➡ The speaker in the webinar discussed two main topics. First, he reminded attendees about an upcoming biology event at Polyface Farm in Virginia, where he will share his learnings from the past year. Second, he announced job opportunities at Threshold Farm, a biodynamic farm in New York’s Upper Hudson Valley. He also discussed the misconception about heart attacks, explaining that the majority of blood flow to the heart is through small vessels, not the three major coronary arteries, challenging the common belief about plaque buildup and the need for stents or bypasses.
➡ The article discusses the difficulty in diagnosing diseases like measles and whooping cough before the introduction of vaccines, as these diagnoses were based solely on symptoms, not lab tests. It argues that without a definitive way to identify these diseases, it’s impossible to accurately claim that vaccines have reduced their incidence. The article also suggests that vaccines may have changed the way bodies react to toxins, leading to an increase in chronic diseases in children. Lastly, it highlights the challenges in diagnosing whooping cough due to symptom overlap with other respiratory infections.
➡ The article discusses the diagnosis and treatment of whooping cough, questioning the accuracy of current methods. It suggests that the criteria for diagnosing whooping cough are too broad, leading to potential misdiagnoses. The article also questions the effectiveness of vaccines in reducing death rates from whooping cough, citing charts that show no significant decrease in death rates after the introduction of vaccines. Finally, it argues that vaccines may be contributing to an increase in chronic respiratory illnesses in children, such as asthma.
➡ The text discusses two health conditions: spasmodic coughing and fibromyalgia. For spasmodic coughing, the author suggests using mild remedies and maintaining a positive attitude. For fibromyalgia, a condition characterized by chronic pain, the author criticizes the lack of specificity in its diagnosis and suggests that understanding the patient’s personal history and experiences is crucial for treatment. The author emphasizes that the pain experienced by fibromyalgia patients is real, but the diagnosis and understanding of the condition need to be more personalized and detailed.
➡ Fibromyalgia, a condition causing chronic pain, may be the body’s way of preventing emotional numbness due to trauma. The key to recovery isn’t just medication, but acknowledging and understanding the pain. This acceptance can lead to effective treatment and even remission. It’s important to honor the pain, not suppress it, for a natural and easy resolution.

Okay, welcome everybody. Today is another Wednesday webinar. Today is Wednesday, February 25, 2026 and as always, thanks for joining me. Hope all is going well for you and we’re still in cold snowy Northeast. So just the first announcement is that I just want to remind people about the new biology experience it at Polyface Farm in Virginia in early June and there are still spots available. And just to remind people that as I will not be speaking at the Weston Price Conferences, which is where I usually do my kind of what have I learned this past year, I’m going to be doing that at this Polyface New Biology Experience event.

So hopefully you’ll be able to meet many of the practitioners and many of our staff and make a lot of new friends and learn a lot of new things and etc. So I hope to see everybody there. The second thing is I have an announcement which I actually am going to read just to make sure I get it correct. I don’t need to sound here. And this is I’m going to just read this. Threshold Farm, which is a farm very near to us, is seeking applicants for full time positions. Either an individual, a couple on a biodynamic farm, orchard in New York’s Upper Hunter, Hudson Valley.

The applicant should have some farming experience, a strong work ethic, willingness to learn, interest in biodynamics, mechanical aptitude, interest in livestock, cattle with a focus on orchards. We offer housing, a stipend, vegetables and fruit, potential for long term involvement on this long established commercial orchard farm following the initial training period. We are a 45 acre mixed farm with 7 acres of orchards, cattle and vegetables. Longtime pioneers in growing fruit without chemicals using biodynamic practices Key line method used Our farm is in Columbia County, New York, which has strong community, social networks, work history and references required to apply Send the application or expression of interest to thresholdfarm mail.com that’s thresholdfarm mail.com and as you probably noticed, I haven’t done many sort of personal advertisements and they certainly didn’t pay me to do it.

They didn’t need to. This is where we get a lot of our fruit from. We get a lot of our meat from. They don’t use antibiotics or vaccinate their cows, so we get a lot of our meat from there. We buy like a quarter or half of a cow maybe once or twice a year, get a lot of our apples from there. But most importantly maybe is this is the farm that Pumpkin and Fluffy were born on and the two farmers couple, they actually picked out Pumpkin and Fluffy for us, saying mostly that they thought they had a good temperament and that they got along well.

And then I remember picking them up and as they say, the rest is history. And that was one of the most impactful change, changing moments of my life to bring that little guy and his little sister home. They were somewhere around eight weeks, maybe 10, I don’t remember exactly. They had just been weaned, brought them home and you know, the rest of the. So I am forever grateful to the farmers there. So this is a great place if people want to work there. And this is an opportunity. And you see the email address if you’re interested and I’ll let you and them take it from there.

Okay, I think so. That was that. There’s a few subjects I wanted to get into today. The first one comes about and again I’m going to share my screen here. So I’ve been. Whenever I talk about what causes heart attacks, I let me just share the screen because I think it’ll make it easier to talk about. I show you this picture. Now this is a picture very similar to what almost all cardiologists will show you. They usually have a drawing of this and then when they do their catheterization in the angiogram or they do a stress echo, they show you where the various blockages are in these three major coronary arteries.

So there you see them, there’s three big tubes, orange tubes or dark orange, I guess. And then the right, the left anterior descending and the lca. And those are the three major coronary arteries. And then you see the branches from those. And they show you the picture. They have a drawing. I thought maybe that was about the sound, but I think the sound is good. So they show you the drawing and then they show you where the different blockages are on these three major coronary arteries. And then they say we need to do a stent because if it blocks any further, then you’re going to have a heart attack or we need to do a bypass or you need to take statin drugs or some other kind of drugs to lower the plaque in those arteries.

That you can’t really do that, but to prevent more plaque being built up, et cetera. And I’ve pointed out that this first of all is not an actual picture of a heart or the circulation of the heart. This is either an artist rendering or a CGI computer generated image. Obviously that doesn’t need to be proven. This is obviously not a real art. Neither are any of the drawings you have seen. And so I have Been saying to people, well, it turns out there is actually. And Beroldi actually figured out how to actually visualize the blood vessel network in a healthy heart from the front and from behind.

And for a number of years, for some reason I couldn’t find the picture. It was on the heartattacknew.com website, which has been sort of eliminated, and I couldn’t find the picture. So I was telling people they just had to take my word for it. But for some reason I went and looked again and I found the website and I found the picture. And so here’s the picture. And all this is different is that this guy has learned to how to visualize the actual blood vessel network in a normal heart. And as you can see, I have sometimes used the.

The estimate of 90 to 95% of the blood flow to the heart comes through these non major, not the three major blood vessels, three major coronary arteries. So here you can still see the coronary arteries. They’re still visualized. But this is more like a watershed or a. Yeah, like a pond than it is a river. And the difference is only how you end up trying to visualize the blood vessel network. And so the thing that I want people to realize is that this coronary artery diagrams and coronary angiograms, which is where they put a catheter in and put dye into your blood vessels in your heart, and they visualize the blood vessel network in your heart, but all they see are these three major coronary arteries.

And that’s not. Because that’s where that’s all the blood vessel network. Obviously this is the blood vessel network. In a normal healthy heart. Everybody has these. So coronary angiograms essentially are artifactual tests that falsely give you the impression that all of the blood flow to the heart is through these three major coronary arteries, when that’s clearly and obviously not the case. So why do they show you this, why do they show you these, that other diagram and not a picture like this? Well, first of all, they may not know how to create to visualize a picture like this, it takes a sort of different technique.

But the reason they are not interested in finding this technique, if you showed somebody this and you said, well, look, you have a blockage in this blood vessel right here or right here, you might say, yeah, but that doesn’t mean anything because 90% or more of the blood goes around. It doesn’t go through that anyways. So it makes no difference. It has no impact on the health of the heart. And so I Don’t want to do your stentor bypass because that hasn’t been shown to work anyways. And so the whole thing would fall on its face because this obviously shows that the blood flow to the heart is mostly through small vessels, which they cannot bypass, they cannot stent, and we don’t even know really that they get much plaque buildup.

So the whole plaque argument, the whole stenting argument, the whole bypass argument is basically eliminated just by showing the correct blood vessel network in a healthy heart from the front and behind. And that’s what Boroldi did. And that led him to conclude that the whole coronary artery stenosis theory has been disproven. So it should be called the disproven coronary artery stenosis hypothesis. So at least finally I found the. The picture, which I had been referring to and asking people to take my word for it for years. And I never liked that. So now we see the picture and hopefully everybody gets it from that.

All right, let’s move on. Just going to move this over a little bit. Right. Okay. So then I wanted to talk about whooping cough, otherwise known as pertussis. So let me go again to my screen, and I have a PowerPoint, which of course I didn’t make, but I at least know how to click it. So that’s something. So this isn’t. This first slide is not about whooping cough. But anyways, I’ll tell you why I put this in. So measles and measles vaccination. This was a. From a journal, the Canadian Canada Medical Association Journal, November 14, 1964, Volume 91.

I had a hard time finding that journal article, but there’s the reference if you want it. The diagnosis of measles rubiola, until just recently, has been based entirely on clinical grounds. It is now recognized that many morbiliform rashes are associated with infections due to virus types other than that causing measles. Then they go on to talk about coplic spots. And I’ve already talked about how complex spots have been proven on their terms to not be a pathognomonic, meaning a definitive sign of that the measles virus is the cause of this particular illness. Now, why is this important? Because, in other words, before the introduction of the measles vaccine, which was around 1963, all of the diagnosis of measles was, as they say, entirely on clinical grounds.

What does that mean? It means you saw, you asked the person their symptoms or asked the parents. So I had a fever and mucus and sometimes a cough and sometimes an earache and a rash which is described as red and sometimes itchy and et cetera. So what they’re saying is this was the entire diagnosis. There were no molecular tests, there was no pcr, there was no antigen test, there were no antibody tests. And so the entire diagnosis was based on signs and symptoms, what the person told you and what you could see. Now the reason I’m bringing this up is because there has been a number of interest in this so called no virus position lately.

And one of the things that keeps getting brought up is, so if there’s no virus, how do you explain how vaccines work? So let’s, here’s how to answer this. So one of the reasons I do these webinars is to give you the ammunition. Anybody listening? So if anybody asks you that question, you will know exactly how to answer that. So the first step in that is don’t we agree or do we agree? You ask the person that the diagnosis of measles before the introduction of the vaccine, as they say here, was entirely on clinical grounds, in other words, signs and symptoms.

The obvious answer to that is yes. The next thing is to ask them, can you tell me how a doctor knows for sure that this child with a fever and a cough and a rash has measles as opposed to some other type of illness? In other words, what are the pathognomonic definitive signs or symptoms that tell you that this is measles and not some other disease? The only honest, accurate answer to that that is acknowledged by the cdc, acknowledged by everybody who’s looked into this is that there is none. There are no signs and symptoms that distinguish measles from any other or many other so called rash, fever, like mucus diseases, right? So in other words, there was no way before 1963 to know whether anybody had measles or not.

And the other thing I want to mention is if you say of course they knew that this child had measles, and by the way, if they know anything about it, they would probably bring up Koplik spots, in which case you can inform them that that has been proven not to be a pathognomonic sign of a measles infection. So that doesn’t work either. And then you ask them, so how do you know? If you say this child has measles, how can you verify that you’re correct? Think about that for a minute. So here you have somebody. There’s no lab tests and we know, and this has been shown in many, many studies that doctors, experienced pediatricians, can’t distinguish measles from many other so called childhood diseases or rash diseases with rash and fever.

So how do you know that you’re correct? Again, the only honest, accurate answer is, is you can’t know. Now this is different from how do you know somebody’s pregnant? Well, you can feel or see a baby or the baby comes out. How do you know a bone is fractured? Well, you can see an X ray and you see a crack in the bone. How do you know somebody has measles as opposed to scarlet fever or rubella or a bunch of other so called childhood illnesses? The answer is there is no gold standard. There is no way to verify this.

So it’s just a guess. And so how do you know that if you don’t know who had or how many people or which people had measles before the vaccine, how can you possibly say that there was a reduction in this disease and after the vaccine when you have no idea and no way to know who had measles and who didn’t? Again, the only honest, accurate answer is nobody has any idea. Therefore the claim that the measles vaccine or any vaccine reduced the incidence of a specific disease falsified because we don’t have any way of knowing or even knowing whether these are specific diseases.

And in fact what I’m saying is if you even look at the CDC and other definitive so called sources, they say there’s no clinical way to know whether who had measles and who didn’t. There’s no way to verify it. And then when they get into, well, you can do a PCR or an antibody or an antigen test, then you go into, well that means you have to have found the virus, which is obviously not the case. And so there’s no way to know. And so there’s no way to say that the rashes, the measles incidence has decreased as a result of the vaccines.

There’s no way to say that because you don’t know who had it before and you don’t know who had it after. You don’t even know that it’s a specific disease. In fact, by all sense and indication, it’s not. None of them are. They’re just ways that the body expresses themselves, which then finally if you end up having to give an explanation, which I talked about in my vaccine book, so why is there a different expression of illness, say now than there was 50 years ago? And the answer is obvious because if you inject people with various poisons and you expose them to various toxins, you will obviously change the way their bodies express things.

And so it will look differently. And in fact, if you that what they called measles was basically a harmless elimination sort of growth process, nonspecific, wasn’t a disease. And so they’ve turned that by poisoning people into something worse like chronic eczema or chronic dermatitis or psoriasis or asthma or so called allergies. And so all these vaccines, essentially, they don’t eliminate these acute diseases, they don’t reduce the incidence, they just change the way the body has to deal with the different toxicity and always making it worse. Which is exactly the reason why we see this chronic disease epidemic in children, because we poisoned them and not allow them to go through the normal elimination processes like they used to.

And so that should be the clear answer. And anybody who doesn’t get that, it’s probably not worth going on. Okay, hopefully that’s clear. And now we can apply basically the same reasoning to so called whooping cough or pertussis. So diagnosing pertussis, particularly in infants, poses challenges due to symptom overlap with other respiratory infections. First of all, they claim it’s an infection. There’s no reference or proof of that. But this is the same story over and over again. Well, it turns out it’s pretty hard to diagnose pertussis because the symptoms are just like a whole lot of other respiratory situations which they’re calling so called infections.

Symptoms like paroxysmal cough, apnea, cyanosis, typically found in infants and can also present with non specific symptoms like mild cough and fever to severe complications such as pneumonia, seizures and cephalopathy. In other words, all the things that are lumped together into the diagnosis of whooping cough can be these paroxysms of coughing, like spasmodic coughing, even so that you get apnea, so you essentially stop breathing and turn a little blue. This can be found in some children, but it can also be non specific things like mild cough and a little bit of a fever. You could have pneumonia, you could have seizures, you could have brain inflammation, respiratory failure and death.

And all of that gets lumped together into a specific disease called whooping cough. And again, remember that diagram I showed you? When they want to create an epidemic, all these different cough syndromes are lumped together and called whooping cough. And then they roll out the vaccine. And then by some miracle, all these that used to be whooping cough or polio or measles somehow become dermatitis and eczema and allergies and RSV and all the other respiratory illnesses. In the case of whooping cough, although older children and adults may experience less severe symptoms. Primary care providers should remain vigilant in diagnosing pertussis infection the community.

So they also diagnose it in older children and adults, in which case there’s less severe and it doesn’t look like any any different than any other cough pneumonia, bronchitis that are now called many other types of quote infections. The center for Disease Control and Prevention Praise B and the World Health Organization Praise B have formulated clinical guidelines that have low specificity but high sensitivity. That means they’re not specific for anything. They don’t tell you who has whooping cough, but they lump a whole lot of people into this category. The CDC defines the pertussis case as a cough of any duration.

So apparently one cough and you got whooping cough or you cough for six weeks and you got whooping cough and anywhere in between accompanied by at least one additional symptom. Paroxysm coughing, inspiratory whoop post tussive, that’s after cough throwing up emesis or apnea in children less than a year along with contact with a laboratory confirmed case or a cough lasting at least two weeks with one of these symptoms. So that is a broad brush. So anybody with a cough over two weeks has whooping cough. Anybody who throws up after they cough has whooping cough. Anybody who does any kind of whoop has whooping cough.

Anybody with pneumonia who goes, who stops breathing for a minute or some period of time has whooping cough. But it should has to be a laboratory confirmed case. So that’s the key here. So the symptoms don’t tell you. The CDC is admitting that this is a low specificity. In other words, they can’t tell you for sure who has it. Anybody with a cough over two weeks might. It’s all dependent now on the lab. And just by the way, this has the same problem, which I would take these charts with a huge grain of salt, but you can sometimes show these to people.

So you see the deaths from what they’re calling whooping cough. Again, we have the same problem of we don’t know who had it and who didn’t. So how can you possibly make a chart of how the incidence was reduced? But even on their own terms with their diagnosing what they say, when you can see on the bottom, 53, 79, 96. When the vaccines were introduced, it had essentially no effect on the death rate from what they were calling whooping cough. You see the same thing with diphtheria. The vaccine had essentially no reduction, resulted in no reduction in deaths from diphtheria.

Here’s another one, this is from New Zealand. So you see the deaths per 100,000 and you see when they introduced the vaccine, and by that time it had essentially no effect on the death rate from what they were calling whooping cough. I would be careful with throwing out these graphs though, because you run into the same problem of you’re essentially admitting that there was a specific diagnosable disease which is clearly not the case. So how do you know that they had whooping cough? How do you verify that this was whooping cough without having any laboratory confirmation before 1960? The answer is you can’t.

There is no gold standard, there is therefore no verification, therefore charts like this are essentially useless. And here you see the one from New York City, same thing. Even on their own terms, which I would be careful using their own terms, there was no reduction in the death rate as a result of the introduction of the vaccine. So at the end of the day, the whole mythology of whooping cough hinges on the laboratory confirmation. And that of course hinges on the presumed causation of whooping cough, which is a bacteria called board Bordetella pertussis. So here’s a little chart on the history of this.

Hang on a minute. So the name pertussis first appears Latin for intensive cough, introduced apparently by English Guy Sydenham in 1670, took over earlier names included Whooping Cough, etc. So that’s when they started saying, well, I wonder if this is different. But it wasn’t until 1990, and this is so interesting when you really understand what happened here, 1990, Jules Bordeaux, along with Octave Jeanjou, observed a small ovoid bacteria in the sputum of a five month old child suffering from pertussis, I would say allegedly suffering from pertussis. However, the discovery remained questionable as the organism was unable to be isolated and cultivated on ordinary acidic agar or blood agar plates.

So what does that mean? It means they took a five month old child who they claimed had whooping cough, even though, as we now know, there is no way at that point to distinguish without any clinical, without any laboratory confirmation who had whooping cough and who didn’t. And they found an organism which they said in the sputum and they claimed that that must be the cause of the disease. Because we all know that if you find firemen at the site of a fire, that must mean the firemen caused the fire. So all they found was an organism in the sputum, the mucus of a child with alleged pertussis.

And that was enough to claim that this organism was the cause of the disease? No, isolation, they say isolation was not possible. And they were growing it on ordinary plates that they used to just grow bacteria, and it wouldn’t grow and they couldn’t isolate it from that plate. Then in 1906, you go to the other side. Six years later, these same two guys succeeded in making a special medium called Bordeaux BG medium, which proved to be key for isolating the bacteria for the first time. It was eventually named Bordetella pertussis in honor of Bordeaux. So what do they mean here? So they find a bacteria which they can’t grow on ordinary bacteria growing medium, and so they make a special medium, which means it has certain things and maybe certain ph, maybe certain nutrients, and that allows for this bacteria to appear.

Now, rather than saying, which is anybody who understands pleomorphism would saying that the reason they got a particular bacteria when they changed the medium is because that’s what happens to bacteria. When you change the terrain, when you change the nutrients, when you change the conditions, you will get different forms of bacteria that grow and the bacteria morph into those forms. And that appearing bacteria was not actually there in the person at all. There is no proof of that. All it means is you took some sputum, put that on a very specific growth medium, which then essentially forced a certain type and a certain morphology of bacteria to grow.

And they said, eureka. We found the bacteria because they used a very specific growth medium that essentially, in a pleomorphic meaning, the growth medium determines the morphology of the bacteria. The problem in this case is with the theory that the bacteria are specific, unchangeable entities that don’t change their form. And that hypothesis has been falsified. Bacteria will change their form. And if you put a special medium, you will force a new type of morphology, a new type of bacteria to grow. And then you can say, you see, this bacteria is somehow unique, but it wasn’t in the person.

It was only because that’s the culture medium that you grew it in. And, and today that is still how this organism is isolated. The organism has never been isolated and shown to cause disease. We’ve looked for a study showing that it’s not the case. The disease has never been shown to be transmitted from one sick person to another. We can’t find any scientific study that verifies that once they see this bacteria, then they can do antibody tests and PCR claiming that if the PCR that matches this bacteria and meaning it’s absolutely nonspecific, as is the antibody, as is the antigen.

So these are meaningless tests, that those are the laboratory confirmation of this disease. So in other words, the whole thing is a house of cards, smoke and mirrors. There is no specific disease, therefore we have no idea whether we have no confirmation that the vaccine reduced the incidence of something which we can’t demonstrate in the first place. And so once again, all it is, is giving children poisons which then change the way they express their illness, always in a worse way. And typically, instead of having a respiratory event which then they get over and go on not to have chronic respiratory problems, suddenly with the advent of all these kind of suppressive, poisonous vaccines, we see the rise in chronic respiratory illness, which is never called chronic whooping cough, it’s made in different name, typically asthma.

And if you look at a chart, you can see the decrease of what they call whooping cough and other so called infectious respiratory diseases, the introduction of the vaccines and the rise of chronic respiratory illness in children, particularly asthma. And so all they’ve done is trade something that gets better basically on its own to something that can become almost a lifelong or certainly the entire childhood problem. And that is exactly what we’re dealing with. And that’s exactly what you see if you look at this with unbiased eyes. Okay. I think that’s pretty much all you need to know about whooping cough.

And at some point we can talk about whether you need to do anything about it. I can say something now. You know, at this point I would probably. We, we used to use homeopathic medicines. There’s a series of them called Pertadoran 1 and 2, which I used a lot of, and compresses over the chest. Nowadays I might use something like chlorine dioxide, a very small mild dose, or specific homeopathic remedies for spasmodic coughing and compresses. And the most important thing of all is to remain calm and just sit with your child and have a very positive attitude, knowing that this is their body’s way of cleaning out some type of debris or something that was irritating them.

And that should take care of the problem. Okay, so then I also said I would talk about fibromyalgia. And I know I’m sounding a bit like a broken record here, but that’s one of the main principles hallmarks of the new biology way of thinking and what we do at the new biology clinic and is we get away from these unfalsifiable diagnoses, these nonspecific alleged diagnoses, which needs specific symptoms and simply describe what it is that you see. So when you go look up what, what is the claim for the diagnosis of fibromyalgia? It’s very interesting, and I don’t have the CDC slide here to show you, but they say a person who has chronic pain, it’s usually in younger people, meaning not over 50 and more women than men for some reason, which of course they say is genetic, which there’s no evidence for that.

So you. They have chronic pain at various points on their body, and the pain can be anywhere from mild to severe. No surprise there, because it’s nonspecific and there are trigger points. And that they claim is the sort of pathognomonic or distinguishing feature from fibromyalgia. From just somebody who says, oh, I got a lot of pain and I’m sore. Trigger point means if you push on certain areas and there’s specific fibromyalgia trigger points, they’re somewhat uniform and somewhat unique or specific to that person. They will feel more heightened amount of pain as a result of pushing on the trigger points.

So basically we’re talking about a person who has musculoskeletal pain. And when you push on certain points, that pain is increased. And as you can imagine, there’s nothing that’s very specific or distinguishing about that. Most of us have pain at certain points, and most of us would have times when if you pushed on certain points, it would be more painful than others. And some of it, some of us have this. That goes on a long time and some not so long. And both of those things are the case with fibromyalgia. And just to be clear, because some people, when they hear this say, are, say.

So you mean that I don’t hurt, or you mean that I’m making this up, or you mean that it’s all in my head? And obviously I didn’t say any of those things. If the person says they feel pain, I 100% believe them that they have the experience of feeling pain. As far as this question about are you saying it’s all in my head or it’s in my mind and not my body? I’ve said this before. I always used to ask them if they could please tell me where their mind stops and their body starts, or vice versa, then I could tell them whether it’s in their mind or their body, because I can’t tell that.

I can’t make that distinction. And as far as I know, nobody else has been able to tell me. So I don’t know whether it’s in your mind or your body and I don’t know how to distinguish between the two. Anyways, I just know that this is your experience and so that’s what I’m going with this. So that’s where we start here. What is your experience? So I was fine and then when I was 12 or 18, something happened or I don’t know if something happened, but all of a sudden I started feeling more pain and then it got worse and worse and now I’m in such pain that I can’t run my life the way I want to.

I can’t work because I’m in pain. And if you push on certain areas, it’s so bad that I can hardly bear it. And I absolutely need some help here. That is the experience of somebody with fibromyalgia. So obviously then we go back into the story, that’s what we do with every case and try to find out what precipitated this. This is the anvil falling on somebody’s head situation. So if you never had a headache in your life and then one day an anvil fell on your head and and then you have headaches after that, it’s probably from the anvil.

But most of the people who say they have fibromyalgia don’t remember the anvil, or there’s not a clear anvil, or there’s nothing specific they can point to, which the first thing, then you need to start asking even more pointed and specific questions. Did you have a vaccine around that time? Did you change your diet? If so, what did you used to eat and what did you start eating after that? Did you start taking any medicines? Did you have anything happen in your family, in your living situation, in the way you move? Did you get a new bicycle? Did you get a new cell phone? Did you put a new wristwatch, smart wristwatch, so called, on your wrist? You need to get into the absolute details of what happened in their life.

And that’s what I used to do with people, including people with fibromyalgia. And when you do that process with people, you’re actually inviting their intuition and their remembering into the space and they will start to remember something that they had thought of, may have been the precipitating cause and that they had somehow buried in their so called psyche. But when you invite this kind of inquiry, especially as specific as possible, it somehow unlocks these memories and the people can remember, oh, Yes, I always wondered if it was such and such. And they often use exactly that wording that I remember thinking at the time.

I wonder if it was that I only ate bananas for a month, that may have been what did it, or that I got a vaccine, or that I went to college and I didn’t want to go to college, or I couldn’t go to college and I wanted to go to college, or there was some conflict, or my father passed away, or my brother decided to run away from home and he was only 6, or my cat died or something. And they often will bury that, that memory in their being and not remember it. But what was so interesting to me about working with people with so called fibromyalgia.

So obviously we’re totally away from this as a diagnosis and we’re looking for the story here. And I actually saw this with two distinct situations, sometimes called diseases. And it would come up, I wouldn’t say every time, and I don’t even know if it’s a majority of the time, but I would say frequently with the 2 diagnosis of Lyme disease and fibromyalgia. And so the situation went something like this. A person would come in. Sometimes it was a youngish woman in her 20s or 30s, but not always. It could be a man, it could be somebody who’s a little younger or a little older.

And I would say the same thing. I always say, so what’s up? And they would say, I have fibromyalgia. And I would say, how do you feel? And they would say things like people with fibromyalgia have pain all over 24, 7, and it’s getting worse and worse and I can’t do my life. So when I would hear that, I’m always looking for things that you could say are exaggerations or clearly not true. And the first thing that struck me about that, that I kept hearing was nobody actually has pain 24 hours a day because people sleep.

And so that is an exaggeration. And there’s reasons why people exaggerate their symptoms, which I’ll get into for a minute. But that was. That happened in those two scenarios many, many times. The other thing is they would often say that people with fibromyalgia, so they refer to this in sort of, I think you call that the third person have symptoms everywhere. Everywhere hurts. Now again, not everywhere hurts. Your tooth doesn’t hurt and probably your big toenail doesn’t hurt. So it’s not everywhere. It’s always somewhere specifically. Now it may be a Lot of places, but it’s never everywhere.

So that’s another interesting thing that I would hear. And so another exaggeration. And then I would keep going. So I would say, and I really wonder, so how do you feel when you wake up in the morning? People with fibromyalgia, when they wake up, it’s usually the worst time. And I would keep pressing them. So how do you feel like if you eat breakfast, does that make you feel better? People with fibromyalgia have trouble digesting their food. Some people think it’s got to do with their gut flora. And so when people with fibromyalgia eat food, it sometimes gets worse.

And I would go on like that until people would often get frustrated with me and they would say some things like, I thought you knew about fibromyalgia and I thought you could help me. And you don’t seem to know what the story with fibromyalgia is. So I heard that a number of times. And at that point then I would tell their story back to them. So I kept hearing this and I. It’s not. Those are not the only two situations that I would hear it in. But I ended up coming to a conclusion that I think has a lot to do with the whole story of what we’re calling fibromyalgia is these seem to be, and this is a generalization which is maybe not in line with my unique story telling scenario, but I kept hearing the same kind of scenario and I started wondering, and I obviously can’t prove this because one of the hallmarks of the way that I think in the way new biology is the body is very wise and doesn’t make mistakes and is giving you pain for a reason.

It’s not that the people don’t have pain. It’s not that specific areas don’t hurt. It’s not that it’s not debilitating or affecting or maybe even ruining the light your life. The question is, why is your body doing this? And it seemed to me that this inability to say I feel pain in a certain place and to accurately described it often came about because of a situation, something that happened in their life that essentially made them go numb. It could be a, you know, emotional trauma, sexual trauma, physical trauma, conflict or poisoning or something. And essentially they had.

It was almost as if they could feel nothing. And so then I would ask myself if I was somebody’s body. And I had a choice between feeling nothing or feeling pain, even chronic pain, even as unpleasant and debilitating as that is which would I choose? And I would choose feeling pain because at least then you can have the impulse, the impetus to do something about it. And I think that’s basically what was happening. Again, not everybody, not everybody’s story is the same. But I kept hearing this. And the reason I ended up thinking it was accurate is when I would get people who had this situation to actually essentially own and acknowledge and accurately describe what was happening.

That was the turning point and that was what led to them getting better. It wasn’t anti inflammatories, it wasn’t giving them turmeric, it was not giving them different diets. It was simply the acknowledgment. And often there was a huge breakthrough when they would have a clear understanding. Yes, something happened to me and I was at risk of going numb. And it was at that point or shortly after that this pain started. And you can then feel gratitude for the pain. You can acknowledge that it’s there and it’s telling you, don’t go numb, don’t give up, don’t go to sleep, don’t go numb.

Stay with it, stay with life, stay with the process. If you own the pain, acknowledge the pain, go into the pain. You will. Then that will open up what you should eat and what you should take and what you should do. And the first step was owning it. The rest of it then followed pretty easily. And that’s when I saw people get better and they got better quickly and it seemed almost magical. Whereas the people who couldn’t shift from the diagnosis seemed to never get better. No matter how many natural medicines or turmerics or red light or anything I gave them, they had to say, this is my pain, this is my body giving it to me for a good reason.

I’m honoring that. I have gratitude for it, but I want to do things differently now and what can I do? And then the revelations came. The change in diet came, the red light started to work, the turmeric started to work, and we went on to have a complete remission of all those symptoms. And that was a huge lesson for me in the accurate, honest way of doing medicine. And any attempt to suppress the symptoms by giving codeine or anti inflammatories just risk making the person more numb. And then it would never end. And that’s exactly what happens.

And it didn’t seem to be any better or any different even if they were natural medicines. It’s not about getting you to be more numb or feel less pain. It’s by going into the pain, honoring it, feeling gratitude for it understanding the situation that it came in, then the resolution flows easily and naturally from there. All right, that’s fibromyalgia, whooping cough, how the circulation in the heart is and what to say to people who say, but didn’t the vaccines get rid of measles? So I hope everybody has a good week, and I will see you next week.
[tr:tra].

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