It is difficult to write an editorial or anything else upon a subject which is most prominent by its absence from the view, hence one on the true homoeopathic spirit has its limitations in these day when almost every homoeopath has at least one eye, and often both, on what the older school is doing. But there is such a thing as homoeopathic spirit which is worth while and which we can recommend to the notice of our readers as entirely compatible with dignity, truth, and science. For what is science but exact knowledge, hence if homoepathy has exact knowledge, it is just as good science as astronomy or other recognized branch of learning.

      What we insist upon is that homoeopathy shall prove its claims or drop them. Philosophical or speculative doctrines have no place in modern medicine. If Homoeopathy cannot prove by instruments of precision that its curative claims are valid, no amount of “talk” will prevent it from achieving the waste basket.

      Dr. Conrad Wesselhoeft, of Boston, in a letter to us hits the nail on the head when he says: “We can either leave homoeopathy as a religious sect to die the death of the marytr, or we can allow it to be dragged in the mud, degenerated with combination tablets, and besmeared with hypocracy, to die, a recluse from scientific medicine, an inglorious death. The most crying need of homoeopathy today is a revised edition of Hughes’ ‘Principles and Practice of Homoeopathy’ with a due consideration of the problems in the light of the Ehrlich theory and modern pharmacological investigators.”

      The apathy of our own men in regard to proving what homoeopathy is or may be has been a stumbling block in our path. But homoeopathic research work is just as practicable a field as any pharmacological one. As Dr. J. A. Toren says: “Why not inoculate animals with germs and see what the homoeopathic remedy can do for them?” Stray criminals might be hired for the purpose of such experiments upon humans. But in work upon the humans control must be exercised much greater than what we usually find in the case of drug provers.

      In conclusion, is it not more dignified to enroll ourselves in a little army, which is doing really scientific work with precise methods and instruments than to spend evenings asserting that we are already the “Whole thing” and that it is needless to deny it?

      Wake up, Homoeopaths and join “Gideon’s band.” Otherwise in the future your children may suffer from the stigma of a parentage which shall be a matter of derision rather than a source of pride.