After publication of my interview in Moscow magazine Matritsa and almost simultaneously of my article in Canadian newspaper The Young Street Review I had to answer some questions by email or phone.

Some correspondents didn't have questions - they had comments. The bluntest comment sounded like "It is just a nonsense. That is my opinion." I was thankful for such a severe evaluation since I was saying this "nonsense" together with quite authoritative scientists as one can see below. 

But I also got some compliments.   A physician Victoria (Richmond, USA) wrote that my article in Canadian newspaper made a big impression on her. "To my opinion, - she writes, - this is your big "act of terrorism." In your article, as a matter of fact, you make a conclusion that another pair of "Twin Towers" crashed down: two modern concepts of anti-infectious and anti-cancer immunity. Indeed, they have a lot in common. But it is interesting how you came to such a "mad idea" (sorry for such a definition) about programmed "switching off" of immunity?"   

The idea of a programmed in a "human computer" switching-off of immunity appeared not suddenly. It matured gradually and for a long time. I clearly remember the most important steps. It was initiated by chance. I was working in a library of Ukraine Academy of Science in Kiev and saw a pretty girl looking through the latest issues of a magazine "Student Meridian". I borrowed one of issues for a minute and was rewarded for my curiosity: I noticed an interesting abstract in the article of medical science doctor B.S. Svadkovskii (No. 6 1974). The author wrote about an unusual hypothesis of his teacher, a prominent pathologist Arsenii Vasilevich Rusakov.  

  Here is this abstract:   

"Just Rusakov made an unthinkable rebellious suggestion that literally turned all usual concepts over. On the example of comma bacillus he showed how strange is the reaction of the body on infection. It has been noted long ago that though anti-bodies are produced against acute infectious diseases, their amount is so small that it cannon resist the infection. Along with this, body creates a kind of nutrient medium for disease stimulation; special conditions are created for a microbe whereas without them it would die on its own. Rusakov believed that such a reaction of our body is similar to symbiosis, observed between micro- and macro-organisms".

By that time I have already read something of this kind in the book of A.S. Zalmanov "Secret wisdom of human body". That was a fact that every moment millions of dead cell micro-bodies emerge in human organism. In the form of protein debris they penetrate into intercellular liquid, lymphatic capillaries and despite numerous opportunities to gather and get stuck in various body areas, they get decomposed and are removed without affecting the body, when it is not exhausted.  

So, Rusakov's hypothesis fell on a well-prepared ground. Later I had a chance to become acquainted with books of Natural Hygienists whose attitude to microbes was quite calm. In fact, such attitude takes its origin already in Pasteur's works. Pasteur is readily cited by both Natural Hygienists and A.S. Zalmanov, his views being very close to their opinion.   

While Natural Hygienists of old school spoke about "blood poison" (toxemia), considering it to be the main cause of all diseases, Zalmanov's opinion was more precise since he looked deeper into the problem and spoke about "deep medicine" in the mentioned book.  

A lot of thoughtful information has been delivered by a young science named clinical lymphology. In general, I got a clear idea that our body not always has the ability to clean itself from metabolic toxins quickly and effectively. The most dangerous condition is accumulation of a substance that was paid attention to by famous Virchow. He called it amyloid.   

This substance represents large-molecular complexes of hard decomposable proteins combined with carbohydrates (mucopolysaccharides). Episodic accumulation of this substance is not dangerous, bit in the case of long-term accumulation chronic diseases are inevitable, in severe cases it leads to neurosis and death of tissues.  

A.S. Zalmanov explained the origin of all diseases (both infectious and degenerative) in the same way as Natural Hygienists do. The only general reason for them was the following:   "Exhaustion decreases the ability of our body to release from ptomaines. We can affirm that ptomaines become dangerous only in the case of body exhaustion. They can be called exhaustion toxins. These poisons, which are the result of accumulation of unneutralized ptomaines, lead to susceptibility to infectious and degenerative ailments. If we accept the hypothesis of "exhaustion toxins" (and it is hard not to accept it) as a prevalent factor of immunity loss, we should reconsider the classic theory of immunity. Full sterilization (a dream of Ehrlich) was and remains an utopia. The last stage of digestion would be impossible without colibacillus that is normally present in intestines".   

"Symbiosis of animal body with microbes, - wrote Zalmanov, - is definitely essential for life prolongation in the same way as symbiosis of microbes and fungus is essential for plant life".   

The science has partially fulfilled the task set by A.S. Zalmanov and introduced amendments into immunity theory. Now not only doctors are familiar with useful role of symbiont bacteria that live in our bowels or on different areas of skin. Every more or less educated person knows it. But the science didn't move further: some microorganisms are definitely useful and are declared to be our legal friendly co-residents, or symbionts. But is it possible to declare other microorganisms useful if they cause acute infectious diseases? It would be too much for physicians both in Zalmanov's time and especially now when we have such a big arsenal of antibiotics!   Right after Rusakov's hypothesis Zalmanov's idea about life toxins as a "prevalent factor of immunity loss" lead me to my discovery: I just had to understand that we observe not "immunity loss" or "immune deficiency" but a programmed switching-off of immunity.   

How it happens in details is the subject of future investigations.   

My idea of programmed "switching-off" of immunity as a reaction on pathogenic microbes and viruses finally matured in 1985 when I was reading the interview of doctor of medical science professor F.N. Romashov "To health without remedies" in a newspaper "Soviet Russia". Romashov said: "Let us first assume that microbes are not enemies, they help decompose and eliminate toxins - the cause of practically all human diseases. Therefore, we can fight flu, pathogens of which always accompany us, only in one way - cleaning our body getting rid of nutrient medium for viruses".

I just groaned: what would his colleagues do with him? Surely, honored physicians reacted quickly and indignantly. Editors of this newspaper and a popular magazine "Health" were attacked by letters from people, confused by such "rebellious" thoughts of F.N.Romashov. So, there appeared a section of angry and abusive rebukes. The sense of most of them was approximately the following: concern yourself with your surgery, and don't interfere with intimate matters of infectionists!  

This comment was in my table for fifteen years. From time to time I remembered about it but I wanted to make the idea more argumentative and properly develop it in my future book about naturism. The book is not ready yet, but bacteriological threat of terrorists forced me to hurry with the publication since I hoped that it can be immediately useful.

One of letters contained a question if I was about to write a new textbook for immunology. Of course, I'm not. I'm a Natural Hygienist and writing textbooks for orthodox physicians is not my task. However, I'm working at a book devoted to fundamentals of Natural Hygiene and I will definitely include a big chapter on immunology in it. I hope that some orthodox doctors will also accept it. Although, it is difficult for them to accept ideas of Natural Hygiene that are not compatible with medical theories...

Unfortunately, we live in period of true (clean) Natural Hygiene decay. This statement may seems strange - indeed, there it is generally believed that alternative medicine and Natural Hygiene are quite popular. But, unfortunately it refers only to their reformist variants. Orthodox medicine being "in power" has practically smashed Natural Hygiene whereas naturopathic "harmless" and reformist variants do not disturb it too much.

"Natural Hygiene has taken on a quite different way", "popularity of old theories has significantly decreased..." - reports Steven Bratman with satisfaction and assures a reader that the main methods of Natural Hygiene are diets, food supplements and herbal medicaments. Of course, orthodox physicians like such Natural Hygiene very much. A good soul Bratman proceeds: "with a certain reserve, Natural Hygiene can be considered a younger sister of medicine. However, its scientific re-birth has not yet taken place. Natural Hygienists in Bastyr University are eagerly striving to master a scientific approach but they still have a lot of work ahead". ("Untraditional medicine, Piter 1997")

What are the results of such "victory" of orthodox (conventional) physicians over true Natural Hygiene? Should the whole civilized world be also happy that "popularity of old theories of fasting and raw diet has rather decreased"?

Let us at least remember a well-known fact that no one manages to cure ulcer with cooked potato or cabbage while their raw juices are successfully used for it. It becomes more interesting when we recall that raw vegan food is a basic component of most anti-cancer diets applied by such naturists as J.Evers, Max Gerson, Dutch physician Cornelius Moerman and Ann Wigmore who recovered from cancer thanks to raw diet and became a world famous promoter of "live food"

Linus Pauling, twice Nobel Prize laureate, supported Dr. Moerman in his confrontation with colleagues, who labeled him as a charlatan. In the preface to the book about Moerman's method he wrote that his opponents were defeated and in January 1987 Ministry of Health in Netherlands finally approved his method.

Ruth Jochems, the author of a book about this method, says that Moerman's therapy consists in diet with a low consumption of meat, big amounts of fiber, vitamins and minerals. Besides, it is recommended to take eight food supplements necessary for the body - vitamins A, C, E, citric acid, iron, B-vitamins, iodine and sulfur. This program works without medicaments, it doesn't have side effects and it can be successfully used as a separate treatment as well as an addition to immunotherapy and surgery. The first patient, who came to this doctor already in 1939, had the last stage of cancer with metastases. In a year he recovered and lived until 90. It wasn't easy to get recognition. Rut Jochems writes:

...Famous medical and pharmaceutical societies and institutions didn't want to listen to him at all. In fact, they resisted every confirmation of his ideas, blocked clinical research that could prove that he was right and declared him charlatan. The reasons for it were benefits as well as common greediness since doctor Moermann's opponents were other researchers and almighty pharmaceutical companies. Should Moermann's method be approved both could lose something: the first group could lose prestige, the second - money.

However, there is not only "young sister"... If orthodox opponents did manage to close H. Shelton's Health School and other old naturopathic schools, the study itself and experience of "true" Natural Hygiene didn't disappear. The author of one of the letters asks me indignantly: "How your true Natural Hygiene can be compared with modern medicine that works wonders?!" It is possible to compare, though, and even express this comparison with a ready formula - the words from a fable of an ancient poet Archilochos: "Fox knows eleventythree tricks and still gets caught; hedgehog knows one, but it always works".