The germ – or microbial – theory of disease was popularized by Louis Pasteur (1822 – 1895), the inventor of pasteurization. This theory states that there are fixed, external germs which invade the body and are the direct cause of a variety of separate, definable diseases. If you truly want to get well, you need to kill whatever germ made you sick, and do whatever possible to make “sure” that you never allow a microbe to enter your body in the first place.

With this theory comes Western medicine and its tools and technology that treats the symptoms of an unfriendly microbe rooting itself in the internal environment, through things such as drugs, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Taking it a step further, in order to try and avoid an infection in the first place, various vaccines have been introduced to attempt to keep the disease from invading our body in the first place.

The germ theory was partly shaped around Pasteur’s idea that the human body is sterile, meaning it is a blank slate devoid of any germs. With this notion in mind we could conclude that we have to combat germs all the time in every way possible, and that preventative measures through things like nutrition are basically useless.

So, if you are to closely follow the germ theory, you need to be vigilant against various types of infections through prevention (primarily vaccinations), and destruction (antibiotics, surgery, radiation, chemotherapy) of any external microbe that ever attempts or succeeds to get inside our body.

Anything else is basically fruitless against disease prevention.

The terrain theory was initiated by Claude Bernard (1813 – 1878), and later built upon by Antoine Bechamp (1816-1908). He believed that the “terrain” or “internal environment” determined our state of health. When the body is functioning in homeostasis, and immunity and detoxification is operating well, he claimed there was a healthy terrain which could handle various pathogenic microorganisms that inevitably are thrown its way.

In essence, he believed the quality of the terrain and the elements it faced determined an individual’s susceptibility to disease.

Bernard, Bechamp, and their successors, believed that disease occurs to a large extent as a function of biology and as a result of changes that take place when metabolic processes become imbalanced. Germs then become symptoms that stimulate the occurrence of more symptoms, which eventually culminate into disease. A weak terrain is naturally more vulnerable to external threats, so it needs to be built up through nutrition, detoxification, and by maintaining a proper pH or acid/alkaline balance.

For this and other reasons Bechamp argued vehemently against vaccines, asserting that “The most serious disorders may be provoked by the injection of living organisms into the blood.” Untold numbers of researchers have agreed with him.

So, if you are to closely follow the terrain theory, you may make yourself aware of various external microbes that could be harmful to our health and the gentle, non-toxic removal of them, but your focus is on building and maintaining the integrity of your inner terrain so that any external microbe that you may ingest does not morph into anything with serious implications to your health.

This means nutrition, detoxification, and mindset are key factors you consider important in disease prevention and elimination.

https://www.brighteon.com/4774da25-2ea0-41f3-91dc-87fbc210e2a3

Dropping to watch later, haven't viewed yet

Full speech cyber attacks, July 8th 2020 Address by Mr. Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum.
https://youtu.be/MN--v9V21CI #supplychain #cyberattacks

Oil tankers that are backed up near the port of Thackerville, Oklahoma (via the Red River). #supplychain

Cases are being removed from VAERS as we know and not all deaths and injuries are reported or indeed even when reported maintained within adverse event databases .

The above case of a two year old girl who died 4 days after exposure or perhaps even the Pfizer injection has subsequently been removed from VAERS.

This should be the link to the child’s record below but the case has now been removed:

https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=1074247

Found it here

https://orbitlab.au.dk/assets/nyizvo/vaers-id-1074247

Archived here

https://archive.is/xZLIS

Medical experts gathered at the Milken Institute to discuss the need for a major disruption in the field of influenza vaccines in order to role out mRNA technology in the place of traditional egg-based vaccines.

Rick Bright, former head of BARDA and now with The Rockefeller Foundation, explains how he sabotaged the Emergency Use Authorization of Hydroxychloroquine by limiting its use to a hospital setting.

Air Date: October 13th, 2020

This is an excerpt from the documentary, 'Totally Under Control'
BARDA is the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority

Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13065386/ | https://putlockers.fm/watch/eGLkPVox-totally-under-control.html

Rick Bright now with The Rockefeller Foundation: https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profile/dr-rick-bright/

already (2) mins into the documentary and there are a lot of things that are inaccurate; unsure if propaganda or just naive. I'll keep watching...

for reference, the scientific team @ BARDA that was saying no data exists to support chloroquine having clinical benefits to a coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, in particular):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/

this research is well known amongst the scientific community.

coronaviruses are from a family of pathogen called Coronaviridae (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7149805 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronaviridae), and SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 are both betacoronaviruses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacoronavirus).

So, if a therapeutic was shown to be effective against a prior known betacoronavirus, there is extremely high probability that said therapeutic/clinical intervention would also be effective by a statistically significant degree with a 'novel' betacoronavirus of the same family of pathogen (Coronaviridae).

As it turns out, Hydroxychloroquine was actually more effective at treating SARS-CoV-2 (particularly in early treatment) than Chloroquine. However, by the time a patient is administered to the hospital/ICU, the 'early treatment' benefits diminish and it becomes far less effective. Hence its continued advocation in being used as early treatment/prophylactic (you can compare early treatment [64% effective] vs late treatment [19% effective] and have a look at a multitude of aggregated studies here: https://hcqmeta.com)

https://www.westernjournal.com/workers-maintain-supply-chains-issue-bone-chilling-warning-every-american-needs-hear/ #supplychain