Sanitary Products

Aajonus traced the antibacterial product industry to deliberate commercial conditioning, not to any scientific finding about microbes and disease. He described commercials that "drum into children's and parents' minds that microbes will destroy children, relationships, sexuality and lives," and he identified this messaging as a strategy by corporations to sell chemical poisons under the guise of safety. He stated that bacteria has never created disease in anybody, that bacteria exists in degenerative tissue as part of a process the body requires, and that without bacteria the body would have to rely entirely on viral and solvent-based detoxification, which is far less efficient and far more damaging to surrounding tissue.

His specific argument about sanitary hygiene was that humans and their ancestors had been handling bacteria and fecal matter for millions of years without antibacterial intervention. He cited the preserved remains of Lucy at approximately four to five million years old as evidence that Homo sapiens had been going from defecation directly to food handling without soaps, and he stated that this caused no epidemic of disease. He pointed to Arabic countries where, by custom, people wipe with one hand and shake with the other and handle food with both, and observed there was no resulting epidemic attributable to fecal bacteria. His conclusion was that washing hands with antibacterial soap after using the toilet is "an absolute absurdity" and that the chemical industry invented this norm to sell chemical poisons.

He extended this logic to the observation that soap itself, as a cleansing category, was historically used primarily on hair, not on the whole body. He stated: "A hundred years ago, they didn't have toilet paper. They didn't have the outhouses. They went in the woods. They didn't have soaps to wash their hands. Washing soaps usually was only used for hair because the hair would get so thick and so gloved." He regarded the normalization of full-body soap use as a relatively recent industrial development with no basis in the health history of the species.

Aajonus identified two specific chemical toxins present in commercial antibacterial soaps and personal care products: triclosan and triclocarban. He described both as endocrine disruptors, meaning they interfere with hormonal signaling throughout the body. He noted that the Natural Resources Defense Council had sued the FDA for failing to regulate these chemicals in antibacterial soaps and personal care products, and he compiled or referenced a detailed list of products containing these toxins.

Products he named as containing triclosan and/or triclocarban in the soap and skin care category included Dial Liquid Soap, Softsoap Antibacterial Liquid Hand Soap, Tea Tree Therapy Liquid Soap, Provon Soap, Clearasil Daily Face Wash, Dermatologica Skin Purifying Wipes, Clean and Clear Foaming Facial Cleanser, DermaKleen Antibacterial Lotion Soap, Naturade Aloe Vera 80 Antibacterial Soap, CVS Antibacterial Soap, and Phisoderm Antibacterial Skin Cleanser. In dental care, he named Colgate Total, Breeze Triclosan Mouthwash, Reach Antibacterial Toothbrush, and Janina Diamond Whitening Toothpaste. In cosmetics, he named Supre Cafe Bronzer, TotalSkinCare Makeup Kit, Garden Botanika Powder Foundation, Mavala Lip Base, Jason Natural Cosmetics, Blemish Cover Stick, Movate Skin Litening Cream HQ, Paul Mitchell Detangler Comb, Revlon ColorStay LipSHINE Lipcolor Plus Gloss, and Dazzle. In deodorants, he named Old Spice High Endurance Stick Deodorant, Right Guard Sport Deodorant, Queen Helene Tea Tree Oil Deodorant and Aloe Deodorant, DeCleor Deodorant Stick, Epoch Deodorant with Citrisomes, and X Air Maximum Strength Deodorant. In other personal care products, he named Gillette Complete Skin Care MultiGel Aerosol Shave Gel, Murad Acne Complex Kit, Diabet-x Cream, T.Taio sponges and wipes, and Aveeno Therapeutic Shave Gel.

He also documented triclosan's presence far beyond soap products, extending into clothing, children's toys, first aid products, kitchenware, computer equipment, furniture, and home products. Clothing items named included Merrell Shoes, Sabatier Chef's Apron, Dickies Socks, Fruit of the Loom Socks, and Biofresh Socks. Children's toys containing triclosan included multiple Playskool products: Stack n Scoop Whale, Rockin Radio, Hourglass, Sounds Around Driver, Roll n Rattle Ball, Animal Sounds Phone, Busy Beads Pal, Pop n Spin Top, and Lights n Surprise Laptop. First aid products included SyDERMA Skin Protectant plus First Aid Antiseptic, Solarcaine, First Aid Medicated Spray, Nexcare First Aid Skin Crack Care, First Aid/Burn Cream, and HealWell Night Splint. Kitchenware items included Farberware Microban Steakknife Set and Cutting Boards, Franklin Machine Products FMP Ice Cream Scoop, Hobart Semi-Automatic Slicer, Chix Food Service Wipes with Microban, and Compact Web Foot Wet Mop Heads. The list also included Fellowes Cordless Microban Keyboard and Microban Mouse Pad, Bionare Cool Mist Humidifier, Microban All Weather Reinforced Hose, Thomasville Furniture, Deciguard AB Ear Plugs, Bauer 5000 Helmet, Aquatic Whirlpools, Miller Paint Interior Paint, QVC Collapsible 40-Can Cooler, Holmes Foot Buddy Foot Warmer, Blue Mountain Wall Coverings, California Paints, EHC AMRail Escalator Handrails, Dupont Air Filters, Durelle Carpet Cushions, Advanta One Laminate Floors, San Luis Blankets, J Cloth towels, and JERMEX mops.

Aajonus's position on what triclosan specifically does was that it disrupts endocrines, damages reproductive organs, affects the quality of sperm, and interferes with thyroid and reproductive hormones. He treated this as a serious and systemic harm being introduced to people through products they consider protective.

Aajonus was specifically alarmed by antibacterial fabrics marketed for children, including blankets and clothing. His argument was that antibacterial synthetic fabrics are a form of plastic fiber, and that all fabric lints over time. He stated: "Lint from those synthetic antibacterial fibers (that are usually forms of plastic) will enter children's mouths, nasal passages and lungs. The toxic lint will dissolve then contaminate our children with chemicals that cause serious diseases. As those fabrics age, they produce more lint. Consequently, our children are very likely to develop cancers sooner than later in their lifetimes."

He extended this concern beyond children to anyone who handles those fabrics, including siblings, mothers who wash and handle them, and parents who hold children wrapped in them. His observation was that everyone who wears synthetic fabric breathes lint continuously, and that even bystanders may breathe it.

He illustrated this concern with an observation from his travels in Vietnam. He noted that when he visited Saigon, Hanoi, and other major Vietnamese cities, approximately 90 to 100 percent of women were wearing synthetic plastic pajamas as everyday clothing, which he attributed to the low cost of synthetic fabric relative to cotton or silk following the economic disruption of the war. He used this as a cautionary example of a population being exposed continuously to plastic fiber inhalation through their clothing choices.

He stated that plastic fibers in the lungs require the body to literally digest them, and that the chemical composition of synthetic fibers, including epoxy compounds, kerosene derivatives, ether, and dioxins introduced to prevent mold growth on plastics, makes this digestion extremely damaging. He stated that dioxins had been added to plastics specifically to prevent mold and fungal breakdown, noting that without those additives, plastic car seats would mold in as little as six months. His conclusion was that people should eliminate synthetic rugs, sheets, bedspreads, furniture coverings, and any other household fiber items that will produce lint, because they all will produce lint and the lint will be breathed continuously.

He identified natural fibers as significantly safer, naming silk and wool specifically, though he noted that if someone is allergic to wool it means they are not producing enough mucus to protect the mucosal lining from those fibers. He contrasted natural fibers with synthetics by pointing out that cotton and silk fibers, if inhaled, can be carried out of the body via mucus, coughed up, or transported to the intestinal tract, whereas plastic fibers do not transfer through those pathways and remain embedded as toxic material.

Aajonus provided a historical account of how soap manufacturing shifted from natural to petrochemical bases, which he used to explain why all commercially available soaps are now toxic. He stated that approximately fifty to fifty-five years before his lectures (placing this roughly in the 1940s to 1950s), 100 percent of all soaps, whether shampoo, body soap, or laundry soap, contained coconut. He traced the abandonment of coconut-based soap to the labor intensity of coconut processing: growing the trees, harvesting the large husks, breaking them open, dealing with fermentation byproducts, and the sheer number of human hours required at each stage. He said the soap industry shifted to petroleum and chemical bases because those could be manufactured more cheaply and quickly, and he stated plainly: "They don't give a shit about your health, at all. It is about profit, strictly now. Or else they'd still make everything from coconut. All the soaps would still be from coconut."

He named the chemical components that replaced coconut in soap manufacturing as petroleum, petroleum-derived acetates, kerosene, and various industrial solvents. He characterized these as "rough industrial solvents going into your body, instead of a food substance like coconut," and stated that all commercially available soaps in stores are toxic for this reason. He made the historical note that before coconut became the dominant soap base, animal fats were used, specifically lard rendered from pigs, and that this too was a clean and non-toxic soap base.

He also noted that bile produced by the liver functions as the body's own internal soap, observing that approximately one-third of the sixty varieties of cholesterol produced from dietary fat is used specifically for cleansing the body, and that "almost all soaps are made from petroleum or fat of some sort. Now 50, 55 years ago 100% of all of the soaps contained coconut cream." He drew a direct parallel between the body's cholesterol-based internal soaps, including what he called viruses, which he described as protein-based solvents manufactured by cells, and the external soap products people use on their bodies, to argue that the body already has its own sophisticated cleansing chemistry and does not need commercial chemical disruption of that system.

Aajonus stated that he used no store-bought products for personal care at all, with one exception. His complete personal care regimen, as he described it, consisted of the following:

For body soap and shampoo, he used fermented coconut cream mixed with water. His formula was one ounce of coconut cream to eight ounces of water. He described the preparation method as allowing coconut cream to sit out in the bathroom, unrefrigerated, until it turns pink, at which point it has fermented. He stated he would wet his hair and body first, then apply this mixture, and that it served as his soap, shampoo, and everything else for body cleansing. He described rubbing fermented coconut cream on his body and observing that when a tribe member in the Philippines scrubbed his back with smooth ocean rocks, the way the tribe cleansed themselves, no dirt came off because the coconut cream had already drawn out what needed to come out.

For deodorant, he used lemon juice in the armpits, noting that lemon works slightly better than lime juice. He explained that commercial deodorants contain aluminum, and that aluminum is used because it holds the product in place on the skin so it does not perspire away into clothing. He stated that this aluminum simultaneously contaminates the skin.

For shaving and hair care beyond his coconut cream routine, he mentioned egg as a shaving medium and for hair.

For bathing, he used coconut cream in his bath, noting two or three tablespoons of coconut cream added to the bathwater. He also described a bath formula for neutralizing municipal water toxins, consisting of three-quarters of a cup of raw milk, two to three tablespoons of raw apple cider vinegar, and two heaping tablespoons of either sea salt or epsom salt in a full bathtub. He noted the salts help draw perspiration and pull toxins through the skin more efficiently because salt attracts water. He stated that when he had Los Angeles municipal water analyzed in 2003, it contained 192 chemical toxins, which rose from 157 when fluoride was added. His bath formula was developed specifically to address bathing in that kind of water.

For dental care, he used fermented coconut cream to brush his teeth, the same coconut cream he used for body washing.

The one commercial product he used was BioClean degreaser, which he used for laundry and for cleaning toilets and sinks. He spelled the brand name as B-I-O-C-L-E-A-N. However, he later noted, in response to a question about a related product called Biokleen laundry liquid, that this product had added sodium lauryl sulfate as of approximately March of the year before the question was asked, and that he did not consider it acceptable regardless of the manufacturer's claim that it was "plant-based." His response was that it does not matter that a chemical was once part of a plant, because the processing uses gasoline to dissolve the plant and a chemical process to render it. He stated he had purchased approximately a four-year supply of his preferred product before the reformulation and did not have time to search for another product at that time.

He was then asked about using fermented coconut cream as a laundry alternative. He confirmed that fermented coconut cream could be used for laundry and specified how to prepare it: add one tablespoon of lemon juice to one cup of coconut cream and let it stand in a warm location, though the source passage is cut off before the full preparation instruction is completed.

Aajonus expressed specific concern about showering in fluoridated and chlorinated municipal water, which he considered a distinct category of chemical exposure separate from the toxicity of soap products themselves. He stated that the fluoride and chlorine levels in certain municipal water supplies were sufficient to leave him, in his words, "a nervous shaking wreck" if he took a shower. He stated he would not take showers in such water and directed people toward hot baths instead, with his neutralizing formula added to the water. He specified that he had built a three-component filtration system for his publisher because plumbers did not know how to install it, describing the use of a large approximately twenty-inch canister filter.

He also warned against Clorox baths, which he said some people were using to detoxify chemical residues and even radiation. He described Clorox as harmful because it contains chloroform, which off-gasses as a harmful vapor.

Aajonus addressed the specific situation of raw food handling and the role of sanitary protocols in commercial settings. His position was that when handling raw food, there is no need to wash hands, because bacteria on or from raw food is not a danger. He stated: "I say anytime that you have a raw food, don't worry about bacteria from it, no matter how old it is. You don't have to wash your hands. You don't have to do any of that."

His concern about hand washing in food contexts was the opposite of conventional guidance: he was worried about chemical contamination of food from residues left on hands after using cleaning products, not about bacterial contamination. He stated that the chemicals from cleaning and sanitizing products are what should be removed from hands before food contact, because "by the time the detoxification leaves the body, it is not a danger. It is already arrested, broken down, and neutralized, or else it would have never made out of the body. So the chemicals are the worst thing in there."

He described the use of Clorox in commercial meat departments as a specific example of how chemical sanitation harms people in food environments: "You walk into this store down there in the meat department, it smells like Clorox. You know, because in the fumes, the chloroform is poisoning every customer and every employee down there. That's not a safe thing. That's not sanitary. That's poisoning stupidity."

He also mentioned that residual chemical contamination on the skin, if not fully cleared, can cause visible physiological reactions. He gave the example that if a detoxification compound has not been completely cleaned from the cheeks, a person will begin flushing red in that area. He described this kind of residual chemical contamination as the type of thing that creates disease in the population.

Aajonus repeatedly characterized the entire antibacterial product category as a marketing strategy, drawing an explicit comparison to bottled water. He said: "We're bottling water now, so let's market water. Let's market antibacterial poisons." He argued that the invention and proliferation of antibacterial products represents the same pattern: taking something that was never needed, creating a market fear, and selling the product as a solution. His view was that the underlying fear, the belief that microbes attack us and must be eliminated, is the manufactured premise that makes the entire product category possible.

He stated that the pharmaceutical and chemical industries at their highest levels understand that bacteria are not pathogenic, but that they maintain and amplify the germ theory narrative because it makes products that kill bacteria essential for the population to buy. He extended this to the use of antibacterial language in corporate wellness messaging, noting that companies spending large amounts on advertising promise "brighter smiles, more sex, more friends, more money and happier lives" if people use antibacterial toothpastes and mouthwashes that "destroy not only digestive bacteria in our salivary glands and mouths but in our brains."

He argued that 80 to 90 percent of digestion should be bacterial from mouth to sigmoid colon, and that digestive enzymes should account for only 10 to 20 percent of digestion, so the destruction of oral and salivary bacteria through antibacterial dental products directly undermines digestion at its first stage. His conclusion was that antibacterial soaps, sprays, fabrics, dental products, and all other antibacterial items in the personal care and household category represent a systematic destruction of the body's biological support systems while introducing industrial chemical toxins through every possible route of exposure.

Aajonus raised paper as a specific category of sanitary product concern, identifying it as "one of the most toxic substances created." He described his experience living on Jekyll Island, Georgia for a year and a half, near the paper plant in Brunswick, Georgia. He stated that when the wind shifted from the plant, the odor was so severe he would develop headaches and illness for weeks. He reported that the rate of brain cancer in Brunswick, Georgia attributable to the paper factory was 38 percent, and that 64 percent of children in Brunswick were born with deformities.

His personal practice for toilet paper was to use cotton because of how it is woven, rather than paper. He said he would not use paper for any purpose other than wiping, and avoided paper packaging for his meat, preferring to take it home in plastic bags from the supermarket rather than having it wrapped in paper. He stated that paper mills that adhesively bond papers together, rather than using the old parchment-making process of simply pressing starches together, produce highly toxic paper products.

He did not elaborate further on this point in the passages but his position was clear: paper as a hygiene or packaging product carries substantial toxicity from the manufacturing process.

Aajonus commented briefly on air ionizers as a sanitation category, noting that when they were used in a room, the toxic proteins carried by pollution were driven into whatever surfaces were present, including walls, furniture, and pictures, leaving visible black residue on those surfaces while driving the underlying contamination deeper into the material. He stated he could not clean the contamination out of walls that had been treated this way. He noted that while manufacturers had since modified the machines so the visible dirty appearance no longer appears as dramatically, the poison is still being driven into surfaces and tissue. His conclusion was that if an ionizer is used at all, it should not be the type that produces water vapor because that goes directly into the body.