All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 1, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
54:03
The Toxicology Taboo: Dr. Sam Bailey - Jim West Interview
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I think they were following the same rules that are presented today in the era of COVID and all through history, which is avoid toxicology.
That's the rule.
Either make it disinformation or just plain avoid it.
Don't talk about it.
it you know you will sign doctors to find out what is the cause of an epidemic but there is a taboo which is don't talk about toxicology if you want to support my work and help keep this channel running
then please consider joining Dr. Sam's community.
For a small monthly donation you will be the first to see my content and gain access to exclusive extras such as our monthly Q&A where my husband Mark joins me to answer all your questions.
Check out supportdrsam.com for more information and the easy sign up process.
Jim West is a dedicated researcher, author and advocate for the environment and responsible industry.
He has uncovered a massive amount of evidence to support his hypothesis that persistent pesticides caused the great polio epidemic post-World War II.
Much of his research has led to the same conclusion that viruses are being used as a cover story for the real causes of disease.
With no political or career conflicts of interest, he is able to critique the professional medical establishment and areas of scientific truth that most people are too afraid to go near.
Well, Jim, it is such a pleasure to have you on my channel to be able to do this interview with you because you're quite a famous person in our circles.
I wanted to know, to start with, if you could explain how you got into this whole business and what your influences have been.
Okay, well, ever since I was a kid, I loved science.
My parents put the encyclopedia set in my bedroom, and I just read it all the time, and I always gravitated to the science part.
And then I became pretty skeptical of authorities, starting with my teachers, you know, in grade school.
And I just moved on through life, and I was, I instinctively I was blessed with a trust of nature.
And we also went to church and we're traditional 50s, 1950s style family that had dinner together.
And I think, you know, the whole concept of believing in God is kind of critical of authority just by its nature.
Although there are state approved religions, But I was a Baptist, which is kind of a rebellious religion against the mainstream, or it used to be.
I gravitated eventually, by the time I guess I was in high school, I began to see health food stores, and I began to see there's a different world.
I think I was maybe lucky not to have too many prenatal x-rays because that was very popular during my era.
I think I was just kind of lucky.
Just for the sake of, I guess, of knowing something and self-preservation, I became more and more critical and skeptical of doctors.
But I didn't really see another way when pain came.
What do you do?
You go see a doctor.
I would get their advice and then I would go home and think, man, that guy was an idiot.
That kept on and I was just another person reading an occasional health food pamphlet because they didn't have internet.
And I didn't really get, you know, I was too busy just trying to survive and getting a job, etc.
But then I eventually moved to New York City as a musician, because that's where you're supposed to go if you're into music, in the early 80s.
And around 19, I guess it was around 1984, there was the HIV epidemic.
I saw Peter Duesberg.
And the Perth Group criticizing the concept of the HIV virus.
Peter Busberg says that the virus is not that dangerous to have caused an epidemic.
And the Perth Group said there is no virus.
And they both commented on the toxicological possibilities.
It could have been the real cause, you know.
So that opened my mind up to the idea that you could criticize what seemed to be an unassailable concept, the virus, you know.
But I didn't have a whole lot of time.
I was just struggling in New York and going to work.
I was reading a book and I talked about polio and then I read another book and I talked about DDT.
I mean, you know, stories about DDT and polio are every place, you know.
You couldn't help but bump into them.
But then it just dawned on me that they were the same thing.
And I looked up the symptoms of DDT and it was the same as the symptoms of polio.
I looked up the timeline by doing a review of articles in the New York Public Library.
They just started using computers and so I could do a search of of articles, and I could see that there was a definite timeline.
Polio surges, epidemic, da-da-da.
At the same time, DDT is a miracle.
It's being used everywhere.
So it became really clear you couldn't look at any aspect of DDT and polio without finding correlations.
It was so obvious that I figured That Duisburg and all the professors and all the people who were pretty famous in HIV criticism would eventually figure this out.
So I just dropped it.
So it really was at this point that you're looking into HIV AIDS, so around the 80s that you started to see that connection between DDT and polio?
The HIV critics woke me up to the fact that what was sort of a sacred paradigm of virology could be criticized.
It woke me up to that.
And then when I began to read about DDT, and I would read about total polio like everybody else, I put two and two together.
But I dropped the whole thing for 10 years because I figured it was so obvious.
And then 10 years later, I had a little bit of leisure in my life.
And I began to look at this again.
Now, what happened is Peter Duesberg published his book in 1996, Inventing the AIDS Virus.
And I thought I'd read it.
And he was my hero, you know.
And then I came to the polio part.
And he said that polio was one of the true, valid, Virological paradigms.
It's been proven.
It's been isolated.
I was shocked and I couldn't believe he'd be saying this.
I wanted to cry.
It was so bad because he taught everybody so much about virology and the scam of HIV.
And then I looked around and nobody's is talking about this concept that virology in general could be a scam, right?
And polio is still a valid concept, and that vaccines, according to a treated user, could save the world, you know?
So I was kind of shocked about that, and I figured, wow, this is in my lap, you know?
I'm going to do this, right?
So I just Totally became obsessed with studying, researching, and then I tried to get my stuff published, but nobody was interested.
They wanted a real doctor and somebody PhD, MD, etc.
And they didn't think it was interesting, etc, etc.
And then I said, okay, I'm just going to put this on a web because the internet was happening then.
And then I saw Stefan Lanka give a speech about HIV in person, talked to him, a professor of biology who was also there.
He recommended me to the editor of the Townsend Letter.
They published it, my article on DDT polio, and it was a big splash.
You know, I was very excited about that, you know.
And that got me into the whole thing.
I was toying with the idea that viruses don't exist at that time because it was such a leapfrog over the HIV thing that, yeah, HIV is dubious, but what about this?
Boom, you know.
Eventually got hooked up with Anthony Brink, a judge and a HIV intellectual in South Africa and other people and David Crow and all that.
It's a very exciting, you know, that was the start, you know, that's the whole transition from a health nut to a virology, you know, virus researcher, you know, but toxicology is in medical cynicism is where is my final point right now.
So many people I talk to, the entrance into this area seems to be the HIV-AIDS idea, which is fascinating.
But do you know how myself and my husband came across your work was through Torsten Engelbrecht, you know, your charts.
And I think most people will recognise them, the rates of polio and associated DDT use, but many don't know that it was you that created them.
The charts have gotten around a lot.
Well, the data doesn't even exist.
It was like illegal to disseminate pesticide distribution.
I was reading a toxicology book, Hayes and Laws at the time.
It's a three-volume standard toxicology, and they put together a graph of DDT, BHC, and the other persistent pesticides.
A timeline and published it in their book, but it was based on transportation figures because it was illegal to actually get the actual distribution, you know, and and I looked at it and went, wow, that's polio.
That's that's the same shape as the polio graph that I put together, you know, which I got from the vital statistics records, you know, and then they had a footnote which just said there is A few scientists which believe DDT could have caused the polio epidemic, but do not take these people publicly or
In so many words, they said, you basically be ostracized forever and you lose your job and, you know, you'll be deemed crazy.
Because it was proven, they went on to say, it has been proven that the virus caused the polio epidemics because the vaccine worked.
I mean, what a ridiculous, irrational statement.
But, you know, I think these people that have those jobs publishing those mainstream books, I think they sort of are purposely irrational, because that's the way of conveying to you the truth.
You know, they're like blatantly, like ridiculously irrational, and they know it, and they're just saying, here's, you know, if you want to drink this water, go ahead, you know.
But you will lose your job, they're telling you, you know, if you go down that line, you know.
So I think that's the conundrum that everybody's in, you know.
Do you know one of my favorites of all your work is your Venn diagram, is the DDT polio Jim West diagram.
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
Because that's the title of your book.
It's actually published on Amazon.
That's a very brief book.
But my first book was 300 pages long, where I just amassed all these articles and this and that and quotes, and I set up all these timelines.
And I had spent a lot of time reading virology and found that among virologists, there is a lot of controversy, but less and less nowadays, almost no controversy nowadays.
Now they all, you know, but some of the older books would talk about scientists who had posited different beliefs as to what viruses really are.
Are they symbiotes?
Are they dysfunctional symbiotes?
Are they really?
It looks like at one time there was some free speech among virologists, but I know by 1937, Thomas Rivers, who worked for the bacteriology department of the Rockefeller Institute in New York, He wrote a book that basically defined viruses as predatory microbes, and that's what you better believe or you'll never work in the medical field.
And he actually, according to a virologist named Lynette, Thomas Rivers appointed every Chairman of every microbiology department at every university in the United States, you know, and Lynette said if you breathe something that's not what he is mainstream belief of this predatory nature of these right that you would be gone, you know, so
Anyway, you've got to learn this stuff and know this stuff or you're going to live a really miserable life.
If you end up thinking mainstream beliefs about disease, you're just going to be poisoned all the way to the grave.
Until more recently, I didn't appreciate just... You understand that there's a level of corruption, but it's realising that there are these characters in history, like Thomas Rivers, who have created, in a way, the world we are living in today.
They're partly responsible for what's happened, and it's realising that I think it's horrible knowing it, but at the same time, it's empowering, because, like you say, If you still believe in the existence of viruses, it just keeps you in that level of fear where you operate in the big pharma paradigm because that was something I was also interested in asking you about was
For me, there's this health freedom group, you know, and it seems to have fragmented those that are against vaccines but believe in viruses.
And it seems to just push straight back into the big pharma chemical narrative.
What do you think about it?
Well, I think it's an advance from believing in viruses.
You know, they were unified, the anti-vaxxers were unified.
in a belief of viruses, and the anti-vaxxers even would promote the idea of a predatory virus, such as the stories that they repeat, which are in the mainstream that a virus got loose from a bad batch of vaccines and caused an epidemic.
That was how the anti-vaxxers are being used.
to promote the idea of germ epidemics.
And so we see a lot about anti-vaccine, but you're banned from just saying there is no virus.
You can't get published.
You're lucky if you even have a PayPal account, et cetera, et cetera.
It's like a sacred religious symbol, the virus, you know.
But basically, I think it's all about protecting industry, protecting the ability to exploit the masses.
You know, it's an essential tool.
It goes back to the Bible.
Well, it probably goes back much further.
They have a flow chart for skin disease.
It's a flowchart in concept, but it's all written down.
You know, if the color of the rash is this color, then you do this.
You quarantine them outside of the city.
If the rash is red, then you wait a couple days, and you know, and it goes on and on.
And the priests were the Levites, and they apparently were the doctors.
It just says, Robert Mendelsohn today says that medicine is a religion.
It truly was a religion, and they didn't even pretend it wasn't a religion back in the Bible.
So they had this flowchart.
And you were pronounced, if you had the disease, well, first off, when you had any kind of rash or anything, you were considered unclean.
So right there, they're talking about infectious disease.
You know, you have to be quarantined.
Well, the only reason you'd be quarantined and said to be unclean is if you had an infectious disease.
They don't use the word infectious, but they're obviously talking about it.
As if it was a standard concept.
You must be clean, otherwise you can... and you must be separated from the community, because obviously you're going to get everybody else sick, you know.
But they had a lot of poisons in those days that they had to protect industry about, because they had metal smithing, copper, bronze, And there was mercury and arsenic, who were the first chemicals to escape during the plaques smithing operations.
And if you used cookware that had copper or bronze, or even ceramics, there's a good chance you would have arsenic or mercury in your food supply, or you'd be breathing it.
And also the Bible has a story about how How Moses led the Jews out of, I think it's Babylon, right?
So he had his priests throw ash into the air, and this caused an epidemic of skin disease throughout the city.
And the people and the rulers of Babylon became so In, in fear that they released the Jews as slaves they could leave, and they, they went into the 40 years of the desert there.
So the whole idea of germ theory is being promoted there.
But, but not really it's more of an admission.
of arsenic, because ash is coming from the kilns of the ceramic people and the blacksmiths and all this stuff.
And that is toxic ash.
It's going to cause skin disease, mainly skin diseases, which is what they're talking about.
It's all about skin diseases in those days.
I guess they didn't really have too much air pollution.
So it was they were talking about skin disease.
Both of those biblical stories are talking about skin disease.
So they'd have an epidemic.
Skin disease, and that's what struck fear.
But there's no mention in the whole Bible, rare mention of anything about toxicology.
That's what I thought was interesting, because the Bible is really written by, on the orders of a king, who in 1100, whether English king, ordered the clerics to assemble and write what they call the Bible by assembling all these documents, which they are said to have come from ancient history.
So, I think they were following the same rules that are presented today in the era of COVID and all through history, which is avoid toxicology.
That's the rule.
Either make a disinformation Or just plain avoid it.
Don't talk about it.
You will assign doctors to find out what is the cause of an epidemic, but there is a taboo, which is don't talk about toxicology.
So they have no choice if they come up with these fantastic stories about viruses and germs and things like that.
Totally is.
It's a void toxicology, isn't it?
And I mean, you think, I think in medical school, it's something that's really so seldom talked about.
It's something that's to the side.
It's kind of this old thing.
And we have all this new technology now, and we will focus on that rather than the toxicology.
What also I'm fascinated with, Jim, is just what I can't get my head around is how you were talking earlier about the anti-vaxxer movement.
And how you've got people that they've taken the trouble to investigate vaccines and how harmful they are, but then they won't go anywhere near the virus existence issue.
Why do you think that is?
Well, I think a lot of people probably instinctively know that they're going to be ostracized if they do that.
If they criticize the virus thing, I mean, you're automatically out of the professional world because of that.
You know, it is a taboo.
It's always been a taboo.
It still is.
Stephan Lanka was a virologist.
He criticized HIV.
He lost contact with all his friends and colleagues and everything, right?
And I guess you've had issues over all that.
So, that's where they steer like Steve, Steve Kirsch.
He's a brilliant assembler of data, and he has a lot of money and he has, he makes great arguments.
Great.
He has a very good way of talking about statistics, but he won't go near that idea.
And RFK, same thing.
Big Tree, same thing.
Wakefield, same thing.
All of them won't go near the there is no virus concept, you know.
Actually, we're not really saying there is no virus.
We're just saying that what these virus believers are saying is trash, you know.
Yes!
Yeah, Perth makes it very clear.
Eleni Eliopoulos of the Perth group, you know, that it's, she always keeps saying, I'm not saying that this HIV doesn't, doesn't, well, she didn't want to, she said it doesn't exist, but basically she's saying we're not, in order to get published, which she did got published a lot of times in mainstream articles, She would just say that there are problems with the science of HIV.
That's her approach.
For me, I'm fascinated.
You feel like it's driven because for some people, it's the fear of being ostracized completely.
That's one of the main drivers of why they won't touch it.
Yeah, but you know what's funny?
Now everything is sort of flipped.
What was sort of an esoteric argument about virus existence?
You can walk down the street and say, what do you think about this COVID thing?
Somebody will go, there is no virus.
You'll be in a bar or something and somebody says that to you out of nowhere.
It's kind of amazing.
What I see is really disappointing in that people who have no liability in saying there's no virus, just ordinary anti-vax people will vehemently argue that there is a virus and they'll point to some just ordinary anti-vax people will vehemently argue that there is a virus and they'll point to some article that they don't even understand and they'll go, see, Look at that.
A lot of disappointing things have been revealed about a lot of people, like a large percentage of the population is, You know, it's like when you try to talk to people and they go, oh, I'm not into conspiracy theory, you know, like, like they can hardly say the word conspiracy theory, but they feel that they feel superior just saying that sentence, you know, and it's like it has revealed a lot about politics.
I think everybody's learned a lot about politics and about because of the COVID epidemic, the mass thing, you have these people, So many maskers seem to love, they turn into these little Nazis, running around telling people to put masks on.
And it's the same thing with the virus existence thing.
The people that maintain there is a virus, they're so disingenuous in their arguments when you try to talk to them.
And they just want to win their argument that there is a virus and they think they can win because the authorities are promoting the idea.
I don't think they really understand it.
They've been given a gift, something that they can push people around with.
Maybe these people have been pushed around all their lives and now they have an opportunity to push everybody else around.
I mean I've thought about this a lot too and it's really, this interests me a lot of why those people you describe, what's the motivation for it if it's not financial?
Like I do believe that some people are pushing the virus existence issue because of financial reasons, you know, that they might own a company that makes you know or have shares and a pcr testing or biotech kind of company and they need the virus to exist in order to get revenue from that stream but for people that are completely seemingly not don't have any financial strings attached
i don't know if it's a pride issue that they've taken this position and said no the virus exists and they can't they can't go back on it okay there is an article about the recently came out the eu issued a statement
a global statement saying that any platform that allows misinformation about the virus to be published will be fined six percent up to six percent of its global income so So now there's this driving financial force in the main media sources.
That is forcing Facebook, Google, all these to get in line with enforcing censorship.
I think Bill Bigtree asked one of his interviewers, he opened the door to that question using a negative statement like, of course, there is, you know, We're not talking about the, uh, we're not talking, we're not saying the virus doesn't exist, right?
That's, I think it was what Dale Biggs say.
And then for like two weeks after he was suspended, his account was suspended on the, on, on YouTube.
We're evolving to two worlds, like an underground world of, uh, of where you can talk honestly.
And then a, uh, the mainstream world, which is this fictional world of, uh, of political truth.
It's political truth, but it's not scientific truth.
The other thing I've been astounded by more recently is how so many experts have been convinced by the control studies that have been done, so-called, in virological papers.
But when we look at the nature of these control studies, we realize that they're completely invalid.
Well, yeah, because there's no toxicological controls.
Anytime there's a virus study, there's no mention of a toxicological possibility.
Those are the most obvious Confounding factors.
So it's a rule in science that if you do a study and you omit obvious confounding factors, your study is moot.
It's invalid in a sense.
Because you can't do that in science.
You're not allowed to omit an obvious confounding factor.
Air pollution for COVID respiratory disease is an obvious confounding factor.
And they actually admit that long-term air pollution is a major co-factor for COVID.
But they won't go a step further and look at the short-term air pollution as a trigger for the COVID epidemics.
They will admit everything they can to make it sound like they're credible.
But they won't look at the direct confounding factors for any epidemic, if they're environmental, if they're toxicological.
So, I mean, they're just automatically, by their own rules of science, they are just invalid.
You know, the whole industry of anything related to virology is invalid scientifically.
What do you see as a way out of this mess of the best way of combating virology?
What do you see as some of the solutions?
Well, it's a strange situation we have where virus criticism has never been stronger or more widely known.
You could go hitchhiking through the desert and you're going to find somebody that knows the virology doesn't exist.
I mean, viruses don't exist, you know, and at the same time never has Virology being so brutally enforced as a concept.
So it's a strange pressure point in history.
Although I bet back in the times of when the Catholic Church was dominating You know, as evidence and the Jewish religions were dominant in enforcing disease concepts, it might have been just as brutal, you know, with the Inquisition and all that.
I think that, you know, the witch hunts, the Salem witch hunts in America, they make it look like it was something against women or it was something against, it was a way of acquiring real estate, taking away poor farmers' land.
creating the Salem Witch Hunts, but I think it was mainly about enforcing medical orthodoxy over the emergence of herbology and homeopathy and stuff like that.
It was really, it's after the witches and so-called witches, but those are the people who were More aligned with nature and prescribing herbs or nutritional remedies for disease and not believing that the way to cure people is to poison them with a pill.
So they enforced it with the witch hunts and the Inquisition probably had the same thing.
They were probably weeding out People were sentimental or had a sentiment for nature.
And because nature is a problem for and natural health is a problem for industry, which is so toxic.
All the paints and the metals and how are you going to have a metal smelter, a staff with employees working practically For a little money, how are you going to be working with metal, you know, melting it and smelting it in the 19th century and 18th century?
And if people were aware that they're poisoning themselves every day and that they will live to be 40 years old, if they're lucky, you know, you have to hide that from the population.
And so they're doing that now because of This is not we're now in the era of electrification, where things are more and more being, you know, electrical algorithms, computers, software, cell phones, blah, blah, blah, everything's becoming electric, artificial intelligence, and they want to connect everything wirelessly.
The net result is everybody's poisoned with radio waves.
It's not just radio waves, it's power lines, switch mode, circuitry built into the base of every LED light, every fluorescent light.
There's a huge electrical pollution thing that already exists.
Smart meters are almost like a 9-11 type of scam, just a huge death dictation.
They turn your whole house into a vibrating EMF transmitter and people are living in these houses.
Just about everybody has a smart meter.
Disease is just going up like crazy with the electric car.
They're going to have to build more and more power plants to fuel the electricity for electric cars.
So this whole world, they need to reinforce the whole virus paradigm with COVID.
in order to protect this emerging industry.
It's almost so bizarre and so horrible that I just, I don't understand why people don't catch on to this.
I have talked to some people when I was trying to tell them about smart meters and they, I realized that people are, have sort of got, well they, They're sort of fall into a religion where modern technology gives them a sense of purpose, you know, this, this, this amazing world of
Smart everything and uh communication all that and this is the price it kind of they kind of agreed with me that there are hazards but they said this is the price we have to pay in order to make the break from a coal-fired power we need to solar energy and smart meters and we need to be hooked up to the power companies instead of this hybrid system and uh
I was arguing that they should go off grid, get rid of the inverters.
Solar power, if you want to live a standard life, Uh, you would have to have 120 volt alternating current.
So you would have to have solar power.
If you want to be healthy, you have to have solar power without the inverters that convert it to 120 volt.
Just stay with 12 volt or 36 volt direct current.
And then you can have a healthy life.
As long as you have alternating current, you're going to have a burden on your immune system.
for your life.
It's pretty bad.
Even if you live near a house that has a smart meter, your health will be attacked 24 hours a day.
This whole thing of EMF is really a great topic.
I think people again have become more aware of all these things too.
I know myself, I didn't really know anything about it prior to 2020.
I didn't really look into it.
And you think, I'm not the only one.
Lots of people are interested in this.
But what you raised before I thought was interesting.
I think people don't want to know about it.
When you say about the possible negative health effects, Because they rely on it for their money, for their job.
You know, it's another problem.
Right.
Yeah, no electrician wants to believe it.
You know, he will automatically filter information about EMF out of his conversation, out of his mind.
It's a pretty deep topic and I could get pretty dark, you know, I might actually I'm considering some dark lines of conversation, which I probably should avoid, you know, but it's brutal.
It's brutal.
The medical system is evolved out of the military system.
It's actually a sub agency of the military.
The FDA evolved out of the Marine Medical Corps.
The CDC is a direct transformation of a pesticide application agency run by the Army during World War II.
They set up these conflicts of interest by assigning The role of the CDC to a pesticide agency, application agency, you're guaranteeing that polio is not going to be conceived of as caused by pesticides.
They will readily absorb and promote the idea of a polio virus.
Whoever's up there, they're constantly devising conflicts of interest.
So everybody's in conflict of interest with their own behavior.
I know it can get really dark, but I'm always looking for what individuals can do.
But I'm always looking for what individuals can do.
What do you think, I mean, even if it's just modeling on what you do yourself, but just for the people that are wanting to change the current status quo, what would be your recommendations, Jim?
Okay, how do you change the status quo?
Well, it seems like the I think, well, what do they say?
There's three things in life.
First, you need your health.
Second, you need money.
And then third, you can go for love and family or whatever.
That's advice to young people, I guess, right?
But that's pretty hard.
It's pretty hard to Tell people they can't have love.
I guess you can have love without marriage, right?
And then if you have enough money, maybe go in the direction of marriage and children and all that.
But I think the main point is the most important thing is health.
Because without health, you can't even perceive anything about life.
The worse your health is, the more unable you are to think, communicate, or even see.
What is happening in your own life and in the world around you?
So we all have to focus on health and talk about health.
And make that the primary topic.
And that's what doctors don't want us doing.
They want us to come in there.
They will say, oh, this disease is a mystery.
But these pills here, they've been shown to work by these studies here.
And here, take these.
And if they don't work in a month, come on back and we'll figure out something else.
They don't want you to be thinking about health.
They want you to take a magic pill.
And that's, so whatever they're promoting, the truth must be the opposite.
The medical system gets away with what it's doing by pretending to be for your health.
And unfortunately, so many people follow it because they're in great fear when they're unhealthy, and they figure that the authorities who have built them up couldn't be lying that badly because the lies are so, it's the big lie, one big lie after another.
You know, a few times I've trusted a dentist and I've trusted a doctor and every single time it's been like, except for one dentist, every single time has been a big regret, you know.
But anyway, yeah, so I think if we focus on health, which is in nature, because we are part of nature, I think that's the number one thing.
Without health, you're full of anxiety, you're full of anger.
So, to have calm, rational thought and conversations, health always has to be studied.
The environment of each individual is Needs to be studied and health developed from an assessment of that environment.
You know, people want success, they want money, they want a job.
And they're willing to what hopefully they think will be short term.
Maybe they can get in there, make some money, learn a trade, whatever.
And then later on, maybe they can get out, you know, retire to a nice little island, you know.
But it's a game.
It's difficult to call.
But I think once you start focusing on health and nutrition, the politics reveal themselves automatically.
And you also improve your health at the same time.
So I think that's, each person should go in that direction.
You know, study the rules of logic, which are pretty, pretty simple.
They have these very small little Little textbooks on logic.
And then there's the 10 logical fallacies.
You know, ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
Ad authority, you know, quoting authority as if that's proof of something is a fallacy.
Following a herd.
Ad Popularum, I think it is.
Well, everybody says that.
Everybody believes it.
You're an idiot, you know, because everybody knows.
You know, like John Rappaport, the independent journalist, he stresses that, just the basic logical rules, you know.
I'd always been aware of them a little bit, but before I wrote that DDT polio articles.
I found a little book on logic and I thought, wow, this is great.
With these rules, I can actually change the world.
But it didn't work.
It didn't.
I was so optimistic.
You know, it's because people have these irrational, they have pride.
They don't want to lose the argument.
They'll do backflips just to avoid losing an argument.
Nobody ever Loses an argument.
No, I mean, people should see that they don't lose or when everybody wins.
Through the process of having an argument, you know, and even if you lose your argument, it's like, thank God I got corrected.
You know, or I didn't realize that and you become better, you know, so I guess it's humility.
I remember when I first started arguing on these websites back in the early 1990s, I was really afraid, for fear I'd be ridiculed.
And so I'd come up with a statement and they would argue against me.
The more and more I argued is that I'm helping somebody.
will tell me I'm wrong, you know, show me how I'm wrong.
And I often always throw my ideas out on the out there.
But I guess, I guess, yeah, calm arguments and health, seeking health, probably are what we can all do.
As individuals, it doesn't cost anything to do that.
Thanks, Jim.
I think that's really insightful.
I mean, I'm nodding away.
I can't not agree with you.
But I think it's a good, I like what you said too about finding a little book on logic and to put ideas out there and you hope that people will Throw things back at you, because we all make mistakes, and I think you want to learn from them rather than continuing with a mistake.
People do fall into these things where the biggest victory for somebody on Facebook is some kind of an insult.
That's like, who can insult the other one?
I used to get hurt by that stuff, but one interesting thing that Aristotle says in his 10 Logical fallacy.
He says all these fallacies, they boil down to one logical fallacy, which is attempts to go off topic.
That's really what people are always trying to do.
They don't stay on the topic.
They go on to attacking you or talking about the population or the authorities.
It's always about trying to get off topic.
99% of people will go off topic.
either to they think they can win an argument by going off topic or they can defend themselves by going off topic so I can it's sort of fun to have an argument you know on the web because people come in they'll make an attack on the viewpoint like say there's no virus right
And then they'll make some false statements, because they're so arrogant, because so many people are like dogs, in that they believe their master is always right, which is the medical system, right?
And this is what Bertrand Russell, the philosopher and politician, said.
He said people are just like dogs, seeking the alpha and obeying the alpha.
And, you know, and it's disappointing, you know, but you can be in an argument with somebody and they will, you can see them doing this and all you have to do is wait for the smoke to clear and then you go, okay, You've evaded the topic.
We're talking about this.
We're actually talking about viruses here.
We're not talking about, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And then they want to run.
You can tell they want to run from the argument and leave you with an insult.
So you beat them to it.
Just by one step, you beat them to the insult.
And now they're stuck in the argument.
They can't leave because they're there because of their ego in the first place.
And now you've zapped them as they try to run.
And then you can tear them apart and they can't leave.
They can't leave the argument.
I mean, it's sadistic on my part, you know, but I've been through so many of these, you know.
And I have a page of arguments, actually, where I copied arguments on my website that I've been through.
Because I've gotten to the point where I can do very short arguments, like one sentence or half a phrase, soundbite type things.
And then at the same time, I know they want to leave.
So I have to do a little insult to them, to stick them, to force them to stay, you know?
I love that about you, Jim.
I'll never ever be enemies with you.
You've got too many good zingers that you can use.
That's gold.
So while we're on this topic, where can people find you?
Where should people follow your work?
Oh, well, okay.
I have a website, which is harvoa.org.
A good way is just to search.
Well, actually, Google makes it difficult, but if you put Jim West in quotes, and then Harvoa, or if you type the word blogger, you'll end up on my blog.
You know, I have a blog, a Google blog, which is still up there, because it's all done under the umbrella of hypotheses.
Everything I say is a hypothesis, and I'm hoping I don't get taken down because everything I say is hypothetical, and I'm an amateur.
I stress all that, and so I haven't been taken down.
And so that's it.
I have a blog, which can be accessed through my website harvoa.org.
I just really want to thank you so much for your time and spending talking to me.
You're fascinating.
I think I'd love to be able to get you back on to talk some more, particularly about the prenatal ultrasounds.
I'm very interested in that, but I think, would that be okay if I had another chance to talk to you?
Yeah, I'm looking forward to it.
Next encounter, you know.
Thank you very much for your pleasantry, your pleasant manner.
It's a pleasure.
And I know that you have really struggled as a doctor, and you and your husband, and you've been through the fire and produced a lot of great things.
I can't admire you both Much more.
You know, I'm always trying to be under the radar, but you're above the radar there.
Or in the radar.
Thank you very much.
I can't say enough.
▲
Export Selection