Consumption/ Tuberculosis

‘Until the late 19th century people quite regularly died of as”consumption.” It wasn’t until the development of germ theory that it was realised that this was Tuberculosis.’

https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/covid-19-hoax

‘Germs are very much part of our physiology, just as Bechamp and Bernard contended. In fact, they appear to be the dominant part.

If more than half of our physiology is comprised of germs it is difficult to understand how they can be considered simply as invading threats. Within our virome (which is part of our microbiome), viruses in particular appear to number in the trillions.

Given that the field of virology has apparently studied less than 1% of these viruses it seems remarkable that the few viruses that necessitate drug treatments just happen to be within this small minority of known pathogens. Presumably the other 99% are all benign.

Cytopathic Effect

Bechamp and Bernard thought that microbes (germs) were pleomorphic (capable of physically adapting – morphing – to suit their environment). They considered them to be a vital component of physiology and not external threats.

They hypothesised that their morphology was dependent upon the terrain of the human body. Their form and function was seen as response to the condition of the human host. Where that terrain was unbalanced (toxiotic), perhaps due to poor diet or environmental poisons, germs (including viruses – although they didn’t know of them at the time) could start the catabolic (disintegration) processes of cells. Modern virologists call this the cytopathic effect.

Thus good health was seen as being much more about prevention than cure. Good nutrition, a clean water supply, a pollution free environment, general fitness, psychological and spiritual health were considered more important in combating disease than destroying parasitic microorganisms.

While germs (such as viruses) were still seen to exacerbate and contribute towards cytopathic effects (cell death) it was the toxiotic state of the terrain (conditions), not the germ, that instigated this potentially fatal cascade.

Further evidence seemingly supporting terrain theory can be seen in the public health records. Vaccines exemplify the allopathic model as they are said to be a barrier against invading viruses. Yet a 1977 study by the Boston Department of Sociology found that more than 90% of the huge improvements in U.S public health occurred prior to 1950 — before the widespread use of vaccines.

Improvements in sanitation, water security, diet, income and access to services, were found to be by far the most significant factors. The study estimated that as little as 1% to 3.5% of the improvements could be directly attributed to allopathic medical interventions, of which vaccination were but one facet.

A 2000 study by John Hopkins University and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) corroborated these findings:

… vaccination does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century … nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available.

Huge reductions in disease and mortality occurred during this period that had little to do with allopathic medical advances. Terrain theorists suggest that inequality and deprivation breed disease, not because pathogens fester in slums but because people fester in slums.

Dr Rudolph Virchow, the renowned father of modern pathology was strongly opposed to the germ theory of Koch, Pasteur and Lister. He saw disease as a political issue, with its roots firmly in inequality of opportunity and resultant poverty. He said “Medicine is a social science, and politics is nothing else but medicine on a large scale.” Perhaps it isn’t only pharmaceutical corporations and healthcare providers who have a vested interest in the total rejection of terrain theory.

It is equally true to point out, though, that those who believe in the importance of the terrain often attack germ theory. Perhaps this adversarial approach fails to appreciate the relative strengths and weaknesses in both disease models. While the truth is absolute, we don’t have much chance of discovering it with ego and the denial of evidence blocking the path.

Is COVID-19 a Hoax?

To suspect that COVID-19 is a “hoax” is not to dismiss the very real impact the events of the past twelve months have had on families across the UK. Clearly many thousands have died and those deaths have been attributed to a respiratory disease called COVID-19.

No one who criticises the evidence base for COVID-19 is denying that, and they are certainly not dismissing the pain felt by the bereaved.

Until the late 19th century people quite regularly died of “consumption.” It wasn’t until the development of germ theory that it was realised that this was Tuberculosis.

Koch, Pasteur and Lister weren’t disrespecting the lives lost to consumption by questioning the nature of disease. They were examining the medical and scientific evidence and forming scientific theories based upon those observations.

Herein lies the problem for anyone who questions the official COVID-19 narrative. We are living in a time where rational inquiry itself is under attack. It seems that to question the validity of COVID-19 is verboten. Yet clearly, there are justifiable reasons for doing so.

The fake moral outrage of the mainstream media, fact checkers and professional “debunkers,” is a defence mechanism and a propaganda technique. It isn’t designed to combat the claims of a relatively small group of sceptics; its purpose seems to be to stop the much larger group of somewhat sceptical people looking at the evidence.