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


Why TREATMENT by fats is not APPLIED?



In what the cause of originating of the given question? In the personal plan of any doubts does not arise; as new own hypothesis about an etiopathogenesis of a tuberculosis just also is based that the tuberculosis is not a infectious disease which arises not because of a lesion of an organism a micobacterium; and disease which results from originating in specific cells of an organism of process of an irreciprocal defatting. I.e., the tuberculosis is a process of an irreciprocal defatting of cellular structure.


In an official phthisiology already for a long time experts came to a common opinion that treatment by fats noneffectively. As scientists mark, hundreds years was considered curative the dog and badger fat's. But the scientific substantiation of such treatment is not present. Experts unanimously consider that domestic agents for treatment of tubercular patients have been generated by the last powerlessness of medicine when aspired though somehow to help patients. Not clearly, why they hide the facts of demonstrative treatment by fats?


Experiments on immediate effect of fats on a micobacterium repeatedly confirmed (this fact it is impossible to deny), that fats on a micobacterium do not render any amazing influence. In this connection, scientists do a unequivocal conclusion that treatment by fats noneffectively; and he cannot be recommended to application as it not amazes a micobacterium.


In March, 2005 to me is refused in the publication of article "That represents tubercular process?" on the establishment of the review which to me was given by I.B.Bjalik, the main scientific employee of Institute of a phthisiology and pulmonology of Ukraine, the doctor of medical sciences, the professor. And so in the review he speaks: "It is impossible to agree with the author about perspectivity of creation and application of preparations on the basis of fats for treatment of patients by tuberculosis. Experience of application of various fats for treatment of patients by tuberculosis in up-to - antibacterial the season has shown their inefficiency. And only antibacterial antitubercular preparations have resulted in cardinal enriching treatment of tuberculosis; have allowed curing hundred thousand and millions patients with tuberculosis all over the world ". 


Therefore I did not have question which stands in the title. Today I am ready to prove experimentally efficacyy treatment by fats, but it while to whom from experts it is not necessary. It is very a pity, that such known scientist as I.B.Bjalik, holds back that in a medical science exist real proofs of effective treatment of a tuberculosis fats.


In truly the fine statement proves to be true: - "For all - its time". And, not so long ago, in February, 2006 M.Kurjachaja's article "The life water of doctor Trincher" in hand to me has got; magazine "Knowledge- force" 11.1991 years. I am grateful God that to me this article has got.


Viennese university, the native of Vienna. And in the thirtieth years has moved to Moscow because of originating in Europe fascist movement. He was known by many prominent persons of that time. Trincher had been prepared and wrote serious works. But also in the USSR he was not passed with a lot of prosecutions. And as he speaks: "the True on many problems of medicine interested nobody... Therefore we, eventually, with the wife have left from the Union for Austria". And so, abroad him at last have recognized. Charles Trincher has received gratitude and a rank of the professor, his many works are published. And in 1990 of him already invited in the Union, and also to Kiev for participation in the international conferences. 


Why I to concentrate attention on Charles Trincher's activity? He worked there where it was thrown with destiny. Once the great scientist, being in the reference, has got to work as the phthisiatrician when the tuberculosis frequently resulted in lethal diseases; and him everything, even physicians, very much were afraid.


He writes that at that time effective medicines yet were not; and it was necessary, as well as to all experts, to use a method of a pheumothorax; essentially having changed him. Trincher created then to an essence new procedure. And then this procedure has yielded the results. But not this its main.


Charles Trincher writes: "I certainly was interested in everything, that concerned this illness. And my attention has involved how she was treated by local residents. They ate fats of badger or the dog. Superstition? In that and matter, that is not present! We together with the roentgenologist with amazement surveyed roentgenogrames of lungs: huge, simply terrible cavities, but absolutely sterile! In what the cause? What mechanism of this phenomenon? ". It was the fact real treatment of fats.


The scientist began to be engaged in search of the answer to this question. And in a result he managed to establish, that one of acids in structure of dog and badger fats on constitution reminded frame of a fatty acid which is present at a membrane of a tubercular bacterium. And Charles Trincher (on the foundation of the infectious theory and the received results) has drawn a conclusion: - "the Silly bacterium is mistaken. Resemblance in a constitution forces her to eat an "another's" acid. She eats and dies! ". I.e. fats amaze a bacterium.


These researches have allowed to solve and many other problems. He also will assume that Adepses (fats) in lungs serve as power fuel. Completely I support this conclusion. But about it separate conversation is necessary.


And so, K.Trincher's the greatest merit that he experimentally and has demonstratively confirmed efficacyy of treatment with Adepses of a tuberculosis. And he has made it still in a up to - antibacterial epoch. But thus the essential error has not given life to results of his researches. In what the error of the great scientist consist?


First, having seen a certain reality in experiment and in real life at treatment of tubercular patients, namely, that treatment by fats results in convalescence; he (as well as other phthisiatricians) has failed to depart the accepted and recognized views on an etiopathogenesis of tuberculosis, as infectious disease.


Becomes obvious, K.Trincher has decided, - The exciter of a tuberculosis is a micobacterium. And if there is a real convalescence; that it means, that fats somehow amaze bacteria of tuberculosis. And the hypothesis about a silly bacterium was born.


And in a consequence many scientific (followers), repeatedly having checked up influence of fats on a micobacterium; have received convincing proofs of that fats are not capable to amaze a micobacterium. And the most important, that these scientists as are right. Why nobody notices, what in 50 of the last century scientists have denied not K.Trincher's result - the fact of treatment by fats, but only his conclusion? Thus, results of the subsequent experiments of scientists have proved exclusively an incompetence of a conclusion K.Trincher's that fats are amazed a micobacteria.


And by the way, at the end of 2003 scientists of Portugal and Germany have proved; that fats which contain in some food-stuffs, help at treatment of tuberculosis. But (as they mark) with positions of the infectious theory of a tuberculosis to explain the given results it is not obviously possible.


And when the first tubercular preparations have appeared; successful cases of convalescence began to attribute to appearance of antitubercular preparations. But nobody to draw attention to what can the cause of convalescence is concluded in other? The "Imaginary" success antibacterial preparations has forced to forget successful cases of treatment by fats. Just today's burst with new force of a tuberculosis (and with more serious forms), and originating of this disease at categories of persons which do not fall under the infectious theory, convincingly shows ostensibility of success of antitubercular therapy. And today forms of tuberculosis appear, at which Kokhs bacillus is not found out at all.???


How to be with such contradictions: On the one hand patients really recovered from a tuberculosis by means of fats (and it is the fact), and on the other hand fats do not blast a micobacterium?


And the cause just consists in that; that the incorrect view on an etiopathogenesis of a tuberculosis (standard) also resulted to that; what the real results which attained in experiment, and in treatment, do not coincide with the infectious theory of a tuberculosis. And as the new theory does not exist, on everyone try on the old theory: the tuberculosis is a infectious disease, and his exciter a micobacterium. It the basic error.


As follows from other stuffs of a site, today it is possible to prove a opulence of a new hypothesis: - "Tuberculosis is not a infectious disease, the tuberculosis is a process of an irreversible defatting of specific cells of an organism". For acknowledgement of a new view series of demonstrative experiments are developed; and unfortunately, which yet do not invoke in anybody interest. 


In the attitude of treatment by fats experiments also are necessary; because many prescriptions are lost.


It would be desirable to note especially: do not hasten to be treated by fats yourselves; to not do much harm to itself, or to be disabused in something. Just failures (and their majority) consist that treatment by fats very much and is very specific. The tuberculosis is complex and not simple disease. To each patient the individual approach is necessary only.



Используются технологии uCoz