By A. Pulford, M.D.

      It seems to me that to any intelligent mind “the germ is the cause of disease” is a very fallacious statement. To be an acceptable fact, the cause of disease should be the rule and not the exception. In other words, should diphtheria develop in a family, not only every member of that family, but the physician, the nurse and every one who came in contact with the patient should develop the disease if it be true that the germ is the cause. But do they? Be honest now. Is it not a fact that the ones who take the disease are the exception and not the rule ? If it is the exception, who takes it then? Does this not prove the rule that the germ does not cause the disease?

      That people develop disease after visiting others suffering from a similar disease is merely coincidental, and as these cases are so few compared with the great majority who do not get it, it again proves they are the exception and not the rule. Again, as the so-called “period of incubation.” Nature has a fixed time for the period of incubation of all germ life. Then why this discrepancy in the period of incubation of measles (10 to 14 days), of scarlet fever (1 to 6 days or longer), of chicken pox (4 to 12 days), etc., etc., etc.,? There can be but one explanation of this discrepancy of time in the “period of incubation,” and that is: “Purely a matter of coincidence.” In other words, the outward manifestation of the internal state has not always made itself manifest on the one hand, or been noted on the other, with equal promptitude, yet in each case the internal manifestation has gone on just the same, while you have only reckoned from the time of so-called “exposure.” If this is not a fact, what other reason can any one give for Nature having a fixed period of incubation for all other germs, and a hap-hazard one for the germs of disease?

      If germs are the cause of disease, rather than the result, why should not the letter that was said to be the cause of measles in the German Royal family have caused this disease in those who handled, instead of singling out a pair of isolated beings? Was not this rather a coincidence, rather than a positive cause? Can any one prove beyond question of doubt that these two cases were not developing this condition at the time they received and kissed the “fated” letter? Our very currency settles the question (“Are Germs the Cause of Disease?”) negatively, beyond all question of dispute. Just think of the millions who handled this filthy, germ-laden paper, year in and year out. On this filthy paper currency are germs enough to lay the entire population of the earth on its back and cause it to become a writhing seething mass of disease. Is this not so? But, does it?

      Again, if the germ was the cause, and not a dependent, germ life would develop on barren soil, but does it? That germs do not develop disease, but rather are the result of disease, is shown by the fact that diphtheria, small pox, chicken pox, measles, scarlet fever, etc., have developed in isolated cases, in isolated places, where neither exposure nor other known cause existed, outside the condition of the child itself. I have myself attended several such cases.

      On the other hand, I feel confident that all diseases originate in but one way, its source depending on the individual condition of the patient, and that is by a chill, however slight or severe. This chill, killing off the corpuscle as it does, disorganizes the blood, thee debris results in fermentation, the resultant decay furnishing the leaven for the soil for the vitalizing of the germ, whether said germ happened to be within or come from without; while on the other hand the germ prepares nothing, neither can it per se develop itself, or cause or create anything. Healthy soil is barren soil; if this is not so, why do you put rotten manure or fertilizer on your garden to make it more fertile? It is this same fertility in the body, produced by the fermentation that causes the disease and thereby develops the germ. If this were not so, then every healthy body coming in contact with the germ of any given disease would be bound to come down with these conditions produced in inverse ratio, to prove that the germ caused thee disease, and no being could escape. But, is this so? It is not. This proves then that when a germ falls on barren soil it is inert, produces nothing, and therefore causes nothing, as the majority of cases coming in contact with these germs go to prove. To my mind, the greatest proofs that germs are not the cause of disease are as follows: Their inability to develop on barren soil; the discrepancy in the time of the “period of incubation;” that the cases resulting from direct infection are the exception and not the rule, as only large numbers are reported in epidemics, said epidemics depending on atmospherical influence on the body, and not the germs. If your health is such that you can withstand the atmospherical shock you will escape disease, germ or no germ.

      The worm theory, the louse theory and the germ theory have everything in common barring the size of the animal, and when indicated Cina 30x, Lyc. 30x, and Lac can. 30x will lend their benign influence to render the respective soils sterile to the respective animals, and Messrs. Worm, Louse and Germ will make a gum-shoe departure, thus showing that they are dependent on the state of the body instead of the state of the body being dependent on them or their influence. If this is not so, why do worms, lice and germs disappear after the exhibition of the 30th potency, which has no germicidal power?