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.

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.

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.

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.

Not so fast. What is the percentage of the general population who has never smoked dying of lung cancer?

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)

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?"

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!"

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 possible know all the possible factors at play, even within yourself. Interesting concept, but cannot be proven.

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.

The only thing I can specifically point to 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."

I've never heard of such a suggestion for leukemia. Did you oncologists agree with your suspicion on this diagnosis?

It also makes me suspect that bed bugs might have been the true cause of "small pox" of the American Indians, when they trading things for the White man's bedding and blankets.

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.

Also, I never had any diagnosis for bone cancer, and don't know anyone else with lymphoma who did. Not that it necessarily means much, but if I knew of it, it would lend credibility to your thesis, but I don't.

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.

If they are undiagnosed, then how could you know they have it?

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.

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.

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?

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 bloods cells from someone else. With enough fluid, they can create their own blood cells. Don't know much about it, but interesting.

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).

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.

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...