➡ The article discusses a new perspective on diseases, suggesting they are not distinct biological entities but rather responses to individual life situations. It argues that symptoms are the body’s way of dealing with circumstances, influenced by factors like heredity, diet, emotions, environment, and exposure to toxins. The author challenges the traditional understanding of diseases, using rheumatoid arthritis as an example, and emphasizes the importance of personal agency in health and healing. This approach forms the basis of the New Biology clinic’s thinking.

➡ The text discusses the challenges in diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis and ADHD due to the lack of definitive tests and overlapping symptoms with other conditions. It suggests that these conditions might not be specific diseases, but rather responses to various individual factors. The text also questions the accuracy of ADHD diagnosis rates and the validity of tests used. Lastly, it briefly mentions scarlet fever, highlighting the commonality of its symptoms with other conditions.

➡ Scarlet fever is often identified by a red, bumpy tongue, but this symptom can also be seen in other conditions like toxic shock syndrome, Kawasaki disease, and even vitamin B12 deficiency. The presence of group A strep bacteria, often associated with scarlet fever, is also found in healthy individuals, making it an unreliable indicator. Similarly, tests for diseases like cancer can yield false positives, leading to unnecessary worry and treatment. The article suggests that diseases are not specific entities but rather unique conditions influenced by various factors, and understanding this can lead to more effective, personalized treatments.

➡ This text talks about how our environment and personal choices, like what we put into our bodies, can affect our health. It also mentions that everyone is unique and traditional disease categories may not apply to all. The author encourages readers to review their book on Amazon and invites those interested in this health perspective to join a discussion at the new biology clinic. The author thanks everyone for listening and promises to return next week.

Hey, thanks everybody. Welcome to another Wednesday webinar. March 26, 2025. And as always, thanks for joining me. Just a few announcements here. We are still taking applications for a new practitioner, a primary wellness specialist, which would either be a medical doctor or a do or a chiropractor, a naturopath or somebody else who could convince us that they should have the position. And so we’ll put in the show notes where you send your cover letter and resume and then hopefully somebody will contact you. We’re also looking for somebody to join the CARE team. These are mostly the people who communicate with the public.

And we’ve just started this new program where a member of the CARE team who works with the new biology clinic. If you’re somebody who’s interested in the new biology clinic becoming a member, but you’re not sure if it’s right for you, you can set up a free appointment with one of the CARE team members. And just to be clear, this is not to get medical advice or find out what’s the matter with you or anything like that. It’s just to see whether you would be a good fit for the clinic. And then you can get, you know, talk about the rules of the clinic and how much it costs and what you have access to and what we offer and just to get your logistic questions about the clinic answered.

So we’ll put that in the show notes too. So if you’re interested in signing up to become a member of the clinic, which we hope you do, that’s the way to go about it to find out more information. And I think that’s pretty much it for announcements. So let’s get to it. And just a few things that I happen to run across before we get to the issue at hand, which is are there real diagnoses? So I’m going to be sharing my screen and the first thing is something I ran across from an email and, and I’m just going to show this.

And this is the announcement of this woman, Susan Manara’s CDC director. So this is a woman who was supportive of the so called gain of function research, which means she’s squarely in the virus delusion camp. And so you can sort of see this leading advocate for masking children in school promoting the COVID 19 so called vaccines as recently as 2024. And the most important thing is she’s a massive AI person. And that’s one of the things I’ve been saying is basically everything that’s being done now is towards bringing in this technocracy sort of an AI driven world, especially in the realm of healthcare, but in a whole lot of other things.

So one could really question whether this whole Maha thing is just a horrible cover story. A carrot that’s covering up the real agenda, which is a technocratic AI driven health system where everybody will be bamboozled into. And certainly the CDC pick for the new director looks like that’s the case. So just to be aware of that, the next thing is again something I thought was interesting, which has a little bit to do with some of the things we talked about. So as everybody has heard thousands of times by now, whenever they do a experiment to quote, isolate the virus, which of course is no such thing, they use fetal bovine serum to help stimulate the growth of the cells.

And then they take away some of the fetal bovine serum. And that is part of the reason why the cells die, because they don’t have enough of this sort of life giving serum in order to grow. And then you’ve heard that, then the cells break down and then they put it in an electron microscope, then they see these little particles and that eureka, that’s the virus. So this is an article. Turns out that all fetal bovine serum, including those that are virus screened, so all samples of bovine serum examined to date, including those that are screened for viruses, in other words, they don’t supposedly have viruses in them, have particles that have the structure and the appearance that are identical to viruses.

So horse serum and human serum doesn’t have these. And so wink, wink, this may be the reason they use fetal bovine serum more than horse serum or, or human serum, because it breaks down. And then you see these virus like particles that pellet out at the same density as alleged viruses do. And so for all intents and purposes, they are in every way identical to what they’re calling viruses, but they’re not viruses, they’re just breakdown products of fetal bovine serum, which is another way of saying the whole isolation and then finding these particles in the broken down cell culture, you’re not finding viruses at all.

You’re just looking at broken down fetal bovine serum or monkey kidney cells or those are the two main things. So again, this is another way of disproving the whole virus story. So I just thought I would show that first because we can’t keep going with this virus story. It just crops up over and over again. Okay, let me stop, share for a minute and go to the full screen and talk about what I’m just to introduce the subject, actually, before I do that in a way, this, this webinar today is all about this quote from our person that I’ve shown a number of times.

Everybody knows Florence Nightingale and the specific disease doctrine is the grand refuge of weak, uncultured, unstable mind such as now rule in the medical profession. I can only imagine what she would think now. There are no specific disease. There are specific disease conditions. So in a sense, what I’m doing, what I’m going to do today is try to find out is she right? So it’s very important, I think, to be clear what I’m talking about and what maybe she was talking about. About. Obviously I don’t know exactly what she was saying, but I think it’s pretty clear from that.

It’s not saying that people aren’t sick. It’s not saying that people don’t feel well. It’s not saying that people don’t have swollen joints or pus coming out of their nose or lungs. It’s not to say that people don’t act in strange or unusual ways, ways that even draw attention and maybe even draw the question, I wonder what’s wrong with that person. It’s not to say that people don’t lose their sense of taste or smell. It’s not to say that people don’t have tumors. It’s not to say that people even can have bad outcomes from whatever it is that’s ailing them.

It’s not to say that when you have a tumor and then you have more and more, say not a tumor, an abnormal growth or growth that doesn’t look like normal tissue, that that may be a bad thing for your health and it may even result in your death. We’re not saying any of those things. We’re not saying that people don’t have the experiences and that there aren’t the observations which we, which are obvious like a growth on a breast that doesn’t look like or feel like or any other way look like the normal breast tissue. Nobody is saying that those things don’t exist.

What she was questioning, and what I’m going to take a look at today is whether those experiences, those what we called in medical training signs and symptoms. Symptoms are the person’s experience. I don’t feel well, I have a cough, I have mucus coming out of my nose. I have pain in my leg. I have a burning sensation in the bottom of my feet, feel, you know, sad much of the time. These are valid experiences that people have and they also have so called signs. These are the things that doctors find or practitioners Find on physical exam.

In other words, you know, you do have redness, you do have swelling in your joints. If I push on them, you feel pain, you have a growth here that doesn’t look like it’s the normal part of your body or your anatomy. Those are the signs that doctors or practitioners see. And nobody is saying that those things don’t exist. The difference here is that the asking the question, are these things categorizable, if that’s a word, into specific defined conditions or diseases, or that we therefore diagnose and we treat based on these diagnoses? The importance of this is that is the entire basis of medicine.

So you have a sore throat and then you say the diagnosis is strep throat. Depending on in that case, if the culture is positive and then you look up or you remember what the treatment for strep throat is, penicillin. And everybody who has those signs and symptoms and test results gets the same thing. I understand that some people are allergic to penicillin, so they get erythromycin, but I think everybody knows what I mean. Same thing with ovarian cancer, same thing with rheumatoid arthritis. And of course, there may be some options. Some people you can give Enbrel, and some people you can give prednisone.

But basically the entire edifice of conventional medicine, and I would say alternative medicine, is these are valid categorizable diseases, unlike what Florence Nightingale claimed, which is they’re not specific diseases, they’re something else. And so we’re going to be looking at whether they in fact are specific diseases. Now some of you may think, what’s the point of this? Like, what difference does this make? And I would actually claim that this is first of all the essence of the new biology thinking and the new biology clinic that we as practitioners have come to the conclusion that these are not actually biological entities, meaning these diseases, that they’re a artificial categorization which has no actual meaning in the real world.

And we’ve talked about this in relation to so called viral illnesses, but now we’re going to talk about this with illnesses that nobody thinks have anything to do with viruses. And I’m going to give some examples of that. Now, why is this important? I think that the real essence of this is essentially if you think that you have a disease, in other words, I have Lyme disease, I have rheumatoid arthritis, I have adhd, I have ovarian cancer, or whatever it is, in a subtle and I would say subconscious way, you have agreed to become A victim of that disease.

And as I’ve said many times, one could make the case that the only disease there is is victim consciousness. In other words, agreeing to play the role of the victim. The other point of view is you may not know why you’re exhibiting these symptoms. I mean, we have some ideas or some hypotheses which may or may not be correct, that this is your body’s way of expressing whatever it needs to express and it’s the best thing your body can do given the situations and the circumstances that you’ve provided for it. That’s certainly one way of looking at it.

Whether that’s always the case or sometimes the case I would say remains to be seen. But what it does point you to is there is no specific diseases that have got me that this is an individual story based on the situation in my life and all of the things that make up my life, including my heredity, the way I eat, the way I think, the emotional life, the house that I live in, the electromagnetic environment that I live in, the toxins that I’m exposed to, and many, many, many more things. So if it’s not a disease that you’re talking about which comes out of nowhere and it’s, you know, we’ve, we keep hearing they’re either genetic or they’re caused by organisms that you can’t see or that actually have never been proven to cause illness.

And all of these are variations of the victim story. We’re flipping that around and saying it’s the situation in your life that has led your body to make this kind of reaction and therefore you have agency in this and therefore you can do something about it, and therefore you can heal. And in a sense what I’m suggesting is that before or a condition that healing takes place is that you actually come to understand that this is the biological reality that there are no specific diseases. As Florence Nightingale said, there are patterns, there are signs and there are symptoms, but we need a whole different way of looking at it.

I’ve suggested a way of looking at this which is based on given the situation you’ve have confronted your body with or put your body in, it will choose to do the best thing it can to promote healing and wellness and balance. That’s one way of looking at symptoms. I can’t say necessarily that that’s correct. But really what we’re looking at today is what is the evidence that these so called diseases are actually genuine biological realities. So that’s the first step. Once we can get to the bottom of that Then we know that there must. Well if it’s true, it’s true.

If it isn’t, then we know there must be something else going on. And that something else puts us in a whole different stance towards medicine and our own health and what we’re going to do about it and the kind of practitioners and like I said, it is the fundamental of way of thinking of the New Biology clinic. So let’s now look at some examples. And I just picked a few out, not exactly by random, but sort of by random. So the first whoops is hopefully you can share my screen. No, I have to share the screen again.

Sorry about that. Okay. The first disease that I thought I would look at is rheumatoid arthritis. I’ve talked about this many times before. So the, the thinking process of this is so what are the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis? What does the person experience? So they here’s. And again, I apologize for the way these come out. I don’t know why the format is like that. So you can see this is from Arthritis Research, November 2001 and it’s called Auto Antibody Systems in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Specificity, sensitivity and diagnostic value. So the abstract they tell us that the symptoms are based on clinical or the diagnosed based on clinical symptoms.

But this makes it hard to figure out who has rheumatoid arthritis in the early stage because either you don’t have all the clinical symptoms like swollen joints and redness and heat and pain and there’s a certain pattern and maybe you don’t feel well because maybe all those symptoms aren’t there or also because many of those symptoms are shared exactly the same with many other diseases. So you could have so called Lyme disease, you could have Sjogren’s syndrome, you could have lupus, you could have goneococcal arthritis, you could have osteoarthritis in the early stages. And even though they may have slightly different patterns, basically we cannot tell one from the other based on just the symptoms.

So in that case. So the symptoms don’t give us a specific diagnosis. In other words, there is no specificity to the symptoms of what we’re calling the disease rheumatoid arthritis. And so in other words, no doctor, no matter how experienced, can simply look at a patient and say you have for 100% sure proven rheumatoid arthritis. They can be suspicious and they can make a guess. But you also have to understand that in order to make any diagnosis there has to be something that you can compare your proposed diagnosis, whether it’s even clinical evaluation or based on a test, to something that you know is true.

If you don’t have with a certain illness or diagnosis something that you know is true, then you can never find the error rate of your proposed diagnosis. And again, this is something I’ve been over many times and the best example is with pregnancy. So you can take 100 women who you know are pregnant, how do you know they’re pregnant? You could feel the baby, you could do an X ray and see ahead, and the limbs and the chest, etc. You could do an ultrasound and see the same things. Or you could even wait and see if the baby emerges from the birth canal after say nine months of the woman being pregnant.

So, so now you have what’s called a gold standard. And you can say, now I know for sure that this person is pregnant. Then you can do a test like a urine or blood test for a certain marker like HCG and say 99 of those hundred women who I know for sure are pregnant, they have a positive test. Therefore there’s a false negative rate of 1% and that allows you to use the test. On the other hand, you could take 100 men who are supposedly not pregnant. They used to be able to be pregnant when Biden was president, but now they can’t be pregnant.

So you know that they’re not pregnant. And then you do the test and turns out two of them test positive for being pregnant. So now you know you have a 2% false positive rate. That is a precondition for using any kind of test or even any kind of evaluation for deciding whether your diagnostic evaluation is correct. So I would ask anybody what is the gold standard with rheumatoid arthritis? That tells you that you’re 100% sure that this person has rheumatoid arthritis. Is it their symptoms? Well, it turns out the same symptoms are with Sjogren’s, lyme, lupus and probably 10 or 12 other so called diseases.

So the symptoms can’t possibly be the gold standard because you can’t tell who has it. So then we get into, well, what about if it’s a antibody test called rheumatoid factor. So when I was doing in medical school, that’s what we learned was the, was the test that would tell you if somebody had rheumatoid arthritis. So it was first described 75 years ago. A vast amount of work has been performed on it. It’s present in 75% of RA patients. But how can you possibly come up with that number because you don’t have anything that tells you 100% sure that they have rheumatoid arthritis.

So how do you know that 75% of them who test positive actually have rheumatoid arthritis? So that’s a huge problem. But its specificity is limited since it’s also found in people who have different autoimmune diseases like Sjogren’s or so called infectious disease like hepatitis or tuberculosis. And to a certain extent in the healthy population. In other words, if you take people who have no symptoms and you test them, young people, 3 to 5% of them, it will tell you they have rheumatoid arthritis. And if you take healthy elderly individuals, 10 to 30% of them test positive for this marker, which is then used to come up with the diagnosis.

And so in spite of this, it’s still used as a diagnostic marker for ra. I did it probably hundreds of times on people and told them that it would tell me whether they have rheumatoid arthritis or not. And it’s got to be obvious to everybody listening, the symptoms didn’t tell me, this test doesn’t tell me. And when you go through every other antibody that they talk about and they look through all of them and there’s probably more. Now, now there’s so called specificity and heavy chain. But the question with everyone has to be what is the standard that they have 100% certainty that the person has rheumatoid arthritis? And the answer is there isn’t one, in which case you can’t possibly know the false positive or false negative rate.

And so it’s a completely meaningless and useless test. And the way they come up with this specificity is by comparing one to the other and somehow saying that, well, the 1 doesn’t prove it, so then maybe 2 prove it or 3 prove it and they compare one to the other. But again, if you’d ever have a single measurement or observation or fact that tells you whether you have rheumatoid arthritis or not, and none of these do it, you’re always going to end up with not knowing what the false positive or negative rate. And therefore they can be a little bit claimed to be a little bit better or worse.

But in fact how do you know whether they’re better or worse because you have nothing to compare it to. So my conclusion is that rheumatoid arthritis has never been shown to be a specific disease. They can’t possibly come up with a accurate measure here’s all the sensitivity and the specificity, but it’s all also present in other infectious disease and in healthy individuals. So there’s no way actually to come up with a specificity. And therefore one has to conclude that there is no proof that this is a specific disease. And so it’s more likely to be something that your body creates in order to adapt to a certain whatever conditions it’s been exposed to.

And it’s based on the individual story, as I said. One person, it may be emotional. The other person, it may be collagen deficiency. Another person, it may be chronic stress, another person may be overuse. It could be a lot of things. It’s an individual story. And that is what you treat, not the diagnosis, because there is no accurate diagnosis possible. So that’s one case. Let me see if I can find another one here. So this is another disease which we hear a lot of now because allegedly they’re going to get rid of chronic disease in children.

And so we hear a lot about the fact that ADHD has been on the rise and it may be related to vaccines or maybe not. Depends on when you ask the people who are involved. So the question then is, is actually ADHD a specific disease? And let me just. If I. All right, so here’s the first one. So this is a review. This was from March 9, 2022. Guy named Randy Bressler, ADH diagnosis. Which assessment tools to use and why. So this is a review of the available measures and performance tests for ADHD and what evaluators need to know about this.

So they go through the same thing. Is there a set of symptoms that people experience that tells you whether they have adhd? So they begin by saying there’s a whole lot of things that can impact whether somebody has this diagnosis. In other words, it’s found more in some places than others. So if you go to a place that has a lot, then you can diagnose it more. There’s a lot of over diagnosis. If you over diagnosis, it can have a negative effect and that it often coincides with other problems. So this is. So in other words, there is no accurate clinical evaluation.

Any symptoms that the person, child or adult now has that tell you whether they have this diagnosis called adhd. And interestingly, then they start throwing around numbers. Most common behavioral condition affecting 10%, not 9%, not 11% of those aged 4 to 17. So how do you come up with a diagnosis if there’s no accurate diagnosis? It has to do with the prevalence rates, and we don’t know Exactly. There’s no symptoms that are specific to ADHD. How do we know that it’s 10% and not 20%? Compare this to the 7% which we didn’t know who had it then, or the worldwide prevalence rate of 5%.

These are numbers that they simply pull out of their hat. There is no science of this. There’s the incidence increases with age. There’s twice as many 10 to 17 year olds as they are 5 to 9 year olds and it costs a lot of money to deal with them. And we can’t tell who has it by basing the symptoms. And so we’re going to call it a neurodevelopmental disorder. And so now we’ve changed and it’s got to do with involves executive functioning, which is attention, impulse control. How do you define whether somebody has impulse control? How do you define that somebody is able to self regulate? How do you define that somebody is good at organization or planning and has a good working memory? Memory.

So they say this, they’ve codified this and but by the way, there’s a problem because these associated characteristics are found in many other situations such as difficulty with focusing. How do you define how much difficulty somebody has with focusing that now they have ADHD as opposed to not having adhd? That’s obviously nonsense. How do you define whether somebody is able to manage their frustration or staying engaged, what for five minutes or 10 minutes or with something they don’t like to do or something they’re not interested versus something they are. Then by the way, it comes with a whole lot of other problems.

52% have behavioral or conduct problems. 33% are anxious maybe because they’re diagnosed. 17% are quote depressed maybe because they have the diagnosis. 14% have another undiagnosable disease called autism. So we call that a spectrum. So they don’t have anything specific. But by the way, we have tests. So regardless of the experts we can. So a well regarded, arguably gold standard approach is using evidence based assessments that involve adherence to DSM 5 diagnostic criteria. So in other words, they’re saying there are these tests that are gold standards that tell you for sure who has it and who doesn’t.

So you go looking for some of these tests. So here was one that I found called the NEP test. Scroll down. Sorry about the formatting, I was looking for the intro. So this provides tailored assessment, gives you an accurate measure of whether somebody has ADHD or not. And it’s basically a series of questions which they grade the answers in. And one of the one of them that’s also used is called the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. There it is. You can see the thing there. This is from neuropsychological test of set shifting. So they show the children a bunch of cards and they try to match the cards.

And if they get a certain amount right, they have adhd, and if they get a certain another amount, they don’t. They’re normal. And somehow this is a biological entity that can tell you whether the person actually has this disease, which has no specific symptoms, overlaps with many other diseases. And all these are tests of looking at cards and hearing things and seeing what your response are, which have no ability to be standardized or to know for sure what the cutoff range is. So they have no ability to be compared to any kind of gold standard, meaning anything that you know is true.

So the numbers are completely bogus and made up and make believe. So we have no idea who has this and who doesn’t. It’s simply a situation of a child who has some reason for not doing well. And none of these tests give you any information about that at all. So let’s go to another one. How about scarlet fever? So they say scarlet fever. This is from, again, the format is wonky here, but this is, I think from a Cleveland Clinic brochure. So it’s caused by group A, strep, the same bacteria that cause strep throat. And the symptoms of scarlet fever? Red, bumpy, rash all over your body, hence the name red fever, affects mostly children, but adults too.

The symptoms are uncomfortable. So what are the symptoms? Fever, sore throat and rash. So these are the same symptoms with probably 50 to 100 other conditions. All have fever, sore throat and rash. But this one has a characteristic or so called pathognomonic, we were taught, meaning this is a very specific sign for somebody having scarlet fever. And this is called the scarlet fever tongue. And one of the symptoms of scarlet fever is a swollen tongue that appears red and bumpy. Some people think it looks like a strawberry, so it’s called a strawberry tongue. And this is the hallmark of, of scarlet fever.

So if you see this, allegedly that can be the gold standard because it can’t happen with anything else. So we were told, therefore it tell, it tells you for sure. It’s like finding a baby in a woman’s uterus or seeing the baby come out of the birth canal. This is the hundred percent sure that this is scarlet fever. You’re dealing with a very specific illness. And so here you can see the symptoms of scarlet fever, fever, sore Throat, hundreds of other conditions, red, bumpy rash, lots of other conditions. And then the whole thing with your tongue.

And then you also may experience chills, fever, stomach pain, nausea, vomiting, headache, body aches, swollen glands, decreased appetite, sounds just like the flu. And in fact they’ve done studies showing experienced pediatricians. This is a mix of people they claim have measles or scarlet fever or the flu or roseola or chickenpox. And they can’t decide, they can’t come to a blind agreement of who is who. But one of the things that’s so interesting is that looking at another paper here again, that was that one. So what about this so called pathognomonic or hallmark of scarlet fever, the strawberry tongue.

That’s a tongue that has red with large bumps. It’s actually a sign of scarlet fever or toxic shock syndrome or Kawasaki disease. And then they actually give you a chart or strawberry tongue may be a sign of other infections including yersinia, pseudotuberculosis, yellow fever, food or drug allergies, or vitamin B12 deficiency. In other words, if you’re a vegan, you might get a red and strawberry tongue. And that has nothing to do with meaning you have strep throat. And so therefore there are no specific symptoms that tell you tell anybody, any doctor that the person actually has strep throat.

So then you come to, well, the diagnosis is based on you have suspicion. So you could, they could have a vitamin deficiency, so called, they could have allergies, they could have some other infection, they could have Kawasaki disease, which they say they don’t even have any idea what that’s from. So you actually can’t tell. So that can’t be the gold standard because we have no symptoms that definitively say whether somebody has strep or not. So we do a strep A test and if that’s positive, then it’s the diagnosis. But it turns out that many people, and I don’t know if I have the numbers here, are so called carriers of group A strep.

In other words, whenever you test them, you will find this bacteria growing in their throat, which means it is not a specific sign proving that you have strep throat at all. And besides the fact that there is no study that shows that spraying somebody with strep actually causes them to be sick. In fact, just the opposite, if you isolate the bacteria and expose people to it, they in fact don’t get sick. So the whole thing is actually not the case, that finding strep in their throat proves that they have strep throat. Even by the normal studies, the normal admission, that’s simply not the case because they have to talk about carriers of strep, meaning that you.

There are certain relatively robust percentage, like 4 or 5%, which actually have strep group A strep always in their throat. So again, we have no definitive sign or symptom that that there is a specific disease. Therefore, we cannot say for sure who has it and who doesn’t. Therefore, it doesn’t look like it’s a biological entity at all. It is a situation of something happening in somebody’s throat, and then certain bacteria come probably to help clean up the dead and dying tissues. And we unfortunately call that a disease rather than a healing process, even though we can’t actually define the disease and be for sure who has it.

Okay, and then one more example that I thought I would talk about is what about these tests that tell us whether somebody has cancer? And I just randomly picked one, and this is from the official website of the US Government, meaning we can be sure that it’s the truth and nothing but the truth. Then the intro here, and one of the things that was so interesting about this. So you have somebody and you do a test, and it’s called a CA19.9, and then they have a cutoff. So if it’s over 37, whatever micrograms per milliliter, then you have pancreatic cancer.

And if it’s below that, then you don’t. Which already seems weird because how can it be that if you’re 38, you’re about to die from this horrible disease, and if you’re 36, no problem, don’t worry about it. So already we know this cannot be a biological entity. But then when you actually go into studies on this, they talk about a Korean study where they took almost 71,000 asymptomatic, so in other words, otherwise healthy people. And they did this test, this CA19.9, which is still used in following and for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. And they used the standard cutoff, the 37 micrograms per milliliter, and they found 1063 cases of asymptomatic people who had elevated CA19.9.

So those people were probably told, or if they were told anything, that’s not good. You have something to worry about. You’ve tested positive for pancreatic cancer, get your affairs in order, blah, blah, blah. And then you keep reading. It turns out only four of these patients with pancreatic. Only four of these people with elevated CA19 nine actually were they able to find pancreatic cancer? Interestingly, in 11 cases they found some other kind of cancer which still isn’t very high. I don’t know what the percentage is, but in other words, only four of these who were tested positive for this test actually had the disease that they would maybe otherwise have been told they at least might have and maybe probably do have.

So that doesn’t seem like very high. And then you even have to wonder what was the test that told them for sure whether they had pancreatic cancer or not. And even with that, so they do a biopsy and maybe they see abnormal chromosomes or abnormal shaped cells. How do they evaluate that that is a for sure diagnosis like pregnancy, that therefore you can say here is the prognosis for this diagnosis. Here we’re sure of what you have. And my guess is there is because, and I couldn’t find it because I tried to look where is there a test with any cancer? That here is the appearance of the, of the pathology on the slide.

And this accurately and 100% predicts what’s going to happen to the person. And I’m sure there probably are some things that are at least looking at that, but I couldn’t find one that actually was 100% sure. And so that makes me think again, this is not a specific biological entity. This is rather the reaction, given a whole lot of different circumstances, that the body somehow chooses to make something happen in the pancreas. And again, I’m not saying it’s not a problem, I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything about it. But what I’m saying is if you look at it as a specific disease, then you have to be able to say how were you able to diagnose it as a specific disease? What is the gold standard that tells us you have 100% certainty comparable to pregnancy and that as far as I can see, doesn’t exist for any disease.

Maybe for pregnancy and for fractured femurs and maybe a few other things, but not for what we’re calling diseases. So in other words, this is basically a house of cards. And the sooner that people stop identifying with their so called disease, which is not a biological entity, and the sooner they start looking for what is their individual and unique story that led their body to make this kind of reaction. And therefore what can I do about this? I think that’s when we will be able to make America healthy again. Not that necessarily we ever were, but probably a lot more than we are now.

And the more we get into this diagnostic dilemma which will be the inevitable consequence of the AI technocratic takeover of medicine. It will be all about the artificial categorization of illness and, and then the treatment based on the categorization. And they’ll get smaller and smaller and look at your pieces of genetic material and the proteins that you have and say this is your specific diagnosis and it’s treatable by so and so vaccine. And that’s where we’re heading unless we can eliminate the whole mindset of specific diseases. So let me just show that one more time. So my conclusion is Florence was correct.

The specific disease doctrine is the grand refuge of weak, uncultured, unstable mind, such as now rule in the medical profession. There are no specific diseases. There are specific disease conditions. There are patterns. There are interventions for different patterns based on the unique story of the person, including their mindset and their emotional makeup and what they eat and how they live and the factors that are being put into the air and the water and all the rest of it, and whether people agree to get injected with different poisons or not all that are what make people sick.

And everyone is individual and specific and the disease categories don’t exist. Okay, thanks everybody for listening again to remind everybody who’s interested to write a review of my common sense book on Amazon and to keep in touch and I look at your comments and if you’re interested in pursuing this way of seeing health and illness that I just described at the new biology clinic, sign up for a discussion with one of our. Well, with one of our care team members and they can help you find out whether this is right for you. So again, thanks everybody for listening and I will see you next week.
[tr:tra].

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