tara said:To the extent that the 'terrain' is important for whether candida a. can become/remain pathological, I guess pH, local food supply in the intestine, the rest of the local microbiota, mineral status of host, intestinal barrier strength, immunity, and temperature and maybe other factors, could all be relevant. If these are all optimised for our general health, maybe c.a. is unlikely to get or maintain a dominant hold. Peat's approach is to optimise several of these parameters. I wonder which ones are most critical? Eg, I wonder if anyone suffers persistent yeast infection if they can maintain their pH in the optimal range, or keep their temperature up consistently (snap, zachs), etc .
Suikerbuk and tara--
On this whole "terrain" point of view...
"Bernard was right; the pathogen is nothing; the terrain is everything."
-- Louis Pasteur's deathbed words
...of course, I agree!
We might think of this as the general Peatian strategy.
However, Peat does sometimes think tactically as well.
For example, he has said that from time to time
he judiciously takes certain antibiotics
aimed--tactically--at "the pathogen."
Or he explores certain specific supplements/chemicals (like, say, Methylene Blue)
as tactical interventions.
So I very much support the terrain approach.
But at the same time I don't rule out tactical interventions,
and Peat would seem not to either.
With Candida, what I feel I'm grappling with as "a Peatian"
(I feel kinda uncomfortable writing that, because it feels a bit cultish, but...)
is the possibility that Peat might have a blindspot.
The remote chance that he might not know Everything!
Heretical, I know!, but there you have it.
I've wrestled in another thread...
http://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4790&hilit=antibiotics+gap
...with the possibility of such a blindspot or "gap."
Consider:
1. Peat has said sterile gut mice do great...
2. ...until they have to live in the real world where they encounter bacteria/fungi, etc
3. so, if we're to live in the real world, we best make friends with them.
4. However, he's okay with occasional careful use of antibiotics while...
5. ...at the same time recommending against probiotics, and says...
6. ...if you think you have yeast troubles, take a few dabs of sulfur on the tongue.
Bearing that chain of reasoning in mind,
I'm open to the possibility that Peat might not be the Final Word
on the existence of, nature of, possible dangers of, and treatment options for Candida.
In that kind of context,
think about this little bit I happened across
while researching Pasteur and Bernard...
http://www.culinaryreformation.com/germ-vs-terrain-theory/
It used to be more understood, prior to Pasteur’s movement, that there is a beneficial relation between our bodies and the microbial world. This is why traditional peoples let their food ferment or preserve in the forms of yogurt, sauerkraut, sourdough, cod liver oil, cured bacon, pemmican, and so much more. Good bacteria was encouraged–and valued.
Now, in modern times–apart from the sustainable food movement–the whole food industry, not to mention hospitals, prides itself on sterilization. That is Pasteur’s legacy–to wage war on the microbial world.
...Peat's general take on fermented foods
is to strongly avoid them--lactic acid.
On the other hand...they do fit in with "the terrain" Gestalt....