Is Trench Foot related to Trench Mouth ?

[Guest guest]

A friend has been diagnosed with Trench Foot. She eats the usual

terrible American diet. Is this the same fungus/organism that Chris

spoke about in an older post (below)? Would consuming kombucha and

other probiotics help (in addition to NT diet)? How does this

organism relate to candida?

>

> In the thread on tooth decay recently, Heidi made the perfectly

valid and

> true point that most things are multi-factorial and involve more

than one cause.

>

> However, despite agreeing with this, I maintain the position that

bacteria do

> not " cause " tooth decay, and I have a couple examples to show

this, the first

> dealing with gum disease, and the latter, perhaps the best

example, dealing

> with fungal attacks on plants.

>

> " ['s infection] is commonly called trench mouth because so

many

> American soldiers in the trenches of France during WWI developed

the disease. I can

> testify that the rates of cases were also high in the Air Force

bases in this

> country during WWII.

> " Its cause is known to result from the joint action of a spindle-

shaped germ

> tapered at both ends, the fusiform baccilli, and a spirochete.

BOTH OF THESE

> ORGANISMS ARE GENERALLY PRESENT IN MOST MOUTHS, but become

pathogenic when a

> person becomes debilitated, nutritionally compromised, or badly

neglects the

> care of his or her mouth. It is now known that diet and nutrition

play a big

> role in its inception. The B complex vitamins, niacinamide,

vitamin C, and

> minerals have an active place both in treatment and prevention. "

(Meinig, Root

> Canal Coverup, p45-6).

>

> If the organism is present in the mouth in normal conditions yet

the disease

> is rare, I think it's reasonable to say that the organism(s) does

not *cause*

> the disease, since its presence is basically a constant, whereas

the variable

> is unrelated. There might be more than one variable in the

disease acting

> together, but neither or none of the variables are the presence of

the organisms,

> which is a constant.

>

> Perhaps a more potent example:

>

> " And yet the problem can be stated briefly and succinctly.

Perhaps the

> Fusarium genus can provide us with the key for much needed

understanding. Fusarium

> oxysparum, for instance, is very versatile. Whenever

investigators look for

> fungi, they invriably find Fusarium oxysparum or other groups of

that genus--

> F. salani, F. rodeum, and so on. Generally this genus is a

peaceful

> homesteader in the soil and a BENEFICIAL SYMBIONT ON PLANT ROOTS.

Yet when this fungus

> finds a root that is poorly nourished, a plant with low

resistance, it

> quickly becomes pathogenic. If the farmer permits plant

malnutrition to continue,

> pathogenic potential really comes into its own, and the fungus

rates attention

> as an active parasite. " --Walters, Eco-Farm, p 89

>

> This last is a more dramatic example because the fungus actually

has

> beneficial effects that nourish the health of the plant if the

plant's soil is

> nourishing, while if the plant is undernourished, the fungus takes

on the exact

> opposite role, and is a parasite that destroys the plant. In this

case it would

> clearly be wrong to call the fungus a " cause " of the disease, when

in fact the

> presence of the fugus is beneficial, not detrimental, while the

variable-- the

> degree of plant nourishment-- is what determines the outcome of

the invariable

> presence of the fungus.

>

> Neither of these examples are direct evidence about tooth decay,

but I'm

> providing them for the philosophical question of how to define

causality.

>

> In terms of tooth decay, I've read in numerous places of germs

that are

> normally present in the mouth becoming pathogenic if involved in

tooth decay. I

> won't bother presenting them because I've been unable to get clear

descriptions

> of this process or lists of the microorganism.

>

> The second example above is a perfect analogy for my view on tooth

decay--

> the organisms normally present in the mouth, which are at least

neutral, and

> perhaps beneficial, become pathogenic when the teeth are

undernourished, and are

> converted from a living part of the human body that coexists in

symbiosis or

> at least peacefully with these organisms, into dying tissue to

provide food for

> these organisms. Or by becoming pourous teeth that house the

organisms so

> they can establish isolated colonies, etc. In these cases, the

reasons I would

> not call the organisms " causes " is because they are constants and

not

> variable, just like I don't call life a cause of death, because

everything that dies

> is alive first, so life as a constant rather than a variable,

would not be

> considered a cause of death, whereas something that changes in the

person who dies

> associated with that death, which is not present in the person

before the

> death or in other people who stay alive, could be considered a

cause of death.

>

> Chris

>

>

>