But, lest the assertion should give unfavourable impressions, it is immediately retracted; and we are told that, _occasion may sometimes occur of employing, advantageously, a regimen, or even medicine, when judgment directs and integrity presides_[76]. and again: _It sometimes happens, when little or no putrid bile is contained in the stomach, bowels, &c. &c. that the powder, though given in the largest doses, will have no sensible operation of any kind whatever. In these cases half, or a whole paper should be repeated every four or six hours. But on those occasions, it will be proper to procure two stools in twenty four hours, either by a clyster, which is the most easy way, or by giving, with every dose of the powder, from five to ten grains of rhubarb_[77]_. But in some constitutions where a putrid bile has very much abounded, and for this reason the stimulus of the medicine, added to that of the bile, has been apt to operate more than was sufficient, it has been necessary to reduce the dose so low as two or three grains_[78]: and thus, after a series of contradictions, the fever-powder, as might have been expected, is declared to require the addition of other medicines, and to be as uncertain in its operation as other antimonials. These contradictions are suspicious, but if the efficacy of the medicine is confirmed by authentic facts, the Inventor may still be intitled to our confidence; and for this purpose some cases are related in which it was successfully used: the first is that of Mrs. Morton, on which it is remarked, that _many gentlewomen were present during her whole disorder, saw her take the medicine, observed the effects, and are ready to give their testimony to the truth of what has been asserted_. From what has been advanced on this subject, it clearly appears, that the operation of antimony is precarious, and its effects uncertain. Not only the most skilful physicians have given various and contradictory opinions concerning it, but the judgment of the same person has varied at different times[79]: it is not therefore to be expected, that a fact, which has not yet been agreed upon by the most intelligent and attentive practitioners, should be ascertained by these charitable _gentlewomen_, who, however sincere and humane their intentions might be, cannot be supposed to have any pretensions to that critical and discriminating skill which is necessary to determine a question so intricate. The Inventor therefore, in offering to the publick a proof so incompetent, must have relied on that credulity which, though generally abused, is still continued.