Books: Nature Cure
H >>
Henry Lindlahr >> Nature Cure
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 | 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26
Homeopathy, a Complement of Nature Cure
Having proved the accuracy of Hahnemann's Law of ~similia similibus
curantur,~ and having occasion daily to observe its practical
results in the treatment of acute and chronic diseases, we should
not be justified in omitting homeopathy from our system of
treatment. The attenuated homeopathic doses of certain drugs may be
of great service in bringing about the acute reactions which we so
earnestly desire, especially in the treatment of chronic diseases of
long standing.
I am aware of the fact that in severe and obstinate conditions
homeopathy is often apparently of no avail. But when the system has
been purified and strengthened by our natural methods, by a rational
vegetarian diet, hydrotherapy, chiropractic or osteopathy, massage,
corrective exercise, air and sun baths, normal suggestion, etc., the
homeopathic remedies will work with much greater promptitude and
effectiveness.
It is the combination of all the different healing factors which
constitutes the perfect system of treatment.
No disease condition, whether apparently hopeless or not, can be
called incurable unless all these different healing factors,
properly combined and applied, have been given a thorough trial. It
is no charlatanic boasting, but the simple truth, when we affirm
that the different natural methods of treatment, as we of the Nature
Cure school apply them, can and do cure so-called incurable
diseases, such as tuberculosis, cancer, locomotor ataxy, epilepsy,
eczema, neurasthenia, insanity and the worst forms of chronic
dyspepsia and constipation, always providing that the patient
possesses sufficient vitality to react to the treatment and that the
destruction of vital parts and organs has not advanced too far.
Chapter XVI
The Diphtheria Antitoxin
In this country the antitoxin treatment for diplitheria is still in
high favor, while in Germany, where it originated, many of the best
medical authorities are abandoning its use on account of its
doubtful curative results and certain destructive after-effects.
According to the enthusiastic advocates of this treatment among the
"regular" physicians in this country, the antitoxin is a "certain
cure" for diphtheria; but how is this claim borne out by actual
facts?
The Health Bulletins sent regularly to every physician in the City
of Chicago by the City Health Department show an average of from
fifteen to twenty deaths every week from diphtheria treated with
antitoxin.
I do not deny that the antitoxin treatment may have reduced somewhat
the mortality percentage of this disease, allowing even for the
great uncertainty of medical statistics. But we of the Nature Cure
school claim and can prove that the hydropathic treatment of
diphtheria shows a much lower percentage of mortality than the
antitoxin treatment.
The crucial point to be considered in this connection is: What are
the after-effects of the different methods of treatment?
This is a very important matter. I make the following claims:
that the antitoxin, being itself a most powerful poison, may be and
often is the direct cause of paralysis, or of death due to
heart-failure. That diphtheria treated with antitoxin may be and
often is followed by paralysis, heart-failure, or lifelong
invalidism of some kind after the patient has apparently recovered
from the disease. That these undesirable after-effects of diphtheria
do not occur when the disease is treated by natural methods, but
that they are the result of the antitoxin treatment and of its
suppressive effect upon. the disease.
To prove my claims, I submit the following facts: I have in my
possession clippings from newspapers from different parts of the
country stating that death had followed the administration of the
diphtheria antitoxin for prevention or "immunization," that is,
where the individual had been in good health at the time the
antitoxin was given.
Several cases of this kind created quite a sensation in Germany
about fifteen years ago. Dr. Robert Langerhans, superintendent of
the Moabit Hospital in Berlin, a strong advocate of the antitoxin
treatment and also of vaccination, had been one of a committee of
three appointed by the municipal government of the German metropolis
to investigate the efficiency of the diphtheria antitoxin. As a
result of his findings, he had recommended its free distribution to
the poor of the City of Berlin.
Not long thereafter the doctor's cook was suddenly taken ill with
severe pains in the throat and sent to the hospital. It was thought
to be a case of diphtheria, and the doctor, to protect his little
son, one and one-half years old, against possible infection,
administered an injection of antitoxin. Shortly afterward the child
developed symptoms of blood-poisoning and died of heart-failure
within twenty-four hours.
It is customary in Germany to insert a death-notice in one of the
local newspapers and to invite the friends of the family to the
funeral. In his announcement in the columns of the "Lokalanzeiger,"
Dr. Langerhans stated explicitly that his little son had died after
an injection of diphtheria antitoxin for immunization.
Another similar case is that of Dr. Pistor, a prominent Berlin
physician, whose little daughter contracted a slight inflammation of
the throat. The child was given an injection of antitoxin, and this
was followed by a severe and protracted illness.
Very significant, in this connection, are certain utterances of Dr.
William Osler in his "Practice of Medicine." He says, on page 150:
" Of the sequelae of diphtheria, paralysis is by far the most
important. This can be experimentally produced in animals by the
inoculation of the toxic material produced by the bacilli. [This is
the active principle in the antitoxin. Author's note] The paralysis
occurs in a variable proportion of the cases, ranging from 10 to 15
and even to 20 per cent. It is strictly a sequel of the disease [of
the disease treated with antitoxin?--Author's note], coming on
usually in the second or third week of convalescence. . . . It may
follow very mild cases; indeed, the local lesion may be so trifling
that the onset of the paralysis alone calls attention to the true
nature of the disease. . . .
"The disease is a toxic neuritis, due to the absorption of the
poison. . . .
"Of the local paralysis the most common is that which affects the
palate. . . . Of other local forms perhaps the most common are
paralysis of the eye muscles. . . . Heart symptoms are not uncommon.
. . . Heart-failure and fatal syncope (death) may occur at the
height of the disease or during convalescence, even as late as the
sixth or seventh week after apparent recovery."
It appears to me that the mystery of these "sequelae" can easily be
explained. It is certain that a mere "sore throat," not serious
enough to be diagnosed as diphtheria, cannot produce paralysis or
heart-failure; but we know positively that the antitoxin can do it
and does do it. The cases that Dr. Osler refers to undoubtedly
received the antitoxin treatment, because it is administered on the
slightest suspicion of diphtheria, nay, even to perfectly healthy
persons "for purposes of immunization."
Then is it not most likely that these "mysterious after-effects" are
caused rather by the highly poisonous antitoxin than by the "sore
throat?"
In my own practice, I am frequently consulted by chronic patients
whose troubles date back to diphtheria "cured" by antitoxin. Among
these I have met with several cases of idiocy and insanity, with
many cases of partial paralysis, infantile paralysis, and nervous
disorders of a most serious nature, also with various other forms of
chronic destructive diseases.
In the iris of the eye, the effect of the antitoxin on the system
shows as a darkening of the color. In many instances, the formerly
blue or light-brown iris assumes an ashy-gray or brownish-gray hue.
My secretary who is taking this dictation and who has brown eyes,
tells me that her mother informed her that up to her tenth year her
eyes had been of a clear blue. About that time she had several
attacks of diphtheria and a severe "second" attack of scarlet fever,
which were treated and "cured" under the care of an allopathic
physician. She does not remember whether she was given antitoxin,
but recalls that her throat was painted and her body rubbed with
oil, and that she had to take a great deal of medicine. Since that
time her eyes have turned brown. They show plainly the rust-brown
spots of iodine in the areas of the brain, the throat, and other
parts of the body.
The effect upon the iris of the eye would be very much the same
whether the attacks of diphtheria had been suppressed by antitoxin
or by the old-time drug treatment. A significant fact in this
connection is that, since Mrs. C. is with us, following natural
methods of living and under the effects of the treatments which she
has been taking regularly for several months, her eyes have become
much lighter and in places the original blue is visible under the
brown. The nerve rings in the region of the brain, which were very
marked when she came to us, have become less defined. There is a
corresponding improvement in her general health, and especially in
the condition of her nerves.
In regard to my claim that undesirable after-effects do not occur
under treatment by natural methods, I wish again to call attention
to the fact that for fifty years the Nature Cure physicians in
Germany have proved that hydropathic treatment of diphtheria is not
followed by paralysis, heart-failure, or the different forms of
chronic, destructive diseases.
This has been confirmed by my own experience in the treatment of
diphtheria and other serious acute ailments.
A Reply to My Critics
My discussions of the germ-theory of disease and of the vaccine,
serum, and antitoxin treatment in a series of articles entitled:
"Harmonies of the Physical" and published in "Life and Action"
called forth a great deal of adverse criticism from physicians of
the regular school of medicine. The following paragraphs are
extracts from a letter sent by one of these critics to the editor of
the above-named magazine:
" . . . I am convinced that some statements have been published in
this particular issue [October-Decemher, 1912] which have no proper
place in this magazine, the earnest champion of the cause of Truth
and the official organ of expression of the U. S. headquarters of
the movement which you evidently have at heart."
Dr. E. then refers to certain passages in my article in the
October-December, 1912, number of "Life and Action," and comments
upon them by quoting Drs. Osler and Andrews in favor of the
antitoxin treatment in diphtheria and by giving his own opinion on
the subject. He concludes his arguments as follows:
"I am a subscriber to this magazine and have also had my sister's
name put on the mailing list. She has a little boy about two years
old. Now, suppose she should read that article of Dr. Lindlahr's,
and as a result, refuse to permit the use of antitoxin, and if the
boy should get diphtheria, with a fatal issue as a result, I could
hardly feel gratified over the fact that I had placed that
reading-matter at her disposal. I fully appreciate the fact that
such an unhappy result might easily ensue in some one or more of the
families who read 'Life and Action' and look upon its columns as a
source of the truly higher light."
Perhaps Dr. E. has not read one of Dr. Osler's latest and strongest
utterances, his unqualified endorsement of natural methods of
healing in the Encyclopedia Americana, quoted on page 154 of this
volume.
Nature Cure in Germany
That it is possible to cure all kinds of serious acute diseases by
drugless methods of healing, has been proved by the Nature Cure
practitioners in Germany, nearly all of whom were laymen who had
never visited a medical school. For over half a century, many
thousands of them have been practicing the art of healing in all
parts of Germany. With hydrotherapy and the other natural methods
they have treated successfully typhoid fever. diphtheria, smallpox,
appendicitis, cerebro-spinal meningitis and all other acute
diseases.
It is a significant fact that, in spite of the most strenuous
opposition and appeal to the law-making powers on the part of the
regular school of medicine, the lay doctors could not be prevented
from practicing the natural methods of treatment in law-and
police-ridden Germany.
On the contrary, during the last few generations there have been
practicing in Germany at all times an ever increasing number of
Nature Cure physicians, most of them laymen.
This freedom of Nature Cure practice in Germany is entirely due to
the success of its methods.
And this success has been demonstrated in spite of all kinds of
opposition and attempted restriction. While the Nature Cure
practitioner is permitted to treat those who come to him for relief,
he does not have the right to cover his mistakes with six feet of
earth. If one of his patients dies, a doctor of the regular school
of medicine has to be called in to testify to the fact and issue the
death-certificate.
Thus the "lay doctors," the "Nature Cure physicians," were and are
at present constantly exposed to the strictest critical supervision
by the "regulars," and if the latter can prove that a patient has
died because the natural methods were inefficient or harmful, the
lay practitioner can be prosecuted for and convicted of malpractice
or man-slaughter.
But in point of fact, while a number of these lay physicians were
brought before the courts, in no instance could the actual
harmfulness of the methods employed by them be proven. The natural
methods of treatment became so popular that, as a matter of
self-preservation, the younger generation of physicians in Germany
had to fall in line with the Nature Cure idea in their practice.
Since Dr. E. so strongly questions the efficacy of our methods, I
may be permitted to say something about my own professional
experience.
Nature Cure in America
During the last ten years, I have treated and cured all kinds of
serious acute diseases without resorting to allopathic drugs. In a
very extensive practice, I have not in all these years lost a single
case of appendicitis (and not one of them was operated upon), of
typhoid fever, diphtheria, smallpox, scarlet fever, etc., and only
one case of cerebro-spinal meningitis and of lobar pneumonia. These
facts may be verified from the records of the Health Department of
the City of Chicago.
After the foregoing statements, I leave it to my readers to judge
whether the Nature Cure philosophy is inspired by blind fanaticism
and based upon ignorance and inexperience, or whether it is
justified in the light of scientific facts advanced by the Regular
School of Medicine itself and demonstrated by the wonderful success
of the Nature Cure movement in Germany, which in its different forms
has attained world-wide recognition and adoption.
There is a popular saying: "The proof of the pudding is in the
eating." The following letter will explain itself:
January 20, 1913.
Dear Dr. Lindlahr:--
You may remember that last winter, Mrs. White and I attended your
Sunday afternoon lectures in the Schiller Building. Those lectures
were an education--I might better say a revelation and an
inspiration.
On the 11th of November last, our boy, aged thirteen years, was
taken ill with diphtheria. I called at your office and asked your
advice. You replied: "You know what to do--wet packs, no food except
fruit juices, osteopathic treatment and no antitoxin."
We called an osteopathic physician, who at once sent a specimen from
the boy's throat to the city laboratory, where it was pronounced
diphtheria. A physician from the Board of Health came and
quarantined us and inquired if we had used the antitoxin treatment.
When Mrs. White replied "No," he said: "I suppose you know that the
percentage of deaths of those who do not have it is very high." She
said: "Yes, I know, but we do not intend to use it."
The boy had all the acute symptoms, was drowsy, with headache, and
on the second day his temperature went to 105 degrees. We applied
the wet body pack and by night had reduced his temperature to 100
degrees. With the aid of the osteopathic treatment, which he had
each night, the boy slept well all through big illness. On the fifth
day, the membrane spread from his throat to his nose, and his
temperature rose again; but the wet body packs again reduced it so
that it was never again over 100 degrees.
The boy was bright, his mind was clear, he was able to read, and
after the first week was able to play chess with his mother. The
only unfavorable symptom he had at all was an irregular pulse. He
took no medicine and no food except fruit juices. We used
occasionally the warm water enema. On the tenth day he took a little
lamb broth, but refused it the next day, and again asked for fruit
juices. It was not until two weeks had passed that his appetite
returned and he began to eat. He lost flesh, but did not lose
strength in the same degree--he was able to go to the bathroom each
day unaided.
On the 21st day, the osteopathic physician sent a specimen to the
city laboratory which they pronounced "positive," and the city
physician found it necessary to take as many as four or five
additional specimens before he pronounced him free from the
diphtheria germ. The boy was not released from quarantine until five
weeks had passed.
During all this time his only attendant was his mother and the
osteopathic physician who came daily. The boy has fully recovered
and has suffered no bad results that often follow such diseases.
In contrast to this experience of ours, I would like to cite the
case of a neighbor of ours whose little girl died of the disease
under the antitoxin treatment. She recovered from the diphtheria,
but her heart failed and she died suddenly. They had a regular M. D.
and a trained nurse. Her mother took ill, but recovered. The father
told me that their drug bill alone amounted to $75.
We want to express to you our gratitude for the knowledge and
confidence that you have so freely given to us, and you are at
liberty to make whatever use of this letter that you desire.
Sincerely yours,
HINTON WHITE
1443 Cuyler Ave., Chicago, Ill.
This letter proves that my claims and assertions regarding the
curability of diphtheria by natural methods are not extravagant or
untrue. In this case, as in many others, I gave directions for
treatment verbally and over the telephone without having seen the
patient personally.
I am convinced, furthermore, that this patient would have made just
as good a recovery without the osteopathic treatment. I recommended
the attendance of an osteopathic physician in order to ease the
burden of responsibility on the part of the parents. If the child
had died, they would have been blamed by friends and relatives for
their seeming foolhardiness.
The experience of Mr. White's neighbor is another proof of the fatal
effect of the antitoxin treatment. The antitoxin "cured" the
diphtheria, but-the child died!
Once more I repeat: The hydropathic treatment will give equally good
results in appendicitis, meningitis, scarlet fever, and all other
forms of acute diseases. If this be a fact, why should not my
colleagues of the Regular School of Medicine give the hydropathic
method a fair trial, the more so since in Germany, even among the
physicians of the Regular School, hydropathy as a remedy is fast
superseding antitoxin! Is it not worth while when the "mysterious
sequelae" referred to by Dr. Osler, and the many cases of chronic
invalidism which he does not connect with the disease or its
treatment, might thus be avoided?
Chapter XVII
Vaccination
The pernicious aftereffects of vaccination upon the system are
similar to those of the various serum and antitoxin treatments.
Jenner, an English barber and chiropodist, is usually credited with
the discovery of vaccination. The doubtful honor, however, belongs
in reality to an old Circassian woman who, according to the
historian Le Duc, in the year 1672 startled Constantinople with the
announcement that the Virgin Mary had revealed to her an unfailing
preventive against the smallpox.
Her specific was inoculation with the genuine smallpox virus. But
even with her the idea was not an original one, because the
principle of isopathy (curing a disease with its own disease
products) was explicitly taught a hundred years before that by
Paracelsus, the great genius of the Renaissance of learning of the
Middle Ages. But even he was only voicing the secret teachings of
ancient folklore, sympathy healing and magic dating back to the
Druids and Seers of ancient Britain and Germany.
The Circassian seeress cut a cross in the flesh of people and
inoculated this wound with the smallpox virus. Together with this
she prescribed prayer, abstinence from meat and fasting for forty
days.
As at that time smallpox was a terrible and widespread scourge, the
practice of inoculation was carried all over Europe. At first the
operation was performed by women and laymen; but when vaccination
became popular and people were willing to pay for it, the doctors
began to incorporate it into their regular practice.
Popular superstitions run a very similar course to epidemics. They
have a period of inception, of virulence and of abatement. As germs
and bacteria become inactive and die a natural death in their own
poisonous excreta, so popular superstitions die as a natural result
of their own falsities and exaggerations.
It soon became evident that inoculation with the virus did not
prevent smallpox, but, on the contrary, frequently caused it; and
therefore the practice gradually fell into disuse, only to be
revived by Jenner about one hundred years later in a modified form.
He substituted cowpox virus for smallpox virus.
Modern allopathy, in applying the isopathic principle, gives large
and poisonous doses of virus, lymph, serums and antitoxins, while
homeopathy, as did ancient mysticism, applies the isopathic remedies
in highly diluted and triturated doses only.
From England vaccination gradually spread over the civilized world
and during the nineteenth century the smallpox disease (variola)
constantly diminished in virulence and frequency until today it has
become of comparatively rare occurrence.
"Therefore vaccination has exterminated smallpox," say the disciples
of Jenner.
Is that really so? Is vaccination actually a preventive of smallpox?
This seems very doubtful when the advocates of vaccination
themselves do not believe it. "What," I hear them say, "we do not
believe in our own theory?" Evidently you do not, my friends. If you
believe that vaccination protects you against smallpox, why are you
afraid of catching it from those who are not vaccinated? If you are
thoroughly protected, as you claim to be, how can you catch the
disease from those who are not protected? Why do you not allow the
other fellow to have his fill of smallpox and then enjoy a good
laugh on him? The fact of the matter is you know full well that you
are not safe, that you can catch the disease just as readily as the
unprotected.
German statistics are more reliable than those of any other country.
In the years of 1870-71 smallpox was rampant in the Fatherland. Over
1,000,000 persons had the disease, and 120,000 died. Ninety-six
percent of these had been vaccinated and only four percent had not
been protected. Most of the victims were vaccinated, once at least,
shortly before they took the disease.
In 1888 Bismarck sent an address to the governments of all the
German states in which it was admitted that numerous eczematous
diseases, even those of an epidemic nature, were directly
attributable to vaccination and that the origin and cure of smallpox
were still unsolved problems.
In this message to the various legislatures the great statesman
said: "The hopes placed in the efficacy of the cowpox virus as a
preventive of smallpox have proved entirely deceptive."
Realizing this to be a fact, most of the German governments have
modified or entirely relinquished their compulsory vaccination laws.
"But," our opponents insist, "you cannot deny that smallpox has
greatly diminished since the almost universal adoption of
vaccination."
Certainly the disease has diminished. But so have diminished and, in
fact, nearly disappeared the plague, the Black Death, cholera, the
bubonic plague, yellow fever and numerous other epidemic pests which
only recently decimated entire nations.
Not one of these epidemics was treated by vaccination. Why, then,
did they abate and practically disappear?
Not vaccination, but the more universal adoption of soap, bathtubs,
all kinds of sanitary measures, such as plumbing, drainage,
ventilation and more hygienic modes of living generally have subdued
smallpox as well as all other plagues.
Many of us remember how the yellow fever raged in Havanna during the
Spanish occupancy. Within two months after the energetic Yankees
took possession and gave the filthy city a good scouring, yellow
fever had entirely disappeared--without any yellow fever
vaccination.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 | 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26