Narz,

You are stating a "theory", the germ theory and smallpox, which there is no way in the world you could prove to me (or vice versa), other than to cite what other have written about. Given that neither you or I could prove our points of view to each other, why do we need to discuss this?

If germ theory works for you, then live by it. In that case, keep yourself in a antiseptic environment, wash your hands all the time, and you'll never get sick. For me, I am going to live in a health promoting (or hygienic) fashion, and we'll see if I get sick. So far, its been working great for me, as I have not been sick other than detoxes.

I wish you the best Bryan.

What "works" for me or you in the short term is irrelevant to what is true.

The fact is your explinations are not adaquete to explain mass extinctions of people who did not radicially alter their lifestyles.

It doesn't reflect poorly on you as a person Bryan, it's a hole in your theory, not you.

It's ok to think outside the box sometimes. You remind me a bit sometimes of a guy called rmsharpe on a gaming forum I post at. Except his bag is the GOP. If there's a thread about liberals and conservatives I can always predict what the tone and flavor of his posts will be in advance.

It's neither good nor bad, just interesting to note. Consistancy is a desirable trait in many ways.

Anyway, best of health to you Bryan. It wouldn't be the same here without you.

bryan is consistent
as the grass growing from the soil
the apples dropping from the trees
the little bugs emerging from the earth
as narz is consistent in imploring the truth

two consistent people on this board
how 'bou THAT!

Bryan:
>>If germ theory works for you, then live by it. In that case, keep yourself in a antiseptic environment, wash your hands all the time, and you'll never get sick<<

Bryan, you're twisting the argument, and not addressing the points Narz has made.

Most health-conscious people these days know full well that microbes are our friends, and that living in a bubble will weaken your immune system, increase your allergies, and damage your health overall.

Sorry, that statement just bothered me

Jono,

Thanks you for pointing that out! I didn't see that I was twisting his argument.

NNNNNarz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?
>

It seems to be like you are mixing a few slightly different points here.

First, you are assumming that the natives were actually optimally healthy in their lifestyles. It seems to me that from historical studies, and in comparison with our relatives in the wild, general human health started declining with the advent of agriculture all those thousands of years ago, epecially the switch to a cooked and grain-based diet. This predates the examples given so I would not have thought that the natives were optimally healthy.

This influences the second point, which is that viruses seem to "prey" on people with compromised immune systems, ie weakened by poisons of one kind or another, be they legal/illegal drugs, bad diet, environmental pollutants, heavy emotional distress, etc...

There is clear evidence that this is the case, viruses affect "weakened" individuals much more than healthier ones.

> 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.
>

Following up on this point, a counterexample which immediately presents itself is the case of the eskimoes, and how much their health has deteriorated as they have taken on western influences in their diets. Globally, there are numerous studies showing, for example, that breast cancer has increased 80% in the UK in the last 30 years (you can google that). Very unlikely to be a genetic cause (or a germ cause), most likely due to increased toxins getting into womens bodies through the form of worsening diets, legal/illegal drugs, increased environmental pollutants, etc... The trend of increasing morbidity with increased toxic load on the body is evident from any study you care to read. Just look at the life expectancy rates in the most polluted cities in the world (around 40 years in the top ten most polluted cities, you can google that too).


> 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.

See my first point, relating to optimal health. The cooked, grain-based diet of the Mexicans is not an ideal diet for human health in my opinion. Therefore, it is not a relevant example on which to base your contention that germs cause disease.

Presumably they were had no
> beliefs about smallpox at all never having been
> exposed to it?
>

My own personal opinion is that the terrain theory is much more logical although a lot less investigated, to be sure. Why that is the case, just consider how many billions the pharmaceuticals would lose if research into the terrain theory eventually validated it. If you were a big CEO of such a company (not that I would wish that to my worst enemy), and in great part controlled the funding for research, would you seriously consider going down this avenue of research? In any case, in real life it doesn't happen because of money.

The bodies response to an overload of toxins, the molecular response to cooking and eating cooked foods, and its effect on our DNA, the cellular changes which accompany a more biologically appropriate diet, etc... many interesting questions which hopefully someone will look into one day in great deal and test the terrain theory.

It makes sense, and indeed is experimentally observed, that bacteria and viruses have different growth rates under lab conditions depending on their surroundings (pH, temperature, oxygen, etc..) Does it not make sense that this occurs in the body too then? I think so.
It is also experimetanlly confirmed that increased toxic loads will tend to change the internal conditions inside the human body(pH, etc..), so a causal link from diet/environment to internal conditions has also been made in numerous studies.
It should not be too great a leap, once ancient prejudices have been left on the side of the road, that the way we treat our body/mind greatly determines our morbidity, and not germs, which after all are a constant presence in our lives.

An analogy that just occured to me which might be useful for some people is that all organisms have certain environmental conditions where they thrive in. We humans are lucky(?) in that , through artificial means (by building houses, etc..) we can greatly expand that spectrum of environmental conditions. Bacteria and viruses, on the other hand, don't have this option to a great extent (disregarding latent stages of survival). So think of them as inhabitants of a land who cannot stand the light from the sun. In a clean body, this land is flat and the bacteria will simply shrivel up and not do too much. However, meteorites and other external objects (exterior toxins) hitting our land create big holes and craters which lend some shade to the bacteria to live in. More and more craters harbour more and more bacteria, which begin to multiply, creating tunnels, etc... which then ultimately lead to the infertility and collapse of the land (our bodies).

The truth is undoubtedly far more complicated, but I think this analogy contains in it a bit of the truth.

Cheers,
J

I read an article, think a magazine, forgot where, where some girl (I think 15 or around there) got bitten by a dog with "rabies", and the doctor, instead of giving her a vaccine or w/e, gave her a drug to put her into a coma, and after like 2 weeks, with her body fully focused on healing, she came out ok.

So I would want to know, what would happen if I sex with people with AIDs and genital herpes.

>>So I would want to know, what would happen if I sex with people with AIDs and genital herpes.<<

They will be cured!!!Eating raw gives you super powers =)

On the HIV/AIDS hoax [www.duesberg.com].

Cheers,
J

Thanks for your posts, Jose, which I agree with. Nice to have you here to politely express some unpopular views. Have you ever read the banned-in-US book by Brian Ellison, "Why We Will Never Win The War on AIDS"?

Interesting guy, Duesberg, thanks for the link Jose.

He also has some ideas about cancer (blaming aneuploidy - and aneuploidogens - rather than oncogenes):
[mcb.berkeley.edu]
[www.mercola.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2006 06:37AM by jono.

Hi Horsea, thanks, I haven't read that book but I'll keep an eye out for it.

Hey jono, thanks, I read his ideas about cancer and they are indeed quite interesting, will find out more about it. I found the way a reputable scientist is ostracised because he investigates ideas outside of the mainstream quite demoralising and sad. A sad state of affairs when the people in control of science funding can limit scientific freedom so much.

Cheers,
J

It all makes sense now!!!

Jose, thank you for the reminder that blood pH is actually what enables micro-organisms to thrive - your post really clarified the issue!

In Gabriel Cousens' book he included a quote from Louis Pasteur, the father of germ theory - that Pasteur said on his deathbed & which I'll paraphrase - "Tell the world I was wrong - the germ is nothing; the terrain is everything."

As a science lover, medicine has puzzled me for years & years & years, ever since I exhausted my school library of all medical texts and still my curiosity was not satisfied --- I could see that most diseases were somehow inter-related but something was missing -- and now that missing piece has been found, and now I get it!! Thanks to Gabriel Cousens, and Jose, and this debate.

Return the blood pH to normal, and there is no disease. All disease is the same, just the symptoms are different.

Nora, you are correct.

This is the ONLY explanation that makes sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2006 04:17PM by sunshine79.

I wonder about genetically inherited diseases though???

Hmm.

Seems to me that whether I'm healthy or not, I'm going to wear a bio suit when working with anthrax.

Here, I have an invitation for you. Consider it a proof test. If you truly believe, I mean, really, really, really believe that a given virus will not harm you because you're on a great 100% clean, raw, organic, sun diet, then hop on a plane to Africa, hit the Ebola hot spot, and take a deep breath. Let me know how it works out for you.

Now it may seem to some that I'm being a smarty pants; I'm not. I'm being real; truthfully, I don't care how healthy I become, I'll never think that I'm immune from the effects of a given virus.

Thanks,

Arilraw

arilraw, that is so funny, that was almost my exact same challenge to Nora when this thread was originally started - she said OK, which I thought was crazy, but now I realize it isn't. I'll tell you what, I'm 99% certain of this, but I'm leaving room for correction just in case this is not the way it really is. Until I find EXACT scientific proof, I wouldn't take that 1% chance!

Maybe one day...

(but Nora said she'd do it!)


(I don't agree with all of Nora's assertions though - pathogens do exist, that's been proven, you can see them under a microscope --- just the general principle of blood pH being key, that's the important part I think)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2006 07:21PM by sunshine79.

>Following up on this point, a counterexample which immediately presents itself is the case of the eskimoes, and how much their health has deteriorated as they have taken on western influences in their diets. Globally, there are numerous studies

Jose, this isn't a good example. Prior to the 50s, eskimo lifespan was exceptionally short: very few of them made it past 40. They are constantly cited as an ethnic group, when eating their native diets, having very low CHD risks and that is true, but they did die more and sooner from other causes.

True, I also read about eskimos being "healthily" looking until about the age of 30, after which their health would dramatically detoriate and they would die. I think that this is what one can expect wyhen eating their diet.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Wow. Seems I was edited; actually my post was removed.

I see all opinions are not welcome.

I'll be more aware of that.

Arilraw

Hey arugula, it is true that the Eskimo (Inuit) lifespan has increased in the last fifty years, but I was arguing that their health has deteriorated in these fifty years, the two are not necessarily positively correlated. The life of an Eskimo was incredibly harsh before better housing, transport, etc... so it is not surprising they died from other causes than bad health. Modern day Eskimos live longer but have worse health than their predecessors. Incidence of diabetes and CHD are much higher now than it was back then, when also taking into account the lifespan changes. I had written a bigger response earlier with references but the window closed and I'm afraid I have to rush a litte now. So I think that in that context the analogy still makes some sense.

Hey sunshine79, glad it all makes some sense now there's of course still quite a few unanswered questions but many pieces of the puzzle fit into place when one makes that paradigm shift. As to what Nora was refering to, that there are no pathogens, it can be understood in this way: if pathogens are defined to be things that have the intrinsic property that they create disease, then it is fair to say that there are none, since as we can agree disease results from imbalances such as pH and other internal conditions which allow pathogens to reproduce and deteriorate internal conditions further. So in Nora's view, and I am not quite as bold as that but can see her point, there are no "pahtogens" in the sense that there are no organisms which intrinsically produce disease, but rather that only under the appropriate conditions do they produce disease. So all things are environmental dependent, in other words, and even viruses, such as the Ebola virus, will not be harmful to its host under certain conditions.

Cheers,
J

"So in Nora's view, and I am not quite as bold as that but can see her point, there are no "pahtogens" in the sense that there are no organisms which intrinsically produce disease, but rather that only under the appropriate conditions do they produce disease."

This is how I think of disease too.

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams