| |
The Testimony of Science
[30] SOMETIMES those of us who plead for a return to the ways of nature in the matter of foods and drinks from reasons of health, humaneness and spiritual culture, are considered misguide, though well meaning individuals, ignorant alike of Anatomy and Medical Science, and that we are dogmatic without authority.
It is quite true that in argument one is apt to be dogmatic, and one may seem to be so without intending it. It is, however, a remarkable fact that with scarcely any exception all the great reformers of the world had had to assert themselves in a manner that has seemed dogmatic. If a man is absolutely sure of a truth, his confident statement of it will seem a piece of dogmatism to the men who cannot see it.
There may be some truth in the affirmation made by those who take a different view of this question, that our knowledge of physiology and pharmaceutics is elementary. Still, we number amongst our band some of the ablest Anatomists, Surgeons, Physicians, and Chemists, whose opinion is the outcome of knowledge gained in professional pursuits. Upon such opinions we can fall back and rest with a degree of confidence. As there is no gainsaying the Higher Laws of God, nor the Testimony of History, neither is there that to the Testimony of Science. Let us listen to what these important teachers have to say.
* * * * * * * * * *
[31] Darwin in his magnificent contributions to the study of Human Origins in relation to the evolution of the physical life of man, has clearly shown the very close relationship existing between the anthropoid apes and ourselves both in structure and function. ("The Descent of Man.") Now, is it not a remarkable thing that all the Primates, with the exception of Man, should be frugivorous? Yet that is the case. The anthropoid apes and all the quadrumana in their natural state live on fruit, grains, and nuts. This fact is attested by such scientists as Cuvier, Owen, Broca, Mivart, Lawrence, Bell, Pouchet, Gassendi, Flourens, and many of our own generation. But we will hear some of their own words.
Dr. F. A. Pouchet, the author of the well-known book "The Universe," writes in his "Pluralite de la Race Humaine,"—
"It has been truly said that Man is frugivorous. All the details of his intestinal canal, and above all his dentition, prove it in the most decided manner."
* * * * * * * * * *
One of the most famous Anatomists, Professor Baron Cuvier, wrote:
"The natural food of Man, judging from his structure, appears to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the one hand, and his canines being equal [32] only in length to the other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the other, would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage, or to devour flesh, were these condiments not previously prepared by cooking." ("The Animal Kingdom," New Ed., 1858, p. 34.)
And again, in his "Lecon d'Anatomie Comparative," as quoted by Shelley in his essay entitled "A Vindication of Natural Diet," he says:—
"Comparative Anatomy teaches us that man resembles the frugivorous animals in everything, the carnivorous in nothing.… It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary preparation that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror does not excite loathing and disgust.…
"Man resembles no carnivorous animal. There is no exception, unless man be one, to the rule of herbivorous animals having cellulated colons. The orang-outang perfectly resembles man both in the order and in the number of his teeth.
"The orang-outang is the most anthropomorphous (manlike) of the ape tribe, all of whom are strictly frugivorous. There is no other species of animals which live on different foods in which this analogy exists."
And once more in the same essay—
"The structure of the human frame, then, is that of one fitted to a pure vegetable diet in every essential particular. It is true that the reluctance to abstain from animal food, in those who have been long accustomed to stimulus, is so great in some persons of weak [33] minds as to be scarcely overcome. But this is far from bringing any argument into its favour."
* * * * * * * * * *
Professor William Lawrence, F.R.S., in his lectures delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons in 1822, said:
"The teeth of man have not the slightest resemblance to those of the carnivorous animals, excepting that their enamel is confined to the external surface. He possesses, indeed, teeth called canine but they do not exceed the level of others, and are obviously unsuited to the purposes which the corresponding teeth execute in carnivorous animals."
"Thus we find, whether we consider the teeth and jaws, or the immediate instruments of digestion, that the human structure closely resembles that of the Apes, all of whom, in their natural state are completely herbivorous [frugivorous.] (Lectures on Comparative Anatomy, Physiology and Zoology. Ed. 1848. Lects. II. and III., pp. 189 and 191.)
Professor Sir Charles Bell, F.R.S., writes in his work on the "Diseases of the Teeth":
"It is, I think, not going too far to say that every fact connected with the human organisation goes to prove that man was originally formed a frugivorous animal. This opinion is derived principally from the formation of his teeth and digestive organs, as well as from the character of his skin and the general structure of his limbs." ("Anatomy, Physiology, and Diseases of the Teeth." 1829 Ed., p. 35.)
[34] Professor Sir Richard Owen, F.R.S., in his elaborate work, "Odontography," affirms the like facts:
"The apes and monkeys, whom man nearly resembles in his dentition, derive their staple food from fruits, grain, the kernels of nuts, and other forms in which the most sapid and nutritious tissues of the vegetable kingdom are elaborated ; and the close resemblance between the Quadrumanous and the Human dentition shows that man was, from the beginning, adapted to eat the fruit of the trees of the garden." (Vol. 1., pp. 471, 2. 1845 Ed.)
Dr. W. Benjamin Carpenter, C.B., F.R.S., whose work on "Mental Physiology" has helped so much towards a more serious consideration by the Medical Faculty of Psychological Science in their treatment of disease—emphasises the same fact in his work, "The Animal Kingdom." And in another work in which he is discussing whether man belongs to the Carnivorous or Herbivorous races, he writes:—
"Now, the condition of man may be regarded as intermediate between these two extremes [the Carnivorous and the Herbivorous]. The construction of his digestive apparatus, as well as his own instinctive propensities, point to a mixed diet as that which is best suited to his wants. It does not appear that a diet composed of ordinary vegetables only, is favourable to the full development of either his body or mental powers; but this cannot be said in regard to a diet of which bread [whole-meal] is the chief ingredient, since the gluten it contains appears to be as well adapted for the nutrition of the animal tissues, as does the flesh of [35] animals." ("Principles of Human Physiology," Section 433, p. 369, Ed. 1844.)
Dr. Edward Smith, L.L.B., F.R.S., in his discussion on "Foods," writes—
"Seeing moreover that the source of flesh in animals which are used as food is vegetables, it follows that vegetables should have the same elements as flesh ; and it is a fact of great interest that in vegetables we have food closely analogous to the flesh of animals. Thus in addition to water and salts, common to both, there is vegetable jelly, vegetable albumen, vegetable fibrin, and vegetable casein, all having a composition almost identical with animal albumen, gelatine, chondrin and casein. Hence our appetites, and the bountiful provision made for us, extend our choice to both the vegetable and animal kingdoms, and it is possible to find vegetable foods on which man could live as long as upon animal food alone. Bread is in vegetarian foods what flesh is in animal foods, and each within itself contains nearly all the elements required for nutrition." ("Foods," p. 8, Ed. 1877.)
* * * * * * * * * *
And, then, to go still further back to Gassendi, the great scientist of the seventeenth century, of whom Bayle wrote that he was "The greatest philosopher among scholars, and the greatest scholar among philosophers," we find a noble plea on scientific grounds for a non-flesh diet. Writing to his friend, Van Helmont, a physician of note, who was more anxious to discover a reason for continuing to eat animals than to discern truth, he says:—
[36] "I was contending that from the conformation of our teeth we do not appear to be adapted by Nature to the use of a flesh diet, since all animals whom Nature has formed to feed on flesh have their teeth long, conical, sharp, uneven, and with intervals between them—of which kind are lions, tigers, wolves, dogs, cats and others. But those who are made to subsist only on herbs and fruit have their teeth short, broad, blunt, close to one another, and distributed in even rows.…
"And further—that men have received from Nature teeth which are unlike those of the first class, and resemble those of the second. It is, therefore, probable…that Nature intended them to follow, in the selection of their food, not the carnivorous tribes, but those races of animals which are contented with the simple productions of the earth.…
"Wherefore, I here repeat, that from the primeval institution of our nature, the teeth were destined to the mastication, not of flesh, but of fruits."
* * * * * * * * * *
Science is our friend. The scientists who are candid with us are our truest friends. But the friendship of science is nothing unless we profit by it. Our glorying in science is a piece of sheer vanity and empty boasting unless the knowledge we gain is applied to life. And the knowledge we gain from the Anatomists tells us in no uncertain language that by Nature we were destined to be frugivorous, and that to live upon flesh meats violates the fundamental laws of our being! [37] The question is often raised by those who have never thought seriously upon the subject of foods, "How could we live without flesh as a part of our diet?" There are many, and their name is legion, who believe that life would be impossible without mutton chops, beef-steaks, bacon, and all sorts and conditions of cooked flesh. With them it is not so much a matter of inhumaneness as a condition of ignorance ; they naturally consider their bodies first and the animals last. After all, what has anatomy to do with it ? We can adapt ourselves to everything, and convert everything to our use. And the doctors—have they not advised us to take some lean chops and a good roast steak? For generations men and women have lived and thrived on flesh foods; they have brought up families; they have left behind them a goodly heritage: what they have done surely we can do also!
Just so; what they have done we could do! But what is the heritage we would leave behind us? What is the heritage these noble flesh-eaters have left behind? Is the average life stronger or weaker? Is the joy of health a more general experience than in the past, or is ill-health the demagogue of the flesh? Has the average life less disease or more disease? Has the increase of flesh-eating made the body less liable to sickness, or has it made it more susceptible to all the ills possible to the flesh?
Are doctors who exist to combat disease, masters of the situation, or are they mastered by the perpetual encroachments of diseases which all the compositions in their Materia Medica cannot resist? Is it not true that [38] as soon as they seem to have mastered disease in one form, it breaks out in another ? And is not this a sure testimony to the sorrowful fact that the flesh itself is sick to its very foundations?
* * * * * * * * * *
The doctor is the family friend—at least he ought to be. Some of us have most intimate friends in the noble profession. From many of them we have personally received the greatest kindness. Yet we find that the question of food values has not been examined by many of them. It does not come within the scope of their curriculum, consequently most of them have never given the subject a serious thought. But where they have found the desire and time to do so, the results have been startling. Thus Dr. Spenser Thompson says, "No physiologist would dispute with those who maintain that men ought to live on vegetable diet." And Sir Henry Thompson, M.D., F.R.C.S., though not an absolute fruitarian in practice, nevertheless wrote these words: "It is a vulgar error to regard meat in any form as necessary to life. All that is necessary to the human body can be supplied by the vegetable kingdom.—The Vegetarian can extract from his food all the principles necessary for the growth and support of the body, as well as for the production of heat and force. It must be admitted as a fact beyond all question that some persons are stronger and more healthy who live on that food. I know how much of the prevailing meat diet is not merely a wasteful extravagance, but a source of [39] serious evil to the consumer." ("Diet in Relation to Age and Activity," p. 70.)
And again in the same work, when writing of the wasteful extravagance, physically and morally, of the eating and drinking habits of our times and country:—
"It is an erroneous idea that a simple form of dietary, such as the vegetable kingdom in the largest sense of the term furnishes, may not be appetising and agreeable to the palate. On the contrary, I am prepared to maintain that it may be easily served in forms highly attractive, not only to the general, but to a cultivated taste. A preference for the high flavours and stimulating scents peculiar to the flesh of vertebrate animals, mostly subsides after a fair trial of milder foods when supplied in variety." (Pp. 87, 8. Ed. 1886.)
And once more, when dealing with the question from the standpoint of the rearing of children:
"To revert once more to the question of flesh-eating, it should be remarked that it appears to be by no means a natural taste with the young. Few children like that part of the meal which consists of meat, but prefer the pudding, the fruit, or the vegetables, if well-dressed, which unhappily is not often the case. Many children manifest great repugnance to meat at first, and are coaxed and even scolded by anxious mothers until the habit of eating it is acquired. Adopting the insular creed, which regards beef and mutton as necessary to health, the mother suffers from groundless forebodings about the future of a child who rejects flesh, and manifests what [40] is regarded as an unfortunate partiality for bread and butter and pudding. Nevertheless, I am satisfied, if the children followed their own instincts in this matter, the result would be a gain in more ways than one. Certainly if meat did not appear in the nursery until the children sent for it, it would be rarely seen there, and the young ones would thrive better on milk and eggs, with the varied produce of the vegetable kingdom." (Pp. 72-74. Ed. 1886.)
* * * * * * * * * *
Such testimony from one so eminent in his profession, and who is not in complete sympathy, even now in his advanced years, with the Fruitarian movement, is invaluable; and it reveals this fact, that if Medical Science would only open its windows to the light, fearless of what might happen to its members, untrammelled by the social customs of our time, then the voice of the physician would become that of the prophet and reformer, and his touch would have the magical healing which to-day it lacks.
The late Sir Benjamin W. Richardson, M.D., F.R.S., was acknowledged to be one of the finest sanitary reformers, a most accomplished hygienist, and most eminent as a physician. He lifted the drink question out of the toils of mediocrity on to the high level of scientific authority. He tried to do the same for the food question, and through his writings and his advice as one in a high position, became one of the few real doctors. In his "Foods for Man—Animal and Vegetable—a Comparison," he tells the reader that:
[41] "It must be honestly admitted that, weight by weight, vegetable substances when they are carefully selected, possess the most striking advantages over animal food in nutritive value.…I should like to see the vegetarian and fruit-living plan brought into general use, and I believe it will be." ("Longman's Magazine," May, 1888.)
In his "Salutisland," which is an attempt to picture the Model State, he abolishes the slaughter-house, and all its abominations and attendant evils:
"In the midst of the towns the eye is struck with the cultivation of fruit trees that prevail. The towns of Salutisland might be called, as ancient Norwich once was called, the towns or cities of orchards. Throughout all the country the land is under cultivation of the most perfect kind of cereal produce and fruit and vegetables.…A man, woman, or child who for wanton pleasure should hunt down or torture one of the inferior creatures would be cast out of Society; while the idea of having dumb animals killed or hung up in open shops to bleed and be quartered and cooked for human beings to live on, would be treated with disgust."
And in an address delivered some years ago before the "Congress on Public Health," he said:
"He sincerely hoped that before the close of the (nineteenth) century, not only would slaughter-houses be abolished, but that the use of animal flesh as food, would be absolutely abandoned.
"We have also to learn, as a first truth, the truth that the oftener we go to the vegetable world for our food, the oftener we go to the first, and, therefore, to the cheapest [42] source of supply. The commonly accepted notion that when we eat animal-flesh we are eating food at its prime source, cannot be too speedily dissipated or too speedily replaced by the knowledge that there is no primitive form of food—albuminous, starchy, osseous…in the animal world itself, and that all the processes of catching an inferior animal, or of breeding it, rearing it, killing it, dressing it, eating it, mean no more or less than entirely additional expenditure throughout for bringing into (what we have been taught to consider) an acceptable form of food, the veritable food which the animal itself found, without any such preparation, in the vegetable world." ("Modern Thought," July, 1880.)
* * * * * * * * * *
Surely sensible people must listen to such disinterested, sincere and cultured men! What is the good of the science of Anatomy if we continue to violate its laws! And of what value is the highest science of Chemistry and Hygiene, if we turn a deaf ear to its voice, and by our conduct repudiate the wisdom of its message? The specialist and not the average practitioner is the authority of the present time, and it is to the specialists we must listen.
Hear, then, one other, a man famous in his department, though reckoned a "crank" by many who are not fit to undo his shoe-lachet. I refer to the eminent physician Alex. Haig, M.D., F.R.C.P., than whom there is no higher authority on Rheumatism and Gout. In his work entitled "Uric Acid" he says:
"That it is easily possible to sustain life on the products [43] of the vegetable kingdom needs no demonstration for physiologists, even if a majority of the human race were not constantly engaged in demonstrating it, and my researches show not only that it is possible, but that it is infinitely preferable in every way, and produces superior powers both of mind and body.…Lastly, there is the extraordinary and almost inexplicable fact that most of the advantages of a diet from the vegetable kingdom have been pointed out by one man after another for well on to three thousand years, and their words have apparently fallen on the almost absolutely deaf ears of the meat-eaters; from whicn we may perhaps conclude that the infection of these poisons blinds the eyes of its consumers to knowledge and wisdom, and prevents them from realising that they and their fellows are constantly suffering many and terrible things for no reason." ("Uric Acid," Sixth Edition, 1903, pp. 888, 889.)
And in another work he writes:—
"As animal flesh of all kinds contains either uric acid or substances equivalent to it, such as xanthins, these sources of albumen must be ruled out, for the blood cannot be kept properly free from this substance while it is being continually introduced with every mouthful swallowed." ("Diet and Food," p. 20.)
But not only are flesh-meats unnecessary; they are physically injurious, and morally dangerous ! This is an aspect of the question that ought to appeal to man's self-regard even when he is deaf to the voice of humaneness. Sir Henry Thompson, M.D., F.R.C.S., to whom I have already referred, writes:
[44]"I have been compelled by facts to accept the conclusion that more physical evil accrues to man from erroneous habits of diet than from even alcoholic drink. I suspect this also to be the case with moral evil."
Dr. Jonathan Hutchinson, F.R.S., late Professor of Surgery and Pathology in the Royal College of Surgeons, writing on the causation of disease, says:—"I believe we must all acknowledge that it is a question of diet. About the intermediate steps of causation there may be room for much discussion and difference of opinion. But I suspect that no one will decline to accept the suggestion that had mankind continued to be vegetable feeders, and never known the use of wine or beer, we should have had no experience of gout." ("The Pedigree of Disease," pp. 75, 76.)
And once more, hear this, all lovers and advocates of beef tea ! Dr. Milner Fothergill writes:
"All the bloodshed caused by the warlike disposition of Napoleon is as nothing compared to the myriads of persons who have sunk into their graves through a misplaced confidence in the value of beef tea."
And Dr. Josiah Oldfield, M.A., D.C.L., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.,—the writer of the Vegetarian article in the new Encyclopedia Britannica, a man of wide research and far travel—writes these strong words of warning, and his message has the weight of many years of practical experience behind it:
"Flesh is an unnatural food, and, therefore, tends to [45] create functional disturbance. As it is taken in modern civilisation, it is affected with such terrible diseases (readily communicable to man) as cancer, consumption, fever, intestinal worms, etc., to an enormous extent. There is little need for wonder that flesh-eating is one of the most serious causes of the diseases that carry off ninety-nine out of every hundred people that are born."
* * * * * * * * * *
There is also a growing consensus of opinion among the eminent Medical Faculty that the great increase in cancerous growths may be traced to the effete products taken into the system with flesh-foods, as the following important statements will show. Dr. J. H. Kellogg writes:
"Dr. John Bell, who was, about a hundred years ago, professor in a leading college in London, wrote, that a careful adherence to a vegetarian dietary tended to prevent cancer. He also stated that in some cases persons who had already acquired cancer had been cured by the adherence to a non-flesh dietary. When I first read this book I did not agree with the author; I thought he was mistaken; but I have gradually come to believe that what he says on this subject is true.
"I have often had occasion to remove cancers of various kinds and varieties, and have invariably said to the patient,'You must adopt a careful vegetarian dietary; and I have found that in a large number of these cases where my advice was heeded, the cancer did not return.
"I met a lady some time ago whom I did not recognise. [46] She said, 'You saw me ten years ago and removed a large cancer for me, telling me it would very likely come back.' However, she had adopted and carefully adhered to a pure dietary, and thus by acquiring pure blood and a strong body, her system had been able to fight off this dreadful disease.
"The most remarkable case of this kind that I have ever met came to my notice a few years ago. A gentleman who lives in this town had a cancer on his neck for four years. When he discovered it, he quit eating meat, and continued to adhere closely to a pure food dietary. He soon began to recover; after a time the cancer was reduced to a small growth, and finally disappeared and healed up. There is now only a small white scar on the neck where the cancer was, and during the two years that have elapsed since that time, this man has been perfectly well. He believes, and I believe, that this cure was due to a careful adherence to a vegetarian dietary.
"I sent a specimen of this cancer to an eminent professor of pathology in the Cornell University, and after an examination, he pronounced it a case of cancer in its most deadly form. Thus was proved conclusively, at least to my own satisfaction, that there is a definite relation between meat-eating and cancer, and as Dr. Bell has said, that cancer can sometimes be cured by a strict adherence to a non-flesh dietary." ("Herald of the Golden Age," April, 1903.)
[47] "Dr. W. Roger Williams, writing on "Cancer," refers to the immunity from the disease among non-flesh-eating peoples:
"A few years ago, desiring to ascertain the actual incidence of the disease in that country, I wrote to the late Dr. Engel, of Cairo—who was then in charge of the Egyptian vital statistics—and he kindly supplied me with the following data:
"Of 19,529 deaths among natives in Cairo during 1891, only 19 were returned as due to cancer (females 10, males 9,) or 1 in 1,028. In England during the same year I have ascertained that the proportion of cancer deaths was 1 in 29.
"Of 12,950 patients at the Kasr-el-Aini Hospital during the years 1889-91, only 77 were affected with cancer, or 0.6 per cent. In London general hospitals at about the same period I have ascertained that the proportion of cancer cases was 3.5 per cent.
"From these data it appears that the reputation of Egypt for comparative immunity from cancer is well founded.
"In Tunis, Algeria, and Morocco, cancer is almost as rare among the natives as in Egypt.
"It is a curious fact that the lowest European cancer death rates are to be found in just those parts of the Continent that are contiguous to the North African littoral. Thus the Sardinian cancer mortality for 1889 was only 1.7 per 10,000 living, that of Calabria 2.4, and Sicily 2.8. The Corsican cancer mortality is almost [48] equally low, and along the Spanish Mediterranean littoral cancer is very rare.
"In these parts of the world, as in Northern Africa, the conditions of existence are unfavourable to the development of cancer. If I am asked to define these conditions, it may be answered that they comprise extreme frugality in living, open-air existence, and last—but not least—an alimentation which includes but little animal food.
"The history of the African negro shows that considerations of this kind do play an important part in determining the incidence of the cancer mortality. In their native habitat, negroes appear to be almost exempt from cancer. Transplanted to the United States, and living there in slavery—with hard work and frugal diet —cancer was not common among them, although they then became subject to it. Since the abolition of slavery, however, and the altered habits thus entailed, the United States negroes have become almost as prone to cancer as their white neighbours.
"In like manner, the North American Indians were in their natural state exempt from cancer; but, in proportion as they have adopted civilised modes of living, they have become increasingly prone to cancer, until such of them as now survive are just as subject to this disease as their white compatriots.
"As I pointed out in your columns a short time ago, the liability of Jews to cancer varies in the same way with their mode of life.
"From these and many other like considerations—as [49] I have more fully pointed out in my article on the Pathology of Cancer in the 'Twentieth Century Practice of Medicine' it may be inferred that the incidence of the cancer mortality varies with the conditions of existence; and this is the direction in which I think the key of the cancer problem will be found." ("British Medical Journal," Sept. 2oth, 1902.)
Mr. Frank C. Madden, F.R.C.S., Professor of Surgery, Egyptian Government School of Medicine, Cairo, makes the following striking statements on the same subject:—
"My attention has been directed to a paragraph in the 'British Medical Journal' of July 26th, 1902, on cancer in tropical countries, in which you refer to Dr. Dalgetty's experience of the extraordinary infrequency of cancer among the Hindus and Mussulmans in Adampore.
"It may be of interest to you, and to medical men generally, to learn that the same conditions obtain to large extent in Egypt. I believe I am right in saying that the consensus of opinion among medical men in Egypt is that cancer—more correctly speaking, carcinoma—is never found either in males or females amongst the black races of that country. These include the Berberines and the Soudanese, who are all Mussulmans, and live almost entirely upon a vegetarian diet.
"Cancer is fairly common, however, amongst the Arabs and Copts who form the bulk of the white population of the native Egyptians, and who, strangely [50] enough, live and eat much like Europeans." ("British Medical Journal," Aug. 3rd, 1902.)
* * * * * * * * * *
And Dr. Robert Perks, F.R.C.S., Eng., the cultured and accomplished surgeon who is devoting his splendid gifts to the cause of humanity as Honorary Secretary of the Order of the Cross, says in one of his articles:—
"The destructive changes which are always going on in the cells of living animal tissues, result in the formation of certain effete and poisonous products known under the name of uric acid and its allies' (the latter being uric acid in various stages of oxidation), which, in the normal course of things, pass into the blood stream and are thence eliminated by the kidneys as speedily as may be; the quantity so produced in the human body is, except under certain unfavourable conditions of heredity and environment, readily and completely got rid of daily. Thus in the blood and flesh of all animals, uric acid is constantly present in varying amounts, dependent on the activity of muscular and vital processes.
"When such flesh is taken as food by man this extra supply is introduced into the body ; from which it should be eliminated by the appropriate organs, as it is in no sense a food, but an effete product. But it is only under conditions of youth and great activity that this elimination is fully and completely effected. Under the ordinary conditions of our civilised life, and especially in advancing years, a portion is retained in the blood and tissues, which surplus is gradually added to day by day, until a considerable store has so accumulated in the body. At [51] length, as the result of a chill, a blow, excessive use of any part, slight dyspeptic attack, etc., these poisonous salts are precipitated in some particular region, giving rise to inflammation, pain and disturbance of function generally. The diseases having this mode of origin are known as 'gouty' or 'rheumatic.'
"The fact that the prime cause is a vitiation of the general blood stream, explains why its local manifestations may vary so widely in various individuals in accordance with accidental circumstances or hereditary proclivity; thus besides the typical forms, we see 'gouty' and 'rheumatic ' troubles of eye, heart, muscles, stomach, tonsils, and so on.
"The blood of the great majority of flesh-eaters in civilisation contains a more or less abnormal amount of uric acid, and there are few indeed who escape some minor ill consequences due to its presence, to say the least, whilst to many, life is one round of trouble due to this cause.
"In plain truth, the position of a man whose blood is thus surcharged with these effete salts, may be likened to that of a man working in a smithy with pockets stuffed with loose gunpowder—a chance spark may result in a disastrous and disabling explosion at any moment.
"That the medical profession are fully aware of the fact that these 'gouty' and 'rheumatic ' diseases are the result of the presence of poisonous salts in the body, and that these are introduced in flesh-food, is demonstrated by their general treatment of such conditions, their chief efforts being directed on the one hand to getting [52] rid of the present accumulation by means of drugs and natural mineral waters that render these salts more soluble, and help to 'wash' them out of the body; and on the other by severely limiting or prohibiting the ingestion of flesh-fods by which a further quantity may be introduced.
In view of these facts it is strange indeed that so few should be found in the ranks of physicians or patients who carry their beliefs to their logical conclusion, and in accordance therewith shun for the remainder of their days the' fons et origo ' of all their troubles, viz.:—Flesh–food.
"Again, this excess of uric acid in the blood is productive of even greater evils in another direction, the more deadly because their advent and progress is much more insidious. It has been conclusively demonstrated, both experimentally and clinically, that their presence in excess causes contraction of the minute blood vessels, causing what is known as 'high arterial tension,' which (often aided by the blocking of these vessels by uric acid in its 'colloid' form) means a serious interference to the circulation and the due supply of blood to the tissues, and throws a greatly augmented strain upon the vital organs—the heart and kidneys especially.
"From these conditions of extra work and faulty blood supply arise serious degenerations of these organs, and with the constant overstrain the muscular elements of the arterial walls suffer first from fatty, then from calcereous degeneration, often eventuating in their bursting under the undue strain to which they are exposed. [53] Meanwhile the subject of these changes, feeling 'below par,' usually strives to regain lost strength by increased supplies of flesh-food, and thus a 'vicious circle' of cause and effect is established which can only end in one way. Death is pronounced to be due to 'fatty heart,' cerebral hemorrhage,'kidney disease,' and what not; but these terms serve merely to indicate the locality of the weakest link in the vital chain which has snapped under the degenerative strain. For in reality, death occurs from slow poisoning by the effete products taken in the form of flesh-food." ("The Herald of the Golden Age," Oct., 1902.)
* * * * * * * * * *
After this fashion we might continue to quote from Anatomists, Chemists, and Physicians of high repute during the past three hundred years, all of whom testify that we were never formed to eat flesh, and that it is not necessary for our sustenance.
Is it not an astounding fact that notwithstanding our professed advancement in the knowledge of natural and moral law, our progress in branches of learning, scientific and therapeutic, our industrial improvements and soical adjustments, as a nation we are now more than ever in the very vortex of disease, that it has smitten us "hip and thigh," that wherever we turn there is Disease with a host of medical practitioners hunting after it ?
It is quite true we have not the great ravages we once had. The scourges of the East do not gain the footing they once did; but that is owing to our better knowledge of sanitation. Better dwellings, improved drainage, [54] purer water, and a truer appreciation of fresh air have wrought wonders in driving back the ravaging diseases from our shores. Yet we have more sickness, more invalids, more consumptive patients, more sufferers from heart disease, a greater dread of the rapidly increasing fearful appendicitis, more cancer and more mental aberration and lunacy than ever the world witnessed, both in this country and America.
Why is this? What can be the cause of it? Why cannot medical science instruct humanity and cope with the difficulty? We have listened to the voice of Science—anatomists, chemists, and physicians of the highest repute for knowledge and skill—and science tells us that we are daily running great risks because we persist in eating flesh-foods, that our body is not formed to digest and assimilate flesh, that by eating flesh we multiply diseases, because we violate one of the fundamental laws of Nature.
Doctors by the thousand cannot cure this; medical appliances are useless to stay the ravage; at best their pharmaceutics only relieve. What is the cause of this devastation? this incubus of suffering? this nightmare of horrors? Our manner of living!
Medical science hunts disease, makes a fetish of it, as Edward Carpenter points out in his "Civilisation: Its Cause and Cure "; but its students do not teach men and women how to prevent it. " And the world still waits for its Healer, who shall tell us—diseased and suffering as we ar— What health is, Where it is to be found, Whence it flows; and who, having touched this wonderful power [55] within himself, shall not rest till he has proclaimed and imparted it to men?"
It is this great and glorious mission which the Order of the Cross undertakes, backed up by the physical, moral and religious history of the world, and the highest scientific authority of our time!
| | |
