Should Women Menstruate? - Herbert M. Shelton

Hygienic Review
Vol. IV May, 1943 No. 9
Should Women Menstruate?
by Herbert M. Shelton

What is called by the editor of She "a challenge to science" appears in the January issue of that magazine in the form of an article by Tora Selander Nelson, under the title: "Is Woman's Cycle Necessary?" She's editor assures us that "There is positive evidence to warrant the hope that the menses can be eventually eliminated". In a box the editor says: "The author spent many months of intensive study in exploring this subject and is well qualified to offer her fascinating hypothesis. .Information and advice was obtained from the Museum of Natural. History, the New York City Medical Center and the Academy of Medicine, but the views expressed are the author's own."

Let us first answer the question that forms the title of her article before turning to the article itself, which does not even discuss the question in its title. "Is Woman's Cycle Necessary?" To answer this question, it is first necessary that we understand what is meant by woman's cycle. This is the term applied to a whole complex series of phenomena included in the changes in the ovaries and womb during the maturation of an ovum, its expulsion from the ovary and, finally, if impregnation does not occur, its expulsion from the womb.

This cycle has two possible endings: (1) It may end in pregnancy, birth and lactation; or (2) it may end in the expulsion of the unimpregnated ovum and the casting off of the temporary "lining" of the womb. Obviously the first of these cycles may be interrupted by abortion (spontaneous or induced) or by miscarriage.

Mrs. Nelson does not discuss the necessity for this cycle of events in her article. The question is hardly discussible. It would be like discussing the necessity of the peach tree to put forth blossoms before it can produce peaches. The cycle is essential and can be avoided only by greatly impairing or completely wrecking the female reproductive system.

What, then, does Mrs. Nelson discuss? The reader will find the answer to this in the editor's statement that "there is positive evidence to warrant the hope that the menses can eventually be eliminated". She discusses the necessity for the customary loss of blood, or hemorrhage, that marks the end of a cycle that does not end in pregnancy.

Woman's complete ovulation cycle covers a period of twenty-eight days (there are cases that run longer and some that run less time than this) and, if pregnancy does not intervene, ends with the sloughing off of the temporary lining of the uterus and, commonly, with more or less loss of blood. What Mrs. Nelson wants to know, is this: is the loss of blood necessary.

She presumes to speak for her sex when she says: "all of us (women) have resented this ignominious interruption of our normal lives as a beastly injustice." "Nature", she says, "is cruel and stupid". For this nature has laid upon woman the entire "burden" of pregnancy and childbirth and has so arranged matters that "for some thirty years of our lives, all the goals we set for ourselves" are "divided".

She resents the fact that "nature" ignores woman's petty social, political, artistic and commercial schemes. These trivial artificialities loom larger in her mind than the fundamental processes of life and she resents the fact that child-bearing interferes with cock-tail hour and theatre-going. This attitude toward the phenomena of life makes it impossible to understand these phenomena or to find a true solution for the problems presented by abnormal phenomena.

For years we have been saying in our lectures and writings that menstruation (Mrs. Nelson calls it, after the medical fashion, a "periodic function", though questioning its normally) is an abnormal phenomenon, that it belongs in the category of disease and can be remedied in all, or nearly all, cases.

Mrs. Nelson discovers, in her questioning of Science, that ovulation and menstruation are two separate processes and that while ovulation is essential to reproduction, menstruation is not. She says: "There are women who never menstruate, and yet bear children. Besides, the overwhelming majority of lower mammals, with reproductive organs astonishingly like our own, do not". But when she asks "science" what is the reason for this "function" of menstruation, she learns to her astonishment that, "strangely enough, science today does not profess to know".

Briefly reviewing the ripening and release of an ovum and the uterine changes necessary to the beginning of a possible pregnancy she says: "So far, then, the animal and the human processes, are entirely alike, but here the similarity ends. In the lower animals as soon as the climax of the cycle is over, the enlarged blood vessels slowly shrink to their normal size and the accumulated blood, not being needed by any lodging embryo, is redistributed in the general blood stream. In the human, to the contrary, the overfilled capillaries break under the strain and the blood drains into the womb, to appear, eventually, as the menstrual flow."

"Why this general mess, discomfort and often severe pain?" she asks. "What is accomplished through this regular and repeated wounding?" "Why, after Nature has perfected the mammalian reproductive system for hundreds of millions of years, with everything running smoothly up a constantly refined scale of evolution, does she start to complicate matters?"

She turns to her "authorities". Metchnikoff and Francis Marshall suggest that there is "something amiss," but they do not seem to know what. "Research scientists", when asked why women hemorrhage each month, "merely say that their knowledge is incomplete". She feels that the "scientists" who are practically all men (the remainder are all masculinoids) do not consider the matter of pressing importance because "they are never, in the midst of some exciting experiment, doubled up with an agonizing ache".

The question comes to us: If these men are not interested in women's problems, why don't women solve their own problems? Did Mrs. Nelson go to the men and does she resent their apparent lack of interest because she feels that women are incapable of solving their own problems? Shame upon these imitators of men! If they can drink like men, and smoke like men, and philander like men', and become welders and riveters like men, why ask men to solve their problems for them?

Mrs. Nelson makes another startling discovery. She says: "Take, for instance, the nature of the hemorrhage. With the one exception of childbirth, all kinds of bleeding, be it nasal, pulmonary or intestinal, are considered a symptom of disease". Why is the bleeding accompanying childbirth not also considered abnormal? Why does even Mrs. Nelson assume that this bleeding is normal? Does she find it in the lower mammals at birth?

She adds: "If to any such bleeding you add a rising temperature, an irregular pulse-beat, changes in blood pressure, pain, and a general lowering of-muscular tone, you certainly would have any patient worried. As for any physician calling the whole a 'natural' process, the chances are remote. "Nor do these recognized features of menstruation stand alone. There are physical changes as well. No woman needs to be told about the extra effort needed to remain up to par in her work at such times, or about her feelings of depression or elation. Her temperament, for a few days, becomes undeniably mercurial".

To these physical and nervous symptoms let us add the frequent headaches, pains in the back and legs, pimples on the face, constipation or diarrhea and peculiar body odor. She tells us that investigations of crime records in many countries show "the percentage of feminine crime is incomparably higher during the menstrual period; and as far as suicide is concerned, the evidence of serious mental disturbance is simply terrifying". We ourselves have noted, in dealing with insane patients, that all their symptoms of insanity are much worse during menstruation.

Mrs. Nelson makes out a good case for the idea that menstruation is an evidence of disease, but she does not draw the necessary inference there from. She is simply not willing to face the facts in the case and point to its true causes. She finds instead, that menstruation is simply the outgrowth of an evolutionary short-coming. We will come to this later.

In our book, "Menstruation - Its Cause and Cure (out of print) first published over ten years ago, parts of it published much earlier, we say:

Ovulation is a normal process and is not necessarily accompanied with any sanguineous flow -bloody flux- or "show of blood". It is quite true that there is usually a loss of blood during part of the period of ovulation, but it is also equally true that with almost all women in civilized society, the period is marked by other morbid symptoms. We have no more right to consider the loss of blood to be an essential part of the process of ovulation than we have to regard the accompanying pain to be so.* * * My studies and experiences have led me inevitably to the conclusion that the loss of blood is pathological and that it is in no sense a natural (normal) or necessary part of the physiological process of ovulation.

The fact was pointed out by Dr. Trail over seventy-five years ago that in practically all cases the loss of blood "is in almost exact inverse ratio to the constitutional tone and vigor." In Menstruation Its Cause and Cure, we say:

* * * in what are termed1" civilized countries, women oscillate between great extremes. In some there is no menstrual flux, in others it is very scanty and lasts but a few hours, or for a day or two, while in others it lasts seven or eight days, accompanied with much pain and discomfort, and the flow is so profuse as to be almost hemorrhagic. These marked variations in menstruation correspond in exact ratio with the varying degrees of health of different women, or In the same woman at different times. There does not exist a greater difference between the human female and the female among the lower animals in this matter, than exists between some women and other women.

Turning to the other side of the picture she says: "Those of us who go in for sports, exploration and other physically demanding activities, know, that the length of the period usually stands in direct proportion to our physical condition. If the latter is top-notch, as it is apt (likely) to be after systematic training, the menstrual time is shortened and the loss of blood reduced to a minimum. Every so often, under such conditions, the menses disappear altogether, and this disappearance invariably corresponds with our highest peak of health."

Here, Mrs. Nelson finds the key to the solution of her problems, but she rejects it. Ten years ago, we pointed out these facts, plus the further fact, that, as physical vigor increases the pain and other symptoms accompanying menstruation also lessen and finally disappear.

After briefly discussing a lot of hokum about thyroid deficiency increasing menstruation and thyroid sufficiency decreasing the flow (she fails to see these two conditions as part of the general health or lack of it) she comes to her hypothesis of the cause of menstruation.

She starts with the hypothesis that man is descended from an ape, and that the ape is descended from a quadruped. Instead of walking on all four of our feet, we stand and walk on our hind legs. While we have been in this unnatural position a long time, evolution has failed to adjust our internal organs to the upright position; they are still adjusted to the horizontal position of quadrupeds. This allows our organs to crowd down into the -pelvis and the small "extra" pressure thus put upon the blood vessels of the pelvis results in menstruation.

This is a hopeless picture. If menstruation is a disease we may hope to remedy it. If improved health lessens or abolishes it, we may even hope to interest a few women in improved health. But if it is due to an evolutionary mal-adjustment, the trouble can never be remedied. According to the apostles of transformism (miscalled evolution) man has been man and has undergone no change in his biological equipment for at least five-hundred thousand years, probably much longer. If evolutionary adjustments are so slow Mrs. Nelson will never live long enough to see her problem solved. She approaches the true solution, but she runs away from it.

In Menstruation-Its Cause and Cure we also considered the circulatory interference caused by sagging abdominal organs, which we estimated exist in well over ninety per cent of women, over fourteen years old. We say:

When we consider that in the average woman, due to lack of their normal support, the abdominal organs gravitate toward and rest upon the pelvic organs, and thus interfere with the return circulation from the pelvis, we easily understand why the hyperemia (excess of blood) becomes great enough to result in a leakage of blood and blood serum through the lax tissues of the uterus.

We did not attribute this sagging of organs to evolutional short-comings, but to a failure of the normal supports. We pointed out that only where there is unantagonized gravitation does ptosis occur and that the healthy organism effectually opposes gravitation. We attributed pelvic laxness and loss of tone to the same causes that produce 'laxness and loss of tone throughout the body to which are added, "weight from above-weight of a clogged colon in constipation, pressure from gas distention of the intestines, sagging of the abdominal organs due to faulty posture, muscular weakness and lack of exercise, pressure of belts, corsets, tight and heavy clothing, etc."

Here are causes that may be understood and removed and here are conditions that we can remedy. Ptosis may be both prevented and remedied. One cannot hope to prevent or remedy u normal condition that has resulted from the hypothetical slow evolution of man from a quadruped, no matter how faulty it may be.

Suffice it to say that our experiences have convinced us that the periodic blood-loss sustained by woman is due solely to a loss of integrity in her tissues (the local loss of integrity is merely part of the general loss of integrity) and not to any failure of adjustment. We deplore the too frequent use of the hypothesis of transformism to account for defects that are more easily accounted for by facts close at home. Evolutional failings (lack of adjustments) are remediable only by more ages of slow evolutionary process; failings due to factors over which we have control are remediable now.

She sees a way out. Or, did some manufacturer of endocrine products see it for her? She wants some of our endocrinologists to find a glandular product - "be it thyroid or pituitary- which, if given in an individually adjusted dose, would cause woman's menstrual process to stop short just before the breaking-point of her uterine capillaries."

This is a commercial program that ignores the harm that may result from the procedure. It is a voodoo program that seeks to control the forces of nature but does not seek to remove the cause of the abnormality. Mrs. Nelson spent too much time with the museum of "Natural" history, the New York City Medical Center and the Academy of Medicine.

She wants a substitute for health. She will be satisfied with a crutch rather than a correction. She does not desire improved health and increased vigor in women, She does not want a means of normalizing female function. She is a pitiable victim of current medical and commercial thinking.

We do not share her view that some substitute for good health and the things upon which this depends should be devised to suppress menstruation. Our modern trend is to seek substitutes for normal functions rather than for normalization of function. We prefer arch supports to normal arches, eye-glasses to normalization of visual function, dental plates to good teeth, abdominal supports to normal abdominal muscles, vaccines and serums to natural resistance, artificial vitamins to natural foods, insulin to a good pancreas, cathartics to normal bowel function, "twilight sleep and Caeserean section to the pleasures of normal childbirth. Our love of ersatz physiology and anatomy (substitutes for normal function and structure) grows out of our ready acceptance of and satisfaction with a low standard of health and our lazy compliance with low conditions. This is a threefold source of mischief-first, there is the neglect of those positive natural conditions upon which normal function depends; second, there is the disregard of the impairing influences that are primarily responsible for deterioration of function and structures; and third, there are the harmful effects of the substitutes, themselves.

Herbert M. Shelton

Principles or Men. Which?
by Eugene A. Bergholz, M.D.


Natures Path
Dr. Benedict Lust, Editor
February, 1941
Principles or Men. Which?
Eugene A. Bergholz, M.D.

WITH THE RECENT DEATH OF DR. Wm. Hay of "Hay-Diet" fame, at the seemingly unseasonal age of 70, came many comments as to the efficacy of the system he proposed because he did not apparently, with his early passing, demonstrate the greater life-expectancy he attributed to following a program of diet stressing moderation and restricted food combinations.
This, so frequent a comment raised every time an authority on health is called into the great beyond, voiced particularly by those who, though they recognize the great benefits that can only accrue from a life of self-discipline but themselves lack the necessary "spine" to follow such a restricting regimen of living, brings to mind again a point that we have repeatedly stressed, that a philosophy based in truth is not dependent upon any man, procedure, experimental evidence, or any other agent that man may devise, but will ever stand by ITSELF in its OWN right, indisputable, unalterable, irrevocable, invincible, and eternal!

It's Human-Nature!
WE HUMAN BEINGS, HOWEVER, ARE SO taken up with ourselves, that we feel MEN are the originators of principles and philosophies, rather than that they are merely DISCOVERERS of facts which were in existence long before even their own birthday appearance on the horizon, in fact, eternally so!
Therefore, we are enamored by the performance of MEN, we lean on THEIR beliefs, we give ear to THEIR interpretations and philosophies, and so we judge by men and performance, forgetting usually that they are but executors of either the truth they adhere to or the error they practice (or a mixture of both), and can only demonstrate to the limit of their own depth of knowledge, gifts, revelation, and to the DEGREE TO WHICH THEY THEMSELVES ACTUALLY DISCHARGE THEIR BETTER UNDERSTANDING! Men may not, for these reasons, even seem to demonstrate the very doctrine which they teach and know to be inviolably right, so, let us, therefore, not forget that the correctness of the principle should not be judged in the light of fallible men, for the principle is NOT dependent upon the MAN, but upon the PRINCIPLE itself. Principles, laws, truth, came first . . . Men either accept or reject them, and they demonstrate the facts involved to the degree that they accept and practice them. Law cannot change. Man ALONE confuses the picture through his interpretations of it and by his inability to obey it to the letter.
Other men are foolish merely to judge such men who CLAIM superior knowledge of truth, from purely external performance without themselves investigating and UNDERSTANDING the PRINCIPLES actually involved.

Twill Ever Be Thus!
BUT WHAT DO WE USUALLY FIND? MAN sick unto death in his youth or prime, learns the eternal truth of health through the observance of natural law and begets certain results which inspire him to tell others of his precious findings. Factors in his own life, however, make it impossible to fulfill the irreparable breakage of the law he previously brought about, and he must be satisfied in his life of active humanitarian service with an ordinary "three score and ten" as his lease on earthly existence. But, because HE did not live beyond a century, which the law promises under IDEAL conditions, the principles proclaimed are entirely wrong or at least to be seriously questioned.
How fickle the opinions of men with their mechanical interpretations judged from outward appearances! What about the laws involved?
We could list many men of prominence in the field of health and natural living who have passed on at the appointed time in the execution of eternal law-and usually do we find the question raised, "Why didn't he live longer?" (The many others who did through long life prove their philosophy, of course, do not count. "Haven't others reached the same age seemingly without a life of adherence to those laws?")

What Are The Laws?
SINCE there seems to be such a confusion in the outward picture displayed through the performance of men, let us review briefly once more the principles really involved when it comes to life, health, disease, cure, and death, and let us determine the factors of circumstance which bring about the confusion in the demonstrations of men ascribing to certain philosophies of life.
Without any personal interpretation entering in, the LAW of Nature says this about life and the other subjects mentioned:

• LIFE expresses itself as a building up and discharge of energy in the functions of our bodies, their organs, and finally the cells.
• HEALTH is that estate of life when its expression is not interfered with or obstructed by any outside agent, mechanical (as an injury), chemical (as toxins), or biological (emotions, etc.).
• DISEASE is that estate of body function resulting when the normal expression of life is obstructed by one or another aforementioned agents; the name or "diagnosis," as appendicitis, giving the locality, the ORGANS involved, and the KIND of involvement; and the seriousness, as acute, sub-acute, ruptured, etc., reflecting the DEGREE of obstruction present.
• DEATH is that estate when obstruction is so great as to prevent the normal discharge of energy behind the life-process.
• CURE can only be realized with or without assistance, through the action of inherent vitality which always reacts in an attempt to free itself of any encumbrance, or obstruction, that the energy of life may again express itself in a normal, unobstructed manner.
• THERAPEUTICS or treatment can, therefore, only be of true assistance if they naturally help in the removal of the mechanical, chemical, or biological interference. Thus, all healing by application re solves itself in assisting the body's own inherent, self-restorative powers to act freely. The Natural Agent employed does not perform the actual CURING. ONLY THE BODY CAN DO THIS. The agent merely assists.

In Interpretations Thus Far
THE above six principles are not interpretations by any man, myself, or anyone else. They are axioms of Nature, laws that are immediately self-explanatory, have been since the dawn of history, and will be at its termination. There can NEVER be argument about them because they are merely definitions, simple statements, culled from Nature, immediately acceptable by the rational mind and, furthermore, are indisputably borne out by the daily experiences of everyone. We are all living in a world of cause and effect, action and reaction, crisis and anti-crisis. Any kind of effect is always determined by the cause behind it and if it be a good or evil one, must, sooner or later, manifest itself in like manner, for good or evil. We know that through our experiences. And so it is with life, health, disease, death, cure and therapeutics. They are but studies in causes and effects.
So far everything sounds simple enough. It is, however, in the application of the principles where man steps in, and through multiple personal opinions and experiences of fallible natures, is all too apt to bring confusion into the picture.
How much confusion arises will necessitate a little further analysis of the aforegoing principles.

The Principles Developed
THE function of life reveals itself in a two-fold manner, namely, in an INTAKE and an OUTPUT, a combined process which we call metabolism or the process of life.
Now, since life expresses itself as such, it follows that so long as the INTAKE is NORMAL and the OUTPUT is NORMAL, the process of life must be NORMAL. HEALTH, then, is the estate of that body.
On the other hand, if the INTAKE is ABNORMAL, obstructive, toxic and in addition, the OUTPUT is ABNORMAL, inefficient, congested, then the process of life will NOT find smooth expression because of a piling up of obstruction (more coming in, but elimination retarded). We thus shall have disturbance in, or ABNORMAL function resulting. DISEASE is the estate of that body.
Once this latter condition has been allowed to occur, in attempting to restore order, it definitely and logically MUST follow that only two things are open for us to do, either one or the other, or both: First, improve, bring the INTAKE back to NORMAL, and, second, encourage the OUTPUT to more NORMAL and efficient function.

Factors Involved
THE INTAKE involves air, light, food and other factors. The OUTPUT involves eliminations by way of bowels, kidneys, lungs and skin.
If we on the one hand, improve the quality and quantity of air breathed in, obtain plenty of sunlight and other outdoor natural forces, and, perhaps as important as all else, eliminate all obstructive tendencies from the food intake and change it to a normal or natural one, then we shall be assisting the body in a maximum manner to restore a normal flow of living energy as far as INTAKE is concerned.
If we now also, on the other hand, improve the elimination from bowels, kidneys, lungs and skin through assistive agents designated as natural therapeutics, examples being fasting, colon irrigations, manipulations, herbs, hydrotherapy, physical culture, deep breathing exercises, etc., then we, by improving OUTPUT, further assist the natural function of life to have freedom of expression.
THE COMBINED CORRECTION OF INTAKE AND ASSISTANCE TO OUTPUT GIVES MAN THE ONLY EXTERNAL MEANS TO HELP IN THE RESTORATION OF SICK BODIES TO HEALTH. THE BODY MUST DO THE REST.

Where Confusion Arises
NOW, it is the degree to which the above procedures are carried and personally understood in individual cases, and conducted in the light of experience, that will either demonstrate the principles unequivocally, partially, or confusedly. And it is to the degree that the man teaching these truths has been enlightened himself which will determine how exemplary he will be in his execution of the same, how complete his philosophy, and how thorough his advice to others in uncon-fused manner.

HERE ARE SOME FACTORS THAT must be considered in determining the whys and wherefores in the judgment of any individual being considered in the light of his response to the execution of natural law.
1. What kind of body did he inherit? Did he have a vital one or one already heavily encumbered with obstructions of sundry nature?
2. What was his state of health prior to his own adopting a program of health restoration?
3. How strict did he have to become in order to bring back lost energies? Was he able to do so physically, psychologically, socially, economically, etc.?
4. How complete was the understanding of his counselors, associates, relatives, friends? Did they help or add confusion?
5. Could the individual discipline himself sufficiently on all scores?
6. What harm of a surgical- or drug-nature was done to his body prior to his embracing the natural mode of living?
7. Did he feel that physical health was not so important to warrant a perfect program, spiritual health being the more desirable?
8. What about the inability of others to discipline themselves whose experiences force him to adopt a "middle" course in his teachings?
9. Was it possible for him to execute the laws himself as actually understood? How about his work, his rest, sleep, time for play, vacations? What about his social estate, the demands of his wife, who may not understand, his friends, his environment?
10. How about the continuous persecution by the enemies of truth he invariably must face?

Men Are Subjects of Law
THERE ARE A THOUSAND AND ONE other factors that might be given. These are but a few and must suffice. It will be seen from these, however, that merely judging the principles a man upheld, by his life, health, death, practice, and performance, cannot be rapidly done without analyzing the individual factors involved. Always will it be found that every single being, without exception, must absolutely and irretrievably, reveal an irrevocable discharge of natural law. Men, all men, are subjects of laws. They are not their 'makers. Laws, principles were there always, man merely is an agent under their realm and influence, and they are not dependent upon him. Laws for that matter should be judged as of themselves and not by the men who may have the knowledge of them but by reason of certain impossible circumstances do not reveal satisfactory evidence in demonstration of the principles regardless of what they may be teaching. Man is a passing, fallible creature. Laws are irrevocable and eternal. First comes law, then man. Let us judge man in terms of the law, but never principles in terms of man alone.

Examples
YOU should now see perhaps why:
1. Father Kneipp, 1821 to 1897, of water-cure fame, starting with tuberculosis of the lungs, and going through a persecuted life *of great self-sacrifice for others, not, however, able to discharge dietary rules completely, died of Cancer of the bladder at 76.
2. Dr. Bircher-Benner, a world renowned Swiss raw food advocate, recently died at 73. He was an inveterate smoker.
3. Dr. Henry Lindlahr, born in 1861, was afflicted with tuberculosis and
diabetes in his prime, went to Germany and became imbued with Nature Cure after restoration of his health. He returned to this country and midst much antagonism erected a great monument to his newly learned principles, the Lindlahr Sanitarium, College, Clinic, and Resort in and near Chicago. He began in 1905 and in less than 20 years became the most successful in the field in America. Internal "double-crossing" of his own helpers, however, gave him so much concern and grief that this, plus his other super-human activities, combined with persecution by outside forces, brought on gangrenous complications in limbs. He died in 1924 at 63.
4. Vincenz Priessnitz, born in 1801, father of hydrotherapy, was in search
of lost health, learned of the benefits of cold water application. He had such an active practice after founding a Sanitarium in 1829 that his correspondence from all parts of the world from sick patients seeking advice, kept many secretaries busy taking dictations. He had to neglect his own health, became the victim of much legal prosecution and finally succumbed in 1851 at 50. He did not have an understanding of natural dietetics.
5. Louis Kuhne, Leipzig, Germany, born in 1844, "the greatest champion of drugless healing humanity ever possessed" became world renowned as a result of his "New Science of Healing" with unity of disease and cure as the outstanding doctrine. His
Sanitarium began in 1883, his "Sitz-Bath" being a famous application, and the natural diet the usual food prescribed. At 20 he was a physical wreck. His father and mother had died of Cancer and Tuberculosis. He himself could obtain no help from both Allopaths and the then existing Nature Curists. The "New Science" brought the prayed for results, and he embarked upon his grueling and renowned career. His last two years were so grief-striking, when thousands of the misunderstanding allopaths of the time, because of his great success, together through their attempts to collect evidence against him, kept him in continuous legal litigation and he finally died broken-hearted at the age of 57 in 1901.

Scientific Fools
IT should be clear by now to the critical onlooker who judges only by a life-span, that he is decidedly unjust in his observations and actually makes a scientific fool of himself to be so simple-minded in his hasty, ill-considered conclusions. A review of the history of individuals who preach self-discipline will usually find them adhering to the rules themselves to the best of their ability, circumstances, and knowledge, and, in defending the truth, will have the enemies of truth arrayed against them, plus the imposition on their vitality of the rigors of an abnormally active life in the humanitarian care of, generally, the sickest of the sick, who seek Nature Cure as a last resort. The human machine, however, has limitations. No Nature Curist has ever denied that. Only he who himself cannot discipline himself to truth, expects the impossible of others. In the impersonal analysis for Science' sake, though, we should at least be fair if we do not, from the standpoint of purely egotistical, stubborn personal motives, wish to accept what is so plainly to be seen. Drs. Barter, Trall, Tilden, Hay, and others as well as those just listed, also had individual habits, handicaps, etc. All, however, reveal in their own lives, when thoroughly analyzed, an absolute performance of natural laws to the degree that they executed them.

Ye Editor As Example
THE writer, himself, has frequently been accosted as not representing the principles he believes and teaches because of a predisposing tendency toward leanness which is not particularly demonstrative of a gorilla-specimen of physical strength. Yet he maintains that he is, nevertheless, a living example of the principles given before. With every year, now going on fourteen, he is adding another to a life virtually decreed without much further lease in 1927, following a subtotal thyroidectomy (goiter operation), which he attributes entirely to obedience to principle as best as circumstances permitted. He is discharging an active sanitarium practice and that of a clinic; publishing a magazine, writing books, lecturing and teaching, spreading the principles far and wide and incidentally influencing the lives of thousands in also becoming acquainted with their universal benefit, none of which would have been possible without a revelation of such principles and a discharge of the same.

An Historical Point
YET, the writer does not expect to live into ripe old age, unless, God-willing, he be in error. Physically there has not been a vital inheritance, and a subtotal operation on so vital a gland as the thyroid in relative youth, usually precludes old age. He wishes, therefore, to state right here and now, as a matter of record, if in the wisdom of the Almighty should be called to rest prior to his allotted three score and ten, that no man judge the principles by his seemingly early passing. The principles are there and not dependent upon him, I hope, to verify their validity. He will discharge them to his best ability and a thorough analysis of his physical estate will vindicate them entirely. But to judge by casual, external appearance, or by the date of passing would be entirely unfair to the principles. He is but another man, fallible and of temporal existence. Law, truth, principles are infallible and eternal. Learn to follow them first, then if you are sincere and not just trying to criticize to cover your own weakness, study the men too, for under investigation they will prove the law to every satisfaction.

No Exceptions!
EACH and everyone, in their own lives, will display indisputable evidence of the absolute reliance upon natural laws' inviolable operation. (We have purposely not mentioned the thousands who by their health and longevity proved beyond any doubt the absolute reliance that can be placed upon the principles; because even these men's lives do not prove the principles. They merely demonstrate their truth. The principles, you see, need no proof, for they are proof unto themselves.) Health results when we live in accord with natural law, disease when we do not. There are no exceptions. "Natural" death results because of an impossibility of obeying the law in all its precepts continuously. Even the most perfect health must end up in death. We, by the degree of our observance of law, can only discourage the obstructive factors that invite early disease and premature death.
And this brings us to a closing thought. Why be so concerned about the seeming infrequency of men living beyond the century mark, a lease on life often promised to others by such men adhering to the Natural Philosophy? Usually their principles are criticized, and rightly so, when they do not reach the five score mark themselves. But do we not here have another factor to contend with?

An Inheritance We Cannot Overcome Ourselves
I BELIEVE we have. Man may have ever so profound an understanding of the principles but there is a strain of human weakness in every living being to discipline ourselves to the every letter of the law. Men are not gods, but fallible, weak humans no matter how proudly they may speak, and they cannot, any more than anyone else, escape the just discharge of such natural law themselves.
Let's be honest with ourselves and realize this universal weakness and not with egotistical pride claim superior powers of supernatural nature.
Let us, however, go beyond this. There must be a reason even for this. We do not want to be left dangling in mid-air with incomplete explanations.
There is but one source of information that I know of, which speaks the voice of authority to answer this question to entire satisfaction. It is our Book of Eternal Wisdom. There we learn of man's original, immortal perfection, subsequent sin and its wages with disease, imperfection, and human weakness as resulting curses, and death the final penalty. Man, we learn, cannot by his own power obey the Law of God, moral or physical. Then, let us admit it! For men, all men, including naturists, prove it by their own demonstrations in their very life, day after day, time and time again. All have weaknesses! All must die sooner or later! We all inherit death which we by ourselves can never overcome. A gloomy picture to be sure!

The Glorious Light of Life!
LET us, however, go further. The Scriptures also speak of grace, repentance, justification by faith, resulting good works, exemplary life, and, finally, death, yes, but a death through redemption unto salvation and eternal LIFE! A happy picture, indeed!
Yes, and an important one. In fact, the important one! Spiritual health you see is so far more important than all else, that we are apt to forget this in trying to live the perfect existence in this less important, temporal life. Indeed, because men seemingly so infrequently reveal a full demonstration of their philosophy, they do thus by their lives always show the relative unimportance of this present existence, as far as God is concerned. He, you know, alone made and preserves our every life. He places values where they truly belong. A life of eternity is so indescribably more important than this present one whether it be one or three hundred years in duration! Let us learn that indisputable fact. It will forever keep us clear on any question involving principles, men, and their inherent, inexorable weaknesses.
Men will come and men will go. The principles stay on forever. Learn them all, fully understand each and every one. Then, whether you study the principles or the men, neither will ever be found wanting as indisputably demonstrative of eternal, irrevocable Law!

Eugene A. Bergholz, M.D.

 Hygienic Review
Vol. IV November, 1942 No. 3
The Importance of Rest in Disease
Christopher Gian-Cursio

Though sleep and rest are important to the healthy, they are more essential to those who are ill. A sick man must not only sleep and rest sufficiently to recover from the daily wear and tear, but must also rest more than the amount necessary to balance current expenditure so as to facilitate curative action. During sleep, and in a lesser degree while resting, the body makes the greatest advances in removing the immediate causes of disease. Also, during periods of complete relaxation the body accumulates potential energy which can be used at some future period. Therefore, rest is not only important for the immediate welfare of the organism but also for some future state.

Individuals who are not sick enough to be forced to bed by nature will learn that a voluntary increase of sleep and bed-rest requires effort and is not as simple as it appears, especially if distressing reactions occur. Illustrative of this is the recent experience of an acquaintance. He complained that getting eight hours sleep made him feel listless and less at ease than when he only slept six hours a day. He could not comprehend why, with the increase of rest, he should feel less refreshed. Like many others he concluded that too much sleep was not conducive to bodily comfort. Why this happened is explanable; this person's organism had become adjusted to a six hour cycle without perturbation to the individual, even though the amount of sleep was insufficient. By sleeping two hours more for a few nights the organism was given an opportunity to better itself. As part of this program of betterment Nature began to remove the deleterious effects that had occurred from years of insuffici

In On Regimen In Acute Diseases, an ancient book of medicine supposed to have been written by Hippocrates, not only is the sanatory benefits resulting from enforced rest described but also the resultant temporary uneasiness following the "rest cure. " Therein it is stated, that "if a person having received a wound in the leg, neither very serious nor very trifling, and he being neither in a condition very favorable to its healing nor the contrary, at first betakes himself to bed, in order to promote the cure, and never raises iris leg, it will thus be much less disposed to inflammation, and be much sooner well, than it would have been if he had strolled about during the process of healing; but if upon the fifth or sixth day, or even earlier, he should get up and attempt to walk, he will suffer much more than if he had walked about from the commencement of the cure, and if he should suddenly make many laborious exertions, he will suffer much more than if, when the treatment was conduc

Those who have rested completely during a fast will find that the resumption of activity, when eating is resumed, will be associated with a feebleness and unease that some attribute to the fast. The fast is only partly responsible for the apparent weakness, for complete bed-rest alone will often result in this discomfort. On the fast the body is more efficient in decreasing the expenditure of energy, and the redistribution of the vital power during the early post-fasting days is very gradual. Because energy is converted into work slowly after physiological rest, does not mean there is a lack of potential. The person who does not rest during a fast appears and acts stronger, but has less potential energy for future development. The deleterious effects often ascribed to physiological rest, are fleeting and always the consequence of an organismal effort that is beneficent.

The individual who is unable to adjust himself to inactivity will sometimes become unruly and difficult to manage. The common complaint of those who need bed-rest is that they are not accustomed to staying in bed. The fact that the patient acts so contrary to what is right indicates that he is in dire need of recuperation. Lack of balance within an individual is shown by erratic behavior and is indicative of orgamsmal deterioration. The Natural Hygienist who is often burdened with this type has to listen to many outbursts of "This resting in bed is killing; I'm not so sick that I have to stay in bed." "Don't you think I will get weaker if I stay in bed." "I will never get my strength back unless I walk around a little." Such ideas are delusions and the deluded one becomes so distorted that to him the Natural Hygienist is a jailer and the Sanatorium a prison. I have had patients of such a rebellious nature that they refused to give Natural Hygiene a chance because they thought restin

An individual can become so habituated to squandering energy that he becomes deaf to the warnings of the body. The organism is not insensitive to a deficiency of recuperation and the innumerable forms of unrest are an indication of this. Very often to overcome disquietude, and produce temporary exhilaration a person resorts to gluttony, smoking, drinking, and other unnatural acts. Only the Natural Hygienist fully recognizes how the stimulation associated with the expenditure of energy can delude one. Dr. Robert Walter's address, Nature Cure, delivered before the Sixty-second Session of the American Institute of Homeopathy, in 1906, emphasized this fact and in this regard stated:

"We Lose power by going to bed very much as air and water lose gravity when the storm ceases and the water finds its level. The existence of both gravity and vitality is known only by their work; when the work ceases, the evidence to our senses of their existence also ceases. But who will say that the gravity is thereby lost or destroyed? Then why conclude that vitality is lost because our consciousness of it has ceased? As long as any hind of power continues in repose, whether gravity or vitality, its very existence is purely a matter of faith; it is only when it is doing work, and is consequently being expended in the work done, that it becomes evident to our senses, for which reason we are easily deluded into the belief that we are getting what we are unconsciously losing."

The mechanism of the body is a most obedient servant but it will obey no further when the destructive influences become too encroaching. The organism is very obliging and adjusts itself with facility, for how is she to know if the vital action demanded of her is for necessities or things that are not indispensable. The body is obedient to the will, even to furnish power for driving twenty miles for such a non-essential as a barbecue or some other palate tickling mixture. Since most individuals are not discerning and wise, their bodies are endangered until the preservative instinct demands a halt.

If a sick person should increase the amount of rest, to twice the amount necessary to balance the current or daily expenditures, the body will be able to convert more energy into restorative work. If nine hours sleep is all that is needed to recuperate from the previous daily work, then by staying in bed nine more hours the energy accumulated during the previous period of sleep, will be used by the body while it is resting and free from the usual stresses. Because of this there is greater efficiency in the usage of vital power. If this individual should stay in bed twenty-four limits then the energy accumulated will be used by the body or a longer period of inactivity and with a corresponding increase in benefit.

The feeling of well-being that follows a complete rest is usually a preliminary for a period of great reaction in which there is an acceleration in the removal of encumbrances and structural impairment. The body works rhythmically, and the periods that distress are in production during the time when the individual feels well. During the periods of increased action against morbific agent there will be further prostration until this particular stage of organismal renovation is completed. This prostration is sometimes so profound that even music produces a depletive and disconcerting effect. The unusual sensations that occur during a "rest cure" are not the result of a destructive process but are due to constructive and remedial action that takes place within the living organism. With the increase of rest the body reacts with greater force against toxins. If any structural impairment exists remedial action is augmented in that particular structure.

When remedial activity is in the ascendency there is often an aversion to the perverse pleasantries that necessitated the illness. One can become so sensitive that the slightest deviation from the natural produces repulsion. The body becomes greatly intolerant especially in acute disease, a type of remedial action that will not tolerate interference.

Rest, to be complete, necessitates twenty-four hours a day in bed. During this kind of rest, not only is the musculature rested, but also all of the vital organs. By slowing the expenditure of energy the recruiting of energy is accelerated. In complete muscular and digestive immobilization the activity of many organs is decreased. Not only does a particular organ recuperate, but because it does, it decreases its demand upon other organs. Other organs, because they are resting, do not require as much from that particular organ. A defective organ when its work is lessened to a minimum increases in ability to maintain functional and structural integrity. As is becomes more efficient in this respect it becomes less tolerant of any morbific agent within its structure or found- in the blood. In complete physiological rest the whole body profits, especially when a particular impaired organ becomes more efficient and increases in ability to help the body as a whole.

By complete rest I do not intend to convey that inertia of a part ever takes place. Vital inertia only occurs upon the death of a structure. The elemental parts of an organ, the cells, when they are not discharging energy, are active in its recuperation. Vital activity Is continuous and has two phases the discharge of energy and the recovery or recuperation of energy.

Complete rest not only requires inactivity of the musculature, but involves curtailment in the use of the auditory, visual, and vocal structures. Over-use of any of these organs interferes with the healing endeavors of the body, because energy is diverted to them; energy that could be used to greater advantage elsewhere.

Sounds are quite depleting to the sick or well. Just because one is able to resist the vibrations of sound without any sensible discomfort does not mean that energy is not lost. Resistance to a stimulus requires an expenditure of vital force, and thereby, results in a leakage of vitality. It is commonly said that noise only affects sick people because of their weakened condition. This is erroneous, for noises affect all; only in sick people because nature demands a conservation of energy, there is an increased sensitivity to anything that causes a wastage of energy. It can be said that they are hypersensitive to depletive influences. Voluntary inhibition of the actions of the many organs is not fully resorted to even by those who consider rest important. The reading of newspapers makes use of the visual energy. Also, associated with the use of the visual organs, perception takes place and this necessitates vital activity and the resultant expenditure of vital force. Books and other

The Natural Hygienist is often questioned as to what Nature can do in the cases that in the past apparently received no benefit from Nature Cure. I can say that this was not the fault of the natural forces as they exist in the living body. The failure is in man not in Nature. Unusual results will never occur unless unusual efforts are made by a person, who comprehends fully the conservation of vital energy. No limit can be set as to what can be attained in regeneration if one conserves every particle of vital power. By perfection in practice the failures of today can become the successes of tomorrow.

I was accused of practicing medicine on a woman whose only chance of recovery (if recovery was possible) was an immediate fast. For this purpose she was brought to my home. Concerning this prosecutor Smith said: "anyone in the family could have administered water, why entail great expense by going to such an institution." This remark contains a double fabrication. The implication of commercialization, and that handing a sick person a glass of water is all there is to fasting.

Those who have studied the fast know that it is not for the incompetent nor for the well versed layman in serious cases. Without knowledge of fasting and the principles of Natural Hygiene there is not enough sustaining force in the individual to conduct a fast to its proper termination. This knowledge comes by observation and the proper interpretation of what is observed. Medical doctors, with me, have watched fasting cases and have seen the organismal renovation that has occurred, especially in persons considered by them beyond the help of medicine. These doctors though above the general practitioner in intelligence, concluded that the fast is a most intricate method and one that they recognized as taking study and practice to properly master; yet Smith near the close of her summation stated: "The only person who is to determine if a person is to be given nutrition or not (fast) is a regularly licensed physician." There is no medical school in the country or in the world where physi

The recent fast of forty-five days by a conscientious objector in New Jersey was broken by medical doctors with injections of glucose. The method used to break this fast shows how little knowledge is possessed concerning the fast by the medical fraternity. The doctors assumed that the administration of the glucose was essential, for what they evidently considered a state of hypoglycemia (low in blood sugar). Yet prior to the breaking of the fast, the faster was, according to the doctors, in an amazing physical condition and in no more need of glucose than he was of the many other nutrients. Glucose taken alone after a fast, especially by the injection method, is dangerous. Nature produces glucose (dextrose or grape sugar) associated with other nutrients. It is a monosaccharide that is found in conjunction with other important nutrients in fruit. All nutritive substances needed to supply the wants of the body must enter the alimentary tract. Entrance gained elsewhere is unnatural and

In order to show that I was incompetent, the prosecution thought that with a flourish of words, she would make Allopathy replete with fasting experts. Moreover, if one was to believe the prosecution the knowledge needed to conduct a patient through a fast (through crises and minor reactions) is universal and so simple that any one can supervise a fast. Yet, when she sought to make me out as an incompetent she said that only "medical doctors" were learned in fasting.

The attorney for the prosecution was indulging in unusual mental gymnastics and acrobatics. For her selfish purpose she attempted to show incompetency where knowledge existed, and competency were ignorance prevailed.

During the summary of my first trial she said I lacked training and that "ignorance and incompetency on the part of the defendant was a very dangerous thing to the community." This was not a new tactic; for in many of her previous trials of drugless practitioners she emphasized the lack of education and ability to help sick people. But as one individual ex-incurable, that Natural Hygiene had helped, said, "If ignorance and incompetency gave me a new lease on life, then ignorance and incompetency is a virtue that should be cultivated by all doctors."

To the prosecution, the fast was a thing insane and inhuman. She tried to sell this idea to the jury and the judge and hoped that it would be a point to sway them in her favor. In the summation of the first trial in what she thought to be one of her salient points, she said, "The drastic fast was dangerous to a sick woman, who to begin with was weak and diseased." The outburst of laughter that this statement brought from the several score, some of whom had fasted three weeks or more, vividly conveyed to the greatly astonished prosecutor that the courtroom was filled with believers in fasting.

At the second trial, in her summation, she again called the fast dangerous. This time she was more cautious. Instead of a positive statement her remarks were in the form of a question and she said concerning the fast: "Can a strong person sustain that?," and then as though the jury decided the person could not, "How can a, weak person?"

One can see that the strategy of the prosecution was not logical, for earlier in her summation she claimed that only a legally recognized Allopath was capable of conducting a fast. By this remark she admitted the possibility that the fast was proper, but not for a Natural Hygienist. This pseudo-authority on Natural Hygiene took her derisive stand against the fast without even investigating the first principles of fasting. If Smith had fasted one person for a day and observed the changes that occur and then based her conclusions as to the efficacy of the fast upon this sole experience, she would have some semblance of knowledge of what the organism does, when alimentation is suspended.

Sixty-five years ago Dr. Henry Tanner, M. D., proved for all time that a long fast is physiological. He did it in a manner filled with hardships. Many doctors have been glorified over the radio and on the screen, and in most cases the basis for glorification is fictitious. But the life of Dr. Tanner contains enough true drama to fill two movie scripts. In 1877 Dr. Tanner fasted 42 days, and what he thought would terminate in death at the end of ten days resulted in his recovery from a severe heart condition. Prior to the fast he was so sick that seven doctors told him that his heart was apt to cease functioning at any moment. His distress was such that he could not lie down but had to sleep sitting in a chair. Tired of living he thought that to cease eating would hasten the end and therefore, embarked on what he thought was a suicidal course and as he said:

"I had found a short cut out of this vale of tears, and wilderness of woe', and had made up my mind to pack my trunk and depart to find rest from physical sufferings in the arms of death.

But instead of dying, he began to improve and on the eleventh day he was so well that he realized he had discovered a means of regeneration. On that day he went to a fellow-physician, Dr. A. Moyer, who upon examining him said: "Why doctor according to all authority, you ought to be at death's door, but you certainly look better than I ever saw you before." He was so astonished that as Dr. Tanner said "he could not believe the evidence of his own senses." Dr. Tanner then told what he had done. In an attempt to be witty Dr. Moyer said that if he kept it up he would go as long as any of the fasters as related in the Old and New Testaments. Dr. Tanner was not in a humorous mood for he had realized the importance of his great discovery prior to seeing the doctor. Dr. Tanner had expected to terminate the fast but now it had to be defended, so he decided to continue his fast, and prove that a protracted fast was possible. He fasted 42 days. Dr. Moyer was no longer a doubter and feeling that

I was not willing to run the gauntlet of the scorn, sneers and ridicule of the law-makers of medical ethics, who would if they had dared resort to all the tortures of the inquisition to compel submission to their arbitrary mandates.

Dr. Tanner's guarded secret did not stay that way long. Dr. Moyer related the fasting experience to another doctor who happened to be the editor and publisher of the Duluth Herald. From then on it was sensational news for the press of that locality. The medical doctors singly and in a group reacted to the fast with words of denunciation. Dr. Tanner was called a fraud and imposter. Realizing that his standing in the community was at stake he proposed to the Henepin County Medical Society of Minn., that he would fast again for them to observe that a long fast was possible. Instead of accepting his proposal they met it with further ridicule. Considered a mad quack Dr. Tanner said he was shunned by all classes of people high and low, cultured and uncultured. My business has gone a glimmering; reputation ditto, my old time friends upon whom I had banked, shunned me as they would a person with the contagion of small pox in their garments.

In 1879 opportunity offered itself to clear himself of the stigma, in defense of Mollie Fancher against Dr. W. A. Hammond. Dr. Hammond had called the fasting girl a fraud and was willing to pay her one thousand dollars if she fasted 20 days. Dr. Hammond accepted Dr. Tanner as a substitute. After Dr. Tanner traveled to New York, Dr. Hammond backed out. Dr. Tanner had so much trouble and hardships during six weeks in New York that he lost 36 pounds. His troubles are too lengthy to relate here, but he finally found a group that would oversee his fast: the United States Medical College in New York City under the sponsorship of Dr. R. A. Gunn. The fast began on June 28, 1880 in Clarendon Hall. Watched at various times by sixty volunteer physicians the watch was as rigid as "satanic ingenuity could make it." He lay on a canvas cot, with six gas jets that were lit all night projecting a glare on his face. The cot was devoid of sheets and mattress, and he had only a piano spread for a coveri

On the 10th day of the fast Dr. Bradley falsely accused Dr. Tanner of taking food. The resulting disturbance was so great that as Dr. Tanner said he was so agitated that it was like fasting an additional five days. The Herald Tribune expended almost two thousand dollars after the first week to see that justice was done and named its own watch for 32 days which consisted of a double watch of 32 men in 24 hours, not only to watch the faster but also the other watchers. In an editorial at that time the Herald Tribune said that the "behaviour of the watchers was inhuman." The fast attracted so much attention that close to the end of the fast he received six hundred letters a day. The fast was broken on August 7th, as Dr. Gunn said amidst "The deafening chaos and the wild enthusiasm of the audience." It was a real holiday and Tanner writes of it:

"The hall was crowded with a throng of enthusiastic and excited people. The streets were a jam for blocks away. Thousands upon thousands who couldn't find entrance into the hall were earnest to see the breaking of the fast. Hammond had predicted my death in less than 24 hours after the breaking event, ministers congregated in numbers to offer spiritual advice and prepare me for the change. The pastor of the Strangers Church, a well meaning man, was particularly anxious to fix my attention on things pertaining to my eternal welfare, to all of which I turned a deaf ear, my thoughts were centered on the things of earth at that hour as never before."

Headlines throughout the Nation acclaimed Dr. Tanner as a hero.

With Dr. Tanner's happy ending one could think that misrepresentation would no longer exist but apparently the press today is much more orthodox and medically inclined than it was during Tanner's day. Even today untruths are published about Dr. Tanner. A few years ago in a national weekly magazine there appeared an article on fasting, wherein it was falsely stated that Tanner attempted to fast forty days "but reconsidered after 14 days." In this same article another false remark is that Dr. Tanner, a professional faster, fasted forty days in 1890 and that he received a thousand dollars and that weakness forced him to give up. Dr. Tanner was not a professional faster. He sought to prove that a long fast was possible and, as he said in a letter that appeared in the New York Times on January 18, 1880, he wanted to awaken nations and individuals "to thought and action" concerning the fast: not for money, for all he asked was a suitable apartment to fast in, all other expenses entailed he

The Associated Press recently (July 11, 1942) in a dispatch from San Antonio, Texas, again tried to distort the truth about the fast. The fast was accused of producing a lethal effect and according to the dispatch that appeared in a Jamestown, N. Y., paper a woman "died of starvation as a result of a fasting treatment." "This woman lived on a diet of water to which a few dried vegetables were added in the final days of treatment." Charges were placed against that staunch and fearless fighter for truth, Dr. H. M. Shelton. The writing of this dispatch must have been done by a ninconpoop. Who ever heard of a water diet? A person does not die of starvation as the result of a fast. Fasting is physiological, while starvation is pathological. The object of the fast is to suspend nutrition and no food is given. Water is not a food therefore fasting is not a water diet. Water (H2O) enters the body, stays there a certain time and is then eliminated as H2O. Diet means according to Taber's Medic

As for the dried vegetables, no one in the history of fasting has ever advocated the use after a fast, of dried lettuce, celery, spinach, carrots, potatoes or the any other vegetables. A Natural Hygienist does not give dried vegetables in any form. To read this report one would certainly come to the conclusion, that fasting is destructive, but the truth is otherwise. To begin with the woman had what is considered in medicine as an incurable disease. Though she fasted 34 days she had been eating two months before she left Dr. Shelton's place. She died about two weeks later in a hospital. How could starvation be the cause of her death? Even if she had died on the fast, it would not have been the result of the fast, since it was conducted by one of the few authorities on the fast. The woman was discharged by Dr. Shelton because she refused to cooperate, showing that lie not only had a patient with a severe physical condition but one whose conduct was erratic.

Dr. Tanner would never have believed it possible in 1942, yet Dr. Shelton's trouble proves that pioneering is not over and that true health reformers like of yore still exist.

The unpleasantries that we as Natural Hygienists have undergone and will undergo are not unexpected for we knew before entering the work that we would have many troublesome days, for as Dr. James C. Jackson said in a speech on New Year's Day of 1859: "The man who has settled it,- that he will be faithful to his convictions happen what may to him or his, must also settle that he will have trials." And how can it be otherwise for we have before us as Jackson continues "principles sublime enough in and of themselves to make a true man glad to spend his strength in their defense." The laws that govern this universe have not gone amiss when it makes the path of the Natural Hygienist so strewn with obstacles, for truth will win even though eons must pass before victory becomes a reality.

In my trials the prosecution stressed to the jury that since it was obvious that I was guilty of a crime it was up to them to see that I could no longer plague the community with my destructive methods. For, as she stated, "The State has set a high standard as to who is to practice medicine so as to safeguard the health of the people," and then continued: "Furthermore, did this defendant have the qualifications and the right to take care of hopeless cases." Hopeless cases it is true! Often have we wished that we could get a few cases that are not hopeless so as to spare us much depletive work. But since the sick cannot be forsaken and since to starve practicing Natural Hygiene is more conducive to my equanimity than getting rich at a much easier avocation, I will never cease doing this work.

Those who have persecuted the Natural Hygienists should realize the magnitude of their wickedness. Some day Nature will demand an accounting. The laws of nature are not nullified for them. The harm that their efforts have brought to others is only momentary but the destruction to themselves is much more lasting. As Marcus Aurelius Antoninus said: "He who does wrong does wrong against himself. He who acts unjustly acts unjustly to himself, because he makes himself bad." This is an orderly universe; chaos has its day, but that day must eventually come to an end.

Those who have aligned themselves against truth must realize, as Orlando J. Smith says, that:

Everything in Nature, conscious and unconscious, animate and inanimate, is busily engaged in paying its debts. By what system is this perfect accounting made? We see no books, observe no management, and yet the numberless settlements are made with as much exactness as if each one were superintended by a group of experts, combining more of knowledge and justice than are possessed by all of the mathematicians, scientists, thinkers, philosophers and judges in the world. We cannot explain this accounting on the theory of chance or accident; we must conclude that it is the justice which regulates the affairs of the world.

A Natural Hygienist will not allow intolerance and persecution to alter him but for the better. Moreover, oppression will only produce more determination to resist the forces of destruction. Though our enemies bring hardships, ruin can never befall us. The wise words of Seneca are fitting here:

"Why do many adversities befall good men? i No evil can happen to a good man; contraries do not unite, just as so many rivers, so many showers of rain pouring from the heavens, so great a number of medicinal fountains, do not change the taste of the sea, nor even modify it, so the shock of adversity does not affect the mind of a brave man. He remains ready for action, and whatever happens, he gives to it his own color, for he is more powerful than all I external circumstances. I do not say that he does not feel them, but he overcomes them and even quietly and calmly rises superior to their assaults."

My acquittal is not one that vindicates me, ' but Natural Hygiene, and one that shows that in this world, tormented by war, men still understand and see the good there is in Nature and men.