This is not as easy a question to answer as some might think. As Andrew Scott stated, in his book about viruses, "Pirates of the Cell" (1985): "...while our immune defences are perhaps a 'marvel' of evolution they are by no means ideal. During the powerful forces are activated to kill infected cells and eliminate viruses. Unfortunately these forces cannot readily discriminate between life-threatening infections that absolutely must be overcome, and relatively harmless infections that might be better left alone... infected cells can be killed in a variety of ways when antibodies or activated T-cells bind to viral materials on the cell surface. Much of the liver dxamage found in serum hepatitis seems to be caused when the immune system kills cells in this way, and cell killing by the immune system probably also accounts for much of the damage done by herpesviruses and poxviruses... in at least some cases the immune system provided 'help' that an organism ccould well do without. A virus known as LCM virus can infect the mouse nervous system and cause sever meningitis and eventually death, but the infection itself seems to be completely harmless. Indeed, if the mouse immune system is artificially suppressed then illness is prevented and the animals survives. So here we have an example of the immune system killing the animal, rather than saving it... the immune system can also cause considerable indirect damage by activating the inflammatory response." Page 104.

I could not have said it better myself, and Scott notes that: "... most viral infections do us no real damage at all." Page 98. The key question is, are any viruses deadly, if one is an adult in good health and knows how to live in a way that minimizes the deleterious effects of viral infection.

In C.J. Peters' book, "Virus Hunter" (1997), deadly hantaviral infections are described, and it is noted that hantaviruses are "always associated with hemorrhage," which kills through bleeding, shock, or renal failure. But exactly how does this occur? Again, it's the body's response, not the actual virus: "...when the immune response attacked the virus, the 'by-products' of the struggle would lead to diffuse damage to the capillaries - the small blood vessels - and severe shock, followed by kidney shutdown." Quotes from page 19.

How is it then that almost everyone, including most "health professionals," believe that certain bacteria and viruses are so dangerous by themselves? One must conclude that the answer lies in how effective anti-bacterial initiatives appeared to be, especially starting in the late 1800s and ending in the mid 1900s. I will not argue about the accuracy of this perception here, but instead point out that the evidence against bacteria and viruses is scant, though there's no question that some can be very dangerous to the very weak, "immunocompromised" members of the population.

For example, virologist Stefan Lanka, Ph.D., in an interview, responded to this comment, "But the virus of the [1918] Spanish flu has been reconstructed genetically and also has been demonstrated to be a bird flu virus!" with the following response: "What, so to speak, was reconstructed genetically is nothing else than a model of the genetic substance of an influenza virus. An influenza virus has never been isolated. A genetic substance of an influenza virus has never been isolated either. All that has been done is multiplying gene substance by means of the biochemical multiplication method "poliymerase chain reaction". With this method it also is possible to multiply arbitrarily new, never earlier existing, short pieces of gene substance. Thus it's possible with this technique also to manipulate the genetic fingerprint, that is, to test someone as identical to or different from a sample that has been "found". Only if very much of gene substance that can be compared is found will the genetic fingerprint, provided the process is carried out properly, provide a certain probability of a match. Dr Jeffery Taubenberger, from whom the allegation of a reconstruction of the 1918 pandemic virus originates, works for the US-American army and has worked for more than 10 years on producing, on the basis of samples from different human corpses, short pieces of gene substance by means of the biochemical multiplication technique PCR. Out of the multitude of produced pieces he has selected those which came closest to the model of the genetic substance of the idea of an influenza virus, and has published these."

I advise reading the entire interview, which can be found at: http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/051027_interview_s_lanka_on_bird_flu_etc.html

So what do I have to contribute to all this? Very simply, arachidonic acid greatly enhances the inflammatory response, and if it is not necessary to have in one's body, there should be a major effort by anyone who considers himself or herself a "public health expert" to explain to the public how this can be done. However, because of the dominance of the "essential fatty acid" claim, which was refuted in 1948, this will not be forthcoming from such people any time soon, and thus the importance of this site should be obvious.

It is interesting to note that Scott was writing his "Pirates of the Cell" book in the "early days" of the "AIDS epidemic," and this is what he had to say about it: "Such confidence [by the mainstream media that "HIV" causes "AIDS"] was perhaps a little premature, for as I write absolutely conclusive proof is still lacking. Of course AIDS researchers face the same problems as scientists studying the links between viruses and cancer - how do you prove that a specific virus causes a particular serious human disease? The best answer would be to develop a vaccine against the virus and demonstrate that it can prevent the disease." Page 194.

The "experts" working on "HIV/AIDS" continually promised a vaccine quickly, but of course that never happened, so they turned to terribly toxic drugs in an attempt to destroy a virus (or keep it from "replicating") that they only found "markers" for, just as Lanka described is the case for the 1918 flu virus. Scott believed all the early hype, and yet was truly "expert" enough to realize that verification was required, and that has yet to occur.

In a sense, the "HIV/AIDS" claim is superfluous, in that if a virus was "deadly," it would either kill quickly (mostly, if not all, victims would be very young, very old, or very weak), or it would create a chronic inflammatory condition. However, this would be something that would be uniform and easily detectable in all or nearly all cases, which is not the case for what has been learned about the "HIV/AIDS" condition. In the typical case of heart disease" in Western nations, for example, what is occuring at the molecular level is known, for example: "Macrophage cells, described as the garbage trucks of the blood, try to carry away oxidatively damaged LDL. When macrophages get gummed up with oxidized lipids, they "become bloated with partially digested lipoprotein and globules of cholesterol" and form "foam cells," Salomon said. Eventually foam cells develop into the atherosclerotic plaque found in cardiovascular disease. "Macrophages are supposed to clean up oxidatively damaged LDL but are covered with these toxic oxidized lipids that bring the whole process to a grinding halt," Salomon said."

To read the entire report, go to: http://www.cwru.edu/pubaff/univcomm/2002/june/cholesterol.htm

Thus, if "AIDS" was a "disease" caused by an inflammatory response to the "HI" virus, then it would be possible to detect just such a process at work, as is the case with "heart disease," or else "HIV" would kill very quickly, within hours or days, possibly also because of an inflammatory response that was too powerful. How this simple point can allude so many "great scientists" is a question I will refrain from answering here, because it is more likely sociological than scientific. made the gut "leaky" and boosted the adherence of harmful bacteria to the cells lining the gut wall. Bacteria were also detected in the mesenteric lymph nodes, which drain fluid coming from the intestine, indicating that bacteria had entered the body and activated the immune system. However, probiotic treatment minimised the changes in chemical signalling and prevented bacterial "stickiness" and movement to the mesenteric lymph nodes.

How is bacteria usually dangerous? A recent report from sciencedaily.com, entitled "Probiotics Ease Gut Problems Caused By Long Term Stress" (4/29/06), explains it well in the IBS context:

"...[stress] made the gut 'leaky' and boosted the adherence of harmful bacteria to the cells lining the gut wall.

Bacteria were also detected in the mesenteric lymph nodes, which drain fluid coming from the intestine, indicating that bacteria had entered the body and activated the immune system.

However, probiotic treatment minimised the changes in chemical signalling and prevented bacterial 'stickiness' and movement to the mesenteric lymph nodes. Chronic stress is known to be implicated in the development of irritable bowel syndrome and in the worsening of symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease, such as Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. It also sensitises the gut, producing allergies to certain foodstuffs."

The key point here is that it's not about bacterial "infection," but about bacteria that provokes an inflammatory response as opposed to other species of bacteria that do not. After inflammation is provoked, "disease" can then result. Because having AA in your cells makes them much more sensitive to irritation, inflammatory problems are much more likely than if you have the Mead acid in your cells.

In some of the other essays here, I present a point by point analysis of the evidence, showing how "disease" occurs, beginning with events at the molecular level, and so I hope you will take the time to read through them all. I will end here by saying that is one does not understand the "disease" process and has no idea of the root cause, a great risk is run, that of treating epiphenomenal symptoms with "medicines" or other "therapies," at least some of which can exacerbate the problem at the molecular level, though providing temporary relief of some of the symptoms.

In addition, the "medicine" may create new problems, some of which might be worse than the original condition, leading to more powerful (and more potentially dangerous) "medicines" being used. The situation can quickly become too complicated, and then there is no way to know what to do to be "cured" under these circumstances. If a doctor wants to truly abide by the "first do no harm" pledge, it is imperative to understand the process, beginning at the molecular level and considering the root cause first, then investigating sequentially from there up to the level of symptoms.

You might be asking yourself at this point, "what about all the talk of genes or proteins that I hear about in the mainstream media?" I'll ask you a question in return, "how many years will you listen to this before you finally say to yourself, 'I don't think they know what they are talking about because if they did we'd see some real major developments by now, instead of one prediction after another that does not come to pass?'" Considering that cancer was supposed to be cured by 1980, and that there was supposed to be a vaccine for "HIV/AIDS" by the mid 1980s, and that the people in charge of the major health agencies are operating and thinking the same way they were back then, I see no reason to put much faith in their claims. However, I certainly agree that some people are genetically more susceptible to certain stressors than others, and that protein expression can provide important information, but since the evidence about the root cause of "disease" is now clear, the focus should be on getting the word out to the public. Because they are not doing this, for whatever reasons, I felt compelled to create this forum.

This is not the opinion of some academic "maverick," for example Nobel Prize winner Lee Hartwell said in 2004:

"When the best talks... are about improving survival by two months... we've really got to do something else."

Source: Newsday newspaper; 6/18/04, page A34.

More recently and even more consistent with what I am suggesting is:

"The hunt to find common genes that are associated with cancer is unlikely to be successful, say experts in this week's British

Huge resources are being invested in the search for common inherited genetic variants that increase susceptibility to cancer. One US project, for example, will cost $14m. But devoting a large research effort to searching for common cancer susceptibility genes has several problems, write authors Stuart Baker and Jaakko Kaprio.

The first is that recent research suggests these genes are unlikely to exist or, if they do, are unlikely to have much of an effect on the incidence of cancer.

A second reason to play down the role of common susceptibility genes is studies suggesting that environmental, dietary, or lifestyle changes have a large effect on the incidence of cancer. These studies show changes in incidence within one or two generations, which is probably too quick to be related to the introduction of new genes."

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060512102604.htm

Another point that appears to be very important is how "public health experts" have a very crude understanding of the "germ theory" and tend to violate the "first do no harm" tenet of Western medicine all too often, for example:

"In the November 8, 2005 New York Times�?, Gina Kolata reports1:

'Some experts like Dr. Peter Palese of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York say the A(H5N1) flu viruses are a false alarm. He notes that studies of serum collected in 1992 from people in rural China indicated that millions of people there had antibodies to the A(H5N1) strain. That means that they had been infected with an H5N1 bird virus and recovered, apparently without incident1.'

The 2004 Nature Medicine study2 that Kolata refers to puts it like this:

'It may be possible that infections of humans by avian influenza viruses have been ongoing for decades and it is only the reporting that has improved in recent years. If this were the case, the present emphasis on the imminent pandemic outbreak would not be justified.

In fact, seroepidemiological studies conducted among the rural population in China suggest that millions of people have been infected with influenza viruses of the H4-to-H15 subtypes.

Specifically, seroprevalence levels of 2�?% for H5 viruses alone have been reported, and the seropositivity of human sera for H7, H10 and H11 viruses was estimated to be as high as 38, 17 and 15% respectively.'

Millions of healthy Chinese already exposed, and carrying antibodies to Influenza A? But I’ve been told that the bird flu is fatal to half the people who encounter it. I guess somebody forgot to tell these folks to keel over."

To read the entire essay by Liam Scheff, go to:

http://liamscheff.com/blog/2006/05/24/bird-flu-breakdown/#more-20