DISEASE - CURE (Cure Your Self - 4)

Medicine Defies Evolution 

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

Prior to expanding our new theory, it is intended to put the modern medicine to one more test.

Provided the process of evolution contains a germ of truth, its corollaries and logic compel us to discard modern medicine. Modern medicine, then, becomes devoid of hope of attaining perfection any time in future. Rather, truth in the theory of evolution steers us towards understanding that every time we insert curing organisms in our body, we suppress the ailment only to invite it more aggressively at a later date. It is as risky as purchasing commodities against a cheque when one has no hope of depositing adequate amount in the bank.

The following facts throw more light in studying the above problem.

(I)                 The rate of bacterial growth: The rate of growth at the level of bacteria is proverbial.

(II)               Antibody and antigen: The definitions of antibody and antigen are provided as under: "An antibody is any substance which makes its appearance in the blood-serum or body fluids of an animal, in response to the stimulus provided by the parental introduction of an antigen into tissues, and reacts specifically with that antigen in some observable way. An antigen is any substance which, when introduced parenteral into the animal tissues, stimulates  production of an antibody, and which, when mixed with that antibody, reacts with it in some observable way".

Dr.  Adler offers a pungent explanation when he says, "This definition implies that (1) no antibody is present before the introduction of an antigen, (2) the antibody appears after parenteral introduction of the antigen, and (3) it reacts with this antigen only".

(III)             Antibody stimulated by specific species:  Each species of parasites gives rise to a specific antibody only.

(IV)            Work of antibody:  In the work "Virus and Man" we come across the following narration, "When a virus particle is coated or blanketed with attached antibody it is no longer capable of infecting new cells. If it does enter a cell it is mopped up like any inert foreign particle. The net effect of an adequate dose of antibody is that the infection involves only those cells which had already been invaded and goes no further".

(V)              Work of Antibiotics: At this stage, let us turn our attention to antibiotics. Since 1943, world has much rejoiced over the power of destruction of harmful bacteria invested in antibiotics. After a period of a decade of self-complacency it is coming to light that even harmless bacteria are not completely destroyed by penicillin. Repeated evidence is available to proclaim that no dosage can kill the bacteria wholesale and that there inevitably are certain survivors. When bacteria in the ailing body are killed, there are a few bacteria, though rendered ineffective at that moment.

This process holds well whether bacteria are classed as harmless or as injurious. Dobzhansky in 'The Genetic Bases of Evolution' observes, "Evolutionary changes of the type described in colon bacteria have been found in recent years in many other bacterial species. The increasing use of antibiotic drugs in medical practice has made such changes a matter of considerable concern in public health. As penicillin, for e.g. is used on a large scale against bacterial infections, the strains of bacteria that are resistant to penicillin survive and multiply, and the probability that they will infect new victims is increased. The mass application of antibiotic drugs may lead in the long run to increased incidence of cases refractory to treatment. Indications exist that this has already happened in some instances. In certain cities penicillin-resistant gonorrhea has become more frequent than it was.

(VI)            So, with few exceptions, resistant must appear:  Obviously evolution of resistant can take place if Nature provides supply of mutants to choose from. However, in practice, Nature rarely runs short of supply. More cardinal factor is a scientist's inability to control the discretion of Nature. Consequently, success of a physician in EACH CASE depends on Nature. The scientist in such circumstances is, and always remains, a tool of Nature;  an extremely damaging tool at that. For leaving the theoretical discussion, in practice, almost invariably we find at least a few surviving mutants. Demerce found frequency of mutation was one per billion. But even this one in a billion is inherent danger to the host, considering the stupendous speed of its multiplication within a few hours.

(VII)       Penicillin must be harmful: When doctors are blamed for use of penicillin, the poor community of doctors, at least looked at from this isolated aspect, is not so much intentionally dangerous. Physicians are conditioned to feel that penicillin is a wonder-drug.

The learned doctor inadvertently overlooks the observation that even if there are few survivors under the influence of antibiotics, through these survivors as a necessity the patient is obliged to invite a danger in future. The temporary relief bears seeds of super stroke.

          Man has caused this danger to himself from within and without in as much as he uses these killers to keep his house clean. To quote Dobzhansky, "DDT was a remarkably effective poison for houseflies when first introduced less than 10 years ago. But already reports have come from places as widely separated as New Hampshire, New York, Florida, Texas, Italy and Sweden that the DDT sprays in certain localities have lost their effectiveness. What has happened, of course, is that strains of houseflies relatively resistant to DDT have become established in these localities. Man has unwittingly become an agent of a selection process which has led to evolutionary changes in housefly populations".

(VIII)        Apparently useful, potentially disastrous: The reader need entertain no misgiving whether or not surviving virus creates disease. Dr. Burnet has himself admitted, that "new virus diseases most frequently arise by emergence of a mutation in some virus that survives in the hosts". Scientists give us one more alarming confession. Assuming penicillin tends to be beneficial to a patient, the price for this short-term relief too is enormously heavy, since the biotic kills the specific bacteria only to set free other variety of awful organisms unrestrainable by penicillin.

(IX)             Practitioners do admit the contingency. Dr. Walker concedes, "Pasteur, the great discoverer of the part played by micro-organisms in human illness, looked forward to the day when all pathogenic bacteria would be destroyed and when mankind would be immune from ineffective diseases forever, but it is extremely unlikely that this day will ever arrive for infective diseases belong to phenomena on a very large scale. They are not, therefore, things of trivial importance in the general economy of life on this planet, as Pasteur believed them to be, but are events of the very greatest importance. Humanity will undoubtedly improve its defense against ineffective illnesses in the future, but it is unlikely that it will ever free itself entirely from the onslaughts of pathogenic organisms".

Studying the laws of evolution, acknowledging their validity, understanding that a drug invites more harm than it eradicates, one who continues its use must either be insane or a knave.

(To be continued)

Vijay R. Joshi

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

DISEASE - CURE (Death of Disease - 5)

Location of Disease (The mind stands supreme)

1.  To a question – where the disease is located, the answer normally given is 'body'. We are conditioned to believe so far over a prolonged period. The reasons for the disease normally given are:

(a) Bacteria (Infectious disease); and (b) Constitution (of body)

2. Infectious disease – If the origin of infection is bacteria was a true notion, then there appears no valid reason why large number of people remain unaffected in epidemics. (Because every person is subjected to the bacteria say air-born-virus, but everybody does not get effected by it) so besides the 'bacteria' there has to be some other reason.

3. Constitution – If it is assumed that these with sound/healthy constitution are not affected by the disease and disease affects only the weaklings, then we don't find so in practice. Many healthy person (constitutionally strong/stout) catch up disease and succumb to it. And many weak (looking) person remain healthy for a long life.

4. Mind, the location.

Thus by a different path, we arrive at the same conclusion that cause of disease neither lies in the bacteria, nor in the constitutional factor. It apparently looks more or less an individual equation and its inter relation between constitution and bacteria.

According to many, including some respected doctors, disease on body surface forms merely a visible expression of the afflicted mind (injured mind).

The force of mind that plays a role during the state of disease (and also cure process) makes itself (mind) clearly revealed in many instances.

          Faith cure

          Magic cure

          Psychological cure

So-called scientific medical practitioners of today, also held indirectly that patient gets cured because of his faith (and will power also). The 'faith-cure' seen from age old times also endorses a view that mind must be the fundamental basis of disease as well as cure.

5. What constitutes Mind?

Is it merely the function of the brain? Are the limitations of the brain are created by mind?

Mind according to us is the energy that persists in our life.

Explanation – A still born (dead on birth) child apparently possesses same features, physique and constitution as a living child. What then is lacking? Certainly the energy!

Though eyelids, iris are present, they remain unmoved. The brightness of iris imparted to it by that energy is absent. (So the difference between a still born and the living child is energy).

6. None dare deny that a mere mechanical body or brain cannot produce life. A super-super model of computer if compared with brain becomes less than preliminary model.

7. We therefore conclude

7.1 Brain does not solely represent mind. It practically reflects mind as all parts of the body.

7.2 Brain might depend upon matter that builds body as a whole. But that body depends on individual life-giving energy.

This energy is the same as mind. The reason is simple that the purpose of mind and energy (in present context, understood as today) remains identical i.e. to shape the individual.

7.3 If mind was a function of brain, all intelligent persons would have been strong minded or healthy. This is not so in actual observation.

7.4 Mind shapes body, consequently the brain. Mind keep it healthy (brain-body) till the purpose of particular life comes to an end.

7.5 Only the equivalence of mind and life-energy explains satisfactorily the causation or elimination of disease. Doctors also agree this in case of about 90% of the diseases.

7.6 When body of a man, which lives for fifty years, starts decaying and decomposing, then doctor can prevent the damage for say 50 hours. Not beyond (a certain limit). Then who protected the man for fifty years from the occasional diseases?

The energy of mind kept the decay away for fifty years. When the Nature puts aside the charter of energy, the end cannot be avoided.

7.7 The brain dependent mind is a mechanical view and not justified.

7.8 Mind is undeniably considered an essential absolute and distinct from the body. This view is held by many thinkers as well as scientists. However, both the components (mind and brain) continue an undistinguishable whole (one) throughout the life.

If the view that mind or thought springs from the functioning of the brain were true, scientists would have rushed to set right brain instead of mind.

'Mind' can be called by different names (mental faculties, consciousness, thoughts, etc.) but we are using the word 'mind' as it is commonly understandable.

8.   The mind stands supreme. Mind causes life as well as death. Hence, a great medical authority wondered whether the shock of Napoleon victory at Austerlitz killed Pitt rather than any disease (We also see how a blowing mental agony totally ruins a healthy person overnight).

Vijay R. Joshi.