Okay. Welcome, everybody. Today is April 17, 2024, and I’m going to go over some of the questions that I didn’t get to last time. And then there was some new ones submitted this week. Before I do that, I want to remind everybody that this is our big sale week. So there’s a discount on, I think, all of the products from Doctor Cowan’s garden and Doctor Tom Cowan. And in addition, there’s a discounted price on becoming a member of the new biology clinic and a discounted price on taking the new biology curriculum.

So we’re trying to make everything that we’re doing here more accessible to more people. So if you have any interest in any of their products or any of the clinic or curriculum, now is probably the time. I just want to say something about the clinic because it’s been a really great experience for me, and I, I know also for many of our members, that’s obviously more important than whether it’s been a good experience for me, but it has been.

And the reason I think I’ve probably been waiting my whole career to be in a group of doctors and associated health professionals and therapists and other healthcare workers who really want to talk about some of these fundamental questions that none of us felt comfortable asking, or mostly even worse, didn’t even think of when we were in our medical school and residency and during our career. For me, somehow it’s been getting out of the, quote, business that has really allowed me to take a harder look at some of the things that I had been told to believe.

And I can. It’s that the oddity of the experience for me is I can remember sometimes having sort of a fleeting moment. I’m sure we’ve all had this of a question, and then you just kind of shake your head and say, no, I can’t ask that. Or that’s probably a stupid question, or I might embarrass myself or they’ll give me a bad grade or something. But it turns out some of them were not such bad questions.

So let me give you an example. Yesterday in our group, we were talking about one of the people that we were trying to help who has a diagnosis of ALS. And as you probably know, we have a neurologist. Trained neurologist is part of our doctor’s group. So I got a chance to question him about this diagnosis. The first thing is we went through the difference between upper motor neuron lesions and lower motor neuron lesions.

Probably most of you don’t know what that means. From what I remember, upper motor neuron motor neuron means a nerve that goes to the muscle, so the nerve innervates the muscle and causes the muscle to fire. And we were taught that there were differences in these nerves. Some of them were from the brain to the exit of the spine, and those were upper motor neuron lesions. And then the nerves from the spine to the muscle, like your finger or hand or leg, those were lower motor neuron nerves.

And when you have an illness in one or the other, we were told that you have different symptoms, and we weren’t exactly told this, but there was an implication that somehow these nerves were different. There is a difference between upper motor neuron neurons, upper motor neurons, and lower motor neurons. Now, I wouldn’t say that we were exactly told that, but we were given the impression. So the first thing I asked Rodney was if you took a biopsy or a.

Yeah, biopsy of ten different upper motor neurons and ten different lower motor neurons and showed them blindly to ten neurologists or pathologists, would they be able to tell the difference? And he said, unequivocally, no. In other words, there is no difference in the nerves. There’s just a different location of the exact same nerve. So that’s the first thing that’s not true. There’s no difference. There’s no anatomical upper motor neuron versus a different anatomical loader motor neuron.

So then we went through the symptoms that we’re told to look for to tell us the location of the injury. So different like fasciculations, tremors. I believe I could be getting this wrong, have more to do with upper motor neuron lesions, whereas hypo and hyperreflexia, in other words, the reflexes, are too weak or too strong. That means there’s a lower motor neuron lesion. Now, the thing I want to point out here is we were given the impression, although nobody, interestingly, and with a lot of biology and science, nobody comes out and says this directly, because obviously it would sound ridiculous, but.

So you have the impression that these illnesses are somehow biological realities. In other words, there is a biological phenomena or reality called ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. That’s a different biological entity than, say, Ms or Guillain Barre or some other neurological disease. These are biologically different phenomena. They are essentially different entities. Again, it’s not like we were actually told that, but we certainly have the impression, and that when you do a differential diagnosis, you’re trying to determine which of these biological realities it is.

Is this the biological reality we call ALS? Is it the biological reality, we call Ms or Guillain Barre or a whole bunch of other things. And so then when you get into the diagnosis, and I, you say, well, if you’re, you know, one or the other is a disease of the upper motor neurons, and so, or let’s. Let’s do it simpler, lower motor neurons. So you get hypo or hyper reflexia.

In other words, your reflexes are like, boom, or you hit it, and you don’t do anything that could, you know, you reflexes with your leg. But if you think about it, and again, I asked him, if you showed hitting somebody’s testing somebody’s reflex for ten different people with. With ALS versus Ms versus Guillain Barre, and showed it blindly to ten different neurologists, would they be able to accurately diagnose which of these illnesses it is? Of course, he said, of course not.

And if you think about it, the assessment that somebody’s reflexes are hyper or excessively active hyperreflexia is a clearly subjective response. Is it this or is it this? Or is it this? There’s no actual line of demarcation. And so how can there be a biological reality that is just a subjective assessment of a continuum of function from almost normal to clearly not normal and everything in between? How does that mean that there’s a biological reality underneath that? And the answer, of course, is there isn’t.

Which means this disease categorization that we use is actually purely subjective. In other words, it was made up by people. In other words, it’s a free invention of the mind, just like Einstein said. Or in other words, it’s make believe they have no biological reality. There’s just different situations that give rise to different phenomena that we call symptoms, that have different levels of intensity, better or worse. But they’re not clearly defined diseases, as we were led to believe that, therefore, can be properly assessed and diagnosed through any sort of observation or clinical examination or even a blood test.

I asked Rodney whether there’s any specific blood test that tells the doctor that they have ALS as opposed to Ms. And there’s clearly no blood test. There’s no blood test that clearly distinguishes rheumatoid arthritis or measles or any, pretty much any disease. And so we’re left, as I keep saying, with the story of the patient, of the person. We have a story that has led to a certain situation and a certain outcome, and every person’s story is a little bit different.

And the principle of our new biology clinic is, we’re not looking for the disease. In fact, I would argue, and I think we all came to the conclusion that labeling somebody’s story as a disease actually makes them worse, because then they have the impression that they have a somehow a fixed biological entity. They have, like, a thing and some thing got them, as opposed to being part of a process which clearly can get better or worse.

If you have a thing, you may end up being told that your thing is incurable or it’s genetic and you didn’t have anything to do with it, or it’s a mystery, and therefore it’s a baffling to the wonders of modern science. So this must be, like, really scary and hard to imagine what’s going on. And all to say you are left in a much more powerless situation and a much more difficult situation in order to heal.

And what’s so interesting about this phenomena that we came to, and again, one of the reasons I’m saying this is just, these are not, these are insights that can only really come for me to as a result of being part of a group of seriously inquiring men and women who want to, who don’t want to accept simple answers that aren’t true, but really want to look at this.

And it’s really amazing how much of a help that is in trying to sort out this world and out of this discussion we all came to. This identification with the illness is probably one of the biggest obstacles people have in getting better. And I can’t emphasize that enough. One of the biggest obstacles you will have in overcoming a situation that you would rather not have is your belief that there is a fixed entity, in other words, a diagnosis that you somehow have or that defines your situation.

Now, whats so interesting about this phenomena is, and I asked everybody to raise their hand if weve seen patients who had this reaction where a person would come in and say, oh, I went for four years and no doctor could figure out what I have. And finally I went to Joe Blow or this functional doctor, and he did some blood tests, and thanks God, they found out that I have Lyme disease or sarcoidosis or Hashimoto’s or ALS or something.

I’ve heard that hundreds of times. Thank God somebody finally found out what was wrong with me. Well, you just got bamboozled, because now, first of all, you’ve been convinced or told that you have this fixed biological entity, which turns out doesn’t even exist. Like, if you wanted to say, how, how can you give me a definition of what Lyme’s disease is and how, you know, somebody actually has it, you’ll find it’s a constellation of symptoms, which is same as a whole lot of other things, and the test is bogus.

And they all these tests have cut off levels, so your. Your antibodies are over 3. 5, you have it, and if they’re 3. 49, then you don’t have it. And anytime you see a situation like that, where there’s a arbitrary cutoff which is based on statistical norms, you know, there’s no biological reality to that story. There is no disease that you have the disease at 3. 51 and you don’t have the disease at 3.

49. There is no disease that this looks like a little more reflexes than the next person, and that if you have a little less reflexes, that you don’t have the disease that is not a biological entity called a disease. That’s just a slight difference in function. There may be reasons for that. I’m not saying there aren’t reasons for your situation, but they’re not these diagnoses. And the risk of this is that you will over identify with the diagnosis and then it becomes part of your identity.

And then you walk around as a Lyme disease patient, or I am Hashimoto’s. And of all the things that I heard with patients in my career, that made me the most nervous that this person isn’t going to get better, it’s the person who said, I have Lyme disease, or Lyme disease has me. And they couldn’t. I could not budge them off the diagnosis. They were committed to that.

Sometimes they went to support groups and a lot of their life was based on this phenomena, of identifying with this illness. And that is a very difficult psychological, emotional place to be. I can guarantee you don’t want to be there. And again, the reason I’m saying this is finally, in my career, I’ve gotten to a situation where we can actually talk about these things in a group of doctors who are trying to help people, and talk about how actually we can help people understand, not to see the world through these diagnostic categories, which are not biological entities.

They are not fixed diagnosis. As Florence Nightingale said, all these phenomena are just the body’s restorative process based on a. A prior episode of poisoning or deficiency. And you can see every situation we encounter from that perspective, and there’s a lot of different permutations and stories and how we get there, but that is the basis of our clinic. And if you want to be finally have the opportunity to communicate with a doctor or practitioner who wants to help you in this way, I would urge you to check out our new biology clinic.

And like I said, we’re making it a little bit financially easier this week. Okay, one question. I’m not sure if I answered it last week or whatever. I did the questions, but is there any medical diagnostic tests I have faith in? And the answer basically is no. You can get some information, obviously from tests. If you do a sed rate and a normal is zero to 20 and the person has 100, they have a lot of inflammation and they don’t feel good.

So you can get that from the test. But one of my points about tests is either they’re not standardized properly and we don’t really know what they mean, and I’ll get to a test like that in the next question. Or you could easily get that information from just observing and questioning and listening to the person. And then I would ask you if you’re thinking of getting a test or having a test, particularly to practitioner.

Let’s say somebody comes in and you say, how do you feel? And they feel fine. I feel just fine. Everything’s good. I don’t know why you’re here, but I’m good. And you do a test and their sed rate is 60. Here’s the question, which do you believe? Do you treat them for a acute or chronic inflammatory condition? Do you say they have polymyalgia rheumatica, which is associated with the so called highest sed rates? But again, you know, there’s no, there’s an arbitrary cutoff.

Like if you’re 40 or below, you don’t have polymyalgia rheumatica, but if you have 41, then you do. It’s not quite as simple as that with PMR, but that’s the kind of stuff that we’re heard. Or you have these arbitrary cutoff levels. And the bottom line for me is, over the years I learned, I believe that if the patient says, I don’t have any problems, I feel fine.

I don’t care what their sed rate is, I’m not treating them for chronic inflammation. And if they get better from what I do or get worse either way, and the blood test doesn’t follow what they’re saying, then you have to ask yourself, which do you believe? And in every case I learned to believe the person’s experience and not their blood tests. And so if that was the case, why am I doing the blood tests anyways? It’s a lot cheaper, simpler and more connective to just ask people how they feel and to really get into that, like really how do you feel what’s happening and see if you can sort that out? It’s much better and more accurate than any blood test that I know of.

So that gets into the next question. My anthroposophical doctor mentioned they’re seeing people now having trouble converting vitamin D from the sun. My vitamin D is low for the first time in my life, yet I get out in the sun and eat vitamin D rich foods. Why do you think this is happening? Because again, with every one of these questions, you have to look at the assumption. The assumption is that we make this steroid hormone called vitamin D, and that you can assess the level of this steroid hormone through a blood test.

So that’s the assumption. The question is that true? The answer is, as far as I can tell and as far as my looking into the research, and if you want to look further into this, I did a podcast with my two italian friends a couple of years ago that there’s at least eleven or twelve different forms of vitamin D, and we have no idea which one to test and we have no idea what, say, 25 hydroxy D means.

And for the number of years that I tried to give people vitamin D under the assumption that this 25 oh D test was somehow biologically relevant. And all I could figure was that no matter how I, how much or how little oral vitamin D or any of its forms, I gave people that it had no relationship with their blood levels. So I ended up thinking and then looking into the literature which confirmed this, that it’s basically an irrelevant test which doesn’t in fact, test whether you’re converting vitamin D from the sun.

And again, if there’s no problems and you’re not suffering from any particular illness, I, first of all, would never do the test now anyways. And second of all, I would ignore the test. And third of all, I would be very suspicious of anybody who thinks that this test is able to tell you how your body is converting sunlight into hormones, because as far as I know, that isn’t true.

Okay, is there a natural remedy for sarcoidosis in the kidneys? And this is one of the reasons why I wanted to start with this, with a question and answer. A lot of times people will ask me about what is the medicine for a certain disease, and as I just said, there is. These diseases like sarcoidosis, lupus, whatever, are not actual biological entities. At best, they’re a description of common experience or common phenomena among people.

Like in this case, you’re building up certain products in your various tissue and the reason then, the issue here is to find out what is the story of this person and how could it lead to the accumulation of this abnormal. I think it’s like a protein or lipoprotein in various tissues. So what was the sequence of events, if in fact, that’s even the case? Or is it just a problem of the kidneys don’t seem to be functioned properly, and then you have to get into how that was diagnosed.

So, again, there is no treatment for sarcoidosis, because sarcoidosis of the kidney or the lungs or anywhere is not an actual fixed biological entity. Now, there will be things that you can address in a person who’s suffering from different dysfunction of their kidneys or lungs, as often the case with sarcoidosis. And there may be common things between people who end up accumulating this protein in their tissues, but every case has to be handled individually, and there’s no other way to address an issue like this.

Okay, do you have any experience where taking strafantas led to a drop in a person’s platelet count? I don’t think I’ve ever seen that, and I don’t know that I’ve ever heard that reported. Of course, anything is possible, but that’s not something that I’ve ever seen. And I’d have to see if that was the only thing that changed in this person’s life. And then I would probably stop it for a while if I thought that was the case and see if the platelets went up and then restart it and see if the platelets went down.

So, essentially, I would be trying to isolate an independent variable, which would be the taking of strafanthus, and the dependent variable would be a drop in the platelets, which I could measure. I would also be interested to see whether there’s any symptoms of the low platelets, like bleeding or easy bruising. But as far as I remember or have seen reported, I don’t know if that ever happens with strephantus.

So, next question. How can we protect ourselves from the plastics, from the spraying programs that is climate engineering. I know turpentine will help. Are there any other remedies? I’m not sure that what they’re spraying is actually plastics. I know people have looked into this, and they’ve identified many different types of substances that may be being sprayed in this sort of geoengineering, cloud seeding shielding maneuvers that are going on.

So I don’t know that I know that they’re specifically plastics or exactly what’s in there. I would say that as far as protecting yourself, that’s, of course, difficult if we don’t know what’s really in there. I know some people have looked into this, and I’ve heard some talks and things, but I can’t say that I’ve settled on, on, say, believing that anybody has it quote, right. I would say the only thing that I would say in general is that the two, well, let’s say three simplest and maybe four simplest things that pretty much everybody can do as part of their normal regimen of how to.

How to do life in a increasingly toxic world. Again, I just did this podcast with Andy about turpentine. Turpentine is the premier agent, I would say, in getting rid of fat soluble toxins. So if you have reason to suspect that your symptoms are caused by fat soluble toxic exposure, then turpentine is the way to go. The other thing I would say is, even though there is a lot of spraying going on and there’s a lot of other things, and there’s a lot of toxic influences in our life, I think I would be cautious about jumping to the conclusion that therefore you’re going to get sick.

I think we still have a lot of agency in this. I still think that the levels or the exposure that you can get, that you generally get in a, in normal life, at least in a rural America, you still have the possibility of living a healthy, normal life, at least more or less. I’m not trying to downplay the myriad poisons and exposures that we’re all subjected to. I’m not downplaying that at all.

But I think we can go about our lives doing the, uh, the things that we know work and doing a little bit of, uh, detoxification stuff in, in addition, and not succumb too much. I guess what I’m trying to say is, I wouldn’t succumb too much to the. They’re out to get us, and they’re really smart, and they are going to get us, and there’s nothing I can do about this, and I’m basically screwed and doomed.

And I don’t really see it like that. I think we still have a lot of possibilities. So the way I would break it down is, if you have clear evidence that there’s a fat soluble toxic exposure, I would do turpentine. If there’s. If you don’t know and you want to do something simple and you don’t have a lot of symptoms, and you basically feel fine, then I would use our castor oil packs, which is just a general, a gentle, general, helpful, proven detoxification strategy.

I think if you were exposed to some water soluble toxin that you know of, a two or three day water fast or even a fast with some citrus juice in addition, will help with that. There’s also things like shilajit, which binds certain toxins and zeolites, even though I can’t say I’ve looked into zeolites enough to know whether they’re effective or safe. So I would check into that yourself.

But Shilajit, for general detoxification, castor oil packs, general detoxification, water fasts with or without citrus juice for water soluble and turpentine, as outlined in the last podcast for fat soluble. And that should cover most people. Okay. Has there been any credible work done to discern the content of and differences between the different colors of mucus? Clear white, yellow, and green seem to be the most common. Conventional medicine isn’t very helpful in this arena, as usual.

Not that I know of. I don’t know of any studies that have looked at this. I know that we, in particular, Andy, has suggested that it would be really interesting to look at different types of mucus and actually do toxicological screening and organic acids and all different kinds of toxicology assessments to see if we can actually find out what, if anything, these different types of mucus mean. For years, I’ve been saying, probably without a whole lot of evidence, that clear mucus, which usually is a sign of what we call hay fever, which means you’re basically reacting to otherwise harmless stuff like cats fur, which is harmless, and trees and pollen and, you know, things like that.

So then you get clear mucus and sneeze it out. And that’s because what you’re exposed to is not very dangerous. Whereas if you have all kinds of other kinds of nasty or toxic exposure, then you get greenish yellow mucus, because there’s been more sloughing off of the tissue, there’s more destruction of the tissue. And so it’s been sitting there for a while, and it needs to be worked on by bacteria, which then maybe change the color and the consistency and have their own metabolic end products.

And so you end up with a different colored mucus. That’s where in conventional medicine, they say that green and yellow is a bacterial infection, and clear is more allergies or a viral infection. And all that means is that there’s a continuum of the toxic exposure or the stuff that needs to be eliminated, and the bacteria end up having to be present when there’s more tissue damage than there is with.

In a situation like hay fever, where there’s very little tissue damage, and all you’re doing is trying to flush out a little bit of cat hair or pollen. So that’s how I would see that. Okay, anyone can explain? As a frontline paramedic, I’ve yet to see even one single, unequivocal serious COVID patient. My work contacts must be in the thousands, paramedics, nurses, doctors, ancillary staff, etcetera, but don’t know of a single one who’s died of this illness.

If anyone is going to see the effects of this deadly virus, surely it’s us. And yet, as I’ve said, I’ve seen absolutely nothing. Why? The simple answer is because there is no actual COVID. There are a few sort of hotspots or places where there have been at least potentially increased deaths for a very specific amount of time, usually associated with a variety of factors having to do with iatrogenic causes, or new sort of radiation exposure, or new toxic exposure in that area, or over diagnosing or neglecting people in their homes, and all the things that Mike Bryan and others have.

Have talked over and over again. But absent those certain spots, there’s nothing to see. And that is, I think, very well substantiated by all the accurate accounting of the all cause mortality and excess death rate. That the reason you’re not seeing anything is because there’s nothing to see. And this was a fundamentally not a mismanaged pandemic, as some people will try to bamboozle you into thinking. There was no pandemic at all.

And all there was, was some pockets of people who’ve been injured in mostly the same ways and some new ways that were rolled out specifically for this event. Those were unusual events, and only in specific areas, and usually associated with other iatrogenic or social issues. That’s why those are the places that saw these very brief increased mortality. The rest of it probably has to do with the vaccines.

And that’s why you’ve seen some increased illness and increased mortality since the vaccines, because since that’s happened, that has become the dominant cause of new people or new kind of sickness. Okay. Does illness have its own frequency that can be triggered? It’s hard to know exactly what you mean by that, but from a homeopathic or cell salt perspective, you would certainly say yes. In other words, we are fundamentally and provably electromagnetic organisms.

And again you say, well, how can you prove that we’re electromagnetic organisms? Well, just go ask any doctor how do you know if this person’s alive? And they say, well, you put an EEG on their brain, and if you get electrical activity, which is a form of electromagnetism, and you see certain electrical patterns on the EEG, then the person is alive. Not only that, we can tell you whether they’re asleep.

And not only that, we can tell you what kind of sleep they’re in, more or less, and same with the heart and same with your muscles. And so it’s very clear that we are electromagnetic organisms. And if you don’t have this electromagnetism anymore, if your electric current is goes out, and so your EEG or EKG is flatline, then you’re dead. So anybody tells you that there’s no evidence that we are electrical organisms or electromagnetic beings obviously isn’t connecting to reality.

So even though I probably can’t prove this, it would make sense then that each of us has a certain. So all electromagnetic organisms vibrate at a certain frequency, and they may vibrate at many different frequencies. So your liver may have a certain frequency in your heart, another one, but at some level, you become a coherent organism vibrating at a certain specific frequency, as does everything. And this is one of the reasons why, when I was starting to investigate the whole viral theory, and this is one of those examples of something that I thought way back, even in medical school, but never asked, because you don’t ask questions like that and you don’t want to be shamed or whatever, but if there’s specific viruses, like chickenpox virus, and that causes a specific definable illness, and then there’s a different virus, like the measles virus, that causes a distinct, biologically distinct biological entity causing a disease called measles, and then there’s another one called like herpes, and that’s another virus, and that causes its own distinct biological entity called herpes disease, I used to ask people, has anybody seen a case of herpes, chickenpox, measles, or mumps? Yes, everybody has.

Everybody has. Now raise your hand. How many of you have seen a person who has chicken pox, measles, and mumps at the same time, and nobody raised their hand? Nobody I know has ever seen that. I never saw that. As far as I know, it’s never been reported. So why not? If they’re distinct viruses that cause different illnesses, how is it possible that nobody has been exposed, especially in the so called pre vaccine era, when apparently, or supposedly, all these viruses were all rampant and all over the place? And if you were a three year old child who’d never had any of those.

I’m sure there was some, probably in the millions, who got exposed to all three viruses within the same week. Yet organisms never have three patterns at once, which means that these are not distinct biological entities, that the body exhibits a pattern, or you might say a frequency, that is the illness. And you can’t have two frequencies at the same time, because you’re just one person. Now, we even have some evidence that the heart acts as a conductor of this through its vortexing ability, and essentially coheres all the different frequencies of the organs, like the conductor of a symphony coheres or organizes all the different instruments into one piece of music.

And so that’s essentially what our heart does, is organize all the different frequencies into one coherent, overriding frequency. And if it’s off because it needs to be off at this point to accomplish some goal, then each illness will have its own sort of frequency, at least for that person. And that’s why you can never have two illnesses at the same time. Now, you could have high blood pressure and heart disease, but really, those are just different manifestations of its own frequency.

So the frequency is off. And in a sense, doctors, to a certain extent, are even aware of this. And no pediatrician, pediatricians are always told to look for the one disease in their young patients don’t say that you have this and this and this. Internal medicine doctors do that. They say you have four diseases at once. They’re really talking about four different symptoms of one overall frequency. So we all have a sense that when you’re off, so when you’re on your frequency, the frequency that is you is right.

And then when the frequency is off, and that’s because your body needs to accomplish something. Your vibration, your frequency is off. And that frequency is what is given with giving a homeopathic remedy. You say, well, Roostox is the frequency. And you get that by correlating the symptoms of roostox, ingestion or exposure with the symptoms of the free of the person. So when you have symptoms, that means you’re exhibiting a different frequency.

That symptoms tell you that it’s the same frequency as this plant or calc foss or whatever it is. Therefore, they’re a sort of resonance phenomena. Therefore, they will accentuate this and help your body to do this healing process, which is what the whole reason for changing the frequency was in the first place. So, yes, illness has its frequency. That is the basis of homeopathy. It’s probably the basis of herbs.

It’s the basis of biofield tuning. It’s the basis of emotional healing. It’s the basis of the old and now the new biology, medicine, which we’re looking for, the frequency, which is the story. We’re not trying to put that into categories, because there is no categories there. They’re, broadly speaking, similarities. But everybody has their own individual frequency, which we try to match up and harmonize with the world. Okay.

In an interview about your book, Human Heart, you commented that heart failure occurred when the heart is pushed to act as a pump. Can you elaborate in some more details about heart failure? My guess is that there is a lack of energy at the periphery, where the blood circulation starts. So the picture of the circulation, or the reality of the circulation, is the blood has to start moving at the capillaries, where it stopped.

And then, because of the electrostatic forces of water, in other words, water interacting with hydrophilic tubes, which are capillaries, forms a negatively charged gel layer, which has different ph and different properties. This is measurable and provable. And therefore, other charges will go into the bulk water, the liquid blood, and they will start the blood moving. And then the movement of the blood continues, and it goes into from like a big pool of capillaries into specific, not narrower, blood vessels.

The blood vessels get wider, but the surface area of the blood vessels, in total, gets smaller as you go from, say, a pond to a river. And just that phenomena speeds up the movement of the blood, increases the velocity, so that the blood moves faster and faster as it goes to the heart. So the integrity of the circulation is all based on the ability of this separation of charges to occur at the capillary levels.

And that’s fundamentally based on the battery properties of water and the fact that we connect ourselves with the sunlight and the earth. So grounding and sunlight exposure is what charges up this system. And again, this is something that Jerry Pollack proved. You can measure the velocity in a tube, and you shine the sun on it, and it goes faster, and you put it on the earth, and it goes faster, and you put your cell phone on it, and that it stops moving or at least slows down.

So insofar as you’re charging up your gels, you will get an increased flow, and that keeps the blood moving forward. And then it comes to the heart, and then it vortexes it and lets it, essentially increasing the energy within the blood. That’s what the vortex does, essentially imbues it with life or electromagnetism, and then it comes out of the heart. In heart failure, that forward movement is weak.

And so the blood can’t exit the heart. And what you see then is the heart can’t accomplish this vortexing of the blood. So the blood starts to lose its energy and therefore can’t nourish the tissues. And then you start seeing the tissues which are meant to be nourished by the energized blood. It’s different than the oxygenated. We’re talking energized blood, like the eyes and the kidneys, etcetera. They start becoming sick because they’re lacking in the electromagnetic nourishment that they need.

Now, the heart responds to this increased flow coming in by getting more lobular or globular, or you could even say circular, like a circular flask. So there’s a difference between what the. The shape of the heart, which is more like this sort of inverted triangle in a normal situation, versus a glove, a flask with a round glow with a round bottom. And interestingly, when you look at somebody on an x ray, a chest x ray, with congestive heart failure, you see a globular heart.

Why is that? Because without this incoming circulation, without the proper force of the movement of the blood, that triggers the vortex, and the muscles of the heart start becoming weak and they start expanding. And then as they expand, they become more globular, and then you get even less ability to create this vortex and keep the blood moving forward. And so then the heart tries to compensate by essentially trying to pump, in other words, the heart.

Now, it’s noticed, you could say, that the incoming blood is not coming in with as much force and vitality and flow as is necessary. So the heart becomes misshapen as a result of not having the normal flow to work with. Specifically, it becomes more bulbous or globular. And then it says, well, now we have a problem with keeping the flow moving forward. So we’re going to try to squeeze down.

In other words, we’re going to try to pump. We’re going to try to make pressure, propulsion by the contraction of the muscles, which is not the way the heart is supposed to function. The contraction of the heart muscle should only follow the movement, the vortexing action of the spiraling of the motion. There should be no pushing action. Once it starts pushing, then you get into this strange situation that failing hearts use even more energy than normal hearts.

Why? Because they are now misshapen and have to somehow continue to keep the blood moving forward. So they start to attempt to push, which is by no means what a heart is meant to do. So that puts an additional strain on the heart, which makes it more misshapen, more globular, and even harder to form this vortex. So then it has to attempt to pump even more. And the next thing you know, your heart is using way more energy of your body than it’s supposed to, which is exactly what you see in end stage congestive heart failure, which is why the person becomes emaciated, which is something that is unexplainable in the normal model.

Why would the person’s body become emaciated? The reason is because the body knows that it has to use all its energy, or a lot more of it. Not all of it, a lot more of it, to keep the flow going. In a sense, an attempt to pump the blood. And pumping the blood is a dysfunctional strategy of the heart. It ends up using way more energy than it’s supposed to.

It steals the energy of the body. Therefore, the body gets even sicker and weaker and emaciated. And this spiral keeps going down as the heart keeps trying to increase some flow by pushing even harder. And that leads to end stage congestive heart failure and death. So that’s why you see the heart pumping. And final one, it appears improved sanitation is a major impact on all cause disease reduction.

So I guess it’s fair to say improved sanitation equates to reductions in people’s exposure to human waste. But not just human waste. There’s a lot of things that were in poorly sanitized areas. So does Tom agree that toxins must be present in human waste that can induce disease? I would say that there are things that you’re supposed to get rid of that you don’t want to be ingesting in any sort of fecal material from a human.

That’s the whole point of having bowel movements. I don’t think that was the only thing. In poorly sanitized areas that were good to remove, there was a lot of animal feces and chemicals and other toxic debris, and you can sort of even measure this and see it in some places. So I think I’m going to stop there and I’m going to start something that may or may not interest people.

But the next question is, can you talk about what you eat in a day and why? So that’s going to be the title of next Wednesday’s webinar. We’ll see if anybody’s interested. So, actually, what do I eat in a day, and why do I eat it? And I only want to point out that I’m going to do that in some detail. The reason for that is, when I was practicing as a doctor, I always asked everybody, what do they eat in a day? And I’m going to go through the level of detail that I think you should know in answering that question.

A lot of times, the answer that I got was, well, I eat a good diet. And I used to usually chuckle to myself and say, I’ll be the judge of that. So I want to know brands, where you got this. And I would contend, as you’ll see, that if you don’t know the kind of details that I’m going to go through next Wednesday, then you need to improve your diet.

And so tune in and we’ll see what that looks like. So, thanks for listening. And again, check out our sales, the products and the new biology clinic and curriculum. Our. .

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