TETANUS-ONE NATUROPATH'S VIEW
Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:10 pm
http://www.vaccination.org.uk/a/burton4.html
TETANUS-ONE NATUROPATH'S VIEW
Extract from: Tetanus by Dr Alec Burton, ND, DO, DC. Republished in The
Hygienist, BNHS, Autumn 1995. (source—The Informed Parent 2/2003)
It is popularly believed that tetanus is caused by a germ, clostridium
tetani, which gains entry to the tissues through a wound. That is, tetanus
results from an "infected" injury which may be of a minor nature.
"Pathology" edited by Dr Anderson, 5th edition, 1966, states: "The site of
local infection may be quite inconspicuous, and in an appreciable number of
cases it cannot be demonstrated at all." How virulent is the germ? Just how
does it damage the tissues and cause tetanus? The clostridium tetani is
relatively innocuous but it elaborates a certain toxin, tetanospasmin, the
effects of which are hard to determine. Drs. Cecil and Loeb, in their
Textbook of Medicine, say "Tetanus toxin fails to produce any recognisable
pathological lesions in the tissues it affects, nor do any specific changes
occur at the site of infection by the clostridium tetani." But in
"Pathology" a different view is expressed. "Tetanus is primarily a disease
of nervous tissue, the result of injury by tetanus toxin."
The tetanus bacterium is ubiquitous. It is not here today gone tomorrow. It
is found on the surface of the body, in the mouth, in the gastro-intestinal
tract, in house dust and clothing. It occurs extensively in cultivated
soils. In spite of the ubiquity of the so-called cause, the incidence of
tetanus is significantly low.
"The disease proper is unquestionably caused by the tetanus toxin......"
state Drs Cecil and Loeb, and then they proceed to tell us "....but the
mechanisms whereby it is absorbed and produces its effects are still
largely unknown." Yet we read a little later that "The mode of action of
the tetanus toxin is entirely unknown." Is it "largely" or "entirely"
unknown? Is it "questionably" or "unquestionably" caused by the tetanus
toxin? How confused these authors are is clearly demonstrated by their
self-contradictions and uncertainty. Such comments as "led to the theory,"
"it was assumed," "it was also assumed," "additional support for both
points of view," and "convincingly shown the probable correctness of the
first theory" all tend to confirm that they do not know the cause of tetanus.
The idea of a specific cause dies hard. It is so easy to believe that a
germ or a virus has "invaded" the tissues and for this reason we are sick.
It is plausible and at least saves us the trouble of thinking. Louis
Pasteur was the architect of the "Germ Theory" but he soon realised that
his theory raised more problems than it solved. When he announced, after
his early enthusiasm had matured. "The soil is all" no one was interested
in what he had to say, it was not commercially exploitable.
Let us carefully consider some of the facts reported in the medical
literature in 1920, Sir Leonard Hill said in a report to the Medical
Research Committee, "Tetanus and gas gangrene bacilli washed clean and
injected are innocuous." In 'A System of Bacteriology' Vol III, page 307,
Drs Bosanquet and Eyre say "The bacilli are in pure culture incapable of
vegetating in viro," ie of multiplying in the body. Furthermore, in the
Official History of the War, Pathology 1923, it is stated "Tetanus bacilli
have been found in 20% of war wounds although no symptoms of tetanus were
present, " and "in 50% of undoubted tetanus cases the bacilli have been
undiscoverable." In the same volume also appears clostridium tetani has
been "cultivated from the wound of a man showing no evidence of tetanus,
882 days after it had been inflicted," and "it has been realised during the
war that the tetanus bacillus or its spores may be present in vast numbers
of wounds without producing tetanus."
We may deduce from the above facts that we have, as the cause of tetanus, a
bacterium which is (a) harmless in pure culture (b) incapable of
multiplying in the body (c) absent in 50% of cases of undoubted tetanus (d)
present in 20% of cases where no tetanus symptoms appeared and often
remaining in the body for months or years without producing symptoms. This
is certainly a peculiar cause.
It is thought that whilst the bacteria themselves are somewhat feeble,
their spores may remain dormant in the tissues for lengthy periods. If this
is so, what are the factors which enable the spores to develop into
bacteria and elaborate their toxins? What causes them to become active? Why
do they remain dormant for long periods? As yet the answers to these
questions are not forthcoming. They could supply the answer to the cause of
the disease, in fact, all disease, for these questions obviously concern
the host rather than the bacteria, and it is to the host that we must look
for causes. Here we will find the cause of tetanus, not in some microscopic
piece of protoplasm which we endow with almost omnipotent properties.
Bacterial diseases, so-called, have a biochemical basis. The tetanus
bacteria may be a factor in tetanus. The toxin may be involved in some way
but that these are fundamental causes is nonsense, otherwise the disease
would be more common, in view of the fact that the bacteria is so
frequently found on and in our bodies.
Tetanus is a rare disease considering the probable number of wounds which
must be "infected" with the germ, yet it is sufficiently serious to
necessitate the employment of preventative measures. Medically, it is
claimed that an antitoxin serum is successful in preventing tetanus and is
helpful in treating the disease. Hygienists contravert this popular dogma
that disease may be prevented or "cured" by the introduction of foreign
organic substances into the body, and I shall attempt to show that the
anti-toxin serum and toxoid employed to prevent and treat tetanus are of no
value.
Horse serum (clear part of blood) is used against tetanus and has the
reputation of producing "anaphylactic reactions," more commonly than the
other sera. The "preventative" toxoid consists of cultured and killed
"causal" germs. Do these "immunising" agents prevent the development of
tetanus? Do they have any influence upon the disease once symptoms are
evident? Is there any statistical evidence to show that the incidence of
the disease is influenced by the employment of anti-toxin or toxoid?
The following is taken from the Medical Press, Nov 3, 1948. "The not
infrequent failure of tetanus anti-toxin prophylactically is indicated by
the fact that deaths from tetanus occur in 7% of civilian cases and 50% of
military cases, in spite of its use." From the Medical History of the
Second World War, Medicine and Pathology, we note, "It is disappointing to
find that the case mortality is the same as in 1914-18. There is still no
convincing evidence that anti-tetanic serum possesses curative value." Many
more such statements from strictly "orthodox" sources could be quoted to
consolidate our claim that the serum is incapable of affording any
protection against tetanus. However, we must now turn to another important
aspect concerning the employment of the serum.
Is there any danger associated with the injection of sera, and if there is,
does any test exist which can show the probability of the development of
"allergic reactions" in a particular patient. There can be serious effects
following the introduction of tetanus anti-toxin into the body and there is
no valid method of revealing the possibility of these side effects
beforehand. Most textbooks on bacteriology point out the 'fallibility of
the intradermal sensitivity test." The so-called allergic manifestations
may appear immediately following the injection or they may be delayed for
1-14 days. Early "reactions" to toxoid include anaphylactic shock,
unconsciousness and death. The later reactions may be chills, fever,
urticaria, angioneurotic oedema, swollen lymph glands, pains in the muscles
and joints. The anti-toxin may prove fatal but there is also another hazard
associated with the dangerous yet dramatic practice of transfusing blood.
Dr Meyer in his book "Side Effects of Drugs," has this to say: "Six cases
of transfusion reactions occurred in 8 recipients with blood of O donors
previously vaccinated with anti-toxins (diphtheria and tetanus anti-toxins)."
I think it is desirable and necessary to discuss briefly the problems of
"hypersensitivity" which medical men are frequently mentioning. They refuse
to blame the drugs, vaccine and sera for the "reactions" which follow their
administration, but assert that the patient was "sensitive". All this means
is that the drug was not to blame. The blame was the patient's. He or she
was "sensitive". To a greater or lesser degree, we are all sensitive to
poisons, that is, when poisons are taken into the body through any channel,
an attempt is made to resist these poisons, to expel them\pr to neutralise
them, to get rid of them, to destroy them. In the process of neutralising,
expelling and resisting the poisons acute symptoms are the actions of the
body, not the drug or serum, actions of the body defending itself against
the poison.
Finally what is the real cause of tetanus? How may it be prevented, and how
may a patient recover once tetanus has developed? The real cause of tetanus
is not a germ, but dirt and filth. The bacteria are harmless when placed
into a surgically clean wound. Tetanus develops when drainage of a wound is
checked and dirt is retained in the tissues. The bacilli do not circulate
in the blood. They remain at the point of entry and produce toxins. One of
these poisons, tetanospasmin, is one of the most dangerous poisons known to
man which occasions vigorous activity in the nervous tissues. The other
toxin, tetano-lycin, occasions a breakdown of the blood cells. If good
drainage is facilitated from the beginning, tetanus will not result from a
wound. If tetanus has developed, an incision should be made to afford
drainage, removing the foreign matter, and once the wound is drained and
cleaned, the bacteria will not be able to elaborate the powerful toxins
which are poison in the body. Once the poisoning ceases, the patient will
start to recover. The ability to combat, destroy and eliminate the toxins
will depend on the health and vigour of the patient. The patient suffering
from tetanus should be put to bed, permitted to rest, kept warm and fasting
should be immediately instituted. They should receive all the salubrious
hygienic influences and the fasting should be continued until all symptoms
have disappeared. Wounds should never be permitted to become pent-up.
Drainage must be afforded, and if this is done, there is no danger. Drugs,
anti-toxins, are a hazard to health. The sick cannot be poisoned into good
health.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936
TETANUS-ONE NATUROPATH'S VIEW
Extract from: Tetanus by Dr Alec Burton, ND, DO, DC. Republished in The
Hygienist, BNHS, Autumn 1995. (source—The Informed Parent 2/2003)
It is popularly believed that tetanus is caused by a germ, clostridium
tetani, which gains entry to the tissues through a wound. That is, tetanus
results from an "infected" injury which may be of a minor nature.
"Pathology" edited by Dr Anderson, 5th edition, 1966, states: "The site of
local infection may be quite inconspicuous, and in an appreciable number of
cases it cannot be demonstrated at all." How virulent is the germ? Just how
does it damage the tissues and cause tetanus? The clostridium tetani is
relatively innocuous but it elaborates a certain toxin, tetanospasmin, the
effects of which are hard to determine. Drs. Cecil and Loeb, in their
Textbook of Medicine, say "Tetanus toxin fails to produce any recognisable
pathological lesions in the tissues it affects, nor do any specific changes
occur at the site of infection by the clostridium tetani." But in
"Pathology" a different view is expressed. "Tetanus is primarily a disease
of nervous tissue, the result of injury by tetanus toxin."
The tetanus bacterium is ubiquitous. It is not here today gone tomorrow. It
is found on the surface of the body, in the mouth, in the gastro-intestinal
tract, in house dust and clothing. It occurs extensively in cultivated
soils. In spite of the ubiquity of the so-called cause, the incidence of
tetanus is significantly low.
"The disease proper is unquestionably caused by the tetanus toxin......"
state Drs Cecil and Loeb, and then they proceed to tell us "....but the
mechanisms whereby it is absorbed and produces its effects are still
largely unknown." Yet we read a little later that "The mode of action of
the tetanus toxin is entirely unknown." Is it "largely" or "entirely"
unknown? Is it "questionably" or "unquestionably" caused by the tetanus
toxin? How confused these authors are is clearly demonstrated by their
self-contradictions and uncertainty. Such comments as "led to the theory,"
"it was assumed," "it was also assumed," "additional support for both
points of view," and "convincingly shown the probable correctness of the
first theory" all tend to confirm that they do not know the cause of tetanus.
The idea of a specific cause dies hard. It is so easy to believe that a
germ or a virus has "invaded" the tissues and for this reason we are sick.
It is plausible and at least saves us the trouble of thinking. Louis
Pasteur was the architect of the "Germ Theory" but he soon realised that
his theory raised more problems than it solved. When he announced, after
his early enthusiasm had matured. "The soil is all" no one was interested
in what he had to say, it was not commercially exploitable.
Let us carefully consider some of the facts reported in the medical
literature in 1920, Sir Leonard Hill said in a report to the Medical
Research Committee, "Tetanus and gas gangrene bacilli washed clean and
injected are innocuous." In 'A System of Bacteriology' Vol III, page 307,
Drs Bosanquet and Eyre say "The bacilli are in pure culture incapable of
vegetating in viro," ie of multiplying in the body. Furthermore, in the
Official History of the War, Pathology 1923, it is stated "Tetanus bacilli
have been found in 20% of war wounds although no symptoms of tetanus were
present, " and "in 50% of undoubted tetanus cases the bacilli have been
undiscoverable." In the same volume also appears clostridium tetani has
been "cultivated from the wound of a man showing no evidence of tetanus,
882 days after it had been inflicted," and "it has been realised during the
war that the tetanus bacillus or its spores may be present in vast numbers
of wounds without producing tetanus."
We may deduce from the above facts that we have, as the cause of tetanus, a
bacterium which is (a) harmless in pure culture (b) incapable of
multiplying in the body (c) absent in 50% of cases of undoubted tetanus (d)
present in 20% of cases where no tetanus symptoms appeared and often
remaining in the body for months or years without producing symptoms. This
is certainly a peculiar cause.
It is thought that whilst the bacteria themselves are somewhat feeble,
their spores may remain dormant in the tissues for lengthy periods. If this
is so, what are the factors which enable the spores to develop into
bacteria and elaborate their toxins? What causes them to become active? Why
do they remain dormant for long periods? As yet the answers to these
questions are not forthcoming. They could supply the answer to the cause of
the disease, in fact, all disease, for these questions obviously concern
the host rather than the bacteria, and it is to the host that we must look
for causes. Here we will find the cause of tetanus, not in some microscopic
piece of protoplasm which we endow with almost omnipotent properties.
Bacterial diseases, so-called, have a biochemical basis. The tetanus
bacteria may be a factor in tetanus. The toxin may be involved in some way
but that these are fundamental causes is nonsense, otherwise the disease
would be more common, in view of the fact that the bacteria is so
frequently found on and in our bodies.
Tetanus is a rare disease considering the probable number of wounds which
must be "infected" with the germ, yet it is sufficiently serious to
necessitate the employment of preventative measures. Medically, it is
claimed that an antitoxin serum is successful in preventing tetanus and is
helpful in treating the disease. Hygienists contravert this popular dogma
that disease may be prevented or "cured" by the introduction of foreign
organic substances into the body, and I shall attempt to show that the
anti-toxin serum and toxoid employed to prevent and treat tetanus are of no
value.
Horse serum (clear part of blood) is used against tetanus and has the
reputation of producing "anaphylactic reactions," more commonly than the
other sera. The "preventative" toxoid consists of cultured and killed
"causal" germs. Do these "immunising" agents prevent the development of
tetanus? Do they have any influence upon the disease once symptoms are
evident? Is there any statistical evidence to show that the incidence of
the disease is influenced by the employment of anti-toxin or toxoid?
The following is taken from the Medical Press, Nov 3, 1948. "The not
infrequent failure of tetanus anti-toxin prophylactically is indicated by
the fact that deaths from tetanus occur in 7% of civilian cases and 50% of
military cases, in spite of its use." From the Medical History of the
Second World War, Medicine and Pathology, we note, "It is disappointing to
find that the case mortality is the same as in 1914-18. There is still no
convincing evidence that anti-tetanic serum possesses curative value." Many
more such statements from strictly "orthodox" sources could be quoted to
consolidate our claim that the serum is incapable of affording any
protection against tetanus. However, we must now turn to another important
aspect concerning the employment of the serum.
Is there any danger associated with the injection of sera, and if there is,
does any test exist which can show the probability of the development of
"allergic reactions" in a particular patient. There can be serious effects
following the introduction of tetanus anti-toxin into the body and there is
no valid method of revealing the possibility of these side effects
beforehand. Most textbooks on bacteriology point out the 'fallibility of
the intradermal sensitivity test." The so-called allergic manifestations
may appear immediately following the injection or they may be delayed for
1-14 days. Early "reactions" to toxoid include anaphylactic shock,
unconsciousness and death. The later reactions may be chills, fever,
urticaria, angioneurotic oedema, swollen lymph glands, pains in the muscles
and joints. The anti-toxin may prove fatal but there is also another hazard
associated with the dangerous yet dramatic practice of transfusing blood.
Dr Meyer in his book "Side Effects of Drugs," has this to say: "Six cases
of transfusion reactions occurred in 8 recipients with blood of O donors
previously vaccinated with anti-toxins (diphtheria and tetanus anti-toxins)."
I think it is desirable and necessary to discuss briefly the problems of
"hypersensitivity" which medical men are frequently mentioning. They refuse
to blame the drugs, vaccine and sera for the "reactions" which follow their
administration, but assert that the patient was "sensitive". All this means
is that the drug was not to blame. The blame was the patient's. He or she
was "sensitive". To a greater or lesser degree, we are all sensitive to
poisons, that is, when poisons are taken into the body through any channel,
an attempt is made to resist these poisons, to expel them\pr to neutralise
them, to get rid of them, to destroy them. In the process of neutralising,
expelling and resisting the poisons acute symptoms are the actions of the
body, not the drug or serum, actions of the body defending itself against
the poison.
Finally what is the real cause of tetanus? How may it be prevented, and how
may a patient recover once tetanus has developed? The real cause of tetanus
is not a germ, but dirt and filth. The bacteria are harmless when placed
into a surgically clean wound. Tetanus develops when drainage of a wound is
checked and dirt is retained in the tissues. The bacilli do not circulate
in the blood. They remain at the point of entry and produce toxins. One of
these poisons, tetanospasmin, is one of the most dangerous poisons known to
man which occasions vigorous activity in the nervous tissues. The other
toxin, tetano-lycin, occasions a breakdown of the blood cells. If good
drainage is facilitated from the beginning, tetanus will not result from a
wound. If tetanus has developed, an incision should be made to afford
drainage, removing the foreign matter, and once the wound is drained and
cleaned, the bacteria will not be able to elaborate the powerful toxins
which are poison in the body. Once the poisoning ceases, the patient will
start to recover. The ability to combat, destroy and eliminate the toxins
will depend on the health and vigour of the patient. The patient suffering
from tetanus should be put to bed, permitted to rest, kept warm and fasting
should be immediately instituted. They should receive all the salubrious
hygienic influences and the fasting should be continued until all symptoms
have disappeared. Wounds should never be permitted to become pent-up.
Drainage must be afforded, and if this is done, there is no danger. Drugs,
anti-toxins, are a hazard to health. The sick cannot be poisoned into good
health.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936