Back NumbersIf readers who possess copies of the first number ofThe Healthy Life(August 1911) will send them to the Editors, they will receive, in exchange, booklets to the value of threepence for each copy.
If readers who possess copies of the first number ofThe Healthy Life(August 1911) will send them to the Editors, they will receive, in exchange, booklets to the value of threepence for each copy.
Vol. VNo. 28November1913There will come a day when physiologists, poets, and philosophers will all speak the same language and understand one another.—Claude Bernard.
Vol. VNo. 28November1913
There will come a day when physiologists, poets, and philosophers will all speak the same language and understand one another.—Claude Bernard.
There will come a day when physiologists, poets, and philosophers will all speak the same language and understand one another.—Claude Bernard.
It was the slave-woman who laid her child under a bush that she might spare herself the pain of seeing it die!
One of the commonest sources of mental and moral confusion is to mistake the egotistic shrinking from the sight of suffering with the altruistic shrinking from causing it and desire to relieve it.
The so-called sensitive person is too often only sensitive to his or her own pain and, therefore, finds it difficult in the presence of another's suffering to do what is needed to relieve it.
The healer, the health-bringer, the truly sympathetic person, does not even hesitate to inflict pain when to do so means to restore health.—[Eds.]
Regular readers will recognise in this wonderfully simple and suggestive article a continuation of the series previously entitled “Healthy Brains.” The author of “The Children All Day Long” is an intimate disciple of one of the greatest living psychologists, and she has a message of the first importance to all who realise that true health depends as much on poise of mind as on physical fitness.—[Eds.]
Regular readers will recognise in this wonderfully simple and suggestive article a continuation of the series previously entitled “Healthy Brains.” The author of “The Children All Day Long” is an intimate disciple of one of the greatest living psychologists, and she has a message of the first importance to all who realise that true health depends as much on poise of mind as on physical fitness.—[Eds.]
Of all the occupations which imagination gives us, surely none is more popular or more delightful than the planning out of future days. Pleasure and fame and honour, work and rest, comfort and adventure: all things take their turn in our romances.
Not all the castles are for ourselves alone. In childhood it is our school, our club, our town that is to be the centre of great events. The young man's castle is a nest to which he hopes to bring a mate. The mother sees the future coronet or laurel-wreath round the soft hair of her baby's head. And we all build castles for the world sometimes—at least for our own country or our own race. Sometimes we knock them down and rebuild again in rather different shape—Mr Wells has taught us what a fascinating game it is.
Sometimes, especially perhaps in little, unimportant things, our imagination does centre chiefly around our own activities. What we mean to do, what we might do, what we would like to do: there must be something else besides selfishness and waste of time in the constantly recurring thoughts.
Who does not know the charm of looking down the theatre-list of the morning paper? One may be too busy or two poor to go often to the play, but the very suggestion of all the colour and interest is pleasant. Who does not like looking over prospectuses of lectures and classes at the beginning of the winter session? “Ishouldlike to go to that course on Greek Art. Oh, it is on Mondays, then that is no good. German, elementary and conversation. How useful that wouldbe! Gymnasium and physical culture; how I wish I had another evening in the week to spare!”
Railway books, again, and guides and travel bills—how delightful they are! It is easy to plan out tours for one's holidays up to the age of 100. “Brittany; oh yes, I must go there one day. And Norway, that must really be my next trip.” The Rockies, the cities of the East, coral islands of the Pacific—they all seem to enrich our lives by the very thought of their possibilities.
Again, who does not love a library catalogue? To go through with a pencil, noting down the names of books one wants to read is a form of castle-building by no means to be despised.
Some people get the same pleasure out of house-hunting; they see an empty house and go and get the key in order to see over it. The chances of their ever living there are practically none, but the view gives a stimulus to their inventive activity: they plan out how they would furnish the rooms and fill the empty hearths with dreams.
Is not the same thing the explanation of shop-gazing? The woman who has bought her winter coat and hat does not as a rule refrain from looking any more into shop windows till the spring; instead, she clothes herself in imagination in all the beautiful stuffs she sees displayed, and if some of the things demand ballroom, racecourse, golf links or perhaps the Alps for the background, why, so much the better, the suggestion puts, as it were, a view from the windows of her castle in the air.
A garden—a dozen square yards or reckoned in acres—is full of material for our imagination; indeed, a seedsman's catalogue or a copy of “Amateur Gardening” will often be enough to start us; long lines of greenhouses will build themselves for us, or rockeries, or wild glens with streams in them, and the world will blossom round about us.
Sometimes it is ambition that calls us, personal or professional; we get beforehand the sweet taste ofpower upon the tongue. It may perhaps be sometimes the rewards of work, riches and honour and so on, but more often, I think, the dreams of youth circle round the work itself. We will be of use in the world, we will find new paths and make them safe for those coming after us to walk in, we will get rid of that evil and set up a ladder towards that good; we will heal, teach, feed, amuse, uplift or cherish the other human beings round about us. We will store only for the sake of distributing; we will climb only to be better able to give a helping hand.
Well, there are some danger signals at cross-roads of our dream-way, some precautions to be observed if we would not let romance obscure and hinder us in our search after reality. But none of these “castles” are bad in themselves.Inso far as they quicken our attention power, deepen our thoughtfulness, make our activities more elastic and keep us from carelessness or sloth, they are surely all to the good as episodes in our development.
E.M. Cobham.
This article, the earlier part of which appeared in the October number, is from the French of Prof. H. Labbé, the head of thelaboratoire à la Faculté de Médecine, in Paris. It reflects a characteristic aloofness to a any considerations other than scientific or economic. But it will well repay careful study.—[Eds.]
This article, the earlier part of which appeared in the October number, is from the French of Prof. H. Labbé, the head of thelaboratoire à la Faculté de Médecine, in Paris. It reflects a characteristic aloofness to a any considerations other than scientific or economic. But it will well repay careful study.—[Eds.]
Though the consumption of vegetable foods seems to offer a slight disadvantage from the point of view of albuminoid matters, this is not the case touching hydro-carbonated matters and sugars. The vegetable kingdom constitutes the almost exclusive source of these alimentary principles. One cannot indeed take much account of the consumption of the .5-.6 per cent, of glycogen which exists in the animal muscle partaken ofunder the shape of butcher's meat. There is hardly enough in this for a large eater of between 200 and 250 grammes of meat, to find in hydrocarbonated matters the 1/300 or the 1/400 of the daily ration. Hydrocarbons are necessarily borrowed from the vegetable foods. This is also the case with sugars which do not exist in the animal kingdom in appreciable quantities. It is the same thing with alcohol which is obtained only from the vegetable kingdom.
As to fatty matters, animal foods, like vegetable products, are abundantly provided with them. Moreover, from the point of view of digestibility and capability of assimilating, one may say that there is a quasi-absolute identity between animal and vegetable fats. The reason which would induce us to prefer either would not seem to be of a physiological nature. The economics, which we shall see further on, take this upon themselves, as the most serious reproach which can be made against the use of animal dishes is doubtless their dearness, and the reason which militates most in favour of the predominance of a vegetable diet is to a certainty its cheapness.
Such are, briefly expounded and refuted, the fundamental objections which can be brought against the vegetarian diet and the “vegetalian” customs. There exists, in fact, no serious physiological or chemical reason for not satisfying our needs solely with foods of vegetable origin. It may be interesting to note that, in reality, the most confirmed flesh eaters support their energy-producing needs mainly with vegetable products. In the mixed diet universally practised meat plays but a small part.
In meat the waste in preparation and consecutive waste at table is considerable. To really introduce 200 grammes of meat into the stomach, nearly 400 grammes must be purchased, and expensively put into use. What do these 200 grammes really bring in nutritive elements?
These 46 grs. constitute barely the 8 per cent. of the total weight of a ration, averaged in nutritive elements, calculated as follows:—
This is a very feeble proportion.
If one turns to the calorific point of view, in order to estimate the share of energy useful to the organism, we arrive at much the same conclusion. The 46 grs. of nutritive animal elements barely provide 230 thermal units which can be utilised, while the total diet which we are considering brings a power of disposal of nearly 2,350 thermal units. It is, even then, barely 10 per cent. of the total energy. The most convinced flesh eaters, those who buy 400 grs. of meat a day for their consumption, must learn, willingly or unwillingly, that the animal element enters only in an infinitesimal part into their real substance and reparation.
Beyond this very feeble nutritive help is there, then, in meat, anything else which makes the use of this article of food necessary, agreeable or particularly strengthening? It is incontestible that meat contains stimulating substances, which, as Prof. Armand Gautier has said, play the part of nerve tonics, and have perhaps a direct action on the circulation.
These special meat matters are found concentrated in the gravy. Meat gravy, in fact, beside a feeble proportion of albuminoid matters, or solubly derived quantities,polypeptides, etc., in notable proportion of liberated acids, contains a certain quantity of matters, qualified by the generic name of extractives; a notablequantity of these extractive matters being creatine and creatinine, as well as substances of which the fundamental nucleus is the puric grouping. These purins, by the name which E. Fischer attributes to them, derive from a special grouping which it would be supposed exists in a hypothetic body, but which is not known in a state of liberty, purin. This first term gives rise to a series of bodies in lateral groups, of which the most interesting are caffeine and theobromine. Amongst these substances the one which has the maximum of oxidation is no other than uric acid. Caffeine and theobromine enjoy nervine properties and energetic vascular actions. These properties minutely studied are utilised every day for therapeutic purposes. It is probable that the other bodies of the series which are met with in the extract of meat enjoy analogous physiological properties. These substances are ingested without discernment, often in great excess, and daily, by people who consume meat.
Amongst these latter, many would not dare to drug themselves with a centigramme of pharmaceutic caffeine, whereas they absorb each day 0 gr. 5 and more, of its homologousconstituents.
Therefore, in the same way as chocolate, tea and coffee, meat has a stimulating effect on the system. He who is accidentally deprived of it finds that he experiences a passing depression. This obviously proves that by the exaggerated use of meat, one drugs and doctors oneself without discernment. However this may be, the judicious part played by meat must apparently be reduced to that of a condiment food destined to produce in a measure the whipping-up which is useful, and sometimes indispensable to the system. We cannot here discuss the expediency of action and the harmlessness of the dose of substances reputed stimulating. But one can ask oneself whether, to attain this object of stimulation, carnivorous feeding is indispensable, and if vegetarianism could not supply the need.
The reply is easy: the vegetable kingdom disposes of a variety of stimulating articles, such as tea,coffee, kola and cocoa. Through their active substances these foods are nerve tonics of the first order, less dangerous in their use than meat, because more easily assimilated, of far more continuous effects, less mixed with other substances, sometimes noxious, and consequently more measurable. Besides, in pulse food, quantities of purins are found as important as in meat. If the part they play has not been systematically studied from the point of view of their effects on the nervous organism, they still give rise to the same terminal products, such as uric acid. One can quite well argue that the pulse purins have physiological effects comparable to those of meat purins. On the other hand, vegetable purins have the considerable advantage of being less easily precipitated in the urine, after the human interorganic metabolism, than those resulting from the metabolism of flesh material.
This explains why a frequent use of a vegetable diet offers appreciable advantages in the amelioration of arthritic diatheses so common amongst us. Certain effects observed in these diatheses arise from the purins, from their localisation in the system, and their vitiated metabolism. The use of a moderate vegetable diet is the best means of treatment in order to relieve, to ameliorate, even to cure, arthritic diathesis.
Such are the certain physiological advantages which the predominant use of vegetable products are capable of offering. If one takes the pure energy-producing point of view, the superiority of the vegetarian diet becomes greater still. From the fine works of A. Chauveau, modern physiology has shown us that muscle, in working, consumes sugary materials. These are provided by ingestions of sugar in a natural state, of dextrine or of starch; for a less important part, the glycogen of the system may also arise from hydrocarbonated cords existing in the molecule of certain albumins. Therefore it is only in an infinitesimal part, due to the fibrine of meat, and to the small proportionsof glycogen which it contains, that flesh diet intervenes in the direct production of kinetic energy.
The demonstrations which have been essayed, touching the muscular superiority of vegetarians, appear superfluous to us. Such experiments could only have a positive value if they were made on both series of antagonistic subjects, with alimentary powers of energy-producing equality.
It should be distinctly understood that the vegetarian does not profit by any mysterious forces. The habit of preferring to nourish oneself with vegetable foods, can, at most, or at least, favour the physiological integrity of the subject, shield him against disease and assure his revictualment with foods recognised as active and easily measurable.
One cannot leave alcohol out of the list of advantageous vegetable foods. In fact, provided one keeps to strictly limited doses, it may be included among the alimentary foods, on a footing comparable to that of sugar. If one knew how to use without misusing it, alcohol might become a daily food.
Another order of ideas which one cannot pass by in silence at the present time militates in favour of vegetable alimentation. Dietetics cannot neglect economic problems. A flesh diet is very costly. In large towns, like Paris, at a time when everything is increasing in cost, one must be favoured by fortune to be able to indulge in the real luxury of consuming the calories of meat. As we said in 1905, with Prof.Landouzyand M. Labbé, in our inquiry into popular Parisian alimentation, the calorific energy of meat comes, on an average, to between 15 to 20 times dearer than that of bread or pulse foods.
The diet with a vegetable predominance may therefore, by those who adopt it, be considered as much less costly than a mixed one. Does not this fact, then, deserve to be taken into consideration and compared—startlingly illustrative—to the ingenious calculationrecently made by Lefèvre in his examination of vegetarianism? One acre of land planted for the purpose of breeding cattle produces three times less living strength than an acre planted with wheat!
Is it not criminal, or at any rate ill-judged, for the richness and health of the country to have, by the laws of a draconian protectionism, spurred the French agricultural population along the road to the breeding of cattle, thus turning it away from cultivation? These laws are the cause, on the one hand, of the high price of wheat, owing to the abandonment of its culture and the barriers opposed to its entrance, and on the other, of the dearness of meat, owing to the stock and the land which the cattle require.
Under these facts economists have indeed a direct responsibility, as for more than fifty years economic orthodoxy has presented meat as a necessity, whereas it is the least advantageous particle amongst so many others.
In conclusion, let us hope that future distinctions of “Vegetalists,” vegetarians or flesh eaters may be completely abolished.In medio stat virtus.The dietetic regimen, the general adoption of which must henceforth be desired, must reject all preconceived and hereditary ideas, and unite in one harmonious use all foods with a hygienic end in view. The place of each one amongst them and its predominance over the others should be determined only by conforming to reasons at the same time physiological and economic.
H. Labbé.
To Our Readers.Readers who appreciate the independence and all-round nature ofThe Healthy Lifecan materially assist the extension of its circulation by tactfully urging their local newsagent to have the magazine regularly displayed for sale. An attractive monthly poster can always be had free from the Publishers, 3 Tudor Street, London, E.C.
Readers who appreciate the independence and all-round nature ofThe Healthy Lifecan materially assist the extension of its circulation by tactfully urging their local newsagent to have the magazine regularly displayed for sale. An attractive monthly poster can always be had free from the Publishers, 3 Tudor Street, London, E.C.
This article gains additional interest from the fact that it has been written by one who works her own loom and teaches others the ancient and healthy art of hand-weaving.—[Eds.]
Hand-weaving is an art, a handicraft, one aspect of which we are apt to forget—namely, that it is a splendid health-giver. Indeed, all who have felt the rhythm of the loom, as they throw the shuttle to and fro, and in blending colours and seeing the material grow thread by thread, can witness to the power of the work to banish both the large and small worries that eat away our health of mind and body. The hand-weaver learns to look upon his (or her) loom as a very good friend.
The possibilities in weaving are immense, and the great difficulty that always confronts the weaver is the impossibility of letting gussets into the day: the end of the week comes all too soon.
One very satisfactory thing about weaving is the fact that from the very first we can use the things woven, even those we learn on.
First, there is plain weaving, with which we can make dress materials and many things for household use. Then come fancy and striped materials, which require more knowledge and ingenuity.
There are endless varieties in bands of different patterns thrown in with the shuttle, or shuttles, sometimes as many as a dozen of which may be in use at a time. These can be used for the purpose of ornamentation. In weaving these no end of play of colour can be made, by using many colours in rotation, either as the groundwork of plain material, under the patterns, or as the pattern itself.
Metal threads can also be used of various kinds, either as an entire texture, or to enrich the fancy bands.
Lastly, there is inlay weaving, by which we can put in by hand, with little separate bobbins, as we go along, any cross-stitch design, lettering, monograms, figures and designs of every description.
Anyone with a knowledge of carpentry can make his own loom, the construction being of a very simple nature. In fact, the Orientals erect a few sticks, dig a hole in the ground to sit in, tie their warp up to a tree, and then produce the most charming work, both in texture and colour.
The warp can also be made as these people often make theirs, by fixing it to sticks stuck into the ground, and walking backwards and forwards with the thread, singing as they go. Yes, singing! I think we English folk might learn from them to put more joy into our work, that fountainhead of life and health. We are apt to take such a serious view of ourselves and of all we do. So often, too, we only feel the dull and quiet colours, instead of using the many brilliant ones that nature loves so well. Once we begin working in, and appreciating, these we realise the exhilarating effect on our spirits. Indeed, I think we are only beginning to realise what a great influence colour has upon us, and all that colour signifies, each colour having various meanings of its own.
Many people are now realising that we are surrounded by a halo of colour woven by our character—the most highly developed people being surrounded by clear, bright colours. It is strictly true that we are all weavers, every day of our lives. By following the laws of nature we make the finest texture composed of all the most glorious colours or qualities in the Universe, so by degrees bringing ourselves, and others, into perfect harmony and peace.
Minnie Brown.
This discussion arose out of thearticlewith above title, by “M.D.,” which was published in ourJuly number.—[Eds.]
This discussion arose out of thearticlewith above title, by “M.D.,” which was published in ourJuly number.—[Eds.]
In dealing with this vitally important question, we shall most of us, I take it, agree upon certain points. In the light of recent knowledge upon, and extended experience of the subject, one such point which now appears incontrovertible is that there are thousands die annually—directly or indirectly—through overfeeding where one dies through insufficient nourishment. And it may at once be said that, as regards these thousands, the death certificates are practically valueless as data in relation to erroneous dieting, so that in this way we can never get at a correct estimate as to the actual number of deaths due to overfeeding. Bright's disease, gastric and intestinal affections, growths of various kinds, cancer, etc., are each in their turn certified as the “Cause of Death.” Most often, however, the initial cause is the overloading of the system with an amount of food beyond that which is necessary or healthful—and thereby clogging up the tissues, the organs and smaller bloodvessels.
But it may be said: “How can you substantiate such a general and sweeping statement?” In the first place—and this is profoundly significant—other things being equal, it must be acknowledged by all unbiased people that the small and moderate feeders do not contract disease in anything like the proportion that big feeders do, and as a natural consequence live longer lives.
Further, it must surely be quite evident by this time that there is a sufficiently large enough number of people who are thus existing in good health—and steadily regaining it where it has been lost—on thelines of moderate feeding. And the number is accumulating at a rapid pace; more and more are coming into line with those of us who, having thus found health in themselves, their patients and friends, are preaching the practice of two meals a day, and sometimes only one where there is serious organic disease to combat—thus defying the dicta of those eminent physiologists who “settled” the question years ago.
Now I quite admit—it would be impertinence to do otherwise—that “M.D.'s” statements and views must not be ignored, must indeed be respected. And he tells us that he “heard of,” in one day, three cases which “went wrong” through underfeeding; well, for those three cases we can point to hundreds who aregoing rightthrough eating just enough and not too much. I am prepared, on the other hand, to admit the danger of a continued semi-starvation diet; our difficulty is to define in each individual case what exactly would be a semi-starvation, and what a sufficient diet. It is impossible to have a fixed standard for everybody. After all, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”; often it is a matter of experimenting for some little time, and in this way we could judge largely of the result of our dieting by our state of general health.
On some main points of the question I am now absolutely convinced—viz.:
1. Excessive bulk is always dangerous, often disastrous, causing sudden death in a large number of cases.
2. Starchy foods are best strictly limited as we get along towards middle age and beyond.
3. A life which is largely mental or sedentary will be healthier and longer on a strictly moderate diet.
4. A life largely of physical labour must be dealt with on its own particular conditions.
5. At all times due regard, of course, must be paid to age, weight, etc.
6. On the whole, “eminent physiologists” have erred on the side of excess of proteid being advised.
7. Middle age is the critical time of life in respectto a man's diet in other words, I would say in axiomatic form that as a man feeds at or about middle age, so will he be for the rest of his life.
J. Stenson Hooker, M.D.
As a very interested reader of this discussion I should be very glad to know exactly what “M.D.” means byeach poundofboneandmusclein 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.lessproteid 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. ofsomething lessthan 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 onp. 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.” Howgrateful 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 quantities.
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 analyses 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 analyse 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 ofher recently, we find that, though she had had a cold, there has been no recurrence of deafness. I wonder what assistance 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 centurieswill 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.
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 infalliblewisdom. 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 toremovefromthe organism the products of disease, but never tointroducethem.
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 superstitious 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 notlymphat 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 scraped 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, constituting what is called “pulp.” This pulp is then passed between glass 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 assumes 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 peopleenjoying 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.]
(Specially written forThe Healthy Life.)
Anew race on the ruins of the oldBuild we: a temple of the human formFairer than marble, since with life-blood warm,Well crowned with its appointed crown of gold,Russet or ebony; lines clear and boldBeneath—a citadel no ills can storm,Buttressed with health; a type to be the normIn that great age the world shall yet behold.For now the laws of Health and Heaven are seenIn their identity, life's body and soul;Though, like divorce, disease may come betweenWhat God hath joined; but at the human goal,Where the New Race rules, splendid and serene,Sit Health and Holiness, made one and whole.
Anew race on the ruins of the oldBuild we: a temple of the human formFairer than marble, since with life-blood warm,Well crowned with its appointed crown of gold,Russet or ebony; lines clear and boldBeneath—a citadel no ills can storm,Buttressed with health; a type to be the normIn that great age the world shall yet behold.
For now the laws of Health and Heaven are seenIn their identity, life's body and soul;Though, like divorce, disease may come betweenWhat God 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.
We all long for reality. Most of the amusements in the world are imitations of the reality for which we long. They promise a satisfaction they are unable to give. Drink, mechanical love-making, all snatched gratification of the senses, religious excitement, revivalist meetings, and so forth, most theatre-going and sports, all simulate the real glory of life. They bring an illusion of well-being. They produce a glow in the nervous system. They cause the outlines of everyday life as we know it to grow suffused. They give us a momentary sense of heightened power and freedom. We float easily in a happy world. A sort of relaxation has been achieved. The less common forms of amusement bring us nearer to the gateway of reality. For some, they have been the rivers leading to the ocean of truth itself.
Art, for instance, the interpretation of life in terms of beauty; the “artist,” the man in whom sensuous perception is supreme, offers us a sublime aspect of reality. He dwells in the universe constructed for him by his senses and tells us of its glories. He achieves “freedom.” The veil covering reality is woven for him far thinner than for common men. He sees life moving eternally behind the forms he separates and “creates.” And to those of us who are akin to him, who are temperamentally artistic, he offers freedom of a kind. The contemplation of a work of art releases the tension of the nerves. To use the language of psychology it “arrests” us, suspends the functions of our everyday surface personality, abolishes for a moment time and space, allows the “free,” generally suppressed subconscious self to come up and flood the surface intelligence, allows us for a moment to be ourselves. But, still, this momentary relaxation, this momentary “play,” this holiday from the surface “I,” remains an affair dependent upon suggestive symbols coming from “without.” The supreme artist achieves freedom. We, whoin matters of art are the imitative mass, can only have “change,” a new heaven and earth, a fresh “culture.”
Then there is love. That promises, at the outset, complete escape into freedom and reality. And supreme lovers, both of individuals and of “Humanity,” have indeed found freedom and the pathway to reality in love. But ordinary everyday people rushing idolatrously out to find themselves in others find in the end only another I. The religions perhaps work best and longest. But even here average humanity, where the mystical sense is feeble, are thrown back in the end upon ethics—and go somewhat grimly through life doing their duty, living upon the husks of doctrine, the notions and reports of other men.
If the play spirit within us, that longing for the real joy of life, for real relaxation and re-creation, fares so poorly for most of us in the amusements large and small that life offers to our leisure moments, is it any better in the “games” the individual chooses for himself—hobbies, for instance? Can these generally “instructive” and “useful,” generally also solitary, occupations be called play? Are they not merely a reversal of life's engine, rather than an unmaking and a remaking. They are merely a variant of life. They are very truly called a “change of occupation.” They are led and dominated, commonly, by the intelligence. They contain no element of freedom. The same defect is found in all organised “games.”