Beforehand I thank those
who can correct mistakes in grammar!!!
How to cope with a
problem of cancer and tuberculosis?
The impression
apparently arise, that nobody is interested in the decision of a problem of
cancer and tuberculosis! Though the
decision these diseases of problems began today to one of priorities, and not
only in
Why the
situation in the attitude of these diseases worsens? Unless
the medicine does not accept any efforts? Accepts! Unquestionably, the
fundamental science has reached tremendous successes in the attitude of many
diseases. Fine results in struggle against a pathological cell, on her
destruction and ablation are received. But diseases so and is not possible to conquer.
So, the American scientist, the winner of two laureate Nobel Prizes, L.Poling has told: In spite of the fact that for
last quarter of a blepharon on cancer researches have
been spent tens billions dollars, the mortality from the majority of kinds of a
cancer has changed a little Clearly, that if
we let be to continue such treatment, we shall kill the patient earlier, than
his tumour.
B.Puhlik in the monography
Tuberculosis: State of emergency? writes: - series of experts WHO specify,
that that hour when the tuberculosis will
be practically incurable disease
approaches... . T. Brjuer and J. Haman,
the Harvard explorers in "American Journal of Epidemiology" write
that in many countries of the world the position with a tuberculosis for last
10 years practically has not improved Global strategy of struggle against a
tuberculosis requires essential revision Global efforts on struggle against a tuberculosis
(program DOTS) yet have not brought expected success.
The
tuberculosis cannot be won, but to supervise him is in our forces, is it is told in 2002 at a medical seminar in one
of regions.
B.V.Norejko, d. m. s., the professor in the monography
writes Immunological aspects of a tuberculosis : Looking
back back, it is possible to tell with confidence,
that in up to antibacterial an era
the tuberculosis represented smaller threat to mankind, than now .
Today already everyone recognize, that the basic trouble is when, attacking an able-bodied cell, impossible to not damage able-bodied cell. And it relapses. We many know only about ultimate result of
disease (a sick cell), and about the process of disease - know nothing. Having
liquidated pathological frames, we cannot tell that process of disease is
liquidated. Therefore we also notice, after there has ostensibly stepped convalescence,
appearance of new pathologies.
Methods of treatment which we use today only facilitate fate the patient, instead of
cure of disease. It became clear to everything from such practice it is necessary to depart.
Many scientists and experts WHO speak about the new
approach in medicine. Official achievements of
medicine cannot implore. For they are a starting point in search new. As is impossible to do,
we - have understood. Is not a secret that from the beginning of the last
century in fundamental questions the medicine stands on a place.
The answer
in the decision of problems and him is recognized by all
while the
secret of originating and development of a cancer will not be opened, to find a
method of his treatment it will be impossible. It concerns
also tuberculosis. Though phthisiatricians zealously
object; asserting, that process of tuberculosis already for a long time is
known. If the medicine knew all about tuberculosis for a long time this disease
would be defeated. And, alas, today events develop very much the other way; the
cancer and tuberculosis come with new force.
Till this
day numerous appeales about a method the decision of
these problem diseases in the highest medical instances, to frames of
authority, to many politicians while remain without attention. The impression
is frameed,
that we about acute necessity of acceptance of resolute actions only eloquently can speak.
I do not understand. Why in such situation anybody from
principals on whom the decision of the given problems depends, does not have an
affair up to the report on new hypotheses? Really nobody is interested in the positive decision?
Repeatedly
through editions (the newspaper of Ministry of Health Your health, the
newspaper News of medicine and a pharmaceutics, the weekly journal "2000",
a political weekly journal "Monday"), through Internet-sites with
representation of a new view on these diseases were attempts the reasoned
discussion to cause. But, alas, any official response and furthermore the
reasoned refutation, has not followed. The reports do not permit to the edition
in the specialized medical editions on an oncology and a phthisiology,
because here there is already a reality of recognition.
Attempts to
draw attention in leading institutes of an oncology and a phthisiology,
the appeal to Ministry of Health, statement at the closed conferences with the
report to the recognized scientists did not give result. Besides from them has not followed not one
the real and reasoned refutation.
On the part
of experts there were attempts of pressure only authority. There were charges
without any reasons in not-knowledge of principal position of an oncology and a
phthisiology. But let, why then scientists, who
"know" both an oncology, and tuberculosis, cannot cope with these
problem diseases?
There is no necessity to prove, that if any theory has no
concrete decision (expected ultimate result) she is simply incorrect. Why
experts who cannot find the decision, are afraid to admit it? In that case, why
they so zealously protect incorrect theories?
Experts are
not worry, that in work above these problems the strict
principle to be based on actual results of experienced and clinical experiments
existing in fundamental medicine was carried out; and also be based on last
reports and achievements of an official medical science. And the
more so, last achievements of a medical science (the
received results) allow telling that new hypotheses are true. Bases it is official results.
There were
charges of scientists what is very acute the question in my stuffs about a
negative situation, both in an oncology, and in a phthisiology
rises. But in fact the world statistics and the recognized experts ominously
speak about it. Today even the President of Ukraine has taken under the
personal control a situation on an oncology and phthisiologies.
There were
charges about application of other concepts which are not use in an official
science. So it is really not clear, what these concepts display a new view, and
they carry "new"? "New" always in the beginning is not
clear. Otherwise it will not be characterized "new". In a history development of a science nobody can give examples when
"new" it was not inhibited, and at once was accepted by conformists. It is a principal cause that new offered hypotheses meet rigid
resistance.
Opponents
mark, that works are not reviewed by experts and that similar work "nonspecialist" to make simply not could. It not the truth. And only because, it be
simple cannot. Therefore works without the review of scientists cannot wear
scientific character .???
Let, but why those who cannot
solve this or that question, undertake to solve destinies of other work? It is simply impossible. Today in the official theory in the attitude
of this or that disease are recognized discordant views. Why in accepted theories on which based
people of health, discordant and mutually exclusive
views coexist? Everyone protects only own view, denying other. Such
situation in general is paradoxical.
In detail covering
in works a real situation in an oncology or phthisiologies,
impossible to nondisplay the basic existing orthodox
views; even if they are inverse and discordant; or it will be not objectively.
If one side will review; she will reject a view another's for her, and will
keep own; and other side - on the contrary. And if to give on the review stuff, remain nothing from the given
stuff. And the second cause of a disadvantage of reviews - practically all were
afraid to express the opinion as were afraid to be destroyed. It concerns also
many known scientists.
Once, on my
request to deny new hypotheses or, on the contrary to confirm, after careful
studying a stuff scientists from an academy of sciences have answered, that If them to deny, it will be necessary
to pass the own (path) of research anew, and it will prove an opulence of a new hypothesis. But it not needs for us.
Today there
are some reviews, including positive: but they while do not play the big role.
Unless only that presence of the review: actually already means recognition.
Not a
secret that many given away achievements (that they have been rejected by those
or other experts) have left abroad. Really
How experts "new" if they do not know him
can review and reject? And how they can review a view on that question on which
they and today do not know the answer?
As
experts "new" can review, if they do not know the
answer to such fundamental questions (its conclusions of official scientists)
as:
- What real process of originating of a cancer?
- How him to treat?
- Where petering carcinogens
at originating a tumour?
- Why,
despite of huge efforts, tuberculosis arises with new force why he shows more
serious forms, and forms without showing up of mycobacterium?
- Why immune bodies
protect able-bodied mycobacterium from destruction and give a place for a
breeding, and amaze only damaged?
-
Why mycobacterium badly propagate at cultivation in alive medium (which
corresponds with the contagious theory of a tuberculosis), and it - a
complicated problem?
-
Why in an organism of a mycobacterium propagate only in immune cells and in
isolated tubercular educations?
-
Why the contradiction is observed: there are cases successful treatment by
fats, and according to the standard hypothesis of an etiopathogenesis of tuberculosis, ─ fats cannot treat
this disease as they do not kill a mycobacterium?
- And many, many other questions.
is
impossible without the answer to these questions to find methods of treatment
of problem diseases.
Why
experts surmise, what only through 15 (or more than years) can be received a remedy
from a cancer? Why scientists speak about invincibility of tuberculosis? Why
program DOTS which has not justified itself, is propagandized in
If to look back in a history of science in general practically all "new" in basic researches have been made directly by nonspecialists. Is possible to do many examples. For example,
in medicine everyone give as due to the
great scientist - Avicenna. But in fact first of all he was the distinguished statesman of time, and not
medical man; and only after began to be engaged in medicine.
Frequently
to me speak that the new view is represented; but thus is not made any
experiment. In the monography B.Norejkos
Immunological aspects of a phthisiology the
recognized scientific phthisiatrician, writes: - I
want to stop on person Ehrlich. He did not conform to a patriarchal image of
the scientist, which to do laboratory experiments, observations and
experiments. He not did the own hands of not one researches or gaugings. But he read much. Analyzing the scientific
information, he did perfectly ingenious and intuitive conclusions which
resulted in practical results and great discoverings.
Ehrlich has so completely described the theory of antibody formation and humoral immunodefence as a whole;
that all followers remain only to illustrate Ehrlich's discovering by the
facts, not bringing in her of essentially new positions. He, certainly, could
not know about existence hundreds factors of humoral immunodefence known to us Ehrlich, basing basically only
on a scientific aura of that time, has generalized and has made deductive way
correct conclusions.
Why
we recognize what earlier "nonspecialists"
could do striking (distinguished) conclusions, and today it suddenly became
impossible?
Why
experts do not understand and do not trust what only painstaking
analysis of available results, painstaking analysis of the questions which have
arisen and staying without answers, can open much of the unknown person, and
find methods of treatment of problem diseases?
Today the
medicine continues to use the old approach - she modeling this or that disease
with the purpose of reception of a pathological cell. And only on ultimate sample
(a pathological cell) tries to open the complete mechanism disease of process.
And so,
it
is a false way. Else anybody in a history not could, holding in
hands an ultimate product, on his sample to open process of creation of the
given product. As many speak: - "Process of creation of the certain
product are lost". Why scientists think, what in the attitude of a pathological cell there
will be an exception? And in fact
the pathological cell is only the complicated organic
substance.
Here
one of new offered approaches which everyone search today in medicine: to search
is necessary not in an ultimate product, and else long before appearance of a
pathological cell. Because disease can have only two outcomes: "originating" or
"non-originating" a pathological cell. One leading scientist - oncologist at personal meeting has told to
me, that today for such work does
not exist methods, nor devices. Let, but once, are necessary
creating their?
Why experts
cannot solve a problem of a cancer and tuberculosis, and thus not suppose to the
decision anybody another?
Only the new approach which wait scientific
medicine, the pharmaceutics and clinic, can give expected result. And
it means, that "new" - is inevitable, as though him old views did not
inhibit.
Always in
discussion "new" and "old" one outcome was only - only experiment could
deny something, and only time proved vitality of a new view. And people were mistaken, and it is confirmed with a history.
Analytical
researches which have lain in a basis new hypotheses, were led on the basis of
existing experimental results in medicine. Just it protects results from unreasonable destruction or
ban. Experts cannot reject or
deny those results which are received by them; but in view of many causes
appeared not explained. To them prevented make a correct
conclusion those frameworks and theories in which they are put.
For the
resolution of dispute it is necessary to discuss, and only is reasoned. For
this purpose it is offered to carry out demonstrative experiments which do not
go in a slit with experiments of official medicine. They not only can confirm a
competence of new hypotheses, but also offer a real method of treatment and a
cancer, and tuberculosis in the nearest years-two. It's the following experiments:
- Modelling an experimental carcinogenesis for
acknowledgement of a new hypothesis;
-
Treatment of resistant oncologic patients by agents
which are allowed by medicine;
- Modelling experimental tuberculosis;
-
Treatment of resistant tubercular patients;
-
Cultivation of micobacteria on new foundation.
Generally, treatment
of resistant patients it a problem which is not solved still in medicine. Really
these experiments is not actual, really is non-vitally important?
Conducting of these experiments will allow to make the
following experiments, which will give a real method of treatment, both a
cancer, and a tuberculosis. And then such questions - how to cope with a cancer
and how to cope with a tuberculosis? - will lose the urgency.
Today there
is a firm persuasion that
I
not pretender to true in final instance; but that at any result of discussion,
undoubtedly, she carry in the part to development of fundamental science,
doubts does not arise.
In summary
it would be desirable to give some meditations which have arisen after the
recent address to statesmen which can solve something. They have told, that cannot help me for I the non-specialist; and the state works only with
specialists. Let, and unless at me is the
requirement in the help?
And there
is a system of the equations with one unknown (the decision of problems):
1 equation - the State promises and wants to solve a
problem, and of cancer, and of tuberculosis; and this question any more does
not bear procrastinations. But to make this State not can. And
only because to offer a method of the decision of given problems,
"experts" which should find methods of the decision cannot.
2
equation - Today exist a real method of
the decision; in particular that is necessary for the State. But the State of
him cannot accept and use; and refuses, because the given method is offered by
"NON-SPECIALIST".
How to
solve system of these two equations?
The state
rejects acceptance of the second equation that "EXPERTS" during long
time are trained in work on these directions; therefore to trust is possible
only o them. And "NON-SPECIALISTS" no have the
certain knowledge in medicine. Therefore (as told above) to "nonspecialists" the State help
to cannot.
Let, and what for help to
"non-specialists", and in what? Is not clear! It
necessary help to the state in the decision of the
given problems. All is would be correct; but for some reason nobody wants
to pay attention that in medicine teach to "EXPERTS" a medical science; final aim
which is use of protocols of treatment on this or that disease. Other purpose
is not. And this purpose is recognized today incorrect. Why the State does not
perplex what teach to experts the perplex action?
Today
everyone recognize, and not only medicine, but also all society; while there are no methods and protocols of treatment which would allow managing
both with a cancer, and with tuberculosis. Protocols
of treatment provide only struggle against a final result of illness, instead
of the illness. Therefore today is recognized: existing protocols of treatment
are incorrect (it acknowledges the scientists, including the Nobel laureates
recognize).
And they are applied only because there are no others.
To
"EXPERTS" also do not teach the answer on question about the complete
mechanism of originating and development, both a cancer, and a tuberculosis; as
this, nobody to teach. Teachers not know it. The medicine recognizes, that the
answer to this question does not know, and while efforts to find the answer -
are vain. To Experts do not know how to teach; and they do not
teach correct actions. It does not comply with none notions???
Thus, "EXPERTS"
today teach only to that (as to unsolved problems) how to do incorrectly. And in correct they are
"NON-SPECIALISTS". And
how "EXPERTS" can find the correct decision if them teach
incorrectly? It is not real.
There is a
lawful question - why
when there is a correct decision, today the State bases on "EXPERTS"
from medicine (they today are "NONSPECIALISTS" and do not know
correct decisions)? I.e. the State, not wishing, actually bases on own and real
"NON-SPECIALISTS".
Own
"experts" show today while the incompetence in the decision of
problems. So why it is impossible
to check up variants of decisions which offer others? Possibly others it is real "experts"?
The State
should move of the task to decide a problem of a cancer and tuberculosis; and
consequently should use those who can solve the given problem. As to
solve a problem of a cancer and TUBERCULOSIS at the state level; especially,
when there is an
P. S.
The basic
purpose of present article: to involve interested persons in the decision of the given problems.
Therefore to arise following circulation:
Sirs!
Politics and businessmen! I address to you, as to people, capable to accept
awake, participation in the decision of the specified problems. The decision a
problems of diseases depends only on you. I address not only to citizens of
2005