From all over the world we receive evidence that the normal western meat-centred diet is causing disease and that vegetarians on average enjoy much better health than meat eaters. However, not much research has been made to investigate vegetarian diets or natural healing in the treatment of disease. In some research on vegetarian diet therapy or fasting combined with vegetarian diet in the treatment of disease it has been found that a vegetarian diet does not help and fasting only gives temporary relief. The conclusion has been that this therapy has no value. These types of investigations have been made by medical doctors who do not understand natural healing principles and have no or insufficient studies of diet therapy. A vegetarian diet can be balanced and healthy but if it is unbalanced may be no better than a mixed diet. This research is therefore fraudulent as natural healing and natural diet therapy research can only be made by people who have the understanding, knowledge and qualifications.
In Sweden there has been a strong health movement ever since the thirties and forties when Are Waerland travelled around the country lecturing on health. He claimed that a diet of meat, salt, pasteurised milk, refined sugar and grains produces disease. He also said that smoking, drinking alcohol, coffee and tea is harmful. He advocated that we should eat a vegetarian diet based on raw fruit and vegetables. While the governmental authorities and most medical professionals ignored him some lay people and a few medical doctors listened. Today Are Waerland has been proven right on point after point. It has been accepted for a few decades that refined foods are harmful and it is now becoming more commonly accepted that meat, eggs and processed dairy products are harmful for health. Government subsidies are now being cut down on dairy products and meat.
Some of the medical practitioners who heeded Are Waerland's teachings decided to scientifically investigate the effects of natural therapy and natural diet according to the philosophy of self-taught naturopath Lilly Johansson. They managed after a lot of trouble to obtain funding for this research.
The 64 people chosen for the project suffered from bronchial asthma, high blood pressure, prostatitis or urinary tract infection. They had been on sickness benefit on average eleven years. They were treated with natural therapy, a natural diet being the main modality. The diet was free from meat, eggs and dairy products, low in starch, protein and fat with individual differences. The diet consisted mainly of raw fruit and vegetables. The results were, after one year:
This was according to the patients' own judgement. There were plenty of lab tests that showed statistically significant improvements. Proteins in the blood (albumin, haptoglobin, IgG, IgM, IgE, ALAT, ASAT), urea, SR, cholesterol, triglycerides and leucocytes all showed changes that were interpreted as being positive. Bilirubin was halved in one year. The fitness tests showed improved results, weight was reduced as well as pulse and blood pressure.
There were also improvements of the following conditions: allergy, diabetes, intestinal disease, acne, constipation, headache, migraine, infections, colds, menstrual pain, fatigue and varicose ulcers.
In the high blood pressure group 26 patients had 96 symptoms altogether. After one year only six remained and they were all less pronounced.
The patients cut down greatly on their medication, 56% stopped totally. These medications were, according to medical doctors and medical science, necessary, if they were not taken the patients were told they supposedly would get a lot worse or possibly die.
This research, which is unique in its kind, is a calamity to medical philosophy and nothing short of embarrassing to the medical profession. These patients who had been on sickness benefit on average eleven years and had been under the medical care system for longer than that, suddenly became better under the care and methods of an amateur! Methods that were supposed to be useless were proven by medical doctors and professors to be totally superior to those of conventional medicine.
The research team hoped to receive more money to research other diseases but no further funds became available, although this research was estimated to have saved at least SEK 3,200,000 (5 SEK approx. A$1) in three years for the Swedish government in less hospitalisation and medical care costs. From 1976 to 1982 the health centre of Lilly Johansson had 5,500 patients. Basing facts on the research results we could assume that the government was saving SEK 365,000,000 from those 5,500 patients at the health centre up to the end of 1983. This is not including any other economical advantages than medical care. The figure however is not realistic as all the patients visiting the health centre are not as sick as the patients in the research group. However, only a fifth of that figure would make SEK 73,000,000 which is not a small sum. The original grant of SEK 350,000 comparatively seems like a drop in the ocean.
Many people have regained their health after visiting the health centre of Lilly Johansson, people who were often doomed to a life of disease and with constant medication. Lilly Johansson who herself regained health from an "incurable" heart condition and various other complaints, has treated sick people since the fifties. She has found that it is often quite easy, once you know how, to make people regain their health even if they have been treated for many years without success by medical practitioners.
Lilly Johansson thinks it is irresponsible to withhold health from diseased people with the present health care system where medical care is subsidised and people who want natural therapy have to pay all or most cost by themselves.
You would think that governmental authorities would have an interest in promoting natural healing methods according to the philosophy of Lilly Johansson considering the health and economical benefits and that the medical profession would be interest in learning about natural healing when it may cure those conditions that they themselves term "incurable". Unfortunately the rigidity and lack of open-mindedness of the governmental authorities and the medical system is costing people not only their health and happiness but also their lives.
It is understandable that no one can help someone with their health problems when they lack the knowledge but it is harder to understand why they do not want to know. This type of research is rare. An abundance of investigations has already clearly shown that disease and the most common causes of death: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. are largely caused by what we eat and how we live. Both these types of investigations deserve a lot more attention. For how long will the medical profession keep on ignoring their own research? How long will it take before they will adopt into their practice the teaching of diet and lifestyle?
It is unfortunate for those who suffer that the truth is travelling so slowly.
"We have not to deal with diseases but with wrong living habits. Take away the wrong living habits and the diseases will disappear by themselves." Are Waerland
"I know of nothing so potent in producing ill-health as improperly constituted food." Sir Robert McCarrison MD.
"Unless the doctors of today become the dieticians of tomorrow, the dieticians of today will become the doctors of tomorrow." Alexis Carrel, Nobel prize winner (1935)
"The doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patients in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease." - Thomas Alva Edison
Footnote: Speaking strictly scientifically it is impossible to prove that diet helps to improve health because according to current medical scientific philosophy something is only considered proven if it has been double-blind tested. It is impossible to double-blind test diet because you cannot for example make people believe they eat vegetables when they in reality eat meat. However, a statistician who was critical to research without double-blind testing said before the trial that if there was a very strong improvement of about 30 percent, it could be taken as proof that the therapy had a positive effect.