Beforehand I thank those who can correct mistakes in grammar!!!


One more proof of an alternative hypothesis about tuberculosis?




In spite of the fact that is, would seem, the new alternative hypothesis about occurrence and development of a tuberculosis is enough and precisely shown; till now nobody from official medicine in her is not interested. Why?

It forces to search for fresh proofs.


And so, today, 10.06.2006, in five years after the termination of work at the monography on a tuberculosis, at me the new idea on was born how logically to confirm a accuracy of a new sight at a question on occurrence and development of a tuberculosis. We have got used to use mathematics in all spheres of our life. Let's try use mathematics and in our case. Similarly already it was necessary to act concerning an alternative sight about etiopathogenesis oncological diseases. That while remained unnoticed. Can concerning tuberculosis a situation will develop much better? I believe and hope.


As is known from a history of medicine (about it was already marked in article Why do not apply treatment by fats?), oustanding scientist, physician Karl Trincher repeatedly in the monographies marked really - received positive results in treatment by fats of a tuberculosis. Confirming positive result he had been made and submitted many roentgenograms, on which completely sanitary-pure cavities were visible, and which looked much better, than at other ways of treatment.


Treatment dog and badger fats of a tuberculosis is real and an incontestable fact. Now we shall recollect a conclusion which has been made by the scientist on the basis of the received positive results and according to the infectious theory of a tuberculosis - TREATMENT of the TUBERCULOSIS DOG AND badger by FAT it is REACHED BECAUSE FATS DESTROY mycobacteria In view of the standard theory and the received results for that time the correct conclusion has been made


But, in the subsequent, already in second half of 20 centuries, many scientists - phthisiatricians (on the basis of K.Trinchera's conclusion) had been had been carried out enough of experiments, with the purpose to understand - and how fats destroy mycobacteria? Here it is necessary to note especially that they checked extremely direct influence of various fats on mycobacteria.

Also what? And again - all without exception experiments have shown the surprising fact, that under any conditions FATS DO NOT DESTROY mycobacteria. ???


What it, nonsense? Why there is an obvious CONTRADICTION with the experiments described and documentary-confirmed with K.Trincher? But, alas, phthisiatricians generally not only have disregarded this contradiction, but at all have not lifted this question. Nobody wants to pay attention to him because today this puts under doubt a correctness of the official theory.


Having received these results, scientific has estimated them, and besides, according to the standard infectious theory about etiopathogenesis tuberculosis. They have acted the same as K. Trincher has acted. In result has arisen an opposite theory - TREATMENT by FATS inefficiently as fats do not destroy mycobacteria. The scientific put a spot in a question of application a TREATMENT by FATS at treatment of tuberculosis, having refused from him. The official science counts it absurdity and TREATMENT by FATS does not recognize.


Why scientists have not seen the basic: on the face two real facts. Besides, that treatment by fats has been proved really, on the facts; but they do not recognize this fact as he contradicts the official theory. Why nobody has noticed, what K. Trincher's conclusion instead of the results of experiments displayed by him have been denied only the conclusion?


So in what is a new idea? She consists that it is offered also logically to resolve these two facts. I.e., as it is fashionable to speak, - to understand symbiosis of the real contradiction of the achieved results of experiments with conclusions of scientists.

So, give, apply logic thinking and shall make the mathematical equations.


Fats (F) as have shown the experiments confirmed with K.Trincher, give positive effect - treatment from tuberculosis (T). I.e., there is an equality: F=CT. On the other hand, as the standard theory (her the scientist has applied) speaks, - destruction (DM) is the pledge of success - comes treatment from tuberculosis (T). I.e., there is a second equality: DM=T.

Thus, there is a system of two equations to which treatment of tuberculosis is expressed:




The decision of system from these two equations (equality): F=DM. And it is valid, K.Trincher, and it shows the equation, has drawn a conclusion: F=DM.


Now let's act precisely also in the attitude of experiments on immediate effect of fats on a micobacterium which were carried out in the subsequent by scientists. Experiments have shown that fats nowise do not kill a micobacterium. I.e., there is a disparity: FDM. As we see, this disparity on the basis of the official theory denies results real; I reiterate, on real and documented observations and K.Trinchera's experiments.


But in fact the real result as a matter of fact is not DENIED. Really it is possible to forget about it? The fact is the fact - the tuberculosis is curable by fats. Where then the error hides? Really is in a conclusion?


Let's continue further. Having received disparity FDM, scientists do an inverse conclusion: TREATMENT BY FATS IS NONEFFECTIVELY. I.e., we receive the second disparity: F≠T. As we see, thus scientists already encroach on an objective reality which is found by K.Trincher and deny already her. ??? The science has defined, that fats in treatment of a tuberculosis are noneffective, and destruction of micobacteria is effective only. But how it is possible to reject real result? I do not understand.



But here there is one but. If experience and K.Trincher's conclusion (based on the infectious theory about a tuberculosis) frame system of mathematical equality {F=T; DM=T; that experience and a conclusion of scientists further do not frame the similar logic system of the equations linked to treatment of a tuberculosis. The following mathematical expression turns out: {FDM; DM=T. The system from two equations is frameed: one - equality, other - disparity. Really, having decided this equation, we shall receive, that FT, and it's in fact the conclusion of scientists.


This is, where the error is covered - scientists did not begin to solve further (i.e. completely) mathematical disharmonies; also have for some reason stopped on it. Why? And in fact it was logically necessary to continue drawing up of the equations, i.e. to work out the equation from actual result of experiment and a conclusion. That in result allows framing system from two equivalent equations, to be exact system of inequalities:




And in a result we have the most interesting decision: DMT. Here, where the wonderful fact is covered. Being based on results of experiment and a conclusion of scientists, already for a long time it was possible to give the answer; that destruction of micobacteria cannot result in treatment from a tuberculosis. It shows the equation. The nature from us did not hide it. Apparently, scientists were afraid of this decision; and, most likely, as a rule, the expert cannot get out for official frames. It also has prevented to see obvious.


Really they have not understood absurdity of the uncompleted decision? Really they have not noticed that are mistaken? In fact, if to estimate by means of mathematics (logically) as soon as that has been made, their results and conclusions (which continuations of analysis has not followed) give only the one unique decision: DMT. And it, alas - denies correctness of the contagious theory about tuberculosis.

So, we shall sum up our calculations.


We have two real and an incontestable fact: Fats treat tuberculosis (F=T)! And fats do not influence in any way a micobacterium (F≠DM). On the other hand we have two conclusions of scientists which just and can be erroneous, as against real results. And these conclusions are blindly based on the standard contagious theory of originating and development of tuberculosis: Fats destroy a micobacterium (F=DM)! And fats do not treat tuberculosis (F≠T).


Unless it is invisible obvious? K.Trinchera's conclusion that fats destroy a micobacterium, deny followers who have shown really, that fats cannot destroy this bacterium. And on the other hand, a conclusion of followers that treatment by fats is noneffective, deny K.Trinchera's experiments which has really proved effectiveness treatment by fats.


The aforesaid allows by means of the equations (we shall be repeated once again) to make the following logic conclusions: first, K.Trinchera's conclusion that fats destroy a micobacterium (F=DM), is denied by real experiment by followers fats do not destroy a micobacterium (F≠DM); the second K.Trinchera's fixed experiments that fats effectively treat a tuberculosis (F=T), deny a conclusion of phthisiatricians-followers that fats are noneffective at treatment of a tuberculosis (F≠ T).


Thus, deciding simultaneously two systems of the equations {F=T; DM=T and {F≠DM; F≠T, we receive the precise decision: in a reality and in K.Trinchera's conclusions, and scientists-phthisiatricians in the subsequent which are based on an accepted hypothesis about a tuberculosis, are denied really - received by results of experiments. The mathematical decision shows - simultaneously cannot be: F=DM and F≠DM, as the first equation - a conclusion (can be denied), and the second - the real fact (cannot be denied).


It, in turn precisely proves incorrectness (incompetence) of the contagious theory; because any theory giving even one incorrect or discordant conclusion is incorrect, essence. That real fact, that fats render effective treatment of a tuberculosis and that real fact, that fats do not destroy a micobacterium; clearly and really show us that in a basis of treatment by fats of a tuberculosis other mechanism which is distinct from the mechanism of destruction (liquidation) of micobacteria lays. And it, in turn, speaks that the mechanism of originating of a tuberculosis is not connected to a lesion of the ORGANISM micobacteria.


What real mechanism of originating of a tuberculosis also what itself represents this process which really treatment of fats? The alternative answer to this question which is identified with all existing experiments, is reflected in articles on the given site.


And the new view not only does not deny, but is practically agreed with experiments which observed and has described K.Trincher (F=T) and which observed and scientific phthisiatricians (F≠DM) systematized further. And in this case (as the decision of these two equations {F=T is already shown above); F≠DM will give us the final decision:



I.e. treatment of tuberculosis is impossible by means of destruction of micobacteria. It just also is identified with a real situation of offensive of tuberculosis at intensifying attack on a micobacterium.


Now we have complete variant of the decision of two experiments and K.Trincher, and followers.


On last submitted system of the equations many can object, that she not logic; as earlier in article the system of the equations of scientists on experiment of influence of fats on a micobacterium (which will consist of equality and disparities) has been named uncompleted. Therefore the author is unfair, denying one system of the equations, and at the same time names finished similar which represents.


Anything similar. Just in the complete decision submitted by me, also there is a complete logic. And the illogicality is observed at scientists who do experiments after K.Trincher. She also consists that they, as against him, did not identical experiment. So, K.Trincher estimated results of experiment on treatment of tuberculosis, and followers estimated experiments on immediate effect of fats on a micobacterium. And it is completely different two experiments. And logically, that scientists have not made: it was necessary to carry out and estimate experiments not on destruction of micobacteria, and it is immediate on treatment of a tuberculosis. Or, at least, it was necessary to unit somehow these two different experiments and logically, and in a reality.


Thus, the logic decision of results of experiments allows to confirm the basic conclusion of an alternative hypothesis precisely: the tuberculosis is not a contagion; also it is not produced by a lesion of the ORGANISM micobacteria, the tuberculosis is a process of an irreciprocal defatting of cellular structure.




Используются технологии uCoz