Why our terrain is the key to health

And has nothing whatsoever to do with pathogens or an 'immune system'

Hey, y’all! So glad to see you here to listen to my thoughts about the importance of knowing that viruses do not exist, bacteria do not cause disease, and contagion is a myth. My first post, It matters that viruses do not exist, outlined my top five reasons why it is deeply important that we understand this. Check my page, This Changes Everything, for links to subsequent posts addressing the first three of those reasons.

Photo by Claudio Testa on Unsplash

This post addresses Reason #4: What we miss out on most by believing in “germ theory” is the intricately beautiful processes the human body has for maintaining its terrain in optimal balance, and the empowerment this brings. This includes the body’s wisdom in managing our internal condition and interacting with the wider landscape of the external environment and our individual life to help us manage those aspects optimally. This is really my favorite topic to think and write about because it opens a long-locked door to the true power of our physical being—our amazing body—and our interconnection with everything that exists. It’s cosmic, really!

To get to the cosmic part, though, we need to define a few concepts and explore how these concepts have been used in the past as well as how they are used today.

“Terrain” is a concept that has recently returned to prominence as virology and the existence of “viruses” have come into serious question in the “Covid” era. But terrain vs. “germs” as the determining factor in whether a person became ill was also being contested in the late 19th century.

In a nutshell, two French scientists who were rivals championed these opposing views about disease. Antoine Béchamp argued for terrain, while Louis Pasteur promoted the “germ theory.” There is a story, possibly apocryphal, that Pasteur recanted on his deathbed, saying “The germ is nothing, the terrain is everything.” But this was only what he said with his last breath. With all his other breaths, he advocated “germ theory,” and through his talent for self-promotion and support among the powerful (e.g., Napoleon) Pasteur secured its place (and his own) in science and medicine well past the end of his life. “Germ theory” has been accepted without question by most people for almost a century and a half, until its hold on the public mind has begun to be broken in the past few years.

It’s important to remember that in the 1880s, while bacteria were known to exist and were thought to cause disease, the human microbiome was unknown. Bacteria—”germs”—were thought to be separate from the human being. It was Béchamp who began suggesting that bacteria live in close conjunction with us when he described the human body as a “mini-ecosystem.” Béchamp postulated what he called “microzymas,” tiny living particles that he saw as the foundational anatomical elements of all living things. This set up the idea that bacteria are not tiny enemies trying to hurt us, but actually components of our healthy terrain. But that is not how they were viewed by most people in 1880 (including Béchamp himself, who did say that some bacteria were pathogenic).

Louis Pasteur the Fraudster, Part 1

In the terrain vs. germ argument about disease, “terrain” meant “soil” or “constitution.” Those like Pasteur who promoted the “germ theory” believed that pathogens would make anyone sick regardless of the state of their terrain (this same thinking is typical for gardeners regarding insect pests—stay tuned for future posts on how this is not how it really works). Supporters of the terrain concept argued that if the soil of a person’s body—their organs, blood, and tissue—was healthy, they would not become ill even if exposed to a pathogen. It sounds fairly clear, right? Either germs are the sole cause of disease, or they’re not. However, there are different interpretations of the role of “germs” in disease. I’ll try to describe them and then tell you how I understand terrain. And then we’ll get to the cosmic part.

It’s interesting to note that “germ theory” is not a theory in the terminology of science, since it has never been tested with replicable results. In fact, there have been experiments that disproved the hypothesis, including one by John Franklin Enders himself, the microbiologist whose work in 1954 supposedly established the lab protocol for finding “viruses.” In fact, his experiments actually did no such thing—and he got a Nobel Prize anyway as well as renown as the discoverer of this (false) protocol that is still foundational to the field of virology (think about that for a minute, and how strongly a Nobel Prize would reinforce the rightness of any experimental findings, even if they were known to be incorrect).

From Mike Stone’s ViroLIEgy Newsletter:

Enders should have known that his experiment was fraudulent when he also observed CPE [cyopathic effect, i.e., cell death in the culture] in his control cultures that did not have any “infectious virus” present. If Enders had any doubt, he would have seen that various researchers in the years following his publication came up with the exact same CPE in their own healthy control cultures, thus shutting the door on CPE being caused by “viruses.”

Unfalsifiable

Stefan Lanka, a German microbiologist who has been outspoken on the lack of scientific evidence for “viruses” since the HIV era in the 1980s, conducted an experiment a few years ago using material to which he added no “viruses” and got exactly the same results as every lab procedure claiming to have proven the existence of “viruses” (the same results Enders got in 1954). For a brief synopsis of this experiment, see minute 25:21 through 26:27 of this video.

Therefore “germ theory” as a scientific idea is not a theory at all, but a “disproven hypothesis.” (And, since it has been disproven, why is it still being talked about?)

What is terrain?

Although you hear the term “terrain theory” quite a lot in the context of this disagreement over what causes “disease,” terrain is also not a theory, but for a different reason: it is not a hypothesis that can be tested scientifically. Terrain is the entire landscape of health, and encompasses the intricate interrelationships among body systems, biochemistry, cellular activity, and communication within the body, along with the individual’s mental and emotional states, relationships with other humans, connection with nature, relationship with society and how everyday life impacts that individual, extending to environmental and energetic influences from the natural (e. g., the sun or the electromagnetic field of the earth) to the artificial (e. g., EMFs from cell phones and towers) and many other influences.

To determine whether terrain was a valid scientific theory, one would have to test each effect separately to determine its cause by controlling all the variables except one and experimenting to find the effects of that one. This is obviously impossible in light of the uncountable different variables within the body and even more outside of the body, and how interconnected and individually unique they are. So terrain is not a theory, but a paradigm or a model or a concept for the basic health of the body and how it is maintained or lost. It is a metaphor, in a way, that brings to mind a picture of a healthy ecosystem, or a human being who is obviously on top of the world.

Photo by Zac Durant on Unsplash

With this understanding of terrain, I want to explore two different interpretations of terrain. The first is similar to what Béchamp and his supporters seemed to mean: the state of health of the body that would keep it from being “infected” by a “pathogen.” This is, of course, in direct contrast to the “disproven germ hypothesis” belief that “pathogens” will infect a body regardless of its state of health. This way of understanding what terrain means is difficult to distinguish from what is called in our time the “immune system.” It’s this apparent similarity, I think, that causes some people to insist that “germ theory” and terrain are both true. (This would only be if you didn’t realize or accept that “germ theory” has already been proven to be untrue on its own terms.)

There is, however, another way that terrain is being used by many today which suggests a complete incompatibility between terrain and the disproven germ hypothesis. In this interpretation of terrain, “germs” or “bacteria” do not cause disease at all, in any body in any state of health. What we think of as “disease” is actually the body’s response to toxins or injury that has caused harm to the terrain. It is the body’s self-healing mechanisms—vomiting, skin rashes, coughing, etc.—that make us feel “sick” while the detox is under way, and that is what we think of as “illness” or “disease” caused by a “pathogen” that has infected us. (For more, see my previous columns, ‘Germ theory’ hooks us to drugs and needles and How can they not be connecting the dots?)

This interpretation, as you can probably see, is truly mutually exclusive with the disproven germ hypothesis because in this model, there are no “pathogens” to “infect” a body, healthy or unhealthy, and what we have defined as “colds” or “flu” and thought were caused by “viruses” or “germs” are in reality our body’s process of ejecting unwanted influences or repairing tissue damage. It’s a healthy process, not a “disease.”

This, as you could perhaps guess, especially if you’ve read my previous articles over the past month, is the way of understanding terrain that I subscribe to. In this model, it is not that bacteria (germs) have no role or involvement in our experiences of “disease,” but they are never as the direct cause of it. The role of bacteria is to clean up dead and dying tissue. That is their food. They do not attack healthy tissue. They go into action when something else—an injury, a toxin, perhaps a nutritional deficiency—has caused tissue damage and cell death.

In a terrain that is basically healthy, bacteria will do their normal clean-up job, akin to taking out the trash, in the ordinary, everyday process of removing millions of cells that die naturally every second as our body renews itself. When a healthy terrain experiences tissue damage from injury, toxins, or other cause, the bacteria will do this additional clean-up job quickly and the body will get rid of the waste products via one of its detox pathways. The person may have a symptoms that we call a “cold,” an upset stomach, or a headache for a short time, and then recover, with or without treatment.

When there is extensive tissue damage, however, which would be when the terrain is not in good shape to begin with, bacteria doing their work can cause secondary problems due to the waste they produce in their activities of eating up dead cells. This can result in longer-term illness as the body systems need more time for the cleanup to be done. In extreme cases, such as gangrene, the body is simply overwhelmed by the amount of dead and dying tissue and the number of bacteria required to try to clean it up.

It also happens that small amounts of damage happening regularly can be unnoticed or cause small discomforts that are easy to ignore for months or years, but eventually the harm becomes evident. Usually, by that time, the damage has become deep and extensive, and recovery via the body’s detox process can take a long time and require other kinds of support. An example is the constant reinjury of lung tissues from a smoking habit. The body has tried to clean up the damaged lung tissue and eject it through coughing, perhaps bronchitis.

Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

Finally, after years, the deterioration of the terrain may result in cancer as the body, having been unable to keep up with the increasing damage, or being thwarted in its attempts to get rid of the problem by the person taking pharmaceuticals to suppress their coughing or antibiotics for bronchitis, finally attempts to sequester the damaged tissue in one or more tumors. Similar scenarios apply to many of the chronic illnesses that have become so prevalent in the past century. Toxins, injuries, and malnutrition build up damaged tissue and impair body functions so there is chronic pain, malfunction, deterioration, and often, ultimately death.

It’s important to remember that, in this interpretation of terrain, the bacteria themselves do not cause these conditions. They are operating in a terrain that is already damaged. This, unfortunately, is the case to one degree or another with many, many people, those suffering with “multiple co-morbidities,” for example, or those with various chronic conditions. Recall that people whose terrain was already seriously compromised were the main population that died because of “Covid-19” before the injections came along.

Although it seems to accord with the 19th-century understanding of terrain, I see the equation of “terrain” with “immune system” as a misunderstanding of terrain. This terminology arises from a war metaphor of how the body stays healthy—that we are constantly under “attack” by “pathogens”—”viruses” or “bad” bacteria that want to eat our healthy tissue—and our body produces “killer cells” to fight these invaders off.

Equating a healthy terrain with a strong “immune system” stays within this metaphor, which frames our maintenance of a healthy terrain as a continual battle, a neverending siege, rather than being the “soil” or the “landscape” of our lives out of which beautiful things grow and thrive when we keep it clean.

“Germ theory,” as I explained in Germ theory hooks us to drugs and needles, is the idea that every disease is caused by a particular microorganism. Terrain, by contrast, sees “disease” not as a pathological condition caused by a microorganism of any kind, but rather the body’s efforts to cleanse itself of unwanted substances or influences, such as environmental toxins, dead and dying tissue somewhere in the body, or accumulated debris from body processes that have not been able to be moved out regularly by normal elimination pathways. In the terrain paradigm, “viruses” don’t exist and bacteria do not attack healthy tissue. So the two ways of understanding how the body maintains its health, the “germ”-based idea and the terrain model, are incompatible.

And the contrast is stark when you consider what it means to be a random, passive, and mostly powerless victim of forces either inside or outside that want to hurt you (germs, bad genes, “unknown” causes), as compared to the possessor of a brilliant body that is exquisitely equipped to know how to keep our terrain clear and eliminate all that doesn’t contribute to our well-being.

I’ll close this article with a video from The End of Covid, a detailed 120-hour documentary look at the plandemic and all its aspects that was put together last summer by Alec Zeck of The Way Forward and Mike Winner of Alfavedic. This short video, in explaining the way that the body works as understood by the terrain model, touches on the cosmic in depicting the astounding resilience, strength, wisdom, and power of the human body to maintain optimal health. See if this doesn’t leave you feeling just a little bit cosmically empowered.

Thanks for reading this far. Next week, Reason #5 why it’s important to know that “viruses” are fictional: Seeing through the highly disempowering narratives of the disproven germ hypothesis and the pseudoscience of virology can be a doorway into realizing how much of our power we have willingly given away—not just to medical and bureaucratic authorities during the recent plandemic, but to every outside authority that purports to tell us what we can and can’t do.

When we discover that we can, through our own choices, keep our inner terrain in good shape without any “help” from pharmaceutical offerings or the professionals and institutions that purvey them, we can see that there are many other disempowering narratives telling us we need to rely on outside authorities to keep us safe and help us make good decisions, and that our ancestors going back in history have been told the same. And what will we do when we see that we don’t have to allow ourselves to be controlled by someone else’s narrative?