DISEASE - CURE- EPILOGUE (Cure Your Self - 10)

The Real and Perfect Cure 

All that precedes this chapter - which rounds up our discussions from various angles - goes to prove:

We are nothing short of most ignoble cowards, cowards to the core, if on disease inflicting punishment on us, we still plead 'Not guilty'. The general tenor of the talk of almost all patients runs on these lines: "Personally I am completely innocent. I have indeed done nothing at all. The bacteria are responsible for the disease I am suffering from - and it is the doctor's responsibility to cure me."

But a moment's reflection on the part of any patient who offers this fine piece of logic and incidentally tries to exonerate himself from a personal guilt, will immediately convince him of the amazing potential capacity he possesses for self-deception. It is one thing if a weak-willed individual were to say:

"Yes, it is true I understand and appreciate the teachings of Recipropathy. I accept them, persuaded as I am of their intrinsic value and truth. But imbibing the principles to the extent of being able to put them into immediate practice is far too difficult for me. It is a goal I wish to reach. But, then, it can be done, so far as I am concerned, a bit slowly. Please give me time. Nevertheless, I shall march towards the goal slowly, and I shall start right away - today." 

This is quite understandable and one can even sympathize with a poor patient of this type. But it is an altogether different thing when one does not accept the truth of the contentions of laws of Nature.

In one sense science and philosophy meet here. 

The primary medical inquiry, by any test, is - or at any rate should be - to know the root cause of pain or of disease.

Huxley has pin-pointed these ideas by the most adequate choice from the teachings of Buddhist philosophy. "The elements which make up man produce a capacity for pain. The cause of pain is the craving for individual life. Deliverance from craving does away with pain. The way of deliverance is the Eightfold Path."

If one suffers from a disease, and still wants to explain away things, to find out unwarrantable excuses and insist that the cause of the disease lies outside him, then, let us face facts and put the thing bluntly: it is his funeral in every sense.

Einstein says: "The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained to liberation from the self." Einstein has also conceded that "the grand aim of science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deductions from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms."

Yet Recipropathy hardly chooses to take advantage of the liberty Einstein has permitted it to take. For in considering the means and ends of effecting a cure, Recipropathy proves its hypothesis that there specifically exists a causal link between emotion and disease. And if there are some difficulties in actually observing the intermediate phenomena between emotion and disease that constitutes a limitation from which science itself suffers.

As it stands today, medical science labors under the handicap of a number of gaps. As has been convincingly brought out, Homeopathy and Allopathy are based on principles directly contradictory to each other. One is founded on principle of similarities, the other on the principle of opposites. Yet no government has thought of rejecting either of them. No government has reflected, nay even thought, about this glaring contradiction. To allow equal and legitimate status to two completely contradictory systems simultaneously is on par with establishing two governments in one state, one of bourgeois capitalists and the other which swears by the communist creed, and allowing people to abide by laws they feel like obeying. No government has ever thought that when two principles stand poles apart - indeed, are diagonally opposite - one alone must be true and that to give recognition to both of them is allowing people to die at least because of one of them. It is certainly high time that governments and people see through the great absurd contradiction.

In another volume of this series "New Way" it has already been argued how all schools of medicine have failed to deliver and are unable to deliver goods.

As adequately brought out on page 84 of Death of Disease, it will take centuries to discover all drugs. Neither the writer nor the readers will be alive to corroborate this promise on the part of present day medical science. As Pisavzhevsky observes, "Every discovery raises new problems." Besides, as matters stand today, theoretically it sounds absurd that science will one day discover drugs for all diseases. For there can possibly be only four categories of medical experts.

(1) Those who believe in God. Of this category, one has to say this. If an expert believes in God, he must find out the probable reason which made God inflict that agony. Then straight way it leads him to our own conclusion.

(2) Those who swear by the Marxist dogma. Now if the expert is a Marxist, then he must concede, as did Engels, that man can never master Nature. Hence no hope exists of knowledge of Nature nor of discovering cures. In this case, too, causality and laws of science lead us to the conclusion which we have set forth. (Other aspects of the problem which touch both Marxist philosophy and Recipropathy are discussed elsewhere separately).

(3) The third category is made up of non-Marxist experts. As an expert in a branch of science, he necessarily has to accept causality. If one relies on law of probability or principles of indeterminacy, one meets a comprehensive answer in our other title 'Science gives Cause'. For the purpose of this work, these laws are no obstructions in as much as, in Chapter ten we have established causal relation at least for purpose of disease-cure. In the meantime medical experts will do well to read the excellent expositions by Dr. Anthony Fidler, M.D., in Whither Medicine as to how medical experts are bound to causality because of their own tenets. The learned doctor himself suggests 'probability medicine', which we improve upon. For our present purpose Dr. Fidler's argument is sound enough to clarify how the 'causal laws' are unreservedly accepted by present medical leaders. Dr. Howard W. Huggard, M.D., the well-known medical authority admits that "in body nearly every action involves reaction." Why the word 'nearly' is unexplained, is inexplicable. In any case, then, our premises in Chapters 7, 8, 9 are firmly established - unless the doctor disproves the concept of causality.

(4) The fourth is a group difficult to be labeled as experts, but they do form a group. Members, if any, in this group believe in chaos. This group merits ignoring - for they obviously can claim no authority on behalf of medical science which firmly claims prevalence of order and existence of laws.

How does it all add up? By no logic, arguments, and school of thought can Recipropathy be radically challenged. From immemorial days, Recipropathy is the torch of truth held high and kept burning. That the truth embodied in present day Recipropathy marched under a different banner does not alter the basic conclusion of the science of Recipropathy being ancient wisdom as well as knowledge. For what is there in a name? America certainly existed before western colonizer christened the continent. All torch-bearers of truth and causality were Recipropaths - under a different name, or no name at all except servants of God and seekers of salvation.

The philosophy of Recipropathy is a philosophy of life and therefore all-pervading. 

Hence it is applicable to the field of human disease. There is extant no school as such for teaching of Recipropathy for Truth is not to be taught. For a group or all of Recipropaths there is neither a Guru nor hierarchy of office bearers. Could anyone tolerate the idea of Truth being at the mercy of red-tape administration? The flame of light that guided the world from eternity inspired me to speak the Truth. This will help it to echo from soul to soul and inspire the lighting of more flames.

Not that I am unconscious of the possibility, in spite of all the efforts on my part to clarify every issue involved, that some would never-the-less label it a mere philosophy. For such readers, just a reminder.

Please forget not that throughout the evolutionary period of knowledge, the historical past, philosophy has been invariably ahead of science. It was a philosopher, Descartes - the famous author of Discourse on Method, who propounded 'indestructibility of motion', a concept accepted later by science. It is worth-while recalling Engels' comment on this: "So here again the philosopher has been confirmed by the natural scientist after 200 years." Very few discoveries have been arrived at as the consequence of strict premeditated experimentation and objective observation. Max Planck, the founder of twentieth century physics, has remarked: "The pure rationalist has no place here."

We have certainly not transgressed, in any manner whatsoever, the limit allowed by Planck. Recipropathy provides an excellent frame-work. Details can be allowably replaced or altered by medical science. But let no one lose sight of the results, positive results brought about by Recipropathy. Experience, again and again, shows that Recipropathy is the only method which relieves the patient of his disease in the real sense. It radically, scientifically drives home the fact that health protection lies in supposing that desire for ease is disease, while real cure is the process of disease. The revelation takes away all pangs of organic pain and disorders like a miracle. 

Any patient who wishes to gain this experience will find our doors always open to his inquiry.

(Excerpts from Cure Yourself, Author - Swami Vijnananand, concluded.)

Vijay R. Joshi.

DISEASE - CURE (Cure Your Self - 8)

Medicine: A New Meaning !

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

Under the pressure of anomalous exigencies Recipropathy approves or rather ignores having recourse to medicine. Contingencies in which so-called medicine can be accepted as a first aid, is detailed elsewhere. Here we may analyze its principles slightly in a different perspective.

1.  Recipropathy assumes that my "disease" is "exact measure of my wish for ease". Hence, in eradicating a malady at a given moment, modus operandi beneficial is to apportion or scatter disease in other suitable organs of body. No type of infirmity can be got rid of, unconditionally.

1A)  Make out an overall picture: We have six emotions, craving for ease. What are the external instruments for satisfaction of these cravings?

Five sense-organs of ours: Eyes, tongue, skin, ears, nose, which respectively see (colors), taste, touch, hear (sound), smell.

Emotions number about six, while each of the sense-organs distinguishes equal number of varieties or grades. Colors are about six, six are main taste varieties, and so on. In between the six major emotions as well as expressions, uncountable shades and grades are manifested.

1B)  On the strength of these fundamental observations we can construe that each emotion is linked to all the sense-organs as its visible or expressible counterpart. In other words, at the assumption of life every emotional personality collects such "matter" suitable to its ends. Consequently, when "greed" about food, say of sweet variety, is incorporated in my emotional personality, I construct my tongue with the help of "matter", that conveys sweet sensation more readily. In short, the emotion of greed in terms of sense-organ, may, in hypothetical case, choose to like sweet for taste, yellow for color, low pitch for sound, smooth touch and a mild scent. Intermingling six emotions with each of likes and dislikes expressed by respective sense organ, a total set of likes and dislikes (which we call expression of a given personality) comes into existence. Consequently, if I detest a certain color, taste, smell, touch and sound, the set of these dislikes certainly represents a significant facet of my inner personality.

1C)  This set or list both of my acceptances and aversions, likes and dislikes is a measure of my disturbed emotions. If I can slowly adjust myself and win over these weak points of mine, assuredly the safest prophylactic (preventive) method is being implemented. In the process of winning the sense-organs, mastering my dis-approbations (disapproval), my mind is purified in due course and purpose of "disease" is defeated.  One way traffic between emotion and sense-organ must be counteracted by nullifying the emotions, effecting purification of inner personality.

1D) There can be shown a link in our logic in a hypothetically isolated case. Why am I infuriated with anger? Because, a green color pen which I do not like has been purchased for me. Obviously, green color in a given case becomes an observable measure of my rage. It can be defeated only by persuading myself to fancy the green color.

1E) we hesitate to learn this correlation till the onset of diseases. We are obliged to learn it when disease invades the body. Cure in real sense can hardly be affected by what is palatable, but by what is not. Rebelling tastes of medicines and punches of injections substantiate the premise.

1F)  in practice you would ask me, how much quantity of salt need be consumed to get cured, if salt is not palatable to a given constitution. I would leave it to that individuality. Cure code will be: Go to a point each day beyond normal till 'you' feel uneasy. Continue the practice till you experience that salt is not your enemy. Incidentally, remember that problem of salt i.e. taste is not an isolated enigma. It is in conjunction with taste, smell, sound etc. For instance, a good dish is less enjoyable when served on a dining table surrounded by an aggressive, un-agreeable odor. In conclusion, "Cure" in a given case may be conventionally restricted to salt. It however must be unmistakably remembered that salt is only one of your remedies.

2.   An inquisitive reader may intervene, "I do not like salt as salt upsets my system. Why should I not suppose that it is but a chemical action?" Let us chase out explanation of this "chemical action" to its rational end.

My body-bricks may have enough salt, in the first place. So I reject it. Or, my ingredients cannot tolerate salt.

Both 'A' and 'B' have the true ring. But the moment the question of 'toleration' comes in, it ceases to be purely a chemical action. The 'mind' indispensably ushers in the argument.

2A)  White does not tolerate black spot. But white and black produce a nice picture. Truly, there is no antipathy between white and black. It is our misconception that a black spot may spoil a clean white. A pot of salt-water may refuse to dissolve more salt, saturation point being reached. Still, ignoring the saturation point you may add more salt to the pot, no question of the bowl 'liking' the salt will ever crop up.

2B) It is a different story when the salt has to deal with mind instead of an earthen jug, jar or pot. Curiously enough, when it comes to 'mind', 'liking' and quantity consumable have no relation to each other. A wealthy owner of a flower garden may not reject either more of flowers or more of money.

2C) This is exactly where 'mind' steps in. One 'mind' may accept 'more' roses, another mind may not. A greedy capitalist may or may not set aside a fortune. A sex-dominated man married to a beautiful wife may or may not be faithful to her.

2D) Thus and therefore the inference; when the 'human mind' comes into play, alternative '2B' stands valid, which points out that ingredients of my structure cannot tolerate salt irrespective of quantity, because my mind has aversion for salt. When the sun 'strikes' on darkness, none can presume that darkness dislikes the sun. With man, sun-rays may please his constitution or may not. Sun-rays falling on a slice of butter may cause action without question of 'likes'. Obviously, in all the three cases, to avow that night, man or butter dislike sun, having in their ingredients enough of sun, is absurd. The distinction between likes and dislikes assumes significance exclusively when mind is on the scene. We must say that when man dislikes salt his mind has aversion for salt, and so he has fabricated his body-structure with the material that rejects salt, irrespective of quantity of such material used.

3. And for this same reason homeopathy misses the mark again. To neutralize salt or anger in me, how can I put in salt and anger in me, how can I add salt and anger and get the desired result?

4.  For diagnosis of a cause, the faultless option open is to take symptoms as equal and opposite of cause.

How to measure the symptoms and their cause?

4A) The measure of symptoms can doubtlessly be indicated by our sense-organs. Our 'feeling of disease' is sensed strictly at the level of sense-organs. So choose such medicine as is disagreeable to the sense-organs.

4B)  Are we not guilty of a gross contradiction when, refuting homeopathy, we ourselves recommend 'dislike' as a drug? Furthermore, our attentive reader may protest here and say that a patient detests pungent taste but it need not be his medicine since he may also like sweet and the two quit leaving untoward action.

The fallacy crops up in as much as no patient mixes pungent and sweet dishes together before they are consumed. Subjectively for patient, relishing dish produces action. Laws of motion have no concern with the taste of the dish - sweet or pungent - but with the action produced in the subject. View it from the other side. The subject likes the sweet but not the bitter taste. Pleasure of chewing a chocolate and a quinine tab MAY produce same effect in metabolism in terms of pure 'action'.

It is not the case that Recipropathy takes 'dislikes' to task and leaves 'like' scotfree. On the other hand 'likes' are fiercely assaulted by this theory. It is a negative yet more meaningful aspect. The positive way is to win the dislikes. It is a two pronged attack.

Homeopathy fails to take these aspects into consideration. It is inadequate to bear in mind that 'dislike' acts as my remedy. Its full implication is: Removal of dislike may work as elixir, subject to main tenets of Recipropathy, since the dislikes serve as a combined, expressible, though, general measure of the 'equal and opposite' initiating cause in body i.e. emotional personality.

In conclusion, the nearest flawless approach for defeating disease is to win our emotional dislikes, the way they are totally and cumulatively manifested in our modes and habits. At the level of sense-organs, therefore, an action ought to be initiated that conveys unfavorable sensation to mind - mind, where the disease originates, dwells, and develops.

5.  In effect allopathy employs the parallel method. Application of iodine to a cut on the arm is a significant illustration. An already ailing patient is subjected to pain (injection, operation etc.) Bitter doses are administered to patient who has spoilt his stomach by too much of sweets. In sickness doctors serve notice against using emotional properties. Bans, ordinances, restrictions rule. No spicy food. No talk, no listening too. Sex relations remain out of question in serious cases. Apparent similarity between Allopathy and Recipropathy ends at this stage. Allopathy bears no lasting result. One of the basic reasons for this fundamental lack is: modern medicine fails to furnish to patient's logical background of his ailment. At no stage the poor sufferer is helped to realize the correlation between his actions and disease.

6.  Our shrill cry of pain as sequel to pain, in reality, has its origin specifically in accumulated 'action'. We heave a sigh grumbling against headache. More hammering in the part of the brain, more action. Originally was there no action in the cerebrum at all? That was not the plight. Pulsation accelerates owing to accumulated action i.e. stored up action or in other words - potential energy. Quick relief from pangs, is a mirage. The only scientific cure is to produce still more pain to patient in the same or other part of the body. Repudiating this course under the guise of impracticability leaves us to try distribution of disease in other sense-organs and to get acclimatized to it. The latter recourse may be termed as Disease Distribution method. Decidedly, this latter available medium of relief, will not be fit to hold a candle to, nevertheless, its dependability excels any media of redress. To counter frequent headache, overcome your dislike for a color, taste, smell and sound.

Hundreds of patients have experienced a surprising solace. Superficially, an added peril to a patient and a relief therefrom, may be felt a psychological absurdity. This feeling is a fantasy. Science, mathematics and logic entertain no fanciful unsubstantiated imagination. The more a patient accepts discomfort, with reasoning behind it - mark the words 'accepts with reasoning behind it' - the more will he experience a definite, slow, natural amelioration. Many a time the soothing effect is sudden, governed by the principle of 'coincidence cure'.

7.  The process is reversible, subject to adviser's discretion. A Recipropath is at liberty to resume treatment first with 'Disease Distribution' method. Subsequently, the patient may go through the literature or attend the seminar. The exact step in each case depends on the judgement of the authority advising the patient and results follow strictly in obedience to the rules governed by the principles of Recipropathy.

8. Patient plays a pertinent role in selection of color, taste etc. Assert from him the list of his dis-approbations. Prescribe accordingly in addition to what is suggested in the list 'substitute for medicine'.

(To be continued)

Vijay R. Joshi

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 (Cure Your Self - 1)

General conclusions we arrived at:

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

Conclusions precisely based on facts, figures, logic and scientific experiments.

Two previous works, “Death of Disease” and “Cure without Medicine”, amply demonstrate how the medical schools violate the fundamental laws of science. This has been discussed in the previous blogs on “Cure – Disease” series. In the spirit of a true scientist, the medical practitioner should ferret out (discover) even if his trodden path happens to be a mistaken one.

In this treatise (Title: “Cure Yourself”), we shall discuss the rest of the problems that confront various medical schools and see if the patient can pragmatically help himself.

          Again, before drafting a full character of freedom from disease ‘the main task of this work’, it seems essential to recapitulate the general conclusions we arrived at in our previous work in this NEW WAY Series, viz., “Death of Disease”,  and  “Cure without Medicine”.

1.   Foundations need to be flawless. Nothing can be considered valuable which lacks the fundamentals.  All medical practitioners know it thoroughly well that their respective pathies offer no answers to fundamental problems in connection with disease, nutrition and protection. Masters of medicine admit this sorry plight of their science; evidence endorses the truth of this allegation.

2.   Where day-to-day practice is concerned, the practitioners subscribing to any pathy whatsoever do treat most of the ailments they come across and proceed to cure ALL diseases. May be they really lack knowledge of disease in its perspective, may be they ignore their ignorance for personal benefit, or  the dominance of ego leads them to act as they do.

3.   Of course, individually, each pathy contains partial truth. The degree of truth content varies from one to another: some have more truth in them, others less.

4.   No disease can possibly be cured unless the mind, too, is properly treated. The current media of treatment, psychotherapy not excluded, indulge in the common but serious error of "standardizing" their way of analysis and/or of treatment. Essentially, we must successfully isolate the H.C.F. (Highest Common Factor) of cause and cure of disease.

5.   The joint consideration of body and mind alone leads to correct diagnosis. But, lest we forget, the mind controls the body. Even eminent doctors subscribe to the view that 90% of diseases originate in the mind.

6.   Howsoever debatable the nature of the mind, for the purpose being discussed in these pages by focusing attention of certain undeniable properties of the mind, "visible expressions of the mind" we arrive at a sufficiently good starting point. Reason indicates the visible expression of the mind to be emotions, primarily six.

7.   Emotions reign supreme, not for a moment can we remain conscious without the presence of emotions.

8.   This necessarily leads to the conclusion that the H.C.F. (Highest Common Factor) of human agony is emotions. Consequently all diseases are strictly individual, diseases cannot be eradicated by treating them ad hoc, but only at an individual level by equalizing (balancing) emotions. The practicable modus operandi for equalization of human emotions is shown by the science of Recipropathy.  This approach is equally applicable to any one of the six primary emotions: envy, greed, ego, anger, sex, affection, as also for the secondary ones like fear, anxiety etc.

9.   An analytical approach to the claim put forth by modern medical schools, viz. that disease is on the decline, discloses the stark truth, the invalidity of the claim. Disease, far from decreasing, is in reality on the scent.

Discussing the role of emotions in disease and whether we could establish a link between our hypothesis and science, we went on with our quest in 'Cure Without Medicine'. We found emotions do act on the body, or in other words give pain of diverse kinds to the body. On its part, the body concerned exhibits an accumulated reaction on emotions, which initiated the first action. This reaction we term disease, almost invariably accompanied by pain.

10.         We then took liberty with mathematics and worked out a proposition that where PV equals pulse variation and other corresponding actions in their totality that take place in body, E is the emotion in question and D stands for disease. Now we all know that PV is always present only in the conditions of emotion and disease.

                      E  =  PV

                      D  =  PV

                      E  =  D

We arrived at the conclusion: state of emotion is state of disease.

11. Emotions are identical with untruth and ultimately with disease. To mitigate the menace of disease, "Truth" can be a tool that can serve as the means as well as the end. The entire exposition is supported by scientific logic, page after page.

At least in medical science we cannot afford to ignore this forewarning. A theoretical assertion in physics or chemistry does not vitally affect a commoner immediately, but in medical science it does. Being faithful to the revelation, scientists in medical field should hesitate to advocate their conclusions, which ultimately misguide the public at large. If no organism in the interstellar space is cast in the same mold, what right has the medical researcher to apply his inferences in case of one individual, to another individual? An inquiry into the details of this dilemma is warranted.  In natural course, the quest will bring the truth to the surface.

(To be continued ..)

Vijay R. Joshi.