J. STENSON HOOKER, M.D.

V

As a very interested reader of this discussion I should be very glad to know exactly what "M.D." means by _each pound_ of _bone_ and _muscle_ in the body weight? What proportion (approximately) is it to total body weight? I have been trying to keep up to Dr Haig's 9 grains per lb. of "body weight" and find that it is too much for my digestive powers, which are very weak owing to chronic nervous dyspepsia. If I take 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. _less_ proteid my troubles are so greatly lessened that I feel that to continue to take the lower amount would mean perpetual relief. But there have been so many warnings, including M.D.'s, of the dangers of under-nutrition, that I am in a quandary; and others of your readers too.

If M.D. means grains per lb. of _something less_ than total body weight, a lesser amount of proteid than I try to take may have his sanction, and be safe for me.

JNO. A. COOKSON.

* * * * *

There appears to be a sincere attempt in "M.D.'s" article to prove that a physiologist is the best guide in diet. But, as one can get the degree of M.D. without any scientific knowledge of dietetics, the inference that one would be likely to make from such an alarming article is erroneous. I say "alarming" because vague statements are made as to patients who were rescued just in time to be stimulated by over-feeding into a semblance of health, and we are treated to a list of very alarming symptoms in the last paragraph on p. 443.

"M.D." says, "Suppose that the animal fed for years on unnatural food has become so pathological that it can no longer take or digest its natural food." How grateful to M.D. for this statement will be those who long for an excuse to cling to the spoiled, boiled and unnatural dishes of which the popular diet mainly consists! And how they will continue to overeat themselves, content to avoid the truth regarding food quant.i.ties.

Living on a right and natural diet, a man or woman will correct the effects of wrong living. This will bring crises, and unless they know that this is Nature's attempt to rid the body of unwanted and effete matter they may be duped into returning to their high feeding, either by those whom "M.D." calls diet quacks or by qualified quacks.

I do not believe it possible for anyone to die for lack of indication that they were eating too little.

The opposite is what people die of. If we carefully read Dr Rabagliati's article in the same issue we shall rightly ask what would be the results of a.n.a.lyses and measurements in such a case.

About a year ago we had a young woman under our care who had suffered with deafness and other troubles for years. She had tried dietetic treatments, "uric-acid-free" and otherwise, and had at last been told that her deafness was incurable, being due to heredity and deficiency in the organs of hearing. She was extremely thin when she came to us, but we did not measure her, nor a.n.a.lyse unclean excreta, nor weigh her.

She saw an M.D. who was in sympathy with the philosophy of fasting, and she fasted (taking water only) for 28 days. She then had four days of fruit juice, and was so disappointed at having broken her fast prematurely that she continued it for another 12 days, making 44 in all--40 days actual fasting.

[_During this period she was living an almost complete out-door life._--EDS.]

During the fast many interesting phenomena were witnessed, chief among which was the discharge from ears and nose--significant indeed to all who study Nature's ways. Result: normal hearing restored. This was nearly twelve months ago; and, having heard of her recently, we find that, though she had had a cold, there has been no recurrence of deafness. I wonder what a.s.sistance measurements would have been in this true cure. The patient (an adult) weighed 4st. 8 lbs. at the end of her fast and could then walk short distances.

The way in which "M.D." dismisses "a little gout" in his last paragraph but one almost leads one to think that he is unaware of the failure of the natural defences of the body that must have gone on in a very serious degree before the manifestation of gout became possible.

I respectfully submit this problem to "M.D.":--If a very thin patient can go without food entirely for 40 days, with only benefit accruing, _how many centuries_ will it take for a fairly fat person to die through slightly under-eating?

As Dr Haddon has said, the proteid myth will die hard, but there are physiologists who, with their faces to the light, are finding the truth of man's requirements in food and who know that absolute purity and simplicity are the ideals to be sought and that all food we eat more than is absolutely necessary is a diversion of energy to carnal channels.

ERNEST STARR.

A DOCTOR'S REASONS FOR OPPOSING VACCINATION.

In opposing vaccination I am aware that it is a thankless task to brave the abuse and antagonism which everyone who attempts to move forward in the work of medical progress is sure to encounter.

In order that I may not be regarded as prejudiced against the dogma of vaccination, I will preface my remarks with the confession that I was at one time myself a confiding dupe of the "tradition of the dairymaids." While attending medical college I was told that inoculation with cow pox virus was a certain preventive of small-pox, and like most other medical students I accepted with childlike faith and credulity the dictum of my teachers as so much infallible wisdom.

After an experience derived from treating a number of cases of post-vaccinal small-pox in patients who gave evidence of having been recently and successfully vaccinated, I awoke to a realisation of the unpleasant fact that "protective vaccination" was not all that was claimed for it. I thereupon began a study of the vaccination problem in all its bearings. After several years of reading, observation and experience I became fully convinced that "successful" vaccination not only fails to protect its subjects from small-pox, but that, in reality, it renders them more susceptible to this disease by impairing their health and vitality, and by diminishing their power of resistance.

Personally, I have known of recently vaccinated patients dying from small-pox while having the plainest foveated vaccine marks upon their bodies, and I have seen other individuals who had never submitted to vaccine inoculation have variola in its mildest and most benign type.

In view of such experience I refused to ignore the evidence of my own senses, and determined to follow the dictates of reason instead of the dogmas of faith, and have, consequently, for the past fifteen years refused to pollute the blood of a single person with vaccine virus.

I oppose vaccination because I believe that health is always preferable to disease. The principle and practice of vaccination involves the introduction of the contagion of disease at least twice, and, according to numerous authorities, many times, into the human organism. The disease conveyed by vaccination causes an undeniable impairment of health and vitality, it being a distinctly vaccine "lymph," is taken from a lesion on the body of a diseased beast, and inserted by the vaccinator into the circulation of healthy children.

The performance of such an insanitary operation, in the very nature of the case, is a violation of the cardinal principles of hygiene and of sanitary science.... Moreover, this operation is in direct controversion of the basic principles of aseptic surgery, the legitimate aim of which is to _remove_ from the organism the products of disease, but never to _introduce_ them.

The prime aim of the modern surgeon is to make every wound aseptic and to keep it so. The careful operator employs every means at his command to clear the field of operations of all bacteria. He utilises every particle of the marvellously minute and intricate technique of asepsis to prevent the entrance through the wounded tissues of any disease elements before, during or after the operation. He fears sepsis equally with death, and yet, under the blighting and blinding influence of an ancient and venerated myth inherited from his ignorant and superst.i.tious forbears of a pre-scientific age, he will deliberately inoculate the virulent infective products of diseased animal tissues into the circulation of a healthy person. And as if to cap the climax of his stupidity and inconsistency, he performs the operation under "aseptic precautions."

The poisonous matter which nature wisely eliminates from the body of a diseased calf in an effort to save its life and restore it to health is seized upon by the vaccinator and implanted into the wholesome body of a helpless child. Think of the unparalleled absurdity of purposely infecting the body of a healthy person in this era of sanitary science with the poison from a diseased beast, under the senseless pretext of protecting the victim of the ingrafted disease from the contagion of another disease! Can inconsistency go further?

I oppose the practice of vaccination because it is not known what vaccine virus is, except that it is a mixed contagion of disease. We hear much these days about "pure" virus and "pure calf lymph." Nothing could be more absurd and meaningless than the flippant talk indulged in by vaccinators and the purveyors of vaccine virus about "pure calf lymph," a hybrid product of diseased animal tissues. "Pure virus"

translated into plain English is pure "animal poison." The phrase "pure calf lymph" is applied to an brand of vaccine virus now in use is a misnomer for two reasons. It is not "pure" and it is not "calf lymph."

Calf lymph is the normal nutrient fluid which circulates in the lymphatic vessels of the calf. Lymph is described by physiologists as a "transparent, colourless, nutrient alkaline fluid which circulates in the lymphatic vessels and thoracic ducts of animal bodies." Lymph is a physiological product, while the so-called "pure calf lymph" used by vaccinators is a pathological product, derived from a lesion on a diseased calf. The difference between calf lymph and so-called "pure calf lymph" is as great as is the difference between a food and a poison. The vaccine mixture now most generally used by the medical profession is known under the name of "glycerinized vaccine lymph,"

but it is not _lymph_ at all. It is made by utilising practically the entire lesion or pock on the heifer when it is in the vesicular stage.

Such a lesion is broken open and sc.r.a.ped with a Volkmann spoon until the whole of the tissue is forcibly and roughly curetted away, consisting of pus, morbid serum, epithelium, fibrous tissue of the skin, and any foreign matter on or in it, const.i.tuting what is called "pulp." This pulp is then pa.s.sed between gla.s.s rollers for trituration and afterwards mixed with a definite amount of glycerine and distilled water. This complex pathologic product of unknown origin is injected into the wholesome bodies of helpless children under the false but plausible name of "pure calf lymph." ...

I oppose the practice of vaccination because under whatever pretext performed the implantation of disease elements into the healthy human organism is irrational and injurious. It is subversive of the fundamental principles of sanitary science, while the attainment of health as a prophylactic measure is rational and in harmony with the ascertained laws of hygiene and consistent with the canons of common-sense. I am firmly convinced that the absurd and unreasonable dogma which a.s.sumes to conserve health by propagating disease should receive the open condemnation of every scientific sanitarian. That this health-blighting delusion conceived in the ignorance of a past generation should find lodgment in the minds of intelligent people enjoying the light of the world's highest civilisation is to my mind inexplicable....

Sanitation and isolation of the infected offer the only rational and effective antidote for these disorders. Away, then, with the abominable and filthy subterfuge! Give us health instead of disease.

Health is the great prophylactic.

No man in perfect health can be truly said to be susceptible to the infection of small-pox, nor to that of any other zymotic disease.

Vigorous health confers immunity from disease-producing agents as nothing else can. It is usually after the vital functions have become impaired by the effects of vaccination or some other injurious cause that individuals become susceptible to small-pox infection.

J.W. HODGE, M.D.

[_The above article can be obtained in pamphlet form from the publisher. Wm. J. Furnival, Stone. Staffs._--EDS.]

THE NEW RACE.

(_Specially written for THE HEALTHY LIFE._)

A new race on the ruins of the old Build we: a temple of the human form Fairer than marble, since with life-blood warm, Well crowned with its appointed crown of gold, Russet or ebony; lines clear and bold Beneath--a citadel no ills can storm, b.u.t.tressed with health; a type to be the norm In that great age the world shall yet behold.

For now the laws of Health and Heaven are seen In their ident.i.ty, life's body and soul; Though, like divorce, disease may come between What G.o.d hath joined; but at the human goal, Where the New Race rules, splendid and serene, Sit Health and Holiness, made one and whole.

S. GERTRUDE FORD.

THE PLAY SPIRIT.