In 1972, while lecturing to a group of medical doctors in Athens, Greece, I made the following statement: "Because of the frequency with which antibiotics are prescribed today by the medical profession, the immune system will soon become weakened to the extent that a host of new, more virulent and incurable diseases will make their appearance. The excessive use of antibiotics deleteriously affects the immune system, in many instances damaging it irreparably."
What prompted the announcement of this gloomy prediction was my own experience in the health field. My statement was quite a controversial one to make in front of physicians, since established medicine considers antibiotics just about the most "astonishing and effective" ammunition they have in combatting disease. But, by 1972 I had already seen and treated hundreds of cases in which I could clearly discern that the appearance of their chronic problems was directly connected to excessive usage of allopathic drugs, usually antibiotics, in particular the penicillin derivatives.
Apart from this specific observation, I was aware, like others in the health field, that there was a general degeneration of health taking place in that part of the world which boasted of having the best and most expensive medical care. We see this degeneration evident in the life expectancy of males in the United States. Compared with other developed nations (all of which spend substantially less for health care) the United States ranks nineteenth in mortality rates.
1 It is obvious from the following statistics that there are many developing countries in South America where life expectancy is longer than in the U.S. If, in fact, the most expensive and best medical care is responsible for the longest life expectancy, then the U.S. should have that honor; but in actuality, the opposite is true.
We present the life expectancies for males in a cross-section of countries in North, Central and South America:
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
Costa Rica: 74.5
Puerto Rico: 70.8 73.2 — — —
Panama: — 72.8 72.9 — —
Barbados: — — — 72.0 —
Cuba: 72.2 —
In the United States it was only 70.1 years in 1980, 70.5 in 1981, 70.9 in 1982, and 71 in 1983.234
We can come to the same conclusions in Europe, where Greece and Iceland, two of the still-developing countries, possess the best life expectancy and mortality rates. In the Eastern bloc countries we see the figures are quite low, with Hungary leading the way. Of the industrialized nations of Europe, Sweden has the best life expectancy rate, and then, in decreasing order, we have the Netherlands, Norway, England and Wales, France, Fed. Rep. of Germany, Italy, Belgium and finally, Austria with the worst rate.234
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
Iceland: 74.7 — 74.9 _
Greece: — 73.6 — 73.8
Sweden: 73.1 — — 73.9 —
Austria: — 69.4 — — 70.4
Hungary: — 65.6 — 65.1 —
Eastern bloc countries, in spite of supposedly complete medical coverage and forced immunization of the whole population, post the lowest life expectancies. I hope to make clear with the theory I shall present that this phenomenon is no paradox.234
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
Hungary: 65.6 65. 1 65.1
Czechoslovakia: 67. 0 — 66.9 67. 1 —
Romania: 67.1 66.9 67. 1
Poland: 67. 1 67.3 67.1 66. 8
Bulgaria: 68.5 68.3 68. 5 —
Thus, we see that the plain numbers tell a story different from the one usually given by the medical establishment. It usually says that the life expectancy has risen because of better medical care. Besides that, the above data give us a picture of only the quantitative side of the issue, without touching upon the quality of life offered by modern medicine.
What is the quality of life for those living on kidney dialysis or with heart transplants, epilepsy, rheumatoid arthritis, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer or AIDS? All these people are included in the statistics evaluating life expectancy, yet the quality of their lives may well be such as to throw the value of a long life, per se, in doubt. Quality of life—the amount of joy, happiness and creativity that gives purpose to our lives—must be considered in addition to life’s duration before any meaningful conclusions can be reached about the effects of any health care plan.
How many of us live in such a healthy state that we can really enjoy life and be creative at the same time? To measure the degree of health which a population enjoys is a difficult and arduous task, especially when one is dealing with statistics; but it is something that, some day, has to be done one way or another. I can even predict that if we carry on in the same manner as in the past, we shall very soon be witnessing a drop even in the quantitative statistics of developed countries. If we had the ability or the will to measure our quality of health, I am sure that we would change our medical system immediately.
Since nobody is doing such an evaluation, we are forced to rely on our own perceptions and experiences in order to answer pertinent questions like:
— How satisfied are you with the drugs you’ve been receiving
for your different chronic ailments?
— In the long run, based on your own experience, are these
drugs causing you harm in other levels of your health?
— How has the quality of your life been affected by such
drugs?
— Even though you may no longer be experiencing disturbing
symptoms, do you feel that your health is really back to
normal?
— How do you feel about constantly taking tranquilizers,
sedatives, painkillers, bronchodilators, hormonal prod
ucts, cortisone and other drugs?
— Is our medical system really a curative one, or one that just
manages to "suppress" disease symptoms?
What we place into our body affects every level of our being. The quantity and quality of the different drugs that go into our body play a great part in upgrading or downgrading the quality of our existence, which really is what life is all about.
In the last fifteen years we have constantly witnessed the appearance of new diseases. Between 1972 and 1980 some fifteen "new" diseases made their appearance. Their causes were unknown, puzzling and elusive. How responsible for this phenomenon were the chemical drugs we were then using? Is it possible that there is a connection between the phenomenon of drug "overuse" and the inability of our immune systems to prevent the appearance of these alarming new diseases?
In addition to the appearance of new diseases, there is also an outbreak of fungal infections. By 19751 was already witnessing an increasing number of patients suffering from such infections. Lately we are witnessing such a tremendous "explosion" of dermal and genital mycoses that this phenomenon is close to becoming a universal problem. In Great Britain the new cases of Candida alone, due to the fungus Candida Albicans, increased from 34,696 in 1973 to 64,173 in 1984.
5 In Britain, it was ranked second among all venereal diseases in 1984.
6 Quite a number of authorities attribute much of today’s "chronic systemic symptomatology" to fungi. Raymond Keith in his book AIDS, Cancer and the Medical Establishment states that, "In recent years, chronic and often imperceptible Candida infections have been recognized as associated with severe symptoms referable to every system of the body."
7 I stopped to think what could have caused this tremendous rise in fungal infections, and then I realized that one of the major antibiotics prescribed to millions by medical doctors was nothing but a fungus derivative, a mold! The common name of this mold is penicillin. In effect, thousands of tons of this drug have been pumped into human organisms since the second World War. There is hardly anybody left in the developed countries who has escaped this "wonder drug." Just to give you a general idea of the amounts of antibiotics consumed, we quote some figures: in the U.S. alone, the annual production of antibiotics in the year 1965 was 7.3 million pounds, but by 1970 it was 16.9 million pounds. Within four years, between 1967 and 1971, the number of prescriptions for ampicillin alone increased from 9.5 million to 21.5 million.
8 The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) antibiotic certification records show that the volume of injectable cephalosporins and gentamycin administered has increased steadily and as of 1977 was still rising.9
In order to combat infections, the required dosage of antibiotics has risen tremendously due to the fact that organisms have become less and less susceptible to them. To give you an example of the increasing dosages of penicillin necessary to combat infections such as gonorrhea, dosage requirements are cited from old pharmacology texts, as well as from Goodman and Gilman’s Pharmaceutical Basis of Therapeutics, 5th ed., 1985:
"When gonorrhea was first treated with procaine penicillin the treatment required a few hundred thousands of units (300,000 IU). But as the human system developed more and more resistance to it, the amount increased to millions of units (4,800,000 IU penicillin + lg probenecid)." This is sixteenfold the initial amount.
It was obvious that penicillin, a fungus derivative, was more powerful than microbes and bacteria in the body, because once inserted in the organism it would immobilize them.10 But in this way penicillin (a fungus) was insidiously establishing its own reign in the body, and it appeared that it was there to stay for good.
Then, more and more powerful drugs were developed, e.g. amphotericin-B, flucytosine, ketoconazole, miconazole, to combat the steadily increasing lethal power of fungi. But at what cost? According to Dr. H. Simmons:
"latrogenic disease in the U.S. has become a serious public health problem. This includes an estimated two million nosocomial infections and many thousands of deaths per year. As others have already pointed out, a substantial amount of this is attributable to the inappropriate use of anti-infective agents."10
Soon different voices from within the medical profession started raising their objections, but unfortunately, nobody took notice.
"The real tragedy lies in the fact that infectious-disease experts have been pointing out these problems and desperately crying out for change for the past thirty years—largely to no avail." 10
Some hard questions were raised in an editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, entitled "This is Medical Progress?"8 These questions were:
A New Model For Health and Disease
" —Has the wide use of antibiotics led to the emergence of new resistant bacterial strains?
— Has the ecology of’natural’ or ‘hospital’ bacterial flora been shifted
because of antibiotic use?
— Have nosocomial infections changed in incidence or severity due to
antibiotic use?
— What are the trends of antibiotic use?
— Is the increasingly more frequent use of antibiotics presenting the
medical community and the public with a new set of hazards that
should be approached by some new administrative or educational
measures?
— Are antibiotics properly used in practice?"
and it continues:
"Along with the dramatic decline in the rates of formerly lethal diseases, new and major hazards have also emerged, due to antibiotic therapy."8
This, like many others, was an early warning of the hazards of medication. What the warning was about was that although the new "wonder drugs" decreased deaths from acute infectious diseases, they added a new dimension to the manifestation and propagation of chronic diseases. As Rene Dubos so appropriately states in his book So Human an Animal:
"While they have done much in the prevention and treatment of a few specific diseases, they have so far failed to increase true longevity or to create positive health. The age of affluence, technological marvels, and medical miracles is paradoxically the age of chronic ailments, of anxiety, and even of despair."
Also, because the over-utilization of antimicrobial agents has precipitated the emergence of more virulent infectious organisms, the management of acute infectious diseases has, in general, become more difficult.
Today, thirteen years later, in spite of this information, even stronger drugs are in use by the medical profession.
It is only logical that now, after all these facts have surfaced, certain questions arise concerning the widespread use of antibiotics and their effect upon the human body.
1. Is there a possibility that penicillin and its derivatives have caused changes or faults in the immune system such that it can no longer resist the colonization of the body by different species of fungi?
Here are some reports from different investigators who respond to this question:
Fungi have emerged as major pathogens, especially in immunosup-pressed patients who have prolonged granulocytopenia and protracted courses of antibiotic therapy.11
Suppression of T-cell function by tetracycline could partially explain the superinfection by Candida sometimes seen clinically after prolonged
use of these agents.12
Immunomodulation (deficiency of the immune system) must be added to the myriad of potential antibiotic side effects.14
For more specific information we cite references: 13-15-16-17
2. Is it possible that the irresponsible use of these drugs, and thus the resultant mutation of microorganisms, is preparing the way for the manifestation of some dreadful, incurable diseases with new and unrecognizable mutants (new viruses, fungi, etc.)? Several sources are cited with statistical data that give an
ample answer to the above questions:
"Infections caused by Gram-negative bacilli are becoming increasingly prevalent and currently constitute the most frequent type of nosocomial infection. Several major centers have reported an annual frequency of Gram-negative bacteremia of approximately 1 per 100 hospital patients, with fatality rates of 30% – 50%. If similar incidence and fatality rates hold for the 30,000,000 acute hospital admissions annually in the United States, as many as 300,000 episodes and more than 100,000 fatalities from Gram-negative bacteremia may occur each year." 8
"In one study, using strict criteria, a superinfection rate of 2.2% was noted in more than 3,000 patients treated with antibiotics. The most striking fact about this study was that Gram-negative bacteria were involved in the majority of these ‘superinfections’ and they were much more difficult to manage than the primary disorder."18
Because of the irresponsible way in which antibiotics generally are prescribed to the public we have the "continuing emergence of even more dangerous and resistant bacterial strains with which the next generation of antibiotics must try to cope."10
It has been cited in the literature that antibiotics "may have marked effects on host-parasite interactions" in the form of producing multiple drug resistance by actually inducing certain mutations to occur, by the production of alterations on their surface structure due to their adaptation to the selective pressure of the antibiotics.19
Thus "originally sensitive bacteria may develop drug resistance through mutation, plasmids, or may acquire it by one of the processes necessitating transfer of genetic material from resistant to sensitive organisms."20
A New Model For Health and Disease
Also several other mechanisms are cited such as alterations of the bacterial chromosomes, enzymatic inactivation of the antibiotics, and establishment of a drug permeability barrier.21
We have multiple cases where newer and stronger strains of microorganisms developed that were less drug-sensitive and more drug-resistant. One case involved a neurosurgical unit where infections by Klebsiella aerogenes had reached epidemic proportions because "ampicillin and cloxacillin had been used for years as ‘prophylaxis.’ "20
In previously mentioning the transfer of genetic material in inducing drug resistance, we have the example of the R-factor. R-factors have "been identified in high incidence among hospital strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa." These R-factors, which determine multiple resistance, can be easily transmitted from one strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to another, therefore making it harder for even the "aminoglycoside antibiotics" to deal with them.22 So these bacteria have actually been made stronger by the same "antibiotics" that were intended to destroy them.
Another antibiotic-induced resistance is the "emergence of the resistance to … the newer B-lactam antibiotics."23
"Since the introduction of penicillin forty years ago, penicillin resistance has increased in staphylococci and now at least 80% of staphylococci from developed countries produce B-lactamase." 24 B-lactamase is the substance that makes the staphylococcus resistant to penicillin. Also, "particular resistance to penicillin has become an increasing problem in the control of gonorrhea." 25
"Methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus has emerged as a nationwide problem in some U.S. hospitals. Staphylococcus aureus infections began sweeping U.S. hospitals in the late 1970s and reached epidemic proportion by the early 1980s."26
"The rapidity with which different resistance genes, transposons and R plasmids have spread to various pathogens around the world demonstrates the powerful selective forces imposed by human use of antibiotics. However, a recent survey of over 400 enterobacteria collected and subsequently stored between 1917 and 1954 suggests that resistance was very uncommon in the pre-antibiotic era… The ultimate sources of many resistance genes are likely to be the soil microorganisms that actually produce most antibiotics or that would be competing with such producers. Since antibiotics are potentially toxic to the producing organism, it is hardly surprising that bacteria such as streptomycetes should possess resistance mechanisms to protect themselves from the antibiotics they produce."27
Some scientists and medical researchers truly believe that we may be returning to a "pre-antibiotic era in which these transformed multiresistant microorganisms will again devastate mankind. This alarm is due to the observed selective pressure in both human and nonhuman microbial environ-
Introduction 9
merits exerted by the widespread and ever-increasing use of antibiotics."27
Perhaps it has not been understood so far, that the quality of our health depends almost entirely on the quality of microorganisms that exist normally within our body and thus form the basis of our life. If we disturb their equilibrium by pumping all this "mold" into the organism, we are going to have a "moldy" organism eventually.
It has been stated that the "prescribing of antibiotics, whether inside or outside hospitals, adds needlessly to the mounting pressures for selection of resistant organisms. It may seem an overstatement to describe it as an act of environmental pollution, but when the full and ultimate consequences of this manner of use are grasped it is less of an exaggeration than might have at first appeared." 20
So far, it seems that modern medicine has not been concerned with the vital issue of the quality of microorganisms that live normally within the body and the mutation these microorganisms are undergoing because of the influence of foreign substances like antibiotics. The outcome has been a transformation, a mutation, from which a non-pathogenic bacteria is turned into a pathogenic one; e.g. Alcaligenes, a non-pathogenic bacteria, which exists normally in the human mi-croflora and is an antibiotic-resistant organism, may transfer its resistance to previous non-resistant but potentially lethal organisms, such as Pseudomonas aerigunosa.22
Transferable drug resistance, which means antibiotic resistance that can be transferred from one species of bacteria to another, though first demonstrated only in intestinal bacteria, has become commonplace in many other bacteria as well.2834
In effect, the widespread use of antibiotics has created on all levels of the organism a hazardous situation that is now very difficult to either undo or correct.
3. Is it possible that all developed countries and some in the process of developing have been using extremely powerful drugs in an extremely unwise way? Was it possible that apart from the damage that came as a necessary evil to life-threatening situations, there
10 A New Model For Health and Disease
were other instances where these powerful agents were used indiscriminately?
The evidence for such practices is overwhelming, as you can see from the following quotations:
When a physician prescribes a medication for a patient, the act is often shaped, in a large part, by forces unrelated to the biochemical properties of the drug—a phenomenon which has been called "the non-pharmacological basis of therapeutics".35
For more information on this please note references.36 – 43
"In 1968 the Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) Task Force on Prescription Drugs devised this definition, and expressed the conclusion that rational prescribing as so defined was far from universal in medical practice… ‘It is my belief,’ said Dr. Jan Koch-Weser of Harvard, ‘that lack of knowledge in the proper therapeutic use of drugs is perhaps the greatest deficiency of the average American physician today.’ " 44
"Prescription surveys give some idea of the extent of inappropriate drug use. For example: Of the 25 most frequently prescribed drugs in the U.S. in 1976, eight were authoritatively considered to be pharmacologically or therapeutically questionable. (Knapp D.E., 1978; cited in Smith M.C., 1980) …An analysis of over 50,000 teaching hospital prescriptions in the U.S. indicated a higher than 1 in 8 level of over-medication (excessive quantities of drugs and/or frequency of dosage). There was also a significant number of inappropriate combinations of drugs (risk of reduced therapeutic effect and/or harmful drug interaction). (Maronde et al., 1971) …The list of studies showing inadequate practice is extensive and they are not limited to office practice. Hendeles (1976) cited two hospital studies which discovered inappropriate use of antibiotics in over 60% of cases (Smith M.C., 1980). A later study of prescribing in Scottish hospitals supports these findings: ‘In two-thirds of such patients, there was no good bacteriological evidence that an antibiotic was required. Since 11% of all antibiotic exposures were associated with undesirable side effects, it was concluded that the risks of therapy were greater than the benefit to be expected’ " (Moir D., et al., 1979).45
A retrospective analysis of randomly selected patients, according to the Kunin’s categories of use, showed 64% of the total antibiotic therapy as not indicated or inappropriately administered in terms of drug or dosage.46
"In 50.5% of hospital discharges in 1972 where antibiotics were given, no record of a bacterial culture was recorded on the chart."8
The striking production figures for the tetracyclines are somewhat surprising in view of the warnings about using tetracyclines in children or infants.47
"—Lack of understanding by many physicians as to the proper use of anti-infective agents and their pharmacological properties,
Introduction 11
— Widespread use of anti-infective agents in conditions for which
they are either known to be ineffective, or where there is a lack of
substantial evidence of efficacy,
— Overextensive and inappropriate use of powerful or broad-spec
trum antibiotics in instances where simpler, safer or less expen
sive, or no antibiotic, therapy would suffice,
— Significant deficiencies in knowledge among physicians of the
proper use of bacteriological laboratory and interpretation of the
findings.
These factors combine to lead to substantial harm, significant waste, serious ethical questions of prolongation of many already severely compromised lives…"10
4. Is it possible that drugs have been used in human organisms without being properly tested for long-term effects?
The most classical examples of adverse long-term effects from drugs that were supposed to have been tested properly are:
— Thalidomide, which circulated in the 1950s as a tranquil-
izer and produced the well known genetic defect known as
phocomelia.
— Phenylbutazone, an anti-inflammatory drug which pro
duces suppression of the bone marrow. In 1983, the fact
that 1200 deaths were attributed to this drug was kept
quiet. The drug is still in use although there is no apparent
need for it, according to the World Health Organization
(WHO).
— Indoprophene, an anti-inflammatory drug taken off the
market in 1985 because of certain allusions to the drug’s
carcinogenesis.
— Clioquinol, an anti-diarrhetic drug: On the record in Japan
alone, there were 11,000 disability cases and 1,000 deaths.
The major adverse effect was that it caused SMON (Syn-
drome of Myelo-Optic Neuropathy).
— Phenacetin, an analgesic that produces renal insuffi-
ciency.47
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigations turned up various sorry aspects of what was touted as research: the submission of detailed reports and claims involving a series of two patients only; claims of therapeutic miracles on patients who had not even been adequately diagnosed; the use of private
12 A New Model For Health and Disease
physicians as drug company experts who were delighted—at a price—to sign any endorsement, provided that somebody would tell them what to report. As one reporter noted:
"Some drug companies went so far as to design the ‘clinical’ experiment, write the testing physician’s reports, and then pay him for use of his name." 44
"During the past few years it has been reported that cancer of the vagina—ordinarily an exceedingly rare type of malignancy—has been detected in almost a hundred young girls whose mothers had been given stilbestrol to prevent an apparently imminent spontaneous abortion. The first use of the drug for this purpose dates back to 1946. In 1953 two controlled trials demonstrated its complete lack of efficacy. Yet the director of the Clinical Center of the National Institute of Health testified that in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, without proof of benefit, thousands of pregnant women underwent stilbestrol therapy."44
"The increase in the use of drugs for both short-term and long-term treatment during the past decades has led to a corresponding increase in concern about their potential for inducing serious illnesses (illnesses that are potentially life-threatening or otherwise produce substantial incapacity, disability or both)."48
But the most alarming report comes from John Braithwaite, where in his well-researched book Corporate Crime of the Pharmaceutical Industry, he describes the unethical way that certain drugs were tested. On page 51 he writes:
"Dr. Ley, Goddard’s immediate successor at the helm of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), told hearings before the U.S. Senate…of one spot check which turned up the case of an assistant professor of medicine who had reputedly tested twenty-four drugs for nine different companies. ‘Patients who died while on clinical trials were not reported to the sponsor,’ an audit revealed. Dead people were listed as subjects of testing. People reported as subjects of testing were not in the hospital at the time of the tests. Patient consent forms bore dates indicating they were signed by the subjects after the subjects died." He reports further that in studies conducted by one commercial drug-testing firm, "Patients who died, left the hospital or dropped out of the study were replaced by other patients in the tests without notification in the records. Forty-one patients reported as participants in studies were dead or not in the hospital during the study…."49
Of course, I do not mean to imply that all pharmaceutical companies follow the same unethical practices, but the fact remains that the consequences of allopathic drugs are too often tragic or disastrous for quite a number of people. What is even more grim is the fact that nobody today can predict the subtle
Introduction 13
long-term effects that chemical drugs may have upon the human organism. Additional literature describing adverse symptoms or side effects can be found in abundance in medical journals cited in references.50-54 Several researchers have reported an alarming ignorance on the part of physicians concerning the use of antibiotics.55. 56 . 57
For the last fifteen years I have been trying to draw the attention of the medical profession to these really deadly issues. I have spoken at different universities in America and in Europe—always as a guest of the medical students. I have spoken passionately in my yearly seminars to physicians all over the world about these issues, and nobody seems to argue with me about the validity of these assumptions. Concerning a talk I gave in San Francisco in 1978, Richard Grossinger wrote:
"When Vithoulkas spoke at the University of California Hospital in San Francisco, he received a five-minute standing ovation from the medical personnel, despite the fact that he had demolished in his lecture everything that the medicine practiced in that building stood for."58
In essence, most people agree on the validity of these statements, yet there has been no change forthcoming. Many authorities have issued similar warnings over the years, but there has been no change in the medical way of thinking. Perhaps what is needed now is for medical centers to consider these thoughts, investigate these matters and publish their own conclusions. There is already enough scientific evidence to support the claims presented here. However, if these institutions need more research, they should perform it quickly. A tempest of maladies is rapidly approaching, and it is not going to spare anyone.
At the end of this book, I advance a hypothesis which states that the AIDS situation is very much connected to the occurrence and treatment of venereal disease. Some of my ideas relating to this issue are pertinent to the topic here under discussion.
In the beginning, it was apparent to me and to many venerologists that "non-specific urethritis" was nothing else but the continuation of the gonorrheal infection in a more latent and chronic form. Often-repeated prescriptions of antibiotics did nothing to alleviate the condition. While gonorrhea seemed to be decreasing, in reality the gonorrheal affliction, under the pres-
14
A New Model For Health and Disease
sure of antibiotics, was being transformed into non-specific urethritis or ascending urinary infections. In fact, non-specific urethritis is approaching epidemic proportions in the population. Several authorities have referred to this matter.
This is also evident in that there is a "continued increase in annual incidence of non-gonococcal urethritis (NGU) at a time when gonorrhea is coming under control in some western countries," underscoring "the need to examine critically the epidemiology of NGU." 59
"Chronic prostatitis may follow gonococcal or non-gonococcal urethritis and is especially common after the latter. Indeed such silent ‘prostatitis’ almost invariably accompanies non-gonococcal urethritis. Treatment in the absence of a known cause is empirical and often
unsatisfactory." 6"
The fact was that we were not really curing the infection but rather "transforming" it into another more chronic form. Researchers attest to the fact that "chronic urethritis infection may represent the end stage of an incompletely healed acute urethritis." 61
While in previous decades the problem of venereal diseases appeared primarily in the form of syphilis and gonorrhea, in our modern society these two infectious diseases have been relegated to secondary positions. A host of new sexually transmitted diseases has appeared in epidemic proportion in their stead. Such diseases are non-specific genital and urinary infections,
Clinic returns (new cases)
Estimated hospital discharges and deaths
Laboratory reports
30-
20-
40 ^
10
Pelvic inflamatory disease
Non-specific genital infection
Gonorrhea
Genital isolation of Chlamydiaf trachomatis
0
1960 1965
1970 1975 Year
—I r—
1980 1984
Figure 1: Genital tract infections in women in England and Wales (1960-1984). Epidemiology of Genital Chlamydial Infections; Infection-1982, 10 (Supp.): S33.
Introduction
15
mainly due to Chlamydia trachomatis, Candida albicans (causes candidiasis), the herpes virus (simplex and complex types) and genital wart viruses. (See Figure 1 and Figure 2)
From looking at these first two figures we can come to certain conclusions:
a. It took several years of antibiotic treatment for us to clearly
see the long-term side-effects of antibiotics and the ex
treme rise in non-specific genital infections.
b. In spite of the wide use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, we
observe continuing incidence of gonorrhea and a tremen
dous rise in non-specific genital infections.
c. All of the cases of gonorrhea thought to be cured are now
appearing as chronic cases of non-specific genital infec
tions.
Non – gonococcal urethritis
70- Gonorrhoea / Non-gonococcal
A j urethritis
60- /
|50-
°40-
jmbers in 1 GO o f / Gonorrhea
z20-
/
10-
n
U 1951 1955 1960 1965 1970 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978
Year
Figure 2: Reported cases of non-gonococcal urethritis and gonorrhea in England and Wales (1951-1978). Sexually transmitted disease surveillance in Britain, 1984; British Medical Journal-1986, 293: 943.
16 A New Model For Health and Disease
Here we have Chlamydia trachomatis being "responsible for about 50% of non-specific genital infections." (Chlamydial infections are probably the most prevalent of the sexually transmitted diseases.)62
The "FDA states flatly that chlamydial infections are ‘more prevalent in the United States than any other venereal disease; there are at least three cases for every two of gonorrhea.’… Three million Americans a year are infected with the chlamydia." S3
Thus we see that "non-specific genital infections rank first among all sexually transmitted diseases." 5 6
According to my hypothesis, what was actually taking place in all gonorrhea treatment with antibiotics was that the infection, when treated repeatedly with these drugs, was pushed deeper into the organism, resulting in chronic inflammation of the prostate gland or ascending urinary and genital infections. The following statements lend this hypothesis validity:
"Chronic prostatitis usually develops as a result of invasion of bacteria from the urethra";61 "gonococcal prostatitis occurs only in men who have had prior histories of gonococcal urethritis."64
"Chronic non-bacterial prostatitis is much more common than chronic bacterial prostatitis. It is an ill-understood condition which shows a poor response to therapy. Most patients had had one or more courses of antimicrobials before they were referred for prostatic investigation. This (treatment) may be sufficient to prevent the culture of microorganisms but insufficient to suppress [emphasis mine] symptoms or prevent predisposition to recurrent non-specific urethritis."65
When medical doctors talk about suppressing the symptoms they do not realize that what they necessarily imply is that another condition representing the symptom on a deeper level will most probably manifest. Medical education has not yet sensitized physicians to the fact that they should be viewing the human being as a whole and not a mere collection of parts. So they are not aware that in suppressing a symptom they may actually be causing harm to the whole organism.
"Both acute and chronic bacterial prostatitis can be associated with reinfections of the urethra when patients are followed for several years after obtaining bacteriological cures."66
"Early observations of patients with chronic bacterial prostatitis revealed that sensitive bacteria persisted in the prostatic fluid despite the serum levels of bactericidal drugs that far exceeded the minimal inhibitory concentration of the infecting organism." K7 What this means is that pathological organisms persist in the prostatic fluid, in spite of huge doses of antibiotics.68
Introduction 17
Thus we see that when a specific urethritis was thwarted with antibiotics, either a non-specific urethritis, a prostatitis or a genital infection appeared.
As a consequence, I was not surprised to see that in 1981 a new virus was traced which was found mostly in ‘promiscuous’ homosexual males. The common denominator between my theory and the discovery of the virus is that in this particular group, syphilis or gonorrheal infections are quite frequent and are treated with antibiotics. Many of these homosexuals also use antibiotics prophylactically before casual sexual encounters, thus increasing their antibiotic use 50- to 100-fold as compared to the rest of the population.
— Is it therefore possible that treatment with these drugs,
combined with the specific stress on the organism induced
by the venereal disease, could lead to the immune system’s
depleted state and thus allow the development of the "new
virus" ?
— Is it possible that the "deficiency" was "acquired" primarily
because of the preceding antibiotic treatments?
— How is it possible that the previously strong immune
systems of young male homosexuals could be destroyed
within a few years of their beginning their homosexual
practices?
— Can we accuse male homosexuality for the AIDS disease?
This question has been asked and researched by very
serious researchers.
These are questions that I shall attempt to answer in the following chapters. But I would like to repeat that before one can fully understand my theory on AIDS, one will have to read the entire book in order that all elements of my argument may be appreciated.
The ideas I am proposing in this Model are not the theoretical whims of my imagination, but principles that have been formulated from 28 years of experience and observations in treating more than 150,000 patients with a great variety of diseases. The overall supervision and observation of such a large number of cases was possible because I was the director of a large clinic in Athens, Greece, where thirty medical doctors were practicing an alternative therapeutic discipline.
18 A New Model For Health and Disease
It is also important that the reader not lose sight of the objectives set forth by this Model which are:
1. To formulate the basic laws and principles that govern the
human body in health and disease.
2. To explain the reason or reasons for the human race’s
present degenerated state of health.
3. To help the reader decide which is the best way to treat
human disease.
4. To help the reader realize that in transgressing the exist
ing laws of nature, consequences must be borne.
I would like to reiterate that I do not blame or hold responsible the individual scientists, corporations, pharmaceutical companies, universities or governments for the current state of affairs pertaining to our "health." I do believe that all those concerned with health issues have worked earnestly and conscientiously, according to their understanding and abilities, to provide the best health care they thought possible. But I also believe that the majority of them have been caught up in a vicious circle of "apparent truths" which resulted from asking the wrong questions and obstinately pursuing elusive answers. The end result has been chaos. In general, my belief is that medical research has taken the wrong direction.
The question usually asked in research laboratories is: "Can we find a chemical or biological substance that will eliminate the pathological agent?"
It may sound paradoxical, but this is the wrong question to ask. This question and others similarly misguided have led research efforts astray. These efforts have been directed toward finding agents which could "kill" viruses, bacteria or fungi. In reality what has been happening is that once a chemical has been inserted into the body, it not only destroys the harmful bacteria, but also other useful microorganisms which are absolutely necessary to maintain the body’s homeostasis.
Perhaps the right questions are:
1. Why does the organism allow a disease state to occur in the
first place?
2. How can we best support the body’s natural defenses so
that it can rid itself of the disease?
Introduction 19
3. Is there any way available to restore health other than to kill the pathological agents with chemical drugs?
I consider it vital that these questions should have been asked from the very beginning by those engaged in medical research; but nobody has thus far seemed concerned with such deliberations.
No one denies the fact that so far research has been conducted with integrity and the best of intentions. Without wishing to denigrate their integrity or good intentions, however, it is time that I reveal my evidence and offer my observations of the natural principles governing health and disease.
Because of past "scientific" conditioning, the new ideas contained in A New Model for Health and Disease initially may appear abstract, advanced and perhaps foreign to the reader; but as we are dealing with new material and ideas, I ask the reader to be patient and not pass judgment until he or she has read the whole treatise.
I would also like to state from the beginning that this thesis about a new Model of health and disease is only an hypothesis which attempts to give insight into the human being’s mode of functioning during health and disease and into the construction of the human being in all its levels of existence. The main effort will be to provide a theoretical Model that will explain the "manifestation" of disease and the tremendous increase of chronic degenerative illnesses in our time.
I also feel obliged to state that the task I have undertaken is tremendously difficult and extremely complicated, and thus my attempt is by no means complete or final. It is only a suggestion of the direction toward which medical thinking should proceed in order to free itself from the vicious circle in which it is now entangled.