CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS.

CHAPTER XXI. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS.

It seems unnecessary to increase the volume of this book. If the successful treatment of very many thousands of cases of a large variety of diseases, including a liberal percentage of so‐called incurable ones, does not prove se efficacy of urine‐therapy, then nothing else can. Moreover, as we have seen, many of the patients had previously tried other methods, both orthodox and unorthodox, without success. This is not to say that the therapy can without exception cure every patient of every diseased condition. Severe arthritic conditions have proved very difficult to cure, whilst diabetic conditions have in many cases not yielded to the treatment at all. On the other hand, which may seem strange, growths, and tumours said to be cancerous, as also cataracts, have yielded quickly. As for those patients who might have been saved by urine‐therapy they probably run into larg: figures. These are chiefly cases I had to decline to help, not because I regarded them as hopeless in themselves, but because I feared the interference of well‐meaning but timid relatives at a vital moment when such interference might well have proved fatal, and they and I should have then, been faced with an inquest. In short I was taking no chances, for only qualified doctors can do this without risk to themselves. In other words, doctors are allowed to experiment on their patients either with drugs or with the knife, and if the patients die, so much the worse for their relatives, whilst the doctor is credited with having done his best with a hopeless case. One may perhaps argue that a layman who has found an efficacious cure for

diseases should qualify himself to be an orthodox doctor, at least in name if not in fact. But how can a man with any pretentions to uprightness bring himself to study a system of medicine in which he does not believe, and which he regards as a menace to his health? And for what? Merely that he should be able to diagnose a given number of diseases and call them by polysyllabic names? And supposing, as with urine ‐therapy, the name of the disease has nothing to do with the selection of the treatment? What then? Indeed, the necessity for a correct diagnosis before a line of treatment can be decided upon, is one of the drawbacks and limitations of allopathy. For example, if a woman has a growth in her breast, the first thing a doctor wants to determine is whether it is malignant or "benign." But with urine‐therapy such a question is not of the least importance, since, as we have witnessed, the treatment for all diseases is virtually the same procedure, seeing that in the patient lies the "magic fluid" to cure his or her ills, and the only prerequisite is to refrain from food (like the animals) so as to give Nature her chance to do the work. And she will do it in her own way provided she is not interfered with. This I have observed again and again with regard to the movement of the bowels during a urine‐fast plus plain cold water. Whereas t he "orthodox " naturopath thinks it necessary to assist the bowels with enemata during a fast on cold water alone or on fruit juices (a mistaken policy) on no account should such measures "be resorted to during a urine‐fast, for Nature must be left to determine when the bowels shall move. What we have to remember is that in fasting, urine, taken via the mouth heals, rebuilds and re‐ conditions the vital organs including the intestines, and while this process is taking place, often the bowels seem, as it were, to go to sleep and relapse into a state of inactivity, which in severe cases may diseases should qualify himself to be an orthodox doctor, at least in name if not in fact. But how can a man with any pretentions to uprightness bring himself to study a system of medicine in which he does not believe, and which he regards as a menace to his health? And for what? Merely that he should be able to diagnose a given number of diseases and call them by polysyllabic names? And supposing, as with urine ‐therapy, the name of the disease has nothing to do with the selection of the treatment? What then? Indeed, the necessity for a correct diagnosis before a line of treatment can be decided upon, is one of the drawbacks and limitations of allopathy. For example, if a woman has a growth in her breast, the first thing a doctor wants to determine is whether it is malignant or "benign." But with urine‐therapy such a question is not of the least importance, since, as we have witnessed, the treatment for all diseases is virtually the same procedure, seeing that in the patient lies the "magic fluid" to cure his or her ills, and the only prerequisite is to refrain from food (like the animals) so as to give Nature her chance to do the work. And she will do it in her own way provided she is not interfered with. This I have observed again and again with regard to the movement of the bowels during a urine‐fast plus plain cold water. Whereas t he "orthodox " naturopath thinks it necessary to assist the bowels with enemata during a fast on cold water alone or on fruit juices (a mistaken policy) on no account should such measures "be resorted to during a urine‐fast, for Nature must be left to determine when the bowels shall move. What we have to remember is that in fasting, urine, taken via the mouth heals, rebuilds and re‐ conditions the vital organs including the intestines, and while this process is taking place, often the bowels seem, as it were, to go to sleep and relapse into a state of inactivity, which in severe cases may