A VILLAGE DOCTOR'S CLINIC 77 



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 a cure. 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. 



