➡ The speaker is focused on defining a virus and its isolation process, arguing that if a virus can’t be separated from other components, it’s impossible to identify its origin. They also discuss the use of DMSO, a solvent derived from wood pulp, in medical treatments, suggesting it can help the body remove unwanted debris. The speaker then explores the idea that tumors are the body’s way of containing harmful substances, and suggests various methods for dissolving and eliminating them. Lastly, they touch on the potential for regenerating bone growth areas, emphasizing the importance of focusing on overall health rather than specific medical terms.

➡ To regenerate or grow healthy bones, three methods are suggested: consuming collagen or bone broth daily, using comfrey as a homeopathic remedy and compress, and employing sound therapy. Bone broth is rich and nourishing, while comfrey, a plant, aids in bone healing. Sound therapy, based on the idea that bones resonate with certain frequencies, can also promote healing. These methods are preferred over complex scientific theories, as they are more intuitive and accessible.

➡ The text discusses the theory of using deuterium-depleted water to improve health, suggesting it could help restore the body’s proper gel form, potentially reducing susceptibility to disease. However, the author’s personal experience with this method showed no noticeable changes. The text also covers the topic of thyroid health, recommending natural thyroid supplements and a healthy diet for those without a functioning thyroid. Lastly, it discusses the concept of the microbiome, emphasizing that the types of bacteria and other organisms in our bodies are dependent on our internal conditions, not inherently good or bad.

➡ The speaker believes in the importance of salt, particularly unrefined types like bamboo, Celtic, and Redmond salt, for our bodies as it enhances food taste and digestion. He suggests consuming salt according to personal taste and needs, especially during physical activities. He also mentions his commitment to educating people about new biology principles through a curriculum he has developed, which includes various health-related topics and interactive discussions. This curriculum aims to help participants understand and apply these principles, with the speaker offering continuous support until they do.

Sam Foreign okay, Hello everybody. Today is another Wednesday webinar. Today is checking the sound July 9, 2025. Thanks everybody for joining me. Hope you’re having a good summer. And speaking of summer, just like last year, I’m going to take a brief sabbatical. So this will be the last webinar until August 13th. I’m going to keep my this is full on garden time and full on food processing and have family visits coming and just seems like a good time to stop and refresh and give everybody a break. And I was thinking that in the comments to this video, if people would be interested in suggesting future topics or future formats, who you might like me to interview or what you would like me to speak about.

I know some of this comes about in questions, but I would be interested in reading those in the comments. Now, I know, or I can guess that the pretty much the predominant one is people would love to see me have a conversation with a virologist or something close to a virologist. And I would love to do that, too. But of course, as I’ve been saying, the format has to be such that it would actually address the issues. Every time we’ve tried to organize something like that, what we hear is so they speak for half an hour and drone on about sequences and genomes and phylogenetic trees and all that.

And then we or I speak for a half an hour and then there’s a few chances for rebuttal. And that’s no different than me doing a webinar, they doing their pieces. And we’ve already had enough of that. What we want and what I think everybody wants to hear is an actual conversation and a dialogue, which is what I’ve suggested all along. And the problem is, and this gets into my topic that I wanted to speak very briefly about, which is words, which is so I would start at the beginning. So in so we can’t tell from observation whether this person is making that person sick or this animal is making that animal sick.

You simply can’t tell. We all know that. So let’s do science and show me a study showing that sick people or animals make, well, people or animals sick. And we would present or I would present the Rossino study and Daniel Reutez’s book can you catch a cold? And there’s probably 20 or so other studies from the cold units and et cetera, showing that that doesn’t work. And we’ve asked for that. And we’ve never heard of a single study that shows that, well, people sick people or animals make well, people or animals sick, all they do is come up with their ferret studies of squirting the ferret stuff, the cell cultures down the ferret’s throat, and then they show that the ferret has certain PCR findings.

And that’s not what I mean. So I wouldn’t budge. So I would get. I would stay there until they admit that there is no scientific evidence of contagion or show me a study. And we would go over the methodology of the study. Now, that might be the end of the conversation, but then we could move on to viruses. And I would say, first, let’s start with the definition of a virus. And here. So I was going to talk about. One of the things that, let’s just say, tyrants and fools always do is they try to change the definition of the words so there is a very clear definition of virus.

And then people change it and say, well, it’s a bag of enzymes or it’s a sequence or something. No, there’s a very clear definition. We need to stick to that definition. And that also might be the end of the conversation. Then let’s say we get past that and again, this might only take five minutes because if. Because I wouldn’t budge. So what is isolation? And then I would define isolation as, A, it’s in the dictionary, and B, as everybody understands it, as a prerequisite for studying something. If you want to study a frog, you separate it from a pond.

If you want to hit a nail, you separate the hammer from the toolbox and on and on. We do that with everything. Everybody and the dictionary is aware of the definition of isolation, but the virologists and the people who argue for them have come along and tried to change the definition of isolation to get it to mean something that’s frankly meaningless. Like you see the breakdown of cells in a cell culture. That is not the definition of isolation. And the reason they do that is because they’ve never isolated a virus. They admit that and say, you can’t isolate, meaning, separate one thing from all other things.

And then, as we know, they turn around and say, well, how does it get from one person to another? It goes through the flies, through the air. Is it in the cell when it does that? No. So they blatantly contradict themselves. And if they agree on the definite, the proper definition of isolation, which they wouldn’t, because if they did, then we would go over the Ender’s paper or the Cayley paper or some modern isolation. There’s thousands of them, none of which actually Isolate the virus. And that’s the gold standard for virology. That’s what virology hinges on.

When they say they want to take an electron microscope picture, they say first you get an isolate, which means first they’ve isolated it, which they haven’t. And we all know that. And so I would love to have that conversation, and I’m sure some of you would love to see that. But I think it might only last for about five minutes, and that would be the problem. So that gets into talking about isolation. I mentioned that I was going to speak briefly about changing the words and how, as I said, changing the meaning of words is the preferred technique of fools and tyrants.

Because they know that if they change the meaning of the words, as Orwell said, war means peace and peace means war, then everybody gets confused and nobody actually knows what’s true or what’s real. And that’s how you get a confused population that’s willing to do your bidding. So this is the same thing that the cult of scientists were or scientism does. So just to give you a simple example of that, of how changing the words obviously changes everything, let’s say, for instance, that I or somebody said, you know, I decided that this Jeff Green is a moron.

Now, we all know what the word moron means, and it’s a derogatory term. And you can look it up in the dictionary and you can go to his writing and pretty much confirm that that’s true. But I would say, since we, and I don’t want to do what’s called ad hominem attacks or character attacks, I would say, no, no, I’m not using the word moron in that sense. I. Because I’m like. Is suggested science. And the definition of words is a creative endeavor, right? And so it’s flexible and it evolves and changes. So in that spirit, which is what we’re told by those people, I want to evolve and be creative and change the definition of moron to mean only and specifically somebody whose last name is a color.

Right? So let’s be very clear. I don’t mean the old definition of moron. That would be casting aspersions on somebody. I simply mean clearly just somebody whose last name is a color. So that means Jeff Green or Bud Black. I think he used to be a pitcher and a manager, Earl Grey. I don’t know if that’s a real person. But, you know, I mean, the T guy, these are clearly all morons according to that definition. Now, obviously, what happens over time is that People forget or are confused whether you change the definition. So they just hear that word, they associate it with the old definition, just like people do with when virologists say they’ve isolated a virus.

They know and they understand fully well that people will associate that with the common understanding, something they do all the time, which is separate one thing from all other things. And so they know they have tricked you into believing that what they’re doing is also isolation. And the same thing would happen with moron. So people would forget that I’m using that word in a very specific and accurate context simply to mean somebody whose last name is a color. But people would forget that and start thinking that it refers to the common, acceptable and dictionary word. And that would cause great confusion, which would be the whole point if I was trying to confuse people.

So bottom line is it’s important to define words clearly and refer to what the common and accepted and practical use of the word is. We all know what isolation means. We all know that it’s important for characterizing something. We all know what these words mean. And that is the only way we’re going to have honest communication, not some nonsense about evolving words and creatively using words to mean what they don’t mean. Because as that example points out, all you end up doing is sowing confusion and doubt. And just let me reiterate what I reiterate what I spoke about last time.

I’m not interested in any virologists or any of the our critics opinions about me or how they feel about science or medicine or institutions and what they say, like the American Academy of Silly Walks, what they say about science. I’m not interested in any of that. What I’m interested in is a clear common definition of a virus. Everybody knows that. The way virologists have used it and the way that they use it in SARS, COV2 and in chickenpox, etc. A particle that’s infectious, that has certain size, that has certain components, and that is an intracellular parasite and has a certain mechanism for causing disease.

That is the definition. That’s what’s being sold to the world. We stick with that. Then we go to how has a virus been isolated? And the common and useful and practical definition, which is to separate one thing from all other things. If that can’t be done, you need to admit that and say that it’s never been separated from material that is composed of the same thing that is your cells and composed of the same, quote, DNA that they say the virus is. Therefore you will never know which comes from which. That’s obvious. If they go along with the common definition of isolation, we’ll look at an isolation paper like Enders or Cayley paper and show that, in fact, they couldn’t possibly have isolated a virus.

Therefore, that is the end of the viral culture and the gold standard and the foundation of virology. And as Mark said, that’s the farewell to virology. So that’s the only thing I’m interested in. Any other attacks on me, criticisms of me changing words, changing how we supposedly think? I couldn’t care less. I just want facts here. We’ve been saying this consistently, the same for five years, and it’s about time they say we can’t do that. That is not part of what happens in virology. Okay. Hopefully that’s clear. And we. It’s just to say words are tricky.

And so it’s. It’s a challenge to communicate accurately. And it’s only going to be facilitated if we stick to what we all know certain words mean. And then if there’s an issue with that, we work on what exactly does that word mean? That’s the only way we’re going to have accurate, honest, meaningful communication. Okay. I wanted to finish the questions I had last time before the break, so would you please discuss your thoughts on dmso? So I know a lot of people who I respect who use dmso. I, in fact, even use DMSO in my practice in Peterborough.

That’s like 25 years ago intravenously for different cancers. And besides smelling like really bad garlic, I didn’t see much happen. But. But garlic, sorry, DMSO is sort of like turpentine. It’s some sort of a distillate of wood pulp. And I’m not sure what kind of wood. And it acts as a solvent and something that carries other things into the body. And so it seems like it would be a good idea if there’s debris that is difficult to mobilize for the body. So if you get like, you know, like buildup in your joints or in your tissues or cataracts, a buildup of unwanted tissue in a site.

If you put something like DMSO or turpentine, which is another distillate of wood, and you let that dissolve into the tissue and it acts like a solvent and helps the body to mobilize that so it can be excreted, that seems to work in a very positive and towards a healing direction. So I know that the people who use it Say that that’s what happens. I haven’t personally used it enough to know, but I’ve seen similar things like that a little bit from some of the other doctors in our clinic who do use it. So as far as I can say right now it is a, should be a welcome addition to the true medicine therapeutic armamentary.

So this one I’m not sure I can really address. But what is the mechanism of tumors and how can we eliminate them from the body? I’m still working on the idea that everything that the body does is towards healing. And I think that is, some would say, a radical approach. And interestingly, in our clinic meetings we’ve had some very interesting conversations about whether there are in some cases just simply diseases. So for instance, if you don’t wear socks and you rub your foot against your shoe too much, you get a blister. And that’s probably not a therapeutic response of the body.

It’s simply an impingement or a insult from the outside. So there are insults from the outside which cause reactions, in that case a blister. But a tumor seems to me. So there starts with an insult from the outside. And I generally categorize that as the introduction of unwanted material. And that could be frank toxins or toxic debris, or it could be toxic thoughts or toxic emotions, or unprocessed traumas from your childhood or from your adulthood, or just things that come into your being which you’re not able to, let’s use the word metabolize properly, that means digest and then use what’s useful and excrete what’s not.

And so then you have a part in a thing and the thing could be a non physical thing like an electromagnetic impulse, or it could be a thought or a feeling or a trauma. Doesn’t have to be a physics so called physical thing that’s in you, that doesn’t belong to, it’s not contributing to the greater wholeness of your body. So your body will then try to eliminate that. And usually it’s able to do that. And maybe you could use DMSO or turpentine to help dissolve it. And then you can excrete it through your bowels, through the gallbladder and the bile and then out the bowels.

Or you could excrete it through the kidneys, or you could sweat it out, or you could cough it out using mucus. But sometimes there’s too much or too often or these elimination pathways are overwhelmed or maybe not even working properly. And then you’re confronted with a situation where you have unwanted debris of all sorts, essentially clogging up your body or clogging up the pathways, especially the energetic pathways of your body. And then you will see certain functions, certain organ functions that get weak or they get excessive as they try to dissolve it. And then the body comes in and organizes that debris into a, a receptacle, which is what we call a tumor.

So to me, that’s the origin of the tumor. And that also gives you the way out, which is to dissolve it. And again, you can dissolve it by not putting more debris in in the first place and let your body’s natural mechanisms dissolve that. And that’s probably the mechanism of fasting and intermittent fasting and a radical cleanup of your diet and a radical cleanup of all of the negative influences that come into your body. And then you could stimulate your bowels with either enemas or bitters or beets or something that stimulates bile flow. You could stimulate urine flow with different herbs or things like that, drinking more water.

And then you would be able to excrete it. And you could also use heat to dissolve it, which is probably the purpose of sweat lodges and infrared. And it’s not infrared, but saunas, like the sauna space saunas. And you could use energy mechanisms, anything from acupuncture to Ayurveda, to some of the wands that we have, or some of the electrical devices, even Vogel crystals, to concentrate healing energy, to help mobilize those stored memories, those stored traumas, those stored physical toxins, mobilize them, excrete them, and then you eliminate them from the body. Okay, is it possible to regenerate and epiphyseal zones? So I had to look up what that means.

I think it means the part of the, of the bone that’s growing. So we hear that if you have a degeneration or a crack or a deterioration of these particular zones, which are allegedly the area of the bone from which new bone grows, that you will not be able to regenerate your, or heal your bones properly. And maybe they get weak or they don’t grow properly. And so the question is about, can you regenerate those particular zones? Now, I would say again, my quest in life and in biology is to not try to use, you know, big so called scientific words to, to which in a sense separate me from the reality of what it is that I want.

I think so the question is, what does this person really want? You don’t want to regenerate your epiphyseal zones. You want to have a Normal functioning, length, structure leg. That’s what you want, if that. It may be that that has to come about because of the regeneration of the epiphyseal zones. But I would say that that is an assumption which may not be warranted. And so it’s always important for me in thinking about this, what does the person really want? This gets into, you know, the, the other way, which is the vogue in so called functional medicine, and this happens with every article by Mercola and many other people in the holistic alternative space, is they go deeply into the weeds of your regeneration of your NRF2 pathways.

And that this, you know, this pathway and this oxidative reductions thing is not right. And so you have to focus everything on this pathway. And meanwhile much of the evidence for the fact of these pathways and these receptors, et cetera, even existing is shaky at best. So I don’t want to go into those weeds. I want to ask the question, how do you regenerate or help to grow a healthy bone? The only. And so I know of two ways that do that, where we’ll say three. One is to eat collagen, which is another word for bone broth.

So anybody who’s got any issues with their bones should have gelatinous collagen basically every day, at least once or twice a day. I would actually prefer that to any sort of collagen supplement. But I think there are some reasonable collagen supplements. So that could be used as a secondary backup source. But the best is to have thick, rich, homemade bone broth that’s thick enough so when you put a toothpick in it, it can stand up. That will help to heal and regenerate bones, whether it’s because of the epiphyseal plate or not. The second thing is there is, whoops, something happened there.

Sorry about that. I don’t think it was anything important. Yeah, the second thing is for any bone issue in my practice, I gave people symphonym, otherwise known as comfrey, otherwise known as nitbone, as a homeopathic remedy, usually in a very low potency like 3x or D6. There are also cell salts that help with the regeneration and the healing of the bones. Probably like calc fluor or maybe calc phos would be better. I would ask Adam about that, but everybody got symphotum and comfrey compresses their affected bone. And the comfrey compresses we made by telling them to get fresh comfrey, which we have in our garden.

And many gardens have it. And sometimes it’s Impossible to get rid of. So it’s a nuisance. And people, gardeners will be happy to give you some comfrey leaves, which have many uses, including soaking them in a bucket of water for a week and using that as fertilizer. But this way, you mix it with some water and grind it up in a blender until it’s like a thick pulp. And you lay that on a cheesecloth, and then you wrap the leg in like a gauze or an ace bandage. Not a. Not a tight one, but just an ace bandage.

And you leave it on for a number of hours per day for like two weeks. And the comfrey will help knit the bone and help heal the bone. So that’s the second thing I would do. And the third thing is I would use sound therapy, because the bones are like frozen music. And there’s been whole books written about the musical formation of the human body. And the octaves are actually embedded into our bones. If you look at the bones of the. Of the arm or the leg, they have the same ratio as the octave. The notes on the skate on the, you know, western octave scale, same number and same mathematical relationship as does the leg.

And so when you have a bone that’s cracked or not growing properly, you want to bring back the proper sounds. This is something that I would refer people to, tuning fork therapy. And there’s a long history in humankind of using music notes, sound as healing for the bones. And that those are the three things I would absolutely go for. The first is bone broth. The second is comfrey orally as a homeopathic remedy. I wouldn’t just eat straight comfrey and as a compress every day for at least an hour, grind it up in a blender, make it into a pulp, put it on a cheesecloth and wrap it with some gauze, and then get tuning fork therapy for the leg.

That or the bone or that’s not functioning, growing, acting properly. And then you’re way away from the abstract thinking involved in how do I heal a epiphyseal plate? And there you will get into chondrocytes and all kinds of stuff, which frankly gets you it. What it does is it separates you from your own intuition and your own ability to reason and think your way through this. And that is the opposite of where we want to go. If your bone is. Has been messed up, your musical toning of your body has been disturbed, and that’s what needs to be rejuvenated or regenerated.

And that’s something we can all see and Experience and understand. Can you share the results of your deuterium depleted water experiment? I would also. It would be great to learn how this helps the get water to gel. I stopped the distilled water. Thanks so much. And I’m going to mix this with the final question, which is can you explain the science behind structured water? Have you isolated H3O2? So it’s an interesting question. Has structured water water been isolated? Because I went on earlier about how you need to isolate something to study it. Interestingly, the answer is clearly yes.

So how do you do that? Isolation means separate one thing from all other things. So what do we mean by structured water? So it’s simple. You take water, any water, and you mix it with some gelatin proteins. So you know that you have pure gelatin proteins in a little packet and you mix it with water. And so it’s 97, 98% by volume is water. You heat it and that does something apparently to the proteins. And then you cool it in a refrigerator and you come out with a, a gel. Now, how can you isolate this gel? So you could take the different forms of water.

So let’s say we do this with something that has a cap on it or a hood, and you have a jar of ice with a hood on it so that you can separate from the other three. And you’ve isolated the ice in the jar from the other three forms. So then you have the Jello, which is in this gel form, which you can see and you can touch it and you can feel it, and you can, you can test the ph, you can even test the molecular bonds, if you believe that. And you can see the bond angles and they’re all different from the, the, the ice which you’ve also isolated.

And then the third bottle or third container would be pure water in a liquid form with a cap. And you could also do the same and test. And you could feel it, smell it, play with it, see that it moves. It’s clearly not the same as the Jello or the gelled or structured water. You could test the ph, you could test the charge, you could test the bond angles, if you believe in that, and they would all be different. And then the final jar would, would have a hood on it or a cap, and that would have steam in it.

And again, you would clearly see with your own senses that that’s different, it has a different consistency. And you would be able to test all these different parameters, ph and charge, etc. Density. And it would be different from the other three. So you now have three ice, four isolated forms of water, proving that there are four forms of water. So now we’re focused on the gel phase. Now you could have more or less of this gel phase water in your container. You could have a thin layer of gel water that just lines the container. And there’s been experiments with this, measuring the thickness of the gel later and the ph and the bond angles, etc.

And the rest of it is liquid water. And you could clearly differentiate between the two by simple measurements and charge without interfering with it at all. So you could get a read on how thick the gel layer is. Now the whole point of deuterium depletion is water is allegedly made of a particular form of hydro or a form of hydrogen, which is the quote, usual form called hydrogen. And hydrogen has two other forms, one is called deuterium and one is called tritium. And they have different physical characteristics. Now I think we have to be careful here because I’m not sure that water is actually made of hydrogen and oxygen as we’re told.

I think water is just water. But there’s some water that’s the normal, say, density and weight that we, that we think of as water. Whereas there’s some water that is heavier and denser and we call that deuterium rich water. And then there’s other water which is even heavier and denser than that, and that’s tritium rich water. Now we make up a story with the hydrogens and the isotopes to explain that. But again, we don’t want to go into the weeds of these molecular explanations. We want to stay with what we can actually experience. And what we experience is heavier and more dense water.

Now my, and I would say this is a hypothesis as to how deuterium depletion works is that we’re not supposed to have so much heavier, denser water in our tissues. Our tissues are pretty much entirely made of this structured or gel phase water. That’s why when you stick a pin into you, you don’t squirt out water. There’s no liquid water in there. There’s no water in the typical liquid form. It’s all in this sort of gel phase intermixed with the proteins and the tissues that are, that are in us. So when you put in heavier water, which is not the purest form of water, it makes it more difficult to form this proper crystalline gel phase, which is what we are.

And therefore you have a disturbed gel, which means you have disturbed tissue and disturbed function of whatever tissue it is that has that disturbed crystalline structure. It will have less of a charge, it will probably have a different ph, it will probably have a different type of bond angles. And the body recognizes that as it’s not the right form for me. And so if you deplete the deuterium by. And what I mean by that is going to using only light water or water with the density of what we’re calling H2O as opposed to D2O, again, those are sort of place markers for heavy or light or dense or less dense water.

Then you will be able to restore your proper gel form. You will then have more normal energy and more normal ph. Everything will function better. You’ll be less susceptible to disease and in particular degenerative diseases which are characterized by loss of charge. So that is the theory for me. It’s not the usual theory of the deuterium depleting people, but that’s how I conceive of this. Now, I did this pretty much determinedly, meaning I drank pretty much all my water was around 70 to 90 parts per million of deuterium as they measure it. And I did that for about six weeks.

And I can’t say that I saw anything different. I didn’t see any change in any physical functioning, any change in energy or sleep. And I don’t know that I needed, maybe needed to do it longer. I didn’t test my deuterium levels before and after, so I don’t know if that really worked. I didn’t change my diet, so I didn’t follow what is typically called a deuterium depleting diet, which would be more like a ketogenic diet. I didn’t do that. So I would say nothing certainly bad happened. I didn’t see anything negative, but I didn’t see anything that I would report as a.

I was able to perceive a positive change in any of the ways that I function or in any thing on my body. Mind you, I don’t have a lot of physical symptoms or issues that I can really follow. So maybe it wasn’t a fair test. And I don’t know that I’ll ever do it again. And I don’t know whether people should do it or not. It’s pretty expensive for most people and there may be better ways of doing it. I still think it belongs in the mix of possible ways of rejuvenating the proper crystalline structure, which means then the proper ph and the proper charge.

And I think that’s pretty much everything to do with our health. There are many ways of going about that. I think deuterium Depleted water is potentially one. There’s enough studies that have used that as the independent variable and shown that people with certain diseases live longer and do better. That I don’t want to throw that baby out yet. But my experience was I didn’t see much. Okay. 20 years ago, I was conned into having a complete thyroidectomy due to a less than 5 millimeter quote, cancerous tumor. Radioactive iodine treatment wasn’t necessary. Currently taking 100 milligrams of Livoxyl daily.

Can you recommend a healthier alternative to levoxal? Yes, that is a very unfortunate situation because first of all, it may not have been a cancerous tumor. Second of all, it may not have ever done anything to you. Third of all, there are many other ways you could have healed that successfully without having to take your whole thyroid out. So, yes, that was a con job and that’s very unfortunate. Then the problem after that is not having a thyroid. You could say, well, maybe you don’t need to do anything. But my experience is if people who have had their total thyroid removed and have no functioning thyroid, that without some sort of replacement, they basically don’t do very well.

Now, I’m perfectly open to being wrong about that and having somebody who does whatever and essentially says, well, the thyroid is the chakra that regulates energy generation, so I’m going to generate energy in some other way. And so I do it with fasting and tuning forks and eating this way and eating and taking this. And I don’t need the thyroid. And I’d be very happy to hear that story and actually try to document it. And I might even be interested in measuring the thyroid hormone levels to see if that person actually achieve normal thyroid function according to the normal way of looking at it without a thyroid.

But I just want to be clear that I’ve never seen that and been able to verify that. So therefore, I would be in a position that to say to most people in that boat that they’re going to need to take some sort of thyroid supplement. Now, the safest and I’d say most beneficial is just like the glandular supplements that we carry on our website, which is basically just desiccated thyroid without the hormone in it. Now, in most cases, that won’t be enough. And so you will need to have some, some sort of actual thyroid hormone in it.

To me, that’s basically like the chemical distillate of the gland and I wish we didn’t have to use that. And again, I would love to see a case where all you need to do is eat well and do all the good things and do a lot of bone broth and take the, you know, unhormone form, non hormone form desiccated thyroid like the one we carry. But mostly I haven’t seen that. So the next best would be to take either armor thyroid or West Throid or one of the other so called natural thyroids which are desiccated. They’re from glands of animals that have a standard amount of thyroid hormone.

And absolutely I’ve seen people who’ve even needed to use fairly small doses of that along with the thyroid glandular without the hormone and a good diet and also energetic support. And I’ve seen people get away with much less, the equivalent of much less than they would need Livoxil. So that’s basically how I manage people like that in my medical practice. Just to reiterate a small dose of one of the prescription thyroid, desiccated thyroids like Armour, Westeroid, et cetera, there’s other brands and I’m not sure which one is the best right now, along with a say six desiccated thyroid like the one that we carry and otherwise bone broth and all kinds of good things and then see how you feel.

Test your reflexes, which is a good test of thyroid function, see about peripheral hair loss like on your toes and fingers, and then occasionally get your thyroid hormone levels checked. I understand your explanation of germ theory of viruses, bacteria, but what about microbiome? Is it also a made up concept? I think we have lots of bacteria and fungus and yeast and probably parasites and lots of other sort of small organisms living all over the place and in us and in our bowels and in our mouth and all the rest of the places you can see that and test it under simple light microscopy.

So I don’t think there’s any doubt that we have those. Not viruses, of course. The only thing I would say to add to that concept is the idea that there is pleomorphism, which means the type of bacteria you have is entirely dependent on the conditions in that organ, say in your bowels. So if your bowels have a certain composition, certain, you know, ph, certain nutrients, certain toxins, you’ll have, you will grow certain kinds of bacteria and fungus and maybe even parasites. Whereas if it’s laden with heavy metals and other sort of toxic debris, you will have other kinds of parasites and other kinds of bacteria.

These are not good or bad. And there’s very little sense in testing your microbiome to see what is growing in you because it’s Not a matter of what is growing in you. What is growing in you is related to the conditions of your bowel. I mean, you know, there is some use in going backwards. So if you have these kind of bacteria and these kind of parasites, you probably have a poor condition of your bowel. Right? And that’s why they’re there. But I don’t think we know enough about that to be of use. I think you can assess that by the character and frequency and smell and consistency of your bowel movements and of your sweat and your overall life in general.

And you’re looking towards having healthy, normal, regular bowel movements on a, you know, certainly everyday basis. And that will correlate with the type of bacteria and fungus, yeast parasites that need to be there helping you out, helping you digest the food. And they will evolve or pleomorphize, in other words, turn into the type that are needed and only when abnormal conditions arise. I’d like to know the effects that salt, good salt has on the body. How much should we consume, how much, how much you consume, and anything else you would like to add would be greatly appreciated.

So to me, salt is crucial because it is the way that we’re meant to get minerals, so called electrolytes that are needed to essentially help us crystallize and charge the water. I know some people dispute that and say humans don’t need to eat salt, but seems to me that the fact that it makes the food better, tastes better and I think it makes the food more easily digested. And I’m a pro salt guy, so I do it by eating different kinds of salt regularly. The kinds that I use are bamboo salt, which you can buy from Amazon and other places.

I use Celtic sea salt, I use Redmond salt, and I use like Hawaiian potassium salt and maybe some other ones. And I use that pretty much all the food that I make and especially when it’s hot. Once or twice a day I’ll put about half a teaspoon of one of the salts. Usually for that I use bamboo salt in warm water and I put a squeeze of lemon in about a cup of water, about a half a teaspoon of salt and swirl it around and drink that. And I do that maybe once or twice on many days.

I would say not all days, especially if I’m sweating and working in the garden a lot and it’s a really hot day. I don’t see any benefit of depleting yourself of salt. I think you can if you use good salts like the ones I mentioned. Again, either A bamboo salt, A Himalayan salt is another good one. Redmond salt. We use a lot of Celtic salt. We use a lot of. And Hawaiian different kinds of salt. And I’m sure there’s many other ones. It’s basically salt that has not been refined down to sodium chloride. And they’ll all have a different composition of minerals, which I think is fine.

And I would salt your food to taste. We don’t want the food to taste overly salty, but a little bit of salt or the right amount of salts, like watering plants. Chadwick said, how much do you. When asked how much to water? He always said, the right amount, which is supposedly how much. I water our garden and I eat the right amount of salt. And I think it’s probably different for everybody. And I think you can use your instincts to figure that out. And the last question, with the vast knowledge base you have acquired, they say that is an assumption.

I would say, would there be a possibility for you to produce a health class of any or of a specific kind? America has been seriously lied to for 100 years. We need help. So that is why we started the curriculum. And that’s where I have curated from myself, my own lectures and people that I respect and trust, the different topics, books, lectures, papers on all the different subjects that have to do with medicine and biology. And we’ve compiled them into a curriculum. And people go through a series of modules where they learn about the germ theory and they learn about cancer, and they learn about metabolism, and they learn about viruses, and they learn about diets, and they learn about therapeutics.

And in there, we have a conversation between all the participants. Usually there’s between five and sometimes 20, and we have zoom calls, so you get all your questions answered. And I also have a commitment to anybody who does the curriculum. They can always email me, and we can have a personal conversation if you’re not getting it. You know, I used to say to all the patients who came to me, at the end of this visit, you will know exactly what I think about your problem and what I would do. It doesn’t mean it’s going to work.

It doesn’t mean I’m right. It doesn’t mean I’m accurate. But my responsibility is for you to know what I think happen to you and what I think you should do about it. And I have the same commitment in the curriculum. At the end of the curriculum, you will understand the principles of new biology. As I think of them, you will hear the reasons for it and the evidence for it. You will, I think, know how to apply it. And if you don’t, then we’re going to have conversations until you do. It doesn’t mean that I’m always right or even usually right doesn’t mean it will always work or even usually work.

But my commitment, and I think I’ve honored this with all the hundreds of people who’ve gone through the curriculum, is you will know what new biology is, how we think, how I think and how to apply it. And if you don’t, we keep going until you do. So far that seems to be working and the classes are really interesting and fun. And I would encourage everybody who’s really serious about thinking about life and biology and medicine in a new way to consider joining the A curriculum cohort. So with that, again, thanks everybody for joining me. And again, we’re going to take off until August 13th, and I hope everybody has a great rest of the summer.
[tr:tra].

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