Appendix
Some Letters from Fasters
London, Ontario, May 2, 1910
Dear Sir,--Your article in a recent magazine very greatly interested
me. My sister, on her way home for a five-and-a-half-weeks' visit
in Boston and New York, where she had been endeavoring to discover
the causes of her frightful headaches, bought that number of the
magazine and read your experience, with, as you can well imagine,
a deep interest. In Boston she had consulted one of the two physicians
supposed to head the profession (as consultants) in that city.
This man told her she had Bright's disease and leakage of the
heart, and he gave her ten years to live--if she was very careful.
As she has five children under twelve years of age, this was a
sad outlook. She weighed 122 pounds when she left--and this was
the lowest weight since early girlhood--but on her return, weighed
on the same scales in the same clothing, she was only 108 pounds.
She looked very bad, and her spirits were at zero.
Your article appealed to her, and she
would have unhesitatingly tried your remedy, but that she was
pregnant, and thought it would probably mean the child's death.
The Boston obstetrician, who was consulted, said, if the other
doctor's diagnosis was correct, the child would have to be taken
at eight months.
After reading your experience, I said
to my sister, "You cannot perhaps follow Mr. Sinclair's example,
but you can approximate to it. If you go to our own doctor he
will undoubtedly send you to some sanatorium where the patients
are fairly stuffed. Suppose you come over to my place each noon
and take dinner, having eaten only a very light breakfast; then
rest from two to five, take a long bath when you rise, go for
a walk from six to six-thirty, and then to your own home for tea,
taking only a shredded wheat biscuit for that meal."
My sister consented, and on Saturday was
weighed. On that light diet, and in twelve days, she had gained
fourteen pounds. Her color is returning, she does not tire as
she did, and we are full of hope that she may recover.
My object in writing was to thank you
for your frank recital of ills and aches and their cure, and to
get from you the names of the books to which you referred.
Several of my friends have read your articles
on my recommendation, and one at least is seriously considering
a lengthened fast. Reading the article took me back to the "no-breakfast
regime," which I followed for five years, and then, for no
especial reason, abandoned. Already I feel much better.
Sincerely and gratefully,
M.R.T.
Skowhegan, Maine, May 30, 1910
Dear Sir,--I read your article in the Cosmopolitan with deep interest,
and am today on my seventh day's fast. My sensations thus far
are exactly like yours. I shall fast until hunger returns, if
it take a month.
My age is forty-eight, and I have enjoyed
the best of health nearly all my life. Even now my digestion is
all right, but for five years or so I have been troubled with
rheumatism, not the painful, swelling sort, but lame joints.
I tried "Fletcherism," and for
the last nine months have done my best to live up to his suggestions,
but fell down, exactly as in your own case. I can't tell what
to eat, or when I have eaten enough.
Whether this fast of yours does me any
permanent good or not, my joints certainly move better today than
for six months, and I have every confidence in the theory. The
physicians here to a man all laugh at me, likewise my friends.
I had lost ten pounds in weight at the end of the sixth day; I
lost three the first, two each for the next two days, and pound
a day for the next three days.
You speak of an unmistakable appetite.
I could eat, of course, now, though I have no appetite, and I
am wondering how I shall know when a real appetite returns. Mrs.
W. is as keen to try the fasting cure as I, and her condition
is very like Mrs. Sinclair's, but I thought one member of the
family was enough for our first try-out. Please pardon a total
stranger for encroaching upon the time of a busy man, but in the
hunt for health, without which life is not worth living, one will
do things he would not otherwise think of. For your information
I will say that I have attended to my office and business every
day since my fast began, walking to my home and back at least
three times daily, for the exercise; driving a touring-car nights
and Sunday, for pleasure, exactly as though there had been no
change in my habits. The strangest part of the experience is that
I feel so well, and except for a slight faintness, feel perfectly
well today. Say--but I was hungry for the first two days!
Respectfully yours,
Robert Aitkin
Chicago, Ill., May 22, 1910
Dear Sir,--I think you will be interested to learn the experience
of my wife, who tried your fast with the same results as your
wife, over which we are very much delighted.
Allow me to say that it was all done on
the quiet, and no one knew of it until it was all over. And then,
of course, every one thought she was raving crazy, but she has
since shown her friends that it was just the thing to do.
In the first place it appealed to her,
and she went into it with faith. She fasted for eleven days, after
the second day was never hungry at all, and really began to take
nourishment before she was hungry.
The whole thing came out exactly as in
your cases and was most interesting. She had temperature the first
two days, ate crushed ice. After that, hot or cold water as desired.
The tongue was coated very badly and her breath very bad. The
tongue cleared very slowly and was quite discouraging, but after
a few days was clear again. She lost over ten pounds, all of which
has been regained and more, too, and she is gaining all the time.
Complexion very clear, and the picture of health. Appetite great,
eats everything, no aches or pains of any kind, and, best of all,
no constipation, which was what she tried the fast for. She lost
no strength to speak of and didn't have to take to bed at all;
in fact, did everything about the house as usual.
Everything has been fine now for three
weeks, and if the troubles return, she is to fast again and do
it right, and will take no nourishment until the tongue clears.
She took internal baths nearly every day,
and was astonished at the results when nothing but water was being
taken. While we don't recommend it for every one, it certainly
has been a godsend in this case, and I believe because it was
done right and with faith that it was just the thing for her.
You certainly have one convert, and if this interests you, shall
be pleased to know it.
Yours very sincerely,
C.D.F.
Knoxville, Tenn., June 5, 1910
Dear Sir,--I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to you for a
restoration to such health of body and clarity of mind as I have
not known since my sixteenth year, when first I entered the high
school. That was twenty years ago.
I read your article, "Starving for
Health's Sake," in the Cosmopolitan, and, as you may recollect,
asked you for information as to certain books treating of the
fast a cure for disease.
Instead of answering me fully, you referred
my case to the Bernarr Macfadden Institution in Chicago, for which
I thank you, but I did not go there because I had neither time
nor money for that purpose.
Through a local book-dealer I ordered
a copy of "Fasting, Hydrotherapy and Exercise," but
after two weeks of waiting it failed to arrive, so with your Cosmopolitan
article as my only guide and sum total of knowledge as to the
fast, I quit eating on May 13 and did not take anything except
water until the morning of May 26. Even then I was not hungry,
but as I did not care to remain away from work any longer I broke
the fast on the morning of the 26th. I lost thirteen pounds in
weight, but was never too weak not to move around. I worked in
the office for seven days, and the balance of the time remained
at home, basking in the sunshine and reading constantly.
My health and appetite are in such perfect
condition I can eat anything without fear of ulterior consequences.
As a result of the fast, I have sloughed
off all my impedimenta of disease. Constipation of tens years'
standing is gone as if by magic. Piles and resulting pruritis
of eight years' tearing torture are nightmares of the past. Bronchitis
and eczema of scalp have vanished. Asthma, due to nervous sympathy
with the pneumogastric nerve, is no more. Catarrhal deafness,
sore throat, intestinal catarrh, and a general neurasthenic condition
have left me. Work was never so pleasant. I cannot get enough
of physical exercise, it seems; my muscles seem to grow stronger
as the exercise proceeds, and my weight is going upward about
a pound daily. I am now three pounds heavier than I was before
my fast began.
Life was never so beautiful, hope and
joy never so green, the future for me and humanity's great movement
toward a better day and higher good of existence never seemed
so reasonable and possible of every realization as now, in the
full possession of physical health and mental strength which have
come back to me.
Heretofore my work has been wrought out
in pain.
I am through with drugs. I graduated from
allopathy long ago, then took up homeopathy and have now discarded
it. I have spent over $500 in the last ten years trying to get
well on medicines. These professional quacks bled me for a living
and knew not how to cure me. Your article was written in the spirit
of wishing to help suffering man. It cost me only thirty cents
to use your method, viz.: six feet of rubber tubing to make a
siphon to take two enemas daily. For that thirty cents I obtained
relief a million-fold more beneficial than from $500 worth of
medicine. Nay more, from your fasting idea I got rid of $500 worth
of poisoning during ten years of medical superstition.
Sincerely yours,
H.E. Hoover.
Northwest Society Archaeological
Institute of America
Washington University, Seattle, Wash.
Nov. 5, 1910
Editor Cosmopolitan Magazine
Am enclosing clipping which shows that
prominent men up here in the great Northwest are not afraid to
try out certain methods of fighting disease merely because they
are thought to be "new" or "faddy" (tho' in
truth the fast cure is as old as the Old Testament).
The value of Professor Colvin's fast experience
seems to be that he has given the world the best method of breaking
the fast and getting on to a solid-food diet. Upton Sinclair said
the breaking of the fast is the most important part of it, and
would be the most dangerous were it not for the great natural
food, milk which tides you over. But he fails to remember there
are thousands with whom milk does not agree, sick or well.
Shortly after interview noted in enclosed
clipping from Seattle Times, Professor Colvin attempted to begin
to break the fast with orange juices and utterly failed. He then
tried milk and was made so sick that he had to fast for three
more days to get into a condition to break the fast. He then started
in with a very light veal broth (not soup, nor tea). He soon got
so he could take a cup of it every hour and a half. To get on
to solid food he tried a few crackers with the broth, but found
too much soda in the crackers and abandoned their use. Finally
he hit upon the very thing that fitted the condition of his body,
dry whole-wheat bread toasted. This toasted whole-wheat bread
he had his cook crush with a rolling pin into a powder and each
day mixed more of it with the cup of broth. After this he filled
the cup three-fourths full of this toast powder and only poured
in as much broth as the dust would absorb, making a solid gruel,
which was very appetizing and nourishing (so much so that the
professor continues to use it for breakfast food though his fast
is closed). Now to this gruel he added mashed baked potato from
time to time (more each time) until he virtually supplanted the
toast dust. From this he went to baked apple, thence to raw eggs,
thence to macaroni, thence to pigeon squab, and thence to solid
earth.
It seems to me that his discovery of the
broth-toast-gruel method is a great discovery. Especially so for
those who live in the cities and cannot be sure as to the absolute
purity of their milk. Even when the milk diet can be used it does
not afford a solution for getting off of a liquid diet on to a
solid food basis.
In your July number appears a letter from
Mr. Buel of New York in which he says that it would be almost
criminal to permit anyone advanced in years to enter upon the
dangerous folly of the "fast cure." I am enclosing you
a clipping from the Oregonian, telling of the fasting experiences
of Professor Colvin's friend, Rev. J.E. Fitch. Rev. Fitch is 81
years of age and a year ago took it into his head to out-fast
Moses. Holy Writ says that Moses fasted 40 days, and to prove
to his congregation that one did not have to be superstitious
to believe some of these Old Testament tales, Rev. J.E. Fitch,
at the age of 80, fasted fifty days; and instead of losing flesh
towards the last part of his fast actually gained in weight. He
is as vigorous today as he was at 21.
Your Mr. Buel spoke of fasters as cranks
and faddists and intimated that your solid citizen would not thus
be led astray. Professor Colvin is not a crank but one of our
best citizens, being well known both in this country and Europe,
and spoken of as the probable president of the Pan-American University
to be located in Puerto Rico.
Very respectfully,
Thos. F. Murphy.
210 Merriman Ave.,
Asheville, N.C. 9/11/10
Dear Sir,--After fasting for ten days I went off for ten days.
Then on for seventeen days, during which time I got rid of a long
list of troubles, except a cough, for which I underwent examination
by a specialist. I found I had tuberculosis. The entire upper
right lobe of my lung and about half of the left upper lung being
affected. Now I am up here making a very rapid recovery. I consider
that the fasts I took were the best things that could have happened
to me, since they eliminated a bunch of troubles that are nearly
always present with tuberculosis, such as indigestion, sore throat,
rheumatism, etc. All of these left me, and I never felt better
in my life than since fasting. I do not believe that such a rapid
recovery as I am making could be possible had I not fasted. Fasting
did not cure the tuberculosis, but it gave me an excellent stomach,
with which to fight it, and tuberculosis will always give way
to a good stomach. I did not know I had tuberculosis when I started
fasting, but I now know, since learning more about the disease,
that I had the trouble in an active state more than nine months
before I fasted. My cough got very tame during the fast and very
nearly disappeared, but returned as I increased the amount of
food I took after braking the fast, but at no time did it get
as bad as it was previous to the fast. I weighed 172 lbs. in May,
when I began my fasting and dropped to 148 lbs., and now weight
180 lbs. and never felt better in my life. Have but a slight spot
of the tuberculosis affection left in my right lung.
While I would not recommend others affected
with tuberculosis to fast, I would ask that if you have any letters
from consumptives who have fasted I would appreciate a copy.
Roland A. Wilson
New Zealand, Sept 10, 1910
Dear Mr. Sinclair,--Your article "The Truth about Fasting"
in August Physical Culture to hand this week has much interested
me. The questions you ask at end of article will, I hope, receive
many replies, and give much information regarding the fasting
cure. I, personally, can supply a considerable amount of just
such information as you require, but the fact that I am a druggist
in business precludes the giving of such for publication until
drugs and I part company. Let me explain. A little under four
years ago I came upon a copy of Physical Culture. It interested
me and I followed up the reading by subscribing, and obtaining
various books—Dewey's, Hazzard's, Carrington's, Desmond's,
Eales', Bell's and others. I became quite convinced that about
99 per cent of usual medical treatment was wrong, and, in fact,
actually detrimental, and often death-dealing to those who were
in search of health. More and more I felt that I was doing a big
injustice to those who applied to me for help, and an accessory
in bad practice by the dispensing of physician's prescriptions.
Yet I know that, like myself, the great bulk of the doctors and
chemists were acting innocently and even conscientiously when
recommending drugs and practicing the accepted drug and surgical
treatments. The belief that drugs cure disease is so deeply rooted
in the average human mind, and the teachings in medical and druggists'
colleges so universal, and even thorough, that doctors and druggists
can hardly be blamed for holding to their mother-loves.
However, I had an open mind, and a desire
to hand out a square deal, and decided to make a practical test
of the new teachings that had come my way.
I started by carefully selecting my patients--those
who I believed had a fair amount of intelligence, and whose ailments
had supplied them with a fairly long course of pain, worry and
expense. Being a druggist in business, it would have been a very
foolish thing for me to have wholly condemned drugs. And that
is one reason why I selected chronics for a start--I was able
to use the argument that as drugs had had a long and faithful
trial, and had proven valueless in curing, a fast of nine or ten
days would be, at least, worth a trial. My first case was a lady
about thirty-five years of age. Complaint, badly swollen, highly
inflamed and ulcerated leg, extending from two inches below knee
to one inch above ankle, and more than half way around. She proved
a good patient. The leg had been bad with more or less severity
for fourteen years, and had been treated by several doctors, druggists,
and others. She started on an immediate fast. Within twenty-four
hours after fast commenced, the inflammation decreased; by the
end of the fourth day it had entirely subsided, and by the end
of the eighth day not a vestige of the trouble remained. This
fast took place over two years ago--she has held reasonably well
to the simple foods I advised, and so far there has been no return
of the ailment. Her general health has very considerably improved.
Since then I have treated, perhaps, fifty
cases by fasting, and many others by simple dieting. Many complete
cures have been effected that ordinary medical methods had entirely
failed to benefit. My list comprises many ailments, ranging from
one to forty-five years in evidence, while the patients themselves
have ranged in age from one year to eighty-five years.
X. -
Hastings, Mich. , Sept. 11, 1910
Editor, The Cosmopolitan
Every reader of your magazine owes you
a vote of thanks for the Upton Sinclair article on fasting.
Mr. Sinclair said, "There are three
dangers attending the fast." In my case there were four--the
danger of being sent to the Insane Asylum.
All my neighbors and relations had the
utmost contempt for what they termed "my craziness."
But notwithstanding all this, I fasted fourteen days, and stomach
trouble, heart trouble, kidney trouble, chronic catarrh, and rheumatism,
which for years had made life a burden, are no more. I do not
have to tell my friends, at this date, that it was as success,
they know it. My family physician has since said that it was probably
the best thing I ever did in my life.
I consider myself greatly indebted to
you for furnishing me so efficient a remedy, free of cost.
Gratefully yours,
Mrs. E. L. Raymond
Dear Sir,--Yes, you may use my name in connection with my experience.
As I did not take a complete fast the
first time, I began again Sept. 4th, and fasted thirteen days,
when natural hunger returned. Had none of the unpleasant experiences
of the first fast. Was able to be on my feet and work more than
at any time in years.
Chronic rheumatism had caused sinewy swelling
of my knee joints, that in turn had caused numbness of the feet
and lower limbs, making it impossible for me to be on my feet.
What I have suffered with them from jar of people walking across
the room, or brushing against them, cannot be told. The first
fast removed all the pain and soreness. The last fast has brought
them down to normal or nearly so. I am confident that I shall
soon be able to walk any reasonable distance.
You are certainly entitled to a place
among the public benefactors of the age for giving to the people
the knowledge you had gained by the fast.
Gratefully yours,
Mrs. E. L. Raymond.
20 Bowdoin St., Boston, Mass
Aug. 1, 1910
Dear Sir,--I have just read with much interest your article in
Physical Culture and am minded to send you a brief account
of my experience, which has been in some respects more full than
your own. In speaking thus, I refer to the fact that my fasts,
though not of so long duration as many reported, were complete
in this: that my blood and tissue had cleaned up, my mouth was
sweet, tongue moist, and there were plenty of the digestive fluids
and a call for good plain wholesome food, which was slowly eaten
and perfectly digested, and my appetite was perfectly satisfied
with a very moderate amount.
I suffered severely from indigestion and
rheumatism, and made up my mind to try the effect of complete
abstinence form food till I was better. I was familiar with the
writings of Dr. Dewey and was well convinced that he was correct
in his views. I was in my office the morning of Jan. 1st, and
the bookkeeper remarked as to how ill I looked. Seven days after
that (the first seven days of my fast) I was in again, and he
spoke of my greatly improved appearance, said I looked very much
better. He did not know nor did I tell him the reason for the
improvement. On the 12th day—the first after I had broken
the fast--he said I looked much better, which was also true, but
when I gave him an explanation of the reason, he would not believe
in it at all.
In none of the four fasts which I have
taken have I set any time limit or taken it as a stunt at all,
but only have been guided by conditions as they developed. In
no instance have I failed, and in no case was food a temptation
to me until natural hunger returned. It seems to me an error to
attempt to gauge the length of the fast. We ought to be governed
by nature's direction. A "wise dog" knows when he needs
to fast, and fasts till he wants food. It seems to me when we
get to that point of wisdom, to know as much as the dog, we will
know enough to go by intelligent needs instead of the clock.
My experience is not in accord with the
view expressed in your article as regards weakness of stomach
and lack of peristalsis after fating. It is my experience that
after a complete fast any plain food desired can be taken without
harm. I do not favor imprudence, of course, but I do not think
that there is any good reason for being compelled to take fluid
foods unless ones desires to. My longest fast was nineteen days.
C.D. Norris
39 Rue Singer, Paris, France
Dear Sir,--I read your article in the May Cosmopolitan and
was very much impressed with the ideas you advocated. I had for
twenty years been troubled with constipation, which caused colds
and grippe, besides making me very sluggish. Being a singer and
teacher, these things were great handicaps on my work, so after
reading your article I decided to try it. I was in Parish studying
singing with Oscar Seagle and Jean de Reszke, and of course I
needed to be at my very best all the time, but I wasn't. I couldn't
keep from taking cold, which always knocked me out for a week
or two of work. So when my teachers went away for their vacation,
I decided to start the fast, and on July 31 I did so. Being a
coffee "toper," it made it very hard for me to give
up my breakfast cup of strong black coffee, but I did it and the
first three or four days I nearly lost my mind. Never experienced
anything in my life that required so much will power. However,
I stuck to it, but I was very hungry and had a splitting headache
for four days, after which it got a little better. Then about
the fifth day, as my hunger began to leave me, I began to break
out as if I had measles—this kept up for five or six days.
To add to that, my mouth and throat became inflamed and very sore,
and that didn't cure up until about the twelfth day of the fast.
I was exceedingly miserable all these days, but I realized how
much I needed something of the kind to get the terrible poison
out of my system, so I just held on and drank much water, and
walked in the sunshine all I could. My tongue had a thick coat
on it and I had a terrible bilious taste in my mouth for twelve
days. I believed it would take about twenty days to fix me up
just right, so I was going ahead when I suddenly decided to make
a hurried business trip back to Texas; so on the fourteenth day
I sailed from Cherbourg without having broken my fast.
I carried a dozen oranges on board with
me to make sure. When I began to breathe the salt air I got hungry,
so on the fifteenth day I began to eat oranges and kept it up
for a day and a half and then tried to get some milk, but could
get none that was good, and most of what I got was of the condensed
variety. I did the best I could for four days, when my system
rebelled and became clogged up and I took another cold as usual.
So I decided not to eat another mouthful on that ship, and I kept
the fast up until I got to Ft. Worth. Then I went at the matter
according to your instructions, and the results were perfect.
I took up oranges for two days, then went on the milk diet for
two days, then began on the boiled wheat. The results have been
highly satisfactory. Going from a cold climate like Paris into
a veritable inferno like Texas in summer made it very hard on
me, but the wheat diet did everything for me and gave me unusual
strength and vigor even in that hot climate where vigor doesn't
abound much in hot weather. All my troubles seemed to disappear.
I had not sung a tone since I began the first fast in Paris, so
I began to practice again, and I never realized such a change
in anything. Everything went so easy and all my friends said that
they never saw such improvement in a human voice. I have never
even desired to taste coffee. I am living on wheat, nuts, all
kinds of fruit and vegetables, and the result is everything you
said it would be. I have completed my business in Texas and will
start back to Paris today. I am preparing myself for the journey
this time. I have a large "thermos" bottle which I have
filled with wheat and will carry plenty of fruit and nuts.
I thank you very much for your information
along the line of health. You have been a great blessing to me,
and I am sure you have been also to thousands of others.
Andrew Hemphill.
Omaha, Neb.
Dear Mr. Sinclair,--I was so fascinated with the story of your
fast that I immediately made the experiment for myself, abstaining
entirely from food of any kind for five days.
I had no particular ailment which seemed
to need the fast cure, but felt impelled to do a little investigating
on my own account.
I kept a diary in which I recorded each
day's experience, including weight, effect of cold bath, amount
of exercise taken, etc. Without going into details, I can simply
say I was astonished by the results. While in one respect my experience
differed from yours, in that the desire for food did not entirely
cease at any time, I was surprised to find how easily it could
be controlled after the first day. Since the fast I have kept
on drinking large quantities of pure water--resulting in a gain
in weight of twelve pounds, increased digestive powers and a wonderfully
improved appetite.
I am frank to say I was never so pleased
with, nor so greatly benefited by anything ever previously extracted
from a magazine article.
R.E. Wheeler.
750 Penobscot bldg., Detroit
Oct. 19, 1910
Dear Mr. Sinclair,--Complying with your suggestion, will hurriedly
and briefly group my experiences through a fast which I took large
because of our persuasive article on that subject. I absorbed
the information you gave as well as I could, and having been a
great sufferer for over twenty years with stomach and bowel troubles,
began a fast which I continued for nearly eleven days, adhering
scrupulously to the program outlined by you, in so far as I could
practically do so, except I took only one bath (tepid) daily before
retiring and omitted the enemas after the fifth day. Am fifty-seven
years of age, powerfully built and athletic in habit and practice.
Normal weight around two hundred pounds, height six feet one and
one-half inches. Various causes reduced my weight some four years
ago to about one hundred and eight-five pounds, and almost constant
non-assimilation of foods prevented my regaining normal weight.
Weight an hour previous to my last lunch prior to the fast, one
hundred and eighty-six pounds; lost fourteen pounds during the
fast, eight of which fell off me the first three days. My indigestion
had for years been accompanied by distressing, persistent constipation.
This did not yield until the afternoon of fourth day of fast,
when my entire intestinal functions seemed to become normal, and
although I had taken no food, solid or liquid, no fruit juices,
coffee tea or milk, absolutely nothing in fast except Detroit
River water, hot or cold, as fancy suggested, after the fourth
day the bowels inclined to movement at least twice during each
twenty-four hours. Lost strength gradually throughout fast, but
looked after essentials in my office from six down to three hours
the last day. I had no pronounced desire for food from first to
last. Tongue remained heavily furred throughout the fast, breath
offensive, even to myself. I sat at table at breakfast and evening
meals, serving same, but using only a cup or two of hot water
as my portion. Voice lost resonancy and timbre, and I finally
felt so enervated that I broke the fast--juice of an orange first
evening, and of five oranges the second day; of six oranges the
third day, during which I also sipped a quart of rich milk, hot.
Fourth day ate six oranges, two quarts milk, slice of old bread
and about three-fourths pound juicy steak, after which I soon
bean to eat more than the usual quantity of wholesome food. For
over four months had no indigestion, bowels regular and normal.
I am hoping to see my way clear to fast
again soon, for am needing a brace physically. . . . I owe you
grateful thanks for inciting me to undertake the remedy.
With best wishes for your continued success,
usefulness, and happiness.
Sincerely,
M.E. Hall
In my discussion of the question of what
to eat, I have referred to the meat diet, and also to the raw-food
diet. By way of throwing further light upon the problem, I reprint
here two letters, one by a follower of Dr. Salisbury, and the
other by a man whom I was instrumental in starting upon raw food.
The latter article is reprinted from Physical Culture, by
courtesy of Mr. Bernarr Macfadden. The reader may find it difficult
to understand how two people can have had such apparently contradictory
experiences. I myself, however, have no doubt of the literal truth
of their statements, for I know dozens of people who are thriving
upon each of these diets. It is to me only a further proof of
the fact that our knowledge of this subject is yet in its infancy,
and that all one can do is to experiment, and find out what system
best agrees with his own organism.
504 West Second St.
Los Angeles, Cal., July 28, 1910
Dear Sir,--As you say in the August Physical Culture that
you would like to hear the experiences of fasters, I will tell
you of mine. In 1889-1890 I was very sick with catarrh of the
stomach and bowels, which developed into consumption of the bowels
accompanied by inflammatory rheumatism. On May 1st, 1890, I went
to the office of Dr. James H. Salisbury and treated with him for
one year. During the first nine months I ate nothing but Salisbury
steaks, beginning with one ounce per meal and increasing gradually
as I could assimilate it to one pound per meal, and drank a pint
of hot water an hour and a half before meals and at bedtime. Salisbury
steak, as you probably know, is beef pulp,--round steak with all
fat and fibres removed. I dropped weight rapidly, going from 140
pounds to 90 pounds as this loss was diseased flesh. I then gained
as rapidly on beef alone and this was good hard flesh. During
the next three months he allowed me a slice of toasted bread at
two meals daily in addition to the meat. For the past twenty years
I have eaten meat three times a day with other foods, consequently
have not needed a physician in that time. I have foolish spells
occasionally and indulge in fruit, vegetables and cereals, and
destroy the proper ratio, viz: 2/3 of meat to 1/3 of other foods,
then I begin to get out of shape and this brings me to my fasting
experiences--about eight of them in the last seventeen years and
lasting from five to fifteen days according to the time it took
for my tongue to clear off. I find that the more hot water I drink
the quicker it clears; during the last fast three years ago I
drank one quarter every two hours through the day. I got my stomach
so clean that the water tasted sweet--this is the test of a clean
stomach.
Fasts have benefited me and I recommend
them, as few people will live on beef till their blood gets pure;
that an exclusive diet of beef will make pure blood I saw demonstrated
in New York at Dr. Salisbury's by microscopic tests of my own
blood and that of others. When you are in this condition you can
expose yourself as much as you like without danger of taking cold.
If people suffering with stomach and intestinal troubles, Bright's
disease, diabetes, rheumatism, sciatica, or tuberculosis, would
get nothing but beef pulp and drink hot water before meals they
would be cured in nine cases out of ten, as this was Dr. Salisbury's
average of cures when they stuck to the treatment. I acknowledge
that one gets rid of a lot of diseased tissue while fasting, but
not more rapidly than on the beef diet, and the latter has the
advantage that one is making good blood all the time. I consider
that you are doing a great work in recommending the fast cure,
and agree with you that Hamburg steak is not the best food to
break a fast with, as it contains 1/4 to 1/3 of fat and "animal
fat is a lower form of organization, in fact is often a process
of degeneration." I have seen several Salisbury patients
have slight bilious attacks from eating over-fat beef, but they
quickly recovered eating leaner beef. Beef pulp is the best thing
to eat after a fast as it is absorbed quickly into the circulation
and I never saw a patient whose stomach was too weak to digest
it in small quantities, well broiled. I believe in dry foods,
well masticated--no slops.
Dr. Salisbury said to me "a man whose
food is beef can live in a hole in the ground and be healthy."
His last words to me were, "Stick to beef and hot water the
rest of your life and nothing but old age will kill you barring
accident." I asked him how long he had lived on this diet,
he replied, "Thirty years."--"Do you expect to
die of old age?" "Sure." He died August 23rd, 1905,
at the age of eighty-two from the result of an accident. He was
a most scientific and successful practitioner; but nearly all
physicians, aside from those he cured, called his treatment a
farce and a delusion because his teachings if generally followed
would put the majority of them out of business. One New York doctor
told me while I was on the diet "Unless you give up beef
and hot water you will not live five years--you will wear your
kidneys out." I replied, "You doctors say I am going
to die anyway, so I might as well die clean." I immediately
increased my hot water from one pint to one quarter before each
meal and have kept it up ever since. When I began drinking hot
water I had a slight kidney and bladder trouble; this has disappeared;
the constant flushing has strengthened these organs--I am now
sixty-four.
Cold water before meals is better than
none, but is not as good as hot water, as the latter does not
chill the stomach or gripe one, and acts as a tonic on the internal
organs; is more quickly absorbed and starts perspiration, causing
the skin to share with the kidneys the work of eliminating waste
mater. If a person is not very sick he can eat his round steak
(after removing the fat) ground without removing the fibre. For
a regular Salisbury steak leave the knife loose and clean the
grinder frequently.
You have a large contract in trying to
force medical men to recognize the fast cure. They even told me,
"while we think you are honest, you are mistaken; you did
not see Dr. Salisbury perform the cures you think you saw."
The Doctor considered me one of his star patients; he said I was
as far gone as any man he ever saw cured by the treatment, and
that he would rather have three cases of tuberculosis of the lungs
than one like mine, my disease being in the last stage.
You can do as you like with this letter.
I write simply to strengthen you. Persist, you are on the right
track at last. You are no "shallow sensationalist."
I like your writings.
Very sincerely,
Jas. Y. Anthony.
The Fruit and Nut Diet
From early childhood until January 9,
1910, or about twenty years in all, I had been a sufferer from
asthma, and chronic catarrh in addition. As a child I was sick
a great deal of the time, having regular attacks every few weeks,
of such little troubles as bilious fevers, chills and la grippe,
with pneumonia, typhoid, measles, whooping cough and the like
sprinkled in at times. I have taken gallons of castor oil, and
pounds of calomel and quinine, I think. I don't believe I ever
had more than one cold, but I was never really free of that.
The first attack of asthma came shortly
after the disappearance of a severe case of eczema, and from that
time on throughout the entire twenty years, I did not pass a single
moderately cold night without having at least one, and more often,
two and three spasms of asthma during the night. These were relieved
temporarily, only after sitting up in bed and inhaling, for several
minutes, the smoke from a green powder which I burned for that
purpose. Frequently attacks would last continually for three and
four days or a week, during which time I was not able to draw
a single free breath, and would suffer so intensely that on many
occasions I felt as if I was breathing my last. I mention all
this for fear some Salisbury followers may doubt that mine was
a real genuine case of asthma. In that case, I think I can get
satisfactory evidence from our family physician and others who
were with me a great deal during that time.
As I grew older, and about the time I
went to work for myself, I began to be interested in physical
culture methods, and noticed a great improvement by exercising
and cutting down my diet, and afterwards adopting the two-meal-a-day
plan. However, there was one thing which is strongly emphasized
in these methods that did not work with me at the time, but seemed
to make the asthma worse; and that was the fresh air idea. I always
had better results, and the attacks were less frequent and not
so severe, when I closed the windows and doors, and filled the
room with the smoke and fumes of the remedy I used. That was due
mostly to the narcotic effect of the remedy when breathing the
smoke and fumes continually. I mention this for fear some one
may suggest that the ultimate permanent relief was brought about
simply by breathing fresh air continually when I did begin to
open the windows.
During all this time, I ate meat with
each meal, or twice daily.
I began to notice that nuts and especially
pecans, of which I am particularly fond, and which are quite plentiful
in that part of the country in which I live, seemed to have a
decidedly bad effect on my asthma, and a greater part of the time
I would not touch them on this account. At the time, however,
I had the impression that generally prevails among a large majority
of people, that nuts or fruits were only good for eating between
meals, or as a dessert at the end of a meal, and in addition to
the regular food that was eaten; and that was the way I had eaten
them.
Mr. Upton Sinclair's first article in
the Physical Culture magazine on the fruit and nut diet
was the first hint I ever had that fruit and nuts eaten alone
as a diet had any real substantial food value. From this time
on I began experimenting with short fasts of one meal or one day,
and also began substituting fruit for some meals, and at the same
time cut down my meat eating from twice daily to two or three
times a week. I noticed a great improvement in both asthma and
catarrh, although I continued having attacks of asthma almost
every night, as this was during the winter and most of the nights
were quite cold.
After the appearance of his second article,
I determined to try this diet out in my own case, hoping to lessen
the attacks of asthma at least, never dreaming of the real surprise
that was in store for me. I fasted the last two days of December,
1909, and started in January 1st, eating mostly acid fruits, such
as lemons, oranges, grapefruit, etc. (This in order to relieve
the constipation that I was then, and had been troubled with more
or less for the past two three years.) As a result of the fast,
and of what might be termed a partial fast for a few days after,
I lost several pounds in weight, which I did not regain until
after I had been eating other fruits for several days, such as
dates, figs, bananas, and apples, also all kinds of nuts, including
the much dreaded pecan, which seemed to cause so much trouble
before.
On the night of January 8, 1910, I had
my last attack of asthma, and have had none since. By that time
my bowels were perfectly free, and all traces of constipation
gone. The night of the 9th I spent in peaceful, dreamless sleep,
my head perfectly clear of any cold or catarrh, enabling me to
breathe freely through my nose during sleep, which had never been
possible before this. Although the temperature outside was a little
above zero, and stood close around there during the greater part
of January and February where I was, two windows in my room were
wide open all of the time, and I slept between them; also there
was no stove or other heating appliances in the room to warm me
on retiring and arising.
I stuck rigidly to the fruit and nuts,
living on them alone until the weather began to grow warmer. I
then grew so confident, that I gradually lapsed into a general
raw-food diet, and later on, to a partly raw and partly cooked
diet, but no meat at all, save at times, when it was necessary
in order to avoid unpleasant controversies and explanations among
people who knew nothing on the subject, and were therefore sceptical,
and often inclined to ridicule me.
With the return to cooked foods, came
a return of constipation, and with it, traces of the old cold
or catarrh. This is one thing I noticed in particular; that when
my bowels were moving freely, then and only then was I free of
catarrh or cold. I am situated at present where I am away from
the influences of kind-and-well-meaning friends and members of
my own family, so am living on a raw-food diet entirely, doing
heavy gymnasium work every day, also quite a bit of study and
other brain work besides, which in all keeps me quite busy most
of the day. I am enjoying the best of health in every particular
all the while.
H. Mitchell Godsey.
The Rader Case
Mr. L. F. Rader of Olalla, Wash., died
at 12:15 p.m., May 11, 1910, at 123 1/2 Broadway North, in the
forty-seventh year of his age. Mr. Rader's physical history is
one of intermittent suffering. As the result of an accident in
childhood in which he was internally injured, his youth and early
manhood were filled with a succession of most acute attacks of
painful illness. About fifteen years ago he deserted the orthodox
means of treatment and turned to what is now known as the natural
or drugless method, with the consequence that he experienced the
first relief he had ever known. Three years ago he lay ill for
three months, and after again submitting to medical treatment
he turned to the fast and to me. In fourteen days he was up and
about, and in a month he was able to attend to his ordinary business.
Since then he had no return of acute symptoms until March 31 of
this year, when, after unwonted physical exercise and a heavy
meal, he was seized with severe pains in the intestines, which
compelled him to take to this bed. His stomach rejected food,
and within a week the taking of water brought nausea. I was then
called to diagnose the case and to direct treatment. I made the
statement at the time to Mrs. Rader that there seemed but little
chance for his recovery, but tried the administration of fruit
juices and light broths.
The point was soon reached, however, when
Mr. Rader refused any sustenance, since it resulted only in nausea
and excruciating pain. In the meantime the patient came to Seattle,
and went to the Hotel Outlook with every symptom showing the relief
that is the logical sequence of removing food temporarily from
a system struggling to right abnormal conditions. Things progressed
smoothly until meddlesome outsiders interfered and caused the
city health officials to take cognizance of the fact that a man
was "starving" in the hotel. Without warrant Mr. Rader's
rooms were entered, and he was confronted by Drs. Bourns and Davidson,
who endeavored to persuade him to return to orthodoxy and to the
care of the orthodox physicians. Mr. Rader's indignant repudiation
is of record, as is also the result of the attempt to declare
him insane.
In connection with the latter, after his
removal to a quiet, comfortable room in the upper part of the
city, an order of the court, obtained in some manner by the health
officials, sent the humane officers to the rescue, and the house
was watched and guarded while the faithful nurses prevented forcible
entry attempted by these servants of the people. The latter even
went so far as to raise ladders to the window of Mr. Rader's room,
and with display of weapons tried to force the catches in the
vain effort to serve the writ which was their excuse. To prevent
their seeing the patient and to save him as much as possible from
the nosy disturbance, I carried him to the bath and locked the
door. I then climbed from one window to another across a court
into the next flat in order to call the attorney for the humane
society, who took the needful steps that eventually recalled the
writ. In the meanwhile, Mr. Rader had suffered mentally to such
an extent that his life was despaired of for many hours, and he
never fully recovered form the nervous shock, which undoubtedly
hastened his end. Until the coming of these officers he was able
to walk from his room to the bath but afterwards he continually
begged to be protected from outsiders and to be permitted to die,
if need be, in peace.
When the death of a patient under my care
occurs I am most anxious that no stone should be left unturned
to exhibit the cause. In this, my seventh death in fours years'
practice in Seattle, I find my diagnosis and prognosis completely
corroborated. I was assisted in the autopsy by two old-line physicians
and by the deputy coroner. The results of the post-mortem examination
were as follows:
Mr. Rader's viscera showed the most abnormal
characteristics it has been my fortune to observe in years of
post-mortem work. The lungs were adherent at every point to the
pleural cavity as well as to the diaphragm in places. The heart
in fair condition. Stomach dilated and prolapsed. Gall bladder
in three distinct pouches, any one of which was the size of the
normal sac, and two of these sections were filled with 126 gall
stones of one grain to half an ounce in weight; the largest was
3 inches in circumference one way and 4 inches the other way.
The small intestines collapsed to the pelvis and midway intussuscepted
so that a section of two measured yards occupied but five inches
in length; portions of these were of infantile development. The
transverse colon lay anterior to the descending colon throughout
its extent, while the ascending and descending colon showed infantile
size and cartilaginous structure. The sigmoid bend and rectum
were of diameter not large than the adult thumb and in advanced
cartilaginous state. The kidneys fair; the liver enlarged and
badly congested.
The conditions exhibited were such that
the wonder in any mind practised in the care of the human body
lies in the thought that nature was able to preserve under these
handicaps this man's life until the forty-seventh year. To me
this is proof positive that "man does not live by bread alone."
The facts given may easily be verified.
Mr. Rader fasted because he had to fast. He could not take food
in any sort or in any manner, and his death occurred because of
organic disease beyond repair. He was never without water and
fruit juices; vegetable broths and prepared foods were given whenever
the occasion seemed to present itself, but always with painful
consequences. During the month of April he was virtually fasting,
although food was supplied as mentioned. It is not at all remarkable
in my work to have patients abstain from food for thirty, forty,
and fifty days, although by far the greater number do not require
this length of time.
Criticized as I have been for my methods,
and realizing that the combined efforts of the old schools are
aimed at what it eventually means, perhaps a definition may not
prove amiss:
Starvation consists in denying food, either
by accident or design, to a system clamoring for sustenance.
Fasting consists in intentional abstinence
from food by a system non-desirous of sustenance until it is rested,
cleansed, and ready for the task of digestion. Food is then supplied.
The conduct of the health and humane officers
in the Rader case is not the first instance of their methods of
procedure that it has been my fate to experience In the latter
part of January, 1908, I had under my care Mrs. D.D. Whedon, a
young married woman in a critical state of health, mother of one
child and about to become the mother of another. Officious neighbors
complained to the authorities that the child was being subjected
to the fasting method and was slowly starving. Without warrant
these creatures of authority entered the apartments of Mrs. Whedon,
subjected her to a bodily examination against her will and protests,
took her child from her by force, and when her husband attempted
to regain possession of his daughter, they arrested him for resisting
an officer and had him placed in the city jail. I also was charged
at this time with practising medicine without a license, an accusation
that was quashed on appeal to the superior court.
I'd rather court an investigation of my
work and its results, successful and unsuccessful. Thus far the
methods pursued by those antagonistic have been the very ones
that have succeeded in informing the world at large that the work
is here, that it progresses, else why the furor? It is here to
stay and to do what the truth eventually always does—prevail.
The autopsies in each of the several deaths
that have occurred in my practice in the city of Seattle have
exhibited organic disease, the origin of which lay in the early
years of life. In all of these bodies arrested development of
one or other of the vital organs was in evidence, and in the majority
the injured intestines whose cartilaginous structure and deformation
that must have required either violent shock or continued functional
disturbance to produce. In view of the fact that these instances
cover subjects who had endeavored to follow orthodox methods until
orthodoxy proved unavailing, and who then turned to the fast and
its accompaniments, I feel perfectly confident in declaring that
early drug treatment is responsible for later and fatal disease.
Nature had endowed each of these patients with strong vitality;
each of them had suffered from severe functional disorder in infancy;
each had been drug-drenched.
Broadly speaking, there is no drug that
is not a poison, stimulating or paralyzing in result, and it infancy
the latter is doubly apparent and appalling. It needs but the
parallelism between the effect of an application of a glass of
brandy upon an infant and an adult to emphasize this statement.
Consider then the consequences of repeated dosings for fevers,
colic, colds, and the varied category of infantile disease, and
conceive the results upon tender, growing, human bodies. Not one
of us but has these sacred relics of the days of powdered dried
toads and desiccated cow manure to blame for organs arrested in
development or functionally ruined.
The principle embodied in the intelligent
application of fasting for the cure of disease is not to be crushed
by vilification. The knowledge of it, thanks to strenuous attacks
by the medical profession, has been distributed gratis throughout
the English-speaking world; and my own part in the work of propaganda
has been made more than easy by opposition displayed. I believe
that I have a cause to defend, a truth to uphold, a principle
for which, if need be, I shall die fighting.
Linda Burfield Hazzard
Seattle, Wash., May 16, 1910
Horace Fletcher's Fast
Dec. 11, 1910
Mr. Horace Fletcher
Care Editor of Good Health
Battle Creek, Mich.
My Dear Mr. Fletcher,--It must have been a year and a half ago
that we had our talk on the subject of fasting; you promised me
that you would investigate it. I have only just seen the copy
of the November Good Health, and discovered that you carried
out your promise. There are some things in connection with your
account about which I want to ask you.
You say that you have come to agree with
Dr. Kellogg, that autointoxication continues during the fast;
and that your reason for this is that at the end of a couple of
weeks you found yourself developing weakness, bad breath, coated
tongue, etc. You broke your fast because these symptoms grew worse
and worse. Now surely if a person is going to give a fair trial
to the claims of the fasters, he should follow their instructions,
and he should not proceed in opposition to their most important
advice. You say that for four days you took no water, and that
after that you took only a pint or so a day. In this you violated
the leading injunction of every advocate of fasting with whose
writings I am acquainted; I have read the books of Bernarr Macfadden,
C.C. Haskell, and Dr. L.B. Hazzard, all of whom have treated scores
and hundreds of patients by means of the fast, and all of whom
are strenuous on the point that one should drink as much water
as possible. I myself while fasting have taken at least a glass
every hour. I believe that a very great deal of your trouble may
have been caused by your procedure in this respect.
Another point which you do not mention
is whether or not you took an enema during the fast. This is a
very important point. It may very well be true that poisons are
excreted into the intestinal tract, and that owing to lack of
food they are reabsorbed; if we can aid nature by washing these
poisons out at once, can we not overcome this difficulty? May
not the reason for the non-success of your fast lie here?
If it be true that the fast leads to constantly
increasing autointoxication, how do you account for those phenomena
which are summed up in the phrase, "the complete fast"?
I personally do not advocate the complete fast; I only advocate
the investigation of it. I have never taken one, but I have letters
from many people who have taken them, and they are in agreement
upon the point that there comes a time during the fast when the
tongue clears, the breath becomes pure, and hunger manifests itself
in unmistakable form. How can this possibly be true if Dr. Kellogg's
explanation of the symptoms of fasting is correct? Would it not
happen just to the contrary, would not the symptoms of autointoxication
increase, until death through poisoning resulted?
Dr. Kellogg's argument is a very plausible
one; for many years it sufficed to keep me from trying the experiment
of the fast. I know that it has kept many other people. His claim
is, in brief, that during the fast the body is living off its
own tissue; that we are therefore meat-eaters, and even cannibals,
while fasting. We are living on a kind of food which is over-rich
in proteid, and which generates excessive quantities of uric acid,
indican, etc. This, as I say, sounds plausible, but I found by
actual experiment that the facts to not work out according to
the theory. I myself have taken a week's fast recently, with perfect
success. During this time I had not one particle of weakness or
trouble of any sort. Perhaps it may be that my body was excreting
undue amounts of uric acid and indican, but I did not know it,
and it did me no harm so far as I could discover. I am much less
afraid of the consequences of living from my own body tissue,
since I have tried for myself the experiment of living on the
tissues of other animals.
I am trying to get at the truth about
these questions, and I know that you are trying to do it also.
For three years I did myself incalculable harm by accepting blindly
statements that meat was the prime cause of autointoxication,
together with other high proteid food. I lived on starches and
sugars, grew pale and think and chilly, and, as I was accustomed
to phrase it, was never more than fifteen minutes ahead of a headache.
I can give myself a headache at any time at present by two or
three days of eating rice, potatoes, white flour, and sugar. Apparently
I cannot give it to myself by eating any possible quantity of
broiled lean beef. So far as I can make out, beef is the one article
of diet which never does me any harm, no matter how much of it
I eat. The same thing is true, apparently, with my little boy.
I wish you would tell me what you think
about all this. I wish that I could induce you to try the experiment
of fasting again with the use of the enema and the copious water
drinking. Still more do I wish that you could be induced to try
it with some people who need it—some people who are desperately
ill, and who have not been able to get well by following the low
proteid diet.
Sincerely,
Upton Sinclair
Norwich, Conn., U.S.A.
Dec. 23, 1910
My Dear Mr. Sinclair,--Your valued favor
of the 14th inst. received enclosing copy of your letter to Horace
Fletcher. I have read your letter to Mr. Fletcher with much interest,
and I have also read Mr. Fletcher's letter to Dr. Kellogg in Good
Health.
I am so crowded with work that I cannot
take the time to write you on this subject of Fasting as I would
like. I have had nearly seventeen years' experience studying and
practising the "no-breakfast plan and fasting for the cure
of disease." I have followed the no-breakfast plan all that
time without a single break, and I know it has been of exceedingly
great value to me. It has also been my privilege and pleasure
to advise in thousands of cases covering nearly all forms of disease,
and where the Law of Fasting has been followed faithfully, there
have always been splendid results.
Aside from the omission of the breakfast,
I have fasted a great many times from one day to four weeks, and
always the results have been beneficial. This could hot have been
the case if Dr. Kellogg's contention is correct, that autointoxication
continues and increases during a fast. I this idea is correct
on this point, instead of one improving and at last overcoming
the disease entirely, there would not only be a continuation of
the disease but an increase, and death would naturally result.
Should autointoxication continue and increase while one is fasting,
the time would not come when the tongue would be clean and natural
hunger manifest itself. On the contrary, there would be an increase
of the coating on the tongue until death finally resulted.
I think if Mr. Fletcher had continued
his fast until his tongue had become clean, which certainly would
be the case, he would have written a very different letter. In
the case of Mrs. Tarbox, whose letter I enclose, on the thirty-seventh
day of her fast, her tongue was perfectly clean and she had natural
hunger, and she was well on the way to recovery from the terrible
cancerous growth and condition in which I found her. Since Mrs.
Tarbox' cure, I have had several other cases of cancer cured through
fasting. You will note the case of Mrs. Hobson, copy of whose
letter I enclose, and the case of Mr. Davis is another very interesting
case as well as that of Mrs. Osborne. These persons would not
have been cured if autointoxication had been going on and increasing.
Dr. Dewey's contention I know to be true,
that during a fast the heart, lungs, and brain are supported by
the predigested food stored up in the body. These organs take
the nourishment and not the poison, for during a fast the eliminating
organs work to the very limit to force the poison out of every
cell of the body, so that during a fast all the poison in the
body is growing less every hour, and when it is all eliminated
natural hunger manifests itself, the tongue is clean, and the
patient is ready to build up and have a clean physical organism.
The use of the enema is exceedingly important during a fast. I
believe that it hastens the cure at least twenty-five per cent
and perhaps more than that.
Mr. Fletcher's own letter is to my mind
a refutation to Dr. Kellogg's claim as to the continuation and
increase of autointoxication, for he tells the benefits that he
has received during his fast of seventeen days, and those benefits
would have been greatly increased if he had continued the fast
until his tongue was clean. His sense of taste had become so refined
by the fast that his food was more delicious than ever before,
which showed that the refining process had been doing on all through
has body. Another benefit that he mentions is the lessening of
his desire for sugar, that he is satisfied with the sugar sweet
that is in the food itself, which is so much more healthful than
the cane sugar. Another thing that he speaks of is the reduction
in his weight, which he needed. I sincerely hope that Mr. Fletcher
will fast again, and make it a complete fast, for I think he will
have a very different story to tell from what he tells in this
letter.
Charles Courtney Haskell.
Dec. 28, 1910
Dear Mr. Sinclair,
I have your letter of the 14th inst. and
its enclosures.
To those who have carefully and scientifically
undergone or advised the fast, the cause of the symptoms that
Dr. Kellogg and all of the rest of us recognize as indicating
self-poisoning, is readily to lie in the inability of the organs
of elimination to promptly convey from the body the products of
food supplied in excess of digestion. It is a conclusion that
cannot be escaped that, when the refuse from broken-down tissue
and from food ingested beyond the needs of the body is discharged
into the intestines, and when means of removal are not at hand,
re-absorption at once begins and continues until the canal is
cleansed. Self-poisoning, autointoxication, ensues, and all of
its symptoms were emphatically shown in the fast of seventeen
days that Mr. Fletcher essayed. These results are also often observed
when feeding is in progress, and in this connection I refer to
an article written by Dr. Kellogg for Good Health in the
summer of 1908. In it he says, "The writer's observations,
extending over a considerable number of years, have brought him
to the conclusion that the cases which are benefited by fasting
are practically without exception cases of autointoxication, generally
cases of intestinal autointoxication, though perhaps also including
some cases of metabolic autointoxication." It seems to me
that the Doctor has not made it quite clear just why, if the fast
is the certain producer of the condition, he recommends it for
the cure of the condition. Perhaps "similia similibus"
or "the hair of the dog theory" is implanted in the
Doctor's ego.
As we review the situation, covering in
origin thousands and thousands of years of wrong living, the facts
are patent. The processes of digestion and assimilation as functions
have long since lost natural expression. Drugs and heredity have
created in them an inability to cope with their work without assistance,
and have in many instances caused a positive cessation of normal
action.
Dr. Kellogg would have us accept his dictum
that the cause of loss of weight during the fast is to be found
in the impoverished state of the blood, and in the fact that,
food being denied, no upbuilding of tissue can occur. Can he explain
in this manner the wasting of tissue in illness when food is regularly
supplied? It should be readily understood that, in either instance,
the process of elimination of decomposed excess food has at last
become the predominant function of the diseased system. Fasting
is the voluntary act that permits rapid accomplishment of the
result; and disease itself is but Nature's attempt to cleanse
and purify by means of elimination. The longer this thought is
dwelt upon, and the more its details are verified by experiment,
the stronger becomes the conviction that we are facing the truth
of the matter.
When coated tongue, foul breath, and vertigo
appear, whether feeding or fasting, hunger is absent. It must
have disappeared many days before these signs became acute, although
Nature's warnings did not fail of display. The sensation of hunger,
the desire for food for the purpose of restoring cell life, is
the human body's greatest natural safeguard. A sentinel of lower
rank is the sense of taste, which, however, like other outposts,
often becomes debauched and valueless. But hunger never can be
turned from its protecting task, and it cannot be stimulated into
action. Hunger is the one natural function that is incorruptible,
for once abused it withdraws. Its deceptive counterpart, appetite,
is the product of taste-stimulation, and, as Mr. Fletcher says,
takes upon itself the guise of habit. Or, as expressed in the
text of my book, "Appetite is craving; Hunger is desire.
Craving is never satisfied; but Desire is relieved when Want is
supplied. Eating without Hunger or pandering to Appetite at the
expense of Digestion makes Disease inevitable."
Had real normal hunger been present when
Mr. Fletcher broke his fast, the demand for food would have been
so great and so insistent that no denial would have been tolerated.
Mr. Fletcher states that he did not want food until he had tasted
it--a clear case of taste-stimulation or appetite. Even this was
momentary and was but the expiring flame of taste relish left
after seventeen days free from the progressive accumulation of
excess food. Despite his care in the selection and the mastication
of his food, Mr. Fletcher must still have continually eaten without
hunger, and must, as a result, have stored within his system an
unusual amount of material beyond the needs of his body. Had this
not been true, he would not have exhibited the coated tongue,
foul breath, and vertigo. Hunger would have been ever present,
and it would have been impossible for him to fast.
My only comment upon the neglect of the
enema that seems to have occurred in the conduct of Mr. Fletcher's
fast is that it was a most vital error. The enema is absolutely
necessary. The question of diet also need not be discussed, for
experience shows that the feeding of the body is a matter of individual
requirement. If normal physical balance be ever reached, fixed
laws to govern the diet problem could be formulated. In its present
state, argument resolves itself into mere utterances of individual
opinion and prejudice.
Faithfully yours,
Linda Burfield Hazzard