All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 14, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
01:14:39
"The Way Forward" Ep 147: Exposing Medical Myths: Psych Drugs, Virology, Diet & More
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
you about next how did you initially wake up to the reality that SARS-CoV-2 we're going to start there that SARS-CoV-2 had not been demonstrated to exist or cause disease good question um In February of 2020, I went out to California to visit my friend and go to racing school at Laguna Seca.
And on my way back at the San Jose airport, I saw all these people wearing surgical masks.
And they weren't just people going to Asia.
They were Americans.
And I was just shocked by this and perplexed that I felt like I had to figure out what was going on.
Had in my possession at that time, which I was planning to read on the flight, was Nancy Turner Banks' book, AIDS, Opium, Diamonds, and Empire.
That's a pretty crazy coincidence right there.
Well, I purposely was studying that book, but I'll tell you what the real coincidence is.
The real coincidence is that I first put out ever a podcast on social media.
Criticizing medicine in November of 2019. So just a few, you know, right before COVID. And also the first time I really heard germ theory be questioned was on Alpha Vedic podcast where they brought up the book about Bechamp and Pasteur.
Wow.
Shout out to Alpha Vedic for that one.
That led me, you know, and then also I found out about the, you know, Nobel laureate, the inventor of the PCR, I'm blanking on his name right now, Kerry Mullis, who I was actually looking at his lecture on climate change and found that he had this other thing about,
like, being unable to find the paper proving the existence of HIV. And he even asked, you know, Luke Montagnier, and Luke Montagnier didn't give him the paper, right, because there is no paper.
So that led me to find out about Nancy Turner Banks' book, and I was kind of exploring these issues.
But because of the masks, and I knew that there was something going on, you know, in China, and I decided when I got home to let me just look at...
The papers.
The first time I looked at a scientific paper that purported to discover a virus, and I had no idea about the methods that they were going to use to do that.
But I found a paper.
It wasn't the Australian paper.
I think it was about a case in China.
Was it Fan Wu?
Well, that's the genome paper.
That's the genome paper.
Wu Zhao?
Maybe it was Wu Zhao.
I think it was Zhao, yes.
You know, SARS-CoV-2 isolation paper.
And I read that paper.
I read the methods section, and I read the whole thing, because, you know, in there, they actually didn't claim they discovered a new virus.
They said they may have discovered it.
Okay?
And it may be responsible.
Sorry, they did say they discovered it.
They didn't say it was responsible for the illness.
They said it could be.
And I was just kind of perplexed, because I'm like, did I just read this paper where they did all this stuff, but none of it actually demonstrated discovering a new virus?
And so I read it again, and I read it a couple more times.
And I'm like, what the heck's going on here?
And I'm staring at the picture, because they had an electron microscope picture.
With, you know, an arrow pointing to a particle, right?
That they just declare, boom, this is a new virus.
And I'm like, what's going on there?
And I ruminated on this for a couple days, and then I heard this bootleg lecture that kind of went viral with Tom Cowan, and it was the one where he was talking about the dolphins being sick in the ocean.
And he mentioned exosomes in there.
And I had remembered that I looked into exosomes back in college when I was doing a big paper that I had to write for a scientific writing class about gene therapy.
And they were talking about exosomes as one type of vehicle to get a gene into a host, actually.
It's also kind of ironic that I did that paper on gene therapy back...
you know in the early 90s that is ironic and then i i said i wonder if the things that they're seeing showing in this slide could be an exosome so i look started looking into this and i saw that even virologists were saying that exosomes and viruses are kind of the same thing or it may not be distinguishable from each other famous virologists
right who later you know said they denied making those comments even though it was in a written paper like published right But it was only because of me saying that they said this.
It wasn't my idea originally, but I saw that everything was the same.
And so I'm like, how could they tell one is one and one is the other?
Because there was no specific functional test that they demonstrated that.
And it was just in dead tissue on a micrograph.
So that's when I really first questioned it, and of course I reported that, and people heard it and said, you know, that makes a lot of sense.
And that's what led me on the whole path.
Now, going back to exosomes, is your opinion that What they're pointing to and declaring as, quote, viral is really just...
I don't want to have you make a positive claim here.
What is your opinion on viruses as it relates to exosomes now?
And then I would also throw in there so-called multivesicular bodies, so-called extracellular vesicles, etc., etc.
So all the things you mentioned, and there are more that we could come up with, are essentially very, very small particles.
You know, on the order of around 100 nanometers.
And a nanometer is a billionth of a meter, you know, 10 to the minus 9th.
So we're talking about super tiny things, and these size objects can not be seen with regular light microscopy.
They can only be seen with electron microscopy.
And at that time, I didn't know much about electron microscopy, but now I know a heck of a lot more.
It's really unclear when you're seeing these things under the microscope.
Are they real?
In other words, did they exist in the biological organism that you're looking at?
Or are they just an artifact of the process of microscopy itself, which involves...
Really beating the crap out of the tissue in order to be able to see it, because an electron microscope can't actually see carbon-based material.
So you're not visualizing directly the biological material.
You're visualizing metal oxides that are applied like a thin layer on top of the biological material, which is then evaporated with, you know, Ray guns, so to speak.
And then you're just seeing the metal.
So during that process were artifacts created.
And, you know, if we look at some work that's been done out there, like by Harold Hillman, for example, we can see that other subcellular structures on that order of magnitude size-wise...
Are clearly artifacts of the process and not really part of the biological cells.
So that question exists still with these, you know, little roundish particles that we are, you know, referring to as viral particles or exosome particles or multivesicular bodies, etc., etc., down the line.
Now, if they are...
Actually biological, then we have no idea about their origin, function, structure, etc., because we would have to get them completely purified in order to study those aspects, or at least the material composition and structure.
The function, we'd have to observe them in a living organism, which we have no technology to do at that scale presently.
But what has been observed is that these types of particles with the same size, the same shape, the same properties, even the same so-called spike granules around the outer shell, have been seen in lots of different biological samples of different origin, but all with some kind of disease process.
And I think this makes sense.
Because, you know, cells are compartmentalized to some degree, and they also have many, many chemical reagents in them, including digestive enzymes or, you know, things like lysozyme, which can degrade proteins.
They have DNA aces, which can degrade genetic material.
Lipases, which can degrade, like, lipids, like, perhaps cell membranes.
So if a cell that was dying released all these contents willy-nilly into the area, it could destroy surrounding tissue.
So it makes sense that the body or the cells can compartmentalize essentially into trash bags to safely remove the debris from a decaying and dying cell.
And you can look up on YouTube some kind of, I think it might be a protozoa.
That you can see this process like in a microscope, a light microscope, you can see it actually happening in real time.
You wouldn't, obviously the particles have to be bigger in order to see them, but you can see the cell disintegrating into particles.
And this has also been seen in human cells in a process called apoptosis, which is, you know, the programmed cell death or natural cell death or senescence.
So it could just be that these are damaged cells, and they are starting to compartmentalize as they disintegrate, and that's all we're seeing.
So there are many, many possibilities of what they could be, but from the current research, we have no idea what they are.
I appreciate that answer.
Yeah, that summarizes exactly my thoughts, too, because I used to buy into the...
That viruses are exosomes and exosomes are a communication network between cells, etc., etc.
And correct me if I'm wrong on this, there have been some in vitro studies that are, I won't say compelling, that are just interesting as it pertains to so-called exosomes.
Yeah, well, with exosomes, now, you know, let's kind of remind everybody about...
The answer to the last question, because these are these tiny particles that we don't know what they are.
But in studies where they call them exosomes versus studies where they call them viruses, they can actually get them from biological samples and purify them in exosome studies.
In fact, you can find papers which just outline different ways of purifying exosomes out of the body.
Now, when they have a pure sample, one thing you can do is you can test that by looking at it under an electron microscope because you should only see one thing, like a uniform pattern of one thing.
And this is what you see with bacteriophages, which are said to be viruses of bacteria.
They don't kill bacteria.
It's not very clear that that's the case.
Those bacteriophages have very unique shapes that are very identifiable.
They look like alien spaceships.
And when you, you know, culture them and purify them and then put them on a microscope, all you see in the entire field of the microscope is these identical, you know, alien spaceship-looking particles.
Still assuming that those are actually in the human body as they look in the human body, but still here, because we're in vitro.
Well, those are from bacterial cultures, but with the exosomes, yes, they take blood.
Right.
And then they put the blood through a filter.
They might use chromatography.
They might use ultracentrifugation with a density gradient to separate out these particles.
And that's the general point that I'm trying to make before you continue is just to remind people that this is still riddled with a lot of assumptions.
Well, these are, you know, physical means, right?
you're kind of subjecting these biological material to physical forces, sometimes exposure to chemicals, solvents, things like that.
So it is incumbent upon the researcher to do experiments to say, what effect do these procedures themselves have on the sample?
Does it change it from what it was in the body?
I completely agree.
At least you can confirm that you have just one thing in your sample, whether it's been changed from how it was in vivo or whether it's preserved.
It's one thing by visually showing that, oh, a microscope field with nothing but identical particles.
So that's been done with, you know, particles that they call exosomes.
And then once you have a Confirm that you have a pure sample of something.
Well, then you can do different studies on it to say what's it made of, right?
Like, is it made of protein?
Is it made of carbohydrates?
Is it made of fats?
Does it have genetic material in it?
All these things.
And there are chemical assays that you could do to test those things, and they have done that for some of these particles, you know, that they say are exosomes.
So if there really were viruses, they should be able to do that as well.
There have to be enough of the virus in the body to cause an illness, which, you know, and what they tell us in the textbook is that a particle would invade a cell and then replicate itself using the host cell's machinery.
And then burst the cell open and millions of new baby viruses would come out and then they would infect other cells, right?
So if there are all those virus particles in the diseased tissue, we should be able to take those out and look at them and do tests on them.
But those experiments have never been successfully done.
No.
It's so funny because as...
What I like to call, I get this from Jordan Grant, rescue devices, they employ excuses like, well, it's because there's not enough virus inside the fluids of a sick person, which is also funny because they then claim that there's upwards of 20 to 200 million virus particles in one sample of snot, or they'll say that the virus is too weak to isolate or purify, when they also say that a virus does all those things that you just described.
It's just, it's hilarious how many rescue devices they come up with.
Of that you have to culture the virus in order to have enough of it.
Like, what is a culture?
A culture is there are host cells, there's nutrition, and then that causes viral replication, right?
Well, what's going on in the person's body who has the virus?
There are cells, there's the virus particles replicating, and there's much better growth media than you could do in the lab because there's blood.
So, that is a culture, right?
There's a culture inside the organism already producing the virus, so why can't we just look directly at it?
Why do we have to take some of it and then do that in the lab, except instead of using the cells that it allegedly infects, like, why aren't we using human lung cells?
Instead, we're using the kidney cells from a genetically modified monkey?
Right.
That's kind of strange.
You know, what's really interesting about that, too, is I know there are countless examples, just like you said, of people finding particles on or pointing to particles on electron micrographs and claiming that they're viruses when they're clearly not or admitting that, OK, this is indistinguishable from what virologists refer to as a virus, but it's clearly not viral, whether it's, you know, someone.
The example that I'm trying to think of here, though, is I think it was published in Kidney360, and it was appearances can be deceiving viral-like inclusions in negative renal biopsies.
August 2020. Yeah, August 2020. And it's interesting because that was in renal biopsies.
So it had to do with kidneys specifically.
So I've thought about this quite a bit, and I don't think that we can ever find a conclusive answer on this.
If it's something about kidneys specifically and their tendency to, you know, kidney cells experience sautopathic effect and produce these specific types of particles.
Have you thought about that before?
Well, I mean...
So, I mean, that is an important paper, and it's not the only paper, by the way, that shows that, right?
And basically, they had kidney biopsies of patients with various types of renal failure, and they were from different samples of different times, but they were far before COVID. And they showed particles with the same spike protein that were indistinguishable on the microscope, but said, obviously, they weren't.
Because this was before COVID existed, and it's from the kidneys, not from the lung.
I think, basically, whenever you have disease, because cells most likely break down into particles, that you're going to find particles.
And, you know, and they're going to, by the way, they're not going to all look the same.
One thing that people don't realize when they see these images of viruses where there's a little square frame, that what the microscopists had to look at was that frame times a thousand.
And they searched through all of that, and they found that one particle that looked like the particle they were looking for.
But on the 999 other frames in their microscope field, There were different things.
And they didn't show those.
But I would venture to say that if you look at those, you'll find other particles that look like other alleged viruses that are pointing to Claire, but they weren't important for this paper, for this purpose.
The authors weren't looking for those.
So they didn't show you those.
Hey y'all, I'm here with Melissa Kupch from Remedy Academy of Homeopathy.
We are so stoked here at The Way Forward to be partnering with Melissa and Remedy in order to spread the message of homeopathy across the world and also to partner on the eventual development of healing centers across the United States.
People are pretty quickly coming to realize that frequency is the future of medicine.
We are witnessing the great resurgence of homeopathy right now.
We're really moving away from that suppressive medical model.
Whether it's for eczema, asthma, hormones, fertility, anxiety, depression, trauma, whatever it is, it all starts as energy in the person's field first.
If we change our field, we can completely change our life.
Our two-year academy is open worldwide to anyone who wants to become a homeopath.
We've got five lecturers and we currently have over 500 students enrolled, which is record numbers in our field.
A career in homeopathy is amazing for anyone who wants flexibility in their work and who wants to be valuable in creating this new world.
We have stay-at-home parents enrolled, we have ex-medical professionals, grandparents signed up who want to learn how to heal their grandchildren and pass on that invaluable knowledge.
We have a husband and wife team, so my husband enrolled in the course with no prior knowledge of health as a background and he is loving it.
Kylie is also enrolled as well, so my partner is, and she's so stoked to become a homeopath and to be helping to spread this message across the world.
The thing that we hear from so many of our students is, I found my thing.
Homeopathy is the key.
We harness frequencies from nature and we alter the field of all creations.
So if anybody wants to join us or they want to know more about it, they can visit our website.
Yeah, and all that information will be in the show notes.
So if you want to learn more about Remedy Academy, also Remedy Collective, also some of the homeopathic products that they have, please just head to the show notes.
All of that will be listed there.
That's COVID. We can set that aside, and I've already talked about that endlessly on this podcast and elsewhere, and people can look up videos of you all over the place.
But briefly, and I mean briefly on this because I have so much I want to discuss with you.
When did you make the jump from, so you're already questioning HIV and its existence because you were exposed to this information from Carey Mullis, and you're reading this book on the plane, and then you decided to go look to see if SARS-CoV-2 had been proven to exist.
When did you make the conclusive jump to, okay, actually no virus has been proven to exist?
Well, let me say, I actually traced coronaviruses back to the original discovery in a veterinary medicine paper in the 60s or early 70s.
So-called discovery.
But after doing that exercise, I think I probably read Virusmania, Thorsten Engelbrecht and others, and that Of course, talked about all viruses not being in existence.
And then I just simply started looking at some other isolation papers.
And many of the other, you know, team No Virus collaborators did this more extensively than I did.
So I looked at their analysis, and sometimes I looked at the papers they looked at, or I picked another thing and found my own papers.
And it was the same exact thing, right?
And, you know, and I discovered, and thanks to Stefan Lamka, really, that all this came from John Ender's methodology, which was really a method of manufacturing vaccines.
And that was turned into the proof of the existence of new viruses.
But, of course, it can't prove that.
But it's been just repeated virtually exactly the same for every...
You know, what's so crazy to me, though, in looking and reading Ender's paper is that he admitted in his own paper that there is no evidence that this is the causative agent.
He said something to that effect.
I don't think it was exactly that, but essentially said that.
that.
But then he also, I wouldn't call it a proper control experiment or negative control in any case, because that assumes that the initial experiment had an actual independent variable that did not adhere to the scientific method.
There was no independent variable, but he did the exact same procedure, except he did not include any sample from a measles patient and got the exact same results.
And somehow this paper was still the foundations that was ushered for all of modern virology.
It's just, it's crazy to me.
Aside from we COVID deniers, What scientist has actually read that paper, you know, who's currently doing experiments.
But it said in there that what was observed in the experiment did not necessarily signify what was happening in the patient with measles.
And it did, you know, make the other point about the, you know, you're right, it's not a strict control because it's not a scientific study, but you have the same experiment with no source of a virus and you still see the finding that they say means there's but you have the same experiment with no source of a virus
So that must mean that other things can cause it, which invalidates it as an experimental procedure, because anytime you get that finding, well, was it a virus that caused it or something else like in the original Enders experiment?
And the same exact thing occurred in the monkeypox original isolation paper.
Not exactly the same, but in that study, they had, you know, some monkeys that had the symptoms of monkeypox that showed, you know, showed the evidence of CPEs, which is the finding, right, that they say means there's a virus, but also the monkeys that didn't have any skin symptoms also showed the same CPEs.
But the authors, of course, didn't conclude that this means that we didn't actually find anything.
They came up with a way to justify their findings.
It's just insane.
Okay, I want to transition to just sort of rapid-fire questions here.
And you said that we would be able to finish this episode in two hours.
I don't think that's going to happen, but that's more so my fault.
I added some questions in.
Okay, so this question just seems to never go away.
I know Sam and Mark have done a number of videos on this.
I've done videos and I already know what the question is.
What's the question that I'm going to ask?
It's going to be about gain of fiction.
Gain of fiction.
Yeah, let's go there.
So the question is, though, even for people who are...
No virus leaning, right?
They understand all the arguments that we make and lack of evidence.
They'll say, okay, but what is going on in these labs?
There has to be something going on in these labs.
I know Sam and Mark have done videos where they do go over the published gain-of-function, so-called gain-of-function experiments, and show it's just a series of assumptions with animal models and sequencing, which is nonsensical.
What is your overall take on gain-of-function as it is, especially as it pertains to SARS-CoV-2?
Well, I mean, I think the most important principle here to look at this is that if we have something that doesn't actually exist in nature, how can it be replicated by man?
Now, man can invent new things that don't exist in nature.
But we would have to have clear, definitive evidence of that.
And we do, because man has invented many things.
And we have, you know, these microphones here, right?
We have evidence of their existence.
We're using them right now, and they're man-made.
So that's, I think, a very important thing to really think about carefully.
But the truth is, nobody knows what's going on in those labs because they are top secret.
Government labs.
And I don't think any one of us has security clearance.
Now, looking at the published papers, which I would have to say, they don't really tell you what's going on in there because otherwise, what would be the purpose of having top-secret laboratories if you're just going to publish everything they're doing?
But what they published, yeah, doesn't give any prima facie evidence that they made some kind of biological weapon.
So, and also, if they did make such a thing and put it out in the world and people got sick, we should be able to have clear evidence of it.
And there just isn't any.
Now, some people might say, well, you know, it's the gene sequencing, they found HIV sequences and such.
SV40 is another one they're saying.
Well, that goes back, you know, to some specific vaccines, really, SV40, right?
But it is said to be some kind of bioweapon.
But, you know, we should talk about SV40 separately.
Terms of these, you know, man-made viruses, you know, why don't we have evidence in the real world of these things?
People will point to effects and say that that's evidence, like, I was sicker than I ever was, or they'll say that I lost my taste and smell.
I covered loss of taste and smell on a recent episode myself, and I can link that in the show notes, but people will point to effects and be like, that's proof of the cause.
Well, I mean, I understand that, and when you experience an illness, you know, you want...
An explanation of what happened, right?
Because, you know, maybe even you look at it as being unfair or that you're a victim in some way, especially if you think that it's some kind of government weapon.
But the truth is, is that, you know, you want to tell me that the only possible thing in the world that could cause the illness that you had is a top secret, you know, government-made biological virus weapon?
Right.
That's quite a leap of logic.
Right.
Okay, I guess we can close the book on that one.
Do you have anything else you want to say related to genome function?
Well, I mean, one thing about it is I think it is extremely dangerous because it perpetuates the belief in viruses causing disease, and it also, if you believe that this is a real thing,
then Any nefarious government at any point could say that they released something like this, and then, you know, panic and fear can spread, which that in and of itself can actually make people get sick, even die, the nocebo effect.
Plus, it's justification now for...
Draconian policies, which are going to be much more, if it's possible, to be more coordinated than COVID because of the pandemic treaty.
Right.
I think it's such an important point, too, because so many of the top voices on the so-called alternative side, you could say, especially as the mainstream media and mainstream pundits are losing all credibility.
It's really a dangerous precedent to set to have the alternative side championing this idea that the government is making man-made versions or synthesizing man-made versions or weaponizing naturally occurring versions of these things and making them in a lab to make them more lethal and more harmful.
That's actually a more harmful narrative than the commonly accepted so-called natural version of viruses, which is also untrue.
But it's sad that the alternative side is championing this much more potentially harmful idea.
You know, fear is a tool of manipulation.
And if you keep the masses in fear, they're much, much easier to manipulate.
This is how the Patriot Act was passed after 9-11.
The day before 9-11, there's no way people would have supported that kind of legislation.
And any narratives put out by the alternative media that generate fear, I think, should be looked at with skepticism on its face.
I mean, there are things to legitimately be afraid of, but when...
It's to that level and then that's the main story.
It's probably not right.
Right.
It's just unfortunate that it's like what needs to be done is rather than waking up to the fraud of the mainstream narrative and then immediately latching on to the prevailing alternative narrative and blindly outsourcing to those pundits, it's people need to resolve their consciousness of blindly outsourcing, period.
That's what needs to be done.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And, you know, you are a great example of that because, you know, the papers that I was talking about back then when you first got exposed to this information, now, you know, you've read all those papers, right?
And you made your own opinion about it, and I would encourage everyone to do that.
I mean, it may be a daunting task to Tackle every virus or the entire body of research, but, you know, go and look into it a little bit.
Look at one or two papers, or read, you know, something written in a little bit more detail to understand it, you know, like the Sovy statement that I have on my website, for example.
I want to, you know, say Mark Bailey's Expert Edition article, but that's...
It's going to be too advanced for someone who's just looking at this for the first time.
But that's where you want to end up, you know, reading and understanding that paper.
You can watch Steve Falconer's film rendition of it because Steve breaks it down pretty well in my news terms.
Yeah, and with humor, too.
So that's an excellent source.
But, you know, spend some time just...
Thinking about it and looking at the facts and then make up your own mind and do the same thing for the gain of function.
Take a look at the story, at the details.
Say, what's the actual evidence that this thing exists?
Not the rumor or someone else reporting it.
A lot of times, too, there are these Sort of quasi-mainstream, you know, pundits or journalists that are just outside or maybe they've been publicly rejected by the mainstream and they're generally going to be feeding these controlled opposition type narratives.
Totally.
And so that's another clue that, you know, if they're talking about, I'm not going to name names, but you could probably think of.
You know, a couple, some of them maybe even come from the conservative or libertarian orientation, you know, which is generally much more on the side of truth.
And these folks, I'm not saying that everything they say is a controlled narrative.
They say a lot of truth, but the most important things, you know, and I know also because of the amount of censorship That I and others faced who talked about this, you know, lack of evidence of viruses existing and causing disease is that it is, you know, among some of the most suppressed information out there.
Totally agree.
Totally agree with that.
Whereas the gain-of-function story has been, you know, reported on in the New York Times and mainstream outlets.
It was censored, therefore it must be true, like gain of function, or they won't say that directly, but it's sort of implied that, okay, this is information that was censored.
Yes, it was censored for a period of time, but only after the mainstream media across the board, across the earth, seeded that amongst the population.
I did a custom Google search from December or November of 2019 through May of 2020 and typed in several inputs, COVID, gain of function, Wuhan lab, SARS-CoV-2.
And you can find a number, dozens and dozens and dozens of mainstream articles openly talking about that idea.
And then, yes, they censored it.
And it creates this psychological effect of, okay, it's seated amongst the population, but then they're censoring it.
Therefore, I need to go look at that.
That must be the true narrative.
It's a false dilemma that they're promoting.
Try to find any article in any mainstream media publication, even, you know, on...
Page 76 in the D section on the evidence of viruses being lacking, you're not going to find it.
Not going to find it.
Okay, next topic that I want to cover is your take on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
I think you've called it the double cross of the two before.
Maybe that was you or someone else.
No, it wasn't me who said that, but that is pretty clever.
I'd like to take credit for it.
You know, I think it's very similar to the gain-of-function kind of story because it brings you back to the pharmaceutical paradigm.
Okay, so maybe you are no longer interested in vaccines, but non-vaccine drugs, those are still good.
And this whole thing is really...
Quite amazing, actually, that it came about this way, but it makes sense, you know, because you have this kind of appearance of a scary thing out there, and you're worried about your own health, and you don't trust the government solution, right?
And so you find these other people offering another solution that seems good, but you have no reason to trust those folks either.
I mean, they're essentially strangers.
I mean, I'm a stranger, too.
I say, you know, I'm not going to suggest what you should do other than you should investigate these issues yourself and look into them.
And, you know, at the time when ivermectin was getting really popular, I looked into it a bit, and there were several, you know, published research studies, like looking at people with respiratory illness.
And even, you know, some of the studies said that they were looking at COVID, but that's a whole problem that we can't define what it is and how, you know, have a validated diagnostic test.
But nevertheless, there were at least people who clinically had respiratory symptoms and were mostly in a hospital setting.
And when I looked at this body of research, and there were, you know, about maybe five, six, seven studies.
There was no clear conclusion that there was any benefit whatsoever.
That being aside, there's lots of evidence of toxicity of this drug.
At the time, there were certainly things reported about fertility and neurologic problems.
And then, as people were using this prophylactically, A lot of people got sick.
I'm specifically talking about ivermectin for now because I have the most knowledge about that, but in the New England Journal of Medicine, there was a paper published from a poison control center because they got a whole bunch of calls of basically ivermectin poisoning suddenly, which they didn't get before, and they followed up and found out that a substantial number of those calls ended up being in the ICU in the hospital.
So we're talking very serious.
Now, one individual that I, someone I was collaborating with on some law project, was prophylactically taking ivermectin and developed basically delirium and inability to walk, gait disturbance, which is a hallmark toxic sign of ivermectin toxicity.
It took her over two weeks to fully recover.
Wow.
Wow.
Yeah.
I know I've heard other people talk about, and I haven't looked into it enough myself, there, correct me if I'm wrong on this, there might be some studies that show that it impacts fertility as well, specifically.
Yes, I did mention that originally, but yeah, there's lots of data on fertility with ivermectin.
Yeah.
What about the people who claim to have had Well, they'll claim to have reversed COVID, that's the thing.
But what they're pointing to is reversal of symptoms, that ivermectin cured them of what they were experiencing.
What's your thoughts there?
Well, you know, there's a very important reason why even the FDA, as crappy as they are, if you're going to get a new drug approved or a new indication for a drug...
You have to submit clinical trials that involve more than one person.
And the reason for that is because in any individual, anything you can interpret, misinterpret it very, very easily, you need numbers in order to see that the pattern is real and not just occur by chance.
Because if you have an illness, at some point that illness is going to get better.
Now, if you start taking a therapy and then you get better, How do you know if you got better because you were going to get better anyway because that's the nature of acute illness is that it comes and goes.
How do you know that that treatment had any effect?
Now, you could say, well, the timing of it, right?
If I take the treatment and the next day I feel totally better, then that is a sign that the treatment worked.
But that also could be a coincidence because that could be the natural history.
That's why you need a few hundred people or thousands of people, because you could see, well, out of a thousand people, did maybe 25 of them get better a day after the treatment and the rest of them didn't?
In which case you say, oh, those 25, it was a coincidence, and the other 975 had no effect, so it's not a real effect.
Or did 900 people get better the next day and only 100?
Got better two or three days later.
In that case, you know, you can demonstrate this is most likely a real effect.
So any individual, you can never determine that something or other, you know, was effective definitively.
You know, there may be few exceptions, like I mentioned before about benzodiazepines and seizures.
So if you, you know, give someone an IV and they're...
While they're having a seizure and then as soon as you put it in there, they stop seizing.
I think you could tell that that drug made them stop seizing.
But even when it comes to ivermectin, let's say, because I've heard people claim this, that it immediately stopped their symptoms.
When it comes to stopping symptoms of illness, and I would...
Love to hear your thoughts on this and we'll discuss this later.
The difference between detoxification and poisoning and symptom reduction and whether it's good or bad.
We'll discuss that later.
But I think in many of these cases, it's simply that the body is expressing detoxification and you're taking a substance that is stopping that process of detoxification.
Possibly.
Yeah, well, so with respect to Like, what are called infections, okay?
Like, you know, colds, pneumonia, cellulitis, things like that.
There's no drug treatment that instantly improves the condition, right?
That's just not how that works.
There are some conditions, like if you have an arrhythmia, for example, and you give someone the right cardiac drug, like if you have an SVT and you give adenosine, and it's kind of exciting to do this because you have to have two syringes, inject them simultaneously, and then right before your inject them simultaneously, and then right before your eyes, this arrhythmia turns normal.
So you can get instantaneous type of effects with certain drugs, but this is not what happens with antibiotics or antivirals or anything like that.
Now, I think you're getting at why do antibiotics seem to knock out drugs?
Quote, unquote, certain infections.
And I think that there is a multifactorial, potentially, because one thing is many antibiotics have been shown to inhibit inflammation.
And many of the symptoms of an acute illness are caused by, you know, they're a consequence of the inflammation.
And you're right.
Any, you know, acute illness, the symptoms of acute illness are essentially your body detoxifying itself.
And this should be self-evident because if stuff is coming out of your body, that means your body's getting rid of stuff, right?
We know this just from our daily bathroom functioning.
We know this when, you know, when you're sick and you blow your nose or you sneeze, there's gross green stuff coming out, right?
Your body's getting rid of stuff.
If you have a boil, it leaks out pus, right?
It's getting rid of that.
Now, whatever it is the body's getting rid of is less important for this, but the inflammation, or the early parts of inflammation, help the body get rid of stuff.
So, remember the signs of inflammation would be swelling, right?
And what's swelling?
Swelling is more blood getting to the tissue.
So that's really good because it provides more nutrients and it provides more fluid to wash away waste products.
And so you get swelling of the nose, for example, when you have a cold, right?
And that's going to be uncomfortable because it's going to stretch the tissues and make them kind of raw.
And then you have all the secretion.
So the fluid that comes there from the swelling actually goes to help make the mucus, which is the vehicle that gets rid of the waste products or whatever the body's trying to get rid of.
So if you give a drug that turns off that inflammation, then there won't be swelling in the tissue, there won't be enough extra fluid to make the mucus, so the runny nose will stop.
And that might seem like it's an improvement or a relief, or it might give you the perception that it is curing the illness.
But that's not actually what's going on.
Now, what you talked about is also most likely part of what's going on, which is if the body is in a cleansing or detox mode where it's getting rid of stuff, that's a healing mode.
And we know inflammation is a healing mode, too, because inflammation has different phases, and the ultimate phase is tissue repair and regeneration, which is the completion of the healing process.
First, you have to get rid of the bad stuff and dead stuff, and then you renew, and then now you start fresh.
And that's the healing cycle.
Now, if the body is getting rid of stuff, but then you put in...
Something really toxic to the body while it's doing that, it could cause the body to switch modes and say, you know, I mean, you might say, oh, it makes sense to just dump that too, but maybe the body is overwhelmed by it and can't just do that easily.
And also, if you, let's say, you swallow an antibiotic, it's not going right to your nose where your body's getting rid of stuff.
So, if the body says, oh, you just put a whole bunch of poison in, I better switch from cleansing mode to, you know, emergency storage mode.
And let me clean up this toxin out of the blood, bring it to a safe storage location so it doesn't go, you know, to the heart or the brain or the lungs or whatever where it could damage a vital organ.
By the way, this is mostly speculative.
I don't have direct evidence that these things are going on.
There is evidence of antibiotics being anti-inflammatory, so that is somewhat evidence-based.
But the thing is, because the paradigms of medical science are so ingrained and accepted as being true, like germ theory, for example, that nobody is looking to Test alternative hypotheses like we're talking about.
Totally.
Totally.
I think overwhelmingly this is another example of people pointing to effects as proof of the cause, affirming the consequent, where they're already assuming that bacteria is the cause of illness.
And so then when illness stops after taking an antibiotic, they assume that must mean that this stopped the bacteria, the so-called pathogenic bacteria, from proliferating and causing more illness.
Right?
Yes.
There's another example of that.
Lots of circular reasoning involved in these opinions.
Yeah, and I think the other thing that you're pointing out there with the antibiotic doesn't just go straight to your nose.
I feel like people have this idea that antibiotics are specific and tailored towards a certain area of your body.
When you consume them orally, they just go throughout your entire body.
In medical school, I think this was Dr. Albanese, and he was talking about this effect, like that drugs, whatever drug we put in the body, like it might be targeted as part of the body, like antidepressants would be targeted at the brain, but of course it goes to the whole body, right?
Because we don't have a way, I mean we can't, you know, we could put a needle into the brain and inject it, but that's probably not a good idea.
So he made an analogy, he said, It's like if you were changing the oil in your car, but instead of opening up the cap and pouring the oil into the oil pan, you just poured it over the top of the engine.
That's good.
Okay, this question, and this is super rhetorical, but I do want to hear your thoughts on it.
What are your thoughts on the people who say, That it's not necessary to expose the fraud of germ theory, the fraud of virology, and it's enough to expose the harms of vaccines or to fight for safer vaccines or expose the harms of masking, etc., etc.
Well, how are you going to know what to do when you have a health problem if all you know is what not to do?
So you have to, you know, understand that it's not just that antibiotics are toxic, right?
It's that bacteria doesn't cause disease.
So you don't want to think, oh, well, I should use colloidal silver to kill the bacteria instead of penicillin.
You should think of what is really going in my body and how do I support my body healing itself?
Because I think one of the most fundamental misunderstandings that we have about medicine and healing, and this is directly attributable to the allopathic health system, I think, is that it's the medicine that actually does the curing or the healing.
That the medicine takes some kind of action.
And I want to just remind you that a chemical is in...
We can't order that pill to make us a sandwich.
And when we put it in our body, our body is the only living thing that can actually take action.
And any healing that occurs, right, if we recover from an illness, it's our body doing that recovery work.
There's no other possible entity that can do that.
Okay?
So what is happening when we put a substance in our body, and this is true, by the way, whether it's a man-made chemical pharmaceutical substance, whether it's a vaccine, or whether it's an herb or something natural or a mineral, is that substance, we put it in our body, and then our body has a response to it, a reaction to it.
That reaction might be, my God, this is going to kill us if we don't contain it and get rid of it.
It could be, oh, thank you, that will help us with what we're doing right now, or any of a number of other responses.
But it's only our body's response that actually does anything with respect to our health and our physiology and our biology.
And that's what's meant by the body heals itself.
Yes.
It's the only...
Entity that can heal is our bodies.
Or, you know, perhaps for some of you, you might say that we could take that one step deeper and say that it's the action of God.
But we certainly can't say that a pill or a chemical does the healing.
Right, right.
So, at the very least, it's important to understand the fraudulent nature of virology and of the germ theory as a whole.
Because you're no longer buying into these fictional things and you can start to understand how the body truly works.
I would say really begin to understand because also the reality is the overwhelming majority of funding into research is going towards this disproven idea.
And so I think we're just on the cusp of beginning to understand how the body truly works.
You know, precipice of a new paradigm right now, which is really cool and exciting.
The other thing that I would add, though, too, just my own two cents, is that if you're focused on just fighting vaccines or fighting for safer vaccines or any of the other things that are built upon the flawed and fraudulent pseudoscientific foundation of virology or really the germ theory as a whole, It's akin to whacking at the branches of a tree that continues to grow at its roots.
And an example of that is we have these so-called bird flu outbreaks right now.
How is fighting against vaccinology going to help us with the reality that they're culling hundreds of thousands of birds across the world?
There's egg shortages.
They're now saying that, quote, H5N1 has infected cows in some locations and they're taking raw milk off shelves.
They're killing cows in some cases.
They're killing a number of animals because of these so-called viral illnesses.
And it's not just bird flu.
It's so many other so-called viruses too.
Fighting against vaccines is not going to help us in that case.
Not at all.
The only thing that's going to help us, I would say two things, is understanding the fraudulent nature of virology.
And the germ theory.
And then also you could say, and I know you're a big fan of this too, understanding that no men or women in positions of so-called authority actually have true authority over you.
That's a whole other topic that we could cover another day.
But I think that it's incredibly important because of those reasons too.
And we're seeing real world examples of that right now.
Like people are at a loss for what to do when it comes to bird flu.
And we even have, I won't name names, but a lot of...
Quote, alternative leaders who are sounding the alarm that, oh, this H5N1 version was created in a lab.
It's like incredibly fear-mongering and it's totally untrue and not proven.
It's not real.
So yeah, I just wanted to share that as well because I think that's an incredibly important context too.
Yeah, it certainly is.
And, you know, if you look at the details of how this...
You know, bird flu operation is running, you'll see that there aren't, like, outbreaks of chickens being sick.
There just is a test, right?
And, of course, it's a PCR test.
And whenever they give it to any population of animals, there are going to be some positive results.
So they give it to cows, they're going to have positive results.
You know, if they tested puddles of water, they would have positive results.
results.
Maybe they learned this from, you know, President Maga Fuley, who did this on fruit and like goats with the COVID PCR test.
But I think it's important to know about and that this is, you know, I don't think they're going to say that bird flu is transitioning to humans and there's going to be a bird flu human pandemic.
I think it's going to be...
Essentially, with agricultural animals.
I mean, it's more so about the food supply.
Yeah, so there's an agenda known as Codex Alimentarius.
And most people, even in the truth movement, have not heard about this.
It's part of, you know, the globalist agenda.
So it's referenced in the United Nations Agenda 2030. And many other globalist organizations talk about it to varying degrees, and it essentially is the theory that the average, you know, Joe is not capable of safely cultivating their own food or medicine.
Hold on, real quick.
I'm keeping this on the recording.
Reese, Rebecca, didn't Ben just talk about this exact thing last episode?
Codex Elementarius?
I'm almost 100% certain he did.
I'm almost positive he did.
Sorry, continue.
That's crazy.
Crazy, because I literally just discussed this last episode.
So, continue, though.
Well, it's good.
Maybe, you know, it's timely because of the very flu to talk about it.
And there are many other areas where you can see this is coming into fruition and into policy.
And so it is, you know, based on this premise that...
You know, individuals are not responsible or knowledgeable enough to cultivate their own food and medicine.
And this is, you know, the reason why we've seen over the past few years in many countries as well, I'm not sure if this particular thing happened in the U.S. also, but that backyard chickens, right, have...
been destroyed or confiscated or culled.
So that takes away the individual's ability to grow their own food.
And where have we seen this play out with the emergency in California and other places is, like you pointed out, they're taking animals that are going to become food and just killing them to quote-unquote prevent And you can see
how this is not because there's some crazy increase in demand for eggs, and it's not because chickens are sick, it's because many of the egg-laying...
Hens have been killed because of bird flu and destroyed, and this has, you know, created a problem.
And we saw, by the way, you know, similar supply chain interruptions during COVID because what they did is they were testing workers at the, you know, slaughterhouses and the meat processing plants, and then if they had a couple of positive tests, they would shut down the whole facility.
And then the, you know, the meat producers, the ranchers...
Had to cull their herd because once they reached harvest time, it was too expensive to keep them alive.
And so once again, they just cut their losses and then it decreased the food supply.
And that's why meat prices skyrocketed during that time.
And there were lots of times when the shelves were not very well stocked.
Right.
Yeah, so I think it goes without saying it's incredibly important to understand this information.
And on that note, why do you think so many of the prominent voices in the health and freedom movement refuse to touch this topic?
And in some cases, censor this topic.
And let's set aside the...
Obvious examples of people having a vested financial interest, whether they're selling so-called antiviral supplements or something like that.
Vested financial interest not to cover it.
Because that's an obvious one.
Why is it that this is something that so many people just won't go there?
They won't touch it?
Well, you know, I can't really answer this.
Accurately, because I don't, you know, we'd have to ask those people.
But, you know, I have a few ideas.
I mean, you know, one thing is, the material itself is a little bit challenging.
Like, you have to really use your noggin a little bit.
You have to think.
And, you know, I may be a little bit glib about this, but really, for a person who is kind of not scientifically literate...
You know, and many people I know, you know, most of my friends, right, they would, you know, in college, for example, they wanted to, you know, just take literature, you know, or foreign language or, you know, history or whatever, anything but math and science.
So it's intimidating to try and understand this.
You know, Marcy Cravat, who...
Is an amazing, talented filmmaker.
We made a film together, Terrain, which, by the way, is still on Amazon, if anyone wants to.
We'll throw in the show notes.
Incredible that it's still on Amazon.
It's still on Amazon.
The way that project came about was because we were on an interview together.
I think she was the interviewer, and there was me and another doctor.
I can't remember who it was now.
And then she got my number, and then she would be like, just text me questions.
And so at first, I was like, you know, who is this?
She's going to be texting me questions all the time.
And so I said, read this book.
So then two days later, she texted me.
She's like, I read the book.
Now I have these questions.
So I'm like...
I'm like, she's serious.
She read a whole book, you know, just because I told her to.
So I said, let's have a phone call.
And then, you know, we had one of those two and a half hour phone calls and led to more two and a half hour phone calls.
And that's how we developed a relationship and decided to do this project.
But she was, you know, she's a creative, right?
She's an artist.
She views the world differently, you know, from how I view it.
And so she had to reorient her whole way of thinking about things to understand this, but she was motivated and persisted.
But it took hours and hours and hours, plus the time for reading books, and now she totally gets it, and she achieved that.
I don't think there's too many people, you know, who are willing to put that kind of effort in to really understand this issue.
That's what I think it is, too.
So it could just be intimidating for a lot of people.
And, of course, you have these other folks, you know, many good folks out there that, you know, were heroes during COVID that helped wake people up.
And they're not going there, so maybe they say, oh, well, if they're not going there, I don't need to go there.
It's kind of a fringe issue anyway.
And plus, if I acknowledge it, then, gosh, I'm going to have to change my life if I do this.
If I get sick, I realize it's not going to help to go to the doctor.
What do I do then?
And that creates a whole lot of anxiety.
Of course, you could say it's easy for me.
I was a doctor, like I've seen.
I know what would happen and all this kind of thing.
Plus, I learned so much about natural healing.
There's many other things you can do that would be helped, but you have to know that they're the right thing to do.
You don't have someone in a white coat backing you up.
You just have to trust yourself, and you have to be really mature for that.
You have to be able to face your fears.
And so it's a real big ask.
And then, you know, what's the benefit?
Like, if you're...
I would say there's tremendous benefit.
Well, no, I agree.
Right.
But there's also tremendous risk.
So let's say you're a doctor and you're still working in the system.
You might not be able to do that.
Right.
Right?
Like, let's say, you know, you work in an ER. And then you learn this and you're like, wow.
Germs don't cause disease.
And then somebody walks into the ER with pneumonia.
Well, what are you going to do?
Right?
If you don't give the man a box, you're going to get sued.
Exactly.
Right?
Let alone piss off people.
So, you know, you're going to bust out the turpentine or the enema bag, you know, right?
We'll talk about that later.
So it's, you know...
There's a lot of risk associated with it.
Right.
I think it's a combination of all those things.
Obviously, we have the people who have the financial incentives, which we brought up earlier.
We have people who, you know...
It's just too challenging for them to touch it.
We have legitimate controlled actors who are amongst what David Icke calls the mainstream alternative media.
Again, I won't name names on that, who just don't touch it for those reasons because they're selling a controlled narrative.
You have people who...
And I understand this one specifically as well because I've been there as well and it takes a shift in how you think.
But the people who say, well, I don't have an explanation for how I got sick or I don't have an explanation for how these two people became sick in the same space with similar symptoms, colloquially known as contagion.
I don't have an explanation for that phenomenon.
And because I don't have an explanation, I'm going to fall back into the accepted paradigm that the overwhelming majority of people believe in.
And it really does take an incredible shift in thinking to get out of that mindset.
And a perfect example that I like to give, and Tom uses the example of the adopted kid.
I like using a, you know, fictional court case.
But let's say Chuck is being charged with murder.
But Chuck...
Chuck proves that he was, like, or falsifies the idea that he is the one who committed the murder.
Maybe the murder took place at a gas station in Wisconsin, and on that exact date, Chuck was in Jamaica, and he has all the evidence to prove that he was in Jamaica, thus falsifying the idea that he was the cause of that murder.
What people are doing when they're jumping right back in the viral paradigm because they cannot figure out what is the true cause of their illness or what is the true cause of two or more people getting sick in the same space is akin to saying, Thank you.
Well, Chuck, you know what?
You're right.
You have the plane receipts.
You have, you know, you had an Instagram live that day in Jamaica, all these other things.
You have thus falsified the idea that you're the cause of that murder.
But until you can tell me who did cause this murder, it must be you because this is the best fit model that we have right now.
That's what people are effectively doing when they still latch on to this idea that, well, until you can come up with how this happened or how these things occurred, what is the true cause of measles?
What is the true cause of chicken pox?
Like how STDs work, etc.
I'm going to go fall back into this totally disproven paradigm.
That's what people are doing.
Yeah, and this has actually been written about, if you look at the work of Thomas Kuhn, who's written about paradigm shifts, that there are these psychological forces, and they defy logic, of course, as many emotions are, but they also may have a protective, functional role among societies.
And there has to be a certain amount of time, momentum, and acceptance before this kind of thinking changes, and people will revert back to the current paradigm, even if it's false.
It's like, whether it's true or false doesn't matter, because you came up in it, and you never questioned it.
It was already established, so you accepted it, which is...
Why we have our compulsory schooling system is to make sure that you accept all those things.
And if we went back to a classic education like the trivium, based on the trivium and quadrivium, two of the elements of the trivium are sorely lacking in our population and would help them overcome.
these issues, which is grammar and logic.
Because really what you're talking about is flawed logic or allowing your emotional response to interfere with logical thinking.
And this is what happens during most discussions and interchanges around this topic, because you are attacking the most sacrosanct institution in our culture, which is medicine.
There's a reason why it's the highest line item on the GDP.
So there's this emotional attachment, like if this godly institution is completely false, then then my whole world is upside down.
And that is too much to face, just on the words of a couple of rogue...
▲
Export Selection