>jean-claude:
>
>>Diseases are a totally human made concept . It doesn't exist in nature .
>>There is only natural regulation systems
>>to maintain a healthy balance between individuals and species. Humans  are
>>dreaming  of being exempted from thoses and manage just to makes them
>>harsher  and louder in their expressions.
>
>Whether you call it a "natural regulation system" or a disease is
>immaterial. Some wild animals--eating much more pristine and wild foods
>than you do, jean-claude--do indeed die of disease (regardless of what
>you'd prefer to call it).
>
>If you, or your loved ones, happen to die from a "natural regulation
>system" we will see how much difference semantics makes.


From my own experience dying from natural regulation system is not a big
deal , making your self miserable from fear of dying is the  big deal.
Vaccinating your self or repressing any manifestation of "disease" with
antibiotics is creating lot of useless suffering and it is wishfull thinking
to see it as an improvment over natural regulation systems.
The difference might appear  just a  semantic one  to you as long you
believe that we can  improve  our health status thru artificial means .
Eating a wild pristine diet ( as if it was possible in our disturbed
environments)  doesn't exempt from pain and death . Having a less pristine
one  and creating a medecine didn't and doesn't do any better in that regard
.
So what is the point of all this struggle apart from  making ourselves
miserable to the point of wanting to buy  hope.

all what i see is that  the more we interfere , the  more we try to control
natural phenomenons like viral communication , the course of rivers or
whatever ,the more we will  have to admit our powerlessness to do so
The sooner the better!. because in that recognition of life vulnerability is
all its power.
when you live in the wild you can't escape your vunerability,  domesticating
ourselves give us the illusion that we can for a while....

jean- claude