By: Herbert M. Shelton
                                                          Hygienic Review, April 1976

           Epidemics are mass sickness In "epidemics"
     there are more cases of various  other diseases
than of the one "epidemic disease."  

                                                    What the epidemic will be is determined by the
public health authorities.  The tendency is to diagnose everything as an
epidemic disease at the outset and class further developments as

A case in point was that of typhoid fever in the American army in France.  The
whole army was immunized against typhoid; therefore our soldiers could not
develop typhoid.  A large number of boys, who died while being treated for
influenza as their cases were diagnosed, were found at autopsy to have died
of typhoid fever.  

The incident was of sufficient importance for the surgeon general of the army
to issue a special letter about it and point out to the medical heads of the
American Expeditionary Forces in France that inoculation is no substitute for
hygiene and sanitation.  

Physicians were so preoccupied with influenza that they saw a flu devil back
of every symptom and could not distinguish between influenza and typhoid
fever.  Even tubercular flare-ups were diagnosed as influenza.  

"The high death rate in pneumonia and influenza was not due to any unusual
virulence of the two diseases, but to the unusual virulence of the treatment.

Where hysteria rules the mind, treatment is always heroic and the death rate is
in keeping, with the treatment.  The staff of the Macfadden Healthatorium in
Chicago cared for over three hundred cases of pneumonia and influenza
during the 1918-19 pandemic without a single death in either disease."  

           Environmental Improvements, Not Vaccines, Eliminate Epidemics
Concurrent with extensive environmental improvements (including better
sanitation) some forms of disease seem to have disappeared.  Vaccine
promoters have taken the credit for the virtual disappearance of smallpox
and diphtheria, but nothing is said about the dwindling of cholera, plague,
and leprosy, for which no vaccines exist.  

The new rampant plagues of heart disease, cancer, arteriosclerosis and
diabetes, are due at least in part to the radical changes in the nature and
quality of our foods and living habits.  These illnesses can also be diminished
by environmental improvements, as well as by ceasing to pollute our
bloodstreams with vaccines and drugs.  

The relationship of population disposition to develop disease and
environmental conditions to influenza epidemics is conceded in a 1976
report by the U.S. Center for Disease Control:

"The occurrence of influenza epidemics depends upon a poorly understood
interaction of virus, population susceptibility, and environmental conditions."

If yellow fever disappeared from New Orleans after General Butler cleaned up
the city and no vaccine was used, what has sanitation had to do with the
disappearance of other epidemic diseases?  

Yellow fever vanished from New Orleans, Cuba, and Panama when these
were cleaned up.  The medical profession still refuses to admit that
cleanliness did the work.  They insist that it is all because they or the sanitary
engineers did the St. Patrick act with the mosquitoes.  

There are still as many mosquitoes in these places as there are in Jersey.  I
have never been able to figure out how they succeeded in getting just the
right mosquitoes to leave, and the harmless ones to remain.  

How many people today know about the medical opposition to the early use
of the bathtub?  They denounced it as the
"obnoxious toy from England" and
said it would bring on a
"whole category of zymotic diseases."  

In 1842 the Philadelphia physicians submitted a proposal to prohibit by law
the use of bathtubs between November 1 and March 15; and in Boston, in
1845, the medical society secured the passage of an ordinance making
bathing unlawful
"except on medical prescription."  

The doctors of the time also violently opposed rapid travel on the railroad as
being extremely dangerous to public health.  Time marches on.

The medical profession has adopted and claimed as their own these ideas,
which others have established as meritorious; but they are still fighting the
battle of the poisoned needle; they are still upholding the myth of
and the role of virulent and aggressive microorganisms as the major cause of

L. Tyagaraja Sarma, in an article in
Dr. Shelton's Hygienic Review, January
1975, says:

"England had repeated—and severe—epidemics of smallpox once every four
or five years throughout the last century.  The more the British government
forced vaccination and revaccination on their people, the more regular were
the epidemics.  

The County of Leicestershire refused to toe the official line; smallpox
vaccinations were wholly stopped in this county and all the money that was
originally allocated to mass vaccination was spent in improving sanitation.

The protagonists of vaccination prophesied that by this step, all the people in
the County of Leicestershire would become victims of this dread disease
while the rest of England would be saved to a great extent.  

But ... what followed was just the contrary.  While smallpox epidemics were
raging in the rest of the country, every four or five years as before,
Leicestershire was free from this disease."  

After the British government introduced a law allowing people to refuse
vaccination, the number of people vaccinated (and the incidence of smallpox)
kept declining, and ultimately the vaccination law was repealed.  

England was the first country in the world to force vaccination on its people
by law.  After fifty years of rigid enforcement of its compulsory vaccination
law, England suffered (1870-71) the largest smallpox epidemic in its history,
with the highest death rate in its history.  

A well vaccinated, revaccinated and rerevaccinated people suffered a worse
epidemic than it had ever suffered under the previously worst sanitary

Vaccination failed and this failure resulted in the rise of an anti-vaccination
movement.  Today vaccination is no longer compulsory in Britain.  

Epidemics of the more virulent types of disease (plagues, etc.) were caused
by unsanitary living conditions.  The habits of the civilized world have
become cleaner, yet more debilitating.  

                                               Modern Mass Sickness
Modern mass sickness is basically the result of the debilitating lifestyle and
eating habits of the majority of the populace.  In 1948, a polio epidemic was
proven to have been triggered by excess consumption of sugar, and
dramatically stopped when decreased sugar consumption was encouraged
by mass media campaigns.  (Don't Get Stuck).  

Of course, vested interests soon reversed the trend by convincing the public
to go back to the old habits.  Epidemics are triggered by mass debilitating
and prostrating influences, such as prolonged temperature or humidity
extremes, great and general worry, fear, grief, and anxiety (war, panic).  

The most enervated and toxemic people are the first to get sick.  Advocates
of vaccination (have never attempted to explain why it is often those who
have been vaccinated who are the first to get sick, or who often contract the
most virulent forms of disease.  

The first colds of early winter are not
"caught" from someone else with a cold,
but are developed by those who have been improperly living and eating.  The
added stress of cold temperature further checks elimination, adds to the
general toxemia, and thus precipitates a crisis.  

The more severe diseases develop in people who carry a greater amount of
putrescent poisoning, and are more prevalent after holidays and feast days.  
The enervating excitement and indiscriminate overeating at these times
produce the inevitable unwelcome results.  

Why does toxemia cause typhoid in one person and pneumonia in another?  
The answer will have to be found in the laws of heredity, nutrition, and
environment.  Those tissues offering the least resistance to the toxins are the
first affected.  

The more virulent diseases result from the poisonous toxins in the host.  
Toxins resulting from protein putrefaction are more virulent than those from
carbohydrate fermentation.  Flesh foods produce more virulent toxins than
plant proteins.  There is also a difference in the virulence of poisons
produced by different animal proteins, and in various vegetable proteins.  

For example, tonsilitis is the result of the less virulent plant toxins, while
diphtheria results from the more virulent animal toxins.  In both these
diseases, there is decomposition in the intestinal tract, which may also
sometimes cause pneumonia or meningitis or typhoid or other symptoms of

                                               Epidemics Explained
Why is it that some people who are exposed to those in the throes of these
crises subsequently are also
"laid low" while others are not?  People who
have maintained an internal state of cleanliness through correct habits of
eating and living do not need the disease process because it cannot develop
unless the toxic conditions for disease exist.  

As previously indicated, different diseases are different symptom complexes
arising out of reduced nerve energy and increased toxicity.  Habits of living
that waste nerve energy result in inhibition of secretion and excretion—and
the consequent self-poisoning.  

The part of the organism laden with toxins is the first to react, but the effect is
general—all the organs and structures of the body suffer the impairing

The body functions as a unit and depends on the continuous cooperation
and coordination of all its parts—if one function is disturbed, the health and
integrity of the organism and all its parts and functions are affected.  

Thus the disease is a process of detoxification and recovery, and is remedial
and beneficial.  Although it does expend great reserves of energy, it is a
process of self-preservation.  

The body ejects uneliminated waste products by means of a crisis or acute
disease, so that the toxins are expelled vicariously, or through channels not
normally utilized e.g., mucous membranes, skin, etc.  

                                  The True Explanation Of Contagion
M. O. Garten (Tomorrow's Health) says:

"An average healthy person, with an uncontaminated bloodstream, need not
be concerned or apprehensive about being subjected to a 'contagious'

However, this is not true with a person of low vitality and high accumulation of
metabolic waste productions.  Bacteria or germs of such a person stimulated
into activity by the devitalized elements upon which they thrive, when
transferred to the mucous membranes or tissues of another person equally
toxemic may be assumed to begin work immediately and in the same manner
as on the first-carrier.  

This is a true explanation of 'contagion' and one may say that the germ
precipitates the disease or excites it in the person to whom the germs are

Germs could be recognized as contributing factors in all toxic crises in which
the localized outside area is exposed to infection or contamination.  

Serums or drugs will help add to the general toxic load, and instability results
in serious harm, even though they "the serums or drugs" may apparently
modify or suppress a local or general pathological process."  

The modification or suppression of normal body function by poisoning (with
serums or drugs) is another factor in this picture.  

Sometimes, when people are too drugged and devitalized, they cannot have
the healing crisis, even though elimination of a high accumulation of wastes
is necessary.  

Because vaccinations may so reduce vitality as to make it impossible to
conduct a simple eliminative crisis, vaccinated people are said to be
"immune" against the particular disease they have lost the ability to conduct.  

In truth, the price of their inability to dispose of the toxins at an early stage is
their accumulation and the insidious development of worse, and more
serious, degenerative diseases.  

The contagion that actually is prevalent is the contagion of bad habits,
producing the same vulnerable and susceptible condition in great numbers
of people.  Such people conceivably can, through intimate contact, trigger
disease symptoms in each other.

But what about the thousands of people who develop colds who have not
been in contact with someone with a cold?  And what about the thousands
who are in intimate contact with someone with a cold who do not develop a

In 1967, after my 29-day fast, I worked in a small office with several other
people. Every one of them had repeated colds, some developed flu; I was the
only one in the office who never had any such symptoms and lost no time
from work.  

By: Herbert M. Shelton

Article: Epidemics