It must be understood, however, that artificial sunlight treatment is no substitute for natural sunlight, neither is it any substitute for taking steps to find out and correct the cause of the condition that is being rayed. It is a device of limited application and should only be used under nature cure direction.
The necessity for proper nature cure supervision in these matters is because most radiologists not only ignore the causes of what they treat, but actually ply suppressive treatments for skin diseases, and to that end use extra-solar rays such as the short ultra-violet and the X. These localized radiological activities are highly dangerous. Dr. P. MacCarvill, an orthodox radiologist and dermatologist, in the Irish Journal of Medical Science, February 1931, warns about the danger of attempting to go one better than the sun so far as ultra-violet rays are concerned, and said:
“Since it is not possible to examine accurately all the ultra- violet rays towards the short end, and since these merge into the long X-rays, it is best in the present state of our knowledge not to use an illuminant with many of these short rays. In the first place the body is not accustomed to them.
Ozone cuts them off. In nature we find that in the outer layer of the atmosphere oxygen is converted into ozone by the action of the ultra-violet light, thus effectively cutting off these shorter rays. It seems reasonable to think that nature has a reason for doing this. From clinical observation there seems to be a very definite risk of producing malignant changes in the skin by the use of these short rays. Yet we find manufacturers boosting their apparatus on account of its richness in these short rays”.
This is an exceedingly important point as many people misled by the title “physiotherapy” which radiologists give to their work, are under the impression that any sort of ultra-violet light treatment is sunlight and, therefore, nature cure.
Another modern craze (which it is to be regretted is supported in some so-called nature cure circles) is the use of short wireless waves which are beyond the infra-red end of the sun spectrum to create high fever in venereal and other diseases. The sufferer is “baked” for hours at a time and probably gets symptoms removed, but it is not nature cure treatment, and is in opposition to the nature cure philosophy of disease.
COLON IRRIGATION.
Colon irrigations are sometimes very effective in helping one on the way back to health. Sir Arbuthnot Lane, Harvey Kellogg and many other famous clinicians have proved that the cause of numbers of chronic diseases lay in the absorption into the blood stream of products of putrefaction from the lower intestine. The remedy for this state of affairs is, of course, a laxative and antitoxic diet to abolish constipation (three meals and one evacuation per day) and change the type of bacteria in the colon.
In a small minority of cases, however, the walls of the colon have become caked with hardened faeces and its lumen narrowed accordingly. Then the speediest way to demolish the accretions is by a course of irrigations, and the relief from their symptoms that many patients feel after the treatment is a sufficient justification for its trouble and expense. It must be borne in mind, however, that cleaning out the colon in this fashion is only a measure of expediency and not a practice to be persisted in. Much of the propaganda which flows from companies who sell the apparatuses is misleading and harmful.
The ordinary enema introduces water only a certain distance along the colon and is used, and rightly so, as a routine measure in all cases of fever so as to empty the intestine and prevent the possibility of any toxic matter from its contents being added to the existing toxaemia. The water introduced should always be at body temperature and the addition to it of some common salt will give additional stimulus to the peristaltic wave.
MANIPULATIVE SURGERY.
A further element of nature cure practice is manipulative surgery which proves of inestimable value in sprains, dislocations, fractures, joint malfunctions, maladjustments of spinal vertebrae, foot deformities, wry neck, certain forms of paralysis, and even deafness. Hitherto its practitioners have been found only in the ranks of bonesetters and osteopaths, and it is but recently that orthodox medicine has given the slightest recognition to the art.
Probably it would still be more or less unknown were it not for the fame of Sir Herbert Barker, the greatest manipulative surgeon of our times who treated successfully hundreds of cases deemed completely incurable by medical science. The medical autocracy, however, were neither delighted nor grateful, but treated Barker in such a scandalous fashion that national indignation was aroused and public attention focussed on the wonderful results of the manipulative technique.
Even to-day most of the manipulative work is carried out by unregistered practitioners. The majority of orthodox surgeons who enter this specialty practise what is known as “orthopaedics”, and whilst they do useful work at times are seriously handicapped by not being conversant with the true science of manipulation as taught by Barker and others. On the other hand the unregistered practitioners of manipulation are generally osteopaths, who profuse the theory that many diseases are due to spinal and other osseous lesions and lack of bony integrity. Accordingly they treat diseases as far apart as diabetes, pneumonia and colitis by manipulations to disperse the hypothetical causal lesions.
Despite the aberration about the all-importance of the “spinal lesion” osteopaths and chiropractors are usually the only persons competent to perform necessary manipulations on the spine, and on muscles, ligaments and joints. Even orthodox doctors have been known to slip into their consulting rooms for treatment, for the ignorance of the average medical man in this branch of healing is proverbial.
