Colonoscopy

Aajonus stated plainly that endoscopy and colonoscopy, together with the biopsies that routinely accompany them, cause lesions, ulcers, and cancer. He did not elaborate at length on the mechanical pathway by which each injury type develops, but his statement encompasses all three outcomes as documented consequences rather than rare complications. The taking of nine biopsies in a single session was sufficient, in his view, to have caused holes in the digestive system, which was one of the questions put to him directly in correspondence. His answer was not that biopsy might cause such damage under unusual circumstances, but that these procedures cause many problems as a general matter, listing lesions, ulcers, and cancer as the known range of outcomes.

The person in correspondence was in severe condition following the procedures, including inability to eat solid food, intense pain, urinary symptoms consistent with kidney stress, and other systemic signs of disruption. Aajonus contextualized all of this within the damage from the endoscopy and colonoscopy, noting that the person was "doing everything he can to begin the process of healing" and that "cleansing is primary until the toxins that prevent healing are gone." He did not suggest that the procedures were unrelated to the person's deteriorated condition. He treated them as the precipitating injury.

One of the specific concerns raised in correspondence about colonoscopy was whether the procedure would sterilize the inside of the digestive system. Aajonus addressed this as a real and serious consequence, not as an overstatement. His broader teachings make clear why he regarded this as so damaging.

E. coli is described throughout his teachings as the most important bacterium in the large intestine for human health. It is responsible for the final stage of protein and fat digestion, breaking food molecules down to the smallest finite particles that the nervous system's fine capillary network requires. Without adequate E. coli, the brain and nervous system cannot be properly fed. This is not a metaphor in Aajonus's framework; it is a specific nutritional pathway that depends on intact bacterial colonies in the bowel.

When colonoscopy is performed, the colon must be cleared before the procedure, which means the bacterial environment is disrupted before the mechanical instrument is even introduced. The procedure itself then passes through tissue that has been cleared, further disturbing whatever bacterial populations may have survived the preparatory purging. Aajonus's consistent teaching was that flushing the colon of its E. coli takes a minimum of 45 to 60 days to repopulate, and in some cases up to 90 days. During that entire period, the brain and nervous system are receiving diminished nourishment through the bowel pathway.

Aajonus discussed colonics and high enemas extensively in his workshops as procedures with the same class of consequences as colonoscopy, though he was more detailed about colonics because they were more commonly self-administered by his audiences. His warnings about colonics illuminate his thinking about colonoscopy because the mechanism of harm is similar: introduction of fluid under pressure that flushes out E. coli and other bacteria from the colon.

He stated in writing that "colonics may flush impacted matter from the colon but they force enormous amounts of toxins into the blood stream where they cause heart and brain damage." He also noted that colonics "strip the colon for up to 45 days of friendly E. coli bacteria that are necessary for the body to synthesize proteins and B vitamins," and that this can result in "indigestion, hypoglycemia, fatigue, anemia, depression, irritability and backaches."

While this language was applied specifically to colonics, the same bacterial destruction occurs when colonoscopy preparation and the procedure itself clear the colon. The distinction Aajonus drew was that colonics are something people choose repeatedly and voluntarily, whereas colonoscopy is typically a one-time or periodic procedure recommended by physicians, but the damage to the E. coli population is of the same nature. He described the period following E. coli depletion as one during which the person is "probably on the edge of depression, if not in depression, for up to 45, 60, even 90 days."

Aajonus was consistent across many seminars and workshops in identifying psychological and neurological instability as a direct result of disrupted bowel bacteria. Because E. coli breaks down fats and proteins into the finite molecules that feed the brain and nervous system, any procedure that significantly reduces E. coli populations will, within his framework, produce measurable effects on mental and emotional function.

He observed that people who take colonics regularly have difficulty maintaining trains of thought and exhibit what he described as over-emotionality, heightened sensitivity, and an emotionally unstable up-and-down quality. He said "you'll find that they're very emotionally on a rollercoaster up and down and up and down." He connected this directly to the absence of properly nourished brain and nervous system tissue, and not to any psychological disposition of the people involved. The same mechanism would apply following colonoscopy, which imposes the same bacterial depletion through its preparatory clearing and the procedure itself.

He also noted that E. coli is responsible for producing "massive amounts of B vitamins to calm and soothe our brains and nervous systems," so their loss compounds the neurological instability by removing both the finest nutrient molecules and the vitamins that regulate nervous system tone.

In the specific case addressed in correspondence, Aajonus did not provide a detailed step-by-step healing protocol in response to the colonoscopy and endoscopy damage, but he framed the direction clearly. He stated that the person was "doing everything he can to begin the process of healing" and that "cleansing is primary until the toxins that prevent healing are gone." This places the healing response in the same category as his general approach to post-procedural or post-toxic damage: the body must first eliminate the toxins introduced or liberated by the procedure before tissue repair can proceed efficiently.

His broader teachings on rebuilding E. coli populations after depletion included a rectal implant protocol using raw fats, specifically a mixture involving raw cream, raw butter, and in some formulations coconut cream, inserted via a bulb syringe before sleep. The purpose of this was not to cleanse the bowel but to feed the E. coli from the posterior end, since the anterior digestive pathway absorbs most available fats before they reach the colon and the bacteria there are typically receiving only the residual dredges of digestion. By delivering fresh raw fats directly to the sigmoid colon and then working them up through the colon by lying face-down with buttocks elevated and rolling the stomach in a belly-dancer motion, then rolling onto the right side with the left leg raised and repeating the rolling motion, the fats could be distributed through the descending colon, the transverse colon, and the ascending colon, feeding E. coli throughout.

He described the time interval for this intervention as every one to five days depending on the severity of the depletion, noting that "some people's nervous systems are so dry they may have to do it every three days" while others can manage once every two weeks. For the specific context of post-colonoscopy depletion, where the bacterial environment has been substantially cleared, the more frequent end of that range would be implied by his framework.

He also noted that the clabbered milk inserted rectally could be beneficial for restoring bacterial populations in areas of the colon that had experienced scarring or low bacterial levels, describing it as "very soothing" compared to a colonic.

In the correspondence case, the gastroenterologist who performed the endoscopy found Barrett's esophagus and recommended acid-reducing medications. The person's doctor then threatened that refusing the acid reducers risked cancer. Aajonus's response to this context was situated within his framework that stomach acid is necessary, not harmful, and that reducing it causes more damage than it prevents. He noted elsewhere that when foods are in liquid form, "he does not need to produce stomach acids" because digestive acids are for dissolving chunks of food into small molecules so digestive bacteria can consume them, but this was a concession specific to that person's condition at that time, not a general endorsement of acid reduction.

The finding of Barrett's esophagus following endoscopy, and the prescription of acid reducers that followed, was presented in the correspondence as an illustration of the medical intervention cascade that begins with the procedure. The endoscopy led to a diagnosis, the diagnosis led to a pharmaceutical prescription, the prescription caused a rebound effect when discontinued, and the rebound created additional suffering. Aajonus's framing was that the entire sequence originated with the endoscopy and colonoscopy.

Aajonus placed colonoscopy and endoscopy within a broader critique of the medical industry's financial incentives. He made this explicit in the context of rectal bleeding, noting that "the doctors love to get your thousands of dollars when they see blood in your faecal matter." He described the medical profession as counting on patient panic and fear to drive procedures and treatments. The message that blood in the stool requires investigation through colonoscopy was, in his reading, an exploitation of fear rather than a genuine response to danger.

He stated that his own rectum had been heavily scarred from childhood constipation and that he would "get a spot of blood, maybe a teaspoon at the most" when he had not moved for several days, particularly after seminars when he was physically active and losing fluids through movement. He described this as sealing up immediately with "never any danger," and characterized the medical framing of such symptoms as a financial extraction mechanism rather than a medical necessity.