Does our body adapt to poison or does your body destroy it?
When you read this, think of what the media has been telling you about the coronavirus. We are told that there is a virus out there that you can catch. That the only cure is a vaccine that has the coronavirus in it (along with a lot of other pathogens) and that we must take this so our body can build a resistance to it.
by Herbert M. Shelton
Some confusion arose in early Hygienic circles from the mistake of considering adaptation and toleration as the same thing. Some Hygienists declared that there is a law of adaptation and others rejected the idea altogether.
The Law of Vital Accommodation is usually interpreted to mean that the living organism adapts itself to poisons so as not to be harmed by them. This the Hygienic school considers a misinterpretation of the law. As Trall said of it, this interpretation of the law "is one of the vagaries of the Dark Ages." He said that he "could as soon believe in a moral law of accommodation by which the mind or soul adapts itself to moral evils—to lying, cheating, stealing, profane swearing, Sabbath-breaking, idolatry, adultery, etc., etc.—as to believe in a physiological law of accommodation by which the vital organism so adapts itself to poisons and impurities as not to be injured by them."
Dr. Jennings did accept this interpretation of the Law of Vital Accommodation, but he went even further. He assumed that the use of noxious agents, by occasioning a "reinforcement of vitality" to a part, is actually a source of strength and invigoration. He propounded what Trall designated the "monstrous absurdity" that the very poisons which are antagonistic to life actually increase the force of life locally, at least. That this is a monstrous absurdity is shown by evidence which exists all around us.
It was notoriously true in the days when the practice of "snuffing" tobacco was in flower that, old snuff topers could fill the whole nasal cavity with the strongest and most pungent kind of snuff without being able to raise the smallest specimen of a sneeze. The merest particle of the same snuff placed in the nasal cavity of the non-user would occasion prompt and violent sneezing.
Sneezing and snuffing were in inverse ratio to each other. An examination of the nasal membranes of the habitual snuffer revealed that they were inflamed, thickened, toughened, even ulcerated. Their sensibilities were reduced to the lowest point short of actual paralysis.
It is a fact that may be easily verified that the more sound and vigorous the organism or any part of it, the more prompt and vigorous will be its action in resisting and expelling a poison of any kind—the more acutely will it feel, the more readily will it resent, and the more violently will it resist and expel the tobacco, alcohol, arsenic or other poison. Try it when, where and with whom you please, you will find no exception to this law of organic life.
We do not deny a fact that everybody knows, that the more the living organism is exposed to contact with a given poison, the less disturbance is occasioned by such contact. But this does not mean that the poison has ceased to be noxious. It means, on the contrary, that the enervation induced by such continued and repeated contact with the poison has reduced the body's power to violently resist it. The vital powers are enfeebled by the constant struggle against the poison. In resisting and expelling the poison, the powers of life are exhausted precisely in ratio to the amount and frequency of the doses of poison they have to resist. It is obvious that if the resistance is always thus violent, complete and rapid, exhaustion would soon ensue and death would soon put an end to the struggle. Hence, to conserve the forces of life, the organism brings up some of its reserve means of defense. It does throw up a kind of fortification, but this is not of a kind that adds to the powers and capacities of the fortified part. Less violent means of resistance are brought into play.
When tobacco is first taken its use is followed by vertigo, nausea, vomiting, prostration, drowsiness and stupor. Tobacco applied to a sore or placed under the arm-pits will soon poison and sicken the whole body. But if the young hopeful continues his use of tobacco, the violent symptoms of nicotine poisoning abate and, although he slowly increases the quantity taken each day, he does not realize much if any apparent evil from it. Is it, then, to be supposed that what was poison before the habit was formed, has ceased to be poisonous now that the habit has been formed? Has the relation between tobacco and the living organism changed? Is nicotine now innoxious? Instead of habituation rendering the poison less poisonous, it actually becomes more injurious.
Because the body struggles violently against the poison when it is first used and does not struggle violently against it after the poison habit is formed, are we to conclude that the organism is reconciled to it? It would be more sensible to infer that it has been overcome by the poison. We may logically infer that the signs of rebellion and resistance have ceased because the struggle has so exhausted the body that it is no longer capable of such resistance. And, as the resisting power of the body is lowered more and more by the continued use of the poison, it becomes less and less disturbed by even more grievous in- roads upon the citadel of life.
The alternatives are either a violent and heroic effort to expel the poison or, failing this, a weak compromise by pathogenetic adaptation with ultimate loss of healthy structure and function. So far from toleration being established, a mere expedient devise is exercised which barely and woefully maintains a kind of status quo. Genuine power, rapidly or slowly (depending upon the amount of indulgence), is steadily waning.
As every adaptation to inimical substances is achieved by changes in the tissues that are away from the ideal, commonly by dystrophic changes in the cells and tissue elements, they necessarily cripple the normal or legitimate functions of the altered part. We have in the instance of adaptation to arsenic eating, the building up of impediments and units which are incapable of response either to wholesome foods or to virulent poisons. Toleration is merely a slow method of dying. Instead of seeing in the phenomenon of toleration something to be sought after, it is something to seek to avoid the necessity for.
Because the organism is enervated by the continued use of the poison, the user must frequently increase the size of the dose-whether the poison is tobacco, alcohol, tea, coffee, arsenic, salt, pepper, or other noxious substance—if he is to continue to induce the same apparent effect.
There is but one way to preserve the integrity, functioning ability, fortitude and endurance of the vital machinery and this is to keep poisons of all kinds at as great a distance from the organism as possible. Indeed, if we never saw, touched, tasted or smelled poisons of any kind, we would be all the stronger and live all the longer for it. Every dose of the poison, every cigarette, every drink of alcohol, every particle of arsenic, every cup of coffee, reduces the powers of life by as much as the body is forced to expend its powers in resisting and expelling the poison.
To compel the body to build "toleration" against all known poisons and all known causes of disease would, indeed, insure us against disease, but it would be the security of death. For long the world has been so infatuated with this nonsensical theory of "adaptation," that it is leading the race to its destruction. Are men so incorrigibly muddled with the false philosophy and nonsensical dogmas of the ignorant past that they cannot see that their very theories and practices are at variance with every known fact of existence and opposed to every demonstrable law of nature? Are they so ingrained with life-long prejudices or so deluded and infatuated with their favorite theories that they cannot understand that their theories and practices are leading the race to destruction?
If it is true that the use of a poison "fortifies" any part against the noxious substance, then all we have to do to be fully fortified against all causes of disease is to use all of them long enough to become "fortified" against all of them. To say that tobacco, alcohol, opium, etc., are all very destructive at first, but after we get used to them, that is, after we have accommodated ourselves to them, the mischief they do is either nil or comparatively slight, is to teach, in effect, that the more poison a person takes, over a long period of time, the less damage it does him. This is to say, the more poison, the more adaptation, so that bye and bye the sum total of the accommodation should be so great that the poison would have no bad effects at all.
The law of accommodation does not mean that the living organism adapts itself to poisons so as not to be harmed by them. I doubt very much that this law should ever be applied to what we call "toleration" of poisons; for, while there may be a certain sense in which adaptation does take place, it is really a form of defense. It should not be supposed that by the power of toleration or adaptation the body is capable of rendering that which is constitutionally noxious practically innoxious or wholesome. It is only that it bends itself, like the tough but limber oak to the force of the storm, instead of standing stiffly against it only to be uprooted.
Let us once understand that it is not possible for the vital organism to adapt itself to poisons so that they are no longer harmful to it, and we will readily understand that any and every use of these substances, for any purpose whatsoever, is injurious to the body. What is known as adaptation to poisons is always and necessarily of a retrogressive character and the greater the "adaptation," the greater the retrogression. Graham was eternally right when he said that this "adaptation" occurred by virtue of physiological depravity.
Just as the body cannot adapt itself to noxious substances and render them harmless, so it cannot adapt itself to abuses of useful substances so that these abuses become harmless. Because the digestive tract of the habitual glutton has so adapted itself to the customary load of food that it no longer groans and complains, it should not be thought that the gluttony has been rendered harmless. As digestion is so vitally important to the preparation of foodstuffs for entrance into and use by the body, it should be readily seen how any impairment of the general integrity of the digestive system must in turn impair the functions of the body generally.
