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 Ukraine.


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 Ukraine such rich country which can because of illiteracy of experts in "new" gives others this "new"?


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 Ukraine?


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 Ukraine can win leading positions in the world in the attitude of these diseases. And it the attracting of considerable funds of budgetary financing and investments from many countries, how a cancer and a tuberculosis it's a global problem.


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 opportunity to choose?


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 Ukraine, but also to all those who is interested in the decision of these problems and who is capable to accept in it participation.



Используются технологии uCoz