- Home of The G.A.R.D.

A Little Virology For You
Go to New Site
Consultations and Teleseminars

On This Page:

* A Little Virology For You- This section is the last part of the posts found on a thread I started on the Celiac/Gluten Sensitivity section of BrainTalk Communities out of Mass General I titled Viruses as THE "Cause" of Celiac Disease. Again, the thread proposes the idea that a virus could be the true underyling cause of celiac disease and the related food intolerances and that the damage done to the villi of the duodenum is more of a reaction of the virus in situ to the stimulating effects of the lectins from gluten, casein, soy, and corn as they attach to the glycoprotein receptors of the cells lining the intestinal tract. Here is the link to the site if you want to read the entire thread- The entire thread covers a lot of ground.

This last post is a brief review of virology. Hopefully it will underscore the importance of seeing the virus as something other than a pure pathogen or parasite. He is much much more.

Originally posted by me:

A Little Virology For You

I thought it would be good, at this point, to review some basic virology so that you could get the most out of this thread. This is really not that hard to understand. But it is crucial that we do understand it. So, let's try this-

There are two basic types of viruses- those that infect the cells of animals and plants (those organisms with a cell nucleus) and those that infect only bacteria. The latter are called bacteriophages.

Lets cover bacteriophages first because they illustrate the principles we have been talking about above so well. Again, from Wikipedia ( )

Phages infect only specific bacteria. There is probably a phage for every species of bacterium. Some phages are viruruleny upon infecting a cell they immediately begin reproducing, and within a short time lyse (destroy) the cell, releasing new phages. Some phages (so-called temperate phages) can instead enter a relatively harmless state, either integrating their genetic material into the chromasomal DNA of the host bacterium (much like endogenous retroviruses in animals) or establishing themselves as plasmids. These endogenous phages, referred to as prophages, are then copied with every cell division together with the DNA of the host cell. They do not kill the cell, but monitor (via some proteins they code for) the status of their host. When the host cell shows signs of stress (meaning it might be about to die soon), the endogenous phages become active again and start their reproductive cycle, resulting in the lysis of the host cell.
Do you see that? They enter a cell and either kill the cell out right in order to produce more viruses OR they can remain dormant…in the very DNA of that bacteria…being reproduced by the host and wait until some STRESS comes along, which triggers the virus to reproduce and then kill the cell. Wow! (and they are called “non-living by some scientists. Maybe non-living by most of OUR definitions but they have to be alive on some level to do what they do, right?)

What about regular viruses that infect animals and plants? Well, there are basically two types: RNA and DNA viruses. Again from Wikipedia ( )-

Because viruses are acellular and do not have their own metabolism, they must utilize the machinery and metabolism of the host for the purpose of self-replication. Before a virus has entered a host cell, it is called a virion — a package of viral genetic material. Virions can be passed from host to host either through direct contact or through a vector, or carrier. Inside the organism, the virus can enter a cell in various ways. Once attached, enzymes make a small hole in the cell wall, and the virus injects its DNA into the cell. Other viruses (such as HIV) enter the host via endocytosis, the process by which cells take in material from the external environment. After entering the cell, the virus's genetic material begins the destructive process of causing the cell to produce new viruses.

Some viruses have DNA, which once inside the host cell is replicated by the host along with its own DNA. There are two different replication processes for viruses containing RNA. In the first process, the viral RNA is directly copied using an enzyme called RNA replicase. This enzyme then uses that RNA copy as a template to make hundreds of duplicates of the original RNA. A second group of RNA-containing viruses, called the Retroviruses, uses the enzyme reverse transcriptase to synthesize a complementary strand of DNA so that the virus's genetic information is contained in a molecule of DNA rather than RNA. The viral DNA can then be further replicated using the resources of the host cell.

1)Attachment, sometimes called absorption: The virus attaches to receptors on the host cell wall.
2)Injection: The nucleic acid of the virus moves through the plasma membrane and into the cytoplasm of the host cell. The capsid of a phage, a bacterial virus, remains on the outside. In contrast, many viruses that infect animal cells enter the host cell intact.
3)Replication: The viral genome contains all the information necessary to produce new viruses. Once inside the host cell, the virus induces the host cell to synthesize the necessary components for its replication.
4)Assembly: The newly synthesized viral components are assembled into new viruses.
5)Release: Assembled viruses are released from the cell and can now infect other cells, and the process begins again.

Now, for some interesting uses of viruses-

Viruses are important to the study of molecular and cellular biology because they provide simple systems that can be used to manipulate and investigate the functions of cells. The study and use of viruses have provided valuable information about many aspects of cell biology. For example, viruses have further simplified the study of genetics and have helped our understanding of the basic mechanisms of molecular genetics (DNA replication, transcription, RNA processing), Translation (genetics), protein transport, and immunology.

Viro-therapy (Using viruses as treatment against various diseases) is not a new idea. In cancer therapy for example it was recognized as early as the mid 20th Century, when a number of physicians noticed an interesting phenomenon: some of their patients, who suffered from cancer and had an incidental viral infection, or subjected to vaccination, were now improving, experiencing a remission from their symptoms. In the 40's and 50's, studies were conducted in animal models to evaluate the use of viruses in the treatment of tumors, and in 1956, one of the first human clinical trials with oncolytic viruses ("onco" meaning cancer, "lytic" meaning "killing") was conducted in patients with advanced-stage cervical cancer. Nevertheless, systematic research of this field was delayed for years, due to lack of more advanced technologies. In recent years the research in the field of oncolytic viruses began to move forward more quickly and Researchers are trying new ways to use viruses for the therapeutic benefit of mankind. Current thinking is that viruses will one day be created which can act as agents on behalf of bio-mechanical healing devices giving humans or other animals extended life.

Now read this link. Hmmm… ( )

So, are you getting the picture? These guys enter a cell and can start producing viruses right away or they can incorporate their material into the very genome of a cell and wait for some “stress” to come along and then start replicating. What a guy, eh? And WE are studying them to help understand “genetics”. Of course we are…they are in our very genome, being reproduced with each cell division, and can erupt at any time when there is enough “stress” (challenge and/or immune suppression) to cause them to spring into action. Wow!

AND, there are viruses out there that we KNOW do good…they actually kill tumors. How cool is that? So, could some viral infections that we acquire be for our own protection…making us a little ill so that we can be stronger, like a vaccine is supposed to do? You betcha! Ever hear the expression “What doesn’t kill ya makes you stronger?” Yup. In fact, that is not only true of many viral infections but also one of the bases of homeopathic medicine.

So, I would suggest that we stop looking at viruses as purely bad guys. We know that at least some of them are there to do good. We know this, as illustrated above in cancer therapy. Then, when we go back and read about how viruses facilitate adaptation and cause variation in nature, we start to see a bigger picture, don’t we? (I hope, I hope.)

These guys are here for many reasons, mostly good. The vast majority of viruses are not pathogenic to us or animals, at least not yet. They are ubiquitous and present in unimaginable numbers (a drop of water can contain millions of them). So, why do they rise up occasionally? Why do they wait? Why do some people get the flu and die and others are not affected? Why does the incidence of leukemia spike up at 5, 15, and 40 and then take off like the space shuttle after 60? Why are we just now even hearing the word virus associated with the word cancer?

I could write for days on this subject. Better let this soak in first.

Hope this helps,
Dogtor J.




Originally posted by me:
How Slooooow Can We Go-
What we knew then versus what they know now versus what the public knows now-

What year was it again that they discovered that viruses could cause cancer?(1911) Just out of interest, what year were hydrogenated oils invented? (1901) What year did they hit the shelves as cooking oil? (1911) What year was the Spanish Flu? (1918). ( )

But...What year was the very first myocardial infarction described in medicine? What year was the very first case of type 2 diabetes? What has happened to cancer rates since this...the worst of man's inventions...was created?

You must read this paper-

Here is an excerpt-

During the late 1930's and early 1940's, a dramatic increase was seen in the following diseases. First was a disease that looked like diabetes, looked like diabetes, but was not caused by a deficiency of insulin. The medical profession was dumbfounded. All they knew was that a person produced enough insulin, but it was not effective in reducing sugar in the blood. They did not know what caused the insulin to be resistant. The medical establishment named this new disease non-insulin dependent diabetes, type II. The second and third diseases that increased dramatically were heart disease and cancer. This is the period also where new diseases which fell into the auto-immune classifications were being seen for the first time and named. The medical profession also did not know what was causing these new auto-immune diseases. They placed blame on the faulty genetics of the immune system. There is a correlation here. The increase of these new diseases began shortly after the introduction of hydrogenated oils in the food supply.

During 1973 to 1994, there was an increase of 364.3 various cancers to 462.0 various cancers per 100,000 population, a 22% increase. This information is available from the National Institutes of Health. More alarming is that from 1973 to 1992, an increase from 364.3 various cancers to 530.33 cancers per 100,000 population was seen. This was a 31% increase, an additional 9% increase from the previous years.

Originally posted by me:
Hi Everyone,

I now contend that gluten, casein, soy, and corn are not GOOD for anyone. Its just that some tolerate them better than others. The lectins of these foods are inherently bad for simple-stomached animals, especially in the quantities that we now consume.

Original wheat was 1-2% gluten. In the mid 400s AD, our northern Germanic ancestors had the "brilliant" idea of mixing two strains of Triticum with what I like to call "God's wheat" and they created "common wheat", from which our current wheat is derived. Much of our wheat now contains a whopping 55% gluten. BUT, look at the bread bag labels. The second ingredient is wheat gluten. Wow! Only God knows how much gluten is now in a slice of bread.

There is an exact parallel with casein in cow's milk. Goat milk had 1-2% casein, if that. Some species of goats have no casein. And yet, a whopping 80% of the protein in cow milk comes from casein. See the parallel?

But add to that the incredibly sad and startling fact that nearly 75% of the calories in the American diet come from wheat and dairy alone. Now add to that the fact that 40% of first degree relatives to a celiac will have celiac disease (and I would contend that casein intolerance is the same). So, the problems with these foods are skyrocketing and VERY explainable.

What is the only safe way to consume these foods? Ferment them. Only fermentation inactivates the lectins to a reasonable degree. Who can ferment these foods naturally? Only ruminants can in their forestomachs. So, when someone says logically that cow milk is made for cows, they are right. Only the cow (or another ruminant) can ferment that milk. That is why fermented dairy products have been used through the ages. Same for weeds like triticum. Who can digest them? Cattle, sheep, and goats. Hey, that is why sourdough bread became more popular, right? But even more interesting, that is why cornbread was developed in the South. The new arrivals...the slaves...had never had wheat before they were taken from their homeland. They did not grow the whitemans common wheat in Africa. And it has been reported that 40% (there's that number again) died of dysentery on the slave boats before they ever reached port. Wow! What did they get on the boat to eat...bread and water? What did they die of...acute celiac disease?

We have to face it. Man has made some serious mistakes in the past and we continue to do so. Amen? First, we create common wheat 'cause we get tired of "breaking bread". Then we jump ship from goat's to cow's milk (about 1300-1500AD). Bad mistake. THEN, we start eating soy..the "third plague" as I call it. Then, we take corn...which was bad enough as it was...and genetically modify it to death over the past 20 years. Hey, put "corn gluten meal" in your search and see what you get. KILLS other plants. Hmmm... Look up Starlink corn (CRY9C). Woof...what a story.

These are the four foods that induce villous atrophy. And there is a reason for that. They contain things that will harm us. As much as we don't like that villous atrophy, it actually happens for a warn us and to block the absorption of things like lectins, estrogens, excess glutamate, and other things that the foods contain. How cool is that to see?

And what about "outgrowing" these things? I don't think we outgrow them. At best we "adapt" to them. How do we do that? (See the virus thread I have going.) I counsel people all of the time in their 40s and 50s who are having dairy issues who can state definitively that they were dairy intolerant as babies and kids but "outgrew" those symptoms. Here's the scary part- Our body doesn't always keep warning us in the same way.The warning signs change, going from colicky babies to chronic Strep throat/otitis media to asthma to heartburn to IBS to colitis. We adapt and the signs change but if you understand ALL of the signs, there is usually some sign that persists.

But here is the REALLY cool thing to see. I discovered this as I started to study homeopathic medicine. There is a saying that we use- "What doesn't kill you makes ya stronger". There is some truth in that, especially when it comes to homeopathy. In some homepathic remedies, we administer small amounts of something that would otherwise be toxic in higher doses to help us get over certain conditions. How does THAT work? By forcing us to adapt and that adaptation makes us some cases. In others, it simply postpones the inevitable. It would ALWAYS be better to eliminate an offending substance outright than to try to force an adaptation to it, wouldn't it?

And here is the cool thing- The trace amounts of gluten in early wheat and the trace amounts of casein in goat milk PREPARED us for the coming mistakes that we were about to make that I described above. Yes, homeopathic principles were taking place for millennia, preparing us for the impending challenge. Wow! I love it. If we had not been exposed to gluten and casein in small quantities, think of the devastation the consumption of those would have wrought had it been done suddenly.

AND that explains why, every time you read about immune-mediated diseases and cancer rates, we see the same at-risk groups leading the pack- Black Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans and Native American Indians. Why is that? They have had the least amount of time to adapt to the diet of the ancestors of caucasian Americans. Plain and simple!!! Look at the health of Asians in their native land on their traditional diets (no gluten, casei or corn and very little but fermented soy) compared to what happens to them when they come to America and eat our diet. Wowser! Asian American women lead the pack in breast cancer now where in their homeland on their diet they haved a 15 times lower breast cancer rate. How can that be? Think about those slave ships again.

So, for those that have a hard time seeing that these foods are bad, give 'em a history lesson. If they haven't seen man's MO yet...that when it comes to "nature", we mess up just about everything we touch...then they will either have a hard time seeing this or this will be JUST the thing to snap them out of the dream world...the Matrix...they are living in.

Hope this helps,

Originally Posted by R.
This is a fascinating thread. Got thinking about some of the things mentioned here and came up with some more questions:

When we take antibiotics, are we actually giving the viruses an 'edge' - either to gain an advantage with causing an infection, or in enabling them to incorporate more of themselves into our cellular DNA?.

Perhaps indirectly we are giving them an edge through the use of some antibiotics by upsetting the balance in the body and through direct "irritation" of these guys. I now look at lectins, chemicals, pollutants, and even antibiotics as challenges to the cell and thereby to the virus inside the cell that we and they have to deal with. If we make the virus "mad" enough (stimulate it long enough and force it to mutate in order to adapt) then we will see the consequences of that. If the
uprising" is not to the liking of the immune system...the check and balance system to all of this...then it will kill the cell and attempt to subdue the cell. This, again, is what I believe is occurring in many of what we "autoimmune" or immune-mediated disorders such as lupus, rheumatoid, type one diabetes and many more.

Originally Posted by R.
On a similar note, since cellular mitochondria seem to be bacterial in origin, or at least contain similarities to bacteria, do we inadvertantly kill off some of them when we take antibiotics for an infection?.

I think Mrs D. did a great job of answering this, with a great point being the difference between bacterial cells and ours. If it was as easy to damage our mitochondria as it was the bacteria's then we would have many more serious reactions to antibiotics, wouldn't we? Most of the antibiotics reactions we see are explainable through simpler means...again, disrupting the balance between good and bad bacteria (and yeast which are held in check with the help of bacteria), irritating the intestinal tract, causing allergic reactions, and other common reactions. But how and why do even these simpler reactions take place. Certainly, some in fact may result from the adaptive efforts on our part, facilitated by the virus as we've discussed.

Originally Posted by R.
s the identification of a gene in a specific illness (such as HLA-DQ2 in Celiac) really the identification of the viral portion of our genetic code that corresponds to that particular disease?.

THIS is my favorite question. This is the crux of the matter right now, I think. What are genes? Do our genes kill us? Are the genes as we have thought of them in the past really programmed to cause us to become ill? OR, is there something in your genes that does it? If you were wearing a pair a jeans and had a gun in your pocket and it went off and shot someone, did your "jeans' injure that person or did something IN your jeans do it???

That idea is the whole reason for this thread and has been the focus of my attention recently. I have been thinking this way for quite some time, but some recent events and knowledge sent me into a whole new realm.

But first, we have to grasp a few basic tenets. We have to see the fact that viruses can do good. To really grasp this, we also have to believe that they were created FOR good as I (and Dr. Jerry Bergman) described. Then all we have to do is re-ask those questions that are on all of our minds. "If something is "genetic", why does it wait for years and years to manifest? What makes it stop waiting? What is actually waiting?" Then, we can ask "Why would our double stranded DNA want to make us sick or even die?. Why doesn't everyone with the "gene" for something get it? If breast cancer is genetic, why do only about 30% of women with it have a family history of it?"

There are a whole bunch of questions we can asl about genetics, aren't there? For people asking those questions, I started telling them a few years ago to put put the word "virus" wherever they bread the word "gene" and that medical article may make a whole lot more sense.

But back then, I was still thinking about them being simply like all of the other opportunists...the bacteria/myoplasma, yeast, fungi, Rickettsia/Chlamydia, etc that they were just "laying in wait for innocent blood" and took the first opportunity to do what they "wanted to do...create disease. And that is partly right.

However, once we see the balance and the "ying and yang" of all things...that even bad things serve a purpose...then we see that the more likely thing is that all of these opportunists have a good purpose and that WE force them into doing bad things by our own actions...the horrific diets, exposure to chemicals, pollution, hydrogenated oils, etc etc. They rise up because that it was they were designed to do to cause warning signs, symptoms that are therapeutic (we don't like to vomit or have diarrhea but they serve important functions), and to force us to adapt...get stronger...when possible.

And once again, this is all overseen by the immune system. And it works as long as that system is healthy. THAT'S the key word right there, isn't it? It works well for a while, but as the cascade of events takes place in the gut that leads to malabsorption, it starts to fail. Like I wrote in The Answer..."The immune system gets over-worked and under-paid". That's a bad combo. It tries hard in phase two (the immune-mediated diseases) to re-establish balance but we handcuff it with immunosuppressive drugs like prednisone and more powerful chemo agents, don't we? We have thought that this whole process was a genetically flawed immune system.

What do you think now?

Originally Posted by R.
If Cancer is caused by viruses, are "benign" tumors & cysts also caused by viruses?.

Exactly. I have seen this for years in veterinary medicine, the wave of benign tumors that precede the malignant ones. And many of those are preceded by the cysts. Papillomas (warts) are a great example. Warts are usually experienced by children and young dogs. They are also usually self-limiting. Those with lots of warts or those that have a hard time shaking them need to have their immune system looked into, I think. Sebaceous gland (oil gland) cysts and tumors are another example. The development of cysts often precede the tumor formation in these breeds.

And we see breeds of dogs that are gobbled up with tumors, both bengin and malignant. Why certain breeds? Well, the most afflicted breeds are clearly the ones with the worst food issues/allergies. So, the process we know of as students of celiac disease all apply here. That is why I am working HARD to get veterinary pathologists to reopen the books on celiac disease in the dog (with the Irish setter ebing a known celiac. Where have all of the Irish setters gone, anyway? Yep, that's what happens when you feed them wheat-based dog foods...they die off.)

I now look at cysts as the body's attempt to wall off the virus and tumors as the viruses attempt to wall itself off. Could a "tumor" be the viruses desperate last attempt to save itself...a protective isolate itself from the continued bombardment of things that we are throwing at it? This starts to make some sense when we look back at the circumstances that led up to this, doesn't it? I used to think it was purely immune failure that "allowed" the virus to form a tumor. There is some truth to this, but I now think I see the virus for what he is...a adapter...but above all, a survivor. That is what he was designed to do.

Hope this helps,


Originally Posted by k.
I hope you wont mind if I ask a question ........ you refer to air pollution and I am glad to see you mention indoor air quality as part of the cause of this epidemic of health problems ......... but you dont mention pesticides ? surely the pesticide residues in our food must contribute a LOT plus all the exposure to airborn pesticides ?

and with regard to cancers what about th multitude of carcinogenic mutagenic chemicals in products people come in contact with everyday like perfumes , personal care products and (again) pesticides etc etc ? I have to admit until I read what you say I always thought the virus theory of cancer was just a ploy to deflect the blame from all the carcinogens companies are producing and selling us while hiding the dangers they are exposing us to


Hi K.,

Great points and questions.

First of all, the virus in not only a well-known cause of cancer in both human and veterinary medicine but has been called the ONLY true cause of cancer by some medical researchers for over 30 years. I believe they are right. It is just that the public (and many health professionals) have not been told the VITAL importance of this fact. Why that is brings up a whole 'nother subject that I won't bore you with right now.

BUT, that does not take away the tremendous importance of carcinogens. It simply puts them in their rightful place. They facilitate the virus' action by causing chronic tissue damage (something that the virus "thrives" in), by damaging the immune system (something that "unleashes" the virus), and by damaging our very DNA (where many of the viruses are "hiding"). Carcinogens as you mention are very real and powerful things, but without the virus would not cause cancer (at least as this line of thought goes).

So, carcinogens are the gun and viruses are the bullet. Without the bullets, the gun is relatively useless. It could still cause tissue damage if one was hit with it but it would take a major pistol-whipping to die from this.

And you are very right about chemicals, pesticide residues etc. I usually list them all each time I get into this but, for the sake of TRYING to keep these posts shorter ("Yeah, right. LOLOLOL") I don't always list them.

Pesticides and their residues are very important, as you mention. For one, many of them have major estrogenic activity in the body which is both inflammatory and immune suppressive, a deadly combo when it comes to viral involvement. Some pesticides are both powerful carcinogens and major triggers for immune-mediated disease. Why both? Because viruses are involved in BOTH. As I wrote above, it is clear to me that the immune-mediated diseases are the immune system's attempt to clear the body of these viruses before they DO cause cancer.

And again, I used to think, as most still do, that viruses were completely "evil"...opportunists just waiting to cause problems. But that is not it at all. Again, they are what helps plants and animals to ADAPT to changes in their environment. We KNOW this from a biological point of view. So, how hard is it to see that once we have done enough wrong to our bodies (and the environment and the animals that house many of the potentially pathogenic viruses) that they continue to adapt into something that is stronger and stronger and harder and harder for the immune system to control?

It is then the subsequent immune failure that is paralleling this process that finally allows them to overrun us. It is like a rebellion. The virus HATES what we are doing to our body. And he was designed to adapt/ all costs. This was meant to be a good thing for us to adapt to things that are happening to us (like diet and environmental changes). BUT, we go waaaaaay overboard, don't we? WE throw everything we can at these guys...a horrific diet, cigarette smoke, pollution, chemicals/preservatives/artificial sweeteners, hydrogenated oils, estrogens, drug after drug, etc etc... and are SURPRISED at the results???? Not me.

Yes, I believe down to my socks that the TUMOR they produce is simply their desperate attempt to wall themselves off. The virus is simply doing what he was designed to do...adapt. We...WE...are the culprits, not them.

How is that for medical heresy? But I'll bet many of you are starting to see the truth in it, aren't you?

And I could easily believe your history and their assessment of your condition. I have spoken with people who work in and live around major chemical plants and heard this story waaaaaay too many times. And look what happened to many of our servicemen who were exposed to Agent Orange. Wow! Agent Orange was a "machine gun" (using our analogy) and the many of the bullets were provided by the modified live virus vaccines they received when they went into the service and got shipped over there. Uh oh! Yes, service men have alarming rates of things like ALS. Mycoplasma-contaminated vaccines have been incriminated as being a big part of that. So, the Agent orange was the gun and the viruses/mycoplasma were the bullets. And THAT is why the powers at be defended the chemical itself. It wasn't the chemical that did it alone. You had to have the "bullets" and some people did and others didn't. Otherwise, EVERYONE exposed to the chemical would have gotten sick.

THAT is the defense for just about all of these drugs and chemical reactions. If it was the drugs fault, why don't all who take them get sick or injured. you know why, right? Either they did not have the "bullets" in them OR their immune system was still competent enough to handle the rebellion. The latter is a HUGE factor...absolutely paramount in importance.

There is a BIG difference between a healthy and an unhealthy individual being exposed to a live vaccine or potentially harmful chemical. And we are all on a spectrum as far as our immune system's health. The worst get the most ill the fastest and the healthiest can smoke for 90 years and never get lung cancer. BUT, if you want to smoke, you better not live in a polluted city. The additive effect is potentially cataclysmic.

This is not that hard to understand, is it? We are all on a spectrum of wellness/illness. And that spectrum is determined by many things, many of which we have MAJOR control over. Diet (huge), lifestyle (huge), environment (huge), and exercise (huge) all play major, major roles. Where does that place "genetics"?(especially when you see what genetics really are...opportunists, waiting for us to do enough wrong so that they can be manifested).

Yep, we reap what we sow in medicine. We just didn't know that we were sowing such bad seeds, did we?

Hope this helps,

I hope you enjoyed your time here and got something important from your stay. It is my goal to help all of mankind navigate through the jungle of medical information now available on the Internet and find the truth about the origins of what we call "disease" as well as discover the natural solutions for these conditions.
We do have our health's destiny in our own hands more than we've ever imagined, certainly more than most have ever been told. Think naturally and the answer will come.
Dogtor J
Click here to go back to the Site Map to read more related articles on
Become a member of the Friends of DogtorJ Email Club !

You can now go to the new site!
The New is done! Yes, the time has finally come for this homemade Website to go the way of the buffalo. I know that you all join me in looking forward to using a site that is better organized and more accessible....prettier, too! I've even corrected most of those annoying typos (I hope).

Feel free to check it out now at I am still working hard to populate all of the pages so don't worry if a link does not work. They should all be active in the near future. In the meantime, this current site will remain on-line until I get all of the bugs worked out.

Let me know what you think! It's not too late to make some changes.
Dogtor J

would still like to hear from you personally, though.
I used to have a nice little form in this space that would allow readers to send me a quick comment or testimonial. Unfortunately, as the Interent goes, I started getting 50-100 junk emails through this form and had to remove it. 
So, until the new Website is up and running (soon!), I will have to ask people to formulate an Email of their own and send it. I do want to hear from you so I would really appreciate it if you could take the time to do this.
Simply title your Email "Visitor Comment" and include your name, occupationcomment/testimonial and return Email address (if you want to be contacted) and send it to:
dogtorj @ (Just remove the spaces on each side of the @ sign) 
Please do not use this form to ask medical questions. See the Contact section for instructions for sending DogtorJ an Email inquiry concerning a medical condition. 

Great News! will be getting a major facelift in the very near future. Yes, the time has finally come for this homemade Website to be taken over by someone who actually knows what they are doing. I know that you all join me in looking forward to having the site better organized and more accessible. It'll be prettier, too!
This is taking place for a number of reasons, the most of important of which will be revealed in the upcoming months. Yes, the book is finally in the works but there will be a major awareness project to go along with it.
So, please stay tuned. Anyone who would like to get on my mailing list can do so by simply using the visitor's comment area (like the one above) found at the bottom of each page.
Onward and upward!
Dogtor J