6. Questions & Answers

Are indigestion and acidosis diseases or just passing little crises?

These are diseases even though usually of short duration. Anything that puts us at unease is disease. While there is no such thing as acidosis because we'd die long before our body fluids reached the acid stage, there is such a thing as hypo-alkalinity. A reduction in alkalinity from a pH of 7.40 to as little as 7.35 is enough to bring on coma and another five to ten points lower may cause death.
Indigestion and what is called acidosis are usually caused by eating foods in incompatible digestive combinations and in eating a predominantly acid-forming diet. These are the primary causes of these complaints.

You said that diseases are not contagious. If so how do you explain away venereal disease? That's proven to be contagious.

I've responded to this in a way before but I'll go over these grounds again. Conventional thinking has it that gonococcus and spirochetes are transferred from one person to another during the sexual act. The "infected" person will then develop either gonorrhea or syphilis. Even the medical profession is deserting this long held belief today in favor of the herpes virus as causing what is called venereal disease.
First, syphilis is a figment of the medical imagination. Most of what is described as syphilis in the books of yesteryear were effects of mercury and sulfa drugs which the profession administered so liberally. What is described as gonorrhea is no more serious than the canker sores of the mouth. Both are eliminative steps by the body. The ulceration and suppuration represent the fifth stage of the evolution of disease. The so-called contagious factors, bacteria, are there because of the disease, not the cause of it. In fact something like 20% of those who suffer venereal diseases have neither gonococcus nor spirochetes. Saying that a pimple, ulcer or pustule in the sexual area is caused by either bacteria or viruses is like saying boils are caused by the same when it is generally agreed that boils are a result of filth in the body. Both are the same processes but occur in different areas of the body. Besides it must be recognized that the autolysis of tissue and the creation of inflammations and boils are body actions, not bacterial or viral actions.
It is not true that venereal diseases are contagious. The U.S. Navy conducted experiments wherein it was shown that so-called infected persons could not infect healthy persons. When I was with a vice squad in Japan we had cases of so-called infected prostitutes who had been with dozens of GI's, none of whom contracted the disease. On the other hand there are many who have infections in the sexual area who have not been in contact with anyone, especially in small children who do sometimes have infections in the sexual area.
The concept of contagion is unproven despite appear­ances. It is a medical scareword that stampedes customers into the offices of medical practitioners. It's much like insurance companies who like to see fires and pay off for that makes it all the easier to sell insurance.

It seems rather impudent of you to say millions of scientists, doctors, researchers and teachers of medical science are all wrong. Isn't it just possible that you're wrong about disease being body action instead of bacterial or viral action? Isn't it just possible that the medical people who've been around so long are really right?

Old myths die hard, don't they? The older and more revered the myth, the harder it is to dispel. Your question would have done well nearly five hundred years ago when Copernicus presented his heliocentric theory of the solar system. It's just difficult to believe that everyone can be wrong. But I insist that the whole profession operates on a wrong premise. The fact that fasting will enable an organism to heal quickly in injury or illness and drugging will defer or prevent healing altogether is some indication of the error of the medical school of thought. The very word medicine is a misnomer. The word means healing agent or substance. There is not such an agent or substance. Healing is always the sole prerogative of the affected organism. There's not enough intelligence and know how in the collective knowledge of the world to effect the knitting of a bone within an organism. Healing is, I repeat, entirely a body process.
The impudence lies not with me but with those who deny the obvious and plainly evident truth. Age does not make beliefs true, and truth never changes with age. The belief that the world was flat was accepted by millions over nearly two thousand years but that did not flatten the world. Likewise if the masses of our people do not accept obvious truths, truths that account for everything in health and disease and are demonstrable when put to the test, then it is those who deny the obvious that are impudent. Should I repeat an old refrain: "I'd rather be right with a persecuted few than wrong with many."

I know about the swine flu hoax but is the measles vaccination really a hoax too? If children are exposed to the measles they get it; but if they have been vaccinated they don't get it, right?

It's general knowledge that the swine flu vaccination was a hoax. It is only a question of time before people will learn of the tetanus hoax, the rabies hoax, the whooping cough hoax, the measles hoax and other medical hoaxes.
If children are exposed to others who have the measles they don't "catch" it. It is not something that is con­tagious. What is "contagious" are the food habits, that cause it (any unhealthful living habits, wrong food com­binations, stress, etc.). But children usually do not have measles if their system is too drugged and devitalized. And that's what happens when they're vaccinated. They cannot conduct the simple eliminative crisis called measles. If they cannot have measles they'll sooner or later have something worse—like cancer! Measles is a body instituted and conducted crisis to get rid of toxic accumulations. Vaccinal interference destroys the vitality necessary to have measles.
Measles is helpful, not hurtful. The body creates the measles and keeps the process in force until body cleansing has been completed. Contrary to medical myth, the body will not harm itself by conducting this or any other crisis. This is more than can be said for the vaccines, which are poisonous in themselves.
The harm said to be derived from measles is actually from the "heroic" drugging and treatment administered by the medical profession. Measles and other acute diseases are helpful body functions; the body is grappling with an overload of toxic materials. Vaccinations and drugging add to these toxic materials. They are never a "preventive" or an antidote. They can make matters worse but they have no intelligence or ability to help under any circumstances.

If vaccinations don't give us immunity, how about the antibodies vaccinated organisms produce? Don't antibodies really defend against a virus as in the case of measles?

This reminds me of a joke that goes like this: An Air Force Colonel who commanded a fighter wing was inspecting his pilots one Saturday morning. He stopped by a Captain and Lieutenant who piloted and co-piloted a plane. He asked the Captain: "What would you do, Captain, if your plane caught on fire and you couldn't open the overhead canopy?" The Captain repled: "Sir, I'd eject through the canopy." The Colonel rejoined with "You idiot, you'd be squashed to death in the process." Then he turned to the Lieutenant and asked him what he'd do. The Lieutenant meekly said, "Sir, I'd go through the hole the Captain made."
Of such substance is this question. The truth is that the body does not create new defensive faculties in responses to a poison. Rather it has its defensive faculties destroyed. Putting a question that way is like saying that the body creates antibodies to defend against tar and nicotine in cigarette smoking because the body can tolerate ever greater quantities without the same ill effects as with the first cigarette of life. The body can't tolerate smoke any better after a thousand smokes than after one. The body no longer defends against the pathogenic poisons of cigarette smoke simply because its defenses have been destroyed, not built up.
Medical researchers will tell you that "antibodies" are merely presumed and not something actually demonstra­ble in the laboratory as a new body faculty. They are presumed because, when vaccines are administered, most recipients no longer get the disease. This is because the body's defensive faculties are destroyed, not enhanced. The body's ability to conduct the simple cleansing crisis known as measles is so debilitated by the vaccinal poison that it retains what would normally be expelled. It's no accident that cancer is now the number one killer of our children. When simple cleansing cannot occur, the body all the more quickly evolves to the next and succeeding stages of disease.
Antibodies are, I repeat, a medical myth, a figment of the medical imagination.

Well, you've just admitted that vaccines lower the incidence of measles. Isn't that a good thing since measles can cause brain damage?

How can I get this across that measles are not a bane but a boon. If the body is filthy inside, a cleans­ing is a good thing. Measles are a cleansing process. The body conducts the crisis called measles and it is doing so to help itself, not hurt itself. The body never injures itself except where injury is necessary as the lesser of two evils. Brain damage does not occur from a cleansing crisis. Rather, it is the drugs that are administered in such a crisis that are responsible for the damage. Physicians damage many people with their drugs and conveniently place all blame on the body's noble reparative efforts rather than take responsibility.

How can you prove that a sickness is caused by toxicity rather than germs? Do you base your statement on laboratory proof or on empirical observations?

Were germs the cause of disease there would be no remission. If they had the power to success­fully attack living tissue and proliferate enough to lay a person low as is commonly supposed, then the results would be like the effects of rotten apples amidst good ones—they'd all soon be bad. Humans simply would not survive the ordeal and there would be no human race.
Should we fast people who were laid low with a germ-caused disease the fasting would not kill off the germs. Just as a rotten apple can spoil the good ones so, too, the germ proliferation would continue whether we are eating or fasting. Actually people who fast recover health rapidly whereas, if they continue to eat and take drugs, they recover slowly if at all.
Actually there have been fasts conducted under labora­tory conditions in many hospitals and university medical centers with controls. It has been proven beyond doubt that the body cleanses itself under the condition of fasting and heals two or three times speedier when fasting than in alimentation and/or drug therapy. Medical experimenta­tion with fasting has been conducted at the University of Illinois in Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. You won't have to delve much into the literature on fasting to come up with the results observed. All medical research has proven the truth of the toxemia causation of disease regardless of the misinterpretations of the researchers. Researchers usually interpret their data to suit those who are paying for the experimentation, usually drug companies or drug beneficiaries. If the experiments are too contrary to the ends sought they are usually buried quietly. Both laboratory evidence and empirical observations substantiate that disease is a body reaction to intoxication rather than germs.

How can we convince our clientele that they're responsible for their diseases and that it is not just a bit of bad luck that has befallen them?

Fortunately, you don't have to lay the load of responsibility on your clients' shoulders. Your clients will at first be "cure-minded" and want a way out of the dilemma. You can point out the positive way back to health without getting into culpability. You can have them fill out an extensive questionaire which we've developed and the answers to which are advance weighted so that you can suggest changes in the customer's living regime. You can make the process one of adventure and exploration by holding forth the benefits to be obtained by doing this and this and not doing that and that anymore.
Dr. Jennings had people fasting under a deception. He gave them bread and sugar pills, what we'd call placebos, and instructed the taking of water with them four or five times daily. With that he advised bed rest, fresh air, etc. He cautioned against taking anything with the pills other than water, otherwise they would not work. The results his clients realized were nothing short of miraculous. His patients were recovering 100% while his medical colleagues who were into heroic drugging lost patients in epidemic numbers.
You can impute health magic to certain foods or limited diets, even a distilled water diet. But you can assure a healthful outcome only within certain parameters. Hence the client will likely go along with you in the matter of his welfare just as he or she goes along with every charlatan in the medical or other fields of the so-called healing arts.
I reiterate that you can make a game of this, i.e., make it an interesting adventure rather than an onerous chore. The education and whyfore can follow the results. People are interested in results and you are there to show them how. People believe in the magic of nutrition and we're going to teach it to you as it really is. We'll teach it to you so that you can guide your clients back to health most speedily, not only in matters of diet but diet within the context of a thoroughgoing health regimen. You can always give instructions that are completely appropriate and straightforward that will enable the client to quickly regain health. Yet you can do it in such a manner as to make it exciting enterprise. You'll cultivate this confident manner of knowing just what is called for by sympathetic and empathic consideration of your client's problems as related to you through questionaire and verbal complaint.

I find no fault with the toxemia explanation of disease but it seems too utterly simple to be for real. Do you think our clients will go for this?

I must repeat that your clients aren't interested in theories or explanations. They're looking for results, a magic carpet from a state of disease to a state of health. Just wave the magic wand of nutritional salvation before them within the context of a thoroughgoing health regime and they'll usually follow it religiously. Your expertise will awe them and once word of mouth has gotten around about the miraculous results your guidance makes possible, clients will flock to you.