All Episodes
Previous Next
April 3, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
01:00:09
Tom Cowan Q&A Webinar from April 2nd, 2025
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, welcome everybody!
Today is April 2nd, not April Fool's Day, 2025.
Thanks for joining me and hopefully there'll be some new visitors today as a result of probably many of you have seen or heard about that I did a second interview on the Kim Iverson show and I wanted to talk briefly about that.
So hopefully there's some new people here, so welcome.
And today we're gonna mostly do some question and answers, but I wanted to comment on the comments that I got from that interview in which I keep getting.
I did happen to see though, right before we started, in the chat on the YouTube live stream, People were talking about how they went to somebody said they went to their Proctologist or telling a story about that.
I remember growing up and one of my Parents doctors friends was actually a proctologist and we used to call him the rear admiral Another was a guy named Stuart Hamburger who was Uh,
he was also a surgeon and amazingly, he named his son Harry Hamburger, which I thought that was a weird thing to do.
Uh, but anyways, that's pretty much irrelevant to the case.
So, uh, let's talk about, uh, the feedback.
from the interview and there's been also feedback and challenges to me coming from various circles as a result of some of the podcasts and some of the interviews that I've been doing and what's so interesting about this is there's basically only two criticisms.
90 or so percent of the criticisms are Well, how do you explain that I got measles?
Or how do you explain chickenpox parties?
Or how do you explain that so-and-so got herpes?
Or how do you explain that I lost or somebody lost their taste and smell?
Or we've heard about the challenge of unless I can explain how these 50 or 100 cows got so-called hoof-and-mouth disease, Then obviously it must be a virus.
So 90% of the comments that are critical, that is the essence of their criticism.
So I wanted to comment on that.
It also has to do with some of the questions that I've got, so it will be related to that.
So I won't have to go over that again.
So the first thing is Uh, and I've spoken about this many times.
If you have a interest and a claim to be scientifically literate, you know that the process of science is Somebody makes a claim.
In other words, says a positive statement.
In other words, there is a specific disease called hoof and mouth or measles or chickenpox.
Here's how we know there's a specific disease and it's caused by a virus.
So then you attempt to prove whether that's true or not.
If it is something that can be shown to be True, then you could call it a scientific endeavor.
If it's something that there's no possible way to show whether that's true or not, then it simply should be categorized as a belief.
And we all have beliefs, and some of them, there's no way to falsify that belief, so we just accept that we can't prove it, we don't need to prove it, And we don't force anybody to believe what we believe, but this is what we believe.
But here we're talking about the process of science.
In order to be called scientific, it has to be falsifiable.
And the important point is you don't need to replace the claim with a different explanation for that phenomena.
That is the I would say the height and the epitome of a scientifically illiterate person who claims that one has to do that.
Now I've given a number of examples of that, predominantly the story about the guy who finds out he's adopted and then somebody, his friend, asks him who are his real parents and they claim that until they can tell him We're
good to go!
There's a robbery and a shooting and at a 7-Eleven store and there's a camera and the camera has a fuzzy picture of somebody and they say we've identified that it's a man between 18 and 40 and he's wearing blue jeans.
Now obviously that's not specific enough to identify any individual person.
So then a few days later the police find a guy who's 30 and he's wearing blue jeans and they say, well you must have been the person who committed this robbery and this murder so we're going to arrest you.
Now the person then says, Finds out that the shooting and the murder occurred on April 1st of whatever year and he presents absolutely rock-solid documentation that he couldn't have been at that 7-eleven because he was in the Greenland or Thailand or or Estonia or somewhere he has the physical evidence to prove it he has evidence
Actual video evidence with dates.
He has multiple people who will vouch for him and he has the airline tickets.
He has the airline tickets back and nobody positively identifies him as the person between 18 and 40 at wearing jeans at the store.
And so it's very clear that there's no possible way he committed that crime.
He has incontrovertible evidence disproving that claim.
You would never find, hopefully anyways, the judge or a police saying, until you can tell us who committed the crime, then we say you're guilty.
That would be such a travesty and that nobody but literally somebody who is unable to think Thank you.
go about understanding things in the world.
And yet, that is exactly what all these people are demanding.
Until you can tell us what causes chickenpox, until you can tell us what causes bird flu, until you can tell us what causes hoof and mouth disease in 50 cattle at the same time, then we have proven that.
The viral hypothesis.
That is such unbelievably scientific illiteracy and nonsense.
It's really hard to imagine that after all this anybody still thinks that.
But yet they do, even supposedly, not even, but especially doctors and vets and scientists and a whole lot of other people.
They still keep spouting the same thing.
Even though, as the Iverson show we talked about, there have been many, many examples over the years that this exact situation was misinterpreted much to the detriment of humanity.
For example, scurvy.
Hundreds of years.
People had the same symptoms at the same time in the same place.
Therefore, it must be a contagion by an unseen microorganism.
And then whoops, somebody ate some sort of fresh food like a lemon or lime or even fresh meat and the whole thing went away because it was something to do with poor nutrition.
We had the same thing with Barry Barry.
We had the same thing with Pelegra.
We had an example which I don't remember all the details with for 50 years or so in Japan.
There was a bay that they all the Not all.
A lot of the people were coming down with the same symptoms and they quarantined them and said it must be a unseen microbe and then they found out it's because they were dumping a toxic form of mercury into the bay and using that as their water and eating food from that bay and that was the problem.
And we've seen this over and over and over again and yet these People, including and especially professionals, keep trotting out the same thing, which is, until you can tell me what causes hoof and mouth disease, I'm going with the virus thing.
And what they're really saying is, we don't understand science, and we don't understand the process of thinking.
That is what they're saying.
But the other interesting thing, which I haven't pointed out, Is this is an interesting example demonstrating the actual incompetency of.
Okay. Because of that,
they don't actually investigate what actually might have made these animals or people sick.
They don't go to the water and test for arsenic or mercury or lead.
They don't go to the soil or the feed and see if it's low in selenium or low in other vital minerals or nutrients.
They don't find out anything about what's happening in the environment, the air around them.
They don't go into the sort of emotional or psychological situation.
They don't go and see if there's outgassing in the house or anything.
They don't do any kind of investigation.
It's complete incompetence.
And then they have the amazing, what's the word, gall to say, you see, you...
You know, you can't tell me what happened in that after they have incompetently investigated the situation.
Of course I can't tell them what happened, because A, I wasn't there, B, I didn't have anything to do with the investigation, and C, you didn't do any investigation because you erroneously believe, because of indoctrination, in a disproven theory.
So, it's actually, in a funny sort of way, this is a direct failure of the people who are asking the question, who are so bamboozled by this so-called germ theory or disproven germ hypothesis,
that they even Don't even bother or are unable to actually investigate a certain situation to find out what's in the house or what's the emotional environment or anything.
What are the people eating?
What are they doing?
What are the water they drinking?
What are they feeling?
Nothing. It's just must be a virus even though we can't see it.
So, Don't be persuaded by that and just to finish this little introduction We happened I asked what my friend who's good at this sort of AI stuff I'm not a big fan of AI but it is it does speed up research.
I will say that too Because I've been repeatedly making this claim which people should investigate which is There is not one properly done study in the medical scientific literature that shows that sick people or sick animals make well people or well animals sick.
And I mean properly done scientific studies, meaning the sick people or the sick animals are the independent variable.
That means They have to be you have to control for the environment.
Like if it's children going into a house, you have to put the sick children and the well children in the same house.
Can't have them in different houses.
It could be something like, you know, arsenic emitting from the Paris green in the wallpaper.
So you can't have that as a so-called confounding variable.
You have to have everything the same.
Obviously, except one group is exposed to sick children or sick animals, and the other is exposed to well children or well animals.
That's what we're asking for, so that we know that this is a scientifically validated theory.
So, my friend asked AI, is there such a theory?
Is there such a study?
Because I've been saying we have approximately 200 studies, the Rossano and Can You Catch a Cold, that says that that isn't the way it works.
Nobody has been able to prove that.
Every proper scientific study with controls and controlling for confounding variables has claimed and shown that that's not the way it happens.
So we asked AI, is there any evidence that that's the case?
And let me show you what they came up with.
Now, it is important to know how to ask this, because if you ask them, is there any study that shows contagion, they will show you studies of sticking, you know, cell cultures down the throats of ferrets into their lungs and then finding the same alleged sequence of...
That's So that's not what we're asking.
We're asking, is there proper studies, not with molecular diagnostic tests, because that's not what people are claiming.
They're saying, we got measles, we got this illness, and we got it from exposure to a sick person.
So they're claiming that you get sickness from being exposed to somebody who's sick.
So to be clear, here's the final answer and the AI went all the way back to the 1860s looking for studies.
And so after all this and they came up with studies and they talked about, I don't know what they, but the thing talked about how each one of them had a methodological problem, either no controls or So,
or they're environmental confounders, meaning they didn't put the people in the same environment, or they didn't drink the same water, or they didn't have the same air system, or something like that.
to be clear, have you provided me with a single study that meets the criteria I asked for?
Basic scientific criteria, please reread the whole conversation To see the basic criteria requested one sentence response.
Please the criteria are just controls that the the sick people or the sick animals are the independent variable just like you would expect and that we're looking at illness and sick people or sick animals not Snot or cell cultures injected into monkeys brains.
Not the kind of thing that you wouldn't see.
The exact thing that we hear about in these comments.
Answer, no.
I haven't provided a single study that meets all your criteria.
Sick individuals as the independent variable.
Natural exposure.
Thank you.
has at least one flaw.
We controls artificial infection or environmental confounders.
Has germ-based contagion ever been established using the scientific method in any single study ever?
One sentence response.
No. Single study definitively establishes germ-based contagion using the scientific method with a true independent variable, sick individuals, natural exposure, proper controls, identical clinical symptoms without assumptions or methodological flaws based on this criteria you outlined and the available literature.
Not one single study.
So I think I would say that I was correct.
That that has never been done, and the reason is simple, because it doesn't work like that.
Not for any other reason.
And the burden of proof on anybody who writes comments and still thinks that is to show us a study.
Because as far as I can see, and as far as an AI can see, that study doesn't exist.
So, good luck.
The other comment that people and criticism that people say is, well, we've seen pictures.
And again, if you do proper science with controls, what you will find is that all the pictures come from essentially broken down cell cultures, occasionally from some tissue, and if you do a control, meaning Can you get identical picture from a broken down cell culture without any addition of the virus?
It is very clearly in the medical literature that there is no way to distinguish through electron microscope pictures Which is the alleged virus versus which is the broken down tissue from something that couldn't possibly have a virus.
So why do you get different pictures of different viruses?
Because they do different conditions of the cell culture or the person, so it breaks down into different looking entities.
None of those would have been proven to be a virus.
In order to do that, you would have to separate, i.e.
properly isolate, that thing.
Okay. As far
as we can say, this is all correct.
There is no evidence that viruses exist.
Therefore, they obviously can't cause disease because in order for a Unicorn, a invisible unicorn to blow up houses.
First of all, it has to exist.
Same with viruses, same with anything.
You can't make something up in your head and then give it all kinds of properties and expect that that's how the world works.
So that's like an introduction to this.
The first question then is, discuss the bird flu scam and give us talking points for the USDA and state agencies that claim the PCR test allows them to kill birds and crash the egg supply market.
So, whenever you hear, so how do you debunk, so there's another question in here that has to do I can't, I don't see it.
But anyways, how do you address this?
First of all, you ask them, what do you mean by bird flu?
What is the definition?
And they say, birds that have mucus or respiratory illness, and they don't lay as many eggs, and then sometimes they die.
And as I went over on the Kim Iverson show, there's at least eight other conditions of chickens that have identical symptoms.
Therefore, unlike something like pregnancy, where you actually know what's true, in other words there's either a baby or not, there is no way to tell by looking at a bird or a chicken or any kind of fowl or flying creature they have bird flu or a whole host of other things.
Therefore, there's no gold standard, there's no way to validate the test.
Because if you do a test with something that you don't know whether they have it or not, which is what they say, you can't tell by looking at it, and you do a test and it's positive, how do you know that that's true?
Again, compare it to pregnancy.
First, you start, I know this woman is pregnant.
I know this man isn't pregnant.
Therefore, I do a test and I can find out how often it's correct or incorrect.
So-called false negatives and false positives.
If you don't have the thing that tells you for sure, you can't come up with a test that tells you whether it's true or not.
Because you have no standard with which to validate the test.
That should be unbelievably obvious to anybody willing to think.
Now, when you talk about a PCR, therefore, it can't possibly be a validated test.
You can't possibly know how many false positives or false negatives there are, because there's nothing to compare it with that you know is true.
And then the second problem with the PCR is obvious that if you have a something and you claim that this other thing is a piece of that something, you have to show the something, the whole thing first, before you can say the piece came from that whole thing.
You can't say this section, you know, So, in order for a PCR test to be valid, it has to, you have to first prove that there's a virus.
You have to isolate the virus.
You have to show that the genome came from that isolated virus and couldn't possibly have come from the person it came from, or the animal it came from, or the bacteria, or the fungus, which has never been done.
Therefore, there's no way for you to claim that you know that this genome came from this organism because you've never had a pure organism.
And then second of all, you have to prove that no other organism.
That's great!
assuming even genomes exist.
But if you assume they do, this is a piece of it.
And you have to prove that no other organism has it, which has been disproven over and over again.
And when you realize that, like with humans, they say, we've never sequenced The whole human genome, there's at least 10% that has never been seen.
So if you take a sample of somebody and say, this is not from a human, how could you possibly know that?
Because you've never seen 10% of it.
It's like saying, this sentence couldn't have come for war and peace, even though you've never seen war and peace, and allegedly the last three chapters are missing.
Anyways, if you've never seen the whole book, how would you know that only three chapters are missing?
This is logical nonsense.
So a PCR, or an antibody test, or an antigen test, it's all the same, have never been proven to be specific to something that has never been purified and isolated.
Finished. Full stop.
End of story.
There's no way to validate this test because unlike pregnancy and maybe a fractured femur that you can see on the x-ray, there's no way to know for sure whether any chicken has bird flu or The host of eight other things that I mentioned, the same with measles, the same with chickenpox.
Now, there are patterns, and so in the extremes, obviously, the rash that we call measles may look like different than the rash that we call chickenpox.
But when they come together and they're not so extreme, we have literally proven by showing them to experienced pediatricians, 100 children who have either, they say, one or the other.
At the extremes, they get it right.
And in the middle, they can't tell which is which, which means that almost a high percentage Okay.
It's just superstition, not science.
There's no way to tell with the vast majority of people who has this rash or that rash because their symptoms and their signs all merge together.
So there's no actual thing that's true that would allow you to validate either looking Or any test.
End of story.
This is not how disease works.
Hopefully that's clear.
I don't know how to make it any more clear than that, and hopefully some of the people who commented and are still stuck in the, well, what about the chicken pox, and what about measles, and what about hoof and mouth disease, until we give them a different explanation, they're going with the virus story.
And just let me finish by saying, there's nothing wrong with speculating, After there's agreement.
Yes, we've agreed.
There's no evidence for a virus in any of these situations.
Now, let's investigate and create hypothesis.
Is it the water?
Is it emotional?
Is it some astrological event?
Is it the Paris green in the wallpaper?
Is it fear?
Is it the Okay, other subjects.
Hopefully that's clear uh I don't think this is the last of it, but we keep doing it because it's so important.
We've got to get this right.
They keep running this out over and over again.
What are my thoughts on Neanderthals?
Were they a separate species to humans?
Were they humans that adapted to a harsher environment?
Frankly, I've never looked into Neanderthals.
I have my doubts whether they actually Existed and have the skeletal proof that we say they do?
I basically doubt it.
But I haven't looked into it enough to know that for sure.
By the way, I just read a quote, I think from a guy named Wayne Dwyer, that the definition of ignorance is claiming to be sure about something which you know nothing about.
So, I know almost nothing, I would say pretty close to nothing about Neanderthals and the investigation of whether there is actually such a thing, and if there is such a thing, when they allegedly lived, or when they were actually shown to live.
So, I don't know, but I can tell you they were not a missing link between monkeys and people.
That is a Disproven bogus story.
Okay, next.
My subdivision treats the community well water with chlorine.
I have a reverse osmosis system for drinking, but no whole house system for bathing and washing food.
Is this small amount of chlorine dangerous?
Should we push them to switch to another treatment option?
For your information, we have a water tower.
So this is an interesting question.
And actually, I was just part of a group that had a interesting fellow.
His name was Robert Gorlay, I think.
And he's part of a company called meawater.com.
And he had some interesting things to say about exactly this.
And I'm going to present this as something to think about as a possibility.
So we know that water has four states.
One of them is so-called structured or crystalline or exclusion zone or easy water or coherent water, etc.
And the reason Gerald Pollack called it exclusion zone is because it is it forms in a very particular geometric arrangement that excludes things that shouldn't be in the water.
So the sort of toxins or impurities which may be found in normal liquid water are unable to be incorporated into this coherent water structure.
That's what his experiments are demonstrating.
Now, this coherent water, or structured water, or easy water, also typically has a charge, which can be measured in millivolts, and for some reason, which I'm not sure of, they refer to it as a negative charge.
And there's a certain number, which I don't remember the number, that's the sort of maximum negative charge you can get with water.
So in this presentation, and I've heard this before, so it's not the first time, and it's consistent with this theory, he made the claim, or at least talked about, the fact that if you take any water,
So whatever the water is and whatever the impurities are, whether it's primary stream water or this kind of water that's got chlorine and all sorts of otherwise poisons in it, and you restructure the water, and let's forget for a minute how you do that.
If you can restructure the water and make the water into exclusion zone water, By definition, that will push out and neutralize the impurities of the water and either get rid of them by, say, vaporizing them or putting them into the air, or neutralizing them so they're harmless.
So, he is selling and is talking about and has, quote, invented a device Based on magnetism and vortexes and so-called sacred geometry.
And I would say it's similar to the Analemma water wand, where the idea is you take whatever water and you expose it to some influence that's either magnetic or electromagnetic or geometric or something like that.
And you create A coherent structure in the water.
This is the same thing the argument with the guy who makes the the shower heads that we carry on our site.
And the process of structuring the water, by definition, pushes out the impurities and or renders them harmless.
us.
But more than that, you don't need to do that, because if you just properly structure the water, you will vaporize the chlorine into the air, which, by the way, if you have one of our shower heads, you can literally smell chlorine in the air if you have chlorinated water that's coming into the shower head, and then you can, when you use it, you will smell increased chlorine in the air.
Why? Because it's structured the water, made it more coherent, made it more exclusion zone, created a negative charge, which is a funny word, but that's what they use it, that's strong enough to push out the impurities.
They either become neutralized or vaporized and therefore harmless.
Now, I would say even though that's an interesting argument, I do use a filter.
I worry about reverse osmosis because it's a, it uses basically an electrical system, which I think may end up harming the structure of the water.
So I typically use a You know, basically a carbon or a, you know, filtration through something like coconut carbon or charcoal or something.
It's a physical filtration system.
And then I put it through a restructuring copper flow chamber.
And then I use either the NLM wand or now I'm trying out one of the MEA devices to Put a charge Thank
you! Yes!
I would say, in my opinion, not fit to drink.
It's been deactivated, de-charged, de-structured, and that's not the water that is in all the healing waters of the world.
So we want structured, coherent, charged waters.
There's a good argument that that's really what we are, and the more you are exposed to this by...
bathing and washing and drinking and consuming the healthier you'll be it may be the unifying principle of health and interestingly everybody should check out his research because he can
show that a lot of people with a lot of different conditions actually do better with uh drinking the water from one of their systems as was the case with the anilama wand which is a very similar principle
you take any water you expose it to this electromagnetic influence that creates a structure and a coherence and a charge in the water that pushes out the impurities and makes it water that we can actually take up into our body that
Hopefully that's a bit of a long answer, but hopefully that's clear enough.
What do I think about iridology?
That, what for people who don't know, that means looking at the iris, that's the colored part of your eye.
And there's charts that go back to Bernard Jensen and other people probably from the 50s or 60s that claim that this part of the iris has to do with the foot or the liver or the pancreas or the heart.
and then there's different rings i think six or four or something and can tell something about the age of the problem and the chronicity of the problem or the acuteness of the problem and what your body is doing about the problem all by looking at the iris of the eye.
So you can see the state of the problem and the location of the problem by looking at the location in the iris.
And I would say there was probably three or four years in my practice where I had that chart by my exam table, probably sometimes on the wall.
And pretty much every patient that I saw, and at that time everything was in person, I would look at their eye, look at the chart, and see if there was any correlation.
And I was never trained in it, like most things with me.
I'm not a big training sort of guy.
I don't go to courses and workshops, and I don't like being So I tried and tried and tried and maybe this was a case where I would have been better off getting some help.
But I read every book I could see or find on it and looked at case studies.
And my bottom line was sometimes it was remarkably Consistent with what I would have thought otherwise in other words this was a person who's coming in saying they had a heart attack and I would look on the part of their eye which is the left eye around three o'clock or so from memory and there would be a big black hole in that part which clearly was in their heart and it could even tell me something about the age
of the heart attack and it could even tell me something about whether it was healing and that happened in say 10% of the time, and the other 90% of the time, it seemed to be inaccurate or have no correlation.
And as a result of that, I stopped doing it, and basically let it slide.
Now, I can imagine that it was my lack of understanding it that allowed me to make correlations or see more into it than than That was my conclusion
about iridology and as a result I dropped it.
Again, somebody may have a different experience and it could be that they knew more about it or know more about it than I did.
Okay, I understand that antibiotics should not be used for a respiratory illness as it hinders the healing process.
But what is your opinion on infections?
So that's a tricky question, because there's an assumption there that the problem is an infection, which is actually not the case.
How do you know it's an infection?
So you're talking about a viral infection, which can't be because there's no such thing, as far as we know, and a bacteria have never been shown to cause illness, so that can't be.
Same with fungus.
So there's no infection.
Organisms are there, bacteria and fungus, but they're there to clean up the debris and except in very, very unusual situations which would happen in my practice maybe once every five years that I thought somebody actually needed an antibiotic and then they probably didn't really need it but I was Too worried about it to not do that.
Other than that, everybody seemed to get better with just, you got debris in your lungs, let's get the debris out with inhalations and doing different things, usually vitamin C and stuff like that.
And they didn't need to take antibiotics.
Say you get a cut that gets infected.
Again, That's assuming there's this thing called infection.
What happens is you get a cut, you get debrided, denatured tissue, and the bacteria come to help clean up the debris.
It's just like, it's like putting, what do you call it, lice.
not lice, uh, maggots.
Yeah. You put maggots on a so-called infected wound and they clean up all the dead tissue and they get down to where there's healthy tissue.
And then the maggots conveniently die and they fall off.
And then your wound heals.
And it works great because that you don't have a maggot infection.
You have maggots came to help you clean it up.
Same with bacteria.
You may need to help clean up the wound.
Like there's nothing wrong if you have some obvious dirt and stones and, you know, poisons or pebbles in your wound to get them out, because it's irritating to the tissue.
And it's pretty difficult for the bacteria to clean up All that dead and dying tissue and to get rid of the rock that's in your leg.
So you might want to help yourself out by taking that out, but that's not an infection.
Okay, yeah, here was the other one.
Talking points we can use to discredit PCR tests.
I think I already went through that.
Could you talk about fungal nail infections, please?
It's the same.
Fungus Have never been independently shown to cause infections?
Again, this is not complicated science.
This is, okay, here's a pure sample of a fungus, put that on an absolutely healthy group of 100 men and women's feet, and see if you get a fungal infection.
Answer, nobody has ever shown that to be the case, as far as I know.
Maybe we should ask AI about that.
As far as I know, that doesn't happen.
But if you have too much sugar in your tissues, maybe, or denatured tissue from something else, then the fungus are happy to clean it up.
And if you don't want fungus growing on your tissues, creating smelly stuff, etc., then you don't eat so much sugar, and you don't have denatured, debrided tissue, and then the fungus go away.
And that's exactly how I treated people for 40 years.
That's how we treat people in the New Biology Clinic.
And interestingly, I had so-called athlete's foot for most of my growing up.
And they said it was because of basketball and all these things.
And then I started eating good food when I went to college.
and basically since then have pretty much only eaten organic food and never had a case of athlete's foot ever since.
It also isn't a bad idea to let your feet air out and connect them to the earth and don't wear synthetic socks and synthetically made shoes all the time because just like anything, your feet need to breathe and get sunlight and be in the ocean water and salt water and connect to the earth and that's how you treat so-called fungal nail infections.
It also isn't Does vaccine shedding exist?
Should the non-vaccinated take precautions or be considered?
I think precautions be considered.
How long can somebody shed?
So, as we've talked about, we don't know what's in these so-called vaccines that are not vaccines.
They're also not gene therapies because that's not how it works.
Okay. Who
Is it something they put in that creates an electromagnetic signal that influences the living beings around them?
Is it some toxin that seeps through the skin that other people are exposed to?
Because nobody in our camp is saying that living beings don't affect one another.
Let me be very clear about that.
Nobody is saying that living beings don't affect one another.
Women in the same place menstruate at the same time.
If somebody starts yawning, other people start yawning.
If you're Feel differently or something that we may call sickness in some sense.
We don't really have a good handle on what that is.
At least I don't.
Are they physical things seeping through your skin?
I have my doubts, but there could be all kinds of, you know, electromagnetic, like I said, or psychological, emotional influences.
So the answer to this question is to, like everything, investigate the actual details of what is the story, how do you feel about this, and do you really want to keep going to a meeting and discuss Politics with 20 other people, all of whom have been vaccinated.
Is that really how you want to spend your life?
Dealing with people who think like that, and maybe if you don't, then that's not good for you, etc.
But otherwise, I don't consider it a huge risk.
I don't do anything about it myself.
I don't think there's any like huge poison that's seeping out of them.
There's certainly no spike protein Poison that's seeping out of them or snake venom or any of that nonsense So it's not something I worry about much Can you explain why a goiter appears in the circumstance in which your thyroid might be removed?
So in new biology clinic and new biology medicine And the way that I think about it and the way I'm trying to help people or get people to think about it, the question we ask is, why would your amazing body choose to make this thing happen like this?
So in this case, the thing that's happening is your thyroid gets bigger than it otherwise was.
So why does something get bigger?
of reasons, some of which I can't think of right now.
But one of the reasons you would want a bigger gland is to increase the amount of area that's making whatever it is that that thyroid is making.
Let's just say for now it's called a thyroid hormone, which I have my doubts as to whether that's been proven to exist in a living system, but let's say that's the case.
So if you don't have enough food or nutrients in order to make The proper amount or type or consistency of this stuff we call hormones.
It might be reasonable for you to make a bigger gland so you can make more of that if you happen to encounter the right nutrients.
So that's not a disease, that's an adaptive response to being deficient or not replete in what you need to make the product.
Now with the goiter, we call that iodine.
And so we have a signal that if certain particular mineral or nutrient isn't available, then the thyroid can't make what it wants, so it gets bigger and then it's...
Okay. I
mean, I've seen situations where it got so big that it was like choking the person and they could barely live and they maybe didn't have time to remedy the situation in the way I just described.
But I've seen that maybe once and even then I wasn't convinced they actually needed to take out their thyroid because then you need to take exogenous chemicals called thyroid hormones for the rest of your life and there's a lot of problems with that.
So basically this should be an easy fix and that's I think all you need to know.
I think the last one, in functional medicine, thyroid blood testing, what do you think the antibodies they say are causing an autoimmune attack really are?
Do you sometimes think thyroid medicine is necessary and how would you treat it?
So, we've said over and over and Mike Stone has done a great piece and the Bailey's have done a great piece.
Nobody has ever isolated and proven that there's antibodies in living systems.
And what they are showing, which are maybe a kind of protein that comes after a certain precipitation or chemical treatment of living system, has never been shown to cause disease.
Again, this is not complicated.
All you would have to do is take these alleged antibodies and expose them to a healthy animal or person and show that it causes Hashimoto's thyroiditis and a destruction of the thyroid gland, or if it's rheumatoid factor antibody, that it causes rheumatoid arthritis.
And they say right on the websites for these institutions that treat this, that has never been proven.
So we have no evidence that antibodies are a causative agent.
And basically what it seems to me is something is destroying the tissue, whether it's your thyroid or your joints, and your body is trying to repair it.
So it makes extra stuff.
No. Yeah, They're there to help you.
And if you get better, then the antibodies go down because you don't need to I think so. In our anti-scientific approach to life, we have erroneously fingered those antibodies as the cause of the disease, and then we suppress your, quote, immune system with toxic drugs.
The upshot of that is then you have disease for the rest of your life, which apparently is the goal of the therapy.
Now, there are cases that I've seen with people who have basically destroyed their thyroid for years and years, mostly by taking exogenous thyroid hormones, and they seem to not be able to live without at least some exogenous thyroid hormone.
I hate to say it, but those people It's typically they may need to take some until or unless they can fly on their own which sometimes I would admit doesn't happen and I've Okay,
It doesn't always work in the person who's taken thyroid hormone for 20 years.
So that you have to be more careful.
I think we've got it.
Thanks everybody for listening.
I appreciate all the support.
▲
Export Selection