The One Thing that Shocks Dentists
Diet Recovery: e-Book Review
Assembly Line Orthodontics Can Damage Faces
Pediatric Dentistry – Possible Inadequacies
Magical Toothpaste Too Good To Be True
Fluoride: A Toxic Waste, Part 2
Sugar Alcohols and Tooth Decay
Mounting Environmental Mercury Concerns – But What About Our Mouths?
Type 2 Diabetes Epidemic in Children; Dentistry and Tooth DecayBacteria Does Not Cause Disease – Raw Milk And Tooth Decay
I am sharing with you part of an article written by regarding health and bacteria with his permission to reprint it here. At the end I will add some reflections about what this means for disease and tooth decay.
From Aajonus:
Hi, healthy-food lovers
The article was more favorable to our right to have the foods we want in a major magazine, including raw milk but the details of the article are not so favorable. Everyone continues to argue about bacteria. Bacteria is not the problem.
I do not understand why the New Yorker author reiterated the fraudulent disease “statistics” from CDC, the health department, universities and processed-food employees and investors as if the statistics were based on science and fact, especially since they possess such a superstitious prejudice against raw milk. I gave her research which proved that calling bacteria the food problem is an intentional misdirection and a way for government and industry to gain control of our food.
The misinformation starts with the Pasteur info, which was stated as if it were case history. The Sorbonne's Pasteur Institute of the time was hot on the heals of Pasteur's heat process that stopped the molding of his friend's wine grapes, thereby saving his friend's land that he would have lost if his grapes were not made into wine and sold. The Sorbonne jumped on Pasteur's coat tails at the time to ride the notoriety as if they had helped Pasteur with his idea. However, they gave credibility to each other and captured the ears and lips of Europe with the publicity that pasteurization arrested the mold in picked grapes. The medical community jumped on the bandwagon stating that Pasteur's process proved that germs caused disease as well as molds, and that they could be stopped.
However, it was not widely publicized that the wine was abominable to the connoisseur, not sold at posh markets and restaurants but sold to the impoverished who normally could not afford wine. Neither the grower nor Pasteur would drink it. The pasteurized wine was of tainted quality mainly because of pasteurization. It was sold, but it sold cheap.
The affluent class that had experienced failed wine crops in the past now had a market for a processed cheap and inferior food in case mold grew in their grapes. They would never suffer a complete loss again. The market was the trusting poor public in Paris who thought they were getting a drink from the rich man's table. It was sold and marketed as such. There were many reports of illness from consumption of the pasteurized wine, including irrational behavior, increased home and work accidents and violence. Pasteurization alters enzymes, minerals and trace fats which would normally restrict the fast absorption of radical sugars and alcohol that often cause undesirable personality alterations.
While being interviewed for almost two hours for the article, I explained to the author how the CDC and health departments base their statistics about raw-milk borne disease on surveys not science. That should have been obvious when it could have been verified that Organic Pastures' milk did not cause those children's illnesses because there was none of that bacteria in the milk. Bacteria in a calf that does not produce milk and the fact that that bacteria does not survive airborne should be enough to demonstrate that the illnesses were not caused by the raw milk they consumed but by something else.
Also, the girls who were obviously sick and hospitalized in San Diego – whose sickness was caused by something other than Organic Pastures' raw milk – received massive amounts of antibiotics such as Ciprofloxacin which caused kidney disorders exactly like those of HUS in laboratory animals. Therefore, it was likely the antibiotics in such massive concentrations caused the kidney damage, not the bacteria for which the suffering girls were being treated, which was wrongly blamed on raw milk. The article misleads every reader into believing that raw milk caused and causes illnesses because it falsely presumes that raw milk is innately prone to "bad" bacteria. It seems that even David and Mark believe it.
Utilizing the statement from a health "authority" that pasteurization makes milk safe was a blatant falsehood. The word "claim" did not appear before that statement. In the history of pasteurized milk, there have been over 500,000 scientifically-proven incidences of food poisoning, literally epidemics, one involving 197,000 people. Raw milk is condemned by accusations – not science but surveys and statistics.
When a doctor or a hospital reports bloody vomit or diarrhea, usually it is 2-12 weeks after the incident that a health-department clerk calls the person who suffered and asks what they ate when they got sick. Who remembers all that they ate yesterday, much less weeks after an intense illness? If the person states that they drank raw milk, raw milk is automatically determined to be the cause. That is not science but prejudicial survey-spinning false statistics. CDC and others certainly spin it, creating misleading statistics.
Technically, we should not call vomit and diarrhea sicknesses. We should call them what they are. A person's body rejects something that is toxic with vomit or diarrhea. Those are not sicknesses but detoxification of something poisonous. If the tests were done to detect industrial chemicals in the vomit and diarrhea instead of the microbes, we would have a proper answer for their cause.
I have seen literally thousands of very sick individuals recover from disease by drinking raw dairy and eating raw meats. I do not know how "investigative" journalists sleep at night with their poor research. It seems nothing is investigated very thoroughly and the status quo concepts continue to be regurgitated and accepted as unquestionable truths. A proper investigation would entail a study of the children and elderly who completely recovered from their illnesses while drinking raw milk. A good comparative study would entail children and elderly people who remained trapped in their diseases while not drinking raw milk but taking medical drugs that offer no cure or proper healing.
Take for example Walker Kerhrer who was an asthmatic boy on medication. At 7 years old, he stopped taking his medication and began consuming raw milk. At 8 years old in 2001, he testified before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors that before he drank raw milk he suffered terrible asthma and that when he did not have his raw milk, he suffered terrible asthma. In 2009, Walker was the top high school tennis champion in the USA. From asthma to tennis champion; will that fact be filed away in medical- and university-indoctrinated minds as anecdotal information? How will you file it?
Notice that the the New Yorker article stated that my recovery from blood, bone, lymphatic and stomach cancers were merely my personal claims. She could have easily researched the truth by seeking the records at the hospitals where I was treated. She didn't ask for proof. I could have shown her photos of my surgical scars to verify but she did not ask and I did not think to offer. I have a letter written by one of my doctors 44 years ago that berated me for discontinuing chemo treatments with a 1% chance of living miserably for one more month. In the letter, the doctor tried to emotionally manipulate me into continuing a process that caused me to vomit, defecate and urinate all over myself 5-20 times daily. Such doctors are insane. From medical treatments, I was a hairless worm on the floor in excruciating pain 24 hours daily, only able to sleep 6-10 minutes before I would awake in greater excruciating pain. I suffered other severe side effects from all of the medical treatments.
However, when I began drinking raw milk and raw carrot juice, my symptoms immediately began to diminish little by little. After a while, I noticed that when I drank more raw milk than carrot juice, I experienced less pain. When I drank more carrot juice than raw milk, I suffered more. I was able to achieve a measurable balance. The correlation between foods and health became very apparent to me even though doctors were in complete denial about it. To them, only pharmaceuticals - industrial chemicals - favorably altered health.
All health departments and universities are controlled by medically indoctrinated propaganda instituted by the money and power of the pharmaceutical industry. They have only drops of objectivity when it comes to their brainwashed bacteria-phobic thought processes.
Every bodily process occurs by the interaction of numerous species of bacteria, inter-cellularly, extra-cellularly and bodily fluids, including all of the activities in and of the body. We are 150 bacteria genes to every one human gene. We are about 0.5% human and 99.5% bacteria. The concept that bacteria cause diseases is called the germ theory. It entails the ludicrous notion that a tiny colony of certain terrorist bacteria can willy-nilly overwhelm the the body, even cause the body to attack itself. That is as accurate as a small village of 200 natives with primitive weapons arresting and annihilating all of the people in the United States of America. That sort of phenomenon only happens in fictional movies. It is an absurdity. Why do people believe it? Because our minds are literally turned against natural fact.
The bacteria that is being accused of causing diseases (so-called "pathogenic") are actually cellular janitors. They clean up organic waste. We all have varieties of bacteria that digest (disassemble), construct (reassemble) and cleanse (collect waste, neutralize toxins, and select reusable waste while discarding waste that is not reusable).
When laboratory technicians put live animal cells in an unnatural industrial chemical fluid environment that sustains cellular life it also denigrates the cells simultaneously. Cells that are not in their natural biological fluids degenerate and/or transmogrify.
The bacteria that are naturally part of the cleansing of such degeneration are propagated within the cells, coming out of hibernation to eat and/or transform the chemically damaged cell tissue. In cases where the chemical environment causes mutations, bacterial genes are transmogrified and so therefore are the cells. In laboratories, Petri dish observers see that the cells are being eaten, dissolved or transmogrified by the cleansing (janitorial) bacteria and say, "See, those cells are causing cellular disruption and dissolution. They cause disease." The naturally occurring follow-up thinking becomes, "How can we make money from this? Let's create millions of weapons of mass destruction that we will call antibiotics, antiseptics and antimicrobials. We'll make a fortune."
Do we blame the janitors for the waste they clean in our homes and offices? Do we blame the janitors who clean the pollution that mutates our janitors and gives them diseases? Some day soon, I hope that people will awaken and realize that industrial chemicals, including those formed by cooking and processing, cause all disease. We must stop blaming bacteria or we will never understand our bodies. Bacteria are never the problem.
However, bacterial waste can be highly toxic when bacteria are fed foods containing industrial chemicals. Take for instance, intestinal bacteria that are supposed to make up 90% of digestion. They eat the food we eat. Their waste is our food that we absorb. Their feces, urine and perspiration are our foods. When the bacteria eat foods with gross toxins, they release those toxins as a natural product of the toxic food.
Bacteria are not to blame for our diseases. The chemical farmers and processors are to blame. If people acknowledge those facts, who would they find to buy non-organic and processed food, and medical drugs? Our politicians and business people say the economy is at stake so to hell with health, let's keep up the economy. Is the economy more important than living in a healthy body? That is a question each of us must answer.
The drugs that cause most disease are vaccines. Every ingredient is toxic in every vaccine. There are no exceptions. Together, the ingredients are a soup of toxins that have no proof of effectiveness for preventing the disease for which they are given. However, there are volumes of science that prove those toxins cause illness and disease in laboratory animals.
The reason that those toxins in vaccines may seem to work in some people is that the body stops the janitorial bacteria from cleaning old organic waste and accumulated toxins. Instead, most bodies focus on the immediate toxins from vaccines. It will take a body many years to handle, neutralize, eliminate or store those toxins from a direct injection of toxic fluids. So the normal diseases that result from toxic living are temporarily subdued but increasing.
The body responds to most drugs in the same way: temporary cessation of disease symptoms but increased toxicity that leads to greater disease. The people who benefit are all of those who invest and work in medical-related fields while decaying people's health. If everyone were healthy, medical-related businesses and employees would be out of business and work.
Only if you are sick, do they profit. Do you really think they want you healthy? Those who want people to be healthy yet continue to work in the medical fields are in total denial and ignorant of the results of what they really do.
When I speak of organic, I do not refer to the USDA's corrupt version of organic that allows hundreds of industrial chemicals to enter the grounds that grow plants and animals for food as long as it does not exceed 15%. Fifteen percent chemicals can and does cause massive harm to animal cells, most often gradually but sometimes immediately.
In closing, our food safety should not be predicated on the notion of bacteria, species of bacteria or bacterial behavior. The safety and quality of our food should be based solely on absence of disease-causing industrial chemicals in food, even if those chemicals do their damage ever so slowly for the purpose of growing fast, pretty food with long shelf lives. What is more important?
Let me drive it home: The bacterial chemistry jargon of the medical/chemical industries is used to terrorize people into believing it has validity. Common sense observation will tell you the truth. Observe how many creatures on this planet lick their rectums 5-100 times daily without getting diseases. How many lick others' rectums daily and do not get diseases from it? How many infant creatures suck mother's milk without teat-dips and washes and do not get diseases from that? How many creatures eat the feces of other animals when they eat another creature?
No, I am not saying that those are desirable activities for humans, but they are not innately dangerous. I would never suggest that anyone eat their own feces or any human feces, although it has been proven to save lives. There is no more toxic animal on this planet than the human being, apart from domesticated dogs and cats fed on foods that are the worst commercial foods of all. Their feces are contaminated with toxic pathogenic industrial chemicals. Bacteria is not a problem of disease.
--------
From Ramiel Nagel, author of Cure Tooth Decay
As I teach people on my website and in my book Cure Tooth Decay, it is a mistake for modern dentistry to point its finger at bacteria as the cause of disease. The reason for this problem has to do with the law of personal responsibility. If bacteria are to blame for our health problems, then there is nothing you or I as individuals can do to create health other than kill or destroy bacteria. Yet the war to kill bacteria is fruitless. When health authorities point to dangers of food from the perspective of bacteria, they white out how what really matters is the quality of the food, how it is prepared and how it is handled. I urge you to reconsider your perspective that disease is caused by bacteria. Rather, disease is caused by toxins. When animals are raised inhumanely, disease happens. Trying to kill bacteria just hides the disease process and helps us as individuals and society avoid being responsible for causing disease, as well as for healing disease.
Who wants to make a "war to kill bacteria?" I think bacteria must be one link in the chain. Especially in the mouth. Natural Hygiene philosophy notwithstanding, what is good for the body is not necessarily always the same as what is good for the mouth. The conditions are different. There is no 'white blood cells' to help clean up waste products like janitors. There is saliva sure, which is why we need it, need to drink enough water and have good nutrition.
Bacteria can produce toxins- especially those that thrive in a anaerobic environment. Just look at what that toxin is that can affect food inside of tin cans! Well a similar think could happen inside the anaeorobic unhealthy plaque like environment, or? (there may be also healthy plaque). One link in the chain.
And we don't have to wage war on bacteria, killing them with antibiotics or garlic. Better, we simply have to keep things clean, so that they can't set up home. We need only focus on the environment. I personally believe that clean teeth don't decay- or nearly so fast. Lo, if the cause is otherwise, why does decay always happen in the corners and deep pockets and fissures of the teeth, that aren't washed all of the time by the tongue or saliva? It always happens at least for me in the remote places. If the cause were other than bacteria producing toxins? Come on, we know that bacteria causes fermentation. We see this in the very article about the grapes. We also know that carbohydrates can ferment in the bowels, leading to alcohol production, even to the point of vomiting. I wonder if people here even use their brains. All that need be said is that this fermentation product can erode enamel over time. Well can it? I don't think that is unreasonable. Moreover, when I started flossing again (after a few years of being very arrogant and self-confident with my diet) my tight teeth, in a few places, produced such a stench that only floss brought up. it doesn't take two years to produce that, only several days as I later found out. It was such an obnoxious odor, especially only for one bit of floss to be able to reveal. So certainly this can't be healthy. Botulism is caused by bacteria, or?
We don't say make war on bacteria, to kill them. We don't blame them as the sole cause of disease, for which we are helpless. We say they form one link in the chain and we need to eat a healthy diet and maintain inner and outer cleanliness. Raw milk is healthier and tastes very good, though it (german quality) made me dizzy all the time drinking it. whatever works for you I guess.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like