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 - 7)

 Is Prayer Scientific? 

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

Recipropathy neither encourages nor discourages the institution of prayer. Because, in one sense Recipropathy believes in the power of silence. From the view-point of truth, in meditation there is a lesser risk of positive untruth being uttered. The question can be viewed from two angles:

(A)                     An option can be exercised in favor of leading life of as much "reactions" as possible. Live detached life to your capacity.

(B)                    Try to make mind vacant, call it prayer or use any word of your choice. This option is open only if it is feasible for one to take mind in a state really devoid of emotion. There is nothing unscientific if the pursuer of prayers can visualize the true tenet of prayer. Abusing prayer is as much a dogma as abuse of prayer itself, yet a real prayer leaves no room for abuses of either description. Scientists who stamp action-less state as a mystic affair have more to learn from the fact that at the speed of light, length contracts to zero and clocks stand still. Strictly speaking, an action-less state in its truest sense is equivalent to the maximum speed of any mass conceivable; whether such possibility is feasible or not, is no issue at this point. This observation leads to contradiction; nevertheless, the contradiction is born out of scientific investigation. Till the contradiction is un-riddled by science, we have hardly any privilege to play the fool of prayer-believers. On the background of this premise a Recipropath can suggest the following points for the consideration of a seeker elevating his mind to a comparatively blank, vacant, detached state.

1.   As you set in for concentration, take a pen, note book and a mirror. Spend the first few moments in setting yourself and then look into the mirror. Stare straight in your own eyes.

2.   Speak to yourself. Be conscious of an energy penetrating through. Imagine that you now propose to explain to the origin of that energy, your actions in last 24 hours, as if you are submitting a report of yesterday to yourself. Begin with an interrogation: Can all actions of yours be defended? No white-washing now.

3.   It is a discourse between you and yourself. Promise yourself not to repeat what ills you should have refrained from. If it cannot be set right immediately, ask for time.

4.   Continue the check-up each day.

5.   If not on the first day, after a lapse of a few days following the daily check-up, try to spare a few minutes to close your eyes during the prayer.

6.   Try to visualize energy in yourself beyond your eyes, ears, and every tissue of yourself.

7.   Put up an attempt to forget every entanglement which may try to disturb you at the moment.

8.   If a thought is irresistible, open your eyes and record the gist of though disturbing you in the note book.

9.   Close your eyes again. If another thought disturbs you, repeat the same process. Register it in your note book.

10.                     On pursuing the process for a month, go through the entire record.  Subsequently every day before closing the eyes for the meditation, ask yourself if you cannot live without these thoughts even for a few seconds? You will be ashamed to find that causes interrupting your prayer were too trifling to imagine. The revelation will give your mind more tranquility as you resume the prayer.

11.                     Now, the success awaits you. At least for a few seconds, keeping your mind cool, undisturbed, collected may be achieved.

12.                     Repeat the process day after day. Use the note book as friend, philosopher and guide. It remains a good tutor. Day by day self-recognition will instruct you that each thought disturbing your prayer on previous days can be attributed to one emotion or the other. The record should serve you to understand that the so called engrossing thoughts are too petty to brood over. This finding strengthens your mind and assists you to do away with them during the prayer.

13.                     Another way. At times, at the resumption of prayer overpowering sentiment paralyses you - say embittering anger about one-time comrade.  Try to recollect a good point in the old mate. A note of music, instead of an old friend, may disturb the concentration. Imagine the tune's finest wave identifies with your "mind". The ultimate object of concentration is to realize that incredible speed resembles inertness and resort to a state of "active inactivity".

14.                     The process is languid. It is an uphill task to do away with petty emotions and angularities. Convince yourself that these angularities so dear to you, eat you up.

15.                     Analysis of anger may turn over a new leaf in life. Guess Mr. X and yourself at a cross purpose. You quiver with rage. In the situation, multifarious probabilities are conceivable.

(A)                    Mr. X may be your family member, friend or a well-intentioned relative, who in your eyes has committed a blunder. Obviously, you should ignore the unintentional slip.

(B)                    Mr. X may be, alternatively, your adversary. He wants you to get irritated. Your fury serves his purpose. Your resentment has to be curbed so that you would not assist your own foe.

(C)                    One more salient point. When Mr. X fans your anger, either he is unfair or you are in the wrong. If Mr. X has misbehaved, there is no propriety in yourself heating up and hitting at your own body. On the other hand, in the instance of your being inequitable, thank Mr. X that he struggles to put you on the right path.

16.                     Most often, adherents of Recipropathy experience sudden recovery from ailment. Yet, it is advisable to attribute it to "coincidental cure". Set aside part of your prayer in inflicting pain on yourself under such circumstances in acceptance of your unpunished sins. It is a gallant gesture in right direction. It gives you no license to commit sins during the rest of the day. It merely keeps the conscious awake and alert.

17.                     Wrath is not a solitary example. Every emotion can be dispensed with on proper analysis. An analysis offers a breathing space, infuses confidence and makes your mind vacant or steady. Slowly increase this period of vacuum and state of equilibrium. Infallibly and automatically, ability to work for the whole day in serene, unruffled way multiplies. It is the surprise gift of the prayer.

18.                     The process of inactivating the mind should be slow and natural. To convince ourselves is the most irksome adventure. We hesitate and eschew conceding Truth as a single factor that can redeem us in our worldly life; however, in theory truth is known to us having a supreme second-to-none strength. No purpose is served by declaring a war against ourselves, in a superficial sense. No doubt mind is to be ultimately won. Yet an undue haste bears no fruit. It impairs rather than repairs.

(To be continued)

Vijay R. Joshi.

DISEASE - CURE (Cure Your Self - 6)

 Emotion, Truth, Disease.

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

All unequal members of the human race share equal knowledge of Truth. Allotment of Truth is selfsame. For this purpose truth known to every member of society is replete. A cup of water to the brim need not envy an overflowing tank. Since, even if what is offered to the cup has no room where it can accommodate it.

Why is untruth voted for? A liar necessarily clings to his version for a lap of luxury, for pleasing some emotion or the other.

Try to place this in terms of logic and mathematics:

        In truth there is no emotional outburst.

        Untruths cause emotions.

        Emotions cause disease (unease).

        Therefore, Untruths cause un-ease (disease).

        Therefore, Truth causes ease.

Plenty of instances already furnished, establish relation between emotion and disease. 

One more quote is added only for ready reference. "The effect of emotions on the adrenals is to produce higher blood pressure which favors the development of arteriosclerosis and other diseases of circulatory system. The thyroid is so much affected by mental depression that this emotion is mentioned by scientists as one of the causes of myxoedema. The pituitary body is also affected by emotions. Prof. Pel and others have noted cases of acromegaly after violent emotion. Dr. Sajous has often pointed out this gland as the central organ upon which all strong emotions react. The liver and kidneys are much affected by emotions. Jaundice indicates the disturbance of the former whereas, according to Clifford Albutt, many cases of interstitial nephritis can be traced to mental emotions."

"An objective truth as subjectively known" as probable cause of cure, ranks high and assumes top eminence in the eyes of respectable scientists.

1.   Lister declares, "Next to the promulgation of Truth, the best thing I can conceive that a man can do is the public recantation of an error."

2.   While replying a question reproduced in Part 14 of "Outline of Modern Belief" Sir James Jeans says, "I think it possible that the existence of suffering can be accounted for along the usual ethical lines."

3.   Alexis Carrel, the Nobel-prize winner asserts, "No one can learn to distinguish right from wrong, and beauty from vulgarity by taking a course of lectures. Morality, art, and religion are not taught like grammar, mathematics, and history. To feel and to know are two profoundly different mental states."

Earlier, accentuating the correlation between emotion and ailment, he viewed, "Thus envy, hate, fear, when these sentiments are habitual, are capable of starting organic changes and genuine diseases. Moral suffering profoundly disturbs health. Businessmen who do not know how to fight worry die young. The old clinicians thought that protracted sorrows and constant anxiety prepare the way for the development of cancer. Emotions induce, in especially sensitive individuals, striking modifications of the tissues and humours.

The French expression 'se faire du mauvais sang' is literally true. Thought can generate organic lesions. The instability of modern life, the ceaseless agitation, and the lack of security create states of consciousness which bring about nervous and organic disorders of the stomach and of the intestines, defective nutrition and passage of intestinal microbes into the circulatory apparatus. Colitis and the accompanying infections of the kidneys and of the bladder are the remote results of mental and moral unbalance. Such diseases are almost unknown in social groups where life is simpler and not so agitated, where anxiety is less constant. In a like manner, those who keep the peace of their inner self in the midst of the tumult of the modern city are immune from nervous and organic disorders."

The depressing anxiety of the man is: if he leaves untruth, nothing in life survives. This bewildering anxiety reflects paradox of life, when openly we all talk of sanctity. The celebrated scientist Sir Arthur Eddington apologizes, "One begins to fear that after all our faults have been detected and removed there will not be any of us left." This notion prevails in spite of the fact that, without exception, all principal schools of philosophy and religion preach truth as ne plus ultra value of life, existence of purified soul after death and so on.

If my mind is non-matter, and if nothing can be destroyed from this universe according to the law of conservation of energy, "I" cannot die. Purification of my mind during the life-span with the help of truth enhances my chances of perpetually living in disease-free state.

Disease can touch only the impure mind. The more unsullied it becomes, the more disease-free state do I reach by the pure laws of science, mathematics and logic. There should be no apprehension of the demon of death.

(To be continued)

Vijay R. Joshi,

DISEASE - CURE (Cure Your Self - 5)

Recipropathy's conclusions remain inescapable 

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

Philosophically too Recipropathy's conclusions remain inescapable.

(A) One that it must be held that all events occur in spite of myself. If I really believe in this alternative, on the one hand I discourage any action being initiated on my own, on the other, I lament not over my malady.

(B)  But once I choose to recognize my own individuality, I must myself assume to the prime cause of my ailment and all external causes including poor bacterium must be taken to play a secondary role.

(C)  When I am the cause of everything that happens to me, law of causation should unsolved my remaining riddle. If I 'act' to cause damage to others, reciprocally in return, I get equal and opposite – that means inward damage. When initiating action is outward, reaction must be inward. (The problem is discussed at a great length in 'Cure without Medicine' in the section under the title 'Mechanics of Emotions'.)

(D) Why do I 'act' to cause peril to others? Because I am prey to the dictates of my emotions. These emotions dissuade me to be partial towards myself or, in other words, emotions compel me to pursue untruth with full knowledge.

(E)   If I choose to adhere to truth and thoroughly perceive the results untruth brings home, this understanding keeps complaint of pain and sickness at arm's length, almost perpetually.

Amidst diverse and multifold variety of the great Nature, Nature herself stands supreme, unified and one entity. Truth is identified with Nature. Mysticism, if any, can be eschewed on recording the deduction, the other way.  Every individual bewailing of a disease is distinct, uncommon from the other. What is common to all beings is knowledge about 'Truth'.

All along, our endeavor has been directed to one supreme end, an end at which we have arrived at after years of devoted study and scrupulously correct experimentation. That end has been to discover the true nature of disease and the radical means to eliminate disease from all ranks.

We think, and a dispassionate, attentive and scientifically minded reader will surely grant us our claim, that we have firmly established the clear and unambiguous inter-connection between emotion and disease. To repeat our proposition, then: Disease is the outcome of emotion and equalization (nullification) of emotion is the only way out.

The practical way, of course, is adherence to truth. Whether the way turns out to be a protracted one or quite short depends on the original span of emotional outbursts.

My (S. V.) firm and thoughtful claim is that Truth can be prescribed as the one and only possible remedy. Personally I have realized that the state of adherence to real truth is the only stage when one's emotions are truly equalized – in fact, nullified. True, it is possible to recall instances when truth was uttered and yet one was extremely excited. Such instances exemplify one's inadequate definition of truth. Real truth evokes no irritation.

A simple case: Mr. X asks Mr. Y: "What is the time." "Ten A.M." replies Mr. Y. The truth is told, there is no emotional upset of any kind. So, no traceable reaction.

But matters are occasionally not simple and straightforward. There is a twist, say in a hypothetical case, where both Mr. X and Mr. Y are attempting for a job. Mr. Y knows that the job is likely to be offered to Mr. X. He is aware that an appointment is given to Mr. Y by the Manager of the firm at 11 a.m. and that is the reason why Mr. Y is asking time. In this complex situation, as Mr. Y replies, "Ten A.M." internally he is burning with envy and anger. Certainly pulse variation is bound to synchronize with the answer.

Conclusion: Not only should one adhere to Truth, but Truth must be told with a perfectly detached mind.

To illustrate with a simple example. Mr. A visits Mr. B's home and is received by Mrs. B. Mrs. B in all good faith tells Mr. A that Mr. B has gone out. After Mr. A has left, to her surprise Mrs. B finds that her husband was at home. Has she then told an untruth? Certainly not. For Mrs. B. the objective absolute truth subjectively known to her was of Mr. B not being at home. In reporting the situation as she conceived it, Mrs. B had no hidden objective before her.

On the other hand, had the situation been one where Mr. B happened to owe some money to Mr. A for the recovery of which Mr. A had called on Mr. B, then the matter takes on an entirely different texture provided that Mrs. B knew of the transaction between the two (but not otherwise). If she knew of the transaction, her pulse-rate would have varied even when telling the truth as she conceived it, the mind not being detached.

To get away from the clutches of this riddle, the best way is to leave the discussion of absolute truth to philosophers. In practice defining truth as "subjective truth as objectively known, expressed with detached mind", serves our purpose.

One adheres to untruth hardly for any principle or philosophy. Profounder of no philosophy or faith including Marxist faith, ever rejected Truth as a laudable code of conduct.

The pressing problem in the situation is more of being enlightened of the real cause of disease than immediately pursuing the path of cure. Once truth is accepted as the means and the end, we can take time to adjust to truth. Conversely, denial of the very way is grossly improper, injurious to us and to none else.

Deduction then, that truth commends respect from all quarters, is undefeatable

(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