A treatise on Viral Infections

http://freespace.virgin.net/ahcare.qua/literature/medical/vi...
ons.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 Ñ 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 adequateÉ..
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 Ñ
because they mutate easily Ñ 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 Ñ 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 Ñ and why shouldn't we? Ñ 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 Ñ 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 defenceÑ 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