HOME PAGE    HEALTH LIBRARY CATALOG
Front Matter

Introduction
I Disease--Two Views
II The Slaughter of The Innocents
III Prenatal Care
IV Babies Should be Born in the Spring
V Baby's Growth and Development


VI The Child's Teeth
VII Teething
VIII Fat Babies
IX Mother's Milk
X Should Baby be Weaned
XI Three Year Nursing Period
XII Cows Milk
XIII Pasteurization
XIV Three Feedings a Day
XV No Starch for Infants
XVI "ReguIar" Crimes in Feeding
XVII Feeding of Infants
XVIII Baby's General Care
XIX Feeding Children from two to six years
XX A Healthy Child


XXI Undernutrition
XXII The Acute "Infectious" Diseases of Childhood

XXIII Skin Disorders
XXIV Common Disorders of Infants and Children

XXV Child Education
XXVI Corporal Punishment
XVII Vaccinia


XXVIII Serum Poisoning
XXIX Commercial Medicine







CHAPTER XXVIII
SERUM POISONING

    Vaccines and serums are given on the theory that they act in the same way as one "attack" of an "infectious" disease in immunizing the patient against a second "attack." In my Regeneration of Life I have proven this theory, that one "attack" immunizes against a second attack, to be illogical, unscientific and contrary to the facts.

    I have shown that one may have smallpox, for instance, five times following immediately upon the heels of five successful vaccinations. Cases are on record of patients who had pneumonia as much as fifteen to fifty times.

    Think this over and answer the question: What kind of serum will ever be found to immunize us against pneumonia? But if not against pneumonia, how about other so-called infectious diseases?. Suppose we study diphtheria.

    Quain's Dictionary of Medicine, (1902 edition) says: "One attack of diphtheria confers no prolonged immunity upon its subject. Even during convalesence the patient has been known to develop the disease afresh, and this may be repeated more than once.

    Goodall and Washbourn, in A Manual of Infectious Discases, state: "It is uncertain how far one attack of this disease (diphtheria) protects against a second. Certainly relapses and second attacks are not very rare."

    It is certain from these facts that toxin-antitoxin can no more immunize a child against diphtheria than against burning by fire. In this connection, doctors tell us that babies are immune to diphtheria, inheriting their immunity from the mother, but that they lose their inherited immunity at about six to nine months. The mother must have lost hers about that same age. Where and how did she reacquire her immunity in order that she might transmit it to her child?

    A substance called, "diphtheria toxin" is mixed with antitoxin to make toxin-antitoxin. J. W. Hermetet, M. D., in an address published in the Illinois Medical Journal, Nov. 19, 1929, P. 368 says, of this toxin, which he refers to as a "deadly toxin," that "toxins are-the most concentrated forms of poisonous material. ### One ounce of diphtheria toxin will kill 600,000 guinea pigs or 75,000 large dogs."

    In the Annals of Internal Medicine, Jan. 1929, C. D. Mercer M. D., says that "Toxin-antitoxin is not a harmless preparation and should not be given to school children in a haphazzard way."

    The United States Public Health Service gives the ideal mixture of "antitoxin" and "diphtheria toxin," (forming toxin-antitoxin), as of such a poisonous character that when five doses are inoculated into each of five guinea pigs two shall die acutely in four to ten days and the other three shall die of diphtheria paralysis in from fifteen to thirty-five days. Only a thoroughly dishonest Health Board or school doctor can ever represent this poisonous mixture as harmless.

    Dr. Jesse R. Gersterley reported a case of sudden death from nephritis (inflammation of the kidneys) in a child, following inoculation with toxin-antitoxin. This report was published in The Medical Clinics of North America, March 1926. This report caused C. D. Mercer, M. D., F. A. C. P., of West Union, Iowa, to investigate the dangers of this serum.

    He reports, Annals of Internal Medicine, Jan 1929, P. 668 that, out of I 25 children, between the ages of six and twenty who were inoculated 27, or 20% of them, showed albuminuria after the third toxin-antitoxin inoculation, compared to only 13, or 10%, presenting this symptom of kidney destruction prior to the inoculation. He says that "a great many apparently healthy children have albuminuria" and that "administration of T-A (toxin antitoxin) doubled that percentage in 120 school children."

    E. Gatewood, M. D., and C. G. Baldridge, M. D., say in the Journal of the American Medical Association, April 2, 1927: "A multiplicity of untoward sequelae have been observed in patients treated with immune serum. ### The common symptomatology includes fever, urticaria, erythema, oedema, lymphadenoma, (malignant tumor of the lymph glands), arthralgia (pain in the joints), smothering sensations, headache, nausea and vomiting. Occasionally there are more serious and lasting manifestations such as peripheral neuritis, epididymitis (inflammation of the epididymis, a small body attached to the testicle.) and orcllitis." (inflammation of the testicles).

    I may add that paralysis, convulsions, inflammation of the heart, heart failure, and sudden death are also more frequent results than the general public is aware of. For a convincing array of such cases, taken from standard literature of the subject, I must refer the reader to my Serum Poisoning a Medical Crime.

    On Jan. 27, 1928, in Bundaberg, Australia, 8 children received their second inoculation of toxin-antitoxin and thirteen received their first inoculations. The Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiries into Fatalities at Bundaberg, published by the Parliment of the Commonwealth of Australia, June 13, 1928 says: "Of these twenty-one children, eighteen became ill with symptoms of significant similarity during the night of the 27th January or the eary morning of the 20th January. Eleven died during the 28th January, and one on the 28th January."

    "My little darlings; they are all gone" was the heart wringing cry that came from one poor mother as they lowered her 3 sons, victims of this medical slaughter, into their little graves. One father was at the burial where his two daughters were buried, while the mother was at the hospital with her two sons, who, with more than a score of others, were seriously ill.

    Efforts were made to white-wash this "accident," as it is called, but well-informed people are not blinded by such efforts.

    At Baden, near Vienna, Austria, in an infants home, in September 1923, seven children died as a result of toxin-antitoxin inoculations. As a result the Austrian government outlawed the use of this serum.

    The British Medical Journal, Sept. 26, 1925, page 587, says: "On the advice of professor Pirquet, active immunization of school children against diphtheria with toxin-anti-toxin has been forbidden in Austria."

    In 1919 a similar thing happened in Dallas, Texas. Forty "severe reactions" with ten deaths from acute myocarditis (heart disease), resulted in the H. K. Mulford Company paying damages to the extent of $78,000 in 69 suits. This case was also white-washed as an "accident."

    In 1924 at Concord and Bridgewater, Mass., other groups in schools suffered severly. The white wash in these cases was that the serum had been allowed to freeze before using. In 1926 when the famous publicity stunt was pulled off, whereby, a dog team carried serum over land to Nome, Alaska, which did not have an epidemic of diphtheria and which knew nothing of the Herculean efforts to save it, it was explained that freezing the serum does not damage it.

    In July 1929, little ten-year-old Anna Voight, New York City, died a few hours after having received an injection of anti-lockjaw serum for a slight wound she had received. In his report, the Assistant Medical Examiner, Dr. Benjamin Vance, gave the cause of death in these words: "Sudden death following administration of antitoxin."

    Did I but have the space, I could give the reader accounts of numerous such cases, since it has become the custom to inoculate everyone with tetanus antitoxin for every pin scratch, nail prick, burn, and to do the same for parturient mothers.

    Death and damage comes from all serums. On May 14, (1930) news came from Germany, of the death of 8 babies, in the Luebeck home for infants, and serious illness of 24 others, caused by inoculation with a tuberculosis serum from cows. Deaths Continued to occur until on June 4, the news from Luebeck stated that: "Two infants died today, bringing the toll from administration of anti-tubercular serum to twenty- eight persons. Many others are not expected to live." On June 10, news came from Luebeck that "deaths from inoculation with anti-tuberculosis serum here have reached a total of 41, eighty-five infants are ill." On June 26 the death-toll had reached 44 and eighty- two others are ill.

    Killed them to save them! And the process goes on. Parents are indifferent or apathetic. Law makers wink their eyes and grant licenses to more men to carry on the same practices, while aiding in persecuting Christian Scientists, Chiropractors, Naturopaths and others.

    The serum employed was that concocted by the notorious Calmette, of France. This serum has left a trail of disaster behind it wherever it has been used. It does not and, of course, cannot protect from tuberculosis.

    The only prevention of tuberculosis is scrupulous hygiene. Given this and no one need fear the disease. Not even children of tubercular parents, though in constant association with them, will develop tuberculosis, if they are cared for hygienically.

    In St. Louis, Mo. in the fall of 1901, eleven children were killed and scores injured by prophylactic doses of diphtheria antitoxin. This is the serum that is supposed to cure diphtheria. It has never saved a single case. On the contrary, as I have shown in Serum Poisoning a Medical Crime, it increased the death-rate; and it is only by skillful juggling of statistics that it can be made to appear to have lowered the death-rate.

    The American Medical Journal, March 16, 1929 tells us that two Chicago physicians sent out a questionnaire to 4,426 picked medical men, asking their opinions on vaccine and serum therapy. Some 1,261 physicians replied. Their replies are described as "exceedingly unfavorable," while over 90% of those replying state that they do not employ vaccines and serums. They say: "Of the 396 physicians in the list who answered as members of the Congress of American Physicians and Surgeons, not one considered the use of vaccines a superior method of treatment of infectious diseases."

    In Oct., 1925 an effort was made to introduce toxin- antitoxin into the public schools of London, England, as it has bee introduced over here. The London County Council referred the matter to their "Public Health and Education Committee." The Committee rejected the proposal, saying, among other things, "it is not advisable" because "these lines of investigation (of toxin-antitoxin) should be thoroughly explored before further consideration is given to the immunization of school children."

    That toxin-antitoxin does not immunize against diphtheria is certain from many facts. Sir George Newman, Chief Medical officer of the British Ministry of Health, says in his 1927 Annual Report, Page 188: "Owing to the few months which must elapse fram the time of inoculation until the child is sufficiently protected to resist an attack of diphtheria, this type of inoculation has no immediate effect in checking an epidemic.### How long immunity lasts cannot be determined #### Three doses will produce full immunity in 80 or 90 per cent of the children."

    Not over 15% of children ever have diphtheria, even during an epidemic. If the inoculation only "immunizes the 85% to 90% who would not have diphtheria anyway, why give it?

    Dr. Peters, lecturer on infectious diseases, University of Bristol, says that one of his fever hospital nurses, who was not allowed in the diphtheria ward until six weeks after the last two or three doses of toxin-antitoxin, developed diphtheria, and two other nurses developed diphtheria while being immunized, but who were not in contact with any known case of the disease. His opinion, based on his hospital experience, he states as follows:

    "1. You can have diphtheria after you have given a negative Schick test." (Proving the test to be unreliable).

    "2. You may not be particularly susceptible even if you give a positive Schick test." (Proving the test to be utterly worthless).

    "3. You can have the disease even if you have been immunized." (Proving that the immunization process does not immunize.)


    Dr. Joe, of Edinburgh, states that he personally knew of 33 children who had diphtheria after they had been immunized--Immunized! Hundreds of such examples have been reported.

    Compare this with the fact that the cities of Lasalle, Peru and Oglesby, Ill., were reported, in The Illinois Medical Journal, Nov. 1929, P. 337, by Arlington Ailes, M. D., Health Director or these three cities, aggregating 30,000 people, not to have had a case of diphtheria in two and one-half years and not a death from this disease in three and one-half years, with the use of toxin-antitoxin "practically nil." Their neighboring city, Chicago, where toxin-antitoxin has been lavishly used showed a rise in both the case rate and the death rate. "In 1920 it (diphtheria in Chicago) again increased over 60 per cent and nearly 100 per cent in mortality." Let them find and alibi for these facts if they can. But you save your children from the dangers of all serums and vaccines.

    

    
CHAPTER XXIX
COMMERCIAL MEDICINE

    I am an incurable idealist and a chronic optimist, but I am not able to shut my eyes to what I see going on around me I don't believe in looking always on the "bright side" of things and refusing to examine the darker side. In the human garden there flourish some mighty foul weeds, most of them cunningly disguised, that need to be looked at and destroyed

    Ours is a system of pig-ethics. I do not mean by this merely our love of wallowing, but include also our selfishness, our game of grab and stab. Modern business of all kinds is just such a game, cleverly disguised, though it often is, under a pretense of philanthropy, service and idealism. At the root of business, and supplying its motive power, is a sordid commercialism that does not hesitate to trample the most sacred things of life, even life, itself, in the mud and mire to attain its selfish ends. Idealism can make little or no headway in our world until these pig-ethics are destroyed. For our pig-ethics employs idealism, not as a working principle, nor yet as a way of life, but as a cloak to mask the ulterior motives of the fraud and the cheat.

    Some years ago a large drugless sanitarium, located in Battle Creek, offered stock for sale. The heads let it be known that they expected to pay dividends amounting to returns of twenty per cent. upon the investment. Think of this! A professedly humanitarian institution run on the same basis as a steel mill, or a public utilities corporation! Besides providing a fat living for the actual workers in the institution, they could pay large dividends to absentee owners. Does it not look as if the sick with one foot in the grave, were going to keep the healthy on easy street.

    This shameless exploitation of the sick and dying is carried on by every so-called school of healing on earth. Then, when a patient dies, the undertaker comes, with the same commercial motives, the same pig-ethics, and while the grief-stricken wife or husband, mother or son feels that there is nothing that he or she would not do for the beloved deceased, takes a mean advantage of this emotional states and holds them up on a fashionable burial.

    In more recent years the shameless exploiters of human life and health, not content with the profits they were deriving from their abuses of the actually sick, have found ways and means to exploit the non-sick as well. As of old, this new from of exploitation hides behind a smoke-screen of altruism, the exploiters are doing it all for the good of humanity, for the public health, for the protection of our children, etc.

    Few of us ever stop to consider the power of slogans in their effect upon, the mob mind. "To Hell with Autocracy," "Down with the Kaiser," "Berlin or Bust," "Make the World safe for Democracy," "Work or fight," "Bonds or Bums," or "Bonds or Bread Lines," "Republicans and Prosperity," "Democrats and Disaster," "Save the Children," "Buy a Tag," "There's a reason," "A Baby in every bottle,' etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam, are only a few of the soul stirring slogans that have helped to make this republic what it now is.

    We are misled by these cheap slogans and have come to "think" in slogans and act in slogans. The man or woman who has a sincere and intense feeling towards humanity, a feeling that constitutes a religion in itself, and which is too broad and deep to exist in the narrow confines of any creed and too strong to be devoured by the greeds of the time, must look on this spectacle with hatred and disgust.

    Huge sums of money are collected to feed and clothe and care for the suffering and needy in foreign lands. What for?

    So that big business can sell its goods to these needy ones. It is a game of you pay for my goods and I'll ship them to the hungry in China. Organized charity is a cold, soulless business; a system of exploitation as much as any of our departments of big business.

    Religion, whether called by one name or another, whether labeled theism or atheism, is profitably exploited by those who want to keep their hands soft and white. The exploiters in all fields prattle their idiotic platitudes about brotherhood and service, while going through the mechanical motions of their pet religion (?), where they curiously find sanction for it all, while shutting their eyes and ears to the solemn truth that they have humanity nailed to the cross.

    I am not as much interested in the adults on this cross as I am the children. If the adult population of this world allow themselves to be bullied and beaten, deceived and cheated, maimed and killed by the exploiters, they have no one to blame but themselves. They have but to rise in their collective might and these exploiters will desert their positions like rats leaving a sinking ship.

    Neither are the exploiters as much interested in the adult; except as the one who pays the bills, as they are in the children. We have just about turned our children over to them, body, mind and soul.

    The doctors are moving heaven and earth to increase their incomes. They insist that, as a group they are not earning adequate incomes, and that there is a steady falling off in patronage due to the fact that the public, in ever increasing numbers, is turning to the other and newer schools. Costs of living are mounting, it costs more time and money to aquire a medical education and competition from without their ranks has made them desperate. They have tried, by every foul means--persecution, prosecution, slander, misrepresentation, lies--to destroy competition, but its growth has been steady despite this effort.

    The profession is honeycombed with graft and corruption and thoroughly imbued with the spirit of commercialism. Commercial surgery, compulsory medicine, lying propaganda, fear and every foul means of drumming up trade are employed to increase their incomes.

    The Journal of the American Medical Association, Nov. 4, 1922, prints an address by Dr. W. S. Rankin, Sec. of the North Carolina State Board of Health in which he says:

    "Last year we inoculated 70,000 persons against typhiod fever and 1,000 children between six and twelve years of age against diphtheria. The county Commissioner paid the local practitioner 25 cents for each complete inoculation, and that was $20,000 which went to the profession last year which otherwise would not have been received. The work of the medical profession with the State Board of Health does not stop when the 520,000. is paid. It goes on. In the dispensaries which were conducted in Union County, North Carolina, with 35,000 people, the physicians vaccinated 10,000 people in a campaign of five weeks. That was $2,500 paid to twenty physicians--only $125 each, but think of the effect on the business of the profession in keeping up that work. It goes on."


    Does the last statement refer to the business the physician will receive from those who are made sick by vaccination? At least, he emphasizes the doctor's business and the increased income to him through state medicine.

    In a paper entitled Medical Practice and Public Health, read before King's County (N. Y.) Medical Society, March, 16, 1926 the Hon. Louis I. Harris Dr. P. H., M. D., Commissioner of Health of the City of New York, said: "In school work we have felt rather self-satisfied and smug. During the last eighteen years, the health department has conducted the examination of children, generally without any competition from or by the medical profession. This indicates a lack of understanding by family physicians of the glorious opportunity for service which they are missing. It is no new thing that I mention. YOU HAVE HEARD IT TIME AND AGAIN. When we, in the health department send home a physical examination blank, a very simple and rudimentary one at that, and ask the parent to take the child to a physician to be examined, then, assuming that the parent follows our instructions, the physician fails to CAPITALIZE the opportunity." (caps. mine. )

    The reader will readily see that the Board of Health is here trying to build business for the doctors, and Dr. Harris tells these physicians that what he is saying to them has been told to them time and again. But they don't seem to be so enthusiastic about it. Evidently not all physicians are as unscrupulous as the political doctors in the Boards of Health.

    Mather Pfeiffenberger, M. D., President of the Illinois State Medical Society, in a speech before the annual Conference Illinois Health Officers, Springfield, III., Dec. 3-4, 1926, said: "Prevention practiced to the uttermost will create more work for the physician and not diminish it, for the full time health officer will be educating his community constantly. There will be more vaccination, more immunizing, more consulting and use of the physician. His services will be increased many fold.

    "I am informed that epidemic and endemic infections cause only 12 per cent of all deaths and that this percentage is declining very rapidly. Only 15 per cent of all children would ever get diphtheria, even under epidemic conditions, while 100 per cent are prospects for toxin-antitoxin. The percentage who would ever get smallpox, under present time conditions, is even less; but 100 per cent are prospects for vaccination. Scarlet fever will soon come in for its 100 per cent also, as it may for measles, judging from the reports on that disease. Typhoid fever is disappearing, due to sanitation, but vaccination should be used when the individual travels into unknown territory and countries,"


    Thus another medical leader tells doctors how to increase their incomes by exploiting the children and non-sick adults.

    Guy L. Kiefer, M. D., Commissioner of Health of Michigan, says in the Journal the Michigan State Medical Society, Aug. 1920:

    "In this state there are 100,000 people born annually. They are practically all susceptible to diphtheria from the moment they are born. They are highly susceptible from the age of six months until they are immunized. If these infants were all immunized, and for this service the physicians receive from $5.00 to $10.00 per case, the net income would be from $500,000-$1,000,000 Michigan has 5,000 cases of diphtheria annually. If the physicians received for their services, exclusive of all other costs, an average of $50.00 per case the income from this source would be $250,000. The increase in physicians income from diphtheria would be from one-quarter to three-quarters of of a million dollars, if we would immunize all children against this disease soon after they are six months of age, instead of waiting until they are stricken with the disease and then treating them.

    "Some maternity hospitals are vaccinating with vaccine virus all babies born in their institutions. Babies under ten days old very seldom have any general reaction and the immunity usually lasts for the whole life-time of the individual. It is estimated that one-third of all the births in this state occur in hospitals. If all hospitals were to establish this rule as part of their regular procedure, it would mean an addition of 30,000 immunized people in the state each year and an additional income of at least 560,000 to the physicians or hospitals.

    "When the 100,000 people born every year in Michigan are vaccinated against smallpox at birth, the income to the physician would approximate $200,000. The 500 cases of smallpox that occur every year, treated at an average of $50.00 per case, brings physicians $25,000. Thus the physicians, by adopting the practice of vaccination at birth, would increase their income by nearly $200,000.

    "We have taken diphtheria and smallpox as examples of the economic advantage of immunization, but the same conditions apply to other diseases and to other public health measures.

    "With persistent educational work by the physicians and the Michigan Depertment of Health, these immunization programs will succeed
in reducing the number of these preventable diseases and increasing the earning of the physicians who actively sponsor this modern type of practice." (Italics mine.)


    In the Brooklyn Times, March 21, 1929, Health Commissioner Wynne, New York City, is reported to have said in an address to the Optometrical Club: "Here is the answer (to the doctor's economic problem). Let them take in 20 children an hour, one hour a day, 3 days a week at a charge of $5. for each anti diphtheria inoculation. That will bring a revenue worth while to the doctor."

    Mr. Osborne, Health Officer of East Orange, N. J., in an address reported in the Journal of the Medical Society of New Jersey, September, 1929, points out that the physician would receive several times more by inoculating children than by treating cases of the disease.

    In an Editorial, Jan. 1930, the American Journal of Public Health, points out in dollars and cents how much money physicians would receive from inoculating babies and adds: "There are of course four times as many preschool children as babies, and ten times as many school children. The opportunity for increasing practice by carrying on immunization among the preschool and school populations in the physician's clientele offers an almost unlimited field."

    Dr. Vander Veer says, in a discussion reported in the Journal of the Medical Society of New Jersey,
February, 1930: "Dr. Wynne, Health Officer of New York City, gave me a clue to the subject of economics in which he said that we doctors had been going along the same old lines and had not created any new business, so I finally evolved this as a slogan in New York State: We cannot get away from the lay organizations, therefore we will lie down with them and ask them to provide means for carrying on the health programs and we are going to benefit ultimately from the periodic health examinations by an increased income. As a concrete example, take a town of 3,000, if only 200 come to us for examination at $3.00 each that would be $600 that would accrue to be divided among the doctors; if 100 came for examination at $25.00 each there would be $2,500 to be divided."

    Dr. Vander Veer gives more statistics about the fees they would receive and then says: "That is the thing that strikes home to our doctors in New York State."

    Thus the reader will see that I am right in saying that the doctors are using the various lay organizations, Parent-Teacher Associations, etc., to build business for them. The Red Cross has long been a tool of these men.

    In the early part of 1930 one of my readers sent me a news clipping from the Cincinnati Times Star, headed Health Work Aids Doctors. It said "thousands are sent to physicians as result." The whole article is as follows:

    "Are 'socialized' health agencies preventative and curative, bringing lean times and reducing the number of physicians and other private health workers?

    "Do public clinics, public hospitals and public health departments affect the income of physicians, surgeons and dentists.

    "These questions, presented Saturday to Health Director William H. Peters, brought the declaration that in his judgment the only effect was that practitioners had to modify their activities.

    "Dr. Peters pointed out that when Cincinnati purified its water there was an almost entire elimination of thousands of cases of typhoid fever and other water-carried diseases, treatment of which gave an immense revenue to physicians, nurses and others.

    "On the other hand Dr. Peters said the medical inspection of schools by publicly employed district physicians aided private practice. Thus the inspectors discover defects in children, which are reported to parents and thousands then take their children to the family physician or a specialist.

    "The public drives for the immunization of children against diphtheria brought a great revenue to private practitioners. There were about 35,000 children treated and of this number about fifty-four per cent by private practitioners, or about 19,000. At $5. a treatment the revenue would be $95,000. Annually there are about 7,500 children to be so treated. This work gives a revenue far in excess of what the treatment of the disease yielded, Dr. Peters.

    "So he said, the agitation for annual general physical examinations in his opinion, has resulted in thousands of persons resorting to their physicians, surgeons and dentists to be examined.

    "Dr. Peters said it was requisite for physicians and other health practitioners to 'reconcilie themselves to the age.' He said more should go in for preventative medicine and all should recognize how public health activity stimulated persons to mind their physical and mental condition and thus helped the private practitioner.

    "Dr. Peters said it was true there were some physicians in this community who complained of the 'inroads' that 'socialized' medicine was making on their incomes and that there were perhaps some who actually were affected. He declared that there were compensations that in the mass more than canceled such instances."


    This accounts for the growing interest on the part of doctors and health boards and serum and vaccine makers and dentists, in so-called health education. They are bent on increasing the business of the doctors and dentists and in the sale of more vaccines and serums.

    Inspecting the school children increases the work of doctors. It is clone the country over. Not merely the school child, but the pre-school child now comes in for this form of exploitation. Here in San Antonio, for instance, The Parent-Teacher Association sponsors medical examinations of the pre-school child. Tonsil operations, and other operations, eye-glasses, serums and vaccines and other forms of vandalism and poisoning follow these examinations and the doctors of the city are enriched in purse.

    Medical Inspection of school children is a means of boosting business for the doctors. The inspected children are brow-beaten, abused, bullied and "ragged" to have their tonsils removed, toxin-anti-toxin inoculated into them, by the incompetents who are placed on the school board. These doctors do nothing useful but do much to injure the physical and mental health of children, besides greatly annoying parents and teachers. But the practice will not end until parents kill it.

    In the first half of this year, the Bronx County Medical Society, through one of its Bulletins, expressed its resentment against the extent to which the toxin- antitoxin campaign had been pushed in New York City. Health Commissioner Wynne. in the Weekly Bulletin of New York City Department of Health, of July 19, replied that "The plan followed by the Dept. of Health should evoke nothing but commendation. It provides a simple, inexpensive, effective and entirely ethical method whereby the general practitioner can secure additional practice." Such is the altruism of these great public spirited doctors on the Boards of Health.

    Wm. A. Rohlf, M. D., President-elect of the Iowa State Medical Society, said in his official address at a recent meeting of that body:

    "Allow me to quote from a letter received from Dr. Steel-smith: 'For the five year period preceding the State Department's Education toward diphtheria immunization, namely, the five years preceding 1923, there occurred in Iowa more than three thousand cases of diphtheria each year. Many of these cases were not seen by any medical practitioner, but the average revenue as computed by statisticians signifies that the, physicians of the state of Iowa received in cash approximately 520 per case for the treatment and cure of diphtheria for each of the five years preceding that state-wide anti-diphtheria program. This would result in physicians of the state receiving approximately $60,000 for such work each year incidental to diphtheria.

    " 'Now in comparison to that, allow me to suggest that there are approximately 44,000 children born each year in Iowa. For the sake of figures, we will say that the average price for immunization would be $3 per child. If the physicians would interest themselves in preventative medicine and see to it that every child is treated before he is a year of age they would see dearly that from such practice the physicians of the state of Iowa would receive $132,000 a year, or twice as much as you and I received years ago for treatment of cases.'"

    "There is still much to do in the way of bringing about ideal conditions through vaccination and immunization. The role of local infection has opened up other avenues for our activities. We should be personally interested, and, as physicians, ASSIST IN THE EXAMINATION AND TREATMENT OF SCHOOL CHILDREN."


    These men plan ways of doubling their incomes and come to the public with the plea that they are sincerely interested in the health and welfare of our children and that they put over their income increasing programs for the health of our babies and for the welfare of the school children. They are as cold-blooded as any class of criminals on the whole earth. Indeed, I know of no other class of criminals who live by crippling, maiming and killing babies and children.

    It is asserted that there are 1,454 formally organized state and local tuberculosis associations in the United States. The organizations affiliated width the National Tuberculosis Association spent in 1928 at least $6,196,376.98, the major portion of which was secured through the sale of Christmas seals.

    All of this begging by Tuberculosis Associations is to create jobs for doctors. Their work is admitted to have no influence on tuberculosis.

    A Red Cross officer said to the victims of the Missisippi Flood, as reported in the Savannah (Ga.) News, June, 14, 1927: "From now on your meal tickets are canceled until you can show your vaccination scar." A similar order was given by this same disreputable organization in a later flood in New England.

    People give freely of their money and goods to help the victims of calamities, and the medically controlled Red Cross uses that money to buy serums and vaccines, and pay incompetent doctors and uses the plight of the victims as a club, to make them submit to medication they do not need and do not want. The Red Cross can never have a penny of the author's money and I shall use all of my influence to prevent others from donating to its system of graft.

    The so-called "mental Hygiene" movement, which seeks to become a regular part of our public schools, is a commercial move, composed of the usual surgical and serum methods. The movement has among its heads several men who have been convicted of crimes in their care of the insane and men who are notorious for their extreme cruelties to animals in vivisection work. This is an extremely dangerous move and should not be permitted to touch the children of this country, who are surely: suffering enough, at the hands of the medical moloch.




Front Matter

Introduction
I Disease--Two Views
II The Slaughter of The Innocents
III Prenatal Care
IV Babies Should be Born in the Spring
V Baby's Growth and Development


VI The Child's Teeth
VII Teething
VIII Fat Babies
IX Mother's Milk
X Should Baby be Weaned
XI Three Year Nursing Period
XII Cows Milk
XIII Pasteurization
XIV Three Feedings a Day
XV No Starch for Infants
XVI "ReguIar" Crimes in Feeding
XVII Feeding of Infants
XVIII Baby's General Care
XIX Feeding Children from two to six years
XX A Healthy Child


XXI Undernutrition
XXII The Acute "Infectious" Diseases of Childhood

XXIII Skin Disorders
XXIV Common Disorders of Infants and Children

XXV Child Education
XXVI Corporal Punishment
XVII Vaccinia


XXVIII Serum Poisoning
XXIX Commercial Medicine

HOME PAGE    HEALTH LIBRARY CATALOG