RE: [Rawschool] Lyme Disease/Germ Theory

[Guest guest]

Hi Nora,

 

Yes, there is indeed some difference of opinion, but my response would be a

VERY long post. I am working on it, but no idea when it will appear.

 

In brief, I realize that the germ theory is incorrect, Pasteur himself

admitted as much. But at the same time, the dogmatic NH assertion that

nothing external causes anything internal is equally absurd, it's just

nonscience. (Yes, I made that word up.)

 

I will indeed give this much more attention. But in order to do so, I have

to take everyone on a journey through the history and " religion " called

science, through some of the underlying physics, etc. Hence, a large writing

assignment I've given myself.

 

We will compare and contrast Newtonian and quantum mechanics (physics),

reductionism and holism, determinism and probabilism, reproducibility and

biological learning, " objectivity " and the observer effect. Then we will

explore the real nature of causal relationships in any biological system and

apply the results of that exploration toward understanding biological

causality. The causal relationships for " sickness " or " disease " are the same

causal relationships, in a structural sense, that activate DNA, there is no

difference. Once we step back into this much larger view, our entire

perception shifts.

 

So for now, I ask only that you maintain an open and patient mind while I

put this together.

 

Also, I'm basically away most of the time from now until next Monday. So

everyone have a great weekend!

Elchanan

 

PS Throwing out all medical research is unwise, they do discover many

valuable things, they just perceive the MEANING in what they find

differently than we do. With respect to those ticks, for example, they have

observed that the likelihood of symptoms increases dramatically when the

person wears the tick for a couple of days. In other words, careful grooming

(perhaps with the help of a friend :) habits can make a nice difference!!

 

 

Rawschool [Rawschool ] On Behalf

Of Nora Lenz

Thursday, June 09, 2005 6:34 AM

Rawschool

Re: [Rawschool] Lyme Disease/Germ Theory

 

 

Hi Elchanan,

I wanted to seek clarification from you on a couple points you make here,

because they appear to conflict with my understanding.

 

 

<<< " From our perspective: Bacteria of the type Borrelia burgdorfen are

indeed injected into the body via the bite of these deer ticks. The body

responds to destroy and eliminate these bacteria, resulting in the

collection of symptoms called " Lyme disease. " "

 

I understand you were just trying to keep things concise and simple here,

but it's important to clearly contrast the differences between the standard

germ theory and the facts of how disease works, and I think the above

explanation blurs the distinction a bit. An explanation that seems more in

line with what we know to be true is that in people who are already very

toxic, the miniscule amount of 'foreign' (not there by invitation) bacteria

injected by a deer tick in addition to the poisonous by-products those

bacteria will produce (notwithstanding the physical injury as well), might

represent enough of an increase to the toxic load that it might indeed

initiate emergency cleansing, as the body seeks to optimize function. This

is similar to what is seen in other incident-related symptom complexes that

are thought to either be 'infectious' or caused by bacteria, like rabies,

tetanus, gangrene and many others. The primary issue is the overburdened

state of a symptomatic person's body, because this is what will determine

whether symptoms are experienced, not the bacteria itself. It's an

important point because I can see how someone steeped in the germ theory

might assume from the above explanation that the bacteria have some special

power to cause disease on their own, which is not correct.

 

So, a person is bitten by a tick and then may experience symptoms. The ones

who don't experience symptoms wipe their brows and thank their deity of

choice that the tick was not a 'carrier'. The people who do become

symptomatic invariably go to their doctors, who administer drugs, which of

course adds to the load the body is already dealing with. This either

changes, exacerbates or may even stop the symptoms. If the symptoms stop,

the credit is given to the drugs, of course. When symptoms change or get

worse, out come more drugs. Thereby, some people will DIE of " Lyme Disease "

or " Lyme Disease complications " . Of course they're not dying of Lyme

Disease, but of systemic toxemia. We are then told that Lyme Disease can be

fatal and we should not mess around when we are bitten by a tick, we should

get ourselves to the doctor, pronto! As a consequence, I'm sure we even

have asymptomatic people going to doctors for tick bites 'just to be safe'.

 

On the other hand when a person is bitten by a tick and the body is not so

overburdened that it can't deal effectively with the event, symptoms are not

experienced. Therein lies the problem, because if this bacteria was so

powerful and virulent (as they and all bacteria are supposed to be,

according to the germ theory) it would produce symptoms in everyone, not

just some. I daresay if I or some other reasonably healthy, raw-food eating

person was bitten by a deer tick, we would not become symptomatic.

 

I think it all comes down to a question of whether the symptoms are caused

by 1) the overall toxic condition of the body and one additional small event

pushing it past its capabilities, such as what happens when people get

'tetanus' from a simple cut, or 2) the body attempting to dispel a

particularly 'harmful' bacteria. It may seem like a subtle difference but I

think the explanation offered above gets too close to the latter, which is

basically the germ theory.

 

Tim reports that, when he had his clinical practice in South Dakota, he

observed MANY cases of Lyme disease in the Black Hills area.

 

I'm sure he did see lots of people suffering the symptoms commonly

associated with Lyme Disease, but this establishes no causal connection

between the bacterium and the disease. Did he see every person who had been

bitten by a deer tick? If so, and if they had all become symptomatic, we

might have reason to suspect this bacteria is the powerful disease-causing

pathogen that it is reputed to be.

 

<<< " IMPORTANT: Use of antibiotics makes full and permanent recovery from

these symptoms much more difficult, and symptoms tend to recur over time. By

" full and permanent recovery, " we mean that the body has complete and

permanent mastery over this microorganism, such that symptoms do not recur.

This goal contrasts sharply with mere temporary symptomatic relief.

 

GOAL: We are creating health, not treating " diseases " or " conditions. "

Therefore, we wish to support the body by giving it the basic ingredients

for creating health.

 

APPROACH: First among these ingredients for creating health is proper rest.

ALL cleansing and construction of new cells and tissues in the body occurs

during some state of relative rest. Therefore, fasting is recommended in

most cases, but please note the following:

 

We have found that people who have taken no antibiotics for the Lyme disease

and currently use no other drugs (including herbs, supplements, etc.) would

most likely need to fast for 4-7 days, with water and generalized rest,

meaning minimization of all activity (work, social, errands, reading,

television, etc.)

 

We have found that people who have taken antibiotics for Lyme disease must

first stop the drugs, then fast FOR A MIMINUM OF 2 WEEKS. If they are not

eating primarily RF, then a rigorous RF diet for a week or so preceding the

fast may be constructive. On-site fasting supervision is recommended.

 

STOPPING THE DRUGS: This requires some discussion, depends on which drugs,

dosages/frequency used, duration used, other drugs used concurrently, etc. "

 

I agree with the fasting part, it certainly makes sense that a person who

has been ingesting drugs would need a longer fast to recover. However, in

one sentence above it is recommended that the drugs stop immediately and

then in the next it is implied that there is some danger in stopping the

drugs, and requires discussion, presumably with a practitioner of some sort.

Although admittedly there are a few other situations where it may be risky

to stop drugs suddenly, to me it seems obvious in the case of the drugs

given for Lyme Disease that there would be no exception to the

recommendation that stopping them would be one of the primary steps one

would take in getting well, in addition to dietary change, rest, fasting,

etc.

 

Thanks for your indulgence, Elchanan. I look forward to your elucidation!

 

Best,

Nora

 

 

 

_____