From what I've read, it seems that paratuberculosis is considered a
serious pathogen in AIDS patients but not a pathogen in the general human
population because it doesn't bother people who have strong resistance. If
we were to apply that logic, we might also conclude that most infectious
diseases are not pathogens if at least one person was born with immunity
or strong resistance.

The healthcare and food industries want to fit this into a discrete
model--it is/isn't a pathogen. Paratuberculosis doesn't understand that
model. It survives as best it can wherever it finds itself.

And what about people with only partial resistance? What about people with
immune impairments from a variety of factors such as Vitamin D deficiency,
an imbalance of of bacterial species in the gut, genetic lack of
resistance to that particulary species, liver damage or infection,
exposure to toxins, a simultaneous comvination of common infections that
temporarily overload the immune system, or maybe living in a cold damp
climate that predisposes one to respiratory paratuberculosis infections.
Maybe we just happened to be in a place where the drinking water had a
higher concentration of paratuberculosis than our immune systems could
handle

We're asking simply: Is it pathogenic? If we were honest, we might be
asking: how many of which people have to get how sick in order to
categorize it as pathogenic?

-- Dale
<http://DaleRoose.com/>
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
striking at the root.
-- Henry David Thoreau