Medical Forum / General / Alternative / July 2008
The Very Ancient Origin Of Contagionism
|
|
Thread rating:  |
rpautrey2 - 17 Jul 2008 12:56 GMT Very Ancient Origin of Contagionism by Peter Morrell
"Interestingly Fracastoro the physician-poet from Verona (who christened Syphilis the French disease) had proposed a germ theory of disease in 1546, one hundred years before Leeuwenhoek's ground breaking discoveries under the microscope." [1]
Some conceptual errors seem to have crept into this account. The idea of contagion entirely precedes the discovery of bacteria and is very ancient. Of course, the germ theory was conceived many centuries before germs were physically detected with microscopes. Scientists and medics seem too eager to accept as gospel the most simplistic 'external teachings', while condemning our ancestors as befuddled old fools who knew nothing. In fact, ancient peoples had a much more subtle mentality and rather than being so easily bedazzled by the simple, superficial glance that satisfies people today, they clearly understood the deeper internal workings of things as a complex, living reality.
"Rudimentary modern concepts such as bacteria, toxins, personal cleanliness, and public sanitation were either unknown and largely absent from the social database. Quarantines were common and had been utilized for hundreds of years, but the scientific idea of contagion was confused and interrelated with religion, piety, sin, and "God's Justice." [2]
The germ theory first arose in very ancient times as a conception that disease is passed around in some nebulous manner between and amongst people. This attitude was most obvious for the clear contagions like Plague and Leprosy [later Cholera] of which people were understandably very fearful.
"Guy de Chauliac concerning...the Black Death: 'it was so contagious...that even by looking at one another people caught it.'..." [3]
Guy de Chauliac
This primitive form of 'contagionism' was found in all cultures and was intrinsically a form of taboo, holding that even though an ill person is primarily ill for their own inner, spiritual, God-driven reasons, they should still be avoided because they carry, in some mysterious way, the 'seeds' or 'vapours' of the disease, which can be passed on to others. This was called the miasmata theory of ill-airs and strange vapours that can pass among the populace. By no means an unreasonable conception, it derived in an evidence-based manner, mostly from observation and experience of epidemics, admittedly laced with certain religious concepts. Whether a microscope later provided confirmation for such a conception in the minds of men is, of course, rather superfluous to the general validity of the conception itself, which vastly predates the actual microscopes themselves.
The discovery of physical 'infective particles' need not be regarded as confirmation of the ancient idea of contagion, but might be seen as a separate idea altogether, one fundamentally different in modern therapeutics compared to the more ancient idea of contagion that preceded it. Thus, a rather subtle and spiritual conception became displaced by a crude and materialistic one - a pattern that keeps repeating itself down to modern times. The idea of contagion more properly belongs to the magical worldview, a view that minutely scrutinises phenomena and always looks for anomalies or non- conformities in the world. A view holding that all non-conformities contain pattern and meaning, have power and that this power can be utilised or transmitted - being passed around through contact.
There are numerous examples of the power of an anomaly. The albino in Africa is an anomaly who is revered as a god. The weapon that killed someone is an anomaly. The place where the slaughter took place has power and contagion. Prayers are intoned and flowers placed at the site of an accident. Candles are lit for the dead. Churches are filled with perfume. Holy water is sprinkled. Cathedrals are filled with light and music. Ointment is rubbed into the sword as well as the wound it caused. A rationale lies behind all such actions. A pervasive and profound notion of resonance abounds in the magical worldview and lies at the heart of this whole matter of contagion. Write it all off as superstitious nonsense if you like, but this sense of resonance touches everything, interconnecting them in an unseen web of links between events, people, places, concepts, objects, practices. Nothing happens without a [spiritual] cause and everything affects everything else. What if ought has medicine truly gained from science? And what has it lost?
Even in fame and celebrity, the idea of contagion persists. John Lennon's piano or Mercedes must have some special power. A guitar once owned by Eric Clapton. The bedroom where Marilyn Monroe died. The baseball that won a whole series. Erroll Flynn's jockstrap. These are all examples of objects deemed to be suffused with some invisible and special power. They are unusual to the degree that they possessed special power once and so mysteriously must still contain a fading vestige of it. They are anomalies. A superstitious mode of thinking, that we all innately possess, contends that they still possess this power and will always possess it, and that we can annoint ourselves with it somehow and so sanctify our lives. Getting close to the rich and famous is thus as alluring a pursuit as ever.
Similarly, the sick person is a type of non-conformity - a deviation from normality - and represents a puzzle to the magical mind - a puzzle capable of solution. The sick person has a power that can affect others. This was well known to ancient and medieval people. Plague and leprosy were especially feared not only as great killers, but of being passed on to people coming into close contact with the sufferer, such as neighbours and members of the same family.
"With few exceptions the contemporary sources, medical and lay, that discuss the various outbreaks of pestilential disease in the later Middle Ages reveal a strong belief in the extremely contagious nature of the 'pest'..." [4]
Malaria, Typhus and Cholera were associated with damp or foul places. Leprosy and Syphilis were deemed to be basically sexual in origin, and thus a whiff of wickedness surrounded anyone contracting them. Deviantised in this way by their condition, they had to be isolated from everyone else.
"Beliefs of this kind continued to play a major role throughout the Middle Ages and into the 16th and 17th centuries, with disease being associated with the work of Satan and with demonic possession. Plagues and pestilences were believed to be visitations from God, to punish or try sinful people. Protestants long continued to see disease as the finger of Providence." [5]
Lepers and syphilitics were shunned because of the 'negative emanations' that were deemed to hang around them. Only 'bad' people could contract such diseases. This was not a form of contagion strictly like the bacteria doctrine. It was primarily the view that as special non-conformities these sick persons possessed some special and transmissible negative power or subtle energy. It was not conceived of as an infective particle. Such is almost a crude and more modern degradation of the original theory of contagion.
"Cholera most often affected those persons who lived dissolute, alcoholic, drug related, sexually excessive, and filth ridden lives; cholera's victims were simply being punished by God. It was the consequence of sin and "was the inevitable and inescapable judgment" of the Divine Power. "Cholera was a scourge not of mankind but of the sinner." And, it was a known and seemingly irrefutable fact that cholera was most commonly found in those areas of the world least populated by Christians." [6]
In the ancient [pagan] and in the Christian view that power was conceived as bad and could transmit to another person the same sickness. In other words, close proximity to such a person could induce the same sickness in others. It could not induce sickness universally, but only in sinners, in 'unprotected' persons and those who are wicked or corrupted in a similar way to the sufferer. The old idea of contagion did not contend that the illness was spread universally amongst all people or that it was transmitted regardless by some physically detectable particle. These are entirely modern amendations based upon the bacteria doctrine. Only those deigned by God to succumb could succumb.
"In ancient civilizations, disease was routinely interpreted as the consequence of sin, crime, or moral fault, as precipitated by evil spirits, or as the work of black magic. Disease was thus personalized and given a moral or religious meaning." [7].
Any moral or religious sense of meaning about illness in the life of the individual has been entirely eclipsed from view since the bacteria doctrine displaced prior theories.
One urgent aspect of ancient contagion was how to obtain and confer protection from sickness. This was a special power exercised by kings and leaders and by clerics and physicians. Holy water and special amulets such as religious relics, were used to confer spiritual protection. This protection bestowed upon a person the ability to work with the sick without any fear of contagion. Such persons were revered as very special. Their manifest ability to resist contagion was abundant confirmation of their spiritual purity. The folk tradition in most countries is packed with examples of this theme of purity and contagion.
Several problems exist with the modern bacteria doctrine. One is that infection is not universal and nor is the disease cured by removal of the germ. There is also the problem of why someone gets ill and why others don't. These are partially explained by immunology, but the suspicion persists in many quarters that some more subtle form of contagion must still operate. And then there are the inner personal reasons behind an ill person. Who cares about those any more? Narrative medicine touches upon some of them; some have been provisionally adopted by psychology; the rest go begging wherever they can find a home, mostly among the holistic therapies.
It is also invalid to contend, as many medical historians do, inebriated as they too often are by the hallucinatory wine of modern science, that the idea of contagion was the bacteria doctrine in a simpler form waiting to become somehow completed, modernised or rendered more sophisticated by the germ theory. As I said, they are very different ideas and although they both share many concepts like contagion, transmission, infectivity, susceptibility, protection, immunity and isolation, quarantine, etc, it is just not true that the old theory was 'waiting' for the discovery of infective particles that confirmed and completed the older idea. The older idea was solid and dependable in its own right, comprising part of a very different conceptual worldview, and was not really in need of any completion. And they are as different today as chalk and cheese.
It is also clear that the idea of contagion served a very different purpose in ancient times than the idea of bacteria in the germ theory. Contagion, purity and impurity are all aspects of the idea of resonance between objects, persons and events within a magical or religious conception of the world. Cures can be induced by subtle means using resonance, sympathy and the natural power in cognate objects. The doctrine of signatures was also thoroughly imbued with this very idea of resonance and healing was as much a form of contagion as the illness itself. He caught the illness and must now catch the cure. Powdered rhino horn and lion's tooth are magical medicines because of the place they come from and their functions in the lives of the animals. A very different type of rationale from chemistry!
Disease as contagionism in the ancient world is, therefore, merely one example of a more generalised belief in contagion, sympathy, analogy [good and bad] and what we might call a 'spiritual resonance' between people, places, things and events. It is instructive to contemplate the relevance of such notions to medicine today. To some extent these old ideas will never go away - they queue patiently at the back door - and must eventually be re-admitted into mainstream medicine. They are integral aspects of the way patients [human beings] integrate illness into their own life experience and how they conceptualise the world we live in to be. Science blunders on heedless of these subtle realities, but they are real and lasting aspects of pathology too long ignored. Just as pesticides will never destroy malarial mosquitoes, so it seems just as bizarre - and as futile - that medicine should continue to commit itself to an assault upon the world of bacteria. Conceptually, there is an error in such a policy.
Sources:
[1] BMJ letter, Bernadette Purcell, Germ theory predates discovery of microbes, 9 March 2001 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7284/498#EL4
[2] Illnesses in the 1800's 19th Century Responses By G. William Beardslee, Causation: Sin, Contagion, Miasma, Injustice, Ethnicity, and Race? http://www.thackerworld.com/USHistory/ushist07.htm
[3] Amundsen, Darrel W, Medicine, Society, and Faith in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds, Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, 1996, 295
[4] Amundsen, 289
[5] 'Disease' by Roy Porter, in Hutchinson Family Encyclopoedia: http://ebooks.whsmithonline.co.uk/encyclopedia/52/F0000152.htm
[6] Illnesses in the 1800's 19th Century Responses By G. William Beardslee, Causation: Sin, Contagion, Miasma, Injustice, Ethnicity, and Race? http://www.thackerworld.com/USHistory/ushist07.htm
[7] 'Disease' by Roy Porter, in Hutchinson Family Encyclopoedia: http://ebooks.whsmithonline.co.uk/encyclopedia/52/F0000152.htm
The Disease Detectives, Bernadette Purcell, BMJ 2001; 322: 498 [24 February] http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7284/498
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/otherarticles/contagionism.htm
drceephd@insightbb.com - 17 Jul 2008 17:03 GMT > Very Ancient Origin of Contagionism > by Peter Morrell In considering the concept of contagion and the germ theory of disease, one must consider that those who profit from it are the ones promoting and defending it.
Have you ever wondered just how many bacteria it takes to successfully invade a human and cause illness? Does it take one or a billion and one? The docs don’t know. Do you?
Bacteria may be found in the air, the water, in food, and on surfaces. Have you ever wondered why a steak may have bacteria on its surface but ground meat will have the bacteria spread throughout. Ever wonder why?
Then there is the question of just how these bacteria gain entry into the body proper. How do these dormant entities wake up to become active, infective agents of illness? How to the bacteria defeat the mucous of the mucous membranes, wiggle past our cellular defenses, defeat our immune system, find dead food to eat ( bacteria only digest dead organic material, never living cells ). Why do they not go on to kill the host each and every time they succeed as they do in gangrene?
You do realize that the gods of medicine do not know how many bacteria it takes to make an infection, nor do they know how the bacteria gain entry into the body proper, and nor do they know why the host normally recovers. However, the gods of medicine are very good at making up excuses and putting on a great show and display of “medical knowledge”. LOL.
Use some common sense. You will realize that the germ theory of disease is a medical fraud. Bacteria do not cause disease. They may be involved but only as innocent bystanders. The virus is an “excuse” for the medical god that you are sick but there are no bacteria to blame. The “auto-immune” disease is an admission of total medical ignorance. AIDS is a medical hoax. DIDS is the correct name for the condition. Bird flu is a medical joke.
DrCee You
D. C. Sessions - 20 Jul 2008 20:51 GMT > In considering the concept of contagion and the germ theory of > disease, one must consider that those who profit from it are the ones > promoting and defending it. You know that someone has no faith in their own arguments when they start off with a blanket /argumentum ad hominem/ attacking anyone with any expertise in the subject.
> Have you ever wondered just how many bacteria it takes to successfully > invade a human and cause illness? Does it take one or a billion and > one? The docs don?t know. Do you? Ah, the /argumentum ad ignoratum/ -- "if they don't have a simplistic answer that makes sense to a dummy like me, they must not understand either." Try that one on the engineers designing aircraft.
(And, yes, microbiologists do know, within bounds, how many bacteria are required to ensure infection for a given disease and other circumstances -- but like the bridge, the answer isn't so simple it can be understood by high-school dropouts like Chuckles.)
> Bacteria may be found in the air, the water, in food, and on > surfaces. Have you ever wondered why a steak may have bacteria on its > surface but ground meat will have the bacteria spread throughout. > Ever wonder why? /argumentum ad ignoratum/ again, and a pretty silly one. Most people can figure this one out if they bother.
> Then there is the question of just how these bacteria gain entry into > the body proper. How do these dormant entities wake up to become > active, infective agents of illness? Same as how seeds sprout. Come to think of it, Chuckles, you obviously don't believe in plants based on prior writings about viruses.
> How to the bacteria defeat the > mucous of the mucous membranes, It ain't steel, hmm? Mucus is permeable -- that's its whole purpose. In fact, /heliobacter pylori/ depends on the gastric mucus to protect it from stomach acid. Of course, Chuckles insists that the stomach is supposed to be alkaline, although he keeps ducking out when I ask for a "good" pH range for gastric fluids.
> wiggle past our cellular defenses, > defeat our immune system, I'm guessing that "cellular defenses" are rhetorical repeat of "immune system," but either way there are plenty of different answers. One of the better ones is, "it's a race." Since the human immune system is reactive, a pathogen that reproduces rapidly enough can stay ahead of it long enough to spread to another host. Mild URIs (e.g. rhinoviruses) are like that.
Unlike Chuckles' "innate intelligence," the real immune system has actual, observable mechanisms that can be studied. Here\ is a video of a neutrophil tracking down /listeria monocytogenes/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpOxgAU5fFQ
There are other methods; given a few billion years of "arms race" between pathogens and their hosts it's hardly surprising that both sides have more than one weapon system.
A good example is /bacillus anthracis/ -- it attacks and multiplies in the same macrophages that are the first stage defense of the immune system. Here's a SEM of /bacillus anthracis/ invading a macrophage: http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/imageview.php?issue=12&article=briefs_5&image= briefs_5_01_AnthraxMacrophage
> find dead food to eat ( bacteria only digest > dead organic material, never living cells ). Wrong-o, Bucky. Bacteria do indeed thrive on living cells. /Bacillus anthracis/ being a good example, but perhaps better known are the /plasmodium/ family.
Here's an optical micrograph of a red blood cell (erythrocyte) that has been invaded by /plasmodium falciparum/ : http://flickr.com/photos/ajc1/1983446827/
Instead of Chuckles' talking head videos, here is a video of /listeria monocytogenes/ running around in a host cell after invading it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF4BeU60yT8
> Why do they not go on to > kill the host each and every time they succeed > as they do in gangrene? Is this supposed to be a poser? Basic immunology. Apparently it's supposed to be another "because the uneducated (yes, Chuckles, that means you) don't know the answer then obviously it's *WRONG!*
It's back to that "immune system" thingie. Watch the neutrophil video again -- shouldn't the theme from "Jaws" be playing?
> as they do in gangrene? "Gangrene" is a condition, not a disease. I've had a gangrenous appendix, which manifestly didn't kill me. "Gangrene" just means that the tissues have died. Now, "gas gangrene" is a lovely example of an anaerobic decay bacterium consuming dead tissue and in the process producing conditions that lead to more dead tissues, which is good work if you can get it. Same thing goes for Type A haemolytic streptococcus or the nastier versions of /staphlococcus/ going around (the ones that make the news as "MRSA.") All of them really are consumers of dead tissues that have acquired the ability to improve their "diets" by producing toxins that make for more dead tissues: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreinafrica/388125268/
> You do realize that the gods of medicine do not know how many bacteria > it takes to make an infection, Saying it with insults added doesn't make it so.
> nor do they know how the bacteria gain > entry into the body proper, Of course we know -- /bacillus anthracis/, for instance, can enter through broken skin, through the digestive tract, or through the respiratory system. The lungs, in order to do their job, can't have much in the way of mechanical protection and are a short cut to the circulatory system.
Now, if you're going to insist that the Universe restrict itself to phenomena that an uneducated boob like Chuckles (they hand out PhDs for learning to feed yourself on Mars) can understand, then maybe you would expect that there be one and only one way that pathogens gain admittance to the system. I suppose that must be quite comforting. Sort of like having a honking vault door on a lath-and- plaster vault, you could count on the Bad Guys always attacking at the point where the defense is strongest.
> and nor do they know why the host normally > recovers. Again, just because you don't understand doesn't mean that everyone else is as mentally limited as you are. Hosts recover because the body goes into gear producing chemical attacks against the little suckers that have made it over the walls. Which isn't the same as "hosts always recover." /Yersinia pestis/, for instance, has a chemical that's part of its internal machinery ("murine toxin") that is released when the bacteria die. If they die too quickly, the host does too.
> However, the gods of medicine are very good at making up > excuses and putting on a great show and display of ?medical > knowledge?. LOL. Is that supposed to be an argument?
> Use some common sense. You will realize that the germ theory of > disease is a medical fraud. Saying it doesn't make it so, Chuckles. You've already admitted that your religion is based on faith, not science.
> Bacteria do not cause disease. They may be involved but only as > innocent bystanders. There are some prairie dogs in Colorado that you're trying very hard to pretend don't exist. Not to mention a lovely little exercise going on in Seattle involving /plasmodium falciparum/
Hey! That's it. How about you head to Seattle and put your butt where your mouth is (hey! quiet in the peanut gallery!) There are some mosquitos there that would love to meet you, and according to you there's no risk at all on your part.
> The virus is an ?excuse? for the medical god that you are sick but > there are no bacteria to blame. Well, aside from the little details of replicability, isolation, sequencing, detailed (and tested) mechanisms for cellular penetration, intracellular replication (did you ever look up what a "retrovirus" is, by the way?)
Then again, I forgot that your religion forbids reading anything more recent than the early 20th century when we didn't have the means yet to directly observe viruses and had to deduce their existence by their effects. Sort of like subatomic particles.
Back then must have been the "good old days" for you, and I can understand your reluctance to leave them. Viruses were just as unobservable as "native intelligence," which would have made it a lot easier to pretend that your woo-woo was just as good an explanation. Well, aside from the fact that with pathogens it's possible to actually, like, *test* the theory that a given cause produces a given result instead of waving your arms and crying "Inshallah!" or whatever your religion's equivalent might be.
Too bad that science advanced and you were left screaming at passersby on street corners.
> The ?auto-immune? disease is an admission of total medical ignorance. You mean the whole thing with production of antibodies against foreign antigens that also have the side-effect of damaging host tissue? That whole mechanism is fairly well understood and can be caused on demand, which must really put a twist in your knickers.
> AIDS is a medical hoax. DIDS is the correct name for the condition. Which reminds me -- which drugs do you claim caused the death of three-year-old Eliza Jane Scovill?
> Bird flu is a medical joke. Keep hoping so, because if not you're in serious risk of neurological infection.
| "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+
Carole - 22 Jul 2008 14:48 GMT On Jul 17, 7:56 am, rpautrey2 <rpautr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Very Ancient Origin of Contagionism > by Peter Morrell The germ theory vs the soil theory. Personally, I tend to believe the soil theory. Take the case of athletes foot - a fungus. This can be transmitted from person to person BUT can also be eliminated with the right cellsalts (Sodium, potassium and calcium). Alternatively, if a person doesn't have a deficiency of these cellsalts, they would be immune from infection with the fungus. So to my way of thinking it is the condition of the blood, or the internal milieu that is the thing to concentrate on. The person with a rundown condition and devitalised diet falls prey to disease more easily. Same with plants -- it is the malnourished plant that more easily falls prey to infestation and all types of disease.
Carole www.cellsalts.net
Richard Schultz - 22 Jul 2008 19:48 GMT : The germ theory vs the soil theory. Oh God, she's back. Can PeterB be far behind?
----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Jan Drew - 23 Jul 2008 02:02 GMT > Oh God, she's back. Can PeterB be far behind? Off topic, proven hypocrite.
> ----- > Richard Schultz Hawki63@sbcglobal.net - 23 Jul 2008 07:59 GMT >> Oh God, she's back. Can PeterB be far behind? > > Off topic, proven hypocrite. >> >> ----- >> Richard Schultz Carole - 23 Jul 2008 03:30 GMT > : The germ theory vs the soil theory. > > Oh God, she's back. Can PeterB be far behind? Do the experiment for yourself Richard -- the experiment which disproves the germ theory. I can get rid of athletes foot by taking sodium, potassium and calcium it disproves the germ theory.
I don't have anything to do with PeterB -- he doesn't believe in cellsalts or the soil theory from what I know. But he is Australian. Does that mean that everybody who posts from israel is one of your sock puppets?
Carole www.cellsalts.net www.soiltheory.com
> ----- > Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" Richard Schultz - 23 Jul 2008 06:52 GMT :> : The germ theory vs the soil theory.
:> Oh God, she's back. Can PeterB be far behind? : : Do the experiment for yourself Richard -- the experiment which disproves the : germ theory. Why don't *you* do the experiment that disproves the "cell salt" theory? Why don't you at least read a book on elementary chemistry, from which you will get enough information to be able to understand why the "cell salt" theory is absurd on the face of it, as you will have an opportunity to learn about the difference between "oxidation" and "reduction," and why the concentration of sulfate in the body is unlikely to be very high?
: I can get rid of athletes foot by taking sodium, potassium and calcium it : disproves the germ theory. I have never seen any claim that athlete's foot is caused by "germs" -- it is caused by a fungus. But if you're taking enough sodium, potassium, and calcium to begin with, how do you get athlete's foot in the first place?
: I don't have anything to do with PeterB -- he doesn't believe in cellsalts : or the soil theory from what I know. It's an interesting coincidence that the two of you seem to arrive and depart pretty much at the same time.
: But he is Australian. Does that mean that everybody who posts from israel is : one of your sock puppets? Since his posts don't originate from Australia, your knowledge that he is Australian is prima facie evidence that either you are a PeterB sock puppet, or that the two of you are much better acquainted with one another than you would have us believe.
----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Carole - 23 Jul 2008 17:13 GMT > :> : The germ theory vs the soil theory. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > learn about the difference between "oxidation" and "reduction," and why > the concentration of sulfate in the body is unlikely to be very high? I have never done any study in chemistry. When I went to school I did a commercial course and science subjects weren't in it. I was good as science up until the switch to the commercial course, but unfortunately I failed French which was a prerequisite for the science stream.
> : I can get rid of athletes foot by taking sodium, potassium and calcium > it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and calcium to begin with, how do you get athlete's foot in the first > place? Athletes foot is caused by a fungus. But my point is that I can get rid of contagion including fungi, parasites and germs with cellsalts. I'm not sure how far it goes but it works for me so far.
> : I don't have anything to do with PeterB -- he doesn't believe in > cellsalts > : or the soil theory from what I know. > > It's an interesting coincidence that the two of you seem to arrive and > depart pretty much at the same time. You say that PeterB and I come and go at the same time. He probably gets tired of the topics same as I do which seem to be more oriented to conventional medicine than alternative.
> : But he is Australian. Does that mean that everybody who posts from > israel is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you > would have us believe. Well I thought he was Australian but it doesn't make any difference. I thought I read somewhere he was from Australia, whereas most of the people who post in this ng are in the US.
Carole www.cellsalts.net
> ----- > Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." Richard Schultz - 23 Jul 2008 19:21 GMT :> Why don't *you* do the experiment that disproves the "cell salt" theory? :> Why don't you at least read a book on elementary chemistry, from which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :> the concentration of sulfate in the body is unlikely to be very high? : I have never done any study in chemistry. That's no excuse. Peter Bowditch will correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that, surprising as it may seem, there actually are bookshops in Australia.
:> : I can get rid of athletes foot by taking sodium, potassium and calcium :> : it disproves the germ theory.
:> I have never seen any claim that athlete's foot is caused by "germs" -- :> it is caused by a fungus. But if you're taking enough sodium, potassium, :> and calcium to begin with, how do you get athlete's foot in the first :> place?
: Athletes foot is caused by a fungus. But my point is that I can get rid of : contagion including fungi, parasites and germs with cellsalts. I'm not sure : how far it goes but it works for me so far. You haven't answered my question -- nor do you seem to understand the difference between a "germ" and a "fungus."
:> : I don't have anything to do with PeterB -- he doesn't believe in :> : cellsalts or the soil theory from what I know.
:> It's an interesting coincidence that the two of you seem to arrive and :> depart pretty much at the same time.
: You say that PeterB and I come and go at the same time. : He probably gets tired of the topics same as I do which seem to be more : oriented to conventional medicine than alternative.
:> : But he is Australian. Does that mean that everybody who posts from :> : israel is one of your sock puppets?
:> Since his posts don't originate from Australia, your knowledge that he is :> Australian is prima facie evidence that either you are a PeterB sock :> puppet, or that the two of you are much better acquainted with one :> another than you would have us believe.
: Well I thought he was Australian but it doesn't make any difference. : I thought I read somewhere he was from Australia, whereas most of the people : who post in this ng are in the US. What is the sound of one foot backpedalling?
----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Jan Drew - 24 Jul 2008 06:54 GMT PeterB is not the subject. Neither is Peter Bowditch who you say will correct you if you are wrong. Sad that you believe a proven liar who spams ALL newsgroups EVERY TIME he posts. You mention book shops. However, you forgot he has those on his LYING and SPAMMING websites.
> :> Why don't *you* do the experiment that disproves the "cell salt" > theory? [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > What is the sound of one foot backpedalling? Richard Schultz.
> ----- > Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." Richard Schultz - 24 Jul 2008 08:54 GMT : PeterB is not the subject. : Neither is Peter Bowditch who you say will correct you if you are wrong. : Sad that you believe a proven liar who spams ALL newsgroups EVERY TIME he : posts. What is sad is that no matter how many times it is explained to you, you refuse to understand that
(a) no one appointed you net.cop
(b) the phenomenon of "thread drift" has been a recognized and accepted part of usenet communication for as long as usenet has been around
(c) mentioning someone's name in a post is not equivalent to making that person the subject of the post
(d) when you post articles that have no substantive content but only say "X is not the subject of the thread" and then turn around and post articles that do not fit the nominal title of the thread, you reveal yourself to be either seriously unintelligent, or a hypocrite, or both
(e) Peter Bowditch is not a spammer
: You mention book shops. However, you forgot he has those on his LYING and : SPAMMING websites. I was under the impression that there are bookshops in Australia unaffiliated with Peter Bowditch. Doubtless he will correct me if I'm wrong.
----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
rpautrey2 - 24 Jul 2008 17:27 GMT RS: What is the difference between a "germ" and a "fungus"? Paul
> In article <lMIhk.21980$IK1.16...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Carole <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > ----- > "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." Peter Bowditch - 23 Jul 2008 07:09 GMT >> : The germ theory vs the soil theory. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >But he is Australian. Does that mean that everybody who posts from israel is >one of your sock puppets? Hey, Carole - that PeterB isn't me. Under Australia's draconian defamation laws you could lose your house for saying that that idiot is me!!
>Carole >www.cellsalts.net [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> ----- >> "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
 Signature Peter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Carole - 23 Jul 2008 17:17 GMT >>Do the experiment for yourself Richard -- the experiment which disproves >>the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > defamation laws you could lose your house for saying that that idiot > is me!! No, PeterB is not you ...I know that. He calls himself PeterB. He's good in a way, in that he believes so strongly in alternative health, but that's as far as it goes with me. He has a different view of alternative health than me.
I really detest the way those yanks are so ready to sue over everything. Its a really ugly culture.
Carole www.cellsalts.net www.soiltheory.com
Carole - 23 Jul 2008 17:33 GMT I read that Rife could kill any microbe using a radio frequency. He experimented and found the right frequency for every germ, disease and even cancer.
I just find the level of understanding of health in this ng to be a bit b-o-r-i-n-g. Its mostly involved with accepted conventional health with absolutely no tidbits thrown in about vibrational medicine or anything beyond plain materialistic science. Homeopathy is the exception but nobody believes it because plain materialistic science doesn't support it. Everything comes down to suing, cranberry juice and what jesus would have done.
Carole www.cellsalts.net
|
|
|