Staphylococcus

Staphylococci, like some varieties of salmonella, eat dead skin and ultra-microscopic skin mites. On the skin surface, they perform the ongoing work of consuming the constant output of dead and dying cells. This function prevents the accumulation of cellular debris and is necessary for normal skin maintenance. Without these colonies of bacteria working on the skin continuously, the body would face an enormous burden of disposing of its own cellular waste through other means.

When injury occurs involving the skin, staphylococci respond by colonizing the wound site in order to consume the massive amount of damaged and killed cells and waste that the injury produces. This colonization is not an infection in the pathological sense but a biological response that serves the body's healing process. The consequence of their work is that the body then only has to neutralize and discard the waste produced by staphylococci, which is a fraction of the total mass of damaged and dead cellular material that would otherwise need to be dissolved and eliminated. Without staphylococci performing this function after injury, the body would be forced to mummify many of the injured dead cells rather than dissolving and discarding them, resulting in heavy scar tissue formation. Aajonus stated directly that if staphylococci did not assist in the post-injury process, a person would likely develop a massive scar.

When someone on a primal, raw-food diet suffers an injury, the staphylococci can complete their work in a reasonable time because the body has the nutrients available to properly cleanse the area of tissue damage and to handle the waste products the bacteria generate. The problem does not arise from the staphylococci themselves but from the toxic condition of the host.

Aajonus was clear that the difficulty associated with staphylococcal activity is not caused by the bacteria but by the underlying toxicity of the person's body and the nature of the wound itself. When people eat toxic processed and cooked foods and maintain imbalanced diets, their bodies lack the nutritional resources required to properly detoxify and heal wounds. In this state, the staphylococci may remain at the site of a wound for months or even years, continuing their janitorial work because the cellular damage is ongoing or the debris accumulation cannot be cleared quickly. The bacteria are not lingering because they are aggressive or pathogenic; they are lingering because the workload is enormous and the body cannot support efficient elimination of the waste they generate.

He also noted that warm and humid climates produce healthier colonies of staphylococci, and that in such environments, unless a person is eating correctly, the bacteria may persist for a long time doing their assigned work at a wound site or wherever dead cells are being discarded in quantity.

Bathing with typical poisonous soaps and fluoridated water destroys helpful staphylococcal colonies on the skin. Aajonus pointed out that people who use antibacterial soaps and treated water will not maintain many colonies of the helpful bacteria they need. The idea that people get sick from staphylococcal bacteria was, in his words, "nonsense." The actual problem is the injury, the toxicity of the wound from foreign compounds, especially industrial chemicals, and whether the person has the nutrients to properly cleanse the area and manage the bacterial waste.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, commonly called MRSA, is a strain of staphylococcus that does not succumb to ampicillin or other penicillin-class antibiotics. Aajonus addressed MRSA directly in the context of the broader pharmaceutical and medical narrative around antibiotic resistance. He framed the emergence of antibiotic-resistant strains not as a natural evolutionary danger but as an industrially generated consequence of the antibiotic environment humans and animals are subjected to.

In the context of dairy cows, he explained that when an udder is treated twice daily with antibacterials, the cow's body must generate bacteria that can survive the iodine and other antibiotics being applied. The body, unable to eliminate the ongoing damage and waste naturally through lymph, produces microbial janitors capable of surviving the industrial chemical assault and still doing the necessary cleaning work. The result is an industrially generated class of S. aureus bacteria. This same principle, he argued, applies to humans, who are consuming, being injected with, and being exposed to hundreds of antibacterial industrial chemicals. Their bodies must also produce thriving, resilient bacteria that will withstand these chemical assaults and still accomplish the necessary janitorial functions.

When a Los Angeles Times article and related reporting cited studies showing that nearly half of all meat and poultry sampled in a research study contained drug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus, and when the Translational Genomics Research Institute published findings based on 136 samples of beef, chicken, pork, and turkey from 80 brands across 26 grocery stores in five cities, Aajonus responded by examining the foundational premises of the research rather than accepting its conclusions. His position was that such reports are based on the false premise that bacteria cause illness and disease, and that the reports documenting contamination are guesstimates rather than actual science.

He pointed to the cost and structure of bio-research laboratories, noting that it costs approximately two million dollars per month just to maintain one idle laboratory that is not doing anything, as a factor explaining why such institutions are financially motivated to produce findings that support the pharmaceutical and medical industries. He argued that the studies connecting meat to S. aureus risk were built on surveys, not controlled scientific observation. In such surveys, a sick person receives a call from a health department asking what they ate, and if they answer raw milk or raw meat, that reply is automatically documented as the cause of the illness. There are no laboratory processes, just simple surveys.

Aajonus specifically rejected claims that S. aureus from raw dairy is responsible for widespread human illness. While outside sources cited in the material claimed that Staphylococcus aureus is the most common infection of dairy cows and that bacterial toxins can pass from cows to humans in milk and are sometimes not destroyed by pasteurization, Aajonus's response was to situate these claims within what he saw as an anti-raw-milk political campaign driven by financial interests. He challenged the claim by noting that S. aureus is found in many people, including non-dairy consumers, and that several deaths per year associated with S. aureus does not constitute an epidemic.

A direct case example appears in Aajonus's correspondence with a client who had suffered a chemical or heat burn. When the client reported that a swab taken by their doctor came back positive for Staphylococcus aureus, Aajonus's response was unambiguous: staphylococci are responsible for consuming dead and damaged tissue caused by chemical or heat burn or abrasion. He told the client, "If you did not have them, you would probably have leprosy. Congratulations, you have the correct bacteria."

In that same case, the doctor told the patient that the wound was infected, that it was very red with green pus coming out, and that antibiotics were necessary. The patient refused the antibiotics, stating that there was no reason to kill all the good bacteria in the body for a localized wound. The doctor agreed, acknowledging that she was trained in chemicals and did not have holistic knowledge. The patient then treated the wound using clay.

In another case, a person working in a garden with numerous cuts on their hands developed what others suggested might be staph, botulism, or some other dangerous bacterial infection. The wound was hugely swollen, the skin was taut, one small area had turned greenish, the surrounding area was bright red and inflamed, and after five or six days the tip of the finger was becoming numb with throbbing radiating up the finger. Despite the alarming appearance, Aajonus's framework interpreted this as the body doing the expected janitorial work of clearing damaged and contaminated tissue, not as a dangerous pathological event requiring antibiotic intervention.

In his workshop teachings, Aajonus described a community of vegetarians who had chronic staph infections, producing constant sores and pus, losing white blood cells continuously, becoming progressively weaker as a result. When several of those individuals moved to a diet including raw animal foods, specifically blood and milk from goats, the staph infections disappeared. He used this as direct evidence that staph activity is driven by the toxic and malnourished state of the body, not by some inherent aggressiveness of the bacteria, and that correcting the diet resolves the underlying condition that creates the environment in which staph must work intensively.

When a wound colonized by staphylococci produces pus, Aajonus consistently reframed what this means. Pus, in his framework, is approximately ninety-nine percent white blood cells, specifically phagocytes, that have surrounded, neutralized, and are in the process of discarding toxins and cellular debris. Pus is not contagious and is not harmful in itself. It represents the body's organized response to the waste accumulation at the wound site, with fats and white blood cells binding with dead cells and toxins for elimination.

He pointed out that infections are cleanses, analogous in nature to colds and flu, and that in a healthy body, once toxins are isolated, neutralized, and eliminated, white blood cells may be reabsorbed and continue their work or reenter the bloodstream. When white blood cells are themselves damaged by the toxins they are managing, the body discards them along with the toxins they have bound, using fats, which produces the visible pus at the surface. The redness, inflammation, and discharge of green or colored pus at a wound site were not, in his view, signs that the bacteria must be killed with antibiotics, but signs that the bacteria are active and the janitorial process is underway.

Aajonus consistently rejected the CDC and mainstream medical framing that Staphylococcus aureus is a straightforward pathogen responsible for causing disease in otherwise healthy people. He argued that all reports about Staphylococcus aureus are not based on natural science, meaning what occurs in living organisms under natural conditions, but on what occurs in laboratories under completely unnatural conditions, in unnatural fluids and industrial chemical environments. The cells consumed by bacteria in a petri dish are not in an organism; they are in a solution that does not replicate body chemistry. The natural process of a cell when it is removed from the living whole organism is death, and dead cells are what bacteria eat. Observing bacteria consuming cells in a petri dish and concluding that those bacteria would consume healthy living cells inside a living human body is, in his framework, a fundamental category error.

He framed the entire enterprise of naming bacteria as pathogenic as a financial and political operation. The pharmaceutical and medical industries need an enemy that people will believe in and fear so that those people can be made to take medication. Bacteria serve that role. The actual cause of disease, in his framework, is industrial chemical pollution in food, in the environment, and especially in industrial medicines. Bacterial disease is the smokescreen that prevents investigation of the true cause.

Material from notmilk.com and Robert Cohen circulated in the raw food and alternative health community in 2011 connecting MRSA outbreaks at schools to raw milk, based on the argument that Staphylococcus aureus is the most common pathogenic organism found in raw milk, and that dairy cows with mastitis harbor S. aureus that can pass to milk and survive pasteurization. Aajonus received and responded to this framing. He acknowledged the content of the argument but rejected its conclusions.

His counter-argument rested on the principle that S. aureus found in association with diseased cows is an industrially generated phenomenon, not a natural one. The mastitis conditions in dairy cows exist because of the industrial farming environment, including the twice-daily application of antibacterial chemicals to udders, which drives the evolution of more resilient bacterial strains. The problem is not the bacteria; it is the industrial conditions creating an abnormal bacterial environment in the cows. In humans, S. aureus is found across the population regardless of dairy consumption because all humans are exposed to antibacterial industrial chemicals constantly, through consumption, injection, and environmental exposure. The body responds by producing bacteria resilient enough to survive those conditions and still accomplish necessary janitorial work.

Aajonus stated that one round of five days of an antibiotic will destroy one percent of the bacterial colonies in the entire body, and it does not discriminate. It will eliminate beneficial bacteria along with whatever bacteria it is theoretically targeting. People who take antibiotics for six months destroy thirty to forty percent of their body's bacterial function. He described this as destroying ninety percent of all bodily activity, which he said is produced by bacteria.

Taking an antibiotic specifically to address a staphylococcal wound, in his view, kills the very bacteria doing the necessary janitorial work of clearing the wound, while also decimating the broader bacterial ecology of the body, causing far more damage than the wound itself. His explicit advice in the case of the chemical burn patient was not to take antibiotics, to instead use clay on the wound, and to allow the staphylococci to complete their work.

One reference in the source material from a cheese-making study noted that in experimental hard cheese inoculated with potentially pathogenic bacteria, a low number of Staphylococcus aureus could be found in the cheese one day after manufacture, but all subsequent determinations showed no potentially pathogenic bacteria or toxins. The study concluded that effective starter cultures, particularly lactic acid, are effective at combating pathogenic bacteria, and that lactic acid is especially effective in this regard. This supports the position that raw fermented dairy, made correctly with proper cultures, does not constitute a meaningful source of S. aureus exposure.

Aajonus's position on cheese was that it should be raw and unsalted. He stated that salted cheese is not beneficial because salt forces the body to re-digest and absorb the toxins that the cheese is meant to absorb. Unsalted raw cheese will act as a digestive and absorptive medium in the body, pulling toxins to itself for elimination rather than forcing reabsorption.

---