Eugene V. (Eugene Valentine) Brewster.

What's what in America online

. (page 2 of 12)
Online LibraryEugene V. (Eugene Valentine) BrewsterWhat's what in America → online text (page 2 of 12)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

ions, beliefs, and modes of living; for Christian
Science is only a speculation, and it does not con-
cern most of us. It rightly is no more a religion
than is the theory of evolution, which, by the
way, Mrs. Eddy did not seem to understand, for
she said: "Theorizing about man's develop-
ment from mushrooms to monkeys and from
monkeys to men, amounts to nothing in the right
direction, and very much in the wrong."

Mrs. Eddy says that "God is not in the things
He hath made"; and, in the next breath she says
that since things are matter, and that there is no
matter, then there can be no things. In her final
revelation of 1866, expressed in 1875, she says
that "God is Principle, not person"; yet later,
in a later final revelation she says that "Life,
Truth, and Love constitute the triune person
called God." Again, she says, "Jesus is the
human man and Christ is the divine, hence the
duality of Jesus, the Christ." And, in 1894, ^^^
at other times, she has stated quite plainly that
she and Christ were one and the same.

Be all this as it may. Christian Science rests
mainly on the hypothesis that sin, sickness, dis-
ease and death are not real — that they exist only
in thought; that Christian Science can remedy


these seeming evils. Had it not been for the cur-
ing and healing part of the doctrine, Christian
Science would never have become the fad that
it has. All the rest of the doctrine would have
been looked on merely as an interesting specu-
lation, had not Mrs. Eddy injected the claim
that Christian Science cured everything — that it
cured even sin as well as suffering. Here, then,
was something to interest everybody, and she
made the invitation all the more desirable when
she added that doctors were "flooding the world
with diseases," that the fewer the doctors, the
less disease the world would suffer from, and
that "as long as you read medical books you will
be sick." We all know of thousands of cases
where doctors have been of great assistance to
humanity, and we know, too, of many serious
medical mistakes. We all know that medicine
has been much overworked, yet we must all ad-
mit that doctors and medicine have made this
world vastly better and more healthful. But
what has Christian Science done? Mrs. Eddy
failed to give to the world the complete, authen-
ticated record of one single case of disease that
she cured. True, she said that she had cured cer-
tain diseases, but we are left in the dark as to
whether they were diseases or what they were.
She refused to have medical tests made. She


even announced that she had no time to give per-
sonal treatments and consultations. At that time
she was busy teaching, at $300 a pupil. Besides,
according to her theory, there was no such thing
as a body, or disease, or pain. She doubts even
that Jesus suffered pain on the cross, although
the Bible says that He cried out in pain Either
Jesus did suffer pain, or He falsely made those
around Him thitik that He did, and we know
that He was incapable of deception. Yet, Jesus
Christ and Mrs. Eddy are one and the same.

Christian Science seeks to eliminate pain,
whereas most physicians recognize pain as a
blessing. It is a danger signal. It warns us of
decay, of disease, and of disorders. Were it not
for pain, we would allow our teeth to decay, our
eyesight to be impaired, and various other or-
gans to degenerate. When we live wrongly, or
eat too much, or overtax our powers. Nature
warns us to halt, but Christian Science says there
is no such thing as suffering, discomfort and
pain, except in our imagination.

And thus we could go on for hours pointing
out the inconsistencies of Mrs. Eddy's theories,
but a short article like this will not permit. Take
for example her statement that "Science can heal
the sick who are absent from the healers, as well


as those present, since space is no obstacle to
mind"; and the assertion that "Christian Science
divests material drugs of their imaginary power
* * * When the sick recover by the use of
drugs, it is the law of a general belief, culminat-
ing in individual faith that heals, and according
to this faith will the effect be"; and "The not
uncommon notion that drugs possess absolute,
inherent curative virtues of their own involves
an error. Arnica, quinine, opium, could not
produce the effects ascribed to them except by
imputed virtue. Men think they will act thus
on the physical system, consequently they do."
Does anybody doubt that if the writer of those
words walked into a drugstore blindfolded and,
unseen by anybody, drank opium, not knowing
what it was, she would not immediately feel the
effects of that drug? And that if she took any
other drug, the effects would not be about the
same as they are known to be in practically all
cases? Yet who would say, under those circum-
stances, that Mind has endowed those drugs
with the powers to act on the system as they do?
If Mind can so act, medicine is just what we
want, for Mind can be made to make drugs do
even greater things than they have yet done, per-
haps to raise the dead.


But why go to greater length to point out the
fallacies of this fad that is nothing more than a
superstition founded on a truth. Science and
Health is simply words, words, words. It is a
tangled mass of assembled philosophy from
various sources that has but little practical value,
lliat mind, suggestions and imagination have
great influence over the body nobody will deny,
but nobody but Mrs. Eddy ever attempted to
form a religion out of that old fact. Science and
Health is founded on the Bible, and pretends to
be a key to it. It is a "key," but it is one that
breaks and distorts rather than opens. It is an
interpretation, and it treats the Book as if it were
a puzzle that God left unsolved until He in-
spired Mrs. Eddy to reveal its secrets, after hav-
ing kept it from the world for nearly 2,000 years.
From the standpoint of a promoter, Mrs. Eddy
was wise in calling her doctrine Christian
Science and in founding it on the Bible. That
many have been helped by Christian Science no-
body will deny, but the same can be said of a
hundred other theories and beliefs, some of
which are admittedly absurd. Some people can
be cured with sugar pills and some by an Indian
medicineman. Christian Science contains much
that is true and good, and much that is false and


bad, and perhaps the harm that it has done may
not outweigh the good. Nobody knows. Those
who get pleasure and satisfaction and peace out
of it should not be disturbed, but they should be
warned not to let it run away with them.

The Epicureans handed down to us some
questions which have never been quite sat-
isfactorily answered, except by the Chris-
tian Scientists — who are quite satisfied with
their answer. If God is able to prevent evil,
and is not willing, where is His benevolence?
If God is willing, but not able, where is His
power? If God is both able and willing, whence
then is evil? The Scientists say there is no evil,
and that settles the whole question. The blind
man sees nothing. The Occulist teaches us to
see: the Scientist teaches us not to see. Excel-
lent thought! When the thief comes, we close
our eyes, and lo! we do not see him, for he is
not there — and when we open our eyes, nothing
else is there.

Consider for a moment the folly of holding
that sickness, pain and disease are products of
the mind, and that they have no real existence.
To say this is to declare that there are no germs
and microbes; and to declare that mind causes
disease and death is to upset the whole accepted
theory of creation and of evolution. Are not


animals affected by disease as well as man? If
so, who would say that their meager minds could
cause it? and if it be said that human minds
caused it, how about the millions of animals who
suffered pain, disease and death thousands of
years before man ever appeared upon earth?
Does the Scientist know that there are hundreds
of different kinds of microbes, fighting and com-
batting one another, that the big fish are eating
the little ones, that if there were no microbes
there could be no putrefaction and that if there
were no putrefaction there could be no breaking
down of the dead bodies of animals and plants,
and that the earth would be encumbered with
the dead bodies of these animals and plants of
past generations, and that very soon all the or-
ganic elements — all the carbon and nitrogen, if
not all the hydrogen and oxygen — on the face of
the earth would be fixed in these corpses and that
all life would perish for want of of sustenance?
In short, germs and death are just as important,
and just as inevitable, as joy and life.

The Christian Scientists, New Thoughtists and
other dreamy faddists, who would eliminate all
death, sorrow, pain and suffering, by bringing
heaven to earth all in a day, are respectfully in-
troduced to a paragraph from John Ploughman:
"There is a sound reason why there are bones in


our meat and stones in our land. A world where
everything was easy would be a nursery for
babies, but not at all a fit place for men. Celery
is not sweet till it has felt a frost, and men don't
come to their perfection till disappointment has
dropped a half-hundred weight or two on their
toes. Who would know good horses if there were
no heavy loads?"


IF we are to believe history every century pro-
duces one or more wonderful healers, or
persons with the "Healing Touch." It is
said that these mysterious persons have made the
blind to see, the lame to walk, the deaf to hear,
and even the dead to rise, by means of laying on
of hands. Just how much of these records are
facts or fiction no man may say, but we may
reasonably assume that a fair amount of facts
are mixed up with the fiction, even if we may
not believe half of what we hear and read.

Dr. Andrew Taylor Still, of Kirksville, Mo.,
is the founder of Osteopathy, and in that place
he has founded what he is pleased to call a col-
lege, which is highly successful. After reading
his history, he will perhaps remind you some-
vv^hat of Mary Baker Eddy, Elbert Hubbard,
Tolstoy, and Jesus of Nazareth, although it can-
not be said that he bears much physical or
mental resemblance to any of these. He dresses
like a farmer or backwoodsman, and is Sim-



plicity personified. His followers worship him
very much as do those of Mrs. Eddy, and there
is a vein of mystery, not to say of superstitious
faith, connected with both their doctrines that
seems to bind their followers together. While
Dr. Still claims no divine inspiration, as did
Mrs. Eddy, still he and his disciples are inclined
to the mysterious and supernatural. For ex-
ample, in one of the Osteopath books I find this,
by his son Dr. Charles E. Still, D.O. : ''When
a boy, I was out, with my father and an old
physician one day, when he stopped at a house
where there was a boy almost totally blind. My
father stepped up to him and took hold of his
neck; in a few minutes he bade him look at the
sun, and behold, the blindness had disappeared."
This reads very much like a Bible miracle.
"Again, we met an old colored man who was
badly crippled. My father asked him his trouble
and had him stand up against a drygoods box.
My father set down a flour sack of bones we
were carrying; he then took hold of his leg and
after apparently v\anding it around a few times,
he told the man to walk, which he did without
as much as a limp, much to the amazement of
the bystanders. Time and again equally as won-
derful cures were made by him in my presence."
Dr. Still, Jr., then goes on to say that in an epi-


demic of diphtheria he treated about sixty-five
cases and lost but one; that he was called on to
treat practically all the ailments that flesh is heir
to; that he treated epileptics by the score and
successfully in most cases; that he set a neck that
was broken, and set a case of dislocated astra-
galus and cured it in one day after a physician
had assigned the patient to straps in bed for six
weeks, thus saving five weeks and five days of
the patient's time, patience and money. Other
miraculous cures are reported by the Messrs.
Still and by other learned Osteopaths, and there
are many people around who are v/illing to give
reliable testimony to the effect that they have
been cured of serious ailments by Osteopaths
when doctors have failed.

Osteopathy is really the old Swedish move-
ment cure under a new name, but considerably
enlarged and improved.

Some people imagine that Osteopathy is a sort
of massage, but, according to Dr. Still, Sr., this
is a mistake, for he says: "Osteopathy absolute-
ly differs from massage. The definition of
'massage' is masso, to kneed; shampooing of the
body by special manipulation, such as kneading,
tapping, stroking, etc. The masseur rubs and
kneads the muscles to increase the circulation.
The Osteopath never rubs. He takes off any


pressure on blood vessels or nerves by the adjust-
ment of any displacement of bone, cartilage,
ligament, tendon or muscle." Thus, an Osteo-
path might be called a bone manipulator, and
that is what the words implies, "osteon" meaning
bone. As a matter of fact. Dr. Still and all Os-
teopaths to the contrary notwithstanding, Os-
teopathy is not "absolutely different from mas-
sage." Dr. Still says that Osteopaths adjust dis-
placed muscles, does he not? And how do they
do it? By manipulating the muscles. That is
just what the masseur does. It is true that the
masseur rubs, with a view to increasing the cir-
culation, but it is also true that the Osteopath
kneads, or presses, for the same purpose. A good
masseur handles the muscles very much as do the
Osteopaths. Circulation is the object in both
cases: If you want to hurt an Osteopath's feel-
ings, just tell him that he is a fine masseur. For,
has he not spent three years at an Osteopathic
College to learn his art, whereas the masseur
may have learned his the previous week from
some Turkish bath operator? Please remember
that the Osteopath is a physician, and that he
knows as much about anatomy and therapeutics
as do other physicians. Please also remember
that the Osteopath has had a thorough course in
physiology, biology, embryology, histology.


pathology, symptomatology, physical and labor-
atory diagnosis, obstretrics, gynecology, diet-
etics, hygiene, bacteriology, toxicology, urnia-
lysis, surgery, pediatrics, dermatology, phchis-
try, and medical jurisprudence. The only phy-
sicianly subject with which he is not familiar is
materia medica, and that is something that he
thinks is unnecessary.

The Osteopath does not believe in drugs. On
that point he will have many sympathizers, no-
tably the Christian Scientists. Tn fact, many of
our best physicians have abandoned that old
fashioned faith in drugs w^hich made people
think that they could abuse Nature all they
liked, and do as they pleased, and that a few
drops of medicine v/ould cure them of the ill-
efifects of their indiscretion. Dr. Osier, who was
appointed Regius Professor of Medicine at Ox-
ford University a few years ago, gives a long list
of diseases, in his book "Textbook on the Theory
and Practice of Medicine," which cannot be
cured by drugs, and he frequently states that
drugs are notoriously uncertain in their effects
in many cases. Any physician who is honest and
wise will tell you that drugs are not being used
so much nowadays as formerly, and that medi-
cine is still more or less of an experiment in
many cases, and often a dangerous and fatal ex-


periment. But, in spite of all this, it is certainly
unwise to denounce all drugs simply because we
do not know the certain effects of some drugs.
Drugs have been in use since the beginning of
history, and we are still experimenting with
them. While we do not yet know what they will
do and not do, we know that they will do some-
thing. In other words, drugs have an effect on
the body — that we know. We know that certain
drugs will put us to sleep, or cause us to vomit,
or give us a headache, or take away a headache,
or benumb a pain, etc. Everybody knows the
effects of castor oil, pepsin, strychnine, salts,
sugar of lead, laudanum, paragoric, camphor,
iodine, linament, calomel, and certain other drugs
in certain cases. Now, some of these drugs
are extremely useful and it would be a calamity
if the human family were to be deprived of their
use. While, as we all know, many people are
extremely superstitious about medicines and are
taking them all the time to cure imaginary ills,
and while it is true that many sick persons are
either killed or made worse every year by medi-
cines administered by physicians, still the sum-
total of good that comes from the proper use of
drugs, and the immense possibilities of the
future seem to reason that v/e must not entirely
discontinue the use of drugs. Nature is the best


doctor, and all that the physicians can do is to
assist nature. Osteopathy may assist nature, and
so may massage, and so may water, and exercise,
and diet and drugs. Different cases require dif-
ferent remedies. Drugs are a part of nature.
Nature made all herbs, vegetables and minerals.
Some of our best medicines, even minerals, are
found in the food that we eat and in the water
that we drink. Perhaps nature put them there
for a purpose Perhaps she put in too much, per-
haps she did not put in enough. We are all dif-
ferent, no two alike. Our bodies are made up of
various chemicals, and many of our ailments are
due to a scanty supply of these chemicals.
Hence, if we cannot get a sufficiency of these
chemicals from the foods, we may often require
them from the drug store. For example, phos-
phorus is necessary to the nerves and brain.
While it is found in various foods, it may be, as
is often the case, that we have to take phosphorus
in some other form in order to preserve our
health or to restore our body to its normal state.
But the Osteopath does not reason this way.
Dr. Still says: "God has placed the remedy for
every disease within the material house in which
the spirit of life dwells. I believe that the
Maker of man has deposited in some part or
throughout the whole system of the human body


drugs in abundance to cure all infirmities; that
all the remedies necessary to health are com-
pounded within the human body. They can be
administered by adjusting the body in such a
manner that the remedies may naturally asso-
ciate themselves together. And I have never
failed to find all these remedies. Man should
study and use only the drugs that are found in
his own drugstore— that is, in his ovv^n body." If
this means anything, it means that drugs are nec-
essary, and that manipulating the bones of the
body results in a proper distribution of these
drugs. The statement that he has never failed
to find these remedies, if it means anything,
means that Dr. Still has cured every case that
has come to him, but he has never said so in plain
vv^ords; in fact, he admits elsewhere that he has
not been successful with all cases. And if he
was not successful in certain cases, the failure
was due to not being able to adjust matters so as
properly to associate the drugs of the body with
their remedies! Farther on Dr. Still says that
the still greater question to be solved is, "How
and v*'hen to apply the touch which sets free the
chemicals of life as Nature designs." Does Dr.
Still here mean that Osteopaths have a certain
magic touch which is so powerful and wonder-
ful that is must he used vvith great caution?


That this touch lets loose certain drugs or chem-
icals which the body needs to cure itself? It is
possible that the Doctor is speaking in figures
and that he does not mean what his words imply.
It must be so. Otherwise, we must put him down
as a charlatan. If he speaks figuratively, he is
indiscreet, because he plainly leads people to
think that the spinal column secrets certain
drugs or chemicals which are necessary to health
and that these can be made to flow to the neces-
sary parts by means of certain manipulations.

Dr. Still would have us believe that Oste-
opathy is something of a cure-all, and that its
adoption makes the use of drugs unnecessary,
but all Osteopaths do not make this claim. Dr.
George V. Webster, D.O., says: "Osteopathy
is not a cure-all. There are disorders that are
incurable." This is encouraging, because we
now know that if a disease is incurable Osteo-
pathy cannot cure it! Dr. Webster says that
"there are diseases needing surgical attention,"
that in some cases an anesthetic is necessary, that
a parasite requires an antiseptic, and that a
poison requires an antidote. Thus he has found
that drugs have some uses, at least. In one place
Dr. Webster says that Osteopathy is not a cure-
all, and in another we find him saying, "The ap-
plication of osteopathic principles to meet the


problems of bodily disorder has demonstrated
their efficiency in practically all diseases"! Dr.
Still himself says, "You may say there are some
failures. Yes, who would not expect it? Per-
haps the Osteopath is not able to apply the
knowledge he should have gained before being
granted a diploma from his osteopathic school."
And thus, all through the Osteopath literature
there is an inference that bone manipulation
cures everything, although it admits that it has
not always done so. This is the weak, fatally
weak, spot in Osteopathy. It is the old story of
the over-enthusiastic specialist who thinks that
the sun rises and sets on his pet theory. Show a
child a watch, and all it sees and understands is
that it is wound up and that the hands move
around. If the watch gets out of order the child
tries to wind it up again — that is all it knows.
It does not know that inside the case are hun-
dreds of delicately arranged parts that are ad-
justed to a nicety. It does not know that some
of these parts may be worn out from over-use, or
are missing, or broken, or that they need clean-
ing. Likewise, when the Osteopath sees a body
suffering from some disorder, he usually sees
only the blood vessels and nerves, and he decides
at once that one or more of them is being
squeezed by a misadjustment of some bone or


muscle. He looks on the spinal column as the
backbone of the human structure, which is of
course true, and surmises that if anything is
wrong it must have originated in the spinal cord,
which is not necessarily true. If it is indiges-
tion, or a disease of the kidney, or what not, he
thinks that by turning one of the keys on the
spinal cord it will unlock the necessary drug and
let it flow to the disordered part. He wears a
pair of glasses on which is written the word
"Osteopathy," and when he looks he sees nothing
but Osteopathy. Now, as a matter of fact, he is
right in many cases. He will cure when all the
doctors in the world might not even relieve. He
has a great truth. He holds the key that unlocks
the door to many a mystery, and it is a key that
should be in common use, by all doctors. Where
the regular physician would perhaps drug his
patient to death, the Osteopath might cure him
with a few simple treatments. Take, for ex-
ample, a headache. Now, a headache is a symp-
tom, not a disease. It is a sign that something is
going wrong. It is a sign that there is either too
much blood in the head, or not enough, usually
the former. In either case, it is probable that
there is some abnormal pressure on some blood-
vessel or nerve, and that if that pressure could
be released the headache would disappear. Just


examine a model of the spinal cord sometime
and see what a complicated structure it is, with
all the little nerves, blood vessels and muscles so
intricately interwoven between its many parts.
We are all prone to get in certain habits. We
learn to read in a certain posture, and to write,
and to lie down, and to walk, and to sit, and in
the course of years it would be strange if one or
more of our thousands of parts did not get into
an abnormal position so as to compress or
squeeze some of the delicately arranged nerves
or blood channels, thus preventing freedom of
passage. Such a condition might set up conges-

2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Online LibraryEugene V. (Eugene Valentine) BrewsterWhat's what in America → online text (page 2 of 12)