Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 Virgin coconut oil is anti parasitic and anti candida. Caprylic acid commonly used for candida is derived from coconuts. See <http://www.coconut-info.com/>www.coconut-info.com Sally recommends coconut oil. Is Lyme disease a parasite or protozoa? I got rid of parasites I didn't know I had after having half a dozen cans of Thai Kitchen pure coconut milk. Was a detox, low energy experience. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 >Is Lyme disease a parasite or protozoa? It's a spirochete (a type of bacteria). A very nasty customer. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 wrote in response to my post: > >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. > I believe that's why some people recommend either cilantro tinctures or > teas or chlorella as part of a candida-reduction program. > >So if true, this is evidence for that new way of looking at bacteria > >and parasites. > Certainly the conventional view needs a lot of work, but that doesn't mean > that someone who's riddled with candida doesn't need to address the problem. My response: No doubt - I am just saying that if the person still has their mercury amalgams in or has a mercury burden in their body, aside from eating sensibly, it can not only be futile but dangerous to try to aggressively take out the candida. To address the problem would perhaps be first to eliminate the obvious candida fuel-foods, and then to get those amalagams out and embark on a solid mercury detox regimen. - > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 > > >Our immune systems clear toxicity directly and indirectly (by clearing > >microbes after they have consumed toxic cells). > > So you're saying our immune system doesn't attack microbes until after > they've consumed unhealthy cells? On what do you base that statement? Simply that a single microbe to live, must eat. I'm proposing that it eats toxic and/or dead tissue. It proliferates and reproduces according to the available " food. " The immune system works at whatever pace it can to control the number and prevent harm from dying microbes (which produce toxins themselves). When the " food " is gone, the immune system clears the last of the microbes, and you have a healthy body. Portland, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 > You seem to be assuming that any infection that the sick person survives > leaves him or her healthier afterwards, but that's simply not true. Very > often people are so weakened by illness that even if they don't die > outright, they never fully recover. > I was referring to one who lives naturally and nourishes his/herself with raw proteins and fats. Without this, energy is not replenished and the formerly sick person cannot recuperate as he/she is still malnourished and continuing to contribute to his/her internal toxicity. Portland, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 > - > > Again, for all the valuable things Vonderplanitz has to say, I have a > problem with this: > > >>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. > > Do you suppose a really sick animal invites a " cleanup crew " in to kill it > and thus cull it from the herd? The " invitation " is a figurative way of observation nature. Or, taking my earlier example, if someone > knifes me in the back and vultures come kill me, was I inviting the > vultures to remove damaged tissue from my body to help me heal faster, or > did the vultures take advantage of my weakened state and kill and eat > me? Obviously I believe the latter. So, you are equating vultures, which are predators and scavengers, with microbes which are merely scavengers. That doesn't mean antibiotics are the > societal solution to illness, even though direct remedies of that nature > have their place. They have their place in delaying the inevitable or in bargaining for less vitality in exchange for greater longevity. It means we need to be healthy so our resistance is > high. Perhaps in truly healthy people such microbes *do* effectively serve > as a cleaning crew because the immune system keeps them from ever flaring > up to a level sufficient to cause disease, The disease is the toxicity not the symptoms of infection. If nutrition is not chaged, it will have to be dealth with either accutely (infection) or result in degeneration. --snip-- In a less > than ideally healthy person, though, this possible natural mechanism of > cleanup is out of wack and the " janitors " go on a killing rampage. A moderately sick person can and does survive frequent cleansings in the form of colds, flus, etc. BTW, it isn't the only " natural mechanism " for clearing toxicity. Avoidance of toxicity and consumption of raw fats to bind toxins, gaining weight, and losing weight to eliminate toxins in the process are recommended by Aajonus. Naturally, if you are " less than idealy health " you'll not want to seek out an overly agressive microbe to do the clean-up. That still does not mean the microbes *cause* disease, it is the outcome of toxicity in an environment that does not support detoxification (un-natural lifestyle and anti-microbials). The " disease " is the impeded function of the organism due to damage caused by toxicity and malnutrition. Portland, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 snip However, a healthy low-carb diet will not only > starve candida but nourish the body and improve its ability to fight off > future infections. The body doesn't fight off infections. The immune system is called that due to the germ theory of disease. Without that theory, it could be viewed as a detoxification system, that involves microbes in a symbiotic relationship. > > As to Lyme, my understanding is that it burrows deep into places in the > body which the immune system has great difficulty reaching, and thus may be > incurable after a certain point. That's not helping anybody. At best, > perhaps one can hope to improve one's constitution to such a degree that > the Lyme never flares up again, but even so, it would still be a drain. I propose that the spyrochete involved here is going after something in these places in the body. The fact that the " immune system " has difficulty reaching there merely prolongs the time it will take to clear the spyrochete once it has fed on the toxic tissue. It will die without anything to eat. snip > Trying to wave a magic wand and eliminate the overgrowth without addressing > the cause of the overgrowth is, in the long term, fruitless, but you seem > to be suggesting that a candida overgrowth is just fine. I suggested that it is serving a purpose (clearing toxicity) which it would not need to do in the first place were a biologically appropriate diet followed in the first place. Perhaps it is clearing advanced glycation endproducts (AGE's) and/or high blood sugar and/or mercury as suggested. A sick person > riddled with bacteria and virii and fungi who goes on a low-carb and > constitution-building diet will, however, inevitably rid himself of at > least most excess pathogens, restoring a great deal of balance to his system. I do not differ with you here, except that you insist on calling the microbes " pathogens " , labeling them as the generators of disease. The microbes may reduce in number due to the cessation of intoxication through improper diet, as well as the introduction of compounds in the diet that assist in detoxification, reducing the burden on the microbe system of detoxification. No attack on the microbe is necessary except in life or death situations (too far gone). Portland, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 > Why does it control proliferation and type of microbe if microbes cause a > needed detoxification? To control the rate at which this happens because > current nourishment may not be sufficient to handle additional toxins > released in the process, and to replace cells that have destroyed in the > process? I would guess the first reason more than the second, but the point is probably moot. Until more research is done along these lines, I can only speculate. Either way, I prefer to trust the process in all its complexity and natural beauty. Portland, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:40:53 -0500 Idol <Idol@...> writes: The germ theory of disease is incomplete, not 100% wrong. Sanitation and diet are vital elements of good health, and of course many diet-induced conditions are recipes for disease, but that doesn't mean disease has no pathogenic component. - Pasteur was wrong, a poor scientist, and unethical to boot. His germ theory came to prominence for reasons that had nothing to do with science. Bernard and Bechamp, as far as they went ,were right, but the powers that be decided prejudicially that their pleomorphic approach to disease had to ignored and censored, much to Pasteur's delight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 - >The simple fact is that the " immune " system that includes certain >specialized cells, microbes lining the intestinal tract and skin, >hormones, emotions, etc. contributes to the regulation and clearing of >microbes and toxins as needed to keep the body vital and promote it's >general welfare. I'd agree with that statement. >I reject the factual nature of the concepts > " defends " and " pathogens " with respect to the " immune system " and >microbes. Some microbes are demonstrably beneficial in low or otherwise proper concentrations in certain parts of the body but harmful in higher concentrations and in other parts of the body. I'd say that in overgrowing or moving where they're harmful, they become pathogenic, though I realize that's contrary to your belief system in which all illness is beneficial detoxification. However, your system, as much as it addresses serious deficiencies in the generally accepted version of the germ theory of disease, has logical flaws. I'll return to anthrax as an example. Anthrax bacteria generate a highly potent toxin which, in sufficient concentration, is lethal. This toxin has absolutely nothing to do with cleansing or promoting health. An anthrax infection can start in one part of the body, perhaps an area with depressed health, and then the toxin and the bacteria will spread throughout the whole body, killing cells everywhere. Your model of our internal ecology also does not resemble nature at large. Nature is full of hunters, predators, killers, so why should the microscopic world be any different? Macrophages demonstrably consume hostile microbes. Other white blood cells destroy infected human cells before the microbes that have infected them are able to reproduce sufficiently to spread. Etc. This doesn't mean the generally recognized germ theory of disease -- focusing only on the disease -- is complete. Far from it. As many doctors and researchers have indicated, vaccination is largely ineffective and probably even harmful due to the mercury and other ingredients in the vaccines. Improving sanitation was the cause of most, if not all, declines in plague, though now that diet and health have decayed to an extreme point, sanitation is becoming insufficient by itself, leading to a resurgence of diseases like TB. Furthermore, the body has its own mechanisms for eliminating dead and toxic tissue. Some of them involve symbiotic microbes, of course, but I simply don't buy the idea that an opportunistic anthrax infection is anything but pathogenic. Even if a truly healthy person could almost always fight off anthrax before developing a noticeable toxin load, as soon as any microbe load gets out of balance, it's pathogenic. As another example, take Lyme disease. Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker believes that Lyme, like a few other pathogens, generates a neurotoxin that the body is unable to excrete. This neurotoxin has no beneficial properties. Any cell exposed to a sufficient toxic load will die, no matter how healthy it was before the exposure. Similarly, any organism exposed to a sufficient toxic load will die. >The concept of an immune system as a defense >against the cruel world is simplistic and fails to accomodate its >regulatory nature. The defense concept is incomplete, yes, but your replacement concept is just as simple. >Put a person in a sterile environment and it >will seem as though they have no sickness even though indulging in >unhealthful diet. However, in time they will deteriorate and die from >toxicosis. A person in a sterile environment eating a crap diet will in fact sicken and die prematurely, but providing he starts out with a full complement of necessary gut bacteria and whatnot he may live longer and be healthier during that time. He won't have anthrax or Lyme creating toxic poisons in his body which damage and kill cells which would've lived and functioned much longer otherwise. Etc. > It is theorized that our over-the-top hygiene in this >country is contributing to the increase in degenerative diseases. IMO this is probably a crock, and a cover for the fact that the SAD and the medical establishment-recommended diet are the real cause of the disease and degenerative condition epidemic afflicting this country. For example, the idea that children raised in too-clean air contract asthma as a result has virtually no logical or factual foundation. Sick building syndrome doesn't just afflict office buildings -- homes are constructed with toxic materials and inadequate ventilation. Carpets made from synthetic fibers offgass toxic fumes. And of course trans fats, foods derived from animals fed hormones and the wrong foods, and many other factors contribute to asthma. But nobody's considering these factors because they're mostly not profitable enough to address, whereas blaming a cleanliness fetish can conveniently divert many people's attention from the real problems. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 >It is an heroic attempt by nature to detox the body when >other normal means have been foiled by modern medicine (antibiotics). Why is it that you think sickness is an attempt by nature to heal, when in the visible, macro world predators are both helping the herd and killing individuals in a selfish attempt to feed themselves? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 - >Wherever they are, the toxins may be killing already toxic cells, and >the suppression of the immune system is a message to it as a regulator >that more work needs done. Your assumption seems to be that no matter how toxic a toxin is, a healthy person will be able to handle it. But that makes no sense. Presumably for everyone there's some point on the scale at which a toxic load becomes harmful, and then another point at which it becomes lethal. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 M. Bianca, It would be great to read about this Pasteur / Bernard / Bechamp story in more detail. Could you refer me to any writings about " the pleomorphic approach [and] Pasteur's delight " ? Thanks! And thanks to and for helping me flesh out my own thoughts about disease! bianca3@... om cc: 02/26/2002 Subject: Re: Re: New Theory of Disease? 11:09 AM Please respond to native-nutriti on Pasteur was wrong, a poor scientist, and unethical to boot. His germ theory came to prominence for reasons that had nothing to do with science. Bernard and Bechamp, as far as they went ,were right, but the powers that be decided prejudicially that their pleomorphic approach to disease had to ignored and censored, much to Pasteur's delight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 snip > > Some microbes are demonstrably beneficial in low or otherwise proper > concentrations in certain parts of the body but harmful in higher > concentrations and in other parts of the body. I'd say that in overgrowing > or moving where they're harmful, they become pathogenic, though I realize > that's contrary to your belief system in which all illness is beneficial > detoxification. No, all illness involving microbes as the symptom promoting factor is detoxification, though not an ideal situation, and often in our society the person is too devitalized to handle it. Blame the microbe if you like, but toxicity from exposure and malnutrition is the real culprit. Feed yourself properly and limit exposure to environmental toxicity, then microbes are likely not needed, or will assist in a benign manner. However, your system, as much as it addresses serious > deficiencies in the generally accepted version of the germ theory of > disease, has logical flaws. > > I'll return to anthrax as an example. Anthrax bacteria generate a highly > potent toxin which, in sufficient concentration, is lethal. This toxin has > absolutely nothing to do with cleansing or promoting health. An anthrax > infection can start in one part of the body, perhaps an area with depressed > health, and then the toxin and the bacteria will spread throughout the > whole body, killing cells everywhere. This is an example of aggressive detox by an uncommon and therefore difficult to control microbe. Were the person to have been exposed to more benign microbes from the environment and were the person to have eaten a correct diet and followed a correct lifestyle, the aggressive microbe anthrax would have been un-called for and not taken hold. > > Your model of our internal ecology also does not resemble nature at > large. Nature is full of hunters, predators, killers, so why should the > microscopic world be any different? Why should it be the same? Macrophages demonstrably consume > hostile microbes. They consume all microbes ( " hostile " or otherwise) in the blood, do they not? Other white blood cells destroy infected human cells > before the microbes that have infected them are able to reproduce > sufficiently to spread, Etc. If that is what is called for given overall toxic load, vitality, etc., that is the regulatory nature of the " immune " system. > > This doesn't mean the generally recognized germ theory of disease -- > focusing only on the disease -- is complete. Far from it. As many doctors > and researchers have indicated, vaccination is largely ineffective and > probably even harmful due to the mercury and other ingredients in the > vaccines. Agreed. Improving sanitation was the cause of most, if not all, declines > in plague, Agreed, but I propose it lead to increases in degeneration, cancers, etc. due to continued poisoning of the body with improper diet. Plagues were a sign of improper diet/high toxicity, an aggresive cleansing that many were unable to survive. though now that diet and health have decayed to an extreme > point, sanitation is becoming insufficient by itself, leading to a > resurgence of diseases like TB. Yes, TB is what is next required to cleanse the lungs, given we have deprived ourselves of more benign microbes through our practice of hygiene. > > Furthermore, the body has its own mechanisms for eliminating dead and toxic > tissue. Some of them involve symbiotic microbes, of course, but I simply > don't buy the idea that an opportunistic anthrax infection is anything but > pathogenic. You call it pathogenic, I call it an aggressive detoxification microbe that most people may not be able to survive. Even if a truly healthy person could almost always fight off > anthrax before developing a noticeable toxin load, as soon as any microbe > load gets out of balance, it's pathogenic. The pathogenic (origin of pathos, disease) is not the resultant microbial infection/toxic load, it is the disturbance of the " ground " through improper diet/lifestyle that called for the microbe. Don't blame the messenger. > > As another example, take Lyme disease. Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker believes that > Lyme, like a few other pathogens, generates a neurotoxin that the body is > unable to excrete. The body of a toxic person may not be able to excrete this toxin, meaning their system was debilitated in the first place. It would be wise to keep such a person away from such an aggessive microbe, if it might kill them. But the fact is, the disease is already there in the person's weakened toxic state. This neurotoxin has no beneficial properties. How do you know? Any cell > exposed to a sufficient toxic load will die, no matter how healthy it was > before the exposure. Similarly, any organism exposed to a sufficient toxic > load will die. All the more reason for a toxic person to be careful around microbes. Remove the toxicity through graded exposure to more benign microbes and consumption of a non-toxic and supportive diet, and these exotic, aggessive microbes will do you no harm. --snip-- > The defense concept is incomplete, yes, but your replacement concept is > just as simple. They way I have presented it may be simple, but it is far from it. Forgive me if I can't express its complexity. It involves numerous specialized cells, microbes of varying qualities, hormonal regulation, emotional regulation, pH balance, electrical potentials on cell surfaces, meridian energies, dc current systems, and more I'm sure I don't know of. A regulatory system is not simple, it calls for a coordinated effort to stimulate, suppress, clear, promote as needed. > snip > > A person in a sterile environment eating a crap diet will in fact sicken > and die prematurely, but providing he starts out with a full complement of > necessary gut bacteria and whatnot he may live longer and be healthier > during that time. He won't have anthrax or Lyme creating toxic poisons in > his body which damage and kill cells which would've lived and functioned > much longer otherwise. Etc. He will, also not have the chance at a fully vibrant life without the assistance of microbes to aggressively cleanse his tissues of the toxicity he has built up through autointoxication (eating poorly). Childhood diseases, necessitated by poor diet, serve to train the immune system in its regulatory capacity and to detoxify. Prevent them through vaccination and you don't properly train the immune system, nor do you detoxify to the extent required to clear the extra burden caused by the poor diet. Later you attract more aggressive microbes which can nearly (or completely) kill you. Again, toxicity is the cause, as well as suppression of detox, not the microbe. > > > It is theorized that our over-the-top hygiene in this > >country is contributing to the increase in degenerative diseases. > > IMO this is probably a crock, and a cover for the fact that the SAD and the > medical establishment-recommended diet are the real cause of the disease > and degenerative condition epidemic afflicting this country. My point exactly. Hygiene merely contributes by suppressing auxiliary detox pathways (microbes). --snip-- Sick building syndrome > doesn't just afflict office buildings -- homes are constructed with toxic > materials and inadequate ventilation. Carpets made from synthetic fibers > offgass toxic fumes. And of course trans fats, foods derived from animals > fed hormones and the wrong foods, and many other factors contribute to > asthma. But nobody's considering these factors because they're mostly not > profitable enough to address, whereas blaming a cleanliness fetish can > conveniently divert many people's attention from the real problems. Agreed, toxicity is the cause, once again. Eliminate the toxicity and you eliminate the need for an auxiliary detox system called the microbe. Leave the toxicity intact and the elimination of the microbe appears to be the cause. Portland, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 > Your assumption seems to be that no matter how toxic a toxin is, a healthy > person will be able to handle it. But that makes no sense. Presumably for > everyone there's some point on the scale at which a toxic load becomes > harmful, and then another point at which it becomes lethal. Agreed. That is the purpose of the regulatory function of the immune system: to prevent overly aggressive cleansing that results in a net deficit or death. Many do not have well trianed immune systems due to vaccination, antibiotics, excessive hygiene, etc. Portland, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 snip > Why is it that you think sickness is an attempt by nature to heal, when in > the visible, macro world predators are both helping the herd and killing > individuals in a selfish attempt to feed themselves? The overall affect is the same. The " herd " is the body, the individuals are the weaker cells of the body. Nature in balance. Elimination of the weaker animals, " heals " the herd, keeping it healthy and able to get the food it needs without sacrificing its nutritional and genetic (procreative) needs for the weaker individuals. Portland, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 A introductory work would be " The Curse of Louis Pasteur: Why Medicine is not Healing a Diseased World, " by Appleton. The Price-Pottenger website carries it. There is an extensive bibliography in the back although there are many works she doesn't cite. But plenty to chew on if you want to further with the whole topic. " For diseases, as all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun substantives...The specific disease doctrine is the grand refuge of weak, uncultured, unstable minds, such as now rule the medical profession. There are no specific diseases; there are specific disease conditions " Florence Nightingale (1820 - 1910) On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:20:39 -0600 leslie_kosar@... writes: M. Bianca, It would be great to read about this Pasteur / Bernard / Bechamp story in more detail. Could you refer me to any writings about " the pleomorphic approach [and] Pasteur's delight " ? Thanks! And thanks to and for helping me flesh out my own thoughts about disease! bianca3@... om To: cc: 02/26/2002 Subject: Re: Re: New Theory of Disease? 11:09 AM Please respond to native-nutriti on Pasteur was wrong, a poor scientist, and unethical to boot. His germ theory came to prominence for reasons that had nothing to do with science. Bernard and Bechamp, as far as they went ,were right, but the powers that be decided prejudicially that their pleomorphic approach to disease had to ignored and censored, much to Pasteur's delight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 >The overall affect is the same. The " herd " is the body, the >individuals are the weaker cells of the body. Nature in balance. >Elimination of the weaker animals, " heals " the herd, keeping it >healthy and able to get the food it needs without sacrificing its >nutritional and genetic (procreative) needs for the weaker >individuals. This is true, but there is also a " herd " of humans, and even in a state of natural health, some animals, including humans, get sick and die. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.