Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 2, 2024 - Jim Fetzer

01:44:00

An End to Upside-Down Medicine featuring Mark Gober

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Listen to the language of the last three and a half years.
	Lockdowns, travel restrictions, stay-at-home orders.
	This rhetoric, written by government agencies and corporate media, speaks to a clear intention.
	A concerted effort to keep us in place.
	Fortunately for us, a real grassroots movement, powered by real men and women, can never be stopped.
	Because mankind will always find the way forward.
	And this is where it all starts.
	With the WayForward's new membership platform, you can connect with like-minded community and like-minded businesses near you by simply typing in your zip or postal code and setting a radius.
	We also have a marketplace featuring the best holistic health brands and products with deals you won't find anywhere else.
	And the best part is, you pay whatever you want to be a part of it.
	The WayForward starts with a growing community coming together to share ideas, form local groups, and conduct business with like-minded men and women.
	Because if we're constantly being told what to do by so-called authorities, it's easy to feel helpless.
	But it's essential to know that we're not.
	Each of us has the power, and that power amplifies when we come together.
	There are many more health-conscious and sovereign-minded men and women than we realize.
	And this is where we all meet.
	Visit thewayforward.com to join virtually, connect locally, and pay whatever you want to be a part of it.
	This is The Way Forward.
	The Way Forward .
	Mark Gober is the author of An End to Upside-Down Thinking, which won the IPPY.
	What's IPPY?
	Independent Publishers Organization.
	Okay, cool.
	Award for Best Science Book of the Year.
	He's also the author of An End to Upside-Down Living, An End to Upside-Down Liberty, An End to Upside-Down Contact, An End to Upside-Down Reset, and now An End to Upside-Down Medicine.
	And he's the host of the podcast Where's My Mind, which you stopped recording on that in 2019?
	Correct.
	OK.
	Additionally, he serves on the board of the Institute of Noetic Sciences and the School of Wholeness and Enlightenment.
	Dude, you've been on quite the journey of unbecoming.
	So let's back up before all these books, because that's that's a significant journey of unbecoming in what, like five years?
	Five years.
	And how many books is that?
	The sixth one just came out.
	The sixth one just came out.
	It's incredible.
	So where were you before, like literally and also in your life, before this process of unbecoming?
	Place that's very far from where I am now.
	Yeah, I get that.
	I could never have predicted that I would have gone down this path.
	I had the most mainstream mindset you could imagine.
	Went to Princeton undergrad.
	Was one of the captains of the tennis team.
	Went into investment banking in New York.
	I was there during the financial crisis and then I worked at a Silicon Valley strategy firm.
	Became a partner at the firm.
	Was there for 10 years.
	That's like the exact opposite of what you're doing right now.
	Yeah.
	That's crazy.
	Couldn't be any more different.
	But I had this view that there was no meaning to life.
	I really thought that was just what science was teaching us.
	When I say no meaning, I felt that people could make up their own meaning.
	But if you don't think there's any meaning built into the fabric of reality and that there's no existence after your body dies, what are we doing here?
	You're just kind of going through the motions, trying to have fun, I guess, and be happy.
	But beyond that, there's no deeper meaning.
	So that's where my mindset was.
	Do you kind of reframe that as In a different way where life is what you make it, but it also does have inherent meaning.
	Like it's both now.
	I would say it's both.
	It's both.
	Yeah.
	That deeper aspect though is critical.
	Yeah.
	That there's something underlying everything that I didn't acknowledge before.
	That's a big deal.
	So when this happened to me, Alec, I mean, we met somewhat recently.
	This was in 2016.
	Radical shift.
	Really hard.
	When had you, when in the process, just contextually speaking, because we both have a mutual friend and I have like a running joke on this podcast that I bring her up like every other episode because she's an incredible person.
	You're really good friends with Dr. Edith Ubuntu-Chan.
	So when did you meet her in this process?
	My initial paradigm shift started in August of 2016.
	And I started reading everything I could on consciousness.
	I started working with alternative healers and getting interested in that.
	And it was probably early 2017.
	I was living in San Francisco and was doing some energy work with Dr. Edith.
	This was before I knew I was going to write anything.
	I mean, I was just learning because I... So she's seen your whole journey too.
	She's seen me since I had my initial, initial change, but she's seen it before I started doing things publicly.
	I never anticipated that.
	That's incredible, man.
	So...
	Okay, so let's fast forward now to this.
	So I've read An End to Upside-Down Liberty, which is one of the... I'll say it's right up there with Larkin Rose's The Most Dangerous Superstition in terms of my favorite books on voluntarism, especially because the way you contextualize it from a lens of consciousness, bringing that element into something that
	on the surface seems to be very about the individual right because that's kind of what uh libertarian voluntarism is about anarcho-capitalism etc etc but the way you tie it into consciousness and sort of the bigger picture about life itself is really incredible and i'd never seen that but had always thought it's like when you are hearing something that is Uncovering a deep truth within you that you had already thought before, but you had never had it verbalized.
	That's what your book did for me with volunteerism.
	I'm like, oh, this is such a breath of fresh air.
	And likewise, in your book and into Upside Down Medicine, that's exactly what you do as well.
	You sort of tie it into consciousness at the end.
	So I want to get into that, but What inspired you to write this book?
	And before you answer that question, I want to give the listeners and the viewers a window into your mind, right?
	So let's back up to June of this year.
	Yeah, the June of this year.
	So literally five months ago.
	And we're speaking, you and I are both speaking at an event in Nashville.
	I'm speaking on this topic that we're going to discuss today.
	Before I get on stage, I see you in the green room or the backstage.
	I say, yeah, have you, have you heard this talk before?
	And you're like, oh, kind of, not really.
	And then in that time period, you did I got to give you credit, like, and I really mean this, an incredible amount of research.
	And not only the research, but coming to understand this topic in a very deep way, and then write a book, which comes with all of its editing and, you know, the book writing process, and publish it and release it as of, what, like a week ago?
	It's now released and available for paper, the paper version of it.
	Paperback.
	Paperback.
	That was all in five months.
	So what inspired you to write this book in the first place?
	It wasn't on my radar when I saw you in Tennessee.
	I mean, I had heard people talk about this since the beginning of COVID.
	They were talking about... Talking about terrain.
	Terrain.
	Specifically.
	Terrain specifically and viruses and things like that.
	What is COVID?
	So I had been I had heard about it, but I was busy with other things.
	I've written a bunch of other books since that period, and I hadn't had time to really dive in.
	And even when I heard your talk, so interestingly, I was backstage because I was supposed to speak after you.
	So for the first half of your talk, I missed it.
	And then they changed the schedule.
	So I came out and listened to the second half of your talk.
	I was like, Alex, really saying some good stuff here.
	And then maybe a few weeks later, I started listening to more on the topic.
	Well, cause you're also part of the end of COVID.
	I'm not going to take like credit for that, but I'm sure that inspired you in some way.
	You're like, okay, I'm part of this project.
	Alex talking about it.
	What, what am I, you know, getting into it?
	Yes.
	No, absolutely.
	You should take credit for it.
	Okay.
	In multiple ways.
	No, multiple ways.
	Cause your talk was really good and I referenced it in the book.
	It's in the bibliography and the end notes.
	There's a bunch of stuff that you did that's in there, um, in my new book.
	Uh, And then the end of COVID came out around a similar time.
	So I was in the end of COVID, but I wasn't talking about medicine.
	I was talking about my other books.
	But then I was listening to the other interviews and presentations and there was a bunch of stuff that I wasn't aware of.
	And like I said, I was interested in health and alternative health from the very beginning.
	Yeah.
	With regard to myself, but just in general, like what are we really doing with healing?
	And then the whole germ theory question was something I hadn't dove into before.
	So All of a sudden the pieces came together where there was a hole that, or a blind spot I had.
	I just didn't even know it existed.
	Yeah.
	That was filling in a bigger picture about health and then it clicked and that's what seems to happen.
	And then I just go all in and I can't.
	Wow.
	Okay.
	So what was, what was, would you say in your process of, of researching and like, cause you did a lot, like I said, in a, in a four or five month window, less than that.
	Cause you've completed the book.
	When, when, when was it complete?
	Let's see.
	It was done in September, but then there's some editorial stuff, and then I had to record the audio book.
	June through September.
	So that's what, three, yeah, three months.
	Incredible.
	So what was the, and you were already understanding of the problems with vaccines, I'm assuming, and the CDC schedule and things like this, but It is really deep and there's a lot of context to sort through, of which you go into in the book related to Terrain, Stefan Lanka, the 1954 Ender stuff, all the various experiments attempting to prove contagion, etc, etc, etc.
	There's a lot of stuff.
	And what would you say was the most That was a big one.
	Why that one specifically?
	you came across during your process?
	Christine Massey.
	Yeah.
	That was a big one.
	Why that one specifically?
	Because you have over 200 health organizations in over 40 countries.
	Yeah.
	Who can't answer her question.
	Yeah.
	And people will say that she's wording it in a specific way.
	I'm like, no, you read what she's saying.
	She's simply asking very directly, have you ever taken one of these particles directly from the fluids of a sick person?
	Yeah.
	When I say Christine Massey, I'm referring to her work using freedom of information requests.
	So asking specific questions to medical organizations all over the world, including the CDC.
	And you can see what she asks exactly and what the responses are.
	And one of the responses I include in the book is, well, we in the field of virology, I'm paraphrasing, we don't do what you described.
	They basically admit that they're incapable of doing what she's describing.
	In my opinion, she's describing the scientific method and isolating independent variable.
	Exactly.
	But that's a big thing for me because I do these, I come in as an outsider to all these topics, whether it's political theory or consciousness, and I'm trying to take credible resources and bring them together for people.
	And that's a big one when you have admissions, blatant admissions that you can find.
	Blatant admissions, yeah.
	So that was a big turning point of like, well, if they had it, they would have...
	She would be done.
	Yeah, she'd be done.
	She'd be done.
	So that's, it's like, you've got to look into it.
	If you want to be intellectually honest, and that's part of my quest, which I know is yours as well.
	I want to know what's true because if I don't know what's true, how can I know how to live or be healthy?
	This is such an important point, man.
	It's, you know, I entered into this space with respect to terrain, having my own preconceived notions that were more in line with the idea that viruses exist.
	As an example, My wife, when we were recovering her from her quote autoimmune stuff that she had been dealing with, we prior to COVID were under the assumption, and it's a really big one, that The overwhelming majority of our autoimmune symptoms were caused in part at least by Epstein-Barr virus.
	So for me, that was a lot of cognitive dissonance to sort through.
	But just as you say, I'm on a quest to discover what is true because once we have a foundation of what is true, which I think is a process of ripping away all the things that are not true, and then you're sort of left with, well, this is pointing more directly to something.
	But I think it's like, This quest for truth, we can never really get to exactly what it is.
	It's just a process of unbecoming and throwing away all the things that are untrue.
	But for me, that's why I found this.
	It's like the ironic thing of, I think I found as close to true as possible because I was willing to set aside all the things that were not true in order to get there.
	So I'm assuming that's the same with you.
	And what would you say was the biggest piece of cognitive dissonance for you?
	Because a lot of people say, well, how do you explain X, like Sally getting sick right after Jack or in their daycare, like, or I have kids and both my kids get sick at the same time of which I don't deny that.
	What was for you the biggest piece of cognitive dissonance?
	There's definitely a lot.
	It's trying to then re-explain all the things that I thought I had an explanation for.
	And this has been my process for everything.
	I mean it started with consciousness.
	I used to believe the brain creates consciousness.
	And there's a lot of evidence that it doesn't.
	So then how do I explain neuroscience, for example?
	Well, it's just they're coming up with different causal explanations for things.
	So I had to rewire everything and basically come up with an explanation for all the stuff that's out there.
	What's going on with the spike protein?
	Why do people get sick in the same place?
	And it's a very basic.
	These are two important points for your audience to listen to because it helped me.
	Number one, people can get sick in the same place around the same time for reasons other than a germ or a virus.
	I don't know how many times I would love to repeat that because that is a really hard concept for people to get over, myself included.
	Because this is so entrenched in our minds, so it's understandable.
	They were together, therefore they caught something.
	It is logically incorrect.
	It could be true.
	It's one hypothesis.
	Totally.
	Okay, but there are other reasons people could get sick in the same place at the same time.
	What if there's a common toxin that they were exposed to?
	What if they ate similar food that had something on it?
	There's a million possibilities.
	A unique combination of those things.
	Shared emotional trauma, exposure to non-native EMF, some like mechanism of communication that we haven't explored because we haven't looked into anything else.
	Effectively within the context of quote contagion and we've only been myopically focused on this and all the grants give money to that and I need to like It's so hard To not get frustrated when people ask that question once you peer past the curtain because it's like there are so many other things That could cause us to become sick in the same space, but we're so focused on this one possible possible thing And isn't it scientific to ask this question?
	Yeah.
	That's the irony of this.
	So it's just mind-blowing.
	And really, this is an exercise in human psychology more than medicine.
	And that's why I felt comfortable With all my books really, I feel comfortable talking about this stuff because yeah, there's the technical aspect, but really it comes down to psychology and logic.
	Yes, man.
	And that's one of the biggest things that really helped me see how proponents of the traditional germ approach, and let's say namely in this case viral theory, Unwittingly, because again, I don't think there's this like grand scheme where there's a bunch of people behind the scenes hiding this information from us that I think it's mainly that they're just misinterpreting what they're seeing in culture.
	And then, of course, they were taught this in school, so they accept it as fact.
	But it's it's how they use logical fallacies to sort of uphold their entire field you know yeah dr tom cowan's been calling it inventive reasoning yeah where basically there's a false assumption then you invent explanations for other observations to meet to meet that initial false theory and we all do this that So that's part of where I want to preface this conversation is that it's easy to not see something.
	Like all of us have blind spots.
	100%.
	So I want to set that context because this is a very acrimonious area.
	And it can be frustrating when you do see something, or at least you see the flaws in it without even knowing what the correct answer is.
	You can see that something's not right.
	Like in the case of viral theory, in the best case scenario, we can say they're not following the scientific method in many instances.
	I don't think that's disputed.
	No.
	Right?
	But it's important to have, I hate to kind of use this word because it gets weaponized so much, compassion.
	I completely agree though.
	To understand like sometimes people have beliefs because they can't see past it and I know this happens to me and it's not just scientific beliefs it could be beliefs that we have about ourselves or relationships so that's important here but when people are ready for it and they're ready to see this is hugely important because it's a total paradigm shift.
	It's a total paradigm shift and that's I have no problem with People having beliefs because I have them and I of course like you said I have blind spots too and I think when it's a blind spot or a belief that then requires everyone else buy into that belief and then in the case of what's happened the last three and a half years it's been weaponized amongst the entire world then it is important to to check that belief but then also still have compassion and understand that these are human beings like
	I've taken a pretty firm stance and not being overly combative and not perpetuating the energy that we see.
	You know, I hate calling it sides, but coming from that side, so to speak, because we're already considered a fringe of a fringe of a fringe when it comes to this topic, you know?
	So in order to communicate this effectively, I think it would behoove of us to communicate it in a way that is compassionate and putting ourselves in the minds, in the shoes of even virologists who were brought up in this career for upwards of 20 to 30 years and have done all this research, in the shoes of even virologists who were brought up in this career for upwards of 20 to And then it ends up being entirely wrong.
	And that could apply to literally any field, having that compassion to understand where they're coming from.
	And that makes it so you can relate to someone.
	Now, I'm not set to convince virologists of this problem at this point because I think that's sort of futile.
	It's just communicating this with people because it has huge implications for everyone's lives.
	Huge.
	And these are things that we have to know.
	We know about or consider because we're being asked to make decisions, whether it's a vaccine or medication a doctor tells us to take.
	One could argue, hey, Mark and Alec, you guys aren't doctors.
	Why are you talking about this subject?
	Well, we're asked to take a vaccine.
	We have to make a medical decision.
	So we all have to take personal responsibility for this stuff.
	And that's another reason why I feel like I can write about this and I can quote what other doctors say, even though I'm not a doctor, because we all have to take care of our own health.
	And that's really the message of the book, an end to upside-down medicine.
	Health is an internal job, and allopathic medicine wants to externalize everything, and it's the experts who can tell you what to do, and you have to listen to them, and that's a recipe not only for a lack of health, but also for tyranny.
	Yeah, it's a recipe for disaster, and it's rooted in materialism, which we'll get to towards the end of this too.
	But, um, I want to talk about now a bit about HIV AIDS because that That whole thing that happened with the Perth group is pretty fascinating to me, and just the HIV-AIDS story in general.
	So, I did not know until you said in your book, and I don't know if they covered it in Virus Mini, and I just completely forgot about it, that Magic Johnson admitted that he had stopped taking AZT.
	So before we get there, can you touch on, because I haven't talked about HIV-AIDS specifically on this show, as best as you can.
	I know there's a lot there, and it can be like four episodes in and of itself.
	Uh, what happened with HIV AIDS and then how there was a big movement at that time showing that there was kind of split too, right?
	Like between no virus, but or the virus exists, but it's not harmful.
	So if you could, yeah, just jump in there.
	I'm really glad you brought this up.
	This is so important because the debate about viruses has been mischaracterized and misbranded from the beginning.
	It's been branded as a fringe COVID conspiracy theory.
	Which is like, well, there's some people who deny that COVID is that serious.
	And then some people just say it doesn't even exist at all.
	And they just dismiss it.
	They don't really know what's being said.
	And I didn't realize that this has been an ongoing debate since the, basically throughout the history of virology, there have been questions.
	Really since Beauchamp and Louis Pasteur and even maybe before that too.
	Right.
	And Louis Pasteur, what happened?
	He couldn't find the thing that was apparently causing rabies.
	So they said there must be a virus there.
	So there's been this big debate of people are getting sick.
	And I also want to say this.
	We're not saying people don't get sick.
	Exactly.
	People get sick.
	We want to know why they get sick.
	Exactly.
	So we can determine how people can become healthy.
	Exactly.
	It sounds crazy to say that, but this is part of the unwiring.
	It is, though.
	Yeah, totally.
	Because people immediately jump to conclusions.
	What?
	You're saying no one's getting sick?
	You're saying my friends and loved ones didn't die?
	No, we're not saying that whatsoever.
	We're trying to figure it out.
	Yes.
	That's it.
	So what I wanted to do in this book, because it's been so misbranded, this topic, I wanted to go back to where the debate really got heated and it was around HIV-AIDS.
	So chapter one of the book after the introduction is on HIV-AIDS.
	And there was a big debate at the time, and there still is, does HIV cause AIDS?
	We know people get sick.
	Is it because of this virus called HIV?
	That's the big question.
	And there were people who were not only questioning that at the time, but they said, well, it's not just that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
	There is no such thing as HIV.
	If you look at the studies that Dr. Gallo and Luke Montagnier, who won a Nobel Prize, look at what they did.
	They didn't actually isolate a virus in that process.
	And even Montagnier admitted that we did not purify.
	And talked about the problems with it.
	So in many of these virology studies, I don't know how much we're going to get into it.
	There's inference, basically, that there is something that we call a virus, which has a very specific definition these days as this protein encased particle that has genetic material and gets inside of hosts and can replicate and then makes people sick.
	Very specific, whereas in the past it was called a poison.
	Virus meant poison.
	It's had different definitions over the years.
	It's also interesting because the argument could be made possibly that If the people who are in charge of a lot of these fields know the original meaning of a virus, that they're not lying about what's going on, that we're being poisoned collectively.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Mentally and physically.
	Yeah, mentally and physically, exactly.
	But in the modern era there's a very specific version of the virus and what happened was there was an organization called the Perth Group and they still have a website if your audience is interested in listening and learning more and they have detailed papers.
	There's a paper called of HIV a virus like no other.
	Read that!
	And some of their other peer-reviewed papers.
	That one was not published.
	I don't think it was published in a journal.
	I don't remember.
	But there was a lot of controversy.
	They do have some peer-reviewed papers.
	But this is not just some people saying, oh, there was no HIV.
	This is highly technical stuff.
	And that's the important thing to recognize, that this debate is technical.
	It's a scientific endeavor and a lot of people don't even want to go there.
	So in any event, this was a debate around HIV-AIDS.
	And I read this in Joan Shenton's book.
	She has a book on HIV AIDS, and there was a 2014 preface or foreword by Professor Bauer from Virginia Tech, and he acknowledged this.
	He says, look, It's unfortunate that there exists this divide among those who don't think HIV causes AIDS.
	Some people would say HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
	Some people say, you're right, and there's no HIV.
	And he said it's really unfortunate that this divide exists.
	There needs to be a resolution to it.
	I'm paraphrasing.
	I've got the quote in the book.
	But I'm like, wow, this is 2014.
	This is pre-COVID.
	He's talking about this.
	Well before COVID, yeah.
	Everyone listen to that, okay?
	Because everyone thinks it just started with COVID.
	No, this was going on before.
	And so you've got the Perth Group with their papers, Stefan Lanka, a classically trained virologist.
	Although he refuses to call himself a virologist at this point, which is funny.
	I refer to him as a virologist in the book.
	But he's really a microbiologist scientist, but he was speaking up at that time.
	And so there was a little bit of debate.
	Obviously, it didn't hit the mainstream in the way that it did with COVID, but COVID forced the issue where some people were saying early on, wait a second, does this virus SARS-CoV-2 exist in the way that people claim it does?
	So, there's history here.
	COVID was the next iteration of a debate that had been going on.
	And really, in terms of this idea of a genetic particle that is a virus, that's relatively new also.
	You mentioned the Enders and Peebles study, 1954, when they came up with the gold standard method, quote-unquote, of isolating viruses.
	That's not that long ago.
	Which involves substances like milk, streptomycin, just a bunch of stuff sort of thrown onto both, I think, human cells and monkey kidney cells, if I remember correctly.
	And you read that paper, not to go off on a tangent because I want to come back to HIV AIDS, but you read that 1954 Enders paper and you're like, how could you possibly think that this is showing you what you're claiming that it shows?
	Especially given that, you know, Mark Bailey would say he didn't conduct a proper control experiment and that I do agree with, but he did something that resembles a control and he had essentially the exact same effect without any possible sample of, quote, measles present.
	And it's like, How is this then ushered in for all of modern virology?
	It's just crazy.
	Right.
	Well, and there is some hedging language in their paper that I reference in the book where they say, look, there could be these unknown agents.
	I'm paraphrasing.
	And just briefly, in case your audience is confused, they took fluids from sick people who allegedly had measles and they put it in this soup.
	It's called a cell culture that has this toxic stuff that you mentioned.
	Antibiotics, milk, a whole bunch of stuff.
	And then if cells break down in that soup after the fluids from the sick person's added, they say, there's a virus that was added.
	They point to the particles and say, oh, those are viruses.
	And then they can take a picture with an electron microscope and say, that's a virus.
	So it comes from a faulty methodology that was then accepted.
	And I didn't realize this until I was looking at Stefan Lanka's basically history of virology.
	This is also an important point that doesn't get talked about.
	In 1953, Watson and Crick came out with their double helix model of DNA.
	And this Enders paper was in 1954.
	So all of a sudden, this notion of a vague poison that people couldn't figure out that was making people sick, well now we've got genetics.
	I had never tied those together around the same time frame.
	Yes.
	Wow.
	So actually that was something I added after the version of the book that you have.
	Okay.
	Maybe that's why I didn't put, yeah.
	Yeah.
	That's interesting though.
	Huge.
	So that's point number one.
	Wow.
	And then point number two, that Stefan Lanke, this is the quote unquote virologist who's really much more than a virologist.
	Yeah.
	Enders.
	Who was co-author on the 1954 paper.
	He won a Nobel Prize in December of 1954 and this paper on the measles quote-unquote virus was in June.
	So once he won the Nobel Prize, it was like this is the enders paper.
	He's this credible guy.
	We're going to put a lot of weight to it.
	And Lanka says, look, we never questioned it afterwards.
	Wow.
	The other important piece of history here is bacteriophages.
	This is critical to the story.
	So these are particles that modern, let's say mainstream scientists would say, these are viruses that infect bacteria.
	And we know these exist because they have been isolated.
	And that's important to say because- And that's true.
	They actually have been isolated.
	Yeah.
	They've been isolated, so have bacteria.
	The big question that people ask is whether a virus particle, as it's been defined, has been isolated by itself.
	But bacteriophages have been.
	And I didn't realize that they, because they had been isolated, became a model for what a virus should be.
	And Lanca points to the 1969 Nobel Prize statement, which you can access online, and I quote it in the book.
	In the last sentence, or I forget where it is, but they say, basically, the bacteriophage that was discovered in previous decades, this became the model for how we think about viruses.
	So you put these things together.
	You've got Enders, who's this credible Nobel Prize winner.
	You've got genetics and bacteriophages, and you put it together to say, now we've got a model for explaining why people get sick.
	Wow.
	And that hasn't been questioned thoroughly enough.
	People take these indirect methods, whether it's the cell culture soup or it's looking at tests, which aren't testing you exactly for a virus.
	They're testing for particles that they claim come from a virus.
	They're always indirect.
	And you can actually see, now that I think back, you could see how people could get confused.
	And we're not far removed from that.
	Well, and especially because of the compartmentalization, too.
	Like, I'm assuming, right, putting myself in the shoes of a virologist, you just assume people who do stuff with genetics, working with RNA and DNA, which does cross over into, quote, virology based on the accepted model, know what they know based on empirical evidence.
	And likewise, virologists likely assume when it comes to cell culture isolation process and these techniques, because they are getting what could be called repeatable results, right?
	Like they get the same effects typically, that this is already a well-established thing.
	It's like entering into a field where you think it's an already well-established field.
	So it's no need to go back and question anything in this field and let's just build upon it from here forward, right?
	And it became the gold standard.
	Yeah.
	And that was one of the responses that I quote from Christine Massey's Freedom of Information.
	They say, well, this is the gold standard method and you're asking us for something else.
	Yeah.
	And this is the critical point.
	And most people don't even think to question it, whether it's a virologist or especially doctors.
	I mean, I had one conversation recently.
	The big question is, how do you know that a virus exists as we defined it?
	There's a traditional definition.
	How do you know that a virus exists and causes disease in people?
	Ask, or animals, in a host.
	How do you know that a virus exists and causes disease in its host?
	Tom Cowan asks this all the time.
	And what's the answer typically?
	Well, there was a PCR test.
	Yeah.
	And Kerry Mullis, a Nobel Prize winner, who invented the PCR test, has said you should not use the PCR to find something, because you can find anything.
	And he was outspoken that HIV wasn't proven to be the cause of age, which is another thing.
	Yes, which we'll get into.
	But you say PCR, or I read it in my textbook.
	Reading some of these virology textbooks has been very eye-opening because they gloss over a lot of stuff.
	Do they really?
	You went back and read some?
	I went back and looked at them and sometimes they just didn't go into what you read in Dr. Mark Bailey's A Farewell to Virology, which anyone can access and I would recommend reading that.
	It's on drsambailey.com for free.
	A Farewell to Virology.
	Technical paper.
	It's a must read.
	It's incredible.
	It's incredible.
	Yeah, and even if you don't agree in the end, I think it's important as an educated person to know these perspectives.
	That's another reason I think your work on the end of COVID is pivotal.
	As an educated person, people should watch that.
	Thank you, man.
	You know, real quick, as a brief aside, I tailored the end of COVID to the health freedom movement at large, right?
	Not to people that are steeped in the traditional approach to medicine.
	I just assume that like, okay, this is not going to be for those people.
	This is for the health freedom community that still believes in gain of function and things like this.
	But someone came up to me at an event recently and said, hey, I've been trying to get my two friends who are Harvard graduates who are like super leftist intellectuals that are really, really, really supportive of allopathic medicine to read holistic health related information for a while because the wife, she has multiple sclerosis and I've been trying to give her some holistic health stuff and she just pooh-poohs it away.
	And I sent them the end of COVID.
	They text me back two weeks later and then called me and they said, You were right this whole time.
	I'm so sorry.
	And when I got that feedback, I was like, Oh my God, this really is material that even if you've never heard this stuff before, I think in the way that we've laid it out, it actually has that effect for those who are willing to look into it.
	And it's mind expanding.
	You present possibilities and often that's presented.
	We don't know for sure about X, Y, and Z, but you present possibilities.
	And I think to be educated.
	That has to be done.
	And that's why I write these books, because I admit in the books, I'm not sure of everything.
	I don't know exactly know what the right model is, but we have to think about other possibilities because we're not taught.
	If you just watch the news, just read the New York Times, just go to school and read the textbooks, you're going to get one perspective.
	And then you get locked in.
	It's like a grooving in our cognitive, however our psychology works.
	And then it becomes an entrenched belief.
	And then if you question it, question that to someone, it's like a threat to them in a way.
	Yeah, and this I've been ruminating on this a lot recently with respect to identity.
	We could do like 10 different podcasts, but that when you mistake
	Your job or your title or your religion or literally anything as your true identity, then when that is questioned, you take it as your very existence being questioned and you take it as a threat to your existence, which is why you lash out and why you can't go there, which is why it's so important in every way to simply learn to seek what is true outside of what you've been conditioned through various mechanisms to accept as truth about the world and about yourself and just uproot all of those
	Superficial labels that we latch on to that we think are us that are not fundamentally who we are and I still don't know How to articulate who it is and what we are, but it's like a nameless formless thing that is so beyond what words can describe.
	But yeah, that's a deep.
	Yeah, we can spend a lot of time on that, but it is I'll just I'll summarize it by a lot of spiritual traditions.
	They say that ignorance is the ultimate root of suffering and what you're describing is a form of ignorance of an incorrect belief about one's identity.
	Yeah, and then you latch on to it.
	Then there's attachment.
	But this applies to this very important area of health, because what happened?
	The world just got shut down on the basis of a belief system that you're not allowed to question.
	That's a big deal.
	So this is important to discuss.
	So important to discuss.
	And so I want to jump back to HIV AIDS.
	You went off on the longest tangent ever.
	That's great.
	So again, to the point that Talk to me about AZT and how AZT played a role in HIV AIDS because I still have people message me like, how do you explain what causes AIDS?
	I know my family member who has AIDS or they had sex with someone else and like they ended up going to test and they tested positive for AIDS.
	But talk to me about just in general, the HIV AIDS scenario.
	Well, I will characterize here is the basically HIV AIDS dissident position that's been out there for a while.
	And it is that yes, people have been getting sick.
	But it's not for the reasons that we're told.
	It's not because of this virus.
	There are many other factors involved, whether it's a medication like AZT that is shown to be toxic and then a person takes that medication, then becomes sick.
	And then the doctor, again, because they're looking at observation and then attributing causality inappropriately, might say, oh, well, look, this is a really serious condition.
	And then you're taking more of the drug.
	So.
	Medications is one category.
	Another category is lifestyle.
	So people who are drug addicts, drug users, not taking care of their bodies in other ways, they might be getting sick.
	And then there are tests that can be taken, which have been shown to be unreliable because they're not picking up the virus.
	They're picking up something like an antibody.
	Or a PCR test, which is a genetic type test, genetic fragment test.
	So it's always this indirect method, and we know there are false positives, and you can get a false positive test, and then you go down this road of taking medication, and you're on this track, basically.
	So that's the gist of the story, is that it's a lot of symptoms that are then being misinterpreted, and because we have this grooved belief system, people are taken on a path which ends up being toxic.
	Eric Coppolino, when I Was putting the other end of COVID brings up a really good point that the reason COVID took off is because we are immersed in a digital age unlike what happened during HIV AIDS.
	And what I mean by that more specifically or what he means is that because we are in a state of being so immersed with these devices that we mistake what we see on the devices for what is happening in reality itself.
	And then when other people are doing it around us, they mistake it too.
	So we look to the people around us and we're like, oh, they're all going along with this.
	So this must be true.
	And do you think that with HIV AIDS, that was, I guess, before I get to that question, Do you think that there are some people at the tippy top of this whole thing who know the truth about virology?
	Because, again, I don't think all virologists ran on this grand scheme.
	Agreed.
	But I think, and I don't know, but I think that there are likely people at the tippy top who do know the truth about virology.
	Or is it that they're all misled and their complete diluted state is leading us down this path?
	What do you think?
	It's a question I've avoided answering in my books because I really don't know.
	Then it starts getting into people's motives and it's very difficult to research that.
	To like get in their mind.
	And people do a good job of trying.
	Did you hit up Bill Gates just to see if he would be available for an interview?
	But even then you have to know like what's going on inside their mind and I try not to do that.
	But you can see their behavior.
	It's a great question, Alec.
	Like, I don't know.
	I don't know how it works, but I would answer it by saying, I think there are forces beyond humans involved in this.
	And this gets into my work on contact, which I talk about in this book.
	There are non-physical forces.
	Yeah.
	Or maybe even physical forces that we don't fully understand.
	Or like Watiko, the idea of a mind virus that is latching on to all of us.
	And that's kind of what I contextualize COVID as.
	If there is a, quote, virus, it's a mind virus that is an energetic, entity that is feeding off of our unconscious beliefs, our programming, our trauma, et cetera, et cetera.
	And that's what pulls us into acting out of our own best interests or out of the collective's best interests.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	And that's critical.
	And then if there are people at the tippy top, do they know that they're being influenced or are they consciously trying to be And this gets into a very dark territory of ritual abuse, which we don't need to go there, but I've written about that.
	It's important to acknowledge, though, that there is a history of invocation, of spirits.
	Invoking dark.
	Dark and benevolent, too.
	But that is a real thing.
	And this goes back to my initial work, that consciousness doesn't come from the brain.
	You've got to understand that in order to be open to these other possibilities.
	If you're stuck in just materialism, consciousness is stuck in our skull, there's no possibility of a spirit that's disconnected from a body.
	So that's why I can understand, as I've researched this, why we're so far off.
	Because we have these presuppositions about the way reality works that go unquestioned often.
	So then we We basically shield these other possibilities and we only see things through a narrow little tube.
	And then when you expand it, it's like, whoa, now I understand why we've got so much chronic illness and why we have drugs that don't really help people.
	Yeah.
	Now it makes sense.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Okay, so... Yeah, so one more thing on HIV.
	This is important, and you alluded to it earlier.
	Cary Mullis, who was one of the dissidents, he was the inventor of PCR, Nobel Prize winner.
	This was one of those other pivotal points for me, reading his autobiography.
	Did you do that in this time too?
	Like in that three-month period, you read his autobiography as well?
	Well, I read a lot of books, and I synthesize, so I don't always read every page of every book.
	It depends.
	Again, I'm just blown away by your depth of research.
	I think I said before we started the show that it's either this topic is so incredibly simple for people to understand, just requires that they look, or you're just a genius, or a combination of both.
	And I'm convinced it's a combination of both, but continue.
	Well, I appreciate it.
	I should also add that I was really trained to do this stuff professionally.
	Totally.
	I had to be a detective for my clients.
	So, but thank you.
	You're a very good detective.
	I appreciate it.
	Okay, so Kerry Moulse's autobiography.
	His autobiography.
	He writes in there, he's like, look, I was doing a, I think he was writing a proposal for a grant, and his first sentence was, HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
	And he's like, look, I should put a footnote here.
	And he goes and asks someone, he's like, what's the footnote?
	And he couldn't get an answer.
	And they're like, well, look at the CDC website.
	And he couldn't find anything.
	Then he goes to Luke Montagnier, who says, hey, who's the Nobel Prize winner for having discovered it?
	And he's like, ah, go to the CDC's website.
	And when he didn't find it, he says, that's not a good thing.
	So he became very interested because the evidence wasn't there.
	If you just ask the question, how do we know this to be true?
	And that's really the question that I think we're both asking and probably many members of your audience with COVID and other things.
	How do we know this thing to be true?
	And that's what he started asking, and he couldn't get answers.
	And when he started to peel it back, he realized, yeah, there are people getting sick, but it might not be for the reason that we're being told.
	You know, an interesting thing that comes up for me, and I've had this, this is kind of a rhetorical question, but Back during the HIV-AIDS split that was occurring between people who acknowledge that the particle exists, but it's not the cause, and then those who say, no, no, no, the particles doesn't even exist and it's a misinterpretation of what virologists are seeing in culture, etc, etc, etc.
	Um, why does it even matter?
	And I, like, I have my answer, but in your answer, why does that matter whether the particle exists or doesn't exist?
	Because that's kind of what we see with a lot of people with COVID who are resistant to the idea that viruses don't exist.
	They're like, why does it even matter?
	As long as we can focus on just stopping the tyranny for vaccines, et cetera, et cetera, of which I do not disagree that that is extremely important, which is the same with you.
	You take a voluntarist perspective and you believe in individual liberty and no one should be forced into anything.
	But why does that matter whether the particle exists or not?
	I'm so glad you brought this up and I hope people take this to heart.
	This is such an important topic.
	We have to get to the fundamentals.
	Yeah.
	Because otherwise we're going to continue to be fooled.
	By false beliefs.
	Yeah.
	And that's what this is about.
	And I can understand where people come from, especially with regard to COVID, of like, look, we've got issues with tyranny.
	We need to deal with the vaccine in particular.
	But to me, it is surface level as I look at it.
	Yes, those are all true.
	So that's great work that we're seeing, but there's a deeper level.
	Otherwise, it's going to happen again.
	Exactly.
	And even more broadly than that, because I've As I put out more and more stuff, I've let go of my attachment to hoping that people shift their belief systems.
	I'm really concerned about shifting my belief systems, and if people want to listen, that's great.
	So I think that's how I'm looking at it, is that it's about shifting our beliefs so that we can become healthy ourselves.
	That's my point.
	Yeah, completely agree.
	And that's the thing, is like, When we're looking at this, the implications of whether the particle exists or not are massive, right?
	And I do acknowledge that people, mostly in the health freedom community, a lot of them will say, yeah, the particles exist, but they're not the primary thing that's playing a role in the creation of disease symptoms.
	But even if you accept that false, unproven premise as true, you are still misleading yourself with respect to health, because we are not looking into, not giving a good look at these other possible explanations for what causes people to become ill.
	And we are operating from a completely faulty premise that is just clouding our judgment with respect to health and how we see the world and how we interact.
	Because this health-related topic has much broader, much more far-reaching implications with respect to human-to-human life than just whether the particle exists or not.
	The implications are massive.
	Yeah, so on a global level, yeah, it would be nice to not have the tyranny, but ultimately our health is our own responsibility.
	So that's why we've got to know this information.
	That's why everyone's got to know it.
	Because we have symptoms, let's say a symptom comes up, what should we do?
	And why?
	And I don't think the allopathic model has good answers to this stuff.
	No, because it's based in a death model too.
	What I mean by that is like, oh, we need to kill the virus.
	We need to kill the virus.
	That's like a piece of the premise in this approach.
	Again, most people in the holistic health space do not think that the virus is the main problem.
	They will accept that lifestyle, nutrition, diet, et cetera, et cetera.
	But if you still have that as the piece of the puzzle, and it's not actually there, then you're operating from a flawed model, and you think we need to kill that thing.
	Like, you talk about herbs as an example.
	I was talking to my friend Danny Peratt, who's an herbalist, and he's come to understand what we understand, and he's like, man, I'm looking back in a lot of these herbology things that I've read, and it talks about how these herbs kill viruses and kill bacteria, and it's like, Is that actually what they do?
	And then perpetuating that idea that that's what they're doing is perpetuating this, this idea that let's set viruses aside for a second, but bacteria, we need to kill bacteria.
	And then the terrain perspective would say, no, no, no, the bacteria are so important.
	And they're there to do a specific role to help bring us back to homeostasis.
	And it's an understanding that all of the, quote, holistic health paradigms are operating from a flawed premise, even if they do acknowledge that viruses or bacteria play a minimal role in the birth of disease symptoms.
	Yeah.
	It's getting to the truth.
	We've got to get to the truth.
	And then everything flows from that.
	So if we're just going to do partial truths, what are we really doing?
	That's how I look at it, at least.
	But I'm also not a policymaker, so we have the luxury of... Yeah, we're sitting here in this room.
	But it's important.
	And like I want to emphasize again, for personal reasons, each of us has to make decisions.
	So we've got to know the real truth in order to know what the best path is for our health.
	Amen.
	I'm going to read a quote here from your book, if you don't mind.
	Is that okay?
	Yeah, sure.
	There isn't much of a middle ground here.
	Either you believe there are deadly viruses that can be transmitted from person to person and live with the appropriate precautions, or you don't.
	From a public health policy perspective, the differences are massive.
	Lockdowns, mask regulations, vaccine mandates, business shutdowns, surveillance, and all of the measures we've experienced during the COVID-19 era would make no sense if the deadly virus justifying the measures didn't exist in the way that we've been told.
	Furthermore, without an invisible enemy, any future pandemics and associated tyrannical measures wouldn't be possible.
	So this is far more than an intellectual exercise.
	Yeah.
	I agree with myself.
	You wrote it.
	You're just looking at me like, yeah, I wrote that.
	But for real though, right?
	That's what it is.
	And that's what you've been saying with the end of COVID and like, because there is this rift in the health freedom community of like, yeah, maybe there's a point, but I'm not going to really look at this because there's more important stuff.
	We have to look at this.
	Yeah.
	We've got to look and that's what I'm really trying to do with this book.
	If you notice the way I wrote it, I'm characterizing what the no virus position is because what my opinion is doesn't really matter and my opinions are always changing but I would love for readers to make their own decisions and to look into it more for themselves and to see that even if you don't get to the point of there has never been a virus isolated by itself, separated from other things.
	Even if you don't get to that point, you can acknowledge a lot of these studies that are being done, they are very sloppy.
	Exactly.
	They're not running proper controls.
	They don't get an independent variable.
	They don't actually have an independent variable.
	You need that to do science.
	And that's important to know because you could draw incorrect conclusions from those studies and then decide to take a medication that's not optimal for you.
	So this is critical to repeat myself.
	Totally.
	And the other thing that I'll add to that too is that I don't have a problem, again, going back to beliefs, if someone acknowledges that all of the science related to virology is problematic at the very least, but then they say, I have a friend who says this, and he's like, yeah, but I still believe that there's viruses.
	I have no issue with that.
	But can't we then unite around whether you believe they exist or not?
	The reality that their so-called quote science is by definition fundamentally pseudoscientific like whether you believe they exist or not can't we just unite around that reality that you know Virology is very problematic and there's no actual legitimate scientific evidence for this, but I personally still believe it, but we still need to call that out, right?
	And hold their feet to the fire because they're making policies that impact the entire world.
	Yeah, that would be a win.
	And that's what I'm hoping to encourage, and I know you are as well, to have this discussion scientifically because it's a matter of science.
	It's not a matter of conspiracy theory.
	This is like, let's look at how these studies are done.
	Yeah.
	That's how it should be.
	And so hopefully more voices will join in on this to say like, hey, let's take a closer look at the foundational assumptions dating back to 1954 and other ones and try to do it again and actually run the studies and run the proper controls.
	And that's one of my issues as well.
	Like looking at this from as an outsider, if I were trying to prove this terrain perspective to other people, I would like to see more scientific evidence.
	Showing that, for example, you can see cell breakdown without adding a quote-unquote virus.
	We have some examples of that.
	Stefan Lanca ran a control study.
	So he had the soup.
	He didn't put a virus in it.
	He put yeast RNA and he got a cell breakdown effect.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And he did it even without the yeast RNA at first.
	And he did it without the yeast RNA.
	Exactly.
	That's great.
	And like Dr. Andy Kaufman, he points to a monkeypox study where incidentally other people have done this and they've run a control without meaning to and they got no effect.
	But I'd love to see more of that.
	I mean, shouldn't there be hundreds of those studies?
	Then we'd say, look, the way they're doing the gold standard, it's because of the method that they're getting in effect.
	It's not a virus, so let's find another way.
	So there's room for improvement, but that's never going to happen.
	It's never going to get funding, and it's never going to be socially acceptable until we acknowledge the questions.
	Amen.
	Amen, man.
	We all know that Big Ag is poisoning our food supply, and Big Pharma's so-called medicine is straight-up poison.
	What most people aren't aware of, though, is that most supplements are also filled with artificial sweeteners, dyes, GMOs, glyphosate, and a host of other toxic ingredients, even many of the more natural supplements.
	My good buddy James Benefico dedicated his life to crafting the world's cleanest, most nutritious organic supplements after a pre-workout energy drink caused heart palpitations so severe that he almost landed up in the ER.
	Organic Muscle was born revolutionizing sports nutrition by using exclusively non-GMO ingredients from USDA organic farms.
	Since then, tens of thousands of people, including myself, have leveled up their fitness and their health with Organic Muscle's award-winning natural pre-workout.
	There's no jitters, no heart palpitations, no itchy skin, just nourishing organic food and herb-based ingredients for clean, sustained energy, strength, endurance, and recovery.
	Numerous studies have shown that Tonka Ali is the most effective herb in the world for naturally boosting testosterone levels.
	We know that testosterone levels are depleting all over the world because of what's put in the food supply, what we're exposed to.
	Organic Muscle has the world's first fully organic Tonka Ali supplement.
	I only support and promote things that I actually use and I can say I legitimately use Organic Muscle Products.
	use code forward 15 at checkout for 15 off at organic muscle.com i've had this epiphany if you will alien it's weird because talking about like a collective thought it's like dr callen myself mike stone all the other people you um and you may have thought of this are kind of on the same page in our processes um And we're all informing each other and sharing ideas all the time anyway too, that's the other piece of this.
	Several of us have had the epiphany lately that like, yes, talking about virus, no virus, like the details, like the actual molecular details of what's going on are important.
	But even a step above that, we have countless examples in which scientists have attempted to show that disease is spread via the fluids of a sick person and were completely, totally unsuccessful in doing so in literally every single attempt.
	And now, of course, Virologists, molecular biologists, immunologists will claim to have done this in experiments.
	But when you go read those experiments, it'll take like a rat or several rats that were raised in a lab setting under fluorescent lights, possibly exposed to other experiments.
	And then they'll feeding, eating an unnatural diet and they'll pump its stomach full of an absurd amount of fluids.
	And then the rat will get sick and they'll claim, ah, voila, that proves contagion.
	But the point of me bringing this up is it's like, Is it even necessary to some degree to get into the molecular details given that this entire field has never, both in bacteriology and virology, has never shown that disease is spread via the fluids of a sick person?
	Have you thought about that?
	Yeah, this is a wild topic if your audience is new to this one.
	What you just described is the idea that we don't catch germs from other people.
	That's huge!
	We're taught that as a fact.
	As if it's a fact.
	Yeah.
	So I would have totally said people catch germs from other people.
	And I didn't realize.
	So how did scientists come to believe that?
	That's what I've been looking at and what you've been looking at.
	And you'd expect And maybe this kind of movement will start to encourage scientists to run these sorts of studies.
	But you'd expect, put a sick person in a room with some healthy people and see if those healthy people get sick.
	Or take some of this isolated virus that has claimed to be isolated and put a little bit of it in the air in a room with some people or animals.
	And there's a whole animal cruelty issue with these experiments.
	It's pretty brutal.
	It's actually horrific, honestly.
	But that's a separate topic.
	But let's just ignore that for a second.
	And you could easily just put some of those particles in the air.
	These are viruses that are killing people and we've got pandemics that are shutting down the world.
	It should be very easy to see that they get sick and then they have similar symptoms and all this stuff.
	And it's like, where are those studies?
	They don't exist.
	Well, I mean, I would love to see them and you can't prove that something doesn't exist.
	So I always keep an open mind, but I'm like, you can't prove a negative, right?
	And that's the other piece too, because people be like, well, where's your proof that viruses don't exist or that germs don't cause disease?
	And it's like, no, the onus is on those who are making the claim that it does.
	And that's the thing here.
	And was that shocking to you though, in your three month window of discovery?
	Yeah.
	I'm like, could this really be true?
	Yeah.
	And then I'm looking at the studies that people propose to say, oh yeah, contagion does exist.
	And they end up using these very unnatural methods of injecting animals with certain substances, sometimes in their brain or not treating the animals properly.
	So they're not actually running controlled studies to just isolate this alleged germ and see if it causes disease.
	So you can't really know from those studies, even though they would say, well, this obviously proves it.
	But you can't draw a causal relationship unless you've done the proper scientific analysis.
	So that's been shocking to me to see like this is the best you can come up with.
	And it's also like super esoteric reading these papers, and they're very technical.
	Shouldn't this stuff be obvious to the whole public?
	Shouldn't they make this stuff very simple?
	This is how we know the virus exists.
	This is how we know it causes disease.
	And instead, it's like this black box of only certain people are able to know it.
	It seems like an irresponsible thing on the part of public health officials.
	Well, in addition to that, it creates the effect for the layman or even credentialed experts who are like, well, I'm not in the field of virology, where when they do start reading, even people who I've encouraged, like, go read the methods section of paper, they're like, This is too technical.
	I can't make sense of this.
	So they must know something that I don't and like be in the know on some stuff that I'm not.
	So therefore I'm going to leave it up to them and just trust what they say on the topic.
	Yes.
	And that's what it creates.
	That's what it creates.
	But that should make us suspicious if we want to know the truth.
	It shouldn't be so hidden.
	But going back to these studies, like another thing that shocked me is that just the small, it's like a few monkeys have some symptoms and they're not always the exact symptoms that the disease is supposed to cause either.
	And then that's proof that this thing exists and causes disease, and therefore we're going to do public health measures on it.
	It seems like a very small sample, even if you accepted their studies.
	That's surprising to me.
	And you run this on every alleged virus and bacterial infection, quote unquote, and you can come up with another explanation for why people got sick or why the animals got sick.
	There are other possibilities that haven't been ruled out.
	And that's the big problem.
	And I want to emphasize this again.
	Observations of something that observing something doesn't tell you why the observation happened.
	And that people jump.
	That's affirming a consequent logical fallacy when you do that.
	Yes, well said.
	I've become obsessed with the logical fallacies, to be able to point them out because then you can distinguish a poor argument from someone who's actually coming with substance on this stuff.
	Yes, and one of the analogies that's used a lot in consciousness, but now I see it being used in virology, so that was interesting to me.
	Firefighters and fires.
	Okay, so if you see a fire and there are firefighters there, You could conclude, if you didn't know anything about the situation, you were like totally naive, you could say, those firefighters caused the fire.
	Clearly they're there.
	And someone else could say, no, Mark, you're crazy.
	The fire has mystical abilities and it created firefighters out of thin air.
	If you don't know, and that's us, I think, naively looking at situations and jumping to conclusions based on a little information.
	So that's one of the big psychological hurdles here, is going too quick to causation.
	When you just see a correlation between things, you're like, no, that's the causal relationship.
	Do you think that, so I've thought about this a lot.
	The idea that, like, excising tissue from a complex physical, chemical, emotional, spiritual, biological, electrical entity, and then just throwing a bunch of stuff onto it, dehydrating it, staining it, freezing it, heating it, bombarding it with electron beams, all these processes that we do, like, how can
	How have we become so detached from reality to think that that is going to indicate to us anything that is occurring in nature itself or in reality, you know?
	And that's like what all of modern science is.
	That was mind-blowing for me.
	That's another one.
	I want to double down on what you just described for people who haven't heard that before.
	A lot of our science is done in an artificial environment and we draw conclusions about the native environment based on the artificial environment.
	So, let's just say, let's go back to virology for a second.
	When they see something under an electron microscope and they point to it and say, that's the virus.
	Well, do most people even know what they were looking at under the microscope?
	And what was done to that?
	It's not living material.
	It's static.
	So you don't see a virus entering cells and replicating.
	No, you see something that's static and people might infer, well, we see this thing in the static image.
	Therefore, maybe it was exiting the host cell.
	Quote, budding out of the cell.
	That's what it looks like.
	Right.
	But all you have is a still image.
	There's a million other possibilities.
	And they stain the material.
	They They're chopping it up.
	Sometimes it's frozen.
	There are electron beams being shot at it.
	So you're seeing a distorted version of something that we're trying to extrapolate and say this happens in a living being.
	So the point you just raised, and I believe Harold Hillman and there are other people like that who made these points, that we have to rethink assumptions about all of biology because we're drawing conclusions from these small samples in artificial settings.
	Mike Stone and I had this experience going back and forth with a virologist on Twitter.
	Challenging him on these things.
	And what we did is we just put a screenshot of the scientific method and said, what is this without any context?
	And his response was that scientific method.
	And we said, okay, can you find a paper in virology that adheres to it?
	And then he submitted a few papers and then we would go read the papers and highlight in the method section.
	We're like, nope, this is skipping and going straight to experimentation without having an independent variable, et cetera, et cetera.
	And we did this exercise for a while.
	And then he finally said, Well then you must think all of modern cell biology's procedures are incorrect and that's ridiculous and like he kind of took that as a pot shot at us like trying to say that oh like it's insane that you would think this and it's like no that's literally the point that we're trying to make here is that yes All of modern cell biology's entire foundation is in question when you look into virology, when you look into genetics, all this stuff.
	It really is questionable.
	Yes.
	And that goes back to your point about why this needs to be looked at beyond just vaccines and temporary measures.
	This is about science.
	We've just got to look back.
	And I don't know the answer to this stuff.
	This is an aspect of the nature of reality is what we're talking about.
	The nature of reality.
	Yeah, exactly.
	What's the truth about the nature of reality?
	What do we know about what comprises a human body?
	That's really what we're asking.
	So it's funny that you bring that up because this is a perfect segue into the consciousness piece.
	I couldn't help but laugh of reading the opening paragraph of chapter six of your book.
	You say that the biggest flaw about allopathic medicine Is that it's nowhere close to understanding what a human being is.
	It's like, that's literally so perceptive and so true.
	Like we haven't even figured out what is this?
	And the other piece to that, which leads right into what we're going to talk about here, is that we think this physicality is all that there is.
	And we don't even understand that to be clear.
	We clearly do not understand how that actually works.
	But this, this illusion of, of The physical reality being the only thing that is is so strong that we don't consider the metaphysical implications or underlying or or foundation for reality.
	Yeah, it's huge.
	Where is that in the medical textbooks?
	They're based on a philosophy that's known as scientific materialism or physicalism, which is that, and this is where I started in 2016, this material.
	And it's been in the back of my mind for a while with regard to medicine.
	I just hadn't thought about the germ aspect as much.
	But I'll briefly summarize what physicalism says.
	This is a cosmology.
	It's a meta-paradigm.
	It's a paradigm underlying all paradigms for the nature of reality itself.
	And it says that the universe started in a manner that was inherently physical.
	And we call that event the Big Bang, like 13.8 billion years ago, there was an event, there was lots of physical particles, which are atoms at the smallest level, and they started bumping into each other.
	And we call those interactions chemistry.
	Started with matter, we end up with chemistry, and then after a lot of chemical reactions, what do you get?
	A molecule that can replicate itself.
	And then that leads to biology and then you end up with organisms that develop brains like human beings and from their brain pops out this ability to have experience and awareness, consciousness.
	So that's the meta paradigm.
	So the body is just physical and when your body shuts off, when your brain shuts off, there's nothing.
	It lights out and there's certainly no consciousness outside of bodies just kind of etherically hanging out.
	Discarnate spirits.
	How could you have that if consciousness is just stuck inside your skull?
	So this is huge stuff and medicine is often implicitly it's based on physicalism.
	So how can we really know the determinants of health and quote-unquote disease without knowing what the body is?
	That's really and so my thinking because I always think about how can I make the material as palatable as possible when I write the books.
	I wanted to have the medical stuff first because it's not quite as far out as some of this because I know I used to be a physicalist.
	Totally.
	Life is random and meaningless.
	Consciousness is from the brain.
	It's too hard.
	Yeah.
	And so I want the hardcore medical stuff to be there, too.
	But this is really the foundation, as I think about my own health, too, and just health in general.
	Consciousness is a key part of it.
	And the real human body, is it just physical?
	Is there a biofield?
	How does consciousness interplay with that?
	And I'm sure that's what we'll get into.
	What are the implications, then, from a one-mind perspective on the mind as it pertains to our health?
	I want to give an analogy, and this all comes from my initial work, my first book, An End to Upside-Down Thinking.
	That's why it's called An End to Upside-Down Thinking, because traditionally, people think consciousness comes after matter.
	And what I'm arguing, and I'm synthesizing what many other people have said, is no, consciousness is more fundamental than matter, and everything that we call material, this chair, it's actually just a modulation of our consciousness.
	If you get really philosophical about it, which we could spend hours talking about, how do I know this chair exists?
	Well, I feel it, and I see it, and I hear it, Where all those things happening, they're occurring in my consciousness.
	And then we reverse engineer and interpret as there's a world out there, there's a body that's separate.
	But this is important because we're talking about health and the health is the body.
	Under this idea of right side up thinking, if we want to reverse it and say consciousness is fundamental, generally speaking, it's probably way more complex than that.
	Dr. Bernardo Kastrup, who's a philosopher in this domain, and he's written a lot of books explaining what I just explained, why it's actually more philosophically parsimonious to say consciousness comes before matter, which is a very strong argument that I think more people should be aware of.
	He says, it's like we are whirlpools within a stream of consciousness.
	An infinite stream of water, and you've got these whirlpools that are individuations of the water, but they're fundamentally interconnected.
	But we're all made of water at this level of consciousness.
	I mean, then how do we think about health?
	Then, like, how is the water affecting your whirlpool?
	And how are your thoughts impacting the world and your body?
	Because if the world is ultimately malleable, and I know this is a wild idea, it's wild, but if everything is consciousness and we're all whirlpools, then our individuated consciousnesses are having an effect on the overall stream.
	Whoa, what does that mean?
	If you have a lot of whirlpools that are directing their consciousness in a similar direction, could that affect the way the world works at a level that's non-linear?
	Because the human mind likes to see linearity, like billiard balls.
	You see this ball hit this one and this one.
	It's reductionistic, which is what allopathic medicine is.
	There's one cause, it's that germ, and this is the symptom you have because of that, and here's the one medication that you're going to take.
	So what we're talking about here is like blowing that up.
	Yeah.
	Totally.
	Flipping it on its head and making it no longer upside down, which is what all of your books are named.
	And speaking on that, you have another quote in your book, if you don't mind me reading it.
	One Mind Wonder.
	I think that's what you put.
	Yeah.
	One mind wonder.
	One might wonder.
	That might be an earlier edit.
	Yeah, I think it was an edit, but it's also the one mind.
	So I can see where maybe you left it in, but it was a play on words.
	Okay.
	We'll say one might wonder.
	One might wonder, could large groups of people holding the same negative mindset, such as fear, create a negative outcome in the world?
	Could they induce or encourage sickness during quote, pandemics?
	This would be occurring in a seemingly nonlinear and invisible manner beyond our everyday perceptions.
	And that's how it relates exactly what we're talking about here is that It when we when we look at what happened over the last three and a half years, right?
	Without question people experience symptoms of illness and I would even say there's a case that people experience a higher prevalence of symptoms and even specific symptoms that although are not new symptoms.
	I will say that very clearly a higher prevalence of weird things like loss of taste and smell for extended periods of time, but What happens when we are told repetitively, you will experience loss of taste and smell, you will experience loss of taste and smell, you will experience loss of taste and smell, be very fearful, there's a death ticker on the TV.
	What happens?
	Right.
	And we know the placebo effect and the nocebo effect, which is what negative expectation can induce.
	Negative symptom.
	Yeah, so we know even from that's like not even taking the consciousness into account in the way that we're talking about it from a conventional perspective There is this effect where the mind can impact our bodies, but then taking it even further There's a phenomenon.
	It's known as psychokinesis and I talked about this.
	These are my earlier books I talked about the scientific evidence But the classic study is where people are asked using their mind to impact a random number generator So this is a machine That generates zeros and ones in a random fashion.
	So when you look at a large string of those numbers, it's approaching 50% ones and zeros.
	And what researchers have done at Princeton University, they had a lab for nearly 30 years.
	It was run by the former Dean of Engineering.
	So like some high level people running these sorts of studies, and they'd say, Hey, Alec, I want you to use your mind and try to impact the machine and make it produce more ones and zeros.
	And what do they find is that people are able to do this, and they don't even claim to have any special abilities.
	There's a subtle effect.
	It's very small, but it's statistically significant beyond 50-50.
	So that's just one study.
	This is a whole field of psychokinesis, and it's one of what's known as Six Sigma results.
	Six Sigma means more than a billion to one against chance using statistics.
	And Dr. Dean Radin wrote a book called Real Magic, which was endorsed by two Nobel Prize winners, including Carey Mullis.
	Wow.
	So very high level people.
	And he aggregated the Six Sigma results for these sorts of phenomena.
	So it's like, whoa.
	Our mind is actually having an effect.
	Sometimes it's small.
	And we even see this, it's called the Global Consciousness Project, which spun out of Princeton, where these machines are set up all over the world.
	And the researchers look at what happens to these machines, their behavior of zeros and ones, during major global events.
	So 9-11, Princess Diana's death, major events.
	October 7th, what happened with Israel and Palestine.
	I would love to know what they say during that.
	But what they find is many of The implications of that are huge though.
	generated machines start to be during many of these major events, the machines behave non-randomly.
	So people aren't even consciously trying to influence these machines.
	The implications of that are huge though.
	They're humongous for when it comes to something like health in it.
	And it shows that whether I have, I have a, we'll say a presupposition on those that are, let me put it this way.
	I do think that there are people who are aware of that, that each of us have that ability.
	And in order to carry out what they want for their benefit through like a cult rituals and things like this, they then use, Use the powers of the media and then government dictates, etc, etc, the medical system in this case, to then project that so that we all take it on and focus our attention on it, creating that effect in reality that is beneficial to them in some way.
	Right.
	So what you're saying is, if you put on your evil hat, if you wanted to be an evil genius and you knew this information, there would be a way to basically have people create the problem that they want.
	Yeah.
	I don't have any evidence that people, I don't know, But you don't say that in your book, but like, yeah, but if there were an evil genius that wanted to do that sort of thing, and that's why it's so important to understand the nature of reality of what's possible and what the human mind actually can do to us.
	And that's not being considered with COVID.
	We don't see that.
	It's this virus.
	We saw it under an electron microscope.
	Therefore, that's it.
	And we have a PCR or an antibody or an antigen test.
	And we're not looking at the psychology as much and literally the impact of the psychology and the consciousness on what might be happening.
	We're told to ignore it.
	And in fact, we're told the opposite.
	That you should fear it.
	And you're more virtuous, by the way, Alec.
	If you fear it, you're more virtuous.
	That's been the messaging.
	Well, so there we were talking about the sort of this ability of our both individual and collective minds from from a more, I guess, what can be considered negative point of view.
	But this also works in a very positive way when we focus our awareness and intention, like things like spontaneous healing.
	So can you talk about some of the things that you uncovered in your research over the last five years on that?
	The more I get into this, Alec, like I think that nutrition's important, and EMFs, radiation, toxins, all those things are important, but the mind is the trump card.
	I really think it is.
	When you get super high-level people, they're going to be immune to these things.
	Their body's going to be more able to detoxify.
	I'm leaning more in that direction, because these, they're examples of healings that just don't make any sense from a traditional perspective.
	And one example that I mentioned in the book, Anita Moorjani, she's famous for having had a near-death experience.
	And a near-death experience is when a person is literally close to death.
	It's not just, oh, I thought I was going to die because I came near a cliff.
	That's called actually a fear-death experience, which induces something.
	I didn't know there was a name for it.
	Yes.
	And it can induce a near-death.
	I write about this in my other books.
	But near-death experience, let's say cardiac arrest.
	She had terminal cancer.
	And went into this state that was blissful, which is what many people report.
	It's been reported throughout history.
	There are some differences that we could have a long discussion about NDEs.
	But in any event, she was immersed in this field of unconditional love, but started having a consciousness shift.
	She encountered her father, who she didn't have the most positive relationship with, and started to realize that she was too hard on herself, and had this shift of like, I need to... I shouldn't judge myself as much.
	I'm paraphrasing.
	She goes into much more detail.
	And she comes out of this coma, and the doctors test her shortly thereafter, and they're like, where did your cancer go?
	Wow.
	It shouldn't happen.
	And there are many of these spontaneous healings.
	You mentioned I'm on the board of the Institute of Noetic Sciences.
	They put out this huge piece that aggregates cases of spontaneous remission.
	Like that shouldn't happen under the allopathic model.
	And I emphasize this in the book that anomalies matter.
	If there's one thing that doesn't make sense in the current model, we have to pay attention to that.
	You have to question the model itself.
	We have to question the model.
	And people want to often sweep them aside, but why do spontaneous remissions occur?
	She had a consciousness shift.
	Another spiritual teacher that I reference often, his name is Dr. David Hawkins.
	Yeah, I freaking love David Hawkins.
	Incredible work he's done.
	He has a book called Letting Go, The Pathway of Surrender.
	Highly recommend that.
	Another one called Healing and Recovery.
	He had so many illnesses, he said he would have to write them down on an index card to remember what they all were in his talks.
	And he realized how he would always say what we hold in mind tends to manifest.
	Think about that.
	So how important are our beliefs in our well-being?
	That was a very simple statement I just said, but really think about what I just said.
	Really sit and contemplate on that.
	I'm trying to remind myself all the time.
	I mean, it's a good reminder because it relates to what's going on in the world right now.
	I go back and forth, and I've already had three episodes, if not more, talking about the Israel-Palestine thing, and for the sake of this episode, it's not relevant.
	As it relates to what you just said is it like where's the balance between accepting what is in reality but then being sure not to hold it in your mind and ruminate on it over and over and over again where you're using your individuated portion of consciousness to project more of that reality into existence because like you and I would agree that There's strong indication that we are collectively co-creating this reality, right?
	So when there's strong collective focus on something, that tends to create a more of effect of repetition of that thing continuing to occur.
	Yes, and even from a less metaphysical perspective, it's a perpetuation of trauma, ultimately.
	Which leads to a negativity of thought patterns, which then perpetuates it on other people.
	So I just am really coming to see the world through the eyes of what so many great spiritual teachers have said.
	I'm like, no, I think I get what you say.
	When we change our own beliefs and clear our own trauma, that's the ultimate solution, because then we're not going to be acting out on other people.
	But that means getting to the truth first.
	So these are all interrelated.
	Exactly.
	I love that you said that too, because There tends to be, in some spiritual circles, a sort of spiritual bypassing aspect of that.
	We're like, oh, we don't need to know any of this information.
	It's all love and light.
	And it's like, no, no, we need to come to understand the nature of how things are and how they have been.
	As it relates to how this reality works and then and even including some of the darker things like I think we do need to be aware of some of those things now we don't need to obsess and just stare at them over and over again.
	Yeah, but be aware of what is in order to then proceed to create what we want, right?
	Yeah, this has been a big part of my journey.
	So I started on the Basically reversing atheism path and you get into the spiritual teachings.
	And my first two books are about a lot of that stuff.
	And interestingly, then I left my firm in Silicon Valley right before COVID.
	I didn't even know what I was going to do next.
	I just said, I need to give myself space.
	And then it wrote my second book, which is kind of on spiritual philosophy.
	And then COVID happened.
	And I saw very quickly all the censorship and how you weren't able to ask questions.
	And I saw the tyranny unfolding.
	At the time I was apolitical, nonpolitical.
	I literally didn't have any political leanings, but I started to see the dark side And I noticed a lot of spiritual teachings weren't looking at that or they weren't seeing it.
	So I think a lot of what's motivated me to continue writing is this other side of the quote-unquote spiritual community that needs to be acknowledged in a more comprehensive worldview.
	So I'm glad you brought that up because there's a tendency not to want to look at deception.
	And I think an unstated belief that, well, evil is obvious.
	We would know it if we saw it, when actually the most insidious... That's how they portray it in movies and stuff, so that helps create that effect too.
	Yeah, well then that's the whole thing of being deceptive, is perpetuating it.
	But evil, as I see it, the most insidious part is the deceptive nature of it, and a lot of spirituality doesn't want to look at it, because look, Anita Moorjani, she was in unconditional love in her near-death experience, or someone who's on DMT or has a meditation experience.
	They talk about unity and unconditional love.
	Yes, and it's like non-duality is there's oneness, interconnectedness, and then there's also clearly dark and light.
	And I think it takes an extremely strong, spiritually adept individual to be able to hold both those, to be able to understand the dark, muddy shit that is really hard to look at, but then Come back to a genuine and authentic compassion, love, understanding, forgiveness, even for those who are doing some of the most atrocious things in the world right now.
	And it can't be forced.
	It is a process and it's unique to the individual.
	And this all comes back to it's an individual thing, right?
	It's unique to the individual.
	For me, my tendency Based on my upbringing is to experience rage surrounding something like I get freaking mad and I've just learned not to project that onto other people.
	I projected on my punching bag in my garage if I need to, right?
	And then I cry.
	I feel the feelings associated with what is coming up, but I don't stuff him down because I think that allows it to perpetuate and fester in the background.
	It has to come through me and then I can come back to a genuine, a truly genuine place of forgiveness and compassion.
	And I think that's What each of us needs to learn how to do as we, as we move forward, not stuffing it down, but not perpetually like perpetuating and hyper focusing on it.
	Yes.
	So this is a critical point you just raised is, is not suppressing the emotions, which sounds like something that shouldn't even be related to health, but I, this is central to the whole thing.
	Yeah.
	So Dr. David Hawkins, who was a top psychiatrist in New York before he had his spiritual awakening.
	So he's interesting to me because he breaks down the ego from his perspective, having like seen so many patients, but then he also had these experiences.
	What I learned from him is, if you're feeling something, that means you're not feeling enough of it.
	That you're suppressing it.
	So what you're doing, Alec, is a model for all of us.
	If we have this emotion, we have to let it out, otherwise it festers and then it can manifest as disease.
	And this gets into German New Medicine, which I think is incredible.
	I want to understand it more.
	I talk about it in the book a little bit.
	The idea is that if you have certain symptoms, they can tell you what the emotional trigger to it was.
	Specifically, too.
	Specifically, you need to work on this emotion because, and I haven't looked at this as much, you can look on a CAT scan and there's a lesion in the brain that they have associated with an emotional shock of a certain nature.
	Can I give you an example?
	Yeah.
	So I, uh, my, my mom and I don't speak right now and I've genuinely, and this will lead into my example, healed all, everything associated with that.
	But the initial conflict, which in Germany medicine would be a separation conflict, right?
	Separation conflicts is either when you feel too close to someone you want to be separate from or vice versa.
	You feel distant from someone you want to be close to and biologically being that she's my mom, I would want to be closer, right?
	And we were not speaking and I'm left-handed.
	So my mother's side in Germany medicine is the right side of my body, right?
	And I was getting this rash that was only coming up on the right side of my head over and over and over again.
	And if I'd get triggered related to my mom, it would come back a few days, the rash would come back and then it would go away.
	And then I'd get triggered again.
	And a few days later it would come back.
	And it wasn't until I've really learned to deal with those emotions and, and, and deal with those triggers as they come in an effective way that the rash is no longer present.
	But that's a perfect example of how specific it is left-handed.
	That means my mother's side is my right side.
	It's wild, but think about how foundational that is for health.
	You had a symptom that appeared.
	What would a traditional doctor do?
	Not because the doctor's a bad person, but because of the doctor's training, the doctor's going to look at that symptom.
	- That's an example of German new medicine right there. - It's wild, but think about how foundational that is for health.
	You had a symptom that appeared.
	What would a traditional doctor do?
	Not because the doctor's a bad person, but because of the doctor's training, the doctor's gonna look at that symptom.
	And in German new medicine, the idea is that the symptom is part of your healing phase.
	It's your body's, there was a conflict that occurred, some kind of emotional shock, and then the body accumulates extra cells or something, and then it has to clear that out once it's resolved.
	And that's the symptom under German New Medicine.
	It's a reversal.
	The symptom is the resolution.
	It's the solution.
	It's the solution to the already existing problem.
	And that's kind of like the whole terrain approach too, is that like the overwhelmingly symptoms of illness are the solution and we've mistaken them as the problem.
	And likewise, when it comes to things related to consciousness and not suppressing, suppressing things, That's the whole approach of the allopathic system is to suppress symptoms rather than help the body to, dare I say, proliferate those symptoms in an attempt to come back to healing.
	Yes.
	And there could be instances, and I've heard this in Germany medicine, where it might be appropriate to take allopathic intervention.
	I say this in the book, there are examples in emergencies where the allopathic approach works.
	It just, it shouldn't be the rule.
	It should be more of the exception.
	But that is such a profound thing.
	So now when I think about illness, and myself or anyone, it's like, what would emotionally just happen to me?
	Look at that in your own life.
	It's a huge shift, right?
	It's a huge shift.
	Wait, oh, there was this thing that happened.
	Whoa, there was this conflict.
	Maybe I didn't resolve it.
	Maybe the emotion is being stuffed down.
	Rather than, what's the pill that I should be taking?
	So it's a different approach.
	And think about how liberating this is.
	One can understand why this would be suppressed.
	Because all of a sudden we're talking about, Alec had to do inner work.
	Yeah.
	Radical self-ownership, radical self-responsibility.
	I think that's what it is.
	And then on a mass scale, we've got perpetuated fear.
	Is that manifesting in symptoms in some kind of way?
	Is it triggering a lesion in the brain?
	I don't know how this works.
	Is it some kind of like mass German new medicine thing where we're being similar traumas come up?
	But like, this is the foundation of medicine, in my opinion, for some kind of a right-side-up medicine is the consciousness part is going to be first.
	And the other stuff's important, but it's not as central.
	Yeah, well, it's such a huge paradigm shift in every way and what you're pointing to is so perceptive in that the foundation, like, even in your example right there, right?
	You could easily look to, okay, what did I eat?
	What did, you know, what toxins was I exposed to?
	And those are still relevant, but like, same with me, man.
	When I get sick now, yes, I still consider those things from a holistic perspective, but the first thing that I consider now Is what was I stressed out?
	What was I ruminating on?
	What were my thoughts like?
	Was I not coming back to a centered perspective?
	Because especially me, and I would imagine you're the same.
	I think you think very similar to me.
	I tend to get very over analytical if I'm not doing like spiritual practices on a day-to-day basis to help ground me in a heart centered space.
	Like I can get really lost in this thing right here, but.
	Um, it's a total paradigm shift, but it's so empowering too, because then it all falls back onto your shoulders that, wow, I am really totally in charge of my own health.
	I'm totally in control.
	And yes, even if you have environmental toxins around and, uh, you don't have the best food, you can't afford it.
	You, if you clear this from a metaphysical perspective, if you become a clear channel, those things will not impact you as much.
	That is a profound statement you just made.
	But that's, I'm getting to that point too.
	And it makes sense.
	If consciousness is fundamental in some regard, why wouldn't that be true?
	So it all lines up.
	But also what you're describing, it recontextualizes what the body is.
	The body has detoxification modalities and healing modalities and it's showing you what you need to work on, basically.
	And this gets into the question of why are we here, which I'm always asking myself.
	So the body has mechanisms basically to help us evolve.
	That's what I'm coming to appreciate.
	Rather than this is a symptom you're having, we got to get rid of it.
	And maybe you do to some degree, but it's just a different context.
	How has your understanding of, okay, this phenomenon of two or more people getting sick in the same space, aside from what we've talked about already with respect to, like, collective fear or individual fear associated with something, other ways that we are interconnected through an energetic web between us, what are some other ways you've recontextualized this phenomenon of, quote, contagion or two or more people getting sick in the same space?
	There's a notion of resonance where if our bodies are some kind of vessel for our consciousness, some might call it the soul, the individuated consciousness.
	What is that?
	What are the properties of that body?
	And there's been work done on the biofield and subtle energy and energy healing.
	And this is another area.
	I mean, I talk about this in the book.
	There isn't as much science on it.
	There is some, which most people don't know about it.
	And the Institute of Noetic Sciences is one place, but there are others out there too.
	Some brave scientists that want to explore this stuff, but it's not as well funded.
	If you think that the virus is causing such a major issue that we have got to shut down the world, the funding is going to go there to try to understand that one thing.
	So, there might be critics who listen to this conversation and say like, Mark and Alec, there's no evidence for these other topics you're talking about.
	And I would say, I agree there's limited evidence and that's why we need to be talking about it to fund more of it.
	I'm not tied to these ideas, but I want to figure it out.
	So, this notion of resonance, and this might be something I added since the version you looked at.
	No, you talk about it a little bit, unless you're going on a specific example.
	Because I had forgotten about this.
	In my earlier works, and in my podcast series, Where Is My Mind, I interviewed Larry Dossey, who's a doctor who talks about these sorts of things, but he also talks about Telesomatic events.
	Whoa.
	So telepathy is mind-to-mind communication.
	Telesomatic event is when one person has something happen to their physical body and then an interconnected person, like an identical twin, will have the same physical manifestation at a distance.
	Whoa.
	So telesomatic events, apparently they occur in 20 to 30% of identical twins.
	No way.
	That's what he says?
	That large of an amount.
	Yeah.
	So like one twin gets burned and the other one has a burn.
	What does that tell us?
	Get out of here, modern medicine!
	On a similar note, we'll go back to resonance in a second, because this isn't necessarily the same resonance.
	Children sometimes have memories of a life that is not their own.
	There are over 2,500 cases of these.
	Study at the University of Virginia, where they had these distinct memories.
	And they're children too, so it would lend credence to the idea that they're probably not ones who are making up these intricate stories for as a means to manipulate people or something like that.
	Yes, and like University of Virginia, Division of Perceptual Studies at the med school, they've been studying this since the late 1960s.
	Dr. Ian Stevenson, now Dr. Jim Tucker, who I interviewed for my podcast.
	So like real people are looking at this.
	The kids have distinct memories and sometimes the researchers can find a historical record that matches what the kid's talking about.
	And it's not like Cleopatra.
	These are discreet and like, like very obscure people sometimes.
	I think I, I can, uh, I listened to podcasts back in like 2017 that brought up one example of like a Japanese kid who every time he saw English words on the TV would point and freak out.
	And then when he got to a certain age where he could speak, he, Was recounting like a very specific random place in England that he pointed to on a map without his parents giving him any idea.
	And he named a specific person that he used to know and named a bunch of random stuff.
	And they went back and looked and those were all factually true.
	And the guy that this little Japanese kid said he used to be had died just before that Japanese kid was born.
	These are the kinds of examples they look at.
	There's a World War II fighter pilot example.
	There's a Hollywood extra.
	So very specific cases.
	And sometimes the kids have, they have phobias and philias that align with the alleged previous life that are very strange.
	So like they might fear water for some reason because they happen to have drowned in the alleged previous life or whatever that life is.
	Or they like weird things they shouldn't like that are not innate to their culture.
	They want tobacco, like really weird stuff.
	Like a three-year-old like, damn, I need a cigarette right now.
	Yeah, strange preferences.
	But where I was going was that there are cases where the children have birthmarks or physical deformities that align with the alleged death in the previous life.
	Wow.
	That they, that the researchers can sometime align with medical records that show, yeah, this person died in this manner.
	And in my first book, An End to Upside Down Thinking, I show a picture of, this is from Dr. Stevenson's book, it's called Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect.
	Wow.
	Pretty cool title.
	Well, yeah, wow, what a cool title.
	I gotta read that book.
	This girl had, her leg, I can't even explain it to you because it's so unnatural.
	It's indented like it was tied up in a rope.
	Wow.
	And actually she, in the alleged previous life, she was murdered and tied up in ropes and there was a person that died in the manner that the girl described.
	No way.
	Wow.
	There are cases like this.
	So now the punchline.
	What Dr. Stevenson says is, he's like, traditionally in medicine and in science, they say there are two factors that impact your physical body, genetics and environment.
	There's a third factor though, because these physical deformities and birthmarks, they're not genetics and environment in the same way.
	So like just stop everything right there.
	Third factor that affects our health that is not being acknowledged.
	Now what is that factor?
	It's something I think something to do with consciousness and maybe there's more than a third factor.
	Yeah, like there could be multiple elements of consciousness itself that are impacting it.
	Right, and this is maybe related to resonance.
	There's something going on there.
	How could one person be physically affected and another one not?
	One more example because it's so striking.
	I mentioned this in the book on contact with non-human intelligence.
	I didn't mention this one, but there is a remote viewer named John Vivanco, who I interviewed for my podcast.
	He was a remote viewing is when your mind can see something that's far away in space and time.
	The U.S. government ran a program.
	Who knows if they still do declassified their declassified documents?
	They can sit.
	They say remote viewing is a real phenomenon.
	Implications are revolutionary.
	So this has been done.
	He was remote viewing the fire bombings in Dresden.
	And was having physical manifestations in his current body.
	Woah.
	Like he was feeling the symptoms of the people.
	Of being burned.
	Woah.
	Wow.
	Of being burned, yeah.
	Wow.
	So, what is this?
	There's some kind of a resonance.
	It's impacting the body.
	These are symptoms that occur.
	It's not a germ.
	It's not a physical toxin we can see right here.
	What are we doing with medicine?
	I'm sounding very critical here.
	I'm saying this more from like a truth perspective.
	Like let's get to the truth.
	We need to expand the aperture in terms of what we're looking at.
	That's where the frustration is coming from.
	And also it's so many people are sick and are not maybe using the optimal remedies because these things are not being considered.
	I love how we went on the coolest tangent ever, but it all relates back.
	It really does.
	It relates back to exactly what you're talking about here.
	And that's why I appreciate your writing style in the two books that I've read.
	Not just your writing style, but how you tie what we're discussing here, which is really pointing to The meaning of life and like the nature of this entire reality that we're experiencing and how it ties into each of the topics.
	Like that's what you did with An End to Upside Down Liberty.
	I'd imagine that's what you did with your other books that I haven't read.
	That's for sure what you did with An End to Upside Down Medicine.
	And it all ties in to something that is so fundamental to life itself and has such amazing implications.
	For for health and and how we all relate with each other.
	It's it really is incredible and we don't think about that in a health context ever, but it is the most important consideration potentially for health.
	Right.
	And it's not that, it's not just that we don't think about it.
	It's also that a lot of people don't have the time to think about it.
	So hopefully these conversations and books and the end of COVID and things like that can give people a shortcut.
	Because for whatever reason, the world's set up where we're on a treadmill like I was, and there's no time to think about this stuff.
	And therefore you're sick, but need to go to work the next day.
	What are you going to do?
	It's much easier to just take this pill.
	You don't even know what's in it.
	Take this injection.
	I don't know what's in it.
	It's much easier to do that.
	So it's not like we can necessarily fault everyone.
	And this is where the compassion comes into.
	Everyone's on their own journey.
	And from the perspective of humility, like, who are we to say what someone else should know or think?
	I don't know.
	I don't know what their path is.
	So this is part of my journey, too, of like, I write books and I'm a competitive person and I want it to be right.
	And I would love for people to take it in, but I can't control if people are going to take it in or even accept what I say.
	So it's the inner work.
	So like, am I getting the truth myself?
	And that's what I would encourage others who want to go down this path.
	I think that's where it leads.
	Wow.
	I love that, man.
	I love that so much.
	Especially because it all comes back to, this is a process for you of discovering.
	You kind of mentioned that before we started recording.
	It's like, this is help.
	This process of writing is the work for me.
	It is work for me to come to terms with what is true about reality and really look, sort of reflect on my life and what I think about things.
	If I hadn't written the books, I don't think I would have the confidence to sit here in a somewhat calm manner and speak to you.
	I don't think I would.
	It's because I've looked at it so much.
	I know where the potential holes are.
	I'm at peace with that.
	But it took a lot of time and effort and all the editing and all the research.
	That had to happen for my process.
	So what happens is if I write books or do a podcast or do these interviews, it's a byproduct of my own evolution.
	And this is how it manifests for Mark Gober.
	But for other people listening, it doesn't have to manifest this way.
	It might manifest in your personal relationship with one person and that might be what needs to happen for you in your journey.
	So don't I wouldn't like put down one's experience as being too mundane.
	I don't think there's any mundane experience versus a glamorous one.
	I wanted to ask one more question and I think we'll wrap it up just because this experiment that was mentioned in your book blew my mind.
	The Cleve Baxter biocommunication experiment.
	Yeah.
	He did a bunch.
	I'm going to try to remember them.
	Okay.
	So let me start with the one I remember best.
	Okay.
	So this was a CIA lie detector expert.
	And one day he said, I'm going to hook up my lie detector to a plant and see if I can make it spike.
	And at first he couldn't do any, he couldn't make it happen, and then he actually had the intention to light a match and burn the leaf, and then it spiked on the plant.
	And he was like, he wrote in his book, it's called Primary Perception.
	I think there's also in the Secret Life of Plants too, this is referenced.
	It might be.
	This is the primary source, yeah.
	So it changed his whole life.
	And then he started running other experiments.
	Now we're in the realm of we need more replication, of course, giving these caveats.
	But he did some experiments and he said for some of them that the government ended up replicating them.
	So one was he had kombucha, which has live culture in it.
	And the kombucha was responding to him.
	He was watching a movie, a movie called Conspiracy Theory.
	And since he worked in the CIA, he was highly sensitized to what they were showing.
	They were showing some kind of mind control experimentation.
	And when the scene came on that showed it, There was a spike that was attached to the kombucha.
	Wow.
	So it was picking up his emotions.
	And there's another example I'm remembering that I didn't reference in this book where he was going back to the plant.
	He was at a surprise party miles away from his home.
	And at the time they said surprise, which caused an emotional arousal in him.
	The plant at his apartment was spiked.
	Wow.
	So there was a resonance there.
	Another one.
	He took white blood cells from a person who he then showed Playboy magazine and he had the guy looking at the centerfold picture and there was this huge spike in his white blood cells and then he took it away from the guy and then it went down so he was able to see a correlation.
	Wow.
	The guy and apparently this changed the guy's whole life because he couldn't this was happening in his mind and he was like wait what my white blood cells are yeah what's going on with that and then there are examples I'm going away from Cleve Baxter but it's relevant of organ Transplant recipients of people who've got an organ from someone else and then they take on the memories or personality characteristics from the person that had the organ.
	And Dr. Paul Pearsall wrote a book called The Heart's Code where he shows examples of this.
	But it's not just the heart.
	There's an example of a kidney he talks about in the book, too, where persons like literally his dietary preferences changed.
	There's one woman who she got, I believe, was a heart from a former prostitute and she became very highly sexualized.
	No way.
	And her husband even commented on it.
	So in Pearsall's book, he's got transcripts of like the husband, the woman who got... So there are these examples that you can't explain other than they look back at where the organ came from.
	And one example that is the one that freaks people out most is a little girl who had a heart transplant started having nightmares of being murdered.
	And it was so bad she went to a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist like started taking down notes.
	Because it was so real.
	And apparently they were able to find the murderer.
	And when I say murderer, the girl she got the heart from was murdered.
	No way.
	In the manner that she was describing in her dreams.
	In her dreams.
	Wow.
	Right, so look, if there's 1% of truth to anything that I just described, it's game over to the current model.
	That's the thing, you could explain away so many of them, but if there's one that you cannot explain away, then we've got to rethink everything.
	One anomaly.
	All you need is one anomaly.
	And it actually fits in, it fits together.
	So this again is, we've got factors other than genetics and environment that are affecting the physical form, even the mental form, which is probably affecting the physical form too.
	What's going on here?
	So now it almost seems infantile the way that we do things of One germ that symptom this pill It's cavemen and women, you know If we if we make it in the future, we might look back at this conversation and be like these guys were talking about fringe topics The mainstream society was just so off base.
	So I feel like that's really what we're talking about.
	We're talking about a paradigm shift where the world looks at things this way right now, and it's just in the wrong direction.
	Yeah, it does.
	And hopefully we'll be looking back 500 years from now when we're in our new lives and I'm some chick living in Venezuela or something.
	I don't know.
	Who knows what I'll be.
	Maybe I'll be somewhere else.
	Maybe.
	You never know.
	But the point is, this will no longer be a fringe topic and this will be the sort of accepted approach with respect to health.
	And it's really an incredible time that we're in because What we're writing about is the tip of the spear that could, you know, crash into an entire paradigm shift in discovering things that you and I can't even conceptualize right now with respect to health.
	And that's what's beautiful about it.
	That's a really important point, is we're talking about the things that we can conceive of that we might possibly know.
	Yeah.
	What is the unknown that's impacting us that we can't even with our brains?
	Maybe we're not capable of comprehending as humans.
	Yeah.
	Or maybe we're capable and we just haven't discovered it yet.
	So we've got to be open to all that stuff.
	We haven't made this point on COVID and even other quote-unquote contagious diseases.
	Why is it that some people get sick and other people don't?
	Shouldn't every single one get sick with the same symptoms?
	Shouldn't it be that clear?
	What's going on?
	How can you explain that?
	And then this is the inventive reasoning.
	You come up with explanations that might be true as antibodies, immunity, immunity, or you, yeah, you had more immunity for some reason, but these are just stories that haven't been really tested.
	Totally.
	Yeah.
	Well, you cover that so well in your book, and I cannot recommend it enough.
	Again, both your books that I've read, and I'm sure all the other ones too, I have not read yet, but I would imagine they're incredible.
	An End to Upside-Down Liberty, I can personally recommend that one without question.
	And then now an End to Upside-Down Medicine, man, like, Your ability to break down these topics and do research in a way that communicates it to where really anyone can pick up the book and really understand what you're saying is incredible, man.
	So I got to give you credit on that.
	So where can people find an end to upside down medicine?
	Well, first, thank you for saying that and props to you for all that you've done.
	And you've given me a platform to be able to synthesize all this material.
	Like, really, I come in and everyone's done a lot of work with all my books, and I try to bring it together in a way that reaches new audience.
	But you guys did amazing work and continue to.
	So thank you.
	Thank you, Alex, for sure.
	In terms of learning more about me, my website, MarkGober.com, M-A-R-K-G-O-B-E-R.com.
	All of my books are on Amazon, and they are all in hard copy, Kindle, and Audible.
	I read all the books myself, which is also part of my learning process.
	That's fun.
	So you're in a studio a lot of the times, do you?
	Yeah, studio.
	Takes a very long time, but I learn the book even more.
	That's great.
	I have to read every word.
	And also my podcast series, which is still relevant, it gets to this question of, does the brain produce consciousness?
	It's called Where's My Mind.
	It's on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, many other players.
	And I want to mention something.
	So a few people, they heard me on the end of COVID and they listened to Where's My Mind.
	And in episode one of that, I was talking about the shift from maybe the brain doesn't create consciousness.
	Maybe it's like an antenna or a filtering mechanism and we're vessels.
	I was giving examples of paradigm shifts throughout history.
	And an offhand thing, I was not trying to make a point here, but I was like, you know, we, at one point we couldn't see germs.
	We didn't have the technology and we did, therefore we didn't think that they could cause disease.
	Now we know they do.
	So a few people reached out to me and they're like, you know, that's interesting you said that.
	Have you looked in the germ theory thing?
	And I was like, I didn't even, I wasn't trying to make a point.
	This is 2019.
	So if any of your audience listens to that, please excuse me.
	I wasn't, I wasn't trying.
	That's great.
	That's awesome, man.
	That's so funny how everything works like that.
	But I will say, I'm self-conscious about that because when I put stuff out, I really want to get it right.
	I don't want to mislead people, but it's inevitable I'm going to get things wrong.
	But it's still relevant if people can understand where you are at that point in time.
	It still has incredible information.
	So that's hilarious, though.
	That's great.
	Mark, I appreciate you, man.
	Thanks for coming out and thanks for joining me for this conversation, man.
	Thank you, Alec.

▲