>>12675925>I think normal people think very negatively about bacteria. They will probably say they are good and bad ones, but they will always name the ""bad"" ones like E.coli and Salmonella.Good. You know that much at least.
So you say:
>>12675851>I'm eating raw meat and rotten meat that aged for months, for the specific reason of more bacterial cultures on them. Why do I always feel better after that? And why was I not sick even once since I started it over a year ago.My point, if you can follow along, is that although you may be consuming bacteria, you likely aren't consuming bacteria which causes diseases.
That is why this other anon (
>>12675749) posted about Marshall drinking a broth of H. Pylori.
He knew the bacteria he was consuming. Do you know which bacteria you are consuming?
Are you capable of following my argument? I'll write it simply.
Let's starting with simple terminology. Bacteria that cause disease when eaten, call these BD (bacteria-disease), and bacteria that don't cause disease when eaten, call these BN (bacteria-no-disease).
You are eating bacteria. You don't know if you are eating any BD. You could be eating only BN. You're asking why you didn't get sick. Either you aren't eating BD or there exists no such thing as BD. But your anecdotal experience is not evidence that BD don't exist, since you haven't proven you are eating bacteria that normal people consider BD.
Have you understood?
