>         I don't know about the Star Trek thing of
> which you speak

Dave, I did a number of searches regarding
pleomorphism, and not once did I find anything about
red blood cells "morphing" into bacteria and vice
versa. Can you point me to where you got that from?

> but I do know
> that germs never have nor will they ever cause a
> disease.

As I've stated in the past, I agree up to a point.
Let's look at it this way. In the animal kingdom there
are predators and prey. Generally, the predators
"choose" their targets from among the weak and/or
disabled - "thinning" the herd, so to speak. Why
should we assume anything different regarding the
smallest members of the animal kingdom? If a being is
in a weakened state (because of stress, bad food, lack
of exercise, whatever), the bacteria can get a
foothold where they were unable to before. Whether
this is "cause" or "effect" is, I think, a matter of
interpretation. And, as in the higher animal kingdom,
I believe there are much more aggresive and dangerous
little creatures that require much less opportunity
before they "attack".

> If you were
> hermetically sealed upon passing you would already
> contain everything with
> in you to begin the process of bacterial breakdown
> even in supposed sterile
> environments.

Apples and oranges. The same is true of any living
thing. The decomposing bacteria cannot get a foothold
in vibrant, living tissue. They have to wait for death
before they can do their thing. But, at the same time,
even in the plant kingdom, there are diseases that can
affect healthy, living tissue. These are different
germs and bacteria from the decomposing bacteria
strains. Even in paleo hunter/gatherer societies
infection is not unknown.

> What do you suppose is the outcome of
> the disease theory of
> disease? If you can identify and vilify a specific
> outside invader you can
> design and sell a specific drug to treat the
> supposed outcome of an
> infection from the outside in.

Certainly. However, once an individual becomes
"diseased", there is good reason to first remove
whatever is attacking the tissue before that tissue
can be repaired. This can be as simple as washing an
infected cut with alchohol and purified water (rather
than the latest super-duper anti-bacterial ointment).
The problem with the drug industry is not "bad"
science - it's $$money$$.

> Having an idea or
> theory that is counter to
> the illogic that has been placed in the American
> psyche is tantamount to
> slapping your mother.

Red blood cells morphing into bacteria and back again
seems pretty illogical to me.

>         The changing of one cell type to another
> according to environmental
> condition speaks volumes for improving our
> adaptability to the environment
> instead of attempting to control the environment to
> suit us.

The examples of pleomorphism I read about (including
some rather radical/bizarre views) were all about
multiple "life stages" of bacteria. They did not state
that the cells were changing into different types, but
rather they were changing forms - much like certain
higher level animals (tadpoles to frogs, caterpillars
to butterflies, etc.). However, the cells still had
the same genetic makeup (they were still the same
"critter").

> Or as B.J.
> Palmer put it:" The germ is an established
> scientific fact. That he is,
> that he exists, is indisputable. You have rats
> around garbage barrels too,
> but they don't put the garbage there.

They may not have put the garbage there, but if you
just remove the garbage it does not get rid of the
rats. They may decide to move in with you to get a new
food supply :)

> They're
> scavengers, drawn by the
> scent of decay.

Hmmm. My son raises rats, and they seem to like fresh
food as much as I do.

> So are germs. There is not a single
> germ in the world that
> ever caused dis-ease.

Again, I would argue that they are opportunists,
taking advantage of a situation.

> True
> the new life form may
> have such an environment available to them that they
> find quite suitable
> for rapid reproduction and their own accumulated
> waste products will
> further challenge and possibly alter the homeostatic
> conditions required to
> maintain a human cell but this still does not prove
> that the existence of
> the microorganism was the initial cause of the
> dis-eased environment.

Now, that's more like what I was talking about. And
again, it seems prudent to limit the damage being done
by the orgainism before true healing can possibly take
place. Or, at least, limiting it's spread. But, then
again, these are just the opinions of one of those
damnable "linear thinkers" :)



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/