As far as "science" goes, I'm well aware of the
psychology of superstition, of which Germ Theory
is 100% in accordance with that psychology.

I realize that trying to convince True Believers of
something, who have nothing else (i.e., no context
nor rational standard) to compare their beliefs to -
as if all beliefs subsist alone in a vacuum, is an
exercise in futility. I only sought to give people
(who care to do some independent research AND
thinking) another viewpoint: that human beings
are in control of their own health. Wow! What
a revelation! Something few people believe. So
much for self-responsibility.

No doubt, it's easier to believe what you've
always believed, think what you've always
thought, and to be mentally passive. Of course,
that's why people have such a difficult time
changing a habit: because they have to become
more authentic AND change in order to grow
and mature. We must give up the old ways
of thnking/feeling/acting and embrace/integrate
the new. If that was easy everyone would be
doing it.

By the way, I just stumbled upon this book on
Amazon.com. I haven't read it, so I can't
vouch for it, but it might be of some interest
to someone out there:
[www.amazon.com]

Steve
[www.meetup.com]
[www.rawgosia.com]

Well, I've never found very convincing a situation where I'm brow beaten or guilt tripped with what someone else believes to be more true than what another person believes to be more true. Whatever. To each their own and more power to you.

Ditto coco... paragon, if you truly believe what you say, why not get a blood transfusion from 3 people, 1 with HIV, 1 with hepatitis C, and 1 with syphilis, then 6 months from now, let us know how your doing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

paragon,

Proponents of alternatives are clearly not immune to becoming doctrinaire. Insulting our intelligence, which, frankly, is fairly evidential, makes it appear that you are more concerned with getting your hypotheses across than you are with challenging us for the purposes of edifying and helping us. And that's not what we are on these boards for, right? A bit of advice: no matter how fervently you hold a belief to be true, unless you can present some sort of cogent verification of it from legitimate sources, it's all just speculation and intrigue. I am perfectly willing to concede that what you believe may prove true someday. But for now, there's not much that's reliable to support it. Sorry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2010 02:43PM by Tamukha.

I'm with Steve (paragon) on this issue. Warts are the body moving toxins out via the skin. As are skin ulcers, which if they occur on your genitals, is called genital herpes.

The germ theory was discarded by it originator, Antoine Bechamp, who said it was the terrain that caused disease, and germs were only a symptom. Pasteur picked up the discarded germ theory, and became famous for the theory, but at the end of his life he also abandoned the theory, in favor of Bechamp's theory of the terrain causing disease.

A wart on your genitals is no different than a wart on your hand or a wart on your foot. Only the location is different. Same with a skin ulcer. Or a pimple.

I understand the germ and virus theory. There simply isn't any proof. For example, modern science states that tuberculosis is caused by mycobacterium tuberculosis. Yet 30% of the population has this bacteria on their bodies, but they don't have tuberculosis.

There is this thing called the Koch postulate which states that if a germ is a cause of a disease, and you have just 1 person who has the germ but not the disease, then in fact the germ cannot be the cause. Since 30% of the population has the germ for tuberculosis but not the disease, then the germ is not the cause. However, modern medicine totally ignores the Koch postulate, because it pretty much invalidates all of the germ theory.

What Bechamp ultimately realized is that germs don't cause the disease, they are a symptom of disease. That is, when the body has an excess of dead and dying cells present that it cannot clean up with its normal means, then bacteria come into the body and start eating up those dead and dying cells. The body actually permits this, as the bacterial action does work the the body is unable to do.

Attempts to isolate the body from germs or viruses do not produce health, since germs and viruses don't cause the sickness in the first place. What is necessary is to discover what is killing the cells in the body. And in fact in the modern western lifestyle and diet, there are tons of toxins available to kill cells. Examples of these toxic substances are salt, vinegar, strong spices and herbs, acrylamides (from cooked starches), proteins cooked at high temperatures, chlorine, floride.

So what does this mean for someone like Jeni, who discovers they have warts. Well, the warts can be healed and never return for the rest of your life if you are willing to make the lifestyle changes that will produced excellent health. This means eating a low toxin diet, which a diet like 80-10-10 is an excellent example. And then doing the lifestyle changes and habits that create health, like getting plenty of exercise, fresh air, sunshine, clean water, mental and emotional balance, lots of love.

Prana,

Again, I am willing to concede that what NH people propose may prove valid in the future. But it doesn't seem valid today.

Koch's Postulates were first described in the 1880s. In the 21st Century, we know that it is not necessary to prove all four postulates to establish pathogen to disease correlation(it wasn't necessary within a decade of Koch's first attempt to do so). That hypothesis which cannot be rigidly applied in all cases, as with Koch's, must be discarded and examined again later, or modified as science becomes more precise. For example, the Natural Hygiene theory of terrain caused disease does not explain the development of cervical cancer from Human Papilloma Virus specifically, and that there is rarely an individual, healthy or not, that develops Burkitts Lymphoma without also presenting with Epstein-Barr antigens and usually HIV, in occult blood tests. This indicates a correlation between a specific pathogen and a subsequent illness, cause and effect, with other limiting variables being absent. Infants on breast milk from healthy mothers eating an unprocessed, high plant-based diet cannot possibly have "unhealthy terrain" causing them to spontaneously succumb to disease, or those of us breast fed by healthy mothers in regions where EB is not prevalent would all have been sickened by endemic things ourselves. That just doesn't make sense to me, as someone with biology, and for that matter, culinary training.

awesome points Tam, and prana, there are huge differences in the types of warts, the virus believed to cause either are completely different from each other... so if its the same thing, then how come it presents with a different virus as the cause? and how come its the SAME type of virus every time? or how about moles? most of them are caused by a specific virus present in a vast majority of the population, and id bet most people on this site have at least a mole or two... do you have any moles prana?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?

Hey Curator, my friend's mole that she's treating with that MMS is nearly GONE! I saw her today, it's gone from Cindy Crawford to a speck.

In some sense, any knowledge that is understood by man is akin to religion in that there is some amount of belief that is necessary. What we call science is often mostly just fiction, that in time, is disproved and discarded.

So we have these theories, and they should predict outcomes based on various inputs and conditions. The germ theory says that in the presence of germs, people get sick. The toxin theory says that in the presence of toxins, people get sick.

All it takes is one person to be in the presence of germs and not get sick and that pretty much invalidates the germ theory. Same is true of the toxin theory, that if you put toxins into a person, and they don't get sick, well the theory needs to be discarded.

There are people on the raw food diet, who have a healthy lifestyle and a healthy version of the raw diet, who can be around sick people during the worst of the cold and flu season and never catch anything. I have had that personal experience for myself. So if germs or viruses cause disease, I should have been sick like everyone else who I was exposed to. Except I didn't get sick, and this matches the personal experience of many raw foodists.

On the other hand, I suspect that if you feed someone rat poison, whether they are a raw foodists or not, they will get sick. And they will experience the various stages of disease: enervation, toxemia, irritation, inflammation, ulceration, induration, and cancer.


Here is a useful post written by Zsuzsa on the natural hygiene view of disease:


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

But remember that all stages of the disease process are remedial, they are all instituted by the body, they are all the body's desperate attempt to rid itself of toxins in order to survive and heal itself.

Here, briefly, are the 7 stages:

1. Enervation. This is truly the first stage, the first sign that we have that the body is overloaded. The body feels tired, feels dragging around, feels less than vital. The body's communication system, electrical system, is the nerves. All of the body's activities, whether internal or external, are directed and coordinated via the nerves. When the body is overloaded with toxins, the neural system's functioning is impaired, and therefore all of the body's activities are slowed and less efficient. This results in smooth, normal cleansing and healing being impaired and slowed, and there is a back up in eliminating toxins, and so the body seeks to repair it. It therefore makes us feel tired, so that we will rest, so that the body can be re-charged to function normally again.

2. Toxemia. This would be where one might feel polluted, or just "bone tired", exhausted, very cold and achy, where someone might "feel a cold coming on", or "feel a flu coming on". These are all sign that the body must have rest and sleep and be kept warm, right away. Even before I'd ever heard of any of this, I'd noticed that every time I got a "flu", it was preceded by this kind of experience. I discovered that I could avert the full blown "flu" if, as soon as I got this feeling, I took a nice long hot bath, and went straight to bed and slept. That's toxemia.

3. Irritation. This is the stage where the body is getting overloaded with toxins to the point where it is must urgently get rid of them or take drastic action, and the body eliminates it in various sites extraordinarily--it may be through the sinuses, in the form of sneezing, or through the skin, in the form of a rash or itch, for example. We might also see increased mucus secretion, as mucus is a transport medium for toxins, out of the body.

4. Inflammation. This is full blown, acute cleansing, from "mild" to very acute, depending on the body's needs and according to its wisdom of what will save its life. Remember that all "disease" is the solution, the life-saving process, instituted by the body, to rid itself of the toxins, which are in reality urgently threatening the body's vitality, and in fact its very life. Inflammation includes "colds", "flu", "allergies", bladder "infection", kidney "infection", sinusitis, rhinitis, appendicitis, pancreatitis, arthritis, bursitis, thyroiditis, and any other kind of "-itis", or any other condition where the body has inflammation or "infection". It is all inflammation, there is no such thing as "infection". In inflammation, the body "inflames" an organ, or the site of an injury, wherever it is deemed necessary--it fills the site with blood, lots of activity, heat--fever is REMEDIAL, the body steps up the heat to help the healing and cleansing, fever is never harmful, and the bacteria population increase to gobble up the dead cells and toxins that are being eliminated. There is stepped up activity at the site of inflammation--there is heat at the site, everything is fast, the body is dramatically working to rid itself of toxins, cells live and die quickly. It is also systemic, all healing involves the whole body, and the fever which is the body temperature elevated throughout the whole body, is vital as a part of the healing and cleansing process.

5. Ulceration. This is the first stage of degenerative or chronic disease. The body's toxic load must be eliminated, so the body takes the dramatic action of destroying the cells of the different layers of skin or membrane and tissue below, in order to make an opening through which the body can push out toxins. These are like little volcanoes, and include what we call ulcers, but also things like canker sores, cold sores, pimples, acne, "herpes", various chronic skin conditions such as eczema, psoriasis, and I think some of what are referred to as STD's.

6. Induration. This is tumor formation, which is at this stage considered "benign". The body is so overloaded with toxins that it cannot get rid of fast enough to keep it from killing the body, through any of the previous stages, so it begins to make soft or eventually hard cases in which to store the toxins, to keep it out of the bloodstream and the vital organs. The body often puts these tumors in the places which are the least important to its immediate survival, such as the reproductive organs, but they can occur anywhere in the body that the body in its infinite wisdom needs to put them.

7. Cancer. Cancer is not the fearsome killer people are taught to believe it is. It is simply another stage of the body's ability to heal and cleanse us, the final attempt, quite dramatic. The body's cells, probably specialized phagocytic cells, are used by the body to ingest the toxins, which are saturating the body and so totally exceeding the body's capacity to eliminate them fast enough, that the body must resort to sacrificing large numbers of cells to ingest and contain the toxins in order to keep them out of the vital organs and the blood, in an attempt on the part of the body to continue to carry on life in spite of the toxins. It is said, having been observed, by even mainstream science, that when inflammation or irritation have gone on too long at a site, it becomes cancer--they are observing some of the stages of the disease process. Disease never harms the body. Cancer, like any other stage of disease, is remedial. Death does not come from disease, rather disease is what the body uses to save it from death. Death comes from continuing to increase the toxic load, by ingestion of toxins and subjecting the body to toxins, including the huge toxic and enervating overload from drugs, radiation and chemo, and such. After cancer, the body has no more defenses left. It is the final stage in which the body can still struggle against the toxic overload.

The problem is not "disease". The problem is toxins, poisons. Disease is the solution.

The body is a totally self-cleaning, self-healing, self-repairing system, and will always seek to cleanse, heal, and repair itself, to the best of its ability, and will employ the process of disease in doing soĆ³that is the entire purpose of disease, and the symptoms we experience are manifestations of that process.

When we cooperate with the body, in whichever stage the body is struggling to cleanse and heal itself, the body can decrease its toxic load, move back through the stages of disease, and ultimately recover full health.

How do we cooperate with the body? The first thing is to stop ingesting toxins, as thoroughly as possible. Drugs of any kind indluding "natural" ones, cooked food, herbs, irritants, animal products, food that is incompatible with the body. And inimical practices, anything that enervates the body, such as stress, overwork, medical procedures, anything that weakens or compromises the body including diets, yes enemas too. When we "treat" symptoms, when we seek to get rid of symptoms, that is going against the body's efforts, and just foils the body's efforts to try to cleanse and heal and further enervates and toxifies us..

We need to provide the conditions under which the body can function without impediment, and which provide the raw materials of life. This includes our optimal diet of fresh raw fruits, leafy veggies, nuts and seeds, as close to the form as they come in Nature as possible. This also includes sunshine, constant fresh air, keeping the body warm enough, plenty of rest and especially sleep, as much as the body may desire.

We need to fast, meaning total rest, eyes closed, water only, when the body gives us acute symptoms and takes away our hunger. It is only at these times that one should fast, and only for as long as the body dictates--only until the return of hunger. This is vital for the body to be able to accomplish its extraordinary healing and cleansing efficiently and quickly, and must be done. There is no substitute for this. Usually the extraordinary healing is accomplished quickly, though occasionally the body may need to do it longer. It is always recommended that fasting be done under the supervision of a competent practitioner, particularly if one has extremely acute symptoms, and if the fast is of any duration. And it's important for anyone to know as much as possible about fasting before undertaking it, especially "Fasting Can Save Your Life" and "The Science and Fine Art of Fasting", both by Herbert Shelton, and widely available, including on amazon.com.

So am I understanding correctly that you believe that this "healthy" person could be exposed to HIV and not become infected? As in, if this person were injected with the live virus it would have no effect. Or that if infected, fasting and rest would eliminate it. Are you really saying that?

Prana,

I beg your pardon, but if you feed someone rat poison, the ultimate step is not cancer, but liver failure and death. This is why I only selectively concede the points of the summary you post above: each of its arguments, while partly valid, is not wholly clinically sound according to biological effects empirically demonstrable and replicable under restricted conditions. This to me, is the test; not what you dismiss as some sort of religious belief, but cause and effect detectable by the senses. Thus, the argument that poisoning elicits a cancer response is false; the argument that chronic toxemia proceeds along a spectrum toward negation of health and results in cancer is true. The argument that cancer is not a disease but a healing modality is stupid. Even if one considers that cancer is an innate response to toxins, the description of its effects on phagocytes is incorrect and speculative--what else about it is wrong? I am considering that some of this may perhaps be a problem of semantics.

There are intriguing suppositions in the above description of the NH concept of disease, but I cannot adopt them on "faith." We have all heard of squeaky clean raw foodists not contracting the flu from infected companions. But we have also all heard of non raw foodists that likewise didn't contract the flu from infected companions. And I know everyone has heard of Typhoid Mary. This is not mumbo jumbo--it's natural or acquired immunity, and it can be demonstrated clinically. Also, it does not depend on the hygiene of internal terrain. Evidently. I am glad you didn't get the flu. But I cannot attribute that necessarily to your being internally clean any more than I can attribute my not getting it to my not being internally clean[I'm not 100% raw]. Lots of people who would be described as toxic by NH never get sick, so it doesn't signify.

The day a totally clear Natural Hygienist with no clinically apparent ability to fend off Ebola deliberately infects himself with Ebola and breezes through it, that's the day I will consider that the hypothesis has greater validity. For now, I'll go by what makes rational sense. And I won't be recommending that anyone try to prove me wrong.

Coco,

There are many scientist who claim that HIV does not cause AIDs. There are tons of theories of why people have lost their immune systems. AIDS is a huge blanket for a bunch of symptoms where the immune system gets depressed or destroyed.

Tamukha,

We don't need to agree on this. I offer another perspective, one that matches my personal experience. Even in modern medicine, it is generally understood that cancer is caused by toxins which we call carcinogens. And these carcinogens are all over the SAD food supply.

What I don't get is people's attraction to the modern medical view of things, especially when it comes to the original topic. Modern medicines says that if you get this disease, your are sick for life, and you have to use a barrier or avoid intimate contact forever, and there is really nothing you can do to get better. With the natural hygiene, you get to understand how you got sick in the first place, change your lifestyle and habits, heal and never suffer from that disease again.

I've personally experienced healing from diseases that are incurable. Psoriasis, toenail fungus, severe cat allergies, hay fever, colds and flus 4 or more times a year. If I had listened to modern medicine, I would just take their meds, do nothing to change my diet and lifestyle, and end up with cancer or diabetes or something just as nasty.

Allergies come and go, colds are not incurable diseases, toenail fungus isn't either. Herpes is. There is a difference. It doesn't sound from your list as though You have personal experience with a deadly illness that was cured with rest and fasting. I don't either, I sure have become healthier in my life but I wouldn't want to purposefully expose myself to HepC to test a theory.
If I fully believed in modern medicine I never could have cured myself from supposedly incurable IBS, it's not that the choice is a totaly belief in medicine or a total disbelief in it... there is a middle ground. An utter disbelief in a natural occurence of germs, bacteria and viruses etc is just as unbalanced and unrealistic as the belief that a pill can cure all that ails ya.



My question here still stands as if what you are saying is that lifestyle can in fact "heal" herpes, HIV, etc, that differs greatly from simply "understand how you got sick in the first place, change your lifestyle and habits, heal and never suffer from ... disease again."


coco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So am I understanding correctly that you believe
> that this "healthy" person could be exposed to HIV
> and not become infected? As in, if this person
> were injected with the live virus it would have no
> effect. Or that if infected, fasting and rest
> would eliminate it. Are you really saying that?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2010 05:46PM by coco.

Coco,

Being injected with something, even someone else's blood, is putting foreign objects into the blood that could contain toxins, and thus make a person sick. With the toxin theory, all disease is toxemia. Toxemia means poisoning of the blood. So a person who has AIDS is very sick,and their blood is very poisoned. Bypassing my immune system, and placing their poisoned blood into my clean blood, would in fact poison me. But I strongly doubt that the HIV viruses in their blood would convert my body into producing these viruses.

If a person with AIDS were bleeding to death in front of me, I would have no problems putting my hands on their wounds to stop their bleeding, even if I had an open cut on my hand. Thats because my body is good at protecting against poisons, even from an open wound. But to inject poisoned blood into my own blood, that would result in sickness for me, but I highly doubt the resulting illness would be AIDS.

If a person who has herpes or AIDS has enough vitality left in their body, assuming their body has been bombarded by medicines or other draining medical therapies, they can totally heal their body with lifestyle changes, including the use of water fasting.

Tamukha,

The western perspective of disease is very disempowering for the individual. What is is saying is that avoidance is the only preventative measure, and that other than that, take medicines/get surgery is the strategy for healing. I choose not to believe their story, and have lived using the natural hygiene principles, and every chronic ailment/disease I had is now gone. There is nothing that is in the western medical literature or knowledge base that could sway me from my personal experience.

One of the biggest obstacles I faced with my own healing was my knowledge and knowing that prevented me from having my own personal exploration. When I knew that certain disease were incurable, or that no known cure existed for the condition, there was nothing I could do that could heal myself, and I was stuck. But as I explored raw foods, and learned about how the body is already self healing, and that there are things that can be done to create the conditions for healing, this was the most amazing personal empowerment to creating my future of excellent and improving health.

Prana,

This why I say that I selectively concede NH's explanations for disease: I totally agree that one's inherent healthiness can largely determine whether one becomes ill, and that increasing one's internal healthiness largely determines whether one overcomes disease and is less susceptible as time goes by. I cannot believe, however, that this trait is an absolute, and that this mechanism always works. I mean, NH hypotheses were developed before a full knowledge of vitamins, even, for pete's sake--we know so much more about the environment around us now! I believe there are pathogens out there in the world that have evolved to kill other organisms so that their DNA may persist and that there is no amount of internal healthiness that can prevent one's succumbing to them. I could be wrong, and odds aren't great that this is how a truly healthy person may end, but it does happen. IMO, clinical medicine is still rudimentary in some respects[its protocols for cancer treatment being an excellent example], and the body's propensity for self-healing is tremendous. I just wouldn't advise someone dealing with what could be a potentially life threatening disorder that if they just clean out their body, all will be well. To advise them to eat our kind of diet and to drink clear water, and get lots of rest and fresh air, etc. is all well and good, but it mayn't be sufficient in a crisis, especially if one is unaware of the extent of the crisis. The two paradigms of NH and biological science aren't necessarily at odds. Aspects from one fit well with aspects from the other.

My friends grandma was into the whole raw food and natural hygiene thing to cure her cancer, she followed it for quite awhile, she is dead now, good enough evidence for me its not a cure all. My mom was, and still is on the SAD she got breast cancer, she didnt change her diet, although I got her to eat a few healthier things here and there when I made them and she didnt have a choice... and she had an amazingly fast recovery in spite of its aggressive nature and her horrible diet... there are no absolutes, and the only thing we can know for sure is that we can know nothing for sure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changing ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?