Guest guest Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 <<< " Problem is, there hasn't been agreement on this list about which ideas " don't even merit examination " and which ones should be " tried on for size. " " Hi Gael, Merit is in the mind of the beholder. Since we on this list will never all agree on which ideas deserve to be investigated and which ones don't, we need only concern ourselves with relevance. The germ theory definitely fits that criterion, no matter which side you're on. <<< " Yet I haven't yet heard any anti germ-theory folks publicly volunteer to take a dose of e coli, not get sick, and prove their point once and for all. " Thanks for bringing this up. I'm not sure what you mean by " publicly volunteer " , but I once offered (on a discussion board) to walk through a SARS ward in Asia and kiss all the sick people. Seriously, I doubt whether it would make the news if one of us 'anti-germ theory' folk announced s/he was going to lick a Petri dish. If there is this much resistance to these ideas in the raw community, you can imagine how the public at large would react. In addition, trillions of dollars would be lost by various industries if people stopped fearing 'germs'. No self-respecting news agency is going to risk that, since they are all sponsored by those industries. Whether or not I got sick if I ingested a so-called pathogen orally would depend on how much I consumed. If I ate a small amount, I most likely wouldn't experience any reaction at all. However, this wouldn't prove anything. It would be said by believers that I have a strong " immune system " (which is a red herring since there is no such thing as " immunity " in nature), or some other excuse would be invoked. On the other hand if I ate a large amount or if it was injected directly into my bloodstream, I'd most likely experience symptoms. This would not be inconsistent with the single-cause disease model -- Toxemia, which opposes the germ theory. Eating a bowlful (just guessing what the threshhold might be) of bacteria might stretch the body's limited faculties for dealing with inappropriate (non-food) substances without symptoms. And symptoms would definitely be experienced if bacteria were injected directly into the bloodstream, since contaminating the blood with *any* foreign matter in this way causes an immediate defense reaction. Of course, this would be seen as " proof " that bacteria do make people sick, when it's really just the case that the same people are perceiving the situation in the same mistaken way. No matter how it turned out, nothing would be proven " once and for all " . Having said all that, however, I'd like to hereby let it be known that Robert Rust and I would happily consume a small amount (maybe 1/2 teaspoon each? -- enough to be visible and to satisfy the germ theory adherents) of bacteria of your/their/his/her choosing (including e-coli) for demonstration purposes, as long as we could be sure there was nothing except bacteria in the sample. (It is conceivable that someone who really wanted to prove his/her point could put something besides bacteria in it.) I'm not sure how this last part could be accomplished, but we're open to suggestions. There are people on this list whom Robert and I both know and trust. Of course this would all have to be arranged by whomever is so motivated to want to see it. If we're being asked to eat the stuff, the least you/they/s/he can do is grow it and make the other arrangements. Just name the time and place, and we'll be there. Robert's in California right now so it would have to coincide with one of his upcoming visits to Seattle. Let me know if you (or anyone) want to proceed, and I'll fill you in on his schedule. It seems like this questioning of the germ theory is new to lots of people here, so it might be helpful to note that the list of germ-theory challengers is actually long and varied, and is not confined to natural hygiene proponents. In fact, it includes some famous names of science and medicine. I'll paste below some comments that were posted on the RawSchool list by one of our members who is a practicing RN. This is in no way an attempt to " prove " the germ theory invalid, but only to illustrate that lots of people, even 'qualified professionals', have asked the same questions and found the answers wanting. Sometimes it's important for people to know that, so that they can feel justified in doing the same. " One MD that I know of (famous) who opposed the germ theory is Dr. Archie Kalokerinos. His book, Second Thoughts on Disease, can be read on line at http://www.whale.to/w/kal.html. Dr. Robert Young (grandson of Brigham Young), who is still alive, wrote a booked called " Sick and Tired " , which challenges the germ theory. Other famous names would be, of course, Antoine Bechamp, also Gunther Enderlein, Rudolph Virchow (father of pathology) who said that if he could live his life over again, he would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat, not cause disease; Claude Bernard, whom Louis Pasteur cited on his death bed as being correct that the terrain was everything; several books were written also by Ethel Douglas Hume (not a microbiologist) exposing Pasteur (early 1920's). One was called " Bechamp or Pasteur? A lost Chapter in Biology. " One of her books, " The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur " , is also available on line to read at http://www.sumeria.net/dream/0.html (The others may be as well.) In her books (I don't remember which one) she quotes Florence Nightingale -- " The specific disease doctrine (read: germ theory) is the grand refuge of weak, uncultured, unstable minds, such as now rule in the medical profession. " She probably spent more hours with sick people than anyone. It's also interesting to note that Louis Pasteur wasn't even a microbiologist, nor even a bacteriologist. He was a chemist. " Regards, Nora www.RawSchool.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 Hi Nora, I do not suggest, nor advocate, that anyone ingest substances that will surely make them sick just to prove a point. I think that such actions would be foolhardy and irresponsible. Best, Gael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Gael - but it would prove a point, wouldn't it? Nora is not going to get sick from ingesting anything. People cannot believe what they are reading and a visual might be just what the rawfooder ordered! Have a great weekend - Shari COME TO BRUCE'S CLASS SATURDAY NIGHT! It's going to be all desserts and all raw!!! Will be spooktacular! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2005 Report Share Posted October 30, 2005 You did suggest it, Gael. It's disingenous for you to contradict yourself now that we have called your bluff. The offer stands, for you or anyone else. Robert and I are very commited to our health, as evidenced by our tenure as 100% raw fooders (16 and 5 years, respectively). We wouldn't be foolish enough to take risks in order to " prove a point " . Nora - " Gael Foord " <gaelfoord <RawSeattle > Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:39 PM Re: [RawSeattle] Eating e-coli (was 'handwashing') Hi Nora, I do not suggest, nor advocate, that anyone ingest substances that will surely make them sick just to prove a point. I think that such actions would be foolhardy and irresponsible. Best, Gael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2005 Report Share Posted October 30, 2005 Hi Nora, What I wrote was: " Yet I haven't yet heard any anti germ-theory folks publicly volunteer to take a dose of e coli, not get sick, and prove their point once and for all. " I was making an observation, but can see how you and Robert read it as a challenge. To which you have responded in full by volunteering to eat e-coli. So now that original observation is one that I can no longer make. People like myself who think that there probably IS something to the germ theory are not going to want anyone to eat e-coli. So if anyone take you up on your proposal it would have to be the folks who agree with you and have faith that you won't get sick. In future posts, if you think that I'm issuing a challenge, being " disingenuous " or anything else, please don't hesitate to ask me about it. Best, Gael On Oct 29, 2005, at 9:05 PM, Nora Lenz wrote: > You did suggest it, Gael. It's disingenous for you to contradict > yourself now that we have called your bluff. The offer stands, for > you > or anyone else. Robert and I are very commited to our health, as > evidenced by our tenure as 100% raw fooders (16 and 5 years, > respectively). We wouldn't be foolish enough to take risks in > order to > " prove a point " . > Nora > > > > - > " Gael Foord " <gaelfoord > <RawSeattle > > Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:39 PM > Re: [RawSeattle] Eating e-coli (was 'handwashing') > > > Hi Nora, > > I do not suggest, nor advocate, that anyone ingest substances that > will surely make them sick just to prove a point. I think that such > actions would be foolhardy and irresponsible. > > Best, > Gael > > 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.