Re: New Theory of Disease?

February 25, 2002

Virgin coconut oil is anti parasitic and anti candida. Caprylic acid commonly

used for candida is derived from coconuts. See

<http://www.coconut-info.com/>www.coconut-info.com Sally recommends coconut

oil. Is Lyme disease a parasite or protozoa? I got rid of parasites I didn't

know I had after having half a dozen cans of Thai Kitchen pure coconut milk.

Was a detox, low energy experience.

Wanita

February 25, 2002

>Is Lyme disease a parasite or protozoa?

It's a spirochete (a type of bacteria). A very nasty customer.

-

February 25, 2002

wrote in response to my post:

> >Aggressive candida destruction

> >programs can actually do a lot of damage I am told, as when the

> >candida die off they release that mercury to be dealt with by the

> >body.

> I believe that's why some people recommend either cilantro

tinctures or

> teas or chlorella as part of a candida-reduction program.

> >So if true, this is evidence for that new way of looking at

bacteria

> >and parasites.

> Certainly the conventional view needs a lot of work, but that

doesn't mean

> that someone who's riddled with candida doesn't need to address the

problem.

My response:

No doubt - I am just saying that if the person still has their

mercury amalgams in or has a mercury burden in their body, aside from

eating sensibly, it can not only be futile but dangerous to try to

aggressively take out the candida. To address the problem would

perhaps be first to eliminate the obvious candida fuel-foods, and

then to get those amalagams out and embark on a solid mercury detox

regimen.

-

>

> -

February 25, 2002

>

> >Our immune systems clear toxicity directly and indirectly (by

clearing

> >microbes after they have consumed toxic cells).

>

> So you're saying our immune system doesn't attack microbes until

after

> they've consumed unhealthy cells? On what do you base that

statement?

Simply that a single microbe to live, must eat. I'm proposing that it

eats toxic and/or dead tissue. It proliferates and reproduces

according to the available " food. " The immune system works at

whatever pace it can to control the number and prevent harm from dying

microbes (which produce toxins themselves). When the " food " is gone,

the immune system clears the last of the microbes, and you have a

healthy body.

Portland, OR

February 25, 2002

> You seem to be assuming that any infection that the sick person

survives

> leaves him or her healthier afterwards, but that's simply not true.

Very

> often people are so weakened by illness that even if they don't die

> outright, they never fully recover.

>

I was referring to one who lives naturally and nourishes his/herself

with raw proteins and fats. Without this, energy is not replenished

and the formerly sick person cannot recuperate as he/she is still

malnourished and continuing to contribute to his/her internal

toxicity.

Portland, OR

February 25, 2002

> -

>

> Again, for all the valuable things Vonderplanitz has to say, I have

a

> problem with this:

>

> >>Conclusion: The animals affected did not have the

> >>nutrients to help

> >> dissolve their dead cells, especially from nerve

> >>degeneration, without

> >> the help of microorganisms. Some animals used the

help

> >>of colds and flu

> >> (hoof and mouth). Others utilized the more

aggressive

> >>anthrax.

>

> Do you suppose a really sick animal invites a " cleanup crew " in to

kill it

> and thus cull it from the herd?

The " invitation " is a figurative way of observation nature.

Or, taking my earlier example, if

someone

> knifes me in the back and vultures come kill me, was I inviting the

> vultures to remove damaged tissue from my body to help me heal

faster, or

> did the vultures take advantage of my weakened state and kill and

eat

> me? Obviously I believe the latter.

So, you are equating vultures, which are predators and scavengers,

with microbes which are merely scavengers.

That doesn't mean antibiotics

are the

> societal solution to illness, even though direct remedies of that

nature

> have their place.

They have their place in delaying the inevitable or in bargaining for

less vitality in exchange for greater longevity.

It means we need to be healthy so our resistance

is

> high. Perhaps in truly healthy people such microbes *do*

effectively serve

> as a cleaning crew because the immune system keeps them from ever

flaring

> up to a level sufficient to cause disease,

The disease is the toxicity not the symptoms of infection. If

nutrition is not chaged, it will have to be dealth with either

accutely (infection) or result in degeneration.

--snip--

In

a less

> than ideally healthy person, though, this possible natural mechanism

of

> cleanup is out of wack and the " janitors " go on a killing rampage.

A moderately sick person can and does survive frequent cleansings in

the form of colds, flus, etc. BTW, it isn't the only " natural

mechanism " for clearing toxicity. Avoidance of toxicity and

consumption of raw fats to bind toxins, gaining weight, and losing

weight to eliminate toxins in the process are recommended by Aajonus.

Naturally, if you are " less than idealy health " you'll not want to

seek out an overly agressive microbe to do the clean-up. That still

does not mean the microbes *cause* disease, it is the outcome of

toxicity in an environment that does not support detoxification

(un-natural lifestyle and anti-microbials). The " disease " is the

impeded function of the organism due to damage caused by toxicity and

malnutrition.

Portland, OR

February 25, 2002

snip

However, a healthy low-carb diet will not

only

> starve candida but nourish the body and improve its ability to fight

off

> future infections.

The body doesn't fight off infections. The immune system is called

that due to the germ theory of disease. Without that theory, it could

be viewed as a detoxification system, that involves microbes in a

symbiotic relationship.

>

> As to Lyme, my understanding is that it burrows deep into places in

the

> body which the immune system has great difficulty reaching, and thus

may be

> incurable after a certain point. That's not helping anybody. At

best,

> perhaps one can hope to improve one's constitution to such a degree

that

> the Lyme never flares up again, but even so, it would still be a

drain.

I propose that the spyrochete involved here is going after something

in these places in the body. The fact that the " immune system " has

difficulty reaching there merely prolongs the time it will take to

clear the spyrochete once it has fed on the toxic tissue. It will die

without anything to eat.

snip

> Trying to wave a magic wand and eliminate the overgrowth without

addressing

> the cause of the overgrowth is, in the long term, fruitless, but you

seem

> to be suggesting that a candida overgrowth is just fine.

I suggested that it is serving a purpose (clearing toxicity) which it

would not need to do in the first place were a biologically

appropriate diet followed in the first place. Perhaps it is clearing

advanced glycation endproducts (AGE's) and/or high blood sugar and/or

mercury as suggested.

A sick

person

> riddled with bacteria and virii and fungi who goes on a low-carb and

> constitution-building diet will, however, inevitably rid himself of

at

> least most excess pathogens, restoring a great deal of balance to

his system.

I do not differ with you here, except that you insist on calling the

microbes " pathogens " , labeling them as the generators of disease. The

microbes may reduce in number due to the cessation of intoxication

through improper diet, as well as the introduction of compounds in the

diet that assist in detoxification, reducing the burden on the microbe

system of detoxification. No attack on the microbe is necessary

except in life or death situations (too far gone).

Portland, OR

February 26, 2002

> Why does it control proliferation and type of microbe if microbes

cause a

> needed detoxification? To control the rate at which this happens

because

> current nourishment may not be sufficient to handle additional

toxins

> released in the process, and to replace cells that have destroyed in

the

> process?

I would guess the first reason more than the second, but the point is

probably moot. Until more research is done along these lines, I can

only speculate. Either way, I prefer to trust the process in all its

complexity and natural beauty.

Portland, OR

February 26, 2002

On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:40:53 -0500 Idol <Idol@...>

writes:

The germ theory of disease is incomplete, not 100% wrong. Sanitation and

diet are vital elements of good health, and of course many diet-induced

conditions are recipes for disease, but that doesn't mean disease has no

pathogenic component.

-

Pasteur was wrong, a poor scientist, and unethical to boot. His germ

theory came to prominence for reasons that had nothing to do with

science. Bernard and Bechamp, as far as they went ,were right, but the

powers that be decided prejudicially that their pleomorphic approach to

disease had to ignored and censored, much to Pasteur's delight.

February 26, 2002

-

>The simple fact is that the " immune " system that includes certain

>specialized cells, microbes lining the intestinal tract and skin,

>hormones, emotions, etc. contributes to the regulation and clearing of

>microbes and toxins as needed to keep the body vital and promote it's

>general welfare.

I'd agree with that statement.

>I reject the factual nature of the concepts

> " defends " and " pathogens " with respect to the " immune system " and

>microbes.

Some microbes are demonstrably beneficial in low or otherwise proper

concentrations in certain parts of the body but harmful in higher

concentrations and in other parts of the body. I'd say that in overgrowing

or moving where they're harmful, they become pathogenic, though I realize

that's contrary to your belief system in which all illness is beneficial

detoxification. However, your system, as much as it addresses serious

deficiencies in the generally accepted version of the germ theory of

disease, has logical flaws.

I'll return to anthrax as an example. Anthrax bacteria generate a highly

potent toxin which, in sufficient concentration, is lethal. This toxin has

absolutely nothing to do with cleansing or promoting health. An anthrax

infection can start in one part of the body, perhaps an area with depressed

health, and then the toxin and the bacteria will spread throughout the

whole body, killing cells everywhere.

Your model of our internal ecology also does not resemble nature at

large. Nature is full of hunters, predators, killers, so why should the

microscopic world be any different? Macrophages demonstrably consume

hostile microbes. Other white blood cells destroy infected human cells

before the microbes that have infected them are able to reproduce

sufficiently to spread. Etc.

This doesn't mean the generally recognized germ theory of disease --

focusing only on the disease -- is complete. Far from it. As many doctors

and researchers have indicated, vaccination is largely ineffective and

probably even harmful due to the mercury and other ingredients in the

vaccines. Improving sanitation was the cause of most, if not all, declines

in plague, though now that diet and health have decayed to an extreme

point, sanitation is becoming insufficient by itself, leading to a

resurgence of diseases like TB.

Furthermore, the body has its own mechanisms for eliminating dead and toxic

tissue. Some of them involve symbiotic microbes, of course, but I simply

don't buy the idea that an opportunistic anthrax infection is anything but

pathogenic. Even if a truly healthy person could almost always fight off

anthrax before developing a noticeable toxin load, as soon as any microbe

load gets out of balance, it's pathogenic.

As another example, take Lyme disease. Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker believes that

Lyme, like a few other pathogens, generates a neurotoxin that the body is

unable to excrete. This neurotoxin has no beneficial properties. Any cell

exposed to a sufficient toxic load will die, no matter how healthy it was

before the exposure. Similarly, any organism exposed to a sufficient toxic

load will die.

>The concept of an immune system as a defense

>against the cruel world is simplistic and fails to accomodate its

>regulatory nature.

The defense concept is incomplete, yes, but your replacement concept is

just as simple.

>Put a person in a sterile environment and it

>will seem as though they have no sickness even though indulging in

>unhealthful diet. However, in time they will deteriorate and die from

>toxicosis.

A person in a sterile environment eating a crap diet will in fact sicken

and die prematurely, but providing he starts out with a full complement of

necessary gut bacteria and whatnot he may live longer and be healthier

during that time. He won't have anthrax or Lyme creating toxic poisons in

his body which damage and kill cells which would've lived and functioned

much longer otherwise. Etc.

> It is theorized that our over-the-top hygiene in this

>country is contributing to the increase in degenerative diseases.

IMO this is probably a crock, and a cover for the fact that the SAD and the

medical establishment-recommended diet are the real cause of the disease

and degenerative condition epidemic afflicting this country. For example,

the idea that children raised in too-clean air contract asthma as a result

has virtually no logical or factual foundation. Sick building syndrome

doesn't just afflict office buildings -- homes are constructed with toxic

materials and inadequate ventilation. Carpets made from synthetic fibers

offgass toxic fumes. And of course trans fats, foods derived from animals

fed hormones and the wrong foods, and many other factors contribute to

asthma. But nobody's considering these factors because they're mostly not

profitable enough to address, whereas blaming a cleanliness fetish can

conveniently divert many people's attention from the real problems.

-

February 26, 2002

>It is an heroic attempt by nature to detox the body when

>other normal means have been foiled by modern medicine (antibiotics).

Why is it that you think sickness is an attempt by nature to heal, when in

the visible, macro world predators are both helping the herd and killing

individuals in a selfish attempt to feed themselves?

-

February 26, 2002

-

>Wherever they are, the toxins may be killing already toxic cells, and

>the suppression of the immune system is a message to it as a regulator

>that more work needs done.

Your assumption seems to be that no matter how toxic a toxin is, a healthy

person will be able to handle it. But that makes no sense. Presumably for

everyone there's some point on the scale at which a toxic load becomes

harmful, and then another point at which it becomes lethal.

-

February 26, 2002

M. Bianca,

It would be great to read about this Pasteur / Bernard / Bechamp story in

more detail.

Could you refer me to any writings about " the pleomorphic approach [and]

Pasteur's delight " ?

Thanks!

And thanks to and for helping me flesh out my own thoughts

about disease!

bianca3@...

om

cc:

02/26/2002 Subject: Re: Re:

New Theory of Disease?

11:09 AM

Please respond

to

native-nutriti

on

Pasteur was wrong, a poor scientist, and unethical to boot. His germ

theory came to prominence for reasons that had nothing to do with

science. Bernard and Bechamp, as far as they went ,were right, but the

powers that be decided prejudicially that their pleomorphic approach to

disease had to ignored and censored, much to Pasteur's delight.

February 26, 2002

snip

>

> Some microbes are demonstrably beneficial in low or otherwise proper

> concentrations in certain parts of the body but harmful in higher

> concentrations and in other parts of the body. I'd say that in

overgrowing

> or moving where they're harmful, they become pathogenic, though I

realize

> that's contrary to your belief system in which all illness is

beneficial

> detoxification.

No, all illness involving microbes as the symptom promoting factor is

detoxification, though not an ideal situation, and often in our

society the person is too devitalized to handle it. Blame the microbe

if you like, but toxicity from exposure and malnutrition is the real

culprit. Feed yourself properly and limit exposure to environmental

toxicity, then microbes are likely not needed, or will assist in a

benign manner.

However, your system, as much as it addresses

serious

> deficiencies in the generally accepted version of the germ theory of

> disease, has logical flaws.

>

> I'll return to anthrax as an example. Anthrax bacteria generate a

highly

> potent toxin which, in sufficient concentration, is lethal. This

toxin has

> absolutely nothing to do with cleansing or promoting health. An

anthrax

> infection can start in one part of the body, perhaps an area with

depressed

> health, and then the toxin and the bacteria will spread throughout

the

> whole body, killing cells everywhere.

This is an example of aggressive detox by an uncommon and therefore

difficult to control microbe. Were the person to have been exposed to

more benign microbes from the environment and were the person to have

eaten a correct diet and followed a correct lifestyle, the aggressive

microbe anthrax would have been un-called for and not taken hold.

>

> Your model of our internal ecology also does not resemble nature at

> large. Nature is full of hunters, predators, killers, so why should

the

> microscopic world be any different?

Why should it be the same?

Macrophages demonstrably

consume

> hostile microbes.

They consume all microbes ( " hostile " or otherwise) in the blood, do

they not?

Other white blood cells destroy infected human

cells

> before the microbes that have infected them are able to reproduce

> sufficiently to spread, Etc.

If that is what is called for given overall toxic load, vitality,

etc., that is the regulatory nature of the " immune " system.

>

> This doesn't mean the generally recognized germ theory of disease --

> focusing only on the disease -- is complete. Far from it. As many

doctors

> and researchers have indicated, vaccination is largely ineffective

and

> probably even harmful due to the mercury and other ingredients in

the

> vaccines.

Agreed.

Improving sanitation was the cause of most, if not all,

declines

> in plague,

Agreed, but I propose it lead to increases in degeneration, cancers,

etc. due to continued poisoning of the body with improper diet.

Plagues were a sign of improper diet/high toxicity, an aggresive

cleansing that many were unable to survive.

though now that diet and health have decayed to an

extreme

> point, sanitation is becoming insufficient by itself, leading to a

> resurgence of diseases like TB.

Yes, TB is what is next required to cleanse the lungs, given we have

deprived ourselves of more benign microbes through our practice of

hygiene.

>

> Furthermore, the body has its own mechanisms for eliminating dead

and toxic

> tissue. Some of them involve symbiotic microbes, of course, but I

simply

> don't buy the idea that an opportunistic anthrax infection is

anything but

> pathogenic.

You call it pathogenic, I call it an aggressive detoxification microbe

that most people may not be able to survive.

Even if a truly healthy person could almost always

fight off

> anthrax before developing a noticeable toxin load, as soon as any

microbe

> load gets out of balance, it's pathogenic.

The pathogenic (origin of pathos, disease) is not the resultant

microbial infection/toxic load, it is the disturbance of the " ground "

through improper diet/lifestyle that called for the microbe. Don't

blame the messenger.

>

> As another example, take Lyme disease. Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker

believes that

> Lyme, like a few other pathogens, generates a neurotoxin that the

body is

> unable to excrete.

The body of a toxic person may not be able to excrete this toxin,

meaning their system was debilitated in the first place. It would be

wise to keep such a person away from such an aggessive microbe, if it

might kill them. But the fact is, the disease is already there in the

person's weakened toxic state.

This neurotoxin has no beneficial properties.

How do you know?

Any cell

> exposed to a sufficient toxic load will die, no matter how healthy

it was

> before the exposure. Similarly, any organism exposed to a

sufficient toxic

> load will die.

All the more reason for a toxic person to be careful around microbes.

Remove the toxicity through graded exposure to more benign microbes

and consumption of a non-toxic and supportive diet, and these exotic,

aggessive microbes will do you no harm.

--snip--

> The defense concept is incomplete, yes, but your replacement concept

is

> just as simple.

They way I have presented it may be simple, but it is far from it.

Forgive me if I can't express its complexity. It involves numerous

specialized cells, microbes of varying qualities, hormonal regulation,

emotional regulation, pH balance, electrical potentials on cell

surfaces, meridian energies, dc current systems, and more I'm sure I

don't know of. A regulatory system is not simple, it calls for a

coordinated effort to stimulate, suppress, clear, promote as needed.

>

snip

>

> A person in a sterile environment eating a crap diet will in fact

sicken

> and die prematurely, but providing he starts out with a full

complement of

> necessary gut bacteria and whatnot he may live longer and be

healthier

> during that time. He won't have anthrax or Lyme creating toxic

poisons in

> his body which damage and kill cells which would've lived and

functioned

> much longer otherwise. Etc.

He will, also not have the chance at a fully vibrant life without the

assistance of microbes to aggressively cleanse his tissues of the

toxicity he has built up through autointoxication (eating poorly).

Childhood diseases, necessitated by poor diet, serve to train the

immune system in its regulatory capacity and to detoxify. Prevent

them through vaccination and you don't properly train the immune

system, nor do you detoxify to the extent required to clear the extra

burden caused by the poor diet. Later you attract more aggressive

microbes which can nearly (or completely) kill you. Again, toxicity

is the cause, as well as suppression of detox, not the microbe.

>

> > It is theorized that our over-the-top hygiene in this

> >country is contributing to the increase in degenerative diseases.

>

> IMO this is probably a crock, and a cover for the fact that the SAD

and the

> medical establishment-recommended diet are the real cause of the

disease

> and degenerative condition epidemic afflicting this country.

My point exactly. Hygiene merely contributes by suppressing auxiliary

detox pathways (microbes).

--snip--

Sick building

syndrome

> doesn't just afflict office buildings -- homes are constructed with

toxic

> materials and inadequate ventilation. Carpets made from synthetic

fibers

> offgass toxic fumes. And of course trans fats, foods derived from

animals

> fed hormones and the wrong foods, and many other factors contribute

to

> asthma. But nobody's considering these factors because they're

mostly not

> profitable enough to address, whereas blaming a cleanliness fetish

can

> conveniently divert many people's attention from the real problems.

Agreed, toxicity is the cause, once again. Eliminate the toxicity and

you eliminate the need for an auxiliary detox system called the

microbe. Leave the toxicity intact and the elimination of the microbe

appears to be the cause.

Portland, OR

February 26, 2002

> Your assumption seems to be that no matter how toxic a toxin is, a

healthy

> person will be able to handle it. But that makes no sense.

Presumably for

> everyone there's some point on the scale at which a toxic load

becomes

> harmful, and then another point at which it becomes lethal.

Agreed. That is the purpose of the regulatory function of the immune

system: to prevent overly aggressive cleansing that results in a net

deficit or death. Many do not have well trianed immune systems due

to vaccination, antibiotics, excessive hygiene, etc.

Portland, OR

February 26, 2002

snip

> Why is it that you think sickness is an attempt by nature to heal,

when in

> the visible, macro world predators are both helping the herd and

killing

> individuals in a selfish attempt to feed themselves?

The overall affect is the same. The " herd " is the body, the

individuals are the weaker cells of the body. Nature in balance.

Elimination of the weaker animals, " heals " the herd, keeping it

healthy and able to get the food it needs without sacrificing its

nutritional and genetic (procreative) needs for the weaker

individuals.

Portland, OR

February 26, 2002

A introductory work would be " The Curse of Louis Pasteur: Why Medicine is

not Healing a Diseased World, " by Appleton. The Price-Pottenger

website carries it. There is an extensive bibliography in the back

although there are many works she doesn't cite. But plenty to chew on if

you want to further with the whole topic.

" For diseases, as all experience shows, are adjectives, not noun

substantives...The specific disease doctrine is the grand refuge of weak,

uncultured, unstable minds, such as now rule the medical profession.

There are no specific diseases; there are specific disease conditions "

Florence Nightingale (1820 - 1910)

On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 12:20:39 -0600 leslie_kosar@... writes:

M. Bianca,

It would be great to read about this Pasteur / Bernard / Bechamp story in

more detail.

Could you refer me to any writings about " the pleomorphic approach [and]

Pasteur's delight " ?

Thanks!

And thanks to and for helping me flesh out my own thoughts

about disease!