ON DRUG MEDICATION
In the first place, then, I would point out that the whole theory of drug medication is based, primarily, upon the false conception of the nature of disease; and that when once our ideas in this direction have undergone a change, the whole magnificent edifice, reared by patient labor, comes tumbling about our ears. For, when once we realize the true nature of disease--that it is itself a curing process--and, as such, cannot possibly be cured!--to what has this theory of drugging, in order to "cure" the patient come? And this one single objection--the right understanding of the nature of disease--is, in itself, enough to condemn utterly and forever all drug-medication, without any additional or supplementary argument whatsoever.
For are drugs supposed to do? Obviously, to "cure" the disease: with that object they are administered, and for that reason they are taken. But this whole theory is based upon the idea that a disease is a thing that can be attacked, or driven out, or suppressed or subdued, or in some way affected by the drug; but when once we realize that the disease is in reality not an entity at all; that it is not, in fact, what we must fight or combat, but that it is itself the process of purification--of "getting well"--when the grand truth is once thoroughly realized and appreciated, its true significance grasped--then drug medication will take its rightful place in the history of science--and be classed with the other vulgar superstitious, than which it is no less pathetically amusing.
Yet the whole science of "medicine" is based upon the notion that drugs possess this very power--which prompted their administration. From the very earliest times this idea has prevailed, and the drugging system of to-day is based upon exactly the same false notions as it has always been based upon. Drugs are "the shot and shell, " as Doctor Densmore so well described it, "hurled at the invisible enemy in the hope of dislodging and expelling it."
Drug medication can be shown to be absolutely without logical foundation or support, for these reasons. First. drugs are admittedly poisons; either they are poisonous per se (snake virus, e.g), or they become poisons simply because of their presence within the organism. It must always be distinctly remembered, in this connection, that any substance, present within the organization, which is not a food, is strictly speaking, a poison; i.e., it is either appropriable material for tissue-building (a food), or it is not; and if not, then it is a foreign substance--a poison--and as such can only damage and cannot possibly ever benefit the organism.
Footnote. Unfortunately, the modern germ theory has caused the medical world to turn further and further from the truth, in this direction--the tendency being more and more to disregard entirely the vital element, and to consider the body solely from a chemical point of view. This viewpoint illustrates the tendency of modern medical thought on these questions, and how far removed they are from accepting any such thing as a vital principle.
It should be remembered that symptoms are such only, and are not the real disease--the cause--which must itself be removed, if any true cure is to follow. Suppression of symptoms, such as afforded by drugs, is by no means a true cure, since the cause is not removed; the symptoms are not the disease, but the evidences of such, and should not be removed or suppressed. Doing so can only encourage the faith of the patient in spurious "cures" and divert his mind from all true methods of regaining health.
A good instance of the lack of appreciation by the medical profession of the true theory of disease and of what constitutes the real cure, as opposed to mere suppression of symptoms, is illustrated in their theory and treatment of pain. In their view, pain is a morbid sensation, due to a variety of causes influencing the nerves to such an extent that pain becomes manifest--a sensation of pain is present, in other words, which must be disposed of. This they proceed to do by administering opiates, narcotics, anasthetics , etc. When the pain is subdued, the disease is (supposedly) cured, and the patient goes on his way rejoicing!
But is this a true cure? Is it not rather a suppression of symptoms than a removal of causes?
Footnote. Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes saw the true point established by the introduction of the homeopathic practice, when he wrote, " While keeping up the miserable delusion that diseases are all to be cured by drugging, Homeopathy has been unintentionally showing that they would very generally get well without any drugging at all." A striking coincidence in thought is the following passage from the writings of Dr. Isaac Jennings, in which, speaking of homeopathy, he said: " a harmless chimera, establishing the fact that diseases of all sorts can be cured better, cheaper and quicker without any drugs whatever."
"Pain," says Doctor Trall, denotes the presence of some morbific agent, or some abnormal condition...The practice of 'curing' pain by means of opiates, narcotics, bleeding, etc., is founded on an erroneous theory of the nature of disease. Opium is more extensively employed in medicine than any other drug because it is the most convenient agent to allay pain. But it does this by silencing the outcries of Nature. The vital instincts of Nature proclaim that there is an enemy within the vital domain, and in the lanquage of pain they call for help--for such materials and influences as they can use in expelling the morbific cause and in repairing the damages. The doctor poisons them with the drug, which is resisted with such intensity in another direction as to suppress the original effort--and this he calls a cure! The whole process is resolved into curing the disease by killing the patient.
Now, it is a well-recognized fact that fasting will relieve pain of almost every description. Says Doctor Shew:
" Very seldom will toothache withstand twenty-four hours' entire abstinence from all food."
"If a person has a toothache--no matter how bad--provided there is not swelling and ague in the face, it is cured with certainty within twenty-four hours by abstaining from all food and from all drinks, except water. At any rate, I have known no case where such treatment has failed of complete success."
It has frequently been observed that neuralgia has been cured by fasting; while Doctor Oswald says:
"Rheumatism, like gout, is a consequence of dietetic abuses. Counter-irritants, hot baths, etc., can effect a brief respite, but the only permanent specific is fasting." Until we understand the rationale of pain, it is not easy to explain such cases, and an explanation only becomes possible, I think, when we accept some such theory as the following. Pain, I contend, is usually if not invariably due to the presence of foreign, encumbering matter in the system, and the pressure of this foreign matter upon the nerve-tissue is the true cause of what we term pain. In almost every instance we can call to mind would this explanation be complete and satisfactory. Whether the abnormal pressure comes from a hammer, a dentist's forceps, or other external causes; or whether the foreign matter presses against the nerve-tissue from within, the effect is precisely the same, viz., pain; and the cause is the same--the pressure of foreign material upon the nerve--which material was not in its proper and rightful place. "
When all the functions of the body are rightly performed," says Doctor Reinhold, " we are not conscious of them; hence any unpleasant sensation or pain is a sign of disorder. Just as the presence of a splinter in the finger, or a grain of sand in the eye, causes irritation and suffering, the presence of any matter not needed for growth or strength in any part of the body, will eventually cause fever and pain.... Pain is nothing to be feared, but should be welcomed as a kindly signal--dangerous only when its warnings are neglected. The suppression of pain by pain-killers is not only useless but highly injurious. The pain ought to continue so long as there is any disorder. Cure consists in removing the cause of the disorder."
It may be objected, of course, to all the above, that, although drugs do undoubtedly suppress symptoms in this manner, in many cases, yet they also assist in curing the disease, by removing the cause. I ask: how do they do this? Do they supply any of the necessary conditions of health--sanitary and hygienic--which would enable the body to recuperate the more quickly? Certainly not! They actually do the reverse. Drug medication adds impurities and poisons to the system--the causes of the diseased state. And how can adding impurities to the system help it to become well, when its sole trouble is that it is over-burdened and surcharged with impurities already? As Doctor Trall said:
"To give drugs is adding to the cause of disease; for drugs always produce disease. Indeed, they cure one disease, when they cure all at all, by producing others. Can causes cure causes? Can poisons expel poisons? Can impurities deterge impurities? Can Nature throw off two or more poisons more easily than one? No! Poisoning a person because he is impure, is like casting out devils through Beelzebub, the prince of devils. The whole system of drug medication, then, is fundamentally wrong--in that it is based upon an erroneous theory of disease--mistaking the effect for the cause; an erroneous theory of vitality, of the true method and nature of cure; and upon the mistaken idea that suppression of symptoms indicates a true benefit--a removal of cause--when in fact, it means nothing of the kind. All these objections are, I believe, perfectly valid and just. The lack of confidence in Nature's recuperative powers; the absurd idea that we must " do something"-- we have no idea what it should be, but something--whenever a person is ill; and the ingrained impression that something must be the administration of a drug' and preferably a nasty one; above all, the fundamentally erroneous and exceedingly harmful belief that what is good for a well man is not equally good for a sick man, and vice versa, instead of perceiving that the same vitally beneficial, hygienic agencies are not and must be equally good for both; these are the fundamental fallacies upon which the whole system of drug medication is based. This latter factor, perhaps, deserves special consideration. The medical men well knows that drugs, milk-and-whiskey diet, alcohol, and other abominations are not only unhealthful but actually poisonous to a healthy man; and yet he argues that because the same man is engaged in getting well, then such substances are, of necessity, and by some magical transformation, which he cannot even attempt to explain, at such times actually transformed into a substance capable of such times actually transformed into a substance capable of benefiting and even curing the system of its diseased condition! Says Doctor Ryan:
" It may be stated generally....that a medicine in a large dose is a poison, and in a small dose, is a medicine." Could any position be more inherently and palpably absurd and illogical? As Doctor Trall remarked:
"No physician has ever yet given the world a reason that would bear the ordeal of one moment's scientific examination, why a sick person should be poisoned more than should a well person and I do not believe the world will endure until he finds such a person'" " If a medical man with good intentions administers one of those drug poisons, or a hundred of them, and the patient dies, he dies because the medicine can't save him. But if a malefactor with murderous disposition gives the same medicine to a felow-being, and the fellow-being dies, he dies because the poison killed him! Does the motive of the one who administers the drug alter its relation to vitality?"
But there is one and, for me, a final and crushing objection to drug medication which absolutely disproves the correctness of this system--even in the absence of any other arguments or proofs whatever. All other considerations aside, all other objections apart; this final objection is to my mind complete and irrefutable. The significance of this objection once realized, I do not see how drugs can ever be conscientiously administered again by anyone understanding the rationale of their true action--their real modus operandi. Drugs are always supposed to effect their cures, of course, by acting upon the various tissues or organs of the body , directly or indirectly, and hence benefiting them, by means of their chemical action thereon. If not, their administration would be sheer nonsense. The whole theory, then, is based upon the fundamental idea that drugs do act upon certain tissues, organs or localities, and to their action is ascribed their beneficial effects. But now I take the broad stand, and defend the philosophic principle, that such supposed "action" is itself altogether a myth, and does not exist in reality at all. The real modus operandi of medicines is altogether different. The cart has again been placed before the horse. Let me once again quote Doctor Trall, since he is the discoverer of this fundamentally important and most revolutionary truth.
" It is further taught, in all the books and schools of the drug systems, that medicines have specific relations to the various parts, organs or structures of the living system; that they possess an inherent power to select the part or organ on which to make an impression; and that, in virtue of this 'special' ; and that, in virtue of this 'special' selective affinity, certain medicines act on the stomach, others on the bowels, others on the liver, others on the brain, others on the skin, others on the kidneys, etc. This absurd notion is the groundwork of the classification of the materia medica into emetics, cathartics, narcotics, and diuretics, etc. Now, the truth is exactly the contrary. So far from being any such ability on the part of the dead inert drug--any 'special affinity' between a poison and a living tissue--the relation between them is one of absolute and external antagonism. The drugs do not act at all.
All the action is on the part of the living organism. And it ejects, rejects, casts out, expels, as best it can, by vomiting, purging, sweating, diuresis, etc., these drug poisons; and the doctors have mistaken this warfare against their medicines for their action on the living system."
And so, since drugs do not "act" at all, in any case, and since they cannot possibly benefit the system by supplying it with any of the hygienic requirements it made in order to regain health; since it must, because inorganic, always remain a poison to the organism; and since Nature does not cure, in any case, by chemical action, but by vital growth by cell replacement--what becomes of the whole theory of drug medication--especially since drugs are administered to "cure" a "disease" which does not in reality exist at all.
ix "Most certainly, fasting will never become a popular method of cure, for the reason that it involves too much self-denial! It is all very well to live "well" for a number of years, and then to think and feel we can avoid the results by taking a pill or a powder. That, unfortunately is impossible. Nature does not work that way, but always by gradual processes. Fasting is altogether beneficial; starving precisely the reverse.
UNITY AND ONENESS OF DISEASE
Jim's comment. Something to think about.
I just came back from a 2 mile walk/jog. ( 6-8-18) It looked like rain, as the complete sky was covered with dark clouds. A strong breeze swept over me. For many years I have sometimes wondered what makes the wind blow. I have heard people say God and other people give a scientific guess. But when I look in different directions I see leaves blowing on trees, but when I look in another direction, the leaves are still. I ask why. I ask how. There are no answers by man. But that tells me that the force that makes the wind blow is everywhere and nowhere. It is not a continuous wind. It stops and starts in a million places. What is the starter button? What starts the starter button? As I am walking there is a soft breeze flowing over me. All of a sudden the wind picks up speed. How? What is the cause? Then the wind dies down to a soft breeze. Why? How? I believe there is no factual answer. Man is not meant to know. But man wants to convince the masses that he (the scientist) knows. That keeps us sheep under control. Why did I mention this? Because its the same with the life force. Scientist and medical doctors have no clue as to what or where the life force comes from. My question has been for years, why are you and I alive right now. What is the life force and where does it come from? Why don't we just drop dead right now? These are valid questions because there is a group of men and women who try to convince the masses that they understand the life force. And they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. look at any medical doctors office. Its full of people who think he has the answer and the solution. Its like the blind leading the blind. Look at all the people who by lifestyle build disease and go to the medical profession to have the symptoms treated. And because of this belief, look at all the sick people around you. Think what the world would be like if the teachings of this author and many like him were taught in the schools. Well that is just a pipe dream, but for you and your children it can become a reality if you read and reflect on the words of wisdom in this book.
"But" I hear my reader exclaim, " every disease a curing process. Why, that is equivalent to saying that there is but one disease in the world--while everyone knows that there are scores, nay, hundreds of such diseases! The second of these statements is self-evident; the first is obviously absurd from the fact that these innumerable diseases must spring from as nuuuuumerous sources, and be due to a variety of causes."
This reasoning is entirely erroneous. It is based upon the false premise that the symptoms we observe are the actual diseases themselves--instead of merely the curing processes. What we really observe are the various modes of cleansing the system which Nature adopts, in her efforts to rid the organism of the corrupt matter it contains. This basic material itself--the real cause of the disease--might be the same in all cases, but, owing to the differing methods of its elimination, might be, and in fact is, mistaken for so many different and distinct diseases. But is it not obvious that they are, at basis, due to the same cause--having essentially the same general characteristics? As Doctor Dewey expressed it:
"New diseases? What is there essentially new that can be treated with remedies, in the coated tongues, foul mouths, high temperature and pulse, pain, discomfort, and acute aversion to food, that is to be found in the rooms of the sick? Are there really specifics for these conditions?" All disease may thus have one common cause, which is equally the cause of all disease, and this I shall endeavor to both illustrate and prove as we proceed.
Let us see if we can trace all diseases to one primary cause--the cause of all disease, equally--somewhat more clearly. Louis Kuhne, a German, has written a lengthy treatise entitled "The New Science of Healing; or the Doctrine of the Unity and Oneness of All Disease" ---a remarkable work that has been translated into no less than twenty-five different languages--in which he has worked out, in great detail, this idea that all diseases are but the various modes, or methods of elimination of the morbid material--his doctrine being that "There is only one cause of disease, and there is only one disease, which shows itself under different forms." He traced their origin and growth to one basic cause. With the utmost ingenuity he succeeded in showing wherein all disease is essentially one; arising from the presence of effete, morbid matter within the organism, and pointing out, in detail, how much morbid accumulations give rise to the phenomena we term "disease." Says Dr. Joseph Wallace:
"All diseases in men are simply the results of decomposition in one form or another. (What about women? lol)
Dr. C. E. Page stated that:
Caps mine. Never forget this. " THE NAMING AND CLASSIFYING OF ' DISEASES' IS CALCULATED TO MYSTIFY AND MISLEAD; sickness is the proper term for describing them all; self-abuse, in the broadest sense of the word, is the cause of them; and obedience to law, the only means of prevention or cure."
Jim's comment. This Dr. just said that we are the cause of our ills. If this is true, the question is why. Why do we want to make ourselves sick or miserable? Why would we want to kill ourselves or suffer for years with a disease? I remember when I smoked camels. It was 25 years on those guys. One day my sister said; brother why are you destroying your life? I objected I wasn't, got mad, and hung up the phone. Than I started thinking. I wanted to quit. So I asked myself did I really want to punish myself for some reason or another? Well I did quit at age 40. I read many books on human behavior through the years. I now do believe that some people have health destroying habits out of ignorance. But many people have low self esteem. These people without thinking about it feel they aren't good enough, aren't worthy, etc and so without understanding are punishing themselves for something that happen to them or was said to them in their childhood. Without getting too deep in my personal life I was told my mother that I was just like my dad when I was about 12 or 13. He had left when I was a child so I didn't know much about him. Turned out he liked his beer, woman, and good times more then raising a family. Well guess how I turned out as a teenager and beyond. There out to be a law to be a parent, or attend school. Its kids raising kids. Not good.
Says Dr. A.F. Reinhold: "There is but one disease; i.e., deposits of foreign matter. The special ailments are produced in the particular place where the matter happens to be deposited."
How much this conception differs from that of the orthodox medical man is illustrated by the following extract from Dr. Floyd B. Crandall's "How to Keep Well," where he says: "Diseases do not result from a single cause, and they cannot be cured by any single method of treatment." As I shall presently try to show, they are ultimately traceable to one cause or source, and can all be treated in precisely a similar manner.
For consider. Every single part of the organism is and must be connected with every other part, since it is an organic whole. Every part is affected by the same means---the blood-supply--for better or worse, each passing moment. The whole organism is, through the blood, made essentially one; and no one part of the body can possibly be affected without all other parts being also involved--even in cases where this is apparently not the case. No one part of the body can be diseased, and the remainder be healthy; that is a most certain error. It is either connected through and by means of the blood stream, or the nervous mechanism, or both, and this should be so apparent as to need no proof whatever. It is only the weight of medical "authority" which prevents everyone from accepting that statement as axiomatic. Says Dr. Sylvester Graham:
" The function of no one organ can be impaired, without involving the whole system in the consequences. Such is the dependence of each organ upon the whole system, and of the whole system upon each organ; and such are the fixed and important laws of constitution and relation appertaining to the economy of the human body..." Says Dio Lewis, M.D.:
" ...A local disease is an impossibility. Every disease must be systemic before it can assume any local expression. Or, in other words, every local pathological manifestation is an expression of systemic pathological conditions."
All talk of " local diseases" then. is nonsense pure and simple, and implies either ignorance or short-sightedness on the part of any man who uses the term as to what constitutes the real nature of disease. The whole organism is always involved and necessarily so; and all local treatments--ignoring constitutional treatment--are merely so many attempts at suppressing the symptoms in that one locality (generally by driving them inwards or to another locality) and quite ignoring the fact that such symptoms are, invariably, merely thee localized manifestations of the condition of the entire body. Local treatments are worse than useless--they are positively injurious, and must be always so; the only logical method is to strike at the root--the cause of the evil--the blood--by constitutional treatment--and so benefit this as to render it normal; and, when once this is effected, healthy tissue in every part of the body must necessarily result, since every part of it is dependent upon, and is enabled to exist solely through its blood supply. The diseased portion must, therefore, be thereby rendered normal, as is every part of the body; these tissues--as all others--being dependent upon the composition of the blood supplying them, for their healthy or diseased condition. The logic of this method, as compared with the prevailing treatment, should surely appeal to all thinking persons, and practically prove the contention made without further elaboration.
Jim's comment. And your doctor has no clue. Which means he/she has no common sense, or they know and won't educate you, because they believe you won't change your habits, or they are not about to give up their life of luxury, no matter how many they kill.
NATURE'S LAW OF CURE
The real nature of disease should now be apparent. It is the encumbrance of the system with effete, mal-assimilated, foreign material--and the degree of "susceptibility" of of any person exactly corresponds to the amount of this morbid matter within the organism--it is, in fact, the degree of actual disease present. As Kuhne put it:
"The one common cause of all disease is the presence of foreign substances in the body."
This is the real and only cause of disease. The disease itself is merely the process of ridding the body of these impurities; and any real cure, must, therefore, be based upon this philosophy, and have for its successful accomplishment, the sole object of assisting nature to rid the system of these impurities. This is, in fact, the hygienic theory of disease and of its cure in a nutshell.
The great underlying truth, then, is that all disease is but a curative crisis--a method adopted by Nature to rid the system as rapidly and energetically as possible of the effete, encumbering material it contains. Our organism is more or less encumbered or saturated with this material perpetually---owing to our artificial methods of living--i.e., we are chronically more or less diseased--and, as Doctor Page pointed out:
"....the various acute diseases, so-called, are in point of fact acute remedies for chronic disease."
It may be asked , perhaps: "why, then, does disease ever remain chronic?" My answer to this is that the prolonged sickness and attempt on the part of Nature to cure, have so depleted and so de-energized the system and wasted the vital powers that a radical and sudden method of cure is no longer possible. As Dr. Robert Walter expressed it:
" An acute disease is a vigorous effort of the vital organism to resist injuries, to repair damages, and to restore health; while a chronic disease is a prolonged and subdued ailment in which the power of cure has been so depleted that active manifestations are not possible." As Doctor Oswald has pointed out:
"A chronic disease, properly speaking, is nothing but Nature's protest against a chronic provocation."
It indicates a chronic cause. The one is continuous because the other is continuous, and when one is discontinued, the other ceases. It is simply a question of cause and effect, and the "cure" of such diseases thus becomes one of the simplest and most obvious processes. We know the cause of the diseases---it is the same as the cause of all acute diseases--effete material; and to effect a cure, the rule is merely: Cease adding to the cause; cease introducing into the system those materials which act as the cause of disease.
But this philosophy of disease would imply that the whole human race is more or less diseased--and that continually! This conclusion I do not shrink from; in fact, I must insist upon it as most certainly correct and true. We are all of us diseased--all the time. The various diseases from which humanity suffers are but the various means Nature adopts in order to cure humanity of its conditions. If any person is not in the best health---in the finest physical condition--then he is diseased, a little, perhaps, yet diseased. The majority of persons imagine that they are "perfectly well" if they are not actually in bed, or wracked with pain, or in the throes of some acutely diseased condition; but everyone is, in reality, diseased, who is not in the best of health, i.e., in actual training--the "pink of condition." All states below that necessarily indicate some degree of disease.
A perfectly healthy man does not, in allprobability, exist, pppperfect health is an idea state---an imaginary condition. Says Dr. Joel Shew:
"Perfect health, at the present day, among civilized nations, is probably nowhere to be found. It exists only as an ideal thing.
Almost ideal health is the nearest we can ever hope to come to that ideal condition, and every stage below that is disease. Who can doubt the truth of this remark when we see the yellow, wizened, colorless, blotched, bloated or emaciated faces every where about us, in the streets--instead of the clean, healthful pink complexions that should encounter us on every hand? How many of the human family are in perfect health--possessing buoyancy of spirits, clear skins, and possessing the energy and activity characteristic of those in health? And, if such conditions are not present, then that individual is diseased. The whole human race is sick! Death and disease, misery and suffering are on every hand, where there should be nothing but health and strength and comeliness. (Jim's comment. This was written a long time ago. What is it going to be in another 100 years?) Says Doctor Smidovich:
"I began to regard people surrounding me with a new and strange feeling, and I was more and more struct by the rarity in their midst of healthy individuals, nearly every one of them had some ailment. To me the world began to assume the aspect of one gigantic infirmary; normal man was sick man; the healthy person merely represented a happy freak, a sharp deviation from the normal; this fact was ever becoming more plain." As Dr. James C. Jackson stated, in speaking of his patients:
"...Through the whole range, from Allopathy clear down to Hydropathy, these patients of mine had been left under the impression that the curative power resided in the doctors, and not in the vital element which God had implanted in their organism.:
Now, when we come to consider the question: How can we best assist Nature? --we come to a dividing of the ways, where the regular medical doctor and the hygienist part company forever. It is owing to the prevalent false medical teaching that diseases are entities that they can "pass through" or 'attack" and that drugs may in some way antidote or drive out this mysterious thing---or, at most, assist Nature in expelling it--that prevents the regular physician from perceiving the true philosophy of disease and its cure. The disease is the cure! That must be realized once and finally. Disease is merely a condition--not a thing. As Doctor Trall so well pointed out:
"How much longer will medical men expend brain and labor, and waste pen, ink and paper, in looking for a thing that is no thing at all, and in trying to land a seat for a disease which has no localized existence? As well might a physicist point his spy glass to the moon to discover the whereabouts of the electrical force, as for our doctors to turn their mental microscopes to any given locality in the vital domain, to ascertain the local habitation of a fever."
Disease is an attempt to clean the system from the foul material with which it is overloaded--and from which it must be rid, if life is to be maintained. Were there no disease (curative crises) and were the effete matter which is the cause of disease--and which the disease, as we know it, merely expelled from the system--this process of expulsion being the so-called disease retained within it--death would invariably result due to tissue-poisoning. The disease is thus the curative measure Nature employs in order to prevent death--which would otherwise follow with extreme rapidity and certainty. Having once fully grasped this conception we are in a better position to answer the question just proposed. How can we best assist Nature, in her efforts to rid the system of the impurities it contains--the real cause of the disease? Certainly not by adding more impurities; that would be the height of folly! Yet this is what is almost universally done!
" Any person who can explain the act of sneezing has the key which may be applied to the solution of all the problems before us. Does the dust sneeze the nose, or does the nose sneeze the dust? Which is acted on or expelled, and what acts? Is sneezing a healthy or a morbid process? No one will pretend that it is normal. No one ever sneezes unless there is something abnormal in or about the nasal organ. Then sneezing is a remedial effort, a purifying process, a disease, as much as a diarrhea or a fever.
Dr. Trall says in The True Healing Art:
"We are told that Nature has provided a 'law of cure.' Here is another vexed question for us to settle, and I meet it by denying the fact. What is this law of cure? The Allopaths say it is contrariis curantur---contraries cure opposites. The Homeopathists proclaim similia stmilibus curantur---like cures like. he Eclectics declare that the law exist of or consists in 'Sanative' medication, and the Physio-Medicals believe that the law is fulfilled in the employment of 'Physiological' remedies.
"They are all wrong; there is no law of cure' in all the Universe. Nature has provided nothing of the sort; Nature has provided penalties, not remedies. Think you, would Nature provide penalties or punishment as the consequences of transgression, and then provide remedies to do away with the penalties? Would Nature ordain disease or suffering as the corrective discipline for disobedience to the laws of life, and then permit the doctor to drug and dose away the penalties? There is a condition of cure, and this is obedience to the laws of life." Jim's comment. This needs to be ingrained in your memory.
And now, if all this be true, if what we know of disease is, in every case, merely the outward symptoms of an internal cleansing process; if it is an indication, merely, of a cleansing, rectifying, purifying process going on within the system; if the prime object of medication is, therefore, to let the symptoms alone, and to aim at the removal of their cause; ii we can appreciate the fact that there does not exist a multitude of diseases, but only an innumerable number of modes, faces, or expressions of one primary disease--a variety of methods of eliminating the one underlying cause; that there is, in reality, a unity and oneness of all disease, due to a single, which is known to be the retention, within the system, of waste, effete, poisonous material; if we but realized that in the elimination of this material consists the true and only rational method of cure--applicable alike to all diseases; if this were once recognized as true, it will readily be seen how far from the truth is the average doctor in his theory of disease. In all his text books, in all his previous training, he has been taught to search for disease, and treat it as a thing that should be searched for and destroyed. But there is no "thing" to be found; disease is not an entity, but a condition---the very symptoms he treats as the disease itself--quite ignoring and ignorant of their cause.
Doctor Trall says:
" It is now more than 15 years since I prescribed a particle of stimulus of any kind, and although I have treated hundreds of cases of all the febrile diseases incident to New York and its vicinity, including measles, scarlatina, erysipelas, small-pox, remittent typhus, typhoid, congestive and ship-fevers, pneumonia, influenza, diphtheria, child-bed fever, dysentery, etc, etc., I have not lost one. And this statement I have repeatedly published in this city, where the facts if otherwise than as I represent, can be easily ascertained."
It follows from this moreover, as a natural consequent, that the laws of health govern the well and sick equally; that those practices which are good for the well are equally good for the sick. What is good for the well man is equally good for the sick man and what is injurious and hurtful to the well man, must, of necessity, be equally hurtful and injurious to the sick man.
These simple truths contain all that need really be known of the theory of disease; and upon them the whole hygienic system of disease, and its cure, is based. Yet, self-evident, and palpable, and common sense, as they appear, the whole of present-day medical science is founded upon exactly opposite and contrary principles! The assumption that the medical world goes upon is that--what is good for the well man, is not good for the sick! and that what is good for the sick man is certainly injurious and hurtful to the man in health! and upon this absurd and utterly false idea is reared the whole fabric, the whole "science" of drug medication. The drugs (admittedly poisons), are detrimental to the health of the normal man is too obvious to deny; yet the idea prevails that these injurious substances, these poisons, are, for some mysterious reason, actually beneficial to the man diseased! Of course this idea is based upon the false notion that diseases are things, and can be attacked, subdued, or driven out by the medicines administered. This is, of course, merely a relic of medieval superstition, which pictured demons, devils, etc., as the causes of the various diseases, and the rites, ceremonies, etc., were the various means employed to expel these demons. But once realize that the disease is itself the process of purification, the process of "getting well, " and the absurdity of the generally accepted theories on the subject become manifest. As Doctor Trall so justly remarked: "The body wants healthful, not injurious things,"
No matter what the disease may be, we can, in every case, commence treatment instantly, and without waiting to see what form the disease will ultimately take. No matter what the symptoms may be; no matter what disease will ultimately appear; the treatment adopted in each case will and must be practically identical, for the reason that we know that, whatever the disease, whatever the symptoms, they are, in every case, due to the one ultimate cause, and require practically identical treatment; and the treatment must be equally beneficial for all the so-called diseases. We should, in every case, be removing the cause of the disease noted by thus striking at its root. An what a relief that would be! No matter what the disease may ultimately prove to be, no matter what form it assumes to feel that we have, in fasting, and kindred hygienic agencies, an absolute safe and certain cure in every single instance!
To summarize: It will be seen that if this theory of disease--its nature and cure---be correct (and I hereby challenge anyone to successfully disprove it); if there be a unity and oneness" of all disease, all originating in one common cause, the different diseases, so-called, being but the varying faces, aspects, or modes of expression, of the primary disease; and if the cause of this primary disease be due (apart from mental influences and mechanical injuries), to an undue retention, within the system of effete, excrementous material, and the disease itself merely the active process of expulsion of this material; if all this be true, we can readily perceive that there is but one method of cure---to remove the cause; to expel from the system this overload of superfluous impurities--the "bad stuff", which is thus equally the cause of all disease.
And we can readily see, also, the means for the prevention of all disease. Cease taking impure material into the system.
Skipping Chapter 4. Its about stimulation
Noticed these men are all medical doctors, who had logic and common sense. What about your doctor?
DISEASE A CURING PROCESS
Before it is possible for us to proceed to a consideration of "fasting as a cure for disease," it will be necessary for us to consider the primary question: What is disease? If, in our perplexity and quest for knowledge, we turn to the medical profession for our answer to this question, we find that they very frankly confess that, in the vast majority of cases, practically nothing is known of the nature-the real essence of-disease. We shall learn that its nature is still unfathomable and mysterious, and that next to nothing is known either of disease (its essence), its true causation or effective cure. My reader may, perhaps, doubt that statement, or even believe it to be incorrect. In reply, I would ask him to consult any medical authority upon this point--the higher the authority, the better--and to ascertain if he, or the medical profession as a whole, considers that disease has ever been satisfactorily explained ; inasmuch as its very essence is no longer a mystery. See whether or not you will find explained and rendered clear to you the whys and the wherefores of the genesis and the progress of disease, and the multiform and complicated symptoms that invariably arise; why some are "susceptible" and other people are not; why one disease is frequently followed by another of a totally different character; what is "predisposition"; what constitutes "idiosyncrasy;" whether you will find explained to you the rationale of the action of drugs and of stimulants upon the organism. If the authority whom you have consulted (and the higher authority, the more surely will my statements be borne out) is conscientious in the expression of his opinion, there can be no doubt as to the answer you will receive to every one of these questions; he will frankly admit his ignorance on all these points.
Hear, e.g., the word of Austin Flint, M.D., LL.,D., one time Professor of the Principles and Practice of Medical and Clinical Medicine in the Bellevue Hospital Medical College of New York, etc., when he says:
" The definition of disease is confessedly difficult. It is easier to define by negation, to say what it is not, than to give a positive definition; that is, a definition based either on the nature or essence of the thing defined, or on its distinctive attributes. Disease is an absence or deficiency of health, but this is only to transfer the difficulty, for the question at once arises, how is health to be defined? And to define health is not less difficult than to define disease."
Young doctors, who have just come from college, and who are primed to the brim with vast stores of (quite useless and largely erroneous) theoretical knowledge, are to be sure, confident that they know all about the nature of disease and its proper "treatment," under every conceivable condition, for have they not a drug for the cure of every disease?
And if medical science of to-day does not know what is the nature of disease, how can it be successfully treated? How can we expect to treat and cure diseases the nature of which are entirely unknown to us? Would this not lead us to think that much-indeed, we might ay the vast majority of-medical treatment to-day is purely empirical, and really a vast series of experiments upon the patient, while suffering from various diseases?
I shall endeavor to show that what little the medical profession is supposed to know of the nature of disease is totally wrong; that theories of the origin and nature of disease are erroneous, and that every new discovery made, which they have considered an unmixed blessing and a sign of progress, has in reality, only led them further and further from the truth, and away from an understanding of the real cause and cure of disease. I must state that there are, broadly speaking, two and only two schools of healing in the world; the hygienic, on the one hand, and every other school, sect or system, on the other. No matter what the physician may be--allopath, homeopath, osteopath, electric, faith-curist, mind-curist, Christian Scientist, or what not, he is not a hygienist, in that he does not know the real cause and cure of disease. The theory, or the philosophy of disease which the hygienist defends is totally opposed to all other medical systems, being directly opposite to them in theory.
And now, that I may not keep my readers longer in suspense, I shall state, in as clear and precise a manner as possible, the fundamental differences between these two schools, as to the nature of disease--how caused, how cured. With this object in view, I cannot do better than to quote, in full, the very excellent resume of these differences as stated by Emmet Densmore, M.D., in his work entitled "How Nature cures." In that brilliant little known work, he remarked: " An examination of the methods of operation of orthodox old school medicine shows that these physicians, although able, learned, earnest, and scientific, have been utterly misled as to the nature of disease. They have considered disease as an organized enemy and positive force, which has taken a position within the body and is carrying on a warfare with the vital powers, and the legion of heroic remedies (so-called) which the orthodox physicians have prescribed and are prescribing for suffering invalids are the shot and shell hurled at the invisible enemy, in the hope of dislodging and expelling it."
The hygienist, on the other hand, regards disease as a "curative action on the part of the ruling (vital) force. All disease and all manifestations of disease are friendly efforts and curative actions made by the organism in its efforts to restore the conditions of health. The law of cure may be defined as an unfailing tendency on the part of the organism toward health, and since disease, as above defined, is but the expression and result of a disturbance of the conditions natural to life, the only useful office of the physician is to restore those conditions, and there will be seen to follow, as a result of the law of cure, the disappearance of disease and the establishment of health."
"There are two methods of treating dyspeptics; one aims to cure the disease; the other endeavors to cure the patient. All drug medical systems profess to cure the disease, and they can do it, whatever becomes of the patient. The hygienic medical system is based on the fundamental premise that disease should not be cured, but that its causes should be removed, to the end that the patient may recover health. All drug systems teach that disease is an entity or substance; a something at war with vitality which should be suppressed, opposed, counteracted, subdued, expelled, killed, or cured; hence it is opposed with all of the missiles of the drug shop. The hygienic system teaches that disease is a remedial effort, a struggle of the vital powers to purify the system and recover the normal state. This effort should be aided, directed and regulated, if need be, but never suppressed. And this can always be better accomplished without medicines than with them."
Again, Doctor Densmore, in showing that the true healing power lies within the organism, in opposition to the idea that it lies outside the body, in some bottle or substance says " These everyday occurrences (healing bones, etc) are as familiar to the laymen as to the physician, but the strange part of it is the fact that almost no one--laymen or physician--seems to understand that these and like processes of nature are all the healing force there is. It does not matter what the trouble may be--a sliver in the flesh, or a lodgment within the organism of the poison germs of typhoid fever--no medicine is required or will benefit; all that is needed is that the conditions demanded by nature be supplied, and the same mysterious force which we call 'life' which builds a bone-ring support whenever and wherever it is needed, and once places a most admirable protection in the shape of a scab wherever there is an abrasion of the skin, will prove itself as well able successfully to handle an attack of typhoid fever as a broken bone, or an abrased skin."
"There are, aside from accidents--mechanical injuries--but two sources of disease in the world, viz .,poisons or impurities taken into the system from without, and effete or waste matter retained. In either case the result is obstruction. These extraneous particles are the causes of disease, and, aside from mental impressions and bodily injuries, the only causes....
"What is this mysterious thing disease? Simply the effort, and to remove obstructing material from the organic domain, and to repair damages. Disease is a process-of purification. It is a remedial action. It is a vital struggle to overcome obstructions and to keep the channels of the circulation free. Should this struggle, this self-defensive action, this remedial effort, this purifying process, this attempt at reparation, this war for the integrity of the living domain, this contest against the enemies of the organic constitution, be repressed by bleeding, or suppressed with drugs, intensified with stimulants and tonics, subdued with narcotics and antiphlogistics, confused with blisters and caustics, aggravated with alternatives, complicated and misdirected, changed, subverted and perverted with drugs and poisons generally? "
Again, Doctor Trall says:
" Some authors tell us that medicines cure disease, and other authors tell us that the vis medicatrix nature cures. They are both wrong. What is the vis medicatrix nature ? It is vital struggle in self-defense; it is the process of purification; it is the disease itself. So far from the disease and the vis medicatrix nature being antagonistic entities, or forces at war with each other, they are one and the same. And if this be the true solution of this problem, it is clear enough that the whole plan of subduing or 'curing' disease with drugs is but a process of subduing and killing the vitality.
Says Miss Florence Nightingale.
"Shall we begin by taking it as general principle that all disease, at some period or other of its course, is more or less a reparative process, not necessarily accompanied with suffering; an effort of nature to remedy a process of poisoning or decay, which has taken place weeks, months, sometime years beforehand, unnoticed, the termination of the disease being then, while the antecedent process is going on, determined?"
The student must "think into" this great truth, by reading and reflection. A gradual change of opinion and mental attitude must always come about in this way. A lifelong habit of viewing any subject from a certain mental standpoint cannot be changed instantly--very often not at all! Prejudice is here exhibited in an astonishing degree, in most persons. The trait of open-mindedness--the willingness to receive new truths, new impressions, is as rare a possession as a truly great musical or poetic or artistic temperament.
I can only ask them to divest his or her mind of all prejudice, in this matter, and to read and weigh what arguments are brought forward with an open and candid frame of mind. If this much is granted, I have no fear of the ultimate result.
And now let us turn back, in our argument, to the point emphasized sometime ago, viz., that all disease, as we know it, is a curative action on the part of the organism; a reconstructive process; and that, what we know as "disease" is really the outward symptoms of this cleansign process, going on within the organism. It is the process of cureeeee itself--we but observing the outward signs of such curative action. As Mr. Macfadden remarked: "It is disease that saves life. It is disease that actually cures the body. By means of disease poisons are eliminated, which might have caused death, had they beeeeeen allowed to remain."
Now consider what this implies. The "orthodox" medical treatment consists in doctoring or smoothing these symptoms, which are mistaken for the real disease, and, in fact, in attempting to cure a curing process! Further, by checking or subduing or retarding these symptoms (by drugs, etc). they actually retard and hinder the process of cure, to just extent to which they are "successful" their palliative treatment is the more they have, in reality, hindered the true process of cure! Physician and patient have alike mistaken the true diseases, and assumed the outward symptoms of its cure to be the disease itself. The real disease is the cause of these symptoms--not the symptoms themselves; it is that which lies behind the phenomena observed--the phenomena being really the outward and visible signs of the general cleaning-up process proceeding within the organism.
As Doctor Trall so well expressed it:
And now, what is it that lies behind these symptoms? What is the real cause of disease? To this, I answer--It is the poisonous and effete matter which has collected within the organism--the accumulation of which we have repeatedly warned of, by headache, lassitude, (physical and mental) pain, unhealthy accumulation of fatty tissue, etc.; and the elimination--the getting rid of, this poisonous matter constitutes the series or "set" of symptoms mistaken for disease, and treated as the disease itself. To suppress these symptoms--which is the whole aim, goal, and ambition of the medical fraternity--is to stop this elimination, to check the system's remedial efforts, stop this elimination, to check the systems remedial efforts, and to "lock up" as Doctor Trall expressed it, " the disease within the organism." Or as Dr. K. S. Guthrie said: "People die of disease not because the disease is fatal, but because the system is not permitted to throw it off..." The entire medical world having utterly mistaken the true nature of disease--have thus directed their energies and skill to the suppression of symptoms--rather than to the removal of cause, while the hygienic system of cure is based solely upon the removal of the cause--the effete matter collected within the organism--regarding the symptoms as altogether insignificant, and, in fact, they temporarily aggravate or increase the symptoms, purposely in some cases ( making the disease "worse" according to accepted theories), in order to affect thereby, a more rapid and true cure.
It will be noticed that, upon this theory, it would be quite impossible for any really healthy person to be "attacked" by disease, since disease, as such, is not an entity, but the symptoms we see are the result of long processes of accumulation, going on for--we do not know how long within the system. Disease and death are never sudden, though they may appear to be so. The long-continued line of causes have passed unnoticed. Says Doctor Brouardel:
"I have shown that, in spite of an excellent outward appearance sudden death is the termination of very different diseases which develop secretly, quite unknown to the patient and those around him; such as certain affections of the kidneys, arteriosclerosis, diabetes, etc." And again, "We will define sudden death as the termination of an acute or chronic disease, which in most cases developed in a latent manner."
Jim's comment. When I was in the insurance business there were several times that the widow said my husband was in perfect health. I came home to find him dead of a heart attack. When questioning them about the history because I was curious, it always came to be that he was healthy except for, and they would name a few things like high blood pressure, or a touch of arthritis or some allergies.
To all this it may be replied:
"How, then, are we to know that a real cure has ever been effected? If a drug is administered, to 'cure' rheumatism, and the rheumatism shortly disappears, it is claimed that this is because the symptoms have been suppressed; whereas, if, e.g., exercises, baths and diet are recommended and tried, and the symptoms disappear, it is claimed that this is because the cause of the disease has really been eradicated! How do we know that, in such cases, the symptoms have not been suppressed also; how do we know that a 'real' cure has been effected by these means any more than in the other case?"
To this I must reply, that we must depend upon our reason for the answer. Drugs are given with the avowed object of removing the symptoms (though this may be denied, it is a fact) and depends upon the mistaken idea that the symptoms of the disease are the disease itself; whereas the exercises, baths, etc., are per se, beneficial, physiological, and are devoted altogether to the removal of the cause. They do not directly attack the symptoms--the pain, etc.--that is disregarded, and the treatment devoted to removing the cause, If now, under this treatment, which does not at all aim at removing symptoms, they do, nevertheless, subside and finally disappear altogether, it is obvious that it is because the removal of the cause has, at the same time, and incidentally, removed the symptoms. here has been no attempt at repression, and consequently their disappearance could not have been due to that cause. A true cure has been effected, and the above method of reasoning will always indicate whether such cure has been accomplished or not; it depends upon whether the symptoms have, or not been made the object of treatment.
This fundamental distinction, then, must lie at the root of all our further considerations, viz., the recognition of the fact that, in treating a visible disease (what is known as disease), the physician, in reality, treating only the effects of the underlying hidden cause, and that only in the removal of the cause, is any true cure effected. That must always bear in mind--the fact that all disease is itself a curing process or method of elimination, and, as such, cannot possibly be cured! Thus, a cold is merely a process of expelling, through the nose, impurities that should have been gathered up and eliminated through other more natural, channels. A boil is but the same process in operation in a little different way; a cough is merely the effort of nature to expel solid material from a locality where it has no right to be; a pain is only a symptom, and not a disease at all--merely an indication of such; a fever is simply a natural ppprocess of rapid combustion--the burning up" of this material--unduly retained within the organism; a night sweat is merely another attempt on the part of nature to eliminate the material through the skin, and so on, throughout the list. Every so-called disease can thus be shown to be a friendly, curative effort on the part of the bodily organism, and this idea must be grasped and accepted before we proceed--as it is a point of cardinal importance.
Jim's comment. As I sit here typing this I sneezed twice, and had to blow my nose. However I am not sick and feel fine. When I finish this chapter I am going for my daily jog/walk. The average person would think nothing of it because they are ok. So in a week or a month when they have the full blown cold they would say they were attacked by germs. They would have done nothing, changed no habits because they didn't know what people like Hereward Carrington were teaching. but because I learned this years ago I will make a change in my eating habits. Those of you who know me have heard me say that I am about 80% vegetarian. Well that 20% of junk food is catching up to me. lol Now I will cut back and walk/jog more, but if I get the full blown cold which I do about every 5 years, I know that it is good. That my body with its infinite intelligence is doing me a favor and trying to keep itself healthy. Also my wife just had a short coughing spell. She has been doing this for several years. She only quit smoking about 10 years ago. There is obviously some damage to her lungs, but even so she does not think she is sick. She works 2 or 3 days a week, and lives a normal life.
Vitality, Fasting and Nutrition
According to Hereward Carrington and many Medical Doctors who had the ability to think above the programming and apply experience, logic and common sense.
THE GERM THEORY
On p. 15 I made the definite statement that all diseases are, in reality, but the varying modes, faces, or expressions of the one underlying cause--equally the cause of all disease--it being the effete material unduly retained within the system, and I then promised to consider, at a later period, the objection to this theory which "germs" apparently offer--since there are, undoubtedly many scores of varieties of germs, each variety of which is, it is claimed, capable of producing, and in fact, does actually produce, the specific disease for which its presence; is responsible. Here, at least, we have an undoubted variety and plurality of cause. Again, on p. 5 I asserted that all disease is merely a negative condition, never a positive entity, and the fact that germs are, beyond doubt, entities, and as they do, it is claimed, cause diseases of various characters, my philosophy of disease seems at least open to question upon this point. Apparently, then, diseases are (sometimes, at least) both entities, and due to various causes--instead of being conditions, and due to one primary cause, as it is claimed. If the teachings of modern medical science are not altogether and totally wrong, on this point; if their premises are not false, this certainly is established beyond all reasonable doubt.
As the reader may have already suspected, I shall take the broad stand that the premises are wrong; that the teachings of medical science are erroneous ab initio, in this question of the causation of disease by micro-organisms; and that, consequently, my philosophy of disease-its causation and nature--is not in any way overthrown or disproved, for the very reason that the diseases in question are not, in reality, caused by the microorganisms which are found to be present in every "germ disease" at all, but are due to precisely the same cause as all other diseases whatever; viz., the effete material in the system, that should have been eliminated.
Now, how am I to make good my position? In each of the various germ diseases there is undoubtedly present a particular germ, and that these germs are actually present I do not for one moment deny. That would be merely a denial of an obvious fact. But the point I wish to make is this: that their presence within the system, on such occasions, is not the cause of disease, but merely one of its accompaniments; they are not that which causes the diseased state; they merely happen to be present during such a state; in short, they are not causal, but coincidental.
It need hardly be pointed out that if germs were the causes of diseases, they must always be present in the organism, before the disease they occasion appears; yet such is by no means the case! Dr. R.L. Watkins examined the evidence for this fact, and found that there was no positive proof that the germ (of tuberculosis) ever existed before the disease, and further points out that, although " it is claimed that these germs are carried to the tissues by the blood,... it acknowledged that they have never been found in the blood." Dr. Lionel S. Beale also contended that there was no evidence whatever for the belief that the germ invariably existed first, while there was strong evidence to the contrary.
It is a well known fact that any germs must have, before they can successfully propagate and thrive, a suitable soil or "medium" in which this can take place; and unless such suitable soil or medium is present, germs can never live, nor can they propagate. It would be an utter impossibility. My readers must bear this well-ascertained fact in mind, throughout the following argument.
Now, what constitutes this soil or medium, favorable to their growth and perpetuation? Most certainly it is the presence, in that locality, of their suitable food; for germs --no more than any other living thing (be it sponge, roach, bird, camel, or man! --most assuredly will not and cannot voluntarily establish themselves in a locality in which there is no suitable food. Such would be against all reason, and is, in truth, opposed to the actual facts. They would not enter into such a region; and if they, by any chance, did do so, they would be quite incapable of supporting and sustaining their own lives--much less propagating their species, and continuing to exist under such conditions. Obviously the thing is impossible. And so we very clearly perceive that so so long as their proper and suitable food is lacking, germs are totally unable to establish themselves--to live and propagate their kind--in such a locality.
Now, the great point is this. So long as the body is sound and healthy, this food material is entirely lacking; there is none of it in the system upon which germs can possibly feed--no medium or soil in which the can, by any chance, flourish ; and consequently, their growth and presence within the organism is rendered possible only by ill health, and so long as good health, a normal standard, is maintained, no germs on earth--no, nor in air or water!--can possibly harm the body, for the very reason that, even did they gain access to it, they would instantly be killed, or die from sheer lack of food. We are, beyond doubt, breathing, eating, drinking germs--germs of consumption, of diphtheria, of typhoid, of cholera---all the time; and at the rate, it is said, of some 14,000 per hour! We cannot possibly keep them out of any system; the most healthy body doubtless contains the germs of the above-mentioned diseases--if not this minute, then probably, the next, or the next--for we eat, drink, and breath them constantly. Why, then, do we not all have typhoid, and consumption, and cholera and diphtheria? Simply because there is no suitable soil in our bodies in which they can flourish; no food material upon which they can sustain themselves; and that is the sole and only reason why we do not all have these diseases, and all others supposedly caused by germs. The great principle, the grand truth, is that, so long as the body is kept sound and vigorous, germ diseases of any sort, no less than any others, become impossible; the body is rendered totally immune.
For consider: upon what sort or character of food do these germs live and thrive? Is it upon healthy tissue? Most certainly it is not and cannot be; for if it were, we should all be the victims of one or more germ diseases, and there would be no possible help for us. Health would then be no guarantee of immunity, and hygiene would sink into a meaningless chaos. No! Germs cannot thrive in a healthy body; a certain predisposition must be present in order to render their growth possible. So much is generally admitted. Besides the presence of the germ, the predisposition must also be present, in order to render possible any form of germ disease whatever.
Now, what is this predisposition? The medical profession has, to this question, no answer. It does not know in what it consists, and consequently does not know how it originates, nor how it is to be removed. But surely the answer is simple enough. Impure material, in the body, must be the food of such germs, since we have just seen that healthy tissue is not and cannot be their food. And it is only the presence of this effete, retained, gross material which renders their growth possible--since it is their ood, and without their suitable food, life, for them, would be impossible. The real danger, then, is in harboring within the system, this impure material, upon which such germs feed, and on which they can increase and multiply; and this is, as a matter of fact, the "predisposition" of the medical fraternity; and the degree of the predisposition corresponds to the amount of the material unduly retained. Were this not present, the germs would not be present either--their presence would be impossible. And from this reasoning we arrive at the ultimate view-point that, the true disease is the predisposition, and that the germs are merely attracted by such a condition--their presence being rendered possible by the predisposition--the retained effete material. As Doctor Rosenbach put it:
"What we call predisposition to infection is nothing but the capacity for furnishing a suitable soil; absence of this tendency points to an unfavorable condition of the nutritive soil."
And from this we are led to the following important definition of germ diseases as--not a disease, caused by the presence of a specific germ, but, as that condition of the organism which renders possible the growth, within it, of that particular germ; and the difference between such ideas is, it will be seen, truly immense. Thus; cholera is not caused by the germ to which it is generally attributed, but is, in reality, that condition of which body--and especially of the intestines--which renders possible its life and growth within the body. The "soil" is ready, prepared; the real cause of cholera is present, within the body, before the entrance of the germ renders its presence noticeable by setting up the characteristic disturbances associated with cholera, and taken as its symptoms. The presence of the germ here, as elsewhere, is merely coincidental, not causal. Such is the conclusion, also of Professor Rosenbach.
" It must always be remembered that microbes are scavengers, attacking only impurities in the system. It is therefore manifestly ridiculous to try to free the body of these minute beings, and at the same time to make no effort to cleanse it of their real cause. Such a procedure would betray the greatest shortsightedness, because we now know that any attempt to kill the germ in the living body must have disastrous consequences to the living tissue itself. " Remedies that in a certain concentration are sure to exterminate some varieties of microbes would of necessity, even in comparatively small quantities, destroy the component parts of animal tissue." And indeed, as Doctor Floyd M. Crandall pointed out:
" Increased knowledge regarding bacteria and their action in producing disease renders it more and more probable that but little is to be expected in the actual prevention and cure of the infectious disease from any known chemical compound or antiseptic. They are either poisonous to the body, or are decomposed and rendered inert before they reach the germs at the seat of the disease." As Doctor Walter expressed it:
"The nourishment of the germs is not the patient's blood, but the organic materials in the blood which obstruct circulation and nutrition because they cannot be assimilated by the patient. Give the liver, bowels, kidneys, skin, opportunities to gather out of the system these impurities, and the germs soon starve. I now believe that every supposed advance in medical science along these lines of recent years, is actually a step in the wrong direction and away from the truth! They are journeying further and further from the true goal--the real explanation of the causes and cure of such diseases. And I think this will become clear as we proceed.
It will now be acknowledged, I hope, that germs invariably feed upon the effete material in the body; that is their natural food, and upon that only can they live at all. Beyond all question this is the fact. Now, as the prime object in the cure of all disease is the elimination of offensive material; and since germs do help in its elimination, by actually feeding upon it, it follows that all germs are our actual friends or benefactors in such diseases, helping and aiding us rid the system of the effete material that it contains, and that we do, as a matter of fact, get well largely on account of, and certainly not in spite of, their presence--as it has always been taken for granted, As Doctor Page put it:
"The idea of being eaten alive by myriads of little vermin from which there is supposedly no escape, is enough to strike terror to the mind of a patient; but let him know that his disease is of such a nature that ( with the aid of the germs, perhaps ) a radical change in his manner of living affords great assurance for the hope of its entire eradication, and he has at once an all-sufficient motive for reform."
So now it will be seen why I regard all supposed modern advance in these lines as retrogression, and a step away from the truth. Again, we have a case of putting the cart before the horse. Germs are not our enemies, to be combated, and killed, and poisoned, but our friends and aiders, in the cure of such diseased conditions! They--by feeding on such material---assist the body very greatly in recovering its health, and in completing this elimination of the true cause of the disease. There need be no fear of the germ itself, since, when its food is gone, it will no longer find it possible to live; it will be starved out--just as would any other living thing, under the same circumstances.
it may be asked--if germs really help Nature, as is claimed, instead of retarding her efforts, how is it that disease ever kills--that the patient ever dies? Surely the patient should recover more surely still, were this the case--were the germs assisting Nature's efforts, instead of retarding them. All this is very true, and the patient would recover more quickly were it not for the fact that we are, at the same time, continually adding to the cause of the disease (by constant feeding, etc. and thus negativing the curative efforts of the micro-organisms. Nature's efforts may, in every case, be ultimately overcome, if we persist in abusing the organism for a sufficiently long period of time, and in a sufficiently injurious manner.
The real danger, then, is not in the introduction of such germs into the system (since we could not possibly prevent their entrance under any circumstances), but in having present, in the system, such material as those germs, when introduced, can feed upon. And this material (which is the predisposition) is the same effete material which is equally the cause of all other diseases, so that my philosophy of disease is in nowise disproved, but, on the contrary, confirmed by this modern germ theory of disease, when rightly understood.
Instead of scattering this impure material throughout the body --poisoning it, and leading to disastrous consequences; this material is all gathered up and carried to one spot; is deposited there, and to this localized region the germs are confined, and are busily engaged in feeding upon, and so ridding the system of this foul material. Again we see that germs are our benefactors; and again we see that disease is salutary--a cleansing and purifying process--adapted to the best ultimate welfare of the organism. What we must fear and guard against, then, is not the germs themselves, but that condition of the organism which renders their presence and growth possible.
There are only two objections to this theory of germ diseases which can reasonably be raised, or which demand serious consideration. The first of these is the fact tat germs, when thus present in the tissues, secrete a certain poison, or "toxin" which is detrimental to the organism, and while they might, perhaps, assist in removing diseased conditions, by disposing of their cause (the effete material present) still, such poisons as they secrete would be most detrimental to the organism, and so their god services be far outweighed by their deleterious effects. Such is, I believe, the generally prevailing idea.
I do not by any means share this opinion. For, while I can readily believe that, under existing medical treatment, this toxin might accumulate, and produce disastrous, I am positively convinced from practical observation and demonstration, as well as by reason, that, were such patients treated as they should be (on the hygienic plan) no such effects would be at all noticeable--no such results possible. Treated on the hygienic plan, all such diseases as these (the group of so-called germ diseases) are speedily, effectively, and permanently cured; and without showing any of those "deadly" effects of this toxin, which are so much feared. And simply because the plan of treatment is a rational one--the body being purified and cleaned, and the depurating organs kept constantly active, in their attempts to eradicate such poisonous material as may be in the body--it has been altogether ignored by the medical world of to-day. Yet, if this plan be carefully followed, and a fast undertaken (the significance of which we shall see presently), a little more or less poisonous material thrown into the circulation can scarcely count for any serious harm--especially as, under this regime, the germs are frozen, or starved out almost before they have begun to seriously affect the system, and its stock of poisons. It must be remembered, in this connection, that the body is constantly and spontaneously producing poisons of all kinds, all the time------these being thrown into the circulation. The body has, in fact, been called a "factory of poisons," and it is only because such poisons are being constantly eliminated that we do not poison ourselves and die at once. Let the attention be directed, however, to the ridding of the system of all poison, and to depriving the germs present of their food, and a cure will be rapidly and surely effected in every case.
The second and only remaining serious objection to this theory is that it is, at first sight, hard to reconcile with the facts of infection, and the supposed spread of infectious diseases by their respective germs. It is easy to see how, if the germ be the actual carrier of disease, its entrance into the body (containing the suitable medium for its growth and propagation) would impart to that body the disease carried with it-thus readily accounting for epidemics and kindred outbreaks of so-called infectious disease; and this is, in fact, the theory all but universally held. But if I adhere to my former convictions--that disease is not an entity or thing at all, and consequently cannot be carried from one person to another; and further, that germs are not the true causes of the disease, in any case, but merely its accompaniments-I am at first sight forced into rather a hopeless position, in attempting to account for the undoubted fact of sudden epidemics, since--although there is doubtless much exaggeration present in such cases (Jim's comment. especially in our groups) epidemics undoubtedly do exist. How, then, on my theory of the nontransmission of disease, are these epidemics to be accounted for?
This is truly a most perplexing and baffling problem. It was one that puzzled me for many weeks before I found what I now believe to be its correct solution. I was thoroughly convinced that my general philosophy of disease, as herein outlined, was fundamentally true, and that all contradictory facts were so in appearance only; and were not such in reality. When rightly understood, I was convinced that the facts would turn out to be no disproof of the theory at all, but merely difficulties within the problem. I am now convinced that such is, indeed, the case; and I accordingly offer my theory, which I believe, will be found to solve the difficultly and explain the facts.
Let me first fairly state the case as the scientist believes it to stand. In the case of an epidemic, we have a great number of cases of the same disease present in one locality--the disease having been spread or carried from one individual to another by the specific germ that disease; they are, moreover, its true cause, as well as its medium of transmission, and are invariably present, of course, during such disease.
Now, the fact that they are present does not at all prove that they are its cause, as we have seen it shows, merely, that the germs invariably accompany such disease' they are, in fact, coincidental, not causal. Still, their invariable presence has to be accounted for, undoubtedly, and that I propose to explain as follows.
Specific germs flourish in their own suitable medium, and there only' and when--or where--ever that soil or medium is present, they do, or at least might, flourish. Diseased, effete, material in the organism is that material upon which they fed, and act upon that only. So that, when--and where--ever such diseased material is found, germs will, or might be, present--not necessary by infections from another person, but spontaneously. But since, in cases of epidemics, the number of such germs is increased enormously, and since the probability of their finding an entrance into a human organism is also increased, in proportion to their numbers, it follows that (since they undoubtedly can travel some distance through the air, and yet live) they will find an entrance into many more organisms than they would under normal conditions--simply because of their greater numbers; and, if there were present in such organisms as they invade, the soil or material suitable for their growth, then there would naturally be a greater number of cases of that particular disease than formerly--for the very reason that the entrance of the germs into the body would determine the form of disease necessary, in order to rid the system of such effete material--since it must be gotten rid of, by some means--by some disease (cleansing process ) or we should die.
We must not forget the primary consideration--disease is always a beneficial reparative process, an expulsive effort, a curing process. And the germ merely assists in this effort. That is, the disease is not actually communicated from one organism to another; but takes the same form in two or more organisms, for the reason that the same factor was introduced into each at the same time, and determined, in each case, the method of elimination necessary (the character of the observed disease) in order to effect a cure. just as rain will wet two persons at the same time, or sea-sickness affect two persons at an identical moment--so does disease attack two persons at precisely the same period of time; it is not because the disease has been transmitted from one organism to the other, any more than, in the former cases, the wetness or the sea-seasickness was transmitted; but because the external acting stimulus is identical in each case.
In a word, then, my theory is this; granted a number of more or less diseased individuals, living together in any one locality, whose bodies are more or less encumbered with effete material, for the elimination of which some form of disease is necessary, the introduction, into such a system, of the specific germ which can live upon the particular form of effete material there present, will determine the particular form or mode of disease (the special method of elimination) necessary in order to effect a cure.
Jim's comment. I reject the word attacked. If it is true that disease is built by the accumulation of food that is not eliminated because of impaired organs, because to much food or junk food is consumed, ( and I believe it is true)then what would make more sense to me is this theory. If there are 30,000 people in a city, and 500 of them come down with a cold or some other symptoms called disease, would it not make sense that those 500 people built the waste material up in their body to the point of toleration at the same time ? Since most Americans have one or more symptoms of disease and the same habits of food consumption and lack of or no exercise, is it not reasonable that a small percentage would have the same disease, since there are only a few parts of the body to eliminate this waste. With the skin being the largest--- if a lot of poison is being eliminated, then sores with pus would be eliminated and given a name by the medical profession. Less poison might have just red marks or rashes or spots, and is given another name. And while these 500 are going through the curing process, another unknown number of people are building waste and will have a crises--- and so on---forever. In thinking of the so-called measles epidemic that hit about 600 people a few years ago and was scattered all over the country in a population of 350 million--if it was real --it was extremely rare---and should scare no one as it was extremely rare. My personal belief it was just made up as an excuse to take away the vaccine exemptions, which did happen in California. It would also make sense that in a family of four or five that two or three could have a cold at the same time for the same reason---and where children our concerned, they are very suggestible---so you have parents who believe in the germ theory constantly telling their children they will "catch" a cold if they do or don't do certain things. ( Like washing their hands a 100 times a day---or walking by someone with a cold, or touching a door knob, or some other non-thinking silly thing. Then when mom or dad gets a cold its an implanted belief in the child that he/she will "catch" it too. And why the masses don't consider that they are around people who are sick everyday at school or work or crowded events and they don't "catch" any of them is amazing. Maybe its true--less than one percent of people actually engage in the art of thinking. They just believe--and if that is true, do you really think that those who want to control or make money don't know that?