Radical Health Rebel
Welcome to the Radical Health Rebel Podcast, where Leigh, a renowned Functional Medicine Practitioner, CHEK Practitioner, CHEK Faculty Instructor, Active Release Techniques® Therapist, Emotion Code Practitioner, author, and podcast host, takes you on a journey to achieve optimal health, wellness, and happiness. With his extensive training and years of clinical experience, Leigh provides a truly holistic approach to health that has proven effective even when other methods have failed.
Join us every week for insightful discussions and expert interviews focusing on chronic pain, gut health, and skin health. Leigh's diverse background and passion for holistic healing brings you valuable knowledge and practical tips from leading experts in the field. Whether you're struggling with persistent health issues or simply looking to enhance your well-being, the Radical Health Rebel Podcast is your go-to resource for achieving a vibrant and healthy life. Tune in and start your journey to radical health today!
Radical Health Rebel
125 - Exploring the Science Behind Germ Theory & The Virus Controversies with Daniel Roytas
In today’s episode, I’m joined by the incredible Daniel Roytas, a Naturopath and author of the eye-opening book *Can You Catch A Cold?* We’re diving deep into some huge questions that have been swirling around since 2020—the kind that make you stop and go, *Wait… what’s really going on here?*
We’re unpacking contagion theory, germ theory, and that big question: Can you actually pass on or catch a disease from someone else? Plus, we dig into the existence of viruses and whether the science behind virology stands up to scientific scrutiny.
Here’s the thing—Daniel isn’t here to tell you what to think. He’s laying out the scientific evidence so you can make up your own mind about what these theories really mean. And as always, I’m encouraging you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
But honestly? The evidence Daniel shares may cause you to rethink everything you thought you knew about infectious diseases and viruses. Could these be some of the biggest misconceptions—or even outright frauds—in human history? If that’s true, the implications are *massive* for our health, freedoms, and even the medications we’re being pushed to take.
This is a conversation that could truly change how you see the world. So, grab a cup of tea and let’s get into it!
We discussed:
0:01
Reconsidering Germ Theory in Health
4:13
Questioning the Foundations of Germ Theory
17:04
Debunking Theory of Germ Transmission
27:37
Inconsistencies in Germ Theory Research
44:49
Did They Know the Potential Financial Benefits of Contagion Theory?
58:00
What Are Pathogens?
1:08:23
The causes of 'infectious' disease
1:17:47
The Evidence of the Existence of Viruses
1:46:00
Pandemics, Lockdowns, Quarantines, Social Distancing, Face Masks and Vaccines
1:50:30
Systemic Reviews on Contagion
You can find Daniel @:
https://www.humanley.com/
https://www.amazon.com/Can-You-Catch-Cold-Experiments/dp/1763504409
https://t.me/humanley
https://www.instagram.com/humanley
Don't forget to leave a Rating for the podcast!
You can find Leigh @:
Leigh's website - https://www.bodychek.co.uk/
Leigh's books - https://www.bodychek.co.uk/books/
Eliminate Adult Acne Programme - https://eliminateadultacne.com/
Substack - https://substack.com/@radicalhealthrebel
YouTube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/@radicalhealthrebelpodcast
Rumble Channel - https://rumble.com/user/RadicalHealthRebel
One would think that a government agency or a peak health body would have a folder somewhere on a computer and it's like here's all the contagion studies, here's the proof that germs cause illness, and we've got 500 papers. And if anyone dares to question this well-established fact, we can just show them the evidence and that's the end of it. But where is that evidence? I found hundreds of studies to the contrary.
Speaker 3:Welcome to the Radical Health Rebel podcast. I'm your host, Lee Brandom. This work started for me several decades ago, when I started to see the impact I could make on people, helping them to identify the root cause of their health problems that no doctor could figure out, including serious back, knee, shoulder and neck injuries, acne and eczema issues, severe gut health problems. Even helping couples get pregnant after several IVF treatments had failed, and it really moves me to be able to help people in this way, and that is why I do what I do and why we have this show.
Speaker 3:In today's episode, I'm joined by the incredible Daniel Reuters, a naturopath and author of the eye-opening book Can you Catch a Cold? We're diving deep into some huge questions that have been swirling around since 2020, the kind that will make you stop and go wait. What's going on here? The kind that will make you stop and go wait. What's going on here? We're unpacking contagion theory, germ theory and that big question can you actually pass on or catch a disease from someone else? Plus, we dig into the existence of viruses and whether the science behind virology actually stands up to scientific scrutiny.
Speaker 3:Now here's the thing Daniel isn't here to tell you what to think. He's laying out the scientific evidence so you can make up your own mind about what these theories really mean, and, as always, I'm encouraging you to do your own research and come up with your own conclusions. But, honestly, the evidence Daniel shares may cause you to rethink everything you thought you knew about infectious diseases and viruses. Could these be some of the biggest misconceptions, or even outright frauds, in human history? If that's true, the implications are massive for our health, freedoms and even medications we're being pushed to take. This is a conversation that could truly change how you see the world, so grab a cup of tea and let's get into it. Daniel Reuters, welcome to the Radical Health Rebel podcast. Thanks for coming on the show.
Speaker 1:Hey, lee, thank you for having me. I'm really excited to have a conversation with you.
Speaker 3:Yeah, likewise, daniel. Yeah, I'm really really looking forward to this conversation. So, to kick things off, can you share a little bit about yourself, your background and what motivated you to write the book? Can you Catch a Cold?
Speaker 1:Yeah, my background is as a naturopath and nutritionist, amongst other things, so I have a range of qualifications, but spent most of my professional career as a lecturer and then senior lecturer at a number of colleges and a university in australia. I did that for over 10 years up until late 2022, when I resigned because I was no longer able to teach the curriculum from an ethical perspective. An ethical standpoint because, essentially, what I came to the conclusion was that what I was teaching was nonsense. So I didn't want to stand up in front of people and basically tell them fibs because they were paying a lot of money and spending a lot of time for their earning their qualification. So, yes, I resigned in 2022, but in early 2020 I heard a number of doctors and scientists raising this idea that disease wasn't caught, that it wasn't transmissible and that germs don't make you ill. And that idea wasn't necessarily new to me, because I had heard this before in my undergraduate degree, like 15 years prior. So something clicked inside me to say I really need to look at this in a bit more detail. Given the nature of my position working as a lecturer and a public speaker I knew that I would be faced with this question from students or colleagues or other clinicians who would attend my events or lectures or seminars. So I thought I'll just go and look at this. It probably won't take me very long because germ theory is very well established. But yeah, this idea, as I said, I first heard about it in the mid-2000s and dismissed it as a student because I was under the impression back then that germ theory was well established, it was proven scientifically, and sort of just dismissed it at that time and approached the way that I practiced and taught from this perspective of like a germ terrain theory, duality, where there were germs out there that would get you if your immune system wasn't strong enough and you could obviously strengthen your immune system by doing certain things like eating well and exercising and getting sun exposure, yada, yada, yada.
Speaker 1:Uh, but yeah, 2020, I thought, okay, I'll have a second look at this and I basically went to look for the evidence that suggests or holds up or supports this idea that illness is transmitted between people, from the sick person to a healthy person. Now it didn't take me long to find some pretty critical experiments that were done that failed to demonstrate contagion, and I thought that was quite peculiar because these were studies that I had never heard of before. I was never taught about this in any of my immunology lectures at university when I was studying, nor had I read about this in any of the course curriculum material that we were teaching students at the university in a health science degree. So it contrasted greatly with the story we were told and I thought surely this is just an anomaly, and kept looking and I found about 200 or over 200 experiments that all failed to adequately demonstrate this phenomenon called contagion. So I essentially compiled all that information into a book Can you Catch a Cold?
Speaker 1:Along with looking at the history of germ theory and alternative explanations about why people might get sick and trying to nut out this thing that we've all observed or experienced in our life is becoming sick when someone else around you is ill, so what might be going on there? I explored that in the book as well. So that's sort of a brief introduction about myself and how the book came about, which was published in march of this year after four long years of research and writing yeah, yeah, so you know, as we were speaking before we started recording, you know, I've I've been, I've been reading your book.
Speaker 3:It's just absolutely fantastic book. I've got up to chapter nine, so I've read the first eight chapters and it's an absolutely fantastic read. So you started doing your research. What? What were you finding? Initially? Like you know, I was at the same view as you that you know, up until 2020, that you could catch catch a disease. You know infectious diseases. I was completely believing that that was scientifically, you know, validated. But, like you, if you keep your terrain healthy right, if you take on healthy practices, then you're far less likely to catch a disease. In terms of the research that you've done, what's your view now as to whether or not you can catch a disease from another person?
Speaker 1:so my mind? My mind is not made up either way. I don't claim that germs don't cause disease. So I wrote this book in a very particular way to ensure that I wasn't painting myself into a conceptual corner that I couldn't get out of later on if I came across data and evidence to suggest otherwise that conflicted with my current view. So I was very cautious about how I wrote that and I'm sort of very mindful about the claims that I make as well. So I don't know if germs do or do not cause disease. They might.
Speaker 1:However, this theory has been around for 130 or 140 years and the fundamental tenets and the very fabric of society rests upon this idea being true.
Speaker 1:So one would think or presume that the level of evidence for it is very strong, and there is a large body of this evidence that exists.
Speaker 1:But I have not been able to come across any evidence that demonstrates that contagion occurs in nature or that germs make you sick. So until such Like that's a quite profound thing to realize that there is no evidence in the scientific literature or there is no evidence that I've been able to find and a group of other doctors and scientists who have been looking at this issue in great detail, like for a theory that basically is held up and used to control large numbers of people around the world. One would think that a government agency or a peak health body would have a folder somewhere on a computer and it's like here's all the contagion studies, here's the proof that germs cause illness, and we've got 500 papers, and if anyone dares to question this well-established fact, we can just show them the evidence and that's the end of it. But like, where is that evidence? I found hundreds of studies to the contrary, where doctors and scientists did everything they could to try and prove this phenomenon or demonstrate it clinically, but they couldn't do it. Time and time and time again.
Speaker 3:So that's a big problem from my perspective yeah, it's um, I think your mentality towards it is spot on as well, because you know, I've been looking at this situation for the last four years and I I don't want to, you know, pin my flag to the mast and say this definitely doesn't exist. But, like you say, the evidence just isn't there. That that it does exist, right, whether it's uh, you know, germs cause disease or whether you can catch it from someone else, or even again, we'll come on to this but the existence of viruses and, like you say, if it was true, surely there would be a large body of evidence to suggest that. But actually you and you know a number of others have, and I'm sure you've spent a fair few hours on pubmed searching for for papers or other search engines and you just can't find them yeah, uh, maybe they're impossible to find because they don't exist.
Speaker 1:Maybe those experiments have never been done, maybe they have been done and they're just like tucked away in the dark corners of medical journals somewhere and we've all, just, you know, missed where this has been archived. But again, I mean this information should be very easy to find. It should be readily accessible. It should be. This material should be referenced in textbooks used by people in the health profession whilst they're studying. It should be in every virology textbook. It should be in every immunology textbook the references that show when healthy people come in contact with sick people, illness is transmitted. But those references are nowhere.
Speaker 1:Now I spent I don't even know how long I spent. It took me four years to write the book and most of those weeks I would be spending at least 60 hours a week researching and looking for papers, which was a skill that I acquired. I guess I was in a unique position to write this book because I had acquired that skill of finding information and then interpreting it, because that was part of my job at the university. It was to find the latest research and go back to the foundational research and sort of evaluate everything and put it together and develop it into curriculum which then students would use to earn undergraduate qualifications. Um used to earn undergraduate qualifications. So that was a skill that I had and I was um very fortunate to then be able to translate that skill across to looking for research in this field. And again, like I'm not a virologist, I'm not a medical doctor, I'm not a psychologist. So the book that I I wrote goes into those areas of virology and medical science and psychology in quite great detail. So to cover all my bases, I made sure that I had a team of medical doctors, including the wonderful Sam Bailey, who I'm sure you've heard of, and her husband, mark Bailey, dr Jordan Grant and a number of others to basically edit and critique my book before it went to publication, and they did so extensively.
Speaker 1:Mark and Sam spent a long time making sure that everything was, you know, spot on, that we didn't miss anything important. I had a virologist and a microbiologist edit the book for me. I had a PhD psychologist extensively help with the creation and the editing of the psychological sections in the book. So I mean, we really tried to leave no stone unturned here. This isn't something that we just put together in the spur of the moment. It was a labor of love and we did it because we think that people deserve to be shown this information, because it's never really come to the forefront of people's minds or even in the academic circles this is not discussed in any of the literature. So we felt that people deserved to know that this information was out there and that these experiments have been done and they can read that information and then take it and use it in context with all the other information out there so that they can make up their own mind about contagion and the existence of viruses and germ theory. We're not here trying to tell people what to think.
Speaker 3:We're just just saying look at this, make up your own mind and you can make your decision by yourself yeah, what I think would be quite useful if you could, because again, I'm sure there's going to be people listening to this saying what are you talking about? Of course you can catch diseases. Of course germs cause disease, etc. Could you perhaps run through how some of the science that supposedly supports those theories was done and, I guess, potentially highlight what the weaknesses are of those studies?
Speaker 1:Sure. So the premise is pretty simple. We're told this from a very young age that when you come in contact with a sick person, they transmit something to you a germ through a cough or a sneeze or physical contact or indirect contact. Maybe they use a spoon or something and then you use their spoon unknowingly and you pick up their germs. We're told this from a very young age and we believe it to be true because inevitably one day we come in contact with someone who's sick and then we get sick. We go oh well, that theory must be correct. There must be germs floating around and disease must be passed between people. So demonstrating that phenomenon should be relatively straightforward.
Speaker 1:It doesn't take a rocket scientist to construct a clinical experiment where you get a bunch of healthy people, a bunch of sick people, you put them in a room together and you see what happens. Now the thing is, these experiments have been done time and time and time again and, contrary to popular belief, people weren't getting sick. So doctors and scientists, despite their best efforts, could not make healthy people sick. I think I found like over 30 experiments where this is what the scientists and doctors did they just got a bunch of sick people and they put them in close proximity to healthy people and nothing happened. And they went to the next step. It's like, right, well, maybe there's something in their bodily fluids. So they took the bodily fluids out of the sick people and inoculated healthy people with it in every which way. So we're talking about spraying it up into people's noses and dropping mucus into their eyes and in their ears and mouth and nose, injecting it directly into their bloodstream, sometimes, um, underneath the skin, into their muscles. They injected it in every which way. They vaporized it and had people inhale it, this so-called infected mucus and they never demonstrated that there was anything being passed an infectious agent being passed from a healthy person to a sick person. It just didn't happen. They couldn't make those conclusions. So that really does fly in the face of the story we were told back in 2020, where fleeting contact with a sick person would mean that you catch their illness and then you're a threat to all the people that are around you in your vicinity friends, family members, loved ones. So that's a bit of a cop-out to think that some random guy in the street can walk past a healthy people if he's got a cold, walk past a healthy people and give his illness to a healthy person. That's a cop-out to all of the researchers and scientists who spent decades and untold resources and amounts of money. Often these experiments were done by some of the largest institutions medical institutions in the world trying to accomplish this. It's a real cop-out to them. It's a slap in the face that they weren't able to do it. Supposedly you can do it if you're not wearing a mask walking down the street or walking next to someone in the aisle in the shopping center. So what that suggests is that there's something else going on Now.
Speaker 1:In those experiments, sometimes people did get sick. So, for example, there are experiments where people coughed up some mucus when they had a cold or a flu. That mucus was collected and then it was exposed to a healthy person in every which way imaginable. Some of those people did get sick with colds and flus. You may hear this and go well, that's evidence of transmission. As you pointed out, though, lee, there's a number of problems drawing that conclusion from such experiments, because they didn't use adequate controls in any of those experiments. They didn't blind the people to the intervention they were getting. There was experimental bias in these studies that were done, so I don't want to get into the real nitty-gritty of all this, but just to highlight the problems with using that kind of experiment as evidence of transmission.
Speaker 1:When scientists and doctors used saline as a placebo control, they were able to induce colds and flus in healthy people. In some instances they made people getting saline Like a larger percentage of the people receiving that placebo got sick than the people receiving the so-called infected or sick person's mucus Like how is that possible? What that tells us is that there's several things going on the placebo effects. So a person's expectation may have induced these symptoms of a cold or flu. They were participating in an experiment. They were expecting to be exposed to flu germs. They got exposed to something. They believed it was flu germs. They got sick, but it was actually saline. So it was their mind that created those symptoms. Yeah, but it also could have been like a physical irritation, so the direct consequence of sticking something artificial up someone's nose. That could be like a chemical irritation from the saline. Sometimes they use Ringer's solution, which is like a buffering agent or had a phosphate buffer in there and that is known to induce cold and flu symptoms. It could be the act of actually squirting something foreign up the nose, you start sniffling and sneezing and trying to get this stuff out, and that might be misconstrued as a cold or a flu symptom.
Speaker 1:So I mean, these are just a couple of the problems that I found with these experiments, but they were never accounted for and that in itself, because there were no adequate controls being done, means that any of the positive cases that came out of these experiments where people got sick, can't be construed as evidence of viral transmission.
Speaker 1:Hmm, I know, like this is a pretty, when we get into this topic it can be quite technical and I'm trying to keep it quite high level so people understand this. But yeah, we're just scratching the surface here of the methodological flaws of these experiments, which is kind of sad because, as I said, this phenomena basically ruled our lives. We were locked up in our own homes, we had things enforced upon us, sometimes often inhumane things like quarantine and forced medication, under the guise of this being true. Yet the evidence for that is lacking. So if people knew that the evidence was lacking, maybe they would not be so uh forthcoming in putting their arm out to receive a medication or to lock themselves up or to wear a face covering or to do all these other uh interventions which supposedly protect them against a so-called contagious illness?
Speaker 3:yeah, yeah, it was interesting. I was gonna. That was going to be one of my questions.
Speaker 1:Regarding all of those, I don't, we might, we might come back to it, but I know, I know you kind of said you don't want to get too technical, but I think it would be quite good to get a little bit technical if if you could maybe kind of uh describe in in layman's terms as best as possible about uh, cox postulates and yeah, yeah, if you could explain that, that would be great yeah, cox postulates are a set of, basically, rules that were developed by a guy called Robert Koch in the late 1800s Postulates that must be met, or a set of criteria that must be met to demonstrate the cause and effect relationship of a germ or a virus or some sort of pathogenic agent, maybe like a parasite or something that must be met to show this cause and effect relationship between an infectious agent and disease. So essentially those criteria were you must find the germ in the sick person. You must be able to then take it from that sick person, ensure that that is the only thing that you have. So you basically have a pure sample of this infectious agent, you expose it to a healthy person. It causes the exact same symptoms in that healthy person and then you're able to re-isolate that so-called infectious agent from that newly infected person, so-called infectious agent from that newly infected person. So that's a sort of roundabout way in describing what these postulates were.
Speaker 1:But no sooner had Koch actually designed these postulates that he basically disproved himself, because he went out and tried to make healthy people and animals sick with these so-called infectious bacteria like tuberculosis, for example, or cholera, and he couldn't do it. So he would either find germs in sick people. Sorry, he would find germs in healthy people and they weren't sick. Or when he exposed a healthy person or an animal to the germ, they didn't get sick. Or he would find people with a certain disease which was supposedly caused by one of these bacteria, but he couldn't find the bacteria in them. So at every step in the process his observation in reality was disproven.
Speaker 1:So to keep that theory or his set of postulates afloat, which are now basically used by the field of infectious disease to demonstrate the pathogenicity or the disease-causing capacity of an infectious organism in a clinical setting, he had to create a thing called immunity. It's like well, the reason why we're seeing all these anomalies is because you've got an immune system and it protects you against the germ. So if your immune system is functioning properly, the germ can be there and it won't infect you. And then, a little bit later on down the line, they invented another rescue device called antibodies. So if you have antibodies against a certain infectious agent, you're protected and it can't. It therefore can't reinfect you. But as we all know, I mean that sort of story doesn't hold water when you look at things like HIV, for example, where the presence of antibodies mean that you've got the disease and you're going to die from this condition.
Speaker 1:So there's inconsistencies at every step along the way here, and Koch certainly never fulfilled his own postulates. There's inconsistencies at every step along the way here, and Koch certainly never fulfilled his own postulates, and the inability to do so meant that he was never able to demonstrate that any germ causes disease. So I mean Koch is held up as a bit of a poster boy for the germ theory that he established cause and effect relationships between a range of different illnesses. But even in his own papers he admitted that he wasn't able to do so. He had to backtrack within a very short amount of time of coming up with those postulates, and he actually thought that the postulates?
Speaker 1:No, he actually thought that maybe his postulates weren't correct. So he went and then modified his postulates so that it would fit what he was observing, rather than saying well, maybe my theory is actually incorrect and maybe it's not the postulates that are the problem. The postulates are good. If germs cause illness, the postulates should be able to be proven and demonstrated or fulfilled. But because I can't do that, well, now it's the theory. It's the underlying theory that needs to be re-evaluated here, not the postulates.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I mean, as you were speaking, my next question was going to be re-evaluated here, not the postulates. Yeah, I mean, as you were speaking, my next question was going to be but what do you think of the actual postulates? The postulates themselves are actually pretty good, aren't they? It's just the fact that Koch and others just haven't been able to satisfy those postulates that prove germ theory.
Speaker 1:The postulates are good. There's nothing wrong with them if germs cause illness. That is how you would actually demonstrate cause and effect, um, so I mean it's it's debatable whether coke actually even came up with the postulates anyway. Um, there's various other people who um were sort of credited or played a role in developing these postulates, but I mean that's just like a bit of a side note. But yeah, koch is the sort of guy who's credited with all this work, as is Pasteur.
Speaker 1:So Koch and Pasteur worked alongside each other with other people like um lister, to basically um do crafty things in experimental settings to induce illness in animals, to try and prove this theory.
Speaker 1:So when I say do crafty things, they would expose animals to conditions and infect them with bacteria in unnatural ways.
Speaker 1:So if they said you catch XYZ condition by breathing in bacteria, well, what they would do is they would take an animal and then start doing all kinds of inhumane things to it, like inject it with half a cup of goop into its abdominal cavity with trillions and trillions and trillions of bacteria, which is in a medium which is full of all sorts of other stuff, like our blood and buffering agents and all kinds of different things.
Speaker 1:Inject this foreign substance into an animal and then it would get sick and they'd say, oh see, the bacteria does cause illness. So you can't extrapolate that uh effect to the real world. It has very limited external validity and that's because that is not the way those illnesses are claimed to be transmitted. So injecting something into an animal or locking it in a cage and depriving it of food and water and companionship and fresh air, you can't then look at the effects or the outcomes of that experiment and make any claims about what the cause was, because you then have to account for all these other things that you're doing first to show that they're not confounding your results, and also just do the simple experiment of put the sick animal in close proximity to a healthy animal and see if the disease transmits.
Speaker 1:But they didn't do that because if they did it they would find that nothing happens. And I think the reason why they never did that or published results of experiments like that is because they probably did do those experiments and saw that nothing happens. So now I have to resort to these really sort of inhumane, unnatural means of trying to infect an animal.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's interesting, you know, as I was saying to you before we started recording, you know, reading your book it's like reading a book of a medical historian, and it's quite interesting how, you know, when you go back to the sort of, you know, like late 1800s, mid to late 1800s, there was a lot of politics going on.
Speaker 3:You know, there was a lot of skullduggery going on in terms of, you know, one people in one camp and other people in another camp, and it was who was going to see who was going to win.
Speaker 3:And I know, from from reading other books as well, that certain people, like um pastor, they were quite well, let's just say, supported by people in authority as well, and you know, that might be why possibly their theories became the the truth, so to speak, rather than other people who perhaps weren't so close to people in authority. So there was a lot of that going on then. And it's quite interesting when you think what's been going on in the last four years as well. Right, so, you know, anyone speaking out against the, the mainstream narrative, not even just necessarily medical things, but other things as well they kind of got shunned and those that are, you know, kind of being supported by authority and probably being paid by the same people. They're shoved to the forefront and that's the message that everyone's been receiving. So there's a lot of similarities between the kind of politics of the mid to late 1800s and what's been going on in the last four years as well.
Speaker 1:Yeah, not a lot's changed in the side of or in respect to politics. But, yeah, I think a lot of people just think that what was going on was this battle between Pasteur and Besham and that was it.
Speaker 1:It's like these two guys trying to prove each other wrong and trying to prove their own theory, and Pasteur came out on top because he had irrefutable evidence demonstrating germs cause illness. But in fact, pasteur was like a bit of a rogue. He was basically doing a lot of this stuff himself, with the support of the Academy of Science, and his experiments seemed to receive favorably looked upon, even though we now know that there was a lot of technical and ethical issues with his research and he manipulated data and he did all kinds of shady stuff, falsified information and yada, yada, yada. Uh. So, even though he did all those things, his research was still um favorably looked upon by the academy of science. Now, why was that? I have some speculations as to why his research was held in good stead, whereas the research that opposed his findings by people like Beshamp. But there were also dozens of others who looked at this problem and did their own experimentation, like John Sanderson, for example, and Pouchet and a bunch of others. Dozens and dozens of these guys who are basically disproving all of Pasteur's experiments at every step along the way. Yet when they presented their evidence to the Academy of Science, they were basically just thrown out Like, no, you're talking nonsense. Now we're not going to listen to you.
Speaker 1:So, even though their experiments clearly disproved Pasteur's and supported an alternative viewpoint, which was that germs don't cause disease and they are a response or a consequence of illness, so they come after the fact and they're actually there to serve a benefit to the host or the individual or the animal, not a detrimental effect, that was all thrown out but it had to be and that stuff was basically, um, relegated to the like, the scientific waste paper basket, never to be heard of again until now. Because we look at the untold history and I've gone through and found a lot of these experiments and basically told that untold story where, if you look at that and go, oh my god, most of modern medicine, most of medicine at that point in time, were in favor of the terrain, that theory perspective. They were about to throw out this doctrine of contagion, like in in the highest levels of medicine. Many of these associations and medical bodies like were literally about to throw it out because they had such a significant uh body of evidence that reputed it. But then they were thrown a lifeline by Pasteur.
Speaker 1:Just his work alone was enough and it was sort of paraded around as being this really amazing experimental result and given such media attention that it overshadowed all this other stuff that was going on behind the scenes, that it overshadowed all this other stuff that was going on behind the scenes. And by drawing attention to his work and then sort of suppressing all the other information, the public were only ever given one story, so they believed that story that they were given and they never knew that there was an alternative. And that's been happening for 120, 130 years, where even now, like doctors, don't hear the full other side of the story. And when you hear that in its entirety and you're given full context about what actually happened, it's very difficult to side with pastor yeah, it was interesting.
Speaker 3:As you were speaking then I was thinking you know, criticize pastor, you're criticizing science, right? Where have we heard that before? Is, I was thinking, is anthony fauci the reincarnation of louis pastor? Because they there's a scene seems to be a lot of similarities between the two.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think even Pasteur knew deep down that what he was doing was wrong. It's even in his writings. So he was trying to disprove this idea of spontaneous generation, that germs, bacteria, arise from the medium itself. So you have the medium and then the bacteria spontaneously grow and specific bacteria will develop depending on what medium is there. So he was trying to disprove that. He was basically saying no, the germ comes through the air and it lands on something and then it starts to break it down, whereas people like the shampoo, saying no, no, it starts to break down first, the vitality becomes compromised, and say like a piece of fruit, it becomes compromised first and then germs spontaneously developed from within that piece of fruit. It's like mother nature's inbuilt waste disposal mechanism. They start to proliferate and break that piece of fruit down.
Speaker 1:Um, and in past to his writings, he was actually in favor of spontaneous generation up until like six or 12 months before he published his seminal work on germ theory, which he presented to the Academy of Science.
Speaker 1:So it's curious that he would hold this position, for I don't know, I don't know exactly how long he held the position for, but it was quite a while. I don't know exactly how long he held the position for, but it was quite a while. It was many, many years, only to change it at the 11th hour, when there were prizes and monetary incentives out there to try and disprove this idea of spontaneous generation. So, yeah, I mean there's a lot to this and at the end of the day, I past you and you what was going on. There are many reports of him suggesting or stating on his deathbed that the germ was nothing and the train was everything. Now that's basically hearsay. We'll never know if he actually did say that, if they were his dying words, but this is reported in the medical literature, so maybe his conscience got the better of him in his final moments.
Speaker 3:Yeah, just on that again. As you were speaking I was kind of thinking knowing history of the last 150 years or so, knowing history of the last sort of you know 150 years or so, could it have been that you know whoever pastor was in and around, let's say, if you like, people above him? Did they know the potential benefit financially that could be created if germ theory became the science or the truth? Do you think that that could be something to do with it?
Speaker 1:I would only be speculating. I don't know. People say this is all about money. I don't think it. People say this is all about money. I don't think it's about money at all, because the people that pull the strings can print as much money as they want. They can create it out of thin air. So I don't think it's about money. I think there's more insidious, possibly insidious things going on. Maybe this is all just a coincidence and it's all unintentional and this is just the way that things unfolded. That's a very plausible alternative explanation as well.
Speaker 1:However, it's really curiously that around the same time that germ theory was coming to the forefront and being pushed upon an unsuspecting public and a very resistant medical system, they were not in favor of germ theory. When it was released, they were highly skeptical and pushed back quite fiercely against this idea. Around the same time that germ theory was incepted was, again coincidentally, around the same time that things like pesticides and herbicides were being invented and starting to be used widespread in the agricultural industry. It was around the same time that petrochemicals were being produced en masse in many different industries. It was around the same time that plastic was invented. So you have to ask the question was germ theory incepted and developed to act as a red herring, to basically draw people's attention away, to act as a scapegoat for the detrimental effects on the health of people from having their food sprayed with poison, from now having plastics and things in industry, from petrochemicals being used and replacing herbal medicines. So now we have petrochemicals in pharmaceutical drugs and oil and gasoline and all these kinds of things now being used.
Speaker 1:If you have a population who are largely free of chronic illness now I'm not saying that there weren't sick people in the 1800s, but the level of chronic illness was nowhere near as much as it was today so if one year you've got very few people with certain diseases and then in the following years you start to see an increase in certain chronic illnesses and the only thing that's changed of significance was the spraying of food with poison or the pollution of air with gasoline, like fumes and emissions from factories and whatever else, or people now taking pharmaceutical drugs or plastics being used for various different purposes, people's attention would go there. It's like, well, hang on, let's just look at this first, because these are the things that got introduced. Maybe they have a role to play and we need to get to the bottom of this. So an investigation would take place and we'd find out. Well, yes, actually these things aren't conducive to human health, so we need to possibly look for an alternative way of doing things.
Speaker 1:But if you've got a scapegoat, if you've got a germ and people are now getting sick and you go oh, all that pollution and poison, don't worry about that, it's not the plastic, it's none of that stuff, it's this little. You see this little tiny thing under the microscope here, this little bacteria. That's the thing doing it. So that then allows for industry to progress unabated. Hmm, and when you do that over a 130-year timeframe, you end up in the position where we are now, where every single thing that we use in our lives is made from some of these petrochemical substances Plastics, synthetic clothing, the stuff your house is made out of, your car, your computers, technology I mean everything. And then you've got poison being sprayed on food, pesticides and whatever else, and you get to this point and you go well, it's too big of an issue now to do anything about it. We can't go back. Um, but like people aren't even there at the moment because they had, they've been preoccupied with this idea of a virus or a bacteria or a germ.
Speaker 1:So all of the ill health effects I think we're witnessing from a disconnection from nature by doing and creating all these synthetic, artificial things and meddling with the food supply and the water supply and etc. Etc. The fallout from that can be basically covered up by the germ. So I think that was probably a greater reason, and again, I'm just sort of speculating. You don't have hard evidence of this.
Speaker 1:Um, that would be a good reason to invent germ theory, because without it you couldn't have the system that we have today. How would you create, like a technological age where you're basically creating a slave system for all of humanity? You couldn't get there because by very virtue of creating that infrastructure you would be polluting the environment and people would be getting sick and they'd push back against it. So you couldn't do it. So I mean, this is deep stuff, but I think these conversations need to be had and I'm not saying that I'm right, I'm just putting it out there and maybe more conversations like this can be had and we can really get to the bottom of what might be going on.
Speaker 3:Yeah, one great example of what you were just talking about there was polio, right? So you know the link between uh, lead, arsenate, paris green and ddt. So when, when the usage of those pesticides increased, the amount of polio increased at almost exactly the same rate. And then, when they were stopped using, the rate of polio increased at almost exactly the same rate. And then, when they were stopped using, the rate of polio went down almost exactly the same rate. But yet the thing that caused polio is a virus that, as far as I know, has still not yet actually been proven to exist. Right, would that? Would that be accurate?
Speaker 1:yeah, and I think it's very clever to use the word virus, because they're basically telling you the truth. It is a virus. But a virus the very definition of it means poison. So when they say you've got a viral induced illness, it's basically they're saying you've been poisoned. It's just that they've hidden that meaning from us, so that we're now under the belief that a virus is this tiny little piece of genetic material that can self-replicate and infect a healthy host and cause illness. That's what we think a virus is. But that's not what the virus is. That's not what the original meaning was. It was a toxin or a poison. So when they tell us that it's a virus, they're being upfront. We're just not switched on enough to actually look and peel the layers of the onion back to get to the truth of the matter. And yeah, polio is a good example of that.
Speaker 1:But there are even more ludicrous examples which are going to be thrust upon us in the coming years, which you can sort of see the beginnings of this now, with things like obesity. So they are starting now to say so. By they, I'm saying the medical profession, the scientific profession. They're starting to now say that obesity is contagious and that obesity is caused by a virus. So this will go on forever. They will use this scapegoat forever to cover up for the harmful effects of eating processed and refined food, which is addictive. It's designed that way to make you overweight. And we also know that the body stores fat or creates fat to store toxins in. So often, when you eat less and you don't lose weight and people go oh I'm doing everything, doc, I'm exercising and not eating as much food, I'm still not losing weight, that's because possibly you've been poisoned.
Speaker 1:But if it's a virus, well now don't worry about trying to detoxify yourself or minimize your exposure to these toxins. We've got to kill an organism. We've got to eradicate it from you using a drug, an antiviral medication. I mean, you start seeing the population now become so overweight and obese that it's reaching epidemic proportions. The world has never been sicker than it is now. How convenient to just blame that on something that's always been here with us. It's always been a virus. It's always been lurking in the shadows. It's only now just starting to infect enough of the population and pack weight on them that we're starting to see obesity. It was always going. You know, pack weight on them that we're starting to see obesity. It was always going to happen.
Speaker 3:It's got nothing to do with anything that we're doing as a consequence of, uh, living in this sick, toxic western society yeah, and the other the other thing is as well is obviously they're starting to as we, as we see, they're starting to restrict the availability of healthy food. So you know, we know, we know where it's going in terms of the only kind of food they want us to be able to have access to are the very foods that are toxic, right so where does where?
Speaker 1:does that lead us. This is a really crafty system that's been devised so essentially the agricultural and the food system makes you sick, and then modern medicine keeps you there Because their idea of what disease is and what causes it and how to treat it is so far removed from reality that no one will ever get better. So they just want to keep you well enough so that you don't die. So you live this life of misery and you're basically a helpless, demoralized consumer for the system, with no answer in sight. The only ones that have the answer are the doctors. This is a big mystery about why people are sick, and the only one who can offer you some reprieve from your suffering is a guy who went to medicine school or medical school for 10 years. He's got a prescription pad and a white coat and a scalpel and he holds some of the answers for you and you shall only turn to him for answers and no one else can offer you any treatments or therapies or advice that will actually have any benefit for you. And no one else can offer that advice for many reasons.
Speaker 1:I think we've seen some of those reasons over the last few years with the suppression of information and silencing, counter-narrative views and whatever, but this is a system that we're in and I think people are starting to realize that something's not quite right. They smell a rat, and people like yourself and many others are looking at my book and the work of others like dr sam and mark bailey, tom cowan, andrew kaufman uh, dawn parker and david lester I think that's, or is it, david parker and dawn lester I always get their names confused um putting out information that empowers people and motivates them and inspires them to take control of their own health, because they realize that it's actually all the things you're exposed to in your environment that make you ill, not some little insidious, naturally occurring germ lurking in the shadows.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah. One question I have for you is based on what we've discussed today. What do you make of the term pathogen?
Speaker 1:Yeah, it has been that word, I think, has been hijacked.
Speaker 1:Strictly speaking, from a medical perspective, a pathogen is an infectious microorganism, something that has the capacity to infect a healthy host and cause disease.
Speaker 1:But pathogen might actually be anything that disrupts the natural homeostatic balance in the human body homeostatic balance in the human body. So I mean you could classify things like toxins and poisons as pathogens. From like this fresh perspective that we're starting to look into, you could think well, maybe toxins and poisons are pathogens, but I think it muddies the waters when you use that word, because people have attached a meaning to the word pathogen as something that is a living organism that is naturally occurring in nature, that has the ability to self-replicate, and its sole intention in this world is to infect a healthy person and make their life a misery. So, yeah, I think it could be used either way, but I don't really use it in that context because people will just get confused. So I call toxins and poisons toxins and poisons and I call viruses and bacteria and mold and fungi and parasites and whatever as pathogens, even though there's no evidence to demonstrate that they actually behave that way.
Speaker 3:So if the role of microbes let's call them pathogenic microbes if their role isn't to infect people and cause disease, what would you say their role actually is?
Speaker 1:Yes, I don't think. Let me rephrase I've not seen any direct evidence that demonstrates the existence of a thing called a virus. No one's ever seen one, so we can sort of throw that aside. So what we're talking about here are parasites, bacteria and fungi, or modern. What are those things designed to do? Well, like our bacteria are not separate from us. They are us. They are us. We've been sold this idea that the bacteria live out there somewhere. They're separate to you and then they come and they build their house or they use you as the house. They live inside you and they're not natural to you. But I think it's what we've been confused here. I think those bacteria are you.
Speaker 1:You are born with the bacteria that you will die with, so your microbiome is individual to you. You don't acquire it from the outside. Your microbes are as much of a part of you as your white blood cells are. You don't look at your white blood cells and go, oh my God, I've got these little things swimming through my bloodstream and they've invaded my body from the outside. The white blood cells take care of the inside of the body, and the bacteria and the parasites and whatever they look after the outside of the body and they all have a very similar purpose, which is to break down dead and dying tissue down dead and dying tissue, to accumulate toxic waste products and to metabolize those toxic waste products and recycle them into metabolic products that can be used by other organisms as a fuel source. So they're basically mother nature's cleanup crew and mother nature's recycling depot or recycling facility. That is what they do. They don't cause illness. They're not out there trying to infect you. They are merely there as an interface between you and the outside world. That is their role. They are you. They are not their role. They are you. They are not against you, they are for you. They are with you. They are the sentinels, they are the gatekeepers. They're the bouncers standing guard at the front door of the nightclub. They're there to basically keep the inside of your body free from harmful substances.
Speaker 1:So you know, for example, if you were to be getting some like mercury in your water, in your drinking water, the bacteria that are really good at converting mercury into a non-toxic substance would start to proliferate in your gut and, by very virtue of converting that toxic mercury into something non-toxic, there would be waste products produced that the body would want to eliminate. So you'd get some diarrhea and maybe some flatulence and some vomiting or whatever else. They are the symptoms of elimination, so those bacteria are just doing their job. But if you came along and did a stool test on someone and you saw this increased level of particular bacteria in someone's gut and they've got these symptoms, you'd erroneously conclude that the bacteria were the cause of the problem. Yeah, but in fact it was the mercury toxicity that came first, and then your own body mounted a response. It produced bacteria that are good at detoxifying mercury to save your life.
Speaker 1:And what do we do? Point to the bacteria and then poison them with antibiotics. You're basically poisoning yourself with antibiotics. Yeah, it's the same thing with mold. It's the same thing with parasites. They just have slightly different functions. They're um, they're not the enemy. They are there for us yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3:so actually a question I was going to ask anyway was what's your view on herbal antimicrobials? I guess you've already just answered that, but if you could just speak a little bit about that.
Speaker 1:Yeah. So, for example, we know that certain parasites are really good at um gobbling up high levels of heavy metals. We know that they do that and we know that they convert those heavy metals into non-toxic substances and we know that they can accumulate like 10, 20, 30 times their body weight of heavy metals. Now you might see the parasite there and go, right, I need to get rid of it. So I'm going to. I don't want to use like a pharmaceutical grade antiparasitic, I want to use a natural substance. Maybe I'll use some black walnut or some garlic or some wormwood or whatever else, and I take those herbal medicines and the parasite leaves my body. I see it in the stool in the bathroom and then I feel better. So I've killed the parasite. Parasites gone, I feel better. So I've killed the parasite. Parasite's gone, I feel better.
Speaker 1:Therefore, parasite caused my disease, but these so-called anti-parasitic herbs are known to work in other ways.
Speaker 1:So what they do is they act as heavy metal chelators, amongst other things, so they bind to heavy metals and render them inert so they can't then get absorption into your bloodstream, which is sort of what the parasites are doing they're gobbling up the heavy metals before they get entry into your bloodstream to protect your internal organs from being overwhelmed with heavy metals before they get entry into your bloodstream to protect your internal organs from being overwhelmed with heavy metals, which will then have quite significant adverse health effects upon you.
Speaker 1:So they're there to protect you. When you take these antiparasitics, one way in which they may work well we do know that they can do this in nature is bind those heavy metals. So if you're then taking the food supply away from the parasite and it's no longer getting the stuff that it needs to basically do its job, or says I'm no longer needed here, I'm going to pack up and leave. There's no point in me hanging around, the problem's gone. So that may be how things like anti-parasitics actually work is by binding to heavy metals and then up regulating our detoxification responses um, thereby negating the need for the parasite to be there.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, interesting, interesting. So just getting back to more more relevant to your book, I just wanted to indulge myself there with that question. You mentioned oxytocins that play a role in making us sick. Is there anything else that could perhaps cause so-called infectious disease? But it isn't a microbe. Is there anything else, apart from toxins, that might cause a so-called infectious disease?
Speaker 1:Yeah, in the field of psychology there's phenomena called uh, mass psychogenic illness, where we see the spread of a disease from one person to another, but no pathogen is ever identified. So there's an example of this in my book. I've given many, this is just one the Tangikia laughing epidemic, which occurred in Tanzania in the 60s or 70s, where there was a school of I think it was a all-girls school where they boarded there. One day one girl started laughing uncontrollably and she was impaired by this because of the inability to stop laughing and she felt like she was very anxious and very stressed because she had this sensation of someone was chasing her. And then the next day another person had it, and the next day another one, and another one, and another one until basically enough of the students at the school were affected. They had to close it down. So then they sent those students back to their respective tribes where they lived, and then people in those tribes started getting this uncontrollable laughter and this went on for like over a year. I think more than a thousand people were adversely affected by this and you can see it started in a central location and it spread outwards, like how a true infectious disease should spread. There's an epicenter and it radiates outwards in all directions and you can actually trace the spread of that by looking at the movement of people. So it had all the hallmarks of an infectious contagious illness, but no virus was ever found. There was no virus that was infecting these people, making them laugh. I have no idea why that occurred, but it's known as mass psychogenic illness.
Speaker 1:We also know that our mind can induce colds and flus. So there is research where scientists put people in a room and they went up to specific people and said Mr Jones, we're going to now administer you the flu germs. We're going to inject that into your body or spray it up your nose and we're going to see what happens to you. Mr Smith, we're giving you a big dose. So after we inject you, you're going to sleep in this room tonight and we're all going to watch you through that window over there and see how you go. Lo and behold, mr Jones gets sick. He's up all night coughing and spluttering and he's got a fever and it's a really bad night's sleep. And the next morning the nurse comes in and says Mr Jones, we got you. We pulled a real swift one on you. We only gave you saline, we didn't give you flu germs and all his symptoms go away in 15 minutes. So he had a full-blown cold or a flu-like illness created by nothing more than the power of his mind. So this is a nocebo effect.
Speaker 2:So this may explain some of what we observe during a pandemic.
Speaker 1:Yeah, when you have. Let me just say the reason why those people got that illness, even though they weren't exposed to anything, was because they believed it to be true and they knew what symptoms to experience, because they knew what a cold or flu was to experience, because they knew what a cold or flu was. Can you imagine trying to do that experiment again, but with a group of people who are completely naive to what a cold or flu was?
Speaker 1:They had no conception of what it was. They didn't know. You get coughing and sneezing and mucus and you get a fever and whatever else. They had no idea about what it was and you said, okay, we're going to give you flu germs and they go. What's that? Would those people get those symptoms even if you gave them saline? I don't think they would. So the only reason those people got a cold or a flu from being inoculated with salt water is because they were already aware of what a cold or flu was, what the symptoms were, and they had this expectation that germs make you ill, no virus needed. So now what happens? And also, they were told by people in positions of authority as well, like men in a white coat with a clipboard and a little vial of flu germs, and it's all very official looking. What happens if you have every government in the world and every peak health medical body and every academic institution, every news outlet, every social media source, every newspaper, every radio station, 24-7, saying there's a flu coming? You're going to get these symptoms. You're going to get loss of taste and loss of smell. It's going to last this long. It's going to affect the elderly more than the young. It's going to impact this location next week and it's probably going to spread to this location the week after and you create the fear and whatever else and you tell the story. Is that enough to create a pandemic Like was this a pandemic of fear? It's possible. Now we actually have evidence of this occurring.
Speaker 1:So in New Zealand in 2017, an antidepressant medication came off patent, so it became a generic. There was an ability to produce a generic type of this drug, a generic. There was an ability to produce a generic type of this drug. And when the generic drug came out, there was reporting in the media, because you can still report about drugs on the news. In New Zealand, there was a report in the news and on the radio and whatever else about this new drug that a lot of people were taking and the side effects that they would expect or should expect or should be aware of.
Speaker 1:And very shortly after this drug was rolled out, people started reporting in droves. There was a big spike of people reporting the side effects that they were hearing about on the news when they started taking this drug, but they only reported about five or six of these side effects. But if you looked on the package insert, there was like 30 side effects, so they only reported the ones. People only experienced the side effect that they were told to experience. So what happens when the news tells you 24-7 that you're going to get sniffling and cough and you're going to get loss of sensation, sorry, a loss of taste and a loss of smell and this new disease? Is that enough to induce a pandemic? No infectious agent needed, no virus needed. I mean I think there's enough evidence out there to make a compelling argument that this is a possibility.
Speaker 3:But again, I mean, we're sort of just speculating here, right, we're trying to join the pieces of the puzzle together to see a broader picture about what might really be going on. Yeah, I mean. The other thing I would add to that as well is, you know, when you look at the numbers, there was nothing but a case-demic anyway based on a fraudulent test, right? Because even when you look at death numbers numbers, there are very few countries that actually had any any kind of real amount of excess death. And then when you look into those countries like the uk and the us, what they were doing in the in the hospitals and what they were doing in the care homes could probably um count for the number of excess deaths. There were anyway, rather than you know some some microbe's still yet to be found other than on a computer model.
Speaker 1:Exactly, yeah, the case-demic and the reallocation of illnesses that were going to occur anyway, like in Australia. In Queensland, where I'm from, there was no flu, none gone, all of it. The same huge spike in COVID-19.
Speaker 3:I in covid19 I know that's a bit strange, yeah, yeah, so we've touched on it a little bit, but maybe you want to go into more detail. Where do you stand on viruses?
Speaker 1:I've not seen any evidence to suggest that a virus is a real thing. So we're told that a virus is this sub-microscopic uh, it's not even a living organism. It's like a piece of genetic material enclosed in a protein coat that, when exposed to a human being, makes its way through their respiratory tract, gets inside a cell, gains entry into a cell and then hijacks that cell to basically replicate itself and by replicating it, creates such a great number of viruses that they start to cause the cells that they're inside to explode. You get tissue death and you experience symptoms. That's essentially the story that we're told. That's essentially the story that we're told.
Speaker 1:So you should be able to observe these viral particles. You should be able to see them in the bodily fluids of a sick person. Yet no one's ever observed one. No one has ever seen a virus inside a human being or in the bodily fluids of a sick person. The only place a so-called virus particle has been observed is in a laboratory, after a certain series of processes have been undertaken, which is collectively known as a cell culture. So scientists must follow basically a recipe that, when followed, will create things that they then observe and call viruses will create things that they then observe and call viruses.
Speaker 1:But that's a problem, because you need to see the virus in nature first to know that that's the virus. You can't create it in the lab and then say, well, this is the virus that's in that sick person. You need a reference standard. They've never done that. Person need a reference standard. They've never done that. So it's kind of like you know a baker saying to you Lee, chocolate cakes exist in nature, and when chocolate, when people eat chocolate cakes, when they're out there swinging from the trees and burrowing into the ground, when people catch those chocolate cakes and eat them, they get sick, their blood sugar goes up and they eventually get diabetes. This is the cause of the problem. So you've got to be careful of those chocolate cakes in nature, and all this rampant disease that we're seeing is a consequence of chocolate cakes. It's like okay, well, Mr Baker, can you show me a chocolate cake in nature? You said it swings from the trees. You said it burrows into the cave or whatever else. Can you show me one? No, we can't show you one. Why not? There's not enough of them. So how do you know that they're out there doing what they're doing? Well, that's because if you step into my kitchen and I mix this flour with a couple of eggs and a bit of milk and I put some chocolate powder in there and put it in a bowl and I mix it and I put it into the oven and set it at 200 degrees for 45 minutes. I don't know, I'm not a pastry chef. Maybe 200 degrees for 45 minutes? I don't know, I'm not a pastry chef. Maybe 200 degrees is too high, Maybe 180. And then I take it out. Well, here's the chocolate cake. So they do exist in nature. If a baker said that to you, you'd think he's nuts, Right, you would think they're absolutely nuts. You would say, no, I want to see the chocolate cake in nature. No, no, I can only show it to you when I create it in the kitchen. Like you can't use that creation as evidence that it exists in reality in nature. It's not a naturally occurring thing.
Speaker 1:This is what's happening in the field of virology. They can only show you a particle in a cell culture after they've done a certain series of steps and then they start to make claims about that particle. Yet they've never then isolated a pure sample of that particle and exposed it to a healthy individual and observed the effect that it has. They've never done that. What they do is they take that like whole cell culture the fluid of it which contains all kinds of stuff, and then they inject it into people or they squirt the solution up their nose and they start getting a runny nose and they say see, there was a virus in that cell culture fluid and it made you sick. So that's the proof that they're basically relying upon to demonstrate that viruses cause illness.
Speaker 1:But again, there's many issues with this. One is that you can take cell culture material that has not been infected with a virus. So when I'm talking about a cell culture, I mean you've got some animal cells usually abnormal monkey kidney cells and you add antibiotics and baby cow blood and a whole bunch of other stuff to it. Then you add an infected patient's mucus sample to it. Supposedly that allows the virus to grow in those cells to create enough virus. So then you can use it in an experiment.
Speaker 1:They've done experiments where they've done the whole process. They've added everything in except the infected patient's mucus sample and inoculated people with that fluid and they've gotten sick. So they've observed the same effect from the un-inoculated culture fluid as they did in the inoculated culture fluid. But they want to claim that the reason the person got sick from the inoculated culture fluid is because of a virus. They also say that when those monkey kidney cells in that petri dish in the cell culture die, they call that a cytopathic effect and that when that cytopathic effect occurs it's evidence of the virus destroying the cells. However, they've also done experiments where they don't add in any virus to that cell culture. They don't add in any virus to that cell culture, they treat it exactly the same as the so-called inoculated cell culture and you still get cytopathic effects. Hmm, so a cytopathic effect is not unique to a virus, to a virus Experiencing symptoms after being inoculated with the cell culture fluid does not constitute evidence of a virus.
Speaker 1:And how do we know this? Because there is evidence in control experiments that demonstrate that it is the methodology and the procedures and the ingredients that are being used in these experiments which are causing the effects that they are looking for. No virus required. So when you start to understand all of this, you go well, where is the proof of a virus? And it just isn't there, it can't find it.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's interesting. I was once I can't remember if I was on the call or watching a Zoom call and Judy Mikevitz was on the call and Andrew Kaufman was on the call and Judy Mikevitz was talking about how she'd isolated the sars-cov-2 virus and andy carl from. Well, hang on a minute, how did you? How did you isolate it? And she explained and he said but that's not isolation, is it? Because you've still got it? What you're looking at is something with lots of different ingredients. And her response was something like yeah, but that's how we isolate viruses. And then andrew kaufman got really irate and started being quite abusive and they threw him off the call and um, but I think he was just so incensed by the insanity of what she was saying.
Speaker 1:Well, in her mind she is isolating a virus, because that is the definition that's used in the field of virology. They are making a virus isolate Not to be confused with an isolated virus, a pure sample of a virus, that process that I spoke about with the cell culture. So you add all the stuff in and then you see an effect, you see the cytopathic effect, and then you take some of the fluid out. That fluid they have with a mixture of all sorts of stuff. That's a virus isolate. That is their definition, even though it's not an isolated, purified substance of a virus. So virus isolation one of the things which they rely upon to basically satisfy making that that claim or statement that we've isolated a virus is observing a cytopathic effect in a cell culture. So all that we're really seeing here is very crafty wording. People hear the word isolation and what they think it means is very different to what virologists think it means. And what they think it means is very different to what virologists think it means. So if virologists were intellectually honest, they would say that no, we aren't getting purified samples of a particle known as a virus. We're not doing that. We're just adding things to a cell culture and observing effect and calling that a virus isolate. And this isn't even me saying this. This is in the medical and virological literature. So there are journals published in the field of virology that say we do not possess a mechanism which can separate a virus particle from other things in a cell culture. We cannot do it. Why can't you do it? Well, we don't have the technology yet. Well then, how can you say that you're isolating a virus? How can you then say that you're doing a scientific experiment demonstrating cause and effect when you don't have an independent variable which is the isolated virus? So, no matter what way you look at this, they're not doing science. They're not using independent variables, they're not establishing cause and effect. They're not isolating a virus, a virus. They're creating a virus isolate. They're using ambiguous wording and definitions to confuse people. They're creating the effects that they want by manipulating their methodologies and procedures and the ingredients that they're using.
Speaker 1:I mean, there's so much chicanery going on here that it's sort of baffling that anyone would ever look at this and think that it is proof of anything. Now I mean again, I'm not an expert in the field of virology, but I had a virologist and microbiologist help me with this book and they had to leave the field of virology for a number of reasons, but some of those reasons were because they sort of cottoned on, many years ago actually, um, to this idea that there was a problem with what they were doing. Um, and yeah, like when I have a conversation with them, I say, like when you were in the lab doing this stuff, did you ever think about maybe that what you're doing isn't above board and that you're not actually really isolating something? And it was like no, not really.
Speaker 1:I mean, I was just following the steps. I was following the procedure the way that I was taught. I never really questioned it or thought about it another way. And even since then, lee, I've had other people that I've been on podcasts with, who have been working in laboratories doing certain things with bacteria and cell cultures and various different things, and had never thought about what it was that they were actually doing until they read my book and they went oh my God, I was just following a recipe. It didn't necessarily prove the claim that was being made in regards to the thing that I was doing.
Speaker 1:So, yeah, there's issues at every hurdle here. Sorry to go on so long.
Speaker 3:No, it was good, that's great.
Speaker 1:I hope I was able to explain it.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 1:It's quite an involved topic.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I mean know, as you're explaining, you know what it is to be a virologist and basically they're just following orders. Right, you could? You could just say the same thing about medical doctors. They're trained in a certain way that they're not given the time or the ability to question anything that they're learning. You know, it's just cramming loads ability to question anything that they're learning. You know, it's just cramming loads and loads of information that they have to be able to repeat in order to become a medical doctor. And then they go into their, you know, go out into the wide world, into hospitals and surgeries, wherever, and they just replicate what they've learned, but they've never been given that capacity to actually actually question us. So what I'm doing, is that actually the right thing for that patient at that time? And you know, what we're seeing now is certainly, certainly seeing it a lot in the uk.
Speaker 3:Any doctor that starts to question what they've been taught, they get hounded and they get investigated and some of them are, you know, getting quite a lot of abuse and they either lose their medical license or they they hand it in and say, look, I don't, I don't want to be involved in this anymore. Um, so there's quite. There's quite a similarity between virologists and medical doctors in in the fact that they're taught a certain thing and there's not really a lot of room to question it. And you know what would you do if you were studying virology at university and you you've spent all this money and time and investment and you start questioning what you're being taught. What's going to happen to you? You're going to get thrown off the course, right? So it's quite a system that we're operating within at the moment.
Speaker 1:It's a very niche set of skills as well. So if you get the training in virology and you realize it's all bogus, what else are you going to do? Those skills aren't transferable. You can't then go and do something else. So I think many people just turn a blind eye because if they realize what's really going on, I can't get my paycheck anymore. I can't, yeah, you know, keep this lifestyle that I'm accustomed, accustomed to. How am I going to pay my bills? How am I going to? You know, I don't want to lose faith a face in front of people. There's so many aspects to this, yeah, um, but this is not just true of the health and medical system, lee. This is true of basically all of academia.
Speaker 1:People aren't told what to think, and I know this for a fact because I was a part of that system for over a decade. I was there indoctrinating students for a long time, teaching them nonsense, and they were paying a lot of money and spending a lot of time learning that stuff. And whilst I was doing that, I was like the golden boy. I couldn't do any wrong. I was getting, you know, approached all the time by various associations and product companies and educational institutions to do presentations and lectures and develop curriculum and do all these things and do you know, speaking tours and whatever else. But as soon as I started offering a counter narrative perspective, all the people who would literally lap up everything I told them and take it as gospel and just do what dan says, he's you know, knows so much, and whatever else those same people when I came out and said I'm sorry, I was wrong, everything I taught you was BS and here's why they ridiculed me. So my most loyal supporters and students and whoever else refused to look at anything I was saying when it didn't align with the current narrative.
Speaker 1:And I think, again, there's many reasons for that. One reason may be that it's a self-preservation mechanism, absolutely so once you start looking underneath like you start lifting up the veil and you're looking underneath and you go, oh, I don't like the look of that because if I find out what's really going on, I don't have the intestinal fortitude, I don't have the gumption, I don't have the emotional maturity to be able to deal with what I find, and I know that. So therefore I'm not going to look at it because if I do, I don't know how I'm going to cope. I don't know how I'm going to live in the world. I don't know how I'm going to exist. Will I be able to be a functional member of society? Will I go insane? Will I go into some sort of psychosis Like I don't know what's going to happen? Therefore, I'm not even going to bother to look, and I think that's sort of what's happening with some people and then others is if I have my world, my perspective, shifted and to go a paradigm shift, will I be able to make money? Are there enough people out there who will want to come to see me as a clinician when I offer alternative perspective? Will I lose the respect of my colleagues? Is my family going to disown me? Like all these things will go through people's minds and they'll do a cost-benefit analysis and if the benefits don't outweigh the costs, they're not going to do it.
Speaker 1:Now for me, I weighed up all of that and it didn't weigh up. I could no longer do what I was doing ethically, no matter how much money I was paying or how comfortable my lifestyle was. I couldn't ethically keep doing what I was doing because the truth matters to me. Yeah, or at least trying to find the truth matters to me, even though I may not ever get there and I may not know what truth is, I'll be able to know what it's not.
Speaker 1:So, you know that's it's sort of like this process of elimination and, um, yeah, just listening to yourself and not going against what that feeling, or that gut feeling that you have is telling you when you choose to ignore it. I think there's consequences for that, and they're not necessarily good consequences, and I think what you'll find is that, over time, people who are refusing to uh look at this and turn a blind eye going to start, um, experiencing possibly like ill health effects from choosing to deny the world around them what's really going on. And, uh, again, that's like one reason that I basically made the decision to quit my job is because I was being affected negatively with my health and I did everything possible to get better, but it wasn't until I quit my job that I got better. So I literally had to make that decision. My hand was forced, yeah, um, so maybe other people will get to this similar sort of fork in the road and they'll be faced with that decision to make, and then we'll see what happens yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3:I think that probably the biggest factor that I've seen, or that I understand, is that those who, let's just say, are more susceptible to propaganda. You know, as a species, there's safety in numbers, right? So you want to be part of the herd, right? So if you're a part of a herd, you're more likely to survive if one of you gets picked off, so to speak. So if you speak out against the mainstream narrative, you're now putting yourself out there, away from the pack, and for a lot of people, that's just too scary a concept to consider.
Speaker 3:And I know, speaking to people over the last four years. There'll be times when you're speaking to someone and you'll you'll challenge their current belief and it's just met with oh, that's nonsense, or that will never happen, or oh, you're a conspiracy theorist, and they'll walk away. They can't even face the discussion because I think it's so scary for them to accept. Well, actually, if I believe what you believe, I'm going to be seen as this conspiracy theorist nut job like you are right, and that's just too scary for me to consider. Therefore, I'm just not open to any other information compared to what I currently believe.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and it's very confronting to come to the realization that your existence is a lie. So only those who are ready will dare to challenge the status quo and try to find the truth. Now, as you were talking there, I was reminded of an experience that happened to me at the end of 2019. It's actually in the student clinic with another lecturer and there was a bunch of students there and the lecturer and I were having a hypothetical discussion during our lunch break about what would happen if there was, like an event that occurred that turned off the internet, if the power went down, how would it affect supply chains? And yada, yada, yada. And I remember that lecturer saying to me well, you know, I watched this thing and I, or I read this article that said there's about enough supplies in a large city to last about three days and after three days, like there's no food left. If there's no, like, more food coming from outside sources to restock shelves, so people will start to panic after 48 to 72 hours. And we sort of spoke about what that world might look like if the power went down or the internet went down, because all supply and logistics chains rely on that and communication, et cetera, et cetera, banking, whatever else and some of the students overheard this conversation and basically said oh, you're a conspiracy theorist, this will never happen, there will never be a time where there won't be food on the shelves. And I said, well, it might be a good idea to just have a bit of food at home, just in case, you never know, there might be a natural disaster or a flood, or like, who knows, you're a nutter. That was like maybe three months before covid happened.
Speaker 1:Now, where I was living at the time, it was built up in a city area when they announced the lockdown, where they shut everything down the local large chain supermarket, which supplies basically all the suburb that I was living in at the time, which was thousands of people, possibly tens of thousands. There was no food on the shelves in that place within like 48 hours, completely empty. So like there were mothers going down there to try and get formula for their child or whatever else. There's nothing. So like that came that? That so-called conspiracy theory came to fruition within three months of people saying it would never happen.
Speaker 1:So people just have no ability to think about the potential things that may happen if something were to change, and that's because society conditions us to be that way. Um, society conditions us to like not know how to source our own drinking water or our own food, or to make our own shelter, or to defend ourselves or to do any of these things. Most people don't even know how to iron their own shirt to do their own washing. So if there ever does come a time where there is an event like that that happens and they're not bringing food in anymore into these large cities, what are people going to do? There's going to be some problems there.
Speaker 1:So turning a blind eye to this stuff is fine. Now there's no viruses, oh, whatever, you crazy nutter. But it also then keeps you ignorant to these other potential things that may happen that could potentially threaten your life and your existence in the times of a crisis. Because you think that society is going to always be the way it is and that it will never change, and there's always going to be food on the table and there's always going to be water coming out of the tap. You choose not to ever entertain those possible alternative situations. You're going to be water coming out of the tap. You choose not to ever entertain those possible alternative situations. You're going to be the first one who's going to be suffering when that time comes, if it comes. So it's not just like it's not just an problem with turning it by a blind eye to information. It's also potentially like a threat to your very existence by living in ignorance yeah, absolutely, and yeah.
Speaker 3:So, based on everything we've said so far, you know obviously what we've been through in the last four and a half five years and potentially are going to face again in the future. What do you think of the concept of pandemics, of quarantines, lockdown, social distancing, face masks and vaccines?
Speaker 1:just a small question there there is no evidence for to support or justify any of those public health measures None, because they all rely upon this idea that there is something being transmitted between people. Then what evidence is being relied? Evidence to demonstrate contagion? Nor is there scientific evidence to demonstrate that a virus or any pathogen causes disease. If our governments and public health bodies and medical bodies were honest with us, the conversation would go a little bit like this if there was a pandemic out there on the horizon. Not that I actually think that pandemics happen the way they happen, but the conversation or the message would go a little bit like this we suspect that there is a pandemic coming.
Speaker 1:We don't have any clinical or scientific evidence to demonstrate that disease passes between sick people and healthy people, nor do we have evidence that a virus causes this effect. However, we do believe that this is a real phenomenon. Because of this belief, we encourage people to socially distance and wear a mask and to shelter in place until such time as the pandemic has subsided, and we encourage you to do this to try and minimize the impact on in society. However, because we don't have any evidence of this, we can't enforce it upon you, we can't create any mandates, we can't create any laws. We can only give you these basic guidelines, and the reason we can only give you those guidelines is because we have nothing, no evidence, to justify enforcing it or mandating it upon you. So therefore, it is up to you, it's your choice, whether or not you want to mask and socially distance and isolate yourself and quarantine and inject yourself with a. Whatever it's up to you. If you choose not to do it because we don't have the evidence, you might be putting yourself at risk, but that's your choice. That's kind of like how the public health messaging should be in reality, but we all know that didn't happen that way.
Speaker 1:So I mean, this is my, my perspective, choice for all. I'm not an anti-vaxxer. If people want to go and inject themselves with that stuff under the assumption that it's going to protect themselves and they're doing the best for their health, fantastic, go for it. But I certainly won't, because I don't have any reason to do it. I haven't. My uh actions are going to be, uh, dictated by the evidence. The evidence is not there to do so, so I won't do it for myself. Yeah, um, but I'm not going to then try and force that perspective and opinion on someone else to do certain things so yeah, I mean that is what would happen in a perfect world.
Speaker 1:But that will never happen because that is not what the governments and the medical bodies want to do. They don't want to give us the facts they do. So if we're talking about facts here this will be my last point I'll hand it back to you. In the medical literature, or even in the scientific literature, there is a piece of uh evidence or a process that can be done called a systematic review, and what a systematic review does is it assesses all of the evidence for a given topic. Uh, looks at it as a whole, weighs up all of the evidence and the confounding variables and methodological flaws, and yada, yada, yada to see whether or not there is a cause and effect relationship that has been established and what the significance of the results of these studies are. So it gives you like an overview of a particular topic. In the field of medicine there's a systematic review that's been done on just about every single topic. But people need to ask themselves the question why has there never been a systematic review that's been done in or on the topic of human contagion?
Speaker 1:There is no single systematic review anywhere that has looked at all of the experiments for the cold and flu, where they put healthy people and sick people together and try to transmit the illness.
Speaker 1:Not for the cold and flu, not for measles, not for mumps, not for rubella, not for chicken pox, not for whooping cough, not for scarlet fever none. Not for chicken pox, not for whooping cough, not for scarlet fever none. Now, the reason why I think they've never done that is because if they did it, they would find what we found with our book, which is essentially a component of this, is a systematic review of the literature, and what we found, after we did some basic statistical analysis on this data, was no contagion. There is a modal contagion rate of zero and a total of zero double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trials demonstrating contagion or that a germ causes illness. So you can't put that in a systematic review. Then the whole theory is exploded and all these public health measures have absolutely no grounds upon which to be justified. So, yeah, I mean this is another problem that I don't think anyone will dare approach, talking about this in the mainstream, because it challenges basically the fabric of society and everything that it is built upon.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I mean what's quite concerning right now as well, in Northern Ireland, there's a bill going through their parliament and it's going to allow the government to mandate all those things that we discussed quarantines, social distancing, masking, vaccines, et cetera and anyone that denies the treatment will become a criminal.
Speaker 3:And they're also putting through their parliament and a change to their judiciary, which means that you will no longer need to go to court, that all trials can be done online and they can turn off the camera and your microphone at any point.
Speaker 3:So what things that you're saying might not be heard and things that are being said you might not hear. So it's quite, it's quite concerning. But if, of course, the general public understood what we were talking about today and the other thing is as well that the general public don't know that these laws are going through as well, because obviously it's kept very quiet but if, if the general public understood all those things, it would almost put a stop to it overnight, wouldn't it? If everyone understood these things, the ability to be able to force people to go along with these things that the compliance just wouldn't be there anymore. And this is why I think it's a really important message to get out to people. But just leading on from that, the other thing is again if this knowledge became common knowledge, what kind of effects do you think it would have on the medical pharmaceutical industry?
Speaker 1:A lot of people say that things aren't happening fast enough, that this information is not being disseminated fast enough, it's not reaching enough ears, people aren't waking up quickly enough. I think it's actually taking the precise and exact course that it needs to take. This is a slow unraveling of the system, because if you rip that band-aid off really quickly, this system is going to collapse and then chaos will ensue. So currently what I think's happening is a very slow awakening for people that allows society to course correct itself in such a way that we can live a relatively comfortable life and, you know, maintain the way that we've been living to a certain degree into the future and improve it as we go along, improve it as we go along. But if this all comes out tomorrow, if the news reports tomorrow that germs don't cause disease, it's over. All society crumbles because every single what's the word I'm looking for here? I can't think of the word but it's not just the medical and pharmaceutical industry we're talking about here that's going to suffer. It's every industry, the whole infrastructure. It's the textile industry, it's the building industry, the construction industry. It's the building industry, the construction industry, the food industry, all like manufacturing of motor vehicles and appliances and personal care products. It's everything, because it is the exposure to those products and the waste products that they produce by making that infrastructure that is making us sick, that is polluting the environment. So if you turn on the news tomorrow and it's like six o'clock news germs don't cause disease first of all people are going to like they're not going to be happy because there is untold damage that is being done not only to human beings but to animals and the environment, under the guise of germ theory that there's a germ, there's a parasite or a bacteria or something else that's going to get you and we have to protect you from that with these drugs and these injections. But now, if there's not those things, people will say well then, why was I taking this drug? Why were you injecting me? My son got damaged from this injection. You were meaning to tell me that we did this for no good reason at all. People are going to be furious. There won't be enough money in the world to pay reparations to the people who'd been damaged just by the drugs and the injections alone over the last hundred years.
Speaker 1:When you realize that it's not a germ and you go oh okay, well, it's the toxins and poisons and the detachment from living in harmony with nature. That's the problem. Well, what are these four walls doing around me that are made out of toxic chemicals, and this artificial lighting and this synthetic clothing that I've got on and, like people, are going to want alternatives? I need an alternative. Um dwelling this stuff's making me sick, it's poisoning me.
Speaker 1:The construction industry won't be able to change its ways fast enough to keep up with demand, so it will crumble. Um, people won't want to pollute the atmosphere anymore, so they're not going to want to drive oil and um petrol, chemical petrol, um operated engines, so that industry will crumble, like every single industry it's over. Society will will self-implode. It all rests upon germ theory being true. So this is why it's a slow process and I think we have to be okay with that. To see where the errors lie, to see how we can course correct and steer society into a new way of existing that doesn't poison and rape and pillage the environment, that realizes and understands what really does cause illness.
Speaker 1:Uh, that focuses on us getting back to connection with mother nature and living more simply, like a back to basics approach, like I'm not saying we have to go back and live in the dark ages, but we can live, maybe like how our great grandfathers lived, right, but we didn't have all these sort of um, technological things and plastics and whatever else.
Speaker 1:Um, we can still live very comfortably, but it would mean that we'd have to be, then, more involved in our life. I've got to get out in the land and I have. It would mean that we'd have to be, then, more involved in our life. I've got to get out in the land and I have to start growing food and I have to start, you know, networking and building a community so that someone can make the clothing and someone can do all these other things. So we've lived this way before and we reached that peak. It was probably, you know, a hundred or so years ago. It was probably, you know, a hundred or so-ish years ago, and we look at that time as it was a dark ages, but actually, no, that was like the pinnacle of human existence in harmony with nature. So there was like a sort of fine balance there. But now that balance is long gone and we can only exist this way for so much longer, but for the system self implodes anyway. So I mean, whichever way you look at it, something's got to change.
Speaker 3:I don't know how it's going to change, but I think we're witnessing it in real time and you know it's some exciting time to be alive yeah, and that that kind of leads me on nicely to my kind of final question, really, so so far it's been a little bit doom and gloom, isn't it so far? But but what, what can, what can people do to to optimize their health, in your view?
Speaker 1:yeah, look, this isn't. This is not meant to be doom and gloom, this is meant to be like. Knowledge is power. Yeah, so if you realize that there aren't microscopic enemies hiding in the shadows out there just waiting to try and infect you and kill you, that's incredibly freeing in itself. Yeah, you don't have to be scared of your fellow man. You don't have to be scared of your fellow man. You don't have to be scared of an animal giving you something like a bird flu or whatever. It's incredibly freeing coming to that realization, and what it then means is that you become connected to nature. You understand that you can only be as healthy as your environment.
Speaker 1:So if I can only be as healthy as my environment, well, now I need to think about my impact, my footprint. How much pollution am I creating? How much plastic am I using? Do I need to look after Mother Nature better? Yeah, I probably do so. Then you can start making inspired change. That way, you then start to think about what it is I'm that you're putting into your body is a fuel source.
Speaker 1:What food am I eating? Do I need to start eating food that's not sprayed with poison, that's grown locally and seasonally and fresh, and to start supporting local farmers. Do I need to think about the type of clothing that I'm wearing? Should I be wearing cotton and linen rather than synthetic fibers? How am I, um taking care of my um personal appearance? Am I using harsh chemicals when I'm showering and stripping all the oils and things off my skin with toxic soaps and shampoos and conditioners? Am I brushing my teeth with toxic toothpaste which contains all kinds of synthetic toxic chemicals? Am I spraying my body with toxic deodorants and using toxic hair products and makeups and things?
Speaker 1:What can I do as an alternative, where I'm not being exposed to those things? I'm minimizing my exposure to toxins. Um, what are my relationships like? Do I have a circle of people around me who have my best interests at heart? Do I have meaning and purpose in my life? Am I doing what I really want to be doing, or am I living in denial, trying to keep up with the Joneses, doing something that I despise just to get a paycheck? Am I moving my body? Am I exercising? Am I getting good, restful sleep? Am I exposing myself to too much synthetic, artificial light in the evening?
Speaker 1:There's so many things that go with this that get you now thinking about what actually is causing illness, that you can make change, which is actually really simple, it's easy, it's affordable, it's a low barrier to entry. And you'll want to make those changes because now people or you realize that those are the things that are making me sick, or the lack of those things is making me sick. Maybe I need to get more sun exposure, but when we're under this false paradigm of germ theory, those things just fade into insignificance, into the background, because we're so preoccupied with the germ. Now what I'll also say is, as a final sort of point here, lee, is that there is no disease in nature. Mother nature doesn't do disease.
Speaker 1:So we are under this impression that disease is just a consequence of being a human being, that when you're born into this world you will become ill and that's just the way it is. And we don't know why you get sick. Maybe it's a germ, maybe it's a gene, maybe it's bad luck, whatever else. But in nature, when doctors and anthropologists have gone and visited uncontacted tribes, they have found that those people are free of disease, largely free of disease. Maybe there's a little bit of something here or there, but there's no diabetes, there's no cancer, there's no heart disease, there's no premenstrual issues. There's no Alzheimer's disease or dementia or depression or any of this sort of stuff. It's just, it's not there yeah, tooth decay.
Speaker 3:So what that tells me go ahead?
Speaker 1:yeah, I was just saying that they don't find tooth decay either yeah, they don't find tooth decay, they have perfectly formed facial structures and they don't have crooked teeth and all this kind of stuff. So what that tells us is that Mother Nature doesn't do disease. When you live in harmony with nature, you are existing in a state of balance, in a state of ease, so then disease doesn't ensue, because disease is actually the active state of the body returning back to balance. We've just confused it as something bad. So you look at these people living in uncontacted tribes and you go, right, well, if they're not sick, what are they doing differently to what I'm doing in a society that is riddled with disease, where just about every single person's got something wrong with them? And you look at the differences between those two populations and you go, oh my god, it's the food, it's the water, it's the clothing, it's lack of sun, it's lack of exercise and physical activity, meaning and purpose in life, all those things that I just mentioned.
Speaker 1:So the answer is it's not really that hard. It's actually very simple. It's getting back to basics. It doesn't mean that it's an easy path. It's not going to be, like you know, an easy thing for us to course correct here. It's going to take a while. But it's simple.
Speaker 1:We don't have to reinvent the wheel. The secrets to this we already know. We already have the answers. They exist. Our forefathers knew this information. They'd acquired it over hundreds and thousands of years. We've just decided that we're better than mother nature, that we know best that we're separate than Mother Nature, that we know best that we're separate to nature. We sort of exist outside it, and nature is this thing out there, and human existence is this thing inside, here in this room or in this building or whatever. And we have fallen into that trap.
Speaker 1:So freeing yourself from that doctrine of germ theory then eventually leads you to this perspective where it's like, okay, I am in control of my health, it is up to me. What I eat and think and do does matter. So now I can actually play an active role in my health rather than it just being. It's just a random active nature. Mother nature just decided to expose me to this microorganism and I'm a helpless victim. You're not. You're not a helpless victim. You hold the power. You are in control of your health. No one can take that away from you. You cannot outsource your health to anybody else. It's up to you. And once you come to that realization. Well, that's the beginning of the end of this uh, sick system that we're a part of, and some it's quite freeing and it's quite, uh, it's wonderful to realize that that actually things are very simple, they don't need to be hard yeah, yeah for sure.
Speaker 3:Yeah, that's that's really well said, I guess. Um, the offset, if there is one, is that in nature there's danger, right, so you can be eaten, or you might not be able to find enough stuff to eat, and it's almost like that's what we're being played on. It's like, well, if you want safety, then you can have this world, right, but then what does that world consist of? Everything you just said, all the disease and all that kind of stuff, right, but actually, when you stand back and look at it, I think most sane people would say you know what? I'd rather have a little bit of danger if I had all that freedom and I had my health and I, when I was living a life I actually wanted to lead, rather than one that I have to live in order to make enough money to survive.
Speaker 1:I need to survive. Yeah, no depression in those native tribes, lee, no depression. Their satisfaction with life, their quality of life is so much higher than what we have in the West and if you look at the things that cause the most mortality in those tribes, it's like snake bite or like falling off a cliff, like a physical injury. So I mean, hey, there's always still a threat of being bitten by a snake in modern western society, um, but it's minimized. But then there's now a threat of being forced to have something injected into you that you don't want, or having your freedoms and your inalienable human rights taken away or stripped from you. I mean, there's some trade-offs here. So people have to make the decision which one they want to go for, which one they want to side with.
Speaker 1:I trust in human, sorry, I trust in mother nature. I don't necessarily trust in this sick, toxic Western society, that sort of masquerades itself, as you know, free and democratic and whatever else. I don't trust in that, I don't necessarily believe in it. So I try to exist in a way where I'm living in harmony as much as possible with nature, where I'm trying to grow my own food and have animals and regenerate land and do all these things and and be a little bit more self-sufficient, um, so that I don't have to be as reliant on the system and like this isn't even like conspiratorial. I think if more people did that it would lessen the pressure on the system so it wouldn't have to produce as much, and then we're not producing as many waste products and things which are creating other problems downstream. So I think there's benefits from having this perspective and changing our way of life and getting back to basics on many different levels.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, and just going back to what I was saying, the the perception of safety in western worlds is probably not a real one. When you consider what's going on at the moment and and consider what happened over the last four years, you know a lot of people died that didn't really need to die and I'm not. I'm not talking about a virus right.
Speaker 3:You know, I know there was a study that came out about this time last year. That was a team of statisticians and they estimated that at that point 17 million people had died directly from the injectable. So where's the safety there?
Speaker 1:Yeah, or the millions of people that die every year from cancer or heart disease or any of these other chronic illnesses that are a consequence of living in opposition to Mother Nature or seeing it as the enemy. Like people are really scared about getting cancer. Oh my God, one and two people are going to get cancer now and you know tens of million I think like 10 million people a year die of cancer. People are terrified of this thing. I think 12 million people, or maybe it's like eight and eight something million people die of cancer every year and then like 11 or 12 million people die as a direct consequence of air pollution exposure every year. So, like, there's this, there's this um belief, there's this perception that there's safety, but safety from like a bear and a snake.
Speaker 1:But there's now an issue of being killed by the air that I'm breathing or the water that I'm drinking, or like jumping in the car.
Speaker 1:Like, if you look at, like, the thing that's most likely to kill you on any given day is being in a motor vehicle. It's just that we go. Oh, I'm willing to take the risk. It's the same thing as the guy walking through the bush hunting for food. Yes, there is possibly a snake or a fox or something out there. But I'm willing to take the risk and I would say that the percentage chance of you getting bitten by a snake out there walking in the bush looking for food and dying from it, it's probably a heck of a lot lower than being seriously maimed or dying in a motor vehicle accident. So we have to put all this into context and weigh it up, um and, and look at this logically, because I don't think the story that we're being told here and this sort of illusion that we're given from this sort of western existence really is all it's cracked up to be yeah, well, the other thing as well.
Speaker 3:Certainly, in the uk, the biggest cause of death in young men is suicide. So, again, that's something else that has to be factored into that equation. Although I don't know if that's changed since 2021, but I think it's still the biggest killer of young men. I think up to the age of 45, I think it's the biggest killer. So, daniel, this has been amazing. I've absolutely loved talking to you for the last couple of hours, but but what's next for you? What have you got in the pipeline?
Speaker 1:yeah there's a lot happening. Um, I'm in the process of starting another book. So this book we're going to start looking into bacteria, parasites and mold. So we're going to do something similar to Can you Catch a Cold. But that is a huge piece of work and it will be many years in the making.
Speaker 1:Talking to people like yourself, lee, from all different places, talking about what we've just spoken about now, trying to simplify health and just getting people to realize that they are the only thing that can heal themselves no one else can do that for you. And healing is actually a relatively simple and straightforward task. It doesn't need to be complicated. I think we have overcomplicated it. So, just educating people on that yeah, we've got a little block of land here and we've got some goats and some cows and chickens and just growing a little bit of our own food and enjoying life much more simply.
Speaker 1:And, yeah, spending time outside in nature, observing. I think that's really helpful. It gives me a lot of insight, it helps me to understand the world around me and, yeah, it's like where I spend most of my time now is usually outside rather than being glued to a computer screen. But I think that'll probably change in the next couple of weeks when I start sinking my teeth into this new book. So, yeah, I'll be glad when that's over, but, as I said, it's a couple more years of work there.
Speaker 3:Yeah, much needed work, I would say. So where can people find your book and where can people find you online?
Speaker 1:The book's available on Amazon, amazoncom, amazoncomau or whichever country you're in. It's available. That's the best place to get the book. I've got a website called Humanly, which is H-U-M-A-N-L-E-Y humanlycom. I've got some podcasts on there, a free webinar library where we talk about different things to do with health and wellness. That has been going since about 2020. So about four, nearly five years in now.
Speaker 1:Looking at expanding to a few other things as well in the near future. So I'm looking at doing a fortnightly segment. We're starting a thing called Humanly TV and I'll just be unpacking a bunch of different health and wellness topics, be unpacking a bunch of different health and wellness topics, some things that are being discussed in popular culture currently, and just sharing my perspective on things. So that will also be available on humanlycom. Social media. I'm on Facebook, but telegram is probably the best place, so tme forward slash humanly, h-u-m-a-n-l-e-y, and we've got uh yeah, a few thousand people on there. I think we're nearly nearly cracked 10 000 now. So some like-minded individuals and we have some pretty interesting conversations and I put up posts about various different things to do with health and wellness. I try to do it fairly regularly but, recently there's been a few things going on.
Speaker 1:I've sort of taken a step back from social media, but I know that I'll end up falling back into probably posting daily in there in the next couple of weeks.
Speaker 3:Awesome, awesome. And I just want to say anyone that's interested in the truth I highly recommend Daniel's book. Can you Catch a Cold? It's a really, really well-written book, one of my favorite books. I mean I've got hundreds of books I could show you, but it's definitely one of my favorite books. I mean I've got hundreds of books I could show you, but it's definitely one of my favorite books and I can't wait to read the second and third of the book. So I'm only a third of the way through the book. So yeah, I might need to get you back on when I've read the whole thing, Daniel, because I might have a whole load more questions for you and I know it's probably going to be a while before your next book comes out. But yeah, I'll definitely have you back on to to discuss that as well thanks so much, lee.
Speaker 1:I really appreciate you giving me the opportunity to come and speak with you. It's been an absolute pleasure and, yeah, thank you to everyone who's listening. And yeah, just read widely, come up or try and read as many resources as you can and come up with your own perspective on things, because I think the world would be a pretty boring place if everyone thought the same way that I did. So, yeah, make up your own mind, come up with, make your own decisions and realize that you hold the power over your own health. And yeah, you can make change today very simply, easily and relatively effortlessly.
Speaker 3:Yeah. Yeah, that's great, and I'll make sure all your links that you mentioned will be in the show notes as well.
Speaker 1:Thanks so much, lee, I really appreciate it. Yeah, my pleasure.
Speaker 3:So that's all from Daniel and me for this special episode, but don't forget to join me same place next time and, in the meantime, spread the word about the Radical Health Rebel podcast and help create change in the world to make it a fairer, healthier and happier place for us all to live. Until next time, thanks for tuning in, remember to give the show a rating and a review, and I'll see you next time.
