Fallacies of the faculty, with the principles of the chrono-thermal system of medicine : in a series of lectures originally delivered in 1840, at the Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly / by S. Dickson.

  • Samuel Dickson
Date:
1843
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Fallacies of the faculty, with the principles of the chrono-thermal system of medicine : in a series of lectures originally delivered in 1840, at the Egyptian Hall, Piccadilly / by S. Dickson. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    198/204 (page 188)
    upon the positive or negative electrical state of the brain of the individual selected for their demonstration?—that change of temperature and change of motion are equally the law of Disease, Remedy, and Cause I Who, I again demand, taught me these? Of these, neverthe- less, and many other matters, which have never entered the head of pathological professors, the “Unity of Disease,” and “ Fallacies of the Fa- culty,” treat at length. Under the title of Erreurs de Medecins, ou Systeme Chrono-ther- mal, the latter work is now busily agitating the medical circles of France and Germany. Permit its author to ask why you have not yet reviewed it? In the expectation that you will still do your duty in this respect to your read- ers, he looks forward to a just and candid criticism at your hands. Your very obedient servant, S. Dickson. This letter the Editor of the Medical Times declined to insert.—But shortly afterwards a “ Review” of the “ Fallacies of the Faculty” ap- peared in his pages,—which review, while it nibbled at certain fragmentary matter, discreetly postponed sine die, all notice of the doctrine of the Unity op Disease—and more particularly omitted to answer the question. Who have I Revived! A letter to the following effect was never- theless obligingly inserted in the Medical Times. No. III. Dr Dickson and Dr Forbes. To the Editor of the Medical Times. Sir,—Will you allow me through the me- dium of your pages to administer a little whole- some castigation to Dr John Forbes of British and Foreign Medical Review notoriety. In the present January number of that peri- odical, Dr Forbes pretends to review the se- cond edition of my “Fallacies of the Faculty.” The very first quotation from the volume, in his first page, is a misquotation! The second quotation in the same page is a misquotation ! The first quotation in the next page is a misquo- tation!! At the bottom of his third page is the fol- lowing false insinuation—“Curved spine, which Stromeyer and a few other insignificant school- men have attributed to Paralysis of certain sets of muscles is also in the opinion of Dr Dickson a remittent affection.” Certainly, at the com- mencement it is a remittent affection; but in the very volume my critic pretends to review, not only do I take much pains to prove its paralytic nature, but I claim to myself the dis- covery of that fact; and if Dr Forbes chooses to appeal to dates, I will make it clear to the world that Stromeyer and his other schoolmen have only followed in my wake ! As a specimen of the misquotations I have noticed in this pretended Review, take the fol- lowing:—In the original the passage stands thus, “ Like every other remedial agent it (iodine) cuts two ways—atomically attracting or lessen- ing volume and secretion in one case, atomi- cally repelling or increasing both in another, according to the electric state of the individual body for which it may be prescribed. In the misquotation the W'ord “anatomically” is sub- stituted in both instances for “ atomically!’ Dr Forbes asks if this be not stark staring nonsense?—Most certainly; but it is his non- sense, not mine.—Perhaps Dr Forbes will as- cribe these and his other misquotations to the printer’s devil—six misquotations at least in a review of as many pages!—Such a course was worthy of the plagiarist of Dr Payne [for a full account of which disgraceful transaction, see the various Medical Journals.] Yet he Dr Forbes has the impudence to tell his readers “We have done justice to his (Dr Dickson’s) doctrines by giving them and the proofs in his j own language.” He concludes his review by asking, “has not Dr Dickson made an ass of himself?” In return for which piece of po- I liteness, I ask you, Mr Editor, if Dr Forbes has I not made a knave of himself! Dr Forbes is a i Court Physician, “ Physician Extraordinary,” &c., so is his friend and coadjutor Dr Holland. Perhaps it is by way of revenge for my having defeated Dr Holland’s ingenious attempt to steal my discoveries, that Dr Forbes now does his best by an equally ingenious device to stifle them. The world will doubtless cry “ Arcades ambo!” I am. Sir, your most obedient servant, S. Dickson. I ,3d January 1843.