In a message dated 8/11/99 2:23:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

>
>  > I can't imagine an explanation being more incorrect than this bizarre
>  > conglomerate of misinformation.
>
>  Your comment shows less thought and less substantiation. I believe that
>  ( about 25 years ago) the treatment of choice for salmonella was to wait
>  for it to go away as is written in the post by Dr Bernarr Zovluck. I
>  don't know about the cooked meat causing the infection by being food for
>  salmonella but the rest of the post rings true to me.
>
>  Michael
>

That's fine for 25yrs ago, and even today most people just let it
flow out, literally..but an across the board statement to everyone
on this list, all over the world, does not take into consideration
how it will be received, and by *who* it will be received.  There
are cultures that tolerate microbes in their food/water better than
others...Mexicans for instance have a better tolerance for the
organisms in their water than we in America. We visit there, and
have to avoid the water like the plague or else suffer "Montezuma's
Revenge"...

If the kind "doctor" presented the information in a way that everyone
would recognize as an alternative attitude towards salmanella, at
least they might exercise some caution before going out and buying
a raw roast and serving up to the family for dinner.

However, throwing it out as fact, to groups of (no offense to anyone, for
I am one of them) coddled, spoiled, delicate bellied Americans, is
down right dangerous.  I see the ignorance (and innocence) of the
public everyday at my job.  People do not take info like that
cautiously.  They mis-quote, then exercise the advise incorrectly.
Then end up dead.  I have to deal with those too.

Anna