This isn't a red herring, is it? James Osbourne Holmes [email protected] FTNWO
-----Original Message----- From: Scharbach [SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 9:34 PM To: Fred; [email protected] Subject: CS>Re: OT Interesting stuff. . . . HA!! Just for that, I give you this!! Fish heads for your health! ;~) Sparrow Hi, Just thought I'd share this link, and the following quotes with you, and see what y'all think. Here's the link: http://www.healthfree.com/health/newsletter/news4_6c.htm I found the following, from the article, pretty interesting, and look James!! You get to talk about rotten fish heads some more!! ;~) WHY DO HEALTH DEPARTMENTS CONDEMN AND ROB US OF NATURAL FOODS? The common assumption and false premise is that microbes labeled "pathogens" are only harmful and must be eradicated. Compound that with the common assumption and false premise that if a substance is toxic at any level, it is toxic at all levels. Consider insulin, for instance. At one level insulin allows excess carbohydrates to be converted to stored sugar (glycogen) for proper utilization at another time. Too much insulin causes all carbohydrates and blood sugar to be converted into glycogen, causing the body to suffer shock that resembles seizures, which may result in respiratory and/or heart failure and/or brain damage. Consequently, we are faced with a perspective of Nature, including our bodies, that is inherently endangered no matter what we do. And we must make war within ourselves to survive and thrive. Zero exposure to "pathogens" cannot be proved, yet people believe in it. And, basically, zero exposure to "pathogens" is not possible because they are ubiquitous. Making threshold-extrapolations to generate quantitative risk estimates is pseudo science. Using the impossible criteria of zero-exposure to bacteria, to estimate risk, is pseudo science. Existing regulatory policy is based on a "better safe than sorry" premise. But in the real world of everyday practicalities where commonsense decisions are needed, it is a morally bankrupt philosophy. There is nothing "better" about the illusion of "food-safety" when it results in people using scapegoats - "pathogens" - instead of scientifically verifiable causes of actual harm. Add to this, the false premise that the elderly, infants and the infirm are more susceptible to harm from "pathogens." Considering one individual's rights to absolute protection over the well-being of others is poor social planning. Especially if the protection for the minority harms the majority. But, again, the risk to these groups is scientific speculation. I have witnessed approximately 34 cases from these so-called risk-groups in which an amount of bacterial rich, aged (rotten) raw food was consumed and successfully utilized to regain health of bowels, digestion, liver and glands, and in many cases to reverse disease. It worked favorably in all situations with only 6 experiencing minor loose bowels, or nausea and/or vomiting. Those people considered their discomfort well worth the eventual beneficial results. The Chinese, using rotten eggs, and the Eskimo, using rotten raw fish were cultures that successfully used high-bacteria food as remedies and disease-prevention. > >Isn't this is more fun then Kim Chi and fish heads? <grin> > >[email protected] -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
