Infectious Diseases - Nomenclature and Causation

Patrick Quanten

How do they do it?

To an ordinary person, that is you and me, it looks like magic how doctors know what the name of the disease is we are suffering from and what has caused it. If we take infectious diseases as an example then it is really clever stuff how they manage to keep them all separate and how they can tell us so much about every single one of them. It is something we bow down to in veneration. Mouths fall open. We nod. We become believers. We forget to ask how it is done.

We manifest a number of symptoms and signs and doctors seem to know how to put them together, how to ‘read’ them and what the name is for the collection each of us presents with. There are local symptoms such as swelling, redness, pain, dryness, itching, spots, and more general signs such as fever, coughing, tiredness, loss of appetite, diarrhoea, headache, feeling unwell. None of these are specific for a particular disease. A disease consists out of a number of symptoms, pulled together under a certain name. But when we look into it a bit further then we notice that not even every single symptom mentioned under the disease heading needs to be present for a doctor to already know what is wrong with you. They, magically, can fill in the blanks themselves to complete the picture and to declare your specific illness a fact.

Overlapping symptoms, those that occur in several infectious diseases, don’t seem to throw them of the scent either. They know! They are able to make the correct analysis in spite of the fact that the symptoms are so similar or even exactly the same. How do they do that?

While you are not looking they consider many other factors that help to eliminate the various potential diagnoses. They take into account your age. Certain diseases are described in the medical textbooks as occurring mostly within a certain age group. Attention is being paid to what they have diagnosed recently in other patients and they remember what the medical profession has informed them of what is going around. Infectious diseases are said to do the rounds. When you have been informed of a certain disease outbreak in your neighbourhood your alertness for symptoms that are mentioned as part of that disease description heightens. You are on the lookout and anything that resembles it can quickly be named by the doctor. When they have been informed that a specific disease is now showing up under slightly different symptoms then they know to call the combination of symptoms the disease, as prescribed by the medical authority. The doctor also takes into account the fact that it definitely can’t be the possibility against which you have been vaccinated as they believe that that person is now protected against that specific disease. So it must be something else. This in itself has led to many new diseases, ’variants’ of existing diseases, to emerge. Let’s then summarize how they come to know what disease you are suffering from when all you are displaying are non-specific symptoms and signs.

ü  Their textbooks lump together a number of non-specific symptoms to call it a specific disease.

ü  The medical authority tells them which disease is coming their way, how to recognize it, even if it doesn’t quite fit the description they have learned by heart.

ü  Based on their belief of what medical treatment does, they eliminate possible diagnoses to reach their verdict.

So, what once looked like an almost impossible task – to identify a specific disease out of non-specific signs – becomes a lot easier now that the medical authority, combined with the belief system they have developed in their trainees, tells them what it will be as soon as they get somewhere in the neighbourhood, following the non-specific signs. An infectious disease which has fever, general malaise and a skin rash as the main symptoms can still be very confusing to the public, even when they are armed with a dermatology book. Comparing skin rashes on standardized pictures is a nightmare as the rash you are presented with very seldom matches the rash of just one of the diseases mentioned in the book. And yet the doctor knows which one it is! How do they do that when the symptoms in a real person are not exactly as the book describes them to be?

But when in doubt, if the doctor is not quite convinced, there are tests he can do in order to confirm the suspicion, the hunch. There are blood tests in which the elevation of certain elements such as white blood cell count, sedimentation rate, ‘specific’ antibodies and others will allow the medically trained person to believe the diagnosis has been confirmed. There are images, various scanning techniques, in which the doctor will be looking for things the medical authority has decided confirms a specific disease. For instance, these could be plaques of some sort, internal swelling, indication of high activity, and many others. The medical authority also encourages doctors to look for signs of other diseases, which they have decided ‘very often’ go together with a specific infectious disease, which means that if you can establish that one is present then the other must be present too. If you believe it then this is ‘confirmation’ of the diagnosis of your disease.

Hence, by a process of elimination, starting with an almost entire book of possibilities the doctor has been able to whittle it down to one specific infectious disease with the help and guidance of the medical authority who makes them believe in certain connections, such as if a person in the vicinity has it you must have it too, or if you have one disease you must have the other too. It is the authority that puts a number of non-specific symptoms together and calls them a specific disease. It is the authority that rules the belief systems of their trainees. It is the authority that lays down connections ‘to force’ a specific diagnosis.

Confirmation of a diagnosis is done using medical tests. These give us, so the authority tells us, specific absolute results. And that is just as well otherwise nobody would be able to be sure about any diagnosis. Unfortunately science has taught us that an absolute test does not exist! It tells us that the circumstances of each test, as well as the intention with which the test is performed, is part of the outcome, determines the test result. Hence, medical tests will provide you with outcomes that will be influenced by all surrounding factors, both those of the patient and those of the doctor and medical facilities. Not taking these factors into account, so science tells us, renders the test result completely useless and any interpretation of such a result a complete fantasy. But this means that there are no specific antibodies (which the medical profession admits to, if you look long and hard), no specific healthy levels of anything you measure in the blood, no particular way the images have to look in order to be called healthy or diseased. All of that is nothing more than an interpretation which is someone’s, or a group’s, opinion. It is not fact. It is an opinion, based on the way they have chosen to look at measurements, at data, at test results. Hence, when the authority, and by extension the representatives of the authority (the doctors), is of the opinion that you have a certain specific infectious disease then that is only their opinion, not a fact. Scientifically speaking, one cannot distinguish between the various infectious diseases, whether they are childhood diseases or adult infectious diseases. One can have an opinion about how to name this particular presentation of symptoms but one can never know whether the same diagnosis made in different people also means that these people indeed suffer the same disease or have the same underlying problem.

A diagnosis is the opinion of the medical authority. In this respect it is good to remember that by law, written by the medical authority, only people that have been trained by them and have been given a licence to practise by them are allowed to make a diagnosis. This means that only the opinion of the medical authority has any value in naming a disease as the result of the presentation of symptoms. In human society, one group of people, one school of thought, has grabbed the power to determine the disease anybody is suffering from and to outlaw any other thought on the matter. A diagnosis is the prerogative of the medical authority. A disease, however, is the prerogative of nature.

Furthermore, the reach of the medical authority stretches a lot further than claiming the right to make a diagnosis. They also tell us what the cause of the disease is they have identified. For every infectious disease they have named, they have given us the cause. The causes are to be found within these categories:

ü  Bacteria. – examples are: certain types of throat infections, certain types of ear infections, certain types of meningitis, certain types of digestive tract infections, certain types of respiratory infections, gonorrhoea

     (whooping cough, scarlet fever, impetigo)

ü  Fungi. – examples are: certain nail infections, certain vaginal infections, ringworm, certain respiratory infections (including mouth), certain digestive tract infections

ü  Parasites. – examples are: certain types of digestive tract infections, certain types of hair infections, certain types of blood infections, certain types of brain infections

ü  Viruses. - ….

What do we learn from the first three categories?

  1. They are all living creatures of which their presence can be demonstrated.
  2. Infections of parts of the body, systems and organs, can be caused by a great variety of living microorganisms.
  3. The same infection, with the same symptoms, can be classified in any of these three categories depending on the microorganism that can be identified as being present in the diseased tissue.

The medical profession blames the cause of the disease depending on the presence of a microorganism as being a bacterial, a fungal or a parasitic infection, even though these can all affect the same system of the body. In practise it would take up a lot of time and a lot of resources to investigate every single ‘diagnosis’ of an infectious disease. Hence, the medical authority has authorized their trainees to diagnose without evidence. Basically, if it looks like it, it must be it. In effect, that is an opinion. The medical diagnosis without any proof that the said causative agent is even present within the diseased tissue is a pure guess. When they do bother and investigate, very often they do not identify the said causative agent within the diseased tissue. This is a good time to remember that every test result depends on all circumstances surrounding the test, the method used, the time of testing, the reason for the test, and many, many more. So, the outcome of the test, done in a standardized way, differs very often from the expected result.

And then we arrive at the next failure of the medical authority. The presence of a microorganism in diseased tissue is no proof that that microorganism has actually caused the disease. Wherever there is a fire you will be able to identify firemen. However, it would seem like a ludicrous suggestion that this is all the proof you need to state with certainty that all fires are caused by firemen. Science tells us that the medical profession has never, in its two hundred years of existence, proven a causal link between any of the known infectious diseases and the microorganism they claim causing that disease. Let me repeat this. No proof has ever been submitted for any known microorganism to have caused any known infectious disease.

And what about viruses? When the medical profession was unable to demonstrate the presence of a disease-causing microorganism within diseased tissue they decided that this particular infection, no different in signs and symptoms, must have been caused by an invisible microorganism. This being the reason why they have failed to detect it! It is scientific reasoning upside down. Science would observe that there are no microorganisms present and yet the tissue is clearly diseased, leading to the conclusion that in this specific incidence the disease cannot be caused by a microorganism. The medical authority has decided that an infectious disease must be caused by a microorganism, leading to the conclusion that if none can be demonstrated the causative agent must be an invisible relative of the microorganism, which they have named to be a virus. Science sticks to observation, while the medical profession is built on assumptions. In principle, an assumption may be true or it may not, but it certainly can never be seen as an absolute truth. Unless you can convince everybody not to adhere to basic, fundamental, scientific principles, in which case they will all believe your opinion without questioning it. Not questioning an assumption is not scientific. It is the role of science to question all and every theory, and every ‘belief system’. But the medical authorities do not bother with this.

ü  Viruses. – all infections everywhere in the body that cannot be demonstrated to have any microorganisms present within the diseased tissue must be caused by a virus, or, in other words, every infection that is believed to be caused by a virus

     (chickenpox, erythema infectiosum or fifth disease, roseola infantum, mouth hand and foot disease, croup, respiratory syncytial virus RSV, Reye’s syndrome, measles,                 mumps)

If infections are not what the medical profession proclaims them to be, what are they then? Well, follow the observation. Whether any microorganism can be demonstrated to be present or not, the initial stages of becoming ill with an infection, of ‘going down’ with an infection, always includes these symptoms, either locally, generally or both: swelling, redness, heat and pain. These are the symptoms the medical profession has called an inflammation. When asked what the cause of an inflammation is, which organisms are responsible for it, the medical profession falls silent. What we observe is that an inflammation occurs spontaneously, without any obvious outside trigger. Hence, the driving force for an inflammation comes from inside the organism that produces the inflammation.

What is ‘an inflammation’? Well, the symptoms as mentioned in the medical books are swelling, redness, heat and pain. Indeed; exactly the same as the symptoms of an infection. Those symptoms basically indicate an elevation of the temperature of the tissues, which causes those four signs to occur. Elevating the temperature is what one does in order ‘to burn’ something. So essentially it is a fire within the tissues. One that happens spontaneously. In other words, it has been orchestrated by the organism, by the tissues themselves. Why would you start a bonfire? Only for one of two reasons: to keep you warm or to get rid of waste. The tissues do not need the fire to keep warm as they already are at their normal temperature. The temperature is raised because they need to burn off waste material that has been gathering dust within the cells and the tissue. So whenever the tissue is loaded with waste products that it can’t get rid of quickly enough it will start a bonfire, an inflammation. Once the fire dies down and the waste has been removed, the tissues can pick up their normal activities again, having more space and more energy flowing than they had when the waste products were piling up. An inflammation is a clearing process and hence it is a big help in restoring ‘normality’, which we call health.

When inside such an inflammation some microorganisms can be demonstrated, the medical profession declares them to be the cause of the illness, which they have identified as an inflammation plus microorganisms, otherwise called an infection. Without microorganisms the inflammation has now become ‘a viral infection’, which is simply an inflammation, an attempt to heal the tissues. So the disease is the inflammation, which has been caused by the infection, which is the result of the invasion of a microorganism, visible or otherwise. Through observation, we can detect easily that the inflammation comes first, not last, and that no point of invasion or no trajectory of an invading force has ever been demonstrated. It shows us a complete reversal of events, not starting from the outside but starting from the inside. It shows us that the entire ‘infectious process’ is linked to a clearing out mechanism to restore the system back to health. What has been called a disease is in fact a spontaneous healing action from the system, from the living organism. The real disease is the piling up of waste products within the tissues.

In childhood infectious diseases such waste products can be the result of the growing process. A child moving through a development stage whereby it no longer shall function as a baby, from hereon in will get a breakdown of some tissue structure it will no longer need in that format. If that happens quickly then a lot of waste, cellular debris, comes together very quickly causing ‘an infection’. At each milestone of the growing up process this similar reaction shows itself, even right up to the acne of a teenager. The higher the waste mountain, combined with the lower the recycling power, it will all result in serious inflammation and waste disposal as we recognize in respiratory mucus, in skin eruptions, in diarrhoea, in fever, and so on. In such a case the doctor gets really worried because he thinks the disease is really bad. In reality the healing process is really hefty! And as it is difficult to imagine that a system with the sole purpose in life of keeping itself alive, irrespective of the outside circumstances, is going to blow itself up, we can relax, no matter how hefty the symptoms. This process is a spontaneous body reaction in order to heal itself and so a previously healthy and strong system will always recover completely and feel so much better for having a good clear-out.

When a name is just a name and doesn’t really hold any truth or knowledge, when a story does not tell the truth, why is knowing the name of the bacteria or virus that, according to the doctor, has caused my problem so important? None of that adds anything to my understanding of the true story of an infectious process. None of that makes me any wiser as to how I can improve my health. None of that makes me any more independent of a healthcare system in which my sole role is to play the victim, a victim of a vicious attack from my environment on my person.

Asking for proof of the stories they tell is laughed away. Of course, there is proof! They are experts. What do you take them for? They are doing proper research and all the rest are charlatans and conspiracy theorists. Hence, no need to show you the proof. And anyway, you are too dumb to understand this. Just trust them.

Or be free and find out for yourself. Have a free mind. Ask questions all the time. Find your own answers. Believe what you know.


January 2022


Patrick Quanten has been a general practitioner since 1983. The combination of medical insight and extensive studies of Complementary Therapies have opened new perspectives on health care, all of which came to fruition when it blended with Yogic and Ayurvedic principles. Patrick gave up his medical licence in November 2001.
Patrick also holds qualifications in Ayurvedic Medicine, Homeopathy, Reiki, Ozon Therapy and Thai Massage. He is an expert on Ear Candling and he is also well-read in the field of other hard sciences. His life's work involves finding similarities between the Ancient Knowledge and modern Western science.

Order your copy