There is one point worthy of consideration; we are trying to make a distinction between the similar and the similimum, with which I do not agree. I have not any doubt, from experience, that two medicines may be similar enough to the totality of symptoms, and either may be the similimum, each would be similar enough to cure it; and how can you say both of these are, or either of them, is, the similimum. If you go into degrees you may consider it in this way: The medicine may be so dissimilar, that in dynamic power it would have little or no effect upon the disease; it then approaches it in a degree of similarity by becoming more and more similar. As it approaches in similarity it sustains an inability to change the symptoms that exist. It may be sufficiently similar to spoil it, to change and not effect a cure, until you have not improved the patient, but only changed the symptoms. I have observed in the management of intermittent fevers more than in any other class of complaints, giving medicine that has a few characteristics in intermittents, but which does not correspond to the genus of the disease or patient, and immediately follow it with its complementary, and you may change it from time to time for five or six weeks; I have seen it in so many cases. Medicines may be similar enough to effect curative results in a patient, and improve the health of that patient, improve the general condition whether an acute or chronic disease. When that medicine has done all the curing it is capable of, then its complementary will take up the work and go on with it. This is a matter of experience fully established by the Organon and every man’s experience, and it seems to me the paper does not call out anything new, for it is in keeping with every man’s experience. Where there is psora or acute miasm, you can have a medicine similar enough to spoil the case, or similar enough to have a curative action; or the similimum, which is the medicine that cures the symptoms present, eradicates them completely.