gratis Counter by GOWEB
Gratis Counter by GOWEB



Lyme-Borreliosis Treatment by means of Antibiotics ?

Dangerous antibiotics and healthy probiotics

Danger of resistance and intoxication by antibiotics



written by



Wolf-Alexander Melhorn


Learn to do well;
seek judgment

Isaiah 1,17



Keywords: borreliosis treatment, antibiotics, probiotics, resistance, intoxication, antibiotic, probiotic, tick sting, alternative, medicin, ticks, lyme-borreliosis, lyme, tick born virus, meningitis, tick, tick bite, intoxication, resistance



I thank Mrs. Marion Finke
(state examined and publicly authorised translator for English / interpretor (IHK)) -
- email: -
for the honorary translation of the article „Borreliosebehandlung durch Antibiotika?“,
originally written in German.



Join the campain:
citizens against heart attack – mutual guilt of
Germany as to the death of thousands!

The Members of the Bundestag could save the life of hundreds of
thousands annually from the number one killer – heart trouble /
circulatory problems, but they leave it up to red tape – to force the
most important heart remedy off the market – to the economic benefit of
the wholesale pharma industry.





Antibiotic treatment?

1. Acquired weakness of the body’s own defense (immune) system

2. How the body’s immune system works

3. Natural antibiotics and antibiotics of conventional medicine

4. Probiotic therapy following antibiosis

5. Antibiosis – medical calculus?

6. Success of antibiosis?

7. Low-brow and partly even money-making internet-advisors?

8. Examples of the consequences of uncritical exposures to antibiotics

9. Antibiotic resistance of pathogens

10. Consequences of antibiotics in livestock husbandry for human beings

11. Intoxication by antibiosis

12. The Nobel prize 2005 as public relation measure for antibiosis?



Overview of all Borreliosis-articles -
Overall list of all articles of W.-A.Melhorn -



*Treatment by means of antibiotics?*

In Germany, as well as abroad, Borreliosis (lyme-disease) represents a therapeutic problem to various people.

Thus some people give print-outs of my Borreliosis (lyme-disease) articles to the person treating him/her while hoping this shall be of some aid. This, however, is not often the case. Indeed, one reader mailed me that a print-out of my article was given to her in a university hospital. Surely, an exception to the rule. I even heard about practitioners who by all means prescribe Nosodes, however, doctors are getting angry if they are to read such ”unqualified pieces of advice“ like my article. Eventually you ought to know yourselves what is to be done! Hereto I refer the readers to the entry number 168 of my guest book.

However, medical thinking does not see the human being in its wholeness. According to the feedback from phone conversations and emails – in particular in hospitals (clinics) ! - a schema is being adhered to and thus, lyme-disease (Borreliosis) patients fail the intellectual raster of the respecitve doctor after the inefficiency of antibiotic treatment and not rarely do they end up in the psychic medicine.

This ”development“ of patients is often the result of antibiotics treatment. Hereto some remarks.

All modern antibiotics act against = ”anti“ bacterial. Namely against all bacteria! Consequently even the ones which are absolutely necessary for the human organism, like the physiologically vital intestinal bacteria. Everything that stands in the way of the antibiotic is just being killed!

This is a real blessing in regard to life-threatning bacterial overpopulation. In the medical everyday life, however, it is a curse for this condition leads to seeking the obvious fast solution. Pathogens are ascertained – antibiotics are thrown on top of them and pathogens die!

After all, it is not that simple!

Antibiotics are – due to their side effects by all means dangerous.
As a rule – nobody hears of this!

In the history of the human race we have always been confronted with pathogens. Some few (like smallpox, diphtheria, meningitis, tuberculosis, lues) have raged terrificly. Some have been handled without success by vaccination since afterwards the number of deaths as a rule increased drastically. For vaccination details I refer to the prominent book written by Dr. med. Geherhard Buchwald: "Impfen - Das Geschäft mit der Angst" , Droemersche Verlagsanstalt, 2000.

Other diseases also have been encountered by means of antibiotics.

All this has not prohibited that these do not spread again on a worldwide scale nowadays.



1. Acquired weakness of the body’s own defense (immune) system

Whosoever has an inflammation nowadays – in particular if ulceration is invilved – is immediately ”treated“ by means of antibiotics. If this treatment, however, is really meaning- and successful, respectively, in the long run has to be strongly questioned since most of the bacterial infectious illnesses could be handled by the body’s own immune system in a successful way.

The prerequisite however is, that this defense system is strong enough to do its job. And this may – due to external influences! - nowadays not be done anymore by all defense systems and is usually not due to the severance (dangerousness) of the pathogens, but due to the acquired weakness of our immune system. The reader may best understand this reproach as to weekness the example of a maturing defense-system of a child.

Our defense system has developed over the years due to its constant daily confrontation with invading pathogens via our orifices or due to injuries of the skin.

Thus a small child that is being overly protected is in a worse situation when it comes to its defense system than children exploring their dirty environment unbiasedly. Their immune system is always confronted with dirt and the bacteria, funguses contained therein and this strengthens their immune system more and more.

The development of the human immune system also includes its conflict with common ”children’s diseases“. They are absolutely harmless for a healthy child! It is well-known that the undergoing of such children’s diseases not only contributes to the boosting of the immune system of the respective child as well as its maturisation but mostly also to the personality of the child which thereupon develops batch-wise.

To my mind it is a blunder to vaccinate toddlers against such children’s
diseases as a prevention measure and to even do this by falsly claiming
that an immune protection is being built up as a result of this.

Actually toddlers are being confronted with various illnesses at the same time by today’s common multiple vaccination whereby their immune system, which is still under developed, in rare occations is already strong enough to handly such a load of pathogens. To deepen this problem I refer the reader to to mythe article written by me: „vaccination and vaccination damages with among babies and toddlers – the reprehensible backgrounds and dangers“ -

In particular among other things due to this early vaccination against children’s diseases as a rule the immune system is not strenthened but weakened. It often occurs thus that the so called vaccinated children’s diseases nevertheless take place afterwards. Because it cannot be what may not be this is usually played down wrongly by the statement that without vaccination the ”vaccinated” disease would have occurred much stronger without vaccination.

Actually in such cases we deal with an immune system wholly prone to illnesses according to what I think. This explains the fact that many children that were vaccinated get sick strikingly often.

Thus this is an example of an acquired immune weakness.

This condition of the immune system often brings about that such children are treated by means of antibiotics, which again has also consequences for adults. Hereto you may read the article " Homöopathie statt Ritalin?" -



2. How the body’s immune system works

From a therapeutical angle a child disease would have to be correctly classified at first while also pondering whether in the concrete individual case something points out that this child’s immune system will not be in the position to handle the disease itself. Only if this question is to be negated the prescription of antibiotics is generally justified.

Such an evaluation, however, does not take place in regard to cases involving fever. In an uncritical manner antibiotic is immediately used and the fever is being dramatised in an unjustifiable manner and fear is spread by doctors. Some cases of diabetes among children thus is a result of a treated influenza by antibiotics.

Withal direct fever as a rule is no cause to prescribe antibiotics! Eventually fever is the body’s central remedy to fight pathogens and usually an apparent sign that the body already is well into self-healing. To stall this mechanism – e.g. by fever-reducing remedies, leg compresses or similar is thus also basically wrong!

In the occasion this occurs also, the body will again take the trouble afterwards to create fever which is deady to the pathogens. However, this is only possible by muscle work. Only by trembling muscles the warmth may be created which is then diagnosed as fever.

Such muscle work however, is strenuous for the body. Thus it is always good to support the body by means of warm bedclothes so the fever may be produced faster and in a less straining manner.

In the occasion that this fever-producing process is however broken off by means of fever-reducing measures the nevertheless continuing muskle work of the organism is being weakened unnecessarily which leads to over acidity. Hereto one may read my explanations to the topic over-acidity stated at "Irrlehren über Herzinfarkt und Schlaganfall" -

This over-acidity of the orgainsm again inhibits that oxigen which is important for the cells is being transported to the causes of illness. Thus Oxygen may not be easily reached by the immune system or even hardly at all!

As to the importance of a fever-therapy I would like you to remember the ancient therapeutic wisdom: ”I would heal all illnesses if only I could create a fever”. The Greek doctor Parmenides is supposed to have said this already 400 years B.C. I have stuck to this statement in regard to my 7 children. We do not even have a clinical thermometer at home. Usually the fevers which were clearly sensible were thus gone within two days and over and done with.


3. Natural antibiotics and antibiotics of conventional medicine

At first I would like to do away with an errand namely that antibiotics are a development of modern times. Actually since primitive times antimicrobic systems have inhibited pathogens which are detrimental to health.

One major example therefore is the human bowel wherein several hundred various bacteria may be found – eventually we have more germs in us than cells! These bacteria however live usually in balance with one another.

This phenomenom of the so called colonisation resistance of germs takes care, that the germs which have the potential to make sick may multiply only in a controllable manner whenever the bowel flora is in order.

Thus these are antibiotic procedures!

Since in the bowel we have about three quarts of our immune system the importance of this balance may not be esteemed vital enough!

The antibiotics which have been developed in the laboratory act on the other hand have a massive impact upon the intestinal flora compared to the bacteria’s own microbial substances which are naturally there. Such antibiotics may not be deactivated anymore by bacterial enzymes which leads to a devastating destruction of the bacterial balance!

In particular, modern broadband antibiotics which are mostly eliminated by the liver and biliary tract into the bowels thus there destroy within 1 – 2 days the complex microbi system by killing all germs which are not resistant.

What remains in the short term are microbiological ”holes“ in the flora of the intestinal tract, certain all germs that have become resistant and also fungus which are not being reached anyway.

Consequently, these 'holes' are being refilled immediately. Germs that are resistant to antibiosis, in particular candida albicans just wait for such an obliteration of their ”adversaries“ from the respective body’s own immune system. Straight away they move to their previous habitat and from there on afterwards they deluge the body lastingly with their sickening waste products.

Therewith, however, the body lacks the so called physiological bacteria. But the body needs them because they gather vital nutrients from the stool pulp and take them to the colon walls where they hand over these reusable material and thus providing them to the metabolism of the body via the liver. In the occasion that these bacteria were killed by antibiosis the result would be a life-threatening mineral- and vitamin deficiency.

It really has to be understood what is happening here:

If again and again strong as well as vital colonic bacteria are being killed their original habitat will eventually only be occupied by parasitic candida as well as sickening bacteria. These parasites only take care of themselves and never consider their host!

If the host dies the parasites will just die also.

Thus man as a host ”starves“ gradually in terms of nutrients! There is also no use that the person suffering from this eats up lots of food – even organically grown food. There simply are not enough so called physiological intestinal bacteria to take up these nutrients – as far as the respective diet generally offers such!



4. Probiotic therapy following antibiosis

A probiotic therapy intercepts these consequences partially. Probiosis means the supply of living bacteria for the colon.

Renowned as well as successful are compounds like Omniflora, Symbioflor or Mutaflor, respectively, although they just recolonise the colon by a few, even though vital bacterial phylum. The remnants of declined physiological, as to say vital bacterial is nevertheless lost once and for all.

This is exactly the reason why only in a real emergency antibiotics should be used therapeutically. To act against this is strictly speaking a therapeutic medical malpractice and is liable for damages as bodily injury.

It goes without saying that the necessity of a probiosis, however, following antibiosis treatment should be basic medical know-how.

It is correct, however, that any doctor prescribing antibiotics to a patient over a long time and again and again prescribes later on sufficient colon bacteria to rebuild the damaged flora of the colon afterwards to balance the life-threatening consequences of the antibiosis therapy. The more so as the health insurer pays for e.g. Mutaflor.

Reality, however, draws a different picuture!

As a matter of fact there is hardly any patient who finds out something about the life-threatening and long-term side effects of his/her antibiosis and that altogether his condition thus in reality gets worse lastingly. Consequently there are doctors who know of the effect of several antibiosis treatments upon the patient, nevertheless, however, prescribe antibiotics while at the same time hush this fact probably not to put the patient off. Then the patient is required to eat little carbohydrates – no bread and the like – since this is supposed to be handy in combatting Borreliosis.

Actually this is not the case. By eating little carbohydrates Borreliosis is not being benefitted but only is it prohibited, that as a consequence of the antibiosis, eventually, candida increases drastically in the colon, which eat off carbohydrates. Without antibiosis in the fist place, however, as stated above, there would not be such a candida overpopulation.

Now one could believe – and lots of people do! – that combatting Borreliosis would be in the foreground and thus antibiosis is more important than the danger of a subsequent overgrowth in Candida.

This, however, is questionable, if candida is merely to be checked by doing without carbohydrates, since the doctor for the purpose of sparing his medication budget with the health insurer does not prescribe Nystatin-compounds against candida, which were supported by his antibiosis previously and for the very same reason does not perform a probiosis. Hardly any patient according to my mind knows about these procedures and consequences for his doctor keeps this secret from him to perform his profitable antibiosis.

In doing so there is being saved money to the detriment of the patient because if candida which expand at any rate due to the proceeding antibiosis are not being professionally dammed up they even have to be fed by carbohydrates necessarily since they may not be starved in the colon. Elsewise they mercilessly break off to where there are excessive carbohydrates – namely in the blood! According to skilled mycologists in Germany about 10 - 12 000 patients die since they do not think about examining the respective blood of the patients as to Candida. The advocators of antibiosises in regard to Borreliosis are according to my mind paving the way for this undisirable development.

Considering a child the momentous side effects of unrestricted antibiosis by pediatrists may bring about that it is constantly prone to illness or may be inefficient in school. These side effects, however, may be attenuated again homoepathically.

That it is possible to work without antibiotics in regard to severe illnesses may be read in the article "Angina mit Tonsillitis" - However, it is important to have some homeopathic experience. Homeopathy may be learned – by every doctor and naturopath!

For me however, it is out of question that the overall deplorable state of health in Germany is not just diet-based but also the consequence of injuries from immunisation as well as the noncritical bulk deployment of antibiotics.


5. Antibiosis – medical calculus?

Now some that are concerned might ask themselves why on the one hand doctors promote antibiosis while on the other hand nothing is said about the necessary probiotic therapy against side effects.

I can spot the explanation as to the above in the current health system in Germany.

For the doctor it is simply easy and thus profitable to prescribe antibiotics. In particular it is advantageous to settle an intravenous antibiotic treatment with the health insurer. The prescription of probiotics afterwards would just lead to an “unnecessary” burdening of the doctor’s budget. Consequently, no consulting of the patients as to this respect takes place.

And almost all doctors ignor this assidously. Which doctor would eventually like to knock his own side or would even risk to run into legal proceedings just to enlighten people concerned against his or her own medical interest? Eventually just uninformed patients may furtheron not claim for any damages, although they got e.g. liverish due to permanent antibiotic treatment.

Anyway only uninformed Borreliosis patients are ready to take several antibiosis cyles, if – to my mind also due to their immune system which was weakened by antibiotic treatment - their Borreliosis symptoms occur again and again.

Such patients are more or less the cash cow for the respective doctor in treatment as well as the pharma industry. Besides this these patients as a rule are the permanent sick of tomorrow which is fine for the doctor’s business. Eventually they show up again and again at the doctor’s place suffering from all kinds of diseases to get symptom-related treatment over the years, from one doctor to another and by specialists at the hospital, or, they even might be transferred to the psychosomatic clinic.

The parallels of the behaviour of the medical fraternity in regard to the live-saving Strophanthin upon heart attack is distinctive – hereto the article "Irrlehren von Herzinfarkt und Schlaganfall - - may be read.

According to my mind the very same applies to the misadvice by doctors in respect to vaccination. For those who would like to read more on vaccination-related problems my article 'Impfen und Impfschaden bei Säuglingen und Kleinkindern - Die verwerflichen Hintergründe und Gefahren' - - may be read.

As to the consequences which doctors are liable for according to the latest rule of the Federal Court of Justice, however, are the same for antibiosis as with vaccination. There is no protection that antibiosis for instance with people suffering from Borreliosis was elevated as ”standard therapy“ – an item, which only seems to discharge doctors from the consequences like malpractice since all commit the same plunder.

However, pharmacists handle antibiosis in a pretty careless way. I witnessed how a pharmacist gave some therapeutic advice – a step which actually would have to be criminally liable. A young mother asked to get something for her child since the doctor refused to give antibiotics. Without even having seen the child the pharmacist gave to the mother that which was obviously known to him following this account a “mild” antibiotic for her child without prescription. How is the saying? Ask your doctor or pharmacist.....

According to my mind however it is malpractice by doctors that only very few therapeuts rebuild the gut flora again that was damaged by antibiotics. As to the dubiety of antibiotic treatment nothing is known to the layman also since this not only would decrease the profits of the pharma industry but would also query medical “art“ and authorities. Eventually the prescription of antibiotics is one of the most "reverential" privileges of the medical fraternity, since fortunately nobody obtains this dangerous stuff without a doctor’s prescription.

Actually the fear and the trust of the patient are being abused. Thereby the respective physician would be legally engaged to clarify matters to his patient and to warn him. If doctors nevertheless make themselves culpable by such acts and omissions by following the jurisdiciton of the Federal Court of Justice now – in reversal of the burden of proof for the doctor! – also lialbe for damages.

But they are suffering from Borreliosis also tell me they had pleaded with the doctor to obtain a special antibiotic. Some doctors thereupon prescribed it by means of pills, however, the ”higher“ consecration of a
treatment seemed to be obtained by those who ”may“ have gotten it intravenously ad to this end profitably populate the hallways of their therapeuts.


6. Success of antibiosis?

My reproaches do not oppose that a part of the patients feel at first some relief by such an antibiosis. This however may according to my mind be explained, that by partly destroying pathogens of various kinds the basically weak and besides this busy immune system is reliefed at first. Thus it is free to deal more with the Borreliosis bacteria temporarily. Consequently, it is to be observed that these successes with Borreliosis bacteria are not the immediate result of the antibiotic but the result of easing the burden of the immune system.

Often this is not enough to keep Borreliosis under control lastingly. The weakening of the immune system due to side effects by antibiosis results often in relapses.

This again provides the physician with a furthermore and for a long time also unpertubed hoping patient for his next antibiosis. For as long as the respective body will stand it – and by no means will this help a long way!



7. Low-brow and partly even money-making internet-advisors?

To the pharmaceutical industry as well as to the medical profession it is stricly forbidden to advertise antibiosis among ill persons.

According to my mind it has “stood the test” to have the mental groundwork for antibiotic treatment of uncritical patients done by self-help groups in the Internet.

Their representatives are partly frankly spoken laymen who may not be liable therapeutically. Since they are affected themselves on the other hand, they are especially credible. Thus a person who suffers is mostly even thankful to receive obvious useful advice from so many who are also affected.

That these ”advisors“ however, often report about repeated long-lastingly antibiosis treatment which brought about no success, does not become apparant as they understand to suggest to the help seeker this may be the way out of the suffering. The sick person, mentally prepared in such a way, thereafter goes to the physician of his choice and thankfully as well as uncritically undergoes antibiosis even desired by him.

Since this is a money-blessing for the medical profession as well as the pharmaceutical industry I assume however, according to my experience of life that some homepage operators due to their uncritical and adulating glorification of antibiotics as to Borreliosis is being sponsored by persons who have their interest in it. Thus I wrongly insult some – and excuse myself for having done so – however, not with everybody!

This is backed upon the fact how upon some sites those are treated who utter their opinion critically as to antibiosis or even refer to an alternative treatment. My information has it that their articles have been deleated again or have not even been permitted.

Another aspect is that none of the advocators of antibiosis speaks on the side and long-term effects of such antibiosis treatment. However, maybe this even is the privelige of the innocent.



8. Examples of the consequences of uncritical exposures to antibiotics

In view of this knowledge, however, this only limits the use of antibiotics to the really difficult and acute infections which have not been treated for a long time to which I do not count a single acute tick bite!

Actually, how physicians deal with the handling of antibiotics may be read in the Heilpraktiker-Newsletter at - - vom 19.9.04

"APPALLING MEDICAL PRACTICE“ as a rule in Germany infections are not being treated below standard but above standard. In Germany about one third of all antibiotic-therapies are incorrect since either there is not even a bacterial infection or the medicaments are being dosed in a wrong way or even applied wrongly, respectively. Only the rationally calculated application of drugs might help to confine the increasing resistence develoment against antibiotics, said Professor Dr. Fritz Sörgel at the World Conference on Dosing of Anti-infectives in Nuremberg.

This declaration again outlines in a particular manner how ill-conditioned the medical responsibility actually is in regard to drug safety and druc effectivity. One third of all prescribed antibiotic-therapies are faulty. One has to savour this and one has to ask seriously why at all antibiotics are even subject to prescription. How well is the diagnose and how well does the physician perform treatment?

Since in the previous year figures became known according to which 100.000 deaths had to be bemouned in Germany annually due to wrong prescription of drugs by physicians people have shaken their head in amazement. And the physicians have not gotten tired to speak about exaggeration. So they plegded improvement by means of quality
management. Obviously, however, nothing can be seen of this…”

Advised by physicians health care providers, however, pay everything in an noncritical manner although the resulting sicknesses naturally become more expensive for the insured in the long-term. It goes without saying that in particular the health insurer should press on the fact that probiotics ( = physiological living bacteria) should always be given after antibiotics have been given and thus the gut flora is being at least partly balanced again. Even if the standard probiotics may never again replace the manifold bacteria that were destroyed before so that undercover damages remain due to antibiotics.

And even if the “treated” illness disappears after antibiotic treatment there is always a weakened organism afterwards due to the aforesaid treatment.

A surplus of remaining pathogens meaning sickening gut germs is particularily harmful if the protecting intestinal mucosa has become ”leaky“ (leaky-gut-syndrom). Its’ duty actually is to keep noxious matter in the feces or in deposits in the walls off from the inside of the body. This intestinal mucosa however now is open to allergens and environmental toxins and the person suffering it has do deal with inflammable bowel syndrom, allergies, arthritides as well as eczema of an origin that is unknown!

The London newspaper “The Guardian" reported in its’ issue dated August 27th 2005 that in the year 2004 just in England 45 000 patients were ill due to the bacteria Clostridium difficile. As a result of this 934 patients died. Most patients were over 65 years old and had a weakened immune system.

These bacteria are usually controlled in the gut flora by the so called physiological bacteria, which are helping the human beings. About five percent of all healthy adults have Clostridium difficile. An antibiotic treatment also kills however these physiological gut bacteria so that the bacteria Clostridium difficile may profilerate more and more thereupon and thus it increasingly throws off toxins. Elderly as well as people with a weakened immune system may die as a consequence thereof.

Due to an antibiotic treatment in the final stage auto-immunological processes may be triggered in the respective body which may lead to e.g. infant diabetis.

Even in some leucemia history there may have been a flue that was wrongly treated by antibiotics. At the same time it should be part of medical knowledge that antibiotics only affect bacteria and no viruses. Despite this fact in about 90 percent in medical facilities antibiotics are prescribed when it comes to bronchitis, colds and the flue -

In the case of Borreliosis medical attendance many patients however permit even several antibiotic cycles and are finally perplexed at the inefficiency along with their pysicians. Actually this was to be expected since the antibiotic already proved its performance at the end of the first “treatment” at the latest. A higher dosis or more of antibiotics does neither protect against any aftereffects nor does it prohibit the resurging of ”descented“ Borreliosis carriers which have at this point in time mutated long ago. Thus it would be necessary to seize different measures – however, the respective physicians refuse to do so
according to my experience. Partly they do not know it and partly they even do not want to know it!

But there are of course also patients who refuse to undergo an antibiotic treatment and look for alternatives. To this end one may read the article of a patient "Borreliosebehandlung ohne Antibiotica - ein Wagnis?" - - who did without antibiotic treatment and got healthy again by alternative medicin. This may not always be a solution, however, it should be discussed insistingly with physicians according to my mind.



9. Antibiotic resistance of pathogens

Often the pathogen fought against by means of antibiotics is not even wholly eliminated! A lot of germs change themselves rapidly and become resistent towards this antibiotic. The worldwide expansion of tuberculosis again is a proof thereof.

Hereto also an AP-announcement of 2003 in the trade journal ”Journal of Clinical Investigation“ according to which US-researchers appoint to the fact that the bacteria Staphylococcus aureus which is dangerous as well as resistent against many antibiotics and may cause toxaemia, pneunomia or bone marrow infection, respectively, may in future also be treated by Acetylsalicylacid (ASS, Aspirin) found in pain relievers. It is known however, that the intake of Acetylsalicylacid may lead to some bleeding in the gastric mucosa. With children the treatment of chickenpox or fluelike infections may have deadly consequences with ASS.


10. Consequences of antibiotics in livestock husbandry for human beings

The claims to use antibiotics only in a responsible way not only applies to medical practices – naturopaths luckily are not in a position to prescribe them due to their dangerousness – but also for the daily usage of these remedies in livestock husbandry.

There according to political intention declaration however the vetinary prescribes these, however, to many farmers the vet is mostly too expensive. Thus the ”chief“ comes home with bags full of antibiotics for he has a somewhat ”sixth sense“ for the respective medicament and gives shots to the animals himself.

There are naturally limit values for livestock husbandry. The loopholes in the system in regard to really monitor the guidelines, however, are as well known as the animal food scandals.

Besides this limit values apply for the exposure to respective animals, however, do not apply (which would naturally be much more important!) to the consumer himself, nobody tells him how much food he may eat of meat that is burdened to the limit and thus also to the maximum wholly daily intake of antibiotics. According to my mind a vital agrument against eating flesh and meat!

The 'SPIEGEL' reported in its issue 31/2004, page 20 under the headline "Deadly turkey meat" of an extreme resistent salmonellae germ, which was found in Denmark in improt of German turkey meat. It was resistent towards all antibiotic categories which are permitted for humans – a real threat to small children, the elderly as well as for sick persons! T this end the SPIEGEL cited Frank Aarestruo of the Danish Institute for Food- and vetinary research in Copenhagen:

"If these salmonellae were to trigger a severe gut infection with humans there would be no possibility for treatment… a very real risk for the consumer”

Such food is even sold in the Federal Republic! The slaughter house was not named unfortunately by the Danish. Who wants to serioulsy alarm the consumers?


11. Intoxication by antibiosis

The supporters of antibiosis in the case of Borreliosis or FSME (virus born menengitis), respectively do only know little about the possible long-term effects of antibiosis upon the overall organism, although these are far over the already aforesaid strains upon the intestinies. The reason for this is – I do not know of any other reason – that such consequences resulting from antibiotic treatment have not been examined thouroughly. Which company would eventually come up with proofs and even make them public, namely that their products are at last harmful to health?

If in the following pat of the article series of the company Pascoe the research about salmonellae intoxification is shown then just because this company would like to market their treatment alternative by means of Nosodes. Since there are obviously no treatments for other intoxifications this difficulty is still being ignored.

According to my mind again the reason lies in the fact that the patients are not to be made insecure since this would affect the antibiosis business.

The harmful consequences in regard to health after a Borreliosis treatment by means of antibiotics may be derived from researches about its effects. Eventually the effect principles of antibiosis are the same as the places of the illness occurrences which are conditional. Whoever is familiar with Borreliosis or might be stricken by it himself will recognize the parallels at once.

Thus I reason that these possible consequences should be reflected upon thourougly by making the decision to prescribe antibiotics for treating Borreliosis “as a standard” in order not to make onself liable as caretaker.

An example for such consequences is the standard treatment of salmonellae by antibiotics as with salmonellae intoxication. The effects which have been reported in respect to salmonellae may also be transferred to other infections like according to my mind Borreliosis – even if this illness is not caused by bacteria.

Dr. med Dr. med. dent Helmut Schimmel reports about salmonellae intoxification in vol 2 "Bewährte Therapierichtlinien bei chronischen Erkrankungen" ( 3rd revised issue, 1983, publication of the scientific department of the company Pascoe, Gießen ) based on research at the Institut for Herddiagnostik und Herderkrankungen in Baden-Baden taking place during the years 1974 - 1977.

Basically as to salmonellae infection

".. not always is a previous living infection necessary for the development of salmonellae intoxification. The intake fo salmonellae toxins from cans takes place much more often as assumed. Surely the toxic intake in regard to a living infection is more massive by the proliferation of salmonellae. Sensitive persons as well as weakened individuals however, may become severely ill due to the enteral toxic contact mentioned before (page) ....

Abdominal discomfort are in the foreground. Mostly statements are made about heavy diarrhea and ”meat- or food poisoning, respectively“. Often the patients describe their diarrhea as “stomach flu, which was then all over“ or speak about salmonellae infection from travels abroad. At the following diagnosises the patients have been treated before: dyscinesia of the biliary tract, hepatopathia, pancreopathies, dysbiosis, gastropathies. Among other things even a cholezystectomy was performed before whithout even doing away with the pains afterwards. Hypotone circulary disturbances as an expression of vagotony and myocardial strain insufficiency are often side effects.“ (page 9ff)

Due to today’s tourism these findings regarding salomellae and their treatment have surely not lost in importance since then.

It goes without saying that actually only a living infection is accessible to antibiosis. Then upon treatment of the acute salmonellae infection the following takes place:

"After a selective antibiotic treatment there is a massive bacterial decay. The hence resulting toxic metabolites submerge the weakened organism of the patient. Patients with sound immune systems may eliminate these metabolites or neutralize them, respectively, and are healthy afterwards (note: (metaboly, Greek “change“). Metabolism consists of a series of enzymatic conversions, which supply certain products. Their intermim products are called metabolites).

This process differs among weakened patients. In a lot of cases the toxins persist (remain) at first in the bowels- or lymphatic system, respectively, the liver, gall bladder and gall ducts, the pancreas and spleen. With other patients the toxins are deposited after passover into the extra cellular liquid cavities (lymphatic system) in particular at genetically weak points and areals which are circularily underprovided. This results into mulitple illnesses like polyneuritis, parotitis, musclular degerneration, osteomyelitis, myocarditis, myocardosis and a lote more." (see page 12)

The consequences of antibiosis treatement performed according to standard were amoung many of these patients the following

"... year-, lifelong late complications at the heart, central nervous system and digestion system ... so called salmonellae intoxicatons, among which the strickened organism is no longer abled to eliminate salmonellae toxins and to neutralise them. Due to the abrupt fever disruption due to respective antibiotics there is a sudden collapse of salmonellae microbes while submerging the organism with toxic metabolites as a result thereof. The crippled immune system is getting more and more insufficient by this and pushes the toxins as a rule off to the mesenchym resulting into a lifelong lymphatic encumberance." (see page 8 )

The danger of antibiosis thus is that the body’s own immune system is not indeed off-state by them but is being eluded by same.

This has severe consequences. The immune system not only creates fever against the agressors and thereby kills these and their offspring but it also provides everything else to finally remove the “dead microbes“ and to do away with any traces of this “fight“. Only in doing so the body is healthy thereafter.

This process, however, is dispensed with antibiosis, for the illness is being attacked by means of a remedy from the “outside“ and not by the body’s own immune system. Finally not enough fever is created and the organism has no longer the impulse to boot up other measures naturally known to him to close-up the killing process of the microbes from the body’s perspective. After the killing process by antibiosis nobody is there to take care of the “deads”.

Some antibiosis against salmonellae leads thus to salmonellae intoxication, which is however difficult to ascertain:

"The salmonellae toxicosis may not be diagnosed by means of the above stated methods. Since a living infection no longer exists blood-, stool-, urine and agglutation verifications in the serum are without any findings. The toxins are bound in the mesenchym and intracellularily” (see page 11).

These cognizances may also be transferred according to my mind to other illnesses. Particularily in regard to Borreliosis I thus think the term Borreliosis intoxication is appropriate. Against this, however, further antibiosis treatment does not make any sense and additionally it is further troubling.

From my findings I must say that antibiosis in particular considering therapeutic emergency cases is not appropriate for severe cases as “therapeutic everyday life“ – since the possible remote damages may not be predictible for the therapist. It would be wise or more important, respectively, to ascribe to the body’s own immune system the role which it actually has.

I do hereby not misjudge that one price of our fast-living time is the one that illness may not be afforded nowadays anymore without having to fear to be an outcast in the long term. Thus in particular patients ask for antibiosis so as to not stand out in a displeasing way.

Not seldom is it even the patient who puts the therapist therefore ”under pressure“. Thereby, however, even the temporary illness could be/should be a motivation for the patient suffering from it to reflect upon his life as well as the attitude he holds towards life. It is however foolish to push away - due to the short-living successes – how encumbering ones life may become if the almost therapy resistant remote damages of ‘such measures to gain time’ then strike back against the sick person again.

Thus it is undoubtly a general problem of our ”time“ which makes one believe that there is no such thing as time. Thus some gain in time ultimately is just a momentarily one and more or less questionable for on a second guess it turned out to be unnecessary. The main time gain later on is being balanced again by time stillstand as in times of illness or not seldom in a painful shortening of life, respectively.

In particular this demand for reservation concerns those who do (should) not even suffer from such a bondage like children.

Such pressure of the patient in regard to fast success does not discharge the therapist of his responsibility and thus from his liability – even if remote damages may not (yet) always be subscribed to antibiosis treatment.

As with vaccination – see the article ”vaccination and vaccination damages with babies and toddlers. The reprobate background and dangers“ - according to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of the year 2004 but also in regard to Borreliosis treatment with antibiotic cycles eventually a reversal of proof to the benefit of the patients was the result to be sure resulting from the clarificaton of facts duty of the therapist.

That there is a different approach also is proven by human history, for the majority of so called everyday illnesses are not deadly just by themselves and thus they do not call for antibiotics as emergency measure.

Anyway it is not necessary to weaken a (still) healthy immune system in order to sell antibiotics! Even in regard to weakened immune systems it remains to be seen in as far it is in need of antibiotics and if there are not other possibilities and measures to get it back up again – like by means of Nosodes or similar products. For particularily weakened immune systems – as set forth – the probability of an intoxication is high and the person suffering from it may be faced with lifelong concequences. Thus one really has to consider antibiotics carefully!

Naturally there are always the strong ones as to immune defense who throw off the metabolites of the killed pathogens and the antibiotics who are permanently healthy afterwards. Nowadays, however, according to my mind, there are too many patients who belong to the group of the ”weakened patients“ and as to my experience they become younger and younger over the years. A lot of reasons may attribute to this fact – like stress, wrong diet and according to my mind also the childhood vaccination damages – see also the article "Impfen und Impfschaden bei Säuglingen und Kleinkindern Die verwerflichen Hintergründe und die
" -

In regard to these weakened persons one has to look ahead concerning Borreliosis and one should not think that permanent antibiotic treatment really is the remedy of choice and not only since these patients already have had numerous antibiotic treatments before.

12. The Nobel prize 2005 as public relation measure for antibiosis?

The antibiosis difficulty has been known and for years, however, not the doctors but the patients become more and more sceptic in regard to antibiotics which they are being prescribed. That there is eventuallly a different approach in even the most difficut cases shows the article “angina with tonsilitis and alternative medicin -

The consequences of this reluctant acceptance of antibiotics among people therefore required this marketing like a clearance which I see in the fact that the Australian gastric researchers Barry Marshall and Robin Warren received the medicin Nobel prize in 2005 for telling the astonished medical world in September 1983 that in the hostile world of the stomac the bacteria
Heliobacter pylory would prosper and this microbe was held responsible for the growth of gastric ulcers and duodenum ulcers in about 80 % of the cases. The therapeutic solution has been seen – who wonders? - in the prescription of antibiotics against this bacteria.

The discovery of the researchers is indisputed, their economic benefit prepared, its real medical benefit, however, arguably.

Thus it is not yet clarified, if this microbe has also a reasonable function in the stomac. However, one must assume this since alone in the Germany about 33 millions are “infected“, by it, however, just 30 % of these infected become troubles and just 10 % develop ulcer. These are but figures which not coercibly point to the basic threat of this microbe.

However, research is not yet that far advanced and will not be also. For science the following approach namely that the microbes are curable by means of antibiotics does well. The burdening consequences for the body of an antibiotic therapy against the Helicobacter pylori, however, have not become clear yet.

Actually the importance of this microbe as a direct cause for these ulcers has to be doubted since the famous water researcher Dr. med. F. Batmanghelidj proved in the 90s that gastric- as well as intestinal ulcers could be successfully cured with pure water within days. This however means that the actual expansion of the sickening microbe Heliobacter pylori is - as a matter of fact – due to the patient’s lack of water. Just this lack of water creates the condition for sickness to come about due to the microbes in a ”water-state-of-emergency-area“. This lack may be done away with quickly again which reverses the sickening process or brings it to a halt, respectively.

It goes without saying that this knowledge about the importance of water in such cases in the solely money-oriented health system of the ”civilized“ countries has not spread far. Eventually it is not a money-business if everybody is his or her own therapist by merely drinking sufficient water. In reality thus this is a billion-business and the ”clearing“ of this matter would be too detrimental!

Without denying the scientists’ merits – however, their honoring by the Nobel prize 2005 is primarily a public-relation measure of the pharma industry to my mind. It goes without saying that the Nobel prize committee is composed of gentlemen, however, they also live in our world and particularily in these circles everybody knows his business – about what and how things happen.

According to my mind the possibility of leverage is just a matter of course and the exertion of influence seems to be a fact for me.