THE ALCHEMYCAL PAGES
|Q&A | The Human
Being |Yin & Yang | The
Ginger Compress | Disease of the Month|
Food and You |General
Dietary Recommendations | Disclaimer]
This is the first of a series which began as a series of columns
for Hepatitis Magazine, still on-going. 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.
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
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
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
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.
The Alchemycal Pages Copyright © Kaare Bursell, 1996