140 THE INTERNAL SECRETIONS—1920 
the additions to our therapeutics made possible through 
this new knowledge. 
THE LABORATORY VS. THE CLINIC 
The stigma of empiricism that some have tried to 
attach to the work of the investigators along the line 
of endocrine therapeutics, is puerile and this is de- 
cidedly apparent in the light of results that we are get- 
ting every day with organotherapy. 
Advance along these lines only can be accomplished 
by clinical proving; the laboratory must give way to 
the clinic. 
Far too many physicians still look too literally on a 
disease as an entity, something separate from the body, 
which “attacks” the patient; but they do not look upon 
“dis-ease,” as a “dis-comfort,” a malcondition of the 
body caused by the presence in the system of something 
which should not be there, as, for instance, the toxins 
in infectious or chronic diseases; or the lack of some- 
thing that should be there, as, for instance, the lack 
of the thyroid secretion in myxedema. 
Too many times we forget that all the physician can 
do is to assist nature in ridding the patient of his 
“dis-ease.” We can help nature sometimes by anti- 
dotes or antitoxins, or by neutralizing poisons; and by 
vaccines, we may assist nature to destroy invading. 
germs. Then we can be very helpful still further by 
assisting in the elimination of poisons from the sys- 
tem. Here is one place where organotherapy comes to 
our assistance and if we are wise we will avail our- 
selves of its aid. Should the “dis-ease” be due to the 
lack of the secretions of a ductless gland or glands, 
organotherapy will be just as beneficent as it is physio- 
logical in helping us to assist nature by supplying the 
lack. 
It has never been my lot to be able to work out in 
the physiological laboratory any of the theories or 
