Re: The ostrich approach... [kill the bad guys? MORE]

November 29, 2004

>>>More on the " kill-the-bad-guys " paradigm and its limitations.

The third item -- Why We Need Germs -- is long and excellent.

I've chopped out the middle of it for brevity, but I recommend

you look up the whole thing and read it. --AEL<<<

Ann and everyone....

Thanks for all the wonderful info and discussion on this topic. Only a quick

question - aren't parasites and bacteria completely different things?

My understanding, though admittedly very limited, is that there are both good

and bad bacteria; the bad generally taking hold in an immune-compromised

situation (as in where the liver is not functioning optimally), but the good

kind

being required to maintain healthy bodily equilibrium - yeasts behaving

similarly.

On the other hand, parasites (unless of a variety that coexists beneficially

with a host organism), I always thought, were generally pretty nasty things,

living off a host at the host's expense, regardless of one's state of health

and being opportunistically passed, willy nilly, from one person to another.

Would someone very kindly clarify on this....my question being, " Aren't these

two completely separate varieties of organisms? "

Peace, n

November 29, 2004

Dear Will and Vince,

Will wrote:

>>>In general, medical people consider viruses, bacteria and fungi as

" infectious

agents " not " parasites " although they could certainly be considered as

parasitic since we support them while many of them seriously take from us.<<<

Many thanks for your swift, insightful replies. I see the wisdom in your

approaches to this whole topic and am listening and lurking intently, while

being

very grateful for the clarification on this topic from both you amazing,

altruistic wizards! It can be a little confusing to lay people, like myself,

when

these terms 'seem' to be used interchangeably on occasion.

Thank you, also, to Ann for emphasizing what I missed in the writing, so

thoughtfully sent. I admit I initially scanned it for later edification, because

I

got caught in my mental melee about parasites and bacteria! Strange how the

mind manages to filter out all else at times like that. ))

Just one other minor thing and don't mean to address this to anyone in

particular...I've been getting the group emails in daily digest format and am

finding it pretty challenging to read through and catch all the important points

everyone writes in about. So, may I make a humble request to the group? Would

everyone kindly cut and paste the relevant bits of emails to which they are

responding into a new email? There is such a lot of 'bandwidth' being taken up

by

whole repeats of old emails that are just being sent back with only one or

two-line replies.

Thanks so much for your understanding, in advance!

n

November 29, 2004

Hi n,

It depends on who is doing the talking and what they mean.

Sometimes " parasites " is used in a catch all way that includes any

organism living in any part of our bodies which don't benefit us.

That would not include the beneficial organisms like gut bacteria

which we would die without. Some refer to parasites strictly as

intestinal worms. It gets a little more complicated, but not much,

because sometimes the only difference between beneficial and harmful

bacteria is location in the body.

There is a theory that if we have parasites we are benefiting in

some unknown and misunderstood way from them. Who knows? I sure

don't If we clean our body well enough it will get rid of the

critters that are not needed, but the critters themselves produce

toxins and make it harder to get cleaned out... I right now would

rather strengthen my body and get rid of toxin producing critters at

the same time if possible, then I won't " need " any of them...

Best regards,

Vince

> >>>More on the " kill-the-bad-guys " paradigm and its limitations.

> The third item -- Why We Need Germs -- is long and excellent.

> I've chopped out the middle of it for brevity, but I recommend

> you look up the whole thing and read it. --AEL<<<

>

> Ann and everyone....

>

> Thanks for all the wonderful info and discussion on this topic.

Only a quick

> question - aren't parasites and bacteria completely different

things?

>

> My understanding, though admittedly very limited, is that there

are both good

> and bad bacteria; the bad generally taking hold in an immune-

compromised

> situation (as in where the liver is not functioning optimally),

but the good kind

> being required to maintain healthy bodily equilibrium - yeasts

behaving

> similarly.

>

> On the other hand, parasites (unless of a variety that coexists

beneficially

> with a host organism), I always thought, were generally pretty

nasty things,

> living off a host at the host's expense, regardless of one's state

of health

> and being opportunistically passed, willy nilly, from one person

to another.

>

> Would someone very kindly clarify on this....my question

being, " Aren't these

> two completely separate varieties of organisms? "

>

> Peace, n

>

November 29, 2004

Repeated for emphasis:

> http://www.mindfully.org/Health/We-Need-Germs.htm

> Why We Need Germs

> Garry Hamilton / The Ecologist Report

[.....]

> And in perhaps the ultimate illustration of how far things

> have come, Weinstock, a professor of internal medicine at

> the University of Iowa, recently ran a preliminary clinical

> trial in which six patients suffering from severe Crohn's

> disease were treated with a dose of live parasitic worms.[77]

> In five of the six, the disease went into complete remission

> in the period when the harmless microbes were in the patients'

> bodies. The sixth patient also showed significant improvement.

_____________________________________________________________________

November 30, 2004

> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:54:34 EST

> From: momazmat@...

> Subject: Re: The ostrich approach... [kill the bad guys? MORE]

>

> My understanding, though admittedly very limited, is that

> there are both good and bad bacteria; the bad generally

> taking hold in an immune-compromised situation (as in where

> the liver is not functioning optimally), but the good kind

> being required to maintain healthy bodily equilibrium - yeasts

> behaving similarly.

>

> On the other hand, parasites (unless of a variety that

> coexists beneficially with a host organism), I always

> thought, were generally pretty nasty things, living off a

> host at the host's expense, regardless of one's state of

> health and being opportunistically passed, willy nilly, from

> one person to another.

>

> Would someone very kindly clarify on this....my question

> being, " Aren't these two completely separate varieties of

> organisms? "

Yes, they are. Bacteria are always only one celled. As Will

pointed out, the protozoa are unicellular, but the worms are

like little bugs (whole organisms with many cells).

Supposedly worms are " nasty " . Or at least that is what we've

been led to believe. But is it (always) true?

From my earlier post:

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/We-Need-Germs.htm

Why We Need Germs

[.....]

" And in perhaps the ultimate illustration of how far things

have come, Weinstock, a professor of internal medicine at

the University of Iowa, recently ran a preliminary clinical

trial in which six patients suffering from severe Crohn's

disease were treated with a dose of live parasitic worms.[77]

In five of the six, the disease went into complete remission

in the period when the harmless microbes were in the patients'

bodies. The sixth patient also showed significant improvement.

The results, presented at an American Gastroenterological

Association conference in 1999, have since led to larger

trials, including one in which a patient is now receiving

on-going worm therapy so far with positive results. "

----------------------

> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:17:04 -0000

> From: " Vince Richter " <new_man85@...>

> Subject: Re: The ostrich approach... [kill the bad guys?]

>

> Hi aelewis,

>

> Wow! This brings up a topic for another list Vinnie Pinto

> and the Raw Animal Foods (RAF) folks have some very

> interesting and good points. The key to their whole premise

> from the referenced thread is:

>

> " To start off in the RAF diet, search out and find food

> sources that you can trust. The red meat should be grass-fed,

> organic with no grain finishing if possible. Eggs should be

> fertile and the hens range fed (they are omnivores not just

> grain eaters). Fish should be deep sea and chosen from those

> that traditionally have less mercury. [when I say " bacteria "

> I'm also referring to fungi, viruses, and parasites] Raw,

> fresh foods (even vegetables) all come with their own

> bacteria in and on them. This bacteria is natural and

> beneficial to us - the eaters. "

>

> So just for everyone's edification, they are not talking about

> food from the corner grocery store eaten raw.

I'm not so sure. That is one point of view, but not

necessarily the predominant one or the key to the whole thing.

I've been (slowly) researching this whole issue and I am less

convinced than ever that " organic " produce and meat is usually

superior, or less-harmful. It depends. Some of the raw animal

food people depend largely on conventional supermarket foods.

Aajonus Vonderplanitz (one of the guys who started the whole

thing) did just that for years, while developing his system.

He prefers " organic " meats, but still eats the supermarket

stuff as well.

It seems that the " hormone " issue is likely to be a total

sham. The antibiotic residue issue appears to have little

substance. Pesticide residues might be an issue. MIGHT. These

statements are based on my preliminary and inadequate research

on these subjects, and I welcome other points of view,

particularly accompanied by documentation which deals with

*quantities* (i.e. yes, supermarket foods have toxins, but HOW

MUCH? In the case of hormones, the quantities are too low to

make any practical difference).

On the other hand, truly free-range and grass-fed animal foods

do have much higher levels of the (beneficial) cis-linoleic

acid (CLA). (Though I've read some horror stories about what

is described as " free-range " ! i.e. some " free-range " products

may not be truly free range at all.)

I agree that mercury must be avoided. That means tuna and

farmed salmon, unfortunately. Mercury and heavy metals are

in a category entirely apart from microbes; there is no

relationship whatever.

> Now, that said, I think that the most important thing for our

> bodies is to clean up the pollutants out of them and nourish

> our cells with the best cleanest foods, water, and air. This

> means keep the pollutants out of our homes, our food and our

> water. Our bodies will take care of the impurities we

> inadvertently put into it up to a point. Modern lifestyle

> has pushed most bodies far past that point and we are too

> polluted to fight the onslaught of bad stuff like viruses,

> bacteria, parasites, and mycoplasms...

I am intrigued by the possibility that it is not so much

*exposure* to pollutants, but rather the ability of our bodies

to detoxify said pollutants. Of course, avoid them if you can,

but increasing the ability to detoxify may be more important.

Raw foods, as I pointed out in an earlier post, may (note:

MAY) contain a unique blend of detoxification aids -- aids

that might do us more good than a great deal of fussing about

whether or not something is " organic " (whatever that means!).

> That's where liver

> and gall flushing comes in. I wouldn't recommend anyone to

> just flush the liver and stop there in trying to maximize

> their health. There's too many fronts in this war against

> ill health and disease. Theoretically, if we started out with

> clean bodies and good foods every day we wouldn't have to

> worry about the bad guys because our body would take care of

> them. In practice I believe that it's a good idea to get rid

> of toxic metals, chemicals, and waste products of the bad

> guys while simultaneously cleaning the elimination pathways

> (liver, kidneys, bowel, etc...). Parasite cleansing goes

> hand in hand with these efforts.

Apparently some parasites, in some situations, are good. Note

the description of the TREATMENT of Crohn's disease with live

worms, above. Is there a more general phenomenon at work here,

or is it specific to THAT worm in THAT condition? I don't know.

I don't have the final answers on any of this. Just observing

it all with great interest, and researching steadily. (And

also experimenting on my own body.)

Alan

_____________________________________________________________________

December 2, 2004

> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:17:13 -0000

> From: " Will Winter " <holistic@...>

> Subject: Re: The ostrich approach...

>

> Alan, I had a hard time reading your last message, would you

> mind resending it with all the previous stuff edited out?

> Will

The quoted passages were integral to the message.

What was the problem?

Here it is again, with a " . " added to the beginning of each

line of quoted material, if it helps:

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:19:10 -0800

From: aelewis@...

Subject: Re: The ostrich approach... [kill the bad guys? MORE]

..> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:54:34 EST

..> From: momazmat@...

..> Subject: Re: The ostrich approach... [kill the bad guys? MORE]

..>

..> My understanding, though admittedly very limited, is that

..> there are both good and bad bacteria; the bad generally

..> taking hold in an immune-compromised situation (as in where

..> the liver is not functioning optimally), but the good kind

..> being required to maintain healthy bodily equilibrium - yeasts

..> behaving similarly.

..>

..> On the other hand, parasites (unless of a variety that

..> coexists beneficially with a host organism), I always

..> thought, were generally pretty nasty things, living off a

..> host at the host's expense, regardless of one's state of

..> health and being opportunistically passed, willy nilly, from

..> one person to another.

..>

..> Would someone very kindly clarify on this....my question

..> being, " Aren't these two completely separate varieties of

..> organisms? "

Yes, they are. Bacteria are always only one celled. As Will

pointed out, the protozoa are unicellular, but the worms are

like little bugs (whole organisms with many cells).

Supposedly worms are " nasty " . Or at least that is what we've

been led to believe. But is it (always) true?

From my earlier post:

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/We-Need-Germs.htm

Why We Need Germs

[.....]

" And in perhaps the ultimate illustration of how far things

have come, Weinstock, a professor of internal medicine at

the University of Iowa, recently ran a preliminary clinical

trial in which six patients suffering from severe Crohn's

disease were treated with a dose of live parasitic worms.[77]

In five of the six, the disease went into complete remission

in the period when the harmless microbes were in the patients'

bodies. The sixth patient also showed significant improvement.

The results, presented at an American Gastroenterological

Association conference in 1999, have since led to larger

trials, including one in which a patient is now receiving

on-going worm therapy so far with positive results. "

----------------------

..> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:17:04 -0000

..> From: " Vince Richter " <new_man85@...>

..> Subject: Re: The ostrich approach... [kill the bad guys?]

..>

..> Hi aelewis,

..>

..> Wow! This brings up a topic for another list Vinnie Pinto

..> and the Raw Animal Foods (RAF) folks have some very

..> interesting and good points. The key to their whole premise

..> from the referenced thread is:

..>

..> " To start off in the RAF diet, search out and find food

..> sources that you can trust. The red meat should be grass-fed,

..> organic with no grain finishing if possible. Eggs should be

..> fertile and the hens range fed (they are omnivores not just

..> grain eaters). Fish should be deep sea and chosen from those

..> that traditionally have less mercury. [when I say " bacteria "

..> I'm also referring to fungi, viruses, and parasites] Raw,

..> fresh foods (even vegetables) all come with their own

..> bacteria in and on them. This bacteria is natural and

..> beneficial to us - the eaters. "

..>

..> So just for everyone's edification, they are not talking about

..> food from the corner grocery store eaten raw.