MARCH 221 



They seem to imply that it is a question solely for the 

 medical hierarchy. But these authorities are so hampered 

 by the limitations engrained in them in their medical 

 education that it is with difficulty any of them exercise 

 a free mind on the subject. You have given examples, 

 it is true, of some few; and I know a few more, both 

 here and in America, who have broken away and have 

 given full vent to their reasoning powers. All hail 

 to them, but they want supporting. There is no doubt 

 that if doctors were to take up the reforms honestly they 

 would do good, inasmuch as there is a blind faith in them 

 on the part of the majority of people. But when has a 

 profession reformed itself ? All reforms come from out- 

 side. 



' There are two great assumptions on which medicos act, 

 and on which they impel their patients to act. The first 

 is : that it is positively necessary under all circumstances 

 to eat every day in order to live. Dr. Keith, whose book 

 I have just seen before I got yours, is an exception to this ; 

 and Dr. Dewey, in America, in his " New Gospel of 

 Health " is another. They show clearly that not only is 

 it not necessary, but under certain conditions of illness it 

 is positively injurious to eat. I have seen, I am sorry 

 to say, food violently forced down the throat of a patient 

 by a medical man when Nature was evidently telling the 

 patient that food was no good, but, on the contrary, was 

 adding to the troubles. This is quite irrespective of what 

 is suitable food and what is not. All I maintain is, that 

 at times no food at all is required, for it is then only by 

 the absence of food that Nature finds time to recuperate 

 herself. The second assumption that the Faculty as a 

 body insist on is : that meat is absolutely necessary for 

 strength. Meat is no doubt a concentrated food, but 

 concentrated foods are not necessarily nourishing. On 

 the contrary, the waste that comes from them is most 



