Summary
➡ Quantum relativity theory suggests that all motion is relative, meaning you can’t definitively say which of two objects is moving. The speaker humorously applies this to everyday life, suggesting that instead of him going to the grocery store, the store could come to him. He also discusses quantum bilocation, the idea that things can exist in two places at once, and quantum simultaneity, the concept that things can exist in two forms at once, both determined by the observer. However, his attempts to apply these principles in practical ways, like waiting for the grocery store to come to him or trying to turn his cat into a rabbit, are unsuccessful.
➡ The speaker criticizes the complexity of quantum physics, suggesting it’s illogical and nonsensical. They argue that we should focus on observable, testable principles like electromagnetism, which can be used to create practical inventions. They also discuss the issue of mold toxicity, suggesting that it’s not the mold itself, but the toxic materials it grows on that cause illness. Lastly, they express dissatisfaction with politics and the focus on germ theory over terrain theory.
➡ The text discusses skepticism about the existence of viruses and the effectiveness of government control. It questions the validity of certain scientific studies and the reliability of politicians. It also delves into the specifics of the ELIZA HIV test, questioning its accuracy and the concept of antibodies. The author emphasizes the importance of personal freedom and vigilance against increasing regulations.
➡ The text discusses how chemical reactions in tissues can fluctuate based on various factors, but these changes don’t necessarily relate to antibodies or viruses. It also explains that pulse oximeters don’t measure oxygen levels, but rather the charge of certain molecules in the blood, which can indicate a person’s health. The author argues against the existence of prions, suggesting they’re a fabricated explanation for diseases when no bacteria or viruses are found, and criticizes the use of toxic chemicals and electromagnetic influences on wildlife.
Transcript
But before I get into that, there’s a few announcements. One is we are fortunate enough to partner with our good friend Alex Zek, who is now offering Zhigong classes to our members of the new biology clinic. So I think I’m going to get this correct. There is a video of the first class that is available to current members. And if you’re not a current member and you’re thinking about it, one of the benefits that you would get would be to be able to participate in Alex Zhigong classes. I can’t emphasize enough how much doing some sort of regular movement either.
Walking, gardening. I do the primal movement with Pat and Zhigong. There’s lots of different ways of doing it, but any of those options are probably good. The option that’s not good is not moving. So I encourage everybody to have that as a part of their regular daily practice. The other thing is we have some new products and by the way, every once in a while I read on the comments criticism of Colin. He’s just a shill for products and just trying to sell, make money and stuff. So there’s no doubt we’re trying to run a business and we’re trying to make money and we’re proud of that and happy to try to do that.
And we’re happy to be engaged in a enterprise where we’re trying to bring value to people’s lives. One of the ways we do that is by searching for the people and the products that will enhance your life. Many of them have enhanced my life and are the things that I used for years in my medical practice or the best foods that we can find. You know, our, our ghee is probably the best or one of the best ghee products I’ve ever seen. We have amazing granola. We have some great vegetable powders. It’s really hard to find organically grown burdock powder and biodynamically grown dandelion powder anywhere else.
So that’s really what we’re doing is going out making arrangements with people who are making the best food and medicine and natural healing products we could find and then freely offering them to whoever interested. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to buy it and that’s fine. But if you’re interested in having us be the a resource and a place to take some of the burden off of you researching products and getting things from 20 different places, I would encourage you to do some of your shopping with us because we really do our homework and really investigate these products.
That’s what we’re doing. The same with the new biology Clinic. They’re really. I keep being incredibly impressed with our practitioners and our team and how we’re working in our meetings. You know, I’ve learned so much from my fellow practitioners. I’m not a active practitioner myself anymore. So it’s really a place where if you have questions, we have an incredible group of people who can probably help you try to figure out your way through your healing journey. So I have nothing but admiration and I’m just glad we’re doing this and I hope you join us and participate in our work in our business.
So the three new products. One is a new hot sauce which I have used myself for the past week. I’m actually generally not a big fan of hot sauce. I never found one that I liked. But this one is made from fresh organic ingredients and structured water and the best kind of salt. And it’s naturally fermented and the taste is great. And I have become one of those people who puts hot sauce on. I wouldn’t say everything, but a lot of things, which is new for me because I’m generally not been that person. So I would encourage everybody to check out the hot sauce.
The second one is the upon mushrooms. And I of course, like anybody who’s really looked into this. Big fan of medicinal mushrooms. They definitely deserve a place in our, not only our diets, but our medicine. And I’ve actually a big user of mushrooms. I buy bags of dried wild mushrooms from Northwest Wild Food, which by the way, I’m not afraid or shy about recommending things that’s from some other companies that, you know, we don’t carry because we don’t carry everything, obviously. So that’s where I get my bags of dried wild mushrooms. I rehydrate them and pretty much whenever I have soup or eggs, I put some rehydrated dried mushrooms there.
Combination of morels and oyster mushrooms and shiitakes and a bunch of other things, all wild harvested. So Apon is maybe the king of the medical mushrooms. And it’s not something that I knew about or used, although the vet at our clinic, Maureen, she has looked into this a lot and actually uses that with pets. So what I would encourage you to do is check it out on our website and then follow the links to the website of the people who make it and read the testimonials and the history of this. They, of course, do a lot of old biology wording, but I wouldn’t worry about that because to me, the most important thing is what happens when people eat it or take it.
And you hear a lot of stories, and I’m always looking for things that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. You know, people recovering from whatever lupus or cancer or, you know, gangrene or whatever it is, things that just generally don’t happen. And you hear a lot of stories of people taking the mushrooms and the other supplemental things that they’re using and getting pretty dramatic results and that and personal testimonials that I heard myself got me to think this is something that we can offer our people. So that’s the wild Upon Apan mushroom. Check it out. And like everything, you know, check it out yourself.
And the third new product is Bet Night Clay. I believe they’re coming in mirin jars. And button eye clay is something that I’ve used a lot in my life, basically for drawing out rashes and wounds and splinters and even has a sort of, you know, skin healing effect, so on blemishes and acne and just as a sort of facial tonic. But mostly I’ve used it with, like, insect bites and actually sucking out toxins from the skin. Bentonite clay is a safe and very effective way. It’s something we thought should be in everybody’s medicine cabinet. And so that’s why we decided to find the best bentonite clay we could, have it put in mirin jars so it stays as active and fresh as possible.
And that’s what we’re offering on our site. So please, everybody check those out and let us know what you think. Okay, so quantum physics. And I said I was going to examine a few of the principles of quantum physics with a little bit of a look at. Is there any application, let’s use that word for quantum physics or the understanding of quantum physics in our lives. One of the reasons I thought about this is because one of the things that is generally not understood is that in the beginning of the 20th century, there was a real revolution in physics.
And essentially they changed the entire conception of how we see the world. And the rubric that that generally comes under are things like relativity theory and quantum physics. And so this has been picked up in the sort of popular parlance in the popular culture and also in medicine and biology. And so you hear a lot of people now, especially in the holistic or alternative space, talking about quantum helium, quantum water stations and quantum effects and quantum this and quantum that. And so I thought I would take a quick look at what are they talking about. Because as most people probably can imagine, generally speaking, most people don’t know what they’re talking about.
They don’t know the foundational principles of this quantum way of looking at the world. They don’t know where it originated, who it originated from, what the evidence that it was real was, and why people are so intent on using that framework to describe their medicine or their work in the world. So I thought I would take a quick look at three of the core principles. Now, the first one probably has more to do with relativity than it has to do with quantum physics. But they’re similar. Relativity has more to do with the very large scale. And quantum physics has more to do with the sub sub, very small, sub sub microscopic, I.
E. Very small scale. So this one’s more to do with relativity, but it’s in the same framework. And that is that all motion, according to quantum relativity theory, is relative. And what does that mean? And again, my. Partly my interest, and in a sense you can imagine my complaint is people throw these concepts around. But rarely, if ever, do people actually know what they’re talking about. And even some of the people who use them and talk about them and refer to them, I have a suspicion that they don’t actually know what they’re talking about. So it’s like many things, the.
The foundation of this is very simple. That means if you have two objects like a cup and a pen, and you have the pen moving in some relationship to the cup like this, according to relativity, that you cannot tell whether the pen this is moving or the cup is moving. Let me say that again. Whenever there’s a motion involving two or more objects, there is no way to tell which of the two objects is moving. Now, interestingly, most people would say not absolutely because there probably is some movement of the cup, but the pen is moving and the cup is staying stationary.
But there, of course, are times when you’re moving in a train and you can’t tell whether the trees are moving or you’re moving or things like this. So they’ve generalized that principle and said that essentially it is a principle of nature. It is a principle, or in other words, almost like a law of how the world is organized, how the world works, that when two or more objects are moving, they are moving only relative to each other. And you cannot with certainty say one is absolutely moving and the other is staying the same. That is an old fashioned, non quantum, non relativistic way of looking at the world.
So again, very simple. Two objects moving, even though it looks to you like the pen is moving and the cup is staying the same. That’s not true. They are moving only in relationship to each other. And so they’re just different frames of reference. So you cannot say one is moving, the other is still, that they’re both. It’s just different frames of reference. Okay, so that’s the first principle. Now, in thinking about how to apply that, I thought, well, okay, generally speaking, in my life I have, using non relativistic principles, thought. So if I want to go to the food store, you know, the, usually the farm market, to buy some food, like lemons or whatever, I need to get in my car and drive to the food market.
But if you use relativistic principles, the principle that all motion is relative, then it would be equally true to say I’m driving in my car to the food store as to say the food store is moving to come to my house. Therefore, I’ve decided to be a modern person and believe in modern relativity, that I am now going to wait for the food store to come to my house. And the repercussion of that, which is the real world consequence that provides you a benefit is I’ve actually probably lost a little bit of weight and my food bill is way down because as of yet, the food store has not come to my house.
Okay, so that’s the first one. Now the second one is something that people refer to a lot, which is called quantum b location. And what that means is, and they have experiments which allegedly prove this, although I couldn’t actually track down A very clear and specific experiment that proved this was that when you investigate this quantum world, this sub, sub microscopic world, that you can prove that objects, things. So let’s just be careful about the wording we’re talking about. Actual things exist in two different places at the same time. Let me say that again. Quantum bilocation, which people often refer to, means that there are things, not ideas or not energy fields or something that actually exist in two different places at the same time.
So again, thinking about this and how to apply this in daily life and thinking, well, I would like to have a house on the beach, but I don’t really have the money can. I can’t really afford doing that. But if quantum bilocation is true, then I already have a house. So apparently this has a lot to do with one’s conception and how you design the experiment. In other words, your mind affects whether things are in two places at the same time. So I thought, okay, I’ll use my mind and imagine that my current house is in two places at the same time, including, so one of which is the place that I live, and the other place would be at the beach.
And I’ve found the place and I’ve been imagining that, and as of yet the house has not shown up on the beach front property. So of course I asked a physicist that I know about this, and he said, well, Tom, you idiot, it’s because the house is too big, so it’s not on the quantum scale. So I asked him, of course, so like, it has to be a lot smaller, like a mosquito. And that may be why mosquitoes are, and flies are so hard to get rid of, because if they’re in two places at the same time, then it’s obviously, even if you kill one, they exist in another place and so it becomes doubly hard to actually get rid of them.
And he said, no, that’s way too big. Mosquitoes, flies, ants, bacteria, none of that stuff exists two places at the same time. So of course, being me, I asked him, so at what, what size? Like at 10 angstroms, which is very small, then it exists only at one place at the same time. But 9.9 Angstroms, it exists at two different places at the same time. And of course he didn’t answer, but the real answer was the only things that exist at two different places at the same time are things that are invisible and in fact unquantifiable or unobservable.
Better, let’s stick with unobservable, which of course begs the question of if something is invisible and unobservable, how do you actually know that it exists at two different places at the same time? And as of yet, I haven’t been able to find an answer for that. So that was the second principle. The third principle, I think you could call simultaneity, which is a big word, not sure if that’s even a word, but that means that things. And again, we’re talking about actual things in the world can exist in two different forms at the same time. And interestingly, the form that they are found in one of these two.
Or maybe even more, but let’s say two different forms at the same time. Is dependent on the observations of the observer. In other words, the form that the thing takes Is dependent on the. The what the observer is focusing on. And this, of course, is a. Is the conclusion of the famous double slit experiment. Where things are either particles or waves. Depending on what the is in the mind or the. In the attention of the observer. Sometimes this is also called the observer effect. So again, to reiterate that or make it clear. The quantum simultaneity principle Is that the things of our world Exist in two different forms at exactly the same time.
And that form is determined by the attention or focus of the observer. So I thought, how can I put this into practice and make use of it? Because after all, these things should actually affect our world. And be practical and have applications. And I realized that there are people who come over to our house, even family members sometimes who are actually allergic to cats. And so that’s a problem. And they sneeze and don’t have such a good time. And I thought, we need to do something about that. So I thought, well, maybe when they come, if I could focus my attention, I could turn Pumpkin into a rabbit.
In other words, because all things have the ability to be two different things at the same time. I could focus my attention on Pumpkin being a rabbit. And then he would turn into a rabbit. And then when the person left, I could turn him back with my attention back into a cat. So of course, I ran this by Pumpkin. And he was a little skeptical at first, but eventually agreed. And even I can show you a picture here. He tried to participate in it. So here’s a picture of Pumpkin. So he laid down and tried to pretend he was like a bunny rabbit.
And we worked on this for a while and I used my mind. And unfortunately, at this point we have not been able to turn Pumpkin into a bunny rabbit. But again, it may be the principle that you can. This only works with things that are very small. In other words, things that you are invisible and you cannot actually observe. Which of course begs the question of how you know they’re two different things at the same time. If you can’t observe them ever. And at the end of the day, I hope you can understand that quantum stuff is mostly make believe.
Well, let me qualify that. It is a contrived, made up way of seeing the world to convince you as interestingly, the modern physicists say now that the way the world is actually organized is nonsensical, illogical, irrational, and cannot be understood by our normal logical minds. Which of course begs the question of why we should even study this since we can’t make any sense out of it. But there is another interpretation of that these laws, these quantum laws that they’re finding are reflect the way the world really is. And the world is really irrational and illogical and nonsensical.
And that is, it’s not the world that’s illogical, irrational and nonsensical. It’s the people making the laws. And the laws have no relation to reality. And anybody who’s trying to sell you on quantum ideas is probably doing the sort of WC Fields, you can fool some of the people a lot of the time and make a good living off it. So that’s my take on quantum stuff. And with that, let’s actually go to questions now. I couldn’t print the questions out, so I’m going to have to bring them up and I’ll bring them up and then get rid of them and that’ll be a little tedious, but that’s the best way I could think of doing it.
Okay, so share first question. Interesting. Some of the questions had to do with quantum is quorum. And I think they mean quantum sensing based on some ideas of quantum physics or information spreading through morphogenic field. Or does the science have another way of describing that? So let me get rid of that. So just to qualify this, we, we do have the observation that things are able to be transmitted across great distances a lot more quickly than you would expect from normal life. Even the idea that we’re doing this kind of wireless transmission and you’re hearing me in Australia or Austria or New Zealand or Mexico or Guatemala or New York or California, all at the same time is actually mind blowing.
But rather than try to postulate some mechanism which only is effective at very small and therefore unobservable levels, I think it would be far more fruitful to try to investigate the property of electromagnetic waves, which are testable and repeatable and observable, and you can manipulate them and create effects with them. And we know that we’re swimming in an electromagnetic universe. We live in an electromagnetic field. And our electronic devices all work on these fundamental and old principles of physics, of electromagnetism, which works on any different scale you can imagine, from the smallest to the largest, and the scale that we run our lives on.
And so we seem to be able to create effects over long distances by sending different waves, radio waves, all different kinds of electromagnetic waves, and have effects. And we don’t need to introduce principles that are basically just belief systems that can’t be tested and can’t be worked with. And I think we would be a lot better off and make a lot more interesting and innovative inventions if we would stick to what’s actually real in our world. And this is the principle that when we talk, when I talk about new biology as not being new at all, but being a re examination and a recreation and a refounding of the principles that people used to build cathedrals and healing centers and these electromagnetic harvesting devices which we call the buildings of the old world, they were working with very simple, knowable, provable, logical, rational, scientific principles, using sound waves, light waves, to manipulate and create buildings and move things and do things.
And we pretend like instead of those kind of rules, which then we could actually use to run our world in a healthy way, we start making up illogical, irrational rules and principles like, I just went over, and they get us nowhere. And I just wonder if all that is by design. In other words, they create a world which gets us nowhere in the real world because the principles are actually not real. And if we just stuck to the principles that are real in our real world, then we would be able to actually discover and make things and create free energy and free healing devices much more effective than anything we have now.
Okay, I know this is a little tedious, but in the terrain space, there seems to be an opinion that sickness from indoor molds isn’t really a thing and that molds are natural and we have evolved with them, so therefore not toxic. What are my thoughts on this? So best I can figure is, so again, the question is, how would you answer this? So to me, that’s more important than me pronouncing my, you know, opinion on whether molds are toxic or not. And this is not a subject that I’ve spent a lot of time looking into. I’ve spent enough, and I’ve heard from other people who seem to have looked into it, that I would say I’m relatively confident in what I’m about to say, which is similar to bacteria or other fungus.
How would you prove that it’s the mold and nothing but the mold that causes the symptoms? So obviously you would have to take growing mold and expose that to people and then have another group of more or less identical people in identical conditions, in identical rooms, identical airflow, and don’t expose them to mold and see if you can therefore prove that the mold is the independent variable that causes this or that symptoms in those otherwise, well, people. Now, that should be a simple experiment to do. And before anybody makes the claim that they have proven that it’s the mold that is the disease causing agent, they should be able to point to that study or have done the study themselves or somehow linked to that study.
And as far as I know, nobody has done that study. So at this point, the best you can say is we don’t know if it’s the mold. So then the next study that should be done or the next way of looking at that is to put the mold on various substrates like drywall and other building materials, and see if you could document mold on say, healthy normal growing medium versus mold on drywall, or mold on chemically treated wood or something like that. And then you could separate whether, if anybody gets sick, whether it’s the mold growing on a quote, normal or healthy medium versus the mold growing on drywall or chemically treated wood.
Because if the mold on the healthy growing surface growth medium doesn’t make people sick, and the mold growing on drywall or chemically treated wood does make people sick, then it’s not the mold per se, it’s the mold volatilizing or somehow making available the chemicals or the material in those building material that’s what’s making you sick. Now, again, I don’t know that that study has ever been done. As far as I know, no. But my guess is, and it’s only a guess until that actually is done, that what they would find is mold growing on healthy medium never makes anybody sick, and that it’s the mold growing on toxic material like drywall and chemically treated wood and other chemically soaked substances, that’s what is making people sick.
So the mold is just a vehicle for volatilizing chemicals which otherwise do make you sick. And so this is important because killing the mold will essentially not solve the problem. It may have a temporary helpful effect because if the mold isn’t there and the chemicals don’t get volatilized, that may cut down in the symptoms. But the real problem is the chemically treated environment that the mold is growing on. And I would say that it’s very clear to me that we live in very toxic houses that don’t have good airflow, that are impregnated with all sorts of toxic chemicals, and that are extremely unhealthy places to live.
And we’ve erroneously blamed all these problems on the mold and so we go around killing mold and spraying mold when really we should be looking at how are we building houses and what sort of chemicals are we using in our houses, in our clothes, in our personal hygiene products, et cetera. What are we eating that’s causing the mold to grow? It’s not the mold, it’s the mold volatilizing chemicals. And I can’t be sure of that until the studies are done, but that’s what I would look at, and I think that would go a long way towards really solving this problem.
Okay, moving on. I know it’s tedious. How do you feel about the fact that RFK does not mention terrain, is still immersed in the germ theory? Are you happy or indifferent to everything we are seeing in politics? So I think I was pretty clear about this last week. I don’t know what I would call myself, essentially. I don’t like labels and things. But the closest would be something like a voluntaryist. Meaning to me, you know, it’s very similar to the virus thing that you can spend a lot of time talking about the RNA shots and allegedly making spike proteins and the, you know, the mask mandates and all that.
But at the end of the day, unless we go upstream and realize that there is no evidence that anybody has ever shown that anything called a virus or that fits the definition of a virus actually exists, then all of those other issues are off the table. Because if there’s no virus, there’s no reason for shots or mass or mandates or anything. And similarly, if, as I would propose, government is a basically a superstition, and as the book by Larkin Rose says, actually a very dangerous superstition, it’s basically a form of control. And democracy has nothing to do with freedom.
It’s just a way of choosing leaders to exercise their brand of control. So essentially what’s happening is people are saying, well, we’ve chosen leaders who we think are more agreeable to us, in other words, who agree with some of our principles, who will do what we say as opposed to doing what the other people say. And so don’t. I think that’s a win. And while there may be some slight benefit in that, to me that’s not a win. That’s not the way to go about this. The issue is whether there’s mandates or not is allowing somebody else to decide whether that they have the right to decide whether you have to comply with a certain order or not.
That is the problem. And that is essentially what governments do. Now, getting to rfk, you know, it’s important to me in this role to be as exact and precise and accurate as I can be. And so essentially I don’t know any of these politicians, I don’t know Donald Trump, I don’t know Harris, I don’t know Biden. I’ve had no interactions with them, but I have had interactions with Kennedy and so I can speak about those. And as I’ve said, there are some things about those interactions which were, I would say, extremely concerning to me. Now, maybe this isn’t everything about him, but these interactions bring up a lot of concerns.
So what am I talking about? So number one, he writes a book about lab created viruses. And so then when asked directly for how does he know that these viruses actually exist and that can be manipulated in the lab, he says he has no idea. So that’s weird. I mean, if I’m going to write a book about carburetors, I would think I would know whether there’s carburetors and how anybody’s proved them. And if they, if I claim that they have different kind of carburetors, I would think I would know the. How you came about that. So that’s weird.
The second thing is if you want to let the science speak. And then at least three times I asked him to say that he would endorse doing the studies that would demonstrate whether viruses have been shown to exist, or show me that these studies have been done, or criticize the studies and say that it would be better to do this study as opposed to that study. In each case, he declined and doesn’t seem to have to want anything to do with this subject. Now that’s fine and that’s his choice. But it seems weird if you’re trying to shed light on the whole vaccine issue and this is the central sole reason why most of the vaccines are being done, it’s just weird to me that you wouldn’t have any interest in finding out whether the foundational science underlying these vaccines is actually sound.
So all I can say is, you know, I can’t say what’s happening, but it doesn’t seem to me that it has anything to do with the direction, the freedom that I think we need to move in as a society. So I wouldn’t say I’m disappointed because I didn’t expect anything different, but I don’t see getting on this bandwagon and feeling optimistic about what’s going to happen. On quite the contrary, to me, there’s a lot of ominous developments going on and I just think we need to be very vigilant because at the end of the day, more regulation, more government, more dictates, more acquiescing to having other people assume authority over what we do.
I can’t see how that is any road towards freedom, which is the only thing in this realm that I’m particularly interested in. Okay, what do I know about plasma and its effect on quantum mechanics? I don’t think I know anything about that, so I think I’m going to pass on that. Let’s go to the next one. What does it mean that an ELIZA HIV test is neither positive nor negative when it’s been positive for four years in a row? Is it in the process of turning negative again and how soon? P.S. i know viruses are a hoax, so let me see if I got this right.
So somebody probably had a positive elisa, that’s an antibody test for hiv, and then it’s not positive or negative and is it becoming negative and how soon will that take or how long will that take? So an ELISA test is an antibody test which is allegedly specific for one of the proteins which are allegedly part of hiv. As I’ve talked about many times. One of the most important papers on this was the Gelderbloom and others paper that showed that if you examine the proteins in a allegedly HIV infected T lymphocyte and you compare those to all the proteins from a hiv, therefore non infected T lymphocyte, if there was an hiv, you should see different proteins.
That should be obvious to anybody. If you have a frog in one bucket and a frog and possibly a snake in another bucket, and you examine all the parts of the first bucket and so those are all from the frog and then you examine all the parts of the second bucket and they also have a frog and maybe a snake and all the components are exactly the same in the two buckets. There ain’t no snake in the second bucket. Hopefully that’s clear. So they examined a T lymphocyte, normal T lymphocyte, supposedly infected with hiv. In this case, the components are proteins.
The proteins were exactly the same by electrophoresis, not the same quantity or ratio, but the same number and the same type. So obviously they could be different ratios or different quantities. That’s not the issue. The issue are, are there different proteins? Because if there’s no different proteins, then there’s no HIV in that so called infected T lymphocyte. And so if there’s no protein that belongs to hiv, then there can’t be an antibody directed against an HIV protein. In fact, we’ve gone over and over the problem with antibodies. They are also essentially theoretical constructs themselves. And that perfectly explains why you get at least 66 other conditions, pregnancy, the flu, et cetera, lupus, that you get positive HIV antibodies, but nobody thinks you have HIV infection, so nobody thinks they’re the proteins.
And that’s just another line of evidence. There are no HIV proteins because there’s no hiv. Now, the test is not a qualitative yes or no test. It’s a test of a quantity. So over a certain amount or a certain intensity of fluorescence, then you call that a positive test. And if there’s a certain lower quantity or a certain lower of the fluorescence, then you call that a negative test. So it’s not a yes or no. It’s assessing the quantity of the antibody binding to the antigen. This is similar to when you do a test for rheumatoid factor or any ANA or any other antibody test.
You’re not asking a yes or no question. In other words, are there rheumatoid factor antibodies present by quantity or by dilution or by luminescence? You’re asking, if you dilute it 1 to 20 or 1 to 40, do you still see the antibodies? And so the question that I always ask is, so if you say the definition of positive test is if you dilute it 1 to 20, you still see the antibodies. So in other words, if you dilute it 1 to 19 and you don’t see the antibodies, or you do see the antibodies, that’s normal. But if you dilute it 1 to 20 and you still see the antibodies, then you have rheumatoid arthritis.
Let me say that again because I boxed that. So if you only dilute it 19 times and then the 20th time you don’t see it, then you don’t have rheumatoid arthritis. Whereas if you dilute it 20 times and only on the 21st, do you not see it, then you have rheumatoid arthritis. That’s obviously pure nonsense. Obviously. In other words, there is no biological phenomena called rheumatoid arthritis that can be diagnosed with this sort of nonsense, this sort of quantitative test. And essentially all the antibody tests are like that. So, so what happened was you had a certain dilutions that were positive over the threshold, so that was called a positive test.
And then for some reason, you have fewer of these chemicals, or I would actually say fewer of whatever is causing this chemical or luminescence reaction. And it’s in the Equivocal range. In other words, 1 to 16 or below is negative, 1 to 20 is or above is positive and you have 1 to 17. So that’s in the. You can’t tell whether it’s positive or negative. That’s still biological nonsense. And so is it going to the. So eventually it’s going to be less than 1 over 16. I mean possibly how long, that’s individual, impossible to say. Or if whatever it was, the reason for that decrease or increase, like more chemicals were released because you did more toxic things, then it’ll go back up.
So it isn’t like a one way street like this is absolutely going down no matter what you do. These chemical reactions are seem to me very much tied in with the state of the tissues. And so all you can say is that the tissues are producing more chemicals which are reacting with the reagents to cause what used to be a reaction that you would get at many dilutions, now less dilutions because the tissue isn’t breaking down. And depending on what you do next, it’ll either keep going down, go back up or stay the same. But at the end of the day the whole thing is basically meaningless because it has nothing to do with antibodies, nothing to do with HIV proteins or nothing to do with any kind of viruses.
Okay, can you talk about oxygen saturation levels and the benefit of not using a pulse oximeter in the care of children and adults outside of the hospital setting? So I will refer people back to my talk on oxygen. So as Jerry Pollack wrote in his article, it seems clear that we do not breathe in, absorb oxygen from the atmosphere. What we breathe in or absorb or collect. And this goes back to what I said in the beginning. We live in an electromagnetic charged medium and the one of the main charged. I hate to use the word substances, but principles, that’s a better word, is what has come to be called oxygen.
So that’s essentially a marker or a placeholder for negative charges or one of the charges. And it’s a charge which is necessary for the maintenance of life and health and rejuvenation, et cetera. So when you’re measuring something with a pulse oximeter, you say you’re measuring oxygen, but you’re not. You’re measuring charged molecules like hemoglobin. So under certain conditions, the hemoglobin, under the certain absorption of highly charged principles, the hemoglobin will assume a sort of normal, in other words, fully charged, like a battery configuration, which is what we call a fully oxygen saturated environment. On other Conditions, after the hemoglobin apparently has released its charge, it becomes like a battery which has a lower charge, and then that has a different configuration, and you’ll have a different reading on the pulse oximeter.
So the pulse oximeter is not measuring the oxygen levels. It’s measuring the level of charge of certain principles or molecules in the blood. And to a certain extent, that can give you information about the health of the person, because if they’re not able to charge, that’s usually associated with a dying or dead battery. And so that’s a problem. We should be able to fully charge and then release and fully charge and release. That’s what’s called normal, and that’s what’s called health. Now, whether you have to use pulse oximeters or any measuring device, as opposed to just observing the person and asking how they feel.
I never used pulse oximeters. I’m not saying it would be a horrible amount of piece of information because it might in fact tell you something about the charge. But I think you could probably figure that out in other ways. And maybe in certain situations, it would just reinforce the degree of difficulty the patient is or the person is having or not. But whether you need to do that outside of a intensive or hospital setting, it’s not something I ever did, and it’s not something that I think is absolutely necessary. And I’m just going to do this final one because it’s really simple.
What are my thoughts on prions, specifically in deer and what is actually taking place? So there’s definitely no such thing as a prion. That’s just the next level. It’s similar to, you know, late 1800s, all disease were caused by unseen things called bacteria. Oops. We have these people we say have polio, and we can’t find a bacteria. So there must be a smaller thing. And so we call those viruses, and we hope that nobody will ever be able to see them to prove us wrong. So we can keep going with the story that these invisible things, these quantum things that can’t be observed, can’t be measured, can’t be experimented with, they must be the problem.
It’s a good gig if you can get it. So that became viruses. And then they find illnesses where they can’t find any bacteria and can’t find any viruses, but you got to keep the story going. So you make up something even smaller than viruses. And so those are called prions. And we hope, or they hope, you can’t find them. You can’t observe them. They’re invisible. You can’t measure them, nobody will actually ever be able to disprove that they exist because obviously you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist. And so we can get away with saying the problem in the deer population is not poisoning the world, is not electromagnetic influences which make their lives untenable, or spraying glyphosate and other toxic chemicals all over the place.
It’s prions. It’s a scam. All right, thanks, everybody. Look forward as always to your comments, and thanks for listening. And check out our new products.
[tr:tra].
See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.
Author
