For those not in the know I am dabbling in having a monthly voter topic for my paid subscribers. This involves Subscribers providing a topic and having people vote on it. Then, at the end of the month I am releasing a post on the winning topic.
March’s winning topic was the topic of Germ vs Terrain Theory. The post could be found here (which was longer than I intended) so please take a look. Also, if you would like to participate in the next vote and topic please consider becoming a paid member.
As long as germ theory goes unexamined, people will fall for the same ploy again and again. They will accept more lockdowns and more toxic ‘cures.' Virology is nonsense. It is the eugenics of our time.
Everyone needs to take the time to understand the alternatives.
Understanding the blanket scientific fraudulence of the late 19th century, which crowned 'germ-theory' and with it the power of the chemical-pharmaceutical industry is key to understanding what is happening today.
The germ-theory agnostics cry "divisive" at our investigations but they should welcome a thorough,
ruthless criticism of their half-baked theories, not just rest on debunking PCR, if they ever intend to get off the pharma fence, that is.
Pick any so-called 'infectious disease', go through the history books and the 'scientific' literature,
and all you will find are baseless epidemiological assumptions, wholesale failure to meet Koch's postulates and massive scientific fraud.
Ask one simple question:
'What are the unique, novel disease symptoms of 'COVID19' caused by alleged 'SARSCoV2' infection that distinguish it from the common cold, influenza and pneumonia?'
Crickets.
Because of course, there are no unique, novel disease symptoms, there is just the same old disease we used to call "colds", "flu" and "pneumonia", which millions of old and vulnerable people unfortunately die with/from every year.
I will add that gene theory is also complete scientific quackery. In both instances if it weren't for high finance forcing these swindles into the limelight or rather jamming this crap down our throats both germ and gene theory would already be in the dustbin of history.
Well I will say that I disagree with a few of your points- but that's the point of having open dialogue!
In order to make claims we need to have a basis for said claims. There certainly are limitations of virology and PCR which most people don't take account of, but that doesn't mean that the fields are inherently bad. If they are bad, we need to refute the claims made by fields or techniques in science with verifiable evidence, which brings up the question as to whether criticisms of science still work within the framework of science or if we place ourselves within a position of unfalsifiable claims.
It's the same with viral infection; similarities does not indicate that these pathogens are the same or refutes the concept of there actually being pathogens. Again, do we work within the framework of science with all of their faults? If not, then what claims do we use to refute those of virology and science that has merit and has foundation. Again, the same goes for gene theory.
I'd like to hear your response. Science is not without its faults and scientists should be more open to admitting that, but then we must understand where the faults lie and how to rectify them.
Really, read Buhner's book, Herbal Antibiotics, 2nd edition, the materia medica section, and see how the plants measure up with pHarma drugs. The plants in general have limited side effects,vs the huge lists of side effects that accompany most drugs. Certainly there are exceptions, where the prescribed needs study and experience for plants that are toxic at higher doses, think foxglove for example. But for the large part, plants are part of the terrain of this place we live. Drugs are a hammer looking for the nail. The antibiotic drugs for example, are losing the "war" on germs, the plants figured out how to get around the bacteria and viral foragers long ago.
BTW, I was a fan of drugs with lip service to herbs before I read Buhner's books.
I'll definitely look into it. Honestly, I find it hard to read books now if they argue certainties. I'm trying to read books on gluten and most of them have some byline of helping absolutely heal everything. Maybe I've become too skeptical!
But I'm becoming more interested in these topics.
Antibiotics are an interesting topic. I'm now thinking we've ironically removed the evolutionary pressure on certain bacteria, but I may write about that at another time.
I hear you about books being, what, argumentative, or this is the one right way. Buhner points out that some of the herbs inhibit bacterial efflux pumps, which gram negative bacteria use successfully to pump antibiotics out of their cell wall, and so can be synergistic with pharmaceuticals that the bacteria block.
We've only increased ecological pressures on microbes with our various toxins, antimicrobial, inclusive of GMO. Bacteria are very promiscous, sharing the strategies they develop to bypass what we try to poison then with
"Science" itself is, and has always been, subject to and directed by social, economic, ideological and political factors. Particularly craven at this point in history but it has always been this way to varying degrees.
The origins and "acceptance" of germ theory, for example, can't be divorced from the time in which it arose. Germ theory in particular was thrust into the scientific forefront as "truth" by the industrialists for a number of reasons that suited their economic and political aims. Money was pumped into Pasteur’s concept by Rockefeller et al seeing the good yield for rewarding in this investment and all other theories were aggressively attacked and marginalized often by governmental bodies that were whored out to those same monied interests. Plus ca change.
First and foremost was that it suited what their needs were to explain away why so many were "diseased" and died so young. Rather than examine, and rectify, the squalid living and brutal working conditions (which allowed for massive profits) a politically expedient "germ" could be explained to be the cause of these "diseases." The industrialists used this model (which they forwarded) to profit on both ends.
The truth about Pasteur is that he knowingly committed scientific fraud by falsifying the results of his experiments to make the results fit his theories.
The medical industry itself might be the biggest fraud in history. For the past 100 years and more they've been claiming credit for things that builders, sewerage workers, water treatment plants, gutter designers, roofers, fridge inventors, electricians etc have created.
Vaccines are but one example. They are barbaric- all of them. There has never been a product of any kind so filled with historical misinformation, purposeful deception and outright fraud.
This is quite long, goes into the history of germ theory:
"Reducing the idea of disease to a simple interaction between specific microorganisms and a host, the germ theory minimized the role of environmental factors on illness, conveniently dismissing social responsibility for disease, especially among the poor."
Oh I actually read the first article when writing my post! I would actually highlight that it's an article that gets some concepts right but may be extrapolating too much. I disagree with the some of the premises such as antibiotics. We also have to keep in mind that, even as we argue that things are a product of their time, that we can't look to today and speak in hindsight. I see many people using the microbiome as a validation for Bechamp when I would argue that one of the biggest faults of science is to be so bold and full of hubris to ever believe that consensus science can never change.
It's also hindsight to argue that the pharmaceutical industry pushed for Germ Theory when there was not necessarily one to begin with at that time. I would agree that the pharmaceutical industry as we have it now certainly looks at everything as a nail needing a hammer, but I can't find a reason to argue that an industry that was not there yet had plans to push for ideas that it yet did not know the full futility of.
And just as critical we can be of Pasteur, we can't suddenly agree with Bechamp. The real approach is to draw criticisms to both, find where their ideas have merit, and see if there's a way to rationalize or approach the two ideas.
I'll end this by saying the worst problem with modern medicine is the belief that medicine and science is infallible and COVID has clearly shown that to be the case.
I never argued that the Pharma Industry pushed for Germ Theory I stated that the industrialists not just pushed but forced germ theory into the public realm for reasons stated- as well as obliterated and often criminalized all other medicinal theories and practices. As you stated there was no Pharma Industry that was to come later and was a creation of and by those same industrialists- not a coincidence.
"Modern" medicine is a wrecking ball. It has left little other than death and misery in its wake.
two simple experiments show that it's the terrain that's important, and the germ is secondary:
1) expose 20 people to a "germ". They don't all get sick. The terrain determines whether the "germ" lives and thrives.
2) take two bowls. In one bowl put bottled grape juice. In the other bowl put some cooked meat. Leave both bowls exposed to the air for a week or two, then look at the "germs" in each bowl. Even though both were exposed to the same "germs" (from the air), you'll see completely different germs in each bowl.
My main addition would be that we would need more than to claim that people who don't get sick validate Terrain Theory, but we can argue that deleterious behavior and changes within the body are likely to change how people are exposed to pathogens.
But yes, there are many things we see that at least infers that there's more to it than just germs and sterility.
As long as germ theory goes unexamined, people will fall for the same ploy again and again. They will accept more lockdowns and more toxic ‘cures.' Virology is nonsense. It is the eugenics of our time.
Everyone needs to take the time to understand the alternatives.
Understanding the blanket scientific fraudulence of the late 19th century, which crowned 'germ-theory' and with it the power of the chemical-pharmaceutical industry is key to understanding what is happening today.
The germ-theory agnostics cry "divisive" at our investigations but they should welcome a thorough,
ruthless criticism of their half-baked theories, not just rest on debunking PCR, if they ever intend to get off the pharma fence, that is.
Pick any so-called 'infectious disease', go through the history books and the 'scientific' literature,
and all you will find are baseless epidemiological assumptions, wholesale failure to meet Koch's postulates and massive scientific fraud.
Ask one simple question:
'What are the unique, novel disease symptoms of 'COVID19' caused by alleged 'SARSCoV2' infection that distinguish it from the common cold, influenza and pneumonia?'
Crickets.
Because of course, there are no unique, novel disease symptoms, there is just the same old disease we used to call "colds", "flu" and "pneumonia", which millions of old and vulnerable people unfortunately die with/from every year.
I will add that gene theory is also complete scientific quackery. In both instances if it weren't for high finance forcing these swindles into the limelight or rather jamming this crap down our throats both germ and gene theory would already be in the dustbin of history.
Well I will say that I disagree with a few of your points- but that's the point of having open dialogue!
In order to make claims we need to have a basis for said claims. There certainly are limitations of virology and PCR which most people don't take account of, but that doesn't mean that the fields are inherently bad. If they are bad, we need to refute the claims made by fields or techniques in science with verifiable evidence, which brings up the question as to whether criticisms of science still work within the framework of science or if we place ourselves within a position of unfalsifiable claims.
It's the same with viral infection; similarities does not indicate that these pathogens are the same or refutes the concept of there actually being pathogens. Again, do we work within the framework of science with all of their faults? If not, then what claims do we use to refute those of virology and science that has merit and has foundation. Again, the same goes for gene theory.
I'd like to hear your response. Science is not without its faults and scientists should be more open to admitting that, but then we must understand where the faults lie and how to rectify them.
Really, read Buhner's book, Herbal Antibiotics, 2nd edition, the materia medica section, and see how the plants measure up with pHarma drugs. The plants in general have limited side effects,vs the huge lists of side effects that accompany most drugs. Certainly there are exceptions, where the prescribed needs study and experience for plants that are toxic at higher doses, think foxglove for example. But for the large part, plants are part of the terrain of this place we live. Drugs are a hammer looking for the nail. The antibiotic drugs for example, are losing the "war" on germs, the plants figured out how to get around the bacteria and viral foragers long ago.
BTW, I was a fan of drugs with lip service to herbs before I read Buhner's books.
I'll definitely look into it. Honestly, I find it hard to read books now if they argue certainties. I'm trying to read books on gluten and most of them have some byline of helping absolutely heal everything. Maybe I've become too skeptical!
But I'm becoming more interested in these topics.
Antibiotics are an interesting topic. I'm now thinking we've ironically removed the evolutionary pressure on certain bacteria, but I may write about that at another time.
I hear you about books being, what, argumentative, or this is the one right way. Buhner points out that some of the herbs inhibit bacterial efflux pumps, which gram negative bacteria use successfully to pump antibiotics out of their cell wall, and so can be synergistic with pharmaceuticals that the bacteria block.
We've only increased ecological pressures on microbes with our various toxins, antimicrobial, inclusive of GMO. Bacteria are very promiscous, sharing the strategies they develop to bypass what we try to poison then with
Here's a good place to start:
http://www.medicinacomplementar.com.br/biblioteca/pdfs/Biomolecular/mb-0464.pdf
"Science" itself is, and has always been, subject to and directed by social, economic, ideological and political factors. Particularly craven at this point in history but it has always been this way to varying degrees.
The origins and "acceptance" of germ theory, for example, can't be divorced from the time in which it arose. Germ theory in particular was thrust into the scientific forefront as "truth" by the industrialists for a number of reasons that suited their economic and political aims. Money was pumped into Pasteur’s concept by Rockefeller et al seeing the good yield for rewarding in this investment and all other theories were aggressively attacked and marginalized often by governmental bodies that were whored out to those same monied interests. Plus ca change.
First and foremost was that it suited what their needs were to explain away why so many were "diseased" and died so young. Rather than examine, and rectify, the squalid living and brutal working conditions (which allowed for massive profits) a politically expedient "germ" could be explained to be the cause of these "diseases." The industrialists used this model (which they forwarded) to profit on both ends.
The truth about Pasteur is that he knowingly committed scientific fraud by falsifying the results of his experiments to make the results fit his theories.
The medical industry itself might be the biggest fraud in history. For the past 100 years and more they've been claiming credit for things that builders, sewerage workers, water treatment plants, gutter designers, roofers, fridge inventors, electricians etc have created.
Vaccines are but one example. They are barbaric- all of them. There has never been a product of any kind so filled with historical misinformation, purposeful deception and outright fraud.
This is quite long, goes into the history of germ theory:
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/biographies/Bechamp-or-Pasteur.pdf
"Reducing the idea of disease to a simple interaction between specific microorganisms and a host, the germ theory minimized the role of environmental factors on illness, conveniently dismissing social responsibility for disease, especially among the poor."
The environment is everything.
Oh I actually read the first article when writing my post! I would actually highlight that it's an article that gets some concepts right but may be extrapolating too much. I disagree with the some of the premises such as antibiotics. We also have to keep in mind that, even as we argue that things are a product of their time, that we can't look to today and speak in hindsight. I see many people using the microbiome as a validation for Bechamp when I would argue that one of the biggest faults of science is to be so bold and full of hubris to ever believe that consensus science can never change.
It's also hindsight to argue that the pharmaceutical industry pushed for Germ Theory when there was not necessarily one to begin with at that time. I would agree that the pharmaceutical industry as we have it now certainly looks at everything as a nail needing a hammer, but I can't find a reason to argue that an industry that was not there yet had plans to push for ideas that it yet did not know the full futility of.
And just as critical we can be of Pasteur, we can't suddenly agree with Bechamp. The real approach is to draw criticisms to both, find where their ideas have merit, and see if there's a way to rationalize or approach the two ideas.
I'll end this by saying the worst problem with modern medicine is the belief that medicine and science is infallible and COVID has clearly shown that to be the case.
I never argued that the Pharma Industry pushed for Germ Theory I stated that the industrialists not just pushed but forced germ theory into the public realm for reasons stated- as well as obliterated and often criminalized all other medicinal theories and practices. As you stated there was no Pharma Industry that was to come later and was a creation of and by those same industrialists- not a coincidence.
"Modern" medicine is a wrecking ball. It has left little other than death and misery in its wake.
Where it has been otherwise is the exception.
two simple experiments show that it's the terrain that's important, and the germ is secondary:
1) expose 20 people to a "germ". They don't all get sick. The terrain determines whether the "germ" lives and thrives.
2) take two bowls. In one bowl put bottled grape juice. In the other bowl put some cooked meat. Leave both bowls exposed to the air for a week or two, then look at the "germs" in each bowl. Even though both were exposed to the same "germs" (from the air), you'll see completely different germs in each bowl.
My main addition would be that we would need more than to claim that people who don't get sick validate Terrain Theory, but we can argue that deleterious behavior and changes within the body are likely to change how people are exposed to pathogens.
But yes, there are many things we see that at least infers that there's more to it than just germs and sterility.