Mind your imagination...
Irrelevant to the points in question.
As stated, the value is that in certain cases "damage" to the bugs'
presence (i.e. killing off a sufficient number of them) is sufficient
to save a life.
The part it plays is that it is a relevant point to which you were
specifically asked (by Soroush and myself both, at different times) to
respond. Would you like to try again to respond to that particular
point?
Mind the imagination please...
Sigh, okay. I was actually asking you to reply to common *experience*.
Throwing an aphorism at me really doesn't do the job, but I'll play...
Okay, first the aphorism "undisturbed", then another with my comments.
Aph 11 states: "When a person falls ill, it is only [the vital force]
that is primarily deranged by the dynamic influence upon it of a
morbific agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged
to such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its
disagreeablesensations, and incline it to the irregular processes which
we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only
cognizable by its effects on theorganism, itsmorbid derangement only
makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the sensationsand
functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the
observer and physician, that is, by *morbid symptoms*, and in no other
way can it make itself known."
Comments: ""When a person falls ill, it is only [the vital force] that
is primarily [[**note the modifier "primarily"]] deranged by the
dynamic influence upon it of a morbific agent inimical to life
[[Bazinga! Note the phrase, "a morbific agent inimical to life." In
the examples recently mentioned, the"agents" mentioned were
microorganisms. I see nothing here to go against the idea that some
microorganisms are "morbific", and even potentially "inimical to life."
If you do, please explain.]]; it is only the vital force, deranged to
such an abnormal state, that can furnish the organism with its
disagreeable sensations [[***In other words, a dead body will have no
subjective symptoms, tho of course it will still *rot* due to actions
of micro- and macro-organisms...]], and incline it to the irregular
processes which we call disease [[*** rotting, of course, is not a
disease, and involves no "sensations" or disruptions of function...]];
for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects
on the organism, its morbid derangement [[***okay, *what* is the "power
invisible in itself, and only cognizable" etc.? As I read it, the
"power" referred to is the (deranged) vital force]] only makes itself
known by the manifestation of disease in the sensations and functions
of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer
and physician, that is, by *morbid symptoms*, and in no other way can
it make itself known. [[**in other words, "disease", aka "deranged
vital force", makes itself known only through morbid symptoms etc.]]"
So, bringing that back to the measles parties--I think Aph 11 points
out that taking a corpse to a measles party will not give rise to
another case of measles; it only works if you bring a *living* child.
That's somewhat debatable, but in any case irrelevant. If the "bugs"
were not pathogenic, then mitigating circumstances (actually I think
you mean "aggravating" or "exacerbating" circumstances tho, don't you?)
would not allow them to cause harm.
Sure, but again, irrelevant. Saying that "It takes two to tango"
(takes pathogen *and* susceptibility) doesn't in any way negate the
fact that each is tangoing (that there is susceptibility *and*
pathogenesis).
In other words, you are acknowledging, even as you deny, that some
"bugs" (germs; microorganisms) *are* potentially pathogenic. So what's
the problem?
) Yep, it is funny... We have several traits in common, I guess.
And others not, of course.
Shannon