Salmonella

Aajonus cited specific numbers across many talks to make the point that salmonella is not an exotic or dangerous invader but a permanent and ubiquitous resident of the human body. The figures he gave vary somewhat across sessions, which reflects both the inherent imprecision of microbial surveys and the fact that he was speaking from memory across different contexts, but the consistent message is one of extraordinary abundance and diversity.

In the nose alone, Aajonus said there are 1,600 varieties of salmonella, and some estimates he cited placed the number as high as 2,300 varieties just in the nasal passages. In the ears, he identified approximately 90 to 200 varieties. In the rectum, he cited figures of 200 to 240 or more varieties, including just inside the rectal opening. In the mouth, he cited as many as 1,200 varieties. Under the fingernails, additional colonies are present. On the skin, the historical count before regular bathing was introduced ran from approximately 700 varieties to as many as 6,000 to 8,600 varieties, figures he returned to repeatedly. With the advent of soap and daily bathing, he said, humans have lost between 1,500 and 1,800 varieties of skin salmonella that no longer have a viable habitat on chemically treated skin. He also referenced the total body count, including internal varieties, as ranging from 2,300 to 6,000 varieties in and on the human body in its natural state, and in one passage mentioned 3,200 varieties as the figure for a body that retains its full complement.

The practical implication of these numbers is that any policy or medical claim treating salmonella as a contaminant that must be eliminated from food or from the body is not only wrong but is biologically illiterate, because the organism is already everywhere in the human body all the time.

The primary role Aajonus assigned to salmonella is janitorial. The human body sheds approximately 60 trillion skin cells per day, and without a microbial mechanism to consume those dead cells as they detach from the surface, they would accumulate. Aajonus used the image of a snake peeling off its skin to illustrate what would happen to humans in the absence of salmonella: periodic catastrophic sloughing of the entire outer layer of skin. Because humans are active, upright creatures who cannot simply lie dormant while their skin detaches, this would be incompatible with normal functioning. Salmonella on the skin continuously consumes dead cells as they are generated, preventing that accumulation.

The same function applies in the mucous membranes of the nose and throat, where cells die and need to be removed constantly. Soap and water cannot be applied internally to the nasal passages or eyes without causing damage, so salmonella remains in high concentration in those areas even in people who bathe regularly. Aajonus noted that this explains why the highest concentrations of salmonella in the modern human body are found in the nose and throat: those are the areas where regular washing cannot reach, and so the natural microbial ecology has been less disrupted.

Salmonella does not eat live, healthy cells. Aajonus was explicit on this point. When you put salmonella all over the skin, it does not consume healthy living tissue. It only consumes tissue that is dead, dry, or dying. The only exception he named is when tissue has been poisoned by some external chemical agent, in which case the tissue is essentially already compromised, and the salmonella is responding to that damage rather than causing it. In his words: "You put salmonella all over you, do they eat your skin? No, only when the skin becomes dead and dry does the salmonella eat it."

He also noted an important point about soap's effect on this system: when soap is absorbed into skin cells and those cells subsequently die and detach, the salmonella that would normally consume them cannot do so because the soap residue makes the dead cells toxic to the salmonella itself. The salmonella that attempts to eat a soap-laden dead skin cell becomes diseased and dies. This means that regular soap use not only kills salmonella colonies directly but also makes the ongoing food supply for surviving salmonella toxic, progressively eliminating the organism from the skin's surface.

Aajonus devoted considerable attention to explaining why laboratory tests appear to show salmonella destroying live tissue, and why that appearance is entirely artifactual and does not reflect what salmonella does inside the human body.

In a petri dish, cells are placed in a solution that does not replicate the chemistry of the body. There is no natural blood serum environment, no flowing fluids, no natural waste removal system, no ecological context. The cells in a petri dish, placed in an unnatural environment, are already being poisoned to death by the conditions of that environment. When salmonella is introduced to a petri dish containing these cells, it does what it always does: it eats cells that are dying or already dead. Because the petri dish environment is killing the cells, the salmonella appears to be attacking live tissue. Scientists then present this as evidence that salmonella is pathogenic.

Aajonus described this as "a whole false premise." The cells are not healthy. The salmonella is not attacking healthy cells. It is eating cells that are being killed by an artificial laboratory environment. The scientist then announces, "See what it does, it eats a human cell," without disclosing that the cell was already compromised by the unnatural conditions. He applied the same analysis to E. coli: in a petri dish, an isolated animal cell that is not part of an intestinal wall looks, to E. coli, like food, because it is not in its natural ecological context. The E. coli eats it. This is then presented as evidence of pathogenicity.

The newsletter material reinforces this with additional detail: in petri dishes, all byproducts and wastes from cells and bacteria remain in the dish solution, because there is no natural waste removal system. In the body, most of that waste is absorbed as food or evacuated. The artificially toxic accumulation of waste in the petri dish further damages and poisons the cells, making them increasingly available as food for the bacteria. Only mutant bacteria that are chemically forced to survive will survive such an environment, and those mutant forms have little relationship to the natural forms of the same species.

Beyond its janitorial role on the skin and in mucous membranes, salmonella is also a resident of the digestive tract, where it participates in the breakdown and predigestion of food. Aajonus described the digestive system as containing approximately 2,300 varieties of salmonella alongside campylobacter, listeria, E. coli, and many other organisms, all of which work together to predigest food after the initial breakdown by hydrochloric acid in the stomach reduces ingested material to a substance the bacteria can consume. The bacteria eat this material and their excrement is what the body actually absorbs as food. Without this bacterial predigestion, the body would not be absorbing nutrients properly.

He positioned salmonella in the digestive tract as primarily janitorial, appearing in areas where cooked or processed skin tissue has been ingested, because salmonella naturally digests skin. If someone eats cooked chicken skin, for example, salmonella will appear in the digestive tract processing that material. This is not dangerous. It is the appropriate biological response to the presence of skin tissue that needs to be broken down.

He also noted that salmonella along with campylobacter and listeria are present throughout the intestinal environment. When someone is told by the medical profession that salmonella is in their gut and this is a problem, Aajonus's answer was that of course it is there, along with thousands of other bacterial varieties, and their presence does not create the problem. The problem was created by whatever chemical or toxin damaged the tissue in the first place. The salmonella is responding to damage, not initiating it.

When someone is diagnosed with salmonella poisoning after eating raw eggs or other raw foods, Aajonus argued that in nearly every such case, what is actually happening is a detoxification from industrial poisons, not an attack by salmonella bacteria. The symptoms, primarily diarrhea and vomiting, are the body's mechanism for ejecting industrial chemicals, heavy metals, and other toxic accumulations.

He stated directly: "Most of the people who get diarrhea and vomit are just getting rid of industrial poisons. It doesn't have anything to do with the salmonella." He proposed that if the vomit and urine of people experiencing so-called salmonella poisoning were tested not for bacterial content but for chemical and toxic mineral content, what would be found would be arsenic, lead, thimerosal, mercury, thallium, and other industrial poisons. Salmonella might be present in a small quantity, but it would be a minor finding overwhelmingly overshadowed by the toxic chemical content.

He gave the example of a 36-year-old woman who came to him with breast cancer: her detoxification symptoms were driven by the industrial poison accumulation in her body, not by any bacterial infection. The attribution of such symptoms to salmonella is, in his framework, a deliberate misdirection that protects industrial food manufacturers and chemical companies from accountability while providing the pharmaceutical industry with a villainous microbe that justifies antibiotic sales and other treatments.

He also addressed directly the scenario of someone eating raw eggs who then vomits. In his view, this vomiting is not harmful or disease-creating. It is a repulsion response, the body ejecting something toxic that was already in the stomach. The egg itself, even when rotten, is not toxic. The vomiting passes without creating degenerative disease. He cited that only about 5% of people who eat high eggs (eggs that have been allowed to ferment and rot) ever vomit, and those who do experience it recover quickly and without lasting harm.

He was also asked directly about a situation in which people in a given location became ill and the illness was attributed to salmonella from chicken. His response was unambiguous: "They did not have a case of salmonella that caused their detoxification. As I have stated many times, people in a given location will go through detoxification from toxicity when climate and bodies are ready."

One of the most detailed threads in Aajonus's teaching on salmonella involves what he considered proof that the medical and pharmaceutical establishment knows salmonella is not dangerous but instead is therapeutically valuable, while simultaneously marketing it at enormous cost rather than allowing people to obtain it freely from food.

Yale University had been using salmonella for approximately ten to fifteen years, depending on which talk of his is referenced, in experiments showing that salmonella enters tumor tissue, chokes off the oxygen supply to the tumor, and then eats the tumor. Aajonus cited this repeatedly as evidence that salmonella functions precisely as he always described it: as an organism that identifies and consumes damaged, degenerating, or dead tissue, which is exactly what a tumor represents.

A pharmaceutical company called Vion Products (also referred to as Bion Products or Biome Products in different passages, reflecting Aajonus speaking from memory) then paid Yale to conduct formal trials and patented a modified version of this salmonella. The modification was deliberate attenuation: they altered the salmonella's genes so that it would still choke off the oxygen supply to a tumor but would then stop and not eat the tumor. This created a two-stage commercial treatment: first, inject the attenuated salmonella at $8,000 per injection to cut off the tumor's oxygen. Second, inject a chemical solvent at $12,000 per injection to dissolve the tumor that the salmonella is no longer permitted to eat naturally. Third, administer additional medications at costs ranging from $6,000 to $40,000 (figures vary across his talks) to manage the toxic reaction from the solvent dissolving the tumor. Total treatment costs he cited ranged from $20,000 to $60,000 or more depending on the version of the story.

Aajonus found this arrangement to be a precise illustration of medical corruption: the natural process, salmonella eating a tumor, is freely available from a rotten egg or rotting meat. It costs nothing. The pharmaceutical version removes the most valuable part of the process (the actual consumption of the tumor) to create two additional billable interventions in its place, and then adds a third intervention to manage the toxicity created by the second.

He said repeatedly that people could simply let their eggs rot and eat them, or let their meat age and eat it, and receive the same salmonella that the pharmaceutical industry was selling for thousands of dollars per injection. He also mentioned that people eating rotten eggs regularly in Asian communities tend not to develop cancer, and that rotten eggs are eaten as a regular food in various Asian cultures.

He extended this point to his clinical practice: he used rotten meat (what he called "high meat") to help reverse cancer in patients, and cited 238 terminal cancer clients of whom 232 reversed their condition on a protocol that included raw meat, raw eggs, and other raw animal foods carrying natural bacterial content including salmonella. He also described having patients eat fecal matter from healthy animals (buffalo, pig) to reintroduce bacterial populations, including having them eat sections of bowel tied off and consumed directly, about two ounces every couple of days, with cancer reversal resulting within months.

He also cited Dr. Low at Yale as doing similar work with salmonella toxin to eat up tumors, parallel to the University of Toronto's use of the varitoxin from E. coli to dissolve brain tumors in five to seven days. He noted that 18 universities are now using various bacteria and viruses to reverse cancer, which in his framework confirms that the entire official narrative about bacteria being pathogenic is known to be false at the institutional level.

Aajonus directly addressed the conventional warnings about salmonella in raw eggs and raw milk. His position was that the presence of salmonella in these foods is not a problem and is in fact beneficial. The salmonella in a raw egg or raw milk will enter the digestive tract and perform its janitorial and digestive functions. It does not cause disease.

He was dismissive of the scientific basis for claims linking raw milk or raw eggs to salmonella illness. He cited journalist Emily Green's research on salmonella literature going back to World War II, which found that CDC speculation about the origin of Salmonella enteritis "somehow transmogrified into fact once it reached the pages of political reports" and that the speculation "remains unproved." He quoted John R. Roth, Professor of Biology at the University of Utah, who studied salmonella for 40 years and stated that salmonella lives beneficially as part of gut flora, that the idea of eliminating it is absurd because it is distributed everywhere, that it rarely crosses the gut wall, and when it does it is simply an irritation producing symptoms ranging from loose stools to flu-like symptoms. Roth himself called the idea of eradicating salmonella ludicrous.

Aajonus also cited a study from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Arkansas Children's Hospital examining 50 homes where salmonella-infected children lived, finding that salmonella was widespread throughout the homes, concentrated in doorsteps, vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, and even a pet lizard. His point was that salmonella is simply everywhere, and the presence of children who had it did not indicate that the salmonella caused disease; rather, the relevant questions were whether the microbes were active in a nontoxic environment and whether they were doing a beneficial job.

He also addressed the bacteriological count difference between raw and cooked food. Bacterial counts in cooked meat and eggs grow as much as 60 times higher than in raw food before the food produces a putrid odor. The waste products from bacteria feeding on cooked food are 10 to 100 times more toxic than the waste products from bacteria feeding on raw food. This is why bacterial food poisoning occurs from cooked, packaged, or restaurant food rather than from fresh raw food in Aajonus's framework. The processing of food by cooking creates a substrate on which bacteria produce far more toxic byproducts than they would produce on raw food.

He addressed the California raw milk regulatory environment specifically, noting that the Santa Cruz County regulation required zero tolerance for E. coli or salmonella, making it nearly impossible for raw milk to pass inspection, while all other raw and even pasteurized dairies were permitted to have up to 10 organisms per unit of measure. He framed this as a bias against raw milk that had nothing to do with genuine safety concerns.

He also referenced a case involving a Georgia dairy (Mathis Dairy) and its large-scale raw milk distribution, and described a historical instance of prisoners receiving raw milk piped directly from a source contaminated with animal dung, filtered but not pasteurized, with no cases of E. coli or salmonella poisoning among the recipients.

In one passage focused on eggs specifically, Aajonus noted that refrigerating eggs destroys enzymes and then allows salmonella to grow faster. He explained that if eggs obtained from a market had already been refrigerated and are then allowed to warm up during transit home and then re-refrigerated, they are more likely to turn. His preference was to obtain eggs directly from the farmer, never refrigerated, and to leave them unrefrigerated at home as long as ambient temperature remained below 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Under those conditions, he said eggs last three to six weeks.

The implication is that the commercial handling of eggs, involving refrigeration that damages enzymes and then temperature cycling that accelerates bacterial growth on a now-compromised substrate, is what creates conditions under which bacterial activity in eggs becomes problematic. The salmonella itself is not the variable; the condition of the egg's underlying biological substrate, whether enzymatically intact or enzyme-damaged by cold, is the determining factor.

Aajonus returned repeatedly to the historical contrast between pre-bathing human populations and modern soap-using populations to illustrate how dramatically the human microbiome has been disrupted. Historically, a typical person might bathe once a year, in June, and go from late September or October through June without any contact with water for bathing purposes. In cold climates, bathing in winter was not possible without freezing and without stripping the protective fat layer from the skin. Under these conditions, salmonella colonies on the skin numbered in the thousands of varieties and were thriving, continuously consuming dead skin cells.

He referenced indigenous and tribal peoples who do not bathe as examples of humans whose skin is covered in salmonella colonies. He said these people are not sick because of it; the salmonella is eating dead cells and maintaining skin health. The skin is, in his analogy, vegetation for salmonella, much as actual vegetation is food for elephants, giraffes, and other large animals. Just as one does not call an elephant toxic for eating trees, one should not call salmonella toxic for eating dead skin cells.

Modern soap use has effectively wiped out 1,500 to 1,800 varieties of salmonella that used to live on human skin and is actively hostile to the remaining varieties. Soap residue in dead skin cells makes those cells toxic to salmonella, which then cannot eat them without becoming diseased itself. The result is that modern humans shed 60 trillion dead skin cells per day into an environment where the microbial janitors that would normally consume them have been largely eliminated or poisoned, creating conditions of microbial deficiency that Aajonus considered a serious long-term health liability.

He connected this to the broader antibacterial product industry: antibacterial blankets, antibacterial soaps, antibacterial sprays. He noted that antibacterial blankets are made of plastic fibers, meaning that the protection marketed to parents for their children involves surrounding children with plastic-derived chemical residues while eliminating the bacteria that would otherwise maintain the child's skin health.

Aajonus framed the salmonella narrative as one of the clearest examples of industrial accountability evasion in modern history. When people become ill after eating contaminated processed or cooked food, the illness is caused by the industrial chemicals, preservatives, and toxic residues in that food. The body uses salmonella, listeria, campylobacter, and other janitorial bacteria to respond to the resulting tissue damage. The bacteria are then found at the site of the damage, and the medical and regulatory establishment points to the bacteria as the cause rather than the industrial toxins.

He used the janitor analogy consistently: you do not blame janitors for making a place dirty because they are found around the dirt and garbage. They are present because they are cleaning it. The dirt was created by something else, specifically by industrial chemicals in food, by pharmaceutical drugs, by environmental pollutants, and by the processing and cooking of food. The pharmaceutical and agribusiness industries, he argued, will never blame themselves for the damage their products cause, so they blame the microbes instead, which also conveniently provides them with a market for antibiotics, antimicrobial products, and other chemical interventions that generate ongoing revenue.

He noted that this misdirection serves a second purpose: it drives people toward chemical solutions (antibacterial products, antibiotics, antimicrobials) that further destroy the natural bacterial ecology of the body, creating additional illness, which generates further demand for pharmaceutical products. The cycle is self-reinforcing and deliberately maintained.

He was also explicit that bacteria can become harmful in one specific scenario: when it has been genetically modified by military or industrial actors. He stated that naturally occurring bacteria, including all naturally occurring salmonella, cannot harm a healthy person. The only bacteria that can cause genuine harm are man-made, genetically engineered organisms. He referenced military bacterial warfare experimentation on American citizens and said there is documentation of 50 million people in the United States being used in bacterial warfare experiments.

Aajonus's practical conclusion from all of this was that people should not fear salmonella in food and should in fact welcome it. He described eating rotten eggs and aged or high meat as ways of introducing beneficial bacterial populations including salmonella into the body to support detoxification, digestion, and cancer reversal.

He described the body's own relationship with salmonella as one of production and maintenance: the body has always produced and harbored these organisms, and the goal of the Primal Diet approach is to restore the bacterial richness that industrial living has eliminated. He contrasted the $8,000 pharmaceutical injection of attenuated salmonella with the free and natural supply available from a rotten egg or aged meat, and advocated simply for letting food age naturally and eating it.

He acknowledged that some people will vomit when first eating high fermented foods including those with significant salmonella content, but characterized this vomiting as a benign cleansing response, not a pathological event. The body is ejecting something from the stomach that it finds incompatible at that moment, but the process does not create disease and passes quickly. He cited only about 5% of people who eat high eggs ever vomit from them.

He instructed people that if they are concerned about bacterial levels in meat, the practical guideline is: when meat stinks, don't eat it. The naturally putrid odor that develops when bacterial counts get high in raw food is the body's natural signal. This guidance applies to naturally fermented foods as distinct from food that has simply spoiled in an uncontrolled or chemically contaminated environment.