Will do! I will look forward to your feedback...

It depends on how you frame it.

Right. I've got some ideas. Been thinking about it for 6+ years now. I've floated some thoughts in the past with minimal positive reception. But there are always a few who it resonates with.

The sovereignty argument is a good one, if properly understood. The real challenge is that stating the facts upends some core, albeit mistaken, beliefs that mainstream Christians hold - cabal infused I might add. And I want them on my side of the argument. I don't wish to upset them. They're more able to hear and assimilate what I have to say then staunch atheists/agnostics. They just need to pivot their beliefs a few degrees. To date, I've only been successful in this endeavor with two mainstream Christians.

Bottom line though, we need them. They're vital players in this endeavor. But they've been very deeply brainwashed into the snap reaction "that's new age nonsense", not recognizing that what I'm saying is written in the bible, albeit the translation/understanding of it has been distorted.

So yes, it's the framing of the argument, I agree. It's the avoidance of alienating the largest group here (Christians) that must be taken into consideration. Perhaps the most difficult aspect is that with each fundamental point made, it takes quite a bit explaining to bring clarity. For example, if everybody clearly understood what I was saying, I could probably make my point in 4 or 5 paragraphs. But to carefully cover all the misunderstandings, "what-abouts", and "that doesn't match with the mainstream interpretation", I probably need 5-10 paragraphs to cover virtually every sentence. In short, the impact I know it could have almost requires 10-20 separate fairly lengthy posts. That might be a job for AshlandDog's format, which I know few people read.

Net-Net, what I'd like to share doesn't lend itself to a short form singular post if I'm going to get a lot of people on board. The people who would resonate with these ideas largely already know them.

The essence of my post would be around the key immutable laws of the universe, which we were not directly taught. How "reality" really works, in short. Categorized by many here as "new age nonsense", as per their deeply embedded brainwashing programs.

Suffice it to say, the vast majority here on GA, and around the world for that matter, are regularly breaking these universal laws 24x7x365. And this is why we find ourselves in the mess we're currently in. Pointing our fingers at "the bad guys" is triply-damaging -> projection+blame+retaliation. Three laws broken with this apparently singular action. The cabal knows these laws well. And this is why they will continue to parade the "bad guys" in front of the masses. This is fundamentally what keeps them in the positions they're currently in.

On the plus side, I can and will eventually write the post making it clear that it doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe. The only thing that matters is if you DO what is being suggested. Only then will you KNOW whether what I share is true or false. Thus, there's nothing to argue about.

Anyway, I appreciate all the tips and your encouragement. I do feel we're nearing a time when such a post will achieve greater acceptance here. When more and more are feeling a deeper sense of helplessness and hopelessness is the right time to expose them to these ideas, putting the power back in their hands instead of WAITING for Trump/Q to save the world and/or for the never-going-to-happen public hangings or Nuremberg trials for the "bad guys". In short, I'm anticipating a steeper precipice in the not-too-distant future.

He's still not as good as Gowdy, but getting there...room to grow!

And that's the main issue. It would be highly unlikely it gets pinned, which means maybe 40-50 people see it before it vanishes into the abyss.

Any suggestion I make that Q or Trump aren't going to save us all some day will not be well-regarded by the mods I suspect.

You keep mentioning "Koch's Postulates" as if it means something or is a modern pertinent example. It is not. Koch himself abandoned them because they were unworkable. It doesn't mean that other theories don't exist and aren't in use.

They're "unworkable" because nobody could demonstrate dis-ease causation worked this way. And many tried, for decades. A rational person with no agenda would quickly come to the only logical conclusion which is -> "microbes do not CAUSE dis-ease". But once your career and reputation are on the line and the medical cabal is backing you and your partners in crime, you've got to pivot somehow. This is all easily explained.

It's al quite simple. If nobody can take bacteria that are said to be the CAUSE of a dis-ease and make healthy people sick with said dis-ease, then the THEORY must be scrapped. And this is precisely what all their scientific results showed. Again and again and again.

The main problem with the postulates is simple.

Yes it is. But you either don't understand just how simple it is, or you're in denial of their simplicity.

You can get an infection without becoming symptomatic.

This statement is a classic example of building a strawman argument, which is required to hide the total failure of satisfying Koch's Postulates.

Now, flip the tables. I'll play the game of "strong immune system" with you, even though no such "system" exists in reality. But let's say this is all true for argument's sake. Now, you must explain why all attempts to demonstrate Koch's Postulates resulted in VIRTUALLY NOBODY getting sick. If 5% of the people in your scientific experiment come down with symptoms, but 95% are "not symptomatic" would you consider this "proof" of your theory? Are we to now conclude that 95% of the people just happen to have a "strong immune system"?

Would any sane and rational scientist stick with this THEORY with only a 5% success rate? Well this is what they've effectively done for over 100 years. It would seem the "sane and rational scientists" must learn to "go along to get along" or else find themselves without a job/career shortly thereafter. Do you think this is a possibility?

It doesn't mean that other theories don't exist and aren't in use.

I don't know what you're implying here. What other THEORY is "in use" in establishment medicine?

I'm referencing a particularly well known example of the type of proof you seek and one that involved self-experimentation by the scientist himself.

You're referencing Barry Marshall I presume. So you're willing to defend the entirety of germ theory based on a sample size of one doctor who had a pre-determined agenda? This is not scientific evidence of any kind, wouldn't you agree? Where are the follow-up experiments? Were his results proven to be accurate with large sample sizes? Did other experimenters replicate his findings?

I can guarantee you that some other researchers tried to replicate his findings. And I can also guarantee you they all failed. And this is why there are no follow-up experiments. Because when they fail, they don't publish and bury their results. Very simple.

Now, what if I told you I could sample 100 random people off the street and perform the same test as Marshall, and perhaps 3-5 would indeed "get sick" just like Marshall did. Would that prove his findings correct or would you stop and consider some other possibilities with such a low success rate?

I'd bet the farm that those 3-5 people were struggling with an anger conflict, a situation in life they "could not stomach" to be precise. Such a conflict could easily be ascribed to Marshall after all his failures to prove his H-pylori theory. He was sure he had it figured out, but all his experiments failed. Next he drinks the bacteria, sure that it's going to work. And bang, he starts to feel bad. This is encouraging to him. He resolves his anger conflict and now his body begins producing the form "H-pylori", right along with the bacteria he drank.

Basically the same holds true for our 3-5 who get sick. They are all dealing with anger conflicts, likely taking anti-biotics to kill their own gut bacteria, but drinking them re-initiates their activity again.

Perhaps there are even another 5 who are actively on anti-biotics at the time, and they have a "minor reaction" to the test.

But the other 90, not currently dealing with any anger conflicts, don't have any reaction at all.

This is a superior explanation that actually makes logical, rational sense. The inferior explanation, by a landslide, is that the other 90% just had a 'strong immune system". Without any proof at all to back it up. You'll find all of mainstream allopathic medicine rests on these unverifiable claims. They can't prove they're right, and thus, we can't disprove what they claim. It's like me asking you to prove that leprechauns don't exist.

You have a seeming tendency to break the world down into a binary of pure black and white that I did not anticipate when starting this conversation.

Really? I'm only interested in truth, provable facts, scientific evidence. It either exists, or it doesn't exist. What I'm sharing with you is backed up by science and hundreds of case studies. What the establishment is sharing lacks even a modicum of scientific evidence. What happened one time to one guy is about as far from scientific proof as we can get.

I do not see the world this way, and will argue in those terms.

You'll have to demonstrate how you think "I see the world as black and white" with an example. As I see it, either the establishment can provide rigorous scientific proof of their claims, or they can't. If you rationalize this away as me "seeing black and white", there's really nowhere for us to go, is there.? There is actual science, and then there is pseudoscience. The western medical establishment is largely based on the latter. "Germ theory" is a completely refuted hypothesis in truth. It's been a failed theory since the days of Pasteur and Koch. They disproved themselves countless times, and then turned around and lied about it. Pasteur admits as much in his diaries. He was a snake, a thief, a plagiarist, a liar, a failure as a chemist, and most of all, a fame-seeking politician in reality. And this is the guy in all the textbooks that has 37 "infectious dis-ease centers" around the world named after him. Fauci, Einstein, Freud, Darwin, Jenner, Pasteur - these are our MODERN DAY heroes of science. And they are all fundamentally wrong. Do you see the pattern?

I'm not sure this can be as productive as I had hoped.

I don't know how this conversation could be any more productive? If you wish to defend germ theory or why Koch's Postulates are "outdated" or "irrelevant", as I've heard many pseudo-experts state in recent years, you'll need to explain exactly why from the "positive example" side of things, not the negative. As I see it, anything less than a 50% success rate on transferring microbes to healthy people and making them sick with the dis-ease demands a deeper investigation. That all known efforts to prove the postulates, which are EXTREMELY difficult to find BTW, demonstrate a 0-5% success rate should put an end to this long-ago disproven THEORY.

Please explain how you think my reasoning is incorrect. As to the "black and white" issue, as I see it, either the medical establishment is lying to us, or they're not. There's no "gray area". I'm quite confident in stating they're absolutely wrong about every claim they make about dis-ease causation. They don't have one right. It's not germs, toxins, carcinogens, diet, lifestyle, nor their never-proven "GENES nonsense. They've never been able to prove one of these claims....because none of them are even remotely true. If you look closely at their claims, you'll see all generate a form of FEAR in you, take your power away, and engender VICTIM CONSCIOUSNESS in the masses.

This is the primary agenda of the cabal and everything they do is an effort to make you feel scared and helpless so as to continue their apparent domination over us. Their fraudulent medical system is just one lever of their machine of deception.

But hey, I'm all ears if you can demonstrate how I'm mistaken. Unlike most people you run across in this world, I'm ready and willing to admit when I'm wrong. I don't operate on "beliefs", like the majority do. I know that you can't upend a belief with a fact, because beliefs aren't based on any facts. And beliefs are what the western medical system is based upon. The only value in any of it is in emergency/trauma care.

I'll give it some thought. There are definitely a few people here who would be interested in it, but it's highly doubtful the mods would pin it, which would mean maybe 40-50 people will see it before it vanishes into the abyss.

Appreciate the encouragement!

I'd like to who the "9" and "1" are?

Yes, this is one way to look at it. I'd get hammered with "new age nonsense" downvotes so I'd most likely frame it in a way that doesn't use these words.

You just described the most common conflict shock they experience in childhood/teenage years. They have a "maturity stop", do not receive the normal hormones in puberty and then as a result, remain attracted to the boys they were attracted to at the age they experience a severe "territorial loss", aka "bullying".

I started right here, looking up various dis-eases I or friends/family have/had in their lives. https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/sbs_index.html

Thanks for your support. However, I'm not a terrain theorist in the last. As much as I love some of the work by doctors Kaufman, Cowan, Sam & Mark Bailey, etc. when it comes to the boogeyman-viruses, I think they're entirely wrong about terrain theory. They can't name one cause for one dis-ease, because it's not true. They've adopted the "multifactorial causation" model of the allopaths...which is euphemism for saying "we don't really know".

Salmonella poisoning is eating the bacterial putrefaction process of spoiled food. It isn't the bacteria that make you sick, it's their "shite" effectively.

I'm in the GNM/GHK camp. That unexpected life situations that we aren't able to quickly resolve eventually lead to all dis-eases.

I haven't said anything here yet. Waiting for certain tides to turn....6 years now.

"The Plan" is we learn how reality works and adjust accordingly. This is the "Great Awakening" part 1.

Nothing changes until the collective changes en masse. We each see what we BELIEVE in this world, individually and collectively. Step 1 is to fix yourself. Fear and judgment are at the basis of it all.

How's that for a quick summary? Not a popular message round these parts...yet!

You got it Slyver.

We, as individuals, are "the only way". We each have to fix ourselves as needed. Until then, the cabal will appear on the stage to mirror-back to us our dominant collective beliefs.

I'd write a post on this but it would be downvoted into oblivion. Maybe some day. I'll entitle "The least popular post to ever appear on GA".... hahaha

Easy. The guy who proved the source of ulcers. It's a bacteria. That's an organism. If you put the organism in your body, it makes you sick, with ulcers. That was literally the test he performed. There's your pathogen.

None of this is true. If it were, he would have proved Koch's Postulates and the pseudoscientists the world over would point to this as their proof. But they don't. Why? Because no such thing happened.

If you're referencing a scientific paper, you need to read the "Methods" section, not the fallacious abstract or conclusion. In it you will see no such thing was accomplished. Further, you won't find any duplicated studies which is a basic requirement of the scientific method.

Bacteria are produced BY YOUR BODY, you don't "catch them". Royal Rife and Gaston Naessans, both persecuted into oblivion for their dark field microscopes saw exactly this. Bacteria are the microsurgeons of the body. They outnumber all other cells combined 10:1. And there's no such thing as "good" vs "bad" bacteria. They all perform a role required by the body.

Ulcers are the result of a hanging anger conflict - effectively the result of people dealing with circumstances they literally "can't stomach". The psyche removes tissue temporarily to help the individual be able to "better stomach" things. It doesn't understand figurative thoughts. The psyche takes them literally.

Good on you for seeing through the psyop!

There's no such thing as an "immune system". The medical mafia made it up in 1972 to be precise, somehow overlooked by the anatomists of the previous 300 years who managed to located all of the body's other "systems". They just hijacked the lymphatic system and made up a bunch of nonsense like "antibodies" and "killer T-cells" out of thin air. The whole thing is a lie and it's easy to see if you're willing to look into it. From Virchow to Jenner to Pasteur to Fauci, and everybody in between. All frauds.

"Germs" as the word generally implies are very much NOT REAL. Boogeyman-viruses don't exist. Bacteria are a temporary form of the microzyma/somatid (the real "God particle") responsible for all of what we call "life". Fungi are also produced by the body to separate and quarantine tissue under repair.

It's a "half-truth" that "bacteria cause dis-ease". They don't in the least, but when created and called upon to repair/remove temporarily altered tissue, it is true that their activity generates putrefaction, the by-product of them eating away temporary tissue, and this does indeed make you "feel sick". But the work they do is vital and necessary as they return the body to a state of homeostasis after going through a conflicting life situation that they psyche has responded to, doing its best to continue one's survival.

Taking anti-biotics (against-lifes), aka "poison", arrests the repair work and leaves your tissue/organ in a forevermore depleted state, weaker than it was prior to your conflict. Just what the doctor ordered, eh? Another lifelong customer to keep the cash registers chugging along.

Man wants to pretend to be God all the time, but we're not.

Truer words have never been spoken. Take your own advice here and now try and imagine how "man" knows what's best for the human body. I can tell you with absolute certainty that western medicine is 95% lies and deceptions. The only value it has is in emergency care, 99% of which wouldn't be needed if "man" understood the truth about health and dis-ease. The bible warns us numerous times about the destructive nature of fear and judgment. These two emotions, if entertained for extended periods of time, are the cause of all dis-ease. Bar none.

Separate what you BELIEVE from what you actually KNOW and you will come to see what I'm saying. Germ THEORY is just that, a THEORY. In actuality it's a totally *REFUTED HYPOTHESIS now, but very few are interested in finding this out for some reason. They'd rather just go on believing the lies, for reasons I don't understand.

Now if only somebody could prove "pathogens" are a real thing. They've failed to do demonstrate Koch's Postulates just once in over 150 years now - they're like zero for 70 kajillion.

Yet somehow they can not only create "pathogens" that don't exist in reality, but they can also make them "genome-specific? Impressive considering the world's leading pseudoscientist geneticists can't even agree on what a gene is!!!!!!!

It's all just words on paper. I can file for and be granted endless patents for words on paper. I've got 17 different patents for my custom magic carpets. They're not yet ready for market, but when they are...

This is all just a continuation of the fraudulent fear campaign known as "germ theory".

You misspelled ELIMINATE numerous times in your post.

So many great memes today, can't pick one above the others. Thanks for the Sunday laughs as always Uncle Fester!

Any time Corrbrick. Happy you're willing to contemplate these most radical ideas!

Could be. I had never heard of him either. That Tucker and other big platforms are giving him a podium to state his position is what I find interesting.

FWIW, I don't think I've ever heard anybody else state opinions attacking the entire mainstream culture like him. He pulls no punches and doesn't care what anybody else thinks. That's as rare as it gets in this day and age.

The only other person I can think with any degree of celebrity that speaks so openly without caring what others think is Alex Jones, maybe David Icke. And while Tucker is a friend of Alex, quietly, he hasn't yet invited him to do an interview. He knows just how much controversy that would generate for him.

If the cabal is backing Tate, they've made a strategic mistake any way you slice it. Tate's appeal to the macho, masculine demographic out there is unmatched as far as I can see. He's waking a lot of them up out of their stupor.

FWIW, I don't personally care for his underlying message in the least. He doesn't appeal to my sensibilities even a tiny bit. But he is making waves, which is why I find his sudden appearance on the scene interesting.

I totally understand your sentiment. What I share is a radical idea. It challenges "victim consciousness" more than anything else. This is the hardest part for most. We have been so thoroughly brainwashed into being disempowered that it takes a considerable degree of desire to break the programming.

As to your separation conflict, it could be related to a child moving out, a pet dying, the death or moving away of or from a good friend, the loss of a valued co-worker or boss, etc. Typically a spousal separation conflict can be very severe.

I too am familiar with many spiritual healing modalities out there. Many have had success with a wide variety. Many have not as well. The success stories can largely be attributed to the person releasing their fear and judgment around life situations. This alone resolves conflicts. The failures can largely be attributed to people not knowing their conflicts, those that are unconscious, like allergies and chronic conditions. These are hard to see, as I explained earlier, and therefore hard to resolve.

Anyway, I appreciate you listening to what I had to say. Nobody I've explained this to yet has come around to accepting it right out of the gate. It takes time to contemplate and absorb.

I wish you the best of luck with your health issues, whichever way you go!

Fair enough. I literally have almost no knowledge of his activities. I've heard a few rumors, and I've heard his general defense that the people involved in his activities were all "being paid" to go along with his schtick. And no, I don't endorse any of it of course. But I also don't get involved with telling consenting adults what they should or should not do unless they ask my opinion.

If he did in fact knowingly traffic one or more minors, he's going to have to pay the price accordingly, in this lifetime or the next. I

t's always difficult to determine if things come down to "he said vs she said" if that's the case. If the weight of evidence is convincing one way or the other, than so be it.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way defending Tate. But it does appear to me that the cabal/establishment is trying to shut him up. My spidey-senses are on full alert to this fact. And that's why I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt at this stage.

Why would Tucker Carlson interview him if all this well known and undeniable? Seems like he made quite the strategic mistake in validating Tate if so. With all the resources and money he has, you'd think he would have been able to easily vet Tate and steer clear of him, wouldn't you?

And with the money and resources at the cabal's disposal, how hard would it be for them to pay off one, five, ten, fifty, heck even a hundred "witnesses" to testify against Tate? This is just standard daily procedure for them. Money, ethics and justice are of no concern to them.

And to wit, I do know full well that Tate made his many millions in the unsavory practice of convincing women to do sexual videos for TikTok. I don't support it in the least. But once again, what consenting adults choose to do is none of my business.

II don't know 1% of what you've heard and learned about Tate. If he's really as bad a guy as some are painting him, then Tucker, Valuetainment, Charlie Kirk and many other "truth tellers" in the alternative media are going to get a heckuva black eye for giving him a podium to state his case.

As such, I'm going to stick with innocent until proven guilty. Said another way, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". My 64,000 foot view take is, the cabal/establishment is very obviously trying to shut him up, and they can use their fraudulent LEGAL SYSTEM lawfare to take him out.

And further, Tate is out there openly talking about the charges and his situation, holding very little back. If he was undeniably guilty, I'm quite sure his attorney's would have him fully gagged until after his trial. The risk is far too great that he'll say something that can be used against him in court. This is basic legal advice 101.

All this to say, guilty or innocent, good person or bad person, he stated some heavy-duty truths in that valuetainment video. Basically, that too many people, parents, families, men, are "standing down" and letting the cabal "raise their kids" and fill their minds with poison. It's a message the masses need to hear, even if it comes out of the mouth of a "bad guy".

In short, let's not shoot the messenger before the message is even heard.

Nice to hear from you Corrbrick.

Bacteria are never attacking or harmful to us. Our body actually creates bacteria, just like it creates cells/tissue. We don't "catch" them from "out there". We're probably 10-years away from this becoming common knowledge however.

The idea that bacteria "cause dis-ease" is a HALF-TRUTH that will difficult to unwind, as so many other lies will be too.

It's true that when bacteria become active in our body, that we then "feel sick", and thus you could say it's the bacteria making us sick. That's the half that's true. But what's happening is the bacteria are generated by the body to either repair or restore tissue that has been altered by our psyche (or autonomic nervous system) to deal with a perceived negative life situation. Depending on the germ layer, the psyche adds tissue (tumors/cancers) in the case of the oldest endoderm (organs and glands) in order to improve its function, or removes tissue during the conflict to help widen or eventually strengthen tissue of the ectoderm. Both the enamel and dentin are ectodermal.

You are likely going in and out of what we call a "bite conflict", very primal and instinctual in nature. This falls into the "self-devaluation" category of conflicts. The analogy to the canine world works quite nicely. When a dog is unhappy about something, they bear their front teeth to show their displeasure. Thus, the conflict here is that you wish to show somebody your displeasure, like say your spouse, boss, co-worker, child, parent, etc., but societal rules dictate you not do this to maintain the peace. Your dental issues would be in your top/front teeth if this is the case.

The next level is if you feel like you want to "snap at" your foe, opponent, person causing you irritation to teach them to stop doing/saying/acting as they are. Again, what's stopping you from expressing yourself are our artificial cultural rules of behavior. On one hand, you may be much stronger and in a superior position to this person and society reprimands us for "picking on somebody weaker than you". On the other hand, you may also feel you are in the position of weakness and feel like you could lose something should you "snap back" at this person - say a boss or a spouse. This type of conflict expresses in the incisors region, the teeth where a dog would "snap at" its opponent, but not really harm it, but rather send a stern message.

The strongest conflict is with the molars, where you instinctively want to "crush" your opponent, "grind them up" once and for all so to speak, to put an end to their unsavory behavior toward you.

In all cases, what's happening is, when you hold back your instinct, whichever it is, you're fundamentally saying "I CAN'T bare, bite, snap, crush" my opponent because......such and such a reason.

Make sense so far?

Now, the key to understanding all of this is how your psyche responds. It only registers the "I CAN'T BITE" part of the equation. It doesn't understand our societal and cultural rules and norms. It's only concerned with your survival. And when it hears I CAN'T, it concludes that you've decided you can't because your, in this case, teeth are too weak.

You can apply this same logic to all muscles, bones, connective tissue, etc. and the zillions of afflictions that people have with them. This is, by far, the largest category of conflicts people suffer -> SELF-DEVALUATION.

If you're with me thus far, here's what happens next. The process employed by the psyche is basically identical to lifting weights to make your muscles stronger, or even breaking a bone. In both cases, when the muscles are deliberately torn apart, or the bone is accidentally broken, your psyche always responds by building the muscle or bone stronger so as to help you survive a similar experience in the future.

And this is what's happening with your teeth. Your psyche hears I CAN"T BITE, and goes to work with breaking down your dentin or enamel in order to build it back stronger so that you will feel like you can bite when it completes the process.

This self-devaluation category is the hardest for people to understand because you don't see the benefit of it until the whole conflict and healing process is completed.

So it's likely that you go in and out of your bite conflict, with whomever it is associated with. The bacteria enter the mix AFTER you have resolved your conflict and they go about building stronger dentin/enamel for you. If there are no bacteria but increasing pain and cavities, your bite conflict is active and not yet resolved.

The whole sugar, brushing, flossing story is complete nonsense. I brush maybe once a week, never floss, and eat probably 10x the amount of sugar anybody I know my age, and haven't been to a dentist in over 20 years - no cavities, no dental issues. I realize you won't likely come around to the no brushing/flossing idea any time soon. But I'd recommend you consider it in the short term if you're experiencing pain in your teeth. You're scrubbing away the bacteria that are trying to make your teeth stronger/better. After they pain goes away, you can resume your brushing routine.

The hardest part of course, is figuring out who your foe is, and if you can find a way to let them know your displeasure with this person without suffering a greater loss, like losing a job. Most people I've worked with that have bite conflicts have them with their boss or a co-worker. A few with their spouses.

A little creative thinking can help you come up with a reasonable strategy to work out your issue. Sometimes, just a brief moment of tempered brutal honesty is all it takes -> "Hey boss, I don't like the way you treat me under these circumstances....can we find a more amicable way to work this out"?

And yes, I do recall your saga with your employer and the jab back in 2021 that you so elegantly came out ahead on with your common law approach!

What's the net-net? There's no such thing as "bad bacteria". They're always working to benefit you. That some people die and become overwhelmed with pneumonia or sepsis is because they are already in a tremendously weakened state to begin with and can no longer handle the repair/restoration work being performed by the bacteria. Typically these are the more elderly and/or those with multiple co-morbidities. In these cases, a stiff round of anti-biotics can actually save the person in the short run, but they are left in a greatly weakened state forevermore, as the bacteria were not able to complete their restorative work, typically in the lungs.

You can read more here if interested: https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/teeth.html#Enamel_CA

Good luck!

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

It was indeed. Your comment was the only one that didn't castigate me into oblivion. It seems most people around here prefer to shoot the messenger over analyzing the message.

Love him or hate him, he spits some heavy-hitting truth, no holds barred. That's why I find value in listening to him. He reaches a certain segment of the population that doesn't resonate to the soft, well-reasoned, logical approach. They respond to someone getting up in their face. Tate is one such person that reaches this audience.

It requires a dedicated analysis and some deeper understanding of what mainstream medicine calls "allergies". We call these "unconscious associations".

Let's take the example of a young boy named Billy who becomes allergic to cats at age 8 for instance. Billy's family does not own a cat. One day Billy is over at his friend Mikey's house playing, and Mikey's family has a cat. They're a bit too rambunctious this one day and accidentally break an expensive vase in the living room. Mikey's mother enters the scene and begins to scream at both boys and scold them equally, perhaps even smacks around her son a bit. Billy has never seen anything like this. His parents do not behave in this way. He is shocked by the whole situation. Make sense?

Now, during the scolding event, while he is shocked, his psyche (subconscious mind) is recording all information it can take in. The sights, sounds, tastes, smells, etc. All this information gets recorded as "potentially dangerous" to his psyche. One such smell which is outside his normal experience is that of cat dander.

Now, every time Billy gets near a cat, his psyche recalls the shocking event at Mikey's house, and doing its best to protect Billy from another similar shock, it begins to make his eyes water and get bloodshot, his nose gets runny, he starts sneezing, etc. His psyche has associated cat dander with another potential crisis. And the leading medical experts of the world tell Billy he's got a "cat allergy".

Fast forward now and Billy is 50 years old. I tell Billy why he is allergic to cats. I have no idea what the trigger was, and he almost certainly won't make the connection right off the bat either. He's going to have to think back to when he first noticed he was allergic to cats. That part of the equation might be easy for him. However, the next part is typically not so easy. He then has to think back to the weeks/months prior to him first noticing he was allergic to cats and then recall this event at Mikey's house that he's all but forgotten about. And he naturally does not make any connection between it and the fact that they had a cat. And in some cases, if the event was highly traumatic to him, his psyche has buried his memory of the event until such time that it deems him ready and capable of finally processing it.

I lived in Austin, TX for 20 years. 25% of people that move to Austin are said to become allergic to the cedar pollen, which is unique to central Texas, within 5 years of moving there. 33% after 10 years. What's going on? You would think the instant you moved there, or at most 8 months from moving there in April, you would be "allergic". Why does it take so long?

Cedar pollen season lasts for about 4 months each year (Dec - March). If a person has a conflicting event during these 4 months, their psyche records the thick pollen as a potential danger, and now they're "allergic" to it. Like clockwork. It's the same story. And the same thing works with foods. If you're eating or have just eaten a certain food and get caught up in an unexpected conflicting situation, you're now allergic to the dairy, gluten, chocolate, pizza, etc. you were eating at the time.

The short-term resolution is to discover your trigger - a sight, sound, taste, smell and avoid it as best you can. The long-term resolution is to do the work as mentioned above. Think back to your first experience with the chronic dis-ease or "allergy". Then start evaluating unexpected negative events in your life in the weeks/months preceding it. For those who do this work, with some prompting of their psyche/soul, the answer will eventually pop into their head.

The longer ago that the event happened, the more likely the resolution will be fairly simple to achieve. In Billy's case, he's no longer friends with Mikey and he's never going to be playing at his house again. The conflict is resolved on the spot and he can consciously let his psyche know to no longer consider cats to be a danger. His "allergy" or chronic dis-ease disappears in that instant.

So this is the process for how you uncover and resolve chronic issues. In your case, skin is related to a separation conflict as I mentioned above. Something in your environment, or on TV, or in a book, or whatever, reminds you of being separated from someone you care about and this re-triggers the skin response on your trunk. And likewise with the migraine. You are reminded from time to time of an event where you lost something, felt powerless, were worried about something coming up in the future, etc.

My teacher told the story of how he would get a migraine every weekend for almost 5 years. His job required that he was on the road giving seminars Monday through Friday. But when he got home, because he drove so much, he didn't want to drive on the weekend. He went through dozens of possible triggers all through this period until he finally remembered that he had gotten into an accident a few months prior to his migraines beginning. While he was largely uninjured, he was pinned into his seat for a few hours before he could be removed. And it was during this time that he felt "powerless". And there was his conflict. Each Monday he was triggered back into conflict when he started the car. During the week he was fine because he remained conflict active. When he got home each Friday he resolved his conflict and typically on Saturday night, his migraine would kick in.

All this to say, even when you this material, it's not that simple to discover the trigger nor the event. It takes some earnest effort for most people.

You seem like a reasonable person, and as such, you must admit that what I've shared does make some sense, at least in relation to what the establishment and terrain people have to say. They don't have any explanation for why one person is allergic, or has an "auto-immune" issue, or a chronic issue, etc. while other people don't react in the same way. They've simply got no explanations on offer. Not to the cause, and therefore not for any cures.

More often than not, we naturally "cure ourselves", sometimes quite accidentally and unconsciously. And if we were taking supplementX or herbY or vitaminD at the time, we assume that it worked for us. There are a bazillion stories out there from people swearing therapy/supplement/herb/vitamin X cured their cancer, resolved their auto-immune disorder, fixed thier allegy, etc. They're a dime a dozen. FWIW, the placebo effect is very real too. So if you found something you think works for you, by all means, stick with it!

Anyway, good luck with your issues and thanks for your questions.