Guest guest Posted March 1, 2002 Report Share Posted March 1, 2002 On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 23:13:07 +0200 son <hjacobson@...> writes: Hi, On many many email health lists, people are desparately trying to rid themselves of parasites in order to restore their health. Here it is the opposite. Very particular and peculiar. Isn't it important to know which ones and when they should be avoided and when they might be helpful? Thanks, son , You are right. On many many health email lists people are desperately trying to get rid of parasites. It is based on the idea that parasites are the cause of disease and need to be attacked directly and removed in order for health to be achieved. For the sake of categorization, lets call these folks the Pasteur Brigade, of which this list (native nutrition) has many members. There are also several other lists that view parasites in a different light, seen more as a result of a toxic environment, present because the host has allowed a condition to occur that warrants their presence, and when and if that condition clears up, they will move on. In such a view, parasites can actually be beneficial, not something to be feared. Lets call these folks the Bechamp brigade, followers of Pasteur's chief ideological rival, who held that the terrain was the most important factor in disease. Pasteur on his death bed, repudiated the above view, and acknowledged that Bechamp was in fact correct. Some of Bechamp's brigade are represented on this list as well. So whereas on most lists you have people in one camp or the other, here you definitely have a mixed bag, with the majority most likely solidly in the camp of Louis Pasteur. Bianca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2002 Report Share Posted March 1, 2002 Bianca- >So whereas on most lists you have people in one camp or the other, here >you definitely have a mixed bag, with the majority most likely solidly in >the camp of Louis Pasteur. To be fair, I think it's less black and white than that. The camp of people who believe that parasites are like acts of god that infect you regardless of your preexisting health is probably quite small. The terrain is quite important. However, as I understand the opposition camp, or at least the most hardcore version, parasites (and disease microbes) are supposed to have no involvement in disease symptoms -- they are attracted to features of the terrain but don't themselves affect the terrain. To put it bluntly, I think that's ridiculous. Yes, of course they're attracted by features of the terrain, but they can also make the terrain worse. (And perhaps some disease microbes can make the terrain better under certain circumstances, but I remain skeptical.) The problem with the medical and food industries is that it's contrary to their interests to make sure everyone has the best possible terrain, because then their profits would crash. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2002 Report Share Posted March 1, 2002 >present because the >host has allowed a condition to occur that warrants their presence, >and when and if that condition clears up, they will move on I am curious, do the little buggers move on, any studies? What about animals? I know my sister debugs herself two times a year and does the dogs at the same time. Her dogs are in the house and with her and her daughter all the time. I am curious too, is there a time when you should do a parasite cleanse because they are overtaking instead of being any benefit. Grace, a Augustine I wish you enough sun to keep your attitude bright. I wish you enough rain to appreciate the sun more. I wish you enough happiness to keep your spirit alive. I wish you enough pain so that the smallest joys in life appear much bigger. I wish you enough gain to satisfy your wanting. I wish you enough loss to appreciate all that you possess. I wish you enough ''Hello's " to get you through the final goodbye. --anonymous ----- Original Message ----- From: bianca3@... Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 3:07 AM Subject: Re: paradox of parasites On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 23:13:07 +0200 son <hjacobson@...> writes: Hi, On many many email health lists, people are desparately trying to rid themselves of parasites in order to restore their health. Here it is the opposite. Very particular and peculiar. Isn't it important to know which ones and when they should be avoided and when they might be helpful? Thanks, son , You are right. On many many health email lists people are desperately trying to get rid of parasites. It is based on the idea that parasites are the cause of disease and need to be attacked directly and removed in order for health to be achieved. For the sake of categorization, lets call these folks the Pasteur Brigade, of which this list (native nutrition) has many members. There are also several other lists that view parasites in a different light, seen more as a result of a toxic environment, present because the host has allowed a condition to occur that warrants their presence, and when and if that condition clears up, they will move on. In such a view, parasites can actually be beneficial, not something to be feared. Lets call these folks the Bechamp brigade, followers of Pasteur's chief ideological rival, who held that the terrain was the most important factor in disease. Pasteur on his death bed, repudiated the above view, and acknowledged that Bechamp was in fact correct. Some of Bechamp's brigade are represented on this list as well. So whereas on most lists you have people in one camp or the other, here you definitely have a mixed bag, with the majority most likely solidly in the camp of Louis Pasteur. Bianca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2002 Report Share Posted March 1, 2002 Sally and I did an article a while back on the parasite craze for a Canadian magazine. The piece was mostly directed against Hulda and similar " flukie groupies. " I can post the article to the discussion group if you like (though I don't have Sally's section). I personally think the whole parasite " prblem " is overblown in Western countries. They definitely exist, but the idea that they cause diseases ranging from MS to AIDS is absolute nonsense. SCB >From: Idol <Idol@...> >Reply- > >Subject: Re: paradox of parasites >Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 04:42:31 -0500 > >Bianca- > > >So whereas on most lists you have people in one camp or the other, here > >you definitely have a mixed bag, with the majority most likely solidly in > >the camp of Louis Pasteur. > >To be fair, I think it's less black and white than that. The camp of >people who believe that parasites are like acts of god that infect you >regardless of your preexisting health is probably quite small. The terrain >is quite important. However, as I understand the opposition camp, or at >least the most hardcore version, parasites (and disease microbes) are >supposed to have no involvement in disease symptoms -- they are attracted >to features of the terrain but don't themselves affect the terrain. To put >it bluntly, I think that's ridiculous. Yes, of course they're attracted by >features of the terrain, but they can also make the terrain worse. (And >perhaps some disease microbes can make the terrain better under certain >circumstances, but I remain skeptical.) The problem with the medical and >food industries is that it's contrary to their interests to make sure >everyone has the best possible terrain, because then their profits would >crash. > > > >- > All the best, Byrnes, PhD, RNCP http://www.PowerHealth.net _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2002 Report Share Posted March 1, 2002 hi, paula-- <What about animals? I know my sister debugs herself two times a year and does the dogs at the same time. Her dogs are in the house and with her and her daughter all the time.> wendy volhard, in her _holistic guide for a healthy dog_, says that parasites will not stay on/in an healthy host. (i don't have the exact quote or her references; i accidentally left the bk in NC.) delilah, who used to be infested w/fleas, no longer has them since i've been feeding her BARF (bones and raw food/biologically appropriate raw food), nigh on 3 yrs now. when we moved here mid-jan, i found one flea, but i attribute that to the stress of the move: she hasn't had any more. and lest you think that she is simply not exposed to them: delilah goes trekking with me through woods and fields and lakes. and her friends have fleas. and the ones that don't are taking some internal pesticide. last yr, i took a deep breath, looked over my shoulder to make sure that no one could see us, and let her have fresh roadkill (squirrel). she's had at least 4 in the past 6mos and has *never* had worms. a few mos ago, she ate a bird, dead for over a month and riddled w/maggots. no health problems. and i still let her share my bed. btw, for diet, i recommend kymythy schultze's _natural nutrition for dogs and cats_, available at the price-pottenger nutrition foundation, rather than volhard's _holistic guide_ . allene and delilah jane in SC i aspire to eat more RAF, but i think that i'll leave the roadkill to liley <g>. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2002 Report Share Posted March 1, 2002 It's not unusual for animals to become severely ill or die of parasites. Why would anyone think people are magically immune to them? Rose ----- Original Message ----- From: bianca3@... Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:07 AM Subject: Re: paradox of parasites On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 23:13:07 +0200 son <hjacobson@...> writes: Hi, On many many email health lists, people are desparately trying to rid themselves of parasites in order to restore their health. Here it is the opposite. Very particular and peculiar. Isn't it important to know which ones and when they should be avoided and when they might be helpful? Thanks, son , You are right. On many many health email lists people are desperately trying to get rid of parasites. It is based on the idea that parasites are the cause of disease and need to be attacked directly and removed in order for health to be achieved. For the sake of categorization, lets call these folks the Pasteur Brigade, of which this list (native nutrition) has many members. There are also several other lists that view parasites in a different light, seen more as a result of a toxic environment, present because the host has allowed a condition to occur that warrants their presence, and when and if that condition clears up, they will move on. In such a view, parasites can actually be beneficial, not something to be feared. Lets call these folks the Bechamp brigade, followers of Pasteur's chief ideological rival, who held that the terrain was the most important factor in disease. Pasteur on his death bed, repudiated the above view, and acknowledged that Bechamp was in fact correct. Some of Bechamp's brigade are represented on this list as well. So whereas on most lists you have people in one camp or the other, here you definitely have a mixed bag, with the majority most likely solidly in the camp of Louis Pasteur. Bianca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2002 Report Share Posted March 1, 2002 I agree that parasites aren't a good thing to have in our systems. I have read statistics that 40-75% of deaths in this country have parasitic involvement. Of course Hulda believes it contributes to all diseases. Yes, in a perfect world we wouldn't have this problem, but as we all know, it isn't a perfect world and there is no longer a perfect food either. Shari ----- Original Message ----- From: RedWineRedRoses Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 11:27 AM Subject: Re: paradox of parasites It's not unusual for animals to become severely ill or die of parasites. Why would anyone think people are magically immune to them? Rose ----- Original Message ----- From: bianca3@... Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:07 AM Subject: Re: paradox of parasites On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 23:13:07 +0200 son <hjacobson@...> writes: Hi, On many many email health lists, people are desparately trying to rid themselves of parasites in order to restore their health. Here it is the opposite. Very particular and peculiar. Isn't it important to know which ones and when they should be avoided and when they might be helpful? Thanks, son , You are right. On many many health email lists people are desperately trying to get rid of parasites. It is based on the idea that parasites are the cause of disease and need to be attacked directly and removed in order for health to be achieved. For the sake of categorization, lets call these folks the Pasteur Brigade, of which this list (native nutrition) has many members. There are also several other lists that view parasites in a different light, seen more as a result of a toxic environment, present because the host has allowed a condition to occur that warrants their presence, and when and if that condition clears up, they will move on. In such a view, parasites can actually be beneficial, not something to be feared. Lets call these folks the Bechamp brigade, followers of Pasteur's chief ideological rival, who held that the terrain was the most important factor in disease. Pasteur on his death bed, repudiated the above view, and acknowledged that Bechamp was in fact correct. Some of Bechamp's brigade are represented on this list as well. So whereas on most lists you have people in one camp or the other, here you definitely have a mixed bag, with the majority most likely solidly in the camp of Louis Pasteur. Bianca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2002 Report Share Posted March 1, 2002 I agree that parasites aren't a good thing to have in our systems. I have read statistics that 40-75% of deaths in this country have parasitic involvement. Of course Hulda believes it contributes to all diseases. Yes, in a perfect world we wouldn't have this problem, but as we all know, it isn't a perfect world and there is no longer a perfect food either. Shari I think that parasites are the wrong target...they come later on the chain of events. I think that a small amount of parasites in a healthy person's body aren't going to cause any problems but that a body that is overwhelmed with parasites is very harmful to that person (the latter person will have a poor diet and be unhealthy long before the parasites came along...then the parasites just make things worse). I don't agree with most of the methods the anti-parasite people (ie. Hulda ) use to get rid of parasites. I think the methods of killing parasites do a lot of damage to the internal ecosystem and make it even harder to keep the body parasite-free. This happened to me. I had a HUGE microscopic (as opposed to visible worms) parasite problem. I did Hulda 's cleanse as well as one recommended by Stan Wienberger (I think that is his name....he has a book). I killed lots of parasites and they came back. I killed them again and they came back. Finally, I got educated more on biological terrain, changed my diet even more, started on fermented vegetables and cultured dairy and ate foods that were anti-parasitic. They aren't a problem anymore. It is taking a long time to rebuild my intestinal tract from all the damage the parasitic herbs caused. They do more than just wipe out the parasites. Of course large amounts of parasites are not desirable in a body, but a person wouldn't ever develop the problem if they were truely healthy in the first place. Your body would throw up, have diarrhea, etc to eliminate them if it was healthy. An unhealthy body won't do this and they will become a problem. If a person is not interested in really creating a healthy body with a good biological terrain, then maybe they should do a parasite cleanse once or twice a year....they should also take steps to cleanse their liver, colon and kidneys. But a person eating well and living naturally shouldn't need to take specific cleansing measures...it would be an ongoing thing their body does as a matter of normal detox. Barb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2002 Report Share Posted March 1, 2002 --- In @y..., " RedWineRedRoses " <redwineredroses@e...> > BTW - that 4,000 year old " iceman " found in Italy several years ago, died of worms. Wasn't he on an ancient diet? Was the cause of death definitively attributed to worms? He did have them. He also was travelling, had had broken bones (osteoporosis from grain eating), and may have injured himself, couldn't go on, and succumbed to the cold. He was on a neolithic diet that included grains which, I contend, we are not biologically well adapted to eat. His biology will have had at most 300 generations to adapt. Aren't parasites present in unhealthy bodies which become that way either through intoxication or undernutrition (malnutrition)? Aren't parasites observed in wild animals only when they are suffering from starvation (undernutrition) which does happen given the unpredictability of the food supply? Portland, OR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2002 Report Share Posted March 1, 2002 I would be interested in seeing this article as well. Grace, a Augustine I wish you enough sun to keep your attitude bright. I wish you enough rain to appreciate the sun more. I wish you enough happiness to keep your spirit alive. I wish you enough pain so that the smallest joys in life appear much bigger. I wish you enough gain to satisfy your wanting. I wish you enough loss to appreciate all that you possess. I wish you enough ''Hello's " to get you through the final goodbye. --anonymous ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Byrnes Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 11:12 AM Subject: Re: paradox of parasites Sally and I did an article a while back on the parasite craze for a Canadian magazine. The piece was mostly directed against Hulda and similar " flukie groupies. " I can post the article to the discussion group if you like (though I don't have Sally's section). I personally think the whole parasite " prblem " is overblown in Western countries. They definitely exist, but the idea that they cause diseases ranging from MS to AIDS is absolute nonsense. SCB >From: Idol <Idol@...> >Reply- > >Subject: Re: paradox of parasites >Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 04:42:31 -0500 > >Bianca- > > >So whereas on most lists you have people in one camp or the other, here > >you definitely have a mixed bag, with the majority most likely solidly in > >the camp of Louis Pasteur. > >To be fair, I think it's less black and white than that. The camp of >people who believe that parasites are like acts of god that infect you >regardless of your preexisting health is probably quite small. The terrain >is quite important. However, as I understand the opposition camp, or at >least the most hardcore version, parasites (and disease microbes) are >supposed to have no involvement in disease symptoms -- they are attracted >to features of the terrain but don't themselves affect the terrain. To put >it bluntly, I think that's ridiculous. Yes, of course they're attracted by >features of the terrain, but they can also make the terrain worse. (And >perhaps some disease microbes can make the terrain better under certain >circumstances, but I remain skeptical.) The problem with the medical and >food industries is that it's contrary to their interests to make sure >everyone has the best possible terrain, because then their profits would >crash. > > > >- > All the best, Byrnes, PhD, RNCP http://www.PowerHealth.net _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2002 Report Share Posted March 1, 2002 I think everyone is sort of caught up in the idea that " parasites " are only intestinal. Many parasites enter the bloostream and go direcly to the bone marrow or heart. You certainly don't have to be sick to contract a parasite. It can come as simply as planting flowers in a garden, or getting bitten by a tick, or having sex. Your immune system has no way to kill parasites that enter the bone marrow or cerebrospinal fluid. Sepsis is the leading cause of death in hospitalized patients outside of coronary intensive care units. Rose BTW - that 4,000 year old " iceman " found in Italy several years ago, died of worms. Wasn't he on an ancient diet? ----- Original Message ----- From: Barb Carr Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 11:42 AM Subject: Re: paradox of parasites I agree that parasites aren't a good thing to have in our systems. I have read statistics that 40-75% of deaths in this country have parasitic involvement. Of course Hulda believes it contributes to all diseases. Yes, in a perfect world we wouldn't have this problem, but as we all know, it isn't a perfect world and there is no longer a perfect food either. Shari I think that parasites are the wrong target...they come later on the chain of events. I think that a small amount of parasites in a healthy person's body aren't going to cause any problems but that a body that is overwhelmed with parasites is very harmful to that person (the latter person will have a poor diet and be unhealthy long before the parasites came along...then the parasites just make things worse). I don't agree with most of the methods the anti-parasite people (ie. Hulda ) use to get rid of parasites. I think the methods of killing parasites do a lot of damage to the internal ecosystem and make it even harder to keep the body parasite-free. This happened to me. I had a HUGE microscopic (as opposed to visible worms) parasite problem. I did Hulda 's cleanse as well as one recommended by Stan Wienberger (I think that is his name....he has a book). I killed lots of parasites and they came back. I killed them again and they came back. Finally, I got educated more on biological terrain, changed my diet even more, started on fermented vegetables and cultured dairy and ate foods that were anti-parasitic. They aren't a problem anymore. It is taking a long time to rebuild my intestinal tract from all the damage the parasitic herbs caused. They do more than just wipe out the parasites. Of course large amounts of parasites are not desirable in a body, but a person wouldn't ever develop the problem if they were truely healthy in the first place. Your body would throw up, have diarrhea, etc to eliminate them if it was healthy. An unhealthy body won't do this and they will become a problem. If a person is not interested in really creating a healthy body with a good biological terrain, then maybe they should do a parasite cleanse once or twice a year....they should also take steps to cleanse their liver, colon and kidneys. But a person eating well and living naturally shouldn't need to take specific cleansing measures...it would be an ongoing thing their body does as a matter of normal detox. Barb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2002 Report Share Posted March 4, 2002 On Fri, 01 Mar 2002 04:42:31 -0500 Idol <Idol@...> writes: Bianca- >So whereas on most lists you have people in one camp or the other, here >you definitely have a mixed bag, with the majority most likely solidly in >the camp of Louis Pasteur. To be fair, I think it's less black and white than that. The camp of people who believe that parasites are like acts of god that infect you regardless of your preexisting health is probably quite small. The terrain is quite important. However, as I understand the opposition camp, or at least the most hardcore version, parasites (and disease microbes) are supposed to have no involvement in disease symptoms -- they are attracted to features of the terrain but don't themselves affect the terrain. To put it bluntly, I think that's ridiculous. Yes, of course they're attracted by features of the terrain, but they can also make the terrain worse. (And perhaps some disease microbes can make the terrain better under certain circumstances, but I remain skeptical.) The problem with the medical and food industries is that it's contrary to their interests to make sure everyone has the best possible terrain, because then their profits would crash. - , You are right. I miss spoke. There are indeed people who hold to varying gradations of the two opposing camps and I should have noted as such. However, after just recently slogging through a hoard of research and material of the subject, I don't think it would be inaccurate to characterize most folks, for all intents and purposes, falling into one or the other camp. And what movement there is, is *away* from the still currently dominant Pasteurian position. Just my take. Bianca 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.