Effect of Enzymes on Viruses: Results of Two Informal Study Trials
Copyright 2006. by Kd. last updated 3.27.06
see Enzymes and Viruses (repeats some of what is here)
see Enzymes and Virus Research
Excerpt adapted from the upcoming book
Enzymes: Go With Your Gut
available summer 2006 ISBN 0-9725918-9-3
The information on enzymes and viruses contained here and the tests conducted were developed independently of any product manufacturer. The views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of any manufacturer. A special thanks goes to all the participating families, often unrecognized and uncompensated, whose diligent efforts are providing information from which we all benefit.
The guidelines contained in this document were derived from research literature and the volunteers who contributed their experiences. Many of the volunteers were under a doctor’s care with medical tests showing a viral problem, while others had a history of viral problems and associated symptoms. This information is not medical advice nor meant to replace any medical therapy you are currently undergoing or considering. Consult your health care practitioner when making changes to your health care program.
The information presented is relevant to the products ViraStop (Purify) by Enzmedica, www.enzymedica.com and this information may or may not apply to other enzyme products due to the fact enzyme formulations can be quite different, as is each person’s individual biochemistry and situation. All participants had been using effective enzyme products for food before these studies, and a few had tried higher doses of proteases and no results on their viral issue.
This report is available as a printed booklet. Contact the author at through this site if you have questions or comments on this report.
Understanding the Viral Problem
Viruses are not technically living things. They are particles made of proteins and DNA or RNA. Viruses are notoriously difficult to treat or control. However, digestive enzymes have an excellent history with viruses. A number of references are given in the back.
Viruses may enter the body by a variety of paths. An invading virus should be subdued and immobilized by the immune system, lying dormant and harmless in the body. In the gut, certain agents of the immune system in the mucosal lining usually conquer any viruses. However, if the intestinal mucosa is damaged or is deficient this can leave an opening for a virus to be reactivated, get out of control and become industrious in the gut, and even spread to other parts of the body. The same doorway results from having a weakened immune system. This may force the immune system to constantly work at a higher level. It becomes overburdened on a daily basis, yet cannot completely destroy or subdue the virus.
A number of research studies have established various viruses are present in some children with developmental delays such as autism, and often accompany persistent digestive and health problems. Documented viruses include the stealth virus, herpes virus, measles, chicken pox, Epstein-Barr, and viral encephalitis. There is evidence that viruses can cause dysfunction in the brain and damage the protective coating, called myelin, around the nerves. This leaves the nerves exposed and susceptible to damage. Viruses are suspected as agents in many autoimmune diseases as well.
A basic therapy against such viruses needs to focus on the immune system: improving its ability to function, strengthening it, and enabling it to work at a more typical rate and manner in addition to eliminating the pathogens, if possible.
Enzymes, particularly the proteases, turn out to be an excellent therapy to use against a virus by working on several levels. Many viruses are surrounded by a protective protein film, something a protease enzyme can digest away. Eliminating this coating leaves the viruses unprotected and vulnerable to antivirals and destruction. There is also research showing how enzymes support the immune system helping it to more effectively work on problems in the body, including viruses.
Is there any evidence that any enzymes may be effective in the treatment of viruses? One example comes from a study by Dr. Billigmann. In 1995, he published the results of a study with enzyme therapy as an alternative in the treatment of the virus Herpes zoster. In a controlled study with 192 patients, one of the objectives was to confirm that enzyme therapy had been effective on this virus in a previous study. The other objective was to compare the effectiveness of enzymes with that of a standard drug called acyclovir. The high costs of treatment with this drug and others often meant patients with Herpes zoster would not receive medicinal therapy. They concluded that overall the enzyme preparation showed identical efficacy with the drug acyclovir, and thus also confirmed the results of the prior study. The Herpes zoster virus has been successfully dealt with since 1968 with enzymes. Enzymes are considered one of the best anti-viral therapies with very few side-effects while also providing significant pain relief for the patient (Bartsch 1974; Scheef 1987). Bartsch eventually concluded it was unethical to treat patients with viral conditions with anything other than enzyme therapy because the enzymes proved far superior as a treatment.
Wobenzym also has clinical testing on some of their enzyme products with various viruses. This shows again that at least some blends of digestive enzymes can help with viruses for some individuals.
Materials and Methods
These trials were undertaken to see if certain enzymes thought to be beneficial for viral problems could benefit those with persistent viral problems. This was needed because other avenues, medications, and even other types of enzymes were not getting the job done, and families were looking for more options. This was a very basic evaluation to get preliminary information on the practical use of enzymes when there was a persistent viral problem.
There were two main objectives. The first was to see if certain enzyme blends would help with viruses where other measures had failed. The second was to test the effectiveness of higher doses of enzymes. ‘Higher doses’ was defined to be more than the 3-4 capsules typically given of effective brands of enzymes. The research literature and anecdotal experience pointed to higher doses of enzymes being needed for more chronic conditions (such as cancer, pain, and autoimmune problems). So, maybe doses of enzymes over and above the typical amounts of one to three capsules at three meals a day would bring a greater positive change.
The products in these trials were made by Enzymedica and tested independently of the company, although the company donated the product for these studies upon request. Volunteers offered their participation without compensation of any type other than receiving sufficient donated product for the trial. The author recieved no compensation.
The criteria requested the participants needed to have a known virus (usually verified by lab tests). A few individuals had strong indication of a viral problem, including doctors’ opinions, but no conclusive lab test identifying a particular virus. These cases are noted separately where appropriate.
The other main criteria was participants needed to already be using some brand of effective enzymes for food digestion. This was to distinguish any changes experienced with the trial enzymes from the regular benefits that can come from improved digestion with digestive enzymes.
The first trial was conducted with 20 volunteers who did not know what enzyme product they were testing. Participants were informed it was an all-protease product without any potential allergens, fillers, or fruit-derived enzymes (papain, bromelain, or actinidin which can cause problems for some individuals). This was to help the testing to be more objective. The enzymes were from off-the-shelf regular retail bottles and not something special from the manufacturer for this trial. Participants were told they didn’t need to change anything they were currently doing: therapies, supplements, medications, diets, etc. If they were already taking enzymes, they were to just add these new enzymes between meals on top of the regular supplement schedule. Participants could stop the trial at any time and for any reason.
Participants were to take the enzymes by starting slowly with one or two capsules per day taken anytime between meals, and then gradually increase the dose until they saw good results. They were to aim for around 20 capsules a day. This was to determine if higher doses of enzymes led to greater improvement. When asked, Enzymedica suggested 9-12 capsules as the minimum for a ‘therapeutic dose.’ The 20 capsules per day was chosen because it was higher than what most people were giving, was above the therapeutic minimum, but below what is considered ‘high’ in other areas of enzyme therapy. In other areas of health, people commonly reported taking 45 to 90 capsules per day of various enzyme products.
Participants were to allow one to two months on average for this testing, and they could use as many enzymes as desired. Unlimited access to the product was offered so participants would not feel the need to ration their enzymes and have the freedom to take more if the enzymes were helping.
Participants were asked for personal histories and to report any observed changes even if they were not sure of the cause of the change. Participants were asked to take detailed notes in a form most appropriate for their situation. A customized Nutrition Log was provided as one choice for notes. Participants were asked to note any changes in eating, sleeping, bowel habits, behaviors, language, physical changes, cognitive changes, and any comments from teachers, friends, relatives, or other third parties. Participants were notified that this was new ground being explored and any changes might be positive, negative, or no change whatsoever.
The first product tested was Purify by Enzymedica and was selected because of anecdotal reports of it being quite effective with viral problems. Some time after the first testing was completed, the formulation of Purify was refined, altered a bit, and released under the new name ViraStop. Because of this product change, the second trial was undertaken to see if the results from the first trial could be repeated and were consistent with the first. Results could have been the same, better, or worse.
In the second testing with ViraStop and 21 subjects, the participants knew what product they were testing. They were sent full sealed bottles of off-the-shelf retail product as well as information from the first testing. Other than that, it was conducted in the same manner as the first trial. The age breakdown for both groups combined was as follows:
Age Range Trial 1 (20 people) Trial 2 (21 people)
0-5 yrs 6 5
6-12 yrs 9 10
12-20 yrs 2 2
above 20 yrs* 3 4
*These were adults with viral issues. Only one had a developmental delay diagnosis of ASD (autism spectrum). The other adults had suspected or confirmed viral problems, and most had autoimmune problems.
The reported viral problems were as follows:
Viral Problem (% of total participants)
Chicken pox/herpes 20%
Multiple viruses diagnosed 41%
Unidentified suspected viral problem 15%
Results and Discussion
In general, the results of both trials, first with Purify and then later with ViraStop, showed noticeable improvements for most participants. Since nothing like this had been undertaken before, very preliminary information and protocols were being worked out at the same time.
In both trials, the number of participants in any particular age group was not high enough to determine if one age group responded significantly better than another. However, there were individuals in each age group that did respond well. The number of participants with any particular viral problem was not high enough to determine if one type of virus was more affected than another. Nearly half the participants had multiple diagnosed viruses so determining the effect of the enzymes on individual viral types was not possible.
In both trials, degree of previous enzyme use did not appear to make a substantial difference. One person had been on three capsules of enzymes at all meals regularly for over a year and saw improvement with the addition of the Purify/ViraStop. Another person had taken enzymes off and on, one capsule per meal, and also saw improvement with the test enzymes. Most participants had used good quality enzymes with food daily for at least a year. This appears to show an additional ‘anti-viral’ effect separate from the benefit of enzymes for digestive health, although more research is needed.
In both trials, higher doses of 12-15 capsules per day seemed to make a bigger difference than fewer extra capsules taken throughout the day. Some people saw improvement from the very beginning with just a few capsules while others did not see any change at all until they reached 12-15 capsules a day at which time improvement began abruptly. There was not enough information collected in these trials to determine why some people saw gradual improvement in some cases with lower dosing, but others needed the higher doses to see any change. The differences may be caused by the type of virus, individual differences in biology, or other health conditions.
In the first test with Purify, seven of the participants withdrew from the trial within the first month. This was due to several types of reactions which caused the parent to hesitate continuing the trial, although later these reactions were confirmed as rather typical of any viral control measure. In particular, a ‘stair-step pattern’ started to emerge and is discussed later in this text. Five of the participants had other issues come up in their lives (travel, other therapies, irregular dosing, etc) and so the changes seen could not be attributed solely to the test enzymes or protocol. The remaining participants noted substantial improvements in several areas which will be discussed further in this text along with the results for the second trial.
In summary, although this first testing produced essential useful information, it was also compromised by being a pioneer effort with starts and stops along the way as the patterns and common reactions were being worked out. The second testing was much more consistent on several levels.
Using the guidelines worked out from the first testing, participants in the second trial ended up with an average dosing of 16-20 capsules per day of ViraStop between meals (the therapeutic dose). Two participants saw no change of any sort with this trial even at doses up to 20-25 capsules a day. However, these individuals had also not seen any change with any gastrointestinal or biomedical measure before. A couple of other people showed minor improvement with doses of 20 capsules per day. The parents expressed interest in using an even higher dose. It was suggested they increase to 25 capsules. At this dose, there was marked improvement and this was considered the upper dose limit for this testing.
Only two participants withdrew because the enzymes were not initially tolerated. Three participants had changes in their personal situations during the testing period. However, because the patterns and reactions were better understood in this second testing, the families could better determine what was caused by the ViraStop and what was not.
Patterns and symptoms reported in these trials were checked with other types of virus control measures. The symptoms, or adjustment effects, which occurred during these trials were consistent with what has been observed with other effective anti-viral programs.
Improvement was generally seen in multiple areas of health and behavior at the same time. Even if there were some unwanted negative behaviors initially, there were positive improvements occurring at the same time. This is very consistent when introducing beneficial enzymes for some people during the initial weeks of adjustment. Improvements varied depending on the individual problems of each participant. The most notable and commonly reported improvements included:
1. Improved language and communication
Children having language or communication difficulties were reported to have improved speech and communication with others. This included being conversational, telling jokes, laughing with others, and expressing feelings and personal preferences calmly. A few people noted an increase in eye contact and attention from their child when speaking to him.
2. Happy Child Effect, less moodiness, better disposition
The Happy Child Effect is a term coined several years ago in the author’s previous book. It describes a pronounced shift in the person’s general disposition from being fussy, whiny, irritable, and argumentive to being cheerful, pleasant, agreeable, patient, and generally less moody. Little things no longer set the person off. Several people noted less anxiety in general. Many people noticed this change to a much better overall disposition when reaching the higher doses of enzymes in these trials.
3. More flexible in routine, better transitioning
A number of children became more flexible in their routine, had fewer tantrums, and could transition better between activities. Transitioning was done more cooperatively even with unplanned, unexpected changes.
4. Warts cleared up
At least seven participants noted that persistant warts on the hands or other body parts cleared up soon after starting the trial enzymes. Warts are viral in nature and this was a nice unexpected ‘side-effect.’
5. Fewer cold sores, fevers, flu, and general illnesses
Most participants reported having fewer cold sores, fevers, flu, and other illnesses. Variations included not feeling ‘run down’ or continuously ‘sickly.’ One adult expressed it as simply finally feeling well. Several months after the trials ended, several of the participants continued to be free of being ‘sickly’ for unexplained reasons, and there was far less ‘coming down with what’s going around.’ There were a couple reports of a child not needing to go to the nurse’s office or staying home from school because they ‘didn’t feel well’ or ‘felt sick to their stomach.’
6. More energy (not hyperness)
Participants across all age groups expressed having more energy and less fatigue. This was not negative hyperness or out-of-control behavior. Children became more playful and easy-going while adults were able to be more productive by accomplishing typical physical and mental activities without strain.
7. More alert; cognitive improvement
Children were reported to be more alert and ‘with it.’ Cognitive improvement was noted as no more ‘brain fog’ or confusion. Reports included the participant was better able to stay ‘on task’ and showed an increased attention span. One specifically mentioned improvement in problem solving skills and memory. Some participants saw improved scores on school homework and class assignments. Others reported an expansion in interests (not just excessively fixated on a few).
8. Improved participation with others and socialization
Most reports included improved participation with family, therapies, schools, and peers. A few children were now playing with friends at recess instead of sitting off alone. A couple people said their participating child started playing with siblings, particular when the higher enzyme doses were reached. Teachers reported the child interacting with others in class. This included cooperating in small group activities as well as verbally contributing to discussions. When it was time to be quiet in class, the child could behave appropriately.
9. Increased affection
One of the most blessed and a welcome improvement was the spontaneous as well as reciprocated affection that many parents reported. Parents said their children became increasingly affectionate on their own, spontaneously giving hugs, cuddling, and saying ‘I love you.’ This was also expressed as genuine concern for others’ feelings.
10. Decrease in sensory problems
Many parents reported that problematic sensory sensitivities dropped away as the higher doses were given. The child could better tolerate noisy or loud environments. Textures in food and clothing were much less a problem with the range of choices the person would accept expanded. Lights and colors that were previously a problem began to be much better tolerated and for longer periods of time. Children could better express he or she was uncomfortable in the situation without having a meltdown. This allowed the adult a chance to change the situation or take the child away from it.
11. Third parties commented on improvement
Several people reported teachers, friends, or relatives commenting on seeing improvements in the participant even when the person did not know about the enzyme trial. These objective comments help validate the improvements. The comments reported included seeing cognitive, physical, and behavioral improvements. A few reported therapists saying the therapy sessions had become much more productive and pleasant.
12. Adults reported substantial improvement in well-being
Adults’ personal feedback differs from observing a child because an adult is better able to verbalize what they are experiencing. Several adult participants reported simply feeling substantially better overall, with much less fatigue and clearer thinking. One person said she felt she could do her job better and took less sick time from work. This, in her opinion, greatly contributed to much less stress and better quality of life. Throughout the feedback reports, the parents of participating children continually related how happy and relieved they were their child was doing better in multiple areas. In particular were the heartfelt thanks that the child appeared simply less miserable and much happier in life.
Summary of improvements
A general running theme that emerged was that the vague, unexplained feeling sick, drained of energy, and inability to think clearly that had plagued many of the participants for prolonged periods of time was significantly relieved over the course of these trials (via their own observations and reports). A few expressed they would be repeating their initial lab tests in the future to see if the previous viral measurements had decreased, but that has not been made available to the author at this time.
However, it was very evident that the trials resulted in real, noticeable improvements which were helping the participants in their everyday lives. And this was positively impacting the immediate family and people in the lives of the participants - a significant increase in quality of life.
Improvements were determined from feedback descriptions and based on observation by the individual adult or a child’s parent. Approximate ranges for the level of overall improvement were used. Combined results from both trials follow:
No noticeable change* 10%
Mild but noticeable improvements** 26%
Moderate improvements 48%
Very significant improvements 16%
* Reflects no change of any type was noticed at the doses given within the time frame. This does not include participants who needed to withdraw due to other circumstances, although most of those had improvements to report as well.
**Several of the families in this group said they were proceeding slowly and never really got to the higher doses within the time alloted for this trial. They speculated the improvements may have been higher with higher doses or more time.
Ninety percent of participants completing the testing saw improvement of some type within the time frame. For three-fourths of that group, the improvement was moderate to very significant. The improvements continued after the ViraStop was discontinued. No difference was detected between the results with those having diagnosed viral problems and those feeling they had strong indications of a viral problem. Further discussion of improvements, results, and related issues are in Enzymes: Go With Your Gut.
About 60% of the participants noticed at least one of the adjustment effects described in the following text appearing at some point during the trial, if only briefly, and the rest observed no adjustment effects at all. Checking the research and anecdotal experience of several virus control measures, most of these are consistent with what is observed with any effective viral control measure. If any adjustment symptoms appeared, they were usually temporary, passed within a few days, and tended to appear soon after an incrrease in the Purify or ViraStop dosing.
One effect noted in this testing was that participants would often experience drowsiness. This stood out because over the past five years of monitored enzyme therapy with thousands of people, drowsiness had not been an adjustment effect or side-effect of enzymes. In fact, it is rarely an effect of any supplements. This was reported as the person sleeping more, drowsiness, and taking a nap when the person didn’t routinely do so.
Stomach upset/Flu-like symptoms
A few people found that taking the enzymes on an empty stomach caused some stomach upset in the very beginning. So they were told to go ahead and take the enzymes with food. The Enzymedica literature advises to take ViraStop with food instead of between meals if it initially causes an upset stomach. This solved the problem for those few cases. A few participants experienced mild temporary flu-like symptoms lasting a day or two at a time.
Immune System Partner
The research literature contains very interesting information on the action of enzymes on viruses. When reading discussions on enzymes, note that the term ‘enzymes’ can at times refer to both the beneficial enzymes we take as supplements and the enzymes that are produced in our bodies. Other times the term enzyme refers to those harmful enzymes produced by a pathogen. Viruses, bacteria, and yeast also make proteases/enzymes that can harm our bodies. This can be confusing unless you keep track of which type of enzymes are being discussed.
Proteases (the beneficial digestive enzyme kind) can enter the bloodstream and go about doing useful work. One of the ways proteases can act is to be preferentially connected to a component of the immune system called Alpha-2-macroglobulin (written as A2M for short). The digestive protease enzyme and the A2M have an attraction for each other.
The protease connects to the A2M molecule and the A2M wraps around it and protects it from being indiscriminately deactivated. The way this attachment between the A2M and the beneficial protease works is that the protease connects to a point in the A2M molecule just as it is attracted to any other substrate it can function on. But instead of breaking down the A2M molecule (digesting it), this action ‘springs the trap’ and the protease enzyme is caught. When the protease ‘bites’ the A2M molecule, the configuration of the A2M is physically changed, and the A2M molecule wraps around the protease. It sounds similar to an animal going for bait, springing a trap, and having a cage fall down on it.
In this cage, the beneficial enzyme is still functional. The protease is protected by the A2M yet still retains its activity. Similar to a caged animal still being very much able to eat, make noise, roam around and be active, yet it cannot escape nor can other animals reach it to harm or destroy it.
In addition, the A2M molecule appears to shuttle the beneficial protease to any part in the body that requires it. A2M sort of whisks the protease away to a site in the body that needs healing or is under attack. Similar to an emergency breaking out, an ambulance (A2M) is told to get any medical people (beneficial proteases) they can find. The ambulance goes to the places where there are medical people, and once the medical people are aboard, the vehicle speeds them off to wherever they are needed. Once at the site of the problem, the medical people go to work.
Research shows that when a beneficial protease connects to the A2M molecule, the A2M is switched from a ‘slow’ form to a ‘fast’ form. The fast form quickly mops up various compounds shown to be hazardous to health and disposes of them appropriately. This takes the harmful compounds out of circulation. The beneficial protease becomes a working part of the immune system to facilitate and improve function.
Viruses consist of proteins and have protein coats. Since the protease does not lose activity when combined with the A2M, it can still be effective on the viruses. Many of the measures or medications used for auto-immune conditions aim to suppress the immune system because it is the immune system that is attacking the body. However, suppressing the immune system leaves the person open to more infections and problems as well as reducing its ability to fight off the virus. Because proteases work with the immune system, protease can be used safely by those with auto-immune disorders. There is much written about enzymes assisting to control circulating immune complexes and how the complexes interact with the immune system.
An interesting pattern turned up as some of the participants were taking more capsules per day while increasing the dosing. The number of capsules would be increased and improvement would be seen. Then a few days later the improvements appeared to fade away. So the participant then increased the dose, and again more improvement was seen. However, after a few days to a week, the improvements would start to disappear. A stair-step pattern of increasing the dose and then having it slowly fade away continued. The overall level of improvement stayed above the starting point. I asked Enzymedica if they had heard about this because this was not a pattern seen with yeast, bacteria, other problems; nor was it characteristic of past experiences with taking enzymes. I was told that yes, this was a common pattern noted by customers. This pattern might have something to do with viral activity and how a viral problem ‘grows.’
Viruses are elements that infect a cell. They are not true living organisms that are self-sustaining. Viruses have a totally different type of reproduction and infection cycle than bacteria, yeast, or parasites. Viruses manifest in a cyclical nature, rather than linear or exponential.
A virus attaches onto a cell. Then, the virus inserts its DNA or RNA into the cell using the cell’s own resources to replicate many copies of itself inside the cell. This replication can happen in a short time, or over a long period of time. The virus may even hibernate or hide-out quietly in a cell for a prolonged time (latent over many, many years). At some point, the cell bursts open, killing the cell, and releasing the many copies of the virus which are then free to go out and infect other cells. The cycle continues.
Some parents have noted over the years their child may show a cycle of unexplained illness followed by spontaneous improvement. A parent would inquire why their child would be doing well for about 6 weeks at a time, then be really down and ill for no apparent reason and not responding to standard treatments. Then, the child would spontaneously just get better for another period of 6 weeks before inexplicably regressing again. This cycle would go on and on. The period might not be 6 weeks, but 3 months, 4 months, or 6 months at a time. It was the repeating pattern of unexplained getting ill or getting better that stood out rather than the exact period of time. This pattern has been speculated to be associated with a virus.
The cycling pattern seen in the person may be associated with the cycling nature of virus activity in some way (infect a cell for some time, explodes out in mass, infects more cells, followed by a latent period while the virus replicates inside of cells, burst out in mass, and so on). This pattern may be associated in some way with the stair-step pattern seen with enzymes used for viral problems.
The question, then, is how long do you continue to increase the enzymes throughout the cycles of improvements fading? The recommended pattern of dosing enzymes is to keep increasing the enzymes until this cycling stair-step pattern stabilizes. This is termed the Holding Point. Once at the Holding Point, continue the current dose of enzymes for about 3 weeks. Then, start gradually decreasing the enzymes. The improvements should continue and not fade away. If during the decrease in enzyme dose a point is reached where there is regression, increase the enzymes back up a notch for a week or so, and then try to decrease enzymes again. It is the pattern that is more important than the specific numbers of capsules taken at specific times.
This strategy was worked out in the first testing and recommended for participants seeing the stair-step pattern in the second testing. Those following these guidelines reported success. Further evaluation of this will need to be worked out in future tests. However, these tests were quite valuable in bringing this issue to light, recording some preliminary information, and allowed the devising of a general practical solution.
Viral Rash and Aches
A ‘viral rash’ is often reported as a characteristic response of any anti-viral measure. This rash is noted with other over-the-counter supplements that affect viruses as well as anti-viral prescription medications. The rash may show up right away or after a week or two of anti-viral treatment, particularly if you work up to higher doses that begin seriously impacting the virus. This rash varies considerably by individual. Some people never see any rash, while others see a few spotty appearances of a rash, and others have a more pronounced temporary outbreak.
The rash spots tend to be very localized appearing on different parts of the body but they usually appear on one side of the torso or neck region, and go away shortly after appearing. It is common to see a small spot on one part of the body, and then later another spot in a very different location. This is not an all-over type of rash. The rash was usually reported not to itch, but in a few cases it was itchy.
One explanation found to explain this ‘viral rash’ came from experiences with other methods of viral control. The virus may be lurking inside nerve cells within the body. When activated or being ‘killed,’ the virus travels along the nervous system until it reaches the surface of the body, or the skin layer. A rash may appear at the point of emergence. Sometimes this rash is painful or itchy, and sometimes it is painless. This is often observed as small areas on one side on the upper arms, torso, neck, or face.
Sometimes a person will experience muscle or joint pain when using an anti-viral. Note that a young child or person with communication difficulties might not be able to communicate this. The nerves under attack may also cause pain in the part of the body they connect to. So you don’t get an overall body rash or pain. You get highly localized aches or pain on just one side of the body (one side of face or torso, or one arm, or one leg, etc). You may also have milder muscle ache and no rash at all.
In our testing, only a couple of people reported muscle or joint aches (it was not common under the parameters of the testing). If there is a viral rash, the rash might go away but any associated muscle or joint pain may have lingered past that. A child with physical discomfort may be extra fussy, resist physical activities, or have outbursts that are different than before.
How long the ViraStop needs to be used depends on how the cycle works out for you. Some people take longer to get to the upper dose or Holding Point while others get to that point in the first week. Some people may only see steady improvement with increased dosing and not the stair-step pattern. In our trial runs, most participants needed a minimum of 6 weeks and up to 2 or 3 months to reach completion. Going forward, a timeframe of 2 to 3 months is reasonable if you are going to try this ViraStop format.
Combining Anti-viral products
Are enzymes more effective when used with other anti-viral products or treatments rather than when used alone for viruses? Some participants were already using other measures for virus control. Participants were instructed not to change anything they were currently doing for these trials. The combination of enzymes for viral problems and other anti-viral measures may be more effective than either alone because both bacteria and yeast problems have responded this way as reported in the previous book Enzymes for Autism and other Neurological Conditions. There could be a similar synergistic effect with viruses.
Post-test reports by individuals verified that, at least in some cases, this synergistic effect happened when ViraStop enzymes were combined with some other element with anti-viral properties (monolaurin, olive leaf extract, or a prescription medication such as Valtrex). Any other viral control measures available would also likely work toward the common goal of improving health against viral infection.
Alternatives for Taking Multiple Capules
Although the suggested higher-dose ViraStop program requires possibly taking quite a few capsules during the program timeframe, remember that this is only for a relatively short period of time of two to three months. This period includes the gradual increase in dosing in the beginning as well as the lowering of the dose at the end where you may be taking many less capsules per day. This suggested use of higher-doses of appropriate enzymes with viral problems is not a life-long program, or even prolonged over several years. Most of the volunteers expressed they had already been spending substantial time and money on other avenues without success.
However, some adults as well as young children may have difficulty taking so many enzymes each day due to swallowing difficulties. These enzymes can be taken by mixing in any food or drink. There is a list of mixing ideas at www.enzymestuff.com and in the author’s enzyme books.
If cost or the quantity of capsules is an issue, some companies, including Enzymedica, offer more concentrated potency enzyme blends. Please contact the enzyme company or a health care provider if this is of interest to you.
This effort was conducted to provide some guidelines and options for those who were looking for alternatives for virus therapy, and when other things had failed. For the past few years, successful guidelines had been developed for enzymes and bacteria problems, yeast problems, and sensitive digestive systems. However, there was still a need for help with persistent viral problems. It was for this reason this pioneering effort was undertaken. The research literature strongly supported enzymes as part of a viral control program. In addition, there were anecdotal reports of the Purify/ViraStop blend being beneficial.
Since these trials were undertaken, many people have reported following these guidelines and general strategy with ViraStop with great success. The results, patterns, and symptoms reported have been very consistent with what was found in the testing. The symptoms of a stair-step pattern, spotty localized rashes, and drowsiness were included in some reports, but many people did not see any of these effects. Most participants experienced prounounced improvement in mulitple areas of physical health, behavior, socialization, and cognitive improvement. These improvements remained when the high-dose ViraStop enzyme program was completed.
Whether there are any other enzyme products capable of producing the same results with viral problems as found with ViraStop (Purify) has yet to be determined. A few of the participants in these trials had previously tried higher doses of other enzyme products without any success in this area. ViraStop is a unique special blend of enzymes that work together as a whole. Each type of enzyme has a very specific action. It is well-established that combinations of enzymes have pronounced effects in unique blends that the individual enzymes alone do not.
While these studies met their objectives, there are many questions yet to be answered in the area of enzymes and viruses. Hopefully this initial work will spur more refined research and add to the guidelines already found.
Enzyme therapy – An alternative in treatment of herpes zoster
Billigmann, P. (1995) A controlled study of 192 patients.’ Fortschritte der Medizin 113(4):43–48.
Proteolytic enzymes in the treatment of herpes zoster.
Bartsch, W. (1974) Der Informierte Arz 2, 10, 1–7.
Enzymtherapie, Lehrbuch der Naturheilverfahren.
Scheef, W. (1987) Hippokrates-Verlag Bd. II, S. 95–103. (Hrgs. K. –Ch. Schimmer)
A Study of Serum Glycolytic Enzymes and Serum B Hepatitis in Relation to LIV.52 Therapy
Patney NL, Pachori S. The Medicine and Surgery 1986;4:9.
Stauder G, Kabil S. Oral enzyme therapy in hepatitis C patients. Int J Immunother 1997;3:153-158.
Kabil S, Stauder G. Oral enzyme therapy in hepatitis C patients. Int J Tiss Reac 1997;1-2.
Clinical use of Belosorb and Wobenzym in the Treatment of Viral Hepatitis B
Nikolaev V.G., Matiasch V.I., Kononenko V.V. Presented at the conference “Current approaches in infectology, epidemiology, and microbiology”, Kiev, Ukraine, 1998.
Oral Enzyme Therapy in Hepatitis C patients
Stauder G.,1 Kabil S.2. Int. J. Immunotherapy XIII(3/4) 153-158 (1997). Mucos Pharma Clinical Research, Malvenweg 2, D-82538 Geretsried, Germany, 2Department of Hepatology, Gastroenterology & Infectious Diseases, Benha University Hospital, Cairo, Egypt.
Mechanism of therapeutic efficacy of Wobenzym in the Treatment of Toxic Hepatitis
Korpan M.I., Korpan N.N., Tschekman I.S., Fialka V. National Medical University, Kiev. Dopovidi Nacionalnoi akademii nauk Ukrainy, 1997, 9, 184-187.
Hydrolytic Enzymes in the Treatment of HIV Infections
H. Jäger. Allgemeinmedizin (1990) 19: 160-164.
Wobe-Mugos® E in the Treatment of Varicella zoster Infections
Efficacy and Tolerance Study No.: MU-695502. Integrated final report according to ICH E3 guidelines. Primary Investigator: Amado Gonzales Mendoza, M.D. Instituto Dermatologico de Jalisco, Federalismo Norte # 3102, Atemajac, 44220 Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
Introduction to Oral Enzyme Therapy and Its Use in Varicella zoster Treatment
Kleine M.W., Ertl D. Int J Tiss Reac XIX (1/2), 1997 - abstracts of 7th Interscience World Conference on Inflammation, Antirheumatics, Analgesics, Immunomodulators, May 19-21, Geneva, Switzerland.
Wobe-Mugos® in the Therapy of Herpes zoster Infections
Efficacy and tolerance. Study Nr.: MU-88110. Leiter der Studie: Dr. med. Klaus Uffelmann
Wobe-Mugos® in the Therapy of Herpes zoster
Efficacy and Tolerance Study Nr.: MU-89105. Principal investigator: Peter W. Billigmann, M. D.,
Possibility to Treat Herpes zoster Using Enzymes
I. Mikazans. Department of Dermatology, Medical Academy of Latvia, Riga, Latvia. Australasian Journal of Dermatology 38 (2), 1997. Abstracts of the 19th World Congress of Dermatology, 15-20 June, 1997, Sydney, Australia.
Clinical Experience with Systemic Enzyme Therapy in the Treatment of Herpes zoster
Pospíšilová A., Haklová L. II. dermato-venerology clinic, Faculty Hospital Brno-Bohunice. Cesko-slovenská dermatologie, 1999, 74 (1), 17-20.
Does Adjuvant Enzymotherapy Influence Recurrence of Schneiderian Papillomas?
Mudrák J., Sokol L., Andrašovská M., Koval J. Epithelial Tumours of the Head and Neck Proceedings XXXIst Memorial Meeting for Professor Janez Plecnik, 7.–8. prosince 2000, Ljubljana, Slovinsko.
Systemic Enzymotherapy in Recurrent Laryngeal Papillomatosis - Our Five Year’s Experience
Mudrák J., Koval J., Bobák L. Epithelial tumours of the head and neck Proceedings, XXXIst Memorial Meeting for Professor Janez Plecnik, December 7 – 8, 2000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Adjuvant therapy with hydrolytic enzymes in recurrent laryngeal papillomatosis.
Mudrak J, Bobak L, Sebova I. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1997;527:128-30. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, P.J. Safarik University Hospital, Kosice, Slovak Republic.