Re: Being sick a lot vs. not being sick a lot

[Guest guest]

Hi Stacey,

this is indeed very interesting. I believe that being ill in an

otherwise healthy, unvaxed and hopefully breastfed child is something

that is part of growing up and exposure to dirt and germs indeed help

to stimulate the immune system. I grew up in a village in Romania,

with no running water, no toilet in the house (we had ours outside,

with rats running about...) and no access to bath/showers every night.

Yet, we never had any serious illness, and when we did get sick, we

got better with mum's care and love, not medication. I did become very

ill as a toddler but that was due to the amount of vaccines I was

given, not breastfed and treated with antibiotics. But even then, I

recovered well and was stronger afterwards.We grew our own organic

food, emptied our toilet into the garden and played in the mud with

our friends but had no diseases from this or any allergies at all.

I think that a strong immune system is the key and such people will

become ill less often and even then just mildly, and the exposure to

soil bacteria is great to help achieve this. This is why I never wear

gloves when working in the garden... I also believe that weaknesses in

our systems can be inherited and/or triggered by stress and then

people are more prone to disease. The fresh air, away from the city,

will help a lot to stay healthy too as will the hard work on a farm.

Ingrid

>

> I have read with interest the comments about how being sick more

> helps the immune system develop and how kids who are sick more may

> be healthier in the long run. I wanted to add my two cents and

> stimulate some discussion about this.

>

> First, my sisters and I were all vaxed (we were born in '77, '79,

> and '84, so it doesn't compare to the schedule my 6-month-old

> daughter is expected to endure) and had the typical up-all-night-

> screaming-and-feverish reactions. But we grew up on a farm and were

> rarely sick, even with colds. Perhaps once a year we would get a

> cold. I remember having the flu once in high school and once in

> college. My youngest sister had lots of ear infections though, and

> my mom went the antibiotics route with her (no alternative peds in

> rural western pa in 1988!) and, lo and behold, she now has asthma

> and regularly takes 3 asthma/allergy medications. We all had

> chicken pox, ringworm, a few colds, sometimes weird things like

> ptoriasis rosea (sp?) or fifth's disease (basically a rash), but to

> this day we are very healthy.

>

> I have read about the benefits of growing up on farms and with

> animals - that regular contact with soil enzymes and animals

> stimulates and strengthens the immune system. I fully believe in

> that concept. I also believe in the power of thinking yourself

> well - my mother never let us dwell on being sick, and would play

> down our symptoms and not administer OTC meds unless we were REALLY

> suffering - and then only Triaminic. So we grew up with the idea

> that when we were sick, it was a sign from our bodies that we

> weren't taking care of ourselves and it was time to rest and heal,

> and that we actually had the power to heal ourselves.

>

> I don't agree with the idea that kids who are sick more often are

> healthier in the long run. I do agree with the idea that kids whose

> immune systems are stimulated more often are healthier. We seem to

> have a strange dichotomy of ideas popping up on this forum from time

> to time - talking about how much sicker someone's vaxed kid is than

> our unvaxed kids (my daughter has yet to get a sniffle at 6 months,

> and she chews on everything from grocery carts to table edges), yet

> we would rather our kids get measles, mumps, and pertussis than go

> through the vaxes because that would make them healthier.

>

> Please understand that I'm not attacking anyone's ideas. In fact, I

> would rather my kid get measles than get the MMR! (I think...) I

> just wanted to stimulate some discussion about this topic and see

> what other people thought about it.

>

> stacey

>

[Guest guest]

I'm curious to hear everyone's comments on this too.

Stacey, you are so fortunate to have grown up on a farm and had a mother that

played down being sick.

Personally I'm convinced that my daughters don't get sick because they are not

vaxed and breastfed. They have never even had an ear infection which seems to be

so common. My 7yr stepson is fully vaxed and has been on numerous meds including

antibiotics and now has been given inhalers because the ped thinks he has mild

asthma. Because my MIL makes a HUGE deal when he's " sick " (or just coughs) gives

him meds & everything he wants, he thinks it's " cool " to be sick. Whenever he

wants some attention or if there are people over he will fake cough and break

out his inhaler to show off. It hurts me to think of the damage he is doing to

his body. So to see the big contrast between them convinces me. Yet they won't

admit it.

I also am no longer a germ freak and stopped sanitizing everything. My girls

have chewed on everything too. I think this exposure to everyday " germs "

strengthens the immune system too.

Now as for actual " diseases " strengthening the immune system - I have no

experience or knowledge of that one.

[staceyatwellkeister@...] wrote:

I have read with interest the comments about how being sick more

helps the immune system develop and how kids who are sick more may

be healthier in the long run. I wanted to add my two cents and

stimulate some discussion about this.

First, my sisters and I were all vaxed (we were born in '77, '79,

and '84, so it doesn't compare to the schedule my 6-month-old

daughter is expected to endure) and had the typical up-all-night-

screaming-and-feverish reactions. But we grew up on a farm and were

rarely sick, even with colds. Perhaps once a year we would get a

cold. I remember having the flu once in high school and once in

college. My youngest sister had lots of ear infections though, and

my mom went the antibiotics route with her (no alternative peds in

rural western pa in 1988!) and, lo and behold, she now has asthma

and regularly takes 3 asthma/allergy medications. We all had

chicken pox, ringworm, a few colds, sometimes weird things like

ptoriasis rosea (sp?) or fifth's disease (basically a rash), but to

this day we are very healthy.

I have read about the benefits of growing up on farms and with

animals - that regular contact with soil enzymes and animals

stimulates and strengthens the immune system. I fully believe in

that concept. I also believe in the power of thinking yourself

well - my mother never let us dwell on being sick, and would play

down our symptoms and not administer OTC meds unless we were REALLY

suffering - and then only Triaminic. So we grew up with the idea

that when we were sick, it was a sign from our bodies that we

weren't taking care of ourselves and it was time to rest and heal,

and that we actually had the power to heal ourselves.

I don't agree with the idea that kids who are sick more often are

healthier in the long run. I do agree with the idea that kids whose

immune systems are stimulated more often are healthier. We seem to

have a strange dichotomy of ideas popping up on this forum from time

to time - talking about how much sicker someone's vaxed kid is than

our unvaxed kids (my daughter has yet to get a sniffle at 6 months,

and she chews on everything from grocery carts to table edges), yet

we would rather our kids get measles, mumps, and pertussis than go

through the vaxes because that would make them healthier.

Please understand that I'm not attacking anyone's ideas. In fact, I

would rather my kid get measles than get the MMR! (I think...) I

just wanted to stimulate some discussion about this topic and see

what other people thought about it.

stacey

[Guest guest]

My daughter is 7 mo old and unvaxed and still exclusively breastfed,

never had any meds, except homeopathy remedies, but she has had 3

small colds and just got over the flu (she got this from my husband).

This has given her body some practice with responding to these types

of viruses without medical intervention. She came through all of

these without any serious issues. What if I would have given her

tylenol for her fever or antibiotics (for who knows what). I wonder

if she would have gotten sicker or been sicker longer, I will never

know for sure, except to say that my son (who was vaxed) had something

very similar at 9 months. I used tylenol with him, the fever went on

for 4 days, he ended up with a double ear infection which I gave him

antibiotics for and more tylenol and motrin (on doctors orders). So

if I could compare them side by side (which I know you can't), then

the unmedicated child came through the best for sure.

There is some thought (though I am still learning how it works), that

many of the childhood illnesses are actually helpful in removing

illnesses that we might have inherited. For example, it has been seen

that a child with eczema who then has the measles, might not get

eczema again after that. Some how, the measles stimulates the part of

the immune system that helps rid the body of whatever causes someone

to have eczema.

It is also thought that when your body gets too full of toxins, it is

more likely to get sick, and the illness actually rids the bodies of

the toxins. So, if a child eats very healthy and is not exposed to

many toxins, in theory, they would not get sick very much. Of course,

the problem with this is that their immune system wouldn't get very

good practice if they are never sick.

So while it is nice to say my child never gets sick, this may not be a

good thing long term. So, what do you do? Are you supposed to load

them up on toxins so that they will get sick so their immune system

can practice? It is all so confusing.

Tara

[Guest guest]

My son (7yrs old) no vax, no antibiotics etc... does get sick now and then, it

seems to be less and less - but his illnesses last hours now not days...

The last time he was sick - a tummy bug of sorts going around, my daughter

(3yrs) was sick for 2 days, my son, HOURS... he woke up - said he didn't feel

well, he then threw up, went to the bathroom and pooped - and then was PERFECTLY

fine - it was AMAZING to see - my husband and I also got the bug, and we were

ill over a few days, neither of us threw up - and it seemd to drag it out that

much longer.

I think the child being ill or exposed to things at a younger age (without being

suppressed), teaches the body how to handle those same types of things, and the

body then learns how best to handle the situation all on its own.

Children in my daughters daycare were out a whole week because of this same bug.

I didn't treat either of mine with anything to stop the poops or anything like

that, and both were fine, my daughter lost her appitite for those two days, but

was otherwise totally normal in her day to day personality.....

Chelly

Being sick a lot vs. not being sick a lot

I have read with interest the comments about how being sick more

helps the immune system develop and how kids who are sick more may

be healthier in the long run. I wanted to add my two cents and

stimulate some discussion about this.

First, my sisters and I were all vaxed (we were born in '77, '79,

and '84, so it doesn't compare to the schedule my 6-month-old

daughter is expected to endure) and had the typical up-all-night-

screaming-and-feverish reactions. But we grew up on a farm and were

rarely sick, even with colds. Perhaps once a year we would get a

cold. I remember having the flu once in high school and once in

college. My youngest sister had lots of ear infections though, and

my mom went the antibiotics route with her (no alternative peds in

rural western pa in 1988!) and, lo and behold, she now has asthma

and regularly takes 3 asthma/allergy medications. We all had

chicken pox, ringworm, a few colds, sometimes weird things like

ptoriasis rosea (sp?) or fifth's disease (basically a rash), but to

this day we are very healthy.

I have read about the benefits of growing up on farms and with

animals - that regular contact with soil enzymes and animals

stimulates and strengthens the immune system. I fully believe in

that concept. I also believe in the power of thinking yourself

well - my mother never let us dwell on being sick, and would play

down our symptoms and not administer OTC meds unless we were REALLY

suffering - and then only Triaminic. So we grew up with the idea

that when we were sick, it was a sign from our bodies that we

weren't taking care of ourselves and it was time to rest and heal,

and that we actually had the power to heal ourselves.

I don't agree with the idea that kids who are sick more often are

healthier in the long run. I do agree with the idea that kids whose

immune systems are stimulated more often are healthier. We seem to

have a strange dichotomy of ideas popping up on this forum from time

to time - talking about how much sicker someone's vaxed kid is than

our unvaxed kids (my daughter has yet to get a sniffle at 6 months,

and she chews on everything from grocery carts to table edges), yet

we would rather our kids get measles, mumps, and pertussis than go

through the vaxes because that would make them healthier.

Please understand that I'm not attacking anyone's ideas. In fact, I

would rather my kid get measles than get the MMR! (I think...) I

just wanted to stimulate some discussion about this topic and see

what other people thought about it.

stacey

[Guest guest]

>

> The last time he was sick - a tummy bug of sorts going around, my

daughter (3yrs) was sick for 2 days, my son, HOURS... he woke up -

said he didn't feel well, he then threw up, went to the bathroom and

pooped - and then was PERFECTLY fine - it was AMAZING to see - my

husband and I also got the bug, and we were ill over a few days,

neither of us threw up - and it seemd to drag it out that much

longer.

My 3 year old son has this too, where he will be sick vomiting mucus

for a couple of hours, first thing in the morning when nothing is in

his stomach, and then that is it. It seems to get shorter each time.

The last time was a couple of days ago and he was fine after an hour.

Tara

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/10/2007 8:40:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,

chlobot@... writes:

My DD who was

partially vaxxed seems to have been sick since she

started preschool.

Do you think the vaccines play a part in it?

Holly

[Guest guest]

Here is a good article for this subject, by Incao. There is

another good one called something like " mummy, I am just growing up "

or similar, but I can't find it right now, maybe anyone else can help.

Ingrid

The reasons of childhood disease

By Philip F. Incao, M.D.

Acute inflammations like colds, flus and fevers seem to be an

inescapable part of life: everyone experiences them. Why do we get

them? Many of us have noticed (if not, then our spouses have noticed!)

that we often come down with a cold or flu when we are overly stressed

or depleted.

We explain this by assuming that stress lowers our resistance to the

viruses and bacteria that, we believe, like to attack us and make us

sick. Most of the time we peacefully co-exist with these microbes

which everywhere share our environment, and if we get sick it's often

because we've allowed ourselves to get out of balance. This applies to

children too, but only partially.

In children, studies have shown that respiratory infections increase

in frequency from birth until a peak by age 6 followed by a sharp

decline after age 7, irrespective of treatment. In other words, it

seems to be a normal feature of childhood to experience a variety of

acute inflammations, especially respiratory, in the first seven years

of life.

Prior to the advent of 20th century improvements in sanitation and

living standards, children had a high death rate in their first seven

years from these acute inflammations: measles, scarlet fever,

diphtheria, whooping cough and the common unnamed pneumonias and

diarrheas.

These have been the greatest threats to children throughout history,

and still are in developing countries.

In all modern nations children's deaths from such acute inflammations

have been steeply declining ever since 1900, and over 90% of the

decline occurred before the advent of antibiotics and vaccinations.

Polio is an important exception to this pattern.

Just before 1900, when all the other familiar life-threatening

children's illnesses were beginning to decline, the newcomer polio

made its first appearance in medical history and continued to grow in

importance until its abrupt decline with the advent of the Salk and

Sabin polio vaccines in the 1950's.

In the U.S. today what used to be the common dangerous infections of

childhood only account for about one percent of children's deaths. In

contrast to this, 7% of deaths in US children aged 1-19 are from

cancer, 7% are from suicide and a shocking 14% are from homicide.

Since 1960 there has been a sharp increase in both the frequency and

the severity of asthma in many developed nations. In the US, asthma

accounts for one percent of children's deaths -- equal to infections

-- and is a leading cause of childhood disability.

A growing body of medical research supports the commonsense idea that

children who experience frequent infections and inflammations in early

childhood will strengthen their immune systems and will be less prone

to allergies and asthma than children who rarely experience such

infections.

This idea is called " the hygiene hypothesis " . Research has revealed a

list of factors which correlate with a decreased risk of asthma and

allergies, including the avoidance of vaccinations and antibiotics and

the blessings of growing up in a large family and having farm animals.

If the hygiene hypothesis proves to be correct, it will have a

revolutionary impact on medical practice. We will realize that when

children experience their cold and fevers, they are challenging their

immune systems and developing an inner strength which will be theirs

throughout life.

As with all challenges in childhood, our job as parents and healthcare

workers will be to strengthen the child to meet its challenges but not

to remove the challenges altogether. In any case, it's not possible in

the long run to eliminate challenges, but only to replace some kinds

of challenges with other kinds.

The blessing of modern medicine is that it has the tools and

techniques to ease suffering and save lives when we or our children

are in danger of being overwhelmed by illness.

Nevertheless, thwarting or suppressing illness does not automatically

create health, though it does grant us or our children the respite to

return to health thanks to our body's natural tendency to heal and to

restore balance.

Health and healing are mostly about developing our inner capacities to

adapt to change and to maintain balance as we move through life's journey.

To truly foster the overall health and inner strength of our children,

we need to go beyond the short-sighted view of illnesses as hostile

aggressors and of children as helpless victims. Children are

individuals. Each child gets ill in his or her own individual way, and

each illness a child gets has a meaningful part to play among the

challenges belonging to that child's life.

Just like everything else in nature, individual illnesses exist within

a larger context of a balanced system. There is an ecology of human

illness. If we attempt to eliminate a single element of an ecological

system, we disturb the balance of the whole in ways which can lead to

unforeseen consequences.

To these unforeseen consequences belong the dramatic increases in

asthma, allergies, diabetes, autism, and learning dysfunctions

occurring in children today. These result, in part, from modern

medicine's failure to appreciate where the balance lies in health and

illness, and from its failure to grasp that when you push down on one

side of the balance, the other side goes up!

Our present effort to eradicate acute infectious diseases in children

through increasing numbers of vaccines has already long overshot the

healthy balance point, and is now helping to create in developed

nations more chronic disease and disability in children then ever before.

To improve public health, health policy needs to shift its focus from

eradicating particular diseases to improving the social conditions

which breed disease, and physicians need to learn how to help our

individual patients to maintain balance in body, soul and spirit

throughout their lives.

If we physicians learn that, and if we apply it to ourselves as well,

then the overall health of our society cannot help but improve.

[Guest guest]

I don't know how to answer this. My DD who was

partially vaxxed seems to have been sick since she

started preschool. It's mostly been small sstuff -

colds and what not. But she did have a cough that

went on and on and on. Right now she seems to be

working on another cold.

I have found a homeopath but its been frustrating

because everytime we start her constitutional remedy

she gets sick and we need to take a break and use

something for her current symptoms.

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love

(and love to hate): TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

http://tv./collections/265

[Guest guest]

This is VERY interesting Stacey. I too was born in '77, fully vaxed,

bottlefed, etc., grew up on a farm and was rarely sick. To this day

I am very healthy and maybe get a cold

once a year. I got chickenpox (very mild) and the measles as a child.

My son has been selectively vaccinated so far (before I came across

this site and the potential dangers of vaccinations) and has had 1

fever and 1 cold and is 19 months old. When he did get sick it was

1-2 days and he was still playful for the duration. I am still

breastfeeding and I know that this is having a huge effect on his

good health but I tend to think that he has inherited a strong immune

system from myself and my husband (very healthy as well, although

when he is down with the flu it seems to hit him harder).

Kristie :-)

On 9-Feb-07, at 10:44 AM, staceyatwellkeister wrote:

> I have read with interest the comments about how being sick more

> helps the immune system develop and how kids who are sick more may

> be healthier in the long run. I wanted to add my two cents and

> stimulate some discussion about this.

>

> First, my sisters and I were all vaxed (we were born in '77, '79,

> and '84, so it doesn't compare to the schedule my 6-month-old

> daughter is expected to endure) and had the typical up-all-night-

> screaming-and-feverish reactions. But we grew up on a farm and were

> rarely sick, even with colds. Perhaps once a year we would get a

> cold. I remember having the flu once in high school and once in

> college. My youngest sister had lots of ear infections though, and

> my mom went the antibiotics route with her (no alternative peds in

> rural western pa in 1988!) and, lo and behold, she now has asthma

> and regularly takes 3 asthma/allergy medications. We all had

> chicken pox, ringworm, a few colds, sometimes weird things like

> ptoriasis rosea (sp?) or fifth's disease (basically a rash), but to

> this day we are very healthy.

>

> I have read about the benefits of growing up on farms and with

> animals - that regular contact with soil enzymes and animals

> stimulates and strengthens the immune system. I fully believe in

> that concept. I also believe in the power of thinking yourself

> well - my mother never let us dwell on being sick, and would play

> down our symptoms and not administer OTC meds unless we were REALLY

> suffering - and then only Triaminic. So we grew up with the idea

> that when we were sick, it was a sign from our bodies that we

> weren't taking care of ourselves and it was time to rest and heal,

> and that we actually had the power to heal ourselves.

>

> I don't agree with the idea that kids who are sick more often are

> healthier in the long run. I do agree with the idea that kids whose

> immune systems are stimulated more often are healthier. We seem to

> have a strange dichotomy of ideas popping up on this forum from time

> to time - talking about how much sicker someone's vaxed kid is than

> our unvaxed kids (my daughter has yet to get a sniffle at 6 months,

> and she chews on everything from grocery carts to table edges), yet

> we would rather our kids get measles, mumps, and pertussis than go

> through the vaxes because that would make them healthier.

>

> Please understand that I'm not attacking anyone's ideas. In fact, I

> would rather my kid get measles than get the MMR! (I think...) I

> just wanted to stimulate some discussion about this topic and see

> what other people thought about it.

>

> stacey

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Don't be frustrated because I was in the same boat as you. Just be assured

the constant sickness will come to an end even though it doesn't seem like

it now. You can't imagine the stuff I was going through when my daughter

went to Kindergarten. She was constantly sick. It was hard finding a

constitutional remedy for her. She got through it though and this year she

is now in 2nd grade she has had perfect attendance first 2 quarters. She

managed to get the stomach bug on Christmas vacation. Which only lasted

1 day though. She even managed to overcome one cold or whatever by just

sleeping it away. My daughter was fully vaxxed and I am sure was damaged by

it, plus I suspect has hereditary issues. So anyway, just keep on things

will get better!

From: Carren Panico <chlobot@...>

Reply-Vaccinations

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:39:39 -0800 (PST)

Vaccinations

Subject: Re: Being sick a lot vs. not being sick a lot

I don't know how to answer this. My DD who was

partially vaxxed seems to have been sick since she

started preschool. It's mostly been small sstuff -

colds and what not. But she did have a cough that

went on and on and on. Right now she seems to be

working on another cold.

I have found a homeopath but its been frustrating

because everytime we start her constitutional remedy

she gets sick and we need to take a break and use

something for her current symptoms.

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

This is a great one, Ingrid. Would you happen to have the url?......Anita

ingrid5317 <ingrid_schebesch@...> wrote: Here is a good article for

this subject, by Incao. There is

another good one called something like " mummy, I am just growing up "

or similar, but I can't find it right now, maybe anyone else can help.

Ingrid

The reasons of childhood disease

By Philip F. Incao, M.D.

Acute inflammations like colds, flus and fevers seem to be an

inescapable part of life: everyone experiences them. Why do we get

them? Many of us have noticed (if not, then our spouses have noticed!)

that we often come down with a cold or flu when we are overly stressed

or depleted.

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

It's here! Your new message!

Get new email alerts with the free Toolbar.

[Guest guest]

>

> This is a great one, Ingrid. Would you happen to have the

url?......Anita

>

Yes Anita,

here it is, scroll down to his articles, please:

http://www.philipincao.com/

Ingrid

[Guest guest]

Here is another great article from Dr. Incao, quite long but worth

reading.

Ingrid

UNDERSTANDING INFECTION:

NOT A BATTLE, BUT A HOUSECLEANING

© Philip Incao, M.D. September 2004

I once saw a young African man in my practice who impressed me

with his calm dignity and his radiant good health. I asked him what

his parents had done when, as a child, he had come down with a fever.

He replied that they had wrapped him in blankets to get him sweating.

" Did they ever take your temperature? " I asked. He laughed and shook

his head saying, " No, it was different from what is done here. " We

often hear that American medicine is the most advanced in the world.

This is true in some areas of healthcare, but in other areas we could

use a little of the deeply rooted wisdom that still informs some of

the folk medicine in the developing world. I think this particularly

applies to our modern concept and treatment of the illnesses we

commonly call " infections. "

When we come down with a cold or a flu most of us imagine that

some stress or other has weakened our " defenses " or our " resistance "

and allowed " a bug " (a virus or bacterium) to enter our body, where it

multiplies and attacks us from within. We think of this as " an

infection, " that the new bug within us is making us sick, and that we

will feel better as soon as our immune system has killed it off. When

we don't feel better soon enough, we might seek remedies or

antibiotics to kill the bug more effectively.

This pretty much describes the way almost everyone today,

physicians included, thinks about what I refer to in this article as

an acute infectious/ inflammatory illness like a cold, flu or sore throat.

Yet this commonly held picture does not correspond to the facts.

It is a deceptive misunderstanding that in itself is a characteristic

sign of the simplistic, weakened and fear-based thinking that hinders

progress in many areas of life today.

If we define infection as the presence within us of foreign micro-

organisms i.e., bacteria and viruses, then all of us are continually

infected from the day we are born until we die. We all harbor

trillions of microbes all the time, including various disease germs,

yet we only occasionally get sick.

Most of us are quite happy to never or seldom come down with an acute

infectious/inflammatory fever, cold or sore throat, thinking that we

therefore must have a strong immune system which guards our body from

becoming " infected. "

That too is a deception, and a dangerous one, that fools us into

thinking we are healthy when the reality is otherwise.

It is a shock to learn that for over one hundred years the

evidence has shown that our immune system does not prevent us from

becoming infected by germs. In the early years of Pasteur's germ

theory in the nineteenth century, it was first assumed that healthy

people were uninfected by bacteria and only sick people were infected.

This assumption was soon disproven, as science found that the great

majority of those infected with disease germs were healthy, and only a

small fraction of them ever got sick. The majority of people infected

with the bacterium of TB, for example, never got sick from

tuberculosis, but only from the same coughs and colds that we all get.

Infection alone is not enough to make us come down with a manifest

illness. Something else is needed. Most of the time we are able to

live in harmony with certain numbers of disease germs in our body

without becoming ill. For this blessing we can thank our immune

system, which is continually vigilant and active below the surface of

our awareness in keeping the extremely varied and extensive germ

population of our body under control. Thus it is not necessarily the

entrance of new germs into our body that makes us ill, it is the

sudden and excessive multiplication of certain germs that have already

been in us for a longer or briefer time. In some cases the entrance of

a new germ into the body is quickly followed by its rapid

proliferation and in other cases the germ can remain dormant or latent

in us for many years or even a lifetime while we remain healthy.

This important fact receives far too little attention and is often

totally forgotten in medicine today. Most of the trillions of germs

that " infect " or inhabit our body from infancy onward are peacefully

co-existing in us or even helping to maintain our inner ecological

balance, like the acidophilus bacteria that live in our intestines.

They are our " normal flora. " Science has also identified a small

minority of germs, called pathogens, that participate in human

disease, like strep, staph, TB, diphtheria, etc., but these too have

surprisingly more often been found peacefully coexisting in us rather

than being involved in illnesses.

This is called latent or dormant infection, or simply the carrier

state. Typhoid was a famous example in the early 1900's of a cook

who, though healthy herself, was a carrier of the salmonella bacterium

and passed it on to others, some of whom became seriously ill and many

others of whom remained healthy despite being infected. As the

prominent microbiologist Rene Dubos stated in a 1950's textbook,

" …the carrier state is not a rare immunologic freak. In reality,

infection without disease is the rule rather than the exception….

The pathogenic [germs] characteristic of a community do

commonly become established in the tissues of a very large

percentage of normal persons and yet cause clinical disease

only in a very small percentage of them. " (Emphasis mine)

This leads us to the question which Rene Dubos, apparently alone

among his colleagues, pondered for the rest of his life: if most of

the time we are able to peacefully coexist with a disease germ in our

body, (a fact which Pasteur did not adequately reckon with) what is it

that happens when it suddenly starts multiplying rapidly and we get

sick? Have our defenses weakened and allowed the germs to proliferate

and go on the attack (which is the thought that frightens us so

terribly) or are they merely multiplying because our body's

biochemistry has been disturbed and is making available to the germs a

suddenly increased supply of their preferred nourishment?

The latter is not a new thought; it was postulated by Pasteur's

contemporaries. Scientists of Pasteur's time including Claude Bernard,

Rudolf Virchow, Rudolf Steiner and Max Pettenkofer held the conviction

that the decisive and determining factor in infectious diseases was

not the microbe itself but rather the particular condition of the

patient's " host terrain " that favored the growth of a particular

microbe. In this view, microbes were not predators but were scavengers

which fed on toxic substances produced by imbalance, disease and decay

in the host body's terrain just as flies feed on dung and garbage. For

these scientists, killing microbes without improving the host terrain

imbalances that fed the microbes was like killing flies in a messy,

untidy kitchen without cleaning up the kitchen. Pettenkofer even drank

a test tube of virulent cholera bacteria to prove his point that they

would do no harm if the inner terrain was healthy. Pettenkofer's

terrain apparently was healthy, because he suffered no ill effects at

all from his bacterial brew. Nevertheless, the germ theory was an idea

whose time had arrived, and for many reasons the concept of germs as

vicious predators soon prevailed over the view that they were merely

opportunistic scavengers.

The triumph of the germs-as-predators concept has led to a sea

change in the way people think about acute illnesses such as colds,

measles, pneumonia, scarlet fever, tuberculosis, typhoid, smallpox,

etc. Since ancient times these illnesses had been called

inflammations, literally meaning " a fire within. " In the first century

A.D. an early Roman author, Celsus, gave the classical definition of

inflammation which is still taught today to physicians: a fire-like

process in the body which manifests in " calor, rubor, tumor and

dolor, " i.e. warmth, redness, swelling and pain. These cardinal

symptoms of inflammation, even when not externally visible, were

understood to characterize all inflammations from a pimple to a

pneumonia. Our ancient ancestors also knew from hard experience that

many acute inflammations like plague, smallpox, measles, TB etc. were

" catching " or contagious from one person to another. What they did not

know was the intimate relationship of germs or microbes to these acute

inflammatory and contagious illnesses.

Since Pasteur, we now erroneously consider these illnesses to be

" acute infections, " assuming that the entrance of a new microbe into

the host's body (the infection) triggers the illness. As we saw

earlier, it is not the initial entrance of, or the infection with, the

microbe which triggers the illness, but rather the sudden

proliferation of a microbe already residing in the host body for some

time which initiates an acute infectious/ inflammatory illness.

Human beings become infected with a great variety of the microbes

in their environment, continuing life-long as they change

environments, yet this fact of life-long infection does not explain

why illness happens, anymore than auto accidents are explained by the

fact that the victims are life-long drivers. An infection is not

itself an illness, rather it is the normal human condition and the

context in which acute infectious/inflammatory illnesses occur. As we

said earlier, something else must happen to cause a certain tribe of

germs (like strep, with which almost everyone is infected to some

degree) to suddenly proliferate and trigger what should correctly be

called " an acute strep-related inflammation " rather than " an acute

strep infection. " We need to fit our thoughts and words to the

reality. The fact that a strep infection might precede a strep-related

inflammation by days, months or years is essential to understanding

how and why illness happens. Thus, the term " acute strep infection "

commonly used by physicians and lay people is incorrect, and it

creates an incorrect picture in our mind of the illness at hand. The

incorrect picture is that strep bacteria have invaded our body from

the environment and are injuring us. Most importantly, this incorrect

picture leads to inappropriate feelings and actions of the physician,

the caregiver and the patient who must respond to an illness. Thus the

grave mischief caused by a " mere " incorrect mental picture becomes

enormous—such is the power of this idea. The consequences of the

germs-as-predators idea are millions of unnecessary prescriptions

written for antibiotics, and thousands of injuries and deaths from

drug reactions, including 450 deaths per year from Tylenol alone. The

engine driving this inappropriate and dangerous use of antibiotics and

anti-inflammatory drugs is the fear generated by our common

misconception that we are under attack by predatory microbes whenever

we experience fever, pain, congestion and other symptoms of typical

acute inflammations such as coughs, colds, flu or sore throats.

Now we will move on to consider another important and common

misconception about acute infectious/inflammatory illness. The first

misconception was that infection is abnormal and causes illness, the

truth being that infection is really the normal human condition

because we all harbor disease germs frequently, yet become sick only

occasionally.

The second misconception is that the symptoms of an acute

infectious/inflammatory illness like scarlet fever, polio, smallpox or

flu are caused by the viciousness, the virulence, of the bacteria or

the viruses which we imagine are attacking the cells and tissues of

our body. The sicker we are, that is, the more intense our symptoms,

the more vicious we assume the attacking viruses and bacteria to be.

In over thirty years of practicing medicine, I've found that this

assumption, shared by almost all physicians and their patients,

provokes more unreasoning fear and unnecessary use of drugs than any

other.

The confusion stems from the fact that in an acute infectious/

inflammatory illness we are witnessing not one happening but two polar

opposite happenings which occur together. The first happening is that

bacteria or viruses are proliferating in our body. If these microbes

were predators, we would expect their proliferation to coincide with

the worst of our symptoms, but this is not the case. Most of the germ

proliferation, (which we falsely imagine as an inner attack), happens

during the incubation period of the illness when we have little or no

symptoms. Viruses and bacteria may enter our blood stream in large

numbers, and may even start to leave our body, excreted in mucus and

feces, without any awareness of illness on our part besides possible

minor malaise, headache or tiredness. These symptoms might appear at

the end of the incubation period during the few days of prelude or

" prodrome " just before the full-blown illness begins. When the

incubation period is over and the clinical illness comes on with all

its strong symptoms of fever, pain, weakness, irritation and often

anxiety, it may feel as if we are being attacked but in reality the

inner process causing our illness symptoms is not a battle, but an

intense housecleaning.

I've said that an infectious/inflammatory illness is a joint

appearance of two separate and distinct happenings. These two

happenings become related to each other in the context of the illness

as a reaction is related to an action. Comparing illness to a

housecleaning, the action is the gradual, mostly unnoticed

accumulation of dirt and dust (along with the tiny creatures who make

their home in dirt and dust) in the house, and the reaction is the

sudden decision of the housekeeper to turn the house upside down in

order to clean it from top to bottom. In a house, as in the human

body, the housecleaning is a much bigger disturbance, though a

necessary one, to the orderly routine of the household than the

accumulation of dirt and dust.

Our immune system is the housekeeper of our body. Usually our

inner housekeeper keeps well abreast of her work quietly, escorting

dead and dying cells to the exits of our body and making sure that

waste matter and poisons are cleared from the body. This is the very

important ongoing maintenance-housecleaning work of our immune

system-housekeeper in maintaining the health and integrity of our

human organism. From birth until death, this ongoing maintenance work

never rests, and is responsible for our keeping healthy and free of

illness. But occasionally our immune system-housekeeper determines

that a deep cleaning is needed. That's when the dust flies and we get

sick! If you are wondering where the germs are in this comparison of

the human body to a household, they are the flies, ants, cockroaches,

or the mice which live in the house's inner recesses unreached by the

housekeeper and which feed on the crumbs and kitchen scraps that

accumulate in the house.

The function of the immune system is to create inflammation.

Inflammation, as the word implies, is like a fire in the body which

burns up the waste and debris, along with the germs which feed on

waste and debris, and cleanses the body. Thus it is our immune system

which causes us to become sick, by creating inflammation to drive out

infection and renew us.

The first step in an acute infectious/inflammatory illness is the

accumulation of cellular waste materials and toxic by-products of our

body's biochemical metabolic processes. This accumulation may go on

for hours or years before the acute illness, and is unnoticed by us

because the body has various ways it can store toxic substances to

keep them from irritating and poisoning us. The second step is the

beginning of the release of certain toxins from storage and the

proliferation of bacteria which are attracted to the now accessible

toxins just as flies are attracted to garbage. This release from

storage may be triggered by our exposure to an ill person to whose

acute infectious/inflammatory illness we are open and unguarded. Thus

we " catch " the illness and this second step defines its incubation

period, in which bacteria or viruses rapidly proliferate while causing

minor or no symptoms. This second step differs according to whether

the illness is bacterial or viral. In a bacterial illness specific

types of bacteria are attracted to the particular types of toxins

released from storage and made available to them during the incubation

period. In a viral illness the viruses themselves are a special form

of toxic waste product which cells release when they are provoked by

stress (as in an outbreak of herpes or shingles) or by " catching " an

illness from another person.

These two steps, the gradual accumulation and storage of toxins

for days or years followed by their rapid release from storage and the

proliferation of microbes during the incubation period, constitute the

action which provokes the third step, the reaction of the immune

system to clean house. The intensity of the symptoms of our illness is

a direct expression of the intensity of the reaction of our immune

system. The stronger our immune system-housekeeper is, the more dust

and debris she will stir up and the sicker we will feel.

If I am correct in asserting that an acute infectious/

inflammatory illness is really an intense housecleaning and not a

battle against predatory invaders, then people with stronger immune

systems and thus stronger housecleanings would be expected to have

more intense acute inflammatory symptoms, and stronger discharges than

those with weaker immune systems. By inflammatory symptoms I mean

pain, redness, swelling and fever followed by a good discharge of

mucus, pus, rash or diarrhea. In my medical practice I have repeatedly

found that the stronger and more robust children become ill more

intensely and acutely (with good outcomes nevertheless) than the

weaker, pale and allergic children. I remember well one boy in my

practice who, I later discovered, had a certain familial immune system

defect. His mother often brought him to the office because he felt

unwell and weak. Usually in children who complain of feeling sick, one

can find some evidence of an inflammation in the body, a red throat, a

red ear, congested lungs or sinuses, some degree of fever, swollen

glands etc. In this boy I could find nothing. There were no signs of

inflammation and no symptoms other than subjective fatigue and feeling

unwell. Blood tests revealed a problem with his immune system.

This case brought home to me the fact that a weak immune system

has difficulty reacting to a gradually accumulating infection of

uncleared cellular waste and microbes in the body. Without a strong

reaction of the immune system, there is no acute illness, but only a

vague malaise and fatigue, which are symptoms of a low-grade poisoning

or toxicity in the body – the result of our housekeeper being too weak

to do her job and allowing kitchen debris to accumulate, followed

inevitably by the flies and ants. When I would see this boy with the

immune system defect in my office feeling unwell, it was as if he were

stuck in the incubation period of an acute infectious/inflammatory

illness, unable to become properly acutely ill because his immune

system was too weak to react with the inflammatory healing crisis he

needed to clear out his body.

Children who are able to have their normal childhood healing

crises, consisting of fevers and discharges, thereby exercise and

build their cellular immune systems to be strong and resilient, which

is a great benefit for their overall health. Vaccinations, antibiotics

and anti-inflammatory drugs like Tylenol and ibuprofen all interfere

with this inflammatory cleansing of the body and the immune

system-strengthening which results.

All the experts agree that antibiotics are massively

overprescribed in the U.S. – used in conditions that don't require

them. Why does this overprescribing continue unabated despite large

efforts to educate physicians about the proper use of antibiotics?

Upon reflection, any physician can answer this question because all of

us see almost daily patients who come into the office seeking

antibiotics. These patients have two chief concerns: either their

symptoms are too intense or they've been going on too long, or both.

If we understand the illness to be a housecleaning, then these

concerns are very much minimized. " Your immune system is doing a good

job – you will soon bring this healthy, much-needed housecleaning to a

successful conclusion " is what a physician of the housecleaning

persuasion might say.

If we believe the illness to be an attack of hostile predatory

microbes, then physician and patient are both anxious to get rid of

the symptoms along with the nasty microbes we mistakenly assume are

causing the symptoms. As we saw earlier, the immune system, not the

microbes, causes the symptoms. The microbes however are an important

stimulus which provokes the immune system to react, causing symptoms

of acute inflammatory illness. Therefore, when we kill or inhibit the

microbes with antibiotics, we inhibit the immune system at the same

time. This inhibits the inflammatory symptoms that belong to an active

working immune system, creating the illusion that we have healed the

illness when in reality we have suppressed the symptoms and interfered

with the immune system's work before its job was done. This is a

suppression, not a healing, and it is crucial to understand the

difference between the two.

If we make our housekeeper stop her hectic cleaning in order to

have some peace, we will have to put up with an untidy house. An

untidy house and an inactive housekeeper are conditions which in the

short run lead to a return of flies and ants, and in the long run lead

to chronic disease and cancer.

This is why I've been saying for fourteen years that an important

way to prevent cancer is to appreciate the great wisdom and benefit of

our occasional inflammatory housecleanings and to refrain from

obstructing them unnecessarily with antibiotics and anti-inflammatory

drugs.

This point was recently confirmed by the publication of research

showing that antibiotics increase the risk of breast cancer.

Nevertheless, antibiotics are lifesaving drugs when an acute

infectious/inflammatory illness becomes dangerous. This danger stems

not from the intensity of the inflammation directly, but from the

toxicity and the sheer volume of the metabolic wastes and poisons

which are stirred up and mobilized by the inflammation. If our

organism has the strength to clear out all these toxins and discharge

them from our body, the illness usually resolves itself. If we lack

this strength, then the discerning physician will attempt to support

and promote the discharging, detoxifying process, keeping a watchful

eye on the patient's strength, and will use an antibiotic if needed to

prevent complications or death from the poisons that have been stirred

up by our overzealous housekeeper – our immune system. This is a toxic

or septic inflammation, and in such a crisis, an antibiotic is a

blessing. But the likelihood of our ever having to experience such a

toxic crisis will be greatly diminished if we understand how to allow

all our smaller, non-threatening inflammatory crises to do their

housecleaning work that our wise inner housekeeper knows we need.

How, therefore can one treat an acute infectious/inflammatory

illness so as to work with the cleansing and discharging process of

the immune system and not against it? I have discussed these practical

pointers in the chapter " How to Treat Childhood Illnesses " in the

book, The Vaccination Dilemma edited by

(www.lanternbooks.com) and also in an article published in Mothering

magazine in July-August 2003 entitled, " The Healing Crisis: Don't

Worry Mom, I'm Just Growing. "

These treatment guidelines apply to adults every bit as well as

they apply to children. They are designed to support and facilitate

the work of the immune system, to relieve symptoms, prevent

complications and to promote a successful outcome and completion of

the task begun by the immune system itself. A more detailed discussion

of these treatment guidelines can also be found, along with directions

for use of the appropriate homeopathic/ anthroposophic remedies for

specific symptoms, in my Home Remedy Kit available from the Weleda

Pharmacy at 800-241-1030. Perhaps the most important points to

remember in treating acute infectious/inflammatory illnesses are that

fever is good, toxicity is bad, and discharge of toxicity is very good.

The danger of an acute infectious/inflammatory illness is not the

105 degree fever nor the yellow thick mucus drainage from the nose,

but the amount of retained toxicity that is poisoning the patient

because it is unable to be discharged from the body quickly enough. It

is normal for the ill patient to be weak, lethargic and oversensitive.

Symptoms of excessive retained toxicity poisoning the body include

increasing irritability and restlessness, an increasing look and feel

of desperation or anxiety, and a decreasing ability to maintain

consciousness and eye contact. If these are happening, call the doctor.

Toxicity that is stirred up within the body more quickly than it

can be cleared and discharged from the body is the primary danger and

cause of complications in an acute infectious/inflammatory illness. We

physicians should be advising our patients how to recognize and treat

toxicity. Up to 106 degrees F, the degree of fever is not a sign of

the seriousness of the illness, but is rather a sign of how strongly

the immune system is working to detoxify and clear out the illness.

Therefore it is best to avoid fever lowering drugs.

Here are some very effective age-old ways to support the immune system

and to promote a good outcome of an acute infectious/inflammatory illness:

1. Total rest and sleep, with as little distraction as possible. No

T.V., radio, tapes or reading.

2. Keep the patient very warmly dressed and covered. Sweating is

good. Avoid chilling.

3. A liquid diet of vegetable broth, herb teas, citrus juices. Add

rice, millet, carrots or fruit if hungry. Absolutely no meat, fish,

eggs, milk products, legumes, beans, nuts or seeds. The digestive

power of the body must focus on the illness and not be burdened with

food.

4. Elimination through bowels, bladder and sweating is essential to

treat toxicity and prevent its complications, therefore encourage

drinking of lukewarm clear fluids, and use prune juice or Milk of

Magnesia to promote loose BM's once or twice daily.

5. Provide a sick room environment with warm, soft colors and

textures and natural soft light. Include plants and flowers. The

caregiver should be cheerful, peaceful, attentive, observant,

encouraging, loving and respectful of the profound healing wisdom of

the inner housekeeper in which she is assisting.

[Guest guest]

Thank you so much, Ingrid. This has even more good articles to read! I really

like Dr. Incao's perspective on health......Anita

ingrid5317 <ingrid_schebesch@...> wrote:

>

> This is a great one, Ingrid. Would you happen to have the

url?......Anita

>

Yes Anita,

here it is, scroll down to his articles, please:

http://www.philipincao.com/

Ingrid

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

Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels

in 45,000 destinations on Travel to find your fit.