Why viruses cannot be cause of disease: An MD explains.

[Guest guest]

http://freespace.virgin.net/ahcare.qua/literature/medical/viralinfections.htmlViral InfectionsWhat do we know?by Dr Patrick Quanten MDViral infections are the illusive pain in the proverbial medical butt.Viruses get blamed for all ill in the world, especially when we haven’tfound anything specific. All illnesses which have a cluster appearancewithout identification of a bacterial cause, have to be of a viral nature,almost per definition. The implications of such a definite "diagnosis" havefar reaching consequences as there is no specific treatment for viralinfections, which makes us feel helpless and defenceless. As identificationof viruses as the cause of illness is extremely difficult and almosthaphazard it allows for media manipulation as we see in the

AIDS saga,where first there was the HIV-virus, then there were three, and now we knowthat none of them is directly responsible for the AIDS-syndrome.Maybe if we understood a little more about viruses there would be less needto panic; unless of course the Authorities like us to panic because itsells more products and provide a significant number of jobs. What have welearnt, or should have learnt, from our contact with viruses so far — whichof course is the whole time of human existence.Viruses live and multiply within the cells of the host; outside thesecircumstances viruses degenerate very quickly. They are specific forspecies and organs, and on the whole, viruses infecting plants, insects,bacteria and other animals are distinct from their human counterparts. Theyuse the host cell metabolism to reproduce themselves quickly and then burstthe cell open to expose the new viruses, or they can remain within the cellfor a

considerable time.The first immune response comes from the infected cell which producesinterferon, an antiviral protein, immediately. This early reaction is notonly vital to direct and orchestrate the rest of the immune response but itis also the most effective antiviral substance early in the infection whenviral titers are low. All cells produce interferon and it is active againstall viruses, certain parasites and endotoxins.Later on in the immune reaction various antibodies are produced which againare proteins. Many of these molecules combine with a single virus, coveringa critical number of essential sites which renders the virusnon-infectious. These complexes attract a variety of immune cells whichwill destroy and clear up these now neutral complexes which contain thevirus. Antibodies IgA are vital in the defence of the respiratory systemand they are part of the first line battle as most viruses are "airborne"which

means that the viruses are carried within the water droplets floatingin the air. Antibodies IgM predominate during the first 3 to 10 days afterthe initial exposure to a virus. Later antibodies IgG prevail whichpenetrate all bodily spaces.We also know:* that the reproduction cycle of viruses is temperature dependent;* that viral incidences vary with the seasons, age, concurrentinfections such as bacterial or fungal overgrowth, and protein deficiencyin the host;* that antibiotic use, steroid medication and immune suppressormedication such as the popular Tamoxifen and Methotrexate dramaticallylower the hosts’ resistance.Furthermore a lot of evidence has emerged in the last thirty years aboutthe behaviour of viruses and the body response to them on contact.The blood itself, if healthy, can deactivate and control bacterial andviral invasion via its very chemistry. This is largely dependent

uponadequate nutrition. Vitamin C in the blood is capable of deactivating virusparticles. It is important to realise that vitamin C levels required toachieve this degree of protection are far above that required to produceminimal anti-scurvy effect. Vitamin C requirements fluctuate widely attimes of stress, infection, pregnancy, alcohol and tobacco use, air andwater pollution levels, refined food products, etc. Insofar as theimmunological defences are concerned there is also a need for optimumnutrition. This is the last line of defence after the skin, the mucoussecretions and the chemical factors of the blood have failed to check aninvader. Alertness of this immune response is said to depend upon adequatelevels of Vitamin B6. Both this vitamin B6 and vitamin C require that allthe many other nutrients are adequately present, in order to operate athigh levels of efficiency.Dr Archie Kalokerinos has done far and away the most

important practicalwork in this area and Glen Dettman, PhD, in their work with aboriginalchildren in Australia, described in the book "Every Second Child".Aboriginal infant death rates had shown a dramatic increase in the early1970’s, having doubled in 1970 and gone even higher in 1971. In some areasof the Northern Territory the infant death rate was reaching 50 out ofevery 100 babies. Dr Kalokerinos proved that the cause of death was what iscalled immunological shock, or paralysis resulting fromnutritional-immunological interactions; in this particular event it wasVitamin C deficiency. He says: "I have no doubt that some so-called "cotdeaths" are in fact acute vitamin C deficiencies, and that these occur evenif the diet is adequate….. and their response to vaccines againstinfections is not always good. First, there is an increased utilization ofvitamin C, and this, particularly when associated with dietary deficiencyor failure

of intestinal absorption, may precipitate deficiency of vitaminC in the blood. This deficiency lowers immunity, and the vaccine adds tothis temporary lowering. An infection such as pneumonia or gastro-enteritisis likely. Thus an infant may die a few days after being immunised." Theextra strain on the immune system can be provided by an infection, or itcan be other vaccines administered around the same time.The major reason for the use of measles vaccination is the prevention ofthe side-effects of the disease (which are, incidentally, very, very, rarein well nourished children) such as encephalitis. The official estimationis that children who contract measles suffer encephalitis about once in1,000 cases. This is disputed, however, by such workers as Dr Mendelsohn,who claims that this may be true in children living in poverty andmalnutrition but does not relate to well nourished children in hygienicconditions, where the level of

this complication of measles itself islikely to be no more than one in 100,000.Evidence regarding vitamin A deficiency in such children is wellestablished and shows that:* those children who have the worst symptoms during and followingmeasles have lowest levels of vitamin A* such children are the most likely to develop eye symptoms during measles* they are also the most likely to have a fever above 40*C and requirehospitalisation* they are the children most likely to die from measles* supplementing with vitamin A dramatically reduces the risks of severeillness or death associated with measles* this has been demonstrated in Africa where a 700% reduction inchildren dying from measles followed vitamin A supplementationThe truth is that the vaccine itself carries a high risk of producingencephalitis, as well as other serious conditions, some of which are alwaysfatal.* Experimenters have

incubated cold viruses, placed them directly onthe mucous lining of the nose, and found that their subjects came down withcolds only 12% of the time. These odds could not be increased by exposingthe subjects to cold drafts, putting their feet in ice water to give themchills, or anything else that was purely physical.Carrying the virus and having the disease are two totally different things.The majority of "infected people" will not show any sign of the disease butare definite carriers. What turns one person into a sufferer whilst anotheris happily carrying on without being aware of the infection having hit him,must be determined by the differences within the two people; in otherwords, differences in immune status. This obviously depends heavily onnutritional balance, emotional balance, and physical fitness balance. Thiswould suggest that, being in good health and good spirits, it will berather difficult to "catch" a cold; you

may catch the virus but your bodywill prevent it from developing a cold.During the early part of most viral epidemics it has been noted that thegreat majority of new cases, up to 98%, are totally unrelated. Establishinga contact between them has proven to be impossible. So, how do theseviruses travel several hundred miles without leaving a trail ofdestruction? If it is my breath that is spreading them around why doesnobody "catch" it in between two separate hot spots? If I carry it on myshoes, why does it take so many miles to "fall off"? Could it be that allthe viruses, in one form or another — because they mutate easily — arealive and well within a great number of hosts? Could it be that, when theinner environment of the host changes, the immune system is no longer incontrol it and the virus status changes from latent to active? This canhappen almost simultaneously across the country; as a matter of fact, it ismore likely

to happen in several places, to several people at once. Whatmakes you think that amongst all people there is only one so unique that he"catches" that particular viral infection? And where would the first personcatch it from, because the virus is nowhere to be seen; nobody has got it?Could it all be down to a simple breakdown of the individuals’ immunesystem due to factors of pollution, poor food quality, poor exercise andrest quality, and poor emotional quality? What else could help explain thedramatic increase in viral epidemics we experience recently?John Perkins, an internationally acclaimed author, environmentalist andactivist, tells this story."When I was a boy growing up in rural New Hampshire, my parents wereconvinced that wet feet caused colds. If you stepped in a puddle, you hadto change your shoes and socks immediately or you would get sick. And infact, experience bore them out. I found that whenever I did not

followtheir advice in this regard, I would catch a cold — no exceptions. I alsowas continually frustrated to see that this rule did not apply to some ofmy schoolmates; I assumed that they were just heartier. Then, many yearslater, I discovered that I could spend days in the rain forests with wetfeet. My Shuar companions assured me that no harm would come of this. Andthey too were correct! I have since found that I now can get wet feet inNew Hampshire without contracting a cold."In the last twenty years science has also proven:* That every neuropeptide receptor from the brain is also found on thesurface of the immune cells;* That the immune cells make the same mood controlling chemicals as thebrain does;* That the immune system, like the central nervous system, has memoryand the capacity to learn;Whatever you believe, is what your body experiences! So, if Authoritiestell us that we are at great risk of a

certain infection, and we believe it— and why shouldn’t we? — then we instantly are at risk. Our fearimmediately lowers our immune systems response time, its targeteffectiveness and its specificity. From here on we are in trouble; and onlybecause of what we believe. We create the reality we live in, becauseobviously our fears will all come true, thereby confirming our belief. Andso it goes on — the vicious circle of our right to information day by dayweakening our system.On the other hand, happiness and self-confidence will make you strongenough to deal with anything, provided you don’t allow doubt to creep in.So, it is all down to us!What about vaccination as a general protection?* Cholera, dysentery and typhoid similarly peaked and dwindled outsidemedical control. By the time their etiology was understood, or theirtherapy had become specific, they had lost much of their relevance.* The combined death rate

for scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping coughand measles from 1860 to 1965 for children up to 15 years of age shows thatnearly 90% of the total decline in the death rate over this period hadoccurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunisationagainst diphtheria.* Dr Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics at theUniversity of North Carolina School of Public Health, has gone on record tosay that cases of polio increased by 50% between 1957 and 1958 and by 80%between 1958 and 1959 after the introduction of mass immunisation. In fiveNew England states cases of polio roughly doubled after polio vaccine wasintroduced. Nevertheless in the midst of the polio panic of the 1950’s,with pressure to find a magic bullet, health authorities, to give theopposite Impression, manipulated statistics. Cases of polio were renamed as"aseptic meningitis" or coxsackie virus infection. Doctors often simply

donot believe that what they are seeing is a disease, which has beenprotected against, and therefore it must be something else.* In 1958 there were about 800,000 cases of measles in the USA, but by1962, the year before a vaccine appeared, the number of cases had droppedby 300,000. During the next four years, while children were beingvaccinated with an ineffective and now abandoned "killed" virus, the numberof cases dropped another 300,000. In the UK, despite almost completeimmunisation of infants the rate is rising again.* During the winter of 1967-68 an epidemic of measles occurred inChicago, from which two lessons were learned. One, there was a highpercentage of cases among vaccinated pre-school children. Two, the failureof the intensive school immunisation program to terminate the measlesepidemic.* Dr Beverley Allan, of the University Department, Austin Hospital,Melbourne, Australia conducted trials on army

recruits, who were immunisedwith an attenuated virus and sent to a training camp known for regularepidemics of rubella. Four months later an epidemic occurred which affected80% of the men who had been "protected".* According to Professor Gordon Stewart, formerly head of a departmentof community medicine at Glasgow University, "vaccination has been at bestonly partially effective in controlling whooping cough, and has never beenproven to be adequate in protecting infants below one year of age who are,in the United Kingdom, the only group of children whose health is seriouslymenaced by whooping cough".And I am not saying anything yet about serious side-effects.Why does immunisation not work as efficiently as we are made to believe? Goback to the beginning.When our body is hit by a virus, the cell itself produces the first immuneresponse by producing interferon immediately. This not only is veryeffective in

controlling the spread of the virus further into the body butit also gives the body a change to identify the intruder. Therefore thefollowing response from the immune system producing antibodies andmobilising the attacker and cleanup cells is very specific against thatparticular virus. After the fight is over, the immune system, your army,knows everything about the virus, at all levels of defence— contact cells,local immune patrol, head quarters, secret service, and ground troop cells.What happens with a vaccination? Either live or a killed version of thevirus is injected deep into the tissues. It bypasses the first contactphase, which in airborne infections is the nasal and oral mucosa; so, thesecells know nothing about the virus and they can not pass on which specificantibody to produce. The injected virus is going to be recognised by theblood patrol which is surprised to find the virus (or particles of) thereanyway, without

a warning from somewhere. Its first priority is to destroyand it will do this as quickly as possible; in the process it will learnvery little about the intricacies of the virus and it’s workings. In otherwords, next time it may or may not recognise the virus, and if it does itwill only be a vague memory.Does immunisation work? Short term yes. In fact, it works even before yourbody has had time to metabolise the injected material, because all of thesudden you feel safe again! Your fear has turned into peace of mind; yourimmune system can settle down, you’ll live after all.Viral infections are not the problem. The problem is the host, man oranimal. If one is not in good condition, one is the weakest link. Goodbye.No other measure than changing habits can in the long term be effective. Inthe short term, do we see any positive result of the measures taken? Doesisolation, indiscriminate killing and vaccination make any

difference atall to the ongoing process, or is it something to keep us busy? We don’twant to be seen to be doing nothing, do we now? And we also don’t want tobe told that it is the end result of a long abusive road, do we?Nature’s revenge.It wasn’t Nature that disturbed the balance; it was us. And we pay the price.It worries me to think that the Authorities believe that the cure for aviral infection is killing the sick and the healthy, as seen in the BSE andFoot and Mouth crises. If you can do that in the name of "animal welfare",I wouldn’t give a halfpenny for my own life if someone out there believedit could save his.Harmony and balance in all we do makes the future bright. It allows forviruses, bacteria, parasites, animals and plants.May peace be with you.Dr Patrick Quanten MDMarch 2001

Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.