consequently robbed of the essential ingredients which potatoes should
contain, and as these elements are only partially replaced by the
insufficient component parts of the guano, we cannot be in doubt as to
the condition of these fields. The ground may be ever so rich in
ingredients, but it is exhaustible. The analysis of our blood indicates
that, in order to remain healthy, it must contain twice as many
sulphuric as phosphoric salts.

We talk glibly about a natural mode of living, a simple diet; but where
in our civilized countries can we find food that really serves healthy
sanguification?

The crux of the question is this: Why do we propose to _heal naturally_
and not also to _nourish naturally_?--The latter is, to say the least of
it, just as important as the former. But if both were practiced
conjointly, a beneficial object might be more quickly and surely gained.

It is true, we are taught to eat more vegetables than meat; that our
bread lacks the chief nourishing qualities, and so on; but we have
hitherto been in no wise informed as to the substances that are
relatively harmful or beneficial to us.

Why is it then that the science of the sanative power of nature, as well
as medical science, is still in doubt in regard to the relation that
must absolutely exist between the separate component parts of our
nourishment in order to obtain normal healthy sanguification?

_The reason is that the application of a real chemistry of life has
never been comprehended until now._