Focal Infection – The Source of the Pathology

Authour: Jose Leo Lavigne, M.D. – Brazil

Abstract

Focal infections (IF) are define as the infections that are limited not only to the dental arch, for an example granuloma, as well as the oropharynx, for an example the chronic tonsillitis. Those, from a point of view, based on 50 years of study are responsible for the immune system imbalance and, consequently, for the triggering of diseases, according to the explanation that will be given in this article.

This thesis will be proven using the homeopath medication HEKLA LAVA of the 3rd C (Centesimal) or the 5th X (Decimal), 20 or 10 drops dissolved in 10 ml of waterin a cup made of glass, from 7 o’clock until 11 o’clock. So, when causes slight pain reaction in the dental arch or in the oropharynx, indicates in a pathognomonic character the existence of focal infection, which, by beingextirpated perfectly cure the ongoing disease. And when you change the symptomatology, the result of this test indicates unquestionably pathological inter-relationship between the focus and the present disease.

Although this test, when positive is infallible in settling the existence of focal infection is, however, flawed in the constancy of this positivity, which implies the need for science to discover a foolproof method for their identification, which, in my view, will compete for the final solution of the etio-pathological question.

Introduction

Focal infections (IF) are define as the infections that are limited not only to the dental arch, for an example granuloma, as well as the oropharynx, for an example the chronic tonsillitis. Those, from a point of view, based on 50 years of study are responsible for the immune system imbalance and, consequently, for the triggering of diseases, according to the explanation that will be given in this article.

Methods

This thesis will be proven using the homeopath medication HEKLA LAVA of the 3rd C (Centesimal) or the 5th X (Decimal), 20 or 10 drops dissolved in 10 ml of waterin a cup made of glass, from 7 o’clock until 11 o’clock. So, when causes slight pain reaction in the dental arch or in the oropharynx, indicates in a pathognomonic character the existence of focal infection, which, by beingextirpated perfectly cure the ongoing disease. And when you change the symptomatology, the result of this test indicates unquestionably pathological inter-relationship between the focus and the present disease.

Examples (From the book of my authorship, Focal Infection, Origin of allergy)

José Francisco De Matos (nominal exposure permitted), from Feira de Santana, Bahia, white, at the age of 40, got better from a general eczema, and was completely cured with the cauterization of a tiny cleft on the palatine veil (Figure 1). Years later, with dental fociand blood pressure 180 x 100, under medication, when usingthe test of the Hekla Lava, the maximum pressure was 270, indicating a relation of cause and effect

Figure 1: Oropharynx of the patient José Francisco de Matos

JRS, female, brown, was suffering from hepatomegaly, digestive disorders, dark spots on the face (chloasma), extracted the dental foci, without result. The test made on her showed residual focal infection (IFR) in the upper left incisor lateral position (Figure 2). When operated, was completely healed.

Figure 2: Radiography of the left upper arch (Source: Author archive). Report of Dr Agenor Machado: Absence of teeth. Alveoli in healing, appearing residual focus.Radiography performed 2 months after extractions. Region that was operated and provided the complete recovery of the patient, as described in the text.

Although this test, when positive is infallible in settling the existence of focal infection is, however, flawed in the constancy of this positivity, which implies the need for science to discover a foolproof method for their identification, which, in my view, will compete for the final solution of the etio-pathological question.

The IF has lost its pathological reference over being common that dental extractions leave residual focal infections, which are characterized by having a high sensitivity to pain, even after local anesthesia, totally disappearing with a truncal anesthesia; however, the infected area by the IFR discloses being sensitive to touch. These two characteristics are a compass so that the cauterization that makes after anesthesia with galvano cautery or electrocoagulation, does not reach the healthy tissue, after what makes the curettage with a curette not yet being used; only technique that eradicates completely the IFR, because by the traditional method, without cauterization, a curette leads to the infected area to other regions, recontaminating them, without the antibiotic prophylaxis made at the end manages to sterilize the bone tissue, which is poor of blood irrigation and, therefore, is very fragile of defensive ability, so the IFR persists forever, since the science does not have a method that can prove their existence.

Conclusion    

The pathologies trigger, develop under an allergic basis, can only occur before the presence in the human organism of a IF that, for example, under the influence of stress that causes intra focal hemodynamic responsesit’s released a foreign element that I call Factor X Focal (this factor is originated from focal infection), which will cause an imbalance in the immune system to interfere with the normal function of the defensive immune cells against the external foreign element. From these complex reactions, a degraded protein appears, whose pathological diversification is determined by a genetic cell that engages and directs it to cause the most varied diseases, which are already specific to each genetic cell, specific to each human organism (Figure 3 and 4).

The thesis presented in this article has against the fact that I am an unknown doctor, that only have a specialization in occupational physician and general surgeon, because the volume or quantity and the importance or prominence of this specializations are dominant, conceptually or evaluative, far more than the personal value of the doctor.

Figure 3:

Figure 4: