All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 4, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
01:14:17
Reframing the Infectious Disease Paradigm — a Presentation by Alec Zeck
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm going to introduce our speaker, Alex Zek.
He received his BS in systems engineering from the United States Military Academy at West Point.
He is a speaker, writer, podcaster, and former army captain.
He is the former executive director and founder of Health Freedom for Humanity and is the founder of The Way Forward.
And fun frivolous fact is that he was actually kicked out of this convention center two years ago.
So he's going to tell you a little bit more about that during his talk.
Please help me welcome Alex Zett. - Okay, let me get situated here.
So, yes, two years ago I was kicked out of this convention center for an event that I held called the Health Freedom for Humanity Symposium.
The good news of that story is that we were kicked out because we violated the mask ordinance.
But we had already had a verbal agreement with the city of Kansas City, who owns this building, that if the mask mandates come back, we're not going to follow it.
So we had already made that verbal agreement.
After day one of our event, 650 attendees, 25-plus speakers, exhibitors all over the place, we were kicked out.
And then the next day, we, you know, showed health, freedom, and action by that little area up there on the stairs.
We held an event outside on day two, and it ended up being better.
And then fast-forward a few weeks, we held the city of Kansas City accountable, and they paid us back in damages, showing that you actually can fight this tyranny.
So it's a pretty full circle experience being here, like almost two years to the date.
Okay, so this talk is called Reframing the Infectious Disease Paradigm.
You're gonna want to pay attention.
Who here, let me see this, who here thinks that SARS-CoV-2, and be honest, please be honest, came from a lab?
That there's a bioweapon that leaked from a lab?
That's what I like to see.
If no one raised their hand, I'd just leave.
Okay.
Okay, so according to the CDC's own data on COVID, 95% of COVID deaths had an average of four comorbidities, most being lifestyle and nutrition related.
79% of hospitalizations were in overweight or obese people.
And then this study that was published in part by the CDC in July of 2021, looking at 540,000 people who had been labeled as a COVID death, and I'll get to why I have COVID deaths or COVID anything in air quotes, found that the second strongest risk factor for death associated with COVID was fear-slash-anxiety-related disorders.
Who knew about that?
A lot of people.
Okay.
Fear-slash-anxiety-related disorders was the second strongest risk factor for death associated with COVID.
Think about that.
That implies those are people who had already had a diagnosed fear-slash-anxiety-related disorder.
So that wouldn't account for the large number of people I'd imagine who were in a perpetual state of fear, who wound up in the hospital, wound up being put on remdesivir, a ventilator, etc., etc.
So fear plays a huge role in what happened over the last three and a half years, and even people who were not scared of the virus or anything like that, you might have been a little bit fearful of government tyranny, fearful of uncertain about the future.
I know I was at various points in time, so it impacted all of us on some level.
So these are two questions to ponder.
What happens when we're conditioned to believe in a totally unproven fear-based paradigm?
What happens when we're conditioned to believe in an invisible, deadly boogeyman, something that could be anywhere and anyone, but can't be seen with the naked eye?
Think about that.
What happens when we're conditioned to believe that?
Okay.
I'm going to skip that because I don't want you to see, actually.
I should have taken that one out.
Okay.
Thought experiment.
Does Santa Claus exist?
Does Santa Claus exist?
No.
But what about all the pictures, the videos, the decorations, the piece of beard I find in the fireplace on Christmas morning, the presents under the tree?
All of my friends think that he exists.
Like, it's the best fit model that we have to give evidence to Santa Claus existing.
But does Santa Claus actually exist?
No.
And we know that as adults.
So it's time for us to stop being children when it comes to this too.
And I'll get to how this relates to what I'm talking about today.
So all the evidence points to Santa Claus existing, right?
Best fit model, but Santa Claus doesn't exist, right?
Okay, this comes from, I don't know if Tom's still in the room.
I think he left.
He's heard this a gazillion times.
But this comes from Dr. Cowan and Sally Founbrail's book, The Contagion Myth.
It's a little analogy or thought experiment.
So, if I were to tell you that a ping-pong ball could break through a brick wall, logically speaking, you'd want to see evidence of that, right?
So, the first thing that I do is I pour a bunch of corrosive acid all over the brick wall, and then I take a giant mallet and smash the brick wall several times, and then I tape the ping-pong ball to a giant boulder and whirl it at the brick wall, and the brick wall falls down.
Voila!
Right?
I have proven that the ping-pong ball caused the destruction of that brick wall, right?
No, of course not.
Actually, someone, when I gave this talk a while back, would be like, yes!
I'm like, no, absolutely not.
That's a powerful ping pong ball, but no, absolutely not, right?
Of course, it was all of the other things in the experiment that caused the brick wall to fall down, the corrosive acid, et cetera, et cetera.
So, if I were to tell you That SARS-CoV-2, or insert any other virus, has not been isolated or proven to exist.
I'm sure a lot of you by now have heard this.
I mean, you've got to have been under a rock if you're in the freedom movement and you hadn't heard this a little bit by now.
If I were to tell you that it had never been proven to exist, you'd either say, well, how do you explain symptoms?
And we'll get to that.
Or you'd say, well, I'm going to go ask one of my buddies that's an MD or that's a molecular biologist, or I'm going to go look on PubMed or Google Scholar.
And you'd find a paper that looks just like this, and it says in the title, isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia.
And you'd find thousands and thousands of papers that look identical to this one.
Send it to me and be like, what the hell are you talking about?
You're a crazy conspiracy theorist.
I don't, I'm not listening to anything you say thereafter.
Here's the problem though.
This is what the overwhelming majority, and it is the overwhelming majority of the world, knows isolation to mean.
To separate from another substance, to obtain in a pure or free state.
Right?
That's what we know isolation to mean.
And if you read the methods section, which describes the procedure of the experiment of that paper or any other virus isolation paper, You will find that it describes a process that has nothing whatsoever to do with isolation.
So it essentially goes like this.
They take snot from a sick person, or other fluids from a sick person, assumed to contain a virus.
They then add that snot to what's called viral transport medium.
In viral transport medium, depending on the company, contains, at a minimum, amphotericin B and gentamicin.
So they're adding this snot that is assumed, assumed, that's the key point here, to contain a virus, to viral transport medium, right?
Viral transport medium contains amphotericin B, gentamicin, some other substances, salt-based solutions.
That mixture is then added to a foreign cell culture consisting of, typically, monkey kidney cells coming from an adult green monkey, okay?
They then add Delbeco's Minimal Essential Medium, or Earl's Minimal Essential Medium, or Delbeco's Modified Eagle Medium, which are essentially food sources for the cell.
They then will add trypsin sometimes, sometimes they won't, and trypsin breaks down proteins.
They'll then add more gentamicin and more amphotericin B. They'll then add penicillin, streptomycin, and then they'll add fetal bovine serum, which is another food source for the cell.
The cell experiences what's called the cytopathic effect, or the cells experience a cytopathic effect where they break down into a bunch of fragments after they've had all this stuff added to it with, again, fluid from a sick person assumed to contain a virus, right?
After the cell experiences the cytopathic effect, they then collect the sample and prepare it for electron microscopy.
Electron micrograph images are produced and then they point to the particles on the images and say, ah, these are viruses.
So how does that relate to what I just described with the ping pong ball on the brick wall?
Anyone?
How old are you?
You're 11.
This is amazing, yeah.
How come she's the first one to answer?
You guys are all so conditioned.
Yes, correct!
They break down the brick wall before they even insert the ping pong ball.
They add all the other stuff, right?
All the other stuff is added to the monkey kidney cell, and then it's not assumed to contain a virus, but never verified.
They're poisoning the cell.
They're starving the cell, because actually, when it comes to fetal bovine serum, or sometimes, Dulbecco's minimal essential medium, they'll reduce the nutrient intake when they add the sample from a sick person.
So, they're starving the cells and poisoning the cells.
We're going to get into details on how they poison the cells, but first, I want to cover this.
So, there's three major branches of science.
This is where science kind of becomes self-refuting.
So, for today, though, we're going to focus on natural science.
So natural science is the study of natural phenomena, right?
It's literally just the study of natural phenomena, and when looking at the three branches of science, this is where science is self-refuting, the only branch of science that employs the scientific method is natural science.
So you're simply trying to ascertain what causes an observed natural phenomenon, right?
So you see something happening in nature, you're trying to figure out what causes that phenomenon, right?
So the scientific method, we all learned this in grade school, you've probably learned this, right?
A little bit by now?
Okay, scientific method.
The method of discovering knowledge about the natural world.
Okay, so here's the steps of the scientific method.
Observe a natural phenomenon, right?
And you formulate a hypothesis.
And in the case of This, it might be, my observed natural phenomenon is two or more people getting sick in the same space with similar symptoms.
That's an observed natural phenomenon, right?
So then you develop a hypothesis, which is a proposed explanation for the phenomenon, right?
In this case, it might be, I think a particle in the fluids of these people is causing them to become sick, right?
That might be your hypothesis.
Good.
In order to proceed to experimentation, you need to have the thing you think is causing that phenomenon by itself to vary and manipulate to see if it produces the effect that you are seeing.
You guys following what I'm saying there?
You need to have the thing you think is the cause by itself completely to then see if it produces the effect.
People getting sick in this case, right?
Okay, you guys get that?
Get that?
Again, to reiterate, the thing you think is the cause of the observed phenomenon is the independent variable.
You're varying and manipulating that to see if it produces the effect, the observed natural phenomenon, or the dependent variable.
So, it might be the particles from the fluids.
But the problem is, with virology, is they have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, in the history of virology, taken particles directly from the fluids of a sick person.
Ever.
Without first combining the fluids with other sources of genetic material, like I described in that experiment.
So they assume the virus is in the fluids, without ever verifying it.
They assume the virus has an effect.
The cell culture obviously contains too many confounding variables.
They proceed to experimentation, which would be the next step in the scientific method, without ever having the independent variable, the thing they think is the cause, the most important piece.
They don't have it, and they already proceed to this, add a bunch of other stuff to the cell culture, and then it produces an effect.
And then the other problem with that is, There's no proper control experiments conducted, and I'll get to that in a minute.
So, virology does not adhere to the scientific method.
And we've gone through back and forth with virologists and molecular biologists, myself, Mike Stone, Dr. Tom Cowen, Dr. Andy Kaufman, Sending them like a screenshot of the scientific method, and we say, what's that?
And they say, oh yeah, it's the scientific method.
I'm like, okay, can you show me one paper in modern virology where they do that?
They'll send one of the viral isolation papers that I just showed, and I'm like, no, no, no.
You proceeded to that step without ever having the thing.
And they're like, well, what?
You don't agree with all of cell biology then?
I'm like, yeah, you're right.
I don't agree with all of cell biology.
Okay, so pseudoscience consists of, and there's multiple definitions for this, is essentially anything that is claiming to be scientific while failing to adhere to the scientific method.
Virology, because they do not have an independent variable, and they do not conduct proper control experiments, is by definition, by their own definition, pseudoscience.
So it's funny they call all of us, you know, you practice, you believe in pseudoscience, and the very foundation of everything that happened over the last three and a half years, the entire vaccine program, all of it, is based in this.
By definition, pseudoscience.
Yeah, double speak.
Exactly.
Are you guys following along with what I'm saying so far?
Okay.
Actually, I know we don't have time for questions.
If you have a question pertaining to the slide, not about like, oh, okay, like what causes illness.
If it's pertaining to the slide, please raise your hand and I'll try to answer it.
So, a scientific theory is an explanation of the aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method.
So, is it really germ theory?
And again, we're not going to go into bacteria today, but this also applies to bacteria too.
As crazy as that sounds.
So, is the germ theory really a theory?
Has it been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method?
No, it's the germ hypothesis.
Yes?
In an isolated form and shown that it causes illness in a healthy person.
Correct.
That is true.
I know that's mind-blowing.
I have a whole series that I made on this that... Who watched the end of COVID?
Anyone in here?
There's a lot more people that need to.
Katie, do you have the flyers to pass out?
Yes, they have isolated bacteria.
Bacteria absolutely exist.
Yes, correct, correct.
In a healthy person.
In a healthy person, yeah, correct.
Most people aren't healthy.
That's true, that's true.
I'm curious to show off what the person said.
Exactly, and who understands pleomorphism in here?
That is something that you need to understand, it's really cool actually.
Okay, can we do a scientific experiment on Santa Claus?
No, we can't, because you have to first have Santa Claus, right?
In order to conduct a scientific experiment on him, right?
Right?
Okay, so we cannot conduct a scientific experiment on Santa Claus.
So this comes from a quote from Dr. Stefan Lanke.
He's a German virologist, or he'll say former virologist because virology is not a true field.
In every single photograph of a virus, you will find that it's from a cell culture, but never from the blood, never from the saliva, never from the semen, never from another liquid of the body, not from a human, not from an animal, not from a plant.
Every single one of these images that you see shown all over the news, and scientists and doctors talk about them, every single one comes from the experiment that I just described.
Never, ever, ever has there been a virus imaged in the fluids of a sick person.
Ever.
Is that mind-blowing?
Right?
That's crazy, right?
It's crazy to me.
Okay, one more time back to the ping-pong ball and the brick wall analogy.
So, I'm going to take it a step further than Dr. Cowan and Sally did in their book, in that the ping-pong ball you know is actually there.
It's there in the experiment, so you could make argument, it'd be ridiculous, you could make an argument that it caused the brick wall to fall down, because you actually have the ping-pong ball.
With viruses, they don't even know that they're in the fluids of a sick person.
It is literally an assumed theoretical thing.
Completely an assumption.
They don't even know that it's actually there, and then they proceed to do all these things that I just described a second ago.
Okay, so when you, you know, I was going through a lot of cognitive dissonance when I first learned this stuff, and I'm like, dang, like, there's got to be an explanation for this, like, okay, I'm going to ask some virologists that I find.
Why viruses cannot be isolated directly from the fluids of a sick person without being combined with other sources of genetic material and other toxins, etc., etc., And when you ask a virologist or a molecular biologist this, they'll say, the virus is too weak to isolate or purify directly from the fluids.
And I thought about that, I'm like, too weak?
A thing that lands on a surface, survives on a surface for upwards of two to three days, makes it all the way to a body, makes it to a cell, breaks into the cell, hijacks the cell's machinery, begins a replication process that overwhelms the body, it's excreted out of that person where it repeats the same process over?
But then it's too weak?
To isolate directly from the fluids?
So it does all of those things?
Sounds pretty strong to me, but then you can't isolate it directly from the fluids of a sick person?
Does that make any sense?
No.
Okay.
And then they'll say that there's not enough virus present in the fluids to isolate or purify it.
What's a high viral load?
Or like, isn't this supposed to be a submicroscopic particle that's extremely deadly?
There's not enough of it in the fluids to isolate or purify?
And Dr. Count and Andy Kaufman have talked about this, where they've asked the virologist, okay, what if I mashed up the fluids of ten people?
Would there be enough virus in that case?
And he's like, no.
Okay, what about a hundred people?
Fluid from a hundred people.
Would there be enough virus particles there?
No.
A thousand?
No.
Ten thousand?
No.
And then the guy just stopped answering.
That doesn't make any sense, right?
A virus needs a host in order to replicate, so that's why we use the cell culture.
This logic is absurd to me because, again, if the virus is in the fluids of a sick person, you should be able to find it directly in the fluids of a sick person without combining it with other sources of genetic material and other toxins and things like this.
And the last one is you're not a virologist, you don't get to determine what isolation you're in.
Yeah, that's a funny one.
OK, so other components of cell culture media.
So we're going to get into detail on some of the things that they add.
So I know we're not supposed to be using our phones.
We see all of you.
Look at all of you millennials.
Actually, it's a bunch of older people that are using their phones.
I don't want to assume your age.
Not on her phone.
Look at her, just paying attention.
If you could though, I want someone to type in on Google or DuckDuckGo, they're both compromised at this point, but type in Amphotericin B toxic kidneys and you tell me, someone shout it out, you tell me what you find when you type in Amphotericin B toxic kidneys.
Because you will find that Amphotericin B is known to be cytotoxic to kidneys specifically.
It is known to cause renal failure.
Penicillin, streptomycin, it's there to prevent bacterial growth in the culture.
There's a reason that they add these things, right?
And you can see those listed.
Gentamicin, it can cause kidney damage as well.
You look up gentamicin, toxic kidneys, and you'll find the same thing.
Hepes, I don't know if that's how you pronounce it.
Hepes?
Hepes?
I don't know.
Trypsin is the other big one that they add a lot of time.
There's actually, there is a virus isolation study, and this is just the absurd logic that they do, where they first did not add trypsin, right?
They did all the things, but they did not add trypsin.
And then when the cells experienced a cytopathic effect, there was no characteristic spike protein.
So they went back, and then they added trypsin, and trypsin breaks down proteins, and then the cytopathic effect was produced.
And then they were like, oh, voila, now it's SARS-CoV-2, we got it!
We got the right virus.
What?
Makes no sense.
Did anyone find any results?
Did anyone Google it?
How can anybody get the right virus?
That's...
It's no virus.
Exactly.
She already got it.
You want to come give this talk?
Come on.
She must be homeschooled.
You homeschool her?
Of course.
Of course.
It says acute kidney injury is a relatively common complication of amphotericin B.
Acute kidney injury is a relatively common complication of amphotericin B.
So let's think about this again.
What are they adding this to?
A monkey kidney cell.
And they're assuming that it has no effect except for to keep the culture sterile and free of fungal growth, and then for Gentamicin or Geneticin, free of bacterial growth.
They assume that, and I get where they're coming from, right?
I don't think all virologists are in on this grand scheme.
It's just that they've been taught this method to isolate, and they don't know better.
It's when you're taught something as fact, and it's repetitive, and it's, you know, shared with you, like, this is how we isolate viruses, this is what we do.
But they overlooked this, because Amphotericin B, just as she said, is known to be cytotoxic to kidneys.
And they're adding it to a monkey kidney cell, assuming that it has no effect on the culture, except for to keep it free of fungal growth.
Same with Gentamicin or Geneticin.
So this study, our results indicate that the use of Amphotericin B may facilitate influenza virus isolation and production in Vero cells.
In other words, Amphotericin B is very toxic, so it leads to cell degradation.
Right?
That's what's happening.
Yeah, Amphotericin B helps the facilitation of isolating viruses.
What that means is it helps facilitate in cellular breakdown.
Gentamicin.
Our data revealed that gentamicin has a significant cytotoxic and adverse effect on the cell viability.
Again, same thing.
It facilitates in cellular degradation.
And they're adding this to monkey kidney cells, typically.
Sometimes embryo cells or fetal cells.
Fetal bovine serum.
This one's really messed up.
Fetal bovine serum is a common component of animal cell culture media.
It is harvested from bovine fetuses taken from pregnant cows during slaughter.
FBS is commonly harvested by means of a cardiac puncture without any form of anesthesia.
Fetuses are probably exposed to pain and or discomfort, so the current practice of fetal bovine harvesting is inhumane.
Like, we talk about, like, dark rituals, like, that sounds like one to me.
Okay, so they do all those things, right, and then they prepare the sample for electron microscopy, and then they produce these electron micrograph images, of which we've seen shared all over the world.
So, a biologist by the name of Harold Hillman has published, unfortunately I think Harold Hillman has passed away, but he's published many critiques of modern cell biology, showing that it's all based in unproven assumptions.
So, when a tissue is prepared for electron microscopy, an animal is killed, the tissue is excised, it is fixed, frozen, embedded, sectioned, rehydrated, stained, mounted, radiated by light, or bombarded by electron beams.
If I were to do that to any of you sitting in this room, would you look like you did before?
No, absolutely not.
So when we have any electron micrograph images of any biological samples, it produces an unknown number of what's called artifacts.
Meaning, what we're looking at, we don't know that it actually looks like that in nature, because we've already done all this stuff to it.
So we're looking at an artifact of what may be something.
We don't know if this is an artifact of the process, preparation process for electron microscopy itself.
So any of these electron micrograph images that we see, we cannot trust them.
Absolutely not.
I mean, and then think about the thought that you can excise tissue from a complex physical, emotional, chemical, spiritual, electric, biological being, throw a bunch of stuff in it, and then assume that that tells you anything about what's happening in the human body.
It's absurd.
It's cringe.
I like you.
You're going to be on this stage in like three years.
Okay, and then the other problem with that, appearances can be deceiving.
So this was published in Kidney 360.
We have observed morphologically indistinguishable inclusions within podocytes and tubular epithelial cells, both in patients negative for coronavirus disease 2019, as well as in renal biopsies from the pre-COVID-19 era.
Essentially what that's saying is, That they are observing morphologically indistinguishable particles from what virologists refer to as SARS-CoV-2 to these renal biopsies in people prior to the COVID era and people during the COVID era who tested negative, which means nothing.
There's no such thing as a false positive.
It's just false.
It's scientifically and diagnostically meaningless, the tests.
And that's not the only one.
Electron microscope images in the figures 3A through C do not demonstrate coronaviruses.
Rather, the structures described as viruses are clathrin-coated vesicles.
Likewise, that article shows only normal cell structures that, to the non-electron microscopist virologists, even virologists will say that they can't distinguish though, may resemble coronaviruses.
Most of the published images, these are different studies on each of these slides, most of the published images depicting the suspected virus are very similar, if not identical, to multivesicular bodies.
So again, we cannot trust this.
Think about it.
After doing all those things, assuming that there's a virus in the fluids, right, never validating that it's there, Throwing all that stuff on a cell culture, which negates the technique itself, it's absurd.
Then they take that and they dehydrate it, they heat it, stain it, bombard it with electron beams.
And then they expect us to believe.
And this is the foundational evidence for all of modern virology.
Is that shocking?
Shocking, right?
We believe the EM images and the correspondence do not show coronavirus particles, but instead show cross-sections of the rough endoplasmic reticulum.
I respectfully offer an alternative interpretation of the data.
The structures identified as SARS-CoV-2 virions look exactly like clathrin-coated pits or vesicles.
We have countless examples of this.
These are all supposed to be different viruses.
Yeah, there's no distinction between them.
There's no distinction between them.
Okay, so you might be asking right now, where the hell did they come up with this?
I know I did.
Okay, so in the 1950s, a guy by the name of John Franklin Enders set out to discover what was causing the phenomenon of measles.
And again, we're distinguishing between cause and effect here.
The effect of measles is real.
You can see it.
But we're trying to figure out what is the cause of that observed natural phenomenon.
So, understandably, he took throat washings, blood, feces from measles patients, mixed them with the following in the experimental procedure.
And if you go read his paper, you look at the method section, you're like, This is absurd.
Milk, penicillin, streptomycin, heparin, bovine amniotic fluid, beef embryo extract, horse serum, more antibiotics, phenol reds, soybean trypsin, formalin, hematoxylin, eosin, all on a rhesus monkey kidney cell, and the cytopathic effect was observed.
Right?
That makes sense, right?
Milk.
They actually had some of the people gargle milk before taking their sample, too.
This is the problem, though.
John Franklin Enders conducted somewhat of a control experiment, meaning he did the exact same thing, except for he did not have throat, blood, and feces samples coming from a person with measles, right?
So he did the exact same thing, exact same procedure, with no sample from a sick person present, so no possible source of what would be called the measles virus.
And what he found was, A second agent was obtained from an inoculated culture of monkey kidney cells.
The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparations could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses, see how he's already assuming, which is circular reasoning, from the viruses isolated from measles.
Essentially what he's saying there is that when he did the control experiment, this exact same effect occurred.
And it could not be distinguished from when he included a throat, blood, or feces sample coming from a person with measles.
Which should have been the end of virology right there, but somehow this was ushered in because he also went on to develop the measles vaccine, and he was given a Nobel Prize.
So all of this was sort of ushered in with a modern variation for all of modern virology.
Yes?
Is this paragraph in the Andrews paper?
Yeah, it is.
He asked if this paragraph was in the English paper.
Yes, it is.
Okay, so in modern, during the COVID era, that virologist who I quoted earlier by the name of Stefan Lanke has conducted a modern form of a control experiment.
Now, I want to preface this by saying virologists will refer sometimes in a paper to what's called a mock infected culture.
The problem with the mock-infected culture is, as Dr. Mark Bailey has, if you ask virologists, because they don't share exactly what occurs with a mock-infected culture, they just say, a mock-infected culture was done, no cytopathic effect was observed, although they'll say a cytopathic effect was observed a number of days later.
But when you ask them if they did the exact same thing, In the mock-infected culture, which they always say, we do conduct control experiments as a mock-infected culture.
When you ask them, they, as they did with Mark, shared that they put less antibiotics and less antimicrobics on the mock-infected culture.
So that is not a proper control experiment.
And the reason behind it, according to them, is like, well, we're not including a sample from a person, so there's not going to be as much bacteria and fungi in the sample.
So we don't need to put as much amphotericin B and gentamicin on the mock infected culture.
But that's not a proper control experiment, because you're not treating the control experiment in an identical way to the experimental culture.
And further, the other problem with that is, and Stefan Lanke didn't do this, and I'll get to this in a second, and he still showed that it's nonsense.
In modern virology, it would make sense that if we're making concessions and saying, okay, you know what, we'll play with you for a second.
You're saying that you can't isolate it directly from the fluids of a sick person, so you're just putting the fluids, assuming containing the virus, from a sick person on there.
Wouldn't a proper control experiment be, in that case, again, making concessions, to take fluids from a healthy person and put them on the control?
They don't even do that.
Right?
But what Stefan Lanca did is he did the exact same procedure that virologists do in the modern era, and that's on the third and fourth one, cell culture with minimal nutrient medium, 1% fetal bovine serum, and three antibiotics.
And the exact same cytopathic effect occurred, and there was no possible sample of SARS-CoV-2 present.
And again, remember, this is what virologists refer to as the evidence for viruses.
He did the exact same thing as modern virologists in their cell culture isolation experiments, and got the exact same result, but there was no possible source of SARS-CoV-2 or other viruses present.
And for the sake of this presentation, I'm not going to be able to get into sequencing, and I'm not going to be able to get into PCR, but I'll get to that at the end, a resource where you can look into that extensively.
Okay, so has anyone heard of Christine Massey?
Every hand should be up.
Okay.
Christine Massey is a lady based out of Canada who has submitted over 218 Freedom of Information requests to various governments and health institutions across the world.
And in her Freedom of Information requests, she types this.
All records in the possession of custody or control of the Center for Disease Control, or if she is, you know, sending it to another health agency, she'll put that, describing the isolation of a SARS-CoV-2 virus directly from a sample taken from a disease patient where the patient sample was not first combined with any other sources of genetic material, i.e., monkey kidney cells, varro cells, lung cells, et cetera, et cetera.
Please note that I am using isolation in the everyday sense of the word.
The act of separating things from everything else.
I'm not requesting records where, quote, isolation of SARS-CoV-2 refers instead to the culturing of something, or the performance of an amplification test, or the sequencing of something.
So essentially, she's saying, not those isolation papers that I shared earlier in my presentation.
I want evidence that it's taken directly from the fluids of a sick person.
A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request.
And every single time she has asked this of government and health institutions around the world, 218 now, every single one of them has come back with no records found.
Zero records of SARS-CoV-2, and she's done it for other viruses too, and every single one comes back with no records found.
Okay, so now we're going to get into formal science, which is the study of formal systems, such as those under the branches of logic and mathematics.
And they don't employ the scientific method, they've employed what's called an a priori.
So what, in order to, I haven't really come to form a good definition or found a good definition for logic, but we can sort of get to what is true by determining what isn't true, what isn't a justifiable argument.
So what isn't logic?
You guys are familiar with what a logical fallacy is, I'm assuming.
It's a failure in reasoning or flawed, deceptive, or false arguments that can be proven wrong with reasoning.
So, appeal to authority.
Robert Malone is a vaccinologist and he says the virus has been isolated, so you're wrong.
That's an appeal to authority.
Yeah, so this is a great question.
So she's referring to the patents of the virus.
That is patents of sequences, right?
And I don't cover sequences during this presentation, but we do cover that in a series that I put together that I'll share at the end called The End of COVID.
But of note, Dr. David Martin, I interviewed him recently and it was a very challenging interview because I was asking a very direct question the whole time and he was Not really willing to answer it, but then he finally did answer when I said, is there, has there ever been a virus or another particle that is being passed from person to person?
And David Martin clarified that when he's talking about a bioweapon, there has never been a particle passed from person to person causing disease.
So when he's referring to a bioweapon, he's talking about the shots.
He said that on my podcast.
Did anyone watch that episode?
I was so sweaty on that episode.
I was sweating so bad.
It was so challenging.
But he did say that.
He said that there is no, there has not ever been a particle being passed from person to person.
The bioweapon is the shots.
Bandwagon fallacy.
The overwhelming majority of experts believe the virus has been isolated, so you're wrong.
That's a bandwagon fallacy.
Wait for you guys to take pictures.
Burden of proof fallacy.
Well, where's your proof that the virus doesn't exist?
That would be akin to me saying, where's your proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist?
Where's your proof that a unicorn with lasers for eyes doesn't exist?
It sounds absurd when I say those, but when I say, where's your proof the virus doesn't exist, we kind of think that because we're so entrained to believe that viruses exist, so then we immediately jump to when you point to this presentation, well, where's your proof that they don't exist?
That's a burden of proof fallacy.
The burden of proof lies on those making the positive claim.
The positive claim is viruses exist and cause disease.
They need to show proof of that claim.
They have never shown proof of that claim.
Begging the question of circular reasoning.
So, it's essentially when your conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.
Right?
We go back to Ender's paper as an example.
He already assumed that the cytopathic effect was viruses.
So he went into the experiment already assuming that viruses were what he was going to find, or something like named viruses.
And that's the other tricky thing.
The original term virus meant poison.
And so you could kind of say that when the so-called health authorities are saying there's a virus spreading, that maybe they're telling the truth.
Maybe they're going with the original definition.
I don't think it's spreading, but there is a prevalence, a high prevalence of viruses or poisons in our environment.
So, viruses make people sick.
I'm sick, so it must have been a virus.
I see a lot of people say this, like, well, I'm sicker than I've ever been, or I was sicker than I've ever been, I don't discount that, so it must have been a virus.
I know the virus is real.
That's what's called an Affirming the Consequent Logical Fallacy.
In order to show that X exists and causes Y, you need to have direct proof that X exists and causes Y. You can't point to Y, or the phenomenon of illness, and say that that is proof of X, absent of first establishing proof of X. You guys following what I'm saying on that?
It's like if you, the example that's always used, if you go outside and you say, oh my car is wet, that means without question that it rained.
It's like, wait, you look down the street and there's no other cars wet.
You first have to establish rain to then say that my car is wet.
It could indicate that your car was rained on, but you first need to establish that there was rain, right?
Your car can be wet for a number of other reasons.
Reification fallacy.
So this is assigning any characteristics or attributes to viruses, to something that is still fundamentally abstract.
So when people say, well, virus mutates, we're on a new variant of a virus, the virus causes X, Y, and Z symptoms.
That's called a reification fallacy because you're assigning characteristics to something, you're trying to reify, bring into existence something that is still fundamentally an abstract concept.
Because that's what it is.
So if not a virus, what's making us sick?
That's the question.
Or what happened over the last three and a half years?
People always ask this.
This is not an exhaustive list.
There are so many other things in our environment, in our lives, that are causing us to become sick, and in our minds that are causing us to become sick.
But we're so myopically focused on this unproven paradigm, even in the alternative health space, that we don't look at the other possibilities of what is causing us to become ill.
Yeah, but all this stuff has been happening for years.
Yeah.
What happened with us being sick in the last three years happened kind of definitively very quickly.
Where this has been an effect for a long time.
Are you familiar with the placebo or nocebo effect, or psychosomatics?
What happens when you are conditioned repetitively through fear and you're shown a death ticker and then you're like, okay, something doesn't feel right, but oh my god, my neighbor's doing it too, they're doing it too, they're all afraid, oh my god.
That makes the appearance of something being real.
Absolutely.
I completely agree.
And what Josh said yesterday about 5G, I'm so glad that he said it, because someone said, well, do you think 5G caused COVID?
He said, I think it is one of many toxins in our environment, because what happens when we are Conditioned into this reductionist thinking where when we come to understand that viruses don't exist and viruses have never been proven to cause any disease, we tend to think in terms of, in a very simple way, where we then insert, oh, it must be 5G causing this phenomenon, right?
But when it comes to our health, there's an infinite number of things unique to the individual that are causing that individual to become sick.
So yes, there are some epidemiological studies That show a strong correlation between prevalence of millimeter wave technology and symptoms of illness.
But a lot of the times this is where it gets tricky.
They're testing positive for COVID and that means nothing.
I like to look at it as from a sort of like zoomed out lens that when you're in big cities, because that's the other thing, there tends to be more millimeter wave technology in big cities.
You're also prone to air pollutants.
You're prone to just being around other people's negative energy.
You're likely not going to be connected to nature, grounding on the earth.
So your likelihood of getting sick is a little bit higher than if you live closer to nature and away from all these non-native electromagnetic fields.
Yes.
Amen.
Amen. - And how we get a sleep at the wheel.
Amen.
It's forced all of us to look within ourselves and evaluate our whole lives, and it's brought out a lot of the stuff.
I mean, for me, I know it's brought out a lot of emotional stuff.
Oh my gosh, I don't have... Okay, I can do like two more, then I gotta keep going, because there's still a lot more.
Yes, you had your hand raised next.
Yep.
Yeah, we have a whole session on that during the end of COVID, like an hour and a half session during the end of COVID on the test.
Yeah, there's a session that's called PCR, and we have a molecular biologist who's used PCR since 1995 that shares exactly what's going on.
that shares exactly what's going on.
Yes?
Yes. - The problem that I have with this is that certain very distinct patterns were experienced. - We cover that during the end of COVID too.
In depth.
I've had a lot of people say that.
Well, like, how do you experience prolonged loss of taste and smell and things like this?
We have a whole session just on COVID symptoms.
We have a whole session on COVID psychosomatics.
We have several sessions on this, and I'll get to that at the end.
I can't ask other questions.
I will try to answer them at the end, I promise.
Okay.
But Jack got sick right after Sally at daycare.
How do you explain that?
And you know, look, I'm a dad.
I have two kids.
Our kids all tend to get sick one right after the other, and it's like, uh, this seems like there's something being passed here, right?
But the thing that we have to establish is that in the countless experimental attempts to prove that disease is spread via the fluids of a sick person, every single one of them has failed.
So, if we look at the Spanish Flu, this is one of the most popular ones.
A guy by the name of Milton Rosenau conducted a series of experiments where he exposed some volunteers to the secretions of, or directly to patients that were Spanish Flu patients using various methods.
So he took secretions from a Spanish Flu patient, like nasal secretions, and swabbed them up their nose.
He took infected Spanish Flu blood, injected it directly into these healthy volunteers.
He had several of the volunteers go into a Spanish Flu ward, shake hands, hug, talk at close range, had them open mouth cough into their face.
And it turns out, and again, this is at the height of the Spanish Flu, That none of the volunteers in these experiments developed influenza.
There's a hundred volunteers.
And you could say, okay, well, that's one experiment.
What if they already had antibodies?
And again, we have a whole session on antibodies during the end of COVID-2.
The problem with that is, in every other example, they have failed to produce, or failed to show, that disease is spread via the fluids of a sick person.
These are other experiments.
0 out of 50 men became sick.
In the 1919 one, 0 out of 6 men became sick.
In this one, this one is super interesting, and this goes back to this, right?
There was a control group that was given a saline placebo.
More people became sick when exposed to the saline placebo than those who were exposed to the fluids of a sick person.
Think about that.
The power of this right here to produce real effects.
And again, I could go through countless examples of this.
And during the end of COVID, we have a session called The Proof of Contagion that is an hour and a half going into details of all of these experiments.
And we've documented over 50 of them.
Now, again, Biologists, molecular biologists, immunologists will claim, well, we have proven contagion.
And yeah, what they'll do, who is at the end of COVID viewing for the gain-of-function one?
You guys see like those ferret experiments, how absurd they were?
How completely unscientific they were?
What they typically do is they'll take like a rat that was raised in a lab environment, Possibly exposed to other experiments, living under fluorescent lights, isolated from other rats, not eating a diet that's typical of rats, not living in nature, and then take unfiltered fluid from a sick person and pump its stomach full of an absurd amount of it via injection, or pour it down the rat's throat, the rat will sometimes get sick, or then it'll die, and they'll claim, voila, this proves contagion.
It's absurd.
And in the natural, what would be considered natural routes of transmission, according to their hypothesis, every time they have done that, and even in some unnatural cases, like injecting Spanish Flu blood directly into people, they cannot replicate the symptoms of illness.
So when we're talking about Jack getting sick after Sally, or like, I experienced something that I've never felt before, I don't deny that.
But we cannot possibly turn to this paradigm and say that that's the reason why, that they were exposed to the fluids of another person, when there is zero scientific proof of it.
Zero.
You know, they'll claim science doesn't determine proof, but zero scientific evidence of it.
So I don't... We cover that during the end of COVID, too.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay.
The appearance of contagion.
So what is happening?
So first off, falsification does not require replacement.
What that means is that if they are the one making the positive claim of something, if I'm just showing that their so-called evidence is not real, I'm not required to come up with a better explanation for that.
But, pragmatically, it makes sense to give other possible explanations.
So most likely, it's exposure to similar toxins.
Similar eating habits, shared emotional trauma, fear slash belief, shared exposure to non-native electromagnetic fields, and then other possibilities, mirror neurons, pheromones, bioresonance.
We all have, and the National Institute of Health has established this, a measurable and observable electromagnetic field that surrounds our body called the human biofield.
We know this.
And we know that electromagnetic fields have the ability to interact and communicate and share information.
We are so caught up in the materialistic sciences trying to find a particle for everything.
They can't figure out what causes the effect known as gravity, so they come up with a theoretical particle called a graviton.
That's what modern science is trapped in, materialism.
They look hyper-focused at the materialism, trying to find a particle to explain something that can be explained very easily when looking at the sort of metaphysical side of things, the electromagnetic fields that surround our body.
Why do women's menstrual cycles sink?
Is that caused by a virus?
No.
Why do we feel someone's bad vibes?
We can just feel it.
And I have a hypothesis, because my wife who's sitting there has the strongest intuition ever, that women, because they have a tendency to sync up on menstrual cycles, that their Human biofield, this is my hypothesis, their intuition is much stronger, which is why women tend to be impacted by other people's biofields or by other women.
Or when it comes to, you know, the phenomenon of, quote, shedding, which I do not think there is any physical particle being shed there, it's that women are getting mixed signals from other people's biofields who've received the shots, which is why it's more common for women to experience issues with that, right?
Why do I yawn after you yawn?
Why do trees shed their leaves in the same time?
We call it flu season here after we've had Halloween, after we've had Thanksgiving, we're around a bunch of family members we don't want to be around.
We've had Christmas, we have New Years, we have these holidays when we're inside, not out in the sun as much, and then we get sick and we're like, Must have been that damn virus after I was next to Josie.
Like, no!
You were inside a bunch more, but even if you didn't do any of that, like, I didn't drink on any of those days.
Alec, what are you talking about?
It could be seasonal, just like the trees shed their leaves.
When the weather changes, maybe to prepare for winter, when our bodies know that we're going to be exposed to the sun less and know that we're going to be inside more, we're shedding out all the stuff that we need to shed out so that it builds up over time during the winter.
And in the spring, what happens again?
We tend to get sick, sick in the fall and in the spring.
There's a pretty distinct pattern there.
And it makes sense seasonally, if you really think about it.
But we're so entrained to focus on this unproven paradigm.
Yes?
Yeah.
Yeah, those months people are eating a lot of sugar.
Exactly.
Conflict shock.
Yeah.
So we have a whole session on German new medicine.
I think we have a session for like literally everything from the end of COVID.
But yes, conflict shock.
Yeah.
So who's familiar with Veda Austen or Masaru Omoto?
Right.
So we're made up of two thirds of our weight is water.
Over 9 out of 10 molecules in our body, molecules in our body, are water molecules.
And if you're familiar with the work of Masaru Moto, Veda Austen takes his work and expands upon it in an incredible way, making it More accessible to all of us.
And when we talk about empirical evidence, she's teaching these methods in workshops to people all over the world who are repeating and getting the exact same results.
That is empirical evidence.
That is the definition of science in my mind.
So, essentially what Veda does is she takes water in a Petri dish and exposes it to a thought, a frequency, a song, a feeling that she's feeling.
She projects what she's thinking onto the water with intention, to music, to a written word, to a picture.
Has a friend thousands of miles away think about something very specific, not telling her, and set the intention to project it on her water.
And then when she freezes it, It reflects back its own artistic interpretation of what it just saw.
And again, this is being repeated, and this may sound woo-woo to you, but it's being repeated in experiments all over the world.
And then some PhD water scientists, Gilbert Ling and...
What's the other one?
Yeah, Gerald Polk.
My goodness, I couldn't think of the name.
I interviewed him.
And he was also part of the end of COVID.
Have also helped lend credence to this, that water is able to store and retain information and transmit and receive information and reflect back its environment.
So these are some of the examples of Veda's work.
And she exposed water as an example to that picture of her friend.
And then water reflected back that image.
Here's some more examples.
Pretty amazing, right?
Can you guys see that okay?
Okay.
So Veda spoke at an event that I held in March of 2022 on a regenerative farm in Fillmore, California.
And she took some eggs from that farm.
And so when she cracks open a caged egg, it typically looks like the top left image when she freezes the albumen of the egg.
In a state of discord, not a lot of coherence to the structure, right?
But when she takes a free-range egg and does the same thing, which is the middle picture in the upper part, that's what a free-range egg looks like when she cracks it open and frees the album.
And it has coherence, it has this beautiful crystallographic pattern, right?
So what Veda did is she took one caged egg and set it next to a free-range egg for some time.
and then crack them open.
And the caged egg in the top right picture, that's what it looked like after being in proximity to the free-range egg for a period of time.
And someone commented and said, yeah, but that's one example.
Come on, let's see you do it again.
So she took one free-range egg, one free-range egg, and surrounded it with 10 caged eggs.
Set one caged egg to the side as a control.
Crack them open, froze the albumen.
And if you see, the caged eggs, after being in proximity to the free-range egg, now had a more coherent structure in their albumen when frozen.
The bottom right is the caged egg that she set to the side as the control.
And the beautiful thing about this is she's had other people repeat this time and time again.
She's also done it with water, where she takes tap water, sets it next to spring water, and then after some time, freezes them, and the tap water now has a more coherent structure after being in proximity to the spring water.
So what are we made of?
Water.
Right.
Okay, and just like nature seeked harmony, seeked balance in that experiment with the eggs, why would we be any different?
When we're around each other in community, Wouldn't it possibly make sense that if I start experiencing symptoms of illness because I need to go through a detoxification process, that through my human biofield, I would communicate to other people around me, hey, I'm going through this.
Maybe if you've reached a certain threshold, you should go through it too.
And then if you don't have a certain threshold of toxicity, it's like, you know what?
I don't need to go through that so I don't get sick.
And then we say that that person has immunity, right?
You guys following?
A little bit?
And again, I want to say very clear, because I've had people, you know, J.J.
Cooey gave me crap for this, but I'm saying that this is my hypothesis, right?
This is my hypothesis, and I acknowledge that we haven't explored this adequately, and it's again, because, try to get a grant to prove that contagion is caused by this phenomenon.
Good luck.
So, we're so myopically focused on this unproven paradigm, again, based on materialism, based on reductionism, that we don't explore these other possible causes.
And then further, are symptoms of illness bad?
Are they something to fear?
Or is our body simply doing what it was designed to do?
Why are we so fearful when we get sick?
Because we've been conditioned to believe that, instead of understanding that, wow, This is my body doing exactly what it was designed to do.
My body is freaking brilliant and saying thank you when we experience symptoms of illness because it's our body doing what it's designed to do to heal.
Why is this important?
Truth is important.
Reality is important.
That's perfect timing.
Good.
And then the other piece is, like, people will be like, well, why do we focus on virus isolation, whether virus exists?
Like, can't we just focus on stopping tyranny?
Every single thing, everything that occurred over the last three and a half years is based in the idea that there was a virus.
Sounds pretty important to me, right?
I would think that we should probably uproot the whole paradigm because the entire vaccine paradigm, the entire CDC vaccine schedule that's poisoning kids and adults all over the world is rooted in this paradigm.
It's really important that we uproot this false paradigm.
In tyranny?
Oh yeah.
I gave a speech last weekend on... I gave a speech last weekend on statism.
On government.
So I also talk about that.
So much of allopathy is rooted in this false war-based paradigm.
A war on the virus.
A war on germs.
We're made up of germs.
We're made up of bacteria and fungi.
That's a war on us.
That's what they're saying.
They want us to go to war with ourselves and destroy ourselves for their false paradigm.
Symptoms are not something to fear.
Your body is doing exactly what it's supposed to do.
Okay, so this is the educational series that I put together called The End of COVID.
I'll go to this page.
Sally, you'll probably hate this, so I'm sorry, Sally, the QR code, but if you enter code WAPF at checkout, this series is over 90 videos covering every single topic When I say every single topic, every single topic related to the last three and a half years, down to details.
So all the things that I covered just in this presentation, we have 28 hours of it are just on virology.
That's how in-depth we go, and it features Dr. Tom Cowen, Dr. Andy Kaufman, Drs.
Mark and Sam Bailey, some molecular biologists, PhD researchers of various types.
So we go into great detail on all of these things, and it's extremely important that people understand what we present here, because the last half is focusing on solutions and a new paradigm of health.
And we go into government tyranny, too.
We actually partnered with an organization called The Sovereign's Way that teaches you, as a man or a woman, how to ensure your rights.
Backtrack to the situation with Kansas City.
I didn't have to find some non-profit, and I'm not hating on any non-profit organizations we were in, but I didn't have to find someone to represent me.
We all sat in the back room, wrote a 10-page notice, submitted it to the city of Kansas City.
They kicked us out.
They were in breach of contract because they violated the notice that we sent.
And then we held them accountable, the entire city on the back end, after being kicked out of this exact building, which is just so crazy to come full circle like that.
Yeah, thank you.
Don't tell anyone that I was kicked out before, because they might come, like, try to kick me out again.
So please check this out.
Please check out the end of COVID and I'm going to show you a clip from it.
And then also my organization, we have a membership where you pay whatever you want to be a part of it that gives you the opportunity to find other health and freedom oriented people near you.
Just type in your zip or postal code.
You can completely opt out of it if you don't want to give that information, but you can type in your zip or postal code and find other health and freedom oriented people near you.
We're planning on turning this into an app sometime soon.
So head to thewayforward.com to find that.
Okay, now I want to show, this is my, one of my favorite videos from the end of COVID.
And this is such an important video to uproot this false paradigm.
Let me see if I can maximize it.
If the following questions inspire curiosity, please share this video with others and ask them to join you on your journey of discovery.
What if my body is brilliant and everything it does is part of a strategy to survive and thrive?
What if every incomprehensibly intricate process my body attempts is simply its best path forward given whatever resources and roadblocks are present at the moment?
Given that billions of my cells purposefully die each day to brilliantly allow for constant growth and adaptation, and physical injuries, stress, and exposure to toxins result in additional cellular death, where does all that waste go if I'm not removing it as quickly as I'm producing it?
What happens inside my body when it holds too much waste for longer than it should?
Does this stagnant swamp of waste damage neighboring healthy tissue, producing a snowball effect of more and more cellular death as waste continues to pile up?
What strategies might my body use to get out of this vicious cycle?
What if my body recognizes only natural substances and gets confused by synthetic or highly processed things commonly consumed and absorbed, such as artificial flavors and colors, vegetable and seed oils, and microplastics?
How does my body deal with these substances when they too are part of the swamp?
Given that bacteria in my gut are critically important to the process of breaking down the dead cells of food that I consume, And bacteria have been discovered throughout all parts of a healthy human body.
Might bacteria also be helpful in breaking down my own dead cell waste as well?
What if the concept of good bacteria and bad bacteria is fundamentally wrong?
What if all bacteria are simply organisms designed to do one job, eat dead tissue, breaking it into smaller parts which can more readily be eliminated and returned to the Earth as part of the circle of life?
Given that bacteria produce their own waste in the process of metabolizing dead cells, what if bacteria are only problematic for my body when they produce too much waste as a result of being given a buffet of dead substances to consume?
What if bacteria and other microbes are the convenient scapegoat for the true underlying problem?
Excessive cell death, as caused by a variety of factors.
Metaphorically, what if bacteria don't cause the fire, but instead proliferate as nature's attempt to put the fire out?
What strategies might my body use to remove the combination of dead cell debris, microbial waste, and synthetic substances if I'm burdened with too many of them all at once?
What if I'm not adequately hydrating and my bowel movements are infrequent?
What if I'm not exercising enough to sweat out wastes?
What are the next steps my brilliant body might take to clean the swamp?
What if diarrhea and vomiting are strategies my body uses to remove wastes?
What if excessive phlegm and a runny nose is another?
What if the symptoms we commonly refer to as being, quote, sick, are actually just the necessary steps of healing?
What if taking medications designed to end the symptoms of sickness actually prevents my body from healing?
What if antibiotics kill my bacteria, which stops them from breaking down unwanted substances, which in turn terminates my natural cleansing process?
If my body is unable to remove excess waste via these, albeit unpleasant, symptoms, does it have no choice but to store them deeper?
If symptoms aren't the problem, but instead are the solution to something which previously occurred, what if all of modern medicine's efforts are misguided?
What if the dramatic increase in chronic ailments over the last century is at least partially due to advancements in suppressing short-term symptoms?
If my body is perpetually pushing waste deeper, Am I simply trading acute diseases for chronic ones, creating more severe outcomes as I kick the proverbial can further down the road?
What if the concept of specific diseases is wrong?
What if the root cause of all disease is the same, but the symptoms are different depending on an impossibly nuanced history of the individual?
Does this explain how positive results have been observed when treating many types of supposedly distinct diseases with simple water fasting protocols?
What if the cure for every disease is simply to remove excess waste and any other impediments, allowing our brilliant bodies to heal naturally?
What if that takes drastically longer for some people than others, depending on their unique history and lifestyle habits?
With so many variables, how could this idea ever be proven or disproven via clinical trials?
What if my mind is the most powerful part of my body and yet another variable?
As frequently demonstrated by placebo-controlled studies, thoughts are capable of producing physiological effects.
What happens to my body if I'm constantly thinking negative thoughts and harboring unprocessed negative emotions?
What if my body is designed to make my actions align with my beliefs?
Does this explain how hypochondriacs who believe they will fall victim to disease can experience measurable symptoms?
What if I believe that the symptoms I'm suffering from are incurable?
Can I actually prevent myself from completing the healing process?
Can I only truly be healthy when my mind allows it?
By what mechanism does a thought generate a material result?
For example, how does the mere observation of a stressful event cause my body to produce a stress hormone?
Where do the electrical fields generated by my body fit into this equation?
What does the constant bombardment of non-native electromagnetic fields do to my body's natural electrical balance?
How does my body react to a full day immersed in, for example, a Wi-Fi network?
Can these disharmonious frequencies disrupt my natural processes?
Can this be a co-factor in the creation of disease symptoms?
Given the complex electrical nature of all living organisms, and the evidence that frequency-based communication occurs between cells within my body, might immaterial communication between multiple bodies be possible?
Could frequencies coming into harmony with one another explain the phenomenon of menstrual cycle syncing?
Shouldn't I expect that many other things are being energetically communicated between living organisms as well?
If my body eliminates waste as part of its solution to an underlying problem, and this process resembles a cold or flu, is it possible that I'm capable of energetically communicating this helpful strategy with other people?
When they, too, begin presenting the same detoxification symptoms, wouldn't this appear exactly the same as what we currently call an infectious disease?
Is contagion actually just an intelligent communication process leading to mass healing?
Because not all people are in need of internal cleanse at the same time.
Does this explain why syncing frequencies wouldn't necessarily result in spreading the symptoms of disease?
Wouldn't this appear exactly the same as our current concept of immunity?
Because there are relatively few ways for my body to eliminate waste, can the differences in severity between various respiratory ailments, referred to as colds, flus, bronchitis, pneumonia, etc., be explained simply by differences in the amount of waste needing to be removed and how capable I am at completing this process without complications?
Given that virologists have never been able to find supposedly infectious virus particles in fluids taken from an ill person, only showing debris of unknown origin claimed to be viruses at the end stages of a laboratory process involving multiple inputs including toxic substances, is it possible that our current concept of a virus is just a story we never outgrew, originating from an inability to explain the phenomenon of contagion?
Given the various experiments from the early 1900s which failed to spread supposedly contagious diseases from one person to another, what if the simple answer to these failures is that they were working with the wrong foundational hypothesis?
And because these studies failed at proving their hypothesis, shouldn't alternative hypotheses have been thoroughly investigated over the last 100 years?
What if many doctors and scientists over the last century actually have done this work, recognizing the logical errors at the foundation of modern medicine?
What if, to the detriment of their careers, they've written many books and papers explaining how humanity has been misled?
Would I have heard about these people if my only source of health information came from school textbooks and advertiser-funded news?
And even if I had heard of them, would I have dismissed them as quacks because their ideas strayed from the norm?
What if the foundational principles of modern medicine have already been proven wrong?
Given the trillions of dollars wrapped up in pharmaceuticals, hospital systems, medical research, and insurance conglomerates, would this knowledge be suppressed?
Is the entire paradigm too big to fail?
Do the economic implications become so overwhelming that many are afraid to even entertain the notion of changing course?
What if well-intentioned professionals in various fields of healthcare asked themselves all of these questions?
What if they concluded that their careers were based on a series of incorrect assumptions presented as indisputable facts during their formal education and training?
Could they overcome this crisis of identity, coupled with the guilt from unwittingly leading patients in the wrong direction for years or decades?
Could they brave the financial ramifications of no longer practicing within the same broken system?
What if people everywhere, in unison, began to recognize that our bodies are brilliant?
That we are in control of our own health and are not relying on man-made inventions to fix supposed shortcomings of nature?
Instead, what if we looked at what we ate and drank?
And how we talked, thought, and felt?
What if we demanded that every dollar currently allocated to disease treatments was instead spent on cleaning our air, soil, and water?
What if we focused on removing any impediments standing in the way of how nature intended for our bodies to work?
What if we were no longer afraid of symptomatic people and instead embraced them?
What if the only bug we can spread is a communication strategy intended to resolve an underlying issue?
What if we said thank you when we began experiencing the symptoms of disease, recognizing them instead as signs of healing?
What if my body is brilliant?
And yours is too?
What would the world look like if we all realized this together?
Entirely too logical.
Can you hear me now?
Okay, so she gave me the sign that I'm out of time, so I don't think I'm going to be able to answer questions.
I'll stick around right here.
Please come check out our booth upstairs.
You can sign up to become a member of the Way Forward.
Again, paying whatever you want to be a part of it based on a value-for-value model.
We also have a bunch of merchandise, stickers for the end of COVID that are completely free.
Please take them, post them all over the place.
Over 110,000 people have watched the end of COVID, our full series, and it is incredible.
So we'd love to have more.
Thank you so much.
▲
Export Selection