Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
Dr. Mark Bailey on Genetics, Empiricism vs Rationalism, Pleiomorphism, Microscopy, and More!
514 Plays8 months ago
This week we had Dr. Mark Bailey back on to address some questions! We began by discussing Empiricism and Rationalism. Dr. Bailey distinguishes the use of empiricism and rationalism as different epistemological approaches. We discussed true empiricism, through the scientific method and falsifiable scientific statements.
We then discussed the modern-day scapegoat of disease, genetics. Dr. Bailey highlights some interesting experiments conducted. We delve deeper into the connection of genetics and disease, highlighting that largely this entails unscientific, unfalsifiable claims.
Lastly, we discuss the concept of pleiomorphism and the evidence behind it. Dr. Bailey highlights some areas where the moderns admit to the phenomenon as well. We also discuss darkfield microscopy and the problems in modern microscopy.
I hope you enjoy the episode!
Learn from me
https://www.instagram.com/beyond.terrain/
https://linktr.ee/beyondterrain
Support the vision
Share!!!
BCH: bitcoincash:qq7eq276ylanluc5e39unrqshkvs9xsemg07yxezf7
ETH: beyondterrain.eth
BTC: bc1qqwc470ktgj3l4myqxr5hq67rnlqys0qm98u6f0
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/beyondterrain
Support and Learn from Dr. Bailey
Recommended
Transcript
Podcast Introduction & Guest Overview
00:00:02
Speaker
Welcome everybody to another episode of the Beyond Terrain Podcast. I'm your host, Leo Dalton. We have Dr. Mark Bailey again today. I know you guys are going to be excited for this one here.
Listener Feedback & Impact of Dr. Bailey's Insights
00:00:12
Speaker
I know I'm excited. He's a fantastic guest, obviously an amazing speaker and amazing mind on the forefront of this whole terrain paradigm. And I'm just so grateful to be able to chat with him again today, you guys.
00:00:25
Speaker
reached out after his episode, lots of great feedback. And it was really an amazing episode. I listened back to it and transcribed it. Really, really valuable. And we'll probably expand on a few of the topics today. So Dr. Bailey, thank you so much for coming on again. Thanks for having me back. Really enjoyed our chat last time. And I thought there would be some questions because we covered a lot of ground and really happy to come back in and take care of some of those questions.
00:00:56
Speaker
Great.
Debate: Empiricism vs. Rationalism
00:00:57
Speaker
Yeah. So I guess the first one, first thing that we can address, um, and we sort of talked about this over on my YouTube channel and Instagram a bit, talked a lot about empiricism versus rationalism, this sort of great debate that's been going on for a long time. Uh, obviously that, um, you know, the,
00:01:15
Speaker
the literature often is touted as empirical. Now, I did have a really interesting discussion with a fellow named Keeler Morgan, where we talked about sort of the history of science and epistemology a little bit.
00:01:28
Speaker
You know, he made a great case that science needs to be a little bit more empirical, right? Like if you're thinking about it through Karl Popper's work through falsification, you know, if you're taking a strict falsification stance, that may be a much more valuable way to approach empiricism. Not that the literature reflects this whatsoever, right? We're making a lot of positive claims and, you know, anytime something is falsified, they tend to
00:01:55
Speaker
kind of maneuver it into their theories like we see that with the asymptomatic carriers or all the failed contagion studies.
00:02:02
Speaker
You know, it certainly seems that, you know, an extreme rationalism point of view, of course, is less prone
Scientific Knowledge Categories: Empiricism Focus
00:02:10
Speaker
to errors. I'm really eager to hear your thoughts on this sort of debate. And obviously, the Austrian economists talk about extreme rationalism a lot. That's something you brought up last time and something I kind of got into in between episodes. So, yeah, I'd love to hear your thoughts on that and we can kind of just take it from there.
00:02:29
Speaker
Yeah, sure. Well, I think we need to distinguish between categories here. And when we use a word like science, essentially, we mean knowledge. And for us as humans, obtaining knowledge and sorting it in a way that we can hopefully find useful and orientate ourselves.
00:02:50
Speaker
in this world. So I think when it comes to certain fields of scientific endeavor and obviously the topics we talked about last time largely involving things like microorganisms and why people might get sick etc.
00:03:09
Speaker
That's a category where we really do need to rely on empiricism and when I was in high school and then university because I was immersed in biology and chemistry and physics etc sometimes called the hard sciences although I think that's a bit of a
00:03:30
Speaker
misnomer as well. But anyway, these are the sorts of fields where we do need to use the lyrical method. And when I say that, I mean, we can make a hypothesis about mine, so we can come up with that.
00:03:46
Speaker
We then need to go about testing it through what we might call real world experiences, which we do through our senses, you know, like what we can see, what we can taste, what we can smell, what we can touch, all that kind of stuff.
00:04:02
Speaker
So that's all within the empirical framework and the scientific method and as you mentioned a really important name there, Karl Popper, scientific method developed over the years got more and more refined and Popper last century introduced that important notion of falsifiability. So he said well it's all very well to come up with the hypothesis and do some experiments but as long as it is a falsifiable hypothesis because
Critique of Medical Science Claims
00:04:32
Speaker
If it's not, we don't have any way to test it through the empirical method because people could say, oh, look, there's these magical particles that circulate around our head and they protect us from, you know, getting sick and all this kind of stuff. And that maybe it's true, but it's not something that could be tested through the empirical method. We don't have a test or a way to check it. So in that sense, Papa would say, look, that's that's unfalsifiable. And
00:05:00
Speaker
As you mentioned, and we should probably get to this, so much of what's happened, particularly in medical science, which is our interest, is all this unfalsifiable stuff, like you say. So if people are not sick, they say, oh, that's because the asymptomatic transmitters, or if people don't get sick and they try and make them sick through contagion experiments, they say, oh, that's because they've got immunity.
00:05:27
Speaker
And immunity is essentially an unfalsifiable concept in itself on many levels because every time someone doesn't get sick when you expect them to, you can just pull out the old
00:05:47
Speaker
immunity, get out of jail, break up. So yeah, lots of problems. But anyway, and then we move broadly speaking to another category of epistemology and knowledge. And that's rationalism. Now,
00:06:02
Speaker
When I first started studying the field of economics, it made no sense to me because I didn't learn it in high school or university, but a lot of my friends did.
Austrian Economics: Rationalism vs. Empiricism
00:06:14
Speaker
And they all told me that it was an empirical pursuit, that economics, you went out into the real world, you made observations, you collected data, and then you came up with your theories and equations, et cetera.
00:06:28
Speaker
And it wasn't until I actually looked into it, because it made no sense to me. So it must have been around 2008, 2009, with the world financial crisis, that what they were telling me made no sense as to why we went into that demise. And I quickly discovered the Austrian School of Economics. And to cut to the chase, they said that their claims over
00:06:55
Speaker
the centuries now have been as it's developed, you know, Austrian economics has been that it's not, economics is not an empirical study. It's a rational study. And we start with the individual. We look at how an individual behaves, what they call human action. And we use that to come up with self-evident axioms, such as humans act with purposeful behavior.
00:07:24
Speaker
Now, these axioms are very powerful. They sound simple, but they're irrefutable. And unless somebody wants to get to the point where they say that words don't have any meaning, that they're just random squeaks coming out of our mouth. But if that's the conversation, obviously we can't communicate any sort of information.
00:07:41
Speaker
Coming back to one of their basic axioms, it would be that humans act purposefully. Now, if you try and refute that sentence, you've got a difficult task because you're going to end up refuting yourself as you try and explain why that sentence doesn't make sense.
00:08:00
Speaker
So the Austrians rely on this methodological individualism, which means that you can't look at a whole lot of data that you've collected from a population and then come up with economic theory. You have to do it the other way around. You have to look at the individual.
00:08:20
Speaker
You have to understand that humans act with purposeful behavior and then come up with these axioms such as when we make choices, which is what economics is all about really. We do so in an ordinal preference arrangement, meaning that
00:08:39
Speaker
We don't say, if I'm comparing myself to you, I don't say, oh, I like apples twice as much as you do. We can't do a calculation. It makes no sense because one, we don't know if that would be true or not. And two, what happens today might be different from what happens next week because
00:08:59
Speaker
you know, this week I might say, yeah, they're my favourite fruit and all this kind of stuff. Whereas next week I might say, you know what, I had this really bad apple and I read, I don't like apples anymore. I'm onto oranges now. So the Austrians worked that out pretty early on, that there were none of these constants in economics like the empiricists were claiming. So they were claiming that there are these fixed relationships that you can work out, you know, laws if you like.
00:09:27
Speaker
which they represented with equations and it made no sense because when we make choices as individuals, there is no way to come up with calculations. When I say to you, I like apples more than oranges, you've got no figures that you can deal with. All you can do is say that at the moment he indicates that this is his preferences.
00:09:50
Speaker
But it goes beyond that. You have to also observe what my actions are because I might say to you, oh, yeah, I love apples. But you might say, well, it's interesting because I've never seen you eat one. And I see you eating cakes all the time, which indicates to me that could well be your actual preference. So you can see we've got a different, it's a different category of the way we can acknowledge about the world. So it's not saying that
00:10:17
Speaker
One is better than the other. It's just saying that when we look at things and want to obtain knowledge about the world, sometimes we have to operate within different categories. And sometimes we get to empiricism, which is, you know, we observe somebody getting sick when they eat a certain food.
00:10:38
Speaker
And then we observe other people getting sick when they eat that food. And we come up with the hypothesis that there's something in that food that's making people sick. And then after that we do our experiments where we try and work out what it is in that food that
Empiricism Limitations & Rational Insights
00:10:54
Speaker
makes people sick. We maybe do some experiments in a lab.
00:10:57
Speaker
We maybe do some experiments with animals and come up with obviously controls that's another important thing so we know exactly the variables that we're dealing with and we can collect information about the world which can be very useful to us.
00:11:14
Speaker
Now, as I say, but if we're doing something like analysis of human behavior, economics, even mathematics, like some people say mathematics is not a science, it's really one of the pure forms of logic. But in those fields, we don't actually have to go out into the world to test it. We can do it in our own minds and we can see if it makes sense.
00:11:39
Speaker
you'd be aware of that through people that come up with mathematical solutions. They are not out counting on their fingers or observing things necessarily out in the real world. They may just be doing the exercise in their head and obviously that's a form of rationalism. So yeah, I think it's important to distinguish between the two and when it comes to things like say, you know, pharmacology,
00:12:09
Speaker
the microbiology, all these kind of things, then really we use that empirical paradigm. If we're dealing with human behavior and mathematics, et cetera, then we can use rationalism and logic. Yeah, well, thank you for that. To be honest, I've been
00:12:36
Speaker
convinced that there are great flaws in empiricism. And largely, well, so Thomas Kuhn argued that, well, induction, sorry, I'll start with this. Induction, we know that it's a less accurate
00:12:57
Speaker
way to infer then deduction. That's sort of what's taught in logic, right? That induction is less accurate. So Thomas Kuhn argued that the observer's worldview alters the observation, you know, it can alter the induction because oftentimes when you
00:13:19
Speaker
have empirical observations, you can spin so many stories out of these observations if you're trying to work based off induction. And so this is kind of what's convinced me a little bit, right? Because even when it comes to this terrain versus germ, obviously we could argue that the inductions made by germ theories are completely illogical and make no sense based on the empirical observation. But they've spun this
00:13:48
Speaker
amazing story with the asymptomatics and the susceptibility through immunity. You can really spin this story through induction. Somebody I studied, Hans Hermann Hoppe, argued that even the natural sciences, a rationalism approach will be more accurate, figuring out fundamental axioms about health.
00:14:18
Speaker
Um, because, you know, in a way I think that health has to do with human action. In a way, I think it has to do with, you know, it has to do with human nature. You know, what, what do they value too? Right? Like, and, um, if we're going to talk about the psychological causes of health as well, you know, what role will that play in health? So those are the kinds of thoughts that I've been having, you know, I'm not necessarily completely opposed to empiricism. You know, I think the literature is still valuable. There's a certain amount that we can induce from it.
00:14:48
Speaker
Um, but I'm thinking a lot about, you know, sort of fundamental axioms of health that align with our natural being, right? Like, you know, that, that we live in an environment. Uh, funny enough, I was making a video on this earlier, but you know that like we are, we live in an environment. So our external environment depicts our internal environment and sort of working off of this, right? So, uh, that's kind of where my head's been going. I wonder, do you have any thoughts on that or.
00:15:13
Speaker
Yeah, definitely and I've read most of Hans Hermann Hopper's work and I encourage people to read it because he's quite devastating and particularly when it gets into the analysis of economics and political economy.
00:15:30
Speaker
and political systems because he pretty much dismantles everything most people have been taught in high school. And you come out of it just particularly books like Democracy the God that Failed and you'd never use democracy in a positive light after reading a book like that hopefully. But yeah, no Hoppe and I am aware that he made that statement and I think it's in one of his short books. I'm just trying to think of the title but
00:16:01
Speaker
I am aware of that sentence where he says that he has this doubts whether the so-called hard sciences, like biology and chemistry, et cetera, can use the empirical method and whether it's valid. Of course, we are limited with, and we have to keep that in mind when we use empiricism, that we're limited by whatever you want to call the body, the vehicle that we're in.
00:16:26
Speaker
because we know that other beings on Earth have a different perception of what we would call reality. So they see different spectrums of electromagnetic radiation. So for instance, bees and some other insects can see ultraviolet light, which we don't see.
00:16:49
Speaker
some creatures possibly see the spectrum into infrared type stuff and can you know snakes and that may be able to see and what we would perceive as sort of like a night vision kind of mode bats obviously use sound like a sonar and they make pictures in their minds using that so that's what we have to keep in mind that what we see and feel and taste could be quite different from
Personal Experience: Empirical Limitations
00:17:18
Speaker
another living being and I always think that's not taught very well when people, when empiricism is explained to people is that the experience we have is limited by the body that we're in and just as we segue when I was 18 I was in a high-speed car accident where I thought I was dead basically I thought there was once the car went airborne I didn't think there was any way I was going to survive it and
00:17:48
Speaker
my perception changed completely. It was nothing like I'd ever experienced before and time didn't have a direction anymore. I could hear silence for the first time ever. I've never encountered that sensation before where there's no sound. It's very different from what we usually perceive as being quiet. There was all these different perceptions that I had. And then obviously, you know, I came out unscathed from this accident.
00:18:18
Speaker
It was very interesting and a lot of people who have had these what you might call near-death experiences have described similar things where their perception completely changes in that moment and it's not an experience that we can replicate during our everyday life seemingly.
00:18:34
Speaker
Yeah, I think that's really important to consider, but I do think there is a role for empiricism for a number of reasons.
Criticism of Empirical Methods in Science
00:18:46
Speaker
One is that all of these claims, like some of the things you've talked about with contagion and microbes causing disease and stuff, we can say,
00:18:55
Speaker
You guys have made these claims and now we'll just go back through your methodology to make sure you kept to the rules of empirical science and the scientific method. And as you know, many of us have dismantled this stuff every which way and shown that the claims are not valid. And you alluded to early the one of the most important things we say
00:19:21
Speaker
is that you falsify what they've done. Like they say, oh, you're cholera. That's a, you know, it's a disease and it's caused by Vibrio bacteria. And if you find that Vibrio or if you swallow it, you get sick and you get cholera, et cetera.
00:19:37
Speaker
Okay, well, why do we keep finding it in people who are not sick? Oh, well, they say that's an asymptomatic transmitter. Well, hang on. Now we're getting into unfalsifiable territory. You can't possibly falsify these things.
00:19:54
Speaker
Or, you know, they say, well, what about people like a pet and hot coffer who swallowed Vibrio in the late 1800s? You know, he he had a huge broth of the stuff. Bacteria should have killed him or made him very sick and he swallowed it and nothing seemed to happen to him. Oh, they say, well, he must have been he prepared himself and got immune to us. Well, again, that's that's not a fault. You can't falsify such a thing. And
00:20:23
Speaker
So yeah, we find that the empirical method I think still is useful. And there are things in terms of falsifying what's already been claimed. So we can go back through all of these textbooks on microbiology and so-called infectious diseases. And we can say, well, we can show that you actually falsified these things yourself. And we didn't do control experiments, so it's not a form of scientific knowledge.
00:20:51
Speaker
So that's important. And I mean, there are definitely valid, you know, experiments that you can do. So, you know, I used to work in the clinical trials industry. And although these days, you know, I have nothing to do with the medical system. And in general, I don't advise people to take synthetic pharmaceuticals of any sort at any time.
00:21:14
Speaker
But in that setting, if there was a medication that's being introduced to test human responses to it, then you can do controlled studies where you give one
Empirical Advancements in Medicine
00:21:29
Speaker
group placebo or give them the conditions that are exactly the same. And then the test group gets the new medication or the new intervention.
00:21:39
Speaker
And then if everyone, if people are blinded, etc, the experiments done properly, you can definitely get good data about, you know, what happens. And that can be extremely difficult for us to do from a rational point of view, we could guess, but let's be honest, most
00:21:58
Speaker
if you like, inventions or even surgical procedures have not been done so much through a rational approach. It's been trial and error. You're probably aware the initial surgery they used to try on people didn't go very well and almost every patient would die and the surgeons learned from their mistakes and said well what could we do better or
00:22:21
Speaker
you know, they eventually anesthesia, general anesthesia developed to make it much easier to be able to do procedures on people. And you can say that's, that's was a completely empirical approach to things that nobody knew kind of in advance exactly what to do. They had some idea, but it was a matter of tinkering on the empirical plane to, to keep improving things. And, and also, you know, to be honest, um,
00:22:48
Speaker
I think with regard to our own health, so much of it has been handed down through the generations. And it's been what our ancestors have worked out, essentially. And again, that's an empirical approach. But it's a good empirical approach in terms of its wisdom. It's like the things that have been with us for hundreds of years tend to
00:23:13
Speaker
be better than those which have been around for the last 10 years. The scientific claims you see in the last 10 years are usually pretty useless and they're not going to help you with your health. Whereas the stuff your grandma told you and said, look, this is in the winter, this is the type of food that you should eat, et cetera, tends to have much more utility.
00:23:38
Speaker
No, I feel like the conclusion that I've come to is at least with empiricism, it's not something that we should use to push on to other people. Any inductions drawn from empiricism, you know, whether it be clinical trials or whatever, you know, we should not be put, but I mean, that's a whole other topic. But yeah, we talk about scientific method extensively because you're 100% right. If you're not really concerned with empiricism, it's still great to learn it.
00:24:04
Speaker
still great to learn about the scientific method. Because when you do read these papers, you know, you're going in there and you're dismantling them. It's kind of fun, honestly. Because it's easy. Once you learn, you're looking at the controls being used, and you're like, well, this just absolutely makes no sense. And, you know, it's not just in sort of the germ microbiology literature, either, you know, a lot of literature like the, well, we know that
00:24:32
Speaker
The psychology literature is the least reproducible literature out there. We know that antibody research obviously is extremely irreproducible as well.
00:24:42
Speaker
genetics, maybe we can talk about genetics here now. Um, that was something that, uh, the guests or the listeners wanted, wanted you to, to speak on a little bit this, this whole concept of, you know, polymorphisms and genetic causes of disease, you know, because I find that that's a scapegoat now. Um, so I'm sure we could circle into that pretty easily from this discussion. So maybe I'll let you have floor here.
Critique of Genomics Industry
00:25:08
Speaker
Yeah, I mean genetics, genomics, it's all got out of control and it's got, you have to realize that we're talking about a multi-billion dollar industry now and one of the things we saw out of control during the COVID era was of course the alleged genomics of the imaginary SARS-CoV-2.
00:25:30
Speaker
Now it wasn't, you know, some people get into the argument that are these genetic sequences even real? I don't, I think they seem to be, I don't think we need to go down that line because there's so much that you can show is incorrect on their own paradigm. So yes, these genetic sequences exist, but the key is, is where did they come from and what did they do? And this is where it's all out of control, particularly with metagenomics, as you know,
00:25:57
Speaker
They go to the sewer water. We've now got them in the United States and Canada going to cow's milk, going, hey, I think we're finding the flu in the cow's milk. It's completely out of control because the mere presence of genetic sequences is one thing, but to try and claim that you're then tracking diseases and
00:26:19
Speaker
alleged infectious outbreaks etc has just got totally ridiculous and so much of it I guess stems to if we go back in time to the 1960s and I can't remember if it was Crickle Watson
00:26:34
Speaker
But one of them came up with this dogma, basically. And they said it was dogma on day one. So that was the clue. They didn't say this was a carefully developed scientific theory. They just said, look, this is the molecular dogma of genetics. And that's that famous model that they all taught us in high school. You have the DNA, which gets transcribed to the RNA in the cell.
00:27:01
Speaker
And then that RNA gets translated into the protein. So and they teach it like we're some sort of computer program, you know, where the DNA is the code, and the code produces the game, which is the proteins. But as I say, that when that was introduced in the 1960s, they literally called it dogma, they didn't say that are your web
00:27:27
Speaker
done a whole lot of experiments and this is the way it must be. But unfortunately, when I was at medical school and when I'm sure most health practitioners are training, that's kind of taught as the model. It's not really explained that that may not be representing reality at all. And we know that that system is dynamic, so it's not going in one direction.
00:27:54
Speaker
Because if it went in one direction, that would mean if you had a problem, say a mutation at the DNA level, now your stuff basically, you've got that for all time, now you're going to make these abnormal proteins or not make them at all.
00:28:09
Speaker
And clearly, they even knew by the 1960s that that couldn't be right because we had researchers like Barbara McClintock. And she was taking cell lines and putting them in test tubes and then exposing them to what she called shocks, basically. So different conditions, stressing the cells, starving them, exposing them to different temperatures, et cetera, to see what would happen.
00:28:39
Speaker
And what she found was quite remarkable because new sequences started coming out of these cell lines. And I'm not talking about just proteins and RNA, but DNA. So the DNA of the cells changed. Now we were under the impression, obviously, that told us that no, no, no, the DNA that's fixed, basically, that that can't change. But McClintock showed, no, you could generate these new sequences.
00:29:07
Speaker
And I always found that one interesting because when we think about these virology experiments where they do stressful things to the cell lines and then they go, oh, look at the sequences we just found. But where did those segments come from? They don't come from this imaginary virus. They just come from the cell itself. They're not
00:29:32
Speaker
They may be a result of disease or indicate some sort of stress going on within the cell or the organism as a whole. But it's not this crazy thing where they say, oh, that's a virus we just found. So, yeah, that's really important to know that this dogma is incorrect. And then we get to things, yeah, like you're probably inferring, like are there genetic diseases?
00:29:58
Speaker
Yes, to a certain extent, there are. So I don't think we deny that we've got trisomes, which is where you get an extra set of a chromosome. So we get these well-recognized kind of syndromes like Down syndrome, for instance, where we can do a test and on a macro level we can see
00:30:19
Speaker
that these individuals have like this extra chromosome. But of course, a chromosome is a big structure. I mean, that's got millions and millions of nucleotides in it. It's got the associated proteins, et cetera, within that structure. And I don't think there's any, I don't think there's anyone that really can test that if you get abnormalities in chromosomes, that you will get problems.
00:30:43
Speaker
Obviously, you can get problems with the X chromosomes as well, where you can get extra ones like Kleinvelders, and the individual does suffer from a number of very, very severe health problems because of that. So I think we've got that side of things, which is pretty clear.
00:31:01
Speaker
But then yeah we get into the whole thing about oh but if you have this mutation at this one nuclear tides out in your body and you've got this disease and i think this is the difficulty of saying well you know what happened what did they quote and hear it.
00:31:18
Speaker
that nucleotide problem? Did they mutate at some stage during their lifetime? Or are they just responding to something in their environment and which is caused to change in their actual DNA? And I think that's far less appreciated. And I mean, I've got to say, I'm very skeptical with a lot of these times where you can look up, look, let's give an example of, again, probably another one. Is this good because of the,
00:31:48
Speaker
introducing something that's unphosphifiable in the genetics model. Multiple sclerosis, right? So now they're saying that they think they've found the genetic basis to multiple sclerosis. But they didn't find one or two genetic abnormalities. They found about 300.
00:32:12
Speaker
They said, oh, you could have any of these 300 and that could give you multiple sclerosis. And you're like, this is mental. That's not logical thinking. That's just saying that we get a case of this very vague syndrome, admittedly now, multiple sclerosis. And that's another issue. How is this thing actually diagnosed? And was it a conflation of a whole lot of different conditions that we used to have?
00:32:41
Speaker
But anyway, they say, oh, yep, let's just do some genetic testing. And if it doesn't quite fit some of their previous genetic sequences, you just declare that you've just found another multiple sclerosis genetic variant. And seemingly, this can just keep going indefinitely with their model. So yeah, I think that's another issue exposing the problems of trying to find answers in genetics.
00:33:10
Speaker
Perhaps it was a case of we had these really obvious ones like the trisomes and chromosomal abnormalities, and then they tried to explain it with single nucleotide mutations, et cetera, and the model doesn't work that way. It is, yeah, I mean, there are...
00:33:31
Speaker
Do I think genomics has any utility? I think it has very, very little utility actually. And I think the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being poured into this field are going to be completely wasted and in fact destructive because a lot of the time
Genomics & Pathogen Surveillance Criticism
00:33:50
Speaker
genomics is used for things like what we just saw with COVID where they claim 20 million times they've found SARS-CoV-2 when we know that not one of those was valid and not one time were they showing us a virus or anything like that. And two with expanding that into so-called things like pathogen
00:34:14
Speaker
I put that in quotes. I don't believe there are pathogens. Surveillance, where they go around, as we mentioned, sewer water, milk, etc. And on the basis of just finding genetic sequences, they then claim that that means that there's a dangerous pathogen that's out in the open.
00:34:32
Speaker
And they then claim that they have to take measures against the population in all sorts of nefarious ways. So, yeah, other aspects of genetics. Did your viewers have any kind of specific questions about genetics and genomics? Yeah, well, there was a couple little things like polymorphisms, you know, is a big one. They say, you know, you have that
00:35:02
Speaker
like a couple of that. And you kind of alluded that with the genetic sequence, right? But I don't know if you want to say anything more on that. Yeah, like any particular aspect of polymorphism, like how it relates to. Yeah, I mean, I think in more so in general, I think it wasn't too specific question. Yeah, more so how it just relates to disease and
00:35:26
Speaker
Yeah, well, again, I think it's just using, you know, what we've talked about this kind of way of introducing an unfalsifiable hypothesis where you're saying that you can have, you know, that there are variations in the sequences and they explain disease when, in fact, a lot of the time, it just depends, well, which sequences are you going to focus on, like, for instance, in a, in a human where, you know,
00:35:52
Speaker
where we have billions and billions of nuclear tides which particular ones you gonna focus on because when they go fishing around for something like multiple sclerosis say they don't. They don't target and on one particular zone and go on that that they actually look at quite a you know a spectrum if you like to look at and then they just randomly decide which ones they decide important so.
00:36:19
Speaker
if you know what i mean they could just pick another chromosome in the human body and focus on that and then say oh yeah we're detecting some slight variations here and that must explain multiple sclerosis so yeah i don't know it to me like the more i looked into the whole field of genomics and genetics the more i found it was just a
00:36:42
Speaker
complete dead end and obviously too it's got implications for things like CRISPR and stuff where they say that they they're going to edit people's genetic codes and it's not going to work I'd hate to break it to them but the studies they've been doing involve things like you know doing things in a lab where you take a cell line and sure if you if you take individual cells in labs then sometimes you can
00:37:12
Speaker
get changes in their sequences and I don't think that's too controversial. And there's also that other element where you can take simple unicellular organisms such as E. coli bacteria, you can transfect them or put new sequences inside them, all that kind of stuff. But that world is completely different than a human.
00:37:37
Speaker
You know, we got like billions of Salves in there and to try and introduce new sequences into us, well, what do people mean? Do they mean like every Sal has now been given the upgrade? That doesn't happen.
00:37:52
Speaker
And I know with the CRISPR stuff, they've been trying to use it for certain liver diseases, etc. And that they say that this is up taken into the liver cells. They have no evidence that that actually takes place in a complex organism, such as ourselves.
00:38:09
Speaker
As I say, doing something in the lab with cell lines is very, very different than when you've got multicellular organisms as complicated as we are that have our own mechanisms of repairing tissue and regulation, etc.
00:38:26
Speaker
Yeah, I don't know. You kind of get to the point with the stuff where it's really painful to keep looking into genomics because, you know, I spent a few years doing it and every single paper you read is like the assumptions are so terrible that it's like a virology paper. And as you were talking about earlier,
00:38:49
Speaker
you read the first couple of sentences and then you're looking around going, but where's the control? There's no, there's no control here. It's just they're doing an experiment and then coming up with a fantastical story to build up around it. And Sam and I have a term for this now. We call it backfill.
00:39:06
Speaker
It's like you you create this story that has no backing and it's just like a empty You know wall sitting there and then you have to quickly spoon and everything behind it as quickly as you can to try and make excuses Before it falls down Yeah, so my undergrad was it was biochemistry and molecular biology but it was mostly focused on genetics like I took more genetic classes than anything and
00:39:33
Speaker
It was really interesting, the more honest profs had this asterisk with everything they taught that was like, you know, this is how we think it works, but you know, there's not really any confirmation, you know, even with genetic sequences, like the gold standard being Sanger sequencing, there's no real way to confirm that the way that they're
00:39:57
Speaker
annealing these pieces of DNA together is in the right configuration. There's really no way to confirm it. Even with the whole talk on variants, there's no way to confirm that they're not mistakes in the
00:40:17
Speaker
in the collection of the sequence. How do you know that when you were analyzing the sequence, that wasn't just a mistake of your technology. It was just an error. There's not really any way to control this. Like you said, they'll find 300 things and then another case of MS will show up.
00:40:38
Speaker
They'll say there's another one, 301, 302. There's no end. There's no beginning. It's circular. There's no control. It's largely just another unscientific endeavor where we spin this very beautiful, convincing story. Since we can explain all of this on a very microscale, nanoscale, even beyond that, down to the molecular level,
00:41:01
Speaker
it just convinces people who are just baffled by it. They're just, they're just baffled by it. And I think that's like the key takeaway that I kind of took from it. Um, yeah, it's quite redundant too. Yeah, absolutely. And, um, it's kind of good that you, people like you have had a background in genetics and can then talk to other people about it because some people will say to you, well, you don't know because you, you're not experienced in this field. And you can say, no, no, no, it's like for me,
00:41:31
Speaker
People can say to me, well, you know, I was a doctor, yes, for two decades. I was in the system. I know exactly what gets taught, what you're told to do, how you're supposed to do things, etc., how the lab processes work, etc. No, I was immersed in that world.
00:41:47
Speaker
you know, then you start asking questions and realize that the whole thing's a house of cards. And I think the, yeah, what you mentioned there is really an important point. So first of all, we have the variance in terms of the completely fabricated stuff like virology. And, you know, they say that, oh, SARS-CoV-2, we've got this variant and that variant when in fact, you know, they're really just like you say, this could just be an experimental margin of error. We can't,
00:42:15
Speaker
climb inside the test tube and confirm exactly what took place inside there. And we're making assumptions that, and yes, we can do PCR and Sanger, next generation sequencing, ONT, et cetera. There are these different techniques and we can compare them, et cetera. But at the end of the day, we don't have a way of determining exactly why things happen the way they do at a molecular level.
00:42:42
Speaker
And so when we, yeah, we, it was interesting because one of my colleagues actually just asked the lab was a few years ago in the middle of the COVID mania and said to them, what if I just split a sample, you know, from someone snot that you say has covered and we split it 10 ways.
00:43:06
Speaker
And then you just run the experiment 10 times and see how many variants you get in quotes. And they wouldn't do it, and they wouldn't provide an answer as to why they wouldn't do it. They just said, no, that's not what our lab does. And you think these really basic things, but probably we suspect they have done some of these experiments quietly and have found that they've falsified themselves. And as you know,
00:43:32
Speaker
People just don't publish stuff that doesn't go with the hypothesis and I encountered this in my clinical trials work. So Sam and I used to supervise, you know, first time human dosing with these new
00:43:47
Speaker
drugs and devices etc and many of them never saw the light of day and you'll never see a study about them because they didn't work out as the companies hoped and so despite the fact there was a lot of research a lot of data collected.
00:44:03
Speaker
No one in the public would ever know about it because it's not published. So we have to keep that in mind that they select. This is what's quite funny, isn't it, about things like virology is that we know that they've given us the best studies that they have. We're like, these are not very good. These are pretty bad. And we know that they must have even worse ones that have been, you know, that would completely be so obvious.
00:44:29
Speaker
that their hypothesis is not correct, that they don't publish. Yeah, well, I mean, you see it with the cupcake trials, you know, it's like when when the pandemic hit, how many it was the race was on who could provide the first, you know, little cupcake for mass production. And, you know, obviously now I don't think there's any left on the market. I don't really know. I don't really follow it anymore. But, you know, it was like there were hundreds in trial and
00:44:58
Speaker
It was just who could produce the first one with the positive results, right? And how many times do they have to do this? It's the same with supplements, you know? You got to look at like, if you're funding, if you have a business and you're funding research to prove your business is true scientifically, no businessman in the world would ever publish something that falsified their, their philosophy or their theory behind their product, right? It's, it's simple.
00:45:26
Speaker
Economics, you know, but I mean, it's, it's simple business, right? And like, um, and that's what it is. It's a business. Of course, it's, there's a lot of, a lot of money invested. Um, but we know that that story for too well.
Pleomorphism & Microscopy Insights
00:45:42
Speaker
Um, Dr. Bailey, if I could ask you about one more topic here, um, I'd love to know your thoughts on clear morphism and the sort of the evidence there, uh, you know, something like a dark field, my cross be, you know, you hear about,
00:45:55
Speaker
Gaston Naysance and, you know, even the Biggleson brothers with the holograp and their father, Harvey Biggleson, they use this dark field microscope to see the blood in a live state, right? I'd love to hear your thoughts maybe on that philosophy of the dark field microscope because that's largely the evidence for pleomorphism in a way because you can directly observe it in the blood. So if you don't mind sharing your thoughts on that, I'd really appreciate that.
00:46:22
Speaker
Yeah, definitely. And we're very fortunate that here in New Zealand, we have a very good friend. He's actually moved into our neighborhood, Dr. Robin Wakeling, and he's a microscopy expert and has been looking down the scope for about three decades. And a couple of years ago, he even had a look at the special Pfizer mixture down the scope for us and to see what he could find.
00:46:48
Speaker
We found that process was a bit of a dead end, looking at that. But anyway, Robin's looked at it. He's spent thousands and thousands of hours, like the Bigglesons, looking down the scope and analyzing live blood, et cetera. Well, when we say live, freshly taken out of a person.
00:47:07
Speaker
And yeah, some fascinating findings, but I will say pleomorphism. Yeah, it's it's real. And the funny thing is, is that the mainstream, they do admit to pleomorphism, but they really play it down. So you might see examples like Campylobacter, Jeju and I, they'll say, you know, this is found sometimes in the environment.
00:47:32
Speaker
And it's found in its coccoid, you know, the spherical form and it's at that stage they think maybe that doesn't cause any diseases that is just a, you know, kind of like a spore like state. And then it goes into its, you know, more curved rod form and now it's active, etc.
00:47:52
Speaker
So i mean they do admit this and helical back to pylori is another one the one that they blame you know stomach ulcers on that one that has amazing different forms like sometimes it's like this kind of rod with a jello.
00:48:08
Speaker
and other times it goes into a coccoid form. But again, the mainstream say, oh, well, this is, you know, when it's coccoid, it's probably dying or something or it's, you know, there's something wrong with it. But I mean, we know coming back to the the greats like Pachamp, etc., they said, look, this is this is the harmony of life, basically, that we have these microbes on and in us.
00:48:33
Speaker
And this comes back to the principles of terrain, is that the microbes are simply responding to their conditions. And that's why they're pleomorphic. Basically, they have this amazing ability to adapt to the conditions. So you might have a time when your body's perfectly healthy and there's not much for them to do. So they basically do just sit there in this inactive form.
00:49:00
Speaker
But then you get some devitalised tissue, you get a bit ill, tissue starts to break down, etc. And then your friends, which are these microbes, get to work and start cleaning things up. Because if they didn't, we'd be this walking sludge, basically, of dead tissue that was never able to repair itself properly.
00:49:23
Speaker
So it's very interesting, yeah, that I think for quite a while they really tried to suppress the whole concept of pleomorphism and denied that it was possible at all. But now you will definitely see isolated examples in the mainstream where they will say, yes, oh, yeah, yeah, they know about that, but it's no big deal.
00:49:49
Speaker
I think it's a way of just covering up what the terrain theorists were saying, you know, from as far back as the late 1800s. Yeah, well thanks for that. Yeah, maybe to bring it full circle, you know, we could see it empirically in a way, right, under the microscope.
00:50:13
Speaker
uh, to make the claim or to make the argument for rationalism. The name germ always fascinates me how they chose the word germ for these microbes. And of course we think of germ, you know, through germination, right? A budding organism starts with the little seed, right? A little microzymma you could say, and then buds into an organism different than the change of shape, right? It has a polymorphic nature changes shape. Um,
00:50:43
Speaker
You know, and if you were to deduce from that, you know, maybe you could come to these conclusions about pleomorphism. But of course you could see it empirically as well. You know, that was just my, and maybe, you know, looking at the etymology is, they consider it a logical fallacy now and I have a little bit of, I think about that a little bit, whether etymology is truly important or not in a logical argument.
00:51:08
Speaker
Perhaps it is not necessarily logical to draw inferences from it. But yeah, anyways, you can definitely see it empirically, right? And I think that's what's important about the microscope. I think that's really valuable. Yeah.
00:51:22
Speaker
Well, definitely. And as you might imagine, the microscopists like our friend Robin, etc, they are far more interested in trying to work out what happens in living tissue. And unfortunately, most of the establishment microscopists, they like to use techniques which basically don't necessarily represent anything that happens in living tissue.
00:51:47
Speaker
And as you know, once you move into things like fixing slides, adding chemicals to them, dehydrating them, we don't even know if that kind of represents living biology at all. And in many cases, it doesn't. And you probably might have heard of Harold Hellman, who did an extensive amount of work researching the legitimacy of these techniques in the lab.
00:52:14
Speaker
And one of them was electron microscopy and fixed slide microscopy, where essentially he said, how on earth would you control such a process? Because he said, you've got nothing to compare it to. You're saying that this is what it looks like at this nanoscale, but there's no way to confirm whether
00:52:37
Speaker
exposing tissue to chemicals, dehydrating it, embedding it in resin, cutting it really thinly, exposing it to radiation, etc. and coming up with an image. There's no way to validate whether that represents anything that goes on, say, in our body.
00:52:59
Speaker
And that's why some of the better information I think comes from light microscopy and the dark field microscopy because you can actually see things like what do the red blood cells look like when they've not been adulterated or how do the particles, the macro particles in the blood behave towards each other.
00:53:22
Speaker
et cetera, far more useful. So yeah, but now it's almost comical now when I pull out one of my old microbiology books and this is black and white photo from the 1960s or something saying, oh, this is this and this is that and now I just look at it and go.
00:53:40
Speaker
Yup, okay. We'll take that with a grain of salt because whether that represents anything that goes on in our bodies is another thing. And you know what, I think it comes kind of full circle back as well to
00:53:55
Speaker
You alluded to the just reductionist approach of trying to go down into the test tube at the molecular level and with your experience with genetics. When you're going down to just single molecules, et cetera, I don't think you can really learn that much about how health works, essentially. And I've never seen any good research come out of that kind of pursuit.
00:54:25
Speaker
was working in research for a while in the medical system and they come up with those diagrams you probably see where they have a picture of a cell and it's got a receptor here on the outside and then it's got something interacting with that and then it's got intracellular pathways and you know they say that then this chemical does this and this does this. I am never ever seen anything come out of that research where you'd say hey I know how to be healthy.
00:54:50
Speaker
It's just this kind of, you know, I think it's just this intellectual kind of waste of time where people get stuck on their particular hobby horse, whether it's some sort of molecule or receptor. And as you know, whether these receptors even exist on cells seems to be pretty dubious because if you look at the evidence for that, it seems like
00:55:14
Speaker
how on earth each cell is supposed to have several hundred different receptors on seems a bit farcical. But anyway, I think that whole trying to reduce things down to molecules. And, you know, Cary Mullis had a good statement about it saying when he was trying to explain about PCR and
Molecular Biology & Scientific Controls
00:55:34
Speaker
molecular biochemistry to people was that he was saying look this is it gets more and more theoretical as you go down down down to the point where you get to the molecules themselves which are just they're just models in our minds and you know when we think back to all that high school chemistry we did
00:55:53
Speaker
with the diagrams, with the little balls and sticks joining them up. I mean, we always have to remember that that's just a model, a representation. It's not, and people get carried away, I think, and think that this is the explanation to life, that we're just a chemistry set that's walking around, and it ignores a whole lot of things, you know, that we haven't got into, obviously, like the
00:56:20
Speaker
psychological and spiritual elements, the electrical elements, etc. to our being. All of those things that make us human, that make us, you know, really special and stuff. And trying to look for it at the bottom of a test tube. I don't think they're ever going to find the answers there. Yeah, of course, I agree. Yeah.
00:56:47
Speaker
Yeah. And if there's, I guess there's one key takeaway, it's to look for a control, right? I think, um, you know, because well, what's the definition of a pseudoscience? It's a set of beliefs based on something that doesn't utilize the scientific method. And if there's no control, there's no scientific method. And so you look at.
00:57:07
Speaker
the study of genetics, you look at the study of virology, there's no control. There's no control. I don't know if you saw a couple of months ago, I published a paper called Virology's Event Horizon where I take, because we've argued about the way they do their cell cultures to try and show that viruses exist.
00:57:28
Speaker
And I actually just, I was thinking to myself, actually there's a bigger problem with this entire thing where the way they've set up the process of the cell culture technique is that they can't do a control because they've conflated the
00:57:45
Speaker
independent variable with the dependent variable. So you know you get these appearances of these vesicles which are part of the set of observations that are the dependent variables and yet they're saying that they're the independent variable so it's like a reification fallacy. They've invented something and then when it appears as part of the dependent observations they say that's it, that's the explanation and
00:58:15
Speaker
Yeah, it's a short paper I wrote, just a few thousand words, but essentially it means that we don't even have to look at any of the rest of the details of their technique because it can't possibly be scientific.
Flaws in Virology Methods
00:58:29
Speaker
I think it's important for people to
00:58:33
Speaker
to get to the bottom of these things. And with any field of medicine, like you say, learn how to read one of their papers and learn how to identify is this controlled? Because if it's not, it's not even playing by their own rules. Yeah, okay. Well, a little plug for myself. Go to Beyond Terrain on YouTube. We did about 10 videos
00:58:55
Speaker
basic, basic understanding of how to read scientific literature. We go over details of papers and all that stuff. So go check that out. I think it's pretty valuable. It's pretty much everything I learned in my undergraduate about assessing and learning about science from the research papers perspective. And I tried to break it down there for you all. So that's a plug for myself, Dr. Bailey. Any final thoughts from you?
00:59:17
Speaker
No, I think people just need to keep asking questions and be so skeptical of what you hear in the mainstream. And I know it's a sad state that the world's in, but be very skeptical of listening to any establishment scientists or public health people or doctors that they are promoting on TV, et cetera, because it's likely that, well, they're lying to you, let's be frank.
00:59:47
Speaker
Well put, well put. Yeah, yeah.
Promotion of 'The Final Pandemic' Book
00:59:49
Speaker
So congratulations on the book launch there. We gave your book away on Instagram actually. So maybe we'll have to do that again for this episode. Maybe we'll give that book away again. I haven't read it yet. I gave it away and didn't buy it for myself. So maybe I should just buy it for myself.
01:00:06
Speaker
Yeah, yeah. Well, I think people will really enjoy the final pandemic. We've made it a lot shorter than virus mania. And the feedback we're getting is that people are disappointed that the book ended. So I think that's always a good sign that they found it.
01:00:22
Speaker
really easy to pick up and just a lot of punchy points. It's written in a format where you can just read like a sub-chapter, you know, that won't take too long, five, 10 minutes, and come away with some really good information about not only historical aspects, but what's going on in the situation today. Yeah. Fantastic. Well, Dr.
Invitation for Future Discussions & Audience Engagement
01:00:45
Speaker
Bailey, thank you so much for your time again today. I really appreciate it. I know the listeners will too.
01:00:50
Speaker
No worries. And yeah, if there are more questions or something more specific, we need to hone in on. Always happy to come back. Fantastic. Yeah, we'll definitely take you up on that. All right. I want to appreciate, or I want to thank you all for listening. You should all know that this is not medical advice, of course. This is for informational purposes only, but also remember we're all responsible, sovereign. Being is capable of thinking, criticizing, understanding absolutely anything. We, the people in the greater forces, are together self-healer, self-governable, self-teachers.
01:01:16
Speaker
We all know this by now. Please reach out if you got any questions, criticism, comments, concerns, whatever it may be. I'll have to chat. I'm on Instagram. You know where to find me. Go check out the YouTube channel. Been trying to publish some higher quality stuff over there. But yeah, it's all pretty great in my opinion. Unbiased opinion there. So yeah, give us a like, share, comment. Whatever you're on helps support us. That's the best way. Sharing is the best way, to be honest. And just remember, there's two types of people in the world. Those believe they can. Those believe they can't. And they are both correct.
01:01:46
Speaker
Alright guys, thanks for listening. Take care.