Inasmuch as we’re having only one lesson specifically on
the subject of disease, I bid you to study hard and absorb it well,
for nearly all your clientele will suffer disease in one form or
In this lesson we will ascertain what disease is, what brings it
about, what purposes it serves, and why it ends at all in view of
the fact that it is supposed to be an occasion when malevolent
microbial entities have gained a destructive foothold in our
bodies. We will explore how a body in descendancy (as it is said to
be in disease) and microbes in ascendancy reverse these
- Disease, as a word, means very simply not at ease—a
person is uncomfortable or suffering difficulties in maintaining
energies for the functions he wishes to discharge and in keeping
operative those faculties he wishes to exercise.
In physiological terminology, disease means deviation from
normal. That means that the body has deviated from regular
functions. In a state of disease the body has rechanneled or
redirected its energies so that it has less than usual energy for
functions normally engaged in.
- There are two distinct types of disease. The first type of
disease serves a purpose and the second type serves none.
Discerning these two types in your clients will be no problem at
all. These two types of disease are as follows:
- The first type is constructive disease, often called acute
- The second type of disease is degenerative. This results from
organic impairment in which organs, tissues, bones, or other
faculties have undergone destruction, distortion, or irreversible
Your service to your clients will largely depend on your ability
to recognize whether a disease is constructive or degenerative. I
repeat: this is not difficult. You will, regardless of these
conditions of disease, still proceed by guiding your client into
healthful practices, healthful practices being the universal
If diseases are remediable and reversible as most of them are,
it is constructive. When disease can no longer be reversed through
body remediable processes, it is degenerative. For instance, an
arthritic’s bony deposits can usually be autolyzed and
restored to near normal. But when ankylosis has occurred due to
destruction of bone and cartilage and subsequent fusing, healthful
practices will restore health except for the ankylosis—it is
rarely reversible. However, many diseases commonly regarded as
degenerative can be corrected by the body, most cases of arthritis
being among them.
Disease affects the whole body, not just a part. Disease serves
an important body purpose. The body initiates remedial diseases to
accomplish a goal. The goal serves the whole body, not just an
organ, area, or part. For instance, we can know we have diseased
kidneys. But, in actuality, the whole body is diseased. The fact
that the symptoms are noticeable only in the kidneys does not mean
that the rest of the body is unaffected—it means that the
kidneys are the focal point for the eliminative effort, the point
at which toxic matters are put out of the body.
Everything that affects any part of the body affects the whole
organism. If we have a bad back, the whole body is affected. We are
concerned about the welfare of our toes, fingers, ears, legs, eyes,
arms—we defend our whole being because our whole body is a
single unit. There are no isolated parts about which we are
unconcerned, either at the conscious or unconscious level of
intelligence. We defend it all at all levels because it is all of
We don’t have a disease here or a disease there.
It’s suffered all over. An inflamed appendix has been
overloaded with toxic materials because the body is overloaded.
Body intelligence puts the overload out through all channels of
elimination, but despite this the load is so great the appendix is
burdened with more than it can handle. This condition is the same
in all remedial diseases where a local organ seems to be the only
The body itself institutes the crisis known as disease. Life
Scientists call this process a “housecleaning” or
healing crisis. Such a procedure by the body is instituted when
bodily integrity is compromised or threatened by an accumulation of
uneliminated toxic materials. The level of vitality and the extent
of the overload determine the type of crisis. Given high vitality
as in an infant, a very low level of toxicity is tolerated. In
infants, colds are frequent. Given low vitality as in most older
people in our society, colds are a rarity. Because so few older
people maintain vital bodies, the toxic overload drags them down
into chronic diseases, degenerative diseases, and unsuspected
pathology that leads to unexpected death or a “sudden
onset” of cancer.
The body must be in a toxic state before it will institute a
crisis. Neither bacteria nor anything else starts and sustains a
crisis. Microorganisms are incapable of unified action; in fact
they cannot exist where there is no food (soil) for them, and
living cells are not soil for bacteria.
Bacteria are helpless against living cells. An
“invasion” by bacteria such as we imagine in contagion
never takes place. The bacteria that proliferate in a crisis are
with us all the time. We harbor uncounted billions of
microorganisms in our intestinal tract, on our skin, in our mouth
and nose and other body cavities. Thus, the body is the ONLY, actor
in the crisis of elimination or cleansing called a disease.
Bacteria and viruses cannot be blamed for disease.
Blaming disease on viruses or bacteria is an easy cop out.
It’s not good business to tell a client that they have caused
their own miseries, so the medical profession has blamed suffering
on everything but the individual’s own failure in the game of
The body creates a crisis in response to a body need to free
itself of toxic matters and repair damages. Consequently, the body
withdraws energy from normal body activities and redirects them to
the healing crisis.
I could tell you that I am suffering a disease at this
moment. I’m not at ease with my larynx as you’ve
noticed in my trying to clear my voice. I ate some cabbage for my
evening meal. It was very sharp as it had some mustard oil in it,
without doubt. Typically any irritant in the throat, esophagus or
windpipe will occasion the flow of mucus which encompasses the
irritant for the purpose of ejecting it from the body. In my case
now, the body has started a mucus flow to clear the passage of what
was regarded as toxic or irritating substance. This is a minor
disease or unease. But it is disease and the body reacted to
maintain its functional integrity.
The body will reject anything that’s irritating. For
example, if dust is put into your nose, the body will secrete mucus
to surround and eject the dust irritant. Or you may sneeze. In both
cases, the body is acting defensively. Thus, all remedial disease
is body-defensive action.
Bacteria do not invade organisms for they’re always within
the organism. Even after we’ve lost our intestinal flora
after fasting, bacteria are still there. Bacteria can in many cases
do what bears and many other animals do—hibernate or become
dormant. Pasteur was not the father of bacteriology as many people
think. Antoine Bechamp was the father of this science. Bechamp was
a scientist in the true sense of the word. He took what he called
microzyma from the chalk cliffs of France. He found that, upon
furnishing water, warmth and other nutrients, the microzyma
proliferated. These microorganisms had been entombed for ten
million years in a state of dormancy. So bacteria have certain
qualities for survival that most are not aware of.
The celebrated Dr. Lewis Thomas who heads the Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Institute said, “pity not the man who has caught
bacteria; pity the bacteria that was caught by the man.” This
is to say that humans furnish a very rough environment for
bacteria. The body keeps them restricted within certain bounds. The
body controls bacteria at all times. The body is master of its
Bacteria do not control the body as medical people have led us
Following are two paragraphs from a “bible” on
Natural Hygiene, Dr. Shelton’s first major work, Human
Life: Its Philosophy and Laws.
“For ages the study of disease has progressed. One by one
the various systems and system complexes that are presented by the
diseased human body have been studied with painstaking care in both
living and dead bodies. The study of pathology has reached a degree
of perfection unknown to most of the collateral sciences that form
what is called the science of medicine. Knowledge of pathology
increased by leaps and bounds after the invention of the
microscope, until today pathology is one of the most important
studies for the medical student. Physiology, anatomy, histology and
biology are all made subservient to pathology.
“The study of disease has fascinated the student for ages.
Health has received scant attention. Strange as it may appear,
health has been considered of so little importance as to be
unworthy of investigation. No schools ever existed for teaching the
conditions of health. Medical schools existed to train the student
in a knowledge of disease and cures. Even today no school exists
that has as its purpose the teaching of the conditions and
requirements of health. The conditions of a healthy life are but
little understood by the various healing professions and still less
so by the general public. Health is not in the professional line of
The medical world is preoccupied with treating disease with
drugs that are currently in fashion. Their seeking out of bacteria
and “viruses” as culprits in disease reminds me of a
little joke we heard back after the Second World War. It goes like
During the Second World War a German civilian worked in a
concentration camp. One evening he pushed a wheelbarrow to the exit
gate for inspection by a guard. The wheelbarrow was loaded with
rags. The guard, very conscientious about his job and the security
of the camp and its assets, methodically went through the rags but
found nothing. So he waved the worker through the gate.
The very next day the worker came through with a wheelbarrow of
newspapers. The guard repeated the previous careful examination.
The following day came a wheelbarrow of leaves. Again the same
The day following this the worker came to the guard pushing a
heavy load of dirt. The guard was not going to be fooled. He made
the worker dump the dirt and spread it out, then laboriously reload
it on the wheelbarrow.
The next workday came another load of newspapers. The guard was
very suspicious that the worker was sneaking something out. So, in
addition to other procedures, he tapped the handles and other
places for concealed material that the worker might be stealing.
But nothing was found.
This went on almost every workday for a year. On occasion the
guard systematically searched the wheelbarrows but never found
anything of value being removed from the camp.
By and by the war was over. A while later the former guard met
the former construction worker on the street.
He went up to the worker and stopped him abruptly with this
“Hans, you have to tell me something. I’m no dummy.
You were stealing something from the camp. I could never find it.
Now that it doesn’t matter, why not let me in on
Hans replied, “Why, dummkopf, you saw it with your own
eyes. I was stealing wheelbarrows.”
Such blindness characterizes the medical profession. The purpose
of disease is so evident that the medics can’t see it. They
are looking for something that doesn’t exist, and they have
no idea, after countless millions of man hours of chasing microbes
and similar deadends, that viruses as living entities do not
So they have gone into the phenomenon of disease elaborately and
have chronicled over twenty thousand different diseases. They name
them after the area that is most affected. Sometimes they have
multiple names because of the number of organs or organ systems or
tissues which art affected.
Actually, there is only one disease, no matter how it manifests
itself. And the disease, which we call constructive disease, is
occasioned by the body itself and is known as a crisis of toxemia
There are several stages of disease. The underlying cause of
disease in all stages is toxemia. Although toxemia may arise from
many sources, it basically exists because of insufficient nerve
energy to sufficiently eliminate exogenous poisons and body wastes.
Toxemia is not broad enough a term to cover the whole poisoning
process for it means poison in the blood. Actually toxicosis
exists. Tissues, cells and interstitial spaces are also
toxic-laden. In short, the whole body is toxic.
Diseases present many different aspects because they evolve with
the progressing deterioration of the organism that suffers them.
Disease has seven distinct stages. These stages correspond to the
distinct differences of each stage of evolution.
The first stage is not even recognized by physicians as a
disease. Life Scientists call it enervation. Most people call it
nervous exhaustion. Enervation is a state in which the body is
either not generating sufficient nerve energy for the tasks the
body must perform, or the tasks the body must perform may be
greater than the normal nerve energy supply can cope with. In any
event, the body becomes impaired, and an impaired body generates
less nerve energy if the conditions of overwork or under-generation
persist. Most people know when they are nervously exhausted.
Enervation can be caused by depletion of nerve energy in any of
hundreds of ways. Sleep regenerates nerve energy. Obviously,
insufficient sleep will not supply us with our needs. It will not
fully recharge our batteries. We need sleep to regenerate nerve
energy for the brain and nervous system.
Nerve energy is a form of electricity measurable in millivolts.
Sleep laboratories have successfully substituted electricity in
place of the body’s own. When this is accomplished it is
called electrosleep. It takes only two hours out of twenty-four to
fully restore nerve energy in this manner.
Demonstrating that nerve energy is electrical is easy. If you
mashed your finger, a message would immediately go to the brain and
back would come a command to remove the finger from that which
applied the pressure. Moreover, the brain would command the entire
balance of the body to cooperate in the extraction of the finger
from the offending pressure. Only electricity is capable of such
speedy transmission. No chemical process or circulatory process is
capable of this dispatch. It occurs only through a network of
nerves with conductive abilities, and electricity is the only form
of energy it can conduct. If you take a weak voltage and hook up to
it while holding someone else’s hand, the other person gets a
shock immediately when you touch the live electrical source. I
don’t think anyone can doubt that we do generate electricity,
and that is the form of energy we use to conduct our physical and
mental activities. Sensations are transformed into electrical
stimuli and forwarded to the brain. The brain interprets these and
sends out commands based upon the interpretation. Thus, if you put
your finger to a hot object, the finger is commanded in a flash to
withdraw from it.
The foregoing is to demonstrate that the body is primarily an
organism that works on the amount of electricity it generates and
which it has in its reserves. If this supply is depleted or
otherwise insufficient to cope with the needs of the body, then
body functions become impaired, including the processes of
elimination of both endogenous metabolic wastes and exogenous
poisons introduced into the body. This impairment begets further
impairment including diminishing the body’s ability to
restore depleted nerve energy. The body starts going downhill. The
next stage of this decline is called toxemia.
When toxic substances from whatever source saturate the blood
and tissues, the lymph system and interstitial fluids, then the
conditions of toxemia and toxicosis exist.
As functioning organisms, we generate a tremendous amount of
toxic by-products. We generate enough carbon dioxide to kill us
within a few minutes. If our lungs failed to function, carbon
dioxide buildup and lack of oxygenation would overwhelm us quite
quickly. We can accommodate only so much carbon dioxide. And this
is but one of many waste products. There are trillions of cells in
the human body. Tens of billions of these expire every day. They
are replaced by new cells. The old cells are broken down by
lysosomes, enzymes that reside in a little organelle within the
cell itself. Upon cell death, these enzymes break the cell down
into many smaller components for elimination. These components are
cell debris. Some of these components such as iron, protein, and
amino acids are recycled by the body. Some 95% of the body’s
iron needs and 70% of its protein needs are met by recycling.
Certain other of the body’s needs are met by recycling as
well. This will give you some idea as to the immense providence and
wisdom of the body in meeting its needs. Other components of the
decomposed cell are the RNA and DNA. These are toxic while in the
system. If they accumulate as they do in most humans in
today’s society, a condition of intoxication (toxemia and
toxicosis) exists. These are what medical people call viruses, and
they mistakenly attribute to this dead debris the powers of life
Tissue and blood saturation with toxic materials can be caused
by both internally generated wastes and pollutants taken in from
the outside which the body has not been able to eject from the
vital domain. Intoxication occurs when we overload the body with
toxic materials from the outside, or we fail to observe our
capacities, and overwork, get insufficient sleep, or are subjected
to great stress, or when any number of other factors deplete the
body of nerve energy or prevent its sufficient regeneration. For
instance, stresses, emotional shocks, or traumatic experiences can
drain our bodies of nerve energy very quickly. It’s just like
shorting out the battery of a car.
At some level of intoxication we begin to experience the next
stage of disease which is called irritation.
Irritation results from toxic materials being sensed by our
nerve network. Most of us pay this stage little mind, and certainly
physicians do not pay it heed. When we feel itchy, queasy, jumpy,
uneasy, or when we have bothersome but not painful areas,
irritation exists. Tickling of the nose is a form of irritation.
Collections of mucus along the mucus membranes irritate, although
irritation is not painful. It is a gentle prod that moves us to
seek comfort, to establish freedom from it. For instance, the urge
to urinate or defecate is a form of irritation due to accumulation
of wastes greater than the body feels comfortable with. However,
the urge is not painful unless it is ignored until it creates too
much pressure in its area. Near painful irritation forces us to
deal with the problem.
When a person drinks too much alcohol we say that he or she is
intoxicated. That’s a good example of exogenous intoxication.
While all alcohol intake is damaging to the organism, the body can
speedily eliminate a small amount before much damage has occurred.
Increase the intake, and the elimination is proportionately less
and the damage proportionately greater. The first drink of alcohol
occasions only irritation which we also call stimulation. But any
toxic material, be it salt, caffeine, or condiments will irritate
or stimulate. This is a condition wherein the body sets in force
its defensive mechanisms and accelerates its internal activities.
This might well be likened to an alarm aboard ship where all hands
are summoned. A frenzy of activity results in a bout with enemy
forces. Unfortunately, this often makes us feel good or hyper or
even euphoric. It is distressing to see a euphoric condition arise
out of a situation that is damaging to the organism.
If the causes of enervation/intoxication/irritation remain in
force and the body can’t cope with it the body initiates a
responsive crisis called inflammation.
This is usually the stage in which physicians recognize
pathology. It is the stage where sufferers are keenly aware of a
problem, for it involves pain. As well, it involves bodily
redirection of vital energies. The intestinal tract is closed down.
Energy that would normally be available for activity there is
pre-empted and redirected to the massive effort to cope with a
severe condition of intoxication. Lest the integrity of the
organism be dealt a mortal blow or crippled, the body musters its
all to the emergency.
In inflammation, the toxicants have usually been concentrated in
an organ or area for a massive expulsive effort. The area becomes
inflamed due to the constant irritation of the toxic materials.
When inflammation exists we are said to have an “itis,”
appendicitis, tonsilitis, hepatitis, or nephritis for example. Note
that the “itises” just cited are all due to
overburdening of four different organs of purification and
The names of “itises” are usually after the organ or
tissue area that is inflamed. Thus if we have a cold we have
rhinitis. If we have inflammation of the sinus cavities we have
sinusitis. If we have inflammation of bronchial tissue we have
either bronchitis or asthma. And so it goes. We have these peculiar
pathologies because in each case the body elected to eliminate the
extraordinary toxic load through the organ affected. For instance,
asthma exists because the body has selected the bronchi as an
outlet for toxic materials. The condition is chronic because the
toxic condition is unceasing. While the sufferer continues to
intoxicate himself or herself, the body continues to eliminate the
overload through the bronchi or alveolar tissue.
Inflammation or fever is a body crisis response to a
life-threatening situation. The body and the body alone creates the
fever. It is an evidence or symptom of increased and intense body
activities directed at cleansing and repair. The extraordinary
energies employed for a fever are at the expense of energies
normally involved in digestion, work or play, thinking and seeing,
etc. Fever is a healing activity. The idea of suppressing it is
equivalent to hitting a drowning man over the head so he’ll
cease his struggles. For instance, if rhinitis or influenza
sufferers are drugged it amounts to hitting the body’s healer
over the head. Thus, the eliminative effort is suppressed, and the
toxicity increases until other organs, usually the lungs, become
saturated—not only with the toxicity but the drugs
administered as well. When body vitality reasserts itself a
condition known as pneumonia is likely to result.
Inflammation is the fourth stage of disease and is the
body’s most intense effort to cleanse and restore itself. The
next stage of disease is destructive and degenerative. It will
result if the causes of general body intoxication are
Ulceration means that a staggering amount of cells and tissue
structures are, being destroyed. Physiological systems are wiped
out due to the body’s inability to live in an unceasing toxic
media. Where tissue is destroyed there remains a void. An example
is a canker sore of the mouth. Lesions or ulcers can occur in other
areas of the body also. These conditions are often intensely
painful, for there are exposed nerves.
While the body may use an ulcer as an outlet for extraordinary
toxic buildup thereby relieving itself, it will heal the ulcer if
causes are discontinued, or if the toxicity level is significantly
lowered. This process of repairing the damage is like patching up
pants with holes in them. This patching up process is called
Induration is a hardening of tissue or the filling in of tissue
vacancy with hard tissue. Scarring is a form of induration. But in
this stage of disease, there is direction and purpose in hardening.
The space is filled, and the toxic materials that threaten bodily
integrity are encapsulated in a sac of hardened tissue. The ulcer
and the toxic materials are sealed off by the hardening of the
tissue around them. This is a way of quarantining the toxic
materials, often called tumor formation. It is this condition that
is diagnosed as cancer nineteen times out of twenty when, in fact,
no cancer exists.
Induration is the last stage during which the body exerts
intelligent control. Should the pathogenic practices which brought
matters to this stage be continued, cells and tissue systems go
wild. They survive as best they can on their own. Cells become
parasitic—living off the nutrients they can obtain from the
lymph fluid but contributing nothing to the body economy. They have
become disorganized. Their genetic encoding has been altered by the
poisons. Thus, they are not capable of intelligent normal organized
action within the context of a vital economy. When cells go wild in
this manner, the condition is called cancer.
The endpoint of the evolution of disease is cancer. It is the
last stage of disease and is usually fatal, especially if the
causes that brought it about are continued. Cessation of causes and
indulgence of healthful practices may arrest it, for they can so
revitalize the body that they may even destroy the cancer cells.
It’s all relative. Cancer cells live in a hostile environment
but still divide and flourish as long as nutrients are available to
them. Cancer cells may be regarded as cells that have become
independent and have reverted to the status of uncontrolled
primitive cells—cells that live entirely on their own as do
These stages of disease are quite distinct in their characters,
yet the lines are more or less arbitrarily drawn. This often
happens in attempts at categorization where one form evolves into
another. The dividing lines have no clear-cut delineation.
People sometimes ask when cancer begins. Hygienists or Life
Scientists say that it begins with the first cold or rash of
childhood. The first crisis a baby endures begins the pathological
chain that leads to cancer. This evolutionary chain begins then
because the phenomenon of life is one constant violation of the
laws of life from beginning to end.
After reviewing the seven stages of disease it should be obvious
that bacteria and so-called viruses do not cause diseases. Viruses
do cause diseases if you call toxic waste materials of decomposed
body cells viruses. Decomposed cell debris is precisely what
virologists and physicians are calling viruses. They regard viruses
as living entitities when, in fact, medics have not in all history
observed any quality of life they ascribe to viruses. What is
called virus is always dead. It’s never been observed to be
alive. It doesn’t have the first prerequisites of life, that
is, metabolic and control mechanisms. Even bacteria have that. I
repeat that what is called viruses are nothing more than components
of decomposed cells.
Some people insist that syphilis is caused by bacteria, more
specifically spirochetes. Though the term spirochetes has given way
to viruses called Herpes these days—that’s
today’s fashion—it was easy to demonstrate that
spirochetes were never responsible in the first place. When you ask
a bacteriologist which comes first, the soil or the bacteria, he
will answer that the soil must exist first for bacteria to thrive,
for bacteria are presented a deadly environment by living cells.
So, bacteria never exist in a proliferating state where there is no
food or soil for their propagation. They multiply when there is
feast, and they die off when there is famine or adverse
environment, hence, bacteria no more create their food supply than
flies cause garbage. The garbage must preexist the flies and, on
the same order, the garbage or soil on which bacteria thrive in our
bodies must preexist their presence and propagation. In other
words, they do not cause the condition—they are there because
of the condition.
When the body has a highly toxic condition such as inflammation,
it will absorb bacteria from the intestinal cavity and transport
them to the point where deadly materials have been concentrated.
The bacteria then symbiotically assist in breaking up these toxic
materials for elimination. Of course, the excreta of bacteria are
Ignorant physicians regard these bacteria not as our symbiotic
partners in the process of combating disease, but as the cause of
the disease. Koch destroyed Pasteur’s original theories by
his four postulates. The first two state that if a disease is
caused by a certain type of bacterium, then that form of bacteria
must always be present when the disease exists. The other says that
the disease must always be occasioned by the presence or
introduction of the bacteria said to be responsible. Although these
cardinal principles are self-evident, so many exceptions existed as
to disprove totally the germ theory of disease-causation. Koch laid
down his postulates in 1892; the medical profession never has given
them credence. To this day the profession clings to the disproven
germ theory except that germs in the form of bacteria are taking a
back seat to an even more elusive entity called a virus.
Bacteria exist in a multitude of strains, forms, and metabolic
capabilities. Bacteria are versatile and in many cases change forms
and lifestyles in keeping with the character of the soil available
to them. Round bacteria can become rod shaped and vice versa.
It used to be said that pneumococcus caused pneumonia. But it
was noted that this type of bacteria was absent in nearly half the
cases. Moreover, administering the bacteria to healthy organisms
never occasioned pneumonia. The plain fact that bacteria are in the
human body as they are everywhere else is not recognized by the
medical profession. Bacteria are symbiotic partners of all
creatures in nature. In order to come to exist in nature in the
first place, humans had to establish a state of symbiosis with all
In the second place, if bacteria invaded organisms and laid them
low as they’re supposed to do—if the body could be laid
low while in a state of health—then the impetus or momentum
the bacteria had built up would become more pronounced and
overwhelming as the organism receded in disease. It would be a
one-way trip the same as vultures picking the bones of a cadaver.
If bacteria and viruses cause disease, once they have overwhelmed
the body and actually debilitated it, how does the much weakened
body regain ascendancy? If you were to inquire into this deeply and
pursue it to its logical conclusions, you’d find that, once a
body has lost the battle while in a state of health, it’s
going to lose the war after being disabled.
At their strongest, bacteria complicate disease because the
byproducts of bacterial fermentation or putrefaction are deadly
poison. In fermentation the by-products are lactic acid, acetic
acid or vinegar, and alcohol. Putrefaction involves nitrogenous
foods or proteins. The by-products of rotting protein are ammonias,
indoles, skatoles, purines, etc. They are toxic within organisms,
although the body can normally eliminate these poisons. In fact,
our feces and urine are loaded with the by-products of protein
decomposition, both from our body decomposition and bacterial
You’ve heard of the ideal of living in a germ-free
environment. That is an impossibility, of course. Trillions of
bacteria are in and on our bodies at all times. If we were free of
these minute organisms, we’d soon die. They perform many
essential services for us which will be discussed in a later
lesson. Suffice it to say that we live symbiotically with
Bacteria are wrongfully blamed for our own indiscretions.
It’s the rare medic who doesn’t find a scapegoat for
his client and remove responsibility for problems from the
shoulders of the sufferer.
Medical logic is not very logical. According to medical
thinking, bacteria or viruses invade our bodies and destroy our
cells. It would seem that our body defenses permit this by their
intimations. It would seem that once these invading entities have a
headstart they would not stop destroying the rest of the cells of
the organism, especially as the first strike has crippled the
organism and lessened its ability to defend itself. By medical
logic, the bacteria are there in greater numbers, for they
proliferate astronomically when they’ve found a feast
situation. How can the body reverse this situation and recover?
The medics believe that they administer drugs that kill off the
bacteria so that the body can have a chance to recover. Also, they
have people believing that medicines are healing agents or that
they assist in healing.
When you start asking deep penetrating questions into the causes
of disease, the medical theories fall of their own weight. They
cannot be sustained in the face of self-evident truths. So we have
to find the rational basis for disease causation.
Disease has a sole unitary cause. It is instituted and conducted
by the body itself. It is the only organized entity capable of
coordinating the various processes of disease. Disease is
occasioned when toxic materials that we have generated within or
taken in from without are uneliminated due to the body’s
inability to cope with them. These debilitate and devitalize the
organism until, at a point where it can no longer tolerate the
growing toxic load at its mean level of vitality, the body
institutes a crisis, redirecting its body energies to the enemy
Let’s go back to pneumonia. Physicians worry that when a
person has a cold or the flu, it will become pneumonia. It occurs
so many times among their patients that they make
“heroic” efforts to prevent this. They administer drugs
galore. Yet, pneumonia occurs so frequently despite the drugging
that doctors feel powerless in the face of pneumonia, one of the
primary causes of death in our society. The question arises: what
causes pneumonia then? Does pneumococcus survive the drug onslaught
and cause pneumonia anyway?
If colds are, as we teach, a cleansing process, how does a body
that is in crisis get yet worse? If the body is eliminating toxic
materials profusely through the respiratory tract as in colds and
flu, then how do the lungs also become contaminated?
All cases of colds and flu recover very quickly if the sufferer
goes to bed in an airy room with lots of natural daylight. Almost
total rest is called for. Total abstention from food but plenty of
pure water is needed. Under these conditions debility ceases in
from one to three days. But, if the sufferer refuses to rest and
continues to eat the same bad food that contributed heavily to the
crisis in the first place, the eliminative effort may be less than
the continued toxic buildup, in which case pneumonia may be a
concomitant. But, if the sufferer goes to a medic and gets drugged
in addition, the body turns its attention to eliminating the drugs.
It may cease the cold or flu altogether in face of the greater
enemy. The continued toxic buildup spreads to the lungs. The drugs
and toxic materials may concentrate so strongly in the lungs as to
cause death or to set the stage for cancer. Many autopsies reveal
people who have had pneumonia or who have smoked or lived in highly
polluted air have tumors, indurated sacs of lung tissue which
encapsulate toxic substances in the lungs. Many cases of long fasts
have been conducted in which pneumonia had been suffered many years
before. The drugs that had been given had been noted to make their
exit from the lungs during the course of the fast as the body
autolyzed the tumors and expelled their contents.
Yet, despite the obvious causes of pneumonia, medical
professionals are still saying that pneumococcus causes pneumonia
when, in fact, more than 25% of pneumonia cases never have
pneumococcus. Now that medics are getting more and more away from
the germ theory of disease causation they’re invoking viruses
as the culprits. This is true only if by viruses we mean
uneliminated metabolic wastes. But when you start probing into what
viruses are and how they cause disease, you might call this the
“evil spirit” theory of disease, for the medics imbue
viruses with all the qualities of malevolent spirits.
Such blindness characterizes the medical profession. The purpose
of disease is so evident that medics can’t see it. Just as
with the guard in the concentration camp, they are looking for
something that doesn’t exist and they overlook that which
they see so plainly all the time.
Medical researchers have chronicled over 20,000 different
diseases. They name almost every variation. They have multiple
names because of the number of organs or tissue systems that
exhibit symptoms. All of this is only one disease. And the disease,
which we call constructive disease, is occasioned by the body
itself and is known as toxemia or toxicosis.
Just as there is one universal cause of disease there is one
universal panacea! In mythology Asclepius had two daughters. Both
were goddesses. One was the goddess of health and she was called
Hygeia. The other daughter was Panacea. She was the goddess of
healing. The name itself, in Greek, means all-healing or universal
While these goddesses are mythological, they do represent valid
concepts. Panacea can be achieved by a return to natural practices.
Fasting is the quickest way to invoke the universal panacea. Just
as the universal disease is a toxic-laden body, the universal
panacea is establishing the most ideal conditions under which the
body can cleanse itself of the toxicity and repair the damages
suffered. Fasting is the answer. It works in all cases of
constructive disease, that is, disease where organic damage of an
irremediable nature has not occurred.
Some great luminaries have long since rediscovered the Grecian
panacea. Dr. Jennings first employed it until Dr. John Tilden
elaborated on it in his scholarly book, Toxemia Explained. Dr.
Hereward Carrington wrote a few very illuminating volumes about
Natural Hygiene. But Dr. Shelton probed deeper and farther afield
than did all those before him. He built upon the shoulders of all
who went before him and added a touch of his own genius. In our
text section some observations of Dr. Carrington are presented.
Here is a quote from Dr. Herbert M. Shelton about the nature of
“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. What is
this mysterious thing called disease? It is simply an effort to
remove obstructing material which we call toxic materials from the
organic domain and to repair damages. Disease is a process of
purification and repair. It is remedial action. It. is a power
struggle to overcome obstruction and to keep the channels of
Actually disease is really more than this if we view it in all
aspects. Dr. Carrington has simplified Dr. Shelton’s
presentation somewhat. He says the following:
“Disease is an attempt of the body to free its cells
and circulatory system of clogging and toxic materials. It is a
desperate body rallying its remaining resources to the task of
purgation and restoration.”
We have many illustrious forebears in the elaboration and
creation of what we call Natural Hygiene or Life Science. Most
notable among our forebears have been some truly great women. While
women were spurned in the medical profession, the Hygienic movement
was truly an enlightened and unfettered one. It welcomed women with
open arms and, if we leave the renegade M.D.’s aside, their
numbers almost equal those of male Hygienic professionals.
How many of you have heard of Louisa May Alcott? Yes, all of you
have. But how many of you know that she was a Hygienist? That her
father was a Hygienist? That her brother William Alcott was a
professional Hygienist and was also a brilliant writer?
I’m sure you’ve all heard of Florence Nightingale,
who gave new dignity and direction to the profession of nursing.
She was a Hygienist.
How many of you have heard of Ellen White? She was a Hygienist
who founded the religion we know today as the Seventh Day
There are many unsung heroines among women who were Hygienic
professionals. Mary Gove, Susan Nichols, Linda Burfield Hazzard and
others were a credit to both the profession of Hygiene and to
Perhaps the most famous Hygienist of the fair sex was Florence
Nightingale. Her daring on the battle fields of eastern Europe
still draws our admiration for the courage of her convictions. The
British were fighting the Russians and more soldiers were dying
behind the battle lines than on them. The physicians and their
treatments were killing off the wounded and ailing faster than the
When Florence Nightingale arrived on the battle scene she really
took charge despite the physicians. What she did was a very simple
thing: she went to the rooms of the wounded and ailing and opened
the windows for fresh air. She would not permit drugs. She gave the
patients water which was against medical policy at the time. She
rejected heavy feeding and, in fact, for many, any feeding at all.
Being confined to a battlefield hospital had been a death sentence
before. Now almost all the wounded and sick became well speedily.
It’s all history and Florence Nightingale became famous
because of her tremendous success employing the mere rudiments of
Hygienic methods. This is all the more phenomenal when you consider
that Ms. Nightingale lived in a medical age and in a man’s
world. She defied the medics and won. She was truly a pioneer
Hygienist. The world, despite its poverty on the health scene, is
still richer for her having been amongst our forebears.
In order to understand disease, we must understand health.
Health is the enjoyment of full faculties and functioning power.
Disease is not the opposite of health but an expression of healthy
vitality while under the burden of toxicosis. Disease is a
body-instituted and conducted crisis for the purpose of purifying
and repairing itself.
Disease is caused by indulging in practices or being subjected
to materials and influences not normal to the human organism: that
to which we are not adapted will cause disease.
It is a misconception that we have to fight disease. It will not
occur unless it is caused. A huge catalog of materials and
influences which are abnormal to the body could be given, but
it’s not that complicated. We need only to maintain the
simple needs of life which build and sustain health. We should
consume only pure water as thirst demands and wholesome raw ripe
fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds as genuine hunger dictates. We
are frugivores, and it is to a diet of fruits as nature delivers
them that we are biologically adapted.
Further, we are adapted to pure air, sunshine, rest and sleep,
pleasant environment, emotionally balanced companions - in short we
are adapted to a harmonious world. We are so constituted that
health results when all our physical, mental, emotional,
intellectual, and aesthetic needs are met. Thus diseases other than
degenerative ones may be said to be body crises for the purpose of
The cause, purpose, and nature of disease have now been
delineated. Certain questions will be explained below.
STUDENT: Is it true that diseases are not contagious in any
INSTRUCTOR: That is correct. Diseases are not contagious in any
sense simply because they are body instituted. We cannot transfer
our toxic load to someone else. That should be self-evident. A
Hygienist can go into a sickroom and not suffer a bit for it.
Obviously most physicians and nurses and other people go to the
sickrooms, even those housing the most so-called contagious
diseases. They never contract the disease or suffer even though on
occasion medics claim they do. You cannot transfer your toxic
materials to another person unless you have it drawn out of you and
injected into the person. The medics do, indeed, do that in
transfusions. But the contagion here is medically induced rather
than occurring within the realm of natural possibilities.
It is said that colds, flu, leprosy, and a number of other
things are contagious. As we learn more, diseases become less and
less contagious. Asthma, cancer, psoriasis, meningitis,
poliomyelitis and a long list of other diseases have come off the
contagious list. Measles, chicken pox, and other affections are
still on the list of diseases said to be contagious. The only thing
contagious about these diseases is medical ignorance. That is the
most contagious of all.
The reason that there seems to be “epidemics” is
that the true contagion is an epidemic of similar bad habits. We
all eat pretty much the same junk, are subjected to the same
seasons, the same type of housing and, in many other ways, indulge
the same health-sapping practices. It’s no wonder that many
of us suffer the same diseases. Like causes beget like effects. Of
course this is modified in the human situation by the diathesis of
Thus we see that, within the context of a given family or group,
people have more or less the same bad habits and suffer the same
This business about incubation periods of germs and viruses is
strictly medical mythology. We’ll get into the depths of that
and study it methodically in later lessons.
To what are plagues and epidemics attributed? Today’s
epidemics are for the most part invented and publicized in America
by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a
federal service that does yeoman service for the medical
profession. When the drug companies want to sell lots of flu
vaccine, measles vaccine, etc. they get CDC to release the scare
propaganda that stampedes the public into the physicians’
offices for shots. To entertain the thought that vaccines injected
into people makes them immune is an absurdity not worthy of serious
consideration—it is a species of voodooism.
Epidemics today result, I reassure you, from mass indulgence of
the same bad habits and subjection to the same pathogenic living
conditions. It’s no accident that almost 90% of the
affections labeled generally as colds and influenza occur within a
seven-month period of the year.
The reason epidemics occur in winter and not in summer should be
obvious. If anything, microbial life is more active in summer just
as we are and their functions are depressed in winter. But lo and
behold, microbial forms of life are said to be more active and to
cause epidemics. That’s nonsense of course. In the winter we
eat less wholesome food—we eat more junk. We do not exercise
as much. We stay indoors and breathe foul air. In the summer we get
more sunshine, more exercise, more fresh air, fresh ripe
fruits—in short we live more healthfully in summer and less
healthfully in winter. Conditions cause us to so live as to
generate our diseases. General conditions cause general ill health.
It is not contagion of germs but contagion of pathogenic conditions
that create what are termed plagues or epidemics.
Hygienists or Life Scientists deplore the medical practice of
feeding the ailing and drugging them too. When ill, the continuance
of feeding alone is enough to thwart the healing forces within. But
the addition of drugs so destroys vital powers that the body must
often redirect its purification efforts to freeing itself from the
more virulent poisons administered. Thus it is seen that medical
professionals are death-dealing rather than being
Yes, drugs kill bacteria. But they’re just as deadly to
all forms of metabolic life. That which deranges and destroys the
metabolic functions of bacteria usually does likewise to the cells
of all forms of life. Even physicians will tell you that drugs have
no effect on viruses. Of course they don’t have any effect on
what they call viruses because that is dead cell debris that
can’t be made any deader.
In conclusion I assure you that disease is not something to
fear. That’s like being scared of your own body. If you fear
anything fear your disposition to indulge in unwholesome foods and
unwholesome living conditions.
Are indigestion and acidosis diseases or just passing
These are diseases even though usually of short duration.
Anything that puts us at unease is disease. While there is no such
thing as acidosis because we’d die long before our body
fluids reached the acid stage, there is such a thing as
hypo-alkalinity. A reduction in alkalinity from a pH of 7.40 to as
little as 7.35 is enough to bring on coma and another five to ten
points lower may cause death.
Indigestion and what is called acidosis are usually caused by
eating foods in incompatible digestive combinations and in eating a
predominantly acid-forming diet. These are the primary causes of
You said that diseases are not contagious. If so how do
you explain away venereal disease? That’s proven to be
I’ve responded to this in a way before but I’ll go
over these grounds again. Conventional thinking has it that
gonococcus and spirochetes are transferred from one person to
another during the sexual act. The “infected” person
will then develop either gonorrhea or syphilis. Even the medical
profession is deserting this long held belief today in favor of the
herpes virus as causing what is called venereal disease.
First, syphilis is a figment of the medical imagination. Most of
what is described as syphilis in the books of yesteryear were
effects of mercury and sulfa drugs which the profession
administered so liberally. What is described as gonorrhea is no
more serious than the canker sores of the mouth. Both are
eliminative steps by the body. The ulceration and suppuration
represent the fifth stage of the evolution of disease. The
so-called contagious factors, bacteria, are there because of the
disease, not the cause of it. In fact something like 20% of those
who suffer venereal diseases have neither gonococcus nor
spirochetes. Saying that a pimple, ulcer or pustule in the sexual
area is caused by either bacteria or viruses is like saying boils
are caused by the same when it is generally agreed that boils are a
result of filth in the body. Both are the same processes but occur
in different areas of the body. Besides it must be recognized that
the autolysis of tissue and the creation of inflammations and boils
are body actions, not bacterial or viral actions.
It is not true that venereal diseases are contagious. The U.S.
Navy conducted experiments wherein it was shown that so-called
infected persons could not infect healthy persons. When I was with
a vice squad in Japan we had cases of so-called infected
prostitutes who had been with dozens of GI’s, none of whom
contracted the disease. On the other hand there are many who have
infections in the sexual area who have not been in contact with
anyone, especially in small children who do sometimes have
infections in the sexual area.
The concept of contagion is unproven despite appearances. It is
a medical scareword that stampedes customers into the offices of
medical practitioners. It’s much like insurance companies who
like to see fires and pay off for that makes it all the easier to
It seems rather impudent of you to say millions of
scientists, doctors, researchers and teachers of medical science
are all wrong. Isn’t it just possible that you’re wrong
about disease being body action instead of bacterial or viral
action? Isn’t it just possible that the medical people
who’ve been around so long are really right?
Old myths die hard, don’t they? The older and more revered
the myth, the harder it is to dispel. Your question would have done
well nearly five hundred years ago when Copernicus presented his
heliocentric theory of the solar system. It’s just difficult
to believe that everyone can be wrong. But I insist that the whole
profession operates on a wrong premise. The fact that fasting will
enable an organism to heal quickly in injury or illness and
drugging will defer or prevent healing altogether is some
indication of the error of the medical school of thought. The very
word medicine is a misnomer. The word means healing agent or
substance. There is not such an agent or substance. Healing is
always the sole prerogative of the affected organism. There’s
not enough intelligence and know how in the collective knowledge of
the world to effect the knitting of a bone within an organism.
Healing is, I repeat, entirely a body process.
The impudence lies not with me but with those who deny the
obvious and plainly evident truth. Age does not make beliefs true,
and truth never changes with age. The belief that the world was
flat was accepted by millions over nearly two thousand years but
that did not flatten the world. Likewise if the masses of our
people do not accept obvious truths, truths that account for
everything in health and disease and are demonstrable when put to
the test, then it is those who deny the obvious that are impudent.
Should I repeat an old refrain: “I’d rather be right
with a persecuted few than wrong with many.”
I know about the swine flu hoax but is the measles
vaccination really a hoax too? If children are exposed to the
measles they get it; but if they have been vaccinated they
don’t get it, right?
It’s general knowledge that the swine flu vaccination was
a hoax. It is only a question of time before people will learn of
the tetanus hoax, the rabies hoax, the whooping cough hoax, the
measles hoax and other medical hoaxes.
If children are exposed to others who have the measles they
don’t “catch” it. It is not something that is
contagious. What is “contagious” are the food habits,
that cause it (any unhealthful living habits, wrong food
combinations, stress, etc.). But children usually do not have
measles if their system is too drugged and devitalized. And
that’s what happens when they’re vaccinated. They
cannot conduct the simple eliminative crisis called measles. If
they cannot have measles they’ll sooner or later have
something worse—like cancer! Measles is a body instituted and
conducted crisis to get rid of toxic accumulations. Vaccinal
interference destroys the vitality necessary to have measles.
Measles is helpful, not hurtful. The body creates the measles
and keeps the process in force until body cleansing has been
completed. Contrary to medical myth, the body will not harm itself
by conducting this or any other crisis. This is more than can be
said for the vaccines, which are poisonous in themselves.
The harm said to be derived from measles is actually from the
“heroic” drugging and treatment administered by the
medical profession. Measles and other acute diseases are helpful
body functions; the body is grappling with an overload of toxic
materials. Vaccinations and drugging add to these toxic materials.
They are never a “preventive” or an antidote. They can
make matters worse but they have no intelligence or ability to help
under any circumstances.
If vaccinations don’t give us immunity, how about
the antibodies vaccinated organisms produce? Don’t antibodies
really defend against a virus as in the case of
This reminds me of a joke that goes like this: An Air Force
Colonel who commanded a fighter wing was inspecting his pilots one
Saturday morning. He stopped by a Captain and Lieutenant who
piloted and co-piloted a plane. He asked the Captain: “What
would you do, Captain, if your plane caught on fire and you
couldn’t open the overhead canopy?” The Captain repled:
“Sir, I’d eject through the canopy.” The Colonel
rejoined with “You idiot, you’d be squashed to death in
the process.” Then he turned to the Lieutenant and asked him
what he’d do. The Lieutenant meekly said, “Sir,
I’d go through the hole the Captain made.”
Of such substance is this question. The truth is that the body
does not create new defensive faculties in responses to a poison.
Rather it has its defensive faculties destroyed. Putting a question
that way is like saying that the body creates antibodies to defend
against tar and nicotine in cigarette smoking because the body can
tolerate ever greater quantities without the same ill effects as
with the first cigarette of life. The body can’t tolerate
smoke any better after a thousand smokes than after one. The body
no longer defends against the pathogenic poisons of cigarette smoke
simply because its defenses have been destroyed, not built up.
Medical researchers will tell you that “antibodies”
are merely presumed and not something actually demonstrable in the
laboratory as a new body faculty. They are presumed because, when
vaccines are administered, most recipients no longer get the
disease. This is because the body’s defensive faculties are
destroyed, not enhanced. The body’s ability to conduct the
simple cleansing crisis known as measles is so debilitated by the
vaccinal poison that it retains what would normally be expelled.
It’s no accident that cancer is now the number one killer of
our children. When simple cleansing cannot occur, the body all the
more quickly evolves to the next and succeeding stages of
Antibodies are, I repeat, a medical myth, a figment of the
Well, you’ve just admitted that vaccines lower the
incidence of measles. Isn’t that a good thing since measles
can cause brain damage?
How can I get this across that measles are not a bane but a
boon. If the body is filthy inside, a cleansing is a good thing.
Measles are a cleansing process. The body conducts the crisis
called measles and it is doing so to help itself, not hurt itself.
The body never injures itself except where injury is necessary as
the lesser of two evils. Brain damage does not occur from a
cleansing crisis. Rather, it is the drugs that are administered in
such a crisis that are responsible for the damage. Physicians
damage many people with their drugs and conveniently place all
blame on the body’s noble reparative efforts rather than take
How can you prove that a sickness is caused by toxicity
rather than germs? Do you base your statement on laboratory proof
or on empirical observations?
Were germs the cause of disease there would be no remission. If
they had the power to successfully attack living tissue and
proliferate enough to lay a person low as is commonly supposed,
then the results would be like the effects of rotten apples amidst
good ones—they’d all soon be bad. Humans simply would
not survive the ordeal and there would be no human race.
Should we fast people who were laid low with a germ-caused
disease the fasting would not kill off the germs. Just as a rotten
apple can spoil the good ones so, too, the germ proliferation would
continue whether we are eating or fasting. Actually people who fast
recover health rapidly whereas, if they continue to eat and take
drugs, they recover slowly if at all.
Actually there have been fasts conducted under laboratory
conditions in many hospitals and university medical centers with
controls. It has been proven beyond doubt that the body cleanses
itself under the condition of fasting and heals two or three times
speedier when fasting than in alimentation and/or drug therapy.
Medical experimentation with fasting has been conducted at the
University of Illinois in Chicago and the University of
Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. You won’t have to delve much
into the literature on fasting to come up with the results
observed. All medical research has proven the truth of the toxemia
causation of disease regardless of the misinterpretations of the
researchers. Researchers usually interpret their data to suit those
who are paying for the experimentation, usually drug companies or
drug beneficiaries. If the experiments are too contrary to the ends
sought they are usually buried quietly. Both laboratory evidence
and empirical observations substantiate that disease is a body
reaction to intoxication rather than germs.
How can we convince our clientele that they’re
responsible for their diseases and that it is not just a bit of bad
luck that has befallen them?
Fortunately, you don’t have to lay the load of
responsibility on your clients’ shoulders. Your clients will
at first be “cure-minded” and want a way out of the
dilemma. You can point out the positive way back to health without
getting into culpability. You can have them fill out an extensive
questionaire which we’ve developed and the answers to which
are advance weighted so that you can suggest changes in the
customer’s living regime. You can make the process one of
adventure and exploration by holding forth the benefits to be
obtained by doing this and this and not doing that and that
Dr. Jennings had people fasting under a deception. He gave them
bread and sugar pills, what we’d call placebos, and
instructed the taking of water with them four or five times daily.
With that he advised bed rest, fresh air, etc. He cautioned against
taking anything with the pills other than water, otherwise they
would not work. The results his clients realized were nothing short
of miraculous. His patients were recovering 100% while his medical
colleagues who were into heroic drugging lost patients in epidemic
You can impute health magic to certain foods or limited diets,
even a distilled water diet. But you can assure a healthful outcome
only within certain parameters. Hence the client will likely go
along with you in the matter of his welfare just as he or she goes
along with every charlatan in the medical or other fields of the
so-called healing arts.
I reiterate that you can make a game of this, i.e., make it an
interesting adventure rather than an onerous chore. The education
and whyfore can follow the results. People are interested in
results and you are there to show them how. People believe in the
magic of nutrition and we’re going to teach it to you as it
really is. We’ll teach it to you so that you can guide your
clients back to health most speedily, not only in matters of diet
but diet within the context of a thoroughgoing health regimen. You
can always give instructions that are completely appropriate and
straightforward that will enable the client to quickly regain
health. Yet you can do it in such a manner as to make it exciting
enterprise. You’ll cultivate this confident manner of knowing
just what is called for by sympathetic and empathic consideration
of your client’s problems as related to you through
questionaire and verbal complaint.
I find no fault with the toxemia explanation of disease
but it seems too utterly simple to be for real. Do you think our
clients will go for this?
I must repeat that your clients aren’t interested in
theories or explanations. They’re looking for results, a
magic carpet from a state of disease to a state of health. Just
wave the magic wand of nutritional salvation before them within the
context of a thoroughgoing health regime and they’ll usually
follow it religiously. Your expertise will awe them and once word
of mouth has gotten around about the miraculous results your
guidance makes possible, clients will flock to you.
We live in a day of sensational discoveries and “miracle
medicines.” Remarkable new cures and near-panaceas are
frequently announced. Snake venom, artificial fever, frozen sleep,
the sulfonamides, penicillin, streptothricin, blood plasma,
powerful X-rays and ever more comes before us almost
daily—these compete with sports, movies, politics, crime and
other publicity for free newspaper space. So much is claimed for
this parade of “miracle cures” and so many new
discoveries are made relatively that the public is kept constantly
keyed up with open-mouthed and wild-eyed expectancy. Perfect health
via the medical promises seems always just around the corner.
At long last, “science” is staging a powerful and
winning Blitz-Krieg against our ancient and most implacable
foe—disease. With remarkable and sensational
discoveries crowding so closely one upon the heels of another, the
time is surely not far distant when universal health will prevail
and disease will have disappeared from the human scene.
Not only is ours an age of remarkable “cures,” it is
also a time of equally remarkable preventatives. We now have so
much “successful” vaccines and serums that there is no
longer any need for anyone ever to suffer from many of the
“diseases” that were previously so common. New serums
are frequently discovered. We may look forward hopefully to the
time when all “disease” will be conquered.
Surgery, too, has made rapid strides. It has grown much more
daring. Today it invades physiological precepts which only a few
years ago it would not have touched. With the newer advances in
surgery added to the new “cures” and the new serums and
vaccines, we have an almost ideal combination for the
“conquest of disease.” What these three groups of
anti-disease weapons lack in power and effectiveness is completely
compensated for by the many glandular products (hormones), and by
vitamin and mineral combinations that are claimed to do so much for
the sick. Surely, there is no reason to doubt that the Golden
Age has arrived.
The intelligent and informed reader, however, will notice one
very important defect in all these methods of “cure”
and “prevention.” He or she will quickly detect a
deficiency for which no amount of shouting can compensate. It is
None of these methods of “cure” or
“prevention” are designed to affect or even touch the
basic causes of disease.
Drugs may suspend vital activity such that symptoms disappear
but they do not remove cause. They may kill germs but they also
kill off patients. They do not clear up the systemic condition that
permits bacteria to thrive and grow in parts of the body where they
are not normal. “Frozen sleep” may temporarily check
the growth of a tumor or cancer, but it does not and cannot remove
the causes of cancer. Powerful X-rays may destroy a cancerous
growth but they also destroy healthy tissue and cause further
cancer while leaving intact the causes of disease. It cannot be
emphasized too much that:
If a modality does not remove causes, it does not
Serums and vaccines are admittedly capable of doing much harm,
but they do not remove the causes of disease. Therefore, they do
not enable us to “avoid” diseases, even those for which
they are administered. We need to know that:
If they do not enable us to avoid the causes of disease,
they cannot prevent disease.
Surgeons may pull a tooth, extract the tonsils, cut out the
gall-bladder, excise the appendix, sever and remove the ovaries and
seminal vesicles, drain the sinuses, etc. but they do not thereby
remove the causes of disease. Mopping up the water from a leaky
faucet does not remove the causes of the leak. Removing effects of
cause likewise does not remove the cause. It is time for us to
understand the following:
If surgery does not remove the causes of disease, it cannot
“cure” the disease. There is no “cure”
short of removal of causes.
Cutting out an organ, suppressing a symptom with a drug
(medicine), destroying a growth, removing a stone—these
processes touch effects only. They fail to restore health for three
very vital reasons:
- They do not remove the causes of ill health.
- They are not the factors out of which good health is
- They produce positive injury to the body.
We must look to constructive natural agencies, forces, and
methods for “prevention” of disease and recovery of
health. We must cease relying on destructive, unnatural or
anti-natural measures, forces, agents and processes. Agents such as
drugs that produce disease in the well cannot possibly produce
health in the sick. Disease-producing agents and measures are not
health-preserving. The popular methods of “prevention”
and “cure” neither prevent nor restore health. Witness
the ever-growing army of sick and suffering in spite of the
ever-increasing size of our army of physicians, nurses and
hospitals, and the ever-growing list of “cures” and
To be healthy, do not indulge the causes of disease.
Only madness can lead us to attempt to be free of disease by
submitting to means which cause yet more disease.
To “cure” disease, remove the causes of
disease. It is the worst kind of folly to attempt to cure
disease by ignoring its causes and employing modalities which are
in themselves causes of disease.
To build health, employ the causes of health. It is
absurd to attempt to build health by employing means and measures
that are known to impair and wreck health.
For over forty years this writer has helped the sick and
suffering back to health and has taught them how to remain well. I
have employed a system called NATURAL HYGIENE. For over forty years
my health school has been host to over 40,000 people. Dr.
Shelton’s Health School has been employing the
health-building system of NATURAL HYGIENE with only successful
results. At the Health School we have received a great
preponderance of people who have suffered for years and “have
tried everything” without avail. Our success in building good
health in the great majority of these sufferers has been
At the Health School we have no “cure” at all. We
recognize that only nature (normal forces and processes of life)
restores health. We accord to nature the conditions and the
opportunity to restore health. We recognize that in nature and
nature only exists the power of healing. The forces and powers of
nature constitute the true panacea. Ours is a plan of living and a
program of education that restores our guests to harmonious living
with nature. If this plan of care seems too simple, too easy or not
heroic enough, just think this over:
If this plan were ineffectual we would not have succeeded
where all others had failed.
I implore you to intelligently consider the preceding
statements. Lay aside your previous conditioning and
prepossessions. Do some real honest-to-goodness thinking. Then,
when you thoroughly understand NATURAL HYGIENE, give it a fair and
honest test. Heed the ancient admonition: “Prove (test) all
things, hold fast that which is good (true).”
An old adage has it that “the proof of the pudding is in
the eating thereof.” The proof of the truth of the principles
presented in NATURAL HYGIENE and of the value of the practices
built thereon is in making use of it. “The wise will
Primitive peoples, as we know, believe disease represents the
entry into the patient’s body of some evil spirit or
entity—which was caused to enter it by some malevolent voodoo
man or witch doctor. The unfortunate victim remains so afflicted
until he rights a wrong, appeases the witch doctor, or secures the
services of another whose “magic” is more powerful than
that of the original spell-caster. When once this “evil
spirit” has been removed, he is well and strong again; if he
fails in this, he dies!
Strange as it may seem, a modified form of this same belief
underlies public thinking and constitutes a basic belief of many
physicians. True, we no longer believe that an “evil
spirit” has entered into the body of a sick person, but it
survives in the form of thinking that disease is an
“entity” of some sort which is caught and which can be
driven out or expelled by suitable medicines— something in a
bottle! When this entity has been expelled, the patient is
“cured.” Such is the popular conception...
As opposed to this, the Hygienist believes that so-called
“diseases” represent merely the bodily states or
conditions, nearly always self-caused which are manifested in a
series of symptoms, but which are in themselves the very processes
of “cure.” As Dr. Emmet Densmore stated, in his book
How Nature Cures:
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... What is this
mysterious thing called disease? Simply an effort 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 circulation free...
Precisely the same idea was expressed by Miss Florence
Nightingale, in her Notes on Nursing, when she said:
Shall we begin by taking it as a general principle that all
disease, at some period or other of its course, is more or less a
reparative process, not necessarily accompanied by suffering; an
effort of nature to remedy a process of poisoning or decay, which
has taken place weeks, months, sometimes years beforehand,
unnoticed—the termination of the disease being then
So-called disease is, therefore, in the vast majority of cases,
merely a curative effort on the part of Nature; it is
the process of cure itself—manifested in a set of
symptoms. Attempting to “cure” a disease, in the
ordinary sense of the word, leads us to a ridiculous paradox: viz.,
an attempt to “cure” a “curing” process!
The disease IS the “cure.” The outward manifestations,
the symptoms we notice, represent merely the outward and visible
signs of this curative process in action. Any attempt to deal with
or smother these symptoms merely retards the process of cure to
that extent. Instead of treating symptoms, we should aim at the
disease itself—or rather at the causes of the so-called
disease. These are really the dangerous factors involved, and those
which have brought about the abnormal conditions noted. Once we
have removed these causes, the disease (so-called) disappears, and
the symptoms vanish. The patient is then restored to health.
Viewed in this light, everything becomes simple! Toxins and
waste material of all kinds accumulate in the body, over a period
of weeks, months or years—finally reaching the point when
they must be expelled or deterioration sets in. This violent
expulsive effort on the part of nature produces a series of
characteristic symptoms. The body attempts in every way possible to
expel these poisonous substances— through the bowels, the
kidneys, the skin, the lungs, etc.—with the result that these
organs are overtaxed and break down under the load. Clogging and
toxemia then set in more seriously than ever, and the patient is
really ill. Obviously, the only way to relieve this condition is to
stop adding to the waste material the body must eliminate, and
assist it in every way possible to dispose of what is already
there. Once the body is given a chance to “catch up,”
so to say, and cleanse itself to some extent, the violence of the
internal upheaval will subside, and as this becomes more normal,
the external symptoms will lessen and the patient is then said to
be “convalescent.” If this process continues, he
ultimately becomes “cured.”
I have used all these terms in a loose sense, because hygienists
believe that the so-called “disease” is itself the
process of “cure”—as we have seen. What we really
mean is that certain causes have been removed, and as they are
removed the effects disappear... What are these causes, and how are
The human body is creating certain poisons within itself by the
very process of living. If these poisons were not constantly being
excreted we should die. Normally, they are disposed of through the
various eliminating organs—the bowels, kidneys, skin, etc. If
this balance is maintained, the person remains well. If, however,
the poisons accumulate more rapidly than they can be disposed of,
abnormal conditions develop. These conditions are the so-called
Now, it should be obvious that the speediest way to regain
health, when this condition develops, is to stimulate the
eliminating organs, and at the same time introduce no new poisons
into the system. The former is accomplished by means of exercise,
bathing, water-drinking, etc. But it is highly important to prevent
the entrance into the body of material which might further clog and
block it. The material is our food, and obviously so; for, aside
from air and water, this is the only material we ever introduce
into our bodies, under normal conditions.
The necessity of fasting in times of stress thus becomes
evident. Food supplies us with essential nutriment, it is true; but
if the body is in no condition properly to utilize this food, it
merely decomposes, creates poisons and is pushed through the body
without really benefiting it. The thing to do, therefore, is to
withhold food, so long as this abnormal state lasts, thereby giving
the eliminating organs a chance to dispose of the surplus material
already on hand, and at the same time rest the internal organs,
permitting them to accumulate a certain store of vital energy,
which would otherwise be expended in the handling and disposal of
this extra mass of food-material. The system thus becomes cleansed
and purified. It is the simplest and most effective means known to
us—and is the course prescribed by nature when she deprives
us, at such times, of our normal appetite.
Practically all diseases thus have a common basis and a common
origin. There is a unity and oneness of disease, based on a common
denominator. This, in a word, is toxemia. The differing diseases,
so-called, are but the various means by which nature tries to expel
this poisonous material; and the symptoms noted are the outward and
visible signs of such curative action. Naturally developed inherent
healing powers alone “cure”—whether it be a cut
finger, a broken bone or a so-called “disease.” All
that the physician can do is to assist Nature in this remedial
effort. Anything which tends to reduce symptoms merely prolongs the
effort to that extent. Give Nature a chance, and she will heal in
every case. A “cure” will invariably
follow—whenever such “cure” is at all
Most drugs so destroy vitality that body efforts as evidenced by
symptoms are stopped. Pain is a warning signal—calling
attention to a certain local area which is in dire distress. But
this condition is merely a localized manifestation of a general
condition. As Dr. Samuel Dickson remarked: “Properly
speaking, there never was a purely local disease.” Rectify
the general body condition, and the local manifestation will
disappear. No matter what they may be or where located, they will
vanish when the body as a whole is normal.
Drugs do not act upon the body; they are acted upon
by the body. The action we perceive is the reaction of the
body against the drug. It is the effort on the part of Nature to
expel the poison introduced into the living organism... Much the
same is true of stimulants. These seem to impart
“strength” to the body; but as we know, this is a false
strength, denoting merely the waste of the vital energies. If you
dig your spur into a tired horse, it will run faster to the corner;
but no one thinks that the spur has supplied the horse with fresh
energy. It has simply caused the poor animal to expend its reserve
energies more quickly. It is the same with stimulants. The false
feeling of strength which they impart is fictitious. The same is
true of many drugs; and the same is true of food, which
also acts as a stimulant, giving us a false feeling of strength
when a meal is eaten! It is because of this fact that many people
feel “weak” when food is withheld.
The simple, basic idea back of the hygienic system is that
practically all “diseases,” so-called, are but the
varied manifestations of a single underlying cause; and that, when
this cause is removed, the symptoms automatically vanish. This
cause is toxemia: waste materials and foreign poisons in the
Since early Egyptian times, it has been recognized that
obedience to physiological law is a prerequisite for maintaining
health. Hippocrates is supposed to have said that the physician
should have two special objectives regarding disease, namely, to do
good or to do no harm. According to the Hippocratic concept, the
doctor is the servant, the “helper” of pthisis
(nature). He said, “It is important to help, or at least not
The very early physicians knew of the importance of obeying
these natural laws and their practices evolved around this concept.
Today there is an increasing body of scientific evidence which
supports these concepts and more attention is now being devoted to
diet, exercise and the other natural essentials of health.
During the very early years when man was evolving into the being
we know today, he knew nothing about science and medicine yet his
bones healed, his wounds healed and life went on. Primitives, like
animals, instinctively relied upon their own intrinsic powers of
During the 19th century, medical sects arose out of opposition
to the so-called “heroic” treatment of their day and
they shared some success. When we study each of these sects which
arose during that time, we begin to see certain patterns emerging.
The highest success rate was among those practitioners who did the
least harm and allowed “nature’s healing powers”
to work unhampered.
By “nature’s healing power” I do not mean a
specific entity for healing but a capacity which resides in all
living animals to heal themselves and to maintain a steady state.
The goal of life is to maintain life and the body always strives
toward a healthy state. Problems arise when too many obstacles are
thrown in the path of this effort. The role of the Hygienic
practitioner is to remove those obstacles by teaching his students
how to correct those errors in living which caused his illness and
making sure that all of the conditions for health are supplied in
the proper quantity and quality. It is important that all of these
conditions are present at the same time as health cannot be
achieved if any of them are missing or lacking. These conditions
include proper food, pure air, pure water, sunshine, rest and
sleep, exercise and emotional poise. The body then becomes the
healing force. This is demonstrated in wound healing, healing of
broken bones, in self-limited diseases such as colds, flu, etc.
When we consume such unnatural and unwholesome foods as the
highly refined products which are so popular today, we build
disease. We inflict our illnesses upon ourselves by poor dietary
habits, lack of sleep, a sedentary lifestyle and other unhealthy
habits. We then develop atherosclerosis, cancer, kidney stones, or
ulcers from our own wrong actions. We cannot eliminate these errors
in living by taking a drug. We must look amongst our practices for
The cell is a homeostatic mechanism requiring precise entry of
nutrients and elimination of wastes. These wastes result from
ongoing metabolic activity and the deterioration of structural
elements. With proper nutrition and detoxification, the cell is
programmed for specific functions. Assuming these functions are
healthy cells and tissue that lead to healthy organs that lead to a
Since illness is the result of unhealthful practices, then
health should be restored by removing these causes and supplying
the conditions for health. This is the philosophy of the drugless
practitioners. They do not add further contaminants to an already
toxic organism by dispensing drugs but rely on natural means which
depend upon the body’s own ability to heal.
The oldest known written record of drug use is a clay tablet
from the ancient Sumerian civilization of the Middle East. This
tablet, made in the 2000’s B.C., lists about a dozen drug
prescriptions. An Egyptian scroll from about 1550 B.C. names more
than 800 prescriptions containing about 700 drugs.
Ancient peoples used many drugs. An Egyptian physician, for
example, tried to cure blindness by pouring a mixture of honey,
pig’s eye, and other ingredients into the patient’s
ear. But occasionally people who had taken drugs as remedies would
recover naturally. As a result, they credited the drugs for their
Throughout the Middle Ages, the demand for drugs remained high
and pharmacies became increasingly common in Europe and the Arab
In the early 1500s, the Swiss physician Philippus Paracelsus
pioneered the use of minerals as drugs. He introduced many
compounds of lead, mercury, and other minerals in the treatment of
The drug revolution began about 1800 and has continued up to the
present. During this period, scientists have discovered hundreds of
drugs. Scientists learned how to isolate drugs from plants in the
early 1800s. In 1806, morphine became the first plant drug to be
isolated. Within a few years scientists had isolated quinine and
several other plant drugs.
The pace of the drug revolution quickened in the 1900s. In fact,
most of the major drugs used today have been discovered since 1900,
such as hormones, antibiotics, and sulfa drugs.
Since early Neanderthal man, plants have been used as drugs for
“healing” purposes. Even as modes of medicine changed
throughout the centuries, plants continued to be the mainstay of
country medicine as methods and ideas on plant healing were passed
down from family to family and within communities. Thus tribes,
clans, villages, towns, sometimes entire countries, tended to have
similar styles in “healing.” Most of these plant
remedies were based on local discoveries and pass-along uses, so
many plants are used in exactly the same way.
For several thousands years the Chinese physicians used the Ma
Huang plant. Later researchers extracted an alkaloid, ephedrine,
from this plant.
Willow bark was used for thousands of years, even by American
Indian tribes. Unfortunately, consistent use of the bark affected
the digestive system, and it became imperative to find a
substitute, or chemical version. This duplication took over fifty
years of investigation, and was solved when a German scientist
broke the chemical code by using the spirea plant family, instead
of willow bark. He called his result aspirin, now one of the most
used drugs on earth (resulting in much distress and iatrogenic
Curare arrow poison, another tropical discovery, is now used to
control breathing during some surgery.
Digitalis was extracted from the foxglove plant, an herb, and is
still prescribed by physicians for those with heart problems.
In his book, The History of Medicine, the British
physician and surgeon, Kenneth Walker says, “Thanks to the
extraordinary recuperative powers of the human body and the
resilience of the human mind, the patient generally managed
throughout the ages to recover health in spite of the vicissitudes
of treatment to which he had been subjected.”
During the early days of civilization, there were many types of
‘cures’ that were associated with various cults. If the
patient recovered his health, it was attributed to the healing
ritual. If recovery did not occur, the disease was blamed. However,
in all cases, it becomes evident that it was ‘vis Medicatrix
Naturae’ which effected the recovery.
There was always a common denominator involved in all of these
‘cures.’ This is the force active in the organism in
which healing takes place in spite of what was done and
not because of what was done.
The Indians had their shamen and medicine men. The Hindus
worshipped many gods and believed that illness was the work of
demons. Therefore, rituals were performed to rid the sick
individual of these demons and witches. The African bushman
performed a symbolic dance which was supposed to
“cure.” The Chinese used acupuncture, herbs and
moxibustion. (This is the burning of powered leaves of the moxa
plant on the skin of the patient).
All of the therapies differed widely—from magic and
witches to acupuncture. The modes of treatment were varied and
often bizarre but they all had “success.” Patients
overcame their illnesses in most cases. How can a superstitious
ceremony overcome a disease? The answer is that it cannot. First of
all, most diseases are self-limited and the patient becomes well in
spite of the treatment. But there was always this common
denominator present in all of the recoveries and that is the vital
faculty within each of us which is called upon when needed to
re-establish equilibrium within our body and to heal. It is this
vital power which we call ‘nature’ that healed the
Indian after the witch doctor performed his magical ritual and it
was this same force which manifested itself after the Chinese
doctor administered herbs. The highest success rate came after
those ceremonies or rituals or treatments which did the least harm
and interfered least with the body’s innate ability to heal
Pharmacologists consider all chemicals that affect living things
to be drugs. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary defines a drug as
“A therapeutic agent; any substance, other than food, used in
the prevention, diagnosis, alleviation, treatment, or cure of
disease in man and animal.”
The truth is that all drugs are poisons and always do much harm,
even when taken in small quantities. The body reacts defensively to
all foreign substances which are introduced. This response is
mistakenly attributed to the action of me drug when in fact the
drugs do not act mechanically to produce any response. It is the
body which acts upon the drugs in its efforts to dispose of this
dangerous substance as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Hygienists know that the living organism is dynamic and full of
energy. Its self-reparative and restorative ability remains intact
as long as energy is abundant. Over 100 years ago Dr. R.T. Trall
demonstrated the difference between lifeless matter and the living
organism. He said that the living organism is active and the
lifeless matter is passive.
Drugs are passive inert substances which have no magical powers
to impart life and health to a living organism. Drugs combine
chemically with the chemical constituents of the body where they do
much harm by interfering with normal life processes.
People take so-called headache remedies, stimulants,
anesthetics, pain killers, sleeping pills and narcotics for the
temporary relief they afford. As a direct consequence of drug
poisoning, gastric ulcer, anemia, kidney disease or any of many
other ailments many develop. The pathologies these poisons occasion
are added to the disease for which they are given. This is to say,
physician-made diseases are worse than the natural disease.
It has been said that drug-treated patients have to recover
twice—first, they have to recover from the original disease
and, second, they have to recover from the drug-induced disease.
The fact is that every drug is a poison and every drug produces
disease. All too often patients are killed by the drug and, in an
even greater number of cases, where the drug does not kill, it
produces permanent harm. In fact, the most common cause of chronic
disease is drug treatment for acute disease.
There are no harmless drugs; there are no safe drugs. All of
them, even the least toxic, result in the production of
pathologies, if they are repeatedly administered, even in small
doses. It is certainly unwise to continue drug practices,
especially in the face of the fact that they produce only ills. For
example, what good comes from the administration of cortisone for
arthritis? The symptoms are temporarily suppressed; the patient may
be provided a certain measure of relief from pain, but the
sufferer’s condition inevitably becomes worse and recovery is
more difficult. The ultimate result is increased suffering for a
brief respite from pain. This is true of all suppressive measures.
Both physician and patient are deluded into believing that some
suffering is being saved, but the later increased suffering
outweighs the brief periods of freedom from pain. In fact, the
increased suffering is usually of longer duration than the periods
of comfort and is far more acute than the periods of
There are no drugs now used by the medical profession and there
were no drugs used by any of the schools of medicine in the past
that did not and do not produce disease.
If a drug, which is a chemical substance, unites with the
protein of the cell, it destroys the cell. It is precisely to
prevent this union and thus to save the life of the cell that the
drug is resisted, rejected and expelled. All the action that is
mistaken for drug action is cellular or organic action designed to
protect and preserve life.
When a drug is picked up by the blood, either from the digestive
tract or from the site of the injection, it is carried by this
medium throughout the body, so that it comes in contact with
tissues everywhere. The so-called side effects of drugs are the
actions of the different tissues with which the drug comes in
contact in rejecting, resisting and expelling the drug. So-called
drug effects are not drug actions but vital actions.
If a drug may be employed and it suppresses symptoms, it is said
to be good. That the drug may produce unwanted effects at the same
time it suppresses the symptoms is, of course, unfortunate and the
physician hopes that the “side” effects will not be too
great or that he can stop the drug if the “side”
effects threaten to become formidable.
Hygienists know how to avoid these poisonous effects. They
simply avoid all drugs. We cannot be poisoned into health.
The Law of Duel Effect states that all substances which
are taken into the body, or which come in contact with it from
without, occasion a twofold and contrary action— the
secondary action being the opposite of the primary action, and the
Therefore, the primary action (reaction) from taking a stimulant
would be stimulating but the secondary and longer lasting effect
would be depression. Likewise, the primary reaction from taking a
pain-suppressant would be relief from pain but the secondary,
longer-lasting effect would be increased pain. If the immediate and
temporary effect of a dose of digitalis is to stimulate the heart,
the secondary and permanent effect is to depress the heart.
Why would this be so? The body marshalls its available forces to
handle the situation at hand which at that moment might be an
abnormal substance in the form of a pain-suppressant. This toxin
which has been so introduced has to be dealt with and eliminated as
quickly as possible. During this time, the organism halts
reparative and healing processes which are felt as symptoms, thus
However, as soon as the foreign substance is disposed of, the
body reinitiates its healing processes with the return of the old
symptoms. However, due to the tremendous expenditure of vital
energy and the added toxins from the drugs, greater harm has been
done. The heart becomes weaker after its stimulation due to
exhaustion and added toxins. Likewise affected are all bodily
Obviously, drugs cannot heal disease. There are no healing
powers or intelligence outside of the human body. One should
dismiss this notion of “cure” forever from their
thoughts. It is only the body which possesses this potential to
heal itself and will do so when favorable conditions are
People take drugs for relief of their symptoms but often find
that the drugs are ineffective even for this. People who take
sleeping pills are more tired than ever. Dieters who take diet
pills remain overweight.
The individual who has arthritis still has pain after ingesting
enormous quantities of aspirin.
Since 2000 B.C. man has sought that magical formula which would
“cure” him of all his illnesses. Man sought an easy way
out of his problems which he created for himself. “One pill
and I will feel great once again!” Unfortunately, there are
no magical formulas that will overcome our ills and still allow us
to transgress all the laws of physiology.
Drugs are used to suppress symptoms. That is, to relieve pain,
relieve insomnia, skin eruptions, constipation, etc. But are
symptoms the disease? No, they are just evidences of it. They are a
sign from our body telling us that the body has closed shop for
cleansing and repairs. If one were to listen to the innate
intelligence of his body instead of immediately suppressing these
warning signs, many chronic diseases would not occur. Drugs
suppress but never solve the problem of ill health (toxicosis). In
fact, drugs cause more ill health (toxicosis).
It is commonly thought that every so-called disease is a
distinct entity, requiring a specific remedy. Throughout all
systems and methods of therapeutics, there runs a basic error that
they call the therapeutic actions of their various procedures. The
truth is that these so-called “therapeutic actions” or
“remedies” are reactions of the body against the
“remedies.” The living organism reacts to everything
within its environment—to assimilate useful agents and
influences; to eject nonusuable and destructive things. The
defensive reactions against harmful substances and influences is
proportionate to their harmfulness and commensurate with the vital
energy possessed by the affected organism. These two
factors—the amount and destructive-ness of the agent or
influence, and the vital energy of the organism—are the
determining factors in every reaction.
In reality the therapeutic effects are among drugs’ evil
effects. They are classed as therapeutic effects only because they
are the effects the physician wishes to produce when he prescribes
the drug. He assumes that something constructive and beneficial is
accomplished when a symptom is temporarily suppressed.
When one uses drugs, one endeavors to provide the sick body with
means of carrying on its healing efforts. By sending into it or
applying to it, exotic and poisonous substances that it cannot use
in a state of health, the body is actually further debilitated. In
short, the effort to cure disease has been by producing additional
Medical men employ poisons because they believe that poisons are
the proper things with which to restore health. They attempt to
prevent disease by the employments of poisons because they believe
that poisons can prevent disease. It never enters their minds that
the elements of health are essentials to both preserving and
Poisons are used because there is an effort to kill
something—germs, parasites, viruses. This war is nominally on
disease, but the warfare actually devolves upon the human
Should the sick be poisoned? One might also ask, should the well
be poisoned? Is there any more reason the sick should be poisoned
than there is that the well should be poisoned? If poisons are not
the proper things with which to preserve health, why should they be
thought of as the proper things with which to restore health? If
poisons make the well man sick, what do they do for the sick
As you have learned from previous lessons, disease is a
body-conducted remedial process. It is an effort on the part of the
organism to repair and heal itself. You have also learned that
disease is not something lurking in the bushes ready to attack the
first person who passes by it. Rather it is occasioned by our own
transgressions of life’s laws.
Drugs cause disease and only disease. They do not prevent or
eradicate it. Ingestion of drugs adds further toxins to an already
toxic organism. Further, it is very enervating for the body to deal
with drugs. The less vital energy the body has, the less equipped
it will be to initiate healing.
Further, taking drugs does not solve the problem. One cannot
attain health by suppressing symptoms. The problems of ill health
still remain and the person is usually worse off than before he or
she began taking the drugs. We are, in effect, telling our body a
lie when we take drugs. We attempt to deceive it into thinking that
this or that drug will be the “miracle cure.” But in
reality, we are hurting our body more by taking these poisonous
Healing powers are possessed solely by the living organism. It
is always in force and is forever functioning in the body in
sickness or health. Hygienists cannot “cure”; they have
no “cures.” Neither has anyone else.
Outside of the human body, man cannot make blood; he cannot
produce a cell; he cannot mend a broken bone; he cannot repair a
wound. All that he may do is to remove all interfering factors,
whether internal or external, and supply the normal conditions for
life. After that, the organs and processes of life do the work of
People do not become well if the causes of their illnesses are
not discontinued and their modes of living are not corrected.
Enervating habits cripple their functioning powers so that they
remain toxic. They can get well as soon as they cease to build
A toxic state of the body develops and slowly devitalizes the
tissues for years, resulting in delayed healing and degeneration in
injured or devitalized parts. When men live in a manner to maintain
a continuous toxin saturation, they are in line for the development
of any disease to which diathesis or environment determines
It is foolish to suppress symptoms. Let us consider a cough. It
is a vigorous, forceful and dramatic expulsion of air from the
lungs and is accomplished by sudden contractions of the walls of
the chest and of the diaphragm. It is intended to force obstructing
and irritating matter (mucus, blood, water, particles of dust,
smoke, gas, etc.) from the air passages. In pneumonia, coughing
keeps the lungs cleared of exudate so that breathing remains
possible. The cough is part of the remedial effort, not an attack
upon the body from without. If the cough is checked or suppressed
by drug devitalization, passages tend to fill with exudate.
Checking the cough definitely, reduces the patient’s chances
Analogous to coughing is diarrhea. Like coughing, diarrhea is a
dramatic acceleration of a normal physiological action. It is a
bowel action and is, designed to free the colon, perhaps even the
small intestines, of unwanted material. The unwanted substance may
be unsuitable, or decaying food or drugs, or it may be a mineral
water. In any case, the diarrhea is a remedial effort. To check the
diarrhea while there is a need for it is to lock up, as it were, in
the food tube the unsuitable material the diarrhea is intended to
remove. The diarrhea automatically ends when its purpose is served
and no suppression is necessary.
The first thing the body does when drugs are taken is to make an
attempt at their removal through the bowels, the skin, the kidneys,
the liver, the lungs, the mucous membranes, by vomiting or by other
Noxious materials within are either rejected or, failing that,
shunted aside where they offer the least harm. Resistance and
expulsion are self-preservative efforts on the part of the living
organism. Sometimes due to lowered vitality, it is very difficult
to expel certain toxic substances and may even be too difficult.
Then the body adopts another technique for
self-preservation—it stores them away in the bones’
fatty tissues or even creates sacs called cysts or tumors for this
The poisonous quality of drugs that occasion vital defensive
actions are termed the “medicinal action” of the
Pharmacologists mistakenly believe that drugs have specific
relations to various parts, organs, or structures of the organism,
although they have never been able to verify it. Hence their belief
in selective affinity, i.e. certain drugs act on one part of the
body, and others act on other parts. Thus they classify drugs as
cathartics, emetics, purgatives, diaphoretics, etc.
It is the body, the living organism, which chooses the way it
can best expel drugs. Some drugs will be thrown out of the body via
kidney excretion, which the pharmacologist will call diuretics,
another by vomiting, and yet another by expectoration. Some drugs,
because of their more poisonous nature, will be ejected by the body
through as many channels as possible. Hence, its alleged
Healing is a normal physiological or biological process. It
results from the orderly operations of the ordinary and regular
forces and processes of life, working with agents and substances
that bear a normal relation to the living organism. Success of the
body’s efforts at self-healing depends absolutely upon
removal of the cause of its ills. This is to say, the body mends
itself when causes are removed. No healing can take place without
removal of cause.
The force that is in any “medicinal action” is
really vital power, that is, the power of the body itself.
Understanding this property of living matter, we can clearly see
that medicines do not at all act; do not furnish power for action;
and do not in any mysterious way impart power to the body for its
own action. The action occurring between the body and drugs is
exclusively vital action, power being expended, not generated.
The organized body has remarkable powers of self-regulation,
adjustment and distribution. When unhampered, it distributes its
available energy to the various organs and tissues in proportion to
their importance and needs.
Easily shown is that disease is a process of repair, renovation
or healing; and that “cure” in the proper sense is
nothing more nor less than the correction of those basic causes
which necessitated, in the first place, the institution of disease.
All disease phenomena exhibit vital action.
There is this relationship: unhygienic conditions of life give
rise to a toxic state of the body. Toxicosis (or toxin saturation)
develops beyond a point of vital toleration and evokes special
eliminative efforts. These special efforts are the process called
disease. Disease tends to free the body of its toxic overload.
Disease is, itself, the healing process. Recognizing disease as the
“cure,” why employ drugs to stop it? Does that make
sense? Is it working against the body’s efforts to heal an
exhibition of wisdom or ignorance?
Constructive disease is evidence of vitality. It is obvious,
therefore, that therapy is anti-vital—destructive of the
vital faculties of the body. Treatment by means of drugs is in
reality directed against a beneficial, curative process. The remedy
actually subdues vitality and with it physiological activity called
“disease.” This is harmful inasmuch as vitality is
wasted, the restorative process is arrested, and poisonous
substances are introduced into the system to lay the basis for
further toxemic crises when vitality shall have been summoned to
eject the “medicinal” accumulation. Thus the
drug-treated body has a double liability: (1) The poisons
introduced and (2) the continued retention of noxious materials
because of suppressed remedial efforts.
To the extent that the body diverts energy to drug expulsion, to
that extent a reduction in vital activities elsewhere in the body
is occasioned. This usually results in the reduction of the
remedial- process, or illness, not by removing its needs, but by a
reduction of the vital power whereby it is conducted. Such a
reduction comprises suppression.
It becomes apparent that you cannot indulge in the causes of
disease and expect to be made free of its consequences. Physiology
does not work that way. We cannot be made exempt from violations of
The medical profession no longer advocates bloodletting,
leeching, purging, puking, mercury treatments, tobacco and alcohol
treatments, or a long list of other injurious and deadly practices
of the past.
The medical profession, however, continues to defend drugging,
vaccination, blood transfusion and a whole host of injurious and
deadly practices. How long will it take them to admit the fact that
these practices also require condemnation?
We know that all drugs are bad without exception. But to cite
some specific examples, I will mention a few of the most commonly
Acne most often appears on the face and causes much discomfort
and embarassment to sufferers because of its unsightly appearance.
It is the result of accumulated toxins in the body which are being
discharged via the sebaceous glands of the skin. This condition
results mainly from wrong diet and if this were to be corrected,
the acne would disappear for the body would no longer need this
outlet. However, many people attempt to suppress this cleansing
effort by using acne preparations.
Acne products most often come in the forms of lotions or creams
which are applied topically. The claim is that these lotions help
heal and prevent acne pimples and absorb excess oil. As Hygienists,
we know that nothing outside of the human body has the ability to
heal and that, therefore, these claims are quite false. However,
much harm can be done. One common ingredient in most acne
preparations is benzoyl peroxide. This chemical is used on colored
or dyed fabrics to bleach them white. When applied to the skin the
body responds to the poison with reactions of itching, redness,
burning, swelling or excessive dryness.
Allergy is also due to toxicosis. Allergy relief preparations
are highly poisonous substances. The following warning is contained
on Dristan Analgesic Tablets: “Warning: may cause drowsiness.
May cause excitability especially in children. Do not take this
product if you have asthma, glaucoma, difficulty in urination due
to enlargement of prostate gland, high blood pressure, heart
disease, diabetes, or thyroid disease.”
Clearly, the body recognizes this as a poison and attempts to
rid itself of it as quickly as possible. However, this requires a
great deal of energy to deal with the poison and anyone who is so
toxic as to display the symptoms of “allergy” would be
particularly harmed to have an additional flood of highly poisonous
toxins put into their systems.
Clearly, the most common analgesic taken today is aspirin. The
first report of the therapeutic properties of the salicylates was
by the Rev. Edward Stone in 1763. Today, world production of
aspirin has been estimated to be around 100,000 tons per year with
an average consumption of about 100 tablets per head per year. A
large survey, as reported in the Journal of Allergy in Clinical
Immunology, listed aspirin among ten drugs most frequently
involved in adverse reactions. The first death attributed to
aspirin ingestion per se, as distinguished from aspirin poisoning
by overdose, was described in Germany in 1902. In 1933, Dr. B.R.
Dysart published an article in the Journal of The American
Medical Association describing death following ingestion of
five grains of acetylsalicylic acid. Most aspirin tablets contain
400-500 mg. or about 7 grains. Recommended dosage is usually two
tablets 4 times a day. This is quite a toxic load to deal with!
By 1970, Dr. R.S. Farr, in his presidential address before the
American Academy of Allergy, was citing “the need to
reevaluate acetylsalicylic acid” and suggested that, because
of the risk to a substantial number of people, aspirin and
aspirin-containing compounds should become prescription rather than
over-the-counter drugs. Hygienists know that they are poisonous and
should never be taken. They have no power to heal and cannot be
used by our cells for any constructive purposes whatsoever.
In an article in the Journal of Allergy in Clinical
Immunology in December 1976, J.R. Vane demonstrated that
nonsteroid, anti-inflammatory drugs such as aspirin inhibit
Interference with the biosynthesis of prostaglandins could have
very grave effects on our health since this compound, which is
present in all body tissues, plays a very important part in many
physiologic activities. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Facilitation of parturition by stimulating the contractions of
- Homeostatic regulation of blood pressure.
- Regulation of exocrine as well as endocrine secretions.
- Plays an important role in the negative feedback control of
impulse transmission in the sympathetic nervous system.
Also, prostaglandins inhibit secretion of pepsin as well as
hydrochloric acid by the gastric mucosa by a direct action on the
parietal cells of the gastric glands. (Parietal cells secrete
hydrochloric acid.) This is one of the body’s homeostatic
Prostaglandins, then, are a control mechanism for secretion. As
ulceration is believed to result from erosion of the mucosa by
excessive quantities of gastric juice, the physiologic synthesis of
prostaglandins by the stomach may protect the mucosa against
ulceration by regulating its secretion.
If aspirin interferes with the biosynthesis of prostaglandins,
then ulcers could more readily occur and this accounts for a common
side effect of aspirin therapy.
So aspirin not only results in a great energy depletion within
our body in its attempt to deal with it, its presence also
interferes with many normal physiological functions. People create
more harm than they realize when they ingest this commonly
An antacid is an agent given to neutralize acidity in the
stomach. It interferes with the body’s homeostatic attempts
to maintain acid-alkaline balance, adds toxins to the body and
never promotes health. The cause of acid indigestion must not be
indulged. Here again, faulty diet must be corrected. If a person
were to fast and then go on an all-raw food program of fruits,
vegetables, nuts and seeds, all bodily functions would return to a
Dr. Kiki Sidhwa says, “Milk and antacids, the mainstays of
therapy for peptic ulcers, may led to metabolic alterations
potentially more serious than the primary disease being
treated.” He further says that such treatment might produce
many changes in the system, including the development of gout.
Explanation of the trouble was that this treatment upset the
acid-alkaline balance in the system and led to alkalosis if long
Antacids containing aluminum hydroxide inhibit the absorption of
dietary phosphate since it binds this mineral in the lumen of the
gut. Along with calcium, phosphorus contributes to mineralization
of bones and teeth and is intimately involved in human metabolism.
There is an important ratio between calcium and phosphorus which
must be maintained. Great harm can result if any interference with
this ratio occurs such as the binding of phosphorus when drugs are
taken. A certain drug taken for a particular reason always has
Antibiotics mean anti-life and indeed they are against life.
They are administered to kill life in the form of microorganisms.
Since disease is incorrectly thought of as an attack by bacteria,
germs, etc., the antibiotic is given to kill these
“invaders.” Instead they poison vital cells, that is,
the body itself is killed to some degree. The body’s efforts
must then be redirected toward eliminating this new poison.
The cause of disease is not the germ that is present, but the
mental and physical habits that have broken down the body. Let the
office of the germs be what it may, they cannot cause disease. The
theory that germs and parasites have to be destroyed in order to
“cure” disease is a delusion.
Respiratory distress has been associated with ampicillin
administration. Researchers have also demonstrated that several
other widely employed drugs including isoniazid (an antibiotic)
have produced clinical patterns of chronic (active hepatitis,
resulting in cirrhosis. The scientists have found that drug
reactions involving the liver result in liver toxicosis from the
drug itself. In patients with drug-induced acute hepatitis, the
incidence of bridging necrosis was increased. (Bridging necrosis is
death of the threads of protoplasm which pass from one cell to
another in the liver.)
The use of antibiotics has also been proven to result in many
blood disorders including leukemia.
Diarrhea is not in itself a disease but an action of the body
against some form of toxic irritation, mainly from unsuitable or
unhygienic foodstuffs. Dr. Sidhwa says that antidiarrhea drugs can
result in kidney and liver disorders, skin and sight defects and
Why should we poison ourselves and risk the chance of possible
kidney or liver disease when all we have to do is simply provide
the conditions for health and allow our body to repair itself? In
this way we may be sure that we are not doing harm.
It is foolish to take any medication whatsoever when one
manifests symptoms of a cold. From the Hygienic point of view, the
cold is the “cure.” The cold is the result of systemic
poisoning and it is the body’s effort to rid itself of some
of its toxic overload. Any preparation taken to suppress these
symptoms will only add to the toxins and will create another
obstacle for our body to overcome while it is doing its
“housecleaning” of toxic debris.
All drugs, including laxatives, sleep aids, stimulants,
depressants, diet pills, etc., are aimed at treating symptoms.
Hygienists do not treat symptoms but work at removing the cause of
toxicosis which occasioned the disease in the first place.
As a student of Life Science you should always keep in mind that
the body does not work in separate independent ways but it is a
unified whole. The body performs all of its functions as a whole
and even though a certain symptom of disease may manifest itself in
a particular part of the body it does not mean that the whole
system is not involved.
The Hygienist does not accept “cures.” What are we
trying to “cure?” Attempts to “cure”
actually suppress or stop the body’s defensive and remedial
processes. As the body is attempting to get well, we are trying to
prevent it from getting well. This is the essence of cures.
What we’re concerned about then, in health and disease, is
removing the causes of disease, supplying the body with its basic
needs so it may build health. Health is the organism’s
natural tendency toward the ideal and everything in the moral
organism works toward health. We don’t have to make the body
healthy; we only have to live healthfully.
An obese person does not become healthy by taking diet pills. He
must examine his diet and lifestyle and remove the causes of his
obesity in order to attain health. We have to stop people from
making themselves sick.
We must examine the person’s way of life: what it is
they’re doing that they shouldn’t be doing, the things
they’re not doing that they should be doing, and attempt to
discover the causes of their trouble.
When we investigate these factors and remove the causes of
disease, then we outline a program which will provide the
conditions and circumstances necessary for health. The organism
will restore itself to normal providing, of course, that it
hasn’t been irreversibly damaged.
It may be helpful to ask yourself the following questions:
- Am I eating the proper diet?
By “proper diet” we mean one which we are
biologically meant to eat. That is, fruits, vegetables, nuts and
seeds—all eaten in their raw state. This is very important.
Of equal importance is the amount that we are consuming. Not only
the quality of our food is important but also the quantity. Ask
yourself, am I overeating or eating when I am not really hungry?
Eating food in the absence of hunger or consuming more food than
our body can handle will lead to toxemia as sure as if we were
subsisting on a diet of refined foods. So keep in mind quantity and
quality when examining your lifestyle.
- Do I consume the purest water available?
By this we mean only pure H2O and this is not available from
your kitchen sink. Pure distilled water is the only kind that we
should drink and then only when we are thirsty. Some people have
the mistaken idea that drinking excessive amounts of water will
“flush” the kidneys and “clean out” our
systems. This is nonsense! Water is inert and has no such cleansing
powers. However, when consumed to excess, there can result a great
energy drain on the eliminative organs. So, here again, keep the
quantity and quality idea in your mind. Distilled water is best in
the amounts compatible with your needs.
- Is the air I breathe fresh and clean?
This is a tough one. Living and working in our polluted cities
makes it next to impossible to breathe really pure air. However,
there are some things that we can do. If it is possible to move to
the country, do so. If not, at least try to stay away from smoke
filled working situations (or look into purchasing an electronic
air purifier for your office). It helps to live where the house is
set at least a little way back from the road and trees between the
house and the road will help block and absorb some of the pollution
from the cars and purify the air.
- Do I get sufficient rest and sleep?
Sleep requirements vary from person to person but generally if
you wake up without the aid of an alarm clock and feel rested and
energetic, then you have obtained enough sleep. If not, you had
better go to bed a little earlier or take a nap during the day.
- Do I get enough exercise?
Daily exercise is a must to maintain health. Set aside a certain
lime every day for exercise. About 30 minutes to one hour a day
should be sufficient.
- Am I exposed to the sunlight at least a few minutes
Sunlight is beneficial and the main source for Vitamin D, but be
careful and don’t overdo it as excessive sunbathing can be
harmful. Remember the quantity and quality.
- Am I constantly under stress?
It is not always possible to avoid stressful situations but it
is possible to learn how to deal with stress. Stress and emotions
are a physiological occurrence and can result in many types of
Now that you have run through your little questionnaire and have
determined the cause of your disease, every effort must be made to
remove those causes. When the conditions of health are provided in
the proper quantity and quality, the body will immediately begin
its remedial processes.
First of all, do not take drugs of any kind and this includes
the herbal remedies. The best thing to do when symptoms of a cold
or flu, pain, skin eruptions, hay fever, headache, stomach ache, or
any disease symptom arises is to rest.
The body needs rest. That is, physiological rest. By this we
mean rest of the entire body, of the muscles, organs, glands and
digestive organs. How can we provide the body with such a rest?
Through a fast. By this we mean no food—only pure water and
rest in bed. This will provide the ideal conditions for the body to
redirect its energies to the reparative process. It may be
advisable to fast at a Hygienic fasting institute where you will be
supervised by a competent Hygienic practitioner. After the fast is
broken, eat only those foods that we are physiologically suited to
eat—raw fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds in compatible
combinations. In addition, follow all the other requirements of
health and you will find freedom from disease.
For example, the Hygienic care of the pneumonia sufferer is the
acme of simplicity. It is not designed to “cure”
anything. It does not reduce fever, check coughing, suppress pain,
or force further exudate into the lungs. Hygiene does not seek to
suppress or palliate symptoms. The death rate is reduced to almost
nil. Rest in bed in a well-vented room, warmth, all the water
thirst demands, no food of any kind until all acute symptoms have
subsided, constitute the essentials of proper care. Thus cared for,
the person with pneumonia will recover mote certainly, more
speedily and more satisfactorily. Nobody will prove to be allergic
to Hygienic care nor have bad reactions, as many have when
penicillin is administered. By the employment of healthful
You have done your body a favor. You have built health with
proper rest, food, etc. You have not destroyed health with pills
and potions. The aim of life is to maintain life. This is the goal
of every cell in your body. When you take drugs you throw road
blocks in the path of the cells in their efforts to live and
support your existence. Don’t sabotage your body. Instead,
assist life by providing the conditions for health.
My doctor says that all cases of arthritis are
incurable. He also says that I must take 10 tablets of aspirin
every day to alleviate the inflammation and that I may have to
eventually increase that dosage. Will this much aspirin be
Your doctor is correct when he says that he cannot cure
arthritis. Hygienists know that only the body has the ability to
heal. However, there have been many cases of arthritis which have
completely recovered following a fast and a Hygienic lifestyle.
Aspirin is a poison and the body will treat it as such. A small
amount of aspirin will result in a certain amount of damage to the
human organism but such large amounts will do much greater damage.
The wisest thing to do would be to consult with a Hygienic
practitioner and arrange to go on a fast. After that, adhere
strictly to the Hygienic lifestyle and health will be realized.
I have been on the ‘pill’ for a number of
years since I do not want to have any more children. Am I doing any
harm through this practice?
Your body cannot condone the pill. It contains substances which
suppress the normal hormone secretions. To be effective, the
product must be taken regularly throughout a woman’s
reproductive life, and the method is attended by a multitude of ill
effects besides being entirely contrary to the principles of
natural, healthful living.
Evidence has built up that the use of the pill carries with it
may dangers. There is a liability for strokes or cerebral
hemorrhage and other conditions involving blood clotting. Reports
of eye troubles following their use were reported in the United
States, Canada, Australia and Great Britain. Numerous other
“side effects” have been established.
Yes, this is a very harmful practice and should be discontinued
immediately. If you are interested in a natural birth control
method which is safe, read the book “Creation of Life”
by Terrie Guay.
When my doctor prescribes a drug for me, I presume he
knows what he is doing and wouldn’t dispense drugs which were
not scientifically tested before they were placed on the market. Am
I correct in my assumptions?
Because poison effects always follow drugging, physicians must
be regarded as a class of voodooists. Dr. Sidhwa states a case
where it was found that a woman was given a drug for arthritis
which resulted in degeneration of cells in the retina of the eyes.
This eventually resulted in loss of 80 percent of her vision.
Reporting on this case, the Washington Post said that “drugs
potent enough to injure and kill are often prescribed casually and
even carelessly because of excessive reliance upon drug
The so-called scientific training concerning the drug apparently
came from the salesman’s touting of the drug.
We should simply keep in mind that all drugs are poisons and
there are no safe ones.
It seems that every time I take my medication I get
drowsy. Why would this occur?
The nervous system of man is highly complex. It is very
sensitive and delicate in its structure and function. This
highly-specialized system reacts very quickly and shows immediate
and marked changes if substances inimical to its well-being are
taken. Drugs can and do influence the structure and functions of
the whole nervous system. Drugs interfere with the nervous system,
hence functions are depressed and drowsiness occurs.
Since digitalis is derived from a plant, wouldn’t
it be alright to take?
There are many poisons in the plant kingdom and digitalis is one
of them. Furthermore, even though digitalis was originally derived
from foxglove, it is now made synthetically. Although digitalis is
one of the most commonly-used drugs for treating heart failure, it
causes noticeable poisoning in an unbelievably high proportion of
patients who take it.
When a drug is given to a man suffering from a weak heart, it
weakens the heart still more. The impaired heart must now pump more
blood with each beat to help get the drug out of the system. But
the heart, in doing so, will exhaust itself more quickly than if
intelligently left alone and the patient allowed to rest. The heart
needs rest, not stimulation. Exhaustion of all the vital organs is
the common result of such stimulation.
This lesson has discussed the harmful practice of drug
medication. All such agents are harmful even in small quantities.
They are anti-vital and cause disease. They have no power or
intelligence to effect healing.
All disease is the result of systemic poisoning and one cannot
achieve health by ingesting poisons. The cause of disease must be
removed before healing can be realized.
When drugs suppress symptoms they also suppress the body’s
Only the body can heal and will do so when the proper conditions
are provided. These conditions include proper food, fresh air, pure
water, sunshine, rest and sleep, exercise and emotional poise.
Beginning about twenty-five hundred years ago and making but
little headway in public patronage until the time of the
renaissance, the drug system has now completely blanketed the
earth. So great has grown popular reliance upon the drug practice
and so thoroughly have the people been indoctrinated in the belief
in drugs, that the practice has become a greater threat to mankind
than the nuclear bomb. The drug system is filling the land with
side effects of drugs, filling hospitals with iatrogenic diseases,
the jails with drug addicts, the mental institutions with
drug-induced psychoses and the graveyards with the premature
In the great main the drug system is a system of spectacular
palliation. Physicians are for the most part engaged in providing
the sick with temporary and doubtful relief from their discomforts.
Instead of seeking for and removing the causes of suffering,
physicians seem to be content to provide questionable and
evanescent respite from pain and discomfort.
A patient says to a physician, “I have a headache, what
should I do?” The physician is likely to reply, “Here,
take this aspirin.”
As an outstanding example of this kind of practice and its
results, let me briefly go over a case history that I recently
received from a guest of the Health School.
A young girl, age 21, arrived at the Health School with the
following story: at the age of thirteen she developed severe
abdominal pains and was taken to the hospital and operated on for
appendicitis. Later it was discovered that this was not her trouble
as she still suffered with the same pains after the operation. Her
parents reentered her in the hospital for an exploratory operation,
during which the physician found lymphatic tumors in the abdominal
cavity. Soon after this operation she developed epilepsy, and had
to make frequent trips to the hospital for tests. She had all the
diagnostic X rays known and many other diagnostic procedures for
epilepsy. There were an array of diagnoses, first hypoglycemia,
then hyperglycemia, then high blood pressure, then low blood
pressure. One diagnosis contradicted another, and there was no end
to the diagnoses, but they never could ascertain the reason for her
epilepsy. Her brain waves appeared normal on the
Every known drug for epilepsy was given her, but she said that
they only made her worse. Her physician insisted that she continue
taking the drug despite the increased incidence of her convulsions.
In desperation he finally decided to use new experimental drugs,
but with the same results—no decrease in her epileptic fits.
Is it any wonder that she developed kidney trouble, after this
treatment? Soon she couldn’t have normal micturition but
required a catheter. For five weeks straight, she was forced to
have the catheter in place. During this time, she complained that
‘they injected drugs through the catheter into the bladder in
an effort to reach an infection. It was during this period in the
hospital that she began losing the ability to walk. After this her
sight and hearing became impaired. It was then that her physician
told her parents that she wouldn’t live and sent her home to
She was indeed a victim of the curing practice. There
is no wonder that at the hospital she lost her ability to walk, see
and hear, as she said she had to take 200 pills a day, every day.
Furthermore, she was force fed, and had seven shots a day. Despite
her continual complaint of lack of appetite, they made her eat.
Her parents took their dying child home. Here she became more a
master of herself. She was disgusted with having to take so many
drugs that were apparently making her worse. She said no one but a
blind person could fail to see that she was steadily growing worse
under this treatment.
When she arrived home, she had to be carried to bed. Sensing
that the drugs were making her worse, and with the permission of
her father, she quit 90% of them. She was afraid to quit all of
them at once. Disgusted with the encumbering and uncomfortable
catheter, she took it out. She noticed immediate improvement in her
health. Her eyesight improved, her impaired hearing became normal
and almost overnight she found that she could walk again. Within
five hours her bladder was functioning satisfactorily.
When it was lime to make her regular trip to the epileptic
clinic, she walked in unaided. Her M.D. marveled at her improvement
and called in other practitioners to show off the miracle. The girl
that couldn’t walk, that was dying just a few weeks before,
walked in unaided! Her drugs were indeed miracle workers! He
immediately prescribed more of the same. He never learned that she
had quit taking most of her drugs. It was after this that she
presented herself to the Hygienist.
Can she regain the high level health she had at birth? How much
recovery can she make after being subjected to such treatment? It
is doubtful that she can regain the high level health of which her
pristine organism was capable. Drugs and surgery have made of her a
cripple. This girl has adamantine determination, however, and
I’m sure that she will recover as much health as is
The Hygienist has little to work with when a patient comes to
him machine gunned with X rays, vandalized by the surgeon’s
knife and enervated by the drugging practice. Can you imagine a
family afraid to try natural and harmless methods after subjecting
their daughter to all the most pernicious practices of our times?
Her family was against her from the start and she had to plead, beg
and cajole them into letting her stay long enough to take a lengthy
fast. Because of her medical abuse, I was fearful of taking her as
anything may happen on a fast after such treatment, and her parents
would have been the first to point an accusing finger.
At the end of 18 days of fasting they told her she would have to
come home soon. I immediately broke her fast in order that she
would be able to travel. She began having mild convulsions soon
after taking juices, and developed a slight fever and symptoms of
acute distress. There was nothing to do but place her back on the
fast and let nature continue the healing process. Somehow she
persuaded her parents to let her stay longer. They were very
apprehensive and couldn’t believe that she could live through
18 days of fasting. When she continued on through 58 days of
fasting, they were sure she could not even walk down to the phone
and talk to them. During the second fast she passed kidney stones.
During her second fast and subsequently she had no convulsions and
has not reported any since leaving here.
How soon she will reach positive and top level health depends
upon how well she carries out her Hygienic living. But as mentioned
at the beginning of this article, she will have her limitations
because of medical bungling.
It is unfortunate but most everyone coming to the Health School
has his limitations in recovery because of his prior use of drugs,
X rays and surgery. It is not only the elderly, whose health has
been wrecked by drugs and surgery, but younger and younger
person’s, organisms are impaired because of their
physicians’ poisons and their surgeons’ knives.
Daily we receive clippings in the mail from Canada and the
United States describing the evils attributed to drugs, but the
drugging continues. Neither patients nor physicians lose their
faith in magic potions. It seems that very few people ever lose
their faith in the physician with his armamentarium of poisons.
Despite all the enlightenment of hazardous effects of drugs in the
papers today, physicians and their patrons cling to the belief in
their efficacy and harmlessness. The drugging continues.
The title of an article received recently, is “No Drugs
During Pregnancy,” then in small letters “unless
absolutely necessary.” These were the words of Dr.
Benirschlese, research pathologist of animal pregnancies. To
prevent pregnant mothers from refusing drugs a loop hole is always
left for the physician to deem the taking of a drug absolutely
necessary. Intelligent mothers, fearing it may hurt their baby, may
balk at taking their physicians’ prescriptions and ruffle
their physicians’ pride. He can then assure them that he is
giving the drug only because it is “absolutely
necessary” in each instance.
Dr. Benirshchlese said “even such simple drugs as sleeping
pills have unknown effects on unborn children.” He continues,
“We don’t really know what effect different drugs have
on the human fetus but we do know they bring about changes in
Are we not of the animal kingdom? Are we intangible angels? We
are of the animal kingdom and we have the most complex and
differentiated organism of any animal on earth. Because of this
complexity, many more things can go wrong with human physiology
than with the physiology of a lower animal. We can also enjoy
greater functioning capacity than the lower animals because of our
increased complexity of structure.
A simple machine has fewer things to go wrong than a more
complex one. The slightest change in complex machine will
immediately upset its workings, whereas a little flaw in a simple
machine may not result in any modification of the machine until the
damage becomes immense, then it is easily fixed.
Being the most complex living organism, man is more sensitive to
inimical agents and influences than are the lower animals. It has
been shown that man is more sensitive to radiation than the mouse,
so also is he more sensitive to drug poisons.
A significant remark made by Benirschlese was exactly what Dr.
Shelton has been saying for years, that a “nine-month
gestation period in humans makes research difficult and
long-term effects of drug use should be studied until a child
is twenty years old.” Minute impairments of vital organs
from drugging may not manifest until a child has reached maturity.
The increase in microcephaly, liver damage, heart trouble, kidney
trouble, diabetes, and cancer in younger and younger people makes
us wonder just how many of these young people would not have
suffered if their parents had not taken drugs while these children
were in utero.
The vigor that was manifested in our pioneers and in the
Amerinds is not seen today in our youth and middle aged. This is
certainly due in part to our greater dependence upon the medical
profession to care for the slightest bruise, cut or headache, and
the prescriptions of drug poisons given for these mild
Recently a jury awarded a child $500,000 because her mother was
given demerol, a drug used to lessen pain during labor, and the
child failed to develop mentally. The child was chronologically
seven but had the mind of a three-year old. The drug was not
supposed to be given to mothers of premature babies. Despite the
prematurity of her baby, this woman’s physician gave her the
Another clipping received by mail stated “digitalis drug
poisons many patients.” The article states ,
“digitalis, one of the most commonly-used drugs for treating
heart failure, causes some form of poisoning in an unbelievably
unusually high proportion of the patients who take it.” John
Ruedy of the McGill University said this is happening because of
“improper” use of the drug.
I should like to point out that there is no such thing as the
proper use of a drug poison. They are poison no matter how given.
They never prolong life but always shorten it, and make more
uncomfortable whatever life is left in the patient. Drugs greatly
lessen the person’s ability to get well Hygienically. They
damage and lessen the vitality of every organ and organ system in
When a drug is given to a man suffering with a weak heart, it
weakens the heart still more. It is like whipping a tired horse to
make him go. He expands more vital energy to get away from the
whip, but he wears out quicker. The impaired heart must now pump
more blood with each beat to help get the drug out of the system by
increasing circulation. But the heart, in doing this, will wear out
quicker than if left alone and patient rests. The heart needs rest
not stimulation. Exhaustion of all the vital organs is the
common result of such stimulation. Premature death is the
result of stimulating people into such good
With 5,000 new drugs being created each year, we should all
remain healthy until the age of 140. We actually see more and more
of the crippling disease, that people can’t get well of (even
by Hygienic means). All drugging impairs the organism’s
ability to function.
Instead of removing the causes of the impairment, people are
drugged into insensibility in order that they may continue in their
disease-producing ways until there are so many organic or morbid
changes in the tissues that full recovery is impossible. The
Tribune medical reporter states that this is creating one
of the most pressing challenges in medical history; that of how to
prevent the new drugs from causing other illnesses or side effects.
This has led to the development of a new science,
The very name of their “new” science indicates that
they do not yet know the relation between lifeless and living
matter—the former being passive and the latter active,
always. Kinetics indicates movement and drugs do not move but are
moved by the body to various parts of the body.
Pharmacologists freely admit that they don’t know how
their drugs act, or how the drugs achieve their therapeutic effect
or that they act at all. They don’t even bother to try to
prove that drugs act.
If physicians, pharmacokineticists and pharmacologists could
begin with a valid premise, their conclusions would be more likely
to be correct. They would soon learn that all drugs are as inert in
the living organism as in the pill bottle, and that all action
attributed to the drug is body action. They would soon
realize that these actions, occasioned by the drug, are the actions
of the living organism expelling the drug because it is not useful,
hence poisonous. As long as they attribute action to inanimate
substances, they will continue to confuse themselves about the true
nature of the drugging practice, and fail to see the
destructiveness of their poisons.
Because of our self-preservative instincts, if a substance is
introduced into the organic domain that it can’t use, the
cells in immediate contact with the drug, via our magnificent
complex nervous system, alert the entire organism to the threat to
its integrity. It is not one part of the body that resists a drug
but many parts acting as a whole. It is the integral organism which
acts to expel the drug before ii damages any one part too
Digitalis may be given to a man with a feeble heart and there is
an immediate pick-up in the pumping ability of the heart, not
because the drug acts on the heart but because the heart has to
pump blood faster to the emunctory organs in order to save the
whole from succumbing to the drug. The digitalis didn’t stay
in the heart; it didn’t even have to be near the heart, for
it to know that something poisonous was in the system and that it
had to .step up its activities in order to do its share in the
expulsion and rejection of the nonusable toxic substance.
Because the living organism has done all the acting, its energy
is depleted in exact proportion to the amount of work it has had to
do to eliminate the poison. His functioning power is permanently
lowered, and much rest is needed to recover from the depletion. The
already weak heart is more feeble than before the digitalis was
Trall frequently clarified the explanation of the fact that it
is the living system that acts and not the drug, by the following
example: if you introduce a drug into a dead person, there will be
no action whereas there should be more action if the drug acted,
because there would be less resistance from a dead person’s
tissues than a live one. But the dead body cannot vomit it, it
cannot develop diarrhea, nor do its kidneys function to expel it.
The drug does nothing to a dead body, except chemically combine
with the constituents of its tissues.
This is the difference between drugging a live person and a dead
one. The live person resists the chemical union, and as long as it
is alive it will continue to do so. For the chemical to combine
with the constituents of the cell would mean death of the cell, and
the formation of a third substance unlike the two which combined to
form it. The living organism fights with herculean force to prevent
the chemical union, and in doing so sometimes dies in the struggle.
The cells had to die first before the chemical could combine with
A debilitated old person cannot resist a drug as well as a
healthy young person, for the same reason that a dead person
can’t act. The debilitated person has less energy to expend
in eliminating the drug. Trail points out that if the drug acted,
it should act with more force in a weak person because of less
resistance from the weak organs, but we see the opposite.
I cannot repeat too often that anything that the living organism
cannot make into living tissue or use in any of its metabolic
processes is a poison. Drugs cannot fit this qualification, and
hence are all poisons. Some are more virulent than others,
depending upon their chemical compositions, but they all cripple
the organism to a greater or lesser degree, depending upon how much
ability a particular organism has to eliminate them.
Cells, tissues and organs are damaged in resisting and expelling
drugs. This results in impaired function. Because much of the
damage to the organism from drugs is permanent, complete recovery
is impossible in those who have been drugged for years.
The damages of drugs are legion and we could fill many volumes
with their evil effects, but I shall end this article by stating
that if you desire to recover your health drugging is definitely
not the answer. Drugs hinder the healing process and occasion
diseases of their own.
The causes of disease must be removed. Then, the primordial
requisites of life must be supplied in keeping with the living
organism’s ability to use them. Then and then only will the
living organism be able to return to health. It will make as full
recovery as is possible, depending upon how much previous damage
has been done by the drugs. The fewer the drugs taken, the speedier
and more complete the recovery.
The Hygienic System, or the treatment of disease by Hygienic
agencies, is based on the following propositions:
- All healing or remedial power is inherent in the living system.
The “properties” of drug-medicines, as they are called,
are simply morbific effects.
- There is no curative “virtue” in medicines, nor in
anything outside of the vital organism.
- Nature has not provided remedies for disease. She has only
provided consequences or penalties for taking or doing those things
which occasion disease, the disease itself being an effort to
remove those causes.
- Health is found only in obedience to the laws of the vital
organism. Disease is the result of disobedience.
- Health is normal vital action, or action in relation to things
usable. Disease is abnormal vital action, or action in relation
to things nonusable.
- There is no “law of cure” in the universe; the
condition of cure is obedience to physiological law.
- There is one universal rule applicable to the treatment of all
disease by Hygienic remedies, and that is to balance functional
action. If this is done, no disease, however violent, will prove
- Remedial agents do not act on the living system, as is taught
in medical books and schools, but are ACTED on by the vital
- Disease is not, as is commonly supposed, an enemy at war with
the vital powers, but a remedial effort—a process of
purification and reparation. It is not a THING to be destroyed,
subdued, or suppressed, but an ACTION to be REGULATED and
- Diseases should not be “cured.” So long as the
causes exist, the disease should continue. But the causes of
disease should be removed and the patient cured.
- Truly remedial agents are materials and influences which have
NORMAL relations to the vital organs, and not drugs, or poisons,
whose relations are ABNORMAL and ANTI-VITAL.
- Nature’s materia medica consists of Air, Light,
Temperature, Exercise, Rest, Food, Drink, Bathing, Sleep, Clothing,
- The true Healing Art consists in supplying the living system
with whatever of the above it can USE under circumstances, and not
in the administration, of poisons which it must RESIST and
- Drug remedies are themselves CAUSES of disease. Every dose
diminishes the vitality of the patient.
- DRUGOPATHY endeavors to restore health by administering the
poisons which produce disease.
- The Hygienic System on the contrary, restores the sick to
health by the means which preserve health in well persons.
- Diseases are caused by obstructions, the obstructing materials
being poisons or impurities of some kind.
- The Hygienic System removes these obstructions, and leaves the
- Drug medicines add to the causes of obstructions, and change
acute into chronic diseases.
- To attempt to cure diseases by adding to the causes of disease,
is irrational and absurd.
Many of the methods of treatment that were often prescribed by
physicians during the 19th century and before are today considered
useless and life-threatening. But the physicians during that time
persisted in such practices as bleeding, blistering, purging, and
the use of heavy metals, especially mercury, because they witnessed
that, in some patients, symptoms would disappear. This, however,
was an illusion. Symptoms were suppressed but there was no recovery
of health. Indeed, many people died because of the treatment but
the physicians did not recognize that the “cure” itself
was the direct cause of the deaths.
Since that time, there has been a constant search for that
elusive “cure.” Harmful results occur when people
become so convinced that these “cures” will restore
health that they rely upon this illusion instead of looking to
their modes of living as the real cause of their ill health. You
must, therefore, strive to become more independent thinkers. You
must begin to question “cures” and seek the truth by
seeing things from a different perspective.
If a certain drug is found particularly harmful and taken off
the market, we are told that we should not doubt the effectiveness
of all of these agents. However, we should not follow ourselves to
be deceived by them. One may feel better for awhile after taking
one of these symptom-suppressing agents, but our so-called
“cure” is a deception. The “cure” will not
last. By seeking the truth, we will be lead to the true cause of
disease and from this we may know how to regain our health.
A good example of how the American people have been misled by
this delusion of “cures” lies in the practice of
immunization. People have been told that vaccines build up
antibodies that protect the vaccinated from disease. This is a
false claim. Disease is the result of unhealthful living and one
cannot be “immunized” against his errors in living.
Any violation against physiological law always results in
sickness. This would include any failure to meet sleep
requirements, proper food, air, water, sunshine, exercise, or other
needs The body’s ability to adapt is remarkable but freedom
from symptoms is a delusion when it is produced by drugs in
contravention of physiological functions. Under such circumstances,
the body will inevitably become exhausted and more chronic
illnesses will ensue.
The adverse effects of drugs were illustrated in a previous
lesson and more and more people are realizing the dangers of these
poisons and are looking elsewhere for “cures.” Thus, we
see many drugless practitioners throughout the country promising
all sorts of “cures.” This lesson will review some of
the more popular “cures” and it will be demonstrated
that they are harmful and, at best, relatively innocuous.
You should keep in mind that there are no “cures.”
There is no diet, no herb, no massage therapy that will restore
health if the underlying cause of sickness is not removed. As we
have stated before, health will result only from healthful
Herbs have been used throughout recorded history as
“cures” for various ailments. However, the use of herbs
came into the forefront more formally in the late 1700s and early
1800s. Samuel Thomson is credited for the wide spread of this
practice during that time in history. During that time, the regular
medical practice included harsh bleed, purge, and blister methods.
The popularity of the Thomsonian sect arose not necessarily from
their success in curing patients’ ills but from the fact they
seemed to kill fewer patients than did their entrenched
competitors—the regular medical practitioners.
Thomson’s empirical system was based largely on the use of
steam and herbs.
Many people opposed the regular profession, but they had no more
knowledge of how to remedy its deficiencies than did the regular
physician. They found many aspects of regular medicine repugnant
but they did not know why or how they were undesirable. The public
could only choose among the alternatives available at the time.
Thomson saw his mother die of measles in spite of the care of
several local physicians (or was it because of their treatment?);
earlier, he felt he had “cured” himself of the same
disease through the use of botanies. The illusion is that what
appeared to “cure” did not. At best it was less harmful
than the regular mode of therapy and therefore the body was able to
overcome this drug obstacle and achieved the purposes for which it
instituted the healing crises. A year after his mother’s
death, Thomson’s wife became severely ill following
childbirth. Several local physicians treated her, but her condition
continued to worsen. As she neared death, Thomson wisely dismissed
the traditional practitioners and their poisonous treatments. He
then called in the local “root doctors.” One day later,
his wife appeared “cured.” Of course, the herbs did not
“cure” but the body promptly set about the process of
healing when the deadly drugs were removed.
On another occasion, Thomson badly lacerated his ankle with an
axe while clearing some virgin land with his father. After a number
of treatments, including soaking it in turpentine, he naturally
became worse. He then ended up at the home of one Dr. Kitteridge
who treated the wound with herbs and was credited with healing him.
The body cannot heal if it is continually assaulted with toxins.
When toxic herbs are removed, healing and repair are accelerated.
Dr. Kitteridge or his herbs did not assume healing obviously. Herbs
cannot help. They present less of an obstacle to the body than the
harsh treatment of medical practitioners.
These incidences were enough to convince Thomson that herbs had
the power to “heal” and the Thomsonian Sect began to
emerge. Thomson became convinced that all disease arose from one
general cause and that one remedy could effect a
“cure.” The cause was cold and the cure, heat. He, like
the Greeks believed, “all animal bodies are formed of four
elements, earth, air, fire, and water.” Any imbalance among
these four elements which reduced the power of the heat resulted in
illness. To effect a cure, one must restore the balance. Thomson
sought to restore the balance through the use of purgatives, enemas
and sweat producing botanicals. The chief ingredient was lobelia,
an emetic which grew wild in much of North America. To this he
might add capsium, hemlock, bayberry, ginger, or pepper, and cloves
to make a concoction often referred to as “Composition
Tea.” What Thomson did not realize is that you cannot poison
anyone into health. But he killed fewer people with his method than
the regular practitioners and was therefore considered
Thomson patented his system and marketed it through
representatives who traveled about the country selling copies of
his two volume work, New Guide to Health; or Botanic Family
The treatment that Thomson advocated was rather harsh. As with
the regular therapeutics, if the patient recovered, it was in spite
of the treatment and not because of it. The following is one
patient’s account of treatment that he received (Frank G.
Halstead, “A first-hand account of a treatment by Thomsonian
medicine in the 1830’s” Bulletin of the History of
Medicine 10 (1941): 680-687.):
“The Thomsonian treatment is a steam bath 30 minutes in
duration. When the sweat rolls off as thick as your finger the body
is washed with cold water and the patient is straight-way put to
bed with hot bricks to bring back his heat. Then a powerful
vomitive is administered, composed of bayberry, of cayenne (red
pepper) and lobelia, which suffer naught impure to remain in the
stomach, and all these herbs are mixed in 40 proof brandy, after
which warm water is drunk until there has ensued the most
extraordinary vomiting. Next, the patient rises and takes a second
bath, like the first. He takes again to his bed, after having been
laved with cold water and is surrounded with hot bricks and remains
in bed for an hour. At the end of this time he takes two injections
(enemas) of pennyroyal, cayenne pepper and lobelia and the
treatment is over for the day.”
The fact that this system was of no value is obvious. It is
remarkable that the body could withstand such a treatment. Yet some
individuals recovered to a certain extent and, as harsh as this
treatment was, it was still less harmful than the heroic treatment
that it supplanted.
With the death of Samuel Thomson in 1843, his organization
(already split three ways) disintegrated. The principal contending
factions came to be known as True Thomsonians, the Physio-pathists,
the Physio-medicals, and the Eplectics.
Herbal medicine is still practiced today but not on that formal
basis. However, there are several misleading books, organizations,
and schools that advocate and teach about herbal
“cures.” We condemn herbs because, first of all, they
have no ability to heal arid secondly, they are very dangerous due
to their toxicity.
Some authors have been known to advocate the use of the herb
squill which is an ingredient often found in rat poison. Mark
Bricklin lists some of the most toxic herbs in his book Natural
“In general, it is safe to say that you should never use
the following herbs for a home remedy: Jimson weed, daffodils,
spurge, arnica, wormwood, mandrake, hellebore, squill, poison
hemlock, tobacco, tonka beans, aconite, white bryony, nux vomica,
calabar bean, camphor, ergot, ignatius beans, bittersweet,
gelsemium; henbane, celandine, belladonna, foxglove, and may
Tansy is a narcotic and may result in abortion. Valerian in
excessive doses may result in headache and even delusions.
Goldenseal is extremely toxic if taken in stronger doses than
one-quarter of a teaspoon to a cup of water. Even in this dose, the
poisoning effects are present but they are not immediately
Comfrey root will produce a high amount of gummy substance and
the root and the leaf are both high in allantoin and pyrrolizidine,
substances that are claimed to help with cell proliferation. An
increase of cells will occur due to an inflammatory response to the
presence of this foreign agent against the skin. Comfrey has no
power to heal skin wounds but will interfere with proper healing
initiated by the body. When this substance is applied externally to
a wound, the outside of the abrasion will close faster than it
normally would. This is a response on the part of the body to
protect itself so that foreign matter does not enter into the
system. As a result, proper healing, from within, is impaired.
It is also claimed that comfrey will help broken bones to knit.
This is impossible since healing can only take place from within
the body and no agent applied externally or ingested can promote
Many herbalists advocate the use of comfrey as a tea or to be
used raw in salads. However, recent studies have proven that this
practice may be harmful. According to Dian Dincin Buchman
(Herbal Medicine, New York: Gramercy Publishing Company,
1979). “Comfrey is in the same plant family as several other
plants (Senecio, Crotolaria, Heliotropium), and these plants,
investigation now indicates, contain some natural poisons in the
form of pyrrolizidine alkaloids. These plants have been implicated
in various accidental human and animal poisonings.
“The young leaves of comfrey, thought to be edible and
rich in chlorophyll, and used in many natural green drinks, may
contain up to 0.15 percent (1,500 parts per million) of the
“Dr. Claude Culvenor of the Animal Health Division of the
Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organization has worked on this subject and studied this alkaloid
in pasture weeds. He is particularly conversant with heliotrope, a
weed from the same plant family as comfrey.
“He notes, ‘At least four of these alkaloids are
known to be carcinogens, and it is probable that the type found in
comfrey is also carcinogenic. While it is unlikely that anybody
eating comfrey in small quantities would suffer serious effects,
its regular use as a green vegetable could cause chronic liver
damage or worse. Plants in the same family, have caused human
poisonings: in the USSR, Africa, India, and Afghanistan after their
accidental consumption in bread over a period of one or two years.
The evidence of these outbreaks, considering the amount of the
alkaloid we have measured in comfrey, suggests that daily
consumption of several young leaves of the plant over a similarly
lengthy period will lead to serious disease.’ ”
There are no cures in comfrey and we should eschew this herb. It
is, however, useful in the organic garden as an excellent mulch and
as an addition to the compost pile as it contains a large amount of
nitrogen. Its prolific blossoms also attract honey bees to the
garden ensuring proper pollination to all crops.
Ginseng is an herb with a long, flesh root that is often used as
a medicine. It is a low plant with three leaves on the top. Each
leaf is made up of five leaflets. Ginseng has small greenish-yellow
flowers. Some of these flowers later produce scarlet berries. The
Chinese use ginseng to “treat” many illnesses. The name
of this plant comes from Chinese words meaning likeness of a
man, because of the shape of its root. Those shaped most like
a human body are said to be the most valuable.
American ginseng is cultivated chiefly in Michigan, Minnesota,
Oregon, and Wisconsin. The plant glows wild in pans of the United
States and Canada.
Ginseng is a stimulant for the central nervous system. It is
often taken as a tonic, a “pick me up,” to sharpen the
memory, suppress coughs, ward off colds, etc. This drug effect will
eventually lead to extreme enervation and chronic diseases due to
the constant stimulation and suppression of symptoms.
The official name, capsicum, is derived from the Greek word
“to bite,” and a single taste of this substance will
convince you why it was so named. This “biting” effect
on the tongue and mouth will give you a clue as to what effect it
has on the internal digestive tract. It is a powerful irritant and
poison. It is taken for its stimulant effect which are, in reality,
nature’s efforts to eliminate this poison as soon as
possible. Cayenne pepper should never be taken in any form, in any
Peppermint is a favourite beverage all over the world. It is
taken for a suppressive effect on the digestive system to control
diarrhea, spasms, and relieve indigestion. Peppermint is very high
in tannin which is a very astringent acid and its use results in
enervation and impairment of normal metabolism.
There are many other herbs that are commonly used but we should
eschew them all. They do not have any property to
“cure” and they contribute to ill health due to their
Aloe vera is a cactus that grows outdoors in tropical and
subtropical climates and indoors everywhere else. When you break
open one of its leaves, you see a thick, clear liquid ooze out.It
is this liquid that is claimed to be a “cure” for
burns, ulcers, arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, psoriasis,
shingles, hemorrhages, post-surgery treatment and more. It is
applied topically and taken internally in a liquid form. However,
instead of curing anything, it is actually a toxic substance. It
contains allontoin which results in the same adverse
effects as the alkaloid of comfrey. A cathartic, its purgative
properties are due to three pentosides (barbaloin, iso-barbaloin,
and beta-barbaloin) and to a resin. The resin is aloetin.
Aloe emodin occurs in the free state and as glycoside
in various species of aloe and is extremely irritating to the
delicate linings of the intestinal tract. The body attempts to
discharge this poison quickly. Hence, its purgative effects.
But what about the claims? Many people experience that their
sores, burns, and ulcers heal almost immediately after applying
aloe vera, where otherwise would heal very slowly. The body is
continually striving toward health and will do all it can to
protect itself from any poisonous substances. When aloe vera is
applied to an ulcer, the body closes off that opening as quickly as
it can to block the entrance of that poisonous substance thereby
protecting itself. This gives the false impression of proper
healing. However, when the ulcer was an outlet for toxic materials,
this vital outlet is closed off and toxins are kept inside the
body. Now a new outlet must be found. Either other ulcers will form
or more serious diseases will result.
If you do not interfere with bodily intelligence, healing will
take place. To “intelligently do nothing” is the best
advice for all ulcers, psoriasis, etc. That is, simply follow the
teachings of Life Science/Natural Hygiene and your body will surely
be vital enough to heal itself promptly.
The principles of acupuncture are based on cell paralysis. The
idea on which Chinese medicine is founded is the “Doctrine of
the Two Principles: Yang and Yin.” According to this
philosophy, everything in the universe is governed by these two
principles. Yang is the masculine principle, Yin the feminine. They
are opposite in all aspects. Yang stands for heaven, Yin for earth.
Yang is heat, Yin is cold. Life and death, strong and weak,
positive and negative, day and night, dry and wet, hard and soft,
light and dark—all these are Yang-Yin—pairs of
opposites. Unless these two forces are in exact balance, according
to Chinese folklore, health, peace, and well-being are impossible
to attain. When the relationship between Yang and Yin get out of
balance within a person’s body, illness results. The task of
the physician, then, is to restore health by renewing the equality
of Yang and Yin, according to the Chinese acupuncturist.
The Chinese regard acupuncture as a complete medical system
based upon the principle that man is a part of nature. Since nature
is precise, then therefore, man is precise. Predictable order
reigns in nature and in man. They claim that disturbance in that
order results in illness and it is the acupuncturist’s work
to restore that order and thereby “cure” the illness.
By inserting hair-thin needles into certain points on the body,
acupuncturists treat disease and malfunctions of every organ of the
body. The Chinese people believe that channels of energy, called
“meridians” run through the body. In acupuncture,
needles are inserted at specific points along the meridians.
Illness is explained in terms of disharmony between man and
nature, and in man, between Yin and Yang. Illnesses are either Yin
or Yang and the therapy used to “cure” them will be
either Yin or Yang.
Ch’i comes into the body at birth and leaves at death.
During person’s lifetime it flows in a specific and
continuous pattern in the forms of Yin and Yang. Ch’i does
not inhabit the body at random, although it is present throughout
the organism. Instead it flows inside a system of channels called
“meridians” that extend into the arms and legs and
around the torso beneath the surface of the skin. These meridians
are not the vessels of the circulatory system that carry blood.
They are not the nerves of the central nervous system.
The Chinese contend that Yin and Yang may not be equal—one
rises as the other falls—but their total amount must be
properly distributed among the organs for the body to remain
healthy. In any organ, Yin and Yang are delicately balanced with
each other. Illness results if the balance is disrupted. At certain
times of the day, the Yin or Yang “influence” will be
stronger than its counterpart, but this is a normal rhythm and will
not cause illness or disease. When an imbalance causes sickness,
the acupuncturist tries to discover where Yin or Yang has become
too strong and with his needles restore the balance, as prescribed
in an ancient book called the Nei Ching. The illness
supposedly disappears when he has done this successfully.
Such treatment based on superstition and opposed to physiology
must be discarded. Acupuncturists hold no “cures” and
their needles cannot possibly heal. They can do harm if they strike
a nerve and damage it. Cleverly-placed needles distress the nerves,
resulting in the secretion of narcotizing encephalins, but this
procedure cannot possibly restore health. One is anesthesized into
relative unawareness of illness.
Vitamins resemble enzymes in their catalytic action, producing
changes without undergoing any changes in themselves. They are
active in extremely minute quantities.
Vitamins are constant constituents of living tissues and they
make it possible for the body to utilize proteins, carbohydrates,
fats, and minerals and are essential to growth, regeneration, and
maintenance of health. They must be taken in the context of whole
foods since there is a distinct relation between the amount of
vitamins required and the other food elements. As Dr. Shelton tells
us, the efficiency of the vitamins is dependent upon the
composition of the food mixture.
Adverse changes take place when an excessive amount of vitamins
are taken in concentrated form, especially vitamins A, E, and D.
The other vitamins can be harmful, too, but these are the fat
soluble vitamins and are difficult to eliminate and oxidize when
taken in excess. As a result, you have abnormal changes that take
place in the cells.
If the vitamins and minerals have been separated from their
natural partners or nutritive elements that stabilize them and work
harmoniously with them, they become harmful. There is not an
isolated nutritive component that can lead to the same kind of
activity that results when nutritional elements are derived from a
natural source. In an extracted form, there is some activity but if
is not a normal one.
The vitamins that are contained in fruits, vegetables, and nuts
are much more available than those derived from other food sources,
such as flesh foods or any cooked foods. The vitamins in synthetic
form are not utilizable at all.
Even those vitamins derived from raw foods may not be utilized
due to certain abnormal interferences such as the inhibiting
effects of tobacco upon digestion, the use of coffee, tea, and
other such substances. Also, the use of vinegar and condiments
inhibit digestion and thus prevent vitamin utilization.
The body uses vitamins and minerals synergistically with one
another. For example, the utilization of vitamin C is better with
iron and the B complex. The B complex is used better with A and D.
Such minerals as zinc, manganese, and magnesium are necessary for
best utilization of vitamin C and B complex. In whole raw foods, we
receive the vitamins and minerals in correct proportions so that
they are used appropriately.
Concerning the use of synthetic vitamins as “cures”
Dr. Shelton says:
“The use of certain vitamins is said to ‘cure’
certain ‘diseases.’ We must not permit ourselves to be
misled by these claims. They have no more validity than the claims
that drugs, or other such substances, ‘cure’ disease.
There is no so-called disease that is due to a unitary
cause—every disease is the complex effects of a number of
correlated antecedents—and no disease is curable by
a unitary cure. On the other hand, practically all of the
so-called deficiency states that are said to require vitamins for
their cure, will and do get well while the patient is fasting and
drinking only distilled water. The wild enthusiasm caused by the
discovery of vitamins will sooner or later, give way to sober
reflection and it will then be recognized that the research workers
and others have permitted their enthusiasm to run away with their
A study was conducted to determine the link between adequate
amounts of vitamins and the ability of the liver to produce a group
of enzymes that inhibits the action of carcinogens. Laboratory
animals were fed an artificial diet that included sufficient
quantities of all known vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients in
a highly-purified form. The animals were unable to produce the
important liver enzymes. When small amounts of alfalfa were added
to the artificial diet, the enzyme production began almost
immediately. Other fresh vegetables—cabbage, brussels
sprouts, turnips, broccoli, cauliflower, dill, and
celery—also enabled their systems to produce the
We cannot utilize inorganic vitamins and minerals. All the
essential nutrients that we require are provided in abundance in a
diet of raw fruits, vegetables, and nuts. If our diet is correct,
we do not have to worry about deficiencies of any kind.
Vitamin E is widely promoted as a preventive, a treatment, or a
“cure” for literally scores of human
ailments—ranging from diabetes and heart disease to
infertility, ulcers, and warts.
A consumer’s report cited an early experiment conducted to
determine whether vitamin E was a valid therapy:
“In 1953 M. K. Horwitt, M.D., head of the Biochemical
Research Laboratory at Elgin State Hospital in Elgin, Illinois,
made the first study of what happens when humans are maintained for
protracted periods on low-E diets. The project spanned more than
eight years—making it one of the longest as well as one of
the most thorough studies of human metabolism under controlled
conditions. A total of thirty-eight subjects participated in the
“The outcome of the project can be simply stated: There
was no apparent physical or mental impairment caused by the
restricted intake of vitamin E. Low-E patients remained in
satisfactory health, despite the fact that blood levels of
alpha-tocopherol were lowered by 80 percent. The survival time of
their red blood cells became somewhat shorter—on the average,
about 100 days instead of 123—than that of the two comparison
groups (those on a low-E diet who received vitamin E supplements,
and those on a standard diet). But the number of cells remained
adequate and no patient became anemic. Nevertheless, the shorter
survival time was considered sufficient reason for termination of
the experiment. In earlier studies monkeys maintained on diets
severely deficient in vitamin E had developed anemia, and Horwitt
did not want to risk that possibility with the Elgin patients. In
short, the study showed that human beings apparently need some
vitamin E, but that the requirement is a modest one and can be
easily satisfied by typical, everyday diets.”
Vitamin E enthusiasts claim that millions of Americans,
especially those whose intake of polyunsaturated fats is low,
don’t get enough vitamin E in their diet. The deficit, they
insist, should be made up by vitamin E supplements. The fact is,
however, as the National Research Council made clear in 1973, that
vitamin E is available in adequate quantities in the ordinary diet.
More than adequate supplies are in vegetables or fruits or
In a report published in March 1979, a recommendation against
the over-the-counter sale of vitamin E supplements on the grounds
that deficiencies of vitamin E are “practically
nonexistent.” Currently, the Recommended Daily Allowance of
vitamin E for adults is 12 to 15 International Units, equivalent to
approximately 8 to 10 milligrams of natural vitamin E in foods.
Very low levels of vitamin E have been found in patients with
cystic fibrosis, celiac disease, nontropical sprue, chronic
pancreatitis, and a few other diseases. These disorders are not
caused by lack of vitamin E, however, nor can they be helped by
vitamin E. All of these ailments have one feature in common: an
impairment in the small intestine’s ability to absorb fat.
Consequently, the vitamin E dissolved in that fat is not absorbed
either. Even if such patients eat diets with an abundant quantity
of vitamin E, very little of it would reach their bloodstreams.
The doses of vitamin E specified in medicinal use commonly range
from 300 to 600 milligrams a day or even higher—from thirty
to sixty times the Recommended Daily Allowance. Clinical trials
have failed to show any vitamin E benefits for miscarriages,
sterility, menopausal disturbances, muscular dystrophies, cystic
fibrosis, blood disorders, leg ulcers, diabetes, and a variety of
heart and vascular diseases. No drug, including vitamin E, can
“cure” these diseases because the causes for them are
not dealt with. The 1973 statement by the National Research Council
was also negative about the supposed value of vitamin E supplements
for the wide variety of ailments for which vitamin E is
The efficacy of vitamin E in toilet soaps or cosmetics for skin
care, despite advertised claims, has not been demonstrated. We know
that no substance possesses any curative properties. Its proposed
advantage in a deodorant was ruled out when the distribution of
Mennen E was halted by its manufacturer because of an
unexpected number of adverse reactions in unhappy users.
Vitamin C has been recommended to combat cancer,
atherosclerosis, every “viral” disease, every so-called
bacterial disease, poisoning of all kinds, mental illness, colds,
injury, temperature extremes, old age, diabetes, allergy,
cataracts, kidney stones, radiation sickness, arthritis, headaches,
and bee stings.
While vitamin C plays a very important role in human physiology,
it does not have the ability to wipe out the effects of unhealthful
living that result in numerous acute and chronic diseases.
Since Dr. Pauling declared that vitamin C was a sure
“cure” for the common cold, millions of Americans have
been running to their neighborhood drugstores to obtain this
vitamin. The effect of this practice is really a drug effect. While
the body is eliminating excesses of vitamin C, other housecleaning
duties (such as debris eliminated during colds) are temporarily
halted. Thus, the illusion of “prevention” or
All fresh raw fruits and vegetables contain several times over
the vitamin C that we need. When cooked, however, this vitamin is
readily destroyed and is, therefore, not available to us. It is
important that we consume all our foods raw and as fresh as
possible. Even in the winter, when freshness is lacking in many of
our fruits and vegetables, we still receive a more than adequate
Reflexology is a specialized form of massage and, among the many
claims, it is said to be able to restore normalcy of function and
give relief from pain to virtually any part of the body. The two
basic modes of this therapy are foot reflexology and hand
According to reflexology therapists, organs or parts on the
right side of the body have their reflex areas on the right foot or
hand. Organs on the left side of the body have their reflex areas
on the left, foot and hand. Organs extending past the middle or
center of the body will have reflex areas on both feet and hands.
Where there are two like organs or parts (kidneys, ovaries, etc.),
each has a reflex area on its corresponding foot and hand. The
lower half of the body has its reflex areas on the lower half of
the, foot, and the upper half of the body has its reflex areas on
the upper half of the foot. The waistline is located approximately
halfway between the base of the toes and the lower part of the
It is said that reflexology stimulates the internal organs and
increases circulation. It is based on the theory that if the body
is in a healthy condition, with no congestion in it, no tender
areas should be found on the feet. The tenderness, they say, is
caused by crystalline deposits that form at the nerve endings in
the feet. The purpose in doing compression foot massage is to break
up these deposits (or crush them) so that they may become solvent
and be carried away with the rest of the waste material in the
body. Once these deposits are dissolved, the congestion is
relieved, and the circulation to the body is improved.
This theory sounds reasonable, but like other therapies, it is
based on symptomatic relief. It does not restore health because it
does not remove the underlying cause of ill health. There can not
be any “cures” through this method or any other if the
causes of disease are left in force. Calcium deposits that may be
deposited in the feet are the result of incorrect living habits.
Simply removing these deposits does not create health.
When the fight-or-flight response is evoked, it brings into play
the sympathetic nervous system, which is part of the autonomic, or
involuntary nervous system. The sympathetic nervous system acts by
secreting specific hormones: adrenalin or epinephrine and
noradrenalin or norepinephrine. These hormones, epinephrine and its
related substances, bring about the physiologic changes of
increased blood pressure, heart, rate, and body metabolism.
Dr. Herbert Benson (The Relaxation Response, New York:
William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1975) says:
“While the fight-or-flight response is associated with the
overactivity of the sympathetic nervous system, there is another
response that leads to a quieting of the same nervous system,
indeed, there is evidence that hypertensive subjects can lower
their blood pressure by regularly eliciting this other response.
This is the Relaxation Response, an opposite, involuntary response
that causes a reduction in the activity of the sympathetic nervous
system. Since we cannot easily change the nature of modern life,
perhaps better prevention and therapy for hyoerten:ior and other
creases related to the fight-or-flight response might be achieved
by actively bringing forth the Relaxation Response.”
It is true that stress does affect our health and we should
learn to deal with this problem. It is also true that we need rest
and relaxation on a daily basis. But this aspect alone will not
produce health. All the other requirements for health must also be
present in one package of totally healthful living. There are no
“cures” in the Relaxation Response. If blood pressure
is lowered, or metabolism is lowered through this method, this does
not indicate that total health has been achieved. One or two
symptoms of ill health may have temporarily disappeared, but that
It has been claimed that people have been “cured”
from such symptoms as facial pain after a single session of this
therapy. Do not be fooled by this illusion. Ill health is developed
after a period of time and the body needs time to heal. It cannot
accomplish this task in a few minutes or a few days, it takes time.
But when the proper conditions are provided (e.g., through a fast),
the body will restore health.
The device used for ultrasound therapy consists of a small box.
On its face are a few simple dials and gauges. Attached to a cord
running into the unit is a transducer similar in appearance to a
small bathtub shower spray extension. This transducer emits a
stream of sound waves, at a frequency so high that they are
inaudible to the human ear.
When this therapy is applied, a gel is spread on the surface of
the body that is to be treated. When the transducer is placed
against the injured part, the gel keeps the sound waves from being
lost in the air.
On the box of the ultrasound unit is a dial where the ultrasound
frequency may be set. It produces heat as the sound waves rub
against cell molecules and cause them to vibrate. This heat
penetrates just slightly under the skin but the ultrasound can
penetrate into the joint.
This therapy is often used for persons with arthritis associated
with calcium Deposits. The ultrasound waves break up the calcium
which then disperses. One main problem is that it can also effect
healthy bone and cause destruction there. The higher the ultrasound
frequency, the greater the risk of bone damage. Since this therapy
is still really in experimental stages, it is unknown what is a
safe frequency, if indeed, there is. a safe range and also how long
to apply the treatment. Besides being risky, no real and
long-lasting benefit can be achieved. Calcium deposits may be
broken up but the cause for their deposition has not been removed.
They will, therefore, once again accumulate. At best, it is
palliative. On the other hand, it can destroy healthy tissues and
Repeated surveys have shown that those physicians who have the
most contact with radiation (radiologists) have a significantly
higher incidence of leukemia—at least nine times greater than
that among all other males of the same age and at least four times
greater than that for other physicians.
As atomic radiation permeates living tissues, highly-organized
units of living matter in the cell are disrupted. Fundamentally,
the cell is composed of atoms and molecules which are split by
radiation into electrically-charged fragments. This ionization
process is completed in less than a trillionth of a second, yet it
triggers off a chain reaction of subtle events within the cell
leading to its damage or eventual death. Since cells are not inert
blobs of matter but living, reproducing, organisms, they react to
the radiation-induced injury by repair processes which lead to
apparent recovery. If the radiation dose is overwhelming, immediate
or only slightly delayed death of the cell ensues when the cell
attempts to divide.
Radiation also harms cells by producing changes in the
environment. Cells are bathed by solutions from which
radiation-produced activated products can reach and damage them.
Also, cells can be damaged by interference with their blood supply
and the action of poisonous products released by radiation-killed
Since tissues are a specialized population of cells, their
exposure to radiation causes damage as a consequence of injury and
death of the component cells. The overall effect involves not only
the direct action of the radiation on the individual cells but
changes in the surroundings of the tissues.
One tissue may give an immediate response to radiation and
another no apparent or detectable response. However, the seemingly
unresponsive tissue may show injury at a much later date. The
recovery of tissues from immediate radiation injury depends on the
specific cell types, or the size of the radiation dose, and on the
time between repeated irradiations. These factors have been
summarized by Doctors E. G. Williams and S. C. Ingraham II in a
United States Health report for 1956 (Jack Schubert,
Radiation NY: Viking Press, 1957):
“The blood-forming organs, the skin, the membranes lining
body cavities, and the secreting glands may regenerate completely
and resume their normal functions. Muscle, brain, and portions of
the kidney and eye cannot regenerate; their repair results only in
scar formation. Even those tissues that can regenerate may fail to
respond after repeated ionization and cause conditions such as
nonhealing ulcers or aplastic anemia (bone marrow destruction).
Also, repeated regeneration may produce cancerous conditions ...
These changes have all been observed in animals following radiation
exposures at levels corresponding to doses only slightly above the
accepted safe limits for man. There are no constant clinical
symptoms which can be relied upon to warn of latent radiation
injury before life-threatening changes become manifest.”
No cell fully recovers from a dose of radiation. While a cell
may seem to recover, there is an irreversible effect on the
chromosomes and genes. According to Drs. Williams and Ingraham:
“Ionizing radiation can alter the genes in the body (somatic)
cells and in the reproductive (sexual) cells and cause them to grow
or reproduce abnormally. If a gene change occurs in a sexual cell,
a mutation will occur in later generations provided that the cell
is used in reproduction. If a gene change occurs in a cell of
growing or regenerating somatic tissue like skin, liver, or bone
marrow, it may cause cancerous or other harmful changes in the
The late effects of radiation are often produced in cooperation
with disturbances in body function in general. One of these
disturbances in particular—hormonal imbalance —can in
itself aid and abet the cancer-producing effects of radiation or
even delay years the appearance of the cancer. Consequently, in
evaluating the changes wrought by radiation in the body we must
also take into account the complex inter-relationship existing
between the various organs and the hormones released by the
different endocrine glands.
Dr. Schubert theorizes that since hormones influence the
regeneration and growth of almost all the cells in the body, it is
reasonable to assume that many of the late changes and cancers
developed in the body after radiation are related to the impairment
of the endocrine glands such as the pituitary, thyroid, gonads, and
adrenals, either as a result of the radiation directly on the
endocrine organ or, indirectly, because of damage to a distant
organ which then brings forth a response from the endocrines.
Since a female child possesses at birth all the ova she will
ever use, it is very important to note that exposure of the ovaries
to radiation affects eggs which are to be fertilized in the future.
Thus, radiation damage is preserved by the ova and may result in
defective children. Even if the children appear normal, they may
carry defects in their heredity (the genes) which will be manifest
in later generations.
A single dose of 50 r to the whole body causes the number of
lymphocytes to drop by one-half in about “two to three days.
It takes about a week for it to return to the preradiation level.
After higher but nonlethal doses of radiation, the lymphocyte drop
is abrupt and little or no evidence of recovery may be apparent for
several months. In fact, it may take years before the number of
white cells returns to normal. Another significant observation is
the fact that individuals previously exposed to radiation show a
greater depression of cell numbers upon subsequent radiation
The brain is considered to be relatively insensitive to small
radiation doses, but this does not mean there is no damage—it
means rather that there exists no suitable means of detecting
damage, or that it has not beer, looked for, or that no cases have
been followed for a long enough time. One must be suspicious of all
tissues to which radiation has been given.
Relatively small doses of radiation to localized regions of the
brain give immediate effects. In 1953, two volunteers were given
100 r to a localized region of the brain (diencephalon). About one
and one-half hour; later they complained of ringing in the ears,
generalized numbness, and apathy. Shortly thereafter they felt
mentally stimulated. Sleep that night was very deep. The next
morning they were very active and “high.” Then they
became unusually quiet. The disturbances lasted about seven to ten
days. These effects were confirmed in another experiment involving
There have also been several reports of brain damage in persons
given heavy doses of radiation for brain tumors or for scalp
Derived from apricot pits, which contain cyanide, Laetrile was
considered too toxic for human use by its discoverer, a
Californian, Ernst Krebs, Sr., M.D. But years later, after his son,
Ernst Krebs, Jr., claimed to have “purified” Laetrile,
both father and son advocated it as an effective treatment for
cancer. The Krebses patented their promising product as
“Laetrile”—an acronym derived from the chemical
name Laevo-mandelonitrile, the cyanide-containing substance they
extracted from the crushed kernels of apricot pits.
The next step was to explain how Laetrile worked. With a little
imagination, the younger Krebs came up with a “magic
bullet” theory. Cancer cells, he claimed, contain an abundant
amount of an enzyme that releases cyanide from Laetrile. The
cyanide, in turn, kills off the tumor cells. Normal cells are low
in that enzyme, the Krebs theory went, but rich in another enzyme
that detoxifies the cyanide. So normal cells live while cancer
This theory was proved to be wrong. The supposedly abundant
“releasing” enzyme is scarcer in cancer cells than in
normal ones, and the “protective” enzyme is found in
equal amounts in both kinds of cells. Moreover, cyanide does not
have bullet-like precision. Because cyanide diffuses rapidly across
intercellular barriers, any destructive effects would spread to
both cancerous and noncancerous cells.
Its promoters then took a different course. Laetrile, the drug,
was suddenly transformed in 1970 into Laetrile, the vitamin.
Cancer, according to the later theory, was a vitamin-deficiency
disease. Laetrile, it went on, was “vitamin B-17,” the
“missing vitamin” needed to prevent and treat
Besides daily injections or oral doses of Laetrile, the
“total holistic metabolic nutritional” regimen includes
massive doses of vitamin C and other vitamins, chelated mineral
supplements, even coffee enemas. The Laetrile-centered regimen
emphasizes a strictly vegetarian diet, free of all animal protein.
Often another nonvitamin B-15 or “pangamic acid,” is
prescribed (B-15 is also the creation of the same Ernst Krebs, Jr.,
who christened Laetrile “B-17”).
Laetrile is one of the most tested substances ever put forward
as a remedy for cancer. In 1953, the Cancer Commission of the
California Medical Association investigated Laetrile and found it
ineffective. As part of that study, the commission discovered that
all but one of forty-four patients treated with Laetrile still had
an active form of cancer or were dead.
The most comprehensive series of animal tests were done at
Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York City. From 1972 to 1976
approximately thirty-seven experiments were conducted using
Laetrile on mouse and rat tumors. Laetrile neither prolonged life,
nor reduced tumor size, nor checked the spread of cancer.
Medical records submitted by Laetrile proponents have never
substantiated the claims made. Many cancer patients who believe
they had been cured by Laetrile find out later that they still have
the disease. Others never had cancer to begin with. Some cancer
patients have temporary remissions—periods when symptoms
lessen; if Laetrile use coincides with such a remission, the
patient may think Laetrile was the cause.
The FDA’s pharmacological analysis, in 1977 indicated that
Laetrile smuggled or imported from Mexico in the form of oral doses
and vials of injectable material under the names of
“Laetrile” and “amygdalin” were potentially
lethal sources of cyanide. Laboratory tests hinted that amygdalin
might even be cancer-causing in its own right.
Jerry P. Lewis, M.D., chief on onncology and hematology at the
University of California School of Medicine in Davis, reported late
in 1977 the case of a seventeen-year-old in Los Angeles who
swallowed approximately 10 1/2 grams (one-third of an ounce) of
injectable Laetrile. The young woman had a convulsion ten minutes
later, and died without recovering consciousness. In mid-1977, a
ten-month-old girl died in an upstate New York hospital a few days
after gulping down several Laetrile-tablets. Beyond these
documented deaths, the FDA toxologists suggest that many cancer
patients whose death after long-term, high-dose Laetrile medication
was attributed to their malignancy actually succumbed to slow
cyanide poisoning from Laetrile.
In addition to being deceived, the patients or their families
have to pay dearly for the deception.
Laetrile therapy does not come cheap. The cost of 6
month’s treatment at a Mexican clinic has been estimated at
between $1,500 and $2,000. Laetrile smuggled into the United States
is priced as high as $50 for a half-ounce vial for injection,
compared with a $9 price tag in Tijuana. Tablets sell for nearly
two dollars in this country, but cost only about three cents to
Cancer is the end point of a lifetime of unhealthful living and
the accumulated toxins that results from such a lifestyle. Adding
more poisons to our body as “medicines” will not
Probably the most extensive study of mail-order health
advertising was done in the summer of 1977 by the quackery
committee of the Pennsylvania Medical Society. The committee
screened five-hundred nationally-circulated magazines and found
that about a quarter of them carried ads for mail-order health
products. Altogether, about one-hundred-fifty such products were
offered by fifty promoters. The products included weight reducers,
bust developers, blemish removers, hair-loss remedies, longevity
formulas, aphrodisiacs, impotency aids, and others.
According to Postal Service estimates, mail-order fraud costs
Americans at least $150 million a year.
In January 1978, some two million copies of a four-page brochure
were accepted for insertion into the various editions of eighteen
city newspapers from coast to coast. The brochure promoted a
handbook, “Modern Solution to Age Old Physical
Problems,” published by the Midwest Health Research
Laboratory. The handbook, it was claimed, “contained a
solution or prevention for as many as forty different diseases and
illnesses,” including arthritis, diabetes, and hardening of
the arteries. More than one thousand readers surrendered to the
inviting logic of the promotion: “Our special introductory
offer of $9.95 can save you unnecessary visits to the doctor, the
hospital, and save you money.”
Those who mailed money received a twenty-five-page booklet
revealing the secret cure-all and end-all of disease
—“colonic irrigation,” otherwise known as an
enema, preferably “two and three times a week.” Coupons
were available for those desiring “personal Home Treatment
Kits” at $29.95 apiece.
The Washington Post and eleven other prominent
publications carried full-page ads for Thera-Slim-100, the
“diet aid” that supposedly “burns away more fat
each 24 hours than if you ran 14 miles a day.”
Research conducted by the Consumer’s Union resulted in
several conclusions concerning some of the more widely-publicized
- Wrinkle removers - No cream or liquid that’s safe to put
on the skin can do more than temporarily increase the water content
of the skin, and then only to the point of masking the most
superficial of wrinkles. ‘Anti-aging’ pills containing
RNA, DNA, or other chemicals have no beneficial effect at all.
- Baldness remedies - Male pattern baldness, the most common type
of baldness, is considered to be hereditary. (But other factors are
also involved.) Medical science knows of no pill or cream that can
arrest that genetically-determined condition. In some instances,
loss of hair may also be symptomatic of various emotional and
- Aphrodisiacs - Most pills and powders with aphrodisiacal
pretensions contain ‘Spanish fly,’ a legendary
ingredient celebrated for its purported effect on women.
Today’s ‘Spanish fly’ consists mainly of red
pepper. It causes nothing more than mild irritation of the urethra.
The ginseng root, long used as an Oriental cure-all, has recently
acquired a reputation in this country for improving sexual prowess.
The FDA has unearthed no evidence to support the root’s
- Diet pills, protein supplements, reducing devices—there
is no proof that such gimmicks are effective for weight loss. Most
nonprescription diet pills contain either phenylpropanolamine or
methylcellulose. Some evidence indicates phenylpropanolamine can
act as an appetite suppressant, but only for short periods.
Methylcellulose is a ‘bulking agent,’ which supposedly
expands in the stomach to relieve hunger. There’s no evidence
that it works. Weight-loss powders are usually accompanied by
instructions bidding users to follow a rigid low-calorie diet as
well. The diet might very well promote a weight loss, but protein
products contribute nothing. Clinical studies by the FDA have shown
that ‘body wraps’—devices wrapped around parts of
the body for selective weight loss—are useless. Some can be
- Megavitamins - Everyone recognizes that adequate amounts of
vitamins are necessary for good health. But none has ever shown
that extra large or ‘megavitamin’ doses produce better
health. Depending on the vitamin, amounts beyond the National
Academy of .Sciences/National Research Council’s Recommended
Daily Allowances can be dangerous or just a waste of money. Too
much of the fat-soluble vitamins A and D can build up in the body
to dangerous levels. Doses of water-soluble vitamins that exceed
what the body can use are simply excreted in the urine.
There are many other “cures” being sold through the
mail and magazine advertisements, but all are worthless. They are
all dishonest attempts to make money from an uninformed or
unknowing public. There are no “cures.”
It is claimed that this single dietary factor plays a role in
such diseases as appendicitis, diverticular disease, polyps of the
large bowel, cancer of the bowel, irritable colon, hiatial hernia,
gallbladder disease, diabetes, atherosclerosis, coronary artery
disease, obesity, hemorrhoids, varicose veins, thrombophlebitis,
and dental disease.
Dr. Benjamin H. Ershoff, a research professor of biochemistry at
Loma Linda University and the University of Southern California,
points to many studies conducted during the past twenty years that
he says indicate the beneficial effects of plant fiber-containing
materials when administered to animals fed on low-fiber diets. But
the beneficial effects are seen when this fiber is part of the
natural food and not separated from it.
In 1943, two American medical investigators observed that
immature mice who were being given a compound related to vitamin
C—glucoascorbic acid—developed a severe condition
characterized by growth failure, diarrhea, hemorrhages beneath the
skin, hair loss, and death. But the condition developed only in
mice who were being fed on a highly-refined ration. It did not
develop at all in mice fed similar doses of glucoascorbic acid in
conjunction with a natural food stock ration or in mice fed the
refined diet supplemented with dried grass.
In 1954, Ershoff showed that alfalfa meal, when incorporated in
the diet was similarly effective. He continued to see if any known
nutrient in the alfalfa meal might account for the phenomenon. It
was not a nutrient that was responsible. When juice was extracted
from the alfalfa, it had no effect. But the whole alfalfa with pulp
included provided beneficial results.
It turned out that various grasses—rye, orchard, wheat,
fescue, and oat—were also effective. When cellulose was
tried, it had a moderate effect, considerably less than that
obtained with the fiber—containing alfalfa and varied
“Nearly all disease,” says Denis Burkett, “has
more than one causative factor. Not in any of these diseases would
suggest that fiber deficiency is a sole causative factor, merely
that it may be one important factor. What I would emphasize is that
a fiber-depleted diet is a common factor, common to a number of
characteristic Western diseases. It is a major factor, I believe,
in some, a less important factor in others, but it is common to
each of them and offers the only reasonable explanation put
forward, I think, why these diseases are
These diverse diseases are related because the underlying cause
is the same in each. That is, an unhealthy and unnatural diet plus
other poor living habits. A natural diet of fruits, vegetables,
nuts, and seeds will provide us with all of the proper nutrients
needed to ensure a state of health. The natural fiber will be there
in proper amounts and we do not need to think about providing this
one ingredient separately. The fiber is the undigestable part of
the plant and we receive no nourishment from it anyway. It is
certainly not so important as is claimed. It is not any
“cure” since it is an inert substance that passes
through the digestive tract unchanged. It is discarded by the body
in this way because it is nonusable.
The mice fed on an unnatural and refined diet became sick not
because of lack of fiber alone but because of the presence of
toxins in an unnatural diet. This diet was foreign to their body
and was not sufficient to promote health. When some of their
natural foods were given, such as alfalfa, health was restored
because their organism was once again provided with the nutriment
they needed, and healing and normalization took place. This was
certainly not due to the fiber present in the diet but due to the
many factors in their natural diet that are essential for their
Many human disease conditions are associated with low-fiber
diets consisting largely of refined breads, cereals, sweets, etc.
However, this again is not due to the lack of fiber alone. Other
aspects to take into consideration are the presence of toxic
elements and lack of vitamins, minerals, and proteins in
‘these refined products. Merely adding fiber in the form of
bran will not decrease the toxicity of these foods.
Our natural foods are complete with all nutrients including
fiber and these are the foods that will provide the conditions for
This diet depends on the periodic ingestion of fructose and a
high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet is followed. Dates are eaten
between meals to maintain high blood sugar levels.
The foods are divided into seven basic types: 1) “free
foods” which can be eaten in any amount since they contain
negligible amounts of carbohydrates, fats, or proteins; 2) meat; 3)
fat; 4) milk; 5) vegetables; 6) fruit; 7) flour products.
The fructose diet is intended for people who have functional
hypoglycemia, for those who wish to lose weight without feeling
hungry or irritable, for those who wish to reduce their craving for
alcohol, for people who wish to avoid the onset of migraine
headaches or premenstrual tension, for hyperactive children, and
for persons with certain psychotic tendencies. Do not be fooled by
these claims. The Fructose Diet or any diet cannot detoxify and
heal. But they certainly can derange the body!
The lists of foods for this diet is as follows:
||Pepper & other spices
This list of “free foods” contains the most toxic
food elements that we can ingest. Except for lemon, all of the
above foods are eliminated on the Hygienic diet not only for their
toxicity but because they are irritants, and interfere with normal
Sauerkraut, spinach, rhubarb, radishes, parsley, and mushrooms
all contain toxins which interfere with normal assimilation of
certain nutrients. The other vegetables would be healthful
additions to our meals if consumed raw.
This list includes meats, fish, cheese, peanut butter, and
eggs—each serving contains seven grams of protein. All of
these foods are unnatural items in the human diet and contribute to
|Avocado - 1/8
||French Dressing - 1 Tbsp.
|Butter - 1 tsp.
||Mayonnaise - 1 tsp.
|Bacon - 1 slice
||Nuts - 6 small
|Chocolate - 2 tsp.
||Oil - 1 tsp.
|Light cream - 2 Tbsp.
||Olives - 5
|Heavy cream - 1 Tbsp.
||Shortening - 1 tsp.
|Lard - 1 tsp.
||Cream Cheese - 1 Tbsp.
Except for the avocado and nuts in this list, these
“foods” would result in ill health in anyone consuming
1 cup of milk or yogurt equals one serving
1/4-cup ice cream equals one serving
Humans cannot digest milk products due to lack of the enzymes
rennin and lactase. Ice cream contains many unnatural and toxic
ingredients and a high percentage of refined sugar. Yogurt is
fermented milk and also may contain high levels of sugar. Humans
cannot digest the byproducts of fermentation and putrefaction.
||Frozen mixed vegetables
These vegetables are all served cooked and add little to the
value of the diet.
|Apple - 1
|Applesauce – 1/2 cup
||Peach - 1
|Apricots - 2
||Pear - 1
|Banana – 1/2
||Pineapple - 1/2 cup
|Berries - 1 cup
||Plums - 2
|Cantaloupe -, Vi
||Watermelon - 3” x 1 1/2”
||Grapefruit - 1/2
|Fresh figs - 2
||Grapes - 12
|Nectarine - 1
||Honeydew - 1/4
List 6 provides the only major worthwhile contribution to the
diet but in such small portions that they are merely “crops
in the bucket.”
Flour products and starchy vegetables.
As was explained in earlier lessons, humans have a limited
capacity for starch digestion. In addition, wheat has toxic acids
that are harmful and therefore should not be consumed.
For most people following this diet, Dr. Palm recommends that
two to three servings of protein foods from List 2 and usually just
one serving per meal for the remaining categories be included. Such
high amounts of protein will only further endanger your health.
Several recipes include the use of concentrated fructose. In
addition, Dr. Palm requires that you eat between 75 and 100 grams
of fructose daily—available in tablet or powder form.
Fructose is refined from sucrose, ordinary white sugar. The health
consequences of such a practice is the same as ingesting the same
amount of refined white sugar. This diet is dangerous and could
never result in any benefits.
The roots of diet therapy in the treatment of patients with
peptic ulcer extend far back in medical history. As early as the
first century, Celsus ordered smooth diets free of
“acrid” food, and practitioners of the seventh century
wrote of their belief in “special healing properties”
of milk for patients with digestive disturbances. In the first half
of the nineteenth century, peptic ulcer became established as a
pathologic and clinical entity, and physicians generally advocated
a liberal dietary regimen with frequent feedings.
However, in the later part of the nineteenth century, a radical
change developed in medical opinion concerning peptic ulcer
treatment. The belief spread that food was harmful to the ulcer,
and only complete rest—meaning an empty stomach—would
allow the stomach to heal itself. When the body is free from the
irritation of the presence of food and when the digestive system is
given a complete rest, healing will commence. This is the safest
known method to regain health and its beneficial results can be
documented by anyone who is familiar with fasting.
However, in 1915, an American physician, Bertram Sippy, broke
the common practice of fasting end established the beginning
principles of continuous control of gastric acidity through diet
and alkaline medication. He outlined a program of milk and cream
feedings with slow additions of single soft food items over a
prolonged period of time, allowing little variation.
In general, Sippy’s regimen is used today by many
physicians and dietitions for gastric ulcer patients. This diet
therapy is based on several erroneous principles. The food must be
both acid neutralizing and nonirritating, according to this
The therapy begins with milk and cream feedings every hour or
so, to supposedly neutralize free acid with the milk protein,
suppress gastric secretion with the cream, and generally soothe the
Ulcer by coating the stomach. However, these assumptions have not
been supported by research. In fact, clinical evidence proves them
to be worthless.
There are gradual additions of soft bland foods over a period of
time, keeping some food in the stomach at all times to mix with the
acid to prevent its corrosive action on the ulcer. These bland
foods are usually limited to choices of white toast or crackers,
refined cereals, eggs, milk, cheeses, a few cooked pureed fruits
and vegetables, and later, ground meat.
With such frequent meals, the digestive organs are never allowed
to rest, and recovery is prolonged rather than assisted. In
addition, many of the foods advocated are toxic and further
contribute to the reason for the disease.
The therapy is concerned with eliminating chemical, mechanical,
and thermal irritation.
Any food believed to stimulate gastric secretions is prohibited.
These include highly-seasoned foods, meat extractives, coffee, lea,
alcohol, citrus fruit juices, dried foods, spices, and
I could concur with this rule. The above foods are highly
irritating for anyone and all except citrus juices contain toxic
components that would result in sickness in a well person. For a
sick individual who is already enervated, the results are just that
Any food believed to be abrasive in its effect upon the ulcer is
prohibited. These include all raw foods, plant fiber (strained
fruits and vegetables are used), coarse or rough foods, whole
grains, and “gas forming,” or strongly-flavored
Hygienists advocate that all foods should be withheld for the
gastric ulcer patient. To ensure complete return of health, a fast
is in order. After the fast, a diet of the same foods that are
prohibited above would be those that would be the best to maintain
health. That is a diet that consists of raw foods, mostly
Any very hot or cold food believed to irritate the lesion by its
effect on surface blood vessels are prohibited. These include hot
beverages and soups, frozen desserts or iced beverages.
On this point. I would concur.
After initial hourly milk and cream only, the diet is gradually
increased as the ulcer heals. The routine usually, follows a
progressive four-stage pattern as follows:
Stage 1 - For this initial stage of the dietary
therapy, the following foods are permitted: milk, cream, butter,
margarine, eggs, cooked and refined cereals, plain custard, Jell-O,
rennet, plain puddings, vanilla ice cream, noodles, macaroni,
spaghetti, white rice, white bread, soda crackers, cheese, jelly,
honey, sugar, white potatoes, and creamed soups.
A healthy man could live for a very short time on this diet
before he became extremely ill. Why, then, is it advocated for sick
individuals? It defies reason.
Stage 2 - During this second stage of the bland diet,
strained fruit juices are allowed to a limited extent (starting
with 1/2 cup). In addition to the fruit juice, the following
“foods” are added to the diet: plain cake such as angel
food, sponge, pound, butter cake; winter squash; strained
asparagus, peas, carrots, green beans, beets, spinach; cooked,
The fruit juice would be a welcome addition to the diet if it is
served fresh. No individual—healthy or sick—should be
served cake as it contains toxic ingredients along with refined
white sugar and flour that will result in toxicosis and sickness.
Since the vegetables and fruits in the above list are all served
overcooked and strained, they contribute little value to this
Stage 3 - At this stage, flesh foods are added to the
diet. These include fowl, fish, and beef that has been ground.
As we have stated in earlier lessons, flesh is a terrible food
for man. We are not equipped to deal with the many toxic byproducts
of flesh and therefore, its ingestion will invariably lead to ill
Stage 4 - At this stage, certain desserts are added
such as prune or apricot whip, plain cookies, plain sherbert, water
ices, and fine graham crackers. Also, some additional cooked
vegetables and fruits are added.
This entire diet is a nutritional disaster and will result only
in disease. Recent research studies demonstrate the uselessness of
this type of dietary therapy.
A. M. Gill reported a series of studies with chronic ulcer
patients, whose ulcers healed in four to eight weeks with placebo
treatment of a daily injection of one ml. of distilled water and no
diet or exercise restrictions or medications. He concluded that
ulcers healed not by manipulation of the various common therapies
used but because, “... the man with the ulcer comes under the
care of a physician who is able to transmit some of his own
confidence to the patient.”
Gill’s studies were valuable in that he found that the
orthodox dietary therapy was useless even though he arrived at some
other erroneous conclusions. But his theory that no therapy is
better than the bland one, is valid.
Other researchers likewise have found that bland food do not
increase the rate of healing, nor was there any particular benefit
from avoidance of all foods thought to be commonly irritating (such
as fruits and vegetables).
It has been demonstrated that routine omission of any fiber in
the diet also seems to have no benefits.
Modes of eating—wrong foods or wrong combinations of
foods, improper mastication, and rapid consumption of meals are
more involved as sources of irritation. Many physicians, such as
Dr. H. J. Shull, contend from their experiences with individual
patients that so-called coarse or rough foods; such as lettuce, raw
fruits, celery, cabbage, and nuts, do not necessarily traumatize a
peptic ulcer when they are properly chewed and mixed with saliva.
Grinding or straining of food is needed only when teeth are poor or
Barry Tarshis (DMSO New York: William Morrow and
Company, Inc. 1981) believes that he has found the true panacea for
all illnesses. He states:
“... let’s say, for the sake of argument, that
(somebody—the government, a drug company, a
foundation—pulled together a blue-ribbon group of
pharmacologists and physicians, presented them an unlimited budget
and told them to develop a drug that came closer to being a panacea
than any substance now known. Imagine the properties that such a
drug, were it ever developed, would embody.
“To begin with, the drug would be effective not only
against one or two conditions and diseases, but against a broad
range of maladies, from simple, everyday problems such as sprains
and sinusitis to life-threatening diseases such as stroke or
cancer. The drug, in other words, would be far more powerful than
aspirin and a good deal more versatile than, say, penicillin.
“Apart from its effectiveness, the drug would be safe,
keeping in mind that not even aspirin is completely harmless.
Physicians who prescribed it wouldn’t have to concern
themselves with the adverse reactions that may claim as many as
30,000 to 60,000 lives a year in the United States alone. And the
people who take it wouldn’t have to suffer the myriad side
effects—headache, fatigue, blurring of vision, mental
disorientation—that come with the territory when you have a
chronic disease for which there are only a handful of medications
“The drug would also be versatile—versatile enough
so that, depending on the condition, a physician could administer
it orally or topically, by injection or intravenously. And it would
be stable enough so that you could ship it anywhere in the world,
or keep it on the shelf for months and not have to worry about it
spoiling or losing its potency. The raw materials from which the
drug was made would be readily available, so that you would never
have to concern yourself with a shortage. And, finally, if you had
a social conscience, you’d want the drug to be inexpensive
enough (somewhat less expensive than, say, the interferon
treatments now being offered for cancer in Europe at a price of
$65,000) so that patients who took it on a long-term basis
wouldn’t have to spend a big chunk of their yearly income for
the privilege of living without pain.”
The name of this new “wonder drug” is dimethyl
sulfoxide or DMSO for short. It is being used for such ailments as
sprains and sinusitis to burns and arthritis. Some people claim
that it has the ability to stabilize progressively crippling
arthritic conditions and to alleviate certain forms of mental
This powerful and toxic drug passes through cell membranes so
quickly that you can taste it minutes after it has been applied to
the skin. Combined with other drugs, it will carry them through
cell membranes that were formerly impenetrable to these drugs when
taken alone. Due to this property, DMSO can cause immeasurable
damage to all the cells of the body. These cell membranes can
become weakened or altered and many other toxins besides DMSO will
enter the cell which would not ordinarily enter. Such derangement
of the cells may result in serious health consequences—much
more serious than the ailment for which it was given.
There is never any “easy way out”—no quick and
magical path to health. Many athletes have been using this
poisonous drug for years for sprains, pulls, and other soft-tissue
injuries. Continued suppression of pain by this drug will
eventually result in permanent damage. Besides this, DMSO is now
being used regularly by thousands of arthritic patients. People use
DMSO for cuts, for sores, for itching conditions. Some people even
rub it on their gums.
Do not be fooled by misleading claims. No agent outside of the
human body has the ability to heal. The regular use of drugs can
result only in greater health destruction.
Certain places of the world are well known for their mineral
springs that are said to have therapeutic properties. Sometimes it
is recommended that these waters be consumed or bathed in as a
“cure” for assorted ailments.
The theory behind all forms of hydrotherapy is that the minerals
of the water will, in very small amounts, enter your system through
the skin or mucous membranes and help restore your entire system to
a healthier state.
However, these inorganic minerals are inert substances and have
no magic about them. They cannot enter the system through the skin
and impose any health benefits. If consumed, they cannot be
utilized by the body and may prove toxic.
Honey, bee pollen, bee propolis, and royal jelly are substances
collected or produced by bees for their winter food supply, for
reproduction, protection, etc.
Honey is a popular product and is essentially sugar (about 1/3
to 1/2 glucose, 1/3 to 1/2 fructose, and the rest water). Bee
pollen consists of certain pollen grains of flowers incidentally
collected by bees while gathering nectar. It contains protein,
vitamins and minerals, and enzymes. It is not a food that bees
consume except as a honey contaminant.
Bee pollen is often used by athletes because it is claimed that
it will increase their energy and stamina. This effect, however, is
an illusion. Its stimulatory effect will first produce a false
sense of increased energy, but like all other stimulants will soon
have the opposite effect due to enervation of the stimulation of
the organs involved.
Neither is propolis one of the bees’ food products. It
consists of various tree resins, collected and applied to the
interior of the hive by them. It acts as a kind of cement to keep
their hives intact. When ingested by humans, this substance will
have a stimulatory effect due to the response of the body to
attempt to eliminate this foreign material. It has no place in
human nutrition and has no property to “cure” as is
Royal jelly is produced from honey and pollen and fed
exclusively to the queen bee. It is made by the bees for the unique
dietary needs of developing a queen bee and is excellent food for
With respect to honey it cannot be emphasized enough that:
- It is not a natural food of human’s but of bees which
created it for their specific needs.
- Honey is laced with six protective acids. Humans cannot
metabolize three of these acids, thus making it a toxic
- Honey is used as a sweetener. Anything that requires a
sweetener to be palatable is not a fit food for consumption in the
first place. In the second place, the addition of a sweetener
creates an incompatible food combination that vitiates digestion
and begets toxic byproducts.
- Human desecration of the bees’ food supply is unnatural,
contrary to the symbiotic role of creatures in nature, and
unhealthful both to bees and humans.
With respect to pollen keep in mind that, in gathering nectar,
the bee performs a symbiotic service for the plant. It becomes
contaminated with pollen and spreads it to the female flower, thus
fertilizing it. Pollen’s role is to create a seed package,
not to serve as a food. When the seed package is mature, it ripens
a part of the package as fruit which is free food for the creatures
that incidentally perform a service in distributing the
plant’s seeds. That is symbiosis.
Pollen is not unique as a food and has no value. It fails to
furnish our foremost need, carbohydrates, for energy. It is only
the incipient nutrients and components to fertilize a flower ovary
and thus create a seed package of which a part might be edible
fruit. In that case we get not only all the nutrients contained in
pollen but in a form specifically created to meet our needs. Most
important of all we get an easily absorbable complement of simple
sugars ready to convert to energy!
The macrobiotic diet consists of 60 to 100% grains. These
include brown rice, buckwheat, wheat, corn, barley, and millet.
They are eaten raw, cooked, creamed, with or without water, fried,
or baked. A maximum of 30% of the diet may consist of vegetables.
These vegetables that are considered permissible include: carrots,
onions, pumpkin (a fruit), radish, cabbage, cauliflower, and
Grain is considered “Principal Food” and is eaten at
every meal. The principle behind this diet is based on the same
Yin-Yang theory as for acupuncture. Yin and Yang are antagonistic
but complementary forces. Certain foods are considered Yang foods
and others are Yin foods. There must be a certain balance between
Yin and Yang.
When a person becomes ill, it is recommended that he/she eat
100% grains. In addition to this, certain specific beverages and/or
foods are used for specific ailments—all based on the
superstitious Yin-Yang theory.
This type of diet not only cannot produce health but it can be
very harmful if persisted in over a period of time. Humans are not
grain eaters—we are frugivores. We are not biologically
equipped to digest, assimilate, and utilize large amounts of
grains. Fruits contain plenty of sugar, but little or no starch,
whereas the cereals are largely starch. Starch requires much more
time and energy to digest than fruit. Cereals are among the most
difficult of foodstuffs to digest. The protein of most cereals are
inadequate. They also contain an excess of acid due to the absence
of certain base minerals, especially calcium. The need for calcium
of most cereal plants is relatively small so they do not draw much
of this mineral from the soil. In the human organism, on the other
hand, the need for calcium is very great. Cereals, are therefore,
inadequate to support growth.
Oats are deficient in many basic salts. Wheat is deficient in
sodium and calcium. Rice is deficient in salts, and especially in
calcium. It is also deficient in sodium and chlorine. They are all
lacking in iodine. What does this mean when we consume large
amounts of cereals? Since cereals are acid forming, they must draw
on base minerals from the body to neutralize these acids so as not
to create a condition of acidosis within the body. These base salts
are withdrawn from the tissues, bones, and teeth, eventually
resulting in various pathological disorders such as osteoporosis
and dental caries.
Dr. Shelton says, “We have learned that all cereals have
certain defects which may be looked upon as characteristic of these
nutriments. As regards organic salts, they are deficient in sodium
and calcium; they are also poorly supplied with
organically-combined sulfur and with bases generally; but they
contain a superabundance of acid-formers and of potassium. The
cereals are also poor in vitamins A, B, and C. Finally, the
proteins of the cereals are always inadequate; they are lacking in
essential amino acids, and are especially poor in lysin and
A study of the human anatomy and physiology will clearly
demonstrate which food humans are best suited to eat. For optimum
health, we should stick with our biologically-correct fruitarian
Are the natural or “organic” vitamins any
better than the synthetic ones?
No, a vitamin is nothing more than a specific compound, whether
it is synthesized or extracted from a plant. In either form, they
are not usable by the body but may be toxic. All the vitamins that
we require are found in our whole natural foods and this is how
they must be taken to be utilized.
Is choline effective in keeping fat from accumulating in
the liver and arteries as claimed by some advertisements that I
Choline manufacturers may have a difficult time explaining why
anyone should swallow choline pills. Choline is widely available in
the diet and is also manufactured in the body. It is considered an
essential nutrient, but dietary deficiencies have never been
demonstrated in man. Although choline has been widely used to treat
fatty liver, as well as cirrhosis and hepatitis, it has never been
demonstrated that this type of therapy is of any value. It is, in
fact, worthless, and should not be used.
I have diverticulitis and my doctor told me not to eat
fruits and vegetables. Is that good advice?
Diverticula are outpouchings that can develop in weak spots in
the bowel wall. When many of these outpouchings are present and one
or more become inflamed causing pain, the condition is known as
This condition was virtually nonexistent in the early twentieth
century and is now known as a disease of Western civilization. Its
incidence has increased steadily in industrialized countries until
between one-third and one-half the population over forty in the
United States, Great Britain, France, and Australia suffer from it.
Diverticulitis results from the increased use of refined flour and
cereals and the substitution of foods containing large amounts of
sugar and of meat for fruits and vegetables. In countries where the
diet is high in fruits and vegetables, diverticular disease is
The very foods that you were told to avoid are the ones that you
should be eating exclusively. It would, however, be advisable to
fast first to allow the bowel to heal.
Will apple cider vinegar “cure” colds and
Cider vinegar is made by pressing the juice out of the apples
and fermenting it, in the same way as making cider. The fermented
juice is left to age for about six months and then the process of
turning the alcohol into acetic acid begins.
Acetic acid is very destructive and corrosive to the tissues of
the digestive canal and to all tissues and cells of the body. A
small amount will halt digestion completely. This acid is so strong
that it will dissolve certain metals and remove rust from steel.
Consumption of vinegar will result in ill health and should never
be consumed. There is no “cure” for colds. This is a
reaction on the part of the organism to rid itself of accumulated
toxic debris and should not be interfered with. Vinegar is a drug
whose use suppresses the body’s vital activity in conducting
the eliminative task called a cold.
Could you suggest a diet for migraine
There are no diet “cures.” Foods cannot act as
specifics and go directly to the afflicted area to effect a cure.
Only the body can heal and will promptly do so when the proper
conditions provided. A natural diet of raw fruits, vegetables,
nuts, and seeds will provide the proper condition for the body to
heal if the other conditions for health are also present.
What is the difference between white and red Ginseng?
Are either forms acceptable to take?
All ginseng roots are naturally white. The red roots are
produced by a special process that includes treating the white
roots with other herbs, steaming, and other steps. This process is
supposed to preserve the root and prevent insect infestation. As
mentioned earlier, ginseng is a toxic substance and should not be
consumed. The red root is just that much worse because it has the
addition of other toxic herbs. Neither forms are acceptable.
Acceptance of the concept of contagion is contingent on
acceptance of the germ theory of disease. The germ theory of
disease is the reigning premise upon which is superimposed a
tremendous network of modern medical procedures.
Simply stated, this is the germ theory: Diseases are due solely
to invasion by specific aggressive microscopic organisms; that is,
a specific germ is responsible for each disease; and
microorganisms are capable of reproduction and transportation
outside of the body.
The germ theory was founded on the assumption that disease germs
are specific and unchangeable in their biological structure and
Dr. Rene J. Dubos (eminent modern bacteriologist and 1968
Pulitzer Prize winner) contradicted this assumption by showing that
the virulence of microbial species is variable.
Pasteur himself admitted his mistake (around 1880). Dr. Dudaux,
a coworker of Pasteur, wrote that, when nearly sixty years of age,
Pasteur discovered facts which were not in accord with his previous
conception that disease germs were unchangeable. Pasteur found that
microbial species can undergo many transformations, which discovery
destroyed the basis for the germ theory.
Reports in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1914.
Vol. 14, pages 1 to 32, describe experiments by E. C. Rosenow,
M.D., of the Mayo Biological Laboratories in Rochester, Minnesota.
It was demonstrated that streptococci (pus germs) could be made to
assume all the characteristics of pneumococci (pneumonia germs)
simply by feeding them on pneumonia virus and making other minor
alterations in their environment. When the procedure was reversed,
they quickly reverted to pus germs. In all cases, regardless of the
type of germs, they quickly mutated into other types when their
environment and food were changed.
Two New York City bacteriologists, through similar experiments,
converted cocci (round, berry-shaped) into bacilli (long,
rod-shaped) and vice versa.
So it is obvious that specific bacteria do not produce specific
disease symptoms—it is the environment and the type of soil
which determines the type of bacteria that proliferate.
The first “Germ Theory of Infectious Diseases” was
published in 1762, by M. A. Plenciz, a Viennese physician. In 1860,
Louis Pasteur took the credit for the experiments and ideas of
others, “plagiarizing and distorting their
discoveries,” according to Dr. Leverson of England. Because
of Pasteur’s strength, zeal, enthusiasm, and convincing
personality, and his passionate determination to overcome
opposition to the germ theory, he became identified as its
Claude Bernard (1813-1878) disputed the validity of the germ
theory, and maintained that the general condition of the
patient’s body was the principal factor in disease, but this
idea was largely ignored by the medical profession and the general
public. Pasteur had done his work well as the suave promoter of a
plausible “scientific” hypothesis that could bolster
the prestige of the sagging medical profession. Bernard and Pasteur
had many debates on the relative importance of the microbe and the
Pasteur was a chemist and physicist, and knew very little about
biology and life processes, but he was a respected and influential
man. His phobic fear of infection, his belief in the
“malignity” and “belligerence” of germs,
and his powerful influence on his contemporaries, had far-reaching
consequences, and men of science were convinced of the threat of
the microbe to man. Thus was born the period of bacteriophobia
(fear of germs) which still exists.
The fear of “infection” of a cut, a bruise, or other
injury is widespread. Actually, there is more danger from the drugs
and antibiotics administered to “prevent infection.”
When an injury occurs, the body quickly seals off the area, a scab
forms, and repairs are instituted. Suppuration rarely occurs,
except in toxic individuals. Devitalizing drugs serve to hinder the
cleansing and reparative processes; antibiotics destroy friendly
Patients do not have much (or any) choice in the use of
antibiotics after surgery. The massive invasive process of surgery
(often opening into the body cavity) is quite different from a cut
or other wound near the surface of the body. In any event, there is
no option. The antibiotics (after surgery) are mandatory (for the
“protection” of the surgeon).
The universal acceptance of the germ theory, and the
consequently widespread bacteriophobia, resulted in a multiplicity
of frenzied efforts to escape from the threat of the dreadful and
malicious germs by waging a constant war against them in the belief
that the alternative was certain death.
The populace was advised to cook all food and boil all water
(with the inevitable deterioration in health accompanying raw food
The present-day practice of killing germs (inside and outside
the body) with poison drugs was initiated, resulting in more and
more degeneration and iatrogenic (drug-induced) disease.
Various programs were initiated to confer “immunity”
against specific germs by means of vaccines and serums, resulting
in the monstrous inoculation system—with horrendous effects,
detailed in my book, Don’t Get Stuck!
Fortunately, the warning against, and horror of, all raw foods
as dangerous and bacteria-ridden, has been largely overcome,
through the persistent educational efforts of Hygienists and other
knowledgeable people, though the ban on unpasteurized dairy
products still exists in most areas in the
The acceptance of poison drugs, vaccines, and serums has not
waned to any appreciable extent.
As previously mentioned, around 1860. Pasteur discovered facts
which were not in accord with his previous conception that disease
germs were unchangeable. He found that microbial species can
undergo many transformations; this discovery destroyed the basis
for the germ theory. Since a coccus (pneumonia germ) could change
to a bacillus (typhoid germ) and back again (and, indeed, since any
germ could turn into another)—and since their virulence could
be altered, often at the will of the experimenter, the whole theory
It is frequently overlooked that Pasteur by then had changed his
direction, and his more mature conception of the cause of disease,
as given by Dr. Duclaux, was that a germ was “ordinarily kept
within bounds by natural laws, but, when conditions change, when
its virulence is exalted, when its host is enfeebled, the germ was
able to “invade” the territory which was barred to it
up to that time. This, of course, is the premise that a healthy
body is resistant to disease or not susceptible to it.
After the change in his outlook, and numerous experiments along
this line, Pasteur was at last convinced that controllable
physiological factors were basic in the assessment of vulnerability
to disease and concluded, “The presence in the body of a
pathogenic agent is not necessarily synonymous with infectious
disease.” (The presence of certain germs is not proof
that they are the cause of a disease.)
So Pasteur did finally reverse his position and acknowledge that
germs are not the specific and primary cause of disease, and he
abandoned the germ theory. He is reported to have said on his
deathbed, “Bernard was right. The seed is nothing, the soil
Although Pasteur abandoned his early immature and erroneous
theory in the 1880s, it was accepted, developed, fostered, and
perpetuated by others, and the mischief, medical misunderstanding,
and error continue to this day (the ultimate irony!).
Dr. Shelton says, “Medicine is now claimed to be a
science. Before the discoveries and pseudo-discoveries of Pasteur
it was a medley of diversified diseases and imaginary causes,
treated symptomatically and empirically. Up to this time the
evolution of medical thought was but a slow transition from
superstition. The profession groped blindly about in search of a
tangible basis upon which to base their theories and practices.
“Pasteur, while exploiting the work of Bechamp and other
scientists of that period, gave the profession the germ. Here, at
last, was a tangible and basic theory which could be developed
without a limit. The microscope made it possible to visualize,
differentiate, and classify the organisms. With a frenzied and
hysterical outburst of enthusiasm, the medical profession seized
upon this new theory, since which time practically all medical
investigation has been carried on with the germ theory of disease
as its basis.”
The unity of disease is not understood by those who insist on
relating a specific germ to each disease. As long ago as March 12,
1924, an editorial in the Boston Medical and Surgical
Journal discussed the trend away from this concept: “The
reason ... of an eclipse or partial eclipse of bacteriology may be
found in the belief that this branch of medicine, if it has not
come exactly to a blind alley, has at least come to a halt ...
There are signs, more or less vague as yet, that new conceptions of
disease are arising, although such views are themselves nebulous.
It is thought by some that there is more or less a fundamental
unity of disease, and that many of the nosological labels attached
to them are superfluous and confusing.”
The German scientist, Robert Koch, maintained that for a
specific bacteria to be the cause of a disease:
- It must be found in every case of that disease.
- It must not be found when the disease is not present.
- It must be capable of living outside the tissues.
- It must then be capable of reintroduction into the organism and
producing that disease.
As has been repeatedly demonstrated, specific bacteria do not
fulfill these prerequisites.
Robert Koch (1843-1910) was a bacteriologist, physiologist and
one of Pasteur’s contemporaries. The specific requirements of
“Koch’s Postulates” follow:
- A culture of the bacteria must be taken from a diseased
- It must then be grown in pure culture in a laboratory.
- After this, the culture has to be injected into a
- It must cause the same disease, and culture must be taken from
This is a modification of the germ theory, requiring a condition
of susceptibility to establish a causal relationship
between specific germs and specific diseases.
Scientists know that specific bacteria are not found in every
case of a specific disease. The eminent Canadian physician, Sir
William Osier (1849-1919) found that the diphtheria bacillus is
absent in 28 to 40% of cases of diphtheria. Green’s
Medical Diagnosis says that tubercle bacilli may be
present early, more often late, or in rare instances be absent
throughout the disease condition. Koch’s first postulate,
“the specific bacteria must be found in every case of that
disease” is not fulfilled in tuberculosis, diphtheria,
typhoid fever, pneumonia, or any other disease. Specific
bacteria are not found in every case of a specific
Nor is the second postulate fulfilled, because it is a
medically-known fact that bacteria are found in the bodies of
humans and animals which exhibit no symptoms of any disease.
Specific bacteria are repeatedly found when the specific
disease is absent.
Further, bacteria are not capable of living outside the tissues;
therefore, the third postulate is not fulfilled. Neither Pasteur
nor any of his successors have ever induced a complaint by the
inoculation of airborne bacteria, but only by injections from
bodily sources. The reason is obvious: germs are dependent on human
or animal organisms for their survival.
Quoting from “The Germ Theory Reexamined” by Bob
Zuraw and Bob Lewanski (Vegetarian World, Volume 3, Number
11, September-November 1977): “Koch’s Fourth Postulate:
Introducing germ cultures in a healthy body or organism does
not produce signs and symptoms of the disease. The
Bio-Chemical Society of Toronto conducted a number of very
interesting experiments in which pure cultures of typhoid,
diphtheria, pneumonia, tuberculosis, and meningitis germs were
consumed by the millions in food and drink by a group of
volunteers. The results: no ill effects whatsoever.”
But when the condition of susceptibility is introduced,
this changes the whole concept. Thus we are back to the same point
we have been emphasizing: the condition of the host is of primary
importance in the production of disease.
Dr. Shelton says (February 1972, Dr. Shelton ‘s
Hygienic Review), “The germ alone could no more cause
disease than a match alone can produce a fire. Just as the fire, so
the microbe, if it is to have any part in causing disease, must
find an organism that produces a suitable soil for its activities.
We cannot avoid germs. We must be proof against them. We can avoid
disease only by keeping ourselves in such a high state of health
that they are powerless against us.”
Dr. Shelton goes on to tell about numerous experiments in trying
to produce various diseases by the feeding of germs, without any
disease being produced. Dr. S. K. Claunch, in Exploding the
Germ Theory, also cites such experiments by the U.S. Navy,
again without results. Dr. Claunch says (page 25), “These
experiments, conducted under test conditions and under government
.supervision with such disappointing results should knock the last
prop from under the germ theory, as they doubtless would have done
if our government doctors had seen fit to make them public property
... would have been a signal government service to the people ...
but not good business for the doctors and serum
Bacteria are ubiquitous—they are with us all the lime.
Life on this planet would be impossible without them.
Specific “disease” bacteria are commonly assumed to
be the primary cause of specific diseases. These much maligned
microorganisms are, in truth, friends and scavengers that need
nourishment to reproduce. They go into action immediately when
there is a dangerous accumulation of toxic materials which is
threatening body integrity. They perform the useful function of
“cleaning up the mess” and then resume their more
passive state, after their work is done.
There is no denying that bacteria are intimately associated with
many serious diseases. They contribute secondary or tertiary
complicating factors. They elaborate certain powerful toxins. They
have factors which add to the primary causes.
There is no denying the importance of bacteria in the evolution
of disease. But they are not the fundamental and primary causes, as
so many people believe.
It is the disease condition that creates an environment
favorable to the mutation of bacteria into those associated with
that particular “disease,” and favorable to their
proliferation and increasing virulence. The disease condition
springs from improper living that begets toxicosis.
There is no denying that in the disease process, the work
performed by bacteria as scavengers is unpleasant and exhausting to
the host, but it is necessary for the preservation of health and
life. After the cleansing is complete, the organism again makes its
energies available for normal activities.
We hear about infectious diseases, contagious diseases,
communicable diseases. But nobody has even seen a disease travel
from one person to another. There is not an iota of evidence that
In 1860, the world-famous English nurse, Miss Florence
Nightingale, published an attack on the germ theory of disease. She
“Diseases are not individuals arranged in classes, like
cats and dogs, but conditions growing out of one another. Is it not
living in a continual mistake to look upon diseases, as we do now,
as separate entities, which must exist, like cats and dogs, instead
of looking upon them as conditions, like a dirty and clean
condition, and just as much under our control; or rather as the
reactions of kindly Nature, against the condition in which we have
placed ourselves? I have seen with my eyes and smelled with my nose
smallpox growing up in first specimens, either in closed rooms, or
in overcrowded wards, where it could not by any possibility have
been ‘caught’ but must have begun. Nay, more, I have
seen disease begin, grow up and pass into one another. Now, dogs do
not pass into cats.
“True nursing ignors infection, except to prevent it.
Cleanliness and fresh air from open windows, with unremitting
attention to the patient, are the only defense a true nurse either
asks or needs ... The specific disease doctrine is the grand refuge
of weak, uncultured, unstable minds, such as now rule in the
medical profession. There are no specific diseases; there are
specific disease conditions.”
Disease is a process of physiological and biochemical changes
within the body, producing certain signs and symptoms which we
label as specific diseases.
When diseases are categorized as communicable or infectious, it
is not really meant that the disease, per se, is transmitted from
one person to another. The concept actually is that an assumed
cause of disease—virus, bacteria, etc.—is
But disease is the result of many intoxicating causes. The
actual process of disease (the fever, the inflammation, etc.) is
the action initiated by the body to purge itself of toxic
But the causes, the processes, and the effects have the
appearance of being intermingled. Toxicity causes change in the
processes of the body. These changes result in other changes as the
body tries to cope. The situation becomes extremely complicated,
with constant interaction between causes, processes, and
But this should not discourage your attempt to discover and
pinpoint the fundamental causes of disease. The Hygienic concept is
that disease is the result of enervation—due to the
bankruptcy of nerve energy, expending more than we are capable of
regenerating. The general energy level diminishes and functional
efficiency deteriorates. We evolve into a state which we call
toxicosis—a condition of body saturation with toxic
Toxicosis, in the Hygienic sense, implies a disturbance of the
blood and tissue fluids, and the accumulation of toxic byproducts
of metabolism. In recent years, studies of biochemical pathology
have shown this disturbance within the homeostatic mechanism of the
body, caused by the accumulation of toxic substances.
Dr. John H. Tilden, a Hygienic pioneer, in his book, Toxemia
Explained, long ago (1926) presented “the true
interpretation of disease.” Habits of living that fail to
supply our needs, that exceed our limitations—too much food,
insufficent exercise, insufficient rest, and so on—produce
inner stresses and a chemical burden the body cannot handle.
The causes of disease are multiple and relate to all the facets
of our existence—nutrition, exercise, rest mental and
emotional factors, relationships with other people—all of
life. The most significant causes are those that are related to our
fundamental biological needs. Those relating to our fundamental and
emotional life complete the total picture. Most of the causes
of disease are within the control of the individual.
When the toxic level rises above a toleration point, the body
takes remedial steps, defensive, and reparative action. Disease is
body action, and is limited to the time and effort necessary to rid
the organism of injurious substances. Every cell in the body acts
in unison with all the other cells for the preservation of the
organism. When the work is done and order is restored, the disease
symptoms dwindle and disappear, and the organism—although
debilitated from the effort made necessary by its toxic
condition—regains its powers.
This almost consistent denouement is eloquent evidence that
disease is body action and not an attack by proliferating bacteria
and viruses. All cases recover without any treatment If a healthy
body is unable to resist an original attack by small numbers of
microorganisms—if a healthy body can “catch” a
cold, or influenza, due to exposure to cold germs or influenza
germs—how then can the subsequently debilitated body ever
recover? How can the weakened organism subsequently repel the
onslaught by proliferating trillions of microorganisms? If such
reasoning were carried forward to its logical conclusion, the
inevitable result would be the death of the organism. How can it be
denied?—when the healing crisis is completed, recovery
begins. People do recover from colds, from influenza, and every
acute disease that has not had deadly medical treatments.
Under Hygienic guidance (noninterference), disease symptoms
disappear. Those who are “treated” with drugs and
nostrums and recover, do so despite the treatment. Often the
complication brought on by the treatment are much worse than the
symptoms of the disease.
“Immunization” is based on the idea that it is
possible, by chemical or biological means, to make a person
disease-proof. If this were indeed possible, it would represent a
suspension of the law of cause and effect.
People have been educated to be terrified of bacteria, to
believe implicitly in the idea of contagion—that specific
malevolent aggressive disease germs pass from one host to another.
Even bacteriologists overlook the fact that, instead of the germ
population being divided into specific “good” germs and
specific “bad” germs, “good” germs have the
ability to mutate into “bad” (proliferating and
virulent) germs, when the soil is suitable for this change.
Germs have the ability to modify their structure and function,
according to the environment in which they find
The idea of vaccination is that injection of a specific vaccine
of lesser virulence is supposed to confer immunity against a
specific disease of greater virulence. Originally, it was
maintained that one injection would confer lifetime immunity. After
that idea failed, the idea of periodic revaccination was adopted.
Read my book, Don’t Get Stuck!, for the history of
the failure of vaccination and the trail of tragedy it has left in
Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers University said (March 1976):
“Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, and polio
may invade the genetic makeup, and may actually be seeding humans
with RNA to form pro-viruses, which then become latent cells
throughout the body. These could be molecules in search of
diseases, which may become activated and cause a variety of
diseases later, such as multiple sclerosis, arthritis, or even
cancer.” While this conjecture is in line with medical
reasoning, it is blatant nonsense. Organisms do not work this
Sometimes the injection of a poison into the bloodstream results
in toleration of that poison, which is mistakenly labeled immunity.
Toleration means the body hasn’t sufficient vitality to
The dictionary definition of tolerance is “the power or
ability to endure, withstand, or resist the effects of a drug or
food or other physiologic insults without showing unfavorable
effects.” Actually, this is contradictory. If the body
endures the insult, it is because of lack of strength to resist.
When it resists, it has the energy to institute defensive action:
vomiting, sneezing, diarrhea, fever, or any crisis of cleansing and
Dr. Shelton says that toleration is submission; it is
broken-down resistance. “The warning voice of self-protection
has gradually been put to sleep, while the organism is undermined
and premature death comes as a surprise to everyone ... Toleration
for poisoning is established by loss of the vitality necessary to
resist it. The body pays for this toleration (miscalled immunity)
by general enervation and lowered resistance to every other
influence. ... It is a sad day for the body when it tolerates
poisons. ... If tolerance for tobacco were never established, there
would be no tobacco users. The same for alcohol, opium, arsenic,
and other poisons. ... The repeated use of a poison gradually
overcomes or decreases vital resistance.”
No vaccine or other similar preparation can confer immunity
against the effects of wrong living. On the contrary, more (not
fewer) diseases are the inevitable result inoculation with serum
and vaccines, which exhaust the vitality and resistance.
Inoculation is a disease-producing process, which results in injury
to organs, the nervous system and the blood.
Serum inoculations and blood transfusions can dissolve red blood
cells in the recipient and damage the central nervous system, which
helps to account for the enormous numbers of servicemen discharged
as insane. (Dr. Shelton’s Hygienic Review, May 1977,
In an article published in the United States Naval Medical
Bulletin, May 1, 1943, three naval officers (physicians
reported that inoculations against typhoid, tetanus, and yellow
fever are “epidemiological factors” of greatest
significance in the history of meningococcic meningitis. They
expressed the belief that “immunizing inoculations” may
lower body resistance. The occurrence of seventy eight cases of
cerebrospinal fever was reported among troops in a camp in Natal
after the injection of typhoic vaccine.
The purpose of such inoculations is to produce specific
antibodies against specific diseases. Dr. Shelton says that if the
body produces antibodies when vaccines and serum are administered,
these are the ones required to protect against the injected
substances, and not the specific antibodies that would be required
to protect it against the contingency of exposure or susceptibility
to a specific disease.
The following report appeared in Vol. 93, No. 6, page 482, of
the American Journal of Epidemiology (observations made by
workers conducting a trial of “flu” vaccine):
- “The overall respiratory illness rates were unaffected by
- Infections due to agents other than the influenza virus
accounted for a larger proportion of illness in the protected
(vaccinated) than in the unprotected groups.”
In their book, Vaccinations and Immune Malfunction
(published October 1982), authors Harold E. Buttram M.D. and John
Chriss Hoffman discuss the fundamental differences between the
processes of “natural immunity” and so-called vaccine
immunity. They suggest that those who are honestly trying to weigh
the pros and cons of vaccines should become familiar with the
existing evidence that vaccination does indeed cause lasting damage
to the defensive systems of children; and they urgently propos an
immediate change from compulsory vaccination programs to absolute
freedom of choice.
They take the position that there is a fundamental difference
between “natural immunity” (conferred by childhood
diseases) and the attempts to confer immunity by introducing
massive amounts of antigenic materials in the bloodstream,
bypassing the primary defenses, and stressing the body in insidious
ways which have previously been largely unrecognized. The
body’s resistance is lowered through a subtle defensive
malfunction and a drastic reduction of the body’s ability to
On page 5 of their book, Buttram and Hoffman give an
illustration of their concept. “According to the one cell one
antibody rule, once an immune body (plasma cell or lymphocyte)
becomes committed to a given antigen, it becomes incapable of
responding to other antigens or challenges.” A hypothetical
child passes through “so-called usual childhood diseases with
relatively minor and uncomplicated illnesses.”
“Considering the extreme efficiency of ‘natural
immunity,’ we may make an educated guess that permanent
immunity was gained to these diseases by utilizing only 3 to 7
percent of the total immune capacity. In the case of the routine
childhood vaccines, in contrast, it is likely that a higher
percentage of the total immune capacity becomes committed, perhaps
something on the order of 30 to 70 percent. It should be emphasized
that, once an immune body becomes committed to a specific antigen,
it becomes inert and incapable of responding to other
“If the reserve immune, capacity of children is being
reduced by current vaccinations in this manner, what will be the
consequences? No one knows for certain at this time, but it is
possible that these consequences could be seen as an increased
susceptibility to viruses, to other infections, and to various
forms of allergies. A child could be reduced from an expectancy of
exuberant, health to a middle state: never entirely healthy, never
One of the most extensively documented studies of the indirect
effects of vaccines is found in “The Hazards of
Immunization” (Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, 1967)
by Sir Graham Wilson, formerly of the Public Health Laboratory
Service, England and Wales. Dr. Wilson cites documented historical
examples of vaccination against one disease seeming to provoke
another; for example, fifteen cases of poliomyelitis following
inoculation against diphtheria or pertussis.
Reports of twelve cases of multiple sclerosis following
inoculations were reviewed in the article, “Multiple
Sclerosis and Vaccinations,” by Miller and others,
British Medical Journal, April 22, 1967, pages 210-213.
Numerous other reports of apparent immune system-mediated diseases
(including Guillain-Barre syndrome) have implicated vaccines.
An overwhelming majority of American medical doctors approve
vaccination, on the grounds that occasional direct toxicities are
an acceptable risk in terms of assumed control gained over
infectious diseases. Although direct toxicities are uncommon (as a
result of vaccination), the real danger of vaccination appears to
be the indirect effect of impairment of the immune system, first
researched in the early 1970s by Dr. Arthic Kalorkerinos and Dr.
Glenn Dittman (both of Australia) who uncovered the phenomenon of
immune malfunction, lowering the body’s resistance as a
result of vaccination. The problem is that, because this effect is
apt to be delayed and masked, its true nature usually escapes
Buttram and Hoffman maintain that, in view of the mounting
evidence of immune malfunction following current vaccination
programs, there must be a public demand for investigation of
vaccination methods, and a discontinuation of compulsory
These authors say that we are now seeing an increasing social
disintegration, with increasing nervous and mental disorders, and
that these trends are thought to be related to a subtle biological
deterioration of the health of Americans brought about by
denatured, devitalized, and adulterated foods; chemical pollution
of air, water, and soil; a medical research system oriented toward
the use of synthetic drugs and chemicals, and childhood vaccine
“Nature ... created the human biological system, including
the immune system, as extremely adaptable so that it could cope
with an ever-changing environment. We are now seeing vast numbers
of our children who are unable to cope with their environment
demonstrating allergic and/or toxic reactions to their foods, to
chemicals, to common inhalants such as dust, pollen, and mold, and
to environmental pollutants. If this is combined with an immune
system which is compromised from the very first by our present
compulsory childhood vaccination programs, and in turn, compounded
by devitalized and denatured foods upon which many of our children
subsist, could we really expect to see anything other than the
deteriorating health which is now taking place?
“It is possible that many of the nervous, mental,
behavioral, and sociological problems occurring today among the
younger generation in America may represent a counterpart of the
malnutrition-immunization interaction observed by Dettman and
Kalokerinos among the Australian aborigines.”
Barbara Ann Boruff, in an article, “Immunization: The Risk
Factors,” says, “The thymus, spleen, and lymph nodes
are the main components of the body’s immune system.
Inadequate nutrition during the time in pregnancy when these organs
are developing in the fetus can impair their growth and thereby
affect a child’s susceptibility to disease, not only in
childhood, but throughout his or her lifetime. A pregnant woman
must insure that her diet includes the variety of wholesome foods
necessary to the development of her unborn child’s immune
“Breast-feeding offers the newborn child protection
against many diseases. The colostrum present in the first day or so
of nursing contains disease-resistant factors.
“The long-term effects of breast-feeding are particularly
rewarding. In one study at Northwestern University it was found
that in comparing children breast-fed six months or longer to
bottle-fed children, the bottle-fed children had four times as many
ear infections, four times as many colds, eleven times as many
tonsillectomies, twenty times as many diarrheal infections, and
from eight to twenty-seven times more allergic conditions.”
(Nursing Your Baby, by Karen Pryor.)
“Another recognized guardian of health are the tonsils. A
study by Rodrigo C. Hurtado of Georgetown University School of
Medicine indicated that the tonsils protect against many diseases,
including the common cold, herpes, measles, influenza, and
It was also discussed that following the removal of tonsils,
there is an increased incidence of malignancy.”
This paragraph from page 17 of the book, Vaccinations and
Immune Malfunction, sounds as though it came straight out of
the Hygienic body of literature. “The processes of Nature are
always, or almost always characterized by two qualities: efficiency
and economy. Attempts of modern science to reproduce or synthesize
organic, biological substances and the life-processes of Nature are
often grotesquely inefficient, wasteful, and frequently harmful. It
is probably a truism that science succeeds only to the extent that
it harmonizes with Nature’s laws and processes; it fails to
the extent that it conflicts with these laws.”
The body will not conduct defensive crises when there
is no need for them. Healthy bodies do not require detoxification.
The body cannot conduct defensive crises if its vitality
has been lowered to a point where it no longer has the energy and
resources to initiate and conduct detoxification and healing
The suppression of the body’s ability to heal itself (by
drugging or vaccinating) should not be mistaken for exemption from
the consequences of wrong living. On the contrary, the drugs and
vaccines constitute additional attacks on the integrity of the
organism. They impair structure and function, and hasten
degeneration and death.
Although epidemics diminished as man purified his exterior
environment, “it is conceivable that the filth that once
beset him in rags, has come forth in a needle to destroy
—Cash Asher, Bacteria, Inc.
Epidemics are mass sickness. In all “epidemics”
there are more cases of various other diseases than of the one
Dr. Shelton says (Dr. Shelton’s Hygienic Review,
April, 1976, page 171):
“What the epidemic will be will be determined by the
public health authorities. The tendency is to diagnose everything
as the epidemic disease at the outset and class further
developments as complications. A case in point was that of typhoid
fever in the American army in France. The whole army was immunized
against typhoid, therefore our soldiers could not develop typhoid.
A large number of boys v/ho died while being treated for influenza
as their cases were diagnosed, were found at autopsy to have died
of typhoid fever. The incident was of sufficient importance for the
surgeon general of the army to issue a special letter about it and
point out to the medical heads of the American Expeditionary Forces
in France that inoculation is no substitute for hygiene and
sanitation. Physicians were so preoccupied with influenza that they
saw a flu devil back of every symptom and could not distinguish
between influenza and typhoid fever. Even tubercular flare-ups were
diagnosed as influenza.
“The high death rate in pneumonia and influenza was not
due to any unusual virulence of the two diseases, but to the
unusual virulence of the treatment ...
... Where hysteria rules the mind, treatment is always heroic
and the death rate is in keeping, with the treatment. The staff of
the Macfadden Healthatorium in Chicago cared for over three hundred
cases of pneumonia and influenza during the 1918-19 pandemic
without a single death in either disease.”
Concurrent with extensive environmental improvements (including
better sanitation) some forms of disease seem to have disappeared.
Vaccine promoters have taken the credit for the virtual
disappearance of smallpox and diphtheria, but nothing is said about
the dwindling of cholera, plague, and leprosy, for which no
The new rampant plagues of heart disease, cancer,
arteriosclerosis and diabetes, are due at least in part to the
radical changes in the nature and quality of our foods and living
habits. These illnesses can also be diminished by environmental
improvements, as well as by ceasing to pollute our bloodstreams
with vaccines and drugs.
The relationship of population disposition to develop disease
and environmental conditions to influenza epidemics is conceded in
a 1976 report by the U.S. H.E.W. Center for Disease Control (page
2): “The occurrence of influenza epidemics depends upon a
poorly understood interaction of virus, population susceptibility,
and environmental conditions.”
Dr. Shelton says (Dr. Shelton’s Hygienic Review,
May 1976, page 197), “If yellow fever disappeared from New
Orleans after General Butler cleaned up the city and no vaccine was
used, what has sanitation had to do with the disappearance of other
From Dr. Shelton’s Hygienic Review, April 1976,
page 172: “Yellow fever vanished from New Orleans, Cuba, and
Panama when these were cleaned up. The medical profession still
refuses to admit that cleanliness did the work. They insist that it
is all because they or the sanitary engineers did the St. Patrick
act with the mosquitoes. There are still as many mosquitoes in
these places as there are in Jersey. I have never been able to
figure out how they succeeded in getting just the right mosquitoes
to leave, and the harmless ones to remain.”
How many people today know about the medical opposition to the
early use of the bathtub? They denounced it as the “obnoxious
toy from England,” and said it would bring on a “whole
category of zymotic diseases.” In 1842 the Philadelphia
physicians submitted a proposal to prohibit by law the use of
bathtubs between November 1 and March 15; and in Boston, in 1845,
the medical society secured the passage of an ordinance making
bathing unlawful “except on medical prescription.” The
doctors of the time also violently opposed rapid travel on the
railroad as being extremely dangerous to public health. Time
marches on! The medical profession has adopted and claimed as their
own these ideas which others have established as meritorious; but
they are still fighting the battle of the poisoned needle; they are
still upholding the myth of “contagion” and the role of
virulent and aggressive microorganisms as the major cause of
L. Tyagaraja Sarma, in an article in Dr. Shelton’s
Hygienic Review, January 1975, page 118, says, “England
had repeated—and severe—epidemics of smallpox once
every four or five years throughout the last century. The more the
British government forced vaccination and revaccination on their
people, the more regular were the epidemics. The County of
Leicestershire refused to toe the official line; smallpox
vaccinations were wholly stopped in this county and all the money
that was originally allocated to mass vaccination was spent in
improving sanitation. The protagonists of vaccination prophesied
that by this step, all the people in the County of Leicestershire
would become victims of this dread disease while the rest of
England would be saved to a great extent.
“But ... what followed was just the contrary. While
smallpox epidemics were raging in the rest of the country, every
four or five years as before, Leicestershire was free from this
After the British government introduced a law allowing people to
refuse vaccination, the number of people vaccinated (and the
incidence of smallpox) kept declining, and ultimately the
vaccination law was repealed.
Dr. Shelton says (Dr. Shelton’s Hygienic Review,
October 1970, page 39), “England was the first country in the
world to force vaccination on its people by law. After fifty years
of rigid enforcement of its compulsory vaccination law, England
suffered (1870-71) the largest smallpox epidemic in its history,
with the highest death rate in its history. A well-vaccinated,
revaccinated and rerevaccinated people suffered a worse epidemic
than it had ever suffered under the previously worst sanitary
conditions. Vaccination failed and this failure resulted in the
rise of an anti-vaccination movement. Today vaccination is no
longer compulsory in Britain.”
Epidemics of the more virulent types of disease (plagues, etc.)
were caused by unsanitary living conditions. The habits of the
civilized world have become cleaner, yet more debilitating.
Modern mass sickness is basically the result of the debilitating
lifestyle and eating habits of the majority of the populace. In
1948, a polio epidemic was proven to have been triggered by excess
consumption of sugar, and dramatically stopped when decreased sugar
consumption was encouraged by mass media campaigns.
(Don’t Get Stuck!). Of course, vested interests soon
reversed the trend by convincing the public to go back to the old
Epidemics are triggered by mass debilitating and prostrating
influences, such as prolonged temperature or humidity extremes,
great and general worry, fear, grief, and anxiety (war, panic). The
most enervated and toxemic people are the first to get sick.
Advocates of vaccination (have never attempted to explain why it is
often those who have been vaccinated who are the first to get sick,
or who often contract the most virulent forms of disease.
The first colds of early winter are not “caught”
from someone else with a cold, but are developed by those who have
been improperly living and eating. The added stress of cold
temperature further checks elimination, adds to the general
toxemia, and thus precipitates a crisis.
The more severe diseases develop in people who carry a greater
amount of putrescent poisoning, and are more prevalent after
holidays and feast days. The enervating excitement and
indiscriminate overeating at these times produce the inevitable
Why does toxemia cause typhoid in one person and pneumonia in
another? Dr. Shelton (Dr. Shelton’s Hygienic Review,
March 1972, page 162) says that the answer will have to be found in
the laws of heredity, nutrition, and environment. Those tissues
offering least resistance to the toxins are the first affected.
The more virulent diseases result from the poisonous toxins in
the host. Toxins resulting from protein putrefaction are more
virulent than those from carbohydrate fermentation. Flesh foods
produce more virulent toxins than plant proteins. There is also a
difference in the virulence of poisons produced by different animal
proteins, and in various vegetable proteins.
Dr. Shelton says (Dr. Shelton’s Hygienic Review, March
1972) that he believes, for example, that tonsilitis is the result
of the less virulent plant toxins, while diphtheria results from
the more virulent animal toxins. In both these diseases, there is
decomposition in the intestinal tract, which may also sometimes
cause pneumonia or meningitis or typhoid or other symptoms of
Why is it that some people who are exposed to those in the
throes of these crises subsequently are also “laid low”
while others are not? People who have maintained an internal state
of cleanliness through correct habits of eating and living do not
need the disease process because it cannot develop unless the toxic
conditions for disease exist.
As previously indicated, different diseases are different
symptom complexes arising out of reduced nerve energy and increased
toxicity. Habits of living that waste nerve energy result in
inhibition of secretion and excretion—and the consequent
self-poisoning. The part of the organism laden with toxins is the
first to react, but the effect is general—all the organs and
structures of the body suffer the impairing effects.
The body functions as a unit and depends on the continuous
cooperation and coordination of all its parts—if one function
is disturbed, the health and integrity of the organism and all its
parts and functions are affected.
The body ejects its uneliminated waste products by means of a
crisis or acute disease, so that the toxins are expelled
vicariously, or through channels not normally utilized, e.g.,
mucous membranes, skin, etc. Thus the disease is a process of
detoxification and recovery, and is remedial and beneficial.
Although it does expend great reserves of energy, it is a process
The body ejects uneliminated waste products by means of a crisis
or acute disease, so that the toxins are expelled vicariously, or
through channels not normally utilized e.g., mucous membranes,
skin, etc. Thus the disease is a process of detoxification and
recovery, and is remedial and beneficial. Although it does expend
great reserves of energy, it is a process of self-preservation.
There is a body limitation to the vital resistance it can muster
against acute disease. When the organism is continually subjected
to intoxicating substances (such as tobacco, coffee, drugs, etc.),
the body accommodates, and the result is impaired function and
In general, accommodation is thought of as beneficial, but most
physiological accommodations are just the opposite. The body
accommodates to excessive exposure to sunlight by a deep tan, which
cuts off the damaging influence of the sun. Vitamin D needed by the
organisms is produced in a much reduced quantity. The skin will
also become coarse and leathery because of the defensive
accommodations. Normal secretions are reduced, and other departures
from the ideal occur.
When calluses form on the hands as a result of manual work, this
adaption is necessary—it is the body’s defense against
a mechanical irritant it can’t escape or overcome. Such
accommodations preserve life, but they are departures from the
Accommodation to smoking, drugs or other poisons imposes upon
the body higher levels of toxins. The inevitable effect is the
multiplication of the toxicity level, with the body actually
accumulating additional toxins of its own which it cannot normally
excrete. The result is disease. Epidemic diseases are the
consequences of the existence of such conditions in the bodies of
great numbers of people.
In today’s world, it is probably not possible to achieve
the degree of health that could be attained after several
generations of healthful living Hygienists, we keep striving for
improvement, though the true “ideal” may be
We may have occasional crises of illness, but we must realize
that sickness is not an enemy. Discomforts are our own body signals
that we are doing something wrong. If we heed such signals in a
timely manner, by fasting and resting, instead of waiting for a
full-fledged healing crisis, we will need only a mild and brief
cleansing period. If we live our lives in this manner, we do not
fear so-called “contagion” and
Natural Hygiene begins in the mind—with understanding. The
food regime is a critical factor—exercise is
important—but all the other needs of life must be met. It is
necessary to get in touch with yourself and be in harmony with your
When, the organism is confronted with toxins which it cannot
eliminate and to which it cannot adapt, it may produce
“allergic” or even “pan-allergic”
symptoms—extreme reactions causing respiratory, neurological,
and digestive symptoms, and symptoms involving the muscles, joints,
skin, eyes, ears, throat, and elsewhere.
The Environmental Health Center (Dallas, Texas) is a clinic that
specializes in treating people for chemical sensitivities,
principally by first “fasting patients to cleanse their
systems,” then testing on various foods and chemicals to
determine which cause “allergic” reactions, and then
endeavoring to eliminate the offending substances. It is a slow,
painstaking, and expensive process.
Dr. William J. Rea, who founded the Center, and Dr. Sprague, a
colleague of Dr. Rea’s, deal mostly with
“ecology” patients—people who have become
“pan-allergic” from exposure to insecticides, or from
the use of drugs or chemicalized foods.
D.W. Nauss, Dallas Times-Herald (reprinted 11/3/82
St. Petersburg Times) says: “Dr. Rea said his
interest in chemical sensitivities developed after he and his
family were incapacitated following a pesticide spraying in their
home. I realized then that there were many chemicals, not only
pesticides, that were harming people, he said.
“Chemicals are not the root of all disease, Rea said. But
he believes many ailments could be prevented if doctors better
understood their role in impairing the body’s defense
systems. The medical community, however, is ill-informed about
ecological illness and resistant to learning, he said.
“Clinical ecologists admit they have only scratched the
surface in their effort to understand chemical allergies.
Researchers say allergies can be inherited, can be caused by a
physical or emotional trauma or can result from exposure to various
“An allergy is produced when the immune system breaks
down. In simplified terms, the system is depleted of white blood
cells which control the production of antibodies to fight antigens
or foreign bodies. As a result the system is overrun by antibodies,
creating the allergic reaction. In extreme cases, the body becomes
so sensitized that it reacts to even small doses of substances that
normally would present no problem.
“Because some chemicals often attack the nervous system,
mood swings and personality disorders are not uncommon among
ecology patients. Dr. Theron Randolph, a Chicago doctor and pioneer
in the theory of clinical ecology, suggests some mental illnesses
may be caused by chemical sensitivities, stemming from foods,
beverages, dusts, and pollen.”
NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: Don’t take this medical rationale
wholehog. There is no such thing as an immune system or antibodies.
There are only regular defensive faculties. Allergies are due to
body overreaction to certain substances it overdefends.
M. O. Garten (Tomorrow’s Health) says, “An
average healthy person, with an uncontaminated bloodstream, need
not be concerned or apprehensive about being subjected to a
‘contagious’ disease ... However, this is not true with
a person of low vitality and high accumulation of metabolic waste
productions ... Bacteria or germs of such a person stimulated into
activity by the devitalized elements upon which they thrive, when
transferred to the mucous membranes or tissues of another person
equally toxemic may be assumed to begin work immediately and in the
same manner as on the first-carrier.
“This is a true explanation of ‘contagion’ and
one may say that the germ precipitates the disease or excites it in
the person to whom the germs are transferred ... Germs ... could be
recognized as contributing factors in all toxic crises in which the
localized outside area is exposed to infection or contamination.
Serums or drugs will help add to the general toxic load, and
instability results in serious harm, even though they” (the
serums or drugs) “may apparently modify or suppress a local
or general pathological process.”
The modification or suppression of normal body function by
poisoning (with serums or drugs) is another factor in this picture.
Sometimes, when people are too drugged and devitalized, they
cannot have the healing crisis, even though elimination of
a high accumulation of wastes is necessary. Because vaccinations
may so reduce vitality as to make it impossible to conduct a simple
eliminative crisis, vaccinated people are said to be
“immune” against the particular disease they have lost
the ability to conduct. In truth, the price of their inability to
dispose of the toxins at an early stage, is their accumulation and
the insidious development of worse, and more serious, degenerative
The contagion that actually is prevalent is the contagion of bad
habits, producing the same vulnerable and susceptible condition in
great numbers of people. Such people conceivably can, through
intimate contact, trigger disease symptoms in each other.
But what about the thousands of people who develop colds who
have not been in contact with someone with a cold? And what about
the thousands who are in intimate contact with someone with a cold
who do not develop a cold?
In 1967, after my 29-day fast, I worked in a small office with
several other people. Every one of them had repeated colds, some
developed flu; I was the only one in the office who never had any
such symptoms and lost no time from work.
Physiological drainage is even more important than drainage of
swamps, and infinitely more important than germicides and
pesticides. The soil (in the body) is prepared for so-called
epidemic disease by failure to keep the fluids and tissues of the
body sweet and clean.
In the 1850s, when this country suffered with recurring
epidemics of cholera, it developed among the residents of
sweltering and crowded cities, and among (as Dr. Shelton puts it)
the drunkards and the ill-nourished.
A Hygienist writing in 1851 about cholera (Dr.
Shelton’s Hygienic Review, May 1976, page 196) says,
“In New York as in the Old World, the chief victims of the
cholera came from the same classes; the destitute poor, the badly
fed, the insufficiently clothed, the crowded, the dirty and the
The better fed, better housed, clean, and temperate did not get
cholera. The same is true today; the enervated and toxemic, the
weak and dissipated are sick. Those who live according to the laws
of nature are well.
Dr. Shelton says (Dr. Shelton’s Hygienic Review,
May 1976, page 197), “Before the Salk and Sabin vaccines
there were great numbers of mild cases of polio and there were a
few severe cases. This condition has not been changed, although
many cases formerly diagnosed as polio are no longer so diagnosed.
But I have yet to learn of a single child of Hygienic or vegetarian
parents who has had polio. ... A healthful regime will not cause
polio nor cholera, smallpox, and diphtheria.”
Scarlet fever declined in incidence and virulence as rapidly as
did diphtheria—without a vaccine. Cholera, bubonic plague,
English sweat, and typhus fever declined and disappeared at the
same time as smallpox—only smallpox had a vaccine! Some
common factor must have been responsible for the total
decline—not an “immunizing agent,” used for
diphtheria and smallpox and not for the other diseases. Dr. Shelton
asks, “Is vaccination merely a substitute for personal and
Nicholas Von Hoffman, syndicated columnist, after reading
L’Intoxication Vaccinate, by Fernand Delarue, wrote
and article, “Do we Really Need Vaccinations?” (St.
Petersburg Independent, 9/18/78). He says that the French
anti-vaccinationist has some compelling statistics supporting his
Von Hoffman continues:
“Swine flu experience or no, no practice of Western
medicine is more globally accepted as safe and efficacious as
inoculation. In a quiet way, some few doctors have grown so
concerned about the known and unknown harmful effects of
inoculation, they have wondered if the prevention of the disease
may be more risky than going without protection. Prestigious
medical figures have even gone so far as to venture that in recent
years more polio may have been caused in the United States by the
vaccine than by contracting the disease in the usual contagious
“A long list of maladies ranging from blindness to
convulsions to eczema to death has been imputed to vaccination, but
for well over a hundred years informed opinion has held that the
benefits of protection outweigh the risks. Now a small but growing
number is wondering if inoculation docs confer the protection
claimed for it. We know, for instance, that some of the worst
epidemics to ravage our kind were not suppressed by vaccination but
by achieving a higher level of public cleanliness. Thus it was
sanitation, not inoculation, which ended the Black Death. Something
of the same thing may have occurred with smallpox.
“In the middle of the ‘70s, the English launched a
large public sanitation program and as it went forward the
percentage of vaccinated people in the population and the incidence
of smallpox both dropped. Moreover, medical records from the time
indicate vaccinated people were more, not less, likely to get
smallpox than the unvaccinated.
“Delarue centers his inquiries in France, where he says,
for a long time there has been a number of practicing doctors as
well as academicians who’ve had the gravest private doubts
over inoculating people. They’ve not wanted to take the
catcalls and the damage to their careers which speaking out would
bring down on them.
“Somewhat the same situation probably obtains here. Yet
old ideas have to be reexamined and retested from time to time. We
have sunset laws for our public institutions so that every so often
they must defend themselves and show that they are still necessary.
The same should hold for old, long undiscussed scientific
principles, especially when they concern the immediate health and
well-being of millions.”
Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn’s book, Confessions of a
Medical Heretic, contains three pages (pages 143-145) about
the dangers of immunizations, and the fact that
“immunized” people may not only be in greater danger of
contracting the specific disease against which they were vaccinated
(than if unvaccinated), but are also subject to neurological and
sometimes fatal conditions caused by the vaccination.
Dr. Mendelsohn says, “The entire flu shot effort resembles
some massive roulette game, since from one year to the next
it’s anybody’s guess whether the strains immunized
against will be the strains that are epidemic. We were all afforded
a peek at the real dangers of flu vaccines when, in 1976, the great
swine flu fiasco revealed, under close government and media
surveillance, 565 cases of Guillain-Barre paralysis resulting from
the vaccine, and thirty “unexplained” deaths of older
people within hours after receiving the shot.”
Dr. Mendelsohn recently told American Natural Hygiene Society
member Barry Mesh that “now he is against all
When an epidemic occurs on the heels of a mass immunization, the
excuse is often given that “it was a bad batch.”
Sometimes “mistakes” occur. A recent (fall 1982) report
from Sarasota, Florida, is a case in point. “Health officials
in Sarasota admitted Tuesday a miscalculation in determining the
dosage of a vaccine resulted in 19 youngsters receiving 10 times
the recommended amount of Rifampin, a vaccine for hemophilius
meningitis. Dr. Robert Laurie, head of the Sarasota County Health
Department, said the overdose administered over the weekend
resulted in adverse reactions in the 19 children, but none of them
had to be hospitalized. The vaccine was given to the parents of 19
children at Grace United Methodist Church Day Care Center at Venice
after a three-year-old girl at the center was stricken with the
disease.” (Craig Basse, Sunrise Digest, St. Petersburg
Times.) Sometimes the “bad batches” or
“mistakes” result in deaths.
In Barbara Ann Boruff’s article (referred to previously),
she also says:
“In addition to the likelihood of disease, complications,
or death, is the possibility of receiving contaminated vaccine.
Since 1954, several such incidents have occurred. One is the
well-known Cutter scandal, which became the impetus for the
establishment of a federal agency to monitor the effectiveness and
safety of inoculations for mass immunization. This organization is
the Division of Biologies Standards (DBS).
“In the early seventies, the DBS came under severe
criticism with regard to its practices. In 1961, several million
people received polio and adenovirus vaccines that had been
contaminated with a monkey virus known as SV40, known to cause
cancer in hamsters. Its effect on humans is not yet known. Instead
of taking the remaining vaccine off the market, the DBS continued
to allow their usage ‘rather than risk eroding public
confidence by a recall.’ (Science, March 17,
Excerpts from Don't Get Stuck!
William Howard Hay, M.D., Pocono, Pennsylvania June 25,
1937, Address before The Medical Freedom Society (published
in the Congressional Record) on the Lemcke Bill
to Abolish Compulsory Vaccination:
... “I know of one epidemic of smallpox comprising nine
hundred and some cases, in which 95% of the infected had been
vaccinated, and most of them recently ...
“A number of years ago, Cook County, Illinois Hospital
decided to immunize (against diphtheria) one-half of the nursing
staff, and not the other half. Diphtheria broke out soon afterward
among the immunized cases, not the others ...
“Within six years of the U.S. takeover of the Phillipines
and after 30,000,000 vaccinations, they suffered the worst onset of
smallpox, the worst epidemic three times over, that had ever
occurred ... and it was almost three times as fatal. The death rate
ran as high as 60% in certain areas, where formerly it had been 10%
Report of U.S. Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, July
“Recent army experience with yellow fever vaccine resulted
in 28,505 cases of hepatitis, with 62 deaths, as of July 24,
In 1957, nearly half the paralytic cases of polio in
children between five and fourteen occurred in vaccinated children.
It was admitted that the vaccine had been causing paralysis. There
were more polio cases in 1958 than in 1957—6,029 cases, with
3,122 paralytic. In 1959 there were 8,577 cases of polio, with
5,694 paralytic. (The Salk vaccine had been introduced in 1955.) In
1959, the health director of the state of Idaho; Dr. Carl Eklund,
one of America’s vaccination authorities; and Dr. Florio, the
medical officer of Denver, all spoke out against the epidemic and
crippling effects of the Salk vaccine.
1961 (Chicago Daily News, 9/16/61):
In 1959, the Sabin Live Virus Vaccine for polio was introduced.
“Eleven persons who received Sabin oral vaccine a mass
immunizing program in the Syracuse, New York, area have developed
paralytic polio, the U.S. Public Health Service reported
1964 (Awake Magazine, 11/22/64):
“The U.S. Public Health Service recommended that the Sabin
oral vaccine for polio be discontinued to adults ... A
seventeen-man committee found that 57 cases of paralytic polio have
been found that were compatible with the possibility of having been
induced by the vaccine. The vast majority ... involved
Read Don’t Get Stuck or The Poisoned
Needle for details about the trail of crippling and death left
by vaccination. A large volume could be filled with the recorded
Dr. Shelton said in 1976, “The pain proposed by the
president” (Ford) “involves the absurdity of
introducing the supposed cause of influenza into the bodies of the
people to produce in them mild cases of influenza in the hope that
this will cause them to produce protective antibodies and thus
enable them to escape more serious disease by the accidental
invasion of their bodies by the same supposed causes. Viruses are
very accommodating little critters. They introduce mild disease
when introduced into the body by physicians and serious disease
when introduced accidentally. What an enormous debt the medical
profession owes to viruses!”
A student of mine (in 1976) reported to me that her father had
been caught up in the swine flu immunizing frenzy, and had died the
day after receiving the vaccination.
It may seem incredible that the 1976 Swine Flu Epidemic hoax,
with its terrible consequences, has not aroused the public to
reject all so-called immunizations. But the government and the
medical profession have glib and plausible explanations and
continue to sell the idea that the risks involved in
“immunization” are small, compared to the potential
benefit. And the public still accepts the idea of
“contagion” being the cause of “epidemics”,
and allow their children to stand in the “immunizing”
Those who doubt the necessity or advisability of vaccination are
browbeaten into submission by the “authorities” who
insist “it is the law.” Actually, the laws vary from
state to state.
California allows exemption simply on a written statement that
immunization is contrary to his or her belief. But even in Florida,
where the media have been screaming, “No child will be
allowed to enter school without proof of immunization,” it is
possible to escape.
Members of the American Natural Hygiene Society can apply to the
Society for assistance. Sometimes a firm approach to the school
authorities is all that is necessary.
At the October 1982, meeting of our Pasco Natural Hygiene
Society, two happy parents (Clearwater, Florida) informed me that
all it took was a statement to the school authorities that
vaccination is against their religious beliefs. They were told that
in case of any outbreak of one of the “vaccination
diseases,” their children would be required not to attend
school until the outbreak was over.
Of course, they were delighted, and repeatedly thanked me for
guiding them in the right direction—away from the fear of
“contagion” and “epidemics.”
What explanation does the medical profession offer as to
the origin of a disease that appears without any possibility of
having been caught from another person with that
I have never heard any “explanation” of this
anomaly, but medical people still insist that germs are the primary
cause of disease.
If advocates of vaccination believe that it protects,
why are they so insistent that everyone else also be
They claim that for vaccination to be truly effective, at least
90% of the population must be vaccinated. The rationale is, I
believe, that a vaccinated person can infect an unvaccinated
person, and the unvaccinated person, being
“unprotected,” may develop a more virulent form of the
disease, and start an “epidemic.” When epidemics start
among the vaccinated people, the tendency is to blame the
unvaccinated people for not participating, so that complete
“protection” might be obtained. These specious
arguments are the only ones I have ever heard as justification for
compulsory vaccination. If there are other more logical reasons for
compulsory vaccination, I would like to hear them.
What causes a germ inside the body to mutate into
another type of germ?
The amount and type of toxins in the body. See (in the lesson)
Dr. Shelton’s explanation of why toxemia causes typhoid in
one person and pneumonia in another, and the relationship to the
types of food in the diet. Lack of inner cleanliness and the
absence of a clean, Hygienic environment, influence the kind of
eliminative crises the body will conduct. Bacteria are scavengers
which feed on the materials (soil) available to it in the body of
the host. The type (shape) of the bacteria is determined by the
kind of soil involved.
Barring violence, perhaps the only cause of death is tolerated
poisoning. The slow, gradual, insidious undermining of the
organism—the wasting of its nervous energy and the impairing
of its functional and structural integrity—by poisons that
are harbored and “tolerated” kills sooner or later.
Yet, toleration is one of the most misunderstood phenomena in all
nature. Very few men and women grasp its true character.
Tolerance for poisoning is established by breaking down
resistance to its influence. The body pays for this toleration
(miscalled immunity) by general enervation and lowered resistance
to every other influence.
It has been objected that the breaking down of resistance should
not produce toleration, that it should weaken the organism and
render it more susceptible to the influence of poison. This
objection arises out of not understanding the phenomena of
We have seen tolerance defined as the “ability to endure
the continued use of a drug.” We have also seen it defined as
the ability to resist a drug. There is something wrong somewhere.
It is one thing to resist; it is another to endure.
That the vital system resists drug poisons is not doubted. The
means of resistance is not well understood. When emesis (vomiting)
follows a dose of ipecac and diarrhea follows a dose of calomel,
these processes are recognized as evidences of intolerance; but
they are not understood to be means of resistance. Resistance is
supposed to be some occult power that comes into play after the
physiological evidences of intolerance have ceased. This is the
reason we are told that tolerance means being inured to poison by
habit so that it may be taken without harm.
So long as the body actively resists and speedily expels the
poison, it is supposed to produce harm, after active resistance has
ceased and rapid expulsion no longer occur, it is supposed to be
It should be obvious to even a child that its speedy expulsion
prevents harm while its toleration permits it to do much harm. If
calomel is expelled by diarrhea, it does not get into the blood and
cannot damage the blood, nerves, bones, teeth, etc. If it is not
expelled by diarrhea, it does get into the blood and does damage
all of these structures.
It is a sad day for the body when it learns to tolerate poisons.
If intolerance persists, it will force cessation of the use of
poison. If tolerance for tobacco were never established, there
would be no tobacco users. The same for alcohol, opium, arsenic,
and other poisons.
Note that the symptoms of poisoning—pain, nausea,
vomiting, griping, diarrhea, vertigo, weakness, inflammation,
etc.—are also the symptoms of disease. So-called disease is a
process of resistance—resistance to poisons. It expels the
cause of disease as surely as it expels calomel or ipecac. This
fact is so very obvious we are unable to understand why it cannot
be grasped by all.
Drugs are said to lose a degree of their potency by repetition.
This does not express what actually takes place. It is not the drug
that loses its potency. It is the body that loses power. The
repeated use of a poison gradually overcomes or decreases vital
So long as it was believed that the symptoms following the
taking of a poison represented drug action, it was legitimate to
believe that when these symptoms, no longer followed a dose of the
poison, the drug had lost some of its potency. But when we realize
that these symptoms are signs of vital resistance, that they are
actions of the living body, we understand that the failure of these
symptoms to follow a dose of the poison is due to a loss by the
body of power to act.
This weakening of the powers of life, this subduing of the power
of resistance, results in establishing what is called toleration.
When toleration is established, that is, when the power of
resistance is worn out, to produce the same effect—the same
degree of resistance—the size of the dose must be
When medical men tell us that drugs lose their
“remedial” effects by long continuance, we are to
understand that vital resistance has been subdued. For the
phenomena of resistance are what medical men mistakenly call the
“remedial” effects of their drugs. They have not yet
learned that it is the living body, not the drug, that acts (acts
to expel the poison).
Toleration and lost resistance are one and the same thing. It is
a matter of every day experience that as the body’s power of
resistance to a particular poison is reduced, it is less able to
“react” to that poison.
The first effect of a toxin is always stimulation, which is
merely another name for excitement or irritation. This is always
followed by actions of the body (the so-called
“reaction”) to expel the poison. These actions (or
“reactions”) represent the process of resistance. The
body refuses to tolerate the poison.
When “stimulation” is frequently repeated,
increasingly large doses of the same poison or toxin are required
to arouse a degree of intolerance that equals the intensity of the
original “reaction.” This lowered
“reactive” power, this lessening of the defensive
actions of the body, is called toleration.
Diminished resisting power (toleration) is a state of
enervation. General enervation, however produced—by drugs,
excesses, by toxemia—diminishes resisting power to all
poisons or excitants.
This does not, in and of itself, represent a diminished
susceptibility to the baneful influence of poisonous drugs. It may,
however, represent, in addition to the increased enervation, a
change in the methods of self-protection, a shifting from one
method of defense to another and let; expensive one—a passive
resistance and a slow yielding to the influence of the poison.
This represents the cessation of active resistance, or partial
submission to the poison. For submission, or lessened resistance,
is what toleration really amounts to.
Passive resistance is doubtless accompanied with or accomplished
by changes in the tissue, which, if not identical with those seen
in the hands when these are subjected to repeated friction, are
analogous to them. The hardening and thickening of the hands, that
is the building up of callouses, is not the result of friction, but
is a means of resisting friction. The tendency of friction is to
wear away the skin, hence this must be continuously built up from
While the callous guards the underlying structures against the
friction, it cripples all the powers of the skin. Such skin is not
ideal—does not represent the physiological norm.
If you are not accustomed to using fiery condiments and you
undertake to use red pepper, it causes the lips, mouth, tongue, and
throat to burn intensely. When swallowed, it produces discomfort in
the stomach. There is later a feeling of discomfort in the
intestine as the irritating pepper passes along. When, finally, it
is expelled in the stools, the anus and rectum burn as much as did
the mouth when the pepper was swallowed.
Persist in the use of the pepper and its irritating effect grows
less and less until, finally, it produces no burning of the mouth
and throat, no distress in the stomach and intestine, no burning of
the rectum and anus. The membranes of the entire digestive tract
become thickened and hardened in defense against the repeated
irritation. The protective thickening impairs their other
functions. The sense of taste is dulled, digestion is impaired.
Doubtless something similar to this takes place in all the tissues
of the body that are subjected to chronic irritation by alcohol,
tobacco, caffeine, arsenic, opium, salt, and other poisons and
irritants in common use. They, too, must undergo changes to defend
Adaptation to poisons, that is, the establishment of toleration,
is accomplished by changes in the tissues that are away from the
idea! and that cripple all the powers of the tissues.
I do not think it can be too strongly emphasized that adaptation
to the use of a poison, that is, the establishment of toleration,
is accomplished by a depravity of the organism. This fact was, so
far as I know, first explained by Sylvester Graham more than a
hundred years ago.
The greater the physiological depravity, the more of the poison
will be “demanded” by the user and the more his body
will tolerate without signs of active resistance. In other words,
in precisely the proportion to which one becomes accustomed to the
use of any poison is his system depraved and his defensive powers
reduced. The ability to use large quantities of tobacco, for
instance, without being made sick, instead of being an evidence of
strength and physiological fitness, is an evidence of weakness and
When tobacco is taken into the undepraved organism, it is met
with strong vital resistance. There follow in rapid succession
distressing dizziness, muscular relaxation, tremor, weakness,
perhaps fever, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and even convulsions.
Such a “reaction” always follows the introduction of
tobacco into the undepraved organism; and the more vigorous and
undeprived the organism, the more prompt and powerful will be this
It is only by commencing a career of depravity, with cautiously
measured steps, that we may break down the body’s resistance
to the poison and, ultimately, bring about a condition in which the
body seems actually to call for and embrace, as a friend, its arch
The body may thus be so depraved that the deadliest poison may
be habitually taken in considerable quantities and only result in
an immediate feeling of apparent well-being. Indeed, there maybe,
and usually is, much suffering if the depraved organism is denied
the cause of its depravity.
The habitué may be able to take at one dose enough poison
to kill six nonusers. Arsenic may be used as freely as table salt,
with as little immediate evidence of its poisonous character, once
the body has been beaten into submission. Prussic acid, which kills
like lightning, when the body is not accustomed to its use, may,
beginning with minute doses, and gradually using larger and larger
doses, be used with considerable freedom as a means of
“exhilaration” and intoxication.
The opium addict can take at one dose sufficient opium to kill
several nonusers outright. Instead of producing any immediate
symptoms of poisoning in him, the opium results in an immediate
feeling of well-being. If he is denied his accustomed dose, he
suffers intensely. Give him his accustomed poison and his
sufferings vanish as if by magic. The cause of his suffering seems
to cure his suffering, but only seems to, for the longer he uses
the opium, the more he suffers and the larger dose and the more
frequent doses will he require to silence the outcries of his
outraged system. The real effect of the dose is to renarcotize his
nerves, which can only cry out and reveal his true condition when
they are no longer under the influence of the drug.
In the same way coffee will “cure” the headache it
produces; tobacco will “steady” the nerves it has
unsteadied; alcohol will “strengthen” the man it has
weakened; sleeping potions “cure” the sleeplessness
they have produced, only to make the sleeplessness worse and
require a larger dose to “cure” next dine. Stimulants
weaken us by overstimulation, mistaken for
The ability of the carefully depraved organism to tolerate large
doses of poisons and the fact of every day experience that the use
of poisons by the physiologically depraved instead of producing
immediate symptoms of poisoning, results in the appearance and
feeling of well-being, has led even intelligent people to stoutly
deny the poisonous character of many poisons in habitual use.
Because tobacco, opium, alcohol, arsenic or coffee and tea may be
freely and habitually used without producing immediate death, or
any of the distressing symptoms that indicate acute poisoning; but,
on the contrary, so far as the feelings and actions of the users
are concerned, they act as grateful “cordials,” men and
women are deceived by them. “My experience has shown that
tobacco is very kind to me,” says the tobacco user, while the
opium addict informs us that his “experience has shown that
opium is very kind to me.”
Such “experience” is based not only on the deceptive
appearances of drug habituation, but is defective in that it
forgets or ignores both the beginning and the end of the experience
with the drug. If we accept the nonpoisonous character of tea,
coffee, tocabbo, alcohol, opium etc., on the basis of such
“experience,” we are forced to the fallacious
conclusion that there is no such thing as a poison in nature. The
body can learn to tolerate most substances, however deadly, by a
career of physiological depravity.
The true test of the poisonous or nonpoisonous character of any
substance is its introduction into the undepraved—the
intolerant—organism. By this test tobacco, alcohol, tea,
coffee, opium, arsenic, and all other drugs that are used for
“exhilaration” and intoxication are shown to be
strongly anti-vital i.e., poisonous.
The beginning of a poison vice is marked by evidences of acute
poisoning. Thereafter, there are evidences of acute poisoning. The
end—no one disputes the end of opium addiction. Few today
will deny the end of arsenic eating. Why close our eyes to the ends
of alcoholism, nicotinism, caffeinism, etc.? Not until we include
in our “experience” both the beginning and the end of a
poison-vice are we justified in drawing conclusions from “our
What is the Hygienic viewpoint of viruses and their
effects on living cells?
This question is a little difficult to answer because virology
is still in its childhood. Their nature is still not known. Are
they plants, chemicals, animals, or parasites? No one knows exactly
what they are.
Boyd states that a virus “represents a most minute and
primitive form of life. Even this statement may be questioned, for
the virus seems to exist in the dim borderland between living
things and chemical compounds. It is a submicroscopic unit
containing nucleic acid and protein. Unlike bacteria, viruses are
not capable of supporting life on their own, owing to a lack of
enzymes. In order to exist and multiply, they must occupy living
cells, which provide them with necessary material and energy. ...
It is evident that a virus is a perfect example of a
Some viruses live and grow only in man. Others prefer other
animals. Some of them like to live only in specific tissues such as
nerve tissue (neurotropic), while others prefer the skin, and are
called dermotropic. Still others are viscerotropic,
meaning that they live in the viscera of animals.
The current knowledge of the virus seems to point clearly to its
parasitic nature. Knowing the nature of viruses gives us a clue as
to how to “defend” ourselves from them, if, indeed, we
need defending. They, like bacteria, may end up being our
benefactors instead of our enemies. Their outstanding
characteristic is that they cannot multiply unless in a living
cell. Since they live within the cell, dosing ourselves with
antibiotics and other drugs such as the sulfonamides will not
Viruses, being mainly proteinaceous in nature, occasion antibody
formation when they are in the bloodstream. The body acts against
them to destroy them, just as it destroys bacteria. A healthy body
can destroy them as rapidly as they are formed. Even though they
are somewhat protected within the cell from the antibodies, a
healthy cell can keep them under control and prevent them from
overwhelming the cell.
A medical differentiation is made between a viral infection and
viral disease. A host may be infected with a virus but not manifest
a disease. In the case of viral infection multiplication of the
virus can proceed without damage to the cell. When there is a viral
disease, the cell shows pathological changes, usually in the form
of degeneration. Boyd thinks that viral infection is universal but
that viral disease is relatively rare. He says, “viral
infection is very much commoner than viral disease—indeed it
may be universal. Thus polio virus infection is many hundred times
commoner than the disease, and adenovirus infection of the tonsils
is present in about 90 percent of normal persons, although disease
caused by these viruses occurs in a very small percentage.
“In viral infection, a virus may sojourn indefinitely in
the comfortable surroundings of the cell. It is more than a
boarder, for it has become one of the family, and it can live with
the family for generations without causing trouble. Various
internal or external agents may upset the harmony and convert the
latent virus into a virulent one, which usurps the cell’s
biosynthetic machinery for the production, almost exclusively, of
viral progeny (Swartz and Littlefield). Such factors as age,
genetic makeup, nutrition, or hormonal balance may be responsible.
So may bacterial infection, one of the best examples being the
well-known relation between the herpes simplex (”cold
sore” on the lip) and pneumococcal pneumonia. Influenza is
believed with reason to predispose the patient to respiratory tract
bacterial infection, but it is also possible that such an infection
may precipitate an attack of influenza through the conversion of a
latent into an active virus.
“It is now known that a protein is produced by
virus-treated cells in tissue culture which is capable of
inhibiting or interfering with the growth of many other viruses.
This material has been named interferon, and it seems to have many
of the properties of a viral antibiotic, so that we may hear more
of it in the future (Isaacs and Burke). Recovery, as opposed to
immunity, does not depend on the production of antibodies. The
factors responsible for recovery are at present unknown.
“The practical importance of the theoretical
considerations which have just been outlined lies in the fact that
as viral disease is dependent on viral reproduction, and as viral
reproduction is dependent on biochemical processes, it may be
possible to interfere with these processes and thus inhibit
reproduction by chemical compounds. First steps in this direction
have already been taken, but we have to face the unfortunate fact
that by the time signs and symptoms of disease are apparent,
reproduction for the virus is far advanced. It is evident that the
control of viral diseases presents the same formidable obstacles as
the control of cancer and for the same reason, namely that we are
dealing with a disorder within the cell itself.”
I quoted extensively from Boyd because I wanted you to read the
medical man’s words yourself. When analyzing his writing, we
learn that a virus can be present without a disease being manifest
and without the disease necessarily developing even in the
In fact, we learned that 90% of normal persons can harbor a
virus and only a few of this percentage develop the disease the
virus is supposed to cause. Viral disease, like bacterial diseases,
require something else or some other enervating substance or
influence to prostrate the body’s protective functions
permitting the virus to run away with the biological activities
within the cell.
We also learned about interferon. This indicates that the body
does have a means within the cell of protecting itself, thus
preventing the virus from multiplying within the cell. It has
always been totally unthinkable to me that a virus could enter a
ceil, and take over without the least bit of biological protest.
Now we have learned that the body protects itself from viruses just
like it does from bacteria and their toxins. Our job is to supply
our bodies with the necessary materials and influences which
promote health and protection.
We learned also that there are “carriers” of viruses
just as there are “carriers” of bacteria. A
“carrier” is a person in a state of impaired health but
not yet sick enough to go to bed. This state of lowered vitality is
low enough to permit the virus to exist, but not low enough to
permit it to multiply so much that it produces apparent
degeneration of the cell. This takes years. Greater health will
enable the host to destroy the viruses, and less health will cause
the carrier to develop a so-called viral disease.
As Hygienists, we know that there is no such thing as a viral
disease. There are simply stales of impaired health with cell
degeneration. That the virus is an entity and that it occasions
cellular degeneration is stilt a mute question. The so-called
viruses may simply be the various toxic debris that Hygienists have
been condemning and shouting about for many years. Not wanting to
keep the toxin in the bloodstream, the body may find a means of
encapsulating it in a protein membrane and injecting it into a cell
to get it out of the bloodstream. Eventually these toxins pervert
the metabolism of the cell and cause cellular degeneration. The
virus may be only encapsulated protein, the body having surrounded
it with a membrane to prevent an excess from upsetting the system.
The modern high protein diet may be the reason for so-called viral
Another thing we gleen from the foregoing quotation from Boyd is
the manner in which the medical man thinks. Instead of thinking in
terms of improving the person’s health with the normal
elements of physiology, he thinks in terms of a chemical which will
destroy the virus although he previously pointed out the fact that
the cell can protect itself with interferon, and although he
mentioned the factors which may make a latent virus become active.
Instead of telling us to avoid these factors, he searches for a
chemical panacea. It has been proven with antibiotic therapy that
you can’t kill all bacteria with antibiotics and often
instead of destroying the bacteria, the drug simply produces a
mutant strain that is resistant to the chemical or antibiotic, and
the bacteria thrive in the host despite the drug.
But the host’s health is destroyed and his ability to
destroy bacteria is at the same time depressed by the antibiotic.
Instead of making the host immune to disease and bacteria, it makes
him more susceptible. The same can be said of any drug, which may
be produced, that will kill viruses. If it is destructive to the
virus, it will also be destructive to those taking the drug.
Many important facts have been brought to the surface by modern
research. What is so remarkable, is that every time something new
is learned it only strengthens and confirms the Hygienic viewpoint
We have learned that viruses vary just as do bacteria. Something
causes them to change from a virulent virus to a nonvirulent one or
vice versa. What causes this? In bacteria, it is their environment.
If the environment is toxic and the bacteria must live on filth,
they become virulent. There is every reason to believe that viruses
in a toxic environment filled with an excess of metabolic waste
products and environmental poisons, will also become virulent
because of their nourishment.
An article from the Cyclopedia of Medicine written by
Edwin W. Schultz, M.D. clearly points out that viruses change. He
“Considerable experimental work has been done on variation
in viruses. It is well established that viruses do undergo
variations, including variation in virulence, in antigenic
structure, and in the character of the lesions induced. Sometimes
the variations are of a stable mutation type, at other times, not.
While viruses have been compared with self-perpetuating genes,
little is known regarding the genetics of viruses.
“The capacity of viruses to undergo variation has also
been studied in the laboratory. Certain variations have been
induced in vaccinia virus and other pock viruses. The conversion of
‘street virus’ to ‘fixed’ rabies virus it a
classical example of laboratory adaptation. In its passage from
brain to brain in rabbits, street virus loses its ability to
progress along peripheral nerves; this is a variation relating to
its tropism. It occurs without significant changes in antigenic
properties. With some viruses, however, appreciable shifts may
sometimes occur in the antigenic properties when these are passed
long enough in a new type of host. Among the more important
variations, which have been induced under artificial conditions, is
the transformation of yellow fever virus under tissue culture
conditions from a primarily viscerotropic virus to one which has
not only lost its viscerotropism, but inherent neurotropism as
well, arid this without significant alteration of its natural
antigenic properties. Strain 17D, now employed in immunizing
against yellow fever, has this history.”
Again the physician is thinking in terms of using this newfound
knowledge wrongly. Instead of learning that a healthy body will
destroy the virus and that it can even turn a virulent virus into a
nonvirulent one so that it will not cause any pathological
degeneration, they are still thinking in terms of immunizing the
body against the virus, which is impossible anyway because of the
many different strains of the same virus.
That the immunizing process is fraught with great danger is
brought out in the following quotation from the the same author.
“A certain degree of pliability in a virus can prove a useful
property. If a virus can be made to give up its natural virulence
without significant change in its anti-genic properties, it may
become useful as a vaccine. What will happen when it is placed in a
new environment is, however, often unpredictable. Merely carrying
it under such conditions for a time gives no assurance that a
change in virulence or other properties has been induced. Proof
that such a useful change has been effected may require lengthy
experimental observations to determine not only the degree of the
change, but the stability of the change.”
In summary, all the newer knowledge about viruses only
strengthens, corroborates, and substantiates the Hygienic viewpoint
of all bacteria, parasites, and viruses. The healthy body has its
means of destroying and eliminating them from the system. If you
are in a state of impaired health, drugs and vaccines do no good
whatsoever. They further weaken the organism and intoxicate the
system, making it even more susceptible to parasitic and bacterial
Furthermore, we just learned of the hazards of injecting
attenuated viruses. They can backfire and become virulent again.
Many children became paralyzed after taking Sabin and Salk
vaccines. The means of health and only the means of health are
useful in states of disease. If a substance bears no normal
relation to the body and if it is not generally used in any of its
biochemical or physiological processes, then it does not belong in
the body even if it does kill bacteria and viruses in the test
tube. We are dealing with living organisms, not minced tissue
growing in a culture in the lab. Let us rely on the only reliable
means left, and those are the primordial requisites of life.
(Editor’s Note: While the above article gives credence
to medical views, it is, nevertheless an excellent Hygienic
presentation. Students should now know that so-called viruses are
only cellular debris, being, particularly, the remnants of genetic
material from cellular mitochondria. This debris, along with other
uneliminaled wastes, constitutes the morbid material the body
endeavors to expel when it institutes an eliminative crisis called
sickness, disease, etc.)
Worried people call the Health School asking if they should have
themselves immunized before traveling abroad. They are going to the
Far East or Mexico, and should they beware of fresh fruits and
vegetables? Is it true that they must drink wine or beer, and shun
These and other questions come to their mind when preparing for
a visit to other countries. They have heard so many scare stories
written by the masters of the scare science that they take a trip
with great fear and trepidation. Indeed, some remain home for, fear
of “catching” some foreign “bug.”
On January 4, 1971, the Arkansas Gazette carried an
article by Dr. Van Dellen alarming the people that a cholera
epidemic was spreading through the Middle and Far East, into
Africa. “For the first time in 100 years the disease has
bridged the Sahara and is in tropical Africa and as far west as
Guinea. These areas are densely populated and have poor
sanitation—ideal conditions for the spread of the infection.
The mortality also has been high.
He goes on to say that the cholera poses “no immediate
threat to the United States,” but he says this “with
his fingers crossed, because any person visiting afflicted
countries could bring it back.” Then those stow-away germs
could pounce on us poor unsuspecting Americans who would then
succumb to the disease.
Where was the cholera vibrio all these years? Did it disappear
and suddenly return? Travelers are advised to consult the United
States Public Health Service to determine which countries demand
that they be immunized for cholera before entering, making
it sound as if many countries demand immunization for this disease
before crossing their frontiers. This is not so. Dr. Van Dellen
states in the aforementioned article that, “Many countries in
Europe, Asia, and Africa demand evidence of vaccination before a
person crosses their frontiers. And this is true particularly after
the person has been in a cholera-infected area.”
I telephoned the United States Public Health Service and was
told that it is not necessary to be immunized before going into an
infected area; that the countries did not care if you were
subjected to the disease when there. It is the other countries that
worried when you re-entered them on your way home. I was advised
that before making a world trip that one should be immunized for
smallpox, cholera, yellow fever, tetanus, typhoid, polio, and
hepatitis. Then one month before entering a malaria-infested area I
was told to start taking medication and continue taking it as long
as there was a chance of being bitten by the malaria-carrying
The World Health Organization, Geneva, is the responsible body
for the International Sanitary Regulations. It is clear in Article
83, for all those countries that accept the International Sanitary
Regulations, that “objectors to vaccination can refuse the
operations without being refused admission into those countries
which have accepted the International Sanitary
If you have traveled into Asia, Africa, America, other than from
the United States and Canada, and wish to enter the United Kingdom,
an official vaccination certificate is necessary. In almost all
countries, however, you can get in without shots of any kind. It is
when you re-enter other countries from an infected area
that trouble may be given you. Paul-Emile Chevrefils, M.D., founder
president of La Ligue Pour Le Vaccine Libre states that he
travels without the yellow certificate, using only Article 83. He
states that, “This international by-law gives anyone the
right to go around the world by using the medical surveillance for
15 days, not to be isolated but to go freely.”
After informing his readers that “there is no good
evidence that cholera immunizations are any good ...”
Fredrick J. Stare, M.D. (Arkansas Gazette, November 16,
1970) urges us to be shot anyway, and then gives us a formula for
eating that will supposedly prevent cholera. Do what he says and
you probably will develop cholera. Do the exact opposite of his
advice which follows and you will probably have more energy, enjoy
yourself more and not be troubled whatsoever with “vacation
Stare, according to the dictates of the infection myth,
gives us this advice: Stick to bottled mineral water, hot tea or
coffee, or bottled beer, eat the meat, potatoes, rice, or other
well-cooked foods, canned vegetables, bread, butter, and jam; and
shun the fruits and vegetables unless you can readily peel them
yourself. Wash your hands well before you eat.”
This nonsensical plan of eating supposedly prevents the
development of cholera by killing the vibrio with heat or chemical
processes before introducing it into the body via food and water.
Were the vibrio the cause of cholera his reasoning would still be
specious. Vibrio cholerae are aerobic bacteria, meaning
that air is necessary for their growth. There is not an excess of
air in the gastrointestinal system. They are also killed by
acidity. If food and water, contaminated by vibrio cholera
are taken, the acid of any good stomach will soon destroy them.
Kendall A. Elson, M.D. states in Cyclopedia of Medicine,
that, “The cholera vibrio escapes from the body of
the infected individual in stools and vomitus, although if the
latter is strongly acid the organisms are immediately
What people should be taught is cleanliness, and to eat
moderately of properly-combined foods so that digestion is normal
and they need not fear the cholera vibrio, if they still
believe the concept of disease of the shaman. We must caution our
readers against Stare’s Middle Ages advice. The cholera
vibrio does not cause cholera.
Even though he has twice made the statement that cholera
immunizations do not protect one from cholera, Stare
advises getting immunized anyway to avoid trouble at ports
of entry to other countries which have strict public health
regulations. He condemns his peers, who are M.D.s who give the
shots when he says, “It is important to have this certificate
in order to avoid inconveniences in travel or the threat of serum
hepatitis from a dirty vaccinating needle.”
To back up his statements about cholera vaccine, Stare quotes
Dr. W. B. Greenough, III, whom he says “knows far more about
cholera than I know or ever will know,” as having written him
the following: “Many commercial vaccines do not protect even
in populations from endemic areas (where cholera is always present)
... as a measure for disease control immunization is ineffective
since the carrier state is not interfered with by the
What he is saying in plain English is that if the cholera
vaccine protected, then cholera would not be endemic, and those who
were protected would not develop the disease even if supposed
“carriers” are present. However, we are taught that the
“organisms usually disappear from the stools of the cholera
patient within five to seven days of the onset of infection.
...” and the carrier state is not supposed to be a
significant method of transmission of the disease. Cecil and
Loeb’s textbook of medicine states “there are no known
instances of chronic carriers among human beings.”
Many Hygienists have traveled to the Middle and Far East and
into Africa, eating plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables, without
developing any trouble, whereas often those who had all the shots
and who drank wine instead of water and who didn’t dare taste
a fresh fruit or vegetable came down with various illnesses,
including cholera. I might add, that for the sake of cleanliness,
pure distilled water would be best to drink, here or overseas, and
for absolute cleanliness of vegetables and fruits, rinse them well
in distilled water. The cholera vibrio is easily killed by
drying, and it dies rapidly in pure water. It is cleanliness that
is necessary, not sterility.
Cholera, an acute inflammation of the intestinal canal, is
supposedly spread by food and water contaminated with vibrio
cholerae. It is usually a disease endemic and epidemic in Asia
primarily along the Ganges River in India and Pakistan. The
bacillus, which is shaped like a comma, and was called the comma
bacillus by Koch, its discoverer, releases a powerful endotoxin
after death, which contains a mucinase. Mucinase is thought to be
responsible for the extreme cellular desquamation of the mucosal
epithelium that is so characteristic a feature of cholera. The
endotoxin supposedly causes such intense dilatation of all the
capillaries along the whole intestinal tract that the fluid leaks
out of these into the intestines, thus producing the rice-water
stools so typical of Asiatic cholera. Because of the loss of such
huge quantities of electrolytes and water, extreme dehydration
ensues, and Boyd states that 75% of the untreated patients die.
Since the vibrio cholera does such horrible things to a
person, by all means, shouldn’t we take steps to prevent
infection? These threats could scare one into being
immunized despite the poor reports of
immunization, before going to the Middle and Far East. Who
wants to dehydrate and die? So we become immunized and avoid all
fresh foods, hoping that we won’t develop the disease.
Germs by themselves do not cause disease. Dr. Pettenkofer,
Professor of Bacteriology at the University of Vienna, astounded
all his students one day by drinking a glass of water containing
millions of living cholera bacilli. He had come to the conclusion
that germs do not cause disease, and wanted to prove it. As he
gulped down a glassful of living vibrio, the bearded Dr.
Pettenkofer only growled, “Now let us see if I get
cholera.” De Kruif said that Dr. Pettenkofer drank enough of
the “wiggling comma germs to infect a regiment.”
Nothing happened to the “mad” Pettenkofer. Many
incidents could be cited showing that infecting the body with germs
does not cause any specific disease to develop. Perhaps this is why
the president was persuaded to dump stockpiles of germs for germ
warfare. Perhaps experiments proved them useless and physicians
didn’t want the lucrative germ theory destroyed just yet. If
germ warfare were effective, it is hardly likely that he would have
disposed of the stockpile.
As far back 1928, Dr. M. Beddow Dayly, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.,
Medical World, said: “I am prepared to maintain, with
scientifically established facts, that in no single instance has it
been conclusively proved that any microorganism is the specific
cause of a disease.”
In Volume VI of the Hygienic System, Dr. Shelton says:
“In more than sixty years of intensive farming the germ idea,
there is not one ‘disease’ that has been proved to be
of germ origin, and not one can be cured according to the germ
theory. Unless a germ will cause a disease every time it infects
the body, it is not a cause. A cause must be as constant and
specific in its influence, or it is not a cause. Germs are
omnipresent—this is one of the fundamental truths Pasteur or
his contemporary, Bechamp, discovered; but he and his followers
appear to have overlooked the fact that germs fail to have a
specific influence all the time.”
Dr. Shelton further says: “The view I would put before the
reader is that ‘disease’ is not caused by the germ, but
by the state of the body that allows the germ to flourish. And this
condition of the organism or any part of it which renders possible
the growth of the germ therein is the much sought for
‘filterable virus.’ It is the outgrowth of violations
of the laws of life and is no chance or haphazard
Dr. Tilden says that germs are merely
adventitious—secondary. If the soil is proper for the growth
of bacteria, they will flourish but if tissues and secretions are
normal and healthy, pathological germs will not grow and
Those who travel and drink alcoholic beverages, smoke, keep late
hours, overeat on spicy, cooked dishes, and sight-see until they
are about to drop are enervating themselves. They are using up
nerve energy in excess. Functions begin to lag. Metabolic waste
products mount in the tissues and fluids of the body. Secretion and
excretion are impaired. This is the ground work, or the foundation
for the development of any disease. Even then, many times the
specific bacteria fail to appear. And in numerous other cases the
bacteria fail to appear until very late in the stage of the
disease. If a cause is a cause, logically it should be present in
sufficient numbers before symptoms appear. It cannot be
demonstrated that bacteria invariably appear even after the
development of a particular disease.
What is the real reason for Fredrick Stare’s change in
feeling about vaccinations for cholera? Probably, he was given a
good lecture by the AMA. Thousands of dollars will be lost to the
American medical profession if people do not get their
immunizations before they leave home. So he castigated his
brethren physicians in other countries by telling his public that
it is important to avoid the dirty needles in other countries. It
would have been better to tell them the truth, that they could rely
on Article 83 of the World Health Organization and go freely in
other countries, as long as they let the health officials know of
their whereabouts. This way a painful shot could be avoided as well
as the occasional development of hepatitis from dirty needles in
Why the recent outburst of cholera? An item under World Health
News, in the September 1971, Health For All (England), has
a very good answer to this question. It states: “Whenever
there is a great social upheaval, with its tragic displacement of
people and the consequent crowding of refugees, there is always a
medical lesson to be learned. Disease often follows in the wake of
such catastrophes, and, as with the most recent one, cholera
becomes almost epidemic. According to medical opinion, the
causative organism in this case is the spirillum cholerae
which is found in the stools of patients. Entry into the body is
through the alimentary tract, and the source of the infection is
polluted water due to a lack of sanitation. To say that the
organism is the cause of the disease is, however, to put the cart
before the horse. The course of events runs in this order; First
the breakdown of social order; then the panic of the population;
and then the crowding of the people with the absence of sanitation,
with the development of the organism as an associated factor. In
this country, as history tells, cholera was widespread whenever
people were crowded together and there was a lack of proper
“It is interesting to notice that whenever there is a
cholera outbreak, the headlines in the newspapers are given over
the use of vaccines, to which, also, credit is generally afforded
when the epidemic comes under control. The vaccines are rushed from
the great pharmaceutical centres with the accompaniment of massive
publicity with the result that probably 99 persons out of 100 would
affirm the vaccines were effective in controlling the
“It would therefore have come as a surprise to many people
to have read on the front page of Medical News Tribune,
June 11, 1971, the headline: ‘Medical science helpless
against cholera epidemic’ and to have learned that
‘medical science is virtually powerless in the face of the
cholera epidemic on the India-Pakistan border. Tropical medicine
experts can’t even estimate how many could die. Better
sanitation is the only answer, impossible in the present situation
as millions of Pakistani refugees exist in terrible conditions,
aggravated by the monsoon... .’ ”
Boyd’s textbook of pathology states that, “The wise
Chinese are the only Orientals who do not suffer from cholera; they
use boiled water and cooked food, they drink tea and eat hot
rice.” We have had personal talks with Scott Nearing, who
also said that cholera was virtually wiped out in China, but this
is attributed to better sanitation and better diets for the Chinese
and not due to the fact that everything they eat or drink is boiled
or cooked. They have habits of moderation in all things and do not
eat extensively of flesh foods.
It is a well-known fact that the Chinese have used human wastes
for many centuries for fertilizer. They are still using this method
of fertilization. It isn’t the boiling or cooking of their
foods that protects them; it is the fact that they have a better
economy than many years ago, and their people are better fed than
Recently, in Organic Gardening and Farming, an article
entitled “Goodbye to the Flush Toilet” pictures the use
of human wastes as very ecological and necessary. It demonstrates
how unclean our system of purifying water is, and how “even
the most modern of sewage plants don’t do a perfect job of
taking that one part of human excrement out of toilet water.”
This dirty water, even though sterile, is, sent back into the
reservoirs for us to drink and wash vegetables in. It clearly shows
that the disposal of body wastes is actually cleaner when done the
old-fashioned way, by bacteria and filtration through soil. The
article states that “clearly, the soil does a much better job
of purification than any sewage plant.”
The aforementioned article quotes from Dr. F. H. King’s
book, Farmers of Forty Centuries, and shows that all
animal wastes are recycled by the Orientals. “Human wastes
were almost the life-blood of Oriental agriculture, Dr. King found.
Farmers made attractive screens near their fields so passersby
would honor them by leaving behind some human fertilizer. All
families saved their toilet wastes and sold them to farmers. Cities
found their human wastes to be a net profit instead of a liability,
as in the U.S. In 1908 Shanghai sold one Chinese contractor 78,000
tons of human waste for $31,000 in gold.”
It just goes to show you that it is not the method of
fertilization that harms people. If one fears the vibrio, it may
help to know that cholera vibrio can survive in sewage for
only 24 hours and if the sewage is well composted before using it
as fertilizer, there will be no live vibrios to fear.
Cholera is nothing more than a very severe diarrhea commencing
high in the intestinal tract. The fluids that are lost during the
diarrhea are secreted by the intestinal membranes to rid the food
tube of very poisonous and irritating substances, which are
not the vibrios. Overeating and drinking with the
consequent putrefaction of proteins, producing virulent poisons
high up in the small intestine are the causes of the diarrhea. It
is a disease of poisoning, and because it develops high in the
digestive tube, many electrolytes and fluids are lost. This is the
danger. But if no food is taken when a malaise is first felt, and
the body is permitted to wash the intestines free of the poison,
and fear is kept from the patient, and he is freely supplied water
when he is thirsty and can retain it, there will be a recovery rate
much greater than now.
Graham states in his book on cholera “that the primary and
paramount cause (of cholera) is always the peculiar condition of
the human system resulting from the violation of the laws of
organic life. Its more immediate exciting causes, however, are
various; such as atmospheric changes and conditions—quality
and quantity of food—excesses of every kind; but more than
all, perhaps the use of artificial stimulants, and especially of
the narcotic and alcoholic kinds;—in short, anything and
everything that reduces the vital powers of the nerves of organic
life; and brings the alimentary canal and with it the whole system
into a state of extreme, morbid irritability, leaving little power
in the system to sustain high irritation, and to resist and throw
off things that are noxious or disturbing to it.
“It may, however, with confidence be asserted, that all
the causes which obtain, beyond the control of man, would seldom or
never develop this disease without the occurrence of those causes
which operate through his voluntary conduct.”
Instead of indulging in beer and wine, and much coffee and
cooked food while traveling, if you do the very opposite of this
ancient and harmful advice you will be more likely to have a
Almost as common as the “common cold” is the
virtually universal misunderstanding as to what a cold really
The condition known as a “cold” is characterized by
inflammation of the mucous membrane of the nose and throat; there
also may be inflammation of the membrane lining the nasal sinuses,
the larynx, the pharynx, or the bronchial tubes.
There is a profuse flow of mucus, initially thin and watery,
gradually becoming thicker and whitish or greenish. The nasal
lining thickens and interferes with breathing. Sneezing sometimes
brings some temporary relief to the stopped-up nasal passages, but
it is the inflammation that narrows the openings and makes
There may be a temporary loss of smell and taste. Often there is
a raw, sore throat with a flow of mucus from this membrane, a husky
voice, and a cough. The eyes and ears may become involved. The
person feels miserable, and may have a fever, often a headache. He
may progress from “thinking he is going to die” to
“being afraid he won’t.”
Charles Dickens once described his cold thus: “I am at
this moment deaf in the ears, hoarse in the throat, red in the
nose, green in the gills, damp in the eyes, twitching in the
joints, and fractious in temper, from a most intolerant and
The most common “common cold” is an acute
rhinitis—inflammation of the nasal cavity—with
rhinorrhea (nasal discharge), nasal obstruction (due to swelling or
edema of the mucous membrane of the nasal passage) and sneezing. A
disease that can be aborted to 24 to 48 hours lasts for weeks in
Everyone who has had a “cold” (and who
hasn’t?) will agree as to the nature of the symptoms, and the
misery they cause. But it is almost incredible to realize that the
misunderstanding of colds, and the type of treatment commonly
employed today, have changed very little in the last few hundred
In the 1500s, British doctors often prescribed tobacco juice,
lime juice and emetics (to cause vomiting) for colds. If that
didn’t work, the patients were bled. Ronald Kotulak, a
Chicago Tribune columnist, said, “Those who could
not afford these ministrations naturally had a higher rate of
In the 18th century, another Englishman came up with this
remedy, “Hang your hat on the bedpost, drink from a bottle of
good whiskey until two hats appear, then get into bed and stay
The use of “booze” to ease the symptoms is still
widespread, and many drug companies include high levels of alcohol
in their cold and cough remedies. Nyquil, for instance, contains
25% alcohol by volume, which makes it equivalent to a 50-proof
The current medical community admits, that it hasn’t made
much progress in its efforts against the common cold. The American
Medical Association and doctors at Harvard Medical School say that
colds still resist the best efforts of the world’s combined
medical research talent.
German scientist Dr. W. Kruse announced in 1914 his discovery
that colds were caused by viruses and this was hailed as the first
big discovery on colds. After that, research sputtered along,
seeking the elusive “cure” that was always just around
In the 1950s, scientists were hopeful they could develop a
vaccine against the “cold virus.” But these hopes soon
were dashed when more and more cold viruses were discovered. Now
there are more than 150 known viruses which are thought (by medical
people) to cause the common cold, and a vaccine is admittedly
impractical. As Hygienists, we can at least breathe a sign of
relief that a “cold vaccine” has not been added to the
arsenal of poisonous vaccines being recommended to the gullible
Dr. Robert Muldoon, specialist in virology, and professor of
medicine at the University of Illinois, said in 1978,
“Disgustingly enough, there is not much new about the, common
cold. There really isn’t much you can do to protect yourself
from a cold, and there still isn’t anything you can do for it
once you get it except to treat the symptoms.” (We beg to
Dr. Muldoon took part in a classic experiment at the university
with Dr. George Jackson, showing that exposure to cold temperatures
or wet feet do not increase a person’s risk of
catching a cold. He said that when a person with a cold sneezes on
you, you can expect to receive a direct blast of germs, but your
chances of catching his cold are only about one in ten. Dr. Muldoon
does not give any explanation as to why he thinks nine out of ten
people will not get the cold, even when directly exposed.
A cold research establishment in England has been working for
twenty-five years to find a definite cause for the common cold.
Everything they have tried has failed, though they have subjected
volunteers to every conceivable circumstance in order to find some
pattern or combination of factors which produce a cold.
Notwithstanding these conclusions (that no one knows the causes
of colds)—I must insist that the causes of colds are
known, and that the proper method of dealing with a cold has been
known for many years. As long ago as 1873, Dr. Robert Walter said,
“A cold is simply an effort of the system to relieve itself
of its accumulated waste particles.”
Failure of the medical community to find the cause
of colds is due to the fact that researchers are looking for
something that isn’t there. No cure for the common
cold has ever been found by the researchers for an excellent
reason: the cold itself is the “cure.”
When the state of nervous energy is lowered, excretion,
elimination and digestion are impaired. The two great causes of
colds are exhaustion and repletion (surfeit).
When the state of bodily clogging which precedes a cold reaches
intolerable proportions, the body organizes for a radical
eliminative crisis. The temperature rises, the head and nasal
passages become congested, appetite may disappear. The cold may go
through various stages of eliminative processes, usually regarded
as disease symptoms, instead of being understood as
cleansing efforts of the body to unburden the vital
If drugs are used to stop these processes, the body may face a
more serious situation later on—perhaps influenza, or
pneumonia, or possibly problems with other organs or functions.
We have been taught that colds lay the foundation for other more
serious diseases. Rather, they are efforts to prevent the
development of more serious conditions. The persistence of the
causes, or the drug treatment common today, can lay the foundations
for future degenerative pathologies. Chronic disease is due to
Means of eliminating the accumulations must be employed by the
troubled organism. Coughing, sneezing, discharge of mucus, all
represent efforts on the part of the body to remove the accumulated
unexcreted waste. The symptoms represent part of the remedial
process, as the body is striving to maintain or restore the status
quo—the homeostasis or physiological equilibrium.
When the body produces symptoms of a cold as vicarious
elimination of toxic material which is threatening its survival, we
should not even consider suppressing them. Why should we try to
check a cough that is necessary to remove an obstruction? Why
should we try to dam up in the body the noxious matter that the
wisdom of the body has determined must be expelled?
Americans suffer more than 600,000,000 colds a year. This is
worth several billion dollars annually to the drug industry,
physicians, pharmacists, and the huge support industries:
packaging, advertising, etc.
The Harvard Medical School Health Letter warns that the
once common practice of prescribing antibiotics for a cold is
useless and potentially dangerous.
Despite the fact that there are no medications available to
treat a cold effectively, Americans spend more than five hundred
million dollars annually for over-the-counter cold
remedies—and that doesn’t include aspirin. In addition,
coryza (rhinitis), commonly known as a cold, costs the American
people untold millions of dollars in loss of time from work and
physicians’ bills, plus the cost of lowered efficiency and
lessened productive power.
But these immediate costs in dollars and cents are dwarfed by
the mischief done to the human organism, to some extent by the
causes (which produce the necessity for the vicarious elimination),
but, primarily, by the treatment.
Aspirin is the most commonly used cold remedy. Among
so-called “health-minded” people, aspirin is
often supplanted by vitamin C. Some people take both aspirin and
vitamin C. Antihistamines are commonly used.
Neither “booze,” nor aspirin, nor antihistamines,
nor vitamin C (nor anything else) can possibly “cure” a
cold. Whatever temporary symptomatic relief they may afford is
expiated later by accentuation and prolongation of the symptoms,
and by insidious damage to the organism.
The most common “side effect” of aspirin is internal
bleeding. Most people who experience slight gastric bleeding are
unaware that it is occurring. Many people do experience overt,
often serious, effects including burning mouth, throat and stomach;
breathing difficulties and congestion; dizziness; lethargy;
tinnitus (ringing of the ears); vomiting; a decrease in blood
circulation; gastric bleeding, or hemorrhaging serious enough to
cause ulceration or anemia, or to be life threatening.
Aspirin also interferes with the prostaglandin system, the
body’s key defense against disease-causing elements, and the
key to detoxification.
A study by researchers at the Oregon Health Sciences University
in Portland reported that five to ten percent of permanent kidney
failure is due to damage by aspirin, acetaminophen (e.g., Tylenol),
and other analgesics (pain killers). I believe this to be a low
estimate—Hygienists have been maintaining for years that
drugs subject the kidneys (and the liver) to intolerable stress.
The report says that taking three aspirin tablets a day for three
years causes renal (kidney) disease, and many people are advised to
use much more than that as blood thinners for chronic pain or to
relieve arthritis and other inflammatory ailments. Dr. William M.
Bennett told a National Kidney Foundation seminar that mixtures of
drugs appear to cause more kidney damage than each drug alone. Dr.
Bennett said it is not uncommon for people to take analgesics daily
in the danger-level amounts, sometimes just to “feel
good” or for the mild mood-altering qualities they have.
The mood-altering drugs in coffee and tea also have adverse
effects on gastric, cardiac and renal function.
Alcohol, aspirin, antihistamines, and all drugs are designed to
stop the body from doing what it is trying to do. The drugs form
chemical unions with body tissues, fluids and processes, destroy
the body’s ability to purify itself, dam up the poisons, and
multiply the problems. So-called “natural cures”
(herbs, vitamin C, etc.) are also used in an effort to thwart the
action of the body.
Some people are under the impression that colds can be prevented
or “cured” by megadoses of vitamin C. The publicity
generated by Linus Pauling’s research and writings helped to
perpetuate this belief. It is particularly unwise to use
vitamin C if one is also taking aspirin, because vitamin C tablets
intensify the effects of aspirin in the body, such as hemorrhaging
It is true that a diet predominating in raw foods is high in
vitamin C, and it is also true that such a diet is a good start in
not developing disease. But vitamin C supplements are not
food (contrary to what vitamin pill advocates are fond of
proclaiming). The body’s reaction to their use is
indisputable proof that they are just another form of drug. They
are recognized by the body as acids and irritants, to be expelled
as quickly as possible. Large amounts of vitamin C supplements
trigger an extraordinary detoxification effort of the body (just as
do garlic, mustard, camomille, etc.), at great cost in vitality and
energy. Some of the toxins which made the cold necessary will often
be borne out of the body, riding out on the “fast
train” the body is using as an emergency measure to rid
itself of the even more intolerable vitamin C supplements. The cold
symptoms may disappear, due to the concurrent elimination of some
of the toxins, but primarily due to the diversion of the attention
of the body from the toxins causing the cold, to the more urgent
necessity for getting rid of the acids and irritants in the vitamin
Viktoras Kulvinskas says, “Fighting colds with vitamin C
results in acidification of mucus, which prevents its elimination
via the respiratory system. It must instead be expelled by the
kidney. The overall effect is strain on the kidney.”
The ultimate result of forcing the symptoms
“underground” is insidious damage to the organism, and
chronic degenerative disease.
There is nothing mysterious about a cold—it is the
body’s own cure for an intolerable condition brought about by
the errors and omissions inherent in “civilized
living.” Overeating; overconsumption of refined
carbohydrates; too few fresh, uncooked fruits and vegetables;
coffee, tea, chocolate; soft drinks, hard drinks (even copious
water drinking); insufficient muscular activity; not enough clean,
fresh air; too little rest; excessive stress—the more of
these mistakes we commit, the more often our bodies require
“colds” or other eliminating crises.
Air-tight homes add to the problem. Modern homes outfitted with
double- or triple-glazed windows; air-lock vestibules; weather
stripping; insulation and plastic vapor barriers in walls, floors
and ceilings make a “residential thermos bottle” which
traps dangerous pollutants inside. In older, draftier homes, air is
replaced by fresh air about once an hour. In today’s
tightly-sealed homes, inside air is replaced only about once every
The net result of “civilized living” is that every
cell in the body is filled with and surrounded by waste material,
the blood vessels are lined with excesses of food, and the blood
itself is overloaded with waste materials and excesses of food.
Hygienists call this condition toxemia, and consider this to be the
basic cause of disease.
When the cells, tissues and body fluids contain an abnormally
high amount of metabolic waste, it is a threat to the organism.
When the body reaches its toleration level, it must employ means of
eliminating these accumulations.
Since the cells will, at all times, act in their own best
interests, individually and cooperatively, they initiate a process
to eliminate the wastes and excess food residues. The body speeds
up some activities and reduces the level of others. Elimination is
accelerated. The increased burning activity of the body in
disposing of the excess materials produces greater heat—the
body temperature rises and a fever is experienced. Loss of appetite
is a self-protective mechanism.
“A cold is an intense and acute activity designed to
rapidly, efficiently, and effectively expel accumulated wastes. ...
It is pure insanity to suppress the symptoms of a cold as is
commonly done. ... A cold is no more nor less than a period of
intense housecleaning.” (Dr. Immerman) People speak of
“catching a cold.” People with colds have not
“caught” anything—it is just the
opposite—they are getting rid of something: they are getting
rid of accumulated foul material. A cold is a cleansing,
rejuvenating, renovating process.
A cold, or any disease, usually takes a lot of causation. The
bodies of most people have taken so much punishment during the time
since infancy, their bloodstreams have become so contaminated, that
their levels of toleration have gradually increased. A nontoxic,
healthy baby (or a truly Hygienic adult) has a relatively
uncontaminated bloodstream. Improper feeding of the infant, too
little sleep and rest, too much clothing, not enough fresh air and
sunshine, results in a retention of toxic material and the baby
develops a cold to eliminate wastes in excess of the toleration
As the bad habits continue and the child is dosed and drugged
and “immunized,” the child’s body gradually
learns to tolerate more toxins and will develop fewer eliminative
colds and fevers. When bad habits force the system to learn to live
with poisons, the waste products remain to damage the body and pave
the way for the development of degenerative disease.
When the body has established high toleration levels, a cold
does not eliminate all the toxemia—it only brings it down to
a level at which the body has become adapted to functioning.
This adaptation is accomplished by the body as a means of
preservation of life, since it could not survive the tremendous and
constant elimination required by the mode of eating and living or
the frequent interference with its remedial processes by drugs and
treatments. So it adapts, sacrificing its level of vitality to the
necessity for survival. Most physiological adaptations are
regressive, as explained in detail in Lesson No. 66. The adaptation
is not toward health; it is away from health. But the body has no
The toleration point can be returned to its pristine low
level by fasting and improving the way of life. The toleration
level of the average Hygienist has been reduced. The vitality has
been restored to a point where the body will no longer tolerate a
large toxic load, and may conduct extraordinary elimination at a
level that would allow others to continue insulting their bodies.
But if a Hygienist perceives the beginnings of cold symptoms, he
knows what to do.
It is not true that colds are caused by viruses; that there
really isn’t anything you can do to not cause a cold; or that
there isn’t anything you can do for a cold once you get it
except treat the symptoms (admittedly with scant success).
My grandchildren have known what to do about colds since they
were just a few years old. They know that the way to avoid colds is
to avoid junk foods and overeating; and they know that a cold can
be eliminated by withholding food completely when the first
symptoms appear. They know that if one fasts for 36 or 48 hours
(or, at the most, three days), the symptoms will usually disappear,
and it will not be necessary to contend with a seven- to
fourteen-day period of suffering nor the organic damage that can be
caused to the respiratory organs or other parts of the body by a
prolongation of the causes and the symptoms.
Such cooperation with the self-healing power of one’s own
body enables the necessary elimination of toxins to proceed with a
minimum of discomfort, a procedure which is quickly
“Laboratory experiments have demonstrated that digestion
is impaired during the acute stages of a cold, and indigestion and
decomposition are inevitable ... Feeding in a cold, when
indigestion is inevitable, insures that putrefactive poisons will
be absorbed into the system where they will increase toxemia.
Continued eating when there is no power of digestion necessitates a
supplementary eliminating crisis to expel the noxious material
before vital tissues are harmed. Hence, a common cold may develop
into other more serious diseases if eating is not
Lesson 22 explained the process of digestion, and what happens
when food is consumed under conditions which make proper digestion
impossible. Proper digestion reduces food to the diffusible state
without depriving it of its organic qualities. During the acute
stages of a cold (or fever, or emotional upset, or any condition
during which digestion is impaired), putrefaction of proteins and
fermentation of sugars and starches are known to occur. Food eaten
under such conditions, though rendered diffusible, is reduced to an
inorganic, useless and toxic state. Digestion results in solution
of the food for utilization by the body. Putrefaction and
fermentation result in disintegration into toxic substances.
It is not what we eat, but what we digest and
assimilate that produces health and strength. Conditions
which disturb or impair digestion produce decomposition, thus
poisoning the body instead of supplying it with nutritional
elements from the food eaten. Whether or not the individual is
aware of overt symptoms of such decomposition, insidious damage
Health and disease are interrelated. Hygienists think of health
and disease as fluctuating qualities of the living organism, as a
continuum with health at the top. As health becomes less, disease
occurs, and, of course, at the bottom of the scale is death.
Between health and death are all varieties and conditions.
In a modern environment, it is probably not possible to attain
perfect health. The human body is exposed to many toxins daily.
Under normal circumstances, it should be possible to eliminate them
from the body rapidly. This is the function of the organs of
elimination: the kidneys, the liver, the lungs, even the skin. But
when the normal level of toxins rises above a certain point, the
body is overloaded and the vital energy drops below normal. The
organs of depuration, which are regulated by the nervous system,
are then unable to maintain their functional efficiency, and the
internal environment becomes less stable.
At this point, the condition may be considered a mild functional
disturbance, but some remedial steps must be taken to reduce the
toxemia. If the individual recognizes the condition and decides to
fast and rest, the efficiency and integrity of the body is speedily
restored; otherwise, the organism itself takes remedial steps.
First, the actions of the normal channels of elimination are
intensified. Next, channels of vicarious elimination are
employed—most commonly, the mucous membranes, with a deluge
of mucus in the upper respiratory tract. When a full-blown remedial
activity is in progress, fasting and resting are even more
certainly indicated, but recuperation of the body’s energies
will now require more time.
Acute diseases, such as colds, are debilitating, but they are
self-limiting. Most people eventually recover without any
treatment, or in spite of the treatment. For that reason, almost
anything seems to be a “cure.”
When it is fully understood that a cold, or any disease, is body
action and not an attack by an external entity, attempts are not
instituted to suppress the body’s own defensive and remedial
If the body is allowed to continue its cleansing actions, the
person will feel much better afterwards. The only helpful means of
aborting or shortening the duration of a cold is through fasting,
keeping warm, getting plenty of fresh air and as much bed rest as
This methodology will increase elimination of toxic materials
through the regular channels of excretion, and will decrease the
necessity for vicarious elimination through the nose, throat, eyes,
etc. The headache and fever will subside and the other
uncomfortable symptoms will be reduced and gradually disappear.
People who have frequent colds are conducting beneficial and
necessary eliminative processes. Other people, equally toxic (or
more toxic) may not have the energy to conduct such housecleaning
and may, instead, undergo insidious degeneration.
The wise Hygienist will avoid toxemia, and avoid the necessity
for so many housecleaning episodes. If such episodes are too
frequent, damage to the channels of vicarious elimination will be
Dr. Sidhwa says, “It must be pointed out that too frequent
use of the same paths of vicarious elimination will lead to atrophy
and degeneration of any path of elimination, as well as a gradual
wearing down of the strength of the glands themselves. Although
disease, especially acute disease, is a life-saving process, it is
also a life-consuming process. Frequent stimulation leads to
exhaustion, leading to further enervation of the whole
The medical profession, for the most part, regards diseases as
organized entities that attack the body from without and that must
be destroyed. That is why medical students spend such a great
percentage of their time studying the pharmacopoeia, the thousands
of drugs which are the weapons of choice against the little
beasties—the “disease germs” and the mysterious
viruses (the drugs that destroy the kidneys, that threaten life
Modern medicine employs the word “virus” to mean an
ultra-minute form of life that infects cells and causes maladies.
They know not exactly what the viruses are—plants, chemicals,
animals or parasites?
Boyd’s medical textbook states that “the virus seems
to exist in the dim borderland between living things and chemical
compounds. It is a submicroscopic unit containing nucleic acid and
protein. Unlike bacteria, viruses are “not capable of
supporting” life on their own, owing to a lack of enzymes. In
order to exist and multiply, they must occupy living cells which
provide them with necessary material and energy. It is evident that
a virus is a perfect example of a parasite.”
Boyd admits that most normal persons can harbor viruses without
developing the disease the viruses are supposed to cause, and that
enervating influences overcome the body’s protective
functions and “permit the viruses to usurp the biological
activities within the cell.”
Interferon, manufactured within the organism in response to
colds and other so-called “virus diseases,” is the
body’s means of protecting itself, but it can only operate
when we supply the necessary materials and influences which promote
health and protection.
In recent years, interferon has been publicized as the bright
new hope to fight cancer and “virus diseases.” But,
although pharmaceutical firms invested millions in synthesizing
interferon, the results (as with other magic bullets) have been
disappointing and inconclusive.
In 1978, scientists were hailing interferon as a true miracle
drug, a century after it was identified. But it has not lived up to
its advance billing. Although the price tag for interferon research
has hit four hundred million dollars, an FDA spokesman said (May
1983), “There are no real answers yet ... This drug affects a
lot of systems in the body and has produced some side effects that
include nausea, vomiting, flu-like pains, fevers and chills,
confusion and high blood pressure.”
Boyd’s writings exemplify the medical attitude. Instead of
thinking in terms of health improvement, so that the cells can heal
themselves, they are seeking a chemical panacea to destroy the
virus. Chemicals only make the host more susceptible and less able
to deal with toxins in the organism.
When the body is undergoing a crisis of elimination, virulent
bacteria (or viruses) may become involved as secondary or tertiary
factors. The use of drugs may produce mutant, more resistant
strains. Edwin W. Schultz, M.D., in an article in the
Cyclopedia of Medicine, states, “It is well
established that viruses do undergo variations ... in virulence, in
antigenic structure, and in the character of lesions induced ...
sometimes of a stable mutation type.”
All the newer knowledge about bacteria and viruses substantiate
the Hygienic viewpoint: A healthy body will eliminate virulent or
threatening influences, making disease unnecessary. Hygienists
understand that disease originates inside the body as a result of
poor eating and living habits; of physical, mental and emotional
practices which subtly and insidiously weaken the
The true role of germs is as scavengers, breaking up and
consuming dead and dying cells and other debris. Bacteria perform
the same function in the toxic body as they do everywhere in
Viruses, which the medical profession has been incriminating
more and more as the cause of so many diseases, are not even living
entities in the same sense as bacteria. Bacteria are microorganisms
which have the ability to act. A Virus on the other hand, is not a
The poisonous materials called viruses have no existence apart
from a living organism. They are actually the debris of spent
cells—the genetic material or nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) from
these spent cells. Viruses are in no sense alive, nor do they have
any ability to act, but their presence in the body is as toxic as
any other retained body waste material, favoring the surfacing and
multiplication of bacteria.
Actually, humans live symbiotically with bacteria. We adapt to,
and are dependent on, bacterial flora. Health and disease are not
antagonistic to each other. Disease does not attack the body, but
rather is produced by it as a means of restoring health.
In Lesson No. 66 it was clearly demonstrated that bacteria do
not produce disease; that there are no
“disease-producing” bacteria, germs, microbes, bacilli
or viruses; and that the opposite is the fact. It is the
environment—the host—the disease condition—that
determines the type of bacteria that proliferate. The germ does not
produce the disease. The disease produces the germ by changing
nontoxic bacteria into toxic bacteria in a septic environment. This
concept is discussed in detail in
Lesson No. 66.
During the early stages of a cold, the nasal secretions are
completely void of bacteria. None are found in the thin watery
secretion the first two or three days of the cold. When the thick
purulent secretion begins, then pneumococci, staphylococci, or
streptococci make their appearance.
Dr. Vetrano says, “Since bacteria are so conspicuously
absent at the beginning of a cold, another cause had to be found.
The unpopular idea that a person could change his life habits and
not develop colds was too preposterous to entertain. The virus
saved the day.” People don’t have to change their ways
of life as long as they believe their colds are caused because they
“picked up” a very malignant virus.
Colds may develop at any time of the year, but the summer months
show fewer colds because most people get more fresh air, sunshine,
and exercise, and commonly eat less. As indicated in Lesson 66, the
first colds of early winter are not “caught” from
someone else with a cold but develop in those most susceptible
because of the way they have been living and eating. The added
stress of cold temperatures further checks elimination, adds to the
general toxemia and enervated condition, and precipitates a
Leslie Thomson says, “To many people a ‘chill’
and a ‘cold’ are almost synonymous. It is an easy
error, all the more so because it is not a complete fallacy; rather
it is a seriously misplaced emphasis. Many people do
develop a cold after an unpleasant incident in bad weather, but one
should ask a few questions. In most cases the feelings of chill and
the development of a cold are only different aspects—or
successive stages—of a bodily springcleaning. When the body
reaches a state in which retained wastes seriously impede normal
vital functioning, the process has been so slow that the individual
is only dimly aware of being substandard. Then some circumstance
presents his system with an unusual challenge and the tolerance of
his vital system is exceeded.” There is an inability to keep
warm because the normal physical and chemical processes are so
retarded that the heart is unable to maintain adequately free
circulation. The body must, and does, organize for a thorough
cleansing and rejuvenating
“crisis”—uncomfortable, to be sure—but
necessary—and eminently worthwhile. If no stupid interference
occurs, “this wonderfully complex process achieves in a few
days a massive ejection of waste and a burning up of combustible
A summation by Dr. Vetrano is concise and eloquent: “Colds
develop and are not ‘caught.’ Bacteria and viruses have
nothing to do with the development of coryza. They may be
complicating features or function as saprophytes feeding on the
debris. They arrive on the scene when tissues and fluids are
abnormal and survive as long as the tissues remains abnormal. They
help clean up the debris. Our enervating way of life is the true
cause of colds.”
Influenza is essentially a magnified version of a cold. If you
continue to permit so many adverse factors in your daily life that
a couple of colds each year are inevitable, then a bout of flu
every second or third year may also be unavoidable.
Influenza in itself is no cause for panic. Properly understood,
and intelligently handled, influenza is a constructive process. The
fear with which so many laymen and doctors regard the flu is due to
its violent potential when it is mishandled.
The severity and after-effects of any cold or flu depend upon
the treatment. The terrible developments which are ascribed to flu
are almost never due to the basic illness. They are the results of
the universally-suppressive treatment, the consequences of the
Dr. James C. Thomson tells about his experiences during the
Great Flu Epidemic of 1918: “Reports collected from
naturopaths practicing in all parts of the world after the 1918
wave—the most serious in living memory—gave a death
rate of under two percent, whilst around them in the same cities,
among the same types of people and under almost identical
conditions except for the treatment, the death rate was from seven
to over thirty percent. In my own practice, I had personal charge
of 87 cases. In 86 of these cases, my instructions were faithfully
carried out, and in no case was there either death, complication or
any lingering sequel. The majority of these patients spent two or
three days in bed, felt somewhat shaky in their walking for a
further day or two, and, within a week or two, actually felt better
than they had before the attack. In the one remaining case my
instructions were willfully ignored, and I was forced to
Influenza often starts out like a simple cold. Sometimes the
first symptoms are vigorous, and arrive without warning,. Suddenly
the patient may suffer from fever, nausea, vomiting, severe
neuritic pain, severe inflammation, general muscular aching, or
other distressing or violent symptoms.
Leslie Thomson (son of Dr. James C. Thomson) describes the four
main types of flu. No matter how novel the identifying names given
by epidemiologists or immunologists, any particular case consists
of either one of these types, or a combination of two or more.
- Respiratory, which starts off with violent, paroxysmal
- Gastro-Intestinal - nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain are the immediate indications.
- Nervous - headache of unusual severity, often
concomitant with pains in neck, chest and upper abdomen. Depression
and sleeplessness are common accompaniments.
- Febrile - quite intense fever, sometimes accompanied
by disorientation, to the extent of delirium. In this form, it
is imperative that no nourishment whatever be given to the patient
until the fever has subsided.
Leslie Thomson says that how individuals have lived, and the
relative strength of the various vital organs—the individual
physical makeup and the inherited temperament—are dominant
and significant in determining the type and severity of the flu
episode. Nobody needs to be “infected” by anyone else
to develop flu. Flu is something which originates and is directed
within the individual system. “The danger in differential
diagnosis lies in the orthodox tendency to apply suitable
treatment—i.e., aimed at obstructing or neutralizing the
particular activity or discomfort predominating.”
A couple of days or more of bed rest with nothing taken in
except sips of water, is all that is necessary. Plenty of fresh air
should be provided, but chilling should be carefully avoided. No
attempt should be made to bring down the temperature by prolonged
cold bathing, or by applying ice packs, or alcohol, which can be a
dangerous interference in the body’s processes.
After perhaps forty-eight hours, if the temperature is more or
less normal, fresh fruit or small quantities of green salad may be
offered. But the patient must continue to rest. There might be a
second phase in a few days, during which food should again be
withheld or reduced to a minimum. The patient should continue to
rest in bed until the fever and shakiness have cleared.
If one must vomit, or experience diarrhea, to remove irritants
and morbid matter from the body, it is the height of folly to try
to block it. The body does not go to the trouble of initiating
these modifications in its activities unless they are essential for
Dr. Immerrnan says, “When vomiting and diarrhea occur, it
is because there are substances in the digestive tract that the
body recognizes as troublesome, and wishes to eliminate. The
material may enter the digestive tract via the liver. The liver is
the great filter for the blood. It draws waste material from the
blood and shunts it into the digestive tract for elimination.
Sometimes this material is so toxic that the body will send it
‘upstream’ where it will only be exposed to three to
four feet of tubing (stomach, esophagus), as opposed to going
‘downstream’ where it will be exposed to thirty feet of
tubing (intestines). Once in the stomach, this toxic material will
elicit feelings of discomfort and nausea until the stomach
violently contracts and ejects the waste. Following this, there is
usually a feeling of relief and improved well-being. Diarrhea
fundamentally is of the same origin as vomiting. The body
recognizes that there is material in the digestive tract and
shouldn’t be there. In order to more rapidly eliminate this
waste, diarrhea will be initiated.”
Some waste is directly transferred from the bloodstream through
the walls of the intestines into the alimentary canal, and then
eliminated via vomiting and diarrhea. Violent diarrhea and vomiting
rapidly clear the digestive tract so that it can be temporarily put
to rest, and repair, rejuvenation and cleansing are accelerated. To
eat while experiencing the flu is sheer insanity.
When the body produces fever because of an internal need, why
should we panic and seek by heroic means to suppress the fever at
all costs? Physicians have prescribed and encouraged the use of
antipyretics (fever-reducing drugs) to reduce the temperature as
quickly as possible in all cases where the temperature is above the
so-called normal temperatures of 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit (37
degrees Celsius). Actually, the medical profession is not
universally convinced that fever is altogether harmful. Some
medical men have even used fever therapy in an attempt to cure
The human body is delicately balanced and capable of better and
safer fever induction than any artificial process of producing
fever. Artificially-induced fevers can be dangerous. Artificially
reducing fevers interrupts, retards or stops the healing efforts of
The heat of spontaneously-induced fever is produced for the
purpose of acceleration of cell activity When the organism
perceives that this is necessary. When there is an emergency, the
metabolism is accelerated by increasing the amount of heat
available. This is controlled by the hypothalamus, which is sort of
a human thermostat.
Metabolism consists of the absorption of nutrients and the
excretion of wastes. The heat is necessary to accelerate the
excretion of wastes which have accumulated beyond the body’s
ability to tolerate them, and beyond the body’s ability to
eliminate without some extraordinary modification. Heat acts as
a catalyst which causes the toxins to liquefy and pass into
the bloodstream, where they are transported to the organs of
elimination, and thus out of the body.
Every now and then we hear from the “scientific”
community that “fever may be beneficial.” An article in
the St. Petersburg Times, 1/4/83, says; “For more
than a century, we’ve been told to take aspirin to bring down
a fever. Now, researchers aren’t so sure that’s a good
idea. Now studies suggest that a moderate fever should be allowed
to run its course because it may shorten the illness. Scientists
have figured out that fever mobilizes the body’s defenses
against infectious organisms, and, in some cases, directly inhibits
Of course, what the studies “suggest” and what the
scientists have “figured out” are not being correlated
with what Hygienists have been teaching for the last 150 years.
Kenneth S. Jaffrey, in his booklet, Fever, Nature’s
Own Healing Process, says, “Nobody has ever been harmed
when a self-induced fever has been managed rationally.”
He quotes Vincent Priessnitz (1829), the discoverer of Nature
Cure; R.T. Trall (1862), a Hygienic pioneer; and Henry Lindlahr
(1920), another pioneer in the field of natural healing; as having
agreed that fever is part of the healing effort, a process of
purification to relieve the system of morbid matter and to repair
injury to living tissues.
In 1928, Herbert M. Shelton said, “Fever is a necessary
increase in body temperature designed to enable the body, or some
part or parts of it, to effectively meet and destroy some foe of
life that is threatening the body and to repair damages.”
In 1930, another noted Hygienist, Hereward Carrington, described
the condition of fever as the result of the forcible recharging of
the body with energy, as an emergency measure, to assist in freeing
the body from its dangerously-diseased condition.
Eugene F. Du Bois, professor of Physiology at Cornell,
University, in his monograph on fever, stated that antipyretics
were abandoned in the early part of this century (although later
their use was revived). Cold-tubbing in typhoid was also abandoned.
Du Bois said, “Clinicians began to regard high temperature as
helpful. This belief was strengthened by the realization that many
pathogenic organisms (germs and viruses) were inhibited or killed
at temperatures that could be tolerated by the human body.”
The metabolism and chemical reactions of the body, including enzyme
activity, are accelerated by a rise in temperature, thus enhancing
the healing process. When fasting is employed during a fever, the
metabolism and healing process are even more dramatically
Many advocates of so-called “immunization”
procedures freely admit the futility of efforts to immunize against
influenza. A 1977 report by the United States Department of Health,
Education and Welfare says that the fragmented nature of the
genetic material of the influenza virus is believed now to account
for the agent’s unique and puzzling ability to undergo
periodic changes which render available vaccines useless. Although
we cannot agree with the basic premise expressed therein, the fact
remains that the vaccines are admittedly useless. Obviously, the
credibility of the whole immunization theory is moot, if the
particular problem can never be identified or dealt with in
time—in view of the admitted futility of efforts to immunize
against influenza. Yet, even after the Swine Flu Fiasco of 1976,
flu vaccines are still being recommended and administered by the
In Lesson No. 66, I went into great detail about the futility of
so-called “immunization.” In January 1983 (some time
after preparing Lesson No. 66), I heard Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D.,
on this subject. He said, “I lost my faith in immunizations
around the end of the 1960s. My patients started to come back to me
with the damage that I had previously inflicted on them.”
Polio disappeared in Europe without a vaccine. Dr. Mendelsohn
said that Salk doesn’t like the Sabin vaccine, and Sabin
doesn’t like the Salk vaccine. Dr. Mendelsohn continued,
“I think they’re both right.”
He said there are hundreds of cases in the courts due to damage
from whooping cough vaccine. He said, “Pediatricians are
telling me that they are not immunizing their own children, but
they give it to their patients!”
Dr. Mendelsohn is a practicing pediatrician. His credentials
(conventional, medical, etc.) are unimpeachable. He has been
practicing medicine for about thirty years. He has been national
director of Project Head Start’s Medical Consultation
Service, chairman of the medical licensing committee for the state
of Illinois, associate professor of preventive medicine and
community health in the School of Medicine of the University of
Illinois, and the recipient of numerous awards for excellence in
medicine and medical instruction.
He is also a medical heretic. He believes that the
greatest danger to your health is usually your own doctor. He
argues that modern medicine’s methods are rarely effective,
and in many instances are more dangerous than the diseases they are
designed to diagnose and treat. I would recommend that all students
of Natural Hygiene read his book, Confessions of a Medical
In his book, Dr. Mendelsohn says the entire flu shot effort
resembles a massive roulette game. He quotes Dr. John Seal, of the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, as saying,
“We have to go on the basis that any and all flu vaccines are
capable of causing Guillain-Barre Syndrome.”
A study, conducted at the Minneapolis Veterans Administration
Medical Center, was published in the November 19, 1981, New
England Journal of Medicine. Researchers warned that flu shots
can cause overreactions to drugs, producing effects similar to
“overdoses” of the drugs. The researchers found the
influenza vaccine can change human metabolism, hampering the
liver’s ability to break down and remove drugs from the body,
so that the medicines stay in the body longer.
Thus, the potential damage of drugs is multiplied as a result of
the influenza vaccine.
Both of the paradoxical conventional “weapons”
against disease have the same result. Injection of noxious material
directly into the bloodstream (vaccinations), and the use of drugs
to kill the germs which are busily engaged in cleaning up the mess,
are not only in opposition to each other, but are also in
opposition to the laws of nature, and contrary to common sense.
They are in opposition to each other, because injection of
noxious material initiates defensive body action against disease;
drugs curtail defensive body action against disease because of the
new emergency—the necessity to deal with the drugs. Injection
of diseased material into the bloodstream is manifestly in
opposition to the laws of nature, and certainly contrary to common
Both vaccinations and medications not only add more poison to
the already overburdened system, they frustrate nature’s
attempts to help you, and they prolong and intensify your miseries.
In addition, they both Have the more insidious quality of
increasing your susceptibility and vulnerability to future chronic
and degenerative diseases.
Leslie Thomson says, “It is not surprising that orthodox
doctors have frighteningly impressive case histories to report.
Delirium, peritonitis, pneumonia, neurasthenia, chronic depression,
lymphatic enlargements, pulmonary degeneration, cardiac disorders,
kidney disease, arthritis, middle ear deafness, and degeneration of
the spinal cord, are only some of the sequelae blamed upon
influenza. To us, it is undeniably logical that the more the doctor
fills the patient with unwanted and unusable nutrients, and
obstructs various vital processes with medication, the greater the
inevitability of tragic complications.”
I have heard a dark joke, to the effect that, since the
treatment of influenza still baffles the physicians but they can
“successfully” treat pneumonia with antibiotics, why
not let the flu develop into pneumonia and simplify the
But the “humor” is becoming even grimmer, since
newer announcements admit that “in recent years, drug
resistant pneumonias, especially among hospital patients, have been
on the increase.”
Even more ironic is an excerpt from a brochure on flu from the
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare: “With
identification of a new swine-like influenza virus early in 1976,
NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases)
scientists, grantees, and contractors sprang into action. The
technique of recombination was applied to hasten the growth of the
vaccine virus; and, in the institute’s vaccine centers,
medical investigators with years of experience became the nucleus
of experts needed to evaluate the new swine flu vaccines in record
time. Working closely with the Army, the Center for Disease
Control, and the Food and Drug Administration’s Bureau of
Biologies, NIAID supervised a series of tests to determine the
proper vaccine dosages that should give good protection with a
minimum of adverse reactions.”
They talk about “springing into action,”
“evaluating the new swine flu vaccines in record time,”
and “determining proper vaccine dosages for good protection
with minimum adverse reactions.” Nothing is said about
the fiasco that resulted, or the tragic deaths from the vaccine.
Nothing is said about the vaccine-induced Guillain-Barre
Hygienists live to have health, not to prevent certain specific
diseases. Good health is immunity against influenza and all
diseases. Microorganisms only surface when there is a job for them
to do—they help to clean up the debris created by atrocious
diet and living habits.
Some other upper respiratory ailments are hay fever, sinusitis,
postnasal drip, deviated septum, nasal polyps.
Hay fever is not caused by hay and there is no fever. The nasal
portion of the respiratory tract is affected, causing the itching,
watering, inflamed eyes; nasal obstructions; runny nose; or
paroxysms of sneezing. It is usually triggered by pollens from
trees, grasses or weeds, or exposure to molds, dust, fur, feathers,
animal dander, or orris root, the base of most cosmetics.
The use of nasal sprays for hay fever or colds is a dangerous
habit. It produces a rebound nasal congestion, a vicious cycle that
is worse than the original problem.
A contributor to Joe Graedon’s column made an excellent
suggestion for a way to break the habit. She said that the doctor
had told her to quit “cold turkey,” but she
couldn’t sleep because she couldn’t breathe at night.
Instead, she used the spray on only one nostril. After several
days, the untreated nostril unclogged. She then repeated the
procedure in the other nostril. She said that breaking the nose
spray habit was even harder than quitting smoking.
Sometimes hay fever progresses to a more serious condition
called asthma. Asthma is not essentially different, except that the
bronchial tubes are affected, resulting in labored breathing,
wheezing and coughing, slow respiration, sweating, blueness of skin
(cyanosis) and coldness of extremities.
When one or more of the four pairs of air-filled cavities in the
skull become affected, the condition is called sinusitis.
Nasal polyps are soft, pendulous outgrowths from lining
membranes of the nose. If they are of sufficient size to cause
obstructive symptoms, a prolonged fast will sometimes reduce or
eliminate them. Sometimes, surgery is necessary.
Sinus headaches and postnasal drip will usually be relieved by
short periods of fasting.
Hay fever, asthma, sinusitis and polyps are often associated
with so-called allergies. Chronic sinus inflammation can result in
the formation of polyps.
Lesson No. 71 will go into detail about allergies, hay fever,
asthma, emphysema and other chronic conditions involving the
respiratory tract, the bronchial tubes and the lungs.
Actually, the primary causes of all these problems are the same
as the causes of all other pathologies—the faulty living
habits that lead to toxemia and disease.
Dr. Sidhwa eloquently expresses the Hygienic rationale
concerning health and disease: “When man does not overstep
Nature’s limits regarding harmful diet and emotional
indulgences; when he does not deplete his nerve energy by late
nights, overwork, worry, stress, indulgences or by constant
stimulation in the form of chemical, thermal, or physical goads,
the balance of the life force is maintained, and, with it, good
health. Under such Utopian conditions, it is conceivable that
disease would be an impossibility. In other words, living within
your means, the individual, under the above circumstances, would be
immune to disease.”
Why do people, who eat all the wrong foods and get no
exercise still seem to get along well and have very few
Most likely their bodies have developed such a high tolerance
level for morbid material that a weakening of the detoxifying
organs has occurred, and these individuals no longer have the
vitality to conduct necessary and effective eliminative crises.
Some people are blessed with superior genes, and it may take a long
time for the body to degenerate into an irreversible
condition—but wrong living will eventually produce this
outcome, especially if necessary housecleaning does not occur, and
the toxins are dammed up in the body.
Why do colds often evolve into more serious
Drugging and feeding produce these sequels to colds. If the
individual fasts and rests and takes nothing but water as thirst
requires, complications are rare or nonexistent.
What is the best procedure if I fast for a cold (say,
two or three days) and the symptoms return when I start
The best action would be to stop eating and go back to bed for
another day or two. If not possible or convenient, confine your
diet to fruits only for a few days, followed by an all-raw-food
diet, until the symptoms disappear (or stay on raw food
permanently, if possible).
Is a diagnosis helpful in determining Hygienic means of
caring for a patient?
Yes, a diagnosis is helpful, but not absolutely necessary. A
correct diagnosis supplies clues to the causes of the problem, but
it is of very little influence in the management of the illness,
except in quite unusual situations. For instance, in acute
appendicitis, no water should be taken until the symptoms
disappear, but, of course, this would apply to any acute abdominal
Once upon a time there was a beautiful young lady with golden
red hair down to her slender waist, and long and shapely legs. Her
eyes were a beautiful blue, that scintillated when she laughed. She
was lithesome as the fawn in the morning. Her personality sparkled
like the cool clear waters of a bubbling spring. There was but one
thing that marred the radiant beauty of this lovely young lady. She
was continually blowing her nose.
The young lady was well educated. In fact so well
“educated” that she could no longer understand the
simple things of life. Every new fact or thought had to present
itself to her clothed in such heavy scientific garb that anyone
trying to comprehend the muss had to peel off layer after layer of
nonsense to reach but the core of fallacy. But this type of
presentation pleased her. It was scientific, with theory piled upon
theory to support a theory, in a long drawn out complicated web of
fallacy. It would be highly unbecoming for a woman working on a
doctors degree to support or follow any doctrine so simple a child
could understand it, even if it would obviate the necessity for
rubbing her nose raw blowing all the time.
Let us hope that by the time she receives her doctorate, by
wasting so much time with unimportant nonsense such as
“proving in what ways mathematically a donut is like a
cup,” that she will realize that much nonsense passes for
science. Let us hope that after so many years of cramming
gobbledegook into her head that she will be able to think. Unless
she learns that all true sciences always simplify life and thought,
instead of complicating them, she is destined to be a snorting
horse until some more formidable disease helps her into the
henceforth, her life a wasted travesty of education.
We would like to help Miss Nasal Drip but the time is not ripe.
She suffers with chronic rhinitis, marked by frequent acute
exacerbations, or the common cold. The common cold is an acute
rhinitis, or inflammation of the nasal cavities. She suffers with
it so often and so long at a time that one can almost say she has a
perpetual cold. Her symptoms are typical; rhinorrhea or nasal
discharge, nasal obstruction (due to swelling or edema of the
mucous membranes of the nasal passages) and sneezing. A disease
that may and should abort after twenty-four to forty-eight hours
lasts for many weary weeks in this young lady.
In former years Miss Nasal Drip would have said that she
“caught” a germ, were it not for the fact that she has
learned that the nasal secretions are completely void of bacteria
during the early stages of a cold. Many ciliated epithelial cells
desquamate and are found in the thin watery secretion the first 2
or 3 days of the cold, but no bacteria make their appearance until
the discharge becomes thick and purulent. When the thick purulent
secretion begins then pneumococci, staphylococci, or streptococci
arrive upon the scene.
Since bacteria are so conspicuously absent at the beginning of a
cold, another cause had to be found. The unpopular idea that a
person could change his life habits and not develop colds was too
preposterous to entertain. The virus saved the day. Miss Nasal Drip
doesn’t have to change her way of life as long as she
believes she “picked up” a very malignant virus. This
time her cold happens to be a very tenacious one, and it is
progressing into bronchitis. Her medically-oriented mind attributes
this to secondary invaders, not to her continual overeating of
starches and sugars.
If all the Miss Nasal Drips in the world could understand that
they do not have to develop colds any more than they had to develop
measles, chicken pox or any other childhood disease. The simple
expedient of refusing to eat at the first sign of a stuffy nose
would not only abort colds, but all other acute diseases as well.
Since laboratory experiments have demonstrated that in such simple
diseases as coryza (common cold) digestion is impaired, it would
seem that logic would proscribe eating, when indigestion and
decomposition are inevitable.
Since the incipient stages of the childhood diseases (rubella,
measles, chickenpox, and whooping-cough) are indistinguishable from
the ordinary common cold, if one followed the rule to never eat
when he has symptoms of a cold, these and other childhood diseases
would never develop. Feeding in a cold, when indigestion is
inevitable, insures that putrefactive poisons will be absorbed into
the system, where they increase toxemia. Continued eating when
there is no power of digestion necessitates a supplementary
eliminating crisis to expel the noxious material before vital
tissues are harmed. Hence, a common cold may develop into other
more serious disease if eating is continued.
Miss Nasal Drip thinks she can’t breathe because her nose
is obstructed with secretion. She blows all the harder to empty it.
Actually in the early stages of her cold, the nasal mucosa is red
and swollen due to the inflammatory condition. The choanae (the
posterior openings of the nasal cavity into the nasal part of the
pharynx) are very narrow. The slightest swelling causes difficult
breathing. Also due to the fact that the nasal passages are very
narrow interiorly, when the nasal cavities are inflamed, and the
membranes are swollen (edematous), Miss Drip’s nose feels
clogged, even though she empties it every few minutes.
Because of the continuity of mucous membranes, each time Miss
Nasal Drip develops a spread to adjoining organs. The nasal cavity
communicates with the frontal, ethmoidal, sphenoidal and maxillary
sinuses, to which the inflammation may spread. This particular cold
of Miss Drip spreads downward to the bronchi, also by way of
continuous mucous membranes, and she developed the unpleasant
symptom of coughing all night, thus preventing sleep.
Her chest became painful, frightening her, so that she listened
to me a slight bit, and stopped eating potatoes swarming in butter
one evening for dinner. I couldn’t get her to quit drinking
milk every morning and noon but she did substitute grapefruit for
some of the heavier foods she was eating. On the day she omitted
potatoes and butter her symptoms abated markedly and she slept
better that night. But the next day with the chest pains gone, she
lost her fear and resumed her bad eating habits!
We must be patient, she has a lot to unlearn. Just yesterday,
she requested the microscope to analyze the water, because the idea
came to her that everytime she visits us she “catches”
a cold, so “it’s due to bacteria in the water here, to
which I am unaccustomed.” “You don’t
‘catch’ the cold,” she said, “because you
are adapted to these bacteria.”
Adults generally feel lethargic several days before developing a
cold, and may have aches in the limbs or back. Children have a
tendency to develop more severe symptoms, with a temperature around
102 degrees F and sometimes higher. They are not hungry generally
but are encouraged to eat by their parents, hence the frequent
development of more formidable disease in children.
Colds may develop at any time of the year, and do not
necessarily develop when a person has been chilled or in a draft.
When “epidemics” of colds arise, some extra enervating
cause happens to be present in the lives of the people of the
epidemic area. When large masses of people are surveyed, the summer
months show fewer colds. Most people get plenty of fresh air,
sunshine, and more exercise, which are highly beneficial to
digestion and excretion, and commonly eat less during the summer
months. Autumn brings less activity, less fresh air and sunshine,
and increased eating, so there is an outburst of colds to rid the
system of toxic matter. When midwinter comes, around Christmas and
New Year’s, cold statistics mount again. Toxemia rises to
above the toleration point, due to improper living, excessive
eating and drinking and late hours. Therefore, more noses start
running, more chests begin coughing, and more eyes turn red.
Miss Drip will argue that colds develop in the autumn because of
reopening of schools with the massing together of children indoors.
How does she explain the development of colds at Christmas vacation
when most children are out of school for about 12 to 14 days? As
the incubation period for colds is 12 to 48 hours, the germ and
virus theory simply does not account for all the facts.
The fact that chilling does not cause colds has been repeatedly
demonstrated to physicians who have observed the so-called immunity
of travellers in the Arctic and of men compelled to spend many
weeks at sea on rafts or in open boats and who never
‘caught’ cold. This leads the research workers to
believe that “in the absence of the virus no amount of
chilling can cause a cold.” Since viruses are ubiquitous, it
cannot be said that there were no viruses present. They are
everywhere. Was it too cold or too hot for the activity of viruses
under those conditions? Or was it, that there was a scarcity of
food, hence, the men couldn’t eat their way into a cold?
We are taught that a number of viruses, or a number of strains,
cause the common cold. This should lead us to refine the diagnosis
still more, to cold type a, type b, type c, etc. The old theory was
that there is a specific cause for each specific disease if we
could find it. Not so with colds. A number of viruses are said to
be guilty. Those infected may be re-infected with the same virus
within three weeks after recovery. The so-called immunity is
short-lived. Colds cannot be induced experimentally in most
In 1914, the virus theory of the etiology of colds was
introduced by Druse, who it was said repeatedly demonstrated that
“filterable agents in throat washings obtained from adult
patients with acute coryza were capable of producing colds when
introduced into anthropoid apes or susceptible human
Volunteers, we are told, developed colds when infected by
filtrates of nose and throat washings from those who had colds. A
poison, a virus is a poison, or any foreign agent, in contact with
the nasal mucous membranes, occasions inflammation, rhinorrhea
(running of the nose) redness and swelling, and fever in children.
An example of which you can perform yourself, is to run a match
stick up into the nostril. The nose will begin to run, sneezing
will commence, and if kept there longer inflammation will develop
to rid the body of the foreign agent.
Another example is the true story of a child who at three years
of age repeatedly developed a high fever, and a cold—one
right after the other. Her mother took her to a physician each time
the cold developed, and the symptoms were quashed by penicillin
injections. Two or three days after the supressive effects of the
drug wore off, the cold, high fever and running nose would
redevelop. This worried the mother, so she continued taking her
child to the pediatrician for more shots. Finally old mother nature
won. Despite the continued suppression which interrupted her work,
she kept initiating elimination processes until one day, as the
child was feverish and nose running still more, the child began
picking at her nose in the presence of her mother. To the
mother’s surprise, a much frayed, and bloody piece of kleenex
was pulled out. This was the occasion for the inflammation, fever
and runny nose. The three-year-old had undoubtedly pushed the
kleenex up her nose at some time in the past and it remained there
until the body excreted it. The human organism just doesn’t
like foreign things in the vital domain, and stubbornly keeps
working until it rids itself of them. The child’s fever
subsided and did not recur.
When viruses are injected to cause colds in
“susceptible” invidividuals, it must be remembered that
only certain individuals develop symptoms of coryza, and that the
great numbers of viruses present are treated as foreign agents and
expelled by the only method the nose knows—inflammation and
So many viruses have been incriminated as causes of colds that
research workers are really very puzzled. After a long discussion
of the causative agents of colds, they conclude: “From the
foregoing it may be concluded that there is no single viral agent
to be incriminated in adult colds and that a variety of agents
which produce fairly severe disease in non-immune infants may also
occasionally cause coryza in adults.”
From the foregoing, it appears, that any virus or bacteria that
is present when a cold develops is the guilty party. It is stated
in Cecil and Loeb’s Textbook of Medicine that,
“It cannot be said with absolute certainty that under certain
conditions the common respiratory pathogenic bacteria do not
initiate colds, although the evidence is against this
possibility.” Paul and Freese who conducted studies in
isolated communities in Spitzbergen, implied that, in the absence
of the virus, colds “almost wholly disappear. “He is
saying colds almost disappear in the absence of viruses, but they
don’t actually do so because some colds still exist; these he
attributes to bacterial infection as follows: It is then presumed
that “the residuum of sporadic, noncommunicable colds may be
due to bacterial infection.” What sophistry! The colds are
gone, and they are still there! The remaining colds are of
bacterial origin; but are noncommunicable.
Clinical investigators are still puzzled over the role that
bacterial inhabitants of the nasopharynx play in the development of
colds. Most of the “basal flora” of the upper
respiratory tract, they think, consists of nonpathogenic and
inconsequential agents. But since such agents that are thought to
be true pathogens are often found in the throat washing of patients
with colds this leads them to wonder if they do not play some sort
of role in the disease known as coryza, or the common cold.
“On the other hand,” they reason, “hemolytic
streptococci, pneumococci, and hemophilus influenzae are recovered
in considerable numbers from a patient with a cold, it is tempting
to assume that they are playing a role of some sort.”
Were Miss Nasal Drip a diligent student she would see how
confused and frustrated the laboratory men really are. One time a
bacteria is a proved pathogen and yet the next time it
doesn’t cause symptoms. With only the germ theory from which
to reason, no wonder the confusion. The confusion itself would lead
intelligent men to start searching in another direction, were they
not so deeply rutted in the germ theory. The surmizing continues:
“On the other hand, any of these organisms (Group A hemolytic
streptococci and h. influenza) may appear in the normal nasopharynx
without causing symptoms, and the mere recovery of one of them from
a case of coryza may be of little significance. Most authors tend
to designate them as ‘secondary invaders,’ assuming
that the cold virus paves the way for their entry into the mucous
To further befuddle the physicians, when they give antibiotics
to kill the germ invaders, it doesn’t shorten the course of
the disease one bit. Yale Kneeland, Jr. in Cecil and Loeb’s
Textbook of Medicine states, “Yet when effective
antibacterial agents have been used in large-scale controlled
experiments on adults with colds, there is little evidence that
suppression of the bacterial component alters the average duration
of the disease.”
Let us review what the physicians are admitting. First, it is
not known exactly which virus ‘causes’ colds. Indeed,
it may be numerous ones. Chilling doesn’t cause colds in the
absence of the virus, yet viruses are ubiquitous. If the virus is
sprayed into throats, it causes inflammation in
“susceptible” hosts only. The disease doesn’t run
the same course as it does in those individuals who really develop
a cold and whose tissues are not made irritable by foreign agents.
So-called respiratory pathogenic bacteria are present in the throat
washings of people who never develop symptoms of disease. They are
present in some who have colds, but killing them doesn’t
shorten the period of sickness of the individual. What a mish-mash
of contradictions upon which to base a practice.
Yale Kneeland, Jr. sums up the medical viewpoint in the
following manner: “It can be stated that the common cold is
due to one or more filterable viruses and that only in highly
susceptible persons is there an ‘etiologic complex,’
i.e., a bacterium acting in concert with a virus. The bacterial
effect may be either the general intensification of symptoms
already referred to or a clear-cut complication, such as purulent
sinusitis or otitis.”
How much simpler if physicians’ befuddled brains could be
washed clean of viruses and bacteria or if they could recognize the
beneficial effects of bacteria. How lucid would their day be when
they would know the truth. Colds develop and are not
“caught.” Bacteria and viruses have nothing to do with
the development of coryza. They may be complicating features or
function as saphrophytes feeding on the debris. They arrive on the
scene when tissues and fluids are abnormal and survive as long as
the tissues remain abnormal. They help clean up the debris. Our
enervating way of life is the true cause of colds.
Let us look at the life of Miss Nasal Drip. She is a heavy milk
drinker. Never does a day pass that she doesn’t drink at
least six or more glasses of milk. She is an “early”
sleeper, never going to bed before 3 a.m. She overeats on starches,
shunning all salads and taking very few fresh fruits. She avoids
the sun because it makes her freckle. In general, she leads a very
enervating life. When toxemia mounts to above her established
tolerance level, which it does quite often, then her nose, like a
steam valve, lets out the excess. As she never ceases her heavy
starch eating even while she has a cold, but seems to eat even
more, sometimes taking as many as eight small red potatoes at a
time, and gulping more milk to “soothe” her irritated
throat, her colds last anywhere from three to four weeks. They run
on and on because cause persists. The fact that her symptoms abated
markedly when she ate less food did not teach her anything. Germs
and viruses have her complete attention.
When we can control the eating of anyone developing a
cold—either get them to cut down or to take only water for a
few days—and the symptoms of coryza invariably subside, are
we to believe that this invariable phenomenon of nature is due to
the whim of a virus? Or, can we safely assume that when you rid the
body of the cause, the effect will cease? When favorable results
invariably occur, can we not say that we have a truth, or a law of
nature? Or, must we continue to bury our heads in the sand and
refuse to see the truth because it is not in accord with
Shelton, eloquently, gives us the cause of colds: “Toxemia
from enervation and excess is the cause of local inflammations. Any
enervating influence, any influence that lowers nerve energy, will
inhibit elimination and produce toxemia. For this reason, worry or
overwork, jealousy or lack of rest and sleep, apprehension or
excesses, may help to produce rhinitis.
“Excessive food intake is one of the basic causes of
toxemia and its effects. Excesses of starches, sugars, fats and
milk are especially likely to result in rhinitis and similar
supplementary eliminating processes. Indigestion, whether from food
excess, wrong combinations of food, eating when fatigued, eating
when worried or under other emotional strain, or eating under other
physical, emotional and physiological conditions that inhibit
digestion, will produce toxemia.”
It is often difficult for people to realize that from their
first cold in infancy their tissues and fluids have been saturated
with an excessive amount of metabolic wastes. Their way of life
prepares their body for a long list of diseases that grow out of an
established toxemia. A cold does not eliminate all the toxemia, it
only brings it down to a level at which the body has become adapted
To make this Hygienic knowledge more clear, let us designate the
normal amount of waste products in the body of the nontoxic healthy
baby as 1. As the baby grows and is fed improperly, and gets too
little sleep and rest, is overclothed, isn’t permitted to
play in the sun, he becomes toxemic. When toxic material mounts to
1 1/4, the baby develops a cold to eliminate this excess waste
As time goes on and enervating habits continue, the baby learns
to tolerate more and more toxins in the system. His established
toxemia mounts to 2, and he develops a cold only when it rises
above 2, then a crisis brings this back to 2, his new toleration
point. As he grows older his toleration point continues to mount.
He develops fewer and fewer colds and fevers but is paving the way
for the development of degenerative diseases. Unfortunately for
him, his bad habits of living have forced his system to learn to
live with poisons, and only when toxic material rises above his
toleration point will he develop a cold. This reduces toxemia to
the toleration point or slightly below but doesn’t eliminate
Hence the waste products remain to impair and damage structures.
Only by fasting and changing the way of life can the toleration
point be returned to its pristine low.
We should not fear colds in the sense that we fear to sit in a
draft, or fear to go swimming, or get our feet wet, lest we
“catch” cold, but we should not take the fact that we
develop frequent colds too lightly. Once we have an established
“toleration” for excess toxic material in the system we
are paving the road for the development of more serious forms of
disease, unless we change our mode of life radically. An excess of
waste material produces pathology, even though it is tolerated.
Such waste material causes changes in and about vital organs which
are away from the ideal and decidedly detrimental to the welfare of
the organism. Toleration is passive resistance. The tissues are
forced to live in a state of constant toxic saturation and must
resist this in the fashion that tissues do. Hardening of tissues
develops and other pathologies which lower the level of health of
the individual, eventually leading to disease and death.
Under the present system of medical care, cause is not
understood, hence the treatment is directed at palliating symptoms,
instead of eliminating cause and supplying the body with the
conditions of health.
Fasting must be instituted immediately upon the first symptoms
of a cold and should proceed much further than the time it takes
for the symptoms to subside. In this manner the tissues will be
washed sweet and clean and the long-established toxemia will be
eliminated, thus raising the standard of health of the individual.
Dr. Shelton states: “We should not be satisfied with a mere
disappearance of symptoms. Nothing short of a complete elimination
of accumulated toxins, full restoration of nerve energy and a
thoroughgoing correction of the mode of living should satisfy the
intelligent. This will result in genuine health.”
Medical treatment is admittedly suppressive and leads to
immediate complications. It lowers the body’s functioning
powers, causing the retention and toleration of more and more toxic
wastes. Kneeland, admits that “Up to the present no specific
agent has been developed which is effective against the viruses of
the common cold. In consequence, therapy is directed at general
management, relief of symptoms and the control of
Under medical care, complications are so common that they are
expected. The suppressive treatment is a direct cause of these
complications. About ten years ago anti-histimenic drugs were
introduced and it was claimed that if used early enough, the
disease could be aborted. Kneeland states of these drugs:
“Subsequent carefully controlled studies have quite failed to
substantiate the original claims.
Fortunately these drugs, in the dosages employed, have been
singularly innocuous as far as untoward side effects are concerned.
Nevertheless, they are not recommended unless there is an allergic
The fact that they are no longer recommended “unless there
is an allergic element present” indicates these drugs were
not completely harmless. For symptomatic relief, acetylsalicylic
acid (aspirin) is used for the very young. In adults, when the
cough is troublesome, codeine is added and administered in the form
of a cough mixture or in the form of the traditional “grippe
capsule” which contains “codeine sulfate,
acetylsalicylic acid, phenacetin, and caffeine citrate.” Not
one of these substances helps eliminate cause. All are directed at
suppressing symptoms, and therefore impair and impede the
body’s efforts at cleansing itself. With such suppressive
treatment of colds, is there any wonder that complications such as
laryngitis, tracheitis, tracheobronchitis, sinusitis, or otitis
media regularly occur?
Hygiene is so much more simple, direct and effective that it is
a wonder that people still run to the physician for his bag of
poisons, which only increase suffering and disease. When the living
habits of the individual arc corrected, he ceases to develop colds.
If one feels out of sorts, and thinks a cold may be developing the
thing to do is to institute a fast immediately. He should secure
more rest, and reassess his way of life. He should try to conform
more to the laws of life. In doing this, he is eliminating cause,
not suppressing symptoms. By eliminating cause, he obviates the
necessity for future colds, and future development of more
It is hoped that Miss Nasal Drip will see the fallacy of the
germ theory and change her mode of living so that she will not be a
T.B., asthmatic, or cancer statistic in the future.
“A cold is simply an effort of the system to relieve
itself of its accumulated waste panicles, said accumulation
resulting from overeating or inefficient breathing, or breathing of
foul air ... “The foregoing words are quoted from an article
by Dr. Robert Walter, which appeared in The Science of
Health in August 1873, and well sums up the Hygienic theory of
the nature of a cold and of its cause. We regard the cold as a
remedial effort made necessary by a toxic state of the body. It is
not surprising, in view of this, that there is no drug known that
will “cure” a cold.
The U.S. Public Health Service says that nearly every person in
the United States “catches” at least one cold a year,
but that the average is about three colds a year. It says that in
January and February some sixty million people in America have
colds. The cold is the most common of all the diseases with which
man suffers. It is said to disable people in this country to such
an extent that two billion working days a year are lost. They are
said to cost industry five billion dollars annually in lost
production, wages and medical expenses.
The Public Health Service says that there is no known drug that
will “cure” a cold. So determined are miseducated
people to take drugs that they spend over a quarter of a billion
dollars each year for cold and cough “remedies.” The
so-called wonder drugs—the antibiotics and sulfas—are
said by the American Medical Association to have no effect on the
“cold virus.” It is stated that “most remedies do
little more than subtract from the pocket book.” Drugs that
are called pain killers are said to relieve some of the aches and
pains, but “do nothing for the cold.”
The U.S. Public Health Service says that the best thing the cold
sufferer can do is to stay at home, take a hot bath, go to bed, eat
a balanced diet and wait for the body to do the rest. This is not
good advice, as we will make clear in this article.
Here is a relatively mild disease that is more prevalent than
any other disease with which man suffers, and one with which he has
suffered throughout history. Millions of dollars have been spent in
research trying to find the cause of colds and a remedy for them.
Uncounted thousands of cures for colds have been discovered, given
a thorough test and discarded. Today, medical science,
about which we hear so much boasting, stands empty handed and
helpless before the cold and can offer the cold sufferer nothing
more than a balanced diet.
The advice of the Public Health Service contains the admission
that recovery from a cold is the work of the body itself, unaided
by so-called remedies. Whatever may be the nature of the cold, and
whatever may be its cause, the sufferer must depend upon his own
resources for his recovery. So-called medical science can offer him
nothing more more than questionable palliation of some of the more
annoying symptoms. Palliation is always directed at symptoms and in
all cases represents the suppression of symptoms. Palliation is
never an attempt to remove the causes of suffering.
For a long time efforts have been made to find a serum or a
vaccine that will “immunize” the recipient against
colds. Numerous such vaccines and serums have been found and have
been tried and, although much money has been made from the
administration of such serums and vaccines, they have one and all
failed to produce immunity to colds. Often, indeed, those who have
been inoculated have suffered more with colds than the
uninoculated. It may seem strange to my readers that a relatively
mild disease should so long and so persistently defy the efforts of
the men of “science,” while more formidable and less
common diseases yield so readily to their vaccines and serums, to
their “wonder” drugs, and to their other efforts. The
men of “science” have tried to prove that they can
protect us against the crunch of a tiger, but are helpless in
protecting us against the bite of a house cat.
Colds are preventable; but before we can learn to prevent them,
we have to learn their causes. So long as it is assumed that germs
and viruses are the causes of colds, and so long as our efforts at
prevention are directed at these microscopic and submicroscopic
beings, the cold will not be prevented. So long as we hug the old
delusion that a cold is something that we “catch” or
that “catches” us, and against which we have to defend
ourselves by the employment of some anti-vital and unphysiological
substance, whether taken by mouth or by injection, just so long
will our efforts at prevention prove futile.
The Hygienic conception of the cause of colds is that these
remedial efforts are made necessary by the accumulation in the
blood, lymph and tissues of unexcreted metabolic waste and by the
absorption from the digestive tract of toxic products of
indigestion. The ultimate cause of the cold, therefore, consists of
those habits of living and eating that reduce digestive power and
check excretion. In a sentence, a cold is due to a way of life that
produces enervation, thus checking secretion and excretion and
permitting the fouling of ‘he internal environment. To use a
new phrase, we may call this fouling of the internal environment a
When the toxemic saturation resulting from inhibited excretion
and the absorption of toxic materials from the digestive tract
reaches a certain intolerable state, the body initiates a process
of supplementary elimination, requisitioning the mucous membrane of
the nose and throat to do vicarious duty in freeing itself of the
accumulated waste. The cold lasts a few hours to several days,
depending on the time required to excrete the toxic debris. Due to
the fact that the cold is a remedial process the sufferer recovers
health in almost every instance and this enables him to credit his
recovery to the aspirin he took, to the whiskey he drank, to the
quinine he dosed himself with, to the hot foot bath, or to whatever
else he did as a “cure.” In point of fact, the Public
Health Service correctly describes what occurs when it advises the
cold sufferer to wait for the body to do the rest.
Aspirin is perhaps the most widely-used drug today for
palliating the discomforts of a cold. Medical News for
November 4, 1966, carried the following statement:
“Salicylates (aspirin), phenylbutazone and oral cortisone
drugs can cause local erosions of the gastric mucose by direct
contact with the tablet, Dr. M. S. Israel told Medical
News after the Erasmus Wilson Demonstration at the Royal
College of Surgeons of England.” For a number of years now it
has been admitted that aspirin causes bleeding from the stomach;
this discovery that the contact of aspirin with the mucous membrane
lining the stomach causes an erosion of this membrane explains why
the bleeding occurs. It just does not make sense for a man
suffering with a cold to dose himself with a drug that produces
such damaging effects, along with many other damages. Certainly, he
should be better off if cared for by helpful means rather than by
means that are productive of damage. It is certain that the
depressing effect of aspirin prolongs the cold.
The duration of a cold may be shortened by means that increase
toxic elimination through the regular channels of excretion. These
means will also decrease the headache, fever, soreness of the
throat, huskiness of the voice, sneezing, running of the nose,
watering of the eyes, etc., that constitute symptoms of a cold. The
best means of promoting elimination is to go to bed in a
well-ventilated room, keep warm, and take nothing into the stomach
except water and this only as thirst demands. Fasting and rest will
not only make the cold sufferer more comfortable and reduce the
likelihood of complications, but they will definitely shorten the
duration of the cold and do all of this without the production of
unwanted side effects. The advice of the Public Health Service to
eat a balanced diet completely ignores the lack of physiological
demand for food and the absence of the physiological conditions
necessary to the efficient digestion of food. Drugging and feeding
are the chief causes of complications in colds and the chief
reasons that colds frequently evolve into more serious
The San Antonio Express, December 30, 1959, carried the
story that the number of cases of influenza in the city had reached
near-epidemic proportions. “The old flu bug, and kindred
respiratory and intestinal diseases, have reached near epidemic
proportions in San Antonio,” are the words of the news item.
It adds that a check showed that “patients seeking treatment
for virus influenza, pneumonia and similar disorders are crowding
hospitals to capacity and swelling the emergency load to record
There is nothing unusual about the great increase in colds,
so-called “flu,” which is a severe cold, pneumonia and
intestinal diseases following upon the heels of the gluttony and
the indigestible combinations of the holiday season. What is
unusual is the public admission that the standby of the medical
profession as a preventive of such suffering is a flop. The news
account says that William Foster, administrator of the Bexar County
Hospital District, said: “13 of the hospital’s 259
employees, including the supervisor of the emergency room and the
supervisor of surgery, were downed by the flu despite the fact
immunization shots were given against the disease.”
The city’s largest hospital reported a “high
incidence of respiratory and intestinal flu cases from Christmas
day on.” The hospital physicians stated “flatly,”
that the situation is “abnormal” and is
“approaching an epidemic.” From fifty to eighty percent
of the patients admitted to this hospital were “flu
sufferers.” More youngsters than adults were ill. Foster
reported that of 182 patients with upper respiratory affections 117
Physicians offered some free advice through the press about how
to prevent the “flu” and how to care for yourself,
should their preventive advice come too late. It is the usual
hackneyed and ineffective advice, such as avoiding contact with
“flu” cases, avoiding overexposure to cold, drink
plenty of water and guzzle fruit juice—they did not even
bother to advise fresh rather than canned fruit juice. Of course,
they agreed that while “immunization shots” are not 100
percent preventive, they “are effective.”
There was but one sane statement in all that they said, so far
as this appeared in the press. “Intestinal flu, the doctors
say, comes from overeating and overcelebrating, with a subsequent
loss of rest. It is especially prevalent during the
holidays.” This is old stuff to Hygienists. For lo! These
many years we have been telling people that epidemics follow
feasting and revelry.
Reread this statement by the San Antonio physicians and then
read again, the following paragraph from the December 1959 issue of
the Hygienic Review where I say: “It is unfortunate
that our seasons of good will and festivities are always seasons of
overeating (commonly also of drinking), so that they are followed
almost inevitably by colds, coughs, ‘flu,’ and more
severe illness. Beginning with the orgy of Thanksgiving, extending
through the revelry of Christmas and ending with the bacchanalia of
New Year’s, our periods of festivity not only result in
hundreds of deaths and much mayhem on the highways, but in more
suffering and death from indulgence and excess. More bronchitis
follows such indulgences than ever follows exposure. Those who are
more moderate in indulgence, those who are least enervated and
least toxemic escape the evolution of crises at these times, but
often, they escape by the ‘skin of their teeth.’
More children than adults are suffering with “flu”
in this near epidemic, not because the adults behave themselves
very well, but because they have built less toleration. Candies and
cookies and soft drinks make up a great part of the burden they
impose upon their digestive tracts and their eliminating organs.
With the adults, they go to the dining table and gorge themselves
on turkey and dressing, on cranberry sauce and plum pudding or
mince meat pie. The amount of putrescence thus generated in the
digestive tracts of these youngsters would kill a jungle tiger. It
is ridiculous to talk of germs and viruses in the presence of so
No digestive tract known to man is capable of efficiently
digesting the food mixtures eaten by children and adults alike in
our periods of celebration. It is just possible, as was suggested
by Tilden, that the adults save themselves to some extent by their
drinking habits. Alcohol inhibits bacterial activity, hence their
wine, beer and whiskey prevents more or less decomposition of the
indigestible mixtures they swallow at these times.
Late hours, revelry, noise-making, excitement, visits away from
home, lack of sleep—these enervating influences inhibit
secretion and check excretion. Add the resulting toxemia to the
putrescent poisoning from the overloaded digestive tract and you
have enough poisoning to produce any so-called disease to which the
individual may be diathetically disposed. A people who celebrate
the birth of their Savior by getting drunk, making a lot of noise
and eating like hogs must expect to pay for their folly, even
though they do their celebrating “in a good cause.”
To inundate the intestinal putrescence evolved out of such gross
eating and out of so much added enervation with large quantities of
water and to swill great quantities of fruit juice, these commonly
canned and sweetened, is but to add insult to injury.
The physicians advise: “Stay in bed until the disease has
run its course. In cases of upper respiratory flu, the sufferer
tends to become tired but apparently recovers after a short rest.
Arising too soon, he is subject to a serious relapse which makes it
easy to go into pneumonia.” Rest in bed is vitally important
in these cases, but if this is coupled with the water drinking and
fruit juice guzzling that is advised, there will be more likelihood
of pneumonia evolving out of the putrescence than if a rational
plan of care is adopted. Indeed, one may be practically certain
that no pneumonia will evolve if he forgets the advice to
“drink plenty of water and fruit juice” and will take
no food of any kind and will drink only according to the dictates
One does not have to come in contact with other cases of
“flu” in order to evolve the symptom complex that is
labeled influenza when the intestinal tract is a seething mass of
putrescence. Nor will avoiding such contact prevent
“flu” when the subdiaphragmatic cesspool is filled to
overflowing. Colds, pneumonia, intestinal “diseases”
and other symptom-complexes are as inevitable under these
conditions of acute and chronic poisoning as the explosion of a
boiler when the safety valve is stopped down.
How absurd to talk of preventing the evolution of these and
similar symptom-complexes in the face of so much poisoning, by the
irrational process of shooting more rubbish into the body! Vaccines
and serums are efforts to prevent causes from producing their
natural effects. They mean that you can be poisoned and not be
poisoned. “Immunization” is like trying to prevent
drunkenness in the man who drinks. I am reminded, at this point, of
the famous serum I invented thirty years ago that I called
blisterine. After three inoculations with this serum, a man could
sit upon a red hot stove or pass through a firey furnace and not
even get hot. He would not burn for he was immunized. I
was unable to find a manufacturer for my serum, as it was thought
that such a serum would put the firefighters out of business.
When we have learned that we are builders of our own miseries,
are architects of our own pathologies and makers of our own
“diseases,” we will be prepared to live sensibly, even
during periods of celebration. I enjoyed my oranges on Christmas
day and developed no cold or “flu” being out in the
cold with only enough clothes on to keep out of jail. More than
forty years of going with so little clothes that all of my friends
have predicted that I will die of pneumonia (several of them have)
and developing no trouble as a consequence has convinced me that
“over-exposure to cold” is a minor factor in the
evolution of any symptom-complex, unless it is frostbite. I have
seen as many as four generations of the same family who suffered
with frostbite and am sure that any good geneticist will agree that
this was due to a mutation.