➡ The webinar host announced an upcoming event at Polyface farm in June, which will include music, dancing, talks, and good food. He also discussed a question about H. Pylori and stomach ulcers, and shared insights on how kidneys work and the importance of understanding money in society. He ended by reading from a book he wrote about the financial system and how money is created.
➡ Money is a crucial part of our society, deciding which institutions survive and which risks are rewarded. The modern monetary system, known as fiat money, is not tied to any tangible commodity and is a significant change from previous systems. Central banks, which manage this system, protect privileged institutions from failure, leading to a system where risk-taking is rewarded and caution is punished. This system benefits those closest to the source of money creation, leading to a widening gap between the rich and the poor.
➡ The text discusses the issues with the current monetary system, where the government and central bank control the creation and distribution of money. This system, according to the author, leads to inequality and misuse of power, as those who control the money can manipulate it to their advantage, while those who don’t have this control are at risk. The author suggests that a better system would be one where people can choose what they use as money, such as gold, silver, or even bananas, and that this would lead to a more fair and balanced society. The author also questions why individuals can’t print their own money, arguing that if everyone could do this, it would lead to a more equal distribution of wealth and power.
➡ The article discusses the misconception that stomach ulcers are caused by poor lifestyle choices and stress, and instead, they are caused by an infection with H. Pylori bacteria. The author criticizes a study where the lead researcher ingested the bacteria to prove it causes ulcers, arguing that the experiment was flawed and unscientific. The author suggests that the researcher’s methods, including suppressing stomach acid and consuming a potentially toxic brew, could have contributed to the ulceration, not just the bacteria. The author emphasizes the importance of isolating variables in scientific experiments to accurately determine cause and effect.
➡ The text discusses the belief that H. Pylori bacteria causes stomach ulcers. However, it points out that most people carrying this bacteria don’t develop symptoms, and factors like smoking and stomach acid levels also play a role. The author questions whether the bacteria is the true cause of ulcers, as no bacteria has been definitively proven to cause a specific disease in a controlled scientific study.

Okay, welcome everybody to another Wednesday webinar. Today is, let’s see, Wednesday, January 14, 2026. Whoops. Hang on a minute. Sorry about that. I had the YouTube live stream sound was on which was incredibly annoying. Okay, so thanks everybody for joining me. I hope everything is going well. And today I wanted to just make one announcement which is that we’re still open for registration for the new biology experience in June at Polyface. I will be there and a lot of the new biology practitioners will be there and the enrichment folks and hopefully we’re going to have some music and dancing and some talks and some good food and gathering and meeting new people and making new friends and seeing the beautiful Poly Face farm.

And hopefully it will be a amazing event. So I hope to see everybody there and I think maybe somebody can put the link to how to sign up in the show notes and in the chat. And we are expecting it to sell out. There’s a limited number of spaces available just due to the size and requirements of polyface. So sign up early and yeah, we’re getting ready to make it a great experience. Okay, I think that’s the only announcement and today a little bit something different. And I also, I got a lot of great questions and I picked one that I hope I can get to, which is somebody wondered because they claimed that with H.

Pylori, the so called cause of stomach ulcers, which I believe there was a Nobel prize given to a guy named Marshall or something, I could be wrong about that for discovering the cause of stomach ulcers. And he wrote a paper claiming that he had fulfilled Coke’s postulates for H. Pylori causing stomach ulcers. So they wondered whether that was true and I decided to take a look and hopefully we’ll have time to get into that. I happen to see that somebody wrote some really good stuff about what the kidneys are doing and how they’re vortexing water and cleaning the essentially using Schauberger type hydraulics to clean the impurities in the blood.

And it’s the sort of the same principle as what I’ve been talking about that when you use a vortexing device, stirring something with an Analemma wand or the MEA water device or there’s other vortexing devices where you actually charge and move the water, the purification may happen not by getting rid of stuff but but by changing their form. So you change the form from harmful chloramines which they put in the water to harmless chlorine, other type of chlorine compounds which are Completely harmless. And that may be what the kidney is doing. And so that’s a good thing.

Okay. With that, I decided to take a look at money just because I’ve been interested in money for a long time. Everybody’s probably interested in money. And I happen to see two good articles on money, which I don’t know if I’m going to read them in their entirety because that may be too long and boring. But I’m going to read some of it on a site which I often look at, which I believe is called Mises M I s e s.org or maybe it’s.com and I will hopefully put a. I’ll show the articles so you can read them at your leisure later.

And so why am I talking about money? This is supposed to be about health and science and stuff. Because to understand money is really key to understanding how our culture, so called society, so called, works. And I would go so far as to claim that anybody who isn’t interested or willing to address how we make money is not actually interested in changing anything about the way that our society culture operates. And I would actually put the exclamation period on that. So whether it’s Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, Bobby Kennedy, anybody, Anybody who’s not talking about we have to change the way we organize and use money or create money in this so called country, anybody who’s not talking about that is not actually talking about changing anything.

Because if you don’t change the money, how the money is organized, etc. You’re not going to change anything. And I wanted to start this by pointing out that even though this was new, these things I looked at this week, this is not a new subject for me. So to prove that, I can show you this book called Human Heart, Cosmic Heart, which I believe is now 10 years old. So yeah, it was published first in 2016. And interestingly, I had a section here about money which I’m going to read you and it will be strikingly similar to what you will hear in these two articles.

So it goes. Imagine a world in which money is needed to obtain goods and services in order to live. This should not be hard because it’s all the world we already live in. So imagine both you and I want to buy a house for our families. We have similar sized families and we both want to buy the same house. The owner puts his house up for sale and we both submit offers. In this imaginary scenario, instead of our current monetary system based on dollars in parentheses, loosely on gold, which actually is not true, it Wasn’t when I wrote this based on gold at all.

But that’s a mistake. The money is called Cowens and I, Tom Cowan, am the only one who is allowed to make Cowens. I can make as many Cowans as I want. And everyone else has to work to obtain my Cowans in order to make any purchases or the Cowan police will put them in jail. If your society rebels against this arrangement, the Cowan military will change the regime in your country. When we go to bid on the house, I will always win. I will continue to win until I own everything and the rest of the people will have nothing.

There will, of course, be friends and family members whom I shower with Cowans occasionally. I allow a chosen few to also make a lot of Cowans under certain conditions. But eventually my people and I will own it all. In fact, the only real constraint on my owning everything is there will be so few Cowan insiders compared to everyone else that if I get overzealous in acquiring everything, people might get upset and either stop making things I want or, heaven forbid, string me up by my neck. So I must be careful and possibly even not let on how this whole situation works.

Sounds bizarre, right? But this is how our financial system works. Just change the name from Cowens to Dollars and Cowan Friends and Family to International Banking Friends and Families and read the paragraph again. How can this be? How as adults, can we tolerate this? We live in a situation in which we have been fooled into thinking our government is made by the government, in other words, us. When in reality, most money is created out of thin air by privately held bank called the Federal Reserve and the other chartered banks that rule international finance. This money they create is attached now to nothing, not even to gold.

It is not connected to deposits made by depositors, not to assets, not to skill in money management. When you go to the bank for a loan or a mortgage, they create the money they loan you. Then they add interest to ensure that there will never be enough money in the system to handle all the need. This is done by a stroke of the keyboard on the computer. The amazing part of the system of money creation is that most people accept it and some will give their lives to make sure it can continue. Money created in this way is completely imaginary.

It is based on nothing. In the, quote, real world, as with my above example, eventually the bankers will own everything. With the caveat that if they get too aggressive, the hoi polloi might rebel. I would, by the way, now change the government is us, because that’s obviously not the case. But Otherwise. And so let’s take a look at what I said 10 years ago in my partial ignorance with what some of these writers for Mises, which is the Austrian School of Economics, had to say about where our money comes from and what the meaning of money is.

So let’s bring this up so everybody can take a look along with me. Okay? That’s the wrong paper. Sorry about that. Here we go. So this is on Mises Wire and it’s called Money and Power, Fiat Currency Money, Monetary Corruption and the Architecture of Extraction. And a guy. The author is. It was published 1112026 by a guy named Justin Ptac or Patak or Tack or something. And I’m just going to start reading and you can read it if you want, but I had a hard time figuring out what to leave out, so I’m just probably going to go through it.

Money is often described as neutral, technical, or merely instrumental, a passive medium facilitating exchange within an otherwise political society. This view is not only mistaken, it is profoundly misleading. Money is the hidden constitution of every political order. It determines which actions are taking, which institutions survive, which risks are rewarded and which failures are forgiven. While constitutions proclaim rights and legislators debate policy, money silently governs outcomes. For this reason, the structure of a monetary system is never merely economic. It is moral, political and civilizational. So let me just make some comments. This first paragraph, I think, is hugely important to describe the importance of money and that money is the lifeblood of, as he says, which institutions survive, what risks are rewarded, and just how a.

A culture, a civilization, a group of people is organized. Okay, going on from the perspective of Austrian and heterodox political economy, the modern fiat monetary system, by the way, fiat means it’s not. The monetary system is not connected to any tangible commodity. There is no, no possibility of exchanging a dollar for a banana or a lump of gold or an ounce of silver or anything. It’s just a imaginary number. Well, it’s a number that is not connected with anything in the real world. So they say it represents not a refinement of early monetary forms, but a radical departure from them, one whose defining feature is the removal of constraint.

Let me just say for a minute, in other words, normal economists say that we evolve this fiat monetary system, sort of like evolution, you know, with intermediary steps. His point is the modern fiat monetary system is not an evolution of prior systems, but a radical change. So historically, money emerged as a market phenomena rather than a state creation. Carl Menger demonstrated that money arises organically as the most saleable commodity within an economy, a process driven by voluntary exchange rather than decree. Mises later formalized this insult through the regression theorem, showing that money must originate in a good valued for its non monetary use in order to acquire exchange value at all.

Gold and silver did not become money because states declared them so. States declared the money because the markets already had. So that’s again really important insight. People through voluntary exchange realized that gold and silver were the most useful commodities to be used as money for a number of reasons, which they go into rather than say bananas, because if you said okay, I want your bricks and I have some oranges or something to give you, but you don’t want oranges, so instead you give them where he gives you bananas, or the vice versa, at some point he might have to give you 100 bananas to to make equal value, but then the some of them will rot and maybe you don’t even like bananas that much.

So bananas or anything that is organic, that will essentially corrode or rot or decompose, that’s probably the better word, is not useful as money. And that is precisely why it has to be somewhat rare. It has to be something that’s immutable. It has to be something that people voluntarily, eventually agree on as the best marker of value. So continuing fiat money reverses this logic. It does not arise from scarcity or market selection, but from legal privilege. Its acceptance depends not on earned trust, but on enforcement through legal tender. Laws, taxation and institutional inertia. What presents itself as sovereign currency is in practice state credit circulating as money.

This distinction is not semantic. It marks the difference between a system and disciplined by external reality and one governed by discretion. In other words, the reason we have this money, the dollar, as legal tender, is because of the threat of violence. Period. It’s not because it has anything connected with external reality. It’s just the threat of violence and maybe some laws, which is violence and inertia. The discretion is concentrated in the institute of Central Banking. Central bankings are often portrayed as neutral guardians of stability, technocratic referees standing above politics. In reality, they function as cartel managers for the financial system, coordinating outcomes that could not survive under competitive conditions.

By suppressing interest rates, guaranteeing liquidity, acting as lenders of last resort, central banks shield privileged institutions from failure while preserving the appearance of market order. Failure is not abolished, it is postponed. And because it is postponed, it accumulates, growing larger and more destructive with each cycle. So that paragraph should help you understand the current spatula between the Trump administration and Jerome Powell, the head of the Federal Reserve or central bank in the US and as somebody said, it’s not that Trump wants to abolish the Fed or wants to change the way we use money. Of course he doesn’t want to do that.

He just wants to control what they do more directly. And the fear of the, of the central bank is that they will be, in their sort of buffoonish ways, just make it so obvious the corruption of the whole system that people will catch on. So that’s probably what’s playing out now. This structure produces an inversion of capitalistic discipline. In genuine markets, profit and loss serve as signals rewarding foresight and penalizing error. Under central banking, profits remain private during credit fueled expansion. Losses are declared systemic during contractions and transferred to the public through bailouts, inflation and monetary debasement.

Risk taking is rewarded precisely because it is underwritten. Prudence is punished through negative real interest rates and competitive disadvantage. That’s a very important concept. Prudence, which should be a good thing, is punished because then the money loses value because of institutional inflation. Institutions that restrain leverage are displaced by those that exploit it. What remains is not capitalism, but state protected finance sustained by political necessity rather than economic viability. And so then he goes on and talks about how this, the closer that somebody is to the source of the money creation, they have the lowest borrowing costs.

Sovereign governments finance debt cheaply, substituting monetary expansion for taxation. That’s a very important concept. The idea that you could for instance, never have a war based on taxation because the people would reject having more and more of their personal finances confiscated through the threat of violence to embark on a war of people who, as Muhammad Ali said, never did anything to him. So rather than do that and risk the ire of the citizens, the people who live there, they just borrow money and that’s how they finance basically everything that is heinous in our government organized world.

Large bank acquire access, central liquidity directly. Corporations issue debt at compressed spreads insulated from true risk. As one moves farther from the issuance point point costs rise. Small businesses face higher rates and tighter conditions. Households absorb inflation and credit costs simultaneously. Peripheral nations borrow in foreign currency. Exposed to exchange risk they can’t control proximity to money. Creation becomes a determinant of survival. Access replaces productivity as the primary economic advantage. Some people call this crony capitalism, but I would submit that that’s a bad word or a misconception. It’s crony socialism because it’s crony government organized monetary policy.

There’s nothing sort of capitalistic or market based about any of this. And it guarantees that there will be an increasing split between those who are closest to the creation of money and everybody downstream who, if they don’t catch on to this, will become poor. And that’s partly why I wanted to bring this up, because I think that all of us, you know, our financial health has a lot to do with our overall quality of life and in our health in general. And we need to understand how this system that we all live under actually works. So because money enters the economy unevenly, monetary expansion entails political choice.

There is no neutral increase in the money supply. Every expansion selects beneficiaries. The era of quantitative easing made this impossible to deny. Liquidity flowed overwhelmingly into financial assets, equities, bonds, real estate. While wages lagged and productive investments stagnated. The outcome was publicly justified as a quote, wealth effect, the belief that rising asset price would stimulate broader economic activity. In practice, it functioned as asset patronage, enriching those who already own capital while widening the gap between financial wealth and earned income. And I would submit that this is the. What he just said is at least partly the basis of the so called affordability crisis, that this is a direct consequence of the way that we create and organize our monetary system.

The productive economy gave way to financial engineering. Growth appeared robust on balance sheets as real capacity hollowed out. The illusion of prosperity was sustained by rising asset prices rather than rising productivity. What was described as stabilization was in reality a redistribution of future claims on output to those nearest the monetary spigot. So, and then we get into the creation, however, is only one side of the monetary cycle. Fiat systems also retrieve money, and they do so through inflation. Interest and dependency. Inflation silently erodes savings, punishing deferred consumption and rewarding leverage depending on deferred consumption and savings are exactly what a healthy, sane economic system would want.

So that people care for themselves and care for their family and defer some of their current spending to things that they may be able, may want later in life or for bigger things. And all of that is eroded through the fiat monetary system. Then debt concentrates ownership, converting missed payments into asset transfers and accelerating consolidation during downturn. So whereas the government never loses its assets if it doesn’t make payments, because obviously the government just creates more money through the central bank and then borrows it at low interest rates. So their assets are never on the line, whereas the people downstream furthest from the spigot, their assets are on the line.

And if they miss payments, their actual financial and livelihood assets are at risk. People become compelled to borrow to survive, to Obtain housing, health care. Debt becomes a mechanism of behavioral control. Default becomes a tool of dispossession. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing today. And it goes into the, doesn’t end at the national borders. And then just skipping down here from a Rothbardian, that’s Murray Rothbard. Such a system cannot be reformed. Monopoly over money inevitably produces abuse, not because individuals are uniquely corrupt, but because unchecked discretion always is. The problem is not mismanagement. So all this talk about getting a different Fed chairman or overseeing it, or having better people or these people, none of that will do any good.

It is structural. Fiat money, insulated from competition and constraints transforms money from a medium exchange into an instrument of hierarchy. A free society cannot rest on a monetary foundation that requires ignorance to function. Constraint is not the enemy of prosperity. It is a precondition. Without it, prices lie, capital misallocates, and responsibility dissolves. Exactly what we see in today’s world. Fiat money does not merely finance power, it becomes power. And when money itself is corrupted, everything built upon it follows. The ultimate question then is not how to manage fiat money more skillfully, but whether liberty can coexist with a monetary order insulated from consent, competition and consequence.

History suggests that it cannot. And I think one of the reasons why I wanted to bring this subject up, I’m, I totally agree that we cannot trans, we cannot like transform or make better manage this system. The problem is not mismanagement. It’s built into the structure of how we do things, how money is created and used and type of money. Whereas money should have been, should have always been essentially, like he says, a consequence of the market where the best product wins. And there should be many different types of products. People could try to use bananas as money, they can use gold or silver, they can use cryptocurrency as money.

And let the voluntary choice of the people decide which things that they will accept for whatever goods they have to offer. And that will eventually become what money is and maybe even not one thing. And that will go a long way towards ending much of the tyranny that we now experience. So I’m looking forward to the day where there’s a huge effort by more and more people to use real money and to try to set up different system, try different methods of real, of money using different things and running businesses, taking different forms of money. And of course, this will all be difficult because the government, as I think George Carlin says, doesn’t like competition, competition.

So there probably will be consequences. This second article which is shorter. And I don’t think I’m going to go into this is again on the Mises website. It’s called why can’t I have my own money printer? It essentially asks the same questions that I asked in my passage from my Hart book, why can’t we just have Collins be the money? I mean, I’m a honest guy that people can trust, and so I will obviously be a good manager of it. So why can’t we do that? And he asked the questions. The ability to print money would allow me to rid myself of many of the restrictions and disciplines of life caused by scarcity and the economizing nature of reality, at least as long as I were the only one with this power.

And I will explain more on this topic later. As I suggest, as long as this would work, as long as I’m the only one with Cowens and everybody else wanted them and they would still work, if everybody could do it, then it probably wouldn’t wouldn’t work. He says it’s far easier to print new money than to invest time, energy and effort required to develop skills and earn the same amount of money in the current labor market. Every one of us would choose the easier labor of printing money rather than the labor required to acquire money from someone else that is working.

At least that’s what I would choose for a while. I could live at the expense of everyone else’s labor, as they would all work and produce goods and services for my printed money, which is illegal for them to print, but legal and easy for me, since I can print more. But what if people began catching on that printing money was easier than working after all, the government caught on. That leads to the next question. What if everyone had their own money printer? We would assume that everybody would work in the same way. There would be lots of paper bills and no goods or services to trade for these paper bills.

And that’s. Now I ask why is this different from the government? If an action would be destructive at an individual level, why is it virtuous at the institutional level? It may be argued that the government has checks and balances, is ruled by law as voted in by the people, and would never abuse its power in this way. But it already has, because the central bank is not voted in by the people and creates new money without assuring that there has been new production to accompany this latest increase in the supply of money. Furthermore, why do we deem it a necessary evil that a central authority has the power to print and distribute it as they see fit? Often this increase is without any increase in the production of goods and services.

Isn’t their action subject to the same outcomes as the individuals with the same printing press? Moreover, why do they have the power to decide who gets the new printed certificates of labor without either party having to perform any labor? How can something be so bad when everyone else does it, yet so good when the central authority does it? Some may say it helps increase demand. In the short run, money creation can temporarily boost spending. In the long run, however, it cannot substitute for production, skill formation or capital accumulation. Furthermore, if everyone had their own money printer, the effect would be the same.

Therefore, if this is our conclusion, we should each have our own money printer to increase demand and boost the economy. Some argue that due to the affordability crisis, the government must step in in lower rates, begin quantitative easing, add stimulus checks, and take other measures to increase the money supply to help the economy. If this is the case, then my conclusion is this, let me help the economy as well and let me have my own money printer. So I am based on this, looking forward to the day when Cowens become the currency of the land. May make it a lot easier.

So I hope everybody really thinks about this and joins whatever effort you can to think about how we can decentralize and destate the money and make arrangements. And this is not advocating for any non money system or barter system. That will never work, obviously, because if you don’t have what I want, then the whole thing will collapse. So you need some immutable, somewhat scarce commodity or maybe something online, although I have real serious questions about that that can actually stand in to make those transactions actually doable and let the voluntary choices of the people decide what’s the way to go here.

Okay, so I look forward to. I’m sure a lot of people will talk about my lack of expertise in finances, which is true. And there’s obviously a lot more behind this which I haven’t looked into, and I’m no economic expert, but I think it’s worth looking into this subject and becoming at least a little bit familiar with how this all works. Because it has a profound effect on all of us. And in particular it has a profound way of helping you understand who really wants to change the way things work in this place and who actually doesn’t and just wants to, as they say, move the chairs around on the deck of the Titanic, even though that whole story is probably bogus.

So. But I think you know what I mean. Okay, let’s stop that for a minute and switch tracks a Little bit. Something I know a little bit more about, hopefully, which is the H. Pylori story. So let’s pull this up. So what is this story? And somebody sent me the question, isn’t it true that this Barry Marshall, who I believe got a Nobel Prize for the discovery that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria called H. Pylori or they call it pyloric Campylobacter. In this article you can see the reference. April 15, 1985, Medical Journal of Australia.

I didn’t know he’s from Australia. So the story is. And I remember this because I graduated Medical School in 1984. So this was just coming in and it was one of those stories that we were told in medical school. Ah, you know, we used to think that people got stomach ulcers because they drank too much and they smoked too much and they didn’t eat well and they were bums basically, and, and stress then that, you know, they had too much stress partly because they drank too much. And that’s why you get stomach ulcers. And so we gave them antacids because it was the acid in the stomach which was somehow turned against their stomach lining.

It was eating and ulcerating the lining of the stomach. And that was the problem with stomach ulcers. And so you give people antacids, neutralize the acid and the stomach ulcers would go away, end of story. And along came this guy who changed the story and said, no, no, that’s not true. Stomach ulcers are caused by an infection with what we used to call H. Pylori. And I guess they originally called it pyloric Campylobacter. And the interesting thing about this is, and I don’t remember this from medical school or learning about it, but he claimed that he fulfilled Koch’s postulates for this bacteria.

And so that’s what somebody asked me. Isn’t there this one case in the medical literature where Koch’s postulates were actually fulfilled for an infection? Now I would also say that I am not somebody who cares a lot about what are called Koch’s postulates. I think they are actually a logical and reasonable questions to ask as far as is this true that you’ve proven that this, quote, organism microorganism is the cause of this disease. But they’re just logic and I think you can just use sort of regular logic to, to figure your way through this. And I think that will be more useful in this case to ask yourself the question, and the question that we keep coming back to Is, is if you say that X causes Y, you better have X as the independent variable.

In other words, X has better have been isolated. In other words, you better at some point have separated X from everything else. So you can test whether the. The dependent variable, the thing that you’re trying to understand if X caused Y, whether you can do an experiment where you see if X causes Y and then everything else in the experiment is the same, except you took away the X. And so the example that I’ve used over and over again, people are probably sick of hearing this. Is. And you can use a lot of different examples. We do this all the time.

Science is a natural function of human beings. That’s how we think. We want to know if the nail goes into the wall because we hit it with a hammer. We don’t hit the nail with the toolbox without knowing whether there’s a hammer in there. Everybody gets that. You have to open the toolbox, identify the thing you call a hammer, isolate the hammer, meaning remove the hammer from the toolbox. All you have is the hammer. Then you hit the nail with only the hammer. See if it goes in. And then you do whatever control you might think of to try to prove yourself wrong, like doing it with your arm or thinking nail go in.

In that neither of those two cases does the nail go in. Only when you hit the nail with the hammer does it go in. That’s called, in my world, fulfilling the postulates of isolation, proving that this X causes Y. And then they re isolate so that they know that the bacteria is still there in the diseased organism. And that’s what I mean by logic. You can do it with living things. Do frogs eat flies? So you go to a pond where you think there’s a frog and you try to find the frog and then maybe put the frog in a cage with some flies and see if the frog, if there’s fewer flies.

Or you can actually observe the fly, the frog eating the flies. You don’t go to a pond and not know whether there’s a frog in there or not, measure the amount of flies, come back the next day and say there’s now fewer flies around the pond, and therefore there must be frogs. Because it’s obvious to everybody, this is not a technical problem to understand this, that there could be other things besides frogs eating the flies. And so this is a example from the world of the living, unlike the hammer example. And this is almost so obvious that it’s hardly worth saying.

So when we think like that, and then we go to the study. So we go to the method section because again, one of the rules of this game that we’re playing here is we never pay attention to what the authors say about their, their study. They could say whatever they want and claim whatever they want, but none of that means anything. They we want to see. Go to the method section and ask the question what did they do? And what did they see? But particularly what did they do? So you go down, so we’ll read in the methods and results.

Before the human experiment was conducted, a portion of the isolate was inoculated interperitoneal into two rats which suffered no ill effects, and then it was freeze dried and revived for the experiment. So they got the organism, their H. Pylori or pyloricampylobacter, from an interesting way, which is injecting it into the abdomen of rats, which by the way, didn’t do anything to the rats. They found that they could kill the organism with ampicillin, erythromycin and a few other antibiotics. They freeze dried it and then revived it for this experiment, which they claim fulfills Koch’s postulates. Now, unlike viruses, they actually have the organism, or at least what they say, the organism.

And let’s forget for a minute about pleomorphism and the fact that bacteria can change their form and all. Let’s just give them the benefit of the doubt that they had this organism and they were able to culture it, in other words, grow it. So, so what did they do then one month later? So they grew it for a month. Electron microscope results were available and any lesions from the initial biopsy would have healed. So they had a subject with a clean stomach. The subject fasted overnight, by the way. I think this was the lead author who was the subject.

So we’re talking about one person and received premedication with cimetidine, 600 milligrams to reduce achlorhydria. So that’s interesting. So this isn’t the exposure of a organism, a purified isolated organism, to just any old person. This is the actual lead author of the study doing it on himself. And the first thing he does is give himself a drug, otherwise known as a poison, for his stomach to stop his stomach from making stomach acid. So already we have a problem here because you could argue that one of the reasons for having stomach acid is to modulate or maybe even kill some of the organisms coming into or changing the stuff that comes into our stomach in some way, like maybe degrading proteins or something.

But in order to do this experiment, they had to first poison the stomach and stop the stomach from making acid, which then stops the stomach from being able to for instance, digest proteins. So at 11am the subject swallowed the growth from a flourishing three day culture of the isolate with 10 to the something colony forming units, which was suspended in 10ml of alkaline peptone water, pH 8.0. He took no food for two hours, after which he ate normal food. No medication or alcohol was taken during this subsequent fortnight, two weeks. So interestingly, they don’t tell us what was in this flourishing three day culture that they got the isolate.

So for instance, this could have been like beef broth that had been allowed to ferment with these bacteria for three days. So you could potentially have a toxic brew of beef, of broken down proteins or broken down beef broth, forget the proteins broken down, maybe even toxic beef broth. And then they put an alkaline substance, alkaline peptide, peptone, water. So that’s a highly unusual water to be drinking with your toxic brew of beef broth that has been cultured for three days. But they don’t actually even tell you what was in the culture medium or anything else.

They don’t tell you whether there’s any other chemicals or anything else in there. And of course they don’t do a control where they just took the cymetidine, the stomach poison and the three day culture with something else and then took the bacteria out and gave you this alkaline water and see what happened with that. So this was not be a scientific experiment, this is basically propaganda. But then six days later, on the seventh day he got stomach ache and on the eighth day he woke up and had some mucus and then he had some vomit and he had an acidic taste, but he had a headache on four occasions.

And they go in and they find these same bacteria and some ulceration of his stomach. And that proves according to them, that the stomach ulceration was caused by this bacteria. So it’s similar to when they put the, the gene so called genetic sequences down the ferret’s throat. And then mostly nothing happens to the ferret, but sometimes they have difficult breathing because they put it right down into their lungs through their airway and anesthetize them and put a bunch of other stuff in with the these so called gene sequences. And then lo and behold, three days later they find the same sequences wink wink, that they put in there.

So wink, wink, they put some bacteria in there and they find the bacteria a week later. Shouldn’t be any surprise, but that doesn’t mean that they, that the bacteria caused the, this problem. And so that’s what they’re calling the proof that they fulfilled Koch’s postulates and proved that the H. Pylori, or pyloric Campylobacter, causes gastritis. Now what’s interesting about this too is if you go. To a more modern view of this same story. So this is from Harvard Medical School, 2025. So not long ago. So because it’s from Harvard, we know it must be true. And it’s by, here’s the author and I don’t know exactly where I found this, but they asked the question, does every H.

Pylori infection lead to an ulcer? That’s part of what you should find. You expose somebody to this bacteria and it causes, it is the proximate cause of the ulcer. So that’s what we mean when we say H. Pylori infection cause an ulcer. What they say most infections never progress. According to large endoscopic studies, 80 to 90% of carriers, meaning people who have this bacteria in their stomach, have normal stomach linings. Whether an ulcer forms depends on bacterial, host and environmental conditions. So even in their normal medicine they’re already saying, yeah, well this isn’t exactly the cause of the problem.

Smoking doubles the danger of whether people get ulcers or not. Stomach acid output matters. Those who have a normal acid production have less ulcers. So already that tells you that there is a problem with giving a acid blocking medicine and saying that that has nothing to do with whether that the H. Pylori caused it. They of course say other things and, and then finally they say most H. Pylori carriers never develop symptoms. Mayo Clinic notes that although H. Pylori is a common cause of peptic ulcers, the majority of infected individuals remain symptom free throughout life, meaning it does nothing, which is hard to reconcile with that being the cause of stomach ulcers.

So once again, when we take an actual, honest and unbiased look, we found that there has never actually been any bacteria which has been isolated, purified, and in a properly done controlled scientific study been shown to be the cause of any specific disease. And I’m still waiting for the first paper that actually demonstrates that to me. And my guess is I won’t find it. Okay, thanks everybody again and as always, I look forward to your comments and feedback and I hope everybody has a great week and I will see you soon.
[tr:tra].

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