Worse than the foregoing, if this is possible, was the habit of charging Hygiene with responsibility for death if a patient, far gone under wrong living and worse treatment, was not brought back from the dead by pure physiological care. Hygiene was denied the benefits of good logic. It was not even provided with the scapegoat that protected the drug system--if a patient died under Hygienic care, this was not because his "time" had come. God did not decree that he should die.

16. The means of medicine are artificial methods, a coinage of their own ingenuity. The drug-medical system seeks, with all the causes of disease in all the kingdoms of nature, to cure disease by creating new disease. How different the work of the Hygienist! He employs only such substances and conditions with which the organism is entirely familiar and which it uses daily, seeking to adjust these to its altered requirements. His is a legitimate effort. The means of Hygiene are natural and have belonged to man's normal way of life from his origin. Hygienic means have their foundation in the fitness of things. There is a radical distinction between the Hygienic System, which seeks to aid and assist the vital organism with the normal things of life in its reconstructive work, and the drug-medical system, which seeks to cure disease by the use of poisons.

Writing in the Journal, June 1860, W. T. Vail, M.D., said: "The mass of mankind seem to think that there is a drug for every disease and could they only be so fortunate as to find that drug when they are sick, or find the physician who knows it and can administer it properly, they might be speedily restored. These learned doctors believe, while they are so bountifully and indiscriminately dealing out drugs to their patients, there is scarcely one disease in four in which drugs have the least efficacy towards effecting a cure." Thus he bears witness to the fact that the profession of his day had little confidence in the drugs they so freely administered. Two wrongs can never make a right and giving poisonous drugs to remedy the effects of prior violations of the laws of life is like knocking a drunken man down because he won't stand up. If a substance is harmful, why take it into the body? Why think that because it does not produce instantaneous death, we may take it with impunity? Why not refrain from burdening the body with it? Why not give your body the best opportunity to maintain high-level health? If we are content to suffer, if we want to watch ourselves go down year after year, then we will give no attention to the ways in which we feed and care for ourselves; but if health is worth having, it is worth the simple effort that is required to refrain from habitually abusing the body by habits that are foreign to the elemental needs of life. If health is worth regaining, it is worth the simple effort required to provide the elemental needs of life and to refrain from destroying life by dosing the body with poisonous substances drawn from all the kingdoms of nature.

There is but one way to solve the health problems of man and this is to abolish the practice of medicine and replace it with Natural Hygiene. What are the other schools of so-called healing (those other than the medical system) doing towards this end? Exactly nothing. In fact, with their contradictory propaganda and their inconsistent activities, they only add their weight to the elements which confuse the health seeker. These various competing schools serve to obstruct humanity's progress towards a world of health and sanity. When, finally, they go out of their confused and hapless existence, there should not be a glimmer of regret.

All those writers who gather their ideas from the current literature of the day without examination and critical analysis must necessarily advance, or rather, teach the fleeting errors of the times. They may expose an occasional error; but, basically, they propagate the very errors they seem to expose. Never in all history has so much praise been wasted on a fundamentally evil thing as today goes out to medicine. Indeed, wasted is too mild a word. Perverted would be more accurate. When once the people have acquired a genuine understanding of the nature of medicine and its practices, it will be regarded with aversion and downright loathing.

When our opponents lay down their arms, retreat from the field and ask for quarter, there will no longer be necessity for us to pursue them. Then we can devote our attention exclusively to the welfare of the living, guarding them against ill health, drugs, physicians and the whole paraphernalia of medical slop-shops, blisters, man mid-wives and every other unclean thing. Until then, we must continue to fight, as did all past reformers and revolutionaries. When light and knowledge have obtained the ascendency over darkness and evil, then and then only shall our swords be beaten into ploughshares and pruning hooks and mankind learn war no more, nor swallow pills, pukes and other drugs.

It may be objected that medicine is scientific, hence, one of our sacred cows. Science is radically empirical and is devoted to methodology rather than to ontology. It treats general propositions as working hypotheses, that is, as "provisional truths" to be continually revised as the results of observation and experiment demand. Science is at least partly conventional. It emphasizes the operation of verification as essential to verity, but is rarely, if ever, satisfied with its verifications. All of its conclusions are provisional and subject to revision, change or discard. The scientist is, in sober fact, an instrumentalist. But, in addition to his dependence upon his scales and measuring rods, he is, in many areas of learning, a guesser. Biology, physiology, geology, anthropology, archeology and kindred sciences are shot through with guesses. Pharmacology is one stupendous guess and a wrong guess. That mythical science called the science of modern medicine is a system of incongruities, absurdities and morbid products of the imagination.

Physicians often complain that they are forced to treat their patients in the manners in which they do treat them, because the patients demand it. This complaint is made in utter disregard of the all too obvious fact that the teachings of medical science constitute the starting point of popular beliefs and demands. When physicians yield to the clamour of their patient for the popular drug, as they so often do, there is reflected back upon them the fallacies they have so assiduously promulgated in the public mind. In his maze of learned stultification the physician is hopelessly lost at sea without rudder or compass. Deprive him of his drugs and he knows nothing to do in caring for the sick. After all, Hygiene does have a guiding principle which is the fundament of true practice.

Allopathic medicine is crumbling like an old building beset with fungi and the fact that it is a gigantic building does not stay the process. The ideological decay of the medical system is no less apparent than its structural collapse and only those people who seek the obscure and cabbalistic, when the simple truth is right on the surface, can fail to discern this fact. The "euphoria and public complacency" cultivated by the medical organization and the public press cannot long hide the going to pieces of the poisoning system. When you permit your faith to oust facts or your fancy to oust memory, you lay yourself open to deception.