A VILLAGE DOCTOR’S CLINIC vie 
acknowledge what is so palpably true instead of dis- 
crediting the testimony because it does not accord with 
the ideas of some? 
Do we care so much for our pet theories that we are 
willing to sacrifice the best interests of the patient to 
them? If the patient is benefited by pluriglandular 
therapy, then why in the name of common sense should 
we not employ it? Call it ‘‘a reversion to the shotgun 
preparations of fifty years ago,” (14) if you will. The 
point is not to find something with a pretty name, but 
rather, will this preparation do the work? We surmise 
that a sick man would not be particular whether the 
agent that effected his cure were named “ortho- 
dioxyphenylethanol-methylamine” (15) or some pluri- 
glandular extract. The important question is, did he 
get better? 
Some two thousand years ago there was a man whose 
sight had been restored by the Great Physician (16). 
The hair-splitters of that day insisted upon asking the 
method of the cure and what authority the man had for 
performing such acure. They even questioned the evi- 
dence of their own senses when it conflicted with their 
preconceived theories. However, the thinking of this 
man, once blind, pierced through all carping criticism 
to the one essential, all-important fact. Said he, ‘One 
thing I know, that, whereas, I was blind, now I see.”’ 
Conditions have not changed so very much in 2000 
years. Of course medical science has forged far ahead 
of its position in the first century; but for every pa- 
tient who is cured today there is a group of eager fault- 
finders, who quibble about methods and names and theo- 
ries and authority; forgetting that the main considera- 
tion is the cure of the patient. The truth is that this 
pluriglandular treatment is logical and rational and 
practical. It has cured patients for me. It will cure 
them also for you. 
