The Viral Delusion Pt 3

Video Transcript:

Every time you go back and look at what happened with this epidemic or that, there's always some sort of poisoning or some sort of toxin or some sort of, you know, even psychological change in the people, they usually they become victimized and powerless and subjugated and dominated and then they end up sick. When you say, when you look at past disease and there's always some kind of poisoning, some kind of toxin, can you take us through that a little bit? I mean we went through that in the book, sometimes it's basically even something like a comet coming in near the earth's atmosphere and spewing nitrogen and sulfur gas all over. Next thing you know, everybody has the black plague. Every time you look, there is no evidence for a virus. Nobody saw a virus. There's no, no, not a shred of evidence. There's always some kind of either change in consciousness and you know, we downplay that because we don't understand how a change in consciousness or the way you think could actually produce illness. But and part of the problem here is because literally 99% of our research has been on viruses. Nobody looks into what actually otherwise causes disease. So the few times we have like polio was caused by combination of lead arsenic poisoning and DDT poisoning, both of which cause damage to the very part of our nervous system which is supposedly affected by the polio virus. So those are the ones that we've looked into and we've actually identified the toxin that was the cause of damaging the people including the children which was mistaken for a virus. Now many of them nobody has looked into it so we don't really know. I mean Sally the co-author has spent a lot of time looking into this and has some very interesting correlations I would say with what might have happened back in you know 1200 during the black plague because some of them like you know and I'm not an expert on this but like there was you know half the people in Iceland died from some plague that had to do with rats. It turns out they didn't have rats in Iceland until 200 years later. So bottom line is this theory that it was all microbes and infection and viruses is completely unsubstantiated and every time that somebody does real science it looks into it they find either some starvation situation, some toxic situation or some big change in consciousness like what happens to the for instance the Native American or African people are drought here. The plague. I'm sure everyone who remembers their school days were all taught that it was carried by infected rat fleas, you know, biting people and passing this dreaded disease on, which was supposed to kill tens of millions of well all over the world, but particularly in Europe. And, you know, we'll believe this and we'll talk this and for many years, when we looked into it, it was easy to see that there was nothing to do with infected rat fleas and we looked at various angles on this, one of which was Professor Mike Bailey and he was a dendrochronologist who looked at, well it is several things, he looked at the period of the Black Death to see what trearings would tell him and he could see that during that period of the Black Death that the trearing growth was much smaller. So you can tell by that that there was something going off in the environment for the trees not to have made any, you know, as much growth as they would normally. So to incorporate what that might be, he cross-referenced it with ice core, ice cores to see what was in the environment and he could see that there was quite a, no, environmental trough that there was high levels of ammonium in the atmosphere, which is extremely toxic. And then he cross-referenced that with eyewitness accounts of the time and the eyewitness accounts, people living through that were talking about stinking and choking atmosphere and that people were just dropping down dead in the street and also that the rivers and lakes were becoming polluted and fish, shells of fish were floating to the surface, dead. Now of course this doesn't fit squarely with infected rat fleas, does it? Particularly fish all float into the surface. So there's sort of a mass poison going on here. He also looked at earthquakes and there was a lot of earthquakes around at that time, particularly a massive one in, I think it was the 25th of January 1348, if I remember right, but a number of them were whenever there's volcanic, sorry, whenever there's earthquakes in the earth, so particularly massive ones by that particular one. You get a lot of toxic substances and matter and fumes being released into the atmosphere. So this would start to account for why people report in these stinking and choking atmospheres and supported by the high score samples and the tree growth reduction. So there also, I went and support reports of a comet coming into the atmosphere. People could see it. Now whether that had anything to do with any debris from that, we don't know for sure, but what we do know from the Arbondis reports and the high scores and all the rest of it, that the atmosphere changed drastically. There's also reports of, because the weather systems had changed drastically, there was very strange weather systems happening, so causing great loss of crops and great famines, particularly in northern Europe, and people were having to migrate away because they could not sustain themselves. So people were dying for that reason as well. Again, we're back to lack of proper nutrition. In fact, the historians who have reported on it have said that the conditions in northern Europe became so bad because of the cop failures that people were resorting to cannibalism and there's written facts of this, so you can tell how bad things must have been. So all of these things together, all in this same time period, can account for this large death toll, but not nothing to do with rat fleas. In more recent times, excavations in London have discovered they expected to be able to find evidence of large rat die-offs because the infected fleas were supposed to kill rats before they left the host that they'd killed and jumped onto human beings. This was the original story, but so there should have been huge die-offs, which one should have been reported by eye witnesses at the time, should have been reporting lots of dead rats about, and there aren't any reports of that. And the archaeologists in more recent times were expecting to be able to find evidence of large rat die-offs. And again, there wasn't any in the ruins that they were looking at. So I think, scientifically, people can dismiss this whole idea of infected rats, in fact, rat fleas. So the more probable cause is these climatic changes, which the eye witnesses were reporting, and the eye scores and tree rings were supporting of climatic changes, something happening in the environment in that period, which was causing a very toxic atmosphere, that was actually poisoning people as well as, of course, people starving to death because of crop failures. So this gives a much different picture of what the like death was. Again, nothing to do with germs and everything to do with all of these other factors. Every time you go back and look at what happened with this epidemic or that, there's always some sort of poisoning or some sort of toxin or some sort of, you know, even psychological change in the people, they usually they become victimized and powerless and subjugated and dominated, and then they end up sick. Let's talk about one of the fallacies that we've all been taught about, smallpox at school, about the invasion of South America by the conquistadors. I think this is a classic case of distorted history, let's say, and the lives we're told about through history. I mean, I'm sure most people will be aware that they're told that one of the conquistadors we're looking in, the 1500s now, Spanish conquistadors invaded South America, that the native populations all started to die out because of diseases brought across by the conquistadors, which the native populations of South America had no immunity to. And this is why millions of them died and I do mean millions of them died out. And of course, it says that's really unfortunate, but you know, that's just these horrible germs again responsible for the killing the people, the real story is, I mean, if you think about it, there's some people say that how well the conquistadors had these diseases, smallpox being the main one, which they brought across, the ocean with them. And so our first thing, we've got, if you want to believe in germs, and you want to believe that the conquistadors had smallpox, they were already got it. Why didn't they die on the ships? Because, you know, you don't, the journey across the Atlantic, a long time, you know, you didn't get there in a few days, so plenty of time for if you've got smallpox, for you to develop it and die. So why didn't they conquistadors die on the ships? And then the medical servicemen tried to say, well, they'd obviously got immunity to it. Well, again, second load of nonsense really, you know, if you've got smallpox, you've got smallpox, you've got, if you're immune to it, and you don't have smallpox, you know, this is using their basic germ theory model. So that's obviously a load of nonsense, and they're just trying to wriggle and try and find reasons to explain the fallacy. But when you look at what was really happening in South America when the conquistadors arrived, the people were dying and started to die, not because of any any germs at all, but because of the way they were treated. The conquistadors were extremely barbaric, and their sole was to enslave the people and to steal the golden silver, that's of the land, that's what they were there for. And they enslave the population to work in the golden silver mines to extract the golden silver. But they treated the people so badly because they had such a respect for them, so they didn't even want to feed them because they're reasoning was that if they died, you know, they probably had an elast of a few weeks, when they died there were plenty more people that they could enslave to continue working in their mines, hard to believe. But also, of course, they slaughtered massacred great numbers of the local population because they got still weapons, they got even armored dogs which they would root out people, track them down, chase them down, and would kill people, you know, if they were not in a condition that they could capture them and enslave them, the dogs would rip them to pieces. They're extremely barbaric, so the local population knew this and moved off their own land to escape from the conquistadors, or once they'd moved off their land, they now could not feed themselves properly, so they were dying of starvation and they were dying, as we've said, all the conditions that before people when they've not got proper nutrition, when they're under extreme stress, all of these things come into play and as we've seen, smallpox, so-called smallpox, is one of the factors that starts to befall people when they're not being fed properly, when they're living in saletric conditions, you know, these people are on the run, they're living under high stress, these are the things that before them, nothing to do with the germ. There's so much about the exploitation of the continent to extract the resources specifically, gold, certainly, and the extraction of gold requires the use of mercury to actually extract the gold from your, and so mercury being extremely toxic substance, even if the people were healthy and they were fed, which really was the case, I mean, it wasn't the case, that would have been you know, pretty bad for their healthy, you know, would have caused the manverse health effects, but the fact that they weren't cared for, they weren't fed, it made their lives extremely short, I mean, in some cases, you know, they barely lasted three months once they were put into the mines. The records show there's something like 50 million inhabitants of the South America and the islands died through one quarter or another, but none of those things were to do with germ, some particular smallpox, which is the historians try to attribute to it, because no one wants to admit that it was the sheer barbarism of the conquistadors, the invaders of what they did. I mean, people say they died of measles, they died of smallpox, but there's no evidence for that, there's no evidence of any pathogen there, but there's evidence for is that they were poisoned, they were disdesessed, they were starved, they were humiliated, they were dominated, and even they were infested with bedbugs, which have their own kind of toxin that they buy into you. So there's much better explanations for what happened than some imaginary virus. What we found with things like smallpox is that the rates of smallpox are directly attributable to the rate of incineratory conditions and poor dietary conditions, and wherever you see that, anywhere in the world, even today, wherever you see incineratory conditions and poor dietary conditions, you will see outbreaks of so-called smallpox. Once you take those incineratory conditions and provide proper nutritional food, the smallpox cases disappear. As Dave said, the real reasons for the eradication of smallpox is due to improved health conditions, improved environmental conditions, improved living situation and plumbing in solitary measures and improved diet. I mean, at the time before the 19th century, there were no sort of sanitation, as in sort of hygiene and disposal of human waste, so there was no toilet systems and things, so indoor plumbing, and people were living amidst their own waste and bad water, animals around them, so there were, that was the cause of a lot of problems, even though vaccination was bought in, there were two towns, there was Leicester, which is a place in England, and Cleveland in Ohio, but both had experiments where they implemented sanitation measures, and they actually stopped vaccination, and they discovered, one of the results of these measures that they implemented meant that the cases, what we call smallpox, reduced substantially, so the sanitation helped health, but it wasn't the vaccination, it was the eradication of vaccination that actually improved people's health. There was a very eminent doctor Charles Criton, who believed in vaccination, he was asked to write the entry, I can't remember exactly what year, but the late 19th century, he was asked to write the entry for encyclopedia Britannica for vaccination, and instead of just, as you said, writing the the standard explanation within it, he decided to go back and actually have a look at it, not for himself, and he discovered to his amazement horror, whatever, that there was no scientific evidence behind the practice of vaccination, and he called it a superstition. He wrote, he did write the entry for that particular year for vaccination, but he shocked his contemporaries, and because he was honest about what he found about vaccination, that there was no basis, and it was a superstition, it was based on superstition, and as I say, he was an eminent physician at the time, obviously that's why he was asked to write the entry for encyclopedia Britannica, but he certainly made it quite clear, he went back had a look and said, no, it's not based on evidence. Can a long story short, as Dr. Hardwin had said, it's living conditions, it's the insanity conditions, and we're talking about decayed matter, not germs. So it's the, again, what are the four factors that we talk about, it's the lack of proper nutrition, sustain nutrition, lack of clean water, I guess it was always contaminated, and this everything being contaminated by, but basically toxins, and whenever those conditions were removed, as Dawn said, when they did that experiment in Leicester in England, and the high ON, the United States, when they improved those living conditions, then the disease went away, and it's still the same today. If you look into the areas where there's an outbreak of so-called smallpox, you'll see that those third-pore living conditions exist, and if, whenever those living conditions are removed, the so-called disease disappears, and it's nothing to do with vaccinations, in fact, as the English experiment showed, when they mandated for vaccinations, it actually increased the problem. It wasn't until they improved the living conditions of the people that disease went away. From then, and to this day, it's the vaccines. You can trace whatever vaccination programs have been put in place. They have never eradicated the disease that's supposed to be eradicated, and you get, in actual fact, you can trace an increase in the disease. I mean, this happened in England, in the late 1800s, when they were the British government instituted compulsory vaccination for infants to get rid of the smallpox, period of smallpox. So compulsory vaccination for infants, and they kept that in place for 14 years. Okay, so over that period, they had got to the stage where almost every individual in England had been vaccinated against smallpox, and yet during that entire period, the incidence of smallpox kept increasing, not only the incidence of it, but the death rate. So, I mean, that proved two things really. One is vaccination wasn't actually conferring immunity over that 40-year period, and it also gives a lie to the myth of herd immunity, which we hear a lot about today, don't we? Well, of it clearly, if the vaccination worked, and you could gain herd immunity from getting everybody vaccinated, then how can you still have a rise in incidence and deaths from smallpox, but that was what happened. And eventually, they stopped doing it, but it took them 40 years to actually stop it, despite the protestations from many doctors at the time, that realised vaccinations right from his out there upset, was, well, they've used like, you know, filthy superstition, not based on any signs at all. And these are doctors that will make it, will make any accusations, and it's still the same today. But in the early days, those doctors did have a voice, and people could hear what they had to say, but now, of course, with the censorship that is put out, shall we say, or enacted by the governments and mainstream media, and places like Google and YouTube, the censorship is so much that those doctors, even though they're still around today, don't get a public voice. In 2000, there was an article in Pediatric Journal that actually looked at the death rates in children from birth to 19, from 1900 to 1998. And more specifically, children ages 1 to 19, who had horrible death rates for infectious diseases in the early 1900s, were shown to have a very drastic reduction in the death rates from those infectious diseases by the mid-century. And the authors in the study point in two places in the study whereby they say, the reduction in death from infectious diseases in children aged 1 to 19 was miraculous. It was exponentially observed to go down between 1900 and 1945, before vaccines and antibiotics were ever used. They then go on to say that the reason for the reduction in the death rate was due to proper water systems, clean water systems, proper sewage systems, better hygiene, improved living conditions. Twice, the authors state, and this was before vaccines and antibiotics were even better. And if you look at the infectious diseases, the dysphemia, pertussis, measles, typhoid, influenza, the DPT vaccine didn't come out to 1949, the theory for dust and stuff. There was a dysphemia topsoid vaccine that was given in the 1920s, and I'd actually seen experts show market reduction in the illnesses from dysphemia. You do to the introduction of the dysphemia topsoid vaccine, not considering the fact that there were other factors that contributed to the reduction, and not considering the fact that all the other infectious diseases at that time also saw a market reduction in the death rate for which there were no vaccines. So the expert just leaves out the other information to put forth a narrative that had to have been the diphearate topsoid vaccine that did it. But never mentions the fact that there were all these other infectious diseases that also saw the same rate of reduction of death without vaccines, being implemented in society. The historic occurs, we'd be sure this and all of us, as well here, that the historic occurs, sure that practically every disease can get a vaccine against the mortality of all infectious disease declines before vaccination, the mass vaccinations decaying. So it's true for tuberculosis, it's true for reasons, it's true for tifteoria, it's true for podio, it's true for smallpox, they declined before the mass vaccinations came on the market. So that's not a proof for vaccination. And once again unfathomable for the human brain to consider is the idea that these infectious diseases were actually environmentally toxic cause, that it was due to water, for water supplies, for sewage supplies, for living conditions, for nutritional standards, nutritional deficiencies. And so when you only conclude that these people suffered from infectious diseases, 1918 so-called flu, no infectious agent was ever discovered and could never be proved to be the cause of the disease. Really the most well-done experiments that I've ever seen were Brezloss experiments in 1919, related to the Spanish flu. And there were actually a series of experiments done with humans and horses at that time, they're published and these were done as part of the United States Public Health Service. So that's the precursor to the CDC. So these were official studies. And the use of techniques that maybe are considered unethical today because what they did was they had a group of prisoners around a hundred and they offered them that if they would do this experiment where they would expose themselves to the Spanish flu, which was obviously deadly, there were tens of millions of people, to hundreds of millions of people who died depending on what day to go look at. If they exposed themselves and did this experiment, they would earn their freedom. So they volunteered and they went to like the basically ICU and hospital and the Boston and England and got these people with small with the Spanish flu, who were dying to basically, you know, they collected all their body fluids, they had them cough up stuff, you know, they collected snot from the nose, they even collected secretions from the eyes. And then they did three different experiments trying to get these healthy subjects sick with the Spanish flu. So they put the fluids in to their mouth, nose and throat. I mean, sorry, mouth, nose and eyes the first time, like transfer the fluid from the place in the sick people to the healthy people, not one person got sick. They did it a second time where they injected it under the skin, not one person got sick, that's kind of surprising actually. And then they did a third experiment where they had them simulate close intimate contact. So they had them like get really up, you know, in their personal space and had the sick person blow out and then the healthy person inhaled their breath and had them talk like really close for a period of time. And all three experiments, not one person got sick. They also did this in horses and it might have been a different investigator, but like one of the experiments, they actually put like a bag over the nose of the horses that were sick because horses get the flu also. And basically the horse, all the secretions filled up this bag and you know, all their snot and stuff and then they took this bag and they put it over healthy horse, had them breathe in all that stuff. The horses didn't get sick, they did another experiment, put it in their food, none of the horses got sick. So all these experiments for contagion didn't actually show any contingent. So are you saying the Spanish flu is not contagious? They've proven that it's not contagious pretty much and you know, it also wasn't caused by a virus. And you know it wasn't caused by a virus? Well, there's been no study that's ever shown a virus that caused it. Even Fauci wrote a paper that said most people actually died of bacterial pneumonia, but that wasn't what caused the epidemic either. So originally they thought the medical establishment, that is. Originally they thought it was bacterial, but then changed the minds and thought it was a virus. But in both cases of course they were blaming some sort of infectious agent, that's the main thing. And they tried to prove that and we talk about that in the book where they had these groups of volunteers, stroke prisoners lined up you know with a group of people who were ill with the suspected flu and a group of healthy people. And they had the unhealthy people coughing, splashing to the faces of the healthy people. They took a mucus extraction of the unhealthy people and transplanted it into the healthy people. And they did this dozens of times and not once. And I mean not once were they able to transmit the so-called deadly flu to the healthy people. So they really disproved it themselves. Although that's not much talked about in the medical journals, but it is there in the historical records. So we wanted to find out what people were dying off. The war would have been going on for four years and it took its toll not just physically for the men that were killed. It took its toll emotionally and mentally. And as we said eventually before, one of the four factors that causes people to be ill is prolonged emotional stress. Now you can't get much more prolonged and emotional stress than being you know in the war for four years. I mean not everyone was actually sustained the entire period. A lot of men were killed. But the war effort involved a lot of toxic materials. I mean known about the clawing gas attacks. Well it didn't necessarily kill people, but it certainly weakened them, made them enfeaded. And certainly with their respiratory systems it would have attacked their tissues and weakened them. And possibly other factors would have helped to cause their deaths. And I imagine being in a trench, up to amazing mud and water, and people are trying to kill you every day. Pretty stressful. And secondly of course the people in those wars were living on army rations which were not nutritious. They were just basic, keep you alive, but we're not feeding the body with proper nutrition. You know you weren't getting plates of fresh fruit and vegetables. You know we're just getting sort of like hard-tack biscuits, you know which you can chew on if you could not break your teeth. So very poor nutrition, very poor nutrition. So second factor. So you've got prolonged extreme stress, stress, lack of nutrition. Poor conditions in the trenches also include, you know they obviously didn't have plenty of indoor plumbing. And there was obviously dead bodies around. They weren't always able to bury them. So you know you've got decomposing, beautifying bodies around. Very sanitary conditions. Very sanitary. And as Dawn said you know with munitions, the material was used in munitions and explosives, extremely toxic. So it's not only the stuff they're handling, but the air would be filled with it when the shells, I mean some of these bombardments went on for days, you know, so the air would have been filled with toxic gases from the exploding shells. Now so if you weren't killed by an actual explosion, you'd probably die from the toxic output from these things. So that's the third of the four factors. Okay. And then the final one, which is a little bit more mysterious, came into effect in the latter part of the war. And that was the telecommunications. So we're bringing in electromagnetic fields. Now we're talking 1917, going back, you know, before when they started to be erected. And particularly some of the army camps in America, very powerful radio transmitters. Okay. We've put out extremely strong electromagnetic fields. And some of the early reports of people dying very quickly and mysteriously were in those camps. And when we investigated what it was, we found strange effects that people were dying of. And they died very quickly, you know, there wasn't what you normally assume, you know, a few weeks of feeling really rotten. And then you know, you slowly demise. People were just becoming ill within hours for a day and dropping down dead. And when they were examined, they were found they'd got hemorrhaging inside internal hemorrhaging, particularly brain hemorrhages. Which of course is something that no one would associate with influenza. But you do associate it with high-powered electromagnetic fields. And these sorts of cases were happening around these very powerful radio transmitters. And this could be traced into all sorts of areas of the world at that time, in that period. And quite some good work had been done on that in a book called The Invisible Rainbow by Arthur Fistamberg, which he goes into purely the electrical side of things. At least in some geographic areas, there was a major new technology that was put out. And I'm really talking about radar technology. And this put different kinds of electromagnetic radiation into the environment that biological organisms had never been exposed to before. And it's pretty clear that in various locations where this infrastructure was installed that people had, Spanish flu and other health outcomes. And also, there was high dose aspirin that had been introduced. Which is also at the levels that it was given extremely top shape. Another factor that is often talked about and fairly commonly talked about is the fact that all the soldiers were being given multiple vaccines. And quite often, well, there are quite a number of reports of soldiers, particularly in US military camps, that were vaccinated, never actually got out to active duty that they died. Some within the camps, but also even if they were they were made ill after vaccines, then they were in the army hospital in the camps. And they were given all sorts of treatments, including the kind of aspirin levels. And so, you know, they didn't stand a chance. Well, we found that these were the sort of factors, the combination of factors that could be seemed to be an effect in the so-called Spanish flu. It's all these anomalies put together and all these other indications that you can see there was something else going on, which then all got lumped together by the authorities and labored a disease. Because when people look into it, you can soon start to point the finger at the authorities lack of care, incorrect treatment, subjecting people to high levels of electromagnetic radiation. So, questions could be asked and people could get sued. And so, it's much better to blame it on a disease than it is to admit the truth. And this, we found this happens a lot. And as someone once said, it's much better to blame, to blame a virus because you can't sue a virus. And that's probably a very true word, you know, but you can true sue chemical companies and military organizations and pharmaceutical companies with high dose aspirin and all the rest of it. They can be sued. So, much better not to talk about that and to talk about a virus being the cause of it instead. You know, partly they were, you know, the same people who were promoting this were talking Rockefeller and, you know, they were changing the medical curriculum so that it was all based on the germ theory and it's off. And they didn't want the attention on their new dyes and chemicals and oil based products as, and even electrification and basically changing the way human beings live, they didn't want the attention to be on toxic influences. Now, it's not, it's not, nothing that any of us do, either individually or collectively has nothing to do with the way you eat or the way you think or your human relations or your conception of life or how we organize our self-economically. Any of that stuff has, none of that is ever talked about in medical school. I mean, I went to medical school, I know. Nobody said anything about the way we eat, the way we think about our economics about our, whether we dominate or humiliate other people or anything like that, there's nothing to do with illness. It's all just basically germs and you are a victim. You didn't do anything, in fact, there are adamants that we never as doctors, you know, blame or suggest that a person had anything to do with wine or sick. You're just going along and this flu virus gets you and you know, that's how life is. It has nothing to do with how you eat, what you think, or even your group of people, how they were treated or economics or, you know, anything like that. And so it's a, it's a, it's a really way of looking and keeping people, if you want them to be powerless. Because a person who's a victim is powerless. I didn't do anything, this SARS-CoV-2 virus landed in my nose and I got, I can't do anything about it. I can't eat differently, I can't think differently. I can't organize society different, so it's just and fair and we're not dealing with poisons and electrical fields which we know make everything scrambles. None of that has anything to do with, it's spending all our money on, on, you know, bombing and humiliating other people. None of this has anything to do with what happens to us. It's just we're victims of the virus or our genes. We've got dealt a bad hand. So we got to doubt her what's caused by problems. We either have a virus, we have genes or bad life. Right? When I, when I trained in medical school residency, the understanding was that when children get sick, it's always a bacteria virus. And as I grew in my experience, I started to realize that even in cases where kids had what more you were told, or bacteria viruses, and we treated them, they kept getting sick. They kept getting sick over and over and over again. And about how medicines I threw at them, they still kept getting sick. It's like, what's going on here? There are hundreds of trillions of microorganisms in their body. What could be going on? So I started to understand due to my reading outside Western medicine. But there are other factors that can make the body sick, like poor dietary choices, food sensitivities, food allergies, exposure to air toxins, food toxins, water toxins, environmental toxins. And so when I started to delve into this area, I found an unbelievable amount of literature that's ignored in Western medicine that helped me understand other reasons kids could be getting sick. And so with my many dietary recommendations, I watched kids get better and stop getting sick. If I got the parents to get rid of the pillow that was full of dust, kids stopped getting sinus infections. If I got parents to put an air purifier in the room, or get rid of a rug, or evaluate the home from old. And that was cleaned up. Kids stopped getting sick. But what you heard from medical doctors when kids kept getting sick, oh it's another virus, oh it's another virus, oh it must have caught another virus. Here's another animal that I got. It must be a resistant bacterial infection. Here's another one. Here's another one. And when I started to realize that actually the reason the body gets sick is not necessarily due to infection. But due to level of stress that has overwhelmed the body to such an extent that toxic waste and inflammation build up. And the body is smart. It won't die until it's ready to die. So it has to do something to give rid of the materials that are causing stress or a chemical reaction that's hurting themselves and their function. So it became clear to me that the reason the body gets sick is actually to purge this material because it gets stayed inside the body and the fail. And so when I started watching all the kids who kept getting medicines for their presumed infections, they went on to develop various serious chronic illnesses. Why? Because the body was trying to purge and they kept getting medicine to stop it. And nobody was addressing what kept coming into the body to cause the stress in the first place. And so that shift in my practice was miraculous because I'd see kids stop losing and not have asthma. I see kids sleep better and not move around so much. I'd watch kids stop bedwading. I'd watch chronic coughs go away. I'd watch ear fluid stop. I'd watch adenoids and councils get smaller. I'd watch skin rashes improve all from addressing the diet of the environment and making changes. And then adding some support nutritionally to help the body do the rest. Kids are better. If you ask most people like I would say most you know 99% of the lay people and fast majority of doctors believe it or not, what makes you think there's a virus? And the answer you get is well there's a lot of people getting sick so it must be a virus. And so I usually say so you must mean that what happened in Hiroshima was a virus because a lot of people got sick and died. And so if that's the definition then that net will know because that was a nuclear bomb. So if it spreads from one place to another and people get sick then that means it's a virus. So like Chernobyl was a virus right? It spread all over Eastern Europe. The reality of the situation is those kind of observations like in so what you're talking about it say you go to a place and there was always healthy dolphins and then somebody calls you up because you're a dolphin specialist and says oh there's a lot of dolphins getting sick now something must have happened. Now that is it what's called an epidemiological observation. In other words I was fine and then I go to a party and then I got sick or my aunt Bessie went to somewhere and she got sick or all 10 children in my child's class got sick. These are all epidemiological observations and the role of epidemiological observations in science is to generate hypotheses which then can be tested to see what the cause is. You can never and I mean never decide on the cause of a illness based on an epidemiological observation. And the value of it is just to generate hypotheses. So you go to the dolphins so one happened. It could be a micro or it could be that somebody put some stuff in the water or it could be that the glacier came and dropped you know cyanide in the water or it could be a space alien came and put a hex on the dolphins or it could be you know any number of things but you can't use that observation to tell you what the trouble is. You have to find it. Now most people would think it's the first gas like I would if somebody said the dolphins were fine and now they're not I would wonder whether there was like some accident or some oil spill and somebody put some stuff in the water that didn't used to be there because the reality is pretty much every time something like that happens that's what happened. And then if you want you could do an experiment I wouldn't suggest this but you can put a bunch of dolphins in a cage and put the same kind of oil spill in there, toxins and see if they get the same illness and if they do that's pretty good evidence that that was the problem. This business that that proves it's a virus is just incredibly sloppy thinking like that's mad science. so