Ben:
>I don't mean to imply that doctors all _create_ the germ scare, yet it is
>true that the majority of them perpetuate this theory, using it as a major
>tactic to illicit compliance with their drug treatments.  Haven't you had
>similar experiences, Kirt, such as, "Kirt, if you don't get this vaccine
>before you leave for Guatemala, you'll get X illness, or Y illness, or maybe
>even die..."  I know I have had countless experiences where my physicians
>have used the tactic of scaring me with germ theory to get me to work with
>them.

Yeah, but they are not doing that to be sinister. They believe that their
treatment is the most effective. I can imagine a MD decrying the advice of
various raw promoters as quacks whose advice borders on the same scare
tactics--only with rawists the fear is of cooked foods and/or animal foods.
And further, we could say that the raw promoters are not doing that to be
sinister (though I have my doubts about some of them ;)), but because they
believe their methods (a diet really) to be the best approach. And like
allopathic MD's they may be blind to the reality that it just isn't as
simple as their particular paradigm makes it seem.

>Well, maybe you're referring to Pasteur:  one of the fathers of germ theory.
>Bechamp or Pasteur, by E. Douglas Hume, profiles how much of the germ theory
>came to become accepted, including the advent of vaccinations (despite
>constant side effects, including death, illness, etc.)

Vaccines are surely controverisial, but the devastation of polio epidemics,
for example, is clear and the medical institution has taken on the
challenge of providing some sort of remedy. Researchers are looking to
thwart that devastation. Perhaps they could use a broader model of disease
than the one they are using, but the same holds true for the other extreme
of "all vaccinations/medications are evil". When long-time instinctos are
near death from malaria, for example, and anti-malarials save their lives,
that might give pause to the view that medication is evil.

>So, while I agree
>that our health profession doesn't sit in their high horse and plan our
>deaths, they take a huge part in the perpetuation of a sad lie:  that drugs,
>vaccines, and antibiotics are the path to perfect health.

And the other side of the sad lie is that perfect eating is the path to
perfect health. As a matter of fact, I assume that most MDs consider that
drugs, vaccines, and antibiotics are NOT the path to perfect health, but
stopgap measures to backtrack from serious ills and death.

>And I don't feel
>like I really know enough to go into the argument of whether or not it's a
>conspiracy:  that I don't know much about.  I do know that pharmecutical
>companies have a GREAT deal to do with medical school curriculum; students
>are taught from day 1 the merits of drug x, y, and z.  Most medical schools,
>while requiring detailed schooling on medicines, require little to nothing
>regarding nutrition.  So, while I am not really a "conspiracy man" myself
>either,  do you agree that the facts seem to be a little questionable?

It is likely a vicious cycle--not unlike the false-to-facts premises of
idealistic diets and their nearly wholesale dismissal of institutional
medicine. If med schools pay too little attention to nutrition (which I
agree they do), idealistic dieters pay too little attention to non-examples
of their own theories, as well as dissing the medical establishment as
evil. (Not you necessarily, but the whole arena of idealistic diets.)

>Agreed, Kirt.  It would not be truthful for a raw-fooder to expect zero
>health concerns from now on; a balance should be given to any point of view.
>No diet will sew you back together after you're in a car wreck.  But at the
>same time, the nutrition does have its clear merits over allopathic
>medicine.  And I'll tell you one thing, I'd sure rather be scratching a tick
>off of my bum than dealing with most any chronic illnesses.  >;-)

And if you end up with a chronic illness despite your diet?

>In all, I agree that one should weigh the facts before going from one
>extreme of thought to another complete extreme of thought.

Yeah, I wish I had known that earlier myself :/

Cheers,
Kirt