Hey, sometimes no "Church" is the way to go. I like the idea of the Amish model of faith. It is basic and dispenses with the all the self help psychobabble that has infected most of Modern Christianity. I don't blame you. Most places leave an impression with me of a powerless and shallow faith that is unable to stand when the heat is turned up. Professing Christ and His resurrection is the most important thing because without that, we have no faith or hope.

As far as the debate between Germ and Terrain, I do fall more to the Terrain side. You are most definitely correct that most of the history with modern medical models completely based upon Germ Theory are extremely flawed and have been corrupted for profit. On that, you will get no argument from me. I just would like to see the Terrain view moved into some real honest research with some results that can prove its assertions - one way or the other. Until then, I am sort of stuck working with the elements of Germ that do hold some weight in application. Unfortunately, when dealing with sick patients, sometimes these loftier debates at the time have no practical use. But, I do approach my treatments cognizant that Terrain is crucial if there are to be any long lasting movement towards health.

Like I already stated, I think the real answer is lying somewhere in-between these two theories - in that gray area. The conclusions of research are never that cut and dry no matter how much they try to present it as such. It always leads to more questions typically than answers if it is approached in an honest unbiased manner.

Bacteria and parasites, now those are critters that can make some people really sick. Hell, you can see them with the naked eye or under a microscope. I have even grown a few of them in the lab. But, viruses? Now that is a topic that never set well with me - even in college. Everything that has sprang out of the idea of no-see-ums that are out there making us sick always appeared very weak to me and I never have bought into it. That is one of the main reasons I was never a vaxxine pusher. I can't even begin to tell you how the entire sham built up around the rationale for treating something that seems completely contrived is just plain wrong. All of it flies right in the face of common sense biology. In fact, the entire medical model temple needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt with new ideas and new minds.

But as I also stated, this is not a debate between either approach as the end all to be all. I just do not think it is that polarized based upon my own experience as a clinician and a researcher for several decades. I have no qualms about chucking prior paradigms in exchange for newer ways of thinking that can demonstrate validity.

Thank you again for taking the time to respond. Have a great rest of your day and an awesome weekend.

Hey, sometimes no "Church" is the way to go. I like the idea of the Amish model of faith. It is basic and dispenses with the all the self help psychobabble that has infected most of Modern Christianity. I don't blame you. Most places leave an impression with me of a powerless and shallow faith that is unable to stand when the heat is turned up. Professing Christ and His resurrection is the most important thing because without that, we have no faith or hope.

As far as the debate between Germ and Terrain, I do fall more to the Terrain side. You are most definitely correct that most of the history with modern medical models completely based upon Germ Theory are extremely flawed and have been corrupted for profit. On that, you will get no argument from me. I just would like to see the Terrain view moved into some real honest research with some results that can prove its assertions - one way or the other. Until then, I am sort of stuck working with the elements of Germ that do hold some weight in application. Unfortunately, when dealing with sick patients, sometimes these loftier debates at the time have no practical use. But, I do approach my treatments cognizant that Terrain is crucial if there are to be any long lasting movement towards health.

Like I already stated, I think the real answer is lying somewhere in-between these two theories - in that gray area. The conclusions of research are never that cut and dry no matter how much they try to present it as such. It always leads to more questions typically than answers if it is approached in an honest unbiased manor.

Bacteria and parasites, now those are critters that can make some people really sick. Hell, you can see them with the naked eye or under a microscope. I have even grown a few of them in the lab. But, viruses? Now that is a topic that never set well with me - even in college. Everything that has sprang out of the idea of no-see-ums that are out there making us sick always appeared very weak to me and I never have bought into it. That is one of the main reasons I was never a vaxxine pusher. I can't even begin to tell you how the entire sham built up around the rationale for treating something that seems completely contrived is just plain wrong. All of it flies right in the face of common sense biology. In fact, the entire medical model temple needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt with new ideas and new minds.

But as I also stated, this is not a debate between either approach as the end all to be all. I just do not think it is that polarized based upon my own experience as a clinician and a researcher for several decades. I have no qualms about chucking prior paradigms in exchange for newer ways of thinking that can demonstrate validity.

Thank you again for taking the time to respond. Have a great rest of your day and an awesome weekend.