Re: Clean blood?

[Guest guest]

" jill1313 " <jenbooks13@h...> wrote:

> Somebody want to speculate why " clean " blood can infect dogs?

I guess it depends on what the definition of clean blood is anyway?

Remember, medical sctudents have been taught since Pasteur that

blood is sterile. We can't have bacteria in the blood without being

sick (bacteremia or sepsis). According to them, any substantial

amount of bacteria in the blood is deadly, despite that article that

came out a few years back about our blood being a

veritable " bacterial zoo " which seems to show evidence to the

contrary. Unfortunately, I can't locate that article, but I remember

that it had a lot of people up in arms. Blood is sterile...end of

story...

Or not...

Here's a slightly more enlightened view (just slightly)

http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/ap/vdgconcepts/cardio/reading7.mhtml

And here's another, obviously controversial site, from an australian

PhD who's busting all kinds of purported myths, one being Pasteur's

declaration that blood is sterile.

And Tony will love this, he even cites Enderlein, a scientist who

claims that bacteria go through a series of cycles, as follows:

Colloid -- microbe (primitive phrase), bacteria (middle phase),

fungus (end phase). Could this explain why actinomycosis was thought

to be fungal until recently???

Here's the site:

Synthesis of the Work of Enderlein, Bechamps and other Pleomorphic

Researchers

http://www.explorepub.com/articles/enderlein3.html

penny