Somatids, Microzymas - Are They Viruses? Viewer Question Answered

Todd asks,

Jeff, why has Antoine Bechamp or Gaston Naessens (somatids) not prescribed to viruses as a non-living solvents as separate entities from the living pleamorphic organisms that just change depending on the environment in which they’re in? They seem to adhere to the idea that viruses are a continuous microbe not different.

What is going on with this new scare tactic? H5N1 avian influenza in Texas from raw milk? I drink raw milk everyday from a farm in Texas.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/cdc-issues-advisory-on-raw-milk-after-bird-flu-case-reported-5621703

Hello Todd,

Bechamp lacked knowledge about viruses because their discovery hadn't occurred yet during his time. It was a subsequent development, confirmed through later inventions like the electron microscope, among others. During that era, there might have been early theories about viruses, but they remained speculative, with their characteristics and nature yet to be proven. Like the atom, viruses were first theorized through observational science and deductive reasoning, then later proven. I'm uncertain whether Naessens directly addressed viruses, but the same situation applies to him. He seems to have thought somatids were separate entities from viruses.

Based on nearly a century of historical evidence, we now understand that viruses are not microbes, microzyma, or somatids. Instead, they consist of nonliving structural and mathematical RNA enzyme proteins produced by living cells.
Nevertheless, there will always be a small group of individuals seeking to negate all modern scientific progress, staunchly referring to past scientists who have largely been disproven by new knowledge. They disregard recent scientific advancements. Consequently, past scientists can be exploited as tools or weapons in an attempt to "prove" illegitimate theories, despite ample evidence that contradicts them.
Harold Hillman's false claims concerning electron microscopy and cell structure come to mind as a prime example—an oft-used figure in the No-Virus movement.

The same applies to the Rife microscope. The claim that the Rife microscope could visualize viruses is false and lacks scientific evidence. After careful examination over a period of nearly five years, it became clear to me that the Rife microscope was incapable of resolving images with sufficient detail to observe viruses. Due to a lack of knowledge on the topic, these false claims and many others persist. However, there is no evidence, photographic or otherwise, that supports these contrary assertions. The evidence for what the Rife microscope could view is available.

Theories also abound that viruses are somatids, microzymas, and so forth, yet these are all incorrect. Somatids have never been proven or replicated by other researchers.

Further, the identification and characterization of somatids were primarily based on subjective criteria; i.e. somatids is a broad term. Morphological changes described by Naessens could be attributed to known artifacts and natural cellular processes, making it difficult to differentiate them from other structures. Normal cellular processes we now know could easily account for his assumptions at the time.

In contrast to pleomorphic bacteria, which have been observed and substantiated, viruses are non-living entities that lack the capacity to undergo intelligent morphological changes in their overall structure once they exit a cell. Such behaviors can only be attributed to living organisms. Viruses are non-living entities, and they do not exhibit autonomous movement or seek out host cells actively. Instead, their movement is primarily driven by the fluid dynamics within the body. They undergo passive motion and eventually come into contact with compatible cells in their vicinity.

In regard to raw milk and H5N1 avian flu:

The CDC and other health agencies frequently fearmonger when it comes to raw foods, particularly raw milk. If, by some means, viruses were introduced into raw milk, they would not affect a person unless the milk contained a substantial number of viruses. In such a scenario, there is perhaps some potential for the viruses to disrupt stomach cells, causing, at most, an upset stomach. However, the likelihood of this occurrence is highly improbable. Since 2012, I have been consuming 2 to 3 gallons of raw milk every two weeks, resulting in over a thousand gallons consumed, and I have never fallen ill from it.

Jeff Green