"Conferring exclusive privileges upon Bodies of Physicians, and forbidding men of equal talents and knowledge from practicing medicine within certain districts of cities and countries, are Inquisitions—however sanctioned by ancient charters and names—serving as the Bastiles of our profession."

    THESE words of Benjamin Rush, M.D., founder of Rush Medical College and the foremost medical authority of his day in America, illustrate a truth requiring frequent emphasis because so prone to be overlooked. Namely, that an individual may be very superior to the system of which he is an integral part; and in none is this so conspicuously true as in the medical system.

    Benjamin Rush was also one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Federal Constitution was framed he warned its lawmakers of the dangers inhering in unchecked medical control of a community; and he endeavored to have inserted in that historic document the same guarantee for medical freedom to the individual as it provided for civil and religious freedom.

    The right of a citizen when ill to select his own method of healing is obviously as much a natural right as is his right to select his own church creed or political affiliation. And this right of the citizen to choose, carries with it, of course, the right of the practitioner of his choice to minister to him. Had the framers of the Constitution recognized this, and made provision for it in the constitutional protection afforded other individual rights, the history of Medicine in this country might not have been what it is—a disgraceful record of allopathic hounding and persecutions of other therapeutic sects. Homeopaths, eclectics, herbalists, osteopaths, chiropractors, Christian Scientists and Abrams men, have each in their turn been the targets for allopathic malevolence; and the old "regular" medical game of "turning the screws" on any inconvenient rival in the healing business still goes on.

    The ability of the "regulars" to do this rests on their political power in the State, in being able to dictate all medical legislation and patronage. This political power is a hold-over from the time when practically everybody subscribed to allopathic theory and practice as the only therapeutic rule of conduct and the only safe guidance in health matters. We have gotten rather far away from such blind trust in allopathic efficiency at present, as the allopaths themselves concede; but political supremacy persists oftentimes after the popularity which made it possible has declined. The political machine is sometimes good for "one more round" when the thing which supplied the initial motor-power is dead.

    We have just had a striking instance of this in the reactionary legislative program the New York medical oligarchy were able to put through at Albany in February (1926). The Webb-Loomis Bill, the most drastic medical practice act ever enacted, gives the medical Board of Regents larger jurisdiction over the conduct of physicians—and over the lives of laymen in consequence—than is exercised by any court of law in the country. Under its provisions a self-constituted medical tribunal sets the absolute standard for practitioners of every school— drug and drugless—in the State of New York, and from its decisions there is no appeal. It has power to penalize any infraction of its rulings with both fine and imprisonment, and is on all-fours with a law which would force every body to vote the Republican or the Democratic ticket in the State of New York.

    "Charges may be preferred by any person or corporation, or the Regents may on their own motion direct the executive officer of the Board of Regents to prefer said charges," reads this remarkable statute.

    While the accused is given the semblance of a trial and permitted to answer charges through counsel, the verdict for a drugless offender is practically a foregone conclusion. The court's mind is made up against him in advance of the evidence, and in court parlance he "is condemned already." A few years ago a chiropractor was sent to Sing Sing in a malpractice case, charged with the death of a child whom he had successfully treated for spinal curvature some months previous to her death, although the death certificate gave "diphtheria" as the immediate cause of the child's death, which had followed closely on the administration of antitoxin by an attendant M. D. This is a case in point illustrative of the very short shift accorded a drugless man in an allopathic court.

    It was an open secret in New York that the Webb-Loomis bill was specifically designed to put chiropractors out of business in that State, where there are about 2,000 unregistered practitioners selling and giving chiropractic treatments to whoever may apply. "We are informed that probably two million people are patronizing these quacks in New York City alone," a sanctimonious M.D. was quoted as saying at Albany, "and these people must be protected from the quacks and from themselves!" One is divided between amusement and nausea by the tender protective concern of the allopathic profession for the ailing public! Some of them probably are able to fool themselves.

    A Chiropractic bill, petitioning for licensure and for a Chiropractic board of examiners, was before that same New York Assembly that passed the Webb-Loomis law, as was also a "Drugless Bill" having the same general objects and including chiropractors with other drugless cults. Both were summarily defeated, of course. The allopaths were in the saddle in the Albany legislative session of 1926, and no drugless therapy was permitted a look-in.

    The popular reaction to such high-handed methods, however, was most encouraging. New York newspaper men attending that session said they had never seen anything like the growth of anti-medical sentiment in Albany and New York; and a mass meeting for medical freedom held in New York City under the auspices of the New York Anti-Vivisection League on April 24, packed the Aeolian Hall from the main floor to galleries. A little later (May 23rd), in the same hall, over a thousand persons listened to a debate on vaccination between one of those New York assemblymen—a graduate M.D.— and a layman, which grew out of that reactionary legislative program, wherein the layman anti-vaccinist scored in the debate.

    The opportunities for graft inhering in the institution of State Medicine, are partly indicated in the custom of allowing medical boards to divert to their own use all fines and penalties levied on the victims of their persecuting zeal. Thus Section 164 of the Webb-Loomis law decrees:

    "Notwithstanding the provisions of any other general, local or special law, all fees, fines, penalties and other moneys derived from the operation of this article shall be paid to the Regents of the University, and shall be available, together with the appropriations made from time to time by the Legislature, for the payment of all proper expenses of the Board including the salaries of the Secretary of the Board of Medical Examiners and his assistants, inspectors, examiners, any deputy attorney-general assigned for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this article, and other employees, and their necessary disbursements, including the disbursement on bills duly rendered and audited for the administration of the Committee on Grievances."

    Further evidence of the graft in this provision is afforded by the fact that when the much prosecuted chiropractors decided to stop paying their fines and to go to jail instead, there was a very considerable falling oft in chiropractor prosecutions. Another graft clause in medical practice acts, is that requiring all licensed practitioners in the State to file a new registration certificate every year with the secretary of the Board of Medical Examiners, for which a fee of two dollars is exacted each time.

    And even worse than the grafting provisions of these medical laws, is the one compelling "each registered physician to report to the secretary of the Board, and to the secretary of any duly incorporated county medical society existing in the county of his residence, or to the secretary of any incorporated State medical society in which said county medical society is represented, the name and address of any person known to be practicing medicine whose name does not appear on the registry. The names of persons giving such information will not be divulged."

    Yet even with these factors of graft and espionage present, organized Medicine backed by the power of the State, would never have grown into the giants monopoly that it is to-day, had the M.D.'s been content with the perquisites of private practice, hedged about as that was with monopolistic exclusion. It was by their invasion of the public health service, manning all the health-boards—municipal, State, and Federal, that the allopathic school of medicine, notwithstanding its long record of incompetence and failure, has been able to get a stranglehold on all the other healing cults; to use the power and prestige thus obtained to invade public schools, churches, clubs, fraternities, labor unions, the Army and Navy, the industrial world, and to medically enslave every one.

    The objections to having doctors serve on public health boards are obvious and sufficient. In the first place, the very name health board—should exclude them. A doctor's job is to "treat" disease, and medical revenues are derived from disease. It is clearly against sound public policy to permit men with a direct pecuniary interest in disease, to have control of public health measures. As well allow the undertaker to regulate the number of deaths in a community, or the house-wrecker to decide the houses to be condemned.

    Moreover, the function of public health work is a problem in sanitation—not in medication. It is a layman's job, and should be entirely under the control of sanitary engineers. It relates strictly to external cleanliness—to drainage and sewerage; clean streets, dairies and markets; to garbage disposal; to water supply, and to heating, lighting and ventilation of public buildings. Everything, in short, which pertains to making the physical environment clean and wholesome, and there the work of the public health official should end. The other requisite for health—the internal cleanliness, dependent on proper hygienic care of the body, is an individual matter and must be left to individual control because only the individual can control it. If he does not feel himself competent to maintain the proper care of his body unaided, then as a free-born American citizen he should be privileged to seek help or guidance from any outsider he may choose, professional or layman, and without compulsion or coercion from anybody.

    Now it has been amply demonstrated that a man may be an expert in sanitation without ever having seen the inside of a medical school or a medical book, and experience has shown that he will be much more efficient in his line of work if his ideas about sanitation are uncomplicated with any medical theories or hypotheses. It is a fact that will not be disputed by any disinterested investigator of the subject, that the worst abuses and the greatest scandals in medically controlled public health service have arisen from the policy of mixing the Pasteur causative germ theory of disease with the simple principles of sanitation and hygiene.

    The unproved and unprovable theory that specific germs cause specific diseases; and that by inoculating well persons with a vaccine or serum made from the germ, such persons will be rendered immune to said disease, is made the basis of the bulk of public health activities at present. "The chief function of any health department lies in the control of communicable diseases—all other activities are corollary to this one," declared Dr. Dickey, executive secretary of the California State Board of Health in his 1924 report. And any one at all familiar with the health-board program knows what a relatively small place is assigned to sanitation and hygiene in "the control of communicable diseases," and that all the emphasis is placed on the "immunizing" inoculations.

    The pro and con argument as to the immunizing value of vaccines and serums, is an endless one, since both sides are ready with authorities and statistics. It is a significant fact that few pro-vaccinists ever attempt to defend vaccination per se. The bare thought of putting calf-pus or poisoned horse-serum into a human blood stream is so repugnant to common sense and to physiological law, that the most ardent advocates of the practice shrink from the task of explaining its virtues except by pointing to alleged results. In other words, they side-step the thing itself and fall back on authorities and statistics.

    And who are these supporting authorities and statisticians for this grotesque custom of defiling human circulation with animal disease cultures—with foreign protein matter that is admittedly poison? They are the gentlemen who reap rich pecuniary returns from vaccination and inoculation fees, and from the subsequent harvest of disease that follows in the wake of this form of blood pollution. That wholesale vaccination tends to spread diphtheria, tetanus, spinal meningitis and infantile paralysis among children ; and among grown-ups, tuberculosis, cancer, syphilis and even leprosy, is attested by some of the world's leading medical men, both in this country and in Europe.

    The puzzled layman trying to decide between the conflicting authorities on the subject, need only remember that it is not money in anybody's pocket to talk against vaccination. Let him consider in the same connection a statement from Judge Douglas Edmonds of the Los Angeles Municipal Court and counsel for the Public School Protective League, who in answering President Campbell of the University of California on the smallpox situation in Southern California in 1926, said:

    "When one physician in Los Angeles tells me that he made $4,000 from vaccination in February and the city and county had each bought thousands upon thousands of dollars' worth of vaccine, it is not difficult to see that the advocacy of vaccination may not be as disinterested as many suppose."

    Declaring that the smallpox incidence "had been grossly exaggerated" in that epidemic—as had been admitted to him by many private physicians, Judge Edmonds replied to President Campbell's canting "official concern" about the unvaccinated as follows:

    "I do not see why the smallpox situation should give you the official concern you mention. It seems to me your entire official responsibility ends when you make it possible for those who desire vaccination to receive it. When you compel vaccination, you seriously encroach upon the rights of every citizen by setting up your own estimate of proper medical treatment for others to follow regardless of their idea on the subject.

    Let me cite one result of this. The beautiful, attractive daughter of Los Angeles parents of prominence was refused admission to the Southern Branch of your University without vaccination. She and her parents, after much parleying with your officers here, finally consented to it with much reluctance.

    Within a week this lovely girl was dead. There is no question but that vaccination was the cause of her death. I should think this case and the serious results which have occurred in other cases of vaccination of students might give you more serious official concern."

    When the diagnosing of disease and the vital statistics are left in the same hands, it is easily seen how a medical health officer could make both tally with his purposes. Without charging that this is done in every case, there is no denying that under the present system the public health officer has the opportunity—and the temptation—to protect his medical brethren from blame and any given practice of his sect from condemnation, by the simple process, of juggling statistics—and the proverb says "it is opportunity that makes the thief."

    There can be no question but that deaths from malpractice are to-day regularly concealed—both in private and public practice. Deaths from surgical operation are put down to appendicitis, or whatever disease was operated for; deaths from antitoxin are put down to diphtheria; deaths from vaccination are almost invariably concealed under a diagnosis of tetanus; meningitis, septicemia, or whatever form the blood-poisoning takes in given cases. Such deception, by keeping the public in the dark, obviously increases the mortality.

    A few years ago (1915), Mr. Charles M. Higgins, author of "Horrors of Vaccination Exposed," carried a continuous advertisement in one of the large New York dailies, which conveyed a challenge to the new York State and City Departments of Health, calling on them to open their records— juggled and "doctored" as most of them were—and he would undertake to show the public from them, "that there had been more deaths from vaccinia than from smallpox in the State of New York every year for the past fifteen." Needless to say the challenge was never accepted.

    Mr. Higgins' challenge was inspired by the famous Loyster investigation of the ravages of vaccination in the New York public schools of the smaller towns and country districts, the result of which had just become known. Mr. James A. Loyster, editor of a newspaper at Cazenovia, N. Y., lost his only son through vaccination in 1914. Mr. Loyster stated in his report that he had consented to the operation, that he had himself been vaccinated and believed in it; but the boy's death got his attention. He determined to make a survey of the schools in the rural districts and smaller cities—exclusive of Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo and Greater New York—for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of similar fatalities from vaccination among school children. He purposely left out the larger cities because of the difficulty in canvassing them; and in order to maintain an open-minded quest for facts, he says he refused to read any anti-vaccination literature before starting on his inquiry. Mr. Loyster found and verified 27 deaths and twice as many cases of serious disability from vaccination among New York school children in that restricted area for the year 1914, getting names and addresses and in a number of cases photographs of the victims—all of which were reproduced in Mr. Higgins' book. It is a reasonable assumption that a canvass of the larger cities would have swelled the death-toll twice over, and in the whole State of New York that year of 1914, there were only three deaths from smallpox!

    This story is repeated over and over in the history of vaccination and serology, wherever vital statistics are reported by disinterested parties. Intelligent opponents of vaccination do not claim, of course, that simply leaving off vaccination—any more than putting it on—insures against smallpox. Only hygienic living—day by day in every way—affords any immunity against smallpox or any other disease. So that it is nothing against the position of the Antis that unvaccinated persons sometimes contract smallpox; but it completely shatters the case for the immunization theory when it is shown from official records—as it has been shown in every country of the world where these are honestly kept—that where vaccination has been most strenuously enforced, smallpox has most abounded.

    The only reason this is not better understood by people in general, is because medical health officials have it in their power to suppress and distort the facts. This they have systematically and consistently done. Take, for example, the suppression by the United States Public Health Service of the Philippines Public Health Reports of the smallpox epidemic occurring in the Islands in 1918-19, one of the worst—if not the worst in the history of smallpox, which came as the culmination of 15 years of the most ruthless compulsory vaccination of the natives.

    According to the P. I. Health Reports (1918-19, page 78), there were 24,436,889 official vaccinations performed upon the hapless Filipinos during the ten-year period of 1911-20, inclusive, or a yearly average of 2,443,688, and in that same period there were 75,339 deaths from smallpox in the Philippines, a yearly average of 7,533.

    To emphasize this by comparisons, in England and Wales where vaccination has been optional since the repeal of the compulsory law in 1898, and the enactment of the "Conscience Clause" resulted in a decline of vaccinations to barely 40 per cent of the infant population, official statistics for the decade of 1911 to 1920 give the number of vaccinations as 3,645,311 or a yearly average of 364,531. As the population of England and Wales is a little over four times that of the Philippines, the number of vaccinations per hundred persons in the Philippines was more than twenty-six times what it was in England. And the total number of smallpox fatalities in England and Wales for that 1911-1920 period, was 140, or a yearly average of 14. Contrast these figures with the Philippine death-toll for the same length of time.

    From the date of American occupation in 1903, vaccination was made compulsory in the Philippines, and down to 1917 inclusive, the Philippine Health Service was under the supervision of American Army surgeons. Their reports show three smallpox epidemics under the American rule; the first in 1905-6 before vaccination got well started, reported a case mortality of 10 per cent; the second, in 1907-8, with vaccination well under way, reported a case mortality ranging from 25 to 50 per cent in different parts of the Islands; while in the third and worst one in 1918-19, in the Province of Rizal—surrounding Manila—where vaccination and re-vaccination had been most thorough, the case mortality reached the unprecedented figure of 67 per cent. The lowest mortality figure, 11.4, was found in Mindanao, whose inhabitants, owing to religious prejudice against the vaccinators, fled into the bush, and many escaped the operation in that way.

    And not only did smallpox become more deadly in the Philippines after vaccination was forced upon them, but other diseases, especially tuberculosis, typhoid and malaria showed great increases, according to the findings of Dr. Leonard Wood's special committee of investigation. Yet no word of this appalling Philippine disaster was ever given out by the United States Public Health officials, and the first news the public got of it leaked out through the news service of the Masonic Observer (Minneapolis) in December, 1921, and January, 1922. The Citizens Medical Reference Bureau (New York City), which had also received the Philippine Reports, addressed a communication (December 15, 1922) to the editor of the American Journal of Public Health, saying:

    "No one familiar with the situation can excuse the failure of Public Health officials and medical journals in the United States to present a comprehensive statement of ACTUAL FACTS regarding the extremes to which vaccination was carried out in the Philippine Islands, and the appalling death-rate from smallpox during the years 1911 to 1920."

    Accompanying this letter was a brief statement entitled "Facts about Smallpox and Vaccination in the Philippines, based on official reports from the Philippine Health Service," together with copy of a communication from the Philippine Health Commissioner. On December 20, 1922, these manuscripts were returned to the secretary of the Medical Reference Bureau, with a letter from the editor of the American Journal of Public Health to the effect that all this material had been mailed to him from the Philippines in October, 1922; that he had carefully read the statement from the Citizens' Medical Reference Bureau—"BUT, we regret that it is impossible for us to use your statement: nor at this time do we intend using the statement from the Philippine Islands. We have just had our annual meeting, and we must give preference to the papers which were read before the Association at that time." (Italics mine.)

    Here is documentary proof of the deliberate purpose of the public health officials to withhold from the American people, information which they had a right to have. Their ability to do this in every instance is one of the crying evils of State Medicine and of medically controlled public health service. It is the custom of public health officials to comb the records for isolated cases of smallpox or typhoid among the "unprotected," and hold them up as sign-posts of warning; but when a year or so ago, two United States Senators, Wadsworth of New York and Ball of Delaware, at the instance of the Citizens' Medical Reference Bureau, requested the head of the Federal Health Bureau to furnish the Congress with a tabulated statement giving the number of cases, and the number of deaths from smallpox in all the States and Territories of the Union in the past seven years—together with the laws concerning vaccination in each of them, they were met with evasive replies and refusal. Such a statement would have brought out the incriminatory figures in the Philippine epidemic which the Federal health officials had taken such pains to conceal.

    And a yet more incriminatory indictment of the "immunizing" health squads, than the Philippine disease statistics even, is furnished by the United States Army records in the late World War. From the Surgeon-General's Report—1918-19—and from Col. Leonard P. Ayers' "Statistical Study of the War with Germany," we glean the following startling and illuminating figures: Out of a total of 24,234,021 men registered, 2,810,296 were chosen for the Army, or about one man in eight. They were, therefore, "the picked men of the nation," supposedly the most robust and resistant class of all. If any weaklings slipped in, the responsibility for them rests on medical shoulders, since only medical men did the picking.

    Of the whole number of men called to the colors—nearly three million—a little over half went over seas, and only half of those saw actual combat, and that for an average period of not more than two months. Yet they all—at home and abroad—received "the triple shot" from the army doctor's hypodermic, which ultimately proved more deadly than the German guns. For in the Surgeon-General's casualty lists at the close of the war, 57,460 of this gallant band of picked men had died of disease! According to official figures, there were in 1918 among enlisted men in the various countries where American troops were stationed, 2,326,632 hospital admissions, or 977 per 1,000, the highest admission rate being in the United States, in well-appointed cantonments on which the Government had expended $200,000,000, about half the cost of the Panama Canal; and where the soldier in the matter of foods, clothing, etc., was better conditioned than the average civilian during the period of the war.

    In the A.E.F., where a small division of troops landed in the late Spring and early Summer of 1918, 300,000 hospital beds sprang up from nothing, of which 195,000 were occupied at the time of the Armistice. Among American troops serving at home and abroad, there were 112,649 discharges for disease, again the highest rate of discharge being in the United States farthest from the seat of war, but closest to the mischief which Satan found for the Army doctors' idle hands—inoculations and tonsillectomies.

    A New York man I knew, who was attached to the hospital corps of Camp Dix, said he had seen soldiers' tonsils carried out of the operating rooms by the pailful! Since the tonsils are the natural filters and buffers for bronchia and lungs against outside impurities, their removal paves the way for bronchitis, pleurisy and tuberculosis—as a pathological aftermath of the operation. Add to this a fact deduced by Dr. E. C. Rosenow of the Mayo Clinic, that "he found the serums Introduced into guinea pigs tended to localize in the lungs," and it is not difficult to understand why the Army Reports should name tuberculosis as the leading cause for disease discharge among the enlisted men. Presumably these men brought to the military service a good pair of lungs. It is inconceivable that the medical examiners should have passed up any with evidence of pulmonary tuberculosis.

    Yet in the short period of one and one-half years, according to official figures, there were 31,106 hospital admissions for pulmonary tuberculosis with 1,114 deaths! Think of it, and of the further fact that many a fine young fellow who went into the army physically strong and fit, is now coughing out his days in some T.B. sanitarium in California, Arizona, New Mexico, or somewhere else. And will those medical experts at explaining away uncomfortable facts, tell us why there were 4,485 cases of cerebrospinal meningitis, of which 1,701 died, despite—or was it because of—copious injections of "Flexner's Serum?" Why there were 98,606 admissions for measles with 2,455 deaths; 10,352 admissions for scarlet fever, with 317 deaths, 8,208 admissions for diphtheria, with 136 deaths; 195,490 admissions for mumps, with 161 deaths? Is it not strange that mature men, in good physical condition when selected for military service, should succumb in such large numbers to these diseases of childhood and die from them by hundreds and thousands?

    A significant pointer to the disease-breeding power of the "changeful hypodermic," is contained in the statement of Dr. Farr, medical statistician of England, who said in his report more than 50 years ago:

    "The zymotic diseases replace each other, and when one is rooted out, it is apt to be replaced by others which ravage the human race indifferently whenever the conditions of healthy life are wanting. They have this property in common with weeds and other forms of life—as one recedes, another advances."

    Sir Charles Creighton also advanced this substitution theory of disease in his "History of Epidemics in Great Britain"; and Herbert Spencer in "Facts and Comments" (page 270), said that "vaccines in subduing one disease only increases others," and he named influenza as one whose severity had been greatly increased by the use of serums.

    In this connection we note an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, July 28, 1917, p. 267, from a French physician named Rest, who had made a special study of typhoid cases with reference to ascertaining the amount of protection afforded by the anti-typhoid serum. His findings shed an interesting light on the widely acclaimed "victory" over typhoid in the last war, and the gleefully published figures showing the greatly decreased incidence compared with the Spanish War typhoid. Dr. Rest says "The percentage of escape from typhoid because of the inoculation, was exactly off-set by the same percentage of increase in the number of paratyphoid cases, that this was true to the second decimal place."

    In other words, just as many people were sick, but they called it something different. Pretty soon they had two varieties of paratyphoid, A and B, and by the time they had gotten the men thoroughly soaked with two varieties of paratyphoid dope, the Army camps were swamped with influenza! And how did "the picked men of the nation" fare in the "flu" epidemic in comparison with the civilian population? Compare these figures taken from the United States Public Health Reports for the ten weeks from September 20 to November 29, 1918: For the whole population of 110,000,000 (official estimate), including all the ailing, the weaklings, the army "rejects" and the denizens of the slums—fully one-third of whom did not have allopathic treatment and many of them had no treatment at all— there were 350,000 deaths, or 318 per 100,000. For the soldiers in camps in the United States, a million and a half in round numbers at the signing of the Armistice, there were 21,994 deaths, or 1,466 per 100,000. From this it is seen that the mortality from influenza among the most robust, the most resistant class of all—who were exclusively under allopathic care and got all the "preventive" dope that was coming to them—was more than four times as high as among all the other classes combined.

    This record made by the "immunizing squads" in the army camps of the late war, alone is sufficient to discredit medical theories of immunization, and settle for all time the question as to the advisability of allowing medical theorists to longer dominate the public health service. The disease harvest from the free use of vaccines and serums therein demonstrated probably constitutes the heaviest count in the indictment against medically controlled public health service, but it is by no means the only one.

    The mischief-making potentialities of the causative germ theory of disease in the hands of medical health officials are many and varied. One of its most oppressive manifestations is the inoculation of domestic animals, causing much needless distress to the owners of pet dogs and cats, and great financial loss to the owners of dairy herds by the wholesale slaughter consequent upon the tuberculin testing of cows.

    The futility of the test in determining whether cows are tubercular has been often and amply demonstrated, and was most conclusively shown in the report submitted to the Illinois Legislature in 1911 by the Joint Committee appointed respectively by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of the Forty-sixth General Assembly, in pursuance of House Joint Resolution No. 20, adopted and concurred in May 7, 1909.

    This Committee, consisting of six members of the House and four members of the Senate, was instructed by the joint resolution: First—To investigate into the reliability, efficiency, and necessity of adopting, the tuberculin test in the State of Illinois. Second—To investigate and determine the question as to whether disease germs pass from an animal afflicted with tuberculosis through its milk to a human being. Third—The effect of pasteurizing milk, bottling it up and shipping it for use into Chicago from dairy districts at a distance from the city. Fourth—If said tuberculin test should be found to be an actual and efficient test of the presence of tuberculosis among domestic animals, then the committe should estimate the amount to be paid for the condemned cattle, etc.

    After a year spent in collecting evidence from all over the country, and taking testimony of every sort of witness with any knowledge of the subject; from milk producers and milk dealers; from dairymen, health commissioners and bacteriologists—State and Federal; from court records, and from a fall copy of all the acts, addresses, papers and proceedings of the International Congress on Tuberculosis held in Washington, D.C., in 1908, this Illinois legislative Committee through its chairman, Judge Edward D. Shurtleff, brought in a report of its findings which condemned the tuberculin test as wholly unreliable, and condemned the pasteurization of milk as inimical to health.

    The outcome of this legislative investigation was the enactment of a law in conformity with its findings and recommendations (Chap. 8, Sec. 105, Ill. Statutes), which reads as follows:

    "An Act to prohibit the Establishing and Enforcing of the Tuberculin Test for Dairy Animals by any City, Village, Incorporated Town, County, or other Corporate Authority in the State of Illinois."

    Yet notwithstanding this showing and other damaging evidence against the practice, the tuberculin testing and ruthless destruction of dairy herds still goes on. Few farmers are able to follow their condemned cattle to slaughter, but from those who do such testimonies as the following are available:

    R. A. Burns of Walforth County, Wis., a patron of the Lake Geneva Borden Milk Company, owned 24 cows. They were tuberculin tested and 18 reacted to the test while 6 passed clean. He shipped the whole 24 to Chicago, however, and they were slaughtered and inspected at the Independent Packing Plant. The 18 reactors were passed as prime beef by the Federal inspector, while of the 6 that passed the test four went to the tank and two passed as fit for food. Had Mr. Burns kept on his farm the 6 cows which the testers rated as clean, he would have had a solid tubercular herd with which to start afresh!

    A Dr. Fletcher of Chicago who owned a dairy farm at Dundee, Ill., had his herd tested by both State and Federal veterinaries, and 44 out of 48 cows were condemned as reactors and sent to the Yards. A neighbor named Charles Dickinson, disguised as a butcher, went along to see what happened. He saw the Fletcher cows slaughtered and 30 of the carcasses hung up with the U.S. inspector's O.K. on them. He asked the inspector to what extent the cows were tubercular, and the inspector replied they were not tubercular at all. "But they were reactors," said Dickinson. "Then there was something wrong with the test," replied the inspector.

    Dr. Eugene Underbill of Philadelphia is quoted as saying: "Careful inquiry among reliable dairymen brings out the statement that tuberculin testing frequently causes abortion in the herds, and milk from tuberculin-tested cows has been known to kill calves, chickens, and in one instance a baby." He also said:

    "Those dairymen who stand in well with the testers and who favor the process seldom have reactors, unless in animals they have determined to dispose of anyway."

    Thus as usual in the public health game, graft and "science" walk hand in hand, and between the two the farmer, the consumer and the taxpayer bear a needless burden. Wholesale slaughtering of cows inevitably reduces milk production, and cutting down the supply raises the price, of course, to the consumers. The Rural New Yorker for December, 1925, printed a review of the working of the tuberculin test in the Catskill Mountain Dairy District, where the bulk of them were getting their first test, and which sent 64 per cent of them to the block. Thousands of cows, carload after carload, were shipped to distant slaughter-houses, and the problem of replacing them was a very serious one.

    The following letter addressed to the American Medical Liberty League from a woman farmer of Pennsylvania, indicates the connection between the Medical Trust and the Beef Trust in the tuberculin business, and explains the powerful backing that enables the public health veterinaries to keep up the destructive farce even in defiance of law:

    "Lincoln University, Pa.
      Route 1, April 6, 1926.
           To the American Medical Liberty League,
              59 East Van Buren St., Chicago.

    In four small townships in South Chester County, and one township adjoining same in South Lancaster County, there were killed 4,000 of the finest dairy cows in Pennsylvania, and only from one to two hundred left in the whole area, with a few heifers and calves.
    For the finest, fattest cows—large Holsteins, 1,000 to 1,500 lbs. live weight—the Beef Trust paid only 3 cents dressed weight—nothing but the carcass. The owners received $10. to $15., for each large cow, the State pays $40. and the Federal Government $7.25 after three months. . . . The Southern end of Chester County is ruined, and it was the richest county in Pennsylvania. HOW CAN THIS GANG DO THIS DREADFUL THING? Hundreds of the cows killed showed no signs of tuberculosis, and I have read that many eminent scientists are positive that the bovine and human bacilli of tuberculosis are wholly different, and the one never affects the other.

(Signed) Miss Florence B. Way."            

    Perhaps it was the powerful influence of the Beef Trust which caused the disappearance of the 11,000 copies of the Illinois Legislative Report condemning the Test, so that only two or three copies could be found in the whole State in 1925 when the American Medical Liberty League instituted search for it and made some reprints from a single copy. But for this timely salvage, an investigation which had cost the State of Illinois thousands of dollars would have been smothered and lost because the findings were displeasing to the medical hosts.

    According to a statement given to the press by Drs. Mohler and Rosenau of the Bureau of Animal Industry, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and released for publication on May 17, 1909, the beginning of the "Hoof and Mouth Disease" in this country was traced to two vaccinated calves used for the manufacture of vaccine virus by Parke, Davis & Co., of Detroit, and later sent to the stock-yards. The Detroit firm had obtained this particular seed virus from the H. K. Mulford Company of Pennsylvania, who had imported it from Japan, one of the most thoroughly vaccinated countries of the world and incidentally one of the worst afflicted with smallpox! Bearing in mind the proven connection between vaccination and affections of the lungs and lymphatic system, the part played by the Tuberculin Test in keeping alive the Hoof and Mouth Disease requires no stretch of imagination. The loss to farmers and to the state in money and slaughtered animals from this disease alone totals many millions, while the injury to business and to individuals from these manufactured epidemics, is incalculable.

    One of he worst abuses of arbitrary power in the hands of medical health officers, has been the isolation and incarceration of any apparently healthy person whom they chose to accuse of being a "germ carrier" and a menace to the health of the community. Unable to fit their causative germ theory into the fact that the so-called pathogenic germs were frequently found where the specific diseases to which they were assigned were conspicuously absent, the microphobists met the difficulty by declaring the healthy bodies found harboring the germs were favored habitats of the "bugs"—germ hatcheries, so to speak, and peculiarly dangerous sources of infection. Hence they were named "carriers," and on this purely hypothetical assumption, unproven and unprovable, innocent and harmless persons have been deprived of their liberty and the privilege of earning a livelihood, without recourse to law, since the health-board is amenable to no law except its own self-dictated mandates. In the summer of 1907 in New York City, a maid servant of the better class who was employed in a wealthy family, at a time when the family had gone away, worked temporarily in another place where typhoid fever developed; and because she did not fall ill with the fever—contrary to all known rules of microphobia—the only explanation "science" could offer for such a phenomenon was that the woman was "a typhoid carrier." So she was arrested as "a menace to public health," branded as "Typhoid Mary" in the newspapers, and imprisoned on "North Brothers Island" in solitary confinement, where she remains to this day. An old French chemist whom I met in San Francisco who had known her in better days, showed me three letters from "Typhoid Mary," written in her own handwriting from her North Brothers prison in 1909. In one of them she states that she had sent part of the same feces examined by the Board of Health to an expensive private laboratory—paying for the service herself—and that they reported "no typhoid," while the Board of Health reported "typhoid." Concerning this discrepancy the accused "carrier" naively remarks:

    "Now some of these people must be lying, but who it is I don't know. But if I have these germs, why don't they treat me for them, instead of shutting me up here for two years, four months and seven days? That private laboratory didn't know I was held by the Board of Health, or they would have found germs too, I guess . . . The most terrible thing they have done to me was naming me 'Typhoid Mary'."

    (Her real name was Mary Milner.) In one of these letters she relates that when the chaplain of her prison heard her story and procured a lawyer for her, the authorities would not let him see her.

    This case was famous in the annals of the New York Department of Health, the general public trustingly accepted the Health Board's dictum, and few persons bothered their heads about the true inwardness of it. The last account I had of "Typhoid Mary" was from some New York friends who visited her in the winter of 1926, and who reported her sunk into a state of morose melancholia, taciturn and suspicious even of friendly overtures. They could get nothing out of her.

    I sometimes wonder if those benevolent and public spirited ladies who make up the personnel of "federated clubs" ever heard of "Typhoid Mary"? And whether it might not occur to some of them to picture themselves in her place—shut up on a lonely island for 19 years with a gnawing sense of injustice and wrong for sole comradeship, upon the imperial edict of ignorant and arrogant health officials who were doubtless harboring more and worse germs than "Typhoid Mary" ever carried to anybody.

    The value and practicability of the "carrier" idea as a public health measure, may be partially gauged from the testimony of the carrier theorists themselves. Major Ralph Kinsella of the Medical Corps, U. S. Army, writing in the Journal of the A.M.A., March 8, 1919, says:

    "The report of the Pneumonia Commission at Camp Pike, made long before influenza appeared in this country, recited that sputums from 132 healthy and normal individuals were analyzed, and in 35 per cent of them the Pfeiffer bacillus was found."

(The Pfeiffer bacillus being the bug most strongly under suspicion of causing the Flu.)

    Dr. Wm. M. Park of the N. Y. City Department of Health is quoted in its weekly Bulletin of March 15, 1919, as saying that

    "about one per cent of the people of New York harbor virulent diphtheria germs in their throats; and that it is not possible to use cultures on a sufficiently large scale to discover all carriers in a community or to affect the general incidence of the disease."

    Dr. Chas. E. Simon of Philadelphia in his book called "Human Infection Carriers," names cholera, diphtheria, typhoid, meningitis, pneumonia and a few other maladies as "those susceptible of being spread by carriers." He estimates the number of typhoid carriers in New York and every large city to be about 4 per cent of the population, and says "there are an average of 10 carriers for every meningitis patient."

    Now to carry out the carrier isolation on the basis of these expert calculations to its logical conclusion; if 35 per cent of the people are harboring "Pfeiffer bacilli," it would mean the isolation of over 35 million people as a protection against influenza; if one per cent of them are carrying diphtheria germs, that would send over a million more healthy people into retirement, along with the spreaders of typhoid infection and as many more earners of spinal meningitis and what not. And since carriers beget carriers—even if each one infected only one additional person a week—and as in every hysterical movement the zealots quickly pass from real offenders to suspects, it is plain as a matter of simple arithmetical computation, that in the space of a few months we should all be in quarantine as a protection against each other!

    And the worst of it is that the "immunizers" claim that they create "carriers" with their immunizing serums! The absurdity of this claim is very humorously brought out by a contributor to Life, who writes:

    "Dr. Chapin of Providence, R. I., and Dr. Whipple of the University of California have each stated that 'carriers' are manufactured by doctors through the administration of 'immunizing' doses of anti-toxin and other serums. Of course this is pure brag. How could a dose of serum give a microbe such a head that it would refuse to eat or drink until it had left the scene of last night's spree as far behind it in proportion to its size, as several times through the diameter of the earth would be to a man?

    Nor is this all. We are asked to believe that the account of the terrible effects of the doctors' magic potion, is handed down so vividly by tradition through hundreds of generations of microbes that they voluntarily abstain from all nourishment throughout their lives! Only those whose prodigious energy causes them to emigrate ever get a square meal, or any blood that is fit to drink.

    What a disappointment it must be to a microbe, after walking a billion times its own length on an empty stomach, his wife and a thousand hungry children tagging after him, the last hundred in her arms squalling for food, to see the person who looked so innocent and tasty from a distance, stuck all over with signs saying 'Beware! Saturated with Soakum's Serum'!"

    The practical net result of this ridiculous "carrier" theory, however, is no laughing matter to the hapless victims of it; and like all the other tyrannies of the medico-political machine, it falls most heavily upon the poor and defenseless. Curiously enough, although there is a prevalent notion that germs are no respecters of persons, and millionaires as a class carry more and worse germs to the square inch than workingmen, nobody has ever heard of a millionaire being quarantined as a "disease carrier." There are no "Typhoid Rockefellers," nor "Diphtheria Fords."

    When the official vaccinator comes around to turn the screws on the heads of industrial plants with a threat of complete quarantine—in case "a single case of smallpox occurs in it"—unless the whole force accept the calf-pus inoculation, the employer can— and usually does—promptly pass the buck to the employees with the alternative: "Get yourselves vaccinated or quit the job." Equally with school children, and the thrice-enslaved men of the Army and the Navy, working men and women are constantly being subjected to the insolent inspections and end less injections of one kind or another, from the officious minions of Official Medicine.

    During the late war, soldiers who refused to be vaccinated, were courtmartialed and punished as military offenders. I have seen a letter from the Judge-Advocate-General at Washington to Mr. Chas. M. Higgins of Brooklyn, N.Y., of date Jan'y 14, 1919, admitting that such an offender had been "dishonorably discharged from the service, to forfeit all pay and allowances due or to become due, and to be confined at hard labor at such place as the convening authority may direct, for twenty-five years." No, this didn't happen in Russia under the Czar, nor in autocratic Germany under the Hohenzollerns, but in "free America" whose Federal Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment" even for crime. And it was meted out to one of "our heroes" who held an honorable record in the war, for the crime of trying to protect his blood-stream from a substance which has been pronounced by the leading medical authorities of the world—and some of its greatest scientists—as the vilest racial strain of which we have knowledge.

    In England such medical men as Sir Charles Creighton, Edgar M. Crookshank, Benjamin Ward Richardson, Sir Wm. Collins, James J. Garth Wilkinson, Robert Bell, Herbert Snow and Wm. Scott Tebb have said that cowpox—the original source of vaccine virus—was analogous to syphilis in man. Creighton, in his article on vaccination in the ninth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, names "vac-cinal syphilis" as one of the maladies following the vaccinating operation, and cites a dozen or more epidemics of it in various European countries after vaccination was introduced. In his book on "Jenner and Vaccination; a Queer Chapter of Medical History," Creighton, one of England's most famous epidemiologists, calls vaccination "a grotesque superstition." James J. Garth Wilkinson, a famous English physician, calls it "blood assassination" and the "suicidal madness of the medical profession."

    Philip Ricord, born of French parents in Baltimore and a member of the French Academy, was the recognized greatest authority of his day on venereal diseases, and he told the Academy as early as 1867 that vaccination spreads syphilis. Dr. Caron, another eminent French authority, refused to vaccinate at any price. The practice is condemned by such scientists as Herbert Spencer, John Stuart Mill and Alfred Russell Wallace, who pronounced it "a stupendous delusion and its enforcement a crime." The only "scientific" basis for it is a milkmaid tradition and the ignorant assertion of a country pharmacist named Jenner, that any one who had had cowpox would never have smallpox. But there is a very solid commercial basis for it in the profits it yields to the vaccine manufacturer and to the vaccinating doctor, and these two have served to keep the filthy and dangerous practice alive—in the face of common sense and physiological law, of statistical records and the pronouncements of science.

    The fact that many intelligent and educated people believe in vaccination as a protection against smallpox, is no more of an argument for it than for any other superstition to which intelligent and educated people subscribe. As a general proposition, people will support almost any idea which will support them, and perhaps the A. M. A. policy of placing doctors' wives in important executive positions in women's clubs may partly explain the strange apathy of those organizations toward the ruthless exploitation of children's lives involved in vaccine-serum practice.

    Of all the helpless classes exploited by State Medicine, the case of children should make the strongest appeal to adult humanity. Not only are they medically inspected and serumized at every turn, but few of them escape mutilation in some form at the hands of the "healthers." Tonsils, adenoids and teeth of school children have come to be regarded as "a source of gasoline supply" for ambitious young surgeons; while the equally enterprising opticians and optometrists are seeking to destroy the vision of the new generations by supplying them all with "eye crutches."

    Dr. William H. Bates, the New York eye doctor who has become famous through his system of teaching people to have "perfect sight without glasses" and has helped many to discard them who had become dependent on them, says when he heard that certain New York eye specialists in the winter of 1912 had recommended putting eyeglasses on all children in the city schools (regardless of whether they had defective vision or not), as a prevention of future defects, he went before the Board of Education to protest against such a monstrous proposal. "Any defect of vision in children under twelve years of age can be corrected without glasses," said Dr. Bates. "There is absolutely no exception to this. Not only can I show them how to see without glasses, but they can be taught by their parents or teachers, or by any one with normal vision. They cannot be taught by persons with imperfect vision. It is nothing short of criminal to put glasses on children's eyes."

    Dr. Bates was the only eye specialist in New York City to go before the Board of Education with this protest, however, and it was on his recommendation that the Snellen Chart was introduced into the schools. To him belongs the credit for the great improvement the teachers were able to effect in the children's eyesight by means of it, for the time it was used. In spite of this, the chart was removed from the schools for some mysterious reason. For some mysterious reason, also, Dr. Bates became very unpopular with his professional colleagues. A graduate of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Columbia University Medical School, he taught Ophthalmology at the New York Academy of Medicine for eleven years, and was on the staff of the Post-Graduate Hospital for a number of years, in which place he had great success in taking away people's glasses and teaching them to use their eyes—reversing the time-honored custom of instructing them to put on glasses and "throw away their eyes."

    His revolutionary teaching on this point soon brought Dr. Bates into difficulties with the A.M.A. He and his work were pilloried in the Journal in the column devoted to the exposure of "quackery"; and finally, in March, 1925, Dr. Bates was formally expelled from the A.M.A. on a technical charge of advertising! Prior to that he had resigned from all official positions and devoted himself to office practice and to teaching his new system to others. A number of his pupils are practicing his method in different parts of the country, and others who have arrived at the same conclusions are using similar methods which they developed independently of Dr. Bates.

    The case of Dr. Bates illustrates one phase of oppressive State medicine. The hounding of other therapeutic sects presents another phase. The exploitation and persecution of the laity still another. All phases have the same root motif—personal emolument and professional aggrandizement. Yet they are all solemnly proclaimed in the name of "science" and staged with a pious gesture of "protecting the public health." There is nothing strange or unusual about this. It is the same old defensive bluff employed by every oppressive hierarchy the world has ever known. We must know that it is a psychologic necessity for poor cowardly human nature to assign the finest motives for the worst things it does. Otherwise, we could not stand to live with ourselves.

    The time has come when a majority of the lay world has pierced this pious disguise of the medical hierarchy; have learned also that much of its boasted "science" is about as scientific as the voodoo practices of an African witch doctor. It is this disillusioned and aroused laity which is serving notice on State Medicine where it may get off. Not the drugless cults, not rival practitioners, but plain, every-day laymen and taxpayers are saying to the learned medical profession: If you know so much more than the drugless schools and are so superior to the "quacks," prove it to the world by getting back into your offices in your own legitimate field of private practice, and do what you force the druglessi men to do, earn your livelihood by the patronage of those who believe in you enough to consult you of their own free will and to pay for the service out of their own pockets. But from henceforth take your hands out of the public funds, contributed by all the people, and stop using that to boost your practice and spread your peculiar doctrines.