I CAUGHT A GERM

Hutt News, Volume 13, Issue 25, 29 November 1939, Page 1

I CAUGHT A GERM

(By H. K. and D. W. Adamson)

(Health Consultants.)

Are germs the cause of disease, or is it that disease is the cause of germß? One school of thought, representing the conservative medical view, and easily the most dominant view, iyill have it that germs are the cause of disease. Another, and more modern school, hold equally strongly to the view that germs are not |the cause- of disease, buti in habit diseased tissues as scavengers or only because the resistance of the tissues has been sufficiently undermined by other factors to allow germ invasion. The theory that germs are the cause of disease had itfe origin in the discovery of germs and of specific colonies of germs in certain diseased tissues. Celebrated scientists such as Pasteur, Koch, Kiebs, Ebert and others saw in the germ theory of disease, the only explanation of the disease with which they (the germs) were associated. Medical j colleges and medical men in general accepted the doctrine in its entirety and indeed have so successfully passed it on to public that un-, til recent years few had the temer-! Ity to question its validity. The doctrine that disease is j | "catching" is so universally held that the phrase "I caught a germ" or "you caught a germ" is repeated parrot-like when ever an indisposition is found. With the discovery however, that the body is composed of a considerable number of chemical elements and that its regulation and functioning is dependent upon similar substances and vitamins, the germ theory of disease has been forced somewhat into the backgorund. A great number of diseases which were previously ascribed to germs are now known to be due to various food deficioncies and as investigation proceed.3, the list of diseases that are of strictly germ origin grows less and less, whilst the list that is associated wl'h vitamin and mineral deficiency, grows longer and longer. y The fact that many acute diseases make their appearance perodically and sweep like waves over a whole countryside or community, certainly lends colour to the theory that germs are it work. The germs are associated with these epidemics alright, but the fact that some people already possess immunity to them, whilst others may develop it, is surely sufficient evidence that there are pre-disposing factors present in the body long before the germs secure a foothold. Take the common cold for instance, to which nine people out of ten suffer two or three times yearly, and for which gallons and gallons of gargles, mouthwashes, sprays and so-called specifics are used in an effort to straafe the poor germ. What happens? Does f he cold abate any the quicker because r< the various measures used against the germs? It certainly does not, as a prominent investigator proved and as anyone may discover for himself, simply by allowing his next cold to run its natural course. You cannot buy immunity to a cold from a bottle any ipore than you can buy immunity to any other disease. Immunity

can only be established at the price of commonsense bodily hygiene which includes attention to one s personal living habits, proper diet, sensible clothing fresh air, ext... and other factors which have a b > , ; ing on health improvement. Hundreds of chronic cold addicts have come under our notice both professionally and otherwise during the past 20 years or so, who have secured this immunity and wliat they have accomplished so can anyone else. However, as evidence of a more authoritive character, we might mention a discovery made by ' a notable American Manufacturing chemist, Dr. Earp Thomas. Being an enterprising scientist Dr Thomas conceived the idea of destroying the large plagues of rats which infest all cities, by breeding a particularly virulent germ and infecting Mr and Mrs. rat. The difficulty with which he found himself confronted, was not the breeding of me virulent germ, but the fact that no matter what disease infection he transmitted to the rats there weer -ilwuys some, just a small percentage perI haps, that remained free from contagion. This started him on another line of investigation, viz., to discover the reason for the immunity of some of the rats. After much painstaking work, he discover ed that the immunity of the rat to a given disease depended upon the vitanjin and mineral content of its diet. He not only proved conclusthat this was so, but he -iho discovered that tne rats, which by their, immunity to his infections had 'first attracted his attention to the problem, lost their Immunity and succumbed to the infections after being fed for a period upon mineral and vitamin deficient diets. Of course there is nothing new about these discoveries of Dr. Thomas, but they are interesting even if they should > only substantiate the discoveries already m.. le in England by Sir Robert McUarrison and others. Sir Robert lias not I only proved that there is a general lowering of the resistance or immunity to disease when the diet lacks a sufficiency of the vitamins and minerals, but he has also been able to associate a considerable number of specific diseases with various vitamin and mineral deficiencies. At this time of the year, colds, influenza, etc., are usually prevalent, but they are not "caught" any more than one catches toothache. In both cases there is a definite sequence of conditions whicli lowers the vitality of the respective tissues and in both cases it is a question of mineral and vitamin deficiency. There are other factors also, of course, such as poor quality or insufficient proteins, worries, excesses and abuse, bad habits, etc., etc., which all have a considerable bearing in reducing one's vitality and consequent Resistance to> disease. -These factors however, are 'small to vitamin and mineral deficiency, for in a great many cases they also, are due to this same food deficiency.