The Church of Medial Science Part 4.


We shall first investigate the prevalent idea in medicine about disease causes. It should be clear from the start that we do not necessarily agree with their ideas about the origin of diseases. They are based on a concept that is 150 years old and already so geriatric that it fails to account for many diseases. We refer here of course to the Gospel of Pasteur; that great plagiarist of the 19th Century.
If we examine the time in which he lived, we discover that homeopathy was gaining ever-wider acceptance and the orthodox efforts at disproving its tenets stood on ever-shakier grounds. Desperate for something that could be seen with the eyes and felt with the fingers, the orthodox were forever searching for the material cause of disease. The development of the microscope and the discoveries made with it gave them great hopes, but untill Pasteur presented his faulty notions to the Academie in Paris, those hopes had remained unfulfilled.
Pasteur gave in one stroke what they had been so desperate to discover and thus they all agreed in a surprising unity of voice. Surprising because science and scientists are known to generally disagree with one another over every proposal. We only need to mention the theories proposed by Einstein and Bohr to illustrate this tendency to disagreement. The further disa-greements in archeology are another case in point and the discussion that raged over Darwin’s theories before they became accepted, could fill large volumes.
Nonetheless, it serves us well to scrutinise these theoretical notions of the 19th century carefully, for they are rooted in a pattern of thought that sought to deny God and his influence over our lives. If instead they could find something that could replace the deity as a major player in health and disease, they would have made great stides in diminishing the influence of the clergy over the lives of people.
The so-called enlightened view of that time sought to establish man’s supremacy over his destiny, rather than succumbing to the Church, the clergy or God. Instead man should be so devilishly clever that he could do away with religious influence and once and for all establish his own power over nature. Pasteur seemed to have achieved this in one stroke of genius and hence he is revered to this very day. We face therefore a formidable task. We have to unsaddle a man and a theory that have been firmly in place as the main explanation of all human suffering.
A man so formidable that his theory has held sway for so long will be difficult to defeat, it seems. Nonetheless, we shall attempt to show that his theory is but a theory and one that is moreover not supported by the facts in the field. While the germ-theory seems to hold great merit, we must question its foundation, its logic, and above all its usefulness in explaining disease. Let us see whether the germ theory is all that it is cracked up to be or whether it is a reptile made out of a pile of dung.


They hold to the unreliable proposition that microscopic entities called bacilli, bacteria, vira and microbes have sufficient power to make us sick. They even go so far as to declare these creatures can kill you, regardless their infinitesimal size and that therefore they are exceedingly dangerous and must be killed themselves.
Iatrogenesis or environmental impact, except in occupational hazards with the latter, are also ignored and they never listen to the patient. They stare themselves blind on numbers from machine readings and numbers of creatures in slick microscopic slides, in which they have caught the vira and microbes, bacteria and bacilli or other germs, associated with disease. These numbers may satisfy the bookkeeper’s mentality but they do not numb the discerning intellect into blind acceptance or uncritical, slavish following.
Let me quote to you James Tyler Kent, a nineteenth century homoeopath, who pointed out what was wrong in his time and which is still the same today.

'Anything that looks away from exactitude is unscientific. The physician must be classical; everything must be methodical. Science ceases to be scientific, when disorderly application of the law is made,’
(Kent J.T. Lectures on the Philosophy)

Here is another quote, by the same Dr Kent.

'Most doctors have gone crazy over the ‘vicious microbe’ as being the cause of disease and think the little fellows exceedingly dangerous. As a matter of fact, the microbes are scavengers. I wonder if scientists reflect when they make statements about bacteria. Naturally they would say that the more bacteria the more danger, but this is not so. It is well known that shortly after death a prick from the scalpel is a serious matter. This is due to the ptomaines (sewer gasses) of the corpse; but when the cadaver has become green and filled with bacteria, it is comparatively harmless. The microbe is not the cause of disease. We should not be carried away by these idle allopathic dreams and vain imaginations, but should correct the vital force. The bacterium is an innocent fellow and if he carries disease, he carries the simple sub-stance, which causes disease, just as an elephant would.'
(Kent J.T. The Lesser Writings)

This explains also why, when a 'viral, microbial, bacterial or bacillus disease’ is around, not everyone will get the disease. Two people working next to each other will not be both sick, when the one is a happy person. His colleague will not be able to infect him. Why else does not everyone get sick during the flue season? Some people have better immunity, which protects them better, they will say.
Happiness and contentment form the best immunity. Each person who gets the flue or another disease has a mental or emotional problem, is discontent or is unhappy or makes himself so. If you go from home without sufficient clothes, you do have a mental problem, for then you are a fool. The result is that promptly you will catch a cold. A happy man is smart enough to bring a jacket on a warm day, followed by a cold night. Only those that refuse to use their brains and do not think ahead catch colds. As soon as the temperature drops, they become cold and decidedly unhappy. Unhappy people get sick – there are no bones about it.
Moreover, if viral or other microbial entities could cause disease we would be sick all the time, since they are in the air we breathe and our bodies are infested with millions of them in a large variety. We shall shortly visit ‘Slime City’, where these critters all are inhabitants. The defence system would never get a break from the constant assault of a great variety of disease 'causes.'
Factually, the term ‘immune system’ is highly misleading, since the system is not immune, but merely defensive. The defence system is already not discriminatory – letting in everything before it reacts – it would be incessantly assaulted with countless diseases. In other words, you would never leave your bed healthy from the day you were born.
This is an unrealistic scenario and an obvious indication that these so-called pathogens do not deserve that name. As a theory it is certainly not borne out by the facts and therefore unscientific.
As soon as the ease of life is gone; that is dis-ease. Where does that show itself, other than in your mind, your emotions and in your body? Not anywhere else is it found. Therefore, how can they say that disease comes from germs? Or alternatively, as they now like to fancy that disease is coming from the genes? That is the fabrication of a couple of modern myths.

A Decent Burial

Let us look at the virus or germ theory a little closer. It is but an assumption that germs cause disease. They say their evidence is presented in the fact that when they kill the bacteria or vira, the disease is soon gone as well. The vira become active from some outside trigger – generally an invasion by and of those same germs. They attack the living cells and destroy them, in the process using the cell-DNA to multiply. A virus is really nothing more than a string of mRNA cells, which need another cell’s DNA to complete them and divide. If this is allowed to continue unabated, the body will succumb under the onslaught and the victim will die.
That sounds like the correct view, is it not? After all, Pasteur already proved this more than 150 years ago, is the argument. Pasteur put medicine on the wrong foot and it has not made a single step forward since. His theory is now about to meet its maker, since we will sufficiently show that it better join Pasteur in his grave.

Pasteur made a few assumptions, which we shall scrutinise further, to discover whether they stroke with the facts or not. The first is the assumption that germs cause disease.
When a disease is full-blown, what is the picture of the blood?
A so-called ‘viral’ or bacterial disease is characterised by a high level of vira or other germs in the blood of victims of full-blown cases, known as the viral or bacterial load. This is – and we should note this well – invariably the case with all viral or other diseases caused by a bacterium, a bacillus or a microbe. Invariably this is noted in full-blown cases. If we examine the blood of any healthy person, we may find the virus or germ in some cases, but never in disproportionate amounts. In the sick, everyone has a very high count. When normally it may be one per million, in disease it is one or two per three cells.
Therefore we discover that the disease is nothing more or less than an ultimate result. We go to visit the doctor when we feel sick and not at any other time. We do not go there for a social chat, but to complain about something that bothers us, gives us pain or is otherwise uncomfortable. There is no toher reason why would go there. Infact, we try to avoid going there at all costs and postpone the visit till it is inevitable. Doctors are not on our wishlists of frequent visits or visitors. We do not like them very much for the things they have to say to us are those things we do not want at all. Therefore, we stay away from them as much as possible. Vira and germs are not on our wishlists either and we want to avaoid them also as much as we can. We do not seem to realise their importance other than as destroyers of our health.

What is important is that we must consider carefully what we observe. In a full-blown case of disease, we are looking at the disease ultimate. It is an end-result. From the moment we entered primary school, we have been taught that results are always different from causes and this is scientific.

As Hahnemann noted:

“Therefore disease, considered as a thing separate from the living whole, from the organism and its animating vital force and hidden in the interior, be it of ever so subtle a character, is an absurdity that could only be imagined by minds of the materialistic stamp.”
(Hahnemann S. Organon §13)

“The natural disease is never to be considered as a noxious material situated somewhere in the exterior or interior.”
(Hahnemann S. Organon §148)

Hahnemann then comes with the only correct definition of what is disease:

‘The unprejudiced observer takes note of nothing in every individual case of disease except the changes in health of the mind and the body. He notices only the deviations, which are felt by the patient himself, noted by those around him and observed and remarked by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent.’
(Hahnemann S. Organon §6)

Hence disease is nothing but a change in health of the mind and body, notable by signs and symptoms. This is the long and short of every disease, whether caused by drugs or natural dynamic means.

‘The irregular processes which we call disease are as a power invisible in itself and only knowable and cognisable by its visible effects on and sensations in the organism, exposed to the patient and the physician. It manifests as morbid symptoms and in no other way can it make itself known.’
(Hahnemann S. Organon §11)

We see Hahnemann did not believe in the microbe as the cause of disease. He also did not consider blood and liver value levels or biopsies, because they did not exist in his time. If he could do without, it fails to materialise why we now should put such reliance on something we cannot even experience.
He firmly established that the entire disease can be known by the changed sensations of the patient and by ob-servable changes in the physical frame. He did not see a need for invasive techniques to trace the disease in the interior and considered them futile.
He knew that disease is a change in health that can be related to the doctor and cured by a remedial agent capable of producing such a disease in the healthy. A virus in his day was nothing but a poison – the virus of the cobra for in-stance.
Jenner did his first experiments with the pox vaccine in Hahnemann’s time and the bacilli, bacteria and other germs were becoming increasingly known. Yet Hahnemann considered this nothing more than an idle allopathic dream, which did not tally with his contention that disease and cure are both dynamic processes.
Modern medicine does not consider the dynamics of either disease or medicinal action. It sees the virus or other germs as exceedingly dangerous. They think that if they do not kill them, the patient is in danger.
The germs and vira always keep on multiplying as long as the disease lasts, till death follows, says the theory. In addition, since death is the final result as they say, we must conclude that abundance of vira or other germs is also an end-result. Then how can they be the cause?


In viral diseases, they throw this scientific principle out the window and declare that cause and result is one and the same thing. This is unscientific, to say the least. It has no place in any scientific discussion, least of all medicine, where lives are dependent on thorough scientific principles and procedures. Why then does that not count for germs?
Germs are the exception to the rule, they say. That makes for many exceptions to the rule, for there are many different germs associated with disease. Several gut bacteria, such as salmonella and escheria coli, to name but a few, totalling more than 30 different ones. Homoeopaths use many of them as the bowel nosodes.
There are more than a just a hand-full of viruses, like the flue or pneumonia, quite a few bacilli, such as tuberculosis and microbes or even fungi associated with disease and then we do not even count the ones they have not yet discovered.

Together, this veritable cornucopia of creatures makes for well over 100 exceptions to the rule. That is exceptional by itself. It is therefore subsequently thoroughly unscientific.
Then how come that when they are killed, the disease apparently also is finished? Because these drugs are suppressing the disease, which will reappear soon enough; if necessary at a different spot and associated with a different germ. It is still the same disease, which has been forced to seek a new outlet.
The function of the germs is different from what Pasteur presented and that is why they cannot be exceptions to the rule and therefore do not cause disease.
If the medical scientists paid attention to what they see, they would have noticed that viruses attack only cells with receptors, to which they can react. Healthy cells do not have those markers, so the virus cannot attack them. Why else are we not constantly sick?
You all know the squatter’s movement here in Europe and especially in Amsterdam. They occupy houses and buildings that have been kept empty for more than a year, to allow real-estate speculators to drive up the prices for living or to push through a project where a useless harbour is costing a lot of money. It is a sick society that allows this.
Disease is like squatters who occupy cells on which they hang signs – ‘squatted’ – known as receptors. It is a sick body that allows this to happen, just like the speculators and the housing prices in our society.
The situation with the squatters is that the Riot Squad – part of the police force – comes by and kicks them out, often destroying the building immediately after, so it cannot be re-squatted.
The vira are the Riot Squad, which comes to kick out the disease and destroy the cells so they can no longer be used by the disease. They only destroy cells with receptors; that is, the sick cells. The fantastic story that they attack healthy cells is therefore complete hogwash.
Instead of appreciating the work the vira do, they mistake them for the squatters and send in the army to destroy the police force. Thus they create a civil war inside the body, with heavy drugs.
Generally, a civil war ruins the country. If we look at the AIDS phenomenon, it is this civil war, which destroyed the bodies of the victims. Here, as another aside, is proof the rules of warfare do not apply to healing and medicine.
Waging war on the microbe community is not only foolish, since they do not cause disease; it is detrimental to our health. It demands moreover that we accept too much collateral damage. It evidently ruins the balance in Slime City.


That microbe community is a veritable Slime City, with all kinds of inhabitants, such as merchants, workers, farmers, thieves and so on, with several types of police, as well as an army, high-risers, highways and diverse transport systems. A recent survey of over 400 different entero-bacteria collected and subsequently stored between 1917 and 1954 suggests that resistance was very uncommon in the pre-antibiotic era.
That is an impressive variety of inhabitants of some very different ‘nationalities’ and therefore a multi-cultural society that performs admirably harmonious, if left to its own devices. We carry about a kilo of the creatures in the intestinal tract alone.
Some digest food, others are scavengers. Here may be one that destroys sick and old cells – a cop – while there, another is engaged in cell construction – a builder. Some are engaged in business with each other, exchanging information and necessary protein codes, to assist each other in their mutual task. Others are kept busy stealing food from their neighbours. Another one has the capacity to digest what is indigestible to others, received from an RNA strand that picks up on the targeted substance. Some members in that community learn to digest the antibiotics and so ‘resistance’ comes about. It is not that the germ becomes resistant, but that the antibiotic never reaches them again – other germs or entities digest it first.

Even the pharmacopoeia says as much.

‘The three most important mechanisms of bacterial resistance are:
• production of an enzyme that inactivates the antibiotic or hinders it in its action, such as the β-lactamases with the β-lactam antibiotics and acetyltransferase with the aminoglycosides and chloramphenicol.
• reduction of the uptake of the antibiotic by diminishing the membrane permeability, through changes in the protein cover of the external cell membrane, due to selective pressure of the antibiotic. Herewith the β-lactam antibiotics, the chinolons, tetracyclines, trimethoprim and chloramphenicol are rendered ineffective. It may also use an active efflux, resulting from a difference in the membrane transport system, as it does with erythromycin and tetracycline.
• changes in the bacterial proteins that were points of attack from or for the antibiotic. A changed ribosomal protein is discovered with aminoglycosides. A further changed penicillin-binding protein is found with mainly β-lactam antibiotics, while a changed DNA-gyrase is associated with the chinolons. Gyrase is an enzyme, which can trigger the winding of long DNA chains around an RNA nucleus. Chinolons antagonise this enzymatic activity. On this basis, chinolons are also designated gyrase inhibitors.’

The Slime City inhabitants produce those enzymes – they do not arise spontaneously. Microbes and other germs, assisted by plasmids, trigger membrane permeability. These same bacteria also generate changes in bacterial proteins.
Thus, such ‘immunity’ or ‘resistance’ violates the orthodox parameters for treatment, which say that

‘the antibioticum must be able to reach the seat of infection’.

This is the way they paint the picture; I am quoting their pharmacopoeia.

‘There are other mechanisms by which resistance is obtained. It can occur chromosomal as well as extra-chromosomal, the latter though plasmids, which are extra-chromosomal carriers of inherited properties. These plasmids are interchangeable between organisms through conjugation, transduction or transformation.’

Since such material is freely interchangeable, it is unlikely to cause mutations, since mutations then happen all the time and therefore do not happen. Differently said, if they happen all the time, it is no longer exceptional but commonplace and therefore not mutation. This is because mutation is the appearance of the not so commonplace. We shall see in a further chapter that mutations are impossible to appear for several other reasons, making the mutation scenario not only highly unlikely, but also entirely impossible.
Adaptation is closer to the reality of the circumstances in Slime City, where harmony and balance make for a stable system. In those circumstances mutations can only increase the imbalance, which is contrary to every observation one makes in nature or the human body, where balance is al-ways maintained by all means. The proof they adapt and maintain order, is found in that they seek the means to counteract our ridiculous doses of dangerous medicine, to minimise the damage as much as possible.
We must first note that there is a great deal of difference between an adaptation to pressure and a mutation. A white person who never sees the sun and then goes out for the first time will also ‘produce alterations on the surface structure due to selective pressure’ – of the sunshine. He will turn either red or brown. This is no mutation, but an adaptation.
When such confusion of terms is used in one sentence, it is wise to take the weakest of the statements to hold the greatest merit. Multiple drug resistance is a fact. Alterations on the surface structure are also noted and thus factual.
However, someone who does not like cabbage does not mutate into someone else, once his taste changes. Similarly, the antibiotics may have tasted bad, but once the germs learned to digest them, no mutation occurred. They simply adapted to changed circumstances, just like the white person going in the sunshine to get brown or changing his taste for an article of diet.


Even if the vira and other germs look or work different, they are also not mutations, but merely differently adapted members of the incredibly large community of microbes. They have adapted to circumstances the medical profession has created with their excessive antibiotic use.
That community has been studied – in the form of single microbes in isolation. It has never been studied as a whole, an entirety. They have no idea how many different members it has or what the function of each member is within the context of the whole. They would pretend they do, from the few they studied in isolation.
We also do not know every member, but have studied it as a whole. Immunity is extended to the whole body in the context of a cooperative society, as we argue. The conclusion is obvious and denial does not make it go away. Only the totality gives you an idea of the goings on in Slime City. It shows that microbes help a virus, enzyme or bacterium or vice versa and that the one-celled have a particular function, dependent on their environment.
Gram-negative bacteria for instance have become ‘resistant’ and ‘more virulent’. Here we have a nice example of the goings-on in Slime City, where it is obvious that the gram-negative bacteria have learnt to evade or digest the antibiotics. Either another enzyme or bacterium, bacillus or microbe has learnt to digest it or the balance has been disturbed to the extent that the gram-negative bacteria are no longer checked by other members.
Balance in a healthy Slime City means nothing less than each genus or species living there, having besides his normal role also a function comparable to ‘social control’. This enables harmonious functioning of the whole. Just like in society social control has been lost, so it has similarly occurred in Slime City, where and when the antibiotic ‘gangsters’ are allowed to take over and rule the roost.
They will initially eradicate or diminish one or more of the species and so another species gets the chance to multiply beyond its balanced proportion and set up unwanted and unsuspected reactions. That these reactions are bad for your health is abundantly clear. That they can also turn out to be fatal is equally clear from the amount of victims, but nonetheless and therefore, unacceptable.
This shows that the gram-negative bacteria have learnt to digest the antibiotics – have become ‘resistant’ – and are now taken for ‘super bugs’. Whether this is so, remains to be seen, because these same ‘super bugs’ respond by disappearing under homoeopathic treatment. It also remains to be seen if these bugs respond to antibiotics in infinitesimal doses, since that never has been tried by the orthodox.
Whether antibiotics are capable of altering the chromosomes of bacteria also remains to be seen. It is merely thought to be a ‘mechanism of mutation’, whereas the behaviour of the bacteria points to adaptation to the changed circumstances, instead of a mutation. They are collectively engaged in their usual behaviour and show no unusual features in their adaptation. Their usual and normal behaviour is to adapt to circumstances that change. The unusual is never seen, simply because changes in nature are usual and nothing out of the ordinary.
Each time you eat a foodstuff you never ate before, they have to go through the same rigmarole – how to adapt and deal with it, which is their normal behaviour. This adaptation began as a baby with mother’s milk and exploded once you developed teeth and the buccal and digestive enzymes changed to the different circumstances in your saliva. You then began to eat ‘solid food’, requiring with every new grain, vegetable and protein a different adaptation of Slime City to the new circumstances.
At some time you may have added alcohol in different forms, coffee and tea and so on, each time triggering a similar commonplace response. On holidays in foreign countries your body has to adapt again to different circumstances. With the intake of antibiotics, there happened exactly the same.
We must remember: mutations are the appearance of the unusual and abnormal; the not so commonplace. So we must conclude that when anything is happening as they describe, it is adaptation and likely or it is supposedly a mutation and thus very unlikely to happen.
The ‘enzymatic inactivation of the antibiotics’ holds therefore greater merit, since enzymes are part of and produced by the population of Slime City, which we know to be able to deal with nearly all and everything we throw at them – from fast food to alcohol and drugs. Hence some of the inhabitants will be able to erect a ‘drug-permeability barrier’, so hindering the ‘drug to reach the seat of infection or hamper and destroy the germ’. Just like some recreational drugs also develop a ‘tolerance’.
There is another instance where it has been proven that Staphylococci strains have learned to digest the antibiotics and that they do this through the enzyme B-lactamase. It is not a substance that renders the bacterium resistant, but simply an enzyme that destroys or neutralises the antibiotic fungus. This happened in a hospital and since the staphylococcus has become ‘resistant’ worldwide through the mediation of those plasmids, it is now becoming ‘a real problem.’ Hence the proposition that bacteria learn to digest them through the use of enzymes is not at all far-fetched, while the mutation scenario remains doubtful.
Factually we should be glad they become resistant, at least in the sense that we still have bacteria to clan out dead cells. After the ‘antibiotic gangsters’ take over, it is another matter altogether, for then the excess of a bacterium is harmful to our health, since there is no immediate need in the form of disease. It is an out-of-balance situation.

Slime City is apparently much more important to our health as the doctors seem to think. We have already seen that disturbance of the harmonious balance in Slime City through the use of drugs – mainly pharmaceutical drugs of the antibiotics class – severely compromises our health, to the point of ruining it completely. However, we do not adhere to this ‘pressure for selection’.
The germs in Slime City do not select anything. There is nothing to select when they are bombarded with antibiotics. They have no choice but to try and deal with them. They simply react to changed circumstances and adapt themselves. If such is not possible, they will simply die.
Their death constitutes one of the ways in which the balance in Slime City is compromised. Naturally, the excessive use of antibiotics is indeed ‘environmental pollution’, but it is not a ‘pressure for selection’, leading to mutation. The antibiotics are powerful enough to kill many of one or several species of the inhabitants and thus, like gangsters, take over the rule in Slime City.
We are confronted by scare-mongering tactics rather than truth when the doctors claim the bugs have become resistant super bugs. We are always confronted with the idea that the bugs simply have become stronger, but in such a scenario, the weakening of the body’s resistance is not sufficiently stressed. Constant or regular attacks on the defence system with antibiotics do not make the bugs any stronger, but exhaust the patient’s defence system, since the drugs are strong immuno-suppressants.
Moreover, as we have explained, it is easily shown that other inhabitants of Slime City have learned to digest the antibiotics and hence the ‘vicious microbes that are out to kill us’ have not become any more vicious. They are still the same germs, now confronted by a weakened defence sys-tem and thus disturbing the ‘social balance’. All that antibiotics do is suppress the disease and cause their own side effects in the form of immuno-suppression.


Saddam Hussein suppressed the opposition and its symptoms – free press, party forming, demonstrations, you know, the lot. Yet the opposition did not disappear. Saddam's society was sick and remained so. Mind you, putting him aside has not exactly improved the situation. It also does not invalidate the comparison, but only reinforces it.
Similarly, allopathic medicines suppress the symptoms; pain, rashes, inflammations, you know, the lot. Yet the diseases do not disappear. Like the opposition in Iraq, they go underground and spread.
The body is a sick one and remains so. The spread must occur, for metastasis is the inevitable outcome of suppression. It is a law of nature and these laws cannot be violated without paying the price. Regardless which drug you use to kill the virus, it will spread.
Again the Iraqi situation is the perfect example. For similarly, the American and British armies also fail to kill the opposition and as we see in the news, the opposition only becomes stronger, for civil war is the wrong front. The medical equivalent is similar. Those powerful drugs and massive doses are bound to cause aggravation.

Disease can also be compared to a spring clean up. Disease must be eliminated from the body, to truly disappear. The doctors merely hide it, as a bad cleaning lady sweeps the dirt under the mat. Now if you have a cleaning lady that sweeps the dirt under the mat, you fire her! The doctors suffer from the bad cleaning lady syndrome and must not be retained, just because they have an impressive title.
At the clean up, the body opens an outlet from which the dirt is released, be it pus, rashes, cancerous growths, warts or purging, whatever. Their orthodox treatment closes the door, by using medicines, creams, chemotherapy, radiation or surgery, whatever takes their fancy. Hence what we do not accept from a cleaning lady, we must certainly not accept from the doctors. Just as we fire the cleaning lady, we must fire the doctor who sweeps the dirt under the mat.
Metastasis means nothing less than the body seeking a new outlet. You close the door? The body will open the windows. You also close the windows? It will, if necessary, blow off the roof. But it will never disappear till you have brought it back to its original outlet or have buried the victim.


Insofar as the germ theory could be useful, it is in the considerations of balance or imbalance of the Slime City inhabitants. As we noted, the absence of one or more germs results in the excessive rise of another, which then can impact on the person’s health. Candida albicans for instance, normally lives in everyone’s gut, performing its allotted task.
Antibiotics, being fungi, prepare fertile conditions for its explosive increase by destroying other bacteria engaged in limiting its spread to its allotted space. However, excess Candida fungus growth has assumed epidemic proportions, while orthodoxy is vainly seeking means to destroy it. In the process, the patient’s life is destroyed.
In this manner only can any of the germs living in Slime City be of any inconvenience or danger to us. When we become sick from natural causes, some will also multiply, but this is for protection, because at such times an excess is needed to clean up the dead or sick cells, possessing receptors to which these germs can react. Once the disease has been conquered, these germs automatically revert to their original density and the others destroy their redundant excess.
Much is made of the toxic nature of the bacterial process, while it is conveniently forgotten that rot begins in the mouth and that excrement is formed through a process of fermentation – all toxic processes with which the body deals admirably, even in disease. Cholera and dysentery are but fancy names for the processes of cleaning these toxins and their dead producers from the gut. They are neither the causes nor maintainers of the disease, but form the disease process itself. For this reason these processes have received their names – cholera, typhus, dysentery.


HIV is imaginary and mythological, as we shall discover. The cause of disease from germs is mythological too – albeit not fabricated by the doctors, but Pasteur. The genes causing disease is just another myth. Genes are not deterministic, however much they would like them to be so. The product is never able to influence or effect changes in the producer.
That genetic determinism is another myth, for we know that every cell in the body has the same chromosome packet with the same genes, yet they are all different cells. So how has the gene determined the healthy or diseased function, form and structure of each individual cell?
By mythological means, for it has no other possibility, being not deterministic. In reality, genes act through feedback loops, which help the cell develop according to its environment. Thus a cell becomes a blood cell, an epidermic cell or a muscle cell only because its surroundings determine the need. When a cell is diseased from the start – birth – there is a possibility that it is genetically determined, but in general it is under pressure from consciousness or the environment.

Their causes consist solely on false conjectures and fictions of the imagination. For it is a false conjecture to say the disease is in the antibodies or the viral load. Cause and result remain different eternally, regardless their insistence they are the same.
Nobody can experience the viral load as such, for he cannot even know it is there until their tests reveal it. It is a figment of the imagination to assign causal power to a concomitant and end-result of disease; the germs.
It is therefore also a fiction – another myth – that with the death of the so-called disease cause – in casu the germ – the disease has been conquered.
Furthermore, to call someone cured when he is still suffering the effects of medicine is not only self-delusion, but also deception of the patient. He seldom believes the doctor anyway, just because he still feels sick, we can guarantee you.

Disease is like a criminal and the records of medicine must therefore be similar to criminal records, with fingerprints, photograph and profile of character. In the same manner, the disease can be recognised by the symptoms produced in the patient, corresponding to the record of the matching individual medicine.
This is the dream of the allopathic brethren and can only be realised if the homeopathic system is adopted and the wild-goose-chase after the chimera of the germs is abandoned. They are stuck in the linear tunnel vision of direct cause and effect, which always fails to explain all parameters and is left with inexplicable phenomena.

No comments: