[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
February 1, 1902


JAMA. 1902;XXXVIII(5):328. doi:10.1001/jama.1902.02480050042007

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


Common talk about "schools of medicine" is too often allowed to go unchallenged because we do not emphasize the fundamental standpoint of scientific medical work. "Regular" physicians belong to no "school of medicine;" they are thus differentiated from those who hold certain tenets. That they are not "allopaths," that, in fact, there is no allopathic school, needs perennially to be insisted on. Allopathy or heteropathy, vide Webster, are synonyms invented by Samuel Hahnemann to designate a scheme of treatment which produces symptoms opposite to those from which the patient suffers. If such a rule of practice ever flourished, it has long since fallen into disuse. The teachings in the "regular" medical schools include no à priori generalizations about the causes of disease or actions of remedies. Teaching and practice are based, not on preconceived or inherited ideas, but on the logical principle of induction—first the gathering of facts enough to

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview