Granting that he is right, where does the "anti-bacterial substance" come from? How does it get into the body; or how does the body produce it? Upon what conditions of food, air, rest, exercise, sunshine, etc., does the abundance or lack of abundance of this "antibacterial substance" depend? How may it be increased? How is it decreased? Does it just jump into us in the dark, or does it depend upon conditions that are under our voluntary control?

Immunity primarily means freedom or exemption from a penalty or consequence. Immunity in this sense amounts to a suspension of the law of cause and effect. The consequences of any act, right or wrong, are inherent in and concurrent with the act. There is no way by which one can be exempt from them. Every abuse of the mind and body administers its own penalties. "Men are punished by their sins, not for their sins."

Put your hand in the fire, you are burned and you cannot be immunized against burning. Alcohol inflicts its own consequences. So does overeating. Excesses and dissipations of all kinds do likewise. To the effects of these things there is no immunity.

It may be urged that immunization against causes of this nature is not claimed; only immunization against bacteria, or their toxins. To this I answer that it is no more possible to immunize the body against bacterial poisons than it is to immunize it to painter's colic, tobacco, opium, caffeine, arsenic and other poisons. Immunity to painter's colic cannot be produced by inoculating a man with white lead. Immunity to delirium tremens cannot be produced by inoculations with alcohol.

No amount of treatment to any injury can have any possible influence in preventing another injury. In the same way, no amount of treatment of poisoning will prevent another poisoning. If poisoning comes from sausage, cheese, fish, olives, canned foods, etc., the cause must be discovered and avoided. Prevention must come from an improved technique in food preservation, rather than from efforts to immunize the consumers of spoiled foods with vaccines and serums made from each variety of ptomaine. Who is so devoid of reason that he cannot see that the way to avoid poisoning is to avoid the poisons? Immunization schemes are basically false.

Tolerance for bacterial poisons can be established, as can tolerance for alcohol or opium; but in the first case, as in the latter, the body pays for this tolerance with enervation and lowered resistance to poisons in general. Tolerance to bacterial toxins, as to other poisons, means lowered resistance--physiological depravity. It is, therefore, no more desirable than alcoholic toleration.

Some "infections" are said to confer immunity; some make one more susceptible; some confer lasting immunity; others confer immunity for only a limited time; some confer full immunity; others only make future "attacks" less severe. It is doubtful that biologic law is so chaotic as this indicates. I prefer to think there is something wrong with the theory.

The theory that "disease" immunizes against itself is very old, having existed in folk-lore for ages. There is not the slightest.evidence that it is true, but the medical profession has accepted it and built a very remunerative practice thereon. A brief glance at the facts will suffice to show how false it is.

One may have hundreds of colds during a life time. No number of colds builds immunity. Cases are on record of individuals having had pneumonia as many as fifteen to fifty times. One may have la grippe or influenza a number of times. The same is true of typhoid fever, malaria, etc. Tuberculosis does not confer immunity. Indeed medical authorities say that influenza, pneumonia and tuberculosis seem to make one more susceptible.

The following table, taken from Infection and Immunity, by Sternberg, and quoted by him from Baiselis, who compiled it from literature carried in the medical journals a few years ago, is enlightening.

Disease On The 2nd, 3rd And 4th Attacks:

Smallpox Scarlet fever Measles Typhoid fever Cholera

The table gives the highest number of second and third cases for smallpox. Nathan Oppenheim, M.I)., in his Medical Diseases of Childhood, says of the difficulties of understanding "susceptibility," while dealing with smallpox vaccination: "Equally inexplicable are such susceptible cases as the remarkable one of Albutt, where there were three successful vaccinations, each one of which was followed within a comparatively short time by an attack of variola." This case is by no means an isolated one. Cases are recorded of individuals having had smallpox as many as five times, both with and without vaccination.

The table makes, no mention of diphtheria, but Ziusser in his Infection and Resistance, says second "attacks" occur in 0.9 per cent. of cases. Quain's Dictionary of Medicine (1902) says: "One attack of diphtheria confers no prolonged immunity upon its subject. Even during convalescence the patient has been known to develop the disease afresh, and this may be repeated more than once," while Goodell and Washburn, in A Manual of Infectious Diseases, state: "It is uncertain how far one attack of this disease (diphtheria) protects against a second. Certainly relapses and second attacks are not very rare."

Standard medical authors list the following "diseases" in which "no lasting immunity is conferred by one attack": Gonorrhea, pneumonia, influenza, glanders, dengue fever,. dysentery, leprosy, sleeping sickness, menengitis, Rocky mountain spotted fever, rheumatism, croup, tonsillitis and colds. Zinsser says of "infectious diseases in which one attack conveys

2nd

3rd

4th

505

9

0

29

4

0

30

1

0

202

5

1

29

3

2

lasting immunity" : Plague, typhoid--second "attack" rare--about 2.4 per cent. (Churchman) ; cholera, smallpox--second "attack" very rare; chicken pox--second "attack" very rare; measles--second "attack" uncommon, but less rare than scarlatina, yellow fever., typhus fever; syphilis--reinfection rare, though more common than formerly supposed; mumps--second "attack" rare (Krans) ; poliomyelitis. Malaria, syphilis and tuberculosis are said to present "immunological problems" that are not yet clear.

Zinsser says: "Thucylides, in the second book of his account of the Peloponnesian wars, in describing the plague at Athens, notes the apparent safety from reinfection of those who had recovered, suggesting the possibility of their being immune against disease in general." If this idea were true, then all attention to sanitation and hygiene represents both wasted and misdirected effort. We need, rather, to cultivate the plague to prevent "disease" in general.

The immunity superstition is much older than this. Zinsser tells us that the phenomenon of "immunity" conferred by one "attack" of a "disease" was not "only observed but put to practical utilization by the ancients of China and India. Thus the practice of inoculating children with smallpox material from the active pustules of patients, or making them sleep in beds or wear the shirts of sufferers was a dangerous practice but logical." He adds: "Such methods, though barbaric and eventually unjustified by the high mortality incident upon them, were {actually brought to Europe and for a time practiced in European countries."

The gist of the whole theory, and both the ancient logical but barbaric and the modern scientific practices based thereon, is that, in order to be immune to "disease," we must first become "diseased," or, as it is now taught, have an animal become "diseased" for us--a form of vicarious salvation. Immunity, in this theory, does not depend on health, nor upon the causes of health, but upon "disease" and the causes of "disease." The theory reverses the whole order of nature. Health is preserved by first getting sick. You become immune to the cause of a "disease" by having the "disease." Or else, you introduce the cause into the body of an animal and then appropriate his "acquired immunity" to yourself and thus save yourself.

The Hygienic theory is that we avoid "disease" by avoiding its causes; that we preserve health by supplying the body with healthful conditions. There is no immunity that does not come of a high degree of health and the elements upon which health depends. There is no immunity that is born of the products of the suffering of animals. We are assured that some are immune to germ invasion. For instance, there are thousands who ignore the presence of the so-called malarial and filarial mosquitoes. These are said to possess immunity. Immunity is a mere term. To say that one individual possesses greater resistance than another is merely to say that the one is more healthy than the other, and if we do not go beyond this and determine why one is more healthy than the other, we are simply begging the whole question.

What is "immunity." We contend that it is health--that health gives the best immunity against "bacterial diseases." "Infection," whether parasitical or bacterial, is not a matter of accident but of "soil." Bad "soil" conditions resulting from bad behavior (all bad actions produce bad reactions) determine the germs pathogenically. "A normal human being is invulnerable to germ influence; indeed germs are kept innocuous by normalcy,' says Tilden.

Sereologists experiment with "make-shift" immunities and tamper with old established bonds sacred to integrity and norm-immunity. "Makeshift immunity" is one that is unattended by a concomitant reduction of liability. Sereologists say to us: "Live as you please, eat any offal or putrid carcass to which your carnivorous taste may incline you, practice any vicious habits to which your cultivated cravings may lead you, violate any and all the laws of your being, dissipate and go to excess as you will, we will wring from the bodies of our animal victims, in the laboratory, serums to immunize you against the necessary consequences of your misconduct."

They ask us to abnegate genuine hopes of achieving wholeness for a fictitious promise of "magic"--of vicarious salvation. They omit to mention that the serums, the production of which is a lucrative business, are most likely to result in a whole long train of evils of their own, which are often more lasting than their promised benefits are supposed to be.

We are justified in assuming that with an occurrence of "infection" the body 'is forced to reorganize its means of defense. A "make-shift" defense is hastily thrown up. Whether we have a "makeshift" immunity or a norm-immunity must depend upon how we order our life thereafter.

Tilden correctly declares. "The whole immunizing theory is a vicious circle, and is annulled by the facts that when people do not live in a manner to enervate and check elimination, they do not become infected; and when infected, if they overcome enervation they rid themselves of infection, and stay rid of it. And a stronger attack on the citadel of germ delusion is the fact that when children are given proper care, and a normal health standard is maintained, they are not susceptible to infection. The truth in a nutshell is that the so-called infections are autogenerated, and are avoidable by rational living."