DISEASE - CURE (Cure Your Self - 3)

A Mistaken "Cause" of disease and cure. 

(Excerpts from book “Cure Yourself”, author Swami Vijnananand, S.V.)

When inequality itself is the order of the day, a common dose for all sounds a crazy proposition. In other words, when a doctor pushes a needle in your arm, he is himself not sure whether he is inserting disease or cure in the body.

If the effect of such an injection is provocation, the doctors argue that you are allergic to the solution. On the other hand when by chance the antibiotic turns out to be agreeable to your constitution, the physician claims the credit of cure, assigning the magic liquid to be the "cause" of cure. The claim amounts to first-order fallacy in logic. Firstly the doctor hits blindly at you in administering a dose to you. Secondly in the event of success he is the cause and in the event of failure YOU are the cause.

          The ludicrousness (ridiculousness) is more transparent because in the theory the medical science takes shelter of the law of causation. In practice, the practitioners adhere to the law of probability. In fact, the medical school remains faithful to neither.

Without comment at this juncture, we reproduce their own inferences.

1.   First presumption of the medical world is: A large number of ailments originate from an external agency-say bacteria. (Law of causation affirms that same cause must produce same effect. Relevantly, doctors must mean that same bacteria must evolve same effect.)

2.   The second presumption of the medical practitioner is, in such cases his medicine causes cure. (Again, as per law of causation, all occurrences of such disease must be counteracted by the same medicine irrespective of the personality of the patient.)

Strangely enough, none of the good omens of the physicians hold water when matters come to brass tacks.

One of the eminent bacteriologist Dr. John Drew unreservedly concedes, "There is a growing belief among medical men today that the various human disorders grouped under the title of 'rheumatism' are allergic manifestations of specific individual hyper-sensitiveness to certain bacterial allergens. We are not yet sure which species of germ is responsible, but the weight of evidence that has been accumulated up to the present suggests that it is the streptococcus that is responsible for tonsillitis and puerperal fever.

The reader may find it hard to believe that the same germ can cause tonsillitis in one person, puerperal fever in another, a localized skin abscess in another, an allergic state manifested by rheumatic trouble in another, and a rapidly fatal septicemia in another. He will probably find it still harder to believe that the same germ can cause all these different diseases in the same individual at different times".

          The author, as hypothetical illustration, is pleased to set forth the following four alternatives A, B, C, D, which may come into existence when one-say Mr. John, contracts a streptococcal infection of his throat.

A)  In the given hypothetical case, the dose of streptococcus is large, the virulence of the germ is high, and John's resistance is low at the time of his infection.

1.    He develops a severe tonsillitis, in which the invasive power of the streptococcus predominates over its power to form its diffusible product.

(a) He may die from a septicemia.

(b) He may suffer from an extension of the infection to his middle ear, lungs, or other organs of the body.

(c) He may recover (I) completely and acquire an immunity against the toxic fraction of the diffusible product, or (ii) be left in a hypersensitive state.

2.    He develops a severe tonsillitis, in which the toxic power of the streptococcus predominates over its invasive power.

(a) He may die from the damage wrought on his heart or his kidneys by the toxin.

(b) He may recover completely and acquire an immunity to the toxin.

(c) He may recover, but be left in a hypersensitive state, although this is unlikely if there was a large production of the diffusible streptococcal product.

  (B)The dose of the streptococcus is low, its virulence is low and John's resistance is low at the time of his infection.

1.   He develops a moderately severe tonsillitis, in which the invasive power of streptococcus predominates over its toxic power.

(a) He may suffer from a chronic tonsils inflammation, or from an invasion of the adjacent cellular tissues (cellulite), or from abscess formation in the lymphatic glands that drain his tonsils region.

(b) He may recover completely with (I) a degree of acquired resistance, or (ii) with a residual hypersensitive state.

2.   He develops a moderately severe tonsillitis, in which the toxic power of the streptococcus predominates over its invasive power.

(a) He may suffer from a chronic, low-grade toxemia that undermines his general and local resistance.

(b) He may recover completely with a partial immunity to the toxic fraction of the diffusible product.

C)  The dose of streptococcus is large, its virulence high, and John's resistance is high at the time of his infection.

1.                         He develops a sharp attack of tonsillitis, in which the invasive power of the streptococcus predominates over its toxic power.

(a) He may suffer from a temporary disturbance of the function of his heart, or his kidneys, which subsides without any permanent disability.

(b) He may recover completely and acquire a solid immunity to the toxic fraction of the diffusible product.

D)   The dose of streptococcus is small, its virulence low, and John's resistance is high at the time of his infection.

Dr. Anthony Fidler, M.D., doyen of medicine of Warsaw University authority interrogates, "Pathogenic bacteria are the cause of diseases. Why, then, do they not produce disease in 'carriers'? They do not do so, answers medical theory, either because their virulence is diminished or because the resistance of the host's tissues is increased. Thus these bacteria are the cause of disease only under certain circumstances".

The medical world is aware of the plight of two groups of patients suffering from severe cold. One section was administered with so-called medicine and the other was given un-medicated pills. The number of patients as well as the percentage of cures in both groups were the same. England's outstanding virologist and head of the world influenza center, Dr. Andrews, remarks, "Untreated cold will last about seven days, while with careful treatment it can be cured in a week".

Inequality of organisms presents the researcher a hard row to hoe (difficult situation to deal with). The hurdle in the way of the medical practitioner is, therefore, the correctness of quantity of drug at the time of its administration. Elaborate precautions have to be taken in the use of antibiotics, to typify the model, Dr. Robertson, PhD. , and Dr. Jean Dufrenoy, D.Sc., suggest, "Factors that influence antibacterial action are of the greatest importance in laboratory studies and in routine procedures as well as in the clinical treatment of infections.

There are a number of factors which are capable of determining, or at least modifying, the antimicrobial action of antibiotics. The same general factors apply to consideration of the activity of any antibiotic, although the relative importance of a given factor may vary from one antibiotic to the next. These factors are set forth in some detail at this point, since most individuals still think first of penicillin when antibiotics are mentioned. It is important that all the following conditions be taken into consideration in selecting an antibiotic for specific clinical application.

Sensitivity of the Pathogen.

Ideally, to decide which antibiotic, if any, to use, the pathogens should be isolated, in pure culture, from the patient, and, if identical as Gram-positive, should be tested in vitro against penicillin: if penicillin is ineffective in clinically obtainable concentrations, other antibiotics should be tried. Of course, many infections characterized by well-defined clinical symptoms can be identified as being due to penicillin sensitive organisms without resorting to preliminary microbiological tests. Inappropriate or unwarranted use of penicillin, or of any other antibiotic, may not only be useless, but may be harmful, as reported in cases of tuberculosis".

Well, we are confronted with five-fold problems:

A.       We are unable to undergo preliminary tests on every occasion for each patient.

B.        If the dose of penicillin is less than required obviously the result is not secured.

C.        On the other hand, when the dose is more than the subject can tolerate, the damage done exceeds expected cure. Observes Dr. Pratt in case of penicillin, “The dictum ‘if a little is good, more will be better is false”.

    D. Assuming that once in a blue moon, one is able to determine a “no less, no more” dose as Shakespeare’s Portia insisted, it is not all. Because apart from a correct measure penicillin is not acceptable to the constitution of all alike.

          E. That the patient might have safely used penicillin on a number of occasions is no guarantee for him to continue its use perpetually. One does not know at what moment the wonder drug may be annoyed at its former ally.

Penicillin has been widely prescribed for all kinds of minor infections and for conditions in which it is ineffective or not more effective than other drugs. Since it can be brought without prescription, self-medication is common”. But the World Health Organization emphasizes that severe reactions occur only in patients sensitized by previous exposure to the drug. It is known that many of the fatalities that have occurred following the legitimate use of penicillin have been attributable to previous unnecessary medication.

          What is true of penicillin is true of remedies acting in common ailments like malaria.

The same newspaper reports in its morning edition dated 12Th October 1959, warning that drugs used against malaria can result in damage to the eyes is published in the current issue of the Lancet. It is contained in an article written by three London doctors, including Dr. A. Sorsby, Research Professor in Ophthalmology, Royal College of Surgeons. They tell of a 50 years old clerk who was suffering from a condition other than malaria but given a drug used against that disease. Treatment had to be withdrawn when he complained that he was almost blind in the dark and had difficulty in reading. Physical changes in the eyes were noted when they were examined. A 60 years old woman given an anti-malaria drug, also administered because it is effective in other conditions, complained of misty vision and inability to see the whole of words when reading. A 66 years old woman in a similar position reported fog before the eyes. Admitting the difficulty of finding suitable drugs which are also harmless, the writers urge: It appears prudent not to prolong such treatment unnecessarily.

          In essence, what is true of penicillin and anti-malarial drug is true of most of effective medicines.

          The caption of this chapter may be felt a little provocative to sensitive practitioners. I assure them that it is intended merely to draw their attention to the most flabbergasting truth that they at present like to ignore.

When I (author, S.V.) based my theory of cure on moral values, I was induced to investigate how doctors themselves meet their own last day of life. Knowledge of major disease-generating agents should keep them away from disease and death for a longer time than normal. But that is not found to be so. Frequently, the findings are quite reverse and alarming.

The statistics collected by myself, support my hypothesis. Comparative mortality rates as per occupations according to statistics in Britain also strengthen my presumption. Mortality rate in case of textile workers, for instance, who work in less healthy conditions and who cannot afford to pay for highly nutritive food, was 105 while in case of medical practitioners it was 106. Furthermore, it is sometimes noticed that members of the Curers’ community face more physical pangs at the end. Has it any relation to their deviation, may be indirectly, from unadulterated truth? It is the time for them to examine whether one of the factors may be what I am suggesting. For sheer self-protection, the medical practitioners need take cognizance of Recipropathy.

(To be continued..)

Vijay R. Joshi