LII. I do not undertake to defend the Helmonists, nor do I consider their opinion, as more probable than the contrary one; but I say, that from the experience alledged, nothing can be concluded to their prejudice. We should suppose, that those who exclaim against purging and bleeding, do not think them so pernicious, as to be fatal to all those who undergo these operations; for even supposing them to be injurious, they are not capable of destroying a man in perfect health, nor one that is visited by a slight disorder. I believe, that although an intemperate use of them kills many, they are chiefly those who are affected with some obstinate disease; for in these cases, when nature is much weakened by struggling with a powerful disorder, if you add a fresh enemy for her to encounter in the imagined remedy, you compleat her overthrow, and lay her prostrate on the earth. But those who are affected with a disease that is not dangerous, (and there are many of this sort, which in appearance seem violent ones,) generally preserve a sufficient degree of strength, to resist both the distemper, and some unnecessary bleedings and purgings; and although these may weaken the natural faculties, and retard the cure, they very seldom are known to deprive the patient of life. LIII. That the number of mild disorders, greatly exceeds that of the dangerous ones, is very plain and certain; what then can we find extraordinary, in those who are attacked with the first sort getting well, notwithstanding they may have been injudiciously purged and blooded? out of a hundred patients that a physician visits in a week, seldom more than one or two of them labour under dangerous disorders. It is customary with many people to send for the doctor, upon being attacked with a slight inflammation, a catarrh, an ephemeris or fever of a day, a fluxion of the eyes, a repletion of the stomach, and such kind of indispositions; and if he happens to be one of the common or vulgar sort, he seldom fails to purge and bleed. But admitting that the purging and bleeding were never so improperly administered, does it follow from thence, that the patient must die? Or why should this be an unavoidable consequence, if in the same situation, he had been stabbed with a poignard that had not penetrated very deep, or that had not wounded a vital part, he would have escaped with his life?