Article

What if covid-19 was good for us?

Posted on by Olivier Coen

This article is simply a personal reflection.

 

For some time now, the big news in medical research has been the recognition of our microbiota. In other words, we are in the process of accepting the idea that we cohabit in symbiosis with a world of bacteria and other microbes without which we could not live. This is in total contradiction with Pasteur's theories, which nevertheless continue to be the object of unlimited veneration. This understanding is a major revolution in microbiology over the last decade: we need microbes to live, and we need to live in harmony with them. We are estimated to have nearly three kilos of bacteria in our digestive tract alone. Without them, we wouldn't be able to digest properly, we wouldn't have immunity, and we wouldn't have certain neurotransmitters such as serotonin, which seems to be produced to the tune of 90% by certain bacteria.
The population of our microbiota also reflects our state of health. In other words, if we eat badly, if we are exposed to toxic substances, if we are stressed, if we don't exercise, etc., we end up with a microbiota that is unstructured in relation to our needs, whereas if we eat mainly unadulterated and unpoisoned plant products, it should be perfect and enable us to be in good health.

 In the same way, there are many questions today about the human virome (or virobiota), because we are also constantly harbouring thousands of viruses. There are only two ways in which the genetic code of living beings can change and evolve, either through reproduction, which takes a certain amount of time, or through viruses. It is perfectly well known, for example, that the uterus is an organ that has been acquired through the intervention of a virus. This could lead us to think that if the immune system is affected by a virus, it is because it has opened the door to it because it carries information that could be beneficial. Otherwise we would not be responding to the virus. From a philosophical point of view, one might think that there would be no logic in God or the Universe producing living beings whose purpose would be to eradicate its own creation. 

So why are viruses associated with this radical and definitive image of virulent pathogens? Of course, some people have more or less severe reactions to the presence of viruses, but wouldn't it be more interesting to look at the other side of the coin: how is it that people infected with a reputedly dangerous virus can be perfectly asymptomatic?

The idea is that the transformation brought about by the virus in the body will be more or less accepted or tolerated. On the understanding that this transformation is considered to be fundamentally beneficial to the person's evolution. So for some people, the virus and its action on the genome are perfectly well accepted, while for others there is a form of rejection by the body that leads to a symptomatic form.

 The closest analogy would be the updating of computer software. An update is intended to improve the code of a programme. Normally, everything is done to ensure that an update goes perfectly smoothly, but who hasn't experienced that everything bugs during such an intervention?

 

Antibodies

 Once the update has been carried out correctly, the computer will register that we have moved from version 1.6 to version 2.0 of our software, for example. There will be no need to run the operation again, and the computer will recognise and block a repeat of this update for an equivalent version number.

It's exactly the same thing in the human body: what we call antibodies are the markers that show that the virus has indeed updated the body. 

 In fact, vaccination appears to be a process that makes it possible to deceive the body by presenting false proof of updating. We will have succeeded in provoking the production of antibodies specific to the virus, even though the update will not have been effective. On the one hand, a certain number of people will have been prevented from succumbing to the risk of side-effects induced by the virus; on the other, the virus will not have evolved.

However, if we are to believe the old school of homeopathic doctors, it is perfectly well recognised that there is a benefit in letting viruses have their way and that children should be allowed to catch childhood illnesses because they are useful for their development. This in no way excludes the fact that it is obviously important to support and treat the illness in order to minimise its harmful effects.

 For example, today almost 80% of the population carries the herpes virus without any health problems. This is the success story of cohabitation with viruses: living in harmony with other species without causing damage. This is one of the demonstrations that is increasingly leading us to recognise that, contrary to popular belief, natural evolution is much more about cooperation than competition.

 From this point of view, the best way to combat the deleterious effects of viruses would be not to try to counter or eradicate them, but rather to accompany them, to help the body accept the process proposed by the virus so that it does not set itself in opposition and so that everyone can become healthy carriers. Trying to eradicate a virus is as absurd as trying to build dykes to prevent water from penetrating land. You can't fight the forces of nature, but you can support them and create passageways so that water can flow in a controlled way without destroying the homes in its path.

 

 Covid-19

 The challenge for research now is to try and understand the evolutionary role of each virus so that we can provide the best possible support for its specific project.

As far as Covid-19 is concerned, my own hypothesis is as follows: in the face of climate change and the reduction of oxygen in the atmosphere in the form of O2In order to do this, we need to enable our respiratory system to capture oxygen from the carbon dioxide molecule, CO2.

 Two key factors that led me down this path:

  • I observed a very high incidence of allergy to CO2 on people who had been symptomatically infected but who previously showed absolutely no trace of respiratory sensitivity. In fact, the only cases of sensitivity to atmospheric components (mainly O2 and CO2) are generally only seen in people with serious chronic respiratory conditions.
  • Studies have shown that fish are increasingly faced with orientation problems, with a number of consequences. The reason for this? A loss of sense of smell due to the accelerated concentration of CO2 in the oceans. To be confirmed if indeed the recurring symptoms of loss of taste and smell are of the same order.

 

Vaccination

These days, it's very difficult to get an objective report on the taboo subject of vaccination, because the debates are so passionate and distorted by political and economic issues.

What is perfectly observable, however, is that vaccination itself is by no means a harmless operation for the body. Like any medication, it not only carries the risk of side-effects, but also, and above all, causes what is known as "vaccine stress". Vaccine stress is tolerated more or less well, depending on the individual and his or her age. For example, it is perfectly inappropriate to vaccinate young children before their immune systems are sufficiently developed, i.e. from the age of 3. In fact, vaccination can be the first major stress inflicted on a child's body. Once we understand that there is a strong correlation between sensitivity and stress, it's easy to make the link between vaccine stress and allergic or intolerant children. Of course, vaccination is by no means the only source of allergy, far from it, but the incidence of allergy sufferers with proven vaccine stress is not insignificant.

 What are the side effects of vaccination in terms of sensitivities?

  • Allergy or intolerance to any active substance or excipient contained in the vaccine (e.g. lactose).
  • Allergy or intolerance to any external substance ingested or encountered at the time of peak vaccine stress.
  • Difficulty for the body to eliminate the toxic substances contained in the vaccine, which may increase the risk of side effects in the longer term.

 For many years, homeopathy (isotherapy) and methods of deprogramming sensitivities have used the high-dilution compounds found in traditional vaccines to detoxify the body of these substances. The earlier this operation is carried out, the greater the benefits for people with severe forms of vaccination-related side-effects.

 

 What should I do with Covid-19?

  1. To combat "Covid-19 Vaccine Stress", and in the same way as for traditional vaccine formulations, Lumen Care Laboratory has developed a mixture of substances based on the ingredients of the 4 vaccines distributed in France: Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson.
    The expected benefit should therefore be the same as for traditional detoxification reagents.
    On the other hand, it is currently impossible to encode anything about the effects induced by the formulation of messenger RNA.
    Under no circumstances does this formulation vaccinate or de-vaccinate.
    > This treatment can be taken as a preventive or curative measure AFTER VACCINATION.
  2. To prevent symptomatic forms of Covid-19 infection, Lumen Care Laboratory has developed a formulation called "Covid Facilitator". The aim is to prepare or support the body to accept the virus and minimise its reactivity:
    > This treatment should be taken as a preventive measure before infection, or as a curative measure as soon as the first symptoms appear. It will no longer be as effective once the body has moved into an acute symptomatic form, once the virus has been deactivated, but this remains to be tested.

 For greater ease of use, the "vaccine stress" and "Covid Facilitator" formulations have been combined to form the "Covid Complex".

 Dosage 1-month treatment, using the traditional Vibratory Reinformation protocol.

Time of use : Covid prevention now, and as soon as possible after stress vaccine detox.

 If the treatment is supposed to be preventive for Covid, it certainly isn't for vaccine stress. So even if you do it for its Covid-facilitating effect, you'll have to do it a second time after vaccination.

 

It is available from :

 

Important warning : To date, it is impossible to guarantee the effectiveness of this totally experimental product, at least as far as its "facilitating" claim is concerned.

Of course, there is absolutely no risk of side-effects, apart from its potential ineffectiveness against the problem itself (Covid or vaccination).

As we are not in a position to carry out tests under suitable conditions, only your feedback will be able to help us make progress on this issue, whether positive or negative.

I would therefore ask you to keep us informed of any proven experience with this treatment.

 

Olivier Coen