another take on DRUGS

[Guest guest]

Explaining The Apparent Actions of Drugs

 

Dr Herbert M Shelton

 

Hygienic Review

 

 

Why is one substance poisonous and another not? Why do the actions of the

 

body in relation to different substances differ so greatly? Why does not an

 

apple occasion vomiting and bread occasion purging? Why does not a baked

 

potato occasion profuse sweating and brown rice copious urination? Why are

 

these substances, when taken into the stomach, treated so differently from

 

the way in which a drug is treated? We know that normally they are digested

 

and taken into the bloodstream and utilized in the replenishment of the

 

tissues of the body. We class them as foods, because they may be used for

 

tissue replenishment.

 

 

Why are not drugs digested and used? Why does one drug occasion

 

catharsis, another emesis, a third diuresis, etc? Why do some drugs, when

 

applied to the skin, cause vesication, others rubification and others

 

corrosion? Why is one drug, when swallowed, followed by stimulation and

 

another by narcosis? Why do foods not occasion stimulation or narcosis? It

 

is customary to say that vesication, diarrhea, diuresis, emesis, narcosis,

 

etc., are actions of the drugs. This, however, is no different from saying

 

that digestion is the action of foods. We know that emesis, diarrhea,

 

diuresis, etc., are actions of the living organism, not of the drugs, just as

 

digestion is a physiological process and is not done by foods.

 

 

But the swallowing of different drugs is followed by different actions.

 

Castor oil, for example, is commonly expelled by diarrhea, tartar emetic is

 

commonly expelled by vomiting. Aloes and rhubarb occasion sweating. Why do

 

different drugs occasion so many different actions? It is not to be thought

 

that these drugs go through the organism seeking out, from choice, the

 

different organs and tissues for which they have an affinity. They do not

 

possess even this rudimentary type of intelligence that enables them to seek

 

for and act only on certain structures.

 

 

Let us try to answer our first question first. Certain substances, such

 

as an apple or a nut, can be utilized by the body in the replenishment of

 

tissue. These substances are foods. Certain substances cannot be utilized

 

by the body in the production of tissue. These substances are not foods.

 

The answer to our question seems to lie, then, in the usability and

 

nonusability of a substance. A substance is not a poison if it is usable, it

 

is a poison if it is not usable. We define food as any substance that can be

 

transformed into living 'structure'. This is to say, food is any material

 

that the cells of the body can take into and incorporate into their

 

substances as integral parts of themselves. If it can be transformed into

 

cell substance, it is food. Anything that cannot be transformed into cell

 

substance is not food.

 

 

This last statement leaves us with a whole world of matter, both. Organic

 

and inorganic that is not food, at least, not for man. It leaves us with far

 

more nonusable than usable materials in the universe. If a substance is not

 

usable, it must be expelled. But substances that are nonusable are not

 

merely nonusable; they are also chemical substances governed by all the laws

 

of matter. They tend to unite with other chemical substances. They tend to

 

unite with the elements of the cells. Such unions would be destructive of

 

the cells. In plain English, the union of a drug with the substance of a

 

cell would result in the death of the cell. This creates the urgent

 

necessity to resist the union and to hurriedly expel the substance.

 

 

Substances that tend to form chemical unions with the substances of the

 

cells and thus destroy the life of the cell are incompatible with life.

 

Toxicity may be defined as the degree of incompatibility between a drug and

 

the cells of the body. Some substances are highly toxic, others are only

 

slightly so. Two forms of incompatibility must be recognized: namely,

 

chemical incompatibility with the structures of the body and physiological

 

incompatibility with the functions of life.

 

 

The actions that occur following the swallowing of a substance that is

 

incompatible with life are very varied. They depend in part upon the

 

character of the substance, but for the most part they vary with the tissues

 

with which they come in contact. Each tissue acts in keeping with its own

 

powers. A drug that is expelled before it reaches the kidneys will not

 

occasion any kidney action. A drug that the kidneys excrete with great

 

difficulty, may be expelled through the skin or through some other channel.

 

It was the view of Dr. Trail that drugs are expelled through those channels

 

and by those means that cause the least wear and tear on the system. This

 

gives the body a certain power of selection in its work of expelling drugs.

 

 

But there are drugs that are resisted at every point and that are expelled

 

through a number of channels. It would seem that, as a matter of necessity,

 

every tissue in the body must resist and expel, as far as it can, nonusable

 

substances with which it comes in contact. But not every tissue is so

 

constituted that it can expel drugs from the body. It can expel them only

 

from itself. It can offer local resistance. It would seem to be correct to

 

say that the tissue must offer resistance if the drug comes into contact with

 

it. This seems to be the explanation of the alleged " side efects " that are

 

so often mentioned today.

 

 

But why is one drug an emetic, another a purgative, another a diuretic,

 

another an expectorant, another a stimulant, another a nar cotic, etc.? Do

 

these different apparent actions of different drugs represent actions of the

 

drugs, as is taught and believed, or-are they different actions of the living

 

organism in relation to different drugs? If so, why does the body behave

 

differently in the presence of one poison from what it does in the presence

 

of another?

 

 

If we attempt to answer our last question first, it seems that there is no

 

basic difference between the actions of the body in relation to one drug and

 

its actions in relation to another. The differences are more apparent than

 

real and are the results of the structural and functional differences of the

 

organs and tissues involved in the actions. Basically, the action is one of

 

resistance and expulsion and this is not radically different in any tissue.

 

 

In a work published in 1874 by the office of the Health Reformer,

 

apparently from the of M. G. Kellogg, M.D., who says that he derived his

 

views from Graham, Trall, Alcott, Shew and Tanner, the idea is presented that

 

different organs excrete different drugs because the presence of the

 

different substances is perceived by different nerves. He draws a parallel

 

between the nerves of the organ-systems and the nerves of special sense.

 

Just as the nerves of the eyes perceive objects and light and the nerves of

 

the ears perceive sounds, those of the nose perceive odors, those Of the

 

tongue perceive flavors, etc., so the different nerves of the organsystems

 

perceive one drug and not another. The different ganglia perceiving a

 

certain substance to be such that " it cannot be used to replenish any of the

 

tissues of the body, " causes activities to be instituted to secure the

 

expulsion of the drug. He suggests that the different ganglia differ in

 

their perceptions, just as do different parts of the brain, hence the action

 

following the taking of a drug will be determined by the particular ganglion

 

that perceives its presence.

 

 

Assuming that there is a grain of truth in this idea, it does not seem to

 

cover the whole of the phenomena that follow the taking of drugs. Although,

 

he is probably right in saying that " all matter does not possess the same

 

sensible properties; if it did, we would know of but one kind of matter, " and

 

he is probably correct in saying that it is through the " various senses " that

 

we can recognize various nronerties of matter, 'there seems to be a necessity

 

that the useless and harmful be recognized by all of the tissues and by all

 

of the 'nerves. There would seem to be, as a matter of fact, a cellular

 

recognition of the unsuitableness of drug substances.

 

 

He but echoes the words of Trall when he says that " instead of medicines

 

(drugs) having special affinities for certain organs and tissues of the body,

 

the vital organism has a special dislike for drugs, and makes a special

 

effort to eliminate them as rapidly as possible. " It is not amity, but

 

antagonism that gives rise to those vital actions of defense, resistance,

 

expulsion and repair that are mistaken for the actions of drugs. But he may

 

have hit upon a vital element in the explanation of the different actions

 

that follow the taking of drugs in his suggestion that, due to the fact that

 

we recognize different substances through the media of different nerves, we

 

act according to that recognition. For example, it would seem to be the part

 

of organic wisdom to expel all drugs, when swallowed, either by vomiting or

 

by diarrhea. Why should any of them be permitted to be absorbed into the

 

bloodstream? Why send some of them to the. Kidneys, for instance, for

 

excretion? Why excrete others by diaphoresis and others by expectoration;

 

why excrete some through the liver?

 

 

Can this be because the nerves of the intestinal tract do not adequately

 

recognize the useless or injurious character of some substances? Do drugs

 

slip past the sentinels of the prima via because they do not " appear " to the

 

nerve end endings in the gastrointestinal canal to be of a specially hurtful

 

nature? Must their injuriousness be perceived by other nerves and must they

 

then be appropriately dealt with by other organs and sent out through other

 

channels? Why, when a certain drug is taken, is it later expelled by the

 

kidneys (diuretic)? Was its useless and hurtful character not perceived in

 

the stomach and why was it not expelled by emesis or diarrhea? Perhaps the

 

explanation lies in the suggestion of Kellogg.

 

 

He is certainly wrong, however, when he says, after giving the actions

 

that follow certain drugs, " if each of the medicines named above is given in

 

proper doses, it will occasion the effects named, and no other. " There is no

 

known drug that occasions but one action on the part of the body in resisting

 

and expelling it. Perhaps but one effect will be produced if it is all

 

expelled by the primary effort at expulsion, as when vomiting may expel all

 

of a drug that is swallowed. But if it is not all thus expelled, it may

 

occasion a diarrhea or small amounts of it may be absorbed into the

 

bloodstream and it may then be expelled by diuresis or by diaphoresis or by

 

expectoration or by all three of these processes.

 

 

The secretion of digestive juices upon the food eaten is controlled by the

 

nervous system. We get one kind of juice or another kind of of juice

 

depending on the character of the food eaten and this is appreciated and

 

appropriate nerve and glandular action instituted, when the food comes into

 

contact with the nerve endings (taste buds) in the tongue. The character of

 

the saliva, as well as of the gastric juice, is thus determined. If we eat a

 

potato we have the outpouring of one type of gastric juice; if we eat a

 

beefsteak we have the outpouring of another type of digestive juice. If we

 

swallow a marble there is no outpouring of digestive juice. If we take sugar

 

there will be a copious outpouring of saliva, but it will contain no ptyalin.

 

Control of action here lies in the nervous stem and its perceptions of the

 

character of the food eaten.

 

 

Suppose, instead of food, we swallow a teaspoon full of castor oil. This

 

is a poisonous oil that must be expelled. Its presence and its character are

 

recognized by the same nervous system that appreciates the differences

 

between foods. There is again a copious outpouring of juice into the

 

stomach, but it is not a digestivee. It is a watery mucus. The muscles of

 

the stomach also act, but their action is somewhat different to what goes on

 

in digestion. They hasten the mucus and oil to the pyloric orifice of the

 

stomach and the valve opens and the mixture (oil and mucus) is expelled into

 

the intestine, where, instead of being met with digestive juices, it is met

 

with more mucus. Here, also, instead of the regular movements of peristalsis

 

and antiperistalsis, there is only a hurried peristalsis, thus hurrying the

 

mixture along towards the colon. When it reaches the ileocecal valve, this

 

opens and the mixture is expelled into the colon, which, in turn, hastens it

 

to the rectum, where it is expelled from the vital domain.

 

 

What part did the oil play in all this activity? It did not perceive its

 

own toxic character. It did not pour out mucus to dilute it and flush it

 

along. It did not perform the muscular work of the stomach, small intestine

 

and colon. It did not expel itself. Indeed, being lifeless, inert and as

 

incapable of any action as a dry stick or clod of earth, it was passive in

 

the hands of the forces of life. It no more acted in the stomach than it

 

acted in being poured into a spoon and taken to the mouth for ingestion. It

 

was as passive and actionless during the whole of its journey through the

 

alvine canal as while resting in the bottle on the shelf.

 

 

Living hands poured it from the bottle; living hands took it to the mouth;

 

living organs of deglutition swallowed' it living nerves percieved its

 

presence and its character; living glands poured out mucus upon it; living

 

muscles propelled it through the digestive tract; living muscles expelled it

 

from the rectum. The living organism was the actor from start to finish.

 

The living organism alone possesses the instruments of action and the energy

 

of action. It is specialized in myriads of ways for the performance of

 

myriads of actions.

 

 

Kellogg suggests that certain drugs are diuretics, this is to say, they

 

are expelled through the kidneys, because " the properties of this class of

 

poisons are not recognized by the nerve centers which preside over the

 

stomach, hence vomiting does not occur. " They are thus permitted to enter

 

the bloodstream and circulate in the blood to all parts of the body. But

 

their useless character is immediately recognized by other nerves and they

 

are excreted through the kidneys. There is increased action, diuresis, to

 

expel the poison Here, again, it is the living organism that does all the

 

acting. Diuresis is as much an action of the living organism as is diarrhea.

 

In diuresis the kidneys and bladder and the other parts of the urinary

 

apparatus are the actors rather than the intestinal tract.

 

 

Kellogg may be correct when he says of the diuretic that it did not

 

occasion vomiting " simply because they (the diuretic drugs) were not

 

recognizable by the nerve centers which preside over the stomach. " But there

 

is reason to think that this may not be the whole explanation. Ipecac is

 

classed as an emetic. In a dose of a certain size it occasions vomiting. In

 

a much smaller dose it occasions diaphoresis and expectoration. It may be

 

that in small doses the nerves of the stomach fail to recognize the poison;

 

it may be that when sufficiently camouflaged with food or other substances,

 

they fail to appreciate its character.

 

 

This drug can be classed according to the faulty classifications that have

 

been adopted by pharmacologists and physicians, as an emetic, an expectorant

 

and a diaphoretic. Applied locally, it can be given other classifications.

 

It is entitled to but one classification-it is poison. Its presence in the

 

body is resented; it is expelled, not through one channel, but through

 

several.

 

 

Trall indicated that just as the special senses take cognizance of

 

external elements in our environment, so the nerves of organic life take

 

cognizance of things that find their way into the body. Kellogg followed

 

this thought in his suggestion that different drugs occasion different

 

actions due to the fact that their presence and character is detected by

 

different nerves. Graham had previously indicated such explanation, calling

 

the perceptive faculties of the nerves of organic life, organic instincts.

 

 

Graham and Trall and later Kellogg took the position that, just as the

 

brain sets in action the organs of voluntary motion and causes these to act,

 

according to its recognition (through the special senses) of external

 

objects, so the nerves of organic life (the organic instincts, to use

 

Graham's term) set in motion the appropriate glandular and muscular activity

 

in accordance with the character of the substances that are within-actions

 

designed to use one type of substances and actions designed to expel another

 

type. As every organ and tissue is under the control of the nervous system,

 

there is nothing illogical in thinking that the nervous system is the

 

controlling mechanism in determining the actions of the body in relation to

 

not only foods but poisons. Thus it is that the presence of poisons in the

 

body occasions unusual vital activities in the various organs of the body.

 

We commonly, refer to such unusual betivities as disease; at other times we

 

simply recognize them as symptoms of poisoning.

 

 

Each organ is capable of a certain kind or kinds of activity, depending on

 

its structure or structures. Each organ acts in relation to toxins in

 

accordance with its functional capabilities, as determined by its structural

 

adaptations. The number and varied assortments of actions of the human body

 

are possible only because of its almost infinite structural complexity and

 

the resulting functional capacities. Drugs are simple substances, lacking

 

both structural specializations and functional abilities. They not only lack

 

the instruments of action, but they are also lacking in the energy of action.

 

We are correct, then, in saying that the body acts; the drugs are acted

 

upon.

 

 

* * * *

 

The American Death Ceremony

 

 

The death ceremony started as a crude ritual back in the days of

witchcraft. In recent years it has been developed into a science. It usually

takes

from 10 to 15 years, however, modern scientific advancements are shortening

this period of time.

 

 

It starts with on simple aspirin for a simple headache. When the one

aspirin will no longer cover up the headache, take two. After a few months,

when

two aspirins will no longer cover up the headache, you take one of the

stronger compounds. By this time it becomes necessary to take something for the

ulcers that have been caused by the aspirin. Now that you are taking two

medicines, you have a good start. After a few months these medications will

distort

you liver function. If a good infection develop, you can take some

penicillin. Of course the penicillin will damage your red blood corpuscles and

spleen

so that you develop anemia. Another medication is then taken to cover up the

anemia. By this time all of these medications will put such a strain on your

kidneys they should break down. It is now time to take some antibiotics. When

these destroy your natural resistance to disease, you can expect a general

flair-up of all your symptoms. The next step is to cover up all of these

symptoms with sulfa drugs. When the kidneys finally plug up, you can have them

drained. Some poisons will build up in your system but you can keep going quite

a

while this way.

 

 

By now the medications will be so confused they won't know what they are

supposed to be doing, but it doesn't really matter if you have followed every

step as directed you can now make an appointment with you undertaker.

 

 

This game is played by practically all Americans, except for the few

ignorant souls who follow nature.

 

Dr. Louise Jones