I've read lots of AV's material, as well as much of the information from the "naysayers" at AV Skeptics.
His idea about parasites being beneficial fascinates me, although his proof for such a statement seems to come from anecdotal and/or seemingly irrelevant evidence -- which I have trouble buying into. The study about parasitic worms being helpful for IBD, for example, does not necessarily mean that every parasite out there would be as helpful. What about
trichinosis, which causes brain damage? And what about animals and humans that die from parasitic infestations?
I suppose AV's response would be that these animals and humans were also malnourished when they died from the infestation, which is probably true. Eating pounds of raw meat would theoretically (according to AV) prevent the parasite from becoming overwhelming and fatal. I know that many tribal cultures live with parasites and appear to remain healthy. However, whether or not they have less serious conditions from the parasites would be interesting to know (chronic diarrhea, IBS, or a general malaise -- all annoying conditions that won't kill you, but are not fun to have nonetheless).
Maybe the answer lays somewhere in the middle. Some parasites are beneficial. Some aren't. But to say without conclusive evidence that ALL parasites are beneficial could potenially endanger AV's readers.
The reason I'm interested in this is because I've had IBS-like problems for years and found out recently that I have
blastocystis hominis, a common parasite in folks with digestive problems. So do I eliminate it or put up with my IBS (which may not even be from the parasite) hoping that it will end up being beneficial in the long run?
Oh, vey, the contradictions!!
Linear Mode
