What caused the malarial fever in this case? The malaria germ? Or was it wrong life? Certainly both; but the question is: Which was the real cause? The malarial influence failed in five years to create an immunization; all "specific" drugs had failed. Treatment that allowed nature to return to the normal ended the malarial influence. If germs create immunization, why do we have chronic diseases? What causes chronic disease?

I have many cases of syphilis consulting me every year. According to medical authority, this disease is most positively "specific" in character, and should, according to the germ theory of disease, require a "specific" treatment; but in all cases I never resort to a more specific remedy than that related above in connection with malaria. Correct the habits, and feed properly--and all diseases will get well.

After years of experience in treating disease, I have found that health is the greatest and most reliable foe of disease.

The questions to decide are: Do germs per se cause disease? If germs cause disease, do they cause all diseases, or only a part of diseases? Which diseases are caused by germs, and which are not caused by germs? If there are people who are, and all their lives have been, in good health, without extrinsic or artificial immunization, what is the cause? If the cause is good health, then can the secret of good health be known; and if it can, may the secret be imparted to others who are not so fortunate? If good health immunized the organism to every normal disease-producing influence in man's environments, why cannot his normal immunization be increased to meet extraordinary disease-producing agents and influences? This can be done, and is being done at our "School for Teaching Health," to the satisfaction of many people from many parts of the world.

There are two groups of animate agents which are said to cause disease in man; namely, infectious and parasitic.

It has been thought that natural history could be taken as a basis for the study of animate agents as a cause of disease; and if infection is really produced by an infectious germ, then natural history must embrace all causes of disease. In other words, if infectious-microscopic germs and parasites are the cause of infection, then there is no excuse for dividing animate agents into parasites and infections; they can all come under the head of animate agents. Perhaps it would be well to divide parasites into exogenous and endogenous--those that are confined to the outside of the body and those that are on the inside--in the blood. A parasite that is on the body or in the bowels is still on the outside of the body.

If there are infectious animate agents, they should be divided into specific and non-specific; for, before we get through with the subject, we should see that there are germs which cause (using the word "cause" in a bacteriological sense) different diseases; and, on the other hand, different germs which cause the same disease; this, too, in diseases supposed to be clinically well defined.

As to specific germs, perhaps the gonococcus is one of the most pronounced types; yet it, too, fails to infect in those of pronounced resistance. This being true, what must constitute resistance?

As nerve energy appears to give power--as steam ,gives force to the engine, and as electrical energy gives power to move powerful machinery--so it is apparently necessary that nerve energy must be the force that enables man to resist environmental influences. But we see the physically strong giving way before influences that fail to prostrate others decidedly less strong. The question as to why this is, will not down.

The matter of feeding to keep up strength, so as to enable a patient to resist or throw off disease, is a professional fallacy that has cost, and is costing, more lives than perhaps all other fallacies combined, It is easily demonstrable that, without giving food and drugs, it is impossible to develop a "clinically well-defined" disease. Indeed, this epoch-making truth holds good in venereal diseases as in all others.

Any physician who, is not helplessly and hopelessly swallowed up by the whale of medical fallacy can in a very short time demonstrate, and prove to himself, the truth of all I say.

My theories and practice are not only simple, but they are logical; they are not only logical, but true. And the reason they are true is because they work. If they do not work, it is from a lack of knowledge in applying them. It is never necessary to fall back on that blanket excuse that has covered so much professional ignorance in the past; namely, "idiosyncrasy."

Malaria (malarial fever) is caused by a sporozoid; yet the disease may easily be cured by simply correcting the life of the patient--correcting the eating habits and care of the body generally. Then, when the disease is gone, if the patient continues to live right, he may stay in the malarial country, free from another attack. This being true, what really causes malarial fever? Are those who continue to live in such countries, without becoming malarial, immune to the poison because of an idiosyncrasy; or are they carriers of the disease, having become immune to its influence? Can one person become immune and another not? The dilemma appears to be fully settled when it is understood that health--full health--is the only reliable opposition to disease; that everything which improves health builds immunity to all disease-building influences; that every influence injurious to health is an ally to disease,