Germ Theory (was Detox and Immune Suppression)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/04 9:00:41 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> 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.

Ok, I suppose that explains some confusion. But it seems to me that in each

reply I've made I've been discussing it in our original context. I thought the

reason you were discussing pasteurization was the very reason you brought it

up-- to show that my belief in germ theory somehow conflicts with my advocation

of raw milk.

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

> " new improved " version?

I don't think you understood me clearly. There's just ONE germ theory, and it

evolves over time, like every other scientific theory. The crux of the germ

theory is that germs cause disease. Period. Any specific sub-theory,

hypothesis, etc, can be included or excluded from association with the germ

theory based

on whether it recognizes this. We've continued to hold on to the germ theory

since it was developed, but have become much more knowledgeable about how

germs work.

All scientific theories evolve like this. For example, the atomic theory

holds that all matter is made of atoms, which are a final unit that can't be

divided. In a way the ancient Greeks developed the theory, but they didn't

propose

any model for the atom. Some of the early modern models of the atom have been

completely displaced. Even the model of electrons orbiting around the nucleus

has been discredited (quite a long time ago), though we still teach it to

younger students.

But we don't say we don't believe in the atomic theory, or we don't " fully "

believe in the atomic theory. Because the crux of the atomic theory, what

defines the theory as " atomic, " isn't the specific proposals about the

arrangement

of the atom, but the fact that matter is made of atoms.

I don't know enough about the history of the germ theory of disease to

explain how it's changed to you, but I suspect you know more about it than me

and

you could explain it to me. If it's true that at one point germ theorists didn't

believe in the existence of an immune system and/or didn't believe it was a

factor in the ability of a germ to cause a disease, then that is clearly one

thing that has changed, since the " terrain " being operative is univerally

accepted in the modern medical establishment (though the specific beliefs in

what

affects the " terrain " might differ from ours). That would be one example of how

it's evolved.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/04 9:04:30 AM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

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

> " corollary " is: " something that naturally follows " .

Yes, but I would distinguish that from " something that *could* follow. " In

other words, if any given idea's acceptance can lead to 100 other possibilities,

the ACTUALIZATION of any of those possibilities is not a corollary, but the

fact that they are possibilities is.

from the germ theorist perspective> pasteurization seemed like a natural

> follow-up to their theory (again, i'm speaking historically.)

I understand you've been speaking historically. What I was saying to is

that I'm discussing this in relation to germ theory of disease itself, not

specific ideas about it at the time. Because, if specific ideas that were

associated with it are no longer held, then, going back to our initial question,

those ideas are not inherent parts of germ theory and therefore can't be

operative

in any inherent conflict with germ theory and another idea (raw milk).

Anyway, something that " seems like a natural follow-up " to someone isn't a

corollary. A corollary follows my inference or deduction. So you can test it

with an if-then sentence:

" If diseases are caused by microscopic organisms called germs, THEN we must

hold milk to temperature X for time X. "

That's not really a logical sentence.

" IF diseases are caused by microscopic organisms called germs, and IF these

germs are present in milk and contributing to disease, and IF the best way to

eliminate them from milk is to hold milk to temperature X for time X, THEN we

must hold milk to temperature X for time X. "

Pasteurization clearly depended on more than the germ theory of disease,

thus, the germ theory was requisite to it. But it also clearly depended on a

specific analysis of the milk, and economic and other factors that made people

conclude the best way to eliminate the germs was pasteurization. So, you could

say

that combining those three IFs has a corollary of the THEN, but you certainly

can't say the THEN is a corollary of *one* of the IFs, or else you have an

illogical sentence like the one above it.

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.

The use of " corollary " I address above. The second point-- however tangential

we may have gotten, the only reason I'm discussing this is our original

reason for discussing it: to determine whether it is logical to believe in germ

theory and simultaneously oppose pasteurization. I don't know why else to

discuss

it, since we both agree that pasteurization was based on the germ theory, and

have been agreeing on that for several emails now. So, if pastuerization was

one of many possibilities that " seemed like a 'natural' result " of germ

theory, clearly there is no *inherent link*, and one can believe in any of the

other

possibilities that " naturally follow. " So there's no conflict.

>

> >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.

I thought you were arguing that when 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....>>>>>

my only point is that

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

> was

> originally advocated.

Then we don't have any disagreement. I thought you were retaining your

original statement, quoted above, and I thought we were discussing this in the

context of that proposed conflict. If not, I don't think we have anything to

debate.

> >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 (non-parenthetical) sentence then

> >accepts the germ

> >theory. 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.

You yourself say " which they apparently were " above, in relation to germs

making people sick and killing them. If you believe that germs can make people

sick and kill them, you accept the germ theory of disease.

i've already told you in an earlier post

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

> toxin,etc).

So does everyone in the mainstream medical establishment. This is abundantly

clear from even the most basic things like the instruction on the flu mist

vaccine, which warn certain categories of people not to use it who are more

vulnerable to infection. That's why you can feed honey to two-year-olds and not

one-year-olds, because the condition of the host matters even more than exposure

to the botulism toxin. I could go on ad infinatum...

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).

Yet you had written:

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

> 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 -

You had said that the fact that germs can be prevented from proliferating

doesn't negate the fact that one must pasteurize milk:

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

That it " makes much more sense " to raise animals in proper conditions, and

you include that in your decision, it negates the logic of rasing the animals in

poor conditions and pasteurizing the milk, for the simple reason that you

laid out the premise that it " makes much more sense. "

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.

It does, because you stated two premises to your corollary, and one was that

a different method " made much more sense. "

> 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.

Ok, but you seemed to imply it when you said that there was a logical

conflict between opposing pasteurization and germ theory.

> >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.

My understanding is he didn't. He pasteurized it for purely economic

reasons-- to prevent spoilage. Wasn't it wine? I forget.

> 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.

I'm not arguing with that.

>

> 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?

No, but you seem to have retracted your original statements.

> 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.

Thus, we may conclude this entire thread has been a big puddle of

miscommunication.

Wasting a little time never hurt anyone ;-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/7/04 12:53:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> btw, i'm not going to respond to the other (much lengthier) post you just

> sent because it seems like we're in agreement for the most part, with the

> possible exception of the meaning of " corollary " , but i don't think it's

> worth the time to debate that, so i'm not going bother.

It would be more efficient to have Mike adjudicate between us.

Unfortunately, I don't think either of us had an insurance contract with him

*before*

the dispute, so I don't know if that would be valid. Perhaps Mr. Miles knows?

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

>> advocate pasteurization. i'm not arguing that.

>

>I thought you were arguing that when 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....>>>>>

>Yet you had written:

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

LOL! i wrote that ONCE at the beginning of the discussion and you've brought

it up about 10,000 times. in response, you explained how you could be a germ

theorist and not support pasteurization and you_were_right and i agree! i

retract! i retract!

there, happy now ;-)

btw, i'm not going to respond to the other (much lengthier) post you just

sent because it seems like we're in agreement for the most part, with the

possible exception of the meaning of " corollary " , but i don't think it's

worth the time to debate that, so i'm not going bother.

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>

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

>

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Suze/Chris:

with the

> > possible exception of the meaning of " corollary " , but i don't

think it's

> > worth the time to debate that, so i'm not going bother.

>

> It would be more efficient to have Mike adjudicate between

us.

> Unfortunately, I don't think either of us had an insurance contract

with him *before*

> the dispute, so I don't know if that would be valid. Perhaps Mr.

Miles knows?

>

> Chris

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Sorry! I haven't really been following this thread; it's a little

over my head... Plus, since a large part of my academic background

is in formal/mathematical logic, if I started to go off on the

word " corollary " my fun meter would get pegged in the red and I would

jeopardize my puriticanal drug-free lifestyle and risk changes to my

brain physiology... But good luck with the germs or antibodies or

whatever...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania