REMARKS ON THE FOREGOING LETTERS.
Correspondence.--The "prescribed course of Regimen."--How many
victims to it?--Not one.--Case of Dr. Harden considered.--Case
of Dr. Preston.--Views of Drs. Clark, Cheyne, and Lambe, on the
treatment of Scrofula.--No reports of Injury from the
prescribed System.--Case of Dr. Bannister.--Singular testimony
of Dr. Wright.--Vegetable food for Laborers.--Testimony, on the
whole, much more favorable to the Vegetable System than could
reasonably have been expected, in the circumstances.
"Reports not unfrequently reach us," says Dr. North, "of certain
individuals who have fallen victims to a prescribed course of regimen.
These persons are said, by gentlemen who are entitled to the fullest
confidence, to have pertinaciously followed the course, till they
reached a point of reduction from which there was no recovery." "If
these are facts," he adds, "they ought to be known and published."
It was in this view, that Dr. North, himself a medical practitioner of
high respectability, sent forth to every corner of the land, through
standard and orthodox medical journals, to regular and experienced
physicians--his "medical brethren"--his list of inquiries. These
inquiries, designed to elicit truth, were couched in just such language
as was calculated to give free scope and an acceptable channel for the
communication of every fact which seemed to be opposed to the VEGETABLE
SYSTEM; for this, we believe, was distinctly understood, by every
medical man, to be the "prescribed course of regimen" alluded to.
The results of Dr. North's inquiries, and of an opportunity so favorable
for "putting down," by the exhibition of sober facts, the vegetable
system, are fully presented in the foregoing chapter. Let it not be said
by any, that the attempt was a partial or unfair one. Let it be
remembered that every effort was made to obtain _truth in facts_,
without partiality, favor, or affection. Let it be remembered, too, that
nearly two years elapsed before Dr. North gave up his papers to the
author; during which time, and indeed up to the present hour--a period,
in the whole, of more than fourteen years--a door has been opened to
every individual who had any thing to say, bearing upon the subject.
Let us now review the contents of the foregoing chapter. Let us see, in
the first place, what number of persons have here been reported, by
medical men, as having fallen victims to the said "prescribed course of
regimen."
The matter is soon disposed of. Not a case of the description is found
in the whole catalogue of returns to Dr. N. This is a triumph which the
friends of the vegetable system did not expect. From the medical
profession of this country, hostile as many of them are known to be to
the "prescribed course of regimen," they must naturally have expected to
hear of at least a few persons who were supposed to have fallen victims
to it. But, I say again, not one appears.
It is true that Dr. Preston, of Plymouth, Mass., thinks he should have
fallen a victim to his abstinence from flesh meat, had he not altered
his course; and Dr. Harden, of Georgia, relates a case of sudden loss of
strength, and great debility, which he thought, _at the time_, might
"possibly" be ascribed to the want of animal food: though the
individual himself attributed it to quite another cause. These are the
only two, of a list of thirty or forty, which were detailed, that bear
the slightest resemblance to those which report had brought to the ear
of Dr. N., and about which he so anxiously and earnestly solicited
inquiry of his medical brethren.
As to the case mentioned by Dr. Harden, no one who examined it with
care, will believe for a moment, that it affords the slightest evidence
against a diet exclusively vegetable. The gentleman who made the
experiment had pursued it faithfully three years, without the slightest
loss of strength, but with many advantages, when, of a sudden, extreme
debility came on. Is it likely that a diet on which he had so long been
doing well, should produce such a sudden falling off? The gentleman
himself appears not to have had the slightest suspicion that the
debility had any connection with the diet. He attributes its
commencement, if not its continuance, to the inhalation of poisonous
gases, to which he was subjected in the process of some chemical
experiments.
But why, then, it may be asked, did he return to a mixed diet, if he had
imbibed no doubts in regard to a diet exclusively vegetable; and, above
all, how happened he to recover on it? To this it may be replied, that
there is every reason to believe, from the tenor of the letter, that he
acted against his own inclination, and contrary to his own views, at the
request of his friends, and of Dr. Harden, his physician; though Dr.
Harden does not expressly say so. Besides, it does not appear that under
his mixed diet there was any favorable change, till something like six
months had elapsed. This was a period, in all probability, just
sufficient to allow the poison of the gases to disappear; after which
he might have been expected to recover on any diet not positively bad.
If this is not a true solution of the case, how happens it that there
was no disease of any organ or function, except the nervous function?
There is every reason for believing that Dr. Harden, at the date of his
letter, had undergone a change of opinion, and was himself beginning to
doubt whether the regimen had any agency in producing the debility.[3]
The case of Dr. Preston is somewhat more difficult. At first view, it
seems to sustain the old notion of medical men, that, with a scrofulous
habit, a diet exclusively vegetable cannot be made to agree. This, I
say, seems to be a natural conclusion, _at first view_. But, on looking
a little farther, we may find some facts that justify a different
opinion.
Dr. Preston was evidently timid and fearful--foreboding ill--during the
whole progress of his experiment. We think his story fully justifies
this conclusion. In such circumstances, what could have been expected?
There is no course of regimen in the world which will succeed happily in
a state of mind like this.
It should be carefully observed by the reader, that Dr. Preston speaks
of entering upon a "severe course of diet;" and also, that, in
attempting to give an opinion as to the best kind of vegetable food, he
speaks of potatoes, prepared in a certain specified manner, as being
preferable to any other. Now, I think it obvious, that Dr. Preston's
"severe course" partook largely of _crude_ vegetables, instead of the
richer and better farinaceous articles--as the various sorts of bread,
rice, pulse, etc.--and, if so, it is not to be wondered at that it was
so unsuccessful. In short, I do not think he made any thing like a fair
experiment in vegetable diet. His testimony, therefore, though
interesting, seems to be entitled to very little weight.
This conclusion is stated with the more confidence, from the fact that
some of the best medical writers, not only of ancient times, but of the
present day, appear to entertain serious doubts in regard to the
soundness of the popular opinion in favor of the "beef-steak-and-porter"
system of curing scrofulous patients. Dr. Clark, in the progress of his
"Treatise on Consumption," almost expresses a belief that a judicious
vegetable diet is preferable even for the scrofulous. He would not, of
course, recommend a diet of _crude_ vegetables, but one, rather, which
would partake largely of farinaceous grains and fruits. Nor do I suppose
he would, in every case, entirely exclude milk.
Dr. Cheyne, in his writings, not only gives it as his opinion that a
milk diet, long continued, or a milk and vegetable diet and mild
mercurials, are the best means of curing scrofula; but he also says,
expressly, that "in all countries where animal food and strong fermented
liquors are too freely used, there is scarcely an individual that hath
not scrofulous glands." A sad story to relate, or to read! But, Dr.
Lambe, of London, and other British physicians, entertain similar
sentiments; and Dr. Lambe practices medicine largely, while entertaining
these sentiments. I could mention more than one distinguished physician,
in Boston and elsewhere, who prescribes a vegetable and milk diet in
scrofula.
But, granting even the most that the friends of animal food can claim,
what would the case of Dr. Preston prove? That the healthy are ever
injured by the vegetable system? By no means. That the sickly would
generally be? Certainly not. Dr. Preston himself even specifies one
disease, in which he thinks a vegetable diet would be useful. What,
then, is the bearing of _this single and singular case_? Why, at the
most, it only shows that there are some forms of dyspepsia which require
animal food. Dr. Preston does not produce a single fact unfavorable to a
diet exclusively vegetable for the healthy.[4]
It is also worthy of particular notice, that not a fact is brought, or
an experiment related, in a list of from thirty to forty cases, reported
too by medical men, which goes to prove that any injury has arisen to
the healthy, from laying aside the use of animal food. This kind of
information, though not the principal thing, was at least a secondary
object with Dr. North; as we see by his questions, which were intended
to be put to those who had excluded animal food from their diet for a
year or more.
But, let us take a general view of the replies to the inquiries of Dr.
North. The sum of his first three questions, was,--What were the effects
of excluding animal food from your diet on your bodily strength, your
mental faculties, and your appetite and animal spirits?
The answers to the three questions, of which this is the same, are, as
will be seen, remarkable. In almost every instance the reply indicates
that bodily and mental labor was endured with less fatigue than before,
and that an increased activity of mind and body was accompanied with
increased cheerfulness and animal enjoyment. In nearly every instance,
strength of body was actually increased; especially after the first
month. A result so uniformly in favor of the vegetable system is
certainly more than could have been expected.
One physician who made the experiment, indeed, says, that though his
mind was clearer than before, he could not endure, so long, a laborious
investigation. Another individual says, he perceived no difference in
this respect. A third says, she found her bodily strength and powers of
investigation somewhat diminished, though her disease was removed. With
these exceptions, the testimony on this point is, as I have already
said, most decidedly--I might say most overwhelmingly--in favor of the
disuse of animal food.
To the question, whether any constitutional infirmities were aggravated
or removed by the new course of regimen, the replies are almost equally
favorable to the vegetable system. It is true that one of the
physicians, Dr. Parmly, thinks the beneficial effects which appeared in
the circle of his observation were the results of a simultaneous
discontinuance of fermented drinks, tea and coffee, and condiments. But
I believe every one who reads his letter will be surprised at his
conclusions. No matter, however; we have his facts, and we are quite
willing they should be carefully considered. The singular case of Dr.
Preston, I now leave wholly out of the account. It was, as I have since
learned, the story of a _very singular man_.
Among the diseases and difficulties which were removed, or supposed to
be removed, by the new diet, were dyspepsia, with the constipation which
usually attends it, general lassitude, rheumatism, periodical headache,
palpitations, irritation of the first passages, eruptive diseases of the
skin, scurvy, and consumption.
The case of Dr. Bannister, who was, in early life, decidedly
consumptive, is one of the most remarkable on record. Though evidently
consumptive, and near the borders of the grave, between the ages of
twenty and twenty-nine, he so far recovered as to be, at the age of
fifty-three, entirely free from every symptom of phthisis for
twenty-four years; during which whole period, he was sufficiently
vigorous to follow the laborious business of a country physician.
The confidence of Dr. Wright in the prophylactic powers of a diet
exclusively vegetable, so far as the mere opinion of one medical man is
to be received as testimony in the case, is also remarkable. He not only
regards the vegetable system as a defence against the diseases of
miasmatic regions, but also against the varioloid disease. On the latter
point, he goes, it seems, almost as far as Mr. Graham, who appears to
regard it not only as, in some measure, a preventive of epidemic
diseases generally, in which he is most undoubtedly correct, but also of
the small-pox.
The testimony on another point which is presented in the replies to Dr.
North's questions, is almost equally uniform. In nearly every instance,
the individuals who have abandoned animal food have found themselves
less subject to colds than before; and some appear to have fallen into
the habit of escaping them altogether. When it is considered how serious
are the consequences of taking cold--when it is remembered that
something like one half of the diseases of our climate have their origin
in this source--it is certainly no trifling evidence in favor of a
course of regimen, that, besides being highly favorable in every other
respect, it should prove the means of freeing mankind from exposure to a
malady at once troublesome in itself and disastrous in its
consequences.
In reply to the question,--Is a vegetable diet more or less aperient
than a mixed one,--the answers have been the same, in nearly every
instance, that it is more so.
The answers to the question whether it was believed the health of either
laborers or students would be promoted by the exclusion of animal food
from their diet, are rather various. It will be observed, however, that
many of the replies, in this case, are medical _opinions_, and come from
men who, though they felt themselves bound to state facts, were
doubtless, with very few exceptions, prejudiced against an exclusively
vegetable regimen for the healthy. It is, therefore, to me, a matter of
surprise, to find some of them in favor of the said prescribed course of
regimen, both for students and laborers, and many of them in favor of
the discontinuance of animal food by students. Those who have themselves
made the experiment, with hardly an exception, are decidedly in favor of
a vegetable regimen for all classes of mankind, particularly the
sedentary. And in regard to the necessity of diminishing the proportion
of animal food consumed by all classes, there seems to be but one voice.
On one more important point there is a very general concurrence of
opinion. I allude to the choice of articles from the vegetable kingdom.
The farinacea are considered as the best; especially wheat, ground
without bolting. The preference of Dr. Preston is an exception; and
there are one or two others.
On the whole--I repeat it--the testimony is far more favorable to the
"prescribed course of regimen," both for the healthy and diseased than
under the circumstances connected with the inquiry the most
thorough-going vegetable eater could possibly have anticipated. If this
is a fair specimen--and I know no reason why it may not be regarded as
such--of the results of similar experiments and similar observations
among medical men throughout our country, could their observations and
experiments be collected, it certainly confirms the views which some
among us have long entertained on this subject, and which will be still
more strongly confirmed by evidence which will be produced in the
following chapters. Had similar efforts been made forty or fifty years
ago, to ascertain the views of physicians and others respecting the
benefits or safety of excluding wine and other fermented drinks in the
treatment of several diseases, in which not one in ten of our modern
practitioners would now venture to use them, as well as among the
healthy, I believe the results would have been of a very different
character. The opinions, at least, of the physicians themselves, would
most certainly have been, nearly without a dissenting voice, that the
entire rejection of wine and fermented liquors was dangerous to the
sick, and unsafe to many of the healthy, especially the hard laborer.
And there is quite as much reason to believe that animal food will be
discarded from our tables in the progress of a century to come, as there
was, in 1800, for believing that all drinks but water would be laid
aside in the progress of the century which is now passing.
FOOTNOTES:
[3] See a more recent letter from Dr. Harden, in the next chapter.
[4] Besides, it is worthy of notice, that Dr. Preston did not long
survive on his own plan. He died about the year 1840.