If germs and viruses are not a factor in disease and it all comes back to poor lifestyle choices then why have native populations throut history been decimated by diseases brought to their lands by foreign travelers?

Note : I'm not talking about decades down the line after many of the surviving natives have taken on some of the dietary and lifestyle habits on their invaders, I'm talking about the devistation inflicted within years (months even) with little to no change in lifestyle.

How is it that the natives of Mexico for example came down with all the same symptoms of smallpox that in past years the Europeans had? One can't blame the natives belief is "germ theory" because they had none. Presumably they were had no beliefs about smallpox at all never having been exposed to it?

Cheers,
Narz

Hmmm, I'm not sure I fully understand what you are saying, or why you are claiming invalidity of what i don't fully understand you are saying.

But, how many people died of heart disease in the US? how many died of bird flue, small pox, SARS, etc. in US?

While germs and virii have some impact on a nation fatality rate (sometimes in large but short spike of fatalities), life style still seems to be the major killer (heart disease, cancer, etc.).

We are constantly surrounded by germs and virii, and like natives who have adapted to there environment, local foods, herbs, drugs, animals, virii, germs, etc.. the introduction of something alien to this environment, whether it's food, drugs, animals, germs or virii, can unbalanace and even destory the natural health of this environment.

my 2cents,

Ian.

The right diet is paramount to keeping a strong immune system.

A man I know who is 66, had been feeing poorly for a couple weeks and thought he was having an extended summer cold. He then collapsed in his office. After being admitted to ICU, it took 5 different specialists almost 10 days to determine he has West Nile Virus -- and it seems WNV is far more prevelant than the news would have you know.

This man smokes, drinks, does not eat a healthy diet, etc.

Now a person with a strong immune can either fight off WNV and the person won't even be aware their body had it, or they may come down with what they think is a mild cold or case of the flu for 48 hours.

For those with compromised systems --it's much worse. This man, after almost 6 weeks in ICU has been transfered to a medical facility to try to help him regain his mobility and strength. He cannot use the restroom on his own, feed himself, etc. At some point they hope to transfer him to assisted living.

Before all this happened, he was bringnig in about $6k per month, owns his home, 2 cars (including a Corvette), had clients he's been working with for more than 20 years (he handles casualty insurance for companies), his has a large boat, etc etc., but he was hardcore SAD. And the first thing he asked for after being out of it for amost 4 weeks was a cigarette. His life is changed forever.

This is a great example of how healthy eating is the only way to go - a healthy body and healthy immune system can save you so much grief.

~raine~

this seems like a pointless argument

its like the nature vs nurture argument.

sometimes germs are the main cause of disease (especially when pathogens jump species), and sometimes host factors are more important.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2006 06:05PM by jono.

"pathogen jump species"

u mean "jumping genes" i.e. transposons?

bacteriasarereal
ucanseethemunderthemicroscope
theyhavedistinctivefeatures
andyes,astrongimmunityisthebestdefense

Raine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The right diet is paramount to keeping a strong
> immune system.
>
>...
>
> This is a great example of how healthy eating is
> the only way to go - a healthy body and healthy
> immune system can save you so much grief.
>
> ~raine~

It is hardly "the only way to go" in my opinion. Plenty of centanarians eat what we would conisder poor diets. IMO, family relationships, a good attitude and a strong constitution are more important (though still not an excuse to barage yourself with bad food & no excersise).

Anyway, I don't see how this pertains to the issue of Native devastation (due to introduction of disease) since there was no major (immediate) change in diet with the arrival of the white man.


jono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> this seems like a pointless argument
>
> its like the nature vs nurture argument.
>
> sometimes germs are the main cause of disease
> (especially when pathogens jump species), and
> sometimes host factors are more important.


Doesn't seem pointless to me. I think it is always a mix of both (not ever soley one or another).

NNNNNarz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway, I don't see how this pertains to the issue
> of Native devastation (due to introduction of
> disease) since there was no major (immediate)
> change in diet with the arrival of the white man.

Ah, but there was and immediate change in their diet, a new virus or germ was introduced in to their (unconscious) diet. Although they new nothing about it, couldn't see it, know about it or anything else, their normal germ and virus diet was altered.

We all have germs and virii (and insects) in our diets, unless you live in a bubble and are fed chemically purified foods or something...

Cheers,
Ian.

La V, i was meaning pathogens like HIV and the bird flu... but im guessing you know that and are just having fun with me

>>I think it is always a mix of both (not ever soley one or another).<<

Narz, that's what im saying too... they each play a role.

i would just add that some diseases are hardly influenced by germs at all... for example genetic diseases. also, a broken leg could be considered a disease.

jono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> also, a broken leg could be considered a disease.

I hope it's not contagious!

>>I hope it's not contagious!<<

hmmmmm.., injury-inducing behavior can be contagious... people watch jackass and then try the stunts and break their legs...

Nature doesn't make mistakes. Never. We make the mistakes because we don't understand what is going on. If a pathogen "attacks" a person and makes him very ill or even kills him, there is a reason.

Horsea,
It's true that nature never makes mistakes, and when it appears so it's only because we don't understand what's going on. However, there is no such thing as a "pathogen", and the reason Narz posted the question is because he knows I subscribe to a set of principles which holds that acute disease is always a self-limiting, constructive process undertaken solely at the body's discretion and initiation for the purpose of eliminating toxic accumulation.

Tribal native people typically have lifestyles that keep their bodies relatively clean, even though many of them (at the time of the European invasion) were living in cold climates where their survival depended on breaking a few of nature's requisites for healthy life. The biggest of these was eating foods not of their biological adaptation and eating cooked foods, but there were others as well, like treating their symptoms with herbal preparations and other methodologies. Still, they enjoyed a level of health that would look very good to us because they were living and working outdoors, eating summer fruit and not wearing much clothing when they could get away with it weatherwise, enjoying relatively stress-free lives with close-knit families and communities, getting sufficient rest at night, etc. By comparison, white Europeans were doing much worse. It's impossible for me to list all the flagrantly destructive lifestyle habits that they commonly practiced. A few examples are drinking alcohol (they actually thought drinking water was unhealthy, and that drinking alcohol with their meals improved digestion), cooking indoors, eating a diet comprised almost entirely of inappropriate foods, wearing layers of clothing, never bathing, dumping their sewage into the streets, subjecting to extremely harmful medical treatments like bleeding when acute symptoms were present, and many, many more. They lived so abominably that thousands of them dropped dead everyday, sometimes in such large numbers that it appeared to outsiders (like us, looking back) that sickness seemed to sweep from person to person, and community to community. When Europeans came to the 'new world', they introduced many of their deleterious practices to the native populations and the latter took to them with zeal, not realizing the damage they would cause. Because their lifestyles were relatively clean compared to Europeans, their bodies had the sensitivity and vitality of children. Naturally, the response of a relatively healthy body to the introduction of new poisons is to initiate eliminative symptoms. I don't have any specific information about whether the Europeans introduced their harmful medical interventions as well, but it's easy to suspect they did because if the sick natives had stopped their poisoning ways, rested and fasted until their acute symptoms passed, they would not have died in large numbers. In fact, they would not have died of their sickness at all. It's only the drugging and treating of acute symptoms, in addition to the continuation of the factors that caused the sickness in the first place, that compounds the body's problems and sometimes occasions death. Acute sickness is constructive. It is the body's safety valve and should always be left alone.

The way these germ theory discussions usually goes is that somebody asks a question like Narz’s, then the microbiology-majoring lurkers start piping up with their scientific-sounding jargon that makes the germ theory seem valid and credible, or at least too complicated for the common person to even form an opinion about, and even the people who are open-minded enough to listen to truthful and logical explanations end up feeling confused and overwhelmed. In the meantime, the few of us who are willing to talk about this issue are typically bombarded with rapid-fire questions about this or that scenario where the germ theory seems indisputably evident. I.e., e-coli? AIDS, the bubonic plagues, flesh-eating bacteria, ebola, West Nile?! The flu pandemic of 1918? Biological warfare? Anthrax? Ad infinitum.

I’ve got a lot of projects going on and as much as I love answering questions about health (that’s why I’m here), nobody can provide all the answers that will make it possible for even passive germ-theory believers to suddenly see the light, never mind the ones who have a personal or economic stake in it. Understanding the truth about disease never happens suddenly, anyway, it's a slow evolution of thought that begins with an open mind and ends not only with the book-knowledge that is necessary but the personal experience of improving one's lifestyle habits such that sickness is never experienced no matter how many "germs" one is exposed to. In any event, the information is readily available. I didn’t make up that explanation about the natives, I learned it from other people. All you need is an open mind and a strong resolve to uncover and understand the truth. If I can do it, anybody can.

Anyone who has a sincere desire to learn more about what I've written here may find my discussion list helpful. The list is not very active these days but there are a great deal of archived conversations that may have the answers you seek or at least places to look to get your questions answered. Just go to my homepage and click on the “discussion list” button at the top.

Appreciation and best wishes,
Nora
www.RawSchool.com

Horsea:

nature does make "mistakes"
they are called genetic mutations
they even occur in non human species, like plants
though i do concur that a lot of mutations were caused by environmental "mistakes"
i.e. diet or ( in the case of plants) heavy metals in the soil etc.

Nora, are you saying that Natives dropped dead in the thousands because they adopted the European's lifestyle practices?

That is historically inaccurate.

I figure the following 2 questions might be examples of what Nora is referring to when she says nobody can provide enough answers to germ-theory believers to
make them see the light:

1. If there are no pathogens, just "eliminative symptoms", then why is it that ONLY people EXPOSED to ebola get ebola-like symptoms (like bleeding from the orifices), and ONLY people EXPOSED to leprosy get leprosy-like symptoms (like losing their body parts), and ONLY people EXPOSED to chicken pox get chicken pox-like symptoms (like spots on their skin)?

2. During epidemics, why has quaranteen historically been shown to stem the spread of the symptoms associated with that epidemic?

Well, since Nora has asked us to be logical and have an open mind, I'll probably want to consider those questions even though Nora has "a lot of projects going on" and can't answer them for me.

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

I'd also like to comment on Nora's assertion that the reason why native Americans died after exposure to Europeans was because the native Americans adopted the Europeans' destructive lifestyle.

Let's apply that same theory to native Hawaiians. In the first century after the arrival of Captain Cook, the native Hawaiian population decreased from around 300,000 to less that 34,000. Hundreds of thousands of native Hawaiians died after experiencing symptoms commonly associated with chicken pox, measles, and the common cold. Those symptoms were previously UNKNOWN to native Hawaiians, even on their deathbeds. Yet while all these native Hawaiians died, the caucasians THRIVED.

Even putting aside the very relevant issue of specific symptoms, the fact is, most Hawaiians did NOT willingly adapt to any part of the caucasian lifestyle, which is why the caucasians had to import the Chinese for working on the plantations. The Hawaiians had their land, and it was much easier to live as they had lived for centuries. In fact, most of the Hawaiians didn't abandon their native Hawaiian lifestyle until after The Great Mahele (the Kuleana Act of 1850: the law that basically pulled the land out from under them).

Also, the theory ASSUMES that people who engage in "flagrantly destructive lifestyle habits" for a LONG time have a better chance of surviving than people who engage in "flagrantly destructive lifestyle habits" for a SHORT time. That doesn't make much sense to me. I mean, take for example people who use hard drugs or smoke cigarettes.

And then the idea that so many of these indigenous people wouldn't have died if only they'd known that all they had to do was fast amd rest and let Nature take it's course. Wow, it's really difficult for me to restrain myself on that one!
It may be SOMEWHAT true, but I think we should also try to remember that such eliminative procedures as fasting and sweats plus a proximity to and absolute reliance on Nature for basic day to day survival were all very much a part of indigenous existence. While we're assuming all kinds of things, we could just as easily assume that, given the indigenous lifestyle, a very large proportion of sick people fasted and rested to try to get well, but they died anyway. After all, the Hawaiians didn't know diddly squat about germ theory, so why WOULDN'T they have fasted?

Nora, you say that "understanding the truth....begins with an open mind and ends (with) the personal experience of improving one's lifestyle habits such that sickness is never experienced no matter how many 'germs' one is exposed to." But having a "healthy immune system" (to fight the germs that you're exposed to) could explain your experience just as well as the theory that germs don't exist at all; so if you completely dismiss any possible alternative, how is that an indication of having an open mind? And when anyone comes to a conclusion based on so many assumptions, and yet they are so certain of being
right that they call their conclusions the "truth", then how is that an indication of an open mind? Isn't there even the slightest possibility that there might be some law of nature that could have been overlooked? Does personal opinion come into the picture anywhere, or is it just "the truth"?

I think people who become any kind of "guru" - raw food or otherwise - need to be very watchful for "guru complex": the belief that a person is all-knowing about whatever they strive to teach, and in the case of raw food, the belief that knowing a lot about raw food is like understanding the universe. I don't mean to offend, but Nora, if no one else is reminding you of that, maybe it's time.

Raw food is good. It's real. Detox is real. But just because we can know that and do that doesn't make us all that special. Just ask the fish and the birds and all the other critters. We humans are just struggling to make it up to their level.

Best wishes, -Ally



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2006 12:52AM by Ally.

Nice post Ally.

I don't think Nora really believes that the Natives all died because they started living and thinking like whites.

I mean, she certainly has read enough history to know that's just not what happened (at least not for dozens, often hundreds of years).

You posed some good questions that I don't think are capable of being answered without stepping outside of the religious belief system Nora has spent years building up for herself (not to mention evidently built a livelihood on). It's akin to the Pope admiting he doesn't really believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, probably too much to ask.

>>there is no such thing as a "pathogen"<<

>>acute disease is always a self-limiting, constructive process undertaken solely at the body's discretion and initiation for the purpose of eliminating toxic accumulation.<<

Nora, I think you're giving the human body way too much credit, and are not seeing the big picture. The term "always" should not be used so lightly.

I can appreciate the idea that the human body might interact with microorganisms in such a way that infection, and subsequent elimanatory processes are ultimately beneficial to the host. But sometimes the host dies. Is death a self limiting outcome? I guess when you're dead it can't get any worse

Pathogens (a relative term) are just organisms like the birds and trees, trying to survive and make a niche for themselves. They use their hosts for food and as vehicles for reproduction. Sometimes the host is able to fend off the pathogen (or possibly use it for beneficial purposes - I'd love to seem some research that supports this), and sometimes it does not.

I was under the impression that a pathogen by definition is a malevolent organism where as a probiotic err... something... bacteria or something... is a good microorganism.
What I do remember from first year bio is that a symbiotic relationsship is one where both organisms benefit from each other where as a parassitical one is a relationship where one organism benefits from at the cost of the other. The other organism loses in the relationship as opposed to gaining something but does not die. A predatory relationship is similar but the other organism dies such as lion eating antelope type stuff.

Excuse me while I dig myself out of the predicted barrage. I guess I get a little spoiled participating on the other boards I frequent where people don't insult or deliberately bait each other, and there is mutual respect and a friendly tone.

When a person feels the need to get personal, it's revealing of the emotional attachment that the person feels to his/her beliefs and ideas. It's a whole lot easier on both sides of the debate if people can leave off the personal insults and just express themselves calmly and dispassionately. Pretty please?

I'm not a fast writer. It can take me an hour or more sometimes to compose a post. I know it may sound like a cop-out but when I'm bombarded with questions that require long explanations, I'm not able to do them justice, and I don't think it's fair for the merits of hygienic principles to be judged by how much time I can devote to explaining them. In addition to that, the people who are asking the questions are invariably the ones who have some personal or emotional stake in the germ theory and are not inclined to be open to my answers anyway. Therefore, it makes more sense for me to refer the others who are reading this thread and who ARE open enough to seek out the information to the places where they can find it. Plus, importantly, I like to share information that is practical and usable by transitioning raw fooders, and these kinds of discussions don't fall into that category.

I'll try to hit the high points, but I'll also provide some links below for anyone who has a genuine interest in uncovering the truth about disease causality.

Firstly, we have to wonder what would motivate a historical researcher who doesn't have a clue that his diet causes his sickness to make the connection between what the natives ate (and smoked, and drank) and their disease. The people who write the history books are all believers in the germ theory. They have the perfect explanation for the disease, and it always works in every situation because germs are EVERYWHERE. That's why in all accounts of historical events where disease is a factor, the germ theory is always invoked. They are not inclined to consider other possible explanations for natives becoming ill and dying.

***Ally wrote: "Those symptoms were previously UNKNOWN to native Hawaiians, even on their deathbeds. Yet while all these native Hawaiians died, the caucasians THRIVED.
Even putting aside the very relevant issue of specific symptoms, the fact is, most Hawaiians did NOT willingly adapt to any part of the caucasian lifestyle, which is why the caucasians had to import the Chinese for working on the plantations. The Hawaiians had their land, and it was much easier to live as they had lived for centuries. In fact, most of the Hawaiians didn't abandon their native Hawaiian lifestyle until after The Great Mahele (the Kuleana Act of 1850: the law that basically pulled the land out from under them).
Also, the theory ASSUMES that people who engage in "flagrantly destructive lifestyle habits" for a LONG time have a better chance of surviving than people who engage in "flagrantly destructive lifestyle habits" for a SHORT time. That doesn't make much sense to me. I mean, take for example people who use hard drugs or smoke cigarettes." ***

I'd like to suggest you do some reading in the hygienic literature about the laws that govern life, Ally, specifically one that is easily observable in your own life called the "Law of Vital Accommodation". It simply states that any deleterious influence that the body can't stop or escape from, it adapts to. That's why alcoholics can drink a pint of booze and not get 'drunk' and babies typically get symptoms the first few times they are fed cooked food. The Europeans had the advantage of having participated in these harmful practices their whole lives, and their bodies had slowly adapted to them, as ours do. I guarantee, the same thing would happen today if we introduced our habits to indigenous people. The people would become ill, and if they treated their symptoms, some would die.

I guess you could say the caucasian/Europeans "thrived", if you judge their level of health against that of people whose bodies were in the throes of righteously rejecting new poisons. However, that's not my definition of the word "thrive". I'd say the way the natives were living before the conquerers came along truly fits that description. By comparison to THAT standard, the Europeans were quite sickly.

For jono, I repeat:

"acute disease is always a self-limiting, constructive process undertaken solely at the body's discretion and initiation for the purpose of eliminating toxic accumulation."

There is no need to be discretionary with the word "always" when referring to a universal law, such as the one above. Universal laws ALWAYS apply, that's why they're called 'universal'.

A "pathogen" is simply a disease-causing organism ("pathos" means disease). No organism except itself is capable of causing disease; therefore, the very concept of "pathogen" is false.

The laws of nature aren't determined by human consensus. Obviously there are a lot more believers in the germ theory on this board that those who are willing to question it. That doesn't make it valid. How about if the people who are so full of objections to hygienic explanations of disease just chalk it up to difference of 'opinion', and I provide some links for those who are intrigued enough to look further? I'm happy to leave it at that, even if the above posters feel the need to make further comment on my remarks here. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[www.soilandhealth.org] See: /02/0201hyglibcat/020125shelton.pristine/020125ch39.htm
[www.rawfoodexplained.com] See:/contagion-epidemics/
[www.rawfoodexplained.com] See:/the-laws-of-life/

Nora
www.RawSchool.com

Narz - I know what you mean! I have often wondered this myself. But I think I have an answer for you.

Nora - There is no need for you to insult microbiology majors. Us science lovers love the search for truth and are able to consider differing, plausible theories without putting anyone down.

Ok so there is the:

A) Conventional medical school of thought which says that microbes cause disease; and

The above theory (like Nora's) which says that the body creates the disease itself.

The answer, I believe, lies somewhere in the middle. What is the exact pathway to disease? That's what I want to know. Medicine saying that microbes cause disease is only half the story, because it doesn't explain all the people who come in contact with that same microbe yet don't get sick. On the other hand, Nora's theory cannot explain chickenpox nor the Native Americans.

First of all, bacteria have been around a lot longer than we have, so clearly they're out there and not something that our bodies created as a way to detoxify (bacteria have their own DNA). A bacterial infection is an acute, localized infection - meaning it only affects the body at the specific site of infection (like how conjuctivitis only affects the eye). Curiously, our immune system doesn't seem to learn immunity against specific bacteria as it does with viruses.

Viruses - Now viruses I think are quite interesting. They do not have their own DNA and are completely dependent on the host for multiplication --- and here is where Nora is correct - they can only prey on a WEAK host - or Narz, to answer your question - an UNSUSPECTING host.

There are 2 types of immunity - the one we were born with, and the one our bodies developed as a response to exposure to infections such as chickenpox. The reason the Native Americans had no immunity to smallpox is because their immune systems had never been exposed to it. And the reason that smallpox was around in the first place is because the Europeans were filthy and susceptible to the proliferation of nasty microbes. Filth is weakness and viruses love weakness.

Now, to what extent does a raw food diet confer immunity against viruses? Will a raw child who's never been exposed to chickenpox still get chickenpox, once exposed to it? Would we, as adult raw foodists who can be reasonably assured of strength against the viruses around us, still be susceptible to something completely foreign, like Ebola?

I am going to keep searching for the answers.

I think the answer is that, through raw food and healthy living for all mankind, we need to put the lid back on the Pandora's box of pathogenic microbes that we've released as a result of our unhealthy lifestyles which have weakened us and allowed the proliferation of all these microbes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2006 04:22PM by sunshine79.

Oh and one more thing -

Nora, you are so confident in this untested theory of yours. I invite you to test it with me. Let's travel to Africa - I'll wear a biohazard suit and you can go plainclothes, we'll find someone with Ebola and see if you get it. Anytime you're ready.

Until then, you cannot go spouting these untested theories of yours as if they are the ultimate truth. They are not fact, but merely YOUR theory.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2006 05:24PM by sunshine79.

rawnora Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not a fast writer. It can take me an hour or
> more sometimes to compose a post. I know it may
> sound like a cop-out but when I'm bombarded with
> questions that require long explanations, I'm not
> able to do them justice, and I don't think it's
> fair for the merits of hygienic principles to be
> judged by how much time I can devote to explaining
> them.

Nora, it's not about time, it's about actually explaining them. If a post this long takes you an hour it looks like you've spent twenty minutes out of your hour (the first two paragraphs and this one) complaining.

So far your posts have been very long and not really explained anything. Quality not quantity.

> In addition to that, the people who are
> asking the questions are invariably the ones who
> have some personal or emotional stake in the germ
> theory and are not inclined to be open to my
> answers anyway. Therefore, it makes more sense
> for me to refer the others who are reading this
> thread and who ARE open enough to seek out the
> information to the places where they can find it.

Quick to prejudge, eh?

> Plus, importantly, I like to share information
> that is practical and usable by transitioning raw
> fooders, and these kinds of discussions don't fall
> into that category.
>

In other words, you can't answer the questions. So much for your UNIVERSAL laws.

> I'll try to hit the high points, but I'll also
> provide some links below for anyone who has a
> genuine interest in uncovering the truth about
> disease causality.
>
> Firstly, we have to wonder what would motivate a
> historical researcher who doesn't have a clue that
> his diet causes his sickness to make the
> connection between what the natives ate (and
> smoked, and drank) and their disease. The people
> who write the history books are all believers in
> the germ theory. They have the perfect
> explanation for the disease, and it always works
> in every situation because germs are EVERYWHERE.
> That's why in all accounts of historical events
> where disease is a factor, the germ theory is
> always invoked. They are not inclined to consider
> other possible explanations for natives becoming
> ill and dying.
>

Nora. The natives weren't getting ill and dying at the massive rates until the Europeans came. THat is what we are talking about here. Continuing to bring the discussion back the the control factor (their diets, which did not drastically change until years after the whites arrived) is irrelevant.

> ***Ally wrote: "Those symptoms were previously
> UNKNOWN to native Hawaiians, even on their
> deathbeds. Yet while all these native Hawaiians
> died, the caucasians THRIVED.
> Even putting aside the very relevant issue of
> specific symptoms, the fact is, most Hawaiians did
> NOT willingly adapt to any part of the caucasian
> lifestyle, which is why the caucasians had to
> import the Chinese for working on the plantations.
> The Hawaiians had their land, and it was much
> easier to live as they had lived for centuries. In
> fact, most of the Hawaiians didn't abandon their
> native Hawaiian lifestyle until after The Great
> Mahele (the Kuleana Act of 1850: the law that
> basically pulled the land out from under them).
> Also, the theory ASSUMES that people who engage in
> "flagrantly destructive lifestyle habits" for a
> LONG time have a better chance of surviving than
> people who engage in "flagrantly destructive
> lifestyle habits" for a SHORT time. That doesn't
> make much sense to me. I mean, take for example
> people who use hard drugs or smoke cigarettes."
> ***
>
> I'd like to suggest you do some reading in the
> hygienic literature about the laws that govern
> life, Ally, specifically one that is easily
> observable in your own life called the "Law of
> Vital Accommodation". It simply states that any
> deleterious influence that the body can't stop or
> escape from, it adapts to. That's why alcoholics
> can drink a pint of booze and not get 'drunk' and
> babies typically get symptoms the first few times
> they are fed cooked food. The Europeans had the
> advantage of having participated in these harmful
> practices their whole lives, and their bodies had
> slowly adapted to them, as ours do. I guarantee,
> the same thing would happen today if we introduced
> our habits to indigenous people. The people would
> become ill, and if they treated their symptoms,
> some would die.
>

As we've already discussed we're not talking about the European's habits. Are you listening?

> I guess you could say the caucasian/Europeans
> "thrived", if you judge their level of health
> against that of people whose bodies were in the
> throes of righteously rejecting new poisons.
> However, that's not my definition of the word
> "thrive". I'd say the way the natives were living
> before the conquerers came along truly fits that
> description. By comparison to THAT standard, the
> Europeans were quite sickly.
>

If the European's were so "sickly" they wouldn't have survived their journeys. When it comes to ocean voyages of thousands of miles back in the 15-1800's only the strong survived.

> For jono, I repeat:
>
> "acute disease is always a self-limiting,
> constructive process undertaken solely at the
> body's discretion and initiation for the purpose
> of eliminating toxic accumulation."
>
> There is no need to be discretionary with the word
> "always" when referring to a universal law, such
> as the one above. Universal laws ALWAYS apply,
> that's why they're called 'universal'.
>
> A "pathogen" is simply a disease-causing organism
> ("pathos" means disease). No organism except
> itself is capable of causing disease; therefore,
> the very concept of "pathogen" is false.
>

You're wrong. That's like saying no organism except itself is capable of injuring itself. If you really believe that please lock yourself in a cage with a hungry tiger.

> The laws of nature aren't determined by human
> consensus. Obviously there are a lot more
> believers in the germ theory on this board that
> those who are willing to question it. That
> doesn't make it valid. How about if the people
> who are so full of objections to hygienic
> explanations of disease just chalk it up to
> difference of 'opinion', and I provide some links
> for those who are intrigued enough to look
> further? I'm happy to leave it at that, even if
> the above posters feel the need to make further
> comment on my remarks here. Thanks for the
> interesting discussion.
>

Sure, difference of opinion. Only one problem, you claim to know the truth while everyone else here is WRONG. Any intelligent person surely acknowledges that attitude, fitness and diet play a part in the strength of one's immune system, however to deny completely that parasitical organisms exist has always struck me as patently ridiculous. You're lack of a real explination for any ratitonal reason for this belief can only confirmed that.


sunshine79 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Until then, you cannot go spouting these untested
> theories of yours as if they are the ultimate
> truth. They are not fact, but merely YOUR theory.


Nu-uh, they are UNIVERSAL LAWS!!1!!!11!!

Sunshine79,
As you would see if you'd take a look at the links I provided, these are not "my" theories, and they are not "untested".

I'll take your challenge. In fact, I've made the offer before, publicly, many times. So far nobody who has issued the challenge has been interested in following through. Realistically, there would be problems to overcome like forced vaccination, forced medicating, legal/liability issues, cost, etc., but if you or anyone else is willing to overcome these, I am game.

Narz,
I won't be taking any more bait. Thanks again for the discussion.

Sincerely,
Nora
www.RawSchool.com

Nora wrote:
>>No organism except itself is capable of causing disease; therefore, the very concept of "pathogen" is false.<<

Narz wrote:
>>That's like saying no organism except itself is capable of injuring itself. If you really believe that please lock yourself in a cage with a hungry tiger.<<

Narz, that's the point I was trying to make, but you did it much more colorfully =)

It seems, on one level, Nora is just arguing over semantics, saying that disease is caused by the body. Well as they say it takes two to tango right? But who's leading the dance? What's the difference, you say tomato, I say tomahto. Tomato, tomahto. Lets call the whole thing off!(Fred Astaire, ah thank you).

i like fred
he wuz a startlingly startling starrtttttling dancer
you can have the tohmato jono

i'll take the tomatoee

nora is brave

rawnora Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Horsea,
> It's true that nature never makes mistakes, and
> when it appears so it's only because we don't
> understand what's going on. However, there is no
> such thing as a "pathogen", and the reason Narz
> posted the question is because he knows I
> subscribe to a set of principles which holds that
> acute disease is always a self-limiting,
> constructive process undertaken solely at the
> body's discretion and initiation for the purpose
> of eliminating toxic accumulation.

>
"Pathogen" as I use the word just means it is the immediate cause of that group of unpleasant symptoms that signifies that our poor beleaguered body is trying to correct itself. I try to avoid the term "clean out" if I can; I prefer to say, "get back into balance", but I know what people mean and am not criticizing.

Elsewhere, someone here insisted that nature DOES make mistakes, e.g., "genetic mutations". Those are not mistakes, they are nature's logical response.

After reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, I'm inclined to believe that the Native American were probably made to live in conditions that were not the lifestyle of the hunter gather's that they once were. The Native Americans were constantly relocated by the American government, and forced to move out of their ancestral homes. If the modern reservation is any indication of what things may have been like 150 years ago, I could see how these folks got sick and died.

By the way, smallpox is the result of people living in bad sanitary conditions. Improve the sewage and waste disposal systems of a society, and the disease disappears.

Bryan, the relocations began decades after the inital wave of disease. You guys have to face that you won't be able to find a tidy answer to this question.

As for smallpox being a result of "bad sanitary conditions" you're obviously wrong because again, the Native Americans who died from it did not drastically alter their lifestyle until forced to by whites. Such a disease may crop up originally in such conditions but once it's on the loose you can no longer expect rectifying the original conditions to be enough.