Similar experiments with the same negative results were carried out in Philadelphia, at Camp Pike, and at other places. Surely such results or lack of results do not speak well for the germ theory in general nor for the idea in particular that the mucous membranes of lungs, intestines, etc., are particularly susceptible to germ invasion. Rather, we would say, they completely negative the whole theory. They show, at least, that germs alone cannot cause the "diseases" which they are supposed to cause. Dr. M. Beddow Bayly, M.R.U.S., L.R.C.P., writing in the London Medical World, June 1928, says: I am prepared to maintain, with scientifically established facts, that in no single instance has it been conclusively proved that any microorganism is the specific cause of a disease."
In more than sixty years of intensive farming the germ idea, there is not one "disease" that has been proved to be of germ origin, and not one can be cured according to the germ theory. Unless a germ will cause a disease every time it infects the body, it is not a cause. A cause must be constant and specific in its influence, or it is not a cause. "Germs are omnipresent--this is one of the fundamental truths Pasteur or his contemporary, Bechamp, discovered; but he and his followers appear to have overlooked the fact that germs fail to have a specific influence all the time."
Investigations in the bacteriological laboratory throw no light on the conditions in the body which permit the germs to grow or which prevent them from growing. They tell us of a few germs, which, it is claimed, are the active agents in "disease," but they tell us nothing of the conditions which permit these agents to become active. They grow in those conditions and only in those conditions of life which give rise to such complaints as indigestion, catarrh, etc.
The view I would put before the reader is that "disease" is caused, not by the germ, but by the state of the body that allows the germ to flourish. And this condition of the organism or any part of it which renders possible the growth of the germ therein is the much sought for "filterable virus." It is the outgrowth of violations of the laws of life and is no chance or haphazard condition.
Dr. Tilden says: "The state of the body immediately preceding the appearance of germs is, therefore, the important one and determines the possibility of infection or disease. In fact, it is the necessary factor without which disease could never appear--germs or no germs. These latter are merely adventitious--secondary. It is, indeed, difficult to understand why a whole profession, as in recent years, has gone insane on the subject of bugs, to the utter neglect of those states of metabolism and nutrition which, when vitiated, constitute the universal cause of all disease."
Dr. Paul Carton, long the head of one of the largest sanitoria in France, for tubercular patients, declares in his Consumption Doomed, p. 19: "In tuberculosis the soil is practically everything *** one becomes tubercular by enfeebling one's organism, and the only means of getting rid of the bacillus, once it is fairly engrafted, is the heightening of the spontaneous resisting power. In a word Koch's bacillus is not much more than a saprophyte, a moss, a parasite which fastens upon failing organisms and seals the fate of those already falling into ruin." So-called tubercular germs are common enough that all of us are exposed to them many times during our life time. Not the germ, but "susceptibility" to the germ is what counts in producing tuberculosis. If one is not "susceptible" the germs die out; otherwise they persist.
Medical men and bacteriologists are practically a unit in declaring that germs cannot secure a foothold in a healthy body, but that a "nidus" or "suitable soil" is essential to their genesis. They do no harm in a body that is in a normally healthy condition. Unless there is a condition of the body varying from health, germs can do nothing. If germs cause "disease" why don't they produce "disease" in a healthy body? Why must the body already be diseased and its resistance low before they can produce "disease"? Do they cause "infection" part of the time and fail to do so the rest of the time? The normal body is capable of destroying all germs and parasites. The tubercle bacillus and the pneumococcus are not exceptions to this rule. The regular profession believes that the blood can be immunized. Normal blood does not need it, and the process lowers its resistance; and the victim of low resistance--toxemia--is further deteriorated by such treatment.
How foolish, then, to look for the "infectious agent" and ignore the circumstances which disarm the body against microbic invasion. It is difficult to understand why a whole profession has gone insane on the subject of germs, to the utter neglect of those states of metabolism and nutrition which when vitiated, constitute the open sesame to germ invasion.
Resistance is broken down when any habit of body and mind is practiced continually to excess, and without sufficient rest to keep the nerve energy at the normal standard. Restore resistance by rest and a corrected mode of living, and elimination follows; after which man is immune to the ubiquitious germ.
The researchers have falsely and wickedly heralded the fear-engendering story that the world is teeming with a host of vicious microscopical and ultra-microscopical beings against which no amount of integrity is a shield and the ravages of which we can escape only by placing ourselves in bondage--a servitude born of fear--to the man with the squirt gun and hollow needle. So-called research has supplied the world of men with unnecessary occasions for fear and has done this deliberately in order to cause them to abandon self-help and self-reliance and place their trust in a half-baked mere hope of a science.
An unreasoning way to rid the victim of germs and parasites is to destroy them with germicides and parasiticides. After killing them off what is to be done about the habitat--the patient? The belief that germs can be killed inside the body is untenable, for any chemical that destroys micro-organisms also destroys the body. Even if medical men are still trying to kill "venereal germs" with drugs, the fact still remains that they damage their patients more than they do the germs.
Neither the pueumococcus nor the tubercle baccillus can be killed in situ; but if they could, what of it? To kill or remove an effect leaves the cause as active as before. To kill the germs without removing the liability-engendering morbidity is to leave the body open for further "invasion." Nothing is really gained.
There is much evidence to show that the use of germicides actually lowers resistance to germs. One example will suffice. Carbolic acid kills germs-- human blood kills germs. But if carbolic acid is added to blood, it destroys the blood's defenses so that germs grow more rapidly. The famous "gold cure" for tuberculosis was shown to behave in the same manner. The sick organism is better off "without these "aids."
Even if the germicides were successful they would be futile, for, mere destruction of alleged "pathogenic organisms" is no adequate safeguard of health and unless the intrinsic morbidity is removed by remedial measures, other organisms and other symptoms will soon supplant those artificially suppressed. A few minutes reflection will reveal the physical impossibility of reaching all the germs, actual and prospective, with poisons, or of "curing" and preventing "diseases" by the injection of all manner of serums for alleged "immunization" against the legions of "infective diseases" that our general morbidity engenders.
Sterilization, vaccines, serums and chemical preservatives have caused too much neglect of natural preservation, which alone can insure health and strength to the individual and to the race.
It will be appropriate to close this section with the following by Dr. Page:
You may make a wound and poison it-- That is, vaccinate my child; But kiss him; The very thought of it Is enough to drive me wild.
Implant the seeds of Lock-jaw, Consumption and decline By any means save kissing him-- It's there we draw the line.
--The Open Door, Jan. 1918.