From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V19 #66 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, September 10 2011 Volume 19 : Number 066 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: For What It Is Worth ["Red-Headed Chuck" ] Jon Brion Show Pilot [Jeff Margrave ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:01:05 -0700 From: "Red-Headed Chuck" Subject: Re: For What It Is Worth apologies for the delay -- been an *incredible* string of sunny days here. also an incredible string of great concerts! (wouldn't you know it: the one and only day in the last six weeks on which it rained was the same day as the decemberists concert. fucking *poured*, too. well, at least i was under the overhang...) anyhow, why does this topic always seem to come up in the summertime? why not just hook up a fan and blow it in my face? however you do it, what happens is this: i laugh and laugh, but don't get sick. . i'm back in seattle for the next few months. <> we have a proposition, say, that exposure to germ X will cause exposed individuals to fall ill with sickness Y. great, let's test it out empirically. if we notice that (even once, let alone quite frequently as is actually the case) not all cases of exposure result in illness, we know that exposure to the germ, while it may be a necessary factor in the causation of illness, is clearly not sufficient. that's the same as saying it's *not the cause* -- at least not the sole cause. if, further, we notice that (even once, let alone quite frequently as is actually the case) individuals have incurred sickness Y without having been exposed to germ X, we know that the germ is not a necessary factor in the causation of sickness Y. not being one, i guess i don't know what a person "involved in science" would say; but anybody with about one-third of one percent of their f-a-c-u-l-t-i-e-s intact can readily see that in the real world, germs are neither a sufficient nor a necessary factor in the causation of disease. if, despite the empirical reality, we maintain that the theory has been proved -- because, well, "we're not dealing with formal logic" -- then what in the hell are we supposed to do with it? i mean to ask, of what practical value is it? heck, has an attempt even ever been made to determine the *correlation* between exposure and subsequent illness? sure i am. i suppose this is the same for the other natural sciences, too? like, gravity: if i notice that ofttimes a dropped item flies off to the heavens rather that falling to the earth, and therefore question the validity of the theory, am i trying to establish a standard that "absolutely no one involved in science" would accept? schya, and how was it modified? first, viruses. know how big a virus is? a billionth the size of a cell. a billionth! what's more, it's not a living entity: doesn't have its own metabolism. and this non-living entity is supposed to, of its own volition, first *penetrate* the cell; and, then, even more crazily, command the cell to reproduce not *itself*, but the *virus* (!?), millions of times over, thereby wreaking all manner of havoc. sounds preposterous, right? well, preposterous-sounding or not, could we still test it out empirically? yeah, why not! oh, oops: turns out the same. they're neither a necessary nor a sufficient factor in disease causation. no worries, we just make another "refinement". now we're told that one must be "susceptible" to become "infected" upon exposure. in other words, that germs do not cause disease (more specifically that they're necessary but not sufficient). here's the definition of "susceptible", from the medline plus medical dictionary: ~~ 1 : having little resistance to a specific infectious disease: capable of being infected ~~ this, of course, is just a tautology. but i gather (from e.g. ) that "susceptible" in practice simply means "not immune", as determined by the quantity of "immune markers" in the blood. fine. but immune theory, natch, fails empirically: "immune" individuals often take ill, while "susceptible" individuals often don't take ill after having been exposed. and we know from the last time that this topic came up that vaccination is ineffective at best. (or, if we don't, then could jog our memory). ...so the "refinements" are just a load of crap. incidentally, i said before that the germ theory itself isn't illogical -- just that it fails emprically. that wasn't quite true, though, when you think about it. germ theory is only logical if the organism is incapable of overcoming the disease without external intervention (e.g., via antibiotics). if, in other words, the germs are able to sicken a *healthy* organism (that is, when its disease-fighting abilities would be at their best), it should not be possible for an *already sickened* organism to accomplish what the healthy organism could not: eradicating the evil-doers. and of course, it is in the nature of bacteria to continue feeding and multiplying until the organism has been returned to the soil. in other words, the bacterial, in nature, keep doing what they do until their food supply runs out. we know, however, that sickened individuals get well all the time even without the aid of antibiotics. perfectly consistent with the proposition that the disease process is initiated by the organism for the purpose of eliminating toxic materials. this is really just another way of saying that the organism is, well, an organic entity: homeostatic endeavours are conducted by living entities, but not (so far as we're aware) by non-living entities. like, a rock can't attempt to warm itself when/if it adjudges that it's too damned cold, but an animal can. it might fail, yeah; but it makes the attempt to preserve/re-attain conditions -- both internal and external -- in which it evolved to thrive. but why does it have to be that way? that is, can't it (the organism) just eliminate without making me be sick? i think it's kinda like, if you bang your thumb with a hammer, it's going to hurt. if it *didn't* hurt, it'd be a sign that the organism was evolutionarily adapted to taking hammer blows without damage. i guess i think of it like this: if it needs our help, it sends us messages to this effect -- AKA "symptoms". if it wants us to put a coat on, it tells us we're cold. if it wants us to take a drink, it informs us of its thirst. if it wants us to stop eating mcdonald's, it gives us a heart attack (other symptoms having failed to grab our attention). so, symptoms are our *friends*. if addressed, they resolve quite quickly indeed. if either ignored or papered over by the eating of drugs, well, they'll continue, and get worse. well, not exactly. but the point is, one can propose whatever one wants. the proof is in the empirical pudding. here's shelton on epidemics: . first off, please consult a dictionary before attempting to use the word "literally" again. as for tilden, you may say that he fabricated evidence out of whole cloth. or, you may say that he's done a pissant job of interpreting the evidence. but that's different from saying that none is on offer. and tilden's far from the only person to make the case; nor is he even the most eloquent. that would be, for my money, herbert shelton again. . as for the "grand canyon" of evidence: that's all i want, baby! point me to it. <<>> <> thanks for the link! a twelve-week stay isn't exactly a permanent lifestyle change, and HHI doesn't advocate a *low-fat* raw vegan diet; but, thanks all the same... anyway, the results were generally positive, it looks like. if one presupposes the validity of immune theory, then of course it could be argued that a decrease in "immune markers" means that one is more likely to "catch" an illness. but that's a far cry from following the subjects empirically -- which the study did not do. (after they left HHI, i mean.) if, instead, an increase in "immune markers" is an homeostatic response to the introduction of toxic elements, then, we should be happy to notice a decrease following an extended period of a healthier lifestyle. assuming that the subjects returned to their former lifestyles after leaving HHI, the point is moot anyway. <.>> what the fuck "luck"? what does science have to do with luck? let's return to our gravity analogy. how if i come to you and tell you that a ball placed in the centre of an incline will roll *up*; you deny it, i propose we test it. after a coupla hundred trials, in all of which the ball rolled down, i turn to you and tell you that, "sometimes the ball does get lucky," what would be your response? of course it is. not *sufficient* to prove anything, to be sure. but the more of it there is -- and you shouldn't have any difficulty in finding hundreds of testimonials to the same effect -- the better one's confidence in a causal relationship. no, but we have even *better* information: a sudden change from frequently-illin' to never-illin' coincident with a drastic lifestyle change. moreover, it being a tangential point, i didn't even mention the chronic conditions that disappeared: acid reflux, allergies, anal fissure (until you've dealt with *this*, you don't know what pain is), dandruff, insomnia, tinnitus, arthritis. these, especially the first three, induced *much* greater misery than the acute illnesses ever dreamed of doing; their sudden disappearance was like a fucking miracle to me. (and remember, i'd been, since 1999, eating the supposedly healthiest diet of all: locavore cooked vegan.) but, that's science: if these or other issues -- which i'd previously attributed to aging or "it runs in the family" -- begin reappearing, i'll surely re-evaluate the lifestyle. but for now, if it ain't broken... no reason to suppose that "how much immunization people around me had" changed suddenly, at precisely the same moment that my diet/lifestyle changed dramatically. i mean, it's *possible*, yeah; but seems pretty unlikely. i didn't mean to imply that diet is the *only* factor in health. last time the thread came up, i noted access to fresh air as perhaps the most important factor. pure water, lots of sunlight, and diet are very important too. but i've gradually come to think that exercise and sleep may be the most important of all. well, after fresh air and clean water, i guess. i do know this, however: a few dalliances early on with periodic cooked-food-feeding (won't deny that i love it, after all!) brought the old (chronic) symptoms back with a fucking vengeance. learned my lesson right quick, i did. but however you slice it, you're here yourself acknowledging that those leading healthy lifestyles are able to "confound" the germs' dastardly mission -- in other words, that germs are not the sole cause of disease. it means you're not giving your body enough energy to conduct a detoxification, which, as noted, is what acute illness is. if you're not getting ill (or are suppressing the symptoms with drugs when you *do* get ill, thereby aborting the process), but are getting fat, you're on the road to chronic disease. try an experiment if you like: take up an all-raw-fruit-and-vegetable diet. eat as much as you want. (make sure the fruit is ripe. preferably the meals would be properly combined.) and then...watch yourself "catch" "the flu" or "a cold", as your body, not now saddled with the burden of digesting your meals, has sufficient energy to begin ridding itself of stored toxic material. then, fry up a nice plate of bacon, and eat it down. watch the symptoms *cease* as the body is now again forced to deal with the rigours of digesting foods which it has not been evolutionarily adapted *to* digest. i know, i know: you already know that *can't* happen, so it'd be a waste of your time to even try it. curious, though: to what do *you* attribute your three-year absence of illness? "luck", presumably. but, the longer you remain illness-free -- assuming a consistent rate of germ exposure -- the more statistically improbable should be the germ theory in your own eyes. and please don't say, "i'm vaccinated left, right, and center," either. even if vaccination were effective -- again, we know from the historical data that it is not -- it's impossible to be vaccinated against all new strains to which one is constantly exposed. moreover, vaccination isn't supposed to be 100% effective, anyway. so even if it *were* effective, you still ought to be getting sick from time to time. so, the question: at what point do you abandon "luck" as an explanation? well, again, why don't you ask him? *my* hunch is that there would be hundreds or thousands, yours truly included, who would be fantastically eager to take part in such a study. as far as his store is concerned, i picked up one of the CD sets when there was a half-off sale. being that i'm such a swell guy, i'll even share it with you. . very informative, very inspirational (is my own opinion). it's true, i feared jakfruit for many months after that. but i was eventually persuaded to give it another go, and am now an avid convert -- though i still tread quite cautiously indeed. by the way, how's the durian in vietnam? i'm off to southeast asia in a few months' time for a year or so of vagabonding. during which, my principal reason to exist will be to consume as much durian as is humanly possible. and if you have any other recommendations, happy to hear about 'em! oh, also interested to hear airline recommendations. is jason thornton still here? he used to fly to thailand quite frequently, if i recall... fermented/putrefacted matter is toxic to the body. as i say, it tasted a bit tangy to me; but i didn't perceive that it'd begun to go off. the body endeavoured to get it out of the system. granted, fermentation/putrefaction is occasioned by bacterial activity; but it's the ingestion of the fermented material they've *created*, not of the bacteria *themselves*, to which the body objects.