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

PaleFace

The Force is Strong With This One
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.

Thanks for explaining. I didn't take it personally, the Cass forum has some very quality posters, which means that the stringent moderation has worked to ensure quality control. I've participated in far more lax forums and the quality of discussion is markedly lower because standards for posters are too low.

Anyways, I don't want to distract from the topic being discussed ITT, but again, thanks for explaining.
 

aragorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thank you, @Mandatory Intellectomy for starting this discussion and digging up so much useful information on this subject – a good starter pack! :-)

I've been mulling over this whole conundrum with the Germ Theory for years, every now and then, and the topic regularly pops up in my head. A few summers ago I read one of the Bechamp vs. Pasteur books and sorta started looking into it more...but got distracted by researching Raymond Rife and his gadgets quite extensively (you can find a thread on it somewhere; I'll post it later when I find it). Rife's reasearch is a whole 'can of worms' and his life story is very interesting. 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.

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, but because of the programming it was (and is) difficult to switch perspective – the Germ Theory is so grained in our minds. Plus, the Terrain Theory still has some holes in it and things that (yet) don't make sense, like the spreading of disease, as you mention. So, if Terrain Theory is objectively more true, I think the processes are more complicated to understand and observe (e.g. thanks to the degeneration of microscopes) than with Germ Theory, and that's one of the reasons it's easier to choose and believe in the latter.

I look forward to getting to the bottom of this...or as close as possible!
 
Thank you, @Mandatory Intellectomy for starting this discussion and digging up so much useful information on this subject – a good starter pack! :-)

I've been mulling over this whole conundrum with the Germ Theory for years, every now and then, and the topic regularly pops up in my head. A few summers ago I read one of the Bechamp vs. Pasteur books and sorta started looking into it more...but got distracted by researching Raymond Rife and his gadgets quite extensively (you can find a thread on it somewhere; I'll post it later when I find it). Rife's reasearch is a whole 'can of worms' and his life story is very interesting. 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.

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, but because of the programming it was (and is) difficult to switch perspective – the Germ Theory is so grained in our minds. Plus, the Terrain Theory still has some holes in it and things that (yet) don't make sense, like the spreading of disease, as you mention. So, if Terrain Theory is objectively more true, I think the processes are more complicated to understand and observe (e.g. thanks to the degeneration of microscopes) than with Germ Theory, and that's one of the reasons it's easier to choose and believe in the latter.

I look forward to getting to the bottom of this...or as close as possible!

I have a theory that almost all pandemics and plagues have historically occurred during times of great upheaval and environmental stress. I am currently researching many plagues throughout history, and I am seeing that most (if not all) of them seemed to happen during such times. When I finish my analysis I'll write it up and post it either here or on the corona virus thread.

It makes sense in sort of a Simpson-esque "DOH!!" kind of way: if the terrain around you is under stress, then the terrain within you may mirror that stress. "As above, so below". And the key to health during such times may simply involve paying attention to your internals and taking steps to strengthen your immune system. Perhaps if enough people did so together, that may improve the external terrain as well.
 

aragorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I have a theory that almost all pandemics and plagues have historically occurred during times of great upheaval and environmental stress. I am currently researching many plagues throughout history, and I am seeing that most (if not all) of them seemed to happen during such times. When I finish my analysis I'll write it up and post it either here or on the corona virus thread.

It makes sense in sort of a Simpson-esque "DOH!!" kind of way: if the terrain around you is under stress, then the terrain within you may mirror that stress. "As above, so below". And the key to health during such times may simply involve paying attention to your internals and taking steps to strengthen your immune system. Perhaps if enough people did so together, that may improve the external terrain as well.

Okay, looking forward to your analysis! It's hard to reconcile the Terrain Theory with things like the real pandemics (e.g. Black Death) and those allegedly very contagious, but mostly harmless, diseases like measles smallpox etc. And what are virologists like Mikovits actually doing while researching the various viruses, and 'teaching' and manipulating them? I come to think of something a teacher said way back when I was studying electrical engineering.

He said "Well, you know...no one actually really understands electricity. We are just observing how it behaves and make models and formulas that makes it possible to predict what it does. We don't know how e.g. an electron really looks like, the image you see in text books is just an estimation...a model."

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.

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.
 
Okay, looking forward to your analysis! It's hard to reconcile the Terrain Theory with things like the real pandemics (e.g. Black Death) and those allegedly very contagious, but mostly harmless, diseases like measles smallpox etc. And what are virologists like Mikovits actually doing while researching the various viruses, and 'teaching' and manipulating them? I come to think of something a teacher said way back when I was studying electrical engineering.

He said "Well, you know...no one actually really understands electricity. We are just observing how it behaves and make models and formulas that makes it possible to predict what it does. We don't know how e.g. an electron really looks like, the image you see in text books is just an estimation...a model."

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.

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.

Aragorn, I quite agree: we don't know the entire puzzle at this time. I mean, my own Masters' thesis was written about a virus that I characterized (TP21 from Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies kurstaki), but thinking back on what I did I'm still not sure what it was that I was really seeing. But from what I have read re: Bechamp, Rife, Reich, Naessens et. al., we were well on our way to understanding this stuff before the PTB shut them all down and tossed their findings in the gutter.

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.

It almost mirrors what happened with Tesla and his "free energy" devices and theories, except for the fact that those four men actually HAD WORKING "DEVICES" that they used and which they shared knowledge of publicly, and their research and results were published in the public record before they were personally individually destroyed and their legacies tarnished for all time.

BTW: regarding the "Black Death" - have you ever read this book?

New Light on the Black Death: The Cosmic Connection (Mike Baillie)


Mike Baillie is a dendrochronologist (studier of tree rings) who used several scientific disciplines to show that the "Black Death" may not have been what people thought it was - and in fact, what happened during those times could be due to one of Laura's favorite memes:

Planetary comet bombardment.

I *highly* recommend that book. Very well written and researched. I'll be quoting it in my research - which so far has only covered the Plague of Athens, the Greek plague of 412 B.C., the Antonine plague of 165 A.D., and the American Indian smallpox plague of 1837. This stuff requires a lot of due diligence and it's taking time. As I do this work my adulation for the work Laura has done over the years keeps increasing greatly.

But from what I have found so far: all of those plagues happened when conditions for disease were ripe: war, famine, climate change, overcrowding, unsanitary conditions etc. I plan to research at least forty or fifty plagues and pandemics before sharing what I find, so it might take a while to do so, especially since I'm still working full-time (and even overtime) now.

Thanks for your reply, Aragorn. And know that though I've only been a member here for a couple of months, I followed this forum for ten years beforehand and I have always appreciated your constant drive to get at the TRUTH. I share those sentiments. And if our research ultimately winds up undermining the pleomorphic theory of disease, I will let it go. But we need to dig into it deeply first, because if it is true, then I think it could ultimately help all of humanity. And I have read too many instances of the PTB trying to bury this information not to think that there really might be a "there" there, so...THERE.
 

aragorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thanks for the reminder of that book @Ketone Cop and for the compliments. I sometimes wonder what's the use of putting all the extra hours in researching these things, but there's no way to stop it...that's who we are. :-) Besides, learning is fun, and it feels better to invest time in researching than wasting your time e.g. watching movies or reading fiction. I've "known" Baillie's book for years, but never got into reading it. I'll 'bump' that one up on my to-read list.

In 2015 many of us were into researching the so called Bald's Leechbook from the 9th century, looking for clues in the thread AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES CAUSED BY AN INFECTION? If I remember correctly, the thinking was that maybe they knew something back then that have since been forgotten/suppressed. I don't think we found anything remarkable, but after I combed through Leecbook 1 I posted my findings HERE and HERE. Back then they used a lot of herbs and weird combinations of 'food stuff' and what not, from which they made tinctures and salves. So, one could think of that more like 'treating the terrain' perhaps, than 'killing the microbes'?

The most significant thing I found in the Leechbook was that one of the most common remedies for more severe illnesses was ingesting Earthworms. In the first link of the two previous, you can find a few modern studies on how 'earthworm extract' has some antimicrobial properties. As I'm writing this, I got to think that hmm...since earthworms are known and 'used' for their excellent properties of nurturing and 'taking care' of the soil where you grow stuff, maybe that's why they are beneficial for the 'human territory', too?

Later in that thread there are some posts of mine regarding the Rife research. Long story short, and which was also collaborated by the C's, is that Rife machines have the potential to work, but to get it exactly right you need to have the exact right and very complicated equipment and a lot of knowledge of what you're doing. C's said it was "a tall order". I haven't followed that rabbit hole since, and until someone can build a replica of Rife´s microscope I don't think there's hope of ever advancing in that field (some tricksters have claimed to have build replicas, but those have always turned out to be hoaxes). If someone's interested in the nuts-and-bolts of these machines the most reliable source I could find was Jeff Garff of whom I posted of HERE.

Rife was known of having identified the 'cancer causing virus' (X-virus), and he allegedly found the right frequencies to destroy it. The debate of what the 'right frequencies' are is going on still today – and it's such a quagmire (maybe purposefully so) that there's no use reading any of it. However, if the Terrain Theory is, even partly, correct...maybe Raymond Rife – despite being a total genius – succeeded in doing what he did without fully knowing why his machines produced results? Just hypothesizing, maybe his frequencies did something beneficial because they changed the environment surrounding the microbes, and changed their polymorphism?
 
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.
 

Debra

Jedi Master
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.)



Dude, it's not microenzymes, it's microzyma(s):

(I'm not sure whether the plural is microzymas or just microzyma, so let's stick with Naessens's somatids.)



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.


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.


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?


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...


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.
I am very impressed with how fast you have arrived at this point, the thread pulling, and retracing the trail of these amazing discoveries and clues!
When I started down this adventure, it took me a bit longer, BUT, once one gets to this point of "How and why do we get sick then?", if you keep trying to nail it onto the foundation of "Disease" and staying with a "Bodycentric" base, it will not fit, and you will continue to "go around your thumb, and never get to your elbow" to paraphrase an old saying.

If one can Turn the Accepted Medical Theory of "Disease" a 180 degree turn, as has been done, documented and researched to a VERY high degree, the foundation is then stable and solid, and the pieces fit very snugly.

Here is a snippet from the Bio of a Researcher who has done just that:
[...]

At the time head internist of a cancer clinic at the University of Munich, he began to investigate his cancer patients' histories and soon learned that, like him, they all had experienced an unexpected shock of one sort or another. But he took his research even further.

Pursuing the hypothesis that all bodily processes are controlled from the brain, he analyzed his patients' brain scans and compared them with their medical records and personal histories. To his amazement, he found a clear correlation between certain types of “conflict shocks”, how these shocks manifest themselves on the organ level as specific symptoms and how all this is connected to the brain. Until then, no studies had examined the role of the brain as the mediator between the psyche and a diseased organ.

He established that every disease originates from a shock or trauma that catches an individual completely by surprise. The moment the unexpected conflict occurs, the shock strikes a specific, predetermined area in the brain causing a lesion. [...]

The brain cells that receive the shock (DHS) send a biochemical signal to the corresponding body cells causing the growth of a tumor, a meltdown of tissue, or functional loss, depending on which part of the brain is involved. The reason why specific conflicts are irrefutably tied to specific areas in the brain is that during the development of the human organism each brain area was programmed to respond instantly to situations that could threaten survival. While the brainstem, the oldest part of the brain, is programmed with primordial conflicts related to breathing (death-fright conflicts) reproduction (procreation conflicts) and food (morsel conflicts), the cerebrum, the youngest part of the brain, correlates to more advanced matters (separation conflicts, territorial conflicts)

He also discovered
that every disease progresses in two phases: first, a conflict-active phase, characterized by emotional distress, a lack of appetite, and sleeplessness, and then, provided the conflict can be resolved, a healing phase. This is the period in which the psyche, the brain and the affected organ undergo the phase of recovery, an often difficult process marked by fatigue, headaches, inflammation, “infections”, and pain.
[...]
His research radically upsets the many existing theories of conventional medicine. His explanation of disease as a meaningful interplay between the psyche, the brain and the corresponding organ refutes the view that disease occurs by chance or as a result of a mistake of Nature. Based on sound scientific criteria, German New Medicine shatters the myths of malignant cancer cells or of malevolent microbes and identifies “infectious diseases” as well as cancerous tumors as age-old emergency measures designed to save the organism and not, as we have been taught, to destroy it. Diseases such as cancer lose their frightening image and are recognized as meaningful biological survival programs every human being is born with.

The website is extensive, and there are many references and certifications for validation.
I wish you all the Best in this stripping aside of this "Veil".

As always:
What I am posting is Research for Entertainment Purposes Only.
I have no authority nor license to give any medical, psychological, or life skills advice, I just have information to share, for entertainment purposes only.
 

aragorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Thanks @Debra that's very interesting! Reading that made me think of the Polyvagal Theory by Stephen Porges that was discussed in length here some years ago. In that theory, the Vagus nerve (VN) is the interlink between the brain and the body, sending and receiving signals (brain=>body, body=>brain). I wouldn't be surprised if there are other pathways like the VN that behave similarly, and with the 'wrong' signal coming from the brain it causes various diseases and ailments. Or, maybe the VN with all its branches is the one doing all that? Just a spontaneous thought...
 
Thanks, Debra. I do think that 'disease' as seen by our medical establishment basically doesn't exist. They see disease as something 'bad' that's 'happening to us' and that we need to stop. (Of course by paying money to people who will treat us with drugs.) But what seems to be really happening is that this is a process that is actually trying to fix something that had gone wrong before, which the doctors don't see at all and aren't even trying to discover, for the most part. Instead of stopping this process, we should probably somehow support it, but more importantly, we need to understand what it was that led to starting this process. And this relates to how we treat our bodies every day, from nutrition to interaction with the environment to exposure to toxic substances and radiation, etc.

And there is the issue of personal responsibility. In germ theory, you have no responsibility for your health. If you get 'unlucky', you get a disease, and you have to pay to get it fixed. In TT, you are responsible for the state of your body, and your health is the result of your choices. And right there we can see another clue for which theory is likely to have more merit, because one of these views makes sense and the other one doesn't. The GT view is the typical materialistic, mechanistic, dead universe nonsense. No role for consciousness, and everything is accidental. Where have we heard that...

Also I was amused when noticing your signature, amazingly fitting for this thread:
Doctors are men who prescribe medicines of which they know little, to cure diseases of which they know less, in human beings of whom they know nothing. - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire (1760)
 

Persej

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
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.

Try putting into the equation that the terrain could also mean the genes of the person. And the cleansing process could mean the DNA changes, and even the "cleansing" of the unfit individuals from the human gene pool, and see if things could become a little bit clearer. People who invented TT had not had the knowledge about genetics that we do, so perhaps that is why they created theories that have many holes in them.

Take for example this article:

The reason why female salmon try to swing the odds for some sperm over others appears to be focused on ensuring that their mates have complimentary genes that enhance offspring survival.

"Put another way, what we have found is that only some males have the right genetic passwords that enable their sperm to fertilise the eggs of a given female."


"The right genetic passwords." That would explain the difference in individual human susceptibility for different viruses, no?
 
Thanks for the reminder of that book @Ketone Cop and for the compliments. I sometimes wonder what's the use of putting all the extra hours in researching these things, but there's no way to stop it...that's who we are. :-) Besides, learning is fun, and it feels better to invest time in researching than wasting your time e.g. watching movies or reading fiction. I've "known" Baillie's book for years, but never got into reading it. I'll 'bump' that one up on my to-read list.

In 2015 many of us were into researching the so called Bald's Leechbook from the 9th century, looking for clues in the thread AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES CAUSED BY AN INFECTION? If I remember correctly, the thinking was that maybe they knew something back then that have since been forgotten/suppressed. I don't think we found anything remarkable, but after I combed through Leecbook 1 I posted my findings HERE and HERE. Back then they used a lot of herbs and weird combinations of 'food stuff' and what not, from which they made tinctures and salves. So, one could think of that more like 'treating the terrain' perhaps, than 'killing the microbes'?

The most significant thing I found in the Leechbook was that one of the most common remedies for more severe illnesses was ingesting Earthworms. In the first link of the two previous, you can find a few modern studies on how 'earthworm extract' has some antimicrobial properties. As I'm writing this, I got to think that hmm...since earthworms are known and 'used' for their excellent properties of nurturing and 'taking care' of the soil where you grow stuff, maybe that's why they are beneficial for the 'human territory', too?

Later in that thread there are some posts of mine regarding the Rife research. Long story short, and which was also collaborated by the C's, is that Rife machines have the potential to work, but to get it exactly right you need to have the exact right and very complicated equipment and a lot of knowledge of what you're doing. C's said it was "a tall order". I haven't followed that rabbit hole since, and until someone can build a replica of Rife´s microscope I don't think there's hope of ever advancing in that field (some tricksters have claimed to have build replicas, but those have always turned out to be hoaxes). If someone's interested in the nuts-and-bolts of these machines the most reliable source I could find was Jeff Garff of whom I posted of HERE.

Rife was known of having identified the 'cancer causing virus' (X-virus), and he allegedly found the right frequencies to destroy it. The debate of what the 'right frequencies' are is going on still today – and it's such a quagmire (maybe purposefully so) that there's no use reading any of it. However, if the Terrain Theory is, even partly, correct...maybe Raymond Rife – despite being a total genius – succeeded in doing what he did without fully knowing why his machines produced results? Just hypothesizing, maybe his frequencies did something beneficial because they changed the environment surrounding the microbes, and changed their polymorphism?

I can tell already this is going to be a blast, and a lot of learning will take place from our interactions. Here I broadside you with Baillie, then you come back and smack me with an 89-page thread that I will need to read thoroughly just to catch up!! And you probably are holding back on at least a couple dozen more, to be unleashed at just the right time!

I did read some of that Autoimmune thread when it first started. And my Master's work had one benefit in that working with B. thuringiensis exposed me to the field of GMO's and genetic modification of foods and bacteria. In fact, I posted some of what I learned here, post #4:


A lot of what I discovered does, indeed, prove that autoimmune diseases can be caused by infections; and some of those infections are present in the gut microbiome. But thanks for reminding me of that thread, I will do my due diligence on it and contribute once I've caught up on it.

I read some of what you wrote about Rife, and you seem to know more than anyone else here so far. I'm more nuanced with Naessens, and some of Reich. I hope someone here is more familiar with Bechamp! Mandatory Intellectomy is a good with the "big picture" with a gift for breaking things down comprehensively in ways that everyone can understand easily. He is exactly the right guy to have started this discussion, and with my thanks and blessings. Me, I'm just a digger and dot connector. I can't write for...using a word for the first time that M.I. seems to get away with without repercussions:

shit!

I am intrigued about your sharing re: earthworms in old-time healing "recipes". It makes sense on many levels, because earthworms must encounter every living microbe and virus on the earth since the literal earth is what they eat. They MUST have strong immune systems by definition. They ARE the "terrain", always a part of it, so it makes a lot of sense that using extracts of worms could work to "reset" a person's immune system. They survive almost everything except drought and floods (and early birds). But there is also this: I did a search to see if earthworms themselves can become diseased, and I came up with a blank. This might be worth looking into further. Are common earthworms immortal?!

BTW, I posted early in this thread that I would share more of what I have been doing applying Dr. Wilhelm Reich's "technology" here where I live. I did a search for the words "orgone" and "orgonite" on the forums before doing so, and I saw quite a mixed bag of reactions - some of which were decidedly negative. I think I need to do more research before I try to post much more on that stuff. I am kind of confused by the reactions though, because I know that the chateau is using, sharing, and programming crystals for personal use - and the orgonite I use has been "programmed" in much the same manner to perform many of the same functions. Anyway, I will end this post by sharing a picture of my favorite orgonite device. For those who are skeptical, just look at it as a piece of art :)

Orgonite pyramid 1.jpgOrgonite pyramid 2.jpgOrgonite pyramid 3.jpgOrgonite pyramid 4.jpg
 
You guys aren't going to believe what I found on the internet...check this out!


Microscopes capable of doing the work that Naessens, Reich, Rife and Bechamp did exist right now and can be purchased!! They aren't as powerful as theirs were, but are strong enough to do most of what they did.

A blurb from their website, under "Technology/Descriptions":
_________________________________________________________________
"Introduction

Ever since the German physicist Ernst Abbe determined that light microscopes cannot resolve objects smaller than half the wavelength of visible light (about 250nm), this has been seen by scientists as the absolute resolution limit of light optical microscopes.

The current Grayfield Lens System (GLS) is the result of over 40 years research and development. By closely examining and optimizing every part of the optical pathway and closely examining the laws of optics, putting every aspect of those laws into question, a unique way of designing optical systems was discovered, where the limits normally associated with optical resolution simply do not apply.

We recognize that many of the statements, images and videos shown on this site regarding the optical capabilities of our microscopes will appear incredible to those who have studied the existing laws of optical physics. Yet these capabilities are real and based on solid optical designs which work extremely reliably, as anyone who has uses our microscopes will discover.

True scientists should remain open for new scientific developments and we ask you to reserve judgement while you view the numerous images, videos and data and ask yourself if the capabilities of our optical systems, as presented on this website, would be useful to your research work. Anyone visiting our labs can see for themselves what can really be achieved with this technology.

On this website, we will present a considerable amount of proof for you to judge for yourself what is possible with this technology.

We thank-you for your interest."
_______________________________________________________________________

So, what can this baby do (their "SeeNano Pro" model)?

Reflected Light: <100nm true resolution
Transmitted Light: 100nm true resolution

(Translation: greater than 9000x magnification!)

High Definition Scope in Vivo, in Vitro, in Situ

Ø Operates at room temperature for maximum flexibility
Ø Uses untreated samples to avoid damage and false observations
Ø Non-destructive technique enables living objects to be observed
Ø Depth of field is adjustable to penetrate deep samples
Ø Full colour images for detailed analysis
Ø Effective alternative to scanning electron microscope
Ø Resolution and depth of field increased extended

Look at this baby! Look at the clean lines, the bells and whistles, and her oculars!!

SeeNano Pro microscope.jpgSeeNano Pro microscope 2.jpgSeeNano Pro microscope 3.jpg

I want one of these!! Should we start a "Go Fund Me" account?!

THIS STUFF EXISTS, and is in use right now. There are doctors performing blood work and analysis with these beauties all around the world as I type. I'll look into getting a hold of some names of these doctors, and maybe we can actually get one or two to help us out. I already found one who lives not too far from me, though he is older. Maybe we can even get Scottie to interview one of these guys some day. May this not be wishful thinking!

Check out their site and see the pictures and videos they provide. This thing is simply mind-blowing. It does seem that there has been a counter-culture medical scene that has been using these discoveries all along, and it has been developed enough that some countries allow their use in diagnostics and treatments presently. We may actually be far behind the learning curve here, possibly simply due to the absolute control the Medical Industrial Complex has upon the media and the sharing of this information in certain western countries. This discovery actually makes me giddy! This knowledge is already in use, right now!
 

nicklebleu

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
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?

So far I can see for now, I think that both elements are needed. The virus (or any other pathogen) is kind of a signal, akin to maybe a software virus. The body is the terrain where the pathogens develop and potentially cause harm. If the computer has a vulnerability, then the virus can take hold (insert itself) and wreak havoc.

The problem with germ theory is that a lot of the above quoted ‘discrepancies’ can be explained within the model.

The reason brought forward why in every epidemic the germs tend to get less virulent is that more virulent pathogens kill their host quicker than they can spread themselves, so more and more less virulent versions survive.

Same as to why not all infected get sick - sickness is the result of an impaired balancd between immune system and pathogen. If you eat a lot of crap, or if you suffer an acute emotional shock, or any other ‘assault’ on your body, your immune system gets weakened and you get sick. The problem with viruses is a bit more complicated, as the virus itself doesn’t seem to cause the disease, but the out of proportion reaction of the immune system to the threat. At least that is the mainstream explanation - which to be honest is kind of weird, as ordinarily the body is exceedingly precise and measured in its response, and there are a myriad of interlocking systems both activating and dampening the immune response.

I actually did my thesis in experimental immunology and showed, that with any immune response the body not only produces antibodies, but anti-antibodies (so called idiotypical antibodies [IAB}) and anti-anti-antibodies (or anti-idiotypical antibodies [AIAB}). IAB enhance the immune response because they have the same (or similar) epitopes (antibody binding sites) than the antigen, and AIAB again dampen the immune response because their epitope is similar to the antibody. Of course it is much more complex (not for nothing it is called ‘the network theory of immune response’), and I don’t understand half of it.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2 one other possible factor is cross-reactivity of immune response to other (flu-like) corona viruses (of which there are 4 that regularly make the rounds during the flu season).

Also there seem to be viruses with a mortality rate of 100% (eg rabies virus), at least this is true that you die 100% once you develop symptoms, which of course doesn’t reflect the true case fatality rate. Also you can infect mice and rats in a lab with viruses, which haven’t been exposed to pollution and to media BS.

Or, maybe the VN with all its branches is the one doing all that? Just a spontaneous thought...

This may well be the case - the VN being kind of a ‘master switch’, or rather a ‘master modulator’.

It is quite mainstream now that the brain has a high degree of influence over many bodily processes. And I truly think that this influence is way more than most of us assume, even in our wildest dreams. What the precise mechanism is (whether mediated within the body somehow or more externally via something akin to the ‘morphogenetic field’ I don’t know).

Also it reminds me of the fact ( ... ‘fact’ as far as I can see from accounts, which of course could be false, too) that some people are able to walk over glowing coal without being burnt and others (I think there is a religious sect in the US) who can ingest lethal doses of poison without getting sick or die, because of their unshakable ‘faith in Jesus’.

But I think that MI is right insofar as it is hard to question our basic assumptions, from which everything else is deduced. Maybe it means that the whole edifice has to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch, I don’t know. I try to see both sides, but to me it seems that both have some valid arguments, and both have some gaps. And maybe the Truth is neither, maybe something completely different, something that we just are unable to see with our limited understanding.

One of the main problems we are facing to get a grasp on these questions are the pervasive lies and unreflected basic premises floated by just about anyone, with or without an agenda. I think that this is a true case of ‘brainwashing’, where the core assumptions - however distorted or false - are so ingrained within us that we are only able to see past them with the greatest effort. Maybe this is a big part of 3D existence and the way to 4D.

To sum that up - at this stage I don’t think I can entirely let go of pathogens in the disease mechanism, even though I am sure that their role is vastly overstated. But maybe that is incorrect - time will tell I think.
 
Top Bottom