If this was strictly accurate, the introduction of bacteria into the system through bacteria-rich raw foods would not be possible, and they would not be able to become part of the digestive tract. However, there are notable distinctions between viruses and bacteria in this context. Viruses, unlike bacteria, are highly specific non-living entities that cannot directly interact with cells unless they first have compatibility with cellular proteins. Cells that do not have the appropriate receptors or lack other necessary factors for viral entry and replication are non-susceptible to that particular virus. This specificity in viral infection is one of the reasons why certain viruses can only infect specific tissues or species.
This is where the significance of RNA/DNA keys arises. Communication plays a vital role in the body. Without these communication mechanisms, viruses would negatively affect all encountered cells, which would be detrimental.
In medical procedures mentioned in the article, where genetic material is introduced into the body, the DNA or RNA utilized undergoes careful design and modification to ensure compatibility and safety within the human system. Animal DNA typically does not integrate into the human genome, as genetic codes can differ significantly between species. Even if integration were to occur, the animal DNA might not be properly regulated or expressed, potentially leading to unpredictable effects on human cells. Such integration could result in changes to cellular functions, potentially causing genetic disorders, abnormal cell growth, or other unintended consequences.
When we consume food, the natural process of converting animal protein into a usable form occurs. The body must metabolize the protein into amino acids, which serve as the fundamental building blocks for proteins. However, the body does not directly convert animal DNA into human DNA.
Jeff is there ever a situation where viruses on the outside in nature negatively effect cells in the human body and cause disease whether they enter naturally or were inoculated?
How can we close the gap in the thinking with the regard to the good / bad bacteria paradigm that is so common in culture? I mean can’t two things exist in nature? Isn’t there such a thing as bacteria in foods that are helpful to our microbiome and and at the same time a flesh eating bacteria in lakes or oceans etc…? Break down this push from the medical establishment about reports everywhere of this new flesh eating Bacteria strain. Now supposedly a rare tic has made it’s way down from N Carolina to Texas and causing unexplained Lyme disease symptoms.
People and nurses in general are so stubborn when it come to their kids and strep throat. It’s annoying when they label Strep as both A and B. That must be there trick. They know the strep type bacteria is already in the mouth yet they believe it’s communicable. Why wouldn’t they when other kids in class and at work have it all at the same time. Correlation becoming causation is powerful in the minds perception i guess.
Within the human body, we have a symbiotic relationship with bacteria. However, when bacteria are provided with dead or decaying tissue as a food source, they can persist until that tissue is consumed. This process can take a long time, as seen with fungal infections. Bacteria act as scavengers and require a food source to thrive. In the stomach, "harmful" bacteria can sometimes overpower the beneficial bacteria. However, it's important to note that the concept of "good" and "bad" bacteria is relative, as all bacteria present in the body serve a purpose and have a reason for their manifestation. Therefore, we should not view these bacteria as inherently bad or as malicious entities seeking to harm us. In all cases, bacterial infections occur when the body consumes dead or decaying tissue in an attempt to maintain homeostasis. Sometimes, these infections become unregulated due to the level of toxicity, which can harm cells and result in a cycle of infection that spirals out of control.
Certain bacteria, particularly those that develop on cooked food, undergo mutations. These mutations occur when bacteria consume chemical byproducts generated during the cooking process, leading to their degeneration. If we were to consume these mutated bacteria, they could potentially disrupt the bacterial colonies in our gut and cause illness. However, it's important to note that in many cases, the primary culprit for sickness is often the presence of chemical preservatives in the food or from the cooking process, rather than the mutated bacteria themselves.
Flesh-eating bacteria thrive on skin that is decaying or dead. I have experienced this multiple times in my life, and some of these infections have persisted for many years and then resolve. For instance, my father, who worked as a bricklayer using cement containing various chemicals for many years, had his skin penetrated by those substances. Over a span of 15 years, he constantly battled a flesh-eating bacteria on his palms. Eventually, his body was able to eliminate all the accumulated toxins that had permeated the skin and its cells.
The body's detoxification process is a gradual one that can extend over several years. It takes approximately 40 years for the body to undergo a complete turnover of cells and tissues, essentially giving us a new cellular body. However, if we do not consume a proper diet, the rebuilding process will be slower and less effective, potentially leading to improper cellular development. Moreover, inadequate nutrition can contribute to the gradual accumulation of toxins in the body over time.
The body possesses remarkable wisdom, even incorporating toxins into various outlets like hair. It utilizes every means available to eliminate toxins. This is why the skin, being a major avenue, is susceptible to numerous skin conditions, as approximately 90% of toxins are expelled through the skin. Just imagine if this were not the case. We would experience boils within our digestive tract and internal tissues as a regular occurrence.
It is so important to delve deeper into understanding these phenomena beyond what we have been traditionally taught throughout our lives because there is great underlying complexity. With nature and its relationship to the body, every minutia matters.
Thank you for highlighting this research, Jeff, and shifting your perspective when the information you collect expands your understanding.
May I ask for clarification around the term "live" with regard to the live enterovirus vaccines? My understanding has been that viruses are a protein solvent and therefore not classified as living thing.
In this case, does the word "live" relate more to the composition of the vaccine?
Hey Alana, thanks for the support and for becoming a subscriber.
Regarding live viruses:
A live virus refers to a virus that remains fully intact and has not undergone any inactivation or attenuation processes. Inactivation completely destroys a virus, while attenuation weakens a virus. The term "live" does not imply that the virus is alive in the conventional sense, but rather that it retains its complete and unaltered form.
In the specific context of the oncolytic virus injection discussed in the study (which I must emphasize is not a conventional vaccine), a complete and unaltered virus is employed.
In the case of oncolytic viruses, a virus is genetically modified to ensure compatibility with the individual's body. Oncolytic viruses can be designed to specifically recognize and bind to receptors that are overexpressed on the surface of cancer cells or other cells.
Under natural conditions in the body, viruses have a high level of specificity toward weakened cells of the same type that produced them. If such specificity didn't exist in the first place, their ability to be modified to increase selectivity and targeting couldn't be accomplished.
Jeff ,Thank your kind reply and for your clarification .Regarding the (so -called) pathogenic attributes of viruses and without wishing to appear disingenuous ,may I ask what criteria have others used to characterize/determine these attributes?
In artificial settings, cells lack their natural microbiome and toxin regulation mechanisms. Artificial environments lack the fluid movement and excretory pathways present in the body, making cells stationary. Consequently, when viruses are introduced to compatible and weak cells, cells can replicate those viruses and inevitably dissolve themselves systematically in a continual attempt to survive.
The belief that microorganisms cause diseases is a longstanding theory, but it doesn't align with reality.
As an example, consuming raw milk or meat associated with diseases would consistently result in bacterial poisoning if bacteria were genuinely pathogenic. However, personal experiences for over 17-year have shown me that such poisoning has never occurred and that health increases. Personal experiences hold significance in assessing claims beyond relying solely on study findings. That is why I advocate for hands-on exploration and observing the natural world to enhance biological knowledge. Through a dedicated pursuit of truth, these approaches often unveil the answers we seek.
Jeff, would it be peremptory for one to think that the virus per se is neither pathogenic nor contagious? Is there citable , primary biological evidence for such a thought being mistaken?
As expounded upon in the article, there exists a prevalent misconception regarding the pathogenic nature of viruses. When considering the holistic perspective of the entire organism, viruses are regulatory agents that contribute to the overall functioning of the body. This assertion holds true not only for viruses but also for other agents commonly classified as pathogenic.
When these entities are scrutinized in isolation from their comprehensive context, their so-called pathogenic attributes can be perceived in a contrasting manner compared to their overall functionality, as occurs in a fully regulated organism.
If this was strictly accurate, the introduction of bacteria into the system through bacteria-rich raw foods would not be possible, and they would not be able to become part of the digestive tract. However, there are notable distinctions between viruses and bacteria in this context. Viruses, unlike bacteria, are highly specific non-living entities that cannot directly interact with cells unless they first have compatibility with cellular proteins. Cells that do not have the appropriate receptors or lack other necessary factors for viral entry and replication are non-susceptible to that particular virus. This specificity in viral infection is one of the reasons why certain viruses can only infect specific tissues or species.
This is where the significance of RNA/DNA keys arises. Communication plays a vital role in the body. Without these communication mechanisms, viruses would negatively affect all encountered cells, which would be detrimental.
In medical procedures mentioned in the article, where genetic material is introduced into the body, the DNA or RNA utilized undergoes careful design and modification to ensure compatibility and safety within the human system. Animal DNA typically does not integrate into the human genome, as genetic codes can differ significantly between species. Even if integration were to occur, the animal DNA might not be properly regulated or expressed, potentially leading to unpredictable effects on human cells. Such integration could result in changes to cellular functions, potentially causing genetic disorders, abnormal cell growth, or other unintended consequences.
When we consume food, the natural process of converting animal protein into a usable form occurs. The body must metabolize the protein into amino acids, which serve as the fundamental building blocks for proteins. However, the body does not directly convert animal DNA into human DNA.
Jeff is there ever a situation where viruses on the outside in nature negatively effect cells in the human body and cause disease whether they enter naturally or were inoculated?
How can we close the gap in the thinking with the regard to the good / bad bacteria paradigm that is so common in culture? I mean can’t two things exist in nature? Isn’t there such a thing as bacteria in foods that are helpful to our microbiome and and at the same time a flesh eating bacteria in lakes or oceans etc…? Break down this push from the medical establishment about reports everywhere of this new flesh eating Bacteria strain. Now supposedly a rare tic has made it’s way down from N Carolina to Texas and causing unexplained Lyme disease symptoms.
People and nurses in general are so stubborn when it come to their kids and strep throat. It’s annoying when they label Strep as both A and B. That must be there trick. They know the strep type bacteria is already in the mouth yet they believe it’s communicable. Why wouldn’t they when other kids in class and at work have it all at the same time. Correlation becoming causation is powerful in the minds perception i guess.
Within the human body, we have a symbiotic relationship with bacteria. However, when bacteria are provided with dead or decaying tissue as a food source, they can persist until that tissue is consumed. This process can take a long time, as seen with fungal infections. Bacteria act as scavengers and require a food source to thrive. In the stomach, "harmful" bacteria can sometimes overpower the beneficial bacteria. However, it's important to note that the concept of "good" and "bad" bacteria is relative, as all bacteria present in the body serve a purpose and have a reason for their manifestation. Therefore, we should not view these bacteria as inherently bad or as malicious entities seeking to harm us. In all cases, bacterial infections occur when the body consumes dead or decaying tissue in an attempt to maintain homeostasis. Sometimes, these infections become unregulated due to the level of toxicity, which can harm cells and result in a cycle of infection that spirals out of control.
Certain bacteria, particularly those that develop on cooked food, undergo mutations. These mutations occur when bacteria consume chemical byproducts generated during the cooking process, leading to their degeneration. If we were to consume these mutated bacteria, they could potentially disrupt the bacterial colonies in our gut and cause illness. However, it's important to note that in many cases, the primary culprit for sickness is often the presence of chemical preservatives in the food or from the cooking process, rather than the mutated bacteria themselves.
Flesh-eating bacteria thrive on skin that is decaying or dead. I have experienced this multiple times in my life, and some of these infections have persisted for many years and then resolve. For instance, my father, who worked as a bricklayer using cement containing various chemicals for many years, had his skin penetrated by those substances. Over a span of 15 years, he constantly battled a flesh-eating bacteria on his palms. Eventually, his body was able to eliminate all the accumulated toxins that had permeated the skin and its cells.
The body's detoxification process is a gradual one that can extend over several years. It takes approximately 40 years for the body to undergo a complete turnover of cells and tissues, essentially giving us a new cellular body. However, if we do not consume a proper diet, the rebuilding process will be slower and less effective, potentially leading to improper cellular development. Moreover, inadequate nutrition can contribute to the gradual accumulation of toxins in the body over time.
The body possesses remarkable wisdom, even incorporating toxins into various outlets like hair. It utilizes every means available to eliminate toxins. This is why the skin, being a major avenue, is susceptible to numerous skin conditions, as approximately 90% of toxins are expelled through the skin. Just imagine if this were not the case. We would experience boils within our digestive tract and internal tissues as a regular occurrence.
It is so important to delve deeper into understanding these phenomena beyond what we have been traditionally taught throughout our lives because there is great underlying complexity. With nature and its relationship to the body, every minutia matters.
Thank you for highlighting this research, Jeff, and shifting your perspective when the information you collect expands your understanding.
May I ask for clarification around the term "live" with regard to the live enterovirus vaccines? My understanding has been that viruses are a protein solvent and therefore not classified as living thing.
In this case, does the word "live" relate more to the composition of the vaccine?
Hey Alana, thanks for the support and for becoming a subscriber.
Regarding live viruses:
A live virus refers to a virus that remains fully intact and has not undergone any inactivation or attenuation processes. Inactivation completely destroys a virus, while attenuation weakens a virus. The term "live" does not imply that the virus is alive in the conventional sense, but rather that it retains its complete and unaltered form.
In the specific context of the oncolytic virus injection discussed in the study (which I must emphasize is not a conventional vaccine), a complete and unaltered virus is employed.
In the case of oncolytic viruses, a virus is genetically modified to ensure compatibility with the individual's body. Oncolytic viruses can be designed to specifically recognize and bind to receptors that are overexpressed on the surface of cancer cells or other cells.
Under natural conditions in the body, viruses have a high level of specificity toward weakened cells of the same type that produced them. If such specificity didn't exist in the first place, their ability to be modified to increase selectivity and targeting couldn't be accomplished.
Jeff ,Thank your kind reply and for your clarification .Regarding the (so -called) pathogenic attributes of viruses and without wishing to appear disingenuous ,may I ask what criteria have others used to characterize/determine these attributes?
In artificial settings, cells lack their natural microbiome and toxin regulation mechanisms. Artificial environments lack the fluid movement and excretory pathways present in the body, making cells stationary. Consequently, when viruses are introduced to compatible and weak cells, cells can replicate those viruses and inevitably dissolve themselves systematically in a continual attempt to survive.
The belief that microorganisms cause diseases is a longstanding theory, but it doesn't align with reality.
As an example, consuming raw milk or meat associated with diseases would consistently result in bacterial poisoning if bacteria were genuinely pathogenic. However, personal experiences for over 17-year have shown me that such poisoning has never occurred and that health increases. Personal experiences hold significance in assessing claims beyond relying solely on study findings. That is why I advocate for hands-on exploration and observing the natural world to enhance biological knowledge. Through a dedicated pursuit of truth, these approaches often unveil the answers we seek.
Jeff, would it be peremptory for one to think that the virus per se is neither pathogenic nor contagious? Is there citable , primary biological evidence for such a thought being mistaken?
As expounded upon in the article, there exists a prevalent misconception regarding the pathogenic nature of viruses. When considering the holistic perspective of the entire organism, viruses are regulatory agents that contribute to the overall functioning of the body. This assertion holds true not only for viruses but also for other agents commonly classified as pathogenic.
When these entities are scrutinized in isolation from their comprehensive context, their so-called pathogenic attributes can be perceived in a contrasting manner compared to their overall functionality, as occurs in a fully regulated organism.