[drbenkim.com]

I thought this was interesting.

_______________________________

Proverbs 15:17 (New International Version) "Better a meal of vegetables where there is love than a fattened calf with hatred."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2007 01:08AM by Felix.

colds and flus are not caused by viruses, so I'm confused as to what is interesting about the article ?

Colds are caused by any one of approximately 200 different viruses; rhinoviruses cause about 50% of all colds, coronavirus 15-20%.

Influenzae is caused by a variety of RNA viruses. They have H spikes and N spikes, and these spikes can undergo antigenic shifting. You might have seen the subtypes H1N1, H3N2, etc. They keep changing!

Viruses are so cool. They are just genetic material surrounded by a protein sheath. Sometimes they have spikes to help them latch on when they have bumped into a suitable living cell substrate. They aren't "alive" until they enter a living cell, then they take over its replicative machinery to replicate themselves. Their component parts build up inside a host cell, they assemble themselves, and then they burst free, drifting along until they bump into another living cell to repeat the cycle.


Bacteriophage viruses are the coolest looking things. Too cool to be real. They have an icosahedron for a protein sheath.

I wonder if those that believe that viruses and bacteria cause colds and flus get colds and flus themselves?

I would think that it is very difficult to believe that they do cause colds and flus if you have made a dietary change as many have here and don't get sick anymore.

I have to agree with fresh. I don't get colds and flus when I am exposed to people with colds and flus. I do experience detoxification symptoms when my lifestyle is such that my body can't adequately detoxify itself because of the various lifestyle choices that I have made (not getting enough sleep, working too much, eating too many less than healthy foods, etc).

One thing that drastically changed for me after being raw was losing the fear of being around "contagious"ly sick people. This thread reminded me how grateful I feel for that shift in perspective.

Love,
Uma

I think the argument in this thread is confusing because colds and flues are considered types of virus. the argument would be if illness is caused by 'germs' or whether you can catch a 'virus' which is something people would figure out for themselves I think.

personally i've always wanted to really sit in on a debate between someone well versed in hygiene and someone in a more allopathtic bent. not just one persons argument stacked against another which is what you get from books.

theres a few things like bacteria, filth, bug bites, communicable disease, etc...which i've never been able to hammer out for myself whether I understand them or not. I guess you could group many of them under 'poisons' which the body would have to get rid of through nasty symptoms.

I don't see how you can argue that the Flu and Colds are not caused by viruses?

Unless, what you are arguing is the definition of "Cause."

A person would never get a cold or flu if it weren't for the viruses.

A person with a strong immune system can come in contact with the viruses without getting sick.

A person without a strong (enough) immune system may get sick after contact and reproduction of the virus.


I'd say that the "Cause" is the virus, but the health of the body and the immune system is what does or doesn't "Allow" it to take hold.

By the way, I'm not arguing what makes one feel sick or bad, just what starts it.

I love how arugula always tries to back up her opinions with science.

thanks agugula for the insight on viruses. that spider virus is very cool, indeed. It reminds me of one of Sid's toys in the Pixar moive, Toy Story (the 'bad' kid that tortures toys). It could be a random battle monster in a role playing game or adventure like comic.

Arugula, i know this is a little personal, and u don't have to answer. Just out of curiosity how old are u and what is your profession?

since a shift in my lifestyle that inspired me to eat all raw foods I have found that when someone is sick it is better to let the body rest and actually eat less then usual. This is very different then what I have been brought up to make sure to eat enough so the body gets nutrients? I suppose this could have to do with the idea of an unhealthier body having a lower immunity to a virus?

why do people give or make u chicken soup when u are sick?

let me clarify. i know that we all have our views, but it would be better for all if we would realize that our current views are not necessarily true, since we have all changed our mind on various things over the years. even knowing this, we still seem to think that our current state of knowledge is correct, and we are extremely resistant to change.

in this vein - i held a view on global warming. i recently came across opposing information which has made me question my stance.

in addition, the fact that "every scientist" will tell you that colds and flus are caused by viruses/bacteria is no indication of truth whatsoever, just the same as hiv causes aids". there are many incorrect paradigms that are held by the majority that are not true, and there is much fame and money and politics involved in social decisions and views.

and may i state the obvious, which is that the coexistence of viruses with colds means nothing, and does not imply causation, just as the coexistence of flies and garbage does not imply that the flies caused the garbage.

Before commenting point by point, let me stress that anaken did not answer my question as to whether she gets colds and flus and whether this impacts her decision making process on this issue. I await the answer to this question.

and consider my case, one of many. i used to get colds and flus. i changed my diet and lifestyle. i no longer get colds and flus. this is not a matter of months, but many years. have all the viruses and bacteria vacated the city that i live in? what other conclusion can i draw? we cannot say, as someone does below, and as official govt sources say, well, viruses and bacteria cause colds and flus, but strengthen your "immune system", and eat a good diet, etc. either they cause the disease or they do not, and they clearly do not satisfy koch's postulates, no more than hiv and aids.


>I don't see how you can argue that the Flu and Colds are not caused by viruses?
Unless, what you are arguing is the definition of "Cause."
A person would never get a cold or flu if it weren't for the viruses.

this is unproven and illogical. viruses and bacteria, as we know, are omnipresent. the falsity of this paradigm can be clearly demonstrated, as i have said, by a little personal experimentation.

>A person with a strong immune system can come in contact with the viruses without getting sick.A person without a strong (enough) immune system may get sick after contact and reproduction of the virus.

first of all, there is no such system as the "immune system".
various real parts of the body (circulatory, lymph, etc) keep the body healthy, but there is no "system". this "system" suddenly came into our medical schooling very recently.

secondly, it is the common cop out of the medical establishment to claim that the cause is the germ, but "eat a good diet, and keep your immune system strong"
meanwhile, they have no clue as to what a good diet is (which is the cause of the illness).

a true disease vector with true causation would occur in all individuals exposed. to bring in the "immune system" simply admits the error of the paradigm.


>since a shift in my lifestyle that inspired me to eat all raw foods I have found that when someone is sick it is better to let the body rest and actually eat less then usual. This is very different then what I have been brought up to make sure to eat enough so the body gets nutrients? I suppose this could have to do with the idea of an unhealthier body having a lower immunity to a virus?

if someone is sick, that someone has made an error in their health practices. this is another problem with this whole thing - blaming viruses and bacteria takes the focus off of ourselves and our responsibility for our health and perhaps our inability to understand the cause of health.

And ALL RAW FOODS does not create health. There are many other factors (diet and otherwise) which will cause a state where no "illness" occurs. if you eat a RAW DIET and still get sick , of course you're going to believe that viruses cause colds, because you're eating the PERFECT DIET, right?

This is very interesting, perfect timing to have this discussion!

My oldest daughter stopped by with such a bad flu a couple of weeks ago, and being the mom that I am, I couldn't resist putting her to bed at my place for a few hours and making her some soup and juices and so on and trying to let her get some rest.

In the process, she infected me and her dad! We've been really sick for nearly two weeks!

So yes, I agree I got sick because I was exposed to it, and probably because my immune system didn't resist it. But if you go back to the article at the start of this thread, Dr. Kim suggests that the whole experience of the flu is more or less a "house-cleaning" process, and that has been exactly my experience. It's not fun to feel under the weather, but I have been coughing up and blowing my nose so much and releasing so much "gunk" (that's the technical scientific term right? haha!), that I think the Kleenex tissue company owes me a Christmas card this year!

Anyhow, the amazing part of this is that my lungs feel ten years younger! I'm not quite over this yet, and it might be my imagination, but I feel as if I can draw in a LOT more breath than I normally can! This is the first time I have ever really left a flu completely alone to run it's course without any interference, and I am astonished! I never knew before that I wasn't getting my complete breath, and I still need to prove this to myself, but that's how I seem to be feeling - I can't believe it!

As soon as I am totally over this cough, I am going to test it, either by going to the lake for a run or to the gym to jump on the treadmill. I wonder if my breathing will be improved - I can't believe I never even knew it wasn't perfect in the first place! I guess it's one of those things you adapt to over time without even realizing it.

It also make sense to me that if your body doesn't have any housecleaning to do, why would you get the flu - back to the terrain vs germ theory! (It is also interesting to note that my two other kids that are in the house are healthy as horses, no sign of any flu despite all this exposure!)

Sapphire

Fresh thanks for that post. It was great to read. "there are many incorrect paradigms that are held by the majority that are not true" Thank You!

Love,
Uma

Ha ha ha!

Definition: X is the cause of A if and only if EVERY TIME whenever X is present, A occurs.

Following the definition of causality, since I do not get colds and flues when in contact with viruses, the viruses do not cause those illneses.

There is clearly another underlying cause of those. Clever people have figured it out already. Ask THEM!

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Aren't there THREE factors here?

"A" - equals the virus(es)

"B" - equals the functionality of the immune system (on or off?)

"C" - equals the flu

So: A is not equal to C (just because you are exposed, doesn't mean you will absolutely be infected), but B is also not equal to C (if your immune system is weak, but you don't get exposed, you are probably also ok)

BUT, Depending on the value of "B" (on or off),

A + B is (always) equal to C

or

A + B is (always) NOT equal to C

(Oh dear, that's the most math I have done in over 20 years, I think my brain might explode in a moment! Just kidding!)

Maybe this only makes sense to me because it is late at night and I am tired, and when I am tired, I think I am a genius, LOL!!

Good night!
Sapphire

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> let me clarify. i know that we all have our
> views, but it would be better for all if we would
> realize that our current views are not necessarily
> true, since we have all changed our mind on
> various things over the years. even knowing this,
> we still seem to think that our current state of
> knowledge is correct, and we are extremely
> resistant to change.
>
> in this vein - i held a view on global warming. i
> recently came across opposing information which
> has made me question my stance.
>
> in addition, the fact that "every scientist" will
> tell you that colds and flus are caused by
> viruses/bacteria is no indication of truth
> whatsoever, just the same as hiv causes aids".
> there are many incorrect paradigms that are held
> by the majority that are not true, and there is
> much fame and money and politics involved in
> social decisions and views.

__________________Agreed____________________
>
> and may i state the obvious, which is that the
> coexistence of viruses with colds means nothing,
> and does not imply causation, just as the
> coexistence of flies and garbage does not imply
> that the flies caused the garbage.

Sure, coexistence does not imply causation. However, you can have flies without garbage and garbage without flies. In that case, you have nothing more than coexistence. In the case of the Cold and the Flu, it is impossible to have a cold or flu, without the virus being present. The virus can be present without the sickness, but the sickness cannot be present without the virus. People isolated have different illnesses caused by different viruses. Native Americans did not have Small Pox until it was brought to them. They ate the same diet as always, yet a new disease was brought to them. A specific disease, that "coexists" with a certain virus. A person stranded on an island where the flu virus was not present, would never get the flu. If you were to examine the cells and expectorant that a person expels the viruses would be present in very high numbers. The virus enters the cells, reproduces by the millions and leaves to do the same to other cells. It is these cells which the body attacks so that it may rid itself of these cells and the viruses reproducing inside. Eventually, the body becomes more direct in it's approach and creates cells which can directly attack that SPECIFIC virus. These cells reproduce and attack the viruses in great numbers. After the virus is eradicated, these cells stick around to be called upon and reproduced when needed. That is why someone does not often get sick again from the same virus, because it is easily attacked with precision anytime it enters the body again. This is also one of the reasons why the Cold Virus has so many different varieties, because in order to survive it must constantly change. That is also why it so uncommon to have Chicken Pox more than once.
>
>
> and consider my case, one of many. i used to get
> colds and flus. i changed my diet and lifestyle.
> i no longer get colds and flus. this is not a
> matter of months, but many years. have all the
> viruses and bacteria vacated the city that i live
> in? what other conclusion can i draw? we cannot
> say, as someone does below, and as official govt
> sources say, well, viruses and bacteria cause
> colds and flus, but strengthen your "immune
> system", and eat a good diet, etc. either they
> cause the disease or they do not, and they clearly
> do not satisfy koch's postulates, no more than hiv
> and aids.

I'd agree that scientists do not know everything, and that which they think they know, is often wrong. Politics, marketing, greed, etc. all play a role, as well as simple ignorance or misdrawn conclusion. However, how can you, as one person, one person without going through a scientific method, one person with one experience feel that you can draw a conclusion of truth while millions of others with millions of experiences and perhaps thousands of experiments draw another conclusion? (nice run-on, eh?) Sure you're not the only one that has been illness free, and you're not the only one with the same conclusion. However, what does that prove? Nothing. Some illnesses may be caused by your diet, but viruses are not one of them. Succumbing to them may be caused by your diet. But then again it's what the diet does to your system as a whole, so it seems to me we're always just arguing the term, cause.
>
>
> >I don't see how you can argue that the Flu and
> Colds are not caused by viruses?
> Unless, what you are arguing is the definition of
> "Cause."
> A person would never get a cold or flu if it
> weren't for the viruses.
>
> this is unproven and illogical. viruses and
> bacteria, as we know, are omnipresent. the
> falsity of this paradigm can be clearly
> demonstrated, as i have said, by a little personal
> experimentation.

Show me a case of the flu, where the influenza virus was not present. Show me someone who has Chicken Pox that wasn't exposed to another with it. Yes, viruses are all around us, but not succumbing to them is not proof that they are not the cause of certain illnesses. Two people, both are otherwise healthy, both are shot, .45 caliber bullets. One dies, the other does not. Was the death of the one not caused by the bullet? Depends. It depends again on what I thought you may have been arguing in the first place, which is the definition of "Cause." The person may have died from infection, or loss of blood, or some other reason. However, it is the bullet which originally put the person into that situation. So which is the cause of his death? Depends on how you want to define it. You could argue that the virus does not cause the illness, but rather the body fighting the virus which causes the sneezing, coughing, fever, etc. (which is actually the reason you feel bad). However, in that case I again say you're arguing the use of the word "Cause." The illness would still not have been present, without the virus.
>
> >A person with a strong immune system can come in
> contact with the viruses without getting sick.A
> person without a strong (enough) immune system may
> get sick after contact and reproduction of the
> virus.
>
> first of all, there is no such system as the
> "immune system".
> various real parts of the body (circulatory,
> lymph, etc) keep the body healthy, but there is no
> "system". this "system" suddenly came into our
> medical schooling very recently.

That's just semantics. I wasn't arguing that there is a specific system as the immune system. Various systems keep the body healthy, as well as specific cells who have the specific task of attacking foreign invaders, such as viruses. Which brings something up...why are there cells within the body constantly attacking viruses and bacteria if they have no ill affect on the body? A healthy person has better working systems. If all systems are working properly then it is likelier that a person can fight a virus swiftly and precisely.
>
> secondly, it is the common cop out of the medical
> establishment to claim that the cause is the germ,
> but "eat a good diet, and keep your immune system
> strong"
> meanwhile, they have no clue as to what a good
> diet is (which is the cause of the illness).

It seems to me that you are indeed arguing the term, Cause. Again, no virus present, then the illness that the virus causes will not be present.
>
> a true disease vector with true causation would
> occur in all individuals exposed. to bring in the
> "immune system" simply admits the error of the
> paradigm.

Yep, you're arguing the term Cause, at least that's what I see. What causes a door to open? Me pushing it open. Yet, if I push on a locked door it does not open. If my pushing the door were indeed the cause, shouldn't all doors exposed to my push open? Could it not be that the virus causes the illness, but the "immune system" or the systems and cells of the body which act to destroy viruses are sometimes capable of preventing the illness? And that some people have stronger systems? And that these stronger systems can be created by a healthier diet? Vitamin C has been shown to lessen illnesses, prevent them, or make them shorter. Vitamin C has also been shown to increase the concentration of Immunoglobulin, a factor of the body's immune system that goes around destroying foreign invaders. Seems to me that their is a immune system of sorts and that it can be stronger, and that stronger means more efficient killing, and that certain things may make it stronger. Such as, Vitamin C. Such as a healthy diet rich in vitamins. Such as a healthy diet void of other bad factors that will hamper the bodies ability to carry out certain tasks. Maybe because the body is burdened with other tasks of ridding these toxins, or because it doesn't have what it needs to carry them out perfectly.
>
>
> >since a shift in my lifestyle that inspired me to
> eat all raw foods I have found that when someone
> is sick it is better to let the body rest and
> actually eat less then usual. This is very
> different then what I have been brought up to make
> sure to eat enough so the body gets nutrients? I
> suppose this could have to do with the idea of an
> unhealthier body having a lower immunity to a
> virus?
>
> if someone is sick, that someone has made an error
> in their health practices. this is another
> problem with this whole thing - blaming viruses
> and bacteria takes the focus off of ourselves and
> our responsibility for our health and perhaps our
> inability to understand the cause of health.

True, it places the blame elsewhere. If everyone dedicated their lives to a perfectly healthy lifestyle than perhaps we would not get colds and flus. Perhaps the viruses would evolve to fight that, but so would our bodies and our immunities. However, placing the blame elsewhere has no affect on what the cause is.
>
> And ALL RAW FOODS does not create health. There
> are many other factors (diet and otherwise) which
> will cause a state where no "illness" occurs. if
> you eat a RAW DIET and still get sick , of course
> you're going to believe that viruses cause colds,
> because you're eating the PERFECT DIET, right?

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ha ha ha!
>
> Definition: X is the cause of A if and only if
> EVERY TIME whenever X is present, A occurs.
>
> Following the definition of causality, since I do
> not get colds and flues when in contact with
> viruses, the viruses do not cause those illneses.
>
> There is clearly another underlying cause of
> those. Clever people have figured it out already.
> Ask THEM!
>
> Gosia

Like Sapphire has already suggested, you have oversimplified the equation. I've already gone into it some above, but...

X is the cause of A if and only if EVERY TIME X is present A occurs?

Well, what if A never occurs when X is not present? A occurs sometimes, when X is present. However, A NEVER occurs when X is not present. That means there must be a Y in there. And perhaps even a W, C, D, H, and a Q.

adfinder asks for examples. here are 4621.

[www.duesberg.com]

will the response be that aids is different?
or the hiv was present but they just didn't look hard enough?

no i was not arguing cause. i'm saying that the proliferation of the germs is a Result, and that germ frenzied Pasteur people are unable to separate cause from effect.

here is some anecdotal evidence about chicken pox.
[fistfulofeuros.net]
[forums.families.com]

saying that "full immunity" was not acquired is unimpressive.

[www.rawfoodexplained.com]
During the early stages of a cold, the nasal secretions are completely void of bacteria. None are found in the thin watery secretion the first two or three days of the cold. When the thick purulent secretion begins, then pneumococci, staphylococci, or streptococci make their appearance.


Can I personally show you a case of the flu without flu present? no, as i do not have the technical faculty. above is some evidence of what you have asked for however.

>In the case of the
> Cold and the Flu, it is impossible to have a cold
> or flu, without the virus being present.

it is impossible for you to prove this statement, and i provided evidence in my previous post disproving it.

> Native Americans did not have
> Small Pox until it was brought to them. They ate
> the same diet as always, yet a new disease was
> brought to them.

this conclusion is not certain...

here is an account from a native american.

“[A] dreadful misfortune befell them. … One salmon season the fish were found to be covered with running sores and blotches, which rendered them unfit for food. But as the people depended very largely upon these salmon for their winter’s food supply, they were obliged to catch and cure them as best they could, and store them away for food. They put off eating them till no other food was available, and then began a terrible time of sickness and distress. A dreadful skin disease, loathsome to look upon, broke out upon all alike. None were spared. Men, women, and children sickened, took the disease and died in agony by hundreds, so that when the spring arrived and fresh food was procurable, there was scarcely a person left of all their numbers to get it. Camp after camp, village after village, was left desolate. The remains of which, said the old man, in answer by my queries on this, are found today in the old camp sites or midden-heaps over which the forest has been growing for so many generations. Little by little the remnant left by the disease grew into a nation once more, and when the first white men sailed up the Squamish in their big boats, the tribe was strong and numerous again” (Boyd, 55).


> A specific disease, that
> "coexists" with a certain virus. A person stranded
> on an island where the flu virus was not present,
> would never get the flu.

an unproven assumption.

>However, how can you, as one person,
> one person without going through a scientific
> method, one person with one experience feel that
> you can draw a conclusion of truth while millions
> of others with millions of experiences and perhaps
> thousands of experiments draw another conclusion?

ockham's razor.

and i have used a scientific method

should I also accept the vaccination "science" because thousands draw their scientific conclusions about it?

> (nice run-on, eh?) Sure you're not the only one
> that has been illness free, and you're not the
> only one with the same conclusion. However, what
> does that prove? Nothing.

i'm confused to as to how this proves nothing.

i go in the sun and i get sunburn.
i stay out of the sun for 5 years and get no sunburn
the sun caused the sunburn. or maybe germs caused the sunburn?
I'm sure it could be shown that a "sunburn" virus is always present - which of course is not the same virus, because it always changes.....

just a playful analogy.

let's say, as you do, that germs (G) AND immunity (I) cause disease.

IF presence of (G) SOMETIMES does not cause disease (as everyone admits)
and
IF strong (I) ALWAYS prevents disease (as everyone admits)

then I is the better option as a true cause.

and what is (I)? those non "germ" factors which lead to health and determine the level of toxemia


>Some illnesses may be
> caused by your diet, but viruses are not one of
> them.

a virus is not an illness, so i'm confused by the above.


> Two people, both
> are otherwise healthy, both are shot, .45 caliber
> bullets. One dies, the other does not. Was the
> death of the one not caused by the bullet?

it was caused by the bullet.

that's like saying, cut off a body part.
one person dies, the other doesn't
does the "cutting off" cause the death?
well, if you cut off one's head, that will cause death.
if you cut off a toe that will not cause death.

poor analogies i think.

> Depends. It depends again on what I thought you
> may have been arguing in the first place, which is
> the definition of "Cause." The person may have
> died from infection, or loss of blood, or some
> other reason. However, it is the bullet which
> originally put the person into that situation. So
> which is the cause of his death? Depends on how
> you want to define it. You could argue that the
> virus does not cause the illness, but rather the
> body fighting the virus which causes the sneezing,
> coughing, fever, etc. (which is actually the
> reason you feel bad). However, in that case I
> again say you're arguing the use of the word
> "Cause." The illness would still not have been
> present, without the virus.

you are still refusing to entertain the idea that
1 - the germ is not always present
2 - germs are garbage eaters and body detritus


>Which brings
> something up...why are there cells within the body
> constantly attacking viruses and bacteria if they
> have no ill affect on the body?

the body defends itself against anything it deems foreign
it's complex i think.
they may or may not have an ill effect on the body.

my contention is not that bacteria or virus or any exogenous or endogenous agent like mercury or cyanide, or whatever have no ill effect,

my contention is that what is COMMONLY named as FLU AND COLD in humans is not caused by germs, but by toxemia. this is standard NH. i'm not making it up.

> Yep, you're arguing the term Cause, at least
> that's what I see. What causes a door to open? Me
> pushing it open. Yet, if I push on a locked door
> it does not open. If my pushing the door were
> indeed the cause, shouldn't all doors exposed to
> my push open?


or maybe

"health" is the lock and determines the result
and pushing the door is (enough nerve energy) to clean house
and the wind blowing the door open is the germ
sometimes it blows, sometimes it doesn't

i'm not saying you're wrong. i see toxemia as a better model, and pasteur did admit that the germ is NOTHING and the terrain EVERYTHING.
sounds like cause to me.

Wow!!! I never thought I would learn so much from making this post. Thanks!!!

So, if we want to avoid colds and flues, improve our lifestyle, by correct eating, ect. Makes sense to me!

_______________________________________________________

1 Corinthians 1:20 (New Life Version) "Where is the man who is wise? Where is the man who thinks he knows a lot? Where is the man who thinks he has all the answers? God has made the wisdom of this world look foolish."

depends what you mean by 'avoid'

strengthening your body though eating is still kind of a wishy way to look at it. theres nothing magical you can EAT that will make you healthier or stronger. thats where we have really been fooled.

adfinder, interesting suggestions.

Note that there is no oversimplification here at all, but a rigorous argument. For something claimed to be the cause, the criteria for the causality must be met.

"X is the cause of A if and only if EVERY TIME X is present A occurs?
Well, what if A never occurs when X is not present?"

In logic, "from p follows q" is equivalent to "from not q follows not p". So both statements in the aboe quote are equivalent, there is no difference between them.

"A occurs sometimes, when X is present. However, A NEVER occurs when X is not present."

This is just another way of saying the same statements above.

"That means there must be a Y in there. And perhaps even a W, C, D, H, and a Q."

This statement does not follow from the statements above. Laws of logic have been violated. We would need something else to deduce this. It would be intersting to do a little bit of work, but I have no time for this, unfortunately.

================================================================

I always find mice in my compost heap. Does this mean that the mice cause the compost heap? One needs to be very careful when proving causality.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2007 11:03PM by rawgosia.

anaken Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> depends what you mean by 'avoid'
>
> strengthening your body though eating is still
> kind of a wishy way to look at it. theres nothing
> magical you can EAT that will make you healthier
> or stronger. thats where we have really been
> fooled.

anaken, could you please clarify and elaborate on your starements. Interested in having more details. Thanks a bunch!

_________________________________

Proverbs 15:17 (New International Version) "Better a meal of vegetables where there is love than a fattened calf with hatred."

Thanks for the very informative responses. I see now more of what you are arguing. After a little more reading I may be inclined to agree. I'll be back later to read over your info.