Minutus

I certainly wouldn't disagree that "fasting, cleansing, proper diet and improved circulation" etc. can cure diseases, *even* those which may have been caused by infection. The question isn't whether health-building measures can both cure and help to prevent disease--of course they can!!!!! Our bodies have been living with microbes all throughout evolution; in a healthy state, we are *well* equipped to deal with them--usually.

The question has been, rather, can infection / microbes cause disease *in a susceptible individual*. That's all. The continued proof that not all disease is related to infection is not helpful--I think we all know that. Can you offer proof that e.g. that grandpa who "got polio" by changing his newly-vaccinated grandchild's poopy diaper was actually "infected" by a toxin or sudden development of a nutritional defiency? Ah, I thought not...

My contention is not that microbes cause *all* disease--I never said that and never would--but rather, that *in a susceptible individual*, the presence or absence of microbes can make the difference between "continued good enough" health, and severe or even fatal illness. One of the reasons we have fewer and less devastating "plagues" and epidemics in modern times (despite the worse food supply and etc.), has been widely ascribed to improved sanitation. And this wasn't industrial chemicals they were flushing and washing away, it was just plain and simple, good ol' microbes. Why turn the clock back on that?

Okay, I've said all I've got to say about it--again.

Cheers,
Shannon

Then why have the only modern cases of it involved either contact with excrement of a recently live-vaccinated child, or else travel to an area where it is still endemic?

Nope. Are you wondering about more than the presence or absence of virus?
Honestly at this point I neither know nor care. Except if not, then it becomes more difficult to explain some of the noted events. I continue to wonder why you don't just post the links for those who are *interested* to read up on their own, and stop battering the list with this. The reason why I keep replying, is that I find it embarrassing to have "homeopathy" become associated in the minds of some "innocent readers" with ideas that are not only unrelated to homeopathy (if you think it is related, please explain to me *how*) but will simply open us to more ridicult and mistrust--and Sheri, even if these links you send turn out to contain *convincing proof* of what you are saying, they will do so only to people who either read *your* remarks uncritically and take your word for it, OR who carefully read the links and become convinced on their own. Which will not apply to the majority of readers, I am guessing, and particularly not those who might already be disposed to not understand or not trust homeopathy.

THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT PLACE to be carrying torches for something like anti-germ theory! IT'S NOT ABOUT HOMEOPATHY, why take the risk of HARMING us with it?
"Live" is what they used to be (hesitantly) classed as; depends on your definition of "live". It's descriptive enough for the sitaution, as it differentiates viruses which will not reproduce in the host (killed) from those which will (live), albeit weakly and in a less harmful form (supposedly).
Yawn, sure.
That proves nothing.
I *crave* to stop the "singing"! You've posted your link and made your point.
Why not let people read if they want, and get back to homeopathy if they prefer?

Shannon

Okay.