xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

transcript to 2hr podcast VSRF Live #131_ The Great Virus Debate! An Interview with Dr. Andrew Kaufman, M.D.
https://rumble.com/v516uno-vsrf-live-131-the-great-virus-debate-an-interview-with-dr.-andrew-kaufman-m.html 

This song is called Liars, Cheats, and Crooks. You want me scared. You want me weak. You want me bring dead and asleep. You want us trapped while you all laugh behind the scenes.

You want us sick. You think we're dumb. You want us blind, and you want us drugged. You want us poor while you get more of everything. But you don't get to tell me what to think You want us strict.

You want us numb. You want us scared, and you want us stunned. You want us shot, and you want us spot in every way. You want our minds. You want our time.

You want us friend up in your crimes. I hope you know that it's time to go, and we're taking names. Because you don't get to tell us what to think and what to do. You don't get to tell a single word you say. You're all liars, fakes and combs.

Want you out, and we want you gone soon. Don't believe it's time you'll get away. Because we see la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, do. You don't get to tell us what to think and what to do because y'all just liars, cheats and crooks. The chains are rules and you find single word you say.

You're all liars, fakes and cons. Watch it out and we watch you cons. Don't believe it's time you'll get away, sweetie, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, All your lies. Perfect. Thank you so much.

I'll see you a little later. Thank you all. You beautiful people, thank you so much. Tonight on VSRF live, Steve Kirsch welcomes Tonight on VSRF live, Steve Kirsch welcomes psychiatrist and molecular biologist, doctor Andrew Kaufman, who has risen to fame during the pandemic for his unorthodox views on the existence of viruses. There was just the appearance of devastation, like changing the numbers of flu deaths to COVID deaths or recategorizing heart attacks to COVID, or dementia to COVID or car accidents to COVID.

That's what we saw. We did see also hospital and nursing home protocols in various discrete locations, killing people. We saw people dying of that. But nowhere was there evidence of any kind of biological weapon of any kind. And so this is a very dangerous narrative because it perpetuates the idea that viruses are real and dangerous.

Good evening, and welcome to another special episode of VSRF Live. I'm your host, Livio Sanchez. And as always, I'm thrilled to be here with all of you tonight. Joining us this evening is doctor Andrew Kaufman. Doctor Kaufman is a self proclaimed recovering physician.

He has transitioned from a career in mainstream medicine to becoming a prominent critic of the allopathic medicine paradigm. Tonight, we will have a colorful discussion on germ versus terrain theory and whether or not viruses exist and are the cause of illness. But before we get started, I wanna bring on our very own nurse Angela. Welcome, nurse Angela. How are you this evening?

I'm great, Livio. How are you doing? I'm doing well. I we talked earlier, and you're here because you have an update on a very special person that we've been you've been really instrumental in helping get care for. Can you give us an update on on Cody?

Yeah. So, unfortunately, I got a phone call last night from Cody's mom, Heather, that Cody was not doing well. And for those of you out there who don't know who Cody is, he he was 21 years old when he got vaccinated. He suffered an immediate reaction. He had blood clots.

He was coughing up blood. He had cardiac damage. He's been really fighting for his life ever since, and it's been a miracle that that we still have him here with us. He's he's a really, really tough kid and just super, super sweet. And this morning, I got the message that he was admitted to the hospital, and they are really concerned with, a spinal stroke and blood clots on his spine.

He's he's really, really in hard shape, and so we would like to donate any of the proceeds, that we raised tonight for Cody to help out this special family. We're gonna put the link in the chat for his give send go. It's just really tragic. I remember being at Steve's house late fall of last year, and I was with Bobby Kennedy. And Bobby Kennedy and I FaceTimed Cody.

He was in the hospital. He had blood clots in his groin and in his arms, his legs. And Bobby Kennedy said to Cody, you know, don't give up. Hang in there. Just keep on keep on going, and we're we're rooting for you, and and we'll always fight for you.

And Cody is doing just that. I mean, he is the toughest kid I know. He's just fighting and fighting, and, you know, one of his goals is to recover and get better even though he has a fatal condition now called antiphospholipid syndrome, which actually my mom developed that as well after her booster, that caused blood clots in my mom's eyes. But he has been doing exactly that. He just wants to to get better so that he can be an advocate, and he's really, really dear and special.

So if any of you are able to donate, we're gonna put the link in the chat. And if you donate to our organization, we're gonna we we would prefer it to go directly to the gifts and go. But if we get any donations in tonight, we are gonna donate a 100% of that to directly to Cody and the family because they are, you know, they're taking care of him 247. He's not able to walk unassisted, and he's in excruciating pain, but I did see a picture of him today. And even with you know, under the circumstances, he just the warmth in his heart is overwhelming to me.

So help out if you can. If you can't, please pray for him, spread the word, share his gifts, and go, and we will continue to help take care of these these people. He's he's such an incredibly resilient young man. I his his will to live, I've I've never seen anything like that before. Yeah.

I don't know if I could do it personally with what he's been through. I mean, his mom has actually living literally driven him in the back of pickup trucks because they couldn't get him into the car while he's coughing up blood and unable to breathe. And why does it go? And we we've almost lost this kid so many times, and he's fighting right now as we speak. So just lots of love to you, Cody, lots of love to your family, and we will help you the best that we can.

And thank you for all of our viewers out there who you know, any little bit helps. We have we'll probably have thousands of people watching, so even even just a small little amount goes a long way. Yeah. And remember, everything for tonight's show will be going to help Cody and his family with their their medical situation, their medical debt. Yes.

Yes. Well, thank you, and and at the end of the show, I wanna remind everyone we're gonna you were at, we were together at Reawaken America in Detroit last weekend, and I'm gonna share a snippet of your speech at the very end of the show tonight. So Awesome. We'll see you again, and maybe we'll see you during q and a. Thank you.

Thank you. Have a great show. Thank you, Angela. Here. And now I'm gonna just race into Steve Kirsch.

Let me bring on the founder of VSRF. Welcome to VSRF Live. Steve, how are you this evening? Oh, I'm good, Libio. I am looking forward to this, conversation.

Oh, yeah. I was talking to doctor Kaufman backstage before you came on, and I already learned quite a bit about my own history. So I'm I'm really looking forward to this. As am I. Well, let me just bring him on right now without too much jabber.

Hello, doctor Andrew Kaufman. Welcome to VSRF live. Oh, hello again, Livio, and, nice to meet you, Steve. Thanks for, having me on. Sure.

Thanks for being on. I'm gonna quickly read your bio so that people that don't know about you, get a greater understanding, and then I'll leave you and Steve at it. So here we go. Doctor Andrew Kaufman is a forensic psychiatrist and molecular biologist. He became more and more skeptical of the allopathic paradigm until he finally blew germ theory wide open and became a COVID whistleblower.

Since then, he has been speaking and teaching the truth about medicine, viruses, natural healing, and other important subjects such as economics, law, education, and science. Doctor Kaufman received his bachelor's of science in biology at Steve's alma mater, MIT, his MD from the University of South Carolina, and did a psychiatric residency at Duke University. Doctor Kaufman has served on medical school faculty, has been a leader in academics and professional organizations, and has conducted and published original research. He patented a medical device and ran a startup company. He's also testified as an expert witness in local, state, and federal court.

Quite an impressive resume, doctor Kaufman. Thank you for being here. And I wanna remind our audience, put your questions, all caps questions, in the chat, and we will have a q and a later. Ask questions for doctor Kaufman and for Steve. Take it away, gentlemen.

Alright. Well, first of all, just, for time's sake, what's the, doctor Kaufman? I think you need to leave in about an hour and a half from now. Is that right? So we should make sure that we have plenty of room for for questions from the audience.

Yeah. Absolutely. That's a good time frame. I'm on the East Coast, so it's a little bit later. Okay.

So I'm gonna try to target Sounds good. Us, believe that, there shouldn't be a mask, any kind of mask regulations, that masks don't work, that lockdowns were ineffective, that we shouldn't have vaccine mandates, that science was not being done properly, and that there was a lack of autopsies that should have been done when people died from, what they claimed is, the the virus or the vaccine. Is that Yeah. All good points. All good points, Steve.

Good. And I I think we also agree on how science works that, the hypothesis that better explains the data should win at the end of the day. Do you agree with that? How the data is acquired, Steve, because science, we have to stick to the scientific method and its attributes and, what it can be applied towards and separate that from other things purporting to be science, which are really observation or simulation. Things like epidemiology, like computer modeling, in vitro studies, things like that.

Okay. But but hard data, it can be collected in a in a variety of different ways that if you have the proper hypothesis that you should be able to explain the hard data versus the model data or artificial artificially created data. Right? Well, like I'm saying again Steve, it, the data has to be generated through a scientific experiment in order to generate a cause and effect relationship. You can have data that is worthless, like for example, when I was at Duke, they made a big announcement, while I was in my training that they had, found definitive evidence that serotonin receptors are involved in depression.

And what happened is they had a large data set, that was from nursing homes across the country, and they found an anomaly that suggested to them that there was a genetic finding, like, of a gene for depression. And they were really excited. There was like a cocktail party, like, impromptu in the department. It was like people were celebrating like mad. And then 2 weeks later, I noticed that there was no further talk about it and what had happened is several other groups with similar data sets found out it was just a statistical anomaly because they were data mining and they essentially encountered an anomaly and then misinterpreted it as an actual finding.

So that's because all they had was a big set of data. It wasn't data that was from an experiment designed to test a hypothesis of cause and effect, it was just kind of data that was for another purpose, for another experiment that they were just put into a big number crunching, you know, software, and essentially ran simulations and then came up with false conclusions. Okay. So, I'm sure we could spend another hour on that topic, but, in just in the interest of moving on, let's just say I don't completely agree with, what you're saying. I think that data is data and you can the the what science should do is interpret that data and assess whether or not that data is going to be reliable, or not.

And that's part of this And, that's part of science. If we can't stick to the scientific method where there's an independent variable, there's a control, there's a dependent variable, that's the only way you can essentially ascertain scientifically any cause and effect relationships. Okay. Well like I said, I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on that, but but let's move on. I mean this is, the scientific method is well published and agreed upon throughout the world of science.

So if you disagree with that, I don't know what we could talk about. Oh oh, okay. So let me give you an example. I I claim that if you take a golf club and you hit a golf ball, that the club is actually causing the golf ball to move, and it's the contact with the club that that causes the golf ball to move. And it's not the air of the golf club that causes the golf club that causes the ball to move ahead of the the the club hitting the ball.

So but but I need to go do do do I need to do a, I I don't believe that I need to do a randomized controlled trial in order to figure stuff, like that out? Or if I jump out of a plane with a parachute and the parachute doesn't work, will I die or not? You know, we don't need, to do a randomized, double blind trial on jumping out, with or without a parachute. Well, 2 things. 1, a randomized double blind trial is not necessarily a scientific experiment because it's not designed to to highlight or prove a cause and effect relationship in nature.

It's done for pharmaceuticals which are man made. But the other thing is there you you could actually I mean, now, of course, I agree. You don't need to necessarily do an experiment to see if the club is, moving the ball, but you could do an experiment, right, where you could swing, just air, and you could swing the club, and the club would be the independent variable, and the dependent variable would be the motion of the ball. And the control would be swinging air instead of swinging the club. So Yeah.

When you're talking about invisible things, you do need to very carefully design and perform these experiments because it's not so obvious as observing someone swinging a golf club. Okay. So you're saying that all, retrospective observational trials are are completely useless because you couldn't control anything in the environment, that you're observing. You you had to take the the data that that you were you were given, and you you didn't control for that. You did you didn't, you you know, you you control for it after the fact, but you're you're or or you try to control, for it after the fact, but but you're saying that observational studies are are junk.

Is that? No. I'm not saying they're junk. I'm just saying they're not they're not science because you can't make any cause and effect, conclusion. Well, let me let me just finish.

So observational data like epidemiology is only useful to generate hypotheses. It can't you can't conclude anything. If you can conclude things from that, you know, then you're basically saying that causation equals association. Okay. Well, like I said, we could spend a lot of time, going down this particular topic but I really wanna focus on, what you're about here with the, whether viruses exist or not.

So so I I think we just need to table this because otherwise, we're we're just not gonna get anywhere in this call. Well, this is the framework for this discussion, Steve, because we're you're you're, you know, we're gonna talk about a scientific claim of cause and effect of a natural phenomenon. And so you can only get to the answer of that with using the scientific method. You can't get to that answer with epidemiological data. And any epidemiologist will also admit that.

Okay. Well, let let let's let let's just move on and maybe we can get go back to this point if we need to. But would you agree with me that that science, if you have you should have repeatable results. They should be explainable by your theory. For example, gravity has been replicated in a number of different locations all over the world.

Things don't fall to earth and accelerate any faster than gravity or any less fast than, than gravity at all. Accelerates at the rate of gravity and people have observed that, all over the world, with, must be millions of observations. Would you accept that gravity, is a scientific fact? Well, you can observe gravity as a fact of nature but nobody knows what causes it. I didn't I didn't ask that.

I was just saying that that the that if I release an object, it's going to go and fall and it's accelerate, at the the the gravitational force is going to accelerate that object, when I drop it. Well, you know, I mean, of course, it has predictable behavior. There are equations you can apply and predict it, you know, with some degree of error but fairly accurately. Okay. No.

I don't I don't debate that, but, you know, once again, that's not a cause and effect relationship. Oh, okay. Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna move on to the next point, which is that we we would agree that all scientists should be open to public challenge. Right? And that if you say something I mean that that you should be open to being challenged by your peers on on what you say.

Would you agree with that? The main principle of science is falsifiability. So it's necessary for science not just permissible. So you agree with me that people should be open whether they're whether people agree with you or disagree with you, that you should be able to challenge them publicly and they should be able to challenge you publicly. Well, I mean, if you participate in a public discourse, you're always open to challenge, but I'm not gonna say what people should and shouldn't do, but I will say that if if you're serious about science, then a scientific hypothesis or theory has to be falsifiable.

That's one of the standard principles that defines it as scientific. Great. And it and and the goal is to see truth. Right? Well, that's my goal.

That's my You know, I mean, I I would hope a lot of people that do science, their goal is to be rich and famous maybe or or some other purpose than, you know, finding the truth. Right. Okay. So, and we also, agree that there are scientific procedures such as the PCR test that have design centers for the tests and they're designed to be used in a certain way on a certain thing, so if you use them improperly, you can get results that are nonsensical. So for a Let me give you an example.

We would agree that a PCR that that that's a lateral flow assay test that is designed to, detect whether a human being is infected with SARS COV 2 may in fact, have a false positive. It was given a papaya or something else, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the test is invalid. It's just it means that you did not use the test in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations because the test was designed with certain limitations in terms of how it should be used. Well, I I don't think really we should be discussing tests because tests apply, you know, to something that's already established. But what I would say is that a test you can't presume a test is valid.

You have to actually validate the test first. So if you were to validate a test, for example, that was going to diagnose someone with an illness caused by a virus per se, Well then you'd have to do a validation study where you have a population of people with that viral illness, and other people that either have an illness that's not viral and people who are healthy probably as well. And then you'd have to be able to find the virus directly in the people who are sick and look for it in all the other people to make sure you don't find it and then do the test that you're proposing in all those people and then that's how you actually calculate those error rates which, you know, like false positive, false negative and, you know, any other types of errors, from that. But, for all the COVID tests, they they didn't have to be validated because of emergency use authorizations. So that that those things were never done, those studies.

Right. But but that wasn't my question. You didn't answer my question. No. You I thought you were saying we agree on that, that test could be, misleading if the procedure is not followed.

Correct. So if you go and you use a PCR, or a lateral flow assay test to assess a human being, that if it's used to that if you take a lemon and squeeze it on the lateral flow assay test and you get a a bar on it, that that's meaningless because the test was not designed to be used in that way. I'm asking about Well, I would say it's Not not what I'm not asking you whether the the PCR test or or sorry, the lateral flow assay test works. I'm not asking you whether it's valid or or or anything else. I'm just saying that would you agree with me that if the if a test is used in a way that it was not designed to be used such as trying to use a PCR test on a, or a lateral flow assay test on on squeezing a lemon, that it's perfectly reasonable that you could get nonsensical results.

Would you agree with that? Well, Steve, I'm not really sure why you're asking. This is kind of a strange question. But let's say you had a pregnancy test, and instead of peeing on it, you licked it. I wouldn't expect you to get an accurate result if you did that.

That's correct. But pregnancy test has already been validated in a sample population. No. I'm just saying that if if you if you looked on the present, pregnancy test, you should not, pay attention to the results. I think we agree on that.

Right? Yeah. I mean, you know, I don't know. Maybe Good. Good.

I'm just trying to I'm just trying to see stuff I I wouldn't I wouldn't advise it. Yeah. Okay. Alright. Great.

And and and then I wanna mention before we get started here into the the specific questions, if this is not my area of expertise, genomic sequencing, I admit upfront that, I could probably, ask questions that may be nonsensical or make mistakes, just because I do not claim to be an expert in gene sequencing and you know that. Well, I'm not an expert in gene sequencing either. Okay. Great. Well, great.

Great. So so let's start off with the e some just real simple softball questions just to to get this going here. So your name is Andrew Russell Kaufman, MD. Is that correct? That's a yes or no.

Well, I wouldn't say MD is part of my name. It's, Okay. But okay. But but your middle name is Russell? Just to make sure that we have the I can tell you for sure that Andrew Russell are my name, but it would only be hearsay that Kaufman's my last name.

I have no direct firsthand knowledge, but I go by. Okay. And have you published papers in genomics? Have you published any papers about your theories about whether the COVID or whether the SARS COVID 2 virus exists? Is there are there any papers either on a preprint server, are there any published papers, or even unpublished papers that people, would want to take a look at?

Well, there's a paper I wrote with Tom Cowan on my website, but, there's, you know, very, very low likelihood that any journal would publish any paper that I would write on this topic. Because if you look at some of the other attempts at publication, even in much, much less controversial areas like the Dutch, group who actually did a, a randomized controlled trial of masks during COVID. They had to basically violate, statistics 101 to get their paper published after, you know, 3 rejections. So that would be kind of a a fool's errand in my opinion, so I never pursued that. Right.

No. I I I get that, but you have a a paper that's available on your site that people can read that explains, how all this works and what your theories are and Well it only specifically talks about isolation experiments and electron microscopy, but yes, it it gives the basic ideas. But I have lots of published, lectures, like slide show type lectures that, you know, explain all the arguments and even a documentary film. Okay. So people can go to your website and do you wanna give us the URL for that?

Yeah. It's just, andrewkalfmanmd.com. Great. Awesome. Easy to remember.

Okay. So let's get into the the key question here, which is, you I believe that I I I've seen the Dell Big Tree, interview. I saw the, excerpt that, Debunk the Funk, posted, to the web, where you're answering some questions. So I'm I tried to to do my homework, and it appears that you claim that and and so you can correct me if I'm wrong, but my, I'm I'm I'm trying to summarize that it appears that your opinion is that, COVID, sorry, that SARS COVID 2, the virus, isn't in fact a virus, that it's an exosome, causing this, that, SARS COVID 2 doesn't exist. And my my and and and so I believe I got that part right, but I wanted to make sure that we're crystal clear on the second question, which is do you believe that any viruses exist?

Do you believe that the measles virus exists? Do you believe that small pox virus exists? Do you believe the poly poliovirus, or poliomyelitis, virus exists? Or do you think that there there is no such thing as a virus? So let's just start with SARS COV 2 just to make sure that I got that right.

And then let's and then if you'd answer, clearly the second question as to whether you think any virus exists and if so, then which ones? Yeah, sure. So, you're partially correct, you're in the ballpark on about SARS CoV-two. I tried. Okay.

You know, basically what I've said is that the claims put forth that this virus, you know, exists and is causing disease are baseless. Like if you actually look at the published studies, which assert those alleged facts, they they did not meet the, the bar for approving anything or demonstrating everything, and we can, you know, of course talk about that in detail. And you know, in my journey of discovering this, of course I looked at many other alleged pathological viruses, right, those are alleged viruses that are said to cause disease, like you mentioned a number of them. And I haven't personally looked into every single virus that's in, you know, a microbiology textbook. But I've looked into all the ones you mentioned and, several more.

And then some of my colleagues who also have examined the same material and have similar conclusions, they've looked at the rest. So there's a large, body of work out there, some of it in written form, in papers and blogs, and a lot of it in video form about all of those different viruses. So in terms of viruses that are alleged to cause disease in humans, I haven't found any prima facie evidence that any of them actually exist in the real world. There are other nano scale particles that, are, you know, real, that live in within microorganisms like for example, bacteriophages, which are often compared to viruses, but those they're able to actually demonstrate their existence in reality. Okay.

So you you agree that bacteriophages do exist and they do infect bacteria? Well, the their actual role in the bacterial culture is, not nearly as clear cut, but they definitely exist because you can find lots of studies where they're purified and the only thing you see on a microscope image is identical, very uniquely shaped particles that, you know Okay. They it's obvious that one thing you're looking at. Okay. But but but as far as you're concerned, you do not believe that that viruses exist or you have not seen any conclusive proof that, that viruses exist even though bacteriophages exist?

Correct. The ones that are alleged to cause disease. Okay. So so that's interesting because if you were to look up bacteriophages, you would find that they're considered to be viruses. Yes.

Well, that's why I'm that's why I'm kind of specifying what I've looked at because you could call them that, but they you know, what the functional definition of virus hasn't been fully established for bacteriophages either. But they definitely can demonstrate that they're real. Okay. So we're talking about, nomenclature that in, bacteriophages exist, they do infect bacteria but No. No.

No. I'm saying that there's no there's no evidence that they infect bacteria. They're present in bacterial cultures under very stressful conditions in a pure bacterial culture, which is not a natural setting. Okay. Alright.

But there's no experiments that show that they cause an infection to bacteria or Alright. Well well well, okay. Then we'll we'll we'll get into to this more later, but I just wanna kind of establish, your position. So essentially, you're saying that from your point of view, you're not convinced that any virus exists. That they may you could you would probably say that it's possible that the SARS COVID 2 virus could exist.

It's possible that the measles virus could exist, But from your perspective, you haven't been scientifically convinced that these, viruses do exist. Is that, would that be fair characterization? Yeah. Yeah. There's just not sufficient evidence to demonstrate their existence.

Great. Okay. Let me, let me I'm gonna start off with a bunch of short questions, softball questions. Let's, hopefully I can get a quick answer on these because they're they should be yes or no, questions. I saw this video that was, posted by Demunk the Funk, 3 years ago on YouTube, where Tom, asked you a question at one of your seminars, and you said that you would follow-up and you would, examine the paper and get back to him.

And, and he also suggested talking about when someone sabotaged one of my webinars and got access to their camera and stuff and put and then made a video trying to make me look bad and call me names and say I didn't go to medical school you're talking about? I'm I'm talking yeah. I think we're talking about the same person. Yeah. And I'm not sure that I can reveal his last name, but, he was referred to by Debunk the Funk as Tom.

And, and he basically said, here's the paper and you and you said on video that you would review that paper and that you would discuss it with him. And I'm just, inquiring as to whether that discussion took place, and if not, why not? And also that he suggested that you take a course in, in, I think, genomic sequencing, and I was wondering if you, took him up on that offer as well. You know, simple yes or no question. Now Steve, this is what you call, a logic fallacy here.

You're trying to defame my character by saying I didn't, you know, have a discussion with the guy that I said I would. That guy I'm just trying to ascertain I'm just no. I'm just trying to ascertain whether you did. I can't be defaming you because I'm not accusing you of not having the discussion. I wanna only talk about the scientific issues, not about, you know, some random guy who tries to, you know, insult people on camera.

Well, okay. Well, this is not a random guy, and he presented scientific evidence to you, which you said that you would have to look further into the details of the methodology. I made a video interpreting the paper that he, gave, so you can find that on my platform. Yes. I'm I'm I'm aware of that.

Okay? But you you never engaged with him on I'm not gonna engage with people who insult me Okay. On video on camera. I mean, why why would I do that? I didn't think that he was insulting you.

That's not yeah. He he called me names and said that I didn't graduate medical school or something and, put up you know, freeze frames of my face in an awkward, position. You know, kind of Okay. Teenage Okay. Stuff like that.

Okay. So let let let's move on to the second question. Is it possible to get to passage, 4 stock if there's no replication? Wait. Say that again.

Is it possible to get to passage 4 stock if there's no replication? Well, what do you I mean, passage is just taking some fluid from one cell culture and adding it to another cell culture. So what what do you like you all you need is a pipette and cell cultures to do that. Is that what you're asking? What you what you you understand, what what I mean by passage for stop.

Right? Are you talking about It was it was in the original it was in the okay. The there was an original sequencing of the SARS COVID 2 genome. It's in that paper. This is a direct quote from the paper, which I'm sure you're familiar with because that it's that's basic literature that everybody would be familiar with who who looks at SARS COV 2.

There's a Are you talking about the paper I sent to your staff, the Fan Wu paper? I, I don't think it was, The fan who gave her the first published, genome of SARS COV 2. No. No. No.

No. No. The the first one in in the United States. I'm not familiar with that. Let me let me let me let me see let me see if I can look it up real quick.

The only the first genome matters because they used templates for all subsequent, genome sequencing. So Right. Okay. So let me, That's why I submitted the, Fan Wu paper to your staff. Did you have a chance to read the papers I submitted?

No. Because they didn't, provide it to me. Oh, I never did several days ago, Steve. Why didn't you have a chance to read it? Because they'd never I'm telling you, they didn't provide it to me.

I see. Well, why did why did they support that? Okay. So the the paper that I'm talking about, is titled isolation and characterization of SARS COV 2 from the first US COVID 19 patient. Okay.

I mean, I I read that paper but I read it, you know, a couple of years ago. Okay. But, let me let me read the, let's see. So, pass I'm I'm looking at the paper right now. We subsequently generated a 4th passage stock of SARS Co V2 on Vero E6 cells, another fetal rhesus monkey kidney cell line.

Okay? Viral RNA from SARS Cov two passage 4 stock was sequenced and confirmed to have no nucleotide mutations compared to the original reference sequence. Have how is it possible, doctor Kaufman, to have a 4th passage if there's no replication? Well, what what is, the starting materials of that experiment, Steve? Did they have a virus and put it in there?

Is there is there a virus You said you read the paper. This is No. I think I read that paper 2 years ago. You think think I remember the details? But I know how all these papers are done similarly.

What was the starting material? It it doesn't matter. This is a generic question. I'm I'm simply asking you. I'm simply asking Steve, you're saying that you're Hang on.

It just let me let me you're interrupting me. Is it possible to get to passage for stock if there is no replication? This is an easy question that when I ask any of my experts who do this stuff for a living, there is no question as to what the answer to that question is and so it it it troubles me that you're asking questions like how is this prepared. This is a simple cut and dry objective question, is it possible to get to passage force dock if there's no replication? Yes or no?

Steve, I can't answer that question because I don't know what you mean is it possible. Like I said, passage just means you pipette some fluid from one culture and put it in a subsequent culture. So you can do that, a 1000000 times, right, as long as you have enough pipettes and enough cell cultures. So the But so In order to You're interrupting me now. Okay.

I was gonna try to answer your question which In order to understand what this experiment because you you you made that question completely out of context. What is the experiment? Like, what are the procedures? What what how many samples do they have? What are they who are they from?

Is it one sample from one patient? Did they purify a virus out of it? Did they prove a virus is in it first before they started the experiment? How do you know there's a virus in the experiment? So what they did is they, a patient with so this is I'm reading directly from the paper.

A patient was identified with confirmed co with confirmed COVID 19 in Washington state on January 2020 22nd 2020. Paper that proves that COVID exists, how can you start with already knowing that they have COVID? Because we're talking about COVID COVID 19 which is the disease not SARS COVID 2 which is the virus. Gotcha. How do you diagnose COVID though?

Well let's see. Okay. So what they did is they, used a cycle threshold of 18 to 20, both in the, throat swabs and nasal swabs. Okay. So they did a PCR test.

Right? They did a PCR test. Okay. So how do you how do you know that the PCR tests can diagnose COVID? They didn't they didn't they didn't say that.

They just said that it was confirmed that the PCR test said it was COVID and that they did Okay. That's the whole So it's clear. But what they're doing based on that that patient has COVID. Right? Okay.

And they're wait. They're they're saying they have COVID because they have a genetic test. Right? That the genetic test is supposedly testing genetic sequences from a virus, but this experiment is to prove that there's a virus. So they assume there's a virus, they have a test for it, that without ever finding it, and then they use the test results to prove that it exists.

This is circular reasoning. Where's the prima facie evidence that there's a virus in the first place? You can't have a PCR test without that because the genetic sequences allegedly belong to that virus. How do you know they belong to it if you haven't discovered the virus first? Well, but they did discover the the virus first in in an earlier paper out of China and so these PCR tests I've never submitted to your staff, the the Fanwu paper that Oh, it it it it it it it it probably was but I don't know what the origin of the PCR test was in this this paper and maybe if I had time to read it more carefully, but but my point is this, that if that everybody I've talked to says it's not possible to get to passage 4 stock if there's no replication.

So you're claiming you're are you saying that What does that mean? How is it not what's what's not possible about it? You mean that you won't have a positive PCR test in the forecast? No. No.

That you can't you can't have you can't get to the next stage. In order to get to passage 4, it means that there are basically 4 replications where you've you've measured that the the thing that you're looking at has replicated. What When you say replication what do you, mean? Well well in in order to go and do genomic sequencing, you usually start off by taking a sample Cultures aren't you? Or are you talking about sequencing?

Cell cultures. Yes, no cell cultures. Okay. Before the sequence. You don't you don't just take the, the the the the swab and then try to genetic sequence that, you would go and try to Right.

You gotta take genetic material from an actual organism to sequence it so you know what you're sequencing. Right. But then you go and you put put it in these Vero cells in order to replicate it so that you have lots of copies of it and then you go and run the sequence on. Why would you do that? You can amplify it with PCR.

You only need one copy to and you could make infinite amount with PCR. You could. Or you need to culture it. Because you want to culture the entire genome. Does that make sense?

You you can't culture a genome, Steve. You can only culture organisms. Yes. But you're you're culturing the virus that you believe exists and what happens is that they do this and they find that that virus replicates. That What what What what you can do How do you know how do you know the virus is in that experiment?

You don't necessarily know that but you're you're replicating something. You're Something's replicating. What do you think How do you know? Do you think you can get to passage for stock if nothing is replicating? Like, what do you mean if what do you mean by replicating?

How do you tell if something's replicating? Well, because you can Because if you have twice as if you have twice as much as something and you then go through another process of replication and you have Twice as many viral particles. Looking out, then then you you believe then it's it's clear that something is replicating. You have twice as many viral particles? You have twice as you have twice as many particles.

Okay. Where are the pictures of the particles going from half as many to twice as many? I I'm just asking you. The point is that when you when you go I mean, these are pretty I I didn't expect to be specular. That all your results that you're talking about are based on PCR testing, with looking at well, then what then what Passage 4.

Passage 4 is not about a PCR testing. It's putting it's putting these samples into Vero cells and having them replicate in the Vero cells. How how do you detect their replication? I I I Like I said, I'm not an expert on this, but You have to talk to people and and people think this is a problem. Have you ever done this stuff before, doctor Kaufman yourself?

Done which stuff? Have I worked in a laboratory with with culture, cell cultures? Have have you ever taken a swab of somebody who has supposedly, hypothetically, a virus? Have you ever taken a a, a nasal swab, and have you ever placed that into a varocell and then replicated that I do know what a Vero cell is. In a whole genome sequence on it?

Do do you know what a Vero cell is? Yes. It's a monkey it's a monkey kidney cell. So let me ask you, what if this virus grows in the lungs, why do they need to use monkey kidney cells? That are genetically modified by the way.

Be be be you know, surely surely, doctor Kaufman, I can't believe you're asking me that question. Question. You're telling me that you don't know the answer to it? I'll tell you the answer to it but it's I'll tell you the answer to it but I think we have different answers. Okay.

Well, I I can tell you the answer to it as as far as I know and again, I'm I'm not an expert on this but the reason they use these cells is because these cells are basically, they're they're these immortal cells that are easy to grow stuff in. And so it it's it's simply a scientific container to allow a replication of a virus that comes from a human or some other places and it it happens to be a nice medium for, for growing things. It's like dirt, effectively. You know, with with dirt for plants are you take a plant, you put it into dirt, the plant grows. The same thing can be true for putting these these foreign cells, this this virus into Vero cells so that you can go and, and replicate the virus.

So Steve, this is a good point because, the, the paper number 2, if Olivia wants to, pop it on screen at some point, talks about this, that, SARS COV 2, even if you if you think it's real, it's even mainstream people say it doesn't affect the kidneys, so how could you culture it in kidney cells? But this article shows how, they have kidney biopsies from pre COVID and during COVID but with all negative, unvalidated COVID tests, and they found particles on electron microscopy that look identical to what they say coronaviruses look like, the same size with the spikes. And they basically say that you can't identify it from these images and that this problem has been known about since the seventies. This is what it says in the paper and even there's another paper that the c d c published about this issue. That by looking at these microscopic images, it doesn't tell you what you're looking at.

That these things could be confused for all types of, subcellular particles. And that's what the exosome discussion came from because exosomes are just one type of many, subcellular particles that are found, in the body and they're much more common in pathological conditions like disease and injuries, that they can't be distinguished morphologically by by sight, right, by shape, by appearance on microscopy from each other. Okay? There needs to be some other way of identification. Like in the, experiment you're talking about, there was no direct visualization of viral particles that are being replicated.

There doesn't need to be. We have whole genome sequencing. Well, if you don't detect the actual thing you're looking at and use a proxy variable or a co variant, it needs to be validated. So if it's not It is validated. The the the whole genome sequence, doctor Kaufman, do you know how many countries have validated the whole genome sequence of the SARS COVID 2, virus?

They they haven't validated it. What they've done is they've run a template and not gotten the same results, which is why there are millions and millions of variants. Yes. But they're very they're very they're very similar, aren't they? I don't know.

We're very similar to chimpanzees, but we're not the same. The No. But but, you know, the the size of the genome for a chimpanzee is is quite a bit different than the size of the genome for for SARS CoV 2. Do you know what the size of the the genome for for for SARS COVID 2 is? There is no genome for COVID 2 because SARS COVID 2 hasn't actually been shown to exist.

Okay. Okay. Let's assume let let me let me let me call it the gene sequence. The or sorry, the the the sequence of nucleotides for SARS Co V 2, do you know how long the sequence is? Steve, let's look at the Fanwu paper because That's a simple question, doctor doctor Kaufmann.

You you don't know what the whole thing it is? There is no valid genome. I know how long they they say it is, but it's not How long do they how long do they say it is? It's roughly 30,000 base pairs. Is it more than 30,000 or less than 30,000?

Well, we can look at this paper. It has the exact number because this is the paper that No. No. No. No.

But but there's sequence It's not that one, Livio. It's the, 4th one, number 4. There are sequences, doctor Kaufman, from over a 100 countries in the world, and it's amazing. It's amazing that a 100 countries all detect sequences of virtually the same length, with virtually the same structure, with minor differences here and there in the sequence. So it's a logic fallacy to say that just because something has been done by a lot of people that it it means something.

Now Really? Okay. So how do you how do you explain how do you explain that over a 100 countries get the same results for whole genome sequencing? You know how it works. Right?

Steve, I already said because you don't know what the procedure they're doing. They are using a template. A substantial portion of the genome that they're looking for is contained in primers that they're using, and they're templating to this genome, which is I'm trying to explain, if we look at the procedure. So all those other ones, they're templated and validated against this original genome, which is the one first Yeah. Imported in GenBank.

Yep. And this one, if we can go through the procedures, you'll see that it's nothing more than a computer simulation. It's not an actual experiment where they took an organism and took out the genetic material and sequenced it. You know, that's how they got the genome of humans and cats and dogs and chimpanzees and all the and bacteria as well. But here, they do something very different, which is a simulation.

So if I can just, get the paper up on my screen here for a second. See see, here's what I don't you you under you you understand how whole genome sequencing works. Right? Well, that's not what's done, for No. It's a yes or no question, doctor Kaufman.

It's a yes or no question. Do you understand how whole genome sequence is done? You have to define the term. Whole genome sequencing? You have to define the term?

Are you serious? Listen, that's not a term I I've seen in the literature, so why don't you just tell me what it is? Wow. I'm I'm I'm flabbergasted. Do do you know what hybrid sequencing is?

Hybrid sequencing. No. I'm not familiar with hybrid sequencing. Do you know what? Have you heard of, Steve, do you are you trying to avoid talking about this paper which is what they did or No.

I'm I'm really not trying to look, if we if doctor Kaufman doctor Kaufman, if we had the next 8 hours, I'm happy to go down into any rabbit hole that you wanna go down at. I'm trying not to poke This is the scientific paper that establishes the genome that you're saying is the evidence for No. But the see, that's not the important thing, doctor Kaufman. It's not. No.

It's not. It's not. It's not. No. No.

No. You should, do do you know what the have you heard of Oxford Nanopore? I think we should talk about the container. Have you have you yes or no. Do you know are you familiar with the Oxford Nano NanoPORE system?

This this line of questioning with you naming brand names of molecular biology test kits or, you know, different procedures is not going to allow us to learn anything. Yes it is. Yes it is. That's the reason I'm bringing it up. It's a simple yes or no question.

If you if you if you would answer the question rather than try to evade the question, then I will explain to you why this is relevant. Do you know what what the Oxford Nanopore system is? Yes or no? No. I don't know what it is.

Okay. Alright. So And you know what metagenomics is? Steve? You know what Metagenomics is?

I'm I'm familiar like I said, I'm not I'm not an expert. You but you claim to be an expert in this, doctor doctor Kaufman. You claim to be an expert. I'm to be an expert, but I'm asking you some basic question. Like, do you you don't understand, Doctor Kaufman, here's the point.

Let me let me let me just summarize the point here because we only have 7 minutes left. Over a 100 countries through throughout the world have done whole genome sequencing. If you go and you look at, for example, ATCC, they when they do their validation, they use the, Illumina, system to do their sequencing but they also combine it with, the Oxford nanopore reads. Now, Illumina reads about 300 or so bases, typically, sometimes more, sometimes less. The Oxford Nanopore system is much greater that they can read, sizes that are, are are huge in comparison, much much larger than the, than the SARS COV 2, sequence.

And so you don't have any of this. You can't do any of this hand waving to say that this is mathematically generated from primers because they use random primers when they do whole genome sequencing. They don't go and and go to Wuhan and get the primer sequence and just try to replicate it from that. They're basically replicating the results from scratch. They take the material, they're not looking at any reference papers and they're able to come up with the exact same sequence and they're able to do that throughout the world and you seem to be unable to understand that and you don't even understand the whole genome sequencing technology and you've been misleading people, I I believe that you've been misleading people because you've been saying that they assemble these things in a mathematical algorithm and you're not even talking about the hybrid, sequencing that they're doing that eliminates, completely eliminates that possibility and you're you've been telling people that oh, you know, these sequences that you can get anything that you want out of them, I've heard you say that and that's just simply not true and this and and you're don't you don't seem to be to be familiar with how it's done.

You've never done it before. Alright. May I respond now? Yeah. Go ahead.

So Steve, I I am familiar with exactly how it's done because I actually read all the scientific, papers where they establish these things and I I tried to send you these papers, but I'm not sure if you actually read them because you need to go step by step. Now the specific technology that's used to actually take a strand of genetic material and sequence it, there are many ways that it can be done and I never said that any of those ways in and of itself were a problem. The problem is that what they do is they sequence genetic material that they don't know what organism it's from. They take so in the original, genome sequence, the Fanwu paper, they only had 1 single patient, first of all. And they took bronchialveolar lavage fluid, which is, from the lungs, so lung fluid, from that patient, and they extracted all of the RNA in that patient's lung fluid.

Now you can imagine that there are hundreds of different organisms in that lung fluid and also in whatever was in the last breath that they took in. Right? You know, if we just swab the air, we can find DNA and genetic material. So they then, you know, made a cDNA library and then used next generation sequencing, which is attaching small oligonucleotide strands to beads and they're all sequenced in parallel and it really speeds up the process and it's it's a good technology. But when you start sequencing with material of unknown origin, unknown provenance, then what you get out of it are sequences of unknown origin and unknown provenance.

And what they did is they got, over 56,000,000 sequences, they call them contigs, out of that next generation sequencing data. And then they then they use computers to simulate and modify the sequences. So for example, one thing they did is they removed sequences that they said were ribosomal RNA. They also say that they removed some human sequences, but they didn't actually publish their exact procedure, and you know, humans don't we don't all have the same sequence. So it's not a trivial matter to identify a sequence as innately, you know, human versus from something else.

Even bacterial, there are short, you know, nucleotide sequences that we overlap even with lower organisms. So basically, out of these 56,000,000 strands, they put them into not 1, but 2 different software programs. And these software programs use different algorithms to try to match the smaller strands into bigger ones by having various overlaps in their sequence. And they, of course, constructed, many many solutions. 1 software program had over 3,000,000 solutions, one had over 1,000,000 solutions.

And from these, you know, 5,000,000 possible completely made up genomes where every piece of sequence RNA in them comes from an unknown source. Could it be human? Could it be a bacteria? Could it be, you know, something else unknown, another virus, a horse that somebody was riding the other day, almost anything. And then they out of those 5,000,000 computer simulated sequences, they pick 1.

But that's not good enough. They say, for some reason, even though they say that's accurate, that they still don't know what the ends if the ends are right, so they have to make primers to the ends of those sequences and then put it back in the original mix and do more p c r and then sequence what gets added on the end, and then report that that's what But first they do some further processing to substitute some nucleotides to get the right amino acid codons, then they publish it as being something real. So this is an entire computer simulation from a mixture of unknown sources of DNA in this entire experiment, there's not once demonstrated that there's a virus. So can you explain, these people who are doing this in various countries are doing de novo whole genome sequencing. So how did they get the same result?

Can you tell me what the procedure that they're doing step by step because I just gave you the step by step procedure, now you give it to me. You know, because I I'll tell you if it's valid. I think the audience will know if it's valid. I think they know from my perspective. But the point is that it it it doesn't it's irrelevant.

Right? No. It's not. How can I answer the question if I don't know what the Because they're doing they're doing de novo whole genome sequencing? The experiment that I just described, do you think the genome sequence at the end of it is a real genome of a real Yes.

Yes. Based on what I said? Because they How do you know where where the sequences came from? Well, because, you know, in the paper it said, hey, you know, we took a swab from a patient who, who is is exhibiting SARS is exhibiting COVID 19 symptoms. Okay.

So the itching is human. They're not distinct from pneumonia. They're the same exact symptoms. In that paper if you read it, you'll see they just had pneumonia symptoms. So how do you know they had a virus in them?

Well, because they're able to extract out a DNA sequence that they've never seen before. So for example, you're familiar with the fur and cleavage site. So because they use computers to simulate a sequence that's super important. It has to be a virus? That's what you're saying?

No. I didn't say it had to be a virus. I My question was, how do you know there's a virus in that Cut because they look at the sequence that they extract in the whole genome sequencing that's done de novo. Experiment where they're determining the sequence, Steve. They can't determine it and know it ahead of time at the same time.

That's bad in the But but you do you understand what the what de novo whole genome sequencing is? Steve, forget about the term. Sequencing is? Steve, forget about the term. Yeah.

Wait. That's a yes or no question, doctor Kaufman. How do you know that that sequence, that was the result of the experiment, came from a virus? That was the result of the experiment came from a virus? We'll get there.

Let's just let's just Steve. I asked you, do you answering this question. It's purposeless to talk about genomes at all because this is the first genome. If this genome is not accurate, then every genome subsequent to it is not accurate. So That is not true.

We know those sequences are from the virus. That is not true. How do you know What you just said is complete is completely false. Say anything else until you answer this question. I asked you if you knew what de novo whole genome sequencing was.

You're obviously not very familiar with whole genome sequencing. You you you it appears you don't You have metagenomic sequencing. That's what was done for SARS COV 2. So how do they know the sequence is from a virus? Because they can they can look at it.

They can look at the sequence whether it's a virus. There's no pictures in the paper. They didn't do any micros It's called it's called sequencing. It's called genome sequencing. How do they know?

You seem to be unfamiliar with this technology. You and you still don't you still are not answering my simple question. I'm gonna say Which is whether you know what de novo whole genome sequencing is. Yes or no? Steve, the sequence came from lung fluid.

It that's a human fluid. So you're saying that it represents the human genome? No. The human gene is filtered out, doctor Kaufman. You should know that.

I'm gonna stop in. Because it's because it's filtered because we filter out the stuff that we know about and what remains, we say, oh, this is interesting. Remains as a virus? There's no other unknown organisms out there? There probably are, but there's there's one that's replicated that has that that you've not seen for How do you know it's not another unknown organism?

How do you know that all of the you know Because they're the because it, I'm answering your question. Okay? You asked me how do I know it's not an another unknown organism? Because people throughout the world have done this millions and millions of times, and they get exactly the same results using syncedrin. Alright.

I am I am gonna I'm gonna call a time out. I'm gonna pull an audible. I'm gonna I'm gonna step in the middle of this as as, awkward as it is for me. Thank you for doctor Coppin, I wanna thank you also just for being present the way you are and handling everything and all the questions. And, Steve, I wanna thank you for being tenacious as you are, but I'm gonna step in and go to some audience questions that I think everybody wants to hear and, and proceed for okay.

One one One question before we do that, very simple question. I just wanted to clarify, doctor Kaufman, do do you believe that the SARS COVID, that that people who have COVID, that that is being caused by exosomes, yes or no? Well, I don't really have any beliefs about this, but no. Exosomes are don't cause anything. They're a result of, diseased cells.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. I'm gonna I'm gonna move on to some audience questions because, I think they wanna hear the answers to these, and and I'm gonna start with number 1 from our very own nurse Angela. If HIV patients aren't dying from HIV, and this is for you, doctor Kaufman, what are they dying from?

So, for everybody that wants to know what my hypotheses are about the cause of other different diseases, I have a healthy living livestream every Wednesday at noon on all my channels, YouTube, Instagram. That is not relevant to discussion today because that's what's called the straw man fallacy. And I'm not making any claims. I'm refuting the claim that this virus or that virus causes a disease. So in order to refute that claim, I don't have to have any alternative explanation.

And there's really no scientifically valid explanation as terms of cause of these of most of these diseases. There may be some things. There actually some of these diseases, if you start looking at it, it's not even clear that the disease exists. I'm not talking about AIDS, but if you do look at AIDS, all of the, you know, AIDS related conditions, right, like Kaposi's sarcoma and, pneumocystis carineae pneumonia and, various other conditions, they all existed before AIDS. In fact, very, shortly before the AIDS crisis started in Northern California, there were reports of Kaposi's sarcoma in kidney transplant recipients because they had invented a new transplant rejection medicine, azathioprine, and it resulted in Kaposi's sarcoma in some of the recipients.

So it was, kind of interesting that that later on that that was hidden, but there are, you know, many causes, potential causes of these things and we need to do some very rigorous, well designed, well controlled experiments to make solid determinations. Fair. Yeah. Okay. Makes makes sense to me.

And a follow-up from nurse Angela. When one kid gets chickenpox, many other kids get it at the same time? Another Yeah. So that's, now that you know, I don't know if someone actually observed that or they're just saying that other people say that, but I'm glad you brought up Contagion because, recently, and I did, by the way, one of the papers I submitted was a contagion study from the Spanish flu, done by Rosanow from, the predecessor of the CDC, the National Health Service, and it was done, you know, with, Navy, soldiers, volunteers. But there turns out there's over 90 actually scientific controlled studies of contagion where they're trying to, use various techniques to pass an illness from one person to another, and some times they do animal studies as well because some common human illnesses like the flu, animals are susceptible to as well.

So this set of experiments that you put up on the screen, for example, I think there's 8 total experiments where they had a variety of different body fluids, bronchial fluid, saliva, nasal secretions, even blood from patients in the hospital during Spanish flu outbreaks, and they put them in a bunch of volunteers in many many different ways. They squirted it up their nose, they had them get really close to each other and, one exhaled and the other inhaled, and they did this on a Spanish flu ward where everyone had the Spanish flu. They even did experiments where they injected the fluid into healthy recipients, and they could not make anyone sick whatsoever, and they mentioned even in this paper that there was another site with a different investigators doing a similar series of experiments. They couldn't get anyone sick. And it turns out, like I said, there's over 90 studies just on the cold and flu contagion that essentially demonstrate that it is not a contagious illness whatsoever and Daniel Roydus recently wrote a book to this effect called Can You Catch a Cold?

Which I encourage everyone, to read. He does also review some other non, cold related contagion studies. There are some and I'll I'll bring up one, because it's kind of humorous from, my, knowledge. And this was a subject an experiment done on people without their knowledge by the c f the CIA, and there are many experiments like this and they've been disclosed through freedom of information act, file dumps, and there are books by various authors, that you can read and study some of these crazy experiments. So this one, they offered some, you know, random men walking on the street, a free ride with a prostitute, but what the men didn't know is that the prostitutes had chlamydia or actually it was gonorrhea.

Sorry. The the prostitutes all had gonorrhea and they were symptomatic, and these guys, these johns basically had sex with them, you know, on the government's dime, and then they followed the guys to see if any of them got gonorrhea and none of them did. So that's kind of an example. I know that study is a little bit, sexy and less scientific, but there are plenty of rigorous controlled studies, done on this. None of them demonstrate that we can transfer illness from one person to the other, despite whatever may happen at chicken pox parties.

How how do you how do you explain the, the cutter incident? What cutter incident are you referring to? The the 120,000 kids that were infect infected with a not attenuated virus but a live virus. It caused, kids to get, a positive tested positive for the virus. 40,000 kids they did.

There were estimated 120,000 doses of the salt vaccine that was produced by Cutter Laboratories. There were 40,000 kids who developed an abortive form of polymyelitis and, there were 56, kids who developed paralytic polio as a result of those injections. So if there's no virus then how do you explain that? Was this a vaccine? This is a vaccine.

Yes. But it contained a live virus. The virus that How do you know wait. Let me finish. How do you know Yeah.

Wasn't one of those other things that caused the toxicity? Because they all How do you know? Because How do you know there was a virus in there? How was it proven? Because they I'll give you a PCR assay.

You gotta go back to the beginning. You gotta look how was that thing produced? What are the ingredients in it? What's their toxicity? You know, a lot of the things they use to grow viruses are very toxic to humans.

Right? We know this from all of the toxicity from vaccines. Right. But you know, like they're from these We're not saying that. There were 40,000 of a 120,000.

1 third of the kids who were injected developed poll poliomyelitis. Yes. I'm sure they did but poliomyelitis was originally caused by lead arsenate and then later by DDT. There's excellent research on that from Forrest Moretti, you could look at the moth I'm I'm familiar with his work. I mean I'm not saying that definitive that there's definitive evidence but, it's these people weren't exposed to DDT.

Doctor Kaufman, they weren't exposed to DDT. How did they get poliomyelitis? Like I said, what was in the injections? You don't know. Maybe there was the People sweep We do.

It was the standard in in countries today, Steve. It was the standard in If it was because it was the difference in these cases You're talking about epidemiology. All you can do is make an observation. Lots of people died. You can ascertain the cause.

You can hypothesize it was the vaccine. You could hypothesize it's any one of the ingredients of the vaccine. You could also look at other data and see if there were any incidents. So so you you believe that it's I mean, that's what epidemiology is. You observe and you ask a lot of questions then.

So so do you believe that the most likely If you wanna determine the cause, you have to do actual scientific experiments after that. Like at the beginning, I said, you can generate hypotheses from epidemiologic data because I knew that you would try to convince me with that, but it's it's not rigorous. It can't It's not powered to prove cause and effect relationships. What's the more, what's the most likely explanation doctor Kaufman? Well, you know, I don't know Even the 20,000 kids and 4 1,000 kids develop poliomyelitis.

What yeah. Yeah. What's what's the what is the more plausible explanation? Steve, if you give me all the data that there is on this and I read it, I can I can tell you what's most likely, but you've given all I've got is a little bit of information that you said? How would I possibly know?

You can't just determine causation willy nilly. It's very, very difficult. This is one of the most difficult things, to determine through experimentation. Would autopsies have helped determine something? Well, it gives you more information from which to generate hypotheses.

Yes. Absolutely. Because, like, for example, here's something you can do on autopsy data is you could see, are any of the vaccine ingredients in the tissue that's damaged? Right? Because we do have evidence of that with other chemicals like from other sources, like persistent environmental pollutants like dioxin, for example, you see them in adipose tissue, right, and then sometimes in liver tissue of people with liver disease.

So you can get more information from that, but it's still observational data. It's not an experiment that you could definitively determine a cause. Right. Well, how about how how about barn Barnstable County, the incident with COVID 19, outbreak in Barnstable County. Do you think that, that that would be, you know, like how how do you explain that?

How do you explain all those people? There were 100 of people who attended an event. It was like like, several 1,000 people attended. There were, about 400 people who got diagnosed with SARS COVID 2 and they were gene sequenced. Mhmm.

They they got diagnosed they got diagnosed with a test or they were sick with symptoms. They were sick with symptoms but a 100 a 100 and 33 patients Let's, you want 133 patients got die got identified with the the b one six seventeen dot 2, which is the delta variant of SARS COVID 2. A 133 patients. Did that just happen by accident? So, Steve, I don't once again, when you have only observation, you can't tell what the cause of the sickness is, but but here's What what what do you what's the most likely?

Just give me the most likely explanation, doctor Kaufman. I don't have enough information to know. Like, I my recollection is that those people weren't even sick, that they just had PCR tests. But let's look at the data. They had whole genome sequencing.

Let's look at the data in Italy because, Michael Bryant has done really in-depth analysis on the epidemiologic data from Italy, right, which was the first place outside of China that they allegedly, you know, had a COVID outbreak. And he found many, many signals in the data that completely, refute any story of possible spread. And then of course, we also have, all of the contagion studies never demonstrate that contagion is a real thing. So there's guys who don't know How do you explain Barnstable County? When I went to, my grandmother's, you know, 90th birthday party family reunion, we all were waking up vomiting that night, None of us had a virus.

We all ate the chicken. So they could have all eaten the chicken, Steve. Yeah. But you wouldn't have had you wouldn't have had genetic sequencing of a 133 people at the party yielding identical results. It's, if all if a bunch of people get exposed to the same poison and manifest the same symptoms, they're likely to express similar genetic sequences.

So that's very As the SARS CoV 2 virus sequence? Well that's not a real sequence as I explained before. That's just there's no way how Alright. So answer this. How do you know that sequence is from a virus?

Where has that been shown? Do you know how many Because all of these people who get infected I'll answer your question. Okay? Because all these people throughout the world who are getting infected and are having similar symptoms person in our study, only one patient. How do you know he had a virus?

In in wait wait a minute, in what study? Fan Wu original genome paper that we discussed. Oh. I'll tell you why I'll tell you why we know that. One patient.

Yeah. I'll tell you why we know that. How do you know that? Because virus. Because because we've been able to replicate the genetic sequence.

It's a novel genetic sequence, and we've been able to to find that genetic sequence in people, in millions of people throughout the world. So Steve, they never find the they never find the identical sequence twice. Okay? But What? No.

No. No. Where do you That's why they say they have 12,000,000 variants because every sequence is No. No. No.

Because they're only about 30 in any given point in time, doctor Kaufman, they're only about 30 or so variants that circulate and that exist at any given point in time. This is not millions of of variants. They There are right now, at this moment, there are probably 30 different variants of SARS COV 2 that are prevalent in the United States of America as an example. It's not 300,000,000, it's 30. That's a very very small number.

Alright. I'm gonna I'm gonna ask a different question if that's okay. Yep. Go for it. I'm sorry.

Oisin Page. The promo vid for this debate showed doctor Kaufman talking about mislabeling deaths and hospital and nursing home protocols killing people early in the pandemic. Could doctor Kaufmann please expand on those? And I'm not sure what they mean because, obviously, those patients were sick, but I I think I'm insinuating the protocols. Like, what's your how do you expand on all these debts?

Well, I mean, this has been, you know, covered extensively, but, it varied from place to place, like, New York was the place where they, went crazy for ventilators and, you know, put people on ventilators that were breathing on their own perfectly fine, in, you know, various places in Europe. You, had a lot of, euthanasia type drugs like hospice treatments for people with an acute illness, that were used. You know, it's been extensively, reported on. There's also a lot of, acutely ill hospital patients were sent to nursing homes where they couldn't receive, any treatment because nursing homes are not equipped to deal with that. So, you know, there were a lot of different things, and then, of course, we had, you know, some of the, toxic pharmaceuticals that were put into the, you know, COVID protocols that were reimbursed very well, and then then, of course, ultimately, the poison injection.

So, you know, this iatrogenic, problem was, you know, explained, quite a bit of the illness and the brief more you know, especially it was probably the major cause of that brief short lived mortality spike in the spring of 2020. The protocols in the hospitals, basically. Yeah. Combined with the the nocebo effect to a degree as well. Another question here from 1 concerned world citizen.

When a family all gets a cold around at the same time, what do you think caused it? Well, this is, you know, once again, an example of a straw man. Right? Because I'm saying there's no evidence that there's a virus causing it, so I don't know definitively what causes it. I of course have my own hypothesis, but they're not tested scientifically, and I don't know, you know, if they're worth describing, but I did say this a lot during, you know, my interviews, during the pandemic.

And I think it's it's kind of an elegant way to think about it because I purport it to be like the cycle of the leaves shedding from the trees, which we all enjoy every fall. And it's a renewal cycle, right, because the leaves are actually the respiratory organ of the tree because they have stoma underneath the leaf that the air comes in and, right, they breathe the carbon dioxide that we exhale and they put out o 2, but they also get air pollution coming through there, right, that they have to filter out because they don't want it inside the plant. And that makes the leaves, you know, kind of gummed up by the end of the season, so they fall off, The tree hibernates. Right? This is deciduous trees, obviously.

And then in the spring, it grows new buds and leaves with, you know, brand new clean stoma and, so that it can undergo its growth cycle for the year. So our breathing apparatus is our upper airway. So we're shedding the lining of the upper airway when we get the seasonal signal. We know that cold and flu season always starts in, you know, the early winter, late fall when the humidity and temperature drop below a certain threshold. That's been well established by observation.

And, so, you know, that it's a natural renewal cycle, and then some people, you have more gunk build up in their airway than others. Right? If they live around pollution, if, you know, if if they have pollution in their house, like they live with smokers for example, or other things, or they just generally live a toxic lifestyle and other people that tend to be really healthy and take good care of themselves, they don't get colds nearly as often. Just because they don't need to, they're constantly undergoing renewal cycles. But you didn't explain why a whole family gets it at the same time.

This happened to my family because recently did because I said it was based on an environmental cue. It's an annual cycle. So all the family experienced the same environmental conditions, and so they had the same biological cycle commence. You know, it's it's interesting that, I was on vacation in Greece with with my extended family and a large number of people ended up with SARS Cov 2 afterwards. All of a sudden.

How do you know they had SARS Cov 2? They they did the lateral flow assay tests. Now has that been validated against the clinical population? It it has been validated. No.

It hasn't. It hasn't. It's never been validated, Steve. Alright. So EUA approval.

You don't need to validate it, but it's the step 1 for getting FDA approval. So how how is it that when when I got sick with COVID symptoms and I took a lateral flow assay test, it turned positive and when I got negative. And my symptoms were consistent with SARS COVID. So what if you picked, turned over a card from the deck and it was an ace and then the next card was a 2? Would would that mean anything?

No. So if you have a random number generator and then you're you're interpreting it based on thinking it's a valid test, and then that's validating your belief that it's a valid test. That that's just begging the question, Steve. It has to be validated first. Like, you have to have a clinical sample of people who they can find the virus in those people, and then they do the lateral flow test on those people and also on another bunch of people that don't have the virus, that they but they look for the virus and then they're unable to find it, and then they do the lateral flow test, and then they compare the results of the virus, you know, let's say, isolation, because that's their gold standard, and compare that to the lateral flow results, and then they can determine the error.

That experiment has never been done for any COVID diagnostic. Do you know how a lateral flow assay test works mechanistically? It doesn't matter how it works, this process of validating a diagnostic test will be the same no matter what kind of test, what technology I'm I'm it works on. We're getting close to when doctor Kaufman has to leave. I'm gonna ask one last question I think is a good one here from Jeanne.

And it's isn't it possible that we are confounding and therefore rejecting the bad science that was used to try and prove the existence of viruses with the concept of viruses themselves. Isn't it more likely that the means that were established to prove viruses were incorrect and fraudulent, but the existence of viruses still remain and demand a better scientific process to prove their existence? Well, that's, what I would call wishful thinking or promissory biology. So you're saying, yeah, of course viruses are there. I just know they are, even though none of the evidence supports it, but if we just did had more technology or did better experiments, we'd prove it.

I mean, it's true that you can't prove that something doesn't exist. Right? We can't prove god doesn't exist, you can't prove that unicorns don't exist, you can't prove viruses don't exist, but you can look at the proof that's proffered for their existence and there simply is none credible to be had. Wow. You know, I I I asked, some friends of mine and I and I said, is there anything that is more that has been more scientifically validated independently all over the world than the SARS CoV 2 genetic sequence for the this single stranded RNA virus.

Millions of people, millions of sequences have replicated this. And I asked them and and the answer they gave was, well, I think probably gravity is the only thing in science that has been more validated than the sequence of SARS COV 2. So if ever not the best So it's never validated. Steve, you're using the wrong word. It's not validated.

It's It's been repeated. And something repeated when you repeat something that's incorrect and and it goes the same, that that all that tells you is that you were incorrect to begin with. It doesn't tell you that you're right because you can repeat the same mistake and get similar results. No. But these are not random results.

I mean, 30 30, which 29, 29,000, 29,000 bases. Okay? You take 4 4 to the 29,000 Steve, how do you know that any of the genetic sequences are from a virus? How do you know they're from a virus? They weren't taken from a virus.

Because because they are taken from people who are Yes. They're taken from humans. So how why aren't they human then? Why aren't they human? Because they're a virus.

Because they're a novel virus that hasn't been sequenced before. How do you know they're a virus? Well, they're not a bacteria because we would be able to see the bacteria. Because we'd be I just told you that. I just told you that because we've been if it was a bacteria, bacteria are larger than than viruses.

You surely not you certainly knew that. They're invisible? No. They're No. And you can see them under electronic, electron microscopes.

In fact, Tom showed you some pictures of that and then you didn't get back to him. So how do you explain Tom's pictures? Do you have He showed me. Over here? Can you show me the pictures?

I don't remember this. No. 3 years ago. You did you did this 3 years ago. He showed you the pictures.

He gave you the paper. Can you can you bring me the paper? I mean I know that Just to engage with him. Yes. Yes.

Of course. If the paper approved that there was a virus, do you think I'd still be here saying that viruses don't exist? Yes. I think you would be. Yeah, because because you didn't engage with him on the paper.

He showed you he showed you the electron microscope. Steve, stop over there. The guy the guy is like a teenager with name calling and insults. Okay? I'm not gonna waste my time.

Wait, wait, wait, wait. Now now what you're doing is you're using ad hominem attacks rather than disputing him on the science. Why don't you just instead of attacking him as a person You're absolutely correct. I apologize, but I don't engage in scientific discussions with people who use that kind of tactic. So that's why I did not have the discussion directly with them.

But like I said, I did analyze the paper, I pointed out the flaws in it, and I published it. And you you can go look at that, but you know, if you don't know the the actual procedure used for an experiment, I cannot really talk about it effectively. So the only question that is related to the genome is how there's no way to know where any of those sequences came from because they never had a virus, took out genetic material from it, and sequenced it. They sequenced a human fluid that has a mixture of unknown organisms, and then they put the sequences together in a computer simulation to make a bigger sequence. And that sequence itself was made of 30,000 actual sequenced strands, and it's not known where any of those 30,000 come from.

No. That No. That that that's not how it works. That's not how genetics I'm writing the papers. That is not how gene sequencing works.

To know how it works you have to read the papers. It's in the paper gene sequencing works and it doesn't is it does not work the way you described. You're gonna see. The culture the culture had been sequenced. You haven't provided the link for one paper.

There's no way the audience No. No. I I I can send I can, cut Nothing in the section. I put all the Here, let me let me Olivia, let me let me I'll I'll email you I'll email Olivia the the link to the paper right now. Email to me.

I'll read it. I'll come back and talk to you about it with you about it after I read it if you like. You can have a second version where we might be able to bring in some other experts. Right? Since both of you have said not an expert in certain things, We can bring in some experts and and have another conversation with, more data, more experts.

Well, you know, if we can bring in a 1000000 people, but to have a productive discussion, whoever participates, you know, one has to has to either know the literature or be willing to listen and try and learn it. Right? And and there has to be ground rules about logic We we can't be using logic fallacy because, well, it'll just, derail, any real learning or progress. Yeah. We'll set up a proper format with rules and do it properly versus just a interview conversation.

So I think that would be very productive to have something like that if you're open to coming back, doctor Kaufman, with Hey. I love having these discussions. And, you know, I didn't expect, anybody's mind to change today, but I think we definitely got a lot of information out there, you know, in all respects and, you know, it's everybody out there can make up your own mind about what's true, what's not true, and about how you're gonna deal with your health. And I think we all agree, stay away from any immunizations. We definitely agree on that.

I think that's a great way to end on a on a really good agreeable, like, stay away from immunizations and keep your immune system as healthy and strong as possible. Your whole body? Your whole body, everything, mind, body, and soul. Doctor Kaufmann, I wanna thank you for coming on tonight, and and you are a true trooper, and I really appreciate you being here. And, Steve, thank you again also for the conversation and just the tenacity again that you had to to get what you want out of this conversation.

And and, I appreciate both. And, hopefully, we can have a a different kind of round 2 because I I do think that all of us are on the right side as far as trying to help people get to the truth of things, and especially when it comes to the vaccines and the damage that they have done and continue to do. And that is where I that's where I lies to keeping us on the same side of that. Absolutely. Yep.

Alright. And and I know you have to go, doctor Cobb. Steve, thank you. I'm gonna finish off solo on the, the end. So thank you both, and have a great rest of your evening.

Alright good night night everyone else hang in there because I wanted you to see the nurse angeles speech from this past weekend a little segment from it was great I've been reading the comments, and I'll just leave it at that. I know there's a lot of opinions out there about tonight, and I appreciate you all for being here and sticking with us. And, Steve's Tampa, that's not cool. I'm just gonna call you out right now, and I won't let you back in here for using that kind of language. Not cool.

So we are a 501c3, and we are donating all the pros proceeds tonight to Cody who is fighting for his life. So, if you can and will contribute anything will help cody tonight text to vsrf@53555 and I'm sure Cody and his family would appreciate anything you can do tonight. Also, coming up, Fauci rally on June 25th at 5:30 PM at Dominican University in San Rafael, California. We are hosting a Fauci protest rally. Please join Steve, nurse Angela, and Lisa Leahy at a nearby restaurant at 4:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, again, on June 25th.

Doesn't say what day of the week that is. I don't know if my calendar opened, but June 25th at 4:30 PM for a happy hour, hosted by VSRF. Tickets to the happy hour cost a $150 and are tax deductible. We will put the link in the chat. Afterwards, we will head over to Dominican University and begin the protest.

Fauci is due to speak with Barbara Boxer at 7 PM. That event is ticketed and cost $48 to attend. Steve will speak at the rally, and he will be attending the ticketed event as well. We will put all the links in the chat. And, also, if you want to go to our swag shop, you can donate by purchasing some of our great misinformation super spreader, VSRF, defeat the mandates swag that is in our shop.

And then next week, we are working on who our guest is gonna be, but we are gonna have a special h five n one deep dive into this avian flu. So join us next week, same time, same place here on our Rumble channel, and we are gonna sign off tonight with a video clip of nurse Angela's speech again, as I promised, at the reawaken America tour last weekend. And then I'll put play a little bonus clip after that from JP Sears, talking about or showing Marjorie Taylor Greene's grilling of Fauci in front of congress last week. And thank you again all for joining us tonight, and we will see you all next week. Have a great evening.

How many of you here have been vaccine injured or know someone that has been vaccine injured? Wow. I am so sorry. Before I talk about the vaccine injured, I just wanna share a little bit of journey of the tragedies that happened during the pandemic. Shut down due to a virus that had a 0.35 percent chance of killing us.

To put that into perspective, home till we were blue in the face and not get medical care when there was known safe and effective drugs out there that they hid from us. Not It was completely tragic. I am appalled by what they did to us. I'm sorry for all the lives that were unnecessarily lost. This occurred while we were locked down.

Businesses collapsed. Fauci was at baseball games. I am from California. In California, we were locked down. We stayed home.

I pulled my daughter out of school, not on purpose. I was forced to. While we were locked down in California, our governor, Gavin Newsom, was out, having dinner with his friends and family, wining and dining at the French Laundry. Nancy Pelosi had her hairdresser open up her hair salon to get her hair done, while my hairdresser and thousands of others lost their businesses and livelihoods while we were staying at home. And our health director, doctor Sundari Maze, who previously worked for the WHO and the CDC, she was telling us to stay home.

Meanwhile, she was in bars, and she got her second DUI while we were locked up, and she hid that from us. I honestly can't make this stuff up. What happened next, in my opinion, is one of the most tragic things of the pandemic. It was crimes against humanity. They promised us a safe and effective vaccine that would end the pandemic and stop the transmission.

In fact, in the clinical trials, a child was harmed. Other participants were seriously injured and disabled, and none of us knew that. Nurse, with informed consent, there should never ever be bribery. College students were forced to take this to get an education. I am blown away that we allowed this tragedy to happen.

Fauci lied to us. He told us so many things that were not based on science. The 6 feet apart, the masks, the one mask, the 2 masks, the masks that we had to wear in airplanes, except when it was snack time. The restaurants that we finally are allowed to go to, but when we sat down, we could take our mask off as as if there was some magic bubble that kept us safe. As a medical professional, none of this was based on science whatsoever.

It was such a tragedy. We lost so many lives. I think all freedom lovers want to see Fauci pay, and recently at Fauci's capital testimony, Marjorie Taylor Greene plunged the sword of truth right into Fauci's filthy intestines. He squirmed. Take a look at this compilation video put together by Ultra Mega Party on Twitter.

Do you represent science, mister Fauci? I am a scientist who uses the scientific method to gain information. Yes or no? Yes or no? No.

That's not a yes or no, Amy. It's a yes or no. I don't think it is. Okay. Well, we'll take that as a you don't know what you represent.

Oh, I But this as director of the NIH, you did sign off on these so called scientific experiments. And as a dog lover, I wanna tell you this is disgusting and evil, what you signed off on and these experiments that happened to beagles paid for by the American taxpayer. And I want you to know Americans don't pay their taxes for animals to be tortured like this. So the type of science that you are representing, mister Fauci, is abhorrent. You confess that you made up the COVID rules, including I didn't hear what you said.

Social distancing, and masking of children. I never said I made anything up. You admitted that you made up. You made it up. I said I made it up.

So are you saying this is fake news, mister Kaufstein? I made anything up. What did you say? I said that it is not based in science and it just appeared. But this is science.

And making up guidelines like 6 feet distancing and masking of children. Do you think that's appropriate? Do the American people deserve to be abused like that, mister Fauci? Because you're not doctor. You're mister Fauci in my few minutes.

No. I don't need your answer. That man does not deserve to have a license. As a matter of fact, it should be revoked, and he belongs in prison. Suspend.

Here you are without your mask where you got to go and enjoy the game and sit right next to people not following the 6 feet of distancing, not wearing your mask, and everyone else was forced to stay home and stop enjoying life. And your science here, your science does display perfectly in this picture where children, children in school were put in plastic bubbles because of your science. Your repulsive evil science. And let's go back to your very own email. You said earlier you don't use email.

Oh, you do. Right here. This is your own email where you said the typical mask you buy in the drugstore is not really effective in keeping out virus. I do not recommend that you wear a mask. This is your email.

This is your own words. But yet children, children all over America were forced to wear masks. Healthy children forced to wear masks muzzled in their schools. And then they were forced to learn from home because of your so called science and your medical suggestions while you and all your cronies get paid for a big pharma. You know that what this committee should be doing, we should be recommending you to be prosecuted.

We should be writing a criminal referral because you should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. You belong in prison, doctor Fauci. That felt good to watch and that weasel should be in jail.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Read Transcript of 37min mp3 dr kaufman Healthy Living Livestream_ How To Cure Diabetes In Three Weeks

Hello, and welcome to doctor Andrew Kaufman's Healthy Living Livestream. My name is Alexander Raskovich, and the topic of this week is how to cure diabetes in three weeks. Before I bring Andy on screen, let me mention that if you'd like to ask if you'd like to, if you'd like Andy to answer your questions live, then feel free to leave them in the comment section below, and I'll collect them and bring them forth immediately after the presentation. A replay of this presentation will be available right after the live stream on Rumble and Facebook. Without having been said, I will now bring on doctor Andrew Kaufman.

Hello, everyone, and welcome to another exciting healthy living livestream. I wanna make a brief announcement, before we get started with today's presentation that, last evening began my natural detox mini course, which is a free offering to anyone who, registers. And, hopefully, many of you were there with me last night. And I spoke about basically, it's called healing from the inside out, how your body handles toxins and gets rid of them naturally and how you can support essentially your body's normal detoxification processes. And you can watch the replay of that, if you register.

And the next installment, class number two, is coming up tomorrow evening at eight PM eastern. And, I will be talking about the pitfalls of detoxification, especially cleansing reactions, and how you can prevent those from getting in the way of your health restoration. So please check-in the chat for the link to register for that, exciting free offering, Nature's Detox Mini Course. Okay. Today, we are going to be speaking about diabetes and specifically type two diabetes.

So I'm gonna start off just with some basics about exactly what that is. So diabetes is kind of defined as an alteration in your body's ability to manage its blood sugar levels. Those are the levels of glucose, essentially, the body's main sugar, and it converts other dietary sugars into glucose. And how it regulates the levels in your blood, because from the blood, they would get taken up by the tissues to undergo carbohydrate metabolism. And this is regulated by a hormone, insulin.

I'm sure many of you know this and this is kind of a review. But insulin is secreted by the pancreas and when blood sugar comes in from, you know, our diet or other sources into the blood, and it directs the sugar in the blood to essentially go inside the cells to be taken up and leave the blood or to stay in the blood. And it also, of course, has, regulatory abilities over fat storage and is related to, our weight stature, and obesity as well. And when you develop type two diabetes, it is said to be due to insulin resistance, where the body does not respond to insulin in terms of taking blood sugar up into the cells, and that leaves the blood sugar in sorry, the sugar in the blood at higher levels where it becomes toxic, to other organs and tissues, and those lead to complications of diabetes such as peripheral vascular disease, vision loss, blindness, you know, heart attacks, strokes, and all the many other, issues that we know happens over time related and associated with diabetes. So I'm not gonna give the specific numbers, that define, you know, whether it's prediabetes or diabetes because those change over time and are not really important.

The important thing is that there is dysregulation in this system. And, of course, that leads to various types of interventions, mostly with pharmaceuticals, which don't really, change any of the underlying issues. So let's look at how many people are affected, by diabetes. And, also, let me say that those complications lead to a lot of disability and death, and those numbers are are quite staggering as well. We're not gonna look at them specifically today.

But, Alexander, if you wanna bring up the first slide. And this is a a large, study that was done. And interestingly, it was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So I'll let you conclude, what the relevance of that is. But if we can look at the trend in the next slide, so what they did is they looked at, the prevalence, which is how many people at in any given moment, suffer from a condition.

In this case, type, it's diabetes type one and type two. And this is global. So this is, worldwide. I mean, not every single country, but they survey quite a number of countries, in this study. And you can see they looked at actual data from nineteen ninety at the left side of the graph up until two thousand twenty.

And then after that, it's essentially a prediction or an extrapolation of the trend line, and you can see where it's going. So as of twenty twenty, you can see that the prevalence is somewhere between five and seven and a half percent, and this is worldwide. And you can see the trend that there is a, a fairly sharp, rise. And I want you to try to remember the shape of this graph because we're gonna look at some other graphs that have very similar shapes over the same time period of nineteen ninety to twenty twenty. And you can see here by twenty fifty that it's predicted to be ten percent of the world population suffering from diabetes.

Now in the United States, we're actually ahead of the global curve here, and we're already at very close to ten percent. So one in ten, Americans suffer from diabetes. Now you can see also on this chart that there is a slight increase in type one diabetes, the red line on the bottom, but it is not nearly as dramatic as the rise in type two. And if we looked at type two trends for different age groups, we would see a remarkable increase in, young young people, especially, in even in adolescence and preadolescents, where previously that was never really seen at all. So this is, quite, a prevalent and important condition.

We all know people, who have been diagnosed with diabetes. So I would think there would be considerable effort to try and find the cause or that the cause would be known. And I wonder if many of you out there think that the actual cause is known, that it's just by too much sugar or carbohydrates in your diet. However, when you start to look around the Internet, you will find, virtually all the websites. So, you know, the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, the American Diabetes Association, the Centers for Disease Control, where they all have sections on their web page that says what causes diabetes.

And then in there, they won't list the cause. Now in some places like in the American Diabetic Association, they readily admit that the cause is unknown, according to science. But many of the other sites will just list risk factors, and those are really just statistical covariates so that there's some correlation or association, but it doesn't tell you anything about the causal relationship. So, for example, there's a high correlation between diabetes and obesity. Right?

But does obesity cause diabetes? Does diabetes cause obesity? Or is there a common cause that leads to both factors? And that is the the kind of missing part, but they definitely, you know, even if it was obesity that caused diabetes, then you'd have to say, well, what's causing obesity? Because it's not just eating more if you look at the trends.

That's not, doesn't explain it. So, we have, you know, basically, the literature just reporting risk factors, which maybe help you predict if you'll you'll develop diabetes, but they offer no explanation about the underlying cause. So let's look at some trends in food consumption to see if there are any clues. And, Alex, if you wanna bring up the next set of slides. So this, was from a very interesting study, and it really looks at food availability rather than actual consumption because it's looking at a hundred years of historical or more than a hundred years.

I think it goes back to early eighteen hundred. But if we can look at the next slide on the trends in dietary fats, And, of course, you can zoom in and look at the nineteen ninety to twenty twenty data, which would be at the right side of the graph about one fifth of the graph on the right side. But you can see here the trends, away from animal fats and toward seed oils and plant fats. Now in the top graph, there's a line that kind of starts. It goes straight up, about halfway through the data, and, it's gray and goes up very precipitously.

And that are is the graph for seed oil availability. And you can see that it trends very consistently with the rise in type two diabetes. And on the bottom graph, the brown or orange section represents, plant based, fats used in food and the blue section is animal fats. So you could see there has been a very significant trend away from animal fats like, you know, lard and tallow, towards plant fats, which predominantly in in the present, include seed oils. Now in the top graph, there's a yellow line that represents other plant fats, besides refined seed oils like margarines and hydrogenated fats, etcetera.

So that's part of the trend you'll see on the bottom as well. And then, this study also looked at sweeteners. If you go to the next slide. And you can see that, the orange line on the bottom represents, high fructose corn syrup. And you can see that that trend starts right around nineteen ninety and seems to go up from there, and then there's been a little bit of a a trail off.

But you can see that in that period from nineteen ninety to, twenty nineteen, overall, in the top yellow bar, the amount of added sweeteners did increase, then it decreased a little bit. So there is a possibility that, you know, sugar and high fructose corn syrup is involved, but it doesn't follow the same trend like we saw for the seed oils. So we've talked about some, you know, food factors, and I'm not sure if you really we should consider seed oils as food, but they know we know that they may be, implicated in these metabolic disorders, and there is some data showing their interference with insulin function. But what about chemicals that are not food? So let's, bring up the next slide, which is just looks at the output of the chemical industry, and it's a very similar time frame to the diabetes data.

And you can see that if we drew a trend line in here, it would be very similar in slope to the line we saw for type two diabetes. Now this is a crude measure, of course, because this includes, you know, all chemical manufacturing, not just, specific chemicals that have been, implicated with diabetes. But, I think it is quite telling that it shows a parallel kind of relationship. Now we can look, if you wanna bring up the next slide, at some specific studies, where they looked at endogenous, sorry, in environmental chemical exposure and its relationship to diabetes. And sorry, I can't see the screen with you, so I gotta bring this up on my little device.

So this, study, which was done by scientists from, Johns Hopkins, predominantly is called Environmental Chemicals and Type two Diabetes, an Updated Systematic Review, and this was published in two thirteen. So this has been known about for quite a while and this is not the only study I'm gonna show you but the highlighted portion I'm gonna read. Increasing evidence supports the role of environmental chemicals in diabetes development, including arsenic and other metals, persistent organic pollutants, phthalates, and bisphenol a. So let me just discuss those particular elements. So arsenic, which has did show a statistical relationship in this study, is present in agricultural products, as well as some, chemical products, and rice is a big culprit.

So it's important that, you look into this issue. The environmental working group has, some good data on it, and suggestions of how to mitigate any arsenic exposure if you do continue to eat rice, but it's definitely something you wanna eat in moderation. Now persistent organic pollutants is, a broad category that includes a variety of different types of chemicals, but ones that, do not easily degrade and remain in the environment or they degrade into something else that has a very long life in the environment. So it's not naturally broken down by, like, ultraviolet light from the sun or by microorganisms or other elements in the environment. And we know, for example, PFAS or perfluoroalkyl, compounds, is one example of those types of persistent pollutants, but it also includes DDT and related compounds, dioxins, and, some flame retardants.

And then it mentions specifically phthalates and bisphenol a, and those are two endocrine disrupting chemicals that are essentially plasticizers. And we know about those. And but I wanna mention, when discussing those because it's mentioned specifically bisphenol a, but we have and I did describe this, previously, this kind of policy and industry cycle that has been referred to as the whack a mole, where a because companies are allowed to use these chemicals and put them out in the environment with no safety testing, but then if they are discovered post marketing to be dangerous, then the company has to either they get regulated, they can't use that substance, or the publicity is too negative that, there's an a marketing, advantage or a business advantage to take it out of their product. But when they do this, they simply substitute a similar chemical. So with BPA, for example, they might have a BPA free product, but instead, they'll put BPS in it.

And BPS, another bisphenol, has similar toxicity and chemistry to BPA. So we're really not removing the toxic chemicals. We're just substituting one toxic chemical for another, until it gets discovered that that one is toxic. So as a result, there may be a lot of underestimation of some of these, effects in terms of the metabolic and other toxic effects. So let's, go to the next, slide here, which is another study done specifically on endocrine disrupting chemicals of which I mentioned a couple, but there are others besides phthalates, and bisphenols.

And in fact, there are some in food, some natural endocrine disruptors as well, like genicine from soybeans. But let me read from this study here, and this was published in twenty twenty three, so this is more recent. In recent years, increasing body of evidences from both human and animal studies have displayed an association between exposure to early unfavorable life factors such as endocrine disrupting chemicals and the prevalence of type two diabetes later in life. The exogenous, EDCs or endocrine disrupting chemicals can lead to disadvantaged metabolic consequences because they interfere with the synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action, and metabolism of endogenous hormones, insulin being one of them. So you can see that there is accumulating over time more and more data from humans, animals, and even from molecular studies, that support, this causal relationship between environmental chemicals and type two diabetes.

And I'm gonna put one more study up before I get to how we can therapeutically address these issues. And here, this one is looking at perfluoroalkyl substances, so the PFAS forever chemicals and risk. And I'll just read the conclusion statement here. Background exposure to PFASs in the late nineteen nineties were associated with higher type two diabetes risk during the following years in a prospective case control study of women from the, the special, study that's, done with the government for for blood pressure that's used for a lot of purposes. These findings support a potential of diabetic genic effect of PFAS exposure.

So diabetogenic means essentially causing or or creating diabetes. So we see that the official bodies, don't really mention very much these associations with environmental chemicals. However, the research literature is finding more and more evidence of, likely causality here. So if this is the case, is there any further evidence? And how can we address, this particular cause?

So one piece of evidence is that for folks that have tried to address diabetes with just changing their diet have had a lot of success, but not all of them have been able to reverse their diabetes. And those that have reversed it may find that in the future, if they go back to some questionable dietary habits, that the diabetes may, easily return. And in the literature, there the mainstream reports that this is not really considered a cure. So why is this and how do we address it? So we have to look, first, you know, at the obvious.

So one is, is there adequate hydration? And we need to address that. And the reason for that is because the kidneys help, balance the system. And if the blood sugar goes up too high, if it goes up really high, especially, it can be, become dangerous and even an acute emergency. But the kidneys are able to diuresse out the sugar, but we have to have adequate hydration with water, for that to happen.

So it's not going to reverse things, but it's definitely required for the body to maintain homeostasis. And, while we address it, it's vital to be adequately hydrated. Now dietary changes are obviously paramount, and the most important thing is to get rid of processed food and to get rid of processed carbohydrates from the diet and observe at a minimum a whole food diet. Now in my opinion, a ketogenic or a carb free diet is the best way to optimize healing from diabetes. And so this would be like a ketogenic type diet, and there are a variety of options out there.

But make sure you don't include, you know, keto friendly processed foods. This should only be a whole food, ketogenic diet. And many people can, you know, completely get off any medications, just from doing this. It may take some time, like months, to depending on how severe the situation is. But many of you will find that you won't be able to get complete reversal or, you know, what might be considered a cure, But you you may get a remission, and this is definitely a reasonable way to go.

But why does it not work fully or in everyone? And I in my opinion, the missing link here is these environmental chemicals that are interfering with metabolic and endocrine regulation that are really preventing the last bit of healing. Now many of these compounds actually can be eliminated from your body, or some of them anyway, just from dietary changing or from water fasting or procedures like that. And mostly, those are the ones that are water soluble. However, the seed oils, for example, and the PFAS and dioxin and many other of these compounds are not water soluble.

And the body has a very difficult time eliminating them, and they've been shown to be, present in adipose tissue, in fatty tissue. For example, seed oils tend to be mixed up with the lipids in fats cells that are said to make up the membrane. So when they fractionate them, they find seed oils like linoleic acid, mixed in with the other lipids. Right? And then they've found, other of these chemicals, as I mentioned, also in the fatty tissue.

So your body has a very hard time getting rid of these. And I believe this is, really the missing aspect. So what can you do to address this and get these out of your body? So one thing is, firstly, you want to mitigate exposure, from this point forward. And, two of the biggest exposures to some of these chemicals is one from plastics, and especially if you microwave plastics.

It's been shown that you will leach out some of the plasticizing chemicals, which are endocrine disruptors that I mentioned, previously. So it's very important to, you know, stop using plastics for food storage and especially in the microwave is the most dangerous aspect. Now I I neglected to mention that even some of the plasticizing chemicals that may have some solubility in water, like bisphenols, I believe, and possibly phthalates, oftentimes, they are embedded in microplastic particles, for example, which have also been shown to be prevalent in various organs and tissues in the body. So even if they might be water soluble, these could still be sequestered in those microplastic particles. So how would we, you know, dissolve plastics similar to the fat soluble components?

So what I have found to be have amazing success in this area, and very rapid success is essentially using healing solvents, which are elements from nature. They're oily liquids from nature. Like, for example, castor oil, I've mentioned many times, is an example of a healing solvent. But there is one particular solvent I'm gonna mention in a moment, which can penetrate throughout the whole body when taken internally. It can go through the skin when used, topically, And it seems to have the best solubility profile to get these really non polar, non water soluble substances and dissolve them out so that your liver can process them and get them completely out of your body.

And I'm referring here to the terpenes of the pine tree. And I have to be careful about how I refer to this, due to censorship because this is a material that used to be, one of the most common remedies. If you go back, for example, to the eighteen ninety nine Merck Manual, you'll find that it was listed as a remedy for, you know, over forty health conditions, including serious life threatening health conditions, and it does remain in one over the counter, product after it was banned by the FDA in the nineteen forties, and that's Vicks VapoRub. And I will be talking more about this in my, natural detox mini course and an upcoming very exciting workshop that, I'll be announcing to you next week. But in my experience, all the clients who I've worked with and other people who have told me you they've used this substance in a protocol because you have to make sure that you use, a protocol and use it wisely and appropriately based on people's experience and success, that they essentially have completely normal blood sugars within three weeks.

Now this, of course, does also involve changing your diet in conjunction, but it happens much quicker than with diet alone. And even people who have not been able to completely get off blood sugar medications, for example, with diet alone have been successful using this approach. But I wanna caution you. There is one, major drawback, which is that your blood sugar will drop so fast that if you continue to take your diabetes medicine, you can put yourself at risk of, an emergency or even death. So the big caution is that if you take any kind of medication that lowers your blood sugar and you're gonna do this type of cleansing using this potent healing solvent, you have to make sure that you taper off or completely stop, when necessary, any of those diabetes medicines because it's far more dangerous for your blood sugar to go too low.

In fact, one percent of people with diabetes end up in the emergency department related to a low blood blood sugar, and there is a high mortality rate. So I just want to give this caution because this approach is so potent. It will happen very quickly, and you wanna be prepared, so you don't bottom out. So, everyone, I hope this has, been an enlightening and educational experience to learn what is truly, likely to be implicated as the main cause of this, unfortunate trend of rising prevalence of diabetes and all its associated complications, disability and mortality, and how you can go beyond just diet and hydration and actually completely reverse this problem by dissolving those environmental toxins out of your body with the most potent, pine based healing solvent from nature. Alright.

That was excellent, Andy. Did you want to mention the power of pine workshop as well? Well, I, know we, haven't opened the doors for that, yet, so I was gonna make a major announcement this week. But if any if you are registered for the natural detox mini course, you will automatically be invited into that workshop. Alright.

Let's go to some questions. We have a question from Zorro. What types of breads are safe to eat? What types of breads? Was that the question?

Yes. What types of breads? If you have diabetes, none. But, in general, if you're in good health and maintain yourself, I think that the Weston a Price, philosophy of nutrition is a pretty reasonable way to go. And they would, say that sourdough breads, are an adequate, way to eat bread.

So I would, support that. Alright. Question from Suspirilla. Is neuropathy a common cause of diabetes and can neuropathy from diabetes be reversible? Well, so neuropathy is not a cause of diabetes.

Neuropathy is a a consequence of diabetes from when I was mentioning the excess sugar in the blood is toxic to various organs and tissues that includes the peripheral nerves. So, you know, it's even referred to as diabetic neuropathy. And, yes, this is potentially reversible, but it's contingent upon reversing the diabetes. Alright. Question from Mackey.

Do you think these findings increase risks of type one diabetes as well? My kids and I are prediabetic, but it seems to be type one. We aren't making adequate insulin. Right. Well, I've never heard of prediabetes for type one, so I'm not sure how accurate that, information may be.

But as you saw from the graph that I displayed about the prevalence of type one and type two diabetes, we don't see, the same kind of increase in type one diabetes. So it doesn't match up with the trends and, has not you know, I'm not aware of any specific research studies. So my, you know, current opinion would be that type one diabetes has a different cause, and it is, of course, much less common. And but it's still there's a a possibility that it can be completely reversed at a minimum. And I have had experience with several clients.

It is definitely possible to substantially lower your insulin requirement, by doing detoxification, as I described. And I've seen clients, reduce it by ninety percent or higher. Right. We have, a question from Bicwell. Does this protocol work for those who have many diabetic, or type two diabetic symptoms like heart circulations, etcetera?

Well, you know, usually, in situations like this, they're all of those conditions have similar or the same cause, generally from toxicity with a variety of different chemicals, and other factors like chronic dehydration. So, you know, the healing approach is gonna be similar if they're all have a similar cause. And this is, you know, see, what is shown in the literature is that there are a lot of associations of other chronic diseases, with diabetes. Alright. Last question.

Can vitamin b one help with diabetes type two diabetes? Well, I mean, certainly, we need to have adequate, nutrition in order to heal properly. But, you know, there is a misconception out there that you can just, you know, go and take a substance, one single substance or one single pill, and it can, by itself, actually do something in your body. So I wanna, you know, clear it up that one is only your body can actually heal. And any materials you provide are simply supporting the body's actions, they stimulate the body to do something.

So our bodies react to that substance. Now with most pharmaceuticals, the reaction would be, you know, similar to poisoning. And that can sometimes relieve other symptoms that we have because the body says, oh, there's a bigger emergency to deal with this poison. We'll forget about, you know, that problem for a minute, and you can get symptomatic relief. So we've got to start thinking about that now.

Just, you know, taking some isolated vitamin made in a chemical factory and putting in your body is not gonna stimulate your body, you know, to heal completely from a complicated, process like diabetes. Even using the healing solvent that I was discussing about, that's just one element in an overall protocol, and you can't just, you know, willy nilly use that either by itself. And you can, you know, it's gotta be a comprehensive approach to create the necessary conditions that your body can take the action to fully heal itself from these metabolic derangements. Alright. That was excellent, Andy.

Thank you so much for that wonderful presentation. Guys, don't forget our second three day mini detox presentation takes place tomorrow at eight PM ET, so make sure to register using the link down below. Now without any further ado, would you like to mention anything else, Andy, before we close off? Well, I just wanna say that, it was a pleasure to, deliver this information. I know there are many people, who can benefit, from this, and we can really turn around, this pandemic of diabetes completely, with, you know, very low cost and mostly lifestyle changes.

So I look forward to seeing all of you next week as well as tomorrow evening for the natural healing mini course. I will see you all then. Alright. Go on. Cheers.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read transcript  to 46min mp3 dr kaufman Healthy Living Livestream_ What Makes Toxins Stick Around_ (And How To Unstick Them)

Hello, and welcome everybody. This is the Healthy Living Livestream episode number ten with doctor Andrew Kaufman. Today's topic is toxin solubility and safely removing lipophilic fat soluble toxins that your body has a hard time eliminating, such as PFAS, flame, flame retardants, dioxins, pharmaceuticals, and much more. If you guys have any questions for Andy, make sure to write them down on the chat, and we'll make sure to address as many as we can right after the presentation. What's also happening this week is our brand new terrain workshop, the power of pine, the ultimate detox, which takes place on Sunday at eight PM in the afternoon at eastern time.

You can find the link in the chat to register now. With that having been said, the stage is now yours, Andy. I look forward to your presentation. Thank you very much, Alexander, and, welcome to another Healthy Living livestream. We kind of, continue with our topic of talking about, toxins and their relationship to illness.

And, today, as many other weeks, when I talk about the solutions, I am including some materials that I'm not permitted to speak freely about on these public platforms, unfortunately. And I'm specifically talking about healing solvents, such as, pine derived solvents. And I wanna get this information out to you, so I have planned this major workshop, the power of pine, this Sunday where I will reveal all the details and give you a protocol to teach you exactly how to use this healing substance to alleviate the problem with all the different kinds of toxins that I've been reporting on, and today is no different. So I wanna start today's program to talk about just the general property of solubility because this turns out to be a key reason why certain substances are more toxic, as well as a key understanding that your body can't readily get rid of these substance certain substances. And you need to use some natural healing materials in order to facilitate this, including, you know, modifying your diet correctly.

So if we could bring up the first image here, we all know that oil and water do not mix, when we've tried to put them together. In fact, many of the cleaning agents, like surfactants and, dishwashing detergents, act specifically to emulsify the fats to allow them to be compatible in the water and be rinsed away, like when we have greasy dishes or grease stains on our clothing for the laundry. So we're kind of familiar with this aspect, And I want you to kind of imagine how sometimes these grease stains set in and are very hard to remove. And we're gonna see that the same thing happens toxic substances. So the basis of this property that oil and water stay separate is because of their polarity.

And this is a a way of looking at particular substances or molecules of how the charge is distributed in that molecule. So, of course, they could be ionic and actually carry a charge, in which case, those are mostly for very polar substances, right, because they have, two poles of charge. Right? The charge is kind of separated across the molecule in some way. And then we have nonpolar substances, and those have a more even charge distribution, and those are the oily fat soluble type of substances.

So how does this affect, you know, toxins, in in the environment or that we're exposed to? So a number of ways. So firstly, and we can, take the slide down for now. Many of these substances that are fat soluble persist in the environment. In other words, through exposure to natural elements like being, you know, ingested by animals and microorganisms, also being exposed to ultraviolet light, etcetera, do not degrade these substances.

They are persistent organic pollutants, is the industry or the scientific, term from environmental toxicology that describes many of these substances. So because they persist for such a long time, this in itself is problematic. For example, PCBs or polychlorinated biphenyls, which are one of these types of compounds, were rendered illegal for use in industrial products in nineteen seventy seven. However, in the present day, in the, twenty twenties, they have been shown in research to still persist in biological organisms. Right?

So some, fifty years almost after they were made illegal and stopped being put in products. So this gives you a little bit of an idea of how persistent some of these chemicals are. Now there are two other aspects that are very important to relate to their toxicity, and they have to do with the fat solubility aspect. Because fat soluble chemicals will tend to accumulate in our tissues in our fatty tissues, and this is known as bioaccumulation. So in other words, when they enter our body, they're rather than being removed, they're stored in the fatty tissues, and they accumulate over time.

Now, this is compounded when we take a step out and look at the ecosystem or the food chain. And if you could bring up that next slide, there's an additional property called biomagnification. Sorry. The one it's the one after that. Yeah.

There you go. So we'll go back to that previous slide. So here we can see, a graphical representation of this process and the little, I believe they're, with four dots, the plus signs in there represent the bioaccumulation bioaccumulation of these fat soluble or lipophilic toxins. And you could see on the bottom, the bottom of the food chain is the grass, or the plants, and that's eaten by rodents. And you could see that there's some small level in the plants, and then the rodents have a higher level.

And then when we go up the food chain, you could see that with each higher predator, there is an increase, or magnification of the levels of these toxins. And since humans are on the very top of the food chain, we would have among the highest, levels according to this model. Now if you can go back to the prior slide, Alexander, this is an example of some of the particular chemicals that are in this category. And these particular ones were part of the United Nations treaty, quite a a while ago, I believe, in the late nineties, whereby all these signatories were reducing they their use of these compounds for industrial applications because of this problem. But as you know from previous, livestream programs on this topic, there is the chemical whack a mole phenomenon that once certain substances are identified as being harmful and toxic and removed from production, that the chemical companies and other industrial corporations simply substitute, similar chemicals that are, you know, unknown have unknown toxicity and put those out like with the bisphenols, as I have discussed in detail.

Now in addition to these compounds, I think, and Alexander did mention this in his intro, it's very important to consider pharmaceuticals in this category. And especially pharmaceuticals that are used, for issues said to be related to the brain, and I'm talking about psychiatric or psychotropic medications, for example, as well as medications that may be used in things like Parkinson's disease, and other central neurologic disorders because, fat soluble compounds go into the brain and and are stored in the brain and in fat fatty tissues. So it's important to realize that, many pharmaceuticals are fat soluble. In fact, this is a challenge for the manufacturing and formulation of pills and capsules, and to ensure absorption into our body. But this is a very important category.

And even if we're not taking these pills voluntarily, they're present ubiquitously in municipal drinking water. And there may be other sources as well, such as passing from a mother to baby. So how do these chemicals enter our body? Well, there are several routes, that they could potentially enter. In other words, through our, oral ingestion, through inhalation, and, of course, through the skin and eyes.

However, what's been shown is that these particularly lipophilic or fat soluble toxins are predominantly absorbed, through ingestion or eating. So it's very important, to be careful about what you eat. Could it be contaminated with these substances? But there are still other routes that it could potentially get in, as I mentioned. But when it is ingested, these chemicals are treated by your body very much the same way as dietary fats and fat soluble nutrients like vitamin a and d, and k, for example.

And which means they are taken up into the cells in your gut and put into lipoproteins similar to cholesterol. Initially, they're called chylomicrons. And, then they are essentially distributed to the appropriate places in your body similar to how the nutrients would be and predominantly to the liver. And the liver is a very, very important, for the metabolism of these substances because the liver has a series of enzymes known as the phase one and phase two enzymes, and more specifically, the p cytochrome p four fifty enzyme system, which many of you may have heard about because of metabolizing drugs, plays an important role. And the overall purpose of the system and it's I think of it like a mini chemical factory in your liver that processes toxic chemicals and essentially renders them nontoxic, at least as much as possible.

It converts them from being non water soluble to being water soluble. And if it can't do that, it simply excretes them in the bile. And this is, exactly what we see happening in, animals that are given these, fat soluble toxins. Now beyond that, they become because they don't all get excreted, as I mentioned earlier, they accumulate in your bodies and tissues. So where have they shown to be distributed in the body?

If we could bring up the next slide. So he this is, a review article that has a table where it lists various studies showing, the location of the biodistribution of some of these fat soluble toxins. So we can see from, autopsies of humans even are included in this, and we see that PCBs or polychlorinated biphenyls, which I mentioned earlier, were found in the liver, brain, and in the fat or adipose tissue. In a rat study, looking at a certain type of dioxin, it was found in adipose tissue and in the thyroid and adrenal glands. So, you know, we can see how various of these toxins may be distributed differently in the body and may involve many of our vital organs and perhaps even especially the endocrine or our hormonal system.

Now another dioxin study, was shown to collect in fat tissue, liver, and in skin. And the skin is an important thing to mention because the skin, various skin cells have all of the liver phase one and two enzymes and kind of act as a backup system for the liver. So if our livers are incapacitated or overwhelmed, then our skin may be, doing some of this metabolic work, and that could, of course, manifest as various types of skin rashes and lesions. So we can see that, these toxins may be deposited in various places of your body, but especially in the fat, liver, and brain that we've seen across various studies. And, also, there have been additional human studies showing various of these chemicals in those organs and tissues as well.

So let's, I talked a little bit about metabolism and and how the body can, remove these substances by making them more water soluble. But because they are stored in the body's, fat deposits and organs, they can persist for quite a long time and never make it to the liver, to be metabolized. And depending on which compound we're talking about, animal studies and some epidemiologic data has shown half lives of these compounds from two years all the way up to twenty nine years for polybrominated biphenyls, which are related to PCBs. And what I'm talking about here with the half life is the amount of time it takes for the amount of it in your body to reduce by one half. And then another so if it took twenty nine years, right, in twenty nine years, it would be half as much it is as it is now.

And then in another twenty five years, it would be half as much as that. So you can see that these things never quite fully get out of the body. And just to reduce by, factors of two, it can take quite a long time. Of course, this is without helping them along by various tactics I'm going to describe momentarily. And in addition to the cytochrome P450, some in some studies, there have been sulfation and glucuronidation, which are part of the phase two pathways shown to help metabolize and excrete these toxins.

And as I said, the liver is really the main organ, involved here. Now after the metabolism exists, then hopefully your body is able to excrete or eliminate, these substances. And there have been several studies looking at that. And what they found is that depending on the substance, will determine how it's excreted. So for example, if it can be converted readily by the liver's enzymes to a water soluble form, then it will get back into the blood and be eliminated through the kidneys, into the urine.

So that's a very, you know, good result. However, some of these compounds, can't really be broken down or made into more water soluble versions. So either they resist any metabolism and stay in their original form or, more commonly, they form a metabolite, but that metabolite is also lipophilic. So these can't get out through the kidney, so they end up getting out of the body in two ways. One is that the liver will dump them into the bile because they could be emulsified with the bile salts, and then they'll be excreted into the intestines and make it out into the toilet that way.

But there's also what's called non biliary excretion into the feces, and that is a way where it goes directly through the blood to the colon and is dumped into the feces that way. And that's an important mechanism, actually, because it allows for kind of the overflow from the liver to still make it out of the body. Now I wanna mention, another excretion pathway that may not be relevant to everyone, but certainly, to a number of young folks, which is lactation. So there have been demonstrated in multiple studies, human and animal, higher levels of these, persistent lipophilic compounds in breast milk. And it's a way that the mother can actually get rid of them out of the body, but at the expense perhaps to the baby.

So it's very important to be aware of this, to prepare for, having a child, and to consider, you know, the possibility that, this could be a common issue. So let's bring up the next slide, which kind of summarizes, everything I've told you so far about how the body, interacts with these toxic, compounds. And you can see that in, our diet is the source of them, and it is through, you know, contaminated meat as well as various additives, and contamination of plant foods. So it's really somewhat ubiquitous, unless you're making special effort to find food that is grown in a responsible and natural way. It's absorbed through the intestine and, as similar to dietary fats and other fat soluble nutrients.

And then it, gets into the blood. And, also, it's been shown to go into the lymph. Some of it goes to be stored in various tissues, like on the right lower side of this diagram, such as the muscle, the brain, and the adipose tissue or fat. Some of it goes to the liver, for metabolism, and some of that goes and gets excreted through the bile and the intestines, but some of it goes back in the blood, and some of that may be excreted by that non biliary root that, we mentioned. But you can see that on the bottom right, those storage areas, if we, you know, continue a lifestyle and continue to accumulate these substances, those squares will get bigger and bigger, and it will, overwhelm the system at some point.

So what about the toxicity of these substances? What is known? And, what are the challenges or limitations to our current state of knowledge. Well, toxicology field in general has mostly looked at acute poisoning, with high doses of compounds to determine the lethal dose. So many of these compounds have shown to be acutely toxic at high levels.

However, what is much less, research data available is low level chronic exposure. And these kinds of studies obviously are more difficult and expensive to do because you have to expose experimental animals over longer periods of time to assess the effects and perhaps even over generations. Many experimental animals don't live nearly as long as we do. So there are some research limitations to that. In addition, what about looking at combinations of these toxins rather than individual toxins?

And there's very little research. And this, of course, reminds us of the lacking research also for combinations of vaccines versus individual vaccines looking at potential adverse outcomes. Then we also have the metabolites of various of these compounds. Remember, I mentioned that sometimes the liver enzymes can't make it water soluble, and instead, they get another fat soluble metabolite. And that may have potentially even more toxicity than the parent compound.

And there's very, very little studies looking at those metabolites. And then there are other potential complications such as, new emerging research on microplastics shows that many of these fat soluble compounds can be mixed and embedded in microplastics, and that may change, their effects on the body. And that is a very new field, only starting to be looked at. But we do have, some data. And, if we could bring up the, slide from the CDC.

So now here you can see, directly from the CDC, they have, a database of, environmental toxins that I talked about on the last livestream. And right there at the top, they put a disclaimer speaking to one of these challenges, which states potential adverse human health effects of low level environmental exposure to PCBs are complex and still need further validation. So in other words, there's not much research data. But here, they do report on a variety of toxicity of PCBs, which, as I mentioned before, is still found in our tissues even though they've been illegal since, the late nineteen seventies. And these include, you know, causing cancer, a fatty liver, enlarged liver, immunosuppressant effects, neurotoxicity, porphyria, which is a a blood disease, reproductive and developmental toxicity, thyroid hormone level alterations, all common health problems in the modern era.

And we do have, another review article on the next slide here. Now this is an epidemiologic study, so we have to take it with a little bit of a grain of salt. But, there was a remarkable consistency across studies and across different outcomes. And they stated in their summary here, in conclusion, you know, as highlighted in this review, several lines of research evidence support the view that persistent organic pollutants of different chemical classes could be linked to lipid abnormalities, carotid atherosclerosis, that is essentially strokes, and overt cardiovascular disease like myocardial infarction and stroke. So in other words, being linked to heart attacks and strokes.

So this is epidemiologic, but it is consistent with, everything else that we know about what's going on with these toxins. So as we can see, these certainly are a health concern and especially because of their persistence, bioaccumulation, and bio So what can we do, to address these and help get them out of our body? Well, fortunately, there is some initial research that does show various, successful strategies, which I have capitalized, in my own protocol, as I'll mention, to help your body get rid of these pollutants. But there are some risks and drawbacks. So one of the keys, of course, is to help get rid of excessive fat in your body because that's the part of your body that's storing these.

So a bonus of this treatment approach is that you will have resultant weight loss. And fasting or, you know, they sometimes in research with animals call this, you know, starvation or, caloric deprivation. But, essentially, what they did was fast a variety of animals to see the effect because they knew that the fat would break down, which is called lipolysis, during fasting. And what they found is that it did result in increased excretion of these toxins, and it did result in lower levels of the toxins in fatty tissue. But, unfortunately, what they also found is that when the fat broke down and these compounds were liberated into the blood, that the liver and the excretory systems must have been overwhelmed because some of these materials actually went to other tissues and settled there.

And the levels in those tissues were higher than in the control group. So in other words, during fasting, these the fat breaks down. It releases the fat soluble toxins into the blood, but it releases too many and they end up going into other tissues, even though more of them are getting out of the body, than eating the previous diet. So this is, definitely a risk. And in various animal studies, the toxins were shown to move to the brain, which of course is very worrisome, the liver, the kidney, the blood, or being persistently in the blood and the muscle.

And this is, consistent with some other human, experiences, showing, you know, strong cleansing reactions to some of the interventions used to try and liberate these toxins. In other words, they're floating around the blood and irritating tissues around the body causing all kinds of, uncomfortable symptoms. So fasting alone would not be an adequate way, to address this, but we definitely do need to initiate lipolysis or fat breakdown in the body. Now if we do it with a certain type of cleansing diet, which is, a very clean type of diet, then we can have more gradual fat breakdown that will not be as likely to overwhelm our system. And we can also, employ additional procedures to help our body, work to eliminate these compounds readily.

In other words, address our liver, make sure our liver is in good working order, and give it the right nutrients in our diet to make all of the enzymes that will neutralize these toxins. And, of course, we need to consider what kind of diet will have good results. And there is data for two different types of diets, in animal studies that has shown, with just a dietary intervention to actually reduce, and the levels of these toxins and increase excretion. And these would be one is a high fat diet. And that would be like a zero carb or ketogenic type of diet.

And the and that also, since it would be high in meat, it would supply all the essential liver nutrients. But it's important also to add a trace mineral supplement, such as my Shilajit, in order to provide the right minerals for the metalloprotein enzymes of the liver to function. And the other type of diet, would be a high fiber diet because administration of soluble toxins. Now, of course, as I was mentioning, it's important to have support your body when you're trying to get rid of these things that you have good bowel flow. And there are a number of ways you can stimulate your bowel flow, such as with laxatives, and enemas, as well as good urine flow, which means you have to be well hydrated.

And those are very, important. Now I wanna, mention one more thing before I show you another study, which is that there's also data that substances like zeolite, or ion exchange media, as they're referred to. And much of the research was done with cholestyramine, which is a pharmaceutical. But all the properties that were, useful, also, apply to zeolite. And zeolite has also been shown to bind fat soluble, chemicals such as hydrocarbons, effectively is that when this was added to the diet, it also increased excretion.

So we see now a number of strategies through fat breakdown, the diet, increasing elimination, working on the liver, and using, ion exchange media like zeolite can all increase, excretion. But there's one very powerful method, in addition to this that I want to, discuss, and we can bring up, the next slide now. And this is, a study using an Ayurvedic detoxification, protocol, which is very interesting. And, they did a week by themselves at home, where they had a very, low fat diet interestingly, and which I assume was high in fiber, as I mentioned, one of the effective diets. They also took some, herbal preparations, including some fruit based laxatives, and, they did, castor oil at least one time as a, purgative, to stimulate bowel elimination.

And then they went into the clinic and did, herbal massages and an herbal enema, for five days. Now the the key intervention aside from these general detox procedures was that they actually took, liquid clarified butter shots every day. And the dose was determined based on some I have Ayurvedic, principles, but essentially, you know, they're taking a glass of clarified butter. And why is that? Now the idea here is similar to a high fat diet that we're adding a solvent that can dissolve the fat soluble toxins and help them get out of the fat tissues and organs where they're stored and get to the liver where they could be processed in elimination and perhaps even going by the non biliary route to get them straight to the colon, for excretion.

Now in addition to this study, I wanna mention there were several other studies done with, oils that were considered to not be absorbed. So the idea was that you could sequester and dissolve the toxins in the gut. And, because you're using an oil that when swallowed doesn't get absorbed by the body. But what they found out, interestingly, was that those those oils actually do get absorbed because they found them in the same organs they found the fat soluble toxins. But despite that, they still consistently increase the excretion and decrease the body burden of those fat soluble toxins.

So this is a very similar strategy, but here we're using a dietary fat, right, of clarified butter for this purpose. Now you can see from these bar graphs that the detox group is on the left and the control group is on the right. And these are the levels of various of these fat soluble toxins, and you can see there was a major reduction. So the one on the light the left is PCBs, and the one on the, right is transnona chlor, which I believe is a chlorinated pesticide. And on the next slide, you can see, several additional toxins that all had, reductions.

Now the bottom right is a little bit different because that's pretest and posttest, rather than detox and control group. So you can see there, it's looking at PCBs again, but the other three graphs are looking at, different toxins. DDE had the, worst results on the top left. But I want you to know that this was only a two week protocol, and it still had, these significant, results. So this is quite promising.

Now the what I think is actually a superior way, to address this than clarified butter or the synthetic supposedly non absorbable oils would be to use nature's most potent healing solvent. And that is the pine derived solvent that I mentioned earlier that I can't talk about in detail. But what I can say is that it's just the distilled sap of the pine tree. So it's a very simple solvent, and it is extremely effective at dissolving oily and greasy substances, including plastics. In fact, it can't even be stored in a plastic vessel because it will soften and dissolve, the plastic and ultimately leak out.

So on the upcoming Power of Pine workshop, which I mentioned earlier, I'll be discussing in detail exactly how you can combine all of the strategies I mentioned today, which are all supported by research data. And I'm talking about the right kind of diet, either a high fat or a high fiber diet, proper hydration, addressing the liver to make sure it's in good functioning and supporting it with the right nutrients and minerals, using an ionic exchange medium such as zeolite, and topping it all off with nature's most potent healing solvents. So I hope you'll join me to learn more about that. And as always, I will be back next week with a brand new healthy living livestream. So until then.

Alright. That was great, Andy. Very well done. Let's go to some questions. Let's see.

We have a question from Markhametz Sonic. What causes fecal inconsistency and can it be reversed? Thank you in advance. Well, there can be multiple, different causes of, fecal incontinence, everything from, malabsorption syndromes of the food to, neurological, problems to various types of treatment like cancer treatments, you know, tumors, etcetera. So I would really need more, specific information in order to know what the cause is.

And, of course, you know, my opinion is that almost any health problem can be reversed if you can understand what the underlying cause is and then take steps, to reverse that. Alright. Question from Eric. When taking the pine cilantro or zeolites, what will I notice as far as detox other than feeling better overall, very tired in the AM? Well, it definitely depends on, you know, what problems, you're trying to address.

So, you know, if the problems are due to fat soluble toxins or other toxins that will, you know, detox out of your body during such a protocol of which there are many, then whatever health problems, those may be causing will begin to experience relief. Now if you're doing this, you know, just for your general health or to prevent future problems, then most likely, what you'll notice is that, some various lingering issues, some of which you may have attributed to aging or maybe their minor aches and pains or tweaks that you sort of don't even think about because you're just used to them or you consider them normal, will start to disappear. And you'll notice, increased level of vitality, you know, meaning, energy, mental clarity, all those, types of aspects. So remember and, of course, you know, fat loss, and that would be, significant. Alright.

Oh, question from Zorro. Does the detoxification protocol also remove molds and parasites in our bodies, or is another protocol required? Well, any, you know, microorganisms or parasitic organisms which are in our body, are always trying to restore balance. So if we have these kinds of toxins hanging around, that's what would attract those organisms to proliferate to try to clean it up. So if we take steps to help our body remove these things, then, of course, those organisms don't need to be around anymore.

So, personally, when I've done this, pine solvent protocol, I did have worms come out in the toilet, and I've had, of course, many clients also, send me pictures, asking me what that was. And so we definitely have seen that, happen a lot. But it's not the kind of process that you would get a severe, die off reaction because we're not the we're not killing parasites. We're simply removing toxins, and then parasites no longer have, food or a place to live. So they just peacefully leave us and, seek shelter elsewhere.

Alright. Well, I think that was it for all the questions. Let's see. We have, just one minor question from from from Mindy. What about clearing toxins that cause floaters in the eyes?

Yes. That is certainly possible. And, there is another healing solvent that's very good for, optical, use, which is made from, the paper making process, and it's it's been used a lot in veterinary medicine. It's called DMSO. And so that might be something to consider.

Or you may notice that this kind of thing clears up if you do the kind of protocol, that I am talking about even though it doesn't specifically relate to the eyes. Alexander, there was a one question I would I'd like to take there about, congestive heart failure before we finish, if that's alright. Let me see. Congestive heart failure. Is it a recent question?

Yes. It starts off, I have edema related to congestive heart failure, and so not supposed to drink a lot of liquid. Should I try to drink this suggested amount of water? Anyway, so this is, an excellent question and, something that I have, dealt with, recently with having a a couple of clients dealing with congestive heart failure. And so one thing is is that I believe, actually, some of the major causes of congestive heart failure are these lipophilic toxins.

So I think that the power of pine is definitely, a central treatment strategy to address this issue. But the water is critical because in heart failure patients, they often have symptoms that are problematic related to their body retaining water and, putting it in what they call a third space. So, like, into the lungs with pulmonary edema, as well as edema of the usually lower extremities, so the feet and ankles. And it it can even go up to the entire body and that's called Anasarca. Now, the conventional medical approach is to dehydrate you to get that water off.

So they give you diuretics, right, which essentially make your kidneys get rid of more water, and they also restrict your fluids. Now this does temporarily relieve symptoms in many cases, but, it has consequences because you're the longer you keep up with this strategy, you put your body into a chronically dehydrated state, and then it has a difficult time, getting blood to all the organs because the blood is too thick from dehydration. So my approach, of course, is different. I realized that that water that is, third spacing where it's not supposed to be is full of toxins and it's denatured. And the only way to get rid of it is to support the body's cleansing mechanisms.

And part of that is to provide enough water that the body can get rid of that water and dissolve, you know, the toxins to get them out, or at least to bring them to the liver if they're not water soluble. So in the clients that I work with, what they do is the exact opposite is they stop using diuretics and they increase their water, but they do it in a very careful way, not chugging all of it at once, but spreading it throughout the day. And what happens is they actually, the edema resolves and the symptoms go away. And, of course, if we report this back to the doctors of how much water these folks are drinking, they would, you know, think it was an emergency that they wish to give them IV diuretics right away. But then, you know, they would have to mention that they're actually feeling better.

So this is definitely a different way to look at it, and the results are are far superior, you know, to what you would expect from the mainstream. So I encourage any folks with heart failure or know of someone with heart failure that this would be really an excellent approach, for you. And, in case anyone didn't know, I do offer individual consultations, where I can teach, about various approaches to your health problem. And, those will be available, of course, on my website and, in my, Linktree and, all those typical places. Alright.

Well, excellent. Everybody, make sure to register for the upcoming workshop, the power of pine, the ultimate detox this Sunday at eight PM in the afternoon and eastern time. Even if you can't make it, you will get lifetime access through the reprel the through the replay in your email. Now with that being said, Andy, do you have any final remarks before we close it off? Just, that we'll see everyone next week, same time, same channels.

Alright. Cheers, everybody. See you next time.