1. Cocoa Butter - Organic & Fair Trade Certified
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. **NEW** BL11 - Orange, Red & Infrared Therapy Body Light
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Charcoal Soap - For Deep Cleansing
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Orange & Red Light Therapy Device - LGS1
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Organic Cocoa Powder
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Metabasoap - Handcrafted Soap
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  7. Cascara Sagrada Powder From Farmalabor In Italy
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice
  8. **NEW Mini Body Light** MBL1 - Orange & Red Light Therapy Mini Body Light
    CLICK HERE!
    Dismiss Notice

Dismantling The Virus Theory

Discussion in 'Viruses, Parasites, Fungus, Vaccines' started by sugarbabe, Apr 17, 2019.

  1. sugarbabe

    sugarbabe Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,628
    "Scientists must question everything and especially what they love the most, i.e. their own discoveries and ideas. This basic rule of scientific research helps avoid erroneous developments and reveals the ones that already exist. Also, we must all be allowed to question the status quo, otherwise we would live in a dictatorship. Moreover, science cannot be limited to a selected number of institutions and experts. Science can and must be conducted by anyone who has the necessary knowledge and the appropriate methods.

    Science can be considered science only if its claims are verifiable, reproducible and if they allow predictions. Science also needs external control, because, as we will see, a part of the medical sciences has lost touch with reality for quite some time. Anyone who has knowledge of biology and the genesis of life, of the development and functions of the tissue, of the body and of the brain, will automatically question the assumptions about viruses.

    In the reality of the body and of its mechanisms, there is no place for hypothetical malignant processes. All biological processes, including those that can end in suffering, pain and death, are originally meant to be useful.

    A different approach to the virus phenomenon is possible and necessary: any layman with some background knowledge reading scientific papers about pathogenic viruses can realize that such viruses do not exist and what is being described are only typical components and characteristics of cells. This background knowledge will be provided in this article.

    The origins of the idea

    The present notion of a virus is based on the ancient ideas that all diseases were caused by poisons (“toxins”) and that people would regain their health by producing “antitoxins” as an “antidote”. Indeed, a few diseases are caused by poisons. The subsequent idea, that the body can restore its health by producing or being given “antidotes”, was born when it was observed that people survived bigger amounts of poison (such as alcohol) when their body was trained by consuming slowly increasing amounts of that poison. However, in reality there are no antidotes, instead the body produces enzymes, which neutralize and eliminate the poisons (alcohol).


    In 1858, Rudof Virchow, the founder of modern medicine, plagiarized the findings of other scientists, suppressed their essential discoveries and thus a false view on the cause of diseases was born and imposed as a dogma, which is in fact still in effect to date. According to this dogma, all diseases supposedly originate inside the cells.1 Virchow’s cellular pathology re-introduced into medicine the ancient and refuted the humoral doctrine and claimed that diseases develop from pathogenic poisons (in Latin: virus).


    The search for these pathogenic poisons remains to date fruitless, however, when bacteria were discovered, it was assumed that they were producing the pathogenic poisons. This supposition, called “the germ theory”, was immediately accepted and remains very successful up to the present time. This theory is so successful that the majority of the people are still not aware of the fact that the so-called bacterial toxins are actually normal enzymes, which either cannot appear in a human being, or, if they do, they never appear in such an amount as to make them dangerous.

    Then it was discovered that, when they slowly begin to die, bacteria create tiny, apparently lifeless forms of survival, the so-called spores. It was then suspected that these spores were toxic and that they were the so-called pathogenic poisons. This was then refuted, since the spores are rapidly developing into bacteria when their vital resources are being restored. When scientists in the laboratory observed that the weak, highly inbred bacteria perished very quickly while turning into much smaller structures than the spores, it was first believed that the bacteria were being killed by the alleged pathogenic poisons, called viruses, and that the viruses were thereby replicating.

    Due to the belief that these -at the time of their discovery still invisible- structures were killing the bacteria, they were called phages/bacteriophages, “eaters of bacteria”. Only later it was determined that merely highly inbred and therefore almost non-viable bacteria can be made to turn into phages, or bacteria which are being destroyed so fast that they do not have time to form spores.

    The introduction of the electron microscopy led to the discovery of the structures resulting from the transformation of bacteria when these were suddenly dying or when the metabolism of the highly inbred germs was overwhelmed by processes triggered by the adding of “phages”. It was also discovered that there are hundreds of types of different-looking “phages”. The discovery of phages, the so-called bacterial “viruses”, reinforced the wrong assumption and the belief that there were human and animal viruses that looked the same and had the same structure. This is not and cannot be the case, for several different reasons.

    After introducing chemical examination techniques in biology, it was discovered that there are thousands of types of phages and that phages of one type always have the same structure. They consist of a particular molecule, made of nucleic acid, which is covered in a shell of proteins of a given number and composition. It was only later discovered that merely the bacteria which had been highly inbred in the test tube could turn into phages themselves, by contact with phages, but this never applied to natural bacteria or bacteria which had just been isolated from their natural environment. In this process, it was discovered that these “bacterial viruses” actually serve to provide other bacteria with important molecules and proteins, and that the bacteria themselves emerged from such structures.

    Before it could be established that the “bacterial viruses” cannot kill natural bacteria, but they are instead helping them to live and that bacteria themselves emerge from such structures, these “phages” were already used as models for the alleged human and animal viruses. It was assumed that the human and animal viruses looked like the “phages”, were allegedly killing cells and thereby causing diseases, while at the same time producing new disease poisons and in this way transmitting the diseases. To date, many new or apparently new diseases have been attributed to viruses if their origin is unknown or not acknowledged. This reflex found an apparent confirmation in the discovery of the “bacterial viruses”.

    It is important to note that the theories of fight and infection were accepted and highly praised by a majority of the specialists only if and when the countries or regions where they lived were also suffering from war and adversity. In times of peace, other concepts dominated the world of science.2 It is very important to note that the theory of infection – starting from Germany – has only been globalized through the third Reich, when the Jewish researchers, most of which had opposed and refuted the politically exploited theories of infection, were removed from their positions.3

    On the detection of phages

    The existence of phages can be proved rapidly. First step: their presence is confirmed through an effect, namely the transformation of bacteria into phages, and also through an electron micrograph of those phages. The control experiments show that phages do not appear if bacteria do not change or if bacteria randomly start decomposing due to extrinsic sudden annihilation, without forming phages.

    Second step: the liquid containing the phages is concentrated and applied on another liquid, which has a high concentration at the bottom of the test tube and a low concentration at the top of the test tube. The test tube with the phages is then powerfully spun (centrifuged) and all the particles gather according to their mass and weight to the place of their own density. The density is the ratio of weight (mass) per unit of volume, expressed as Kg/l or g/mg, respectively. That is why this concentration and purification step for particles with the same density is called density gradient centrifugation.

    The layer where many particles of the same density gather becomes “cloudy”, which is called a “band”. This step is being documented, then the particles concentrated, purified and sedimented in a “band” are removed with a syringe needle. The extracted concentrated amount of particles is called an isolate. A fast and simple electron micrograph will confirm the presence of phages in the isolate, which at the same time is an indication for the purity of the isolate, if the micrograph shows no other particles but the phages. The appearance and the diameter of the phages will also be established with the help of this micrograph. The control experiment performed for this step consists in treating and centrifuging the liquid from bacteria which did not form any phages, where no phages appear at the end of the procedure.

    After the step of successfully isolating the phages, the decisive biochemical characterization of the phages follows. The biochemical characterization of their composition is essential for identifying the specific type of phage, since different types of phages often appear to be similar. The isolate obtained through the density gradient centrifugation is now divided in two parts. One part is used to determine the size, type and composition of the nucleic acid; in a separate procedure, the other part is used to determine the amount, size and morphology of the proteins of the phages. Since the 1970s, these tests have been simple standard techniques that are learned by every biology student in his first semesters.

    These tests represent the biochemical characterization of the phages. In almost every case, these results have been and are being published in only one publication, since a phage has a very simple structure which is very easy to analyse. The control experiments for these tests use liquid from bacteria which do not form phages and thus cannot present any biochemical proof. The existence of approximately two thousand different types of phages was scientifically demonstrated this way.

    About the alleged proof of pathogenic viruses

    The “bacteriophages”, correctly defined as incomplete mini spores and building blocks of the bacteria, have been scientifically isolated, while the supposed pathogenic viruses have never been observed in humans or animals or in their body fluids and have never been isolated and subsequently biochemically analysed. To date, none of the researchers involved in this kind of work seems to have realised this.

    The use of the electron microscope and the biochemistry were very slowly returning to normal after 1945 and no one had realised that not one pathogenic virus had ever been isolated in humans or animals; thus, as of 1949 researchers started applying the same idea used for the (bacterio) phages, in order to replicate the human and animal “viruses”. John Franklin Enders, born in 1897 in the family of a rich financier, was active in various fraternities after having finished his studies, then he worked as a real estate agent and studied foreign languages for four years before turning to bacterial virology, which fascinated him.

    He then simply transferred the ideas and concepts that he learned in this area of research to the supposed pathogenic viruses in humans. With his unscientific experiments and interpretations that he had never confirmed through negative controls, Enders brought the entire “viral” infectious medicine to a dead end. It is important to note at this point that Enders, like many infectious diseases specialists, worked for the U.S. military, which had always been and remains to date a huge victim of the fear of contagion. It was mainly the U.S. military which spread its erroneous belief that besides chemical weapons there were also biological weapons in the form of bacteria and viruses.

    In 1949, Enders announced that he had managed to cultivate and grow the alleged polio virus in vitro on various tissues. The American expert opinion believed everything immediately. What Enders did was to add fluids from patients with poliomyelitis to tissue cultures which he claimed to have had sterilized, then he alleged that the cells were dying because of the virus, that the virus was replicating in this way and that a vaccine could be harvested from the respective culture. At that time, summer polio epidemics (polio = flaccid paralysis) were very frequent during summer and they were believed to be caused by polio viruses. A vaccine was to help eradicate the alleged virus. After the polio vaccine was introduced, the symptoms were then re-diagnosed among other things as multiple sclerosis, flaccid acute paralysis, aseptic meningitis etc. and later polio was claimed to have been eradicated.

    During his experiments, Enders et al. sterilised the tissue cultures in order to exclude the possibility of bacteria killing the cells. What he didn’t take into consideration was that the sterilisation and the treatment of the cell culture when preparing it for the alleged infection was exactly what was killing the cells. Instead, he interpreted the cytopathic effects as the existence and the action of polio viruses, without ever having isolated a single virus and described its biochemistry. The necessary negative control experiments, which would have shown that the sterilisation and the treatment of the cells prior to the “infection” in the test tube was killing the cells, have never been performed. However, for this “performance” Enders received the Nobel prize in 1954.

    1954 is also the year in which Enders applied and introduced the same technique in order to allegedly replicate the measles virus. As he had been awarded the Nobel prize for the alleged polio virus the same year, all researchers believed his technique to be scientifically valid. Thus, to date, the entire concept of measles has been based upon this technique. Thus, the measles vaccines do not contain viruses, but particles of dead monkey kidney tissue or human cancer cells.

    To date, no negative control experiments have been done with respect to the so-called measles virus either, which would have shown that it is the laboratory procedures that lead to the cytopathic effects on the cells. Additionally, all claims and experiments made by Enders et al. and the subsequent researchers lead to the only objective conclusion that in fact they were observing and analyzing dying cellular particles and the activity thereof in the test tube, misinterpreting these as particles and characteristics of the alleged measles virus.

    The measles virus as an example

    The following explanations apply to all the socalled (human or animal) “pathogenic viruses”.

    The six papers provided by Dr Bardens in the course of the “measles trial” as proof for the existence of the measles virus describe in a didactically ideal way the various steps of the chain of misinterpretations up to the belief in the existence of a measles virus.

    The first paper was published in 1954 by Enders et al.: “Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles” (Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun; 86 (2): 277–286). This publication can be found on the internet, like all the other publications presented at the measles trial.

    In that experiment, Enders et al. cut down dramatically on the nutrient solution and added cell-destroying antibiotics to the cell culture before introducing the allegedly infected fluid. The subsequent dying of the cells was then misinterpreted as presence and also isolation of the measles virus. No control experiments were performed to exclude the possibility that it was the deprivation of nutrients as well as the antibiotics which led to the cytopathic effects. Enders’ and his colleagues’ blindness can be explained by the fact that he truly wanted to help people, while the virus hysteria was intensifying after the war and during the cold war. It can also be explained by the fact that Enders and many of his colleagues had no idea about medicine and they were competing with the Soviet Union for the development of the first measles vaccine.

    Such a pressure for success can also explain why Enders and his colleagues ignored their own reservations and cautions expressed in 1954, when they had observed and noted that many cells also died after being treated normally (i.e. without being “infected”), which they thought to have been caused by unknown viruses and factors. All these facts and cautions were subsequently disregarded.

    The second paper presented by the claimant in the measles trial was published in 19594 and, for the reasons presented above, the authors concluded that the technique introduced by Enders was not appropriate for the isolation of a virus. This rebuttal is not only NOT being discussed by all the other researchers, but it is being ignored.

    In the third paper5 , the authors photographed typical cellular particles inside the cells and misinterpreted these as measles virus. They did not isolate any virus. For unexplained reasons, they failed to determine and describe the biochemical structure of what they were presenting as a virus in a separate experiment. In the short description of the methods used, one can read that the authors did not apply the standard isolation technique for viruses, i.e. the density gradient centrifugation. They simply centrifuged fragments of dead cells at the bottom of a test tube and then, without describing their biochemical structure, they misinterpreted the cellular debris as viruses. From the way the experiments were performed, one can only conclude that cellular particles were misinterpreted as viruses. We find the same situation in the fourth6 and the sixth7 publication put forward by the claimant as proof of the existence of a measles virus.

    The fifth publication8 is a review describing the consensus process as to which nucleic acid molecules from the dead cells would represent the socalled genome of the measles virus. The result is that dozens of researchers teams work with short pieces of cell-specific molecules, after which -following a given model – they put all the pieces together on paper. However, this jigsaw puzzle made of so many pieces was never scientifically proven to exist as a whole and was never isolated from a virus, for a measles virus has never been seen, neither in humans nor in a test tube.

    Referring to this publication, the court-appointed expert stated that it described the gold standard, i.e. the entire virus genome. It is obvious that the expert did not read this paper, whose authors stated that the exact molecular composition and functions of the measles virus genome will have to be the object of further research, which is why they had to rely on other virus models in order to achieve a consensus on the structure and functions of the measles virus genome.

    The easiest thing for anyone to notice is that in all these publications, as well as in all other publications on the “measles virus” and other pathogenic viruses, no control experiments were ever performed. No researchers used the density gradient centrifugation technique; instead, they only centrifuged cellular debris at the bottom of a test tube. This technique, used to collect all the particles from a fluid, is called pelletising. From a logical and scientific perspective, it can be said that in all publications on so-called “pathogenic viruses”, the researchers demonstrated in fact only particles and characteristics of cells.

    In our next issue of WissenschafftPlus, we will publish the scientific rebuttal of the claim that the measles virus exists, which applies to all socalled pathogenic viruses.

    We would also like to point out another article, in which we described the so-called giant viruses9 , i.e. an enwrapped nucleic acid that can be found everywhere in the sea and in basic organisms. Like all bacterial phages, not only they are harmless, but they have beneficial functions. They can be also isolated by using the density gradient centrifugation, which proves their existence (see the graphics above).

    We also recommend Prof Lüdtke’s relevant review (1999).10 He noted that at the early beginnings of virology, the majority of virologists always concluded that the structures they had mistaken for viruses turned out to be components of the cells and thus, they were only the result of the experiment and not the cause of the changes observed. After the discovery and characterization of the phages and after introducing the dogma that the nucleic acid was the genome of all cells and viruses, the consensus was born, according to which such viruses must exist in humans and animals as well.

    In 1992, the dogma stating that the nucleic acid is the genotype of all cells was retracted in the scientific community. In 2008, it was also retracted for a part of the German public community. . 11 The dogma of pathogenic viruses, however, is still being promoted.

    The Australian Perth Group (led by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Val Turner and John Papadimitriou)12 proved with scientific arguments that HIV has not been demonstrated to exist. It was Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos who as early as in 1992 encouraged and offered me scientific support to accept the reality about HIV, to study the facts and share the knowledge that there are no pathogenic viruses. I am very thankful to her and her team."

    1 Siehe Ausführungen zu Virchows Leben und Wirkung in WissenschafftPlus Nr. 5/2015 und Nr. 6/2015.
    2 Anticontagionism between 1821 and 1867. Aufsatz von Erwin H. Ackerknecht in der Zeitschrift Bulletin of the History of Medicine, Volume XXII, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1948.
    3 Das Robert Koch-Insitut im Nationalsozialismus. Buch von Annette Hinz-Wessels, 192 Seiten, 2008. Kulturverlag Kadmos Berlin.
    4 Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42 (1): 75–85.
    5 Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measels virus replication. J. Virol. 1969 Feb; 3v (2): 187–97. 6 Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J. Gen. Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9): 1535–42.
    7 Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53 (2): 107–14.
    8 Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.
    9 Siehe WissenschafftPlus Nr. 1/2014.
    10 Zur Geschichte der frühen Virusforschung. Übersichtsarbeit von Prof. Karlheinz Lüdtke. Reprint 125 des MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTSGESCHICHTE, 89 Seiten, 1999.
    11 Erbgut in Auflösung. Die ZEIT vom 16.6.2008. Siehe zu diesem Thema die Beiträge in WissenschafftPlus seit 2003.
    12 The Perth Group HIV-AIDS Debate Website


    (Here is the paper that describes the socalled isolation of the measles virus: Enders Peebles 1954 )
    (And an interesting conversation about this issue: Still no proof for the measles virus - Jurnal si introspectii de mamica - Feli Popescu )
     

    Attached Files:

  2. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    This is fascinating. Are there any theories as to what's actually going on when there's a "viral" outbreak? Bacteria? Some bioenergetic phenomenon? Just the spreading of bacterial junk pieces between people?

    Are there any good books that describe this topic further?
     
  3. OP
    sugarbabe

    sugarbabe Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,628
    I haven't found anything so far. Other than the theories surrounding why we get sick in the first place, that it's the terrain not the bug. If the terrain of your body isn't healthy it sets us up for a lot of sickness.

    This topic greatly interests me as I have always questioned viruses. They aren't even living organisms.
     
  4. LeeLemonoil

    LeeLemonoil Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    Messages:
    895
    Gender:
    Male
    Die

    Or just maybe - viruses are the real pathogen?
     
  5. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Gender:
    Male

    Wow. Somebody needs a glass of milk.
     
  6. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Gender:
    Male

    Thank you for sharing. I believe in one of the Danny Roddy podcasts they mentioned a person/theory/book. I'll try to dig it up.
     
  7. Collden

    Collden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    Messages:
    244
    Gender:
    Male
    Tl;dr, but at least for the common cold or general sickness response I never bought into it being caused by viruses. Its well known that the symptoms are caused by your own immune system, and we also know that the immune system does far more than just fight pathogens, its our all-purpose repair-and-regenerate system. I think this general sickness response is a kind of house-cleaning by your immune system in response to an accumulation of wear and tear that can be due to any kind of prolonged chronic stress, and that what triggers it has more to do with environmental and hormonal cues than viruses. Thyroid and dopamine regulate the immune system and these are both higher during the summer, stimulated as they are by light and warm weather, which would explain the lower incidence of sickness during summer.

    Its also very common for people to get sick after, but never during, periods of high physical or mental stress, or when they give up smoking or quit other drugs. Ie people get sick following prolonged periods of immunosuppressive chronic stress during which allostatic load builds up, and after this stress ends the immunosuppression ends, then your body initiates a massive immune response to try and reverse some of the damage.

    Some argue that colds being more common in winter is proof that viruses cause them since people supposedly spend more time huddled together in winter and so pass their viruses onto each other more easily, which is complete bogus in modern society, when people actually tend to be far more isolated during the winter than the summer.
     
  8. OP
    sugarbabe

    sugarbabe Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,628
    Very well said! Thank-you! This is exactly my belief system. @haidut has posted about how stress is contagious, so maybe when you are around someone who is sick, that energy is picked up by you and you go into a stress response too. Then following the stress response is the immune activation and a similar result. I do think there are pathogens, but they aren't pathogens to healthy people! To guard my system from contagious negative energy I use vitamin C. It has really helped.
     
  9. OP
    sugarbabe

    sugarbabe Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    2,628
    Ok cool!
     
  10. charlie

    charlie The Law & Order Admin

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    10,674
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Dr. Morse says the same thing. Although he says that the cold weather makes the body more alkaline, so that is what kicks in the detox/housecleaning when cold weather sets in. He says when you go around someone detoxing that it can kick in your detox. And btw, suppressing these detox/housecleaning symptoms via allopothic thinking is going completely against what the body needs to do. Drain the swamp, stop obstructing! :ss2
     
  11. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    I have a physical job and I've had this happen to me so many times that I can actually feel when I've pushed passed the limit and I know I'll get sick, regardless of everyone else around me being healthy. There's definitely something to that, at least in my case. I won't get sick, then as soon as the stress event is over, it hits. Just happened to me 6 months ago when I renovated an apartment then moved moved my family in. I really pushed myself and got incredibly sick right after the boxes were in.
     
  12. ImprovingDaily

    ImprovingDaily Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2017
    Messages:
    175
    Same here. I took a bit of time off work and I've developed aches pains and a cough within the last 2 days (bout a week off work now). The work I do is physical in nature too, and I know I've been pushing especially these past few weeks.
     
  13. lampofred

    lampofred Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,426
    Gender:
    Male
    Progesterone production increases whenever you are under acute stress because cortisol is made from progesterone but falls below baseline once the stress is over because you over-consumed resources and your body needs to recuperate. Progesterone is necessary for good thymic/immune function. That could explain why people get sick after a period of stress but not during the period of stress.
     
  14. ImprovingDaily

    ImprovingDaily Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2017
    Messages:
    175
    This is amazing. Before posting this earlier, literally less than an hour, I literally searched up 2 things on the forum. Virus and Progesterone. Thats how I got to this post.

    My intuition is telling me it's a flared up virus and Progesterone seems to be doing me good as of late. Antihistamines like Benadryl and Cyproheptadine are doing me good as well. Vitamin C also. The sick flare up also coincides with increased DHEA use, so maybe too much estrogen/progesterone ratio.
     
  15. TheBeard

    TheBeard Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Messages:
    246
    Gender:
    Male
    Does that also hold for antibiotics that Peat recommends?

    Are they also a burden to the organism preventing it from deep-cleaning, or do they make the body's job easier by removing bacteria?
     
  16. charlie

    charlie The Law & Order Admin

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    10,674
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    I don't know. Seems it can go either way with antibiotics. Seen it turn out real good, seen it turn out real bad.
     
  17. TheBeard

    TheBeard Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2018
    Messages:
    246
    Gender:
    Male
    I have always thought they were the cause of my current distress by throwing my gut bacterial balance out of wack.

    But ironically, I am considering doing them again to solve my gut issues after so many positive reports on this forum
     
Loading...