In an editorial in the July 1873 issue of The Science of Health, Trall said: "Disease being an effort of the vital organism to restore the normal state, the causes which necessitate that effort should be removed, in order that the effort may be successful." The superior efficacy of physiological care, that is, care that supplies the physiological needs of the sick organism, as contrasted with those systems that ignore physiological needs and tamper with the structures and functions of the body with chemical and mechanical means, is too evident to have to dwell at great length upon it.

Before any genuine advancement in the care of the sick can be made, the killing method of curing disease will have to be abandoned. Physicians are engaged in "fighting disease," not in removing its causes. They think of disease as due to germs and viruses and not as the result of ways of life that conflict with the best interests of the organism. Even if they think that stress may be involved in the causation of disease, they are sure that this may be met with gland extracts and that the removal of the sources of stress is not really essential. Their drugs and their gland extracts are indulgences that enable their deluded victims to continue their harmful practices and not be hurt by them.

They treat each so-called disease as though it were a single soldier or a guerrilla band, ambushed or ensconced in isolated regions of the body, and charge it with their hypodermic guns, bombard it with their vaccinal canons, gas it with their antibiotics and seek to destroy it with their atomic bombs-fission products. Viewing disease as an evil entity that has attacked the organism, there is always a driving effort, on all sides, to make the break-through, to develop a parry for every possible thrust of disease. Thus it is that against the most urgent remonstrances of the organic instincts, the physician forces upon the body of his patients vile compounds that should never be taken into the body of man. It cannot be said with any show of truth that the man is the greatest physician who most violates the laws of nature.

A recent (1966-7) study made at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore revealed that five percent of "medical admissions" to the hospital were attributable to some sort of "drug reaction." Their report showed that 13 percent of the patients in the hospital had had "a severe drug reaction while undergoing treatment." The great majority of these so-called reactions followed the administration of antibiotics, of which penicillin had been most used. A so-called "drug reaction" may be anything from a simple skin irritation to death and it is practically impossible to foretell what "reaction" will occur, so that the patient who takes drugs always runs a serious risk. In the United States alone between 200 and 300 patients a year die from what they call "penicillin reactions," which simply means from penicillin poisoning. To make matters worse, it is admitted by medical authorities that "penicillin is certainly the least toxic of antibiotics." Thus it will be seen that the medical program of care is one of producing disease and death.

Are the poisons of the physician necessary to save life, or do they destroy life? Is man so constituted that some certain and irremediable evil must be produced on him to produce in him some uncertain good? Is poisoning the sick not contrary to all the requirements of natural law; is it not abhorrent to the very nature of man, hateful to every living thing? Mothers, before you consent to poison the life-springs of your precious darlings, for whom you have suffered and worked, let us assure you that there is no need for and no good to come out of this poisoning for anyone. Hygienists have publicly protested for nearly a century and a half against the monstrous absurdity of attempting to cure disease by agents the natural effects of which upon living structures are destructive.

Dr. Alcott describes his thoughts at the bedside of a typhoid patient who had been treated allopathically. After saying that he "saw very clearly" that what the patient needed most "was rest and sleep," he records his thoughts about the drugs at the bedside. "What does all this mean," he asked himself. "Why all this array of war-like implements? What indication is there of the necessity of alcohol, quinine, morphine, opium, ipecac, nitre, &c.? He is burning with fever; shall we add fuel to the fire?"

Dr. Alcott reports that he discontinued the drugging and permitted the patient to have all the water desired to drink and that immediate improvement followed. If the sick individual is cared for kindly and in strict accord with the genuine needs of life under the circumstances, the illness should be of short duration; however, it is often prolonged and life destroyed by mistaken efforts to cure. The idea that disease can be cured and that it should be cured has enabled physicians to kill more people than "war, pestilence and famine combined."

We do not deny that the regular practices of bleeding and antiphlogistication, in dealing with fever patients, were not without apparent successes. But this did not prove that the stimulations were good per se. It only proved that it is the least of two evils. We do not hesitate to say that 95 percent of the people who die in this country each year die needlessly.

Of every thousand cases of a particular acute disease a certain number, which can be determined within prescribed limits of deviation from the normal, will recover with or without treatment of any kind whatever. This fact is true under any and all forms of treatment, of neglect and abuse; it has always been true. Hence, it is difficult to determine, when a treatment is employed and a certain percentage of patients recover, what effect if any the so-called remedy has in restoring health. The use of the remedy and the recovery of the patient may have been mere coincidence; the remedy may have actually retarded recovery; it is conceivable that, in some instances and with some remedies, recovery may have been helped.

Patients also die under any and all forms of care. The question is both pertinent and logical: what is the office of the treatment in killing the patient? Certainly, the death rate in every so-called acute disease is much higher under some forms of care than under others. When, for example, the death rate in typhoid fever was 40 percent, the treatment administered was lethal. When a method of treatment was introduced under which the death rate fell to 12 and eight percent, the question still remained: does the new treatment cure more cases or does it merely kill fewer? Obviously, statistical studies cannot supply an answer to this question. Today, great store is laid by statistical studies; but it is obvious that they give results without revealing what the results are due to.