https://rumble.com/v1al81j-the-end-of-germ-theory-featuring-dr.-tom-cowan..html
This video is packed with great info about the scam of Germ Theory.
Some of it is stuff I have never heard before, and I have been studying this subject quite a bit.
How about this:
At about 16:00, he gets into the Spanish Flu. Turns out, it was caused by toxic vaccines.
The US Army carried out a large scale vaccination program in 1917-18, funded by Rockefeller, and supervised by Frederick Gates.
That program began in November 1917, and the "Spanish Flu" became a "pandemic" immediately thereafter. (The EXACT timeframe of Covid 19.)
The outbreaks began not in Spain or anywhere else in Europe, but in the USA. An overlay map of breakouts and US Army bases is an exact match.
This was the first time in history that multiple vaccines (up to 25) were injected into people at the same time.
It was clearly an exeriment, not a treatment. The results were massive illness with multiple "diseases," not just the sympoms of "Spanish Flu." (Same thing we are seeing today with the fake Covid vaxx.)
Some people in polio experiments lost their sense of taste and smell due to the poisons on the test swabs. (interdasting ...)
So much info in this video that I cannot summarize it all. Massive resource.
Good share OP. The video was great! However, the explanation of Spanish Flu is demonstrably incorrect. The vaccine theory is an interesting one, but just doesn't explain things properly. I studied all the theories around the Spanish Flu for many years, including radar, electrical systems, aspirin, poison in vaxes, etc. until arriving at what I believe is the correct one. I'll share for your consideration.
When a person psychologically fears dying, the psyche runs a biological program to assist the person with overcoming their psychological conflict. You can think of the psyche as the "autonomic nervous system", "unconscious mind" etc. The psyche runs every aspect of our physical body, quite brilliantly I might add. All we have to do is shovel food into the mouth and it handles all the rest.
The psyche has no sense of "time", past or future. The psyche also cannot distinguish between a figurative versus literal thought. It registers your "I'm gonna die" as a real and present danger and immediately goes into action by proliferating new lung alveoli in order to increase your oxygen uptake, because the quickest way to die is due to lack of oxygen.
Now imagine soldiers in WWI and the thoughts that ran through their heads, day after day, night after night, for many years for most. "I might die tonight". "I don't think I'll survive this next battle", etc. They were immersed in a near constant situation of fearing death.
Now keep these two things in mind; First, the soldiers were mostly all vaccinated BEFORE they entered the war, some during. Second, note that there was no early deaths, nor did these soldiers die during active engagement in the war.
It's also important to note that the excess lung alveoli were actually improving their ability to fight. They were, in effect, more alert and more athletically adept due to this increase in oxygen.
It's also important to note that deaths attributed to "Spanish Flu" were skewed massively toward "fighting age men, ages 18-40". And don't forget, there were millions of mis-attributed deaths then, just as there are today. How many death certificates say "Covid-19" for people who died of heart/lung/kidney failures, or better yet, high-speed motorcycling accidents or failed ripcord parachuting accidents? You get the gist.
Even Dr. Death (Fauci) has admitted on record that autopsies of bodies of these soldiers from 1918-19 showed the vast majority died of "bacterial pneumonia". This supports my theory.
Now, the war ends and the soldiers start shipping back home. What has changed? Did they all get vaxxed before they came home? The answer is "no", they did not.
What has changed is, the soldiers are no longer fearing death. For the first time in years, they begin to feel safe again. The psyche recognizes this change and begins a reversal process by removing the excess lung alveoli and returning the soldier back to homeostasis, the way their lungs were prior to entering the war. And THIS is what the western medical system calls "Dis-ease".
Due to the length and intensity of the "fear of death programs" that were run by these soldiers, there was a great deal of excess alveoli tissue to be removed. This manifests as bloody sputum/mucous, lots of coughing, night sweats, etc. as the tuberculor bacteria (that our body creates for this very purpose) remove the excess lung tissue. The waste product of the bacterial breakdown is what the western medical establishment was trying to STOP!!
What we call "lung cancer" today, is what they called "Tuberculosis" 100 years ago. All we had was a deceptive name change, which they do ALL THE TIME to keep us fooled. The TB phase is the healing/restoration phase of lung cancer.
Now there were several things that led to the large scale deaths. First and foremost were all the incorrect "preventative measures" used by the doctors. Not a one was beneficial as they were trying to stop/arrest/curtail a natural process. Secondly, the TB bacteria require a tremendous amount of protein to do their jobs. And high-protein diets were very rare after the war. For those who ran the longest and most intense "fear of death programs" but were poor and had little access to protein, their prognosis would be grim to say the least.
So why wasn't there a "Spanish Flu" event after WWII you might ask? Well, western medicine had invented anti-biotics (against-life) by that time. And these were prescribed in droves to the returning soldiers. The antibiotics did indeed kill the TB bacteria on the spot. However, the result was that these excess lung alveoli were never properly removed from the lungs, leaving impacted "cysts" or "benign tumors", many of which were improperly diagnosed as "malignant". And the nastiness of this entire situation is that when the solider got the diagnosis of "lung cancer", guess what happened? They initiated a new "fear of death" program that began proliferating brand new lung alveoli all over again.
There is also another part to this which deals with a lesser program that I won't go into detail on here, which deals with "scare-frights" and "existence" conflicts. This combo leads to the classical "pneumonia" dis-ease. It is doubly deadly as not only is there the bronchial cell proliferation, but the "existence program" also causes a person to retain water (lack of water is the second fastest way to die) which leads to extensive lung edema (water retention) in the very area where the proliferating cells are located. The research Fauci suggested did not attempt to distinguish between the pneumonia bacterial forms and TB forms. Both would have been present depending on which programs were running (1. fear of death 2. Scare/Fright conflict 3. Existence/abandonment conflict).
Heckuva long way to go to try to explain, but is the only theory that makes any sense when you consider all the factors:
18-40 year old men who entered the war and returned were the largest group of deaths
Vaxes were administered before they entered the war
Poverty and lack of protein diet caused many to wither away
Treatment protocols were completely inadequate and incorrect
The wave of worldwide deaths happened only after all fighting had ceased
Last note: Lung cancer is the #1 "Secondary cancer", meaning it arises after a person has been diagnosed with another form of cancer (in another organ). And "secondary cancers" amount to 90% of what western medicine attributes cancer deaths to (only 10% "die from" their original cancer diagnosis). And why is this? It's a diagnosis shock. Metastases has never been proven, nor does it make any sense when you stop and rethink things. If it were true, the red cross would screen donated blood for "cancer cells".
Crazy? Think it through. Took me a long time to come around to this. But when it finally "clicked" for me, for the first time, everything around health and disease finally made sense to me.
Interesting stuff.
The first thing I would like to point out is that we can agree that whatever was the cause(s) of Spanish Flu, it was not a virus. At least, there has never been any actual evidence that it was, so alternative explanations should be explored.
Second, the electrical current in the atmosphere also makes sense. I have not read the book, "Invisible Rainbow," but it claims electricity was the cause, or one of the causes. Edison created the light bulb in 1896, so the Spanish Flu would have been around the time that the world was becoming electrified, which the human body had never been subjected to. Plausible.
Third, the vaccine harm also seems very plausible. According to the info in this video, the Spanish Flu was first in the USA, near US Army bases, where they just so happen to have been injecting massive amounts of multiple vaccines (up to 25 per soldier), which had never been done before. It makes sense that this could have been a cause or at least contributor.
Regarding the psychological factor of your hypothesis, it makes sense that fear could produce something in the body that leads toward illness.
We should check when people first started getting sick. WW1 started in 1914. The US did not get involved until 1917. If the "Spanish Flu" started in the US in 1917/1918, then why didn't the fear first affect the European soldiers who were already fighting and dying in the trenches in Europe?
Those are a couple of interesting points. Would be interesting to see stats on the timing of these deaths vs. vaccine vs. war vs. electric bulb installations, etc.
IF you can prove that, it would be quite interesting.
Of course, the younger ones were the test subjects for the vaccines, too. Would be interesting to see the age ranges of the Army-only vaxxed vs. the public-at-large vaxxed once the military were all vaxxed.
Would not be surprising, but probably very difficult or impossible to parse out now, 100 years later -- unless someone was keeping track of some sort.
"Dr. Death." KEK. (Accurate, but KEK.)
I am leaning towards there is no such thing as "bacterial pneumonia." Bacteria exists, yes. Pneumonia happens, yes. But does the bacteria CAUSE the condition of pneumonia.
Just because bacteria are PRESENT in the fluid samples does NOT mean they caused it. Correlation is not causation. I suspect the bacteria are there to save the day, not cause the harm. But I am open to evidence that proves otherwise.
But the breakouts occured BEFORE they returned home from war. The US Army experiment was November 1917. So ...
April 1917 - US enters WW1
November 1917 -- US Army vaccine experiment
March 1918 - First case of Spanish Flu, at Fort Riley, Kansas
June 1919 - End of WW1
Can't find a real "end date" of Spanish Flu, but all sources seem to point to some time in 1919.
Not sure this timetable lines up with your thesis.
What about the civilians who are claimed to have (a) got sick from and (b) died from "Spanish Flu?"
Overall, I don't think your thesis lines up with the timeframes, as I understand them.
1914-1916: War for Europeans, but not Americans, and no Spanish Flu (not even in Spain).
April 1917 - March 1918: War for Americans, but no Spanish Flu
March 1918 - 1919???: Spanish Flu first breaks out in Kansas (not Spain or anywhere else in Europe, and not among soldiers at war in Europe), but starting 4 months after the max vaccinations.
1918 - 1919: Civilians also getting the vaxx, and also getting sick and dying, but not at war (but many had loved ones at war).
June 1919 - Later: No more war, and no more Spanish Flu (don't know a specific "end date").
For American soldiers, it was 26 months (April 1917 to June 1919). Would be interesting to know if OTHER illnesses were affecting European soldiers and civilians BEFORE Spanish Flu. If so, would lend credibility to your thesis.
Also, what about Polio? Was that fear-based, as well? Did lead arsenic and DDT sprayed on food and people directly have more of an impact than fear?
In a lung cancer patient, you can often see a tumor (or whatever it is) in an xray. Can you with TB, as well?
It's an interesting idea, but I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. Has this been shown in patients? Could this have been a factor in the Covid patients, especially early on?
Not sure I follow here. If TB needs protein, wouldn't a lack of protein in the diet be harmful and destructive of TB?
Also, again I am not convinced that bacteria cause TB, but if so, my understanding is that the proteins that bacteria might eat are those that are not needed by the body. They wouldn't be eating protein from fresh meat, for example, as the digestive tract would assimilate that into amino acids and create quality human proteins for the body. Bacteria are the janitors, cleaning up the toxins and unwanted proteins. As I understand it.
Post-WW2, we have an added complication: MANY more people were smoking cigarettes, starting in about the 1920's-1930's. Smoking increases risk of lung cancer (and heart disease). So, were the post-WW2 vets getting lung cancer from smoking or from your thesis? Dunno.
I don't know much about lung cancer. But I do know a fair about amout follicular lymphoma, because I had it. Based on my personal experience, conversations with others who have or had it, oncologists (who basically know nothing other than certain treatments seem to work for some people), and non-mainstream ideas (of a wide variety), I am currently of this opinion:
My responses here are not meant to dismiss any of your thesis. Just to challenge certain points. Overall, it is interesting, but I can't say I fully understand all the important points you make, and don't know enough about some of these to really reach a conclusion. I would have to know more.
This GAW message board is a tough venue for that type of in-depth conversation. A 2-hour conversation over some beers would be a lot easier. KEK.
Firstly, TB is named for the "Mycobacterium tuberculosis" bacteria - as such the disease and the bacteria are one and the same. Second, the psyche (which operates the bodily functions in total) is rallying any and all resources in an effort to restore the affected organ to homeostasis. It can even convert creatinine (waste product in urine) into protein under extremely depleted circumstances. As such, it will siphon off any and all nutrients in order to support the work of the bacteria during one's "illness".
Neither of these "assumptions" are actually true. Smoking causes neither lung cancer nor heart disease. Both are cartel lies. There isn't a single scientific study that proves this. In fact, the largest lung cancer scientific study ever conducted was with over 1000 participants, all of which had to have smoked for at least one pack per day for 20+ years. Only 10% of these people died of lung cancer. Case closed. And if you research heart disease, you'll discover vague consensus findings (you have to interpret yourself) that less than roughly 25% of those who suffer from it were smokers at any point in their life, less than 15% being active, chronic smokers. And you'll find similar statistics around "poor diet" and "lack of exercise" for those suffering from heart disease. There are a wide variety of heart issues but generally speaking, most are related to either: "Overwhelmed/Stressed Conflict" related to people in one's life (boss, coworker, spouse, child, partner, etc.), "Territorial loss conflict" (loss of home, sustainable income, job, etc.)
Lymphomas are the late healing stage of a "bone cancer" related to a profound self-devaluation conflict. I won't bore you with all the details here. Suffice it to say however, things like carpal tunnel syndrome, tennis elbow (bursitis), etc. are technically "bone cancers" that ultimately result in "lymphomas" that go undiagnosed most of the time, as these dis-eases result from much milder self-devaluation conflicts". Typically those that suffer from significant lymphoma had previously suffered from a strongly debilitating musculoskeletal problem months prior to their lymphoma diagnosis.
What I'm sharing with you strongly disagrees with any and all suggestions of "cell malfunction", "genetic mutations" and "the body/immune system attacks itself" type suggestions. We're saying the body is EXPONENTIALLY smarter and wiser than all the accumulated knowledge of human-kind could ever hope to even approach. If only we understood this, the whole world would change overnight! And I realize, this is a tough pill to swallow. I suggest you simply take this under consideration rather than re-hashing old situations.
If this were true, then ask yourself why the Red Cross does not screen donated blood for cancer cells? There would be epidemics of cancer sprouting up on a non-stop basis as the vast majority of people who "have cancer" don't even know it.
I love Dr. Cowan's work on the fake virus narrative, but I disagree with him completely on terrain theory, electrification, 5G, toxins, etc. These are all theories he's working with. On a positive note, Dr. Cowan has been wrong about a lot of things from the past that he readily admits to! A rare trait indeed in today's day and age. And don't get me wrong, I believed all these things for 10+ years until I stumbled into the ideas that I'm suggesting to you today. They're much more believable than "germs"!!! And as to the "toxin" idea, I agree that a heavy dose of poison/toxin can cause severe damage or death, no doubt. But this situation would be fast-acting and near-immediate in the vast majority of cases. I haven't found any scientifically verifiable evidence that points to long-term cumulative exposure to micro-doses of toxins, pesticides, etc. eventually leading to commonly encountered dis-eases. That being said, when it comes to this new Covid jab, I think there's little doubt that something in this nostrum causes irregular and unnatural blood clotting issues like we've never seen before. And many of the other jab neurotoxins like MMR, DPT, etc. can and do sometimes lead to immediate poisonings. But I don't think the neurotoxin is the cause of "autism" (profound fright-anger-betrayal conflicts initiated by the terror of the jab event itself).
You understand far more than most, and most importantly, you didn't insta-dismiss my ideas, like 80% of the people I share them with do. So kudos to you, it takes a tremendous shift in thinking to even entertain these ideas. And only a small few are ready to do so.
I've provided quite a bit more for you to think about today. Mull it over if you choose. No need to reply to all I said in-line. However I'm happy to answer any additional questions you may have after contemplating. This shift in understanding disease can either be mortifying or liberating depending on how you choose to perceive it. It's mortifying if you consider that if it's correct, what the implications are. However, it's liberating to know that you have the power to minimize and possibly all but eliminate any current diseases you may have (when you understand the conflict), and any and all significant future ailments, as it's impossible to completely avoid "psychological conflicts" forevermore as they aren't under your conscious control. However, it is possible to be aware of them when they happen, enabling you to be introspective in order to downgrade and lessen the intensity and duration of them, which ultimately results in much more graceful healing/restoration phases if and when they arise.
Much food for thought. Thanks for your questions!
Yes, I know what is claimed, and in this thread we are both challenging long-held claims.
My understanding is that the "proof" of bacterial infection of various kinds is that the bacteria was found in the bodily fluids of people with the illness, but that COULD mean the bacteria are trying to clean up the problem, and not necessarily the cause of the problem.
Similar to the idea that cholesterol in the blood vessels is there to patch the harm done by the glucose that went through the blood vessel and caused the abrasion.
I don't know if there has been a direct observation study where bacteria directly caused a person or animal to get TB. Maybe so. I'm just not aware of such a study, so I challenge the idea unless someone can show the proof.
In fairness, I said "increases risk," which does imply causation. AFAIK, there is a clearly established correlation, though I don't think anyone can really prove causation due to (in theory) it taking 20-30 years of regular smoking to cause.
The fact that correlation does exist is significant, IMO, since we can logically think of a potential pathway, and then those who smoke tend to have a problem in much greater numbers than those who do not.
Not so fast. What is the percentage of the general population who has never smoked dying of lung cancer?
Again, that misses the point. The question is not: What percentage of smokers did and did not "have X?" Rather, the question is: What is the percentage of smokers "have X" versus what percentage of non-smokers "have X?"
Maybe this is a problem I see with your thesis. It relies on psychological analysis, which is going to be impossible to prove. Nobody can possibly know all the emotions and psychological factors that MIGHT be at play in any particular individual, even within yourself. Interesting concept, but cannot be proven.
[Side note: Tom Cowan says that he starts at exploring psychological factors when trying to figure out what might be the cause of a problem.]
The only thing I can specifically point to in my case is a massive bed bug infection, and lymphoma occuring 8 months later. Since the lymphatic system is the body's system for cleansing toxins, it makes logical sense, and my real-world experience lines up with "cause-effect."
It also makes me suspect that bed bugs might have been the true cause of "small pox" of the American Indians, when they traded things for the White man's bedding and blankets.
Also, I never had any dignosis for bone cancer, and don't know anyone else with lymphoma who did. Not that it necessarily means much. Just that if I knew of it, it would lend credibility to your thesis, but I don't.
If they are undiagnosed, then how could you know they have it?
I don't expect the Red Cross to want to do anything of real value. Talking about the executives who run it, not the people at the lower levels.
The reason a cancerous "cell" being inserted into another person via blood transfusion would not be a problem is that it is not their own cell. It would be a foreign protein and the donee's body would attack it. But within one's own body, it is not foreign.
Also, interesting to note that I came across someone once who said that blood transfusions are unnecessary and should never be done. All the person needs is fluid and electrolytes, but not the blood cells from someone else (which are foreign material that should be rejected). With enough fluid, they can create their own blood cells. Don't know much about it, but interesting.
I think the person doing the video in my OP did a good job of showing the cause-effect relationship of toxins/poisons to polio.
Granted, there are no clinical trials -- and there won't be as long as Germ Theory dominates the narrative.
Two thoughts come to mind here:
(1) It seems to me like a "chicken and egg" conundrum. Which came first? I have no doubt that negative thoughts and emotional trauma can lead to poorer health. But if someone is of this mindset, and then they eat a poor diet, is it the emotional state or the cupcakes that caused the health problem?
Also, it would be necessary to psychologically evaluate every individual who both does and does not have a health problem to really figure it out for sure. This seems like an impossible task. So at best, we can say the emotional state is a factor. At best, it remains a thesis that is worth considering, insofar as we can try to identify where we might have emotional conflicts and try to resolve them, and that might lead to better health.
(2) Your statement here reminds me of Ayn Rand's explanation of what emotions ARE. What is an emotion? Why do we have them? Why do so many people seem to act emotionally and not rationally? Or in your thesis, what is a conflict and why do we have them?
Rand's view was that emotions ARE rational. They are our body's mechanism for giving us feedback about a stimulus we experience, either real world or internal thought, and how it relates to our values.
If I told that somebody died, you might have a slight negative emotion since death itself is viewed as a negative. But you don't know who it is, and you know it happens to everyone, so the emotion is subdued. If I told you the person was 102 years old and lived a happy life, you might be almost a bit happy that they were so lucky in life. If I told you it was a little child and a very sad situation, your emotion might be more negative. If it was someone close to you who died tragically and early, it might be devastating. If it was someone who deserved to die, in your view, you might feel a righteous sense that justice was served.
In each of these cases, it is not really the individuals involved that affected your emotions. It was your own values. What YOU value in life is what your emotion is telling you about the stimulous of knowing (or even thinking about) something that happened (or might happen).
I have no doubt that emotions contribute to health that is less than what it could be with a more positive state of mind. But I do not believe in "positive thinking" for its own sake. And I do think that physical things can cause other physical effects.
But I will consider how your thesis seems to explain things, as I learn more about various non-Germ Theory theories.
Anyway, I'm out for today.
Thanks for the input.
Great points, I think we agree. Sorry I misunderstood your earlier comment. First, great point on cholesterol. It is actually the very substance that RESTORES temporarily altered blood vessels, which were adjusted by the psyche to improve blood flow during an unresolved psychological conflict. The cholesterol shows up after conflict resolution. And yes, there is no such study demonstrating TB infection. Hilariously enough, a quick google search will bring up the establishment's "best evidence" with a pathetic John's Hopkins experiment from the 1950s regarding guinea pigs and air ducts connecting to a hospital TB ward. It's such a laughable experiment with a million holes in it, I don't even know where to start. All other "scientific experiments" of the sort (thousands up on thousands) involve directly injecting TB into helpless rodents and then....most miraculously....finding it in their dead organs later. Mind-numbingly idiotic stuff. They could achieve the same by injecting ground-up cheerios into the helpless mice. How this passes for "science" is unfathomable to me.
Agreed. If you take a step back and evaluate all the conventional explanations for causation, you'll discover none can either be proven or disproven. Ingenious, eh? Case in point: "So Mr. Jones, I see you ate a super-strict diet with regular exercise and a healthy lifestyle the past 50 years, so your heart attack/cancer was most likely due to family history. Oh, I see, nobody in your immediate family has ever had a heart attack or cancer? Well in that case, let me tell you a bit about "epigenetics" and how your exposure to modern chemicals and carcinogens let to your cells mutating or heart stopping then." No matter which "cause" you can rule out, they've got another one in their back pocket always at the ready. What they can never explain is crazy old grandpa Charlie who drank a glass of wine and pre-dinner cocktail daily as well as smoking one cigar daily the last 50 years of his life until he died in his sleep at 100 years of age (he must have had great genes!). Or the reverse, the uber-health-conscious guy who at pure foods, ran 25 miles a week, made a big stack of money, had a totally loving family and keeled over of a heart attack at age 45 (he must have had bad genes!). As I've come to see things, if there are exceptions like these, the explanations are at best flawed, and at worst completely wrong.
Well, lung cancer is like the 6th leading cause of death in the world and has been in the top 10 for many decades, higher now than 50 years ago. While at the same time, it's quite clear that the number of smokers has drastically diminished the past 20-30 years. From the WHO website themselves -> "Deaths from noncommunicable diseases are on the rise. Trachea, bronchus and lung cancers deaths have risen from 1.2 million to 1.8 million and are now ranked 6th among leading causes of death.".... the key word in that sentence is RISEN while smoking has demonstrably fallen!!!! (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death)
I agree, it's simply impossible to statistically assess any of these diet/exercise/family-history theories. I think it's all quite on purpose. "Well doc, I ate a strip sirloin once very 2-3 months for the past 50 years and probably at a fast food hamburger once per month, but otherwise avoided fats and red meats the rest of the time"...And doc says "Well that could have been all it took...you should have avoided red meet 100% of the time....but we can never say for sure!"
It comes down to whether you recognize the conflict that is suggested with the physical disease you experienced. Sometimes it's subtle, sometimes the connection can't be made by the individual, but more often than not, the relationship between the conflict and the ailment can be recognized. It's the person suffering the disease who connects the dots, not a proclamation from the practitioner/consultant that "here is the exact reason, trust me, I'm the expert". The degree of individual subjective and figurative perceptions is what can make things quite tricky to pin down sometimes. Further, some patients lose memory of challenging situations that occur prior to their disease symptoms. I'll give you this, there are many challenges to connecting the dots. Some diagnosis are fast and simple (like lung cancer, testicular/ovarian cancer, Parkinson's, etc.) Others are harder to pinpoint, especially self-devaluation and separation conflicts. Anyway, take that for what it's worth.
I've never heard of such a suggestion for leukemia. Did you oncologists agree with your suspicion on this diagnosis?
This is a whole new can of worms. First, I don't actually believe the "white man blankets" story at all. I think this is a convenient scapegoat for both the deliberate slaughtering of the Native Americans, as well as their unfortunate proclivity to become hopelessly addicted to the white man's "FireWater". As there is no such thing as viruses (if you believe this), there must be other explanations. Regarding what I'm sharing with you in these threads, all epidermal skin rashes, bumps, lesions, etc. are caused by a "separation conflict", be it dermatitis, psoriasis, eczema, rosacea, hives, herpes, basal cell carcinoma, measles, chicken pox, smallpox, syphilis (great pox) etc. They're all technically the same thing, they just differ in size, location, laterality and appearance. Thus, I could logically theorize that the Native American's were "displaced from their homes", quite easily leading to a severe separation conflicts (but this wouldn't kill them). Take that for what it is worth as well.
Agreed, bone cancer is a very rarely "found". In fact most oncologists don't even go looking for it unless there has been a previous cancer diagnosis. Bone cancer is actually the second most common "secondary cancer" to lung cancer. This is why I suggested things like bursitis and carpal tunnel are both technically "bone cancers". If doctors were to investigate people with these issues approximately 4-6 weeks after conflict resolution, they would test positive for leukemia. Leukemia/Lymphoma is one of the most difficult "conflict-to-disease" matches to make. Too bad, as it's a hard start for us to make here. All I can say for certain is that at some point this modality suggests that for many months, or possibly years, prior to the lymphoma diagnosis, a self-devaluation conflict was underway. The lymphoma/leukemia test is literally the very tail end of the conflict resolution healing process, and from my understanding, is wrongly interpreted by allopathic labs due to the previous phase of healing when the body actually begins to release the leucoblasts primarily responsible for bone healing in the previous phase. Some of these leucoblasts get into the bloodstream after their work is done and conventional medicine considers them as “immature” (compared to leucocytes) and as “cancerous” or "abnormal" as such (cancer of the blood) during routine blood tests, and even though they don’t show cell division (mitosis) which is the required criterion of cancer cells. Quite a clusterfork to say the least. This is very complicated business that I realize is very hard to understand.
Good question. When somebody has a self-devaluation conflict, depending on the nature, duration and intensity, the psyche breaks down the appropriate tissue in order to build back a stronger musculoskeletal region. The lighter/shorter self-devaluation conflicts afflict musculature. The mid-range conflicts hit connective tissue (joints, tendons, ligaments) and the stronger/longer conflicts cause a breakdown of the bones. As mentioned above, it's rare that oncologists go looking for bone cancers unless there was a previous cancer diagnosis. The man who figured all this out suggests that if they were to start looking, there would be millions of athletes all over the world being diagnosed with either mild bone cancers or leukemias a zillion times a day.
Well then by that line of reasoning, wouldn't all the cells (RBCs/WBCs/Platelettes) of the donor also be rejected as foreign. In other words, why would the body only attack the "cancer cell" as foreign?
I totally agree with this unless someone is going to die immediately without the transfusion (too much blood loss to survive otherwise and not enough time to manufacture new blood).
As I see it, while this is no doubt that this is the NUMBER ONE theory that most everybody in the alternative health space ascribes to (that I once did too), including doctors Cowan, Kaufman, Bailey, etc..... it is still speculation nonetheless lacking a shred of scientifically verifiable proof. And I also get that there doesn't really seem to be any other rational explanation (if you exclude what I'm suggesting). But I do get it, it's hard to question this majority when all you've got to challenge it is the random musings of an anonymous stranger on the internet....hahaha...totally understand.
Out of chars...new thread reply to follow...
As simply as I can put it, the biblical suggestion of "forgiveness" is the ultimate healing balm - of both self and others. The more modern notion of "Presence practice" (i.e. meditation) helps with our subconscious conflicts, acting in the background, to re-surface eventually. And the ideas I'm sharing suggest it can be of great assistance to understand what general type of psychological conflict their disease is linked to. The thrust of all I share is to shift from thinking of "outer attacks" and instead consider thought/emotional origin as a possibility and then see where it leads you.
And great stuff about Rand and emotions. I wholeheartedly agree. There's a good book out there called "How Emotions are Made". Casually summarizing, the author's findings, she BLOWS AWAY each and every popular theory about emotions, like universality, or that certain events always lead to certain emotions (as you pointed out). Instead, the author argues that every single emotion is individually and subjectively CONSTRUCTED by all different parts of our brains, not just the amygdala and RAS, like conventional neuroscientists were taught. And that basically, despite all the research and studies they've thrown at it, how emotions are "constructed" follows no detectable pattern and is accomplished in as many different ways as there are people. It's a great read...anyway...
I'll leave you with this idea after a most stimulation discussion. Have you ever considered that our thoughts and emotions could possibly be the ALL POWERFUL mechanisms of experience and manifestation in this realm (not including God/creator/nature/universe of course)?
If this were true, it would be a game-changer for humanity at large. Every day, I believe more and more that this is the most plausible explanation I've come across to date.
And the irony is, of course, that nobody has even the slightest idea what these ever-present, non-physical, intangible, ephemeral, uncontrollable, unpredictable thingies (thoughts and emotions) are made of, where they come from, or even what they really are. And yet they are the drivers of all our experiences.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm?
Food for continued thought. Enjoyed the discussion!
Agreed my friend, this would be much easier to discuss over a nice round of froth beverages!
Okay, buckle up...long response ahead (possibly in two installments)...
Yep, there's no such thing as viruses. There are now two 2+ hour videos recently put out that summarize what took me almost 3 years to assemble on my own through all the varied sources I researched. I'll share them with you if interested.
As I've mentioned several times in this thread (which you can read), I don't believe in anything called the "immune system". It doesn't exist and was invented in 1972 (its first appearance in medical textbooks) in order to INCREASE the proportion of spending on "medicine" as per the government edict to make "medical care" a significant proportion of the US "Economy". The government (Rockefellerian) edict was to increase total medical spending by 5% per year thereafter. And voila, look where we are now, practically right on target!
I read it cover to cover. Firstenberg makes a lot of interesting points, but unfortunately I think he went above and beyond to "make things fit" his theory, as you would expect somebody to do who was suffering from the symptoms he endures. That being said, I do believe it's possible that a very tiny percentage (like .001%) of the population may indeed be overly sensitive to electrical impulses. But it's a tiny few people, and not representative of even a minor portion of the population. However, I've read about 6 books on the subject in an effort to help a niece of mine who gets regular chronic migraines and I walked away from them all with more questions than answers.
I agree that there's no doubt some people were damaged or killed by the vaccines. But I think such problems would have been near-immediate in relation to the injection (within 72 hours), not years upon years later. Whatever substance being used to clog the bloodstreams of people today wasn't available 100 years ago. Their nostrums were insta-poisonings for some IMHO.
Short of "clear and direct poisonings", I'm of the opinion that psychological conflicts are effectively the ONLY FACTOR that leads to virtually all dis-ease, save a very few rare exceptions.
One of the BIG keys to understanding this modality is that in 95%+ of the situations, is that WHILE THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONFLICT IS ACTIVE, there are no "dis-ease" symptoms. This is especially the case with lung cancer. So hopefully that answers your question. The cease-fire ended for all countries at the same general time. Only after the soldiers arrived home did they finally feel safe again. And this is when the "pandemic" began all over the world in earnest.
Considering how we've been taught to think about "cancer", I doubt I could find any such scientific evidence. The second somebody gets a cancer diagnosis, the fear programs they begin to run are debilitating in other ways, not related to the temporary improved function of the affected organ (lungs in this case). It's worth noting that the vast majority of people who get diagnosed with cancer had NO IDEA they "had it" prior to their life-shortening "annual checkups". Cancer doesn't hurt and doesn't impair organ function except in rare and extreme situations when the person has held onto their psychological conflict for typically many years. This should be a tip off that cancer isn't what we think it is. The big problem with long-lasting "cancers" is that while a person is actively conflicted, their appetite is greatly curtailed. As such, most people who "die of cancer" (and not opting for conventional treatments) die of cachexia (a slow wasting away due to lack of appetite, protein, etc.).
I doubt this info could ever be found. Further, there were so many different experimental batches being whipped up by effectively moon-shining stills back in those days. Some of the stuff they put into those jabs that I've read would turn your stomach.
Yep, it would be like trying to figure out who "really" died of "fake-Covid-19" even today. Technically, the only attributions to it SHOULD BE those who died of lung failure of some sort. But you'd never be able to figure that out by parsing death certificates even in this day and age of meticulous record keeping.
Yes, you're right. When it comes to bacteria, you have to adjust your thinking on the subject. The bacteria are present to perform a task - either to break down temporary excess tissue (e.g. cancers) or to restore tissue that has been deliberately necrotized by the psyche to improve function/flow/performance (e.g. ulcers) or to build back a region of the musculoskeletal system in order to make it stronger. In all cases, if you don't understand WHY things are happening, it's easy to blame the bacteria as the "cause". Technically the activity of the bacteria is "making one feel sick" as they utilize a tremendous amount of energy and protein to perform their work. So it's a true statement to say "bacteria caused my dis-ease" when evaluating from a short-term outlook, without understanding the role they're playing in restoring the body to a state of homeostasis. In effect, the bacteria only appear after a lengthy phase of psychological conflict that has subsequently been resolved. In short, the bacteria don't appear until after you've psychologically resolved/accepted/forgiven or moved on from your issue.
Simple, they too ran their own psychological "fear of death" programs.
Many children were indeed paralyzed by the DDT and lead arsenate pesticide poisoning. As they were growing, the poisons got into their spinal cords during key growth segments. This is why very few adults ever "got polio" (because they were done growing). Keep in mind, polio goes by many names today -> ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), multiple sclerosis, Guillain-Barre syndrome and several other names. One of the slickest tricks of the cartel is to change the names of, or add new names to the same basic disease conditions. The cause of the majority of these "chronic paralytic dis-eases" are not "fear based", but rather self-devaluation conflicts effectively resulting from the psychological conflict "some part of my body is no longer good enough, not performing as well, soon to fail, I'm falling apart, I'm growing old, etc." type psychological conflicts.
TB is the "healing/restoration" phase of "lung cancer". And yes, of course you can find the lungs TEAMING with the TB bacteria. What's most interesting is that the TB bacteria are actually generated by the psyche AT THE SAME TIME as the excess lung alveoli are being proliferated. If you go back and look at some of the early studies around TB (1920s-1950s) you'll find that when researchers began examining patients who didn't yet have TB, but came from similar environments (like the battlefield), the researchers found LATENT TB MYCOBACTERIA in the lungs of these people who did not yet "have TB". In short, the TB mycobacteria were simply waiting to "go into action" once the psychological conflict was resolved. The conventional explanations amount to the new "BIG LIE" that they were "asymptomatic carriers" of TB. Interestingly, the amount of excess lung alveoli is always in direct and perfect proportion to the number of TB bacteria. And further, the reason that "cancer cells" are "abnormal" is to enable the TB bacteria to be able to easily RECOGNIZE and DISTINGUISH the temporary "cancer cells" when it comes time for them to be removed (eaten) following the conflict resolution.
I would think so, for some, most certainly. Keep in mind it takes a long time to develop detectable "lung cancer" - many months at a minimum. But absolutely, there would have been a certain percentage of the population that "feared death" thanks to all the media hysteria and all the steps everybody took to "protect us".
This is PRECISELY why many people "with cancer" die of cachexia (wasting). The bacteria will begin to use the protein required by other organs and tissues to complete their restoration/healing work. If protein is scarce in the diet, all the bodily organs will suffer as a result. It's worth noting that when you "get sick", your psyche has instructed the body to halt all unnecessary processes in order to restore the tissue/organ. This is why when we are sick, we have zero energy, need a ton of sleep, have a tiny appetite, have night sweats, etc. The psyche is attempting to perform its restoration in the shortest possible period of time. A person already in a weakened state (co-morbidities) suffer from organ function failure if and when these conditions arise. The bacteria (created by the body) are effectively under command to "complete their work" at all costs.
Gonna take a second reply to finish here...I'm out of characters...
This is so interesting, I've never heard of this before! Thankyou for sharing!
Thanks for reading and contemplating my friend! It's a shock to the system to hear this kind of explanation for many at first glance. 80% of the people I explain this to just don't want to hear it. And I totally understand. It's the implications that are the unsettling part.
Anyway, bottom line, vaccines don't even come close to explaining the facts surrounding the Spanish Flu event....not even close in fact. The idea that it was caused by a "virus" is even more ludicrous however.
It's an interesting hypothesis. There's 2 things I noted though when reading your post though. (1) It wasn't only WWI vets that were vaxxxinated and died though of the so called Spanish flu. And (2) Perhaps it was an oversight or implied, but not once did you mention the immune system and its crucial importance.
But it was mainly WW vets that died - like 70+%. Many others also ran the "fear of death program", quite literally fearing they were going to "die of Spanish flu". That's all it takes.
There is no such thing as "the immune system". The medical cabal made it up in 1972 out of thin air to start making more money off the gullible sheep by hijacking the lymphatic system and making up a few new types of cells. Viruses don't exist. Bacteria are temporarily formed to perform repair, restoration or tissue destruction. They don't come from outside of us. Our body is made up trillions of tiny organisms called microzyma by Bechamp, Protits by Enderlien, Bions by Reich, Somatids by Naessans. These microzyma are the fundamental units of life. They morph into all our "cells" and tissues as well as bacteria depending on the function that is required. When the job is done, the nucleus of the cell or functional "brain" of the bacteria return back to being microzyma again. The microzyma are the indestructible basis of all life. As such, contagion is a myth and germ theory is a complete and utter hoax, debunked 150+ years ago by the guy who first found the microzyma. The lies are thick and deep.
Net-Net, there is nothing "to be immune to". Nothing. It's one of many brainwashing programs the cabal has run against us to keep us held in a state of fear.
And I do understand, this is hard to accept if this is your first time hearing this. I was very uncomfortable with the implications when I first stumbled across these ideas 3 years ago. I didn't believe them, but decided to research for myself. And, much to my surprise, I learned there has never been a successful scientific experiment demonstrating human-to-human transmission of disease in the history of medicine. Additionally, nobody has ever found a virus, they've always been theoretical. The video the OP shared basically goes over the entire history of germ theory and how it's been a fraud and hoax from its very inception. I highly recommend you invest the 2.5 hours to learn what it took me years and years to figure out through hundreds of different sources.
We've been lied to on a massive scale. Germ theory is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg.
I have no doubt about the validity of Terrain Theory. I've advocated this position for a long time as a result of the endless enigmas I found in Germ Theory.
Re: 1. I'll consider your thesis on the "fear of death program" and I'll ruminate on it. It is also true that negative thoughts including fear, worry, and dread compromise the immune system.
Re: 2. I take it you're not familiar with 'Optimal Balance'. My use of term 'immune system' is quite different than the standard definition due to my inclusion of it being part of maintaining 'Optimal Balance'. If you understand feedback systems you''ll have a better understanding of what I mean. As a compendium, there's no contrasting open loop system existing in the human body medical science seems to posit. As far as understanding Antoine Bechamp's Terrain Theory, I am a disciple. Germ Theory is indeed a fraud. One of the arguments that isn't considered is the overall role of ubiquitous fungus or the fermentation process to which acts as the antithesis or destructive force of all life. It's a battle that ensues until death and thereafter. It exists in every human cell from conception onward. Death itself may be explained by understanding this deleterious mechanism. Its origin may even be traced to the consequence of the original sin.
I understand. What I'm suggesting is not easily accepted at first. I know I didn't buy it straight out of the gate. It took over a year of intense study before I finally came around to it.
For the record, I disagree with "terrain theory" as well. It's closer to accurate than germ theory, but it effectively implies that one has poisoned oneself over the course of years/decades through poor nutrition or over-exposure to toxins. Unfortunately, there is no scientific proof of either of these theories as being true. At best, there appears to be some correlation between overweight, unhealthy, beaten-down people and disease. What I'm suggesting is that these people "thought themselves into" such a decrepit state. Effectively, they are suffering from multiple self-devaluation conflicts that build on themselves in vicious cycles. One leads to another, and another, and so on.
I'm suggesting that what we call "dis-ease" is actually the result of the psyche adapting some part of the body (organ, tissue, bone, muscle, etc.) in order to better protect the individual from current or future psychological conflicts and traumas by temporarily improving function of the organ (many cancers) or breaking down muscle/bone/joint/tendon in order to make it stronger so as to avoid a similar problem in the future.
The lynchpin to understanding all of this is that your psyche takes your FIGURATIVE thoughts quite LITERALLY. I can't stress this enough.
For example: "I don't feel supported" self devaluation (cervical back problems). "I felt crushed" (thoracic back problems). "I can't hold onto or let go of <something> (your hands "Hold" things -> Parkinsons"). "I can't move forward with my decision" or "I don't want to move" (Your feet move you, so various foot problems). "I'm falling apart as I get older", which is a generalized self-devaluation; depending on the length and intensity of this thought-pattern, it leads to "lyme disease" on the mild end, fibromyalgia in the mid-range, and multiple sclerosis under high intensity (emotion/feeling) and duration.
Believe it or not, in all of these examples, your psyche is attempting to breakdown a muscle, joint, tendon or bone in order to build it back STRONGER so you won't suffer from a similar future conflict. But unfortunately, most people get caught up in the idea that "there's something wrong with me" and they end up STALLING/CURTAILING/ARRESTING the final restoration/healing stage with all the big pharma meds and allopathic treatments. In effect, these "chronic illnesses" are what we call "hanging healings".
To simplify the above. Your body always knows best - don't get in its way. Full stop.
RE #1: Great, it takes a radical shift in understanding health and disease. You can't take this all in at once. And keep in mind, each specific type of cancer results from a different program. Lungs relate to scare/fright/death programs. Ovarian/Testicular cancer result from a "profound loss of a loved one" program. Pancreatic cancer results from a conflict over material possessions (money, will, property, etc.). Throat/Stomach/Intestine/Colon cancer arise due to something in your life you "can't digest" / "can't stomach" / "Can't accept" etc. The most common liver cancer (and hepatitis) result from long-held anger conflicts. Hopefully you can see there is a recognizable and obvious relationship between your psychological conflict and how your psyche "INTERPRETS" your figurative thoughts; "Oh, you can stomach this situation? Let's improve the function of your stomach/intestine/liver by increasing the digestive juices and enzymes. This is what happens in nature when a carnivore or snake can't fully digest the bones of its prey. Anyway, hopefully you get the gist. Every "dis-ease" will make sense to you when you can think like your psyche, whose one and only job is survival of the organism (and it does a remarkable job at it 99.9999% of the time). It is only when we intervene and think we "Know better" when long-term intractable problems arise.
RE #2. As mentioned, I don't ascribe to terrain theory. My understanding is that bacteria and fungi are both produced by and within the body in order to facilitate cell/tissue breakdown or restoration depending on which psychological conflict program is being run, and which embryological cell type (endoderm {old brain}, mesoderm (half old, half new brain}, ectoderm {new brain}) is effected.
In a nutshell, what I'm suggesting is that our body is never "attacked" from the outside - be it germs, toxins, 5G, etc. (and don't take this the wrong way, if you are directly "poisoned", that will kill you, but it's not a "dis-ease", it's a poisoning.) Nor are we bound and destined by genetics, heredity, family history, etc. All "dis-ease" is a result of the psyche's efforts to respond and adapt to figurative/perceived THREATS TO OUR SURVIVAL in order to either help us through the conflict period or to permanently improve the strength and function of the musculoskeletal system.
And I get it, this is A LOT to take in. Ruminate for as long as you wish. :) I look forward to any questions you may have.
There is no doubt a role the mind plays in health and disease. Albeit, it is but one factor to many other ones. Ultimately death always occurs no matter how transcendental the mind is. My father-in-law beat a lymphatic cancer having only a 2% survival rate. He did this after reading a book on using the mind to heal his disease. Indeed, it does exist. The mind can even transcend the physical laws known to mankind. It is far beyond our understanding.
On the other hand, parasites attack the human body and cause deleterious health conditions. Just as a carnivore attacks its prey from the outside, so does the parasite. Parasite infection is also referred to as a 'dis-ease' and is all too often misdiagnosed. Depending on the organ that is attacked, different symptoms result. It is incontrovertible that at least some of these parasites attack from the outside.
In an earlier post in which I used the term -- 'Immune system', you motivated me to reevaluate this very term. I went to bed thinking about it and whether that term was a good representative of how I interpret it. In a dream it came to me that my use of the word is really more akin to 'life force', or a relating word may be 'aura'. Through my dreams (and I kid you not) things are revealed to me for better understanding. It comes and goes, but every now and then I am able to channel it through dreams. I even once fell asleep thinking about the enigma of Schrodinger's equation and woke up in the middle of the night excited that I resolved the riddle. When I told my college instructor that morning, his mouth became agape and he responded stating this very interpretation was just revealed to him by a colleague that very morning.
I want to avoid the inclination of people interpreting these words (life force and aura) as some 'eastern religious' interpretation when that is not my intent. There however is a real spiritual underpinning to all of this though.
Without having to respond to the many specific things you wrote, I 'd like you to read the following and to consider it for better understanding. It is found here-- https://www.docdroid.net/UXkRhZh/cdf-pdf
I don't necessarily agree with the origin part and it really isn't central to what the overall implications of the document mean.
Ah, just read your article. I don't wish to belittle you, or it in any way. However, I'm at a stage of sharing at this point in time where I prefer "cutting to the chase" rather than candy-coating things. For what it's worth, I spent a good 7-8 years believing similar ideas around viruses, bacteria, fungi, toxins, etc. So simply put, I was once in agreement with these ideas. And I also understand that the vast majority of alternative health practitioners, researchers, etc. believe in these sorts of things.
Simply put, I realize I'm sharing an INCREDIBLY OBSCURE AND MINORITY OPINION in this thread. So don't feel bad if you decide I'm just crazy. Most people do to be honest. I've got a thick skin.
My only wish is that you consider/contemplate what I'm suggesting in this thread, neither outright rejecting or accepting a word I say. Instead, take my ideas into the dream world or into your intuition for a period of time and see if anything percolates. I can't think of a better way to handle them honestly.
Now, all the being said, I don't believe a single word of this article, nor its fundamental premises. This is a marketing ploy beginning to end. In a nutshell, to believe in this is to believe you are and could be at any moment a helpless victim of "nefarious forces/fungi/bacteria/toxins/etc." that are "out there". As hopefully you've realized by now, I believe things are the other way around, and it is the "Internal forces" (thoughts & emotions) that are the real cause of disease. If you're on this board, at a minimum, you recognize we're living in an inverted reality on, at a minimum, a few topics (government, media, etc.). I'm simply expanding on this notion and suggesting the same is true with health/medicine as well. You gotta really stretch those brain-muscles when contemplating this stuff, no doubt!
All the diseases mentioned in the article have perfectly rational explanations, originating in the mind due to an unavoidable psychosomatic conflict. I'll spare you trying to itemize them. And that's not even a worthwhile exercise. My experience has taught me that the only chance I have of convincing somebody of this is when I can speak directly to a current or recent disease they've had (above and beyond run-of-the-mill colds/flus/headaches, etc.). As such, if you've never had "lung cancer", then what I've shared in this thread won't resonate with you because you've never gone through the specific psychological conflict that I'm suggesting causes it. At best, all you can think is "maybe, maybe not"!
What I'm suggesting, without putting a finer point on it, is that ALL diseases originate from a life situation that causes us a psychological conflict, that we feel threatened by in some way. The most common conflicts include - Separation conflict, self-devaluation conflict, territory/nest conflict threat, identity conflict, sexual conflict, death/fright/scare conflict, abandonment/existence conflict, loss conflict, etc. These are all high-level generalized categories of conflicts, not meant to explain each and every specific disease per se. Beneath each are variations depending on the actual disease, which are far more specific.
All adults have effectively had all of these conflicts, to one degree or another in their lifetimes, and will continue to do so. They are unavoidable. The difference between those who end up with lifelong, chronic, debilitating ailments versus those who suffer shorter-duration and lesser-degree ailments can be attributed to the person's ability to -> Forgive/Forget/Accept/Allow/Let-Go/Release/Come-To-Terms-With these psychological conflicts, whatever they may be. And I totally get it, easier said than done in many cases. No two situations are ever identical, nor perceived in the same way. The impact, intensity and duration of these conflicts is a completely subjective matter.
The good news is, it sounds like you do have some broader spiritual inclinations which enable you to better hear and consider what I'm saying. Case in point, if you've come across the idea of "being present" (Eckhart Tolle being one popular example), you'll no doubt see what he (and many others before him) and I are suggesting. The practice of being present (e.g. meditation, silent sitting, neutral observation) releases these conflicts naturally, so the psychological conflict program (thought-ruminating) can be more gracefully released instead of regularly and continuously being "thought about" over and over and over again. It will "come up" at some point in one's "Presence practice", but if it can be neutrally looked at, it will ultimately be released, facilitating a "healing" as it were.
And better yet, there's a reason "Forgiveness" is such a powerful practice, often more powerful than presence in the early stages. It does indeed work wonders for mind, body and soul! And this includes, more than anything else, forgiveness of oneself for any and all perceived failures/mistakes/errors that one feels they made in their lifetime. And again, everybody struggles with this to one degree or another as it is unavoidable. We all "beat ourselves up" from time to time. The trick is to "catch yourself' when you see it happening, and find ways and strategies to get over it. Having a spiritual practice and "handing it over to God/Creator" for resolution is one such strategy.
All this being said, I realize my ideas are radical, possibly earth-shattering when first encountered. I had a hard time initially accepting them as well. It takes time to shift your way of thinking about health and disease. It just doesn't happen overnight. I was deep into toxins, terrain, poisons, 5G, electricity for years upon years. And I eventually grew frustrated when I could never find any "smoking guns" where one could definitively say "This" causes "That".
For example "Aluminum causes Alzheimers"..... or.... "MMR vaccine causes autism"......or....tobacco chemicals case cancers".
No such evidence exists. It's all general. Like "eating non-organic foods" can cause XYZ cancer. Or "using deodorants with aluminum sulfide leads to Alzheimers. No matter which type of terrain theory idea I investigated carefully, I always came away realizing that the the disease attributed to the toxin is always the EXCEPTION and never the rule.
And I looked and looked for years. Never once could I find a study suggesting, say, long-term mercury exposure leads to colon cancer....or long-term arsenic exposure leads to multiple sclerosis, or whatever. I just completely.made those up by the way. But you get the gist hopefully.
Just like there is not a single scientific experiment demonstrating human-to-human transmission of "germs", likewise there is not a single scientific experiment/finding suggesting long-term exposure to "Toxin X" leads to "Disease Y" - not even smoking and lung cancer which everybody blindly accepts as axiomatic today. I've had 4 relatives that smoked for at least 40+ years. Not a one of them died of, let alone ever had lung cancer....but one did die of emphysema. And for the record, I'm in no way suggesting smoking is a good idea. It's definitely a slow poisoning of the lungs. I'm just saying it doesn't cause cancer.
Anyway, there's a lot here for you to chew on, if you so choose. I understand you might be turned off but what I'm suggesting, as the majority are. But if you feel so inclined, I'd be interested to hear what your dreamtime and intuitive inclinations rustle up!
Thanks for listening....
By starting your first sentence this way, you unwittingly revealed yourself. As a consequence, you succeeded in shutting down any interest I had. It seems your hubris has blinded you. Good luck trying to convince anyone of anything.
So long. I've decide to move on.
Yep, from what I've read, the body is designed to function optimally for 125 years, after which it breaks down by virtue of the limited reality we currently occupy.
I don't believe parasites "attack us". I believe they are actually also performing a beneficial role in our bodies as they are removing waste/toxins/putrid materials etc. which frequently get built up in the intestines of people with poor diet/exercise routines. In a nutshell, the parasite is actually trying to "help" rid you of the putrid build-up.
Think about this, if it were true that parasites attacked us, then there should be pandemic type situations where such parasites were prolific in such-and-such a region/area and 1,000s/10,000s/100,000s all suffered from these "attacks". But this never happens. At most, multiple family members may have similar parasitic based illnesses. But keep in mind, it's likely said family members share similar environments, habits, beliefs diets, exercise routines, etc.
The most important questions when it comes to parasites is "what are they eating?", and more importantly "why are they eating it"? I think you'll find they feed on putrid/waste materials. As such, their role is ultimately "beneficial" to the organism, although while they're "feeding" it can indeed make someone feel very sick! This notion is much the same with the role of bacteria and fungi. While they are doing their job, the individual "feels sick". However, if parasites/bacteria/fungi do not do their jobs (removal/restoration), this leads to permanent, long-term, debilitating problems. Anti-biotics (against-life) fix short-term "illness symptoms" which ultimately lead to long-term problems when the bacteria are unable to complete their tasks.
Great story about your dreams and professor confirming. This 100% resonates with me. Many amazing discoveries, as we've been told (Tesla, carbon ring, etc.) came about in this way.
Here's a suggestion for a new term -> "DEFENSE system". Your body is so massively intelligent, it can recognize ANYTHING that does not belong within its sterile environment, to the minutest detail. Be it a splinter, or even a saline injection, your body will respond appropriately with swelling and inflammation, as well as a massive phagocytosis response to IMMEDIATELY rid the body of anything that shouldn't be there. "Immunity" is a fraudulent idea. It specifically points to "Germs" exclusively, which is also a false idea. While you may not agree on my stance on germ theory, would you agree that If in fact there is no such thing "germs" (contagious, communicable, pathogens), then there can be no "things" to be "immune to"?
Both of these terms "life force" and "aura" perfectly resonate with me. I suggest you start using them most liberally. Both are much better explanations than any "materialistic" explanation we are inundated with. I would even go so far to say that our disease really stem from the aura (chakras/energy/emotional/etheric "bodies". But that's an idea that stretches too far into "woo-ville" for most folks here. The majority simply aren't ready for this.
Ultimately, it's our "vibration", which is determined by our emotions (joy/bliss/peace/ease versus fear/guilt/shame/worry/self-devaluation) that shift the vibratory rate of the aura (light/energy body) that cause us all of our problems. Joy/Bliss/Ecstasy being the highest possible vibratory rate of our cells, making us feel "light and free" (Truth) and like "we're on cloud 9" versus being "scared stiff", "scared to death", "worried sick" etc. as fear and its adjunct vibrations (shame, guilt, worry, trepidation, anger, vengeance, etc.) being the slowest vibratory rate of our cells. In a nutshell, the faster the vibration, the more unlikely and impossible it is for disease to persist in the body.
Quite simply, our "spiritual underpinning" is the TRUE REALITY. The physical vehicle (body) is merely a murky, delayed, after-burn image of the thought-streams we choose to entertain. How's that for "Woo-Woo-Ville"!!! hahaha :)
I'll read this later and get back with you. Thanks!
Good dialogue. Thank you for your questions and comments!
This is some deep and mind bending stuff. Going to have to chew it over to see how it fits.
Howdy Corrbrick, long time!
Yes indeed. These ideas can't be accepted straight away. And in my experience, about 80% I mention them to dismiss the suggestion straight away. Basically this modality demolishes "victim consciousness", which is horrifically predominant in our present society. As such, I totally understand why people recoil at first glance.
I've found that the only way to really introduce this to someone is if they have a current dis-ease and/or a clear memory of a dis-ease that affected them profoundly in their lives. At which point, I can provide an initial diagnosis of the psychological conflict they were suffering from. When they can begin to accept the possibilities and wonder about the correlation, contemplating "how I knew" they were going through such-and-such a situation, the light bulb finally goes off, and not a moment sooner.
Case in point, if you've never had lung cancer, you can't relate to what somebody was going through who did, making the diagnosis appear speculative at best. And further, because our psychological ruminating is 100% subjective, the next default response people have is "well then every soldier who went to war should get lung cancer" because surely they were all afraid to die". But this is also a faulty assumption, for 3 primary reasons. First, the vast majority of people who "get lung cancer" never even know it as it always resolves itself naturally if left alone. Second, the intensity and duration of the psychological conflict determines the severity of the symptoms; i.e. "all day every day" is a world of difference from a soldier who is only "afraid to die" in the heat of battle. And third, many soldiers overcome their fear of death by directly facing their mortality early on. I have such a friend who was deployed in Iraq and he was scared stiff after his first combat engagement. He says he suffered tremendously for about 2-weeks but then accepted the ultimate inevitability of death, after which he claims he has never been scared to die since that day. And judging from some of the extracurricular activities he likes to partake in (sky-diving, hunting, auto racing, etc.), I believe him!
Hey Morpheus,
I'm hangin' in there waiting for the dam to burst and wondering how I'm going to come out on the other side, just like everyone else.
I can see most of what you write about be dismissed out of hand. But when one begins to learn that so much of what he knows is a sham, the time is right to entertain all hypotheses that can make a credible case. Throwing out what we know not to be so can take a large part of the blame for the mess we find ourselves in. Keep it up!
Indeed, totally agreed. It takes time and much contemplation - never happens overnight.
This is very thorough. I have watched a lot of Dr. Tom Cowen's videos and another, albeit shorter version video narrated by the same individual as in this video.
unpacking how Rockefeller money has, for over a century, used science to kill, disable, and control humans is a worthy rabbit hole.
but ask yourself, if there were no "germs" why then, during a time when it was near epidemic for postpartum mothers to get septic and die, did doctors figure out that if they dipped their hands in alcohol first the mothers did not get sick?
science progresses from proposing hypothesis, testing them, and duplicating results. the importance of "terrain" is well proven though not wholly predictable.
emerging technology is getting better able to distinguish "exosomes" from other extracellular vesicles -- and note the role of exosomes is that they are information carriers, including health creating 'information' such as delivering systemic benefits of exercise, they don't only act in viruses.
Proper sanitation and hygene has proved to be valuable tools for better health.
If you want to say that the alcohol is "killing the dangerous germs," then you have to provide some proof of that. I could just as easily say that there is magic fair dust in the alcohol that does the trick.
Why it works is worthy of research. But leaping to "it must be the germs" is not a scientific answer.
I would like to see research on that.
I was never interested in biology until the past 2 years. I have learned A LOT about so-called "scientific research" in the modern era. In actually reading papers, I have discovered that much of what passes for "science" is nothing more than absolute garbage.
As an example, I read a "study" that claimed a particular conclusion. The paper started with a statement of fact, something along the lines of SARS-CoV-2 causes Covid. They cited 2 papers to back up that claim of fact.
But when I looked up those 2 citiations, I found that one "paper" had one single paragraph that made factual claims, with NO citations and NO research to back up the claims. The 2nd citation was roughly the same, but with some added drawings that were supposed to prove something, but didn't even try to explain what or why.
That was the ENTIRE basis for the "SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of Covid-19" statement in the paper.
That means there was NO scientific basis for making that claim. The rest of the paper, therefore, was completely meaningless.
I have found variations of this theme several times since learning about the fraud that passes as "science" these days.
Maybe there is something to the exosomes, but a CLAIM that there is doesn't mean anything. It needs to be backed up with evidence via research.
"Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
you can agree that sanitation and hygiene are tools for better health, but the how and why it works is just pure speculation?
alcohol kills bacteria, or viruses with an envelope, by lysing or denaturing the outer lipid membrane. 'naked' viruses without an envelope are deactivated by oxidizing agents. no "magic fairy dust" required.
good to read research papers with a critical eye. often the abstract and conclusion make statements that are not supported by the body of the research.
I'd expect you to apply the same critical lens to Cowan. he uses other's research to make claims that even the researcher doesn't make. he oversimplifies the complex relationship between virus, host organism, and environment. his theory of exosomes is already outdated -- newer technology is improving methods to separate exosomes from viruses, and more is understood about the role exosomes and extracellular vesicles play in intercellular communication.
Extracellular Vesicles and Exosomes: Insights From Exercise Science
I am claiming that your opinion is not proven, anymore than magic fairy dust.
IF viruses have never been isolated to the point where a virus can be physically examined directly, then your claim is speculation, regarding viruses.
Show me this virus of which you speak, and I will reconsider.
Bacteria, of course, are real. Show me the research paper that proved your claim regarding alcohol, bacteria, and how this all solves the problem you say it does.
And while you are at it, show me the research paper that proved that it was the bacteria that was doing the harm, such that when the bacteria were killed it solved the problem.
It seems to me that you referring to claims that attempt to explain how alcohol solves the problem (claims made not by you, but by others who you believe). Is there research to back it up?
There was a story about how back in the day, a doctor might go directly from a morgue to a woman giving birth, and not wash his hands inbetween.
Once he started washing hands between, the rate of mortality of the women and children went down. Maybe there was something in the cadaver that was harmful to the living humans. Maybe using alcohol also helps, by washing off harmful material, such as bacteria and even viruses (if they exist). But I am asking: Is there any research to document this claim?
I am open to what you might have to show that Cowan is wrong.
Of course, we are adults here. We should not pretend to be so naive as to have disbelief that a researcher, who gets paid if he tows the line, might sometimes fall short of saying the obvious about the results of his own research, simply because he doesn't want to harm his own chances for his next round of funding.
If you can cite a specific example, I will take a look.
I am not a Cowan cultist. He could be wrong. He could even by lying. But if he is either, someone somewhere should be able to show how they know that to be the case.
Can you?
That is a vague (and therefore, meaningless) statement. Cowan says there is no virus, so no oversimplification of its complex relationship with other things is valid.
Show me how he is wrong. Whenever I see or hear someone make a vague claim like this, my experience has been that they are usually covering for the fact that they have no facts to back up their opinion.
I am willing to learn more about why you think this, but please be specific. Vague statements that are not related to any facts are not something I tolerate well.
Again, these are vague statements that, to me at least, mean nothing.
I recently had a conversation with a woman who is studying biology for her college degree. I moved the conversation into viruses, and discussed some of Cowan's ideas.
She disagreed, of course. So, I discussed the process that virologists use to "find a virus" (according to Cowan and others who agree with him, such as virologist Stefan Lanka), and all she could say is that they have "other ways to find it."
Well, that is a vague statement, so I tried to get her to explain. Turns out, she was referring to surrogate marker type of reserach, where a dye will show a "virual DNA" and such. But for anyone to KNOW with certainty that whatever that thing is really IS some DNA from a virus, we have to FIRST know that the virus exists, isolate it to study it, and THEN find the DNA. Only then can we go back and do these other studies.
From what I can tell the reason they do all these surrogate tests is BECAUSE they cannot look at the real thing.
If over 100 labs and "experts" in the world (such as FDA, CDC, foreign government equivelents, universities, etc.) have ALL said that they (a) do not have any SARS-Cov-2 isolated virus, (b) cannot point to any other lab anywhere in the world that has any, and (c) do not have and cannot point to any research paper anywhere in the world that has ever isolated this virus, then ... THAT is a problem.
All other "tests" are surrogate marker tests, and they are NOT a replacement for the real thing (which does not seem to exist).
If that is wrong, then set me straight -- but SHOW ME THE PROOF. Vague claims are meaningless babble, as far as I am concerned.
When I first heard of Tom Cowan, I took time to understand what he was saying. Then, I looked for anyone who was refuting what he was saying. I didn't find anyone.
Then, I found out he was also working with other people, who seem credible, and who do not seem to have anyone debunking them (in a MEANINGFUL way).
The ONLY thing I see from the other side are vague claims, surrogate marker tests that are weak attempts to "do something" since doing the actual research is impossible (for some strange reason ...).
So, your claims are interesting, but not persuasive.
Go beyond vague claims, and I will take a look.
I honestly don't mean offense or to be flippant, isn't basic chemistry required in school? or do you disagree with the "theory" of molecular bonding?
you being unconvinced about how something a simple as alcohol destroys (many) pathogens, or that there are pathogens, is just weird. like 17th Century-ish. maybe flat earth is next.
Cowan did not prove his theory.
Maybe they are not hereditary at all. Maybe that is yet another misdiagnosis by the medical industry.
If mama and papa are big fat pigs, they might just raise a few piglets. Is all that fat hereditary, or is it the donuts and potato chips?
Thanks for sharing this. I watched it last night. I agree that we've been lied to and there is lots of truth in this video.
However, down south, we have a time honored tradition called a chicken pox party. The moment anyone's kid gets chicken pox, you gather all of them together and put them in the bathtub or a pool and just like that, they all get chicken pox. I've never seen it fail. He mentioned a trial where it did fail, but this tradition has been passed down for generations and I've never seen it fail.
This just means they don't know as much as they say they do and we've got a lot of studying to do.
There is a theory that chicken pox is a maturation process. Many children need to "shed" some aspect of childhood before they can mature onto adulthood. Similar to losing baby teeth or going through puberty.
When similar aged children are around others of similar age, and one of them is going through this childhood detox process, the others can often be triggered into joining in the process.
It would be similar to putting several women together in a cabin, and their menstrual cycles begin to synchronize.
This is only a theory (or hypothesis) at this point, because there is no money being directed at alternative explanations of disease. All the money is flowing to Germ Theory ideas, which generally do not pan out.
Very good point about synchronizing menstrual cycles. The medical industry is a criminal organization that must be exposed and then changed.
There are germs. I've seen them under the microscope with my own eyes. I have grown them in petri dishes. I have killed them with various brands of mouthwash. At that time, Lavoris did a much better job than Listerine.
"Germs" is a vague, catch-all term, and not something specific.
Are you talking about viruses, bacteria, fungi, or what?
You specify first. You're the one that called germ theory a scam.