NEW ZEALAND, Sept. 10, 1910.
DEAR MR. SINCLAIR,--Your article "The Truth about Fasting" in August
_Physical Culture_ to hand this week has much interested me. The
questions you ask at end of article will, I hope, receive many replies,
and give much information regarding the fasting cure. I, personally,
can supply a considerable amount of just such information as you
require, but the fact that I am a druggist in business precludes
the giving of such for publication until drugs and I part company.
Let me explain. A little under four years ago I came upon a copy of
_Physical Culture_. It interested me and I followed up the reading
by subscribing, and obtaining various books--Dewey's, Hazzard's,
Carrington's, Desmond's, Eales', Bell's and others. I became quite
convinced that about 99 per cent of usual medical treatment was wrong,
and, in fact, actually detrimental, and often death-dealing to those
who were in search of health. More and more I felt that I was doing a
big injustice to those who applied to me for help, and an accessory
in bad practice by the dispensing of physician's prescriptions. Yet I
know that, like myself, the great bulk of the doctors and chemists were
acting innocently and even conscientiously when recommending drugs and
practicing the accepted drug and surgical treatments. The belief that
drugs cure disease is so deeply rooted in the average human mind, and
the teachings in medical and druggists' colleges so universal, and even
thorough, that doctors and druggists can hardly be blamed for holding
to their mother-loves.
However, I had an open mind, and a desire to hand out a square deal,
and decided to make a practical test of the new teachings that had come
my way.
I started by carefully selecting my patients--those who I believed had
a fair amount of intelligence, and whose ailments had supplied them
with a fairly long course of pain, worry and expense. Being a druggist
in business, it would have been a very foolish thing for me to have
wholly condemned drugs. And that is one reason why I selected chronics
for a start--I was able to use the argument that as drugs had had a
long and faithful trial, and had proven valueless in curing, a fast of
nine or ten days would be, at least, worth a trial. My first case was a
lady about thirty-five years of age. Complaint, badly swollen, highly
inflamed and ulcerated leg, extending from two inches below knee to
one inch above ankle, and more than half way around. She proved a good
patient. The leg had been bad with more or less severity for fourteen
years, and had been treated by several doctors, druggists, and others.
She started on an immediate fast. Within twenty-four hours after fast
commenced, the inflammation decreased; by the end of the fourth day it
had entirely subsided, and by the end of the eighth day not a vestige
of the trouble remained. This fast took place over two years ago--she
has held reasonably well to the simple foods I advised, and so far
there has been no return of the ailment. Her general health has very
considerably improved.
Since then I have treated, perhaps, fifty cases by fasting, and many
others by simple dieting. Many complete cures have been effected that
ordinary medical methods had entirely failed to benefit. My list
comprises many ailments, ranging from one to forty-five years in
evidence, while the patients themselves have ranged in age from one
year to eighty-five years.