Germ Theory

Aajonus traced the mainstream adoption of germ theory to Louis Pasteur, who made the concept famous in the nineteenth century. What Aajonus found historically significant, however, was not Pasteur's fame but his alleged deathbed reversal. Aajonus reported that Pasteur's dying words were: "Pathogens are not the problem. The environment in which and on which pathogens feed is the problem of disease." That statement, if accurately reported, means that Pasteur himself concluded that disease is a function of the internal terrain and the quality of air, food, and substances the body contacts, not a function of microbial attack.

Those dying words were lost, in Aajonus's account, because philanthropists, government figures, and pharmaceutical companies had already committed enormous resources to funding microbial warfare research. The academics who joined that research program accepted germ theory as given, as settled as gravity, without conducting the independent experiments that would have been required to actually test whether the theory was valid. This institutional capture meant that the entire edifice of modern medical science was constructed on an untested postulate, and anyone who later produced evidence against it faced an industry with overwhelming financial and institutional power to suppress that evidence.

Aajonus connected the consolidation of germ theory in American medicine to the influence of the Rockefellers and Carnegies in the late 1890s. Their decision to honor Pasteur and fund the microbial warfare model gave that model its permanent institutional home in academia and medical licensing structures. He noted that if Pasteur had spent his career working with people sick from industrial pollution rather than studying microbes in controlled laboratory settings, he likely would not have arrived at the conclusions that the pharmaceutical and medical industries then used to build their war-against-germs framework.

The practical consequence of that institutional capture was that research contradicting germ theory was not just ignored but actively destroyed. Aajonus recounted a conversation with an elderly man he met while bicycling through Oklahoma between 1973 and 1976. The man had worked with either Purina or General Foods in studies conducted from the late 1930s through the mid-1940s. Those studies were designed to prove that cooking and processing food eliminated the bacteria that caused disease, thereby validating germ theory. The results were the opposite of what the companies hoped to find: every animal fed cooked and processed food developed disease, while every animal fed raw food in its natural state remained healthy. This finding was consistent across the entire duration of the study. Because the companies had signed contracts preventing them from publicizing results contrary to their commercial interests, all of the research, representing millions of dollars of work, was taken to an incinerator and burned.

Francis Pottenger's cat studies showed the same pattern, and when the food industry deployed paid scientists to contest those findings, Edward Howell repeated the experiments with rats, which only live three years, to generate faster results. The cooked-food rats developed the same diseases as the cats. The raw-food rats did not.

In Aajonus's framework, bacteria are not enemies of the body but its primary functional components. He described the body as operating 90 to 99 percent on bacterial activity, with bacteria performing digestion, cellular maintenance, janitorial removal of dead and damaged cells, and the construction of cellular structures. Without bacteria, he said, nothing in the body would function. Digestion alone, he explained, is 99.5 percent bacterial; human digestive juices such as hydrochloric acid and bile account for only about one percent of the digestive process. The bacteria consume food and their waste products, meaning their feces, urine, and perspiration, are the actual nutrients the body absorbs.

He used salmonella as the central example. The medical and food safety industries treat salmonella as a dangerous pathogen requiring elimination. Aajonus's reading was the opposite. He noted that if you take a cotton swab through the nose, you will find 1,600 varieties of salmonella. Under the fingernails, in the eyes, in the ears, and across the skin, salmonella is present everywhere on and in the human body. Historically, when humans bathed rarely or not at all through the fall and winter, the body hosted 2,300 to 6,000 varieties of salmonella, and many of those lived on the skin specifically to eat dead cells as they sloughed off. Without salmonella performing that function continuously, he said, humans would shed their entire outer layer of skin the way a snake sheds its skin, peeling in large pieces every few months. The salmonella ate dead skin cells in real time so that the body could renew its surface layer gradually and continuously rather than catastrophically. Modern bathing with soaps and antibacterial compounds has destroyed 1,500 to 1,800 of those varieties, eliminating organisms the body evolved alongside and depended upon.

The same janitorial logic applies to all bacteria throughout the body. Bacteria consume damaged, degenerating, and dead cells, reducing large volumes of biological waste to one to five percent of their pre-digestion size and weight. A bacterium can consume fifty times its own weight in a twenty-four-hour period and produce waste of only one to five percent of what it consumed. Parasites are even more efficient, eating up to one hundred times their weight in twenty-four hours with the same one to five percent waste yield. Aajonus called this the kind of janitor anyone would want: take one hundred pounds of biological garbage and leave only one to five pounds of waste to deal with afterward.

Aajonus emphasized the systemic presence and necessity of bacteria at every level of body function. He said the body is made up of hundreds of trillions, even thousands of trillions, of bacteria all working continuously to keep the human organism functioning. As bacterial levels decline, health declines in proportion. The sterile environments produced by modern living, including air conditioning systems loaded with formaldehyde to prevent mold growth, antibacterial soaps, kitchen detergents, and ammonia cleaners, all destroy the body's bacterial environment. Every time a person breathes formaldehyde from an air conditioning unit or uses an antibacterial soap, they are depleting the bacterial ecosystem that makes their body function.

He described the saliva as containing bacteria specifically suited to digesting animal matter, which is consistent with the human body's evolutionary diet. He recommended that people who want to make kefir suited specifically to their own digestive needs should spit into raw milk before fermenting it, because their own salivary bacteria will produce a culture precisely calibrated to their individual biology and to what their body currently needs from that milk.

Aajonus stated directly: "I don't believe, my theory is that there is no contagious disease." His analogy for what actually happens during apparent disease outbreaks was bears emerging from hibernation. Bears in Mexico come out of hibernation earlier than bears in the United States, who emerge earlier than bears in Canada. No one says bears are contagious because they appear in sequence across latitudes. They emerge when climatic conditions are right. The same principle governs what medicine calls infectious disease. People with similar toxic accumulations and similar degenerative tissue get similar bacterial or viral activity at the same time because the seasonal and climatic conditions that trigger those internal cleanup cycles arrive at the same time for people living in the same region. It is not transmission from one person to another; it is simultaneous triggering of similar internal processes in people with similar biological states.

He extended this argument to explain why family members often seem to pass illnesses to one another. Families eat the same food, live in the same environment, breathe the same air, and accumulate similar toxins. When conditions are right for a detoxification cycle, everyone in that household reaches that threshold at roughly the same time for the same reasons.

He also noted that colds and flus, which used to occur only in fall and spring when conditions were climatically appropriate for those cleansing cycles, now occur year-round because people's bodies are so contaminated by industrial chemicals that the cleanup processes can no longer wait for seasonal timing. The cycles become erratic and constant because the toxic load is constant and overwhelming.

For the rare cases where actual surface transmission can occur, he acknowledged that yeast and crabs are genuinely contagious because their natural environment is the external world. They live on and in outer surfaces and can transfer through contact. Internal bacteria, however, face a completely different set of obstacles. Even when bacteria are exchanged through contact such as kissing, the salivary enzymes destroy most of them rapidly, and the ones that survive must penetrate the mucous membrane, which is designed to neutralize and smother all forms of internal life, and then survive the attack of white blood cells, and then adapt to a completely new internal chemical environment. He estimated the odds of actual contagion at approximately five million to one.

He directly addressed syphilis as a test case. If syphilis were genuinely contagious, he said, every mafia member would have it, given the sexual behavior patterns in that world. The fact that it does not spread universally through populations that would be most exposed if contagion were real is evidence that the contagion model is wrong.

Aajonus was emphatic that viruses are not alive and cannot be contagious by definition. He described viruses as solvents, not organisms. They are produced inside cells to dissolve matter that cannot be processed by living biological agents. Every cell in the body can produce a specific solvent suited to breaking down whatever toxic or damaged material that cell is dealing with. Different cells produce different viral solvents depending on the specific chemistry of what needs to be dissolved.

He described the mechanism this way: when damaged, decaying, or dead cells are too toxic from chemical pollution to be eaten by bacteria, fungi, or parasites, the living biological janitors cannot survive contact with that contaminated tissue. They die when they attempt to consume it. The body's fallback process is to produce a solvent, a virus, to dissolve the contaminated material instead. The virus dissolves the tissue rather than consuming it. The difference in efficiency is significant. Bacteria consuming waste reduces it to one to five percent of its original volume. A viral solvent, like any chemical dissolvent, leaves a diluted solution of waste products that must then be flushed through the system with water, creating the mucus, discharge, rashes, and other elimination symptoms associated with illness.

He compared viruses to muriatic acid or Drano: they dissolve matter but have no life, no nucleus, no respiratory system, no digestive system, and no capacity for self-replication. He pointed to laboratory evidence: placing virus in a fertilized petri dish produces no multiplication whatsoever. Adding live cells to that environment produces what appears to be multiplication, but Aajonus identified this as the cells themselves producing more viral solvent in response to the introduction of the dissolving agent, not the virus reproducing. He asked whether Tide soap replicates and said that calling viral multiplication self-replication is the same category of error.

He described the popular images of viruses published in textbooks and media as computer-generated artwork, not photographs of real structures. Under an actual microscope, what can be seen is fragmented tissue: RNA and DNA particles, fractionated cellular matter, and enzymes that broke the cells apart. That mixture is the viral waste product, the end result of the solvent process. There is no living structure there. The colorful three-dimensional virus images are fabrications produced to give visual form to something that has no living body.

He traced the decision to call viruses "alive" to a specific commercial motivation approximately thirty years before the time he was speaking. For decades, doctors encountered situations where tissue was degenerating and dissolving with no bacteria, no parasites, and no fungi present. They understood there was nothing living to kill and therefore did not prescribe antibiotics. At some point, he said, the decision was made to reclassify viral processes as living organisms so that antibiotics and antiviral drugs could be marketed and sold for those conditions.

He also cited a test project by Jon Monroe, Director of New Science, in which researchers attempted to prevent virus production in test subjects on the assumption that viruses were pathogens to be avoided. Every subject became clinically depressed and remained so for an entire year. When viruses were allowed to flourish again, the depression disappeared and normal detoxification cycles in the form of colds and flu returned. Monroe concluded that periodic detoxification through colds and flu is preferable to continuous depression. Aajonus read this as confirmation that viruses are not enemies of health but necessary components of the body's self-cleaning process.

Aajonus drew on multiple lines of animal evidence against germ theory. Wild animals, he noted, constantly expose themselves to every microbe in their environment. They lick their own feces and the feces of other animals, including strangers. They roll in contaminated mud, eat spoiled material, and expose themselves to the full range of environmental bacteria. They do not develop the diseases that germ theory would predict from such exposure. Disease, in his observation, is not what happens when animals encounter bacteria. Disease is what happens when animals are removed from their natural microbial environment and placed in sterile conditions.

He described Joel Weinstock's work at the University of Iowa as one of the clearest demonstrations of this principle. Weinstock was a gastroenterologist who grew up on a farm and observed the contrast between the farm pigs and the university pigs. The farm pigs ate their own feces, rolled in mud, consumed contaminated slop, and were entirely healthy. The university pigs, kept in clinically sterile conditions, were consistently sick. Weinstock examined the gastrointestinal tracts and fluids of both groups and found one primary difference: the healthy farm pigs had trichinosis, the whipworm. He extracted the whipworms from the healthy animals and introduced them into the sick university pigs. Within five days of ingesting their food alongside the whipworms, the previously sick pigs were well, strong, and thriving.

In his own experiments with animals, Aajonus found that animals with parasites healed more quickly than those without. He also investigated the claim that raw meat causes parasites in consumers. He took fourteen animals ranging from twelve to sixteen years of age, all considered high-risk because of their age, fed them raw meat, and observed no parasitic disease.

The Pottenger and Howell studies, the Oklahoma man's account of the Purina or General Foods research, and Aajonus's own animal observations all pointed to the same conclusion: raw food with its full bacterial content produced no disease, while processed and cooked food produced disease regardless of its bacterial content, and in fact the bacterial count in cooked meat grows sixty times higher than in raw meat before cooked meat produces problems.

Aajonus made a specific point about what happens when bacteria interact with cooked food versus raw food. Bacteria that grow on cooked food, like any organism living in a toxic environment, mutate and become toxic themselves. Their byproducts become far more toxic than the byproducts of bacteria growing on raw food. If food has been cooked and then sits while bacteria begin decomposing it, the bacterial byproducts in that environment will be highly toxic and can create reactions in some people. He said this is the actual mechanism behind what gets labeled food poisoning in cooked food contexts. The problem is not the bacteria; it is the environment the bacteria were forced to operate in. Medicine, he said, then falsely associates the reaction with the bacteria rather than with the cooked and processed substrate that made those bacterial byproducts toxic.

He made the same point about petri dish research. The bacterial behavior observed in petri dishes has no relationship to how those same bacteria behave inside a living body. In a petri dish, there is no waste removal system. All cellular byproducts and bacterial waste remain in the solution and accumulate. Bacteria in that environment mutate under chemical pressure and behave in ways that have little relationship to the natural forms of those same organisms. The research that claims to prove bacteria cause disease relies on observations of these mutant petri-dish bacteria, not on the naturally occurring organisms functioning within an intact biological system.

Aajonus identified multiple layers of financial and political interest that sustain germ theory against the evidence. The pharmaceutical industry requires the germ theory framework to sell antibiotics, vaccines, antiviral drugs, and the vast infrastructure of germ-control products. If the bacteria theory were discarded, he said, the industry could not maintain its hold. Instead, people are taught to fear organisms they have coexisted with for millions of years while being told to trust 600,000 new synthetic chemicals that produce the actual diseases they experience.

He also pointed to military involvement in bacterial research. He cited Freedom of Information Act documents establishing that research at UCLA ostensibly aimed at studying cancer was funded by and delivered directly to the military for bacterial germ warfare development. He described the U.S. Army's documented 1950 spraying of San Francisco with bacterial agents from a Navy vessel offshore, which was a mock biological attack test recorded in Senate subcommittee hearings in 1977. He identified General Electric as a covert bacterial warfare developer, information he said he obtained from his own father, who was involved in designing experimental facilities for that program.

His position was that the manufactured fear of bacteria serves multiple commercial and political functions simultaneously: it sells pharmaceutical products, it maintains public dependency on the medical system, it provides cover for actual chemical and industrial toxins as the real causes of disease, and it gives military and government institutions tools of population control through manufactured biological threats and the panic responses those threats generate.

Aajonus pushed the bacteria argument to its logical conclusion. If the body contains 150 to 360 bacterial genes for every single human gene, then calling bacteria foreign invaders or threats to the body is incoherent. We are not human organisms assisted by bacteria. We are bacterial organisms that have constructed a human shell. The human cellular structure, in his framework, exists to house and enable bacterial life, not the other way around. He made this point explicitly: "We are bacteria in a shell." Given that framing, the entire premise of germ theory, that bacteria are enemies attacking a human body, is not merely incorrect but inverts the actual biological relationship.

He described bacteria as operating at an energetic and even communal level that extends beyond simple chemistry. When bacteria are present and helping to clean cellular waste, the entire body, on what he called a physiological and psychic level, changes. The body has help. The cleanup is faster and less expensive in biological resources than the viral solvent process, and the organism's overall sense of function and well-being improves in correspondence with bacterial activity.

---