➡ On January 21, 2026, a webinar was held where various questions were addressed, including one about a 35-year-old woman with a herniated disc considering surgery. The speaker advised against surgery, suggesting instead to understand the person’s overall health and life situation. He also shared a story about a man who healed his leg without medical intervention, emphasizing the power of the mind in healing. The speaker concluded by advising against relying solely on MRIs or CT scans for diagnosis, as they don’t always correlate with symptoms.
➡ The text discusses the importance of personalized treatment in medicine, criticizing the current “one-size-fits-all” approach. It suggests that healing is a personal journey, where understanding what makes your condition better or worse is crucial. The text also criticizes the lack of responsibility in modern medicine, where practitioners follow standard procedures without considering individual circumstances. Lastly, it emphasizes the importance of questioning established beliefs in medicine, using the example of the spike protein in COVID-19 vaccines.
➡ The text discusses the importance of understanding the nature of spike proteins and their role in vaccines, the challenges of withdrawing from substances like sugar and caffeine, and the importance of maintaining good dental hygiene. It suggests that the scientific methods used to identify spike proteins are flawed, and that the withdrawal symptoms from substances like caffeine can be severe. It also emphasizes the importance of a nutritious diet and grounding techniques to help manage withdrawal symptoms. Lastly, it discusses the importance of dental hygiene, suggesting that while indigenous people who lived healthily didn’t need to clean their teeth regularly, in modern life it’s beneficial to brush and floss daily.
➡ The text discusses various health topics, including natural dental care, the germ theory, biofilms in the GI tract, and eye conditions. It suggests using non-chemical toothpaste and natural toothbrushes for dental care, and questions the validity of the germ theory. It also advises against focusing on biofilms as a cause of illness without clear evidence, and recommends a seminar for treating eye conditions. Lastly, it raises a question about the role of sperm in fertilization.
➡ The text discusses the theory of heredity, questioning if DNA is the true mechanism behind it. It suggests that heredity might be influenced by a non-physical field, possibly related to consciousness and water. The text also touches on the topic of skin cancer, arguing that sun exposure doesn’t necessarily cause melanoma. Lastly, it explores the concept of voluntarism and the need for common law juries in a stateless society, suggesting that many people might not understand or be aware of this concept.

Okay, welcome everybody. Another Wednesday webinar today, Wednesday, January 21, 2026. And thanks everybody for joining me. And today I wanted to finish with the interesting questions that I got last week that I only was able to do one. And so thank everybody for submitting your questions. And I don’t know if I’ll get to all of them. I have 14 written down, but we’ll see what we can do before that. I just want to mention that, as I’m sure most of you know, we are having this, our first annual hopefully new biology experience this year at Polyface Farm in Virginia in June.

And many people have signed up and we’re expecting that the, that because they have a limit on how many people we can have that it will sell out. So we’re still offering the early bird pricing. So now is the time to get in and there should be a lot of fun and a lot of interesting talks and meeting a lot of people and good food and seeing the beautiful Poly Face farm and just making a whole lot of new friends, which is a big part of, part of this experience. And I think that’s pretty much all the announcements.

Hopefully everybody can hear me. Let’s move the mic a little bit closer. So let’s get to the questions. And I don’t have the entire questions because I had to write them down because my printer doesn’t work. So I wrote some of the question down. I think you’ll get the point. So the first one was from apparently a 35 year old woman who has a large herniated disc at L4, L5 for at least a year. And she’s done a lot of therapies, biofield tuning and osteopathy and probably some other things I don’t remember. And now she’s wondering if it’s time for a discectomy, which means they take out the intervertebral disc.

So the idea of that is you have these vertebral bodies which are bones. There’s, I believe there’s 33 vertebral bodies in our spine, which is certainly an interesting number. And in between them there’s these cushions, which are basically highly structured water that cushions the area between the bony vertebral bodies so that they don’t sort of squash on each other, obviously. And sometimes because there’s a degeneration in the area, the bones essentially squeeze together. That’s at least what we’re told. And that pushes the disc out, it pushes it backwards, and that’s where the nerves run and the sciatic nerve down your leg exits the spine around L4, L5.

So if you have a herniated, which means the disc is outside of the normal position in the spine, it herniates or moves backwards and pushes on the nerve. And that causes what we call sciatica, which is another word for pain that shoots down your leg. And so one of the therapies that they do is to remove the disc based on the same principle that if your check engine light goes on, the best thing to do obviously is hit your dashboard with a hammer and that will keep the check engine light from coming on and you should be all set.

So that’s obviously a silly way to say there’s about the last thing I would ever do is a disectomy, especially if you’re 35 years old, because you’re going to have to live without the very thing that protects the movement and the degeneration of those spinal bones. And I would say not much good is going to come out of that. So there’s a few things that I want to say about this. The first, obviously, is every situation is different. And the whole point of new biology, medicine and the clinic is that we don’t treat herniated discs. We trade a.

We treat a person who has a story that includes pain down the leg, if that’s what the story is. And this happened in a certain situation, whenever it happened, say a year ago, like this person says, and we want to know what was happening in your life. Was it a situation of too much move, exercise or lifting or not enough where you’re, were you weak? Was there emotional problems, were there dietary issues? Just everything that was happening in your life leading up to having these symptoms. So that’s the first thing. And since I don’t know the story, there’s no way I can give a quote, prescription on what you should do.

But definitely you should sign up, become a member, if you’re not already, and see one of the practitioners at the new biology clinic. So that’s the first thing. The second thing is one of the most impactful stories of my career. And luckily this happened probably in the first two years. It was also at a time when I was also working, like what they call moonlighting, which is basically making, supplementing my income as I was building up my practice. So I was working in various local emergency rooms as a, as you know, the ER doctor. So I did have chance to see a lot of trauma.

And because we x rayed everybody who said leg didn’t matter if you said your leg was Fine or your leg was hurt or your leg was broken. If you said leg, we X rayed your leg. And if you didn’t X ray it, you’d get called into the principal’s office. Why didn’t you X ray the leg? Because she said there was nothing wrong with your leg. Yeah, but how do you know there wasn’t something wrong, you know, unless you do an X ray? And by the way, if you keep not doing X rays, we’re going to fire you.

So you learn to do X rays. If somebody says leg, the benefit of that is I got to see hundreds of people with different complaints or different ways of describing what was happening. And then I got to see which of them had fractures and which of them didn’t. A lot of them I knew they didn’t have a fracture, and I wouldn’t have done an X ray. But since they sort of made me, I got to check myself and make sure that I could tell as much as I thought I could. So, anyways, all that to say, I had a certain experience with checking, with evaluating injuries.

So this guy comes in, he’s, I think, in his 50s or so, and he said he was a Christian Scientist, and he had had an injury and hurt his leg. And it looked to me like he had an obvious fracture in his lower leg. And I said, you know, he’s in a lot of pain. And I said, we need to do an X ray to see whether this is a fracture, maybe send you to an orthopedic doctor. And he said, there’s no way I’m doing an X ray, and there’s no way I’m going to orthopedic doctor.

And I said, why not? How are we supposed to know if you have a fracture and how to treat it? And he said something that has stuck with me for my whole career, which is if I see it on an X ray or even hear about the reading on an X ray, then my mind won’t be able to heal it. And I said, okay, I get that. I mean, I can hear you, but we still need to do it. And he said, doesn’t matter what you say. I’m not doing it. So why don’t you tell me what you would do as if it was fractured, or just what would you do to help me heal my leg? So since I thought at that point I had no choice, I said, well, do these comfrey.

Compresses. Comfrey is otherwise known as knit bone. And I told him how to do it. Get fresh comfrey, put it in a Blender with a little water, make a paste, put it over your leg and keep it there basically for a week. And take homeopathic comfrey, also known as symphony, and make sure you eat a lot of bone broth and maybe a few other things, silica. And that’s what he did. So he went home and then he came back, luckily, in a week or so, maybe 10 days, and he had. His leg was completely healed. And it was the quickest healing that I had ever seen by far.

And that impression really stuck with me because I realized that by not doing the X ray, I kept, in a way, he kept it open for his mind and that helped with the healing. So in this case, the second principle of a situation like this is don’t do a MRI or CT scan. In fact, there have been studies that show that MRIs and CT scans do not correlate with symptoms. In other words, somebody can have a horrible back pain and their MRI or CT scan of their back is normal, and another person can have no back pain and have a herniated disc.

And obviously at the extremes, you can sort of tell, like, if it’s totally normal, most people don’t have many symptoms. And if it’s a huge herniation, most people do. But most people are not in those extremes. And then it’s been proven, they show them to X ray radiologists who has back pain and who doesn’t, and they get it right about 50% of the time, which is about the same as a trained monkey would do, because it’s a yes or no question. So in a way, that was a mistake because this will make it harder for you to heal, because now you’re trying to treat a herniation of your disc, which is a very abstract concept, which is hard to get your mind around what you’re supposed to do instead of your experience of life, which is you have whatever, let’s say, shooting pain down one of your legs.

Now, if you stick to I have shooting pain down one of my legs, you can then start to say, if I do such and such, or if I think such and such, or if I feel such and such, it gets better. If I eat bone broth, it gets better. If I eat sugar all the time, it gets worse. If I do this exercise, it gets better. If I do this movement or lay in my back or do windmills or whatever, then it gets better, worse, and you can go into it with as few preconceptions as you can.

In other words, rather than saying, you know, cat stretches make back pain make herniated discs better. It may not make your herniated disc or your pain better. So you stick with what you can see and what you experience. Because as I’ve said, one of our hallmarks or watchwords of our clinic is if you can’t feel it, you can’t heal it. So you’re trying to understand how it is that you function and what makes you better or worse. And that is such a crucial part of this healing. So then you do that and that’s the next major step.

Now the third thing I wanted to say about that, and I hear this a lot, I went to an acupuncturist, I went to a homeopath, I went to an osteopath and it didn’t help. Therefore, osteopathy, homeopathy or Chinese medicine, acupuncture, that doesn’t help with whatever I have. But that way of thinking is, is this sort of cookie cutter evidence based medicine where nobody has any responsibility. And what I mean by that is the way medicine is done today is people go in and they say what their trouble is and they’re given a diagnosis. You have sciatica, the doctor then looks up or maybe he remembers what the evidence based, conventional prescribed treatment for sciatica is, Advil or steroid shots or discectomy or whatever it is, and he does that or she does that.

There’s no decision on the individual, either individual’s part of the person is this is how my pain acts better or worse. And there’s no decision based on here’s my experience as a practitioner or here’s my understanding of how you got into this situation on the part of the practitioner. And also there’s no room for the skill of the practitioner in this equation. All practitioners are considered the same. So you just did homeopathy. I mean, maybe it was the wrong homeopathic medicine. Maybe the acupuncturist put it in the needles in the wrong place or for the wrong length of time, or maybe the osteopath doesn’t know what they’re doing and they couldn’t help you because they just not very good at that.

So there’s no room in that for one individual treating another. And, and I would submit that that’s actually all there is. And that again, this is a core principle of new biology medicine in our clinic. You’re not going to a kind of medicine, in a way you are, but you’re going to a person with a certain understanding and a certain way of looking at the world and a Certain background of experience. And out of that they will choose the best thing for you as an individual based on your story and everything else about you that they can see and feel and experience.

This is a completely different way, which actually puts the responsibility back where it belongs, which is on you and the practitioner. And that’s what’s scary to people. This whole other way, this sort of corporatized, impersonal medicine has developed to act to absolve everybody of experience, of responsibility. So I didn’t do anything wrong. I did homeopathy or I didn’t do anything wrong. The treatment of sciatica is discectomy and steroid shots. That’s what I did. Doesn’t matter what your problem was or that this happened after an emotional trauma. That’s not part of the flow diagram or algorithm that I use.

And so I’m absolved of responsibility even if it does you no good. And that’s how medicine is practiced these days. So I would look for somebody else who you have some connection with that can actually help you. And this goes. The reason I’m going on about this particular problem is this is the same way of thinking for every different situation. The final thing is there is room in our medicine, in the medicine that I did and what we’re calling New Biology Medicine and New Biology Clinic for, you know, sometimes there are things that sort of help everybody with similar issues.

So I would absolutely get the right homeopathic remedy and I would go see Pat and work on what you’re doing as far as movement. And if it was me and what little I know about this situation, I would also hang on a bar at least 30 seconds to a minute or as long as I could reasonably do with my legs completely hanging down freely, no pull ups, just hanging and let my spine decompress for 30 to 60 seconds basically every day and see what happened with that. And because the discs are highly structured water, I would do everything I can to restructure my water, which means stirring whatever water I’m using with the Analemma device for a minute and grounding and earthing, grounding, earthing as much as possible, either with my bare feet or with a grounding stick and being out in the sun and having a collagen rich diet and seeing where that gets me.

So hopefully with that way of not just doing, but thinking about this, that can help explain what it is we’re doing and how you can work with this problem. It was a bit long for 14 different questions, but I probably won’t get to them. All but maybe I can be shorter with some of them. Next one. How do you explain the spike protein is not real to somebody who thinks normally about health and biology or even somebody who is a so called health freedom person who’s going on about spike protein disease? So again, what I’ve said many, many times and sort of go over it is what works best is not to tell anybody anything especially controversial stuff like this, but to ask them questions and let them hear themselves realize that they don’t know how this, how they know there is a spike protein.

In other words, you’re not going to convince anybody by telling anybody anything. In fact, whenever you have what you could call convincing energy, it’s probably going to fail. But you could ask them, so how do you know there’s a spike protein? Or how do you know that giving somebody an injection called a COVID 19 quote vaccine makes their, their body, your body make this spike protein and that’s the cause of your troubles? How do you know that? So they might say, well, everybody says that, or the consensus of scientists, which is a bizarre argument because then I would ask them so what percentage of scientists have to say this is true before it becomes a fact? And obviously nobody will answer that.

But if they do, like 100%, you say, well, I happen to know two or three medical doctors and scientists of which I do who say that’s not true. So by your way of thinking, it isn’t true? Well, no. So that’s what they say. And they can find the spike protein. And then you say how did you find the spike protein? And they say I don’t know. But I’m sure these people know. They’re really smart people, they’re scientists, they must know. So but that’s weird because obviously they don’t know how this works and they just heard themselves say that.

And so now you have sown doubt in their mind, which is good because then they’re the ones questioning, not you trying to get them to question, which is different. So now we’ve established that they believe something that is you make, you give this injection, you make spike protein. But they don’t know how anybody found the spike protein. Now in this case you know that they found the spike protein by taking an antibody which they claim is specific to the spike protein. And the antibody lit up, meaning that according to them it bound with the spike protein.

And therefore you know that because the antibody lights up more after a person is injected than before, that they must have made spike protein. So you could say that’s what they’re testing and then you say do you know if they tested a different antibody not specific to the spike protein and what the results of that were? Because if it’s an antibody that’s not specific to the spike protein then obviously you can’t use the antibody assay as proof that it’s a spike protein because if it binds to a different antibody which has nothing to do with the spike protein then it’s because antibodies bind with proteins and you don’t know what kind of protein there is.

And they’ll say I don’t know if they did that. And you say well I happen to know they didn’t do that. And they didn’t. Nor did they do another thing which you would expect which is to give a different mRNA or you could ask them do you know if they gave a different mRNA, one that doesn’t code for the spike protein? And then use the spike protein antibody and see if it lit lights up. Because if it does then that tells you that the spike protein antibody just lights up. What for whatever protein you’re injecting probably because if you inject somebody with a bunch of poison they make certain proteins and since antibodies bind non specifically to proteins, allegedly then it’s a you’ve disproven that it has anything to do with this spike protein.

Do you know if they did that study? I don’t know. Well I happen to know they didn’t do this study. There is no study like that. Therefore all we know now is there may be a protein that some people are calling a spike protein. We a have no evidence that it’s from a virus. B the way they find this alleged protein is completely anti scientific. And so all we know is that when you inject people with non specific poison they make non specific proteins which probably aren’t good for them or at least their body is scrambling to repair the damage.

And so at the end of the day has nothing to do with the spike protein and I wouldn’t do the injection because it’s probably poisoning you. Okay, that should do that. 1. Number three, is there any strategy to help with sugar and caffeine withdrawal, particularly headaches? They said. Interestingly, one of the moonlighting jobs that I had when I was building my practice was I did physical exams for people coming into detox facilities. In other words, if you had a heroin addict or a valium addict or some other opiate addict and they were for whatever reason either decided to check themselves in or sent by some practitioner to go to a rehab facility, the law Said you had to have some doctor do a physical exam just to make sure they were otherwise healthy or there wasn’t anything else wrong.

So I had no other responsibilities, basically, except doing a physical exam, recording it, and that was pretty much the end of it. And the reason I bring that up is because I saw a fair amount of people who were in the early stages of detoxing from opiates and Valium, benzodiazepines and a bunch of other drugs. And it was not pretty and they had a lot of trouble. But the worst of the people who didn’t often show up were people who were coming off caffeine that was in some ways worse than any of the other ones. Maybe not worse, but certainly we knew that that was a serious issue.

And even I remember studies telling us that we should put people on. We gave people who were detoxing or withdrawing from heroin and benzodiazepines. We would give them Librium, ironically, another benzodiazepine, which they said was not habit forming. So that’s how we help to detox them or manage the withdrawals. And there was a bunch of studies saying people who were coming off caffeine cold turkey, you should put them on Librium because they had a higher incidence of, say, car crashes and accidents and other untoward events which were basically because of their withdrawal symptoms. All. All that to say it’s no joke.

These are difficult chemicals to withdraw from. Even though at this point I question whether there is such a thing as caffeine or decaffeinated, you know, like chemicals in coffee or chocolate. There may be, but when you start trying to, when you start going into how they isolated and purified caffeine from coffee, you come to the same conclusion that I’ve come to with vitamins and hormones, which are the next question. So I can sort of do them both. It’s very hard to prove to yourself scientifically, rationally, logically, that you’ve proven that this substance called caffeine is present in a coffee bean, or these so called vitamins are present in food or in living beings, or these so called hormones are present in living beings or in our organs because in order to find them, you have to mix living tissue with so many different chemicals that you can’t say whether you’ve made something appear that wasn’t actually there in the living being.

Now, that doesn’t mean whether or not there’s caffeine or not in coffee that coffee withdrawal, or maybe even chocolate withdrawal doesn’t have, doesn’t create symptoms? I didn’t say that. I just said that the mechanism isn’t necessarily because of this chemical. And even if you can say well the withdrawals are not as strong with so called decaffeinated, all that tells you is that when you put coffee beans through a certain water based, I think purification process that it has a different effect than if you don’t which is probably pretty obvious. And it doesn’t prove there’s caffeine in any case.

It is a difficult problem. I understand that. And one of the things that I would say is it absolutely seems to help with people who do at least a few of the following things. One is they eat a very highly nourishing diet which in what I mean by that is one with a fair amount of meat. In fact I would say meat three times a day and particular fatty meat and otherwise cooked or prepared with animal fats, lard or tallow or ghee or butter or something like that. And have a mineral rich diet. And I would use either our C plasma or Quinton or and good healthy sea salt.

So all those seem to help the more minerals you have that seems to combat the withdrawal symptoms from either so called caffeine or coffee and sugar. And the more well nourished you are, the better it is. The second thing that seemed to help was a lot of earthing or grounding, in other words bare feet on. On bare earth or using some sort of grounding stick or grounding pad. And that seemed to help. Basically what seems to be happening is there’s a. It’s like your battery is running out and you’re poisoned and that lowers your energy level.

And you can recharge through grounding or you can even do it through having a cat or a dog sit on your lap because they will help ground you themselves. And if all else fails, then it seemed like coffee enemas, which some people don’t mind doing were very good for the headache and the lethargy and the sort of toxification that happens with withdrawal from sugar or coffee. And basically what a coffee enema does is seems to dilate the common bile duct, which means it’s easier for the liver to discharge its poisons. So you get a increased processing of the poisons and increased elimination.

And that seemed to quickly resolve the headache and lethargy that came with withdrawal from sugar or coffee. Okay, next one. Dental hygiene habits and regular dental cleaning. This is something we have a wonderful dentist who we who regularly comes to our doctor clinic meetings and she gave us a talk on what constitutes the best practice for dental hygiene or regular cleaning. And it’s an interesting subject and I would just say, I don’t pretend that I have the answer here because the reason it’s interesting is because basically, if you look at the work of Weston Price and other people who study indigenous people and people who have perfect dental health, not only do they eat a good diet and not only do they ground to the earth and be out in the sun and have lots of movement and lots of connection with their family and other members of their tribe and live basically a more human sort of life.

No screens and no reading all the time and no looking at things all, all the time instead of just looking at the world. But they didn’t clean their teeth, they didn’t use toothbrushes, they didn’t use fluoride crest toothpaste, they didn’t have dental floss. They occasionally, I think did some things to clean their teeth and stimulate the gums, but not as a regular practice. And those are the only people that we know that basically didn’t suffer from diseases of the mouth. So that would lead one to think the best practice is to do nothing and live like a normal human being should live diet wise and movement wise and earthing wise and thinking wise and connection wise and all the rest of it.

And not getting vaccines and pharmaceuticals and not believing in all sorts of nonsense that’s normal for a human. And when you do that, you can have perfect teeth and no cavities. What we found out though is in modern life it’s probably better to brush your teeth at least once a day and maybe even twice. And maybe use some gentle dental floss. And we talked about using very natural, non abrasive, obviously non chemical, non fluoride toothpaste. And I don’t remember now the ones that were recommended, but there has become a lot of these different powders and hydroxy appetite toothpaste products on the market in the last few years.

I think Alpha Vedic has a really good one, so that’s a possibility. So gentle brushing with a natural toothbrush, meaning a toothbrush made with natural bristles and flossing with a sort of, you know, tea tree based dental floss. That’s what I do and that’s what she recommended. And I don’t at this point see the need for regular dental hygiene appointments that may be controversial. And I probably haven’t done one in 15 years myself. And I can’t say that that is a expert or highly qualified opinion. And I certainly am open to the Fact that no brushing is better, but I think there’s also maybe cosmetic issues that come with that.

So this is sort of a compromise which seems to work for most people. Okay, number seven. Did. Didn’t Semmelweis prove the germ theory? This is an interesting question, and I don’t know if everybody knows what this question is talking about, but one of the few times in our medical education, very few times, where even the question of how was the germ theory of medicine proven came up was when you heard the story of. I can’t remember the guy’s first name. Some starts with an I, I think Semmelweis. And I don’t remember where he’s from, Hungary or somewhere in Europe.

And I don’t remember even the year. Sometime I think in the 1800s, I could be wrong about that. But it was a story that we were all told. So. And it was told as if. See, this proves the germ theory. So what was the story? And obviously this is a story which nobody I know has validated. So the whole story could be make believe itself. But it’s one of the common and most told stories in the training of medical doctors and in the propagation of the germ theory. So Semmelweis was apparently an obstetrician, meaning he delivered babies and he worked in a hospital.

And again, this was somewhere in Europe, and I don’t remember where. And apparently it. Whether at his hospital or whether it was a routine practice. The obstetricians also did autopsies, meaning they dissected people who had recently died. And they did it with using formaldehyde and other chemicals and cutting up debt, you know, the dead tissue and trying to figure out why the person had died. And the story goes that it was routine practice for these doctors in Semmelweis’s hospital to literally, and he meant this literally, go from doing an autopsy straight into the delivery room and including putting their hands into the vagina and feeling the cervix and the.

And the baby with their ungloved hands, which had just been in the autopsy suite. So some of these women who they did this with, they developed. What’s the word? I think purpural or fever. I’m not sure if that first word is the right word. It means they developed. They got sick during the time of delivery or after with a fever, and they actually had a infection, so called, in their uterus. And this was often life threatening. And they get high fevers. They ended up having to sometimes do a hysterectomy or Sometimes the woman actually died, which is a horrible tragedy considering they just delivered a baby.

And Semmelweis had the bright idea that after people doctors did the autopsies, they should wash their hands before they went and stuck them inside the vagina of a delivering woman who has an open cervix. And the reason for that is because if they wash their hands, they would get rid of the germs that were causing this febrile illness in the recently delivered women. Now, that is a, I would say a classic case of, we know that hammers knock in nails because we hit the nail with a toolbox. And even if we knew there was a hammer in there or not, still we hit the nail with the toolbox.

And that proves if you hit hammers, they knock in nails. So obviously that’s silly. Meaning how do they know it wasn’t dead and dying tissue that they were smearing into the vagina and the open cervix of this delivering woman? How do they know it wasn’t the formaldehyde and the other intensely toxic chemicals they had on their hands that they were then putting into the open uterus of a delivering woman? How do they know that it was only the bacteria in this autopsy that got on their hands that was the cause of the problem? If you go looking, which I at one point did, did they ever isolate bacteria from the autopsy and inject those or put those on the people’s hands and then have it be clear that, that it was only the bacteria that were being inoculated into the woman’s uterus, then you could say if they had done all the appropriate controls, yes, they had proved it was the bacteria that caused the fever, et cetera.

They never obviously once did that. So this is pseudo scientific nonsense. And, and the only thing that’s interesting to me is how come none of us said, you know, wait a minute, Professor, Doctor, that’s nonsense, because how do you know it wasn’t the formaldehyde? How do you know it wasn’t the tumor, you know, blood that you stuck up into somebody’s uterus? How do you know it was the bacteria? And the answer is, they have no way of knowing. And for some amazing reason, none of us had the common sense to even ask that question, or even worse, even think that question.

And when I tell you, when I look back on my life, even though as skeptical as I was of the whole thing, that question never struck me at the time I was told it. And that just goes to show how unscientific and scientifically Illiterate. We doctor students were, and I would say still are. Okay, number eight, the difference between healthy and protective biofilm and pathogenic biofilm in the GI tract. So this is obviously one of those questions where, you know, what I’m trying to communicate is this question. And the thinking behind this question is not the way to think about health, medicine, biology or your health medicine or biology.

Because unless you can have an experience that it’s the biofilm that’s causing the problem, which you don’t, you have no. The point is, this is an example of you have no experience, no observation, no simple experiment that you can do that tells you that it’s the biofilm in your GI tract which is the cause of the problem, exact same as the virus. You have no observation, no sensory experience, no simple experiment that tells you that it’s the virus that made you sick. And in all those cases, unless you can have a very clear experiment that shows that it could have only been the biofilm that makes you sick, my suggestion for you is forget about the biofilm because it has no relevance to your life or your health.

And until I see a study that shows, yep, it’s the biofilm and could have only been the biofilm that caused you to be sick, I just forget about it and go back to so what are your symptoms, what is your experience? When did it start? What are the circumstances that it happened? And what is it that you do that seems to make it better or worse? And in that you come out with a basically a rational, logical, empowering, sense based, valid way of approaching the problem without these misleading abstract concepts like biofilms and the trying to figure out the difference between a, a pathogenic one and a normal one.

And since you can never do that, you’re basically lost in the weeds spinning abstractions which have no relation to reality. I’m sure I sound like a broken record going over the same thing over and over again. The point is, stick to your experience. The more you do that, the better your observation powers get. The more you’ll know, the more confident you will be, the less you’ll be a victim and the more you’ll be able to heal. So number nine, what is the cure of a so called lazy eye? And I don’t think I know the answer to that.

So I’m going to say our friend Kelly Brogan just put out a a seminar class with somebody who is apparently experienced and very much expert into the cause and treatment of all different eye conditions. And my guess is one of them would be a so called lazy eye. This is the sort of modern version of what we used to call the Bates method. And I think there was somebody else who did this. And I think the best thing for me to do is to refer you to that program. I’m sure you can find it on Kelly’s website and she will give you lots of ideas on how to deal with a so called lazy eye.

Number 10 is interesting. Do sperm really carry X and Y chroma chromosome? Stefan Lenka said many sperm are needed to fertilize an egg. What is and what is the relationship between heredity and consciousness? Water. So I going to have to say at first of all this whole chromosome theory and eggs have X and X and a sperm has an X and a Y and that’s the difference between men and women. Women. I haven’t looked into that enough to know whether that’s in fact true. My guess is that chromosomes have, are able to be simply stained and seen under light micro microscopy and that they are a real structure.

Although I may have to eat my words on that. I don’t think that they’re wound up DNA, I’ve gone into that many times. I think there’s some sort of electromagnetic sensing or antenna device but I probably can’t prove that. And I think there’s probably a difference in males and men and women with their sensing device. And that’s about all I can say. The only other thing I know, and I remember this from years ago, that they were able, they being certain experiments were able to recreate sexual reproduction. I think that’s the right way to say it without using sperm but with essentially pricking the egg with beams, coherent beams of light.

And so it turns out according to these experiments, and I don’t remember what animals or organisms they were done on, I think it was frogs or tadpoles or something that they were able to get full sexual reproduction, normal progeny without any sperm, but instead using light. And when you look at sperm they seem to be carrying a certain frequency of light. And my guess is that is at least one thing. And maybe the most important thing about the union of the sperm and the egg is it introduces a sort of light or frequency into the environment of the egg and that stimulates the growth of a new organism.

Whether you actually need the chromosomes, it seems like that is in doubt. But I don’t know if that applies just to frogs or tadpoles or whether it also would be mammals or people. That would be an interesting question to sort out. As far as the relationship between Heredity and consciousness and water. And this is something just to keep clarifying what I mean when I say there’s no proof that DNA is the mechanism of heredity. People often interpret that as hearing me say there is no such thing as heredity. And why then do I look like my father or even act like my father, which is annoying, but happens.

And why so many things that we see with animals? And you can definitely, you know, create a certain heredity or a certain progeny with certain characteristics in plants and animals. Animal and plant breeders do it all the time. So nobody, including me, is denying the phenomena of heredity, that parents pass some kind of information that affects the, the growth and morphology of their offspring and even the consciousness and maybe even things we don’t even know about to their progeny. Nobody is saying that’s not the case. All we’re questioning, or I’m questioning, is whether the mechanism of heredity is DNA.

And that I would say has never been demonstrated. And one of the example, I mean, there’s so many. This is the, if you say, which they do, all hereditary influences are because of the DNA. That’s what so called conventional science says. That’s the all swans are black or white. And if you see one black swan, then you’ve disproven that or falsified that claim. And so it’s not true. So you hear stories and there’s literally scores, hundreds, maybe thousands of stories. You know, the woman cutter cutting the last four fingers of her hand off in a band saw and the child being born with those last four fingers gone.

That can’t possibly be a DNA phenomena. It’s got something to do with the field or Rupert Sheldrake has done a lot of work on this, including experiments, and talks about this as a consequence of what he calls the morphogenic or developmental field. And I think he’s onto something. In this case he gets a lot of other things wrong, but this case I think he’s onto something. There is a field and it’s probably, or certainly a non physical field that is basically the basis of heredity. So and that probably has something to do with consciousness and it’s probably also something that works through the water, since water seems to be the memory part of a human being or a living being.

Next question, does skin cancer come from the sun? And the answer is certainly not melanoma, which is the only, quote, type of skin cancer you need to be worried about. It’s the only one that quote, spreads, even though we know it doesn’t Work like that. Melanomas are actually lessened by sun exposure. They don’t tell you that. The other ones, basal and squamous cell, may be somewhat related to say damage to the skin. Like if you get burned or too much sun and it, you know, essentially damages the skin, then you can get a. Essentially like a scab form which only stays in that area.

So that may be related to sun exposure to a certain degree. I would also think it’s more related, not just sun exposure, but your ability to accept the sun, which has a lot to do with the fatty layer on your skin, which has a lot to do with what you eat and a bunch of other things. And it’s certainly no justification for ever using any kind of sunscreen for which I see basically no reason to do that. Okay, maybe one. I’m going to skip to this one and I can maybe pick these up next time. So a little different subject, but interesting question.

Why don’t voluntarious and anarchists accept the need for common law juries? So what this means is there are people, and I think I would probably include myself mostly in this, who would call themselves voluntarious. Which means that every thing that we do, we need to be. We have the right to enter into a voluntary agreement about which basically gets rid of the possibility for a state. And so that’s similar to anarchists. But we, most people have stopped using the word anarchist because it has a kind of violent connotation where voluntarist. Voluntarist has a much more gentle and nice connotation.

All it is is the principle. It’s like the golden rule. You don’t force anybody to do anything. You don’t power over people. You don’t use violence to make anybody do something against their volition. And so that rules out any possibility of having a state involved in our life. And just by the way, for anybody who’s really interested in this subject of voluntarism or anarchism to us, but again, we’ve changed the word. I would suggest reading Mark Gober’s book called Upside Down Approach to Liberty. That may not be the exact title, but you can find it. Mark Gober, he has a whole bunch of upside down books, including Medicine and a few others.

But one is on liberty. And he makes a very clear, easy to read, I would say brilliant case, as Mark tends to do argument. The why a voluntarist non state society is the only way to go. So why don’t these voluntarists accept the need for common law juries. My answer to that is because they don’t know what you’re talking about. And I know a little bit about what you’re talking about, but I could in no way explain it to anybody. And how you come up with a non state common law jury. I think Mark explains a little bit about what a judicial system looks like in a non state environment.

So I think the reason for that, the failure, the non acceptance is people don’t know what you’re talking about. So therefore the onus is on you to start making this more available, more acceptable. Not, not that people have to accept it or you have to dumb it down, but just have some possibility of getting the word out so that people can understand what it is you’re talking about. Because my suspicion is most of us voluntarists would absolutely think it’s a good idea. But I qualify that because I don’t know all the details. So I’m not really in a position to say that.

I’ve heard enough to know that it seems like it would be a good thing and that would be a solution to our, to the judicial needs in a non state environment. So get on it. Okay, thanks everybody for listening and as always I welcome your comments and questions. And again take a look at the new biology experience. I’m sure it’s in the show notes how to sign up and you can still get early bird pricing and I hope to see everybody in a week.
[tr:tra].

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