Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
The Rise of the Germ - History of the Germ Theory
790 Plays1 year ago
In today's episode, we essentially put the germ theory to rest. We delve into the history of the germ theory and explore the contributions of key scientists. Additionally, we shed light on the numerous fallacies that burden it. We also cover the establishment of the American Medical Association, the Flexner Report, and why the two wealthiest individuals in the mainstream world at the time were so involved in medical and public school curriculums. This, in turn, highlights how the germ theory prevailed, despite it being an incorrect approach.
Furthermore, we break down Koch's postulates and explain why they have never been met in real-life situations. We examine why viral filtration does not constitute isolation, and how bacterial isolation falls short of true isolation as well. We touch on the shortcomings of electron microscopy, pharmacology. discuss how the scientific literature has become polluted and so much more! We hope you enjoy the episode!
Learn from me
https://www.instagram.com/beyond.terrain/
https://linktr.ee/beyondterrain
Support the Vision
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/beyondterrain
ETH: beyondterrain.eth
BTC: bc1qqwc470ktgj3l4myqxr5hq67rnlqys0qm98u6f0
Recommended
![DNA Doesn't Exist & Genomic Nonsense with Dr. Jerneja Tomsic [Part 2] image](https://media.zencastr.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=112,quality=85/image-files/652933f3a749dc383eb375de/ce5a5fd9-98c9-44fe-9b4b-3d0cd5abcf29.png)
Transcript
Introduction & Intentions
00:00:03
Speaker
What's up, everybody? Welcome to the second episode of the Beyond Train podcast. I'm your host, Liev Dalton. Today we have an episode on the history of the germ theory. Now, this is going to be my hypocrite episode, as I mentioned in the last episode, because we're going to be talking about what we're against here.
00:00:23
Speaker
I certainly don't want this podcast to revolve around dismantling the germ theory. I think that dead horse has been beat enough and we really need to move this theory forward.
Critique of Germ Theory
00:00:34
Speaker
However, for the purpose of this podcast, moving forward, I do want to set a foundation and that involves dismantling the germ theory a little bit. I think it's good to talk about it. I think it's good to talk about it truthfully, honestly. We want to avoid any straw man arguments here.
00:00:51
Speaker
Certainly, if you want to point that out, please let me know and we could certainly have a discussion about that because I do really want to avoid that. I want to be truthful and honest in recounting this history to the best of my knowledge. I've received this type of lecture many times in my university career, especially about the history of the germ theory. It seems to be
00:01:14
Speaker
hold in every biology and microbiology class that I take over and over again for some reason. But we're going to do it here. We're going to put a little twist on it, a little twist of criticism. So let's get right into the episode where I talk about what's on the agenda today. We're going to go over some housekeeping. We're going to touch on a little bit of the symbolism of the of the change in
00:01:39
Speaker
in kind of the medical establishment's symbols over time. We're gonna talk about the history. That'll be the bulk of the episode. Then we're gonna go on some techniques like viral filtration, also known as false isolation. We'll talk about discrepancies there, microbial isolation. We'll talk about the electron microscope. We'll talk about the literature and how it's polluted. I love talking about that.
00:02:04
Speaker
We'll talk a little bit about pharmaceutical drugs, such as antibiotics and vaccines, as well as why we have a perceived contagion.
Materialism & Disconnect from Nature
00:02:12
Speaker
Why have we come to this conclusion of contagion? Why is disease contagious? And lastly, we'll touch on why this is a widely accepted dogma, and then we'll introduce the next podcast. So some housekeeping notes. We're gonna start by talking a little bit about
00:02:34
Speaker
you know, the rise of materialism in science. Now, I really think that this is central to science's problems. Not that when spirituality and science were merged together, it didn't cause problems because often religious dogma was intertwined with science, which posed many, many issues, of course. But that was pretty much just the
00:03:01
Speaker
It was still the establishment just kind of taking advantage of the scientific community. This is not necessarily a new thing in the last 150 years, although it seems to be worse because of the rise in materialism and how many people in the world are not spiritual or even religious in any respect. And they think that everything is material or pleasure-based. And that really exacerbates
00:03:32
Speaker
the gap between our connection to nature and our connection to true science. And so I think it's really important that we kind of, we get rid of that materialistic mindset. And this is something that I'll be talking a lot about, you know, like, um, and again, another thing that I love to harp on is the victim mindset versus responsibility.
Immunology & Pharmaceuticals
00:03:54
Speaker
I really think that germ theory disease is all about the victim mindset and
00:03:59
Speaker
because it's just a random occurrence versus being responsible for our health. We don't blame these little particles floating through the air for our disease. We take responsibility and look at where we're lacking nourishment or perhaps being poisoned. So I think that's important. That's an important lens to look at this. And this kind of ties into even when I was mentioning that just because science and spirituality have been merged before doesn't mean that it's
00:04:30
Speaker
it makes everything go away because when the church was prevailing, disease was said to be caused by sin oftentimes. And that came with his own presenting issues such as selling the cures as a subscription to the church or whatever it may be. So really the point that should be made is that we need to avoid this victim mindset. Disease is not random. We really need to take responsibility for our health here.
00:05:00
Speaker
Another note I have here is that immunology really is just vaccinology now. It's so centered around vaccines. Anything about the immune system really just has to do with pathogens and vaccines is really the major point here. And I guess the cures as well like antibiotics and things of that matter because every microbiology or virology course that I took in my undergrad was
00:05:26
Speaker
was less centered around studying microbes and more centered around studying cures or preventative vaccines or things of that nature. And this research is obviously pushed and funded by the pharmaceutical companies. So the vested interest there is pretty great. The next thing is virus hunting. That's been around for a little bit now. Really started in the AIDS days because of the electron microscope coming to light.
00:05:56
Speaker
Anthony Fauci is one of the most well-known virus hunters. He's been hunting for viruses for a very long time. Back in the AIDS days, his life work was revolved around AIDS at the time.
Historical Figures & Symbolism in Medicine
00:06:09
Speaker
And when that started to die down and there was less money in it, he was actually beginning to look for a viral disease of cancer. And he really, really pushed for that. Not that that's necessarily an absurd place to look, per se,
00:06:25
Speaker
Obviously, within science, it's great to look at as many places as possible, but we need to omit our own biases and subjectivity towards science. So this infectious disease hunting has been going on for a very long time. For some reason, infection and contagion cells. And I think this is because it's really easy to propagate fear
00:06:55
Speaker
and it's really easy to sell cures. And if you take the responsibility away from the individual, it's much easier to sell them a cure because you disconnect them from their body and thus they're disconnected from their healing processes. And so they trust the third party to sell them some snake oil to make them better. And this is a tale really as old as time. So the thing is about modern science is, you know, we're kind of told these half truths, right?
00:07:26
Speaker
So we're told that microbes cause disease. Now, the reason this is kind of a half truth is because microbes are certainly a part of a disease. They're part of our natural healing process. They're part of nature. They're part of that alchemical transformation into health from disease. Now, this is true of most science, especially all of
00:07:52
Speaker
pretty much all of modern science, especially everything that's false, is we're told these half truths, right? And like I mentioned earlier, this is my hypocritical episode, so please don't hate me. If you're criticized too much for that, at least I acknowledge it. I have a little saying here, you shouldn't hate war, you should love peace. And I certainly spent a lot of time hating the germ theory, but now I'm kind of just loving true healing and
00:08:21
Speaker
you know, understanding the true power train, and it's certainly working out better for my health. So this podcast is all about saying about what we're for, not what we're against. Again, this episode is kind of what we're against, but we will touch on some power train aspects of things. And you know, it's really, really important that we look at this history as a whole. So even the parts that
00:08:47
Speaker
are like even the parts that are for the germ theory, it's important to know it. It's important to understand it because without understanding it, you know, you can't really have a conversation about it. So I truly think it's important to, to look at things as a whole. And, and we're going to do our very best to avoid the straw man, a logical fallacy here. I don't want to build up these germ theory arguments to be less than they are. I really tried to pull the most important parts of it out to discuss it truthfully.
00:09:16
Speaker
Uh, now of course, you know, I, I do have my own biases, right? So, uh, that should be taken into account, but, but I definitely encourage people to look in for, into it for themselves, especially, uh, the claims of the Koch's postulate studies that we'll be making and how Koch's postulates have never been attained. I really think that's a good thing for people to look into. Cause when you look at the studies critically, you'll realize that there's very little evidence for many of these things. And so.
00:09:42
Speaker
really comes down to doing your own research. You know, I'm here, I'm trying to provide the best possible explanation of things here, but definitely doing your own research is the best way to kind of prove things to yourself anyways. So not being said, we're going to move on to some symbolism here. So originally, medicine was symbolized by the Rod of Asclepius, and this was said to be the staff of Moses with one snake, importantly, going around it.
00:10:12
Speaker
And this has been the symbol through time. And the symbolism kind of represents that the snake contains the venom and the anti-venom. So the snake representing the person has the capabilities of becoming diseased, but also has the healing capabilities within them too. And the single snake can regenerate itself.
00:10:38
Speaker
Now, the symbol of Asclepius, he was the son of Apollo, and this certainly signified a natural healing, a self-healing. And this symbol was, in fact, a by-the-worth term known to man, which was greed. Now, we move over to the newer symbol of medicine, and that's the caduceus. And this is where there are two snakes around, one staff,
00:11:05
Speaker
centerpiece. And this really disconnected the body from the natural healing processes. And this is important, right? Because when you separate the body being able to be diseased and healing processes from it, you know, that's where you can come in and sell the snake oil, right? That's where you can come in and sell this stuff. So that's a really important distinction. You know, you're outsourcing your healing to an external
00:11:32
Speaker
external agent and that's certainly going to cause issues. I got light in my face here and there's a bear coming across. It's a little distracting, but so this is the truly the symbol of mercury here or Hermes. And this is the alchemical signal. Now this symbol is meant to signify commerce, merchants, trade, alchemy, liars, and thievery.
00:11:59
Speaker
And it's not necessarily an inherently bad symbol, although it's portrayed poorly here. It's just not an appropriate symbol for medicine. So now alchemy is tied into this because it is the symbol of the alchemical transformation. And that may be a discrepancy in describing healing as an alchemical transformation. And that's a great argument. But I would certainly say that the alchemical transformation itself is
00:12:28
Speaker
not necessarily associated with the known version of alchemy, right? Because alchemy through time was kind of the snake oil, was kind of the thieves and the liars and the merchants because they would sell their fake gold, right? Because when people really tried to turn lead into gold, they ended up making things like brass or things that looked like gold and trying to pass it off as real gold. So this is why there's that theory associated with it.
00:12:57
Speaker
So it's not necessarily a bad symbol, right? Because it depicts the triad, it depicts so many things here, but it's just not appropriate for medicine, for healing, I suppose, is how I would go about it. So we're gonna move into talking a little bit about the history of germ theory. And I think it's appropriate to kind of touch on the church or organized religion.
00:13:24
Speaker
as kind of the perpetuator of this idea because you know the church being involved in medicine and healing
00:13:35
Speaker
is kind of just the same thing as the governmental agencies and larger medical establishments or elites being involved in healing now. Because the church were the ones who funded the hospitals or other charitable institutions. They funded the medical professionals, physicians, nurses back in the day. So you always need to follow the money to understand the root of everything
00:14:01
Speaker
look at the attentions of the funders rather than the fundees because it always relies on who is paying the money at the end of the day. Now, the church had a major impact on medical education and the practice of medicine, of course, because they were the ones with the money and the power, right? So they could kind of regulate things and that always
00:14:26
Speaker
know, comes with its own issues, right? So the medical schools in Europe were established by the church, of course, they develop their medical theories and practices. And of course, this, this was really dogmatic, right? So some of their dog doctrines were illness was often caused by sin or moral failing. So this was the creation of disease, right? This was the
00:14:49
Speaker
this was the, you know, shaming the individual, instilling them with fear, instilling them with hopelessness, and then of course promoted their spiritual and religious practices, and especially the help from their physicians, healed and, you know, are trained in the proper healing techniques in their mind to remove the body of sin and moral failing and
00:15:15
Speaker
you know, remove the disease from them. And this was kind of their method of selling the cure, right? So going to church, you were expected to donate a certain amount of money by going. And obviously, that would be a practice that was very pushed by these healing practitioners that, you know, if you're a sinner, you need to go to church. So that's an important distinction. That's kind of the tale as old as time, you know, and we could get into the talk of the night's templars. I'm not
00:15:44
Speaker
well-versed in that conversation. I've read and watched videos of a few people who are and I do want to reach out and maybe talk about that history a little more if I'm very interesting, very interesting. But really like another important thing about them being involved in this was the suppression of conflicting discoveries, right? So even it's told that
00:16:11
Speaker
The modern ways of medicine now were suppressed by the church back in the day because they didn't want to give up their own, you know, create the disease, sell the cure process. And of course, this involved persecution of practicing physicians outside of the church's views. And this just inhibits true progress in science.
00:16:33
Speaker
And it's the same story today. It's just the same story over and over again. And that's why I thought it was important to bring this up. And certainly this was very brief and I think we could go into it a lot more and perhaps we will down the road here because I do love the history of science and religion.
Early Ideas & Controversies in Germ Theory
00:16:53
Speaker
Okay, now we have
00:16:56
Speaker
He was alive in the 1400s, 1476 to 1553 to be exact, and he was the first germ theorist. To be exact, his theory was the seeds of disease.
00:17:11
Speaker
He wrote the book De catagione e contagiosis morbidus, or on contagious and contagious disease. I'm sure my Latin is absolutely terrible. So Fracastoro proposed that disease were caused by tiny particles that could be transmitted from one person to another. And this is way back in the day, right? So it's not like the idea of contagion is necessarily new,
00:17:38
Speaker
But when you read this, when you read his work, he's not necessarily talking about microbes, right? It could certainly be interpreted as a toxic chemical. Um, and originally the term virus actually meant poison, right? So the word virus is not new. It's not new in the last 50 years since the electric microscope was invented. Virus has been around for a long time and it actually meant poison. So people have been talking about viruses for a long time.
00:18:06
Speaker
not in reference to this new age idea of it. Um, so, uh, Fracastoro thought that, uh, microorganisms became pathogenic in animals' heat. Uh, so that's why animals received the disease and perhaps not plants. Uh, and he was the first to have mentioned the word syphilis in his poem, syphilis or the French disease. Uh, that's the origin of that word, which was just a little fact. So.
00:18:35
Speaker
In the 1600s, 1632 to 1723, Antoine van Leeuwenhoek, I'm sure you've heard of this, if you've taken any science class in your life, he invented the microscope. He discovered microorganisms, him and Robert Hooke. He discovered these microorganisms in water, dental plaque, and other materials. Suggested that these microorganisms could play a role in disease.
00:19:02
Speaker
He was mostly objectively viewing the microorganisms. He didn't really propose any theories that these were causative factors for disease.
00:19:12
Speaker
But A.M.A. Plences put forth a germ theory of disease in 1762 after his, after Lewinhoch's life, and this was based on his observations, Lewinhoch's observations through the microscope, and proposed that these were infectious agents transmitted through the air. So again, this idea of contagion coming to light.
00:19:39
Speaker
So then next on the list, we have Edward Jenner. For the sake of chronology, I'm kind of presenting this as these people were alive. And so Edward Jenner was alive in the 1700s, 1749 to 1823, the inventor of the smallpox vaccine. And so his way of figuring this out was that he noticed milkmaids who had cowpox were not getting smallpox.
00:20:05
Speaker
So his idea was that he took the puffs from a cowpox lesion, injected into a boy named James Phipps, a young boy. So obviously a very, very unethical experiment, which, which is kind of a double standard in my mind, because it, you know, a lot of other unethical experiments, especially in psychology are, are, are shamed. But his story, I find wasn't a shame to my university career, at least because of, uh,
00:20:36
Speaker
Well, the miracle of a vaccine, right? And so what happened when he did this, Phipps developed a mild case of cowpox, but did not develop smallpox when later exposed to the disease. And so in Jenner's mind, this demonstrated that cowpox was providing protection against smallpox. Now, in Jenner's work, you know, there were certainly no controls. There was certainly no isolation of any microorganism.
00:21:05
Speaker
And it's a very interesting observation, sure, I'm not disagreeing with that. But it's not necessarily the same concept of vaccines either, because you're using different pathogens. Now they may have similar, the argument may be that they have similar endotoxins or spike proteins.
00:21:23
Speaker
That is a big buzzword now. But the pus that he would have transferred from the cowpox serum would have contained a plethora of other agents too, right? It just goes down to pretty much anything could be in there at that point, especially in the diseased part of the body. Certainly a concentration of dead tissue with likely a presence of toxins would be there, right?
00:21:54
Speaker
So prior to doing vaccines, some would drip smallpox or cowpox pus into other lesions, into their lesions willingly to protect themselves. So it's kind of a form of a natural vaccine in their minds. And I find this really interesting more so than anything because
00:22:13
Speaker
Um, you know, this is not necessarily an absurd thing. I think it's probably a good thing to expose yourself to as many microorganisms as possible from birth. Um, you know, the idea that we need to shelter babies and put them in incubation chambers so they don't die instantly of a microorganism is a little ridiculous in my mind. It certainly doesn't help the development of the true natural healing process of the body. And I think this is a major problem with vaccines, uh, as we'll touch on later.
00:22:41
Speaker
because they provide a kind of a false immunity for an individual. But we'll really talk, we'll get into that more because it's kind of a bigger discussion than just that statement. So next year we have Louis Pasteur. He was born in 1822 to 1895 and Louis Pasteur, not enough can be said about this gentleman here. He,
00:23:09
Speaker
in his mind proved microorganisms were responsible for fermentation and putrefaction. However, this was proven by Antoine Bichon years before. Louis Pasteur was also touted for disproving spontaneous generation, again, previously proven by Antoine Bichon years before. And so he was basically just a serial plagiarist of Bichon who was kind of his, you know, they said that they were
00:23:37
Speaker
kind of enemies in the field, right? Bishah opposed much of Pastel's work, but Pastel tended to take on everything that Bishah was doing. The reason that Pastel has so much notoriety is because he was more of a politician than a scientist, whereas Antoine Bishah really dedicated his life to science and studying, and it can be seen in his work, certainly.
00:24:03
Speaker
And we'll touch on more of Antoine Bichon, his work in the next podcast, which is going to be the history of the terrain model of health. But for now, we're going to kind of focus more on Louis Pasteur. And if you want to look at more into Louis Pasteur being a plagiarist, Ethel D. Hume wrote a book, Bichon or Pasteur, probably the most phenomenal read you could do on the subject, especially when it comes to Pasteur versus Bichon.
00:24:33
Speaker
She recounts it very well and it's well cited and referenced in the Anal Deshimi and all of the literature back in the day was all published, all letters and things like that. So it's very well referenced. It's an absolute fact. There's no doubt in my mind that Louis Pasteur was a plagiarist and an imposter and a fraud as well, which is the subtitle of that book.
Critiques of Medical Practices & Education
00:25:01
Speaker
Okay, so yeah, Louis Pasteau proposed microbes could be the cause of infectious disease. So this was kind of the big one for him. They call him the father of the germ theory. He thought that there was a microbe for every disease and thus he thought that there was a vaccine for every disease. And I really think that this was the reason he pushed it so much. Another thing that we highly dislike Louis Pasteau for is the creation of pasteurization.
00:25:28
Speaker
The worst thing known to the human diet, and he did it of course in the name of food safety. Now this allowed for mass farming to become a thing.
00:25:42
Speaker
you know, hundreds or thousands of dairy cows to all produce milk and to go in one single holding tank. And it matters not the quality of the milk because it all gets homogenized together. So if there's pus in the milk, it matters not because it's all in one big holding tank.
00:26:00
Speaker
Yeah, there may be some microbes that make your stomach upset in that, but since we pasteurize it, we can kind of mask the toxicities, which is the reasons the microbes were there in the first place and feed it to us anyways, which in turn we end up being the cattle. And like I mentioned, Louis Pasteur was a mediocre chemist and a fantastic politician, and that's his rise to fame. He had ties with the
00:26:29
Speaker
Emperor of France at the time, Emperor Napoleon III. And of course, there's a large possibility for vested interest there. It's claimed that he's an admitted fraud. There's no
00:26:51
Speaker
There's no direct evidence of him ever saying the quote, the germ is nothing and the terrain is everything. It is said that he mentioned this on his deathbed, saying Antoine Bichon is right. Or maybe he said Bernard is right, which was who Antoine Bichon based his work on.
00:27:11
Speaker
Um, but there's no record of it. It's in a book. Uh, it's in, it's in many books and you can look into this. Uh, it's, it's just not something that I'd rely on, uh, for the truth here. Um, not that it's absolutely necessary to the truth at all, but I find that this is a kind of a discrediting thing in this community. If, if people say that Louis pastel said this, um, I think that's problematic because it kind of discredits the work that we're doing and sorry, not necessarily that I'm doing. I mean, we're as in the.
00:27:39
Speaker
the people on the forefront here, but it kind of describes that, this movement of the terrain model of health because it's not necessarily an absolute truth. And I think it's important to stick to that. Now, you know, he is a fraud and he is an imposter though. There's no doubt about that. His personal journals were leaked by, I think, not a stepson, but maybe like a step-nephew or something like that. It was kind of far removed.
00:28:08
Speaker
but he leaked his personal journals in which he had fraudulent data around his vaccine trials. So of course, Louis Pastel's data was just fraudulent, which of course has no place in true science. And there were many accounts that Pastel killed or produced disease to entire herds through his vaccines and farmers were not very happy about this.
00:28:37
Speaker
There's a lot of that in the book by Ethel Hume. We're going to shift a little bit here, but we're still in the history of things. I'm going to provide a little information on the American Medical Association, also known as the AMA. I'll probably refer to it as that.
00:28:59
Speaker
Now, I'm presenting this now just for the sake of chronology. So the American Medical Association, the AMA, was established in 1847. Its original purpose was to document birth, deaths, and marriages. So this is a whole other issue, of course, more governmental than medical. Obviously, there's many things involved in why this is important.
00:29:30
Speaker
because a major argument that we hear all the time is that, you know, people live so much longer now, the average lifespan is so long. Well, we only have data going back to 1847 and if you have no trust in any story at all, in any story by any, you know, native group in the world or even going back past
00:29:51
Speaker
Hippocratic times or back to Egyptian times, you know, you wouldn't believe that someone were to live over a hundred years, right? Because, oh, well, everyone died at 30, right? But this is mostly a problem with the West, because many died in combat or died, you know, for various unsanitary conditions or whatever it may be. No doubt that people died earlier in the West through history, but certainly
00:30:18
Speaker
not the case that people didn't live over a hundred years old. You know, there are stories of people living much, much longer than that in some indigenous circles as well, especially the indigenous of North America, whose history is a little closer of them being kind of untouched and purely living in nature. So one thing that this did was it kind of discounted all those stories. I think that's one of the major problems, obviously, to infringe on our sovereign rights of birth, death and marriage.
00:30:44
Speaker
Um, I'd like to die and just be buried under a tree somewhere rather than having to go and, and do all of this, this document work, right? It's not a very peaceful send off. Same with birth, you know, it needs to be recorded and all of this, this stuff needs to go in and.
00:30:59
Speaker
just not right in my mind, same as a marriage. The government has no business in people's true marriage. And obviously now there's an incentive to be married if you're living in the new world, not saying that, but archetypally, a marriage is between a man and a woman and not, certainly not man, woman and government. So that's an important distinction.
00:31:27
Speaker
Okay, moving forward here, that was a little bit of a tangent, but in 1849 to 1906, the establishment of the Board of Investigates for Quackery was established by the medical AMA there. And this was to investigate things like herbology, massage, homeopathy, any Eastern medicines, and pretty much any natural medicines. Of course,
00:31:55
Speaker
the release of the journal of the AMA was in 1883 to kind of document this. And this was kind of the start of pushing out these natural ways to make way for the new emerging field of pharmaceuticals. And you can kind of see how in the later end of Pestile's life, how the AMA was starting to be created, right? And it was kind of the
00:32:24
Speaker
the start of the snowball. And you can really see this through here. And this information, of course, is taken from the AMA website. So it's not like it's some quack making this up either. But basically the JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, promoted scientifically tested pharmaceutical drugs was a major part of it, and of course, monopolized the field.
00:32:50
Speaker
So in 1897, the AMA incorporated, and of course we love corporations in our medical models. And so now the compulsory smallpox vaccine came out in 1899, just after the AMA incorporated. Next was 1906, the American medical directory was established. And in 1907,
00:33:20
Speaker
The AMA involved the Carnegie Foundation, obviously funded and ran by Andrew Carnegie. I'll touch on him more in a second here. And in 1910, an extremely significant thing happened for the medical establishment. The Flexner Report was released by Abraham Flexner.
00:33:42
Speaker
And I have a little quote from the AMA website here, the Flexner Report, medical education in the United States and Canada funded by the Carnegie Foundation and supported by the American Medical Association is published and facilitates new standards for medical schools. So the target was not just to necessarily get information out to we the people or to practitioners, but was certainly to monopolize schools as well.
00:34:09
Speaker
And so we're going to touch on the Flexner report a little bit here. And this is taken from the Flexner report itself, but it was completely funded by the Kearney Foundation and keep that in mind. So the Flexner report essentially provided medicine with reconstruction and regulation of medical education. It provided it with pharmacology as the only solution to disease. And I quote here, the need for pharmacology are in these respects not different from those of physics.
00:34:41
Speaker
And I'll just let you guys think about that one there. Not much needs to be said about that quote. You know, is pharmaceuticals just as necessary in physics as health? Well, you can answer that question. And it also established the fact that funding is paramount to medical education. And funding, of course, at this time is unregulated. Anybody could fund anything they want. There was no real investigation. Not that there necessarily is now. There's certainly ways to get around it.
00:35:09
Speaker
fully unregulated, so that tells you something. And the idea of funding being important is because in doing research, it was expensive, and especially to do the trials that the AMA was requiring, it became more expensive. And so this kind of monopolized the field that your average Joe wasn't able to go out and just, you know, do observations or, you know, do science, right? It had to be funding, it had to be funded, it had to be approved, it had to be all this stuff, right?
00:35:38
Speaker
Not that that's necessarily an absurd concept either, just that, um, this is what it was at the time. I have another quote here from the Flexner report and it states that the human body belongs to the animal world. It is liable to attack by hostile, physical and biological agencies. And only chemical drugs are able to stop these attacks. Uh,
00:36:03
Speaker
is kind of the notion that they were getting at. So they really, really were just pushing the idea of pharmaceuticals, right? So all prevention, you know, they didn't really talk about vaccines as much in the FLEX report. I think that was probably a smart play on their own part because it doesn't look that good going back. But their idea of prevention was in sanitary conditions, which is also a major advancement for disease, I think,
00:36:34
Speaker
in some respects, obviously without the use of chemicals, but not living in your own waste is a good idea for your health. Now, one thing about the Flexner report, I will say is that, you know, Abraham Flexner killed Hippocrates and Hippocrates was the only thing that the West really had going for them.
00:36:57
Speaker
You know, not that bloodletting is the best way forward and not that it's necessarily absurd either. This is not a debate on that. But Hippocrates certainly had a greater understanding of the body. You know, I can understand the shortfalls of the humors and his theory put forth there. But, you know, Abraham Flexner
00:37:21
Speaker
stated in the Flexner report that, you know, Hippocrates just wasn't enough and that his ideas, it kind of just discounted Hippocrates as a person and physician and a historic figure. You know, and obviously now doctors don't even say the Hippocratic oath anymore, which, you know, can be problematic symbolically.
00:37:49
Speaker
But, you know, Hippocrates certainly had some good ideas and had some very good quotes. And I took a history of the body or history of modern medicine and birth of the body. And we talked a lot about Hippocrates in that course, I took it in university.
00:38:04
Speaker
And really, Hippocrates was not far off. I'm not gonna say that he's the best physician to ever exist, but he certainly thought that the idea of a doctor being a connect, like his theory was there. He thought that the doctor, the physician should be in it for the healing and part of the healing process.
00:38:28
Speaker
But understood that the body is, is the primary healer in the situation. I think that that is the most significant thing that, um, you know, any understood things like all disease starts in the gut or, um, you know, this is a good one too. You live off one third of the food you consume and your physician off the later two thirds. I thought that one was good too. Speaks about the gluttony in our society now too.
00:38:57
Speaker
Yeah, so, you know, all preventative medicine was obviously centered around bacteriology in the Flexner report, and all pathology was taught as being microbes as the causative agent.
Industrial Influence on Medicine
00:39:11
Speaker
Now to continue with the AMA here, we're going to talk about Carnegie, Andrew Carnegie, and his relationship to Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller. So Carnegie was
00:39:22
Speaker
You know, touted as the, the second richest man in the world. And he did this off of steel and railroads. So that was kind of his, his business, right. Second richest man in the world at the time, I would say, um, in the mainstream lens. Now Rockefeller rich from oil was the richest man in the world at the time. People say he was perhaps the richest man in history. And I would say probably in mainstream history, obviously there.
00:39:50
Speaker
there are people that are more powerful and more rich beyond these two fellows. But these guys were really at the forefront of things. And perhaps at the time they were really at the top, maybe especially in the new Western world, North America. Abraham Flexner, of course, was employed by the Carnegie Foundation. And he was later the first director of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Programs in Medical Education. So they all had great ties together. I think Abraham Flexner's
00:40:19
Speaker
brother worked for the Rockefeller Foundation as well. So they really all had some great ties with each other. So it's not like Abraham Flexner, who first of all was not, you know, you know, maybe he wasn't a great person for the Flexner Report. Perhaps it should have been a board of people, but he certainly had ties with some very powerful, rich people.
00:40:46
Speaker
Um, and it's interesting that Rockefeller who rich from oil, it's important. It's greatly involved in medical research and education systems as philanthropy. And now this is important because, you know, these lines are the, these, these oil lines, these, these oil families are still, you know, they're still up there. And, uh, there's a lot derived from petroleum for very cheap. And I'll give you an incomprehensible list here. Things such as plastics, synthetic fibers.
00:41:16
Speaker
pharmaceutical drugs, food additives, cosmetics, cleaning supplies, pretty much any complex organic chemical are mostly derived from petrol. So I think that's a really important thing to consider. And so why are these guys doing these philanthropy? Oh, they're just good people. They have so much money. Well, philanthropy equals tax write-off.
00:41:42
Speaker
That's, that's pretty much, that's pretty much just the case. If you see a, like a very rich person doing philanthropy, I'm sure they're benefiting from it. And somehow, uh, yeah, well one, it's a tax write off to it likely allows them to travel or focus most of their time on something less, uh, less stressful than work. Um, and you can certainly see that now. So don't be tricked by philanthropy. That is a great disguise that rich people use. It's just a tax write off for the most part.
00:42:13
Speaker
they're saving more money than anything. They could probably buy a jet through their philanthropy associations because they need to travel for conferences. And that jet is then a tax write off and then they have access to a private jet. So this is how that type of stuff works. But that's for another podcast down the road. We talk about money, financial freedom. And so my last kind of aside in the history of this is
00:42:42
Speaker
the public education. So Rockefeller created the General Board of Education in 1902. This was meant to move people away from agricultural knowledge to industrial knowledge because, well, John D. Rockefeller is very well known for saying, I don't want a nation of thinkers. I want a nation of workers because obviously the Industrial Revolution was on the cusp and they needed workers. They did not need farmers. So, and I think if I'm remembering this correctly, don't quote me on this, but
00:43:13
Speaker
back in the 1900s, 95% of America produced food for 5% of America. And now I think it's the reverse 5%, less than 5% produces the food for the other 95%. So what did Rockefeller do? Well, he did that very well. He moved agriculture knowledge away to industrial knowledge. And so Rockefeller's education advisor, Frederick Taylor Gates wrote the country school of tomorrow. And in that
00:43:42
Speaker
He wrote, we shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or science. And if that doesn't tell you about the education system, I don't know what will. And Frederick Taylor Gates is not related to Bill Gates. Obviously we looked that up, but it's not true. Okay. So again, 1905 Carnegie established the foundation for the advancements of teaching. So these guys were great friends, great business friends. They obviously,
00:44:12
Speaker
you know, Rockefeller needed Carnegie to move his oil around and Carnegie needed Rockefeller to move his trains. So these philanthropic foundations among the medical foundations were just tax deductions, just tax deductions. And the benefit you could see is the control of an absolute population still to today. So it was obviously a big plan, much larger than
00:44:41
Speaker
you know, Rockefeller's life. The Rockefeller Foundation also donated $500 million to the educational system. So follow the money and you will find the truth. And I'm gonna tell a little bit of a story here. I was once putting in some docs, you know, for boats, right? And we're working here and we're putting these docs in and we have a farmer
00:45:11
Speaker
who's helping us with the tractor. And we have a fisherman helping them, helping us with our, with the boat, right? So the farmer would kind of take them and put them in the water, put the docks in the water using his tractor and the fishermen to take them out. And, you know, farmers and fishermen, they don't really like each other too much. You know, there's kind of a feud there, especially where I'm from, Prince Edward Island.
00:45:33
Speaker
Uh, but pretty much any small town, I'm sure there's, there's farmers and fishermen, they, they don't necessarily get along. Um, and you can certainly see that right. Because they wanted to yell at each other and tell each other what to do. And the funny thing was the farmer, you know, we had a moment and we were chatting and you know, what, what he said to me was, he says, you know, you know, us farmers and fishermen, we, we don't, you know, we don't always get along and, you know, we're trying to tell each other what to do here. He keeps yelling at me.
00:46:04
Speaker
you know, do this, do that. And he says, I'm not going to do any of that. He says, you know, you know, whose orders I'm going to follow. I'm going to follow whoever's names at the bottom of that check. And that story just stuck with me. And that what he said there, you know, it could not be more true. And here's this farmer, you know, just dropping a very, very valuable point of wisdom, right? Whoever signs the name on the check,
00:46:31
Speaker
calls the shots. I don't care if it's philanthropy. I don't care if you have a trust. I don't care. You call shots. If you have the money, you call shots. And that's a very, very important thing to understand, especially when it comes to any type of establishment at all. Right. Cause we're really focused on establishments here, not necessarily individuals. Obviously these individuals are kind of the ones who's established these establishments. So that's why we're talking about it. But, um,
00:46:57
Speaker
when we talk about these things like medical associations, it's not about doctors, it's about medical establishments because ignorance is bliss. All right, moving back to a more scientific history of germ theory, we got Robert Koch, 1843 to 1910 was his rather short life.
Koch's Postulates & Scientific Challenges
00:47:22
Speaker
And so,
00:47:24
Speaker
He was started for a few things. He used stains in microscopy to increase visibility of the microbes. Stains being heavy metals, which comes with its own problems, which we'll discuss in a bit. He discovered the causative microbes for tuberculosis in 1882, supposedly discovered. He wrote the etiology of tuberculosis. So pure culture in this sense kind of refers only to the presence of one strain of bacteria.
00:47:52
Speaker
not pure in its true sense. So it's important when reading these things that we understand this like their definitions of purity or isolationists are skewed for sure. Because although one strain of bacteria might be present in his post postulate studies, which we're about to go over, you know, there are other contaminations certainly there.
00:48:11
Speaker
And so I quote from the etiology of tuberculosis, single tubercles or particles about the size of a millet seed are quickly cut out of the lung tissue from a diseased guinea pig or human and immediately carried over to the surface of solidified serum in a test tube. So the serums used were cow or sheep's blood, agar agar, nutrient plates, things like that. And so it's important to know that
00:48:40
Speaker
you know, there's contaminations, you're not, you're not, you know, these tubercules are likely small little concentrations of toxins or dead tissues, right? So it's not necessarily enough to just have that culture. So there is a little bit of a problem in his work. I mean, his work is kind of incomprehensible, especially when you're reading about it, like,
00:49:10
Speaker
It certainly doesn't have the MRAD format that we have now, which is a beneficial format. And that's a major problem with a lot of these old works, right? They don't really describe the isolation procedures. And we know that the isolator procedures have just gotten better over time in quotations, isolation being used very loosely in that sentence there.
00:49:33
Speaker
But the problem with his work is that there was no control, there was no replication of natural transmission pathways, only inoculation, whatever show results. And again, there's presence of contamination. Although there's just one strand of bacteria, there's contamination, likely known as adjuvants, but we'll get on that more in a second here too.
00:49:55
Speaker
So basically this ideology of tuberculosis was mostly paper on micro-visualization and disease symptom descriptions more so than an actual satisfaction of Koch's postulates. So Koch's postulates, he developed them, of course, and they are a very logical approach. You know, I have no problem with his postulates at all. I think they're extremely logical. I think they're
00:50:20
Speaker
their statement of true science. However, there's never been a paper that has satisfied Koch's postulates using a control relative to the experimental procedure. And the former is true without the later more specific sentence that I added there. There has never been a paper that has satisfied Koch's postulates period. There's especially never been done one with a relative control. So Koch's postulates, let's go over them here.
00:50:44
Speaker
Number one, so essentially, so sorry, Cokes postulates is essentially a set of postulates used to decipher whether an infectious microbe or microorganism is the cause of a disease. So here are the postulates. Number one, the microbe must be present in all cases of the disease and absent in those without said disease.
00:51:12
Speaker
Secondly, the microorganism must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture. Third, a sample of the culture must cause the same disease when inoculated into a healthy, susceptible host. And finally, the same microorganism must be re-isolated from the diseased host and match the profile of the original microorganism. So very logical, like I said, I have no problem with this.
00:51:41
Speaker
The problem is the implementation of this. It's in the scientific procedure, not lining up with the words and the true definitions of these words. And obviously the first statement is kind of a great one. The microorganism must be present in all cases of disease and absent in those without said disease. Asymptomatic carriers obviously is a major, major fallacy.
00:52:09
Speaker
and more sport of the terrain model, but we're going to also touch on that later. I won't get ahead of myself here. So obviously in implementing Koch's postulates, it was a rather difficult task to do. Although people claim that they've done it,
00:52:33
Speaker
It's still, it's still a tough thing. And some people did acknowledge that there were shortfalls. Like they took out the, obviously the asymptomatic carrier statement, right? Like they took out the, and absent in those without said disease, once we started getting into the AIDS debacle, because asymptomatic carrier, that was kind of when that was invented. So they obviously had to change the definition to fit their dogma. And so Thomas Rivers was a guy who kind of,
00:53:04
Speaker
He repostulated Koch's postulates. So Rivers was around 1888 to 1962. He worked as a vaccinologist in the early 1900s and implemented vaccines and other medical procedures in the military. And this was around 1915. I wonder why there was so much disease in military people. He reviewed Koch's postulates, created new postulates for viruses in 1924, essentially.
00:53:32
Speaker
Sorry, I shouldn't say it was four viruses. He did repostulate it and spoke about how Koch's postulates were a little bit too logical. Sorry. Okay. I'll interject my own feelings here. He spoke out about how Koch's postulates were too hard to implement in scientific study. And so he decided to create his own set of postulates because it was difficult to apply Koch's postulates, especially two viruses.
00:53:59
Speaker
So Koch's postulates were too restrictive in his mind and needed to prove, were not needed to prove causality of disease from microbes. So this is where we really lost our logic here. Rivers, I don't necessarily, I don't agree at all with his new postulates, which we'll go over after the slide here. And Rivers was a big one for the monomorphism versus polymorphism debate. So things like polymorphism, pleomorphism or the somatic cycle of microbes.
00:54:28
Speaker
is a big part of the period model of health. And he was basically the one that banned the use of polymorphism in the scientific literature, likely with the help of the AMA. And funny enough, like we never mentioned Thomas Rivers in my whole university career. I never heard of him. And, you know, I definitely heard of Koch's postulates time and time again and said how many times we've satisfied that even though
00:54:56
Speaker
many people in the literature kind of discredit Koch's postulates as not being enough. So it's funny because in university we teach Koch's postulates, but then in the real literature, we kind of admit that it's not like, it's not a, it's what Rivers said here. It's not necessary to prove causality from disease. However, we teach it in every university course on microbiology or even biology in general. So I think that's a real problem. Like I heard Robert Koch's name
00:55:25
Speaker
So many times it was unbelievable. Not one mention of rivers. So there's a lack of teaching history as a whole, obviously, because the truth is in the history. When you look at history, truthfully. So rivers review of Cokes postulates, essentially you need to isolate the microbe from the disease host, cultivate the virus or microbe in host cells. The virus needs to have a proof of filterability. So it needs to be filtered, which is not isolation,
00:55:55
Speaker
There needs to be a production of a comparable disease when the cultivated virus is used to infect experimental animals. It must be re-isolated from the same virus from the infected experimental animal. And then there must be a detection of a specific immune response to the virus. So that's rivers postulates. They are a little less logical than Robert Koch's because there's not really, there's, you know, isolation.
00:56:25
Speaker
is the tough words here, right? So what do cokes and rivers have in common? Well, both of their postulates have never been attained. Rivers postulates have, even though they're easier, they've never been attained because the problem is that no true isolation is ever done in real scientific experiments in real life, right? So there's never relative controls used.
00:56:53
Speaker
there's a lack of papers that do all four or all six postulates in a single experiment or paper. They often outsource their methods. The example I have here is steps one and two of Koch's postulates were done in said study, which is not necessarily problematic. It's just that when you go back to read those studies, they didn't necessarily isolate anything either. And then so you basically go from
00:57:19
Speaker
vague descriptions of methods like Coke, Jenner, pasta, to these outsourced papers who really just don't isolate anything in any of the papers.
00:57:33
Speaker
Um, you know, contagion in vivo or in vitro has never been proven. You know, contagion is not, is not something that's been, been proven to happen. And there's many accounts of this one is, uh, you know, gallops Island, which was done after like during the Spanish flu. I think it was 1918 where they took a hundred men, a hundred military men to the Island and had them spend a ton of time around sick people being coughed in their face.
00:58:02
Speaker
uh, you know, sneezed on right in their face. They had to put their nose in the diseased person's mouth and they breathe solely the diseased person's air into their nose or into their mouth. And not one of these, they even ended up injecting people at the end with posture. They took pus out of the throat. They went from real life kind of experiments to
00:58:28
Speaker
like, you know, really fake ways of contagion and still couldn't prove contagion. This is a really interesting one because you can find it on Wikipedia. You can find it like kind of in the mainstream view of things. So Gallops Island, I'd certainly look into that if it's a great place to start. It's short, short, short read too. But, you know, contagion has never been proved. Absolutely not. Epidemiology can't even show statistically relevant contagion.
00:58:55
Speaker
Epidemiology is just not a field that we need to be drawing any conclusions from. That's not its purpose. It's meant to generate hypotheses, not create facts. Epidemiology is the introduction. It's the foundation, not even the foundation. It's the preemptive work. That's a very important distinction. And so in vitro, only inoculation really shows any sort of contagion.
00:59:25
Speaker
although it's still incomplete and never satisfies Koch's or reverse postulates inoculation is really the only way that we can get disease to show or symptoms to show on people. But that's because we're not injecting pure virus or microbes. We're not, we're not showing, we're not injecting pure. We have adjuvants. We have these, these heavy metals in it to stimulate immune responses. That's what adjuvant is. That's the purpose. And that's admitted in the mainstream view of things too.
00:59:52
Speaker
That's why you have aluminum and mercury in vaccines because it's supposed to stimulate an immune response. That's the purpose of it. That's why it's there. Or sometimes it's a preserve as well, but I think it's mostly the adjuvants.
01:00:09
Speaker
So viruses specifically have a little history here. I'm just gonna keep this brief because I probably bored you guys enough with this history of the germ theory.
Virology & Electron Microscopy Limitations
01:00:19
Speaker
Dmitri Ivanovsky, 1884, discovered the first virus while studying tobacco plants affected by the mosaic disease. His conclusion was that the sap from infected plants remained infectious even after passing it through a filter that removed all the bacteria. It's just the presence of an invisible infectious agent.
01:00:38
Speaker
Now, Martinis Bejanich, 1892, confirmed Ivanovsky's conclusion and proposed the term virus to describe the novel infectious agent. Of course, virus before it was used in this sense was meant to depict the word poison. His findings were that viruses could only replicate inside living cells and viruses are made by cells. That's very, very important. Viruses are made by cells.
01:01:08
Speaker
Wendell Stanley, 1935 crystallized the tobacco mosaic virus. His findings pretty much showed that it was composed of a nucleic acid RNA and a protein coat and a little vesicle, and it was made from the same materials as the cell. Another important distinction. 1931 electron microscopy was invented. This perpetuated the virus hunting and germ theory. Obviously it was just, you know,
01:01:38
Speaker
Just a big win for the germ theory to push that forward because you can look at these artifacts and prove in quotations a lot of things. And so improvement of viral isolation through improved filtration is another thing that was touted as a scientific advancement in virology. But again, filtration is not isolation. So let's look at filtration.
01:02:06
Speaker
Here are the steps of filtration. You have your sample preparation step where you remove debris, cell debris, larger particles, and you basically centrifuge it. So then you set up the filtration, a membrane, essentially there's a membrane that's designed to retain viruses, allow smaller components to go through. So you've already got the large gone, now you want the smaller stuff gone. So it holds onto the virus and everything, all the smaller stuff goes through.
01:02:36
Speaker
So then you have the virus filtration where the filter retains the virus while allowing smaller molecules, proteins and other contaminants to pass through. You then rinse and wash the membrane to remove any remaining non-viral particles or contaminants that may adhere to the filter. And then you essentially recover and confirm the presence of the virus from the filter. And you can confirm this through electron microscopy or polymerase chain reaction.
01:03:07
Speaker
And here's the real problematic step is that then you need to culture the virus. And essentially you have the cell culture medium, which is often virocells, which are monkey kidney cells. And within this culture, there's often a fetal bovine or other animal serum. So vaccines are not necessarily a vegan per se, because that's in vaccines too. It's all you vegans out there. Stop taking vaccines.
01:03:37
Speaker
Um, and it's fetal, it's fetal bovine serum. So really, come on now. Not very ethical for all you people out there. Um, also in viral cultures are antibiotics and anti mycotics. Antibiotics actually are known toxins to kidney cells. And interestingly, the cell culture medium, the most prominent one is Vero cells, monkey kidney cells. So that's interesting. Uh, looking at Stefan, like his work there, Dr. Stefan Lanka did a control.
01:04:07
Speaker
where he did this viral culture according to the steps of the modern ways and produced viruses without actually inoculating the cell culture with a virus. So, virologists hate Dr. Stefan Lanka for proving that. So, as well in the viral culture is protease inhibitors, growth factors, cytokines, and pH indicators, you know, chemical, chemical, chemicals, chemicals, right?
01:04:35
Speaker
synthetic hormones, synthetic, you know, it's just, there's a lot in there, right? And that's all in the viral culture. So you isolated and then you cut it with a bunch of shit. It's ridiculous.
01:04:48
Speaker
So viral filtration is just a false isolation because at the end, you have this sort of pure virus. You have a very small, small amount of it. It's never enough to produce any disease or symptoms in a person. They always say that the argument is that it's
01:05:08
Speaker
It's not enough. It's not enough virus to produce a disease, but aerosolized viruses can infect us, but their controlled manners can't. It's a foolish, foolish, absolutely illogical, irrational argument. It makes absolutely no sense. Like it's just ridiculous. So here I have marked the electron microscopy is not necessarily a differential process. Viruses look identical to exosomes. Andrew Kaufman's done a lot of work in that area. Dr. Andrew Kaufman,
01:05:38
Speaker
Phenomenal source on exosomes obviously kind of started his work in the COVID era of things. Maybe he started before too. Regardless, he did a lot of work on exosomes and how they're identical to viruses and how they're mostly just, they're most likely just, you know, our cells detoxing, to put it simply.
01:06:04
Speaker
Pulmonary chain reaction. Oh, well I could go on and on about the PCR being a test, a false test, but okay. So sorry, we'll stick with the viral filtration here. PCR only detects the presence. It does not detect species in isolation. So within viral filtration, you're not necessarily isolating viruses from different strands of viruses too, because a PCR test only detects the presence. It doesn't detect
01:06:28
Speaker
the, like it being by itself. Right. And so even through electron microscopy, you may have different strands of viruses. So it's kind of hard to tell if a virus, even in the mainstream view, which virus is like, it's just, there's a lot of discrepancies there, which virus is responsible, which, you know, we can do a lot of stuff in silico in the computer, uh, with sequencing, with genomic sequencing, but there, there are many, many shortfalls in vitro or in vivo.
01:06:57
Speaker
Um, you know, the other major problem here is the addition of chemicals to the culture. There's just no chemical isolation. So you have this chemical concoction that then gets used in these Cokes postulate studies. And, you know, it's just, it's just problematic, um, because it's not true isolation, you know,
01:07:21
Speaker
there's not, there's not really a difference between virus and the tissue, you know, the virus is kind of extension of the tissue. So it's, you know, viruses are, it's a very interesting thing because it's like, we admit that it's created by the body, but we say that it's because we were infected when like, you know, it's just, it's just a tough, it's a tough argument. It's, it's made by the body, right? So it kind of fits in with the terrain model of things too, how, how virus may be more of a,
01:07:49
Speaker
a communication system or a detox system endogenously rather than, and perhaps even to those around us. It's not like viruses don't come out when we cough, but we can't produce disease with small amounts of viruses in vivo or in vitro. It's never, ever, ever been done. There's never even been claims of it being done.
01:08:13
Speaker
But you can stand next to someone at the grocery store and get sick in a matter of a few seconds, right? So there's a little bit of a discrepancy there. Obviously there's the centrifugal step where you centrifuge it, where you spin it really fast. And this obviously causes a distortion. I don't think we really understand the implications, especially if something delicate has a small little virus like that.
01:08:37
Speaker
And I talked about Dr. Stefan Leicke's control study with virocells and antibiotics, where he basically did the viral isolation step without inoculating the culture with a virus and produced viral particles anyway, because antibiotics are toxic to kidney cells, or yeah, kidney cells, virocells, monkey kidney cells.
01:08:59
Speaker
all the same thing. And so, you know, even then, like you have all these adjuvants in cosposhales, you have all these things that are meant to stimulate the immune response in vaccines. I'm sure they're done in cosposhale studies, right? So it's just a problem. So moving on here, we're going to go to bacterial isolation and its steps. So first you start with inoculation, a sample
01:09:22
Speaker
Sorry, a sample containing the mixed culture of bacteria is collected and inoculated into a solid growth medium such as agar and other additives, nutrients and probably more chemicals. So then you then incubate this culture under the appropriate conditions such as temperature, humidity and oxygen levels, control that. You then streak the culture
01:09:49
Speaker
He's basically spread the bacteria from the original inoculum onto an agar surface, which allows you to kind of pick out the bacteria from the specific colony that you want, right?
01:10:06
Speaker
So they're selected streaked onto an agar plate, a new agar plate to obtain a more pure culture of the specific bacterial species. And then you confirm it through microscopy, biochemical texts and genetic analysis, which would be polymerase chain reaction. And then of course you take that final purified bacterial sample and you grow it in a pure culture. And this is essentially how you get a pure
01:10:37
Speaker
pure bacteria. Now, I'm not going to necessarily deny that you have the presence of solely one bacteria because it can be confirmed through microscopy, which is a much different process than electron microscopy. But the problem is, is that in the culture is still the present, they're still present
01:11:00
Speaker
amithes and chemicals and adjuvants, pH buffers, antibiotics, anti mycotics, you know, things that are toxic are still in this culture, right? So the problem is not that we can't isolate a bacteria per se, it's that we add all of this shit to be able to make it grow, right? Because bacteria only grow in these toxic conditions. You know, these bacteria only flourish in these conditions. So if you want to have a virulent or a
01:11:30
Speaker
pathogenetic bacteria, you need to provide it a toxic environment to be able to grow it. And what does that tell you about the germ theory disease? It certainly indicates that the terrain model is a whole lot more sound and logical in this case, because bacteria seek their innate environments. They want, they go where their food sources are. So that's an interesting observation, of course, you know, I think it's
01:12:00
Speaker
It's a great point. I think it should be talked about more, obviously, but it's not. And so, you know, that bacterial isolation, you know, it's good, then you culture it, and that's just a problem. That's the Koch's Postulate Studies again, and it's just not isolation. It's just not. It's a false isolation. It's a facade, and we trick ourselves, essentially.
01:12:26
Speaker
And so another thing that we talked about a lot actually in my university career was the great plate anomaly. We don't understand the required environment to grow over 99% of bacteria in vitro. So this kind of states that, well, we know a whole lot less than we think we do, but there's a need for a natural environment when it comes to growing most bacteria or fungus for that matter. There's a lot of fungus we can't grow in laboratories and things like that.
01:12:55
Speaker
you know, the artificial environment does not equal the natural environment. That's a very important distinction. And we can't mimic nature perfectly. We can't. And so, you know, we can't culture 99% of bacteria out there, but we're going to sit here and state that, you know, we know which bacteria cause which diseases and even worse, we know which viruses are causing these diseases as well. So it's like, it's a little ridiculous. Most microbes are sequenced in silica. Oh, that's how we,
01:13:23
Speaker
claim to know as many bacteria as we do, but we can't culture 99% of them. So how the hell do you even study them in vitro? It's ridiculous. So there's so many problems in bacteriology and virology, especially in these isolation, because they'll sit here and say that they isolated the virus, but in the concoction of chemicals is a little bit of virus and a ton of other shit in it. So it's same with bacteria.
01:13:50
Speaker
So what do these two have in common? Viral transmission directly after filtration always fails to produce infection or disease. They claim that there's not enough virus in the sample. So if you took it directly from the filtration step without culturing it and put it into people, it never, ever, ever has once caused disease. No one's even claimed that it's caused disease.
01:14:18
Speaker
And I know I said that before, but that's so important. It's so important. Same as pure bacteria through natural routes always fail to produce disease and infection. Injection most often used to produce desired results. Injection is always used if you want to produce desired results because you're using, you know, you're injecting chemicals, not just the bacteria. And again, you're not taking the pure. If you, you know, if you grew the colony on an agar plate and perhaps that was the only additive that there was in there, like,
01:14:48
Speaker
You could transmit this bacteria to someone and it would not produce disease. They always say it's not enough bacteria. We need more bacteria or we need adjuvants. We need immune stimulators like heavy metals or just a bunch of chemicals to stimulate the immune system so you can get the symptom response that they're looking for because we think symptoms are disease.
01:15:12
Speaker
And of course variables are not accounted for concerning Cokes postulates. You know, there's never been a true isolation. Often the addition of adjuvants to produce desired results such as heavy metals are added. Can't stress that enough.
01:15:27
Speaker
It's also an ingredient in all the vaccines, aluminum is a major one. And it's to stimulate the immune response, right? It's like this isn't even some woo-woo conspiracy thing, this is admitted in the literature, adjuvant is admitted in the modern framework.
01:15:46
Speaker
Right. You need adjuvants in vaccines or else they say the vaccines don't work. Well, you know what? If you forced me to take a vaccine that was a pure bacteria or a pure virus and I could take it in a more natural route than an injection, I'm sure you'd have a lot of people.
01:16:02
Speaker
lining up for that rather than, you know, being injected with heavy metals, right? That's the real problem here. No one cares about getting injected or well, you know, many people don't like getting injection because it's an absolutely unnatural route. There's injections are just foolish. I don't care if it's an alternative practice. We shouldn't inject ourselves with things. Um, you know, but like,
01:16:25
Speaker
There'd be an idea for a natural vaccine, a natural vaccine with pure bacteria, pure virus. It would be a whole lot more expensive. Obviously, it doesn't produce the toxic poisoning that is the real desired results of implementing vaccination, but that's another story. And I mentioned here, in real life,
01:16:54
Speaker
Contagion only requires a very small number of viruses or bacteria to produce infection and disease. But in vitro, in laboratory, even if you're mimicking it in vivo as closely as the natural, they can't produce it. They cannot produce contagion.
01:17:12
Speaker
Contagion has never been proven in any literature at all. If you can find a study that it has, please send it to me. I've scoured the literature for it and I can't find it. I know a lot of people who can't find it as well. If you think that you found one, please send it my way. I'd love to read it and maybe we go over it because it has never been done.
01:17:38
Speaker
you know, when it does try to get done, it never gets published. So they don't produce when they fail, or they don't publish literature when they fail, except for Gallops Island. That's why that's an important study to go read. Okay, let's talk about the electron microscope. This basically further the fallacy of the mostly viruses, bacteria, not so much, although further the fallacy of cell theory and the organelles within, but that's for the next podcast.
01:18:09
Speaker
Basically, the electron microscope allowed scientists to see correlative agents, namely viruses of the site of disease where bacteria weren't present. So it kind of perpetuated that notion. It's important to note that electron microscopes only look at dead, chemically stained, dehydrated, and frozen matter. And so the phenomenon is altered on so many levels. It's dead, first of all. It's chemically stained with heavy metals. It has no water.
01:18:39
Speaker
It's so far from what a live tissue or sample is, right? So how do we know if dead tissue acts the same as live tissue, right? It kind of gives you artifacts. The electron microscope kind of gives you artifacts, right? And human beings certainly think that we can tell the entire story based off artifacts alone. Obviously this comes from our study of history as well. We think we know everything about history because we have a few artifacts.
01:19:06
Speaker
We have artifacts in observations and we think that we understand the Big Bang. So it's kind of the same story through science, through all of this from Egyptians to viruses to the Big Bang. It's all just looking at artifacts and trying to pull a story out of our butt.
01:19:29
Speaker
and fool the people enough to push our dogmas and sell our cures. It's the same story over and over again. History repeats itself. We learn from history that we do not learn from history. That's the best lesson you can learn. And so with the electron microscope, Harold Hellman was a guy who talked a lot about the fallacies of the electron microscope, proved things using angles, as well as talking about the shortfalls of
01:19:55
Speaker
of changing the state, killing it, staining it, dehydrating it, freezing it. And we'll touch on more of Harold Hillman's work in the next podcast as well. But yeah, you know, the electron microscope really just pushes this egotistic, arrogant kind of great deception. It really highlights that of not only the germ theory, but of society and modern science in general.
01:20:22
Speaker
You know, we think we can tell every story. I think we know everything. It's a foolish statement.
01:20:30
Speaker
So the electron Microsoft process, I'll just, we'll go through this quickly here. Basically, you prepare the sample, you kill it, you freeze it, you dehydrate it, obviously. You cut the sample and section it into ultra thin sections of the sample because it needs light to go through it. So it needs to be extremely, extremely thin. You then mount it on a substrate material such as a copper grid or glass slide.
01:20:53
Speaker
You then stain it using contrast agent or stain to enhance visibility and common stains. The most common stains are heavy metals such as uranium or lead. I don't know any person who'd want to have either of those in their body, but you then dry the sample, which prevents distortion during observation, distortion of the artifact. Electron microscope is nothing but a distortion, so that's an interesting
01:21:24
Speaker
explanation in my mind. And then you observe the sample. So the electron microscope uses a beam of electrons to create a highly magnified image of the sample, which can then be captured and analyzed. So you beam it with an extremely high frequency of electrons. That obviously is very good for a sample as well. Certainly wouldn't.
01:21:45
Speaker
affected at all. Now let's look at the limitations, you know, sample preparation, you're killing, cutting, freezing, drying, staining, dehydrating the sample because it has to withstand the vacuum conditions and high electron beam. Another problem with it is the cost. It's so inaccessible for people to really study this stuff in depthly. Like, you know, if you're not in higher levels of universities or things like that, you're not using an electron microscope. So it's kind of hard to prove its fallacies.
01:22:15
Speaker
Another thing is it produces nothing but artifact images and distorted images.
Scientific Methodology & Objectivity
01:22:22
Speaker
You know, it's admitted that many times images get distorted in their sense due to beam damage, specimen drift, or charging effects. Obviously, electron microscopes have limited sample size.
01:22:38
Speaker
Very small samples. They're only two dimensional and limited sample types. It needs to be thin, flat, and stable. Anything out of that surround and, uh, yeah, you can't, you can't look at it under the electron microscope. So it has this short balls. It has the limitations, but we really, really, really rely on it for a lot of our theories nowadays.
01:23:01
Speaker
And I just think it's problematic to rely on it that much, especially when you're really altering the sample as much as you do an electron microscopy. So here we're gonna talk a little bit about science's postulates. And this is kind of good science, right? So when you're doing something in science, you really wanna try and prove what you're doing false. There needs to be an aspect of false viability.
01:23:28
Speaker
And this is important. It's something I feel like we kind of got away from. So when I kind of got into the biotrain medicine field for years, and still to this day, I still try to prove it false. And here's why this is a good part of science, because the more I tried to prove it false, the more I proved it correct in my mind, right? The more it became obvious, the more logic
01:23:57
Speaker
you know, I attributed to it. And with the germ theory, you know, every day, you know, I really tried to prove it correct. And the more I tried to prove it correct, the more it was obviously flawed in its entirety. So, you know, falsifiability is important. Reproducibility, that's another thing to be able to reproduce results. This is kind of gone by the wayside too. You don't see too much
01:24:26
Speaker
You don't see too much of this anymore because studies are expensive. This happened a lot in the earlier days. It was kind of hard to get away with fudging the data. Obviously, if you had control of certain establishments, it was easier. Or you had ties, you had vested interests. So that's always been a thing. Look at the funding. Science should always be objective. We certainly put our biases into science. Even this lecture, obviously, I have my biases. I speak passionately about
01:24:55
Speaker
the germ theory being incorrect. I do truthfully think that it is incorrect and I've looked at it objectively many, many times. And this is the importance of you going to look at it, right? Because obviously, as objective as I try to stay, I was obviously more objective in my early days because I was coming from the modern framework of things.
01:25:18
Speaker
It's important to really look at things yourself objectively because then you can be honest with yourself. You don't know how honest other people are. You don't know how honest I'm being. You don't know how honest Anthony Fauci is being. You don't know how honest Louis Pasteur was. You don't know how honest all these other people are. Be honest with yourself and look into this stuff yourself. But that's the important thing. Remain objective. And that's a tough thing to do, but it translates well in the rest of your life. Relevant controls and variables should be used in science.
01:25:50
Speaker
Obviously it's subjective what is relevant and what variables could be involved. But it's like if you take a rat and you're studying a rat in a plastic container, obviously you're not controlling variables of a natural environment. So there's like, like even in rat studies, these lab rats being bred and
01:26:10
Speaker
the stressful conditions that they're under, under artificial lights, LED lights, they're not getting sunlight, they're not getting all of these things, right? So it's just variables that are not controlled. Not to say that all these studies are absolutely useless, it's just that these variables aren't controlled, right? So it's kind of difficult. You know, when you observe things in its natural environment,
01:26:33
Speaker
That's great because you don't have to worry about variables because you're observing things in its natural environment. Obviously, if you're going to run these studies or try and prove things or make theories, it's important to have these relevant controls. But when you're observing nature, if you observe the sun come up every day for your entire life, well, you can conclude that the sun's likely going to come up tomorrow.
01:27:03
Speaker
Now I wouldn't take it for granted, but it's probably a logical conclusion to draw.
01:27:10
Speaker
And so in science, you have two types of studies, quantitative or qualitative. We've obviously gone by the wayside of qualitative studies, which are smaller scale, N equals small numbers, small sample sizes, whereas quantitative is big statistical analysis. We rely so much on statistics and large sample sizes now, which is not absurd either. It's not absurd, but there's place for both. And really the Flexner report was a big part of this because they touted observation as incomplete.
01:27:38
Speaker
That was a big thing in the Flexner Report. You can't go out and observe nature and learn was essentially what they were trying to say. You can't go out and observe and learn. You need to do these scrutinistic scientific experiments with controls and variables, but not actually control a natural environment. Just control other factors. And science should be transparent. It should be coming to the general population. It's not. It's simply not.
01:28:06
Speaker
If you can explain something to a five-year-old, really, you're a poor scientist. If you can explain your work to a five-year-old, you're a poor scientist. I'll stand by that. You should be able to explain what you talk about to so-called incompetent people, right? Science is not complicated. It's not.
01:28:22
Speaker
Science is just nature. It's just life. Anyone can understand it. Really, I can't stress that enough. Everyone is a scientist, but we give these labels to people like, oh, experts and they're an expert of this or they're an expert of that. It just puts people down and makes people feel like they can't go and research themselves. I'm telling you, that's not true. You can research things yourself. That's very important to understand.
01:28:51
Speaker
because science is not transparent. One of the greatest things people ask me, what's the best thing you learned in university? I learned to be able to read the literature and to be able to criticize things. That was the best thing that I learned because I don't have to rely on someone else to tell me the information. And I think it's ridiculous that we write these studies in terms that laymen can't understand because then we write these laymen, we write these blog posts in laymen terms and then it's someone's opinion.
01:29:20
Speaker
And, you know, to avoid hypocrisy here, don't even listen to my opinion. Go and do it yourself. Go and read it yourself. That's the only way you're really going to prove something to yourself. You know, I certainly listened to a lot of podcasts, read a lot of books, but until I really prove things to myself, even beyond reading the literature, you know, I went out and looked at things myself. You know, I thought of things myself logically, rationally. That's the important thing here. And don't even listen to me. Don't listen to anybody on the internet. You're better off going and doing this stuff by yourself.
01:29:49
Speaker
So that's a good piece of advice for everything in life. Go and live your life and do things yourself. And if you think that living in fear from microbes is going to help you in any respect, even if microbes cause disease, it's, it's not living in fear is just going to hurt you.
Critique of Scientific Literature
01:30:04
Speaker
So now my favorite topic, how polluted the literature is. Um, I had some profs that.
01:30:17
Speaker
that would say this, and that's where I get the term from. They always say how polluted the literature is, and they would say to their students, you know, don't pollute the literature. And I like those profs a lot. Those were my better profs.
01:30:32
Speaker
You know, it's important to look at the foundation of the widely accepted theories and dogmas, right? So that's why we're kind of doing this podcast today. We're looking at the foundation of the germ theory. We looked at the history. We looked at the, you know, the reliant processes of it, such as electron microscopy, isolation, filtration, things of that nature. And when you look at the foundations and you understand that there's problems within the foundation, well, what happens when you build a house on a weak foundation? The house is coming down.
01:30:59
Speaker
And the germ theory is coming down. It certainly is, you can see it. And the thing is about the literature is new studies build upon old studies. And so you have these old studies, right? And this is the foundational aspect of it. You look at the old studies and they're not great. And even the thing is about today's new studies is when you read it and you go read the conclusion, go read the conclusion. And they're not very conclusive. Most often they'll always say, well, further research needs to be done.
01:31:30
Speaker
or we'd love to confirm these results in another study. We'd love to confirm this variable in another study. These are all the potential variables. Let's do these in another study. And then you do another study and then five more variables come up. You do another study and 10 more variables come up. The more you learn, the more you'll realize that you don't know shit. That certainly realize that. And that's very true. And if you think otherwise, you're not learning.
01:31:59
Speaker
So the germ theory lies on a foundation of pastel who was a fraud, Koch's postulates who have never been attained in real life, although they are logical. I can draw on another example is like the heart disease.
01:32:15
Speaker
being caused by things like cholesterol, et cetera, and fat. Well, this really relies on a guy named Ansel Keys, who had done the seven country studies, and he basically did this study.
01:32:31
Speaker
And he looked at these countries, he actually looked at 20 countries, took data from them all, plotted them out, found seven, provided a nice little linear line that goes up as saturated fat consumption increases, heart disease increases. So he cherry picked these seven studies out of the 20 countries that he studied.
01:32:53
Speaker
Plotted them and said, well, here you go. Look at this correlation that equals causation in his mind that saturated fat is the cause of heart disease. Now, when you have truly controlled studies like Minnesota Coronary or Sydney Diet Heart who control the consumption of saturated fats versus polyunsaturated fats,
01:33:11
Speaker
Uh, there's certainly no indication that saturated fats are the cause of disease, but Ansel Keys is still touted as a pioneer in this area. We still take a seven country study and reference it, even though we don't look at the Minnesota coronary or sitting diet heart studies, which are much more conclusive studies than Ansel Keys works. Ansel Keys is a absolute fraud.
01:33:33
Speaker
absolute terrible, terrible scientists just to push the narrative of, you know, we need seed oils. And that goes back to the industrial revolution too, because, you know, throughout the industrial revolution, why do you think we created seed oils? They were used as lubricants in factories. It was a lubricant. And you know what? They had all of these seed oils that were made by this 15 step process of chemical isolation.
01:34:01
Speaker
that, what were they going to do with it all? Well, Ansel Keys came out and said, saturated fat's bad for you. We've eaten it for, you know, millions and millions of years.
01:34:12
Speaker
But saturated fat's not good for you. It's gonna give you heart disease. So you should try these seed oils. They're heart healthy. Margarine, heart healthy. Oh yeah, butter, don't eat that. That's gonna give you heart disease. Just an absolute foolish argument based on lies, based on a foundation of lies, it's absolute house of cards. It's really coming down with the whole crown of war movement and people are really aware of this. And people are starting to just think for themselves, I feel like. I think they push the COVID narrative a little much.
01:34:38
Speaker
Um, people are really thinking for themselves now and you know, they can think logic and think about logically, well, we ate meat for, I don't know how long forever. So maybe we should try and eat more meat rather than avoid it.
01:34:53
Speaker
And so within the polluted literature, we obviously have political and ideological manipulation of it. This happens in every single establishment. And the literature is no exception. We push our ideologies and our dogma and our political affairs in the literature to try and make ourselves sound smarter and win the argument so we can win the political debate or we can push our ideologies forward. Just pollutes the literature.
01:35:22
Speaker
And we're gonna move into talking a little bit about pharmaceuticals. Why do they seem to work? Well, pharmaceuticals do their job really well, but their job is not to heal you. Their job is to treat you. Their job is to remove symptoms. Not to remove the cause is a disease. And that's a really important distinction because no one's gonna deny that, you know, you could take these, you take an Advil or Tylenol or, you know,
01:35:50
Speaker
and you feel a little less pain or you feel a little less sick, your fever breaks, goes away.
01:35:58
Speaker
But the problem is not addressing a true cause of disease. And that's really what, what I'm getting at here, right? Is we need to address the true causes of disease. We can't, we can't just remove the symptoms and think that we're healthy. Symptoms are not disease. Symptoms are our body's healing process. We should support them and not get rid of them. And that's really the big problem with pharmaceuticals is one, you're kind of, of what you're, you're removing the communication of your body and
01:36:26
Speaker
and your mind, right? You remove your physical symptoms of your body trying to tell yourself you need rest or you need this or that. And you can't perceive it anymore because you're under the influence of these pharmaceutical drugs that suppress your symptoms. So that's why they seem to work. They don't work at healing, they work in treating. That's an important distinction. That's why the word treat is
01:36:51
Speaker
pretty much copyrighted for the medical community to use solely because they treat diseases, they don't heal diseases. Another thing about pharmaceutical companies or pharmaceutical drugs is really like our bodies are so delicate, our microbiomes are so delicate. I really don't think that we understand the implication of these pharmaceutical drugs. We do studies on them and if we study them and there are no symptoms,
01:37:18
Speaker
presented in the majority of cases, obviously the outliers we have as side effects, we call them when they're really direct effects, they just probably happen to more susceptible individuals. Well, then they go to market, right? So, you know, we study them, but we don't study them well enough. Antibiotics are an absolutely terrible pharmaceutical drug because really antibiotics
01:37:44
Speaker
are nonspecific. They just decimate your microbiome of your gut. If you take antibiotics, you need to go on a gut protocol pretty heavily. And that's not even some woo conspiracy statement either. That's really, really in the mainstream view of things too. We kind of understand that. Antibiotics really, you look at the root cause of the word or the root of the word, right? The etiology.
01:38:13
Speaker
and anti-meaning against biotic, meaning life. So they're really against life drugs. And they just, yeah, they just decimate your microbiome. Like if you can avoid antibiotics, you should not take antibiotics. You know, again, like, you know, using my two eyed seeing here, if you're going to sepsis and you're gonna die,
01:38:40
Speaker
Well, then, you know, you have to reconsider unless you want to die. You know, so there is not like there are not emergency cases, but in general, you know, you get a little, a little cough or a little fever. You don't need antibiotics. Let your body heal. It will heal. Antibiotics might speed it up by a day. So it may be a little extra suffering, but you'll certainly reap the rewards and the benefits in the long run.
01:39:06
Speaker
So another thing in pharmaceutical drugs is vaccines. They're big money makers, they're cash cow. Now, why are they giving us vaccines if they don't work? Well, there's heavy metals in it and they just increase our toxic load. It's just a surefire way of getting heavy metals lodged deeply within us to make it one hard to detox them. And, you know, there are certainly diseases that come from heavy metal toxicity.
01:39:38
Speaker
that allow the pharmaceutical companies to sell more drugs. So that's one way of looking at it. And we talked about adjuvants quite a bit there. That's the known mainstream way of getting aluminum and mercury and vaccines. Although we've moved away from mercury and started moving just towards aluminum because it's so much healthier for you.
01:40:06
Speaker
So immunization versus vaccination. Well, vaccination is not immunization. Immunization, in my mind, would be exposing yourself to the environment, getting outside, playing in the dirt, playing with the dog. Just exposing yourself to as much as you possibly can. Eat raw foods, eat raw meat, eat raw liver, drink raw milk. That's so good for you. Even the literature states that.
01:40:35
Speaker
If you need that to prove your own ideas, if you need the literature to think, well, then look at that. You can find any studies, right? You can find studies that say that raw milk is going to kill you because you're going to get listeria or mad cow disease or something like that. Yeah, I'm sure those have gone under Koch's postulates.
01:40:58
Speaker
Um, exposure to the environment. That's, that's it. That's immunization. Vaccination is not immunization because even the need for an adjuvant kind of negates the whole idea, right? It's like, well, you can't just give me the bacteria or the virus. We have to give you this heavy metal to you and stimulate the immune response. It's just, it's an absurdly, it's just absolute nonsense.
01:41:25
Speaker
So what are the benefits of pharmaceutical drugs? Well, Hippocrates was touted as saying, for extreme diseases, extreme methods of cure as to restriction are most suitable. Now, my indigenous teachings, my two wide way of seeing things is why I'm not here to take down any establishments. People living in the modern world who face
01:41:55
Speaker
absolutely debilitating diseases or possibly death from the modern diseases that are certainly caused by modern ways of life that are very present in and around us are gonna require these types of treatments to live a comfortable life, right? So they create the disease, salivacure,
01:42:18
Speaker
Now, if you're gonna abide by the modern way of life, you're gonna need modern cures for the most part. If you're looking for treatment, if you're looking for healing, always go the natural route. If you wanna rid yourself of disease truthfully, there's only one way to do that and it's not through a practitioner, it's through yourself. So, like I said, it's the emergency medicine, that's the real,
01:42:46
Speaker
That's the real benefit of these pharmaceutical companies. The paramedics, they do great work, emergency docs, they do great work. That's where the benefits really lie, right? Because you're talking about emergencies, you're talking about people's lives here. And so that's a very important distinction. It's a too wide way of seeing things in my mind. And so that's why we're not here taking down the establishments. Not that they're gonna be taken down because
01:43:16
Speaker
Well, society certainly runs on drug money, whether you like it or not.
01:43:24
Speaker
Okay, and so fine, I think this might be the last slide. We have a few more slides here, but we're kind of on the same topic for the end of it here. We're gonna talk about contagion. Let's talk about the perceived contagion. Why have we come to this conclusion of contagion? Why is there this idea of contagion? Well, it's because of the environmental influence on our bodies. The external environment depicts our internal environment. Those in proximity to each other share similar environments. And so,
01:43:54
Speaker
Essentially, you know, a whole family gets sick at once. Well, perhaps they have mold in their house. And not that mold is the cause of the disease, but mold on drywall or mold on building materials may aerosolize things like formaldehyde. So, and you can look at Dr. Daniel Reota's work from humanely on that. He certainly helped me understand fungal, proposed fungal diseases more.
01:44:23
Speaker
and mold diseases. But you know, people who are in close proximity share similar environments. So I feel like that's really the main argument against the contagion. It's more of a contagion of environments and lifestyle. Same with the
01:44:43
Speaker
heredity, right? So rather than pass down genetic diseases, we pass down poor lifestyle choices. I really think that's the driving factor because even epidemiology really doesn't align with heredity and genetic diseases.
01:45:00
Speaker
So the thing is, the host needs to have a toxic or deficient environment to host the pathogen, so-called pathogen, the so-called the micro. So if you share these toxic environments, well, then it's likely that you'll have the same diseases or the same perceived diseases, right? So that's the real argument, I think, against why we haven't perceived contagion.
01:45:30
Speaker
Epidemiology likes to say that they prove contagion. Epidemiology is like the hymn of COVID, but epidemiology is only meant to generate hypothesis, but it's really, a lot of people take it as evidence nowadays. You know, you see all these blog posts and these news articles on epidemiology studies and them drawing conclusions. It's just nonsense.
01:45:54
Speaker
Uh, so what about things like scurvy, berry berry, pellagra, ricketts, goiters? What about radiation or Hiroshima? These often happen in little cohorts. These often happens in court. They, they Scott scurvy was a contagious disease because everyone on the boat got scurvy all at once. Everyone on the boat. Imagine that. Except for the one guy who brought an orange or two with him. Um,
01:46:17
Speaker
And so this is the thing, right? All these diseases could be considered contagious until we found a true cause. And why do I say radiation? Well, look at Chernobyl. Well, everyone there had this disease. They all had this radiation disease. Well, it could have certainly been explained by a virus if people were stupid enough. Same as Hiroshima. Everyone had a lot of damage there. Why couldn't that be caused by a virus? No, that was a little insensitive, but it's true. It's people getting sick all in one area. You can blame it on
01:46:47
Speaker
on anything really, you know, you can blame it on different things. And so that's, it's just like, we have to look at the cause of things truthfully, right? Without pushing these dogmas.
01:46:58
Speaker
Um, the thing is too about contagion is now we have this asymptomatic nonsense started with AIDS. Now it's in COVID. If you study AIDS, you'll realize COVID is just AIDS 2.0. Um, the idea that people are asymptomatic and still transfer the disease, another just fear tactic. It's, and it actually aligns more with the terrain model of health, because if you think about it, you know, you can have.
01:47:24
Speaker
these microbes in your body cleaning up your environment without producing a symptomatic response. And then you reach the certain threshold and then you happen to have these larger detoxification symptoms, these self-healing processes. It really aligns more with the terrain model than the germ theory nonsense.
01:47:48
Speaker
And really, I think this is a good place to explore is the communication systems of bacteria and viruses. I really think that they're foundational to the communication of the body. We have 100 trillion bacteria in our body more than our cells. We have 400 trillion viruses in our body. These can't be discounted. And we have fungus in our body. We have parasites in our body. And they're all part of the natural way. So I think it's really important that we consider that
01:48:16
Speaker
And I think it'd be a good area to look in these communication systems, because even it can, it's part of the healing process, right? It can even signal our bodies. It signals our bodies, like the bacteria detects the disease environment, which in turn, you know, allows the immune system to have the response. The immune system is kind of a misnomer. We get on that in the next podcast, but, you know, it's the communication system. And I think that should be explored more too.
01:48:44
Speaker
And perhaps we can communicate with other people and that might be an area of why we have a perceived contagion because, you know, me being sick may trigger someone else to go into a detox at the same time. I don't think that's necessarily an absurd statement and doesn't necessarily dismantle the terrain model. And it certainly doesn't prove the germ theory. But that may be where the merging of both is where the half truth is, right?
01:49:10
Speaker
And things like cyclical things like, you know, the yearly flu, right, as it gets colder and people get outside less, you know, people all tend to get sick around the same time, flu season. Well, that's only been around since 1889. And we'll talk about that in the next one too.
Germ Theory's Educational Spread & Industrial Influence
01:49:28
Speaker
So why is this widely accepted? Why is the germ theory? Why has it prevailed? Why? Well, really, Rockefeller and Carnegie were at the forefront. I think it's with the help of PASTAV. And those two guys, Rockefeller and Carnegie, were their businessmen. They wanted the pharmaceutical drugs to arrive from polar petroleum. It was cheap. They had it.
01:49:50
Speaker
You know, they were in cahoots for sure. They funded the major universities to implement curriculum on the germ theory across the board. They also shut down a lot of universities, a lot of small scale universities. And now with the resurgence of small scale universities, all rely on these larger universities' curriculums, right? Well, if Harvard's teaching germ theory and you're a small university starting up, you're not going to teach something else. You're going to teach the Harvard curriculum. You're not going to stray.
01:50:20
Speaker
That's certainly on the scientific end kind of started things. He had vested interests for sure. He was a Plato's fraud, a mediocre chemist and a great politician. That's why that really happened. But he had ties with the Emperor. You know, I'm sure the Emperor had ties with the Rockefellers and the Carnegie. You know, it's not absurd thing to think about. Rivers was also a politician.
01:50:44
Speaker
The flex report really perpetuated things that really monopolized the germ theory idea and the medicine idea. And that's really when the shutting down of many universities in the West was occurring. Bugs are blamed because they're at the site of affection. Correlation equals causation. In this case, same as our good old boy Ansel Keys with saturated fats correlation equals causation. The biggest fallacy in modern science that we love to teach and hate to implement.
01:51:13
Speaker
A sanitation improves, infectious disease seem to disappear. You can look at America's Industrial Revolution, new cities, countries currently without sewage have more infectious type diseases like cholera or malaria or things of that nature, even AIDS. And it's likely more because of the just toxic environments that they're living in, right?
01:51:42
Speaker
A quick guy side here is the smallpox when the colonizers came over in the Native Americans. And if you read the book American Holocaust, you can kind of get a more accurate representation of what was truly going on. These Native Americans back in the day were living in these new mini cities.
01:52:06
Speaker
where the human waste was just running through the streets. It was not far from their homes. It was not far from where they would hunt or fish or do all that stuff too. So they're living in their waste. Not that waste is inherently bad, but the introduction of the colonizers' ways, the colonizers brought their shitty environments over. They brought their toxic environments over to the Native Americans.
01:52:36
Speaker
And so that's an interesting thing to look at, right? Like, I think the American Holocaust is a good read because it kind of does more justice to the Native Americans. I think the story that has been told, not that it's necessarily inaccurate, I just think that the colonizers have certainly tried to soften the blow. I think that we were a whole lot more ruthless than what's told in the mainstream. And I've certainly heard that from all the Natives whom I've speak with,
01:53:05
Speaker
They certainly have more brutal stories than what's really put forth, especially in school curriculums. But that depends on the teacher too at the end of the day. And so another way that they can keep pushing this dogma is just changing the definitions. They love doing this. They changed the definition of vaccine during COVID.
01:53:26
Speaker
they changed it to incorporate the mRNA genetic therapy because it used to be at the inoculation of attenuated or whole live virus or microbe in a vaccine. But obviously the mRNA genetic therapy doesn't contain a part of the microbe or virus. So they had to change the definition to be able to call the mRNA genetic therapy a vaccine because
01:53:56
Speaker
Well, without that, who wants to take something called genetic therapy? So they had to change the definition to put it in the same category of vaccines, but mRNA genetic therapy, the COVID-19 injection is not a vaccine.
01:54:11
Speaker
And another way, you know, they re-characterize diseases. They change the name of these symptom profiles and call them new diseases. That's happened a lot. Kind of see that with polio. And this happens in scientific ideas as well. You know, you just change definitions, right? You change the definitions of this or you don't abide by the definitions. Like you can see in isolation. We don't abide by true isolation definition or pure. We don't abide by those definitions. We use them very loosely in modern science and that's extremely problematic.
01:54:44
Speaker
Now, you know, I'm kind of a skeptic, I guess you could say. You know, obviously I don't think that I'm being absurd in thinking that there are vested interests in the world. I know that money runs the world. I know there are good hearted people out there. Like those people become doctors and teachers. They don't become the ones at the top. Good hearted people don't rise to the top and create curriculums or create, you know, frameworks for doctors to abide by.
01:55:14
Speaker
So it's not as though there's a lack of good-hearted people in the world, but the good-hearted people are not at the top. And that's certainly what I think. So I think it's more of a deception than just a pure ignorance on the establishments, that perhaps they're incorrect. I think it's more of a plan than that.
01:55:39
Speaker
because it all comes down to money, control and power. That's what it is. That's what it's all about. And we have the whole population dependent on things like even chemical fertilizers. We have chemical foods, chemical drugs, chemical life. Our life is so chemical. Everything's made out of chemicals, plastics and petroleum derived cosmetics and all this stuff. It's just terrible. And we rely on it. And so we rely on these things that are giving us disease. So obviously we'll rely on the cure. It's never been,
01:56:08
Speaker
The plan has never gone better than it has today. We've refined it over a very, very long time. And so obviously it all relies on fear. People are scared. You know, people don't like getting diseases because it sucks, but we're not being told how to heal or prevent diseases properly. And that's, you know, I certainly am focusing more on the preventative aspects because prevention is the best medicine.
01:56:32
Speaker
and hopefully I'll appeal to more younger people, obviously, but there's never, it's never too late and in prevention also is the healing processes. Now, like Pocrates said, drastic diseases call for drastic measures, right? To paraphrase what he was saying. You can do natural methods drastically. There are things like coffee enemas or
01:56:55
Speaker
even taking things like perpentines are more drastic ways of detox, but have certainly more drastic effects, especially if you're in a more disease state, but I'm not a medical practitioner at all.
01:57:12
Speaker
I'd certainly consult with someone in that area. I do think that here we're more on the forefront of prevention than anything and trying to really understand our bodies so we can kind of know the inner workings of our bodies to become as healthy as possible, to be able to optimize our health and optimize other areas of our lives. And so yeah, prevention is what we're all about here. That's what we're all about.
01:57:35
Speaker
Okay, and now for the reality of things. Pathogens do not exist in natural order. They only exist at the site of disease. Cokes postulates have never been proven, although they're still taught. Viruses have never been purely isolated. They've only been filtered. For that matter, bacteria have never been purely used in Cokes postulates either. Artifacts are never the whole picture. Follow the money and you will find
01:58:06
Speaker
you will find the truth. It's always comes down to the money. Unfortunately, greed drives the modern world and it's a terrible thing. And really greed is at the center of disease. Greed is certainly at the center of disease and greed is not a natural thing. You know, the Native Americans, when I learned to speak Mi'kmaq, which is the natives of my area where I live,
01:58:36
Speaker
Um, when I learned their language actually in university, I learned that there was no word for jealousy before colonizers came over in the Mi'kmaq language. But when the colonizers came over and greed started to drive people, right? Unfortunately, the natives were, were taken by this. Um, people started to become jealous, right? Greed and jealousy, they were not, they were not things people.
01:59:02
Speaker
people were living optimally, they were living in abundance with less. And that's an important distinction because really greed and jealousy is central. And so funny enough, in the Mi'kmaq language now, after the colonizers, they changed the meaning of one of their words. And if you want to tell someone you're jealous in Mi'kmaq, you would say, you smell like shit. So I kind of got to kick out of that.
01:59:29
Speaker
Because, you know, the elders still knew what was up. They still knew what was up. For sure.
Conclusion & Call for Independent Thinking
01:59:37
Speaker
Okay. So the next podcast we're going to do is follow the germ, a history of the terrain model of health. It's likely going to be a two parter. I worked on that lecture for a very, very long time. It's very long. So it's likely going to be a two parter. We'll touch on the history in the first one.
01:59:51
Speaker
and then more going to the work into the bodies of the next one and how all that works. So that's going to be a great podcast. I'm so looking forward to that. But as for this one, we're all done for the day. So I want to thank you all for listening. You should all know that this is not medical advice. All this information is for general purposes only.
02:00:13
Speaker
general informational purposes only for legal reasons. But also remember that we are responsible, sovereign beings, capable of thinking, criticizing, and understanding anything. We the people and the greater forces are together, self healers, self-governable, self-teachers, and so much more. Please reach out if you have any questions, comments, criticisms, or if you have any coax postulate studies that are complete.
02:00:36
Speaker
Uh, reach me at beyond.terrain on Instagram. It'll be in the show notes. Listen, I truly appreciate every single person that took the time to listen to this podcast. If you enjoyed this podcast or found it informative in any way, please like, share, comment and support and help me grow. Uh, remember there are two types of people in this world, those who believe they can, those who believe they can't, both of which are correct. Thanks for listening. Take care.