Latest / UK Column Radio / Andrew Kaufman on Germ Theory versus Terrain Theory

Transcript

Andrew Kaufman on Germ Theory versus Terrain Theory · UK Column Radio

0:35
None. Listen, I've got to tell you,
0:39
you're one of my favorite guests and I've said this to a few
0:42
guests. So but I do mean it because I
0:46
think I came across you and your work.
0:49
Oh, I don't know, it must have been around 2021.
0:51
I invited you onto my podcast. I can't watch that anymore.
0:56
It makes me cringe. The way I, I spoke to you was
1:01
completely unprofessional. And and and the reason is
1:03
because this was a paradigm shift that I wasn't ready for
1:08
yet. Well, you're quite welcome.
1:10
And I, I also extend my gratitude to you because you
1:14
know, you were willing to entertain quite revolutionary
1:19
ideas about, about health and medicine and, and you brought me
1:22
onto a platform to help, you know, other people hear the
1:25
message and you know, the, the facts speak for themselves.
1:30
So once you can put the emotions aside and actually apply logic
1:35
and reason to the matter, you know you'll you'll come around.
1:40
Let's start at the start here. So this is your first time on my
1:43
UK column show. So we're talking effectively
1:46
about germ theory versus terrain theory, basically why germs
1:52
don't cause sickness. Why is this important?
1:58
Well, I mean, you know, the whole modern healthcare system
2:04
is based around germs being the cause of a lot of things, right?
2:10
Obviously, aside from COVID, we already had, you know, HIV and
2:15
AIDS, bacterial pneumonia and other infections, you know,
2:20
flesh eating bacteria, sexually transmitted diseases, it even
2:26
unexplained illnesses. They suspect, right, that there
2:30
are viruses involved with certain cancers, even diabetes.
2:35
So it's pervasive and there are many, you know, what I would
2:40
consider false remedies or more bluntly, poisons that are used
2:44
routinely like antibiotics and antivirals.
2:48
Right. Based on a false premise.
2:53
Yeah. Well, there, there was a, you
2:55
know, vigorous debate around this idea and the, the medical
2:58
community, you know, largely in the 19th century was very much
3:03
against this as, as the nature of reality.
3:07
And it was really, you know, Robert Koch's work, that and
3:12
Pasteur's work that pushed it to the forefront and, you know,
3:16
coincided with the, you know, Rockefeller medicine Flexner
3:22
report as well. Yeah, you mentioned Robert Koch
3:27
now, I mean, he created those postulates on which the.
3:31
Sort of. He wrote them down.
3:32
He didn't actually create them. There's.
3:36
OK, right. Talked about that before, but
3:38
you know that's how history works, right?
3:41
Some people get credit and even if they didn't do the work, but
3:45
it, it's basically if, if any layperson were to think about it
3:51
and ponder it for a while, you know, how do you prove that a
3:53
germ causes a disease? It's pretty self-evident.
3:57
I mean, first of all, you'd have to find the germ in the person
4:01
who is sick, right? And you a corollary to that is
4:04
you should not find it in someone who's healthy, right?
4:08
Because if, if that germ causes the disease, if it's present,
4:11
there should be the disease. And then you should be able to
4:16
find that germ in the sick person, right, That you think
4:20
has the disease that the germ causes and take it out of the
4:24
person. And then once you take it out,
4:28
then you can give it to another Organism that who's healthy,
4:33
right? This could be an animal or a
4:35
human and then show that they manifest the same disease.
4:41
So, you know, very simple. I think anyone in the audience,
4:44
if you just thought about a little, you would come up with
4:47
those ideas as a way to test this hypothesis that a germ
4:51
causes a disease. And they teach this still, you
4:56
know, to medical students and other health professions.
4:59
But what they don't do in school is they don't show you the
5:04
actual experiments for each germ because, and there's a specific
5:09
reason for that is because those experiments don't actually
5:13
satisfy the postulates. One that in the the Organism
5:18
with the disease, you find the germ that causes it, then you
5:22
can you can take that germ out. Now, you know, officially it
5:26
says grow it in a pure culture, but you just have to have it by
5:30
itself really. Then you can take that germ, put
5:33
it in a healthy Organism and it should be of course by a natural
5:38
root of how you think this spreads in nature and then show
5:43
that that Organism gets the same disease.
5:47
So like Robert Koch did research on tuberculosis, OK, now we're
5:53
we're told that tuberculosis is caused by a bacteria, right?
5:57
It's called Mycobacterium tubercula tuberculae or
6:00
something like that. And Robert Koch was trying to
6:05
apply his own postulates to tuberculosis and he he failed
6:09
miserably, but was given credit as if he didn't fail for some
6:13
reason. And so he couldn't actually find
6:17
the the Mycobacterium in people with tuberculosis.
6:22
And he also found it in people without tuberculosis.
6:26
So right on the first, you know on its face it failed.
6:31
I used AI and asked her to search the Internet for any
6:37
clinical trial that successfully shows transmission of a pathogen
6:45
between humans and it comes up with the results saying it
6:50
cannot find anything like that. Well, you know, so I, I don't
6:58
trust AI, so I wouldn't rely only on those results.
7:02
But in this case that matches with my own research.
7:07
And I'm sure you've had or or planning to have Daniel Roydas
7:11
as a guest who wrote. I have spoken to him.
7:14
Can you catch a cold where he he reviewed, you know, over 100
7:18
studies trying to show that colds are contagious.
7:23
They even, you know, had a facility in the Uki forget what
7:26
it's called, but it it was advertised like, you know, come
7:30
here, volunteer to be an experimental subject and have
7:34
like a vacation, Like it was on a very pastoral piece of land
7:38
and such. And they put people in cabins
7:40
together, you know, where somebody had a cold and there
7:43
were two or three people that spent a couple of days in the
7:46
cabin with them to see if they got colds as well, those kinds
7:50
of experiments. And they were never able to
7:54
really prove or gather any sufficient evidence about
7:58
contagion of colds and flu whatsoever.
8:01
But the counter response, Andy, is that well, the immune systems
8:05
were strong, they were healthy. Well, I mean, you could say
8:09
that, but then you would have to do experiments to show that that
8:14
was the case right now. These were largely all these
8:17
studies were done with healthy people, healthy volunteers who,
8:21
you know, didn't have immunosuppressive drugs, didn't
8:25
have immune deficiency syndromes or anything like that.
8:29
So you know what, what happens here is that there's a a false
8:33
reasoning in what you just said because you, the way science
8:38
works is you come up with a hypothesis, right, that oh OK,
8:42
that colds are contagious. They pass from one person to
8:45
another through bodily secretions, right?
8:49
And that's what we're told happens today.
8:53
So then you, you expose, you design an experiment, right,
8:57
where you expose healthy people to the secretions of the sick
9:01
people. And you see if, if they get the
9:06
same illness, now the hypothesis would say that all the people
9:12
exposed would get the illness. But then you do the experiment
9:15
and that's not what happens. So what you should do then is
9:19
revise your hypothesis and then design a new experiment to test
9:24
that. But that's not what happened.
9:26
What happened is, is that they they don't get the results that
9:31
would support their hypothesis. So after the fact, they just
9:35
changed their hypothesis. So the results support it, but
9:39
only with a, a mild modification, right?
9:41
So they say, well, this proves that it's contagious and the
9:44
people who didn't get sick, that they had a faulty immune system,
9:48
but we didn't measure their immune system.
9:51
There's no way to measure it. We, we don't actually have an
9:54
experiment where we test that, but it helps us keep our
9:58
hypothesis going. It a true scientist, you know,
10:03
who would look at those results empirically would say what if
10:07
there's another some other reason these folks are sick or
10:14
and let's test that, you know, and that's what what wasn't
10:17
done. Unfortunately, no matter what
10:20
the results are, they still kept their hypothesis exactly the
10:24
same and just tried to explain it away with that sort of post
10:27
hoc analysis. I mean a common response Andy is
10:33
that they say, well, we have other ways of testing these
10:36
things. We don't need to use a
10:38
double-blind trial. You know, modelling is
10:43
definitely something I talk a lot about.
10:45
And I think there's modelling in terms of in vitro experiments
10:49
where you take things out of the Organism and mess around with
10:54
them in the laboratory in unnatural or artificial
10:56
conditions. And then there's also computer
10:59
simulations like we see with, for example, the metagenomic
11:04
sequencing, right, which is how they come up with essentially
11:09
manufactured genome sequences for viruses.
11:14
And when I was an undergraduate, I had a summer job initially at
11:20
a biotech company and it became like a part time job throughout
11:24
the year. And I was introduced to what
11:27
they call molecular modelling. And this is where you use a
11:31
pretty sophisticated computer workstation and it has this very
11:37
powerful software where you can input the X-ray crystal
11:42
structure of like an enzyme, like a protein.
11:45
And that would be a target for a drug, for example, or something
11:49
that you just wanted to study biologically.
11:52
And you can do all these simulations or modeling of
11:57
different interactions with other molecules.
11:59
So you can sort of, for example, have a candidate drug molecule
12:04
and you can upload that molecule and the target like I when I was
12:09
there, they were working on thrombin inhibitors.
12:12
Thrombin is a enzyme in the clotting system.
12:15
So they're trying to develop a blood thinning drug.
12:18
They actually have one on the market now.
12:20
So they did, they were, you know, successful.
12:24
And so we would look at, I would input different versions of the
12:29
candidate drug molecules and model the interactions with the
12:34
thrombin protein. And when we applied this to
12:38
experimental research in a laboratory, we saw that it, it
12:41
didn't not predict the results. And also I, they sent me on a
12:47
training course, like for a few days to learn how to use the
12:50
software because it was not easy to use.
12:53
In fact, no one in the company knew how to use it.
12:55
They weren't, they were only using it to make pictures.
12:58
They weren't actually using it for its intended purpose.
13:01
So when I went on that course, I learned that there were like
13:07
dozens of number values that you you had to just set because they
13:14
weren't these were things that couldn't be measured, they
13:17
couldn't be known or they were unknown and you would basically
13:21
set them where you thought they should be.
13:23
And when I started tweaking around with those settings,
13:27
those inputs, it vastly changed the results.
13:32
And this is, this is the problem is that a computer model, a
13:36
statistical model, A in vitro laboratory model, all these
13:42
things can be highly manipulated and even kind of subconsciously
13:47
because you know, as the scientist, you expect certain
13:51
results, you believe that your hypotheses are correct and
13:55
that's a bias. And so if you're using a model,
13:59
you're going to tweak that model to support your bias.
14:03
And it's not measuring reality. Like if we look at the climate
14:08
change models like that are published in the IPCC reports
14:13
and such, if you look back what they predicted based on those
14:17
models in the past and then look at what the actual weather
14:21
patterns were, you'll see they didn't predict anything
14:24
accurately whatsoever. But now we have global cooling,
14:29
Andy. It's well, you know, before the
14:33
that environmental conference in Brazil where they first talked
14:39
about global warming, before that there was a even I think a
14:44
documentary on public television in the US that was narrated by
14:48
Leonard Nimoy talking about that the the Earth is headed for Ice
14:54
Age, Doctor Spock. Exactly.
14:57
So saying that we were headed for another Ice Age.
14:59
So and then all of a sudden it flipped after this conference in
15:04
Brazil. And then, you know, it's changed
15:05
since then because it was global warming and now it's climate
15:08
change, right? Because, well, the Earth wasn't
15:12
getting warmer, so they couldn't say that anymore.
15:14
They had to say something different.
15:16
We have bacteria that we can see under a microscope and we can
15:19
play with it and it's living and all that sort of thing.
15:22
A virus is an entirely different concept, and the definition has
15:26
changed over the years anyway. Well, you know, the original
15:31
term virus really referred to like poison, like things like
15:35
snake venom and such. So it definitely, you know, if
15:40
you start reading dictionaries from the past, you'll see that
15:44
the meaning of many words have changed, right?
15:46
We saw, we saw that that happen in real time during COVID,
15:50
right, where they changed the definition of vaccine to
15:52
include, you know, RNA and DNA based technologies.
15:58
So the modern definition of virus, I think, you know, we
16:02
should take it from modern biology and you know, which
16:07
essentially defines it as a obligate intracellular parasite,
16:12
right? Meaning that it has to invade to
16:14
a cell in order to reproduce and that it's, you know, can can
16:21
replicate under those conditions.
16:24
And of course 'cause then damage to the host Organism as a
16:29
result. But that's never been observed.
16:33
No, absolutely not. And how it couldn't really be
16:37
observed in with current technology, I mean, unless you
16:44
rebuilt Rife's microscope. If you look at the research, I
16:48
mean, like you said with bacteria, if, if you pretty much
16:52
swab anything around you, including yourself, right, and
16:55
then look under a microscope, a regular light microscope, you
16:59
know where you can look at, at living cells, you'll see
17:03
bacterial cells, right, of probably a variety of different
17:07
kinds. So we know they're there.
17:10
We know they can be, you know, separated out or you know, from
17:15
things, right? No problem with viruses.
17:20
They're said to be so small, right on around the size of 100
17:26
nanometers, right? And a nanometer is a billionth
17:29
or 10 to the minus ninth meters. So they can't be observed in a
17:35
light microscope. You know, particles that size
17:39
can be seen only on an electron microscope.
17:42
And you, you have to, you know, destroy whatever you're looking
17:47
at to see it under an electron microscope essentially.
17:50
So it, it, you can't observe the behavior of things on that
17:56
scale. But if you look at the
18:00
experiments that which are done to discover a virus in nature,
18:06
right? That and these are always
18:08
related to they think it causes a disease.
18:11
They they never actually find the virus.
18:14
They don't even really look for it.
18:16
They just assume it's there from the beginning.
18:18
So they take like they have a sick animal or a sick human,
18:23
They take somebody tissue or fluid, they assume there's a
18:29
virus in there, but they don't actually find the virus in there
18:32
and they don't even look like they don't take that and look
18:35
under the microscope. They don't take that and
18:39
separate out everything but a virus.
18:42
They just have the assumption there's a virus in there.
18:45
And then they do experiments and the the results that they get
18:50
just basically form circular reasoning because we assume
18:53
there's a virus. We assume a virus will result in
18:57
what they call Cpes in a cell culture.
19:00
It's like a damp inflammation in a cell culture, essentially.
19:04
And then they say Cpes mean there's a virus.
19:06
So that makes a complete circle in their logic.
19:10
But they never show there's a virus at any stage of the
19:14
experiment. They never make any attempt to
19:17
separate out the virus in order to test it independently.
19:22
They had tried that in the past and were unsuccessful, but they
19:27
have the ability to do that with other particles that are, that
19:33
are the same size scale. So, you know, like for example,
19:38
there's a paper that I, you know, it's, it's part of one of
19:41
my presentations and it just illustrates this point so well,
19:45
because what the paper is, is it's a study about HIV exosomes.
19:53
So this is, you know, exosomes are basically also particles
19:59
that are about the same size as viruses, But but that they say
20:03
that these are generated by our own cells, OK, That they're that
20:08
they have some biological function and there's a whole
20:11
field of research looking at exosomes.
20:15
Now, so they say that when you have a disease, your body makes
20:18
exosomes, a certain type of exosome in response to the
20:21
disease. So they're looking at people
20:23
who, you know, have an antibody test for HIV.
20:27
And so they say they're, you know, essentially like AIDS
20:30
patients or HIV patients. And so they want to look at
20:33
their exosomes. And all they do is take a sample
20:38
of their blood. And then they, excuse me, use
20:45
some physical methods to separate out the exosomes.
20:52
And then they they're able to have the exosomes in a separate
20:57
container. They look at them under the
20:59
microscope and you only see particles that are identical.
21:02
You don't see anything else in there because they've separated
21:05
it. And then they can do experiments
21:08
on it. And they do in this, they do an
21:11
enzyme assay for acetylcholinesterase.
21:14
They do a protein electrophoresis to characterize
21:18
the proteins in the particles, right?
21:22
And they, they can even sequence the genome because they can get
21:26
genetic material directly from those particles.
21:29
Now, in the same experiment, that patient also allegedly has
21:35
HIV viral particles. Why didn't they also separate
21:42
those and run tests on them? They didn't, they didn't even
21:46
attempt it, right? And it's because they know they,
21:49
they wouldn't be able to find it.
21:52
So that's the big thing that they they can do the actual
21:57
proper experiments to find viruses and study them, but they
22:02
don't do it because somewhere back in time they figured out
22:06
that there are no viruses, but it was very profitable and there
22:11
were maybe other motivations to keep it going, you know, maybe
22:14
to sell vaccines because that has become now the most
22:18
lucrative type of pharmaceutical since COVID.
22:23
But nonetheless, no modern virologists, no modern doctors
22:27
ever look back at those experiments to see.
22:30
They never look at the current experiments to see, right?
22:33
They're just told in their education that this virus causes
22:37
this disease. Let's say you are out in the
22:41
wild and you see a carcass and it's surrounded by hyenas.
22:47
The hyenas are cleaning it up. Now can you assume that the
22:51
hyenas killed that animal? No, most likely not.
22:56
They came after the fact. And that sort of is, is the way
23:01
I've kind of observed or or thought about viral load, right?
23:06
Well, I mean, if viral load actually measured, you know,
23:12
viruses, then yes, you could think that about it.
23:16
So that that analogy I think is more appropriate for bacteria
23:20
because bacteria are really there and you will in many
23:24
disease states find a lot of bacteria in the diseased tissue,
23:27
right? And it, and it's because it is
23:30
coming thereafter to scavenge and clean it up, you know, just
23:35
like the hyenas in your example. But viral load, despite its
23:40
name, actually doesn't measure viruses at all.
23:46
It is a, it doesn't really measure anything.
23:49
Actually, it's a manufacturing technique.
23:53
So that that's the PCR test, PCR process.
23:57
It's not, it shouldn't be called a test because that's not what
24:01
it is. What it does is it whatever is
24:04
in your sample, it reproduces it.
24:08
So it, it's like a manufacturing facility that has like a
24:13
replicator, right? Like kind of Star Trek
24:15
technology, you put in something and then it makes copies of it.
24:21
The but what is the thing it's making copies of?
24:26
Like that's the question. Because it's only a short
24:30
strand, right, of genetic material, a tiny, tiny, tiny
24:36
percentage of the whole of an organism's genetic material.
24:42
And these small short sequences are non specific.
24:46
Like if you and they're, they're called primers, by the way,
24:50
that's the in, in the PCR process, it's called the primer,
24:54
the thing that you're making copies of and or you're, you
24:59
know, you're finding if it's there, you're going to make
25:01
copies of it. And if you take the sequence of
25:06
a primer, like look at a particular PCR protocol and find
25:11
the primer sequence and then take that sequence and put it in
25:16
a genetic database to see if it matches any known organisms,
25:22
you'll find that or a bunch of organisms come up for all these
25:27
sequences so that those short strands are not specific, right?
25:33
And for anyone Organism at all. And that is obviously a problem
25:42
because if any of the other organisms are there, well, then
25:45
you have a false, you know, your result tells you something
25:50
different than you think it tells you because it doesn't
25:52
tell you anything about a possible virus.
25:55
It tells you, oh, there's genetic material that may be
25:58
from a variety of organisms present in your sample.
26:02
And the other problem with PCR is that it, it works by
26:09
doubling, right? So it, it has like manufacturing
26:12
rounds or cycles that. So first, if there is a matching
26:19
little piece of genetic material in the sample, it'll double it.
26:23
So if there's, let's say there's 10 copies of it to begin with,
26:27
after the first round, there'll be 20 and then after the second
26:31
round, 40, right? And each time it'll double.
26:35
And so that's like an exponential rise.
26:40
And each time you do this, it can make mistakes.
26:45
So in other words, when it, when it makes a copy, it might make a
26:51
copy with something's different on it.
26:54
Like, you know, pretty much like they say, mutations work and if
27:00
you do enough cycles of doubling, the number of mistakes
27:07
goes up and you could end up at some point where whatever it's
27:14
making at the end wasn't present in the starting material at all.
27:19
It's completely manufactured through errors of the copying
27:23
process. And just like, you know, that if
27:26
you took, you know, if you had an old fashioned photocopier,
27:29
like now we have these in our, you know, office computers and,
27:33
you know, made a copy of something, then took the copy,
27:36
made a copy of the copy, made another copy of that copy, copy
27:40
that copy, you'd see the quality degrade, right?
27:42
And the same thing happens with PCR.
27:45
And really, PCR is kind of like a a molecular photocopier.
27:50
OK. But Andy, I mean this is just
27:53
all academic. How does this affect me, you
27:57
know, in my, in my day-to-day life?
28:00
Well, those viral load PCR procedures are used
28:05
diagnostically to, you know, tell you that you have a virus
28:12
in your body or sometimes even they use it for bacteria too and
28:15
it has problems there as well. So like I, I had a client
28:21
because you know, I, I do educational consultations around
28:24
natural healing and such. And I had someone a couple of
28:29
years ago who came to me and in the 80s during the AIDS scare,
28:35
right? He was in the homosexual
28:37
community. He got tested and was told he
28:40
was HIV positive. And now he wasn't sick at all.
28:44
He, just because of his lifestyle, he went and got this
28:47
test. Now the, the people who gave him
28:52
the results, they told him that he should just go and apply for
28:57
disability like Social Security disability through the
28:59
government because he was going to get sick and die and not be
29:03
able to take care of himself anyway.
29:05
And just from having this, you know, lab test, which it wasn't
29:11
APCR then it was an antibody test, but the same thing would
29:14
happen if it was a viral load test and went on disability.
29:21
And now he got in touch with me like 30 years or 25 years later,
29:28
never got sick, right. And now he's kind of questioning
29:34
what he what he should do. He was even been taking like
29:36
prophylactic medications all this time.
29:39
And you know, so he basically all of his productive adult life
29:45
was lost because he just became dependent and expecting to get
29:50
sick and die at any time, right. So that that's a extremely
29:54
serious consequence of believing this false information.
30:00
It's sad to me though that so many people have bought into
30:05
this and it almost seems like it's not going to change.
30:12
Well, I don't, you know, I'm more optimistic than you about
30:17
this germ. Like, I feel like already
30:20
there's been a lot of traction. I mean, this is part of the
30:23
discussion. Even mainstream people have
30:27
heard about this. Now, they may think it's
30:30
ridiculous, right? But just it being spoken is, you
30:35
know, a major accomplishment. If we look at, you know,
30:39
paradigm shifts throughout history, they they take time,
30:44
right? And, and people have written
30:45
about this, how you know, when you, when you introduce a new
30:49
idea, even if it's true, first you're ridiculed, right then,
30:56
then there's conversation about it, but skepticism, you know,
30:59
and eventually it just becomes the, the new paradigm.
31:03
So we, we need more time. And definitely, you know, I'm
31:07
glad that I can come on here again and, and talk about this
31:11
topic because it needs to be repeated over and over so that
31:15
it can start to settle in to people's thinking because it's
31:19
so heretical. When you first hear about that,
31:22
you know, germs don't cause disease, viruses don't even
31:25
exist. It, it's so far astray from the
31:29
mainstream and what you've been told your whole life and, and
31:33
you even have experienced that, you know, with confirmation bias
31:37
seems to give weight to that. It's only when you look at it
31:43
more objectively that you see that that could be interpreted a
31:46
number of ways. So that's why it takes, you
31:50
know, time and time again to introduce the idea so that you
31:54
can say, you know, maybe I should look into this because
31:59
the, the evidence is quite compelling.
32:01
And you know, doctors and virologists, if you go, if you
32:06
go to your doctor and ask them, say, you know, how do we know
32:09
that this virus causes this disease?
32:12
They, they won't have the, the first clue.
32:15
They might give an answer, right?
32:17
But they won't, they won't be able to tell you, you know, what
32:21
the experiment was. Oh, can you describe the
32:22
experiment to me? Can you tell me the name of the
32:25
scientist who discovered it? Right.
32:27
They'll know nothing about that. And that should be a good
32:31
indication of like, interestingly interesting.
32:34
Why don't they know that? Like if it's so well
32:38
established, it, you know, it should be like a matter of pride
32:41
to learn about the experiments that discovered it.
32:43
I mean, think about it, how heroic that could be.
32:48
And that should be a clue that I wonder what those studies
32:52
actually show. Why don't I take a look at them
32:55
or or or read about someone who you know who described it in a
33:00
way you can understand? Mike Eden's got a great sub
33:03
stack in which he lists clinical trials over the last 200 years
33:11
attempting to show transmission of any pathogen between humans
33:17
and every single one is a failure.
33:19
And it goes. I mean they also mentioned the
33:21
Spanish flu one. That was a famous one.
33:23
I forget now. Who was the scientist behind
33:27
that one? You know the one I'm talking
33:30
about. Yes, of course.
33:31
And there was a series of experiments and I'll and they.
33:34
Had they had a hundred, a hundred healthy soldiers and
33:37
they couldn't make one of them sick?
33:39
I forget his name now anyway, but what's interesting is when
33:45
we're talking about viruses, right?
33:46
Like earlier you say you could. Yeah, that's right.
33:50
Rosenau. There we go.
33:53
You'll see a picture. There is somebody will give you
33:55
a picture, this little black and white image, right?
33:59
And it's a circle with little things sticking out of it, and
34:02
I'll go. There it is.
34:02
That's the virus. And I've asked this question so
34:06
many times. How do you know?
34:09
Yeah, no, you're absolutely right.
34:10
And this, you know, this goes back to what I was saying before
34:14
about exosomes, because you know, in that in that
34:18
experiment, after they, they used physical means to separate
34:23
out the exosomes from everything else in the blood.
34:26
They took some of that and looked at it under the electron
34:30
microscope. And the only thing you see are
34:33
identical round particles, right, of the same size and
34:38
morphology. So you know that what's in that?
34:43
You know you have a pure sample of these particles and you
34:48
confirm that right. So now in the future, if you're
34:52
looking for these particles in other people, you at least have
34:56
some basis of identifying them, although certainly different
35:00
things can look the same, right? So you have to be careful of
35:07
that. But with respect to the images
35:11
that they show viruses, that's never been done.
35:14
They've never, you know, separated out and then showed a
35:18
picture of just that and then taken that and done experiments
35:23
like with coax postulates to show that it produces the same
35:26
image. What they do instead is they
35:29
have the assumption, right? They they would, if they use
35:32
blood, like let's say they were going to use blood like it with
35:35
the exosomes, they would take the blood, right?
35:38
That has many, many things in it.
35:41
It has particles in it, it has cells in it, it has proteins in
35:45
it, right? And various other molecules like
35:51
clotting factors and things like that, that are circulating
35:54
around the blood, maybe cholesterol, right?
35:56
All that's in the blood. They take the whole blood.
36:00
Maybe they filter out the really big things like the blood cells
36:05
and just have the fluid. But it's still it's, it's got a
36:09
whole bunch of things now. They assume a virus is in there,
36:12
but never show it. Now then they take that whole
36:17
thing and put it under an electron microscope and they see
36:22
everything that's in there. They see cells, they see
36:26
particles, right? They see cellular organelles,
36:32
all these things, but they don't know what any of these things
36:35
are, at least the particles. There's no way to identify them.
36:39
There's no specific label or stain that's used that only, you
36:44
know, lights up those things. They could make things like
36:49
that, but they don't. They just have an expert
36:53
microscopist look at everything under the microscope and then
36:58
whatever they think the virus is supposed to look like, they just
37:03
point to that and say that that's the virus.
37:05
But there there's no proof. Well, what that is, it could be
37:09
a million things. It could be an exosome, it could
37:12
be another type of vex vesicle that that are all known that
37:16
could be seen in healthy samples as well.
37:19
So it's completely arbitrary. But with bacteria you can
37:25
actually test these things, and even then disease hasn't been
37:30
shown to be caused by them. Yeah, that's right with you.
37:33
You can take. So if there's, let's say
37:37
bacteria in the blood, OK, so you take that blood sample, you
37:41
can put that under a light microscope, which doesn't
37:45
require any processing of the blood.
37:48
Like you could just take the raw living blood right right there
37:52
and plop it on a microscope slide and look at it under a
37:56
high power objective. And you can see back if there's
38:00
bacteria in there, then you can do simple processes to separate,
38:06
physically separate out those bacteria.
38:09
And then you can grow them on a, you know, in a Petri dish to, to
38:13
make more of them if you want to.
38:14
Or you could just take the ones you found directly there and do
38:18
experiments on them. Like, you know, put them in a
38:21
healthy Organism. See if they make the Organism
38:24
sick. OK, but let's look at some real
38:28
examples. So we take some water from a
38:32
pond that's got stuff floating on.
38:36
It looks, it looks like bacteria and you drink that and you get a
38:39
bit sick. Well, you didn't just drink the
38:43
pure bacteria, you drank everything that was in that
38:46
water. So how do you know what was in
38:48
there? You know, that's that's exactly
38:51
the experiment that they do with viruses, right?
38:54
You so except that you can actually show this bacteria in
38:58
that pond water, right, instead of just assuming it.
39:01
But yeah, you can't if you have a whole mixture of things, you
39:05
can't tell what thing in that mix is producing the effect.
39:09
So you you know, this is what what's known as an independent
39:12
variable. You can't do a scientific
39:17
experiment, you know, according to the scientific method, unless
39:20
you have an independent variable that's the one thing you're
39:23
testing. So you would have to take that
39:26
pond water and separate out the the bacteria from everything
39:31
else, right? Because there there could be
39:33
agricultural runoff with chemicals in there, you know,
39:37
there could be overgrowth of a certain Organism and a bunch of
39:42
fecal material, like who knows what's in there that could
39:45
potentially be harmful to health.
39:48
The one that always comes up. My kid went to school and 13 of
39:55
the 20 kids got chicken pox. Well, those, those aren't real
40:01
numbers. You're just making those numbers
40:03
up. But you know, this is what I was
40:05
talking about earlier, that you might have some life experience
40:08
that you would interpret as supporting, you know, contagion,
40:14
but you you don't actually have the evidence.
40:17
So let's let's say you, you know, you do that.
40:20
Well, did you observe any viruses going from the first kid
40:24
with chicken pox to the other kids?
40:27
Right, because that's what we're told contagion does.
40:33
That's not something you can observe, right?
40:36
So you don't have direct proof. So what you observe is that
40:41
there's one child who's sick and then there are other children
40:44
who become sick with a similar issues, right, in a close time
40:51
proximity, in a close geographic location.
40:55
So are there any other commonalities?
40:58
You said that the kid went to school, So what are they exposed
41:03
to at the school? Is there something there that
41:05
they were all exposed to that could have resulted in this?
41:10
What about the season, right? They're all experiencing the
41:13
same environmental stimuli, so could that be involved?
41:19
What about their stage of development?
41:21
Are they all at the same, you know, stage of development?
41:25
Could that be involved? And none of those other
41:29
possibilities have ever been looked at seriously because
41:33
they're like all the other, you know, viral illnesses.
41:37
There's just been the assumption that this is caused by a virus.
41:41
But when they do experiments like where they take fluid out
41:44
of the chicken pox lesion and inject that into a healthy
41:49
subject, the healthy subject doesn't get chicken pox, right.
41:55
And that would be, you know, the more speaking to the direct
42:00
proof that this contagion occurs.
42:03
You know, I, I attended a family reunion several years ago and we
42:07
all ate at the same restaurant. And that night, you know, maybe
42:13
30% of the people who were there all were throwing up and having
42:19
diarrhea and, you know, pretty miserable.
42:23
And did we pass, you know, viruses around causing that?
42:29
Right, Rotavirus, what what they say causes that?
42:32
No, we ate the same dish at the restaurant and it was food
42:37
poisoning. So we don't need any virus to
42:41
explain that. But if you it's the same
42:44
experience, you know that you discussed that people would
42:48
interpret as evidence of contagion.
42:51
It's entirely possible that we have a very impoverished view on
42:55
what causes these things. Why do we yawn collectively?
43:00
Yeah, or when women's become close in their relationship,
43:05
that their periods synchronize, right, Their menstrual cycles.
43:10
No one suspects there's a, you know, menstrual cycle virus.
43:15
Yeah. And I chatted to somebody who
43:19
argues for something called German New Medicine.
43:22
Very, very interesting topic. And she was saying that the kids
43:27
who get chicken pox most likely have something called separation
43:30
anxiety, which is a which is a stress induced response because
43:34
they are away from their families and in in environment
43:37
that are environments that are a little bit alien.
43:41
I, I would say that what you can take away from that is that a
43:46
psychological insult, like like a trauma, for example, or a
43:52
bereavement, right? Grief can definitely manifest
43:58
physically in a variety of ways, and that's something that is
44:02
definitely underrepresented in the medical system.
44:07
I mean, stress causes sickness. There's there's no doubt about
44:11
that. It's it's not even debatable.
44:13
No, no, no, of course not. I mean, I think, you know, there
44:18
are quite extreme examples of that, right?
44:20
Like I I'm pretty sure that there are people who developed
44:25
cancer exclusively because of a psychological damage.
44:33
But then what is the take away? Someone listening to this going
44:36
OK, sure, all right, so viruses don't exist or germs don't cause
44:41
disease, but we all still get sick.
44:42
So now what? Well, you know, I think it's
44:50
pretty obvious that when it comes to understanding your
44:54
health, you want to know as much truth as possible because that
44:58
allows you to make decisions to improve your health, right?
45:03
So yes. And we all get sick from time to
45:07
time, but not to the same degree, right?
45:09
There are some people who get, you know, bronchitis, pneumonia
45:13
and are sick, you know, repeatedly throughout the cold
45:17
season. And then there's some people who
45:20
get a mild cold every three years, Right.
45:23
And what's the difference between those people?
45:27
You know, what about what's really causing health problems
45:32
like in in the even outside of germ theory, right?
45:35
We have this huge increase in chronic disease over the last
45:39
century and pretty much the medical system says we, we don't
45:44
have any idea what's causing it, right?
45:47
Like autoimmune diseases, for example.
45:50
You know, even cancer, they don't, they don't even claim to
45:53
know what's causing cancer, right?
45:57
Even Even though they, they talk about specific genetic
46:00
mutations, most cancers don't even the people don't have
46:04
those. So we're, we're really being
46:08
kept from important knowledge and, and from making, you know,
46:15
really solid determinations about what specifically, you
46:19
know, now, you know, in my research, in order to understand
46:23
what is causing these health problems, I have to rely on
46:27
indirect and anecdotal evidence because the mainstream
46:32
authorities or the people who fund the research or who are
46:34
doing this research are not looking for the real truth.
46:39
They are basically just continuing to perpetuate the
46:42
same kind of profitable frauds. So, you know, the more people
46:49
start to realize the truth, then they, the society is going to
46:53
put more resources into finding the truth.
46:57
But I can tell you even with the what I have been able to learn
47:03
and observe from many other people who have come to similar
47:06
conclusions is that people can fully turn around their health
47:13
from these chronic conditions, like completely reverse them.
47:17
Not by taking pharmaceutical drugs and getting surgical
47:20
procedures, but by lifestyle changes using nature.
47:26
You know, things like fasting, sweating, enemas.
47:31
These are what can, you know, help people's bodies heal and.
47:38
Also changing your diet. Absolutely.
47:41
That's when I talk about lifestyle changes.
47:43
It's diet is the biggest thing by far.
47:49
I, I remember during the COVID era, I visited a friend and he
47:58
is, he was still caught up in this whole thing and he was sick
48:01
at the time. And I went up to him and he
48:04
threw out his elbow, you know, to, to greet me.
48:06
And I just smiled and I just walked up to him and gave him a
48:09
hug. And the point that I'm making is
48:12
that I don't think I can pick up anything from anybody.
48:17
So that's precisely what happened.
48:20
I didn't pick up anything from him.
48:23
Yes, well, you know, it's. The aspect of fear, it's the
48:26
fear. That's what I'm talking about,
48:27
no? No, you, you know that that's an
48:29
excellent point. I should have, you know, been
48:31
thinking along those lines. But since the tyranny of the
48:34
COVID era has passed, you know, that's not in my consciousness.
48:39
But you're absolutely right. The the germ theory makes you
48:43
afraid of your brother, right? Because they're going to get you
48:48
sick. And that separates us, makes us
48:52
lonely, increases things like addiction.
48:57
So it's it's a very, very deleterious.
49:01
You don't see this in the animal Kingdom.
49:03
So here in South Africa we've got the Kruger National Park,
49:06
which is a huge game park. It's the size of Israel, so it's
49:09
pretty big. And in the last 120 years of its
49:13
existence, there has never been an epidemic of any kind other
49:19
than the fact that where there have been a few collective
49:23
illnesses with the within the with the animals, it's generally
49:27
related to something like pollution that came down one of
49:30
the street, one of the rivers. And normally it's some third
49:35
party interference that created that.
49:38
Yeah, I completely agree. You know, when you do see these
49:43
types of events, there's, you know, always a rational
49:46
explanation, you know, usually some kind of, you know,
49:50
pollution that is very poisonous.
49:53
And I think also, I think that that happens with some of these
49:59
human outbreaks as well. And the virus story is a way to
50:02
cover it up like I would, I would bet that any of these, you
50:07
know, hemorrhagic fever outbreaks like Ebola and
50:11
Marburg, I would bet that those are due to some kind of toxic
50:16
exposure. And that this, the story of this
50:19
really, really scary virus is just to cover it up.
50:22
And, you know, because think about it like, you know, if, if,
50:26
if there was a virus that had like an 80% mortality and the
50:31
way it killed you is you essentially bleed and, and drown
50:35
on your own blood. You know, that's that's so scary
50:39
that, you know, you don't question it, You just hope that
50:44
it doesn't affect you and you hope they figure out a way to
50:47
make a vaccine. But I mean, some of it is also
50:50
so just ridiculous. If you think about HIV, which
50:53
you mentioned earlier, it suddenly appeared in the 1980s
50:58
and it didn't like gaming in in in nightclubs in New York.
51:02
Let's be quite specific here. And then somehow it ended up in
51:05
Africa and, and it took a decade or two for them to decide what
51:10
the definition of AIDS actually is.
51:14
So. So you had a.
51:14
Virus different in different countries.
51:17
Yes. You know, in in Africa they
51:20
need, they needed something to blame all of the mining related
51:27
illness so that the mining companies wouldn't have to pay
51:31
disability. And, you know, so that's why,
51:35
like, tuberculosis and other pulmonary conditions are
51:39
emphasized in Africa compared to the US.
51:43
So how can my audience follow your work?
51:47
Well, I'm at Doctor Andrew Kaufman on all the social
51:51
platforms, Instagram, YouTube, etcetera.
51:54
And also Andrew kaufmanmd.com is a website where you can get
52:00
access to my free protocol and and many free workshops and
52:05
resources there. So definitely check that out if
52:09
you want to learn more about natural health.
52:12
I want to add a disclaimer because this always comes up.
52:14
Oh, OK. So is he a virologist?
52:16
And thank goodness you're not because if you were a
52:20
virologist, you would be stuck within those parameters.
52:25
And that's a problem, I think, with hyper specialization is
52:28
that you you get forced into a lane and you cannot get out of
52:33
that lane. So you have to argue as a
52:35
virologist that viruses are real.
52:37
Well, yeah, I mean, if I was a virologist, I would be now a
52:41
former virologist. But once you once you realize
52:45
the truth, it's like, what are you doing?
52:47
You have to get out of there. But, you know, even though I
52:50
never did virology research, I, I've been in the lab, I've done
52:55
all the kinds of molecular stuff, you know, ran
52:58
electrophoresis, southern blots, northern blots, PCRS, you know,
53:03
all those kind of same techniques that are used, you
53:10
know, in virology. I'm, I'm very familiar with how
53:12
they work. So, you know, that's how I'm
53:15
able to understand that research so thoroughly.
53:18
But it, it's important, you know that that's a logic fallacy.
53:21
Of course, it's called appeal to authority when, you know, you
53:24
say only someone with a certain credential or status, you know,
53:30
is capable of understanding something.
53:32
And that's a trap, right? That's that's a big reason why
53:37
we're all so ignorant about so many things is because we think,
53:40
oh, I couldn't possibly understand about electricity.
53:44
So I'll have to, you know, rely on an engineer or a physicist,
53:48
or I couldn't possibly understand about nuclear energy
53:51
or medicine or, you know, chemicals or whatever.
53:55
And but the truth is, is, you know, we, we can all understand
54:00
these things. So we just have to, you know,
54:02
spend a little time and effort because the, you know, I think
54:05
the biggest barrier is just the language that all the, you know,
54:09
it's natural for people when they get expert in a certain
54:11
field to develop your own terms because you've got unique, you
54:15
know, concepts that you're talking about or unique tools
54:18
that you use in your trade or whatever.
54:19
So even, you know, Craftsman who are specialized, you know, like
54:24
a glass blower has special terminology and you know, you
54:28
wouldn't know what what they're talking about unless you take
54:30
the time to learn that. So that's the big barrier.
54:34
But it's important that we make the effort to understand these
54:37
things no matter what. You know, even if we didn't
54:40
graduate high school, that doesn't mean you can't
54:42
understand how an experiment works or how the scientific
54:46
method works. And I'm a huge proponent of
54:49
becoming an autodidact and that once you are able to achieve
54:55
that, then there's no barriers to what you can learn about and
54:59
understand. Knowledge is open source.
55:03
That's right. Andrew Kaufman, thank you for
55:07
joining me in the trenches. Great to be here.