Feb 13·edited Feb 14Liked by Christine Massey FOIs
(Sorry for the typo - I fixed my email)
Dear Christine, I would like to discuss more about judicial notice and related matters. If you have time and are so inclined, please send me an email biko97jcj (at) hotmail (dot) com.
U.S. CDC and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry confirmed that a search of their records failed to find any that describe anyone on Earth finding an alleged “avian influenza virus” in the bodily fluids of any diseased diseased host (animal or human) and purifying “it”… which is necessary so that “it” could be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments:
Public Health Agency of Canada confirmed confirmed that they have no record of any alleged “avian influenza virus” having been found in and purified from the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of any diseased “host” on the planet (in order for “it” to be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments) by anyone, anywhere, ever.
Insanely, they insist that 1) “viruses” are in hosts despite their utter inability to find them there, 2) it’s necessary to “grow them” in non-host cells (as if “they” would grow better there than they allegedly grew in the diseased host lol), and 3) they pretend that mixing complex substances together = purification.
April 4, 2023: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control can’t prove the existence of “H5N1“
Vicky Lefevre, Head of Unit, Public Health Functions, ECDC, responding to my colleague, failed to provide or cite even 1 record of a any record of any alleged “H5N1 avian influenza virus” being found in the bodily fluid/tissue of any bird that supposedly died from “the virus” and purified… in order for “it” to be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments, aka “science”:
UK Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) cannot show the existence of any “H5N1 virus” in birds
April 21, 2023:
An anonymous man/woman with the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), UK confessed to James Henderson that no one there has any record of anyone on Earth finding and purifying the alleged “H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus” from any dis-eased bird, ever, and thus they confessed to being unable to show “its” alleged existence since they know of no one obtaining a valid independent variable to study.
Thomas Piggott, the man who acts as Medical Officer of Health at Peterborough Public Health (Ontario, Canada) has no scientific studies to convince him that the alleged “avian flu virus” even exists…. and, has no record of “it” ever having been purified from any alleged host anywhere on Earth (which would be a necessary step in proving that an alleged virus does exist)… and doesn’t even have a copy of the testing protocol that has been implemented to “confirm cases”.
I am trying to understand what happened to the two controls in the study published in Cell Research on July 7, 2020 using rhesus macaques. It's my understanding that the prevailing assertion is that the "exposed" monkeys became infected, developed disease, and developed antibodies to the virus and that this did not occur with the controls. I (admittedly) am having trouble understanding from the study what the heck happened with regard to the controls (which it appears were also given a DMEM mixture minus the "virus" via the same method). I mostly want to understand if they showed signs of disease. I believe the study is indicating that they did not, and that the exposed animals did. However, I am an admitted rookie trying to figure this stuff out! Is there any resource you can recommend for understanding what occurred regarding the controls in that study (and whether they were true controls)?
Were the animals "injected" with biological and chemical material? We never see any instances of "infection" via inhalation. "Challenge" or "exposed" usually means injected.
A fully controlled experiment would require the purported "virus" particles to have been purified, since that's the only way to make sure that everything else in both groups is the same... but this is never done.
And a valid animal experiment would not involve cell cultures, but your reference to DMEM indicates that they used a cell culture. It sounds like they claim that the experimental monkeys were exposed to "infected" cell culture and the controls with "uninfected" cell culture.
If they don't describe exactly how the "control" cell culture was conducted, there is no way to know what they exposed the "control" monkeys to (and the papers I've looked at are typically vague!).
Also typically in experiments they expose animals in an invalid fashion (i.e. via injection which is not how "viruses" are said to spread in nature), which makes the study garbage regardless of whatever else they did.
I am starting to suspect that the virus hypothesis is all smoke and mirrors, but I'm at the beginning stages (admittedly) of looking into this. (At least I did realize a decade plus ago that vaccines themselves were all smoke and mirrors.)...This is a captivating puzzle to try to figure out.
Ok, so this is a small sample study with 6 supposedly "infected" monkeys and only 2 "controls".
The "virus" used was a fake "isolate" obtained from elsewhere and was created by adding lung fluid from a patient with pneumonia to monkey (Vero E6) cells, DMEM, cow serum, toxic drugs and then blaming cell breakdown on "the virus". (I know you probably already realize this but I summarize for anyone else reading here.)
The monkeys were anesthetized and exposed intratracheally (it's not clear how exactly?). So right off the bat we see that the experiment is invalid because this is telling us nothing about what happens in nature. Plus the monkey were in a very unnatural setting, being checked over twice a day and x-rayed several times.
The experimental monkeys got the fake isolate (the human/monkey/cow/bacteria/fungi/toxic drug mixture!) diluted in DMEM and the "controls" got just the DMEM. So there would be many factors that differ between the groups and no evidence that "SARS-COV-2" is even in the isolate. A proper experiment would have purified particles as the 1 factor that varies.
Swab samples were taken on various days and placed in DMEM along with penicillin streptomycin. Whole blood was collected.
2 "infected" monkeys were murdered 3 days after "infection" and 2 more monkeys 6 days after "infection".
"Due to the euthanization... the animal sample size for the following investigation was reduced to 4 on day 4 and 2 after day 6."
They extracted all the RNA (which they call "viral" lol) from swabs and blood.
They used PCR to look for sequences (never shown to be "viral" but referred to as "viral" nevertheless) which they had almost certainly earlier injected into the "infected" monkeys via the fake "isolate", as evidence of "the virus" lol. "No viral RNA could be detected in blood from day 1 to day 14."
They also did cell cultures (similar to what's described above) with tissue from the murdered monkeys, declaring cell breakdown (CPE) as "virus isolation".
"No obvious clinical signs were observed during the study course except that one animal showed reduced appetite".
Aside from body temperature, and where they report "no histopathological changes were found in control animals" (of which there were only 2) and the bit below, I don't see much reporting on the "controls".
Upon "reinfection" of both previously "infected" and "control" monkeys:
"The viral RNA from oropharyngeal swabs showed that the virus still maintained the similar replication pattern in control groups [??] .... In contrast, no viral RNA could be detected in RM1 and RM4"... so the attribute this to antibodies, which have never been shown to be specific to the never-shown-to-exist "virus". Just making up stories to fit the "virus" narrative.
Not sure if this helps at all. For me, the main points here are that the study was a waste of time to begin with since they used an "isolate" (never shown to contain SARS-COV-2) instead of actual purified particles, and it was invalid due to all the unnatural methods... anesthetization, intratracheal innoculation, x-rays... and there was a tiny sample size.
Ms. Massey: Thank you very much for your response. I now see clearly that these were not true controls. Admittedly, when I first looked at this I thought because both the subjects and the controls were given DMEM, they essentially got the same thing, other than the alleged virus...From what I've read/heard I did understand that the subjects of these experiments are usually given in the mixture they receive a whole host of other things that harm cells, but I didn't notice the part of the study that explains what they got. I now see it under Materials and Methods, entitled "Virus, cell and antibody"...Thank you very much. You "walking me through" this study was immensely helpful.
Christine, you got a lot of hate for your work early in this COVID fiasco and I am happy to say you have been vindicated many times over. People have made names for themselves from doors you have opened. Hopefully they are grateful. Thank you for your relentlessness.
"Electronic Microscope"? What's that? If your hubby truly worked with a SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) or a TEM (Transmission Electron Microscope) you would obviously know the terminology and the differentiators between the two devices.
New consumer grade OBD2 scanners can display emissions data, you don't require a mechanic.
Sulfer is spelt SULPHUR.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
I shared your article with several people. One sent me this reply:
Thanks for thinking of me.
Public health departments--like the UC one she mentions--- are not in the business of isolating viruses. Research labs do that type of work.
My husband has worked with viruses and seen them under an electronic microscope. They exist.
Virologists look at them all the time.
That is how we know that a Corona virus has a little crown.
Go look up photos of polio and ebola too.
There are lots of electronic microscope images that you can look at.
Public health departments merely use the tests created by a university research lab to see if a person is infected with a virus.
So a public health lab is being honest when it says that it has not isolated a virus. They are not set up for that type of work, nor is that their job.
So what I am telling you is that the author had no good reason to expect a public health lab to answer "yes" to the question posed by the writer: "Have you isolated the virus".
Analogy: car computers can record all types of measurements. For instance, it can tell if your car is burning fuel cleanly. It can read whether your car is emitting too much sulfer and carbon monoxide.
Your car mechanic can only show you the read out. He can't show you the sulfer or carbon monoxide that the car is emitting. Yet, that does not mean that Co2 or sulfer do not exist. (I am sure you have smelled sulfer coming from some cars. It smells like rotten eggs.)
So, I am saying that quickly it became clear to me that the writer has unreasonable expectations and does not know what the hell she is talking about.
I don't know much either, but I could see that much, so I was not motivated to read the rest of her crap.
Dear Siobhan, I think that you need to review the discussions of Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and the Baileys about EM images. Perhaps your husband can offer us any paper whereby people or mammals were made sick via inhalation.
Unfortunately my friend is resistant to such a suggestion because she believes in viruses and has a need to appeal to authority, so her husband trumps any knowledge I have about the matter.
Hmm, that is difficult. I hate to be crass but, I hope she is not a "good friend." These true believers are dangerous and will turn on you - as is the practice in all police-states. What will she do when you fail to wear a mask, or bathe your hands in alcohol, or refuse the next round of clot-shots?
Here is another response, from Mladen Diklich - he entered it above but it's clearly intended for Roxane:
" "Electronic Microscope"? What's that? If your hubby truly worked with a SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) or a TEM (Transmission Electron Microscope) you would obviously know the terminology and the differentiators between the two devices.
New consumer grade OBD2 scanners can display emissions data, you don't require a mechanic.
Sulfer is spelt SULPHUR.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. "
I guess Roxane didn't read the request or article carefully, because the Department was not asked whether they had isolated a "virus". They were not asked any questions at all. Asking questions is not what FOI requests are for. FOI requests are requests for records.
This request was for all studies and/or reports in the possession, custody or control of the California Department of Public Health describing purification. As I noted in the article "Robin noted that she was seeking all such records held by the Department regardless of whether they were authored by someone working there or elsewhere, and that if such records were held and were already publicly available, she would like citations."
So my message to Roxane is:
Your condescending, dismissive response reveals your inattention to detail and lack of interest in whether or not valid scientific evidence (which requires a valid independent variable and dependent variable) exists.
You've demonstrated the circular reasoning on which virology relies by implying that images of tiny particles prove that the particles are "viruses".
You've shown that you're oblivious to, and uninterested in, the fact that no one has ever obtained a sample of the alleged "SARS-COV-2" in order to sequence, characterize and study "it" with valid controlled experiments, and that an institution (CDPH) that claims expertise on "viruses" is not able to demonstrate the existence of any "virus" with valid studies.
You imply that un-validated, impossible-to-validate tests are legitimate.
Completely true. Now it turns out that no one has SARS Cov 2. And people should ask themselves
1. So what does CRP measure?
2. So how did they make the vaccines if they didn't have the virus?
All a farce, gentlemen, a scam. Truly a genocide, because what it was about was introducing a liquid interface to the whole world without our consent. Of course, since January 2020 I already doubted everything and I don't have this interface installed. Actually the virus is graphene oxide, this material that they introduced in the injectables is what causes covid.
It is the test they did on the majority of the population by inserting a cane through the nose. but people do not know the composition and what the PCR had inside.
Ok, so you meant PCR, not "CRP". I'm well aware of the PCR issue, since 2020.
There is no standardization for those "tests", and no common denominator behind the "positive" results (since one only needed a "positive" result in 1 target sequence in order to get the false diagnosis - no problem if they are "negative" on all others tested for!) and there is no known "virus" to test for. There is no way to validate the test in terms of a "virus".
And many major flaws were identified (in the Corman Drosten Review) even in terms of "testing" for the target sequences - which are only tiny segments of the meaningless in silico "genomes".
The tests are completely fraudulent and worthless, only testing for various short sequences of unknown provenance.
In fact, you have described it very well. Since when do they tell you that you are sick, when you are healthy? It's crazy. The important thing about the PCRs is not that they come out, it is that they were going to put something in. From another comment of yours, I see that you know about graphene. Well
Of course, the spike protein comes from the supposed virus that no one has isolated. If there is no virus, there is no protein. In addition, there are already 3 doctors who demonstrated that vaccines do not contain mRNA or proteins of any kind, only graphene.
Have you read what Stefano Scoglio has pointed out about "graphene"? It sounds pretty mythological as well... supposedly only 1 (or up to 9, depending on who you listen to) atoms thick.. at which point it changes from being brittle "graphite" to the uber-strong "graphene".
He has a 20 page pdf and an interview that I recommend checking out:
We raised the alarm around the world more than 3 years ago regarding this. Other researchers have replicated our analyzes with the same results.
Of course, I'm not talking about the False Dissidence, which emerged in all countries in 2020. That even if they dress in white coats, they are still hired killers.
Not me, we. We raised the alarm when we discovered what it was all about.
I invite you to go through the recent substack I made, I am explaining the research little by little. Please spread the truth to your family and friends. More people need to know this.
Ha -- you get that you're asking a question that doesn't make sense to the system. There isn't a lab in the world that would use the phrase "purification of the virus" or any version of that.
What you're getting is someone doing a word search and not trying to figure out the right language for the actual procedures. You might try again using the words "isolation of the virus."
Ha, the wording is clear and the fact that they don't purify is precisely what I'm showing. And you're wrong, there are publications that claim to have "purified".
I've done FOIs with the word "isolation", explaining that I mean separation from everything else in the clinical sample, as well. It does not matter how you ask the question, there are no records.
The CDC (March 1, 2021) and Mount Sinai Hospital both admitted explicitly in FOI responses that alleged "viruses" are never purified from clinical samples, and in both cases indicated that their "experts" were the ones admitting these facts:
If you're going to come around like a smart ass trying to debunk these FOIs, you will have to do better. Cite a paper where an alleged "virus" was purified from a clinical sample, sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments, and shown to be a "virus". Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.
Jan 29·edited Jan 29Liked by Christine Massey FOIs
Wouldn't it be rational to think that eventually, somewhere, during the past four years of this FOIA campaign, at least one of your requests would've reached sincere human beings and triggered in the response something like "No evidence of isolated viruses found... We appreciate you bringing this to our attention, and it's deeply disturbing. We acknowledge that there's no scientific basis for virus theory and we've begun an investigation to understand how we've been deceived for so long..."?
Or that someone, somewhere in a position of power would've noticed that it sure looks like there's not a shred of evidence supporting virus theory, and blown the lid off this suppression?
Part of what this record is showing us is just how profoundly corrupt and dishonest our culture is. It takes so damn many people to maintain this massively-destructive deception, and virtually everyone in a position of power defends it like it's some kind of cult blood oath. What an insane human world this is, that we call 'civilization'...
"cult blood oath" sums it up nicely... and compartmentalization... and no one involved wants to lose their high paying job or position in this "thing" that we call civilization.
I suspect that this system will implode soon enough. It's reaching breaking point. Maybe then we'll naturally embrace a better way to do things.
Yes, compartmentalization, being accelerated by the technology boom, is compounding the dysfunction. Everybody seems to love the atmosphere of nobody being responsible for anything, no one empowered to change anything, because everything is just the collective will (on puppet strings).
I see this thing called 'civilzation' as predominantly just a human war against nature, including, maybe foremost, a war against our own genuine human nature. For 'civilization' to prevail, to 'win' the war, we must kill off every last remnant of authentic humanity, down to the last individual.
Implode it will, but I see very little evidence that many people have learned anything in order to build something better. This is why I try to stimulate conversation, encouraging people to expand their minds beyond the fences, despite the common ire it draws.
That's interesting, I'm writing something about the collective hyperorganism that humanity has become right now titled The Human Blob! Obviously a reference to the rapacious monster from the fifties schlock horror movie, but it's getting to the point where the behavior of the organism is hard to distinguish from that of a fungal overgrowth.
I don't really see our collective activity as a war as such, just the natural progression of an entity that is going through its caterpillar phase - gorging itself on its surroundings, coming up with all manner of excuses to use ever more resources so that the organism as a whole (or at least some part of it) can achieve transformation and then either live more gently on the Earth or start the process all over again on a new planet after having put out tendrils in all directions seeking new ground to exploit (much as all natural systems do).
If anything, I see a concerted effort now from the self-appointed guardians to stifle any further progress down this path because they, being parasites, do not want to relinquish their cushy lifestyle.
It's my belief that most of the problems we currently endure (and tend to accept as part of life) are 90% caused by these parasites due to their control of the education, media, health, marketing, govt and banking systems and 10% due to the natural pressures that a growing hyperorganism is bound to encounter on its journey from ape-like colonies to the hyper-connected technological overlay we see unfolding in real time.
And yes... hardly anyone, even the most dedicated systems engineers, can fathom the entirety of the details involved. The system appears to have a life of its own, parasites included. Maybe they are there for a reason - to test the system and activate novel approaches to life so that it can adapt and evolve.
I agree that "building something better" is unlikely if collapse happens. In a way, what the elite are pushing makes sense from their perspective. Cut back on all non-essential activities, prune the bush, cull the herd, preserve only the essential in order to survive the winter...
From the perspective of the hyperorganism and what it may be trying to become, the feelings of individual units frankly don't matter much. The blob is simply trying to survive in one form or another. If it fails to adapt quickly enough it will shrink back and probably die off with maybe some stragglers scratching about in the dirt.
I'm betting on some kind of transformation since the alternative is, quite frankly, not worth contemplating.
One thing I’d like to impart is that I’ve had a bronchitis type phlegm cough for 4 days took Vit C ,Elderberry extract and Coldeeze but won’t shake it off until I took a nicotine lozenges .gone in one day
Doesn't sound like anything unusual. Not sure why people feel the need to "treat" such symptoms other than maybe some painkillers and the usual natural remedies. How do you know that the symptoms would not have subsided anyway as they almost always do when your body is pushing out toxins?
How do you know something was clinging to nicotine receptors?
Have you reviewed the "science" that Bryan Ardis references in support of his "venom" narrative? Someone insisted to me that it was all backed up 100% with "science" and sent me the studies (and news reports) that he cites, and there was absolutely nothing there.
Formerly, most diseases were due to malnutrition. In industrialized areas, people suffered from cesspools (lack of clean water), air pollution, and exposure to heavy metals (remember the mad hatter?).
You can read about the filthy living in urban England in Chadwick (1843). Watt (1813) detailed the problems in Glasgow.
So since viruses don't exist, 'they' can't do anything. And bacteria DO exist, but have never been shown to cause disease. Apparently what we call infectious disease is nothing more than evidence that the body is processing an excess of metabolic waste and consequently, the excess is pushed out through the skin, through the lungs, through the sinuses, through the gi system via vomiting and/or diarrhea and all of this excretion of poisons is facilitated by a rise in body temperature which helps to liquify the gel-like fourth-phase water contained within our bodies. So rather than stopping the body's system of detoxification, embrace it and learn how to assist the body. Going against this process leads to chronic illness. And THAT is what we have in epidemic proportions.
And when people finally understand that not only are there no "viral" diseases, but that MUCH of the symptoms ascribed to "viral" diseases are actually caused by EMF's, well, then action will be dedicated, and carried out.
Cell phones have to GO. Fiber optics for computers. We CAN have a better life and still have our online access. Bring back public pay phones (better still, let them be free!), put call boxes along highways, and so on, and so on.
It's amazing how so many people just can't help themselves from replacing one irrational, unfounded theory (germ/virus theory) with another irrational, unfounded theory (terrain theory or 'emf theory'). If Christine spent a couple of years requesting scientific evidence from the 'terrain theory' proponents, it would show a similar result of absolutely no evidence. Why can't people just admit that they have no idea what causes disease?
Terrain theory, unfounded? Hmm, how many days can you go without air (oxygen), water, and food? We understand the terrain to be your body. How can we live without nutrients?
I ask for evidence of the existence of specific "viruses" (or, contagion, or control experiments), which are necessary to back up the virus claims.
What sort of FOI would one do for terrain theory?
To my simple understanding, terrain theory says that if your body is cared for (by not subjecting it to interference in the form of mental/emotional stress, junk food, poisons, overeating, etc or neglect i.e. not enough sleep) you will be healthy, and if your body is abused long enough (or in an extreme fashion over a shorter term), you can expect dis-ease.
To me that's just logical, like saying that if you look after your car and don't fill it with the wrong fluids it will last longer and have fewer breakdowns.
I've been pondering your question since yesterday, and it's a deep one.
The part of terrain theory that involves microbes turning 'pathogenic' from unhealthy changes in the terrain would be covered already by your 'germ theory' FOI inquiries, since this theory is really just a conditional version of germ theory. Germ theory basically says that disease-causing microbes make us sick whenever they overwhelm our 'immune system', and terrain theory basically says that only happens when the terrain is corrupted/toxic. And likewise for 'cancer'; germ theory says our cells just 'mutate' and begin turning us into frankenstein for all sorts of reasons, while terrain theory says that happens because the terrain is corrupted/toxic.
Of course, absolutely none of that is backed up by scientific evidence.
If experiments set up to study 'contagion', exposing people to 'pathogenic' microbes, fail completely time after time, for centuries, to the point that nobody will even try such an experiment today because they know it will fail, then that shoots down both germ theory and a significant part of terrain theory.
Regarding general health, yes, I agree that the general-health aspect of terrain theory is rational and somewhat common-sense. If we exercise a level of care that keeps our 'terrain' in pristine condition, a high level of general health is probably the outcome, but I add the proviso that the psychological 'terrain' must be pristine also.
But then we must look at what is 'health', and what is 'disease'? When we see a optimally-healthy person with pristine terrain, and elite-athlete-level fitness, get the flu, or cancer, or a heart attack, what does that tell us? Or when a homeless drug-addict chain-smoking Vietnam veteran with PTSD hasn't been sick in 40 years, what does that tell us?
What it suggests is that the current concepts of 'disease' and 'health' as opposites, and subtracting from each other, is a deeply-flawed theory. This is another example of a deeply-held mainstream belief born of the same darkness as Rockefeller medicine and germ theory, that people never even question.
What if all of the symptoms of every 'disease' are the result of the body doing it on purpose, in order to survive? If that's true, that would mean that robust 'disease' symptoms would be an indicator of good health, and people would welcome them. We'd have to drop all of our definitions, as well as everything else we think we know, and start from scratch. And that's why human beings in the present state of consciousness will never allow this truth into their minds.
You could write FOI requests for the next 50 years, covering every theory about health and disease on the planet, and every last one would be exposed as BS, because that's the paradigm in which we live. However, I'd be happy to help expose more delusion if you'd like suggestions.
The way I see it the terrain is not so much a theory but a factual concept that relates to the human body and our surroundings following the analogy of a field in agriculture. It's a real, provable thing that exists and can be tested for "health" while applying the long held wisdom that systems in a state of balance or equilibrium result in what we call "good health."
This applies to all systems whether natural or man made such as engines and economic markets and I would suggest that we lack scientific "proof" for this relationship because it's self evident. That said, it is relatively easy to destabilize these systems and observe the "results" if we wanted further proof.
The part that refers to theory when it comes to terrain would have more to do with finding the reasons why the terrain displays certain symptoms rather than others and then to assess whether these symptoms are the result of natural processes, adjustments, evolutionary pressures or because they are due to deficiencies and toxic inputs.
The more accurate term for what I was addressing would be "the terrain theory of disease causation". Likewise, we know 'germs' are fact, if we agree that we're generally referring to microbes, so 'germ theory' isn't a theory, and what we usually mean is the 'Pasteurish' idea of disease causation from 'germs', which is not only not fact, but I think most who've deeply researched the topic would agree that it was disproven as a viable theory more than a century ago and Pasteur has been exposed as having been more a corrupt politician than scientist.
There's an insidious force at work hidden within the advocacy for 'the terrain theory of disease causation', in that it attempts to breathe artificial life into the dead 'germ theory of disease causation'.
The Rockefeller medicine monopoly, that pretends the germ theory of disease causation is 'scientific', also claims that it's our 'immune system' that holds the attacking army of microbes at bay, and a weakness in the immune system will enable the invaders to breach the walls and begin destroying the castle from within. The modern 'terrain theory of disease causation' is almost identical to that regarding disease genesis theory. The Rockefeller/germ people say the 'immune system' was compromised or overwhelmed, while the terrain people say the terrain was compromised; very close to the same thing. The primary difference between camps is in treatment approach. Sure, the 'terrain' approach regarding treatment is going in a positive direction from the Rockefeller approach, but none of it is based on genuine science. The terrain/naturopathic approach at least isn't adding harm like the Rockefeller system does.
The net result is that the 'terrain' camp helps support beliefs in microbes attacking us, and our own cells attacking us, which is an entirely unscientific group of beliefs rooted deeply in the human-created war against nature and the divine.
Most people refuse to sincerely consider questions like you mention, because they refuse to let go of their beliefs that they've got their identity dependent upon, and there's simply no reasoning possible in that frozen reality.
Long ago, humanity scoffed and shunned the idea of inductive reasoning, because it forces one to admit that the vast majority of their 'facts', most of what is 'known', has no foundation. Instead, things like consensus, 'democracy', peer-review, and historic precedent determine truth and science, because it's easy, and pleasing to manipulative personalities.
Only when we have the honesty to ditch the pretend-reasoning and admit to how little we know can we possibly begin to expand our mind outside of the ages-old, highly-dysfunctional human paradigm.
Thank you for explaining your line of thinking and for raising the important questions that remain unanswered by medical science. I wholeheartedly agree with this line of reasoning and hope that we understand more about the details as the narrative flips to a more natural approach to health.
The so-called terrain camp also makes many assumptions as you laid out in your response to Christine below. I hadn't thought about it in that way too much until now because of my own inherent bias towards that camp and my near total rejection of allopathic treatments other than emergency interventions.
As we all know, there exists a thriving nutritional supplement industry that certainly doesn't have much scientific evidence to back up the claims made. Most of this is due to interference from the allopathic treatment industry (a protection racket) but it doesn't change the fact that benefits would be incredibly difficult to measure in the short or long term due to so many other factors involved. How does one even run such an experiment? All we have are anecdotes and hearsay and general pattern matching that leads individuals to conclusions that may or may not be correct.
I would add MMS to the list of miracle cures that claim to "get rid of all pathogens!"
I appreciate the explanation of terrain imbalance. I was told by naturopaths (a long time ago) not to worry about the potential individual "pathogens" that my allopathic docs were obsessing about and endlessly prescribing antibiotics for because the terrain would take care of things once everything was back in balance.
We may not have clinical scientific studies to prove these observations of cause and effect in our own lives but we can certainly witness the effects of chronic drug use, nutritional deprivation, and contaminated environments without recourse to formal studies. Again, when something is self-evident, it rarely requires the sterile treatment of "science." For example, contaminate a river and fish die off, other organisms thrive, remove the toxins, and balance tends to be reestablished unless the problem is irreversible.
What I am very wary of in alt-media circles is the chronic insistence that virology is correct and that disease is caused by these "pathogens" whether they be of natural or laboratory provenance. Some have given lip service to the no virus camp but then quickly revert to pushing the fear propaganda for disease X in the same way that the mainstream have been doing for three or more years now.
So what gives? Are they just slow on the uptake? Are they receiving orders to push this narrative for some reason? Are they making bank on their supplements and treatment sales?
This is my main concern at present before we get to breaking down the finer points of terrain and disease. If this issue is not resolved in the alternative media, we will be subjected to another disease psyop worse than the last one. The alt media look like they will play along and maintain fear of viruses and contagion to then act as heroes again steering people away from jabs but into the arms of alternative peddlers of snake oil.
Most people consider "viruses" to be "germs" and they most certainly are not fact. And most people also consider "germ" to mean disease-causing, and this is not factual.
Cambridge: "a very small organism that causes disease:"
MW dictionary: "a microorganism causing disease : a pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus)"
""There's an insidious force at work hidden within the advocacy for 'the terrain theory of disease causation', in that it attempts to breathe artificial life into the dead 'germ theory of disease causation'....The Rockefeller medicine monopoly... claims that it's our 'immune system' that holds the attacking army of microbes at bay... The Rockefeller/germ people say the 'immune system' was compromised or overwhelmed, while the terrain people say the terrain was compromised; very close to the same thing." ???
Who is promoting the idea of an "attacking army of microbes"??
Insidious: "(of something unpleasant or dangerous) gradually and secretly causing harm""
Who are you accusing here? Examples please. The people I know of who talk about "terrain" are doing the exact opposite of promoting the notion of pathogenic microbes or our own bodies attacking us.
"The primary difference between camps is in treatment approach." Treatment approach is very important and can make the difference between life and death. But the difference is also in the view of causation. One camp blames "germs", the others does not and even sees them as beneficial. This is a massive difference.
And science isn't the be-all and end-all. It's required in order to find out if "viruses" even exist, or if bacteria cause disease. But not needed in order for one to pay attention to their own body and notice how it reacts to various inputs/influences and make healthier choices.
I suspected the 'germ' definition would be an issue, which is why I defined it. More explanation was apparently needed. I defined it that way because the dedicated students of 'terrain' understand that the microorganisms are pleomorphic, the 'pathogenic' microbe morphing from the symbiotic microbe, and then back again. So if we're talking Rockefeller medicine, then yes, the 'germ' is a 'pathogenic' microbe (with pleomorphism being denied and shunned, with no effort whatsoever to see if it's true). Obviously the published, mainstream definitions of 'germ' are going to be Rockefeller-approved. But if we're among 'terrain' students, then the pathogenic microbe and the symbiotic microbe are the same microbe that can take many forms and functions. So the microbe that most people call a 'germ' is actually in a symbiotic form most of the time, and therefore the mainstream-accepted definition is simply not accurate when applied to terrain theory.
My "attacking army of microbes" statement is simply referring to the very-mainstream belief that hostile, potentially 'pathogenic' microbes are everywhere. I think it's largely why the public has embraced chemical warfare as 'medicine', and I think that fear has been heavily-promoted by the petro/chemical mafia that needed it in order to take over and monopolize medicine via the leadership of Frederick Gates. You don't agree that most people believe the germ propaganda?
Who am I 'accusing' of being "insidious"? I'm referring to an unseen, mostly subconscious influence; not any specific person. I think that the human subconscious is more deeply influenced by germ theory and Rockefeller medicine than most realize, and I see that the terrain camp holds onto some of the germ theory belief system.
Your description of terrain theory is probably accurate as a general public perception, but it's missing some crucial elements regarding disease causation. Terrain theory proponents most certainly do blame microbes for disease. Central to the theory is that when the terrain is out-of-balance, this causes normally-symbiotic microbes to become pathogenic. It's a theory of 'germ theory applies sometimes', or 'germ theory applies when the terrain is toxic or out-of-balance'. Similarly, terrain theory holds that the toxic or out-of-balance terrain sometimes causes a person's own cells to mutate and go rogue, causing cancer. Rockefeller medicine says basically the same thing, with some added embellishment. None of the disease causation theory in either camp has any scientific backing.
Yes, I did clearly point out the difference in treatment approach. Rockefeller medicine is fond of poisoning people to death while claiming to be trying to heal them, whereas the naturopathic approach that tends to be partnered with terrain theory isn't so keen on killing their patients. Because the terrain people know that potent poisons do more harm than good, they try to find survivable remedies. But much of the treatment approach is still influenced by germ theory. The most commonly-used herbal medicines are all natural toxins, advertised as antibiotic, antimicrobial, or antiviral, such as garlic, thyme, oregano, ginger, clove, echinacea, wormwood, and many more. Hydrogen peroxide and colloidal silver are ingested specifically to kill microbes. For natural cancer treatment, more concentrated, potent forms of these plant toxins are often used, such as artemesinin refined from wormwood, and it's also a common malaria treatment; again with the specific intent of killing microbes. I could expand this list to fill many pages.
Because microbes have never been proven to be the cause of any disease, and in fact are not the cause of any disease, these naturopathic medicines don't work any better than their Rockefeller counterparts. I don't think there's ever been a study, but I'll wager that the majority of people with an acute illness such as cancer, and who want a natural treatment and are afraid of the allopathic treatment, end up in allopathic treatment because the natural treatment didn't work, and they become desperate and feeling out-of-options. It's a very small percentage of people who will stick to naturopathic no matter what happens.
I'm simply pointing out that there's no scientific evidence that 'germs', microbes, bacteria, mycobacteria, fungi, pleomorphs, somatids, 'viruses', or any other microscopic living particles whether real or 'in-silica', are the cause of any disease, period. Whatever's happening with the 'terrain', there's still no scientific evidence that a change in terrain causes microbes to become pathogenic. And I think it would be a leap forward in health consciousness if at least the 'alternative medicine' people recognize the 'germ theory' influence and let go of it, because it's a barrier to further understanding.
'Science' to me refers to the 'scientific process', which is simply the process of forming a sound and complete chain of reasoning (inductively). Therefore, to me, sound reasoning is absolutely critical for one to learn how to care for their body at an exceptional level. For those aspiring to normality, I agree, no reasoning skills needed.
Uh, because they do have an idea. Perhaps you don't understand the terminology. There is a shit ton of evidence for plenty of things. What, if anything, are you reading?
"A shit ton of evidence", followed by a personal insult rather than any evidence. Seems you have the Rockefeller playbook as the default response. How about providing one scientific paper that proves terrain theory or EMF's as the cause of any specific disease?
Bad nutrition, toxic exposures, bad throughts & emotions, energetic imbalances, bad food, water & air, bad sanitations....all causes of disease. Having a healthy terrain can certainly assist in keeping bacteria from taking hold and strengthen the body's efforts to remove toxins. Having a healthy terrain is brought about by consuming good real foods, structured water, clean environment, healthy thinking and emotions,avoiding excessive emf exposure. Avoiding toxins the best that you can is strengthening the terrain. So maybe it's just semantics but terrain theory is just utilizing all those things that promote and support health. Living a life that avoids negative input is not another fad or replacement for germ theory. It's really just common sense. A car doesn't run well with bad gas, not enough oil, clogged air filters. You provide it with what it needs to run at it's optimum. Same with us humans only a lot more complicated since there are energetic influences(non physical) to add to the mix. There is not one cause of disease unless you want to consider being disconnected from Source as that ultimate cause. All else results from that disconnection.
Yes, I understand terrain theory, and agree with most of what you say. You touch on the central theme of the modern view of terrain theory, which is that a healthy terrain is "keeping bacteria from taking hold". "Bacteria" could also be other microorganisms (mycobacteria, fungi, or the mythical 'viruses') or it could be 'mutating cells' ie 'cancer', all part of the modern beliefs about terrain theory.
And my previous comments were to point out that this view of terrain theory is completely unsupported by science. Sure, all of the 'clean living' points you mention are important to general health, but specifically regarding disease, and the specific, characteristic symptoms associated with each disease, there's simply no evidence whatsoever that the common disease symptoms are caused by some imbalance in the 'terrain'. Antoine Bechamp, the father of terrain theory, never alleged that. He remained open-minded, and knew there was still much more to learn.
And in fact Bechamp studied the pleomorphic nature of microbes, revealing that all of the supposedly 'pathogenic' microbes are the same microbes that are symbiotic and outnumber our own cells, being literally part of our body. So when a symbiotic, integral microbe morphs into a different form in order to digest dead cell matter (in what we call an 'infection'), it's simply assumed that it's now a 'bad' microbe and the body's defenses have been compromised. However, if one sees the pervasive intelligence in nature, it's far more rational to assume that the 'pathogenic' microbe is still symbiotic, and is digesting dead cell matter to help the body repair itself and heal. So in that case, what was the cause of the dead cells? Again, both the germ theory and the terrain theory proponents claim they 'know'. The germ theory people say the microbes killed the cells, and the terrain theory people say the change in terrain/toxins/emfs/whatever killed the cells and now the microbes are taking advantage and doing more harm. There's actually little difference between the two views, which is why modern terrain theory is such an easy jump for those who begin to see the problems with germ theory. And neither view is supported by scientific evidence.
Considering that the body, every cell and microbe, and every atom hold their form and are animated by the invisible divine intelligence which we cannot comprehend, and our tissues are self-regulating and self-healing, how can a rational person think that the body doesn't replace, augment, or change specific tissue on purpose?
So in the aforementioned example of an 'infection', how do you know the dead cells aren't from the body intentionally shedding a specific tissue for a specific reason in order to replace or upgrade it, and therefore the microbes are assisting the repair, and the real cause is neither the microbes or the terrain?
The honest answer from anyone would be "I don't know that." But that level of honesty seems out of reach for most people, which bars real science or truth-seeking.
You mean the "symptoms" appear to be real and caused by something or somethings. Usually when one says "diseases" they are referring to labeled symptoms and diagnosis.
A "disease" is just what it looks like-- DIS EASE. Feeling lousy. Being "sick." When medical charlatans use the term maybe it's a code for something else. I'm just saying people feel like shit, but that's not as polite.
What CAUSES a disease is more important to me. Viruses? Not.
So, my consternation arises when the likes of Nass will read such a FOIA and STILL say that the viruses are isolated and Christine (and the rest of us questioners) are too stupid to understand 'science'.
So I make parody videos to use a 3 or 4 minute means of showing the rest of us what criminals these people are.
Thank You!
For your review:
INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC NOTICE: HR5404 AND WHY BANKS ARE COLLAPSING
https://www.newhumannewearthcommunities.com/new-earth-monetary-education
(Sorry for the typo - I fixed my email)
Dear Christine, I would like to discuss more about judicial notice and related matters. If you have time and are so inclined, please send me an email biko97jcj (at) hotmail (dot) com.
I live in China, but can also call you via Skype.
Best
Hi John, I just tried you at bikojcj97@hotmail.com but it bounced back "Address not found".
You can reach me at cmssyc@gmail.com or christinem@fluoridefreepeel.ca.
Cheers
The address he wrote was biko97jcj and the address you wrote is bikojcj97. You mixed up the letters and numbers. That might be why it bounced back.
No, he made the initial error and then went back and corrected what he had written. That's why it now says "(Sorry for the typo - I fixed my email)".
Ahhhh ok I see. Dang, thought I was helping lol. Sorry about that Christine!
No worries, thanks anyways :)
https://weather.com/health/cold-flu/news/2024-01-29-california-avian-flu-outbreak
Any data on Avian Brid Flu?
Yes!
Avian flu virus H5N1: No proof for existence, pathogenicity, or pandemic potential; non-“H5N1” causation omitted
David Crowe and Torsten Engelbrecht
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7173052/)
May 5, 2022:
U.S. CDC and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry confirmed that a search of their records failed to find any that describe anyone on Earth finding an alleged “avian influenza virus” in the bodily fluids of any diseased diseased host (animal or human) and purifying “it”… which is necessary so that “it” could be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/CDC-avian-influenza-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
May 20, 2022:
Public Health Agency of Canada confirmed confirmed that they have no record of any alleged “avian influenza virus” having been found in and purified from the bodily fluid/tissue/excrement of any diseased “host” on the planet (in order for “it” to be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments) by anyone, anywhere, ever.
Insanely, they insist that 1) “viruses” are in hosts despite their utter inability to find them there, 2) it’s necessary to “grow them” in non-host cells (as if “they” would grow better there than they allegedly grew in the diseased host lol), and 3) they pretend that mixing complex substances together = purification.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/PHAC-avian-influenza-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
April 4, 2023: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control can’t prove the existence of “H5N1“
Vicky Lefevre, Head of Unit, Public Health Functions, ECDC, responding to my colleague, failed to provide or cite even 1 record of a any record of any alleged “H5N1 avian influenza virus” being found in the bodily fluid/tissue of any bird that supposedly died from “the virus” and purified… in order for “it” to be sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments, aka “science”:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/ECDC-H5N1-avain-influenza-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
UK Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) cannot show the existence of any “H5N1 virus” in birds
April 21, 2023:
An anonymous man/woman with the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), UK confessed to James Henderson that no one there has any record of anyone on Earth finding and purifying the alleged “H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus” from any dis-eased bird, ever, and thus they confessed to being unable to show “its” alleged existence since they know of no one obtaining a valid independent variable to study.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/UK-Animal-and-Plant-Health-Agency-H5N1-PACKAGE.pdf
April 11, 2022:
Thomas Piggott, the man who acts as Medical Officer of Health at Peterborough Public Health (Ontario, Canada) has no scientific studies to convince him that the alleged “avian flu virus” even exists…. and, has no record of “it” ever having been purified from any alleged host anywhere on Earth (which would be a necessary step in proving that an alleged virus does exist)… and doesn’t even have a copy of the testing protocol that has been implemented to “confirm cases”.
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Peterborough-Public-Health-avian-flu-PACKAGE-redacted.pdf
I am trying to understand what happened to the two controls in the study published in Cell Research on July 7, 2020 using rhesus macaques. It's my understanding that the prevailing assertion is that the "exposed" monkeys became infected, developed disease, and developed antibodies to the virus and that this did not occur with the controls. I (admittedly) am having trouble understanding from the study what the heck happened with regard to the controls (which it appears were also given a DMEM mixture minus the "virus" via the same method). I mostly want to understand if they showed signs of disease. I believe the study is indicating that they did not, and that the exposed animals did. However, I am an admitted rookie trying to figure this stuff out! Is there any resource you can recommend for understanding what occurred regarding the controls in that study (and whether they were true controls)?
Dear Rio,
Were the animals "injected" with biological and chemical material? We never see any instances of "infection" via inhalation. "Challenge" or "exposed" usually means injected.
Best
Can you please give me the link to the study?
A fully controlled experiment would require the purported "virus" particles to have been purified, since that's the only way to make sure that everything else in both groups is the same... but this is never done.
And a valid animal experiment would not involve cell cultures, but your reference to DMEM indicates that they used a cell culture. It sounds like they claim that the experimental monkeys were exposed to "infected" cell culture and the controls with "uninfected" cell culture.
If they don't describe exactly how the "control" cell culture was conducted, there is no way to know what they exposed the "control" monkeys to (and the papers I've looked at are typically vague!).
One of my colleagues got a virologist from one of the early Chinese papers on "SARS-COV-2" to admit that they added double the amount of antibiotics and antifungals to their experimental ("infected") cell cultures compared to the "controls"! (https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/do-virologists-perform-valid-control-experiments-is-virology-a-science/)
Also typically in experiments they expose animals in an invalid fashion (i.e. via injection which is not how "viruses" are said to spread in nature), which makes the study garbage regardless of whatever else they did.
Thank you for your response Ms. Massey. The study is linked to here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0364-z
I am starting to suspect that the virus hypothesis is all smoke and mirrors, but I'm at the beginning stages (admittedly) of looking into this. (At least I did realize a decade plus ago that vaccines themselves were all smoke and mirrors.)...This is a captivating puzzle to try to figure out.
Ok, so this is a small sample study with 6 supposedly "infected" monkeys and only 2 "controls".
The "virus" used was a fake "isolate" obtained from elsewhere and was created by adding lung fluid from a patient with pneumonia to monkey (Vero E6) cells, DMEM, cow serum, toxic drugs and then blaming cell breakdown on "the virus". (I know you probably already realize this but I summarize for anyone else reading here.)
The monkeys were anesthetized and exposed intratracheally (it's not clear how exactly?). So right off the bat we see that the experiment is invalid because this is telling us nothing about what happens in nature. Plus the monkey were in a very unnatural setting, being checked over twice a day and x-rayed several times.
The experimental monkeys got the fake isolate (the human/monkey/cow/bacteria/fungi/toxic drug mixture!) diluted in DMEM and the "controls" got just the DMEM. So there would be many factors that differ between the groups and no evidence that "SARS-COV-2" is even in the isolate. A proper experiment would have purified particles as the 1 factor that varies.
Swab samples were taken on various days and placed in DMEM along with penicillin streptomycin. Whole blood was collected.
2 "infected" monkeys were murdered 3 days after "infection" and 2 more monkeys 6 days after "infection".
"Due to the euthanization... the animal sample size for the following investigation was reduced to 4 on day 4 and 2 after day 6."
They extracted all the RNA (which they call "viral" lol) from swabs and blood.
They used PCR to look for sequences (never shown to be "viral" but referred to as "viral" nevertheless) which they had almost certainly earlier injected into the "infected" monkeys via the fake "isolate", as evidence of "the virus" lol. "No viral RNA could be detected in blood from day 1 to day 14."
They also did cell cultures (similar to what's described above) with tissue from the murdered monkeys, declaring cell breakdown (CPE) as "virus isolation".
"No obvious clinical signs were observed during the study course except that one animal showed reduced appetite".
Aside from body temperature, and where they report "no histopathological changes were found in control animals" (of which there were only 2) and the bit below, I don't see much reporting on the "controls".
Upon "reinfection" of both previously "infected" and "control" monkeys:
"The viral RNA from oropharyngeal swabs showed that the virus still maintained the similar replication pattern in control groups [??] .... In contrast, no viral RNA could be detected in RM1 and RM4"... so the attribute this to antibodies, which have never been shown to be specific to the never-shown-to-exist "virus". Just making up stories to fit the "virus" narrative.
Not sure if this helps at all. For me, the main points here are that the study was a waste of time to begin with since they used an "isolate" (never shown to contain SARS-COV-2) instead of actual purified particles, and it was invalid due to all the unnatural methods... anesthetization, intratracheal innoculation, x-rays... and there was a tiny sample size.
Ms. Massey: Thank you very much for your response. I now see clearly that these were not true controls. Admittedly, when I first looked at this I thought because both the subjects and the controls were given DMEM, they essentially got the same thing, other than the alleged virus...From what I've read/heard I did understand that the subjects of these experiments are usually given in the mixture they receive a whole host of other things that harm cells, but I didn't notice the part of the study that explains what they got. I now see it under Materials and Methods, entitled "Virus, cell and antibody"...Thank you very much. You "walking me through" this study was immensely helpful.
Christine, you got a lot of hate for your work early in this COVID fiasco and I am happy to say you have been vindicated many times over. People have made names for themselves from doors you have opened. Hopefully they are grateful. Thank you for your relentlessness.
Thank you Ricky :)
"Electronic Microscope"? What's that? If your hubby truly worked with a SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) or a TEM (Transmission Electron Microscope) you would obviously know the terminology and the differentiators between the two devices.
New consumer grade OBD2 scanners can display emissions data, you don't require a mechanic.
Sulfer is spelt SULPHUR.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Thanks Mladen! Nice to hear from you :)
I'm going to copy and paste your response below so that Siobhan is sure to see it.
I shared your article with several people. One sent me this reply:
Thanks for thinking of me.
Public health departments--like the UC one she mentions--- are not in the business of isolating viruses. Research labs do that type of work.
My husband has worked with viruses and seen them under an electronic microscope. They exist.
Virologists look at them all the time.
That is how we know that a Corona virus has a little crown.
Go look up photos of polio and ebola too.
There are lots of electronic microscope images that you can look at.
Public health departments merely use the tests created by a university research lab to see if a person is infected with a virus.
So a public health lab is being honest when it says that it has not isolated a virus. They are not set up for that type of work, nor is that their job.
So what I am telling you is that the author had no good reason to expect a public health lab to answer "yes" to the question posed by the writer: "Have you isolated the virus".
Analogy: car computers can record all types of measurements. For instance, it can tell if your car is burning fuel cleanly. It can read whether your car is emitting too much sulfer and carbon monoxide.
Your car mechanic can only show you the read out. He can't show you the sulfer or carbon monoxide that the car is emitting. Yet, that does not mean that Co2 or sulfer do not exist. (I am sure you have smelled sulfer coming from some cars. It smells like rotten eggs.)
So, I am saying that quickly it became clear to me that the writer has unreasonable expectations and does not know what the hell she is talking about.
I don't know much either, but I could see that much, so I was not motivated to read the rest of her crap.
Sorry to disappoint.
Best,
Roxane
Dear Siobhan, I think that you need to review the discussions of Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and the Baileys about EM images. Perhaps your husband can offer us any paper whereby people or mammals were made sick via inhalation.
Thanks
Unfortunately my friend is resistant to such a suggestion because she believes in viruses and has a need to appeal to authority, so her husband trumps any knowledge I have about the matter.
Dear Siobhan,
Hmm, that is difficult. I hate to be crass but, I hope she is not a "good friend." These true believers are dangerous and will turn on you - as is the practice in all police-states. What will she do when you fail to wear a mask, or bathe your hands in alcohol, or refuse the next round of clot-shots?
Best
Here is another response, from Mladen Diklich - he entered it above but it's clearly intended for Roxane:
" "Electronic Microscope"? What's that? If your hubby truly worked with a SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope) or a TEM (Transmission Electron Microscope) you would obviously know the terminology and the differentiators between the two devices.
New consumer grade OBD2 scanners can display emissions data, you don't require a mechanic.
Sulfer is spelt SULPHUR.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. "
I guess Roxane didn't read the request or article carefully, because the Department was not asked whether they had isolated a "virus". They were not asked any questions at all. Asking questions is not what FOI requests are for. FOI requests are requests for records.
This request was for all studies and/or reports in the possession, custody or control of the California Department of Public Health describing purification. As I noted in the article "Robin noted that she was seeking all such records held by the Department regardless of whether they were authored by someone working there or elsewhere, and that if such records were held and were already publicly available, she would like citations."
So my message to Roxane is:
Your condescending, dismissive response reveals your inattention to detail and lack of interest in whether or not valid scientific evidence (which requires a valid independent variable and dependent variable) exists.
You've demonstrated the circular reasoning on which virology relies by implying that images of tiny particles prove that the particles are "viruses".
You've shown that you're oblivious to, and uninterested in, the fact that no one has ever obtained a sample of the alleged "SARS-COV-2" in order to sequence, characterize and study "it" with valid controlled experiments, and that an institution (CDPH) that claims expertise on "viruses" is not able to demonstrate the existence of any "virus" with valid studies.
You imply that un-validated, impossible-to-validate tests are legitimate.
Sorry to disappoint!
Completely true. Now it turns out that no one has SARS Cov 2. And people should ask themselves
1. So what does CRP measure?
2. So how did they make the vaccines if they didn't have the virus?
All a farce, gentlemen, a scam. Truly a genocide, because what it was about was introducing a liquid interface to the whole world without our consent. Of course, since January 2020 I already doubted everything and I don't have this interface installed. Actually the virus is graphene oxide, this material that they introduced in the injectables is what causes covid.
What does "CRP" stand for?
It is the test they did on the majority of the population by inserting a cane through the nose. but people do not know the composition and what the PCR had inside.
I will talk about all that and more at https://covidproject.substack.com/
Ok, so you meant PCR, not "CRP". I'm well aware of the PCR issue, since 2020.
There is no standardization for those "tests", and no common denominator behind the "positive" results (since one only needed a "positive" result in 1 target sequence in order to get the false diagnosis - no problem if they are "negative" on all others tested for!) and there is no known "virus" to test for. There is no way to validate the test in terms of a "virus".
And many major flaws were identified (in the Corman Drosten Review) even in terms of "testing" for the target sequences - which are only tiny segments of the meaningless in silico "genomes".
The tests are completely fraudulent and worthless, only testing for various short sequences of unknown provenance.
In fact, you have described it very well. Since when do they tell you that you are sick, when you are healthy? It's crazy. The important thing about the PCRs is not that they come out, it is that they were going to put something in. From another comment of yours, I see that you know about graphene. Well
Don’t forget the spike protein (Man made Venom )
Of course, the spike protein comes from the supposed virus that no one has isolated. If there is no virus, there is no protein. In addition, there are already 3 doctors who demonstrated that vaccines do not contain mRNA or proteins of any kind, only graphene.
Have you read what Stefano Scoglio has pointed out about "graphene"? It sounds pretty mythological as well... supposedly only 1 (or up to 9, depending on who you listen to) atoms thick.. at which point it changes from being brittle "graphite" to the uber-strong "graphene".
He has a 20 page pdf and an interview that I recommend checking out:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/stefano-scoglio-resources-english/
Dear Christine, I am realizing that there are a LOT of people who are just NOT up to speed on the research. (lol)
We raised the alarm around the world more than 3 years ago regarding this. Other researchers have replicated our analyzes with the same results.
Of course, I'm not talking about the False Dissidence, which emerged in all countries in 2020. That even if they dress in white coats, they are still hired killers.
You raised the alarm about what, where? The false contagion narrative? Or graphene?
I learned about the falseness of the contagion narrative in 2020 from Cowan, Kaufman, Crowe, the Baileys.
Not me, we. We raised the alarm when we discovered what it was all about.
I invite you to go through the recent substack I made, I am explaining the research little by little. Please spread the truth to your family and friends. More people need to know this.
https://covidproject.substack.com/
Ha -- you get that you're asking a question that doesn't make sense to the system. There isn't a lab in the world that would use the phrase "purification of the virus" or any version of that.
What you're getting is someone doing a word search and not trying to figure out the right language for the actual procedures. You might try again using the words "isolation of the virus."
Dear James,
"Isolation of the virus" is not the same as purification. We have examples of "isolation" from the 1930s whereby doctors chopped up chick embryos.
Ha, the wording is clear and the fact that they don't purify is precisely what I'm showing. And you're wrong, there are publications that claim to have "purified".
I've done FOIs with the word "isolation", explaining that I mean separation from everything else in the clinical sample, as well. It does not matter how you ask the question, there are no records.
The CDC (March 1, 2021) and Mount Sinai Hospital both admitted explicitly in FOI responses that alleged "viruses" are never purified from clinical samples, and in both cases indicated that their "experts" were the ones admitting these facts:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
If you're going to come around like a smart ass trying to debunk these FOIs, you will have to do better. Cite a paper where an alleged "virus" was purified from a clinical sample, sequenced, characterized and studied with controlled experiments, and shown to be a "virus". Otherwise you are just blowing hot air.
Wouldn't it be rational to think that eventually, somewhere, during the past four years of this FOIA campaign, at least one of your requests would've reached sincere human beings and triggered in the response something like "No evidence of isolated viruses found... We appreciate you bringing this to our attention, and it's deeply disturbing. We acknowledge that there's no scientific basis for virus theory and we've begun an investigation to understand how we've been deceived for so long..."?
Or that someone, somewhere in a position of power would've noticed that it sure looks like there's not a shred of evidence supporting virus theory, and blown the lid off this suppression?
Part of what this record is showing us is just how profoundly corrupt and dishonest our culture is. It takes so damn many people to maintain this massively-destructive deception, and virtually everyone in a position of power defends it like it's some kind of cult blood oath. What an insane human world this is, that we call 'civilization'...
"cult blood oath" sums it up nicely... and compartmentalization... and no one involved wants to lose their high paying job or position in this "thing" that we call civilization.
I suspect that this system will implode soon enough. It's reaching breaking point. Maybe then we'll naturally embrace a better way to do things.
Yes, compartmentalization, being accelerated by the technology boom, is compounding the dysfunction. Everybody seems to love the atmosphere of nobody being responsible for anything, no one empowered to change anything, because everything is just the collective will (on puppet strings).
I see this thing called 'civilzation' as predominantly just a human war against nature, including, maybe foremost, a war against our own genuine human nature. For 'civilization' to prevail, to 'win' the war, we must kill off every last remnant of authentic humanity, down to the last individual.
Implode it will, but I see very little evidence that many people have learned anything in order to build something better. This is why I try to stimulate conversation, encouraging people to expand their minds beyond the fences, despite the common ire it draws.
That's interesting, I'm writing something about the collective hyperorganism that humanity has become right now titled The Human Blob! Obviously a reference to the rapacious monster from the fifties schlock horror movie, but it's getting to the point where the behavior of the organism is hard to distinguish from that of a fungal overgrowth.
I don't really see our collective activity as a war as such, just the natural progression of an entity that is going through its caterpillar phase - gorging itself on its surroundings, coming up with all manner of excuses to use ever more resources so that the organism as a whole (or at least some part of it) can achieve transformation and then either live more gently on the Earth or start the process all over again on a new planet after having put out tendrils in all directions seeking new ground to exploit (much as all natural systems do).
If anything, I see a concerted effort now from the self-appointed guardians to stifle any further progress down this path because they, being parasites, do not want to relinquish their cushy lifestyle.
It's my belief that most of the problems we currently endure (and tend to accept as part of life) are 90% caused by these parasites due to their control of the education, media, health, marketing, govt and banking systems and 10% due to the natural pressures that a growing hyperorganism is bound to encounter on its journey from ape-like colonies to the hyper-connected technological overlay we see unfolding in real time.
And yes... hardly anyone, even the most dedicated systems engineers, can fathom the entirety of the details involved. The system appears to have a life of its own, parasites included. Maybe they are there for a reason - to test the system and activate novel approaches to life so that it can adapt and evolve.
I agree that "building something better" is unlikely if collapse happens. In a way, what the elite are pushing makes sense from their perspective. Cut back on all non-essential activities, prune the bush, cull the herd, preserve only the essential in order to survive the winter...
From the perspective of the hyperorganism and what it may be trying to become, the feelings of individual units frankly don't matter much. The blob is simply trying to survive in one form or another. If it fails to adapt quickly enough it will shrink back and probably die off with maybe some stragglers scratching about in the dirt.
I'm betting on some kind of transformation since the alternative is, quite frankly, not worth contemplating.
One thing I’d like to impart is that I’ve had a bronchitis type phlegm cough for 4 days took Vit C ,Elderberry extract and Coldeeze but won’t shake it off until I took a nicotine lozenges .gone in one day
Doesn't sound like anything unusual. Not sure why people feel the need to "treat" such symptoms other than maybe some painkillers and the usual natural remedies. How do you know that the symptoms would not have subsided anyway as they almost always do when your body is pushing out toxins?
You just suppressed the symptoms, and stopped the detox. It will come back later hopefully, and please let it continues until the body expells it.
What ever it was it was clinging to the nicotine receptors so nicotine is the default to plug into them
How do you know something was clinging to nicotine receptors?
Have you reviewed the "science" that Bryan Ardis references in support of his "venom" narrative? Someone insisted to me that it was all backed up 100% with "science" and sent me the studies (and news reports) that he cites, and there was absolutely nothing there.
What you say is very interesting. That enters the logic. I know of identical cases but smoking
If it’s EMFs how did the diseases happen back in the 1800s come about?
Dear Keith,
Formerly, most diseases were due to malnutrition. In industrialized areas, people suffered from cesspools (lack of clean water), air pollution, and exposure to heavy metals (remember the mad hatter?).
You can read about the filthy living in urban England in Chadwick (1843). Watt (1813) detailed the problems in Glasgow.
https://wellcomecollection.org/works/awac96u8
Best
Read Arthur Firstenberg's book "The Invisible Rainbow".
I've never said that "covid" was real or that any pandemic was caused by EMFs. All sorts of things affect our health, emfs being one of them no doubt.
So since viruses don't exist, 'they' can't do anything. And bacteria DO exist, but have never been shown to cause disease. Apparently what we call infectious disease is nothing more than evidence that the body is processing an excess of metabolic waste and consequently, the excess is pushed out through the skin, through the lungs, through the sinuses, through the gi system via vomiting and/or diarrhea and all of this excretion of poisons is facilitated by a rise in body temperature which helps to liquify the gel-like fourth-phase water contained within our bodies. So rather than stopping the body's system of detoxification, embrace it and learn how to assist the body. Going against this process leads to chronic illness. And THAT is what we have in epidemic proportions.
And when people finally understand that not only are there no "viral" diseases, but that MUCH of the symptoms ascribed to "viral" diseases are actually caused by EMF's, well, then action will be dedicated, and carried out.
Cell phones have to GO. Fiber optics for computers. We CAN have a better life and still have our online access. Bring back public pay phones (better still, let them be free!), put call boxes along highways, and so on, and so on.
EMFs are just one toxin among many.
Yeah, that's right. And we are being INUNDATED by EMF's everywhere, WiFi, 5G, and this has been getting stronger and stronger as time goes on...
I think you'd really like the Firstenberg book! It blew MY mind, it's really amazing.
Yes, I've read that book. It is certainly one piece of the toxic pie.
We spend much of our lives fighting imaginary diseases and viruses all in the name of creating gargantuan profits for big pharma.
The diseases are real, but they are not caused by VIRUSES. EMF's, and other TERRAIN causes are where we can direct our attention.
It's amazing how so many people just can't help themselves from replacing one irrational, unfounded theory (germ/virus theory) with another irrational, unfounded theory (terrain theory or 'emf theory'). If Christine spent a couple of years requesting scientific evidence from the 'terrain theory' proponents, it would show a similar result of absolutely no evidence. Why can't people just admit that they have no idea what causes disease?
Dear David Lamb,
Terrain theory, unfounded? Hmm, how many days can you go without air (oxygen), water, and food? We understand the terrain to be your body. How can we live without nutrients?
I ask for evidence of the existence of specific "viruses" (or, contagion, or control experiments), which are necessary to back up the virus claims.
What sort of FOI would one do for terrain theory?
To my simple understanding, terrain theory says that if your body is cared for (by not subjecting it to interference in the form of mental/emotional stress, junk food, poisons, overeating, etc or neglect i.e. not enough sleep) you will be healthy, and if your body is abused long enough (or in an extreme fashion over a shorter term), you can expect dis-ease.
To me that's just logical, like saying that if you look after your car and don't fill it with the wrong fluids it will last longer and have fewer breakdowns.
I've been pondering your question since yesterday, and it's a deep one.
The part of terrain theory that involves microbes turning 'pathogenic' from unhealthy changes in the terrain would be covered already by your 'germ theory' FOI inquiries, since this theory is really just a conditional version of germ theory. Germ theory basically says that disease-causing microbes make us sick whenever they overwhelm our 'immune system', and terrain theory basically says that only happens when the terrain is corrupted/toxic. And likewise for 'cancer'; germ theory says our cells just 'mutate' and begin turning us into frankenstein for all sorts of reasons, while terrain theory says that happens because the terrain is corrupted/toxic.
Of course, absolutely none of that is backed up by scientific evidence.
If experiments set up to study 'contagion', exposing people to 'pathogenic' microbes, fail completely time after time, for centuries, to the point that nobody will even try such an experiment today because they know it will fail, then that shoots down both germ theory and a significant part of terrain theory.
Regarding general health, yes, I agree that the general-health aspect of terrain theory is rational and somewhat common-sense. If we exercise a level of care that keeps our 'terrain' in pristine condition, a high level of general health is probably the outcome, but I add the proviso that the psychological 'terrain' must be pristine also.
But then we must look at what is 'health', and what is 'disease'? When we see a optimally-healthy person with pristine terrain, and elite-athlete-level fitness, get the flu, or cancer, or a heart attack, what does that tell us? Or when a homeless drug-addict chain-smoking Vietnam veteran with PTSD hasn't been sick in 40 years, what does that tell us?
What it suggests is that the current concepts of 'disease' and 'health' as opposites, and subtracting from each other, is a deeply-flawed theory. This is another example of a deeply-held mainstream belief born of the same darkness as Rockefeller medicine and germ theory, that people never even question.
What if all of the symptoms of every 'disease' are the result of the body doing it on purpose, in order to survive? If that's true, that would mean that robust 'disease' symptoms would be an indicator of good health, and people would welcome them. We'd have to drop all of our definitions, as well as everything else we think we know, and start from scratch. And that's why human beings in the present state of consciousness will never allow this truth into their minds.
You could write FOI requests for the next 50 years, covering every theory about health and disease on the planet, and every last one would be exposed as BS, because that's the paradigm in which we live. However, I'd be happy to help expose more delusion if you'd like suggestions.
The way I see it the terrain is not so much a theory but a factual concept that relates to the human body and our surroundings following the analogy of a field in agriculture. It's a real, provable thing that exists and can be tested for "health" while applying the long held wisdom that systems in a state of balance or equilibrium result in what we call "good health."
This applies to all systems whether natural or man made such as engines and economic markets and I would suggest that we lack scientific "proof" for this relationship because it's self evident. That said, it is relatively easy to destabilize these systems and observe the "results" if we wanted further proof.
The part that refers to theory when it comes to terrain would have more to do with finding the reasons why the terrain displays certain symptoms rather than others and then to assess whether these symptoms are the result of natural processes, adjustments, evolutionary pressures or because they are due to deficiencies and toxic inputs.
Yes, I agree totally.
The more accurate term for what I was addressing would be "the terrain theory of disease causation". Likewise, we know 'germs' are fact, if we agree that we're generally referring to microbes, so 'germ theory' isn't a theory, and what we usually mean is the 'Pasteurish' idea of disease causation from 'germs', which is not only not fact, but I think most who've deeply researched the topic would agree that it was disproven as a viable theory more than a century ago and Pasteur has been exposed as having been more a corrupt politician than scientist.
There's an insidious force at work hidden within the advocacy for 'the terrain theory of disease causation', in that it attempts to breathe artificial life into the dead 'germ theory of disease causation'.
The Rockefeller medicine monopoly, that pretends the germ theory of disease causation is 'scientific', also claims that it's our 'immune system' that holds the attacking army of microbes at bay, and a weakness in the immune system will enable the invaders to breach the walls and begin destroying the castle from within. The modern 'terrain theory of disease causation' is almost identical to that regarding disease genesis theory. The Rockefeller/germ people say the 'immune system' was compromised or overwhelmed, while the terrain people say the terrain was compromised; very close to the same thing. The primary difference between camps is in treatment approach. Sure, the 'terrain' approach regarding treatment is going in a positive direction from the Rockefeller approach, but none of it is based on genuine science. The terrain/naturopathic approach at least isn't adding harm like the Rockefeller system does.
The net result is that the 'terrain' camp helps support beliefs in microbes attacking us, and our own cells attacking us, which is an entirely unscientific group of beliefs rooted deeply in the human-created war against nature and the divine.
Most people refuse to sincerely consider questions like you mention, because they refuse to let go of their beliefs that they've got their identity dependent upon, and there's simply no reasoning possible in that frozen reality.
Long ago, humanity scoffed and shunned the idea of inductive reasoning, because it forces one to admit that the vast majority of their 'facts', most of what is 'known', has no foundation. Instead, things like consensus, 'democracy', peer-review, and historic precedent determine truth and science, because it's easy, and pleasing to manipulative personalities.
Only when we have the honesty to ditch the pretend-reasoning and admit to how little we know can we possibly begin to expand our mind outside of the ages-old, highly-dysfunctional human paradigm.
Thank you for explaining your line of thinking and for raising the important questions that remain unanswered by medical science. I wholeheartedly agree with this line of reasoning and hope that we understand more about the details as the narrative flips to a more natural approach to health.
The so-called terrain camp also makes many assumptions as you laid out in your response to Christine below. I hadn't thought about it in that way too much until now because of my own inherent bias towards that camp and my near total rejection of allopathic treatments other than emergency interventions.
As we all know, there exists a thriving nutritional supplement industry that certainly doesn't have much scientific evidence to back up the claims made. Most of this is due to interference from the allopathic treatment industry (a protection racket) but it doesn't change the fact that benefits would be incredibly difficult to measure in the short or long term due to so many other factors involved. How does one even run such an experiment? All we have are anecdotes and hearsay and general pattern matching that leads individuals to conclusions that may or may not be correct.
I would add MMS to the list of miracle cures that claim to "get rid of all pathogens!"
I appreciate the explanation of terrain imbalance. I was told by naturopaths (a long time ago) not to worry about the potential individual "pathogens" that my allopathic docs were obsessing about and endlessly prescribing antibiotics for because the terrain would take care of things once everything was back in balance.
We may not have clinical scientific studies to prove these observations of cause and effect in our own lives but we can certainly witness the effects of chronic drug use, nutritional deprivation, and contaminated environments without recourse to formal studies. Again, when something is self-evident, it rarely requires the sterile treatment of "science." For example, contaminate a river and fish die off, other organisms thrive, remove the toxins, and balance tends to be reestablished unless the problem is irreversible.
What I am very wary of in alt-media circles is the chronic insistence that virology is correct and that disease is caused by these "pathogens" whether they be of natural or laboratory provenance. Some have given lip service to the no virus camp but then quickly revert to pushing the fear propaganda for disease X in the same way that the mainstream have been doing for three or more years now.
So what gives? Are they just slow on the uptake? Are they receiving orders to push this narrative for some reason? Are they making bank on their supplements and treatment sales?
This is my main concern at present before we get to breaking down the finer points of terrain and disease. If this issue is not resolved in the alternative media, we will be subjected to another disease psyop worse than the last one. The alt media look like they will play along and maintain fear of viruses and contagion to then act as heroes again steering people away from jabs but into the arms of alternative peddlers of snake oil.
It seems I've come too close to a hive of angry bees, so I'm out of here. I enjoyed our conversation, and perhaps we'll meet again somewhere else.
Please see below, because some inaccurate and unfair comments have been made here.
Most people consider "viruses" to be "germs" and they most certainly are not fact. And most people also consider "germ" to mean disease-causing, and this is not factual.
Cambridge: "a very small organism that causes disease:"
MW dictionary: "a microorganism causing disease : a pathogenic agent (such as a bacterium or virus)"
""There's an insidious force at work hidden within the advocacy for 'the terrain theory of disease causation', in that it attempts to breathe artificial life into the dead 'germ theory of disease causation'....The Rockefeller medicine monopoly... claims that it's our 'immune system' that holds the attacking army of microbes at bay... The Rockefeller/germ people say the 'immune system' was compromised or overwhelmed, while the terrain people say the terrain was compromised; very close to the same thing." ???
Who is promoting the idea of an "attacking army of microbes"??
Insidious: "(of something unpleasant or dangerous) gradually and secretly causing harm""
Who are you accusing here? Examples please. The people I know of who talk about "terrain" are doing the exact opposite of promoting the notion of pathogenic microbes or our own bodies attacking us.
"The primary difference between camps is in treatment approach." Treatment approach is very important and can make the difference between life and death. But the difference is also in the view of causation. One camp blames "germs", the others does not and even sees them as beneficial. This is a massive difference.
And science isn't the be-all and end-all. It's required in order to find out if "viruses" even exist, or if bacteria cause disease. But not needed in order for one to pay attention to their own body and notice how it reacts to various inputs/influences and make healthier choices.
Good questions for clarification.
I suspected the 'germ' definition would be an issue, which is why I defined it. More explanation was apparently needed. I defined it that way because the dedicated students of 'terrain' understand that the microorganisms are pleomorphic, the 'pathogenic' microbe morphing from the symbiotic microbe, and then back again. So if we're talking Rockefeller medicine, then yes, the 'germ' is a 'pathogenic' microbe (with pleomorphism being denied and shunned, with no effort whatsoever to see if it's true). Obviously the published, mainstream definitions of 'germ' are going to be Rockefeller-approved. But if we're among 'terrain' students, then the pathogenic microbe and the symbiotic microbe are the same microbe that can take many forms and functions. So the microbe that most people call a 'germ' is actually in a symbiotic form most of the time, and therefore the mainstream-accepted definition is simply not accurate when applied to terrain theory.
My "attacking army of microbes" statement is simply referring to the very-mainstream belief that hostile, potentially 'pathogenic' microbes are everywhere. I think it's largely why the public has embraced chemical warfare as 'medicine', and I think that fear has been heavily-promoted by the petro/chemical mafia that needed it in order to take over and monopolize medicine via the leadership of Frederick Gates. You don't agree that most people believe the germ propaganda?
Who am I 'accusing' of being "insidious"? I'm referring to an unseen, mostly subconscious influence; not any specific person. I think that the human subconscious is more deeply influenced by germ theory and Rockefeller medicine than most realize, and I see that the terrain camp holds onto some of the germ theory belief system.
Your description of terrain theory is probably accurate as a general public perception, but it's missing some crucial elements regarding disease causation. Terrain theory proponents most certainly do blame microbes for disease. Central to the theory is that when the terrain is out-of-balance, this causes normally-symbiotic microbes to become pathogenic. It's a theory of 'germ theory applies sometimes', or 'germ theory applies when the terrain is toxic or out-of-balance'. Similarly, terrain theory holds that the toxic or out-of-balance terrain sometimes causes a person's own cells to mutate and go rogue, causing cancer. Rockefeller medicine says basically the same thing, with some added embellishment. None of the disease causation theory in either camp has any scientific backing.
Yes, I did clearly point out the difference in treatment approach. Rockefeller medicine is fond of poisoning people to death while claiming to be trying to heal them, whereas the naturopathic approach that tends to be partnered with terrain theory isn't so keen on killing their patients. Because the terrain people know that potent poisons do more harm than good, they try to find survivable remedies. But much of the treatment approach is still influenced by germ theory. The most commonly-used herbal medicines are all natural toxins, advertised as antibiotic, antimicrobial, or antiviral, such as garlic, thyme, oregano, ginger, clove, echinacea, wormwood, and many more. Hydrogen peroxide and colloidal silver are ingested specifically to kill microbes. For natural cancer treatment, more concentrated, potent forms of these plant toxins are often used, such as artemesinin refined from wormwood, and it's also a common malaria treatment; again with the specific intent of killing microbes. I could expand this list to fill many pages.
Because microbes have never been proven to be the cause of any disease, and in fact are not the cause of any disease, these naturopathic medicines don't work any better than their Rockefeller counterparts. I don't think there's ever been a study, but I'll wager that the majority of people with an acute illness such as cancer, and who want a natural treatment and are afraid of the allopathic treatment, end up in allopathic treatment because the natural treatment didn't work, and they become desperate and feeling out-of-options. It's a very small percentage of people who will stick to naturopathic no matter what happens.
I'm simply pointing out that there's no scientific evidence that 'germs', microbes, bacteria, mycobacteria, fungi, pleomorphs, somatids, 'viruses', or any other microscopic living particles whether real or 'in-silica', are the cause of any disease, period. Whatever's happening with the 'terrain', there's still no scientific evidence that a change in terrain causes microbes to become pathogenic. And I think it would be a leap forward in health consciousness if at least the 'alternative medicine' people recognize the 'germ theory' influence and let go of it, because it's a barrier to further understanding.
'Science' to me refers to the 'scientific process', which is simply the process of forming a sound and complete chain of reasoning (inductively). Therefore, to me, sound reasoning is absolutely critical for one to learn how to care for their body at an exceptional level. For those aspiring to normality, I agree, no reasoning skills needed.
Uh, because they do have an idea. Perhaps you don't understand the terminology. There is a shit ton of evidence for plenty of things. What, if anything, are you reading?
"A shit ton of evidence", followed by a personal insult rather than any evidence. Seems you have the Rockefeller playbook as the default response. How about providing one scientific paper that proves terrain theory or EMF's as the cause of any specific disease?
Bad nutrition, toxic exposures, bad throughts & emotions, energetic imbalances, bad food, water & air, bad sanitations....all causes of disease. Having a healthy terrain can certainly assist in keeping bacteria from taking hold and strengthen the body's efforts to remove toxins. Having a healthy terrain is brought about by consuming good real foods, structured water, clean environment, healthy thinking and emotions,avoiding excessive emf exposure. Avoiding toxins the best that you can is strengthening the terrain. So maybe it's just semantics but terrain theory is just utilizing all those things that promote and support health. Living a life that avoids negative input is not another fad or replacement for germ theory. It's really just common sense. A car doesn't run well with bad gas, not enough oil, clogged air filters. You provide it with what it needs to run at it's optimum. Same with us humans only a lot more complicated since there are energetic influences(non physical) to add to the mix. There is not one cause of disease unless you want to consider being disconnected from Source as that ultimate cause. All else results from that disconnection.
Well said. Apparently when YOU say "terrain" it's better than when I say it, LOL.
Yes, I understand terrain theory, and agree with most of what you say. You touch on the central theme of the modern view of terrain theory, which is that a healthy terrain is "keeping bacteria from taking hold". "Bacteria" could also be other microorganisms (mycobacteria, fungi, or the mythical 'viruses') or it could be 'mutating cells' ie 'cancer', all part of the modern beliefs about terrain theory.
And my previous comments were to point out that this view of terrain theory is completely unsupported by science. Sure, all of the 'clean living' points you mention are important to general health, but specifically regarding disease, and the specific, characteristic symptoms associated with each disease, there's simply no evidence whatsoever that the common disease symptoms are caused by some imbalance in the 'terrain'. Antoine Bechamp, the father of terrain theory, never alleged that. He remained open-minded, and knew there was still much more to learn.
And in fact Bechamp studied the pleomorphic nature of microbes, revealing that all of the supposedly 'pathogenic' microbes are the same microbes that are symbiotic and outnumber our own cells, being literally part of our body. So when a symbiotic, integral microbe morphs into a different form in order to digest dead cell matter (in what we call an 'infection'), it's simply assumed that it's now a 'bad' microbe and the body's defenses have been compromised. However, if one sees the pervasive intelligence in nature, it's far more rational to assume that the 'pathogenic' microbe is still symbiotic, and is digesting dead cell matter to help the body repair itself and heal. So in that case, what was the cause of the dead cells? Again, both the germ theory and the terrain theory proponents claim they 'know'. The germ theory people say the microbes killed the cells, and the terrain theory people say the change in terrain/toxins/emfs/whatever killed the cells and now the microbes are taking advantage and doing more harm. There's actually little difference between the two views, which is why modern terrain theory is such an easy jump for those who begin to see the problems with germ theory. And neither view is supported by scientific evidence.
Considering that the body, every cell and microbe, and every atom hold their form and are animated by the invisible divine intelligence which we cannot comprehend, and our tissues are self-regulating and self-healing, how can a rational person think that the body doesn't replace, augment, or change specific tissue on purpose?
So in the aforementioned example of an 'infection', how do you know the dead cells aren't from the body intentionally shedding a specific tissue for a specific reason in order to replace or upgrade it, and therefore the microbes are assisting the repair, and the real cause is neither the microbes or the terrain?
The honest answer from anyone would be "I don't know that." But that level of honesty seems out of reach for most people, which bars real science or truth-seeking.
You mean the "symptoms" appear to be real and caused by something or somethings. Usually when one says "diseases" they are referring to labeled symptoms and diagnosis.
A "disease" is just what it looks like-- DIS EASE. Feeling lousy. Being "sick." When medical charlatans use the term maybe it's a code for something else. I'm just saying people feel like shit, but that's not as polite.
What CAUSES a disease is more important to me. Viruses? Not.
So, my consternation arises when the likes of Nass will read such a FOIA and STILL say that the viruses are isolated and Christine (and the rest of us questioners) are too stupid to understand 'science'.
So I make parody videos to use a 3 or 4 minute means of showing the rest of us what criminals these people are.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/n9auN2Do8JbX/
Excellent! subscribed.