It has long been taught that the "seat and nature of disease are in great measure learned by a study of the symptoms," but these "require to be analyzed and classified" and "confirmed by autopsies to reveal the histological changes with which the disorders of function are associated." The fact has been ignored that the histological changes revealed at the necropsy are the end points of the pathological process and not the causes of the disturbed function. The gross and minute morbid changes found in the intestine of one who has died of typhoid, for instance, were not present at the beginning of the "disease."

The failure of the pancreas in diabetes is probably due, in most cases, to chronic pancreatitis. The destructive changes found in the pancreas of the diabetic, after death, represent end-results. They did not exist at the beginning of the diabetes. Even the chronic pancreatitis is preceded by a slow, gradual failing of function, due to enervation and toxemia. There is no organic "disease" without previous functional "disease;" and there can be no functional "disease" except under deficiency of functional power. Post-mortem examinations fail to show functional derangement; while organic change cannot point to its cause. "Dead men tell no tales."

Post-mortem examinations reveal end-points; while even physical and laboratory examinations are capable of revealing only advanced functional and structural changes. They cannot trace the development of pathology from its initial beginnings.

Trall observed, with reference to the various schools of medicine, that "one source of error, however, pervaded all of their observations, as it does post-mortem investigations at this day. It is this: Structural appearances after death denote the effects of disease; and these morbid changes were and are often mistaken for and confounded with the causes of disease."--Hydropathic Encyclopedia, Vol, 1, p, 31.

Whether they view the pathology at necropsy or in its advanced stages while the patient is still alive; it is all the same--they view end-points in the progressive deterioration of the body and label this "the disease," all the while ignoring the preceding stages of the pathological process. Every pathological development reaches back to its beginnings and forward to future developments.

After pathology has reached a more or less advanced stage, or after the patient is dead, the condition of the body in such states has been thoroughly studied. Diagnosis is the art of discovering effects, and these cannot be discovered until after they have reached a certain stage--until after they have advanced far enough to produce a physical sign. In the descending pathological transit a certain series of changes must necessarily occur before the damage becomes great enough to manifest as signs and symptoms, and these changes require time. When a pathological condition becomes manifest so that a diagnosis, right or wrong, may be made, this is not its beginning. Indeed, its beginning may be, and often is, years prior to this. Its development is invariably slow, gradual, insidious, causing little or no disturbance to the body and no visible signs of its presence.

What of the initial stages? What of the stages which precede the production of a physical sign? Cause is here at work for weeks, months, years and the pathological condition is gradually developing. Despite their efforts to find such, medical men have not discovered a specific etiology for most so-called "diseases,"' and there is grave doubt about the few specific causes they claim to have found.

"Disease" no more comes into existence full blown than flowers and trees do. Its beginnings are small, imperceptible, its development slow, gradual, insidious. Clinical symptoms are those the doctor sees when the patient comes to him. Pre-clinical symptoms are those that the patient had before he was sick enough to go to a doctor. But back of these pre-clinical signs are still smaller beginnings when no signs are present of which the patient is aware, and which cannot be detected by the crude methods of examination now in use. The clinical phenomena of "disease", the pre-clinical phenomena of "disease" and the unobservable phenomena of "disease" that preceded the other phenomena, are not separate and distinct stages of "disease;" they are all of a piece and shade off imperceptibly into each other. There is no line of demarcation between them. They are continuous with each other, are mere stages in one progressive evolution out of the same causes.

Food deficiencies are not noticeable at the beginning. They develop slowly at first and then with increasing speed. By the time the physician sees the case, the deficiencies are far advanced. It is now well known that the failure of any element in the diet that can produce a "definite disease" will do much damage to the general health, growth and vitality before the deficiency becomes serious enough to receive a special name. Even the pre-clinical symptoms indicate advanced deficiency.

All pathology proceeds from minute and imperceptible beginnings, by a slow, gradual process of evolution, to it culminating states. It is a natural process and evolves out of adequate producing and sustaining causes, uniform and continuous in its development. Between the. minute beginnings of pathology and its fully developed climax there are several gradations or developments of pathology.

Dr. Taylor said: "The study of disease will doubtless be more satisfactory if its beginnings are regarded with more scrutiny, and its initial processes be more thoroughly understood. It is not enough that we become familiar with its culminated effects. We need to watch the point of departure from the full expression of vitality, in order to seize upon its causative influences."

It is a serious fault of medicine that it began by exploring the higher reaches of pathology and neglected the primary elements. It failed to recognize the point of departure from a healthy standard, refused the principle of evolution in pathology, and persists in proclaiming every one of its many so-called diseases to be "special creations" devoid of all connection with preceding and concomitant pathological states. Only their preference for water-tight compartments prevents them from recognizing that there is no real break in pathological unity.

There is a consensus of opinion among medical authorities that the profession is hopelessly at sea concerning those early departures from health, which constitute the beginnings of the more progressed forms of pathology. Nescience of the initial stages of pathology leads inevitably to an ignoring of the evolution of pathology and this accounts for the ignominous impotence inherent in the "Modern Science of Medicine." Without a knowledge of the essence of pathology, its beginnings, its causes, its evolution, how can they hope to develop a rational plan of preventing its development, or of caring for the sick?