None. Listen, I've got to tell you,
you're one of my favorite guests and I've said this to a few
guests. So but I do mean it because I
think I came across you and your work.
Oh, I don't know, it must have been around 2021.
I invited you onto my podcast. I can't watch that anymore.
It makes me cringe. The way I, I spoke to you was
completely unprofessional. And and and the reason is
because this was a paradigm shift that I wasn't ready for
yet. Well, you're quite welcome.
And I, I also extend my gratitude to you because you
know, you were willing to entertain quite revolutionary
ideas about, about health and medicine and, and you brought me
onto a platform to help, you know, other people hear the
message and you know, the, the facts speak for themselves.
So once you can put the emotions aside and actually apply logic
and reason to the matter, you know you'll you'll come around.
Let's start at the start here. So this is your first time on my
UK column show. So we're talking effectively
about germ theory versus terrain theory, basically why germs
don't cause sickness. Why is this important?
Well, I mean, you know, the whole modern healthcare system
is based around germs being the cause of a lot of things, right?
Obviously, aside from COVID, we already had, you know, HIV and
AIDS, bacterial pneumonia and other infections, you know,
flesh eating bacteria, sexually transmitted diseases, it even
unexplained illnesses. They suspect, right, that there
are viruses involved with certain cancers, even diabetes.
So it's pervasive and there are many, you know, what I would
consider false remedies or more bluntly, poisons that are used
routinely like antibiotics and antivirals.
Right. Based on a false premise.
Yeah. Well, there, there was a, you
know, vigorous debate around this idea and the, the medical
community, you know, largely in the 19th century was very much
against this as, as the nature of reality.
And it was really, you know, Robert Koch's work, that and
Pasteur's work that pushed it to the forefront and, you know,
coincided with the, you know, Rockefeller medicine Flexner
report as well. Yeah, you mentioned Robert Koch
now, I mean, he created those postulates on which the.
Sort of. He wrote them down.
He didn't actually create them. There's.
OK, right. Talked about that before, but
you know that's how history works, right?
Some people get credit and even if they didn't do the work, but
it, it's basically if, if any layperson were to think about it
and ponder it for a while, you know, how do you prove that a
germ causes a disease? It's pretty self-evident.
I mean, first of all, you'd have to find the germ in the person
who is sick, right? And you a corollary to that is
you should not find it in someone who's healthy, right?
Because if, if that germ causes the disease, if it's present,
there should be the disease. And then you should be able to
find that germ in the sick person, right, That you think
has the disease that the germ causes and take it out of the
person. And then once you take it out,
then you can give it to another Organism that who's healthy,
right? This could be an animal or a
human and then show that they manifest the same disease.
So, you know, very simple. I think anyone in the audience,
if you just thought about a little, you would come up with
those ideas as a way to test this hypothesis that a germ
causes a disease. And they teach this still, you
know, to medical students and other health professions.
But what they don't do in school is they don't show you the
actual experiments for each germ because, and there's a specific
reason for that is because those experiments don't actually
satisfy the postulates. One that in the the Organism
with the disease, you find the germ that causes it, then you
can you can take that germ out. Now, you know, officially it
says grow it in a pure culture, but you just have to have it by
itself really. Then you can take that germ, put
it in a healthy Organism and it should be of course by a natural
root of how you think this spreads in nature and then show
that that Organism gets the same disease.
So like Robert Koch did research on tuberculosis, OK, now we're
we're told that tuberculosis is caused by a bacteria, right?
It's called Mycobacterium tubercula tuberculae or
something like that. And Robert Koch was trying to
apply his own postulates to tuberculosis and he he failed
miserably, but was given credit as if he didn't fail for some
reason. And so he couldn't actually find
the the Mycobacterium in people with tuberculosis.
And he also found it in people without tuberculosis.
So right on the first, you know on its face it failed.
I used AI and asked her to search the Internet for any
clinical trial that successfully shows transmission of a pathogen
between humans and it comes up with the results saying it
cannot find anything like that. Well, you know, so I, I don't
trust AI, so I wouldn't rely only on those results.
But in this case that matches with my own research.
And I'm sure you've had or or planning to have Daniel Roydas
as a guest who wrote. I have spoken to him.
Can you catch a cold where he he reviewed, you know, over 100
studies trying to show that colds are contagious.
They even, you know, had a facility in the Uki forget what
it's called, but it it was advertised like, you know, come
here, volunteer to be an experimental subject and have
like a vacation, Like it was on a very pastoral piece of land
and such. And they put people in cabins
together, you know, where somebody had a cold and there
were two or three people that spent a couple of days in the
cabin with them to see if they got colds as well, those kinds
of experiments. And they were never able to
really prove or gather any sufficient evidence about
contagion of colds and flu whatsoever.
But the counter response, Andy, is that well, the immune systems
were strong, they were healthy. Well, I mean, you could say
that, but then you would have to do experiments to show that that
was the case right now. These were largely all these
studies were done with healthy people, healthy volunteers who,
you know, didn't have immunosuppressive drugs, didn't
have immune deficiency syndromes or anything like that.
So you know what, what happens here is that there's a a false
reasoning in what you just said because you, the way science
works is you come up with a hypothesis, right, that oh OK,
that colds are contagious. They pass from one person to
another through bodily secretions, right?
And that's what we're told happens today.
So then you, you expose, you design an experiment, right,
where you expose healthy people to the secretions of the sick
people. And you see if, if they get the
same illness, now the hypothesis would say that all the people
exposed would get the illness. But then you do the experiment
and that's not what happens. So what you should do then is
revise your hypothesis and then design a new experiment to test
that. But that's not what happened.
What happened is, is that they they don't get the results that
would support their hypothesis. So after the fact, they just
changed their hypothesis. So the results support it, but
only with a, a mild modification, right?
So they say, well, this proves that it's contagious and the
people who didn't get sick, that they had a faulty immune system,
but we didn't measure their immune system.
There's no way to measure it. We, we don't actually have an
experiment where we test that, but it helps us keep our
hypothesis going. It a true scientist, you know,
who would look at those results empirically would say what if
there's another some other reason these folks are sick or
and let's test that, you know, and that's what what wasn't
done. Unfortunately, no matter what
the results are, they still kept their hypothesis exactly the
same and just tried to explain it away with that sort of post
hoc analysis. I mean a common response Andy is
that they say, well, we have other ways of testing these
things. We don't need to use a
double-blind trial. You know, modelling is
definitely something I talk a lot about.
And I think there's modelling in terms of in vitro experiments
where you take things out of the Organism and mess around with
them in the laboratory in unnatural or artificial
conditions. And then there's also computer
simulations like we see with, for example, the metagenomic
sequencing, right, which is how they come up with essentially
manufactured genome sequences for viruses.
And when I was an undergraduate, I had a summer job initially at
a biotech company and it became like a part time job throughout
the year. And I was introduced to what
they call molecular modelling. And this is where you use a
pretty sophisticated computer workstation and it has this very
powerful software where you can input the X-ray crystal
structure of like an enzyme, like a protein.
And that would be a target for a drug, for example, or something
that you just wanted to study biologically.
And you can do all these simulations or modeling of
different interactions with other molecules.
So you can sort of, for example, have a candidate drug molecule
and you can upload that molecule and the target like I when I was
there, they were working on thrombin inhibitors.
Thrombin is a enzyme in the clotting system.
So they're trying to develop a blood thinning drug.
They actually have one on the market now.
So they did, they were, you know, successful.
And so we would look at, I would input different versions of the
candidate drug molecules and model the interactions with the
thrombin protein. And when we applied this to
experimental research in a laboratory, we saw that it, it
didn't not predict the results. And also I, they sent me on a
training course, like for a few days to learn how to use the
software because it was not easy to use.
In fact, no one in the company knew how to use it.
They weren't, they were only using it to make pictures.
They weren't actually using it for its intended purpose.
So when I went on that course, I learned that there were like
dozens of number values that you you had to just set because they
weren't these were things that couldn't be measured, they
couldn't be known or they were unknown and you would basically
set them where you thought they should be.
And when I started tweaking around with those settings,
those inputs, it vastly changed the results.
And this is, this is the problem is that a computer model, a
statistical model, A in vitro laboratory model, all these
things can be highly manipulated and even kind of subconsciously
because you know, as the scientist, you expect certain
results, you believe that your hypotheses are correct and
that's a bias. And so if you're using a model,
you're going to tweak that model to support your bias.
And it's not measuring reality. Like if we look at the climate
change models like that are published in the IPCC reports
and such, if you look back what they predicted based on those
models in the past and then look at what the actual weather
patterns were, you'll see they didn't predict anything
accurately whatsoever. But now we have global cooling,
Andy. It's well, you know, before the
that environmental conference in Brazil where they first talked
about global warming, before that there was a even I think a
documentary on public television in the US that was narrated by
Leonard Nimoy talking about that the the Earth is headed for Ice
Age, Doctor Spock. Exactly.
So saying that we were headed for another Ice Age.
So and then all of a sudden it flipped after this conference in
Brazil. And then, you know, it's changed
since then because it was global warming and now it's climate
change, right? Because, well, the Earth wasn't
getting warmer, so they couldn't say that anymore.
They had to say something different.
We have bacteria that we can see under a microscope and we can
play with it and it's living and all that sort of thing.
A virus is an entirely different concept, and the definition has
changed over the years anyway. Well, you know, the original
term virus really referred to like poison, like things like
snake venom and such. So it definitely, you know, if
you start reading dictionaries from the past, you'll see that
the meaning of many words have changed, right?
We saw, we saw that that happen in real time during COVID,
right, where they changed the definition of vaccine to
include, you know, RNA and DNA based technologies.
So the modern definition of virus, I think, you know, we
should take it from modern biology and you know, which
essentially defines it as a obligate intracellular parasite,
right? Meaning that it has to invade to
a cell in order to reproduce and that it's, you know, can can
replicate under those conditions.
And of course 'cause then damage to the host Organism as a
result. But that's never been observed.
No, absolutely not. And how it couldn't really be
observed in with current technology, I mean, unless you
rebuilt Rife's microscope. If you look at the research, I
mean, like you said with bacteria, if, if you pretty much
swab anything around you, including yourself, right, and
then look under a microscope, a regular light microscope, you
know where you can look at, at living cells, you'll see
bacterial cells, right, of probably a variety of different
kinds. So we know they're there.
We know they can be, you know, separated out or you know, from
things, right? No problem with viruses.
They're said to be so small, right on around the size of 100
nanometers, right? And a nanometer is a billionth
or 10 to the minus ninth meters. So they can't be observed in a
light microscope. You know, particles that size
can be seen only on an electron microscope.
And you, you have to, you know, destroy whatever you're looking
at to see it under an electron microscope essentially.
So it, it, you can't observe the behavior of things on that
scale. But if you look at the
experiments that which are done to discover a virus in nature,
right? That and these are always
related to they think it causes a disease.
They they never actually find the virus.
They don't even really look for it.
They just assume it's there from the beginning.
So they take like they have a sick animal or a sick human,
They take somebody tissue or fluid, they assume there's a
virus in there, but they don't actually find the virus in there
and they don't even look like they don't take that and look
under the microscope. They don't take that and
separate out everything but a virus.
They just have the assumption there's a virus in there.
And then they do experiments and the the results that they get
just basically form circular reasoning because we assume
there's a virus. We assume a virus will result in
what they call Cpes in a cell culture.
It's like a damp inflammation in a cell culture, essentially.
And then they say Cpes mean there's a virus.
So that makes a complete circle in their logic.
But they never show there's a virus at any stage of the
experiment. They never make any attempt to
separate out the virus in order to test it independently.
They had tried that in the past and were unsuccessful, but they
have the ability to do that with other particles that are, that
are the same size scale. So, you know, like for example,
there's a paper that I, you know, it's, it's part of one of
my presentations and it just illustrates this point so well,
because what the paper is, is it's a study about HIV exosomes.
So this is, you know, exosomes are basically also particles
that are about the same size as viruses, But but that they say
that these are generated by our own cells, OK, That they're that
they have some biological function and there's a whole
field of research looking at exosomes.
Now, so they say that when you have a disease, your body makes
exosomes, a certain type of exosome in response to the
disease. So they're looking at people
who, you know, have an antibody test for HIV.
And so they say they're, you know, essentially like AIDS
patients or HIV patients. And so they want to look at
their exosomes. And all they do is take a sample
of their blood. And then they, excuse me, use
some physical methods to separate out the exosomes.
And then they they're able to have the exosomes in a separate
container. They look at them under the
microscope and you only see particles that are identical.
You don't see anything else in there because they've separated
it. And then they can do experiments
on it. And they do in this, they do an
enzyme assay for acetylcholinesterase.
They do a protein electrophoresis to characterize
the proteins in the particles, right?
And they, they can even sequence the genome because they can get
genetic material directly from those particles.
Now, in the same experiment, that patient also allegedly has
HIV viral particles. Why didn't they also separate
those and run tests on them? They didn't, they didn't even
attempt it, right? And it's because they know they,
they wouldn't be able to find it.
So that's the big thing that they they can do the actual
proper experiments to find viruses and study them, but they
don't do it because somewhere back in time they figured out
that there are no viruses, but it was very profitable and there
were maybe other motivations to keep it going, you know, maybe
to sell vaccines because that has become now the most
lucrative type of pharmaceutical since COVID.
But nonetheless, no modern virologists, no modern doctors
ever look back at those experiments to see.
They never look at the current experiments to see, right?
They're just told in their education that this virus causes
this disease. Let's say you are out in the
wild and you see a carcass and it's surrounded by hyenas.
The hyenas are cleaning it up. Now can you assume that the
hyenas killed that animal? No, most likely not.
They came after the fact. And that sort of is, is the way
I've kind of observed or or thought about viral load, right?
Well, I mean, if viral load actually measured, you know,
viruses, then yes, you could think that about it.
So that that analogy I think is more appropriate for bacteria
because bacteria are really there and you will in many
disease states find a lot of bacteria in the diseased tissue,
right? And it, and it's because it is
coming thereafter to scavenge and clean it up, you know, just
like the hyenas in your example. But viral load, despite its
name, actually doesn't measure viruses at all.
It is a, it doesn't really measure anything.
Actually, it's a manufacturing technique.
So that that's the PCR test, PCR process.
It's not, it shouldn't be called a test because that's not what
it is. What it does is it whatever is
in your sample, it reproduces it.
So it, it's like a manufacturing facility that has like a
replicator, right? Like kind of Star Trek
technology, you put in something and then it makes copies of it.
The but what is the thing it's making copies of?
Like that's the question. Because it's only a short
strand, right, of genetic material, a tiny, tiny, tiny
percentage of the whole of an organism's genetic material.
And these small short sequences are non specific.
Like if you and they're, they're called primers, by the way,
that's the in, in the PCR process, it's called the primer,
the thing that you're making copies of and or you're, you
know, you're finding if it's there, you're going to make
copies of it. And if you take the sequence of
a primer, like look at a particular PCR protocol and find
the primer sequence and then take that sequence and put it in
a genetic database to see if it matches any known organisms,
you'll find that or a bunch of organisms come up for all these
sequences so that those short strands are not specific, right?
And for anyone Organism at all. And that is obviously a problem
because if any of the other organisms are there, well, then
you have a false, you know, your result tells you something
different than you think it tells you because it doesn't
tell you anything about a possible virus.
It tells you, oh, there's genetic material that may be
from a variety of organisms present in your sample.
And the other problem with PCR is that it, it works by
doubling, right? So it, it has like manufacturing
rounds or cycles that. So first, if there is a matching
little piece of genetic material in the sample, it'll double it.
So if there's, let's say there's 10 copies of it to begin with,
after the first round, there'll be 20 and then after the second
round, 40, right? And each time it'll double.
And so that's like an exponential rise.
And each time you do this, it can make mistakes.
So in other words, when it, when it makes a copy, it might make a
copy with something's different on it.
Like, you know, pretty much like they say, mutations work and if
you do enough cycles of doubling, the number of mistakes
goes up and you could end up at some point where whatever it's
making at the end wasn't present in the starting material at all.
It's completely manufactured through errors of the copying
process. And just like, you know, that if
you took, you know, if you had an old fashioned photocopier,
like now we have these in our, you know, office computers and,
you know, made a copy of something, then took the copy,
made a copy of the copy, made another copy of that copy, copy
that copy, you'd see the quality degrade, right?
And the same thing happens with PCR.
And really, PCR is kind of like a a molecular photocopier.
OK. But Andy, I mean this is just
all academic. How does this affect me, you
know, in my, in my day-to-day life?
Well, those viral load PCR procedures are used
diagnostically to, you know, tell you that you have a virus
in your body or sometimes even they use it for bacteria too and
it has problems there as well. So like I, I had a client
because you know, I, I do educational consultations around
natural healing and such. And I had someone a couple of
years ago who came to me and in the 80s during the AIDS scare,
right? He was in the homosexual
community. He got tested and was told he
was HIV positive. And now he wasn't sick at all.
He, just because of his lifestyle, he went and got this
test. Now the, the people who gave him
the results, they told him that he should just go and apply for
disability like Social Security disability through the
government because he was going to get sick and die and not be
able to take care of himself anyway.
And just from having this, you know, lab test, which it wasn't
APCR then it was an antibody test, but the same thing would
happen if it was a viral load test and went on disability.
And now he got in touch with me like 30 years or 25 years later,
never got sick, right. And now he's kind of questioning
what he what he should do. He was even been taking like
prophylactic medications all this time.
And you know, so he basically all of his productive adult life
was lost because he just became dependent and expecting to get
sick and die at any time, right. So that that's a extremely
serious consequence of believing this false information.
It's sad to me though that so many people have bought into
this and it almost seems like it's not going to change.
Well, I don't, you know, I'm more optimistic than you about
this germ. Like, I feel like already
there's been a lot of traction. I mean, this is part of the
discussion. Even mainstream people have
heard about this. Now, they may think it's
ridiculous, right? But just it being spoken is, you
know, a major accomplishment. If we look at, you know,
paradigm shifts throughout history, they they take time,
right? And, and people have written
about this, how you know, when you, when you introduce a new
idea, even if it's true, first you're ridiculed, right then,
then there's conversation about it, but skepticism, you know,
and eventually it just becomes the, the new paradigm.
So we, we need more time. And definitely, you know, I'm
glad that I can come on here again and, and talk about this
topic because it needs to be repeated over and over so that
it can start to settle in to people's thinking because it's
so heretical. When you first hear about that,
you know, germs don't cause disease, viruses don't even
exist. It, it's so far astray from the
mainstream and what you've been told your whole life and, and
you even have experienced that, you know, with confirmation bias
seems to give weight to that. It's only when you look at it
more objectively that you see that that could be interpreted a
number of ways. So that's why it takes, you
know, time and time again to introduce the idea so that you
can say, you know, maybe I should look into this because
the, the evidence is quite compelling.
And you know, doctors and virologists, if you go, if you
go to your doctor and ask them, say, you know, how do we know
that this virus causes this disease?
They, they won't have the, the first clue.
They might give an answer, right?
But they won't, they won't be able to tell you, you know, what
the experiment was. Oh, can you describe the
experiment to me? Can you tell me the name of the
scientist who discovered it? Right.
They'll know nothing about that. And that should be a good
indication of like, interestingly interesting.
Why don't they know that? Like if it's so well
established, it, you know, it should be like a matter of pride
to learn about the experiments that discovered it.
I mean, think about it, how heroic that could be.
And that should be a clue that I wonder what those studies
actually show. Why don't I take a look at them
or or or read about someone who you know who described it in a
way you can understand? Mike Eden's got a great sub
stack in which he lists clinical trials over the last 200 years
attempting to show transmission of any pathogen between humans
and every single one is a failure.
And it goes. I mean they also mentioned the
Spanish flu one. That was a famous one.
I forget now. Who was the scientist behind
that one? You know the one I'm talking
about. Yes, of course.
And there was a series of experiments and I'll and they.
Had they had a hundred, a hundred healthy soldiers and
they couldn't make one of them sick?
I forget his name now anyway, but what's interesting is when
we're talking about viruses, right?
Like earlier you say you could. Yeah, that's right.
Rosenau. There we go.
You'll see a picture. There is somebody will give you
a picture, this little black and white image, right?
And it's a circle with little things sticking out of it, and
I'll go. There it is.
That's the virus. And I've asked this question so
many times. How do you know?
Yeah, no, you're absolutely right.
And this, you know, this goes back to what I was saying before
about exosomes, because you know, in that in that
experiment, after they, they used physical means to separate
out the exosomes from everything else in the blood.
They took some of that and looked at it under the electron
microscope. And the only thing you see are
identical round particles, right, of the same size and
morphology. So you know that what's in that?
You know you have a pure sample of these particles and you
confirm that right. So now in the future, if you're
looking for these particles in other people, you at least have
some basis of identifying them, although certainly different
things can look the same, right? So you have to be careful of
that. But with respect to the images
that they show viruses, that's never been done.
They've never, you know, separated out and then showed a
picture of just that and then taken that and done experiments
like with coax postulates to show that it produces the same
image. What they do instead is they
have the assumption, right? They they would, if they use
blood, like let's say they were going to use blood like it with
the exosomes, they would take the blood, right?
That has many, many things in it.
It has particles in it, it has cells in it, it has proteins in
it, right? And various other molecules like
clotting factors and things like that, that are circulating
around the blood, maybe cholesterol, right?
All that's in the blood. They take the whole blood.
Maybe they filter out the really big things like the blood cells
and just have the fluid. But it's still it's, it's got a
whole bunch of things now. They assume a virus is in there,
but never show it. Now then they take that whole
thing and put it under an electron microscope and they see
everything that's in there. They see cells, they see
particles, right? They see cellular organelles,
all these things, but they don't know what any of these things
are, at least the particles. There's no way to identify them.
There's no specific label or stain that's used that only, you
know, lights up those things. They could make things like
that, but they don't. They just have an expert
microscopist look at everything under the microscope and then
whatever they think the virus is supposed to look like, they just
point to that and say that that's the virus.
But there there's no proof. Well, what that is, it could be
a million things. It could be an exosome, it could
be another type of vex vesicle that that are all known that
could be seen in healthy samples as well.
So it's completely arbitrary. But with bacteria you can
actually test these things, and even then disease hasn't been
shown to be caused by them. Yeah, that's right with you.
You can take. So if there's, let's say
bacteria in the blood, OK, so you take that blood sample, you
can put that under a light microscope, which doesn't
require any processing of the blood.
Like you could just take the raw living blood right right there
and plop it on a microscope slide and look at it under a
high power objective. And you can see back if there's
bacteria in there, then you can do simple processes to separate,
physically separate out those bacteria.
And then you can grow them on a, you know, in a Petri dish to, to
make more of them if you want to.
Or you could just take the ones you found directly there and do
experiments on them. Like, you know, put them in a
healthy Organism. See if they make the Organism
sick. OK, but let's look at some real
examples. So we take some water from a
pond that's got stuff floating on.
It looks, it looks like bacteria and you drink that and you get a
bit sick. Well, you didn't just drink the
pure bacteria, you drank everything that was in that
water. So how do you know what was in
there? You know, that's that's exactly
the experiment that they do with viruses, right?
You so except that you can actually show this bacteria in
that pond water, right, instead of just assuming it.
But yeah, you can't if you have a whole mixture of things, you
can't tell what thing in that mix is producing the effect.
So you you know, this is what what's known as an independent
variable. You can't do a scientific
experiment, you know, according to the scientific method, unless
you have an independent variable that's the one thing you're
testing. So you would have to take that
pond water and separate out the the bacteria from everything
else, right? Because there there could be
agricultural runoff with chemicals in there, you know,
there could be overgrowth of a certain Organism and a bunch of
fecal material, like who knows what's in there that could
potentially be harmful to health.
The one that always comes up. My kid went to school and 13 of
the 20 kids got chicken pox. Well, those, those aren't real
numbers. You're just making those numbers
up. But you know, this is what I was
talking about earlier, that you might have some life experience
that you would interpret as supporting, you know, contagion,
but you you don't actually have the evidence.
So let's let's say you, you know, you do that.
Well, did you observe any viruses going from the first kid
with chicken pox to the other kids?
Right, because that's what we're told contagion does.
That's not something you can observe, right?
So you don't have direct proof. So what you observe is that
there's one child who's sick and then there are other children
who become sick with a similar issues, right, in a close time
proximity, in a close geographic location.
So are there any other commonalities?
You said that the kid went to school, So what are they exposed
to at the school? Is there something there that
they were all exposed to that could have resulted in this?
What about the season, right? They're all experiencing the
same environmental stimuli, so could that be involved?
What about their stage of development?
Are they all at the same, you know, stage of development?
Could that be involved? And none of those other
possibilities have ever been looked at seriously because
they're like all the other, you know, viral illnesses.
There's just been the assumption that this is caused by a virus.
But when they do experiments like where they take fluid out
of the chicken pox lesion and inject that into a healthy
subject, the healthy subject doesn't get chicken pox, right.
And that would be, you know, the more speaking to the direct
proof that this contagion occurs.
You know, I, I attended a family reunion several years ago and we
all ate at the same restaurant. And that night, you know, maybe
30% of the people who were there all were throwing up and having
diarrhea and, you know, pretty miserable.
And did we pass, you know, viruses around causing that?
Right, Rotavirus, what what they say causes that?
No, we ate the same dish at the restaurant and it was food
poisoning. So we don't need any virus to
explain that. But if you it's the same
experience, you know that you discussed that people would
interpret as evidence of contagion.
It's entirely possible that we have a very impoverished view on
what causes these things. Why do we yawn collectively?
Yeah, or when women's become close in their relationship,
that their periods synchronize, right, Their menstrual cycles.
No one suspects there's a, you know, menstrual cycle virus.
Yeah. And I chatted to somebody who
argues for something called German New Medicine.
Very, very interesting topic. And she was saying that the kids
who get chicken pox most likely have something called separation
anxiety, which is a which is a stress induced response because
they are away from their families and in in environment
that are environments that are a little bit alien.
I, I would say that what you can take away from that is that a
psychological insult, like like a trauma, for example, or a
bereavement, right? Grief can definitely manifest
physically in a variety of ways, and that's something that is
definitely underrepresented in the medical system.
I mean, stress causes sickness. There's there's no doubt about
that. It's it's not even debatable.
No, no, no, of course not. I mean, I think, you know, there
are quite extreme examples of that, right?
Like I I'm pretty sure that there are people who developed
cancer exclusively because of a psychological damage.
But then what is the take away? Someone listening to this going
OK, sure, all right, so viruses don't exist or germs don't cause
disease, but we all still get sick.
So now what? Well, you know, I think it's
pretty obvious that when it comes to understanding your
health, you want to know as much truth as possible because that
allows you to make decisions to improve your health, right?
So yes. And we all get sick from time to
time, but not to the same degree, right?
There are some people who get, you know, bronchitis, pneumonia
and are sick, you know, repeatedly throughout the cold
season. And then there's some people who
get a mild cold every three years, Right.
And what's the difference between those people?
You know, what about what's really causing health problems
like in in the even outside of germ theory, right?
We have this huge increase in chronic disease over the last
century and pretty much the medical system says we, we don't
have any idea what's causing it, right?
Like autoimmune diseases, for example.
You know, even cancer, they don't, they don't even claim to
know what's causing cancer, right?
Even Even though they, they talk about specific genetic
mutations, most cancers don't even the people don't have
those. So we're, we're really being
kept from important knowledge and, and from making, you know,
really solid determinations about what specifically, you
know, now, you know, in my research, in order to understand
what is causing these health problems, I have to rely on
indirect and anecdotal evidence because the mainstream
authorities or the people who fund the research or who are
doing this research are not looking for the real truth.
They are basically just continuing to perpetuate the
same kind of profitable frauds. So, you know, the more people
start to realize the truth, then they, the society is going to
put more resources into finding the truth.
But I can tell you even with the what I have been able to learn
and observe from many other people who have come to similar
conclusions is that people can fully turn around their health
from these chronic conditions, like completely reverse them.
Not by taking pharmaceutical drugs and getting surgical
procedures, but by lifestyle changes using nature.
You know, things like fasting, sweating, enemas.
These are what can, you know, help people's bodies heal and.
Also changing your diet. Absolutely.
That's when I talk about lifestyle changes.
It's diet is the biggest thing by far.
I, I remember during the COVID era, I visited a friend and he
is, he was still caught up in this whole thing and he was sick
at the time. And I went up to him and he
threw out his elbow, you know, to, to greet me.
And I just smiled and I just walked up to him and gave him a
hug. And the point that I'm making is
that I don't think I can pick up anything from anybody.
So that's precisely what happened.
I didn't pick up anything from him.
Yes, well, you know, it's. The aspect of fear, it's the
fear. That's what I'm talking about,
no? No, you, you know that that's an
excellent point. I should have, you know, been
thinking along those lines. But since the tyranny of the
COVID era has passed, you know, that's not in my consciousness.
But you're absolutely right. The the germ theory makes you
afraid of your brother, right? Because they're going to get you
sick. And that separates us, makes us
lonely, increases things like addiction.
So it's it's a very, very deleterious.
You don't see this in the animal Kingdom.
So here in South Africa we've got the Kruger National Park,
which is a huge game park. It's the size of Israel, so it's
pretty big. And in the last 120 years of its
existence, there has never been an epidemic of any kind other
than the fact that where there have been a few collective
illnesses with the within the with the animals, it's generally
related to something like pollution that came down one of
the street, one of the rivers. And normally it's some third
party interference that created that.
Yeah, I completely agree. You know, when you do see these
types of events, there's, you know, always a rational
explanation, you know, usually some kind of, you know,
pollution that is very poisonous.
And I think also, I think that that happens with some of these
human outbreaks as well. And the virus story is a way to
cover it up like I would, I would bet that any of these, you
know, hemorrhagic fever outbreaks like Ebola and
Marburg, I would bet that those are due to some kind of toxic
exposure. And that this, the story of this
really, really scary virus is just to cover it up.
And, you know, because think about it like, you know, if, if,
if there was a virus that had like an 80% mortality and the
way it killed you is you essentially bleed and, and drown
on your own blood. You know, that's that's so scary
that, you know, you don't question it, You just hope that
it doesn't affect you and you hope they figure out a way to
make a vaccine. But I mean, some of it is also
so just ridiculous. If you think about HIV, which
you mentioned earlier, it suddenly appeared in the 1980s
and it didn't like gaming in in in nightclubs in New York.
Let's be quite specific here. And then somehow it ended up in
Africa and, and it took a decade or two for them to decide what
the definition of AIDS actually is.
So. So you had a.
Virus different in different countries.
Yes. You know, in in Africa they
need, they needed something to blame all of the mining related
illness so that the mining companies wouldn't have to pay
disability. And, you know, so that's why,
like, tuberculosis and other pulmonary conditions are
emphasized in Africa compared to the US.
So how can my audience follow your work?
Well, I'm at Doctor Andrew Kaufman on all the social
platforms, Instagram, YouTube, etcetera.
And also Andrew kaufmanmd.com is a website where you can get
access to my free protocol and and many free workshops and
resources there. So definitely check that out if
you want to learn more about natural health.
I want to add a disclaimer because this always comes up.
Oh, OK. So is he a virologist?
And thank goodness you're not because if you were a
virologist, you would be stuck within those parameters.
And that's a problem, I think, with hyper specialization is
that you you get forced into a lane and you cannot get out of
that lane. So you have to argue as a
virologist that viruses are real.
Well, yeah, I mean, if I was a virologist, I would be now a
former virologist. But once you once you realize
the truth, it's like, what are you doing?
You have to get out of there. But, you know, even though I
never did virology research, I, I've been in the lab, I've done
all the kinds of molecular stuff, you know, ran
electrophoresis, southern blots, northern blots, PCRS, you know,
all those kind of same techniques that are used, you
know, in virology. I'm, I'm very familiar with how
they work. So, you know, that's how I'm
able to understand that research so thoroughly.
But it, it's important, you know that that's a logic fallacy.
Of course, it's called appeal to authority when, you know, you
say only someone with a certain credential or status, you know,
is capable of understanding something.
And that's a trap, right? That's that's a big reason why
we're all so ignorant about so many things is because we think,
oh, I couldn't possibly understand about electricity.
So I'll have to, you know, rely on an engineer or a physicist,
or I couldn't possibly understand about nuclear energy
or medicine or, you know, chemicals or whatever.
And but the truth is, is, you know, we, we can all understand
these things. So we just have to, you know,
spend a little time and effort because the, you know, I think
the biggest barrier is just the language that all the, you know,
it's natural for people when they get expert in a certain
field to develop your own terms because you've got unique, you
know, concepts that you're talking about or unique tools
that you use in your trade or whatever.
So even, you know, Craftsman who are specialized, you know, like
a glass blower has special terminology and you know, you
wouldn't know what what they're talking about unless you take
the time to learn that. So that's the big barrier.
But it's important that we make the effort to understand these
things no matter what. You know, even if we didn't
graduate high school, that doesn't mean you can't
understand how an experiment works or how the scientific
method works. And I'm a huge proponent of
becoming an autodidact and that once you are able to achieve
that, then there's no barriers to what you can learn about and
understand. Knowledge is open source.
That's right. Andrew Kaufman, thank you for
joining me in the trenches. Great to be here.