Minutus

I probably missed the post or the relevant part in one of those long
posts that answered this question but if I understand the gist
correctly the proposition is that AIDS/Polio and other Dxs are not
caused by or transmissable through contact of infected material: So
what is considered to be the toxin responsible for the suffering
labeled AIDS in Africa?

Does Africa have a single global toxin that affects so many people
over such a wide area, or what might the other factors be? Not
poverty alone I assume otherwise AIDS would not be such a recent
problem and there are other areas on the globe that have similar
areas of poverty but do they have the same proiportion of AIDS? If
the arguement would be that it was vaccinations why did the rest of
the world not have the same proportion of AIDS?

If AIDS (and other Dx) is not contracted through sexual contact/
transfer of blood etc should the recommendation to use condoms ( to
prevent the spread of AIDS specifically) be rescinded?
thanks
Simon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for all of your answer Sheri, which to my mind suggests that
actually we cannot KNOW 100% either way.

However I am still not happy with the bit pasted below, because if
what I understand you to be saying is true then could this not result
in irresponsible sexual behaviours?

If one were to extrapolate your perspective should it not also be
argued that the same applies to bacteria as to viruses? i.e. don't
wear a condom as you won't 'catch' anything, as there is nothing to
be 'caught'? (whether identified as a material 'virus' or not)

Whilst I don't disagree with much of what you report I am not
convinced that it is the whole picture, and if it were not for your
part in educating about the pharma vested interest, I might say it
was in danger of being a case of which end to open your boiled egg,
or which came first, that, or the boiled chicken?

Either way perhaps it's important to get back OT to which end I would
ask, how would such perspectives change homeopathic prescribing?
Simon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Sheri,
I do think it's valuable to have the perspective that "cause" may be
misunderstood, and what appears to be contagion may instead be toxic in
nature. The reason (at least one reason) that is valuable, is that
when we misunderstand "cause", then we will waste time with ineffective
attempts at prevention and treatment. (Look for a "germ" versus look
for a toxin!)

What I have trouble with, tho, is that "next step", your assertion (or
rather, the assertion of others, which you are now promoting) that no
microbes are ever harmful and no disease is ever transmissible. You
obviously feel strongly about the importance of this (to me untenable)
viewpoint. Can you explain why you feel it's important to believe that
no disease is transmissible and no microbes ever cause disease?
Thanks,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Sheri,
I realize I've asked this before and you didn't answer then, but I will
ask again:
Since you believe that bacteria are not the cause of anything, would
you feel safe in taking a small bit of, say, pond water, culturing it
in a nice, safe protein culture (so we can rule out "toxins" as a
factor), then drinking it?

Would you also feel perfectly safe in eating any sort of spoiled food,
as there would be no "toxins" unless they are being produced by
something which is reproducing (growing in number/amount), which would
have to be a living organism.

My next comment will depend on your answer to these.
Thanks,
Shannon

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

shannon,

i think the issue is the terrain, not the pathogens. i am sure you would
agree there are individual differences that express themselves at times
as different susceptibility to 'diseases.' as a matter of fact, there are
people exposed to aids who never become hiv+ or sx of aids. why
is that if not individual susceptibility. you can say the same for polio
which didnt effect even 10% of the population in the usa--my understanding
is that a condition needs to effect 10% of the population to be considered
an epidemic. and i would venture to bet that this is true in just about
every disease condition. from this point of view viruses and bacteria are
the cause of nothing. recall that pasteur recanted his germ theory
before he died, acknowledging that terrain is everything.

tanya
infectious - The SMON Fiasco
and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations
regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any
document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this
website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out
of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site
or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a
single daily digest.

Well sure I agree that (generally speaking) "terrain" is of more
importance than presence or absence of microbes--that's why I'm into
homeopathy, nutrition, and etc.!

Re AIDS and polio in particular, the understanding I was given a
decade or few back is that both of those are actually fairly weak
pathogens, and (in case of polio in particular) are usually handled by
the immune system without any lasting (or necessarily visible) effect.

Some pathogens are less virulent--some don't cause *any* problem except
in severely immuno-compromised people--and some are much more
virulent--I have read about a small number of epidemics in which (so
far as the writer knew) *everyone* who touched a person ill or dead of
the disease, was him/herself dead of it within the day. Most microbes
obviously are benign, and most "pathogens" obviously fall somewhere in
between. I could not agree--even if Pasteur said it!--that terrain is
"everything", since even a baby born with no immune system at all can
maintain health in a suitably sterile and supportive environment (think
Bubble Boy); yet will quickly die if exposed to even normal, casual
environment. So no, it certainly is not "everything"! But I do agree
that for *most* circumstances it is definitely the major factor.

So--we are unvaccinated; I have no "antibacterial" soap in the house;
I'm even fairly casual about handwashing, and have been known to eat
food that's hit the floor/ground. I could illustrate further,
but why embarrass myself? Point is, I am NOT germ-phobic.

But to say that no microbe *ever* causes disease and they are not
transmissible? Nope, that goes too much in face of observation, my own
and centuries/millenia of others'!
Cheers,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]