“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

In some historical periods the plight of the poor was so horrible, so unendurable, that outbreaks of the plague occurred, literally resulting in a complete destruction of large areas of the environment in which such social, political, and economic conditions existed. [Those] plagues took rich and poor alike, however, so the complacent well-to-do could see quite clearly, for example, that to some extent sanitary conditions, privacy, peace of mind, had to be granted to the poor alike, for the results of their dissatisfaction would have quite practical results. Those were deaths of protest.¹

Not only do such states of mind lower the defenses, however, but they activate and change the body’s chemistries, alter its balances, and initiate disease conditions. Many viruses inherently capable of causing death, in normal conditions contribute to the overall health of the body, existing side by side as it were with other viruses, each contributing quite necessary activities that maintain bodily equilibrium.

You have your own medical systems, however. I do not mean to undermine them, since they are undermining themselves. Some of my statements clearly cannot be proven, in your terms, and appear almost sacrilegious. Yet, throughout your history no man or woman has died who did not want to die, regardless of the state of medical technology. Specific diseases have certain symbolic meanings, varying with the times and the places.³

They do not “worry.” They do not anticipate disaster when no signs of it are apparent in their immediate environment. On their own they do not need preventative medicine. Pet animals are inoculated against diseases, however. In your society this almost becomes a necessity. In a “purely natural” setting you would not have as many living puppies or kittens. There are stages of physical existence, and in those terms nature knows what it is doing. When a species overproduces, the incidences of, say, epidemics grow. This applies to human populations as well as to the animals.

(Pause at 11:55.) Suffering is not necessarily good for the soul at all, and left alone natural creatures do not seek it. There is a natural compassion, a biological knowledge, so that the mother of an animal knows whether or not existing conditions will support the new offspring. Animals instinctively realize their relationship with the great forces of life. They will instinctively starve an offspring while its consciousness is still unfocused, rather than send it loose under adverse conditions.

For all of the disadvantages of vaccination and inoculation programs, then, Seth obviously doesn’t recommend that we abandon them at present, since most of us believe in their efficiency. It may be some time before private beliefs are strong enough to sustain us, without the use of those medical “crutches.” Still, we can try to minimize such dependency (as Jane and I do now), and to avoid taking shots simply because they’re “in vogue.”

“They may have been ‘cured’ whether or not they had treatment, and gone on to lead productive lives. You do not know. A man or woman who is ready to die, if saved from one disease will promptly get another, or find a way of fulfilling that desire. Your problem there rests with the will to live, and with the mechanisms of the psyche.”

Still, Jane and I do have our cats inoculated against feline distemper and respiratory viruses; pets acquired at humane societies (as ours often are) have already shared an infected environment. We suppose that if we had young children we’d see to their receiving the immunizations they “should” have, or are required to have by a school board, for example. It’s very difficult in our society to rely upon beliefs alone where other people are involved, particularly in the face of medical and scientific propaganda. (Let me add, though, that there are available today numerous vaccines against childhood diseases, but that many parents ignore many of them. Some of those vaccines — for whooping cough, mumps, measles, German measles or rubella, for instance — are still quite controversial. They’re often only partially effective, and can cause a variety of side effects: reactions ranging from the temporary to the permanent or fatal. Jane and I strongly recommend that parents thoroughly investigate and understand the pros and cons involved with each inoculation their children will receive.)