Chapter Thirteen - Cranks and Fanatics Now we come to a very touchy subject. In the field of health care, there is a very bad tendency to call any form of health care we do not understand, quackery. Because of licensing laws, most Americans have been exposed to only one form of medicine. They have been taught that this form of healing is "scientifically proven" while other forms of healing are not. There are many orthodox physicians and laymen alike who consider herbology, naturopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, massage therapy and other "alternative" forms of therapy to be quackery. Even nutrition is commonly considered a "quack" form of therapy as noted by the late Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D. If you look at almost any other system of medicine besides the Western, you'll find a heavy reliance on food. The "food" of Modern Medicine, however, is the drug. The American doctor, aside from a very fragmentary and usually incorrect approach to certain "therapeutic diets" completely disregards nutrition. Those who are concerned with nutrition are labeled faddists, freaks, extremists, radicals, and quacks...1 A medical doctor I know has counseled me not to create opposition where opposition does not exist, so I want to acknowledge that there are many doctors who are aware of the importance of good nutrition. However, the greater percentage of doctors I have encountered tend to belittle and criticize people involved in nutrition, herbs or other alternative therapies. Usually, these doctors know little or nothing about the therapy they are criticizing. They just assume that their brand of medicine is superior.

This is true even in the Church where those who rely heavily on nutrition or alternative theories of health care are called fanatics, cranks, quacks and food faddists.2 Let me assure you, the general principles presented in this book are neither quackery nor faddism. They are common sense health rules which are in harmony with scripture and the teachings of the prophets. However, even if someone believes in a health care system we know to be erroneous or ineffective, we are not justified in applying emotionally explosive titles as quacks, cranks and kooks. Of course, the problem isn't just medical people criticizing "alternative" people. The problem goes in both directions. There are also those who get into "health food" and "alternative" healing fields who heap derision and ridicule on members of the orthodox medical profession and those who seek their help. They even criticize Church leaders who turn to doctors for help, citing this as a sign of apostasy. In either case, this type of name-calling is entirely inappropriate for the Saints of God. Christ taught us to be careful how we judge and indicated that calling our brother a "fool" put us in danger of God's judgment. The scriptures tell us, "to esteem our brother as ourself." They tell us to "judge not, that ye be not judged." (St. Matt. 7:1) They also tell us that we should not mock our brother. (D&C 38:25, 27 and Alma 5:30-31) We should refrain from judging the choices of others in these matters. How someone chooses to care for the health of his/her own body is a personal matter between them and God. That is why I have adopted a personal rule. I strive at all times to avoid judging the way others take care of their own bodies. How you chose to eat is none of my business. Likewise, how I chose to eat is none of your business. If I chose to refrain from pork, sugar, white flour or some other food which you enjoy, that is my affair. It does not affect you. I will not preach at you for eating it; I do not want you to preach at me for not eating it. Occasionally, I will indulge in a little junk-food "treat" myself. When I do, I want to enjoy it. I don't want someone to preach to me about diet and ruin my dinner. It is one thing to teach people correct principles about nutrition; it is quite another to dictate how they should eat.

Likewise, we need to avoid criticizing people's choices in health care. Although my family primarily relies on faith, nutrition, herbs and a few other home remedies, we are not above calling upon professional medical help when we feel the situation warrants it. Hence, we will not criticize someone who elects orthodox medical care. We do not appreciate the times we have had doctors or medically-oriented people criticize our health care choices, especially when we know more about the subject than they do. We do not criticize their knowledge of drugs and surgery because we do not have the knowledge and experience to qualify us as judges. It seems reasonable that they are not qualified to criticize alternative health care practices, having little knowledge and experience with them. Perhaps it will help if we examine the real definitions of some of faddism, quackery, etc. With a more accurate understanding we may be less inclined to engage in the sin of "evil speaking" against our brothers and sisters. Faddists A person who carefully and thoughtfully adopts certain health or diet practices is not a faddist. Faddists are people who adopt fads, who go with the latest fashions of the day. It is true that there are fads in the health food industry - i.e. the latest "wonder food" and the latest "miracle herb." However, orthodox medicine is not exempt from the problem of faddism either. Medicine is constantly promoting the latest breakthrough in surgery, the latest "wonder drug" and so forth. History shows that many of yesterdays "miracle cures" proved to be harmful or ineffective.3

The reason most of us are susceptible to faddism is that we keep trying to ignore the law of the harvest. The common man and the doctor tend to fall prey to the same erroneous idea that health can be obtained by swallowing some pill or finding some new "miracle cure." But, as we have seen in this book, health is obtained by obedience to law. "As a man soweth, so shall he reap." Health must be earned and jealously guarded by good habits and most of us are too lazy to work for it. Simple truths about health, however, are not new or fashionable. So, we all tend to fall prey to the latest promise of a quick fix, be it the newest drug, the latest food supplement and so forth. As Dr. Henry Bieler has so eloquently stated, "...a search for pure air, pure raw milk, pure water, natural, unprocessed, unpreserved foods, unsprayed vegetables, nourishing whole-grain bread is too simple, too unpretentious to be extolled as a 'new' therapy in treating disease."4 In contrast, one who learns more about nutrition and determines to adopt a healthier diet hardly deserves the label of "faddist." One might as well call someone a faddist who seeks to exercise, lose weight or apply any other good principle of health care wisdom. Fanatics Likewise, people who hold to principles different from our own are not fanatics. Fanatic is a much abused term. We tend to call anyone who holds an opinion more strongly than we do a fanatic. Unfortunately, people who refuse to eat white bread or refined sugar or who use home remedies instead of going to the doctors, have often been called fanatics, even in the Church.

This is both unkind and uncalled for. I suppose that Mormons appear fanatical to some people because they refuse to drink any alcohol at all. After all, a little bit of alcohol won't hurt anyone, will it? Isn't it being radical not to drink even a few sips now and then? We should be moderate in all things, right? Wrong! People commonly say that the Word of Wisdom preaches "moderation in all things." It does not. That phrase is a pseudo-scripture. There is nothing in the Word of Wisdom about being "moderate in all things." Should we be moderate in consuming alcohol, smoking "pot" or committing adultery? We are not supposed to be moderate - we are to "prove all things" and "hold fast [to] that which is good." (I Thess. 5:21) So, if we discover something is bad for us, we ought not to eat it or drink it, for the same reasons we abstain from alcohol. Just because someone believes that something is not good for the body and refuses to eat it doesn't mean that he/she is a fanatic. A vegetarian who refuses to eat meat is no more a fanatic than a Mormon who won't take a sip of alcohol or an orthodox Jew who won't eat swine's flesh. A better definition of a fanatic is someone who wants to cram his belief down everybody else's throat. A person who has quietly made decisions about his dietary preference, no matter how different that preference may be from ours should not be called a fanatic.

I remember when I was trying to improve my health I gave up eating refined sugar. Before that time I had never understood how hard it must be for a non-member to give up alcohol, tobacco, coffee or tea. It isn't the physical addiction that's hard; it's the social addiction. Many of my good Mormon friends said precisely the type of things that other people probably say to someone trying to give up drinking alcohol or coffee. "Oh, come on," some people would say, "Just a little bit won't hurt you. You don't want to be a fanatic do you? The Word of Wisdom says moderation in all things, so a little bit won't hurt you." Until I experienced this I never understood the meaning of social addiction. Early in my experience of changing my diet I learned that even though I wasn't trying to make anyone else eat or live like I was, I was getting labeled a fanatic. The very people who labeled me as such, were those who wanted to force their way of life on me. That is an odd paradox. Who is the real fanatic? I readily admit that there are those who lose their sense of balance and place the Word of Wisdom ahead of more important things in the gospel. In my experience, these are a small minority of those who become interested in health. Most of the Church members I've found who are striving to live the positive aspects of the Word of Wisdom, put their lives in harmony with the rest of the gospel principles. They are active, faithful Latter-day Saints. Hence, they are not fanatics.

Quacks This brings us to the highly abusive term "quack." This is frequently applied to people who use herbs, nutrition, and help other people learn how to use them, in spite of the numerous scriptural references which support their use. I have also met those who insist on calling all medical doctors quacks. Basically, we tend to apply the term quackery to any treatment method which we feel is ineffective. Quack is an emotionally explosive term which few people really understand. The word "quack" appears to be derived from the term "quack salver" which was derived from the idea of using "quick silver" or mercury to "salve" or cure disease. Hence, the term originally referred to those who abandoned herbal practice in favor of mineral drugs like mercury, arsenic and antimony. However, in modern use the term is used to refer to anyone who uses "unproven" remedies. Since the majority of scientists and doctors involved in modern medicine consider herbs, mild food, faith healing and the like to be unproven, these methods have been labeled quackery. But this is not a good usage of the term. More accurately, a quack is an ignorant pretender. Quackery is a form of deception. A quack is someone who pretends to have knowledge he does not have. Thus, to call someone a quack is to call him/her an immoral liar. So, before we bring such a serious charge against a person, we had better make certain that we have our facts straight. Those who honestly represents their credentials, knowledge and training are not quacks simply because they are using methods we disagree with. They are not guilty of any crime if they represent themselves honestly.

In contrast, if we believe that anything which is unproven is quackery, we create serious problems for ourselves. First of all, relying on God for healing is a scientifically "unproven" method. For example, the FDA and many "anti-quackery crusaders" consider faith healing a "quack" cure. Is a priesthood holder practicing quackery if he relies on the "unproven" method of healing a person through a priesthood blessing? A study done by the Office of Technology of the United States suggests that only 15-20% of the current practices of orthodox medicine have been proven by modern "scientific" standards. That makes 85-90% of modern medicine quackery by their own standards.5 Remember that the scriptures teach we will be judged by the same measure we use to judge others. If we call other people quacks, can the same standard condemn us? As saints, however, we do not have to wait for scientific proof because we have the word of the Lord. We did not need to wait for scientific evidence to recognize the harm of tea, coffee, alcohol and tobacco. Why should we wait for scientific proof to adopt a diet of natural, unprocessed, unpolluted, unadulterated fruits, vegetables and whole grains? Can we not trust that what God created is wholesome, when He declares that it is? Does He have to prove that herbs and mild foods work before we will obey His commandment to nourish the sick with them?

Many of the LDS and non-LDS people who are involved in nutrition and herbs exhausted the resources of orthodox medicine in trying to solve our health problems. Many bear strong testimony that they were lead to use herbs, mild food, fasting and other simple means as an answer to their prayers. Many use these things because they have studied the scriptures and are convinced these are God's methods of healing. Others feel they have been blessed by the advances in modern medical technology. Should we call anyone a quack who is acting out of personal or religious convictions? I think not, unless we wish to be judged of God by the same harsh yardstick. Church Members Lead the Way It is interesting to note that members of the Church have been one of the driving forces behind the resurgence in the use of herbs and dietary therapy in the United States. Many of the foremost leaders of the natural health movement have been Latter-day Saints, who gained much of the inspiration for their work from the above passages. These include John R. Christopher, Paavo Airola, La Dean Griffin, C. Samuel West, Stan Malstrom and many others. Utah hosts the largest encapsulated herb companies in the world, which were founded and are directed by active Church members. Clearly, LDS people are more than just sheep following a current trend; they are at the forefront of this trend. If we consider all this to be quackery, then it is clear that it has been LDS people who have lead the way in establishing quackery in this country. Or, are these leaders just as inspired in their work as many of our LDS doctors and scientists have been?

It is often asserted that those involved in alternative medicine are in it solely for profit and gain. After traveling the country and visiting several foreign countries, I can decidedly say that the majority of the herbalists, nutritionists and alternative healers I have encountered were far more interested in helping people than they were in financial gain. I am not referring to people who sell "cure-all" and "miracle" products through multi-level marketing programs. These people frequently know little or nothing about the products they sell. Rather, I am speaking of the genuine natural therapist who has studied his method of therapy extensively through reading, course work, apprenticeship and/or practical experience. Most of these people make only a modest, average living. They do what they do because they were helped and want to help others. Even those who do make an above average living should not be condemned for their success. After all, medical doctors make money, too, but that doesn't mean that greed is their primary motive for being doctors. Proof What is considered proven varies from culture to culture and from person to person. An excellent book to read which demonstrates this problem very clearly is Medicine and Culture by Lynn Payer. This book, written by a medical journalist, compares the practice of medicine in France, Germany, England and the United States. It shows that what is considered scientific in one culture may be rejected in another culture. What is interesting is that although the practice of medicine differs widely in these four countries, they all have similar health statistics. As the gospel spreads into Asia are we going to call our Chinese and Indian brethren quacks and cranks because they rely heavily on acupuncture, herbs, massage and diet for healing?

History shows us that we should not be too quick to condemn those whose views on health and disease are "unorthodox." Every major discovery of modern medicine has come with great opposition. When Admiral Lind published "A Treatise on Scurvy" claiming that lime juice would prevent scurvy in the British navy, he was scoffed at. After all, the men had enough to eat. If they couldn't take it without getting sick they were obvious malingerers who needed a good flogging - and received it. Faced with this strong opposition by orthodox medicine he bitterly noted, "there are certain persons who just will not let themselves be convinced that a terrible disease can be cured easily, yes, that it can even be prevented. I'm afraid they would have more confidence in some mixture that bore a highfalutin title, such as Antiscorbutic Golden Elixir." It took 42 years before Dr. Lind received credit for his discovery. When Semmelweis announced that the infant and maternal mortality rate could be drastically reduced by doctors washing their hands between autopsies and deliveries he was immediately derided as a "quack." After all, everyone knew that childbed fever was the curse of Eve, a divine judgment, and therefore could not be prevented. Semmelweis was driven insane by the deridings of his fellow physicians and died because of the severe stress. It wasn't until years after he died that bacteria were discovered and Semmelweis was vindicated.

The history of medicine is filled with examples like these. Today, there are those who claim to be having great success in treating "incurable" diseases with simple herbal and dietary therapies. Though some of these people are faking, others are sincere. Can this possibly be true? Why should we doubt it? Do not our own scriptures testify that God has prepared herbs and roots to remove the cause of the diseases to which we are subject. Do not they tell us that we should nourish the sick with herbs and mild foods? At the least we should learn from history to give these things the benefit of the doubt. We should not follow the way of the world in ridiculing and persecuting those who do not believe as we do. There is no need for a "war" between church members on the subject of health care. We have far more to gain by opening meaningful dialogue. Again we quote Dr. Mahler of the World Health Organization. For far too long, traditional systems of medicine and "modern" medicine have gone their separate ways in mutual antipathy. Yet are not their goals identical - to improve the health of mankind and thereby the quality of life? Only the blinkered mind would assume that each has nothing to learn from the other."6 Legal Considerations Even more importantly, we must not pass or support laws which make it illegal for people with differing opinions about health care to practice according to the dictates of their consciences. Most of us assume that medical licensing laws were put into effect to protect the public. However, they were lobbied for by the medical profession to eliminate competition. We have noted that there are many other schools of thought in health care, including: naturopathy, homeopathy, herbology, massage therapy and acupuncture. Unfortunately, it is illegal to practice most of these healing arts under current medical licensing laws.

The American Medical Association tends to claim that all alternative forms of treatment are quackery, even those that are accepted practice in other countries. In fact, the AMA was convicted in federal court of illegal conspiracy against the profession of chiropractics. It was proven that they have worked to deliberately discredit chiropractors so they could put them out of business. Medicine is big business and unfortunately, in this world, money often rules. Those who have control and power seldom want to let it go. That is why medical doctors are not likely to hear many positive things about alternative healing arts. After all, they are competing forms of therapy. The biggest problem with all medical licensing laws, however, is that they deny the gifts of the Spirit. We have seen that the gift of healing is more than the ability to lay hands on the sick and bless them. We have shown that it is also the ability to know by the spirit of revelation what sort of medicine or treatment a person might require. This cannot be done under medical licensing laws and here is why. Doctors are required to follow standardized procedures or they run the risk of losing their licenses. Hence, many doctors who have ventured into using herbs and nutritional remedies have been accused of unprofessional conduct and have lost their licenses to practice. If a doctor began to dispense remedies according to the spirit of revelation and prophesy he might be prompted by the spirit to use some non-standard procedure. This could result in malpractice suits and criminal prosecution.

On the other hand, if a lay person, who has the spirit of revelation and prophesy, begins to dispense remedies, herbs, diets, exercises, or other treatments he can be charged with practicing medicine without a license. This is a felony charge and could land him in jail. I once saw a cartoon illustrating this problem. It depicted the prophet Isaiah telling King Hezekiah to put a lump of figs on his boil and he would recover. It then showed Isaiah being arrested for practicing medicine without a license, in spite of the fact that the remedy worked. This may sound far-fetched, but if Isaiah lived today, that is exactly what could happen. In many states, Christ himself could be arrested for practicing medicine without a license if He were among us today. Many healers in this country have been arrested and prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license, in spite of the fact that none of their clients or patients were dissatisfied with their treatments. Some of these have been religious practitioners. We may disagree with the teachings of a Christian Scientist or a Seventh-Day Adventist who seeks to heal himself or his children by following religious convictions. However, if we support laws which prosecute and punish these people, then our own rights to follow the dictates of our own consciences are endangered. How would you like to have the law force you to accept treatments for cancer from an herbalist if you thought surgery was your only hope?

Free Agency Is Vital People who support these laws say we must "protect" the public. They say that if we allow people to practice "unproven" healing arts then people may delay getting "proper" treatment. They say that people may be hurt and injured. On the surface, these arguments seem very convincing. However, they remind me of the war in heaven. Perhaps we should recall that it was Satan's plan, not God's, which called for "protecting" people from being able to make wrong choices. God said that we must be given the chance to commit sin and then be punished for it. Under God's plan, punishment can only be just if a person has actually committed a trespass. God was not willing to restrain us because we "might" commit trespass if He did not restrain us. Hence, we are justified in punishing someone who has actually committed a trespass, but we are not justified in punishing someone because we believe that he might commit a trespass if we let him do what he wants to do. So, if a person lies to someone about the risks and/or benefits of a treatment they should be liable for the damages. If a practitioner injures a person through carelessness, neglect or fraud, then he should be punished. However, a practitioner should not be restrained from helping someone because we believe his methods are dangerous or ineffective. A person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Hence, unless we have proven that a practitioner's methods are dangerous or ineffective we have no right to restrain him/her.

Where then is the room in our current health care system for inspiration from the Lord? We are hung up on scientific "proof" and have more faith in our scientists than we do in inspiration from the Lord. While it is true that there will always be those who are charlatans and fakes, this does not mean that we should outlaw every practice we don't feel conforms to good scientific practice. Should be convict all men who claim to be prophets because most of them are false prophets? Herbs, for example, have fallen out of popular use. Yet, there exists a wealth of historical, clinical and biochemical evidence that they work. I have met many skilled herbalists who I feel have that intuitive gift that Brigham Young referred to, that natural gift of healing. These people, however, cannot practice openly because of the laws. Reputable herb companies are unable to publish reliable information because of the current laws. Hence, the current laws leave those who want to learn how to use herbs and mild foods properly to muddle through for themselves. The solution, is not stricter laws on herbs; it is a relaxing of restrictions that would permit qualified and experienced herbalists to openly teach their correct use.7 We must not continue to deny the gift of healing by supporting laws which would prosecute those who exercise this gift.

Cooperation Please don't misunderstand. These things are not designed to put down or replace all of the services of our skilled doctors and surgeons. Even those of us who rely primarily on herbs and mild foods for our health care rely on orthodox physicians for certain problems. We can be grateful for many of the wonderful things they can do, particularly with surgery and the treatment of trauma victims, such as those who have been in automobile accidents. Yet, can there not also be room for those who have skill, training and experience in the use of herbs and mild foods to offer our counsel to our fellow Saints? Even in cases of serious illness, isn't it possible that these practices could enhance recovery?8 I propose that those involved in orthodox medicine and those involved in alternative remedies within the Church should get together as brethren and discuss their differences of opinion, honestly and openly - as equals. Instead of deriding each other, let's work together and discover the mix that the World Health Organization is seeking. We have much to gain. It is true that more research needs to be done on herbs and mild foods. So, why don't we as Latter-Day Saints do the research? Let's use the laboratories and facilities available to us and test the various nutritional and herbal cures for disease. If we could verify the therapeutic value of whole herbs and learn how to use herbs and mild foods in a more studied manner we could do much in helping the third world nations obtain medical care. China has already been very successful in getting medical care to all their people by blending traditional and modern medicine. Their "barefoot doctors" know how to use local herbs, teach sound hygiene, and are able to perform simple surgery and other modern medical techniques. We have much to lose if we continue in our current course of opposition. Let's remember the words of the apostle Paul. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak eateth herbs.

Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him who eateth: for God hath received him... ...He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks... ...For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's..." ...Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, and there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably, Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink [or herbs vs. drugs, or alternative vs. natural health care]; but righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." (Rom. 14:1-3,6,8,15,17) Even if we cannot come to agreement, let us all, both orthodox and alternative, practitioner and layman, be charitable in our judgments and give our brethren in the gospel the benefit of the doubt. As Christ's disciples, we cannot afford to do anything less.

Chapter Thirteen Footnotes 1 Mehndohlson, Confessions of a Medical Heretic, page 77 2 I have refrained from citing examples, but it does happen, even in Church publications. 3 "Far too many of these new 'miracle' drugs are introduced with fanfare and then revealed as lethal in character, to be silently discarded for newer and more powerful drugs, which allegedly cure all the ills to which the flesh is heir." Bieler, Food Is Your Best Medicine, Introduction XIII 4 Bieler, Food Is Your Best Medicine, p. 12 5 "It has been estimated that only 10 to 20 percent of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial", From "...Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Medical Technologies", Office of Technology Assessment Publication #PB286-920, p. 7, Sept. 1978. This was just one of the citations in Proving Orthodox Medicine is Unproven, Researched and Edited by Catherine J. Frompvich, Ph.D., and Laraine C. Abbey, R.N., M.S., published by CANAH., Richlandtown, PA. 6 Mahler, Aesculapius. 7 Current Medical Practices Acts conflict with our right of free speech because they prohibit those with knowledge of alternative medical practices from advising others. This is diagnosing and prescribing and is a felony. Many well trained herbalists, naturopath, massage therapists, etc. have been convicted as criminals for trying to help others with the knowledge they have obtained. 8 Dr. Anthony J. Sattilaro, M.D. points this out beautifully in Living Well Naturally (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1984)

|| Walton's Home Page || Walton Self Reliance Home || Health Is A Blessing Home