> >>While I can agree with this *in part*, I've always
> found this explanation to be far to simplistic...
> Not *all*
> bacterial or viral events can be explained by an
> imbalanced metabolism - unless you can believe that
> an
> entire population can exhibit a specific flaw that
> allows an infection to "take hold" (measles and
> smallpox in the new world).
>
> My response:
> In the 1930s when Dr. Weston Price was traveling
> around the world studying

<snip>

While I don't disagree that proper eating and
lifestyle can go along way towards preventing or even
curing most of the infectious diseases prevalent
today, I just cannot accept the notion that germs and
viruses are merely by-products (scavengers?) of a
diseased condition (which is what I believe is the
context of this thread). I have read many of the
essays of the "anti-germ" people, and while some of
the arguments are very good, they still leave me
unconvinced - especially when the infectious process
can be duplicated in laboratory experiments.

Personally, I believe that the immune system can be
enhanced, and that most of the common infectious
diseases can be avoided - perhaps by not allowing the
body to provide a suitable environment for the little
bugs. But when you start looking at the "super bugs",
like ebola (hemhorrhagic fever) - well, I just hope
proper diet and lifestyle can keep me in the 5-10%
survival category if I'm ever exposed to them.


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