Minutus

Which can vary hugely, and can in some cases be only hours...

Yes - of course I know that! But what is your point about the "incubation picture for some of the other illnesses"?
Liz

iI dont understand your point. so there is a differential between illnessess. it takes about 1 hour for latex paint to
dry and several hours for alkyd paint to dry. so what? there is individual differences in germ behavior just as there
is individual susceptibility in people. the issue, again, is what causes what. some of us here are saying that individual
susceptibility is primary. you seem to be arguing that germs are primary.
regarding polio, sheri is clearly saying there is no polio virus. that it comes into a population, goes through its
changes and leaves as environmental conditions change. DDT is a major instigator of the polio set of symptoms
and polio outbreaks can be tracked with the use and removal of this toxic chemical in/around a given population.
due to the specific geographical sphere of use of this chemical, you had outbreaks of this syndrome in people--but
not all people, just a few people in actuality.
look at lyme disease. it began in/around lyme, connecticut and spread from there. was it contagion that carried the
disease? no. it was the spread of the infectious agent by physical means; ie, ticks carried by deer primarily. it took
several years for it to spread from conn to my area in ny, not very far actually. now it seems like most people get
lyme, but it is not contagious between people. and i would still argue that susceptibility is the primary element--this coming
from someone who had lyme disease with serious bell's palsy in the summer of 2000. but i can draw you a map of my
changing susceptibility at that time, that is how conscious i was about what was going on in my life. i have had no
further repercussions of this disease, or repetitions. yet i know people who have had it several times? and suffer
long term consequences.
tanya

I'm lost here Tanya! Not sure what you're arguing.
Actually, I believe that neither susceptibility nor germs are primary - they are what they are. Sometimes it seems that germs take precedence, as a lot of people will go down with the same symptoms.
But either way, I believe there are germs, different ones in different places. And that's probably why people get typhoid or Hep A in hot countries and not in cold ones etc.
Liz

i am saying, quite simply, that susceptibility leads. what is not to understand?
i gave a few examples: i thought they were very clear. and i can only repeat what
i noted in another post, that pasteur on his death bed recanted his position on the germ
theory, saying it was all the terrain!
there is no confusion. the only problem, liz, is that you can't accept what others are saying.
tanya

That's true over *most* of the spectrum, yet not at the extreme.
When the Mayan civilization collapsed at exposure to (do I remember this right) measles, was it because they were so weak and sickly? Not at all; it was because of a combination of the germ's virulence, and the fact that it was new to them--their previously very adequate immune systems had no chance to learn to defend. There are numerous other such examples. So, tho Pasteur's revelation was a good one, it did/does not apply to *all* situations.

Also, if a person simply *is* susceptible to this and that--less-than-ideal immune function, tendency to "catch" things, etc.--do we just throw them to the dogs? Do we just write off the *fact* that most of the population *is* susceptible to this-and-that, and that no matter how hard all of us try, that situation will not change in the near future. Or do we go ahead and acknowledge the importance of *both* factors--terrain *and challenges*, e.g. including possible contagion and microbes?

Shannon

shannon,
the susceptibility was there--it is that simple. a foreign agent was introduced in
sufficient amount and power that it overcame the immune systems of the people.
no one is saying there are no microbes, only the nature of the relationship between
susceptibility and disease is what is being discussed with disagreement on which
comes first.
tanya

I'm not remembering the particulars--which population was it that the Conquistadores arrived at, finding a thriving and advanced civilization, but who wound up wiping it out not due to their superior firepower (tho no doubt it was) but because the Indians (perhaps not the Mayans--can someone help me?) dropped dead in droves because of the germs that lived harmlessly on the invaders but were deadly to the natives. An alternative explanation would be the one the Indians (from what I read) tended to favor, which was that the Spaniards' God was quite a bit more powerful than their own. Take your pick, I suppose!

Shannon

Then we are in agreement.

Even about the "which came first" I'd say we are in agreement, since obviously if there is no susceptibility, then there is no problem! (And reasons for susceptibility vary from pathological--weakness due to imbalance--to the innate--we have susceptibilities simply by virtue of having a body; every body has its limits.)

Tanya - steady on. The only thing I am not accepting is that there is no such thing as germs - bacteria, viruses, disease-causing entities - call them what you will.
I have never disputed susceptibility - don't know where you get that idea from. You say Pasteur recanted (soi-disant - actually even that is in dispute, but hey, it makes for a good story). ok - but what Pasteur meant was that illness occurs because of an individual's susceptibility - I don't think he meant that there were no germs. And I agree with susceptibility - why wouldn't I? If you bothered to read my posts, you'd see that I talk about susceptibility.
And to recap, I still don't understand our exchange earlier: In my previous mail I said incubation periods vary - we are all different. You replied with " look at the incubation picture for some of the other illnesses
measles, mumps, chickenpox, rubella" What point were you trying to make? I'm afraid I can't follow you, nor see why you accuse me of not accepting what others are saying, since others are saying a lot, most of which I agree with.
Liz
I