be enough of it.

Such questions as what food shall we eat, and how much; what are the
real reasons for taking food into the body, whether it is to give
strength and heat to the body or only to supply the body's waste, as
Dr Rabagliati contends--these and other relevant questions are usually
left to unorthodox members of the medical profession to declare upon.
They seem to be very important questions, but we do not find that they
were discussed--or ever mentioned--at the thirty-fourth International
Medical Congress, which completed its sittings several months ago.

Obviously, the practical questions of food supply are answered very
differently, according as one _believes_ they must be answered one way
or another, as, for instance, in Dr Rabagliati's or Dr Haig's way. But
that they are questions not worthy of consideration by doctors in
congress may be taken as an ominous sign.

It must not be forgotten that we owe many valuable discoveries of
medical science to qualified members of the profession, just as
discoveries of mechanical science are made by men working at their
respective trades. We have sorrowfully to admit, however, that nearly
all the great achievements upon which medicine plumes herself are in
the direction of increasing the doctors' power over his patient, and
seldom of giving his patient power over disease. It is also true that
the advocacy by unorthodox members of the profession of simple and
natural remedies often involves them in a charge of charlatanism, and
subjects them to persecution by medical associations.

If the medical profession were all that it is supposed to be, it might
be good that the reformer should suffer in solitude while his
experiments and methods were subjected to adequate tests and
criticism. If the associated physicians and surgeons jealously guarded
the public from quackery while they impartially investigated every
fresh discovery, the true reformer would welcome the protection
afforded him from the "counter-currents of senseless clamour" within
the doctors' own ranks, occasioned by party and vested interests.

It may be true that "loneliness tends to save the Seer from becoming a
charlatan and to make of him a true Reformer." But it is not that
peculiar loneliness of the Seer that the medical trade unions afford
the reforming physician. That is inevitably and sufficiently accorded
him by the "unwillingness of the masses to enter into the thoughts of
the Seers."[19] An ig