HOMEOPATHY V. ALLOPATHY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1789, 14 March 1888, Page 2

HOMEOPATHY V. ALLOPATHY

(" Wanganal Ohroniole.")

Homoeopathy appeara to have oonqnerefl the prejudioeei of even the " London Times." A medioal controversy, extending over a month or more, has been raging In the columns of the "Thunderer," and the "Timoa" haa aammed up m an editorial which ia described as having lpft the <l regular " dootora aghast. A London prosa writer of note thus briefly bat graphically deacribes the oonteat between the two aohools of medicine :—" Lprct Grlmthorpe, who believes m homcsopathy, began the discussion with the proposition that odium medloam is not leas bitter than odium theologtoum. Dr Brudenell Oartar, Sir J. 0. Brown, Dr Baoknell and other eminent 'regulars' attaoked him fiercely, but only proved his case ; for they attaoked their homoeopathic rivals more fiercely still. They have written ecores of columns with the one refrain : Homoeopaths are either knaves or fools. The homoeopaths, notably Dootor Dad« geon, one of the moat distinguished, replied with good temper and good sense enough to bring •' The Timeß " round to their aide. Bomcoopatha m England receive their diplomas from the same college as the allopaths. If they are fools aays "The Times," what guarantee have the public that the allopaths are wise? The leading journal praotioally sides with the homcepaths against the allopaths. Not that it pronounces judgment on either system, bat for the purpose of this controversy it gives the allopaths tho worst of it. Thia attitude is the more surprising beoauae homooopathio doctors are m Eng'aad a very Bmall minority, They number less than 30Q."