THE ALCHEMYCAL PAGES

INFECTIOUS ILLNESS.

Part 1

This is the first of a series which began as a series of columns for Hepatitis Magazine now defunct. The next one will appear in the Nov-Dec 2002 issue. I am modifying the original content of the columns to some degree but most of the material will stay unchanged, laying the groundwork for future writings.

The approach of my writings in The Alchemycal Pages is to give you the tools, knowledge and understanding for healing yourself of Hepatitis C and any related problems, and for any illness, degenerative or infectious that you or your friends, family and colleagues may be experiencing. This will require effort on your part, both physical and mental, and is not easy. However, it is simple and relatively straightforward once you grasp the principles and get going on implementing the practices based on them.

INFECTIOUS ILLNESS.

The approach I am taking to solving the problem of Hepatitis C virus in particular and illness in general is based on macrobiotic principles and anthroposophical insights. I began my quest to discover solutions and answers to the problems of illness and health as a young boy in England. I studied basic science ­ biology, physics and chemistry ­ in high school, and entered the School of Veterinary Medicine and Science at the University of Liverpool, in 1966.

After obtaining my degree of Bachelor of Veterinary Science (B.V.Sc.) I started my career in veterinary clinical medicine and surgery as an assistant veterinary surgeon in Large Animal Practice in Grantown-on-Spey, Scotland in 1971.

I cannot say that my five years of study at the University of Liverpool left me with feeling that what I had been taught afforded me any degree of satisfaction. I became so distraught with the scientific intellectualism of the curriculum I seriously considered dropping out of university entirely in the summer of 1968. However, I determined to see my studies to the end, justifying my decision with the rationalization that the professors and instructors at university were mere intellectuals, and no matter how bright or dull they were, they were not practitioners. Thus, I could not really criticize them, for what they taught was mere theory and conjecture. I decided to wait to get into the field, where I was practicing as a veterinary clinician in actual clinical situations and see how I felt after a few months.

I vividly remember my first real-life case, a young calf I was called to see on a farm early one cold winter evening in 1971. I did as I had been taught as far as examining the calf, and came up with a diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia. I then did what I had been taught and gave the calf an injection of antibiotic.

Well, so what, what is so remarkable about this case? Outwardly, nothing, it is a scene that has doubtlessly been re-enacted hundreds of millions of times on farms all over the world. No, what I vividly remember was being overcome with the feeling that I had absolutely NO IDEA WHY this calf had contracted pneumonia. After all, there were perhaps 20 calves in the same pen, so, if the germ theory is correct, and the bacteria causing this particular calf to come down with pneumonia was in the environment in which all the calves were living, they were eating the same food and drinking the same water so why did they not ALL come down with the illness?

This was the first encounter that lead me to doubt the validity of the germ theory, and I had many more over the coming years in my practice as a veterinary surgeon. However, it was not until after I had started practicing macrobiotics in 1975 and I began my studies of macrobiotic principles and practices that I began to find my way to a satisfying solution to finally refute the germ theory as being utterly erroneous and immensely misleading.

I was at this time working as a veterinary practitioner in Wales, out of a town called Welshpool, not far from the English county of Shropshire, in mid-Wales. Here one illness I saw a lot of was mastitis, infection and inflammation of the mammary gland of dairy cows.

The manner in which one approaches mastitis, since its diagnosis means the milk from a cow with mastitis cannot be sold, and has to be discarded, and is therefore an economic drain on the dairy farmer, is that the cow must be cleared of the illness as soon as possible so that its milk can be sold again. So, having made the diagnosis, the first thing to do is to take a sample of milk from the infected udder and send it to the laboratory for testing to find out what particular infectious agent is involved in this particular case and to find out what antibiotic is the drug of choice, that is, to which antibiotic the bacteria in question is not resistant.

The quandary the veterinary practitioner faces is he or she cannot wait until they receive the test report back from the laboratory, as that usually took a week or more. In the meantime, you have a sick cow on your hands, and an anxious farmer, so you have to treat the animal right away.

Since each case of mastitis can involve a different bacterial organism, there are somewhat differing symptoms presented, so one can make a diagnosis based on these plus having seen similar cases before. A decision is then made as to whether the case of mastitis you are dealing with involves e.coli, salmonella, or pseudomonas, etc.

Then, having made the diagnosis that this is a case of mastitis involving say, eschericia coli, you then face another decision ­ which antibiotic to use, as it may that the e.coli is resistant to one or more antibiotics. So, you decide which antibiotic to inject, based on what you have used in the past and various laboratory reports. And you cross your fingers that when you come back the next day for a revisit that the cow will still be alive!

And in most cases, that turns out to be the case. But, in several cases, the cow died.

I did a thorough personal study of mastitis during my last year of practicing as veterinary surgeon before the results of my study and two other pivotal experiences finally convinced me that modern medical science is entirely inadequate and fundamentally erroneous in regard of having any possibility of offering any positive means of solving the problem of illness and disease.

The results of my study can be summarized as follows:
A test report from the laboratory saying the bacteria in question was resistant to the antibiotic I used in the case, and the cow died.
A test report saying the bacteria was resistant to the antibiotic I used and the cow lived and recovered with no problems.
A test report saying the bacteria was sensitive to the antibiotic I used and the cow died.
A test report saying the bacteria was sensitive to the antibiotic I used and the cow lives and recovers with no problems.

I therefore came to the conclusion that bacteria are NOT causal in cases of ANY illness in which they are identified as being involved in the illness, they are merely one of the presenting symptoms, in addition to fever and inflammation, diarrhea, apnea, increased pulse rate, etc.

The second important experience was reading a wonderful book, in 1977, "The Living Soil and The Haughley Experiment" by E.BB. Balfour (London: Faber and Faber, Ltd., 1942). The authoress, a Lady Eve Balfour, was a member of the aristocracy in England and owned a dairy farm.

She had read the classic books of Sir Thomas Howard on composting and was aware of the work of Rudolf Steiner. Since she was having problems with mastitis, as every dairy farmer using modern methods of animal husbandry does, she decided to do an experiment on her farm. Essentially, and I am simplifying greatly, the experiment entailed the throwing out of the use of ALL chemicals ­ herbicides, pesticides, and artificial fertilizers ­ in the growing and harvesting of the cow's feed ­ barley and hay. Also, she decided to feed her cows only on what she grew on her farm and recycle the straw from the barley by composting it with the daily waste products ­the dung and urine - of the cows. She used this composted waste to fertilize the soil on the farm every year.

Now, many aspects of this experiment were studied but the one relevant to my theme has to do with the quality of the milk produced by the cows.

In the United Kingdom when I was veterinarian, all the milk from a herd of dairy cows is tested daily to determine the white cell count (w.c.c.) in the milk. White cells are indicators of infectious activity in the organism. The higher the count, the greater the possibility that infection is present in the cows' udders. If the w.c.c. reached above a certain threshold number, then the entire production from the herd that day was discarded, and then each cow had to be tested separately to determine which cow or cows had contracted mastitis.

The point is that the white cell count of the cows involved in the Haughley Experiment were so much less than what was considered the threshold for normal dairy cows, it is almost incredible.

It is over 20 years since I resigned from the veterinary profession and quit it for good, so my numbers may not be entirely accurate, but as I recall, the threshold number of white cells above which the milk had to be discarded and each cow tested individually was around 256,000 cells per c.c. of milk. In the milk of the cows of the Haughley Experiment, their average white cell count was around 12-15,000 per c.c. of milk.. This is highly significant and I will continue my discussion next time.

In the meantime, the book is available to be read on-line here:

Reading the book was the second of my pivotal experiences leading me to realize that modern scientific medicine is a massive edifice based on nothing, nothing at all.

The third experience occurred in the last summer of my career as a veterinarian, which I will describe in the next instalment.

Infectious Illness Part 2

Comments or questions can be sent to the address below as I check this address every few weeks. Please mention Alchemycal Pages in the subject line. Thank you. Patricia

kaareb@mac.com