Minutus

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

Don't know where you get that idea from - I was under the impression that we were arguing about whether germs per se exist.
I haven't noticed anyone denying susceptibility.
Liz