Re: Disease-causing Viruses, again

[Guest guest]

At 03:23 2006-04-18 +0000, you <vaccinegenocide@...> wrote:

>Sorry to bring this up again, but the subject of whether or not

>disease-causing viruses exist is very interesting. Take the common

>cold for example. One family member gets sick, then within a week

>everyone else in the family comes down with the same thing. Sounds

>pretty simple, germs cause disease. I reject the germ theory

>personally, but when confronted with this scenario it's difficult to

>respond to those that accept this theory. Ok, if the other family

>members had strong, healthy internal terrains, they wouldn't get sick.

>But since they don't, these cold germs go to work on them as well.

>Now, if these family members were to be separated from the first sick

>person, even though they have unhealthy systems, they probably

>wouldn't get sick. To conclude, to avoid the cold just avoid the

>germs. Somehow this does seems logical. ????

>

>Dan

But WRONG!

Now I've promised another writer to return to this

subject, as soon as I have a little time for this

and also have learned some more about that New Medicine

- homepage in English at http://www.newmedicine.ca/

What causes that which seems like " a contagion " ?

As far as I've gathered:

Firstly, there hasn't been much REAL research on

this - " tradtional " medicine long having been

concentrating on a quite erroneous hypothesis

(of those " harmful " germs)

Secondly, the reporting you see on such things

is often incorrect.

Thirdly - If I've understood one discussion at

a relevant forum correctly:

The things called " diseases " in general are responses

to certain shocks (bigger or smaller) the person in

question gets. Now supposing one person gets a cold

(due to one such shock - as everyone knows, btw,

wheather conditions play an important role here),

then some of his or her relatives or classmates, say,

not seldom get one too. Why? Out of sympathy

(or empathy, if you wish), seems to be a possibility!

We humans are very much " herd animals " (as are horses,

for instance, too), possibly even much more so than

generally realized - that element of course has been

most important in the entire development of mankind,

up too and including civilization too. Close

co-operation between several people who are together

of course is vital for this.

Now that I've started a little on this, I want to

add also: One of the funniest things, I think, in

the New Medicine theory (most probably correct!):

Allergies are caused by shocks too - by reminders

of earlier such. For instance, when something very

unpleasant happened at one earlier point in your

life, you happened to see a cat running by. Well

then, because of this you may get allergic to cats,

because whenever you see one the later, you'll get

reminded of that unpleasant incident! This is called

" getting on to a track " (when you see a cat).

The funny part here is about *hay fever*. This was

earlier the most common allergy. Why? Well, says

that nice theory, because a person's first lovemaking

in many cases took place in a haystack, and then

there could be a disappointment (due to lack of

practice - rather common) or anoter kind

of unpleasantness, in the form of an unwanted

discovery by a third person of what was going on.

The smell of hay, then, would later remind

a person of such an unpleasantness.

And why is " hay fever " less common today? Why,

because of urbanization, of course! Not that

many persons today, in the somewhat more

highely-developed countries, will have had their

first lovemaking in a haystack!

How about that? Can a (part) theory that funny

really be wrong, do you think?

Rolf M.

[Guest guest]

Rolf, I am truly laughing over the haystack analogy! I don't have hayfever -

maybe that's why?? LOL

My question to you is this: whether it is truly contagion or an emotional

shock or empathy, the common denominator seems to be that when one or more

persons become ill then it spreads like wildfire. What then can be done to stop

it?

Thanks,

Sheri B.

Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@...> wrote:

At 03:23 2006-04-18 +0000, you <vaccinegenocide@...> wrote:

>Sorry to bring this up again, but the subject of whether or not

>disease-causing viruses exist is very interesting. Take the common

>cold for example. One family member gets sick, then within a week

>everyone else in the family comes down with the same thing. Sounds

>pretty simple, germs cause disease. I reject the germ theory

>personally, but when confronted with this scenario it's difficult to

>respond to those that accept this theory. Ok, if the other family

>members had strong, healthy internal terrains, they wouldn't get sick.

>But since they don't, these cold germs go to work on them as well.

>Now, if these family members were to be separated from the first sick

>person, even though they have unhealthy systems, they probably

>wouldn't get sick. To conclude, to avoid the cold just avoid the

>germs. Somehow this does seems logical. ????

>

>Dan

But WRONG!

Now I've promised another writer to return to this

subject, as soon as I have a little time for this

and also have learned some more about that New Medicine

- homepage in English at http://www.newmedicine.ca/

What causes that which seems like " a contagion " ?

As far as I've gathered:

Firstly, there hasn't been much REAL research on

this - " tradtional " medicine long having been

concentrating on a quite erroneous hypothesis

(of those " harmful " germs)

Secondly, the reporting you see on such things

is often incorrect.

Thirdly - If I've understood one discussion at

a relevant forum correctly:

The things called " diseases " in general are responses

to certain shocks (bigger or smaller) the person in

question gets. Now supposing one person gets a cold

(due to one such shock - as everyone knows, btw,

wheather conditions play an important role here),

then some of his or her relatives or classmates, say,

not seldom get one too. Why? Out of sympathy

(or empathy, if you wish), seems to be a possibility!

We humans are very much " herd animals " (as are horses,

for instance, too), possibly even much more so than

generally realized - that element of course has been

most important in the entire development of mankind,

up too and including civilization too. Close

co-operation between several people who are together

of course is vital for this.

Now that I've started a little on this, I want to

add also: One of the funniest things, I think, in

the New Medicine theory (most probably correct!):

Allergies are caused by shocks too - by reminders

of earlier such. For instance, when something very

unpleasant happened at one earlier point in your

life, you happened to see a cat running by. Well

then, because of this you may get allergic to cats,

because whenever you see one the later, you'll get

reminded of that unpleasant incident! This is called

" getting on to a track " (when you see a cat).

The funny part here is about *hay fever*. This was

earlier the most common allergy. Why? Well, says

that nice theory, because a person's first lovemaking

in many cases took place in a haystack, and then

there could be a disappointment (due to lack of

practice - rather common) or anoter kind

of unpleasantness, in the form of an unwanted

discovery by a third person of what was going on.

The smell of hay, then, would later remind

a person of such an unpleasantness.

And why is " hay fever " less common today? Why,

because of urbanization, of course! Not that

many persons today, in the somewhat more

highely-developed countries, will have had their

first lovemaking in a haystack!

How about that? Can a (part) theory that funny

really be wrong, do you think?

Rolf M.

[Guest guest]

Sheri,

The theory says approximately: Seek to become aware of what

it was that caused the original (bigger or smaller) shock. This

by your (a person's) own reflection about your history, or you

can be helped by a New Medicine therapist in this. Then you

may get to realize that there's nothing to fear, the next time you

smell that hay - no, sorry, in your case it was, when you see one

of those cats again, or something - which used to make you

think (feel) , " aw, now that awful thing is going to happen again! " .

Something like that, if I understand it correctly!

Rolf M.

At 05:03 2006-04-18 -0700, you (Seri B. <tallchick1966@...>)wrote:

>Rolf, I am truly laughing over the haystack analogy! I don't have

>hayfever - maybe that's why?? LOL

>

> My question to you is this: whether it is truly contagion or an

> emotional shock or empathy, the common denominator seems to be that when

> one or more persons become ill then it spreads like wildfire. What then

> can be done to stop it?

>

> Thanks,

> Sheri B.

>

>Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@...> wrote:

> At 03:23 2006-04-18 +0000, you <vaccinegenocide@...>

> wrote:

>

> >Sorry to bring this up again, but the subject of whether or not

> >disease-causing viruses exist is very interesting. Take the common

> >cold for example. One family member gets sick, then within a week

> >everyone else in the family comes down with the same thing. Sounds

> >pretty simple, germs cause disease. I reject the germ theory

> >personally, but when confronted with this scenario it's difficult to

> >respond to those that accept this theory. Ok, if the other family

> >members had strong, healthy internal terrains, they wouldn't get sick.

> >But since they don't, these cold germs go to work on them as well.

> >Now, if these family members were to be separated from the first sick

> >person, even though they have unhealthy systems, they probably

> >wouldn't get sick. To conclude, to avoid the cold just avoid the

> >germs. Somehow this does seems logical. ????

> >

> >Dan

>But WRONG!

>

>Now I've promised another writer to return to this

>subject, as soon as I have a little time for this

>and also have learned some more about that New Medicine

>- homepage in English at

><http://www.newmedicine.ca/>http://www.newmedicine.ca/

>

>What causes that which seems like " a contagion " ?

>

>As far as I've gathered:

>

>Firstly, there hasn't been much REAL research on

>this - " tradtional " medicine long having been

>concentrating on a quite erroneous hypothesis

>(of those " harmful " germs)

>

>Secondly, the reporting you see on such things

>is often incorrect.

>

>Thirdly - If I've understood one discussion at

>a relevant forum correctly:

>

>The things called " diseases " in general are responses

>to certain shocks (bigger or smaller) the person in

>question gets. Now supposing one person gets a cold

>(due to one such shock - as everyone knows, btw,

>wheather conditions play an important role here),

>then some of his or her relatives or classmates, say,

>not seldom get one too. Why? Out of sympathy

>(or empathy, if you wish), seems to be a possibility!

>We humans are very much " herd animals " (as are horses,

>for instance, too), possibly even much more so than

>generally realized - that element of course has been

>most important in the entire development of mankind,

>up too and including civilization too. Close

>co-operation between several people who are together

>of course is vital for this.

>

>Now that I've started a little on this, I want to

>add also: One of the funniest things, I think, in

>the New Medicine theory (most probably correct!):

>Allergies are caused by shocks too - by reminders

>of earlier such. For instance, when something very

>unpleasant happened at one earlier point in your

>life, you happened to see a cat running by. Well

>then, because of this you may get allergic to cats,

>because whenever you see one the later, you'll get

>reminded of that unpleasant incident! This is called

> " getting on to a track " (when you see a cat).

>

>The funny part here is about *hay fever*. This was

>earlier the most common allergy. Why? Well, says

>that nice theory, because a person's first lovemaking

>in many cases took place in a haystack, and then

>there could be a disappointment (due to lack of

>practice - rather common) or anoter kind

>of unpleasantness, in the form of an unwanted

>discovery by a third person of what was going on.

>

>The smell of hay, then, would later remind

>a person of such an unpleasantness.

>

>And why is " hay fever " less common today? Why,

>because of urbanization, of course! Not that

>many persons today, in the somewhat more

>highely-developed countries, will have had their

>first lovemaking in a haystack!

>

>How about that? Can a (part) theory that funny

>really be wrong, do you think?

>

>Rolf M.

>

>----------

[Guest guest]

OK, but how do you explain sickness in a small child? Surely they have not had

enough experiences at six months of age to have such fears? Truly curious.

Sheri B.

Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@...> wrote:

Sheri,

The theory says approximately: Seek to become aware of what

it was that caused the original (bigger or smaller) shock. This

by your (a person's) own reflection about your history, or you

can be helped by a New Medicine therapist in this. Then you

may get to realize that there's nothing to fear, the next time you

smell that hay - no, sorry, in your case it was, when you see one

of those cats again, or something - which used to make you

think (feel) , " aw, now that awful thing is going to happen again! " .

Something like that, if I understand it correctly!

Rolf M.

At 05:03 2006-04-18 -0700, you (Seri B. <tallchick1966@...>)wrote:

>Rolf, I am truly laughing over the haystack analogy! I don't have

>hayfever - maybe that's why?? LOL

>

> My question to you is this: whether it is truly contagion or an

> emotional shock or empathy, the common denominator seems to be that when

> one or more persons become ill then it spreads like wildfire. What then

> can be done to stop it?

>

> Thanks,

> Sheri B.

>

>Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@...> wrote:

> At 03:23 2006-04-18 +0000, you <vaccinegenocide@...>

> wrote:

>

> >Sorry to bring this up again, but the subject of whether or not

> >disease-causing viruses exist is very interesting. Take the common

> >cold for example. One family member gets sick, then within a week

> >everyone else in the family comes down with the same thing. Sounds

> >pretty simple, germs cause disease. I reject the germ theory

> >personally, but when confronted with this scenario it's difficult to

> >respond to those that accept this theory. Ok, if the other family

> >members had strong, healthy internal terrains, they wouldn't get sick.

> >But since they don't, these cold germs go to work on them as well.

> >Now, if these family members were to be separated from the first sick

> >person, even though they have unhealthy systems, they probably

> >wouldn't get sick. To conclude, to avoid the cold just avoid the

> >germs. Somehow this does seems logical. ????

> >

> >Dan

>But WRONG!

>

>Now I've promised another writer to return to this

>subject, as soon as I have a little time for this

>and also have learned some more about that New Medicine

>- homepage in English at

><http://www.newmedicine.ca/>http://www.newmedicine.ca/

>

>What causes that which seems like " a contagion " ?

>

>As far as I've gathered:

>

>Firstly, there hasn't been much REAL research on

>this - " tradtional " medicine long having been

>concentrating on a quite erroneous hypothesis

>(of those " harmful " germs)

>

>Secondly, the reporting you see on such things

>is often incorrect.

>

>Thirdly - If I've understood one discussion at

>a relevant forum correctly:

>

>The things called " diseases " in general are responses

>to certain shocks (bigger or smaller) the person in

>question gets. Now supposing one person gets a cold

>(due to one such shock - as everyone knows, btw,

>wheather conditions play an important role here),

>then some of his or her relatives or classmates, say,

>not seldom get one too. Why? Out of sympathy

>(or empathy, if you wish), seems to be a possibility!

>We humans are very much " herd animals " (as are horses,

>for instance, too), possibly even much more so than

>generally realized - that element of course has been

>most important in the entire development of mankind,

>up too and including civilization too. Close

>co-operation between several people who are together

>of course is vital for this.

>

>Now that I've started a little on this, I want to

>add also: One of the funniest things, I think, in

>the New Medicine theory (most probably correct!):

>Allergies are caused by shocks too - by reminders

>of earlier such. For instance, when something very

>unpleasant happened at one earlier point in your

>life, you happened to see a cat running by. Well

>then, because of this you may get allergic to cats,

>because whenever you see one the later, you'll get

>reminded of that unpleasant incident! This is called

> " getting on to a track " (when you see a cat).

>

>The funny part here is about *hay fever*. This was

>earlier the most common allergy. Why? Well, says

>that nice theory, because a person's first lovemaking

>in many cases took place in a haystack, and then

>there could be a disappointment (due to lack of

>practice - rather common) or anoter kind

>of unpleasantness, in the form of an unwanted

>discovery by a third person of what was going on.

>

>The smell of hay, then, would later remind

>a person of such an unpleasantness.

>

>And why is " hay fever " less common today? Why,

>because of urbanization, of course! Not that

>many persons today, in the somewhat more

>highely-developed countries, will have had their

>first lovemaking in a haystack!

>

>How about that? Can a (part) theory that funny

>really be wrong, do you think?

>

>Rolf M.

>

>----------

[Guest guest]

Hi Sheri,

I have given that one some thought and have come to the conclusion that an

infant can experience shock, fear and trauma and become sick or damaged as a

result. Some would even say this is possible while still in the womb. My Henry

was only 3 days old when he got his first taste breast milk, coughed and was

quickly whisked away to be poked and prodded, isolated and medicated at such a

crucial time of bonding and receiving nourishment from his mother. I believe

this event in combination with other assaults are very likely responsible for

his retreat into autism. I guess I'll never know what truely caused it, but my

instincts tell me his emotional, mental and physical well-being were altered by

these events of fear, seperation and drugs.

Anita

" Sheri B. " <tallchick1966@...> wrote:

OK, but how do you explain sickness in a small child? Surely they have not

had enough experiences at six months of age to have such fears? Truly curious.

Sheri B.

Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@...> wrote:

Sheri,

The theory says approximately: Seek to become aware of what

it was that caused the original (bigger or smaller) shock. This

by your (a person's) own reflection about your history, or you

can be helped by a New Medicine therapist in this. Then you

may get to realize that there's nothing to fear, the next time you

smell that hay - no, sorry, in your case it was, when you see one

of those cats again, or something - which used to make you

think (feel) , " aw, now that awful thing is going to happen again! " .

Something like that, if I understand it correctly!

Rolf M.

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

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using

Messenger with Voice.

[Guest guest]

Well, I DO have hayfever, and have never spent any time in the hay! LOL I'm

also very allergic to cats and will react with violent symptoms when entering a

house that has a cat or even USED to have a cat (and it's happened when I didn't

KNOW there was a cat there or had been one but the symptoms still occur).

I still think there is something between the germ theory and one that says

germs don't have any part in causing illness.

Fortunately there is homeopathy to help the body deal with whatever is causing

it to be out of whack.

Kay

Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@...> wrote:

Now that I've started a little on this, I want to

add also: One of the funniest things, I think, in

the New Medicine theory (most probably correct!):

Allergies are caused by shocks too - by reminders

of earlier such. For instance, when something very

unpleasant happened at one earlier point in your

life, you happened to see a cat running by. Well

then, because of this you may get allergic to cats,

because whenever you see one the later, you'll get

reminded of that unpleasant incident! This is called

" getting on to a track " (when you see a cat).

The funny part here is about *hay fever*. This was

earlier the most common allergy. Why? Well, says

that nice theory, because a person's first lovemaking

in many cases took place in a haystack, and then

there could be a disappointment (due to lack of

practice - rather common) or anoter kind

of unpleasantness, in the form of an unwanted

discovery by a third person of what was going on.

The smell of hay, then, would later remind

a person of such an unpleasantness.

And why is " hay fever " less common today? Why,

because of urbanization, of course! Not that

many persons today, in the somewhat more

highely-developed countries, will have had their

first lovemaking in a haystack!

How about that? Can a (part) theory that funny

really be wrong, do you think?

Rolf M.

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

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

[Guest guest]

Anita,

And I would agree that something that traumatic could indeed cause such

distress as in Henry's case (or my nephew's - hard birth, etc...).

But what about a child who is happily playing on the bed with her siblings,

like my toddler a few weeks ago, and is vomiting her head off the next moment?

And coincidentally all the kids in the preschool get the same thing?

I know that susceptibility must play some sort of role - that makes sense -

but I have difficulty in thinking that all these kids suffered some sort of

emotional blow to make them all vomit and have diarrhea for 8 days. Maybe I'm

not getting it.

Sheri B.

Anita Durney <mydurney@...> wrote:

Hi Sheri,

I have given that one some thought and have come to the conclusion that an

infant can experience shock, fear and trauma and become sick or damaged as a

result. Some would even say this is possible while still in the womb. My Henry

was only 3 days old when he got his first taste breast milk, coughed and was

quickly whisked away to be poked and prodded, isolated and medicated at such a

crucial time of bonding and receiving nourishment from his mother. I believe

this event in combination with other assaults are very likely responsible for

his retreat into autism. I guess I'll never know what truely caused it, but my

instincts tell me his emotional, mental and physical well-being were altered by

these events of fear, seperation and drugs.

Anita

" Sheri B. " <tallchick1966@...> wrote:

OK, but how do you explain sickness in a small child? Surely they have not

had enough experiences at six months of age to have such fears? Truly curious.

Sheri B.

Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@...> wrote:

Sheri,

The theory says approximately: Seek to become aware of what

it was that caused the original (bigger or smaller) shock. This

by your (a person's) own reflection about your history, or you

can be helped by a New Medicine therapist in this. Then you

may get to realize that there's nothing to fear, the next time you

smell that hay - no, sorry, in your case it was, when you see one

of those cats again, or something - which used to make you

think (feel) , " aw, now that awful thing is going to happen again! " .

Something like that, if I understand it correctly!

Rolf M.

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

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using

Messenger with Voice.

[Guest guest]

It's complicated for sure. I think that most of our children are more

susceptible than we think. I also happen to think they catch or share certain

illnesses whether they are caused by germs or not. When half the class comes

down with the same set of symptoms, well, it's hard to deny they are all not

being affected by the same thing.

once wrote about the German word for chicken pox and that it means

spread by the wind or something like that. What is being spread if not a

contagion?

Anita

" Sheri B. " <tallchick1966@...> wrote:

Anita,

And I would agree that something that traumatic could indeed cause such

distress as in Henry's case (or my nephew's - hard birth, etc...).

But what about a child who is happily playing on the bed with her siblings,

like my toddler a few weeks ago, and is vomiting her head off the next moment?

And coincidentally all the kids in the preschool get the same thing?

I know that susceptibility must play some sort of role - that makes sense -

but I have difficulty in thinking that all these kids suffered some sort of

emotional blow to make them all vomit and have diarrhea for 8 days. Maybe I'm

not getting it.

Sheri B.

Anita Durney <mydurney@...> wrote:

Hi Sheri,

I have given that one some thought and have come to the conclusion that an

infant can experience shock, fear and trauma and become sick or damaged as a

result. Some would even say this is possible while still in the womb. My Henry

was only 3 days old when he got his first taste breast milk, coughed and was

quickly whisked away to be poked and prodded, isolated and medicated at such a

crucial time of bonding and receiving nourishment from his mother. I believe

this event in combination with other assaults are very likely responsible for

his retreat into autism. I guess I'll never know what truely caused it, but my

instincts tell me his emotional, mental and physical well-being were altered by

these events of fear, seperation and drugs.

Anita

" Sheri B. " <tallchick1966@...> wrote:

OK, but how do you explain sickness in a small child? Surely they have not

had enough experiences at six months of age to have such fears? Truly curious.

Sheri B.

Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@...> wrote:

Sheri,

The theory says approximately: Seek to become aware of what

it was that caused the original (bigger or smaller) shock. This

by your (a person's) own reflection about your history, or you

can be helped by a New Medicine therapist in this. Then you

may get to realize that there's nothing to fear, the next time you

smell that hay - no, sorry, in your case it was, when you see one

of those cats again, or something - which used to make you

think (feel) , " aw, now that awful thing is going to happen again! " .

Something like that, if I understand it correctly!

Rolf M.

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

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using

Messenger with Voice.

[Guest guest]

Sheri, there are lots of such things which I intend to ask about

concerning the New Medicine at some German-language

discussion forums where there are people who know this

much better.

My guess at present is, that even very young children may

have fears, causing one of those " repair programs " which are

usually called " diseases " . Possibly, " traditional " thinking

underestimates the level of consciousness of a (language-less)

person as young as six months, for instance.

Rolf M.

At 07:19 2006-04-18 -0700, you Sheri B. <tallchick1966@...> wrote:

>OK, but how do you explain sickness in a small child? Surely they have

>not had enough experiences at six months of age to have such fears? Truly

>curious.

> Sheri B.

>

>Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@...> wrote:

> Sheri,

>

>The theory says approximately: Seek to become aware of what

>it was that caused the original (bigger or smaller) shock. This

>by your (a person's) own reflection about your history, or you

>can be helped by a New Medicine therapist in this. Then you

>may get to realize that there's nothing to fear, the next time you

>smell that hay - no, sorry, in your case it was, when you see one

>of those cats again, or something - which used to make you

>think (feel) , " aw, now that awful thing is going to happen again! " .

>

>Something like that, if I understand it correctly!

>

>Rolf M.

>

>At 05:03 2006-04-18 -0700, you (Seri B. <tallchick1966@...>)wrote:

>

> >Rolf, I am truly laughing over the haystack analogy! I don't have

> >hayfever - maybe that's why?? LOL

> >

> > My question to you is this: whether it is truly contagion or an

> > emotional shock or empathy, the common denominator seems to be that when

> > one or more persons become ill then it spreads like wildfire. What then

> > can be done to stop it?

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Sheri B.

> >

> >Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@...> wrote:

> > At 03:23 2006-04-18 +0000, you <vaccinegenocide@...>

> > wrote:

> >

> > >Sorry to bring this up again, but the subject of whether or not

> > >disease-causing viruses exist is very interesting. Take the common

> > >cold for example. One family member gets sick, then within a week

> > >everyone else in the family comes down with the same thing. Sounds

> > >pretty simple, germs cause disease. I reject the germ theory

> > >personally, but when confronted with this scenario it's difficult to

> > >respond to those that accept this theory. Ok, if the other family

> > >members had strong, healthy internal terrains, they wouldn't get sick.

> > >But since they don't, these cold germs go to work on them as well.

> > >Now, if these family members were to be separated from the first sick

> > >person, even though they have unhealthy systems, they probably

> > >wouldn't get sick. To conclude, to avoid the cold just avoid the

> > >germs. Somehow this does seems logical. ????

> > >

> > >Dan

> >But WRONG!

> >

> >Now I've promised another writer to return to this

> >subject, as soon as I have a little time for this

> >and also have learned some more about that New Medicine

> >- homepage in English at

> ><<http://www.newmedicine.ca/>http://www.newmedicine.ca/>http://www.newmed

> icine.ca/

> >

> >What causes that which seems like " a contagion " ?

> >

> >As far as I've gathered:

> >

> >Firstly, there hasn't been much REAL research on

> >this - " tradtional " medicine long having been

> >concentrating on a quite erroneous hypothesis

> >(of those " harmful " germs)

> >

> >Secondly, the reporting you see on such things

> >is often incorrect.

> >

> >Thirdly - If I've understood one discussion at

> >a relevant forum correctly:

> >

> >The things called " diseases " in general are responses

> >to certain shocks (bigger or smaller) the person in

> >question gets. Now supposing one person gets a cold

> >(due to one such shock - as everyone knows, btw,

> >wheather conditions play an important role here),

> >then some of his or her relatives or classmates, say,

> >not seldom get one too. Why? Out of sympathy

> >(or empathy, if you wish), seems to be a possibility!

> >We humans are very much " herd animals " (as are horses,

> >for instance, too), possibly even much more so than

> >generally realized - that element of course has been

> >most important in the entire development of mankind,

> >up too and including civilization too. Close

> >co-operation between several people who are together

> >of course is vital for this.

> >

> >Now that I've started a little on this, I want to

> >add also: One of the funniest things, I think, in

> >the New Medicine theory (most probably correct!):

> >Allergies are caused by shocks too - by reminders

> >of earlier such. For instance, when something very

> >unpleasant happened at one earlier point in your

> >life, you happened to see a cat running by. Well

> >then, because of this you may get allergic to cats,

> >because whenever you see one the later, you'll get

> >reminded of that unpleasant incident! This is called

> > " getting on to a track " (when you see a cat).

> >

> >The funny part here is about *hay fever*. This was

> >earlier the most common allergy. Why? Well, says

> >that nice theory, because a person's first lovemaking

> >in many cases took place in a haystack, and then

> >there could be a disappointment (due to lack of

> >practice - rather common) or anoter kind

> >of unpleasantness, in the form of an unwanted

> >discovery by a third person of what was going on.

> >

> >The smell of hay, then, would later remind

> >a person of such an unpleasantness.

> >

> >And why is " hay fever " less common today? Why,

> >because of urbanization, of course! Not that

> >many persons today, in the somewhat more

> >highely-developed countries, will have had their

> >first lovemaking in a haystack!

> >

> >How about that? Can a (part) theory that funny

> >really be wrong, do you think?

> >

> >Rolf M.

[Guest guest]

At 10:26 2006-04-18 -0700, you Anita Durney <mydurney@...> wrote:

>Hi Sheri,

>

> I have given that one some thought and have come to the conclusion that

> an infant can experience shock, fear and trauma and become sick or

> damaged as a result. Some would even say this is possible while still in

> the womb.

Something like that is what I've been guessing too, though I have

no experience concerning such things.

Rolf M.

>My Henry was only 3 days old when he got his first taste breast milk,

>coughed and was quickly whisked away to be poked and prodded, isolated

>and medicated at such a crucial time of bonding and receiving nourishment

>from his mother. I believe this event in combination with other assaults

>are very likely responsible for his retreat into autism. I guess I'll

>never know what truely caused it, but my instincts tell me his emotional,

>mental and physical well-being were altered by these events of fear,

>seperation and drugs.

>

> Anita

>

>

>

> " Sheri B. " <tallchick1966@...> wrote:

> OK, but how do you explain sickness in a small child? Surely they have

> not had enough experiences at six months of age to have such

> fears? Truly curious.

> Sheri B.

>

>Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@...> wrote:

> Sheri,

>

>The theory says approximately: Seek to become aware of what

>it was that caused the original (bigger or smaller) shock. This

>by your (a person's) own reflection about your history, or you

>can be helped by a New Medicine therapist in this. Then you

>may get to realize that there's nothing to fear, the next time you

>smell that hay - no, sorry, in your case it was, when you see one

>of those cats again, or something - which used to make you

>think (feel) , " aw, now that awful thing is going to happen again! " .

>

>Something like that, if I understand it correctly!

>

>Rolf M.

[Guest guest]

At 11:10 2006-04-18 -0700, you Kay Philpot <kay8889@...> wrote:

>Well, I DO have hayfever, and have never spent any time in the hay! LOL

Dont' want to admit that old fling, huh? Still trying to keep it a secret?

But seriously - I'm still guessing there is some connection or other

of that type which that theory maintains.

Though I'm not really of very much use, at present at least, as

an " explainer " of these matters. I'm making mental notes of the

discussion points brought here; perhaps in a few months' time

I shall know more. Trying to learn more about the New Medicine

is only one of several priorities of mine however. I above all am

" a political animal " , as I've written earlier.

>I'm also very allergic to cats and will react with violent symptoms when

>entering a house that has a cat or even USED to have a cat (and it's

>happened when I didn't KNOW there was a cat there or had been one but the

>symptoms still occur).

Smells of cats, perhaps?

>

> I still think there is something between the germ theory and one that

> says germs don't have any part in causing illness.

There can hardly be something " in between " the two theories, I'm guessing.

Rolf M.

>

> Fortunately there is homeopathy to help the body deal with whatever is

> causing it to be out of whack.

>

> Kay

>

>Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@...> wrote:

>

>Now that I've started a little on this, I want to

>add also: One of the funniest things, I think, in

>the New Medicine theory (most probably correct!):

>Allergies are caused by shocks too - by reminders

>of earlier such. For instance, when something very

>unpleasant happened at one earlier point in your

>life, you happened to see a cat running by. Well

>then, because of this you may get allergic to cats,

>because whenever you see one the later, you'll get

>reminded of that unpleasant incident! This is called

> " getting on to a track " (when you see a cat).

>

>The funny part here is about *hay fever*. This was

>earlier the most common allergy. Why? Well, says

>that nice theory, because a person's first lovemaking

>in many cases took place in a haystack, and then

>there could be a disappointment (due to lack of

>practice - rather common) or anoter kind

>of unpleasantness, in the form of an unwanted

>discovery by a third person of what was going on.

>

>The smell of hay, then, would later remind

>a person of such an unpleasantness.

>

>And why is " hay fever " less common today? Why,

>because of urbanization, of course! Not that

>many persons today, in the somewhat more

>highely-developed countries, will have had their

>first lovemaking in a haystack!

>

>How about that? Can a (part) theory that funny

>really be wrong, do you think?

>

>Rolf M.

>

>----------