All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 18, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
01:03:58
Germs Don’t Cause Disease with Andrew Kaufman, M.D.
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Vaccinated myself and took antibiotics and it wasn't really until I had been on this path of studying natural healing and I actually was researching climate change.
And in that space, there are a couple of Nobel Prize winners who have criticized the whole, you know, global warming narrative from a scientific point of view, and they're quite compelling.
And one of those turns out was Cary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR technique, which is, you know, pretty interesting and powerful technique for research in biology.
But he was talking about climate change and I was searching for his lecture about climate change to show someone that I was having a discussion with and when I searched for that Another video of his came up that was something like, couldn't find HIV.
So I'm like, oh, that's interesting.
What's that about?
So I listened to it and he told the story about how when he, someone approached him and said, you know, PCR could have applications in AIDS.
So we'd like to, you know, do some collaboration on that or we encourage you to apply it to that situation.
So he wanted to learn a bit about AIDS and he, you know, the, all the papers that he looked at, you know, start off with this premise that HIV caused AIDS.
So he said, all right, I'm going to, I'm going to write a paper, a manuscript or a grant proposal.
And I want to have the reference where it is, you know, the paper that established where HIV caused AIDS.
So he started just, you know, doing a regular lit search and he couldn't find it.
And he kept searching for like months and could not find the paper.
He looked like on the, you know, various websites that talked about AIDS, like in the CDC and such, could not find any reference which established HIV as the cause.
So after some time passed by, he bumped into Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who won the Nobel Prize also, but for discovering HIV, allegedly.
And so he went up to Professor Montagnier and said, Oh, I'm so glad to find you.
I've been searching for the paper that establishes HIV as a cause of AIDS.
You must know it since you discovered it.
Can you tell me?
And he told them about a paper that was not a scientific paper and didn't have any experiment that made that establishment.
And he was perplexed.
He's like, wow, the guy who discovered the virus can't even point me to the paper.
And after he thought about this some more, like the conclusion he had is that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, because if it did, where's the evidence?
And I thought this was quite interesting.
I only thought this has got to be unique to HIV at the time, and I kind of mentally filed it aside to come back to later.
And then, you know, come January, February of 2020, when There was started to be news reports, you know, people dropping to the ground in Wuhan, China and the zombie films.
And I traveled to the West Coast in early February of that year, and I saw all these Americans wearing masks at the airport in San Jose, and I was confused.
I was like, what's going on?
So I had to start looking into it.
And of course, it was related to this, you know, alleged new viral Disease and I said, all right, I'm going to do what Carrie Mullis did for HIV.
I'm going to find the paper that establishes that there is this virus and that it causes this disease.
And I went to the literature and, you know, found at this time, like there was only one paper published and there was one paper that was in process of being published, but there was an advanced manuscript available to read that wasn't fully edited yet.
So, I looked at those papers and I looked at the experiments and I'm like, these papers don't establish even that this virus exists and they didn't even purport to show that it caused a disease.
These were papers that were just, you know, basically stating they discovered this virus and in there they said it may be the cause of this new, you know, this disease which is like the flu.
But so I was kind of confused because I'm like, you know, this is weird.
They didn't actually do the experiment to discover the virus.
They did some other weird experiment in a petri dish in a laboratory.
And I'm like, they didn't, you know.
They didn't follow the scientific method here.
There was no control experiment.
And I was really confused.
And then I had to really think about it and put it in context.
And I started looking at all other kinds of virus papers.
In fact, I even tried to trace every coronavirus paper back to the original paper, which was published in the 60s in a veterinary journal.
And I had to enlist The help of a friend whose mother was a librarian who was able to get me a copy of that manuscript.
And what I found is that by and large they did the same bogus experiment in every paper that didn't follow the scientific method and didn't actually find anything resembling a virus in nature.
They essentially created I was just like, what are they doing here?
experiment using genetically modified commercial cell cultures and adding a bunch of toxic ingredients.
I was just like, what are they doing here?
So this was kind of astonishing and made me really nervous to talk about this publicly because what I realized I was saying here is that this particular virus that they're alleging is causing a new disease, it doesn't even exist.
It's a made-up thing.
It's like a man-made laboratory artifact, essentially.
And I wanted to be sure that I was correct because I didn't want to, you know, a bunch of people saying, oh, you're an idiot.
Look, you missed this little fact here.
So when I first put this information out to the public, I had called upon a group of like independent journalists who were, you know, kind of in this alternative space.
A lot of them were only talking about like a cult type, you know, conspiracy issues.
But I needed people to evaluate what I was saying.
So I said, well, you all just attend this lecture and afterwards you can have it, you can put it on your channel, edit it any way you want, but I want you to listen to me really critically and I want you to, if I'm saying something that it doesn't make sense or it's not true, confront me on it.
Challenge me because I want to know if I'm right or not.
And I gave this, you know, like hour-long scientific lecture and it was like everyone's just jaw was dropped at the end.
There were some questions to clarify some of the things I said, but everyone was just blown away that it just made perfect sense.
So I put it out there to the world and it kind of Resonated with people and it gave me the energy to keep going and I, you know, continued my research.
I looked at many other viruses.
I looked at bacteria and other forms of germs and realized That the whole germ theory industry and really it was a industrial complex because all of the business model of modern Western allopathic medicine is really based around germ theory.
Even if there's illnesses which don't have germs involved, they still adopt the same warfare type of model using chemical weapons as the treatment.
And I began to realize that this whole thing was, was not true.
It's not how nature worked.
It was a business model.
It was a script, a false paradigm that was used, you know, for many purposes, but certainly resulted in our one just misunderstanding of our own health.
Made us completely reliant and dependent on the medical system and, you know, the sort of, I call the white-coated priests of which I used to be.
And completely without any trust, confidence or belief that they can influence their own health.
So with the convid situation specifically, Pretty early on in 2020, I interviewed David Icke, whose work I'd been into for a couple decades.
And I was trying to kind of put the pieces together like all of us, because it just intuitively didn't ring as true.
And secondarily, the dictates and the information is coming from the government, for whom I have less than zero trust, generally speaking.
And David Icke's position was, there is no virus at all.
The whole thing is a total PSYOP.
It's a complete fabrication.
Which would sound crazy to some, and his work probably does sound crazy to many, but because I was Listening to what he had to say and going to his lectures so long ago, even to me earlier on, he sounded crazy.
I mean, especially when he hit the threshold of the reptilians, I think he lost a lot of us there.
But even but now I'm not so sure.
But outside of that, pretty much everything he had been talking about had come true.
So I thought, well, yeah, maybe he's right about this one.
But it begs the question for me, and I think many other people, well, Okay, so if this thing that they're calling, you know, SARS-CoV-2 or whatever it's called, hasn't been proven to exist in following the scientific method as you described, then the question that everyone wants to know is, well, why is everybody getting sick?
And so that led me to kind of enter the inquiry like, well, I don't know anyone that has died from it, and because the PCR testing is totally fraudulent, even people that think they had it, including me in 2020, I mean, I never really thought that I had it, but I had something.
I had a really bad flu or something around that time, so kind of surmised that that was that.
I've never taken one of those freaking tests and never will.
Thank God.
I did wear a mask a couple times on airplanes and it was so dehumanizing and humiliating because I knew it was ridiculous and wrong.
But anyway.
I started to question, well, is everyone really getting sick?
Where am I getting the information that the hospitals are overflowing and all of this?
And then I looked at, you know, for example, living in Los Angeles, there are many homeless people.
And I thought, I don't know if this was a plague, wouldn't, wouldn't these homeless people living in this incredibly unsanitary environment, sadly, wouldn't they all be keeling over?
Wouldn't there be ambulances and, you know, body bags and stretchers all over the place?
If, if this contagion was really Um, present in the way that it's being described.
And so, you know, over the subsequent months after talking to David Icke about it, I kind of arrived at the same thing, which of course pisses many people off.
If granny has sadly passed away and that person's belief system and indoctrination by the media has imposed the idea upon them that they died from COVID.
Um, and now that we're, I don't know that we're not out of the weeds but at least that's not the thing that's being focused upon now.
It seems to me that the whole thing was completely fabricated and there never was such a thing at all and that they just attributed people dying of all sorts of other causes to that thing and you know conflated the numbers and such to create this panic to I guess, exert more control and get people to opt into this experimental gene therapy and so on.
Where you sit right now, do you think there ever was any such thing as this virus being passed from person to person?
Well, you know, it's not just that this virus was never shown to exist in nature.
It's every single virus that's alleged to cause a disease.
You can look at all the experiments done and the same experiments been done every time and these experiments couldn't possibly show a virus the way that they're done because you'd have to find it in nature and they don't look in nature.
They basically create a man-made simulation in a laboratory, and they can do this all day long.
They can essentially take any person with any expression of illness, take fluid or tissue from their body, do this experiment, and they're guaranteed to find something that they could call a virus.
But the thing is, they're not actually finding anything.
In fact, the scientist who invented this experiment, his name was John Enders, and he actually won a Nobel Prize because he was instrumental in manufacturing the polio vaccine.
And the technique that he used to manufacture the polio vaccine was exactly the technique that became later, not by his direction, but by other scientists after he won the Nobel Prize to give alleged evidence that a virus has been discovered.
But in the first paper that Enders published with this technique, he actually included a control sample.
And it was measles where he took the secretions, the snot from the patients with measles, put them in a Petri dish, didn't look for the virus in the snot at all.
Just took whatever was in the snot, you know, which is who knows what's in there, but it's a lot of junk, a lot of chemicals, a lot of cells, bacteria, fungus, human, all kinds of stuff.
Put it in this cell culture dish and the cells showed some damage.
But he also took the snot from someone without measles and put it in the same cell culture, not the same exact one, but a similar one with the same ingredients.
And the cells in there also showed damage.
And he wrote this in a paper that there were unknown factors causing the cell damage.
And also wrote that you couldn't learn from what happened in this cell culture simulation.
It didn't tell you what happened in an actual measles patient.
You wrote that right in the conclusion.
But those findings were just ignored and all the subsequent virology papers used this procedure but never did a control because they knew the control would also show, you know, the evidence that they were saying meant it was a virus.
They had already given up looking directly in the patient for the virus because they tried that in the 1940s for many years and were never able to actually find a particle in the person's body that they could say was a virus.
They just found Tons of different particles that were all mixed together because when our cells are damaged and dying, they break into particles just like we would take out the trash.
We put it in trash bags so it doesn't spread out and make a mess.
We don't just pile up all our trash on the curb, right?
We put them in a bag inside of a can so it's compartmentalized.
When our cells You know, die and become trash.
They also go into little bags essentially.
And those are referred to as exosomes or they have other names when they're admitted to come from us.
And scientists can easily find those directly in patients.
In fact, there's one study which was really fascinating to me because it was looking at an HIV positive patient, right?
They had a blood test that said they had HIV.
And they wanted to see, are there exosomes that occur as a result of the HIV illness, right?
So in other words, what the theory was, HIV was in the body, it would damage the cells, the cells would then turn into particles, exosomes, and then there might be a particular exosome that is associated with HIV that's unique.
And in this experiment, they took the blood from this patient and they were able to purify the exosomes out of the blood.
And once they had the exosomes directly from the patient by themselves in a test tube, they could say, all right, what's this made of?
What's in it?
And they did that and they were able to characterize what it was made of and how it was structured.
And I'm thinking to myself, if they could do this with the exosomes, couldn't they have also just taken HIV out of the blood, purified it and then showed it and showed how it was different from the exosomes and see what it was made of?
But they didn't attempt that because they know they would not be able to find it because it doesn't actually exist.
Now they have a different reasoning.
Like when I've talked to a virologist, they said the reason they can't find it is because there's not enough of it.
And they say they need to grow it in a cell culture in a laboratory for there to be enough of it to see.
But that's very flawed reasoning because they say it does the same exact thing in a cell culture that it does in the body.
And you could say the body is like a cell culture because that's how it makes you sick.
It has to attack cells and then make copies of itself and cause that cell to rupture And then all the particles come out and they spread to other cells and then they reproduce in other cells.
And as they rupture our cells, they get damaged and that's the disease, right?
The damage in the lungs, they say with COVID, right?
Or the upper airway with HIV, they say it is in the white blood cells that it causes the damage.
So if it would be growing in the white blood cells, Why do you need to grow it in a culture?
Can't you just find it there in the actual source?
Like if we wanted to discover, you know, a new animal, like let's say we heard rumors that there's this frog that has silver stars on its back and we wanted to go find it, right?
We would go to the rainforest or the jungle or wherever there were reports of this frog and we would try to find one.
We wouldn't go take a bulldozer and scoop out a 10-foot square section of the jungle and chop it up in a, you know, a tree mulcher and then go mix it with some other animals from the zoo and then look at that and say, look, there's the frog with silver stars.
They would just go right to the jungle, and if it wasn't there, they would either say, well, we couldn't find it, it's too rare, or it doesn't exist, it was just a rumor.
But they tried to do that in virology after the electron microscope was invented and never found that frog.
And they pretty much gave up until Enders came up with this manufacturing procedure and won the prize.
And then I guess that gave some virologists the idea or the confidence to say, hey, this manufacturing process, it actually shows the virus because we can see the damage to the cells and we see particles.
There's no way to identify what those particles are.
Or say that they're not from the cells themselves, but it's a good story and we can make a lot of money selling vaccines and notice it was the manufacturing technique of the vaccine that was after the fact used to prove that the virus existed.
So it's kind of like we came up with a way to sell something and make a lot of money and then we're going to use the manufacturing process to essentially justify it.
It's very convenient as a business model to have two birds with one stone.
And we know that with the COVID vaccine, that it was the top grossing drug of any class of all history.
Like it made more money than any other drug ever made.
Wow.
And probably killed more people than any other drug ever made too.
Absolutely.
I mean, that's the funny thing about, you know, I kind of had to rack my brain to it.
Did I know anyone that You know, died of COVID.
Definitely not.
But I know people that I don't know if it's causation or correlation because it's out of my pay grade to determine so.
But I do know people personally that died shortly after getting that experimental medication.
And I know a number of people that have very close to me that have brain aneurysms, sudden blood clots, turbo cancer.
All of it.
And they were fine before that, you know, so you put two and two together.
I've witnessed the same phenomenon, and you're right.
I mean, it's not absolute proof of the causal relationship, but it's so obvious that you cannot deny that It is most likely, I mean, 99.99% that's what's going on, right?
Because if someone is healthy and they're exposed to this injection and then within 10 days, they suddenly are dead or have a life-threatening illness.
And it's not just one anecdotal story.
It's hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands.
Over time, that have accumulated the same exact pattern.
So, you know, this is good enough proof that we should not take this.
And, you know, looking back at what I said about there not even being a virus that exists, how could this possibly help you?
because it's based on a false premise.
But the way that they really manipulated people into believing this was all through the testing because they equated the test with the illness, even if you had no symptoms, right?
This idea of you're an asymptomatic carrier.
And of course, that means that you can be contagious.
And this never existed until AIDS.
AIDS was the first time that they would say you're HIV positive, even though you're perfectly healthy.
But if you have sex with someone, you can pass that virus and kill them.
And they they even prosecuted people in court, by the way, for attempted murder just because they had sex with someone and didn't divulge that they were HIV positive.
But fortunately, there were a group of doctors and scientists, including Dr. Nancy Turner Banks, who would volunteer to testify in defense of these poor people and show that there was actually no evidence that HIV caused AIDS.
So it couldn't, even if they did transfer something, it couldn't be attempted murder.
And they were able to exonerate a number of defendants who would have essentially had their freedom robbed of them when they did nothing that could cause harm.
In the case of HIV and AIDS, if we're dispelling the contagion myth that this virus is being passed from one person to another, I wonder, you know,
what's the relationship between male to male sex, which is inherently what's the relationship between male to male sex, which is inherently likely to cause more bleeding and based on that model and easier transmission of a disease and intravenous drug users that are sharing I mean, it didn't seem whatever it was or is didn't and doesn't seem to affect people outside of those populations largely.
Well, you know, I think if we're going to discuss AIDS, we actually need to look a little bit globally because you're describing, right, some of the populations in the United States, which were initially affected.
But if you look in Southern Africa, you see a very different pattern.
And in fact, there was a totally different definition and criteria for AIDS in different countries.
It's not standardized at all.
If you look at let's let's just talk about like the the gay population in San Francisco where it first struck right when they called it the gay plague or gay cancer and look at the lifestyle of those people because it's not the fact that they had same sex partners.
It's that they lived an extremely hedonistic and toxic lifestyle.
So there are some data that show that people had multiple partners every single day like they may have had a thousand sexual partners in one year.
So that's not normal.
Human sexual behavior, you know, with a long-term pair bonding, this is, you know, extreme promiscuity.
And of course, there is, especially with, you know, anal intercourse, there is some trauma that occurs because it's not designed for that purpose.
And also, even, you know, with circumcision, you increase friction, which can cause trauma and irritation to the tissue.
So there's all kinds of basically, you know, you're kind of rubbing An open wound, you know, in another person's rectum, which has the waste products of the body that you're trying to get rid of.
And if those waste products stay in your body, they would make you sick.
That's why you have to get rid of them.
But in here, because of this extreme behavior and what went along with that was the heavy use of drugs.
And that included, you know, drugs just like alcohol and cocaine and heroin and things like that.
Drugs specifically for sexual performance and there was one that was heavily promoted to that community called Poppers.
And it's a form of amyl nitrate, a chemical, and it's very toxic, but it was used to prolong erections and also it supposedly relaxes the anal sphincter and makes anal sex easier and more comfortable.
And so they were very commonly used.
In fact, even at, you know, many of the like bath houses and other places where gays would go to pick up other men.
They sell these things in like vending machines and such and or there'd be advertisements around.
And just prior to this outbreak, there was the invention of a new transplant rejection drug for organ transplantations.
And this drug actually allowed kidney transplants to be much more successful in preventing rejection.
However, because these drugs were poisonous.
Some of the transplant recipients got these unusual diseases, but these things, these unusual diseases, they were known about already.
They were just rare.
One of them was Kaposi's sarcoma, which is the same type of skin cancer that occurs in AIDS.
The other issue that the kidney transplant recipients had was PCP pneumonia or pneumocystis, carinii pneumonia.
Now that is also a condition that popped up in this gay population in San Francisco.
So there was a good clue there that they were getting the same rare diseases which were already known about.
As these transplant recipients that were taking this immunosuppressive anti-rejection medication, it was called azathioprine.
And it turns out that it is chemically similar to some antibiotics, sulfa drugs.
And many people in this lifestyle were taking these antibiotics to prevent them.
from getting sexually transmitted diseases, which they falsely believe were caused by germs.
And the antibiotics and the poppers and the recreational drugs and the extreme amount of sexual partners all together essentially created a very toxic person that manifests these diseases like PCP pneumonia and tuberculosis and Kaposi's sarcoma and some other things.
And these diseases change over time, by the way, and also the CDC changed their criteria to include more and more things.
Eventually, actually, you didn't even need to have an HIV test to be diagnosed with AIDS.
Right, because that test also was meaningless and it's never been FDA approved because it's never been validated.
Yes, just like the COVID test.
So that umbrella of different conditions was essentially attributed to AIDS.
Yes, it was, you know, this new disease of AIDS was invented and essentially it was an umbrella that includes all these other diseases that already existed that were known about.
And so it's sort of like you create it as something new even though it's just old.
And if you looked at different populations, like if you looked at the homeless population where they also got sick, they didn't get the same diseases.
They didn't get Kaposi's sarcoma and PCP pneumonia.
They got TB.
And we already knew that IV drug abusers and homeless people get TB.
So now it was reclassified as part of AIDS instead of just the regular TB that we know goes with malnourishment and a toxic lifestyle.
And you know, using dirty needles and sharing needles is not a problem that you pass viruses between each other.
It's a problem that you're passing Dirt and poison between each other, right?
I mean, what, you know, like the people who are in this IV drug use habit, they do not have good hygiene practices.
They do not take care of their health.
They don't eat right.
Many of them are homeless.
They might be shooting up in shooting galleries, which are, you know, basically condemned buildings that are filth and squalor.
And they're putting all of this filth and material right into their veins.
So, of course, that's why they get ulcers on their skin and that's why they get sick.
I know needle users, friends of mine, I never used needles when I was an addict, thank God, but I have friends that would use toilet water.
Yeah, I can attest to that.
That was the only water around.
Of course.
When you're in that state, you don't really care what you're doing as long as you get that high.
Yeah, I can attest to that.
And there's a prevalent belief by a sect of people now that thinks that the official narrative of Convid is false, but that there was a bioweapon that was created in Wuhan that's been unleashed but that there was a bioweapon that was created in Wuhan that's been unleashed on And even though the official narrative of this virus getting people sick was not true, that that is true.
And when I started hearing that idea, become prevalent.
It reminded me of an older conspiracy idea that AIDS had been produced in the same way.
And even maybe before that Lyme disease, you know, having escaped from some government lab, making bioweapons and things like that.
Based on the model that you've been creating over the past couple of years, do you see any evidence that any of those three exist even in a manufactured context or Or is the whole thing based on just the false attribute, attributing the illnesses To, for other things to something that's made up.
You know what I'm getting at?
Yeah.
Yes.
I fully understand.
Is there a real fake thing even?
So, you know, it's, if you look at this from a sort of zoom out and look at the big picture and just speculate for a moment, like, okay, let's say that, you know, AIDS and HIV was completely made up.
What would the benefits be for the people who made it up?
And I think that's where the clue is because there are many benefits.
So for example, for the scientific field of virology, they were just about out of gas because they had been funded almost entirely by Nixon's war on cancer, looking for viruses that cause cancer.
And that funding was up and they didn't make any major discoveries.
So there was going to be no more grants to find viruses and cancer.
So what were they going to do next?
How are they going to get their funding?
HIV provided that.
It became one of the most funded avenues of research because it was considered such a serious problem, right?
So without HIV, all those scientists Would not be able to keep going in their field.
They would have to change careers in some way.
Let's look at the drug companies.
So HIV drugs you take for life, right?
That's a great business model because anytime you have a customer and they keep buying your product for the rest of their life, that is the most money you can get out of them.
So it provided a huge benefit to the pharmaceutical industry.
Let's say that you wanted to decrease the birth rate.
Well, HIV provided that because for the first time, people were scared of having sex and they began using condoms as a physical barrier.
Condom use went way up.
I mean, I was coming of sexual maturity in this era and any girlfriend that I had, when we got to the point that we were ready to engage in a sexual relationship, it was always It has to be a condom.
We have to get an HIV test first or we can't not use a condom unless we have an HIV test.
And this wasn't about pregnancy because, you know, the woman was taking birth control pills.
And this was really the condition of my generation.
And you can look and see declining birth rates as a result of this.
So it could be looked at as a population reduction agenda.
Now, let's step back from that, okay, and say, so there's these big interests had a lot to gain from this idea of virus causing this disease.
So let's say now that there's considerable criticism and the science is disproven or discredited.
And the truth is that there's no virus at all, right?
And that AIDS is just a relabeling of some other thing.
And we could easily prevent it because we could say, all right, stop taking nitrogen poppers, have less sexual partners, stop sharing needles, you know, get sterile needles, et cetera, et cetera.
We could easily prevent these things.
But then the population goes up with more births.
The drug company can't sell their drugs, right?
Everybody loses.
However, if you can keep the idea alive that there's still a pot, even though maybe HIV doesn't cause AIDS, but there's some other virus, maybe it's even man-made.
Well, that keeps everything else going.
Because you need to take drugs to not get sick from the man-made virus, right?
You could still get the man-made virus from having sex with someone.
So you can't do that.
And it keeps the narrative alive.
And then it allows them to plan the next fake virus outbreak.
You know, before COVID, they went through a number of false starts, right?
Bird flu, swine flu, Zika, you know, et cetera, et cetera, Ebola.
And people didn't really take any of these things very seriously.
They could never get enough impetus to do mass vaccination.
Like in the swine flu in the 70s, they tried.
And people became paralyzed, just a few people, and they just took it right.
They said, you can't sell it anymore.
There was never a need for it in the first place.
In fact, the Surgeon General for the United States admitted there wasn't even one single case of the swine flu in the whole country when they were rolling out these experimental vaccines.
But that was a failure.
It got taken off the market.
People stopped it.
They didn't believe it.
They knew no one got sick.
So they wouldn't be able to ever do this again if people knew that there were no viruses.
If there's a possibility of some kind of, you know, scary, you know, military developed weapon, well, that could be even more dangerous, right?
In fact, it should be more dangerous than a natural virus.
But here's the thing.
There's just so it would keep the narrative alive and would keep all those goals and business advantages alive.
But how can you make an infectious particle in a laboratory when there's no model in nature to copy?
You know, I mean, how would you even do it?
Right, because there's no biological machinery that does this.
You could make a robotic device maybe that can, you know, fly around and, you know, bore into someone's body and release poisons or start, you know, drilling through their tissues and make holes or something, you know, but you'd be able to detect that pretty easily.
So there's just no evidence.
No one has shown that there's a bioweapon virus just like no one has shown that there's a natural virus.
No one has, you know, I mean, also, you know, if there was a release of a real biological weapon, if such a thing were possible to make, I would expect there to be real devastation.
But there wasn't real devastation.
There was just the appearance of devastation, like changing the numbers of flu deaths to COVID deaths or Recategorizing heart attacks to COVID or dementia to COVID or car accidents to COVID.
That's what we saw.
We did see also hospital and nursing home protocols in various discrete locations killing people.
We saw people dying of that.
But nowhere was there evidence of any kind of biological weapon of any kind.
And so this is a very dangerous narrative because it perpetuates the idea that viruses are real and dangerous.
Now, I do think there was a weapon of sorts, I wouldn't call it biological, I would call it a chemical weapon, but it was the injections themselves.
And we saw The clear evidence of how that harmed and killed people.
And so if you want to say there was a weapon of any kind, that's what we're talking about.
The one for which we have evidence?
We have tons of evidence.
But I would say it's not biological.
There's no organism in it.
It's a chemical soup.
And we don't really even know the extent of all the chemicals.
And there are some brave Uh, scientists and microscopists trying to figure that out and they've maybe, you know, identified some things, but we really don't know.
And in fact, the way that this was sold under the emergency authorization, rather than actually getting approval, allowed the companies to change ingredients because it's, it's in development.
And without disclosing it.
Diabolical.
We're just about out of time but I want to ask you one more thing.
Many people listening, including myself, will periodically get lab testing done, right, with your functional medicine practitioner and some of those tests might be a blood test to check your viral load, right, and then you'll see, you know, traces of Epstein-Barr or this or that and then be put on a protocol of supplements or in some cases maybe a pharmaceutical antiviral if based on the criteria of
Accurate and legitimate scientific method, a virus has not been proven to exist ever.
What is a blood test that's testing for something like Epstein-Barr finding and how are they finding it?
So, you know, what they do in order to give the appearance that a virus actually exists is that they assume it's there.
So they would do these cell culture experiments, right?
They would have someone with this, you know, pneumonia type of illness or, you know, in your case, Epstein Barr.
So let's say they had, you know, chronic fatigue syndrome, right?
Which They say might be due to that in part.
So you have someone with chronic fatigue and then you take their blood and you believe that the Epstein Barr virus is in there.
You assume it to be in there.
And then you look at other aspects, other things in the blood.
And so for example, you can find little snippets of DNA and RNA in the blood.
And since you assume there's a virus in there, you don't actually find it or demonstrate it, you just assume it.
But you know, you can take these little bits of RNA and DNA and then you would assume that some of them at least must be from this virus that I assume to be there.
And then you do some further experiments and you use a computer model and you say, oh, here are the sequences that are from the virus.
It's completely hypothetical, but you're assuming that it's correct.
And then you develop a test to demonstrate those little genetic sequences.
And you, since you assume that those are from that virus, which you never actually found or demonstrated, you then say this test will detect these sequences that are from a virus.
And that's passed off as a real test for a real virus.
Now, the way that you would really do this, okay, and because there are some tests that actually are accurate, not for viruses, of course, but for other things, like, for example, a pregnancy test, right?
We know a pregnancy test is accurate most of the time.
I mean, it's not 100%, but it's close, right?
And that is an antibody test, right?
And we know we have antibody tests for viruses too.
So what they had to do to figure out if that works is they had to say, oh, we've identified this antibody.
We think when this antibody is in the blood or the urine, That means a woman's pregnant or it's, you know, from the pregnancy.
So all we have to do is see if this antibody is pregnant in women and then wait nine months and see if a baby comes out.
And that's what you call the gold standard because if a baby comes out at the end, you know that they had to be pregnant to begin with, right?
So there's no mistakes there.
And if you find the antibody in a woman that no baby comes out of in the next nine months, You'd have to say that antibody is not correlated with pregnancy.
We can't use that to measure pregnancy.
But if it only is there when they're pregnant, then it could be a good test.
So they say, okay, in 99 patients out of 100, the antibody was an accurate predictor of pregnancy.
So we could say the error rate of that antibody test is 1%.
Now, if we're going to develop a test for a virus, We have to do the same thing.
So we come up with a marker, it could be an antibody, it could be a sequence of genetic material, it could be an antigen, an actual piece of protein that we think is the virus itself that elicits the antibody response, but we can measure it directly, right?
Any kind of piece or reaction of our body to the thing, we could That could be a candidate to develop a test, and it's easier than demonstrating the virus itself.
That's why it's convenient to have these tests.
You can't look inside a woman's belly very easily.
You could cause problems if you do that, to see the baby directly.
But you can take a little bit of urine and put it on a blotter paper, no problem.
It's not going to cause any harm, and that's why it's so good to have a test.
But with the test for a virus, you'd select this, you know, surrogate thing that's easy to measure, like an antibody or a genetic sequence.
But you'd have to then test for that in people, you know, in a hundred people or a thousand people, however many.
And then you'd also have to determine that the virus is in those people.
So you'd have to do the gold standard virology experiment to demonstrate the virus there.
Now that is this bogus lab culture experiment that I told you about, right?
Which is not accurate, but they don't even use that to validate it.
Do you know how the CDC confirmed that the PCR test was accurate?
They actually used a machine to synthesize the sequences that they assumed were from a virus because they couldn't actually get it from a virus to do the experiment.
They synthesized it in a machine and then diluted it to different concentrations and ran the PCR protocol and validated the results compared to the known concentrations of a man-made sequence.
They didn't test it against the presence of an actual virus.
And in order to get FDA approval for any diagnostic test, step one is perform a validation study, which is exactly what I described, where you take the gold standard and the test and you compare the results in the same people and see how much of the time was it correct and how much was an error.
You can't even apply to the FDA to get a diagnostic test approved until you do that study and the study actually has to show that it has a low error rate.
You can't give something that has an 80% of the time is wrong and only correct 20% of the time.
Or something that you could test a papaya or - The monkey, whatever.
- Yes.
- The same result.
- Exactly, so-- - Like with the PCR test, that was hilarious.
People are running around testing all kinds of things, positive, you know?
- Right, so there is, this is related to actually politics and law as well, because in the law in our country and in all countries really, there is this idea of an emergency.
And when there is an emergency, and of course it's very subjective as to what classifies as an emergency, but when there is an emergency, you can throw All the rights of the people out the window, and you can throw all the protections out the window.
In fact, even the Supreme Court of the United States, I believe, or definitely the Congress, had said that even habeas corpus is suspended during an emergency.
Right?
And habeas corpus is your right not to be falsely imprisoned.
So in other words, just like with the Patriot Act, you can be falsely imprisoned because of the emergency of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
Even to this day, you can still be imprisoned because of that emergency.
Yeah, they never repeal the change even after the emergency subsides.
The HIV antibody test was allowed to be sold because of an emergency and it still is allowed to be sold because of emergency.
It was never even applied for FDA approval because they couldn't do that validation study because they couldn't show the virus.
So they could never get FDA approval.
They wouldn't be able to sell it otherwise.
And this is what happened during COVID.
It was declared an emergency.
So that means now you don't have to actually test.
The test, the diagnostic test and show that it's accurate.
You can just sell it because it's an emergency without it being accurate.
And you know, the FDA gives a letter, any company that wants, wanted to sell a test, they would, you know, send a request to the FDA.
Will you authorize us to sell this because of this emergency?
And the FDA sends back a letter.
Giving them the authorization.
And I've read several of those letters that are published on the FDA website.
And right in the letter, it says, we don't really know if this is accurate or not, but you're allowed to sell it anyway.
Oh my God.
Not in those exact words, but that's what it says, you know, really right in the text right there.
And I've, I've read those, you know, during my podcast much earlier on and
Since, you know, it's allowed to be sold, and since everyone is afraid of the emergency, and since everyone has been really indoctrinated their life to trust doctors, to trust the scientific establishment, and even to trust the government, you know, we may be skeptical, but most people are not skeptical, that everyone just assumed that the test must be accurate.
How could they allow it to be used if it's not accurate?
But if they read the details, they'd see the emergency allowed that.
And anything done under an emergency, we should be very, very cautious.
That it is likely to be against our own best interest.
And there's a long tradition in this nation of that happening.
And you can go back and starting especially in 1933 and find a number of laws that came into existence only because of emergencies.
And this has been perpetuated since that time.
And all of these instances of the government Stepping on our rights, fooling us, making us think things are beneficial when they're actually harmful, is all allowed and justified by these emergencies.
Yeah, make another emergency, take more freedom, repeat.
That's right.
And you know, if you, if you are an unscrupulous businessman, it is a windfall opportunity because it wasn't just the vaccine that was the top grossing drug in history, but all the companies that sold testing kits, that sold personal protective equipment.
I wish I had stock in plexiglass.
They raked in money hand over foot.
I thought about that when I first started seeing the six feet apart stickers that were in plexiglass just showing up out of nowhere.
I thought, man, what are the margins on, you know, the circle you're putting on the floor, you know, that sticker.
I remember talking to an individual who saw this happening early on and he found some warehouses that had a bunch of masks and gowns in Southeast Asia and he bought as much as he could at dirt cheap prices and then resold it.
for probably 10 times.
And in my opinion, this is a very immoral behavior because you're essentially fleecing people at their most vulnerable and taking advantage because it was not a legitimate need.
We know that this PPE, not only did it not provide any benefit, it actually caused harm.
And you know, anyone still thinking that masks could help, you know, there are two very important things.
One is, and I don't have time to go through all these studies, but there have been many well done scientifically controlled studies trying to pass illnesses like the Spanish flu, gonorrhea, herpes, the common cold from one person to another.
And they couldn't do it because that's not how nature works.
In other words, there is no contagion of these diseases.
Now there is the clear, definitive evidence that masks didn't work for COVID that no one really can deny because this is the Cochrane Collaborative.
And when I was at Duke studying psychiatry, like early on, I was told by the faculty that you need to learn about the Cochrane Collaborative because what they do is they take
All of the scientific papers on a particular topic that are published and they combine them into one powerful mathematical analysis called known as a meta-analysis because in any individual study they might find something but it's a small number of people or its own like maybe it was something unique about how the researchers conducted the experiment even though they tried their best.
But when you combine all these studies together you see do they all agree with each other?
Or are they all over the place?
And it's very, very powerful.
And the Coghwin Collaborative specializes in this.
So this is really helpful in certain areas of study where you can only find small clinical trials.
But when you put them all together, then you have thousands of patients that you can say, did they all follow this trend?
Because it's hard to do research of that magnitude.
It's very expensive.
So it's very powerful.
And I was told to give this more credence than any other source of information.
And just within the last six months, the Cochrane Collaborative published a review on masks to prevent transmission of COVID.
And they found right in there, the definitive source, there was no relationship between masks and people getting sick.
So in other words, it didn't help it and it didn't hurt it.
It had no effect whatsoever on whether you got sick with COVID, you know, their definition of COVID, whatever that is.
But what it really means is that it has no bearing on you being sick.
So there's no possible benefit from it.
So for some of us, our intuition was spot on.
You know, the intuition can be very powerful because obviously, you know, it obstructs your breathing.
You can't breathe as well.
In fact, I thought it was quite amusing that in my recent travel, air travel, they started when they do their little spiel at the beginning of the flight and tell you, you know, how to work a seatbelt.
They now, when they're talking about the mask, like if the oxygen gets low and the masks drop down, they tell you if that happens, take off your mask so that you can breathe.
Oh my god.
Right?
It's like you have to take off the mask so you can breathe in the situation that's hard to breathe.
Well that means it makes it harder to breathe in all situations, right?
So you're actually obstructing your own breath by doing that.
Oh man, not to mention all the microplastics and off-gassing of the chemicals.
So there are many, many ways that it can be harmful and you're right, microplastics are A growing problem, do you know that in Alzheimer's patients, they find microplastics in their organs and people with liver failure, they find microplastics in the liver.
So there's more and more evidence that these microplastics are actually agents of disease and it makes sense because they just gum things up, they clog stuff up and much of our body, the function is about flow.
Right.
We have flow through our lymphatics, our blood vessels, even within our organs.
There are channels of flow, our kidneys, our liver, our heart.
Right.
Everything is about flow.
And if we gum it up with these microplastic particles and, you know, largely they are in the environment because of clothing.
Most modern clothing is made of plastic fibers.
And when you mechanically agitate those fibers in the washing machine, These little microplastic particles come off and they get into the wastewater and they've entered in the natural water supply.
And you virtually cannot test a sample of water in a natural waterway anywhere in the world without finding microplastics in it.
So, you know, we didn't get into this topic too much of what's really causing disease, but there is just reams of evidence about various types of poisons resulting in all these acute and chronic health conditions that we falsely or the medical establishment falsely attributes to viruses and bacteria and germs in general.
You just set up a part two perfectly.
We've discussed here today in a nutshell what is not causing disease.
And of course, that begs the question, well, people get sick.
So what is, so we'll, I'll definitely like to invite you back for a part two.
I got a closing question for you Andy.
Who have been three teachers or teachings in general that have influenced your life and your work?
Well there's a wide variety of people I could mention here so I'll go with your constraint of only picking three.
So let me point to Socrates, who basically laid out the Socratic method of autodidactic learning and teaching, and that has really helped me explore The material, science, mathematics, engineering, technology, etc.
from a really strong analytical point of view.
Number two, Neil Kramer, who is my most significant spiritual mentor and really without his teaching and my, you know, hard work on Developing myself in a spiritual path, I would not been able to come out of my allopathic shell and take risks and put myself out there on the public stage to tell the truth.
Thirdly, let me just give credit to a category of mentors and these are the pioneering physicians and practitioners who went out there and started using natural healing methods and had amazing success and I'll point out a few.
Jennifer Daniels, Dr. Jennifer Daniels, Dr. Kelly Brogan and Ann Baroque.
And those three had early on very, very strong influence to allow me to see the potential of natural healing.
So I'm grateful to all those.
Awesome, man.
And I'm grateful to you.
I've been wanting to chat with you for a long time, so I'm really happy we got to do this and also sitting in person sharing photons, you know.
It's much more fun to do it this way because I know you live in New York and I live in Texas, so I was kind of waiting.
I'm like, I know I'll run into him sometime and damn it, it happened.
Well, no, you're right.
There's no substitute for being in someone's presence.
You know, although I realize that you can.
▲
Export Selection