An essay on the bite of a mad dog, in which the claim to infallibility of the principal preservative remedies against the hydrophobia is examined / by John Berkenhout, M.D.

  • Berkenhout, John, 1730?-1791.
Date:
1783
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: An essay on the bite of a mad dog, in which the claim to infallibility of the principal preservative remedies against the hydrophobia is examined / by John Berkenhout, M.D. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by University of Bristol Library. The original may be consulted at University of Bristol Library.

    44/92 (page 40)
    nified with the fame name, and equally infignificant in its medical capacity. Thefc panaceas are generally good for nothing. But Dr. Mead ranks this gall of the briar among his animal diuretics, becaufe Mr. Ray found it to be the nidus of a fly.—■ Now (fays the Doctor) all infects abound with a diuretic fait.—If the lie direct were admiffible in polite conver- fation, I would fay, this is not true: But I marvel exceedingly that he did not ob- ferve that this Sanatodos of the Sicilians is called in England a D^-rofe, becaufe it produces a medicine for a mad-dog: alfo, that he forgot to inform his readers, that this celebrated antidote originated in the dream of an old woman, as he muft have read in Pliny. 62. Dr. Mead, after fpecifying, from the ancients, other diuretics, which cer- tainly are not diuretics, proceeds to the recommendation of his infallible Pufais Antilyffus, which he declared never failed of fuccefs, though he had ufed it a thou- fand times. I have often wifhed (adds the Doctor) that I knew fo certain a «* remedy in any other difeafe.—Surely fuch