MR PRICE REPLIES.

Evening Star, Issue 22893, 26 February 1938, Page 19

MR PRICE REPLIES.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —At a dozen lectures before thousands 1 challenged the medicine men to produce a case where medicine had cured any person and had kept that person free from disease. I offered the thousand pounds that Lord Nuffield gave me in England 10 years ago to any such personally permanently cured by medicine. My challenge was not accepted. Now, when I am supposed to have left the city, the cowardice of an anonymous critic is revealed. When 1 made several public statements about the medicine men I did so before thousands, not skulking behind anonymity. And what I said was what your columns within the last three weeks reported. First, Dr Lindsay, of this local University, about many medicine men being concerned about getting money out of their patients and not about getting them well. The second was in the ‘ Star ’ by the doctor diarist, that the successful medical man was the one who would only speak the truth when it would pay him financially. Why did not the cowardly critic, who waited until he thought I had left Dunedin, answer those two medical men’s charges against their own medical profession ? To answer the silly statements of my stab-in-the-back critic would take up much space, but briefly, let me answer. At every lecture I had six books recently written by orthodox medicine men of England, America, Australia, and New Zealand, in which my statements were substantiated, but was I ever openly challenged or answered in front of the citizens of Dunedin? No. The 3,000 people who attended our last lecture and the 2,000 more who would have been there if they had thought they could have got a seat evidently do not share the views expressed by your apologist of the medicine superstition. The fact that fathers, sisters, _ wives, mothers, daughters, nephews, nieces of medicine men have paid us to teach them what and how to eat for health, seems to our critic to show we are after an easy way of living. It is comical—■ even grotesquely ironical, to know that while your, printing presses were turning out your critic’s letter the sister of one of. Dunedin’s leading medicine men was in Mrs Price’s office paying a fee for instruction on how to get well. If our course cannot be understood by a few morons are we responsible? When it was taught me 18 years ago in London and New York by an Oxford M.A., a Japanese engineering professor, and a successful business man, I thought its simplicity too good to he true. It was written in English, not in Latin. It was printed in the same language as the plans and specifications of the Queen Mary, the Panama Canal, the world’s .greatest engineering triumphs, and the same language employed by Shakespeare—just English. Our instructions have been so simple that a score of young people have got well - under them. If we advocate nothing new, what'of that? The cure by Nature and the advocacy of stopping the cause of disease has been for centuries advocated. Put our methods are new to New Zealand and Australia, Dr Williams was not even an orthodox medical man when I was studying in London and New York. _ He admits m his recent magazine article that Stanley Lief, the London Layman, only recently converted him to Nature cure. Our work is much more advanced or “ extreme ” than that of either Dr Hay or Dr Williams. The charge against us of being engaged in getting an easy living is commensurate with the cowardice of the critic who was too scared to go on the platform with me in Dunedin. ' Smith’s Weekly, ’ 11 years ago, wrote of my work as a Britisher in America earning a salary of £6,000 a year paid by men of commerce like Mr Kirby, head of the Woolworth Company, and Mr Knudsen, the president of the Chevrolet Motor Company. ‘ Truth,’ m Melbourne, six months ago, investigated our work, and not one word appeared in condemnation. In your columns less than two weeks ago I invited a local committee of responsible citizens to be appointed to inveartigate our work, but our Critic remained suent then. We have a hundred Dunedin citizens who will swear that wo have helped them without medicine after failure by medicine men. Your critic states I attacked the medicine method of treating disease. Well, that is the basis of our teaching. X came here to do that, and I am remaining in New Zealand to do that. The wonderful support we have received here invites us to remain. I make no apology for attacking the biggest racket in the world—-the drug trust. The vested interests of medicine, “ booze,” and cigarettes cannot bluff us. The critic who claims that medicine got him well is invited to come out into the open and claim my thousand pound challenge that ho or she did not get well and stay well by medicine. , Mrs Price will go on to Christchurch and fulfil engagements already made there while I remain here to expose the superstition of medicine. It is easy to make bogus claims by anonymity, and your readers must have noticed the subtle method of medical quackery in attacking me when they thought I had left Dunedin. Tho fact that £15,000 was donated to me by self-made millionaires who, by hard work, self-reliance, and private enterprise, conquered their poverty and triumphed over their difficulties, is evi-

dence to the professional and business men of Dunedin and the intelligent section of wage workers that I have ability enough to earn, and have earned, a large salary in other spheres of competition. Because I have proved my sincerity by resigning from a £6,000 a year salary to devote my life to health education is the reason I am not afraid to come out into the open with a campaign against medical ignorance. The fact that my wife has a hundred relatives in New Zealahd who were not cured by medicine, and that neither sho nor myself were so cured by the specialists in London and New York, seems nothing to our critic. My parents, eight brothers and sisters, were not cured by medicine. Again I say the medicine men have not even cured themselves, and I can prove it. And, what is more, I, am staying in New Zealand to do so. The letter attacking us in so cowardly a way is the best evidence of the truth of my statements made in public, without hyperbole, ambiguity, or equivocation, that the superstition of medicine springs from the unchallengable fact that the savage tribal priest and the savage tribal medicine man is always the same parasite. I conclude by repeating that I can prove that fathers of medical men have given me cash donations for my work in appreciation of what I did for them as a teacher on what and how to eat. Mrs Price can prove that she, in Melbourne, had at one time 17 wives of medical men under her teaching—even had the wife, daughter and mother of one in Tasmania at the same time —while I, through his wife, instructed him to forget what ho had been taught by sick professors. I will debate with any medical man in New Zealand, and the Dunedin Town Hall will be filled with citizens who will pay 2s entrance fee, and I will urge that the £3OO thus received he donated to the Plunket Society or the fund of any society that provides for the happiness of children. Too, I am anxious to run 25 miles up and down the street in front of the home of any Dunedin medical man who smokes and drinks alcohol, and I have Lord Nuffield’s £I,OOO to prove the same medical man is as sick as his average paying patient. Now, Mr Editor, he a “ sport.” You allowed me to he attacked by an anonymous writer after my campaign. Now, print my reply to-day, while I am here. Thousands of your readers will appreciate such impartiality. British fair play demands you do the right thing. That you will is believed by Edward J. Price. February 26.