Front Matter

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


    An intelligent man may be wrong sometimes,but a fool is always right. He is never wrong. The medical profession is never wrong.It never changes, except superficially.

    This is the reason it is necessaryfor me to write this book. There are many books on the care and feeding of infants,but most of them consist largely of repetitions of ancient mistakes. There is littlein them that can be recommended to the parent who desires to care for his or herchild in the best manner possible. They are full of statements which have been knownto be false for many years. But the medical profession is never wrong.

    I constantly see children who are caredfor as advised by these books or by the ex-purts who wrote them, or by the doctorswho follow these ex-spurts, and I can't work up a great deal of enthusiasm over theresults of such care. Indeed, as a rule, to which there are some exceptions, thosechildren who are most under the care of specialists are the ones who suffer most.

    It will be said that they are underthe care of the specialists because of their sufferings; but I am convinced, fromover ten years of careful observations, that their sufferings are largely the resultof being under the care and misguidance of the specialist.

    The greatest charge I bring againstthe medical profession, one that outranks the charges of ignorance and commercialism,is that it is artificial and unnatural in almost everything that it does. It is ahuge system of antinaturalism, based on ignorance and bolstered up by law and commercialism.

    In its dealings with children it isestranged from nature and children are suffering because of this. Its scheme of so-called"immunization" is as unnatural as anything can possibly be. This schemehas been appropriately called a "world of biological make-believe." Butit would not be so bad if we could stop there. There are two sides to biology--healthand disease. Serums and vaccines possess none of the elements of childhood fancywhen viewed from the pathological side. Each and every one of them are pathogenicand their devastating influence upon childlife is difficult to over estimate. Wefind babies adjudged 100% perfect in baby contests denied first prize, and givena place inferior to less perfect children, because they have not been vaccinated,have not been made sick, have not been scarred and marred. It is criminal.

    Medicine's feeding scheme disregardsnature to an astonishing degree. It is a complex and anti-natural affair which alltoo often completely overlooks the physiological needs of the child and which almostconstantly disregards the chemistry of digestion.

    One can only register pain when hesees the great emphasis which they place upon cow's milk in the diet of the childand greater pain when he finds them to be determined that no child shall ever receivemilk from a healthy and properly nourished cow.

    As I write these lines there lays hereon my desk a copy of the Golden Age, for April 16, 1930. In it I find thesewords: "Dr. Morris Fishbein, of the American Medical Journal, has beenaddressing the Nebraska Millers Association on the value of white bread."

    Dr. Fishbein is the official mouthpieceof the American Medical Association and, while it may be true, as is often stated,that there are some members of this association, who disapprove of him and his reactionismand bigotry, it is true that they remain silent and continue to aid in paying hissalary.

    Be this as it may, the fact is thatthe great mass of physicians, including almost 100% of the child specialists, arestill feeding white flour products and denatured cereal products to children of allages, even to infants. Many of these defend white flour and disparage whole wheat.Many other denatured products are advocated and employed by physicians in feedingchildren.

    Their opposition to sun-bathing isbeing slowly broken down. But it has required nearly a hundred years to accomplishthis. At this writing, however, there are still many physicians who regard sun-bathingas a silly and harmful fad. Others think the sun-bath may possess some virtue butthey never advise it and go on day after day just as though it has no value.

    Of the other so-called schools of healing,I need say very little. Physio-medicalism and homeopathy are all but dead. Eclecticismis little if any in advance of the allopaths, while its members are few.

    Chiropractic has nothing to offer inchild care except spinal examination and adjustment. The same is true of Naprapathy.Osteopathy follows the allopathic medical program very closely. The new thought peopleand Christian scientists have nothing of their own to offer. The Naturopaths, physcultopathsand natural therapists, all of which are really one, have the most to offer, of allthe schools, in the care of children, but even these mix in too much of the artificialand unnatural.

    When we consider the sick child, wefind medicine to be equally as unnatural and artificial, but more destructive, thanin her feeding and general care of the semi-healthy child. Poisonous drugs, filthy,putrid serums, septic vaccines, surgery, over-feeding and the same denatured dietmentioned above make up their armamentarium.

    When one considers the abuse that parentsand physicians heap upon children, it causes him to marvel, not that so many childrendie, but that so few die. For, he soon sees that the child enters a conflict againstsinister foes the day it is born, even granting that it has not been. forced to fightwith them before birth.

    There is nothing in this world morebeautiful and lovely than a healthy, well developed, happy and contented child. Nothingelicits our sympathy and compassion so quickly and so abundantly as a suffering child.The freshness and joyousness of healthy childhood, the purity and loveliness of theirminds and hearts, the frankness and candor of their little souls is the admirationof the whole world. Small wonder that Jesus declared that unless one become likeunto a little child he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

    We can have a nation of healthy, happywell-developed, lovely children when we become sufficiently interested in them toplace their interest first and commercial interests last. Men are naturally strongand handsome; women are naturally beautiful and graceful. That we are a nation ofanimated cartoons and caricatures is evidence that there is much that is wrong withthe conditions determining or influencing our development.

    We can build a nation of super-Venusesand Apollos, with minds as well developed as their bodies and with splendid moralsand lovely characters as soon as we as a nation, and as parents, develop sufficientinterest in the welfare of our children, to prompt us to acquire and make use ofthe now available knowledge of how to care for them.

    One of the greatest curses of child-lifeis parents and teachers and doctors. The ignorance and stubbornness and all aroundcussedness of these deny the child all opportunity for normal physical, mental, moraland social development. These set bad examples before the child, force artificialconditions upon the child, impose their own wills upon it and train it in their ownperversions.

    The average parent can see no reasonwhy his or her child should not be fed and clothed and cared for as he or she, oras all other children are fed and clothed and "cared" for. Like the averageteacher, the average parent is bound, hand and foot, to the traditions of the past,the conventions of the present and to his or her own bad personal habits. These areearly made into yokes to fasten upon the necks of children. The normal, natural unfoldmentof child-life is impossible enough under such conditions.

    But added to these we have the viciouspractices and still more vicious ignorance of the doctor. His ignorance of feedingis lamentable. His ignorance of the body more so. His insistence upon the removalof the child's tonsils and adenoids, and upon the frequent and repeated inoculationof the child with vaccines and serums and "anti-toxins" of many and variouskinds, his repeated drugging of the child and his many other crimes against child-life,are damnable.

    To offset, counteract, subdue and suppressthe results of all these crimes against child-life, we have a huge army of police,courts and jails and houses of correction, and reformatories, and prisons, and electricchairs and gallowses, and churches and hospitals and asylums and all the machineryand personnel and pretense and injustice that go with these things. These but addinsult to injury. It is as though we placed a dam across a stream and, then, whippedthe waters that overflow the river's banks, get out of their normal channel and playhavoc with the crops on either side of the stream.

    So uniformly bad is the treatment andmanagement given to these helpless babies, so uniform and universal their wails andtears, and so common their deaths, that people in general think little of the frightfulinfant mortality, while the sufferings of these little ones and their perils are,along with the trials and tribulations of parents, treated as jokes upon which thewits and of high and low degree harp at will.

    Parents, educators, nurses, physiciansand all others who care for children should strive to care for these little mitesof humanity so that they may be healthy and happy. It is one of the curses of ourboasted civilization that our children are the prey both of ignorance and of an unscrupulouscommercialism. Manufacturing drug houses, physicians who can only be regarded ascriminals, food manufacturers, and sweat shop owners, who exploit the labor of children,live off the bodies and lives of these little ones. Like huge vampires they suckthe life-blood of children and cause them much suffering and unhappiness and killuntold thousands of them.

    Our school system is a blot on civilizationand a curse to child-life. It is not only defective in itself, but it is the preyof unscrupulous commercial ghouls--physicians, politicians, theologians, manufacturers,militarists, etc.

    The churches are also curses to childlife. The greatest crime of organized religion is its method of filling the mindsof children with groundless fears of God, devil, purgatory and hell and its emphasisupon the unreal and frequently unimportant. By its doctrine of the nastiness of life,religion has been one of the greatest evils that ever befel the race. It has hidthe truth. It has taught the lie. It has cursed many more lives than it ever blessed.


    Over against these evil forces anddestructive practices I shall place a system of natural hygiene and natural education(not training) which cannot be exploited and commercialized. I shall leave the mistakesof the past and present in the rear, and build upon natural law and the physiologicalrequirements of the growing infant and child.

    In the matter of the care of the sickchild I shall completely abandon the methods of the schools and offer you a systemof remedial hygiene that respects the instincts of life and recognizes the orthopathiccharacter of so-called disease.

    The hygienic principles and practicesherein set forth have been developed during the past one hundred and eight yearsand have been thoroughly tested in practice. The names of Jennings, Trall, Graham,Taylor, Shew, Page, Dewey, Walter, Oswald, and Tilden in America, Combe and Densmorein England, Rikili, Hensel, Lahman and Berg in Germany and on the European continent,are deserving of special mention in connection with the development of these principlesand practices.

    Mother's Hygienic Hand-book,Trall 1874; How to Feed the Baby, Page 1882; Natural Hygiene, Lahmann,1898; Physical Education, Oswald, 1901; The Care of Children, Tilden,1916; and Children Their Health and Happiness, Tilden, 1928; are the bestbooks that have appeared which deal with the care of children. All but the last twoof these are out of print while these two leave much unsaid that should be said.

    I shall draw freely upon these splendidworks and upon other splendid books, which are not directly concerned with childcare, as well as upon my own experience and study. I wish to acknowledge my indebtednessto the authors of the above mentioned books, to all the men mentioned above as addingto our knowledge of the science and art of natural hygiene, as well as to the manyothers not mentioned.

    Having cleared the ground somewhat,I desire to give the reader a few definitions before preceding to the developmentof the book proper.

    Hygiene is that branch of biology thatrelates to the preservation and restoration of health. We recognize two kinds of:Hygiene--namely, Natural Hygiene and artificial or spurioushygiene.

    Natural Hygiene is the instinctiveand intelligent employment of the forces and agents of nature for preserving andrestoring health. It comprehends those eternal and ever present needs of life, health,growth development and activity--light, air, water, food, rest, sleep, exercise,cleanliness, cheer, hope, courage, poise and freedom from devitalizing habits - andis divided, for convenience, into:

    Preventive Hygiene, or the hygieneof healthful maintenance, by which is meant the instinctive and intelligent employmentof hygienic principles, forces and agents for the preservation of functional andstructural integrity and the promotion of growth and development) and--

    Remedial Hygiene, or the hygieneof health restoration, by which is meant the instinctive and intelligent employmentof hygienic principles, forces and agents for the restoration of sound health. Itstudies life and health.

    All of this together we include underthe term, Orthobionomics. Bionomy is the science of the laws of living functions;or that branch of biology which treats of habits and adaptation. Orthobionomics isa word which I have coined to designate the correct adaptation of environment tolife. Orthobionomics is natural Hygiene. Orthotrophy, is a word I have coinedto designate that part of orthobionomics which relates to food and feedingin health and disease. The word means correct food.

    Artificial or Spurious Hygiene,is the use of artificial and unnatural principles, forces and agents in an effortto prevent and cure disease. It studies disease and death. It employs, as the propermeans of preventing and curing disease, poisonous chemicals, of mineral, animal andvegetable origin, septic vaccines, putrid serums, fly swatters, sterilizing processes,antiseptics, surgical processes, and fear, apprehension, panic, etc., as the properelements of hygiene, and is divided into:

    Prophylaxis, which means theprevention of disease; and--

    Therapeutics, which is the applicationof remedies in the treatment of disease.

    Together these two--prophylaxisand therapeutics--are designated modern medical Science. A medicineis a remedial agent.

    The reader will see from these definitionsthat that our entire approach to the subjects that are to occupy our attention inthe following pages, is diametrically opposite to that of the traditional approach.This will become even more apparent as the following chapters are mastered.

    My only request, dear reader, is thatyou do not condemn those portions of this book which may be new to you or which mayappear revolutionary or radical, until after you have throughly studied, and investigatedthem and given them a thorough trial. Snap judgement should be avoided. Prejudicesand prepossessions should not be permited to blind you, to new truths. Test all thingsand retain those which prove true.



    There are two kinds of processes inthe living body which are called disease. First, there is a progressive deteriorationor degeneration of the body which begins in early life, sometimes in embryonic life,or even in the germ cell, and which culminates in death, and which every one thinksof as normal and natural Second, there are the many forms of acute and chronic defensivereactions of the body, which are designed to save life, restore health and preventthe deterioration, and which every one regards as abnormal, evil and destructive.

    For the purposes of this chapter thedefinition of degeneracy given by A. F. Tredgold, (Smithson. Inst. Rpt. 1918 P.548) will, with a slight modification, serve admirably. He defines degeneracyas "a retrograde condition of the individual resulting from a pathological variationof the germ cell." Since deterioration may and does occur in individuals derivedfrom ideal germ cells, we would include in this definition all permanent pathologicalvariations of the somatic cells.

    These degenerative changes in the bodyare evidenced by faulty development, susceptibility to disease, weakness, poor sightfalling hair, decayed teeth, hardened arteries, hardening of other tissues of thebody, destruction of the tissues of various organs, gray hair, bald headedness, blindness,deafness, feeble mindedness, and all permanent pathological changes anywhere in thebody.

    Back of this degeneration are variouscauses against which the body puts up a continuous, but losing struggle. At timesthe forces of life offer a more violent resistance to these causes of decay and thisstruggle makes itself felt as pain, fever, inflammation; swelling, rapid pulse, rapidrespiration, diarrhea, skin eruptions, etc. These and the symptoms which accompanythem are vital emergency measures instituted for the purpose of destroying and eliminatingthe causes of the degeneration and to repair tissue damages as far as this may bepossible.

    This conception of the essential nature,the rationale, of acute and chronic so-called disease, we express by the term Orthopathy.This word was coined by Dr. Isaac Jennings nearly a hundred years since, from theGreek words, orthos--upright, erect, true, and pathos--affection, suffering.Its literal interpretation is right suffering. We regard these so-called diseaseactions or processes as right actions; as lawful and orderly in their coursesand developments and as serving definitely beneficial ends.

    I shall have frequent occasion, insucceeding pages, to call the reader's attention to examples of the orthopathic characterof so-called acute and chronic disease and need not offer examples at this place.I desire, at this time, to familiarize the reader with the degenerative process andto especially point out its continuity and unity.

    What is wrongly called the modern scienceof medicine recognizes several hundreds of diseases which it has divided up intovarieties, species, genera, phyla, orders and classes. The objective reality of these"diseases" and the propriety of so classifying them is not questioned bythe individuals in the ranks of materia medica. They see in their so-called diseasesorganized entities, and do not regard them as varying phases of vital activityor types of behavior of the living organism. Thus It is that we have so many namesfor so-called diseases and so much complexity and confusion in the so-called scienceof medicine.

    Pathological evolution is a continuousseries of stages or steps by which the minute beginnings of the degenerative process,progresses, due to the persistence and accumulation of its causes, to the last stagesof cancer, tuberculosis, Bright's disease, diabetes, and finally. death. It is aslow, gradual, insiduous process which, due to the present manner of regarding disease,is unrecognized. Its terminal manifestations, it is true, are recognized and arecalled "degenerative diseases of later life." But these are calledthis only because it usually requires a life time, thanks to the stubborn and neverceasing resistance of the body, for the degeneration to become great enough to berecognized as such, and because we have not learned to see that the process of degenerationhas gone on for years before it finally culminated in these conditions.

    Degeneration begins where its causesbegin and persists where these persist. It is continuous because its causes are constant.These begin usually in infancy, or even before, and increase as the child's sphereof life widens and it comes into contact with an increasing number and variety ofpathogenic influences. The body puts up a slowly yielding fight against them andas one tissue after another breaks down before their impairing onslaught, Greek labelsare attached to the breaks and the individual has a new disease.

    It is certainly a serious blunder tosingle out each link in a chain of successive and concomitant developments and giveto each of these a different name and ascribe to each of them a different and perhapsa specific cause. We must learn to see the lls of the body as mere stages or stepsin one continuous and unbroken process, and not as specific entities, if we are everto make any progress worthy the name in the prevention of disease and degeneration.

    If cancer, for instance, is the end-pointof a long drawn out pathological evolution, what are its connections with the otherpathological conditions of the body which precede it and which develop concomitantlywith it? They are all parts of the same pan-systemic pathological evolution and allarise out of the same common causes.

    "Every birth is a hygienic regeneration,"says Dr. Felix Oswald, and despite the shibboleths and cries of alarm, of eugenicfanatics, about degeneracy, atavism, heredity, etc., this statement is true. Almostevery birth is literally a hygienic regeneration. Every new born child is a fresheffort of nature to produce a perfect man or woman.

    But none of these children ever reachperfection. They either die early or else are badly "spoiled in the making."Certain it is that the adult male and female of the human species is a very disappointinganimal. Adults are, in the main, mere caricatures of human beings. Not because naturefails to go on with her efforts at perfection, but because of the many and variedinfluences which interfere with growth and development and frustrate the effortsof nature to produce a perfect being.

    More than twenty years ago Dr. AlexanderT. MacNichol, of New York, found upon examining 10,000 children in the schools ofthat city, that 35 per cent had heart derangement, 20 per cent had spinal defects,27 per cent had tuberculosis, 60 per cent were suffering from anemia, 15 per centsuffered from some nervous disorder. Dr. MacNichol said that if the percentage oforganic and functional diseases among school children held good throughout the city,and those so suffering were excluded from school, "two-thirds of our schoolswould be compelled to close for lack of pupils."

    Basing his estimates on the findingsof physical defects found in 1,400 school children in New York City, Dr. Chas. C.Burlingham, formerly Pres. of the Board of Education of that city, said that twelvemillion children in the United States had physical defects at that time. Based onthe findings in New York City and assuming that they would hold true throughout thecountry, Dr. Burlingham estimated that there were then in the United States, 1,440,000ill-nourished children, 5,615,000 with enlarged glands, 6,925,000 with defectivebreathing. He estimated for the city of New York, 48,000 children with malnutrition,187,000 with enlarged glands and 230,800 with defective breathing.

    Although only a trifle more than 10per cent of the 1,400 children studied suffered from malnutrition, less than 14 percent of them came from families with incomes of less than 10 dollars a week.

    These are the children that suppliedmost of the the men of draft age in the recent war. Can we wonder that our youngmen were found to be in such a deplorable condition, when we see that they were givensuch a poor start in life? When the draft figures were published in 1920 it was revealedthat 80 per cent of the men of the draft were physically below normal; normal meaningthe median, the typical and not the ideal or perfect, while one third of them werenot able to pass the much lowered standards of physical fitness demanded by a countrydesperate to secure men for cannon fodder.

    It is asserted that 80 per cent ofbabies are born perfect, meaning normal. Of these little more than half reach maturity.Of those who reach maturity, 80 per cent are below normal at the time when they shouldbe at their best. This in a country that boasts of its wealth and plenty; a countrywhere there is a super- abundance of food and a good climate.

    In 1924 it was estimated that therewere, in this country, 20,000,000 children of school age. Of these, 14,000,000 sufferedwith some serious physical defect; 10,000,000 had tuberculosis, 1O,OOO,OOO had serioustooth troubles, 2,000,000 suffered from some (recognized) grave form of malnutrition,1,000,000 showed the first signs of nervous disorders, while all of them sufferedwith frequent colds and other disorders. None of them possessed perfect health

    Two years later, Dr. Herman J. Norton,Health director of Rochester, N. Y., stated that 75 per cent of the children of theUnited States have physical defects. Quoting a survey of 22,000,000 children thathad been but recently made he said I5,000,000 had bad teeth, 2,000,000 to 4,000,000had fallen arches, defective spines or joints, 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 were sufferingfrom malnutrition, 5,000,000 had poor sight, 1,000,000 suffered from deafness, 1,000,000had or did have tuberculosis, 250,000 had heart trouble, and 200,000 were mentallydefective.

    Year by year, so far as the figuresshow, the health of the American child declines. While the figures show a certainpercentage to be suffering from malnutrition, the truth is that there is a greateror lesser degree of malnutrition in all these conditions of physical and mental impairment.Think of the absurdity of saying 15,000,000 children had bad teeth while only 3,000,000to 5,000,000 suffered from malnutrition. The greatest single cause of bad teeth ismalnutrition. Defective spines and joints are more often than otherwise results ofmalnutrition.

    But we have not gone to the root ofthis matter in recognizing glaring defects as due to malnutrition. Any nutritionaldeficiency which will ultimately result in disease, will produce much damage to thetissues and to the general health, growth and vitality, long before the deficiencybecomes great enough to be definitely diagnosed by the physician. We must learn torecognize that there is a long period of failing health which precedes, and preparesthe way for the first appearance of physical signs--symptoms. It is not merely enoughto save the teeth or preserve the normal posture of the spine, but we must buildand preserve such a high degree of positive health that no so-called disease is possible.

    I desire to emphasize that these andmany other defects and diseases with which infants and children suffer are the earlystages of the process of deterioration which culminates in cancer, Bright's disease,diabetes, insanity and nervous diseases, diseases of the heart and arteries, etc.,later in life. In infancy and childhood the deterioration begins. It is then thatthe foundations for the disorders of later years are laid.

    How important, then, that babies andchildren receive proper care! How great the responsibilities of parents, nurses,educators, physicians and all others who deal with children!



    The whole brute creation rear theiryoung with a certainty of their arriving at maturity without sickness of any kind.Human infants and children do not fare so well. These are forced to undergo crueland needless suffering, while only a little more than half of them ever reach maturity.

    In her Notes on Nursing, 1860,Florence Nightingale tells us that at that time "one in every seven infantsin this civilized land of England perishes before it is one year old." Thatin London "two in every five die before they are five years old;" in the"other great cities of England, nearly one out of two." She says: "Morethan 25,000 children die every year in London under ten years of age."

    In his Shut Your Mouth, 1870,George Catlin records that: "From the Bills of Mortality which are annuallyproduced in the civilized world, we learn that in London and other large towns inEngland, and cities of the Continent, on an average, one half of the humanrace die before they reach the age of five years, and one half of the remainder diebefore they reach the age of twenty-five, thus leaving but one in four to share thechances of lasting from the age of twenty- five to old age.

    "Statistical accounts showed,not many years past, that in London, one half of the children died under threeyears, in Stockholm, one half died under two years, and in Manchester, onehalf died under five years."

    Such a mortality, as Catlin shows,was enormous compared to the almost negligible infant and child mortality he foundin his Ethnographic labors among 150 tribes of North and South American Indians.

    In a foot note Catlin Points out 10,15 and sometimes 20 deaths a week occurred in London from the suffocation of infantsin bed with their parents. He quotes the Times as saying, in May 1860 thata Mr. Wakley "had held inquests over more than 100 infants which had died duringthe past winter, from the same cause, their parents covering them entirely over,compelling them to breathe their own breath." He also quotes the Report of theRegister-General as saying "suffocation in bed, by overlaying or shutting offair from the child is the most frequent cause of violent deaths of children in England."

    Happily, deaths from this cause arethings of history. It required a long time for loving parents to abandon the practiceof smothering their children to death, just as it will yet require many more yearsfor the "loving" parents of today to cease murdering their children inother ways. We have a nation of semi-invalids with an enormous infant and child deathrate and we see the mothers and fathers of these children feeding them, druggingthem and caring for them (abusing them) in a manner to produce all of this sufferingand dying and then refusing to open their eyes and ears to the ugly truth, that theirchildren, whom they profess to love, are being murdered.

    The folowing table by Dr. Emerson,showing deaths in infants, children and young persons in Philadelphia during theperiod of 1826 to 1830 inclusive, is copied from How to Feed the Baby, byDr. Page:

1 year
1 and 2
2 and 5
5 and 20
January 281 81 102 109 573
February 382 109 123 131 745
March 322 119 122 138 701
April 342 107 125 122 696
May 250 98 107 107 562
June 510 148 84 105 847
July 836 249 117 120 1322
August 546 317 120 165 1148
September 377 221 140 185 923
October 324 127 117 153 721
November 267 90 114 132 603
December 269 90 114 135 608


4,706 1,756 1,385 1,602 9,449

    Examining this table, we are stuckwith the fact that more deaths occur under one year than during the next nineteenand more than twice as many die under two years than during the succeeding eighteen.Dr. Emerson failed to account for this terribly disproportionate mortality in infants.He attributed to the heat, their summer mortality.

    Dr. Robley Dunglison, on the otherhand, referring to these same figures said: "We have already said that cholerainfantum is the great scourge of our cities during the summer months, and this affectionis doubtless in part occasioned by excessive heat; but that this alone does not induceit, is shown by the fact that in country situations, where the heat may be as great,it is comparatively rare."

    Again, he says: "It has been alreadyshown that not only is the general mortality of London greater than that of Philadelphia,but the deaths at the ages most liable to cholera infantum are more numerous also--afact which confirms the remark just made, that something more than excessive heatis, in such cases, the lethiferous agent."

    Dr. Dunglison assigned as the greatcause of infant mortality, defective ventilation. Yet, as Dr. Page remarks, "thiscannot account for the fearful increase of deaths of infants in summer, for the reasonthat at this season the houses of all, rich and poor, ate better ventilated thanin winter, for doors and windows are freely opened."

    The value of infant life did not increaseduring the next fifty years. There were born in Philadelphia during the five yearperiod ending December 31, 1870, 85,957 living infants. Of this number 25,636 diedbefore they were two years old, and a total of 31,662 before their fifth year, nearlythirty seven per cent.

    Back in 1904 It was estimated thatapproximately 1,500,000 babies were born in this country every year. Over 750,000of these infants were killed before they reached five years of age.

    Dr. W. R. C. Laston, tells us of acity in which according to the Health Board Report of Sept. 7, 1910 there were 1,418deaths of all ages, 775 of these being males and 643 females. During this same periodthere were 1,475 births, with 122 of these born dead. 143 of these infants died ofcongenital debility.

    Today in this same country 77 out ofevery thousand babies born here, die during their first year--an infant death ratehigher than war ravaged Belgium and France had immediately after the war. Contrastsuch a death rate with the deaths during the war when but ten out of every thousandmen in the American army were killed in action or as a result of wounds receivedin action. Our mode of caring for our children is more deadly than modern warefare.

    In this land of plenty and civilization200,000 infants die every year, and the lives of over 400,000 more who live beyondthe first year are blotted out under ten years of age. Many thousands more who reachmaturity, carry with them the tell tale marks (disease, weakness, deformity, arresteddevelopment, etc.) of wrong care during the early years of life. This is a veritableslaughter of the innocents. Was not H. Mitchell Watchet right when he wrote,

    "This land is swept with a stormof sighing,

    The buds are beaten with rain of tears;

    Sorrow berate o'er the babes, dying,

    O'er empty cradles and childless years!

    Silence! Oh fathers; be dumb oh mothers!

    Your lamentations will not avail---

    'Tis your thoughtless hands that theyoung lives smother,

    Your selfish selves give the graveits tale."

    Ancient Sparta, under the laws of Lycurgus,drowned her weak and sickly babies. We shudder with horror when we read of this andthink the Spartans a cruel and merciless people, because they put to death an occasionalinfant. But look at us! We take our little ones who are born strong and healthy andkill them by the hundreds of thousands. By slow and painful processes we crush outtheir little lives, while the condemned babies of Ancient Sparta died suddenly andpainlessly.

    Dr. Oswald declares: "Infancyshould be a period of exceptional health; the young of other creatures are healthier,as well as prettier, purer, and merrier, than the adults, yet the childhood yearsof the human animal are the years of sorest sickliness; statistics show that amongthe Caucasian races men of thirty have more hope to reach a good old age than a newborn child has to reach the end of its second year."

    I am not sure that the statistics oftoday will not still show the same sad disproportion between the death of infantsand that of adults. The slaughter of the innocents is not so great as it once was,but it is certainly thousands of times to great, still.

    For this horrible state of affairssomeone must bear the blame. All of this suffering and premature death is not inherentin the nature of things. Parents, educators, doctors, theologians, food manufactures,boards of health, politicians--these all must be found guilty of murder.

    Of 9,873 children who died in Massachusettsin 1870 under five years of age, more than one half of the deaths were due to digestivederangements. Of 11,382 children under twelve years of age cared for in the dispensaryfor sick children in New York City from 1867 to 1869, inclusive, 3,243 were sufferingwith bowel disorders.

    In 1870 Dr. E. Ballard, of England,published a very thorough article on "Infant Mortality" in which he showedthat in five years (from 1863 to 1868) there were in England 314,242 deaths of infantsunder one year of age, of which 277,852 were due to digestive disorders.

    The following is a table of infantmortality showing the death rate in children under two years of age in New York Cityfrom diarrheal causes, and all other causes for the two months of July 2nd. to Sept.3rd. 1910, given in weeks.

Week ending:

Diarrheal causes

All causes

July 2nd



July 9th



July 16th



July 23rd



July 30th



August 6th



August 13th



August 20th



August 27th



Sept. 3rd






    The death rate for children under two yearsof age for the whole year 1909 was, diarrhea! causes 5,126, all causes 20,716.

    Assuming that the death rate was approximatelyas great in other large cities, it gives us a death rate of 10,000 children in Julyand August in the ten leading American cities. Basing his estimate on these figuresand applying them to the whole country, Eugene Christian said: "We have a funeralof 90,000 innocent little ones July and August of every year who died from stomachand intestinal troubles alone, which are the most easily controlled and preventableof all so-called children's diseases. This army of little ones are clearly victimsof unpardonable ignorance."

    Again he said: "If cholera, smallpoxor yellow fever should become epidemic in New York and over 5,000 adults should dieof one of these diseases in sixty days, the whole city and state would be throwninto a panic. Doctors, ministers, churches, health boards, rich people and noisynewspapers would take a hand in the fight."

    He is undoubtedly right, but why arewe not just as anxious to save our children? I suspect that the truth of the matteris that we are not nearly so anxious about the welfare of our children as we areabout upholding some ridiculous dogma of medicine or church. At any rate, we arestill killing them, with the help of the doctors, at an awful rate.



    A child's life does not begin at birth,although we are in the habit of reckoning his age from this event as a beginning.We are almost justified in saying that the child's life does not begin. We couldtrace it back, generation after generation, through a long, unbroken line of germplasmto the very beginning of human life on this earth. However for practical purposes,and as an individual child, as distinguished from the ocean of germplasm, we mustreckon the child's beginning from the time of conception--from the time the ovumof the female is impregnated by the spermatzoon of the male. It is then that theformation of a new being begins and shortly after this the first some plasm and thefirst special organs are produced.

    The child that is now being formedin the mother's womb is to a great extent at the mercy of the mother. Nature hasthrown every possible safeguard around the child and, if it becomes necessary shewill sacrifice the mother in the interest of the child; but, in spite of this, sogreat is the child's dependence upon the mother, that it is largely what she makesit.

    Over 20,000 women die in childbirthin this country, yearly. Many more die from conditions connected with childbirth.This indicates a deplorable physical condition of our women. How can such women givebirth to healthy offspring?

    In the year 1916, there were 75,000deaths in babies under one month old, in 70 per cent of the population of the UnitedStates. There is a yearly occurrence of 100,000 still births, which are not recordedin the death record. These deaths and still births are largely due to the deplorablephysical condition of out mothers and to the lack of the proper care during pregnancy.

    Need I emphasize that sickly and maimedmothers cannot produce healthy children? A mother's responsibilities are "greaterin this respect than most of them realize or are willing to fulfil. Indeed my experiencewith mothers has convinced me that I am writing this book for the few. The greatmajority of them will not heed. It used to be said that if a prospective mother wereproperly informed of her duties and responsibilities and given the necessary knowledgeof how to care for herself during this period, her mother love and mother instinctswould prompt her to do those things which assure health and strength to her childand refrain from those things which injure the child.

    Time and experience have proven thisview to be false. A woman does not have any more will power or self-control whenpregnant than at other times. Pregnancy does not make her any the less indolent orlazy; indeed, pregnancy is often used as a pretext for indolence. The indulgent youngwoman is no less so after she becomes pregnant. The smoking woman does not give upsmoking during pregnancy. Only the exceptional woman is equal to the work of beinga real mother, either before or after the child is born.

    Women who are regarded as leaders ofsociety, ethical, religious and literary leaders and teachers, as much as the ignorantmasses, disregard the rights of their children and do not give them the prenatalcare they deserve. They are too often given to the cultivation of sensuality, satisfyingmorbid appetencies and eating, drinking and smoking, and in acting upon the sillysuperstition that her desires or "cravings," whether wholesome or unwholesome,should be indulged to prevent marking the child.

    That woman who is not willing to sacrificethese and other unwholesome indulgences for the sake of her child's health is notworthy our respect. Many of these very mothers take pride in not considering theirown needs, except to violate them; and affect a spirit of maryrdom when it seemsto be a choice between their own real or the infant's supposed needs. But all ofthis is made unnecessary by the fact that the child's needs are best served whenthose of the mother are perfectly supplied. Too many of these "sacrifices"that the mothers make for their children, both before and after birth, are injuriousto the child, both physically and morally. It behooves the prospective mother toinform herself and conform to the rules of right living.

    Mother's you cannot shift your responsabilitiesin this matter, to your physicians. The medical program is to have you place yourselfunder a physician as soon as you become pregnant and go for frequent examinationsand frequent urinalyses. This is not very good for mothers, although it is profitableto the doctors. The New York World, (Oct. 16, 1928), quotes Dr. Chas. V. Craster,Health Director of Newark, N. J., as saying: "We had hoped that the increasinguse of hospitals by expectant mothers would aid materially in reducing the maternitydeath-rate. But to our surprise, since hospitalization increased the death-rate hasclimbed."

    Dr. Whitredge, professor of obstetricsat Johns Hopkins University, says, 'Infant and maternal mortality rates are one-thirdhigher in this country than in any other." He says that "this is due inpart to the inadequate teaching and training of our men as compared to European graduates."But in some European and some South American countries, medical graduates are notas well trained as in the United States. On the other hand, the woman mid-wife isemployed more in most European countries than in America. It is noteworthy that theinfant and maternal death rate is much higher in this country, where physicians areused than where the mid-wife is employed.

    The increasing use of the medical professionand its anti-natural methods and measures results in an increased death rate andan increase in chronic disease What good is a urinalysis? It can discover trouble(some trouble) only after it is well developed. It cannot prevent the developmentof trouble. It cannot point the remedy. It deals with effects, end-points, not causes.If it reveals trouble, it is followed by drugging or inoculation; it is not followedby the correction of causes. Examinations of all kinds are of the same character.

    Don't depend on your physician to saveyou. Acquire the knowledge necessary to save yourself. Learn how to live and youcan prevent the development of the troubles your physician locates by means of theurinalysis. That he does not expect the advice he gives you to prevent the developmentof trouble, is evidenced by the fact that he insists so strenuously upon the frequentexaminations and analyses. You want a saving knowledge, and not the stereotyped half-knowledge,handed out by the average physician, hospital or clinic.

    You need wholesome outdoor exercise,pure air, plenty of rest and sleep, sun baths, freedom from worry, anxiety and otherdevitalizing influences. You should not be overworked. You should not be requiredto administer to the sexual desires of your husband during pregnancy. And last, butnot least, you need proper food. I am going to deal somewhat at length with thismatter of food, but must ask you to refer to my Orthotrophy--The Natural Dietof Man, for a more complete treatment of adult diet.

    If you will eat properly and care foryourself properly during pregnancy, you will not only save your teeth and preserveyour health and assure yourself a healthy, vigorous child, but you will make childbirthsafe and easy and, providing you are normally developed and live fully right, makechildbirth painless.

    Not only must the mother supply thecalcium or lime salts and phosphates, so essential to the development of the teethand bones of the child, both before birth and during the nursing period, but shemust supply every other element the child requires. She must supply the vitaminsif these actually exist. She must supply the child with sunshine, and where she failsto secure these for herself, the child will also be deprived of them.

    Cereals, especially, seem to inducedefective teeth, particularly when not counterbalanced with large quantities of greenfoods and fresh fruits.

    The effect of deficient diets reachthrough more than one generation. Female dogs fed on a diet which produces ricketsgave birth to pups which were so strongly predisposed to rickets that the feedingof good food for a considerable period did not remove the tendency to rickets. Thedietary deficiencies also increased the susceptibility of the young to respiratorytroubles, such as catarrhal conditions (these often extending into and impairingthe digestive tract) and pneumonia.

    McCollum has pointed out that a slightlydeficient diet eaten over a period of generations, lowers vitality, predisposes topremature old age, and shortens life. Grant and Goettsch found that a slightly deficientdiet eaten over a long period of time produces pathological conditions which neverresult from extreme dietary deficiencies.

    They found that young animals haverickets only when the diet of the mother is of a type which leads to rickets Theyproved that tile mother's diet governs absolutely the decreased or Increased resistanceof the young to the effects of deficiencies in their own food. Rickets they found,will not develop in young animals whose diet is deficient in bone material, providingthey are born of well nourished mothers. The rapidity and severity with which ricketsdevelops in young animals, depends very largely upon the depletion of the mother'snutrition during pregnancy.

    Well-nourished mothers (this does notmean over-fed) give birth to well-nourished and, therefore, well developed and vitalchildren. Not merely the bones and teeth and respiratory organs are involved in theresults of adequate or inadequate diets, but every tissue in the body is weakenedor strengthened, as the case may be, by the mother's food. Mother's nutrition isthe real prenatal influence.

    Something is affecting the fertilityof American families, according to our anthropologists and geneticists. For somereason few marriages ever result in anything beyond the fourth generation. The oldAmerican stock is dying off. There are exceptions, of course, but many of these marriagesare wholly unproductive of progeny, while many family trees perish after the firstor second generation.

    A man or woman who possesses sufficientvitality to live to what we consider a "ripe old age" in spite of wronghabits of living, will produce off-spring who will not be able to duplicate thatfeat.

    Unfertility in rats and other smallanimals and in lions can be produced by inadequate nutrition. A slight deficiencyin certain of the essentials of nutrition results in either total inability to produce,or else a failure of each succeeding generation.

    This same fact is true of the plantworld. The fertility of a plant depends on the presence, in the soil, in proper proportionsand amounts of the essential elements of plant nutrition, in an available form. Experimentsshow that the fertility of plants may be increased, by proper mineral fertilizationto three times the fertility of plants grown on manure fertilized land, or on landfertilized with the three-part fertilizer of commerce. Properly fertilized plantsalso resist insect pests almost wholly. They grow larger, stronger and firmer andresist weather changes and strong winds better than plants fertilized in the timehonored ways.

    Man is not exempt from this UNIFORMITYOF NATURE. Undoubtly, much of the unfertility of the average American family is dueto deficient nutrition. Much of the decreased resistance to disease influences, andthe progressive physical and mental deterioration, seen In each successive generation,are due to these same causes.

    There are conditions of dietary deficiency,such as advanced cases of sprue, for instance, in which, so great is the deficiency,the body's resistance to poisons is so much lowered that once inflammation has setup, it tends to persist indefinitely. I do not doubt that deficient diets, eatenby mothers during pregnancy, are frequently responsible for the many cases of stubborninflammatory diseases in children which persist for a long time despite our bestefforts. If the diet of the parent reaches the germ plasm of himself and his offspring,and we know that it does this, there is certainly nothing far-fetched in the thoughtthat it reaches the "soma-plasm" of the offspring.

    Seeing, then, how necessary it is togive your baby a good start in life, by eating properly during pregnancy and before,it behooves the intelligent mother to study the subject of diet very thoroughly andmake use of her knowledge. She will profit as much by this course as will her childrenand grand children. I recomend to every reader of this book my Orthotrophy--OrThe Natural Diet of Man.

    How foolish to eat recklessly and haphazzardlyduring pregnancy and then attempt to undo, in your child, after birth, the mischiefyou have produced by your lawless course. Give your child the right start in lifeby supplying it with the best nutrition you can.

    The time of the greatest growth anddevelopment of the brain and nerves is during the prenatal period and the first twoyears after birth. This is the best time to lay the foundation of a good brain andnervous system. It is asserted that the whole future of an individual is determinedby the time he is four years old, just as the whole future of a calf is determinedby the time it is six months old. How very important that the mother supply her unbornchild with the very best nutrition!

    Oh! if mothers could only be made torealize that preparation for motherhood should begin in infancy! Today our daughtersare trained and equipped for everything else except this supreme accomplishment.

    Dr. Tilden observes: "It is patheticto see a tuberculous mother struggling in a hopeless endeavor to make her baby strongafter it has once got a bad start."

    "Such mothers will so frequentlysay: 'why cannot my baby be strong, like Mrs. so-and-so's? She feeds her baby anything, and neglects it; yet it thrives."

    There is a wide gulf, physically orvitally, between the two children. The care, in spite of which the strong one willthrive, will speedily kill the weak one. Sick mothers should refrain from havingchildren. yet I have known them not only to bear children, but to disregard everyrule of hygiene during pregnancy. Then they suffer and the baby suffers until itdies, and these mothers will blame everything but themselves for their "misfortune."

    This chapter would not be completewithout some reference to the almost universal, as well as very ancient, belief thata mother can "mark" her child. Many young mothers go through pregnancyin a constant state of agony because of the many stories of maternal impressionswhich they hear on all sides from their friends. "Old wives" seem to delightin telling ghost stories about the direful results which have followed or are supposedto follow the seeing of distressing sights during pregnancy. They eagerly grab upevery story they hear and enlarge upon it in the customary manner. Each tries tooutdo the other in these tales of horror.

    Books are written and many of themare widely circulated, which carry chapters devoted to these maternal impressionsin which are presented "examples" of the impressions.

    I do not wonder that people take suchthings seriously. I cannot blame them. Yet I know, and everyone knows, who has investigatedthe matter, that the whole thing is false and ridiculous, There is not an authenticcase of a mother marking her child on record. The other half of this story is thatno such case will ever go on record, for no such case can ever exist.


    We are told that by thinking intentlyenough upon music, or art, or war, etc., a mother may make of her child a great musician,a great artist, or a great general. Napoleon, we are informed, was made a great militaryleader by his mother, before he was born. Previous to his birth she is said to haveaccompained her husband on war expeditions. She is said to have enjoyed the horrorsand details of war. For ages we have been told that the ancient Greek mothers createda genius for art in their sons, by gazing for hours, during gestation, upon the beautifulstatues and pictures in the Greek temples. Albert Edward Wiggam very appropriatelyasks, concerning this: "What did the mothers of the sculptors and artists whomade the statues gaze at?"

    The morals and character of a childcan be predetermined by the mother's mental state during pregnancy. Its future habitsmay be more or less preformed for it. One may have a thief or a saint at will. Dante'smother is said to have seen a beautiful vision immediately preceding his birth.

    But, perhaps we hear more of the physical"marking" of children than of any other form of "maternal impressions,"and these markings are almost always deformities and defects. The child is almostcompletely at the mercy of its mother during the first few months of its existence.

    Going back in history to the time ofJacob (Genesis XXX. 29-43), when he was said to have influenced the colors and stripsof his cattle by "piled rods" and other things placed before them, we finda belief in maternal impressions. Whatever may have happened to Jacob's cattle, itnever happened to the cattle of anyone else. Jacob's experiment has been repeatedhundreds of times at the Agricultural experiment stations in America and no suchresults have ever been produced.

    It is asserted that any desired typeof physical beauty, every quality of genius, all moral dispositions and all spiritualtendencies may be conferred by the mother upon her unborn child. Here is an exampleby Mme. Louise Mason, from the Arena. When she first heard of the markingof her baby she determined to mark. it for good. She says:

    "I would often sit alone in my room, overlooking scenes that were pleasant, and, in a peaceful attitude of mind perfectly passsive, desire that my child should be a girl; that she should have a slight figure, chestnut hair and beautiful eyes; that she should be a musician, a singer, and that she she should be proficient in everything she undertook; that she should be superior to all those I had ever known. Here is the result: A beautiful woman in mind and body, with chestnut hair, slight physique, and a phenomenal voice--contralto; she is a philosopher, a student in Delsarte, astronomy and astrology, and masters every study; is eloquent and has one of the most amiable dispositions."

    When mothers begin to desire or think thedesired sex into their unborn children and think or desire the color into the hairof these children, they are getting along fine in their creative work. I say this,not for the benefit of students of biology, but for those who are unacquainted withthe facts of heredity: the color of one's hair; ones "frame" and eyes aredetermined in the germ plasm. Mother's mind has nothing to do with it. Wiggam aptlyremarks that if mothers can create "wonderful characters in their children,making them geniuses, artists, musicians, saints, and the like, then all I can sayis that wishes would be horses and beggars would ride."

    A case of physical deformity I findin one of these books, is that of a child born lacking the fingers and thumb of onehand, The explanation has it that in the early months of her pregnancy, the motherwas accosted by a beggar "who raised her hand, destitute of thumb and fingers"and begged for alms "in God's name." The deformed limb of her child wason the same side as that of the beggar's "and it seemed to the mother to resembleprecisely that of the beggar's."

    A pregnant woman was much alarmed whenher husband came home with his face swollen from a blow. She "bore a girl witha purple swelling upon the same side of the face." Another pregnant woman wasfrightened in a storm by a stroke of lightning. "Her child bears a zigzag streakupon its forehead, supposed to be caused by the fright." A woman visited thecounty fair where she saw a four-year-old boy wearing a false-head of an old man.She was much "disgusted" by the sight and determined that it would notmark the baby, she was carrying at the time. Despite her determination, when herbaby, was born at seven months "its head was abnormally large and had the appearanceof an old man." The "historian" tells us "here was a case dueto disgust." With reference to this case, in which the lady made determinedefforts of will to prevent marking her child, and failed, Wiggam's question is apt:"If the mother's 'will' is powerful enough to produce birthmarks whycannot it also prevent them."

    A white-headed boy had a patch of jet-blackhair on his head. The mother did not know whether it was due to seeing a negro staba man or to pulling the very black hair of one of her neighbors with whom she hadquarreled. She was sagely informed that had it been due to seeing the negro the patchof hair would have been kinky. Had the mother been frightened by a leopard thereis no telling how spotted her boy would have been. We may be sure that he would havehad fur instead of hair on his head.

    Another amusing case is that of a womanwho was frightened, while working in the garden, by getting a twin cucumber caughtbetween her toes. She fully resigned herself to having twins, but got no furtherthank child with twin toes. If maternal impressions can create toes, and destroyfingers, then why not create or destroy heads or scalps. Yet there are no recordsof headless children being born of mothers who have been shocked at seeing a manbeheaded. Our early American women saw many scalping parties by Indian hair dressers,but none of their children were born scalped.

    A sad case I read of some years agowas that of a pregnant woman who was frightened by a mole. When her baby was bornit did not possess arms and hands. Instead, at its shoulders were little "paddles"resembling the forelimbs of the mole. Yet I have never heard of children being bornwith elephant trunks or giraffe necks.

    In France and Belgium during the recentwar, when zepplin raids were almost daily occurrences, and frightful orgies of murderwere frequently witnessed by the pregnant mothers, birth marks did not occur. Parisauthorities who had charge of the babies of Paris report that babies born in 1918,the most terrible year of the war, were somewhat larger, fatter and healthier thanbabies generally are.

    It is asserted that if an expectantmother is frightened and touches some part of her body, a mark will appear on thecorresponding part of her child. Many mothers fear to brush a bug or bee from theirface, for fear a mark resembling the insect will appear on their child. It is a mostridiculous notion, but the peace of mind of many young mothers is much disturbedby it.

    There is another wide spread notionabout marking children, which is that, if a mother craves something she cannot get,this will mark her child. This notion is often used by indulgent women as an excusefor indulging their morbid appetencies. Although I have never heard the storyhere in the South, Mr. Wiggam tells us that "down south a negro woman with awhite child often accounts for it on the ground that she craved snow." We dofrequently see negro women with white babies, but we have another and simpler explanationfor it. Despite southern fundamentalism, no virgin births ever occur down here, andwhen we see a white baby we always think of a white ancestor.

    "Birth marks" are comparativelyrare yet it seems to the young mother who is fearful lest she mark her baby, thatshe sees horrible sights every day. Deformed and crippled children and adults areall around them. It is impossible for any woman to go through nine months of pregnancywithout seeing many things to impress her. If the notion is a true one our childrenare the helpless victims of chance and no child should ever be normal. Yet impressionablemothers, who feel that their children are doomed, because of some horrible accidentthey have witnessed, give birth to normal children.

    There are no biological, physiologicalor anatomical bases for the belief In maternal impressions. Let us take a brief lookat the facts.

    First: Children are not produced fromthe body cells of the parent. They are produced by the family germ plasm representedby the sperm cells—ova and spermatozoa. These are not parts of the parents bodies,but are merely stored therein. They were handed to the parent by the grandparentwho received them from the great grandparent who received them—and so on, back toAdam and Eve, or whoever it was who started this thing. The hereditary charactersare not placed there by the parents. These cells only receive their room and boardfrom the parent. They are an entirely separate line of organization, living in butforming no part of the parent's body, and are not manufactured by the body or blood-cellsof the parent.

    God creates the germ cells and putsthe hereditary characteristics into them. He does not leave the work of creationin our own hands, for, if he did we would spoil it in a week. And that's that.

    Second: There is no nervous connectionbetween the mother and her child. From the moment of conception the child is an independentbeing to which it is anatomically impossible for the mother to convey any mentalor nervous impressions or impulses.

    It is now quite the custom among "impressionists"to attribute "marks" to "telepathy." This puts the whole probleminto the realms of occultism and takes it out of biology altogether. However, evidenceof telepathy is entirely lacking and there is no reason to believe, even if it werepossible for two minds, by great effort and after much training, to communicate witheach other by means of telepathy, that this telepathic communication is creativeand could produce red hair, or mole paddles at will. Wiggam correctly observes thatif telepathic influence on the developing child is possible, then the father andall the neighbors could also impress the child and that the telepathic influenceshould not cease at birth. A mother's fright at seeing a man lose his arm ought tocause her three year-old son's arm to wither up and cease to develop.

    An unborn child is just as much outsidethe mother's body as is the chicken in the egg outside the hen's body. Her womb isnothing more than a cavity in her body, like the mouth, and her baby is no more inher body than is a marble held in her mouth. She has as much chance of thinking somethinginto her baby as a hen has of thinking something into the chicks in the eggs on whichshe sits. Strange is it not, that "impressionists" have never attributedthe singing of birds to the fact that the father bird sat on the bough above andsang all day, while the mother bird sat on the eggs? I agreed with Wiggam when heasks. "Do you know that if the good Lord ever permitted the unborn babe to beremotely touched by such contradictory influences (the telepathic influences of mother,father and neighbors), by the time the little fellow got into the world he wouldbe nothing but a grotesque conglomeration if irrelevant absurdities?"

    Third: There is no blood supply betweenthe mother and her child. The child has its own blood and its own circulation. Theunborn child is dependent upon the mother for oxygen and food only. These it extractsfrom the mother in the remarkably adjusted processes of interchange which take placein the placenta or after-birth. The mother passes on to her child nourishment, notshock or mental influences.

    Nature has protected the child fromall possibility of "marking" by mental impressions, by arranging that theremay be no nerve and blood supply between mother and child. The mother's blood cannotget through the placenta into the child. The placenta acts as a filter through themembranes of which the needed nutriment passes, while almost everything that canpoison or injure the child is filtered out. Some poisons can and do get through tothe child. But on the whole the baby is placed safely out of harm's way so that evenphysical violence seldom reaches it. Railroad accidents, auto smashups, jars, shocks,etc., seldom reach it.

    One "impressionist" saysthat there is "a constant interchange of the blood in its (the baby's) bodywith that in hers" and that, "since the mother, as has been shown, cantransmit through her blood certain characteristics of mind and body not her own","all nervous impressions which have produced an alteration of either a temporaryor permanent character in the circulating fluid of the mother are communicated tothe child."

    If he will limit this to nutritivealterations, well and good, but otherwise it is pure bunk, with not a single legof fact to stand on.

    Fourth: The development of the formof the child is definitely determined during the first six weeks of pregnancy andcannot be subsequently altered. by the end of the sixth week the fetus is a practicallycomplete human being. Most instances of "marking occur after this time, whenit is no longer possible to convert the arms and hands into the paddles of a mole,for instance, or to produce twin toes. Errors and defects in development take placeduring the first six weeks and usually during the first two or three weeks followingconception.

    How, then, account for these "marks"which are seen in rare instances. We may as well admit that we cannot account forall of them. Some of them are results of heredity, others of "accident."Whatever "mark" may appear, there can always be found something to referit to--a mere coincidence, however. These prenatal accidents are comparatively veryrare--most babies are born normal.

    A child may become entangled in thecord and the circulation of some part of the body be interferred with. From thiscause the development of an arm or leg may be hindered. A lack of sufficient amnioticfluid may cause pressure on the child and handicap the development of some part.A fold in the uterus which prevents the blood from circulating is the usual causeof the absence of hands or feet. Such a child never had a hand or foot. A twistedhand or foot may be due to a wrinkle in the uterus or to injury at birth. A childborn at nine months without hands is not due to the fact that the mother saw a horseget its fore legs cut off a month previously. Poisons may cause faulty development.

    Faulty food, ill health in the mother,etc., simply tend to produce in the child a condition of lowered vitality and lessenedresistance. The nature of the child will depend on its germ-cell heritage. A defectin the germ cell at the beginning will show up as a defect in the child.

    A baby was born with one "calmishblue-gray eye" and the other "marked by the color and fire of the dashingyoung Spaniard's eye," who the mother had seen and been annoyed by almost dailyduring her pregnancy. "Always his appearance was most unexpected, and alwaysaccompanied by the rapt, passionate dark gaze." This seemed like a remakablecase of maternal impression since neither of the child's parents had such eyes. Investigation,however, revealed that the grandparents of the baby's mother had just such eyes asthe baby. It was just another case of heredity.

    Mr. Wiggam tells us that he has investigatedmany thousands of cases of alleged birthmarks and has not found a single case yet.Dr. Erassmus Darwin, father of Chas. Darwin, asked 11,000 women in a maternity hospital,what birth marks they thought would appear on their babies and where they would belocated. He recorded their answers. When the babies were born, they either had nomark at all, or in the few instances where there was a mark, it was located somewhereelse on the body and was not what the mother expected.

    Finally, "marks" resemblethe things they are said to in much the same way that a white cow becomes a greatghost in the dark. There is a large element of imagination in the matter. A commonmark is a red spot or blood-vessel tumor caused by an enlargement of the capillariesin some particular spot. Immagination can easily make this resemble a strawberryor other red object.

    Expectant mothers should remember thatprenatal accidents are very rare, that natural law and the mechanism God has preparedfor the protection of the child, so that it may have the very best that nature hasto offer in the beginning of its life, may be trusted to safeguard the best interestsof the child. No matter how well authenticated a reported case of birth marks mayappear, do not listen to it and do not be disturbed by it. Your mental states caninjure your child only in so far as they derange your nutrition and thus cause asupply of faulty nutriment to reach the child. They can help the child only in sofar as they promote health and thus assure good nourishment for the child.



    Professor Westermark, in his Historyof Human Marriage, lays down the following broad generalization regarding themating season mammals:

    "But notwithstanding this apparent irregularity, the pairing time of every species is bounded by an unfailing law. It sets in earlier or later according as the period of gestation lasts longer or shorter, so that the young may be born at a time when they are most likely to survive. Thus most mammals bring forth their young early in spring, or, in tropical countries, at the beginning of the rainy season. . . . In the highlands, animals pair later than those living in lower regions, whilst those of the polar and temperate zones generally pair later than those of the tropics."

    Nature seems ever to be trying to safeguardthe interests and welfare of the young. Modern theorists think only of the pleasuresof the adult.

    Mr. Westermark next marshalls an imposingarray of facts and statistics from all parts of the earth to show that man originallymated during the mating season, and that in spite of the many perversions of sexthat now exist, he still follows this primitive instinct mote than he realizes. Thus:

    "The number of births in Sardinia, Belgium and Sweden is subject to a regular increase twice a year, the maximum of the first increase occurring in February or March, that of the second in September or October. . . In the South of Italy, there is an increase only once a year, but more to the north twice, in the spring and autumn. . . . . In Germany two annual maxima-- in February or March, and in September . . . . in the eight largest towns of Scotland, more children are born in legitimate wedlock in April than in any other month. the first annual augmentation of births has its maximum, in Sweden, in March; in Belgium, Spain, Austria and Italy in February, in Greece in January; so that it comes earlier in southern Europe than farther to the north.

    "This unequal distribution of births over the different months of the year is ascribed to various causes by statisticians. It is, however generally admitted that the maximum in February and March (in Chile, September) is, at least to a great extent, due to the sexual instinct being the strongest in May and June (in Chile, December). This is the most likely to be the case, as it i& especially illegitimate births that are then comparatively numerous. . . . . (Note that Chile is in the southern hemisphere and has its spring in September.)

    "Thus, comparing the facts stated, we find, among various races of men, the sexual instinct increasing at the end of spring, or, rather, at the beginning of summer."

    He then reasons:-- "It seems, therefore,a reasonable presumption that the increase of the sexual instinct at the end of springor in the beginning of summer, is a survival of the ancient pairing season, dependingupon the same law that rules the rest of the animal kingdom."

    This awakening of the normally, dormantsexual instinct at this period assures the birth of children in the spring--or ratherin February, March and April. And this is just the best time of the year to haveyour children born. This is the beginning of the season when fresh vegetables andfruits are abundant, thus assuring the child, through the mother, of ample food ofthe best nature affords. It insures ample bone-forming material in the mother's milk.The weather is warm and houses are thrown open. People get out of doors. This meansthe baby will get plenty of fresh air.

    But an even more important consideration,under modern conditions, is sunshine. Babies born in the late fall or early winter,and who live through the winter, nearly all develop rickets to a greater or lessdegree. Fewer cases of rickets are seen in children who have the advantage of sunshineand sunkissed food during their first months of life. That sunshine is absolutelyessential to the normal assimilation and utilization of calcium (lime) and perhapsalso of iron and other elements, is certain. This is true of plants, animals andman. If your child is born in the early spring or in the closing days of winter itneed never have rickets and will also have reasonable assurance against scrofula,tuberculosis, anemia, and other diseases.

    Several investigators, including Hessof Columbia, and Steenbock, of Wisconsin, have pointed out the variations in thevitamin content of milk in the various seasons. The content is highest from May toJuly and lowest in the winter months. This is referred to the varying amounts ofC in the fodder in the different seasons. "In the spring and summer," toquote Berg, "when plants are in the most vigorous phase of their development,they contain comparatively large quantities of C; on the other hand, the ripeningof hay is attended by a gradual decline in the amount of C it contains, which maybe reduced to an inadequate proportions, It does not matter whether or not "vitamins"is the true explanation of the varying adequacy of milk through the seasons, theimportant fact is that spring and summer produce the best milk and early spring is,therefore, the best time for babies to be born.

    To have your baby born in the springis very essential in the North. This will be a far more dependable method of assuringthem against rickets, scrofula, scurvy, etc., than the nauseous, cod-liver oil theyare now dosed with. Have them born early enough that the first part of their livesis not spent in the cold winter months of coal smoke and lack of sunshine. From themiddle of April to the end of June would perhaps be the best time to have your childrenborn if you live in the North. In the South the middle of February to the end ofApril is a splendid time.

    You can arrange it thus if you desire.It calls for birth control and you are not to listen to the old ladies in the blackgowns, who tell you that birth control is a sin. Sin, like hell, is a creation oftheologians and is employed a club with which to keep you in submission and subjection.

    If you have to go to hell in orderto give your children the very best possible conditions under which to live; then,defy the priests, preachers, gods and devils and practice birth control and go tohell. Better to go to hell yourself than to build a hell on early for your children.These priests and preachers are largely responsible for the present social hell thatfills the world with want and poverty, with ignorance and depravity. Throw them offyour backs and don't allow them to jump upon the backs of your children.

    Arrange to have your children bornin the spring. Observe the primitive and, therefore, correct mating instinct andseason. Mating in season and out of season may be all right for perverts, but notfor normal beings.



    The average full-term baby weighs betweenseven and seven and a half pounds when born. A few babies weigh as much as fifteenpounds and in very rare instances even as much as twenty pounds. Twins, triplets,etc., and premature births may weigh as little as two and three pounds.

    A seven pound baby is too large andis due to wrong eating and over eating. Thc large size and weight of infants, atbirth, is one of the most prominent causes of difficulty and pain in delivery. Butwith our mania for fat babies, we find that the fatter the new-born child is thehappier and prouder the parents and physician are. At birth the offspring of thelower animals are little more than skin and bones, but if our babies are not abnormallylarge, from fat-bloat, we are not satisfied.

    The weight of the full term child,at birth, should not exceed six pounds, while five pounds would be better. This canbe secured by regulating the mother's diet before and during pregnancy and keepingher weight down.

    Medical works say that a child shoulddouble its weight in the first five months after birth and treble its weight in fromone year to fifteen months. A baby that weighs seven pounds at birth should weighfourteen pounds at the age of five months and twenty-one pounds at one year. Sucha baby will measure approximately twenty-nine inches. With an increase of less thanfifty pet cent in length, if a child's weight is increased two hundred per cent,it means a fat baby. But a fat baby is our present ideal. If you can picture to yourselfa baby weighing fifteen pounds at birth, weighing thirty pounds at five months andforty-five pounds at a year, or a twenty pound baby weighing forty pounds at fivemonths and sixty pounds at one year, you can quickly see the absurdity of this scheme.

    Just as there are tall and slenderadults and short and thick ones, so, there are babies that are naturally long andslender and others that are short and thick. No baby should be fat and no baby shouldbe skinny, however. We might compare infants, as well as adults, to grey hounds andbull dogs, or to race horses and draught horses. There are all types of babies asof adults.

    It is undoubtedly true that, irrespectiveof their ages, the best index to the nutrition of a child is the relation of weightto height. Yet not even this is wholly reliable, for a baby may be normal in weightand not be normally nourished. There are other and more important signs of malnutritionthan that of being underweight.

    Fat babies, as pointed out elsewhere,are not healthy babies, and while the scales may indicate that the baby is thriving,this may be deceptive. Many infants whose weight would be considered normal havesoft, flabby flesh and are often anemic and in very poor condition. This is veryfrequently the case in babies fed on condensed milk. The parent should know thata firm, solid and elastic condition of the flesh, noticeable particularly in thelegs and buttocks, is a more important evidence of satisfactory nutrition than thatof weight. Gains in weight should represent healthy growth of the bones, musclesand other organs of the body and not merely the rolling on of fat.

    The growth of the child should alsobe considered of great importance. Too often an increase in weight means little moreshall the rolling on of fat. The fat baby, as a general rule, to which there area few exceptions, does not grow in length or in frame as rapidly and satisfactorilyas the lean one. It is nothing unusual to see a fat baby with a serious conditionof rickets.

    Many mothers worry unduly about theweight of their babies. Theoretically, a normal baby should gain weight every day,but actually babies almost never do this. The weekly gains are almost never uniform,Weekly gains in bottle-fed babies are hardly ever he same.

    There are a number of things that mayinterfere with the gains of the child, aside from inadequate or insufficient food.Impaired digestion, from over eating, over excitement, too much handling, over heating,chilling, etc., will check the growth of the child. A cold or slight indispositionprevents the child from gaining, not alone because the child eats less under suchconditions, but because the derangement interfere with growth and development.

    A failure to gain for one or two weeksdoes not always mean that there is anything wrong with the baby. It may only meanthat the mother's milk supply has been temporarily reduced. It may mean that theheat of summer has reduced the baby's appetite.

    The normal breast-fed baby is saidto gain from six to eight ounces a week for the first five months of its life. Itloses weight for the first two weeks after which it begins to gain. During the lastseven months of its first year the baby is supposed to gain an average of from fourto six ounces a week. These are the average gains made by over-fed babies and representconsiderable fat. Let me emphasize again, that a normal gain in weight should representgrowth of bone, muscle and organs and not merely the rolling on of excess fat. Smallergains than those above, if steady and the child is otherwise healthy, are not tobe considered abnormal.

    Mothers are often very much disturbedbecause their babies do not weigh as much as some other baby of the same age. Theycannot disabuse their minds of the injurious notion that babies must be fat. Whena group of mothers get together they compare the weights of their babies. The motherwhose baby is the fattest is apt to feel proud of her "superior" child,while the mother of the baby that weighs the least is quite apt to worry considerably.In most cases the mother of the light-weight should rejoice, while, the mother ofthe baby suffering from the fat-bloat should do the worrying.

    There is, of course, considerable differencesin the weight and height of perfectly normal babies. Heredity is involved in thismatter. Children of short parents are not likely to be as tall as children of tallparents. There is no good reason why the two babies should be any more alike thantheir patents are. Two babies in the same family may also, as a matter of heredity,be of different sizes, not merely in infancy, but thoroughout life.

    We are often reminded that a baby thatweighed five pounds at birth should not weigh as much as a baby that weighed ninepounds at birth. Usually, however, the five pound baby will be as large, except forfat, as the nine pound baby and, unless the nine pounder continues to fatten, thefive pounds child will catch him in weight and may even outweigh him.

    Dr. Page reasoned thus: "Duringthe nine months of foetal growth the increase, except in the case of monstrosities,is about one-third of an ounce per day, or two and one-half ounces per week. Whyit should be deemed rational for this ratio to be increased six or sevenhundred per cent., directly after birth, is beyond my comprehension. In spite,or because, of this hot-house forcing during the first few months, the usual weightat, say, five years, is much less than if the rate of pre-natal growth had been continuedthroughout these years."

    It was his thought that the pre-natalrate of growth should continue for some time after birth and that the normal infantshould double its weight in about nine months. If such babies are not fattened, thisis just about what takes place.

    The following figures giving the averageheights and weights of males and females at various ages are taken from "TheInfant and Young Child," by Morse-Wyman-Hill. I have not given the weightsby months as these authors do. These weights up to the age of four years are withoutclothes. From four years onward the clothes are included. They allow about threepounds for the weight of the clothes.






At birth





1 year





1-1/2 year





2 years





2-1/2 years





3 years





3-1/2 years





4 years





4-1/2 years





5 years





5-1/2 years





6 years





    I append the following tables showingthe development of my own children down to date. Comparisons of the weight and heightare possible in the cases of the two boys, and it will be noticed that both of theseoutstripped the average in height, although both of their parents and all four oftheir grandparents are short of stature, the tallest of these being only five feetand nine inches. Although Bernarr took on fat easily, we have always had greatertrouble to keep Walden from getting fat than we have had with Bernarr. It will benoticed that, although Walden was the largest at birth and weighed the most at oneyear, yet he did not grow in height as rapidly as Bernarr. All three of these childrenwere too heavy at birth and this I was forced to overcome after birth.








At Birth 20 inches 8-3/4 lbs. 13-1/2 inches  
1 month   8-3/4 lbs.    
2 months   9 lbs.    
3 months 24-1/2 inches 11 lbs. 15-5/8 inches  
6 months 28 inches 15 lbs. 16-1/2 inches  
1 year 30 inches 19-1/2 lbs. 18-1/4 inches 18-1/2 inches
2 years 35-1/2 inches 35 lbs. 22 inches 20-1/4 inches
3 years 39-1/4 inches 41 lbs. 22-1/2 inches 20-1/2 inches
4 years 42 inches 45 lbs. 23-1/4 inches 20-3/4 inches
5 years 45-1/2 inches 49-1/2 lbs. 24-1/2 inches 21 inches
6 years 47 inches 50 lbs. 25 nches 21 inches


At Birth 21-1/2 inches 9-1/2 lbs. 14 inches 14-1/2 inches
1 month   9-1/4 lbs.    
2 months   11 lbs.    
3 months 24 inches 14 lbs. 16 inches 16 inches
6 months 26-3/4 inches 18 lbs. 17-7/8 inches 16-3/4 inches
1 year 29-3/4 inches 20 lbs, 6-3/8 oz. 19-1/4 inches 18-1/2 inches
2 years 35-1/2 inches 33 lbs. 21 inches 19-3/8 inches
3 years 38-5/8 inches 41 lbs. 22-1/2 nches 20 inches


At Birth 19 inches 7 lbs. 12-1/2 inches 13-1/4 inches
1 week   7 lbs.    
2 weeks   7-1/2 lbs.    
3 weeks   8 lbs.    
1 month 20 inches 8-1/4 lbs. 13-1/8 inches 14-1/8 inches
2 months 21-1/4 inches 10 lbs. 14-1/2 inches 15 inches
3 months 22-1/2 inches 11-1/4 lbs. 15-3/4 inches 15-5/8 inches
4 months 22-3/4 inches 12-3/4 lbs. 16-1/2 inches 16 inches
5 months 24-5/8 inches 14 lbs.   16-1/8 inches
6 months 25 inches 14-3/4 lbs. 16-3/4 inches 16-1/2 inches

    Relative to the rest of the body, thehead is quite large at birth, being greater in circumference than the chest. Thisratio changes as the child grows and develops. If he develops as he should, thc chestwill be a little larger at one year than the head. Fat babies, if the fat is notdiscounted, may not do this.

    The lack of symmetry of the head, dueto its compression in labor, soon disappears. The soft spot at the back of the headcloses at about six weeks. The fontanel, or soft place on the top of the head, closesat from sixteen to eighteen months. It may even close earlier in children of superiornourishment who get an abundance of sunshine.

    The relative sizes of the various organsof the body of an infant are very different from those of an adult. If the relativesizes of the child's body were retained throughout life his head would be as wideas his shoulders and his legs those of a dwarf, while all parts of the body wouldbe out of proportion. Such an adults would be a monstrosity.

    Each organ of the body has its ownratio of growth and its own period of development . There is not alone a definiteperiod, of the child's life for the cutting of its teeth, but there is also a definiteperiod for the development of certain of its brain cells; and a definite period forsexual development.

    The process of growing is never haphazzardalthough the child grows in one direction this year and in another direction thenext. The child's heart increases in size twelve times before adulthood is reached,while the aorta, the body's largest blood vessel, increases only three times. Theliver of the child is equivalent of 1/18 of its size; the liver of the adult, 1/36of the size of the body. In early childhood the stomach is vertical and tubular;in the adult "bean-shaped" and more or less horizontal. The six year oldchild has sixty per cent more body surface in proportion to weight, than has theadult.

    In babyhood the bones are largely softcartilage. As age advances and ossification advances the bones become harder andstronger. The child must gradually learn the use of its various muscles, even thoseof the eyes. It is unable to execute complex movements, but must gradually acquirethis ability.

    The infant and child possess less redcorpuscles and more white ones than the adult. There is greater activity of the Iymphadenoidglands of the infant and child than of the adult. Its reactions to infections ismuch more prompt and vigorous.

    Medical authorities tell us that ababy can usually hold its head up unsupported at about three months. If a child can'thold its head up unsupported at three weeks, at the latest, that child is not developingwell.

    The amount of hair with which childrenare born varies. Some children are born with a luxuriant growth, others are almostbald. This hair is usually, though not always, lost during the first months of life,and is followed by a new growth. The hair may change in color three or four timesduring the first three or four years of life.

    Almost all children of the blond racesand of some of the darker races, like certain of the hindoos, are born with blueeyes. They usually begin to assume their permanent color during their first few weeks.There is no foundation for the theory, preached by some, that brown eyes are theresults of physical deterioration. It is asserted bv one of these "iriologists"that, "The eyes of people living in the south become brown because the actinicrays of the sun, as well as the heat, break down the protoplasm of the cells, whichare albuminous and all proteins and albumens give off hydrogen-sulphids which isa poison, and which is not eliminated as quickly as it is produced by the brokendown tissue." This hydrogen-sulphid resulting from the cooking of the fleshof Southern people is supposed to stain their eyes brown and we are told to "changethe diet of brown eyed people, stop giving them heavy actinic ray and heat treatments;give them the proper adiustments and within 3 to 6 months their eyes tell the storyof elimination, for they become lighter in color." This is rank nonsense withouta single demonstratable fact to support it.

    The brown of brown eyes is a pigmentdeposit (like the "tan" in the skin), in the stroma of the iris. Wherethe stroma is devoid of pigment, the purple pigment layer, resting on the basementmembrane of the iris, shimmers through the stroma as a uniform. clear sky blue.

    A baby can see at birth--far sightednessbeing normal sight. They are thought to begin to recognize objects at about 6 to8 weeks and to focus their eyes on objects at about 3 months. Up to this age theaverage child has some difficulty in fixing its eyes and may appear slightly cross-eyed,or present some other evidence of muscular incoordination of the eyes. Babies seldomshed tears in crying before they are three months old.

    Strong light is supposed to cause theeyes of babies discomfort However, the closing of the eyes, when a strong light isthrown on them, is a reflex act produced by thc light striking the eye-lids. Theeyes are not sensitive to the light.

    Babies can hear at birth but they hearlittle during the first few days and learn to recognize where a sound comes fromat about two months.

    They are supposed to have a very poorsense of smell, while their sense of taste is not very acute at birth.

    Babies will smile at about six weeksand will laugh aloud at about the third to fifth month. They learn to "coo"at about three months.

    Babies will notice objects at abouteight weeks and recognize people at about three months. At about four months theyreach out and grasp objects. They can say a few simple, single words at about oneyear and at two years can form short sentences.

    At birth, the baby can sustain theweight of its body with one hand if allowed to grasp a pencil or other small object.From one month onward it should be able to grasp its mother's or father's fingersin its hands and swing from the bed.

    The well norished child can sit erectat four to six months, the average child sits erect at seven to eight months. Theback should never be supported by pillows at this time. The well nourished childcan sustain the weight of its body on its feet from the third to fourth month; theaverage child does so at nine or ten months. Creeping or crawling comes in the welldeveloped child at five to eight months.

    The well developed child will walkat from eight months to a year. The average child walks at from thirteen to sixteenmonths. The many devices on the market called "baby tenders", "walkers,"etc., are pernicious and will never be used by any well informed parent.

    Most children creep before they crawl.Others "hitch" along in a sitting position. Creeping is the ideal methodso far as development is concerned.

    Delay in walking may be due to rickets,or other form of malnutrition; acute disease; indigestion, due to overfeedling orto enervating causes; fat-disease; leg weakness.

    Most babies are not permitted to developtheir muscles because we are afraid they will injure themselves. Few of them everget sufficient sunshine for normal development. Almost all of them are wrongly fedand poorly nourished.

    There is great variation in the timeat which babies cut their teeth. Rare cases are born with teeth and some have twoor three teeth at four months. Babies considered normal have been noted with no teethat thirteen months. If the child is healthy and properly nourished, the teeth arebetter when they erupt late than when they come through early. The following table,giving the average ages at which the teeth are cut, is taken from The Infant andYoung Child, by Morse-Wyman-Hill.

6-10 months 2 middle lower incisors (these are usually the first ones.)
12-15 months 4 upper incisors
18-20 months 4 lateral incisors and 4 anterior molars. 4 Canines ("eye" and "stomach" teeth).
24-30 months 4 posterior molars.

    By the end of two and a half years theaverage child has cut his first or "milk" teeth. Some babies cut a bunchof teeth all at once.

    In the sixth year, the first permanentmolars erupt, back of the temporary teeth. Shortly after this the child begins tolose his temporary teeth and the permanent teeth replace them.

    Parents are usually much concernedabout the weight of their children at various heights. The symmetrical and proportionatedevelopment of the child's body and its general health is of fat more importance,but parents have been taught to measure the health of the child with a pair of scalesand nothing will shake them loose from this false practice. The following table givingthe average weight of boys and girls at various heights is taken from Morse-Wyman-Hill.

Height Inches

Boys Weight

Girls Weight

33 25.9* 26.0*
34 27.3* 27.3*
35 28.7* 28.6*
36 30.1* 30.0*
37 31.6* 31.5*
38 33.2* 32.7*
39 36.3 35.7
40 38.1 37.4
41 39.8 39.2
42 41.7 41.2
43 43.5 43.1
44 45.4 44.8
45 47.1 46.3

*Without Clothes


    It should be understood that theseweights are mere averages and do not represent the ideal. Some day somebody is goingto take the trouble to prepare such a table from the weights, not of average children,but of well nourished and splendidly developed, but not fat, children. Tables thatapproach the ideal will then be produced.

    Tables now in use merely representthe average of all types and no one can reasonably be asked to conform to them. Don'tworry if your child does not fit these weights. See that your child is healthy andproperly cared for and forget the rest.

    We must learn to look upon each childas a small human organism that the inherent developmental forces are trying to evolveinto a fine, robust man or woman. We must realize that each new stage or step inthe development of the infant into a child, the child into the adolescent, and theadolescent into an adult, is spontaneous and natural, and that where developmentts retarded or distorted there are hindrances in the way. The forces of the bodyare striving for perfection and doing the best they can with the material at handand under the circumstances as these exist. The upward, or orthopathic tendency ofthe body in the lowest stages of disease, as in the most vigorous states of healthcannot be doubted or denied.

    If these things are true with regardto the physical growth and development of the evolving being, they are no less sowith relation to the unfolding of the intellectual, emotional and moral natures.Of the individual. The physical changes which occur at puberty, for instance, areno more profound and marked and no more spontaneous, than are the changes in themental, moral, emotional and social elements of the evolving individuality. And itis just as natural for these elements to take a normal course, an upward course,as for the physical part of the individual to tend towards the ideal. Nature strivesfor intellectual, emotional, moral and social perfection as certainly and as unrelentinglyas she does for physical perfection. If she does not attain these, it is becauseof hindrances in the way. These hindrances may be found in many sources, but arefound as often as anywhere in a retarded or distorted physical development.

Front Matter

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