Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory / Pleomorphism / Béchamp, Rife, Naessens, Reich

In simple terms, the Germ Theory states that disease comes from germs. The Terrain Theory states that germs are the result of a disease, not the cause.

The creature credited with giving us the germ theory is Louis Pasteur (1822-1895). He mainly stole ideas from others, and his real contribution was perverting those ideas and coming up with a result that has caused untold damage since. The germ theory is largely responsible for the barbaric idea of vaccination, for Big Pharma, and generally for people being a lot sicker than they need to.

A fascinating part of our hidden history is the one about the alternative to germ theory. It says that what matters for forming a disease is not the germs but the terrain, i.e. our bodies' immune system. These ideas were formed primarily by these three men:

Jacques Antoine Béchamp, 1816-1908
Royal Raymond Rife, 1888-1971
Gaston Naessens, 1924-

What they had in common is that all three invented and built microscopes (independently on one another) that were far superior not only to anything existing at that time, but also to anything available today. Our modern electron microscopes are inferior to these, both in resolution and in the way they work. Electron microscopes damage the samples by the way the samples are stained. Bechamp and the others built light microscopes that didn't damage the samples and had higher resolution, and so they were able to see things our scientists today can not see.

It is mind-boggling that these aren't mass-produced, given their very clear superiority. But as we know from our lessons from Darwinism, the elite's agenda is more important than progress, truth, or science, so we're stuck with mind-boggling stupidity in many areas.

What was seen under these microscopes were microbiological entities that appeared to be omnipresent in our cells and undergoing transformations that allowed them to perform different tasks. This is where the term 'pleomorphism' comes from - these entities change shape, as well as function. Germ theory is rigid, denies any transformation, and claims that a specific germ is responsible for a specific disease. The fact that many people have the germ and not the disease and many others have the disease but not the germ doesn't seem to disturb adherents of the germ theory any more than all the contradictions of Darwinism disturb evolutionists.

I have only started studying this, but I'm already getting flashbacks of my study of Darwinism, due to the contradictions and often wilful ignorance involved.

What's interesting is that the terrain theory and the people involved in it have been pretty much erased from history, despite their immense success with healing people including cancer patients and more.

The difference between Pasteur and Bechamp is strongly reminiscent of the difference between Edison and Tesla. Tesla and Bechamp were honest scientists, the real geniuses, who cared about the truth and about other people. Edison and Pasteur were charlatans who only cared about money and furthering agendas of the elites. Another parallel may be seen in Fauci vs Mikovits. This alone should give one a clue about where the truth is likely to be found.

Here's some essential literature on the topic:

Béchamp or Pasteur - A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology, by Ethel Hume.
The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens, by Christopher Bird. This can be downloaded in several formats from here.
The Cancer Cure That Worked, by Barry Lynes.
Good-Bye Germ Theory: Ending a Century of Medical Fraud, by Dr. William P. Trebing. This is a new book, largely focusing on vaccination and how to avoid it.

Exposing the Myth of the Germ Theory - Arthur M. Baker. This is a ten-page paper and a good introduction into the topic. It can be downloaded here:

The Blood and its Third Anatomical Element, by Antoine Bechamp. You can find the book online here.

Some more material on Germ Theory - Pleomorphism
This contains information about the theory as well as the people associated with it, including Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957).

For some introduction, you can also check Ketone Cop's post in the Corona thread:

Another interesting character that has popped up is nurse Florence Nightingale (1820-1910). I don't know much about her yet, but from some excerpts I've read it seems she had some interesting things to say on this topic. She wrote a few books, including Notes on Hospitals and Notes on Nursing. I have them but haven't had time to check them yet.

You can watch a good introductory video here: Pleomorphism Proves Vaccine + Antibiotic Fraud, by Amandha Dawn Vollmer

A longer interview (over 2 hours) with Amandha on the topic can be found here: Terrain Theory with Yummy Mummy

And I'll add a third one which is 3 hours long and is a collection of several things (a lecture, an interview with Andrew Kaufman, and more)
Viruses Germ Theory Exposed By Doctors - What Big Pharma And Mainstream News Won't Teach You

Not necessarily everything in those videos is correct, and there are some controversional statements here and there, but I guess we're here to figure out what's what.

Sometimes these people say that 'there are no viruses', which is an unfortunate use of words, but as far as I can tell, the mistake is not so much in knowledge but in formulation, so look beyond that and see it in the wider context of what these people are saying. The message is more along the lines of 'viruses are not what we've been told they are', which I think is correct. We know little about viruses, and given various remarks by the Cs, viruses might be a lot more important than we imagine, so there's much to explore there.

There are questions about whether viruses have really ever been properly isolated and what evidence there is that they do what we're told they do. All images of viruses seem to be "artists' renditions", not actual photos. Has anyone seen any real evidence of this new coronavirus? What do we really have? Some DNA sequence, but what is it? What does it do? How does it 'operate'? A virus has no metabolism, no means of moving. It's basically a chunk of DNA, so the idea that it 'invades' you and does all kinds of things to make you sick is built on a rather shaky ground.

Germs in general are scavengers. They eat dead cells. So when you're sick, which is usually caused by some kind of toxicity or other damage, the microbes eat the dead cells resulting from the damage. They clean the terrain from waste. They're not harmful, and they don't 'cause' the damage. And they don't kill cells. If they could do that, then with the rate at which they multiply we would never survive. They'd just literally eat us alive.

From a biological point of view, it makes no sense for an organism to 'cause' a disease in another organism. Organisms use other organisms for food. And microbes feed on dead cells. If you have dead cells, they eat them. If you don't, they have nothing to eat there. So healthy people won't get sick by ingesting or inhaling microbes because there's no food available for them.

The whole idea of disease is pretty twisted in our society. What's called disease is actually the healing process, including cancer. What we see as 'disease' is the body already dealing with some damage. We literally call the process of healing 'disease', at least in many cases. And by treating the 'symptoms', we're often destroying or slowing down the healing process, and our mainstream medicine doesn't even have a clue about the actual cause of the problems. We kind of have it all backwards.

Disease is caused largely by bad nutrition, toxicity, and stress. This is mostly ignored and not addressed by doctors. Once the toxicity kills cells, germs appear to eat them and clean things up. If you're relatively healthy and your immune system is functional, this takes care of things and you're fine again. But doctors see this process as the disease and the germs as the cause, and by giving you antibiotics, they're doing the opposite of what's needed. If your immune system is weak or the toxicity accumulates too fast, the germs can't clean things up fast enough and you get worse. But most medical treatment doesn't address the cause and tries to make the symptoms (which are part of the healing process) disappear. The whole paradigm doesn't make sense.

Now, antibiotics may be useful in some cases. If the symptoms are too bad, then antibiotics make the process of healing slower and milder, as opposed to fast and intense. Decreasing the intensity can be helpful if the body is too weak to deal with it. But in principle, the whole germ-based view is just wrong.

There are many questions, though, and one of them is contagion. How does that really work? I'm not entirely sure. The terrain theory says you can't 'catch' a disease, but I think you can still acquire bacteria and viruses from the outside, so we may have to filter out the terminology here. The main point is that 'catching' the bug and 'becoming sick' are two very different things. One does not imply the other. If you're healthy, with a good immune system, you can get HIV or whatever and not get sick. On the other hand, if you're daily destroying your immune system and the whole body, you'll get sick without acquiring anything you didn't have in the first place. Whatever bacteria or viruses you have are more or less likely to participate in feasting on the dead cells, but they have nothing to do with causing your sickness.

An interesting idea is that this contagion thing can be psychological. Like when one person yawns and others start yawning too, a sick person can trigger the healing process (called disease by doctors) in others around. Reading about this reminded me of Sheldrake's morphic resonance. I guess it would be hard to test this somehow, but it's quite possible that something like this works.

Anyway, I've only read very little about this so far, so this is just an introductory post into something that I think is pretty significant and would be good to explore more and understand properly.
Last edited by a moderator:
For those who like audio/video, here are a few CensorshipTube videos on the topic:

The Suppressed Truth of Biology, Bacteria, Viruses and Disease Part 1
The Suppressed Truth of Biology, Bacteria, Viruses and Disease Part 2
Somebody put this presentation together recently. Basically he's reading all kinds of stuff on this topic for 3 hours.

Béchamp vs. Pasteur & The Germ Theory Hoax Part 1
Béchamp vs. Pasteur & The Germ Theory Hoax Part 2
A two-part radio show by Alpha Vedic. 2 hours each.

The Germ Theory - The New State Religion - Dr Tim O'Shea
A general overview.

I have all the videos downloaded, so if anything disappears, let me know.

Forgot to mention in the first post - the life forms described first by Bechamp have been called somatids, microzyma, bions, protits, turquoise bodies, and more. Microzyma was Bechamp's term, somatids Naessens's.

This page explains some of the basics.

Over the past few centuries leading microbiologists from all over the world have discovered a tiny microorganism necessary for life that underpins all life, including all stem cell and viral-bacterial growth. This tiny microorganism has been given many names including the Somatid, the Microzyma, the Bione, the Sanal/P-Microcell/Granule, the Protit and the Turquoise Blue Granule. These "somatids" are so small they appear invisible under normal microscopic lens, and require high magnification equipment to see their naturally active moving state. A common feature of these somatid life forms, observed uniformly, is their ability to pleomorphise (change) into viral-bacterial-yeast-like-fungus forms under low pH acidic conditions. Microbiologists who have identified these somatid life forms include Antoine Béchamp [Professor of Chemistry at the University of Strasbourg]; Arthur Isaac Kendall PhD [Director of Medical Research, Northwestern University Medical School Chicago]; Royal Raymond Rife PhD [inventor of the high-magnification Rife Microscope]; Edward C Rosenow, Sr [who served as Director of Experimental Biology for the Mayo Clinic between 1915 and 1944]; Bong-Han Kim [medical surgeon at Pyongyang Medical University and Kyung-Rak Institute who is widely recognized to have discovered the primo-vascular system]; Kwang-Sup Soh [professor at the Biomedical Physics Laboratory, School of Physics, Seoul National University, South Korea]; Wilhelm Reich [Deputy Director of the Vienna Ambulatorium, Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic outpatient clinic]; and Professor Gunther [zoologist], amongst many others. The most recent of these academics to discover the existence of this living organism is Professor Gaston Naessens of France who coined the term "somatid" to describe these small bodies. Professor Naessens found when cell tissue is healthy, [these somatids that live in the tissue and blood as well as the intracellular cytosol of the cell] are limited to 3 stages - somatid, spore, and double spore; however when the cell environment is acidic and the immune system impaired, these tiny microorganisms pleomorphise into a further 13 viral-bacterial-yeast-like-fungus stages to ferment excess glucose and lactic acid, causing cancer. These fungal pathogenic forms migrate to the cell nucleus to reproduce, releasing acidic waste products called "mycotoxins", inhibiting cell DNA repair and inhibiting the all-important tumor suppressor genes. Without tumor suppressor genes [namely p53] to regulate cell death (apoptosis) when the cell has mutated beyond repair, the cell lives on and 'cell-growth-regulating' proto-oncogenes turn into oncogenes, causing normal cells to mutate into cancer cells. While Professor Naessens observed these viral-bacterial-yeast-like-fungus forms were the cause of cancer within the body, he is not however the first to have observed the connection between cancer and these microbes.
Professor Gaston Naessens: “A somatid is a basic living particle. It is indispensable for life. Without it, cellular division can’t take place. It is polymorphic [meaning it can grow from one form to another, from a virus to a bacterium to a fungus]. We were able to grow it in a culture and that’s where we observed its polymorphism in two cycles. First there is a micro-cycle during which the reproductive hormone that permits cellular division is developed. This [healthy 3 stage] cycle is stopped by inhibitors in the blood and during certain illnesses, including degenerative diseases. This micro-cycle, in 3 stages keeps going and becomes a 16 stage cycle [during illness]. In 1949 when I was working in haematology I had the feeling I wasn’t seeing everything there was to see in blood. I saw something moving, but I didn’t know what it was. I concentrated on the problem of light wave-lengths. That’s how I perfected a system that gave me very worthwhile results and which enabled me to develop a microscope that allows us to see this famous particle. Little by little I was able to observe it and I extracted it from the blood. I was able to isolate it and grow it in a culture and that’s how I established its polymorphism."
Professor Gaston Naessens continued: "For more than a century the traditional method of examining blood has consisted of smearing it onto a slide, fixing it and staining it, to determine the tinctorial affinities (properties) of the elements it contains. On the left [above] we can see blood prepared according to this method. We can identify the red corpuscles, white corpuscles and platelets. This is dead blood. On the right we are seeing blood through a somatoscope. This is living blood examined within 10 minutes after it was drawn. We can see red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets and somatids, which we couldn't see on the fixed slide. In the course of this [somatid] micro-cycle, a growth hormone is formed that is indispensable for cellular division. This phenomenon has been observed repeatedly in in-vitro cultures. If under the effects of stress or for that matter any biological stressor the blood's [immune] inhibitors are diminished to any considerable degree, the somatids' micro-cycle evolves into a cycle that is both different and polymorphic. We then see the appearance of the various stages of a macro-cycle - 13 additional stages in all [seen in the diagram below]. First we notice a bacterial form that is the normal evolution of the micro-cycle [in stage 4] where the inhibitors have been diminished. This endogenous bacterial form has been observed by many researchers. The double bacteria which evolves [in stage 5] from the preceding bacterial form is often observed in blood smears. Its particularity is the ability to divide itself by scissiparity to form rods. The rod form [stage 6] looks like a bacterial form expect that it is longer and its cytoplasm seems empty. It should be noted this [next] bacterial form [in stage 7] possesses two terminal spores. The granulated double-spore bacterial form [seen in stage 8] has a cytoplasm filled with granulations that begin to move. The maturation of the granulated double-spore bacterial form [in stage 9] results in a mycobacteria well-known to microbiologists. The cytoplasm is also self-developing. The myco-bacteria that we have just seen [in stage 10] has developed further and formed bubble-like enclaves to which it owes its name: bubble-mycobacteria. Here we see the bursting of the bubble-mycobacteria [in stage 11] and the release of its elements of its cytoplasm into the medium. The yeast-like formations that result [in stage 12] from the bursting of the bubble-mycobacteria, have a diameter of 4-5 microns. The yeast-like formations proliferate and become ascospore forms [in stage 13], pre-cursors of mycelial elements. From an asci form we can observe the formation of a phallus [in stage 14] in which the cytoplasm gradually takes shape to constitute the young mycelial form. It is through a conjuncture and with peristaltic movements that the young mycelial form develops a phallic cytoplasm and eventually becomes an adult mycelia form [in stage 15]. When this mycelial form element reaches full maturity [in stage 16] its cytoplasm is extremely active and when it bursts it releases an enormous quantity of new [somatid] particles into the medium, each [new] particle capable of duplicating the entire cycle."


Put simply: If you can get rid of the toxic emotions that cause the lactic acid in your cells, the cancer-fungus will devolve back into the healthy harmless somatid, having no more lactic acid to ferment
It's kind of amazing that the people who claim to be 'serious scientists' fail to understand things due to the inferiority of their instruments and methods. There's a whole level of life in every cell that they know nothing about.


The Force is Strong With This One
Thanks Mandatory. I wanted to add the book virus mania by Torsten Engelbrecht is also really good at explaining the virus scam too.

I read The Blood by Bechamp along with many others last summer. This inevitably leads to the truth about the soil too, being that the bacteria and other life forms in the soil are also the ones in our bodies. This site is a great resource if you are not already up on that: Soil and Health Library
An interesting idea is that this contagion thing can be psychological. Like when one person yawns and others start yawning too, a sick person can trigger the healing process (called disease by doctors) in others around.
It triggered my yawning reflex just to read this.😴

Very interesting topic. I am also aware that my home and work environment is my probiotic field of health. Keeping the body and my living/working space healthy is my responsibility, not the governments. I have been feeding the soil around my house with a mixture of chicken feed, bloodmeal and oil/lard just to increase the microbiological health were I live. The soil health has greatly improved and the lawn has a beautiful shine to it. For me it I see it as my responsibility to take care of my 1D & 2D support system.

This topic is just what I was going to do more research on so thank so much for pulling it all together. Looking forward to further my understanding of this way of living.
Hi MI, thanks for starting this thread! Good intro and links to get people started. But I also want to give a shout-out to Dr. Wilhelm Reich, as he did the same work the other three men did, making the same discoveries - and he was persecuted even harder than Naessens was. He died while serving a jail sentence for violating an injunction placed against him by the FDA, who called his work a sham. Few men in history were ever so successfully purged from memory. His accomplishments have been so thoroughly discredited that anyone who even tries to revive his studies is mocked mercilessly, or winds up having *their* career destroyed.

That alone makes me think he was onto something...

Here is a link to some of Dr. Reich's work, with an interesting video presentation:

This thread should be interesting! And someday soon, I will post on another thread about some work that I have been doing using some of Dr. Reich's other discoveries. That man may very well have been the greatest scientist of the twentieth century.


FOTCM Member
It's kind of amazing that the people who claim to be 'serious scientists' fail to understand things due to the inferiority of their instruments and methods. There's a whole level of life in every cell that they know nothing about.
I find this theory interesting in that it portrays how knowledge is intertwined with instrumental/technology advancement. Some technological tools prevent you from seeing beyond or outside the box. Same effect when you think of the body as divided by strictly limited systems.

When I was trained in Neural Therapy, we were shown research of how even things like the fascia and its surroundings are so completely alive in ways that we are only starting to comprehend. It is way pastime to stop seeing the cell as an individualized and compartmentalized dried thing. Awareness determines what we see, and if we are seeing healing effects involving non-lineal dynamic properties with Neural Therapy and therapies involving voltage and electrochemical concepts, then surely it's time to raise our knowledge base to raise up our awareness level.

It would be interesting to keep an eye on this research to see if it can be updated to the scale of current molecular and virology knowledge. Then, it would be interesting to really see ourselves as alive and not under the eyes of dried materialized and compartmentalized schemas or graphics. Perhaps someone in a lab somewhere has already done this.

Here is a scale perspective:



The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I think that what Joe wrote in this FB post should be taken into consideration when looking at the "viruses do not exist" theory:

Over the past 3 months, many people have spent long hours trying to make the case that the official narrative about 'the virus' is, in one way or another, bogus. Yet to this day, many people are still convinced that the official narrative is accurate, and one of the primary means of bolstering that narrative is the statements of medical experts. The question raised by many people who will at least listen to a counter-narrative is this: if the narrative is bogus, why are so many medical experts validating it? Are we to assume they are part of some grand conspiracy to deceive the public?

This is a misconception that is rooted in a fairly simple yet generally unrecognized aspect of human psychology: as intelligent as a person may be, all of their years of training in a specific discipline does not teach them to understand and recognize their own emotional biases, much less rid themselves of them.

A fundamental emotional bias that many people have is the largely unconscious need for an overarching authority in their lives (for most people this is government) that acts as a defense against the complexity and potential chaos of reality. It is extremely disturbing to most people to have to contemplate the idea that they might have to face reality alone, to be an authority onto themselves.
See the work of Jordan Peterson for more on this.

No one should not be surprised, therefore, when medical experts disregard objective data that undermines the official covid-19 narrative. In a very real (emotional) way, such people are personally invested in disregarding that data and the conclusion it points to because it threatens, in a deep and unconscious way, their sense of security. Instead, they will use their prodigious intellect and expertise to make convincing arguments why counter-narrative data is wrong and present their own data that validates the official, and calming, view that government is 'in control' and certainly did not engage in any destructive or reckless policies that destroyed the lives of those they were supposed to protect. If that were true, the implications for the experts (and most other members of the population) would be too much to take.

There are, of course, other ways in which the intellects of experts can be subverted towards emotional thinking in order to force them back into line if they should happen to step beyond it. Consider a recent twitter exchange between Professor Karol Sikora and the insufferable narcissistic blowhard, Piers Morgan.

A recent Telegraph article cited Prof. Sikora that Covid-19 deaths are likely much lower than reported because many alleged covid-19 deaths over the past 3 months have been recorded as such with only scant evidence that the virus was directly involved in the deceased demise. This assertion is, of course, almost certainly true and there is copious evidence on my FB page and elsewhere back it up.

Piers Morgan took the Professor to task, calling his claim "absolutely shameful" and saying "how dare you spew such hurtful nonsense" and asking "why would you cause such distress to so many families & to those you've now accused of lying on death certificates?"

The good professor very quickly backed down with a tweeted response.

Piers Morgan's accusation against Sikora is clearly paramoralistic nonsense. Notice that the core of Morgan's manipulative attack is to focus on the supposed "hurt" Sikora is allegedly causing families and doctors who fill in death certificates. If Sikora was actually making an incorrect and insensitive claim, Morgan's comment might be appropriate. But as noted, Sikora's claim is backed up by hard evidence. As such, the best we can say about Morgan's claim is that he is concerned that the truth will hurt these families and doctors. But this is also patently false in this context.

I know of several cases, reported to me personally, of people with a family member who had been ill for a long time and, at some point during the past 3 months, died peacefully with no covid symptoms, or died with symptoms that were consistent with their long-term illness. Despite, this, the deceased was categorized as "likely covid". From the evidence I have seen, this practice is widespread. As you might imagine, the family members I spoke to were not happy with this, because a) they were certain their loved one did not die "from covid-19" and b) the implication was that, rather than dying in the normal way that the family members had been preparing themselves for for several years, they were now being "officially" told that their loved one had been 'taken' from them in an untimely manner by the 'deadly covid-19'.

As for the doctors, Sikora was not implying that anyone had "lied on death certificates" but rather than doctors had been clearly instructed by health authorities (including the WHO) that they should record deaths as "covid-19" when no test was possible and the doctors merely "presumed" that covid-19 "was involved" (documents to this effect are widely available on the websites of the health authorities in question).

This little twitter exchange is a very good example of how emotional 'triggers' (in this case shaming) can be (and often are) used to great effect to prevent the truth from emerging or divergent viewpoints being aired. It is also interesting to note that the same fear-based 'emotional thinking' that prevents many medical experts from accepting data that suggests authorities are working against the interests of the people, is also at work in Piers Morgan as he attempts to prevent Prof. Sikora from sharing data that also leads to that conclusion.

Now, in the case of viruses, it's not just about accepting the possibility that governments could be working against the people, but the mother nature itself! Or at least, one part of the nature.

And another post from Joe that is relevant:

If people did not have an almost overwhelming and unconscious fear of death, the paralysis we've seen in the population over this virus would not have been possible. The lockdowns would have not happened or, if they did because people trusted the government, there would be a revolution of some sort and heads would roll when people realized what was done during lockdown.
Getting rid of our fear of death to the greatest extent possible is increasingly important in these times.

I think that the same kind of paralysis could be behind the "viruses do not exist" theory. People are afraid to accept them, just like they are afraid to accept aliens or comets, because the implications for the experts (and most other members of the population) would be too much to take.


A Disturbance in the Force
Solid info dump, thank you.

I'm new to the forum, but have been lurking since January. Amazingly, my own research surrounding the Coronavirus led me down the same rabbit hole about viruses, vaccines and the theory of Somatids. The questions the OP raised are the same ones that I find myself stumbling up against: how does terrain theory explain infectious diseases?

Of interest - Dr Stefan Lanka has pointed out that the Koch Institute faked (or lost the documents) proving that measles is even a real thing. I'm sure people who have done a deep dive on the Virus Question already know all about Lanka's great work debunking AIDS, HIV and now, viruses as a whole it seems. But when asked what he thought caused measles, he said that it was a reaction to psychological trauma caused by the loss or departure of a close one. An interesting explanation, but I do not think that it is the correct one.

Perhaps OP is correct to reference Rupert Sheldrake's work on morphic fields. But I confess, I do not see how that would explain how people with a cough tend to pass their cough on. Morphic fields seem to be more about information transfer between animals and apparently inanimate objects like crystals. This is at least a two-part phenomenon.

1) The ability to feel eyes on the back of the head appears to be related to a 6th sense. 2) The ability of crystals to solidify faster or rats to learn from the experiences of other rats a continent away is more akin to having an internet connection to a cloud of information in some other, Platonic realm of information and ideas that you download from subconsciously. These appear to be the two main discoveries of Sheldrake's work.

I fail to see how either of these two phenomenon could explain the spread of infectious diseases. Perhaps OP could elaborate? Seeing as he's done incredible work on the Virus Question so far, I am sure that he's got a solid hypothesis about how morphic fields and disease relate that he can elaborate on. Also - would this not be easily testable? We could set up the same experiments that Sheldrake did with the phone calls or with the animals knowing what their owners were up to. The experiment would basically consist of getting one member of the family sick and keeping them away from their loved ones for a week as they recover (a little macabre, I admit) and if the disease is spread through the internet connection that Sheldrake discovered earlier than the loved one should get sick despite no contact, right?

One last point: on Somatids. The Trial book talks a bit about them in the beginning and from what I understand, they are the same thing as microenzymes, on which Beauchamp wrote more extensively. But where is the work that Gaston did with Somatids. I confess, I am confused about how his cancer cure works. If we assume that cancer is caused by a bad, acidic terrain causing Somatids/microenzymes to start going back and releasing toxins in the body, what could a shot to the lymph node (Gaston's cure) do? Wouldn't a change in diet and drinking baking soda solve the problem?

I would be interested to see what the forum and especially OP's thoughts are.


FOTCM Member
I'm new to the forum, but have been lurking since January.
Hi @PaleFace,

Welcome to our forum. :)

We recommend all new members to post an introduction in the Newbies section telling us a bit about themselves, how they found the cass material, and how much of the work here they have read.

You can have a look through that board to see how others have done it.


FOTCM Member
Sure, once I do that, I can continue to post without restrictions?
Of course if you follow the rules of this forum.

And as Beau said:
All new members of the forum are on moderation until they reach 10 posts. After that, your posts will not require moderator approval. It's nothing personal, just a method for weeding out spammers, bots, and trolls.
Top Bottom