It’s September 11, 2024. Interesting things happened on September 11. One could even say that September 11 could be called parasite day because the parasites actually put on a show for us. It’s also, interestingly, I don’t. You. I’m sure you don’t know this. It’s my mother’s birthday. She would be 93 now. She’s not alive. By the way, I’ve said this. My father was born on Pearl Harbor Day. Come on. Okay. They were married the day that Kennedy was allegedly shot. So I go, all these coincidences. Yeah, that’s a sort of american history karma right there. Of course, their marriage didn’t last as you would expect with that history.

But anyways, so I am really honored to have Daniel join me for a Wednesday webinar. Daniel is the author of this amazing book which I’ve been telling everybody about. Can you catch a cold? It looks backwards to me, but it’s not backwards in the way it’s written. Um, and it pretty much debunks the idea that we catch colds. So today, uh, this is a subject which I must admit, I’m. I have never really looked into. But, uh, you know, what are parasites and do they make us sick? I think that would be appropriate way to put it.

And I just want to point out, as we’ve talked about over and over again on this webinar, first of all, if you do science, or if you think science, you find the claim and you investigate the claim, and you don’t have to have an alternative explanation. So just, you know, somebody says, so if there’s no virus, what causes chickenpox? That is a scientifically illiterate question. First, you investigate whether there’s a virus and whether it caused chickenpox. So that’s what I think what we’re going to do. And maybe you might even throw in some alternative explanations. I don’t know.

So that’s the first thing. So the second thing is, this is a big deal in, especially in holistic, quote, alternative circles. There are whole companies and there’s literally whole practices that are devoted to killing and finding parasites. And having looked into it a little bit, my only conclusion was they were really difficult to find and impossible to kill. And I just gave up and said, I hope they don’t have anything to do with sickness, but I didn’t really look into it. So I am absolutely looking forward to hearing more about this. And I think with that introduction, I’m just going to turn it over to you, Daniel, and I’m going to sort of go off screen here, but I’ll be here listening because I am really.

It’s one of those subjects, you know, there’s, you know, parasites cause cancer, parasites cause every. Every possible illness. It’s a huge deal. So we really need to know is this just another superstition that’s been foisted on us? So welcome. Take it away and we’ll be here listening. Great. Thank you so much Tom. It’s an honor to be here presenting for you and your viewers. Thanks everyone for coming. There’s a few people watching the live session. I appreciate you taking the time to come and listen to me speak today. My name is Daniel Reuters. Just a very brief history or background about myself.

I spent over a decade working as a lecturer and senior lecturer at universities and colleges around Australia in the field of natural medicine. And for that time I spent most of it teaching students and practitioners that parasites are our enemy and that they’re only there cause us harm. I toed that line for a long time until I really started looking at what the evidence told me. And I’ve since changed my tune. Tonight or this evening or whether you’re on the world, I’ll be sharing some information that I’ve found which may have you question the idea that parasites are actually there to work against us.

They may actually be our friend and not our foe. With any of this information that I’m presenting, don’t believe a word I say. Go and do your own research and come up with your own conclusions. And I’m not really making any claims in this presentation. It’s more about presenting information, asking questions. And then we can come together as a collective and try to come up with answers to these questions to make sure that our understanding about what’s going on with parasites and various other microorganisms is correct. So I don’t claim to know the truth. I don’t claim to be 100% correct or right with any of these things.

But I think it’s important that we have this conversation and it is a very important conversation. I’m going to share my screen so people can see my slides and then we’ll get going. This is quite a jam packed presentation and I will try my best to get through all of it in the time that we have here. So I may need to skip through some slides relatively quickly as we go along, but I’ll cover the main points. So what we’ll talk about today is what is a parasite? We’ll briefly discuss that. Do parasites cause disease? Which is the question at hand here, there’s another question that may surprise some people, is do parasites? And when I’m talking about parasites in this context, I’m talking about protozoa, which are the single celled organisms.

Do they even exist? This may come as a big head scratcher to a lot of people. They may not have heard this idea before. When you start peeling back the layers of this one, you may come up empty handed and realize that actually, there’s a lot of questions around the existence of protozoa, and not just coming from me, coming from the mainstream as well. What evidence supports this belief? And what are some alternative roles of parasites? So, hopefully, we can get through all of that this evening. So, just quickly, what is a parasite? There’s two main forms that people are probably most familiar with.

So we’re talking about protozoa. They’re the single celled organisms. They’re microscopic. Can’t see them with the naked eye. Need a microscope to see these. And we’re talking about things like entamoeba, plasmodium, cryptosporidium, these kinds of things. And then we’ve got the helminths. So they’re larger multicellular organisms. People are very familiar with these. We’re talking about tapeworms, round worms, and flat worms. Okay, so these are the much larger organisms that we can see with the naked eye that most people are probably very familiar with. These are the two main types of parasites. Essentially, they colonize hosts, and we’re told that they colonize a host, usually to the detriment of that host, that they’re working against the host, that they’re an enemy, that they’re a problem, that they’re there to cause illness.

I’m not so sure about that. I think we might need to correct our understanding, and maybe by the end of this presentation, you will ask the same questions that I’m asking. So, under a microscope, if we look at protozoa, this is what some of them look like. So we have plasmodium in the top left corner. That’s the parasite that apparently causes malaria. Then we’ve got leishmania, which is the parasite that it supposedly causes. Leishmaniosis and toxoplasmosis, the parasite in the top right, and there’s a whole bunch of different ones here. And then you can see in the bottom right corner, you’ve got leukocytes and erythrocytes.

And interestingly, they kind of look very similar to a lot of these parasites. That may not just be a coincidence. There may be something to that, and hopefully it’ll become clear as to what that might be as the presentation goes on this evening. So, macroscopic parasites, there’s no question that they exist. Helminths, roundworms, flatworms, tapeworms, we know that they exist because we can see them with the naked eye. But to protozoa, so the single celled microscopic organisms, do they actually exist in the way that we’re told? It’s a loaded question. I haven’t heard anyone ask these questions before.

These questions and discussions that I’m having now are questions and discussions that I bring up in my own private members forum, which is a part of humanly, a website that I have. And I previously presented this to a group of clinicians and health minded people in my group, and we had some interesting back and forth about this. So with protozoa, the mainstream admits that it’s very difficult for them to identify and characterize these things. It’s incredibly difficult. So much so that for the last 40 years, they’ve had very little development in the way of finding and characterizing these things.

So the gold standard today is essentially the gold standard that was developed 40 years ago, and that’s basically by using microscopes to identify these things in patient samples or supposedly identifying them in patient samples. There may be new ways of identifying these things, like PCR tests, for example, but you need to be able to identify these things first in order to be able to develop a test for them. Now, the mainstream, if you look at pathology textbooks around parasitology, they admit that they have a lot of difficulties differentiating so called protozoal parasites from artifacts. When I saw this, some alarm bells went off in my head.

Now, I’m not. I’m a clinician, okay? My training is in naturopathy, natural medicine, this field. I’m not a pathologist. I don’t claim to be one. But I do have some questions around the things that I’m reading in the literature. And when I saw that they have a really tough time differentiating between artifacts in patient samples, like a stool sample or a blood sample, for example, I thought, how do they know what they’re looking at? Are they looking at a parasite? Are they looking at something else? How do they know? We are under this assumption, this erroneous belief that you can look at a patient sample, and it’s very easy to identify these parasites.

They have a very definite shape and size and very definite characteristics. You can look in there and you can see this little parasite swimming around. It’s not the case. It’s not the case at all. So even pathologists can become misled because of protozoa parasites similarity to various other so called parasitic organisms which naturally inhibit our bodies. So what are some of these parasites? Well, sorry, what are some of these artifacts? There’s parasite mimickers. They mimic these protozoa parasites, and they just so happen to be these cells that are a part of our body. So macrophages, leukocytes, these white blood cells, epithelial cells, so tissue that lines our gastrointestinal tract, yeast and starch granules, they mimic parasites.

And even some of the reagents and chemicals that are used in the staining process to look at various samples and observe and visualize these parasites. They can also create artifacts which mimic these protozoa that supposedly are affecting us. Now, these are just some like, I could have had slide after slide after slide of artifacts which are said to be indistinguishable from a lot of these parasites that are supposedly infecting people. Abnormal red blood cells, algae white blood cells, air bubbles, calcifications, chemical additives, cotton and synthetic fibers, cell debris, degenerated host cells, detached cilia, dirt particles, epithelial cells, fat globules, fibrin strands, glove powder, inflammatory cells, insect eggs, lint mast cell granules.

The list goes on and on and on and on. How interesting that these artifacts look exactly the same as these protozoa. Surely these parasites would be so definite in their characteristics that you could differentiate them from all this other stuff which people are seeing or observing in patient samples. So, like, that in itself should ring alarm bells for people that it’s not definite. It’s not a case of being able to observe these things with precision and accuracy. So how do pathologists really know what they’re looking at if they can’t differentiate between these things? Let’s talk about malaria.

This is a big one. So people are probably aware of malaria. It’s the so called parasite, or plasmodium is a so called parasite that causes this illness. We see it in, like, the tropics, for example, named after the or derived from the italian words bad air mal area. And that was because people in swampy locations would get this illness. And originally they thought it was the bad air making people sick. Eventually, they came up, pathologists and doctors came up with this theory that it was mosquitoes biting people that infected them with a parasite, and they became sick.

So they got these symptoms like fever and sweating, diarrhea, vomiting, which is really interesting. We say that this is a disease. You get malarial disease, but none of those things are diseases. Even by the words of the mainstream medical profession, diarrhea and vomiting and a fever are not diseases. So how can we say that even if these parasites were real, that they’re causing disease, they’re causing vomiting and diarrhea and fever. They’re not characterized or defined as diseases. So therefore, in and of itself, we can’t call this so called condition a disease, right? Doesn’t make sense. Malaria was discovered by this french guy, Alphonse labarin, and he observed particles in the blood of infected patients, I think, that were soldiers.

He looked at their blood and he found all these little microscopic particles floating around in infected people’s blood. And you can see, he made little sketches of these so called parasites. On the right hand side, you can see a bunch of images there. They all look very different. But he said that they were all the same thing, they were just different life cycles of the parasite. So he assumed that these particles he was observing were parasites because some of them had flagella. So these little finger like projections you can see on number 29 and 30 and 31, they look like a characteristic parasite, right? And some had these pigmented granules in them as well.

So these little dark spots you can see in number, like, through kind of like seven to 28, I think there’s these little dark granules in there. They call that the malaria pigment. So Labran was actually awarded the Nobel Prize for this work by observing these particles in sick people’s blood. Awarded the Nobel Prize in 1907. There was a guy called James Martin, who translated labyrinth’s work from French to English. And he actually states in his translation that the information that labyrinth put forward offered no conclusive proof that these things that he were observing were the parasite or nor were they the cause of the illness.

There was no conclusive proof yet he was given the Nobel Prize for this. Very interesting. So after Labrin’s work, there was this guy, surgeon Major Ronald Ross, and he thought that malaria was caused by parasites harbored by infected mosquitoes. So he started looking in the stomachs of mosquitoes, like, I don’t even know how you begin to do that, to, like, kill a little tiny mosquito and chop it up and dissect its stomach and look inside. And he was doing this over and over and over again with a whole bunch of different mosquito species and found nothing in there.

And then he looked in a very specific species of mosquito called the anopheles. He looked inside ten anopheles stomachs after they’d fed on people with malaria and in two of those ten mosquitoes, he found, in quotes, some cells which seemed to be slightly more substantial than the cells of mosquitoes stomachs usually are. And he said that those things that he saw were the parasite. Very scientific. And here’s what Ronald Ross said in that paper. It would have been impossible for anyone or for any but a person very familiar with the mosquito anatomy to have distinguished the parasites from the neighboring cells.

So what was he really looking at? He claimed that only I know that they’re parasites, because I’ve been looking in the stomachs of mosquitoes for a long time, and I can tell the cells that are foreign to the mosquito’s stomach. Okay. So he sent his work to a few gentlemen by the name of Manson thin and bland Sutton for review, and what they concluded from his work, that, yes, the particles could have been a parasite, but they could also have been just normal epithelial cells. There was another group of researchers, so surgeon Colonel Edward Laurie and doctor Martin Jordan, they started looking in malarial blood of patients, and they didn’t find any of these so called parasites that Laverne and Ross were finding.

And they actually said that the parasites were merely modified red and white blood cells. So these things, these parasites that these other two guys were observing, Laurie and Jordan, said they were just normal cells innate to the human being. They actually said that these so called parasites, or these abnormal red and white blood cells, occurred after the person had become ill. So they’re actually a consequence of the illness, not a cause of the illness. Now, here’s what Laurie said in one of his papers. He goes, this is a bit of a long quote, but please bear with me.

In malarious fever, cells are found in the blood, which contain dark granules similar to the granules of the leukocyte, or the white blood cell. These cells are called after their discoverer Laverne bodies or plasmodia. They are not found in all diseases of malarious fever. Therefore, they cannot be the cause of the disease. The reasoning of parasites and malaria is a non sequitur. The labyrinth bodies are to be looked upon as perverted modifications of the natural cells in the blood, and in no way as new or independent formations. The essence of this belief is that the Laverne bodies are products of the blood and are the progeny of the cells already existing there, their physical peculiarities being entirely due to the altered cell formation of natural structures.

Essentially, what he’s saying is that what people are observing and claiming to be parasites are actually just our normal cells, just modified red and white blood cells that are modified in response to the illness. But people might say these plasmodium parasites have flagella on them. They’ve got tails and they’re motile, and they swim around. We don’t have such things existing inside us, so therefore it must be a parasite. Well, I went searching to see if there was any evidence to show that maybe red blood cells can develop flagella. Wouldn’t that be interesting? And it turns out that when you take red blood cells from a human being and then start to expose them to various reagents, some of which scientists and pathologists say you must add to a blood sample of people with malaria to visualize the parasite, the addition of these reagents actually form or cause red blood cells to develop flagella, and they become motile.

So these substances are things like anticoagulants, like keratin citrate, sodium oxalate, heparin and ringer solution. So you add that stuff to a sample of red blood cells, and the red blood cells start to develop flagella, and they swim around. So were they really observing a parasite or they adding this stuff into a sample? The red blood cells were responding to the reagents and developing flagella. And the scientists have gone, oh, look, theres a parasite. And then since that time, theyve gone, well, you know, to see the parasite in people with malaria, you have to add these reagents into the sample.

Like, are they creating the thing that they’re looking for? There’s also this thing called malarial pigment. So if I just go back a slide here, you can see the little picture to the right hand side. There’s these two little bean shaped particles. They’re a bit darker purple than the red blood cells around them. And you can see that there’s a much darker shadow inside those particles. They’re the so called malaria pigments. They’re indicative of malaria. Supposedly, this is called malaria pigment. So if you see malaria pigment in these red blood cells, we know that the person’s got malaria.

So what these parasites, these plasmodium parasites do, apparently, is that they infect the red blood cell, and they turn the heme inside the red blood cell. They crystallize it into a thing called hemozoin, and hemozoin is this thing that’s claimed to be the malaria pigment. Now, interestingly, when you add formalin, which is a fixation reagent, which we are told needs to be added to these samples to actually see these malaria parasites. Just so happens, just coincidentally, that the addition of formalin to red blood cells causes artifacts which are indistinguishable from hemozoin or malaria pigment. So you’ve got this massive confounding variable here that the reagent that you’re adding to the sample is causing the effect you’re looking for.

So how do pathologists differentiate between an artifact caused by the formula that they’re adding to the sample and the malaria pigment itself? And let’s just not stop there. There’s also other staining reagents, dust, dirt, and grime, which has been found on slides. Slides which can produce artifacts indistinguishable from this malaria pigment. So what are they looking at? You have to account for the effects of these things which are being added to samples. They haven’t done that, so therefore, we don’t know what they’re really looking at. Are they creating the effects they’re looking for with their methodology? But there’s human experiments, Dan, that have been done which show that people bitten by mosquitoes get malaria.

Actually, there’s not that much convincing evidence. So there’s many experiments that have been done exposing people to the bites of so called infected mosquitoes. Some people got asymptomatic infections, so they didn’t get any symptoms. But when their blood was taken and it was exposed to these various reagents, we would see these so called parasites in their blood. But the opposite is also true. So some people develop symptoms, but then when the doctors looked for the parasite in their blood, they couldn’t find it. So it really goes against this idea that the parasite causes the illness. You’re not finding the parasite in the sick, and then you’re finding the parasite in the well.

It goes against the very logic of cause and effect or establishing cause and effect. And none of these experiments were they using appropriate controls or blinding people to the experimental procedures. And there was no conclusive proof that I could find which shows a cause and effect relationship between mosquito bite, a parasite, and human disease, which is huge, because malaria is just one of these things that we take at face value as being established and based. In fact, it shouldn’t be this hard to find, not for Malaria. This is the big one. So modern experiments, they don’t even give people or expose people to mosquitoes to infect them.

They actually inject them with cultured parasites. It doesn’t reflect the natural mode of transmission. I actually found a paper that said the total reliance on syringe pass parasites gives misleading results and bears little relationship to mosquito borne infections. This paper also said that only mosquito bites initiate an infection comparable to those experienced in nature. So no doubt people get sick or they get symptoms after being bitten by lots of mosquitoes. But is it a parasite, or is there something else going on there? I don’t know. I think we need to look at this with a bit more detail.

Curiously, when people are supposedly injected with these parasites that are develop malaria, so only getting sick in the majority of instances when they’re bitten by a so called infected mosquito. Now, we know that people get sick when they’re bitten by insects all the time, but is it necessarily caused by a parasite? These are the questions we have to ask. Blastocystis, this is another big one that people claim all the time that blastocystis causes disease. So this was a parasite, again, a eukaryote, single celled organism, supposedly, that causes gastrointestinal disease in people. It can also cause, like, skin problems and musculoskeletal issues as well.

So this was discovered by a guy called Alexi Alexieff in 1912, and for a very long time, it was classified as a mysterious parasite due to difficulty characterizing it. And if you actually look to the right hand side of this slide, you can see all the different so called forms of blastocystis got, like a vacuole form, a granular form, a cyst, which is like an egg of this so called parasite. And you’ve got an amoeboid form down in the bottom right corner. So it’s like you’re seeing a person with an illness. You’re looking at a sample taken from them, and you’re finding things in the blood, and you’re going, oh, that looks like a parasite.

That looks like a parasite. None of them look the same. They’re all different, but they’re all claimed to be the parasite. Now, interestingly, like, blastocystis is the most commonly found parasitic infection worldwide. So about a billion people apparently infected with this. 73% of those billion people are asymptomatic. So they don’t have disease, even though they’re infected with this so called parasite. Interesting. So is it another artifact? Are people just observing artifacts in the tissue samples of healthy and sick people and just pointing to arbitrary particles and claiming it to be the parasite? Well, interestingly enough, blastocystis was considered a yeast or an artifact up right up until the 1970s, openly admitted that they thought it was an artifact, that it wasn’t a parasite.

They thought that for 60 years, even when Alexiev discovered this so called parasite, there were people that came out and said that he was wrong, that it wasn’t a parasite and he was simply looking at pollen grains and the eggs of round worms and thread worms and tapeworms in people’s guts and confusing it with the blastocystis. In many experiments, it’s been mistaken. This parasite’s been mistaken for degenerated tissue cells, vegetable cells, yeast cells. Even degenerated liver cells have been misidentified as blastocystis hominy. PCR is said to be really sensitive to detect this so called parasite. But what was the reference standard they were using? So how do they know that the sample that they were using to develop the PCR test wasn’t a degenerated liver cell or a yeast cell or a pollen grain or something? How do they know it was actually the blastocystis hominy that they were doing the test for? So what’s the reference standard that they were using there? If they were testing for something that wasn’t the parasite, then the test is meaningless.

I’m not saying that that was what happened, but how did they know? How do they confirm they had the parasite in the sample in the first place? If it’s really hard to identify and characterize this thing, Blastocystis is this parasite that many clinicians blame as the cause of illness. Like, you hear this said by naturopaths and integrative medicine doctors all the time. Oh, you got Blastocystis hominy. That’s why you’ve got these gastrointestinal issues. I could find one experiment published in the literature where people have been exposed to this so called parasite. One. So they did a stool or a fecal transplant.

They took a bunch of healthy people and they introduced fecal matter from sick people with blastocystis into their gastrointestinal tracts. None of the people. So 16 recipients and none of them got sick. So what’s going on there? How come they didn’t get ill? If you’re taking the parasite and you’re introducing it into another person’s gastrointestinal tract, yet they’re remaining. Well, maybe the parasite doesn’t cause disease. Maybe it’s not a parasite at all. Like, maybe they’re just transferring pollen grains and things into other people’s guts under the assumption it’s a parasite. But it’s not. So it’s openly admitted that Koch’s postulates have never been fulfilled for this so called parasite.

And there’s no experimental evidence that plasticystis causes disease. Lishmanniosis is another one. Sorry, I know I’m going through this quickly, but I’m trying to get through it in the time that I have. Okay? So I’m still okay for time. So, leash maniosis is a disease supposedly caused by sand flies. So people get bitten by sand flies and they start to get this cutaneous manifestation of an illness. So they’re getting skin lesions, ulcers, the breakdown of their skin. And it’s a fairly chronic kind of condition. These sores on people’s arms and legs and faces and wherever else where they’re bitten can take two to five years to heal.

You can see on the right hand side here, these are sketches of the so called parasite. And you can see that they’re all very different, these particles that are being observed in sick people. Now, we’re told that this is the life cycle of the parasite. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Maybe they’re just indiscriminate particles. So, lishmaniosis, asymptomatic infection, occurs in up to 60% of people. Now, this is a bit of a paradox here because it primarily affects people living in impoverished and food insecure areas. So if you have an asymptomatic infection, you’ve got the parasite inside you.

And the reason you’re not sick is because you’ve got a strong immune system. But the people who are primarily infected with this, who are asymptomatic, are malnourished. They don’t have access to clean drinking water or housing or medical care or good food or anything else that you need to establish and maintain a strong immune system. So how is it they can have asymptomatic infection? It’s a bit of a paradox. No one seems to be able to answer this question. So when was this illness first identified? In 1900, there were 200 soldiers doing an operation in the woods of Winchester.

Now were bitten by sand flies and developed skin lesions. It was claimed that the sandflies transmitted a parasite into the soldiers and they got sick. But the locals were completely unfamiliar with this disease. They’d never seen it before, which is sort of interesting, considering the locals have been living there for their entire lives, generation after generation after generation. They’d never seen this illness before. But a bunch of soldiers come in doing these operations and they apparently get sick after being bitten. Doesn’t make much sense to me. So we’re told that it’s a parasite, but the results of human experiments are very unconvincing.

There’s a range of experiments here. I’m not going to go through all of them. But essentially what they did in these experiments was that they either took healthy people and had them bitten by hundreds of these infected sand flies. Sometimes they took the lesions of sick people and injected them into healthy people. Sometimes they scraped holes in people’s arms and took some of the infected flies and crushed them up and put them inside the wounds of infect of healthy people. There’s experiment after experiment after experiment after experiment. No one got the disease. No one got the disease.

They couldn’t recreate it experimentally. So there was this guy that was doing a few of these experiments in the 1920s, Doctor Charles Morley Wenyan. And this is what he concluded from some of his work and others work. He says an unforeseen obstacle has arisen in that experimental animals and man fail to contract the disease when fed upon by large numbers of heavily infected sand flies. Whether this obstacle will be overcome or whether it is an indication that, as has happened before in connection with these diseases, we are on the wrong track. Future work alone can disclose, he says.

In conclusion, if the sand fly is not the transmitter of the Leishmania infections of man, we are as far off the solution of the problem as we ever were. On account of the failure of experimental animals on which infected sand flies have been allowed to feed, researchers have begun to doubt if the sand fly is really the cause. So again, like we are told this story about leishmaniosis and malaria and these different parasitic infections, but we just don’t have the experimental evidence there a to establish the existence of these so called single cellular parasites, or the contagion data or the infection data, the experiments were unable to create the disease.

The last one I’ll just briefly mention is Guillardia. Everyone’s very familiar with this. Supposedly, you drink contaminated water, this parasite infects your gut, and you get vomiting and diarrhea. Again, vomiting and diarrhea are not diseases. So I don’t know, like, what is it causing? Right? Maybe there’s something in the water that people are trying to flush out of their system. Is it the parasite? I don’t know. Interestingly, up to 83% of infected people are asymptomatic with Guillardia. Same thing with the leash maniosis that the developing world is. This sort of immunity paradox going on where you see a lot of people with Guillaudia in impoverished places where they’re not getting access to good food and drinking water and housing and whatever.

So they shouldn’t have strong immune systems, yet they’re asymptomatically infected. Guardia is one of the most commonly misidentified parasites. They misidentify it with yeast and algae and ciliates, host cells, diatoms, cellular debris. So you think you can take a sample, look at it. Oh, there’s the guyardia. It’s really easy to see. No, it’s not. There’s all these other things which mimic guardia. Interestingly, when they so called, or they apparently isolate guyardia, they have to cultivate it or grow it with yeast and fungi. They have to grow it with yeast or fungi. Why do they have to add yeast and fungi in when yeast and fungi can mimic guillotia? So you’re adding in stuff into a patient sample which mimics the thing you’re looking for.

Like, is that not confusing the whole picture? Why can they only find Guillardia once they’ve added these things into the patient sample? There’s been many human experiments that have failed to infect people with Guillardia. In one experiment, they managed to cause illness in 50% of participants. So there was ten people in the group. They were infected with giardia, and they did that by shoving a tube down people’s throats into their small intestine and then lavaging this so called parasite lavage into their intestines. Some of them got some symptoms, vomiting, diarrhea, gastrointestinal discomfort. And they said it was the Guillardia.

But interestingly, they put in antibiotics, bile acids, keisters, modified medium, and they mixed that all together to cultivate the parasite, and they took the parasite out, added it with phosphate buffered saline, and put that into people’s small intestines. Yet the symptoms or the side effects of ingesting phosphate buffered saline were the symptoms that were apparently caused by the parasite. So how can you say it was the parasite and not the phosphate buffered saline that caused the problem? Like, there’s so many inconsistencies here, it’s not clear cut what’s really going on. I don’t claim one way or the other that I know, but I think we really need to be careful about making any conclusions based on this contradictory and confounded evidence.

So roundworms, tapeworms, hookworms, we know that they existed. This is clear. We can see these with the naked eye. But are they the cause of disease? I worked in a clinic for a while that was actually giving helminths or worms to people. So people with, like, Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, they were giving worms to people and they were getting better and there’s actually a lot of data in the literature where this has been demonstrated clinically and experimentally, where people with a wide range of conditions are fed parasites, their problem goes away. So what are these worms really doing? There’s a lot of data out there that demonstrates that these so called parasites are there for bio transformation, bioremediation and biosequestration processes.

So what they’re there is to do, possibly, is to consume toxic material inside a person’s gut. So they’re biased, sequestering it. They transform it into a non toxic substance so the body can excrete it. So you’re not absorbing these toxic, harmful chemicals. So it’s bio transforming it. And that allows for the tissue to remediate itself, to repair itself, because now it’s not being exposed to this harmful toxin all the time. Just one moment. I’m just going to check the time. Okay, so I’m pretty well on time. I should be done in the next five to six minutes.

So what could these so called worms and things be doing in our gut? We know that we’re exposed to a lot of microplastic. We’re ingesting grams of it every week. So could worms and these so called parasites infect us? Infect us to protect us from this plastic that if absorbed into our system, can stay there for a really long time. It’s very difficult for our body to get rid of it. So we know that roundworm eggs are here to plastic things like polystyrene, for example. There’s not really much more evidence out there at the moment on this in humans.

But if we look to nature and what worms and things are doing in nature in regards to being exposed to plastic, is that they take microplastic, like earthworms, for example, they turn it into various other substances, like organic acids, which are non toxic and are excreted back into the environment. And they can be used as an energy and fuel source for other microorganisms. We also know that wax worms, mealworms and superworms do this too. They bio transform plastic. So if you’re ingesting something which the human body cannot use, is it possible that you start to grow worms in your gut and they eat up all the plastic that you’re being exposed to, transform it into a non toxic substance, and then you excrete it out.

And maybe the waste products that are being produced from that process, the body needs to clear out because you don’t want to absorb that stuff and you get diarrhea and you get all these gastrointestinal symptoms. And we see that as a disease and a problem, but it’s actually the answer to the problem. The worms may be there to protect us. We know that worms are really good at heavy metal remediation. We know that helminth bioaccumulate and bio remediate heavy metals. We know that animals who have these so called parasites in their gut, when they’re exposed to heavy metals, the worms absorb it.

They act as sentinels. They’re actually referred to as sentinels in some papers. They’re there to protect the host, the animal, by absorbing those things, those heavy metals in the gut before they’re absorbed and they go systemically to the other organs in the body. It’s protecting the animal. We know this. So could they be protecting us? If you’re exposed to heavy metal in your water supply, and then a worm comes along to eat that metal up before you absorb it, and it goes into your bloodstream and goes into deposits in your liver and your brain, and that could cause problems.

The worm comes along to act as a sentinel at the intestinal border and blocks that stuff from coming in, eats it up, turns it into a non toxic substance. We know that worms do this and then you excrete it out. We know that tapeworms in rats, they accumulate heavy metals at a ratio of three to one to ten to one compared to the host tissue. So they’re accumulating the heavy metal. This happens in a lot of different animals. I just wanted to give you a quick personal experience as well. There’s a bunch of my goat friends here, and we noticed that when they started going to the neighbor’s yard, they were eating some of the trees that had been sprayed with pesticide.

Shortly after, they developed worms pooping out intestinal parasites. So was the parasite causing the diarrhea? Or was it the fact that the goats had eaten pesticide laden greenery and the parasites came along to protect their body from the pesticide? I don’t know. We have to ask these questions. We saw the parasites there. We saw the gastrointestinal problems. But were they the cause or were they the consequence? The final thing I’ll end on here is people will say yes, but we do parasite cleanses, and I feel better when the parasite goes away. There’s all these different herbs.

There’s wormwood, there’s garlic, there’s coriander, all kinds of different anti parasitics. It just so happens in nature, where things like wormwood, for example, grow is in soil which is being contaminated with heavy metals. And what does wormwood do? Is it bioremediates the soil. It absorbs the heavy metals out of the soil and converts it into a non toxic methylated substance. So those heavy metals now no longer act as a source of damage to the environment. So when we ingest these so called anti parasitics like wormwood and garlic and whatever, which we know, all have heavy metal chelating properties, and they upregulate detoxification pathways in the body.

Are they simply getting rid of the food source for the parasite? So they’re binding to the heavy metal and moving it out of the body, possibly even in the intestinal tract, before it gets absorbed. And by doing so, it takes the burden off the parasite. So it doesn’t have to stay there to try and protect us from this heavy metal or plastic or whatever else it is that we’re being exposed to. So then the parasite packs up its bags and leaves, and we go, ah, see, the plant killed the parasite, and now I’m better. But actually, that’s not what was going on.

It was that it was, the plant was acting as a chelator in upregulating detoxification pathways. So, in conclusion, from my perspective, there is doubt over the existence and characteristics of protozoa. I’m not convinced that these things really do cause disease. And if they do exist, what is their potential role in the gut? Well, I don’t know. I don’t know what they’re there for. Maybe they’re just artifacts and they don’t really exist. Maybe they’re there for another reason. Do they cause disease? Well, we don’t have that evidence yet, so we can’t make that claim. Maybe they do cause disease.

I don’t know. Someone much smarter than me needs to look at this with a critical eye and really get to the bottom of the. Of the problem. Protozoa may be our own pleomorphic cells, modified fungi, cell debris, artifacts. Who knows? There’s an absence of experiments fulfilling Koch’s postulates for any of these parasites, the parasites we can see. So worms play key roles in bioremediation and biosequestration processes in the human body. So they’re there as our friends, not our foe. There’s studies in red foxes, for example, and they’ve shown that red foxes that are exposed to heavy metals, the ones that have the worms in their gut, when they kill the fox and they look in its internal organs, they find that it’s got very low levels of heavy metals in the organs.

But the foxes that don’t have the parasites, when they’re killed, they find lots of heavy metal in their internal organs. So the parasites are there to protect the host. If they’re doing that in animals, are they doing that in us? We also see these worms, earthworms, wax worms, mealworms, biodegrading things like plastic and turning it into non toxic substances in the environment. So are the worms outside in nature possibly doing the same role or playing the same role as the worms inside us? Maybe. And the final point, there, are parasite cleansers really working by killing parasites, or are they working by killing microorganisms? So that’s it.

I’m going to stop there. I know there was a lot, and I went through it really quickly, but there was a lot of things that needed to be brought up. I hope that this highlights some points and questions that we can start to discuss with a broader audience. And as I said, people with much more brilliant minds than me can look at this question and hopefully we can get to the bottom of it. All right. That was kind of exactly what I was expecting and hoping. The only part I disagree with, I think, is I’m not sure we’re going to find anybody with a more brilliant mind, but we can look, and I’m not sure where they are, because what I heard was just clear logic, scientific thinking.

That’s what I heard. And I’m also really glad I hear so many times. Yeah, but Tom, how do you explain that antibiotics work? That must prove that bacteria cause disease? What do you say about so and so took fabendazole and their tumor went away? And so that proves it must be parasites. And on and on and on. The principle behind that is if you use something that has more than one possible explanation to prove a claim that’s not rational, logical, scientific thinking. In other words, the example I’ve used for years is your wife comes home late from work, and you say she’s having an affair, which is truly one possible explanation.

But she could have a flat tire, she could have stopped for milk, she could have to work late. There are many other possible explanations. Right? Therefore, that is inadmissible as the proof that you know of using that to prove that you know your claim, that should be clear. And as you pointed out, and as is true with antibiotics, have many other effects. They have an anti inflammatory effect. They get rid of metals, they inhibit metal enzymes. That’s why tetracyclines are used in cancer medicine, etcetera, and they prevent the natural cycle of disease remediation. You cannot use that as a proof that bacteria cause disease.

Similar people say, yeah, but I took wormwood and I got better. I mean, wormwood has been used for a lot of things for a lot of reasons for thousands of years. You know, in chinese medicine, they use it for external poison. So to say that that proves its parasites is. That’s wonky thinking. So I’m glad you pointed that out because you hear that all the time. And I don’t know what fibendazole is doing. I don’t know if you have any comment on that or. No idea. No idea. Yeah, but it even goes to the. Is the tumor really the disease? Right.

Or is that just the accumulation of toxins, maybe even metals or other toxic stuff, and it’s actually inhibiting that. So these are we. We are we. We have been sold a wonky way of looking at health and illness. It’s just really misdirected. And I think what you’re doing, and I hope everybody checks out your website and you got to get the book, can you catch a cold to understand how this all works with contagion and all of. And it’s just what actually has been shown. That’s what you’re doing. What has been shown. There’s all these claims, but what has actually been shown.

So, again, thank you. I don’t know if you have anything else final words to say here, but no, I just thank you for the opportunity to come and talk about this, Tom. I haven’t spoken with this or about this with anyone outside of my, um, sort of circle in the health hub on humanly. So it’s a great opportunity to come out and talk about something that I think is very important. I think a lot of people are very confused about parasites. Yeah. And maybe we just need to course correct here. We just need to re retrain it or reframe our thinking.

And when we do that, we can make sense of what’s really going on, and we can get to the bottom of the problem here, which I really think is quite simple. And I think it’s just all of the toxic impurities that we’re exposed to in our environment. Like, let’s clean up the environment first. And then once all that stuff has been taken care of, then we can maybe start looking at parasites and see where the chips have fallen. Right. Yeah. Starving and poisoning. That’s where it’s at. All right, Daniel, thanks, everybody, for joining me. And just remember, there are parasites out there, but not the ones we usually think.

And I. We’re celebrating them on parasite day. Today, so take care, and we’ll take a look at your comments. And again, thanks, Daniel, for really wonderful. You got to talk to the vets because they’re really into parasites. Yeah. Okay, everybody. Thanks, Daniel. Thanks, Tom.
[tr:tra].

See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.