Author Topic: Your take on typically harmful viruses, bacteria, etc.  (Read 4513 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LePatron7

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,672
    • View Profile
Your take on typically harmful viruses, bacteria, etc.
« on: January 03, 2013, 11:38:16 pm »
I'm making this post mainly because I see a lot on this forum things like "the virus is there to detox." Or, "the virus eats away at degenerative tissue," and other things similar pertaining to bacteria/virus/etc. that are typically harmful.

What's your view on viruses, and other things that are harmful for most people?

I think the whole viruses and bacteria eat away at degenerative tissue or help you detox is bologna.

When cows are fed grass, they don't develop dangerous, pathogenic strains of e.coli. Yet when their fed grains and/or antibiotics they develop loads of bad e.coli. I don't think that pathogenic strain of e.coli is there to "help" the cow some how.

Same with all these "modern viruses." I don't think herpes, HPV, HIV, or any other virus is a beneficial thing provided you're on a natural diet (RPD).

It just doesn't make sense to me because I believe dangerous bacteria are created through unnatural means.

For example, you eat a crap diet loaded with complex carbs (grains, dairy, etc.), indigestible foods (food additives like guar gum). You build an environment in the digestive tract that creates bad bacteria.

That's the whole premise of the specific carbohydrate diet. That a crap diet is causing bad bacteria to be created, and flourish in the gut. So switching to SCDiet starves out those bad bugs.

I think most bad viruses, bad bacteria, etc. are all formed from eating an unnatural diet.

It's shown in cows grass fed vs. grain fed. Same with buffalo grass fed vs. grain fed, lamb, goat, chicken, etc. It's the case with all those animals, isn't it more likely that it's the same for humans?

That humans eating crap foods, like animals being fed crap foods, produces harmful bacteria, viruses, etc.?

I don't see any of us going out of our way to eat antibiotic laced grain fed beef/lamb/buffalo, etc. to "benefit" from their harmful strains of e.coli, salmonella, etc.

So how does this theory that generally dangerous bacteria/viruses are there to "detox" or "eat away degenerative tissue" hold any weight?
Disclaimer: I was told I was misdiagnosed over 10 years ago, and I haven't taken any medication in over a decade.

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,785
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Your take on typically harmful viruses, bacteria, etc.
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2013, 11:47:49 pm »
Some of these germs are meant to turn you back into dust and ashes as what happens when a person dies.

Good circulation, good nutrition, healthy levels of radiation, healthy fresh air and healthy fresh water keeps us alive.
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline LePatron7

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,672
    • View Profile
Re: Your take on typically harmful viruses, bacteria, etc.
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2013, 11:52:01 pm »
Some of these germs are meant to turn you back into dust and ashes as what happens when a person dies.

Good circulation, good nutrition, healthy levels of radiation, healthy fresh air and healthy fresh water keeps us alive.

I don't disagree that certain bacteria, ie. those in HEALTHY animals that eat their natural diet. Or those naturally found in healthy dirt, or plants, is bad.

I'm saying, if I go out right now, and I buy myself some horrible factory farmed beef (assuming I'm eating 100% raw paleo), and I eat it raw.

I get a minor case of food poisoning from the pathogenic strain of e.coli. Do you really think that getting the shits is a natural part of detox? Because I completely disagree with that being true.

Same with exposing yourself other bad strains of bacteria/viruses.

I'm not saying exposing yourself to fermented planted foods, raw honey, or raw animal foods from healthy animals is bad.

I'm saying that I don't buy that all these typically harmful microorganisms are there to help you some how.

I do think being on RPD gives you some type of resistance to these bad bugs, but at the same time I don't think they're helpful in any way.
Disclaimer: I was told I was misdiagnosed over 10 years ago, and I haven't taken any medication in over a decade.

Offline goodsamaritan

  • Administrator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,785
  • Gender: Male
  • Geek Healer Truth Seeker Pro-Natal Pro-Life
    • View Profile
    • Filipino Services Inc.
Re: Your take on typically harmful viruses, bacteria, etc.
« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2013, 12:17:21 am »
Some of these germs may be harmful to your health.  This is why i'm also armed and dangerous... Thieves oil, pyroenergen, zapper with orgon, beam ray. Olive leaf, herbal dewormers, clove oil, oregano oil, etc
Linux Geek, Web Developer, Email Provider, Businessman, Engineer, REAL Free Healer, Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Truther, Ripple-XRP Fan

I'm the network administrator.
My business: Website Dev & Hosting and Email Server Provider,
My blogs: Cure Manual, My Health Blog, Eczema Cure & Psoriasis Cure

Offline eveheart

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,315
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Your take on typically harmful viruses, bacteria, etc.
« Reply #4 on: January 04, 2013, 01:39:57 am »
I make a strong distinction between viruses and bacteria.

A virus is an opportunistic invader that finds a weak host. Detoxification is the body's physical response to the invasion of a virus. Detox is performed by specialized cells that kill the virus and by mucus that washes the waste of dead virus and destroyed cells out of the body. Metaphysically, a virus is an expression of anger.

Bacteria are purposeful organisms that perform many functions in nature. Metaphysically, a so-called harmful bacteria is the manifestation of wrong intentions or wrong actions.

"I intend to live forever; so far, so good." -Steven Wright, comedian

CitrusHigh

  • Guest
Re: Your take on typically harmful viruses, bacteria, etc.
« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2013, 02:30:23 am »
I used a lot of all caps in this post, I'm not shouting, I'm in a hurry and you can read them as italicized for emphasis, not shouting.  Please, just put on my lenses (figuratively speaking, I'm 20/20 lol!) for a second and try to prove your ideas wrong. If you do so, you'll see them crumble, but you have to focus on the human genome project, epigenetics and the MOST up to date MS science, but looking at only the facts, not the conclusions the institutions draw from them.
______________________________________________________________________________

That is NOT true, a virus is an inert, information packet, it only activates under certain conditions (biosignals!!!) , jesus, it's not even alive!

For all the wisdom you've gained, you are STILL buying in to mainstream, arrogance, ignorance and fear based ideas. Your DNA is 5/6th virus, peeps are just going to have to get over it! For 99.999999% of their existence, these information packets are do nothing to cause symptoms, and possibly nothing at all. BTW, when Aajonus says that your body produces viruses, does that not seem reasonable to you? If your code is 5/6th virus, then it has the BLUEPRINTS to BUILD (that's what DNA's for!!!) not only human tissue and bone, but also viral or viral-like structures. And the PhD (Betsey Dexter Dyer) claims that the distinction is not a real big deal, basically viruses, both.

You have to understand that we're in LOCKSTEP evolution with everything around us. It's not about the microbes being particularly virulent, it's just that we're all evolving (and ironically enough viruses are a huge part of that evolution (due to their ability to transfer genetic code between different organisms omg that's incredible!!!)

I'll have more later and we'll continue this discussion because it's the crux of the whole plot thing. Until people get this right, you're going to continue to operate on incorrect premises. (I will allow the small caveat that something like ebola may be the exception that proves the rule, however, I don't believe that to be the case and at least right now, if I could expose myself to test that theory I would.)  Those incorrect premises, which are at the foundation of health and therefore how you experience life, will cause a chain reaction of problems down the line. ie The world around you.  Have a great day everyone!

Offline ys

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,323
    • View Profile
Re: Your take on typically harmful viruses, bacteria, etc.
« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2013, 03:26:05 am »
Quote
Metaphysically, a so-called harmful bacteria is the manifestation of wrong intentions or wrong actions.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Offline LePatron7

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,672
    • View Profile
Re: Your take on typically harmful viruses, bacteria, etc.
« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2013, 03:32:38 am »
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I didn't quite understand that either.
Disclaimer: I was told I was misdiagnosed over 10 years ago, and I haven't taken any medication in over a decade.

Offline Iguana

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,043
  • Gender: Male
  • Eating tuna fish
    • View Profile
Re: Your take on typically harmful viruses, bacteria, etc.
« Reply #8 on: January 04, 2013, 03:37:37 am »
A NEW THEORETICAL MODEL OF VIRAL PHENOMENA

I already gave this link several times. Did some of you read it? I read the original version in French long ago, I don't know if this translation is clear or on the contrary lacks understandability.

Excerpt:

Quote
A possible new theoretical model for viral phenomena

Given the pre-requisite of a paleolithic diet, in line with the genetic needs of the body, the absence or alleviation of symptoms denoting viral diseases should, by rights, warrant rethinking the very concept of viral diseases as it has so far been defined.

A preventive interpretation would be conceding quite simply that eating a natural diet is more protective against a viral onslaught. Be that as it may, one could view the problem in an entirely differetn light, and no longer consider the virus as a pathogenic agent per se, inasmuch as pathogenic symptoms ought to be investigated, rather, in some factors that prove the genetic unsuitability of unnatural food.

More to the point, it would be worth considering whether viruses, that are so common in the natural world, are not endowed with a biological assignment whose telic meaning is a closed book to contemporary medecine - at any rate, when it comes to humain beings (MALTZMAN, 1981), (ZHDANOV, 1974).

In this connection, Burger notes that virtually all viral diseases present with discharges : phlegm, perspiration, rashes, diarrheoa, gravid waters, over secretion of skin oils, specific body odours and so on, with the backing of such common experiential evidence, on the one hand, and current data provided put forward by enzymology, molecular biology, virology, and immunology, he propounds the following suggestion, to wit : besides coding for conditions necessary for the replication of viral particules, DNA or viral RNA also sequences protein synthesis to enable the body to clear given molecules alien to normal metabolism that might have built up within the cells.

Admittedly, retro-viruses are only endowed with a highly restricted genome and only synthesize a minute number of differeing proteins whose functions have in most cases already been documented. However, a given protein may, nonetheless, evince a dual function, the first one pertaining to the replication of the virus and the second being in an as yet little understood process of serviceability to the cell. Biology has been known to have such surprises in store for us : many organs exhibit manifold functions, and some genes may be decoded by staggering a nucleotide and, thus, giving rise to two different and yet functional proteins, and so on. Not inconceivably, a viral protein could, for instance, be construed both to suppress viral replication and also to bind with a given group of alien molecules in order to ferry them out of the cell. In such a way, would viral swarm be bound up with a concentration of alien molecules, which would account for the self-regulatory process adverted bo by Burger in his clinical studies.

In the light of the foregoing, viruses, or, at any rate, some viruses would have to be viewed as complementing the immune system as traditionally described. The system ensures the synthesis of anti-bodies comissioned to clear antigens within body fluids, whereas viruses would hypothetically be agents for some kind of intracellular immune function empowering them for the upkeep of law and order inside cells.

In other words, the virus provides the cell with whatever genetic material it requires to identify and clear molecules it cannot control, through its own genetic code, and, signally, molecules alien to normal breakdown taken up by the body from various environmental sources, including foods incorpating molecules that the body is not genetically equipped to deal with. The symptoms that show up during viral development are said to express the difficulty a body has in clearing those same alien molecules, much more so than in waging a putative struggle against the actual virus.
Cause and effect are distant in time and space in complex systems, while at the same time there’s a tendency to look for causes near the events sought to be explained. Time delays in feedback in systems result in the condition where the long-run response of a system to an action is often different from its short-run response. — Ronald J. Ziegler

Offline raw-al

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,961
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Your take on typically harmful viruses, bacteria, etc.
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2013, 03:16:20 am »
I didn't quite understand that either.
meta means - indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

Basically the physical body is linked to the emotional self, in other words your emotions will affect your body, ie anger will trigger ulcers, and conversely illnesses will trigger emotions, ie. feeling crappy and dumping on others and complaining when you are sick. It's like a dog chasing it's tail.

When you eat crap, (technical term) you feel crappy, (another tech term) which weakens your body (both things do) and bacteria settles in to feed on the crap.
Cheers
Al

Offline LePatron7

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,672
    • View Profile
Re: Your take on typically harmful viruses, bacteria, etc.
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2013, 03:41:01 am »
and bacteria settles in to feed on the crap.

I agree bacteria feeds on things you don't absorb, that are typically bad, minus fiber and cellulose of course. Guar gum, maltodextrin, etc.

http://www.breakingtheviciouscycle.info/knowledge_base/detail/carbohydrates-food-labeling-and-indigestible-carbohydrates/

But I completely disagree that bacteria and viruses, and even parasites, eat away at "degenerative tissue."

I believe the body has a natural way of getting rid of degenerative tissue. Degenerative tissue is just replaced with raw nutrients. The body even does that when you're not on a raw diet, however you're just replacing bad nutrients with bad nutrients that way. On a raw diet at least when it's replaced it's replaced with good nutrients.
Disclaimer: I was told I was misdiagnosed over 10 years ago, and I haven't taken any medication in over a decade.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk