Summary
➡ The text suggests that cataracts, which are deposits that block light from reaching the retina, are the body’s way of protecting the eye from harmful light, such as that from computers. To avoid needing this protection, it recommends limiting exposure to artificial light and increasing exposure to natural light, such as sunlight and moonlight. It also suggests using DMSO eye drops to dissolve the deposits. The text then questions the validity of PCR tests for detecting viruses, arguing that the virus must first be isolated and its genome identified, which hasn’t been done for SARS-CoV2.
➡ The text discusses two main topics: the role of breakdown products in sickness and the impact of mold toxins. It suggests that when a person is sick, their body breaks down more, leading to more breakdown products in their samples. This doesn’t necessarily mean they have a virus, but that they’re breaking down more than a healthy person. The text also discusses mold toxins, suggesting that they aren’t the cause of sickness. Instead, they are a sign of toxins in our environment, like in our food or homes. The mold is just doing its job to clean up these toxins. The text emphasizes the importance of cleaning up our environment and detoxifying ourselves.
➡ Chronic asthma in children is caused by an over-crystallization of lung tissue, which makes the lungs rigid and hard to breathe. This happens when toxic substances are inhaled and the body tries to clean them out through inflammation, producing mucus to flush out the debris. However, if this cleaning process is stopped by medications like antibiotics or steroids, the debris stays in the lungs, hardening them and causing asthma. To avoid chronic asthma, it’s important to limit exposure to toxic substances and allow the body to naturally detoxify the lungs.
➡ To detoxify from heavy metals, ensure you consume enough earth elements like sodium chloride, magnesium, and zinc found in natural salts and plants. If you’re deficient in these minerals, your body may hold onto heavy metals. Interestingly, organisms we often consider parasites can help remove heavy metals from our bodies by consuming them. Plant extracts like wormwood and turmeric can also help remove heavy metals by reducing the food supply for these organisms, causing them to leave our bodies.
Transcript
And we can put that in the notes of this webinar and as soon as possible because we’re looking to make a decision and apparently they have some financial deadlines in the next couple weeks. So if you could contact us if you’re interested and you’re listening to this and we can give you more details. Just say you want to talk to Asher and he can give you all the details, which I don’t know, but I’m sure he does. Okay. So the next thing, I ran across something today that I wanted to share, so I’m going to hit the share button.
Okay, let’s make it a little bigger. So this comes under the category of things that I would love to have a conversation with doctors or virologists or so called scientists who believe in the virus model because I’d love to hear what they would say about this. And so let’s just try to follow the thinking here. And this comes from the archives of Pediatrics. So it doesn’t get any more mainstream or conventional reputable scientific journal in pediatrics than this. So I’m just going to read what it says here. Although Land Steiner and others have been able to inject emulsions of spinal cord material into experimental animals to cause paralytic disease, a number of workers have also caused paralysis in experimental animals simply by injecting normal nervous tissues.
This fact would indicate that some of our modern studies relating to the so called virus of poliomyelitis require careful reappraisal. This is from 1950. And then let me read you another quote. This is from a. This is from ALD Hisla substack, so you can see that down there. And this is from a fairly well known virologist and I believe he was a polio virus researcher and he says, quote, until recently, inoculation of monkeys has remained the only means of isolating these polio viruses. So let’s go through what this all means. So this is 1953, 1950, when the first piece was written.
So this is approximately 70 or so years after polio was identified or sort of identified anew. And it was about 50 years after the claim that they had found the agent that causes polio, which was a virus, which is a transmissible agent. So we’re 50 years into that claim and there’s a huge project going on to make a vaccination that will make people, children, immune to the virus. So this is already happening now. What this, the second quote by Weller means is that the only way up until 1953 and this is now so pre enders, the only way that they could identify that is isolate, that is find the virus was by taking ground up nervous spinal cord material from a person or person who had the alleged disease they called polio, in other words, paralysis.
They took the ground up spinal cord tissue and they would inject that into an animal, usually a monkey, and they would see if that animal also got a paralytic process. In other words, as it says, research could induce paralysis in experimental animals by injecting normal tissue, which brought the field of virology into question. So what that means is, so let’s just be very clear on what we’re saying here. The way to find, prove, demonstrate that there was a virus was taking spinal cord material from a person who you claim is suffering from polio, grinding it up and injecting that into an animal and, and seeing if that animal also developed a paralytic disease.
If that happened, you would then therefore claim that you have isolated the virus, transmitted the virus to the animal and shown that the virus is the cause of polio. And what this Archives of Pediatric statement says is that it turns out that just injecting normal nervous system tissue into experimental animals also causes these animals to develop paralysis. The only possible conclusion that one could draw from this is that the experiment of injecting nervous system tissue, whether normal or diseased, into an experimental animal and seeing whether that animal develops paralysis is an inappropriate experiment to find out whether a transmissible agent was present because the same thing happens whether the original animal was sick or not.
I don’t know how to make that any more clear. In other words, the thing that they say is the only way to identify the presence of the virus. Turns out whether you have a, you start with something that could or couldn’t have the virus, you get exactly the same result, which means it’s a completely inappropriate experiment for isolating the virus, saying there’s a transmissible event, or saying that even diseased spinal cord tissue is the cause of polio or paralysis in the recipient animals, since this is the only way that the polio virus was isolated until 1950.
And I would just say also, same with all the other viruses, just different injection techniques, starting with different types of sickness into different types of animals in slightly different ways, all of them have the same problem, which is it’s a completely inappropriate a way of identifying, isolating, proving that the virus even exists. And so one could only conclude that 50 years after the field of virology had claimed that there was a polio virus, they actually had no evidence that such a virus existed, even though they were going full bent on creating a vaccine against this alleged virus.
So, and if you extend the same thing, because it’s the same thing with basically all the other viruses, until the Ender’s cell culture technique, which essentially then inaugurates another completely unscientific way of, quote, isolating a virus. So that’s the thing that happened in 1954, but before that, you had 50 years or 60 years or so of a field of, quote, science, a field of study called virology, in which the subject of their field, that is to say, viruses, had never been shown to exist. That’s weird. That’s like 50 years of studying unicorns or leprechauns before anybody had actually shown whether unicorns or leprechauns actually exist.
And so they have all kinds of information and observations and experiments and all kinds of stuff, but no evidence that the thing that they’re actually studying even exists. And of course, as we know, it’s the same thing today. And it would just be so interesting to have a virologist come on and say, given these facts, because these are facts, do you agree that in 1953, let’s forget about what happened after that, there was no evidence that this virus existed, Therefore, obviously, there shouldn’t have been a vaccination campaign against the virus or against any virus, because they’re basically all the same.
So would you agree? And I’d be interested to hear what they say, because anybody watching this or reading this or listening to this already knows that that’s the case, but maybe the virologists don’t. Okay, so then I wanted to. Haven’t done this for a while to get to some questions. Makes me stretch a little bit. And Think about things and answer questions and concerns that are on your mind. And I’ve been told it’s easier if I leave myself on the full screen and I just read the questions which I have here. So I will do that.
And most of the time just to say I skimmed through them, but I haven’t done. I don’t do any, like research or looking into these questions. These are off the top of my head, so to speak. Okay, number one, can you talk about healing cataracts without surgery? So I actually have talked about cataracts. So what is the cataract? You know, the interesting thing about the lens. So a cataract is a cloudiness of the lens of the eye or both eyes. So the question is, why does a. Or what is a lens of the eye? The lens of the eye is probably one of the most purest forms of crystalline water that there is in living systems.
It’s obviously completely acellular because if there were cells in the crystalline lens, obviously you’d be looking out into the world through these little boxes and that would be weird. So you don’t want to do that. So it’s a organized water crystal. And as time goes on, the water crystal can become cloudy. And what does it become cloudy with? It seems like proteins that don’t belong there and minerals that maybe are excessive or maybe don’t belong there. So the, one of the main principles of new biology, medicine way of thinking is we essentially always think the body is smarter than the person.
And so. And these things are not diseases like cataracts or cancer or strep throat or whatever. They are strategies your body uses to heal and protect you, because you’re not doing that enough yourself. So the question then is, why would the body put a deposit to essentially stop the full light from coming into your eye, say to the back of the eye, the retina. And one obvious answer is the quality of the light is not healthy. And so anybody would say, put a filter in front so to keep that poor quality light out from getting into the eye and causing more damage to the tissues behind the lens, like the retina and other tissues, even of the optic nerve or even the brain.
So basically, developing a cataract is a protection against harmful light waves. So what is a harmful light wave? Well, like the thing we’re using here, computer waves. Computer light is harmful. How do I determine whether something is harmful? Basically, if it’s not natural light, meaning the sun and the moon and just the ambient light that comes in the world, and it’s man Made usually high intensity, usually very limited frequencies, that’s probably going to have a negative biological effect. And your body will try to protect you against that by putting a barrier between the sources of the light and your retina and your brain, which is what we call a cataract.
So therefore, thank God for cataracts because it’s protecting you against more damage. Now, if you don’t want to have that type of protection, or in other words, if you don’t want to use that strategy to protect yourself, because obviously that strategy has a cost, which is that it makes it difficult to see. So if you say, I don’t want my body to have to make it difficult for me to see, then the obvious thing to do is to not expose yourself to harmful light waves like computers and other, you know, LED lights. And you could go on and on and rather expose myself to the sunlight and moon and other ambient natural sources of light.
And I know for sure that when people essentially make that change and then the rare times when they have to do something on a screen, they use some sort of a blocking mechanism, like these kind of blue blocking glasses, which I generally use, except when I do webinars, that will help. Once you do that and you’ve essentially convinced your body to give up that strategy, then you can use things like DMSO eyedrops. And that will also facilitate the dissolution of the toxic material that was built up, because your body always has to use excess material like proteins and minerals to create this shield.
So you can help dissolve that. And I’ve seen cases where these DMSO eye drops, I know Amanda Vollmer carries them on her site and those have worked to help heal the cataracts. But basically in the context of exposing yourself to more natural light, or only in a sense exclusively natural light, then it will help even more. It also gets into the idea that the first light that you see in the morning should be the sunlight and the last light should be the setting sun and then you can see moonlight. And you don’t use computers or any sort of screen artificial light, rather use candles and things like that when it’s dark.
So all that will help. And that is the way I would go about healing cataracts. Okay, number two, this is sort of an interesting question. I read this before Tom. I regularly monitored PCR positivity rates, not simply total number of positive tests here in the UK during the so called pandemic. I found there was a clear correlation between increases in hospitalizations and deaths and increases in PCR positivity. Rates. The PCR test clearly seems to be detecting something when people were ill and not when they weren’t. Do you believe they are indeed detecting genetic material? Also, when using well designed primers and probes and at low CT thresholds, are they detecting the actual sequence they are programmed to find? If not, I wonder what you think might account for this phenomenon.
So the first thing is I would question some of the wording here and I would even question some of the findings. So there was a clear correlation between increase in hospitalizations and deaths and increase in PCR positivity rates. I’ll just say that I don’t believe that that’s necessarily true. I don’t know that it is, or I don’t know that it isn’t true, but I don’t necessarily believe it just because this person says so. But let’s just assume for now that that actually is true. In other words, when you start seeing more cases, I guess they referring to case people in the community testing positive for Covid or SARS COV2 on a PCR test, then you see more hospitalizations and deaths.
Again, I’m not, I’m not agreeing that that is actually a true statement, but let’s just say that it is. And then do I believe they were detecting genetic material? And then when they say using well designed primers and probes. I don’t think there is such a thing as a well designed primer or a probe. There is low CT thresholds. That means the number of cycles you amplify. So if they’re not detecting these sequences, what are they finding? So what I would say is that when you think about this, let’s just go through the problem with the PCR or the fundamentals of a PCR test, which we know is not a test, in order for a PCR process to be a test, two obvious things have to be fulfilled.
The first, you know, I laugh because when I, when I think I’m going to, when I like hear in my mind, I guess what I’m about to say, there’s. It seems so stupid to say this. I mean, so obvious that I don’t know why I have to say it. But I know I have to say it because maybe some people won’t understand otherwise. But this just seems so elementary. What I was going to say a PCR, meaning you’re allegedly finding a sequence, a genetic sequence that belongs to this virus. Now what I was going to say is that if you say that I found a piece of a something and that proves the something is There you, you have to have first found the something and proven the piece belongs to the something.
Like that’s what I mean, that’s like a ridiculous thing to have to say out loud. Like if you, if you have a unicorn and you say that this hoof belongs to a unicorn, it’s obvious you’ve had to have seen and analyzed the unicorn first. Otherwise you can’t possibly know that the hoof belongs to the unicorn. Same with the virus. You’ve had to have had the virus in pure form, that is to say isolated and shown that it has a genome, either RNA or DNA, and that this is the sequence of the genome. So that hasn’t been done.
Therefore we don’t know that any virus because we’ve never had it in a purified form. They say that you can’t ever separate it from the cellular material. Therefore since the cellular material has its identical DNA or RNA and so you can’t separate the two. And we also know that we haven’t found some of the human DNA or rna, it’s still missing. So we have no idea that there is a virus or that it has a genome. So you can never say that this part of the genome, this sequence belongs to a virus which has never been proven to exist or have a genome.
That’s completely obvious. The second condition of a PCR is that you have to have proven that nothing else has that identical genome sequence which with the case of this PCR quote test for SARS CoV2, the exact opposite has been proven that something like 93 different human sequences and 93 other microbial sequences have the so called best primers have been found in those organisms. So we know there are other organisms that have those sequences and we don’t know that the virus has them because we don’t have the virus and therefore we don’t have the sequence. So it can’t possibly be a test for a virus.
So right off the bat we know that the answer to this person’s question cannot possibly be because this is tracking the activity of a virus. So then, but again, let’s assume that PCR positivity tracks illness. So what could that mean? So the first thing, again, there’s really two possibilities to answer this question. One is that observation is incorrect and the PCR test means nothing and it doesn’t track deaths or hospitalizations at all. And you would have to prove that that’s true. And as far as I know that hasn’t been proven and so this whole thing is not true.
But let me just again Say, let’s say that is true. Now, I don’t think we have proof that it’s finding those sequences, but it’s finding. Let’s just say, let’s ignore that again for a minute and say, okay, the PCR is amplifying some sequences. We obviously know that the sequences aren’t coming from the virus because that doesn’t exist. They’re coming from the person. So in other words, what you could postulate is that when people are breaking down more avidly, in other words, when the more they’re breaking down, the more likely you will be to find sequences of different types and maybe even certain similar types of sequences, especially at low CT rates.
Let me say that again. So the sicker you are, the more breakdown products there will be in your sample from your lungs. And therefore the more, say, free nucleic acids, if they even exist, will be found in your snot. Therefore, the more you will find them at low amplification rates. So in other words, the reason for this observation is the sicker you are, the more likely that you will amplify something coming from you because you’re breaking down more avidly than if you weren’t so sick. So the, well, people aren’t breaking down as much. So you have to use higher CT values to find the broken down genetic sequences.
So if somebody is breaking down more, that is sicker, not because of a virus, but because of whatever is causing them to break down and remodel and quote, be sick, then you’ll find the sequences at lower CT values and you will make the correlation between higher positive PCR levels and sickness. So in other words, in that scenario, and I’m not saying that scenario is true because I kind of doubt the whole thing, but a PCR process is a measurement of how much breakdown your tissues are doing. And it doesn’t tell you anything about the reason they’re breaking down.
Nothing like that. There’s no virus, it’s just you’re breaking down more than the next person. Therefore you don’t have to amplify as much to find the sequences. Therefore you’re more likely to end up in the hospital. And that’s all that that can tell you. Okay, hopefully that clears that up. Hi, Dr. Cowan. Would you speak to the mode of action of the toxicity of mycotoxins? That’s a mold toxin. Mold poison. They are said to be hepatonephro and neurotoxic and strongly antimicrobial and carcinogenic. Many foods like peanuts, coffee, tomatoes, and nearly all grains are known to be contaminated with these compounds.
So my opinion about this is there are no mycotoxins, meaning mold, toxins, mold or yeast. And just to back up a little, you can’t really explain any of these phenomena without a understanding of what’s called pleomorphism, which means that there are no strict distinctions between different kinds of bacteria and mold, and maybe even things that we erroneously call protozoa. In other words, at that level, these microbes morph into one another. Different types of bacteria, bacteria morph into fungi, depending on the conditions and depending on their food. Now, what are called fungal organisms, they are pleomorphically created.
I’m not sure that’s quite the right way to say it, but they will be formed when there is a particular kind of dampness and toxicity in the tissue that they’re now going to grow in. So in other words, if you have a wall of your house that’s made of drywall, which is soaked in poisons and it’s damp, then the fungal elements will evolve from their sort of microzyma precursors and they will start bioremediating the wall, which means eating the wall, because that’s their food. They do the same thing in us. If your tissues are very toxic and breaking down, then the microzyma evolve into what we call fungi or yeast, and they start living on the tissues to essentially bioremediate, break down, digest, and help you to then form new, healthier tissue.
As long as you stop poisoning that tissue and stop poisoning yourself. If you keep poisoning yourself, you will end up with a chronic yeast infection or a chronic mold problem. Now, getting back to the wall example, if you have the mold growing on the wall with toxic chemicals, the mold will volatilize these chemicals and they can make people sick. You can even smell them. And all the times when I was moving my house and buying new houses, I would, first thing I would do is go in the house and if I could smell the chemicals, smell the quote, mold, I would turn around and I wouldn’t have anything to do with that house.
Because what that means is the mold is volatilizing the toxic chemicals which are basically part of all modern construction. So these are not mycotoxins, these are chemicals, toxins in the environment, which are inappropriately put into things like drywall. And your foods, like peanuts and corn and tomatoes, are also soaked with these kind of toxins. And then if they’re in a damp environment, the mold come to remediate this. In other words, to essentially eat and digest and volatilize these decaying materials which are poisoned in the process. They spew out certain chemicals that arise not from the mold.
It’s not a mold infection. It’s not the mold’s fault. They’re just doing what nature needs to do, which is bio remediate, biodigest poisonous substance. And so this whole alternative medicine mania for getting rid of mold toxins and testing mold toxins, what they’re, all they’re doing is saying there’s volatilized chemicals and the mold are just essentially doing their job, which is to bioremediate either your wall or the peanuts or whatever. And you should not get rid of the mold, except that the mold is essentially a marker that your wall is poisoned. You should clean up the house and clean up the food because there is no mycotoxins evolved from a properly grown bowl of rice.
You don’t get mycotoxins from that. Only when you soak the rice in poison and put it in a damp place. And then the mold will grow in order to and they will volatilize those chemicals. Again. It’s not the mold. Nature is not out to kill you. The germ theory is wrong. These are not infections. This is not about killing the mold. This is about getting rid of the poisons in our environment and cleaning up our houses and our living spaces and our environment so we actually have clean places to live. And that means for people, detoxifying your environment.
And then once you’re in an environment where you’re breathing in these volatilized chemicals, you probably have to detoxify yourself. But get rid of the idea that this is a problem caused by mold. It’s only that the mold are the agents of volatile volatilization of these chemicals. Okay, hopefully that’s clear. Please speak on circadian rhythm issues and how to fix them. I’m not sure really what this question means, except I actually do think that we are meant to follow a kind of daily rhythm which changes according to the season. And basically that means getting up when the sun rises and seeing the sun as the first thing you see in the morning and maybe even doing something to greet the sun, which is an age old practice.
And then go about your day and eat most of your food during the day. In fact, I would say eat all your food during the time when the sun is up and it’s daylight. And then the last thing you see is the setting sun. And then you go to bed soon after dark, which is pretty much what I do. And if you’re going to stay up after dark, use candles or we use sometimes red lights. And that’s what I would mean by living in accord with a circadian rhythm. And I can’t spout off any research on that, but that’s kind of the way that we and I live and seems to be helpful with sleep and energy.
And you learn how to get things done during the day and not worry about things at night. Okay. How come water seems to respond quickly, consciously and distinctively in experiments done by Veda, Emoto, et cetera, but we don’t see more quote instant karma type effects in the human body after we say do or think nefarious thoughts, Especially in the bodies of world leaders. I’m not sure you don’t see them and I’m, I’m not sure that the quote world leaders don’t have consequences for what they’re thinking. So I’m not sure I agree with the premise of that.
I actually think that the effect on the water is basically instantaneous, that the water downloads or accepts the energy from your thoughts and I think it does it very quickly. And if your thoughts are hateful and vengeful and fear based probably does have an effect on you. My, I wonder whether these quote world leaders have managed to figure out some way to mitigate some of that damage. But one of the ways that I think I’ve seen this in my life is whenever I have do have trouble sleeping, the first thing I do is think about how grateful I am for the water that makes up my body and my life and how I wouldn’t be alive if it weren’t for the crystalline nature of the water.
And so I give thanks and express my gratitude and then I go through all the people in my life that I feel grateful for and ask them for protection. And then I ask to be helped to go to sleep. And it almost always works, usually within a few minutes. So if anybody wants to try that, the process is first I express gratitude to the water that makes up me and my life. And then I have a whole string of people and I must admit some animals in my life that I’m grateful for and ask for protection for.
And then I ask to be helped to sleep. And it often works almost immediately. So what do you think causes chronic asthma in children? Essentially all of the chronic diseases in children and in fact all the chronic diseases of anybody happen. And this is sort of almost like classic homeopathy. Let me start another way. It’s interesting and I’ve written about this in a number of different places in the vaccine book and in my first children’s book, one of the curious findings of chronic asthma in children is the formation of crystals in the lung. And they have names called Kirschmann spirals and Charcot Leydan crystals.
In other words, the normal, pliable, flexible, structured gel like water that is the tissue of your lungs, the alveolar lining becomes more like hardened and rigid more than it should. So there’s a sort of over crystallization, hardening process which you see in chronic asthma in children. So if you just take that as a fact, an observable fact, in other words, what the pathology of asthma is, the over excessive crystallization of the lung tissue, why would that happen? So you can imagine that if as time goes on, we breathe, things or things happen, or there could be, you know, psychological, emotional toxicity or physical toxicity or things that you’re breathing in these volatilized chemicals and they go into your lungs and so your body has to clean them out somehow.
And so it uses that, it uses the only mechanism of clean out that it knows, which is to create an inflammatory process. Now this is what we call bronchitis or pneumonia. In other words, it uses mucus pus to mobilize and liberate and then flush out the debris from the lungs. So it’s the debris of the toxic stuff that’s been inhaled as well as probably dead and dying lung tissue. And there of course will be different microbes, fungi and bacteria that come out in that mucus. So that’s how you heal the lung. And as long as there’s a certain sort of low level of input of toxic debris breathed into the lungs, or fear or other, you know, emotional psychological toxicity, both could be from both sides.
And as long as you clear it out every day, a little bit of mucus every couple days, then you’re good. Then you increase the toxic exposure and then you have to increase the strength of the elimination. So now you have to have a full fledged bacterial, quote, pneumonia with pus and fever and big time cough for a week to get rid of all this dead and dying lung tissue and all the toxic debris you’ve got in. As long as you allow that process to happen, then you will be restored to good health. Because it obviously was not an infection.
It was just a sort of house cleaning process. But here’s the problem. We misinterpret those that house cleaning process as either a viral infection or a bacterial infection or a viral infection that has a superimposed or opportunistic bacterial infection. And then we give things like antibiotics and Steroids and cough suppressant medicine to keep all that debris from coming out. So what inevitably happens is the debris stays in. That’s me again. When I think I’m going to say that, I think, well, that’s obvious. Everybody would know. If you stop the debris from your lungs coming out by giving the person an antibiotic or cough suppressant or a steroid, then the debris stays in and it hardens the lungs.
And then the lungs have a more difficult time breathing. And so they have to make a more of a sort of bellows effect of the chest in order to move the air. And they have to move the air even harder to get the, not the oxygen but the, essentially the charge to go into the tissues from the air. And so that excessive breathing is what we call asthma. In other words, you have to breathe harder to move the air because your lungs are stiffer, because they haven’t been able to clean themselves and repair themselves and restore the normal elastic gel phase of the tissue.
And then it starts happening more and it starts happening all the time. And so then you give inhaled steroids to reduce the inflammation which makes even more debris build up. And then you have even more asthma and you will have more and more asthma. The longer you use an inhaled steroid or an oral steroid and the next thing you know you have asthma for life. Because that’s the whole purpose of using antibiotics and cough syrups and inhaled and oral steroids. If you don’t do that process, if you just limit the exposure to toxic inhaled elements and psychological, emotional toxic exposure, and when you do have an elimination phenomena, a cough or a bronchitis, you let that resolve and you even help the mucus to come out and you help your lungs detoxify, which they will on their own, then you will never end up with chronic asthma.
And that’s basically what I saw in my practice and how I treated them. I would know that every child with chronic asthma has to go through the healing phase of a so called bronchitis or pneumonia. Once that happened, their asthma would go away. And as long as they never did that again, they would never have crossed chronic asthma. Thoughts on color therapy? Any good resource recommendations? I don’t know that much about this. The only thing that’s I would say interesting to me about that question is whether color therapy through electrical gadgets, electrical devices is as good or helpful as color therapy with natural light and natural colors.
And I don’t know the answer to that. I have used a number of devices that use electrical light sources through different forms of color mediums to do different things. And I still have questions about that. And I know there’s a whole scheme of color therapy that uses doesn’t use electrical devices and only natural color. And so it would be very interesting to compare those two to see which is more efficacious and safer and better in the short and long run. And I don’t know the answer to that right now. Okay. It seems that sodium chloride is generally regarded as equal to the natural sodium extracted from plants and animals.
If we could consistently get the proper quantity and quality of whole food sodium. Would you still recommend consuming sodium chloride other than to preserve food? Well, I would say I never would recommend anybody eating sodium chloride. I would recommend. I’ve never recommended that, in other words, because what I mean by that is taking some form of salt, or what we’re really talking about is the alchemical earth element and doing some sort of process to separate a particular chemical called sodium chloride out of that earth substance. So the earth substance could be, you know, salt flats. It could even be, interestingly, the earth substance in seawater, which you then evaporate off the water component and you’re left with the earth component.
And that’s not sodium chloride. That is the earth element. And even if you start analyzing that with modern analytical tools, it’s something like 80 some, you know, 83 or 84% sodium chloride. And the other whatever percentage, and I’m not sure I got that percentage right, is other elements, magnesium and zinc and all the rest of it. So even on that sort of reductionist analytical terms, one could say those are different forms of the earth element. And so I would never recommend people doing that separation. And I would never eat any salt that has had that separation done.
I would only eat evaporated seawater or ground up earth salt without any sort of processing. Now, there are some people who say maybe you should take certain elements out. And maybe that’s true, and I’m not sure about that, But I never do that. I just eat the pure. So it’s not sodium chloride. It’s the pure earth element from the seawater or the. It’s like clay with all the constituents that it has in, even the impurities. I don’t mind the impurities. I’m not somebody who worries about a 1 part per billion of zinc or lead or arsenic in the sea salt or in the earth salt.
I think that’s just part of the complexity of the earth element. And so also plants have earth elements in it, including probably some have sodium chloride. But you would never isolate just the sodium chloride from a plant. You would eat the whole plant or the SAP of the plant or something. So I think the premise of the question is a little bit wrong. So you never want to eat sodium chloride. You want, this is the nutrition of complexity. You only want to eat the earth element which you get from seawater evaporation or mining the earth or dehydrating plants, or making SAP out of plants, or eating whole plants or tincturing plants or something to plants.
And that way you’re getting the whole earth element that is the makes up the plant or is part of the sea. How do you detoxify from heavy metals? The short answer to that, and we’re getting close to the end here, and we still have some more, so I probably won’t get in finish these. The short answer to that is to make sure that you have enough of the all these earth elements. And that ties in with the last question. So you never want to eat pure sodium chloride. You always want to eat, you know, Redmond salt or Celtic salt or some unpurified salt and eat liberal amounts of that and make different foods with that and put it in your food, et cetera, and eat all different kinds of plant minerals, not isolated, but just as the component of the plant.
If you are mineral deficient, in other words ion deficient, in other words earth element deficient, what seems to happen is you will hold on to other elements like heavy metals to make up for that charge that you’re missing with the ions. And so if you go about repleting your normal minerals, sodium chloride, magnesium, zinc, you know, all that phosphorus, then your body doesn’t hang on to the occasional heavy metal that you’re exposed to and it just gets rid of it and doesn’t cause you any problem. The other interesting way to get rid of heavy metals. Again, nature is a self regulating system, as are we.
And once we escape from the tyranny of the germ theory way of thinking, and we realize that the most efficient way of getting rid of the heavy metals that may accumulate in our body is through parasitic infections. Well, they’re not parasitic infections. In fact, like we’ve said, there are no actual protozoa that are independent free living thing. But the worms and what we call protozoa, they eat many times their body weight in these heavy metals that are stored in our tissue. Unfortunately, because of our germ theory mentality, we think we have a quote infection, we think we have parasites, we go around killing parasites, we go around killing worms, we try to sterilize our food, which is futile, instead of letting our body evolve what it needs, which may include these different forms of life forms, which actually then help cleanse our body of these unwanted debris.
And that’s probably nature’s way of doing that. And that also makes it very interesting that when you look at the plant medicines like wormwood, artemisinin, oregano, turmeric, that allegedly get rid of chelate and get rid of heavy metals from our body, they’re also said to get rid of worms or kill parasites like artemisinin and wormwood artemisia, a classic antiparasitic plant extract. But what it really does is it’s also been shown to help chelate, meaning mobilize, bind, and help you excrete the heavy metals. And then the parasites and worms have nothing to eat, and then they just go away.
So it’s not killing anything. It’s actually getting rid of the food supply. And the reason why your body, in a pleomorphic sense, has to evolve these protozoa forms and these worm forms in order to help you out. But what’s really important is your way of thinking. And once you realize the scheme that we’re actually living under and that we are, amazing mechanisms created in and through nature, self healing, and these microorganisms are our friends, and they evolve the forms that are needed, you start to see things in a totally different way. And all these questions begin to make perfect sense.
Okay, so I have a bunch more questions we’ll see about next time. I want to thank everybody for asking the questions. It definitely stimulates my thinking and hopefully stimulates people to think about these things in a new way. And I hope you have a great week, and I will see you next week. And remember, if you’re at all interested as an investor in a new project that hopefully will really help with our food supply, please contact customer service and ask to talk to Asher and he can tell you all the details. Okay, thanks again, everybody.
[tr:tra].
See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.
Author
