Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: Detox and Immune Suppression

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

>Well, I'm not sure that the wrapper (essentially pasta) is terribly apropos

>for a purist, but I never claimed to be one. :)

The Koreans make little " sandwiches " wrapped in lettuce.

Take meat or whatever and some kimchi, wrap in a piece

of lettuce.

I also make dumplings wrapped in steamed cabbage leaves.

You can use fermented cabbage leaves (or grape leaves)

and they are even better.

-- Heidi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 02:56 PM 2/3/04 -0800, you wrote:

>>Well, I'm not sure that the wrapper (essentially pasta) is terribly apropos

>>for a purist, but I never claimed to be one. :)

>

>The Koreans make little " sandwiches " wrapped in lettuce.

>Take meat or whatever and some kimchi, wrap in a piece

>of lettuce.

>I also make dumplings wrapped in steamed cabbage leaves.

>You can use fermented cabbage leaves (or grape leaves)

>and they are even better.

Right. Flipping through NT right after I got it, I happened upon dolmas,

and now have a far different opinion of my neighbor's grapevines (the ones

that climb all over the place and try to strangle my lilacs and berries).

I was leering at it the other day, saying 'grow, grow!' *snort*

I'll look at doing something soon with cabbage leaves too, that's a good

idea that I hadn't managed to actually come up with on my own LOL (although

with the hypothyroid I need to be careful of that/brassicas - but as I

understand it, recent info suggests that it may be okay for me if it's

cooked). And I'd already stolen someone's idea/comment about making

tacos with lettuce leaves as the " holder " , rather than a shell or tortilla.

(Actually, I might have stolen that idea from you, Heidi.) So tacos

are on my " possible menus " list - hey, I'm only one person, I can only eat

SO much!

*goes back to staring at the grapevine*

MFJ, HB/LBA/FSIT

Future Co-Owner of The Dancing L Ranch

*pushes the wred one*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I've got more notes on the toxic model of infectious disease, next

>installment :-)

>

i, for one, would very much appreciate the next installment :-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> this concept fascinates me and i've not yet decided what to

>believe. anyone

>> else have an opinon on this?

>

>Yes-- it's bogus. If that were true, why can we replicate diseases by

>injecting said viruses or their toxins into an animal? Moreover,

>why can we isolate

>the *toxins* developed by these organisms and cause disease/physiological

>malfunction?

can you expand on that a little? i'm not sure how that counters the concept

as karen explained it. as i understand her explanation, the healthier you

are the better able you are to deal with viruses/toxins. and the way the

body deals with these is fever, etc. so if someone is getting healthier and

they are getting fevers more often, it may be that their body is more

efficiently responding to the invading virus/toxins.

that doesn't seem to indicate that replicating viruses and causing illness

by injecting them is not possible or even probable.

>

>Sure, being in a bad state of health and having bad tissue will attract

>organisms to eat that crappy tissue-- say, as in tooth decay-- but

>these organisms

>are well established as harmful and capable of reaping havoc on the body--

>hardly the body's " tool. "

in relation to the brix thread and the fact that healthy plants don't

attract pests/harmful organisms, this would make sense. i guess this is

different than what i was thinking in my above response - partly because

karen's explanation isn't fresh in my mind at the moment. i i do recall

aajonus stating ( " aajonus says! " ) something to the effect that parasites

make us healthier by cleaning out diseased tissue. perhaps it's " dose

dependent " ? keep in mind that some " parasites " are now being used to treat

IBD - not because they consume diseased tissue, but rather that they

stimulate the immune system, and the body repairs itself. either way, the

role of " parasites " is not as clear as it once was.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

>Ah, sorry, been meaning to do something about that. My name would be

>Jewett, I'm just so used to using my initial in sigs and sech that I forget

>that it might confuse people that don't already know me.

ok - i just didn't want to keep calling you " mfj " if you had another name

that you prefer to go by :-)

>

>>

>>in the past six months since you've improved your diet, have you added

>>anything that you weren't eating before, such as dairy? or increased your

>>consumption of anything?

>

>Let's see. I guess you can say I switched over from SAD - SAD including

>quite a good bit of alcohol and nicotine (major failing - Sam Cherry

>Wheat!). It started with the hypothyroid thing - I started eating a bit

>more meat, fish, eggs, cheese, salads ... was really pissed off about all

>my favorite veggies being " off-limits " , namely brassicas.

only *raw* brassicas are problematic, i think. cooking neutralizes

goitrogens (the thyroid suppressing compounds) and i think fermenting may

also. i sure hope so considering the amount of cabbage kimchi i eat

(cruciferous veggies also contain goitrogens).

>

I also made a

>serious effort to get my food from better sources - got lots of grass-fed

>meats, etc., and did a de-cluttering in my refrigideezer and pantry,

>removing anything remotely resembling a processed food and substituting

>better stuff (i.e. let's toss the Van de Kamps fish fillets and make a nice

>variety of dumplings with shrimp and my own-grown veggies and grass-fed

>meats - and use those as " fast food " instead). Got seriously into

>sprouting at that point too, for vegetable intake.

do you eat the sprouts *raw*? just wondering if the problematic compounds in

sprouts could account for your seemingly weakened immune system?

At that point, I also

>started avoiding the usual things that people should avoid -

>processed/refined grains, bread, pasta, etc.

....good...

>

>About two months ago, started working with a naturopath, who pretty much

>told me that diet-wise, I was already going down the right path, just do a

>little more of this, a little less of that. He added a whole bunch of

>supplements based on some blood work - I think I'm taking everything under

>the sun right now, but most of it has to do with some " temporary " things

>that the blood work pinpointed - like liver/gallbladder stress, toxin load,

>and things of that nature. I'm really looking forward to getting that

>whole detox/stress thing under control, would be nice to not have to pop 35

>capsules a day, not to mention the iodine and CLO. ;)

hmmmmmm....it sounds like we might be seeing the same naturopath - ron

schmid? i'm on a similar program, and i also have thyroid issues.

>

>It was actually kinda funny ... after the bloodwork came back, and he added

>all sorts of detox's and antioxidants and sech ... oh, trust me, I KNEW it

>was working. Broke out like crazy, all sorts of other things going on

>... man, that stuff was gonna get out of me any way it COULD! Was

>amusing for a while - 40 and Zitted!

interesting, that didn't happen to me. but i am 40 and only slightly zitted

mainly around the time i menstruate. although ocassionaly at other times as

well (i have very oily skin).

>

>But, so, yeah, that's why I perked up at a detox/immune connection. So

>far none of my experience nor any of the tests done indicate any sort of

>major immune system malfunction on my part ... but yep, was pissed at that

>cold and the one flu I got.

well it could be an indication that you are getting better! or worse! or

better and worse! depending on which hypothesis you believe...LOL!

> So I'd say that I've

>increased the milk consumption, but the rest is pretty much just a case of

>getting better stuff than what I was before (i.e. pastured v. Perdue).

>

here's another idea - maybe you don't digest milk well - specifically alpha

1 casein which seems to be problematic with some folks, and that's wreaking

havoc with your immune system? this is a hypothesis i'm considering for

myself. even though the quality of my food has drastically increased, i'm

getting too many colds, sore throats etc for someone eating so well. i'm

thinking food allergy/intolerance may be at the root of my health issues,

and milk is the one thing that i've increased A LOT since eating NT-style. i

went from almost no milk products at all except a dollop of 1/2 and 1/2 in

my coffee, to drinking lots of milk/kefir/cream daily plus eating yogurt

regularly. of course the quality is much better than that dollop of 1/2 and

1/2 i used to drink, but that probably doesn't affect how alpha 1 casein

affects my body whatsoever - *quantity* would more likely be the issue.

>>what a blast from the past - i used to love joan armatrading :-)

>

>

>Whaddaya mean USED to, Little Missy? ;)

oh, it's been *years* since i listened to her. my tastes have changed,

although i think i'd probably still like her stuff.

btw, i didn't mean to be harsh on you and judy for having grammatical pet

peeves. just ignore my orneriness - i just get argumentative sometimes for

no apparent reason :-( (of course i realize i might regret saying that on a

list on which i like to argue/debate on a lot - it might get thrown back at

me! LOL)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 11:00 PM 2/3/04 -0500, Suze wrote:

>only *raw* brassicas are problematic, i think. cooking neutralizes

>goitrogens (the thyroid suppressing compounds) and i think fermenting may

>also. i sure hope so considering the amount of cabbage kimchi i eat

>(cruciferous veggies also contain goitrogens).

That's what I found out later, much to my joy, about the cooking.

(Goitrogens ... funny word. Say it out loud a few times and see if you

start to giggle.) I was told " well, you shouldn't LIVE on broccoli, but

go ahead and eat it " . :)

>do you eat the sprouts *raw*? just wondering if the problematic compounds in

>sprouts could account for your seemingly weakened immune system?

Mostly raw. The bigger ones tend to get cooked just a little bit (like

in an omelette or added at the very end of a stir-fry).

>hmmmmmm....it sounds like we might be seeing the same naturopath - ron

>schmid? i'm on a similar program, and i also have thyroid issues.

That we are. The mailman is starting to wonder about all those boxes I

started getting from Connecticut. LOL. Also just started working with a

local guy ( Redding) in combo with Ron - no matter how you look at

it, Ron's somewhat limited by the fact that he's never actually SEEN me and

has to operate long-distance. The tandem seems to be working out really

well.

>>It was actually kinda funny ... after the bloodwork came back, and he added

>>all sorts of detox's and antioxidants and sech ... oh, trust me, I KNEW it

>>was working. Broke out like crazy, all sorts of other things going on

>>... man, that stuff was gonna get out of me any way it COULD! Was

>>amusing for a while - 40 and Zitted!

>

>interesting, that didn't happen to me. but i am 40 and only slightly zitted

>mainly around the time i menstruate. although ocassionaly at other times as

>well (i have very oily skin).

Well, fortunately, that only lasted a couple of days. Was just sort of

entertaining at the time.

>well it could be an indication that you are getting better! or worse! or

>better and worse! depending on which hypothesis you believe...LOL!

LOL - maybe I'll just pick whatever theory suits my mood at the time.

>here's another idea - maybe you don't digest milk well - specifically alpha

>1 casein which seems to be problematic with some folks, and that's wreaking

>havoc with your immune system? this is a hypothesis i'm considering for

>myself. even though the quality of my food has drastically increased, i'm

>getting too many colds, sore throats etc for someone eating so well. i'm

>thinking food allergy/intolerance may be at the root of my health issues,

>and milk is the one thing that i've increased A LOT since eating NT-style. i

>went from almost no milk products at all except a dollop of 1/2 and 1/2 in

>my coffee, to drinking lots of milk/kefir/cream daily plus eating yogurt

>regularly. of course the quality is much better than that dollop of 1/2 and

>1/2 i used to drink, but that probably doesn't affect how alpha 1 casein

>affects my body whatsoever - *quantity* would more likely be the issue.

I'm not sure. Certainly I always drank a lot of milk, even before this

little NT epiphany. My consumption at this point has gone down to more

" normal " levels, about a half gallon a day (except on delivery days, where

I come home and scarf down lots and lots of the freshest stuff!) Yum yum.

The only thing I could say is that yep, maybe I don't digest it well -

but there's also the bit that my digestion in general DOES appear to have

improved at least a little bit since I started drinking the raw (for one

thing, I don't fall over asleep after I eat any more).

I should also note, though, that the cold and flu came right at the

holidays - when I actually ventured out of my hermitage to go to a couple

of parties with a bazillion " cold-recovering " children and families running

about. :-D

>btw, i didn't mean to be harsh on you and judy for having grammatical pet

>peeves. just ignore my orneriness - i just get argumentative sometimes for

>no apparent reason :-( (of course i realize i might regret saying that on a

>list on which i like to argue/debate on a lot - it might get thrown back at

>me! LOL)

I didn't take offense at all - that's why they're call " pet " peeves, not

everyone shares the same ones. Argue/debate away! :)

MFJ, HB/LBA/FSIT

Future Co-Owner of The Dancing L Ranch

*pushes the wred one*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 11:00 PM 2/3/04 -0500, Suze wrote:

>only *raw* brassicas are problematic, i think. cooking neutralizes

>goitrogens (the thyroid suppressing compounds) and i think fermenting may

>also. i sure hope so considering the amount of cabbage kimchi i eat

>(cruciferous veggies also contain goitrogens).

That's what I found out later, much to my joy, about the cooking.

(Goitrogens ... funny word. Say it out loud a few times and see if you

start to giggle.) I was told " well, you shouldn't LIVE on broccoli, but

go ahead and eat it " . :)

>do you eat the sprouts *raw*? just wondering if the problematic compounds in

>sprouts could account for your seemingly weakened immune system?

Mostly raw. The bigger ones tend to get cooked just a little bit (like

in an omelette or added at the very end of a stir-fry).

>hmmmmmm....it sounds like we might be seeing the same naturopath - ron

>schmid? i'm on a similar program, and i also have thyroid issues.

That we are. The mailman is starting to wonder about all those boxes I

started getting from Connecticut. LOL. Also just started working with a

local guy ( Redding) in combo with Ron - no matter how you look at

it, Ron's somewhat limited by the fact that he's never actually SEEN me and

has to operate long-distance. The tandem seems to be working out really

well.

>>It was actually kinda funny ... after the bloodwork came back, and he added

>>all sorts of detox's and antioxidants and sech ... oh, trust me, I KNEW it

>>was working. Broke out like crazy, all sorts of other things going on

>>... man, that stuff was gonna get out of me any way it COULD! Was

>>amusing for a while - 40 and Zitted!

>

>interesting, that didn't happen to me. but i am 40 and only slightly zitted

>mainly around the time i menstruate. although ocassionaly at other times as

>well (i have very oily skin).

Well, fortunately, that only lasted a couple of days. Was just sort of

entertaining at the time.

>well it could be an indication that you are getting better! or worse! or

>better and worse! depending on which hypothesis you believe...LOL!

LOL - maybe I'll just pick whatever theory suits my mood at the time.

>here's another idea - maybe you don't digest milk well - specifically alpha

>1 casein which seems to be problematic with some folks, and that's wreaking

>havoc with your immune system? this is a hypothesis i'm considering for

>myself. even though the quality of my food has drastically increased, i'm

>getting too many colds, sore throats etc for someone eating so well. i'm

>thinking food allergy/intolerance may be at the root of my health issues,

>and milk is the one thing that i've increased A LOT since eating NT-style. i

>went from almost no milk products at all except a dollop of 1/2 and 1/2 in

>my coffee, to drinking lots of milk/kefir/cream daily plus eating yogurt

>regularly. of course the quality is much better than that dollop of 1/2 and

>1/2 i used to drink, but that probably doesn't affect how alpha 1 casein

>affects my body whatsoever - *quantity* would more likely be the issue.

I'm not sure. Certainly I always drank a lot of milk, even before this

little NT epiphany. My consumption at this point has gone down to more

" normal " levels, about a half gallon a day (except on delivery days, where

I come home and scarf down lots and lots of the freshest stuff!) Yum yum.

The only thing I could say is that yep, maybe I don't digest it well -

but there's also the bit that my digestion in general DOES appear to have

improved at least a little bit since I started drinking the raw (for one

thing, I don't fall over asleep after I eat any more).

I should also note, though, that the cold and flu came right at the

holidays - when I actually ventured out of my hermitage to go to a couple

of parties with a bazillion " cold-recovering " children and families running

about. :-D

>btw, i didn't mean to be harsh on you and judy for having grammatical pet

>peeves. just ignore my orneriness - i just get argumentative sometimes for

>no apparent reason :-( (of course i realize i might regret saying that on a

>list on which i like to argue/debate on a lot - it might get thrown back at

>me! LOL)

I didn't take offense at all - that's why they're call " pet " peeves, not

everyone shares the same ones. Argue/debate away! :)

MFJ, HB/LBA/FSIT

Future Co-Owner of The Dancing L Ranch

*pushes the wred one*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/4/04 10:02:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> and just about everyone in the wholistic health community, if i'm not

> mistaken. the germ theory is what led to pasteurization, for example. as far

> as i can tell, you don't agree with it completely yourself, or do you?

I don't see how the germ theory led to pasteurization. Had the germ theory

not been accepted, obviously pasteurization wouldn't have been advocated, since

the basis is to destroy germs. But there's no logical corrolary of the

theory that germs cause disease that says that you must kill germs in milk by

heating it.

I agree that germs cause diseases, which is what I understand the germ theory

of disease to be. And, actually, a faction of the holistic health community

does NOT believe this. A somewhat tiny faction, as far as I know.

> >so if someone is getting healthier and

> >>they are getting fevers more often, it may be that their body is more

> >>efficiently responding to the invading virus/toxins.

> >

> >I doubt that, but perhaps.

>

> so what do you think the purpose of fever is?

The same as what everyone else thinks it is: a tool of the immune system to

fight off infections. I don't think it logically follows from that that if one

is getting fevers more often they are healthier, though I think it's possible

they could be mistaking detox symptoms for illness symptoms. But if an

infection that warranted a fever was present for years without inducing a fever,

it

would seem to me the person would, I guess, die.

> >>aajonus stating ( " aajonus says! " ) something to the effect that parasites

> >>make us healthier by cleaning out diseased tissue. perhaps it's " dose

> >>dependent " ? keep in mind that some " parasites " are now being

> >used to treat

> >>IBD - not because they consume diseased tissue, but rather that they

> >>stimulate the immune system, and the body repairs itself. either way, the

> >>role of " parasites " is not as clear as it once was.

> >

> >Sure, but that isn't the theory that oppose the germ theory of

> >disease. If

> >Aajounus doesn't oppose the germ theory, then fine, his position might be

> >reasonable. But if his position is that infectious are not causes

> >of disease and

> >do not cause harm, but only fulfill good functions, he is out of

> >his mind.

>

> LOL! so i guess you are a proponent of the germ theory, but not of

> pasteurization even though pasteurization is based on the germ

> theory...interesting....

Huh? I don't see how you can laugh at me while at the same time presenting

this massive non-sequitor. Nuclear bombs are based on the accepted theories of

nuclear physics-- do I have to deny the reality of nuclear physics to oppose

the development of nuclear weapons?

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

--- Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>

wrote: > At 08:12 AM 2/3/2004, you wrote:

> You might try making Jerky (recipe in the Files

> section).

> Great travel snack!

>

I'm going to give up on jerky! I ended up cooking it

again! It was practically done, I figured another

couple of hours drying would finish it off, and I

accidentally set the oven to 150deg instead of 40 :-(

Jo

___________________________________________________________

BT Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80

http://bt..co.uk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I'm going to give up on jerky! I ended up cooking it

>again! It was practically done, I figured another

>couple of hours drying would finish it off, and I

>accidentally set the oven to 150deg instead of 40 :-(

>

>Jo

Don't give up jerky. Give up ovens! A good

dehydrator is worth it!

-- Heidi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> can you expand on that a little? i'm not sure how that counters

>the concept

>> as karen explained it. as i understand her explanation, the healthier you

>> are the better able you are to deal with viruses/toxins. and the way the

>> body deals with these is fever, etc.

>

>I fully agree with that, but so does pretty much everyone on the planet,

>except the people who oppose the germ theory of disease, among

>whom is counted

>Aajounus, by the way you've described his theory to me.

and just about everyone in the wholistic health community, if i'm not

mistaken. the germ theory is what led to pasteurization, for example. as far

as i can tell, you don't agree with it completely yourself, or do you?

>

> so if someone is getting healthier and

>> they are getting fevers more often, it may be that their body is more

>> efficiently responding to the invading virus/toxins.

>

>I doubt that, but perhaps.

so what do you think the purpose of fever is?

>

>> aajonus stating ( " aajonus says! " ) something to the effect that parasites

>> make us healthier by cleaning out diseased tissue. perhaps it's " dose

>> dependent " ? keep in mind that some " parasites " are now being

>used to treat

>> IBD - not because they consume diseased tissue, but rather that they

>> stimulate the immune system, and the body repairs itself. either way, the

>> role of " parasites " is not as clear as it once was.

>

>Sure, but that isn't the theory that oppose the germ theory of

>disease. If

>Aajounus doesn't oppose the germ theory, then fine, his position might be

>reasonable. But if his position is that infectious are not causes

>of disease and

>do not cause harm, but only fulfill good functions, he is out of

>his mind.

LOL! so i guess you are a proponent of the germ theory, but not of

pasteurization even though pasteurization is based on the germ

theory...interesting....

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>In a message dated 2/4/04 10:02:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,

>s.fisher22@... writes:

>

>> and just about everyone in the wholistic health community, if i'm not

>> mistaken. the germ theory is what led to pasteurization, for

>example. as far

>> as i can tell, you don't agree with it completely yourself, or do you?

>

>I don't see how the germ theory led to pasteurization.

well, pasteur invented pasteurization based on his theory that germs cause

disease.

Had the

>germ theory

>not been accepted, obviously pasteurization wouldn't have been

>advocated, since

>the basis is to destroy germs. But there's no logical corrolary of the

>theory that germs cause disease that says that you must kill germs

>in milk by

>heating it.

how is there no logical corralary? if germs cause disease, and all these

folks are dying from the live disease-causing organisms in RAW milk, how is

it not logical to pasteurize the milk to kill the disease-causing germs?

(you know i'm not advocationg pasteurization here, just putting forth the

logic as i understand it.) sure there are other ways to kill the organisms,

or to not create them in the first place, but they don't negate the logic

behind pasteurization if you subscribe to the germ theory.

>

>I agree that germs cause diseases, which is what I understand the

>germ theory

>of disease to be.

AFAIK, the germ theory of disease holds that germs are the *sole* cause of

disease and the " terrrain " (health of the body) is meaningless. from what

you've written, you seem to believe it's an interplay between the two. i

agree as i've stated before on this list, although we may differ on how

strong a role each plays.

>> >so if someone is getting healthier and

>> >>they are getting fevers more often, it may be that their body is more

>> >>efficiently responding to the invading virus/toxins.

>> >

>> >I doubt that, but perhaps.

>>

>> so what do you think the purpose of fever is?

>

>The same as what everyone else thinks it is: a tool of the immune

>system to

>fight off infections. I don't think it logically follows from

>that that if one

>is getting fevers more often they are healthier, though I think

>it's possible

>they could be mistaking detox symptoms for illness symptoms.

i'm really not certain about this, i think either is a possibility. maybe

under certain conditions fever is the body's best defense? and a healthy

body chooses the best defense in any give situation...i dunno.

>

>> >>aajonus stating ( " aajonus says! " ) something to the effect that

>parasites

>> >>make us healthier by cleaning out diseased tissue. perhaps it's " dose

>> >>dependent " ? keep in mind that some " parasites " are now being

>> >used to treat

>> >>IBD - not because they consume diseased tissue, but rather that they

>> >>stimulate the immune system, and the body repairs itself.

>either way, the

>> >>role of " parasites " is not as clear as it once was.

>> >

>> >Sure, but that isn't the theory that oppose the germ theory of

>> >disease. If

>> >Aajounus doesn't oppose the germ theory, then fine, his

>position might be

>> >reasonable.

well, i would think he does.

But if his position is that infectious are not causes

>> >of disease and

>> >do not cause harm, but only fulfill good functions, he is out of

>> >his mind.

LOL!

>>

>> LOL! so i guess you are a proponent of the germ theory, but not of

>> pasteurization even though pasteurization is based on the germ

>> theory...interesting....

>

>Huh? I don't see how you can laugh at me while at the same time

>presenting

>this massive non-sequitor.

no no - i wasn't laughing AT YOU, i was laughing at the thought of how

incongruous this seemed. but i figured you'd clear it up pretty quickly if i

was misunderstanding :-)

Nuclear bombs are based on the

>accepted theories of

>nuclear physics-- do I have to deny the reality of nuclear physics

>to oppose

>the development of nuclear weapons?

i wrote a refutation of this point, but on second thought, it makes sense.

:-D

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/5/04 3:17:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> well, pasteur invented pasteurization based on his theory that germs cause

> disease.

So?

> how is there no logical corralary? if germs cause disease, and all these

> folks are dying from the live disease-causing organisms in RAW milk, how is

> it not logical to pasteurize the milk to kill the disease-causing germs?

Umm, because the conditions in which the milk was being produced were

insanitary and unhealthy, and because pasteurization damages the nutritional

value

of the milk?

> (you know i'm not advocationg pasteurization here, just putting forth the

> logic as i understand it.)

WAPF and realmilk.com have dozens of pages on why pasteurization should *not*

be done, yet nowhere do they offer a refutation of the germ theory, for the

obvious reason that such a stance isn't logically dependent on such a

refuatation.

sure there are other ways to kill the organisms,

> or to not create them in the first place, but they don't negate the logic

> behind pasteurization if you subscribe to the germ theory.

Are you serious? There are obviously at least two requisites for the logic

that milk should be pasteurized. One is that germs cause disease; the other is

that raw milk carries threatening germs that can either a) only be reduced by

pasteurization or B) are reduced by pasteurization in a way that maximizes

the benefit to cost ratio relative to other methods of reducing said germs.

One can clearly believe the first requisite, and not believe the second,

which in no way follows from the first. The first is a *requisite* to the

second,

but the second is in no way a corollary of the first.

> AFAIK, the germ theory of disease holds that germs are the *sole* cause of

> disease and the " terrrain " (health of the body) is meaningless.

Since really no one believes that anymore, if they ever did, that would mean

modern science has abandoned the germ theory, yet if you ask any scientist if

they oppose the germ theory, you'd probably get some funny looks.

This is one extremist and frankly stupid variation of the germ theory, but

the germ theory holds that germs cause disease. There are people who don't

believe this. For example, there are some people who believe that germs are

actually *developed* by the body. These people are against the germ theory.

Where does Aajounus stand? I don't know. But the way you've described his

ideas in the past, and the way was just describing, don't seem to jive

with how you're describing them now. If he simply says someone's suscetibility

to a germ is determined by their health, that's an obvious truism that no one

disputes. If he, on the other hand, says that bacteria cannot cause diseases,

but merely clean up diseases that are caused by the body, he is half-right in

some sort of loose metaphorical sense, but clearly wrong, since many people

die of infectious diseases, and his theory would logically require that they

would die had they not been infected, since the " infection " was not an infection

at all, but a cleanup crew.

from what > you've written, you seem to believe it's an interplay between

> the two. i

> agree as i've stated before on this list, although we may differ on how

> strong a role each plays.

Yes, I believe it's an interplay. I don't know what it means for you to

agree with me, because I never had any disagreement with *you* but rather with

the

theory that I perceived to be talking about, that a disease state is

not caused by a germ, but germs cleanup disease states and help the body. I

think both play a strong role, but I'm not sure how to quantify either of them.

> >>>Sure, but that isn't the theory that oppose the germ theory of

> >>>disease. If

> >>>Aajounus doesn't oppose the germ theory, then fine, his

> >position might be

> >>>reasonable.

>

> well, i would think he does.

I do too. But I don't agree with your assessment of what the " germ theory "

*is.*

> But if his position is that infectious are not causes

> >>>of disease and

> >>>do not cause harm, but only fulfill good functions, he is out of

> >>>his mind.

>

> LOL!

You're laughing at this quoted text yet again?

> >>LOL! so i guess you are a proponent of the germ theory, but not of

> >>pasteurization even though pasteurization is based on the germ

> >>theory...interesting....

> >

> >Huh? I don't see how you can laugh at me while at the same time

> >presenting

> >this massive non-sequitor.

>

> no no - i wasn't laughing AT YOU, i was laughing at the thought of how

> incongruous this seemed. but i figured you'd clear it up pretty quickly if i

> was misunderstanding :-)

Oh. Well maybe this email helped. Umm, LOL!

> Nuclear bombs are based on the

> >accepted theories of

> >nuclear physics-- do I have to deny the reality of nuclear physics

> >to oppose

> >the development of nuclear weapons?

>

>

> i wrote a refutation of this point, but on second thought, it makes sense.

> :-D

Cool :-)

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/5/04 1:33:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I think you're looking at this wrong. The issue isn't what's correct, it's

>

> what's a logical conclusion based on certain assumptions. If you assume

> that all germs cause disease or that germs in milk cause disease, it's

> perfectly logical to pasteurize milk.

I disagree. Milk *does* carry disease-producing germs. But, usually in a

small enough quantity that a well-equipped person won't get sick, provided it's

produced under the right conditions. Milk at the time of pasteurization was

pretty nasty stuff.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/5/04 12:02:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> >I'm going to give up on jerky! I ended up cooking it

> >again! It was practically done, I figured another

> >couple of hours drying would finish it off, and I

> >accidentally set the oven to 150deg instead of 40 :-(

> >

> >Jo

>

> Don't give up jerky. Give up ovens! A good

> dehydrator is worth it!

Could you guys maybe change the subject line? I know I don't always and I'm

not criticizing, but since this culinary thread seems to be persisting under

and entirely irrelevant name, it would be worth the investment to change the

subject line.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris-

> > how is there no logical corralary? if germs cause disease, and all these

> > folks are dying from the live disease-causing organisms in RAW milk, how is

> > it not logical to pasteurize the milk to kill the disease-causing germs?

>

>Umm, because the conditions in which the milk was being produced were

>insanitary and unhealthy, and because pasteurization damages the

>nutritional value

>of the milk?

I think you're looking at this wrong. The issue isn't what's correct, it's

what's a logical conclusion based on certain assumptions. If you assume

that all germs cause disease or that germs in milk cause disease, it's

perfectly logical to pasteurize milk.

That said, many of the reasons pasteurization became common had nothing

whatsoever to do with disease, but that's a separate issue.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/5/04 9:07:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >Milk at the time of pasteurization was

> >pretty nasty stuff.

>

> Some of it, yes (the city cows fed some waste products produced some

> heinous milk) but now you seem to have done an about-face and endorsed

> Suze's logic.

I'm not sure how. But rather than arguing about the implications of what I

was saying here let's just go back to basics:

The germ theory of disease argues that germs cause disease. It does not

argue that disease-causing germs exist in milk, nor does it argue that any germs

exist in milk, nor does it even acknowledge the existance of milk. There is no

conflict between believing in the germ theory of disease and opposing

pasteurization, and there are more requisites to the advocation of

pasteurization

than accepting germ theory. Among them, one must believe disease-producing

germs

exist in milk, and must simultaneously believe that pasteurization is the

best way to eliminate them, neither of which are inherent corrolaries of germ

theory.

Is germ theory requisite to the advocation of pasteurization? Yes. Is

pasteurization a corrolary of germ theory? No.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris-

>Milk at the time of pasteurization was

>pretty nasty stuff.

Some of it, yes (the city cows fed some waste products produced some

heinous milk) but now you seem to have done an about-face and endorsed

Suze's logic.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,

> >Milk at the time of pasteurization was

> >pretty nasty stuff.

>

> Some of it, yes (the city cows fed some waste products produced some

> heinous milk) but now you seem to have done an about-face and endorsed

> Suze's logic.

Didn't they send most of the farmers off to WWII who knew what they were

doing, needed the wives in the factories to make the weapons, other industry

and needed the canned milk to be sent to the soldiers? Economics of war.

Like that Eveready bunny ever since.

Wanita

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanita-

>Didn't they send most of the farmers off to WWII who knew what they were

>doing, needed the wives in the factories to make the weapons, other industry

>and needed the canned milk to be sent to the soldiers?

That's an aspect of history I don't know much about -- the intersection of

the draft and farmers and milk -- but didn't pasteurization catch on long

before WWII? Before WWI even?

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris-

>The germ theory of disease argues that germs cause disease. It does not

>argue that disease-causing germs exist in milk, nor does it argue that any

>germs

>exist in milk, nor does it even acknowledge the existance of milk.

You're transposing the present-day germ theory of disease back to when

pasteurization first came on the scene.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/6/04 12:37:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> You're transposing the present-day germ theory of disease back to when

> pasteurization first came on the scene.

,

Your line of reasoning is unfair and irrelevant. & amp;nbsp; Suze and I were

having

a theoretical discussion, not an historical discussion. & amp;nbsp; The historical

aspect is a tangential point, initially used as a point of evidence of the

conflict between germ theory and advocation of raw milk in the *present* day.

It's Suze's reasoning that is making an unjustified transposition. & amp;nbsp; If

the crude, unrefined, and simplistic version of germ theory at the time gave

rise to the pasteurization movement, then the fault is with its crudeness and

oversimplicity, not the crux of the germ theory.

The atomic theory of yesteryear is now seen as almost more wrong than right,

yet no one denies the atomic theory-- it's just been revised.

On the other hand, there *are* people who oppose the germ theory of disease

now, and I think, but am not sure, that Aajounus is one of them. & amp;nbsp; Some

of

these people believe that germs are actually generated by the body, and some

of them believe they are extraneous, but all of them believe that germs are

essentially coincidental to, rather than causal to, disease. & amp;nbsp; Thus,

there is

a clear distinction between someone who opposes germ theory, and someone who

advocates its revision according to current knowledge.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/6/04 9:22:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> so, you asked how the germ theory led to pasteurization and that is it.

You're confounding requisites with corollaries, still. & amp;nbsp; Pasteurization

only makes sense if you accept the germ theory, but accepting the germ theory

in no way logically requires the advocation of Pasteurization.

Just the same, the development of nuclear weapons requires the acceptance of

nuclear physical theory, but the acceptance of that theory does not require

the development of nuclear weapons.

the > distillery waste eating cows were producing " germy " milk and people

> were

> gettting sick. so they decided to kill the germs since they believe the

> germs were killing people. which they apparently were. (although imo,

> malnutrition also played a role.)

Thus, your last & amp;nbsp; (non-parenthetical) sentence then accepts the germ

theory. & amp;nbsp; Do YOU advocate pasteurization?

> & amp;gt; & amp;gt;how is there no logical corralary? if germs cause disease, and

all

> these

> & amp;gt; & amp;gt;folks are dying from the live disease-causing organisms in RAW

> & amp;gt;milk, how is

> & amp;gt; & amp;gt;it not logical to pasteurize the milk to kill the

disease-causing

> germs?

>

> & amp;gt;Umm, because the conditions in which the milk was being produced were

> & amp;gt;insanitary & amp;nbsp; and unhealthy, and because pasteurization damages

the

> & amp;gt;nutritional value

> & amp;gt;of the milk?

>

> chris, *i'm* not arguing for pasteurization, i'm telling you what the

> rationale was at the time and what it was based on - the germ theory.

So what? & amp;nbsp; Shooting someone in the head is based on Netownian mechanics,

but I don't have to deny Newtonian mechanics to take a moral or pragmatic

stand against shooting someone in the head.

You asked me how I could oppose pasteurization while also accepting the germ

theory. & amp;nbsp; I've said a half dozen times that germ theory is clearly

requisite to pasteurization, but one can quite easily accept germ theory and not

advocate pasteurization.

OF > COURSE the milk was crap and the conditions filthy. and of course, it

> would

> make much more sense to raise healthy animals on healthy feed, etc, etc. but

> it doesn't negate that within the framework of the germ theory, killing the

> germs was a logical corralary.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, it DOES negate that. & amp;nbsp; Killing the germs is one of

numerous *possible* implications, none of which are *required* by germ theory or

inherently logically follow from germ theory. & amp;nbsp; Raising the animals in

healthy conditions to avoid the proliferation of those germs doesn't fit in a

smidgeon less with germ theory than does pasteurization.

health-wise, was it the best solution? the > right solution? of course not,

> but consistent with the germ theory - yes.

So is grass-feeding to reduce the amount of harmful germs. & amp;nbsp; Both are

consistent with germ theory; neither are logically required by germ theory.

> & amp;gt;sure there are other ways to kill the organisms,

> & amp;gt; & amp;gt;or to not create them in the first place, but they don't

negate the

> logic

> & amp;gt; & amp;gt;behind pasteurization if you subscribe to the germ theory.

> & amp;gt;

> & amp;gt;Are you serious? & amp;nbsp; There are obviously at least two requisites

for

> & amp;gt;the logic

> & amp;gt;that milk should be pasteurized. & amp;nbsp; One is that germs cause

disease;

> & amp;gt;the other is

> & amp;gt;that raw milk carries threatening germs that can either a) only be

> & amp;gt;reduced by

> & amp;gt;pasteurization or B) are reduced by pasteurization in a way that

> maximizes

> & amp;gt;the benefit to cost ratio relative to other methods of reducing said

> germs.

>

>

> & amp;gt;One can clearly believe the first requisite, and not believe the

second,

> & amp;gt;which in no way follows from the first. & amp;nbsp; The first is a

> & amp;gt;*requisite* to the second,

> & amp;gt;but the second is in no way a corollary of the first.

>

> and if memory serves, that's exactly what they figured when deciding that

> pasteurization was the solution to the " milk problem " . i don't have ron's

> book with me here, so can't look it up to refresh my memory, but IIRC, the

> nutritional quality was not of concern to those campaigning for mandatory

> pasteurization - they wanted a quick, economical solition to all the

> diseases folks seemed to be getting from raw milk.

So clearly it was not the result simply of the germ theory, but of other

economic and political factors.

So, as germ theorists > looking for the highest impact at the lowest cost,

> pasteurization made sense. remember too, that the initial massive push for

> pasteurizaton was almost totally funded by the philanthropist what's-his-name

> strauss. there was no bottomless gov't coffer to drain. so he apparently

> decided that a cost benefit analysis pointed to pasteurization, and further,

it

> worked!

Thus, the reasons were economic...

at least according to ron's research. the incidence of the diseases

associated with

> *raw* milk started declining in the populations drinking pasteurized milk.

> so strauss et al. were getting the intended results from their germ-theory

> based solution.

For the life of me I can't figure out what your point is. & amp;nbsp; I've said

over and over again that pasteurization requires the germ theory. & amp;nbsp; I

admit

that. & amp;nbsp; We agree on that.

> LOL! yep! actually, i was just laughing at your saying that AV is out of

> his

> mind - you've got plenty of company there! the first time i laughed, i

> wasn't actually laughing at this passage at all, in fact, i wasn't

> responding to it and shouldn't have even included it. sorry for the

> confusion. oh, also i think i responded to this second one in the wee hours

> of the morning, so probably didn't even notice it was old quoted text. LOL!

Right, I probably shouldn't have used an " if " in that sentence. & amp;nbsp; I

think

there's a consensus as to where he " is " with respect to his mind ;-)

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> well, pasteur invented pasteurization based on his theory that

>germs cause

>> disease.

>

>So?

so, you asked how the germ theory led to pasteurization and that is it. the

distillery waste eating cows were producing " germy " milk and people were

gettting sick. so they decided to kill the germs since they believe the

germs were killing people. which they apparently were. (although imo,

malnutrition also played a role.)

>

>

>> how is there no logical corralary? if germs cause disease, and all these

>> folks are dying from the live disease-causing organisms in RAW

>milk, how is

>> it not logical to pasteurize the milk to kill the disease-causing germs?

>

>Umm, because the conditions in which the milk was being produced were

>insanitary and unhealthy, and because pasteurization damages the

>nutritional value

>of the milk?

chris, *i'm* not arguing for pasteurization, i'm telling you what the

rationale was at the time and what it was based on - the germ theory. OF

COURSE the milk was crap and the conditions filthy. and of course, it would

make much more sense to raise healthy animals on healthy feed, etc, etc. but

it doesn't negate that within the framework of the germ theory, killing the

germs was a logical corralary. health-wise, was it the best solution? the

right solution? of course not, but consistent with the germ theory - yes.

>

> sure there are other ways to kill the organisms,

>> or to not create them in the first place, but they don't negate the logic

>> behind pasteurization if you subscribe to the germ theory.

>

>Are you serious? There are obviously at least two requisites for

>the logic

>that milk should be pasteurized. One is that germs cause disease;

>the other is

>that raw milk carries threatening germs that can either a) only be

>reduced by

>pasteurization or B) are reduced by pasteurization in a way that maximizes

>the benefit to cost ratio relative to other methods of reducing said germs.

>One can clearly believe the first requisite, and not believe the second,

>which in no way follows from the first. The first is a

>*requisite* to the second,

>but the second is in no way a corollary of the first.

and if memory serves, that's exactly what they figured when deciding that

pasteurization was the solution to the " milk problem " . i don't have ron's

book with me here, so can't look it up to refresh my memory, but IIRC, the

nutritional quality was not of concern to those campaigning for mandatory

pasteurization - they wanted a quick, economical solition to all the

diseases folks seemed to be getting from raw milk. So, as germ theorists

looking for the highest impact at the lowest cost, pasteurization made

sense. remember too, that the initial massive push for pasteurizaton was

almost totally funded by the philanthropist what's-his-name strauss. there

was no bottomless gov't coffer to drain. so he apparently decided that a

cost benefit analysis pointed to pasteurization, and further, it worked! at

least according to ron's research. the incidence of the diseases associated

with *raw* milk started declining in the populations drinking pasteurized

milk. so strauss et al. were getting the intended results from their

germ-theory based solution.

>

>> But if his position is that infectious are not causes

>> >>>of disease and

>> >>>do not cause harm, but only fulfill good functions, he is out of

>> >>>his mind.

>>

>> LOL!

>

>You're laughing at this quoted text yet again?

LOL! yep! actually, i was just laughing at your saying that AV is out of his

mind - you've got plenty of company there! the first time i laughed, i

wasn't actually laughing at this passage at all, in fact, i wasn't

responding to it and shouldn't have even included it. sorry for the

confusion. oh, also i think i responded to this second one in the wee hours

of the morning, so probably didn't even notice it was old quoted text. LOL!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/6/04 12:26:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Since Suze and I both agree about what she was trying to say, I think

> you're the one making the mistake, but don't worry, I'm learning quite

> quickly not to bother debating with the evangelical libertarians on this

> list.

, this is a preposterous insult. & amp;nbsp; This thread has nothing to do

with

libertarians, and I've continually made an effort to express my views on

libertarianism from a pragmatic point of view (you may disagree with them, but

I've stated them).

That said, Suze was criticizing *my* belief in germ theory. & amp;nbsp; So it

really doesn't matter what point she was trying to make about historical

versions

of the germ theory that are now rejected, because I never claimed to believe in

any rejected version. & amp;nbsp; Thus, you are " changing the goalposts, " and

making thoroughly irrelevant insults to boot.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...