➡ A group of experts in microscopy, natural healing, and nanotechnology discuss the presence of nanoparticles and nanomachines in our blood, particularly after COVID-19 vaccinations. They aim to educate the audience on how to interpret microscopic findings and put them in context. They also discuss the differences between live blood analysis and traditional medical blood analysis, emphasizing the importance of observing blood in its natural, unstained state. The experts stress that their unique approach to blood analysis is not widely practiced, and they do not endorse anyone claiming to replicate their methods.
➡ The text discusses the importance of correct interpretation and methodology in blood analysis. It highlights the potential for misinterpretation and misuse of microscopy, especially when untrained individuals use it to make health claims. The text also emphasizes the need for reproducibility in science and warns against fear-based speculation. Lastly, it criticizes the misuse of scientific terms and the spread of misinformation in the field of nanotechnology.
➡ The text discusses the importance of proper training and systematic thinking when analyzing data, particularly in fields like virology. It highlights the potential for errors and manipulation in data interpretation, especially when slides are prepared incorrectly or samples are adulterated with other substances. The text also warns against jumping to conclusions based on fear or conspiracy theories, and emphasizes the need for careful, objective analysis. It criticizes quick, cheap courses that claim to make people experts, and stresses the importance of understanding what you’re seeing before making conclusions.
➡ The text discusses a detailed analysis of a swab test, where the swab was found to be dirty but not contaminated with graphene. The speaker also mentions their frustration with misinformation and fear-mongering, emphasizing that the body is intelligent and fear is not conducive to healing. They also discuss the misinterpretation of images, which has led to unnecessary treatments and even death. The text concludes with a discussion on the size of blood cells and capillaries, and how certain objects seen under a microscope could not physically pass through a capillary.
➡ The text discusses the complexities of interpreting microscopic images, particularly those of blood and other bodily fluids. The authors caution against making assumptions about what is seen under the microscope, emphasizing that it’s challenging to identify unknown substances and that a picture alone cannot determine a substance’s composition. They also highlight that notarized reports only confirm that a statement was made, not that it’s scientifically accurate.
➡ The text discusses the misuse of scientific terms and the misunderstanding of scientific concepts, particularly in relation to nanotechnology and hydrogels. It emphasizes the importance of context in scientific interpretation and warns against hasty generalizations. The text also highlights the natural capabilities of the human body and the limitations of current technology. Lastly, it invites readers to a conference called Terrainology to learn more about these topics.
➡ Josh and his team are organizing an event to share knowledge about health, nature, and the human body. They will discuss topics like the importance of soil and plants, the role of our bodies in the environment, and how to handle emergencies without immediate hospital visits. The event aims to be clear and informative, avoiding confusion often seen in similar events. They emphasize the importance of critical thinking and learning from various sources to understand our bodies and health better.
➡ The speakers in this text discuss their work in healthcare education, aiming to alleviate people’s fears about complex health topics. They emphasize the importance of careful analysis and understanding when interpreting scientific images or information. They also promote their resources, including books and webinars, for people to learn more about taking charge of their health. Lastly, they introduce a free 30-day detox program designed to help people improve their health by eliminating deep-set toxins from their bodies.

Are nanoparticles and nanomachines in our blood? Well, today we’re going to answer that question and I think quite a definitive manner. I’m Dr. Andrew Kaufman and this is the true health report. I have a esteemed panel of expert guests in the fields of microscopy, natural healing and nanotechnology with me today. Because in the recent years, since the COVID jabs have been around, there have been lots of people and I think most of them really well intentioned trying to do the right thing and find out the truth of what our oppressive government might be doing to us.

And we all agree that there is a lot of toxicity from these injections. But what we’ve also seen is a lot of claims about various MIS microscopic findings, both in the actual vaccine solutions themselves as well as in the blood claims about nanotechnology, hydrogels, frequency devices, et cetera. And I think that there have been some errors made in some of the ways these images and this information has been interpreted. And what we aim to do in this presentation is to have a balanced discussion and give you a basic education on how to do microscopy, how to approach it, how we can interpret these things and put everything in perspective and context.

This type of blood analysis has been done for quite a number of years, long before COVID and there is a lot of experience in the room to share with you their findings. This is the true health report where critical appraisal fuels true freedom. Let me bring everyone on stage and we’re going to go around and have everyone introduce. And why don’t we start with you, Dr. Arce. Hello everybody. Thank you for having me. I’m Dr. Marisol Arce. I’m a naturopathic doctor and terrain educator. I’ve been practicing for almost 20 years now. I have been working with microscopes.

My mother was an electron microscopist. So I first hand knowledge in that and I base a lot of what I do on pleomorphism and the studies and works of Ender Line. Fantastic. All right, Dr. Oliva. Hello. I am Ana Maria Oliva. I’m a PhD in biomedicine. I’m not a medical doctor, but I’m a researcher in biomedicine and I was working in a nano bioengineering lab. So I know firsthand what is nanotechnology applied to health and nanomedicine. All right, very key knowledge for this discussion. All right, next we have Adam Biggleson. Thanks for inviting us on, Andy.

Yeah, Adam Biggleson. My brother and I, Josh, we have continued the work of our father, Dr. Harvey Biggleson above there, who did some pretty amazing things in the field of alternative medicine. He helped write a law that legitimized homeopathic medicine in the United States, things like that. He was the third doctor in US History to look at the live blood. So we’ve had some experience with the blood. That’s one reason we’re here today. And Josh? Yes, I’ve been working, oh, I worked on and off with my father probably since what, 1989, but literally been behind the microscope since around 2001, you know, almost non stop.

So for the last 20 plus years, I’ve had my head in the microscope. I have recognized a lot of patterns. And we try to educate people on what we see, but we try to educate people on how nature works and to make sure that people realize that we’re not separate from it and that we evolve through symbiosis and not antagonism. All right, fantastic. Well, it’s great to welcome you all to this discussion today. So why don’t we just start off and educate the audience a little bit about exactly what is so called live blood analysis. And I know that’s kind of a proprietary term, but we’re talking about looking at blood that has not been fixed in paraffin and stained with poison, poisonous dyes, but blood that is still alive when we’re looking at it under the microscope.

So someone could give a little bit of introduction to what that is and what are some important aspects about just the basic technique of doing this work? Good question. And Mari, do you have some of the history, out of curiosity, with some of where the Liveblood experience came about? Actually, yes. I worked for a company called Pleosantum. It was a North American offshoot of Sanum Kelbeck. And in working with them, there was a lot of people who utilized their products, which were Ender line Sanum products. And they utilized them by understanding how to use the microscope very much.

Many of us were actually taught how to use the microscope through the live blood cell analysis way. And basically, it’s as simple as you’re pricking your finger, you drop a blood on a slide, you put a cover slip and you stick it under the microscope. And what’s interesting too, Andy, is, you know, our father, our father learned how to analyze live blood, but live blood analysis is actually a brand. It’s also known as nutritional microscopy. And that is not the work that we do. So with Josh and I, with our father using that darkfield microscope, very similar images to live blood analysis.

But Very different interpretation and philosophy. So it’s something that confuses people with what we do. There is at this moment no one in the world that does what we do the way we do it. Regardless of anyone who says they may have learned from us, there is no one that we endorse or refer to. So what we do is very different. And this microscope has been around for a long time. One thing, you know, the difference with live blood analysis and the western medicine experience is in Western medicine, they stain the blood. So they add something to it.

So that image, it’s fixed, basically. And when our father was with Gaston Naissance and he saw that blood live the first time ever, he said he got chills, there were things in there he needed to learn about. And at one point, even Andy, his dad, had all this great results with cancer by looking at the microscope and understanding things. There was. He had the head of a very famous medical school, the hematology department. The head came to visit him in Mexico because of the results of cancer. And dad said he put the drop of blood live under the microscope.

And the man refused to look into the microscope. What heresy was not stained, right? Really? And dad said, you want to know why I get the results? And he wouldn’t even look. And I think something to add, Adam, is the fact that what your father looked at again, the, the, the similarities with which preparation is the same. Is it that that is probably the only thing similar after that? It’s the way your father looked at the blood, right? The, the, the patterns, the understanding, the movement. Live blood cell analysis is looking at a lot of the times.

And again, I’m coming from experience, being trained as such, they’re looking at it in a, in a, almost a conglomerate, amalgamated way, taking a conventional ideology of what the blood looks like and superimposing it on what they’re actually viewing in the blood in a live way. And so with that, there’s a lot of speculation as to what’s happening, right? So we as conventional medical practitioners know that when a red blood cell is this versus this, that there’s some sort of anemia going on. But slight variations don’t really tell us too, too, too much. Right? You’re also seeing platelets, you’re seeing white blood CE cells, you’re seeing the movement and activity of the, the plasma itself.

You’re seeing various other things happening. And live blood cell analysis, again, coming from the, the germ theory, conventional ideology and superimposing what they’re seeing, not really truly understanding any of the work that Gaston did, Enderline did, your dad did. They are again coming up with again, speculation and basically the fallacy of ignorance. They don’t know what it is, so they make up something and it fulfills that requirement because nobody can falsify the something in their mind that what they’re seeing is to be true. So, biggest difference is how your father sees, saw the blood, how you guys see the blood, versus how live blood cell analysis sees it.

So I think we have two important aspects here when we’re talking about looking at living blood under the microscope. One is that it’s very different from the way blood is looked at in allopathic medicine. Right. Where we’re looking at dead blood that’s been stained. And also the processing that’s required to do that, and I encourage people to look into the work of Harold Hillman changes things about those cells. First of all, you know, when something’s alive versus dead, it may change. And then also adding various fluids and buffers can shrink and swell the cells and change their size, dehydrate them, and lots of things can change.

So when we’re the actual living blood, while we may not be able to see the same details as a stain can show, what you’re seeing is as close as possible to what’s happening to that blood when it’s actually inside the body. So that’s a unique advantage. And of course, it’s a tragedy that that hematologist wouldn’t look, but they. They would have had to totally change everything they ever knew, and they didn’t want to, you know, go through that. I think that’s the reason. And then we have. The second aspect that you’re talking about is that, you know, and I think there’s more other ways of interpreting it besides the two ways that you mentioned.

Right. The Biggleson approach and the live blood analysis. But there are different ways of interpreting certain things with respect to your health. But at a more basic level, I think, you know, everyone agrees, you know, this is a red blood cell, this is a white blood cell, this is a platelet. There may be other things we might see on there that we may not agree with. And then there’s one more aspect that you didn’t really touch on a lot, but you did mention about that there are different types of light microscopes that can give you different visual aspects.

Right. Like we have dark field microscopy, phase contrast microscopy, and various other types of optical technologies that can change the appearance of what we’re looking at. Yeah. And what’s interesting, too I’ll tell you this real quick, Andy, with what we do, when dad was doing this in the clinic, it’s drop a blood on the slide, on the microscope. That’s it. All right. We’re also seeing. Now, I’ve seen images over the last few years of things I’ve never seen before. And as I looked at them, I thought, it looks colored or it looks oil. And so people are now adding oil with rosemary and other things to it, to the sample.

I don’t know why they’re altering it. And they’re also using different colored filters. So Josh and I, dad, sample on slide, on microscope, no altering nothing. That’s it. And realize that, you know, we’re reading patterns. That’s what my father did. That’s what I’ve been doing for years. We’re just replicating patterns that we’ve seen over and over and over again. So. And our goal isn’t here to push our work on people. There’s different interpretations out there. Part of the goal is for us being here is to let people know that some of the interpretations they’ve heard out there are scientifically impossible.

Right. So with what we’re doing with actual, you know, dark field analysis, it’s. It’s very simplistic. Like Adam says, there’s no adulteration, it just goes right on the actual slide. But what’s gone on these days, it seems like a game of telephone. Right. So it’s like anybody who’s looking for the microscope has their own interpretation without even understanding who Antoine Bechamp was. Enderlein. And were they right about everything? Absolutely not. But they laid the foundation. And a lot of these things that people are making claims about are new, have been around ever since somebody’s looked into a microscope, a dark microscope, they’re always there.

So it’s been an interesting process. And contrary to popular belief, these dark field microscopes that are sold for Amazon and things like that cannot do chemical analysis. They cannot do mineral analysis. Right. That is total interpretation. Even me, who’s been looking in Mexico for 25 plus years, I can’t tell you that I’m seeing chemicals in the blood. Right. I can’t tell you that we’re deficient in this vitamin. We might have, like, you know, Mari said, an educated guess based on some of the shapes of things, but what it’s turned into is, you know, fear based mongering and just a way to sell supplements based on some bad speculation and really ignorant science, unfortunately.

Right, I totally see that. And I was wondering actually, Ana Maria could you weigh in a little bit about like the scale of what you can see with various microscopes? Yeah. Like, because a lot of people are talking about nanotechnology, right? Yeah. There is no way you can see nanoscale in a microscope. Definitely the word tells you it’s a microscope. You can see microns. You cannot see nanoscopic things. So it’s absolutely impossible. But for me, the most important thing is also this context in which people are putting the things on. So they are seeing an image and suddenly they say, oh, this is a circuitry.

Well, you have to demonstrate that you cannot just say, oh, I have a picture of something that I don’t know what it is, and just assume that it’s a circuitry and then say that these self assembling. Sorry, that I left self assembling things is that it’s ridiculous because one of the main problems, and I just dropped that thing also there, is that you cannot use a word that has a meaning and reinvent the meaning. You cannot say, oh, this, that I see there. I’m going to call it hydrogel just because I want. But just because I don’t have any other word.

You cannot do that because hydrogel is something perfectly defined in literature. And you don’t see a piece of hydrogel suddenly there, because hydrogel are creating other kind of structures. So for me, all these things are very interesting because we have not only a possible change in the procedure and adding some things and filters or whatever is that we have an image that suddenly someone interprets in a certain way. And I mean, you can be wrong, you can be free of being wrong, saying that this is a circuit, but then it comes. Another person gives the context, and then that context is totally wrong.

It doesn’t make any sense. There is no proof of it at all. At all. But what do we also know about in science? Reproducibility. Yeah. And the problem is a lot of these people are coming up with these ideas. And Josh, you can, I’m sure you can emphasize this. How many times we see certain slides or certain images and you go, oh, that’s a terrible. That was a terrible sample. That was a terrible smear. How many times you. They smush the COVID slip or they squeeze the blood too hard. You know, it’s all these different things.

You have to be able to reproduce over and over the same image and get the same result to make even a slight kind of idea that what you’re seeing is valid and truth and something that can be researched and not something that just fiction that’s coming off the top of your head because you’re appealing to fear. So science is all about reproducibility. And we know that your father, that the Biggleson method is reproducible. It is a constant. It goes on and on and on. And it can go on and on and on. When these people are just starting to look at the microscope, they buy a cheap microscope.

They have never been taught traditionally how to take a smear, how to put a cover slip. And when they. The moment that they see an image, and I’ve seen this all the time in live blood cell analysis, they’ll take a spot. Now, when you look at the microscope and you’re looking at the stage and you’re looking at the image and you move around, the blood doesn’t look uniform. There’s sometimes there’s congestion of red blood cells in one area, there’s white blood cells congested in another area, there’s platelets starting to form in another area. And a lot of these times, a lot of these practitioners, they take a snapshot of this one area that looks really good, and they go, oh, look, you’re really, really healthy.

Or they’ll say, you come in and you’re feeling like garbage. And they’ll take a picture of the part where they’re stacking. They call it rouleaux, which is not really true. Rouleaux. Right, Josh? And then they’ll say, oh, you’re really sick. You’re full of toxins. You need to detox. And then you come in three weeks later doing a detox. And then all of a sudden, they take the snapshot of the thing that makes it look good and go, oh, look, look, your blood is all clear. And it’s a different part of the slide altogether. It’s. It’s like they weren’t taught the very basics of the cells you’re looking at.

Some cells are a couple minutes old, some can be up to 120 days old. So your younger cells are naturally going to look stronger. And as we scroll to the outside of the slide, you. That’s where the older decomposing cells are going to be. So you’re going to have a combination of younger cells and older cells. So you can choose to focus on the older cells and say, oh, my God, you’re sick and low oxygen, or you can actually learn some basic science and realize that those cells are decomposing naturally. I think it’s important to just Note also that Dr.

Oliva here actually worked in a nanotechnology laboratory. Okay. And as Far as I know, most of the authorities on nanotechnology talking about these days have never even worked in a nanotechnology lab. So she is speaking from experience. You know, we’re speaking from experience. And it doesn’t matter whether you believe in our interpretations or not. What we’re here to talk about is the science behind what’s going on and some of the false conclusions that are out there because it fits into people’s narrative. Yeah, right. Well, I think you guys have done a really good job, like bringing to light various categories of error that can easily occur in someone with, you know, limited experience or perhaps with, you know, not the best training or education.

And when you’re not thinking really systematically. Right. So there you can, you know, cherry pick the data. And sometimes people, you know, do that to their advantage, like you guys were talking about, by finding a different part of the slide. Like, even in mainstream, you know, hematology lab, when they do cell counts, they count multiple microscopic fields and take the average because they know there’s an uneven distribution of the cells throughout the whole field. And we’ve seen in virology that they definitely cherry pick the images. And we don’t know what they’re seeing in the rest of the field because they don’t share that with us.

And you guys have, you know, pointed out that there could be, you know, errors in the preparation of the slides, like from, you know, every point along the chain of custody there. And then, you know, obviously when you adulterate the sample with other substances. And I think, Adam, that those are people trying to see, you know, can I make the blood look healthier if I put in a natural herbal remedy? But of course, you know, you can’t predict how that changes what you see in the blood. And maybe there’s a different way to do, you know, those kinds of experiments if you have real objective findings.

But, you know, in the state of fear that we were in, and a lot of people waking up for the first time to a lot of injustices and control efforts by the government can sort of get into this catastrophizing mentality, I think, where, you know, everything looks like it’s part of an evil plot. And there was a real evil plot, but it’s just that it didn’t quite extend this far, as we can tell. So why don’t we look back historically and I understand that, Adam, you have some images that long predate the COVID injection era. And let’s see what you could see in the blood under a microscope before this technology existed.

Or was employed. Yeah. Let me move a picture around and I’ll tell you too as we talk about this, like you said just from the beginning, you know, I’ve seen videos of people taking drops of blood that were hilariously ridiculous where the woman has a slide, drops, squashes it and grinds it in there. And well known people, and there’s another well known person sending us the video saying what is she seeing? And our response is, who cares? She just killed the blood. I know this is a technique for certain things, but not for what we do.

And even so, we’ve seen this so many times. When Josh, me dad took blood drops, we always took multiple drops. All right? If we see something strange in the first drop, we’re going to confirm in the second drop. And it’s all about taking the right drop. It’s the hardest thing to do is just take the slide, not touch, let it jump off onto the slide and let it tap it and just be very careful. So right off the bat, people are killing the blood. And I’ve done videos of showing look at my awesome blood. And then I scroll over and look at the rouleaux.

And part of this, for anyone that’s listening, watching that, does this work? Really listen, we want you to do good things. Some of these people weren’t trained to do these things. I have materials for many of the courses that are out there and they’re not even taught the ages of the cells like Josh says. So there’s a lot of interesting things going on. And even dad said it took him a year to really understand what he was seeing. And he says, I consider myself to be a pretty bright guy. Dad was brilliant. He could do advanced math in his head without showing work.

When he was 10, he was brilliant. And if he took him a year, it’s going to take everyone else two years. People are taking a two day course. I found someone that does a 12 hour course and you can take it for a few hundred dollars. Buy a microscope on Amazon and you’re now an expert. So it’s a really interesting responsibility or lack of responsibility. Adam, why don’t you talk? Speaking of equipment, you did a really great video on people not even looking at their slides when there’s no blood. Right? That’s true. One of the first things we do when we used to teach very few people is you look at a blank slide.

You’re never stopped there. There’s a lot of clean slide these days and in fact the more you try to clean it, then you’re adulterated. Even more so. Yeah, you look at it. Look at a blank microscope slide. And a cover slip, too. Yeah, and a cover slip. And you’ll see what people are calling Covid crystals everywhere. It’s dirt on the slide. Literally. That was. And I’ll do this. I’ll do the screen share. That was that Dr. Wendy Roscoe video that I came across. I forgot who sent it to me. Steve sent it to me here with us.

And she said she’s recreating. And she says, I think this is dirt. And the microscope’s getting. Slides are getting dirtier. Even they say pre cleaned on them. Right. Food for thought. So I’ll show you images, and I have a whole bunch. I’ll cruise through kind of quick so you guys can see. And then, Josh, if there’s anything in particular you want me to share, let me know. These are all pre Covid images, too. There is one thing I want to mention is that in all these narratives and in all the things that sometimes people ask about the images, they are mixing images of samples that have been dry.

And they say that are circuitry. And this is just a sample that has been dried. And if you dry saline or tears or seawater or things like that, you are going to exactly find the same. Exactly the same. So one thing is what you see when you have dried the sample. And then they mix that with what they see, supposedly when the sample is still wet. And I don’t know why, they mix both things and they create a whole story that connects both. When there are two things that are separated, one thing is something that has been dry.

Okay, this is what you see. What do you see? Salt crystals. Anybody can do that. Anybody can find that circuitry just drying anything that has a little bit of salt, doesn’t matter if it’s a tear, is saline or whatever other thing you will find. No doubt, that circuitry that they say that is not circuitry. That’s a great example because there are various crystal compounds that resemble machinery or micro circuitry. I think bismuth also looks somewhat like that. Right. But, you know, we’ve seen these sodium chloride crystals that have that appearance as well. And sugar that has appearance of rods, like big things.

Very long things. Absolutely. The images they showed of nano circuitry. Yeah. Were salt. They did. Anna and Adam did studies. I saw it in my sauerkraut when I would take some drops of my sauerkraut juice. Fiona sees it in urine, you know, and you guys did it in straight saline, and that’s where it was. So. But no, it’s nano circuitry that was jabbed into you. Right. And, Josh, there are some biological crystals that you can see in the blood. Like uric acid crystals. Correct. Well, Mari’s the one. I mean, you can definitely see certain things on that.

We’re seeing the aspergillus. We’re seeing the actual different types of fungus and bacteria growth in there. You can certainly go down the rabbit hole with it. But Amari will be able to give you the scientific answer for that. The short answer would be yes. Do we look at it? No. Yeah. Do we pay attention to it? You know, we’ll look. I will be looking at patterns. But, yeah, you’re things like. Yeah, no, extreme cases, you can see it, but they’re extreme cases. We don’t. Like, we all don’t generally see these extreme cases. But if you do dry the blood in certain constitutions, if you let the blood dry, it actually crystallizes and starts to form these patterns, like feathery looking patterns or whatever it may be.

And then you start to see the different type of fungal growths. And depending upon how it grows, how it patterns and dries out on the side, you can tell which type of endogenous, you know, fungus is in, you know, predominant in your system that the microzymas in your system are pleomorphing to. Because that’s what’s actually happening in your body, Right? Yeah. Additionally, I actually did a comparison of the buffer solution that the COVID tests came in. You know, those. Those rapid tests. There was the fluid that you would put in the rapid test. So I did a comparison under the microscope, dark field to regular saline solution, and it was exactly the same.

So anybody that was claiming that there was nanobots and they were swabbing the stuff in their nose and all that stuff that’s. That was basically saline crystals also. And I did it in several. Like a. Lots of different. Now, is this you talking about the. The one that. Where the probe went all the way to the back of the nose? Yes, yes, yes. And so this was the liquid medium. But did. Did you incubate the swab in it? I. If there was anything embedded in the swab, in the swab, it was just some. Some of the swabs were just dirty.

Like, they were just dusty and dirty. Like there was nothing. There was nothing extraneous or graphene. What. Graphene wasn’t there or any of that. It was just like dirt. Like, if you looked under the microscope, you’d see fibrous dark fibers, that type of thing. It Looked like basically somebody just, like, wiped it on wool kind of thing. It was just excess fibers, salts, you know, things like that. Interesting. So I can show you guys pictures now that I pushed the wrong button and push the wrong button and checked right out of this whole meeting. I don’t want to show these pictures.

Come on, Andy. So what I’ll show you is, you know, I wasn’t sure what to do. Part of this is interesting, Andy, because people have heard Josh and I have heard me talk about this. Josh a little bit. Anna and I, and we get a little frustrated with it. It’s amazing that people will listen to people that talk about fear that have had very little experience versus people that are not talking about fear with a lot of experience. And we get a little. We’re human, so we get a little irritated about some of this work. So when I was going to be here with you, I put a bunch of pictures.

Part of it is just to show people we have a bunch of pictures. We have tens of thousands of images like this. So to show this again. He did it again. He’s got a good trick going on. I think, Anna, you may have to go in there and give him a talk to that’s come over here and hang out with you guys. I don’t understand. Yeah, so we’re also. We’re demonstrating, you know, remote time travel during this. That’s how he was able to show up on the other camera feed. See, he’s injected himself with nanobots. Push the shiny red button.

Okay, I’m not going to push the shiny red button. So let’s try this one more time. All right, that’s the exit sign. All right, let’s do this. And he’s the techie in our family. Yeah, that’s my job. All right, I’m sure. Well, it skips a generation, you know. Yeah, it did with me, that’s for sure. All right, can you guys see this? Now go. Let them go. There we go. Now we. Now, I brought it up for you. Okay, awesome. So we’ve got a few pictures from a book. This is 1989. Which book was this one, Josh? Is this Enderlein’s booker? This is Blecker’s book, which is based on Enderlein’s work.

This is awesome. And just as a side note, Mari, I just spoke with Christine Jackson. Andy, this woman is 92 years old, and she is the woman who translated this book with Maria Blecker. I just spoke to her on the phone. She took some of these pictures. Yeah. So this 89. This, this image. There are two of these that people were talking about as what, Josh, what were they? Graphene, potentially. Those ones that I’ve seen actually people who do it in the microscope for a long time call them graphene, and that they were not there initially on the slide, but they appeared overnight, which is either incompetent microscopy or just a straight out lie.

So these will be there immediately. Enderline talks about these in the early 1900s. All right. Either way, here’s a picture of them from 1988. We see them all the time. It has nothing to do with graphene. I’m not going to talk about. My interpretation of what they are. I will say is these have been documented for well over 100 years right now. They did not just magically appear overnight due to some solution or jab. Yeah. Right. And Josh, we can, you know, just by the date of that image, if that’s, you know, something that people call graphene.

Graphene wasn’t invented in 1988. Now, I think, I’m not sure that graphene actually really exists at all the way that it’s said to, but it definitely didn’t exist in 1988. So. And realize, yes, this work is based on Enderlein. Yeah. Who talked about this in the early 1900s. And no specific cells there. Yeah, he has sketches of this. There’s sketches, earlier works in the, in the early 1900s, in the 30s and the 40s. There’s sketches of this. And this one kind of came and went a little quick initially, which was interesting. These images, you know, these are the ones you see this famous people with one of these right behind her head.

And this one we published in Law of Attraction magazine, Josh and I, in 2016. Okay. But these images, these were the first ones they were showing out of New Zealand. Right. Crazy images, never before seen. I did the video, Andy, I sent it to you. You said, yep, you’re right, no one’s going to want to hear it. And they didn’t. They didn’t. And I. I mean, I shared it with people that we all know and I got yelled at by people on our sides. I don’t know that people are going to want to hear this tonight.

But nevertheless, like, it’s. It’s important that we discuss this because, you know, people are being misled and. And, you know, I think the worst thing is that the amount of fear that this engendered because if we really were infiltrated with some, you know, kind of nefarious technology like this, I mean, you know, we should all be very afraid. Yeah, yeah. And it’s really. This is part of what we’ve always done, what dad has done with the work that he did. There’s no fear in what we talk about. All right? Health. Your body is intelligent. It’s doing what it’s supposed to do.

Fear is. Is it sympathetic or parasympathetic? We’re not healing in fear, all right? We look at the blood, we see information. It’s the body helping us to understand so we can do something about it and work together our body. So when we see these images, Andy, being used to spread fear, this is when we get really frustrated. And I know people that have had friends that have had too much EDT chelation to remove these things, which are not actually in the bloodstream, People may be dead. There’s two people that I know that may actually have a friend who’s dead because of over treatment based on images that have been misinterpreted.

Well, it’s important to note here as far as some of the basic science that has not been taught. Even the old dark field microscopists understood capillary blood. Right. And only one cell can move through a capillary at a time. And look at how big those structures are. They’re much bigger than a red cell. They’re much bigger than a white cell. They cannot physically move through a capillary. It’s just not physically possible. Right. So we talk about these. A lot of people call them artifacts. Right. They’re dirt on the slide and things like that. That’s Josh. To make that point visually.

Let’s just point out this. This is a per. Or this one. Right. Now look at the diameter of one of those red blood cells. Now maybe. Yeah, there’s one at the top where the cursor is. Yeah. Now look at the diameter of this object. Yeah. Right. Now this is air, by the way. This is. Well, but I’m talking about the fiber looking piece along the side of it, right? Yeah. But that’s got to be at least three to four red blood cells wide, Right. In its width diameter. Right. And we know that a capillary is actually narrower than a red blood cell.

So now it’s a miracle that red blood cells get through the capillaries. So. But it’s beyond possible for this thing to get through the capillary. Yes, it’s just. Just not physically possible. And it seems that a lot of the dark field world has not been taught that, you know, and this is just basic science. Science is not Supposed to be a bad word. Scientists can be bad, but science shouldn’t be a bad word. So some of these. Some of these images that, you know, we could call holograms are. Are any of them, you know, big enough under the microscope that they could be seen with the naked eye if they were real physical objects? I haven’t even tried to look to see.

I’m always seeing this red. Yeah, that’s interesting because, you know, something around, what, like 500 microns or something should be visible with the naked eye. Like, you could see fine hairs, for example. I’m just wondering, because you can use. Yeah, you can see hairs. You can see if you messed up and then the slide is dirty. You could see the dirt on the slide. Yes. Yeah, the dirt you can certainly see. And the hairs are funny because every once in a while, dad would have a real cool picture and he’d bring it up and he’d say, you know what that is? Then he would.

He would blow on the slide and the hair would blow off the slide. You said it was a hair. Thanks. It’s a fun trick, but the holograms are elicited by the refraction of the dark field condenser. So, like, when you take the slide out, you’ll see maybe spaces where they are, but you’re not going to actually see the image because, again, you’re getting a change in the light coming through the condenser to see it. Yeah, they’re not visible, Andy, with the Brightfield microscope. So to answer that question, I don’t think we would be able to see these with the naked eye at all, Mari, if they’re not visible without the dartfield.

Well, no, no. I mean, that’s the kind of the point I was trying to make, that, like, if they were real, you’d actually see them coming out of the finger with your naked eye because of the size. Right. But obviously we don’t see that. So, you know, these are optical images, but they’re not physical images that we’re seeing. Right? Yes. And this is where things get interesting for us. You know, I did try to have Dr. Pablo Campra. I tried to get him to isolate one of these holograms. We see white cells attached to them. Something’s there.

But we. We don’t. We’re not, you know, we don’t have the capacity for that. We don’t have huge laboratories and resources. We’d love to isolate one at some point and see what’s going on there, if anyone’s interested in helping. And part of the point, as of showing this is not to really, you know, explain people our interpretations. You know, we do that in our courses to. For people who understand the actual philosophy behind our work. But, you know, we’re generally showing these as just a way of letting people know that what they’ve been labeled as has been incorrect.

It’s scientifically incorrect, what people are talking about, even to the point. Adam, show them the COVID crystals in the center there. That’s. I wanted to see. There’s a couple different ones. This is air. This is an air pocket, and this is dirt. And I do have. I have a video of a Blythe blood guy, one of my local guys, who tells the world that my dad was our father was demented. And he’s saying, we’ve never seen this before. This is brand new. It’s a dirty slide guy. You know, I mean, they’re not even taking a good drop of blood.

And these images, Andy, were harder for us to find because we actually take a good drop of blood. We really work hard to not get AirPods right. And what. And what people may not realize, and correct me if I’m wrong about this, but when you put the drop of blood on the slide and cover it with the COVID slip, that blood kind of spreads out and into a mono layer or a thin layer. And as that’s happening, if there’s something physical like dirt on the slide, it can disrupt the flow, and then it can close around that area, and then an air bubble can form by that simple process.

Yes. And this is what the Wendy Roscoe was demonstrating. You see her on that video doing it live and saying very innocently, I think this is dirt. And she’s right. And anyone who’s tried to put one of those screen protectors on your cell phone, Right. You’ve experienced. Experienced this yourself, right, with those impossible air bubbles. Yes. I will literally take six drops of blood till I get the right spread and know I didn’t kill it. All right? And it will show. There’s a few other images, but this is just air. And then we get into. Yeah, here’s our nano circuitry.

This is an image I took. We had stem cells we were working with in Mexico, and we put some stem cells on the microscope slide, and we went home. And the next day, the slide was still there. And we looked at this, and this is what was there. Here’s an actual video of it. This was 2015 as well. And I carried this around forever, Andy, thinking, look at this. This is cool. And if you ever Got close to me, I’d say, hey, look at this. Needs to be studied. And that was when Anna and I were sitting looking at this Pfizer substance and saw that.

And I went, I’ve seen this. And I realized I was wrong. This is not stem cells. And that’s where Anna, being someone, has been involved in real science, said, let’s look. I think it’s the medium. And we started to look at other things, and that’s what we saw. It’s. I mean, they’re really cool structures that are forming, you know, like you could make. You could make artwork out of this. Totally, totally. And if I. Well, and if I was. You know, if I was. What’s the word I’m looking for? If I was not who I am, I could scare everybody with this and make a ton of money.

Evil genius. If you were an evil genius, yes. These are. These are images, too. Andy from coincidentally, Fiona, that works with us, is looking at urine under the microscope, and she sees this. All right, this is urine. So we’re seeing different structures. All right. I really. I’m curious as to people that saw these things in the blood. They really didn’t look out in the rest of the world to see if anyone else is seeing anything similar. Seeing this in fluids that did not come from the human body as well. So, like I said, I’ve looked at sauerkraut juice and seen those in there, you know, and I looked at saline solution.

So. Yes. So I just want to say again, you cannot see nano things in a microscope. So this is not a nano circuit. This cannot be a nano circuit, because you wouldn’t see that. And something that is very obvious, and you’ve said that before, you cannot say what’s the composition of something because of a picture. People sometimes forget that. Okay, so there is no way to see what is that or what is it made of? Just the picture. No way. You can see this is a circuitry made of I don’t know what. Or the other is a hydrogel made of graphene oxide.

Just with a picture. That doesn’t make any sense. That’s not science. There was one microscope. I just want to back up, because that’s such an important point, because I think a lot of errors are made because of assuming that what you see is some particular type of substance or molecule or chemical. And if we talk about the field of analytical chemistry. Right, which is all about being able to recognize unknown constituents of an unknown substance. Right. What we’re talking about here, it’s an extremely challenging Undertaking it is not straightforward that, you know, you just do a test and it tells you if this is in it or that’s in it or the other thing.

Like, for example, there’s a chemist who developed a protocol to assess glyphosate in vaccines and it’s a two week preparation of the vaccine to get to the point where you can test for glyphosate. Right. That’s just one chemical in a mixture. That’s a known chemical that you’re looking for. So what if you don’t know what you’re looking at? Right. It’s not very easy. And we’ve referenced several scientists that may not be well known out there today, Bchamp Gunther Enderlein and Gaston Naissance. And they used a lot of microscopy in their research and found things in the blood that hadn’t been described before.

I mean, at least Baychamp did. And then the other scientists described it subsequently. But they actually did experiments to show what, you know, the functionality and the composition of what they saw visually. They didn’t just, you know, assume it was X, Y or Z. Right? They, they tried to study it and figure out what it is and learned quite a bit. But, you know, here we’re talking about many, many assumptions and not really realizing how difficult of a problem it is to identify an unknown substance. And I want to say something more because some people have asked me, and what about that report that is notarized? And I just want to say out loud that I go to a notary and I say, this is what I am doing.

I’m putting this sample, a vaccine or an anesthesia or whatever in the microscope. I take pictures, the notary just taking notes and I say, and then I do the interpretation I want about what I’m seeing. And the notary is just taking the note that I have said this. That doesn’t transform that into a truth. The fact that a notary is just saying that I have said that doesn’t mean that science is saying that that is a truth. The notary is just taking the note that you have said that, period. So there is no validation in a notarized report by someone.

Because I’m a little bit tired of that too, that people say, oh, but the notary has said that notary cannot say if that is true or not. The notary just saying that this person has done that and this person claims this is it, period. So it’s amazing the amount of strange situations that happen around this. Yeah, yeah, definitely. This is, this is pretty straightforward. Sorry, I’ll just make it real quick because then you can lead into this. Adam. Yeah, I mean, if you’re, if you have a darkfield microscope and you don’t know who Enderlein, Baychamp or Naissance is, somebody should come and take your microscope away.

This is a very foundation. And one person said, oh, the Bigglesons just don’t know about nanotechnology. This was a live cell researcher. And it’s like, it’s true. I use a microscope, not a nanoscope. Right. So, but luckily we have Dr. Oliva, who worked in a nanotechnology lab. So. Sorry. Yeah. And the other thing is that you cannot just say this is. Again, I’m sorry, but, but it’s. People say they see something, they don’t know what it is, and they get a word that already exists and has a different meaning and not only use this word, but they also give them some properties that that thing has never had.

There is no such thing as a self replicant hydrogel. I’m sorry, that doesn’t exist. You can have self replicating beams or you can have hydrogel. You don’t have, you can have self assembling hydrogels in a totally different thing than what they are showing, because this is a different technology. Yes, you can have hydrogels that’s in touch with certain ph or temperature. They change the shape. This is something that happens. But there is no such thing as self replicating hydrogel. So this idea that those things that are there, first of all, they are called hydrogels, when that’s a word that means a different thing.

Second, because of they are there and I have a mindset, I have a context of whatever has been my previous research. I cannot put that context. Everywhere I go, okay, this is something we do. You have only that knowledge and you go with your backpack and every time you see something, you put that context. But this thing you are seeing has a different context. You cannot, and this is the main problem in science is the context in which you are interpreting the thing. So you are putting a name that already exists and has a different meaning.

You are adding some properties that that thing doesn’t have. And then if you, if you really believe that this is a hydrogel that is self replicant, show me the proof. And sorry, you have to demonstrate that you cannot just say, oh, because in my context it exists. Something like Morgellon’s fibers now means that this is it. No, you have to demonstrate that you cannot do. This assumption is a terrible gap that you are trying to peel Just with a something that is not right. It’s hasty generalization. Right. So again, it’s a superposition of what you know onto something of what you don’t know.

Exactly. Josh said, thank you for explaining. Do you guys think that there’s this like general kind of perception that the government has advanced technologies that they haven’t disclosed and that they’re using this kind of hidden advanced technology in these devices? I mean, what. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. But I tell you, if you do a real research, a serious research, I tell you because I’ve been doing that the last four years, this is something that I love. And they go there and say, okay, what is the last thing that has happened with a graphene oxide? Can we do a brain computer interface with graphene oxide? No.

Can we do. No, it’s true. Can we have a brain computer interface through a vaccine? No. So it’s like, okay, you. You want to create a narrative in which you are scared of the transhumanism. I am scared of the transhumanism is one of my favorite topics to research. Okay. I know a lot about that. That’s what I’m all the type on top, all the time on top of the research. What is happening? Where are we? We still have to put chips. We need to insert chips. Can be bigger, can be smaller. Can we put them through an injection? Well, it has to be local.

It cannot be through a vaccine. So even in the worst scenario in which you believe that there is a super high technology that I believe there is super high technology ready to screw us. Sorry for the expression. You can blame Adam. That is the one. I learned the words. When we get the technology that puts something in and the body doesn’t reject it, be it knee replacement, hip replacement, a tooth implant. When we get the technology where you could put something artificial in the body and not rejected, then maybe perhaps something like that can we can move to the next level.

We can’t even get non rejection from our own organs. Like you can’t get a liver transplant without taking immunosuppressants human. So imagine how are you going. How is the body going to accept something artificial? I mean, you get a splinter in your toe, that’s wood, which is actually more biological and your body rejects it. So naturally wants to reject that which doesn’t actually connect with it. And going back to what you were saying, which I think is a really good point about superimposing and generalization goes into, you know, what, what are we seeing in the blood? What do we know? Again, if you have a microscope, just as Josh said, and you haven’t studied Andreline, Bishop or Gaston.

What you’re seeing is going to be fantastic. But what you’re seeing is microzymus replicating. What you’re seeing is microzyma changing form. What you’re seeing is what they’ve been seeing for decades, if not for centuries. These are all has been happening. It continues to happen. And science has, has not even touched the toenails of what the body can naturally do, what, what’s inside of us, what’s around us. And the, the, the awesome power of the, the biology that we have so people can think that the government figured it out, but they haven’t even figured out how to get a satellite to stay up in space.

So. Well, and I want to real quick, let me talk about this last image here so I can shut this down because all I’m seeing is my blood. I don’t see any of you guys. This is the last one. All right. And this is what we were showing. These are your nanobots, right? No, these are the things we’ve seen forever. These little guys to us, just real quick. Microzymus, symbionts, somatids. Wilhelm, right. Called them bions. These are your nanobots. These are nature’s nanobots that help us to create who we are and help us to decompose. There is nothing more beautiful than this as far as we’re concerned.

So in that image, just to clarify for the audience who may not all know this, we’re talking about the little bright dots that are moving around in the field in simplistic terms. I like to describe them as a microbial stem cell because they’re kind of like these, you know, indestructible particles that can become any type of microorganism, from bacteria to fungal and maybe even multicellular organisms. I’m not sure. Yes. Yeah, yes, yes. It’s there. They’re amazing things. And you guys want to know more? Read dad’s book. Look into Baychamp naissance underlying these types of things. This is what our courses are about.

And wait, you have to say come conference Adam. Yeah, I would love to say that. Right. Because this is going to be discussed at least in Dr. Arce’s presentation. Probably in, in your guys presentation as well. Oh, yes, yes. What’s the name of the conference and what are the dates? We’ll put the link in the show. Notes. Yes, Terrainology. You can go to terrainology.com It’s September 26th through 28th in Westchester, New York. It’s going to be awesome. Right, Andy? Yeah. Everyone in this panel will be speaking at that. So. And we love to meet you and have further discussion.

And don’t bring Adam and Josh any slides, though. Don’t ask us these questions. That’s awesome. I’ll just finish up on that there. Those little particles of the air. Single most important thing I think that we view in the actual microscope. And with Antoine Bay Champs, who really was the father of pleomorphism, he first discovered these in the dark field microscope. Although ancients have talked about these particles, we believe for. For centuries they’ve been around. They’ve been. They’ve been seen for generations and generations and generations. They are not nanobots. Okay, that is just. That is just offensive when I hear that.

All right. We do have schools of naturopathy that are teaching that people that they are parasites. Now that is just as offensive to me. All right, so you can debate our interpretations. What? You can’t debate as these things have been around since. Since the first person had a dark field microscope. They are not new, they are not nanobots, and they are not parasites either. People. Sorry. Right. And like Andy said, if you want to learn more, come to our event. Terrainology. It’s going to be a nice event. You know, when Josh and I talk about this stuff.

It’s dad’s holographic blood book. It’s an easy book to read if you guys want to find this book, right? And we don’t get rich off books. I’m not here to just make a bunch of money off this stuff. We put together the event with you, Andy, because we wanted to do a coherent event. You know, people want to know what to do. They get sick, there’s an emergency, an accident, and you can say, all right, you don’t have to go to the hospital right off the bat, settle down. This is why you need to go to the hospital.

Then we get into Topher talking about the soil and the earth and the biochar and how it’s related to our bodies. And we get Clinton Zimmerman, naturopath, who’s one of the few Bach flower certified people in the United States or the world. I think Josh going to talk about the soil and the plants and the soul of the plants. Then we got. Who’s next on that? That one. You, Anna, you’re going to talk about how our. Why do we think we ended our fingertips when part of your respiratory system is in the tree over there? So we go from the soil to the soul.

After, anna, you’ll get Dr. Marzel, she’ll be talking about what’s going on with inside us. Yes, her book, you can learn about that one. Right? Germs are not our enemy. Then as Mari talks about, she’ll talk about the isopathics a little bit, what’s going on in the body in relation to what everyone else has talked about. And Josh and I’ll wrap it all up. Showing the blood and bringing it all together from the soil to the soul. It’s really going to be fun, Andy. I’m looking forward to it. And the presentations are going to be nice and coherent as opposed to some of those events we’ve been to where one is talking about one and the other is talking about the exact opposite.

So less confusion at this event will be fun. Right, which is why I haven’t gone to a lot of those events, Andy. Yeah. Yes. Well, I’m very much looking forward to uniting with all of you and really talking about some very interesting things that we put in perspective without any fear mongering. And we seriously vet all this material through a lot of the principles we discussed today. Validation, reproducibility, meticulous procedures and, you know, years of experience. So we aim to share that with you. Let me just go around and allow you guys to give any closing thoughts on this topic and mention where people can find out more about your work.

Cool. Why don’t you start, Marcel? Go. So, yeah, good one sentence, sir. What’s a good one sentence? No, it’s. It’s basically when you. When we look at information, we have to use something called common sense. I know it’s not that common, but you know, try to work on it. And the idea is actually incorporate some critical thinking. Try to find out information from various sources, not just go, oh, this one feels like it fits the narrative of what I think is happening in the world. So I’m going to, I’m going to use that instead. Why don’t you just think about, how about, I don’t know, pick up the holographic book, take a course at the living university of terrain, read my book and learn about the history.

Do something that maybe opens up your mind and understand that it’s not quite possible that there’s all this fear and that your body is going to be subjected to these things and you have no control. The idea is everything’s in your control and you just have to understand and learn a little bit more. Oh, and my website, sorry, terrain doctor.com is where you can find me and you can find my book, Germs. Are not our enemy. Dot com. All right, Anna, I just want to reinforce the idea that you cannot see nano things with a microscope.

That you cannot know the composition of something by seeing a picture of it that you cannot see. Change the meaning of words that already exist, and that’s only with the composition. Composition that has been declared in these injections would be enough to say, no way to put that in my body. And we don’t need to say anything else. Okay. And that’s it. And you can find me, but most of my material is in Spanish. I just created a new podcast that is the Butterfly pathway. Butterfly pathway. Yes. Yes. The butterfly pathway. Yeah, the butterfly pathway. Let’s see if I can record more things in English, please.

And I’ll just reinforce that last thing she said. Yes. It’s a microscope. You can’t see. These are. These are forms of measurement. You can’t see nano with micro. It’s that simple. The second part of it is all these images that people are showing with darkfield did not just magically happen right now. These have been around ever since somebody looked into a darkfield microscope. They are not new. You know, while we have our own interpretations of them, we do not teach that to Everybody. We have 13 week courses you can take, and after that, you might be able to take a blood basics course where we teach you the basics of how to read the blood.

The basics which is obviously not being taught by most of the live cell community. How to take a drop of blood, what a red cell looks like. There’s not 17 different types of red blood cells. Okay, There are one red cell decomposing different ways, but now there’s all these fancy names up. So sorry to rant on that. We will not teach everybody. Once you understand the philosophy of what we’re teaching and we realize that we can get along and you have a brain that works properly, then we’re happy to teach the basics. So sorry to put it blunt, but, yeah, obviously we’re hoping not to really bring up the subject too much again in the future.

Andy, this. This hour video here should be a great resource for people if they have questions. But, yeah, to put it simply, you can’t see nano with micro. And, Josh, where do people find out more about your 16 week course before you kick them out for not being smart enough? I should clarify that because I’m not the smartest. No, I’m just kidding. No, it. Listen, it’s important to vet people because, you know, not. Look, medical school has an application process for a reason, right? Not everyone’s cut out to do everything. So, you know, but it’s good that you make the basic information accessible to everyone, you know, irrespective of their natural abilities or proclivities.

Yeah, absolutely. There’s a very basics that have not been taught out there. And it’s funny you brought it up because dad would say, this work is so simple that even I can figure it out. All right, so. And it’s just about observing patterns, but you have to understand what you’re looking at first before we can make false conclusions, you know, so the courses are great. They explain the science behind it, they explain how nature works. And then there’s a very basic blood course that we do for certain people because we’ve seen, you know, part of what we’re trying to do is protect our father’s legacy, and we’ve seen where the road has gone with dartfield microscopy, you know, and it’s really been embarrassing for us, you know, where we don’t really want to be associated with that, but we do want to make sure the right people are doing the right type of, you know, of science.

You know, it’s just pattern. All the courses are in the universityofterrain.com Adam, say all of that. Well, you know, we gotta repeat it. It so people. People remember it and type it in. Yes. We’re very bad at the marketing thing, Andy. This is usually where our mother comes onto the webinar and says, tell them about the books. So, yes, thank you for that. And it is. It’s part of. It’s a little unfortunate. You know, we have done some training courses previously. Nobody that we’ve worked with is anyone we would endorse. So if anyone’s saying they learn from us, you know, I don’t know who you are.

Let’s have a conversation. Conversation, potentially. But the reality is this, after what we’ve seen people doing with the microscope over the last four years, we’re going to teach less. You know, we really. And I’ve fought with Josh about this. I want this information out there, you know, but the reality is, like you said, we need to qualify people for this. Guys, if you got a microscope, there’s a big responsibility that comes with this. You can look at a drop of blood and take the hope away from somebody so quickly, and that’s not good for their health.

And you scare them into unnecessary treatments. You know, anyone that’s got a microscope that’s had one of these trainings, you really need to think about. About what you’re doing and A couple other things real quick. I did find a microscope once, Andy, that does spectrum analysis. It’s $250,000. If someone wants to buy one for us, we’d love to play with it. And the guy that talked to Josh about it was proud that his clients were Pfizer and Moderna. But even so, spectrum analysis. Remember I said visible light. Yeah. Which is the least. What’s the least reliable of all these types of analyses is what I’ve heard.

Not that I’ve done any, but expensive microscope is one thing. And there was one other thing I was going to say, but it disappeared. So I guess it’s. Oh, yeah. I can’t remember who said this first, but I can show you a picture of my glass of water and tell you what’s water. But how do you know it’s not vodka or gin? You can’t do this analysis from these images. And I really, I do believe that people are always trying to help. Okay. Because I’m that guy. I want to help people. So as much as I am irritated and frustrated with how much fear has been spread on our side of the fence, it’s the same thing.

It’s so funny. On both sides of the fence, fear. Do something without thinking about it. Our work is easy. Dad said it’s not rocket science. Even Josh can understand it. And as we joke about it, Josh didn’t go to college, so he didn’t have to unlearn so many things. But in the end, we really, Josh and I, enjoy what we do. We educate and empower people so they can learn to take charge of their healthcare. And you can find out more with Dad’s books. Type up our last name. Biggleson. You’ll find dad on Guy MTV on Coast to coast with George Noreen.

He was on dateline in the 90s and things like that. But we really enjoy sharing this with people when we do our courses, our webinars. We’re really happy to do that stuff. So at this point, thank you for helping us be focused with delivering this information today. Because most of the time for Josh and I, we go, who knows what comes out of our mouths. For people listening, we really understand fear. We’ve seen a lot of it. And if we can do things to alleviate it. If you don’t have to worry about graphene hydrogel nanotech isn’t life get a little easier for you? So thanks for having us on, Andy.

Appreciate it. Well, I really loved this discussion today. And I think we have, you know, done quite a lot to MITIGATE some of the fear that you may be experiencing worrying about this claims of all kinds of machines and nefarious technology in your blood. And we did it just by really a calm and rational logical analysis recognizing that one these images are not new, that people are, you know, misinterpreting as scary things they’ve been around long before the alleged technology that they’re claimed to be even existed, and that there are a number of ways to interpret what we see under the microscope.

And it takes very careful consideration, experience and wisdom to, you know, get it right or even get it close to right. So you know, everyone look into this further. Please always do your your own work, take advantage of the resources of all these wonderful and knowledgeable folks have given you and draw your own conclusions. I look forward to seeing you next time on the TRU Health Report. Even if you’re doing your best to live clean, you’re still being exposed. From off gassing furniture and plastics in your food to synthetic fibers, personal care products and even medical imaging procedures, especially fat soluble chemicals.

These toxins don’t respond to your average detox. They settle deep in your tissues and you need the right tools to clear them out. That’s why I created the ultimate Detox Protocol, a free 30 day roadmap that teaches you a serious nature based detox using pine targeted nutrition and a focused daily plan. You’ll choose the cleansing diet that fits your needs, support your elimination pathways and take action against the toxin load that’s been holding you back. Many people who’ve done this protocol have reported major improvements in energy, focus, digestion and even long standing symptoms they thought they’d have to live with forever.

Unfortunately, I can’t share the full scope of results people have experienced using this protocol, not on this platform. If I did, the video would surely be taken down, but trust me, it is incredibly powerful. Download it for free at the link in the show notes. Your health Health is your responsibility and this is the best place to start. Thanks for listening and I’ll see you in the next true health report.
[tr:tra].

See more of Andrew Kaufman, M.D. on their Public Channel and the MPN Andrew Kaufman, M.D. channel.