Re: Detox and Immune Suppression

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

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

" 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

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

February 7, 2004

In a message dated 2/7/04 9:01:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> actually, i've mainly been discussing the historical use of pasteurization

> based on the germ theory, and haven't really given much thought to YOUR

> belief in the germ theory until a recent post, other than to point out that

> you (and i) believe disease is an interplay between host and organism, not

> strictly one or the other.

In this thread, you began discussing pasteurization by pointing out that my

belief in germ theory conflicted with my opposition of pasteurization. I just

quoted you. Are you denying what I quoted?

Chris

February 7, 2004

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

>

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

well, according to meriam-webster online, one of the definitions of a

" corollary " is:

" something that naturally follows " . from the germ theorist perspective

pasteurization seemed like a natural follow-up to their theory (again, i'm

speaking historically.) pasteurization was the original germ theorist's

(pasteur's)*own* invention, and it emerged from his germ theory. it may not

be the ONLY corollary (by this definition), but it certainly seems like a

" natural " result of the germ theory as it was understood at the time.

>Pasteurization

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

>germ theory

>in no way logically requires the advocation of Pasteurization.

i understand that you can advocate the germ theory of disease but not

advocate pasteurization. i'm not arguing that. my only point is that

pasteurization was logical within the context of the germ theory when it was

originally advocated.

> 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?

no, it doesn't accept the germ theory, i'm just stating the historical facts

as ron described them in his book. i've already told you in an earlier post

that i think disease depends on a combination of host and " germ " (or toxin,

etc). and even if i did believe in the germ theory (as i understand it) i

wouldn't necessarily advocate pasteurization, as there are other methods to

prevent or destroy germs. pasteurization is just one of them (as mentioned

above).

>

> 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;

i have no idea how you can say that. perhaps you can explain how killing

germs (regardless of the method) doesn't logically follow the germ theory of

disease - and i mean the original version of it that pasteur and his

contemporaries used to justify their advocacy of pasteurization. i'm in

complete agreement that it's but one of many methods of doing so, but that

doesn't mean one method negates another.

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.

i agree. i never said it didn't.

>> 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.

its scientific basis was the germ theory, but of course other considerations

influenced the decision to pasteurize milk. i think transportation was

another factor. (again i don't have the book with me so can't refer to it to

refresh my memory.) however, i don't know if the same can be said of

pasteurization *per se*. i think pasteur originally pasteurized *beer* for

health reasons, not economic, although i don't know for sure - i haven't

read much about it.

i think we're not really hearing each other here. my point is simply that

within the context of the situation in which the pasteurization of milk

arose, it was a logical method of dealing with the " milk problem " from the

perspective of the germ theorists. i never said it was the only or the best

method of preventing folks from getting sick from raw milk, only that it

their chosen method wasn't inconsistent with their theory of disease.

you are saying, as i understand it, that you can be a germ theory advocate,

but not advocate pasteurization, as it's only one of many ways to deal with

germs, and there are better ways (from a health perspective). and i agree

100%. am i missing anything?

maybe we can just focus on this main issue here - honestly i've spent way

too much time on this thread when i've got more pressing matters at hand.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

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

" 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

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

>

February 7, 2004

>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.

therein lies the confusion, our original conversation started in the

theoretical present day, then evolved into the historical justification of

pasteurization. *i* have primarly been discussing the historical

justification of pasteurization from the germ theorists perspective for

several posts now. you apparently, are focused on present day issues.

>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.

can you explain the differences between the original germ theory and it's

" new improved " version?

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

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

" 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

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

>

February 7, 2004

>In the first email in which we discussed pasteurization in this

>thread, you

>wrote:

>

><<<<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....>>>>>

>

>Thus, the issue we've been discussing is whether it is logical for me to

>simultaneously not promote pasteurization and believe in the germ theory

>

>This is what I meant when I said you were criticizing my belief in germ

>theory.

actually, i've mainly been discussing the historical use of pasteurization

based on the germ theory, and haven't really given much thought to YOUR

belief in the germ theory until a recent post, other than to point out that

you (and i) believe disease is an interplay between host and organism, not

strictly one or the other.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

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

" 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

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

>

February 7, 2004

>> actually, i've mainly been discussing the historical use of

>pasteurization

>> based on the germ theory, and haven't really given much thought to YOUR

>> belief in the germ theory until a recent post, other than to

>point out that

>> you (and i) believe disease is an interplay between host and

>organism, not

>> strictly one or the other.

>In this thread, you began discussing pasteurization by pointing

>out that my

>belief in germ theory conflicted with my opposition of

>pasteurization. I just

>quoted you. Are you denying what I quoted?

not at all, but you're missing the point. i said my *main* focus has been on

the historical use of pasteurization, not on *your* belief system. in fact,

i brought that up at the tail end of that post mainly as an afterthought. i

understand it's been interwoven into the posts since then and the historical

pasteurization subject has gotten mixed in and taken on a life of it's own

(in my mind at least), but again i was more interested in why you thought

the pasteurization of milk in the context of when it was originally

implemented, was not a logical method of killing germs based on the germ

theory. you've been more focused on your own theory and explained how you

can be a germ theorist and not believe in pasteurizaton. it made sense and i

agree with it.

but it still doesn't negate that the pasteurization of milk was *a* logical

solution within the framework of the germ theory when it was widely

implemented around the turn of the century. and it apparently did the job

that it was intended to do - get rid of pathogenic microorganisms. of

course that doesn't address the health of the milk, but that didn't seem to

be the primary goal of the pasteurization proponents, otherwise they

would've endorsed the organization of physicians who were countering the

pasteurization movement by promoting *certified* raw milk from healthy

animals.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

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

" 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