Ivermectin + QA- May 1st 2024 | Dr. Tom Cowan
Summary
➡ The text discusses the claim that ivermectin, a drug, can treat COVID-19. It explains that the drug’s effectiveness is based on a flawed experiment involving kidney cells, not actual virus testing. The text also highlights that ivermectin can be harmful, causing neurological problems and potentially hindering the body’s natural healing process. It concludes by questioning the drug’s effectiveness against parasitic diseases and criticizes the pharmaceutical industry for promoting it.
➡ If you’re exposed to poison ivy, you can use over-the-counter products to break down the chemical causing the reaction. Some plants like jewel weed and plantain can also help if applied to the affected area. Some people even use their own urine as an antidote. Eating a bit of poison ivy early in the season can help your body develop resistance. The text also discusses the idea that we are bioenergetic beings, and that traditional theories about biology are lacking. The author suggests that we could tap into infinite electromagnetism for energy and health. Lastly, the text discusses how medical schools don’t provide foundational understanding of theories, and the cause of meningitis, which could be due to physical injury, deficiency of nutrients or love, or exposure to toxins.
➡ The text discusses four potential causes of health issues: physical injury, deficiencies, toxic exposure, and incorrect beliefs about health. It also talks about the importance of understanding the root cause of illnesses, including meningitis. The text then discusses PKU, a disorder diagnosed at birth, suggesting that the mother’s health could be a factor. Lastly, it debates the nature of vitamins, arguing that they are not just chemicals but vital elements found in plants and animals, and that consuming these directly can prevent and treat vitamin deficiencies.
➡ The article discusses the complexity of food and medical testing, using oysters and virus tests as examples. It argues that breaking down substances into chemical components doesn’t fully explain their benefits or properties. The author also questions the validity of antigen and antibody tests for viruses, suggesting that these tests are flawed as they haven’t proven the existence of the virus or its components. Lastly, the author invites readers to join a future webinar about gardening.
Transcript
Okay, hello everybody. Thanks for joining me again for another Wednesday webinar today, May 1st, 2024. I think they call that May Day. I don’t really know what the significance of May Day is, but it’s got something to do with the workers, I think. Okay, I don’t think there’s any announcements. So let me get right into it. Today I wanted to talk about a subject that I’ve talked about before, but this week on Tuesday, one of the weekly webinars, now there’s not very many of them that I actually watch, is the Bailey’s, Sam and Mark.
I believe it comes out every Tuesday morning, at least for me, and I wanted to piggyback a little bit on the webinar they did, Sam did, on ivermectin. But I also think that everybody who’s interested in the subject of ivermectin should absolutely go watch that video, that webinar, or whatever it is, that just came out with, I think it’s drsambaley. com. I’m not sure exactly, that’s exactly the right website, but absolutely that should be checked out.
And I just wanted to not correct anything, not by any means, but just to emphasize some things, which I have actually been over before. The reason, of course, is I am continually, well I don’t know if I’d use the word shocked or surprised, because not too much shocks or surprises me anymore, but let’s just say interested in how many of the people that I know who are allegedly in the health freedom space and community are either taking ivermectin so-called prophylactically or have taken it for a illness that they’ve had in the last four years, which they claim to be COVID.
I wouldn’t have expected that, maybe, maybe I would, but it’s just there’s so many of them that I think it’s still worth revisiting that subject, because I guess the bottom line here is this is one of those clever, they being the perpetrators or the controllers or whatever you want to call them, have a very clear strategy with so many things, so many things, of there’s a conventional narrative and then there’s the alternative narrative, which always casts doubt and aspersions and usually there’s elements of intrigue and collusion and criminal activity against the dominant people and the dominant system, and that becomes the alternative narrative.
Close my window here and that’s the only two things you’re allowed to believe. So in this case, the of course the alternative, sorry, the conventional narrative for COVID is caused by a virus and the only possible preventative treatment or thing you can do to stop the virus at the end of the day, because we know hand washing and masks and social distancing and all that don’t really work, so you have to do the vaccine.
And then along comes the so-called freedom community, and you don’t need me to name any names here, but most of them have been in lockstep about this saying, oh no, there’s this pandemic for sure and it’s caused by a virus for sure. Now we think it’s a lab leaked virus or a lab-created virus, we’ve been over that, but even a bigger scandal is whatever, whichever virus it’s caused by, it certainly is effectively treated by this safe and effective, we’ve heard that one before, drug called ivermectin, which is cheap and it’s a miracle drug, and so the reason that they’ve suppressed that, the successful, almost miraculous treatment of this viral infection with this miracle drug called ivermectin, is because there’s seemingly some clause that says if there’s an effective treatment for this pandemic or this situation, then you can’t fast track or some administrative words of the vaccine.
So they had to, the narrative, the alternative narrative goes, you had to get rid of the ivermectin story, unfortunately for us poor people, because ivermectin is such a wonderful drug, and anyways there was a Nobel prize given for the discovery of ivermectin, which if you know anything about the Nobel prize process, that should make the strongest red flags go off, you know, joining the ranks of Obama and Begin and Frank John Enders and a whole bunch of other Nobel prize winners.
So, and they’ve suppressed the research and the anecdotal experience and the experience of numerous hard-working frontline doctors all out there saving lives with this wonder drug called ivermectin, and the only reason the government and the pharmaceutical companies are suppressing this antiviral wonder drug is because if they allowed that to get out, people would have an easy treatment for COVID, and then they wouldn’t be able to fast track the vaccine, and then they wouldn’t be able to kill us all with the vaccine.
So if you’re an alternatively leaning person, that’s your, that’s what you’re meant to believe, and of course neither of those have any relation to reality, and just to give you an idea, you hear many many doctors, you know, going on their various platforms and talking about a crucial point, I can’t emphasize that enough, a crucial point is that ivermectin is an antiviral agent that is crucial to the whole story.
So of course nobody asks them ever, and up to this point, not that I’ve looked extensively, but I’ve never heard any of them, not Corey, not Cole, not Kirsch, he’s not a doctor, not Mercola, not Malone, not Big Tree, nobody saying here’s how we have proven that ivermectin is an antiviral agent, therefore there is a plausible rationale for using it for COVID. Now that’s curious because why didn’t anybody ask them? Why didn’t anybody ask Peter McCulloch? How does he know that ivermectin is an antiviral agent since it’s one of the things that his clinic regularly uses and sells for people who are suffering from the viral infection called COVID.
So the Sam went over this, but I wanted to emphasize this because this is again something I’ve talked about before, but everybody should know this in their back pocket. They should know it cold, so if you run into anybody who touts ivermectin for treating COVID, you can pull this out and ask them. The first question you ask them, how do they, who, how, when did they demonstrate that ivermectin is an antiviral agent? So here’s how the story goes.
Our old friend Leon Cayley, who’s the quote virologist from Australia, who wrote one of the most important papers, which I won’t pull up, but it’s on Sam’s webinar, wrote one of the most important COVID papers because it was the paper that described the, I believe, the first case of isolation of SARS-CoV-2 outside of China, that is to say in Australia. So how did he do it? Of course he took one person who was diagnosed with COVID.
How was he diagnosed? Based on the Christian Droustin PCR primers, even though Christian Droustin says in his paper, we designed or came up with these primers without ever having access to the virus, which is an amazing sleight of hand if you think about it. How can you develop a test using a piece of something when you never had access to something, to the something that obviously is irrational, illogical, and ridiculous.
But anyways, so they used that to claim this person had COVID. Then they took some of their mucus, otherwise known as snot, didn’t look for any virus in it, didn’t purify it, meaning they didn’t extract a virus from that. Did the usual inoculate that on monkey kidney cells take away the nutrition, add the antibiotics, add the fetal calf serum, the monkey kidney cells broke down, and in some bizarre Orwellian use of the word isolation, that becomes the first isolate, which has a name, outside of China.
So that’s called the isolation of SARS-CoV-2, which again is totally illogical, ridiculous, and anti-scientific. How is isolation obtained through the process of adding stuff to mucus? Then turns out this same, by the way, that was the same paper which we’ve again gone over many times, where they showed electron microscope images of the SARS-CoV-2 virions, that’s individual viruses, that they obtained from this culture with the comment that they didn’t look like the usual coronavirus spiked virions until they added trypsin to digest away the outside protein coat.
When they digested it, then it looked like it had spikes, which is amazing that they get away with this, but they do. And so he was the guy who did that. In other words, we found stars from pieces of wood, but only after we called a carpenter to cut the outside pieces out so that it would look like stars. That’s the level of scientific discord here. So then he takes this broken down cell culture of monkey kidney cells, he inoculates that onto another culture of monkey kidney cells, doesn’t use a control or says he uses a mock control, which has nothing in it, so nothing from any inoculated monkey kidney cells, and doesn’t actually describe the actual details of the mock infection.
So we have no idea that everything else was even the same as in the experimental group, which means it is not a scientific paper. So then he takes this broken down monkey kidney cell, again takes away the nutrients, adds it to a new batch of monkey kidney cells, and then takes away the nutrition, adds more antibiotics, more fetal calf syrup, and in this time he adds a little bit of ivermectin, and then he finds that the kidney cells took longer in the added ivermectin group than in the no added ivermectin group, which he claims shows that ivermectin killed the SARS-CoV-2 or inhibited the growth of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Just to be clear, at no point in this did any virus actually get discovered or found or identified. There was no point in this experiment where you could even possibly conclude that it was inhibiting the growth of the virus. All you can say is that when you take broken down monkey kidney cells with snot in it and you inoculate that onto other monkey kidney cells and the one you add ivermectin and the other you don’t, the one you add ivermectin took longer to break down than the one that you didn’t add ivermectin.
That’s what you can say. So if you want to take ivermectin based on the fact that in case that your problem that you’re experiencing symptoms with is because you have monkey kidney cells with fetal bovine serum and antibiotics and viral transport medium breaking down in your body and you want to prevent it from breaking down as quickly, then you might have some rationale for taking ivermectin. But in order to say that, you have to say that that is the problem with COVID and I think you would have a damn hard time proving that.
So the question then is, so that before I say that, that is the entire basis for the claim that ivermectin is an antiviral agent, which is the basis for the claim that it’s an effective treatment for something called COVID, which is the basis for the claim that there was some sort of conspiracy against the wonderful wonder drug safe and effective ivermectin so that they could bring in a vaccine, which is what you were sold when you decided to take ivermectin by the health freedom community.
That’s the story. Now, some people will complain and comment and criticize, but I or my friend or my 20 friends, they took ivermectin and they felt better. So how do you explain that? Well, first of all, that has nothing to do with the proof, which I just went through, that ivermectin cannot possibly be an antiviral agent. So that is independent. We already know that that’s the case. ivermectin has no relationship to anything to do with viruses, nor does anything else.
But you do have this observation. So how do you explain that? Well, it turns out that ivermectin is a interestingly and very toxic to the nervous system. This has been documented over and over again. It also functions as an anti-fertility agent, which may be one of the reasons why it’s so widely used in Africa. It’s also widely used in animals. I just found out yesterday that most horses and most dogs who are treated by conventional vets take ivermectin basically once a month.
And there’s lots of neurological problems, including seizure and disorientation and other neurological problems that come about through the continual use of ivermectin. So it is not a benign chemical, that’s what it is. Make no mistake about that, it is a pharmaceutical made chemical, just like many others. And it seems to have two effects. One is it has a prednisone-like effect, which means that i can guarantee that anybody who has so-called flu-like type symptoms or symptoms which we associate with COVID, which is basically an inflammatory response due to some sort of insult, not a new disease by any means, but lots of people get inflammatory responses due to a wide variety of insults.
And if you take prednisone, you will feel better. You will also have made yourself dramatically worse because all of these so-called flu-like or so-called COVID-like or so-called detoxification-like symptoms are your body’s way of doing a house cleaning. And it’s no secret that you can stop those house cleaning responses with strong pharmaceutical drugs, and you will think you feel better, but actually now you’ve only stopped your body from doing its detoxification house cleaning strategy, and you will ultimately be a lot worse, because that’s how you heal.
So make no mistake about it, ivermectin stops the healing process, just like prednisone, just like hydroxychloroquine, just like giving, you know, so-called monoclonal antibodies, none of them work with how we actually heal. And another interesting, I would say, a hypothesis, which I can’t prove, is that one of the ways that all of these drugs work is they stimulate the sympathetic nervous system, and it turns out that the healing response is basically a parasympathetic nervous system response.
So when we’re relaxed and we’re not stressed, and when our digestion is working, and when we’re healing, that is essentially in controlled by the parasympathetic nervous system. When you give somebody prednisone or hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, you stimulate the sympathetic nervous system response, which then stops the healing, causes the nervous system symptoms, like seizures that you see with with ivermectin in particular, and you essentially have stopped your body from healing.
And so that’s how it works. So the argument that Aunt Fred or Uncle Harry or whoever, you felt better, is no different. You would be better off probably taking high dose of prednisone. If your only goal is to make yourself worse but feel better today, that would be a good way to do it. So I’m saying this because unfortunately, especially in the people who one would hope know better and think more deeply about this, they still buy the hydroxychloroquine ivermectin story.
This is a boondoggle for the pharmaceutical industry, especially in veterinary medicine, and it is the only wonderful part about it is the wonder that anybody fell for this story. We will at some point, and hopefully I’ll have some other input on this, get into even the question of does ivermectin even work for so-called parasitic diseases, whether there even are parasitic diseases, because all the evidence points to that is not how it works.
And I even heard an anecdotal story of a description of a study, which I haven’t seen, so it’s maybe unfair of me to mention this, but it’s a bit like the maggots. Did the maggots kill the dog? But they’ve interestingly, maggots are now used even in conventional medicine to clean up wounds, because maggots seem to have a good ability to distinguish between dead and dying tissue and healthy tissue, and they only eat the dead and dying tissue, leave the healthy tissue alone, and that prevents, quote, infection, because the other way to do it is to have microorganisms like yeast and bacteria and parasites eat the dead and dying tissue.
So if you get the maggots to do it, then those other things have no food, and you get a very clean wound. And so they did an investigation of who was better able to effectively debride a wound, that means to take away the dead part and leave only the healthy living tissue, surgeons or maggots. And I think it should be no surprise that the maggots won hands down, even with surgeons using microscopes.
Okay, I was going to show you something about what they say about ivermectin on Wikipedia. They talk about how it works using glutamine gated chlorine channels, and that’s how it increases the flow of chlorine items and hyperpolarizes the cell membrane, paralyze and killing the invertebrate. It’s safe for mammals at normal therapeutic doses used to cure parasite infections because mammalian glutamate gated chlorine channels only occur in the brain and spinal cord.
The causative ivermectins usually do not cross the blood-brain barrier and are unlikely to bind to other mammalian ligand-gated channels. So the problem with this, of course, is there are no channels in the cell membranes or in nerves or in muscle cells. There is no blood-brain barrier. The nerves don’t work because of hyperpolarization and the flow of chloride ions. So this whole thing is simply just a story that has no value.
Okay, that’s enough about ivermectin. Again, for anybody who really wants to see the references and get more in detail in this, please watch Sam and Mark’s video. I think it’s DrSamBailey. com this week on ivermectin. So let’s get to some of the questions. What have you seen work for poison ivy elimination treatment comfort? It’s a tough question. Poison ivy is tough. So we’re told it’s through the the contact on the skin of a chemical, I think called urushil.
I’m not sure how to spell that. And this chemical gets absorbed through the skin and then can go into your bloodstream, we’re told. And then you have systemic poison ivy. So there’s definitely a difference. The difference is if the original exposure and all the symptoms are contiguous with that exposure, in other words, not on one arm and then the other arm and the other arm didn’t have exposure.
So if everything is on one arm, that’s still localized poison ivy. And if it spreads to some place that it’s not contiguous with, then it apparently must have got there through the blood or the lymph. So that’s called systemic poison ivy. So the things that I have used and seen for that, some of them I’ve used and some of them I’ve only heard of, there is a over-the-counter stuff called Zinfel, I think, or something.
You’ll see it starts with a Z-I-N. And it’s apparently a chemical that breaks down the urushil. And so it’s not a bad idea to, if you know that you’ve been exposed to poison ivy and you tend to react strongly to it. I mean, this again, anything that’s coming out to your skin is basically the plant world is serving as the vehicle to help you create an elimination reaction.
So the skin eruption and the itching and the pus and the vesicles, that is the body’s way of getting this stuff out. But you can also temper, you can also break down the chemical by rubbing your body in the area that was exposed with this over-the-counter thing. I’m sure you’ll be able to find out what it was. And that breaks down the urushil and then it stops, your body will stop reacting.
So that’s the first thing. There’s also some plants that people have used, and I’m not an expert on this. I think they’re called jule weed and maybe plantain. And so you can chew those or make a paste and rub that over the area where you’ve been exposed. And I believe you can even eat those, although I would check on that. And that apparently will stop the symptoms quickly in many people.
So that’s the second thing that I’ve seen and done. The thing that I’ve heard that works is to actually take some of your own urine that you actually make an antidote. And you can make a compress with that and put it on the affected skin. And then you can drink it, which contains the antidote to the poison ivy. And that apparently will make the symptoms and even a systemic problem go away very quickly.
I’ve also seen good results sometimes, not all the time, by taking homeopathic cell salts. I’m not sure which one to use for that, but also to take just homeopathic roost hocks, which can help make the symptoms go away quicker. So those are the basic things that I’ve seen. I’ve also seen people eat a little bit of poison ivy, and apparently the Native American people did that in the early part of the season before the heavy part of the poison ivy season or poison oak season.
And apparently by eating it, then your body develops resistance somehow to poison ivy exposure. I’ve never done that myself, but I’ve heard that that works. So if anybody else has any effective poison ivy treatments, I would like to hear them. So you can send those in the comments. Okay, Tom, in your fantastic book, Cancer and New Biology of Water, you mentioned Lewis Kervran, who among others showed that in living beings, cosmic background radiation is sufficient to change elements into other elements.
I don’t know that he said that cosmic background radiation, it’s the radiation or the energy flow in living beings that changes elements into other elements. So I’m not sure he said cosmic background radiation, but I know what you mean. Your idea that a dome with antenna and pillars in water in a cell or in the Taj Mahal are the receiver of energy aligns with these findings. Are we here at the source of the secret of life? I would only say that we’re getting towards it.
What we’re realizing is that the usual biochemical reductionist materialistic model of everything but in particular life is severely lacking and that we are bioenergetic, electrical, electromagnetic beings of some sort and that we’re swimming in a sea of a medium called ether, which is itself electromagnetic. And that if we basically functioned according to that principle, we could have access and tap into this source of essentially infinite electromagnetism to not only run our societies to get power, to get energy, but to create health and well-being in our communities and in our individual organisms like us.
So yes, that is a fundamental step in making that shift into what we consider a living being to be made of, so to speak. So we’re getting there. And again, as I say, there was an old biology, which was the old, old biology, and that was basically 100% along these principles. And then came the old biology, which started in sort of, I mean started a long time ago, but really picked up speed in the late 1700s and then really gained traction in the mid 1800s with cell theory, germ theory, genetic theory, all these unproven, now disproven theories.
And so now we’re having to go back and resurrect in a new way the old, old biology. That’s where we’re at. And so we’re a little bit in a transition. And for some people, that makes them nervous because we don’t have all the answers. But we certainly don’t have all the answers. We have some guidelines from some of the old schools, you know, Chinese medicine and Ayurvedic medicine, shamanic healing, plant medicine, plant helpers, and some of the new findings of people like Reif and Wilhelm Reich and Hammer and other people who have been investigating the different ways that energy and biology work.
Next question, how do the medical schools push the virus lies? That’s an interesting question because they don’t really push. Well, let me rephrase that. They absolutely push the virus lie. But what they don’t do is give you the foundational understanding of how the virus theory came about, or frankly, any other theory, the cell theory, genetic theory, you know, synapse theory, neurotransmitter theory, cell membrane theory. None of that do they actually go through the foundational understanding or experiments or evidence to prove those things.
Now, you could say that’s because everybody who went to medical, goes to medical school has some sort of degree or assumed proficiency in modern biology. So why would they need to go through basic, you know, genetics and DNA discovery and cell biology and viral theory, because you should already be fluent in that. The problem, of course, is they never did that in undergraduate, and they never did it in high school, and they never did it in elementary school.
And they didn’t do it in kindergarten, and they didn’t do it in pre kindergarten, and your mother and father didn’t know about it. And so nobody knows where this all came from. So it’s basically just one made up story after another, and everybody assumes that somebody must have gotten this right at some point. And so you just learn from day one, here’s the chicken pox virus. Here’s what it looks like an electron microscope.
Nobody raised their hand say, how do you know this was a chicken pox virus? And how did they find this in the first place? Nobody asked that. You brought to either bamboozled to even know how to ask that. So they’re basically scientifically illiterate. They don’t know how to ask the question, how did you find that? How do you know that ivermectin kills viruses? Where’s the paper? Where is the foundational understanding? That kind of question never gets asked.
So you just learn the life cycle, the symptoms that are alleged to be caused by this virus in some people, other people are immune, and then the virus changes its form. And some viruses make immune reactions, and some don’t. And some create variants and some don’t. Why that is nobody knows that’s just the way it is. So it’s always just the way it is. And that’s how you do medical school.
Could you speak to the cause of meningitis diagnosed as meningitis of unknown origin? Especially when there is no known exposure to toxins, we practice good eo-pensation. We practice good emf and blue light hygiene, use no chemicals in the home, structure all of our water, eat organic, and sleep well. So meningitis, like all the other itises, just identifies the site of the inflammation. And we somehow think this is a different disease because the site of the inflammation is different.
So then the question is why did this particular area like your knee or your meninges, which is the covering of your nervous system in this central nervous system essentially, why did it get inflamed? There’s basically, again, three reasons there was a physical injury to that area. You fell off your horse, or you injured your knee, or you had a blow to your head, or some physical trauma. That’s usually pretty apparent.
The second reason is there’s a deficiency of something, either nutrients or some other part of the consumption, either good water or certain fats or proteins or something else that one needs. Or it could be a deficiency of something less physical, more energetic, like love or shelter or warmth. I was just talking today about it’s fine to do cold adaptation, but one of the things that actually predicts poor outcomes in groups of people or animals is if the animal or the group of people is chronically continually cold.
So that’s not a good thing. People and animals, anybody who has a cat knows this very well, they like to be warm. They, of course, do like to go out in cold weather and practice cold adaptation. That’s not a bad thing. But then there has to be periods where it feels safe and warm, etc. So it’s the same thing. So that’s another possibility. So that’s the second category of why there would be a disruption in a certain part of the body, that the body then has to be able to create an inflammatory reaction to essentially get rid of the area that’s been disrupted.
In other words, if you bang something and it’s injured and it’s not right, your body has to send inflammatory response to remodel it so that it can make that area whole and new again. Same with the meninges. So the second thing would be some sort of deficiency. The third would be a toxic exposure. And I don’t think anybody should be out there, me included, not that I’m any different.
You know, I don’t mean to say that at all, but to say, oh, there’s no way I have any toxic exposure. Because frankly, if you say that, I don’t know which part of the world you’re living in. But as far as I know, that isn’t any part of the world that I know. We all have so many countless types of exposures that living beings were never meant to encounter.
You can prove that by assaying for the different chemicals and different items in your fat and in your blood. And so we all have that. And so it’s just a process of saying, you know, there could be so many different types of toxic exposures. So I’m going to go looking for what I may have encountered. That to me is the way of real medicine, including trying to understand what caused somebody’s meningitis.
The fourth category is, as I’ve called it, the delusions. In other words, you have wrong ideas about the way things happen. As one of the most interesting findings and conclusions from Daniel Reutis’ amazing book on Can You Catch a Cold? is that the only thing that’s really been proven to be responsible for the transmission of illness from one person to the next is the belief that that will happen.
Every other controlled study of the snot and the mucus, there’s been a few that have identified certain chemicals like bradykinins and histamine that seem to cause symptoms that we call colds and flus from one person to the next. But by and large, the only thing that really does that is the belief that that will happen. So I think in all of these cases, if it’s true that nothing turns up as the cause of the disruption in the meninges, I would look to something in the more psycho-emotional belief environment.
We all have beliefs, and maybe that’s coming into play. Sometimes it takes a really good skilled questioner to unlock that which we all know which of these exposures or issues caused our own itis to happen. We all know it, and it just takes somebody with the skill and the empathy to bring it out and essentially unlock our unconscious knowing. Okay, Tom, what is your view on obscure disorders such as PKU, that’s Phenylketoneuria, given the so-called diagnosis is around birth or shortly after, what is likely the root cause? So I can’t say that I’ve ever looked into this, so I may be better off just saying I don’t know.
But what they’re talking about is when a baby is newly born, most babies, not my babies because we didn’t do any of these tests, they do this really painful heel stick. You imagine sticking a newborn baby in one of the most sensitive parts of their body with a lancet on like hours after they were born. That is unspeakably cruel and inappropriate. I would advise everybody not to do that.
So then they send it to whether the baby has hypothyroidism or they have elevated substances in the blood which means they have PKU. And I don’t really have an alternative theory as to what they’re actually looking at in the blood, whether that’s a valid test. And if they are using a valid test that’s actually validated and controlled and they’re clearly finding elevated metabolic substances in the brain, sorry, in the blood, what may be the cause of that? My guess is it’s probably something to do with the situation of the mother.
The mother was somehow unable to detoxify or was poisoned or had an inappropriate diet or had a metabolic disturbance themselves, which means it’s showing up in this newborn baby. And whether that is actually going to lead to the outcome that they say, I’ve never actually looked into that or treated anybody with that. So I don’t think I can say much more about that. Okay. What vitamins aren’t actually vitamins and are toxic? Thanks for introducing me to all viruses are fake.
So it’s an interesting question. And it goes back also, which I’ve spoken about many times, there was a debate which really came to a head in the early part of the 20th century, say 1920 up to 1940, as to the nature of vitamins. Vitamins, I believe means a vital factor that comes from a plant. It also means vital, meaning important amine, which is a kind of chemical structure.
So the vitamins were named according or named according to the order in which they were found vitamin A first. And they were based on that certain people had certain symptoms like blindness, I guess was, and they traced it back to a deficiency in this particular substance chemical amine in the blood. And so that was fostered by the biochemical model of what living beings are made of. So this is just a another chemical which somehow we are not able to synthesize ourselves, but is something that we need in order to live or not be blind or not get rickets or not get some other deficiency disease.
And so then came the B vitamins. And they were meant to be various separate chemicals that we could then chemically isolate and identify. There was however, even from the early days, a counter amp who said, no, that’s not right. We are not chemical, biochemical soups, biochemical beings. We are complex vital organisms with based on electromagnetism and other complex factors. They didn’t all talk about electromagnetism, but they basically said these are factors which are found in plants and animals that we consume and they cannot be linked specifically to a chemical.
And interestingly, the leader of that camp was a guy named Royal Lee, who then went on to start a company called Standard Process, which was based on the, so as 99% of the so-called scientists, medical doctors, nutritional research was going down, the exciting identification of the various chemicals. Royal Lee was investigating, okay, so you have people with various symptoms. What if I give them, you know, just a, essentially the juice or an extract of the spleen or pea shoots or Spanish radishes or the coating of soybeans or could be a whole lot of things.
And he was able to identify that these same illnesses, which were called scurvy, therefore an ascorbic acid deficiency, could be successfully treated and prevented by giving a mixture of plant and animal tissues, which had a very low, even irrelevant amount of ascorbic acid according to testing in it. In other words, there was no way giving people whatever cataplex C was originally, that’s the sort of vitamin C preparation from Standard Process.
I don’t remember now what the ingredients were, but like ground up pea shoots that they make into a juice, essentially, and then dehydrate it. He invented an apparatus, which is very similar to what we would call the Norwalk juicer now. So it’s a very clean way of extracting the vital living elements from various plants and animals. So there was like six different plants and animals, none of which contained much ascorbic acid, but was 100% successful against treating the symptoms that we identified as scurvy.
The same thing with cataplex B, which was mostly basically liver. So giving somebody liver was an effective treatment. Liver from an animal, ground up, dehydrated, and made juice, and then dehydrated. That was an effective treatment for all the various chemical identifiers of that niacin and you know all the thiamin and all the other parts, components of the B vitamins, all successfully treated with this essentially liver juice and what was called cataplex B.
So we had these two split areas. One was talking about the chemicals, vitamins are chemicals, the other is these are just different food factors and the actual quantity of the chemical would not be enough to do anything if it was just a pure chemical. But when you put it into an appropriate food source, it will reliably, easily, not only prevent but treat any disorder that’s connected with that particular vitamin deficiency.
So I’m obviously more in the Royal Lee, Weston Price was basically also in that camp using things like butter oil and cod liver oil instead of synthetic produced vitamin D. So basically my entire career I did use a lot of standard process. I had some trouble with the quality control that they get animals from feedlots which I didn’t like so I thought there’s got to be a better way to do it.
But the idea that Royal Lee had is basically the idea that has inspired me my entire medical career to give people food and then extracts plants or animals that directly come from food that are processed in the best way possible. So it’s always, you know, ground up oysters, or dehydrated oysters, i. e. oyster max instead of zinc. It’s fermented bacteria max stress B instead of just chemical B vitamins.
So it’s basically just a fermentation product. And all the things that we carry are to give people an option of using actual dehydrated food products or plant products or animal products or fermentation products which are complex mixtures of living substances known and unknown. Again, we have to be humble and realize we don’t actually know what’s in an oyster. And in fact, more and more as you’re hearing, I’m getting away from even the idea that I eat oysters or give people or want or have people take oyster max because of the zinc.
You have them do it because oysters are a good food. They have a lot of beneficial qualities. Chemically, they do test as having zinc, but I don’t think that’s the really the active ingredient. The active ingredient is oysters. Water is not H2O, it’s water, you know, on and on and on. We do ourselves a real disservice by breaking stuff into chemical components and saying that we have the answer.
I think I have one more quick question. We know that PCR tests do not test for viruses, but what about antibody and antigen tests? So an antigen would be a piece of a virus. So when you think about asking that question, ask yourself, do you, is you’d have any experience of being able to test for something by finding a piece of that something and you’ve never or nobody has ever seen this something? Would you be able to say that pencils have lead? Apparently that’s lead, I’ve never analyzed it.
Unless you at some point have seen a pencil. And think about this, you’ve never, you or nobody has ever identified, i. e. isolated a pencil. The best they’ve done is taken this thing and it got a lot of stuff in there, including magic markers and pens and paper clips and ground that up and said, look, we found lead. So lead must be in or graphite or whatever’s in there.
It must be in pencils, but you’ve never seen a pencil. So that’s an antigen test. They say this is a piece of something that comes from a virus which they’ve never seen. And that is not possible. That’s the only place that that is true is in your mind. That can’t be true anywhere else. So obviously there is no antigen test of a virus because you’d have to first find the virus, isolate it, identify the components, find out that this particular segment called the antigen comes from that virus.
And then once you’ve proven that, you could test for the antigen, assuming you know that it only comes from that virus and it came from nowhere else. In other words, your foot doesn’t have the same antigen. None of that has ever been remotely demonstrated for any antigen test for any virus. So what about an antibody test? So that’s even taking it a step further in absurdity. So now you’re finding a reaction that you make or an animal makes against an antigen and saying that that antibody, that reaction that you make against an antigen, a piece of the virus, proves there’s a virus when you’ve never A, shown that there’s a virus, B, you’ve never shown that the antigen, the part that you’re allegedly making antibodies against, belongs to a virus.
And so you can’t possibly say that your reaction against this is against a virus. And then you compound the problem by failing ever to do controls where you take that same antibody and you try to get it to react to some other antigen or some other component of something else and then take a different antibody and try to get that to react to the antigen, which would be the two simplest controls, not a full control, but the two obvious and simple controls.
And neither of those steps are ever done. And so obviously the answer is there is no antibody test that is specific to any antigen and no antigen has been shown to come from any virus. Therefore, neither an antibody nor an antigen test can possibly identify a virus or diagnose any viral disease. Hopefully that’s very clear. And again, thanks everybody for joining me. I’m hoping next time to do a garden webinar.
So I’ll be looking at our garden and hopefully sharing some tips on how you can do a better garden yourself and to make it easy and effective for your own personal gardening. So tune in next week. I hope everybody has a great week and see you next week. .
See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.
