I know many of you will say, “_My_ physician is a very excellent man and a good scholar--I have all confidence in him.” But what if his system is false? Is your confidence in him or in his system? If in his system, you are to be pitied. If in him, take his _good_ advice and refuse his _bad_ medicine. The Caucasian has not much to learn from the Mongolian, it is true, but the public might safely imitate the Chinese in dealing with their physicians. A Chinaman of rank pays his physician a retaining salary so long as he remains in health, but, the instant he gets sick, the salary ceases. Manifestly, it is a common-sense proceeding. The doctor has a vital interest in preserving the health of his client, since sickness entails a pecuniary loss; and best of all, the patient escapes having his system drenched with drugs. There is no valid reason why there should be any such thing as serious sickness; nor would there be if Hygiene were taught, and practised, and the whole _materia medica_ consigned to oblivion. As Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “If all drugs were thrown into the sea, it would be so much better for man, but so much worse for the fishes.” Now, the remedies of the Hygienic system, which I advocate, comprehend everything except poisons. The drug system rejects almost everything but poisons. My system rejects only poisons, and adopts everything else. I welcome anything that possesses remedial value, provided it is in accordance with the laws of Nature, and am equally ready to accept suggestions from the laity, as from fellow practitioners. I am ready to submit everything thus presented, to the test of experiment, and employ it if found worthy. In this regard I may, without vanity, lay claim to the possession of a more progressive spirit than the members of the drug schools, for their disinclination to adopt anything new in the treatment of disease has passed into a proverb. It might naturally be supposed that any one who should come forward with a discovery by which the suffering portion of the human family would be benefited, would be welcomed with open arms by the medical fraternity, or, that at least he would be allowed a hearing, but unfortunately it is not so. Even if the discoverer be one of themselves, they are apt to regard his proposition with a certain amount of distrust, but if he happens to be a layman they instantly stand upon their dignity--denounce all irregular practice and raise the cry of quack. In justice, however, it must be said that there are members of liberal, broad-minded men in the medical profession who recognize the fact that brains are not monopolized by physicians, and who are perfectly willing to accord credit where it is due, as the following opinions will show. Dr. A. O’Leary, Jefferson Medical College, of Philadelphia, says: