2.2.7 – Contagion & Infection – Deceptive Appearances

Source: Contagion & Infection – Deceptive Appearances – What Really Makes You Ill (Dawn Lester and David Parker)

The most common question people ask when confronted for the first time with the information that ‘germs’ are not the cause of disease is: If it isn’t a germ, then what is it? This question is clearly based on the idea that there is a single identifiable causal agent for each disease; but it is an erroneous idea.

Other questions people often ask refer to the contagiousness of diseases; an idea that is based on a common experience in which a number of people display the same or similar symptoms at more or less the same time. This experience is believed to indicate that these people all have the same disease and that this disease has been passed between them. In other words, people believe that diseases are both infectious and contagious.

Although understandable because of that common experience, this too is an erroneous idea; there is no evidence that any disease is either infectious or contagious.

It is essential to emphasise that from a very young age, especially in the ‘west’, we have been indoctrinated into a belief system about the nature of ‘disease’. With respect to the nature of what are referred to as ‘infectious diseases’, this belief system incorporates a number of claims that include:

  • There are lots of distinctly different infectious diseases.
  • Each infectious disease is caused by a specific pathogen.
  • Each pathogen has been identified and proven to be the cause of the disease with which it is associated.
  • Most, if not all, infectious diseases are contagious.

Unfortunately, none of these claims are true.

As the first 3 claims have been discussed at some length and refuted in 2 of my previous articles, The Germ Theory and Infectious Diseases, this discussion will focus on the 4th claim, which is the idea that infectious diseases are also contagious. I would suggest that readers not familiar with these articles should read them before continuing with this article.

Although often used interchangeably, the words infection and contagion do not have exactly the same meaning, as shown by their definitions.

According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, ‘contagion’ means:

1a: a contagious disease
b: the transmission of a disease by direct or indirect contact
c: a disease-producing agent (such as a virus)
2a: poison
b: contagious influence, quality, or nature
c: corrupting influence or contact
3a: rapid communication of an influence (such as a doctrine or emotional state)
b: an influence that spreads rapidly

According to the same dictionary, the word ‘infection’ means:

1a: the state produced by the establishment of one or more pathogenic agents (such as a bacteria, protozoans, or viruses) in or on the body of a suitable host
b: a disease resulting from infection contagious infections
2: an act or process of infecting something or someone, also: the establishment of a pathogen in its host after invasion
3: an infectious agent or material contaminated with an infectious agent
4: the communication of emotions or qualities through example or contact
5: the act or result of corrupting someone’s morals, character, etc.

These definitions place a strong emphasis on the ideas within the ‘germ theory’, despite a complete lack of evidence that any so-called ‘germ’ is a pathogen.

It is interesting to note that the origin of the word ‘contagion’ is the Latin contagio, which only refers to direct contact. But, as the Merriam Webster definition shows, it is now regarded as involving indirect as well as direct contact. This of course allows the medical establishment to claim that so-called ‘infectious agents’ can spread through the air or through indirect contact by people touching the same surfaces, despite the fact that none of these modes of transmission have been proven scientifically to occur. This change of meaning has also enabled the medical establishment to use the words infection and contagion virtually interchangeably, even though this does not reflect their original meaning.

It has become an increasingly common practice for the medical establishment to alter the meaning of words to suit their purposes: the alteration of the definition of the word ‘virus’ from ‘poison’ to ‘infectious agent’ is a pertinent example. Another insidious example is the meaning applied by virologists to the word ‘isolation’. In its common usage, isolation means separating something or someone from everything or everyone else. This is the meaning that has been applied by medical and governmental agencies when they require people to ‘isolate’ themselves to avoid the spread of an allegedly ‘deadly virus’. The word ‘isolation’ as used by virologists however, refers to a procedure that bears no resemblance whatsoever to this commonly understood meaning. Instead, virologists use the word ‘isolation’ to describe a cell culture experiment whereby a concoction of various substances, many of which are toxic, is added to a sample taken from a person with an allegedly ‘infectious disease’. It should be clear that a process that involves creating a concoction of different substances cannot be referred to using the word ‘isolation’.

As discussed in my article entitled, COVID: An Overview, it is not just the SARS-CoV2 virus that has not been isolated; no virus has ever been isolated according to the real meaning of the word. Furthermore, no virus has ever undergone the appropriate procedures to demonstrate that it is a pathogen. This means that no disease can be described as ‘infectious’, because this has never been proven, which in turn raises the question of whether any disease could nevertheless still be described as ‘contagious’.

The phenomenon of ‘contagion’ is generally believed to be real, because a number of people appear to experience similar symptoms at almost the same time and often in quick succession, which gives the appearance of the transmission of a ‘disease’. But, as the adage states, “appearances can be deceptive”. This adage holds true for disease, because its appearance of transmissibility is deceptive. Although this statement may be perceived as controversial, it is nevertheless true; there is no such thing as a contagious disease.

The main reason for any controversy to be raised is because this statement directly contradicts the ideas promulgated by the medical establishment that we have all been taught to believe. Unfortunately, as we discuss in detail in our book, What Really Makes You Ill, the medical establishment operates from the basis of a flawed understanding of ‘disease’, which is not an entity that attacks the body indiscriminately to cause the symptoms of illness. Instead, the symptoms associated with what are called ‘infectious diseases’ represent the body’s efforts to expel toxins, repair damage and restore health. This is explained by Herbert Shelton in his book, Natural Hygiene: Man’s Pristine Way of Life, in which he refers to ‘acute disease’ and states that this term refers to,

“…vital action in some one or all of the living tissues or organs in resisting and expelling injurious substances and influences and in repairing damages.”

The significance of this statement, which cannot be overstated, is that it demonstrates the true nature of ‘disease’ and the purpose of the symptoms produced by the body.

It is therefore important to recognise that the symptoms each person experiences will be unique to them because of their unique exposures to the ‘injurious substances and influences’ that affect their bodies. However, within a household or work environment for example, many people may experience common exposures to the same ‘injurious substances and influences’, which is the reason that they may experience similar symptoms when their bodies initiate the expulsion of those substances and influences.

Furthermore, contrary to the medical establishment view that it is little more than a biological machine of separate parts, the human body is an amazing interconnected self-regulating organism that functions holistically. Therefore, any substance or influence that injures one part can adversely affect the whole organism, as Herbert Shelton writes,

“The human organism is an indivisible whole and anything that tends to interfere with the unity of its structure or the unity of its function becomes a factor in the causation of disease.”

Unfortunately, on the basis of its flawed understandings about the nature of disease and the functions of the human body, modern medicine fails to ‘treat’ human diseases correctly.

Problems can only be solved by addressing and removing their root causes. But the methods employed by the medical establishment that involve the use of pharmaceutical products do not address and remove the root causes of disease. Although the cessation of their symptoms may occur after a person has taken the pharmaceutical products prescribed by a physician or pharmacist, which is perceived to be a successful outcome of the ‘medicine’, this is yet another example of appearances being deceptive, as Herbert Shelton explains,

“It is these processes of resistance and expulsion and the processes by which damages are repaired that are mistaken for the actions of drugs.”

It is clear that ‘disease’ needs to be contemplated from a completely different perspective from the one we have all been indoctrinated to believe and this new perspective allows us to better understand why people may experience similar symptoms at a similar time to other people.

It is important to always bear in mind that, as stated above, each person is a unique individual who will experience exposures to a unique combination of injurious substances and influences that can cause their bodies to initiate the appropriate symptoms. The ability of each person’s body to initiate the symptoms required to expel toxins, repair damage and restore health will also depend on the health status of their body, which again is entirely unique to them.

There are clearly many ‘injurious substances and influences’ to which people can be exposed. We classified them in our book into four categories that we refer to as the ‘four factors’, which are:

inadequate nutrition; exposures to toxins; exposures to EMFs; and prolonged emotional stress.

The category of ‘toxins’ can include a huge number and variety of toxic chemical compounds to which we may be exposed. These are often on a daily basis, although mostly at levels that are small enough to not produce obvious symptoms immediately. But many of these chemicals are bio-accumulative and therefore slowly build up within the body to a level that requires expulsion. At this point, the body will initiate the appropriate symptoms to expel the toxins.

We are all exposed to such a variety of toxins on a daily basis, that it is impossible to provide examples that can be applied equally to everyone to explain their experience of symptoms in common with other people. But a few examples may help to illustrate the kind of exposures we may experience to assist the contemplation of those that may apply to you.

One example involves the cleaning products used in the home, office, school or other workplace environment. The harsh chemicals in cleaning products used to clean a school during the summer period for example, may explain the onset of symptoms experienced by many children soon after the start of the new school term. Extremely harsh chemicals are among the ingredients of products used by many industries for purposes such as degreasing machinery.

A further example involves new carpets, furniture or furnishings that may ‘off-gas’ chemicals used in their manufacture for various purposes, such as acting as ‘flame retardants’. Many of these chemicals are known as VOCs (volatile organic compounds).

Other examples may involve products used in agriculture that are toxic by intent, such as pesticides, that people may inhale whilst they are out in the countryside.

Another example of common exposures to ‘injurious influences’ involve EMFs that are similarly difficult to sense, but can be equally harmful to a number of people when they are exposed to an area of high electromagnetic frequencies, whether at home or in the workplace or in the external environment.

These examples, although few in number, should help to illustrate how groups of people may experience similar symptoms at a similar time that gives the appearance of ‘contagion’ when it is in fact the result of a common exposure to ‘injurious substances or influences’. However, it must also be emphasised that people may not all experience the same severity and duration of their symptoms, which will depend on their unique health status that will, in turn, depend on any other factors that may affect their health, whether beneficially or adversely.

In addition, there are other aspects to the category of ‘stress’ that need to be contemplated, because the term refers to far more than the normal conception of stress. It also refers to each person’s unique belief system, which includes our thoughts, ideas and fears, and this may even include the belief that ‘diseases are contagious’. Although it may seem controversial to suggest that a ‘belief’ of this nature can affect a person’s health, this is not the case; as can be demonstrated by the well-known phenomenon of the placebo effect and by the lesser-known opposite phenomenon of the nocebo effect, both of which have been proven beyond doubt to be real and are recognised by the medical establishment. Recognition of the placebo effect is demonstrated by the web page entitled Placebo Effect on the website of the NCCIH, which is part of the NIH, that states,

“The placebo effect is a beneficial health outcome resulting from a person’s anticipation that an intervention will help.”

The nocebo effect, by contrast, can be described as an adverse outcome resulting from a person’s anticipation. Although less widely discussed in the medical literature, it is becoming a subject of increasing interest.

The placebo and nocebo effects are demonstrations of the power of the mind, which is a topic that has been discussed by Dr Bruce Lipton throughout his work for many years. For example, in his article entitled Epigenetics, it is explained that we are all indoctrinated into the belief that we do not have control over our health. This means that we are made to feel that we are victims of disease or, in the case of ‘infectious diseases’, that we are victims of ‘germs’ that can infect us and be spread to other people.

A belief in the transmissibility of ‘disease’, gives rise to the anticipation of an adverse outcome when a person with whom we may come into contact displays symptoms of what is believed to be an ‘infectious disease’, such as sneezing or coughing for example. In other words, when in the company of others with such symptoms, many people believe that they will ‘catch’ that disease and this anticipation can manifest within the body as actual symptoms. The manifestation of symptoms will be taken as positive proof of the transmission of the ‘disease’ and will strengthen the belief in the phenomenon of contagion. But these are mistaken beliefs, because contagion has never been scientifically proven to occur.

It is important to recognise that, as stated above, a belief in infection and contagion is not the only factor at play when people experience symptoms at a similar time. But it must be recognised as an extremely important factor that has great relevance to the situation we are currently facing, which is based on the claim that a ‘deadly virus’ is circulating around the world causing untold harm and death and can be transmitted between people.

It cannot be emphasised strongly enough that there is no evidence to support this claim. There is no evidence, and never has been, that any ‘virus’ is the cause of any disease; and equally importantly, there is no evidence that anyone can spread any condition of ill-health to another person. Each person’s health status is unique to them and to their beliefs and ideas, including their fears about disease being contagious; especially as it has been shown that there is no scientific evidence to support such beliefs. It can be seen therefore, that there is no reason to continue to ‘believe’ in such ideas, because there is no basis for their existence.

This is a simple but very effective key to bringing this situation to an end, because people no longer need to be afraid of ‘catching’ any disease or passing it to another person. It does, however, require all of us to learn how to take back control over and responsibility for our own health.

Reclaiming our bodily autonomy is truly empowering and a great step on the path towards true freedom over all aspects of our lives.

Dawn Lester

29th November 2021


Herbert Shelton: Natural Hygiene: Man’s Pristine Way of Life
Dawn Lester & David Parker: What Really Makes You Ill. Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease is Wrong

The Germ Theory: A Deadly Fallacy

Infectious Diseases: Dispelling The Myths

Merriam-Webster definition of contagion

Merriam-Webster definition of infection

COVID: An Overview

Placebo Effect



Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply