How Does the Flu Actually Kill People?

Antoine Béchamp died over one hundred years ago; his work is hardly an example of cutting-edge research, and his hypotheses about the causes of infectious disease did not stand up to the test of time.

It is important to consume a balanced diet—nothing faddish, just maintain balance between the necessary macronutrients and consume sufficient micronutrients. But eating well and exercising can only go so far. You will still become ill if you are exposed to an infectious dose of a pathogen for which your body has no antibodies.

Pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms evolved to bypass our immune systems. Some pathogens are incredibly adept at not only evading our immune systems, but altering themselves to evade the active immune system, which is the component of immunity that kicks into action by producing antibodies when you are exposed to a pathogen.

If you are not in good health, then you become susceptible to illness from microorganisms that do not make healthy people sick. Also, as you age, your immune system declines and becomes less capable of fighting pathogens; this is why older people are so prone to infectious disease and why they must remain extra-vigilant about possible exposure.

Neither is germ theory - originated by Béchamp's contemporary, Pasteur - cutting edge research.

Béchamp didn't posit that infectious disease is caused by terrain, but that terrain is the most important line of initial defense against germs.

Without denying the principle of germ theory, Béchamp showed germ entry and foothold is determined by terrain.

As you may know through your research, Béchamp and Pasteur were rivals. It is written at the end of Pasteur's life...

"The irony is that towards the end of his life, Pasteur renounced the germ theory and admitted that Bechamp was right all along. In the 1920’s medical historians also discovered that most of Pasteur’s theories were plagiarized from Bechamp’s early research work."

[I do not have specific references outside many articles on the internet that recite the same things, like this one: http://maronewellness.com/pasteur-vs-bechamp-an-alternative-view-of-infectious-disease/ - nor do I have time today to find them, but I post this link for any readers who have an interest.]

As such, you are looking at one side of the coin. It is a very important side, but you've left the side of the coin that determines if germs gain a foothold.

Here are some things I think you got right and I agree with you:

♦︎ It is important to consume a balanced diet—nothing faddish, just maintain balance between the necessary macronutrients and consume sufficient micronutrients.
♦︎ If you are not in good health, then you become susceptible to illness from microorganisms that do not make healthy people sick.
♦︎ Also, as you age, your immune system declines and becomes less capable of fighting pathogens; this is why older people are so prone to infectious disease and why they must remain extra-vigilant about possible exposure.

But eating well and exercising can only go so far.

Sure.This is a truism about everything. Nothing goes all the way.

You will still become ill if you are exposed to an infectious dose of a pathogen for which your body has no antibodies.

And here is where we disagree.

You posit that lack of specific antibodies determine illness.

It happens in the face of no other immune system strength. Your argument, where we disagree, is that the totality of immune response is antibodies for a specific pathogen. I find this a very one-dimensional view. The body is far more complex. Mucus membranes, oxygen level, body PH, etc. all determine if the pathogen can even get a foothold and if it is significant or if it is extremely muted as it is eliminated.

Once it has been present, the body has the advantage of antibodies to that specific pathogen, yes. Here we agree. This is am important system within the immune systems that protect a body.

Some pathogens are incredibly adept at not only evading our immune systems, but altering themselves to evade the active immune system, which is the component of immunity that kicks into action by producing antibodies when you are exposed to a pathogen.

Yes, as far as you go - but again, I note you are assuming the active immune system is the totality of body defense, which it is not.

In any case, I wish you good health.

Kind regard and Merry Christmas.

Neither is germ theory - originated by Béchamp's contemporary, Pasteur - cutting edge research.

Germ theory has been born out by over 100 years of research by thousands of researchers.

In my own work, I don't pay much attention to *any* 100+ year old research--I look for the cutting edge. Which these days, is not about gathering more evidence for the germ theory of disease transmission, but about delving into how and why specific pathogens cause the diseases they do. No scientist who specializes in infectious disease would even imagine questioning the fact that pathogens cause infectious disease.

Also, FYI, the story about how Louis Pasteur supposedly renounced his life's work--it's not verifiable from any reliable source.

You will still become ill if you are exposed to an infectious dose of a pathogen for which your body has no antibodies.

And here is where we disagree.

You posit that lack of specific antibodies determine illness.

Let me be very clear here: my statement must be taken in its totality. There are many kinds of illnesses that are not caused by infectious disease at all. If you were exposed to a noxious chemical, you would become ill, but your symptoms and your recovery would not have anything to do with your immunity at all. Very clearly, and very specifically, if you are exposed to an infectious dose of a pathogen against which your body has no protective antibodies, you will become ill.

Your disagreement is not with me, but with the entire infectious disease scientist community. I am only a mouthpiece for the information.

I very specifically did not mention passive immunity, because 1) I am only talking about pathogens that the body develops specific immune responses to, 2) a discussion of passive immunity in this context can greatly complicate any discussion without adding any pertinent information, and 3) this is not a scientific forum, but a political forum where I can count the number of scientific experts on one or two hands, so I have no desire to go into all of the factors that scientists look at (and that we love to discuss among ourselves).

Your passive immunity protects you from exposure to thousands or millions of microorganisms every day. You breathe them, you eat them, they enter your skin through even invisible breaks, and you remain blissfully unaware of this continuous assault because you do have the passive immune system. Pathogens, however, are a small subclass of microorganisms that have evolved to evade your body's passive defenses. To survive being exposed to an infectious dose of pathogens, your body must be able to mount an antibody-mediated immune response. No antibody response, you die.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.