Daniel Roytas: Are Viruses Real? Challenging Germ Theory, Pandemics, and Medical Dogma
|
Time
Text
All right, welcome to today's interview here on Brighteon.com.
Can you catch a cold?
We've all been taught that.
Most of us grew up believing that.
I believed it for a long time.
Not anymore.
But we all believe that there's some invisible thing called a virus that if it comes out of one person, that it can be transmitted to another person.
And then that person would redevelop the same symptoms that the first person experienced.
And that's called viral transmission.
And almost everything that's happened in our society since COVID has been driven by this belief in viral pandemics and epidemics and flu and warnings about the flu season.
What if it was all bullshit?
That's the question of the day.
And our guest today is an author and much more, but he's the author of a book called Can You Catch a Cold?
His name is Daniel Reuters.
His book is found at Amazon and booksellers everywhere.
And today, we're going to interview him for the first time to ask these questions.
Is there such a thing as a viral epidemic or pandemic?
Is there such a thing as a viral flu that can make you sick?
So welcome to the show, Daniel.
It's an honor to have you on today.
Thanks for joining me.
Hi, Mike.
Thanks so much for having me.
It's an honor to be here.
That's great to have you on.
Now, this is the first time we've ever met, and I actually love that we haven't spoken before.
And so I get to ask you for the first time about yourself and how you came to write this book.
So for the sake of myself and our audience, can you please give us a little bit of your background and what led you to this topic?
My background's in natural medicine.
So I studied as a naturopath in naturopathic medicine and nutritional medicine.
I graduated, I think, roughly in around 2010 and went into clinical practice, worked my way up through the educational system.
So I was employed by a range of colleges and eventually a university.
I worked as a senior lecturer at the university and resigned in 2022 after I sort of couldn't bring myself to continue working in that position.
I couldn't ethically teach the curriculum that I believed was broken.
And in my undergraduate degree, I learned these principles that germs don't make you sick.
And I thought, what a load of nonsense.
I'm here to learn science.
Why are we learning this old school crackpot natural medicine stuff?
And I discarded that understanding for over a decade until I heard some doctors in 2020 talking about this idea, floating it again after many years of discounting it.
And I thought, maybe I should just go and revisit that and see if there's anything to it.
And that led me down a path of eventually writing the book, Can You Catch a Cold, just to provide the evidence and almost a documentation of all the papers and things that I had read to inform myself about this topic.
Okay.
Wow.
So that's a fascinating background.
It also establishes that you've studied and taught a lot of information in this space, and you're clearly a critical thinker.
But of course, people like you are, your conclusions about verbology fall far outside the mainstream system and far outside what most people believe.
In your view, what is the most compelling simplified evidence, if that's possible, that allows us to share your conclusion that there isn't actual, that there aren't viruses that can propagate epidemics?
I don't know what's going on inside the human body at all, Mike.
I mean, I used to think that I knew, but I don't anymore.
The more that I learn, the more I realize how little I actually know.
So as I said, I don't really know what's going on at the micro level inside us.
For me, it's all a guess.
And there are reasons for that.
Maybe we can get into that later.
But the basic underlying principle of all this, or the philosophy, is that when someone's sick and they come in contact with a healthy person, they spread their illness to the healthy person.
Now, that should be a relatively easy thing to demonstrate.
Right.
You put a group of sick people in a room with a group of healthy people and you see what happens.
At the most basic level, we should see that the healthy people fall sick.
And I believe that these experiments have been done as do most of my colleagues.
We were of the opinion that we had this empirical evidence and this empirical data to back up this so-called phenomena that we think we observe.
And I went looking for that evidence.
And believe it or not, there's many dozens, if not hundreds of studies for all different kinds of illnesses that we are told are contagious, where they've taken healthy people, sick people, put them in a room together and observed the effects.
And by and large, not a lot happens.
The sick people don't seem to make the healthy people unwell.
So that's a major problem for the theory that we're told.
Yes, but a clarification.
It's commonly seemingly observed by people that, for example, people go to a trade show event or they go to a public speaking event and they come back sick very often.
And they think and they say, well, I must have been exposed to something there.
It must have been a sick person running around the trade show made me sick.
I come back and I'm sick.
What would your answer to that be?
And let me just add an asterisk.
I happen to know that air travel is incredibly toxic all by itself.
You could travel on the airplane by yourself and get sick.
But what's your explanation for why people feel like that's what they are experiencing?
This is the entire premise of the book.
So it's broken into three parts.
And one of the parts is to look at the evidence for contagion.
And it's apparent that there's some problems with our underlying theory and our underlying standing, our underlying understanding.
I think we just need a course correction there to really re-evaluate what we think we know.
And the other part, or a large part of the book, is providing alternative theories or explanations about why we might fall ill.
So I think I've posed maybe half a dozen or so different reasons there about why it may appear that people fall ill.
Again, I don't know if any of those are correct, but they all have validity and they've all been discussed at length in the literature.
So we owe it to ourselves to explore those things in greater detail, but we never have because we've been looking at this paradigm called germ theory with the blinders on for 120 years and we've never taken the time to adequately assess these various other explanations.
So I'll just give you one potential alternative explanation is the belief that healthy people, that sick people make you sick.
So there are experiments that are being done where people have been told in a controlled setting that they're being exposed to flu germs and they get ill very quickly.
There was one experiment where they took a group of people, put them in a room, and said, okay, we're going to give you the flu germs now, expose the person to the germs, and within a matter of hours, they were coughing and sneezing and spluttering and up all night shivering.
The nurse comes in the next morning and says, it's an April Fool's joke.
We didn't actually infect you with flu germs.
We gave you salt water.
And they got better within 15 minutes.
So that demonstrates to us that belief alone is enough to induce the symptoms of a cold or flu.
So we're told from a very young age that when you come in contact with someone with symptoms, they will make you sick.
So is it possible that we believe that in that explanation in that phenomenon so much that when inevitably one day we do come in contact with someone who's ill, we get sick because we use the power of our mind through a thing called a nocebo effect.
Obviously, there are many other potential explanations going on, but that is just one of them.
That's a very powerful point that you just made there.
And I've got two comments on that.
Number one, since I stopped believing in the theory of verbology, I have never been sick.
So that's interesting.
I mean, the worst symptom I've had is maybe a very slightly sore throat, which just could be from me overexerting talking because I do this professionally.
And sometimes I'm screaming in my podcast.
And that's probably overworking.
But whatever.
So belief is very powerful.
And for people who might question that, I would like to point out there are documented studies and experiments in the realm of hypnosis and mind-body medicine that clearly show that when people believe they have been touched by poison ivy, for example, their skin will break out in itchy hives and rashes consistent with what they understand as symptoms of poison ivy, even if it was not poison ivy at all.
So I just want to clarify that to our audience that the mind makes it real if the belief is in place, but that speaks to the toxicity of pushing the belief itself.
So in other words, the theory of the virus is the virus.
In other words.
You could say that.
Yeah.
Your mind is infected first and then your mind makes it real.
I mean, at least that's one explanation.
What about the electromagnetic exposure or electropollution theory?
You know, radio waves and 5G and everything else.
I assume that's probably one of the theories that you perhaps considered?
I did.
I didn't find a huge amount of evidence to demonstrate cause and effect relationships there.
So it was very difficult for me to, with any certainty, say that when you're exposed to electromagnetic frequencies, that it might cause colds or flu.
It very well may.
I did find some evidence for that and did reference in the book, but I didn't focus a lot of my time and attention on it because I wanted to stay away from speculation as much as possible.
So again, there might be evidence out there to show that this actually occurs on a greater level than I found.
But yeah, I mean, I found more evidence for the psychological side of things, the toxicological side of things, the environmental side of things as well.
So exposure to various meteorological effects like changes in humidity and temperature.
These were the sort of real standout ones that I came across.
But just a note on the whole side of belief, Mike, or the power of belief.
I included many different examples of people becoming sick one after another, same time, same place, where researchers and doctors came in to investigate what the cause was because they thought it was a contagious illness, but it actually wasn't.
And they put the answer down to a thing called social contagion, which is a phenomenon that they don't really know how to explain, where they see a contagion-like effect.
They go in, they look for a germ, they can't find it.
And they say, well, it must have been a psychological thing, a mass psychogenic illness.
And I mean, there's also experiments where they've told people who have asthma that they're going to give them a substance that causes an asthma attack.
So they give it, the person gets the asthma attack.
And then at the height of the attack, they say, okay, now we're going to give you the drug that cures the asthma attack.
They administer it.
Asthma attack goes away.
But little did the participants know that they were actually being given the drug that treats the asthma attack first.
And then to treat the asthma attack, they were being given the substance that is meant to cause the attack.
So it had nothing to do.
The effects had nothing to do with the drug or the substance they were being exposed to at all and everything to do with the story that they were being told and their belief in that story.
You know, it reminds me of clinical trials for antidepressant drugs where there's a placebo group and, you know, and then there's the group that receives the actual chemical.
And usually the participants in these studies, they want to be among those who receive the, quote, real medicine, but they're told that the medicine can have side effects that are negative.
And then if they begin to experience the negative side effects, they get very happy believing that they've got the real drug and then their depression ends.
So it's like, yes, I'm having weird side effects.
That's awesome.
Now I'm happier.
And then that ends up showing that the antidepressant works, even though it just caused side effects.
Yeah, Irving Kirsch did some great work on this back in the 90s.
It's incredible.
It's a professor from one of the major universities.
So yeah, being able to work out whether or not you're being exposed to a active substance plays a major role in these blind studies.
And that was another point that I made in the book, was that in any of these contagion experiments where they say they're exposing people to flu germs, they don't control for these aspects of things like contain of the nocebo effect.
They don't control for that.
So how do you know that it wasn't the person's belief that created the symptoms that you observed?
How do you know that it was actually a germ or a virus?
So, yeah, there's many confounding variables or external factors that might influence the outcomes of these experiments where they've put healthy people and sick people together in a room or exposed healthy people to their bodily fluids, for example, and observed symptoms.
There's many other explanations for that that haven't been controlled.
And it's for those reasons that I can't hand on heart say that, yes, a germ makes you ill because these other things could have explained away the negative effects that occurred in any of these people who got ill.
And until such time as we do that, then we can't say for sure that contagion has been empirically demonstrated.
Okay, let me give out your website.
I've got another angle to cover with you here.
So your website is humanly, H-U-M-A-N-L-E-Y, humanly.com.
And we'll talk about, you know, I'll give you a chance to plug it later what people can find on your website.
I just want to give that out.
But let me mention this angle here from a lab standards angle.
So you may or may not know, but I founded and own a very accomplished MassSpec food laboratory.
I'm a published food scientist.
I develop methods in mass spectrometry and chromatography.
And so it's routine.
I mean, in our lab is ISO accredited.
We're audited, inspected.
We pass proficiency testing, et cetera.
We know exactly what we're doing.
So that is dealing with heavy metals or glyphosate or atrazine or aflatoxins or what have you.
Well, a few years ago, I reached out to our standards providers to ask if I could acquire a standard of SARS-CoV-2 because I wanted to start testing for the presence of SARS-CoV-2.
Now, and I'm sorry for the long explanation, but you'll appreciate this setup.
When I want to test for mercury, I buy a mercury standard and it has mercury in it at a specific concentration, like 100 micrograms per milliliter, whatever, and it's stabilized in nitric acid at some concentration.
Okay.
So I can push that into the instrument.
And the instrument, I can say, this is 100 parts per million mercury.
And then I can dilute.
I can make a curve.
I do a five-point curve.
And then I can take an unknown sample and I can say how much mercury is in this unknown sample, compare it to the physical mercury that you saw at the atomic level, because we're talking about atomic mass spectrometry.
Okay.
To me, that all makes sense.
But then when I went to try to buy a standard of SARS-CoV-2, I found out it doesn't exist.
It doesn't exist.
And what the companies labeled as standards were not standards.
They were not isolated.
They were like cow serum, cow blood, and pig blood, and human snot from somebody who they said was symptomatic.
They got a woman coming off an airplane who had the sniffles and they grabbed her mucus and they put it in there and mixed it with the cow blood.
And they're like, that's a standard.
Like, what are you talking about?
That's not a standard.
You need an isolated solution that's nothing but SARS-CoV-2 and nothing else with homogeneous particles with a specific molecular weight that I can put through a chromatography column and I can get a peak.
And none of that exists is my point.
I'm sorry for the long explanation.
What's your reaction to that?
Like, none of that exists.
You're exactly right.
You need to have a gold standard for whatever it is that you're testing for.
So for something like mercury, for example, we have that gold standard.
You can go out into nature and find mercury and get your gold standard and then develop your test from that standard.
But when it comes to a lot of these things that happen in laboratories, there's leaps and bounds of logic and assumption that are made in those first initial steps where you start taking a crude sample and then immediately adding things to it in the process that is claimed to isolate the thing you're looking for.
Now, unless you control for those initial steps, you don't know whether or not they're actually confounding the results, i.e., causing the effects that you're looking for.
So you have to control for those steps to show that the addition of the thing to the sample doesn't, A, create the thing you're looking for, or B, change something inside the sample away from what it is like when it's inside your body.
And the only way you can do that is by having a gold standard to compare your results to when you start adding these things in.
So without that, then I think it's Bit uncertain as to whether or not you're seeing in the lab is actually reflective of reality.
To add to that, you know, in metals or pesticides or chemicals or chemical markers in foods or caffeine or whatever, you actually have the physical molecules available as standards.
I can buy a caffeine standard.
You know, I can buy ascorbic acid as a standard if I want.
But when it comes to virology, all the equipment, you download digital libraries.
So there are no physical standards.
It's a download from the company that sells you the equipment that they claim detects this thing, but you never actually have the thing.
Isn't that bizarre?
Yeah, I liken it to a baker baking a cake.
So if there's a claim that's made that chocolate cakes in nature cause disease when you eat them, well, you have to say to the person making that positive claim, show me the chocolate cake in nature first.
Right.
And if that person said to you, yeah, I'll show you the chocolate cake, step into my kitchen and I'll take some flour and chocolate and milk and sugar and mix it in a bowl and put it into an oven at 180 degrees and bake it on high for 90 minutes, ta-da, there's your cake.
That's proof that chocolate cakes exist in nature.
And when you eat them, you get sick.
I'd say, well, hang on, show me the cake in nature first because you're saying that they do exist in nature and they do make you ill.
I don't want to see it in a kitchen after you've mixed a bunch of stuff together.
I want to see the cake in reality.
And this is, to me, is kind of what happens in these labs.
It's like, step into my lab, let me take some bodily fluid from you and I mix a whole bunch of stuff together.
And then I get an effect.
And then I make a story up about that effect, which I don't think we can validate.
So it's a major problem.
No, but you've nailed it right there.
That this is a story.
It's a narrative that's been pushed by virology, the virology community for so long.
And they've built an entire library of science and medical journals all around it for decades and a lot of profits too.
There's a tremendous amount of business that's conducted based on this idea.
For example, the flu season.
And even right now, we're told, oh, the super flu is spreading in 35 cities.
You know, you better get your flu shot.
And yet during COVID, the flu somehow completely vanished in 2020, which, and then I studied, you know, how does the CDC determine when someone has, quote, the flu?
And that is so loosey-goosey.
It wouldn't pass a high school science paper test.
I mean, they literally just make that up.
But what have you observed about that?
This is an issue that the researchers and doctors and scientists came across as well in their studies with colds and flus.
One of those things was, how do we define what a cold and flu is?
They spoke about how difficult it was to actually objectively list or come up with a definition as to whether or not a person has a cold or flu or not.
And because those definitions were so arbitrary, they had a lot of leeway as to whether or not they believe someone was sick or not after coming in contact with an unhealthy person.
One of those studies, they just said, look, if you sniffle three times in 24 hours, we consider that to be a positive sign of a cold.
I mean, it's so arbitrary.
And yeah, it's not as though in these experiments, people were coming down with the definite cold and flu symptoms that we would all think that a person experiences.
Sometimes it was, you know, one cough and three sneezes or sniffles in a set period of time.
And that was considered to be a positive case.
So, you know, another thing that was very interesting, Mike, as well, is that in some of these experiments, they took bodily secretions from people and injected them into their blood or into their nasal cavities or eyes, ears, nose, throat.
And in some instances, people did become unwell.
And they said, well, aha, that's proof of contagion.
However, that's an unnatural route of transmission.
So it's claimed that when you come and contact less than six feet of someone, they cough and sneeze and they emit their germs to you.
But in these studies, they were actually taking large quantities of bodily fluid and putting it directly into another person, which is not how it happens out there in reality.
And people were getting symptoms.
Now, what's interesting is that inside the bodily fluids of a sick person, so-called inflammatory markers increase in concentration.
And those markers are claimed to be the driving factors behind why we get symptoms.
Now, what happens, interestingly, is that when they take those inflammatory markers or mediators and expose healthy people to them, they get symptoms of colds or flu.
So just by exposing someone to so-called infected bodily fluids and observing illness doesn't necessarily mean it was a virus.
It could have been inflammatory mediators.
It could have been belief.
It could have been a wide range of things.
So again, it seems that the waters are very muddied and uncertain in this field as to what's really going on.
I don't claim to know what's going on.
Mike, there might be germs out there making people sick.
There might be viruses.
I don't know.
But until such time as we actually go and do better science and control for these external factors and variables, we just, we're flying blind, essentially.
Yeah, I'm with you on that.
I mean, I'm scientifically trained and I have a curious but rational mind.
I'm open to an explanation of germ theory if it can be proven.
But if there are germs that may make people sick, I should be able to buy a standard of germs as an ISO accredited laboratory to be able to study those germs.
I should be able to, you know, open the vial under a fume hood.
Let's say I should be able to put it under a microscope.
Maybe it's an electron microscope.
And I should be able to see a bunch of particles that are basically the same size and shape.
And then there's the germs.
There they are.
Oh, the villains.
I found them.
And to date, no one has done that.
Now, we can do that with fungi or fungal spores.
We can do it with bacteria.
We can look at like VX nerve gas chemicals on a chromatography column.
We can see it in the peak.
We know the mass to charge ratio.
We can look at the chemical composition through a variety of means.
We have all these other ways to prove the existence of all these other things that can make people sick, like exposure to toxins.
But viruses, none of that's true as far as I can tell so far.
Is that also what you're seeing?
Or have I said something just now that maybe you've got better information?
I tend to agree with what you're saying.
I think it's very difficult to prove conclusively that these particles are what they're claimed to be.
So yes, you can do electron microscopy or some kind of chemical analysis or genetic sequencing on some bodily fluids, but you have to have your gold standard first.
You've got to show that the thing you're looking for exists in nature in reality, get your gold standard and then go from there.
But again, that's never being done.
And I don't think it can be done because, you know, the very, we say that these things exist in the bodily fluids of a sick person.
So show them there in the first place.
Take the bodily fluids and then show the virus in there without anything being added in from the outside, any external factors.
Right.
But they've never done that.
No.
They've always added things into that SNOT sample first, meddled around with it, and then they start to analyze it.
Well, how do you know that doing these various steps in your methodology hasn't confounded your variables?
And again, there's sort of no explanation for that.
They just assume that those steps don't confound the variables.
So assumption is the antithesis of science, Mike.
This is why we do science to get around belief and around assumption.
So when you follow the trail of breadcrumbs all the way back, you know, to these foundational steps, we find that, hey, these various steps haven't been controlled for.
How do you know that they didn't confound your variables or confound your results?
And this is very important, what you just said, because many labs do drug testing, right?
So you pee into a cup or maybe they take a blood sample.
They run it through equipment like what I have and they can actually pull out a drug.
Oh, if somebody has, you know, cocaine or meth or whatever, that can actually be isolated from the blood with very high purity using selective methods, you know, elution time windows for chromatography.
So you can actually pull the cocaine out of a person's blood, but they've never pulled viruses out of someone's blood that I'm aware of.
It's never happened.
Have you ever seen a study where they took a person who was, quote, infected with even Ebola, you know, so-called whatever it is, were they able to pull Ebola out of that person's blood?
And then here it is.
We found the Ebola and stick it under a microscope and there it is.
Has that ever happened?
It might have been, but I don't think it has.
And I mean, this is admitted in many papers is that they don't see these particles in tissue samples or bodily fluid samples directly taken from a sick person.
They have to meddle around with it first in a lab in a cell culture to see the virus.
And they say it's because there's not enough virus to see or the virus is too small.
So that might be true.
But again, you've got to be that pesky five-year-old, Mike.
You've got to ask the question, how do you know that?
Right.
So how do you know now I've taken a sample and put it in a culture flask and added something to it that it didn't create the little particles that I'm observing in the electron micrograph?
And again, you can't do that.
So yeah, it's a major problem.
And I'm not sure if there's any way around that.
And I kind of think that a lot of these uncontrolled steps that occur in these labs will never be able to be controlled for.
Because how do you actually see the thing on a micro level first without bringing in external variables which might confound your results?
It's a very tricky thing to do.
So with something like cocaine, for example, I mean, you can get some pure cocaine and then you can do a controlled study.
You can get a group of people, give half of them cocaine and half not, and then go and test or devise a test for that and see with what level of accuracy and specificity does my test show or detect people have had cocaine.
And you can show that, yes, it has a very high degree of certainty.
It's like 99% or 100% accurate.
But you can't do that with a cold or flu virus, which I think is interesting.
Right.
Well, and so I'm sorry, but let me mention another huge aspect of this that maybe you haven't covered in your book, but it's of great importance to food safety.
So, you know, my company manufactures food.
That's why we use our lab to test all of our food for all these possible contaminants.
And we test for various microbiological contaminants such as listeria and E. coli and salmonella, et cetera.
And all those things we can see under a microscope.
And so we use an incubation method that in some cases takes 72 hours.
And then we have a, you know, we have automated equipment, et cetera, right?
So we incubate a certain sample size.
And then if it grows listeria, then, you know, the color changes of the test vial, et cetera, right?
And this is all well validated.
Well, a few years ago, we were approached by a company that said, no, you don't have to do any of that.
All you have to do is test for the genetics of a virus or the genetics of bacteria.
But they also specifically mentioned viruses.
Like, what if your food's contaminated with viruses?
How are you going to know?
Because that's not going to show up in the E. coli test.
So I said, well, what you have to do is use this PCR equipment in order to test for the presence of the genes of the viruses or the bacteria.
And I said, I met with the sales reps and I said, okay, that sounds great.
We could save a lot of time.
Does your instrument give me quant information?
Does it tell me the level of contamination?
How many units did it find per gram or milligram of the sample?
And they said, no, that's not possible.
There's no quantitation information at all that comes out of PCR.
And that's when I said, wait a second, you mean to tell me that food companies all across this country are using your technology to say that food is safe when there's no way that your tech can know how much of anything is in the food?
And basically they admitted that's the case.
So food safety is some of it's just a fraud as far as I can tell.
And we don't use that method.
But what's your reaction to my story that I just told you?
Because that's all true.
Yeah, I think there's some major oversights that need to be addressed.
And again, like, can we actually address these?
Is it possible to do it or is it an impossibility?
And the only way you can really know is to do the proper science.
And that's essentially what I've advocated for in the book, is to go back to the foundational papers, look at the methods and say, right, have we dotted our I's and crossed our T's and controlled for all the variables as best we can?
And if not, then why not?
And if not, can we?
And if we can, how about we go back and do these experiments again and show with certainty that what we say is going on out there in reality is actually transpiring.
So I think the more work we do in a lab on these things, which are really they should be answered through empirical research, so direct observation with our five senses, the research in a lab is not reflective of that.
doesn't tell us anything about what's going on in reality out in nature.
All we can say for sure is that when I do XYZ methods in a lab, I get this result.
And it may be a, it may be consistent.
It might get consistent results, but does it have external validity is the question, which means is there applicability to the real world?
In a lot of these cases, I don't think there is because they're doing, you know.
things that we just don't see happen out there in nature.
So there's also, I want to talk about the culture of science, which has become, I have to say, it's an obedience cult today.
And the reason I say that is because if you go into any lab and you start to ask the questions that you and I are asking, you won't be taken seriously.
They'll say, oh, no, no, no, no, you, you have to accept these statements as true, even though there's no real evidence behind it.
That's the foundation of the science.
And there's this gap of rationality.
But I mean, I've found that I have a lot of success in my science developing new methodologies like glyphosate quantitation without using post-column derivatization techniques that are very toxic.
I developed that method because I didn't listen to the cult.
They said it can't be done.
And I said, yeah, bullshit.
I'm pretty sure it can.
And now we've validated the method.
Sorry about my language, but that's just what it is.
But what do you say about the cult of science that exists today?
I think there's been processes and an understanding that's been arrived at somewhere along the line and then passed down from professor to student.
And then that student becomes a professor eventually and passes it down to their student.
And that's all they've ever known.
And it's written in the textbooks and they pay a lot of money.
Well, I certainly did for my degree because I spent a lot of time learning these various bits of information.
And you hold them very preciously to your heart because you believe it to be true.
And then if someone questions the knowledge that you've learned over the years and spent a lot of time and money on, well, maybe you're not so willing to question those things because it may challenge everything you think you know.
So we have to have some kind of humility to be able to re-evaluate these things and say, right, we are looking for what's really going on, regardless of what it might be.
If it doesn't suit the underlying story that we've been told or held for a long time, I'm willing to challenge it and that's okay because we're doing science.
But it seems now as though there's so many preciously held beliefs that cannot be challenged simply because we've believed them for a really long time.
And that sort of forms the fabric of our society.
And if you challenge those things, then it may disrupt the way that we live our lives and how society functions.
And, you know, that, again, isn't science.
That's more like we're getting into the realm of politics now.
So it's interesting that throughout most of the history of the human species, knowledge was passed down through storytelling, especially in the pre-writing era, right?
Pre-alphabet, pre-written language era.
It was passed down with stories.
And, you know, whether it's Native American or ancient Tibetans or Amazonian tribes, they all had stories.
And they would tell stories that today we might find to be fantastical.
It's like, oh, the angry God in the sky came down and ate the moon and this and that, right?
And today we look at that and we think that's silly.
But yet we, in our Western culture, we do the exact same thing.
We tell these stories about viruses.
It's really no different and it has no more scientific basis than the ancient indigenous tribe stories.
At least that's my comment.
What do you say?
Yeah, these are all stories that I don't think have been validated.
We're trying to explain complex things that happen out there in nature, which we don't really fully understand yet.
And if you look at the root word of virus, it means poison.
And our ancestors, and this is why I went into the history of colds and flus in the book to the extent that I did, because I think that our ancestors actually had a far better grasp on what colds and flus might actually be and what causes them than we currently understand today.
So the root of the word is poison, like a virus.
And the root of cold and flu is essentially the symptoms that you get when you're exposed to changes in temperature or weather conditions.
That was where these words derived from.
So maybe our ancestors actually knew far much more than we give them credit for.
Yes, yes.
But, you know, that's the age-old story, isn't it?
Don't go outside in the cold and the wet because you'll catch a cold.
So my parents are really wrong about that.
But, okay, I was told that if you go outside, if your hair is wet and you go outside and it's cold, you will catch influenza.
Now, that never made sense.
Even today, it doesn't make any sense at all.
How do germs know that my hair is wet and come to me from the cold weather?
Right.
So even the stories as they are told today don't make any sense at all if you just stop and think about it for two seconds.
This is what's so bizarre to me is we still have people telling these stories to their children or a doctor telling a story to a patient.
Like, you don't have an immune system until I give you one.
You know, it's like, come on.
There seems to be a range of different things that probably happen.
Again, I don't know for sure what's going on in there inside the human body, but a range of different things that may happen when we're exposed to changes in temperature and changes in weather conditions.
Now, one of those things is that our lungs are constantly cleaning themselves.
We've got these little broom-like structures called cilia that line our respiratory tract, and they're constantly sweeping out all the inhaled matter that we breathe in throughout our day.
But when there's a change in humidity and temperature, that process, those little cilia, are inhibited.
And they no longer sweep out and clear out the inhaled debris to the level that they did when the temperature was as it was before.
So if you're breathing in a whole bunch of junk and then the temperature or humidity changes and now your body's own ability to clear that stuff out is impaired, but you're still inhaling the same amount of stuff in the air.
Well, now it's going to build up in your lungs.
And it seems that the body mounts a certain response, i.e. producing lots of mucus, coughing, sneezing, and sloughing off the lining of your respiratory tract to clear that inhaled particulate matter out of you.
So this may be a conservative and adaptive response rather than so-called infection with a germ.
Good point.
So, you know, is that a potential cause of colds and flu is exposure to these weather changes?
Certainly we know when people get exposed to conditions where there's a lower humidity or a change in humidity, it dries out your respiratory tract.
Now, is it just that you're now building up a bunch of gunk into your lungs and you've got to now clear it out?
Or is it that your lungs become dry and now you're more susceptible to the viruses that are in the air that you're breathing in and they infect you and make you ill?
This is a major question that we have to get to the bottom of the page.
And also, there's a environmental effect or is it a virus?
These changes in humidity and temperature that used to exist in nature were very slow transitions, but now in indoor environments, you're going from a building to the outside or in an airport into an airplane.
And these sudden changes can be more rapid than what the human body ever evolved to be able to handle, right?
So those could be issues as well.
But I want to ask you, the forward to your book, again, your book is called, Can You Catch a Cold?
Question Mark.
And I love the fact that you're asking the question.
I love your humility, Daniel, that you're not claiming to know everything about what's happening in the body, but you're asking questions.
That's the right approach, I believe.
But the forward was written by Dr. Samantha Bailey, who we interviewed here.
And as I recall, she was writing hundreds of letters to various universities and science institutions all over the world, asking for one of them to show proof or any evidence of the infectiousness of an isolated virus, to put it simply.
And last time I spoke with her, which admittedly is a couple years, not one institution responded with any evidence that that ever happened.
Do you have any more recent knowledge on her efforts?
I think Dr. Sam Bailey and her husband Mark have done a lot of great work in this area, as have people like Christine Massey.
So she's made hundreds of viruses.
It's Dr. Massey that was writing the letters.
Yeah, thank you for the clarification.
No, but I did interview Dr. Samantha Bailey after that.
I may have conflated those two people, but I apologize for that, but please continue.
That's okay.
Yeah, there's a lot of work.
And Dr. Bailey or Drs. Bailey have been in contact with some of these mainstream institutions and having these hard conversations as well.
And I don't think there's been any major updates or revelations in regards to getting this information that we're looking for.
And I'm not sure if there ever will.
I guess at the end of the day, the thing we have to ask ourselves, is the underlying story that we're being told true?
If it is, fantastic.
We can just go about our life and do the things that we can do, do our best to build our immune system and protect ourselves.
But if the underlying story requires some course correction, does it necessarily mean that we need to do things differently?
Well, maybe, maybe not.
I mean, the fundamental principles are that if you don't eat a good diet, if you don't get enough sunlight, if you get exposed to toxins and poisons in your environment, they can all impair your immune system.
And you're now at or more susceptible of being infected by a germ.
But on the flip side, if a cold or a flu is a conservative process, it's actually designed to assist your body clearing out things that you've been exposed to in the environment.
Well, maybe you still need to do those things that we've just mentioned anyway.
Getting out in the sun, getting good food, breathing clean air, moving your body, not because it's building up your immune resilience or your immune system, but by reducing your overall toxic load.
So either way you sort of look at it, you're still doing the same thing.
It's just the underlying story might not be true.
So if it's not a germ, then it takes the fear away of being in contact with your fellow man who has symptoms because it means that they can't necessarily transmit anything to you, which is different, very different to the way that you look at it on the flip side.
That it's actually that a cold or a flu is earned, or it's a consequence of environmental factors rather than a little microorganism out there lurking in the shadows trying to get you.
And as I mentioned earlier, Mike, there's been hundreds of these experiments that have been done trying to demonstrate that this phenomenon occurs.
And the doctors and scientists have basically thrown their hands up in the air at one point in time and said, it's almost impossible to, well, yeah.
It's almost impossible to show this.
Right, right.
But I want to mention there's a liberty factor in all of this because governments, when people believe in the theory of infectious virology, governments can use that belief to take away their civil liberties.
They can force people to lock down in their homes.
They can try to coerce people to take vaccine jabs that they otherwise would not want to take.
And in some countries, they just literally force you to do it.
They can shut down businesses and ruin economies.
All of this happened in the COVID era.
And it was all based on the widespread belief of virology that, as it turns out, is not rooted in rationality or evidence at all.
So tyranny comes from ignorance in this case, doesn't it?
Yeah, absolutely.
So you could say that that may be the root cause of all of these issues.
If we lived in a truly democratic and scientifically minded society, Mike, I think what happened in 2020 would have gone very different.
And I'm not sure that people really consider how different that outcome or that sequence of events may have been.
So rather than saying, rather than the peak health bodies and governments around the world saying, we know this for a fact, there's a germ out there that's going to come and get you and it's going to infect you and you need to do these things to protect you.
Maybe the conversation should have gone, it's our best understanding currently that this is how the theory works, but we're not 100% sure.
And because we're not 100% sure, therefore we can only make recommendations for you to do these things.
And if you don't treat them, no problems.
Right.
I hear you.
Instead, they attacked everybody who questioned it.
They labeled them the disinformation dozen.
They deplatformed and de-banked people because they, the government, they were so sure that they had the only answer of truth.
Even the FDA mocked people for using ivermectin, which seemed to help a lot of people with various symptoms, etc.
They even mocked the existence of the immune system.
They said it's a conspiracy theory in some cases that the immune system even exists.
Imagine that, right?
So that's how far we went down the deep hole of ignorance and tyranny.
Very bizarre time.
But so I appreciate your work, Daniel, because you're helping us see through the delusions and the illusions and maybe have a better future if we can return to some standards of critical thinking, rationality, and evidence.
Is there anything else you'd like to add here as we wrap up the hour with you?
Don't believe anything I've said.
Don't believe anything that I write in the book.
I've put over a thousand references in that book and had a number of subject matter experts review the book.
So I actually had a virologist and microbiologist review it, someone who I trust and had a psychologist overview and helped me with some of the chapters in that book because we have a focus on some of the psychological aspects as well.
So we really tried to do the best we can or the best we could to make sure all the information presented in there was as accurate as possible.
So even though we've done our best, don't believe anything that's written on those pages.
Go and do your own research.
Look at those references, read them for yourselves and come up to your or come up with your own conclusion.
Now, if it just so happens that your conclusion is, say, different to my worldview or your worldview, Mike, that's fine.
But at least you did the work to come to that conclusion rather than just being blindly or just blindly believing what you've been told.
Well said.
I have the same view.
I respect somebody who has thoughtfully considered a position, but that's extremely rare today.
It's almost non-existent, actually.
People don't have time.
They're so busy just trying to survive in this crazy world that they have to take the word of experts because they've got to put food on the table.
So they've got to be working 40, 50, 60 hours a week and doing all the other things just to survive.
So they don't have the ability to go and look for themselves.
And even if they did, they may not necessarily have the skills and the ability to critically appraise the literature in such a way.
So they are really, really reliant on others to inform their worldview.
So, you know, it's a very difficult thing, Mike, to have conversations with people about their worldview.
And those worldviews are based upon beliefs and opinions rather than facts, because you can't come at them with facts to disprove their beliefs and opinions.
The only way you can really challenge that is, well, I'm not so sure you can.
It just seems that these beliefs and opinions have become so ingrained in us that we're just unwilling to think about things outside the box.
And that may be for a number of reasons.
Probably don't have time to get into that now, but it's certainly going to be interesting to see where things go over the next few years, certainly given that more and more people are questioning the story that they've been told.
Seems like the cat is sort of out of the bag now, and it may just give us the opportunity to course correct and align with how things might really truly be working rather than just blindly following what is written in the textbooks or professed by a person standing at the front of a hole.
Well said.
And I would just add that the human brain typically uses only about 20 watts of power.
And even though it's a miraculous cognitive, neurological, computing, holographic machine, and much more than that, it's beyond physical.
It's still very limited in power.
So people take cognitive shortcuts and they believe whoever claims to have authority.
And that's a coping mechanism to live in a world without having to become an expert in every area.
No one can.
So you believe so-called authorities.
And then those authorities, they end up becoming a priesthood protecting a series of false stories.
And that becomes science.
And I say that as a scientist myself.
I'm a scientist.
I'm a published scientist.
But I'm one of the few that still is willing to ask questions like you are.
So thank you so much.
The book is called Can You Catch a Cold?
Daniel Reuters, R-O-Y-T-A-S.
You can find it at booksellers everywhere.
And be sure to check out Daniel's website, humanly.com.
And it's spelled with L-E-Y at the end.
Humanly, or whatever you want to pronounce, humanly with L-E-Y.
Thank you so much, Daniel.
It's been a pleasure.
Thanks for putting up with my crude humor at times.
But we really appreciate you.
Love to have you back.
Thank you so much, Mike.
It was a pleasure speaking with you.
Really appreciate the opportunity.
You too.
Had a great time.
Thank you for all you're doing.
And thank you for watching.
This has been another interview here on Brighteon.com, where we are exploring the world and our reality to help empower you with knowledge and information that helps you get better.
And I don't believe in virology infectious disease theories anymore, but I do believe in nutrition.
So this is what I'm drinking today.
And I do believe in fitness.
I believe in sunlight.
I believe in nature apathy principles.
And that's why I don't get sick.
So, hey, if you also want to not get sick anymore, Listen to interviews like this and share the information with others and upgrade your nutrition, your food, your lifestyle, your quality of your sleep, your exposure to natural sunlight within reason.
You're going to get better and healthier as a result.
So thank you for listening.
I'm Mike Adams here, the Health Ranger of Brighteon.com.
Take care.
Okay, this is pretty rare, but we have an overstock sale at healthrangerstore.com on just a few products, but some of them our customers really love.
So let me show those to you.
Right now, you can save 40%, a very limited supply of the super protein formulations, both the regular and the chocolate that you can see there, as well as apple slices and mango slices in a really great individual format, great for travel, and the collagen joint support stick packs for an instant drink mix with blackcurrant in there, by the way.
Also, the situation is we overproduce these because we had to purchase very large lots of very specific ingredients.
And it's probably my fault.
You know, my team was asking me, well, you know, we have all these ingredients.
It's probably going to produce too much.
Should we just produce it anyway?
I said, yes, just overproduce it.
And if we end up with too much, then we'll just offer a discount to our customers.
And that's what we're doing right now.
So these products are labeled to expire a few months from now.
But I don't know if you know this, we store all of our products in an environmentally controlled, climate-controlled, air-conditioned environment that is fully insulated.
The entire building is fully insulated.
And the dirty little secret of the supplements and superfoods industry is that most products are stored in warehouses that get way crazy hot, especially during the summer months.
And that can be true at, you know, even Amazon or other major fulfillment houses.
They're not, the different warehouses are not always or rarely actually climate controlled.
So our products have actually a longer actual shelf life compared to most products, but the FDA limits us.
We can only put a certain amount of time on the product.
And that amount of time is coming up in a few months for these products, even though realistically they can be used for much longer safely.
So that's the situation.
So, hey, we overproduce.
You get it at 40% off.
And you get to help support us and acquire these really amazing products.
So here it is, organic super protein, the chocolate formula.
This is based on the Boku superfood formulation.
And let me just show you here.
If you scroll down, let me show you the ingredients because it's like, oh my goodness, look at all the stuff that goes into this.
I mean, it's not easy to source like organic Satcha-inchi protein powder and carrot powder and then cranberry flour.
Cacao sometimes can be difficult, you know, etc.
So this is just one of the products.
There are others here.
Sourcing is becoming more difficult because of supply chains and tariffs and things like that.
And very often we just have to buy larger lots than what we want to buy.
So anyway, our loss is your gain for right now while supplies last.
It's a pretty limited supply, so take advantage of it.
Just go to healthrangerstore.com slash overstock.
Healthrangerstore.com slash overstock.
And you'll see the products that are on sale 40% off while supplies last.
And it's a very limited supply right now.
It's just these five products at the moment.
Many other products we can't keep in stock, you know, because there's so much demand for clean food and clean supplements and lab-tested products.
And I can't wait, by the way, to show you our new lab.
It's up and running.
It looks awesome.
I've shown a couple of people the lab so far.
They're just blown away.
I'm going to give you a video tour with all our new equipment, you know, all the mass spec equipment, the ICPMS, the triple quads, the single quad, the gas chromatography, the ion chromatography.
We've got a number of instruments there.
I'm going to walk you through some of the sample prep and some of the testing that we do because nobody is as committed to clean food as we are.
Nobody in the world.
We do more testing than anyone, period.
End of story.
Mic drop.
We just flat out do more testing for glyphosate, for heavy metals, for afatoxins, for microbiology, and many other things, depending on like atrazine, depending on the product.
So super clean food, super clean supplements.
Shop with us at healthrangerstore.com for all the regular products.
And then if you want the overstock sale price products while they last, that's healthrangerstore.com slash overstock.