➡ The speaker in this webinar is encouraging followers to help reach a goal of 100,000 followers on Facebook and to sign up for a biology experience event. They also discuss a complex medical topic, questioning the traditional understanding of HIV and Hepatitis C transmission through blood transfusions. The speaker suggests that the presence of these diseases in the blood is not proven by the presence of specific viruses, but rather by antibodies, which they argue are not disease-specific and could be present due to various health conditions.
➡ The text discusses the idea that blaming a virus for illness, without clear evidence, is flawed. It uses an analogy of hitting someone with a toolbox full of items, then blaming a thumbtack (that may not even exist in the toolbox) for the person’s headache. The author argues that it’s more logical to blame the entire toolbox (or in the case of illness, the entire complex mixture of blood) rather than a single component. The text also suggests that injecting blood from a sick person into another person can cause illness, and that it’s important to rely on what we can directly observe and experience, rather than making assumptions.
➡ The text discusses the uncertainty and potential inaccuracies in blood and DNA testing. It suggests that these tests, which involve mixing chemicals with biological samples and observing color changes, may not be as specific or accurate as we believe. The author also discusses the use of chlorine dioxide solution in health treatments, suggesting it may help to recharge the body’s ‘electromagnetic charge’, potentially aiding in recovery from illness. However, the author emphasizes that our understanding of these processes is limited and more research is needed.
➡ The text discusses various methods of healing, including the use of chlorine dioxide, energy medicine, and homeopathy. It emphasizes the importance of fever as a natural healing response, arguing that it should not be suppressed as it aids in the body’s recovery process. The text also questions the concept of incurable illnesses, suggesting that focusing on improving a patient’s quality of life rather than predicting their lifespan can lead to better outcomes.
➡ The speaker emphasizes the importance of improving people’s lives day by day, rather than focusing on curing diseases. They believe in living in the moment, and that small actions can make a person’s situation better. They also discuss the use of food as medicine and the benefits of biofield tuning. The speaker encourages people to trust their senses and stick to reality, as this can lead to a better understanding of the world.

Okay, welcome everybody. Today is another Wednesday webinar. Today is Wednesday, February 18, 2026. And as always, I appreciate everybody’s support and joining us. And I also happen to see that we have something like 97,000 followers on Facebook. So if we can get another 3,000, we’ll have a full hundred thousand followers on Facebook. So if you’re interested, please sign up, tell your friends and let’s get to that hundred thousand mark. The other thing is there are still opportunities to sign up for the new biology experience at Polyface in Virginia in early June and hopefully many of us will be there and we’ll get to see, meet in person and share a lot of experiences and do some talks and hopefully have some music and good food and make a lot of new friends.

And I’m looking forward to it. So we’ll put that hopefully in the show notes how you can get information about signing up. And I think there still opportunities to do the early bird discount. So the more people we get for that the better. And there is a limit. So sign up as soon as you’ve decided. Okay, I don’t think I have any another announcements and I just quickly read through this list and I think there’s going to be a theme to this questions. Today I have 13 questions, so I’m not sure I’m going to get to all of them.

But I want to use this as a trying to, I guess you could say, hammer home my one of my main points in medicine, biology, science, thinking and maybe even life in a way. So I think you’ll see what I mean. So the first question actually interestingly comes from a medical practitioner, I’m not sure what type who admitted that that puts him or her at a handicap. And I would say that’s true. We are more indoctrinated than even the more normal people. And the question was what about HIV and hep C that people get from blood transfusions? I think the implicit question in there is how is that possible if there’s no viruses, viruses that cause or HIV is a virus or the Hep C virus.

So the point I want to make, and I think the point that I’m going to probably be mentioning when I talk about every situation and this is just so key to proper thinking, proper understanding and the ability to do proper medicine. And I would say the ability to heal and that comes partly from clearing your mind of delusions and assumptions that aren’t true. It’s a bit like the whether it was Mark Twain or Upton Sinclair quote, it’s not what you don’t know that gets you. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. So the issue I’m talking about is to separate what you see.

And when I use, when I say the word see, I mean other senses too. So it could be that. It could be what you smell or what you feel with your hands or even it could be a more sort of sensing on, not so much of a physical sense, but in more of a sensing level, maybe what you hear. And that’s what I mean when I say separate what you see from what you have constructed in your mind, or another word, way to say that is the explanation. So let’s apply that to this case. So with either HIV or hep C.

So first of all, we always start with what the claim is. The claim is that there’s people who are infected with this virus, either hep C or hiv. The virus is in the blood. You find it by measuring antibodies which they claim are specific to these particular viruses in the blood. And if you inject that blood, that is, transfuse that blood from a person who’s infected with HIV and has HIV in their blood or hep C in their blood, and you transfuse, in other words, inject that blood into a normal healthy person, then you will transfer the virus to them, and then you will make them sick with eventually AIDS or hep C, liver failure.

So that’s the claim. Now, let’s skip some parts of that claim for a minute and just say, so what is it that you saw? Now, there’s a couple different scenarios. So you see a person who for some reason is not doing well enough that they need a blood transfusion. Maybe they’re chronically sick, maybe they have cancer, maybe they were just in a car accident and have bleeding, and you don’t want them to bleed to death. So there’s a whole lot of reasons, but basically something about them is not doing well. And so nobody gets a transfusion that, oh, how are you? I’m fine.

I think I need a transfusion today. Like that never happens. So there’s got to be something wrong with the person. It could be acutely like a bleed from an injury, or it could be some more chronic disease that’s making them become anemic, lose their blood count. So then you transfuse. In other words, take the blood out of a person who’s sick. Now, they may be seemingly well, but we’ll get into that in a minute. So they have something in their blood, these antibodies, allegedly and so there’s often. In the old days, they were basically drug addicts and people who were extraordinarily promiscuous sexually.

They took lots of antibiotics and they were wasting. And some of them were alcoholics. We’re talking about HEP C&IV drug abusers and many other things, and had liver problems. So you take the blood from somebody who’s sick and you transfuse that. In other words, inject that into this person who’s may be sick or maybe acutely injured or something. So that’s what you see. You take the blood from a sick person, injected into another sick person, maybe a different sickness, and then the recipient gets even sicker as time goes on. So I would contend that that’s what you see.

And it could be that you could quibble with that and say, well, the people who you take the blood from may be asymptomatic, and that may be true. So it could be that they’re not overtly sick. But we’ll get into that in a minute. So somehow you’re taking the blood from somebody and injecting it into somebody who’s otherwise not doing well. And then some of the people who are the recipients of this blood get worse, and some of the people seemingly nothing happens to. So that, I think, is what you see, and then you conclude that the causative agent of some of the people who get sicker is a virus.

Now, let’s just be clear about this. You didn’t see a virus in the donor’s blood. In fact, if you actually are precise about it, and I think anybody with any intellectual honesty would admit that nobody has ever seen an HIV or a hep C virus in any blood of any fluid, sick or not. In fact, the CDC and every other health institution that’s been asked has said we have no records of anybody purifying, isolating, finding hiv, hep C, or any other virus from any biological fluid of anybody who’s sick. So that’s a fact. You don’t see that now.

You, you. So. And there’s no test for that. They say they do viral loads, but that’s clearly not testing for a virus. That’s testing for a piece of something which you allege to be from a virus which has never been isolated. So that’s bogus storytelling. So then you say, well, but we have antibodies. Now, first of all, nobody has ever proven or isolated an antibody from the blood of anybody who’s sick or well, these are basically just chemical reactions of the blood which are then given a story is made up about what they mean. And if you think about this, how can, if no HIV has ever been purified and isolated, how can you possibly say that this protein that you allegedly make is specific against that particular virus? Again, if you’re intellectually honest and can think even a little bit, you would have to admit that that is simply not possible.

And this point is driven home, particularly with hiv, because if you say what is the list of conditions which are also are HIV positive? The last count that I saw was there were 66 other conditions that people turn out to be HIV positive, meaning they have so called antibodies in their blood. And this includes people with the flu, women who are pregnant, all different kinds of quote autoimmune disease. And basically a whole lot of different sick people end up with this antibody in their blood, which means that the antibody is not specific to anything. And so that allows you.

And once we’ve done a number of talks about this, and Mike Stone has talked about this in the Baileys and Stefan, antibodies which are never been proven to be what they say they are or even been isolated and purified from the blood are basically non specific substances which seem to be in higher amounts in people who aren’t doing well from a whole variety of reasons. Stefan has tried to make the case that they’re actually somehow repair proteins. So the more damage you have to your tissues, the more you make these proteins to try to heal the damage.

Which is why you see a somewhat, and I would emphasize somewhat of a correlation between people who are HIV positive or antibody positive or hep C positive and who go on to not do well. Obviously something is wrong. They may be drug abusers, they may take a lot of antibiotics, they may be alcoholics, they may have psychological, emotional problems and conflicts. It could be a lot of things which is damaging their tissue. Maybe they don’t eat right and so then they have a lot of damage and then they make repair proteins or some other substances which we don’t even know exactly what these substances are, if they even exist, we don’t even know that for sure.

But to counteract the damage. And so even if they’re asymptomatic, which is what I said before, then there’s still something wrong. And some of them are not asymptomatic. And then there’s something clearly wrong. And a lot of them have drug, have drug abuse and alcoholism and a lot of other things. So then you’re taking the blood from somebody who is not doing well and you’re injecting transfusing that blood into somebody again who’s also not doing well. Sometimes nothing happens, and sometimes they go on to be sick. And then you blame that on a virus, which you’ve never seen.

Now, one of the reasons I like to speak in analogies is so that’s sort of confusing to people. And I want everybody to. Not only to be able to understand this, but I want them to be able to explain it to anybody that they meet. And I. I have found I could be wrong about this. But one of the best ways to do that is get off of virology and even science and just make an analogy to real life things that everybody can experience. So I typically use this example of. Let’s say you have a toolbox and you haven’t opened it, but there are many things seemingly rattling around in the toolbox.

And I could list them. Hammers and nails and screwdrivers and wrenches and all kinds of things. And then I’m going to use it, make this analogy in one of two different ways. So you say there’s these little tacks, you know, like thumbtacks. And the toolbox has some thumbtacks, and that’s what’s. So let’s back up. So you got this toolbox, and you claim that there’s these thumbtacks as well as all these other things in the toolbox. And then you hit somebody across the back of the head with the toolbox. Then you claim it’s the thumbtacks in the toolbox that gave this person a headache and a sore head and a bump on their head.

Now, when you put it like that, everybody, and I do mean everybody who’s willing to think even a little bit will say, that’s ridiculous. Tom, you have no idea that it was the thumbtacks. What you saw was you hit them with the toolbox and that gave them a sore head. Everybody would agree with that. And so when you apply that analogy to the blood, what you saw was you gave this person a complex mixture of blood containing God knows what. We have no idea what’s in human blood or snail blood or anything we have. All we know is it’s a amazing substance with a complex mixture of who knows what, probably some substances, and maybe stuff that you ate or ingested, maybe pharmaceuticals, maybe consciousness, we don’t know.

All you know is you hit the person with the blood and they got sick. You hit the person with the toolbox and they got a sore head. To blame that on the tax the thumbtacks is complete scientific, irrational nonsense. Nobody would do that everybody would understand that if you want to claim that it was the thumbtacks and in the toolbox that caused the person to have a sore head, you would obviously go open the toolbox, find the thumbtacks, hit the person with the thumbtacks and only the thumbtacks and see if that’s what gave them a sore head.

That should be clear to anybody with this. And that has never been done with any virus. No virus has ever been purified and given to another living being, plant, animal or person and shown to cause anything. Mostly because they’ve never isolated the virus in the first place. So they can’t even do the experiment. So let’s change our analogy and make it more congruent with the virus story. Let’s say you hit somebody with a toolbox and you claim it was the thumbtacks in the toolbox. And then you also realize, and it’s a fact that you’ve looked in every toolbox there is on earth and you’ve never once found a thumbtack.

There is no evidence of thumbtacks in toolboxes. And yet you still claim that the reason why the person got a sore head is because of the thumbtacks in the toolbox. Hopefully everybody, even medical people, can see that. That is the height of irrational, illogical, anti scientific thinking. But that’s exactly what the claim is here. You don’t see the hiv, you don’t see the Hep C, you don’t. The antibodies are not specific to anything because they can’t possibly be. And everybody who looks into antibodies easily finds out that antibodies are not specific to any virus or any protein.

And in fact, they admit that when they say there’s 66 other conditions that give you HIV positive antibodies. So they’re admitting the antibodies don’t prove there’s a virus. So there is no evidence, not only that it was the virus in the blood that caused the person to be sick, but there is even a virus in the blood. And if you apply that thinking with the toolbox example, you can easily see, and you can make up many more examples, it’s the blood that caused the person to get sick, some of the people to get sick. It’s the toolbox hitting them over the head that caused their head to be sore.

And you have. There’s no reason to even postulate that it was one of the components of the blood or the toolbox, because all you saw was the toolbox gave you a sore head. All you saw was the blood gave you sickness. Sometimes again, sometimes it Didn’t. And so the conclusion has to be it’s not good, especially if you’re not doing well, to get blood from somebody who’s obviously sick, which seems almost too ridiculous to say, but that’s the conclusion of that so called experiment. Don’t have somebody if you’re not doing well, or even if you are doing well, inject somebody else’s blood into your body, particularly if they’re not doing well and may have drugs, alcohol, IV heroin, God knows what in their blood.

You don’t, you don’t have to know what’s in the blood. All you know is actually injecting blood into another person is not good for you. We already know that. It’s called serum sickness. And it should be obvious that your blood is your own. It’s very specific and individual to you. And it should be only in the direst of emergencies that you accept somebody else’s blood being injected into your body. Because we know that it makes people sick, some people more sick, other people less sick. That probably depends on a lot of things having to do with your condition.

And there’s no reason to even postulate or somehow make up stories about what it is in your blood, because we don’t know that. All we know is giving people blood, particularly from people who sick, is not good for you and makes a lot of people sick. Other people seem to tolerate it, but they sort of move on. And all this comes about because you keep asking your question, asking yourself the question, what do I see here? Meaning see, feel, taste, smell, et cetera, as opposed to what do I think? The what do I think is the story that you’re making up.

And what you see and what you feel and what you taste is getting you close to reality. And the more you rely on that and the more you do that, the better you get at it and the more able you are to actually live your life and base your life and have confidence in your life based on your own experience, which is the road to health. That’s why this whole thing, this whole conversation, which you could take pretty much any subject, and when I go through some of these, it’s the same thing. And why keep asking people what is it that you see as opposed to your intellectual imaginary conclusions about the explanation for what’s going on.

So hopefully that can help. And then I’ll go on to some of the other questions. So does DNA testing detect consciousness in structured water? So this is a general question and it actually has something to do with the same issue. What do you see when you test for something in the blood. And by the way, I want to give a shout out to a friend, Jordan Grant, who’s a doctor, I think he used to be in Texas and now he’s maybe Oklahoma. And I think he has probably a website, which I don’t really know, but Jordan has really gone deep into this.

What’s the difference between what we’re making up versus what we actually see? In other words, what is reality and in particular with relation to biology and blood tests and things like that. So for anybody who’s really interested in the truth behind blood tests and hormone testing and all the rest of it, I would absolutely check out the work of Dr. Jordan Grant. So basically what he, and he’s not the only one others say, basically they take some artificial stuff and then they find some reagents that give you a color change. If you have this chemical or this stuff that they made, the interaction of the stuff and the chemicals gives you a color change.

And then you can use that color change. When you put the chemicals on something else, then it will give you the same color change and that supposedly lets you identify that the original stuff was there. The problem with that is it’s almost never again, there’s a specificity problem. It’s almost never specific to that molecule, partly because the molecules themselves are hypothetical constructs. In other words, they don’t really exist. So all you know is that when you put, say waxy substance and mix in a certain set of reagents, that is chemicals, you get a color change and then you so called reify that or make a story up about that saying that tests for cholesterol.

Then I can take your blood and I can mix those same chemicals and then I can tell you how much or how little or the amount of cholesterol you have in your blood. Now when you think of it like that, we know that you’ve never actually purified, isolated, identified cholesterol in the blood, partly because that set of reagents is not actually been proven to be specific for anything, let alone cholesterol, let alone in the blood. So all you can really say, in other words to getting back to what do you see? You see, I take blood, I mix it with certain chemicals, I get a chemical change which is a non specific finding that tells me about something in the blood which I have no idea what it is or even really how much or the significance of it.

And it’s certainly not been proven to be specific to that chemical. So it’s the same with DNA, they take a Certain set of reagents, they mix it with certain tissues like a cheek cell or spit or your blood. And then they say they get a certain chemical reaction and. And then they reify that and make up a story that that means it’s DNA and it’s specific for this and even a sequence. And that’s not something that they see. And in fact, it’s not specific for that. But that doesn’t mean. That doesn’t mean anything. And so I’m not saying that there isn’t potentially, and I would use, emphasize that word, potentially, information from that.

And they may be able to even use that information to make certain conclusions about certain family ties or something. It’s hard to know that. And I think it’s not been proven that they can do that, but you can. All you know is you’re taking chemicals, mixing it with complex biological samples, coming out with a color change which is not specific, and then making up a story about what that color change means. That’s what all blood tests, all of these tests of living tissue mean. None of them, as far as I can see, are measuring anything specific or anything actually proven to be there while you’re alive in that tissue.

Because we actually have very little idea what a living being is made of and in what form things are in, et cetera. Now, again, I’m not saying that using a certain set of reagents and mixing it with blood or tissue and then getting a color change might not tell you certain information which is potentially valuable. So you could say, I take a certain set of reagents and I test this person’s blood and I get no color change versus 100 other people who I do get a color change. There’s something that this one person who doesn’t get a color change doesn’t have seemingly in their blood that the other 99 do.

And you could even say, well, maybe that has something to do with the metabolism. And so then you make up a story that the thyroid, hormones, thyroid gland, somehow influences or controls metabolism. And so then you say, this person has hypothyroidism, they have low thyroid function. Now, again, I would question whether you’ve actually proven that you’ve tested for anything, any chemical having anything to do with the thyroid or any chemical coming from a thyroid. But it may be that you have demonstrated that there’s something of which you don’t know, something nonspecific about this person which is, say, less present than in most, quote, normal people.

And you could say, well, if I give this person such and Such or have them eat differently, or even taking these other chemicals that makes them better or different, that still doesn’t prove that they actually had that hormone or chemical or substance deficient. So that’s how I would say about all blood tests, including DNA, that it’s not testing what we think it’s testing. It’s testing for non specific changes in the blood due to a certain set of reagents or chemicals that are added to that blood or tissue. And if we just stuck with that, I think we’d actually be able to help people a lot better and not make up unfounded conclusions which are just simply not warranted based on that evidence.

And at the end of the day, we have to then be humble enough to conclude we don’t really know what substances, if any, or how a living tissue is organized. Is it even organized into chemicals or substances? There seem to be certain proteins and certain other types of substances there that could be. But we have very little understanding of how this is all how you take chemicals and you organize them into a living being. For that we have simply no idea. And I think if we got off that whole chemical way of seeing the world, we would understand life a lot better and be able to help people a lot better.

Okay, how and when to use chlorine dioxide solution. And just to say that chlorine dioxide solution is different than mms, which, because it’s made differently, and it’s basically you take the two reagents and you mix, you put them in a shot glass and you put them in a beaker or a jar with water, and then you close the jar and then the two reagents essentially produce this yellow gas which then dissolves into the water. And you do that twice. And then you get a certain concentration of gas dissolved in the water, which is chlorine dioxide solution.

And what we have been able to find, and we’re not the only ones, and the person I think who understands this the best is Andreas Kalkar. So if you’re interested in chlorine dioxide solution, he’s the person to check out. And we come at this with a understanding that fundamentally this. So what are we talking about with living beings? We’re talking about basically some sort of substance, earth element that’s mixed with water. And then there’s also an air and a fire element and somehow this creates an electromagnetic charge. So you’re essentially like a charged battery. And health is when your battery is fully charged and you feel alive and happy and healthy and your tissues and organs work well and you’re not sick and you’re not tired and everything is going well.

And that comes from the way you think and the way you move and your exposure to the sun and the earth and to different and being replete with minerals, having enough minerals. And when something happens or you’re being poisoned and your charge goes down, that’s when you start getting what we call sickness. So it seems like chlorine dioxide solution is a way to donate charge, to essentially supply the organism with some extra electromagnetic charge to essentially lift their charge up so that they can, so their body can heal a little bit easier. So we tend to do that.

Or I, you know, the doctors at the clinic, you could almost say in most cases of people not doing well, you could use chlorine dioxide solution. But in particular when there’s things like so called infections, which we know are not caused by microbes, but the tissue is basically losing its charge, it’s getting weaker. That’s one way to look at it. And so it starts breaking down. The breaking down of the tissue is unfortunately and erroneously called a viral infection. And then you sometimes see in a pleomorphic way the bions, the microzyma are directed to form certain bacteria or certain fungi which then help biodegrade and reva and remodel the tissue.

And so if you recharge the tissue, which is seemingly what chlorine dioxide solution does, then it doesn’t break down and then it doesn’t need to be revitalized as much. And so then you see the end of this sort of symptoms of quote infection and then you get all better. So that seems to be the case when we mostly use it. So anything that we would other otherwise call an infection is something that I think is something that chlorine dioxide solution is a possible intervention. It’s certainly not the only one. Any kind of energy medicine, homeopathy, herbs, cell salts, detoxifying in some ways, turpentine, mental, emotional work, all these are different ways of raising your vibration, raising your energy level so you don’t need to break down as much.

And essentially that is the essence of all that we call sickness. But again, mostly we’ve been using it with what are otherwise called infections, but we’ve used it with things that would be otherwise called so called autoimmune disease, even cancer. And pretty much anything where the person is losing their charge, losing their vitality. Okay, what about fever in children? When is this bad? You know, this is something that I’ve looked at for 40 some years and I remember in the early days I looked for some sort of study in the medical literature that demonstrated that it was the fever that was the problem and not the underlying illness.

So let’s be clear, children or people who have high fevers, you could say they’re sick, they’re not doing well, something is happening and their body then responds by making a, increasing the temperature that is a fever. To do what? Now what I think it is is there’s some breakdown of the tissue or there’s some, something dissolved, some poison or something in the tissue like the muke in the lining of your lungs, which is interfering with proper lung function. So your body uses elevating the temperature fever to dissolve that gel and that form it into mucus so it can be basically coughed up and eliminated from the body.

So the fever is an integral, important, crucial and a part of the healing without what which one cannot have a successful healing experience. And that’s very important because, and I used to see this a fair amount in patients, people would say, oh, my child doesn’t feel well and they’re suffering. So I’m going to, I’m not going to use antibiotics, but I’m going to bring the fever down. And that is a horrible strategy. The fever is a part of the healing and without the fever the healing will not go as well as it would otherwise. And as far as I could tell in looking at the literature, there’s not one case to be made that it’s the fever that damages the person as opposed to the underlying process.

And in fact, even when I was a resident and I would, because we gave every child who was sick or had a fever Tylenol and I would ask the pediatricians and the doctors, is it necessary to treat the fever? And even they would admit there is no evidence in the medical scientific literature that fever temperature of any degree, any degree is by itself dangerous. And in a way this is verified by the use of hyperthermia, which is a cancer treatment that’s used in Europe where they do something, sometimes with machines, sometimes with injecting them toxins. And Coley’s toxins was an example that where you take inject fever producing substances of which there are numerous, and it quickly elevates the temperature even to 100 and 405.

And there’s no evidence that that damages any person in any way, as far as I know. And I spent a long time looking through the literature to make sure that was the case. So the issue with somebody, and particularly a child who’s sick and has a fever and I Never took any child’s temperature. I never asked the parents, what is the temperature? But what I did ask was, how is the child doing? So don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that a child with, say, 104 fever isn’t sick. And I’m not saying that they may even have the potential for a bad outcome, even dying.

That does happen. And. But they’re not dying or having a bad outcome because of the fever. The fever is the response. The bad outcome is because of dehydration or the toxicity or the changes that happen in the person because of the failure of elimination of the toxins, or sometimes it’s the chemicals that you’re giving them or some other reason. It’s not the fever that’s harming them. So my question was, how is the person, how is the child doing? In fact, I had what I called a foolproof way of assessing children in my office. So if a parent would bring a child in who had a high fever and they were scared and wanted to know if the child is okay, my first strategy was somehow to make the child laugh or at least smile.

And I would say it was true that any child that I could make laugh or smile, and sometimes I did it with funny noses or funny hand gestures or just being silly or something. Every child who I could get to pay attention and laugh or smile had a good outcome. And it was almost never that. I couldn’t get any child to at least give me a little bit of a smile. And if I couldn’t, that was a child that I really paid attention to that something is wrong. And then I would check in every half an hour with whatever I was doing and making sure that they were eventually doing better.

In other words, it was the sort of global assessment, which is the same thing I do with animals. Are they eating okay? Are they pooping okay? Are they interacting okay? And I can tell you, every parent knows when something is really wrong. It didn’t happen that much, but when it does happen, the parents know, the child knows. There’s a funny look and just a funny feel that I saw, you know, a few times in my career. And it’s pretty much unmistakable. Parents don’t miss it. And those ones, you really have to be on top of what’s happening.

But even there, it’s not the fever. And again, the only time, and this maybe happened three times in my entire career, where I had a child who was not doing well globally, and I couldn’t get them to laugh or smile, and I would do Something like cold compresses or something to try to get the fever down, just to see if I could take a look. In other words, without such a high fever, would they then act normally? And usually they would. And which told me that it was mostly the fever that was making them act not right.

And so that was fine. And then they went on to be fine. So that was the only, to me, valid reason for even attempting to lower the fever with any means otherwise. I let the fever go and do what I needed to do and give them whatever I was going to give them and help them get rid of the cough, help them clean their bowels, help them get hydrated, whatever it was that we needed to do, and let the fever do its job. And the fever is the healer. And I think this goes along with Hippocrates saying, allegedly, give me a medicine to produce a fever and I can cure any disease.

And I think that was probably true. Okay, let me skip one here. It’s an interesting question. Is there such a thing as terminal or incurable illness? So that what I would say about that, it’s an interesting concept and question because I would say that, to me, was only a retrospective diagnosis. In other words, I never gave somebody a prognosis like, oh, you have so and so you have six months to live, or you have two months to live, or anything like that, because obviously I didn’t know that. I didn’t know what was going to happen to them.

And this, in a way, is the magic and the beauty of getting away from thinking about diseases. In other words, you could say, oh, you have ovarian cancer, you have six months to live. But once you stop thinking about ovarian cancer and you start actually getting into a realistic understanding of this is just a process that your body is going through. And it certainly is a difficult process. And certainly people do die from this process. But I’m not going to go down this road of this is your diagnosis, and therefore this is going to be what happens to you.

And instead of that, I heard the situation and the question was always, how can I make this person’s or help this person to have a better life today? In other words. So I’m going to tell them do such and such. And the idea is that they will be better tomorrow than they were today, and that the following, the coming week will be better than it was last week. So that may be give them a medicine. It may be making them laugh. It may be just talking to them and listening to them. It may be doing a fast.

It may be cleaning their bowels, it may be giving them turpentine, it may be giving them chlorine dioxide. It may be even giving them some sort of a drug, which is not usually the case. In fact, hardly ever. But what I was looking for is. Is something that I heard, something that is in their consciousness that I can interface with to make their life better. And then depending on the severity of the situation, I would ask them to call me in a week or a day or an hour or a month and say, how is this month better than it was or different than it was last month? Some people would say it was worse, in which case, obviously what I said didn’t work and their life didn’t get better.

But when you think of it like that and you actually help people see the world like that, it takes a lot of the fear out. It takes a lot of the this is what’s going to happen to me. It’s like predictive programming and sort of hexing people. And they start living more in the moment. Like, well, if I go for a walk today or if I go out in the sun or if I put my feet on the ground, actually I feel a little bit better than I did yesterday. And if I talk to this person who I have been hoping or meaning or worrying about talking to, and if I cry a little bit about what happened to me or what I did five years ago, my life feels better and I’m better.

That is not curing the disease. Nobody got cured of cancer like that or any fight, you know, any ALS or anything. But their situation is better. And then we go on from there and go on from there, and I never, in my mind and hopefully get it out of their mind, Even the thought of where this is going or what’s going to happen. Now, obviously some people want to talk about that, and so that’s fine. And I would talk about that, and even we could talk about what we think about happens to you when you do die, because that’s going to happen to all of us.

So that’s fine, too. And sometimes even that is a relief and helps people feel better. And maybe they even make plans and maybe they say things to people that they wouldn’t have said otherwise. But all that is not in the service of curing a disease, but simply making people’s lives better. And I just keep doing that day after day, week after week. What is it today that I’m hearing? What is it today that I can interface with to make this person’s help, this person’s Life be better? What suggestion or what way of listening? Then they go on, and eventually then they will probably die, just like all of us.

And only then will I say, well, that situation was terminal. And so that’s what happened up basically until that moment. I would not make that conclusion. I would not tell anybody what’s going to happen to them, because I have no idea what’s going to happen to me or anybody else. And so all I’m focusing on is helping this person’s life be better day after day, Maybe some quick ones. Can you use food as medicine? Will there be a day? And obviously, we’ve talked a lot about that, and I’ve devoted pretty much 40 years of my life to trying to figure out how food is medicine, in what way it does.

What do I think about biofield tuning? And obviously, I’m friends with Eileen McKusick and I’m a big supporter of her work, and we use biofield tuning in our clinic, and I think it’s a great way of tuning into the energy field of a living being, including a person, and then being able to tune with it, resonate with it, using other senses. That’s what I mean by what did you see in this case? What do you hear and what vibration do you feel? Because it’s not just the seeing or the tasting that we can experience. We can hear things, we can sense things.

And I think she’s making that a bit more visible and clear and working within a way that you can actually start to work with it. Okay, I think I’m going to stop there. There’s a few more, but my voice is giving out and probably that’s enough. And again, I just want to emphasize, whenever you get into a situation, ask yourself, what did I see? What did I feel? What did I taste? What did I smell? Try to keep the stories that you’re making up about this to a minimum, because it turns out most of the stories we, including me, make up are not actually the truth.

And so we’re better off just sticking with what we know and sticking with reality. And there’s a certain magic in this. That’s really what I want to convey. And you get better and better at tuning in and knowing how the world really is when you do this process and commit to it. Okay, thanks, everybody, for listening, as always, and hopefully I will see you next week.
[tr:tra].

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