Guest guest Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 > > um, yeah, chi? duesberg falls apart pretty quick under any kind of serious critique. google it, don't waste others' time serving it up to you on a platter. > who buys it? people with the most rudimentary understanding of virology and epidemiology. who doesn't? everyone who does know anything at all about same. sorry. Thanks for your opinion Mati, you have said nothing that would cause me to change my opinion. Chi P.S. Even if I was convinced that HIV caused AIDS I would have no fear of exposure to it. Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 >> Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. " And both those polar opposites are WRONG. Life exists in an interconnected system of relationships. Microbe and terrain both matter. Sometimes the microbe is so nasty it can overcome some damn impressive terrain, sometimes the terrain is in really good shape one day but not so great the next. Ever had a bad night's sleep? Ever had to rush a beloved pet or family member to the emergency hospital? Ever been in a car accident, had your lover leave you, lost your job? Welcome to the land of compromised terrain. Don't let magical thinking replace common sense. It will just come back and bite you in the ass. Hard. Christie Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds Raising Our Dogs Holistically Since 1986 http://www.caberfeidh.com/ http://doggedblog.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 > >> Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. " > > And both those polar opposites are WRONG. Or they're both right. Personally, I like to train my " terrain " for maximum resilience to bounce off life's challenges. As well as washing hands and stuff like that to protect from the microbe. Take the recent brouhaha about bird flu. For every 30 people who asked me if I " got my flu shot yet " , I think only one or two were protecting themselves with the best sleep and exercise and food and meditation/spiritual practice. Everyone else seem to be wringing their hands about how scary the bug was while not doing a thing about their own personal terrain - beyond flu shot I guess. Connie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 > Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. " Just because there are stages in an illness does not mean they have anything to do with the true cause of the illness. Who is to say they are not merely side effects of the illness itself? Can you imagine? What if HIV and AIDS are not diseases themselves, rather side effects of the same unknown disease? I prefer Bechamp to Pasteur: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/pleomorphismdiscoverysuppresion16nov03.shtml -Lana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 > >> Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. " > And both those polar opposites are WRONG. Life exists in an > interconnected system of relationships. Microbe and terrain > both matter. Sometimes the microbe is so nasty it can overcome > some damn impressive terrain, sometimes the terrain is in really > good shape one day but not so great the next. Ever had a bad > night's sleep? Ever had to rush a beloved pet or family member to > the emergency hospital? Ever been in a car accident, had your > lover leave you, lost your job? Welcome to > the land of compromised terrain. > Don't let magical thinking replace common sense. > It will just come back and bite you in the ass. > Hard. How did you determine that those polar opposites are wrong, was is through magical thinking? I have never met a nasty microbe, but I have met nasty people. Have you ever read NAPD Christie? If not, I would suggest you do so. It might help you in getting a better understanding of what a healthy person might actually look like and why one of your so- called nasty microbes would be no threat to them. Chi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 On 1/17/06, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote: > > Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. " > > Just because there are stages in an illness does not mean they have > anything to do with the true cause of the illness. Who is to say they > are not merely side effects of the illness itself? > > Can you imagine? What if HIV and AIDS are not diseases themselves, > rather side effects of the same unknown disease? > > I prefer Bechamp to Pasteur: > http://educate-yourself.org/cn/pleomorphismdiscoverysuppresion16nov03.shtml Lana, That would seem to be nullified by producing a disease through exposure to the pathogen... obviously. In fact before Price conducted his NAPD research he spent 25 years causing every imaginable disease in rabbits through the introduction of pathogenic organisms. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 >> How did you determine that those polar opposites are wrong, was is through magical thinking? It was through simple logic. >Have you ever read NAPD Christie? If not, I would suggest you do so. You can go to onibasu and search for my name if you have any desire to know who I am and if I've read NAPD. And how long I've been on this list. >It might help you in getting a better understanding of what a healthy person might actually look like and why one of your so- called nasty microbes would be no threat to them. And if you just think positive thoughts and someone shoots you, will the bullet freeze and drop to the ground like in the Matrix? Christie Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds Raising Our Dogs Holistically Since 1986 http://www.caberfeidh.com/ http://doggedblog.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Isn't it logical that there are many factors in a rampant disease claiming lives? Diet is an important part, but cannot be the only factor. Bonnie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Sorry for my simplistic answer earlier, I should have gone back and read the earlier posts. By the way, I have to agree with Lana that medicine does not promote health, I lean to homeopathy. Bonnie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 I'm not saying pathogens don't cause disease. I'm saying its not always the suspected pathogen which is causing the symptoms. I am also a firm believer that one pathogen, when left out of control too long can become another, worse pathogen. A lot like antibiotic resistance. When it comes to microbes, I believe they too evolve. There is a lot of speculation out there about Saccaromyces Cervisae (bread and ale yeast) becoming rogue and turning into Candida Albicans. I believe every bacteria, every cell has its own rogue state. Cancer is a collection of rogue cells. One of the Endometriosis theories is on rogue cells. If a cell or bacteria doesn't get enough of what they need for one reason or another, they boycott. And just because I believe in Bechamp's micromyzmas, doesn't mean I don't think pathogens can come from the outside as well as in. If humans have micromyzmas, then so does every thing on the planet. If one creature's micromyzmas get out of hand and mutate to become transmittable, then pathogens occur. On the other hand, I do not much believe in the work of " Claude Bernard (1813-78), who contended that no matter where germs came from they presented a danger only if the body was in a run-down state due to a disturbed milieu interieur. " since I am aware of basic immunology. I beleive that a disturbed interior is the reason someone catches a cold, but in the instance of smallpox in native americans, its the unadapted immune system that causes the issue. I am also a firm believer that medicine, the meddlesome commerical venture as we know it, can and does cause a disturbed interior. And if I'm wrong, I more than welcome any reading material to be sent my way to prove me otherwise. -Lana On 1/17/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: > > On 1/17/06, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote: > > > Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. " > > > > Just because there are stages in an illness does not mean they have > > anything to do with the true cause of the illness. Who is to say they > > are not merely side effects of the illness itself? > > > > Can you imagine? What if HIV and AIDS are not diseases themselves, > > rather side effects of the same unknown disease? > > > > I prefer Bechamp to Pasteur: > > > http://educate-yourself.org/cn/pleomorphismdiscoverysuppresion16nov03.shtml > > Lana, > > That would seem to be nullified by producing a disease through > exposure to the pathogen... obviously. > > In fact before Price conducted his NAPD research he spent 25 years > causing every imaginable disease in rabbits through the introduction > of pathogenic organisms. > > Chris > > -- > Dioxins in Animal Foods: > A Case For Vegetarianism? > Find Out the Truth: > http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html > > > > <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN " > " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT > FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " > > <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B> > <UL> > <LI><B><A > HREF= " / " >NATIVE > NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI> > <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message > archive with Onibasu</LI> > </UL></FONT> > <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A > HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST > OWNER:</A></B> Idol > <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer > Wanita Sears > </FONT></PRE> > </BODY> > </HTML> > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 On 1/18/06, soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote: > Have you ever read NAPD Christie? If not, I would suggest you do so. > It might help you in getting a better understanding of what a > healthy person might actually look like and why one of your so- > called nasty microbes would be no threat to them. > Chi I'm sorry, but that's just clearly an absurd position. Huge populations were ravaged by e.g. smallpox before they'd ever changed their diets. And let's not have the " have YOU ever read NAPD " argument, since Price was working well after those diseases had ravaged populations that were later rebuilt from individuals who had been more resistant to begin with. There are loads of people (starting maybe with or before people like Carl Sauer and going up to the present) that have shown pretty clearly that the populations encountered in the New World by the later waves of colonists and explorers were a fraction of what they had initially been, due to the ravages of various European diseases brought across by the initial explorers. For instance, Sauer uses documentary evidence from initial Aztec tributary records and later Spanish missionary records that the population had declined by something like 90% (I've just moved and don't have the book handy) by the main colonization effort in the late 16th and early 17th century. Not that they were all eating ideal diets, but this has also been demonstrated to be true for North American natives, despite their " pristine " (heh) land and nutritional practices, and I'm sure for quite a few other populations around the world. But I'm sure the response will be that only those not eating ideal diets were killed and those with blood brix above X were magically spared. That it was diet and nothing else is just way too simplistic and seems to stem more from rigidly-held opinion and willful extrapolation than actual research or evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 , > But I'm sure the response will be that only those not eating ideal > diets were killed and those with blood brix above X were magically > spared. That it was diet and nothing else is just way too simplistic > and seems to stem more from rigidly-held opinion and willful > extrapolation than actual research or evidence. I expect the same copout, but even if it is used (with, naturally, assumptions rather than evidence, which is the only thing on which the assertion could possibly be supported) the fact remains that the Europeans diets were not superior and were probably considerably worse, which in and of itself proves that previous exposure to the pathogen in question is an *independent* factor in immunity, thus showing that the statement " the terrain is everything; the microbe is nothing, " falls flat on its face, meritless. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Lana, > I'm saying its not always the suspected pathogen which is causing the > symptoms. I am also a firm believer that one pathogen, when left out > of control too long can become another, worse pathogen. A lot like > antibiotic resistance. Fair enough, I misunderstood your position. > When it comes to microbes, I believe they too evolve. There is a lot > of speculation out there about Saccaromyces Cervisae (bread and ale > yeast) becoming rogue and turning into Candida Albicans. I believe > every bacteria, every cell has its own rogue state. Cancer is a > collection of rogue cells. One of the Endometriosis theories is on > rogue cells. If a cell or bacteria doesn't get enough of what they > need for one reason or another, they boycott. It is well established that candida albicans undergoes a transformation from yeast form to hyphal form that involves a dramatic change in morphology and chemical constitution when it invades the body, which is a rogue state, though I've never seen the S Cervisae theory. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Bonnie- >Sorry for my simplistic answer earlier, I should have gone back and read the >earlier posts. By the way, I have to agree with Lana that medicine does not >promote health, I lean to homeopathy. Medicine's pretty darn good at trauma care. It's diet and nutrition and the modern degenerative diseases it sucks at. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 > > Have you ever read NAPD Christie? If not, I would suggest you do so. > > It might help you in getting a better understanding of what a > > healthy person might actually look like and why one of your so- > > called nasty microbes would be no threat to them. > > Chi > > I'm sorry, but that's just clearly an absurd position. Huge > populations were ravaged by e.g. smallpox before they'd ever changed > their diets. And let's not have the " have YOU ever read NAPD " > argument, since Price was working well after those diseases had > ravaged populations that were later rebuilt from individuals who had > been more resistant to begin with. > > There are loads of people (starting maybe with or before people like > Carl Sauer and going up to the present) that have shown pretty clearly > that the populations encountered in the New World by the later waves > of colonists and explorers were a fraction of what they had initially > been, due to the ravages of various European diseases brought across > by the initial explorers. For instance, Sauer uses documentary > evidence from initial Aztec tributary records and later Spanish > missionary records that the population had declined by something like > 90% (I've just moved and don't have the book handy) by the main > colonization effort in the late 16th and early 17th century. > > Not that they were all eating ideal diets, but this has also been > demonstrated to be true for North American natives, despite their > " pristine " (heh) land and nutritional practices, and I'm sure for > quite a few other populations around the world. > > But I'm sure the response will be that only those not eating ideal > diets were killed and those with blood brix above X were magically > spared. That it was diet and nothing else is just way too simplistic > and seems to stem more from rigidly-held opinion and willful > extrapolation than actual research or evidence. > , have you ever read NAPD? If not I suggest you do. Chi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 > Isn't it logical that there are many factors in a rampant > disease claiming lives? Diet is an important part, > but cannot be the only factor. Hi Bonnie: AIDS isn't a disease, if it were it would be AIDD. Chi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 --- In , " soilfertility " <ynos@r...> wrote: > , have you ever read NAPD? If not I suggest you do. a post from Sally on CL list last November: " I have pondered this question also, but think I came up with an answer when reading the enzyme books by Howell. The native Americans had what was probably a perfect diet, and it included fermented foods. As their bodies were forming, there was no need to build a big pancreas or put a lot of " effort " into the digestive organs or immune system. Instead, the effort of bodybuilding could go into muscles, skeleton, eyes, hearing, etc. So these populations were totally unequipped for anything less than a perfect diet, and declined very rapidly when modern foods were introduced--infectious disease, diabetes, etc.. Their pancreas and other organs just could not handle these things. Whereas modern people had their bodies formed under the influence of the modern diet, and in the body building, a lot of effort/resources went into the digestive apparatus--and consequently much less into skeleton, muscles, eyes, ears, etc. This is the body's way of adapting during the growth phase. But, of course, it can only compromise so much so after another generation, diabetes, immune problems, etc start to show up. Sally " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Chi: Are you actually saying that someone on a high brix diet who is exposed to smallpox, or chicken pox et al and actually shows the virus in his system, would not get the disease? I thought it had more to do with having resistant genes to these diseases that spared some of the Indians, etc. jafa soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote: > > Have you ever read NAPD Christie? If not, I would suggest you do so. > > It might help you in getting a better understanding of what a > > healthy person might actually look like and why one of your so- > > called nasty microbes would be no threat to them. > > Chi > > I'm sorry, but that's just clearly an absurd position. Huge > populations were ravaged by e.g. smallpox before they'd ever changed > their diets. And let's not have the " have YOU ever read NAPD " > argument, since Price was working well after those diseases had > ravaged populations that were later rebuilt from individuals who had > been more resistant to begin with. > > There are loads of people (starting maybe with or before people like > Carl Sauer and going up to the present) that have shown pretty clearly > that the populations encountered in the New World by the later waves > of colonists and explorers were a fraction of what they had initially > been, due to the ravages of various European diseases brought across > by the initial explorers. For instance, Sauer uses documentary > evidence from initial Aztec tributary records and later Spanish > missionary records that the population had declined by something like > 90% (I've just moved and don't have the book handy) by the main > colonization effort in the late 16th and early 17th century. > > Not that they were all eating ideal diets, but this has also been > demonstrated to be true for North American natives, despite their > " pristine " (heh) land and nutritional practices, and I'm sure for > quite a few other populations around the world. > > But I'm sure the response will be that only those not eating ideal > diets were killed and those with blood brix above X were magically > spared. That it was diet and nothing else is just way too simplistic > and seems to stem more from rigidly-held opinion and willful > extrapolation than actual research or evidence. > , have you ever read NAPD? If not I suggest you do. Chi <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN " " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " > <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B> <UL> <LI><B><A HREF= " / " >NATIVE NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message archive with Onibasu</LI> </UL></FONT> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B> Idol <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer Wanita Sears </FONT></PRE> </BODY> </HTML> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 > The native Americans had what was probably a perfect diet, Sally Anyone, including Sally, who thinks this was the case should reread NAPD and find the example of the native American tribe that obviously had a diet far from perfect. Chi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 > Chi: > > Are you actually saying that someone on a high brix diet who is exposed to smallpox, or chicken pox et al and actually shows the virus in his system, would not get the disease? I thought it had more to do with having resistant genes to these diseases that spared some of the Indians, etc. Hi jafa: I don't think I mentioned high brix. I will say, however, that someone on a high brix diet might be eating hybrid corn. I don't know if someone who is healthy enough to resist a disease caused by a virus would show the virus in his system. What would a lack of the virus in the system on being exposed to the virus indicate to you? If disease resistance depends on genes, it's a lottery and there is nothing you can do to protect yourself. If, however, disease resistance depends on being well nourished, then there would be something you could do for yourself if someone ever starts producing nutritious food instead of producing food for yield to make money. Chi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 Chi, > If disease resistance depends on genes, it's a lottery and there is > nothing you can do to protect yourself. If, however, disease > resistance depends on being well nourished, then there would be > something you could do for yourself if someone ever starts producing > nutritious food instead of producing food for yield to make money. The latter is also true if one incorporates the wide amount of knowledge on immunology and assigns a role to both, in addition to other factors. Chris -- Dioxins in Animal Foods: A Case For Vegetarianism? Find Out the Truth: http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 > [mailto: ] On Behalf Of cbrown2008 > > > >> Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. " > > > > And both those polar opposites are WRONG. > > Or they're both right. Or they're not polar opposites, and are actually restatements of the same proposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 Chi I was thinking in terms of acquiring a disease, but if healthy enough, maybe it will remain dormant or inactive. Similar to someone who is exposed to herpes 2 who doesn't manifest symptoms, but if tested it will show as him having herpes 2. Are you saying that if healthy enough, if tested he won't even get herpes or smallpox or whatever? jafa soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote: > Chi: > > Are you actually saying that someone on a high brix diet who is exposed to smallpox, or chicken pox et al and actually shows the virus in his system, would not get the disease? I thought it had more to do with having resistant genes to these diseases that spared some of the Indians, etc. Hi jafa: I don't think I mentioned high brix. I will say, however, that someone on a high brix diet might be eating hybrid corn. I don't know if someone who is healthy enough to resist a disease caused by a virus would show the virus in his system. What would a lack of the virus in the system on being exposed to the virus indicate to you? If disease resistance depends on genes, it's a lottery and there is nothing you can do to protect yourself. If, however, disease resistance depends on being well nourished, then there would be something you could do for yourself if someone ever starts producing nutritious food instead of producing food for yield to make money. Chi <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN " " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " > <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B> <UL> <LI><B><A HREF= " / " >NATIVE NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message archive with Onibasu</LI> </UL></FONT> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B> Idol <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer Wanita Sears </FONT></PRE> </BODY> </HTML> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 > I was thinking in terms of acquiring a disease, but if healthy enough, maybe it will remain dormant or inactive. Similar to someone who is exposed to herpes 2 who doesn't manifest symptoms, but if tested it will show as him having herpes 2. > Are you saying that if healthy enough, if tested he won't even get herpes or smallpox or whatever? Hi jafa: Yes. Just as there are two necessary factors in soil erosion, the wind or rain and low soil fertility, there are two necessary factors in becoming sick with a disease, exposure to the supposed pathogen and the weakened condition of the victim. At the beginning of Volume I of " The Albrecht Papers " there is a list of " Tart Albrechtisms " . Among them is this one: " The use of sprays is an act of desperation in a dying agriculture. It's not the overpowering invader we must fear but the weakened condition of the victim. " Chapter 35 in " Soil Grass and Cancer " is titled " The great illusion of bovine tuberculosis eradication by tuberculin testing. " A quote from the chapter: " The lungs of each one of us are inhabited by millions of tuberculosis bacilli, which we manage to accomodate quite well. They live there very peacefully without delivering frenzied attacks against our cells. Why, then, do they suddenly thrust themselves upon one of our organs (most often the lungs) and make us into tuberculosis suffers? " Voisin goes on to discuss the virulence of the bacilli and the capacity for resistance of the cells. He points out that killing all the tuberculin reactors in a herd doesn't solve the problem for when new non-reactors are added to the herd, after a period of time more reactors will appear. Chi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2006 Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 Chi- That's not responsive. If everyone on this list responded to many posts just by saying " Have you read XYZ " , it would be a very boring and unproductive place to be. > > But I'm sure the response will be that only those not eating ideal > > diets were killed and those with blood brix above X were magically > > spared. That it was diet and nothing else is just way too >simplistic > > and seems to stem more from rigidly-held opinion and willful > > extrapolation than actual research or evidence. > > >, have you ever read NAPD? If not I suggest you do. - 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.