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.