Antidotes are not toxins. An analogy is if there is a strong acid and the 'antidote' of a strong base, that renders it to a neutral and harmless.

"Further to this point, we literally use mold to kill bacteria in our bodies."

Bacteria is Nature's way of biodegrading 'poisons'. To understand this is the 'key' to the kingdom. It is always the method that determines the outcome. To consider the complete environmental effects rather than limit oneself to a reductionist approach is crucial in understanding health.

The narrative really determines how one understands things. Is Koch's Postulate being followed when, for example, a 'virus' has never been isolated in all the history of Virology. This fact alone should make us question other 'settled' science like -- Does Germs (not worms or parasites) or bacteria cause disease?

Science is a continuum; a process of current understanding and is never really 'settled'. So, is it a 'guilt' by association scenario or are they merely associated with the real causes? The Correlation/Causation Fallacy is where two events occurring together are taken to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. This however is not the scientific method. Could the presence of the bacteria be for degrading the toxins that are present as a result of 'something' from the environment? Could the bacteria be Nature's cleanup crew for what is already diseased or dead?

We know in Nature bacteria is used to biodegrade what is dead or diseased in the environment. Why would we be any different from anything else in Nature? A poisoned dead pond will produce algae growth. The algae is not good for you and may produce its own toxins, but it exists in Nature to biodegrade the toxins in the pond. It is the poisoned pond that was the cause of the dead pond, not the algae that is biodegrading the toxins in the pond. We see this understanding at work in municipal waste systems.

The entire problem with bacteriology and Virology is they fail to follow the scientific method. More precisely, they fail to follow Koch's postulates. What has occurred is their science is a one based on an 'assumption', but not fact.

Antidotes are not toxins. An analogy is if there is a strong acid and the 'antidote' of a strong base, that renders it to a neutral and harmless.

"Further to this point, we literally use mold to kill bacteria in our bodies."

Bacteria is Nature's way of biodegrading 'poisons'. To understand this is the 'key' to the kingdom. It is always the method that determines the outcome. To consider the complete environmental effects rather than limit oneself to a reductionist approach is crucial in understanding health. The narrative really determines how one understands things. Is Koch's Postulate being followed when, for example, a 'virus' has never been isolated in all the history of Virology. This fact alone should make us question other 'settled' science like -- Does Germs (not worms or parasites) or bacteria cause disease? Science is a continuum; a process of current understanding and is never really 'settled'. So, it a 'guilt' by association scenario or are they merely associated with the real causes? The Correlation/Causation Fallacy is where two events occurring together are taken to establish a cause-and-effect relationship. This however is not the scientific method. Could the presence of the bacteria be for degrading the toxins that are present as a result of 'something' from the environment? Could the bacteria be Nature's cleanup crew for what is already diseased or dead? We know in Nature bacteria is used to biodegrade what is dead or diseased. Why would we be any different from anything else in Nature? A poisoned dead pond will produce algae growth. The algae is not good for you and may produce its own toxins, but it exists in Nature to biodegrade the toxins in the pond. It is the poisoned pond that was the cause of the dead pond. Not the algae that is biodegrading the toxins in the pond. We see this understanding at work in municipal waste systems. The entire problem with bacteriology and Virology is they fail to follow the scientific method. More precisely, they fail to follow Koch's postulates. What has occurred is their science is a one based on an 'assumption', but not fact.