Re: Does intranasal flu innoculation contain live flu virus?

[Guest guest]

At 09:05 AM 9/22/2006 -0700, you wrote:

>OK, I'm trying not to freak, but here goes:

>

> My daughter is bringing home a friend from school today and we're

long-time friends with the family (over 10 years). The mom just told me

that the child received her intra-nasal flu innoculation today. Doesn't

that contain a live virus? She could see the look of panic on my face. I

asked about her being contagious and she assured me that the doctor said

everything was fine. YEAH RIGHT!!!

>

> Does anyone know anything about this and should I be concerned about

this? The child is coming over here anyway and we're having dinner at

their house tonight so it's not like I can avoid this.

>

> I know it would matter if we're susceptible or not, but my youngest has

started coughing so I know she's fighting off something at the moment.

>

> Thanks,

> Sheri B.

Yes, you should not be exposed to her............................they are

contagious and who knows what they are contagious with

I will send the info

Sheri

>

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure we have a choice. The child is already scheduled to come home with

my child from school. Greeeeaaat.

Sheri B.

---------------------------------

Get your email and more, right on the new .com

[Guest guest]

At 10:36 AM 9/22/2006 -0700, you wrote:

>I'm not sure we have a choice. The child is already scheduled to come

home with my child from school. Greeeeaaat.

> Sheri B.

>

Go buy a mask for the child or you all wear them

Sheri>

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

[Guest guest]

At one level I know you're right. But after thinking about this, my children

attend school where nearly all the children are vaccinated. My preschooler

attends where kids are getting LOTS of shots, I'm sure. They are constantly

exposed to this stuff - which makes me mad - but it's reality.

Now it's different when it's in your house and holding hands with your child.

I know.

I can't alienate this poor child who has misinformed parents. If we all

walked around with masks on while she was here she'd feel like a pariah.

At this point my fear will surely make us sick and I need to think positive

thoughts. And wash our hands a lot! ; )

I called the pharmacist and it would depend on whether or not she used

FluMist. Most likely that's what she got, right? They read the insert to me

(like what you posted) and you are right.

What gets me is: why is this OK in our society??

Sheri B.

Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@...> wrote:

At 10:36 AM 9/22/2006 -0700, you wrote:

>I'm not sure we have a choice. The child is already scheduled to come

home with my child from school. Greeeeaaat.

> Sheri B.

>

Go buy a mask for the child or you all wear them

Sheri>

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

---------------------------------

Stay in the know. Pulse on the new .com. Check it out.

[Guest guest]

Vaccines are bad because they contain poisonous stuff and do no

good whatsoever.

But a vaccinated person does not bring any risk of contagion to

others. This is because - contrary to what the medical establishment

has been maintaining for 100+ years - there are NO viruses which

can cause diseases.

On this, see articles by the German virologist Stefan Lanka at

http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm

(article from 2001, i.a. debunking phony pictures of several purportedly

existing " diseasecausing viruses " - no viruses actually shown)

and

http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/060301_lanka_no_diseasecausing_viruses.html

(article from 2006, title " Are there and can there be diseasecausing viruses? " )

There is no need for others to stay away from a vaccinated child.

Rolf M.

At 18:31 2006-09-22 +0100, you (Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@...>) wrote:

>At 09:05 AM 9/22/2006 -0700, you wrote:

> >OK, I'm trying not to freak, but here goes:

> >

> > My daughter is bringing home a friend from school today and we're

>long-time friends with the family (over 10 years). The mom just told me

>that the child received her intra-nasal flu innoculation today. Doesn't

>that contain a live virus? She could see the look of panic on my face. I

>asked about her being contagious and she assured me that the doctor said

>everything was fine. YEAH RIGHT!!!

> >

> > Does anyone know anything about this and should I be concerned about

>this? The child is coming over here anyway and we're having dinner at

>their house tonight so it's not like I can avoid this.

> >

> > I know it would matter if we're susceptible or not, but my youngest has

>started coughing so I know she's fighting off something at the moment.

> >

> > Thanks,

> > Sheri B.

>

>Yes, you should not be exposed to her............................they are

>contagious and who knows what they are contagious with

>I will send the info

>Sheri

[Guest guest]

At 10:36 2006-09-22 -0700, you (Sheri B. <tallchick1966@...>)

wrote:

>I'm not sure we have a choice. The child is already scheduled to come home

>with my child from school. Greeeeaaat.

>Sheri B.

And there is no reason for others to stay away from that child.

The reason vaccinations are bad is, they contain poisons.

And they do no good.

But any viruses they might contain would bring no risk of any

disease in others. There are NO viruses that can cause diseases

(as I already wrote in another reply). Once more: See articles

by the German virologist (an actual one; no swindler, for

a change) Stefan Lanka at

http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm

and

http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/060301_lanka_no_diseasecausing_viruses.html

Rolf M.

[Guest guest]

>.....

>

> But any viruses they might contain would bring no risk of any

> disease in others. There are NO viruses that can cause diseases

> (as I already wrote in another reply). Once more: See articles

> by the German virologist (an actual one; no swindler, for

> a change) Stefan Lanka at

>

> http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm

>

> and

>

>

http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/060301_lanka_no_diseasecausing_viruses.html

>

> Rolf M.

>

Rolf, I looked at that website and I'm totally confused. I'm new to

the anti-vaccine movement, so please be patient with me. It seems

like the author is challenging the existence of viruses, but my other

readings say things like: the spread of smallpox to epidemic levels in

the 19th century occurred because of the virus in Jenner's vaccines.

Can you clarify? Many thanks, K.

[Guest guest]

At 16:28 2006-09-24 +0000, you (l0v2run <crkuni@...>) wrote:

>

> >.....

> >

> > But any viruses they might contain would bring no risk of any

> > disease in others. There are NO viruses that can cause diseases

> > (as I already wrote in another reply). Once more: See articles

> > by the German virologist (an actual one; no swindler, for

> > a change) Stefan Lanka at

> >

> >

> <http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm>http://www.neue-medizin.com/lanka2.htm

> >

> > and

> >

> >

><http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/060301_lanka_no_diseasecausing_viruses.html\

>http://rolf-martens.com/otherspubs/060301_lanka_no_diseasecausing_viruses.html

> >

> > Rolf M.

> >

>Rolf, I looked at that website and I'm totally confused. I'm new to

>the anti-vaccine movement, so please be patient with me. It seems

>like the author is challenging the existence of viruses, but my other

>readings say things like: the spread of smallpox to epidemic levels in

>the 19th century occurred because of the virus in Jenner's vaccines.

>Can you clarify? Many thanks, K.

,

The actually scientific results in this field (some of them quite old,

but suppressed) are rather new to me too.

Anyway, 1) Stefan Lanka doesn't question the existence of viruses -

he himself discovered one which exists in certain algae and has

a positive, by no means a negative, effect on the host. He was

surprised, he wrote, that this discovery of a *harmless* virus did

not receive much interest on the part of " virologists " . What he

denies is the existence of *diseasecausing* viruses. This tallies

with the findings of Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer, the German New Medicine,

on diseases (or " " ) in general, which says that " diseases " are

really Meaningful Special Biological Programs.

See:

GNM Entrance Page

http://germannewmedicine.ca/

2) Jenner's vaccines were harmful, experience showed. But the

reports saying that this was due to a virus in them must have

been wrong.

Two competing theories on the effects of bacteria and viruses

entering a person's (or an animal's) body from the outside

co-existed in the 19th and 20th centuries. The one represented

by Pasteur, above all (which is " conventional wisdom " today), said

they were harmful, the other, represented by Béchamps and others,

that they were harmless. This later was proven correct. Some attempts

at explaining why Jenner's vaccine was harmful probably were made

based on the first-mentioned of these two theories.

I on my part have only scant knowledge in the fields of medicine

and biology, but after reading some articles and books recently,

I've concluded anyway that the German New Medicine (which

breaks very radically with those " traditional " theories which

we're all accustomed to) is correct.

Rolf M.

[Guest guest]

Hi Rolf,

Thanks very much for your reply. I am trying very hard to

understand this point of view. Having read through a few of the

introductory pages of Hamer's website, I'm having a really hard time

getting a handle on the relationship between his cancer theories

(cancer being a disease that is not currently being explained by a

single organism) and, say, malaria. Or herpes. Aren't these latter

organisms visible in their victim (if viewed under a microscope of

course), as they continue to cause illness for the remainder of the

victim's life? According to Hamer, one could use German New Medicine

to eliminate herpes or malaria in a person -- forever -- by using his

therapies. Has he ever done this? Cancers go into remission and even

disappear even with traditional medicine, so a success with cancer

would not tell much.

Regarding: " Some attempts at explaining why Jenner's vaccine was

harmful probably were made based on the first-mentioned of these two

theories. " Jenner's vaccine being " harmful, " is based on the

statistically documented number of smallpox deaths increasing

exponentially after the state-enforced innoculation programs of the

late 19th century began. These statistics are available in " The

Sanctity of Human Blood " by Tim O'Shea and many other sources. Before

Jenner, the most number of people dead from smallpox in England in a 2

year period was about 2,000. Just a few years later, when the

innoculation program was in full swing (and legally mandatory) that

figure was over 44,000. In other words, they put this organism into

people along with some poisons, and people came down with and died

from the specific illness associated with that organism.

I am perfectly willing to change my thinking about disease if I have a

clear understanding of the new theory that matches the facts I know.

So here are the questions in this discussion that are nagging at me

(other than the ones I've already stated).

1. If Pasteur (in recanting his germ theory) said on his deathbed that

" seed is nothing, soil is everything, " doesn't that still imply that

given an unhealthy soil, the seed of disease (a bacterium or virus or

fungus?) is still the catalyst for illness?

2. I completely agreed with the claim that there is a strong mind-body

connection with regard to illness and chronic pain. I also agree that

a person in a general state of poor fitness (bad diet, no exercise,

heavy drinker, smoker, etc.) will fall ill. But how does the concept

of " germs " causing illness conflict with that? Why can't " germs " be

considered the predators that take advantage of the weakened

individual (weakened by the above factors).

3. If " germs " have no hand in disease, why should our bodies make

antibodies?

4. How can plants get " illnesses " under Hamer's theory if they do not

have minds? I know, this question is a stretch, but I cannot get

around the fact that all living things can be strong or weak in health

and that a weakness in any living thing invites " predators, " be they

clawed or single-cell.

5. When you say " There are NO viruses that can cause diseases... " do

you mean that the virus has literally no role whatsoever in the cause

of disease?

I really appreciate your discussion and I do not mean to be

contentious. I'm looking for answers in good faith. I've only recently

fallen out of the " doctors know everything " tree and am pretty

reluctant to climb up another one.

Many thanks,

K.

[Guest guest]

I'm not Rolf, and I can't answer all the questions but I read a

bunch of things that Sheri just posted a couple days again and from

what I understand, the reason that a " germ " can infect a body is

because the body is already diseased in some way, usually by being

too toxic, or like one article said, too acidic. One of the

articles used the example that a mosquito does not make a pond

stagnant, but it comes to the pond because it is stagnant first.

It also said that these " germs " can live in a body forever but not

make a person sick if that persons body is healthy and not diseased

to start with. A person who carries a " germ " can become sick with

say a cold after not getting enough sleep even though they haven't

been anywhere to catch a cold. This would be because this " germ "

might have been living in them and once the body had something

happen to set it off balance, then the " germ " has found its

opening. This just happened to me recently. I hadn't been anywhere

to catch anything and no one in my family was sick, but with a

newborn, I was a bit run down with lack of sleep, and so I came down

with some kind of sore throat thing.

Healing the body would heal many illnesses meaning that you have to

heal the underlying cause of why the body was sick to begin with.

That could mean ridding the body of toxins, and eliminating as many

future toxins as possible.

Also, I think that the body only makes antibodies once the " germ "

finds a weakness otherwise it just hangs out.

It was interesting what one article said about cancer and that

cancer was the way for dying cells to keep living even though the

body was dying.

I thought it was interesting when an article said that when the body

becomes acidic, your body thinks it is dying, and you start getting

symptoms like a headache. I just started thinking about how many

times I had random symptoms like a headache but didn't think about

why I had the headache to begin with.

I'm not sure what all this means yet, I am right there with you

trying to figure this all out. It is starting to make since but I

am still having trouble connecting it all together. Sorry for all

the random references, just thinking out loud.

Tara

>

> Hi Rolf,

> Thanks very much for your reply. I am trying very hard to

> understand this point of view. Having read through a few of the

> introductory pages of Hamer's website, I'm having a really hard

time

> getting a handle on the relationship between his cancer theories

> (cancer being a disease that is not currently being explained by a

> single organism) and, say, malaria. Or herpes. Aren't these latter

> organisms visible in their victim (if viewed under a microscope of

> course), as they continue to cause illness for the remainder of the

> victim's life? According to Hamer, one could use German New

Medicine

> to eliminate herpes or malaria in a person -- forever -- by using

his

> therapies. Has he ever done this? Cancers go into remission and

even

> disappear even with traditional medicine, so a success with cancer

> would not tell much.

>

> Regarding: " Some attempts at explaining why Jenner's vaccine was

> harmful probably were made based on the first-mentioned of these

two

> theories. " Jenner's vaccine being " harmful, " is based on the

> statistically documented number of smallpox deaths increasing

> exponentially after the state-enforced innoculation programs of the

> late 19th century began. These statistics are available in " The

> Sanctity of Human Blood " by Tim O'Shea and many other sources.

Before

> Jenner, the most number of people dead from smallpox in England in

a 2

> year period was about 2,000. Just a few years later, when the

> innoculation program was in full swing (and legally mandatory) that

> figure was over 44,000. In other words, they put this organism

into

> people along with some poisons, and people came down with and died

> from the specific illness associated with that organism.

>

> I am perfectly willing to change my thinking about disease if I

have a

> clear understanding of the new theory that matches the facts I

know.

> So here are the questions in this discussion that are nagging at me

> (other than the ones I've already stated).

>

> 1. If Pasteur (in recanting his germ theory) said on his deathbed

that

> " seed is nothing, soil is everything, " doesn't that still imply

that

> given an unhealthy soil, the seed of disease (a bacterium or virus

or

> fungus?) is still the catalyst for illness?

>

> 2. I completely agreed with the claim that there is a strong mind-

body

> connection with regard to illness and chronic pain. I also agree

that

> a person in a general state of poor fitness (bad diet, no exercise,

> heavy drinker, smoker, etc.) will fall ill. But how does the

concept

> of " germs " causing illness conflict with that? Why can't " germs "

be

> considered the predators that take advantage of the weakened

> individual (weakened by the above factors).

>

> 3. If " germs " have no hand in disease, why should our bodies make

> antibodies?

>

> 4. How can plants get " illnesses " under Hamer's theory if they do

not

> have minds? I know, this question is a stretch, but I cannot get

> around the fact that all living things can be strong or weak in

health

> and that a weakness in any living thing invites " predators, " be

they

> clawed or single-cell.

>

> 5. When you say " There are NO viruses that can cause diseases... "

do

> you mean that the virus has literally no role whatsoever in the

cause

> of disease?

>

> I really appreciate your discussion and I do not mean to be

> contentious. I'm looking for answers in good faith. I've only

recently

> fallen out of the " doctors know everything " tree and am pretty

> reluctant to climb up another one.

>

> Many thanks,

> K.

>

[Guest guest]

,

I'm only beginning to understand a few things about that new theory

(which seems to me to be correct), the German New Medicine; please

take this into consideration when reading my reply lines below.

At 15:55 2006-09-25 +0000, you (l0v2run <crkuni@...>)

wrote:

>Hi Rolf,

>Thanks very much for your reply. I am trying very hard to

>understand this point of view. Having read through a few of the

>introductory pages of Hamer's website, I'm having a really hard time

>getting a handle on the relationship between his cancer theories

>(cancer being a disease that is not currently being explained by a

>single organism) and, say, malaria. Or herpes. Aren't these latter

>organisms visible in their victim (if viewed under a microscope of

>course), as they continue to cause illness for the remainder of the

>victim's life? According to Hamer, one could use German New Medicine

>to eliminate herpes or malaria in a person -- forever -- by using his

>therapies.

On herpes, traditional medicine says its caused by a virus. This

obviously is incorrect. If a virus, then there should be a photo of

it (an electron microscope photo), but there is no such.

I haven't read what Hamer says about malaria. Traditional medicine

says it's caused by a parasite - a certain kind of protozoa. Has this

been refuted? I don't know.

> Has he ever done this? Cancers go into remission and even

>disappear even with traditional medicine, so a success with cancer

>would not tell much.

As far as I understand, traditional medicine wants to " treat " cancer

with chemo " therapy " , which does no good and causes severe damage.

>Regarding: " Some attempts at explaining why Jenner's vaccine was

>harmful probably were made based on the first-mentioned of these two

>theories. " Jenner's vaccine being " harmful, " is based on the

>statistically documented number of smallpox deaths increasing

>exponentially after the state-enforced innoculation programs of the

>late 19th century began. These statistics are available in " The

>Sanctity of Human Blood " by Tim O'Shea and many other sources. Before

>Jenner, the most number of people dead from smallpox in England in a 2

>year period was about 2,000. Just a few years later, when the

>innoculation program was in full swing (and legally mandatory) that

>figure was over 44,000. In other words, they put this organism into

>people along with some poisons, and people came down with and died

>from the specific illness associated with that organism.

Anyway, no " smallpox virus " has been found. This disease is caused

by something else.

>I am perfectly willing to change my thinking about disease if I have a

>clear understanding of the new theory that matches the facts I know.

>So here are the questions in this discussion that are nagging at me

>(other than the ones I've already stated).

>

>1. If Pasteur (in recanting his germ theory) said on his deathbed that

> " seed is nothing, soil is everything, " doesn't that still imply that

>given an unhealthy soil, the seed of disease (a bacterium or virus or

>fungus?) is still the catalyst for illness?

Pasteur's " recant " statement could be interpreted as saying this.

But it obviously is wrong anyway. Bacteria or viruses don't cause

diseases.

>2. I completely agreed with the claim that there is a strong mind-body

>connection with regard to illness and chronic pain. I also agree that

>a person in a general state of poor fitness (bad diet, no exercise,

>heavy drinker, smoker, etc.) will fall ill. But how does the concept

>of " germs " causing illness conflict with that? Why can't " germs " be

>considered the predators that take advantage of the weakened

>individual (weakened by the above factors).

It has been found that the " germs " are not predators at all, not

" when given a good opportunity " either.

>3. If " germs " have no hand in disease, why should our bodies make

>antibodies?

This " making of antibodies " theory is wrong too. No actual " antibodies "

have been found. The whole concept of there existing " an immune

system " (against foreign bacteria and viruses) is wrong.

>4. How can plants get " illnesses " under Hamer's theory if they do not

>have minds?

The theory, as far as I understand it, says that they have a kind

of minds too.

>I know, this question is a stretch, but I cannot get

>around the fact that all living things can be strong or weak in health

>and that a weakness in any living thing invites " predators, " be they

>clawed or single-cell.

" Predator " bacteria or viruses obviously don't exist. I on my part

still don't know whether or not there are " predator " parasites

(protozoa), which traditional medicine maintains exist and are

causing malaria.

>5. When you say " There are NO viruses that can cause diseases... " do

>you mean that the virus has literally no role whatsoever in the cause

>of disease?

Yes, that's what the findings are, I've gathered. I've gotten convinced

on that account by the argumentation of Stefan Lanka: If there are

viruses which somehow cause diseases, then there in each case

should be documentation of the virus in the form of electron

microscope of it, as isolated, and documentation concerning those

proteins and that nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) of which it consists.

The process of doing this with a virus is not very complicated, he

writes. But in no case is there such documentation. Anybody

can ask the WHO or some other health authority to produce a such,

for each of those viruses they say is causing a disease, he argues.

But they have not produced any, in reply to questions by many people.

At the same time, many photos *purportedly* showing this or

that virus, are circulating - obviously frauds, all of them. There is

an interest in deceiving people on this, on the part of the persons

in political power today.

>I really appreciate your discussion and I do not mean to be

>contentious. I'm looking for answers in good faith. I've only recently

>fallen out of the " doctors know everything " tree and am pretty

>reluctant to climb up another one.

>

>Many thanks,

> K.

I'm certain you're asking those questions in good faith. Sorry

that I know so relatively little about these matters.

I on my part have only just started climbing up that other tree, which

I've concluded (actually based on rather scant knowledge) is the

correct one. Many things still remain unclear to me.

My own discoveries (so far) began in August 2000 after someone

had tipped me off about there being a website www.virusmyth.net.

To my great surprise, I found there what quite onbiously were

the truths about that mysterious " new disease " which the mass

media had been going on so much about since the early-mid-1980s,

" AIDS " : There is NO " HIV " , and NO " AIDS " - it's all an invention.

Eleni Papadopulos-Eleapolus, of Perth, Australia, had found,

already in the 1980s, that a so-called " HIV " had never been isolated,

and she and others were pointing this out. The reasoning on the

subject by one scientist, Stefan Lanka, was the very best, I soon

found. And he had asked himself - I later learned - whether, since

the entire medical establishment was prepared to engaged in

such an enormous fraud as to scare people with an IMAGINARY

virus (and kill many with poisonous " medicines against it " ), were

there perhaps other frauds of the same kind. He came to conclude

that this was the case, and from 2001 on (at least) has published,

together with others, articles and books against all vaccinations.

I on my part have begun to understand that this is correct, since

a few months back. I've translated into English a couple of articles

by Lanka against that more recent fraud attempt, about there

being a " bird flu virus " , " H5N1 " . This I did because of the political

importance which this fraud attempt was beginning to get in 2005

and early 2006. Lanka eventually (in the early 2000s, I think) arrived

at the standpoint that Hamer's New Medicine is correct, and

some articles and books on this have convinced me on this too.

But as I already wrote, I'm still very much a beginner at this.

Rolf M.

[Guest guest]

At 01:49 2006-09-26 +0000, you (Tara Maue <orrin_reilly@...>)

wrote:

>I'm not Rolf, and I can't answer all the questions but I read a

>bunch of things that Sheri just posted a couple days again and from

>what I understand, the reason that a " germ " can infect a body is

>because the body is already diseased in some way, usually by being

>too toxic, or like one article said, too acidic.

No, according to that theory which I on my part have concluded is

correct (though I admit this is on the basis of only very scant knowledge),

the German New Medicine, there are no " germ infections " at all, not of

any weakened bodies either.

The role of bacteria is this, I gather: They break down dead matter.

In corpses or animal carcasses, they also produce poisons, because

they are acting under conditions where there is no, or only little, oxygen.

In a living person who has become " diseased " , that is, in whom some

reactions are taking place, after a certain shock which has set off

the " disease " or rather, the Meaningful Special Biological Program,

bacteria (already present) get multiplied, by signals from the brain,

and get active, at a certain later stage.

The person has gotten a tumour, an excess of tissue, in a certain

organ, say. This is the body's reaction to the shock, for increasing

the activity of that organ, in the first, or " conflict-active " , stage of

the program. In the second stage, the now unnecessary extra

tissue is broken down again, by those now multiplied bacteria,

which in this are performing some useful work, not a harmful one.

Antibiotics thus, says the GNM theory, is like combating the

fire brigade instead of combating the fire.

>One of the

>articles used the example that a mosquito does not make a pond

>stagnant, but it comes to the pond because it is stagnant first.

>

>It also said that these " germs " can live in a body forever but not

>make a person sick if that persons body is healthy and not diseased

>to start with. A person who carries a " germ " can become sick with

>say a cold after not getting enough sleep even though they haven't

>been anywhere to catch a cold. This would be because this " germ "

>might have been living in them and once the body had something

>happen to set it off balance, then the " germ " has found its

>opening.

The GNM says that this is not at all what is happening. It says

that no disease is started by any bacteria or viruses, that the cold is

caused by some shock, some conflict, or other. For instance, an

inset of cold weather for which you're unprepared and which you

dislike.

>This just happened to me recently. I hadn't been anywhere

>to catch anything and no one in my family was sick, but with a

>newborn, I was a bit run down with lack of sleep, and so I came down

>with some kind of sore throat thing.

>

>Healing the body would heal many illnesses meaning that you have to

>heal the underlying cause of why the body was sick to begin with.

>That could mean ridding the body of toxins, and eliminating as many

>future toxins as possible.

Getting rid of *toxins* is good, the GNM theory says too.

>Also, I think that the body only makes antibodies once the " germ "

>finds a weakness otherwise it just hangs out.

But no, no " invasions " by germs. And the body does NOT make

any " antibodies " against such. That's a false theory too, connected

to the one about " predator germs from the outside " . No actual

antibodies against bacteria or viruses have ever been found.

>It was interesting what one article said about cancer and that

>cancer was the way for dying cells to keep living even though the

>body was dying.

That's wrong, as far as I understand. Cancer tumours arise

in an organ as a means of " reinforcing " that organ, after the

brain has concluded that it needs reinforcing.

>I thought it was interesting when an article said that when the body

>becomes acidic, your body thinks it is dying, and you start getting

>symptoms like a headache. I just started thinking about how many

>times I had random symptoms like a headache but didn't think about

>why I had the headache to begin with.

>

>I'm not sure what all this means yet, I am right there with you

>trying to figure this all out. It is starting to make since but I

>am still having trouble connecting it all together. Sorry for all

>the random references, just thinking out loud.

>

>Tara

I still know so very little about these matters. The best I can do

is really to refer you and others to the articles at:

GNM Entrance Page

http://germannewmedicine.ca/

Rolf M.

>

> >

> > Hi Rolf,

> > Thanks very much for your reply. I am trying very hard to

> > understand this point of view. Having read through a few of the

> > introductory pages of Hamer's website, I'm having a really hard

>time

> > getting a handle on the relationship between his cancer theories

> > (cancer being a disease that is not currently being explained by a

> > single organism) and, say, malaria. Or herpes. Aren't these latter

> > organisms visible in their victim (if viewed under a microscope of

> > course), as they continue to cause illness for the remainder of the

> > victim's life? According to Hamer, one could use German New

>Medicine

> > to eliminate herpes or malaria in a person -- forever -- by using

>his

> > therapies. Has he ever done this? Cancers go into remission and

>even

> > disappear even with traditional medicine, so a success with cancer

> > would not tell much.

> >

> > Regarding: " Some attempts at explaining why Jenner's vaccine was

> > harmful probably were made based on the first-mentioned of these

>two

> > theories. " Jenner's vaccine being " harmful, " is based on the

> > statistically documented number of smallpox deaths increasing

> > exponentially after the state-enforced innoculation programs of the

> > late 19th century began. These statistics are available in " The

> > Sanctity of Human Blood " by Tim O'Shea and many other sources.

>Before

> > Jenner, the most number of people dead from smallpox in England in

>a 2

> > year period was about 2,000. Just a few years later, when the

> > innoculation program was in full swing (and legally mandatory) that

> > figure was over 44,000. In other words, they put this organism

>into

> > people along with some poisons, and people came down with and died

> > from the specific illness associated with that organism.

> >

> > I am perfectly willing to change my thinking about disease if I

>have a

> > clear understanding of the new theory that matches the facts I

>know.

> > So here are the questions in this discussion that are nagging at me

> > (other than the ones I've already stated).

> >

> > 1. If Pasteur (in recanting his germ theory) said on his deathbed

>that

> > " seed is nothing, soil is everything, " doesn't that still imply

>that

> > given an unhealthy soil, the seed of disease (a bacterium or virus

>or

> > fungus?) is still the catalyst for illness?

> >

> > 2. I completely agreed with the claim that there is a strong mind-

>body

> > connection with regard to illness and chronic pain. I also agree

>that

> > a person in a general state of poor fitness (bad diet, no exercise,

> > heavy drinker, smoker, etc.) will fall ill. But how does the

>concept

> > of " germs " causing illness conflict with that? Why can't " germs "

>be

> > considered the predators that take advantage of the weakened

> > individual (weakened by the above factors).

> >

> > 3. If " germs " have no hand in disease, why should our bodies make

> > antibodies?

> >

> > 4. How can plants get " illnesses " under Hamer's theory if they do

>not

> > have minds? I know, this question is a stretch, but I cannot get

> > around the fact that all living things can be strong or weak in

>health

> > and that a weakness in any living thing invites " predators, " be

>they

> > clawed or single-cell.

> >

> > 5. When you say " There are NO viruses that can cause diseases... "

>do

> > you mean that the virus has literally no role whatsoever in the

>cause

> > of disease?

> >

> > I really appreciate your discussion and I do not mean to be

> > contentious. I'm looking for answers in good faith. I've only

>recently

> > fallen out of the " doctors know everything " tree and am pretty

> > reluctant to climb up another one.

> >

> > Many thanks,

> > K.

[Guest guest]

,

No - as far as I understand - it's not a question of " both theories

being correct in part " . Bëchamps was right: NO bacteria

or virus " predators " . Once more, see:

GNM Entrance Page

http://germannewmedicine.ca/

Articles there will explain things better than I can do.

Rolf M.

At 22:31 2006-09-25 -0400, you ( Totten <afaltotten@...>)wrote:

>But, see, why can't it be both? I liked 's idea that germs are

>like any other predator. Makes sense in comparison to the rest of our

>natural world, where there are predators and prey. I think the immune

>system can be strong enough to fight off stuff, or not strong enough,

>and it depends on how strong the bug is too. I'm really not much of an

>all-or-nothing person. Maybe Bechamps was right, maybe he was only

>partly right. Actually, come to think about it, everybody was probably

>only partly right, and we'll never understand the awesome mystery of

>this world we live in. --Angie

>

>

>On Monday, September 25, 2006, at 09:49 PM, Tara Maue wrote:

>

> > I'm not Rolf, and I can't answer all the questions but I read a

> > bunch of things that Sheri just posted a couple days again and from

> > what I understand, the reason that a " germ " can infect a body is

> > because the body is already diseased in some way, usually by being

> > too toxic, or like one article said, too acidic. One of the

> > articles used the example that a mosquito does not make a pond

> > stagnant, but it comes to the pond because it is stagnant first.

> >

> > It also said that these " germs " can live in a body forever but not

> > make a person sick if that persons body is healthy and not diseased

> > to start with. A person who carries a " germ " can become sick with

> > say a cold after not getting enough sleep even though they haven't

> > been anywhere to catch a cold. This would be because this " germ "

> > might have been living in them and once the body had something

> > happen to set it off balance, then the " germ " has found its

> > opening. This just happened to me recently. I hadn't been anywhere

> > to catch anything and no one in my family was sick, but with a

> > newborn, I was a bit run down with lack of sleep, and so I came down

> > with some kind of sore throat thing.

> >

> > Healing the body would heal many illnesses meaning that you have to

> > heal the underlying cause of why the body was sick to begin with.

> > That could mean ridding the body of toxins, and eliminating as many

> > future toxins as possible.

> >

> > Also, I think that the body only makes antibodies once the " germ "

> > finds a weakness otherwise it just hangs out.

> >

> > It was interesting what one article said about cancer and that

> > cancer was the way for dying cells to keep living even though the

> > body was dying.

> >

> > I thought it was interesting when an article said that when the body

> > becomes acidic, your body thinks it is dying, and you start getting

> > symptoms like a headache. I just started thinking about how many

> > times I had random symptoms like a headache but didn't think about

> > why I had the headache to begin with.

> >

> > I'm not sure what all this means yet, I am right there with you

> > trying to figure this all out. It is starting to make since but I

> > am still having trouble connecting it all together. Sorry for all

> > the random references, just thinking out loud.

> >

> > Tara

> >

> >

> > >

> > > Hi Rolf,

> > > Thanks very much for your reply. I am trying very hard to

> > > understand this point of view. Having read through a few of the

> > > introductory pages of Hamer's website, I'm having a really hard

> > time

> > > getting a handle on the relationship between his cancer theories

> > > (cancer being a disease that is not currently being explained by a

> > > single organism) and, say, malaria. Or herpes. Aren't these latter

> > > organisms visible in their victim (if viewed under a microscope of

> > > course), as they continue to cause illness for the remainder of the

> > > victim's life? According to Hamer, one could use German New

> > Medicine

> > > to eliminate herpes or malaria in a person -- forever -- by using

> > his

> > > therapies. Has he ever done this? Cancers go into remission and

> > even

> > > disappear even with traditional medicine, so a success with cancer

> > > would not tell much.

> > >

> > > Regarding: " Some attempts at explaining why Jenner's vaccine was

> > > harmful probably were made based on the first-mentioned of these

> > two

> > > theories. " Jenner's vaccine being " harmful, " is based on the

> > > statistically documented number of smallpox deaths increasing

> > > exponentially after the state-enforced innoculation programs of the

> > > late 19th century began. These statistics are available in " The

> > > Sanctity of Human Blood " by Tim O'Shea and many other sources.

> > Before

> > > Jenner, the most number of people dead from smallpox in England in

> > a 2

> > > year period was about 2,000. Just a few years later, when the

> > > innoculation program was in full swing (and legally mandatory) that

> > > figure was over 44,000. In other words, they put this organism

> > into

> > > people along with some poisons, and people came down with and died

> > > from the specific illness associated with that organism.

> > >

> > > I am perfectly willing to change my thinking about disease if I

> > have a

> > > clear understanding of the new theory that matches the facts I

> > know.

> > > So here are the questions in this discussion that are nagging at me

> > > (other than the ones I've already stated).

> > >

> > > 1. If Pasteur (in recanting his germ theory) said on his deathbed

> > that

> > > " seed is nothing, soil is everything, " doesn't that still imply

> > that

> > > given an unhealthy soil, the seed of disease (a bacterium or virus

> > or

> > > fungus?) is still the catalyst for illness?

> > >

> > > 2. I completely agreed with the claim that there is a strong mind-

> > body

> > > connection with regard to illness and chronic pain. I also agree

> > that

> > > a person in a general state of poor fitness (bad diet, no exercise,

> > > heavy drinker, smoker, etc.) will fall ill. But how does the

> > concept

> > > of " germs " causing illness conflict with that? Why can't " germs "

> > be

> > > considered the predators that take advantage of the weakened

> > > individual (weakened by the above factors).

> > >

> > > 3. If " germs " have no hand in disease, why should our bodies make

> > > antibodies?

> > >

> > > 4. How can plants get " illnesses " under Hamer's theory if they do

> > not

> > > have minds? I know, this question is a stretch, but I cannot get

> > > around the fact that all living things can be strong or weak in

> > health

> > > and that a weakness in any living thing invites " predators, " be

> > they

> > > clawed or single-cell.

> > >

> > > 5. When you say " There are NO viruses that can cause diseases... "

> > do

> > > you mean that the virus has literally no role whatsoever in the

> > cause

> > > of disease?

> > >

> > > I really appreciate your discussion and I do not mean to be

> > > contentious. I'm looking for answers in good faith. I've only

> > recently

> > > fallen out of the " doctors know everything " tree and am pretty

> > > reluctant to climb up another one.

> > >

> > > Many thanks,

> > > K.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> I'm not Rolf, and I can't answer all the questions but I read a

> bunch of things that Sheri just posted a couple days again and

from

> what I understand, the reason that a " germ " can infect a body is

> because the body is already diseased in some way, usually by being

>

Tara,

One thing I read many years ago, and I tend to retain little bits

and pieces of information, from I believe a homeopath, albiet an old

one, that a body contains all bacteria and viruses (sorry Rolf) and

that if the body is in balance all is well. It's when the body is

out of balance that sickness occurs.

Jackie Noel

www.sagaciousairedales.com

www.sagaciousdogcountry.com

[Guest guest]

At 09:20 2006-09-26 +0000, you (jnoelsagacious "

<jnoelsagacious@...>) wrote:

>

> >

> > I'm not Rolf, and I can't answer all the questions but I read a

> > bunch of things that Sheri just posted a couple days again and

>from

> > what I understand, the reason that a " germ " can infect a body is

> > because the body is already diseased in some way, usually by being

> >

>

>Tara,

>

>One thing I read many years ago, and I tend to retain little bits

>and pieces of information, from I believe a homeopath, albiet an old

>one, that a body contains all bacteria and viruses (sorry Rolf) and

>that if the body is in balance all is well. It's when the body is

>out of balance that sickness occurs.

>

>Jackie Noel

>www.sagaciousairedales.com

>www.sagaciousdogcountry.com

>

Jackie,

That " sorry Rolf " was unneccessary, since I haven't denied

that which is a fact - pointed out by the German New Medicine

too: The body does contain all bacteria and viruses.

Or to be more precise, there are some different bacteria and

viruses in people's bodies in different regions on earth too.

What I've been saying, in accordance with that theory, is

that those bacteria and viruses in the body are NOT what's

CAUSING the diseases, or rather Meaningful Special Biological

Programs, but on the contrary are playing a positive role in the

second phase of them (the Healing Phase, the GNM calls it)

coming in (at the " request " of the brain) either to clear away

tumour tissue or else rebuild tissue in those cases where there

has been loss of such.

The homeopath's saying that disease (or " " ) occurs when the body

" is out of balance " is not all that wrong. It occurs as the result

of some shock or other. Once more, see articles you can find at:

GNM Entrance Page

http://germannewmedicine.ca/

Rolf M.

[Guest guest]

At 10:53 2006-09-26 +0100, you (Sheri Nakken <vaccineinfo@...>) wrote:

>At 09:20 AM 9/26/2006 -0000, you wrote:

> >

> >>

> >> I'm not Rolf, and I can't answer all the questions but I read a

> >> bunch of things that Sheri just posted a couple days again and

> >from

> >> what I understand, the reason that a " germ " can infect a body is

> >> because the body is already diseased in some way, usually by being

> >>

> >

> >Tara,

> >

> >One thing I read many years ago, and I tend to retain little bits

> >and pieces of information, from I believe a homeopath, albiet an old

> >one, that a body contains all bacteria and viruses (sorry Rolf) and

> >that if the body is in balance all is well. It's when the body is

> >out of balance that sickness occurs.

> >

> >Jackie Noel

> >www.sagaciousairedales.com

> >www.sagaciousdogcountry.com

>

>Well, there is little evidence of what a 'virus' really is or if it exists.

>That's what is at issue too.

Viruses do exist. That's not really what is at issue. What's at

issue is traditional medicine's saying that they, or some of

them, cause diseases. In fact they no virus does this.

>But yes, if the body is in balance all is well. But then if it isn't in

>balance, what is the cause. That is the debate

>Sheri

>

>Yes.

Rolf M.