Germ Theory vs Terrain Theory / Pleomorphism / Béchamp, Rife, Naessens, Reich

Wandering Star

Jedi Council Member
Awesome thread people, you guys rock! :thup:

I don't know much about all that, but had some thoughts while reading some of your posts.



Well said. I had an interesting discussion the other day and I think it's important to remember this. There seems to be a difference between trauma medicine and what you might call "disease medicine", or "well-being medicine" if you prefer. Modern trauma medicine, i.e. patching people up after an accident, hammering people together, surgery, insidious mechanical devices etc., is simply awesome. The progression of medicine in that regard is truly great. And no wonder, given the materialistic and mechanical worldview that these things are based on. Basically, modern medicine excels whenever it's about treating humans as cars that need to be fixed. However, people usually assume that because of that, doctors must be just as good with everything related to diseases, long-term health, well-being, and so on. As we know, nothing could be further from the truth, not least because of the materialist philosophy that dominates everything.




I had a 14 hours drive the other day, and at one point started to feel seriously ill. Itchy throat, no energy, headache etc. - I was completely sure that I will come down with the flu/cold. But 3 hours later - boom! Gone were the symptoms. Part of it may have had to do with mental exercises I did, kind of letting go of all anticipation, anger, feelings of "unfairness" for getting sick in a situation where it didn't suit me at all etc. Yes, you could frame it mainstream-style, like "I got some germ (but from where? I was just sitting in my car...), my body fought it off (hence the illness), succeeded, and then I was symptom-free again". But what happened to "the cold always lasts X days"? What happened to the usual progression, the usual stages? I don't know, but this mechanistic germ theory really seems to be missing a larger, perhaps huge chunk of what's really going on. And I agree that consciousness, and information, probably are the key. Just speculating here, but perhaps we can think about viruses and other things as some kinds of symbols that interact with the information field, that somehow 'connect' with certain intelligences/ideas/concepts; or that add to or modify the overall state of our nervous system, which is a physical symbol or representation of an information dynamic going on... I know, sounds a bit like word-salad, so hopefully we will eventually be able to put it in more precise terms.

Thanks again for the interesting contributions everyone.
In my childhood and adolescence, I was allergic to a lot of things and was continually ill. I don't know how many types or variants of cold viruses can come into existence, but a huge number of them developed the disease in my body.

Over the years and experience, I think that the cold and the flu are a method of cleaning and repairing the body.

My childhood and adolescence occurred in a city that had in its perimeter one of the largest steel factories in Europe, a Thermal Power Plant for the production of electricity with the burning of coal, a Shipyard for the production of Boats, a Mine for the Extraction of Carbon ... And more...

The level of heavy metals in the air today exceeds on average about 20 times the maximum measurement allowed by official agencies, so at that time, without controls or filters in the chimneys, it must have been an incredible number.

Polluted air and water, so it inevitably damages the body.

And the "group" of "reparations" comes into action.:-)
 

genero81

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I felt like I was getting sick while in N.C. Symptoms began while watching TV with everyone Tuesday night. I was developing a sore throat and a slight cough. I thought, uh oh, what if I'm not allowed to return on the plane? I will have to conceal my symptoms. That night I could feel that I definitely had something as I slept through the night. I thought of asking for colloidal silver or lugals the following day. However, it didn't seem so bad and I knew we were going for a hike the next day so I decided to purposely not take anything and see what exercise, fresh air and heat would do for me. That was Thursday. I felt better almost immediately after, certainly by the next morning. I did have intestinal issues very possibly related. But I was fine traveling back. No coughing, nothing. Staying at home and wearing masks would have likely worsened my condition, I think.
 

nature

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
So, microbes don't live in the air, it's not their milieu. We don't catch an infection from anyone else neither from animals. We get them from within us, or we get microzymas (bits of information under the form of nucleic acids - DNA or RNA) from outside and becoming bacterias in us and only in us when our internal milieu is morbide (pathological), toxic, etc.

It's very compatible with Dr Hamer's NGM (a wink to @Debra)

Je soutiens que, primitivement, il n'y a pas de germes de vibrioniens, c'est-à-dire de microzymas dans l'air, ni de nuisibles, ni d'utiles. On ne les rencontre dans les régions atmosphériques assez voisines de la terre que parce que le vent les y dissémine en soulevant les poussières de la surface. Les microzymas et les vibrioniens du sol et des eaux n'ont d'autre origine, j'en ai fourni les preuves, que la désagrégation des roches des terrains néozoïques et paléozoïques, les déjections quelconques des animaux et des végétaux, de tous les ordres et les détritus de leurs cadavres.
[ ... ]
Le résultat de la destruction des cellules, qu'il s'agisse des globules sanguins ou des levures dans le ferment, c'est la mise en liberté de leurs microzymas. Or les microzymas des cellules, qui étaient déjà dans une situation anormale à cause des conditions nouvelles où ces cellules se trouvaient, devenus libres, se trouvent dans une situation plus anormale encore et ils évoluent pour devenir vibrioniens, s'ils sont de ceux qui peuvent subir cette évolution . Dans les cas de coagulation du sang dans les vaisseaux, le caillot librineux se trouve imprégné de l'hémoglobine des hématies détruites; or, par là, les microzymas de la fibrine (ils étaient primitivement libres dans le sang) sont eux aussi dans une situation nouvelle et ils évoluent à leur tour. En voilà certes assez pour pouvoir expliquer la présence des bactéries dans les coagulums et dans les tubercules, sans recourir à des suppositions inadmissibles ou à la pénétration des germes morbides préexistants. Et, je le répète, il n'y a pas là d'hypothèse, ce sont des faits vérifiables et vérifiés.

I maintain that, primitively, there are no vibrionien germs, that is to say, microzymas in the air, neither harmful nor useful. They are only found in atmospheric regions close enough to the earth because the wind disseminates them there by lifting dust from the surface. The microzymas and vibrioniens of the soil and waters have no other origin, as I have proved, than the disintegration of rocks in the Neozoic and Paleozoic terrains, the excrement of animals and plants of all kinds, and the detritus of their corpses.
[ ... ]
The result of the destruction of cells, or yeast in the leaven, is the release of their microzymas. Now the microzymas of the cells, which were already in an abnormal situation because of the new conditions in which these cells were found, having become free, are in an even more abnormal situation and they evolve to become vibrionien, if they are among those who can undergo this evolution. In cases of blood coagulation in the vessels, the librinal clot is impregnated with the haemoglobin of the destroyed red blood cells, and the fibrin microzymas (which were originally free in the blood) are also in a new situation and they evolve in their turn. This is certainly enough to explain the presence of bacteria in the coagulum and in the [tuberculose in lung] tubers, without resorting to inadmissible assumptions or the penetration of pre-existing disease germs. And, I repeat, these are not hypotheses, these are verifiable and verified facts.


Wow! Here Béchamp talks about temperament. It's a notion still used in homeopathy nowadays:

Les microzymas subissent une évolution fonctionnelle, depuis l'œuf, pendant le développement, jusqu'à l'état adulte. Cette évolution, qui nous montre les microzymas, dans un centre organique donné, acquérant peu à peu les activités de l'état adulte, expliquera comment les microzymas sont ce par quoi on est doué de tel ou tel tempérament ; ce par quoi on est lymphatique, scrofuleux ou affecté de telle ou telle diathèse ; ce qui peut devenir morbide, produire des maladies en nous et les transmettre si elles sont contagieuses ou infectieuses; ce qui explique aussi la guérison. C'est ainsi qu'en pathologie même les microzymas jouent un rôle considérable. En fait, toutes les formations anormales, concrétions, tubercules et fausses organisations, dans les tissus, dans les organes, dans les vaisseaux, ne s'expliquent que par une déviation fonctionnelle des microzymas.

The microzymas undergo a functional evolution from egg, during development, to the adult state. This evolution, which shows us the microzymas, in a given organic centre, gradually acquiring the activities of the adult state, will explain how the microzymas are what makes us gifted with such and such a temperament; what makes us lymphatic, scrofluous or affected by such and such a diathesis; what can become morbid, produce diseases in us and transmit them if they are contagious or infectious; which also explains healing. Thus in pathology even microzymas play a considerable role.
In fact, all abnormal formations, concretions, tubercles and false organizations, in tissues, in organs, in vessels, can only be explained by a functional deviation of the microzymas.
 

nature

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
So, microzymas are an anatomical structure, just as any cell in our body. There are even more: our cells are formed by their work, they are pre-existent to our body, transmitting from both parents to children, from generation to generation, as they are present within gametes. A fascinating stuff! It can explain in a scientific way why some emotional traumas are inherited from our ancestors ...

Coming back to diseases, Béchamp says, after his studies on pleurisy:
Je me propose donc, maintenant, appuyé sur les faits que j’ai fait connaître dans les précédents paragraphes, de démontrer que la pleurésie est toujours, nécessairement, une maladie d’origine physiologique, naissant de nous en nous; qu’elle n’est jamais microbienne, en ce sens que les bactéries ou telle autre forme vibrionienne qu’on peut découvrir dans la sérosité pleurétique n’en sont pas la cause. Ces formes vibrioniennes ne sont, en effet, qu’une manifestation histologique de la maladie, au même titre que les globules sanguins et les leucocytes du pus.
Pour prouver cette dernière affirmation, je ferai voir qu’à l’origine de la maladie il n’existe jamais de bactéries ou de vibrioniens proprement dits dans l’épanchement; on n’y découvre, lorsqu’on observe à temps, uniquement que des microzymas semblables à ceux des tissus sains et du sang dans l’état de santé. Je montrerai, enfin, que la plèvre affectée modifie les matières albuminoïdes transsudées du sang et que jamais, dans les liquides épanchés dans les séreuses affectées, qu’il s’agisse de pleurésie, d’ascite, de péricardite ou d’hydrocèle, n’existent les albumines normales du sérum sanguin. . Il faut d’abord retenir comme acquis ce fait incontestable, que l’organisme humain comme tout organisme vivant, jusques et y compris la levure de bière, porte en lui des microzymas ; que pendant la vie en cas de maladie, comme après la mort, l’organisme humain peu laisser apparaître des vibrioniens à même ses tissus, ses humeurs; que les activités chimiques de ces tissus et humeurs sont indépendantes des germes de l’air
Lorsque nous avons été convaincus de l'existence naturelle, originelle, des microzymas dans tout organisme vivant, nous n’avons pas hésité un instant, Estor et moi, à voir dans la présence des bactéries ou de telle autre forme vibrionienne dans la sérosité pleurétique, dans le tubercule pulmonaire ou dans telle autre partie de l’organisme malade, non pas le résultat de la pénétration de germes du dehors ou d’une génération spontanée, mais le résultat de l’évolution naturelle, physiologique des microzymas, déterminée par quelque influence accidentelle, le refroidissement par exemple, s’exerçant sur l’être vivant et modifiant en quelque chose les conditions d’existence et l’activité chimique ou physiologique de ces microzymas dans les cellules ou les tissus et les humeurs. Bret, au lieu de voir dans la présence des bactéries dans la sérosité pleurétique un fait accidentel extraordinaire, nous n’y avons vu qu’un cas particulier d’une théorie générale, l’accomplissement d’une loi de la nature.

I therefore propose, now, on the basis of the facts that I have made known in the preceding paragraphs, to show that pleurisy is always, necessarily, a disease of physiological origin, originating within us; that it is never microbial, in the sense that bacteria or some other vibrionic form that can be found in pleuritic serositis are not the cause. These vibrionic forms are, in fact, only a histological manifestation of the disease, in the same way as blood cells and pus leukocytes.

In order to prove this last statement, I will show that the cause of the disease is never bacteria or vibrioniens as such in the effusion; only microzymas similar to those of healthy tissue and blood in the state of health are discovered in the effusion when it is observed in time. Finally, I will show that the affected pleura modifies the albuminoid materials [ understand proteins ] transuded from the blood and that never, in the fluids effused into the affected serous membranes, whether pleurisy, ascites, pericarditis or hydrocele, do normal blood serum albumins exist . First of all, it must be taken for granted that the human organism, like any living organism, up to and including brewer's yeast, carries microzymas; that during life in the event of illness, as well as after death, the human organism can allow vibrioniens to appear in its tissues and humors; that the chemical activities of these tissues and humors are independent of the germs in the air....

When we were convinced of the natural, original existence of microzymas in any living organism, Estor and I did not hesitate for a moment to see in the presence of bacteria or some other vibrionic form in the pleuritic serosity, in the pulmonary tubercle or in some other part of the diseased organism, not the result of the penetration of germs from outside or spontaneous generation, but the result of the natural, physiological evolution of microzymas, determined by some accidental influence, such as cooling, exerted on the living being and modifying in some way the conditions of existence and the chemical or physiological activity of these microzymas in the cells or tissues and humors.In short, instead of seeing in the presence of bacteria in pleuritic serosity an extraordinary accidental fact, we have only seen there a particular case of a general theory, the fulfilment of a law of nature.
...

About why some animals get ill and others don't among a same herd. There's also a difference in microzymas' function during our childhood and adulthood; that explains why we have some diseases in childhood and not in adulhood and vice versa.
Les microzymas ne sont pas nécessairement identiques, comme je l’ai montré pour les microzymas salivaires, dans tous les êtres de la même classe, du même genre et de la même espèce. Cette théorie m’a servi depuis longtemps à comprendre pourquoi certains moutons adultes sont réfractaires à l’inoculation du charbon, tandis que dans le jeune âge, les agneaux de la même espèce ne le sont pas. Et M. Trasbot, dans sa magistrale étude ne nous a-t-il pas cité des animaux qui sont réfractaires à l’inoculation de la tuberculose?
Je suis porté à penser que puisqu’il y a une différence physiologique dans les microzymas d’animaux d’espèces différentes, il y a aussi une différence dans les microzymas d’adultes selon l’âge, selon le tempérament, selon les diathèses. Peut-être un jour la science sera assez avancée pour spécifier ces différences comme j’ai spécifié les différences qui existent entre les microzymas du foie, du pancréas, des glandes gastriques, du sang, de la matière nerveuse, etc.
[ ... ]
L’inoculation de la tuberculose, par exemple, n’est possible que chez les individus dont les microzymas peuvent naturellement subir cette évolution morbide ou qui se sont mis dans le cas de rendre leurs microzymas du tissu approprié susceptibles de la subir.
[ ... ]
La fibrine n’est pas identiquement la même à tous les âges et dans toutes les situations physiologiques et pathologiques.
[ ... ]
Les microzymas ne sont point des étrangers dans l’organisme, sain ou malade; ils n'y sont pas les produits de la génération spontanée, car c’est grâce à eux que nos organes, nos tissus, nos cellules ne sont pas les produits fortuits des activités de la matière. Et ce que l’on appelle microbes dans les maladies déclarées ne sont pas non plus le fait de la génération spontanée, puisque par évolution physiologique les microzymas deviennent bactéries comme le têtard devient grenouille.

Microzymas are not necessarily identical, as I have shown for salivary microzymas, in all beings of the same class, genus and species. This theory has long been useful to me in understanding why some adult sheep are resistant to charcoal [sheep infection by anthrax] inoculation, whereas lambs of the same species are not resistant to charcoal inoculation at a young age. And didn't Mr. Trasbot, in his masterful study, cite animals that are resistant to tuberculosis inoculation?

I am inclined to think that since there is a physiological difference in the microzymas of animals of different species, there is also a difference in the microzymas of adults according to age, temperament and diatheses. Perhaps one day science will be advanced enough to specify these differences as I have specified the differences that exist between the microzymas of the liver, the pancreas, the gastric glands, the blood, the nervous matter, etc., and the microzymas of the liver, the pancreas, the gastric glands, the blood, the nervous matter, etc., etc.
[ ... ]
The inoculation of tuberculosis, for example, is only possible in individuals whose microzymas can naturally undergo this morbid evolution or who have made their microzymas of the appropriate tissue susceptible to it.
[ ... ]
Fibrin is not the same at all ages and in all physiological and pathological situations.
[ ... ]
Microzymas are not strangers in the body, healthy or diseased; they are not products of spontaneous generation, for it is because of them that our organs, tissues, cells are not the incidental products of the activities of matter. And what we call microbes in declared diseases are not the result of spontaneous generation either, since by physiological evolution microzymas become bacteria like the tadpole becomes a frog.

Béchamp nous met en garde sur les limites des cultures de bacteries in vitro : ce ,'est pas pertinent car la culture artificielle represente des conditions différentes des conditions in vivo. Or les microzymes réagissent selon milieu et les colorations utilisées.

" Les microzymas d’une même origine deviennent des formes morphologiquement différentes dans des milieux de culture différents, formes qui, pourtant, ont pour mère le même microzyma; formes qui, toujours en apparence, peuvent encore être différentes si le milieu était pathologique. "

Béchamp warns us about the limitations of in vitro bacterial cultures: this is not relevant because artificial culture differs from in vivo conditions. However, microzymes react according to the medium and the colours used.

"Microzymas of the same origin become morphologically different forms in different culture media, forms which, however, have the same microzyma as their mother; forms which, still in appearance, can still be different if the medium was pathological. "

About interconnectedness:
Les éléments anatomiques sont solidaires les uns des autres et la vie du Tout vivant n’est que la résultante des vies particulières de ces éléments. Dans un organisme ainsi constitué, le fonctionnement régulier d'un organe, et dans cet organe d’un tissu, d’une cellule, est nécessaire au fonctionnement régulier de tous les autres organes, tissus et cellules. Il arrive donc que si quelque changement fonctionnel survient dans une partie, déterminant quelque modification dans la composition des matériaux nutritifs que cette partie fournit aux autres parties, celles-ci souffrent parce que des changements correspondants s’y produisent.
The anatomical elements are connected with each other and the life of the living Whole is only the result of the particular lives of these elements. In an organism so constituted, the regular functioning of an organ, and in this organ of a tissue, of a cell, is necessary for the regular functioning of all the other organs, tissues and cells. Therefore, if some functional change occurs in one part, determining some modification in the composition of the nutritive materials that this part provides to the other parts, these parts suffer because corresponding changes occur there.

This is my last post on Béchamp. Fascinating stuff! Next, my aim is to read about Gaston Naessens.
 
Here's Ethel Hume's summary of the microzymas from Bechamp or Pasteur?:

— The microzyma is that which is primarily endowed with life in the organised being, and that in which life persists after the death of the whole or in any excised part.
— The microzyma being thus the fundamental element of corporate life, it may become morbid through a change of function and thus be the starting point of disease.
— Only that which is organised and endowed with life can be susceptible to disease.
— Disease is born of us and in us.
— The microzymas may undergo bacterial evolution in the body without necessarily becoming diseased.
— In a diseased body, a change of function in the microzymas may lead to a morbid bacterial evolution. Microzymas morphologically identical with and functionally different from diseased microzymas may appear without a microscopic distinction being possible.
— Diseased microzymas may be found in the air, earth, or waters and in the dejecta or remains of beings in which they were once inherent.
— Germs of disease cannot exist primarily in the air we breathe, in the food we eat, or in the water we drink, for the diseased micro-organisms, unscientifically described as 'germs', since they are neither spores nor eggs, proceed necessarily from a sick body.
— Every diseased microzyma has originally belonged to an organism, that is, a body of some sort, whose state of health was reduced to a state of disease under the influence of various causes which determined a functional change in the microzymas of some particular centre of activity.
— The micro-organisms known as 'disease germs' are thus either microzymas or their evolutionary bacterial forms that are in (or have proceeded from) sick bodies.
— The microzymas exist primarily in the cells of the diseased body and become diseased in the cell itself.
— Diseased microzymas should be differentiated by the particular group of cells and tissues to which they belong, rather than the particular disease condition with which they are associated.
— The microzymas inherent in two different species of animals more or less allied are neither necessarily nor generally similar.
— The microzymas of a given morbidity belong to one certain group of cells rather than to another, and the microzymas of two given species of animals are not susceptible to an identical affection.



Bechamp also explains that the morbid microzymas in the air (which came from a sick organism) soon revert to their non-morbid form. The diseased form is a result of toxic environment in the cell. As there's no such environment in the air, the microzyma has no reason to remain in that form - just like your symptoms of allergies disappear when the allergen is removed. The microzymas cannot 'infect' anybody, just like your allergies can't make anybody else allergic. It's a reaction to environment. If a microzyma does get transferred from one person to another, it doesn't carry a disease that it can impose on the new host. On the contrary, the morbidity of the microzyma was caused by the environment in the original host and is not the microzyma's inherent property. Rather than the microzyma making the new host sick, the new host, in an interesting twist, makes the microzyma 'healthy' again.


As far as I've gathered, microzymas transform into bacteria, but not viruses. Microzymas are always alive. Viruses are not alive in any meaningful sense of the word.

It's ridiculous that we're told that the coronavirus can 'live' on surfaces for 5 days. Live how? It doesn't breathe. It doesn't eat. It can't even move on its own. It doesn't do anything at all, so what's the difference between a 'live' one and a 'dead' one? Neither of them does anything. Any activity involving viruses is maintained by other organisms.

A virus seems to be just a piece of 'information' to be utilised by organisms it comes into contact with. And how it's used depends on the organism - both on the type of organism (like species) and on its current state (acidity, toxicity, and other variable conditions of the 'body').



What I find really fascinating is that Bechamp found the microzymas in chalk that had presumably been buried for millions of years, and they were still alive. If this discovery doesn't deserve a Nobel Prize or two, I don't know what does. It seems to me like one of the greatest discoveries of the last two centuries, with Bechamp being one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. Unfortunately, he's hardly known today, and all the glory went to his contemporaries Pasteur and Darwin. (It is kind of interesting that Darwin published his book around the time of the rivalry between Pasteur and Bechamp going on.)

The facts that the microzymas are alive and much smaller than cells, that they can survive for millions of years, and that they can transform into many other forms, have absolutely massive implications, especially if, as Bechamp claims, organisms can't live without the microzymas.

In this light it would seem obvious that when searching for the first life on Earth, it would not be an imaginary bacterial cell arising out of nothing but the microzymas. This would, of course, be difficult to incorporate into the Darwinian views that the establishment protects at any cost. Given the incredible sophistication of the microzymian design and its ability to change into many forms and perform many different functions, it's extremely difficult to see chance rather than intelligent design as the origin of these 'little bodies'. How something so small can have so many functions is mind-boggling.

And it's amazing how heavily environment-dependent the functioning of the microzymas is. They can apparently survive in rocks or whatever for millions of years, without any apparent sustenance. As if they can hibernate indefinitely. They live inside other organisms and serve hundreds or thousands of functions, depending on the environment and available sustenance. If you think about that in terms of intelligent design, it's difficult to imagine the kind of genius that would envision such a thing, never mind actually create it. It is of course completely unthinkable that it would just evolve randomly from chemical elements floating around.

Here's more from the book:

Béchamp senior explained that it is owing to the microzymas of allied species of animals being often functionally different in certain of their physiological centres that each animal has diseases peculiar to it and that certain diseases are not transmissible from one species to another and often not from one individual to another even of the same species. Infancy, adult age, old age, sex, have their share in influencing susceptibility to disease conditions.
These researches of the School of Montpellier certainly seem to throw light upon the nature of infection and on the immunity constantly met with, in spite of alleged exposure, from all kinds of infectious maladies. The world might have been spared the propagation and inoculation of disease matters (i.e. Pasteur's vaccinations), had the profound theories of Béchamp been followed, instead of the cruder yet fashionable germ theory of disease, which appears to consist of distorted half-truths of Béchamp's teaching.

The Terrain Theory may not have all the answers yet, but Germ Theory is clearly false. As somebody put it very fittingly:
If the Germ Theory were true, there would be nobody alive to believe in it.
 
As I was looking up things for the above post, I came across a bunch of articles, like this one by Alan Cantwell:

Bechamp’s Microzymas & Human Disease

Never heard of this guy before, but this article was a good overview, and it points to more of his articles. I found one of them on Sott:

And there are more on rense.com:
Virginia Livingston - Cancer Quack Or Medical Genius?
The Return of the Cancer Parasite: Bacteria and the Origin of the Cancer Cell

Haven't had time to read these other ones yet. I also found this:

It has some detailed info on Rife's microscope. It was so sophisticated it required over an hour to set up the focus. It also mentions another researcher of pleomorphism, Günther Enderlein. So another guy I need to look into.

Some sources claim that viruses are part of the microzymian cycle, but I don't know how that would work. If that's actually true, then viruses must be pretty different from what we're told, since a chunk of RNA enveloped in a protein doesn't seem like something with the ability to transform. So I guess viruses continue to be a mystery.

Though I guess another mystery is the actual structure of the microzymas in their native form. I haven't seen any description of that anywhere so far. Has anyone come across any detailed description of the biological structure of microzymas? It kind of seems like very small and simple 'creatures' can do some very amazing things, and maybe there lie more clues to the complete falsity of this whole mechanical, soulless view of the universe, and maybe that's one of the reasons this information gets so suppressed.

Another article that seems worth checking out is this:
pdf version: https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-02-00047.pdf

Anyway, I still have a long way to go before I can begin understanding how this all works, but these are some things I found today that I wanted to share.
 

nature

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Here's Ethel Hume's summary of the microzymas from Bechamp or Pasteur?:
Pasteur vehemently denied microzymas. He supported the spontaneous generation and the germ theory (all microbes are bad from his POV, we must make war to them, etc.)
In Hume's summary, there is "diseased microzymas". This is not the case. Béchamp never talked about "diseased microzyma". They are never pathological. In certain conditions (toxics, acid, brutal cooling,...), they evolve into morbid bacterias. Microzymas themselves are not pathological, they don't attack the body. Even bacterias don't attack the body, they accompany the morbid process.
For Bechamp, the parasites are the morbid micro-organisms. He gives the example of scabies, saying they don't come from our body, they come from outside.
 

nature

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
As I was looking up things for the above post, I came across a bunch of articles, like this one by Alan Cantwell:

Bechamp’s Microzymas & Human Disease

Never heard of this guy before, but this article was a good overview, and it points to more of his articles. I found one of them on Sott:

And there are more on rense.com:
Virginia Livingston - Cancer Quack Or Medical Genius?
The Return of the Cancer Parasite: Bacteria and the Origin of the Cancer Cell

Haven't had time to read these other ones yet. I also found this:

It has some detailed info on Rife's microscope. It was so sophisticated it required over an hour to set up the focus. It also mentions another researcher of pleomorphism, Günther Enderlein. So another guy I need to look into.

Some sources claim that viruses are part of the microzymian cycle, but I don't know how that would work. If that's actually true, then viruses must be pretty different from what we're told, since a chunk of RNA enveloped in a protein doesn't seem like something with the ability to transform. So I guess viruses continue to be a mystery.

Though I guess another mystery is the actual structure of the microzymas in their native form. I haven't seen any description of that anywhere so far. Has anyone come across any detailed description of the biological structure of microzymas? It kind of seems like very small and simple 'creatures' can do some very amazing things, and maybe there lie more clues to the complete falsity of this whole mechanical, soulless view of the universe, and maybe that's one of the reasons this information gets so suppressed.

Another article that seems worth checking out is this:
pdf version: https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-02-00047.pdf

Anyway, I still have a long way to go before I can begin understanding how this all works, but these are some things I found today that I wanted to share.
Wow, MI ! You found plenty of documents! Will read when I'll get time. Thank you!
 
Exosomes, viruses & information

Here's what ended up being another speculative journey. I started this post with a single, simple idea, and the rest came to me as I was writing, so I apologise if I haven't thought this through properly and it's a bit chaotic.

I've watched parts of the Mikovits/Kaufman interview several times to get a better grasp of the exosome issue. Judy says exosomes are not viruses, but they can carry pieces of viral RNA. This seems very significant.

Exosomes are structures created in cells and used to carry information out of the cell to other types of cells. They are messengers used to communicate between different kinds of cells. They can carry information in the form of nucleic acids, proteins, etc.

Now, we know from the current debacle with covid-1984 that tests for viruses are ridiculously inadequate. We know that nobody has properly isolated this supposedly new coronavirus. So what is being detected? Just some chunks of RNA that presumably belong to this virus. If, as Mikovits says, exosomes can carry this RNA, we can conclude two things.
1. Tests identifying 'a virus' may well be detecting exosomes carrying viral RNA while the virus itself doesn't have to be present in the organism (anymore). (Or it can be present in some way but not active.)
2. While exosomes are not viruses, it's easy to imagine that scientists would confuse the two much of the time, given that they never bother with Koch's postulates or isolating viruses properly. (It's probably like, oh, look, GCATCGATCCCGATCGAACACACCATATTTTAC... yeah, we've got a coronavirus.)

This opens a can of worms of chaos and confusion. Both viruses and exosomes are just pieces of RNA/DNA and proteins and not living organisms (or at least that's the general consensus, I think), and since scientists generally find only fragments, there's no way of knowing where exactly (or what exactly) these fragments came from. It's like finding human finger nails somewhere and claiming that you found a person (even a live one!), while in reality you not only haven't, but a person may never have been there at all, given that the finger nails could have been brought there by an animal or wind or whatever. Unfortunately the standards of Darwinism/germ-theory-based science are very low, so this is the kind of crap we get. The standards have to be low, because if they were raised higher, these theories would immediately fall apart.

If exosomes are messengers - carriers of information - and they're difficult to tell apart from viruses, it would make sense that viruses are also exactly that - carriers of information. We're told that viruses are everywhere, more numerous than bacteria or any other organisms. Well, if they're just pieces of information, it makes sense. Pieces of paper with printed information are also a lot more numerous than humans. (They are also just as 'alive' and 'harmful' as viruses.) And just as written information can have a different effect on different people, so can viruses, so maybe this is a good analogy, which can then extend to the idea of this information 'causing' disease or anything else. Information on paper doesn't cause wars in a direct cause-and-effect sense, but a war can certainly be started following somebody reading some information on a piece of paper. So viruses can contribute to disease by providing a certain kind of information.

Given the fast rate of mutation of viruses, we can make another analogy with the way messages are passed on among people and can get distorted and 'mutate' pretty quickly. Now, I only came up with this idea about 20 minutes ago, but the more I think about it, the more this 'as above, so below' view of viruses as just information and not life forms makes sense to me. Thinking about this in the context of the corona circus, I can then go in the opposite direction and conclude that the media-dispersed false and distorted messages are literally a virus.


I have also thought about 'viral' DNA found in human (and other) chromosomes. Given the poor standards of the science pertaining to viruses, how do we know this view is not the opposite of what's really happening? In other words, could it be that these DNA sequences were in humans in the first place and they're our genome's native tools, performing certain functions in disease/healing processes? And that viruses are only found when they're produced in the human (or some other) body? So could it be that the viral sequences didn't get into our chromosomes from 'retroviruses' but that viruses came out of our chromosomes, by design?

Has anybody actually seen a retrovirus 'inject' its DNA/RNA into human chromosomes? Or is this just another assumption based on finding the same sequences in two places and deciding which one was first, based on a prevailing theory? We know Darwinists do this shit all the time. (Like you 'evolved from a monkey' because you kinda look similar.) They look at everything filtered through the assumption that their dumb theory is unquestionably correct.

I'm pretty sure the same happens with regard to Germ theory. Could it be that viruses are produced (like exosomes) by living organisms and then they (or whatever is left of them) scatter everywhere? I really don't know enough of the science to judge which parts of what the scientists tell us are properly verified and which parts are just assumptions sanctified to a holy level by the theory that none may question.

Has anybody ever seen a complete virus that wasn't extracted from a living organism? (Like found on a door handle, in its full form.) I mean, where else can they even come from than living organisms when they can't reproduce on their own? And if all scientists ever find are just chunks of DNA/RNA, then that may well be just debris (like human hair and particles of skin that are constantly being shed) that has zero ability not only to infect anyone but really to do anything at all.

As far as I know, chunks of nucleic acids outside of living cells degrade rather quickly. Is this what is meant by 'how long does a virus live on surfaces'? Is it just how long it's 'recognisable' before it disintegrates? But then, wouldn't it be like asking, how long can a piece of paper 'live' in a box?

I don't have the answers, but it seems to me that either a virus is just a piece of information created inside living beings for a specific job, or, if it's something more than that (something that could be part of the microzymian cycle), then viruses must be something different from what the scientists call viruses, i.e. more than just a strand of RNA wrapped in a protein. In which case, what scientists play with would be just some remnants or garbage. I'm not even sure how they determine when they have a whole virus and when not. If there's no way to tell when it's 'alive' and when 'dead', then how would anyone know if it's the whole thing? Do any of you know? Could the whole 'identification' of viruses be completely arbitrary? Wouldn't be the first time scientists decided something quite arbitrarily.

If we go with the idea that a virus is a piece of information or a tool created by a cell for a specific function, then many organisms could produce more or less the same viruses because they're created under the same conditions for the same reasons (from more or less the same genome). Then scientists find a bunch of them in various places and say that it's a 'species'. But is it really? Do exosomes have species too? Do pieces of paper with text on them? So many questions...

It could also follow that the appearance of a new 'strand' or 'mutation' of a virus is not a result of one origin point and then spreading to others, but rather a case of this new version appearing widely at the same time because of a general change in the environment. If the seemingly same microzymas transform into different forms based on different conditions, then they may have forms we haven't seen yet because such conditions haven't occurred yet. In a similar way, the human genome can be equipped to deal with a number of things we've never experienced, so a 'new' mutation can simply be a variation that wasn't needed the whole time we've been looking.

And as the Cs have said mutations can be induced by consciousness, then it also makes sense that changes may occur widely and not just in one individual, due to a large-scale shift in consciousness. (And here may again be some space for morphic resonance to play a role. It could apply to consciousness, and genetic mutations can be a result of that.)

Which, again, goes back to corona circus - the media have created a shift in consciousness that may well be creating a specific disease (by means of human bodies producing specific viral particles). And how's this: the disease manifests as difficulty to breathe because people just can't deal with the lies! Yeah, I just made that up, but this kind of symbolism totally sounds like something the Cs would say, so who knows.

All right, I think that's enough crazy theories for today. Somebody please pick this can of worms and make a digestible meal out of it. Thanks.
 

Wandering Star

Jedi Council Member
If exosomes are messengers - carriers of information - and they're difficult to tell apart from viruses, it would make sense that viruses are also exactly that - carriers of information. We're told that viruses are everywhere, more numerous than bacteria or any other organisms. Well, if they're just pieces of information, it makes sense. Pieces of paper with printed information are also a lot more numerous than humans. (They are also just as 'alive' and 'harmful' as viruses.) And just as written information can have a different effect on different people, so can viruses, so maybe this is a good analogy, which can then extend to the idea of this information 'causing' disease or anything else. Information on paper doesn't cause wars in a direct cause-and-effect sense, but a war can certainly be started following somebody reading some information on a piece of paper. So viruses can contribute to disease by providing a certain kind of information.

Given the fast rate of mutation of viruses, we can make another analogy with the way messages are passed on among people and can get distorted and 'mutate' pretty quickly. Now, I only came up with this idea about 20 minutes ago, but the more I think about it, the more this 'as above, so below' view of viruses as just information and not life forms makes sense to me. Thinking about this in the context of the corona circus, I can then go in the opposite direction and conclude that the media-dispersed false an
I think you have found something here.

At least in my "puzzle" this piece "fits and shines".
 
Though I guess another mystery is the actual structure of the microzymas in their native form. I haven't seen any description of that anywhere so far. Has anyone come across any detailed description of the biological structure of microzymas? It kind of seems like very small and simple 'creatures' can do some very amazing things, and maybe there lie more clues to the complete falsity of this whole mechanical, soulless view of the universe, and maybe that's one of the reasons this information gets so suppressed.

Some of that is described in the Naessens book; I posted the relevant passages in the corona virus thread about the electromagnetic, indestructible nature of the microzymas (or Reich's "bions" or Naessen's "somatids" or Rife's "BX bacillus" etc.):

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And now, this passage from Christopher Bird's book:

(Again, the text is available FOR FREE here: Full text of "The Persecution And Trial Of Gaston Naessens" )

(BTW: THAT LINK NO LONGER WORKS. Anyone know where to find another one?)

___________________________________________________________________
"With his exceptional instrument, Naessens next went on to
discover in the blood of animals and humans—as well as in the saps
of plants—a hitherto unknown, ultramicroscopic, subcellular, living
and reproducing microscopic form, which he christened a somatid
(tiny body). This new particle, he found, could be cultured, that is,
grown, outside the bodies of its hosts (in vitro, "under glass," as the
technical term has it). And, strangely enough, this particle was seen
by Naessens to develop in a pleomorphic (form-changing) cycle, the
first three stages of which—somatid, spore, and double spore—are
perfectly normal in healthy organisms, in fact crucial to their
existence. (See Figure 1.)

Even stranger, over the years the somatids were revealed to be
virtually indestructible! They have resisted exposure to
carbonization temperatures of 200° C and more. They have survived
exposure to 50,000 rems of nuclear radiation, far more than enough
to kill any living thing. They have been totally unaffected by any
acid. Taken from centrifuge residues, they have been found
impossible to cut with a diamond knife, so unbelievably impervious
to any such attempts is their hardness.

The eerie implication is that the new minuscule life forms
revealed by Naessens's microscope are imperishable. At the death of
their hosts, such as ourselves, they return to the earth, where they
live on for thousands or millions, perhaps billions, of years!"
_____________________________________________________________________


But before Naessens, Bechamp; Rife; and Reich all discovered the same organisms. Here is what Bechamp found:

______________________________________________________________________
While laboring on problems of fermentation, the breakdown of
complex molecules into organic compounds via a "ferment"—one
need only think of the curdling of milk by bacteria—Bechamp, at
his microscope, far more primitive than Naessens's own instrument,
seemed to be able to descry a host of tiny bodies in his fermenting
solutions. Even before Bechamp's time, other researchers had
observed, but passed off as unexplainable, what they called
"scintillating corpuscles" or "molecular granulations." Bechamp,
who was able to ascribe strong enzymatic (catalytic change-causing)
reactions to them, was led to coin a new word to describe them:
microzymas (tiny ferments).

Among these ferments' many peculiar characteristics was one
showing that, whereas they did not exist in chemically pure calcium
carbonate made in a laboratory under artificial conditions, they were
abundantly present in natural calcium carbonate, commonly known
as chalk. For this reason, the latter could, for instance, easily
"invert" cane sugar solutions, while the former could not.

With the collaboration of his son, Joseph, and Alfred Estor, a
Montpellier physician and surgeon, Bechamp went on to study
microzymas located in the bodies of animals and came to the
startling conclusion that the tiny forms were far more basic to life
than cells, long considered to be the basic building blocks of all
living matter. Bechamp thought them to be fundamental elements
responsible for the activity of cells, tissues, organs, and indeed
whole living organisms, from bacteria to whales, and larks to human
beings. He even found them present in life-engendering eggs, where
they were responsible for the eggs' further development while
themselves undergoing significant changes.

So, nearly a century before Gaston Naessens christened his
somatid, his countryman, Bechamp, had come across organisms
that, as Naessens immediately recognized, seem to be "cousins,"
however many times removed, of his own "tiny bodies."

Most incredible to Bechamp was the fact that, when an event
serious enough to affect the whole of an organism occurred, the
microzymas within it began working to disintegrate it totally, while
at the same time continuing to survive. As proof of such survival,
Bechamp found these microzymas in soil, swamps, chimney soot,
street dust, even in air and water. These basic and apparently eternal
elements of which we and all our animal relatives are composed
survive the remnants of living cells in our bodies that disappear at
our death.

So seemingly indestructible were the microzymas that
Bechamp could even find them in limestone dating to the Tertiary,
the first part of the Cenozoic Era, a period going back sixty million
years, during which mammals began to make their appearance on
earth.
___________________________________________________________________________


Bird's book doesn't go into detail of Dr. Wilhelm Reich's discoveries, but having read much of it myself they parallel what both Naessens and Bechamp discovered. But there is this quote from Bird's book (page 290) that is relevant:

____________________________________________________________________________
"Why haven't physicists looked into the effects Rife achieved with electromagnetic waves of
specific frequencies upon disease, including cancer?

Similar effects were observed by Dr. Georges Lakhovsky in
Paris, who developed a wave emitter called a multiwave oscillator
with which he cured cancer as well as other diseases in plants and
humans. The multiwave oscillator is today banned by the FDA as
quackery. They have also been noted in Bordeaux by another
inventor, self-taught as was Rife, Antoine Priore, whose apparatus
combines the use of electromagnetic radiation with a plasma of
helium or noble gases reminiscent of Rife's method used in
detecting and devitalizing BX.

Are the strange blue, motile forms that Dr. Wilhelm Reich
discovered in the late 1930s and for which he coined the word bions
related to the foregoing? Reich observed the bions to spontaneously
proliferate from specially treated organic matter and even from coal
and sand! Spontaneous generation of life was supposed to have been
laid to rest in Reich's time, as it is in ours, and he was accused by
fellow scientists of confusing Brownian movement of subcellular
particles or debris in his cultures with the new subcellular forms he
claimed to have discovered.

In cancerous patients, Reich observed the bions to degenerate
into what he called T-bacilli (the T coming from the German word
Tod, meaning death). When injected into mice, they caused cancer
just like Rife's BX forms."
_________________________________________________________________________


So: we now have Naessens and his descriptions of "somatids" in his microscope; and Bechamp describing what he saw in his as "scintillating corpuscles" or "molecular granulations"; and here, Dr. Reich talks of the motile forms he sees in *his* powerful light microscope as "bions". Dr. Rife would call the same organisms, "BX bacillus".

Time to look at Dr. Royal Raymond Rife and his discoveries...

___________________________________________________________________________



"Under his microscope, at 20,000 X, the tube (a sealed test tube containing cancer tissue into a
closed loop filled with argon gas that he charged with electricity) now teemed with
animated forms measuring only 1/20 by 1/15 of a micron—much
smaller than any known bacteria. They refracted a purplish red color
in the specific light beam.

He called this form Bacillus X and, later, because it was so
much smaller than other bacilli, and perhaps because of the
filterability controversy, BX vims. This problem of nomenclature
can be resolved herein by referring to Rife's organism as a BX form,
or simply BX.

Because he could culture his BX form, so small it would pass
through any filter, he seemed to have discovered a filterable form of
a bacterium. But just finding bacteria, even in filterable form, in a
human tumor does not necessarily imply that they are its cause. To
make sure, it is held they must be reinjected into animals and seen to
cause the same or nearly similar disease, after which they must then
be reisolated and shown to resemble the original organism. These
were the postulates propounded by the German pioneer
bacteriologist Robert Koch, who proved that tuberculosis was
apparently caused by the tubercule bacillus.

Following this accepted procedure, Rife inoculated the new BX
forms into over 400 rats in all of which there subsequently appeared
"tumors with all the true pathology of neoplastic tissue."

Some of the tumors became so large they exceeded the total
weight of the individual rats in which they were developing. When
the tumors were surgically removed, the BX form was recovered
from them in all cases. Koch's postulates were fulfilled.
By continued microscopical study and repeated photography to
stop their motion, Rife and his co-workers next came to the baffling
conclusion that the BX, far from remaining always what he had seen
as the purplish red bodies a fraction of a micron in dimension, could
change into not just fairly similar forms as Rosenow had previously
discovered, but into completely different forms simply by altering
the medium on which they were living only very slightly.
"Slightly" in Rife's case meant an alteration in the nutrient
environment of only two parts per million by volume. Those who
would consider this unlikely may recall that in homeopathic
medicine doses of remedies are given in dilutions of this weakness
and beyond. Even though they have nothing chemically analyzable
in them, they are effective.

One such alteration caused the BX to become what Rife called
a Bacillus Y, or BY. It was still the same purplish red color as the
BX but so enlarged that it would not pass through a fdter.

With the second change of the medium, the BY enlarged still
further into a monococcoid or single disk form which, when
properly stained, could be viewed under a standard research
microscope. Rife claimed that these forms could be found in the
blood of over ninety percent of cancer victims.

By removing this form from the fluid medium it inhabited and
depositing it onto a hard base of asparagus or tomato agar, Rife then
saw it miraculously develop into a fungus, making it kin to a yeast,
mold, or mushroom.

Any of these succeeding forms, Rife stated, could be changed
back within thirty-six hours into a BX form capable of producing
cancer tumors in experimental animals from which, in turn, the
same BX form could again be recovered.

The transformation did not stop with the fungus, which, if
allowed to stand dormantly as a stock culture for a year and then
replanted onto the asparagus medium, would then change into
bacillus coli, millions of which live in the human intestine. This
common bacillus could pass, in Rife's words, "any known laboratory
method of analysis."
_______________________________________________________________________________


So: what we have here are four very distinguished scientists over a century apart in time who discovered an elementary life form (using exceptional light microscopes) that could appear out of nowhere when the basic conditions for life were available; that these life forms could be isolated and characterized; that they could be isolated from cancer patients - and even other ancient organic media, such as chalk(!); and that were indestructible (and *electromagnetic*) in their base form; that they could be placed onto media containing different sugars and proteins that would *then* develop into bacterial forms that could process those energy sources THAT THE BASE ORGANISM DID NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROCESS without some additional source of genomic DNA (appearing out of nowhere!) to enable them; and that they "disappeared" back into the ether once the organism they once constituted died.

After all of this, I once again stand upon my original assertion: that these four men were witnessing the interface where spiritual forces manifest into physical reality. If what they all saw and reported is true, then this does appear to me to be, indeed, intelligent design in action.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

With that done, I am still doing research on plagues in history and how degraded environments due to environmental stresses lead to disease states in people during such times. Where I am being stymied though is finding two corroborating historical sources for each era. So it's taking a lot of time. But I am loving how this thread is progressing!
 

aragorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
@Ketone Cop from which book is that quote about Raymond Rife's discoveries?

Reading the latest posts made me think of how accurate the old saying of "catching a cold" might be, after all. I've previously dismissed this as nonsense, something that grandmothers say to their grandchildren: "Put your scarf on, otherwise you might catch a cold from the drafty wind!" But as it often turns out, grandmothers know best! :-D From the perspective of Terrain Theory, the cold draft in your neck might 'provoke' the microzymas to act differently, maybe?
 
@Ketone Cop from which book is that quote about Raymond Rife's discoveries?

Reading the latest posts made me think of how accurate the old saying of "catching a cold" might be, after all. I've previously dismissed this as nonsense, something that grandmothers say to their grandchildren: "Put your scarf on, otherwise you might catch a cold from the drafty wind!" But as it often turns out, grandmothers know best! :-D From the perspective of Terrain Theory, the cold draft in your neck might 'provoke' the microzymas to act differently, maybe?

That stuff came straight out of Christopher Bird's book, "The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens" that I tried to link to above, but that link is now mysteriously gone just recently. However: last I saw physical copies of it were available and cheap on Amazon. My own copy is now in the hands of a friend, and I hope I see it again soon because that might be my only access to the information now!!

In the meantime, stay upwind of those nasty microzymas! Even though there are probably some in your mask; your beard; your air; your water and food...take care of your "terrain", and none of it should, "matter"!
 

biuta

Jedi Master
@aragorn the concept that the grandmothers were talking about exists in Traditional Chinese Medicine:

.

Wind is considered as the backbone of many diseases in TCM. It affects the body in the same way as moving branches and leaves on a tree affect the tree; consequently, Wind is a Yang phenomenon. When Feng Xie, or Wind nefarious, attacks the body by penetrating the skin and the pores, an important result in TCM is the emergence of imbalances of external origin caused by climatic aggression pathogenic factors.
 

Kay Kim

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Some sources claim that viruses are part of the microzymian cycle, but I don't know how that would work. If that's actually true, then viruses must be pretty different from what we're told, since a chunk of RNA enveloped in a protein doesn't seem like something with the ability to transform. So I guess viruses continue to be a mystery

I have found some information from Transcripts, that viruses are coming from other densities, and its manifesting by “Thoughts”.
Probably mainly from the Lizards, and their nefarious purpose to make humans suffer painfully so that they can collect energy for food.

4 March 2012

Q: (L) Okay, we have a question that Psyche and I have been thinking about. After reading this book about viruses, we have the idea that viruses may be the means by which genetic manipulation {as in intentional coming from other densities} has taken place on this planet for millions, if not billions, of years.

A: Yes

Q: (L) Does that mean that a virus is a transdimensional manifestation?

A: Yes. Thoughts made manifest! Compare to some crop circles!

Q: (Psyche) Some viruses in the atlas DO look like crop circles. (Ark)...of course virus is just pure DNA, or what? (Psyche) It can be both DNA or RNA depending on the type of virus, and usually coated to protect itself. There are so many types of viruses; it can be just a piece of genetic code. (Ark) Okay, so my question is whether there is a particular part of the virus that has the property that is not just described by normal quantum physics or quantum chemistry and so on, or its the whole organization of virus that has this property?

A: Yes. Information field aggregates matter.

Q: (Belibaste) Does information command or direct the aggregation of different proteins or amino acids to form a virus? Materialization?

A: Yes.

Q: (Psyche) It's very interesting because they have found in our "junk" DNA, properties of viruses that are close in location to those of stem cells, and also cells that end up producing cancer. It is quite interesting. (Perceval) That means our DNA is thought made manifest?

A: More or less!

Q: (Perceval) Except when we do the thinking, we mess it up. So we should stop thinking and interfering with the manifestation of our DNA! (laughter

29th 2018

Q: (Joe) What caused the 50 cows to drop dead in coastal India around December 22nd? According to first reports, five cowmen of the village were looking after hundreds of grazing cows in the morning. All of a sudden, their behavior changed and about 50 unexpectedly and instantly dropped dead.

(Andromeda) All at the same time.

A: Virus.

Q: (Pierre) That quick?

(Joe) That's a pretty serious virus.

(Artemis) How long did they have the virus for?

A: 3 days.

Q: (Joe) Aggressive virus! All at the same time?

(L) If they all contracted it at the same time, that would make sense.

(Joe) 50 just fall over? Weird.

(L) Think about it. You’ve got a bunch of cows. They're all probably pretty close to genetically identical in a herd. They're using the same bull and probably the same two or three female cows to produce them. So, they're not gonna be that different genetically. If you think about viruses and probably something coming from outer space...

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) So it wasn't your common garden variety virus, then. There was something unusual about it?

(L) Yeah, and especially if you have something that is newly introduced to a biosphere and to which there is no immunity...

A: Yes, exactly!

Q: (Artemis) Is this only the beginning?

A: Yes

Q: (Artemis) Is this kind of thing gonna start hitting people?

A: Possibly. It should certainly make people take notice

May 30th 2009

Q: (J) Is swine flu going to make a comeback this winter?

A: Sure. They are working on drastic reduction of the population before climate change goes too far. Can't have all those starving people after their heads now can they?

Q: (J) I wonder if it's going to affect us?

A: With your diet?!?! Toxicity makes many more susceptible than during other pandemics. Why else do you think that such toxicity is allowed and even encouraged

February 22, 1995

Q: (L) I would like to know for the benefit of somebody else who asked the question: What is the origin of AIDS?

A: Simian mutation.

Q: (L) A monkey virus, in other words.

A: Was, but mutated.

Q: (L) Who is the individual or group responsible for this mutation?

A: Not humans.

Q: (L) Well then, who?

A: Lizards acting in conjunction with destined frequency path.

Q: (L) And what is the purpose of the infliction of the AIDS virus on the human race?

A: Not determined.

February 13th 2011

Q: (Psyche) Are we going to see a return of the Black Death?

A: Extremely likely.

Q: (Galaxia) Oh no! That's all I've got to say.

A: Those that have a certain genetic profile may suffer very little.

Q: (Andromeda) That doesn't sound like anybody is immune... like, "They'll suffer very little before they die!"

A: Smoking tobacco is a clue and an aid.

Q: (Psyche) Oh, interesting. [everyone lights a cigarette and starts laughing] (Psyche) Everybody lights up! I feel like smoking! (laughter)

A: It is not just aliens that don't like to eat people that smoke! But from a certain perspective the viruses that cause such illnesses as the Black Death are "alien".

Q: (Belibaste) So it means that aliens like the Black Death virus because they don't like people that smoke? (L) What? (Psyche) No, you should read the article in the next issue of The Dot Connector magazine: "New Light on the Black Death: The Viral and Cosmic Connection". (L) If you look at it from a 4th density perspective, when something like the Black Death comes and there is global suffering - and when you read about it, the Black Death is just horrible - but if there was such suffering on our planet from something like that, 4D STS would be getting a rich feast of suffering which is what they feed on. So, an alien virus would be interactive with 4D reality by providing its food.

A: Close enough!
 
Top Bottom