|
|
Necessary Products NOTICE: I will be away until the end of November 2003. The newsletters will be sent as usual but I will be unable to reply to private correspondence. Elise Warm greetings to all our "Crazy Nut" members, Personally, I think that this article is coming at the right time since we are continually 'bombarded' by the media advertising X soap to keep your skin germ-free or XYZ kitchen product to keep your family safe from bacteria. Let's continue with the "Life Science" article and see whether those products are necessary or is it an advertising hoax to make us spend more money on unnecessary products? "The fear of "infection" of a cut, a bruise, or other injury is widespread. Actually, there is more danger from the drugs and antibiotics administered to "prevent" infection. When an injury occurs, the body quickly seals of the area, a scab forms, and repair is instituted. Suppuration rarely occurs, except in toxic individuals. Devitalising drugs serve to hinder the cleansing and reparative processes; antibiotics destroy friendly bacteria. The universal acceptance of the germ theory, and the consequently widespread bacteriophobia, resulted in a multiplicity of frenzied efforts to escape from the threat of the dreadful and malicious germs by waging a constant war against them in the belief that the alternative was certain death. The populace was advised to cook all food and boil all water (with the inevitable deterioration in health accompanying raw food deprivation) The present day practice of killing germs (inside and outside the body) with poison drugs was initiated, resulting in more and more degeneration and drug-induced diseases. As previously mentioned, around 1880, Pasteur discovered facts, which were not in accord with his previous conception that disease germs were unchangeable. He found that microbial species can undergo many transformations; this discovery destroyed the basis for the germ theory. Since a coccus (pneumonia germ) could change to a bacillus (typhoid germ) and back again (and, indeed, since any germ could turn into another) - and since their virulence could be altered, often at the will of the experimenter, the whole theory exploded. It is frequently overlooked that Pasteur by then had changed his direction, and his more mature conception of the cause of disease, as given by Dr Duclaux, was that a germ was "ordinarily kept within bound by natural laws, but, when condition change, when its virulence is exalted, when its host is enfeebled," the germ was able to "invade the territory which was barred to it up to that time" This of course, is the premise that a healthy body is resistant to disease or not susceptible to it. After the change in his outlook, and numerous experiments along the line, Pasteur was at last convinced that controllable physiological factors were basic in the assessment of vulnerability to disease and concluded, "the presence in the body of a pathogenic agent is not necessarily synonymous with infectious disease"(The presence of certain germs is not proof that they are the cause of a disease) So Pasteur did finally reverse his position and acknowledge that germs are not the specific and primary cause of disease, and he abandoned the germ theory. He is reported to have said on his deathbed, "Bernard was right. The seed is nothing, the soil is everything." Although Pasteur abandoned his early immature and erroneous theory in the 1880s, it was accepted, developed, fostered, and perpetuated by others, and the mischief, medical misunderstanding, and error continue to this day." Phew...Heavy going! See you next week, Warm regards, Elise