Dr. Cabot, (closing the discussion): I would like to second as strongly as I can what has been said in regard to the importance of keeping on in the study of drug action. I know that in my own school we have gotten out of the way of putting much research and time into therapeutics and have devoted ourselves, I think disproportionately, to research in etiology and pathology. I think the wave has now started in the other direction. I believe there is a true renaissance in therapeutics which will lead us to a more thorough study of drug action as well as of every other part of therapeutics. One other thing I want to say, which may go to undo any good effect which has been produced here to-night. I am anxious to get together not merely with the homoeopaths, but with every other group of persons who think they can cure disease, with the osteopaths, the mental healers, anybody else who thinks he can help the sick. I want to find out so far as I can what is true in his beliefs. (Applause.) That applause is very welcome to me, showing me I was wrong in thinking you would oppose any such action. I believe it is important that we look for truth whenever it is to be found, and learn whatever can be learned without prejudice, without fear that any truth we have already may be upset by learning more truths from any other man. The last word I should like to leave with you is a thought which I think might have been much further discussed if Dr. Wesselhoeft and I had had time to talk this matter over, namely, the similarity between our law of therapeutics, the law of immunity, and the law of similars as Hahnemann formulated it. I am not concerned in saying who deserves the credit or who came first. I am perfectly willing to admit that it was Hahnemann, but I am interested in a certain measure of similarity between your law of therapeutics and the new law of therapeutics, which is emerging in our school. I am not saying that they are identical, or that our law is right and yours wrong. I do not believe that either is right in all respects. I do think that they represent the greatest hope we have to-day and in the future of really pooling our knowledge for the good of all. DRUG "TESTING" OR DRUG "PROVNG." BY HOWARD P. BELLOWS, M.D., BOSTON, MASS. In the recent experimental work of our school with belladonna the drug employed was tested before it was proved. It was tested in the laboratory of the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy that we might be assured of its purity and ascertain its exact alkaloidal strength. It was then proved by administering it day after day, under proper precautions, to fifty-three people, or "provers," who were selected, because of their physical healthfulness and mental fitness, for the work of developing the pathogenic action of the drug upon the healthy human organism. In the course of this procedure we threw about our work so many precautions and scientific restric tions to eliminate error, and employed so many modern methods of cbservation and instruments of precision to secure accuracy of detail, that we made of our proving a test-proving, by which we might gauge the accuracy of all provings of this particular drug in the past and the value of our new and more thorough and scientific method in the proving of all drugs in the future. The results of this procedure show it to be a demonstration rather than a mere test of the drug's action. Whatever may be said about the previous work of our school in this direction, in this recent experimental study of belladonna we have proved something, even in the strictest sense of the term. In a court of law the testimony of three witnesses to a certain action or event is held to be proof unless their testimony is shown to be incompetent or is overborne by a greater weight of testimony to the contrary. In our recent proving referred to the occurrence of certain absolutely identical symptoms, while the drug was being administered in definitely recorded doses, was testified to in 211 instances by 3 or more, in 82 instances by 5 or more, and in 28 instances by 10 or more different provers. True, many of these may be symptoms which are developed in common by all people who are sick from any cause, whether natural or induced, but such general symptoms we value little in our critical estimate of the drug's pathogenic action. Quite another class of symptoms may be culled, with a little experience, from those developed, and these may be regarded as truly characteristic of the drug's action. These, also, are so well attested, that they may justly be regarded as definitely proven. For instance, frontal headache experienced by 31 different provers upon 132 different days; dryness of the throat occurring in 50 provers upon 245 days; dilatation of the pupil recorded by 25 provers upon 53 days, and 89 times in the examination of the provers by specialists, or, of less obvious nature, characteristic congestive changes of the fundus in the eyes of 19 different provers upon 42 different examinations, when these presented a normal appearance both before and after the exhibition of the drug. The element of proof, strictly so called, is not wholly lacking, therefore, in our modern method of investigating drug action. In the light of the foregoing the words testing and proving are seen to have different values and to present distinctly different meanings. They are by no means synonymous terms. Should we attempt to substitute the word "testing" for proving," as was suggested by Dr. Richard C. Cabot in his recent paper presented to the Boston Homoeopathic Medical Society, we should be departing from the sense in which the word "proving" has always been employed in our school of practice. If the substitution of the word "testing" would conduce to a better understanding between the schools, or could promote a feeling of better fellowship among us. as Dr. Cabot thought would be the case, I am very sure that we, as a school, would readily and heartily accede to the suggestion, which was made in such an earnest and kindly spirit, -- provided we could do so without placing ourselves in a false position. To alter or sacrifice a definite meaning, however, for the sake of a mere change of terms would be an act of unfairness towards both schools, in each of which the correct under standing of the other's position should be the predominant feeling and end in view. The German word prufung, which was the original term used in our school, and which was approved by Dr. Cabot, is certainly not translated by our word "test." The Germans, also, have the word der Test, which is no more synonymous with die prufung than is the latter word with die Probe. The old English word "to prove," as seen in the Scripture passages "prove all things," which was also commended by Dr. Cabot, but considered by him to be obsolete, has well been resuscitated to serve our purposes since that, after all, renders the meaning of the German word, prufung, as used in medicine, far better than any other English word at our command. Neither is this older meaning so entirely lost in modern usage. Among the prominent definitions of the verb "to prove" in the Standard Dictionary occurs the following: "to subject to experiment; find out the capacity or power of; as, to prove a gun. The word in the older sense is still used not only in the language of military science but in mining, in engineering, and in hydraulics, why not in medicine? A slight mental effort on the part of our colleagues of the older school will enable them to grasp and apply this older sense of the word so that the mention of a “drugproving" may no longer be an offense to them or a cause of misunderstanding in their estimate of our therapeutic position The substitution of a word which does not define our position would give rise to a misunderstanding still more difficult to overcome. OUR PROBLEMS AND OUR OPPORTUNITIES, AS A SCHOOL. BY G. FORREST MARTIN, M.D. You will at once recognize, as I did the moment I commenced to reason upon this subject, that it is a matter of considerable size. To fully discuss it in the time allotted to me, would be out of the question. But because I believe that the time has arrived when we must, as homœopaths, seriously consider our present and future status; and because, too, I have a few firm convictions upon the questions involved, I will venture to discuss the subject at this time. In all parts of the country, we hear rumors of plans for amalgamation of the schools. As yet, we can hardly call them anything but rumors, except in a few scattered instances. But that the matter is receiving serious consideration by many physicians, I think is beyond question. I will concede, without any argument, that the ideal arrangement would be one great school of physicians, great enough, and broad enough to include all practitioners who had received proper medical training, and whose aim was the conquering of disease and the alleviation of human suffering. But when that millennial time arrives, there must be one funda *Annual Oration, Mass. Homœopathic Medical Society, Oct. 10, 1906. mental principle to which all would agree, "the utmost freedom to practice according to the dictates of the individual conscience!" In the various overtures which from time to time are made to us, as individuals or as associations, by the dominant school, the above point is always the stumbling block. That stumbling block was placed in our path a century ago, by our opponents, and because of this, their act, and not from any choice of our own, we became a separate school. As the legitimate heirs of those who were thus forced to make this move, can we, as honest men and women, go back into the greater body until we can do so with heads erect, faces free from shame, and the acknowledged equals, in all respects, of those whose companionship we are to enjoy? I think not! To speak a little further to this point, let me refer to a change recently made in the By-Laws of a Medical Association not far from here. I need not quote the language in full, to illustrate my point, but simply speak of that portion which now proposes to admit certain classes of physicians, heretofore barred, "provided they agree not to practice an exclusive system," etc. There it is! The same old bug-a-boo! Does not the mere insertion of such a clause proclaim to all concerned, that the class referred to (in this case meaning us) has been dogmatic, partisan, and in the wrong? And they must acknowledge this, and do acknowledge it, by agreeing to this clause. Are we ready to make this admission? Is it not surrendering all for which our school has fought for so many years? To be sure it is a rose this time, and not a club, which is held out to us. But the rose has too many thorns concealed! We are not ready to receive it! And right here let us turn to the next question, "Are there any good reasons why we should surrender our birthright, and our name, at the present time?" Well! Some say that the other school is greater, infinitely greater, in numbers, in institutions, in facilities of every sort, and it cannot be that the ten are all wrong, and the one all right! Let us consider that point! Can any of my hearers mention a single instance, in medicine or in general science where reforms, really worthy of the name, have emanated from the majority? Are they are invariably accepted grudgingly and slowly before any considerable number of workers are willing to forsake the older paths and follow the new? That the allurements of numbers, and of great institutions have strong attractions for us all none can deny. That they are robbing us of some of our younger men and keeping others from joining our ranks who should be therein is likewise true But that these facts furnish any argument which should cause any thinking man or woman to change faith, I would not concede for one moment. Such a change without the backing of true convictions is an evidence of weakness, or of purely mercenary motives. In such a case, our loss is little! Their gain is less! As well might we all flock in a body to that beautiful $2,000,000 domed temple, recently erected face to face with those other magni ficent buildings, so recently dedicated to medicine, and in which all physicians should take a just pride. Someone has said, "The heresy of one age becomes the reform of the next, and the established order of the third." How true that is of the principles which we advocate! That Hahnemann and his brave followers were considered and treated as heretics, we all know, No theological trial for heresy in modern times was ever more bigoted in its conduct and its conclusions, than was the treatment administered by enlightened (God spare the mark!) physicians in our own state, to Talbot and Chase and their earnest companions, who stood up for principle and freedom of conscience, in more recent times. But to-day, conditions are changed somewhat. If my experience coincides with yours, we often find our strongest friendships, our closest professional associations and conferences, on grounds of mutual respect and mutual good intentions, among our brothers of the older school. We find little difficulty in living side by side, and working side by side with them, each according to his light, as it should be, for the good of the community. This I say of the individual. But it would seem that the individual has not yet succeeded in stamping his individuality upon the work of the society, for there, the same mutual goodwill and tolerance has not yet taken root. That that time will come, I fully believe! And when it does, I think that we should all enter the one great school of medicine, not as prodigal sons acknowledging our error and meekly begging for forgiveness and a crust, but as mutual scientific workers and seekers after the truth. We must each be willing to concede that we have much yet to learn, and that no school, no class, no association of men has all of the right. "There is so much bad in the best of us, And it would be healthful, perhaps, to pause right here, and consider a few of the weak spots in our own armor, and a few of the changes which we should make in our own structure, before we can conscientiously expect these who are already comfortably housed, to share it with us. First, let us cease the too common practice of making extravagant claims for our practice and devote the same amount of energy to demanding justice for our principles. I believe that it can be proven beyond question that the basic principles on which our school is founded, are accepted as true, and are, knowingly or unknowingly, daily used in the practice of the best physicians of all schools. Our problem and our great opportunity to-day, is to put the accumulated evidence of these truths, into such shape that it will appeal to, and be accepted by, the whole profession. We find in every new work upon materia medica, some new dis |