OT: Handwashing/Nora

[Guest guest]

Good point. And again, I guess it's not really the bacteria part of it I'm

concerned about....so, is this really something that *all* raw people have come

to terms with...that it doesn't make them cringe to think of people not washing

their hands, then touching food? I am against antibacterial " soaps & sanitizers

because I do believe that this poses a problem, but geez, really? None of you

wash your hands? I'm sorry, if this is what it takes to " fit in " with the raw

community, I'll have to re-think it.........

 

Nora, I really appreciate the kind way in which your posts have come across.

Thank you. I guess this is all some more " food " for thought (sans the " chunks "

please

 

 

Nora Lenz <nmlenz wrote:

Sheree,

Shari may have been thinking of the RawSchool list, since this topic has

been discussed there, as I mentioned. It doesn't matter whether you are

raw or SAD. Bacteria do not cause sickness. Their job is to eat dead

things. Wherever there is waste to be cleaned up, you will find

bacteria. If we really were talking about your non-hand-washing guests

leaving " chunks " around your house, I'd certainly worry too. But since

we're talking about perfectly harmless, microscopic creatures without

whom life as we know it would not be possible, there is no need for

concern. Let's stop the biggest war of all .... the futile, insane

war on bacteria.

Best wishes,

Nora

 

 

 

I have indeed been reading what is said here - that doesn't help the

fact that not only am I not 100% (or even close) raw, but my 5 y/o

daughter (although very healthy) probably couldn't handle a chunk of

ingested feces - pardon the bluntness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> None of you wash your hands? I'm sorry, if this is what it takes to

> " fit in " with the raw community, I'll have to re-think it.........

 

I wash my hands plenty. I've never heard the issue before now, so

don't worry about fitting in.

 

My zwei pfennig: there are many types of bacteria. Some are

completely harmless, some are deadly in the wrong place.

[Guest guest]

My zwei pfennig: there are many types of bacteria. Some are

completely harmless, some are deadly in the wrong place.

 

Hi Anthony,

It's true there are billions of types of bacteria, but they are never in

the wrong place, and they are never deadly. Like all other living

creatures on earth, they are driven by nature to go where their food

supply is. (The notable exception to that is humans, who are silly

enough to live in places where their food has to be flown in.) There

are no bad bacteria. There is only bad logic, when a person concludes

mistakenly that the bacteria inhabiting a sick person's body are the

cause of the sickness. I certainly understand why people believe this,

inundated as we are with 'information' that reinforces it on a daily

basis. But if a person wants to understand the truth about how and why

disease happens, it's important to question popular but false ideas like

the germ theory. As I mentioned, this issue has been discussed quite a

lot on my list (to the point where participants there are not hostile to

the idea that hand-washing is a useless ritual ), and I'm always open

to re-visit it if/when questions arise.

Warm regards,

Nora

www.RawSchool.com

[Guest guest]

<<<I will guarantee you that if I give you a dose of E.coli 0157:H7 you

will become ill from it infecting your gut. Also Shigella,

Campylobacter, Salmonella

 

Richard,

People who have invested enough of their time and energy in learning the

fancy names that are attached to all the various bacteria are not

generally willing to openly re-examine the germ theory, unfortunately.

And if there's one thing a truthful conclusion on this topic requires,

it's an open and receptive mind.

 

All human bodies host bacteria, even the ones you mention. That's why

when people present to a doctor with symptoms and the doctor goes

looking for the little varmint, s/he usually finds it. The presence of

the bacteria does not prove a causal connection to the symptoms,

however.

 

<<<A couple hundred years of microbiology isn't wrong.

 

Naturally I'm not proposing that microbiology is wrong in all its

conclusions. Only those that are based on the unprovable idea that

bacteria cause disease. It actually doesn't take much looking to

discover lots of mistaken ideas in the past that were accepted by almost

everyone, including the 'experts', and for very long periods of time.

When the people who are in the best position to discover the truth are

the least willing to search it out, false ideas can reign almost

indefinitely.

 

Thanks for the discussion. I'd welcome further debate but I'd suggest

doing it on the RawSchool list, where there are others who could

contribute besides myself and lots of people who would benefit from the

discourse.

Regards,

Nora

[Guest guest]

/Nora

 

 

<<<I will guarantee you that if I give you a dose of E.coli 0157:H7 you

will become ill from it infecting your gut. Also Shigella,

Campylobacter, Salmonella

 

>Richard,

>People who have invested enough of their time and energy in learning the

>fancy names that are attached to all the various bacteria are not

>generally willing to openly re-examine the germ theory, unfortunately.

Ah, so in other words, those who bother to learn the names of organisms are

somehow unqualified to talk about it. So, if you learn the name of daisy, rose,

oak, then you are unwilling to examine the study of plants. Or if you learn the

name of whale, moose, human, you are unwilling to examine the study of mammals?

Perhaps those willing to learn the names of these creatures are the more

interested? Just as with bacteria.

 

 

>And if there's one thing a truthful conclusion on this topic requires,

it's an open and receptive mind.

 

Indeed. Yet you seem to be willing to ignore virtually all the published and

recognized studies of bacteria to perpetuate some sort of pet theory.

 

>All human bodies host bacteria, even the ones you mention.

 

Untrue. All human host bacteria, yet the ones I mention are only found in

humans with acute illness. The exceptions are those who become carriers for

certain types of Salmonella. They no longer exhibit symptoms of Salmonellosis

but still actively excrete the organism. There are no documented carrier states

for Campylobacter that I am aware of, and most people don't carry Shigellae.

 

>That's why

>when people present to a doctor with symptoms and the doctor goes

>looking for the little varmint, s/he usually finds it.

 

Untrue. As someone who has examined thousands of stool samples, the only ones

in which I found Shigella, Camplyobacter, or Salmonella were those who were

actively sick with the illness. Many of the other folks with diarrhea were sick

with giardia. These organisms are virtually NEVER found in health people. Sorry,

it just isn't so! Please document your assertions that most people have these!

 

>The presence of

>the bacteria does not prove a causal connection to the symptoms,

>however.

 

Sorry to have to educate you in microbiology, but the presence of a known

pathogenic organism in a human in the presence of symptoms which it has been

proven to cause, and it's absence in a human after these symptom abate is good

proof. All of these organisms have been proven to be pathogenic by Koch's

postulates:

a.. The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease.

b.. The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown

in pure culture.

c.. The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the

bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.

d.. The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected host.

This is clearly the case for all the bacteria I have mentioned. For

Salmonella, Shigella, Camplyobacter, Vibrato cholera, etc (sorry to have to

mention specific names again, it appears that you do not like that) it is true

and has been proven over and over for a few hundred years. Again, I tell you

that if I give you a pure culture of E.coli o157:H7 and you drink it in raw

juice, you WILL become ill.

 

<<<A couple hundred years of microbiology isn't wrong.

 

>Naturally I'm not proposing that microbiology is wrong in all its

>conclusions. Only those that are based on the improvable idea that

>bacteria cause disease.

 

Germ theory is quite well proven, thanks.

 

> It actually doesn't take much looking to

>scover lots of mistaken ideas in the past that were accepted by almost

>veryone, including the 'experts', and for very long periods of time.

>hen the people who are in the best position to discover the truth are

>he least willing to search it out, false ideas can reign almost

>ndefinitely.

This is a silly statement. Anyone who has any understanding of science

realizes that theories of the past will be improved upon or discarded in the

future based upon evidence. The newest methods of biological science, molecular

biology, support the germ theory completely for all of the instances that I have

cited. There is not one single whit of evidence to support your claims, thus

you then try to cast doubt upon the characters of those who try to learn the

truth. You cite nothing to support your statements. Nor can you, for there are

no studies to support them. You make strange assumptions about people and

insulting assumptions about science. I would ask you, what criteria do you use

to determine what you accept as true? You remind me much of those who jailed

Galileo because his " Science " ran against the " true religion " of those who just

knew it was true (but without proof). Science runs against your " true religion "

so how do you respond but to make strange claims against those whose spend their

lives studying the very organisms which you can't even name. You cite nothing to

prove that any of the claims of modern bacteriological science are false.

 

>Thanks for the discussion. I'd welcome further debate but I'd suggest

>doing it on the RawSchool list, where there are others who could

>contribute besides myself and lots of people who would benefit from the

>discourse.

>Regards,

>Nora

 

Wow, if this goes on over there, then I guess I'd better post there too!

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> <<<I will guarantee you that if I give you a dose of E.coli

> 0157:H7 you

> will become ill from it infecting your gut. Also Shigella,

> Campylobacter, Salmonella

 

.... tuberculosis, etc.

[Guest guest]

Indeed. We don't have to throw out all of our modern benefits and knowledge for

a perhaps better way of eating...

-

Anthony D'Atri

RawSeattle

Saturday, October 22, 2005 7:41 PM

Re: [RawSeattle] OT: Handwashing/Nora

 

 

 

> <<<I will guarantee you that if I give you a dose of E.coli

> 0157:H7 you

> will become ill from it infecting your gut. Also Shigella,

> Campylobacter, Salmonella

 

... tuberculosis, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Richard,

 

>Again, I tell you that if I give you a pure culture of E.coli o157:H7 and

you drink it in raw juice, you WILL become ill.

 

Some people say they can eat rotten food and not get sick. I happened to

catch Aajonus Vonderplanitz, author of We Want to Live, on a TV show the

other night (Ripley's Believe It or Not) and he told of how he eats raw meat

that has been sitting around in a jar for A YEAR or more. He exposes it to

air periodically to help the rotting process. Evidently the stuff smells

absolutely horrible, but somehow he and his followers manage to eat the

stuff. It must be teeming with " bad " bacteria such as E.coli. How do I

define bad? Well, to me, if it smells horrible and makes you want to gag,

it's bad! But AV says this diet not only doesn't make people sick, it cures

them of sickness. I'm not advocating this diet (I'm a vegetarian), I'm just

reporting what he said.

 

 

 

Mark

 

_____

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Mark

 

You are right, this seems to be the case. However, we have to ask " just what was

in that jar of rotten meat? " It has to be remembered that there are " tons " of

bacteria and most of them will not cause you illness. Even if that jar is a year

old, if it doesn't have certain specific disease-causing bacteria in it

(Salmonella, Shigella, C.bot, etc) then you can eat it no matter how gross it

might be! " Bacteria " ( generic) won't make you sick, but some species can if

they are in suficient numbers.

 

A rabbit may eat a plant but not a human. A wolf may eat a rabbit but not a

human. Some bacteria just co-exist with us. You can eat them forever ( you

probably do already) without effect (although is one gets into your blood it may

be a different story). Some bacteria cause disease in certain animals. Some

bacteria cause disease in humans. If you are infected by these you will suffer a

disease. That's the way it goes...

Richard

 

 

-

Mark Hovila

RawSeattle

Saturday, October 22, 2005 9:26 PM

RE: [RawSeattle] OT: Handwashing/Nora

 

 

Richard,

 

>Again, I tell you that if I give you a pure culture of E.coli o157:H7 and

you drink it in raw juice, you WILL become ill.

 

Some people say they can eat rotten food and not get sick. I happened to

catch Aajonus Vonderplanitz, author of We Want to Live, on a TV show the

other night (Ripley's Believe It or Not) and he told of how he eats raw meat

that has been sitting around in a jar for A YEAR or more. He exposes it to

air periodically to help the rotting process. Evidently the stuff smells

absolutely horrible, but somehow he and his followers manage to eat the

stuff. It must be teeming with " bad " bacteria such as E.coli. How do I

define bad? Well, to me, if it smells horrible and makes you want to gag,

it's bad! But AV says this diet not only doesn't make people sick, it cures

them of sickness. I'm not advocating this diet (I'm a vegetarian), I'm just

reporting what he said.

 

 

 

Mark

 

_____

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Just for the record, Richard, you were not banned for having an " agenda "

or for your " experience " , you were banned because you were

disrespectful. I didn't do the actual banning as it is usually my habit

to give people more warning than my somewhat less tolerant co-moderator.

In all fairness, however, you did flout his warning about changing your

attitude. I'm thankful for your posts there, however, because they

inspired some great questions from one of the members that I'm sure

others were wondering about as well. We'll be exploring those topics in

depth from a more nature-based, less fearful perspective than is

generally taken, if anyone is interested.

Nora

www.RawSchool.com

 

 

 

 

<<<Well, when I posted over on Nora's list I was accused of having an

" agenda " and wil probably be banned for actually having some experience

as a microbiologist. So I see this as just a means of squelching any

factual discussions of microbiology. Just another aspect of " true

believers " I guess. As a person who appreciates both raw food and other

dietary modalities, I'm happy to keep on posting here and have no need

to be squelched on Nora's list.

Richard

[Guest guest]

<<< " Nora, I really appreciate the kind way in which your posts have come

across. Thank you. I guess this is all some more " food " for thought "

 

I think what really happened, Sheree, is that you expected lots of

support and validation for your original complaint about people not

washing their hands at your house. You were surprised when that didn't

happen, and perhaps you saw it as an affront. I can't speak for others

but all I did was share my opinion that handwashing isn't necessary, and

provided a few brief reasons why not. It's nothing personal. The above

compliment you posted to me about my approach to you makes me think it's

not really me that you're accusing of being unfriendly or disrespectful

anyway.

Regards,

Nora

 

 

 

 

Nora,

 

I don't believe that my simple request for suggestions on persuading my

house guests to wash their hands was treated with respect and

friendliness by you and a few others.

[Guest guest]

beautifully said Cheryl,

my sentiments exactly

It's great to be able to read about ALL health

issues from the learned and layman alike.

I read Raw Seattle all the time and while some of it

is local (I'm in Australia) other parts,

which Sheree's handwashing has started, are so

informative and interesting.

Toni

 

Searching for the best free email? Try MetaCrawler Mail, from the #1 metasearch

service on the Web, http://www.metacrawler.com

[Guest guest]

Nora,

 

I really apologize, I got you mixed up with someone else on the list. Right

after I sent this post, I realized it, but had didn't have time to email you

back right away. You were kind in your posts.

 

Nora Lenz <nmlenz wrote:

 

<<< " Nora, I really appreciate the kind way in which your posts have come

across. Thank you. I guess this is all some more " food " for thought "

 

I think what really happened, Sheree, is that you expected lots of

support and validation for your original complaint about people not

washing their hands at your house. You were surprised when that didn't

happen, and perhaps you saw it as an affront. I can't speak for others

but all I did was share my opinion that handwashing isn't necessary, and

provided a few brief reasons why not. It's nothing personal. The above

compliment you posted to me about my approach to you makes me think it's

not really me that you're accusing of being unfriendly or disrespectful

anyway.

Regards,

Nora

 

 

 

 

Nora,

 

I don't believe that my simple request for suggestions on persuading my

house guests to wash their hands was treated with respect and

friendliness by you and a few others.