Rex:
> Now, to skip to your "anthrax" comments to Axel.  Without getting into him
> being stupid enough to allow the army to spray him with a mega-dose, is
> anthrax *always* catchable (i.e., if the live germ is in the same space with
> a live human, must the human contract anthrax)?  And, if so, is it always
> fatal?

Certainly a mega-dose of inhalated Anthrax is virtually almost always
fatal. Now, under normal circumstances, I don't think there is _any_
germ that is always catchable and fatal. Given any germ, a (possibly
small) proportion of the population carries the genes that produce
antibodies against it. People who don't, or whose immune system is
weakened for whatever reason (related to diet or not) may die of the
disease: that's how natural selection goes. Of course, many raw food
advocates claim that eating raw protects you against any infectious
diseases, that germs are our friends, etc. While I agree that diet can
strengthen our immune system, I consider that claim as a dangerous
myth.

> Also, you mentioned some hearsay by Jack Raso that was evidently designed to
> malign, or discount, the Gerson therapy.  FWIW, I tend to see Gerson
> survivors as miracles of nutritional healing.  After all, they only end up
> with Gerson when standard medicine has cast them adrift and told them they
> cannot possibly live.

What you say is the standard response to critics of alternative
therapies. What Jack Raso wrote clearly proves that the Gerson therapy
can fail: my point was no more than that. Now, to comment on your
objection, miraculous healings have also occurred in
Lourdes. Considering that alternative diets can have a placebo effect
as potent as religious beliefs, it would be interesting to compare the
rate of success (in terminally ill patients) in both cases.


--Jean-Louis Tu <[log in to unmask]>