be fairly styled infinitesimal.   Such as would
not  admit of explanation on  any commonly received
principle.  Such as are many times smaller than the
smallest allopathic dose of the same remedy.   2d.  That
they shall, at the same time, be such doses as homoeopa-
thists are agreed upon as furnishing simply the  homoe-
opathic effects of drugs, thus excluding, on the one hand,
doses so large that some appreciable disturbance of the
system  would usually result from their administration,
even if the homoeopathic effect might be  obtained, and
on  the  other, the  high dilutions already referred  to.
Many homoeopathists have never used these,  and there-
fore do not claim to have any decided opinions in regard
to them.
  By thus limiting the term infinitesimal to the doses
commonly used by homoeopathists and recommended in
their books, we secure  a definiteness  to  the enquiry
which,  in the discussions on this subject, has  not  al-
ways been maintained.  "Whether such doses can ever
so far affect the human system, as to excite or assist its
natural restorative powers to the cure and palliation of
disease, is the question at issue.

              Negative alternatives threefold.
  Those who deny the efficacy of infinitesimal doses in
specific cases must do so  on one of the three following
grounds:
  1st. This efficacy is absolutely impossible or incompat-
ible with certain demonstrated truths.
  2d. It is so improbable as to amount to a moral impos-
sibility, in other words, there is so much evidence against
it that no attainable evidence can prove it.
  Or, 3d.  It  is so improbable that the evidence adduced
in its favor does  not prove it. 
8
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
  That twice two is equal to six cannot be true, that the
sun will not rise to-morrow cannot be proved, that a mode
may be discovered whereby light and heat can be ob-
tained at an expense  which  compared with  previous
methods, might  be fairly styled infinitesimal, has  not
been  proved.   These  examples  illustrate  the  above
distinctions.
 The efficacy imputed to these doses not an absolute impossibility.
  I am not aware that the  first of these positions has
ever been assumed by any one.  The opponents of homoe-
opathy frequently speak  of the  effects  imputed to its
doses as being impossible.  These effects have even been
said to involve an absurdity, similar to the claim that the
part is greater than the whole.  No one, however, seri-
iously means I presume, that such effects involve a con-
tradiction with any ascertained truths.  No demonstra-
tion, certainly, of the impossibility of  the asserted facts
has ever been produced.  Were this once done, it would
be  conclusive,  rendering all argument  superfluous.
The " possibility" is  yielded  when facts  and arguments
are appealed to, as the proofs of the inertness of homoe-
opathic doses.
                Not a moral impossibility.
  The second position, viz : that the improbability of these
doses having remedial power is so great that the suppo-
sition cannot be true, is the one usually taken, or at least
acted upon by the profession.   When the subject forces
itself upon their attention it is declared to be incredible
because it  is irreconcilable  with undoubted facts  and
principles.   The  published  attacks upon homoeopathy,
so far as I have met them, are attempts to settle the ques-
tion by establishing a conclusive a priori presumption
against the system.   So complete is the incredibility sup-
posed to be, that it is not thought necessary to furnish de-
tailed experiments, or any analysis of the  testimony of 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
9
homoeopathists, nor to produce the statements of such
witnesses as give proof of being competent, by showing
that they were acquainted with the homoeopathic system.
Professor Lawson, in the Western Lancet (Feb. 1846)
says, " No one who has the slightest acquaintance with
the laws that govern the human system and the effects
of medicines, can for a moment believe that infinitesimal
doses of medicines, such as properly belong to the homoe-
opathic  system, can  under  any   circumstances  exert
the  slightest  influence in the cure of disease."   Dr.
Worthington Hooker says, "The  homoeopathist attrib-
utes palpable results to doses of medicine which are so
small that they cannot produce any perceptible effect ex-
cept by a miracle."*  Dr. John Bostock, in his History of
Medicine,  dismisses  homoeopathy with the  single re-
mark that " no medical testimony is sufficient to establish
a fact which is  itself  incredible, and that this previous
incredibility can only  be ascertained  by an extensive
and accurate knowledge of the functions and properties
of the living body, both mental and corporeal in all its
modifications, and under all circumstances, and by a cor-
rect and careful generalization of the  knowledge thus
obtained."!
  To show that this position cannot  be maintained, I
would urge the following considerations  :
                For, it is not miraculous.
  It may be extremely improbable that medicines can
have valuable properties in so minute doses.    No mere
improbability, however, can be so great  as to justify us
in declining to examine so important a subject, by exper-
iment, and by fairly weighing the  testimony of others.
No statement  whatever, the  evidence against which, is
that  of moral probabilities merely, can be  so  incredible
 * Lessons from the history of Medical delusions. New York, 1850. Page 25.
 t Cyclopedia of Practical Medicine. Philadelphia, 1845.  Vol. 3d, page 2-28. 
10
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
that " no testimony is sufficient to establish it."  At one
stage  of our knowlege we  can never be  certain of the
amount of probability when that knowledge is increased.
Had some of us been told some years since, that a mode
could  be devised whereby thought could be instantly
transmitted to a distant city, we might have rejected a
truth  for its  extreme  improbability.  That a homoeo-
pathic dose should produce a perceptible effect,  is no
miracle  unless it is " opposed to universal experience."
The experience of those who have tried these doses may
perhaps be found not to be universally  against them.
But if it really  is  a  miracle,  it  may  even  then be
proved by testimony.   Even Hume, in his famous essay
on this subject, admitted so much as this.  He says, " I
beg the limitations here made may be remarked when I
say that a miracle can never be proved so as to be the
foundation of a system of religion: for I own that other-
wise there  may be miracles or violations of the usual
course of nature of such a kind as to admit of proof
from human testimony."
                    Or incredible.
  But I claim next that the improbability in this case
previous to experiment and testimony is not so great  as
the preceding suggestions would imply.  Such improb-
ability can only be proved by showing, 1st: that Anal-
ogy is entirely at variance with the claim that medicines
in infinitesimal doses affect the bodily organs, and 2d:
that the peculiarities  of the homoeopathic system, and
collateral circumstances furnish no presumptions in their
favor.  Should either of these suppositions be erroneous,
the claim would be brought within the limits of credi-
bility, where a certain amount of evidence would estab-
lish our proposition, and were  this  unattainable, where
a less amount might render it probable, or at least show
it to be possible. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
11
                    It is not without Analogy.
      The argument from analogy, appears to furnish the
   strongest objections which are urged against infinitesi-
   mal doses.  The efficacy imputed to them is commonly
   thought to be  utterly unlike all the ascertained proper-
   ties of material agents.  Language is said to be inade-
   quate to express the absurdity of believing in this efficacy.
   The claim in their favor is thought to be " a gratuitous
   outrage to human reason."  It is important to determine
   wherein  the force  of this  argument consists, and how
   much weight is due to it.
      That the efficacy imputed to these doses  is extremely
   improbable previous to evidence in their favor, no one
   denies.   But we daily see extreme improbabilities give
   way to evidence, and what  was regarded  as  impossi-
   ble, is often found to be true and rational.  The opposers
   of infinitesimal doses do not, I think, usually state clearly
   why these should be  an exception, and the evidence
   in their favor should not even be examined.   So far as I
   can see, the argument would be thus stated : It is highly
   improbable  because unlike all the ascertained phenom-
   ena of nature,  that power sufficient to affect the vital
   functions can  exist in quantities  of matter, which are
   infinitesimal in weight and bulk.   This improbability is
   increased, if " appreciable" quantities  of the substance
   do not produce such overwhelming results as would be
   expected if  the minute amount  has any effect.   The im-
   probability becomes moral certainty, if large quantities
1   do not usually manifest any effect on the vital functions,
   or if we are familiar with the common  properties of the
   substance without finding any thing in them to indicate
   such  powers.   If this is not  a fair statement of the
   grounds on which the conclusion is based, I think the ar-
   gument needs  re-investigation. 
12
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
                 From various sources.
  On it I would observe,   1st.  It is not absurd, though
it be improbable, that effects should be produced by
means which, so far as is yet known, are altogether inad-
equate to their accomplishment.  The records of science
are little else than a catalogue of such marvels.  As a
general rule, the formative and the remedial agents of
nature are those which would have appeared to be quite
incompetent to the purpose.   The insect, the snail,  and
the animalcule are vastly better  architects than all the
monsters of the sea and land.   The gentle breeze, the
sunshine and the dew are the restorative and develop-
ing powers, while those immensely more active, the  tor-
nado, the earthquake, and the flood, are fit merely to
disturb and to destroy.  We are just beginning to learn
how effective are agents quite  as immaterial  as the
doses of  the homoeopathist, and of whose very existence
we  possess no other evidence than the phenomena we
extort from them, and as their properties are unfolded,
each year brings  its host of discoveries, which astonish
us  both  by their immense  results and the apparent
feebleness of the means.
  2d. It will not do to take it for granted that the power
of physical agents is always proportioned to their weight
and bulk.  The amount of matter, necessary to produce
a given  result, will  depend on circumstances, one of
which would be the state of aggregation of the particles,
according to which it would be more or less diffusible.
It would also depend on the delicacy and susceptibility
of the thing to  be acted  upon.   That susceptibility
would only be blunted, if the keenness of the agent was
not proportioned to its own.  If the result aimed at  was
to overthrow a mountain oak, the thunderbolt of heaven
might be requisite, but if it was to restore to right action
the delicate vital force, the result would hardly be  pro- 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
13
portioned  to the amount of power used.  It might also
depend on circumstances of which we know but little.
The next  breath might bring to us a hidden poison ut-
terly inappreciable to our tests.  A slight current of air
might do more to sicken than the gale of yesterday.
  3d. It is not inadmissible that a substance with which
we are familiar should have latent properties of a very
energetic  character.   We may never have tested them
in precisely the circumstances  in which these properties
would show themselves, or if they have occurred, we
may have erroneously  attributed them  to some other
cause.   The seed might furnish us food for a long period,
and if we knew nothing of its germinating power, we
should never suspect that such a force lay dormant within
it.  Much might be said to disprove  it.  If, as you say,
one seed will produce its hundred, and each of these its
hundred  again,  and so on—you would  soon  have the
world filled with it alone, there would be no room for
any thing else.   Again, each one of your first crop would
have but a hundredth part of the original vital principle
peculiar to it, and thus they would diminish in power at
so rapid  a rate as  soon to exhaust  themselves.  Your
statement is  absurd: it is an  outrage to human reason
to ask us  to plant a seed and try your experiment.  The
bar of iron in our hands may be a magnet and we know
nothing of it.   It may even have  the  strange power
needed for making  new magnets ad infinitum, without
losing its own  potency.   We might see metals rusting
under the action of acid, all our lives, without appreci-
ating the  galvanic force,
   The  ascertained results of vaccination  prove: 1st,
that matter may have latent properties only to be learned
by specific experiments on the human system ; 2d, that
these properties may be  not at all proportioned to the
weight and bulk of the vehicle, as it is almost a matter of
                          2 
14
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
indifference whether much or little of the virus is used ;
3d, that what would appear to be a process of dilution
is not necessarily such,  as no perceptible diminution of
the peculiar efficacy results from continuing the process
from individual to individual, though thereby, but an in-
finitesimal portion of the original agent can be retained ;
4th, that there is a diversity in the  susceptibility of dif-
ferent persons to such an agency, only discoverable by
experiment;  5th, that important changes may be going
on in the system without any evidence thereof being ex-
hibited during at least part of the process.
  Such analogies, it will perhaps be said, are too "loose
to form the foundation of a system of medicine."  Very
true, but they should  at least teach  us  caution in the
argument.
              In what we know of medicines.
  In prosecuting the argument from Analogy, we are
now prepared to enquire what light is  thrown upon the
subject by what  we know of the action of medicines
upon the human system.  A little reflection will show us,
I think, that we know so little of the effects of remedies
previous to experiment with them, that the powers im-
puted to even infinitesimal doses may be credible.   That,
for example, a man may avow the belief that " a mere
atom" of arsenic or belladonna has remedial properties
in certain states of the system without forfeiting his
character for soundness of mind or honesty of motive.
   If  this is  denied, any argument against it must be
based on its being utterly unlike all that  we know to be
true either of the remedy itself or of the human system
in health or  in disease; including  of course such phe-
nomena as result from their mutual relations.
   If the position is taken that what  we  know of the
remedy shows it to be unreasonable  that so minute a
portion of it should exert a medicinal action, my  reply
would be that however  different it may be  from our ac- 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
15
 customed views of these articles, though there be no link
 whereby we can connect it  with what  we do  know of
 them, it  is not incompatible with that knowledge.  We
 know that a certain  quantity of arsenic or belladonna
 will poison.   We learn this not from their chemical or
 sensible properties, but because they have poisoned, and
 we have found that if the dose be diminished within cer-
 tain  limits it will no  longer do so.   But we could not
 infer from these facts what their properties would be  in
 still smaller doses.   That either of them had valuable
 properties as a "tonic" or "narcotic" could only be proved
 by experiment, and  experiment alone  would  show that
 when the dose was  still further diminished these useful
 properties would be lost.   Even smaller doses might be
 valuable in appropriate cases for all that we have learned
 to the contrary, and  nothing but  experiment  in those
 cases could  either establish or disprove it.   A minute
 dose of ipecac is said to quiet a sick stomach under cer-
 tain  circumstances, though  too small to produce  any
 appreciable  effect upon a healthy one and although a
 larger dose would have directly opposite effects.*  The
 question  would  depend on the evidence,  and could only
 be settled by experiment.   That matter retains  its iden-
 tity when " infinitesimally" divided, and that in this state
 it is capable of affecting the  human organism is well
 known,f and is illustrated by the extreme division which
 odoriferous substances must undergo, and by their effects
 on the susceptible—causing at times fainting and convul-
 sions. J  Experiment, did we only know where  to  make  it,
  * Billings' Principles of Medicine.
  t See a valuable article on the minute division of matter, by  Dr. Joslin, in Silliman's
Journal of Science, Jan. 1847. Also Principles of Homoeopathy,  by Dr. Joslin.
  % Dr. Hooker says (Med. Del. p. 66) that such analogies " do not touch the  point at issue
unless it is proved that an infinitesimal amount of any substance, musk for example, can
be made to emit a stronger odor than a large quantity of it." This appears to me to be
a mistake. All that it is necessary  to prove is, that an infinitesimal amount of the sub-
stance will produce more effect on one person under one set of circumstances than a large
quantity would on a different person under very different circumstances, 
16
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
might lead us to remedial doses which,  compared with
our present ones, might be termed infinitesimal.   Some
criterion of the degree of probability would be found in
the sensibility of the system, or of parts of it.  If we knew
that in any given morbid condition there was complete
insensibility to other agents, it would be improbable that
therein the system would be affected by very minute doses
of medicine.  But if we knew that it was acutely suscep-
tible to some impressions  so slight as ordinarily to have
no effect, it would not  be unreasonable to infer that there
might be medicines which would have effects though
quite  inappreciable in other states of the system.   I see
not how the conclusion can  be avoided, that we  know
nothing of medicines which, previous to experiment with
infinitesimal  doses, shows it  to be incredible that they
may affect remedially the human organism.
                Or of the  vital functions.
   Is it not equally evident that we know nothing  of the
human system—its healthy or its morbid functions which
renders this supposition unreasonable ?
                      In health.
   Many individuals  apparently in good health, are ex-
 ceedingly susceptible to  certain medicines even in very
 minute quantities.  A breath of  air in which was float-
 ing an  " inappreciable" amount of powdered ipecac has
 repeatedly brought on an attack of asthma.  A millionth
 of a grain of the  exhalations of our "poison sumach"
 must be sufficient to cause a  severe erysipelatous inflam-
 mation, as some are thus affected by merely riding near it.
 These, and other cases of " idiosyncrasy," are as impro-
 bable, previous to their being established by evidence, as
 the assertions of the homoeopathists.  Nay, they are more
 so: for we know from repeated experiments, that these
 substances do not ordinarily produce these effects, but we 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
17
 do not know from actual trial, anything which renders
 the effects of similar doses on an appropriate  patient
 improbable.
                      In disease.
   Again, we know that disease alters the susceptibility
 of the system to medicines as well  as to other  agents.
 A particle of food, a spoonful of water may disturb an
 irritable stomach.   A touch, a breath of air, a ray of
 light  may wound an excited nerve.   A weak solution of
 borax will sometimes cure a diseased mucus membrane,
 though it, or a larger quantity, produce no  appreciable
 effect on a healthy one.   A diseased  organ is in a state
 of unnatural excitement, and unusually susceptible to all
 external agents: especially is this true of agents which
 have  a tendency to affect that very organ.   If infinitesi-
 mal amounts of matter ever affect the system in health,
 it would be probable, rather than otherwise, they might
 often do so in disease.   The increase in  our knowledge
 of medicines and of the human system, has been con-
 stantly  introducing  doses  hitherto  unused.   If  a  new
 field  of experiment  were opened to  us, it would not be
 absurd  to enter it because we were  told that it  would
 lead us to far smaller doses than those we have here-
 tofore used.  Should such power exist, we should never
 know it except from experiment.  Experiment  might
 prove it.  It  would be an addition to  our present know-
 ledge, not contrary to it.   No theoretical considerations,
 certainly, can justify us in denying its credibility.
   It is therefore important to observe, that these claims
 are confined to a field almost unexplored except by one
party in this  discussion.  The homoeopathists find their
indications for the use of a remedy in its effects upon a
healthy person, and prescribe it for symptoms similar to
those  which itself would tend to produce.   The profes-
sion at  large, have never  considered this a reasonable
                        2* 
19
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
field of enquiry.  It is, for example, one of Pereira's ob-
jections to homoeopathy, that its medicines would only
aggravate the diseases for which  they are given.*   This
impression has prevented adequate experiments on the
effects of medicines, for such symptoms as these medicines
are known to produce.   That the objection is not well
founded, might be  suspected from the well known prin-
ciple, that the action of medicines is different, often op-
posite, in large and in small doses, and also when other
circumstances vary.  The opposite effects of large and
small doses of opium, the efficacy of small doses of some
of the cathartics in diarrhea, the fact that  turpentine in
large doses causes and in small doses  cures inflamma-
tion of the bowels,f that camphor, cubebs,  &c.  cause
and cure irritation of the urinary organs, are familiar
illustrations  of this principle.   Whether effects might
not be obtained from  still  smaller doses, (of turpentine,
for instance,) provided we select from the cases, in which
it would be serviceable, such as have  other  symptoms
resembling those produced by it, is a fair subject for ex-
periment.  If we have been in the  habit of prescribing
a drug for a certain disease, experience may have taught
us that it was  useless to  give it in very small doses.
But this experience cannot decide the question whether
this drug may influence  a different, much less an  oppo-
site set of symptoms.  Nor does it make it unreasona-
ble to suppose that therein the system may be far more
susceptible to it, and consequently that far  smaller doses
will have effect.  How far the division of the dose might
be carried it is not necessary to decide.  The  great sus-
ceptibility of the human  system to occasional irritants,
shows that the limit might not be  easily found.  But it
will be time enough to  enquire whether effects can be
* Materia Medica. Philadelphia, 1843. Vol. 1st, page 153.
t Eberle's Practice of Medicine. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
19
obtained from  decillionth dilutions, after we  shall have
settled the question in regard to  those which are less
remote from undisputed ground.
                    Other objections.
  The considerations drawn from analogy include, more-
over, certain objections to infinitesimal doses which are
thought to be insurmountable, and hence  to  furnish a
conclusive argument against them.  So far as I can see,
these objections may be reduced to the following heads :
  1st. That  these  effects  are incredible,  because the
same medicines may be given in ordinary doses without
benefit for the  very diseases for which they are admin-
istered homoeopathically.
  2d. That homoeopathic medicines may be taken with-
out producing  any effect on the system, even  in  large
quantities and habitually.
  3d. That we cannot explain or understand the  modus
operandi of these doses.
  4th. That the admission of the efficacy of these  doses
involves certain disastrous  consequences to  " scientific
medicine."
  In regard to  the first of these  objections, I  would ob-
serve, it is not unreasonable to suppose  that  the  small
dose  may be more  efficacious than a large  one  would
be,  for—1st, the latter may produce effects  which coun-
teract the remedial effects of the small one.   The  " ton-
ic" powers imputed to aloes or rhubarb,* the "alterative"
effects of calomel or bloodroot, may be lost if the dose is
too  much increased.   Vomiting,  sweating, or any dis-
turbing result may interfere with  the  remedial action.
2d.  It is  possible that the minute  subdivision of matter
may develope properties heretofore latent.  The chemist
assures  us that this is true  of its chemical properties,
the  homoeopathist  that it is  true of its medical.   It
               * Pereira's Mat. Med. on these articles. 
20
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
appears to me no more rational to reject one statement
without examination than it would be the other.  Is it
wisdom to believe  that there is latent heat in a drop of
water or a lump of ice, but folly to believe that a piece
of silex may have latent medical properties ?  Previous
to experiments,  there would appear to be as strong  a
presumption against the statement of the chemist that a
piece of charcoal is identical, in its chemical composition,
with the diamond, as there is against that of the homoeo-
pathist,  that this charcoal or diamond, if subdivided so
minutely as  to be absorbable by the minutest capillary
of the system, may have  valuable remedial properties.
Where such a subdivision exists in  certain natural pre-
parations, there is found to  be an  activity far greater
than their  chemical analysis  or  physiological  effects
would lead us to expect.   The cod liver oil contains but
a trace of iodine and bromine, and therefore  somewhat
resembles the preparations of the homoeopathist.   Some
of the  most  highly prized mineral waters  contain  so
little "active medicine," that their effects cannot be ac-
counted for  on any commonly received  principle.  3d.
The curative effects imputed to these  remedies may be
prevented, when given  allopathically, through neglect of
certain cautions, which those who  advocate these doses
consider quite important. A mode of preparing medicines,
than which  none  has ever been devised  apparently so
well calculated to develope  their  properties, the admin-
istration of the remedies uncombined with one another,
and  the avoidance  on  the part of the patient of any-
thing which might  be  supposed to interfere with the
remedial action ; these peculiarities  are claimed to af-
ford a reasonable answer to this objection to our doses.*
4th.  The objection makes an  assumption  which may
be unfounded.  An acquaintance with the homoeopathic
* See Dr. Joslin's work, already referred to. 
                 INFINITESIMAL DOSES.               N21
principle, and a comparison with  it of the effects of
remedies may show that, under the ordinary treatment,
cures do  result in accordance with it more frequently
than those suppose who do not attend to it.  Homoeopa-
thists assert this and  urge  an investigation of  the sub-
ject.  It may be found that many orthodox cures are
due to the homoeopathicity  of the remedy.
  Another objection to these doses  is frequently urged,
viz : that homoeopathic medicines may be taken in much
larger quantities  without   producing any  perceptible
effect.  To this I reply, 1st. No one can deny that medi-
cines may produce curative effects in small doses, though
in large ones there may be no such disturbance as would
account for their remedial properties.  The effects of
sarsaparilla and other remedies popular with those who
urge the objection, sufficiently illustrate  this principle.
2d. Infinitesimal  doses are  not claimed in this  essay to
have any effects, except where the precise indications
for them exist, though I think  it could be  shown that
they do affect the healthy, when sufficient  care is used
in the experiment.   3d. In an occasional occurrence of
these indications, the remedial effects might be lost by
the very excess of dose, and by the neglect of indispen-
sable cautions.   4th.  Occasional  results which might
occur, might  not be recognized by those who will not
admit their possibility, but would be referred to  accident
or anything  else rather than the  dose.   5th.  We can
draw but uncertain inference as to the remedial effects
of a medicine by the habitual or careless use of any arti-
cle.   Should we  decide as  to the  remedial powers of
tobacco, opium, or even arsenic, from the effects of these
agents on those who are habitually or occasionally un-
der their influence, we might be led into serious error.
But, 6th. This objection and the previous one, take for
granted certain questions, in regard to which those who 
22
EVIDENCE IN REGARD  TO
urge the objections are at issue  with homoeopathists.
The latter assert that aggravations of disease and its
symptoms  are  occasionally the  consequence of their
doses, and frequently result from medicines  if used in
larger  doses when they happen to be homoeopathic to
the symptoms.   That  in  the nearest approach which
the objectors ever make  to infinitesimal doses,  these
aggravations are conceded, being urged  as a valid ob-
jection to the remedy, while they are merely so to the
doses in which they are given.  Instances may be select-
ed  almost at random.  One  physician  (Dr. Waller)
recommends  a  medicine very  highly for  some  disease,
(for example, belladonna for whooping cough,)  another
(Dr. Theophilus Thompson) objects, because in  some
cases where it was given, " he had found that the poi-
sonous rather than the curative  effects of the remedy
developed  themselves, even though the doses adminis-
tered were remarkably small."*  The accidents which
have occurred with ordinary doses of tincture of aconite,
have led some to reject it altogether as being a danger-
ous remedy.  For a  similar reason medical men have
often been led to avoid testing the value of remedies in
the cases in which we use them,  because they " would
only increase the original disease."  The two  objections
are inconsistent, and thus  neutralize  each other.  It is
begging the  question to conclude on a priori grounds,
that there cannot be  a dose  so  small as to avoid the
dangerous effects of the remedy and yet large enough
to  secure its beneficial action.
   The objection urged against these doses, that we can-
not understand how the system can be affected by them,
is hardly relevant to the point at issue.  The question is
as to the amount of evidence, and those who reject more
direct presumptions would, not be likely to listen to the
* London Lancet, Jan. 1845. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
23
explanations we offer.  Homoeopathists suppose, in com-
mon with others, that most  symptoms are but indica-
tions  of the efforts of nature  to  remove  disease, and
hence that it is the duty of the physician to act in accord-
ance with them: that  where nature needs  assistance,
perhaps these remedies excite the reaction of the affected
organ by giving it a slight impulse, analagous to  that
which the disease has given.  This is offered as  a pos-
sible explanation ;  still  others  are  suggested which are
worthy of the attention of honest  enquirers after truth.
That the objection is not a fatal one, can be seen  by any
one who will undertake to give us  an explanation of the
action of sarsaparilla.  If, as  Pereira says, this  article
" has little taste and no smell,"—if " by the ordinary use
of it, it  produces but very slight if  any obvious effects,"
—if, moreover, " in the  hands of some, it has failed  to
relieve  or cure  diseases in which  others  have found it
effectual," what reason  can be given why British and
American surgeons should admit its therapeutic power
and deny that of homoeopathic  remedies.
  The objections drawn from the consequences of admit-
ting these claims, so far as they bear on the  question at
issue, evidently belong to a different part of the investi-
gation.   Such objections, however,  are  but remotely
relevant to  this question.  Our opinions as to the  causes
and consequences of any general truths are very apt to
mislead us.   The truth or  falsity of disputed facts  may
often be reached with entire certainty, where all such
speculations in regard to them may be altogether delu-
sive.
  Such  objections  as those implied in Dr. Bostock's
excuse  for not examining homoeopathy, (quoted page  9,)
too plainly beg the  question to  require further examina-
tion.  Instead of knowing the properties of the living
body under  "all" circumstances, it is plain that, at  least 
24
EVIDENCE
under one set of circumstances, he had never investiga-
ted them and therefore did not know them.
  These considerations, without the necessity of proceed-
ing further, appear to me to prove that the second  posi-
tion in our trilemma is untenable; in other words, that
there is no conclusive presumption against these doses—
nay, that there are fair analogies in their favor.  If this
is so, the question is to be referred to the evidence.
  First:  that drawn from the circumstances amid which
the doses present themselves.
  Second, and chiefly: to our own experiments, and the
testimony of others.
  But if this inference is not correct, if it be true that
there is nothing in the  ascertained phenomena of nature
which is analagous to  the activity imputed to infinitesi-
mal doses, and that of  all the known properties of medi-
cines, not one  resembles those  under  consideration, a
supposition than which nothing  appears to me more  ex-
travagant, even then we would undertake to prove their
e fficac}', and claim that the evidence is so full, the pre-
sumptions so fair, and the testimony so  conclusive, that
no man with it fairly before him could reasonably reject
the conclusion which we urge upon him. 
IAL DOSES.
25
                  INDIRECT EVIDENCE.

  If it is possible that infinitesimal doses of medicine
may act remedially, we are prepared to examine the
probabilities in regard to it.   It comes before us a ques-
tion of fact, to be  determined by the  evidence.   Al-
though, from the nature of the subject, demonstration
is unattainable, 1 hope to show that the preponderance
of proof is strongly in their favor,—evidence of precisely
the character which, in the ordinary  concerns  of life,
forms the belief and determines the conduct.
           Presumptions in favor of Homoeopathy.
  In the first place, a slight examination of the homoeo-
pathic system would seem to furnish indirect evidence
that there must be some truth connected with it. But it
can safely be assumed, that there can be no truth in any
part of the system if not one of its  doses  can have ef-
fects—in other words, if an infinitesimal dose  can not
be remedial.
  The very remoteness of its claims from the commonly
received views, affords, I think, some presumption that
its medicines must  sometimes have  effects.  An asser-
tion which widely differs from what we have  hitherto
believed, is much more narrowly scanned than one which
nearly coincides with it.  It is therefore to be expected,
that the attention of every one would be awakened to
the results of this treatment.  If some mysterious process
were gone  through, which might at least affect the ima-
gination ; if, by some disturbing treatment, the patient
might be persuaded that the relief which he felt after its
effects were over, was produced by it; if some  electric
shock, or even an unpleasant taste was communicated,
there might be room for doubt, but it is almost incredible
that patients should be  cured,  or persuade themselves
                     3 
26
EVIDENCE  IN REUAKD  iu
they were cured, by absolutely no treatment, and that too,
under  circumstances calculated to awaken  their sus-
picions.
              It is not a system of quackery.
  This system has not the usual marks of imposture.   It
does not claim to  cure by secret or patented nostrums,
but by means which any one can make trial of. Hither-
to it has been thought that it was only necessary that an
" empirical remedy" should be disclosed, to insure it the
fate it merited.*  Homoeopathists invite  others to ac-
quaint themselves with their remedies, with  an  assur-
ance that if they  use them with  proper care they will
succeed with them.
   Homoeopathy is not founded in ignorance and depend-
ant for its success  on the ignorance of its dupes.  " Hah-
nemann was undoubtedly a man of genius and a scholar ;
a man of indefatigable industry and undaunted energy."!
His system  embraces, where justice  is done to  it, the
entire range of the medical  sciences.  Every fact,  in
each of them, finds its proper place in modifying its prin-
ciples and its treatment.   Its patrons are, " for the most
part, the refined, the learned and the wealthy."!
   To appreciate duly, however, the presumptions which
the homoeopathic system furnishes in regard to infinitesi-
mal doses, we must examine more particularly its char-
 acteristic features.
                  State of the controversy.
   The history of the controversies on this subject shows
 that  it  is necessary to restrict such enquiries  within
 definite limits.
    Homoeopathists  enunciate certain principles which
 they claim to be based—some of them on facts, others to
 be deductions therefrom by processes of reasoning more
  * Blane's Medical Logic,  Section viii.
  + Forbes' Review of Homoeopathy. Brit, and For. Med. and Surg. Review for 1846.
  X Hooker's Medical Delusions, pp. 54 and 79. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
27
 or less direct.   Most physicians indiscriminately refuse
 to admit these claims, on the ground that they are oppos-
 ed to established  facts and principles, which they think
 furnish so strong a presumption against homoeopathy as
 to justify them in refusing to examine the facts  alleged
 in their favor.   Thus the two parties do not come to an
 issue, and the controversy has been mostly a wearisome
 and  too often  an irritating attempt to  establish  and re-
 fute  certain positions by  argument.  The difficulty has
 been  increased to endless  confusion by  the constant in-
 troduction of collateral issues.
   It is necessary to select some  one question  which may
 for the time be  the rallying point in the discussion, and
 to which it  may  be  confined.  Such an issue  is to be
 found in the question,  " Have these doses the efficacy
 imputed to them ?" and no argument is worth taking into
 account which has not  a palpable bearing on the naked
 question, whether infinitesimal  doses produce remedial
 effects.
   I shall not undertake, therefore, to defend the leading
 dogmas of homoeopathy.  These may be true or may be
 false, without determining this precise question.   Those
 who feel inclined to make an assault upon other parts of
 this system will probably find some of its defenders rea-
 dy to meet them on any ground  they may choose for the
 attack.  At present I  shall  merely try to show,  that
 there is enough in  some of its principles, which is demon-
 strable and conceded, to furnish a presumption in favor
 of its doses, and therefore (especially if analogy leads to
 no conclusive presumption against them) that medical
 men have no valid excuse for not bringing this question
 to the test, upon which  homoeopathists have always in-
 sisted.
   Peculiarities of Homaiopaihy which bear upon the  question.
  Several peculiarities of homoeopathy appear to me to
afford strong presumptions in favor of its doses. 
28
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
        A new method of studying the Materia Medica.
   First.—Its physicians believe they have a method of
learning the properties of medicines by a deductive pro-
cess.   It had  heretofore been taught, not merely " that
all attempts to ascertain the properties of the articles of
the materia medica from hypothetical principles were of
no effect," but " that the only  method which promised
any success, was to  collect from the best sources of in-
formation the most authentic  facts, and afterwards to
arrange the  facts thus obtained in a scientific form."*
While this was the prevailing doctrine, the idea was
started, or  revived, that  the true way of learning  the
properties of medicines was by observing their effects
on healthy persons.  " With a firmness of purpose and
spirit  of perseverance  that  scarcely admits a parallel,
Hahnemann and some of his  followers  submitted an
immense number of the most active articles of the mate-
ria medica to the test of experience."  " In conducting
these  experiments, the most patient and unwearied at-
tentions have been  bestowed by them, not merely  in
guarding scrupulously against all sources of contingent
influence, but likewise in noticing with the greatest ex-
actitude the multifarious changes produced in the seve-
ral functions of the system."!   By  such a process, thus
conducted, may be  elicited the  pathogenetic effects of a
newly discovered  substance, while  those  of our  old
remedies may be confirmed or  corrected.  This method
makes available all that is positively known of the medi-
cine—all  that accident, as in cases of poisoning, may
make known of its effects.
   Is there not the same  presumption  that  this precise
study will lead to  useful discoveries  as  exists in any
other  case where facts are gathered and studied ?  Or is
* Bostock's Materia Medica, in Edin. Encyc. p. 397.
t Prof. Edw'd Geddings. Amer, Jour, of Med. Sciences, 1830. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
29
it supposable that those who pursue these investigations
should themselves  reject whatever useful result  they
might lead to by using their medicines in doses altogeth-
er inert ?  Dr. Hooker, as do others, objects that the re-
sults  thus obtained are often trifling.*  This objection
is  unworthy of the  student  of nature.   Would he  deem
it  a good rule for the chemist, the meteorologist, or the
astronomer  to note no  results but those that  are impor-
tant.  So thought once  the disciples  of other natural
sciences.  Now the opinion is confined to one of them
alone.
   Whether this claim of  the  homoeopathists  is well
founded or not, and whether the results obtained from it
can be made available in the cure of disease, by means
of that great law which is the basis of homoeopathic the-
rapeutics, it is not necessary to determine, but there are
some things connected with it that are not at all doubtful.
   If it were once acknowledged to be true, it would be
thought to be reasonable and important.  In any other
natural science, some such process is considered indispen-
sable to its progress.  If a newly discovered substance is
presented to the naturalist, he immediately commences
examining it, and without delay  can refer it to its proper
place.  Its properties, so far as they relate to his science,
can be to a great extent detailed, and its analogies deter-
mined.   Whether it be a new planet, or a new flower, a
gas, a mineral, or an ore, observation and experiment are
at once resorted to, and the inductive process requires but
a short period to furnish additional proof of the wisdom
and beneficence of  the Creator.  But if a new med-
icine is discovered, how different is the process.   Used by
the vulgar or the " quack," until its merits compel the pro-
fession to adopt it in spite of their prejudices, it at last
lends lustre  to the name of him who is so 'brtunate as to
                      * Med. Delusions.
                    3* 
30
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
take the right moment to introduce it to its new friends.
The peasant, the monk  and the Indian have  each been
important contributors to the cause of science.  " Fanci-
ful analogies in the form and color of the remedy," or at
best, experiments on  brutes,  have helped make up the
materia medica of those who deride the experiments of
homoeopathists.  Pereira says of nux vomica it is " one
of the few remedies the discovery of which is not the effect
of mere chance."*  Even the development of medical
properties which cases of accidental poisoning occasion-
ally lead to, has not enabled the profession to see that
herein  is a process which might be used deductively.
The roadside, the meadow and the prairie are  filled with
"weeds" from which  the homoeopathists  are claiming
that their materia medica is  constantly being enriched.
The mineral and even the animal kingdom,  are contin-
ually furnishing us valuable material  which we  are
keeping in  store for our  elder  sister when she shall be in-
duced  to own us, and which,  we  assure her,  is worthy
to rank with the discoveries she has made in anatomy,
physiology and pathology.
  This method of  studying the materia medica is  evi-
dently  looked upon with increasing favor by the profes-
sion.   Some! prominently advise experiments  on the
healthy, who look without interest upon the results of
like experiments which have been conducted with the
greatest care for more than half a century. It would be
well if they would undertake  to furnish so faithful a
pathogenesis of at least a single drug as to prove by
the contrast that that which the homoeopathists offer is
indeed " an incongruous and ridiculous farrago."J  A
short time  since an allopathic medical society at Vienna
* Mat. Med. Vol. 2, page 356.
+ Prof. G. B. Wood's Introd. Lecture.  Phil. 1840, page 27.
X Dr. Hooker. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
31
adopted the method of investigating the materia medica
which we have now been considering.  Their first pub-
lished report, so far as it goes, corroborates the accuracy
of homoeopathic  experiments made many years since.*
One of their members, however, admits  that it is not
very obvious " what practical medicine can gain by these
observations."  Perhaps he may yet find a rule whereby,
in his own language, " the physiological  proving of the
remedy may be harmonized with its employment at the
sick bed."!
                 It has made  discoveries.
  A second peculiarity of the homoeopathic system, is the
claim that this method of observing the effects of medi-
cines has led to valuable discoveries in  regard to their
specific properties.
                 In the use of remedies.
  1st.  It offers new indications  whereby the use of old
remedies  may be guided.   However highly  he may
estimate those indications which now lead him to the
appropriate remedy, no candid physician will deny that
they are often imperfect, sometimes contradictory, and de-
pendant on no general law or fixed principle.  Whether
the claim of the homoeopathist, to have more precise dis-
tinctions, be well founded or not, the very existence of
the claim  furnishes a  presumption in  favor of their
doses.   It affords great facility in testing the efficacy im-
puted to them.   When Pereira recommends belladonna
in whooping cough, &c, ipecacuanha  in haemoptysis,
arsenic in fevers and periodical diseases,  or nux vomica
in dyspepsia, he gives us but  few indications to guide us
to the application of either o appropriate cases.  It is
not strange that their  proper value in these affections
should be undetermined.  Bur, when  the homoeopathist
* British Journal of Homoeopathy Vol. 6, page 2C5.
t Page 277. 
32
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
offers his doses of the same remedies, in some  forms of
these diseases, he accompanies his recommendation with
far more precise  distinctions whereby its truth may be
verified.
                 Of many new specifics.
  2d. The homoeopathic system proffers to the profession
many new specifics.   I need not say that the very offer
excites at once, a strong prejudice.  But we do not mean
by the term specific, either  prophylactics,  as citric acid
for scurvy—though at least  one such is very extensively
accepted—viz : belladonna for scarlatina, nor is it meant
by specific,  a remedy always appropriate to  a single
disease, as  mercury, cinchona  and  sulphur  are often
thought to be for certain affections.  Such use  of reme-
dies is utterly irreconcilable with homoeopathy.   But the
claim is  that, with proper attention to the indications,
these remedies may be expected to cure certain forms of
disease pointed  out by definite  groups of symptoms.   In
this sense, though to a far less degree, many of  the most
valued "  alteratives" are specifics, and are spoken of as
such by the  best writers.  The search after specifics (in
this sense) has always occupied a large share of the at-
tention of the profession.  Progress in therapeutics must
chiefly be made  here.   Prof. Alison in anticipating the
sources  of future  improvement  in medicine, ranks  the
discovery of specifics as one  of the most important
means whereby the science is  to be advanced.*  How
they are  to  be  found, he  does not tell us.  The  search
has hitherto been but poorly successful except in one
direction.   M. Marchall, one of the " Faculty of Medi-
cine," at  Paris, had the candor to say at the public exam-
ination of the students, in July 1847, that with regard to
specifics  and their action, all that we know we owe to
the works of homoeopathists.   In those  of Physicians
* Cyclop, of Pract. Med. Vol. 3d, pp.ge £70. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
33
 commonly  called legitimate,  from Hippocrates  to our
 own time, we find absolutely nothing.*
            It has anticipated some " discoveries."
   3d. Again, many of the  discoveries in  regard  to the
 action of medicines announced  as new in late medical
 journals, were  already familiar to homoeopathists who
 were indebted for  them to their trials on the healthy.
 The experiments and discoveries on aconite of Dr. Alex-
 ander Fleming! nad been long rejected with disdain by
 those who are too orthodox to doubt their own infalli-
 bility.  When once baptised into the true faith, they are
 found to have sufficient merit  to entitle the propounder
 to a gold medal from the Edinburgh College of Surgeons.
 Will it be said that, though the  homoeopathists may have
 anticipated the  discovery of the therapeutic power, Dr.
 Fleming first taught in what doses to make it available,
 that by some accident  they stumbled on the discovery,
 but had not sagacity enough either to learn how  to use
 it or to know whether  they secured  its effects or not ?
 It is at least a curious coincidence  that medicines like
 aconite, arnica, belladonna, &c. should now be used in
 cases for which homoeopathists have for many years re-
 commended them, while the same medicines have been
 in the hands of physicians for centuries, and these most
 important uses never thought of till now, and that  no al-
 lusion to these properties should be found in standard
 works on the materia medica published within the last
 half dozen years.
                 A law of therapeutics.
  A third peculiarity of the homoeopathic system  is the
claim to be able to refer the specific properties of  medi-
cines to one general principle.   Homoeopathists believe
that  medicines tend to cure diseases and to  remove
* Brit. Journal of Homoeopathy. Vol. 6, page 124.
t Lond. and Edin. Monthly Jour, of Med. Sciences, July, 1845. 
34
EVIDENCE  IN REGARD TO
symptoms similar to those  which the same medicines
would tend to produce.  It is sufficiently accurate for il-
lustration to say, that to cure diarrhea they would use
small doses  of cathartics rather than astringents;  like
doses of emetics  to check vomiting, &c.  The aphorism
similia similibus curantur, purports to express the relation
between the action of a medicine  on the healthy body
and its  specific effects in disease.  If true, it furnishes
an explanation of the action of medicines, and a rule of
art which guides the practice.  Therapeutics is thus
made almost independent of the diverse speculations on
the ultimate nature of disease, and on  the mode of ac-
tion of  each separate  remedy, both of  which are indis-
pensable under all other treatment except that which is
merely  empirical.  Guided by the law of  similars, the
symptoms of the patient can be compared with those
produced by  the medicine, and  that  selected which
furnishes the most perfect resemblance.*
  I am  not  about to take it for granted that this princi-
ple is established—so far as to entitle it to become the
basis of therapeutics—nor  is this a suitable occasion
either to exhibit the proofs  of it, or to educe the import-
ant conclusions thence arising.
              Which  is true to  some extent.
  I would simply urge :  1st. It is evident that it is true
to a certain extent.  In innumerable cases it is found
that there is  a correspondence between its results and
the properties of medicines  long recognized.  To say the
least, a simple and beautiful hypothesis is offered where-
by anomalies  are  accounted  for,  and neglected  facts
classified.!   The stimulant effects of  small doses  of
opium would be  suspected  from the narcotic effects of

  * See a valuable paper on this subject, by Dr. Scott, of Glasgow, in the Homoeopathic
Journals for 1848.
  t Fletcher's Elements of General Pathology. 
INFINITESIMAL  DOSES.
35
large ones.  Dr. Chapman need no longer express sur-
prise that a remedy so efficacious in asthma as ipecac is
found to be, should cause paroxysms so similar,* nor Dr.
Graves his wonder, that in accordance  with the homoeop-
athic principle, sulphur should prove valuable in some
cases of  tympanites.!    This list  might be indefinitely
prolonged.  Standard works on therapeutics abound in
instances  where  the  excessive  effects of  drugs can
hardly  be distinguished from  similar symptoms which
they are  known to cause. J   Indeed, most  of  the  so
called  alteratives  are found to approach more  of less
closely to homceopathicity in their action.  Even those
who utterly deny the efficacy of infinitesimal doses, are
constrained to admit that this theory is true within cer-
tain limits.  Dr. Oliver Wendall  Holmes  tells  us that
" there  are well ascertained facts, known from the earli-
est  periods of medicine, showing that under certain
circumstances the very medicine which, from its  known
effects, one would expect to aggravate the disease, may
contribute to its relief."§
                 And is worthy of study.
   2d. The extent to which  this law  is applicable is a
fair subject of enquiry.   In other sciences " any hypoth-
esis which possesses a sufficient degree of plausibility to
account for a number  of facts helps  us to digest those
facts in proper order, to bring new ones to light, and to
make experimenta crucis for the  sake of future enquirers."
As such merely, it would be worthy of the attention and
study of physicians.  But it  may  be more.  Before the
time of Hahnemann it had  never been  investigated.
Since he published his essays, the mass of the  profession
 * Materia Medica on Ipecacuanha.
 + Clinical Lectures, 2d Edition, Phil, page 233.
 J For numerous instances see Homoeopathic Journals, and especially the writings of
Hahnemann.
 § Homoeopathy and Kindred Delusions, Boston, 1842. 
36               EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO

have avoided rather than sought experiments in  regard
to  it.   Had they been disposed to experiment  on the
subject, they would have been unable to do so satis-
factorily from  not  having  before  them the effects of
medicines unmodified by disease.   Pereira tells us that
experiments on the healthy alone will furnish us with the
pure effects of drugs.*  Those only, therefore, who had
used this method of studying the materia medica, were
prepared to estimate aright  the extent to which the law
of similars is true.  It may be found that its applicability
is much more extensive  than  has  heretofore been  con-
jectured.  It is, as  is well known,  the  characteristic
feature of homoeopathy.   To  it all other questions are
merely subordinate.  They  might  each and  all be dis-
proved without finally deciding the merits of this ; while
whatever independent evidence they severally possess,
goes to swell that which, to our minds, furnishes  almost
demonstration of its truth.  Some such therapeutic law
would seem necessary to any adequate  improvement in
practical medicine.   Without it " the progress of thera-
peutics during all the centuries which have  elapsed since
the days of Hippocrates, has  been less than that achieved
in the  elementary sciences of medicine during the last
fifty years."! A belief in its truth as a general principle
has prompted to the most laborious investigations amid
difficulties and discouragements almost  without a paral-
lel, and has given what seems to be vitality to a system
which, if this law be false,  has at least nothing  else to
sustain it.
       And  affords a presumption in favor of the doses.
  3d. If this hypothesis  be  admitted but to  a small ex-
tent, it removes much of the a priori  objection to the
extremely small dose.  If, as we have  already seen to
* Materia Medica, Vol. 1, page 119.
+ Dr. Forbes. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
37
be true,  the  human system is ever susceptible  to  ex-
tremely minute amounts of matter, it might be expected
to be so  in  the   circumstances  which this principle
implies, — itself,  morbidly excited  by disease, and  the
excitement of the very character as that which the medi-
cine would tend to cause or increase, no circumstances
can be imagined, previous to positive evidence, wherein
an  idiosyncrasy might be expected, if not here.  If, in
what seems to be perfect health, the system is ever sus-
ceptible  to  agencies vastly less  than those which  are
ordinarily necessary to produce effects ; and if in disease
it is even more impressible by appropriate  stimuli—just
so far as the law, similia similibus curantur, is true, so  far
may infinitesimal doses be expected to cure.  This pre-
sumption becomes certainty, if we shall find that it is
confirmed by experience.
                 State of the Argument.
  Such are some of the presumptions which prepare us
to examine the direct evidence in regard to infinitesimal
doses. The system of medicine which furnishes them
ought to  receive a respectful attention.  It has still oth-
er, and to us no less cogent claims on that attention, but
as they do not so directly bear on our subject, their place
in this discussion is comparatively unimportant.  Their
truth or falsity has but little to do with the precise ques-
tion before  us.   They may be false—wanting so much
as a show of reason—without materially invalidating
the evidence which experiment would furnish with  re-
gard to infinitesimal doses.  Whether they are so or not
is a matter of opinion, which can best be decided after
the present question is settled. The same may be said
of a variety of presumptions, for and against homoeopa-
thy, which are usually made prominent in discussions as
to its merits.  Whatever light the  history of medicine
and the ascertained principles of its elementary sciences
                   4 
38
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
may throw on the questions at issue, between the two
systems, however plausible may be the various conside-
rations  drawn from analogy, and from the peculiar dog-
mas of  homoeopathy, their value, in the present issue, is
limited  almost entirely to the question, are the effects
imputed to these doses credible 1   The ultimate decision
of the question must be referred to the most direct evi-
dence which the subject admits of.
   This  brings us to the question, whether there  be any
testimony in regard to infinitesimal doses.   On other sub-
jects testimony is the  most direct evidence attainable,
except  the results of our own  observation.  On such
subjects it is often surprising how a little plain testimony
easily outweighs the most decided opinions,  and the
strongest probabilities.  Even if the testimony should
prove to be defective, or scanty, or conflicting, these de-
fects are within the reach of  our faculties, and  we can
estimate what weight is due to it, and then, perhaps,
procure or  furnish better.   But the deciding disputed
matter  of fact questions by arguments, however logical,
or by authority, however weighty, has far too often per-
petuated error.
                   DIRECT EVIDENCE.
          The subject a suitable one for testimony.
   In examining the direct evidence in regard to infinites-
imal doses, it should be  observed that the  subject is  a
suitable one for testimony.  The facts asserted can be
appreciated by the senses of the witness.  It  is perceived
that an individual has a certain symptom, e. g.  haemor-
rhage, ulceration of some exposed surface,  fever.  The
physician administers  something, and  the symptom (or"
 group of symptoms) after a time, ceases to exist.  What
such  a statement is  worth, is not  now the question.
Whether it furnishes  any evidence will  depend  on the
way in which the blanks in the  formula are  filled.  It 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
39
may be that the ulceration has continued for months, the
hoemorrhage for hours, and that the one ceases in a few
days, the other in a few minutes.   It is possible for him to
know it if it be so.  He may indeed be mistaken in attri-
buting the change to the supposed remedy, and this liabil-
ity limits the value of the testimony.   We must judge on
other grounds as to the amount of evidence it furnishes.
Should  he undertake to say  that it was the medicine
that cured the disease, this would not be admissible, for
he could  not  know it from the  direct  evidence of his
senses.   He can testify only to what he thus knows.
           Not involved in a process of reasoning.
  Moreover, the facts asserted by the witnesses  may in-
clude, by a direct implication, the question at issue in this
discussion.  No prolonged  process of reasoning is neces-
sary to connect them.  The witness may assert that dysen-
tery, or any  other disease, disappeared soon after the ad-
ministration of an infinitesimal dose, or in connection with
certain manipulations with metallic  tractors,  or after
taking calomel, lobelia, or some other remedy.   Surely
now, if the inference is not inconsistent with some gen-
eral fact or natural  law, if there is  not so strong an
a priori presumption against it as to render it incredible,
if it is a part of a system which supplies some independ-
ent evidence  in  its favor, the statement  does  furnish
some evidence that the  means  used did  occasion  the
change, that the " post hoc" was really a " propter hoc."
However slight this presumption might be, it would be
increased by a similar statement  of the  same or another
witness.   If then, the witnesses possess the qualifications
necessary to make them credible, there might be  enough
such testimony accumulated to put the question  beyond
all reasonable doubt.  Moral certainty might be reached
that the doses were really the  " physical cause," if it
could be shown that in other ways the results could  not 
40
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
be fairly accounted for.   Whether this can be done, it
will be  proper to determine after  we shall have exam-
ined the nature of the testimony and the character of the
witnesses.   In doing so, it will be  seen :
         The testimony  is precise and  circumstantial.
  First.  That the statements of the  homoeopathists are
as precise and circumstantial as it  is possible for medical
facts to be.
  All the circumstances which can be enquired about
are stated if required.  Every thing which might aid
the judgment in explaining the results is given or offered.
The specifications are frequently so minute as to excite
the derision of others.  These details can be compared
with unquestioned facts, and their  real value estimated.
It is possible that these circumstances may admit of no
explanation except through the action of the doses.  If
this should prove to be the case, the minuteness of the
circumstances detailed, is such as to admit of constant
contradiction  and  detection,  if the testimony is false.
The importance of this precision may be seen by com-
paring it with the  evidence, lately revived, in favor  of
certain  exploded  modes of treating  disease,  of which
Perkinism  is made most  prominent.*  I  have not the
means  of examining the original  evidence in favor  of
this system.  Those,  however, who now  appeal to this
evidence, do not give  us a precise report of a single case
thus treated.  Of course we know not what evidence
would be supplied  by an ample number of such cases—
much less what would be testified to by those who should
treat all their cases with " metallic tractors."  Evidence
free from such deficiencies, is abundantly furnished by
homoeopathists.
                 It is direct and positive.
  Second.  This testimony is direct and positive.  Not
* See the works of Dr. Holmes and Dr. Hooker, already referred to. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
41
 indeed, that infinitesimal doses do produce effects, for the
 nature of the case does not permit this, though homoeop-
 athic physicians assert these effects as confidently as they
 could  the remedial  effects  of medicines in  any doses.
 They  assert,  however, that  their  own  convictions are
 unhesitating,  and as the basis of them testify to certain
 facts without  conditions or limitations which  so directly
 involve the efficacy of these  doses as to convince most
 of those who observe the facts and listen to the testi-
 mony, that the  conclusion is true.  The evidence may
 be  sufficient to exclude all  reasonable doubt: that it
 should be so strong as inevitably to produce conviction,
 would of course be impossible.
  This testimony is positive as to several particulars.
            As to a certain amount of success.
  1st.  That there is a certain  amount of success  under
 homoeopathic  treatment.  Reports  of hospitals, dispen-
 saries,  and other  public charities are given regularly.
 These establishments arc open  to the  public, and any
 considerable inaccuracy  may be  detected.   They are,
 as it is well known, watched with no little care, and in
 no friendly spirit.   They include, one with another, prob-
 ably every variety  of disease which  is  ever  made  the
 subject of medical  treatment.  The reports vary  in re-
 gard to the success attained: sometimes  it would  ap-
 pear to be  very striking, at others  less  so.    On  the
 whole, however, they assert that a greater success is at-
 tainable under  this treatment than under  any  other
 which  the attending physicians know about.  These
representations  have induced  others  to try  the  same
means, and they, with hardly an exception, testify to the
same facts.   Several thousand physicians  in private
 practice now unite in testifying that in inflammations, fe-
 vers, diarrhoea, dysentery, rheumatism and most forms of
 acute and chronic disease, a success is attainable under
                   4* 
42
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
the administration of homoeopathic remedies in infinites-
imal doses, which they would not know how to obtain
otherwise.
  One of the most recent witnesses in favor  of these
doses is M. Tessier, physician of one of the hospitals an-
nexed to the Hotel Dieu, at Paris.  This gentleman has,
it seems, been treating his patients homoeopathically for
some time past, and the result of his trials has been his
own conversion to it, and an endeavor, by a publication
of his cases of pneumonia and cholera, to interest others
in the subject.  He says that after studying the writings
of Hahnemann and his disciples," I proceeded to verify
the efficacy of infinitesimal doses.  I devoted six months
to this verification at the bed-side  of such aeute and
chronic patients  as could not by any possibility be in-
jured by the  experiments  I was conducting.   The evi-
dence that the doses acted was complete in a few days,
but I continued  the experiments on this point for the
whole of six months, and it was only at the expiration
of that time, that I sought to ascertain the therapeutic
value of the new mode by applyirg it as rigorously as I
knew how."
  " I ventured, in the case of a patient" with pneumonia,
" in whom I had  produced the remission by bleeding, to
substitute phosphorus for the tartar emetic usually ad-
ministered.  He recovered without accident, and I re-
peated  the  experiment several times with the same
success."  " These happy results, however, might very
properly be attributed to the energetic antiphlogistic
means pursued at the  beginning of the disease, and I
could only conclude from  them, if I had done no good,
I had at least done no harm.   I then resolved gradually
to diminish the number of bleedings, and to introduce the
Hahnemannian method before the usual remission was
produced, reserving always the right to resort to the or- 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
43
dinary treatment if the amendment did not appear with
sufficient promptitude.  I omitted one, two, three, four
bleedings in the next patients that presented themselves,
thus bringing the administration of the new remedies
gradually nearer and nearer  to  the first onset of the
malady: beginning with a dose of  aconite, followed
after an interval of twelve or twenty-four hours by bry-
onia, to which  phosphorus succeeded.  The less I bled
the more grateful was the action of the infinitesimal do-
ses to the suffering patient, until I decided to bleed no
more, and employ the method of  Hahnemann from the
commencement.  Aconite seemed to be of  little service
after having been administered a few hours.   Bryonia
appeared  to be very energetic in  its action,  and phos-
phorus seemed to be useful in local inflammations, threat-
ening to pass to suppuration."
  " I cannot express the anxiety  which attended these
first experiments.   Notwithstanding my express direc-
tions to resort at once to bleeding if the patients became
worse, and in spite of repeated personal attendance at
their bedsides,  I could not escape the constant feeling
that some catastrophe was about to happen.  But noth-
ing of the kind occurred.  The patients who were first
submitted to the treatment recovered without an excep-
tion, and the  condition of others was rapidly improved.
For  two years I have  had but a  single death" (from
pneumonia) ; " two others have died, but  they entered
the ward in the agonies of a pneumonia already suppu-
rated, and if they figure in my statistics, they should not
be taken into account in a discussion of my therapeutics.
Since then  I have employed the same method in many
cases of pneumonia, and by degrees my fears  have van-
ished."*
  The report of his cases is full in its  details, giving
* North American Horn. Journal.  New York. Feb. 1851.—p. 103 and 109. 
44
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
every particular which might aid us in judging as to the
effects of his doses.*
  There are now in operation several large homoeopathic
hospitals.  They publish regular  reports and invite ex-
amination.  Among them none perhaps has excited so
much attention as that of the Sisters of Charity at Vien-
na, under the charge of Dr. Fleischmann.   His  reports
have claimed so much success, that Dr. Balfour of Edin-
burgh, went to Vienna apparently to detect their  falsity.
He wrote from that city in 1840, in the following  words:
" During the first appearance of  cholera here, the prac-
tice of homoeopathia was first introduced: and cholera
when it came again renewed the favorable  impulse pre-
viously given, as it  was through Dr. Fleischmann's suc-
cessful treatment of this disease, that the restrictive laws
were  removed, and homoeopathists obtained leave to
practice and dispense medicines in Austria.  Since that
time their number has increased more than three fold in
Vienna and its provinces."  He also says: "No young
physician settling in Austria, excluding Government offi-
cers, can hope to make his bread unless at least prepar-
ed to treat homoeopathically if requested."!
  Dr. Fleischmann's reports may  be found in the British
and American  journals  of Homoeopathy.  Of that for
1845, Dr. Forbes says :  " No candid physician will hesi-
tate to acknowledge that  the results there  set forth
would have been  considered by  him as satisfactory if
they had occurred in his own practice."  Of Dr. Fleisch-
mann he says :  " He is a regular, well educated physi-
cian, as capable of forming a true  diagnosis as other
practitioners, and he is  considered by those who know
him as a man of honor and respectability, and incapable
of attesting a falsehood.";};
  * For additional particulars see Am. Jour, of Homoeopathy, May, 1851.
  t British and Foreign Medical Review. 1846.
  % Review of Homoeopathy. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
45
  The Protestant half orphan  asylum, New York city,
has been  "for the  last  five years under homoeopathic
treatment.  For years previous its inmates were afflict-
ed with Opthalmia of the most virulent kind, and all the
counteracting effects of allopathia, even to the incon-
venient expense  of keeping the little sufferers in the
country, were  made in vain.   The  malady gained
strength until  seventy-five  of  the  children, about one-
half of the whole number, had to lie prone on the floor to
avoid the light, and extra nurses had to be employed to
wipe  their eyes!  At this extremity homoeopathy was
called in to try her  powers," and in about six weeks al-
most every eye was  made sound.*
  In this institution an opportunity has been afforded to
demonstrate the superiority of  homoeopathic treatment
in various other affections, acute and chronic!
  Homoeopathic journals abound  in  instances where
physicians, who held previously at least  a respectable
rank,  announced their conversion  to homoeopathy, and
assert as the reasons for the  change, that they found this
system afforded them the means of curing disease  more
effectually than the other.  Testimony  similar to that of
M. Tessier is unlimited in amount.
                Innumerable  coincidences.
  2d.  This testimony is positive as to there occurring un-
der homoeopathic treatment, innumerable  coincidences
where symptoms, often of the  most serious character,
and frequently of long standing, disappeared almost im-
mediately on  the administration  of certain remedies,
which they assert were  strictly  in infinitesimal  doses.
A case may result fatally, and yet in its progress  afford
indubitable evidence  :u  the  action of the doses by the
control which  the remedies have over some of the symp-
  * Report of Trustees of Homoeopathic Dispensary for 1849.
  + Sue Dr. Wright's report, Homoeopathic Examiner, vol. 3, p. 347. 
46
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
toms.  These " accidents" occur, according to the testi-
mony of the witnesses, with remarkable precision, and
may be expected in certain groups of symptoms with as
much uniformity as  any similar results of medication
with larger doses.   They report thousands of cases treat-
ed in this way, and assert that they give all the particu-
lars which might explain the results.  In such groups of
symptoms as the following, these coincidences occur:
  1st. Hot, dry skin ; full, quick, frequent pulse, &c.
  2d. Inflammation of throat and tonsils, shooting pains,
scarlet redness of the surface.
  3d. Violent vomiting  of mucus, continuing after  the
throwing off the contents of an overloaded stomach.
  4th.  Diarrhoea, with great thirst, vomiting, prostration,
burning pain.
  5th.  Continued fever,  with disorder  of stomach and
liver, debilitating sweats, &c.
  6th.  Cough dry,  fixed pains in chest, catching pains
on inspiring.
  7th.  Violent pains in the bones, after excessive use of
mercury, with languid nervous prostration.
  Such a list might be  extended without limit.  Hun-
dreds of witnesses assert that they have many times seen
these groups of symptoms disappear on the administra-
tion  of certain remedies, with  a precision and prompt-
ness which would have surprised them  under any treat-
ment.   They confirm each others' testimony  by fixing
upon the same remedy  for each well-marked group of
symptoms.   On the supposition  that they are all alike
inert, one remedy would be no more likely to have effects
than another.
  Many of these diseases and symptoms are not known
to have a constant tendency to sudden changes where
nothing is  done.  They are known under other  treat-
ment to yield much better to some courses than to others. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
47
Yet homoeopathists assert in almost every instance, that
these best methods are at least equalled by homoeopathy
in its power of furnishing "accidental" coincidences. They
offer  to prove it to any one who will examine their re-
sults in a friendly  manner, and if he denies their conclu-
sion, they offer to  put into his hands the means of mak-
ing good his denial.  Here are the remedies, and here
are the indications for them—whether results follow or
not, is simply a matter of fact.
  To give any adequate view of homoeopathic evidence
by  narrating cases, would require volumes.  To  judge
satisfactorily of the weight due to them, the original re-
ports must be examined.   I shall therefore content my-
self with referring to sources easily accessible, where
such reports can be found; merely giving two cases, one
acute and one chronic, to show what evidence is so un-
ceremoniously neglected or so scornfully denied.
  Case of croup.  The patient, a  girl of thirteen, had
been two days suffering from catarrh and sore throat,
for  which the usual homoeopathic medicines were ad-
ministered, when from reckless exposure of herself dur-
ing rain, she became more seriously ill.  About 7 in the
evening she retired to bed and remained quiet, and as
was supposed, asleep.  But between 9 and 10 one of the
family passing her door, was startled by hearing a rough,
hoarse, barking cough.  Aconite and  spongia were ad-
ministered, each of them in the  5th dilution.  There
seemed to  be a rapid progression of the  disease, the
cough becoming more deep and hoarse, the flush of the
face deepening, first into crimson, then into purple, and
the contortions of the whole form showed the agony with
which every breath was won.
  Such was the condition of the patient at midnight when
the physician arrived, too late it was feared, to be of
service.  His account is in  the following words: " I 
48
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
 found the patient under a harsh, dry cough, the respira-
 tion stridulous, the expression  of the countenance anx-
 ious, the cheeks puffed and livid, pulse frequent  and
 small, extremities  cold—great restlessness and jactita-
 tion.  On looking into  the throat I  found the fauces
 highly inflamed and swollen.  I dissolved six pellets of
 the  kali bichro. of the  6th dilution in  a tumbler  half
 full of water, and administered a dessert spoonful of the
 solution.  In ten minutes thereafter  there were pauses
 in the before incessant  cough—in thirty  minutes the
 child had sunk into a quiet sleep, and the difficulty of
 respiration subsided." The patient slept with little in-
 terruption for  several hours, and it was not till nearly
 morning that the cough  returned with any persistence.
 The medicine was repeated—half a spoonful of the water
 in which it had been  dissolved being given—it gave im-
 mediate  and enduring relief. The patient had no return
 of cough or  hoarseness.*
   Case 2d. " Miss B. W.,  aged fifty-two, of  scrofulous
 diathesis, formerly much subject   to  bilious affections
 with  sick headache : sixteen years since became par-
 tially paralytic in the left fore-arm and hand, which was
 then supposed to arise from enlarged glands  about the
 neck from scrofula : fifteen years since, during a severe
 attack of what  appeared to be  sick headache, became
 apoplectic, the sequel of which was nearly a complete
paralysis of the left hand and arm.   For the last fifteen
years, the arm  has been  useless, quite pulseless, nearly
bloodless, numb, prickling, with occasional turns  of se-
vere pain of the whole arm, which, from their severity,
were nearly insupportable—the  limb flabby, diminished
in size, so utterly destitute of strength and firmness, that
in endeavoring  to  execute  some  trifling motion,  the
thumb, fingers, and sometimes  even the wrist, would,
  * AbriJse<1 from the American Journal of Homoeopathy.  Vol. 1st, p. 232. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
49
  as it were, fall out of joint. Disposition fretful, easily dis-
  couraged, and inclined to  weep, mind weakened; gene-
  ral health in many respects delicate.  Nervous, excitable,
  unhappy.
    On the first of July I gave her Rhus  radicans, three
  pellets of the third dilution—the same on  the morning of
  the second.   She passed a somewhat restless  night, with
  much severe  aching of the back of the neck, shoulders,
  instep and toes of  the left foot, with severe tingling and
  prickling of the left arm and hand.   Through the 2d, 3d,
* and 4th of July, the pains continued severe, and extended
  to the whole  left arm and hand, which seemed swollen,
  and the veins of the left  limb, which had rarely been
  susceptible to the  sight or feel, became  full,  blue, hard,
  painful in the extreme.   All this was attended with diz-
  ziness of the  head, slight turns of faintness, great irrita-
  bility and complaining, less than usual appetite, insecure
  feeling when walking, or  unsteadiness of gait, free mo-
  tions of the bowels, and abundant discharge of pale urine.
     On the 5th the unusual symptoms began to abate, and
  in about three days, she was free from any considerable
  suffering, with  a  quite perceptible, yet rather  feeble
  pulse,  where for fifteen years, none had been detected
  even by physicians, veins remained filled,  giving  the
  limb nearly the appearance it had before being paralyzed.
     There is still (August 1st) daily increase of power in
  the limb, with improvement of the general health, rarely
  feels slight pain in the limb, is more cheerful, less irrita-
  ble, has  more ambition and fortitude. She is yet  resting
  from all  medicines, but follows strict rules of  diet. I de-
  sign to repeat the medicine at some future period if im-
  provement ceases short  of  perfect  restoration  of the
  diseased organ."*
     As a student of homoeopathy, it was my privilege to
             • American Journal of Homoeopathy, Vol. 1, page 100.
                      5 
50
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
sit by the side of the gentlemen who report these cases,
in their attendance at the New York Homoeopathic Dis-
pensary, and thus form an opinion of their system from
personal  observation.   As case  after case came before
them, I listened to the patients' own account  of their
sufferings, and often  of the fruitless result of previous
modes of treatment.   I took notes of the symptoms and
of the prescriptions.   At their succeeding visits, I com-
pared  my record with the subsequent  statements of
the patients.  I examined the symptoms and watched as
carefully as I  knew  how, their  progress.  Such of the •
dispensary cases of one of the physicians, as were una-
ble to  leave their homes, I  was  permitted to visit with
him, and I assert, that to the best of my judgment, no
success which at an  earlier period of my medical  edu-
cation I had witnessed in  attendance upon  Hospitals
and other public charities, under the common treatment,
would favorably compare with that which was thus ob-
tained with infinitesimal doses : that coincidences as
striking as those which I have alluded to, were so fre-
quent as  to be not the exception, but the rule—that sim-
ilar results attended the prescriptions of other gentlemen
connected with this institution, and  that I saw nothing
which led me to think there was deception in the diag-
nosis, or in the use of remedies—or made me suspect
that the  results were due, to any unusual  extent, to
mental influence, or to the unassisted restorative powers
of the human organism.
    Accordance of the coincidences with the law of similars;
  3d.  Homoeopathists  assert that the coincidences to
which they testify, occur with a regularity proportioned
to the correspondence between the symptoms of the  pa-
tient, and the results  of the homoeopathic principle, or
law of similars.
  There  is  an  infinite variety in this correspondence. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.              51
In some instances the similarity between the pathogene-
tic effects of the remedies and the symptoms of the pa-
tient, is as exact as possible.  In others, less so, and in
some cases, no remedy very closely homoeopathic can be
found.  There is also a great variety in our knowledge
of the application of this principle.  As on other subjects,
we find constant occasion to extend  and correct this
knowledge.   Some of us are but beginners in the prac-
tice, and  are conscious of doing it but very imperfect
justice.  Moreover, our own failures to appreciate duly
at one interview with our patient, symptoms which we
learn more accurately at another, furnish us a test of the
varying fitness of the several remedies.  The witnesses
assert that the coincidences to which they testify, corres-
pond in frequency to the homoeopathicity of the remedy.
They assert that they not merely find a difference whether
they give  one remedy, than another, but also  whether
they  give one preparation of the same remedy rather
than  another, and  whether  they take pains to exclude
agencies which might interfere with its action, such, for
example, as chemical antidotes.
  To appreciate duly the force of this argument requires
some knowledge of the homoeopathic materia medica.
Those only who  have in  mind the pathogenetic symp-
toms  of a remedy, can adequately  judge  what would
be the indications for it according to the homoeopathic
principles.  A sufficient approach to this, however, can
be made by  any candid enquirer who will make a com-
parison  between the  prominent effects of these medi-
cines on the  healthy, as laid down in this materia medi-
ca, and the symptoms of the reported cases, or, if he can-
not trust these, of those symptoms which himself  shall
detect in the patients of the  homoeopathic hospitals and
dispensaries.  Such a process cap be conducted without
any confidence either in the accuracy of the standard of 
52               EVIDENCE IN  REGARD TO
comparison,  or in the efficacy of the remedies, or in the
truth of the  law  by which they are selected.  Such a
comparison,  carefully made, would furnish a conclusive
demonstration either of the truth or of  the falsity  of
these several claims.
  To illustrate the  force of this position by comparing
the pathogenetic effects of remedies, as laid down in the
homoeopathic materia medica, with the  curative  effects
of the same remedies when administered in infinitesimal
doses, would be an easy matter.   As, however, the fideli-
ty of this pathogenesis might be questioned, I will com-
pare the prominent  symptoms produced by belladonna,
as determined by  the experiments of the  allopathic so-
ciety of Vienna, alluded to on page 31, with a case treat-
ed with this  remedy in infinitesimal doses.  I select the
case almost at random ;  certainly the only limit  to the
number of  similar cases, which  might  be furnished,
would be the  small number of remedies of which we
possess an orthodox pathogenesis.
 Case treated homozopathically.  Symptoms caused by belladonna.
  " A man, aged 30, of strong   " At  one time  increased, at
constitution and choleric tern- another, diminished pulse," " fe-
perament, was, in consequence verish symptoms."
of taking cold, suddenly taken
with chills, heat, anxiety and
restlessness, boring  and  throb-
bing pains in the head, soreness
and heat in the eyes.   The at-
tending  physician  found  him
in the following condition : he
could not sleep a  moment at   " Restless sleep, sleeplessness
night; complained of vertigo, or torpor."
particularly if he attempted to   " Vertigo, reeling as if intox-
sit up, and  often fell  into the icated."
most violent delirium ; he storm-
ed and cried  out, attempted to   " Confusion of  intellect and
leave his bed, and resisted pow- hallucinations."
erfully all attempts to keep him
there.   In his more lucid inter. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
53
 vals, he complained of heaviness
 and confusion of head, of a sense
 of fulness,  and horrible, fixed   " Palpitations" of the " caro-
 burning and aching, at  times tid and  temporal arteries, with
 piercing  pains in  the  same, heat and redness of the face ;"
 His eyes looked wild, were roll- "congestion in  the  head."—
 ed from side to side, were pain- " Pressure, general and partial
 ful, reddened, and very sensi- headache."
 tive  to  light ;  the pupils were    " Humming, or ringing in the
 contracted, and he  saw  bright ears, sensitiveness of eyes, weak
 sparks  and  flames  before  the sight, diplopia."
 eyes; he  was very  sharp  of
 hearing, very sensitive to noise,
 had roaring and tinkling in his
 ears.  His  face  was  hot and   " Heat and redness of face."
 red, and at times, covered  with
 a  sticky moisture;  pulse was
 very quick, hard  and spasmod-
 ic ; skin was dry, hot, and red ;
 respiration  anxious, sobbing, at
 times  interrupted.   His  voice
 was hoarse, and speech at times  " Difficulty of moving tongue,
 difficult; his lips very red, hot impeded  speech  and  degluti-
 and dry, and the cavity of the tion ;"  " uncomfortable contin-
 mouth also; the tongue was red, ued dryness of lips, of the buc-
 and thinly  coated with  tough  cal cavity and fauces;  with de-
 mucus ;  violent  thirst,  sensa- sire for drinks, and only tempo-
 tion of contraction in the throat,  rary relief by drinking; redness
 and frequent urging to swallow ;  of  the  mucus  membrane  of
 entire loss of appetite ; all food  the fauces, eructation ; furred
 disgusted him ; nausea and bil-  tongue, diminished appetite, dis-
 lious, slimy vomiting,  constipa-  gust, nausea."
 tion, red, burning urine.
   In  this state of things, bella-
 donna,  one  drop  of  the  tenth
 dilution,  was   administered.—
 Twelve  hours  after  there was
 decided  improvement, the next
 day still more, and in 4 days the
patient left his  bed with no oth-
er aid from medication except
the belladonna, and subsequent-
ly bryonia of the fifth dilution."
 [Homoeopathic Examiner, for 1840, page   [From the British Journal of Homceopa-
223, and Ruckert's Therapeutics, page 36.]  thy, for April 1848.]
                      5* 
54
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
   Several things are to be noted in regard to the above.
 1st. The case was treated and the report was published
 several years before the society published their provings.
 2d. The experimentors only furnish to us such symptoms
. as were produced on all, or almost all the " provers" ; of
 course  we  learn no more from those who, being most
 susceptible to the action of belladonna, would have  fur-
 nished some of the most characteristic and well-marked
 symptoms,  than we  do  from  those  less susceptible.
 These might have been given, and  some mode devised
 of pointing out the comparative frequency of their oc-
 currence.  3d. The experiments were made with " full
 doses"  only: whereas ours are made  with those  also
 which are gradually reduced in amount until the " pro-
 vers" perceive no decisive effects.   We find in the re-
 port the following words : " It should be remarked that
 the above phenomena" " bore no fixed relation to the in-
 crease of dose, for by the use of  larger doses, symptoms
 which had formerly occurred lessened or vanished en-
 tirely, without others taking their place."  It would seem
 to us, in these circumstances, to be very natural to di-
 minish rather than increase the dose, and thus determine
 if doses still smaller did not lead  to  symptoms which
 those used did not elicit.  4th. The correspondence be-
 tween the most marked symptoms of  the patient  and
 those produced by belladonna is so palpable, that no man,
 having the homoeopathic law of similars in mind, would
 have a moment's hesitation in selecting belladonna from
 those proved and reported by the society, and we claim
 that the consequent recovery was a coincidence which
 has been repeated so often and occurs so constantly, as
 to be conclusive evidence of the action of infinitesimal
 doses.  5th.  I think no one will refuse to admit that
 were he to administer  belladonna to a patient with the
 symptoms recorded above, he would be careful  to do so 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
55
 in very small doses—that Pereira would find in it an
 illustration of his objection to these remedies, that " they
 would only increase the disease for which they were
 given."  Yet, for such symptoms, probably every homoeo-
 pathic physician would be led at once to belladonna.
  The reports to which I have referred on previous pa-
 ges, furnish abundant  additional examples  of similar
 coincidences.   If more  are wanted, they may be found
 in reports of cases of pneumonia, acute bronchitis, croup,
 &c. by Prof. Henderson, of the University of Edinburgh,*
 and  said by him to be all the cases of these diseases
 occurring  in his practice since the publication  of his
 "Inquiry into the  Homoeopathic  Practice."!  If these
 reports are not satisfactory on these points, it would be
 interesting  to see  some medical reports which might
 serve us as a sample.   Still more may be found in Dr.
 Wielobychi's  cases of  puerperal convulsions,^ Dr.
 Black's cases and  treatment  of headaches,§ reports  of
 cholera, dysentery, fevers, diseases of the kidneys, liver,
 &c. spread  over the several journals  of homoeopathy,
 already referred  to.  These reports must either be re-
jected altogether, or admitted toprovethe  success of
 the treatment,  and the occurrence of  constant coinci-
 dences such as  are claimed.  They furnish an amount
 of evidence of  which those have no   conception  who
 deny the conclusion which seems to us  so plain.  Their
 very existence  is^ probably unknown to them : so that
 the effect produced by this evidence is not at all propor-
 tional to its amount. Probably, if the testimony in favor
 of homoeopathy could be  suddenly doubled, or  reduced
 to half its present limits, either change would be entirely
 unappreciated by most allopathic physicians.  In the
 present state of the controversy, what  is wanted is not
• British Journal of Homoeopathy, 1849 and 1850.  + New York, 1846.
t Brit. Jour, of Horn., 1847. § lb. 
56
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
so much an increase of evidence, as the removal  of
those considerations which now prevent an examination
of that which is already abundant.
        Positive as to the doses being " infinitesimal."
   4th. The witnesses assert, with great unanimity, that
the only aid rendered to the restorative powers of na-
ture,  in most of these  cases, arises from  such doses  as
are the subject of this essay.  True, it must be admit-
ted, that now and then a physician practices according
to the law of similars, with doses but  little  removed
from those ordinarily used, and that a larger number use,
in part or altogether, doses still smaller than those which
homoeopathists usually prescribe.  But there is nothing
necessarily conflicting in this.  It only  proves,  as  it
seems to us, that while the homoeopathic principle is all
important, the dose is quite a subordinate  consideration.
Fortunately for our present purpose, however, we have
witnesses  enough without seeking them from either ex-
treme.  Such will be needed by our opponents,  and to
them we will leave them.  The one  class will be their
most  efficient means of proving homoeopathists  incon-
sistent and dishonest, and the  other will  be needed  in
the attempt to show that we impute palpable results  to
doses which imply supernatural  power.  The great ma-
jority of our witnesses assert that their results were ob-
tained with doses so small as to be quite  inappreciable
to the senses ; as to  cause, usually, no disturbing effects,
—several times smaller than the  smallest doses  of the
same remedies directed in standard works on the mate-
ria medica: doses to which either no  allusion  is made
in the  common treatises on therapeutics, or, if they are
noticed at  all, are considered worthy only of  derision
and contempt.*
  * Those who wish to learn more in regard to the mode of preparing and administering
these remedies, are referred to the work of Dr. Joslin, alluded to already. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
57
   There are thus three distinct sets of phenomena to be
accounted for.   The cures of disease which take place
under homoeopathic treatment ; the sudden changes in
the state of the system, occurring in connection with the
administration of infinitesimal  doses, and  the  corres-
pondence of most of these to the law of similars, which
correspondence  proves the reality of the law and the
powers of the remedies.  The progress of a single case
may furnish evidence which would belong to one or two
or all  of these classes.  In the report of cases, it is not
possible, nor is it important, to keep these  several-state-
ments always distinct.  But in examining the testimony
of homoeopathists, justice to  the subject requires that
they should all be taken into consideration.
   It should be observed, moreover, that while homoeopa-
thists  do  not  claim that their  treatment is uniformly
successful, or that  the coincidences to which we have
referred may always be expected; while they confess
that curable cases are  sometimes uncured ; that pain is
at times  unrelieved, and failures and  disappointment
will sometimes arise ;  that even with infinitesimal doses
in their hands, they find the imperfections incidental to
all human attainments : they do claim, and assert posi-
tively/that favorable results occur as often and with as
much  uniformity as is  necessary to  the  argument.
Their opponents  themselves  being judges, these claims
are so strong  as to  appear extravagant.  It is, acord-
ingly,  no  uncommon thing,  when statements  in favor
of homoeopathy  are  made, and  cases  detailed, for the
reply to be given, " this is claiming too much."  A zeal-
ous friend of orthodox medicine goes so far as to say,
that he knows of " no  nostrum whose virtues are more
absurdly or  impudently vaunted" than these  remedies
are.  If a greater success was claimed, or more certainty
in the occurrence of these coincidences was  asserted, 
58
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
this objection would be still  more plausibly made.  It
would, therefore, be inconsistent to claim that homoeopa-
thic testimony is deficient in these  respects.   If it is at-
tempted to be invalidated at all, some other point must
be selected for the attack.
                    It is intelligent.
  Third. This testimony is intelligent.  Most homoeopa-
thic physicians are " regularly " educated, and by a pre-
vious experience in a different system, acquire sufficient
knowledge of the usual progress of disease and the or-
dinary effects of remedies.   If it  is  remembered that
this treatment  is resorted to in cases the most violent,
and of the most tediously chronic  character,  from  the
unconsciousness of  infancy to the decrepitude of age, it
surely cannot be believed, that men  otherwise  intelli-
gent should be unable to distinguish whether the medi-
cines  they use have any effects.  It is not incredible that
disease should  be  cured through  the influence of the
imagination,  or  by nursing, or by the unaided powers
of nature ; but it is  incredible, that  educated men should
persuade themselves that these agents, however adroitly
used,   are superior to all the means which the medical
profession has  accumulated for alleviating pain  or pro-
longing life.  But, if it really be otherwise, they* might
at least be supposed to  have sagacity enough to give
intelligent testimony.   If they cannot  appreciate  the
effects of remedies, they might testify as to the facts.
The disappearance  of pain, cough, vomiting, &c.  cotem-
poraneously with the administration of a remedy, only
give us cases enough, may be decisive as to its effects,
even if the witness does not know what the symptoms
mean.  Those who impute incompetence to homoeopa-
thic practitioners, are bound to show at least  plausibly
how this success is to be accounted for.   If they are not
intelligent, it is  strange that  they should so effectually 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
59
have  gained the confidence of others, where" the pre-
sumptions appear to be so much against them.
                      It  is honest.
  Fourth.  This testimony is  honest.  It should be ad-
mitted to be so unless the  contrary is proved, and the
proof must be independent of its own improbability, for
it would be arguing in a circle to infer the dishonesty
of the witness from the incredibility of his statements,
and then use this dishonesty to invalidate his testimony.
  The presumptions are in favor of honesty: for this
honesty is  generally admitted, and has never been, so
far as I can find, attempted  to be disproved.   The dis-
honesty of homoeopathic practitioners is only occasion-
ally  insinuated, when, apparently, no other alternative
can be  found whereby to  account for some of their
statements.
  This  honesty is  probable  from the circumstances.
Homosopathic practitioners exhibit a strong confidence in
their  own treatment.   They assert this confidence, and
often inspire it in others,  where before there was strong
doubt and  prejudice.  It must be  admitted  that they
often trust it where others would not dare to do so with-
out some confidence in it.  No man can seriously doubt,
no one, so far as I know, has ever claimed, that homoeo-
pathic physicians do not believe their treatment to be a
very efficacious one.   If they  are not honest, they must
either have  extraordinary confidence in the unaided
powers of nature,  or  they  must deceitfully  use  other
means under the homoeopathic guise.
  There  cannot be general dishonesty among homoeo-
pathic physicians without there being  constant fear of
their being exposed  by each other and detected by others.
One very natural result would  be, the  dread lest  those
who now oppose them  by argument and ridicule, should
at last be tempted  to  leave these indirect methods and 
60              EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO

resort to a much shorter and more direct method of pro-
ving them to be impostors.  It would be interesting to
enquire if, in the  search after  evidence, homoeopathists
betray any suppressed  anxiety to draw their opponents
away from direct experiment with their doses.
  It cannot reasonably be  said that they trust so much
to the powers of nature as not to care for the effects of
remedies.   It is incredible that they should undergo such
an amount of labor as they are known to, merely to
maintain an appearance of consistency.  What possible
motive can  be suggested  for their accumulating  and
studying such a mass  of symptoms  unless it be  to aid
them in their practice—not to acquire the appearance of
scientific investigation, for Dr. Hooker will tell us it has
no such aspect—not to gather a mass of learned phrases,
for it were easy to show by as good authority that these
descend to minutiae beneath contempt.   Homoeopathists
are as susceptible to ridicule as other men.   Ridicule is
the very thing  to be most dreaded in a system such as
theirs.  Is it supposable that they themselves should fur-
nish so much material  for it without some plausible ob-
ject ?  Again, in the application of these gathered symp-
toms to  the  practice,  there is an immense amount of
study requisite for  the  selection of the remedy.   That
they really go through this, is evident from the reported
cases.  These cases show that labor is necessary, or at
least is undergone, in applying the remedies to definite
groups of symptoms.  All  this is useless, on the suppo-
sition that those who prescribe  them  know that their
remedies are without effect.
  Nor is it reasonable  to suppose, that homoeopathists
are in the habit of  using other remedies in a concealed
form.  This cannot be  done extensively without it being
notorious.  Active  medicines  cannot long  be used in
concentrated forms without being repeatedly detected 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
61
 by chemical analysis, and constantly betrayed by their
 effects on the patient.
   Nor have our opponents any excuse for thinking, as
 they seem to, that the occasional  use of ordinary doses
 is presumptive of dishonesty.  Unless this is  done in a
 disguised form, or unless evidence gained in this way is
 offered as proof of the action of infinitesimal  doses, the
 charge is gross injustice.  Homoeopathic writers have
 constantly reiterated the  statement that their practice
 does not essentially consist in using small  doses, but in
 prescribing medicines according  to the homoeopathic
 law of cure,  and that the question of dose  is merely
 secondary, about which there is room for  much  diver-
 sity of opinion.   Moreover, most of its practitioners be-
 come such by a gradual change from a different system.
 The occasional resort to  such means as they  were for-
 merly in the habit of using, is, in the circumstances, no
 proof  of  dishonesty.  Indeed,  differences of opinion
 among themselves, when in  this transition state, as to
 the  comparative merits in the details of two different
 modes, are to be expected and are evidence rather  of
 honesty than  otherwise,  which an entire and imme-
 diate conformity to one  standard would  not furnish.
 If the statements of a medical witness in regard  to
 any medicine  or  dose are invalidated, because  he  or
 some of his brethren use other medicines  or other doses,
 who but Drs. Brandreth and Townsend can give compe-
 tent testimony ?  The question at issue is  not whether
 ordinary  doses can be altogether dispensed with, but a
very different one—whether infinitesimal doses can ever
 cure disease.  When the time arrives in which the pre-
sent controversies on therapeutics  shall have been deci-
ded, it may be found that each of the now rival systems
has  contributed to the stock of truth something which
 the others had rejected.  The question is not whether
                          6 
62
EVIDENCE  IN REGARD TO
either of them shall then be triumphant, to the exclusion

of all others, but whether one shall have  added nothing

to the common fund.
   Nor would it be sufficient to prove that some homoeo-

pathic  physicians  are  dishonest: it must be shown that

so large a proportion of them are so, as not to  leave wit-

nesses enough.   If " many of them  have been, and are,

sincere, honest and learned men,"* they may unhesita-

tingly admit,  that some who are  not so have  crept into

their ranks.f
                          It is abundant.

   Fifth.   This testimony is abundant, and is  constantly

increasing.    On other subjects, the  amount  of evidence

is usually thought to be proportioned to the  number of

witnesses.   But the discovery has  of late  been  made,

  • Dr. Forbes.
  + Dr. Hooker's work on Medical Delusions has  frequent reference to homoeopathy.
 But little of it, however, has a direct bearing on the evidence, for or against its doses.
There is one exception, wherein he impeaches the honesty of  its practitioners.  He
makes  a sweeping charge, "that  the stealthy use of medicines in ordinary doses is
 no uncommon thing, while they are occasionally openly guilty of a virtual relinquishment
of their principles."  His only specification is the use of camphor in Asiatic cholera, (page
84.)  As I have no disposition to discourage investigation into the .evidence on this sub-
ject, I shall neither attempt to refute nor deny, that homoeopathists are inconsistent when
 they use tincture of camphor in drop doses in Asiatic cholera.  As it is done without any
 attempt at concealment, it is hardly presumptive of dishonesty. Those who are interested
 in the subject would do well to read the Report of a Committee, appointed by a Homoe-
 opathic Society in Cincinnati, on this subject.  (See Quarterly Homoeopathic Journal,
 1850.)  To Dr.  Hjoker I would recommend that he continue the  examination into the
 evidence for and against homoeopathy. I would even take the liberty of suggesting a few
 topics, which his reference to the use of camphor in cholera has brought to my mind.
   1st. Will he  please tell us, whether or no camphor, in drop doses of the tincture, is a
 valuable remedy in this formidable disease ?
   2d. If he thinks it is so, will he please to tell us on what principle it acts, and to whom
 we are indebted for a knowledge of its appropriateness?
   3d. If it is useless in cholera, will he tell us why Hahnemann laid himself liable to the
 charge o'f inconsistency with so fruitless a result ?
   4th. If there are some cases in which it is valuable and others worthless, will Dr. Hook-
 er tell us briefly how to distinguish them ?
   5th. Will he tell us, lastly, in what doses homoeopathists recommend and use other
 remedies for cholera, when, according to their principles, camphor is not indicated, and
 with what success?
   I think Dr. Hooker will  find that these topics will help elucidate the  evidence on this
 subject 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
63
that no amount of testimony is sufficient to establish a
new system of medicine.   Thus it is said, that the his-
tory of medical delusions shows, that abundant testimo-
ny may be brought forward in favor  of the efficacy of
supposed  remedial agents, which shall yet prove to be
worthless.  The  inference is drawn,  that  the  great
amount of evidence which homoeopathy furnishes is not
conclusive of its truth.
  Of the  instances on which this conclusion  is based,
none is so striking, and none is so much Appealed to as
Perkinism.*  If the  history of the "metallic tractors"
does not invalidate the evidence in favor of homoeopathy,
that of "tar water," and other similar  "delusions" can-
not do it.
  To make the application valid, it is necessary to show,
  1st.  That Perkinism had as much collateral evidence
in  its  favor as homoeopathy has.  " The credibility of
testimony greatly depends upon confirmation by collate-
ral  circumstances, and on analogies supplied by the aid
of reason, as well as mere experience."
  2d. That the testimony  would bear analysis, and was
found to be as complete in every respect.
•  3d. That the downfall  of  Perkinism was conclusive
evidence of its being a worthless system, and that it was
not crushed unjustly by the authority and ridicule and
neglect of unbelievers.
  But  after this  is done, and Perkinism is shown to
equal homoeopathy in the evidence it furnishes; to have
been as probable  from analogy; to have had as satisfac-
tory presumptions in its favor; to have had  as positive,
intelligent and honest witnesses;  and, finally, when it is
shown to have been all imposture or delusion, and thus
to have deserved  its fall, our opponent has still more to
do.  He is bound to tell us why, if homoeopathy is equally
* See the works of Dr. Holmes and Dr, Hooker, heretofore referred to. 
64
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
worthless, it has not  shared the same fate.  The same
year in which Perkins promulgated his discovery, was
also marked by Hahnemann's  first essay.   Dr. Holmes
tells us, that in fifteen years the tractors were almost for-
gotten.  If it takes so short a time to demolish one false
system, there must have been sad mismanagement in the
treatment of the other.  Its witnesses are already spread
over a period of more than half a century. They are found
in every civilized country on the globe.  In those countries
where, ten years ago, homoeopathy was said to be already
declining, its practitioners have, in the interval, increased
many fold.*  The establishment of hospitals and dispen-
saries, of homoeopathic professorships,  and quite recently
of their own medical colleges, are  farther evidence of
progress during that  period.  With some slight fluctua-
tions they are still increasing, and with a rapidity which
has never been equalled by any radical  change in medical
opinions.  The  testimony they have  given, has been
faithfully adhered to amid ridicule and persecution, and,
in some cases, where arbitrary laws have  required the
giving up the practice of medicine, or the renunciation
of homoeopathy; yet  I know of no man who, being once
recognized by homoeopathists as a  homoeopathic practi-
tioner, has been led by any motives to renounce his be-
lief in it.  The  assertion may be safely hazarded, that
no statements have ever been made on any subject, sus-
tained by testimony so  numerous, so positive, so intelli-
gent, and, apparently, so  sincere, and yet proved to be
false.   Until  such  an instance can be found, no appeal
oan properly be made to  the " uncertainties of medical
evidence," as an excuse  for neglecting to use the only
means of attaining certainty.          '
                As disinterested as possible.
   In considering this evidence, the  mind is doubtless of-
  * See a list of Homoeopathic practitioners in  Great Britain, in the Brit. Jour, of Horn.
for 1850. Also, abundant evidence to the same effect in the various Journals of Homoeo-
pathy. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
65
 ten biassed by the feeling, that it is less worthy of con-
 fidence, because it  is not disinterested—being the testi-
 mony of those already committed to  the system.  This
 consideration is certainly entitled to considerable weight.
 Indeed it would appear to be the principal  reason why
 medical testimony carries with it less force than that on
 other subjects.  The witnesses usually have a personal
 interest on the side for which they testify, and are tempt-
 ed to exaggerate their success,  and to diminish their
 failures.  By its aid, any supposable mode of treatment
 is thought to be able to obtain any required amount of
 testimony.  It is, therefore, important to determine how
 far homoeopathic evidence is invalidated by it.
  I observe, then, 1st. This consideration applies at least
 as much to all other modes  of treatment.   If they can
 prove that their medicines ever cure, as well as disturb
 their  patients, homoeopathists  can prove  effects from
 theirs, provided their testimony  is competent  in other
 respects.
  2d. Testimony is  much   less  likely to  mislead  us
 through interested  motives  on the part of the witness,
 than  opinions would be.   The statements of the witness
 can be  examined and cross  examined.  His specifica-
 tions  can be separately tested.   We can judge as to his
 motives and  competency; can be aided by his manner,
 and we can  compare the statements of  the different
 witnesses.  Those who offer  to us, as the  ground of be-
 lief, merely opinions, but imperfectly furnish such tests.
  3d.  This evidence is the best which the nature of the
subject admits of.  No better evidence is attainable  on
disputed medical questions, than  such testimony as we
offer, unless it be our own observation, which we cannot
impart to our opponent in any other way.
  4th. This  testimony is less  objectionable  on this
ground than that of some other systems.  There was a
                         6* 
66
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
 time  in the  history of most homoeopathic  physicians,
 when it could not have been plausibly said, that it was
 for their interest to admit these effects.  Almost  every
 day some member of the profession gives in his  adhe-
 rence to the new system ; but his testimony, which before
 would  have  been admitted in regard to the effects of
 medicines, is  immediately branded  as interested, and
 rejected as worthless.  Some of them assert, that they
 commenced their experiments to prove the  doses  inert.
 Many of them declare that interest, prejudice, pride of
 opinion, their hopes of success, the authority of the wise
 and the sympathy of friends, all united, in restraining
 them from such enquiries, and from yielding to their re-
 sults ; and yet unhesitatingly assert that which, if dis-
 proved,  (as it might be, if false,) would ruin them.  To
 rebut such testimony, an overwhelming amout of oppos-
 ing testimony, as unexceptionable  in all its particulars,
 ought to be accumulated.
                  OPPOSING  EVIDENCE.
  Such  is an imperfect exposition of the evidence in fa-
 vor of infinitesimal doses.  I can see but two modes in
 which the conclusion to which it appears to lead can be
 avoided.  It must either be shown that the  evidence is
 rebutted by that of an opposite character, contradicting
what I have adduced, or that there is some other way
in which the results admitted to take place, can be ac-
 counted for, without  referring  them to  the apparent
cause, the infinitesimal dose.
  It is not unfrequently said, that  the efficacy imputed
to these doses is disproved by their being utterly ineffi-
 cient in  the hands of all but homoeopathists.   It is, there-
 fore, important to enquire—
  First.  What  evidence would be necessary in  order
to disprove, by experiment, the  efficacy of infinitesimal
 doses ? 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
67
   Second.  Has such evidence been furnished 1
   Third.   If not, what substitute is offered ?
        What would be needed to establish the negative.
   In order to disprove the efficacy of infinitesimal doses,
 it would be requisite—
   1st. That the witnesses be at least as numerous as is
 usually thought necessary to settle other medical contro-
 versies, where the points at issue are questions  of fact.
   2d. That their reports be precise and circumstantial ;
 such as will enable us to judge of their fairness ; to see
 that the medicines are rightly selected ; minute details as
 to the circumstances, would be demanded as indispens-
 able.
   3d. That there be a considerable range of disease, lest
 the experiment be confined to one set of cases, and those
 selected ones.
   4th. That a sufficient number of the remedies be tested
 to show, not merely that some of them were inert, but
 that most of them were so.
   5th. That the  experiments  be spread over sufficient
 space and time.
   It is not possible to fix, in advance, the extent  to which
 these considerations would  lead.  The limits as to the
 number of witnesses, the number of cases treated, the va-
 riety of remedies, the length of time. &c. would depend
 on circumstances—one of which would be the amount of
 evidence in favor of the doses ; another would be, should
 there be, at times, some appearance  of success, which
 would render it necessary to extend the trials and guard
 more  carefully against other  influences.  The experi-
ments should be  continued and carefully reported until
the conclusion  should be fairly deducible from the evi-
 dence, that the  doses were inert.
  If this is not possible, if sufficient evidence  cannot be
 accumulated within reasonable limits of time, space and 
68
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
 labor to convince the unprejudiced enquirer, that infini-
 tesimal doses are  inert, it ought to be so said,  and the
 present claim abandoned.   But no such ground is taken.
 Such evidence is said to be easily attainable.   It would
 seem that hardly more pains is necessary than  to deter-
 mine the value of a single medicine, iodine for exam-
 ple. We ought  not to be asked to accept of less where
 the merits of a system of  medicine are in the issue.   If
 we are offered less than is plainly demanded by the na-
 ture of the subject, it would be a fair conclusion that no
 better  can be obtained.  No principle is more fully set-
 tled than that which requires, that on  disputed points
 the best evidence of which the nature of the case admits,
 should always be produced.   In the present  instance,
 every  possible motive would prompt to the furnishing
 such evidence.
                What has been furnished.
  Second.  Our next enquiry is, has such evidence been
furnished ?   Pereira, in his materia medica, has a short
notice  of homoeopathy.  He  gives  what he thinks con-
clusive reasons  for rejecting it.   The principal one  is
thus stated:  " Homoeopathy has been fairly put to the
test  of experiment by some  of the members  of the
" Academie  of Medicine," and  the result was a failure.
Andral tried it in one hundred and thirty or one  hundred
and  forty patients, in the presence of the homoeopathists
themselves, adopting every requisite care and precaution,
yet in  not one instance was he successful."*   He does
not quote for us any of the cases, and makes no allusion
to any  other trials.
  Dr. Oliver Wendall Holmes, in a lecture written ex-
pressly to disprove the claims of homoeopathy, appeals
to  this trial of Andral as if it were conclusive.  The
only additional evidence which his  account of  it would
* Mat. Med. Vol. 1, p. 153. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.               69
furnish, is found in the following passage :  " It deserves
notice that he v. ^.rimented with the most boasted sub-
stances, cinchona, aconite,  bryonia,  belladonna.  Aco-
nite, for instance, he says he administered in more than
forty cases of that collection of feverish symptoms  in
which it exerts so much power, according to Hahnemann,
and in not one of them did it have the slightest influence,
the pulse and heat remaining as before."*
   Dr. Holmes says that " Dr. Fleury, a most intelligent
young physician, treated homoeopathically more than fifty
patients suffering from diseases which it was  not dan-
gerous to treat in this way," with "every precaution," and
"found not the slightest effect produced by the medicines."
He says that nine of these  cases—which, by the way,
he does not quote—" indicate the absolute nullity of aco-
nite, belladonna and bryonia, against the symptoms over
which they are  pretended  to exert such palpable, such
obvious, such astonishing influences."!
   Dr. Holmes also appeals to two trials of homoeopathy
where the prescribing physicians were homoeopathists,
one at Naples and one at Paris, in which the results
were  altogether unfavorable to homoeopathy; but he
does not think  it necessary, or  cannot afford  space  to
quote any of the cases.  We must trust  to his opinion
that they were  fairly selected, that the remedies were
properly applied,, and that the results indicated that no
effect was produced  by the  doses.  We learn, at least,
thai the process of proof is simple and easy.
   Dr. John Forbes concedes that medical men have not
adequately put homoeopathic doses to the test of experi-
ment ; although he thinks such experiments as far as they
go, must be considered unfavorable to the claims of ho-
moeopathy.  " At present we have no such experiments
conducted on a  sufficiently large scale to render the re-
sult valid."J
• Homoeopathy and Kindred Delusions, p. 57. t lb. p. 57—59. X Review of Homoeop. p. 23. 
70
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
  Dr. Hooker's late Work, written to guard against med«
ical delusion, and having more space devoted to homoeop-
athy than to any other single subject, does not allude to
such evidence.
  A number of reviews and essays written expressly to
disprove homoeopathy, have fallen under my observation,
but in none  of them have I found anything which would
add materially to the above evidence.  Either no allu-
sion is made to  such evidence, or the above  trials are
appealed to  as decisive.
                  This is not sufficient.
  In regard  to this evidence, I would  take the following
positions:
  1st. It is  not sufficient to decide the point at  issue.
The witnesses are not numerous.  Their reports are not
given with sufficient detail, or else they are very  badly
brought before us.   There is no evidence that the cases
were fairly selected or properly  treated.  Nor are they
spread over  sufficient extent of space and time to settle
a medical question, even if their evidence was altogether
unexceptionable.  I have never  seen  Andral's report.
Homoeopathists say that it shows he did not understand
the system  he  was experimenting with.   If this is a
feigned excuse, it can be shown to be so.  Our books and
principles are before the  world, and  reported cases can
be compared with the indications pointed out in them.
  2d. The only appearance of proof  which these  state-
ments furnish is that in regard to the action of aconite
in " that collection of feverish symptoms in which it ex-
erts so much power, according to Hahnemann."  This,
and perhaps that in regard to belladonna and bryonia,
are the  only specifications in the whole testimony.  On
this it should be observed, that about ten years after this
statement was made, the antiphlogistic properties of aco-
nite were admitted by the Edinburgh  College  of Sur- 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
71
geons, and a gold medal was bestowed on the discoverer.
Again, Robert Liston, an authority  as good as Andral,
recommends aconite  and belladonna for similar symp-
toms in his Elements of Surgery,* and lectures: in the
latter, giving credit for them to the homoeopathic princi-
ple,  and expressly stating that  he had  witnessed their
good effects when " prepared according to the  homoeop-
athic pharmacopoea.'f  Perhaps if we had more specifi-
cations we might gain more light on the subject.
  3d. It is plain that the evidence against infinitesimal
doses is not that of experiment.   We  have before us, if
not all the evidence attainable, at least all that is usually
appealed  to.  If such evidence was abundant, it would
doubtless be furnished.  I  have searched  through the
limited number of books and journals to which I have ac-
cess, and have yet to find the first case reported by an op-
ponent of homoeopathy, and appealed to as a failure, in
which the symptoms are detailed so  particularly as to
indicate what remedy would be  appropriate.  If  such
cases can be found and reported by honest experimenters,
they are so extremely rare as to furnish but  slight evi-
dence on this side of the question.  If infinitesimal doses
are ineffective, there need be  no difficulty  in accumula-
ting positive evidence to  that effect.  A physician may
or may not be bound by his duties to his patient, to fur-
nish such evidence.   This is a question  with which we
need not interfere.  But he is under obligations to do so
in controverting and  ridiculing the advocates of these
doses.
  The statements of homoeopathists, if true, can be easily
and  repeatedly verified  by experiment by all who will
undertake it—if they are false, their system  is at the
mercy of any one who chooses  to adopt it.  Its falsity
• Elements of Surgery, by Robert Liston.  Phil. 1842, page 58.
f London Lancet, OUi and 13th Feb. and 16th of April, 1830. 
72
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
can be proved by any one who will take the trouble to
make it the subject of thorough examination.  He who
shall so far make himself acquainted with it, as to detail
cases treated according to its formularies, with the symp-
toms, so particularly noted as to preclude all fair gain-
saying : such a man, if homoeopathy is all delusion, has
reserved for him a niche in the temple of Fame as yet
unoccupied.   By prompting others to like experiments,
by contrasting them with the reported  cures  with these
doses, by accumulating  evidence, such  as the nature of
the subject calls for, and an amount of it having some
slight reference to its importance, rather than suggest-
ing doubts, objections and ridicule, he  can  consign ho-
moeopathy to the same oblivion in which Perkinism and
medical delusions were so speedily entombed.
                What substitute is offered.
  Third.  When an opponent of these  doses is urged to
furnish such  evidence, he generally offers as an equiva-
lent, the uniform and decided  opinions of  the medical
profession against this and other features of homoeopathy.
The claims made in their behalf are spoken of as being
" an outrage to human  reason," as being " possible only
by a miracle," as being rejected by all "  but a small frac-
tion  of the medical profession."  Such expressions as
these : " we are agreed," " all physicians know,"  " every
sensible person must see," are frequently used as being
a sufficient reason for not giving  more direct evidence.
No consideration appears to have so much influence as
the  weight of authority  which such opinions carry with
them.  Their most substantial  basis is usually thought
to be the argument from analogy; next in  order would
appear  to be the considerations which arise from the
supposed unreasonableness  of the homoeopathic  doc-
trines, which, if  it were altogether true, would be no
decisive argument against the efficacy of the doses.  Nor 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
73
would it be enough to show that these opinions are, for
all that appears to the  contrary, founded on adequate
reasons.  Most men feel their incompetence to judge of
the merits of medical  theories—to decide for or against
the absurdity or validity of medical dogmas—they might
perhaps judge as  to  the credibility of  testimony, and
other direct evidence, but where this is denied them it is
natural  to  enquire, on what principle  their assent is
expected.
   Hence it  is important to  determine if the opinions of
allopathic physicians,  in regard to homoeopathy, consti-
tute a valid argument against  infinitesimal doses, and
if so, how much weight is due to them.
           The offer of opinions is unphilosophical.
   1st. It is opposed to the principles of the inductive
philosophy to offer opinions, however general and appa-
rently well founded, as decisive of important and dispu-
ted questions of fact.   It is both the basis and the glory
of that philosophy, that every opinion must be held sub-
ject to the evidence furnished by observation and experi-
ment ;  that  " though a single well attested fact should
overturn a whole system, that fact  must be admitted."
The history of medicine, as well as that of other scien-
ces, should teach us great caution in  adhering  to opin-
ions, as such, after it becomes  possible to confirm or cor-
rect them by observation.  We learn from it that a most
fruitful " source of medical delusion is to be found in the
disposition to theorize  instead of encountering the labor
of strict observation."   The prevailing system of medi-
cine has, at every period of its history, been in an attitude
of hostility to some views, afterwards admitted to be true.
The history of sects,  and of  individuals, illustrate the
positiveness of medical opinions, and the change which
they may undergo.  One after another  of  the heresies
has been permitted to modify the standard of orthodoxy.
                   7 
74
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
Dr. Hooker admits, that even Thomsonianism may have
some truth in it:  possibly homoeopathy may be permit-
ted to take its turn next.
               But they are not uniform.
  2d.  These opinions are neither uniform nor consistent.
Of those physicians who have brought these opinions to
the test of experiment, a great  majority have yielded
them, and adopted the contrary.   Still more of them
may do so.   There is no  absurdity in supposing that
such changes  may go on  till the weight of authority
shall be equally  divided.  Some physicians admit the
point at issue without becoming homoeopathists.  Others
concede it by claiming that homoeopathic remedies are
dangerous, even in infinitesimal doses.
  Milligen, in ids "Curiosities of Medical Experience,"
admits the efficacy of these doses, and is quite earnest
in his appeal to his brethren to give the  system a trial.
  Pereira says, " the doses in which these agents arc
exhibited are so exceedingly small, that it is difficult to
believe they can produce any effect on the system."  x\t
the same  time, he virtually concedes their powers, by
urging  that if administered according to the homoeo-
pathic principle they would only increase the disease.'
If they are  large enough to produce  this effect, must
they not have some effect on the system ?
  In an article in the British and  Foreign Medical and
Surgical Review, f we find the following passage: "How-
ever much there may be of fiction and delusion  in the
statements of the homcedpathists concerning the specific
adaptation of their infinitesimal doses of particular medi-
cines to forms of  disease denoted by especial symptoms,
we are inclined to believe that legitimate medicine may,
in this respect, as well as in some  others, have cause to
admit  that  Hahnemann has done good service  to the
healing art."
* Materia Medica, vol. 1, p. 153. + Jan. 1846. p. 166. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
75
  Prof. Brera says, " with respect to the dose, apparent-
ly so minute, there is not a physician of any practice or
experience, who ought  to reject it as altogether errone-
ous and inefficient in every case."*
  In some  instances we have  an implied admission of
the power of these doses, from those who would doubt-
less  refuse to avow such a conclusion.   The following
may serve as  a sample of such :  " Let the hydropathist
praise his water-cure—the  homoeopathist his concentra-
ted and infinitesimal doses—the Thomsonian his steam
and  lobelia ;—their remedies  were yours  long  before
their systems  originated."!  Such expressions can hard-
ly be reconciled with so positive a conviction of the in-
ertness of infinitesimal doses as excludes all doubt.
  In other instances we have an approximation towards
the position held  by homoeopathists which  it is well to
observe.  It is no uncommon thing  to hear such state-
ments as  these :   " We all use far less doses now than
formerly."  " I now use a sixteenth of  a grain  where
once I  used a quarter."  Some go so far as to say, that
they believe  medicines are efficacious  in doses very
much smaller  than those generally used.   How they can
avoid seeing that this is a fatal blow to their own thera-
peutics :  that, taking their present position as a starting
point, the same evidence, which has brought them to it,
would as  certainly carry them still further ;  and that no
greater additional  change than this indicates, would plant
them upon homoeopathic ground, I am at a loss to ima-
gine.  It would  require some assurance to  ask for any
admission which would more inevitably yield our claims
than this.
  It  would be  easy to show, were it relevant to the point
at issue, that most of the other features of homoeopathy
  * Anthologia Mcdieale, 1834.
  t Address to  the graduates of the Med. Inst of Yale College, by J. G. Beckwith, M. D.
1848. 
76
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
are conceded by many physicians who reject the system
as a whole.
  Still, it must be admitted, that a great majority of the
profession are unwavering in  the  opinion, that there is
no truth in homoeopathy,  and, consequently, that  there
can be no efficacy in its doses, and as we cannot prove in
advance that this preponderance of authority will ever
be removed, it is necessary to determine more definitely
the weight  which is due to it.
                Nor are they authoritative.
  In judging of the weight due to opinions, the principal
questions to be considered, are :
  1st. What are these opinions ?
  2d. Are they based on a full examination of the evi-
dence ?
  3d. Are they disinterested 1
  The answer to the first question is not easy.  Medical
men are not always consistent with each other, and with
their subject, in expressing  opinions on homoeopathy,
even leaving out those who  admit part of its claims.
Fortunately the work of Dr.  Hooker will enable us to
see with sufficient accuracy what those opinions are.  Its
manifest ability, its avowed object to guard against med-
ical delusion, and its partial sanction as the prize essay
of a State  Medical Society, give it unusual  authority.
           They are neither probable nor consistent.
   It is the general opinion of the medical profession, that
there is no truth whatever in homoeopathy.  " There is
absolutely no  truth whatever  in  this system."*  To
make this still more emphatic, we find it in contrast with
the  statement that "there is some  truth, a little  in
Thomsonianism."  But it is thought  not  merely that
there is no truth, but that there is  no evidence in its
* Med, Del. page 54. 
INFINITESIMAL  DOSES.
77
favor, not even an appearance of it.  " The almost uni-
versal rejection of homoeopathy by medical men is to be
referred, not to a hatred of new things, but to the ab-
sence of even a semblance of proof in its favor."*  " The
so-called arguments  advanced  in defense of Hahne-
mann's system, are made up  of the most flimsy plausi-
bilities, and the loosest analogies."!  " Its founder fails
to command our respect by defending his theories with
talent and ingenuity."  " His deficiency in what may be
termed scientific acumen, is palpable.  The writings of
his followers, for the most part, show the same deficien-
cy.";!;  " An accomplished homoeopathic observer is sim-
ply a skillful maker of farragoes."  " A belief in homoeo-
pathy, after a full examination of  its doctrines and evi-
dences  implies an obliquity of mind which incapacitates
for a just appreciation of truth."§  "While all other theori-
sers have added something to the stock of medical knowl-
edge and  experience, Hahnemann has  literally added
nothing.  His very mode of observation forbids any such
additions ; it establishes nothing.  It leads to error, and
to error only.   It accumulates  a vast and incongruous
medley, the great mass of which is irrelevant, while that
which  is relevant is  small, almost   homaeopathically
femall, and even that is valueless, because it  cannot be
separated  from the  rest."||  Its treatment consists  in
leaving disease  to the " curative power of  nature,"
while its followers are referring  the results to their infi-
nitesimal doses, either ignorantly, or from cunning de-
vise."   " The stealthy use of  medicines, in ordinary
doses," is thought to be " no uncommon  thing with ho-
moeopathic  practitioners," while " they are occasionally
openh/ guilty of a virtual relinquishment  of their princi-
ples.'"*  ■  It appears also to be the opinion of unbelievers
in homoeopathy, that  though at some past period it  was
   * Mod. Del. p. 77. ti&.p. 87. $/ft. p. 80. §/&. p. 87. | lb. p. 52. **/ft.p.84.
                      7# 
78
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
making some progress, it must have already passed its cul-
mination, and be now on the decline.  Thus Dr. Holmes
told us nine years since, that " it was going down in Eng-
land,  Germany,  as  well as in  Paris."  It " was in  its
prime  in Paris in 1836 and '37, and  since, it  has been
going down."  It is generally spoken of as going down
everywhere except in the speaker's own neighborhood.
  Such is an abbreviated, but I believe, a fair statement
of the opinions of most medical men in regard to homoeo-
pathy.   If opinions differing from these are  sometimes
ventured, even by those whose  views on other subjects
are received with the utmost deference,  they have  but
little weight with the  mass of the  profession, because
they are  thought to be  unwarranted concessions.   This
is strikingly illustrated by an editorial in a late medical.
journal,* which pronounces " language inadequate to ex-
press its  condemnation of Dr. Forbes, for his concessions
to homoeopathy," whereas, in the writer's language, " un-
til he penned them, he stood first  among his fellows in
education, in intelligence, in honorable feelings, in prac-
tical sagacity."
                 They are not intelligent.
  2d. Are these opinions the result of a full examination
of the evidence ? Without such an examination, we
should not feel warranted ourselves to form a decisive
opinion on such a subject.   Far less can we be expected
to trust to the opinions of others without it.
  I shall confine the  enquiry  to a single point, which,
however, is quite a comprehensive one.  Are Dr. Hooker
and his  friends  warranted in  the conclusion that ho-
moeopathy has less truth in it than Thomsonianism has.
To  come fairly to this result, he ought to have a thorough
theoretical and practical knowledge of both systems, and
to take into consideration the evidence which  each fur-
* New York Annalist, Vol. 1st. p. 166. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
79
 nishes—or, more strictly, the  evidence which Thomso-
 nianism furnishes for homoeopathy he thinks has neither
 proof  nor a semblance  of any.  In conducting such
 an examination he ought to enquire, if previous to their
 announcement, Thomsonianism  would have  had more
 probabilities in its favor, and if subsequent researches
 showed its analogies to be less " loose," and its presump-
 tions more plausible  than  those of homoeopathy.   He
 ought  to learn if its  founder  by education, energy and
 talents was  more  likely to  establish a valuable truth ;
 if his mode of investigation was more earnest, laborious,
 and in accordance with other scientific researches.  He
 should  enquire if Thomsonianism had been more dis-
 tinguished  in its  discoveries than its rival; if it more
 naturally assimilated and more duly estimated the ortho-
 dox discoveries in anatomy, physiology, pathology, chem-
 istry, &c.; if its disciples were better educated, and indi-
 cated superior  " scientific  acumen ;" if  it made more
 converts from the regular ranks, and oftener secured the
 confidence of those, who on other subjects, seemed best
judges of truth:  if the  success of its  treatment was
 greater, as shown by  his own trials of both modes, or at
 least by observing the treatment of each system in its
 own hospitals and  dispensaries, aiding his judgment by
 the published reports  of both parties.   It would not be
 irrelevant to  enquire if Thomsonianism had less the ap-
 pearance of  " quackery" in  rejecting the  aid of patent
 laws, and in throwing out to the world its processes and
 results for its candid  estimate of their value and its un-
 restricted  use.   Nor would it be amiss to enquire if
 Thomsonianism was working " more fundamental chan-
 ges in the healing art" than homoeopathy : if the changes
 which the science and art of medicine had undergone for
 the  last half century indicated  an approximation  to
 Thomsonianism, rather than  to homoeopathy:  and if 
80
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
its claims were more in accordance with other discove-
ries of the age: such as the development of the hereto-
fore unknown powers of the imponderable agents, and
their  mysterious • influence over the  human functions.
Such  an examination if it led to such results, would, on
this point, be conclusive—but though I am not in favor
of trusting very much to mere opinion in medicine, I will
venture one—that the standard, even  if it be called or-
thodoxy, which should lead to the conclusion that there
was more truth in Thomsonianism than in homoeopathy,
must  itself be a crooked one.   That the opinions of al-
lopathic physicians, even the wisest and most  candid of
them, are not founded on a careful series of experiments
with infinitesimal doses, and therefore  are not intelligent
on the question now at issue, is, I cannot doubt,  suffi-
ciently obvious.
                They are not disinterested.
  3d.  A consideration no less important in judging of the
weight due to opinions is, whether they are disinterested.
However uniform these opinions may  be, however  intel-
ligent may be the reasons for them, however firmly they
may be held, if they are not disinterested they cannot be
offered as competent evidence.
  An assent to the efficacy of homoeopathic doses, from
a physician in the ordinary practice,  requires  a labori-
ous examination amid circumstances little calculated to
prompt to such an undertaking.   His pre-conceived opin-
ions, the dread of ridicule, the difficulties of the subject,
the " uncertainties of medical  evidence," are  a few of
these  circumstances.
  It would require an admission of having been previ-
ously in the wrong, that his opinions had been unfound-
ed, that his teachings were false, his ridicule and oppo-
sition unjust, and his practice based on error.
  It would  usually involve  or ultimately lead to great 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
81
expense, and the sacrifice of much which had already
been incurred ; it would involve the partial loss of busi-
ness, which would be immediate and certain ; any com-
pensating influence would be uncertain, prospective and
dependant on  circumstances, one  of which, perhaps,
might be, whether the new views should prove to be
valuable truth or no.
  It would involve a loss of influence,  and a part of that
respect and confidence which he had previously held.  In
some localities  it would induce  a loss  of the usual pro-
fessional courtesies and sympathies, and might bring up-
on him ridicule and opposition.  If he  was a member of
a medical society, it might lead to a public, and possibly,
" dishonorable" expulsion.
  Henceforth the toils of professional life must be un-
dergone under the blighting influence  of an  evil name.
His success, should he attain any, will be explained away,
instead  of being admitted  as evidence in his favor, as
none but his unfortunate cases are considered competent
to decide the merits of his treatment.   He  must be
cut off  from  fellowship with his former associates, con-
scious that the presumptions in the minds of men are
against  him,  and embarrassed  by the knowledge  that
they suppose that the means on which he relies are un-
worthy of trust.
  These are  but samples of the considerations which
must be overcome  or faced if  an allopathic physician
should assent to homoeopathy.
  It should be observed that the question is not whether
now and then there might not be a physician, obscure,
inexperienced, and unable to gain respect or employment,
for whose interest it would be to give credence to these
doses, but the point is, whether it is for  the interest of the
wise, the sagacious and the successful, those whose opin-
ions, if admitted, would be entitled to some weight in the 
82
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
argument.   It will not, I think, be questioned that it is
for the interest of such to  believe infinitesimal doses to
be inert.
  This consideration alone is sufficient to preclude their
opinions  from having  much weight in the discussion.
Homoeopathists are not allowed to offer their opinions as
evidence, but are obliged  to resort to far more direct
sources of proof.   There can be no reason why those of
their opponents should fare better, especially as they are
not uniform, are fast giving place to different views, and
are not based on a full examination of the evidence.
                   Partial summary.
  It appears to me that the following positions have been
established in the foregoing pages :
  1st.  That the human system is at times extremely sus-
ceptible to  the action of medicines.  So much so, in fact,
as to  receive impressions  from  amounts which  corres-
pond  in minuteness to the doses we usually style infini-
tesimal.
  2d. That on mere a priori grounds this susceptibility
would more reasonably be expected under  the circum-
stances in which homoeopathic medicines are given, than
under any others which can be pointed out in advance.
  3d. That our opponents  admit that an unusual suscep-
tibility to doses which  they consider very small,  is to be
expected in those cases in  which the medicine is homoeo-
pathic to the symptoms.
  4th. That there are certain facts  and principles yielded
by allopathists which afford a sufficient  presumption in
favor of infinitesimal doses, to make their efficacy credi-
ble, provided the evidence furnished by experience pre-
ponderates  in their favor.
  5th. That experience is  decidedly in favor of the doses,
whether we consider the number of the witnesses or any
of those qualifications which would make them compe-
tent to give testimony on this matter. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.               83
   6th. That there is no such evidence against these doses
as the nature of the  subject calls for: whereas, if the
objections which are thought to exist against them are
really valid, there need be no difficulty in furnishing di-
rect evidence to that  effect.
   7th. That, therefore,  the principle which requires men
to  yield their assent in that direction  where is found
the preponderance of evidence, makes it incumbent upon
all candid minds to admit these doses to have remedial
efficacy, and  that whatever conclusions this may lead to,
in regard to the theory  and practice of medicine, should
be fairly dealt with.

          EXCLUSION OF  POSSIBLE  ALTERNATIVES.

  The state of the controversy in regard to homoeopathy
makes it necessary to enquire, what disposal those who
deny the efficacy of infinitesimal doses make of the facts
and arguments which  have now  been advanced.  To
some extent  this question has already been answered.
There is neither uniformity nor  consistency among  our
opponents when they undertake to account for the evi-
dence which  has been accumulated in favor of our sys-
tem.  Some reject it altogether, as unworthy of serious
notice; others attribute the results to  the  unaided pow-
ers of nature ; others refer them to the rules for diet,
regimen, &c.; some appear to think them due to the in-
fluence of the imagination and the encouraging efficacy
of faith and  hope; while others are  satisfied with the
assurance that the practitioners must be dishonest either
in the use of  remedies or in the report of cases.   These,
in various combinations, include, I believe, all the meth-
ods whereby homoeopathic evidence is attempted to be
set aside.  The attitude of our opponents, rather than
the merits of  the question, makes it necessary that some
of these positions should be further examined. 
84
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
     Here the burden of proof should be on the other side.
  I would therefore observe :  It is unreasonable to re-
quire this of homoeopathists.  They haver furnished  a
sufficient amount of evidence and offer more.  No med-
ical testimony is more uniform or more conformable to
the rules of evidence  in regard to the remedial efficacy
of any medicines, calomel, sarsaparilla or lobelia, or of
any processes,  vomiting, bleeding,  or  " packing," than
that in  regard  to  the remedial  action of infinitesimal
doses.   Those who refuse to admit it are bound to show,
not that some other alternative is possible, but that such
alternative is unavoidable.   While we are examining
one point, our opponents might, as in fact, they do, fly to
another, and never come to  an issue with us.   Even if
they can be justified in their refusal to put these doses to
the test of experiment, they ought not to require of us
to furnish evidence which shall necessarily exclude all
doubt;  far less ought such a demand to be  made on a
question which they admit is so easily settled by experi-
ment.
  Nor would it by any means be sufficient to show that in
some one of these ways  it would be possible to  account
for  any fact proved by homoeopathists.   It should be
shown that such an explanation was probable.  It would,
for example, be contrary to all fair reasoning to explain
away any of the cases by imputing dishonesty to the
practitioner, unless this dishonesty is previously shown
to be probable.  The presumption that any single fact
which admitted of two explanations, was due to one
rather than the other, might be  very slight, while the
conclusion that a great  number  of such facts  must, at
least in  part, be due to one of these causes, might be ir-
resistible.  It may be quite a matter of doubt whether the
latest death among our  acquaintances was  owing to
disease or to accident, or to want, but  a matter of en- 
                   INFINITESIMAL DOSES.               85
 tire certainty that each of these causes of death has a
 real existence.
                  Alternatives examined.
   When  a  case of disease is put under homoeopathic
 treatment, it is either,
   1st. Entirely unaffected thereby,  growing worse or
 better, according to circumstances, just as if left to
 nature : or,
   2d.  It improves,  as a  consequence of the treatment:
 or,
   3d.  It is made worse by the  treatment.
   If a great number of  cases, through a long period of
 time, are left to this treatment, some  tendency would be
 found to a common result, which would indicate that the
 treatment was either inert or beneficial, or injurious.
 The evidence heretofore detailed, sufficiently shows that
 the treatment is not injurious.  Those whose views I am
 controverting, will  not be so inconsistent as to claim that
 homoeopathic treatment is injurious.
                The vis medicatrix natural.
   The position that disease progresses under this treat-
ment, just as if left  to nature, cannot  be maintained, for,
   1st.  This  would  preclude allopathists from  claiming
to have any agency in benefitting their patients.  The
evidence goes to show that the results  of homoeopathic
treatment are as favorable as those to which they are con-
trasted.   If the evidence is all on one side, that is  not
the fault of homoeopathists.  The witnesses testify that
this treatment succeeds as well as the other.  If that is
worth  any thing, this must be  also.   The improvement
of the patient is generally considered the surest evidence
of a beneficial efficacy in the medicine.  This is asserted
to be at least as decisive in regard to  infinitesimal doses
as to any others.
                   8 
86
EVIDENCE  IN REGARD TO
  2d. This position is  opposed to the statement of the
witnesses,  that in the progress of this treatment,  innu-
merable coincidences  arise which are so striking as to
preclude all possibility of doubt  as to their connection
with the remedies.
  3d. It is irreconcilable with the claims of a large num-
ber of our opponents, who admit the cures, but attribute
them to the effects produced on the imagination, and to
dieting, and  hygienic  means  generally.   Prof. R.  M.
Bird says of this treatment :*  " It is but an elegant mod-
ification of the practice, the ever  fanciful and ever vary-
ing practice of Moral  Medicine, the  Mentis Medicinal,
which has been in vogue among  regular physicians in
what they consider the proper  forms of disease  (for they
cannot  believe it to be  adapted to  all) since the days of
Hippocrates."
  4th.  This view  is opposed to the position of those who
magnify  most strongly the " vis  medicatrix  naturae."
Those who reject the use of drugs  altogether, find it ne-
cessary to make  the most of such  means as are  not
strictly medicinal. Attention to dietetics, exercise, bath-
ing, fomentations and nursing are avowedly a necessary
antecedent in their cures.   They  attach so much im-
portance to these means as to conclude that thence ho-
moeopathic cures result.  Dr. Isaac Jennings says of the
success of homoeopathic treatment:   " Its evidence is full
and  complete."   Of its  practitioners  he says:   " their
present practice  is,  in my apprehension, nearly fault-
less."f
   It is  frequently said  of homoeopathic treatment  that it
 leaves disease unaided at all, that its cases do  just as if
 left to nature.   I think  these considerations show that
 this is  a very reckless assertion.   It is opposed  to almost
  * Introd. Lecture, Philad. 1841, page 11.
  t Medical Reform, by Isaac Jennings, M. D. 1847, pages 247 and 268. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
87
all the evidence on this point, and to the claims of every
school of medicine.   It is none the less opposed to the
evidence in regard to the powers of unaided  nature.
The history of  cholera, small pox, and other serious dis-
eases, furnishes very striking evidence  of the great su-
periority over unaided nature, of even the most rude and
imperfect means whereby the natural " vis medicatrix"
is assisted in curing.  To persuade men that  disease
would be removed as well without medical aid  as it is
under homoeopathic treatment, would lead to important
changes in their estimate of the value of  medication.
  If,  then, the conclusion is fairly reached, that disease
is in  some  way removed as a  consequence of homoeo-
pathic treatment, it must either be through the action of
its medicines, or by means of what is called the
                   Expectant method,
which consists in leaving disease to the restorative pow-
ers of nature, aided by nursing, dieting, regulating the
regimen, and attending to obviously injurious external
agents, and at  the same time exciting the hopes of the
patient by giving  him  the impression that he is taking
medicine.  The progress of our examination  brings us
to the enquiry, can the results which take place under
homoeopathic treatment  be  accounted for by referring
them  to the power of the expectant method 1
  On this question I observe : this supposition does not
materially  affect  the  evidence of the  success  of  the
treatment.   A candid decision  on  the  evidence would
give it the credit  of curing disease as effectually as the
more  orthodox  mode, with all its disturbing appliances.
Certainly if, as a general rule, medicines  can be  dis-
pensed with, and yet the physician and patient persuade
themselves  that better results  cannot be  otherwise ob-
tained, our opponents are bound to exchange theirs for
the expectant practice, and  determine by a careful ex- 
88
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
amination if,  after all, their drugs are of any service to
their patients.
  But this supposition is inadmissible because it does
not reasonably account for the facts.
  There are  three  sets of phenomena to be accounted
for.   First: such of the  recoveries occurring under ho-
moeopathic treatment as are not fairly attributable to
unaided nature ; second and  thirdly : the many coinci-
dences where changes in the bodily functions arise on
the administration of the doses ; such as the checking
vomiting, diarrhea, cough &c.—the occurrence of sweat-
ing and the restoration  of suppressed  evacuations, in
connection with the use  of these doses, and in accord-
ance with the law of similars.  The cures are admitted
by the view under  consideration, and an hypothesis is
offered whereby their occurrence is explained  without
aid from the doses.   But there  can be no pretence that
any considerable proportion of the coincidences, of which
we have precisely the same evidence, can be accounted
for by the aid rendered nature by dieting, nursing, &c.—
another  hypothesis must be resorted to for their especial
benefit.   Accordingly they are  explained by referring
them to  mere accident, and to the influence  of the im-
agination.  Now it is hazardous to resort to two expla-
nations   to account for  cotemporaneous occurrences
where one will do it.  It is unreasonable to do so unless
there is  conclusive evidence either in favor of each hy-
pothesis, or against the single one.  It is almost an absurd-
ity to do so where the single explanation accounts for the
phenomena, and is more likely to be true than either of
the others.
  To determine whether the explanations offered where-
by to account for homoeopathic  evidence are reasonable
or not, we may observe :
  1st. It is not probable that so much success would arise 
                   INFINITESIMAL DOSES.               89
 from the entire expectant treatment  as is proved by ho*
 moeopathists, making every allowance for exaggeration
 and accident.   This mode of treatment, removing obvi-
 ous causes of disease, regulating diet, and inspiring hope,
 is not new.  Occasionally instances of its success have
 not been very  unfrequent, and have usually been con-
 sidered  quite striking from their singularity.   But the
 conclusions of physicians have not on the  whole been fa-
 vorable to it in any considerable  range  of cases, much
 less in all cases.  The evidence in regard to it so far as
 I can find, is quite limited, and is far from being decisive
 in its favor.  Dr. Hooker considers it a " frivolous" mode
 of treatment.   Prof. Alison, of the University of Edin-
 burgh expressly admits that this practice, in the  hands
 of  homoeopathists, has been " more frequently success-
 ful in inflammatory diseases than could have been expected ;
 i. e. the practitioners who have thought themselves jus-
 tified, by that theory, in trusting more than we do to the
 powers of nature, aided only by regimen, for the cure of
 such diseases, have had fewer deaths and  better recove-
 ries than we should have expected."*
  2d. Fortunately we have in one instance a series of
 experiments on  a scale large enough (as is usually sup-
 posed) to test the value  of  a new mode of treatment—
 one which has always been considered authentic and de-
 cisive.  In these trials even the homoeopathic diet and
 regimen were followed " with every necessary  precau-
 tion."  " Medicines"  were administered  which no one
 can claim to have had either remedial or disturbing ac-
tion.   The patients had  the advantage of having their
hopes awakened by the inspiring attendance of one of
the most talented and sagacious of  physicians.  Yet
"in not one instance was he successful."!  Nay, more :
 * Edin. Month. Jour, of Med. Science, Aug. 1850.
 + Pereiru's Mat. Med. Vol. 1, p. 153.
                 8* 
90              EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
in those groups of symptoms in which, according to the
views we are considering, " accidental coincidences" and
apparent results are most likely to occur, not one ap-
peared, and the " absolute nullity" of the " expectant
method," was shown conclusively.   It can no longer be
claimed that under this treatment the success is so great
as to embarrass our judgment as to the effects of reme-
dies.  If homoeopathic  testimony  will bear to  be so
pruned and analyzed as to satisfy the demands of medi-
cal logic, and yet prove a greater success than that of
Andral,* few of our opponents can maintain their con-
sistency and deny that  sometimes homoeopathic medi-
cines have effects.   Whether it will or no,  I leave others
to judge.
  3d. Some of the successful results which have been
gathered up in regard to the " expectant practice," have
evidently been  acquired  from  homoeopathic sources.
This we have already seen  in the quotation from Prof.
Alison.   I have already referred, page 86, to  the treatise
of Dr. Jennings, wherein  he advocates the efficacy of
this practice, and the uselessness of all medication. In
recommending homoeopathy to the consideration of allo-
pathic physicians, I have been answered by an appeal to
his position  as proof that the evidence for which I was
pleading was not conclusive.  He gives us but few cases
whereby to judge of the effects of his method.   He makes
no pretension to report all his cases of any one disease.
We cannot judge what his success was, nor what ours
would be should we adopt his views.   At least part of
the success and evidence on which he bases his conclu-
sions would appear to have been acquired under homoeo-
pathic  treatment.   Speaking  of homoeopathic practi-
tioners, he says : " I uniformly advise my friends to em-
ploy them."t   To appeal to evidence gained  in this way
•Pereira's Mat. Med. and Dr. Holmes' work quoted p. 68.  + Jennings' Med. Ref. p. 268. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
91
 as proof of the success of the  expectant treatment, is
 simply begging the question.
  4th. The disciples of Priessnitz have experimented on
 the largest scale in treating disease without medicine.
 Their testimony is  important  to aid us in judging as
 to the progress of disease  without medication, though
 owing to the  activity of their treatment, we cannot, in
 an enquiry as  to the  curative  powers of nature,  take
 their results  as a  standard of comparison.   Many of
 them admit and testify to  the efficacy of infinitesimal
 doses,* and some of them, very properly, as I think,  seek
 to aid their own treatment by openly combining with it
 the occasional use of homoeopathy.
  5th. It is unreasonable to impute the success of ho-
 moeopathic treatment to dietetics, &C. for there is noth-
 ing in the  directions usually given by homoeopathic prac-
 titioners which would lead to such results.  Their great
 object, as is evident from their  books and published di-
 rections, is to keep away from the patient all disturbing
 impressions.    They are  satisfied if they can exclude
 those circumstances which might interfere with the ac-
 tion of the remedies.  Accordingly, the restrictions are
 very numerous, while but little  else is enjoined.  They
 use less of the expectant  appliances than  any other
 practitioners.    In many cases of acute disease the  only
 directions are, take the medicine and avoid such things
 as might be injurious.
  These considerations appear  to me to prove that ho-
 moeopathic cures are not referable  to  the expectant
 means.  The supposition, however, does not  solve the
real difficulty.  It does not get rid of the evidence of its
being a very successful mode of treatment.  Our oppo-
nents do not speak of homoeopathy as being a mere harm-
 less system, as this  supposition  would imply—it is  said
* Gully on the Water-Cure in Chronic disease, p. 45. 
92
EVIDENCE IN REGARD  TO
to be " either true, or a dangerous, fatal error."f  Were
it true that the powers of nature so little needed aid from
medicine, it would  prove both systems useless—but of
the two, homoeopathy should even then have the prefer-
ence.
   Nor is the second hypothesis—that which attributes
the striking coincidences which occur under homoeopa-
thic  treatment to mental  influence  and  accident, any
more rational.
   Those who adopt this explanation, ought to  tell  us
whether  the  homoeopathic  physician is conscious that
this  is the agency in his success—whether he is an im-
postor, or like the patient, is groping in doubt.  Such a
claim is so improbable, that it ought  to be accompanied
by precise  specifications and  overwhelming evidence,
either of dishonesty  on the part of the practitioner, or of
such gross ignorance as to render  it impossible to judge
of the effects of remedies.  That neither of these  can be
done has been, I think, sufficiently shown.
   But it  cannot fairly be claimed that homoeopathic re-
sults are, to any  unusual extent, due to this cause, for
there is nothing in the treatment especially  adapted  to
excite  the  imagination  and awaken confidence.  The
presumptions of the senses are altogether against these
doses.  Probably no system  of medicine has ever been
devised which is  so little  likely to inspire  confidence,
apart from its merits.  We should expect patients to be
discouraged by it, as we know they would be if they
were in doubt whether  we  were not administering  to
them bread pills, or any other mere placebo;  that  at
least, whenever they found themselves seriously sick, they
and their friends would become alarmed at sight of such
inappreciable remedies.  It cannot be denied that under
other treatment  there are many circumstances besides
the mere remedial effects of the medicines, which tend
* Dr. Holmes. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
93
to keep up the confidence of the patient.  The taste, the
smell, and the sight of " appreciable" agents, the very
pains  caused  and disturbance created, the vomiting,
blistering and purging, the perception of immediate re-
sults, all contribute to inspire hope.  Will it be pretend-
ed that these various aids to faith can be dispensed with
and the confidence of the patient as well maintained ?
If it seems an outrage to human reason to ask a physi-
cian to prescribe  infinitesimal doses,  is  it directly the
reverse to ask a  patient to trust them? Even if the
homoeopathist owes his success to the expectant means
alone, it might be  expected that he would do  better with
doses which  had the appearance of being potent: that
otherwise he would often have injustice done him by the
impatience of  those who were induced to make  trial of
his method.   That where it failed to meet their expecta-
tions, it would  make them active  and efficient opposers.
It would take a long period of  success to so far equalize
the presumptions, in the minds of men, in regard to the
rival systems, as to give homoeopathists a fair chance in
the strife.
  If, notwithstanding these considerations, it is still held
that homoeopathic physicians  really cure by regulating
the diet and habits of the patient,  and inspiring confi-
dence  in doses of  sugar ; if  results  can be thus secured
which so effectually rival those obtained by the learning
and talents of orthodoxy itself; if this success is such as
to secure the confidence of the " intelligent, the refined,
and the wealthy," it must be  admitted that  allopathic
physicians are really in an embarrassing position.  De-
barred from the use of " sugar and rain water," or " me-
tallic tractors," or even "tar  water," when, if their con-
sciences would only permit them to do so,  they might
cure their patients by merely inspiring confidence in
these harmless  agents, we  at  least  see clearly why all 
94
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
the " knaves " are driven into the homoeopathic ranks, to
the great relief of legitimacy.  If, as Dr. Holmes tells us,
ninety per cent, of the cases which a physician  is called
to treat would get  well without  him ; and if, of ihe bal-
ance, most cases would do so well on sugar  if the physi-
cian only had confidence in it, will there not at last be too
great temptation for even honest men to resist ?   If all
the distressing  effects of medication  can be dispensed
with,  and nobody need be physicked, blistered or bled, if
the physician can be saved  all anxiety in the diagnosis,
and all care in the  selection of the remedy, as whatever
might be the disease, " globules of sugar"  are the only
remedial agents—with Dr. Forbes to testify that better
results cannot be obtained by orthodoxy itself, and Dr.
Jennings to  assure him that nature's " vis  medicatrix"
would not be interfered with by the phantom dose, and
even  Dr. Hooker to hint that that most important item,
the fee bore no ratio to  the dose,* is  there not danger      »
that these considerations will make heresy too  popular ?
True, it might be  suggested that there was nothing  in
the appearance of these  doses to excite the  imagination
—that the facts would not be accounted  for unless the
infant draws in faith with its mother's  milk, and the de-  j
lirium of fe^r is some clairvoyant state wherein credulity tf^*^
is  highly exalted—these considerations  would  be set
aside by Dr. Holmes, with the assurance that " on medi-
cal subjects the credulity of mankind is boundless," and
it will become necessary for Dr. Hooker to " submit it      „
to our friends of the clerical profession," after they have
settled his questions in regard to Dr. Bushnell,f  to decide
whether faith alone is not  sufficient in medicine as well
as in theology.
* Med. Del., p. 80.              + lb. p. 94, 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
95
                     CONCLUSION.
  I have endeavored to show the credibility of the facts
asserted in regard to infinitesimal doses, that they have
in their favor fair presumptions and unimpeachable tes-
timony, and that the evidence  against them  is chiefly
speculative.  The various alternatives which have been
suggested whereby to account for the success of homoeo-
pathic treatment, have been seen, if I mistake not, to be
'rreconcilable with the claims  and principles of  those
who urge them, to be inconsistent with ascertained facts,
and to be disproved by experiment.  Against such pre-
sumptions it is  unreasonable to urge the extreme impro-
bability of the asserted facts, and of the  conclusions they
lead to.   The state of the evidence might be  such that
they would be  intrinsically improbable, while their rela-
tions to other suppositions rendered them certain.  " The
improbability of anjr supposition is estimated from a com-
parison with each of its alternatives.  The inclination of
the  balance cannot be ascertained from knowing the
weights in one scale, unless we know what is in the op-
posite scale."  Those who  seek to account for homoeo-
pathic results by  calling attention to the expectant prac-
tice, and those  who  urge the extreme  improbability of
the action of infinitesimal  doses as a sufficient reason
for not weighing the evidence in their  favor, appear to
me to have their attention fixed on one scale to the ex-
clusion of the other.
   It has been my aim to confine this discussion to a sin-
gle topic, not  as the most  important one in which the
two systems differ, for I do not so regard it.  But where
all the features of homoeopathy are alike  rejected,  as
foolishness, our doses are, as  all know, the stumbling
block which prevents the others from receiving a respect-
ful attention.  This question also has the advantage of
being more matter of fact than the others are. » consid- 
96
EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
eration which those should duly appreciate who are so
much afraid of being misled by speculation and theory.
Moreover,  much of the evidence which has been accu-
mulated in regard to them has been gathered with infini-
tesimal doses; so that a determination of their efficacy
is important, if not necessary, to decide the other claims
of homoeopathy.  Nor have I undertaken to decide whe-
ther the extremely minute doses, which have gained the
confidence of many homoeopathists, are worthy of adop-
tion.   It was not necessary to my  purpose that I should
do so.  I might have failed in the attempt to accomplish
this.   Such a failure might have been used to invalidate
the conclusion that the lower dilutions were efficacious.
The doses to which my positions have reference, are far
smaller than  the smallest dose ever thought of, until
homoeopathy came into existence, far smaller than the
smallest now recognized  by any other writers on mate-
ria  medica and therapeutics.  The  settlement of the
question whether such doses affect the human system,
naturally has a place before the same question is moot-
ed in regard to still higher dilutions, and an acceptance
of these  doses has, in almost every instance, led to the
adoption of homoeopathy, and been one of the first  steps
in the process.  If these are disproved, no one would un-
dertake to  defend the others ;  but the higher dilutions
may be inert, and the  lower have a value beyond all hu-
man computation. In this state of things, to urge argu-
ments or excite prejudice against homoeopathy because
its disciples sometimes or often carry their dilutions still
further, would be a virtual admission that this latter po-
sition was considered more assailable. It would be to hurl
their missiles to either side, instead of aiming at the bat-
tery close in front.  It would imply that there was some
evidence in favor of the doses  we have  been consider-
ing in these pages. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
97
   In  conclusion, I would respectfully submit to physi-
 cians, if they honor this essay with any notice,  that its
 application to them cannot be set aside by refuting the
 arguments, or even by disproving the facts which have
 been  adduced.   The  question would  arise, if this may
 not be owing to the imperfect manner in which the sub-
 ject has been treated, or as another expresses it, the want
 of " scientific acumen;" and of " capacity for the just ap-
 preciation of truth" which characterizes the believers in
 homoeopathy.  I make no claim to have  given a full
 view  of homoeopathic evidence, on any one position ta-
 ken in these pages.   Little more  has been attempted
 than  to furnish  an analysis of the evidence on a single
 question.  If the considerations which have been advanced
 have  no weight, may there not be  others  in  existence
 which have led so many to adopt these views in  spite of
 the adverse influences brought against them ?   With phy-
 sicians, the first  question should not be as to the merits of
 homoeopathy, but as to the evidence in its favor.  The
 question at issue is, as to the reality of certain asserted
 facts; until that is settled,  it is useless to spend much
 time  in discussing the causes or the consequences of
 those  facts.   Nor is the question whether there  is suffi-
 cient  evidence to warrant the adoption of the new views,
 but is there any evidence, or enough to prompt to an in-
 vestigation, or  at least sufficient to justify suspending
 the judgment.   It has become customary to  explain
 away this evidence by the  strange  admission that ho-
 moeopathy has taught " how much agency the curative
 power of nature exerts in removing disease."  How this
 absolves them from the obligation to give an unpreju-
diced  examination to the subject,  to examine the results
 of homoeopathic treatment in its hospitals, to read  its
 reports and especially to experiment either with its med-
 icines, or with the expectant treatment, it would be diffi-
                   9 
98              EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO
 cult to determine.  Homoeopathy is admitted to have led
 already to " most important changes in the healing art,"
 to have taught  the  curative power of nature, to have
 brought about a far more guarded use of the most active
 agencies which it found in vogue.  After these constrain-
 ed  admissions,  is it wise to suppose that the causes
 which have wrought these changes are yet exhausted ?
 Is it not rather probable that a candid enquiry into the
 " powers of nature" would lead to still further changes ?
  Any attempt to escape this conclusion by diverting at-
 tention from the question at  issue,  or by discussing the
 merits of the rival systems and the reasonableness of
 their tenets, rather than the evidence in regard to them,
 and especially the having recourse to ridicule, instead of
 argument, would too plainly be a confession of the ne-
 cessity of resorting to such alternatives, to be expected
 of candid men, conscious of the strength  of their posi-
 tion.  Not but that they must have opinions in regard to
 homoeopathy.  Occasional contact with it they cannot
 avoid.   Some action, which has reference to its merits,
 they are  compelled to take.   Members of a profession
 which claims to be liberal, and avowing that admission
 into its fellowship is " irrespective of opinions," they will
 allow one of their  number, the only  charge against
 whom, attempted to be sustained is, that he has adopted,
 practiced  and recommended homoeopathy,  they will see
 him expelled, and that ignominiously,  from their own
 ranks,  without uttering  one word  of remonstrance to
 shield him from injustice, or to avert from themselves the
 shame of participating in the outrage.  In their daily in-
tercourse  with the sick,  in the impressions  they impart,
and the influence they exert on all who listen with def-
erence  to  their opinions, they make no exception in re-
gard to the views of which this essay is the result,  but
treat them as they do the most absurd tenets or the most 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
99
 notorious deception.  It is to be  hoped that the convic-
 tions under which they act are unhesitating.   Motives
 for caution are all around them.  That love of truth
 which should supersede all attachment to opinions, the
 charity " which is lenient to the erring while it shows no
 leaning to the error," their most sacred duties to their
 patrons, and a regard for their own future fame, in short,
 every obligation which binds men in a common calling,
 makes it  incumbent  upon physicians to assure them-
 selves beyond  all doubt, that  their opinions on this sub-
ject are well founded.   But if homoeopathy is all  a
 delusion, they have still a duty to perform in regard to
 it, and one which they cannot always escape.   They are
 bound to furnish the public with the best evidence which
 the nature of the case permits, that it is really a " fatal,
 deadly error."  For my own part, I can see no interme-
 diate ground which medical men  can  consistently adopt
 in rejecting homoeopathy, between that which shall prove
 by experiment the entire  inertness of its doses and the
 absurdity of its principles, and the taking and maintain-
 ing that which  assumes  that  there  is  absolutely not
 merely " no truth in it," but that  there is no evidence in
its favor, not even a " semblance" of it
 
V 
 
*5V2H£sSBl*
     THIS PAMPHLET
           MAY BE OBTAINED OF

WILLIAM  PATTON,

       WATERBlItl, Conn.

Single Copies, 371 cents.
Three Copies for $1.00.
IP
Bookseller, Stationer, and  General  Agent
FOR THE VARIOUS
             (POST OFFICE BUILDING)

Offers for sale, at the lowest cash prices, an assortment of
  BLA3K,  SCHOOL, A\D  MISCELLANEOUS

         ©(§)©  Kg,
    Stationery  and  Fancy Articles.
'i
4
%
y
\