Myersbach made a fortune in London. His patients included all classes from the nobility downwards. Garrick and the then Bishop of London were amongst them. Lettsom seems to have come across him in 1775, when he was called in to see people whom Myersbach had deluded with false hopes of cure; and from what he saw of the results of his treatment, he thought it his duty to expose him. Without casting any doubts whatever on his own sincerity, there is no doubt that the publicity produced by the attack, and counter-attack, did the rising young doctor no harm.
This attack was inaugurated in 1776 when he published, anonymously, an octavo pamphlet of forty-two pages entitled, 'Observations Preparatory to the Use of Dr. Myersbach's Medicines.'2 It was issued by his friends the Dilly brothers, and evidently made some stir, as it was reprinted again in the same year, with an engraving of Teniers' 'Water-doctor,' thirteen pages of introductory matter, and thirty-one additional pages of text. In the second edition Lettsom disclosed his name as the author on the title-page; but this was evidently already quite well known, since a hack journalist, whom Myersbach employed to answer the anonymous first edition, gives it without hesitation.
The reply to Lettsom's pamphlet was a very feeble efort. It simply reiterated the statement that the profession was jealous of Dr. Myersbach, and therefore calumniated him. There was no other possible method of reply, because the 'doctor' was, in fact, an arrant fraud, and knew nothing whatever either about disease or its treatment. As he could not make a diagnosis by examination his methods of finding out what his dupes were suffering from were as follows:-
If they came themselves, his porter was instructed to get into conversation with them. They were often so garrulously eager to tell their ailments that thus the doctor learnt a lot, as before they were admitted to his presence the porter told him what they had said to him. He then made pretence of looking at their urine, and astonished them by recapitulating their complaints. If they did not tell the porter, he had confederates in his waiting-rooms who listened to the conversation between patients, and thus gathered information for him; or he kept them waiting for two or three hours until, in desperation, they told someone of their symptoms, whereupon they were brought to him. If distinguished people came, the doctor was unable to see them that day, but obtained their names and addresses, and made discreet enquiries amongst their servants before allowing them to consult to him.
If some friend came with the urine of an affected person, whose disease neither the porter nor the other servants could find out, the doctor first enquired if the patient was ill in bed, and when told that he, or she, or it was in bed, thereby learnt the sex. If it was 'she is in bed,' he said triumphantly, looking at the urine, 'Ah, I see by the water that it belongs to a woman.'
He usually then diagnosed her complaint as 'disorder of the womb,' or 'slime in the kidneys.' But, whatever the diagnosis, the treatment was always the same. They were given 'green drops,' 'sweet mixture,' 'silver pills,' a 'red powder' or 'black pills,' apparently in succession for every complaint.
Lettsom gives the composition of these remedies; but it would seem that as some of them were rather powerful, and likely to do harm, Dr. Myersbach's apothecaries, wiser than himself, made them innocuous by leaving out anything of medicinal value.
Lettsom and his friends, after seeing how he had damaged a great number of people, laid traps for him which he fell into at once. From a flask of port wine, supposed to be a lady's urine, the disagnosis of disease of the womb was made. The urine of a cow was taken by a young gentleman to the learned doctor; and from it he diagnosed that the patient had been too free with the ladies of the town. Another practical joker brought him the urine of a gelding, and led the 'doctor' on to say that it was a lady's water, that she had a disorder of the womb, that she had had two children, and that she was very bad tempered. All this was printed by Lettsom with great gusto in the Gazetteer, and the conclusion he came to was that 'Dr. Myersbach knew less of urine than a chambermaid, and as little of medicine as most of his patients.'
He then went on to describe fifteen cases in the first edition, and twenty-eight in the second, where Myersbach's treatment had been grossly erroneous. One was that of a yong woman who took a sample of her urine to him. He told her she had venereal disease, and if she was married it had been given to her by her husband. When she came home with this story, her husband went to two separate practitioners who examined him and reported that he certainly had not got venereal disease. She was then examined by another physician, and was informed that all that was the matter with her was that she was pregnant. Later she was delivered of a fine healthy girl, and so the story ended happily. Another case was that of a man with stone in the bladder, who was ordered to take much exercise, as, according to Myersbach, he had a liver complaint. The agony caused by this treatment made him seek a surgeon, who diagnosed the stone and removed it.
'Slime in the blood' and 'scurvy in the kidneys' was a favourite diagnosis of the 'German Doctor' when he was dealing with male patients. Women patients invariably had 'disorder of the womb,' with possibly 'slime in the kidneys' or 'rheumatism of the stomach.' Young men about town applying to him for treatmen were informed that they had had venereal disease, a not unlikely guess, showing considerable shrewdness on the part of the 'great doctor.' So the tale went on. It did not matter very much what the diagnosis was, for the treatment was always the same - the green drops, the red powder, the black pills, the sweet essence, the bitter mixture - Dr. Myersbach rang the changes on some half a dozen of these quite indiscriminately. And in spite of his ignorance he prospered, for, as Lettsom points out, 80 per cent. of one's patients will get better without treatment.
Pettigrew, in his 'Life of Lettsom,' says that Myersbach never recovered from the exposure, but gradually diminished in practice, and finally disappeared. On the other had, Jeafffreson3 says that 'long after the publication of the 'Observations,' Dr. Myersbach continued to make a large income out of the credulity of the fashionable classes of English society.'
The best evidence, however, is that of Lettsom himself, writing on this campaign of his against charlatans nearly thirty years later. As a result of the publicity in 1776, Myersbach, he said, retired to the Continent.
'But in less than twelve months he returned and was again as much followed as previously to his emigration. The physician who has taken so active a part against the enterprise was dissatisfied with the conduct of the College; he was likewise insulted by a numerous herd of anonymous writers in the public prints; and having become an object of their envy, he avoided further interference.' 4
It is generally assumed that Letsom conducted the campaign against the 'German Doctor' single handed. Contemporary documents, however, do not support this view; for, in addition to his pamphlet, two others also appeared, both anonymous but both exceedingly well written. The first was entitled:-
'An Essay on the Inspection of the Urine; shewing the Impossibility of being acquainted with the Diseases incident to the Human Body, by the Inspection only. 'Urina est meretrix et mendax.' By a Physician. London. Printed for the Author, and Sold by J. Wilkie, St. Paul's Churchyard, and may be had of all Booksellers, and News Carriers in Town and Country. 1776'
'Of all the fraudulent deceits made use of in this great City, etc., there are none deserves the Publics attention more than that of presuming to tell the diseases incident to the human body by inspection of the urine only.'
'The New Method of Curing Diseases by Inspecting the Urine explained: as practiced by the German Doctor. Intended for the serious Perusal of Physicians, Surgeons, Apothecaries, and the Public in general. 'Mundus vult decepi, ergo decipatur.' 'If ye understand not the urine, ye know nothing.' London. Printed for J. Bew, No. 28, Paternoster Row. Price one shilling.'
The pamphlet mentions incidentally Lettsom's brochure giving the composition of the famous pills and mixtures, so it must have appeared after his.
This attack and that of Lettsom drew two replies. The first was called:-
'An answer to a pamphlet written by Dr. Lettsom, entitled 'Observations,' Preparatory to the use of Dr. Myersbach's Medicines. London. Printed for I. Alman in Piccadilly, 1776, 8vo., pp. 44.'
'The Impostor Detected; or The Physician the Greater Cheat: Being a Candid Enquiry concerning the Practice of Dr. Myersbach: Commonly known by the Title of The German Doctor. Containing A Faithfull Account of many remarkable Cures performed by him which have been deemed incurable, and therefore declined by Physicians of Eminence. Being a full Refutation of the Sophisticated Arguments, and Invidious Reflections of Dr. Lettsom and others. And shewing his Practice to be defensible upon Natural and Philosophical Principles. London. Printed for J.Wilkie, No. 71 St. Pauls Churchyard. 1776. Price one shilling and sixpence.'
'A general enquiry meant to promote the public good, was by the pride and spleen of a peevish doctor debased into personal abuse, and a private squabble.'
Correspondence between the two appeared in the Gazetteer during September and October, 1776, after which the paper refused to accept any more letters from the 'London Spy' unless he disclosed his name.
In one of these letters the 'Spy' insinuated that either Lettsom or another anonymous pamphleteer had offered Dr. Myersbach two five hundred pounds notes to become his partner; and, when Lettsom repudiated the suggestion for himself, stated that he 'did not mean to insinuate that Dr. Lettsom offered two £500 Bank Notes to become his partner - but to assert - that a certain person - not Dr. L- but a Dr. S- did make him that offer.'
Finally, as a parting shot, he addressed these remarks to Lettsom :-
'The whole of your conduct towards Dr. Myersbach has been uncandid, illiberal, incidious, malicious, and in every way unworthy of a gentleman. You have ignominiously descended to the imitation of the idle arts practiced by the kidnappers and thief takers.'
The College of Physicians, in the eighteenth century, had the right by charter to prevent anyone practising as a physician, within seven miles of the City, until he had acquired their licence. They could, consequently, easily have suppressed Myersbach. But they did not do so, because they knew that 'any such action on their part would be construed by the vulgar, as the effects of interest or malevolence,' and that the person thus prosecuted would immediately become a martyr, and entitled in consequence to the support of the generous-minded public.
Lettsom evidently thought that the College should insist on examining everyone who aspired to call himself a consultant, so that impostors might be penalised. He expressed the opinion also that, if the country thought Parliament had allowed the College to have this power so long, Parliament should abrogate the privilege. As it was, he said, the law was openly contemned, because the College had not the courage to enforce it.
Of course it was the duty of the College in the eighteenth century to defend the public against exploitation by such quacks masquerading as doctors, a duty which has now devolved on the General Medical Council; and naturally a warm-hearted man like Lettsom, finding they were not doing their statutory duty, rushed in where one more cautious would have feared to tread. Indeed, this was part of his nature, for, like other men of peace, and Quaker upbringing, he was a born controversialist, a fierce fighter in what he considered the cause of right and justice. We shall see this exemplified in his dispute with Dimsdale over Inoculation, and still more in the wholehearted support he gave Jenner when the discoverer of Vaccination was forcing his way into recognition against prejudice and vituperation from inside as well as outside the profession.
Later still, in 1804, we shall find him once more attempting to scourge quacks and empiricism; but this time, unfortunately, not with the success he obtained against Myersbach, for on his second attempt he found himself up against the law of libel.
That was the lesson that kept Lettsom quiet for many years. But, as we know, he was always tilting at some abuse, ever ready to attack fraud and chicanery wherever he found it; and so, in this very year 1804, in which he had his dispute with Knight, he managed to persuade his friend Richard Phillips, the owner of the 'Medical and Physical Journal,' that a series of letters on 'Quacks and Empiricism' would be a popular item in his magazine. The editors, Drs. Bradley and Batty, agreed; and a general article first appeared sketching out the scope of the series, and explaining that one or more 'characters' would be delineated each month.
The first that of Dr. Day. It appeared in the August number of the Journal for 1804,5 and was signed 'IETROS.'
'Characters' No. 2 and 3 were Drs. Griffenberg and Myersbach,6 both of whom were dead.
Dr. Lambert was pilloried as 'character No. 4'7; and in this a life of Dr. Brodum, who had been a servant to Lambert, was promised for 'character No. 5.'
Brodum was a medical quack who had made large sums of money by extensively advertising and selling two patent remedies: 'Botanical Syrup, for the cure of scorbutic and other complaints,' and 'Nervous Cordial for the cure of consumption and many other complaints.' With regard to these two remedies he had taken out patents on April 10th, 1799.8
Brodum, it would appear, was a Jew born in Copenhagen. He was said to have picked up some little medical knowledge in Holland, and to have been a surgeon's mate in the Dutch navy. He is also said to have practise successfully at Surinam, and to have served with the Hessian troops in the American War of Independence.
John Corry, in 'The Detector of Quackery' (2nd Edit., London 1802, pp. 1-24), made a determined attack on Brodum, Solomon of Liverpool, and Perkins of metallic tractor fame. He poked fun at Brodum's book 'A Guide to Old Age, or a Cure for the Indiscretions of Youth,' and commented derisively on the laxity of Marischal College, Aberdeen, which apparently allowed him to purchase an M.D. degree 'in absentia,' without enquiry. As he put it:-
'The talisman, which metamorphosed a lacquey into a physician, was the diploma which the benevolent and disinterested professors in the Marischal College of Aberdeen sent to this enterprising foreigner.'9
It was all probably true, but unfortunately it could not be justified in a court of law. Brodum by now was a wealthy man, and saw in this attack a splendid chance for an advertisement. He set his attorney to work, and Phillips and three vendors of his magazine were threatened with actions for £5,000 damages.
A notice of this appeared in the next number of the Journal,11 which was as follows:-
'The Editors think it a duty which they owe to themselves and the Medical world to state that a number of actions have been commenced against their printer and different booksellers, by an attorney of the name of Smith, of Robert Street, Adelphi, at the suit of William Brodum Esquire, for the publication of the paper which appeared in the last number of this work, on the subject of 'Quacks and Empiricism.' The Trial of these Actions are expected to come on, in the Court of Common Pleas, about the middle of February.'
Obviously Brodum must have been a man with a keen sense of humour, for he gave Phillips and his editors a magnificent dinner, as promised. This, according to Corry, was just what one would have expected of him, for 'every person who has the pleasure of an acquaintance with this curious little doctor, must acknowledge that he is companionable and hospitable.'13
The whole affair, indeed, would have been just an amusing episode had not the eulogium demanded appeared in the March number of the Journal (p. 258). It purported to be a reply to 'IETROS,' in the course of which it was remarked:-
'In his fifth letter your correspondent pretends to give the history of Dr. Brodum. In honour, in candour, you will not deny me the indulgence of calling your attention to the injustice, and inconsistency, of what he has made the Medical and Physical Journal a channel to communicate respecting this well-known practitioner of Medicine.'
The recantation was not signed 'IETROS,' but the anonmus author of 'Physic and Physicians' leads one to suppose (though he does not actually say so) that Lettsom did, in fact, write it.14
Jeaffreson, the next writer to mention the affair,15 as often is the case, is much more definite, and says quite plainly: 'Lettsom wrote the required puff of Brodum and his Nervous Cordial.'
But did he? From all we know of him and his character we feel convinced that not a word of this fulsome climb-down could have emanated from him. It is unthinkable that a man of his character could have written it. It bears all the marks of a combined effort on the part of the lawyers on both sides, and the Editors. There is nothing of Lettsom's characteristic style about it; and we feel convinced that, beyond paying the costs, he took no active part in the surrender.
The action, of course, put a stop to the series of articles. The proprietor and editors were too frightened to continue; and Lettsom, no doubt, was glad enough to escape from the consequences of his legel indiscretions for something under £400. Beyond that we have no definite facts to go on. It was a curious episode. Pettigrew in his 'Life of Lettsom' does not refer to it anywhere, and Letsom's name does not appear to have been mentioned at the time, though from internal evidence there was no doubt of the authorship. Pettigrew must have known all about it, but the fact that he did not mention it probably means no more that that some of the protagonists were still living when the 'Life' appeared. We refuse to think he suppressed the facts because he thought Lettsom had behaved dishonourably in the matter.
1 J.C.Jeaffreson, 'A Book about Doctors,' London, N.D., p.64; and also Lettsom's 'Observations on Dr. Myersbach,' 2nd Edit., 1776, p.72.
2 The motto on the title page was most appropriate:-
3 Op. cit., p. 64.
4 Med. and Phy. Journ., Vol XII, 1804, p.215.
5 Med. and Phy. Journ., Vol. XII, 1804, p.137.
6 Ibid., p. 212.
7 Ibid., p. 423.
8 See 'Annual Register for 1799,' p. 397.
9 Op. cit., p. 14.
10 In the copies which were afterwards bound up for sale, this article, which should have occupied pp. 66-75, was apparently deleted, probably by the publishers' orders.
11 Vol. XIII, No. 72, Feb. 1805, p. 192.
12 Knighted 1812, when he became Solicitor-General.
13 Op. cit., p. 16.
14 See 'Physic and Physicians,' [Forbes-Winslow] London, 1839, Vol. II, p. 94; where the episode is described accurately, except that the date is given as 1806 instead of 1805.
15 "A Book about Doctors," London, N.D., p. 244.