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.
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!