Confusion over the role of diet and parasites

I am throughly confused about parasites. I understand that parsites can reak havoc on ones health and that getting rid of them might be worth the effort.

Nevertheless, it would seem that some diets that would make parasites worse and (therefore health worse) are actually healing. For instance, a raw, paleolithic diet has been touted by many as a health restoring regimen because of the enzymes provided by raw food (including raw meat). Karl Loren on his website talks about this extensively. We also know from people like Jordan Ruben (Garden of Life) that live foods provide substantial health benefits.

On the other hand, it has been reported time and again by vegetarians like Dr. Shultz that uncooked meat contains thousands of parasites. If this is the case, then why are raw foodist who include raw meat re-gaining thier health? Wouldn't they be over-run with parasites.

Maybe it is simply a function of everyone is different - and one diet will cause parasites in one person and restore health and vitality in another. Perhaps parasites are like cholesterol - the role of diet varies depending on the cholesterol pattern type. For most people, dietary reductions in cholesterol don't lower cholestoral; the main influence being insulin production via carbohydrate intake. Whereas for 30% of the population cholesterol is directly related to dietary intake.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Kind Regards, Scott Tweet