Plastic Surgery

Aajonus noted that the medical profession had adopted the practice of injecting adrenaline compounds around surgical incision sites during plastic surgery procedures. He described this as something that helps the tissue "heal and strengthen and take care of itself faster," acknowledging the physiological logic behind it. Adrenaline, in his framework, is an emergency hormone produced by the adrenal glands that the body deploys in fight-or-flight situations and during injury recovery. The injection of adrenaline during surgery exploits this natural healing pathway.

However, his objection was not to the use of adrenaline itself but to the synthetic pharmaceutical form in which it is delivered. He described what he considered a natural alternative: "I suggest that you get some adrenaline, chew it into a mush and then put it around the area." The implicit instruction here is to use raw adrenal gland tissue, chewed to a mush, and applied topically to the surgical area rather than using a pharmaceutical adrenaline injection. He described this as absorbing something natural rather than something synthetic, which he distinguished as carrying different consequences for the body.

Aajonus was equally explicit on the question of antibiotics during and after plastic surgery. His statement was direct: "Don't use antibiotics because part of the healing is bacteria." This position follows from his broader framework in which bacteria are understood as agents of cellular breakdown, nutrient recycling, and tissue repair rather than pathogens to be suppressed. In his view, bacteria are recruited by the body to dissolve damaged cells, process waste, and facilitate the building of new tissue. Administering antibiotics during a surgical recovery period, including after plastic surgery, kills the very organisms the body depends on to heal the incision and surrounding tissue.

This does not mean he was indifferent to infection risk. His broader body of work describes the use of lime juice as a topical antiseptic, along with raw honey and raw meat as wound dressings, as alternatives that support healing without suppressing bacterial activity systemically.

Aajonus described the use of methylate, curacroma, and iodine as antibacterials during surgery as a serious hazard. He identified methylate and curacroma as forms of liquid mercury. His concern was precise: mercury applied to a surgical site poisons everything within approximately two inches of that area, creating dead cells in tissue that is already under stress. He argued that when this occurs in or near cancerous tissue, the result is the creation of additional dead cells that the body cannot dissolve, which extends and compounds tumor formation rather than resolving it. He observed that when he was able to persuade patients' surgeons not to use these mercury-based antiseptics, recovery outcomes were substantially better.

Aajonus was sharply critical of skin grafting as a practice. He described grafted skin as healing in an aberrant way, becoming extremely hard and insensitive rather than producing normal flexible tissue. He drew on his own experience as a primary example: when he was three years old, a lawn mower accident severed his finger, and surgeons took skin from elsewhere on his body and grafted it onto the finger. The grafted tissue, he said, healed "as hard as rock," and he was able to put the finger through plexiglass without feeling it. He described this as the consequence of transplanting tissue to a location where it does not belong, where it cannot properly integrate.

The resolution came, in his account, only after he began eating raw meat. Approximately one week to the year after starting raw meat, the entire grafted tissue fell off spontaneously. New skin grew back, complete with fingerprints and normal sensitivity. He was approximately 30 years old when this occurred, meaning the hardened grafted tissue persisted for 27 years before the diet-driven regeneration displaced it.

He described the same pattern in a client, a woman in her mid-fifties, who ground off her finger including part of the bone in a coconut juicer. He instructed her to apply lime juice, honey, coconut cream, and raw meat as a bandage over the injury. The bone and skin regrew over time. Photographs were taken at intervals documenting the process. He said that when he last saw her, the finger looked essentially normal, with the nail reforming correctly. He used this as evidence against grafting: "Nobody needs grafting. You see those people go around grafting all over and that turns into scar tissue and they're in pain all the time because it all stretches."

He also cited a case in Georgia involving a man who had suffered severe injuries from the knee down to the bone, with muscle tissue missing. The man was attended by paramedics, fire department, and police, all of whom urged hospitalization. He refused. He cleaned the wound with lime juice, applied honey and raw meat, and 14 days later the skin had completely regrown, with only slight pinkness remaining. Aajonus described this as "completely healed" without any grafting.

A separate case involved a woman in the United Kingdom, Sandra, whose wrist and forearm were lacerated by blender blades when the blender was accidentally activated without the jar. The emergency room told her she needed a plastic surgeon for major skin grafting. Her son contacted Aajonus instead. He instructed the son to clean the wounds with lime juice, despite the pain this would cause, and to follow up with the same wound-dressing protocol. No grafting was performed and the tissue healed.

Aajonus did not claim scar tissue is permanent, but he was realistic about the timeline. His position was that scar tissue is among the last things the body resolves when healing itself through the Primal Diet, and the timeline he cited was up to 40 years for complete resolution of tissue damage accumulated over a lifetime. He used his own surgical scar, from the vagotomy pyloroplasty performed when he was 21, as a visible example he would show at workshops. He described the keloid scar from that surgery as having been up to an inch and three quarters wide and up to three quarters of an inch high, extending through the skin and into the stomach wall. Over decades on the raw diet, he said the scar had progressively reduced: "Scar tissue doesn't have to remain. Nothing remains if you're on a good diet. You can clean anything out."

He described the use of pineapple or papaya juice, applied once per day, as a topical treatment for scar tissue, citing enzymes in those fruits as capable of breaking it down. The rate of resolution, he said, depends on the thickness of the scar tissue.

Aajonus described a case involving a nightclub singer who developed nose cancer, which he linked to years of breathing vaporized plastic oil used in theatrical smoke machines. He was explicit that the vaporized substance in modern fog machines is not dry ice but hydrogenated vegetable oil in aerosolized form. His position: "Plastic is poison." He said he would walk out of any venue where those machines were operating because of the particulate plastic being inhaled.

The woman lost approximately half her nose to the cancer and the detoxification process he guided her through. He said he always prepared patients to expect to lose the whole structure and was satisfied that she retained half. He used this case to illustrate the body's capacity for partial regeneration in cancer cases involving external structures.

Aajonus framed many conventional indications for plastic surgery as problems the body can address without surgical intervention if the correct nutritional environment is provided. He extended this to third- and fourth-degree burns, severe lacerations, partial amputations, and bone loss. The wound-dressing protocol he described consistently involved lime juice as initial cleansing, followed by raw honey, coconut cream, and raw meat applied as a bandage, with the wound kept moist and covered.

He described his own motorcycle accident in Thailand as an example. He lost skin from multiple large areas, down to bone in places, with muscle tissue also missing. He refused surgery, packed the injuries with hot water bottles, applied raw meat and coconut cream, and covered everything with damp cloths and then plastic wrap to prevent drying, then wrapped in ace bandages. He described twelve days to complete skin regrowth across extensive areas. He was temporarily in a wheelchair and used a hotel swimming pool without chlorine for five days to move his leg without weight-bearing.

His broader argument is that surgical intervention, including plastic surgery, adds iatrogenic damage on top of original injury or disease. He described surgery as causing two to five times more damage than the original injury in many cases, citing the recovery trajectories of people who had undergone knee surgeries. The body that declines surgery has only to repair the original damage; the body that undergoes surgery must also repair what the surgeons did.

In a related context, Aajonus addressed the use of plastic dental fillings during discussions of dental surgery. He recommended porcelain inlays or onlays rather than plastic composite fillings, on the grounds that the plastics used in composite fillings outgas PCBs, thimerosal, BHA, and a curing compound, referenced as possibly BHS, which was found in animal studies to cause cancer in approximately 80% of animals exposed to the gases from hard plastic composites. He said the gases from plastic fillings leach into the system even when the solid material itself does not. Porcelain, though itself a fired substance, was his preferred choice as the least toxic available option.

Aajonus addressed whether surgical removal is necessary in some cancer cases, specifically breast cancer. He described cases where certain chemicals, notably compounds in aspirin and other pharmaceutical substances, had turned cells into a substance he characterized as cement-like, which the body cannot dissolve or eliminate. Unlike most tumor tissue, these cement-like cells cannot be broken down. He acknowledged losing two clients to breast cancer who refused surgery. He did not claim surgery is categorically wrong in these situations, nor did he claim the Primal Diet resolves all such cases. His stated cancer reversal rate was 95% up to 1992, a figure he associated with cases before the increasing prevalence of certain pharmaceutical and industrial chemical exposures.

---