DrewNows

You keep saying that! Honestly i have no idea how the body will react to "deadly pathogenic microbes" but like i've been preaching, it's the terrain not the germs/bacteria which cause illness. How bout what Wim hof is/was able to do...oxygenating the cells, controlling the sympathetic NS and he wasn't even fasting! (cool stuff)

no it's not lol dropped some files in case anyone is interested in reading more LifeScienceLESSON1.doc LifeScienceLESSON2.doc LifeScienceCourseOutline.doc

@Serotoninluv you crack me up sounds like taking pills to treat a cold to me "All medical research has proven the truth of the toxemia causation of disease regardless of the misinterpretations of the researchers. Researchers usually interpret their data to suit those who are paying for the experimentation, usually drug companies or drug beneficiaries. If the experiments are too contrary to the ends sought they are usually buried quietly. Both laboratory evidence and empirical observations substantiate that disease is a body reaction to intoxication rather than germs." We can self verify this through fasting....

tell me there isn’t something going on in regards to energy frequencies of the body and ones ability to ingest poison, look at the Bible stories and many raw vegans who claim to have gone over 30 yrs without getting sick. Not sure about the man made viruses or what not but I think wim hof is onto something regarding the power accessible at high states of frequency

it’s very long so I can delete afterward if necessary “Part 2 Cont..: (You need to read the last post for this to make sense) Antibiotics, Immunization or Improved Nutrition? In 1973 Dr. D. Powles observed: "The major contributing factor toward improved health over the past 200 years has been improved nutrition. Nearly 90% of the total decline in the death rate in children between 1860 and 1965 due to whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria and measles occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization against diphtheria" (Powles, 1973). Epidemiologist Dr. G.T. Stewart made a similar statement which was reported in Lancet of May 18,1968; and prior to this Sir Robert McCarrison, the great English physician, wrote: "Obsessed with the invisible microbe, virus, protozoa as all important excitants of disease, subservient to laboratory methods of diagnosis, hidebound by our system of nomenclature, we often forget the most fundamental of all rules for the physician, that the right kind of food (nutrition) is the most important single factor in the promotion of health and the wrong kind of food the most important single factor in the promotion of disease” (McCarrison, 1936). In a personal communication (1974), Dr. Klenner made the following important observations: "Many here voice a silent view that the Salk and Sabin vaccine, being made of monkey kidney tissue, has been directly responsible for the major increase of leukemia in this country. Your own Dr. Nossal from the Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia made the statement which was published in our Medical Tribune that, ‘Most killed vaccine in use today was not fit for a mouse.’ " Elsewhere in the same communication Dr. Klenner astutely sums up some pertinent reasons for our inability to make successful viral vaccines as follows: "I am of the opinion that virus units have the potential of going from one type to another by just altering their protein coat. We see chicken pox at Thanksgiving, mumps by Christmas, red measles in the spring and polio and what we now know was Coxsackie in the summer. When the red measles vaccine was given to the children in our community we immediately had an epidemic of sore throats and many of the older people demonstrated Koplik’s spots" (Klenner, 1974). These viewpoints appear to constitute food for thought. Moreover, it is disappointing to observe the futility and ineffectiveness of many "flu" vaccines that have been accepted by an unwary public. If we consider Béchamp’s thesis that viruses and bacteria can be extensions of enzymes ("microzymas"), that there are specific disease conditions rather than specific diseases, that the virus and the bacterium are the concomitants, not the antecedents of disease, is it not conceivable that these entities may become, by evolution and nutritional breakdown, the viruses and bacteria we are studying so intently? Is Klenner right? Was Béchamp right? Is this why we cannot make a successful vaccine? Disease and Béchamp’s Hypothesis: A Final Consideration A further search of the relevant literature produced the following: "S. Typhi has been isolated from surgical wounds and gall bladders of patients not known to be typhoid carriers" (Arch. Surg., 1972). Showing the influence of orthodoxy the article then concludes that these patients are infection hazards. We wonder aloud how many "infection hazards" we would detect if we did a bacteriological survey upon all the passengers of a jumbo jet? Surveys that we have participated in show that a large percentage of the sample may indeed "carry" so-called pathogens without any clinical symptoms of disease. Perhaps it is time we revised the word pathogen? W. A. Altemeier describes the increase of mixed infections which he alleges are due to indiscreet use of antibiotics, which produces viral, fungal and L-forms which are much more difficult to control. Altemeier then describes how the bacterial flora is ever changing and cites a case of septicemia: this commenced as a staphylococcal infection and then successively became pseudomonas, bacteroides. E. Coli. Enterobacter, aerogenes, anaerobic streptococci, serratia and finally proteus (Altemeier, 1975). How many realize that the results of a culture and sensitivity collected from a patient the day before may have changed by the time the result is readable in the laboratory? In other words, yesterday’s tests may be today’s mistakes! This behavior of the micro-organism might appear much less strange if we adopt more the viewpoint of Béchamp who described the microzymian endogenous (developing inside the body) evolution of micro-organisms some 100 years ago. If a child develops measles, chicken pox, whooping cough, mumps, rubella or any of the other common childhood infections, it is not because of germs, but because of the accumulated toxic waste within the body, a condition known as Toxaemia. Royal Raymond Rife’s Discoveries: One day, the name of Royal Raymond Rife may ascend to its rightful place as the giant of modern medical science. Until that time, his fabulous technology remains available only to the people who have the interest to seek it out. While perfectly legal for veterinarians to use anything to save the lives of animals, Rife’s brilliant frequency therapy remains taboo to orthodox mainstream medicine because of the continuing threat it poses to the international pharmaceutical medical monopoly that controls the lives – and deaths – of the vast majority of the people on this planet. Rife’s inventions include a heterodyning ultraviolet microscope, a microdissector, and a micromanipulator. When you thoroughly understand Rife’s achievements, you may well decide that he has the most gifted, versatile, scientific mind in human history. The result of using a resonant wavelength is that micro-organisms which are invisible in white light suddenly become visible in a brilliant flash of light when they are exposed to the color frequency that resonates with their own distinct spectroscopic signature. Rife was thus able to see these otherwise invisible organisms and watch them actively invading tissues cultures. Rife’s discovery enabled him to view organisms that no one else could see with ordinary microscopes. By 1920, Rife had finished building the world’s first virus microscope. By 1933, he had perfected that technology and had constructed the incredibly complex Universal Microscope, which had nearly 6,000 different parts and was capable of magnifying objects 60,000 times their normal size. With this incredible microscope, Rife became the first human being to actually see a live virus, and until quite recently, the Universal Microscope was the only one which was able view live viruses. Modern electron microscopes instantly kill everything beneath them, viewing only the mummified remains and debris. What the Rife microscope can see is the bustling activity of living viruses as they change form to accommodate changes in environment, replicate rapidly in response to carcinogens, and transform normal cells into tumor cells. But how was Rife able to accomplish this, in an age when electronics and medicine were still just evolving? Here are a few technical details to placate the skeptics… Rife painstakingly identified the individual spectroscopic signature of each microbe, using a slit spectroscope attachment. Then, he slowly rotated block quartz prisms to focus light of a single wavelength upon the microorganism he was examining. This wavelength was selected because it resonated with the spectroscopic signature frequency of the microbe based on the now-established fact that every molecule oscillates at its own distinct frequency. The atoms that come together to form a molecule are held together in that molecular configuration with a covalent energy bond which both emits and absorbs its own specific electromagnetic frequency. No two species of molecule have the same electromagnetic oscillations or energetic signature. Resonance amplifies light in the same way two ocean waves intensify each other when they merge together. More than 75% of the organisms Rife could see with his Universal Microscope are only visible with ultra-violet light. But ultraviolet light is outside the range of human vision; it is ‘invisible’ to us. Rife’s brilliance allowed him to overcome this limitation by heterodyning, a technique which became popular in early radio broadcasting. He illuminated the microbe (usually a virus or bacteria) with two different wavelengths of the same ultraviolet light frequency which resonated with the spectral signature of the microbe. These two wavelengths produced interference where they merged. This interference was, in effect, a third, longer wave which fell into the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This was how Rife made invisible microbes visible without killing them, a feat which today’s electron microscopes cannot duplicate. By this time, Rife was so far ahead of his colleagues of the 1930’s(!), that they could not comprehend what he was doing without actually traveling to San Diego to Rife’s laboratory to look through his Virus Microscope for themselves. And many did exactly that. One was Virginia Livingston. She eventually moved from New Jersey to Rife’s Point Loma (San Diego) neighborhood and became a frequent visitor to his lab. Virginia Livingston is now often given the credit for identifying the organism which causes human cancer, beginning with research papers she began publishing in 1948. In reality, Royal Rife had identified the human cancer virus first…in 1920! Rife then made over 20,000 unsuccessful attempts to transform normal cells into tumor cells. He finally succeeded when he irradiated the cancer virus, passed it through a cell-catching ultra-fine porcelain filter, and injected it into lab animals. Not content to prove this virus would cause one tumor, Rife then created 400 tumors in succession from the same culture. He documented everything with film, photographs, and meticulous records. He named the cancer virus ‘Cryptocides primordiales.’ Virginia Livingston, in her papers, renamed it Progenitor Cryptocides. Royal Rife was never even mentioned in her papers. In fact, Rife seldom got credit for his monumental discoveries. He was a quiet, unassuming scientist, dedicated to expanding his discoveries rather than to ambition, fame, and glory. His distaste for medical politics (which he could afford to ignore thanks to generous trusts set up by private benefactors) left him at a disadvantage later, when powerful forces attacked him. Coupled with the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in purging his papers from medical journals, it is hardly surprising that few heave heard of Rife today. Nevertheless, many scientists and doctors have since confirmed Rife’s discovery of the cancer virus and its pleomorphic nature, using darkfield techniques, the Naessens microscope, and laboratory experiments. Rife also worked with the top scientists and doctors of his day who also confirmed or endorsed various areas of his work. They included: E.C. Rosenow, Sr. (long-time Chief of Bacteriology, Mayo Clinic); Arthur Kendall (Director, Northwestern Medical School); Dr. George Dock (internationally-renowned); Alvin Foord (famous pathologist); Rufus Klein-Schmidt (President of USC); R.T. Hamer (Superintendent, Paradise Valley Sanitarium; Dr. Milbank Johnson (Director of the Southern California AMA); Whalen Morrison (Chief Surgeon, Santa Fe Railway); George Fischer (Children’s Hospital, N.Y.); Edward Kopps (Metabolic Clinic, La Jolla); Karl Meyer (Hooper Foundation, S.F.); M. Zite (Chicago University); and many others. By increasing the intensity of a frequency which resonated naturally with these microbes, Rife increased their natural oscillations until they distorted and disintegrated from structural stresses. Rife called this frequency ‘the mortal oscillatory rate,’ or ‘MOR’, and it did no harm whatsoever to the surrounding tissues. Today’s Rife instruments use harmonics of the frequencies shown on the display screen. The wavelength of the actual frequency shown (770hz, 880hz, etc.) is too long to do the job. This principle can be illustrated by using an intense musical note to shatter a wine glass: the molecules of the glass are already oscillating at some harmonic (multiple) of that musical note; they are in resonance with it. Because everything else has a different resonant frequency, nothing but the glass is destroyed. There are literally hundreds of trillions of different resonant frequencies, and every species and molecule has its very own. It took Rife many years, working 48 hours at a time, until he discovered the frequencies which specifically destroyed herpes, polio, spinal meningitis, tetanus, influenza, and an immense number of other dangerous disease organisms. In 1934, the University of Southern California appointed a Special Medical Research Committee to bring terminal cancer patients from Pasadena County Hospital to Rife’s San Diego Laboratory and clinic for treatment. The team included doctors and pathologists assigned to examine the patients – if still alive – in 90 days. After the 90 days of treatment, the Committee concluded that 86.5% of the patients had been completely cured. The treatment was then adjusted and the remaining 13.5% of the patients also responded within the next four weeks. The total recovery rate using Rife’s technology was 100%. On November 20, 1931, forty-four of the nation’s most respected medical authorities honored Royal Rife with a banquet billed as The End To All Diseases at the Pasadena estate of Dr. Milbank Johnson. But by 1939, almost all of these distinguished doctors and scientists were denying that they had ever met Rife. What happened to make so many brilliant men have complete memory lapses? It seems that news of Rife’s miracles with terminal patients had reached other ears. Remember our hypothetical question at the beginning of this report: What would happen if you discovered a cure for everything? You are now about to find out…. At first, a token attempt was made to buy out Rife. Morris Fishbein, who had acquired the entire stock of the American Medical Association by 1934, sent an attorney to Rife with ‘an offer you can’t refuse.’ Rife refused. We may never know the exact terms of this offer. There’s more to this history...and it’s all corruption.”

@Serotoninluv Awesome! Let me share you this before continuing as to not have any confusion, make sure we are on the same page. This is just one view/story of history “Part 1: Germ theory debunked Here’s what I’m talking about with the germ theory. Check it out, take a breath read it. Remember everything we know comes from the new world since 2 world wars (the victors of war always write the history books)and when it comes to medicine the Rockerfell-a institution has done a great job at implementing their teachings. You Cannot Catch Bugs, Germs, Bacteria or Candida/Fungi © Copyright Bee Wilder April 3, 2015 The following text disproves "The Germ Theory of Disease," as promoted by the medical industry today, which was initiated by Louis Pasteur in the early 1800s and it confirms that you cannot catch bugs, germs, bacteria or candida/fungi. Louis Pasteur (1822 – 1895), Plagiarist, Impostor! A plagiarist is someone who uses another person’s words or ideas as if they were his own. An imposter is someone who attempts to deceive. Louis Pasteur was a French microbiologist and chemist, born on December 27, 1822 in Dole, in the region of Jura, France. His discovery that most infectious diseases are caused by germs, known as "the germ theory of disease," became the foundation for the science of microbiology, and a cornerstone of modern medicine. "Pasteur also developed ‘pasteurization’, which was named after him. Pasteurization is a process by which harmful microbes in perishable food products are destroyed using heat, without destroying the food." However, this is not true. Pasteurization does NOT kill ALL “supposedly” harmful microbes (harmful according to the medical industry) and it definitely DOES damage the food by destroying natural enzymes and nutrients. However, Louis Pasteur was not an honest creditable individual. If you look back into the history of the medical profession and the various ideas regarding the cause of disease that were held by leading physicians before Pasteur first promulgated his notorious "germ theory", you will find convincing evidence that Pasteur discovered nothing, and that he deliberately appropriated, falsified and perverted another man’s work. His true character and methods were brought to light by Miss Ethel Douglas Hume in her book "Pasteur or Béchamp" written in 1923, the title of which has since been changed to "Pasteur Exposed." Another book by R.B. Pearson "Pasteur, Plagiarist, Impostor" was originally published in the 1940s, with a new edition entitled "The Dream and Lie of Louis Pasteur." Interestingly enough Pasteur instructed his family never to release his lab notes. After his grandson died in 1975, they were finally released. Gerald Geison, a science historian, was among the first people to thoroughly review those notes. In 1995, which was “ironically” proclaimed "The Year of Pasteur," Geison’s article was published in the New York Times proclaiming that Pasteur had lied about his research on vaccines and germs and that most of his ideas had been plagiarized from his contemporaries. His article, "Pasteur’s Deception" claimed that Pasteur was, in the end, a fraud. It was Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908), a contemporary of Pasteur, who discovered the true nature of germs, bacteria, viruses, etc., and that they were pleomorphic (capable of changing from one type of organism to another). Later on another colleague of Pasteur’s colleague’s, Claude Bernard, described the "milieu" or environment that affected/caused those changes. On his deathbed, Pasteur recanted, saying that Bernard [Claude Bernard] was right; "the Terrain is everything, the Germ is nothing!" However, since the "Germ Theory of Disease" is so profitable, the medical world has written off his final statements as the madness of a dying man. We should all be so mad! Another problem with the germ theory of disease is discovered when we look at "Koch’s Postulates" [Dr. Robert Koch]: Postulates means accepted statements of fact. The germ which causes a disease must be found in every case of the disease under the conditions which could explain the disease. The germ must not be found in other diseases or healthy people. The germ could be isolated and used to induce an experimental disease in animals which resembles (is like) the original disease in humans. Pasteur never quite fulfilled all of thise rules. He was not able to find the germ in all cases of a disease and this is where his research became fraudulent. Additionally, many so-called pathogenic germs are often found in healthy people. And finally, when Pasteur passed a germ from one animal to another to cause the disease, he did not pass the germ alone, but took some blood with it. Injecting toxic blood from one animal to another will guarantee the receiving animal becomes sick. Antoine Béchamp’s Discoveries Professor Antoine Béchamp, a French biologist (1816 – 1908), who was Pasteur’s contemporary (lived at the same time and they knew each other), developed and demonstrated a pleomorphic (many forms – see a more complete description below) theory – essentially that bacteria change form and are not the cause of, but the result of, disease, arising from tissues rather than from a germ of constant form. This has also been called the “cellular disease theory.” Béchamp discovered that these micro-organisms (germs) feed upon the poisonous material which they find in the sick organism and prepare it for excretion. These tiny organisms are derived from still tinier organisms called microzyma. These microzyma are present in the tissues and blood of all living organisms where they remain normally quiescent (quiet and not acting) and harmless. When the welfare of the human body is threatened by the presence of potentially harmful material, a transmutation (change) takes place [also called pleomorphism]. The microzyma changes into a bacterium or virus which immediately goes to work to rid the body of this harmful material. When the bacteria or viruses have completed their task of consuming the harmful material they automatically revert to the microzyma stage." –Béchamp. Sourced: Vaccination The "Hidden" Facts by Ian Sinclair, p62 Béchamp himself wrote: "I draw the conclusion that normal air never contains morbid microzymas, or what used to be called germs of diseases and are now called microbes; maintaining, in accord with the old medical aphorism (general truth) that diseases are born of us and in us, that no one has ever been able to communicate a characteristic disease of the nosological class [scientific classification of disease], such as anthrax, smallpox, typhoid fever, cholera, plague, tuberculosis, hydrophobia, syphilis, etc., by taking the germ in the air, but they are isolated from a patient, at some particular moment." Béchamp’s academic record includes: Master of Pharmacy Doctor of Science Doctor of Medicine Professor of Medical Chemistry and Pharmacy at Montpellier Fellow and Professor of Physics and Toxicology – Strasbourg Higher School of Pharmacy Professor of Chemistry at Strasbourg Professor of Biological Chemistry and Dean of Faculty of Medicine of Lille; etc., etc. Pleomorphism versus Monomorphism Pleo-morphism means many forms; many or more (pleo-), forms or bodies (morph-), capable of changing from one type of organism to another. This is in contradistinction (distinction by contrast) to Mono-morphism which means one (mono-) body or form. Modern medicine, bacteriology, is founded on the idea of Mono-morphism where once a germ is a particular germ it always stays that way. According to this way of thinking, a streptococcal germ is always a streptococcus. It only has one (mono-) form; it doesn’t change into anything else. However, that is not true. Streptococcal germs and many other kinds of germs, bacteria and viruses can, and do, change into other forms, proven to occur by many eminent researchers since the early 1800s, including Gaston Naessens, Gunther Enderlein, Royal Rife, Antoine Béchamp, and others. Even modern medicine recognizes that bacteria, viruses change into stronger ones, becoming resistant to antibiotic drugs. Pleomorphism is a concept discovered in the early 1800’s. It shows that germs, bacteria and viruses come from inside the body; from the "tiny dots" you can see in the blood with any microscope. These "tiny dots" of course are the colloids of life or protits. Pleomorphism is a concept that today sounds very strange. What pleomorphism is however, cannot be denied as the vast amount of data that has been obtained over the last 180 years confirms what modern microbiologists are discovering, re-discovering today. As noted, many people have been involved in this debate for a long time. Tiny microbes are "tiny dots" in our blood that change form into microorganisms that clean up the garbage, dead cells, toxins and the like. This is what bacteria, germs, and viruses are for. They change first into viruses, then into bacteria and finally into fungal forms. Each of these stages is progressively more hostile to surrounding tissue cells. Germs, all micro-organisms, (viruses, bacteria, fungi and everything in-between) are the result, not the cause of disease! Louis Pasteur was wrong! His idea of the bacterial cause of disease was wrong! If "germs" are there as a result, not a cause, then to treat the resultant germs with antibiotics is in theory and in fact, wrong! This basic misconception about disease affects all aspects of medicine. This is why this is a "new"… biology, even though it has been proved by many doctors and scientists starting in the early 1800s. Béchamp stated, in an address before the Academy of Medicine on the 3rd of May, 1870, "that nothing is more obscure than the cause which presides over the development of diseases and their communicability. But what we can affirm is that when we are sick, it is we who suffer, and that the suffering is a cruel reality. This is because the cause of our diseased condition is always within ourselves." External causes contribute to the development of the affliction and hence of the disease only because they have brought about some material modification of the medium (our body, animals, and even soil) in which live the ultimate particles of the organized matter which constitutes us, namely, the microzymas. These external causes, by a succession of changes brought about, and depending on a crowd of variables, bring about correlatively a further change, which then bears precisely upon the physiological and chemical status of the microzymas. The living being, filled with microzymas, carries in itself the elements essential for life, disease, death and destruction. Note: Béchamp called these tiny microbes microzymas, while Gaston Naessens called them somatids, and Gunther Enderlein called them protits. More in next post.

@Serotoninluv The whole premise behind that article is assuming viewers hold (will accept) the understanding that disease does not actually exist outside what Dr Morse and many others like to call "the world of illusion" or western medicine. I apologize for my incongruence in communication. This is why i would consider them mutually exclusive, because it offers a form of science (tool) built upon the terrain theory, giving actual answers/causations as well as solutions/protocols to self heal. Now i guess it's pretty obvious the potential for a collapse of the systems in place if people were simply educated on how to heal themselves (detox) rather than paying huge sums of money to fight a cancer that usually had built up over time, and is treated in the fashion of fighting fire with fire. Anyways does this make more sense? My bad if this was literally wasting your time So in a sense this plays into vaccines as the primary focus is on "building immunity" when if perceived by an understanding of the terrain theory, detoxification and regeneration, this makes no logical sense whatsoever, it's like questioning our own body's natural intelligence. Through detoxification even genetic weaknesses in our immune system can be improved. Anyways this is more or less a general understanding without any "scientific" evidence for the pros/cons of specific vaccines.

@Scholar way to point out the relevant facts, glad to see someone keep score @Serotoninluvmy apologies ill reply to your response here soon enough, hadn’t realized your post and once I had I got busy! The level of patience and understanding here by some is very pleasant indeed

amen and yes it's funny i don't live by (identify with) the narratives i explore, even if they are what i share, i'd rather remain in the unknown. I respect different strokes for different folks so ill entertain such but rather live with high vibes (childlike curiosity); personally i feel nothing but love for this nerdy fella, and i see evil as a behavior (nothing but a misguided/fearful soul) afraid to admit we can never be defined, are not and will never be solely the hand we've been given hehehe the video made me giggle, don't forget this is (somehow) his karma who knows maybe the information age is turning into the age of accountability

What else do we have to work with other than narratives and testimonials? We get stuck only at the road we are unwilling to walk. The highest truth is that which allows us to walk any road (whether that be conspiracies or the allopathic perspective) full of compassion and free of resistance. Anyways that’s just my insight, appreciate your maturity always, and apologize if it’s not always my style of communication haha. As a reminder sometimes going down these rabbit holes aren’t for the intentions of closing old doors/beliefs but to open as many doors as is available without worry of non acceptance, going insane, or even being ostracized. Life’s too short not to bring passion to every endeavor, am I right!? ??

yes sure it can appear this way and sometimes this is the case (a mind will get trapped as a mind likes to do) but don't think there aren't greater truths than what has been given, why else would science be continuously evolving? Of course the highest truth and how it effects the relative will always be the case (the hidden strings behind reality), but don't use this to assume an equality of the relative truths. There are many dimensions of being to enjoy

@Serotoninluv Im sorry but if you aren't willing to learn a new language if not but simply to challenge it, then tough rocks. Id rather hear about your perceived nonsense in whatever i share rather than your made up nonsense to make a point. I value understanding over debate, like you im sure...accept nothing, question everything. This modality definitely does not appeal to authority Naturally to be aware of the inherent flaws in all models and systems of communication but that doesn't mean one model can be used to tear apart/down the content of another...i'd love to see you "go there" with me to question this model of healing used to save so many chronically ill people because i believe it holds great promise for the future of our world, directly connecting spirituality to physical body, diseases and all healing modalities as a whole

I have no idea whether this is true or not, as i have heard money/control/power was the objective for placing alternative practices in the shadows using misinfo in propaganda and supporting medical schools financially and educationally to gain dominance in the new world I don't and never did dislike the idea of how vaccinations work and what they (supposedly) did for society and our species as a whole, but without considering the "other truths" behind these feared virus's and outbreaks, without considering the primal focus of reasoning behind the use of this kind of preventative measure, and without considering what i know now about the cause of disease, i would have to consider myself ignorant by simply placing faith in the system as broken as the very society it supports. Confirmation bias is very much apart of all our decisions and not taking into consideration what is said by those people who are considered highly respectable would be a mistake to say the least. I invite conflicting information and views to consider, as well as the potential agendas, this is why i remained a "vaccine safety" supporter for a long time simply to stay on the fence

@SerotoninluvYou are reinforcing the points I made in the beginning about your approach to new information. If you are satisfied with the answers you have, so be it, but perhaps trying to pin my understanding on dogma is merely a projection used to justify the hold you have on your extensive knowledge of biology and health. not only do i like to practice radical open-mindedness but i like to encourage others to do the same. Why? Because I am not satisfied with our current systems in place (literally none of it) and when i find enough evidence connecting some dots in my mind and challenging the old paradigm, it seriously peaks my curiosity for what could be possible. Did i simply take in a new modality on blind faith without continuously testing, challenging and verifying such claims? Of course not. I began this journey simply exploring the plausibility of "breatharianism" and it lead me to new and behold perspectives/understandings hidden from the general public but connecting the old wisdoms of naturopathy and homeopathy with the current understandings of western medicine. So yup. chaching! It totally sounded wayyyy too good to be true, so i had to continue on the journey to find any answers that i needed, and here i am now, sharing what i've learned and inviting others to share their views, thanks again

I’ve actually heard of cases where it has been detoxed by infants who changed their diet/lifestyle

The medical system trains doctors to overlook the purpose of the great lymphatic system, ignore the chemistry of the substances put in the body, and the cause and effect natural responses produced chalking it up to be “bad bacteria” or “potential virus”, which in reality is nature’s way of assisting our survival, its a hugely created fabrication of truth to try to explain the unexplainable through a narrow lense of understanding as we’ve become so disconnected with nature

@Serotoninluv what I see is an unwillingness to consider what science of the human body must change in order for the terrain theory to be plausible. Changing the focus drastically changes the components and meaning of disease. In common medical practice, there’s importance placed on blood and the treatment of symptoms, but also an overlooked framework surrounding the lymphatic system and it’s contribution to a healthy immune system For the publisher to say both the body’s terrain and the bacteria/viruses present are both responsible for causing disease seems more like a contradiction to the entire premise and evidence to support natural healing through detoxification. Notice the article doesn’t say genes aren’t playing a part in the type of disease, but also there’s the newly promoted science of epigenetics (or gene expression) which seems to support cellular regeneration I still see that context/circumstance are vital for interpretation here I don’t see why the article shouldn’t be able to frame microbes as our friends and not as potential threats. In the new frame of this article, sickness/detox is a natural and effective way for the body to cleanse itself of unwanted toxins/waste

Okay so right off the bat you have been asked to entertain an idea. This upfront-ness is professional in my eyes because those who aren’t willing to entertain new ideas are being used by their own minds. @Serotoninluv look at the good news, at least the article isn’t trying to reel you into anything. Things to consider moving forward, most of us were raised on the understanding that bacteria and viruses cause disease rather than being actual symptoms of a diseased body or jeopardized immune system. Something I believe should be a given here is that simply focusing on the negatives or “flaws” of a questionable agenda right out of the gate will inherently create some distortion or bias in the understanding. When someone isn’t willing to play along that means they assume they are being asked to believe this “new theory” without further research and exploration, so they also make the assumption for the degree of intelligence put into the science/study behind the agenda too simplistic is a red flag for some but for others, this means the answers for skepticism should come much more easily @Serotoninluvlastly appreciate your willing observation ?

@Rilles yes and if you think about it it’s actually more realistic for content to be seen as infinite. The rigid/over rational minds are really something discoverably more unnecessary than what is always imagined, Of course where to draw the line can seem very thin but only when the mind is using us and not the other way around. Only the rigid (left side dominant) mind is so deeply invested in trying to debunk claims that may threaten a world view, change a story etc As fear keeps the majority plugged into the matrix we notice it serves no significant purpose for an individual not to question it. However I understand the same can be said for those creating new beliefs even if they may not be rooted in fear. Others like to assume “they must be, because they are being shared as truth”. Why not keep beliefs and systems in the free flowing closet of the infinite always ready to be expressed in the right moments (then what’s necessary is learning how to properly communicate in an objective form/fashion)

http://rawschool.com/disease/@Serotoninluv how would you categorize this article? Surely not every anti vaxxer has had a shift in their modality of perception for health to be honest I quickly became pro “vaccine safety” until I got enough answers to feel safe in accepting old beliefs were built upon half truths, and I ain’t got no time for that!

Yup a bit too much of a production especially when you want to be scrutinizing lmao. I was able to just relax into it and not treat it like a potential threat but most could never do that when the type of attention is so in your face. Totally not a flip someone’s world view upside down kind of production if you ask me, but there ended up being some interesting info

It’s more like the global plandemic, i fear more for the health of those who still believe vaccines are safe and effective at doing what has always been preached, but, then again, most people still believe in the germ theory of dis-ease. There will be loopholes no doubt, covid-19 is a detox in of itself, which doesn’t need to be stopped, only handled accordingly ???

@Consept @remember Have you seen any of these? Plenty of great info in this link and on these interviews/speeches https://jchristoff.com/the-lies-of-vaccination-broken-down-for-parents/?fbclid=IwAR2wbrU7Fk6CgPb8iOHxSpn-4uG-sgXL04MY2iBusNmiI5_LMYyC4tCSOcI

@remember I’m still amazed that you don’t know...(Or rather you feel this way still) I’d like to PM for a discussion @Conseptyoure aggravating peeps here with your ignorance and obsession with finding “credible” sources. If it was that easy, we wouldn’t have this entire divide between the truths of perception, now until you can comfortably say you completely understand where no vaxxers are coming from in their beliefs, you haven’t researched enough mate. Don’t forget, they were all once like you, many not even wanting to believe otherwise @Conseptbtw read the article, pretty basic eye roller