Re: New Theory of Disease?

February 23, 2002

> I've been thinking about whether microbes cause

> disease, and while I like the theory that the microbes

> and the bigger ones, parasites, are a " cleanup crew " ,

> I can't use it to explain all situations, cases, and

> what I am used to believing are facts. I've found an

> article written by Aajonus Vonderplanitz on this

> topic. It makes sense to me in some places and doesn't

> in others. Here's it's location:

> http://www.mail-archive.com/biblefoods%40/msg00003.html

>

> I am hoping we can resume our discussion of this and

> come up with a version of the theory that would

> explain all we know that currently makes many of us

> believe in existence of pathogens and that we need to

> avoid them to the best of our ability. Then we could

> place a file on the web that concisely explains the

> new model, for other people to read.

>

> Roman

>

> __________________________________________________

>

February 23, 2002

Perhaps you should start the discussion by noting your points of

agreement and your points of disagreement with the article. I found it

very well done and in keeping with the actual history off food safety as

opposed to what folks have been trying to tell us for a very long time.

It would appear that the author has in fact suggested a " new model " at

looking at so called pathogens.

On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:50:41 -0800 (PST) Roman <r_rom@...> writes:

I've been thinking about whether microbes cause

disease, and while I like the theory that the microbes

and the bigger ones, parasites, are a " cleanup crew " ,

I can't use it to explain all situations, cases, and

what I am used to believing are facts. I've found an

article written by Aajonus Vonderplanitz on this

topic. It makes sense to me in some places and doesn't

in others. Here's it's location:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biblefoods%40/msg00003.html

I am hoping we can resume our discussion of this and

come up with a version of the theory that would

explain all we know that currently makes many of us

believe in existence of pathogens and that we need to

avoid them to the best of our ability. Then we could

place a file on the web that concisely explains the

new model, for other people to read.

Roman

__________________________________________________

February 23, 2002

> Perhaps you should start the discussion by noting your points of

> agreement and your points of disagreement with the article. I found

it

> very well done and in keeping with the actual history off food

safety as

> opposed to what folks have been trying to tell us for a very long

time.

> It would appear that the author has in fact suggested a " new model "

at

> looking at so called pathogens.

>

> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:50:41 -0800 (PST) Roman <r_rom@y...> writes:

> I've been thinking about whether microbes cause

> disease, and while I like the theory that the microbes

> and the bigger ones, parasites, are a " cleanup crew " ,

> I can't use it to explain all situations, cases, and

> what I am used to believing are facts. I've found an

> article written by Aajonus Vonderplanitz on this

> topic. It makes sense to me in some places and doesn't

> in others. Here's it's location:

> http://www.mail-archive.com/biblefoods%40/msg00003.html

>

> I am hoping we can resume our discussion of this and

> come up with a version of the theory that would

> explain all we know that currently makes many of us

> believe in existence of pathogens and that we need to

> avoid them to the best of our ability. Then we could

> place a file on the web that concisely explains the

> new model, for other people to read.

>

> Roman

>

> __________________________________________________

>

February 23, 2002

Is the message missing in this post?

On Sat, 23 Feb 2002 08:12:37 -0000 " dkemnitz2000 "

<dkemnitz2000@...> writes:

> Perhaps you should start the discussion by noting your points of

> agreement and your points of disagreement with the article. I found

it

> very well done and in keeping with the actual history off food

safety as

> opposed to what folks have been trying to tell us for a very long

time.

> It would appear that the author has in fact suggested a " new model "

at

> looking at so called pathogens.

>

> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:50:41 -0800 (PST) Roman <r_rom@y...> writes:

> I've been thinking about whether microbes cause

> disease, and while I like the theory that the microbes

> and the bigger ones, parasites, are a " cleanup crew " ,

> I can't use it to explain all situations, cases, and

> what I am used to believing are facts. I've found an

> article written by Aajonus Vonderplanitz on this

> topic. It makes sense to me in some places and doesn't

> in others. Here's it's location:

> http://www.mail-archive.com/biblefoods%40/msg00003.html

>

> I am hoping we can resume our discussion of this and

> come up with a version of the theory that would

> explain all we know that currently makes many of us

> believe in existence of pathogens and that we need to

> avoid them to the best of our ability. Then we could

> place a file on the web that concisely explains the

> new model, for other people to read.

>

> Roman

>

> __________________________________________________

>

February 24, 2002

I think the " cleanup crew " theory of disease is just as flawed as the germ

theory -- they both have elements of truth, but they're both incomplete.

One statement Vonderplanitz makes is very telling:

>>Bacteria and virus are naturally present in the company of

>>degenerative tissue but not the cause of degenerative tissue. They

>>are the cleanup-crew for degenerative tissue. Do you blame

>>vultures, crows and worms for the death of the dying carcasses they

>>find and feed on?

Of course, it's quite true that vultures aren't the sole cause of death,

but by the same token, if somebody knifes me in the gut andI fall to the

ground, and then a couple vultures come peck my eyes out and feast on my

liver, killing me in the process, the knife wound isn't necessarily the

sole cause of death either. It depends on my constitution, the severity of

the wound, etc. -- I might have recovered if the vultures hadn't come and

taken advantage of my temporarily weakened condition.

Now it may be that, as he says, salmonella bacteria can have beneficial

effects, at least when they're in the proper places in your body and occur

in the proper population densities, but that doesn't mean an overgrowth of

those bacteria won't cause a problem. I have no idea what the real numbers

would be, so these are just made up out of whole cloth for the purposes of

illustration, but take 1,000 *truly* healthy people who not only have eaten

*truly* healthy diets all their lives but also come from many generations

of people who've eaten truly healthy diets all their lives, from

terrifically fertile soil and everything. Perhaps if you give these 1,000

people a meal of salmonella-contaminated meat from a supermarket, 5 would

get sick. And on the other end of the spectrum, if you take 1,000

Americans who've eaten the standard American diet all their lives and come

from parents and grandparents who've been getting progressively sicker and

more broken-down and decrepit and give them that same meat, maybe 300 of

them would get sick, and some might even die. So clearly, the salmonella

isn't the only factor, but it is the proximate cause.

The problem with the American medical and dietary institutions is that

they're exclusively focused on the proximate cause, when we really need to

look at the whole system to achieve optimal health and function. After

all, which do you suppose will be more healthy for you, that

salmonella-contaminated meat that's from a sickly, grain-fed cow which

lived in confinement, grew up on hormones and pesticides and god knows what

else and was butchered in filthy conditions in a sea of cow excrement, or

meat from a grass-fed cow given no hormones, pesticides or other harmful

treatments, which didn't have serious dysbiosis and which, one at least

hopes, was slaughtered and butchered in humane, sanitary conditions? I

know which I'd choose!

Yes, the vultures and bacteria of the world are often a cleanup crew, but

consider their function in a larger perspective. In a healthy, balanced

ecosystem, a pack of wolves will cull the weak from a herd of caribou. The

wolf-analogs in our own bodies don't just cull the weak cells from our

bodies, they can cull US from the pack of humanity! And while modern

medicine can sometimes intervene and save our lives, that doesn't mean our

lives will have improved from our brushes with death.

So I'll take reasonably clean meat, and I'll hope that any purges and

cleansings I may go through will be mild, because I want to build my health

to as high a level as possible and maintain it there for as long as I can.

>and while I like the theory that the microbes

>and the bigger ones, parasites, are a " cleanup crew " ,

>I can't use it to explain all situations, cases, and

>what I am used to believing are facts. I've found an

>article written by Aajonus Vonderplanitz on this

>topic. It makes sense to me in some places and doesn't

>in others. Here's it's location:

>http://www.mail-archive.com/biblefoods%40/msg00003.html

-

February 24, 2002

,

Here is my take on what you have said. The " wolf-analogs " in our

bodies DO just cull the weak cells IF our system is overall vital and

strong from consuming proper foods, and living in a natural manner.

Of course, if you come from an unnatural past (as we all do), then

you'll not want to overwhelm your system with so called virulent

microbes and parasites. Using your brain to get yourself out of the

sad state you've gotten yourself into oroginally by ignorance does not

contradict the non-germ theory of disease. I am challenging the germ

theory of disease, not the germ theory of death. Certainly too much

of a good thing can kill you.

Portland, OR

> I think the " cleanup crew " theory of disease is just as flawed as

the germ

> theory -- they both have elements of truth, but they're both

incomplete.

--snip--

>

> Yes, the vultures and bacteria of the world are often a cleanup

crew, but

> consider their function in a larger perspective. In a healthy,

balanced

> ecosystem, a pack of wolves will cull the weak from a herd of

caribou. The

> wolf-analogs in our own bodies don't just cull the weak cells from

our

> bodies, they can cull US from the pack of humanity! And while

modern

> medicine can sometimes intervene and save our lives, that doesn't

mean our

> lives will have improved from our brushes with death.

>

> So I'll take reasonably clean meat, and I'll hope that any purges

and

> cleansings I may go through will be mild, because I want to build my

health

> to as high a level as possible and maintain it there for as long as

I can.

February 24, 2002

-

>The " wolf-analogs " in our

>bodies DO just cull the weak cells IF our system is overall vital and

>strong from consuming proper foods, and living in a natural manner.

Probably, but that's a BIG if. As you say, who today is that strong and vital?

Also, there's got to be a level or a range of levels at which the body gets

the maximum benefit from various bacteria and virii and fungi and whatnot

-- too little, and there's not enough stimulation of the immune system, too

much and the immune system, even of a truly healthy person, is

over-saturated or at least expends too much energy fighting them off and

doesn't have enough energy left for maintaining health in other ways.

>I am challenging the germ

>theory of disease, not the germ theory of death. Certainly too much

>of a good thing can kill you.

I doubt that many so-called pathogens can be called " good things " under any

circumstances. For example, what positive function does Borrelia

burgdorferia (which I have) serve in people?

-

February 24, 2002

> -

>

> >The " wolf-analogs " in our

> >bodies DO just cull the weak cells IF our system is overall vital

and

> >strong from consuming proper foods, and living in a natural manner.

>

> Probably, but that's a BIG if. As you say, who today is that strong

and vital?

I should have said *relatively* strong and vital. That is, a person

who has been eating something like raw paleo for a significant period

of time. The point is, if you are able to cope with infection, leave

it be while you improve your diet.

> Also, there's got to be a level or a range of levels at which the

body gets

> the maximum benefit from various bacteria and virii and fungi and

whatnot

> -- too little, and there's not enough stimulation of the immune

system,

The benefit doesn't come from " stimulation of the immune system " but

from processing and clearing of toxic cells by the microbes. Even if

a small quantity, that is enough for general clearing by macrophages.

too

> much and the immune system, even of a truly healthy person, is

> over-saturated or at least expends too much energy fighting them off

and

> doesn't have enough energy left for maintaining health in other

ways.

A " truly healthy person " will not be a fit medium for microbes to

proliferate (nothing for them to eat). Remember the purpose is for

clearing toxic tissue either resulting from malnutrition or exposure

to toxic substances. Your example of 1000 people being exposed to

salmonella I propose would yield 0 sick individuals given they had

eaten nutritiously like their progenitors for generations. In a less

ideal situation, those who do get " sick " will benefit and be stronger

afterwards.

> >I am challenging the germ

> >theory of disease, not the germ theory of death. Certainly too

much

> >of a good thing can kill you.

>

> I doubt that many so-called pathogens can be called " good things "

under any

> circumstances. For example, what positive function does Borrelia

> burgdorferia (which I have) serve in people?

I can only speculate based on the original hypothesis that your

" pathogen " is serving the very purpose I spoke of in the previous

paragraph. If you were to attack it with natural or medical means,

the underlying toxicity that fed it would remain, as well as the new

toxins possibly introduced by medicines. You will feel better, but

something will assail you later to deal with the toxicity, or you will

experience " degenerative " disease much later on.

I have seen (while working for a nutritionist) numerous cases of

" systemic candida infection " that, when " treated " have mutated

resistant strains, or if cleared using " natural medicines, " new

microbes appear (e.g. klebsiella, etc.) as determined by a stool test.

It was discovered in Germany that typical no carb anti-candida diets

intended to starge the yeast, actually caused a mutation of the

candida yeast enabling it to thrive on protein rather than its

customary diet of sugar. Trying to get rid of these microbes defeats

the purpose.

Portland, OR

February 24, 2002

sraosha87 wrote:

> A " truly healthy person " will not be a fit medium for microbes to

> proliferate (nothing for them to eat). Remember the purpose is for

> clearing toxic tissue either resulting from malnutrition or exposure

> to toxic substances. Your example of 1000 people being exposed to

> salmonella I propose would yield 0 sick individuals given they had

> eaten nutritiously like their progenitors for generations. In a less

> ideal situation, those who do get " sick " will benefit and be stronger

> afterwards.

>

Do you think any of those " truly healthy persons " would get sick if allowed

to breath in anthrax spores for a couple of hours or so?

> I have seen (while working for a nutritionist) numerous cases of

> " systemic candida infection " that, when " treated " have mutated

> resistant strains, or if cleared using " natural medicines, " new

> microbes appear (e.g. klebsiella, etc.) as determined by a stool test.It

> was discovered in Germany that typical no carb anti-candida dietsintended

> to starge the yeast, actually caused a mutation of the candida yeast

> enabling it to thrive on protein rather than its customary diet of sugar.

> Trying to get rid of these microbes defeats the purpose.

Do you have a reference to that, ?

So, if starving candida with a low carb diet causes candida to mutate, and

addressing candida with natural or nonnatural approaches have create other

problems, what is one to do when there's candida overgrowth? If let

unaddressed, it is pretty bad, isn't it. From what I've heard, low carb diets

do alleviate people's health problems. What is your suggestion for people who

have candida overgrowth?

Roman

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

Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today

Only $9.95 per month!

http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum & refcd=PT97

February 24, 2002

I agree that the " terrain " is a big factor. However, if the microbes are only

a " cleanup crew " (or friends), why do our immune systems fight them, at least

many kinds of them. By the way, do our immune system fight them or not? For a

lack of evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe they do.

It is said that if one's immune system is weak, the person will have a better

chance of dying of an infection. Does that happen because the person with a

weak immune system can't fight off the microbes or because he's got too much

diseased tissue that the microbes find attractive? Aren't there microbes that

like healthy tissues? After all, the healthy tissues have proteins, fats,

sugar, minerals, and what not that the microbes might find quite palatable.

Maybe it's OK not to be paranoid about microbes in food and other places

because they are everywhere and a risk of contracting a deadly or crippling

disease is quite low, and processing our food to reduce microbe count often

reduces ability of the food to help us rebuild our cells and be able to fight

microbes that want to breed too fast or in wrong places, but, in practice,

how many people are there that can go through a cloud of anthrax spores,

breathing deeply, and remain well? I'd guess not many if at all, even among

long term 100% RAF eaters. So, for all practical purposes, it seams safe to

say that some microbes are a very strong factor in some diseases. If that is

true, then the microbes-don't-cause-disease theory is not valid in all cases.

I think a better model would include multiple factors that can contribute to

a disease and death, and methods of preventing diseases and treating them

would include reducing a number of pathogens and improving the " terrain " . And

it appears that the latter should be preferred over the former, but the

former should not be excluded in all cases. However, if I remember correctly,

Mr. Vonderplanitz is for never addressing microbes because they are never the

cause of a disease. I say that they are one of causes and should be dealt

with in some cases.

What would be a proof of his model for me is infecting several (perhaps,

many) people with some very vicious " cleanup crew " (maybe anthrax, ebola,

plague, or all of them together) and feeding the subjects with 100% RAF and

see if they develop a disease and survive if the do.

Roman

bianca3@... wrote:

> Perhaps you should start the discussion by noting your points of

> agreement and your points of disagreement with the article. I found it

> very well done and in keeping with the actual history off food safety as

> opposed to what folks have been trying to tell us for a very long time.

> It would appear that the author has in fact suggested a " new model " at

> looking at so called pathogens.

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

Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today

Only $9.95 per month!

http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum & refcd=PT97

February 24, 2002

>So, if starving candida with a low carb diet causes candida to mutate, and

>addressing candida with natural or nonnatural approaches have create other

>problems, what is one to do when there's candida overgrowth?

Eat a low-carb diet! From what I've read, significant mutations of candida

resulting from a low-carb diet are rare, and the vast, vast, VAST

majority of people are helped by that kind of diet. Certainly cutting out

carbs, especially sugars and refined carbs, isn't the only thing a

candida-ridden person should do, but it's a *very* important element of any

program to regain health.

-

February 24, 2002

Hi ,

>>It was discovered in Germany that typical no carb anti-candida diets

intended to starge the yeast, actually caused a mutation of the

candida yeast enabling it to thrive on protein rather than its

customary diet of sugar. Trying to get rid of these microbes defeats

the purpose.<<

Do you have any references for that that I could look up? Starving out

candida and parasites is becoming such a common approach, as a popular

health trend as well as among many people whose work I respect, so I'd

like to know more about this.

Thanks,

February 24, 2002

> Do you think any of those " truly healthy persons " would get sick if

allowed

> to breath in anthrax spores for a couple of hours or so?

They MIGHT get sick but would likely not die (meaning they would

become even more healthy afterwards). I make no distinction between

anthrax and any other bacteria EXCEPT as to the depth of its cleansing

ability and therefore risk of overwhelming the system of a person who

had too much toxicity to deal with. The following was posted on

primaldiet group from Aajonu Vonderplanitz on this subject:

My Research and View of Anthrax and

Smallpox

by aajonus vonderplanitz

While researching Anthrax I discovered

three significant facts:

1) Anthrax microorganisms dissolve

toxic animal tissue, especially

nerve,

2) humans who got anthrax regularly breathed animal

tissue, whether from

farm or factory, and

3) it is a rare disease that is not contagious.

Animals who developed anthrax were from two

categories:

1) Poorly tended; stalls were rarely cleaned and fresh

vitamin-rich and

enzyme-active food was not available as feed for long

periods of time,

and/or

2) pharmaceuticals poisoned their nervous systems.

Conclusion: The animals affected did not have the

nutrients to help

dissolve their dead cells, especially from nerve

degeneration, without

the help of microorganisms. Some animals used the help

of colds and flu

(hoof and mouth). Others utilized the more aggressive

anthrax. Anthrax

is similar to meningitis or spinal meningitis in

humans.

Mainly poor, overworked wool and hide factory workers

were affected;

people who lived on bread, cereals and potatoes, and

could rarely afford

meat. People who were not affected were those who were

healthier.

People most likely to succumb to anthrax-poisoning are

those who have

animal allergies. Animal allergies develop when a

person's sinuses,

throat, bronchials and lungs cannot dissolve breathed

animal tissue.

The more the animal tissue accumulates in the body the

greater the

reaction to it.

As people with allergies on the Primal Diet have seen,

the body

gradually eliminates the storages of contaminates,

health is restored or

developed, and allergies disappear.

The likelihood of a Primal Dieter succumbing to

anthrax-poisoning is not

known. However, I survived three serious bouts of

meningitis and spinal

meningitis since 1977. I had only been eating raw meat

for 1 year when

I had my first meningitis. As a result of it, I

regained 20% of my

spinal flexibility lost from the radiation-therapy I

endured in 1968 for

metastasized stomach cancer. Besides cauterizing my

spine, the radiation

therapy gave me blood and bone cancer (multiple

myeloma). Although I

was frightened during the meningitis I completely

avoided doctors and

drugs. I was delighted several months later as my

spine healed and I

regained flexibility. After each meningitis, I

regained more

flexibility.

Is Anthrax A Real Threat?

I suppose that it depends on us. If we continue, as we

have, to allow

our government to develop biological warfare, we set

an example to the

world. The laws that allow National Security secrecy

are our greatest

enemy. Our government maintains a staunch

double-standard. It does not

want us to have any privacy yet they maintain that

they should have

complete. The Nazi's as well as all other fascist

regimes advocated the

same.

If we allow ourselves to be overtaken with fear and

act irrationally, we

will succumb to whatever we agree to subject

ourselves, including

harmful, unproved vaccines....Consider, also, that for

the last 7 years the

military has faced incredible embarrassment because it

had forced

military personnel to take the unproved and dangerous

anthrax vaccine.

What a coupe it would be for them to conjure the image

of vindication?

Does our military have direct involvement in these

anthrax events under

the notion of National Security?

Those likely scenarios should be investigated. The use

of anthrax is a

military weapon. How did anyone get the biological

anthrax? It is not

easily developed as a weapon.3

The smallpox situation is similar to anthrax in that

it has been fatal

to people, especially children, who maintained poor

carbohydrate diets

and/or were poisoned, environmentally or medicinally.

Healthy people

did not die of smallpox.

-------end of quote--------------

>

> >It

> > was discovered in Germany that typical no carb anti-candida

dietsintended

> > to starge the yeast, actually caused a mutation of the candida

yeast

> > enabling it to thrive on protein rather than its customary diet of

sugar.

> > Trying to get rid of these microbes defeats the purpose.

>

> Do you have a reference to that, ?

No, sorry. If I can find it I will post it.

> So, if starving candida with a low carb diet causes candida to

mutate, and

> addressing candida with natural or nonnatural approaches have create

other

> problems, what is one to do when there's candida overgrowth?

I said natural " medicines " meaning antimicrobial agents from the

botanical kingdom. A true " natural " method would be raw animal

nutrition IMHO.

If let

> unaddressed, it is pretty bad, isn't it. From what I've heard, low

carb diets

> do alleviate people's health problems. What is your suggestion for

people who

> have candida overgrowth?

I agree that low carb is important (I eat that way) but it is not all

there is to it. If raw animal foods are not incorporated, the lack of

nutrition will maintain the need for candida to consume

toxic/malnourished tissues, creating the awful symptoms you describe.

Portland, OR

February 24, 2002

Y'all may know this but it is probably worth repeating - that often

candida are actually serving (in at least one of their capacities) to

bind some of the body's mercury load. Aggressive candida destruction

programs can actually do a lot of damage I am told, as when the

candida die off they release that mercury to be dealt with by the

body.

So if true, this is evidence for that new way of looking at bacteria

and parasites.

Cheers,

> Hi ,

>

> >>It was discovered in Germany that typical no carb anti-candida

diets

> intended to starge the yeast, actually caused a mutation of the

> candida yeast enabling it to thrive on protein rather than its

> customary diet of sugar. Trying to get rid of these microbes

defeats

> the purpose.<<

>

> Do you have any references for that that I could look up? Starving

out

> candida and parasites is becoming such a common approach, as a

popular

> health trend as well as among many people whose work I respect, so

I'd

> like to know more about this.

>

> Thanks,

>

February 24, 2002

> I agree that the " terrain " is a big factor. However, if the microbes

are only

> a " cleanup crew " (or friends), why do our immune systems fight them,

at least

> many kinds of them. By the way, do our immune system fight them or

not? For a

> lack of evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe they do.

Our immune systems clear toxicity directly and indirectly (by clearing

microbes after they have consumed toxic cells).

>

> It is said that if one's immune system is weak, the person will have

a better

> chance of dying of an infection. Does that happen because the person

with a

> weak immune system can't fight off the microbes or because he's got

too much

> diseased tissue that the microbes find attractive?

A weak immune system is a malnourished overworked immune system.

Aren't there

microbes that

> like healthy tissues?

No.

After all, the healthy tissues have proteins,

fats,

> sugar, minerals, and what not that the microbes might find quite

palatable.

Not likely. Remember petri dishes for culturing microbes contain dead

tissue.

--snip--

in

practice,

> how many people are there that can go through a cloud of anthrax

spores,

> breathing deeply, and remain well? I'd guess not many if at all,

even among

> long term 100% RAF eaters. So, for all practical purposes, it seams

safe to

> say that some microbes are a very strong factor in some diseases. If

that is

> true, then the microbes-don't-cause-disease theory is not valid in

all cases.

They promote SYMPTOMS not disease. The " disease " is already their in

dead and/or toxic tissue. It will result in degeneration eventually

if not in accute infection.

>

> I think a better model would include multiple factors that can

contribute to

> a disease and death, and methods of preventing diseases and treating

them

> would include reducing a number of pathogens and improving the

" terrain " . And

> it appears that the latter should be preferred over the former, but

the

> former should not be excluded in all cases.

If death or severe suffering are iminent, I could see suppressing the

infection, otherwise not. And be aware that you are not curing

disease but slowing detox that will have to happen.

--snip--

>

> What would be a proof of [AV's] model for me is infecting several

(perhaps,

> many) people with some very vicious " cleanup crew " (maybe anthrax,

ebola,

> plague, or all of them together) and feeding the subjects with 100%

RAF and

> see if they develop a disease and survive if the do.

Feeding the subjects RAF would perferrably precede the infection with

such aggressive agents, else you risk overwhelming the system

resulting in death. However, I have read of people developing

parasitic infections after visiting a foreign country, with much

suffering. When put on 100% RAF, the parasites left.

Portland, OR

February 24, 2002

> Do you have any references for that that I could look up? Starving out

> candida and parasites is becoming such a common approach, as a popular

> health trend as well as among many people whose work I respect, so I'd

> like to know more about this.

>

> Thanks,

>

,

When I developed a HUGE candida and dysbiosis problem 8 years ago, I

contacted a group called the Candida Information and Research Foundation. It

is now called Candida and Dysbiosis Information Foundation (I'm sure

refelecting the realization that candida never exists alone - it is part of

a whole intestinal dysbiosis problem). There is contact info for them at:

http://www.phototour.minneapolis.mn.us/candida/cdif.html

I learned from them that you could never truely starve the candida out

because it would mutate and start surviving on proteins. I'm sure they have

research backing this but I can't find it in my papers from them. Their

point was that you can't just do a low-carb diet and expect to recover...you

have to use some sort of antifungal and probiotics as well as the diet. They

are still recommending the diet though...just try to get rid of the candida

before it starts to mutate more. This group tends to be fairly

pro-medication, which I am not, but they look at natural remedies too.

For me, I had bad candida and bad parasites (following years of bad health

practices of course). In the long run, I found it detrimental to my health

to take loads of products (all natural, even) which killed the candida and

the parasites. This not only wiped out the candida and parasites (which came

back), but it really disturbed the whole ecology of my intestines and made

it harder to heal the underlying problems. What has been working for me has

been a low carb diet NT style, kefir, and homeopathics from Pekana and

SanPharma (particularly SanPharma who make isopathics which address

bacteria, virus's, yeast/molds/fungus in a very gentle way - restoring

balance and healing the gut inflammation.) I don't think diet alone would

have helped me as much as the combined diet and SanPharma remedies. Maybe a

less severe or prolonged condition would have responded to diet alone (diet

which includes raw animal protein, good fat, kefir/yogart and fermented

vegetables).

The group which sells SanPharma and Pekana in the US is called BioResource.

They also have a product that is great for helping to reestablish a good

biological terrain (It is called SulfRedox). They also have a tape series of

their last conference. There are two tapes which are the best I've heard on

intestinal dysbiosis and gut-associate lymphoid tissue problems. If you want

more info on this let me know.

Barb

bdcarr@...

Barb

February 24, 2002

Wouldn't fermented drinks and foods help get rid of candida?