Minutus

I am not promoting vaccines!
What I am saying that the epidemic disease have a micro organism associated with them. To deny this fact is just wrong.
You may argue that the recognised micro organism may be the wrong one (as in the accused in a murder case may be entirely innocent) - but that is the different question.
It cannot be said that it is all down to susceptibility.

As I was try to explain a couple of weeks ago, you of course need the soil, but without radish seeds, you won't get radishes.
So 'epidemic disease incidence' = Susceptibility + micro organism
Rgds

Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tamarque@earthlink.net
Sent: 02 December 2010 12:38
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] What then can cause Polio?
Soroush
Let's remember a few salient facts:
1. The alleged polio epidemic was on the wane when the Salk vaccine was put on the market.

The CDC charts/numbers indicate no change in the rate of polio after that.
2. All the case of polio in the US after the vaccine came from the vaccine.
3. The mandated vaccine was stopped, in the early 1980's I believe, because there seemed

to be no use for it. They claimed there was no more polio contagion in the country.
4. Similar sx appear periodically in a community. They can be, and often are diagnosed all

kinds of other neurological causes.
5. Environmental poisoning is the last place the corporate sharks ever want to look for causes as

they come back to them. Look at asbestos. It has been known for at least 2000 yrs that it causes

death defying illness in people working with it. In 413 AD it was noted that asbestos is toxic, but

industrialized societies continued to use it despite the killing lung diseases it caused. If the info

wasn't so well known, I would bet industry would have tried to claim it was a microbe that caused it

as they are trying to do with cancer now.
I don't think the argument is that there are no little buggers out there. The argument has to do

with whether they have really identified them, as in polio and AIDSm and whether theyare looking

in the wrong place. The other question that we, as homeopaths, always deal with--susceptibility of the individual.
tanya

If susceptibility is "all", then there is no input from the thing one
is susceptible *to*--and then any question of susceptibility becomes
moot. So your position is... ?

You're right, it is old and tired ground, and I wish Sheri would simply
send links, for those who are interested to peruse, and not keep
deluging the list. (Actually, I thought that had been agreed upon some
time back?)

But, since it's been dredged back up again (by Sheri, not by me), I
will ask again: How do you account for those (blessedly few and far
between) epidemics where the causative *organism* has such
virulence--and/or the contacting individuals lack prior exposure and
hence lack immune protection--that *everyone* who comes in contact with
it is sickened? And in one that I recall reading of, everyone who
touched a corpse killed by it, was him/herself dead by sunset. In that
case the only "susceptibility" needed was to be human, and previously
alive. Yes those are extreme cases, and how cleverly our immune
systems protect us *from microorganisms* among other things, to make
that so!

The usual position within *homeopathy* has been that susceptibility is
in most cases the *major* component. Most homeopaths do not disbelieve
the entire "germ theory", as I believe Sheri has been doing.

Shannon

On Thursday, December 2, 2010, at 07:47 AM, tamarque@earthlink.net
wrote:

Fran,
You are not disagreeing with me. We always need to question what causes susceptibility.
Your post mentioned 2 possible types of events. And even with these 2 types of assaults
on the vital force, not everyone exposed equally succumbs. This is true as much for polio
as it is for the flu or cold.
tanya

I am amazed at how hard an issue this is to resolve. My understanding is that we have
run up against the wall of cognitive dissonance and the holy mantra of the germ theory.
I disagree with Soroush. There are illnessess that have no germ for example cancer or
alzheimers. And even AIDs. There is much disagreement in the science world about whether
there is a particular microbe involved, particularly when the sx are very different in different
parts of the world. And as for polio, there are many toxic chemicals that cause major
neurological damage such as MS or polio.
tanya

How about looking at the whole issue differently.
Bacterias, germs, "bugs" are living entities with the "purpose" of survival, reproduction and continuation of the species.
They can thrive everywhere (BTW, I just read today about a bacteria living in an US lake and using arsenic and phosphorus not only as food, but being able to integrate arsenic in their DNA......and they die off when the 2 "toxic" metals are removed.....weird).
One of the places they live and thrive are inside animals, including humans. At times it is simple coexistence, or saprophytism (mutual benefit like our colonic flora), or parasitism or when the control mechanism of the host fails, infection, disease, even death.
Depending on the "race" of the "bug" the animal host will react differently, create different control mechanisms and present different symptoms and signs when the control fails: that is what we humans call "a disease" like measles or whatever else.
So maybe it is time to loose that anthropomorphic attitude "they are after us, bent to kill us, because we are the only real important beings" and realise that we coexist with "them", and like in any cohabitation there can be at times harmony, discord, disputes, fights or war.....
I am looking at this from my cat's perspective too: here is a race of animals that has been able to tame humans, make them proactively admit them in their lairs, cause them to provide food (not always the best but nevertheless....), shelter, play and often a comfortable life. How is that for an evolutionary success story???
Joe.
 
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com

) Cats are nice little saprophytes...
How about looking at the whole issue differently.
Bacterias, germs, "bugs" are living entities with the "purpose" of survival, reproduction and continuation of the species.
They can thrive everywhere (BTW, I just read today about a bacteria living in an US lake and using arsenic and phosphorus not only as food, but being able to integrate arsenic in their DNA......and they die off when the 2 "toxic" metals are removed.....weird).
One of the places they live and thrive are inside animals, including humans. At times it is simple coexistence, or saprophytism (mutual benefit like our colonic flora), or parasitism or when the control mechanism of the host fails, infection, disease, even death.
Depending on the "race" of the "bug" the animal host will react differently, create different control mechanisms and present different symptoms and signs when the control fails: that is what we humans call "a disease" like measles or whatever else.
So maybe it is time to loose that anthropomorphic attitude "they are after us, bent to kill us, because we are the only real important beings" and realise that we coexist with "them", and like in any cohabitation there can be at times harmony, discord, disputes, fights or war.....
I am looking at this from my cat's perspective too: here is a race of animals that has been able to tame humans, make them proactively admit them in their lairs, cause them to provide food (not always the best but nevertheless....), shelter, play and often a comfortable life. How is that for an evolutionary success story???
Joe.

So what caused me to get Polio? I was run down by a lorry a month earlier
which was a shock although I wasn't hurt and knew I would have to go to
court!!! I couldn't go to court because I was in hospital with Polio. I
wonder.....

Rochelle
Registered Homeopath with The Society of Homeopaths
EFT (Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

Hi Tanya,

I think we are all in agreement that some of what we call disease, has nothing to do with "germs"; that is not in question.

Also not in question is whether toxic effects and infective effects can be confused.

What *is* in question, as I've understood it, is whether the "holy mantra of the germ theory" is *baseless*, as I have understood Sheri to hold out--that is, whether no microbe ever did anyone any harm (and Sheri please do correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position!); and whether e.g. measles, rabies, smallpox, and multitudes of other diseases, are or are not "caused" by an interplay of susceptibility *and microbe*.

No one here is denying the role of susceptibility.

So Tanya--are you saying the microbe does *not* play *any* part, or are you agreeing with me (and Joe and Soroush) that both are relevant?

And that, for instance, if one is exposed to (the germs of) smallpox while susceptible, one might develop smallpox, but not some other disease to whose pathogen one was *not* exposed*; and, if one is *not* exposed to the smallpox "germ", one will not develop it--*regardless of susceptibility*.
?
Shannon

I heard somewhere long ago that the polio virus is a rather weak one, and *usually* infection with it is experienced only as a mild-to-moderate respiratory infection. That it is only when the virus slips past the body's defenses far enough to lodge in the spine, that it produces what we speak of as polio.

From that standpoint it's not unreasonable that your defenses were down due to the shock and upset, and so your immune system's guard was down.

Shannon

The argument is one of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
The germ theorists say germs are everything. They come first. You come in contact
with them and you get sick.
The susceptibility position says without susceptibility the germs can't get a room at the inn.
No one has said there are no microbes out there. And no one has said they don't set up
housekeeping in the body. But they cannot do that unless there is susceptibility. And that
is my position and, I believe, that is what Sherri is also saying. Further, I will add, that part
of a healer's job is to try and figure out the weakness in the susceptibility/resistance of the
body and work to strengthen it so people have better susceptibility.
When I got hit with Lyme 10 yrs ago, it was very clear to me that it happened because my
susceptibility was open. I was in a terribly stressed out place, working 24/7 at breakneck
speed. Things were beginning to turn sour. I worked in the country and I worked in my garden.
I had been exposed for years to lyme infected ticks and never worried about the problem. It
was only because of the state I fell into that the Lyme affected me. I have not changed my
living patterns one iota and still carry no worry about Lyme. What has changed is how I manage
my stresses--I won't let myself stay in such a state the way I used to do.
One of the joys of working with people, for me, is to help them gain insight into what makes them
tick (pardon the pun) as a means of self-empowerment.
tanya