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.
Good post, PaleFace. We're only starting to delve into this issue, so there are more questions than answers, and the question of contagion is one of the most obvious ones. We don't know how exactly it works, but that's what this thread is for.
As for morphic resonance, I think the general idea is transmission of information without direct contact. The example of rats in the maze may not be that far off. The first rat has to figure things out. The later rats seem to be able to somehow access information that already exists then.
Now, according to the Terrain Theory (TT), the disease is not transmitted by the germs. If you come into contact with somebody who's sick, you may or may not get sick too. There's evidence that not all who get sick have the specific germ that's supposed to be responsible, and also that many who do have it don't get sick. So that already tells us the germ theory is kinda bullshit.
As for who does or doesn't get sick, it would depend on the general health and the strength of the immune system. The kind of disease like colds and flus seem to be a sort of periodic cleansing. A certain amount of damage accumulates in the body, and when it reaches a certain point, the cleansing starts, and you "get sick" (which is really a misleading term, imo).
So the big question is,
what triggers the start of this process?
It can't really be that once you have 2.6 billion dead cells somewhere, the process starts. There has to be some kind of trigger that makes sense. It can be that the body gets some jolt at a point when it has accumulated enough damage. Say you eat something bad or too much sugar and the body gets the message "OK, that's enough, time to clean up this mess". So for some people it can start like this.
Now for the morphic fields magic. (Note that I'm merely speculating and maybe this isn't really a good comparison.) The idea is something along the lines of you coming into contact with a person who's already in the cleansing process (previous paragraph), and you have also accumulated enough waste to need the cleansing process, but you don't have a clear trigger to start it yet. But when you're near the other person, the transfer of information somehow happens, and your body gets a signal to start the process. The point is, there doesn't need to be a physical transfer of the virus at that time. You already have the virus in you (like we all have coronaviruses and flu etc.). Being near a person who has already started the cleansing process triggers it in you. I don't know whether morphic fields are the right idea here, but this is roughly how I have understood it from some remarks I've come across.
At the same time, I think it's perfectly possible for a virus to get from one person to another. It just has little to do with starting the 'disease'. (And I think trying
not to get the virus is pretty dumb, unless you're one of those old and sick.) If you get a virus from a person that's sick and you get sick too, it could just be what I described above plus
at the same time a physical transmission of the virus happens, but that may be coincidental. At any rate, the correlation between the virus and the 'disease' is far from perfect based on evidence, so there has to be something else going on.
So I think we probably do exchange viruses the usual way (coughing, sneezing, droplets...),
but that itself doesn't trigger a disease. Though if at that moment your body is already a mess, the disease may actually start, which then looks like you got infected. And I think these coincidences is what current science takes as evidence of their theory, and they ignore all the cases that don't fit. (We know from Darwinism that these people are able and willing to ignore a LOT.)
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.
Dude, it's not microenzymes, it's
microzyma(s):
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.
(I'm not sure whether the plural is microzymas or just microzyma, so let's stick with Naessens's somatids.)
I recall becoming simultaneously angry and sad as I read that Rife's wonderful and amazing microscope was destroyed (and the schematics) by the medical authorities.
Man, the things that happened to all these guys are beyond belief. But I think that, in and of itself, is some evidence that they were onto something really big. There would be no point destroying their legacy if it was all nonsense, as the establishment claims. This is why they don't go after Flat Earth people - this nonsense doesn't threaten them. They know the flat earthers can never prove the Earth is flat, so who cares about what they say? But these guys, just like Tesla, could have seriously changed things in a direction that the establishment didn't want.
And seriously, who the hell destroys new inventions that are clearly better than what we have? This is outrageous. On the other hand, it may be something to point out to regular people out there. How would they explain that the PTB would destroy a microscope that's better than the ones everyone's using, without seeing any conspiracy anywhere? And burning scientific books in the 20th century? What good reason can there ever be for that? All these guys' stories are infuriating in that sense.
I remember when reading the story of Bechamp and Pasteur I clearly intuitively felt that Bechamp was the good guy and his theory makes a lot more sense
Yes, that's one of the factors in favour of the TT, even if it's incomplete (or maybe we just don't have all the data these guys had). However much the theory can explain, it's pretty clear that these guys, like Tesla, were the real deal, and that Pasteur, like Edison, was kind of just a parasite, hijacking something good, twisting it, and profiting from it.
Even disregarding the theory, these guys invented better microscopes than we have today, so clearly they were smart, they were modest and didn't make any real money or get any fame from their work (which, if they had, could be seen as a motive to deceive), and they could explain at least some things our science today can not.
I'm not sure if we have all the pieces that Bechamp or Rife had. I think the available information is very incomplete, and maybe the answers we are looking for existed but got lost. After all, the PTB did their best to make them lost.
Maybe it's the same with microbes – researchers can study their structure and interactions as far as they can with their equipment and watch what they are doing, but they are missing some tiny, tiny details, and thus they don't really understand what they are doing and why. Still, we hear that researchers are able to sequence the DNA of viruses, and even change and manipulate it, so I'm not sure what to think of that.
You know, I have to wonder how much of the things the scientists tell us they can actually prove. I suspect that there are at least a few things here that we're told as fact that are simply assumed or made up. If our scientists know nothing of these somatids and their 16-phase cycle because they can't see them, then I wonder how accurate anything they say about the DNA really is. If they can't see somatids, they shouldn't be able to see viruses. So what the hell
do they actually see? What do they
really know?
If the TT is correct, there are some puzzle pieces still missing, and it could also be that the truth is a combination of the two theories.
Yes, I think so too. Some things our science says about bacteria and viruses are probably true, and maybe the contagion business requires a combination of the two theories, so let's not the bathwater...
Those four men were seeing things that shouldn't have existed, using microscopes that shouldn't have been able to do what they did because they "defied the laws of physics", and each of them recorded what they saw individually - and all of their accounts matched up with one another. So to address your quote on electricity: no one truly understands microbes at this point...but the equipment and mentality to do so DID exist in the past, and was thwarted on every level.
Again, all this makes you wonder how much of what today's scientists really see is just what they
imagine to see because they
expect to see it due to their prejudice and beliefs.
Maybe the person who understands the most about this today is Gaston Naessens. If I'm not mistaken, he's still alive. According to the book (which I haven't finished yet), his English isn't (or wasn't back then) very good, but maybe some French speaking forum members might be able to get in touch with him and ask a few of the most pressing questions? He might have at least some answers and might be glad to talk to somebody who doesn't think he's crazy and who is actually interested in this.
* * *
Something more about pandemics and epidemics.
Let's look at the seasonal flu. Does what we see require any contagion? I don't think so. These common viruses are everywhere and we all have them, so we don't have to 'catch' anything to have the flu. Plus, if there's a
season when the disease appears, then that tells me the cause is not the virus but whatever happens in this season. And what happens is that it's Winter and it's cold, and during Winter holidays you eat all that sugary crap (or at least many people do), so your body is weakened, and that can trigger the process of cleansing.
(Also notice that no matter how smart mainstream scientists think they are, and no matter how sure they are about their germ theory, their success in eliminating the flu or cold has been zero.)
If 500 people in a town have the same symptoms, I don't think anybody checks whether they all have the same virus or other bugs participating on this dead cell feast. For all we know, each person has his/her own unique collection of microbes that participate in the 'disease' and the symptoms are the same because the process is pretty much the same. So the idea that everyone has the flu is not even properly tested, never mind proved.
Now let's look at coronavirus scamdemic 2020. It's a bit off-season, so what's going on here? Well, we know that people already had it in November, so it started during the regular season and probably has been going on the whole time. And during Winter it was in perfectly usual numbers, so things really started to get weird when China locked down Wuhan.
So what happened in Wuhan? If we go with TT, the particular virus is not really that important. But it's possible that since this was a new strain or whatever, it affected people a bit more than the same old stuff. But we also know that the Wuhan area was affected a lot more than the rest of China. Why? Well, we know of that air pollution factor, and given the nature of this 'disease', i.e. involving difficulty breathing, it makes sense that this area had it worse, and the same goes for Northern Italy.
So this was basically a seasonal flu, aggravated by air pollution, involving a new virus (and it's hard to say how significant this really was - the whole epidemic might have happened even without it, with the difference that nobody would have panicked because there was nothing unusual about it), and, why the hell not, it might have been made worse by that 5G thing that was apparently rolled out in that area at that time. The 'cause' of the sickness would be people's generally bad health, affected by many factors.
And really, the death toll in China wasn't anything too strange. I mean 4,000 people... is what dies in China in 2 hours. So I think that part doesn't really pose a problem for TT.
What happened then in the rest of the world is, imo, like 80% the fault of the governments and the media and has little to do with the actual virus.
First of all, we know the numbers are bullshit, so the whole thing is not nearly as bad as it looks.
Antibody tests don't tell you whether you were sick last week, or last year, or two years ago, or whether you were visibly sick at all. And if the PCR tests amplify the viral load and blow it out of proportion, then that again tells us little about how affected that person really is. So in my opinion, all the 'asymptomatic' people are simply not part of this pandemic. (Somebody correct me if I'm getting the science wrong here. My understanding of these tests is pretty basic.)
So in reality we have fewer sick that it may look.
Secondly, the simple reason why this 'pandemic' happened off season is because the governmedia scared and stressed the shit out of everyone, which we can see even today with people wearing masks when they don't have to and engaging in obsessive washing of hands and other pretty pointless things. The Cs have also said maybe more than once that certain things happen to people 'because they expect it'. So if the media are screaming at you 24/7 that you might get covid-1984, well, you might get sick because you expect it, and since hardly anybody bothered to distinguish covid-19 from anything else, we had this stupidemic.
Then you have the third factor which is totally inappropriate reactions of the governments and hospitals like sending old people from hospitals to nursing homes and putting people on ventilators, which was clearly doing more harm than good (but made a lot of money), so we have more deaths than we would have had if this whole thing hadn't been in the media.
My point is, we can fairly well account for this corona thing with the TT. The key was stress, hysteria, and a sort of placebo effect where people were getting sick because they expected it. I don't see any reason this sickness would need to be 'caused by a virus'. And, basically, it was going on
in season in
normal numbers, and later off season in higher numbers because panic, stress, and hysteria (and bogus numbers).
Lastly, there are the more extreme and tricky cases of highly infectious diseases and stuff like the black death. This part certainly needs to be researched more. If there's something new and highly infectious, then maybe its spread works roughly the way mainstream science thinks it does. I don't have enough understanding of contagion and infectious diseases. So let's say a virus does spread by contact and air, etc.
This, however, doesn't mean it causes disease. So why do people get sick, maybe a lot and quickly? Well, I imagine that if it's something new that the body hasn't come into contact yet, the immune system can have an extreme reaction to it. But even in such cases, not everyone is affected the same, which tells us the terrain makes a difference. If the bug was the
cause, it should have the same effects in everyone. So maybe the body is just more likely to react to something unknown and start the cleansing process, and maybe the symptoms are worse because the body is figuring things out for the first time.
And maybe here we can return to morphic resonance. Why is the first wave the worst, and then the disease more or less disappears? Why doesn't it keep killing until everyone on the planet is either dead or immune when they survive? Could it be that once the first people's bodies figure out how to deal with this new virus, other people can do that more easily because of the information being available 'in the cloud', so to speak?
Maybe the disease then becomes more similar to the flu and is never diagnosed by doctors because if it looks like the flu, why bother testing. They tell you you have the flu because that requires no effort and will probably work just fine. And as far as I know, if they do test, they can only find what they're looking for. So if they're looking for a specific virus, they may find it but
not notice 20 other viruses that are participating in the same process.
I never go to the doctor's, but if you have a flu or cold and see a doctor, does anybody test what exactly it is you 'have'? Do we know it's not something that used to be really bad, like MERS, but people have learned to deal with it, so it now looks like the flu? (I know little about MERS and am totally speculating here, but I think that much of what we're told by doctors is just assumptions.)
So I think much of what we see as contagion can be the result of other processes than 'infection by a virus'. If you meet your family for holidays in December, and some of them are sick, you kinda
expect that there's a good chance you'll get sick too, and maybe that expectation together with the fact that your body has some accumulated enough toxicity and whatnot are enough to trigger the cleansing process without requiring any physical transmission of a virus.
Again, I'm not saying that viruses aren't transmitted among people. I'm just suggesting that this transmission and the disease can be two completely separate things that just sometimes happen at the same time.
So that's some of my ideas, admittedly highly speculative. Hopefully we can get closer to the truth together.
phys.org
cassiopaea.org
www.grayfieldoptical.com
