➡ The text discusses two types of polio vaccines: the oral polio vaccine (OPV) and the injectable polio vaccine (IPV). The OPV, which is mostly used today, is considered a live viral vaccine and can potentially spread the virus through contact with the recipient’s stool. The IPV, on the other hand, is believed to be a killed virus vaccine and doesn’t carry the risk of spreading the disease. The text also questions the existence of the polio virus, suggesting that the symptoms might be caused by other factors. Lastly, it emphasizes the importance of scientific literacy, especially in a world increasingly influenced by scientific dictums.

➡ The text discusses a new approach to biology and medicine, questioning traditional methods of identifying vitamins, hormones, and diseases. It suggests that our understanding of these elements may be flawed due to the methods used to identify them. The text also challenges the concept of diseases, suggesting they are symptoms of the body trying to heal itself. Lastly, it discusses the nature of education and learning, questioning the necessity of formal education and licenses in the medical field.

➡ The text discusses the importance of personal experience and self-education in the health field. It emphasizes that successful practice comes from genuinely helping people and learning from personal experimentation. It also discusses the concept of new biology, where symptoms are seen as the body’s way of communicating issues that need to be addressed. The text also questions the effectiveness of conventional treatments like stents for heart attacks, suggesting that the body’s natural responses, like plaque buildup, are strategies to prevent further damage.

➡ The text discusses the importance of maintaining healthy blood flow and vessel integrity to prevent plaque buildup, which can be achieved through a healthy lifestyle including diet and exposure to sunlight. It also debates the issue of genetically modified foods, arguing that it’s not the government’s role to regulate them, but rather individuals should take responsibility for their own health and food choices. The author suggests that without government intervention, there would be a rise in personal responsibility and businesses providing information about food sources and quality. The text concludes by criticizing the current model of health regulation, which the author believes is ineffective and corrupt.

Okay, welcome everybody. The sound is okay. Thanks for joining me again. Today is another Wednesday webinar. Today is 2, 5, February 5, 2025. And I had some other things in mind, but I thought it would be a good time, since I haven’t done it for a while, to do a question and answer. I think that we get these questions mostly from the. What do you call it? X used to be Twitter feed. They may be on Instagram, but I think they’re on X. So if you have a question that you would like me to address, I think that’s the place to put it.

I just want to remind everybody that the book Common Sense Child Rearing is still for sale on Amazon. They say that they will ship it in a week, but I know that they have the books and I thank everybody who’s got one or more so far. And if you could keep the ordering, keep telling your friends, keep trying to find us interviewers, podcasters, etc. Who would be interested in the topic of child rearing because I think it’s an important book that we get out there and try to put a different view into how we’re raising our children.

The other thing I would like to say is hopefully your people are getting their books. I know it’s been slow, but hopefully they’re getting their books and reading the books and the more people write reviews on Amazon, that’s probably better. So if you could everybody who’s willing write a review. And I definitely read pretty much everyone. I read all the comments. I don’t necessarily respond to the comments on the comment section, but I read them so I will know what you think and that helps me get some feedback on where to go the next time. So number one, and I’m just going to read the question and go right from there, what exactly is it about eating spoiled or rotten food that makes us so sick? I did see that question before.

Sometimes I read the questions and sometimes I don’t. I thought that was a very interesting thing because the knee jerk reaction that I had, which probably most people have, and the assumption, if I was to ask you think for a minute, what is the assumption behind this question? What is it about eating spoiled or rotten food that makes us so sick? It’s actually a good question. And the assumption that I’m thinking is not explicitly stated as it could be. In other words, if you ask the question what is it in spoiled or rotten food that makes us sick? If you ask the question like that, then you’re assuming that there’s something in the Food that’s making you sick.

Now, let’s just say for a minute that it’s clearly eat the food and you get sick. So I’m not disputing that. That’s an observation. You eat the food and then you and maybe other people get sick. So it’s clearly the food made you sick. The thing that I want to point out is an assumption which all of us, certainly, myself included, have made our whole lives and would have made even up to five minutes ago, is therefore there must be something in the food that’s making us sick. I mean, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable assumption, right? So we look and we see is there bacteria? So then we do the thing that I keep saying.

You isolate, that is, separate the bacteria that are growing and you give only those. And then nobody gets sick. So it’s not the bacteria. So there must be something else. But what I want to point out is even thinking there’s something in the food that’s making you sick may be an invalid assumption. It’s like I was thinking of an analogy. What is it about which part of pumpkin do I enjoy and love so much? And obviously that’s the wrong question, because there is no part of them. It’s not like I like pumpkin because of his. His paw or his foot or his tail or it is not like I like eating lobster because of the red color.

In other words, with most of life, you don’t break things down into parts in order to explain their effect. It’s basically the person I love my wife, I love my children. It’s not because I love their ear or their foot or their big toenail. And similarly with food, So I would say it’s the food that’s making you sick. Now, you could feel dissatisfied with that and say, there’s got to be something in the food. Now, that’s where you would have to do science. And then you would first, like, I would start with denatured or rotted proteins, in other words, proteins from, say, meat or mayonnaise or something that have broken down and formed potentially toxic byproducts.

And then you could isolate those and see if they made you sick. And they may or may not. And if I was just to make a guess to see whether there is a part in, say, meat or mayonnaise that makes you sick, I would say there may be some proteins that have broken down. And if you isolated those and ate those and then you recreated the symptoms, that would give you the answer. I have a suspicion, though, and I’ve never done this And I don’t know that it’s even ever been done that that may not work.

And it may be that it’s just the rotting food in totality that makes you sick, not any specific part. And I say, and I re. The reason I think that’s important is because there would be a tendency to say, and that may even include the bacteria or the fungus or whatever else is in there. So that totality, which can’t be. It can be broken down, but to no, no avail essentially in understanding what made you sick. It’s actually better to think of it and I think more effective. It’s rotting food that makes you sick. Now, having said that, I once talked about and showed an article and a study on a guy, I think he was Iranian, who was like in his 90s, who offer like 70 years, never took a bath or used any kind of water on his body and only ate rotting like roadkill and other rotting food from.

That he could scrounge from the, from garbage bins. And he seemed perfectly healthy into his 90s. And then finally they got him and sort of captured him and made him take a shower or a bath. And then like a week later he was dead. So I’m not necessarily even so sure it’s the rotting food, although I don’t tend to eat rotting food. I don’t like the taste or the smell, and I have a feeling that it makes you sick. But I also think it’s a good example where we should stick with wholeness and not necessarily be reductionist right off the bat and say, and say that there’s something chemical in the milk, something in the milk that must be the culprit.

It’s probably the totality, maybe including the microorganisms and the proteins and the minerals and the smell and the everything else in there that’s what’s making you sick. Okay, number two, with so many people getting cancer, does the new biology clinic help people navigate through the many non traditional treatments and options? And the answer is yes. And we’ve spent a lot of time in our meetings talking about how do we approach people with cancer. As probably many of you know, one of our doctors actually successfully healed herself from a cancer where she was given a terminal diagnosis.

We also have a oncologist, Katie Deming, who I did a podcast interview, who’s not actually on our new biology clinic staff, but she comes to our meetings. So she’s like a. Not an advisor, she’s like an official. I don’t know what the word is. She’s a Friend of the clinic. And sometimes we have referred oncology patients to her. That’s what she does is counsel oncology patients, you know, long distance. So we have a number of options and our doctors have a fair amount of experience working with cancer patients now and a whole variety of possible options.

I believe two of them, including our vet Maureen are like fully trained in German new medicine. So that’s one aspect is always getting the story, trying to identify the conflicts and the emotional blockages and a kind of psycho emotional reason for this. We also do water fasting and that’s Katie Deming’s main treatment modality is combination of psych K and German new medicine kind of thinking and water fasting with I think some mineral supplementation. We’ve used turpentine, we’ve used different kinds of energy medicine. We are all familiar and fluent in using deuterium depleted water. And I was just contacted by somebody, I talked about deuterium depleted water, I believe it was last week.

And I was contacted by somebody who’s doing like urine crystallization, pictures of, of people who are in various states of health. And she’s finding some very interesting things with people who are doing deuterium depleted water in actually improving the appearance of their urine. So we have a number of different treatment options. Like I say fasting water, fasting German new medicine approach, turpentine approach, deuterium depleted water, different herbs, many different approaches and many different options of things, of people. We can help guide you in this. So yes, if you’re having a problem in the oncology field, we would be a very good place to help guide you through that morass.

Okay, next question. Can you explain how the oral polio vaccine can be as dangerous as the early injected version? It is said that polio can be transferred to others in the early days after taking the oral version. Is this via contaminated water or other smoke and mirrors? So there are two at least versions of the polio quote vaccine. There’s the oral version and I believe mostly what’s used now is the oral opv, the oral polio vaccine. And there’s also an injectable ipv, injectable polio vaccine. And I must admit I’m no expert on the difference. I think the oral polio vaccine is considered a live viral vaccine.

Somebody might have to check me on that. That’s why they say because you’re giving a live virus that the, you, the, the recipient, the child who receives the vaccine will shed some live virus in their stool and those around them, caregivers or anybody who’s changing their diapers or whatever, who gets in contact with the stool. Therefore, if they’re not fully immunized, they will have the risk of contracting polio from the virus. Whereas the injectable version I believe is a, and people may have to check me on this, but I believe that is a so called attenuated or killed virus vaccine and therefore doesn’t have the risk, they say, of transferring the disease because there is no live virus to transfer.

So that’s the usual story. I find polio so fascinating because now we have this quote which I believe I showed last time of a polio vaccine researcher, I don’t remember the guy’s name, 1953. It’s one of the most fascinating virology quotes of all time. So this is 70ish years after the illness that we identify as polio was basically redescribed or described. And it’s about 50 years after the cause of polio was definitively described as being a virus. So this is 50 years after the entire medical profession had accepted that this disease with these particular symptoms is caused by a virus.

And they were heavily into essentially a nationwide campaign to find a vaccine against this virus. So in 1953 the guy announces that, and I’m paraphrasing here because I don’t have the quote in front of me, that we did a examination where we took the healthy spinal flu tissue from a healthy per, the spinal tissue of a healthy person, injected it intracerebrally into a monkey and found that they reproduced exactly the symptoms of polio. So what’s the significance of that? He said this is a problem because up until now we’ve been claiming, based on the only evidence that we had, that there’s a virus is that we could take the diseased spinal tissue of somebody with polio, grind it up, injected into the brain of a monkey and caused paralysis.

Now 50 years later, for some reason we decided to do a kind of control and inject normal spinal fluid ground up into the brain of a monkey. And we found the exact same thing happens. Which of course to anybody hearing that would say that can only mean that simply injecting spinal tissue into a brain of a monkey is enough to cause them polio like symptoms. Therefore they, at 50 years into this story about the polio virus, there was zero evidence that there was a virus, even though they were full on into the vaccine research. Now that’s an important date because my guess is he knew that they were going to start with the cell culture.

Therefore don’t worry, we have a new way of finding out, of showing the existence of this virus. Because we can put disease spine onto a cell culture and the cell culture breaks down and that proves there’s a virus, like the brain thing. Never mind that if you put normal spinal fluid onto a cell culture, it also breaks down again, proving, like the brain thing, that there was no virus there in the first place. Now, an opv, an oral polio vaccine with a quote, live virus, is simply the contents of that cell culture broken down with all the antibiotics and antifungals and fetal bovine serum and chemicals that they put in it, put into a vial, and then the children drink it.

Now, sometimes that makes them sick, sometimes only a little sick. Sometimes they have sort of chemicals that come out or foreign proteins that come out in their stool or have an inflammatory kind of reaction. And it’s possible that if you ate something like that, you might get sick too. Or if you think if you come in contact with that, you might get sick as well. That’s probably another reason there is zero possibility of the transference of any virus, because they just proved that there was no polio virus in the vaccines in the first place. Because they got the same results in the way that they demonstrate the virus, which is injecting it into the brain of a monkey or making a cell culture die with or without the sample allegedly containing the virus, they get the same result, proving there is no virus.

Proving that can’t possibly be the reason. My guess is, even though I had run into a few people through my career who said they got symptoms, my guess is that was a fairly unusual occurrence and has a big psychosomatic component in it. But there also may be some toxic stuff that the child poops out and that you end up eating and making you sick. So that is a possibility. So it’s basically anyway, that even begs the whole question of what is polio? That. Maybe for another time. So it’s mostly smoke and mirrors with a little bit of toxic stuff.

But there certainly is no transmission of any polio virus because there is no polio virus. Okay, if I were to write a high school textbook on new biology, what would it cover? I’m waiting for a concise, simply presented introductory explanation. So, partly because in the winter here I have a lot less to do than I usually do. But a few months ago, I. I decided to write some stuff with handwritten. In other words, I would get it like a blank book and just start handwriting it. And then we. I sent it to a friend and she cleans it up a little bit and types it up so I can send it to other people and maybe publish it one day.

And the reason I said that is because one of the things I wrote, which was probably around 150 to 200 pages was exactly that. The introduction to New Biology and the first third of it was simply my ex. My, my take on this, which is why do we need a new biology? The first reason is because, and this is I would say a hypothesis on my part because I don’t think I could prove this, but that we live in a profoundly scientifically illiterate culture. I’ve. You probably heard me say that many times. In particular the people who are scientifically illiterate, besides the lay people, are the scientists and the medical doctors.

Now here comes the hypothesis which is, I don’t think that’s a good situation. I think particularly as we’re getting more and more and I think we’re going to get more and more and more of this in the very near future. That’s my worry anyways. We’re heading into a so called kind of scientific technocracy where so much of our lives are going to be dictated by so called scientific dictums. And it’s bad enough to have one’s life dictated by other people’s ideas and thoughts and theories and stuff, but it’s even worse if their actual dictates are incorrect.

So for instance, with of course the virus thing, it’s bad enough to tell for somebody to close your business and tell you to stay in your house and put a diaper on over your face. That’s bad enough if they threaten to do you violence and harm if you don’t follow that. It’s even worse though if there is no virus. I mean, at that case I’m not saying it’s good. Otherwise they have no. There is no justification for threatening violence for people who choose to do something else with their body than what you think. But it’s even somehow more irritating or worse when there is no possible scientific basis for these, these rules or dictums.

So the first part of New Biology and what I would focus on in any high school curriculum is how to think and what is science and what is logic and what is common sense and how do we know stuff and how do we find out stuff that we to know that we can’t sense and how do we extend our senses. So I spent the first third of the book just dealing with that. Those questions. How do we know what we know? What does it Mean, you know, to do science. Science is what needs to happen when you can’t see experience directly, the sort of cause of something.

Like, I can directly see that this is a pencil. And I can see, if you ask me the question, why does the pencil go from laying on the desk to up here? I can experience that. It’s because my hand lifts it up. There’s many things in life which we don’t have that direct experience. And that’s when we have to do science, and that’s when we have to apply all the, all the strategies and rules of the scientific method with controls, etc. And that is the essence of new biology, is a way of thinking and also the understanding that something that has been almost totally forgotten, I think deliberately in the modern illiterate scientific world is the way you look for something has a huge determination on what you find.

So more and more I’m asking the question, if you think there’s such and such a vitamin, how, in a living person, how did you find that? I need to know the steps. And then when you say, well, I took some blood and then I mixed it with hydrochloric acid, then you need to know the. Ask the question, how do you know that the hydrochloric acid mixed with the blood didn’t create something that wasn’t there in the first place in the living system? That is basically an unanswerable question. Which means we’re not doing science anymore. Which means we have no basis for claiming that, that whatever it is, vitamin, hormone, etc.

Actually exists in the living system, as painful as that may be for some people to realize, because they have their favorite hormone and they have their favorite vitamin and they believe in it and they go looking for it, but they actually have no idea whether that’s even a component of a living system. So there was a huge part of it that was based on that and, and then using examples like the hormones and the vitamins, et cetera, to demonstrate that there’s a thinking process behind this new biology. That’s the most important because when you get the thinking process, everything else falls into place.

The, the last part was applying this to medicine and getting together the principle or stating the principle that there’s basically two foundational ideas. One is just like, we can’t prove that viruses exist and we can’t demonstrate hormones and vitamins and all these other chemicals are present in living systems. We can’t prove that these things we call diseases are actually specific entities. Now there are patterns, and all doctors look for patterns so everybody who takes arsenic gets a certain kind of stomach thing or diarrhea or something. So you can get into patterns and recognize patterns, and that can help guide you as to where, how you deal with this.

But the modern disease categorization is largely an illusion because the main principle of the new biology way of thinking is these things we call diseases are your body’s symptoms, and your body’s symptoms are your body’s attempt to heal. And I’ve been over this a million times. Splinter in your finger, you make pus. The pus we mischaracterize as the disease, but it’s really the therapy. Once you get that principle, and then I basically went over that with different examples, everything starts to look different. And then what you do about particular medical situation starts to feel and look different.

Because now you’ve reoriented your whole thinking and more and more I would say that just like I did with the what is it in rotten food? It is to learn to think in a holistic meaning. Don’t break it down into parts. That’s. That is an assumption that we all do. There must be some part of this that’s making you sick. And the new biology principle, I would say, is what did you actually see? Like you saw two people at the same time getting sick in the same way. You saw people eating this mayonnaise, vomiting and having diarrhea.

That’s what you saw. You didn’t see any parts, you didn’t see any organism switch from one person to another or fly across the room. Those, if they’re true, have to be determined by science because they’re not experiences. And I would claim that most of the magic of being able to heal people is through really sticking rigorously to this idea of what did you see and what can you modify based on what you see and experience? And then to try to improve your ability to see and experience and your ability to modify things based on what you’re actually experiencing in life.

Those are the principles, I think, of the new biology. So that’s essentially what I wrote. And we’ll see whether that book someday comes to light of day or not. And then it hopefully could be used in a high school, even though I don’t know that you need to go to high school. That’s another story that for that, for the school bit, you have to read the common sense parenting. Okay? How does one become a doctor if not through education, university system, knowing all this info about viruses, EMF, alternative medicine, etc. One still would need a license to give Any advice? What do you think of being self taught? Thank you again.

This is something that I covered a lot in the Child Common Sense child rearing book, just the nature of school. And you know, I’ve again said this, it’s like I’m a broken record here. But one of my favorite quotes from Illich is the purpose of if you do well in school, you get the dubious privilege of being able to consume more school until you’ve consumed so much school that the only people left you can talk to are people who’ve consumed a similar amount of school. And that’s the world that we’ve become. So the doctors and the physicists and the biochemists and the who’s it’s faces, they can only talk to the people who’ve been similarly trained.

And I would also say that all learning is self learning. Again, Illich talks about the idea that the purpose of school is to teach you that learning somehow happens through the intervention of others in self contained packets that are closely bound by a system of which you have no access to. And anybody who’s actually experienced their life knows that is not how we learned the most important things in our life like how to speak and how to walk and how to make love and how to kiss somebody and how to grow carrots and how to make spaghetti or how to make salad or how to ferment sauerkraut or how to walk fast or do push ups or do biofield.

Now there are. So I’m probably a little bit away from this question. I would say there is no viable way to become a licensed doctor these days. Now the good news is that I think the whole licensing of professionals, I don’t know if it’s going out the window, but it’s basically a intervention of the state which is inappropriate. In other words, what right does the government or the state have to tell you who you can get advice from or who you can give advice to and who you could pay or not pay to give that advice? Now I’m fully aware there’s even been some recent court cases that I’ve heard of of people giving advice to people without a license and getting in trouble because you know, the state doesn’t like people infringing on their monopolies.

So I didn’t just say that that can’t be a problem. But just like our new biology clinic, there are becoming more and more ways that people can get around those issues by essentially advocating or standing up for or, or, or what’s the word? Using their, their inalienable rights to do things like give advice to other people about their health. There’s nothing that, that, that, that cannot possibly be something that’s illegal. And in fact it isn’t. Now the problem that you’ll have is how do you get, get enough knowledge and information so that you’re credible and that people would want to come to you? And then how do you essentially find enough people so that you can use this as your livelihood? So those are the issues.

Now I used to say over and over again, because in my entire medical career when I had a practice, I never advertised ever, not even once in anything as far as I know. Yet for the last, I don’t know, at least 10, 15 years, I don’t think there was ever a time when I went to my office to see patients, say three or whatever days a week for eight hours, that every single slot in that time wasn’t taken. Now I would admit this isn’t quite answering your question because all that time I was actually a licensed medical doctor.

And so that’s one of the ways that people found me. And that’s one of the things reasons, I think, why people trusted me. And in fact, all the practitioners, the primary wellness specialists at our new biology clinic have all been trained medical doctors. So. Yes, so all of our medical, all the primary wellness special specialists thus far are trained medical doctors. And I guess that that was deliberate because I didn’t want people to criticize us at this point in our development. Oh, the reason you guys are doing this is because you don’t know regular medicine. That is obviously not the case.

We have, you know, anesthesiologists, neurologists, psychiatrist, oncologist, kind of consultant, a surgeon and family practice specialist. So we’re not untrained in this in conventional medicine. So you would be going into that if you don’t go get a degree from a university or even naturopath or chiropractor or anything like that, you would be going into it without that kind of support. But what I was going to say about my practice is I always contended that the only thing that really works to get patients and have a successful practice is if what you do actually helps people. Because just about everybody who came to me said the reason I’m coming to you is my friend, my aunt, my cousin, my distant relative, somebody went to you and they got better.

And so I have something similar or something that I wanted to talk to you about. And that the ability to get, to help people get better depends on your willingness to really learn what this is all about now for that everybody will be different. But there has to be two components. One is you have to do it yourself. There is no possibility of anybody working in the health field in the way, in this sort of new biology way who doesn’t take care of how they eat and how they think and how they move and the water and the electromagnetic environment.

So you are your best source of experimentation and you have to take that seriously. And you will probably learn more about life and what helps people through that than anything else. And the next thing you do is to take courses. You know, we have our curriculum, that’s the way to learn the new biology stuff. There’s all kind of courses on turpentine and EMF stuff and you can take various classes. And that’s exactly the kind of educational society that I was proposing in the book, the common sense child rearing. It’s not about against people learning. I’m not against education, but I’m.

What I’m for is the facilitation of people who just say they decide I’m going to learn all about water fasting and coming together with a person who said, I’ve spent 20 years helping people do water fasting, here’s how it works. And then somehow you get them together and whatever it takes, you know, you, you train them, you work with them, you do whatever it takes so that they know what you know and they can go off and do that to the world. And that should be across the board with everything. Whether you want to learn Dostoevsky or poetry or carpentry or how to build tree forts.

And we’re talking children from age 3 or 4 or 6 up to adults who are age 100 or 90 or whatever. If you want to learn something and you have the interest, you then work on it yourself. Do the best you can. Find articles, read books, watch videos, find somebody who has more experienced and then they should have some sort of class or curriculum or teaching module or something. And the more we get away from this school model and towards that model, the more educated we’ll all be and the healthier and the freer and it won’t be based on, well, you went to a certain school and therefore you must know something that’s becoming more and more untenable and out the window.

And frankly, I want that system gone as soon as possible. And so maybe I didn’t answer your question, but it’s a combination of personal experience, self taught, getting into classes, curriculum, and then explaining to the people what you can do, working with People, if you want to become something like a chiropractor or a life coach, there are ways of doing that. So you get some sort of protection or quote, license. But I think as time goes on, even that is going to become less and less needed. Okay, from a new biology perspective, what is the purpose and cure of psycho emotional experience such as anxiety disorder? I mean, simply, you know, so the new biology perspective is anything that’s, quote, a symptom or an experience that you don’t like is your body’s way of communicating that this is.

There is an issue, and here’s what. Something that needs to be done about or something needs to be done about this. So why do we feel anxious in general? We feel anxious because there’s a danger. You know, if there’s a bear chasing you or a tiger going to eat you, you would feel anxious. And the obvious purpose of that is so that you run away or do some other protective action. So you don’t want to live without anxiety. That would be a vulnerable place to be and you could get hurt. So the first thing is to thank you, the wisdom of your body, for making you anxious and for giving you the possibility of experience.

This phenomena we call anxiety. Now, I think what most people and you are probably talking about. Yeah, but what if you feel anxious all the time and you don’t see a bear chasing you or a lion about to eat you? So I would contend that you may not see it, but there is some kind of bear or lion in your life that needs to be addressed, fixed, changed, or just even more than that. It needs to be looked at. If you’re feeling anxious, there’s something wrong in your life that needs to be looked at, felt, addressed, and probably something changed.

Whether it’s a relationship or how you’re eating or where you’re sleeping or your financial situation or whatever it is, there’s 100% of the time something that your body is communicating to you because you won’t otherwise change it. This isn’t right. There’s something that’s not right in your life, therefore you should feel anxious, and then you change it, and then you feel better. You look at it, change it, address it, then you feel better. Okay, do heart attack victims really need stents put in? And do any of the meds they put these people on afterwards actually benefit them or do they decrease lifespan also? So I’ve talked about this a number of times.

The biggest study ever done on stents, that means it comes from the theory that we have these three coronary Arteries. And all the blood flow to our heart goes through those three arteries, which is wrong, because at least 90% of the blood flow to our heart goes through small blood vessels or collateral vessels, which they conveniently don’t tell you about or draw in their drawings. So the theory is one at one or more of these arteries get blocked with plaque. The plaques inhibits the blood from going to the heart. And then you put a stent in, which is a tube that keeps the artery open, and then the blood can go back through there, and then that’s your problem is solved.

So in the biggest study that I know of that ever looked at that, it was in the Lancet around 2017 or 18 for the first time, they did something like 50 people who had chest pain and they put a stent in, and 50 people who had equivalent amount of chest pain and put no stent in, and eight weeks later they had the same amount of symptoms, same prognosis, everything was the same. And so they literally proved as the New York Times front page, or I don’t know if it’s front page, but the headlines of their article said stents proved useless.

So there’s approximately a 20 to 50 billion dollars a year industry putting stents in people. And even though the research has never shown that they prolong life, prevent heart attacks, prevent hospitalizations, or even now prevent or sort of cure or treat chest pain, so I cannot see any reason for putting stents in. And then all the drugs that they use are basically to dilate the blood vessel or stop the cholesterol from depositing. But again, the problem, as I outlined many times and in the heart book, we don’t have heart attacks because of blocked arteries. That is the main myth in this whole story.

The reason we get blocked arteries is that is a compensation mechanism or it’s a strategy of the body. To do what? To a shore up weak blood vessels so they don’t burst. And again, this comes out of the new biology way of thinking where you always ask, what would you do if you were a body and you had blood vessels that had lost their protective gel layer, and therefore the walls were weakening and inflamed and at the risk of bursting, what would you do? Well, you would put some cement in there to keep the vessel from bursting.

So we don’t have cement, but we have what we call plaque, which is basically fat and some calcification, some calcium, and we can put that in and that will keep the blood vessel from bursting. And that’s a good thing. So arteriosclerosis hardening of the arteries or plaque buildup is not a disease. It’s a strategy to keep the blood vessel from bursting and to narrow the tube. And why do you need a narrow tube? Because the flow is weak. And anytime you have weak flow and a big tube and you don’t fix the flow, you have to narrow the tube in order to make the flow better.

So that’s what the body does. If you don’t want that restriction of the blood vessels, that is plaque, then you have to restore the flow and strengthen the integrity of the vessels, because then the body will stop putting the plaque down because it doesn’t need to anymore. You’ve restored the integrity of the vessels and you’ve restored the flow. And again, a lot of the book is about how to do that. But basically, the protection of the vessels is a watery gel layer, which happens because you’re connected to the earth and to sunlight and you have enough sort of collagen protein in your diet.

In other words, bone broth. So you’re eating bone broth, you’re out in the sun, your feet are on the ground, and you’re moving in a healthy way, and that will restore your flow and. And protect your vessels. And so then you don’t need to put plaque in your vessels to keep the flow up and protect them. And you don’t need a stent and you don’t need any of the other drugs because none of them have been shown to do anything positive for you, and all of them are poison. Okay. Is it intelligent to put the request upon the Congress to make the production of genetically modified foods punishable under the law? So the.

Yeah, as people who’ve listened to me know, the first thing I would say about that is whenever the government. So the. Let me back up here. So I have two principles that I go on of how to make normal human conflicts, which of course always happen, and normal human stupid things that we all do, which of course always happens into the kind of atrocities that we see all around us. And those two things are, number one, the people who commit the atrocity have to be protected from personal responsibility. Because if somebody poisons your well, and you.

You know who it is, and you go over there to redress that, that. That crime. Most people will not want to be found in that situation and therefore won’t do it. And so people have learned who want to do big crimes that they need to not have personal responsibility for the consequences of their crime. Therefore, they. They form themselves either into governments or into corporations. Corporations are Essentially government sanctioned businesses in which the, the actual people who are running the corporation are not personally responsible. Rather, the corporation as a business is. So you can’t go to the CEO of whatever and say, stop poisoning my food because if you don’t, we’re going to put you in jail because he or she is not responsible.

The second thing that has to happen in order to create big atrocities is the people have to be convinced that it’s not their responsibility to learn about and redress these imbalances, inconsistencies or harm that was done on them. In other words, somebody poisons your well and you don’t think it’s your responsibility or your family’s. Rather it’s the epa, which should come in and stop people from poisoning wells so you don’t do anything about it. And over time, what happens inevitably is the people become more and more uninformed and passive and weak and the EPA gets more and more power and they become corrupt.

It always happens, it always will happen. There’s no way around that. It’s just the nature of the business. So to me, making a law that says you can’t do such and such, and I’m not saying that this food is good, I would say it’s not genetically modified. That isn’t possible. That’s just sort of scare tactics. And we’ve talked about that some. You can’t genetically modify food. You can put different proteins in it, you can inbreed it and you can manipulate it so that it’s essentially dysfunctional and poisonous. I’m not saying it’s good food, I’m not saying I eat so called genetically modified food, but it’s not genetically modified.

But I consider that my personal responsibility to inform myself about that and I’m responsible for avoiding that type of food. Now you could say, yeah, but what happens if there was no government, there was no entity to even label it? So how would I even know? Which is an interesting question because at that point I would be suspicious of all food that I didn’t know where it came from. Not only where the food came from, but where the farmer got their seeds and how they grew it and everything else. So which is essentially what I do now.

I eat food that either I grew or I raised, or I know the person who grew or raised it, or I at least have a, a very good idea from reading about this company or that company. And this is what we do in our Dr. Cowan’s garden all the time, to under, to under to tell people where this food came from. How is it grown, et cetera, so that you’re not eating bad poisoned food. Now what would happen if there was no law or government entity to take that over for you is there would be a true explosion of a people taking personal responsibilities and companies who would say, well, I’m going to look at all the different vinegars and I’m going to write a report about them and tell people so they don’t have to do every.

They don’t have to go vinegar shopping, you know, by themselves without any information. Obviously that’s too much for most people. And to a certain extent that’s what the Weston Price Shopping Guide has done and that’s what a group like ours do. But if there was no epa, there would be an explosion of companies who are doing that. Now one could say, well, but what if the company is corrupt and Monsanto is paying them under the table to write good reviews about their vinegar or their corn or whatever. Well, there would be other companies that would say, I found out that this is what’s happening or I did an investigation and there these guys are lying to you and they would lose their customers and they would go out of business.

And that’s great because if they’re going to take money and lie and obfuscate, they should go out of business. So what I think would happen without the law part is that would be an explosion of personal responsibility and improved health and even business activity of people stepping into the void. Now I don’t think that’s what’s going to happen because I think the people who are thinking they’re going to do something about our health think they’re going to do it by executive actions and dictates and laws and other things and you may see some positive benefit from that.

But overall it’s the same model which always ends up ineffective and corrupt. And I think there’s a whole better way to go about this. So I’m going to stop there because it’s the hour. Again, I apologize for the sound, hope the rest of it was okay and maybe we’ll get to the rest of the questions again. If you want a question, put it on the X feed. I guess you can. I guess that’s what you call it. And I hope everybody has a great week and go and buy common sense child rearing and leave a comment.

Okay, thanks everybody.
[tr:tra].

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