CHAPTER XI
IMMUNITY
Defined
Immunity is defined as the ability of Innate Intelligence to maintain metabolic equilibrium in the body in the environments in which man finds himself; or that power of Innate Intelligence to rid the living body of poisons and invading organisms; or that resistance which is accomplished through the expression of mental impulses in the tissue cells whereby all invading microörganisms or toxins are expelled from the body, thereby enabling the normal expression of life in the body. The degree of immunity may be represented by the degree of intellectual adaptation possible in the body, and this in turn depends upon the freedom in the transmission of mental impulses through the spinal nerves. Immunity may be considered as the degree of protection which Innate is able to give the body and varies from a slight adaptation to the utmost adaptation or protection from all invading agencies.
Immunity is one of the most interesting and yet the most illusive and complicated subjects which we will have to consider from the standpoint of chiropractic philosophy, for in order to understand immunity we must understand the adaptative processes carried on within the body. From time immemorial man has made an effort to immunize himself from the ravages of dis-ease. In former times he tried to accomplish this through the use of charms which led to many superstitious practices, some remnants of which have survived to the present day. In recent years large sums of money have been expended in scientific research in an effort to discover the secret which would make the human race immune from dis-ease, but to no avail. It is a recognized fact that great good has been accomplished in improving conditions and creating an environment in which there might be a more perfect expression of life with less necessity for an excessive expenditure of adaptative energy. But man himself has not been made immune by these methods. The procedure has been wrong for the cause of dis-ease is not in man’s environment, but within man himself. Chiropractic will accomplish the most desired end by restoring to normal the transmission of mental impulses to all parts of the body so there may be a complete adaptation to all environmental conditions that may arise. The body will then be protected from the supposedly deadly microörganisms that are accused of being responsible for human ills.
If the public could read what the hygienists have to say on the subject of immunology and could read it in the light of chiropractic philosophy they would realize that chiropractic adjustments will not only restore health to the sick, but will prevent the well from getting sick.
In order that the student may understand the subject more fully we will now consider briefly in a general way some of the former theories of immunity and then take up a careful study of the chiropractic philosophy of immunity.
On page 528 of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, by Rosenau, we read: “We are still ignorant of the mechanism by which the body protects itself against many dis-eased states.” He also gives us the idea that the mechanism of immunity varies not only in different infections, but in the same infection when under different and varying conditions.
Natural Immunity
Immunity is classed as natural, acquired and artificial. Natural immunity is that natural resistance of Innate Intelligence through the activity in the normal body whereby all invading organisms and poisons, as well as all the products of katabolism are excreted before they have an opportunity to act upon the tissues or otherwise interfere with the vital processes in the body.
Acquired Immunity
Acquired immunity is the result of the adaptative processes of Innate Intelligence during the time the so-called dis-ease is active in the body which results in the recovery of the patient. To illustrate: During the attack of measles there is an adaptative process carried on which results in the recovery of the patient. During the process of this adaptation Innate produces changes in the body which makes possible the excretion of this kind of poison when introduced into the body in the future. It is a recognized fact, however, that having a dis-ease will not always prevent the recurrence of the dis-ease. In other words, to put it in the terminology familiar to all, having a dis-ease will not always produce immunity.
Artificial Immunity
Artificial immunity is classified as active and passive. George M. Price, M.D., in his Hygiene and Public Health, says: “Active immunity is produced by the following conditions: (1) Recovery from dis-ease. (2) Inoculation with virulent living bacteria. (3) Vaccination with attenuated bacteria; (4) with dead bacteria; (5) with bacterial extracts. Passive immunity is conferred by antitoxins and serums.”
The idea here presented is that the immunity is active if it is the result of a necessity for internal intellectual adaptation on the part of Innate Intelligence, and when this adaptation takes place there will be immunity from further attacks. That the passive immunity is produced by the introduction of antitoxins or serums taken from the bodies of animals in whose bodies these adaptative processes have taken place.
There is no possible way of producing immunity except by creating a condition in the body which will enable Innate Intelligence to transmit the mental impulses to the tissues in such quantity and quality that there may be perfect adaptation carried on regardless of the character of the poison or microörganism that may be introduced into or manufactured within the body.
Exhaustion Theory
In 1888 Pasteur advanced the exhaustion theory wherein he maintained that the body which had no food for the germ to feed upon would be immune; in other words, when the food supply was used up the germ could no longer develop and grow. An illustration of this is the yeast which will cease to grow when the sugar in the culture media is exhausted. This theory was rejected but has since been revived and is now considered to have some merit. This theory comes very nearly agreeing with the chiropractic idea, which will be discussed later.
Retention Theory
Another theory is that of Chaveau, which is known as the retention theory. This is just the opposite of the exhaustion theory and maintains that the products of metabolism within the microörganisms, the excreta of the germs, form a toxin or a substance which is retained in the body of the host and protects it against the growth and development of the germs, in this way producing immunity.
That which can not be used in the metabolism of an organism will naturally be excreted, for if it is allowed to remain in the body it will impair the tissues. The excreta of the germ then can not be used in its own metabolism and is therefore a poison to the germ as well as to the host. This waste accumulates until the germ eventually is destroyed by the poison of its own excreta. This is given as an explanation of self-limited dis-eases. It is further explained by this theory that this poisonous excreta of the germ is retained in the secretions of the body of the host and acts as a protection against further invasion, for when other germs of the same character enter the body they come in contact with this poison and are destroyed. In this way immunity is supposed to be maintained. But this is not logical, since the excreta of these germs can not be used in the metabolic processes of the human body. It is a poison and will be dealt with by Innate as such. Innate does one of two things when poison enters the body or when it is manufactured within the body. One is to eliminate it through the normal channels of excretion; the other is to produce an antidote in the form of an internal secretion to neutralize the poison. In either event the excreta of the germ would lose its potency as a germicide and could therefore have nothing to do with the production of immunity.
Various Theories
Again, it is claimed that the phagocytes perform a very important function in protecting the body against invading microörganisms by attacking, destroying and digesting them. Another theory is that the antibodies of various kinds play an important part in keeping the body free from undesirable invaders. It is also asserted that immunity is produced in a negative way by the absence of a specific affinity between the tissue cells and the toxin.
Immunity may be the result, according to other theories, of a positive factor due to the presence of antibodies which neutralize the toxins. In some cases immunity is associated directly with cell activity while in others it is resident in the blood and fluids of the body. Rosenau further says, “The unsatisfactory state of our knowledge in certain fields of immunity is well illustrated in the case of anthrax. The mechanism of protection is not at all understood in this infection, which was the first and classic illustration of a germ dis-ease. The mechanism of immunity in common colds is also complex and obscure.”
Many other authors could be quoted to show that the real philosophy of immunity is not understood nor why a germ will seem to cause dis-ease in one individual and not in another. But this is sufficient to indicate the unsatisfactory results that have been obtained in research work along this line.
Adaptability of the Body
It is a known fact that there is a wide range of adaptability and a vast difference in the vital resistance of different individuals, and even in the same individual at different times. There must be some reason for this difference.
It is also a known fact that an individual may be apparently well one day and sick the next, although there may be no change in the subluxations existing in the spine of the individual. Environmental conditions are constantly arising which necessitate adaptative action on the part of Innate Intelligence. This action must be in addition to the normal action taking place under the normal and usual environments. In order to accomplish this increased functional activity the current must be increased to accomplish this, the carrying capacity of the nerve must be greater than the current necessary to maintain the ordinary metabolic process in the body.
Under the stress of environmental necessity it is possible for Innate Intelligence to increase the functional current of mental impulses up to the full carrying capacity of the nerve, and to augment the functional activity at the periphery to the full capability of the physical structure to express that current of mental impulses. Were it not for this possibility of increased functional activity there could be no adaptative processes in the body. In order that there may be an increase in the functional activity there must be an increase in the functional current of mental impulses. This necessitates that the current transmitted under normal conditions be less than the carrying capacity of the nerve.
Psychologists tell us there is a certain amount of reserve energy stored up in the body. Chiropractic maintains that it is not a matter of energy being stored up, but that this reserve energy is a question of increasing the functional current so as to increase the process of adaptation in the tissues. The degree of adaptation is represented by the difference in the current transmitted through a nerve under normal conditions, and that transmitted when the full carrying capacity of the nerve is taxed. In other words, the reserve energy is the difference between the current that is being transmitted and that which it is possible to have transmitted.
As the adaptative action is increased in response to the necessity there will be, in adverse ratio, a decrease in the reserve carrying capacity of the nerve. In other words, as the current is decreased the reserve carrying capacity of the nerve is increased. The degree, therefore, of vital resistance is represented by the reserve carrying capacity of the nerve and as this is decreased there will be a like decrease in the vital resistance of the body.
Some individuals are immune from certain so-called contagious dis-eases and we are told that this is because the vital resistance is greater in them than it is in others. This statement is true, but there should be some reason for this difference in resistance and Chiropractic gives us that reason. The possibility for adaptative action in the body is decreased by subluxations in the spine and its degree depends upon the combination of subluxations, the functions involved and the organs in which the functions are expressed abnormally.
The question, however, arises that if there are subluxations in the spine, why are there no incoördinations but merely the possibility of decreased adaptation. To this question there is a specific answer. It is contained in the principles involved in and underlying the philosophy of Chiropractic, therefore it is not possible here to go into details. It can be considered from a general viewpoint only.
There may be a combination of subluxations existing in the spine and yet not enough pressure to prevent Innate Intelligence getting a current through great enough to meet all the ordinary demands of the average environment. But when subluxations do exist and a condition arises necessitating increased functional activity, Innate, because of the decreased carrying capacity, is unable to increase the current of the periphery. Hence adaptation can not take place and there is incoördination which would not have obtained if the carrying capacity of the nerves had not been decreased by the subluxation. It must be remembered that even in the normal condition when there are no subluxations, health is a question of intellectual adaptation; that dis-ease is a question of the lack of intellectual adaptation. As the possibilities of intellectual adaptation are decreased, the possibilities of incoördination are increased.
An individual will be immune so long as the carrying capacity of the nerves remain normal or so long as the carrying capacity is not decreased. Germs ingested or taken into the body will be excreted as so much waste material and will not be permitted to remain in the body. This is not only true of germs and microörganisms, but of all poisons. The carrying capacity of the nerves is limited, but in the normal condition is 100%. If the poison introduced is stronger than the internal resistance then the meeting of the two forces will produce a concussion, and if this concussion is greater than the normal resistance of the spine a subluxation will be produced. In this way an individual may be immune from one poison and not another, or from one particular germ and not another, or he may be immune at one time and not at another time. For the philosophy of subluxations being produced by poison, the student is referred to Chiropractic Library, Vol. V, Palmer, under the heading of poisons.
The particular mechanism of immunity is not so vital so long as we understand that it is produced by the operation of Innate Intelligence, and know what is necessary to enable Innate to produce this condition.
Under the exhaustion theory of Pasteur it was maintained that when food upon which germs fed was exhausted they could no longer develop and the body in which there was no food for the germs would be immune from the germ dis-eases. Chiropractic maintains that the germ is a scavenger and feeds upon dead tissue, never upon live tissue; that there must be a proper culture media for the development of the germs and this can obtain only in tissue that is below the normal condition. Therefore, if the tissues are maintained in a state of normality by the normal transmission and expression of mental impulses, there will be no food for the germs and they will be excreted. On the other hand, if the tissues are below normal in their resistive powers, due to the interference with the transmission of mental impulses, the germs finding food and a culture media conducive to their development will remain and multiply and their excreta will act as a poison and necessitate a further process of adaptation, the character of the symptoms depending entirely upon the character of the poison produced.
It is not necessary to kill the germ that the patient may recover. All that is necessary is to adjust the subluxation or subluxations that are causing the interference with the transmission so the tissues may become normal and the germs will starve to death and be excreted as dead material.
Dis-ease the Cause of Germs
Dr. Alexander M. Ross, Fellow of the Royal Society of England, said in speaking of germs, “They are the result, not the cause, of dis-ease. They are scavengers; their legitimate work is to clean out the sewers of our bodies.”
John B. Fraser, M.D., CM., writes, “The reasons for questioning the germ theory are mainly three, viz.:
“1st. The divergent views of bacteriologists as to which germ caused the dis-ease.
“2nd. The stronger claim of the bio-chemic theory.
“3rd. The absence of germs at the onset of dis-ease (as the following sample cases show).
“(a) A man crossing a river broke through the ice, was rescued, later became ill, and the doctor, fearing pneumonia, tested for pneumo-cocci—there were none present; when the pneumonia developed they appeared.
“(b) After an oyster supper some men had cramps and diarrhœa, followed by typhoid fever—no Eberth bacilli were present in the first stools, but were present later.
“(c) Hurrying, a girl arrived at her shop sweating; as the shop was cold, she became very chilly; next day complained of a sore throat, but no Klebs-Loffler bacilli were found; later, when a diphtheretic patch appeared, the bacilli were present.
“Here in each case the bacilli followed the onset of the dis-ease.
“Believing that the above germs were the result and not the cause of the dis-eases, tests of the germs of diphtheria, typhoid and pneumonia were made.
“The first test was whether the Klebs-Loffler bacilli would cause diphtheria, and about 50,000 were swallowed without any result. Later 100,000, 500,000 and a million and more were swallowed, and in no case did they cause any ill-effect.
“The series of tests was to decide whether the Eberth bacillus would cause typhoid, but each test was negative; even when millions were swallowed. The third series of tests showed that one could swallow a million (and over) pneumo-cocci without causing pneumonia, or any disturbance.
“The investigations covered about two years and forty-five (45) different tests were made, giving an average of fifteen tests each. I personally tested each germ (culture) before allowing the others to do so; and six persons (3 male, 3 female) knowingly took part in the tests and in no case did any symptoms of the dis-ease follow.
“The germs were swallowed in each case, and were given in milk, water, bread, cheese, meat, head-cheese, fish, and apples—also tested on the tongue.
“Most of the cultures were grown by myself—some from stock tubes furnished by Parke, Davis & Co., and one tube furnished by the Toronto Board of Health through one of their bacteriologists.
“As the tests were carefully made, they prove that there is not the danger from germs that bacteriologists claim; they also may stimulate other Canadians to undertake further experimental work, for the actual test on man decides the truth of the theory.”
Germs Do Not Cause Dis-ease
Germs do not cause dis-ease, but they may be considered as any other foreign substance taken into the body, which can not be used in its metabolism. Any foreign substance which can not be used in the processes of metabolism will injure the tissues if allowed to remain in the body. If germs are taken into the body and if there are subluxations which prevent Innate from producing normal function in excreting these germs, and if there is waste material due to impaired metabolism, these germs will find a culture medium conducive to their development; then in their natural processes of development and metabolic processes, secretion and excretion, toxins will be formed which will result in certain symptoms from such poisons, all due to the fact that there are subluxations producing pressure upon nerves interfering with the transmission of mental impulses.
Immunity, then, is a question of keeping the body in such a physical condition that there will be no abnormal tissue upon which the germs may feed. But this would imply that in order to have dis-ease there must first be abnormal tissue AND the germs. This, however, is not the case for there may be dis-ease without the presence of the germ, even in the so-called germ dis-eases. Dis-ease is not a question of germs being present, but it is the decreased current of mental impulses to the tissue cells.
The best way to produce immunity is to have the subluxations adjusted so there may be a normal transmission of impulses to all parts of the body so that intellectual adaptation may be at par. Immunity from any and all dis-eases may be produced by the restoration of transmission. This does not mean that after momentum has been gained dis-ease will be at once overcome and the process of restoration will be accomplished without a sufficient amount of time to enable Innate Intelligence to bring about the necessary processes of restoration. But we do mean to say that if all subluxations were adjusted the individual would be immune from all incoördinations. Still subluxations could be produced by trauma and also by the introduction of poisons into the body. In order to maintain constant immunity the individual should periodically visit his chiropractor for an analysis. By so doing subluxations that have been produced may be detected and adjusted.