David:
> Germs are like vultures, rats, maggots, ravens, etc. They take advantage
> of the environment provided though they didn't cause the environment in the
> first place.
Didn't "cause the environment"? Only "take advantage of the environment"?
What is this supposed to mean? Do humans "cause" the environment? Do human
"take advantage" of the environment? Maggots are interested in making copies
of themselves and do so in perfect/pristine nature. Many rats live lovely
instincto lives in the fields and forests.
> Diseased cells go on to become diseased tissue which provides
> an environment for particular germs. If the tissue stays in a weakened
> diseased state long enough it will provide an environment in which a germ
> will be able to thrive to great numbers thereby producing waste products of
> it's own which may be toxic to the body.
There is an _association_ between microbes and disease. It is unlikely that
that association is as simplistic as "microbes cause disease". As it is
unlikely that disease only occurs in animals "eating cooked foods or living
un-natural lives". Your simplistic, rigid, black-and-white arguments are
likely as wrong as the medical establishments.
> So, no I don't believe germs cause
> disease anymore than I think rats cause garbage but if you provide enough
> garbage the rats will thrive to an extent that their own waste will become
> a problem even for them.
Is this an analogy? If so, to what? Germs are rats, and disease is garbage?
> Their body's simply provided an environment in which the germ could
> survive. The body losing it's ability to adapt to stresses in whatever form
> is the main culprit.
Wild animals succomb to disease. As do raw foodists, even longtime ones.
> As I have stated before, the whole root cause of ANY disease is the body's
> inability to fully comprehend itself(internally) or it's
> environment(externally) and adapt it's physiology to maintain homeostasis.
So why does disease occur in pristine nature? And why do you believe you an
example of such pristine nature?
> The mental
> impulse which controls and coordinates every function is always perfect so
> it requires no help from us in it's development but rather no interference
> in it's expression.
References?
> Plagues and such are provided an environment in which to survive. When you
> do not have adequate sewage and plumbing services, a diet which provides
> little in the way of nutrients, and the mental stress of seeing a life of
> only hard labor with no way out, it is easy to imagine an environment of
> disease.
How do you "imagine" that disease can flourish in pristine natural animals?
> I don't see it this way. Innate intelligence is the individualized
> personification of Universal Intelligence.
Huh?
> You are given this intelligence
> that controls and coordinates every function in your body whether you are a
> genius or a moron, whether you are a man or dog, a tree or a bug. IT has
> already solved every physics, mathematical, sociology, psychology,
> chemical, etc., problem in the creation of the material matter of your body
> as a walking talking living thinking healing loving human being.
_Every_ problem? You believe in a way-too-simplistic model, methinks.
> The
> pathway IT'S expression takes is the nervous system. IT is unlimited. We
> are limited only in the material sense.
The liberties you are taking with logic may be comforting to you, but they
don't appear to be an accurate description of Nature.
> Innate is always perfect, IT'S
> expression can only be limited by limited material matter which your body is.
Innate is _always_ _perfect_? Is this a religious belief? There is nothing
that is always perfect.
> Cut the nerve supply to any organ. What happens to that organ? It dies.
> Compromise the nerve supply to any organ. What happens? The exact same
> thing it only takes longer. The organ becomes dis-eased then diseased and
> eventually if the nerve supply does not have the interference removed the
> organ dies.
Perhaps you could quantify "nerve supply"?
Cheers,
Kirt
|
