In the Chondrit stage, they can be used therapeutically as remedies. All the higher valences of the Endobiont can encourage or cause diseases, whereby they appear not only in the blood and blood cells, but also - from certain stages on - also in tissue cells, exerting a degenerative influence on them.
The upward development of the Endobiont is caused or favored, among other things, by the continual harmful influences of our civilization (artificial fertilizers, chlorinated water, polluted air, etc.) but primarily by a false diet that outright "fattens up" the Endobiont with its too-high protein and sugar content.
According to Enderlein, the diseases of the Endobiosis complex are based on the upward development of the Endobiont to higher-valence, parasitic growth forms with a characteristic metabolism that poisons the human body fluids (highly potentiated lactic acid production). This reduces the regulatory equilibrium in the mutual relationship with the vegetative centers in the diencephalon, which brings about the failure of its shape and formative function.
- Disease means disturbed symbiosis
The plant symbiont spreads throughout the warm-blooded body, either numerically by means of simple reproduction or through the formation of higher developmental forms, which clog up circulatory organs (prethrombosis, capillary thrombosis). - Disturbed symbiosis is detected in the darkfield from the absence of certain growth forms of the Endobiont (Diecothecit) As bioregulators, these maintain symbiotic equilibrium. At the same time, various pathogenic cell elements appear.
- Restoration of symbiotic equilibrium
(Disease healing) is only possible when the body is once again given what it has lost (the bioregulators, which - by means of nonviolent restructuring processes - dismantle higher parasitic developmental forms and excrete them via the kidneys, skin, etc.). - Issues of health exclusively concern life-processes
They can therefore only be resolved through the science of biology.
From the orthodox side, Enderlein has been accused of refusing to use the generally-accepted nomenclature. How is it possible to use accepted scholarly terminology if one is describing things that don't even exist in the standard doctrine? Continue Reading >>
No comments:
Post a Comment