How To Heal Yourself On Your Own Online 6

How To Heal Yourself On Your Own Online 6

How to heal yourself on your own with fasting
Here is another way to heal yourself on your own and online.

How Far Is Too Far?

Herbert M. Shelton

   

On the next and succeeding pages we are presenting an article from the last four chapters of Forty Years in the Wilderness of Pills and Powders, by Dr. William A Alcott, first published in 1859. In this will be found a brief biographical sketch of the life and activities of Dr. Isaac Jennings. The story as given therein, about Dr. Jennings' desertion of the drugging practice and his adoption of what he called the "no-medicine plan" of caring for the sick, is all too brief, but enough quotations from other medical men of the period and enough facts about the practices of many of them are recounted to demonstrate the fact that there was much skepticism among medical men of that time. That there was more skepticism of the value of drugs in treating the sick among the professionals than among the laity is quite evident from the manner in which Dr. Jennings' former patients treated him when he revealed the secret of his unparalleled success.

It will be noted, however, that he did not receive understanding treatment from his medical brethren. Instead of eagerly grasping the truth he had unfolded to them and using these in caring for their patients, they appealed to the ignorance, prejudices, and fears of his patients in order to discredit him. A few physicians agreed with him in part but they were unwilling or unable to go all the way. They were willing to admit that too many drugs were often given, but unwilling to concede that no drugs at all was the ideal. Their most common complaint against Jennings was that he went "too far. "

In the preface of his second book The Philosophy of Human Life (1852), Jennings briefly discusses this objection in the following words:

"'You go too far. We have all been on one extreme, have given too much medicine, and have not trusted sufficiently to the curative efforts of nature. But you have gone over to the other extreme.'

"Very well; there are but two extremes the extreme of right, and the extreme of wrong; and who would not prefer standing on one of these extremes to occupying a position about halfway between them? Fundamental truth and fundamental error, as general principles, are the extremes here referred to.

"It may be true under given circumstances, that no medicine on one hand, and much medicine on the other are extremes, and that moderate medication is 'the golden, happy medium,' but that is not the great fundamental question now pending. The first and main point to be settled is this: Is man so constituted in his structural arrangement, the organic and functional laws of his system, the nature, mode of supply, application and operation of the principle of life, that when he is prostrate under what is called disease, his restoration to health can be secured by the agency of medicine, as a general rule, founded on a general principle in pathology, such as wrong action, wrong tendency, or the like?

"That medicine has been pushed to one extreme is quite certain, and that this extreme lies in the domain of delusion and error, there is good reason for believing.

Whether the other extreme of no medicine presents the truth as a general truth, remains to be elucidated and confirmed. One thing however is clear: Physicians must find a 'solid bottom' somewhere before they can establish a just and reliable system of practice. And this foundation must be laid in a thorough and correct knowledge of general pathology. Physicians must understand the true nature and tendency of that state of the vital organism which is denominated disease."

Dr. Trall repeated over and over again that "truth never lies between two extremes. It is always one extreme or the other. " In the foregoing quotation from Dr. Jenning's work he substantially agrees with Trall. At one extreme he places good, at the other extreme he places evil. At what point between these two extremes can one find a desirable place to stand? In like manner at one extreme he places heavy drugging, at the other extreme, no drugging. At what point between these two extremes can one find a point on which to rest a practice of moderate drugging? Either drugs are useful or they are not; they either heal or they don't; they either do mischief, or they do good. There is no middle ground.

You will not hear this information on how to heal yourself online, as there is no profit in it.

Continuing in his discussion, Jennings says: "It will be the object of the following pages, in a plain familiar way, under a variety of aspects, by deductions from the Science of Physiology and reference to facts and the laws and analogies of nature, to show the unity of human physical life; that its tendency is always upward towards the highest point of health, in the lowest as well as in the highest state of vital funds; that what is called disease is nothing more nor less than impaired health, feeble vitality; that recovery from this state is effected, when effected at all, by a restorative principle, identical with life itself, susceptible of aid only from proper attention to air, diet, motion, and rest, affections of the mind, regulation of the temperature, &c., with occasional aid from what may justly be denominated surgical operations and appliances; and that medicine has no adaptation nor tendency to 'help nature' in her restorative work."

A proper recognition of the unity of organic life leads inevitably to the conclusion that what the body does not need and cannot use in health is equally unneeded and unusable in disease. For example, a drug that was as popular when Jennings wrote, as penicillin is today and was used in as wide a variety of diseases as the latter drug, is mercury. Mercury is not a constituent of any of the fluids and tissues of the body and is not usable in the performance of any of the body's functions. It is equally as unusable in a state of illness as in health. The recognition of the unity of life led equally inevitably to a recognition of the fact that only those things that are useful in health can be useful in disease. The proper care of the sick organism is, therefore, not a collection of treatments with adventitious and exotic substances, but the adjustment of the normal means of life to the needs and capacities of the sick. These needs and means are Hygienic, not therapeutic.

Further continuing his explanation, Jennings says: "An assumption that disease is antagonistic to health, involving some quality or property that tends to the destruction of life, something that must be counteracted by nature or art, or both, or life will be the forfeit. On this foundation, the whole fabric of Medicine in all its multitudinous forms, has ever rested. As often as new systems have been erected on the ruins of old ones, they have been reared on this unstable foundation as their common basis. Indeed, the correctness of this assumption seems never to have been called in question, and the difficulties that have constantly obstructed the course, and frustrated the designs of physicians, in their endeavors to raise 'therapeutics' from 'its merest infancy,' or drag it from 'the domain of empiricism,' have been sought for in all other sources, while this, the true source of all their embarrassment, has remained unsuspected. "

Herbert M. Shelton