Microbes

Aajonus described four types of janitorial agents operating in the body, each with distinct efficiency levels, waste profiles, and preferred environments. He ranked them in order of efficiency and desirability.

**Parasites** are the most efficient janitors in the body. Aajonus stated consistently that parasites can eat 100 times their own weight in a 24-hour period. Their waste product, meaning the excretion and secretion they leave behind after consuming that mass of damaged tissue, is only 1 to 5 percent of the original material consumed. He used the analogy of a person eating 100 pounds of food in a single day and producing only a 1 to 5 pound bowel movement. The body is then left with only 1 to 5 pounds of waste to neutralize, bind, and eliminate through lymphatic activity, rather than 100 pounds of original toxic cellular material. He expressed this preference plainly and repeatedly: "I want a tapeworm in there eating all the garbage in my body. Give me the parasites."

One notable feature of parasitic janitorial work is that it is almost always asymptomatic. Because parasites break down damaged tissue so rapidly and so completely, the body rarely needs to mount a significant inflammatory response. Aajonus contrasted this with bacterial activity, which can produce yellow mucus, coughing, seeping from the eyes, fever, or discomfort. With parasites, the work happens largely without the person knowing it is occurring. He considered this an additional advantage: the body is being cleaned efficiently and the person is not suffering through the process.

**Bacteria** are the second-ranked janitors. Aajonus gave their consumption rate as approximately 50 times their own weight in a 24-hour period, sometimes stating a range of 50 to 75 times. Their waste product is similarly low, at 1 to 5 percent of the mass consumed, with a typical range closer to 1 to 3 percent. Bacterial janitorial activity does tend to produce more noticeable symptoms than parasitic activity, including the symptoms associated with colds, infections, and fevers. He attributed this to the somewhat higher waste burden and to the chemistry of bacterial byproducts compared to parasitic byproducts. Nevertheless, he considered bacteria excellent janitors and explicitly said he would take bacterial janitors any day over no janitorial activity at all.

Bacteria are involved in three distinct functions in the body according to Aajonus: digestion of food, construction of cells, and destruction of dead or damaged cells as janitors. The janitorial function is only one role. He noted that humans are approximately 99 to 99.5 percent bacterial by composition, and that all bodily functions including digestion, respiration, muscular movement, and cellular communication are the result of bacterial exchanges. Calling these organisms pathogenic, he argued, is a fundamental misreading of biology driven by pharmaceutical industry profit motives.

**Fungus** is the third-ranked janitor, slower and with more problematic waste products than bacteria or parasites. Aajonus stated that fungus can eat approximately 50 times its weight in 24 hours, with some varieties capable of consuming up to 100 times their weight. However, the waste products of fungal activity are significantly more toxic than those of bacteria or parasites, running at approximately 5 to 10 percent of the consumed mass rather than 1 to 5 percent. This higher-toxicity waste is what causes the itching, dryness of skin, and irritation associated with fungal conditions. The body cannot neutralize fungal waste as efficiently as bacterial or parasitic waste.

Fungus tends to operate in specific environments in the body. Aajonus noted it is more common in areas that are cooler or drier, such as under the nails, in joints, and in the brain. The lungs, being continuously fluid, would require tissue to be highly toxic before fungus would be recruited there rather than bacteria or parasites. When fungal activity appears in the lungs, Aajonus argued this indicates the tissue must be so severely poisoned that the body's first two choices (bacteria and parasites) cannot consume it without dying from the toxicity themselves. The presence of fungus, particularly in the lungs, signals an advanced degree of chemical damage in the tissue where it is active.

Candida and yeast infections fall into the fungal category. Aajonus explicitly rejected the conventional view that candida is an enemy organism that must be eliminated. He said candida is a janitor attempting to remove tissue damaged by sugar. Yeast infections in the vagina, he said, represent the body's effort to clean up sugar-damaged uterine tissue. Athlete's foot and other fungal conditions of the skin represent the body discarding toxins through the skin, with fungus consuming the cellular damage left behind. His recommendation was not to destroy the candida but to allow and support its work.

**Virus** occupies a distinct category in Aajonus's framework and is not a living organism at all. He stated that 30 years prior to his seminars, every doctor understood that viruses are not alive and that antibiotics should not be prescribed for viral conditions. Virus, in his framework, is a solvent produced by cells themselves. When tissue is so toxic that bacteria, parasites, and fungus cannot consume it without dying from the chemical load, the cells manufacture a non-living biochemical dissolving solution to break down that tissue chemically. These solvents contain DNA because the cells used their own internal substances to synthesize them.

The significant disadvantage of viral solvents compared to living janitorial agents is that they expand rather than reduce the mass of toxic material. When bacteria, parasites, or fungus consume damaged tissue, they reduce it to 1 to 5 percent of its original volume. When a viral solvent dissolves tissue, the result is a fluid mass of dissolved cellular material that is still largely toxic. The body is left with a large volume of waste fluid to eliminate rather than the small fractional waste left by living janitors. Aajonus said the body does not prefer to use virus and only resorts to it when the three living janitorial options cannot operate. The solvents produced during cleansing cease being manufactured in large quantities once the cleansing and healing process concludes.

The janitorial organisms do not appear randomly or as invaders from outside the body. They appear because something has damaged cells to the point where the lymphatic system cannot process the material alone. Aajonus identified the sources of this damage consistently as industrial chemicals, cooked and processed food, medications, environmental pollutants, heavy metals, and other non-biological agents.

The lymphatic system is the body's primary internal waste management infrastructure. It is designed to absorb cellular waste, neutralize toxins, and move material toward elimination through the skin, kidneys, and bowel. When the volume of damaged tissue exceeds what the lymphatic system can process on its own, the body recruits microbial janitors to reduce the mass before the lymphatic system has to deal with it. A parasite that converts 100 pounds of damaged tissue into 1 to 5 pounds of waste has done most of the lymphatic system's work for it. Without that janitorial assistance, the body faces what Aajonus described as a situation analogous to removing all vultures, crows, and insects from a landscape: without those creatures consuming decaying matter, the entire environment becomes a toxic waste dump. In the body, without bacterial and parasitic janitors, the accumulation of dead cellular material produces systemic degeneration.

Cooking food was identified as one of the primary creators of janitorial work. Cooked food introduces damaged proteins, destroyed enzymes, and chemical byproducts of heat processing into the body. These substances damage cells along the digestive tract and elsewhere, triggering janitorial responses. Industrial chemicals in commercially processed food, including preservatives, antibacterial washes, pesticide residues, and processing compounds, were identified as even more damaging triggers. When Aajonus described food poisoning episodes such as those attributed to E. coli or salmonella outbreaks, he consistently attributed the illness not to the bacteria but to the industrial chemicals in the food that damaged human cells, with the bacterial activity being the cleanup response to that chemical damage.

Aajonus addressed salmonella specifically on multiple occasions because it is one of the bacteria most frequently blamed for food poisoning. He stated that the human body contains approximately 2,300 to 6,000 varieties of salmonella, and that these organisms serve primarily janitorial and digestive functions. On the surface of the skin, salmonella are responsible for consuming dead skin cells before they accumulate to the point of producing snake-like shedding. Without salmonella, he said, humans would periodically shed their skin the way snakes do.

Internally, salmonella acts as a janitor for tissue damaged by cooked food, particularly cooked skin and connective tissue. When a person eats cooked chicken skin, salmonella species that naturally digest skin cells move in to break down the cooked, damaged material. This is not contamination in the way the food industry defines it. It is the natural janitorial response to the presence of cooked and damaged tissue in the digestive environment. The illness associated with salmonella, Aajonus argued, is caused by the chemical damage the cooked or chemically treated food has already done to the consumer's cells, not by the bacteria itself.

He repeatedly criticized the medical and agribusiness industries for using bacterial food poisoning rhetoric to deflect blame from the chemicals used in food processing. The commercial food industry, he argued, gains enormous benefit from this framing because it allows them to continue using toxic chemicals in processing while making bacteria the public enemy. The solution sold is then more processing, more irradiation, more antibacterial treatment, none of which addresses the chemical contamination that is actually creating the cellular damage.

A recurring argument in Aajonus's framework was that laboratory experiments on bacteria and cells in petri dishes do not reflect what happens in a living body. When researchers take human or animal cells, place them in an artificial environment, introduce bacteria, and observe the bacteria consuming those cells, they conclude that the bacteria are destroying healthy tissue. Aajonus's counterargument was precise: cells removed from the body are not in their natural environment and immediately begin to degenerate. The petri dish is an artificial, dead environment. The cells placed in it are on their way to decomposition from the moment they are removed from the living organism.

When bacteria arrive in that environment and begin consuming the deteriorating cells, they are doing exactly what they are designed to do: eat dead and dying material. The laboratory technicians who observe this and conclude the bacteria are pathogenic are, in Aajonus's view, making a fundamental category error. They are watching janitors clean up a mess and concluding the janitors created the mess. He also noted that every petri dish contains antibiotics to prevent the bacterial decomposition that would otherwise destroy the experiment. This means every cell culture experiment is already conducted in a bacterially suppressed, chemically contaminated artificial environment that has nothing to do with how a living body functions.

The same logic applied to the argument that bacteria "eat live cells." Aajonus acknowledged that janitorial bacteria will occasionally consume cells that are still technically alive but are severely toxic and deteriorating. He framed this as the body recognizing that those cells are a liability, that they are too damaged to recover and are producing toxins that threaten surrounding healthy tissue. The bacteria consuming them is not an attack on the body but a salvage operation.

Aajonus applied the janitor framework to dental decay as a specific example of how the medical profession misidentifies cause and effect. He explained that acids, specifically the caustic acids produced by consuming refined sugars and cooked carbohydrates, dissolve the dentine of teeth. Once the dentine is chemically damaged and partially dissolved, bacteria move into the tubule cells of the affected dentine to consume the deteriorating material. Dentists observe the bacteria and conclude that bacteria cause tooth decay. Aajonus argued this is the janitorial misread applied to dentistry: the acid caused the damage, the bacteria arrived to clean it up.

The mouthwash and dental hygiene industry, in his view, compounds this error by selling products that destroy oral bacteria entirely. When a person uses an antibacterial mouthwash, they eliminate the bacteria that would otherwise assist in digesting food and managing oral tissue. The saliva then mixes with the chemical residue of the mouthwash and this contaminated saliva enters the digestive system with every meal, damaging digestion and reducing overall health. He considered antibacterial oral care products actively harmful for this reason.

Aajonus described the consequence of a sterilized, janitor-free body environment in terms of what happens to the external environment when its natural decomposers are eliminated. If all the vultures, crows, ants, and other creatures that consume decaying animal matter were removed from a landscape, the bodies of dead animals would accumulate without decomposing, and the environment would become a gaseous, toxic waste dump. The same principle applies inside the body. Without bacterial and parasitic janitors, the dead cells and damaged tissue that accumulate daily would remain in the body, feeding systemic degeneration.

He pointed to the modern obsession with sterilization and hygiene as a direct contributor to chronic illness. The more sterile a person's environment, the fewer janitorial organisms their body has access to. The fewer janitorial organisms available, the more damaged tissue accumulates. This accumulation is what eventually manifests as the chronic degenerative diseases associated with aging in industrial societies. Populations that live in less sanitized environments, he argued, maintain higher levels of janitorial organisms in their bodies and tend to have different and often more manageable disease profiles.

Aajonus addressed the specific question of which parasites belong in the human intestinal tract and named trichinosis as the primary intestinal parasite natural to humans. He stated that almost all indigenous tribal populations on the planet harbor trichinosis and that this is not a pathological finding but a normal biological state. Trichinosis, in his framework, functions like bacteria: consuming tissue and organic waste in the intestines and providing the body with nutrients as a byproduct of that activity.

He referenced Dr. Joel Weinstock in connection with research on intestinal parasites and their role in immune regulation, specifically in the context of inflammatory bowel conditions. He described cases in which patients suffering from Crohn's disease and similar conditions were given parasitic organisms orally. Five of six patients in one such protocol went into complete remission after receiving the parasites. When their symptoms began returning months later, it was because the parasitic colony had diminished and needed to be replenished. He used this as evidence that the modern sterile gut, stripped of its natural parasitic inhabitants, is a significant factor in intestinal inflammatory disease.

One of Aajonus's consistent positions was that so-called autoimmune diseases, conditions in which the medical profession claims the body is attacking itself, are another instance of the janitorial misread. The body does not attack itself. What is observed in autoimmune conditions is janitorial activity: bacteria, parasites, viral solvents, or fungus consuming damaged and dead tissue in specific organs or systems. When the medical profession observes white blood cells, antibodies, or microbial activity breaking down thyroid tissue, joint tissue, connective tissue, or myelin, it concludes the body has malfunctioned and is destroying itself.

Aajonus's counter-position was that the body is behaving rationally and correctly. It has identified chemically damaged, non-recoverable cells in a specific location and has mobilized its janitorial resources to remove them. The "attack" is a cleanup. What caused the damage that necessitated the cleanup was always, in his framework, a chemical agent: industrial toxins, heavy metals, medication residues, or the toxic byproducts of heat-processed food. Conditions such as lupus, multiple sclerosis (in which the spinal cord's myelin becomes so toxic from metal poisoning that only viral solvents can break it down), muscular dystrophy, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue were all placed within this framework as outcomes of chemical damage followed by janitorial response.

Antibiotics, in Aajonus's framework, are not corrective agents but rather agents that destroy the very organisms the body has recruited to clean up a chemical mess. When a person takes an antibiotic during a bacterial infection, they kill the janitorial bacteria that were consuming the damaged tissue. The chemical damage that triggered the bacterial response remains. The damaged cells that the bacteria were consuming remain. The body is now left with the original problem minus its cleanup crew.

He acknowledged that antibiotics appear to work approximately half the time and offered a specific explanation for this: in some cases, by the time the antibiotic course is complete, the body has managed to handle the remaining damaged tissue through its lymphatic system alone, or the viral solvent pathway. The appearance of recovery is not because the antibiotic addressed the cause but because the body found another route. In other cases, the antibiotic suppresses the janitorial activity, the damaged tissue remains, the body recruits a new and more aggressive janitorial response, and the condition worsens or recurs.

He was particularly critical of antibacterial mouthwashes, hand sanitizers, and the broader sterilization culture for the same reason: they systematically reduce the body's access to janitorial organisms at every point of entry and on every body surface, leaving the accumulated chemical damage of modern life with progressively fewer agents capable of managing it.

Aajonus situated the janitor misread within a commercial and political framework. The pharmaceutical and medical industries benefit financially from the germ theory of disease. If bacteria, parasites, and fungus cause disease, then there is a market for antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics, and the diagnostic infrastructure required to identify these organisms. If instead chemicals cause disease and microorganisms are the cleanup crew, the commercial logic points toward eliminating chemical contamination from food, water, air, and medicine, which would threaten the profitability of the agricultural, food processing, and pharmaceutical industries simultaneously.

Medical school education, he argued, is largely funded and shaped by the pharmaceutical industry. Doctors are trained within a germ theory framework not because the evidence supports it but because the commercial infrastructure requires it. Many doctors who have investigated independently, he suggested, have concluded that the conventional model is wrong but face professional and financial consequences for departing from it. Those who do change their practice often accept significantly reduced income relative to their pharmaceutical-aligned colleagues but report greater satisfaction and clearer conscience.

He framed the billions of years of symbiotic relationship between complex organisms and their microbial companions as the baseline against which any chemical intervention should be measured. Fifty years of industrial chemicals, in his view, are not an improvement on this relationship. They are the primary source of the cellular damage that requires janitorial cleanup in the first place.

Rather than suppressing or eliminating janitorial organisms, Aajonus's position was that the appropriate response to an infection, whether bacterial, parasitic, or fungal, is to support and facilitate the cleanup process. He framed infections the same way he framed colds and flus: they should be allowed to run their course because they represent the body performing necessary cleaning work. Attempting to stop them is attempting to prevent the body from healing itself.

He noted that when an infection is active, it means there is significant damaged tissue in the area and the body has substantial cleaning work to do. Supporting that process means providing the body with the raw materials it needs: raw fats to protect healthy cells during the cleanup, raw proteins to rebuild after the cleanup is complete, and conditions that support perspiration and lymphatic movement so the reduced waste products from janitorial activity can exit the body efficiently. Hot baths were a consistent recommendation for supporting the exit of waste through the skin during detoxification periods.

The one qualification he offered was when a doctor indicates that a specific infection presents a life-threatening risk or risk of permanent damage. In those cases he acknowledged the practical reality of antibiotic use, while maintaining that the antibiotic does not address the underlying cause and that recovery would need to continue through dietary and lifestyle means.