The Germ Theory Of Disease

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 chemical characteristics.

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.

Dramatic Proof That Germs Do Not Cause Disease

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.

Pasteur Becomes Identified As Originator Of Germ Theory

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 originator.

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 internal environment.

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

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 bacteria.

surgery

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).

Bacteriophobia

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 deprivation). 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 
United States.

The acceptance of poison drugs, vaccines, and serums has not waned to any appreciable extent.

Pasteur Changes His Mind

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 exploded.

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 is everything.”

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!).

A Plausible And Tangible Basis For “Medical Science”

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

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.”

Koch’s Postulates

The German scientist, Robert Koch, maintained that for a specific bacteria to be the cause of a disease:

  1. It must be found in every case of that disease.
  2. It must not be found when the disease is not present.
  3. It must be capable of living outside the tissues.
  4. 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:

  1. A culture of the bacteria must be taken from a diseased animal.
  2. It must then be grown in pure culture in a laboratory.
  3. After this, the culture has to be injected into a susceptible animal.
  4. It must cause the same disease, and culture must be taken from this animal.

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 disease.

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.

Germs Are Powerless To Cause 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 manufacturers.”

Germs Are Not Enemies

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.

Diseases Are Not Entities Traveling From One Person to Another

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 this happens.

In 1860, the world-famous English nurse, Miss Florence Nightingale, published an attack on the germ theory of disease. She said:

“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.”

The Cause Nature And Purpose Of Disease

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 transmitted.

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 accumulations.

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 effects.

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 matters.

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.

Disease Is Body Action And Is Self-Limiting

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.

The Vaccination Network

“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 themselves.

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 its wake.

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 way.

Immunity Vs. Toleration

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 resist.

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 healing.

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.”

Inoculation Is A Disease-Producing Process

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, page 200).

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):

  1. “The overall respiratory illness rates were unaffected by the vaccine.
  2. 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.”

Vaccinations And Failure Of Defensive Mechanisms

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 defend.

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 challenges.
“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 entirely well.”

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 recognition.

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 vaccination.

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 programs.

“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 system.

“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 polio.
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 Cannot Be Protected From The Consequences Of Injurious Practices

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 processes.

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.

Epidemics

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 him.”
—Cash Asher, Bacteria, Inc.

Epidemics are mass sickness. In all “epidemics” there are more cases of various other diseases than of the one “epidemic disease.”

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.”

Environmental Improvements, Net Vaccines, Eliminate Epidemics

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 vaccines exist.

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 epidemic diseases?”

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 epidemics.

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 disease.”

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

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 habits.

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 unwelcome results.

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 disease.

Epidemics Explained

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 of self-preservation.

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.

Accommodation

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 chronic disease.

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 ideal.

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 unattainable.

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 “epidemics.”

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 biological requirements.

“Allergic” Symptoms

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 toxins.

“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 over defends.

The True Explanation Of Contagion

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 diseases.

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 And Ecological Cleanliness Vs. Vaccination

Von Hoffman: “Do we really need vaccination?”

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 intemperate.”

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 community cleanliness?”

Van Hoffman:  “Do We Really Need Vaccination?”

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 position.

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 manner.
“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. Mendelsohn: Now I Am Against All Vaccines

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 vaccines.”

“Mistakes” and “Bad Batches” (Contaminated Vaccine)

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, 1972).”

Let’s Look At the Record

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% and 15%.”

Report of U.S. Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, July 24, 1942:

“Recent army experience with yellow fever vaccine resulted in 28,505 cases of hepatitis, with 62 deaths, as of July 24, 1942.”

1957-1959

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 yesterday.”

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 adults.”

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 cases.

The Swine Flu Hoax

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” lines.

Compulsory Vaccinations and Exemptions

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.”

Frequently Asked Questions

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 disease?

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 vaccinated?

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.

Reader Interactions