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

[Guest guest]

http://freespace.virgin.net/ahcare.qua/literature/medical/viralinfections.html

 

Viral Infections

 

What do we know?

by Dr Patrick Quanten MD

 

Viral infections are the illusive pain in the proverbial medical butt.

Viruses get blamed for all ill in the world, especially when we haven’t

found anything specific. All illnesses which have a cluster appearance

without identification of a bacterial cause, have to be of a viral nature,

almost per definition. The implications of such a definite " diagnosis " have

far reaching consequences as there is no specific treatment for viral

infections, which makes us feel helpless and defenceless. As identification

of viruses as the cause of illness is extremely difficult and almost

haphazard 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 know

that none of them is directly responsible for the AIDS-syndrome.

 

Maybe if we understood a little more about viruses there would be less need

to panic; unless of course the Authorities like us to panic because it

sells more products and provide a significant number of jobs. What have we

learnt, or should have learnt, from our contact with viruses so far — which

of course is the whole time of human existence.

 

Viruses live and multiply within the cells of the host; outside these

circumstances viruses degenerate very quickly. They are specific for

species and organs, and on the whole, viruses infecting plants, insects,

bacteria and other animals are distinct from their human counterparts. They

use the host cell metabolism to reproduce themselves quickly and then burst

the cell open to expose the new viruses, or they can remain within the cell

for a considerable time.

 

The first immune response comes from the infected cell which produces

interferon, an antiviral protein, immediately. This early reaction is not

only vital to direct and orchestrate the rest of the immune response but it

is also the most effective antiviral substance early in the infection when

viral titers are low. All cells produce interferon and it is active against

all viruses, certain parasites and endotoxins.

 

Later on in the immune reaction various antibodies are produced which again

are proteins. Many of these molecules combine with a single virus, covering

a critical number of essential sites which renders the virus

non-infectious. These complexes attract a variety of immune cells which

will destroy and clear up these now neutral complexes which contain the

virus. Antibodies IgA are vital in the defence of the respiratory system

and they are part of the first line battle as most viruses are " airborne "

which means that the viruses are carried within the water droplets floating

in the air. Antibodies IgM predominate during the first 3 to 10 days after

the initial exposure to a virus. Later antibodies IgG prevail which

penetrate all bodily spaces.

 

We also know:

 

* that the reproduction cycle of viruses is temperature dependent;

 

* that viral incidences vary with the seasons, age, concurrent

infections such as bacterial or fungal overgrowth, and protein deficiency

in the host;

 

* that antibiotic use, steroid medication and immune suppressor

medication such as the popular Tamoxifen and Methotrexate dramatically

lower the hosts’ resistance.

 

Furthermore a lot of evidence has emerged in the last thirty years about

the behaviour of viruses and the body response to them on contact.

 

The blood itself, if healthy, can deactivate and control bacterial and

viral invasion via its very chemistry. This is largely dependent upon

adequate nutrition. Vitamin C in the blood is capable of deactivating virus

particles. It is important to realise that vitamin C levels required to

achieve this degree of protection are far above that required to produce

minimal anti-scurvy effect. Vitamin C requirements fluctuate widely at

times of stress, infection, pregnancy, alcohol and tobacco use, air and

water pollution levels, refined food products, etc. Insofar as the

immunological defences are concerned there is also a need for optimum

nutrition. This is the last line of defence after the skin, the mucous

secretions and the chemical factors of the blood have failed to check an

invader. Alertness of this immune response is said to depend upon adequate

levels of Vitamin B6. Both this vitamin B6 and vitamin C require that all

the many other nutrients are adequately present, in order to operate at

high levels of efficiency.

 

Dr Archie Kalokerinos has done far and away the most important practical

work in this area and Glen Dettman, PhD, in their work with aboriginal

children in Australia, described in the book " Every Second Child " .

Aboriginal infant death rates had shown a dramatic increase in the early

1970’s, having doubled in 1970 and gone even higher in 1971. In some areas

of the Northern Territory the infant death rate was reaching 50 out of

every 100 babies. Dr Kalokerinos proved that the cause of death was what is

called immunological shock, or paralysis resulting from

nutritional-immunological interactions; in this particular event it was

Vitamin C deficiency. He says: " I have no doubt that some so-called " cot

deaths " are in fact acute vitamin C deficiencies, and that these occur even

if the diet is adequate….. and their response to vaccines against

infections is not always good. First, there is an increased utilization of

vitamin C, and this, particularly when associated with dietary deficiency

or failure of intestinal absorption, may precipitate deficiency of vitamin

C in the blood. This deficiency lowers immunity, and the vaccine adds to

this temporary lowering. An infection such as pneumonia or gastro-enteritis

is likely. Thus an infant may die a few days after being immunised. " The

extra strain on the immune system can be provided by an infection, or it

can be other vaccines administered around the same time.

 

The major reason for the use of measles vaccination is the prevention of

the side-effects of the disease (which are, incidentally, very, very, rare

in well nourished children) such as encephalitis. The official estimation

is that children who contract measles suffer encephalitis about once in

1,000 cases. This is disputed, however, by such workers as Dr Mendelsohn,

who claims that this may be true in children living in poverty and

malnutrition but does not relate to well nourished children in hygienic

conditions, where the level of this complication of measles itself is

likely to be no more than one in 100,000.

 

Evidence regarding vitamin A deficiency in such children is well

established and shows that:

 

* those children who have the worst symptoms during and following

measles 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 require

hospitalisation

* they are the children most likely to die from measles

 

* supplementing with vitamin A dramatically reduces the risks of severe

illness or death associated with measles

 

* this has been demonstrated in Africa where a 700% reduction in

children dying from measles followed vitamin A supplementation

 

The truth is that the vaccine itself carries a high risk of producing

encephalitis, as well as other serious conditions, some of which are always

fatal.

 

* Experimenters have incubated cold viruses, placed them directly on

the mucous lining of the nose, and found that their subjects came down with

colds only 12% of the time. These odds could not be increased by exposing

the subjects to cold drafts, putting their feet in ice water to give them

chills, 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 but

are definite carriers. What turns one person into a sufferer whilst another

is happily carrying on without being aware of the infection having hit him,

must be determined by the differences within the two people; in other

words, differences in immune status. This obviously depends heavily on

nutritional balance, emotional balance, and physical fitness balance. This

would suggest that, being in good health and good spirits, it will be

rather difficult to " catch " a cold; you may catch the virus but your body

will prevent it from developing a cold.

 

During the early part of most viral epidemics it has been noted that the

great majority of new cases, up to 98%, are totally unrelated. Establishing

a contact between them has proven to be impossible. So, how do these

viruses travel several hundred miles without leaving a trail of

destruction? If it is my breath that is spreading them around why does

nobody " catch " it in between two separate hot spots? If I carry it on my

shoes, why does it take so many miles to " fall off " ? Could it be that all

the viruses, in one form or another — because they mutate easily — are

alive and well within a great number of hosts? Could it be that, when the

inner environment of the host changes, the immune system is no longer in

control it and the virus status changes from latent to active? This can

happen almost simultaneously across the country; as a matter of fact, it is

more likely to happen in several places, to several people at once. What

makes you think that amongst all people there is only one so unique that he

" catches " that particular viral infection? And where would the first person

catch 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’ immune

system due to factors of pollution, poor food quality, poor exercise and

rest quality, and poor emotional quality? What else could help explain the

dramatic increase in viral epidemics we experience recently?

 

John Perkins, an internationally acclaimed author, environmentalist and

activist, tells this story.

 

" When I was a boy growing up in rural New Hampshire, my parents were

convinced that wet feet caused colds. If you stepped in a puddle, you had

to change your shoes and socks immediately or you would get sick. And in

fact, experience bore them out. I found that whenever I did not follow

their advice in this regard, I would catch a cold — no exceptions. I also

was continually frustrated to see that this rule did not apply to some of

my schoolmates; I assumed that they were just heartier. Then, many years

later, I discovered that I could spend days in the rain forests with wet

feet. My Shuar companions assured me that no harm would come of this. And

they too were correct! I have since found that I now can get wet feet in

New 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 the

surface of the immune cells;

* That the immune cells make the same mood controlling chemicals as the

brain does;

* That the immune system, like the central nervous system, has memory

and the capacity to learn;

 

Whatever you believe, is what your body experiences! So, if Authorities

tell 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 fear

immediately lowers our immune systems response time, its target

effectiveness and its specificity. From here on we are in trouble; and only

because of what we believe. We create the reality we live in, because

obviously our fears will all come true, thereby confirming our belief. And

so it goes on — the vicious circle of our right to information day by day

weakening our system.

 

On the other hand, happiness and self-confidence will make you strong

enough 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 outside

medical control. By the time their etiology was understood, or their

therapy had become specific, they had lost much of their relevance.

* The combined death rate for scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough

and measles from 1860 to 1965 for children up to 15 years of age shows that

nearly 90% of the total decline in the death rate over this period had

occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunisation

against diphtheria.

 

* Dr Bernard Greenberg, head of the Department of Biostatistics at the

University of North Carolina School of Public Health, has gone on record to

say 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 five

New England states cases of polio roughly doubled after polio vaccine was

introduced. Nevertheless in the midst of the polio panic of the 1950’s,

with pressure to find a magic bullet, health authorities, to give the

opposite Impression, manipulated statistics. Cases of polio were renamed as

" aseptic meningitis " or coxsackie virus infection. Doctors often simply do

not believe that what they are seeing is a disease, which has been

protected against, and therefore it must be something else.

 

* In 1958 there were about 800,000 cases of measles in the USA, but by

1962, the year before a vaccine appeared, the number of cases had dropped

by 300,000. During the next four years, while children were being

vaccinated with an ineffective and now abandoned " killed " virus, the number

of cases dropped another 300,000. In the UK, despite almost complete

immunisation of infants the rate is rising again.

 

* During the winter of 1967-68 an epidemic of measles occurred in

Chicago, from which two lessons were learned. One, there was a high

percentage of cases among vaccinated pre-school children. Two, the failure

of the intensive school immunisation program to terminate the measles

epidemic.

 

* Dr Beverley Allan, of the University Department, Austin Hospital,

Melbourne, Australia conducted trials on army recruits, who were immunised

with an attenuated virus and sent to a training camp known for regular

epidemics of rubella. Four months later an epidemic occurred which affected

80% of the men who had been " protected " .

 

* According to Professor Gordon Stewart, formerly head of a department

of community medicine at Glasgow University, " vaccination has been at best

only partially effective in controlling whooping cough, and has never been

proven 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 seriously

menaced 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? Go

back to the beginning.

 

When our body is hit by a virus, the cell itself produces the first immune

response by producing interferon immediately. This not only is very

effective in controlling the spread of the virus further into the body but

it also gives the body a change to identify the intruder. Therefore the

following response from the immune system producing antibodies and

mobilising the attacker and cleanup cells is very specific against that

particular 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 the

virus is injected deep into the tissues. It bypasses the first contact

phase, which in airborne infections is the nasal and oral mucosa; so, these

cells know nothing about the virus and they can not pass on which specific

antibody to produce. The injected virus is going to be recognised by the

blood patrol which is surprised to find the virus (or particles of) there

anyway, without a warning from somewhere. Its first priority is to destroy

and it will do this as quickly as possible; in the process it will learn

very little about the intricacies of the virus and it’s workings. In other

words, next time it may or may not recognise the virus, and if it does it

will only be a vague memory.

 

Does immunisation work? Short term yes. In fact, it works even before your

body has had time to metabolise the injected material, because all of the

sudden you feel safe again! Your fear has turned into peace of mind; your

immune system can settle down, you’ll live after all.

 

Viral infections are not the problem. The problem is the host, man or

animal. 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. In

the short term, do we see any positive result of the measures taken? Does

isolation, indiscriminate killing and vaccination make any difference at

all to the ongoing process, or is it something to keep us busy? We don’t

want to be seen to be doing nothing, do we now? And we also don’t want to

be 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 a

viral infection is killing the sick and the healthy, as seen in the BSE and

Foot 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 believed

it could save his.

 

Harmony and balance in all we do makes the future bright. It allows for

viruses, bacteria, parasites, animals and plants.

 

May peace be with you.

 

Dr Patrick Quanten MD

March 2001

 

 

 

 

 

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