THE CURE OF WOUNDS WHICH WOULD NOT HEAL: THE TREATMENT OF BURNS.

CHAPTER XIII. THE CURE OF WOUNDS WHICH WOULD NOT HEAL: THE TREATMENT OF BURNS.

I was destined to prove the value of urine‐therapy in the treatment of wounds, when some years ago through an accident I suffered a grave laceration and injury to my toes, ankle and foot. The toe‐nails were torn off and the toes forced back into the fleshy part of the foot. Naturally the shock and pain were very severe. All the same I rejected the help of

a medical friend, as I was resolved once again to prove the effects of urine ‐treatment on wounds.

After having the damaged portions of my foot put into place by some Physical Culture practitioners who had witnessed the accident, I fasted four days for the shock (an approved method) and applied cloths saturated in old urine to the affected parts. These bandages were kept moist by repeated soakings; but were not unwound until the fifth day. When finally removed, the results were astonishing; all trace of the injury had disappeared, and the foot was healthy and supple as it had been in early youth. Incidentally a corn which had troubled me was dissolved by the treatment.

I have frequently observed similar effects even un wounds which had refused to heal, whether under the treatment of common medical, herbal or other remedi°s, and even where amputation had been seriously discussed as the only remaining course to pursue.

From among the large number of cases I have treated. I will now give the history of a particularly bad one, which came under my care in 1918. In that year, I was introduced to a man in the early forties who at the time was attending the local Infirmary as an out‐patient every week for

a bullet‐wound in the fore‐arm. Although the patient had received the wound a year previously, it had shown no signs of healing, was about

10 inches in length, about three‐eights of an inch in width, and at times ulcerous and suppurating. His medical advisers were afraid it might ultimately turn gangrenous, to avoid which, poisonous ointments and dressings were applied, with many changes in the ingredients and proportions in the mixings. Having got sick of orthodox methods, the patient had also resorted to Fletcherism and the Salisbury Treatment, from which, admittedly he had derived some benefit; but even so that wound refused to heal. In spite of objections from his wife, he eventually became my patient.

My assistants first set about ripping off all the dressings. Then we washed the wounded arm three times a day with old urine, giving the rest of the body lengthy periods of massage with the bare hands and the same species of urine. The patient was fasted for three days on his own urine plus cold water, short spells of sunbathing were advocated‐ and at the end of seven more days nothing remained of the fissure but

a very slight scar as thin as a gold thread. In short, after a whole year's "interference treatment" the patient was cured by Nature in ten days!

Since the date of this cure I have observed scores of cases of "miraculous" healing by identically the same method; these include the healing of painful and disabling wounds, cuts, sores, ill‐effects from rusty nails, fishbones, etc., also poisonous wounds and blood‐poisoning Since the date of this cure I have observed scores of cases of "miraculous" healing by identically the same method; these include the healing of painful and disabling wounds, cuts, sores, ill‐effects from rusty nails, fishbones, etc., also poisonous wounds and blood‐poisoning

With regard to burns, one reads that in a given year 7,900 Americans‐ almost half the Lumber of which were children under five, died of burns. (Or did they die of the treatment or of both combined?) As to thousands of Americans who survived the effects of burns they were destined to suffer from unsightly scars, tight puckered skin, stiffened limbs or useless limbs and fingers.

For years the standby among remedies for burns was the application of wet tea‐leaves. Then in 1925, Dr. Davidson of Detroit placed the old wives' remedy on a quasi scientific basis. Instead of the boiled tea‐ leaves, he applied the element derived therefrom which as we all know is called tannic acid. This poisonous substance literally tans the tissues, and a thick, hard crust then forms over the exposed nerve ends. But although it relieves the pains it checks the activity and flow of the body fluids to the parts, the while it acts as a covering under which it is hoped that new skin may form. Unfortunately, however, the tannic acid not only "tans" the burned tissues, but also the surrounding healthy tissues, with the result that it destroys cells which ought to be providing new cells for the knitting together of the skin elements‐if I may thus express ‐ it for the benefit of the lay mind. The final outcome is a disfiguring scar, which is preventable by natural methods as opposed to "scientific" ones. Tannic acid is not even bacterial, for if foreign matter lurks on the burned surface, the function of the microscopic scavengers, which science calls germs, is impeded, and infection is more likely to For years the standby among remedies for burns was the application of wet tea‐leaves. Then in 1925, Dr. Davidson of Detroit placed the old wives' remedy on a quasi scientific basis. Instead of the boiled tea‐ leaves, he applied the element derived therefrom which as we all know is called tannic acid. This poisonous substance literally tans the tissues, and a thick, hard crust then forms over the exposed nerve ends. But although it relieves the pains it checks the activity and flow of the body fluids to the parts, the while it acts as a covering under which it is hoped that new skin may form. Unfortunately, however, the tannic acid not only "tans" the burned tissues, but also the surrounding healthy tissues, with the result that it destroys cells which ought to be providing new cells for the knitting together of the skin elements‐if I may thus express ‐ it for the benefit of the lay mind. The final outcome is a disfiguring scar, which is preventable by natural methods as opposed to "scientific" ones. Tannic acid is not even bacterial, for if foreign matter lurks on the burned surface, the function of the microscopic scavengers, which science calls germs, is impeded, and infection is more likely to

The tannic acid treatment of burns was superceded by the picric acid treatment, and also the acriflavine treatment. Then the surgeons tried their methods; they took skin from another part of the body‐usually the buttocks ‐and grafted it onto the burnt portions. But unfortunately, it sometimes occurred that the wou.id left by the removal of the healthy tissue turned septic. As to the suffering for the patient which this method entails, it can be better imagined than described. Not that I wish to decry surgery where in the case of acciients and mutilation from war it is necessary. But I am constrained to say that surgery has greatly been abused, and continues to be abused, and thousands of unneeded operations are performed on organs which could be treated by natural methods.

Nevertheless, some doctors have been broad‐minded and enterprising enough to try urine‐therapy, as witness the following extract from a letter to me in 1935 by Dr. Geo. S. Cotton of Temple, Texas, U.S.A.

Since receiving your literature some months ago, I have put it (urine ‐therapy) to the test and the results have been astonishing. Urine in the treatment of wounds, etc., cannot be beaten. This healing power is brought about among other elements contained in urine, by 'Allontain' (C4.H6,03.N4).

"As I put urine to further use in the treatment and eradication of disease,

I shall send you full information. It appears to me you are furthering a great truth which should be broadcast to suffering