Guest guest Posted October 11, 2003 Report Share Posted October 11, 2003 This gives an idea of what the book is about http://www.amherst.edu/~pubaff/news/news_releases/00/ewald.html Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2003 Report Share Posted October 11, 2003 From that link the book doesn't sound too appealing to me. Seems like an updated version of the germ theory. Since I've had plenty of my own experiences disproving the germ theory, this book doesn't seem important to me. He talks about the great improvement since the discovery of the germ theory. What kind of nonsense is that? The germ theory is a colossal failure. We have germs in us all the time, good and bad. Germs are not the cause of disease. According to Natural Hygiene we get disease because of excess toxins in the system. The excess toxins, mucus or whatever, is a food for the germs to feed off, grow and multiply. Once the germs have a pathological bed then they can do damage. Otherwise they are harmless. Sorry if I've missed the rest of the argument about this book in previous posts. I'm also not an evolutionist. But to each his own. Roger Are you plagued by these problems with your raw food diet? 1. You fear that you aren't getting enough nutrients like protein, calcium, and B12. 2. You have been eating raw but aren't getting the results you expected. 3. You fear eating fruit because of its sugar content and hybridization. I'll resolve these problems, myths and misconceptions for you with a free & no obligation 20-minute telephone or email consultation. Email me or visit www.SuperbeingDiet.com This gives an idea of what the book is about http://www.amherst.edu/~pubaff/news/news_releases/00/ewald.html Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 I am so with Roger on this one. The germ theory is false, and I continue to believe that no matter what Ewald or his likes write in their books. Sure, it is always beneficial to build up an " immune system " , as it means we are building _health_, and not fighting disease as the germ theory wants us to believe. If we are to fight disease, we are also putting toxins in the form of drugs in our bodies. I cannot understand how anyone can think that is going to help us to a better health. Putting poison in our bodies! My goodness. If there were viruses and germs that were causing disease, we'd all be dead! Why would a virus choose to attack your neighbor but not you? Why would a virus (like HIV) only spread amongst the homosexuals or drug addicts? Or could it be that these groups of people are already living an unhealthy, destructive lifestyle (homosexuals using drugs such as poppers), and that's what's killing them, not a single virus (which by the way has never been identified to cause AIDS). Also, about the native americans dying of small pox or the common flue, or whatever (?). Who knows what they were going thru. Surely they were not able to hunt for food anymore after the invasion of Europeans, they were not able to move around in their land, they were under a lot of stress etc. It sure wasn't a single virus that killed them. Yeah, interesting subject! Thanks Roger for posting all that information! /Mimi --- " Roger Haeske " wrote: > I've done my research on this Peter and my conclusion is that the germ > theory is responsible for killing millions of people per year. I think > it is wrong and very harmful. Just look at the people who have been > diagnosed with AIDS. That is all about germ theory. But they end up > dieing from the toxic medications they are taking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 > > If there were viruses and germs that were causing disease, we'd all > be dead! Why would a virus choose to attack your neighbor but not > you? Why would a virus (like HIV) only spread amongst the homosexuals > or drug addicts? This is a really, really narrowminded view. People of all walks of life get AIDS. Regradless of what you think about the germ theory, that was a homophobic thing to say. Shame on you. Just out of curiosity, do those of you who discount the germ theory practice safe sex? Bridgitte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Bridgitte, please don't leave. I appreciate your posts on this issue, and would feel a real loss if you left us. Margie On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Bridgitte wrote: > How can you possibly expect people to be tolerant of your lifestyle > when you're not tolerant of theirs? I'm thoroughly disgusted, to the > point of leaving the group. > > Eating raw food does *not* make you better than anyone else. More > educated about your health? Yes. But you have absolutely no right > judge people the way you have concerning the HIV virus and AIDS. I > may be incomplete argeement with you about germs, but I'm still > astounded by what you've said. Wait until one of your friends is > diagnosed with or dies of the disease. My bet is they'll be neither > gay or a drug addict. > > Bridgitte > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 How can you possibly expect people to be tolerant of your lifestyle when you're not tolerant of theirs? I'm thoroughly disgusted, to the point of leaving the group. Eating raw food does *not* make you better than anyone else. More educated about your health? Yes. But you have absolutely no right judge people the way you have concerning the HIV virus and AIDS. I may be incomplete argeement with you about germs, but I'm still astounded by what you've said. Wait until one of your friends is diagnosed with or dies of the disease. My bet is they'll be neither gay or a drug addict. Bridgitte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 People who get AIDS are men, women, children, Black, White, Hispanics, etc. etc. etc. Most U.S. women who get it (65%) get it through heterosexual contact. Most men (54%) get it through homosexual contact. Much more info below, for people who care about the details in the U.S. population. Data would vary tremendously by country. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/graphics.htm http://treasuresoftheinternet.org/health/aids/intro/aids_20y.shtml On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Julie wrote: > Bridgitte, > > I'm also questioning the theories on AIDS presented here. Even if there > is some truth in what has been said about the germ theory in general, > blanket statements about homosexuals and their " lifestyle " are unfair > and likely to offend. Do heterosexuals have only one kind of lifestyle? > > I really do want to know. Is the argument that the only people who are > contracting AIDS are people who take drugs? If so, then maybe there is > something to the argument, but then I feel uncomfortable about singling > out the " homosexual lifestyle " because from my perspective that's > misleading and potentially disrespectful. > > Can any well-informed person on this list speak to these concerns? > What do we know about AIDS and the people who contract it, regardless of > their sexuality? > > Julie > - > Margie Roswell > rawfood > Monday, October 13, 2003 9:16 AM > Re: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book > > > Bridgitte, > > please don't leave. I appreciate your posts on this issue, and would feel > a real loss if you left us. > > Margie > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Bridgitte wrote: > > > How can you possibly expect people to be tolerant of your lifestyle > > when you're not tolerant of theirs? I'm thoroughly disgusted, to the > > point of leaving the group. > > > > Eating raw food does *not* make you better than anyone else. More > > educated about your health? Yes. But you have absolutely no right > > judge people the way you have concerning the HIV virus and AIDS. I > > may be incomplete argeement with you about germs, but I'm still > > astounded by what you've said. Wait until one of your friends is > > diagnosed with or dies of the disease. My bet is they'll be neither > > gay or a drug addict. > > > > Bridgitte > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Bridgitte, I'm also questioning the theories on AIDS presented here. Even if there is some truth in what has been said about the germ theory in general, blanket statements about homosexuals and their " lifestyle " are unfair and likely to offend. Do heterosexuals have only one kind of lifestyle? I really do want to know. Is the argument that the only people who are contracting AIDS are people who take drugs? If so, then maybe there is something to the argument, but then I feel uncomfortable about singling out the " homosexual lifestyle " because from my perspective that's misleading and potentially disrespectful. Can any well-informed person on this list speak to these concerns? What do we know about AIDS and the people who contract it, regardless of their sexuality? Julie - Margie Roswell rawfood Monday, October 13, 2003 9:16 AM Re: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book Bridgitte, please don't leave. I appreciate your posts on this issue, and would feel a real loss if you left us. Margie On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Bridgitte wrote: > How can you possibly expect people to be tolerant of your lifestyle > when you're not tolerant of theirs? I'm thoroughly disgusted, to the > point of leaving the group. > > Eating raw food does *not* make you better than anyone else. More > educated about your health? Yes. But you have absolutely no right > judge people the way you have concerning the HIV virus and AIDS. I > may be incomplete argeement with you about germs, but I'm still > astounded by what you've said. Wait until one of your friends is > diagnosed with or dies of the disease. My bet is they'll be neither > gay or a drug addict. > > Bridgitte > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Julie, I knew a hetro sexual person who contracted HIV from a person with the virus and passed in on to lots of people. After five years he died of Aids. We thought about 50 people had caught HIV from him. A bit hard to believe of course unless you believe in the infectious causes of disease - germ theory. The lesson has kept me out of the melting pot! Peter Julie [jlist] 13 October 2003 15:47 rawfood Re: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book Bridgitte, I'm also questioning the theories on AIDS presented here. Even if there is some truth in what has been said about the germ theory in general, blanket statements about homosexuals and their " lifestyle " are unfair and likely to offend. Do heterosexuals have only one kind of lifestyle? I really do want to know. Is the argument that the only people who are contracting AIDS are people who take drugs? If so, then maybe there is something to the argument, but then I feel uncomfortable about singling out the " homosexual lifestyle " because from my perspective that's misleading and potentially disrespectful. Can any well-informed person on this list speak to these concerns? What do we know about AIDS and the people who contract it, regardless of their sexuality? Julie - Margie Roswell rawfood Monday, October 13, 2003 9:16 AM Re: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book Bridgitte, please don't leave. I appreciate your posts on this issue, and would feel a real loss if you left us. Margie On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Bridgitte wrote: > How can you possibly expect people to be tolerant of your lifestyle > when you're not tolerant of theirs? I'm thoroughly disgusted, to the > point of leaving the group. > > Eating raw food does *not* make you better than anyone else. More > educated about your health? Yes. But you have absolutely no right > judge people the way you have concerning the HIV virus and AIDS. I > may be incomplete argeement with you about germs, but I'm still > astounded by what you've said. Wait until one of your friends is > diagnosed with or dies of the disease. My bet is they'll be neither > gay or a drug addict. > > Bridgitte > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Thanks, Margie! - Margie Roswell rawfood Monday, October 13, 2003 9:45 AM Re: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book People who get AIDS are men, women, children, Black, White, Hispanics, etc. etc. etc. Most U.S. women who get it (65%) get it through heterosexual contact. Most men (54%) get it through homosexual contact. Much more info below, for people who care about the details in the U.S. population. Data would vary tremendously by country. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/graphics.htm http://treasuresoftheinternet.org/health/aids/intro/aids_20y.shtml On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Julie wrote: > Bridgitte, > > I'm also questioning the theories on AIDS presented here. Even if there > is some truth in what has been said about the germ theory in general, > blanket statements about homosexuals and their " lifestyle " are unfair > and likely to offend. Do heterosexuals have only one kind of lifestyle? > > I really do want to know. Is the argument that the only people who are > contracting AIDS are people who take drugs? If so, then maybe there is > something to the argument, but then I feel uncomfortable about singling > out the " homosexual lifestyle " because from my perspective that's > misleading and potentially disrespectful. > > Can any well-informed person on this list speak to these concerns? > What do we know about AIDS and the people who contract it, regardless of > their sexuality? > > Julie > - > Margie Roswell > rawfood > Monday, October 13, 2003 9:16 AM > Re: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book > > > Bridgitte, > > please don't leave. I appreciate your posts on this issue, and would feel > a real loss if you left us. > > Margie > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Bridgitte wrote: > > > How can you possibly expect people to be tolerant of your lifestyle > > when you're not tolerant of theirs? I'm thoroughly disgusted, to the > > point of leaving the group. > > > > Eating raw food does *not* make you better than anyone else. More > > educated about your health? Yes. But you have absolutely no right > > judge people the way you have concerning the HIV virus and AIDS. I > > may be incomplete argeement with you about germs, but I'm still > > astounded by what you've said. Wait until one of your friends is > > diagnosed with or dies of the disease. My bet is they'll be neither > > gay or a drug addict. > > > > Bridgitte > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 I got a big kick out of all the angry responses to this e-mail. We have truly become a society poisoned by political correctness. Mimi is exactly right when she says that aids is a disease that effects only homosexuals and intravenous drug users. I have been to two aids funerals, one a homosexual friend, and one an intravenous drug user. Political correctness condemns this truth, because we have to accept everyone and everything in this politically correct society we live in. The odds of a monogamous, hetro couple getting AIDS is extremely low. The odds of a homosexual, or intravenous drug user getting aids is extremely high. Our schools now teach our children how to put condoms on bananas, spend countless hours teaching the joys of homosexuality, and in CA, spend weeks teaching the virtues of Islam. All the while, Christian principals are not tolerated, nor is talk of abstinence, prayer, or the risks of homosexuality. And all this is typically taught in health class ???? Why don't they teach our children about health in health class ? We are a sick society people, and as raw fooders, we should know this better then most. Aids would not exist if homosexuals and intravenous drug use did not proliferate it. I am not suggesting that we outlaw homosexuality, but I am suggesting that maybe it's not a good idea to sell it to our children, as though it's a wonderful, rewarding lifestyle. This is a tough pill for most liberals to swallow, but that does not make it any less true. Our society today forces us to accept all lifestyles. For example, as I wright this, the ACLU is in court fighting for the right of an adult to have a sexual relationship with a minor. Hard to believe ? Not in this climate of political correctness. I am excited for this to become law, because maybe then will people wake up and realize that political correctness has taken us so far astray. Believe it or not, my best friend in the world is gay. I love him like the brother I never had. I treat him as I would want people to treat me. Although I do not have a problem with his sexuality, I do not want it to be taught to my children as if it were a fun and exciting way to live. I'm sure that people are born gay every day, and we should value them as much as any other human. However, the truth is that homosexuality is not a natural disposition. Nature created sexuality for no other reason then reproduction. Thats why it feels good. So that we do it, and reproduce. Homosexuality has no reproductive value. But then again, those who want my children to think that homosexuality and promiscuous sex is great fun, also want my children to kill any of their unwanted babies if they become pregnant as a result of their promiscuousness. Thats my rant. Rufus --- raw_peas <no_reply > wrote: > I am so with Roger on this one. The germ theory is > false, and I > continue to believe that no matter what Ewald or his > likes write in > their books. Sure, it is always beneficial to build > up an " immune > system " , as it means we are building _health_, and > not fighting > disease as the germ theory wants us to believe. If > we are to fight > disease, we are also putting toxins in the form of > drugs in our > bodies. I cannot understand how anyone can think > that is going to > help us to a better health. Putting poison in our > bodies! My goodness. > > If there were viruses and germs that were causing > disease, we'd all > be dead! Why would a virus choose to attack your > neighbor but not > you? Why would a virus (like HIV) only spread > amongst the homosexuals > or drug addicts? Or could it be that these groups of > people are > already living an unhealthy, destructive lifestyle > (homosexuals using > drugs such as poppers), and that's what's killing > them, not a single > virus (which by the way has never been identified to > cause AIDS). > > Also, about the native americans dying of small pox > or the common > flue, or whatever (?). Who knows what they were > going thru. Surely > they were not able to hunt for food anymore after > the invasion of > Europeans, they were not able to move around in > their land, they were > under a lot of stress etc. It sure wasn't a single > virus that killed > them. > > Yeah, interesting subject! Thanks Roger for posting > all that > information! > > /Mimi > > --- " Roger Haeske " wrote: > > > I've done my research on this Peter and my > conclusion is that the > germ > > theory is responsible for killing millions of > people per year. I > think > > it is wrong and very harmful. Just look at the > people who have been > > diagnosed with AIDS. That is all about germ > theory. But they end up > > dieing from the toxic medications they are taking. > > > > The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Well, I'm done being on a list of bigots. You people are truly screwed in the head. Bridgitte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Now now people. common lets be gentle here. Everyone has a right to his own mind and what he wants to say. So lets give them their fair due. Regards Farees Mohiuddin e-Business Strategist Juvo, Inc NATURAL RAW MEAL farees www.GoJuvo.com <http://www.gojuvo.com/> Bridgitte [syndactylcat] Monday, October 13, 2003 10:08 AM rawfood [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book Well, I'm done being on a list of bigots. You people are truly screwed in the head. Bridgitte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 I am always amused that the people who push this politically correct agenda, do not like to debate issues. They will quickly call you names, condemn you, and then run away. Rufus --- Bridgitte <syndactylcat wrote: > Well, I'm done being on a list of bigots. You > people are truly > screwed in the head. > > Bridgitte > > The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Okay, Rufus, I hear what you're saying, and I respectfully disagree. I think there is more to the objections that have been raised than political correctness, but I'm certainly willing to drop most of the debate as it's going beyond the confines of raw food (homosexuality, Christianity, etc.). However, I'm still interested in germ theory as it applies to a raw foods lifestyle, and I'm interested in any advice or personal experiences people can share about transitioning to raw foods. Julie - Rufus Shaw rawfood Monday, October 13, 2003 1:05 PM Re: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book I got a big kick out of all the angry responses to this e-mail. We have truly become a society poisoned by political correctness. Mimi is exactly right when she says that aids is a disease that effects only homosexuals and intravenous drug users. I have been to two aids funerals, one a homosexual friend, and one an intravenous drug user. Political correctness condemns this truth, because we have to accept everyone and everything in this politically correct society we live in. The odds of a monogamous, hetro couple getting AIDS is extremely low. The odds of a homosexual, or intravenous drug user getting aids is extremely high. Our schools now teach our children how to put condoms on bananas, spend countless hours teaching the joys of homosexuality, and in CA, spend weeks teaching the virtues of Islam. All the while, Christian principals are not tolerated, nor is talk of abstinence, prayer, or the risks of homosexuality. And all this is typically taught in health class ???? Why don't they teach our children about health in health class ? We are a sick society people, and as raw fooders, we should know this better then most. Aids would not exist if homosexuals and intravenous drug use did not proliferate it. I am not suggesting that we outlaw homosexuality, but I am suggesting that maybe it's not a good idea to sell it to our children, as though it's a wonderful, rewarding lifestyle. This is a tough pill for most liberals to swallow, but that does not make it any less true. Our society today forces us to accept all lifestyles. For example, as I wright this, the ACLU is in court fighting for the right of an adult to have a sexual relationship with a minor. Hard to believe ? Not in this climate of political correctness. I am excited for this to become law, because maybe then will people wake up and realize that political correctness has taken us so far astray. Believe it or not, my best friend in the world is gay. I love him like the brother I never had. I treat him as I would want people to treat me. Although I do not have a problem with his sexuality, I do not want it to be taught to my children as if it were a fun and exciting way to live. I'm sure that people are born gay every day, and we should value them as much as any other human. However, the truth is that homosexuality is not a natural disposition. Nature created sexuality for no other reason then reproduction. Thats why it feels good. So that we do it, and reproduce. Homosexuality has no reproductive value. But then again, those who want my children to think that homosexuality and promiscuous sex is great fun, also want my children to kill any of their unwanted babies if they become pregnant as a result of their promiscuousness. Thats my rant. Rufus --- raw_peas <no_reply > wrote: > I am so with Roger on this one. The germ theory is > false, and I > continue to believe that no matter what Ewald or his > likes write in > their books. Sure, it is always beneficial to build > up an " immune > system " , as it means we are building _health_, and > not fighting > disease as the germ theory wants us to believe. If > we are to fight > disease, we are also putting toxins in the form of > drugs in our > bodies. I cannot understand how anyone can think > that is going to > help us to a better health. Putting poison in our > bodies! My goodness. > > If there were viruses and germs that were causing > disease, we'd all > be dead! Why would a virus choose to attack your > neighbor but not > you? Why would a virus (like HIV) only spread > amongst the homosexuals > or drug addicts? Or could it be that these groups of > people are > already living an unhealthy, destructive lifestyle > (homosexuals using > drugs such as poppers), and that's what's killing > them, not a single > virus (which by the way has never been identified to > cause AIDS). > > Also, about the native americans dying of small pox > or the common > flue, or whatever (?). Who knows what they were > going thru. Surely > they were not able to hunt for food anymore after > the invasion of > Europeans, they were not able to move around in > their land, they were > under a lot of stress etc. It sure wasn't a single > virus that killed > them. > > Yeah, interesting subject! Thanks Roger for posting > all that > information! > > /Mimi > > --- " Roger Haeske " wrote: > > > I've done my research on this Peter and my > conclusion is that the > germ > > theory is responsible for killing millions of > people per year. I > think > > it is wrong and very harmful. Just look at the > people who have been > > diagnosed with AIDS. That is all about germ > theory. But they end up > > dieing from the toxic medications they are taking. > > > > The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 > I knew a hetro sexual person who contracted HIV from a person with the > virus and passed in on to lots of people. > After five years he died of Aids. We thought about 50 people had caught > HIV from him. A bit hard to believe of course unless you believe in the > infectious causes of disease - germ theory. The lesson has kept me out > of the melting pot! Could be that all those people had low immune systems to begin with. What were their diets like? What kind of lifestyle did they lead? I'm with you though; stay out of the melting pot. There are too many things we don't know and too many variables to assume that any one theory is totally right. ~Wendy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 > Just out of curiosity, do those of you who discount the germ theory > practice safe sex? To me, sex isn't a health issue but a moral one. My marital bed is undefiled. ~Wendy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Rufus, I agree. I will not join a party that would desecrate the graves of those who have given their lives to preserve our right to free speech. A forum is not about the utterance of perfection. It is about those who seek to learn and no doubt other mortals who seek to teach. Hopefully a notion of getting nearer better things is present. This is self-centred but I enjoy hearing views that are different from my own and that includes your views on Aids. I am 99% sure that my own views on most subjects will change with the passage of time but not without hearing better opinions. Peter Rufus Shaw [rufus10_99] 13 October 2003 19:18 rawfood Re: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book I am always amused that the people who push this politically correct agenda, do not like to debate issues. They will quickly call you names, condemn you, and then run away. Rufus --- Bridgitte <syndactylcat wrote: > Well, I'm done being on a list of bigots. You > people are truly > screwed in the head. > > Bridgitte > > The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Jullie, As one who has read the learned professor's work, I would like to echo an axiom of his thesis as I see it. Germs in a healthy environment for their growth will prosper. Few would dispute that. Moreover when they have frequent opportunities to replicate, their maliciousness increases. An illustrative example of that would be cholera in a country where the cycle of the cholera infection may thrive. In practice, a clean supply water supply kills it dead. WHO attest to this frequently. In countries where water is uninfected, such pathogens cannot survive and there is no cholera. Contrast Chile and Peru. The former has no problem with drinking water infected with feces mater whereas the latter is bedevilled. Never mind that other precautions of hygiene are required such as mosquito nets in countries where cholera does have a grip. Before another joins the ascending chorus of " What has all this got to do with raw food? " , dare I suggest that any long term raw foodist will tell you that resistance to germs shoots right up when the change over to raw food takes place. Moreover this tendency increases with time. I hold that I am moving from one shade of grey to another. I look forward to joining the ranks of those who claim that germ theory is bunk. Peter Julie [jlist] 13 October 2003 19:33 rawfood Re: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book Okay, Rufus, I hear what you're saying, and I respectfully disagree. I think there is more to the objections that have been raised than political correctness, but I'm certainly willing to drop most of the debate as it's going beyond the confines of raw food (homosexuality, Christianity, etc.). However, I'm still interested in germ theory as it applies to a raw foods lifestyle, and I'm interested in any advice or personal experiences people can share about transitioning to raw foods. Julie - Rufus Shaw rawfood Monday, October 13, 2003 1:05 PM Re: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book I got a big kick out of all the angry responses to this e-mail. We have truly become a society poisoned by political correctness. Mimi is exactly right when she says that aids is a disease that effects only homosexuals and intravenous drug users. I have been to two aids funerals, one a homosexual friend, and one an intravenous drug user. Political correctness condemns this truth, because we have to accept everyone and everything in this politically correct society we live in. The odds of a monogamous, hetro couple getting AIDS is extremely low. The odds of a homosexual, or intravenous drug user getting aids is extremely high. Our schools now teach our children how to put condoms on bananas, spend countless hours teaching the joys of homosexuality, and in CA, spend weeks teaching the virtues of Islam. All the while, Christian principals are not tolerated, nor is talk of abstinence, prayer, or the risks of homosexuality. And all this is typically taught in health class ???? Why don't they teach our children about health in health class ? We are a sick society people, and as raw fooders, we should know this better then most. Aids would not exist if homosexuals and intravenous drug use did not proliferate it. I am not suggesting that we outlaw homosexuality, but I am suggesting that maybe it's not a good idea to sell it to our children, as though it's a wonderful, rewarding lifestyle. This is a tough pill for most liberals to swallow, but that does not make it any less true. Our society today forces us to accept all lifestyles. For example, as I wright this, the ACLU is in court fighting for the right of an adult to have a sexual relationship with a minor. Hard to believe ? Not in this climate of political correctness. I am excited for this to become law, because maybe then will people wake up and realize that political correctness has taken us so far astray. Believe it or not, my best friend in the world is gay. I love him like the brother I never had. I treat him as I would want people to treat me. Although I do not have a problem with his sexuality, I do not want it to be taught to my children as if it were a fun and exciting way to live. I'm sure that people are born gay every day, and we should value them as much as any other human. However, the truth is that homosexuality is not a natural disposition. Nature created sexuality for no other reason then reproduction. Thats why it feels good. So that we do it, and reproduce. Homosexuality has no reproductive value. But then again, those who want my children to think that homosexuality and promiscuous sex is great fun, also want my children to kill any of their unwanted babies if they become pregnant as a result of their promiscuousness. Thats my rant. Rufus --- raw_peas <no_reply > wrote: > I am so with Roger on this one. The germ theory is > false, and I > continue to believe that no matter what Ewald or his > likes write in > their books. Sure, it is always beneficial to build > up an " immune > system " , as it means we are building _health_, and > not fighting > disease as the germ theory wants us to believe. If > we are to fight > disease, we are also putting toxins in the form of > drugs in our > bodies. I cannot understand how anyone can think > that is going to > help us to a better health. Putting poison in our > bodies! My goodness. > > If there were viruses and germs that were causing > disease, we'd all > be dead! Why would a virus choose to attack your > neighbor but not > you? Why would a virus (like HIV) only spread > amongst the homosexuals > or drug addicts? Or could it be that these groups of > people are > already living an unhealthy, destructive lifestyle > (homosexuals using > drugs such as poppers), and that's what's killing > them, not a single > virus (which by the way has never been identified to > cause AIDS). > > Also, about the native americans dying of small pox > or the common > flue, or whatever (?). Who knows what they were > going thru. Surely > they were not able to hunt for food anymore after > the invasion of > Europeans, they were not able to move around in > their land, they were > under a lot of stress etc. It sure wasn't a single > virus that killed > them. > > Yeah, interesting subject! Thanks Roger for posting > all that > information! > > /Mimi > > --- " Roger Haeske " wrote: > > > I've done my research on this Peter and my > conclusion is that the > germ > > theory is responsible for killing millions of > people per year. I > think > > it is wrong and very harmful. Just look at the > people who have been > > diagnosed with AIDS. That is all about germ > theory. But they end up > > dieing from the toxic medications they are taking. > > > > The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Thanks, Peter. I'm just realizing all the germ conditioning I've been exposed to throughout my life. I've got to strip it all away, start from scratch, and make my own decision. I appreciate your input. Julie - Peter Gardiner rawfood Monday, October 13, 2003 3:32 PM RE: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book Jullie, As one who has read the learned professor's work, I would like to echo an axiom of his thesis as I see it. Germs in a healthy environment for their growth will prosper. Few would dispute that. Moreover when they have frequent opportunities to replicate, their maliciousness increases. An illustrative example of that would be cholera in a country where the cycle of the cholera infection may thrive. In practice, a clean supply water supply kills it dead. WHO attest to this frequently. In countries where water is uninfected, such pathogens cannot survive and there is no cholera. Contrast Chile and Peru. The former has no problem with drinking water infected with feces mater whereas the latter is bedevilled. Never mind that other precautions of hygiene are required such as mosquito nets in countries where cholera does have a grip. Before another joins the ascending chorus of " What has all this got to do with raw food? " , dare I suggest that any long term raw foodist will tell you that resistance to germs shoots right up when the change over to raw food takes place. Moreover this tendency increases with time. I hold that I am moving from one shade of grey to another. I look forward to joining the ranks of those who claim that germ theory is bunk. Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 From what I understand being homosexual doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you get AIDS. However if you are a homosexual who takes a lot of drugs then you are likely to develop AIDS like symptoms. When doctors were questioned they admitted that they never had an AIDS patient who wasn't a heavy drug user or possibly a hemophiliac. It's all thoroughly explained. All of this information is on the website I listed originally and in the books, videos and other information sources that discuss this. To inform yourself go to this site and thoroughly check it out. I think he has over 500 articles on the subject. Some info by very prominent scientists and doctors. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index.htm Hope that helps a bit, Roger Are you plagued by these problems with your raw food diet? 1. You are addicted to your favorite cooked foods and going out to restaurants. 2. Friends and family discourage you, think you are weird and tell you that you'll get sick 3. You are afraid of becoming too thin. I'll resolve these problems, myths and misconceptions for you with a free & no obligation 20-minute telephone or email consultation. Email me or visit www.SuperbeingDiet.com Julie [jlist] Monday, October 13, 2003 9:47 AM rawfood Re: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book Bridgitte, I'm also questioning the theories on AIDS presented here. Even if there is some truth in what has been said about the germ theory in general, blanket statements about homosexuals and their " lifestyle " are unfair and likely to offend. Do heterosexuals have only one kind of lifestyle? I really do want to know. Is the argument that the only people who are contracting AIDS are people who take drugs? If so, then maybe there is something to the argument, but then I feel uncomfortable about singling out the " homosexual lifestyle " because from my perspective that's misleading and potentially disrespectful. Can any well-informed person on this list speak to these concerns? What do we know about AIDS and the people who contract it, regardless of their sexuality? Julie - Margie Roswell rawfood Monday, October 13, 2003 9:16 AM Re: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book Bridgitte, please don't leave. I appreciate your posts on this issue, and would feel a real loss if you left us. Margie On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Bridgitte wrote: > How can you possibly expect people to be tolerant of your lifestyle > when you're not tolerant of theirs? I'm thoroughly disgusted, to the > point of leaving the group. > > Eating raw food does *not* make you better than anyone else. More > educated about your health? Yes. But you have absolutely no right > judge people the way you have concerning the HIV virus and AIDS. I > may be incomplete argeement with you about germs, but I'm still > astounded by what you've said. Wait until one of your friends is > diagnosed with or dies of the disease. My bet is they'll be neither > gay or a drug addict. > > Bridgitte > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Hey Rufus, I couldn't agree with you more on the political correctness that you mention. As long as we aren't spuying hate then why can't we just discuss issues like this? Political correctness is limiting our freedom of speech. Thanks for your input, Roger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2003 Report Share Posted October 13, 2003 Peter, I couldn't have said it better. I know that I am just human, and therefore, often wrong. What I like most about this forum in particular is that we are treading into very unknown territory, and there are some good arguments to every issue. I enjoy expressing my opinion, and having someone explain why they think I am wrong. This happened today, and I learned a lot from it. This forum is the best I have ever been on. I thought I had learned a lot from the books that I have read about Raw food, but since I have joined this forum, I am starting to realize that I really know very little. Thanks Rufus --- Peter Gardiner <petergardiner wrote: > Rufus, > > I agree. > > I will not join a party that would desecrate the > graves of those who > have given their lives to preserve our right to free > speech. > > A forum is not about the utterance of perfection. > It is about those who > seek to learn and no doubt other mortals who seek to > teach. Hopefully a > notion of getting nearer better things is present. > > This is self-centred but I enjoy hearing views that > are different from > my own and that includes your views on Aids. I am > 99% sure that my own > views on most subjects will change with the passage > of time but not > without hearing better opinions. > > Peter > > > > Rufus Shaw [rufus10_99] > 13 October 2003 19:18 > rawfood > Re: [Raw Food] Re: Ewald's book > > > > I am always amused that the people who push this > politically correct agenda, do not like to debate > issues. They will quickly call you names, condemn > you, and then run away. > > Rufus > > > --- Bridgitte <syndactylcat wrote: > > Well, I'm done being on a list of bigots. You > > people are truly > > screwed in the head. > > > > Bridgitte > > > > > > > > > The New with improved product > search > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 > [RH] > Hello Bridgitte, > > I hope you don't decide to leave the group. Have you done any reading > about the AIDS hoax to be so sure about your beliefs in regard to this? > There are over 100 world-class scientists who believe that AIDS is not > caused by the HIV virus. > My comments were not about AIDS being or not being caused by the HIV virus. I was stating that it was a bigoted and uneducated viewpoint to say that only homosexuals and drug addicts get AIDS. I have friends who have AIDS and who have died of AIDS. And not all of them belong to one of those groups. AIDS is rampant in Africa where it's mostly contracted by hetrosexuals. I'm not saying that the spread of the disease wasn't sped up by gay men and IV drug users - that's clearly where the infection snowballed in the early 1980's. But that was over 20 years ago and it's not the case today. And to push an antiquated view of the disease is a dangerous and irresponsible thing to do, regardless of what causes it or how it's treated in allopathic medicine. Even the man who discovered the HIV virus said on his deathbed that his theory was probably bunk. I'm not questioning that. What is truly upsetting to me is that there are actually people on this planet who are so ignorant as to call an epidemic that has killed millions of people a gay men's or drug user's disease. It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with compassion. And risking the backlash of not being compassionate myself, I have to say that the comments I read on this board earlier today made me sick to my stomach. Debate the germ theory all you like. I'm all for it. In fact, I'll join in. But if you're going to throw religion or bigotry into the mix, take it somewhere else. This isn't the place for it, and at least on this end, it's completely unwelcome. Bridgitte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2003 Report Share Posted October 14, 2003 This is absolutely NOT TRUE! Any one can get Aids, not just homosexuals or IV drug users. How can you possibly believe otherwise? It is completely illogical. Why do they now screen blood donations? Because it can be transmitted by blood transfusions. I agree that at one time, the majority (possibly all) were homosexual or IV drug users, but it is so far beyond that now. I mean no offense, but wake up. Currently the fastest growing demographic for contracting HIV\aids is not IV drug users or homosexual, it is heterosexual men and women. Please don't just take my word for it, research, look it up. Monte rawfood , Rufus Shaw <rufus10_99> wrote: > I got a big kick out of all the angry responses to > this e-mail. We have truly become a society poisoned > by political correctness. Mimi is exactly right when > she says that aids is a disease that effects only > homosexuals and intravenous drug users. I have been > to two aids funerals, one a homosexual friend, and one > an intravenous drug user. Political correctness > condemns this truth, because we have to accept > everyone and everything in this politically correct > society we live in. The odds of a monogamous, hetro > couple getting AIDS is extremely low. The odds of a > homosexual, or intravenous drug user getting aids is > extremely high. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.