Re: duesberg

[Guest guest]

>

> um, yeah, chi? duesberg falls apart pretty quick under any kind of

serious critique. google it, don't waste others' time serving it up

to you on a platter.

> who buys it? people with the most rudimentary understanding of

virology and epidemiology. who doesn't? everyone who does know

anything at all about same. sorry.

Thanks for your opinion Mati, you have said nothing that would cause

me to change my opinion.

Chi

P.S. Even if I was convinced that HIV caused AIDS I would have no fear

of exposure to it. Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is

everything. "

[Guest guest]

>> Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. "

And both those polar opposites are WRONG. Life exists in an interconnected

system of relationships. Microbe and terrain both matter. Sometimes the

microbe is so nasty it can overcome some damn impressive terrain, sometimes

the terrain is in really good shape one day but not so great the next. Ever

had a bad night's sleep? Ever had to rush a beloved pet or family member to

the emergency hospital? Ever been in a car accident, had your lover leave

you, lost your job? Welcome to the land of compromised terrain.

Don't let magical thinking replace common sense. It will just come back and

bite you in the ass. Hard.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Raising Our Dogs Holistically Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

> >> Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. "

>

> And both those polar opposites are WRONG.

Or they're both right. Personally, I like to train my " terrain " for

maximum resilience to bounce off life's challenges. As well as washing

hands and stuff like that to protect from the microbe.

Take the recent brouhaha about bird flu. For every 30 people who asked

me if I " got my flu shot yet " , I think only one or two were protecting

themselves with the best sleep and exercise and food and

meditation/spiritual practice. Everyone else seem to be wringing their

hands about how scary the bug was while not doing a thing about their

own personal terrain - beyond flu shot I guess.

Connie

[Guest guest]

> Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. "

Just because there are stages in an illness does not mean they have

anything to do with the true cause of the illness. Who is to say they

are not merely side effects of the illness itself?

Can you imagine? What if HIV and AIDS are not diseases themselves,

rather side effects of the same unknown disease?

I prefer Bechamp to Pasteur:

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/pleomorphismdiscoverysuppresion16nov03.shtml

-Lana

[Guest guest]

> >> Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. "

> And both those polar opposites are WRONG. Life exists in an

> interconnected system of relationships. Microbe and terrain

> both matter. Sometimes the microbe is so nasty it can overcome

> some damn impressive terrain, sometimes the terrain is in really

> good shape one day but not so great the next. Ever had a bad

> night's sleep? Ever had to rush a beloved pet or family member to

> the emergency hospital? Ever been in a car accident, had your

> lover leave you, lost your job? Welcome to

> the land of compromised terrain.

> Don't let magical thinking replace common sense.

> It will just come back and bite you in the ass.

> Hard.

How did you determine that those polar opposites are wrong, was is

through magical thinking?

I have never met a nasty microbe, but I have met nasty people.

Have you ever read NAPD Christie? If not, I would suggest you do so.

It might help you in getting a better understanding of what a

healthy person might actually look like and why one of your so-

called nasty microbes would be no threat to them.

Chi

[Guest guest]

On 1/17/06, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

> > Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. "

>

> Just because there are stages in an illness does not mean they have

> anything to do with the true cause of the illness. Who is to say they

> are not merely side effects of the illness itself?

>

> Can you imagine? What if HIV and AIDS are not diseases themselves,

> rather side effects of the same unknown disease?

>

> I prefer Bechamp to Pasteur:

> http://educate-yourself.org/cn/pleomorphismdiscoverysuppresion16nov03.shtml

Lana,

That would seem to be nullified by producing a disease through

exposure to the pathogen... obviously.

In fact before Price conducted his NAPD research he spent 25 years

causing every imaginable disease in rabbits through the introduction

of pathogenic organisms.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

>> How did you determine that those polar opposites are wrong, was is

through magical thinking?

It was through simple logic.

>Have you ever read NAPD Christie? If not, I would suggest you do so.

You can go to onibasu and search for my name if you have any desire to know

who I am and if I've read NAPD. And how long I've been on this list.

>It might help you in getting a better understanding of what a

healthy person might actually look like and why one of your so-

called nasty microbes would be no threat to them.

And if you just think positive thoughts and someone shoots you, will the

bullet freeze and drop to the ground like in the Matrix?

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Raising Our Dogs Holistically Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

Isn't it logical that there are many factors in a rampant disease claiming

lives? Diet is an important part, but cannot be the only factor.

Bonnie

[Guest guest]

Sorry for my simplistic answer earlier, I should have gone back and read the

earlier posts. By the way, I have to agree with Lana that medicine does not

promote health, I lean to homeopathy.

Bonnie

[Guest guest]

I'm not saying pathogens don't cause disease.

I'm saying its not always the suspected pathogen which is causing the

symptoms. I am also a firm believer that one pathogen, when left out

of control too long can become another, worse pathogen. A lot like

antibiotic resistance.

When it comes to microbes, I believe they too evolve. There is a lot

of speculation out there about Saccaromyces Cervisae (bread and ale

yeast) becoming rogue and turning into Candida Albicans. I believe

every bacteria, every cell has its own rogue state. Cancer is a

collection of rogue cells. One of the Endometriosis theories is on

rogue cells. If a cell or bacteria doesn't get enough of what they

need for one reason or another, they boycott.

And just because I believe in Bechamp's micromyzmas, doesn't mean I

don't think pathogens can come from the outside as well as in. If

humans have micromyzmas, then so does every thing on the planet. If

one creature's micromyzmas get out of hand and mutate to become

transmittable, then pathogens occur.

On the other hand, I do not much believe in the work of " Claude

Bernard (1813-78), who contended that no matter where germs came from

they presented a danger only if the body was in a run-down state due

to a disturbed milieu interieur. " since I am aware of basic

immunology. I beleive that a disturbed interior is the reason someone

catches a cold, but in the instance of smallpox in native americans,

its the unadapted immune system that causes the issue.

I am also a firm believer that medicine, the meddlesome commerical

venture as we know it, can and does cause a disturbed interior.

And if I'm wrong, I more than welcome any reading material to be sent

my way to prove me otherwise.

-Lana

On 1/17/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

>

> On 1/17/06, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

> > > Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. "

> >

> > Just because there are stages in an illness does not mean they have

> > anything to do with the true cause of the illness. Who is to say they

> > are not merely side effects of the illness itself?

> >

> > Can you imagine? What if HIV and AIDS are not diseases themselves,

> > rather side effects of the same unknown disease?

> >

> > I prefer Bechamp to Pasteur:

> >

> http://educate-yourself.org/cn/pleomorphismdiscoverysuppresion16nov03.shtml

>

> Lana,

>

> That would seem to be nullified by producing a disease through

> exposure to the pathogen... obviously.

>

> In fact before Price conducted his NAPD research he spent 25 years

> causing every imaginable disease in rabbits through the introduction

> of pathogenic organisms.

>

> Chris

>

> --

> Dioxins in Animal Foods:

> A Case For Vegetarianism?

> Find Out the Truth:

> http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST

> OWNER:</A></B> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 1/18/06, soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote:

> Have you ever read NAPD Christie? If not, I would suggest you do so.

> It might help you in getting a better understanding of what a

> healthy person might actually look like and why one of your so-

> called nasty microbes would be no threat to them.

> Chi

I'm sorry, but that's just clearly an absurd position. Huge

populations were ravaged by e.g. smallpox before they'd ever changed

their diets. And let's not have the " have YOU ever read NAPD "

argument, since Price was working well after those diseases had

ravaged populations that were later rebuilt from individuals who had

been more resistant to begin with.

There are loads of people (starting maybe with or before people like

Carl Sauer and going up to the present) that have shown pretty clearly

that the populations encountered in the New World by the later waves

of colonists and explorers were a fraction of what they had initially

been, due to the ravages of various European diseases brought across

by the initial explorers. For instance, Sauer uses documentary

evidence from initial Aztec tributary records and later Spanish

missionary records that the population had declined by something like

90% (I've just moved and don't have the book handy) by the main

colonization effort in the late 16th and early 17th century.

Not that they were all eating ideal diets, but this has also been

demonstrated to be true for North American natives, despite their

" pristine " (heh) land and nutritional practices, and I'm sure for

quite a few other populations around the world.

But I'm sure the response will be that only those not eating ideal

diets were killed and those with blood brix above X were magically

spared. That it was diet and nothing else is just way too simplistic

and seems to stem more from rigidly-held opinion and willful

extrapolation than actual research or evidence.

[Guest guest]

,

> But I'm sure the response will be that only those not eating ideal

> diets were killed and those with blood brix above X were magically

> spared. That it was diet and nothing else is just way too simplistic

> and seems to stem more from rigidly-held opinion and willful

> extrapolation than actual research or evidence.

I expect the same copout, but even if it is used (with, naturally,

assumptions rather than evidence, which is the only thing on which the

assertion could possibly be supported) the fact remains that the

Europeans diets were not superior and were probably considerably

worse, which in and of itself proves that previous exposure to the

pathogen in question is an *independent* factor in immunity, thus

showing that the statement " the terrain is everything; the microbe is

nothing, " falls flat on its face, meritless.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Lana,

> I'm saying its not always the suspected pathogen which is causing the

> symptoms. I am also a firm believer that one pathogen, when left out

> of control too long can become another, worse pathogen. A lot like

> antibiotic resistance.

Fair enough, I misunderstood your position.

> When it comes to microbes, I believe they too evolve. There is a lot

> of speculation out there about Saccaromyces Cervisae (bread and ale

> yeast) becoming rogue and turning into Candida Albicans. I believe

> every bacteria, every cell has its own rogue state. Cancer is a

> collection of rogue cells. One of the Endometriosis theories is on

> rogue cells. If a cell or bacteria doesn't get enough of what they

> need for one reason or another, they boycott.

It is well established that candida albicans undergoes a

transformation from yeast form to hyphal form that involves a dramatic

change in morphology and chemical constitution when it invades the

body, which is a rogue state, though I've never seen the S Cervisae

theory.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Bonnie-

>Sorry for my simplistic answer earlier, I should have gone back and read the

>earlier posts. By the way, I have to agree with Lana that medicine does not

>promote health, I lean to homeopathy.

Medicine's pretty darn good at trauma care. It's diet and nutrition

and the modern degenerative diseases it sucks at.

-

[Guest guest]

> > Have you ever read NAPD Christie? If not, I would suggest you do

so.

> > It might help you in getting a better understanding of what a

> > healthy person might actually look like and why one of your so-

> > called nasty microbes would be no threat to them.

> > Chi

>

> I'm sorry, but that's just clearly an absurd position. Huge

> populations were ravaged by e.g. smallpox before they'd ever

changed

> their diets. And let's not have the " have YOU ever read NAPD "

> argument, since Price was working well after those diseases had

> ravaged populations that were later rebuilt from individuals who

had

> been more resistant to begin with.

>

> There are loads of people (starting maybe with or before people

like

> Carl Sauer and going up to the present) that have shown pretty

clearly

> that the populations encountered in the New World by the later

waves

> of colonists and explorers were a fraction of what they had

initially

> been, due to the ravages of various European diseases brought

across

> by the initial explorers. For instance, Sauer uses documentary

> evidence from initial Aztec tributary records and later Spanish

> missionary records that the population had declined by something

like

> 90% (I've just moved and don't have the book handy) by the main

> colonization effort in the late 16th and early 17th century.

>

> Not that they were all eating ideal diets, but this has also been

> demonstrated to be true for North American natives, despite their

> " pristine " (heh) land and nutritional practices, and I'm sure for

> quite a few other populations around the world.

>

> But I'm sure the response will be that only those not eating ideal

> diets were killed and those with blood brix above X were magically

> spared. That it was diet and nothing else is just way too

simplistic

> and seems to stem more from rigidly-held opinion and willful

> extrapolation than actual research or evidence.

>

, have you ever read NAPD? If not I suggest you do.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> Isn't it logical that there are many factors in a rampant

> disease claiming lives? Diet is an important part,

> but cannot be the only factor.

Hi Bonnie:

AIDS isn't a disease, if it were it would be AIDD.

Chi

[Guest guest]

--- In , " soilfertility " <ynos@r...>

wrote:

> , have you ever read NAPD? If not I suggest you do.

a post from Sally on CL list last November:

" I have pondered this question also, but think I came up with an

answer when reading the enzyme books by Howell.

The native Americans had what was probably a perfect diet, and it

included fermented foods. As their bodies were forming, there was no

need to build a big pancreas or put a lot of " effort " into the

digestive organs or immune system. Instead, the effort of

bodybuilding could go into muscles, skeleton, eyes, hearing, etc.

So these populations were totally unequipped for anything less than a

perfect diet, and declined very rapidly when modern foods were

introduced--infectious disease, diabetes, etc.. Their pancreas and

other organs just could not handle these things. Whereas modern

people had their bodies formed under the influence of the modern diet,

and in the body building, a lot of effort/resources went into the

digestive apparatus--and consequently much less into skeleton,

muscles, eyes, ears, etc. This is the body's way of adapting during

the growth phase. But, of course, it can only compromise so much so

after another generation, diabetes, immune problems, etc start to show up.

Sally "

[Guest guest]

Chi:

Are you actually saying that someone on a high brix diet who is exposed to

smallpox, or chicken pox et al and actually shows the virus in his system,

would not get the disease? I thought it had more to do with having resistant

genes to these diseases that spared some of the Indians, etc.

jafa

soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote:

> > Have you ever read NAPD Christie? If not, I would suggest you do

so.

> > It might help you in getting a better understanding of what a

> > healthy person might actually look like and why one of your so-

> > called nasty microbes would be no threat to them.

> > Chi

>

> I'm sorry, but that's just clearly an absurd position. Huge

> populations were ravaged by e.g. smallpox before they'd ever

changed

> their diets. And let's not have the " have YOU ever read NAPD "

> argument, since Price was working well after those diseases had

> ravaged populations that were later rebuilt from individuals who

had

> been more resistant to begin with.

>

> There are loads of people (starting maybe with or before people

like

> Carl Sauer and going up to the present) that have shown pretty

clearly

> that the populations encountered in the New World by the later

waves

> of colonists and explorers were a fraction of what they had

initially

> been, due to the ravages of various European diseases brought

across

> by the initial explorers. For instance, Sauer uses documentary

> evidence from initial Aztec tributary records and later Spanish

> missionary records that the population had declined by something

like

> 90% (I've just moved and don't have the book handy) by the main

> colonization effort in the late 16th and early 17th century.

>

> Not that they were all eating ideal diets, but this has also been

> demonstrated to be true for North American natives, despite their

> " pristine " (heh) land and nutritional practices, and I'm sure for

> quite a few other populations around the world.

>

> But I'm sure the response will be that only those not eating ideal

> diets were killed and those with blood brix above X were magically

> spared. That it was diet and nothing else is just way too

simplistic

> and seems to stem more from rigidly-held opinion and willful

> extrapolation than actual research or evidence.

>

, have you ever read NAPD? If not I suggest you do.

Chi

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

> The native Americans had what was probably a perfect diet,

Sally

Anyone, including Sally, who thinks this was the case should reread

NAPD and find the example of the native American tribe that obviously

had a diet far from perfect.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> Chi:

>

> Are you actually saying that someone on a high brix diet who is

exposed to smallpox, or chicken pox et al and actually shows the

virus in his system, would not get the disease? I thought it had

more to do with having resistant genes to these diseases that

spared some of the Indians, etc.

Hi jafa:

I don't think I mentioned high brix. I will say, however, that

someone on a high brix diet might be eating hybrid corn.

I don't know if someone who is healthy enough to resist a disease

caused by a virus would show the virus in his system. What would a

lack of the virus in the system on being exposed to the virus

indicate to you?

If disease resistance depends on genes, it's a lottery and there is

nothing you can do to protect yourself. If, however, disease

resistance depends on being well nourished, then there would be

something you could do for yourself if someone ever starts producing

nutritious food instead of producing food for yield to make money.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> If disease resistance depends on genes, it's a lottery and there is

> nothing you can do to protect yourself. If, however, disease

> resistance depends on being well nourished, then there would be

> something you could do for yourself if someone ever starts producing

> nutritious food instead of producing food for yield to make money.

The latter is also true if one incorporates the wide amount of

knowledge on immunology and assigns a role to both, in addition to

other factors.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of cbrown2008

>

> > >> Pasteur " The microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything. "

> >

> > And both those polar opposites are WRONG.

>

> Or they're both right.

Or they're not polar opposites, and are actually restatements of the same

proposition.

[Guest guest]

Chi

I was thinking in terms of acquiring a disease, but if healthy enough, maybe

it will remain dormant or inactive. Similar to someone who is exposed to

herpes 2 who doesn't manifest symptoms, but if tested it will show as him

having herpes 2.

Are you saying that if healthy enough, if tested he won't even get herpes or

smallpox or whatever?

jafa

soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote:

> Chi:

>

> Are you actually saying that someone on a high brix diet who is

exposed to smallpox, or chicken pox et al and actually shows the

virus in his system, would not get the disease? I thought it had

more to do with having resistant genes to these diseases that

spared some of the Indians, etc.

Hi jafa:

I don't think I mentioned high brix. I will say, however, that

someone on a high brix diet might be eating hybrid corn.

I don't know if someone who is healthy enough to resist a disease

caused by a virus would show the virus in his system. What would a

lack of the virus in the system on being exposed to the virus

indicate to you?

If disease resistance depends on genes, it's a lottery and there is

nothing you can do to protect yourself. If, however, disease

resistance depends on being well nourished, then there would be

something you could do for yourself if someone ever starts producing

nutritious food instead of producing food for yield to make money.

Chi

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

> I was thinking in terms of acquiring a disease, but if healthy

enough, maybe it will remain dormant or inactive. Similar to someone

who is exposed to herpes 2 who doesn't manifest symptoms, but if

tested it will show as him having herpes 2.

> Are you saying that if healthy enough, if tested he won't even get

herpes or smallpox or whatever?

Hi jafa:

Yes.

Just as there are two necessary factors in soil erosion, the wind or

rain and low soil fertility, there are two necessary factors in

becoming sick with a disease, exposure to the supposed pathogen and

the weakened condition of the victim.

At the beginning of Volume I of " The Albrecht Papers " there is a list

of " Tart Albrechtisms " . Among them is this one: " The use of sprays is

an act of desperation in a dying agriculture. It's not the

overpowering invader we must fear but the weakened condition of the

victim. "

Chapter 35 in " Soil Grass and Cancer " is titled " The great illusion of

bovine tuberculosis eradication by tuberculin testing. " A quote from

the chapter: " The lungs of each one of us are inhabited by millions

of tuberculosis bacilli, which we manage to accomodate quite well.

They live there very peacefully without delivering frenzied attacks

against our cells. Why, then, do they suddenly thrust themselves upon

one of our organs (most often the lungs) and make us into tuberculosis

suffers? " Voisin goes on to discuss the virulence of the bacilli and

the capacity for resistance of the cells. He points out that killing

all the tuberculin reactors in a herd doesn't solve the problem for

when new non-reactors are added to the herd, after a period of time

more reactors will appear.

Chi

[Guest guest]

Chi-

That's not responsive. If everyone on this list responded to many

posts just by saying " Have you read XYZ " , it would be a very boring

and unproductive place to be.

> > But I'm sure the response will be that only those not eating ideal

> > diets were killed and those with blood brix above X were magically

> > spared. That it was diet and nothing else is just way too

>simplistic

> > and seems to stem more from rigidly-held opinion and willful

> > extrapolation than actual research or evidence.

> >

>, have you ever read NAPD? If not I suggest you do.

-