All humans, including scientists, are inclined to jump to conclusions; even though we know digging for facts is much better (and more productive) "exercise". A more-detached, less-intimidated consideration of related facts would suggest that a number of widespread THEORIES that have become ACCEPTED as fact MAY have originated by the FIRST method --- jumping to conclusions --- and thus are actually only assumptions --- if not mere pre-conceived notions.

Micro-organisms have been demonstrated to exist (some can even be seen directly with optical microscopes), are nearly always present in certain "diseased" conditions and even appear to be involved in some way in the "spreading" of some "diseases". So it's generally ASSUMED they CAUSE the "disease". It may SOUND logical enough --- on the surface. But it's based on VERY SKETCHY "circumstantial evidence". --- Think about it. --- When we notice vultures, maggots or other scavengers nearly always present at dead carcasses do we assume they CAUSED the dead carcass? And will killing or otherwise eliminating the scavengers prevent or "cure" the condition? Or, are we missing a "bigger picture", here? My father, (a licensed non- medical health-care professional for many years) used to ask: "Now, the FIRST person who ever had this disease --- who did they CATCH it from?"

Are you thinking: "Who do you think you are to be questioning this most "sacred" concept of disease?" If so, the answer is: Nobody special. Just a person who can read, think, observe, and reason --- and who is willing to do so even when the facts lead to unpopular conclusions. As discussed in [ Part 4. Is It Scientific? ], "science" is NOT a "sacred body of knowledge". The word itself comes from an older-language root word that simply means "to know", and was originally coined to describe a METHOD of learning or "coming to know"--- careful, deliberate, UNBIASED examination of observable facts. As acknowledged at the beginning of this part, that's a tall order for human-nature-as-we-know-it, but it CAN be accomplished. At least, some of the time. And it is not an "exclusive club". So you are legally and ethically free to participate. So, if you're willing to engage in a little "exercise", think carefully about the following:

The human body is often compared to a machine. And it truly IS one of the greatest mechanical-and-more marvels in the natural world. But it's also a "structure" (like a bridge or a building). Like the body, both machines and structures require maintenance; but, unlike the body, nothing human-made repairs and maintains itself. That is truly one of life's greatest marvels. Yet, our body's continuous internal maintenance functions closely resemble those of a building. ---Think of a very large industrial laboratory/office complex, for example. While some maintenance goes on around the clock, such as patrolling lobbies and corridors for trash and spills as a matter of safety as well as appearance; the SERIOUS maintenance starts after the place closes for the day. Not just trash pickup, cleaning, polishing and restoration of vulnerable materials like floor finish. If it's a very large (or very old) complex, there will nearly always be some areas in the process of being completely "gutted" and restored, rebuilt or remodeled.

While this latter process greatly extends the usefulness (and, usually, structural soundness) of the building, it produces a great deal of debris ---IN ADDITION TO the trash the janitorial crew carries out every night from the daily course of doing business. A process very similar to our body's metabolism and it's replacement and disposal of worn-out cells IN ADDITION TO the waste byproducts from digesting, assimilating and producing energy from the food we eat. And, yes; the bulk of this "repair" work goes on while we're asleep --- after WE'RE "closed for the day". (See why sleep-deprivation is so serious?)

Now, what do you think would become of all this building maintenance in the event of a general sanitation strike? Business as usual? --- For a few days, perhaps --- until the normal pick-up area outside the back door gets full. Then trash would start to accumulate INSIDE the back door, then along the back corridor, finally in ALL the corridors (the "arteries" of all the building's activity); until everyone is stepping over and around it. Production slows down during the day. (Ever get that sluggish feeling?) Maintenance and repair are hindered at night. (We notice when "flesh wounds" heal slowly, but internal deterioration of our body may remain invisible for years.) Finally, it becomes almost impossible to accomplish ANYTHING in the building --- OR in our body; which by then may be "at death's door" while the doctor is trying to "pull us through".

If the day crew and the maintenance crew are under enough deadline pressure to "produce", and repeated attempts to resolve the waste problem are unsuccessful long enough, somebody will eventually give up in total frustration and start throwing it out the windows. (Ever have boils, pimples, abscesses or a discharge of similar material from sinuses and bronchial tubes? Wherever and however it comes out, it's essentially the same "crud". The body HAS to get rid of its metabolic debris in SOME WAY in order to function and stay alive --- just as ashes must be removed regularly from a fireplace so as not to eventually smother the fire.)

That brings us to another building-maintenance / health-maintenance comparison: If the building's trash and other debris stays piled up in the corridors and outside holding areas long enough, it's almost certain to become infested with vermin --- from roaches to rats to who knows what else --- just as accumulations of biological waste material anywhere in the human body will almost always contain "undesirable" (by SOME standards) micro-organisms. Now, did the VERMIN in the building CAUSE the FILTHY CONDITION to develop, or did the filth DRAW the vermin? Would not the same logical conclusion apply to our bodies? Why should we think this "cause and effect" relationship would be totally different inside a multi-celled living organism?

Sure, life is a "miracle". But nothing "mystical" or "magical" goes on inside. The same laws of physics (and logic) apply there as in the "outside world". There's no biological "black magic". Just because certain micro-organisms detect in us (while we're still alive no less) the kind of dead and decaying organic material they were designed to "recycle" (and --- eager to go to work --- produce results we were not desinged to live with as they clean up the mess that was not supposed to have existed to that degree until we were dead) does not make them our "natural enemies"; but MAY explain the effectiveness of quarantine --- which apparently keeps us far enough away that the microscopic "recycling crew" does not "see" us --- as carrion --- and as their next work assignment. Similarly, my father (the licensed non-medical health-care professional mentioned above) used to insist that AT LEAST 90% of all our ills in the "Western World" come about from two primary contributing factors: Failure to put INTO our bodies the proper cleaning and building materials (poor nutrition --- that WE may believe is excellent); and the body's failure to properly ELIMINATE it's waste materials.

Acceptance of the widely held ASSUMPTION mentioned at the beginning of this part requires belief either that an "all-wise and loving creator" DESIGNED certain micro-organisms to make us sick and shorten our life, OR that life IS merely an accidental eternal struggle for "survival of the fittest". But, neither view accounts for all the observable evidence. Scientific researchers tell us the soil is teeming with numerous varieties of micro-organisms WITHOUT WHICH no larger plant life could survive. Others find in our intestines a similar array of bacteria without which we could not digest our food to continue living. In spite of abundant SPECULATION to the contrary, the most carefully observed EVIDENCE indicates that all life is designed to support other life in some way. So, if any living thing APPEARS to be an enemy, something is either out of balance, out of place, or grossly misunderstood.

Have you ever noticed how "natural science" often marvels at the "order" and "wisdom" in "nature", while so-called "civilization" seems obsessed with refining, refashioning or otherwise "remodeling" nature as if it were a blunder, controlling it as if it were demented, or even conquering it as if it were an enemy? In similar contrast, if we see "natural healing" as merely a safer, less toxic way of "fighting pathogens", we're missing the whole point of natural healing. Truly-natural healing is not an "alternative" remedy or even an ongoing "therapy"; it's a way of life --- even more --- an entirely different CONCEPT of life. --- Think about it.

According to some medical historians, a number of very competent scientists disagreed with the microbial-cause-of-illness view from it's very inception. But that's the view that "sold" to big business and the self-indulgent human nature of the majority of it's customers. (You know how we tend to love convenience and other pleasures more than even life itself --- that view sort of "absolves" us of much of the responsibility for the consequences of our unwise lifestyle choices.) So now that view is automatically thoughtlessly accepted ---and apparently a part of the "personal religion" of both the religious AND irreligious majority of the "western world". (---possibly even around the globe, but this editor has not had the opportunity to become intimately acquainted with the "pseudo-religious" feelings of most other cultures --- and, yes, "non-religious" people can have such feelings; observe how SOME environmentalists, "animal rights" activists and others exibit what amount to deeply "religious" feelings about their cause even when they profess no formal religion.)