You are accessing this site in a read-only mode. For full access to all member benefits, including message posting, please login or register. Registration is completely free, simple, and takes only a few seconds.
The message you are replying to and its parents are listed in the reverse order with the most recent posts first. This might not be the whole discussion thread. To read all the messages in this thread please click here.
The germ theory vs the soil theory
| Carole | 22 Sep 2004 11:51 |
Soil Theory vs Germ Theory - 150 years of suppression
From my own experience I have discovered that the soil theory is valid.
Soil theory maintains that GERMS, FUNGII and PARASITES only thrive in a toxic body - and the root cause of all disease is CELLULAR TOXEMIA.
"The germ theory proposes you get rid of the flies, while it makes more sense to clean up the garbage attracting them." --Bill Nelson, developer of the QXCI machine
"If I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat, diseased tissue - rather than being the cause of the diseased tissue." -- Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902)
"Bernard was right, the germ is nothing--the milieu [the environment within] is everything." - Louis Pasteur (on his deathbed)
"Many forms of diagnosis are dependent upon what germ life exists, and its existence in the body usually indicates a bad state of deterioration. Disease germs are nature's undertakers" - -- Bernard Jenson, The Science and Practise of Iridology
"... depending on its inner state, germs arose within the body itself that, in Rife’s opinion, were not the cause but the result of disease states." --150 Years of Suppression, by Christopher Bird 1991
Carole http://www.austarmetro.com.au/~hubbca/soil.htm
|
Quick links: