Mark Gober Ending Upside Down Medicine

[Speaker 1] (0:00 - 1:15) Doors to Rise Above the Herd Round 8 have officially closed. Thank you so much to every single person who's joined. We're so excited to go on this journey with you of deep, profound self-transformation. Today, we have Mark Gobart returning. He first joined us on episode 133 and he's back with a brand new book, An End to Upside-Down Medicine. And here we have what I believe is quite a potent conversation on the topic, challenging germ theory, challenging conventional medicine, challenging the allopathic system, and bringing about new ideas, new options and new pathways of exploration. I think you're going to get a lot of value from this. Just quickly before I bring Mark on, if you're seeking community, if you're seeking to build genuine relationships with aligned people, then we do have our membership platform. It's called Friends of the Truth. And we have an incredible community of individuals regularly discussing these topics, talking about nervous system health, the German new medicine, sharing the wins, sharing losses, being vulnerable and connecting in deep ways. So, you can learn more about that by hitting the link in the show notes or heading to friendsofthetruth.co. We'd love to have you as a member. [Speaker 2] (1:16 - 1:23) You are now listening to the Year for the Truth podcast, hosted by Joel Rafiti and Yerasimos. [Speaker 1] (1:27 - 23:53) Mark Goba is a Princeton graduate and award-winning author who has penned six books since 2018 spanning the topics of consciousness, spiritual awakening, political and economic theory, the UFO phenomenon, The Great Reset, and now medicine. He previously joined us on episode 133. And last October, he connected with us again for a super fun members-only call inside our Friends of the Truth membership community, which our members absolutely loved. His most recent book in the End it to the Upside Down series is an end to upside down medicine, contagion, viruses, and vaccines, and why consciousness is needed for a new paradigm of health. The unfortunate reality is that we live in a chronically sick society. And as COVID-19 has demonstrated, illness can be weaponized to control the population and take away rights. If we want to be free, both individually and collectively, we need to get medicine right. And this book couldn't have come at a more important time. Mark, welcome back to the Year for the Truth, man. Thank you so much for having me. Absolute pleasure. So, brother, I kind of want to get started. Obviously, you wrote this book and I don't know, you'll get into that how long it took you to write this book and what inspired it. But like, initially, like, what started you questioning the mainstream allopathic paradigm? It actually occurred in conjunction with my spiritual awakening, if you want to call it that, in 2016, when I was looking at the nature of consciousness, the nature of reality. Very quickly, I came across energy healing modalities and all sorts of alternative things I hadn't thought of before. So, I've been looking at this for a long time. I've been questioning the medical system, not just from the spiritual perspective, but from a nutritional perspective and other sorts of things like toxicity. So, it's been on my mind for a while, but it wasn't until more recently that I started looking into the germ theory of disease and some other aspects that I heard about but hadn't looked into quite as thoroughly. And then I was able to, in my own mind, put it together with what I had looked at spiritually and otherwise into a more comprehensive critique of allopathic medicine. Yeah. So, we had you on the podcast, when was it, August? I think the last time we had you on was August. Had you, like, thought of writing this book then? Like, when did this whole process happen where you said, hey, I'm going to dive deep into, like, challenging germ theory and then I'm going to write a book and I'm going to get it published within less than half a year? Yeah. In August of 2023, I probably was just looking at it seriously. Maybe not with the intent of writing a book, but I saw enough where I said, could this be true? Could germ theory not be correct in such extreme ways? And I was maybe in the beginning stages of trying to convince myself or to refute the alternative perspective. So, I didn't know I was going to write a book. Okay. It's insane. So, then why did you, like, why did you write the book? Because I kept looking and I was like, this is really big. And then I'd say to myself, Mark, you can't write about this, no way. And then I keep looking into it and then I went back and forth like that. And this is what happens with all the books. And then I just, I had enough information, enough conceptual material in my mind where I said, I'm going to try to sit down and write this. And that was in early September of 2023. And what always happens when I actually sit down to type, it happens quickly. The writing is all the research before it. So, the writing happened quickly. Fortunately, my publisher liked it. And then it was off to the races, audio book, all that stuff that just the mechanics take some time. Yeah. Is there like ever like an element of like imposter syndrome that comes up for you? Like, who am I to be talking about these topics and writing books on this? Totally. And it makes me more, I think it makes me more thorough in the writing process because I'm quoting other people. And there's hundreds of references in my books because it's not me. I'm synthesizing what other people have said. And I guess the uniqueness is in the way that I synthesize it, but it's not, these are not my ideas at all. So, it's more journalistic, I would say. All my books, I try to be like that. Yeah. I think I said this to you when we were talking last time, like just your ability to synthesize so much material and convey in a way that I think any person can pick up this book. Like you don't need to have this like deep scientific background. Like you present things in a really easy way. And again, I remember picking up the book and I'm like, oh wow, this is going to be a good read. But like a hundred or more pages are like end notes and bibliography. So, it's like, you know, it's like 187 pages of like reading, I think. And then you have another like a hundred or so of end notes. So, like it shows how much you've cited material. Yeah. And I appreciate you saying that, Yerasimos. I mean, I'm hoping to be a bridge so that anyone could read these books or I would say both people who are expert in the material and then people that are new. That's my goal. It's a challenge in terms of marketing to reach all those people. I haven't figured that out yet. But in theory, I think anyone who has an interest in health could read the book. Yeah. I'm looking forward to an end to upside down marketing coming soon. I haven't gotten there yet, Joel. How is it? Go, go. All right. So, say someone is completely new to questioning this paradigm. For you, what are the most potent and efficient pillars to point them to begin to break down this germ theory? To me, it's more about logic and critical thinking than it is about medicine and science. The question and I'm coming back to these questions myself. I don't claim in this book to have solved everything and I'm still trying to work it out. But I want to understand why is it that people have symptoms of what we call disease and what are the determinants of health? And what I find in the mainstream narrative, but also in myself and even people that are questioning the narrative, is that we come up with stories and we treat those stories as fact without asking for each step of that story, how do we know that thing to be true? And typically, the answer is, well, the doctor said so. And the doctor, if you ask the doctor, which I have, and they say, well, that was in the textbook. People usually don't go back to the initial sources of all these things of like, where do these core beliefs come from? And that's really the process for everything, including germ theory. Because many beliefs about germ theory and contagion and things like that is based on, well, that's what scientists have been saying for a long time, it must be true. And then here's some observational information and if we put those two together, we can come up with a causal explanation for why people got sick. So, one good example is if a bunch of people were in the same place at the same time, and then many of them got sick with similar symptoms, people will often conclude, well, there was a microbe that went from person to person, I caught something, that's what people will say. And where my mind goes now is, that's a really good hypothesis and it's one that we should consider, but why else might people have gotten sick in the same place at the same time with similar symptoms? What else were they exposed to physically or even psychologically that we should consider? And then I'm going to pause there because I know people, there's their like psychological immune system start to activate, say, no, no, no, it had to be a virus. Well, like what if there was a toxin in the same place that people didn't acknowledge? So, that's the kind of thinking that I'm hoping to inspire. Yeah. And also like, how about for all the people that are in the similar environment that don't come down with symptoms? How do you explain that? I mean, allopathic medicine, even in some holistic roles would just say, well, they had a strong immune system, you know? And it's just like, that doesn't sound very scientific to me either. Yeah. Dr. Tom Cowan calls it inventive reasoning, is that people start off with a bunch of assumptions about something, then they invent reasons to explain, oh, well, those few people didn't get sick because of X, Y, and Z. And then I would ask, well, how do you know that they had stronger immune system? Like, can you show that to me? Can you show studies that explain why a few people didn't get sick when everyone else did with similar symptoms? Like that shouldn't happen, right? If there's a microbe going from person to person and it's that contagious and that lethal in the case of pandemics, why did some of them not get sick? Explain it to me. And there's never, I haven't heard a good answer to things like that. Yeah, no, never. It's funny how like rooted assumptions can really build a cage around our minds, which then becomes very tricky to unlock. And it's like, you're right, there's just whole paradigm, oh, just scientists have said it for hundreds of years. It's been repeated for so long. But it's very rare that we get individuals who want to see the evidence and want to look at the history and want to read the old books and want to read the old refutations and all this stuff and begin to really unpick that prison. Yeah. No, you continue. Yeah, Joel, I agree with you. And that was part of my awakening process is to peel back the onion, to look at the original sources of why do people have the beliefs they have now? And what I had initially considered to be just maybe like an aspect of the COVID conspiracy truther movement, that's how this started really in early 2020. Some people were saying COVID is not a big deal. It's all about an injection of vaccine agenda. That was one part of the fringe, if you want to call it that. Then there was a further one, which said, COVID doesn't even exist as a virus. So, I remember hearing this stuff. And many people would say, this is a PSYOP. This is just something to discredit the entire truther health movement. But when I started to look into it, I realized this is a long standing question about health and disease, a fundamental question that really hasn't been solved very adequately. So, looking at like Louis Pasteur in the late 1800s, he was looking at rabies. And he was unable to find anything that was causing the symptoms that he saw. So, he said, there must be a virus. And that was the kind of thinking. They didn't have the technology to be able to see anything that small. And then it wasn't- What virus originate from? It goes back to the Greeks and it means poison. So, if you even trace the history, and that's what I do in the book, I show different dictionary definitions. And it's a different meaning over time. And so, it might be the case that a virus is a form of a poison. Maybe it's a psychological poison or an environmental poison or something else. And things changed in the 1950s with the advent of genetics, really. The Watson and Crick paper on the double helix structure in 1953, that was a big deal. And Dr. Stefan Lanca, who is a microbiologist, virologist, he points to that as one of the turning points where it's like, this thing that we didn't understand, which people were calling a virus that they figured was being transmitted from person to person. Now, we have a genetic explanation for it. We can call it this dangerous gene. And then in 1954, this was the fundamental experiment, Enders and Peoples, that I feel like many people in the medical field haven't familiarized themselves with, surprisingly. But this is the fundamental experiment, the fundamental methodology that's now used to isolate a virus. And I would argue the definition of isolation is improper, but it's their way of identifying that a virus exists, which is taking fluids from a sick person and then putting it into what's called a cell culture, but it's a soup of material that has lots of toxic stuff in it, like antibiotics, it also has monkey kidney cells, and it can differ depending on the experiment. But when they take the fluids from a sick person and put it into that soup of material, the scientists find that some of the cells break down. And their conclusion is, well, there must be a virus in there because cells broke down. There are two big problems that we'll call it the no virus community will point to this. And these are really just questions of the scientific method, not even medicine in a way, this is just logic. If you're going to take fluids from a sick person and claim that there was a virus in there that caused cells to break down in the soup, you need to have just a virus that you put into the because there could be other things in the fluids from a sick person that caused breakdown in that soup. How do you know it was a virus if you didn't isolate a virus first? In this case, I'm referring to the traditional definition of isolation, which is to separate from other things. In the case of the traditional experiment, they're not separating from other things first. It's just fluids from a sick person, even if they're partially filtered fluids, how do you know it's just the virus that causes the cellular breakdown? And the other problem, so that's problem number one, which people would say is the lack of an independent variable, meaning the variable you're going to introduce in the experiment to see what happens in the experiment. That's pretty basic for the scientific method to have an independent variable isolated. And it doesn't seem to be happening since 1954 because that's the method that's been used. The second is the lack of a proper control, which is also a basic thing in a scientific experiment. Now, fundamentally, if there's no independent variable, how can you even know what a control is if you don't know what you're controlling against? So, it's basically impossible to have a proper control. But from a more traditional definition of a control, you might look at, well, what happens to that soup of material by itself if nothing is introduced to it? Or if we add, like Stefan Lanca, he added yeast RNA in one experiment to the soup. He didn't add a virus. And the cells broke down in the soup with yeast RNA, not a virus. So, these are the sorts of things that seem to be overlooked in many of the experiments that are done today because they follow that same method. And one of the reasons that this experiment and methodology caught on is that Enders won a Nobel Prize in 1954 for something else. But so, this guy had all this, he was a very prominent person and he had done an experiment on a new method for, quote unquote, isolating a virus. So, the methodology combined with this newfound belief in DNA and the double helix structure gave a new explanation. And one more thing I'll add with regard to the history is that bacteriophages had been discovered at this time. And years later, I believe it was 1969, the Nobel Prize was won on that. And the website still exists for the significance of that event. And they said, the bacteriophage served as a model for viruses elsewhere. And a bacteriophage is usually believed to be a virus-like particle for bacteria, even though many people would dispute that it's actually virus-like. But a bacteriophage is something that many people acknowledge has been isolated. And it's sort of this parasitic particle for bacteria. So, this was discovered in the 1940s and then the discoveries continued on even though the Nobel Prize came later. So, now there was a model for what a virus could be. It could be like a bacteriophage, plus the genetic stuff from Watson and Crick, and now Enders and Peoples had a method for, quote unquote, isolating it. Now, science had basically an explanation for this mystery that had persisted for a long time of people were saying, there must be something going from person to person that we can't see. Now, there's a model for it. And it seems like that model stuck. Yeah. So, have cells been observed breaking down with nothing being introduced? Yes. And so, there's something I say in the book is that we need many more of these control experiments. Stefan Lanka, like I mentioned before, I don't know if he would call himself a virologist anymore because he doesn't believe in viruses, but a microbiologist, originally a virologist, he's done some controls on this. And many more need to be done where you just take the soup of material, maybe put different amounts of antibiotics, different amounts of things in there and see what happens to them. And also, as I was writing the book, I spoke to the various doctors, including Dr. Andy Kaufman, and he pointed me to a monkeypox study where they had inadvertently done a control. I don't know if it's exactly what you described, Joel, but this has been done in certain experiments, but they're not focused on as much. They focus more on we added the material from a sick person and the cells broke down. Throw your hands up. Now, we've got a virus. Yeah. Yeah. It's pretty wild. And also, at the same time, like, funding needs to be put towards these alternative explanations. That's the tricky part. It's funding and then also the reputational risk. Yeah. For a virologist to run these studies and the implications to say, wait a second, all these studies we've been running for decades, maybe we didn't do proper controls. What does that mean? And that's a big risk for people's careers. And this is something I'm really sensitive to because in my earlier work on the nature of consciousness, I made the same point around studies on things like telepathy or mind matter interaction or near-death experiences. The implications for scientific materialism or physicalism, whatever you want to call it, those sorts of studies destroy the paradigm for the nature of reality. So, the scientists who want to study those things are often shunned in mainstream academia. And they'll tell me things like, Mark, if you want to study this in academia, you're not going to get tenure. You've got to leave. So, I'm on the board of an organization called the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which was founded by Dr. Edgar Mitchell, who's an Apollo 14 astronaut. And it's all about studying these things as an independent organization. So, I think it's the same thing that modern virologists are going to face, where there's a lot of pressure against this for their reputations, but also to dispute or try to refute virology goes up against massive industries. So, that adds another layer to it. Yeah. I mean, it's such a psychological component to this, because when you look historically, you go, there's a small, small, small segment of a population that is willing to challenge their belief systems, especially when their identity is wrapped up around it. You know, when you think about all the schooling, all the education, all the awards, the money you've received in your profession, and then to come up to information, come up to information and knowledge that challenges that, it takes a certain kind of person to go, the truth is more important than all this other stuff. Well, especially for like a PhD, who's built his or her whole career on something and to say, wait, I was wrong. That's tough. But if these experiments are so illogical, like, isn't that the greater reputational risk? Not to question why I'm conducting these experiments, which actually don't adhere to any scientific method in the first place. I'm just playing the circus and clown game instead. In the long term, but I think there's a cognitive dissonance that won't allow people to even entertain that everything they've done, everything they've told people is based on pseudoscience and potentially misinformation and even fraud in some cases. When the explanations they give are things like, well, it's just really, really hard to isolate a virus. Like, there's not enough of it there. We can't, we couldn't possibly do what you're describing. But it's killing everybody, but it's on everything and it's killing everyone. But somehow it's on everyone. Or they'll say that, you know, a virus is an intracellular parasite. So, obviously, we're not going to find it because it's inside of a host cell. Well, then, I mean, if it's contagious, then it's going to have to go from cell to cell and wouldn't you be able to capture it in that in-between phase? So, there is this cognitive dissonance and people seem to want to come up with excuses for it. And what I've encountered, like you guys are saying, not everyone wants to question beliefs and there's just a hurdle there where people say, no, I don't want to go there. People were in the same place at the same time, they got sick with similar symptoms. I got sick. I was there. I caught something. That's it. It had to be a virus or bacteria. Yeah, it's such an interesting divide that's going on in, let's say, the truth community or the health freedom community around this subject. Can you dive into chickenpox? Because I find this is such an interesting example because most of us, we only receive it once in our lives, right? Chickenpox parties, for the most part, seem to be effective. You send your kids to another kid's house that has chickenpox and you're going to get this very unique reaction that we call it chickenpox. What's the best current explanation for that outside of the germ theory idea? Let me take a few steps back. The argument about viruses that we're hearing today, and it's been going on for a long time, is whether or not a pathogenic particle has been established that is a protein-encased genetic material that goes inside of a host cell and replicates. A very specific definition. That's really the question, has that been established and can it cause sickness in a host? Then there's a secondary question, which is, we see symptoms occurring in different situations and they're very specific sometimes. How do we explain those? They're two separate exercises. So, what I try to do in this book is to first show that we haven't established using the scientific method this very specific definition of a virus. And there are many, we haven't even talked about all that. The electron microscope has issues in terms of what that's actually seeing. There are issues with the way they sequence genomes and what are they actually sequencing. There's a whole bunch of stuff I look into. But then I do have a chapter on quote-unquote infectious diseases, where we know people have been getting sick and dying. How might we explain that if we get rid of germ theory, if we say that there's something else going on? And the short answer for all of these is, personally, I don't know. There are many theories that exist and it's a very uncomfortable position to be in to say, we don't really know why people get sick in most cases. We can have theories for it. So, let me just give a few, like chicken pox, what have people been saying? There could be a resonance, like an energetic resonance between people where they're detoxifying and there's something from a non-physical perspective that looks like contagion, but maybe there's something else going on. And this gets into a spiritual phenomenon really, which I cover in the second book. I've heard this before and it's basically spiritual virology. We're still adhering to the idea that there's something being transferred that's invisible. Like contagion, but energetic contagion. An energetic spillover. [Speaker 3] (23:54 - 23:54) Energetic contagion. [Speaker 1] (23:54 - 25:08) Yeah, energetic contagion. There could be something about the age, hormonally. I've heard people speculate that. If you want to get into things like German new medicine, where there's an emotional shock, that could always be applied. Is there a similar emotion that people were exposed to or the children are exposed to? I don't know. It's the separation conflict from a German new medicine standpoint. Separation conflict, which could, that makes sense for children. But then you run into the same question you mentioned earlier, Gerasimos, which is like, why doesn't everyone get sick? There are cases where some people, the chicken pox parties don't get sick or like one kid in the house gets it and others don't. So, we don't really understand what that is. Are they, were they exposed to something similar from a physical perspective, like a similar toxin or similar electricity or EMFs or? Yeah. I don't know. Or people, or everyone leaving to go to school for the first time and leaving their families and dealing with that on that level. But I don't think it answers everything. But it's like, obviously, like you're not the German new medicine expert, but like we experienced separation conflicts well into adulthood. We don't experience those same chicken pox symptoms again. Yeah. Yeah. No, I agree. There's, I think, like you're saying, Mark, there's a lot more questions than answers. [Speaker 2] (25:09 - 25:09) Yeah. [Speaker 1] (25:09 - 33:28) Which is obviously fine. Like that's reality, right? Yeah. That's where we are. And I guess my point is we need to acknowledge where we are. We don't really understand why people get sick. And until we understand why the symptoms arise, how are we going to even know how to think about curing them? Whereas in the allopathic model, they see a and say that we just need to get rid of that however we can. And it's like exploding a bomb and maybe they get rid of the symptoms, but then they do all sorts of other harm. Yeah. What I do know is that for me, it's far harder to believe that there's this malevolent, vicious, floating thing that's causing people to get sick than it is for me to believe that, hey, I experienced something emotionally or psychologically that impacted me. And so, I'm experiencing something as a result of that. Well, this is where consciousness gets left at the door with most modalities and most understandings of human biology. And this is another reason why I've been so drawn to germanumedicine when I first heard about it a few years ago. It resonated with me and I was able to track back and think about things and how things occurred in my life when I got symptoms. Again, do I think it answers every question? No, but I think it's very holistic and scientific with the brain scans. We don't need to go into that. We're actually going to have Melissa come on for a fifth time and do a foundational deep dive of GNM as opposed to all the other conversations we have. But anyways, I'm curious your thoughts on that as well from a consciousness standpoint. Real quickly, because I think that's a thing I have an issue with with some of the people in the terrain community when it's materialistic in the same sense because they blame a toxin for everything. So, it's like, okay, sure, it's not a virus, but it's a toxin. You're still dealing with a physical, a material potentially. Yeah. And that's another reason I decided to write this book because I wanted to combine the two. And the second half, like I said, is all on consciousness, which to me blows out of the water some of the materialistic explanations. So, I'll give one example of a spontaneous healing. That's a famous one. Anita Morjani, she had terminal cancer. She was in a coma and had a near-death experience. So, her consciousness was in another place and she had a realization about herself in addition to being immersed in unconditional love and things like that and encountering her deceased father. She had this realization that she was very harsh in the way she judged herself and she goes into that in much more detail in her books. But she came out of that coma and her cancer disappeared. The doctors were looking for the tumors and they were gone. Like, when things like that happen, these spontaneous remissions, that's not a toxin, that's not an EMF. She had a psychological shift, a spiritual consciousness shift and she was cured. So, I do think there are materialistic components to illness that we have to consider, like nutrition is important, we should try to avoid toxins. EMFs, these things are harmful for sure. But then there's the spiritual component which might supersede all of it, which if you really get to the heart of it, that's where health and disease lies. Well, and even when you think about these things, what's a person's relationship to EMFs? What's a person's relationship to toxins? I mean, I see people all the time, like, oh my God, they're spraying us. Oh my God, there's a cell phone tower. Oh my God, there's this. Oh my God, like, what is that doing to your body? Like, how is your body interpreting that thinking and that feeling? Exactly. And it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy to a certain degree. And this also feeds into the vaccine conversation, which is like, yes, there's toxicity there, but how much is our own consciousness going to play into it? And if we are in a spiritually high state, can we withstand more toxicity? I mean, my hypothesis is yes. Well, yeah. And also, back to what we were saying before, it's like, let's say a million children, let's take a million children, they all get the 72 or so doses, okay? Not all of them are coming down with the symptoms that some of them might come down with. So how do you explain that? Some will say, oh, I don't have the right detoxification pathway and the proper gene, et cetera. But there's other reasons as well. Like, what is the state of the child when they're receiving the vaccine? Are they being held down? Are they screaming and yelling? Like, what is that doing to their psyche? What was their life up until that point? What traumas have they dealt with up until that point? What was their emotional state before that moment? There's so many factors. Okay, a vaccine does the thing. I'm not saying it doesn't have an impact. Can all those things that you just mentioned comprise the quote-unquote immune system? And can this lead to a spectrum of strength and frailty among children, how much trauma they've experienced, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? Yeah, I don't know if I would say that as an immune system in the original sense. Allegorically or metaphorically, sorry. Yeah. Yeah, I think, to me, health is a multifactorial issue. And allopathic medicine tends to be reductionistic. So, the germ theory model is great for that. We can just point to that virus, and here's a pill for that virus, and you're going to be safe. One cause, one treatment. One cause, one treatment. It's not that simplistic. And people, I think our human minds don't like that, to say there's so many factors, and then we talk about consciousness and emotions. We can't touch that. So, you're telling me the lesion on a skin comes from something ethereal in your mind like that? That doesn't equate for a lot of people, but that seems to be the nature of reality. Well, and especially in our world where we're dealing with victim mentality. I mean, a person that wants to sit there and go, I'm responsible for my life to a certain degree. I have to take radical responsibility for my health. It's much easier to point the finger at like, oh, my neighbor came over and got me sick, or the virus is getting me sick, or there's something in the external environment as opposed to what's happening in my internal environment from a psyche standpoint, too. This is why we even talk about the importance of building capacity within your nervous system and being resilient, because life events are going to impact people differently and how your psyche perceives an event is going to be different from one person to another. So, all these factors come into play, in my opinion. It's not so simple. And this also leads to a deeper metaphysical question that I get into this stuff in the second half of the book. And what I tried to do in this book is to be as tight scientifically as I could. So, there are these theories about consciousness and germany medicine. I love all of it, but it just hasn't been tested in the way that, let's say, a PhD at Harvard is accustomed to, because we just don't have the funding or the replications of it. So, I'm open to all this stuff for sure. I hold it in a theoretical light because I would love to see more testing to understand it. But where I'm going is, if we look at the nature of reality and where different data points might push us, is that we are in some ways evolving, maybe that's the core of what we're doing. And illness and symptoms could be indicators as to where we need to look at a soul level. So, we get sick with something and we could say, well, from an allopathic perspective, let me get rid of this symptom because we got to get you back to work. Whereas from a more spiritual perspective, perhaps what's happening is you need to evolve and grow and look at something and that's why these symptoms are emerging and it could be on level of your consciousness, maybe a pattern of thinking and beliefs that you need to examine. And if you don't, you're going to keep getting sick. Yeah. Or maybe as opposed to being a signpost that you need to evolve, maybe it's a signpost that you are evolving, right? Because there's always pain in the in-between stage of something cracking open, in something expanding. Well, and also our view of these things happening, even the word sick, I get it, it's an easy word, everyone knows it, everyone can relate to it. But like, that has a different energy to it, different quality to it when someone says it, oh, I'm sick, as opposed to like, I'm experiencing an upgrade, I'm healing, like something of that nature is happening to me. Like, I just feel like that changes the dialogue a person has with themselves as well, like just the languaging that they use. Right. It's scary. And then that fear can induce other problems because we don't feel good. I mean, we associate not feeling good with something bad and that makes sense, but then from a higher perspective, what we might call bad locally, from a macro perspective, it leads to beneficial change. So, like an easy example is working out at the gym. It can be really painful, but then there's muscle growth and resilience later. [Speaker 2] (33:28 - 33:28) Yeah. [Speaker 1] (33:29 - 37:41) So, just having that awareness too, like while you're having an experience, like, this is good for me, as opposed to something's wrong, something's wrong with my body, what is happening? Like, that changes the game in my opinion, that simple reframe. Yeah, that's a hard one to get out of. I know it in myself is like, the symptoms come and you're worried, is it going to continue? What's going on? Versus my body is acting in an appropriate way to heal itself because it has natural detoxification and healing methods and this is just how it works. I'll give you an example. So, just recently, I went through like a healing crisis like, I don't know, a few months ago, several months ago. And I had just, I had been waiting a year to have this somatic experiencing session with this practitioner that I had been wanting to work with. And, you know, when I had, I had a pretty, you know, deep emotional experience in this session. And the next fucking morning, I woke up, I couldn't even open up my mouth. I had never experienced anything like this before. I couldn't open my mouth, the back, bottom right jaw was like swollen, painful. And like having the knowledge that I have, like I wasn't super worried, but it was probably the most painful thing I had experienced. And I had people recommend I go to like this amazing holistic biological dentist, et cetera. And I was like, let me just go and see. And even him, someone who's non-conventional, super alternative, like took some x-rays and he was like, listen, I don't normally, you know, see this in someone at 43 years old, they usually see it in their 20s. And he's like, I don't recommend anyone take out their wisdom teeth, but you should really, you know, consider doing it. And like, I'm just like, no, I'm good. I'm good. And he's like, you know, you should take all this oregano oil and you should take this homeopathic Arnica. And so, I started taking Arnica and the pain went away. And then that night, the pain came back and I'm like, fuck this shit. I'm not taking anything. I'm not taking any more, I'm not listening at all. I'm just letting my body do what it needs to do, especially having the knowledge I have from a GNM standpoint. And I dealt with intense pain for like two days and then it came back and I was totally fine and normal. Whereas a large majority of people would have scheduled their wisdom teeth to be taken out like the next week. And so, like, I'm just saying like there's this foundational understanding of this body as a self-healing organism that needs to come into people's consciousness more that I think is going to have huge, huge shifts for people. And I know it did for me. And it still goes because I still have moments. I'm like, wait, is there something? Well, is there something? Fuck, you know, but I have to catch myself because you're talking about decades of conditioning and things passed down to me from family. So, anyways, I just want to share that personal story because that happens all the time in different instances when people all of a sudden are fine. And then the next morning they wake up and their body is seemingly attacking them. Yeah. And then you intervene, you remove the wisdom teeth and what conflict and healing crisis that leads to, then everything just gets compiled into the same thing. And the initial thing gets blamed for all the consequences of the intervention. Well, and then also in a practitioner like this, he was giving me reasons. Oh, I'm like, why did it happen? Well, bacteria might've gone under your gum or something that caused it. And I'm just sitting there listening, just taking it in because I'm not there to, I was really curious because the pain was so intense. I had never experienced that before. I was still open. Hey, let me go. Let me get more information. And then ultimately I make the decision. I know what's right for me, but so many people, and I understand why they outsource. They outsource to others to tell them what to do with their lives. And I get it. You can't be an expert on everything, but at some level, when it concerns your body, your mind, there needs to be this desire to learn more and understand what's happening and to take some more control as opposed to just letting some person that you give authority to in a white coat, tell you to cut organs out, tell you to take teeth out and just add the list of things that they tell you to do. And people just sign up for it. [Speaker 3] (37:42 - 37:42) Yeah. [Speaker 1] (37:43 - 38:26) So, we do have this reverence for authority and reverence for the supposed experts that they know what's best. And that would be irresponsible not to listen to them. And I can understand that people are busy. I get it. They are busy. And most people don't have the time, the energy. They're just trying to live their life. They're trying to work in 80 hours a week. They're trying to support their family. They don't have the time to go after this. It's not part of their journey. So, I understand. And at the same time, the flip side of that is like, this is your life. This is your health. This is your body. This is your children's body. You're not even questioning what's being injected into your child's body. Anyways, that's my thought on that. [Speaker 2] (38:27 - 38:29) Now, a short break from the episode. [Speaker 1] (38:30 - 39:06) In an ever-changing world, it's becoming increasingly difficult to connect with real people who share our values. That's why we created Friends of the Truth. This is the place where sincere, grounded, truth-seeking individuals come and connect. So, if you feel as though you're lacking in opportunities to not only be vulnerable, but also lighten up and be yourself, then we believe you'll absolutely find yourself a home inside our community, Friends of the Truth. Find the others. You can head to friendsofthetruth.co to learn more or hit the link in the show notes and use your unique discount code HFTT10 to get $10 off your first month off. [Speaker 2] (39:06 - 39:07) Back to the episode. [Speaker 1] (39:08 - 54:59) Yeah. So, I want to go back to something else you said, Yerasimos, which is around letting the body do its thing and then also doing what we can to enhance the detoxification process. And that's a balance I'm trying to understand more of like how can you not intervene, but then also support the body at the same time. And there's an art to that, like probably with nutrition and other things to allow the detoxification process to be as efficient as possible. Well, yeah, for sure. I think the more you can support your body, it's going to support you in these instances. And at the same time, that's a whole another buzzword I don't want to get into now. But again, detoxification, because then that goes to the fact that like, oh, toxins are what's causing you to have symptoms as opposed to, hey, like the body's going through adaptations and healing and adaptations and healing based on things that are happening from a psyche standpoint. So, I hear what you're saying. And I also think that's a word that gets thrown around way too often to describe like a symptom. Oh, I have diarrhea. I have a rash on my left elbow. You know, I have a headache. Oh, you're detoxing, you're detoxing, you're detoxing. And I just think that's pretty vague and not specific enough for me. But I get what you're saying. There is that balance. And I also want to say like it's okay to mitigate, like if you're having an intense healing crisis or you feel super sick, like you can take an Advil if you need, like if you need to just like if you're in so much pain, I'm not sitting here that you can't and saying that you can't rely on medicine or allopathic support, like there are benefits to it. But just to be mindful as well too, like the capacity of your body to ultimately heal because every person is different. How they react to pain, how much pain they can tolerate is different as well. And you raise a really important point about allopathic medicine, which is that I think it does have applications in very specific situations. So, it's not like we should throw everything out from the allopathic approach. It's just that right now it's considered to be how you look at everything. And rather than use it being like the exception to the rule, it's the rule. Yeah, I agree with you. I mean, we've talked about in previous episodes, like there are great benefits to, you know, emergency care that, you know, allopathic medicine provides. So, like, yeah, I definitely don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, you know, but at the same time, like utilizing the allopathic model for everything. I mean, look where we're at now. Like, if the allopathic model was like the best thing, we would be healthy. You know, the proof is in the pudding. Look around you. Look around the globe. Look around the United States. Like, do we see, like, people in picture-perfect health? No, we don't. So then, like, what's the problem? Yeah. You know what I'm saying? So, yeah. Do you believe people were generally healthier, say, 50, 60 years ago? Um, I do. I do in a lot of ways, you know, in terms of, like, you know, I know people love to post those pictures on social media of people on, like, beaches in the 70s in, like, Rio or in Greece or Italy. But even I have personal experience. Like, when I grew up going to Greece, when I was, like, 10, 9 years old, like, everyone was fit. And yet, you go there now and, like, you have the standard American diet that has infiltrated the rest of the world. But on top of that, again, I make these arguments with some people where it's, like, what has happened to the family system? What has happened psychologically to people? What are people dealing with in their day-to-day life? You know, are they more conflicted? Again, if you want to bring in this, you know, the psychological and emotional element, you know, are there breakdowns in human relationships that maybe weren't there in the same way? You know, is our environment overall, was it healthier then? You know, people bring up the whole idea of, like, you know, the EMFs weren't as intense back then. There weren't as many toxins and chemicals. Like, I'm open to all that. But there's just so many elements that are different in day-to-day society that impact a person's psyche and their body than there were 70, 80, 90, 100 years ago. Yeah, that was where I was getting at. Like, are we more conflicted because of a more complex world? Oh, I definitely think we are. Yeah. This is critical thinking is what you guys are describing. Like, what are all the possible factors that could be impacting our health? Not just the ones that medicine talks about. And that's where I think we're lacking as a society. They're not asking those questions. Okay. I want to rewind a little bit and talk about a subject that's near and dear to me because this is the subject that helped wake me up. I read Dr. Carey Mullis's autobiography, Dancing Naked in the Minefield, in 2005. And he had a chapter in there on HIV and AIDS that was challenging the conventional paradigm. That book was given to me by my acting teacher in New York City. He was a gay man. He was part of the dissident community. And so, I thought that was pretty fascinating to read that. And that led me down a whole rabbit hole where I came across, you know, obviously, Mullis and Peter Duesberg and Stefan Lanka, and watched different documentaries, etc., etc. So, can you talk about that whole situation, HIV AIDS, because I feel like so much of that can correlate to what happened with like SARS-CoV-2 and COVID. So, I'd love to just kind of give a little bit of background on that from your perspective on what happened and how that's impacted us moving forward. Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned it because this goes back to the question of the history of science. Go back to 1954, that was the first virus isolation experiment. HIV as a lethal virus, that was early 1980s. So, that was kind of the first big, big global virus that people were talking about in this way. There were some in between, but this was a major one. And what I didn't realize when I first heard in early 2020 when people were talking about no virus is that that question came up with HIV AIDS too. So, in my book, I start the book with chapter one is HIV AIDS, but I actually wasn't looking at it from a no virus perspective. I was looking at it from more of the traditional like HIV dissonant perspective, which is that, yes, people get sick, there are symptoms, and a lot of people have died, but this virus called HIV is not the cause of it. And you mentioned Carey Mullis, who is a Nobel Prize winner, he invented the PCR test, and in his autobiography, he talks about writing a grant proposal. And the first sentence of the proposal was, HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. And he said, well, I should footnote this. So, he started asking around like, what's the source for this? And he wasn't getting an answer, even from Luke Montagnier, who won a Nobel Prize for his discovery of HIV. He was like, yeah, we'll look at the CDC's website. So, basically, he wasn't finding a definitive answer for it. And so, there are many theories out there for what was causing symptoms, because people were having symptoms, for sure. And a lot of people have died. There's no doubt about that. The question is why? So, there are theories about various types of drug use in certain communities. If we go from a GNM perspective, which I didn't do in chapter one of the book, what were the psychological factors going on? What were the medications that people were given? AZT is one that's known to be toxic. It's a chemotherapy drug, and that was one that people were taking. So, people, they may be tested positive on a test, which has many false positives. Therefore, they were HIV positive, and then they were given a medication, which might have given them more symptoms. So, it's really an exercise in critical thinking, again, of what else could be causing these symptoms in these clusters of people? And is it a virus? Yeah. Dr. Hammer, he has a quote. It's like, the AIDS symptoms are the result of the invention of AIDS. So, he breaks it down in terms of the different conflicts. So, a death fright conflict impacts the lungs. A scare fright conflict impacts the respiratory system with pneumonia. Different conflicts, when you think about this, the myriad of symptoms that they put under the AIDS umbrella, whether it's non-Hodgkin's glaucoma, frontal fear conflict. So, there's all these different conflicts that are impacting people. But even before I even came across this knowledge, 20 years before, I was just looking at, again, the lifestyle. You're talking about, you know, initially, it was like a gay population that was coming down with these symptoms. And a lot of scientists before Robert Gallo, and what was her name? Was it Margaret Heckler? Was she the one that was the health secretary that came on TV, and they just announced that we have discovered the AIDS virus, and then everyone just ran with it. But in the late 70s, early 80s, you're talking about a community, and I'm not hating on the gay community. I'm just saying they're having sex with thousands of people a year. They're taking all these types of drugs. They're not sleeping. They're taking all these antibiotics from all this other stuff, not to mention the conflicts they're dealing with from a psychological standpoint, being attacked for their sexual orientation, etc., etc. Like, there were scientists that were saying it's multifactorial until this moment, when like the whole media just jumped on board Robert Gallo's research, even though later on, we've come to realize that his research was pretty fraudulent and misleading. If you want to kind of comment on that anymore, a comment on that, obviously, it's appreciated. Yeah. Well, the announcement was that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, and then the journalist from the New York Times removed the word probable, and it became the dogma. And with regard to Gallo's work, there's been a lot of criticism for basically changing statements in terms of what the research stated. So, they overstated their views on HIV's impact with regard to these symptoms. But that didn't matter, because these discoveries about the research came later, and the dogma was in place in the early 80s, 1984, where HIV causes AIDS, this is the problem we need to deal with. And it's very similar to what happened with COVID, where there was a dogma that was established early on. And the establishment said, this is the problem, and here's how we're going to solve it. We're going to lock down, vaccines are coming. And it's like, this was just a lot of inventive reasoning, to go back to that term of just coming up with theories that hadn't been established. But it wasn't allowed to be questioned. Yeah. It would have been interesting if we had social media and internet back during the AIDS years, how things would have been different back then. But again, even if you look at HIV-AIDS, back to what we were saying earlier about questioning the conventional paradigm, what does it do to your career? I mean, Dr. Peter Duisburg, I don't think he's on board with the no virus, but I'm not 100% sure. He's a virologist. He was a well-known work on cancer, I believe. And he started challenging this mainstream hypothesis that HIV is the cause of AIDS. And all his funding was taken away. He was ostracized from the medical and scientific communities. Now he had tenure, so he was able to keep doing his thing. But if you go against the behemoth of the government, medical, scientific media paradigm, you pay the price. That's right. And he certainly did, even someone so credentialed. I mean, that's the crazy thing. It doesn't matter who you are. And Carey Mullis himself, a Nobel Prize winner, he took a lot of flack too. But you're also correct, Gerasimos, that Peter Duisburg was not on board with the no virus. He was critical of that position. He was like, this is a big problem. It's destroying the unity. There was an organization called the Perth Group, and they still have a website available, theperthgroup.com, where you can see their scientific papers. So it's not just guessing that there's no virus. This was a real scientific debate, and their papers are available. There's a paper called HIV, a virus like no other, if your audience is interested. Highly technical. It's on their website. But so they were this dissident group within the HIV dissident group. And Peter Duisburg was saying, this is no good. And there was a professor from Virginia Tech, Professor Bauer, that I quote in my book. He wrote a 2014 foreword to another book on HIV. And he noted that there was this conflict within the HIV dissident community. And he said, at some point, this is going to have to be resolved. I'm paraphrasing it. And then what happened? COVID happened. And there was an opportunity to resolve this issue about viruses. And Carey Mullis died. Yeah, he died. Yeah, like right before. But we won't speculate on why that happened. Yeah, this is why I give a lot of credit to Stefan Lange too, because it's like, he identified as a virologist, and was willing to question the foundational premises. Whereas, let's say you have someone like even like Duisburg, like his entire career is built on virology. So then to like, question that, the foundational premise of that, I mean, that's a whole nother level than just questioning, does HIV cause AIDS? Right. It's very brave to do it. And he's taken a lot of flack, it's hurt his career in some ways, but in other communities, he's regarded as a hero. And again, we're sitting here, I don't want people to like, take this as like, okay, we know, we know what's happening. And like, you know, there's no virus at all, you know, all of you are stupid. This is the problem I have, like when you observe social media, people just like are arguing and yelling at one another, and they can't even just be open to the fact like, hey, maybe I'm wrong. You know, like, here's some information and I could be wrong. This is what I believe up until this point, based on the research that I've done and the critical analyses that I've conducted. And hey, I'm open to being wrong or for new information to come along. And there's no reason for me to be completely dogmatic about where I'm at right now. Yeah. And again, we have our moments, you know, there's times where I've gotten self-righteous with certain things out of passion, like you have to, you have to look at this information. Oh my God, everyone needs to know this. I'm a little less that way these days. But, you know, again, what does that mean to like, this is what I'm always so fascinated of like, why do certain people critique things or are more open to challenging their belief systems versus others? You know, like, why do certain people intuitively go this HIV AIDS thing doesn't really seem right, SARS-CoV-2 COVID thing just doesn't seem right. You know, I think it's a fascinating study on human psychology and human consciousness. I mean, again, I don't have the answers, but it's fascinating. And one of the things that I've observed is the debates have become acrimonious and then people become even more dogmatic when it becomes like a fight. So, what I tried to do with this book and we'll see if it's successful is to take a non-combative approach, really just journalistic, like these are the things that are happening. These are the freedom of information requests that have been submitted to over 200 organizations in 40 countries led by Christine Massey, where they lay out in these requests, show me the studies of an isolated virus, etc., with all the details and the organizations come back, including the CDC and others saying we don't have any records of that. Like, these are things that we have to reconcile without getting upset about it. I don't know. I mean, we're dealing theoretically with some sub-microscopic stuff. I mean, the technology, the electron microscope was invented in the 1930s to be able to even see something this small. And when you can see something under the electron microscope, you have to destroy it. It's not even living. So, like, the point is that we don't, we have, there are problems here. I think everyone can agree on that. There's problems with the scientific method. There are problems with the technology. The ultimate answer, I don't think we know. And there could be answers that we haven't even considered that might be right, because we haven't, it's not within our realm of possibility. So, going back to my earlier point, this is about critical thinking more than anything else. Yeah. Hey, is the Nobel Prize, like, is that just like the control systems avenue to give credibility to, like, their actors, their agendas? Every time I hear these things like, oh, a Nobel Prize award winner, is it always attached to these things that are being questioned? Yeah. Well, it's even used on, like, the other side. Like, Harry Mullis, he won the Nobel Prize. [Speaker 2] (54:59 - 55:00) Yeah, yeah, yeah. [Speaker 1] (55:00 - 1:03:01) Somebody's looking to the issue of the Nobel Prize. Yeah. But again, I think, and you can talk about this, but I want to share my opinions where it's like, you know, a person's done or gone through a certain level of education or work to get to this point. It's why I think, listen, it's great that we're here and we're challenging these narratives. But when you have, like, someone in the system, a doctor that's challenging foundational premises of virology, it holds a certain weight, you know, I think. Totally. And for me as a writer, it's great to be able to include that if I'm trying to reach a mainstream audience and say, look, this was Cary Mullis doing this. When I wrote my book On Consciousness, the first one, An End to Upside-Down Thinking, I quoted Brian Josephson. He's a Cambridge Nobel Prize winning physicist who's saying that I think telepathy is real and that quantum physics might help us explain it. And I interviewed him for my podcast, Where Is My Mind? So, that's a bridge for people and that's what I'm trying to do. Even if the Nobel Prize ends up being bogus in some ways or it's... I mean, these are all smart people for sure. But when they're able to turn and go against the narrative, that's powerful. Yeah, because, you know, being smart is one thing. Being able to, like, challenge your belief systems and critically analyze something is another thing, you know? I want to talk about this whole lab leak idea. Is there any reality to this? Is there any possibility that there's, you know, scientists in a dark cave somewhere, you know, putting together some super viruses or is all that just spy op? Can a pathogen be created on any level? Yeah. I would refer your audience to the work of Dr. Mark Bailey and it's at drsambailey.com. His wife has also commented on this. So, they've done a bunch of videos and even written papers on this. So, for the technical stuff, I recommend looking at what they've said, Dr. Sam Bailey and Dr. Mark Bailey. But my sense is that there are labs, for sure, where people are mixing things and they're probably mixing toxic stuff together. Actually, when I was writing the book, I was writing about bacteria in this book because to be clear, we haven't talked about this yet. The no virus position does not say there's no bacteria. So, bacteria have been isolated. There are much larger particles. They've been seen for a longer period of time as well. But the question is whether bacteria are pathogenic. Do they cause disease on healthy tissue? And from a terrain perspective, they don't. Bacteria appear at the scene to clean up dead and dying tissue. So, if there's a quote unquote bacterial infection, that can happen if you have a lot of toxicity or something in the body or maybe a psychological problem and excess cells that the bacteria are having to clean up, something like that. So, it's like firefighters at the scene of a fire. Do firefighters cause the fire or are they putting out the fire? And it's a matter of correlation causation. So, that's a long-winded way of getting to my point where I was talking to Dr. Mark Bailey because he read my manuscript before it was published. He was very nice to do that. So, it was Dr. Andy Kaufman because I wanted to make sure I got the technicals right. I was like, is there any way that you could have a biological weapon with bacteria? He's like, well, I guess in theory, you could have a chemical substance that destroys the body's tissue and then you have a lot of bacteria there, then you could have an overgrowth because you've destroyed the tissue. So, again, is it the bacteria that were doing it? Well, I mean, not really. They're not the root cause. It was the chemicals that caused the breakdown in the body and then you could have this massive overgrowth of bacteria and they do secrete toxins which can be problematic. So, maybe there are things like that, Joel. I'm just totally speculating because I really don't have knowledge on this stuff. Yeah. Because it's pretty much the byproducts of the bacteria that you know, that have the impact on the body. Is that correct? That's part of it, my understanding. But also like Dr. Mark Bailey said, too much of anything can kill you. Yeah. Drink too much water, you could have a problem. Yeah, for sure. I'm really enjoying this conversation. Oh, I wanted to say this. What I love about your book, I know I just had this like thought. What I love about your book too, is that because of what you said before on how you kind of want to be a bridge, is that it's something that I can recommend to someone that's maybe a little open as opposed to like, you know, they're going to be like, oh my God, I can't read this book. Because you know, you do cite like all of Christine Massey's requests. You do cite all these quotes from doctors that are challenging the, you know, the conventional paradigm. And I think it's important. And I think, you know, people have different roles in this world in terms of like helping people become more aware of things happening. So some people can just like beat people over the head with the no virus thing. And some people might need to be a little bit of a bridge. And I think, you know, I think everyone's important in that regard. That's what it felt like for me. I felt called to be a bridge just because I come from such mainstream background and I'm always thinking about one of my buddies from college, what would he or she think about this book? Like, can I relate to those people? And it ultimately does come down to open-mindedness. They have to be a little bit open-minded. Yeah. Have you, have any people like this in your life bought this recent book and read it and commented? I've gotten so far exclusively positive feedback, which I'm kind of shocked about. I was more worried about this one than any of the books. And it might be because I haven't really reached the mainstream with it yet. And the people that know about it are pretty receptive, but a few people I can think of who are, let's say mainstream, but open-minded, they have received it positively. And I've heard other people tell me that like they gave the book to someone and they got positive feedback from like pretty mainstream people. Cool. Yeah, we'll see. So, as it currently stands, would you consider yourself as having taken the no virus position? I would say I'm drawn to it. If we define it as the virus has not been isolated using the scientific method, meaning an independent variable using proper controls and then demonstrating that it is a pathogenic particle using Koch's postulates or Rivers postulates, that whole thread, I don't think it's been established. And we haven't talked about the contagion studies where like if these particles are so contagious, you should be able to put a tiny bit of it in a room with a bunch of animals and they should all get sick. Or put one sick person who's got this viral infection in a room and show that like a lot of people get sick. That's not how the studies are done with contagion, which is shocking to me. They inject animals with a toxic soup and they're like, you know, this animal had a bunch of symptoms or a few of the animals had symptoms. Therefore, it's a contagious particle. So, like I would have expected to answer your question, Joel, expected better, more rigor there too. Yeah, they traumatize these animals too with some of these experiments and like what impact does that have as well in terms of like what symptoms get presented? Well, in terms of the contagion kind of studies that go back like over a hundred years ago, like can you talk about some of them? I know some more, I don't know if it was a study, but it was a story you shared in your book about, was it Dr. Rodenmund, like about smallpox? Yeah. Like can you talk, I mean, can you talk a little bit about that? And then also the influenza experiments that were done? Yeah. So, this was in the 1800s, a doctor from Wisconsin who didn't believe in germ-based contagion. There was a smallpox patient he had and he took some of the pus from this patient and smothered it all over his body and then was like out in the world shaking hands with people seeing patients and then people got wind of what he was doing and they quarantined him. But no one- He escaped quarantine, right? [Speaker 3] (1:03:01 - 1:03:01) He escaped quarantine. [Speaker 1] (1:03:02 - 1:03:46) This is pretty wild. And he claims that he wasn't able to get people sick, which is, I mean, some people would say that's anecdotal. He was pretty adamant in the way I quoted him and he was like, look, there's, it's never been established contagion. And then the study that many people reference is Milton Rosenau's experiments in the early 1900s on Spanish flu, which is 50 million people died. This was the biggest pandemic ever. And they had sick people, they had people coughing each other's faces and they did like, you know, what you would expect if you wanted to try to demonstrate contagion, things like that. And no one got sick. Do you know, like, were these, um, I think they were like, uh, soldiers in the military that turned- They were Navy. [Speaker 3] (1:03:46 - 1:03:46) I believe Navy. Yeah. [Speaker 1] (1:03:47 - 1:04:53) So like, did they know like, hey, we're going to go into this room with a bunch of people with like the Spanish flu? Or was this early on where people didn't really know exactly what was happening? I don't know if you have that knowledge. I'm just curious, like, from a psychological standpoint, because they didn't get symptoms. Like, like people are like, oh my God, I'm about to go into this room with all these people that have, um, you know, this deadly, you know, strain of this virus. Like, how does that impact them? Or were they not really aware of it? And they were just like, hey, you're going to go in and this person's going to cough on you. I, yeah, that's a good question. I don't know exactly, but I'm, I think they knew they were volunteering. Yeah. For us, where people were getting sick, because I had to go back to read the study. It was in the Journal of American Medicine, I believe it was in JAMA. And they talked about like the bravery of the volunteers. I seem to remember that kind of language, which indicates that that they probably knew. It's interesting. But even then, like, they didn't, you know, come down with any symptoms with all the different elements of this study that they did, where they were, they were like taking, were they injecting blood? Injecting blood. But from like, quote unquote, sick people? [Speaker 3] (1:04:53 - 1:04:53) Yes. [Speaker 1] (1:04:53 - 1:06:42) They did everything you could imagine. This is the sort of study you'd expect with any viral infection that they've done this multiple times in independent laboratories with like natural contagion means that people would get sick. And that's not what we see. So, that blew my mind. Yeah, definitely. And also like for me, because I like to kind of bring the G and M element into things because I'm curious. Like, okay, what's the G and M explanation of the Spanish, you know, the Spanish flu pandemic? And I think like the Germany had asked the allies for a ceasefire, like in October at some point. And like the, like once that happened, people started realizing, okay, like peace is on the horizon. And so, they started coming down with all this, they were healing these territorial fear conflicts that they suffered because of, you know, war. So, again, like here's this element where people are under the threat of war, of like being killed, et cetera. And then they realize the war is ending. So, there's a resolution to this conflict. And then masses of people in certain regions, you know, come down with these healing symptoms. So, that's another explanation in terms of why, you know, there was this pandemic. So, again, back to, hey, there's these different hypotheses. People are sharing their ideas on like what could be the cause outside of this microscopic particle. And so, can we take a look at that and contemplate whether or not, you know, it makes sense. And ideally, like do scientific studies to prove that. But yeah, definitely needed. Definitely to do them as we go. It's harder in retrospect to look back and guess. We can have theories, but what's more disturbing is that in the modern era, we don't see that. We just had a world, a shutdown of the world based on a belief that when you look at it scientifically, it's just not established with the rigor that you would expect given the measures that were taken. [Speaker 3] (1:06:42 - 1:06:42) Yeah. [Speaker 1] (1:06:43 - 1:16:58) Yeah. And it's provoked thousands of these conversations that are happening every single day right now, you know. And on that note, I want to ask you like, or both of you like, how far along do you think, generally speaking, the collective sentiment is in terms of really questioning this paradigm? Go ahead. You're awesome. You can start. I don't know. Like... It feels like it's been light years, but that's probably because I'm in it and I'm having these conversations, you know, but... Well, I definitely think that like I said earlier, or was it before? I don't know if it was earlier before we started talking, we pressed record. Like there seems to be a little bit of a tipping point. I mean, even for instance, you know, I always keep talking about it because I'm passionate about it, but even dreaming of medicine three years ago, now you start seeing online and like people are talking about it, people are curious about it, you know. So again, I think more and more people are open to challenging these foundational paradigms or at least, you know, and questioning them than they were two years ago, three years ago. Like none of this would have happened. Like I'm almost grateful for everything that went down three years ago because people weren't questioning vaccines to the degree they were because now they were trying to force all adults to take them, you know. People weren't questioning or thinking about viruses because it wasn't this like insane thing that was being pushed on the population. Yes, HIV AIDS was there, but this was pre-social media. So we have like technology and social media that has supported this kind of like curiosity and investigation on a lot of these things we're talking about. Yeah, I would echo all of that. And I'm a data point where I heard about this stuff in 2020. I heard about the no virus position. I didn't dismiss it. I listened to what people said, but I didn't study it closely. And there were a lot of people who I respected who said the no virus position was true. And a lot of people I really respect who said it's a psyop, don't fall for it. If you talk about this, you are feeding into it. So I was just kind of sitting on the sidelines for a while. And the fact that there was enough information out there that I could write a book as a third party and just aggregate stuff where there's a compelling enough argument where I felt comfortable publishing it, that says something. And then the other side of it where you're alluding to Joel is I do think it's a minority of people that are really looking at this. Your audience is ahead of the curve. This is like bleeding edge stuff. A lot of people don't even know to question vaccines, intelligent people. So I try to remind myself of that, that people are on a different spectrum and it's not their fault always. People are busy with their lives and they're focused on other things. Yeah, no, I agree. And again, you're right. It is a minority because we're in our little bubble. We're in our little bubble on social media with the algorithms and the people that we talk to and everyone's commenting on people we know and our friends and other people that we follow that talk about this stuff. But you go outside of that. You have to have a level of psychological freedom to really begin to question these paradigms. And the reality is that we've been fed this society and this culture and this mundane routine that's so burdened for so many people. That's even just to have the space to bring in sometimes a question and consider and research is not a priority for the masses. Right. And people are busy with just handling everyday things. And it's a luxury really to think about this stuff, even though it is essential health, but to have the time to really explore. And so what I try to do with my books is knowing all of that. What is the most psychologically friendly way of introducing the information? So for me, that was not to start on page one with a virus has not been established. It was to just question the allopathic approach and then look at HIV AIDS, because a lot of people do question, well, what is AIDS? It's this hodgepodge of symptoms that people talk about. And like even normal people, it's kind of fuzzy. So I wanted to start there and lead into the no virus discussion, then lead into the spiritual discussion, which is even more far out. So there's an art to this. I don't know if I figured it out yet, but of introducing the material so that it's palatable, because I know that if something is introduced in a way that's not palatable, that can shut it down even more where people will be closed off for years. Yeah, 100%. And even like how you say something, you know, like what aspect of you delivers information? You know, if you're sharing with someone from like a grounded place, you're communicating, you're open, as opposed to like banging them over the head with knowledge, you could say the same exact thing and it's going to be received in a different way. So discernment is super important. Knowing yourself is super important. And being able to communicate consciously as best you can is super important when it comes to hoping that another individual or a group of individuals are going to be open to what you have to say. Yeah, totally. I just think like my oldest daughter is five years old. She's never been in a doctor's office. She's never seen a doctor, you know. And I think when people really begin to not just intellectualize this information, but embody it and really bring it into their homes and live by it and build the capacity when, you know, quote, unquote, sickness comes around, so to speak, that's when the real shifts are going to take place, you know. And that is happening. But as that becomes more mainstream, you know, and regular doctor visits and regular checkups when nothing's happening becomes less and less relevant, the curve is really going to have a trajectory shift, in my opinion. Yeah, I mean, they're already well visits are already down, you know, because of I think the last few years. And so, like, there is definitely a shift happening where people are questioning vaccines in general because of the COVID vaccine. Yeah, and also just the approach to medicine. What is a doctor's role? And one of the quotes I use in the book is that we should be looking within the macroscope rather than looking under the microscope with regard to health. So, what a true doctor now, as I think about it, would be asking a person, like, what's going on in your life? Start there. What's been happening? Where have you been? Have you had any trauma recently? What's your emotional situation been like? And then work backwards. And then there's value in blood tests and things like that, too. But it's a reversal. It's an upside down. It would help for all doctors to have some knowledge in psychotherapeutical practices as well, you know? Yeah, or just understanding trauma and the body or, again, understanding natural laws that exist. But it's, yeah. But then, again, they're in a system, too, that doesn't support them, like insurance industries, like all these different elements of, like, oh, I only have 15 minutes for my patient. Like, I can't just spend an hour, hour and a half with them being like, hey, what's going on? Like, oh, you know, what happened to you? Oh, you went through this trauma five years ago. Oh, you resolved it now. And you're experiencing these symptoms. Like, you know, it's a complete paradigm. Which is why the conscious individual is going to seek decentralized services. Yeah, exactly. And it's going to happen on an individual level. Like, I don't think someone's going to roll up tomorrow and be like, we are tearing down the entire allopathic medical industry. And now we're changing it. Like, all hospitals shall be closed tomorrow. And they shall be replaced with centers of terrain and german medicine and biofield practitioners, et cetera, et cetera. It's not going to happen. It happens slowly over time. Well, your point, Yerasimos, gets to the energy behind this whole discussion. What are we really trying to do? Are we trying to take down the system? I mean, I feel like that's not what I'm interested in. And I don't think it's possible. Maybe it'll happen on its own. I actually end the book with a really good quote on this. That, like, the Leviathan system might fall under its own devices. But the individual's role is to save his or her own soul. Like, that's what it comes down to. And then also to obey one's own conscience, to want to help other people. But I think it starts with the individual. Like, we have to do the best in our own, with our own body and our own family system and our communities. But the system is going to be itself. So, I've noticed this shift in myself too. And I think I've seen it over the last four years. Like, we saw what happened with COVID. And there was the outrage over the harsh measures taken. And it's like, we need to take down the system. And then people have softened. Some people have softened over time where it's like, well, yeah, the system's going to do its thing. I'm going to be independent. And again, this is how change happens. It happens at the individual level. You know, which, again, with this conversation, we're talking about individualism versus collectivism to some degree. But that's how change is going to happen when each person is going, hey, I want to, like, look at my health in a different way. I want to explore different ideas. And then I want to apply them to my family as well. So, things are going to shift from that standpoint. Yeah, something I've shared before is that, like, the goal is not to defeat the system. The goal is to make the system redundant in your own life and inspire others to do the same. I think that's it. And I think also when we talk about this idea of freedom, and this shifted for me over the last few years, it's like, you know, if I'm allowed to go after the knowledge and the healing modalities that I want to go after, then I'm going to do that. And you're free to do what you want to do. If you want to go get all the vaccines and the boosters, then you're free to do that. Now, what we're trying to do is just present information and go, hey, these are some other things out there that you may have not realized. You know, are you open to taking them in? But at the end of the day, if you want to choose to, like, go see your doctor every month and get every single diagnostic test that's going to, like, show something that's wrong with you, then you're free to do it. I just want to have the freedom to make my own medical decisions and do what I want to do that's best for me. And if you're allowing that, then that's cool. I got no beef with you. I mean, I have friends of mine that chose to get the COVID vaccine, like, and they just did it for whatever reasons. And they're cool with my decisions, you know? And we are seeing, like, where some of this awakening is happening, whether it's, I mean, the no virus thing definitely is a little bit more fringe and extreme, but we're seeing many, many more people that are questioning just public health measures, that are questioning, like, oh, I'm not getting the fucking fourth booster. Like, fuck this shit. Like, they told me it didn't stop transmission. They told me that, like, even if we're using mainstream scientific, like, statistics, you know, about viruses and everything, they're seeing through some of these lies. And they're like, nah, I'm not doing that anymore. So that's the first step for many people. And who knows five years, 10 years down the road where an individual like that lands. [Speaker 3] (1:16:59 - 1:16:59) Yeah. [Speaker 1] (1:16:59 - 1:23:32) And you can thank the system for that, because what they attempted was such an extreme broach of common sense that even, you know, some of the most docile people on earth are going to not get a seventh or eighth booster. That's right. There's an improvement. We've evolved through this, and there's different levels of that evolution. And that's the value of content, of podcasts, books, is that the content's going to be there for a long time. And maybe in 10 years, someone's ready for it. But people can't be forced. And I've had to learn this in my own process, that I can't be forced for certain things I wasn't ready for previously, and now I can suddenly see it. So, it gives me more compassion for other people. When I put stuff out there and I get frustrated, I'm like, well, I know more people, like, I would love for them to understand what I'm saying. They're not getting me, they're misunderstanding. But I've been there too, where I wasn't ready. I think it's just a natural process of expanding one's thinking and awareness. Like, I remember in like the 20, like, when I was 20 years old, I played the food police. Like, I can't believe you're eating that. I can't believe you're drinking that Red Bull. What are you doing? You know what that's doing to you? Like, and then you, like, you go from one extreme to the other. And then you kind of find this happy balance that kind of integrates. And you're just more comfortable with who you are. Because I think the people that like are trying to change people and get so triggered, like, they don't, they're not really grounded in their belief and feel secure in their belief systems and their knowledge and education. Because if they did, they wouldn't, I don't think they would have as much of like combativeness with people. They'd be like, hey, listen, these are my thoughts. Like, you can disagree with me, but I'm going to keep living my life the way I want to. And okay, you live your life. Okay, bye. Take care. I love this Ayn Rand quote. She says, to deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature with persuasion. And, you know, this information ultimately is a weapon. And in my opinion, it's a weapon that can help enhance the quality of an individual's life. But if you come at, if you come at someone with it too hard and too, you know, too quickly, they're going to feel attacked by it. So, it's like, how do you empower someone? And that's the word, right? How do you empower someone with this knowledge, as opposed to, as Erasmus said earlier, beat someone over the head with it? Yeah. And again, everything happens on an individual's timing and where are they at? Can they sit with the vulnerability of, I may be wrong. Like, I could be wrong. Because most people don't have the capacity to sit with that level of discomfort or feeling. And so, they immediately go into judgment, attack, dismissal, ridicule. But if you can create a little bit of space and hold the belief like, you know, I could be wrong. And then what will that openness, uncertainty, curiosity lead you to? And that's how it's been in my life. And even from a spiritual perspective, if you believe that we are all on a soul journey, it might be the case that certain information is not relevant or might actually be harmful for a person's soul journey for what they're here to experience. Yeah, no, I hear there's so many factors to it. Yeah, you also, it kind of relates to this, but it just popped in my head. Like in your book, you were talking a little bit about like past lives and like what impact that like has on a person's like health and their being, what they come into this world with, which is fascinating as well. Yeah, so I'm referring to research that's been done at the University of Virginia. They have a division of perceptual studies at the med school there. It's been around since the late 1960s. Dr. Ian Stevenson, child psychiatrist. He and now Dr. Jim Tucker, who I interviewed for my podcast, Where's My Mind? He's continued the research. Over 2,500 cases, young kids who have memories of what appear to be previous life, where in the strongest cases, the researchers find historical records that validate what the child said. And it's not like the child says, I'm Cleopatra. It's usually something much more obscure. And now this is where it relates to health more specifically is that in some of the cases, the children have birthmarks or physical defects that align with the death in the alleged previous life. And in the best cases, the researchers can find medical records that say, yeah, this person died in this way. So what Dr. Ian Stevenson said is from a traditional medical perspective, we believe that genetics and environment are the two things that affect our physical form. And here, there appears to be a third factor, something that's not genetic, it's not environmental, and it's affecting their body. What's going on here? So, I mean, it's things like that and the Anita Morjani type spontaneous remission, it blows up the reductionistic models about health and disease. And they're not considered very often. And I've got a few paragraphs in the book on it, but the significance of it, that a child could have a physical effect from some life that was not the child's, like, explain that to me. Yeah, I remember watching a short documentary on the past live thing. I think they realized that the child was a reincarnation potentially of like this World War II soldier based on certain things. And also, I think what's important here we need to mention is how important it is for the parents. Because if you have a young child that starts talking about these things, saying these things, sharing dreams or images or whatever, like to be open to this, because how many parents like, oh, that's stupid, you're just using your imagination, that's fake. And then over time, maybe these connections to these past lives, you know, get repressed for these children. Absolutely. And that's where religion plays in. If you grew up in a household where reincarnation is shunned, then people will be more likely to dismiss it rather than try to understand maybe what the child's going through. Because I mentioned this in the book as well, that children often have phobias, things they're afraid of, and philias, things that they like, their preferences that might be based on these past lives, very strange things. Like the child might have a craving for tobacco or cultural things that don't match their family's cultural background, or have a fear of water because they drowned in the previous life. So, trying to understand those things for the child, that's a whole separate area of parenting that's important. I'd love to explore that topic in more depth one day. Yeah. What's next for you, man? Like what other book are you writing next in the next four months? And I mean, I feel like we talked about this last time. I probably said, I don't know what I'm doing next. Is that right? [Speaker 3] (1:23:32 - 1:23:32) Does that sound right? I think so. [Speaker 1] (1:23:33 - 1:33:08) Yeah. I think so. Because I didn't know what I was doing next. And I'm in the same position. I really, it would be nice to have a little more clarity because I always say this after I write a book, I might be done writing books. I have no idea. Like there would have to be something that is so paradigm shifting for me to want to write about it, to feel like it's that important. And I don't see anything like that on the horizon. So, I don't know. That's my answer. You've covered a bunch of things in your books, the medical industry, politics, human consciousness, extraterrestrial life. There's definitely things you've explored. I know you tapped into the climate in your Great Reset book. That seems to be something that's on the horizon. And I'm curious how that's going to impact humanity because there's such a polarization around that issue as well. We're still trying to get someone on this podcast to dive deep into the climate thing. I know you had given me some names that were listed in your book, but you had to kind of decide yet who we want to get on. But that seems to be a really pressing issue from a global standpoint. Well, it's one that technical director at CNN, he's on video in a Project Veritas undercover journalism expose, April 2021. He's saying, well, right now COVID is the big thing. But we've been told by the head of the network at CNN that climate's going to be next. And that one's got longevity and fear cells. That was April 2021. We weren't talking much about climate. And he was right that when COVID died down, the hysteria died down, climate ramped up. So I agree with you that that's a big issue because like with COVID, climate can be weaponized. Fear of climate change can be weaponized to take away rights. That's where the next SARP will be born. I've got no doubt about that. Yeah. Yeah. Mark, man, I've loved this conversation. I think this is an incredibly accessible conversation for many people. I think we covered a lot of super key factors. I think it's super shareable. So I really encourage everyone who's listened to this and gotten value from it to share it with those who may need it. And to go get Mark's book, go dive deep as well if you feel called. What are your final thoughts here? I would go back to our discussion of what to do and thinking about saving our own souls. Start there and absolutely be of service on top of it. My second book, An End to Upside-Down Living, I ask a question that I seek to answer in the book. What is the overall intention of your life? And I try to get to an answer using science and spiritual philosophy and looking at various awakening journeys and things like that. And where I land is that we are here to try to perfect ourselves in every way. That includes discernment, by the way, which has become more important to me since I wrote that book. And as we do that, we become more capable of being of service. So it's like being on an airplane. We're told to put the oxygen mask on first, save ourselves first. And I think that's important because if we go too far on the service side without being stable ourselves, then we maybe don't do as good a job with it. And we see that playing out in the world. I feel like people's traumas are on display in the way that they handle things in a public manner. And if we can get really solid ourselves, then we become a better vessel, a pure vessel to be able to be of service. And that's been my MO. It's like, what am I doing to perfect myself in every way and then to be of service to use that to help people. Yeah, well said. I mean, in my opinion, extreme altruism is a psychological weapon which has been harnessed by the architects of control as well to keep people with empty cups and keep them feeling just this inherent guilt for even following their own path and filling their own cup appropriately. And as a result, we see so many toxic relationships fueled by resentment and obligation and guilt and insecurity and all the rest of it. But yeah, I think you have to be a person of value to give value. Agreed. Dude, it's such a pleasure having you on again. Appreciate you. Appreciate the work you're doing. And yeah, looking forward to connecting again in the future. For sure. Thank you guys so much. No, thank you, Mark. Stay tuned for the wrap up, y'all. Peace. Another great episode in the books, man. Yeah, I loved it. Second time Mark came on, pretty incredible that since our last episode with him, he wrote this book. I'm impressed by his ability to synthesize information and put it in book format. And anyone who maybe has listened to episodes before, this is an issue that is so near and dear to my heart. It's definitely played a huge part in my awakening journey almost 20 years ago, challenging the allopathic system, challenging mainstream science, diving into the HIV AIDS subject as well, and then where that led me. So it's a great episode to listen to, watch, and share with people in your life that you think are open. And like Joel said at the end, pick up Mark's book, start there. And we will be having Melissa on again for the fifth time soon. And then this time we're going to be doing a foundational dive into German medicine, Dr. Homer, the five biological laws. And that'll also be a shareable episode for those of you that are interested in looking at that deeper. Yeah, totally. Nah, man, your passion comes through big time, bro, when we have these conversations, particularly around health. Because I think really grasping and shifting one's attitudes and mindsets around this topic, it's one of the most empowering things that we can do for ourselves. Well, yeah, of course. Because again, it's you. It's your body. It's your mind. It's what you're with 24 seven. And from the moment you're born till the end today, you transition. And so like, if you want to live a great life, an empowered life, if you want to do the things you want to do, if you want to feel good, like these are the things that need to be high value. Yeah. Like, I'm almost like, how can it not be high value? I get it. There's all these like distractions and programming that keep people from realizing the importance of their vessel and their psyche and their mind and their spirit. But man, like I want to live a long life. I want to thrive. I want to continue to move well when I get older and do the things I want to do. And when I look around me, when I see what's happening in the world, like it breaks my heart, man. You know, and something I didn't even mention in the episode, but like, let's say the things we're talking about when these episodes that we've talked about with Alec, that we've talked about with Melissa, we've talked about with other people around the allopathic system and conventional paradigms. Like if what we're talking about regarding like the nature of biology and why people deal with symptoms and get quote unquote sick are true, like think about the trillions upon trillions of dollars spent going down paradigms and going towards paradigms and research and studying, you know, certain diagnoses that are potentially or I think are based in pseudoscience and a false understanding of how our bodies and our psyches operate. Yeah. Like in the hundreds of millions of lives that were lost. Think about the advancement that would be possible if that was reallocated into some of these more alternative options that we're referring to and how quickly we would flourish and thrive and grow and expand as a civilization if we were to look deeper. Yeah. Well, yeah. And imagine if you have like a large percentage of the population that reduces their fear by like 50%, you know, because so much of the fear that we're dealing with is based on like, oh, my cousin got sick or they got COVID or this, the climate's going to fucking, we're all going to die. Like imagine if there was more truth that was understood. But, you know, with everything else we talk about, when we talk about conspiracies, we talk about, you know, the architects of control, like that isn't the agenda. Like these people, whoever they are, they don't want an empowered, educated population doing the things that they love doing. You know, they're stuck. Many of them are stuck in these paradigms of work where they're just like, they don't even have the time to explore these things. You know what I mean? So it's like, and again, it goes back to what we ended the episode with. It comes back down to you. You know, what do you want? What do you value? What are you going to do with the time that you have? And that's what's going to change your life first and foremost, your family's life, your communities, and then that ripples into the larger population. Beautifully said, man. Guys, thanks for being here. Thanks for listening. Thanks for supporting our work and our efforts. If you get the chance, please like, review, share this episode. Doors to Rise Above The Herd Round 8 are officially closed. To everyone that has joined the Rise Above The Herd Round 8, we are so excited to go through another eight-week journey with you of deep, profound self-transformation and self-growth. That's it from us. Take care.