Germs dont cause illness

originally posted by: HODOSKE
was wondering everyone's thoughts o n this theory that has been around for quite a long time. Germs dont cause disease

We do not catch diseases. We build them. We have to eat, drink, think, and feel them into existence. We work hard at developing our diseases. We must work just as hard at restoring health. The presence of germs does not constitute the presence of a disease. Bacteria are scavengers of nature...they reduce dead tissue to its smallest element. Germs or bacteria have no influence, whatsoever, on live cells. Germs or microbes flourish as scavengers at the site of disease. They are just living on the unprocessed metabolic waste and diseased, malnourished, nonresistant tissue in the first place. They are not the cause of the disease, any more than flies and maggots cause garbage. Flies, maggots, and rats do not cause garbage but rather feed on it. Mosquitoes do not cause a pond to become stagnant! You always see firemen at burning buildings, but that doesn't mean they caused the fire... click below for full article

www.laleva.org...

Germ's or rather Bacteria come in many form's, there are more of them in your own body than your own body has cell's in fact and many of them are good, in fact your body is actually a symbiotic life form, that is that it work's with the help of friendly bacteria.

But bad bacteria harm, they disrupt the body, produce toxic compound's, eat the body from within causing necrosis, disrupt the nervous system and even attack the good bacteria that help us to stay well.

So Bacteria DO cause illness.

London used to be called the great stink, the River Thames was an open sewer and though as you would expect the people probably had robust immune system's they could not weather so much disease, cholera and other diseases were rife and they died in there droves.

Even the smell of the river was unbarable and so the British government finally ordered the building of a sewer and eventually that clean water be provided as well.

With the advent of clean water to wash in and drink and the sewerage being taken away to be disposed of away from people illness began to decline.

Now in today's world with poverty on the rise, water being charged for by private company's and many people living homeless often without access to basic sanitation and being forced to sleep in dirty clothes in dirty sleeping bag's (if they are lucky enough to own one) disease and death are now reducing life expectancy in the UK and people are starting to die younger and younger again, all thank's to the bloody self righteous corrupt to the eye ball stinking Tory party.

Ever hear the term filthy rich - well let me explain it's origin.

Long ago the rich in Europe and notably in England - the ancestors of the Tory's - feared that washing could kill them so they would either NEVER bath or else only do so about once a year or once every two years, there hair was infested with lice and flease and they stank like God only know's (if he did not have a peg on his nose those day's - and I wouldn't blame him if he did), these were the same day's whem the rich often had rotten black teeth because they had discovered SUGAR and it was a rich man's delicacy that was brought in from plantation's were slaves were worked to death to grown the suger cane and turn it into molasses so they had there own organ donation scheme to help these poor rich folk's, they would pay men to bring them fresh, living, healthy and young white teeth which of course led to poor woman being waylaid, sometime's killed but often knocked unconscious and there teeth being pulled out so that some rich fart could pop them into there own rotting gum's were they would then last for anything up to six month's but usually less before they needed yet more teeth to replace them.

But get this, believing that bacteria do cause disease is almost as bad as being as ignorant as those same idiot's that lived back then - and they even the rich were lucky to pass 50 years of age back in those day's.

Bacteria though are not the ONLY cause of disease, you have virus, chemical induced illness, genetic defect's and damage caused by exposure to toxic compound's and radiation and of course poor diet.

Ultimately we all die of disease, aging is seen by some as a disease but it is one that is programmed into us, our cell's stop reproducing fast enough to compensate for the damage we accrue over time and so we get old and die, our body's get weak and we become less able to fight of pathogen's (bad bacteria and virus that cause diseases).

But you know what there is a whole concept called Placebo, people can sometime's will themselves well but only to a degree, people can also will themselves to die, depression is a killer and there are more types of disease than simply biological damaging one's.

Mental illness is often NOT caused by bacteria or virus (but you know what some of them can cause brain damage so this is just a generalization), shock and trauma can leave a physically able man unable to cope or function in society and even kill them or cause them to self destruct.

But sorry, I am not calling you stupid or anything but I am calling you wrong on this argument, people have been dying from bacterial illness and virological illness since the year of zero and with the advent of antibiotic's (that are useless against viral infections but work fantastic against bacterialogical ones) people got well, if it was not bacteria that were killing them through infection, gangrene and contageous bacteriological diseases then antibiotic's would never have worked but they did work, think about it,. Does a kid of three whom does not even know what an antibiotic or bacteria is survive because he will's himself well when he has been infected by a bacteria his body can not fight off or does the action of the antibiotic's that the doctors give him that kill off that bacteria allowing him to get well then made more sense than the idea that the child will's himself well.

Our immune system DETECTS dangerous bacteria, foreign invaders that are not were they are supposed to be there are many dangerous bacteria in your gut and intestines but as long as they stay were they belong they do you no harm but if they get into your bloodstream and infect your body they will kill you unless your antibody's fight them off which in fact they are doing all the time, your body is actually a battle field and a war is raging through your entire life, when you are a child your own immune system is not yet functional but your body gained immunity by recieving cell's from your mother through her milk and before that by still having your mother's blood circulating in your vein's were it is protecting you until your body's begin's to produce enough of it's own blood and immue cell's.

Some of the foods we have started eating dampen our immune response and it does not respond to the threat of microbes immediately. so they take hold then we over react instead of killing them as they form. Some of these foods are touted as super foods because they calm and dope us down. Yes, we do need some of this kind of chemistry in our diet, but not a real lot of it. Herbs and spices can contain this chemistry, and some people refer to this as comfort food chemistry because it relaxes us and takes away aches and pains sometimes. But disrupting our nervous system is not the right way, if we consume foods that help us make our own dampening chemistry and pain relief chemistry it would be better.

Highly prepared food contains some of this, people desire to feel good so they pay for it.

originally posted by: HODOSKE
was wondering everyone's thoughts o n this theory that has been around for quite a long time. Germs dont cause disease

We do not catch diseases. We build them. We have to eat, drink, think, and feel them into existence.

This doesn't explain diseases in babies, in our pets, in wild animals, in plants (yes, plants have diseases), in dinosaurs (yes, they found evidence of diseases in dinosaurs) and prehistoric animals, etc.

How does a plant "eat, drink, think, and feel" a disease like canker or "black root rot" (a real plant disease)? How does an ant "eat, drink, think and feel" a disease like staphylococcus? How do ferrets eat/drink/think/feel epizootic catarrhal enteritis?

Some diseases start in animals but are transmitted to humans through careless behavior (generally eating and handling raw wild meats). These diseases make both humans and animals sick (like rabies, for instance.)

How does this vapid, thick-headed, witless, uninformed, nit-wit idea explain all this?

(nota bene: you might want to read up on disease. There are a number of causes for things we call "disease" including bacteria, viruses, prions, parasites, amoebas, radiation, fungi, organic dysfunction, etc, etc.)



We work hard at developing our diseases. We must work just as hard at restoring health. The presence of germs does not constitute the presence of a disease. Bacteria are scavengers of nature...they reduce dead tissue to its smallest element. Germs or bacteria have no influence, whatsoever, on live cells. Germs or microbes flourish as scavengers at the site of disease. They are just living on the unprocessed metabolic waste and diseased, malnourished, nonresistant tissue in the first place. They are not the cause of the disease, any more than flies and maggots cause garbage. Flies, maggots, and rats do not cause garbage but rather feed on it. Mosquitoes do not cause a pond to become stagnant! You always see firemen at burning buildings, but that doesn't mean they caused the fire... click below for full article

www.laleva.org...

originally posted by: HODOSKE
if you read the whole article. the gist is that there are billions of germs we are exposed to all the time. But we dont get sick all the time. We get sick due to a weakened immune system

What's lacking here is that you don't seem to understand how the immune system works. We may have a very strong immune system, but may still get sick. The number of germs is not the point, it's the ones we have not developed immunity against which cause issues. A weakened immune system is less able to cope with "new things".

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein

originally posted by: HODOSKE
if you read the whole article. the gist is that there are billions of germs we are exposed to all the time. But we dont get sick all the time. We get sick due to a weakened immune system

This is exactly right. That's why you should never use that hand sanitizer. It just kills all of the protective germs and opens yourself up for an invasion.
Being covered in your own germs and secretions is key to surviving any onslaught of infections going around.
This is not sarcasm. Quit using soap and shampoo! just use hot water. Your oily hair will adjust in about a week and quit producing oil and you will be much healthier.

Uh. No.

Argh.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: HODOSKE
was wondering everyone's thoughts o n this theory that has been around for quite a long time. Germs dont cause disease

We do not catch diseases. We build them. We have to eat, drink, think, and feel them into existence.

This doesn't explain diseases in babies, in our pets, in wild animals, in plants (yes, plants have diseases), in dinosaurs (yes, they found evidence of diseases in dinosaurs) and prehistoric animals, etc.

How does a plant "eat, drink, think, and feel" a disease like canker or "black root rot" (a real plant disease)? How does an ant "eat, drink, think and feel" a disease like staphylococcus? How do ferrets eat/drink/think/feel epizootic catarrhal enteritis?

Some diseases start in animals but are transmitted to humans through careless behavior (generally eating and handling raw wild meats). These diseases make both humans and animals sick (like rabies, for instance.)

How does this vapid, thick-headed, witless, uninformed, nit-wit idea explain all this?

(nota bene: you might want to read up on disease. There are a number of causes for things we call "disease" including bacteria, viruses, prions, parasites, amoebas, radiation, fungi, organic dysfunction, etc, etc.)

...I forgot to clear out this bottom part of the OP's post when I wrote my response and didn't re-read my post, as I usually do. Obviously I do NOT believe this following section

We work hard at developing our diseases. We must work just as hard at restoring health. The presence of germs does not constitute the presence of a disease. Bacteria are scavengers of nature...they reduce dead tissue to its smallest element. Germs or bacteria have no influence, whatsoever, on live cells. Germs or microbes flourish as scavengers at the site of disease. They are just living on the unprocessed metabolic waste and diseased, malnourished, nonresistant tissue in the first place. They are not the cause of the disease, any more than flies and maggots cause garbage. Flies, maggots, and rats do not cause garbage but rather feed on it. Mosquitoes do not cause a pond to become stagnant! You always see firemen at burning buildings, but that doesn't mean they caused the fire... click below for full article

www.laleva.org...

...and please note that the argument (dimwitted as it is) wasn't even considered plausible back when it was made in the mid-late 1800's -- around 150 years ago.

originally posted by: Byrd

This doesn't explain diseases in babies, in our pets, in wild animals, in plants

Babies would be inheriting the physiological weaknesses of their parents. Not so popularly known as "the sins of your fathers". The mechanism is beginning to be realized as 'epigenetic inheritance', which shows that experience and traits are passed on through epigenetic markers.

Pets are living abnormal lives. They are locked inside a lot of the time (extremely unnatural), eat dry garbage food, and get walked maybe 3 times a day. I'm surprised they're not more sick than they are.

Wild animals and plants are vulnerable to pollution. For example, People are advised not to swim in the major river that runs alongside my county due to the toxic run-off that infests it..


Disease is much more complex than simply microbial infection.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Byrd

This doesn't explain diseases in babies, in our pets, in wild animals, in plants

Babies would be inheriting the physiological weaknesses of their parents. Not so popularly known as "the sins of your fathers". The mechanism is beginning to be realized as 'epigenetic inheritance', which shows that experience and traits are passed on through epigenetic markers.

Would not explain whooping cough and epidemics and measles, etc, etc... which appear in one child and then in others who have contact with them in spite of differences in diet, culture, and so forth. In fact, diseases can be transmitted to groups that have only casual contact with other groups.

Also doesn't explain things like disease resistance (I am resistant to smallpox (never scarred from vaccination though I got the jab regularly)... unlike the rest of my family.)

Genetics explains it, however.

Pets are living abnormal lives. They are locked inside a lot of the time (extremely unnatural), eat dry garbage food, and get walked maybe 3 times a day. I'm surprised they're not more sick than they are.

They live 4-5 times longer than their wild counterparts. Properly vaccinated, they don't get the same diseases.

Wild animals and plants are vulnerable to pollution. For example, People are advised not to swim in the major river that runs alongside my county due to the toxic run-off that infests it..

This doesn't explain the presence of diseases (including cancers www.livescience.com...) in dinosaurs and creatures from the Ice Age and earlier. phys.org...

Disease is much more complex than simply microbial infection.

Absolutely! As I said in my post (I think I did, anyway.)

or bats that carry so many viruses and do not get sick because their immune system does not react
www.npr.org...

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: HODOSKE
utter bollox - would YOU like to be the victim of an experiment - to show just how wrong your idiocy is ?

I certainly wouldn't say it is utter bollux.

This boils down to the debate between two theories of disease - the 'cellular theory' (aka the pleomorphic theory) as postulated by Claude Bernard and Antoine Bechamp, vs Pasteur's 'germ theory'.

It is even claimed by Claude Bernard that Pasteuer recanted, and proclaimed that the Microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything, suggesting Pasteuer was admitting to a fundamental error of the germ theory - not that there aren't virulent microbes out there that can invade our bodies and wreak havoc, but only with respect to chronic illnesses/diseases.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: HODOSKE
if you read the whole article. the gist is that there are billions of germs we are exposed to all the time. But we dont get sick all the time. We get sick due to a weakened immune system

What's lacking here is that you don't seem to understand how the immune system works. We may have a very strong immune system, but may still get sick. The number of germs is not the point, it's the ones we have not developed immunity against which cause issues. A weakened immune system is less able to cope with "new things".

You have to try and understand what your immune system's job is. It's job to kill "anything that isn't you". That's why, for example, if you lose an arm, you can't just sew one onto you from an organ donor's cadaver. Your immune system will recognize that the DNA of the donor doesn't match your own, and start to kill it immediately.

(Some people have been so desperate to replace a lost limb that they took immune suppressants in order to keep this from happening, and only lived a few years before succumbing to disease. )

It's a hard job.

Any system with a job that complicated is going to have vulnerabilities. Germs never stop trying to find them.

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein

originally posted by: HODOSKE
if you read the whole article. the gist is that there are billions of germs we are exposed to all the time. But we dont get sick all the time. We get sick due to a weakened immune system

This is exactly right. That's why you should never use that hand sanitizer. It just kills all of the protective germs and opens yourself up for an invasion.
Being covered in your own germs and secretions is key to surviving any onslaught of infections going around.
This is not sarcasm. Quit using soap and shampoo! just use hot water. Your oily hair will adjust in about a week and quit producing oil and you will be much healthier.

There is some truth to this, but you'd want to do it in moderation.

If you're too clean, your immune system atrophies. If you're too dirty, then you're overwhelming it.

Toward your later years, too clean is better than too dirty.

a reply to: HODOSKE
pardon me
I seem to keep forgetting that the earth is flat
that up is down and
that the earth
in fact has no gravity
struth I need a bloody beer