THEOSOPHY, Vol. 21, No. 1, November, 1932
(Pages 30-33; Size: 13K)
(Number 11 of a 57-part series)



(In Three Parts)


DOCTOR Manwaring, of Stanford University, is being joined by others. According to him, new theories on immunology which have appeared during the last five years are fated to render inconclusive the literature of the past twenty. 95% of the theories up to date have been discarded anyway, he says.(1)

Previously it has been firmly held that any foreign protein injected into the tissues is as completely digested as though by natural processes. Dr. Manwaring remarks that there is no convincing evidence of this. On the contrary, traces of horse protein have been reported in human blood for several years after the administration of diphtheria antitoxin. Does that mean that so long as this condition lasts there hangs over the victim the menace of fertilization with its consequences of cancer and what-not -- to say nothing of psychic effects? Just that is implied in what Dr. Manwaring further says -- that the so-called protective "antibodies" may be hybridization products between the infectious agent and the host tissues; may be dehumanized human proteins or modified alien entities. The cross-breeding tendency is shown by the fact that when diphtheria toxins were incubated with other serum proteins than those normally used, new toxins of high virulence and changed specificities were produced. Illuminatingly, Dr. Manwaring calls vaccine and serum therapy a "hitherto discouraging field." Certainly not for the serum-factories which have been the most successful of business enterprises.

Later on,(2) Dr. Manwaring goes into the incalculable after-effects of these unnatural juxtapositions. Classic immunology, he says, has been based on the anthropomorphic idea that a serum is a purposefully defensive substance. On the contrary, the defensive trait just happens to be one of a number of very diverse characters. The body is normally full of many factors capable of mutation into unknown types, some possibly injurious. A serum injection occurs into a complex of dynamic protein mixtures of unknown potencies. The elimination or naturalization of a serum during the life of the body is unpredictable. Moreover the body reacts differently to a given serum at different ages, he says. Is it not now clear that a vaccine or serum given a very young child can bide its time for a half-century until the "cancer age" of weakening cellular stability is reached?

Moreover Dr. Manwaring states that disease-producing organisms have been known to multiply more rapidly in an immune serum than in a normal one. (For the benefit of the non-technical reader, be it explained that serum is a constituent of all blood; the word as commonly used refers to normal animal serum which has been poisoned by a given disease virus for injection into the human body).

According to Prof. E. W. Schultz, of Stanford University,(3) the ultramicroscopic viruses seem to require living cells for their propagation, but are highly selective as to what tissue they will pick out. Planting cowpox in a vaccination scar results in the restoration of tissue by young and rapidly dividing cells. It does not seem to occur to him that this temporary cancer might not always remain temporary; or that the proliferation might result from the fertilization of the body cells by the cowpox virus.

Dr. Schultz' revelations are as significant as Dr. Manwaring's. A virus being implanted, it may by cell destruction or other means bring about the proliferation of body cells to meet its demands. Why should not those new cells be its progeny, rather than "carriers?" Viruses, says Dr. Schultz, bring about formations in the cells which they attack, called "inclusion bodies." Their nature is disputed, some considering them aggregations of the virus corpuscles themselves. To us they have a most suspicious resemblance to the immediate effects of normal cell fertilization! And if this incipient fertilization occurs in all affected cells, why not viable in some? And in any case what is the effect upon the health of the cell? Dr. Schultz says that "what keeps the virus in check within the host is not clear." Perhaps it isn't kept in check! Significantly, Dr. Schultz admits that the union between a diphtheria poison or toxin, and its counteracting agent the antitoxin, may break up at a later time and both be set free.

The incalculable aftermath of serum injections is shown by experiments with plants, in which the nature of viruses showed a "baffling tendency" to change when transferred from one plant to another. What happens then when a virus is transferred from a horse to a man?(4)

The intense individuality of living substances is recognized by Dr. Karl Landsteiner, of the Rockefeller Institute. He says that the proteins in animals and plants are different and specific for each species. Thus plant and animal bodies cannot be successfully built up of tissues from other species.(5) But what of forcing substances across the natural barriers? Natural assimilation as against the unnatural and forced is demonstrated by the case of the bacteriophage. This germ-killer is harmless when given by mouth but must never be administered under the skin.(6) Why are medical men so blind to the basic principle involved? Also Dr. Epstein advocates in the case of puerperal infection the use of bandages soaked in antivirus prepared from streptococci obtained from the patient.(7) When a foreign protein comes into direct contact with the cells of a normal organism, the latter are irritated (irritation, nota bene, is accepted as a prime concomitant of cancer) entering upon a cycle of changes, the first result of which is a hypersensitiveness toward that protein, so that infinitesimal quantities can irritate the cells thereafter.(8) The establishment of immunity, the article states, is bound up with inflammatory reactions which may strike friend and foe alike. The same inflammatory reaction which destroys the microbic enemies may, under other conditions when the cells are enfeebled, turn upon the host.

Further information on this sensitiveness, plus the individuality of tissues, is given in Science, April 10th and 24th, 1931. Occasionally the introduction of sera is accompanied by complications and death. The one in 50,000 cases of this nature, it is said, causes the physician to hesitate. (Not counting those who die of results unadmitted!). A certain portion of mankind is "naturally hypersensitive" to horse serum, the injection of which results in collapse and sometimes death. Others become artificially sensitized to it and react similarly. Due to the increasing use of serum, this group is also on the increase, forming a formidable medical problem, inasmuch as almost all commercial sera are derived from horses. In other words, the fact that a patient has survived a serum injection is no sign that another may not kill him; rather the reverse!

That an injection may definitely weaken resistance is shown by Dr. Arnold B. Rich, of Johns Hopkins.(9) The tissues become hypersensitive to the specific germ at the point of inoculation. At the next attack these tissues are damaged or killed by a normally harmless infection, resulting in illness or even death. Methods of obviating this are being proposed. The obvious method does not seem to occur to the profession!

COMPILER'S NOTE: The following is a separate item which followed the above article but was on the same page. I felt it was useful to include it here:


The essential faculty possessed by all the cosmic and terrestrial elements, of generating within themselves a regular and harmonious series of results, a concatenation of causes and effects, is an irrefutable proof that they are either animated by an extra or intra INTELLIGENCE, or conceal such within or behind the manifested veil. Occultism does not deny the certainty of the mechanical origin of the Universe; it only claims the absolute necessity of mechanicians of some sort behind those Elements (or within) -- a dogma with us. It is not the fortuitous assistance of the atoms of Lucretius, who himself knew better, that built the Kosmos and all in it. Nature herself contradicts such a theory. Celestial space, containing matter so attenuated as is Ether, cannot be called on, with or without attraction, to explain the common motion of the sidereal hosts. Although the perfect accord of their mutual revolution indicates clearly the presence of a mechanical cause in Nature, Newton, who of all men had best right to trust to his deductions and views, was nevertheless forced to abandon the idea of ever explaining, by the laws of known Nature and its Material forces, the original impulse given to the millions of orbs. He recognised fully the limits that separate the action of natural Forces from that of the INTELLIGENCES that set the immutable laws into order and action. And if a NEWTON had to renounce such hope, which of the modern materialistic pigmies has the right of saying: "I know better"? --S.D., I, 594.

Next article:
(In Three Parts)
(Part 12 of a 57-part series)

Back to the
series complete list of articles.

Back to the full listing containing all of the
"Additional Categories of Articles".


(1) Science, July 11, 1930.
Back to text.

(2) Do., October 2, 1931.
Back to text.

(3) Scientific Monthly, November, 1930.
Back to text.

(4) Science, August 22, 1930.
Back to text.

(5) Science, April 17, 1931.
Back to text.

(6) Do., August 1, 1930.
Back to text.

(7) Scientific Monthly, January, 1929.
Back to text.

(8) Science, July 10, 1931.
Back to text.

(9) Science, May 22, 1931.
Back to text.

Main Page | Introductory Brochure | Volume 1--> Setting the Stage
Karma and Reincarnation | Science | Education | Economics | Race Relations
The WISDOM WORLD | World Problems & Solutions | The People*s Voice | Misc.