Disease Is Remedial Activity

[Guest guest]

Disease Is

Remedial Activity - HM Shelton

Hygienic Review

Vol. XXXIV July, 1978 No. 11

Disease Is Remedial Activity

by Herbert M. Shelton

"Polio has struck twice within six days in the family of.... " These

words formed the first part of a statement in a news item published a

few years ago, and bring up the question once again: "What is disease?"

This language implies that disease is an entity, a thing that has an

existence, per se, that is capable of striking. It struck one child

and, not being satisfied with the havoc it wrought, it struck another

child in the same family six days later. In this instance, the disease

was the variety or species known as poliomyelitis.

The ancient idea that the sick are possessed of devils lingered on in

the minds of the people and in the practices "of the priests and

physicians for ages after it should have passed into oblivion. All

during the Middle Ages and even today in some sects of America and

Europe, this doctrine of demonic possession was held to be abundantly

proved by the Bible. Jesus is said to have cast out devils and during

the Middle Ages it was held that to doubt demonical possession was to

overthrow the entire structure of Christian doctrine. The doctrine of

demonic possession was as well grounded in the Scriptures as was a

belief in witches and witchcraft. This belief in demons that infest the

air and take possession of the bodies of man and beast is far older

than the Bible.

Paracelsus, the vagabond quack of a little over four hundred years ago,

whose star of popularity is again rising, held that the air was so full

of devils that you could not get a hair between them. Paracelsus was a

Cabalist and held to a lot of other ancient and mystical nonsense. He

believed devils to be more plentiful than his modem medical successor

believes microbes to be.

During the long dark night of Christian ascendancy, it was held that

the insane are possessed of devils and the only care these miserable

beings received was intended to scare away or drive out the devils that

had taken possession of them. They were chained in loathsome dungeons

and tortured and beaten with a brutality that we do not understand

today. Sometimes they were kept awake for a week or more in the effort

to exorcize the demon. The demons were cursed in the most elaborate

theological blasphemy ever devised, and the mentally sick were

compelled to drink the most nauseating and disgusting compounds.

Exorcizing devils was done by priests, cabalists, physicians and

others. The Jesuits of Vienna, in 1583, boasted that they had cast out

no less than 12, 652 devils. Devil-chasers were common in those

benighted days and devil-chasing was as popular as microbe slaying is

today. Historically and psychologically, the words possession and

infection represent only different rationalizations of the same

superstition; they stand for identical delusional mental processes and

deluding etiological speculations. The medieval wizard who chased

devils has evolved into the modem serologist who chases microbes.

The belief in devils or demons is by no means dead. Millions pf people

in Africa, China, India, Burma, Tibet, and other parts of the world

believe in the existence of these "unseen powers and principalities of

the air, " and the practice of devil-chasing is as popular among these

people as it was two thousand years ago. But we do not have to go to

the more backward sections of the earth to find a belief in devils and

witchcraft still surviving. We have plenty of people in America who

believe in witchery or "hexing, " in haunted houses, spirit

communications, and in the existence of great numbers of demons that

infest earth's atmosphere and seek to gain control of the bodies and

minds of man. The founder of one of the newer sects, some years ago

published a book on spiritism, in which he showed from the Scriptures,

that spirit mediums do not talk with the spirits of the departed dead,

but with demons or "fallen angels" that inhabit the atmosphere. In this

book, he describes the procedures adopted by him to exorcize devils

from the bodies of those who were possessed. This man was a

well-educated ex-atheist, who lived and wrote in the early years of

this century. He lived, not in far away superstition-ridden Tibet, but

in enlightened America. I am assured by one of the members of this

sect, which now numbers many thousands of adherents throughout the

world, that its members still believe in demons and in demonical

possession. This reminds me of the little Sunday-school boy's statement

that, "Faith means believing what you know ain't true. "

This very old idea that disease is an entity that attacks the body and

wreaks as much havoc therein as possible has taken several forms

through the ages and is incarnated in the germ theory that holds sway

today. Hippocrates was the first to break away from the theory that

disease is a divine punishment, but he was unable to fully emancipate

himself from the belief that it is an attacking entity. His humoral

pathology was a crude biochemistry and he sought for the cause of

disease in an unbalanced chemistry of the body, but at the same time,

he held that disease is a positive entity or substance which has to be

expelled by hammer and tongs.

According to Pliny, Acron was the first to apply philosophical

reasoning to the problems of disease. He held that there is an "active

cause" of disease possessed of a riotous disposition. Galen regarded

disease as "additional forces, foreign and inimical to the animal, with

a birth, prime, and decline, like those of a physiological nature. " He

is supposed to have borrowed the idea from Plato, but, since the idea

was ancient when Plato was born, this presumption seems unnecessary.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the idea still prevailed

that disease is a positive and organized entity. Hufland said: "The

intestinal canal is, in the great majority of cases, the battle-field

where the issue of most disorders is decided. " Hufland declared: "We

must introduce the only medicine of which we are thoroughly convinced

that it possesses the power of efficiently striving with the enemy,

who, by subtle means, has now effected an entrance within our

stronghold. " Stille asserted that "the whole of life is a perpetual

struggle with an enemy to whom we must at last succumb. " The present

day physician would say: "The whole of life is a perpetual struggle

with malignant microbes that will eventually destroy us. "

A hundred years ago it was freely admitted that the nature and essence

of disease was unknown. Many leaders of medical thought frankly

expressed the opinion that its nature can never be understood. Prof.

B. Wood, of Jefferson Medical College said in Wood's Practice of

Medicine: "Efforts have been made to reach the elements of disease; but

not very successfully; because we have not learned the essential nature

of the healthy actions, and cannot understand their derangements. "

There is inherent in this statement the idea that disease is

"disordered physiology. " It was so defined by certain medical

authorities in Wood's time.

The present views of the profession on the nature of disease are not

easy to determine. The subject is never discussed in their text-books

of pathology, nor in their works on the practice of medicine. By common

consent they seem to have agreed to ignore the subject. Disease is now

listed among the "seven modern mysteries. " Sir McKenzie, one of

the greatest clinicians of modem times, said a few years ago: "The

knowledge of disease is so incomplete that we do not yet even know what

steps should be taken to advance our knowledge. "

In spite of this, medical men do have some idea of what disease is, as

may be gained from their statements concerning it. It is said to attack

us, to run its course, to be very malignant, or quite mild, to ravish

the patient, to persistently resist all treatment, to yield readily to

treatment, to be seated within us, to be self-limited, to supervene, to

retreat, to set in, to travel from part to part, to stimulate each

other, to change type, to sweep over the country like a fire, to travel

from one place to another, to ride the air lanes, to be carried about,

etc. They talk of banishing a disease, of wiping it out, of conquering

it, or of destroying it. They meet its onslaught with active measures.

All of these expressions and many more like them refer to disease as an

entity or thing that exists per se. They are consistent with the

ancient theory that disease is an organized substance or force existing

outside the organic domain and that is at war with life. Even if, at

present, they be regarded as metaphorical they indicate the kinds of

operations sought to be carried out in treating the sick. Medical men

are still at war with unseen principalities and powers of the air.

The medical historian, Shyrock, tells us in his The Development of

Modern Medicine, that a new etiology based on bacteriology "showed that

the cause of tuberculosis-if not the malady itself-were indeed definite

realities. It proved that there was, in the case of tuberculosis, some

thing there that acted as if it were an entity. " He also points out

that today a diphtheria epidemic in a community is interpreted by the

board of health to indicate the presence of a definite intruder. Thus

the old idea of disease as an entity is still with us, and the

foregoing expressions about disease are not to be regarded as metaphors

today, any more than they were when they were first used. They

accurately express prevailing medical views of the nature and essence

of disease.

The medical profession never had a theory of the essential nature of

disease that would bear criticism. It never had one that it could stand

by. It never had a theory of disease that somebody did not explode. No

sooner did some distinguished professor present them with a new theory,

which had cost him the work of half a lifetime to evolve, than some

ambitious rival would demolish it in a criticism that required but half

an hour to write. The profession seems content today to "rock along"

without any well-defined theory of the essential nature of disease,

while continuing to treat the patient as though he is the victim of an

attack by malignant entities.

The nearest approach to an explanation of the nature of disease that

has been offered by medical men within recent years is the one that a

few years ago came out of Russia. Although it represents a step in the

right direction, this one is very incomplete. The Russian experimenters

have found that the disease is the body's own actions-they say

"reaction. " But, having failed to discern the purposive or remedial

character of these actions, they are working on the development of a

mode of treatment that represents a return to the deadly narcotic

practice of a hundred years ago. Instead of malignant spirits or

malignant bacteria, they are fighting malignant reflexes. Baker

Eddy tussled with malignant animal magnetism.

It is the law of life that the body resists and expels whatever it

cannot use. Disease is vital resistance to non-usable, therefore,

injurious substances. The living body grows and reproduces itself. It

develops its parts and extends itself by selecting from its environment

such materials as it has the capacity to incorporate into its own

structures, and rejects and refuses all others, as both unnecessary and

injurious. The power of refusal and rejection is a necessary condition

of its vital integrity. Refusal and rejection are constant actions in

both the plant and animal world. The organism equally serves its own

interest by either act.

A plate of strawberries and cream, when taken into the stomach,

occasions the vital actions called digestion. Following digestion, the

food is absorbed, circulated and assimilated. When used so that its

elements are no longer useful, the waste is carried to the eliminating

organs and eliminated. This is physiological or healthy action.

A dose of lobelia, when swallowed, occasions the vital actions called

vomiting. This is the means by which the body expels it. A dose of

salts occasions the vital action called diarrhea. This is the means! by

which the body expels the salts. By diuresis, the body expels other

substances. Now the acts of digestion and of vomiting are equally vital

and they differ only as the objects to which they relate differ. One is

conservative, the other remedial. One is physiology, the other

pathology. One has as its object the expulsion of noxious substances.

All the actions performed by the vital organs are vital actions. Vital

actions are either normal or abnormal. The difference between health

and disease is simply this: Health is the regular or normal performance

of the functions of the body, it is normal action-physiology. Disease

is irregular and abnormal action of the body in expelling injurious

substances and repairing damages-pathology. Health expresses the

aggregate of vital actions and processes that nourish and develop the

body and all its organs and structures and provide for reproduction; in

other words, health is the action of the vital powers in building up

and replenishing the organic structures; or in still plainer words, the

conversion of the elements of food into the elements of the body's

tissues, and the elimination of waste. Disease is the aggregate of

vital actions and processes by which poisons are expelled and damages

repaired; it is the action of the same powers that are active in

health, in defending the organism against injurious or abnormal

agencies and conditions.

The nature of disease is explained in the same way that the modus

operandi of drugs is explained. The immediate effect of the

introduction of a poison into the body is morbid vital action. This is

disease. The action of the organism against any repugnant or poisonous

substance is defensive-it is an effort to dispose of the offending

material. Purging occasioned by a drug is a perfect illustration of

diarrhea and dysentery. Vomiting from an emetic is carried on in the

same way, and for the same purpose, that vomiting from any other cause

is carried on. The excitement occasioned by alcohol is precisely

similar to the excitement occasioned by danger, by the cry of fire at

midnight, or the discovery of a burglar in the house.

Symptoms are evidences of vitality-dead bodies do not produce symptoms.

Deprive the living organism of its ability to manifest its repugnance

to incompatible things, its power to reject and resist these, in the

defensive manner that we call disease, and you deprive it of life

itself. If the organism does not act abnormally under sufficiently

powerful abnormal conditions, this will be proof positive that it has

lost its vitality and is dead, or nearly so. Disease is a product of

life. Vitality is as necessary an element of disease as water is of

steam. Existing only where life exists, it does so subject to the great

laws of life. It is not "disordered physiology" but re-directed vital

activity. Its essential nature is not altered one bit by the fact that

it often fails of its object. If a man fails in his object to acquire a

million dollars, this does not alter the nature of his acquisitiveness.

The word disease is a generic term and covers a multitude of phenomena,

some of these being of opposite character to others. It is quite

obvious that blindness, deafness, paralysis, emphysema, cancer and

other degenerative diseases are not remedial activities. This does not

invalidate our theory of the essential nature of disease but it does

emphasize the need for a new terminology, one that more precisely

classifies the different phenomena that are now confusingly jumbled

together under the rubric disease. I have suggested the term, which I

coined, biogony, for those elements of disease as now understood that

are remedial in character. Biogony is a combination of two Greek

roots-bios meaning life and agony meaning struggle. Although I coined

this word and gave it to the world nearly forty years ago, it has not

been accepted, perhaps because our theory of the essential nature of

disease has not been accepted.

Herbert M. Shelton

-- Peace be with you,

Don "Quai" Eitner

"Spirit sleeps in the mineral, breathes in the vegetable, dreams in the animal and wakes in man."

Nearly all men die of their remedies, and not of their illnesses. ~Baptiste Molière, Le Malade Imaginaire

The obstacle is the path. ~Zen Proverb