HOAKEOPATHY V . ALLOPATHY. 
369 
capable of producing such parasites, in what doses soever it 
may be given.” If this statement be put forth as a damager 
to homoeopathy, it is utterly worthless in more respects than 
one. Worms themselves are not diseases, they may either 
manifest themselves when the digestive organs present states 
of disease favorable to their development, or, they may, when 
present within the alimentary canal, be productive of a variety 
of symptoms, by which their existence is known, but in 
neither case can the parasite itself be spoken of as disease. 
That turpentine will destroy worms, is simply a fact, and if 
the presence of worms within the alimentary canal was alone 
the cause of the disorder which may attend their presence, 
why, of course, their removal will be attended by a speedy 
restoration to health. A worm is a worm, and a disease is a 
disease, and I must confess my surprise that Mr. Dun should 
fall into so palpable a blunder as to assert their identity. 
Sulphur, says my opponent, “is notoriously one of the 
best remedies for removing lice, and many skin diseases, but 
does not produce either.” That the application of sulphur 
to the skin will not produce lice I admit, but lice in them- 
selves is not disease, but when we are told that sulphur will 
not produce disease of the skin, we are told what is notoriously 
untrue. Erasmus Wilson, in his f Treatise on healthy Skin/ 
paragraph 198, says, 
“ Sulphur has obtained the credit of being a specific for 
itch, and so it undoubtedly is when properly applied,” and in 
the same paragraph he adds. “ But sulphur, besides being 
a stimulant, is also an irritant to delicate skin, or, if its use be 
prolonged , may be the occasion of an eruption similar to the 
eruption of itch” 
The power of sulphur to excite eruptions of the skin, 
similar to itch and other affections in which it is given, can 
be doubted by no one who has visited the sulphur baths of 
Germany, where the “ bath rash,” as it is termed, is one of 
the most constant effects which those who drink the waters, 
experience. 
Krimer , a German physician, says, 
“ Sulphurous baths often produce the very disease which 
they are employed to cure,” tluf eland's Journal , for the month 
of August, 1834, p. 9- 
I could adduce other examples equally pertinent with the 
above, but I consider them sufficient for the present occasion. 
“Arsenic, Iodine, and Belladonna, are homoeopathic 
remedies for thick wind, yet none of these, not even all of 
them together, produce thick wind.” 
Should the reader possess a copy of my w r ork, entitled 
