This is a heavy indictment against the medical profession, as a body, but truth and justice compel me to state that most of the foregoing statements were made some years ago, and that intolerance can no longer be charged against them as it could, even in the last generation. Nor can we close our eyes to the fact that thousands of high-minded physicians are devoting their time and energies to the amelioration of disease. Scarcely a month passes in which some convention of physicians is not held to consider the best means of dealing with some particular malady, and a large number of the attending physicians at those conventions contribute their time and experience at considerable financial loss to themselves. In the ranks of the medical body there are able and honorable men who would adorn any profession--men who have sacrificed health, wealth and happiness in their devotion to the cause of suffering humanity--the pages of history are full of instances of such heroism. But of what avail is it to have the most perfect examples of humanity for physicians, if the system they practice is an erroneous one? It is impossible to secure good results with bad methods. We must have a sure foundation, if we expect to raise an abiding structure. And that is why I am in opposition to the existing method of treating disease. Not because of any feeling against the physician individually, but for the reason that I consider their system based upon error--upon a false conception of the true nature of disease, and of the relation of drugs to the human system. There is a tradition in the orthodox medical schools, that all curative processes are dependent _upon_, and act only in accordance _with_, an established law--the “Law of Cure.” But although all the schools are a unit in believing in the existence and operation of such a law, no two of them agree upon a definition of it. Their theories concerning this all-important law are as diametrically opposite as the poles. For instance, the Allopaths define it as “contraria contrariis curantur,” which is simply the law of opposition. But the Homeopaths take a widely different view of the matter, their definition of it being “similia similibus curantur,” which is, practically, the law of agreement; while the Eclectics declare that “sanative medication” is the law. This diversity of opinion is not by any means unique, for the tendency to disagreement among physicians is proverbial; but the unfortunate layman who is the person most vitally interested in the matter, is at a loss what to believe among this conflict of definitions, and naturally asks, Who is right?