At 12:27 PM 02/07/2001 -0800, you wrote:
....
>I'm not sure how this logic applies. Gravity is
>anything BUT simplistic. I'm not sure about you, but
>quantum machanics completely escapes my limited
>intellect.

        I seriously doubt if your intellect is limited but through your own
volition. Instead of trying to think with my educated brain which is very
limited, I choose to let my Innate thought be expressed. Nothing is too
complex for Universal Intelligence.

> And the "theories" of gravity have run the
>gamut of everything from simple superstition (mystical
>forces) to the current particle/wave/warped space
>explanations (which leave me saying, "Huh"?).

        True. Use your imagination. Doing so makes the complex understandable.

>Yes, but a higher percentage died during those plagues
>than would normally. During the plagues in Europe the
>population growth rate actually became negative for a
>period of time even though the population growth rate
>had been steadily increasing during the period we now
>know as the "dark ages". And the European introduced
>plagues in Central and South America were enough to
>bring the then soaring native civilization to its
>knees.

        What were the major changes to take place that compromised their immune
systems? I suspect the diet and the shear force of concentrated populations
affected their ability to adapt to even one more stress to their systems.

>
>> What is
>> the underlying commonalty to those diseased? I would
>> say their inability to
>> adapt to internal and external environmental
>> stresses whether they be from
>> mental, physical, or chemical sources or a
>> combination thereof.
>
>But, how does a large population group suddenly start
>exhibiting that inability to adapt?

        When the stresses reached a critical point at which the body could no
longer adapt. Adaption is the body's ability to sense and respond to an
imposing stress regardless of source while maintaining homeostasis.

> The plagues in Europe suddenly appeared in many areas in short order,
>and the "course" of the plagues can be tracked. And
>then, just as quickly, the plagues stopped. What
>factor could possibly appear in all those areas and
>then disappear other than something introduced from
>outside their environment?

        The compressing of human habitation is only possible through agricultural
practices. The centralization of power and the allowing of political power
comes with controlling of resources. The easiest to control food resources
were/are crops. Increasing the intake of grains in the diet and limiting
access to fresh meat certainly negatively impacts the absolute amount of
external/internal stress placed upon one's constitution.
        In addition, there is an adaption phase in a population where disease
prevalence will naturally rise and fall as more people become exposed to a
level of stress and then adapt to that specific stress. Your nervous system
is what adapts you to the stresses you encounter whether the stresses are
internal or external.

>
>> Our ability
>> to adapt is controlled by one system: the nervous
>> system.
>
>I would not argue with that.
>
>> I would believe
>> germs caused disease if 100% of those exposed died
>> or even became ill. This
>> is not so.
>
>I would believe that bee venom killed those who had an
>adverse reaction to it if 100% of bee sting victims
>died or became ill :)

        But bee venom is simply another stress injected internally for the body to
adapt to.

> Seriously, why would you not
>believe that some individuals are more prone to
>"catch" infectious diseases than others?

        No where did I say that some individuals weren't more prone to infection.
Those that are more prone to succumbing to an outside stress are those with
a compromised nervous system. Compromising of the nervous system can come
from a combination of mental, physical, and chemical stresses beyond the
body's ability to adapt to those sources.

> And, on the other hand, that some are more naturally resistent to
>disease?

        Yes, those with the amount of stress applied to their systems that
stimulated an adaptive response without over running the body's momentary
ability to repair and regenerate itself.

> I have always been very immune to colds and
>such, even when my diet was literally nothing more
>than burgers, fries, and beer.

        Bacteria and viruses require specific environments in which to survive.
The eating of burgers, fries, and beer may not have provided an environment
in which they could survived. So, while you may not have provided an
environment for them to take up residence in any great numbers you were
surely compromising your ability to adapt to other stresses. I see this
every so often but those that don't often get signs that there body is
struggling to maintain homeostasis haven't had the history of damage to the
nervous system in my experience.

> A paleo focus for me has made me "feel better" in general, but has done
>very little for me as far as immune system function is
>concerned. Perhaps I'm "naturally resistent" to germs
>and viruses?
>
>> >But, I also don't think diet and
>> >lifestyle will automatically make us immune to
>> >"everything*.
>>
>>         Nor do I. You are assuming this to be my
>> belief without me having said it.
>
>I was interpreting your initial statements about germs
>and viruses having nothing to do with causing disease.

        Your interpretation was not what I was trying to communicate. I expect
this though because the majority of the population has been inculcated into
an outside in philosophy. Everyday that view is consistently supported
through the media and most allopaths. Where has this thinking gotten us? We
are the most technologically advanced culture on the face of the planet but
our health as a whole is degenerating rapidly. And while environmental
stresses caused by poor sanitation practices has greatly reduced
overcrowding stresses, the fact remains that we are simply trading the
evidence of over population stresses for stresses implemented through lack
of exercise, mental breakdown from lack of moral values, and chemical
alteration of food and environment. So, if the person I am explaining a
view point to comes from an outside in reductionist philosophy they, of
course, will only see the picture from their specific view. I therefore ask
that you reason from a point of an inside out wholistic approach.

Dave