Viral Illness and Effective Therapies

Paul Reller, L.Ac.

Finally, modern medicine is discovering pharmaceuticals that may work against viral illnesses, and these new drugs are derived from the study of herbal chemicals. Tamiflu was created after research showed that a chemical in Chinese star anise, shikimic acid, was an effective base material for oseltamivir, a neuraminidase inhibitor of expression of Influenza types A and B. Prostratin is a new antiviral drug of promise based on a Samoan herb, Homalanthus nutans, that was found to reduce HIV replication dramatically. The problems with synthesizing specific chemical anaologues of nature's own complex antiviral chemicals is that the body usually reacts with alarming side effects and developed resistance.

Many herbs have been shown to inhibit viral replication or to enhance the body's own antiviral immune mechanisms, and they have been effective for thousands of years. You don't have to wait for the industry to create expensive pharmaceuticals to achieve success against viral illnesses. The science is there for the modern herbalist to achieve success today with safe and effective herbal therapy, enhanced by the immunostimulating effects of acupuncture. This type of therapy needs to be comprehensive, holistic, and address the whole immune system as well as specific responses.

How important is our understanding of viral illness? Let's take a look at the types of viral illnesses that affect the United States population today. The common cold and flu are part of our lives, but luckily most of us aren't infected by the worst types of these broad categories of viral types, which kill about 50 children and hospitalizes about 8 in 10,000 elderly per year. Bronchitis, mainly attributed to the synctial family of virus, affects a large percentage of children each year and is thought to be responsible for many, if not most, cases of asthma and COPD in our population. The avian influenza that is now publicized as a serious threat, is from the paramyxovirus family, and is called the avian flu virus only because this broad class of virus was seen frequently in pigeons during epidemiological study. Types of this virus are thought to be common to domestic bird populations and mutate into forms that affect humans with severe symptoms because of the overuse of antibiotics and other drugs that deplete the bird's immune systems. Hepatitis C is now thought to affect a majority of our population, as are the Herpes viruses. Both of these refer not to a single viral type, but broad families of viral types, with Hepatitis C thought to be of the Flaviviridae family, as is Dengue fever. Epstein-Barr virus is thought to be one of the many types of Herpes, and is linked to a wide variety of diseases, including autoimmune disorders, mononucleosis, and many cancers, as well as chronic fatique syndrome, multiple sclerosis, and hepatitis. There is mumps, measles, chickenpox (varicella-zoster Herpes virus type), HIV, and a list of types that now spans many pages in a modern medical dictionary. Viral infections are now recognized as a cause or contributor to cancer in one fourth of all cancers worldwide, according to the National Cancer Institute. Viral illness is thus one of the most important health subjects that you need to gain some understanding of, and understand how to protect yourself effectively.

History and science of the virus and viral illness

A century of modern pharmaceutical study still has not produced a significant drug to treat viral illness. The two relatively new drugs cited above, derived from herbal medicine, still produce too many side effects and present a greater risk than benefit ratio to be widely prescribed. This is because science still lacks a fundamental understanding of the virus, which is not a living invading organism, but merely an incredibly small bit of a gene, encapsulated by a protein, and sometimes a phosolipid, or fatty membrane. The entities we call viruses appear in innumerable forms, are so small that they can exist within unseen particles of moisture or dust in the air, and not be captured by the most sophisticated screens known to man. One expert in viruses, Dr. Nathaniel Brown, senior VP at the drug company Idenix Pharmaceuticals of Cambridge, Massachusetts, explained modern approaches to antiviral agents in a NY Times interview: “You can't kill something that is not living. The only thing that you can inhibit for a virus is replication.” Modern science still does not understand the origin of viruses, or why most viruses are apparently harmless, yet some are the most dangerous threats to human life. The first virus discovered was in 1899, the tobacco mosaic virus, discovered by Martinus Beijerinck. Today, over 5000 types, or families, of viruses have been identified, with innumerable variations of the virus for each type. With potential variations of viruses that could cause infection or disease numbering in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, finding a cure-all drug is perhaps impossible.

Understanding of the virus is apparently still in its early stages, despite the enormous amount of research generated by the impending viral pandemic, an event that occurs nearly every 100 years. The last pandemic occurred in 1918 and ended World War I, killing more than 20 million people worldwide in a short time span. In 2011, researchers at Michigan State University, under the guidance of Richard Lenski, showed that viruses could evolve mechanisms that would adapt to host defenses in just 15 days. The researchers originally thought that such adaptation was nearly impossible, but a graduate student, Justin Meyer, decided to conduct the experiment as a curiosity. He found that the virus known as lambda, which infects escheria coli bacteria, could adapt to E. coli bacteria that did not express the normal membrane channel for viral entry by achieving a set of 4 mutations in just 15 days, utilizing a protein channel known as OmpF. This adaptive feature of viruses points to a greater complexity in the realm of viral infection than we imagined, and indicates that the behavior of viruses does not conform to a simple model of infection. If viruses changed and acquired traits as needed purely to infect a host, viral disease would be much more rampant than we presently experience. Understanding the controls and balances of viral genes in relation to the whole of nature has not been achieved.

Complicating the subject of viral illness is the fact that viruses, which are just bits of genetic material, make up a large portion of our human genome. This viral DNA, previously called “junk DNA”, has been found to be active and important in our genetic makeup with the study of the human genome in the last decade. Viral genetic material appears to be a vital source of evolving human cell data. Treating the virus as a completely bad entity, instead of viewing it with a realistic nuance, often vital to our adaptation in nature, and providing our cells with necessary genetic information, is perpetuating a belief system that is not objective or scientific, and hinders our ability to work effectively with nature in managing the potential ill effects of viral replication in our bodies. Modern science is trying to develop chemicals to stop the viral replication, but we should be aware of the potential pitfalls in this simplified approach. Inhibiting pathways of viral replication could have negative implications for our natural evolution of adaptive genetic coding. On the other hand, understanding and aiding the complex natural system we have evolved to manage viral effects in our bodies, with the use of evolved herbal and nutrient chemicals, presents possibilities of aiding our complex complement immune responses in many beneficial ways.

A virus is not a live pathogen, but just a bit of genetic material, DNA or RNA, that may become part of the genetic material of your cells. How complicated could a virus be if it's just a bit of DNA or RNA? One type of virus, the Baculovirus HasNPV, studied in China, was found to have considerable genetic variation within this one type of virus. 131,403 nucleotides were found to make up the virus, and 100 places in this DNA sequence proved to be variable in study. This amount of genetic variance in one type of virus was first thought to be a mistake in analysis, but later proved to be true. Multiply this by the over 5000 types of viruses now known, and the possiblities are enormous. The Baculovirus HasNPV virus is published in GENBANK. With this type of potential genetic variation, there will probably be no creation of the 'magic bullet' type of antiviral drug. One answer to this dilemma is to utilize nature's own array of antiviral chemicals in herbs, and to increase the health of your own immune responses to attack the problem in a comprehensive manner. This latter strategy has also been a subject of pharmaceutical study, especially with interferon, a chemical that mimics a chemical found in our own bodies that is used to enhance the immune response to viral infections. The side effects and failures of interferon therapy in treatment of Hepatitis has prompted many European medical doctors to utilize the herb Viscum Alba, commonly called European Mistletoe, to stimulate the interferon system in a much safer and benign manner. Given the complexity of viral variations, utilizing a number of herbs in a comprehensive protocol based on available study evidence is a way to increase the chances of a successful outcome. Using a step-by-step approach, first treating the infection and then improving the immune function, is the most logical approach to prevent recurrence of viral illness.

Modern allopathic medicine is so frustrated with the complete lack of treatment for viral illnesses that a sort of neuroses has been developed. Medical doctors routinely prescribe bacterial antiobiotics for viral illnesses when patients ask them for treatment, fully aware that the antibiotic will have no effect on the viral infection. Often, the antibiotic is prescribed as the course of the viral illness is naturally being completed, giving the impression that the antibiotic had some effect on the recovery. We know for a fact that bacterial antibiotics have absolutely no effect on the viral illness, yet we pretend as a society, that they do. More proven treatments to enhance prevention or recovery from viral illnesses, utilizing herbal medicine, are still not widely utilized, and a general lack of belief in these proven scientific medicines, and sensible treatment protocols of immune enhancement and adaptability to stress, still persists despite a wealth of scientific study. This general neurosis extends even to the federal government's Center for Disease Control, which distributes public information on the flu vaccines that state that these vaccines are generally unable to infect the patient because the virus is “killed”, when the scientists at the CDC are well aware that a virus is not a living microorganism, and thus cannot be killed. The newer, and now most common type of vaccine is called a “live attenuated” virus, delivered in a nasal spray to achieve low dose effectiveness. Once again, this virus is not living, yet is referred to as a living organism, by the highest authorities. These strategies occur because of the desperate frustration and need to have some type of modern medicine to counter the viral illness.

In our own lives, we are constantly affected by viruses, with the coronaviruses, or common cold strains, and influenza viruses, affecting most of us each year. The flu vaccine, popular but proven ineffective, is poorly understood by the public, with almost no common knowledge that the vaccine is designed to protect us against only a few of the most dangerous strains of influenza known, and has virtually no effect on the common influenza strains that produce our mild cases of the flu. The Center for Disease Control released a long-term study in 2006 that showed virtually no success in its targeted reason for use of the vaccine, which was to decrease influenza deaths in the most immunodeficient population, the elderly. The rest of us take this vaccine not to decrease our own incidence of common flu, but to try to decrease the incidence in the general population of a few dangerous types that recur over time with no distinct pattern. The total number of types of influenza recorded in the United States by the Center for Disease Control in 2008 was 158, and the number of viral types in the vaccine was 5. Public health information concerning this fact is misleading at best. Our modern science has no other ideas of how to protect us from this yearly influenza health threat, and so still recommends the vaccine despite poor results. In the meantime, popular knowledge of the success of herbal medicine in preventing influenza grows despite lack of spending on research, but is still not widely accepted. This scenario creates a false security in the efficacy of viral vaccination, and may be creating a lack of interest in a more practical approach to prevention and treatment of serious viral illness, utilizing herbal medicine.

The sudden spread of viral illnesses across the world is still a mystery to us. The virus has been known to appear in a new form simultaneously around the world, as in the 1918 influenza pandemic that killed as many as fifty million people worldwide, and ended World War I. In 2003, the West Nile virus suddenly appeared in 45 states, seriously sickened 9,862 patients, and killed 264 Americans. In subsequent years, incidence has been much less, with 3630 cases reported across the country in 2007, and 2539 cases in 2004. Studies showed almost no evidence of antibodies in the population, and science has no substantial theory on how or why it suddenly appeared across the entire United States. The persistence of calling this virus a West Nile virus, implying that it should stay localized to northern Africa, and implying that there is no variation in this type of virus, is misleading, and contributes to the neurotic attitude toward viral illness. Scientists are still uncertain of how this particular type of virus has spread. The first evidence we have of this virus in the United States dates to 1999, with only 62 cases, and the pattern of incidence and spread of the disease does not follow logical patterns in epidemiology. The virus has no real lifespan, yet it can disappear in one form and appear in another, and modern science has found no way to accurately predict its future forms, or determine which form is going to be dangerous to public health. Until recently, our science could not even 'see' the virus, and even with electron microscopes we see only a 'shadow' of the virus. Only recently, with magnetic resonance microscopy, have we been able to capture an indistinct three dimensional image of a virus. Obviously, we are living in a false reality concerning viral threat, and the lack of study of how nature has evolved protections for us against viral illness, and persistence of belief that modern science alone should produce a remedy, is not benefitting public health. There is indeed persistent viral threat, but our ability to stop this complex mechanism of evolving genetic changes does not exist, and perhaps shouldn’t. Individuals may decrease risk of serious viral illness by becoming healthier and promoting a healthier immune system.

Flu virus, or influenza: current standard treatment and research confirming efficacy of Chinese herbs

The flu, or influenza, a perhaps the most widespread illness known to man, yet modern medicine still has no effective treatment. It is an infectious disease caused by RNA viruses of the Orthomyxoviridae family. The most common symptoms include sore throat, headache, muscle ache, chill, fever, cough, fatique and general discomfort. More serious cases may result in pneumonia, which is sometimes fatal in the elderly and very young patients. The flu is distinguished from the Common Cold, which is caused by a different strain, or family of viruses. The term stomach flu, is a mistaken term, referring to gastroenteritis, which is not caused by influenza viruses, but is usually itself of viral origin. Norovirus and rotavirus are the two most common causes of gastroenteritis, although adenovirus and astrovirus are not uncommon. Gastroenteritis may also be caused by bacteria, parasitic microbes, toxins, or medication.

Currently, due to a lack of standard pharmacological treatment, and the possibility of more severe strains of flu virus causing severe illness, the strategy of utilizing a flu vaccine is widespread. The flu vaccine, though, is targeting only a few strains of more serious types of virus, and has little or no actual effect against most common strains of influenza. The first 15 years of administering flu vaccine in the United States produced no measurable decrease in the number of deaths or serious illnesses in the targeted population of the elderly. Nevertheless, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) continues to support widespread flu vaccine yearly, due to lack of an alternative. The most common human flu vaccine is the trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV) that contains purified and inactivated material from only 3 viral strains, typically 2 influenza A virus subtypes, and 1 influenza B virus strain. New influenza viruses are constantly evolving by mutation and reassortment of the genetic codes. Since viruses are not living organisms they are not restricted by standard passing on of genes via replication of offspring.

Neuraminidase inhibitors are the current choice of treating more serious cases of influenza (Tamiflu, Relenza, and Peramivir). Due to side effects and drug warnings, though, these drugs are not widely prescribed. M2 inhibitors (adamantanes) are sometimes effective against influenza A strains if given early in the infection, but are always ineffective against influenza B strains, because these viruses do not contain the M2 molecules. Drug resistance has rapidly risen in the U.S. as well, and resistance in the H3N2 strain rose to 91% in 2005. It is believed that the rapid development of drug resistant viral strains was due to the addition of adamantanes in many over-the-counter cold remedies. Currently, most research is focused on the finding of effective biologics, which are drugs that, like herbs, stimulate natural immune defenses. Of course, Mother Nature has been experimenting and evolving a wide array of chemicals that achieve this purpose, and these are found in medicinal herbs. Mother nature has had the advantage of millions of years to develop these effective herbal chemicals.

While Western research into herbal treatment of influenza is very sparse, there has been a number of clinical research trials that have, so far, confirmed efficacy of Chinese herbs in the treatment of human flu. See one review from the NIH PubMed database by clicking here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15674953. Of course, there are thousands of year of empirical proof of Chinese herbal formulas, and many patients today will confirm their efficacy. There is also considerable research in Asian countries verifying the efficacy of a wide array or medicinal herbs and explaining their physiological effects, although these studies have still not found medical journals in the West that will publish them. There is no reason that both pharmaceutical biologics and herbal medicines cannot be utilized for an effective treatment protocol in the future.

As research into the anti-viral mechanisms of herbal chemistry accelerates, a large amount of data is supporting the effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine to treat viral illness. A sample of this scientific data is presented below in additional information with links to the study summaries.

Pandemic threats, the H1N1 virus, called Swine Flu, and other potential pandemic viral strains

H1N1 virus is a subtype of influenza A virus, which is the most common type of flu virus seen in humans. Some strains of H1N1 are already endemic, or present in a subset of the population, and account for many of the common cases of seasonal flu with mild symptoms. The 3 subtypes of influenza A virus that currently spread widely among humans are H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2. The current fear is that the one type, H1N1, has mutated and formed a pandemic viral threat, meaning that this viral mutation could simultaneously affect a large part of the whole (pan-) human population, like the 1918 influenza pandemic that killed over 20 million people in a short time and ended World War I. The 1918 pandemic flu virus is believed to have been an avian viral strain that mutated to affect humans. There are 52 key genetic changes that distinguish avian flu viral strains from those that spread among humans. How or why, or what number of mutations are necessary to create a dangerous pandemic variety, are still unanswered questions. With all of these variables, and the fact that presently, H1N1 has affected most patients with only mild symptoms, it is unlikely that modern science is able to come up with a specific allopathic viral vaccine or remedy quickly enough if this H1N1 variant turns pandemic.

As we study this subject, many people are starting to realize that it is perhaps the ability of the individual immune system to respond to new strains of virus, rather than the ability of a vaccine or synthetic antiviral remedy, that is most important. Fear of the current swine flu threat is driving a widespread vaccination and testing program, and many are skeptical of the vaccine and the testing. Real testing of a viral strain is difficult, and requires a 3-4 week process utilizing polymerase chain reaction to multiply the viral particles enough to vaguely analyze them with current technology. Because the 2009 H1N1 was declared a medical emergency, health authorities were temporarily allowed to use a quick test for the virus. This quick test is usually not allowed by the FDA and CDC because it only gives data that rules out whether the virus is from a different family of viruses, and does not give data that confirms that this H1N1 is a variant called the swine flu. Nevertheless, there are published reports that state that H1N1 is the predominant flu strain in the fall of 2009, and this is alarming the public. Since H1N1 is a common flu strain every year, this is not really an alarming fact on its own. Lack of understanding among the population propels huge sales of this new vaccine. This is not to say that H1N1 variant swine flu is not a threat. Any pandemic threat could be disastrous. The real question is do we actually have a viable medical treatment and prevention protocol in modern medicine? To insure greater success, the smart patient will not depend completely on a vaccine, or even on an antiviral medication, but will also take the necessary steps to strengthen the immune system, decrease stress on the body, and take proven herbal antivirals to achieve a more thorough medical protocol.

How dependable is our knowledge of the pandemic threat? By the end of 2009-2010 flu season, the swine flu pandemic was not only not seen, but hospitalizations from influenza were much lower than the previous years, and deaths from influenza were considerably lower. The only unusual statistic was that the majority of deaths from influenza occurred in patients under 65 years of age during this flu season, which is highly unusual. The public did not see evidence of the pandemic, and the vaccine had to be practically given away. This, of course, undermined the public confidence in the health services. A full review of our approach to influenza and the upcoming pandemic should educate the public more thoroughly to the science of influenza, and not pander to the pharmaceutical industry and the need to promote vaccine sales. In fact, a global fund to produce and distribute influenza vaccine, with no profit motive, should be instituted immediately, and distribution should be centered on public need, rather than the need to generate enough profit from the vaccine to stimulate the drug companies to keep producing it. This complex money game could have disastrous consequences in the future, whereas a global health initiative could achieve efficient success if tightly regulated, and cost-reducing methods are employed. In any case, complete control of the vaccine program would shift scientific attention to completely practical study and application of health system technology to avert the next pandemic, if this is possible, and to prepare for the consequences if it is not possible. A repeat of the 1918 pandemic with over 20 million deaths is not acceptable. Utilization of herbal medicines and improved public health programs to increase general immune health in the population should also be part of the overall strategy. Focusing completely on vaccines and drugs is a dangerous strategy, especially given the severe failure of these therapies to date.

Hepatitis, or Liver inflammation due to various viruses

Hepatitis C is a very prominent chronic viral illness that now affects a sizable portion of the population of the United States. Hepatitis B is a type of viral liver inflammation that was widespread over much of the world in the past, especially in Asia and Africa, and is now endemic in China (maintained as a chronic infection in the population, mainly via transmission during birth). Hepatitis B has infected more than 2 billion people worldwide, and it is thought that more than 350 million people around the world are chronic carriers of the virus. In order to downplay the subject of viral inflammatory disease of the liver in the past, health authorities have told us that this is a disease confined to drug addicts and sexually promiscuous individuals. This is the same public health tactic that was applied to the HIV retroviral infection. These viral illnesses were also characterized as dooming one to serious health consequences or death. The result of this massive misinformation is now finally emerging as a serious public health threat that must be dealt with finally in an open and honest manner. If hepatitis, or chronic liver inflammatory disease, is not treated in a sensible manner, it may lead to liver cancer, as well as other serious health problems related to poor liver function. There is a variety of treatment approaches that the person with hepatitis can utilize to protect their health, as well as to diminish the effects of the viral infection. Doing nothing, ignoring the liver inflammatory disease until it finally stimulates untreatable liver cancer or other serious disease, or waiting until the one simple miracle drug appears, is not the way to deal with chronic viral liver disease.

The first thing a person needs to do when suspecting that they may have a form of hepatitis is to get tested. This testing has been severely discouraged in the United States, as the medical doctors and public health authorities promoted the idea that hepatitis was a disease limited to drug addicts and sexually promiscuous individuals. This is and was far from the truth. In fact, modern science still is not sure how so many cases of hepatitis are transmitted. The real fact is that there is not a sound treatment protocol for hepatitis, and so the standard medical establishment has not wanted to deal with this dilemma. The patient, and the general public, should take a proactive approach to this health threat and proceed in a positive manner to educate themselves, and to do all the right things to either prevent the disease, treat the disease, prevent the spread of the disease, and/or improve the health of the immune system and liver to prevent serious consequences of the disease, especially liver cancer, which is one of the most fatal of cancers, and autoimmune disease, which is associated with a percentage of patients prone to hepatitis. This is where the patient and the Complementary Medicine physician can work together to arrive at the best outcome. Herbal medicine research is finding more and more natural chemicals with potent antiviral effects, immune modulating effects, liver protecting effects, etc. Nutrient medicine is progressing by leaps and bounds to help the physician stimulate healthy physiology and restore homeostatic balance. Acupuncture research is uncovering the complex ways that specific needle stimulation exerts potent anti-inflammatory, neurohormonal, and immune modulating effects. The combination of these therapies offer the patient an array of therapies to address all the negative health aspects of hepatitis.

After testing and finding out that you are infected by one of the hepatitis viruses, the next thing that the sensible patient needs to do is to educate themselves. Hepatitis is a term that literally means liver inflammation, and is a nonspecific term. There are a family of viruses that we refer to when we use the term hepatitis, and in fact a family of viruses, or species genus, that we refer to when we use the terms Hepatitis B, C etc. This is one reason why the allopathic approach, which targets a specific virus, is a failure. Hepatitis B virus, or HBV, is a species of the genus type Orthohepadnavirus. Hepadnaviruses are a family of viruses that cause liver inflammation in humans and animals and have been around for millions of years. For all our scientific study, we still do not understand this family of viruses well enough to explain how many people with the viral infection do not show symptoms, while others have a severe acute illness, and many others eventually have severe diseases many years after the infection. The specific Hepatitis B that we study is similar to a retrovirus. The retrovirus is a type that replicates by becoming part of a cell's DNA and stimulating its genetic code via RNA replication. The Hepatitis B virus that we have created a vaccine for has a double encapsulation of lipid and protein around a bit of non-living genetic material, or DNA, that ends with a DNA polymerase enzyme. There are 8 known types of prevalent Hepatitis B in the world to deal with. These are labeled A through H, and the variations between these genotypes are in about 8% of the gene sequence. Various parts of the world are predominantly affected by the various types of Hepatitis B.

There are parts of the hepatitis B virus that are common to all types, and the vaccine created addresses these similarities, especially the surface antigens on the lipoprotein capsules. The vaccination against Hep B stimulates an antibody response to the surface antigens found on most hepatitis B viruses. While this vaccination has been shown to be highly successful in most cases, about 10%, or 1 in 10, individuals that are vaccinated do not respond with a sufficient antibody response to the surface antigens, and this leads to questions about the immune system and the response to vaccination. In addition, long term studies have shown that the vaccine stimulates a sufficient antibody response for about 15 years, although infants and children younger than 4 appear to lose this antibody response sooner than adults. Since many people have become infected at birth by exposure to the parent's virus in the birthing fluids and blood, immunization vaccine is always recommended at birth for babies born to a mother that has tested positive in the past for Hep B.

The immune system problems seen in Hepatitis patients

A percentage of people have been found to be nonresponsive to the hepatitis B vaccine, and the Mayo Clinic determined in 2003 that there is a strong association between a genetic inheritance of the DQ2 human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotype, as well as celiac disease (hyperresponsive immune antibody reaction in the intestinal lining to glutens and gliadins) (PMID: 14572581). The Mayo Clinic concludes that a humoral immune deficiency is linked to both hepatitis vaccine nonresponsivenes and celiac disease. Researchers in Europe had previously concluded that the prescence of autoimmune antibodies to smooth muscle (organ tissue such as the liver) cells is common in Hepatitis B infection, and that most autoimmune diseases do not develop until later in life (PMID: 12093985). These clear links to immune dysfunction and deficiency point to the need to incorporate a more thorough treatment protocol with Integrative and Complementary Medicine, not only vaccinating against and treating the viral disease, but also stimulating increased immune function, resolving celiac disease and GI dysfunction, and also aiding the health and function of the liver.

Anti-viral medicines

While modern pharmaceutical science still has not produced a significant antiviral drug, our greatest laboratory, Mother Nature itself, has evolved myriad chemicals to protect the living organism from the ill effects of the virus. This has been a matter of survival for both animals and plants. Viruses do not specifically target only animal cells or only plant cells. Chemicals that evolved in plants to protect them from the viruses in their environments also appear to work very well in humans. Thus we have numerous recommendations from the medical industry to use such plant-based medicines as echinacea and goldenseal to help protect against the more virulent strains of viral disease, and of the few anti-viral medicines that are being researched, a number are based on herbal medicines and chemicals, such as Tamiflu, which is based on a specific chemical from a type of star anise used for centuries in Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Prostatin, an antiviral based on a Samoan herb. The professional herbalist has many herbs with antiviral chemicals in them to choose from, and a library of reference studies and empirical information on the proven effects of these herbal antiviral chemicals.

The subject of viral illness seems grossly misunderstood by the public despite being the most prevalent health problem in the world. A virus, unlike a bacteria or fungi, is not a living organism, yet we still see advertisements from such products as Lysol that claim to kill viruses. If the public actually believes that products like Lysol are their best bet to prevent viral illness, this could be perceived as a public health threat. Bacteria, on the other hand, are living organisms that reproduce independantly and cause infection when they get past our natural immune defenses, or when there is an imbalance of the natural symbiotic controls of bacterial colonies on our skin or membranes. Bacterial infections are treated with antibiotics, which are products of living organisms, usually other bacteria, which inhibit the growth of the infectious living bacteria, slowing the rate of reproduction so that our own immune systems have a chance to kill the bacteria before they kill us. Our own immune systems counter bacterial infections by producing a host of antibodies, or protein molecules that react specifically with invading bacteria, called antigens. When the antibody proteins react, immune cells are attracted that kill the invading bacteria. Since there are a limited number of bacteria in our world, our bodies retain a complex immune memory which helps it to act quickly. The immune responses that counter viral illness are much different, because the virus in not a living organism, and new strains of viruses pop up each year.

Antibiotics do not inhibit nonliving viruses, yet we still see routine prescription of bacterial antibiotics by medical doctors for viral illness. As stated, a virus is either a bit of DNA or RNA that is encapsulated by a protein shell to protect it, and reproduces only with the mechanisms in the cells that it invades. Our own immune systems fight viruses with a very complex assortment of immune cytokines that identify our own cells which have taken in the DNA or RNA of the virus, and then proceed to kill the infected cells. This mechanism is very complex and difficult. To illustrate, our own genetic material, or genome, found in every cell of our body, is filled with viral DNA or RNA. We have called this viral genome 'junk DNA' in the past, but recent research is finding that some viral DNA plays an active role in our genetic expression and evolution. Our immune systems must identify which of our own cells has bits of the viral genetic material that is active and generating harmful replicants of itself, or producing expression of harmful proteins.

Since we still don't have pharmaceuticals that are safe and effective in inhibiting viral replication, doctors still prescribe antibiotics rather than admit that they have nothing for you. If the antibiotics don't work against viruses, do they help us at all? In certain circumstances, viral infection inflames our membranes, exposing us to a greater chance of developing bacterial pneumonia. If this occurs, yes, the antibiotic is useful. Also, some viruses can invade bacteria as well as normal cells of our body, and in this case, the antibiotic would have some effect against the viral population, or at least that part associated with a concurrent bacterial infection. For the most part, though, the antibiotics will be ineffective, and the standard course of the viral illness involves waiting until our own immune systems react sufficiently to control the viral illness.

Viruses pose a threat to us because they appear in so many different forms that living organisms can't form a simple immune defense that is remembered. Viral vaccines are difficult to create, because, as one expert, Dr. Michael Decker, head of scientific affairs at Aventis, one of the three U.S. vaccine makers, states: “By the time you know what's the right strain, you can't do anything about it.” Viruses can't be killed and when they enter our bodies, our own immune systems try to break them down, digest them, or excrete them. Our bodies have a limited success with this set of tactics, as seen from the genome studies that show that a majority of our genome is now composed of nonworking bits of viral material. Certain viruses have increased potential to bind to and enter our cells. The most virulent viruses, the flu and common cold families, have proteins on the surface that attach more easily to surrounding cells in our membranes. Most of the cells that these viruses attach to are actually immune cells sent to counter the infection. Other types of viruses don't attach to membrane cells easily, but penetrate deeper into our bodies, often lying latent for years before expressing and causing symptoms, like Human Immunodeficiency viruses and Herpes viruses, or quietly infecting our own immune cells and causing the production of autoantibodies that create serious autoimmune disorders.

Current viral pharmaceuticals:

  • Tamiflu: The U.S. Center for Disease Control monitors the effectiveness of current viral drugs and found that in 2008, 99 percent of patients tested with viral illness with the most common types of flu at hospitals and clinics showed strains of viruses that were resistant to Tamiflu. In 2007, the percentage was 11 percent. The CDC stated that this was the greatest single season rise in drug resistance ever studied, but apparently fails to distinguish development of drug resistance by a living organism, such as Staphylococcus Bacteria, and failure of a pharmaceutical to show effectiveness in the arena of the non-living viruses, where different strains of virus are very numerous and the appearance of specific strains worldwide in a single time frame are common. Tamiflu is a neuraminidase inhibitor. Its use is still controversial, not only because of the poorly understood serious side effects reported, but because some studies find that it only decreases flu symptoms for one day. Tamiflu was widely distributed in Asia, and then pulled off the market, due to the large number of doctors that described patient symptoms of mental illness that resulted from taking the drug. These symptoms included delirium, confusion, hallucination, speech problems, and inexplicable urges to harm oneself, or to not protect oneself in a routine manner. Neuraminidase enzyme proteins are part of the immune system, the complement system, in both animals and plants, that identify antigens such as viruses. These protein molecules are frequently found on the capsule of the virus. Unfortunately, not all viruses have the same neuraminidase in their protein coats. Tamiflu was created to counter the threat of the avian flu pandemic, which is believed from study of the 1918 virus to be of a specific type, H5N1, that mutated to subtypes H2N2 or H3N2. Influenza refers to a large family of diverse viruses that cause similar symptoms, and the types are divided into families, or groups, A,B,C etc. Type A viruses, which include the H5N1, are believed to have 10 genes on 8 separate RNA molecules. RNA molecules are genetic parts that mainly express a number of proteins that cause regulatory cell mechanisms. One of the typical types of proteins expressed by this virus increases its ability to bind with our cells, by forming hemagglutinin spikes that aid attachment of the virus to cells so that they have a better chance of incorporating the viral DNA into the genetic core of the host cell. Tamiflu is supposed to inhibit the virus from exiting an infected cell, but not inhibit the virus from initially infecting cells. To be effective, the manufacture Roche states that the drug needs to be taken within 48 hours of infection. Tamiflu was utilized in 2004 in response to H5N1 outbreak in Asia, but failed to prevent the more than 150 deaths attributed to the viral outbreak. Common side effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and headache, and less commonly seen are elevated liver enzymes, hepatitis, anophylaxis and serious skin reactions. In March, 2007, the Japanese Health Ministry banned the drug for use in patients younger than 19, due to the dangerous neuropsychiatric side effects frequently reported by health authorities. The FDA black box warning now includes the possible side effects of delirium, hallucination, and dangerous behavioral problems.
  • Ribavirin: This synthetic nucleoside antiviral powder is delivered in an inhaler to concentrate in bronchial fluid and inhibit DNA and RNA expression and protein coats via competition. Results in clinical use have been poor. Mechanism of action is still unknown, although it is believed that the drug is converted by the body's immune system to a triphosphate nucleotide that interferes with RNA metabolism to inhibit viral replication. This mechanism of action may have adverse effects on normal RNA expression, and the most serious side effect involves hemolytic anemia, or destruction of red blood cells. While not effective for all viruses, it has been used to treat Hepatitis C, in combination with synthetic interferon drugs. Its use in cases of bronchitis, or synctial virus, has shown poor results and has been discontinued. Creation of a derivative type, Viramidine, is in clinical trials to see if this drug produces fewer side effects.
  • Rimantidine: an older antiviral used for SARS outbreak uncsuccessfully. This drug, called Flumadine, is used to treat the type A influenza virus. The mechanism of action is unknown, but scientists believe that it inhibits the protein coat of certain virual types from unfolding. Side effects include serious gastrointestinal and neurological problems, including nausea, stomach pain, nervousness, insomnia, asthenia, dizziness and difficulty with mental concentration, most of which were seen in over 6% of the study participants.
  • Interferon: alpha interferon treatment utilizes a synthesized version of the alpha interferon molecule, usually with pegylation to achieve sustained activity, and now combined with various other antiviral drugs to increase the success of treatment for active Hepatitis C. Success with this therapy, which started in the late 1980s, has been dismal, with less than 5% of patients maintaining viral clearance after 24 weeks with the interferon treatment alone, and 100% of patients suffering serious side effects. With the use of a cocktail of drugs, successful clearance after 24 weeks is about 44% in recent studies, yet many patients see a return of viral load and symptoms in the long term, and some researchers complain that these success rates are altered by the large number of patients that drop out of therapy due to side effects and are not included in failure rate. Harsh side effects of severe anemia and neurohormonal depression are common, as well as nausea, diarrhea, fever, headache, muscle ache, joint pain, skin rash, itching, prolonged cough, and asthmatic dyspnea. Fatique, asthenia, hair loss, anxiety, isomnia, susceptibility to infection, pharyngitis, bronchitis, and insulin resistance are some of the common symtpoms that result from prolonged anemia and depression of the neurohormonal system. Tooth and gum problems frequently occur, as well as peripheral neuropathies. Genotyping and variance in the types of drugs are now used to refine the success rates and predict which patients will likely fail in therapy. A 4 year study by the National Institute of Health, the HALT-C Trial, showed little long term effectiveness for current therapy with interferon.

  • Viral vaccines

    Currently, pharmaceuticals have used politics and lobbying to push a mandate for forced vaccination against viral infections. Libertarians are voicing objection, as are many individuals and experts in the field, as these viral vaccines have not had a good track record. Mandatory vaccination against HPV, or human papilloma virus, is currently being urged by the drug manufacturers, for all pre-teens, both male and female, to decrease the risk of cervical cancer from a few strains of a viral wart. The subject of benefit versus risk has been complicated. For instance, various health authorities are investigating reports of autoimmune reactions, including lupus, or lupus-like syndromes, following immunization with the HPV vaccine. A 2012 report published in the medical journal Lupus 201221(2):158-61, reports on an investigation into cases presented at the University of Santo Tomas, Philippines. To see this evidence, click here: http:/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235047.

    The effectiveness of the HPV vaccine has been called to question by the very researchers that developed it. In 2009, Dr. Diane Harper, a lead researcher at Merck who helped design the phase 2 and 3 trials of Gardisil, questioned the efficacy of the vaccine, even voicing this doubt in a CBS investigative report. Dr. Harper stated that the vaccine lasted a mere 5 years, with no data to support its effectiveness after this period of time. Dr. Harper stated: “If we vaccinate 11 year olds and the protection doesn‘t last...we’ve put them at harm from side effects, small but real, for no benefit. The benefit to public health is nothing, there is no reduction in cervical cancers, they are just postponed, unless the protection lasts for 15 years, and over 70 percent of all sexually active females of all ages are vaccinated (to significantly stop the spread of the HPV strains that cause cancer).” Dr. Harper also stated that the risks of serious adverse events after taking the HPV vaccine is comparable to the rate of serious cases of cervical cancer in the population, and that she believed that these risks with the vaccine are underreported, as they are based statistically on the denominator of doses distributed from the Merck warehouse, not the number of doses taken by the patients. Since only a few strains of the human papilloma virus are associated with cancers, and these strains may mutate, the subject of vaccination is problematic. The theory holds that widespread vaccination at an early age of the entire population may significantly reduce or eradicate these viral strains. Yet, given the history of the virus, this scenario is likely to change, and the benefits significantly reduced in the future. The likelihood that this vaccination program will work to eliminate the current strains of the HPV in the entire population, that new strains will not be created via viral mutations, that resistance to the vaccine will not occur, and that this will even significantly effect the future incidence of cervical cancer, is controversial at best. The likelihood that many patients may be affected by serious adverse effects of the vaccine are great. While the attempt to eliminate, or significantly reduce, a type of cancer, is laudable, do we not question these regimens?

    In 2011, the FDA released this statement on the safety and efficacy of vaccines that protect against viruses, as regulators sought to review the safety of attenuated viral vaccines (weakened versions of the viruses) that are now commonly used. The statement: “There are as yet no reliable markers (biological evidence) that can be used to determine whether such viruses have been successfully attenuated (made safe) - other than the failure of the vaccine to (immediately) produce obvious symptoms of disease in recipients. This problem is based on the lack of knowledge of 1) virus virulence factors (molecules that help viruses infect cells and cause disease); 2) characteristics of cells targeted by such viruses; and 3) how these viruses spread in the host. In addition, for many of these vaccines there are as yet no known markers of efficacy (measurable responses of the body that accurately signify that the vaccine is working effectively). This lack of markers of efficacy, such as specific level of antibody, makes it difficult to interpret immune response data collected during clinical trials of these vaccines.” In other words, the data that supports the use of viral vaccines is questionable, and may be relying on hopeful signs of success rather than real proof.

    Information Resources

    1. Current reports of the failure of pharmaceutical medicines that target viral illnesses can be seen in this NY Times article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/health/09flu.html?em If you have trouble accessing this website by clicking on this address, the story can be easily found by a search on Google, using the keywords Flu Drug New York Times Health January 8, 2009.
    2. Current reports of the failure of interferon therapy with long term studies, the HALT-C Trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Dec. 8, 2008, can be seen in this Science Daily article at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081204133645.htm If you have trouble accessing this website by clicking on this address, the story can be easily found by a search on Google, using the keywords HALT-C interferon New England Journal of Medicine 2008.
    3. Current reports of herbal colchicine versus standard interferon therapy in European clinical trials: http://www.natap.org/2008/EASL/EASL_09.htm Colchicine, from the Chinese herb Shan Ci Gu, or rhizome of the Iphigenia Indica, has been used for centuries in China and studied in relation to treatment of cancer. It has toxicity and is used with care professionally. Other herbal therapies for hepatitis C are clinically proven and also effective as a package of treatment.
    4. Current phase three clinical trials of a common classic Chinese herbal formula, Xiao Chai Hu Tang, called Sho-Saiko-to in Japan, for treatment of hepatitis C, are being undertaken in 2008 by the Natianal Institute of Health and the University of Virginia. This formula of seven herbs has been proven effective in Japan, and does not even contain the most effective single herbs shown to inhibit hepatitis C: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00633230 Success of this clinical trial will demonstrate that even the most classic and widely used formulas in TCM are proven effective for a wide variety of health problems.
    5. A 2001 study of incidence of chronic subclinical hypthyroidism and autoimmune hypothyroidism as a result of interferon therapy: http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/5/1925 Support therapies with Complementary Medicine have proven effective in treating such long term side effects of therapy.
    6. A 2002 study of randomized controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicine combined with interferon therapy by the University of California showed that the herbal therapy research was extremely encouraging: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/4785 Support therapies with Complementary Medicine have been proven effective in enhancing standard therapeutic protocol with viral illnesses as well as antibitic resistant bacterial infections, and the holistic approach helps reduce the horrible side effects from harsh synthetic drugs.
    7. A 2001 study of antiviral and immunomodulatory effects of viscum album, or European Mistletoe, also called Iscador extract, and a review of subsequent clinical trials and research published on the NIH database PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16927531 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11317168
    8. Research into the herb Homalanthus nutans by the University of California at Berkeley demonstrates the remarkable potential for herbal medicines in antiviral therapy: http://www.ethnomedicine.org/research/prostratin.asp As more research from China is opened to the universities in the United States, a flood of useful treatment data is expected for herbal physicians in the United States.
    9. Research into the herb Lithospermum erythrorhizon (Zi cao) in 2003, revealed that a chemical in this herb effectively inhibits HIV replication, including drug-resistant and pediatric variations in the HIV family; Zi cao was shown to be an inhibitor for a variety of chemokine receptors, making it potentially effective in modulation of a variety of viral and inflammatory diseases: http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/short/47/9/2810
    10. Research in 2005 at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C. found that 5-10% of individuals apparently do not adequately respond to Hepatitis B vaccine. The importance of a more thorough treatment protocol stimulating a better immune function with Complementar Medicine is highlighted by such research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16271539
    11. Research in 2005 at the National Center for Infectious Diseases, Center for Disease Control, of the United States government, found that the duration of protection against infection from the Hepatitis B vaccine was strong for 15 years, but that children and infants immunized at birth to age 4 showed antibody levels decreasing the most within this window of immunity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15738452
    12. Research in 2010 has discovered that a number of Chinese herbs are proven effective at inhibiting common viral pathogens. A study at confirmed that even Siberian Ginseng (Eleutherococcus senticosus) effectively inhibited the DNA viruses human rhinovirus (HRV) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), two common viruses that perpetuate sinusitis and rhinitis: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11397509?dopt=Abstract
    13. Research in 2009 at the Institute for Medical Virology in Giessen, Germany, has discovered that a standard Echinacea preparation, at the usual dosage prescribed, was effective in activation of a variety of pathologic viral strains, including influenza, avian influenza, and swine flu. In addition, a prophylactic use of echinacea, or direct contact with the herbal chemicals before the mechanism of infection occurred, was of greatest effect: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19912623

    The information on this website is not intended to be used as a specific medical advice or cure. Please consult with the practitioner or an appropriate physician, such as a licensed acupuncturist, naturopath, or medical doctor, to discuss the proper application of the information contained on this website.