HOMCEOPATHY V. ALLOPATHY. 
367 
the second place, I consider them so futile as to scarcely 
merit the trouble which would be incurred in their refuta- 
tion ; however, as Mr. Dun seems to insist upon my noticing 
them, and evidently considers that they contain a something, 
not only pithy, but very damaging* to the cause 1 advocate ; 
and as he also concludes his answer with a boast that “ such 
arguments stand unanswered and uncontroverted either by 
me or any one else,” I suppose I must notice them, if for 
no other purpose than merely to pacify the gentleman. 
The objections to which my opponent refers are contained 
within the introductory portion of his book, on ‘Veterinary 
Medicines, their Actions and Uses,’ to which I beg the reader 
to refer, at pp. 8, 9, 10, and 1 1, or if the book is not in his 
possession, see The Veterinarian for April, pp. 220 and 221 of 
the present year. 
These objections are of a threefold kind, the first of which 
relates to the physiological action of medicines upon the healthy 
organism. The second, to the smallness of the homoeopathic 
dose, and what, as a matter of course, my opponent would 
designate its utter inefficiency to cure disease ; while the third 
relates to dietetics. This latter objection is put forth, more 
as an affirmative, u e ., as an attempt on the part of my 
opponent to explain the mode by which patients are cured 
of disease, when supposed to be under the influence of 
homoeopathic treatment. 
OBJECTIONS OF THE FIRST ORDER, PHYSIOLOGICAL 
ACTION OF MEDICINES. 
My opponent informs us that the law of cure, by which 
every homceopathist professes to be guided when treating 
disease, is “ unsupported by adequate facts and arguments , and is 
quite insufficient to account for the action of most remedies and 
in support of the above, he has written a series of statements, 
which, be it distinctly understood, are entirely the offspring 
of his own inventive genius : he says, that oil of turpentine 
destroys “lumbrici, and other intestinal worms,” but does 
not produce them. That sulphur is “one of the best remedies 
for removing lice, and many skin diseases, but does not produce 
either That “ arsenic, iodine, and belladonna, are homoeo- 
pathic remedies for thick wind ; yet none of these, nor all of 
them together, produce thick wind ” That “ aurum, arsenicum, 
bromine, and various other substances are given in glanders, 
farcy, and consumption ; yet none of these, nor, indeed, any 
other medicine, is known to cause any such complaints. 
