One concession he is willing to make, whatever sacrifice of pride it may involve.  The story of Massasoit, which has furnished a coral, as it were, for some teething critics, when subjected to a powerful logical analysis, though correct in its essentials, proves to have been told with exceptionable breadth of statement, and therefore (to resume the metaphor) has been slightly rounded off at its edges, so as to be smoother for any who may wish to bite upon it hereafter.  In other respects the Discourse has hardly been touched.  It is only an individual’s expression, in his own way, of opinions entertained by hundreds of the Medical Profession in every civilized country, and has nothing in it which on revision the writer sees cause to retract or modify.  The superstitions it attacks lie at the very foundation of Homoeopathy, and of almost every form of medical charlatanism.  Still the mere routinists and unthinking artisans in most callings dislike whatever shakes the dust out of their traditions, and it may be unreasonable to expect that Medicine will always prove an exception to the rule.  One half the opposition which the numerical system of Louis has met with, as applied to the results of treatment, has been owing to the fact that it showed the movements of disease to be far more independent of the kind of practice pursued than was agreeable to the pride of those whose self-confidence it abated.

The statement, that medicines are more sparingly used in physicians’ families than in most others, admits of a very natural explanation, without putting a harsh construction upon it, which it was not intended to admit.  Outside pressure is less felt in the physician’s own household; that is all.  If this does not sometimes influence him to give medicine, or what seems to be medicine, when among those who have more confidence in drugging than his own family commonly has, the learned Professor Dunglison is hereby requested to apologize for his definition of the word Placebo, or to expunge it from his Medical Dictionary.

One thing is certain.  A loud outcry on a slight touch reveals the weak spot in a profession, as well as in a patient.  It is a doubtful policy to oppose the freest speech in those of our own number who are trying to show us where they honestly believe our weakness lies.  Vast as are the advances of our Science and Art, may it not possibly prove on examination that we retain other old barbarisms beside the use of the astrological sign of Jupiter, with which we endeavor to insure good luck to our prescriptions?  Is it the act of a friend or a foe to try to point them out to our brethren when asked to address them, and is the speaker to subdue the constitutional habit of his style to a given standard, under penalty of giving offence to a grave assembly?

“Homoeopathy and its Kindred Delusions” was published nearly twenty years ago, and has been long out of print, so that the author tried in vain to procure a copy until the kindness of a friend supplied him with the only one he has had for years.  A foolish story reached his ears that he was attempting to buy up stray copies for the sake of suppressing it.  This edition was in the press at that very time.