Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease

Happy Dog

"DRCEEPHD" <drceephd@aol.com> wrote in message news:

> >Is your point that the risk she took was unjustified?
>
> No,

So what IS your point? Other than to impress upon us, yet again, that you
hate real doctors.

just that her foreign doc was an incompetent. She died from perotinitis.
> I sued and won. Still, I would rather have mom.
>
> >Bacteria in the GI tract aren't internal? OK what bacteria are internal?
>
> Nope. From the opening in your mouth to the opening in your anus, there
is a
> membrane separating you from the outside. The bacteria are then
"external" to
> you, although there are in your GI tract.

That isn't external. Geez. The membrane is permeable. Bacteria are easily
and regularly observed on both side of it. Whether you fantasize the
contrary to be true or not. For instance, a simple experiment involving
feeding food laden with Listeria to lab animals shows that it appears in
their blood within hours. How do you explain that?

le moo

Hey, where did your phony PhD title go?

Matthew Cline

DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted unto
us these blasphemous ravings:

>> From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net

>> And what exactly is meant by "life force"? Something that has
>> chemical reactions happening in it?

> Ah, yes. What is "life force"? I don't know. Every living thing
> has it. Every dead thing does not. It is not electricity. It is
> not chemical. Who knows what it is?

If no one knows what it is, then why even discuss it? Why not just say
"microzymas are alive", rather than that they posses life force?

And in what sense are organelles like ribosomes alive?

> Oh, yeah. To the orthopatic M.D. the virus was nothing more than
> the enzymatically cleaved genome of the mitochondria following
> cellular death.

So *all* the genetic material in *all* viruses can be found in mitochondrion?
And somehow, after death, the cell produces the proteins that encapsulate
that genetic material? And for some reason, different pieces of cleaved
genome require different types of protein to cover them?

And why would mitochondrion, which are immortal, start spitting out DNA and
RNA when the cell it's embedded in dies?

> The virus, or the viral particle, cannot invade a living host or
> inject its material into a living cell. Only a doctor or scientist
> using a needle can do this. I do not doubt what these viral
> particles can do to a cell so infused whether injected or just
> bathed in a broth of the stuff. However, in the real world it just
> don't happen that way, just in the never never land of the lab.

So then, living cells are just so tough and hardy that nothing natural could
possibly pierce their cell walls to inject genetic material? And nothing in
nature could possibly trick a living cell into accepting foreign genetic
material, because they're all too well designed? And, by some incredible
coincidence, viruses just happen to be able to cause themselves to reproduce
in a laboratory environment?

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org

Matthew Cline

DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted unto
us these blasphemous ravings:

>> From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net

>> If external bacteria managed to get into your blood, the blood
>> would provide a very good nutrient broth for them to replicate in.
>> Is there something about pure blood that kills of external bacteria
>> without white blood cells attacking them?

> A healthy, vital body would sense any foreign body ( foreign protein?) and
> dispatch it very quickly. The white blood cells would attack in droves.
> What I was telling you is that in a clean, alkaline body there is little
> need of massive amounts of white blood cells.

You said that, in someone who's blood was completely pure, they'd seem to be
suffering from AIDS because of the the low white blood cell count. But
that's still enough to attack in "droves"?

>> I'm not aware that laboratory nutrient broths need poisons
>> in them to keep the bacteria alive...

> If you read the work of one Nobel prize winner, Dr. Rosenow, you
> find that by changing the media in which he was growing bacteria, he
> could change strep into staff and staff into strep.

On the web, I can't seem to find anything about this, save for one page about
the work of one Dr. Rife, who worked with Rosenow, and who seemed to claim
something like this, but also claimed that tuberculosis bacteria could be
induced to change into *fungus*, which isn't only a change in species, but in
*kingdoms* (the page discussing this is
http://www.rife.org/newspaper/may%2011,%201938.html ). He also created a
supposed microscope which operated on principles that violate the known laws
of physics. Is this what you're talking about?

If that's not what you're talking about, which search terms should I use to
find the relevant information via Google, or which books/articles should I
look up in the library? It looks like Dr. Rosenow has done a lot more that
just the particular experiments you're talking about.

> Can you not see that this is polymorphysim? Polymorphysim destroys
> the one germ- one disease theory of the monomorphs. Once again you
> see the medical goofballs ignoring their own data to perpetuate a
> very profitable but fatal lie.

How exactly would this contradict the germ theory of disease? So, under some
circumstances, the tuberculosis bacteria would change into Yersinia Pestis,
and cause the Black Plague instead of tuberculosis; I mean, if they truly
change from one kind of bacteria from another, they're going to behave
differently and do different things.

>> Also, white blood cells don't remove poison from the blood.

> Wanna bet?

Oops. Looks like that wasn't included in my biology course. The white blood
cells which produce antibodies that mark intruding microorganisms also
produce antibodies which neutralize toxins produced by bacteria. I'm
guessing that you hold that they also produce antibodies which neutralize all
kinds of toxins. However, that's only one type of white blood cell; there's
the types that eat intruding microorganisms, the type that excretes
histamines, and others. Even if there was a reduction in the amount of
antibody excreting white blood cells, due to there not being a need to
neutralize toxins, that wouldn't necessarily mean a reduction in the other
types of white blood cells.

>> What? So the microzymas (mitochondrion and other organelles) go
>> "It's crowded in here" and induce the body into dying?

> Not quite. The microzymas can sense their surroundings and do respond to
> it. They can sense when death is immanent and act accordingly the same as
> you or I might run from a fire.

I was trying to understand this quote, from your previous post:

> Death occurs when the needs of the body require it. The physical
> body dies and returns to the earth. The microzymas go on living.
> They survive after our physical death.

Needs of the body? The body, as a thing greater than the sums of its parts,
suddenly decides "Oh well, looks like it's time for me to stop existing and
return to my constituent parts?" The body tries to keep itself alive, like
you claim the microzymas do. Why would something that's greater than the sum
of its parts decide to return itself to its constituent parts, and hence stop
existing? This doesn't make sense to me, unless some of the parts rebel
against the whole.

Also, if the microzyma are immortal, why would they react to immanent death?
Why would they need to keep the body, or the cells the exist in, alive?

>> Viruses are correlated with the presence of certain diseases. In
>> the case of measles, one of the following is true:

>> A) The virus causes measles.
>> B) Measles causes the virus.
>> C) Some third thing causes both measles and the virus.

>> So far as I can tell, the Bechamp theories propose B.

> I think C fits better.

Oops, you're right. But there's still a correlation between certain diseases
and the presence of certain viruses. Or are you claiming that there no such
correlations exist?

> The body, in its effort to clean its house, institutes the dis-ease
> we call measles. A virus is claimed only because we cannot blame
> the illness upon nonexisting bacteria, yet the virus is just as
> nonexisting.

Non-existent? So are you saying that when, say, you take a blood/tissue
sample from someone suffering from syphilis, and look at it under a
microscope, you won't find any spirochaete bacterium? And that if you take a
sample from someone suffering from measles, you won't find any viruses? I
don't think that's what you mean, considering what you say next.

> Cells produce viral particles only upon their own death and enzymatic
> destruction. ( this destruction is what causes the viral particles to be
> present.)

Then why do the dead cells from people suffering different diseases give rise
to different viruses (or no viruses at all), with different protein envelopes
and containing different genetic material? Also, why does that death result
in the specific proteins needed to envelope the specific stands of DNA and
RNA that are a result of the death?

> They do not excrete them as part of their functioning.

Well, not as a part of their *normal* functioning. Being infected by a virus
isn't exactly a cell's normal state of existence...

> You will find that their genetic material is incomplete due to
> enzymatic cleavage of their DNA into fragments.

So when a cell dies, if you extract the DNA from it's nucleus, you'll find the
chromosomes to be full of holes? I've never heard anything like that before.

>> You are proposing an additional toxin cleaning system which is
>> non-continuous, but rather waits for toxins to build up, and then
>> suddenly decides to get rid of these toxins all at once, in a
>> manner that causes such symptoms as a runny nose and
>> sores/pustules/poxes.

> Fortunately for us this is how it happens.

Fortunately it happens in sudden spurts which lead to all sort of weird side
effects, as opposed to happening smoothly and continuously? Fortunately the
body lets the toxins build up (and thus cause damage) before getting rid of
them in a sudden spurt, and then the cycle repeats?

> The body wants to be pure and keep clean house.

Yes, that's why the body has kidneys and a liver, and white blood cells which
produce antibodies to neutralize bacterial toxins. So far as I can tell, you
are saying that this is insufficient, and lets certain toxins build up until
they're suddenly expelled by some other mechanism.

> The body can tolerate an accumulation of poisons and toxins by
> storing them in the tissues.

Huh? Why store them? Why not let it stay in the blood, so it can be taken
care of by the liver and kidneys?

> As we get more and more toxic, we tolerate more and more junk in our
> internal house. The best proof of this accumulation is the new
> disease of amylodosis. The pathologists can now visualize these
> accumulations in the tissues of sick people. However, not
> recognizing them for what they are, they have instituted a new
> disease process, called amyloidosis. Yuk, yuk, yuk. These clowns
> in white coats never learn.

How is it good proof? From http://amyloidosis.org/whatisit.asp

| Amyloidosis is a group of diseases in which one or more organ
| systems in the body accumulate deposits of abnormal proteins.

[snip]

| Normally, bone marrow makes protective antibodies, which are
| proteins that protect against infection and disease. After they have
| served their function, these antibodies are broken down and recycled
| in the body. With [primary] amyloidosis, cells in the bone marrow
| produce antibodies that cannot be broken down. These antibodies then
| begin to build up in the bloodstream. Ultimately, they leave the
| bloodstream and can deposit in the tissues or organs as amyloid.

If Amyloidosis is the best proof, then wouldn't that mean that *all* toxins
are proteins?

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org

WB

On 21 Nov 2003 04:36:30 GMT, drceephd@aol.com (DRCEEPHD) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>>From: WB no_one@nowhere.net
>>Date: 11/20/03 10:51 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <844srv88344ctbagcj60951ap6usbrq131@4ax.com>
>
>>Strictly anatomically speaking that is correct.
>>Yet the GI organs themselves are internal.
>>
>>WB
>
>The GI tract is like a 30 foot pipe going from your mouth to the anus. I not
>aware of any organs there although there are specialized areas of that pipe we
>call the mouth, the throat, the stomach, the small intestine, and the large
>intestine.
>Still, the ends of that pipe are connected to the outside world. The inside of
>the pipe is external to us. The outside of that pipe is where we are, on the
>other side and protected from the outside world.
>
>Dr. C.


You forgot about the liver, gallbladder, pancreas...?
--


Take out the G'RBAGE to reply
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com

D. C. Sessions

In <20031119212735.28460.00000589@mb-m14.aol.com>, DRCEEPHD wrote:

> Yuk, yuk, yuk. Modern medicine has always said " there is no scientific
> connection between diet and disease." Just how much nutrition do you think a
> drug pushing doc has ever been taught?

Uh -- right. Sure. No doubt we've all been imagining all
of those news items about the health consequences of saturated
fats, unsaturated fats, EFAs, red meat, mercury in fish, etc.

--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

Matthew Cline

D. C. Sessions was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted
unto us these blasphemous ravings:

> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

Heheh; I love your signature. Yes, top-posting *is* annoying.

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org

DRCEEPHD

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: WB no_one@nowhere.net
>Date: 11/21/03 9:22 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <8n7srv08jfi4cn6g4a0k25n4jsoiu7osak@4ax.com>

>You forgot about the liver, gallbladder, pancreas...?

Not quite. the liver, gallbladder, and pancreas are a part of our digestive
system, but they are connected via ducts. They are internal to us and
connected to the digestive "pipe" via ducts.

It is also interesting that each organ has its own protective membrane
including the above organs, the heart, the brain and the central nervous
system. One has to wonder why this is true and necessary?

Dr. C.

David Wright

In article <20031120224721.27838.00000693@mb-m06.aol.com>,
not-a-DRCEEPHD <drceephd@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Diabetes is a dibilitating condition. It can be treated short term with
>insulin. However, the orthopaths would have used diet and lifestyle
>modification to allow the person to live a life free of diabetes and insulin
>thus avoiding the blindness, amputations and death from heart disease that
>modern victims suffer. Diabetes is not fatal. Insulin overdose sure is.

Wow, that's pretty neat that the orthopaths can cause the body to
regenerate the Islets of Langerhans that are destroyed in type 1
diabetes. Nobody else has managed this so far, at least not through
diet and lifestyle changes.

Unless by "lifestyle changes" you mean "death." That's sure to stop
all the worrying about diabetes, at least by the patient.

>I am not aware of anyone dying from a homeopathic remedy. However,
>some claim that over 300,000 die yearly from the allopath's drugs.
>Big, big difference. And that is just in the U.S.

Some claim they are kidnapped by UFOs.

And while nobody is apt to die from a homeopathic remedy, since it's
just either water or sugar, nobody is likely to be cured by it either,
except via the placebo effect.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

David Wright

In article <20031120230228.27838.00000694@mb-m06.aol.com>,
not-a-DRCEEPHD <drceephd@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net
>>Date: 11/19/03 11:18 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <kgXub.32736$Q37.16695@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>
>>
>
>>And what exactly is
>>meant by "life force"? Something that has chemical reactions happening in
>>it?
>
>Ah, yes. What is "life force"? I don't know. Every living thing has it.
>Every dead thing does not. It is not electricity. It is not chemical. Who
>knows what it is?

Who even knows if it exists? Since you don't seem to be able to say
anything useful about it, or define it, I'd say you're making hard
going in even asserting that it exists.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

David Wright

In article <20031120232658.27838.00000696@mb-m06.aol.com>,
DRCEEPHD <drceephd@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net
>>Date: 11/20/03 2:36 AM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <I9_ub.9594$VU1.4026@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>
>
>>I'm not aware that laboratory nutrient broths need poisons
>>in them to keep the bacteria alive...
>>
>If you read the work of one Nobel prize winner, Dr. Rosenow, you find

Rosenow was not a Nobel Prize winner.

>that by changing the media in which he was growing bacteria, he could
>change strep into staff and staff into strep.

Staff bacteria? Are those the ones that support the faculty?

According to my web researches, Rosenow's work was published in 1914.
Oddly, I don't have access to the Journal of Infectious Diseases from
1914. Do you?

>>What? So the microzymas (mitochondrion and other organelles) go "It's
>>crowded in here" and induce the body into dying?
>
>Not quite. The microzymas can sense their surroundings and do respond to it.
>They can sense when death is immenent and act accordingly the same as you or I
>might run from a fire.

Sense when death is imminent, eh? I don't suppose there's a mechanism
for that?

>Fortunately for us this is how it happens. The body wants to be pure
>and keep clean house. If you allow this you can live to 120 and
>always be free of sickness and disease.

Let's see you accomplish this on your Taco Bell diet.

> I know of only one man in the last century to do this.

I only know of one person (a woman) who ever managed to live past 120,
and she wasn't in perfect health.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

DRCEEPHD

>Subject: Re: Homeopathy and the germ theory of disease
>From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net
>Date: 11/21/03 4:08 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <iCkvb.14596$Ey2.9521@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>

>You said that, in someone who's blood was completely pure, they'd seem to be
>suffering from AIDS because of the the low white blood cell count. But
>that's still enough to attack in "droves"?

That is not what I said. I said they would be "DIAGNOSED" as having AIDS. That
does not mean that they have it. They have sufficient white blood cells to
ward off any and all external bacteia.

>On the web, I can't seem to find anything about this, save for one page about
>
>the work of one Dr. Rife, who worked with Rosenow, and who seemed to claim
>something like this, but also claimed that tuberculosis bacteria could be
>induced to change into *fungus*, which isn't only a change in species, but in
>
>*kingdoms* (the page discussing this is
>http://www.rife.org/newspaper/may%2011,%201938.html ). He also created a
>supposed microscope which operated on principles that violate the known laws
>of physics. Is this what you're talking about?
>

Yes and no.

Rosenow was a Nobel prize winner who demonstrated that by altering the food of
bacteria he could change them from staf to strep and so on. He destroyed the
monomorphic theory of bacteria and , hence, the germ theory of disease. Yet
this is not taught in microbiology courses. Why the hell not?

Rife is another problem for the medical monopoly, quite different from Rosenow.
The medical monopoly destroyed Rife, his work, and his microscope as well as
any doctor who supported him.

You need not confuse the two.

>If that's not what you're talking about, which search terms should I use to
>find the relevant information via Google, or which books/articles should I
>look up in the library? It looks like Dr. Rosenow has done a lot more that
>just the particular experiments you're talking about.
>

I would provide the particular references, but they are in my numerous,
previous posts and I do not recall where the exact information is in the
medical literature.



>How exactly would this contradict the germ theory of disease?

Very directly. The germ theory of disease requires that one germ cause one and
only one disease and that that specific germ be unalterable. How the heck
would the theory explaing one germ converting into another? Mumps becomeing
measles? Heaven forbid. How could we ever concoct a flu vaccine two years
before the virus exists?

> I mean, if they truly
>change from one kind of bacteria from another, they're going to behave
>differently and do different things.

You may be right. One thing is needed. Blood, and lots of it.

>This doesn't make sense to me, unless some of the parts rebel
>against the whole.

Not rebel, just responding to the conditions at hand. Feed the body well and
you can live for 120 years free of disease. Feed the body poorly and you will
suffer all sorts of pain, suffering, and disease finally dying at 70 or 80 if
you are lucky.

>Also, if the microzyma are immortal, why would they react to immanent death?
>

They are not reacting to their own death, only to the immenent death of the
organism for which they are currently a part.

>Why would they need to keep the body, or the cells they exist in, alive?
>

Beats me. Why is the universe so big?

>Oops, you're right. But there's still a correlation between certain diseases
>
>and the presence of certain viruses.

Only in the minds an imaginations of the doctors.

>Or are you claiming that there no such
>correlations exist?
>

There are no such valid correlations.

>Non-existent? So are you saying that when, say, you take a blood/tissue
>sample from someone suffering from syphilis, and look at it under a
>microscope, you won't find any spirochaete bacterium?

The spirochaete bacterium did not cause the supposed syphilis even if it may
exist in a specimum.. Mercury poisoning is the main cause all the supposed
symptoms of syphilis.

> And that if you take a
>sample from someone suffering from measles, you won't find any viruses?

What sample? We both agree that the virus can exist within ( not without ) a
living cell. The viral particles only appear upon cellular death.

The particles are a partial, not a whole, DNA strand covered by a protein coat.
This has occured due to enzymtic cleavage of the the material. Simple.

>Then why do the dead cells from people suffering different diseases give rise
>
>to different viruses (or no viruses at all), with different protein envelopes
>
>and containing different genetic material? Also, why does that death result
>in the specific proteins needed to envelope the specific stands of DNA and
>RNA that are a result of the death?

As I said, upon the death of the body, the cells die next. To complete this
process the enzymes know as lysomes are unleashed. They destroy the cell from
the interior out. The lysosomes cut the genomes of the mitochondria into
fragments, these fragments then appearing to the scientists as "viral
particles" when the dead celluar material is examined.

Remember, we do not study the living cells. We study only dead cells mounted
on slides. The study of living cells and cellular processes lies beyond our
scientists. It takes too much time and money, not to mention intelligence and
ability.

>So when a cell dies, if you extract the DNA from it's nucleus, you'll find
>the
>chromosomes to be full of holes? I've never heard anything like that before.

The picture I gave you was that of a pair of sissors cutting paper. Holes and
the formation of holes is not a part of the picture.

>Huh? Why store them? Why not let it stay in the blood, so it can be taken
>care of by the liver and kidneys?
>

It is called a toxic overload. Better to store the toxins pending elimination
than to die immediately.

>How is it good proof? From http://amyloidosis.org/whatisit.asp
>
>| Amyloidosis is a group of diseases in which one or more organ
>| systems in the body accumulate deposits of abnormal proteins.
>
>[snip]
>
>| Normally, bone marrow makes protective antibodies, which are
>| proteins that protect against infection and disease. After they have
>| served their function, these antibodies are broken down and recycled
>| in the body. With [primary] amyloidosis, cells in the bone marrow
>| produce antibodies that cannot be broken down. These antibodies then
>| begin to build up in the bloodstream. Ultimately, they leave the
>| bloodstream and can deposit in the tissues or organs as amyloid.
>
>
Unfortunately, you are confusing the imaginations of the current medical goof
balls with the truth.

I said that the body will store excess, uneliminated poisons and toxins, both
organic and inorganic, in the tissues. The presense of the amyloids is the
proof. The rest of what you said is pure guess work and excuses by the medical
gods.



>If Amyloidosis is the best proof, then wouldn't that mean that *all* toxins
>are proteins?

No. Protein what? Protein--protein?. Protein--sugar? Not quite. How about
a protoxin? A protein conjugated to a toxin. Everything in the living body is
controlled, identifable, and known ( at least to the body). A toxin in the
blood will be of two basic types. One that must be stored and one that can be
eliminated via the hair, lungs, skin, kidneys, or colon. 'The ones that must
be stored contitute the formation of the dreaded amyloids.

Nice debating with ya.

Dr. C.

D. C. Sessions

In <_IAvb.32114$pB7.19482@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>, David Wright wrote:
> In article <20031120232658.27838.00000696@mb-m06.aol.com>,
> DRCEEPHD <drceephd@aol.com> wrote:

>>Fortunately for us this is how it happens. The body wants to be pure
>>and keep clean house. If you allow this you can live to 120 and
>>always be free of sickness and disease.
>
> Let's see you accomplish this on your Taco Bell diet.
>
>> I know of only one man in the last century to do this.
>
> I only know of one person (a woman) who ever managed to live past 120,
> and she wasn't in perfect health.

The "120" is a religious reference to the age that Moses died.

--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?

Happy Dog

"DRCEEPHD" <drceephd@aol.com> wrote in message
\> Very directly. The germ theory of disease requires that one germ cause
one and
> only one disease

Bullshit.

erf

Matthew Cline

DRCEEPHD was touched by the minds of the terrible Old Ones, and imparted unto
us these blasphemous ravings:

>> From: Matthew Cline matt_newz@sbcglobal.net Date: 11/21/03 4:08 AM

[snip]

>> How exactly would this contradict the germ theory of disease?

> Very directly. The germ theory of disease requires that one germ
> cause one and only one disease and that that specific germ be
> unalterable.

The theory of contagious diseases would require the second part (specific
germs being unalterable), but the theory of contagious diseases isn't the
same thing as the germ theory of disease (though the germ theory strongly
supports the contagious diseases theory, and the contagious diseases theory
implies the germ theory or something similar). Additionally, the contagious
diseases theory wouldn't require unalterablity so long as, in the population
that a contagious disease is spreading through, the blood chemistry of all
the victims is similar enough that the bacteria doesn't change when it passes
from one person to another.

Also, having not read Rosenow's works, I don't know if his experiments used
extreme environments to induce bacterial transformation, or mild
environments. Was it that, when strep bacteria were put into an environment
best suited for staff, it transformed into staff? Or was it put into an
extreme environment that neither strep nor staff usually encounter, and would
remain as staff even when put into strep's optimal environment? If it's only
extreme environments that induce transformation, then such transformation
don't really affect theories about contagious diseases.

> How the heck would the theory explaing one germ converting into
> another?

The germ theory wouldn't need to, as it isn't the same as the same thing as
the theory of contagious diseases.

> How could we ever concoct a flu vaccine two years before the virus
> exists?

I don't understand exactly what you're getting at. Are you saying that the
flu vaccine was made two years before influenza ever hit? I don't think
that's what you're saying. Are you saying that, two years after the first
flu vaccine was made, that there was another strain of influenza virus that
was different from the first strain?

>> I mean, if they truly change from one kind of bacteria from
>> another, they're going to behave differently and do different
>> things.

> You may be right. One thing is needed. Blood, and lots of it.

Eh? You mean that, for one person to be infected by several different forms
of bacteria at the same time, they'd need lots of blood, so that different
parts of the blood would have different chemical balances for supporting the
different bacteria? I guess so, but that's not what I was trying to say. I
was saying that, if external bacteria A transmuted into bacteria B when it
invades the infectee's blood, then the person would suffer from the symptoms
that bacteria B cause, and not those caused by bacteria A.

>> Why would they [microzyma] need to keep the body, or the cells they
>> exist in, alive?

> Beats me. Why is the universe so big?

Astrophysicists have theories on why the universe is so big. Do the doctors
supporting Bechamp's theories *really* not have any theories on why microzyma
would need to keep their host cells and bodies alive?

>> Oops, you're right. But there's still a correlation between
>> certain diseases and the presence of certain viruses.

> Only in the minds an imaginations of the doctors.

>> Or are you claiming that there no such correlations exist?

> There are no such valid correlations.

Eh? What would an *invalid* correlation be? Consumption of ice cream is
correlated with crime rates; this correlation certainly exists. It doesn't
mean that eating ice cream induces one into committing crime. Are you saying
that the correlation exists, but that medical doctors are drawing invalid
conclusion from the correlations? Or are you saying that the times when
viral particles emerge from a dying/dead cell, and what types of viral
particles emerge, is random, and entirely unrelated to the particular disease
being suffered?

>> And that if you take a sample from someone suffering from measles,
>> you won't find any viruses?

> What sample? We both agree that the virus can exist within ( not
> without ) a living cell.

Huh? What I said that a virus can *reproduce* only once it's gotten it's
genetic material into a living cell. Then genetic material isn't the whole
of a virus (though it is the "blueprint" for it), so a living cell containing
viral genetic material isn't an instance of a living cell with a virus
existing in it.

> The viral particles only appear upon cellular death. The particles
> are a partial, not a whole, DNA strand covered by a protein coat.
> This has occured due to enzymtic cleavage of the the material.
> Simple.

>> [snip]

> As I said, upon the death of the body, the cells die next. To
> complete this process the enzymes know as lysomes are unleashed.
> They destroy the cell from the interior out. The lysosomes cut the
> genomes of the mitochondria into fragments, these fragments then
> appearing to the scientists as "viral particles" when the dead
> celluar material is examined.

So far as I can tell, your theory would predict that, on a cell's death, a
variety of viral particles would result, with a variety of protein envelopes
and a variety of DNA/RNA fragments, since the lysomes are going to snip up
the DNA and proteins in the cells into a variety of fragments. However,
scientists have extracted, from people suffering from measles, one particular
type of viral particle, with one particular set of proteins, and one
particular set of genetic material (allowing for variations between various
strains), while they've extracted an entirely *different* set of viral
particles, proteins, and genetic material from people suffering from polio.
The genetic material found in the viral particles extracted from polio
sufferers encodes for the proteins that make up that viral coating, and
similarly the genetic material found in the viral particles extracted from
people suffering from measles encodes for the proteins that coat that genetic
material.

Now if various diseases somehow altered the lysomic enzymes such that they cut
up the genetic material and pre-existing proteins differently, that would go
*some* ways towards explaining what's been observed... Except that the
genetic material from the viral particles extracted from someone suffering a
particular disease are all pretty much the same (with difference caused by
mutations), rather than a variety that would be caused by mitochondrial or
nuclear DNA being snipped into fragments... And the fragments of proteins
from the living cell that make up the viral coating (they sure didn't exist
as they do in the viral envelope before death/infection) always happen to
have been cut from their source proteins in such a way as they can cluster
around the genetic material fragments... And the lysomic enzymes somehow
"synchronize" when snipping up the DNA and the proteins, such that the DNA
fragments produced always encode for the protein fragments produced, rather
than the DNA being split in the middle of where it encodes for a particular
protein fragment...

Of course, the scientists could be lying, and making up all these observations
out of whole cloth. But if that's the case, why believe them when they say
they've found viral particles?

Also:

> The lysosomes cut the genomes of the mitochondria into fragments

I thought the mitochondrion were supposed to be immortal. And why is it
mitochondrial DNA fragments that are in viral particles, as opposed to
fragments from the DNA in the cell's nucleus?

> Remember, we do not study the living cells. We study only dead
> cells mounted on slides.

Eh? I've seen videotapes of living cells dividing and doing other things.
What are you talking about? Besides, you don't necessarily have to directly
observe the objects of your experiments. Rutherford didn't directly observe
atomic nuclei. He bombarded gold foil with alpha particles, and deduced the
existence of atomic nuclei from how the alpha particles were deflected.

> The study of living cells and cellular processes lies beyond our
> scientists. It takes too much time and money, not to mention
> intelligence and ability.

How should they go about doing it?

[snip]

>> Huh? Why store them? Why not let it stay in the blood, so it can
>> be taken care of by the liver and kidneys?

> It is called a toxic overload. Better to store the toxins pending
> elimination than to die immediately.

OK. But that means that *before* the cells release a bunch of stored toxins,
resulting in measles or chickenpox or whatever, there must have been an even
*greater* concentration of toxins in the blood, with the person suffering
even *worse* symptoms before the tissues had a chance to store away all the
toxins. When are people exposed to such high concentrations of toxins? If,
instead, they're exposed to constant, low levels of toxins from their
environment and the food they eat, then the liver and kidneys would
continuously eliminate them, and the bodies tissues would never need to store
any of the toxins; if that constant, low levels of toxins constituted "toxic
overload", then the tissues would never be able to dump any of the stored
toxins back into the blood, because the first time they did it would result
in death.

>> How is it good proof? From http://amyloidosis.org/whatisit.asp

[snip]

> Unfortunately, you are confusing the imaginations of the current
> medical goof balls with the truth.

If current medical researchers are goof balls, how can you use anything they
they say as "good proof" for your statements?

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on
fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Advanced SPAM filtering software: http://spamassassin.org