Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 This new model of disease seems pretty well rounded to me now. However, I would like a proof that our immune system attacks microbes only after they have completed their " cleanup " job. If there are microbes that the immune system attacks before they've performed their scavenging role, then that is a big hole in the model, in my opinion. Roman ---------------------------------------------------- Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today Only $9.95 per month! http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum & refcd=PT97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 We've heard stories about that white men gave native Americans blankets that had been used by people that were sick with smallpox, and that killed many Indians. Why did they die? Didn't they eat RAF, in addition to breathing unpolluted air, exercising, etc.? The question may sound somewhat naive, but I am being serious. I am looking for an epidemiological support for eating RAF to be able to withstand all these overly enthusiastic " cleaning " micro-creatures. I've also heard that some (many?) Eskimos died when they were contacted by outside people. If that is true, than this supports the notion that immune system is a defender against pathogens in addition to being a remover of nonliving toxins, and immune systems of Eskimos weren't ready to fight new microbes. Roman ---------------------------------------------------- Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today Only $9.95 per month! http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum & refcd=PT97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 > you seem to be suggesting that a candida overgrowth is just fine.> < I suggested that it is serving a purpose (clearing toxicity) which it would not need to do in the first place were a biologically appropriate diet followed in the first place. Perhaps it is clearing advanced glycation endproducts (AGE's) and/or high blood sugar and/or mercury as suggested.> , This would be fine, except that most people develop an overgrowth of candida due to antibiotics taken at some point in their lives, commonly for acne during adolescence. Children can inherit it from their mothers, leading to ear-problems that prompt doctors to prescribe antibiotics when they are infants, again promoting candidiasis, and chronic ear infections, according to the medical writer on candidiasis, whose name I don't remember offhand -- I believe it is Cook or Crook, M.D. I look at candidiasis (some experts believe it is not candida but other fungal forms that proliferate) as a disease of civilization rather than as a normal mechanism of the body--though the idea that one should attend to amalgam issues before clearing out candida is interesting. People under treatment for Lyme usually develop candidiasis due to long-term antibiotics. Many are knowledgable that Lyme, candidiasis and mercury poisoning show similar symptoms (as does vitamin B12 deficiency), and so do treat all three areas. Lyme cannot easily be starved out because it goes into a stagnant form, and it can live for years as such. Yes, the bacteria are attracted to those areas of the body where there have been accidents (a strained ankle for instance, or dead tooth) and feed off of toxins there. They also attack nerves all over the body and in the brain--gnawing holes in the nerves--and they settle in various organs, and are associated with heart attack. One article from a German source said that ticks wander over the body until they find a weak spot, energetically, ie, a blocked meridian. That's an interesting thought--here we would find a concentration of toxins. I have difficulties with your dismissal of the concept of the immune system as such. Why throw out the baby with the water? Perhaps you can elaborate, with examples of auto-immune diseases, cancer and simple infections, with the affect of homeopathy, too, in describing, in new language, how these diseases are caused, their purpose, and how we can overcome them without the concept of the immune system. I found the concept of the immune system very helpful in overcoming Lyme. A dose of cortisone for asthma suppressed my immune system, allowing the Lyme bacteria to proliferate (many people have Lyme break out after using a steroid). I was over-taxing my body, doing long hours supported by coffee, again, suppressing my immune system and draining my body of nutrients that the immune system needs to function well. Once the disease breaks out, it is so disabilitating that antibiotics are suddenly an agreeable alternative. At the same time, it is important to change lifestyle habits and build the immune system. Certain vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids are used by Lyme doctors to build the immune system while the person is treated. This regimen is widely used by nutritional doctors, with success. Lyme does not break out in everyone who has the bacteria. It appears to be more prevalent in women. However, even a very healthy person can get it: the idea has developed in the Lyme community that different ticks have different cocktails of strains of bacteria and viruses; some are more vicious than others. A person may have twenty tick bites and one's body manage to keep the bacteria and viruses in check (or there may be minor symptoms, such as joint pain, headache, memory loss and depression that are not identified as Lyme), and then one new tick bite can cause the disease to break out in a quick cascade of symtpoms, putting a person paralized in hospital within days or weeks. To describe this effect, the concept of immune system works for me <S>. son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 At 01:47 AM 2/25/02 -0800, you wrote: >We've heard stories about that white men gave native Americans blankets that had >been used by people that were sick with smallpox, and that killed many Indians. >Why did they die? Didn't they eat RAF, in addition to breathing unpolluted air, >exercising, etc.? The question may sound somewhat naive, but I am being serious. >I am looking for an epidemiological support for eating RAF to be able to >withstand all these overly enthusiastic " cleaning " micro-creatures. I've also >heard that some (many?) Eskimos died when they were contacted by outside people. >If that is true, than this supports the notion that immune system is a defender >against pathogens in addition to being a remover of nonliving toxins, and immune >systems of Eskimos weren't ready to fight new microbes. > >Roman Roman, Its my understanding from delving into my Native American ancestry, history and nutrition that disease is naturally regional. A product of that region's living population. That ecosystems exist regionally in proportion to dietary and medicinal need of its inhabitants. Introduce any unhealthy unknown and a adaptation has to be made. Anything is only as strong as its weakest link. I live in Massachusetts not far from Amherst named after Lord Amherst who was the man most known for the spread of smallpox blankets from here to at least the Pontiac of the Great Lakes. I've worked with others over the last nine years to finally save from development what remained of a local intertribal fishing village. This site had been in use for at least 10,000 years until the military massacre of the inhabitants during King 's War in 1676. Throughout this area's indigenous people there was not a true RAF diet at that time. Agriculture (growing corn, beans, squash) had been added to hunting and gathering by most tribes. I don't see this as the only factor to higher susceptabilty to disease. To me disease is dis-ease of not only the physical body. The mind and spirit contribute to disease's acceptance or rejection coming back to the weakest link. If you see something for the first time how its preceived determines your acceptance, rejection or immunity to it. Instinct still is highly present and some gut instincts, the home of the largest part of the immune system perceive danger or change. That danger either translates to strength of the body to reject invasion of disease or acceptance. Acceptance strains and stresses the cultural cohesion when there is no time for adaptation. History says Vikings visited this area before then. Their purpose and intent was different and they did not come from where cultural cohesion and health had broke down. Hope this makes some sense. Trying to be impartial. Am likely missing something. For the Inuit I really don't know other than non acceptance of changing from who they are. In Traditional Foods are your Best Medicine, F. Schmid M.D. refers to WAP's research. He writes of a Canadian city doctor who sent First Nation's people with tuberculosis back to the Reserve of their origin as treatment. Reintroducing their traditional foods cured at an amazing rate what was uncurable at the time. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 > We've heard stories about that white men gave native Americans blankets that had > been used by people that were sick with smallpox, and that killed many Indians. > Why did they die? Didn't they eat RAF, in addition to breathing unpolluted air, > exercising, etc.? The question may sound somewhat naive, but I am being serious. Very few populations in the last 10,000 years have eaten 100% RAF as far as I know. Most native americans cooked at least some of their food, contributing a mild toxicity compared to our modern life and that of the white men you speak of. > I am looking for an epidemiological support for eating RAF to be able to > withstand all these overly enthusiastic " cleaning " micro-creatures. I've also > heard that some (many?) Eskimos died when they were contacted by outside people. Two things. Inuit and other polar circle tribes live in an exceedingly harsh and challenging environment. Their largely raw diet is supportive, but the stress of living in such a cold and forbiding environment (quite different from our ancestral Africa) must also contribute some toxicity to the system. Add to that the stress of being conquered and you get fertile ground for germ action. Add to that still, the newness of these introduced microbes to the population, whose " immune " system were unused to them, making it difficult to accomodate their benign activity without overwhelming the system. In the book " Guns, Germs, and Steel " the case is made for a broad spectrum of " pathogens " coming from domestication of and cohabitation with livestock, particularly pigs and fowl. This arrangement provided more microbes accessible to man through incubation and mutation through these species. The ability to accomodate and utilize germs as cleansers comes from consistant exposure rather than sudden introduction in large numbers, IMHO. Second, much of " disease " brought by invading europeans can be attributed to the adoption of european eating habits by the natives who had not adapted as well as the invaders. > If that is true, than this supports the notion that immune system is a defender > against pathogens in addition to being a remover of nonliving toxins, and immune > systems of Eskimos weren't ready to fight new microbes. They weren't ready to accomodate new microbes. Their " immune " system had not the chance to calibrate to control the level of microbial activity. > > Roman > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today > Only $9.95 per month! > http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum & refcd=PT97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 P.S. It was only parts of the Inuit that were wiped out by disease. There are Inuit now having a terribly hard time culturally adjusting to time as its never been known. Prior to this week I thought agriculture the big turning point in human history. I'm part way through Lights Out! Sleep, Sugar and Survival by T.S. Wiley with Bent Formby Ph.D. It was fire, agriculture then the light bulb thats sealing human extinction. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 Did you have these all at once (the coconut milk) ? On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:05:58 -0500 Wanita Sears <wanitawa@...> writes: Virgin coconut oil is anti parasitic and anti candida. Caprylic acid commonly used for candida is derived from coconuts. See <http://www.coconut-info.com/>www.coconut-info.com Sally recommends coconut oil. Is Lyme disease a parasite or protozoa? I got rid of parasites I didn't know I had after having half a dozen cans of Thai Kitchen pure coconut milk. Was a detox, low energy experience. Wanita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 Not at once. Just added to my diet on fruit, with yogurt, in coffee, by the spoonful over no more than a month's time. Add to eggnog now too. Wanita At 09:02 AM 2/25/02 -0800, you wrote: >Did you have these all at once (the coconut milk) ? > >On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 20:05:58 -0500 Wanita Sears <wanitawa@...> >writes: >Virgin coconut oil is anti parasitic and anti candida. Caprylic acid >commonly >used for candida is derived from coconuts. See ><<http://www.coconut-info.com/>http://www.coconut-info.com/><http://www.co conut-info.com%A0/>www.coconut-info.com Sally recommends >coconut >oil. Is Lyme disease a parasite or protozoa? I got rid of parasites I >didn't >know I had after having half a dozen cans of Thai Kitchen pure coconut >milk. >Was a detox, low energy experience. >Wanita > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 >If that is true, than this supports the notion that immune system is a >defender >against pathogens in addition to being a remover of nonliving toxins, and >immune >systems of Eskimos weren't ready to fight new microbes. It's a simple fact that the immune system defends against pathogens. In truly healthy people the immune system is what keeps would-be pathogens in small enough numbers that they can be innocuous or even beneficial -- i.e. in balance. The germ theory of disease is incomplete, not 100% wrong. Sanitation and diet are vital elements of good health, and of course many diet-induced conditions are recipes for disease, but that doesn't mean disease has no pathogenic component. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 >Once the disease breaks out, it is so disabilitating that antibiotics are >suddenly an agreeable >alternative. Personally I've found colloidal silver to be a superior alternative to abx in such situations. It's more of an equal-opportunity killer so it doesn't tend to cause imbalance by itself. You should still supplement with probiotics and yoghurt and the like, but it's much less noxious. But you have to be very selective in picking a source of CS -- most is junk, even fraud. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 From several quarters (current literature and a few NDs) I've heard that the environment of the body is also involved in keeping bacteria and viruses at beneficial levels. The pH balance being a primary indicator of the environment - and separate from the immune system proper. -=mark=- At 01:40 PM 2/25/2002 -0500, you wrote: >In >truly healthy people the immune system is what keeps would-be pathogens in >small enough numbers that they can be innocuous or even beneficial -- i.e. >in balance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 >I was referring to one who lives naturally and nourishes his/herself >with raw proteins and fats. Without this, energy is not replenished >and the formerly sick person cannot recuperate as he/she is still >malnourished and continuing to contribute to his/her internal >toxicity. Nonetheless, even stipulating that such a person eats a 100% raw, natural, healthy diet, there's still a flaw with your theory. Take anthrax, since it's simple and it's in the news. Suppose someone with a modest amount of unhealthy tissue gets an envelope full of anthrax spores and contracts the disease. The anthrax bacteria won't merely consume the unhealthy tissue and then die off from starvation, the little anthrax bacteria corpses and consumed tissue waste then to be flushed from the body by whatever you'd prefer to call the immune system. As the bacteria consume whatever they're able to eat in the body, they generate a powerful toxin which damages and kills even the healthiest of tissues, thus allowing the anthrax to spread further through the body. IOW, they create more damage than was there initially. Many, maybe most or all, pathogens act this way. In some cases they're not powerful enough to do much damage to any but the weakest of people, in other cases they're so virulent they could probably take out many of even the healthiest of people. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 >So, you are equating vultures, which are predators and scavengers, >with microbes which are merely scavengers. It's your position that microbes are merely scavengers, but you haven't to my knowledge offered any actual evidence to support this position. >The disease is the toxicity not the symptoms of infection. Many microbes create toxic poisons as they multiply in the body -- specifically to damage more tissue, suppress the immune system, and create favorable conditions to proliferate further. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 wrote: >So, you are equating vultures, which are predators and scavengers, >with microbes which are merely scavengers. I can't help but wonder how you would fit viruses (virii?) into the model of scavenger? I can't see how you possibly could... Viruses don't have a life separate from the cell that they invade. They are merely a machine looking for a power source to make more machines that look for power sources. Also, how does the concept of immunity fit into the " clean-up " model of the immune system? If all the immune system does is clean out dead or used up microbes, why does it " learn " to identify and block specific microbes? You're not suggesting that chicken pox immunity is an imagined phenomenon...or that most all people have some specific type of dead tissue that the chicken pox clears away, and that (once cleared away) never returns to allow the chicken pox back in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2002 Report Share Posted February 25, 2002 > It's a simple fact that the immune system defends against pathogens. The simple fact is that the " immune " system that includes certain specialized cells, microbes lining the intestinal tract and skin, hormones, emotions, etc. contributes to the regulation and clearing of microbes and toxins as needed to keep the body vital and promote it's general welfare. I reject the factual nature of the concepts " defends " and " pathogens " with respect to the " immune system " and microbes. I prefer the term " regulates " applied to the " immune system " which I would rename " detoxification system. " As a regulatory system, it controls influx and outgo of toxicity and microbes. It is a regulatory system much like the heart regulates blood flow, the lungs regulate respiration, the liver regulates hormone balance and blood sugar as well as detoxification, the kidneys regulate moisture and electrolytes. The concept of an immune system as a defense against the cruel world is simplistic and fails to accomodate its regulatory nature. In > truly healthy people the immune system is what keeps would-be pathogens in > small enough numbers that they can be innocuous or even beneficial -- i.e. > in balance. Agreed, but substitute microbes for pathogens. > > The germ theory of disease is incomplete, not 100% wrong. It is wrong. Sanitation and > diet are vital elements of good health, and of course many diet-induced > conditions are recipes for disease, but that doesn't mean disease has no > pathogenic component. If by " pathogenic component " you mean microbes, these again are not the cause of disease per se, toxicity/malnutrition are. That microbes are involved does not impune them as the CAUSE. Other parts of the body are also involved but cannot be considered the cause of the disease. The germ theory says that germs cause disease and that we must fight the germs. Put a person in a sterile environment and it will seem as though they have no sickness even though indulging in unhealthful diet. However, in time they will deteriorate and die from toxicosis. It is theorized that our over-the-top hygiene in this country is contributing to the increase in degenerative diseases. Keep in mind though, that for all this to be relevant, one must adhere to a biologically correct diet. Applying these concepts while eating otherwise, may get you killed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 > > Perhaps you should start the discussion by noting your points of > > agreement and your points of disagreement with the article. I found > it > > very well done and in keeping with the actual history off food > safety as > > opposed to what folks have been trying to tell us for a very long > time. > > It would appear that the author has in fact suggested a " new model " > at > > looking at so called pathogens. > > > > On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 20:50:41 -0800 (PST) Roman <r_rom@y...> writes: > > I've been thinking about whether microbes cause > > disease, and while I like the theory that the microbes > > and the bigger ones, parasites, are a " cleanup crew " , > > I can't use it to explain all situations, cases, and > > what I am used to believing are facts. I've found an > > article written by Aajonus Vonderplanitz on this > > topic. It makes sense to me in some places and doesn't > > in others. Here's it's location: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/biblefoods%40/msg00003.html > > > > I am hoping we can resume our discussion of this and > > come up with a version of the theory that would > > explain all we know that currently makes many of us > > believe in existence of pathogens and that we need to > > avoid them to the best of our ability. Then we could > > place a file on the web that concisely explains the > > new model, for other people to read. > > > > Roman > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 > This would be fine, except that most people develop an overgrowth of candida due to antibiotics > taken at some point in their lives, commonly for acne during adolescence. Children can inherit it > from their mothers, leading to ear-problems that prompt doctors to prescribe antibiotics when they > are infants, again promoting candidiasis, and chronic ear infections, according to the medical > writer on candidiasis, whose name I don't remember offhand -- I believe it is Cook or Crook, M.D. It's Crook. > > I look at candidiasis (some experts believe it is not candida but other fungal forms that > proliferate) as a disease of civilization rather than as a normal mechanism of the body--though the > idea that one should attend to amalgam issues before clearing out candida is interesting. Systemic candida (or whatever fungal forms) is not a " normal " function of the body. It is an heroic attempt by nature to detox the body when other normal means have been foiled by modern medicine (antibiotics). --snip-- > Lyme cannot easily be starved out because it goes into a stagnant form, and it can live for years > as such. Dormant form. As such it poses no " threat " of painful detoxification unless necessitated by ongoing poor diet and medical interventions. Yes, the bacteria are attracted to those areas of the body where there have been accidents > (a strained ankle for instance, or dead tooth) and feed off of toxins there. They also attack nerves > all over the body and in the brain--gnawing holes in the nerves--and they settle in various organs, > and are associated with heart attack. They are feeding on dead OR toxic tissues. Symptoms can be profound, but if given time and nutrition and if not too toxic, survival to good health is more likely. Medicines may suppress the process, but delay the inevitable and often kill the patient themselves. --snip-- > I have difficulties with your dismissal of the concept of the immune system as such. Why throw out > the baby with the water? I can include the immune system as a detoxification system that regulates entry and exit of both toxins and microbes. Like all systems, the immune system can suffer from dysregulation. Caused by poor diet/lifestyle. Perhaps you can elaborate, with examples of auto-immune diseases, Dysregulation of the immune system possibly caused by consumption of grains in a person sensitive to them with high intestinal permability. The grain (or other partially undigested substance or microbe) can appear similar to " self " tissue. Antibodies dispatched to clear non-self may clear self as well. This can be caused by poor nutrition, and or lack of training of the immune system in regulating activity of antibodies which normally occurs via childhood diseases and/or routine exposure to microbes in the environment and food. Perhaps our sterile upbringing these days is contributing to this dysregulation. cancer Toxicity so great it must be contained in certain tissues (tumors) and walled off. Metastases occur when toxicity can no longer be contained, killing the patient. ....with the affect of homeopathy, Energetic stimulus of the detoxification " immune " system. A means of " injecting " energy into the system through the " window " of symptom. That's the best I can do here. > > I found the concept of the immune system very helpful in overcoming Lyme. A dose of cortisone for > asthma suppressed my immune system, allowing the Lyme bacteria to proliferate (many people have Lyme > break out after using a steroid). Steroid do suppress the detoxification/immune system, again interfering with its regulatory function. Stress produces the same steroids. I was over-taxing my body, doing long hours supported by coffee, > again, suppressing my immune system and draining my body of nutrients that the immune system needs > to function well. > > Once the disease breaks out, it is so disabilitating that antibiotics are suddenly an agreeable > alternative. At the same time, it is important to change lifestyle habits and build the immune > system. Certain vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids are used by Lyme doctors to build the > immune system while the person is treated. This regimen is widely used by nutritional doctors, with > success. That's fine, but you will eventually need to address the underlying toxicity that the spyrochete was going after, else new infection with new, maybe more intense microbe, or eventual degeneration/cancer due to building toxicity. Sure the body can cope with some without the help of microbes, but it is slower and may not be able to keep up with what we are exposing ourselves to these days (diet, pollution, stress). > > Lyme does not break out in everyone who has the bacteria. It appears to be more prevalent in > women. However, even a very healthy person can get it --snip-- I submit that your definition of a very healthy person is not the same as mine, which is a person who eats a biologically correct diet and lives a natural lifestyle. Not too many of those around to test this theory, but there are a few. Portland, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 > I can't help but wonder how you would fit viruses (virii?) into the model of > scavenger? I was premature in using that metaphor. I suggest that microbes in the body are playing the role of predator and scavenger. As a predator, they would attack live cells that are nonetheless toxic and not functioning well. As a scavenger they would remove dead tissue. I can't see how you possibly could... Viruses don't have a life > separate from the cell that they invade. They are merely a machine looking > for a power source to make more machines that look for power sources. It is the toxicity of the cell that prevents it from resisting the virus. It enters the cell, multiplies using cell DNA, and explodes the cell, which now can be taken away by the " immune " system (phagocytosis). Also, > how does the concept of immunity fit into the " clean-up " model of the immune > system? If all the immune system does is clean out dead or used up > microbes, why does it " learn " to identify and block specific microbes? It does not only clean up dead or used up microbes, but controls the overall proliferation and type of microbe. > You're not suggesting that chicken pox immunity is an imagined > phenomenon No, this is part of the training of the immune system to handle and control such unusual microbes. Chicken pox, flu, measles, colds, small pox, etc. developed through our close association with domestic pigs, fowl, sheep, etc. See Guns, Germs, and Steel. ....or that most all people have some specific type of dead tissue > that the chicken pox clears away, and that (once cleared away) never returns > to allow the chicken pox back in? No, these exotic diseases are necessitated by modern eating/living habits and in some cases, medical suppressions of the normal detoxification of the body. Portland, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 > > >I was referring to one who lives naturally and nourishes his/herself > >with raw proteins and fats. Without this, energy is not replenished > >and the formerly sick person cannot recuperate as he/she is still > >malnourished and continuing to contribute to his/her internal > >toxicity. > > Nonetheless, even stipulating that such a person eats a 100% raw, natural, > healthy diet, there's still a flaw with your theory. > > Take anthrax, since it's simple and it's in the news. Suppose someone with > a modest amount of unhealthy tissue gets an envelope full of anthrax spores > and contracts the disease. Is this person " eating a 100% raw, natural, healthy diet? " How do we know he will " contract the disease. " We don't, I think he won't, you think he will. Anyway, assuming he will: The anthrax bacteria won't merely consume the > unhealthy tissue and then die off from starvation, the little anthrax > bacteria corpses and consumed tissue waste then to be flushed from the body > by whatever you'd prefer to call the immune system. Right. > > As the bacteria consume whatever they're able to eat in the body, they > generate a powerful toxin which damages and kills even the healthiest of > tissues, thus allowing the anthrax to spread further through the body. Wherever they are, the toxins may be killing already toxic cells, and the suppression of the immune system is a message to it as a regulator that more work needs done. When it is done, toxins decline as they are cleared, and immune system (cellular) is no longer depressed, microbe is removed. > > IOW, they create more damage than was there initially. Many, maybe most or > all, pathogens act this way. Maybe, but it is also possible that the collateral damage is part of the process in the first place. That is if the microbe is feeding in a certain area due to located toxicity, the toxins released by the microbe will impact only on local cells that are in need of removal in the first place. In some cases they're not powerful enough to > do much damage to any but the weakest of people, in other cases they're so > virulent they could probably take out many of even the healthiest of people. If by healthiest people you mean RAFer's, you are speculating. Portland, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 > It's your position that microbes are merely scavengers, but you haven't to > my knowledge offered any actual evidence to support this position. > I was hasty in this characterization. I suggest they are both predators (opportunistic) and scavengers. They will go after both toxic living cells as well as dead cells. snip > Many microbes create toxic poisons as they multiply in the body -- > specifically to damage more tissue, suppress the immune system, and create > favorable conditions to proliferate further. When there is more work to be done. The tissue damaged is likely toxic, else the microbe would not be in the vicinity. Portland, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 > sraosha87 wrote: > When there is more work to be done. The tissue damaged is likely > toxic, else the microbe would not be in the vicinity. > The microbe might be there because of how it got to the body, e.g. anthrax spores being inhaled resulting in anthrax bacteria being in the lungs. Then it will start producing its toxin, killing surrounding cells, healthy or not, IMO. Roman ---------------------------------------------------- Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today Only $9.95 per month! http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum & refcd=PT97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 sraosha87 wrote: > It does not only clean up dead or used up microbes, but controls the > overall proliferation and type of microbe. Why does it control proliferation and type of microbe if microbes cause a needed detoxification? To control the rate at which this happens because current nourishment may not be sufficient to handle additional toxins released in the process, and to replace cells that have destroyed in the process? Roman ---------------------------------------------------- Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today Only $9.95 per month! http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum & refcd=PT97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 > The microbe might be there because of how it got to the body, e.g. anthrax > spores being inhaled resulting in anthrax bacteria being in the lungs. Then > it will start producing its toxin, killing surrounding cells, healthy or not, > IMO. IMO it will only start producing toxins when it comes out of dormancy, that is when it starts feeding on toxic cells. The lungs, for this microbe, may be the site of toxicity, since that is where it produces symptoms. Portland, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2002 Report Share Posted February 26, 2002 --- sraosha87 <sraosha@...> wrote: > My point exactly. Hygiene merely contributes by > suppressing auxiliary > detox pathways (microbes). To support this notion, I remember reading in Dr. Mercola's newsletter something to that regard: - http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/23/anti_bacterials.htm Here, though, they make a recommedation that " a baby must be exposed to germs during its first year in order to develop antibodies needed to fight infection later in life. " - http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/12/farm_allergy.htm Growing Up on a Farm Boosts Allergy Protection Roman __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 5, 2002 Report Share Posted July 5, 2002 , Thanks for your articulate explanations. What you say works for me. Yes, the doctor's name is Crook, and it is 'dormant' and not 'stagnant', and I misspelled 'asthma' in my last post <G>. After going through Lyme, one learns to be forgiving of oneself and others for language difficulties; I do appreciate corrections. One of your previous posts came across as saying that the immune system as a concept is obsolete. But as you so eloquently used the concept in your explanations, you can't have meant it as I took it. I'm somewhat familiar with the not-germ theory, that it is our toxicity that encourages microbes to morph into disease creating 'pathogens'. However, while this may apply to most illnesses, I do believe there are " baddies " out there that thrive on considerably less toxicity and that are better able to overthrow even a balanced immune system. I suppose that I also think of disease, to some extent, as one of those unpredictable parts of life that we as humans have to work with and accept. No one system or theory of disease can explain it all, IMHO. Your answer has presented possibilities for further discussion, but perhaps this is not the forum for it. I will enjoy following this thread. son > This would be fine, except that most people develop an overgrowth of candida due to antibiotics > taken at some point in their lives, commonly for acne during adolescence. Children can inherit it > from their mothers, leading to ear-problems that prompt doctors to prescribe antibiotics when they > are infants, again promoting candidiasis, and chronic ear infections, according to the medical > writer on candidiasis, whose name I don't remember offhand -- I believe it is Cook or Crook, M.D. It's Crook. > > I look at candidiasis (some experts believe it is not candida but other fungal forms that > proliferate) as a disease of civilization rather than as a normal mechanism of the body--though the > idea that one should attend to amalgam issues before clearing out candida is interesting. Systemic candida (or whatever fungal forms) is not a " normal " function of the body. It is an heroic attempt by nature to detox the body when other normal means have been foiled by modern medicine (antibiotics). --snip-- > Lyme cannot easily be starved out because it goes into a stagnant form, and it can live for years > as such. Dormant form. As such it poses no " threat " of painful detoxification unless necessitated by ongoing poor diet and medical interventions. Yes, the bacteria are attracted to those areas of the body where there have been accidents > (a strained ankle for instance, or dead tooth) and feed off of toxins there. They also attack nerves > all over the body and in the brain--gnawing holes in the nerves--and they settle in various organs, > and are associated with heart attack. They are feeding on dead OR toxic tissues. Symptoms can be profound, but if given time and nutrition and if not too toxic, survival to good health is more likely. Medicines may suppress the process, but delay the inevitable and often kill the patient themselves. --snip-- > I have difficulties with your dismissal of the concept of the immune system as such. Why throw out > the baby with the water? I can include the immune system as a detoxification system that regulates entry and exit of both toxins and microbes. Like all systems, the immune system can suffer from dysregulation. Caused by poor diet/lifestyle. Perhaps you can elaborate, with examples of auto-immune diseases, Dysregulation of the immune system possibly caused by consumption of grains in a person sensitive to them with high intestinal permability. The grain (or other partially undigested substance or microbe) can appear similar to " self " tissue. Antibodies dispatched to clear non-self may clear self as well. This can be caused by poor nutrition, and or lack of training of the immune system in regulating activity of antibodies which normally occurs via childhood diseases and/or routine exposure to microbes in the environment and food. Perhaps our sterile upbringing these days is contributing to this dysregulation. cancer Toxicity so great it must be contained in certain tissues (tumors) and walled off. Metastases occur when toxicity can no longer be contained, killing the patient. ....with the affect of homeopathy, Energetic stimulus of the detoxification " immune " system. A means of " injecting " energy into the system through the " window " of symptom. That's the best I can do here. > > I found the concept of the immune system very helpful in overcoming Lyme. A dose of cortisone for > asthma suppressed my immune system, allowing the Lyme bacteria to proliferate (many people have Lyme > break out after using a steroid). Steroid do suppress the detoxification/immune system, again interfering with its regulatory function. Stress produces the same steroids. I was over-taxing my body, doing long hours supported by coffee, > again, suppressing my immune system and draining my body of nutrients that the immune system needs > to function well. > > Once the disease breaks out, it is so disabilitating that antibiotics are suddenly an agreeable > alternative. At the same time, it is important to change lifestyle habits and build the immune > system. Certain vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids are used by Lyme doctors to build the > immune system while the person is treated. This regimen is widely used by nutritional doctors, with > success. That's fine, but you will eventually need to address the underlying toxicity that the spyrochete was going after, else new infection with new, maybe more intense microbe, or eventual degeneration/cancer due to building toxicity. Sure the body can cope with some without the help of microbes, but it is slower and may not be able to keep up with what we are exposing ourselves to these days (diet, pollution, stress). > > Lyme does not break out in everyone who has the bacteria. It appears to be more prevalent in > women. However, even a very healthy person can get it --snip-- I submit that your definition of a very healthy person is not the same as mine, which is a person who eats a biologically correct diet and lives a natural lifestyle. Not too many of those around to test this theory, but there are a few. Portland, OR 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.