Meningitis and the attack on integrity
The meninges and the contagion theory
PROTECTION
In conventional medicine, meningitis is an inflammation of one or more meninges, the membranes lining the central nervous system. They have protective functions in relation to the brain and medulla oblongata and there are three in all. The innermost and middle membranes, pia mater and arachnoid respectively, are composed of cells derived from the archaic mesoderm, while the dura mater, the outermost membrane, is derived from the recent mesoderm.
The three membranes form what is called the 'blood-brain barrier'. This is a true armour that is almost impermeable to plasma proteins and other large organic molecules. Readily fat-soluble molecules such as gases and water can penetrate the barrier more easily, while glucose and electrolytes pass through much more slowly.
Anything that cannot penetrate is retained within the blood stream. The dura mater, linked to the recent mesoderm, has a mechanical protective function, while the pia mater and arachnoid, of archaic derivation, offer chemical protection.
According to the 'official' version, the meningitis known to date would be caused by a bacterial, fungal or viral infection and would also appear to be 'contagious' (I will return to this aspect at the end of the article). The major symptoms would be high fever, nausea, sense of confusion, dizziness and headache. As far as the figures for our country are concerned, follow what is reported at https://www.liberidallameningite.it/meningite/numeri/:
Every year in Italy, more than 1,000 people contract meningitis, and about one in every two people is affected by meningococcal meningitis. In particular, serogroups B and C are particularly widespread in our country. According to epidemiological data from the Istituto Superiore di SanitĆ (ISS), meningococcal meningitis causes death in 8-14% of affected patients. In the absence of adequate treatment, the mortality rate rises to 50%. As for serotype B, in addition to being particularly aggressive with a very high lethality rate, it is responsible alone for about 80% of paediatric cases, with a maximum incidence especially in the first year of life, between the 4th and 8th months.
It is therefore a potentially lethal disease, although the death rates are very low compared to the total number of individuals who contract it. In this article I will try to explain the biological meaning of the activation of these tissues, analysing it as always from the point of view of the five biological laws.
We have already met the archaic mesoderm in a previous article, explaining why nature configured this specific embryonic leaflet. Once our water ancestor developed the organs and tissues derived from the endoderm, i.e. that specific leaflet devoted to vital needs and whose functions are regulated by the brainstem, nature determined that these same organs should be protected. We have seen how organs such as the lungs, the heart and the entire digestive system are safeguarded by special coverings that I have summarised in a specific expression: a triad to protect vital organs. Pleura, pericardium and peritoneum in fact represent the 'protective sheath' that is meant to protect all the body's vital organs from attack.
There was probably a stage in evolution when these structures were too exposed, both in terms of attack by predators and in terms of sensitivity and contact with the outside world. It is plausible to think that nature foresaw that such a condition could not guarantee the continuation of life, and so the need arose to anatomically strengthen all the tissues of which the water worm was hitherto composed.
The dermis, or what I called in a previous article 'our first layer', or 'first protective layer of the human body', therefore developed. The mammary glands also develop in the case of female specimens, the fascias to protect the muscle fibres and above all the meninges, the subject of this article.
MENINGES
The dura mater is the outermost layer of the blood-brain barrier and its structure differs depending on whether it is located in the skull or in the spinal column. In the first case it is connected to the periosteum of the skull at the top, while below it passes over the circumvolution of the encephalon. The second has the shape of a hollow cylinder and is separated, near the vertebrae, by an area rich in adipose tissue and venous blood vessels more commonly known as the epidural space.
The arachnoid takes its name from its web-like structure and is separated from the Pia by a space containing cerebrospinal fluid. It is also referred to as the subarachnoid space.
The Pia Madre is the innermost and most sensitive layer of the meninges and contains the arteries that supply the entire central nervous system.
The meninges are very rich in blood vessels and this makes them particularly important apart from their protective function. The brain, like the other districts of the body, needs to be constantly fed. The difference, however, lies in the fact that this organ is in every sense the control room of the entire human body, so when the blood supply fails, very serious problems can arise.
All tissues derived from the archaic mesoderm and therefore regulated by the cerebellum are activated for biological conflicts related to attack/concern. Whenever I perceive an event as an attack on me, I can potentially activate a programme of the dermis, as well as the pericardium the moment I perceive a direct attack on the heart (I advise anyone who may find this information inaccessible to read the articles on the organs regulated by the cerebellum). As the two innermost meninges derive from the embryonic leaflet of the archaic mesoderm, they too can be involved if the subject perceives an event as damaging his or her safety.
Specifically, the meninges are activated when there is a perceived attack on the integrity or danger to the integrity of the brain and spinal cord. If there is also a corresponding devaluation in the intellectual sphere, the outermost meninges, the dura mater, can also be activated.
We have seen how the biphasic course of programmes regulated by the cerebellum involves an anatomical increase of the affected tissue in order to increase its function in the active phase (AC) and subsequent destruction of the neoplasm in the repair phase (PCLA). When a subject suffers an attack on the integrity of the brain, a programme will be activated that will thicken the internal meninges in order to further protect the brain. The destruction of the neoplasm will occur as always with the intervention of bacteria and mycobacteria, or viruses in what are called 'aseptic meningitis'.
Unfortunately, as always in these cases, what for conventional medicine is a 'causative' agent, such as meningococcus or pneumococcus, is confused with what in biological terms is called upon to complete a programme perfectly configured by nature to make us stronger and more resistant to a particular type of attack.
From another point of view, however, an important clarification needs to be made. Meningitis is a serious matter and as such should be treated with extreme care. An adenocarcinoma in the liver is certainly not something one expects to see on a CT scan, but it is not necessarily lethal, unless of course the structure of the associated cerebral oedema becomes so large that brain function is impaired.
A meningioma inevitably undermines the brain structure, just as any other oedema might do, with the difference that in this case the condition is doubly dangerous, since the very presence of the neoplasm 'pushes' on the brain matter inevitably and sometimes irreparably compromising its functions.
This is why the immediate taking of sympathicotonic drugs is recommended during the repair phases of the conflict, as they are always useful in helping the cerebellum to reduce the oedema that involves it (the treatments most commonly used today to treat meningitis are corticosteroids or antibiotics). Depending on where the neoplasm 'presses' on the encephalon or on the medulla, very different symptoms may occur, such as loss of hearing or poor sensitivity to light.
Meningitis, as mentioned at the beginning of this article, is considered a contagious disease and in fact there has even been talk in the past of alleged 'epidemics'. It is transmitted through saliva or nasal secretions and statistically only the bacterial form is lethal. The viral form, also called 'aseptic', is the most widespread and at the same time the least impactful from a physiological point of view, as it resolves within a very few days.
Official sources such as the WHO or the Ministry of Health believe that the decrease in meningitis cases over the last century is due to the vaccination campaigns implemented among young children. There is, however, a widespread current of thought both in a small branch of the scientific community - an expression that I find totally misleading, but which nevertheless gives me the opportunity to make myself better understood - and in sources considered to be 'less reliable', according to which cases of meningitis have decreased simply because of the better hygienic and sanitary conditions we have today.
Although my opinion may be totally useless in absolute terms, the spectacles of the five biological laws lead me to think that both of the above explanations have nothing to do with reality. If we analyse the second aspect, what would be the parameter according to which we can assume that conditions have actually improved? And compared to when? One would need to understand the time span one is going to analyse, for example first decade of the 20th century with first decade of the 2000s. Although I am not a mathematician, let alone an expert in statistics, I suppose there are multiple variables to take into account, including population density, the geographical location in which the study would be conducted, the social situation, etc. This is therefore a very vague statement that has no empirical basis.
With regard to the vaccine issue, there are currently no data confirming that all vaccinated children have not contracted more or less lethal forms of meningitis, and the same applies to children who have not been vaccinated. In the current state of the art, everything is therefore possible and no scientific judgement can be made.
It could be that there are children who present pneumococcus, although without the disease, both with and without the vaccine. This is one possibility, among many, but still a hypothesis. However, science, real science, does not give rise to opinions or points of view, but only to certain, verifiable and repeatable data in 100% of cases. If even a single case escapes the official and widespread narrative, it means that that narrative is not scientific.
COUNTING
A similar argument applies to the contagion theory. I do not use the term 'theory' accidentally, as again it does not explain why everyone who comes into contact with people who have been diagnosed with meningitis does not fall ill. Why is it that some do and some do not? The most common answer is as follows:
Some people have a stronger immune system than others.
I will probably come across as boring, but I fully assume the risks by repeating the same concept once again. What exactly does it mean that one immune system is stronger than another? What are the parameters that define that my system 'responds' more effectively than my brother's? The number of times I go to the doctor? The annual sick days? How impactful is any illness in physical terms? The recovery days after a week of flu? Can you understand how totally misleading these statements are?
Let us now assume that a parameter has been identified, hypothetically the number of white blood cells in the blood (a totally fanciful hypothesis devoid of any scientific evidence), can we not deduce that that figure is linked to other factors and is therefore not the primary cause, but the consequence of further causal aspects of a biological nature? Someone might protest by asking at this point why a baby only a few months old could contract meningitis, this being, according to Hamer's reading, a programme triggered by the perceived attack on integrity. This question is far from stupid and it is certainly not easy to give an immediate answer.
Dismissing all the above hypotheses for the reasons already mentioned, we can deduce the fact that the child may have embodied information about his mother's perception or - why not - his father's, his cells being containers of data processed from his own family tree. Is there any empirical data on which we can make certainties? Certainly not. Can we build a logical deductive argument on this assumption? Certainly yes. Would one do so? I would do so, but most of the official institutions responsible for maintaining health among the members of our society are currently unavailable.
Contagion is therefore to all intents and purposes something that has nothing scientific about it. Nevertheless, the idea that a disease can be transmitted from one individual to another is well embedded in our basic beliefs.
Don't stay near me, you have a cold and I have important commitments this weekend, I can't risk catching it!
I have two lines of fever, I'd better stay at home, I wouldn't want to 'stick' anything on anyone!
Phrases that read in this context also bring a smile to one's face, yet each of us at least once in our lives has found himself uttering them. Opinions that have been further reinforced since 2020, when our perceptions of contagion and diseases in general have been totally amplified, so that the fear of contracting any disease has been deeply instilled in the everyday life of each one of us, making physical distancing a fundamental condition in every social context.
Mammals whose identity is based on relationships and interconnections with other members of the community find themselves afraid to touch or look each other in the face. In purely biological terms, this is one of the greatest disasters humanity has ever faced.
The waste of life is found in the love we have failed to give, in the power we have failed to use, in the selfish prudence that has prevented us from taking risks and which, by preventing us from sorrow, has made us miss happiness.
Oscar Wilde