HOMOEOPATHY V. ALLOPATHY. 
483 
sense would declare that the matter is perfectly plain — that 
it is plainly stated, and plain to understand ; yet my opponent 
either does not understand it, or will not, I really cannot say 
which ; for in the * Veterinarian 9 for June, pages 323-24, he 
says : “ Surely these statements warrant the conclusion that 
the remedy most eminently adapted for the cure of any 
disease should, homceopathically considered, be one capable if 
possible of inducing the same disease.” Now here is a con- 
clusion with a vengeance, and how on earth any man can 
spend his time penning such nonsense (indeed if he thinks at 
all he must see that it is nonsense), is to me inexplicable. 
Does not Mr. Dun know, that if the same thing be produced, 
that it is the very thing which is required to be cured ? He 
afterwards complains that I permit a deal of ambiguity to 
rest around the word “ similar,” but I feel assured that every 
reader will agree with me when 1 affirm that the ambiguity 
rests entirely with himself, and not in the least either in the 
proper meaning of the word, or in what Hahnemann has 
said about it, or in what I have said. While upon this part 
of the question, which in fact is the real question at issue, I 
cannot omit noticing the last portion of my opponents last 
communication : I will quote the part entire, lest it may be 
affirmed that I misrepresent him. He says: “ Allow me in 
conclusion, to notice a very serious paradox attaching to the 
law of similars. It involves the strange belief, that every 
medicine is possessed of tw r o opposite actions — opposite, not 
only in degree but in kind ; that it is capable, in different 
doses, of producing certain artificial symptoms, and in certain 
other doses, of removing morbid symptoms similar to those 
it produces. In the case of every medicine, then, there must 
accordingly exist w : hat may be termed an ascending and 
descending series of effects, and between these two, a portion 
of neutral ground where the two opposite actions antagonise each 
other , and the medicine is inert , or at all events exhibits neither 
the one effect nor the other. A single illustration will clearly 
exhibit the absurdity of this position. Sulphur in large 
doses produces irritation and eruption, and in small doses 
removes irritation and eruption. Aconite causes fever, and 
cures fever. Iodine developes and reduces glandular enlarge- 
ments. And hence arise some important questions w r hich 
must be settled before homoeopathists can practise their 
system safely and successfully. Required, in the case of all 
medicines, the exact doses capable of producing the artificial 
symptoms which are to constitute the key to the practical 
use of the medicine. Required also, in the case of all medi- 
cines, the dose in which they neither cure any artificial symp- 
