Transcending the Pandemic Narrative

How do we transcend the pandemic narrative and move into a new paradigm? To address that ques­tion, first I want to discuss the fallacies, manipula­tion and lies that this narrative has exposed us to, with a special focus on science and health. Then, I’d like to talk about how we figure out what is actually true and the steps we can take to become our own health authority.

Our society faces many false narratives, but I’m focusing on the realm of public health. False theories—germ theory and virus theory—have been manipulated to cause fear. In fact, fear is one of the primary drivers of this latest round of coercion and tyranny. You can see how the idea that an invis­ible particle can invade your body at any time and not only make you sick, but actually threaten your very existence, is a very scary proposition. Of course, this is not really what’s going on, but the narrative leaves many of us dependent on the so-called white-coated priests of the allopathic system to come rescue us and bring us back to life, with no ability to control our own health.

CIRCULAR REASONING

Understanding logical fallacies dates back to Aristotle. The main logical fallacy behind the virus lie is circular reasoning. We’ve all encountered circular reasoning in cocktail party discussions and family debates, but in this in­stance, it’s being used for manipulation of the world population.

In his 2006 essay titled “What Is Circular Reasoning?” Dr. Robert Coleman wrote, “The fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion of an argument is essentially the same as one of the premises in the argument.”1 In other words, your starting assumptions are the same as your conclusions, and there’s no rigor in the process of bringing about novel conclusions.

A related form of circular reasoning is the logical fallacy “begging the question,” the Latin term for which is petitio principii. For this, we can look back to James Welton, who in 1905 wrote in A Manual of Logic, Volume Two, “to beg the question is to attempt to support a claim with a premise that itself restates or presupposes the claim.”2 So, you start off with a claim and then restate it at the end: there’s your circular argument.

Pseudoscience occurs when you give the appearance that you’re using science but you’re not. Circular reasoning, which applies to many aspects of science and medicine, describes the entire field of virology. Let’s look at virus isolation. The starting premise is that a sick individual has a virus in their body. This is a presupposition without any proof or evidence to support it, but it is the starting point. The second premise is that viruses cause so-called cytopathic effects (CPEs) in a cell culture. Once again, there is no clear evidence that this is the case, but that is the starting point.

Let’s say you take a sample from a patient and run it through the cell culture process, a process that includes putting additives in the culture. You do not perform any control ex­periments. When you then observe CPEs and interpret those results based on your original premise—which is that the CPEs are caused by a virus—that brings you back to your starting point. You haven’t made any progress here; all you’ve done is restate your initial claim.

Now let’s look at metagenomics—the use of computer sequencing to study genetic material. With metagenomic sequencing, also sometimes referred to as “in silico genome sequencing,” you are starting with the same premise, namely, that viruses are present in the patient. A second premise (and this is very arbitrary) is that vi­ruses have a genome of a certain length. When it comes to alleged “coronaviruses,” they say it is thirty thousand base pairs. So, they are going to find something of that length, even though it is completely made up.

Once again, they take a sample from a pa­tient where they assume there is a virus present. They further assume that it’s an RNA virus. They don’t look for DNA viruses at all; it’s as if that is not even a possibility from their point of view. Then they take the RNA out, but there is no strand of RNA that represents the com­plete genome of an organism in their sample; all they have are little fragments of RNA, and the provenance or the origin of those fragments is unknown. But that doesn’t stop them. They amplify those fragments using PCR,3 which also compounds the problem; because of the way they’re using PCR with overamplification, it creates new sequences that didn’t exist in the original sample. Next, they sequence all those little, tiny strands and fragments of RNA that are one hundred fifty bases long or fewer. We’re talking about pieces of one hundred fifty in length, when they say the whole genome is thirty thousand—so you can see it’s a very tiny percentage.

When they did the sequence in the SARS-CoV-2 experiment, they found that they had over fifty-six million unique fragments. They do not know where any single one of those fifty-six million comes from. They use a computer and put those sequences into the computer as data. The computer puts these things together like a puzzle and makes over a million solutions. Although there is no way to know whether any of those solutions represents anything in reality—and I would say that they absolutely do not—they arbitrarily pick one of the million sequences that happens to match their premise that the genome is thirty thousand base pairs long. They take the longest one that the com­puter spits out and say, “This is the genome.” Once again, they’ve simply restated their start­ing premise that there is a virus in the sample and that there is a genome of thirty thousand base pairs. It doesn’t matter that it was created out of thin air in a computer.

CULTIVATING DISCERNMENT

Discernment is a very important skill that you must develop, particularly when it comes to assessing science. You have to understand how a given experiment is done and what it can—and can’t—determine in order to see whether the conclusions drawn represent circular reason­ing or true knowledge. One key aspect of the scientific method is that you have to have an independent variable—the thing you think is causing the phenomenon of interest (the depen­dent variable). If you hypothesize that rain is caused by kids playing on a swing set, you have to do a control experiment where you exclude that variable to make sure there’s not something else in the experiment that is causing the rain.

Not every type of knowledge is amenable to the scientific method because it’s not always about a cause-and-effect relationship. There are many things that are purely descriptive, such as the phenomenon of pleomorphism, where you can see microbial cells changing form. You can observe that carefully and describe it, and that is valuable knowledge. However, you have to be very careful that you’re not influencing the behavior of the organisms you are observing; you want to be a passive observer, which can be challenging.

Any analytical methods that researchers use have to be validated, meaning the method does what researchers say it does. You have to do your due diligence. Someone was telling me about an external device that could tell the pH inside the cells and interstitium (the space between cells and tissues)—a type of electronic scan. I asked, “Has it been validated?” meaning “Has it been compared to a gold standard?” (In this case, the gold standard for measurement of pH involves putting a micropipette or microelectrode right into a cell.) If they didn’t compare the technique against the gold standard to see whether the results match, you can just take that analytical method and throw it right out the window and ignore it, because it’s not valid. Note that none of the tests for infectious disease have been validated.

When you read a study, here are some questions you should ask: What was the experimental design? Did they have an independent variable? Did they have a control group? Did they have a large enough sample to determine the outcome? What was the outcome? Was the outcome a lab marker or an outcome like mortality? The details of the experiment are the only thing you can look at to determine whether the conclusions are valid. Be suspicious of studies based on animal models—and especially when the animals are genetically modified because that is not what’s in nature.

You also have to be very careful with statistical analysis. For ex­ample, statistical analysis is how antidepressants came to be. We’ve all seen Bill Gates’ favorite book, How to Lie with Statistics.4 Realize that statistics give you probabilities, not certainties. If scientists stick with simple tests such as tests of proportion, t-tests and regressions, statistics can be very useful. However, you need to keep in mind that correlation does not prove causation.

Exercise discernment when you encounter logical fallacies. We need to learn to recognize these types of errors in logic. Once we can see through the false arguments, we don’t have to get caught up in the details. In addition to circular reasoning, some of the other logical fallacies that come into play in false science include:

• The ad hominem fallacy, where someone avoids discussion of a topic by attacking the character or motives of the person making the argument instead. Examples: “He just wants to make money off you”; “He’s associated with the Freemasons”; “He’s controlled opposition.”
• Appeals to authority, where claims are considered true merely because experts say so. Examples: “He’s not even a virologist”; “The CDC director said it was true so it must be”; “One hundred years of medical experts can’t be wrong.”
• The burden-of-proof fallacy. If someone says, “Tell me the proof for your theory that viruses don’t exist,” I say “No, it’s the other way around. You’re the one who made a theory claiming that viruses do exist. I am disproving you, and you have to prove your claim.”
• The straw man fallacy, where someone focuses on a different question instead of the argument in question. Examples: “If viruses aren’t real, then how do you explain herpes?” “How do you explain chickenpox moving from one kid to another?”

The straw-man argument comes up a lot in discussions about viruses, but straw-man questions about specific diseases have nothing to do with whether viruses are real or not. You have to understand that asking about viruses is a separate argument from asking what makes us sick. If someone tells you a virus made them sick, ask, “How do you know that a virus caused it? Do you know how you would go about determining that? How do you think you would find the virus?” If you look at the last hundred years of medical research, almost all of the experiments about the causes of disease were related to germs; the establishment accepted germs as the cause a priori, so they didn’t feel the need to look for any other possible causes.

With viruses, you have to establish that viruses exist before you can even explore whether they cause anything. How do you test whether something (the independent variable) is the cause of something (the dependent variable), if you don’t actually have the independent variable in hand? One of the reasons the virus narrative persists is because many people are not willing to rest in the place of not knowing all the answers.

MANIPULATION VIA COMPUTER MODELS

Of course, there are many methods used to trick people into believ­ing false ideas and premises, and one of those is computer models. As the discussion of sequencing indicated, computer models are a way to simulate any reality that you can imagine. I have experience doing this in the biotech industry with so-called “molecular modeling”—which uses computer simulation to represent and visualize a target protein’s structure and behavior.5 In my case, I was working on inhibitors of thrombin (a clotting factor in the blood); the goal was to develop new blood thinners.

Molecular modeling is very fancy; with stereoscopic glasses, you can see the molecule you are modeling in 3D, and you can do energy calculations and simulations. However, every time you do one of these procedures, you have to make a lot of assumptions. You have to put energy parameters, bond angle parameters and so on. How do you know that any of this represents reality? In drug design, there is some accountability because they have to design a molecule that in fact thins the blood. They can test it and ask, “Does it actually do that?” If it’s just based on the model, they may find that it doesn’t.

Over the last few years, we saw computer models deployed to gener­ate fear. We all remember how Western leaders used UK epidemiologist Neil Ferguson’s computer model predictions of tens or hundreds of mil­lions of deaths to drum up fear and manipulate people. Computer models are also the basis of other fear narratives, such as the global warming narrative, where there are very limited data and no real evidence from nature. Scientists can put anything they want into these computer models and essentially create any outcome they desire by tweaking the models.

WEAPONIZED COLLECTIVISM

Collectivism (the philosophy behind communism) should be a household word. Collectivism states that the safety and welfare of the collective—whether defined as your neighborhood block, your city or some abstract concept—supersedes the rights and interests of individuals. Essentially, the philosophy of collectivism stands in contrast to individu­alism, which is the foundation of the spirit of our nation.

Ordinarily, people tend to be oriented toward individualism. Under individualism, if I feel it’s too risky to go out and I’m worried about get­ting sick, I will stay home. I won’t take that risk unless I feel comfortable taking that risk. If I want to wear personal protective equipment to protect myself, I’ll do that, but I’m not going to worry about anyone else. However, collectivism and the myth of contagion have become the basis for many of the tyrannical policies we are seeing, giving rise to the idea that you need to wear a mask to protect me or to protect grandma. You can see that once we adopt the collectivist approach, our individual liberties quickly erode into nothing, forcing us to comply with whatever the leaders determine is best for the collective. This is how countries fall into totalitarianism.

Consider how this played out with “social distancing.” Strategically, this policy tells people they have to remain at a minimum of six feet apart, which is almost precisely the length that our human biofields6—our electromagnetic and acoustic fields—extend out from our bod­ies.7 That means that we can’t get close enough to other people to have those fields interact and exchange information, which is what we need as humans. We are social creatures. We need to be in proximity with one another; we need physical touch, and we need to have bonds and communities. These policies are taking that away, rendering us something other than human.

Masks have been a horrible intervention, and it makes me slightly nauseated whenever I see someone wearing one. Obviously, it has the problem of blocking your ability to breathe, which is problematic in and of itself. In addition, it represents the initiation into this new slavery surveillance system, which is something into which I do not want to be initiated.

The so-called “vaccines” also fit into the collectivist paradigm, promoting the idea that you have to get this injection to protect others, not yourself. If it was just about protecting yourself, there would be no requirement—it would be your personal choice. Now, we have Pfizer executives admitting that the injections couldn’t stop any “spread” or “transmission.”8 Of course, “transmission” doesn’t exist anyway.

Note that becoming aware of the dangers of collectivism does not mean we should not be part of communities. As I said, it’s our human nature to be social creatures and to cooperate and collaborate with each other—but we don’t have to be ruled by a collectivist philosophy to do that.

FALSE SCIENCE AND FALSE PREMISES

Now, I’d like to set aside philosophies and policies and delve further into false science. I’m going to go through some hypotheses, ideas or proposals—they’re often incorrectly called “theories”—and let you know which of these are false premises. Then I’m going to address what we actually know to be true.

First, the very idea that science is consensus-based—where everyone agrees—is anti-scientific. It’s the complete opposite of what science is supposed to be. In science, you’re always supposed to challenge the mainstream. If you can’t prove something wrong, then it stands, but if you can prove it wrong, then you will not be held subject to false information and a false understanding. Scientific truth does not come from government agencies, and it doesn’t come from academic scientists who are put on a pedestal. It comes from nature.

False premise number two is that disease comes from a foreign invader and spreads from person to person. No experiment done to provide evidence for this claim has ever come up with any positive results whatsoever.

A third false premise is that health comes from a pill. There is no health condition that one could characterize as a deficiency of a man-made pharmaceutical. The medical establish­ment’s own data published a couple of decades ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) show that at least one hundred fifty thousand people die every year from taking prescription drugs as prescribed.9 That number does not even include vaccines or chemotherapy, or people who accidentally take too much or intentionally overdose; if you included those, you would probably triple the numbers. This is an accepted fact in mainstream medicine, but the knowledge has not permeated throughout society.

What is the fourth false premise? “It’s your bad genes or bad luck that made you sick.” That’s not true. Instead, it’s probably your own actions, though you may not be aware of it. I’m not saying you’re bad because you made yourself sick; what I’m saying is that if you made yourself sick, you also can make yourself well. But if you go with the “bad genes” or “bad luck” premise, that amounts to “We have no idea what causes this or that.” That leaves you helpless—there’s nothing you can do about it, other than go to the system and beg them for help.

The fifth false premise is that the body makes bad mistakes. We’re told that the body makes too little hormone or makes too much hormone, or that an organ like your appendix no longer works. “As scientists or doctors, we know better why your body doesn’t make enough, so we’re going to make a synthetic version and give it to you to fix your body because your body is broken.” But that’s simply not the way nature works. When your body makes less of a hormone, there’s a good reason for that. If you interfere with it, you’re going to perpetuate rather than ameliorate the problem.

False premise number six is that the body fails with age. We’re told that dementia is inevi­table; that arthritis is just “wear and tear” from living; that wrinkles, cellulite, skin atrophy and loss of vitality are inevitable; and that you are destined to deteriorate over your lifespan. However, it’s not aging that causes those things. It is the accumulation of toxicity over a lifetime—and you can take steps to prevent the body’s “failure.” Ideally, if you’re young and already in this condition, you can achieve major reversals. I think you’ve all seen images of seventy-five-year-old body builders and athletes and others who have taken on that task. We’re all capable of doing that.

A seventh false premise is, “If it’s not working properly, simply cut it out of the body.” This premise pushes people into unnecessary or harmful surgical procedures; after all, “insurance will cover it”! One of the most common operations is the removal of the gallbladder, called a cholecys­tectomy.10 Does the notion that the gallbladder just stopped working and is “dead weight” and you need to get rid of it make any sense? Do you think nature works that way? I have worked with many individuals who had gallbladder surgery, and it didn’t stop the problem. In fact, it made things worse because now they’re missing part of the system that’s the solution to the problem that they were having.

Note that there is no regulatory agency that approves surgical pro­cedures. We may criticize the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a captured agency, but at least in theory, they are supposed to determine that pharmaceuticals are safe and effective. For surgical procedures, there is no regulatory oversight at all. As a result, many surgical procedures either have no proof that they are beneficial, or there is actually proof that they’re not beneficial. Consider knee arthroscopies, one of the most common procedures done by orthopedists. They are very lucrative be­cause the surgery is quick and easy to do right in the office; the patient doesn’t have to go to the hospital or lose a lot of time, and orthopedists can churn them out. Although placebo-controlled trials have shown that there is zero benefit, the procedure is still done. I guarantee that if any of you went to the local orthopedist right now and said that your knee was really hurting, they would offer you an arthroscopy.

The establishment’s false premise number eight is that natural rem­edies don’t work and are either silly or dangerous. This is fascinating because even in their own literature, there is a wealth of evidence that natural remedies are effective. I’ll give you an incredible example that I include in my detox course,11 which is cilantro. Cilantro has amazing properties and has been studied extensively in animals and in humans. For example, researchers poison lab animals with lead and other heavy metals to cause damage and then give cilantro; not only does it remove the metals, it reverses the damage. This is amazing. Why isn’t every doctor using cilantro? It has also been shown to reduce seizures in epileptics, improve memory in dementia patients and improve cardiovascular out­comes—all from a little plant that anyone could grow on their windowsill.

False premise number nine is that detoxification is a joke. Admittedly, even in the natural health space there are many people who will exploit detoxification as a business model, giving you tons of supplements for detox. However, in my studies of natural healing outcomes over the last five years, whenever I see amazing results from some kind of protocol, it is almost always the result of some form of detoxification. This is an ex­tremely powerful method to regain your health and allow the body to heal.

The last false premise, which originally entered into the collective consciousness during the AIDS era, is really a doozy. It is the notion of the “asymptomatic carrier.” The idea is that you can feel well and be per­fectly healthy, yet if some invalid arbitrary test says you have something in your body that’s bad, you are suddenly dangerous to society—even though you’re perfectly healthy.

WHAT WE KNOW

What are the truths that we actually know? How does this relate to science? And how do you navigate all of this information? It helps to keep in mind what Isaac Asimov said: “Science does not promise absolute truth, nor does it consider that such a thing necessarily exists. Science does not even promise that everything in the Universe is amenable to the scientific process.” In fact, it can be extremely difficult or even impos­sible to design scientific experiments to learn more about many things that we observe in nature.

We have to understand the limitations of our collective ability to understand the natural world. As Nicolaus Copernicus put it, “To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.” A chemistry professor I had in college stated the point like this: “You don’t know what you know until you know what you don’t know.” This is very important, because when you don’t know things, but you assume them to be true, you can be led down many wrong paths—as many of us have experienced in our lives.

The first thing we know is that science is based on nature. “Belief,” “opinion,” “agreement” and “consensus” have nothing to do with science. The proof is in nature. If we hypothesize that rain is caused by children playing on their swing set, we can do an experiment to determine whether that is true or false using the scientific method.

The second and third things we know are that the body is a self-healing machine, and that everything needed for optimal health is avail­able in nature. This is something that we all have observed in our life­time, but we may not have generalized it to a property of our amazing bodies. If we have a laceration on our skin, we can watch how the body just repairs it, all on its own; we don’t have to do one thing to make that happen. We haven’t created any devices that can do that. What we think of as “disease” (because we’re uncomfortable) is really healing. That’s really what our body is doing. This is a miracle of nature. We have to harness that miracle to achieve our optimal health and vitality. That’s how our bodies were designed. We don’t need man-made technolo­gies or chemicals to achieve health. Sometimes those things may be beneficial, but they’re not necessary because they are not part of nature. Nature has provided everything for us to achieve our optimal functioning and embodiment in this realm.

Fourth, we know that the law of cause and effect is very important. It’s one of the seven hermetic principles (the foundation of the spiritual philosophy of Hermeticism) and is helpful for discernment in the areas of science and medicine. Simply stated, “Every cause has an effect, and every effect has a cause.” Impor­tantly, a cause must precede the effect; it can’t occur after the effect. Just knowing this law of temporality can help you debunk a lot of things.

A fifth thing we know—and this may surprise some of you—is that humans actu­ally are capable of living one hundred twenty years or longer. I don’t know whether that is the normal human lifespan, but there have been small clusters of populations all over the earth—you can even find information about this in old New York Times articles—where people lived to those ages. At present, we don’t know what distinguishes those communities; what is the “fountain of youth,” if such a thing exists? But certainly, this is a goal that we can have as we learn to take better care of ourselves and realize that our true potential is not limited to eighty years.

Sixth, we know that man-made toxins and poisons cause many, if not all, chronic health conditions. For example, we know that asbestos exposure can cause mesothelioma, exposure to benzene can cause leukemia and sugar can cause dementia.

For number seven, we know that as indi­vidual men and women, we are capable of learn­ing about and managing our own health. We do not need to be dependent on experts or others.

The eighth thing we know is that DNA is not the blueprint for all life functions. We don’t really know what DNA is, but I believe we can do scientific experiments to get closer and closer to understanding it. This is an area that could be fascinating to learn about. On one level, however, we can rely on simple mathematics. As Dr. Tom Cowan has pointed out, there aren’t nearly enough genes to provide all the information to code the proteins in our body, so that information has to come from somewhere else.

A ninth thing we know, even intuitively, is that humans have extra­sensory abilities. We know that when someone is sneaking up on us from behind—even if the breeze is going the wrong way and we can’t smell them and noise is interfering with our ability to hear them—we can still perceive their presence. This has been validated in experiments, including some done by Rupert Sheldrake, who is definitely worth looking into.12

Remote viewing gives us additional hints. Remote viewing is when you can be here and you can, in your mind, visualize what is going on somewhere else on Earth, no matter how far away it is.13,14 The govern­ment actually had a secret remote viewing research program at Stanford University. After the program terminated and enough years had passed, some information about the program became publicly available through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. There are even courses where you can learn how to do remote viewing. As an example, the gov­ernment used remote viewing to locate a fallen plane in Africa that was carrying top-secret information. They had an approximate hundred-mile radius of where the plane went down. In California, where the remote viewers were working, they put up maps. After the remote viewers sat around and used this technique, they pointed to a spot on the map. When soldiers went to that spot, there was the fallen plane.

We probably have other abilities not yet characterized—at least to my knowledge or to your knowledge—but we have much more potential than we realize. I think that the forces that have been leading the world stage have purposely blinded us to these abilities so that we are easier to control and manipulate.

TAKING ACTION

One of my most important spiritual mentors, Neil Kramer,15 says, “The pursuit of truth is your spiritual journey.” This is how we can start to look at health, biology and other broader issues in order to avoid be­ing controlled and manipulated, and instead exert our own authority, autonomy and sovereignty in our lives and the lives of our families. My overarching goals and ideals are truth, justice and, most importantly, action. Sitting around and talking about these ideas is good, but it’s not good enough. We have to embody these principles and act; that’s the way change will move in the right direction.

The most important action is to stop par­ticipating in the system. Stop consuming media from television and mainstream public health agencies. We also need to stop financing them. One way is to cancel your health insurance. That might be scary for some people because you can always envision a situation where you might need the hospital. For me, that situation would be if my finger detached from my body and I needed someone to reattach it, or if I break a bone and it’s sticking out of my skin; those are the situations when I would consider going to the hospital.

Remember that if you end up in the hospital, you are still in control. Don’t sign anything— especially anything financial—because when you guarantee to pay whatever they ask, that’s how you end up in medical bankruptcy with ruined credit. If you say, “I’d be happy to sign as financial guarantor, but how much is it going to cost?” they’ll say, “We have no idea.” It could be two hundred, five thousand or one hundred thousand dollars. How can you sign a document when you don’t know what you’re agreeing to? If you don’t sign, they’re still going to take care of you because if you have a bone sticking out of your body or your finger is in a jar, they are going to realize that it’s not good public rela­tions to turn you away. Stick with it; be brave and don’t let them intimidate you.

This also goes for what they do while you’re there. You might go in there and say, “I want a hand surgeon to reattach my finger, please.” And they’ll say, “How about a Covid test? How about a flu shot?” You say no and they say, “How about antibiotics?” You can say no to that, too. “How about food?” Are you going to eat their poison hospital food? You can say no. You do have to be vigilant. You might need an advocate there with you, because nurses might pop something in your IV without your knowledge. You have the right and you can put them on notice that if they do anything against your consent, they will be sued and reported to the relevant licensing authori­ties and government agencies. Don’t let them intimidate you.

We need to stop taking pharmaceuticals and vaccines. You might think that’s difficult, but it can be done. Once you get rid of those poisons, you can allow your body to heal properly and reverse the condition that you were suppressing with those drugs. While you’re at it, stop going for checkups, screenings and lab tests. These have never been proven to be of benefit; it’s the medical system’s way of getting you in to do more and spend more.

If we are going to exit the system, we have the responsibility to learn for ourselves what to do. This is really where I am gearing most of my current efforts. To take this on, you have to believe in yourself and your ability to understand your body and become healthy. This might seem like a monumental task to someone who is not a trained health professional—I know I have a little bit of an advantage here—but that is part of the treatment. If you can envision yourself returning to health and increasing your vitality, that will actually come to fruition, whereas if you envision yourself as destined to be miserable and sickly all your life, that will also come true.

Bolstered by belief and confidence in yourself, you need to learn about nutrition, detoxification, psychospiritual issues (such as trauma, addictions and toxic relationships) as well as existential issues such as being comfortable with death. Death is part of life—we cannot escape. On a practical level, you need to learn which medical supplies to keep in your home to handle issues that arise. You want to be able to say, “I can take of this here, and I have the supplies ready to go,” rather than “I need to go to the hospital or urgent care.”

Of course, you also need to start eating real food. For those already eating a Wise Traditions diet, I’m preaching to the choir. For others, it’s time to make that change and eat real food.

Another step is to engage in contemplation. This is time that you spend with yourself in silence and stillness. It could be time spent in prayer, in meditation or just in being. This gives you space for insights to develop and for connection with nature. It is a paramount step to be able to move forward and gain perspective and confidence.

Gratitude is also important. We need to think about what we are grateful for and express gratitude extensively. This can flip us out of pessimism and hopelessness.

Root cause analysis is key because understanding the root cause of your health problem tells you how to address it. Without understanding root causes, you will get it wrong every time. You also have to understand how the body heals itself and how to support those healing mechanisms.

If you’re overwhelmed with these steps, there are professionals who can help you get started. Don’t be afraid to reach out to them, but make sure that you’re reaching out to someone who is committed to these ideals.

SOME RESOURCES

I am engaged in several efforts to bring about a paradigm shift. First, I am trying to reach the public and provide some inspiration for looking into these issues. I do a lot of interviews and put out general information to the public. That is also why I collaborated with Marcy Cravat to make the documentary film Terrain,16 which is very accessible, even to a mainstream audience. It’s not hardcore rabbit hole diving.

For people who are curious and want to learn more, I go deeper. I am curating informa­tion in a library form that people can access. This includes anything that I think is important for the historical record or for your understand­ing of health and disease. We’re adding things all the time.

I also have a platform where I bring in scientists and health professionals with valu­able knowledge—people doing new science to uncover truths about nature and health—for educational webinars that will be archived in perpetuity. Figures who have given webinars in­clude Gerald Pollack (an amazing pioneer when it comes to the role of water in biology),17 John Stuart Reid (inventor of the Cymascope and innovator in transformational sound therapy),18 holistic health practitioner and herbalist Aman­dha Vollmer,19 and biofield tuning expert Eileen Day McKusick.20

I love to teach, so my biggest venture is a comprehensive curriculum I developed. I spent over a year working on the curriculum, which encompasses most of the natural healing top­ics that are important to learn about, including detoxification. This is a way that people can acquire knowledge and take charge of their own health issues. I am also breaking this down into a series of workshops on topics like water and heavy metal detoxification.

In addition, I’m mentoring the next genera­tion of physicians who are leaving allopathic medicine and going into true medicine. For example, Dr. Grayson Dart came to me fresh out of his family medicine residency and enthu­siastically mastered this material.21 In addition, I am taking on and supervising health coaches, who do an apprenticeship with me for a year, participating in all of our protocols and meet­ings, and then go out on their own.

Finally, I am trying to conduct some original research. For example, I’m working on a clinical trial of structured water versus unstructured water and water fasting. Looking at those outcomes, I am planning to do chemi­cal analysis of bodily secretions during illness to see if we find certain toxins associated with certain diseases. I am trying to collaborate with Dr. Pollack on testing various substances to look at their effect on exclusion zone (EZ) water. Poisonous substances and pharmaceu­ticals have been found to shrink the exclusion zone—in other words, they denature our water. For example, the local anesthetic lidocaine does this, which is probably why the nerves can’t function to detect pain.

AS ABOVE, SO BELOW

I believe that the hermetic law of correspon­dence—“as above, so below”—is the principle that is going to lead to this grand paradigm shift from a tyrannical surveillance health system that poisons people to one based on nature, autonomy, true health and vitality. What this principle means is that when we each take in­dividual action in our own domains, affecting ourselves and our family, it doesn’t stop there. The summation of all those individual efforts is reflected through the holographic mirror into the larger society. Once this change is ignited, it will sweep the rest of the way forward.

Some of us wish we could convince loved ones that they can get better by stepping away from the mainstream medical system, but it’s not our decision—it’s their decision. I mentioned Neil Kramer earlier; as he puts it, “Gotta let them live; gotta let them die.” You can let them know that you’re a resource and share your own out-of-the-box successes; if they want to know more, they will come to you.

What we need to understand is that we don’t need to go out and convince everybody. We need to take action in our own life. When others observe what is happening, it will spread and have the amazing effect that we all desire. Taking all this information into account, I give you one task above all others, and that is to become your own health authority.

REFERENCES 

1. 1. Coleman RD. What is circular reasoning? Numeraire.com, 2006. http://www. numeraire.com/download/WhatIsCircularReasoning.pdf
2. Welton J. A Manual of Logic, Volume Two. W.B. Clive; 1905.
3. Carr VR, Chaguza C. Metagenomics for surveillance of respiratory pathogens. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2021;19(5):285.
4. Huff D. How to Lie with Statistics. Norton; 1954.
5. Steinmark IE. The rise of mulecular modelling. Royal Society of Chemistry, Jun. 28, 2017. https://edu.rsc.org/feature/the-rise-of-molecular-modelling/3007610. article
6. Rubik B. The biofield hypothesis: its biophysical basis and role in medicine. J Altern Complement Med. 2002;8(6):703-717.
7. https://www.biofieldtuning.com/what-is-the-biofield
8. https://twitter.com/rob_roos/status/1579759795225198593?s=46&t=oKvkGcX haZc-OlW-8K1omA
9. Starfield B. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA. 2000;284(4):483- 485.
10. Zurich L. The health and healing of your humble but mighty gallbladder. Wise Traditions. Fall 2022;23(3):21-26.
11. Kaufman A. “Alchemical Detox Course.” True Medicine University. https:// www.truemedicineuniversity.com/the-alchemical-detox
12. https://www.sheldrake.org/
13. https://ingoswann.com/remote-viewing
14. “The history of remote viewing.” International Remote Viewing Association (IRVA), n.d. https://www.irva.org/remote-viewing/history
15. https://neilkramer.com/
16. https://terrainthefilm.com/
17. https://www.pollacklab.org/
18. https://transformationalsoundtherapy.com/speaker/john-stuart-reid/
19. https://yummy.doctor/
20. https://electrichealth.com/about-eileen-day-mckusick/
21. https://www.doctordart.com/
22. Fitts CA, Betts C. I want to stop CBDCs—what can I do? Solari Report, Feb. 1, 2023. https://home.solari.com/i-want-to-stop-cbdcs-what-can-i-do/
23. Lynn C. Inside Codex with Scott Tips: new global food diet—insects, rats and dogs. Corey’s Digs, Oct. 13, 2022. https://www.coreysdigs.com/food-supply-chain/inside-codex-with-scott-tips-new-global-food-diet-insects-rats-and-dogs/

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2023 - Written by Andrew Kaufman

Breath

 

Breath: The New Science of a Lost Art (2020)

by James Nestor (Author)

4.7 4.7 out of 5 stars 29,739 ratings

 

 

If this book could be summarized into into a brief overview it might be to make sure you breathe through your nose and avoid all mouth breathing. And that when it comes to breathing, less is more. That sounds very simple but the range of effects that good breathing technique has is remarkable. And the book itself is surprisingly engrossing.

 

A New York Times Bestseller

A Washington Post Notable Nonfiction Book of 2020

Named a Best Book of 2020 by NPR
 
“A fascinating scientific, cultural, spiritual and evolutionary history of the way humans breathe—and how we’ve all been doing it wrong for a long, long time.” —Elizabeth Gilbert, author of Big Magic and Eat Pray Love

No matter what you eat, how much you exercise, how skinny or young or wise you are, none of it matters if you’re not breathing properly.

There is nothing more essential to our health and well-being than breathing: take air in, let it out, repeat twenty-five thousand times a day. Yet, as a species, humans have lost the ability to breathe correctly, with grave consequences.

Journalist James Nestor travels the world to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. The answers aren’t found in pulmonology labs, as we might expect, but in the muddy digs of ancient burial sites, secret Soviet facilities, New Jersey choir schools, and the smoggy streets of São Paulo. Nestor tracks down men and women exploring the hidden science behind ancient breathing practices like Pranayama, Sudarshan Kriya, and Tummo and teams up with pulmonary tinkerers to scientifically test long-held beliefs about how we breathe.

Modern research is showing us that making even slight adjustments to the way we inhale and exhale can jump-start athletic performance; rejuvenate internal organs; halt snoring, asthma, and autoimmune disease; and even straighten scoliotic spines. None of this should be possible, and yet it is.

Drawing on thousands of years of medical texts and recent cutting-edge studies in pulmonology, psychology, biochemistry, and human physiology, Breath turns the conventional wisdom of what we thought we knew about our most basic biological function on its head. You will never breathe the same again.

 https://www.amazon.com/Breath-New-Science-Lost-Art

 

Is stevia safe?

Stevia is one of those foods that seems to taste delicious to some people but nasty to others. I like the taste of it, and because I never eat any sugar or any other sweeteners, I hoped it was OK to consume stevia in moderation. It is a natural plant food rather than a refined chemical like most sweeteners, but on the other hand it has had some bad press. 

So when I read this very well researched article in a WAPF journal I wasn't very pleased to hear all this bad news about one of my few remaining indulgences.  As far as I know, my daily use of a small amount of stevia wasn't causing any bad side effects, but there are many articles  that are very negative about stevia, so I reluctantly stopped using it. I missed it for a few weeks but soon got used to the taste of foods without it.

This is the bad side to stevia all laid out in full:

"This article provides an abbreviated overview of the research on stevia and its detrimental effects on various body systems, which I explain at greater length in my book. I feel sure that anyone who understands the risks will no longer want to consume stevia or feel safe doing so" - MARCH 5, 2024 BY JOCELIN WHITAKER

https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/the-dangers-of-stevia/#gsc.tab=0

Fluoride has been implicated in all of these diseases

Blind Spots; Body temperature disturbances; Breast Cancer; Cachexia (wasting away); Candidasis; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Cataracts; Change in blood pressure(=/-); Chest pain; Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; Collagen breakdown; Cold Shivers; Coma; Concentration Inability; Constipation; Convulsions; Crying easily for no apparent reason; Death; Decrease in Testosterone; Dementia; Demyelinizing Diseases; Dental Abnormalities; Dental Arch smaller; Dental Crowding; Dental enamel more porous; Dental Fluorosis (Mottling of teeth); Delayed Eruption of teeth; Depression; Diabetes Insipidus; Diabetes Mellitus; Diarrhea; Dizziness; Down Syndrome; Dry Mouth; Dyspepsia; Dystrophy; Early/Delayed Onset of Puberty; Eczema; Edema; Epilepsy; Eosinophilia; Excessive Sleepiness; Eye, ear and nose disorders; Fatigue; Fearfulness; Fever; Fibromyalgia; Fibrosarcoma; Fibrosis; Fingernails:Lines/Grooves; Fingernails:Brittle; Forgetfulness; Gallstones; Gastro-disturbances; Gastric Ulcers; Giant Cell Formation; Gingivitis; Goiter; Growth Disturbances; Headache; Hearing Loss; Heart Disorders; Heart Failure; Heart Palpitations; Hepatitis; Hemorrhage; Hives; Hoarseness; Hyperparathyroidism; Hypertension; Hypoplasia; Immunosuppression; Impotence; Incoherence; Infertility; Inflammatory Bowel Disease; Inner Ear Disorders; Irritability; Joint Pains; Kidney Failure; Lack of Energy; Lack of Co-ordination; Loss of Appetite; Loss of Consciousness; Loss of IQ; Loss of Spermatogenesis; Low Birth Weight; Lung Cancer; Lupus; Magnesium Deficiency; Memory Loss; Mental Confusion; Migraine; Mouth Sores; Multiple Sclerosis; Muscle Pain, Wasting, Cramps, Stiffness, Weakness; Muscoskeletal Disease; Nausea; Osteoarthritis; Osteoporosis; Osteosarcoma; Optic Neuritis; Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma; Otosclerosis; Parkinson’s Disease; Pins & Needles; Polydipsia; Polyneuropathy; Polyurea; Pyelocystitis; Premature Delivery; Pruritis (Itchy Skin); Pulminary Edema; Recurring Colds; Respiratory Complications; Restlessness; Retinitis; Rhinitis; Schizophrenia; Sceroderma; Skin Pigmentation; Secondary teeth erupt later; Sensitive to light; Seizures; Shortness of Breath; SIDS; Sinus Infections; Skeletal Changes; Sleep Disorders; Slipped Epiphysis; Sluggishness; Skin Irritations; Spondylitis, ankylosing; Stillbirths; Swallowing Difficulties; Swelling in Face; Telangiectasia; Testicular Growth/Alteration; Thirst; Thrombosis; Thyroid Cancer; Tinnitus; Tingling Sensations; Visual disturbances; Ulcerative Colitis; Urticaria; Uterine Bleeding; Uterine Cancer; Vaginal Bleeding; Vas Deferens Alterations; Vertigo; Vitiligo; Weak Pulse; Weight Disturbances; Zinc Deficiency.

The Invisible Rainbow

The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life Paperback (2020)

by Arthur Firstenberg (Author)

4.8 4.8 out of 5 stars 2,453 ratings

This book reveals the horrifying history of how electricity is destroying our health and it's a fascinating read.

5g is being rolled out across the country, despite growing evidence that it is disruptive to our health, our safety, and the environment. The Invisible Rainbow is the groundbreaking story of electricity as it's never been told before--exposing its very real impact on the biosphere and human health.

Over the last 220 years, society has evolved a universal belief that electricity is 'safe' for humanity and the planet. Scientist and journalist Arthur Firstenberg disrupts this conviction by telling the story of electricity in a way it has never been told before--from an environmental point of view--by detailing the effects that this fundamental societal building block has had on our health and our planet.

In The Invisible Rainbow, Firstenberg traces the history of electricity from the early eighteenth century to the present, making a compelling case that many environmental problems, as well as the major diseases of industrialized civilization--heart disease, diabetes, and cancer--are related to electrical pollution.

Few individuals today are able to grasp the entirety of a scientific subject and present it in a highly engaging manner . . . Firstenberg has done just that with one of the most pressing but neglected problems of our technological age.--BRADLEY JOHNSON, MD, Amen Clinic, San Francisco

This seminal bookwill transform your understanding.of the environmental and health effects of electricity and radio frequencies.

Vitamin C

 

Megadose Vitamin C therapy

A book that provides a great introduction is “Vitamin C the Real Story” by Steve Hickey and Andrew Saul

Another really good book is “Primal Panacea” by Thomas Levy

An excellent one of the original books by Linus Pauling is “How to live longer and feel better” (1986)

More information is also available from www.vitaminc.co.nz

---

Ways to take Vitamin C

Liposomal Vit C is best if taking large 6 – 20+ gram daily doses

Nature Foods sells NZLF Liposomal Vit C for $38 for 30 sachets each containing 1000mg Vitamin C.

https://www.naturefoods.co.nz/supplements/vitamins/liposomal-vitamin-c

The newer Micro Liposomal Vitamin C is also available.

This is more convenient to take than the regular liposmal vitamin C – a liquid rather than a gel, but it is also more expensive.

https://www.naturefoods.co.nz/supplements/vitamins/quicksilver-c

www.naturefoods.co.nz

Powders are really only suitable for small maintenance doses of up to 1- 4 grams per day – for mega dosing we recommend taking Liposamal or Microsomal Vit C.

(Many of the colourful pictures on this page are optical microscopy images of Vitamin C)

---

Liposamal Vitamin C dosage – to fart tolerance

    I have found this works well for minor illnesses like colds, but I made this up myself and some people may say it’s a load of bollocks

  Cut out all the other types of Vit C

  Start with 6x 1gram doses of Liposomal spread through the day with one in the middle of the night

  (6 grams is too low for pretty much everyone but it’s a safe starting point)

  Add 2 extra grams a day until you start to fart a bit.

If you start to fart a lot back off until it’s only occasional farting

(Vit C farts are mild and odourless so it’s not as bad as it sounds )

  As the dose becomes larger it’s easier to take two grams at a time.

I have found 12 grams a day works well to rapidly fix problems such as colds

 

---

Have we been going backwards with knowledge of Vitamin C for the past 40 years like we have with cars?

1972 – Valiant Charger in “Vitamin C Orange” – awesome!

2012 – Smart Car in “snot green” – less than awesome

---

This video clip uses a few gratuitous arse shots to up its ranking, but the treatment works brilliantly

---

Vitamin C – a cure for Ebola

Steve Hickey PhD, Hilary Roberts PhD, and Damien Downing MBBS, MSB.

Vitamin C is the primary antioxidant in the diet. Most people do not take enough to be healthy. While this is true of many nutrients, vitamin C is a special case.

Ignore governments telling you that you only need about 100 mg a day and can get this amount from food. The required amount of vitamin C varies your state of health. A normal adult in perfect health may need only a small intake, say 500 mg per day, but more is needed when someone is even slightly under the weather.

Similarly, to prevent illness, the intake needs to be increased. The intake for an otherwise healthy person to have a reasonable chance of avoiding a common cold is in the region of 8-10 grams (8,000-10,000 mg) a day.

This is about ten times what corporate medicine has tested in their trials on vitamin C and the common cold. Ten grams (10,000 mg) is the minimum pharmacological intake; it may help if you have a slight sore throat but more (much more) may be needed.

To get rid of a common cold, you may need anything from 20 to 60 grams (60,000 mg) a day. With influenza the need might be for 100 grams (100,000 mg) a day. Since it varies from person to person, and from illness to illness, the only way to find out is to experiment for yourself.

Dynamic flow – The problem with oral intakes is that healthy people do not absorb vitamin C well due to something Dr Robert Cathcart called bowel tolerance. Take too much of the vitamin in a single dose and it will cause loose stools.

In good health, a person might be able to take a couple of grams at a time without this problem. Strangely, when a person becomes sick they can take far more without this side effect: as much as 20-100+ grams a day, in divided doses.

High dose vitamin C has a short half-life in the body. The half-life is the time for the level in the blood plasma to fall back to half its concentration. Until recently, some people claimed that the half-life of vitamin C was several weeks.

We have shown that this long half-life applies only to very low doses. By contrast, the half-life for high blood levels is only half an hour. This short half-life means that for high dose vitamin C the period between doses needs to be short – a few hours at most.

The aim is to achieve dynamic flow, to get vitamin C flowing continuously through the body. Dynamic flow requires multiple high doses taken throughout the day. When separated in time, each dose is absorbed independently. Two doses of 3 grams, taken 12 hours apart, are absorbed better than 6 grams taken all at once.

Multiple large doses, say 3 grams four times a day, produce a steady flow of the vitamin from the gut, into the bloodstream and out, via the urine. Some of the intake is not absorbed into the blood and stays in the gut, as a reserve against the early onset of illness.

As illness begins, the body pulls in this “excess” to help fight the virus. The idea behind dynamic flow is that the body is kept in a reduced (antioxidant) state, using high doses. There is always vitamin C available, to refresh the body and other antioxidants.

Each vitamin C molecule (ascorbic acid) has two antioxidant electrons, which it can donate to protect the body. It then becomes oxidized to dehydroascorbate (DHA). This oxidized molecule is then excreted, so the body has gained two antioxidant electrons.

The kidneys reabsorb vitamin C, but not DHA; the vitamin C molecule is absorbed, used up, and then the oxidized form is thrown out with the rubbish. The effectiveness of vitamin C is not directly proportional to the dose; it is non-linear.

There is a threshold above which vitamin C becomes highly effective. Below this level, the effect is small; above it, the effect is dramatic. The problem is that no-one can tell you in advance what intake of vitamin C you need. The solution is to take more – more than you think necessary, more than you consider reasonable. The mantra is dose, dose, dose.

Sugar interferes with the uptake of vitamin C. If you are using vitamin C to combat a viral infection do not eat any sugar or carbohydrates (long chain sugars) or the vitamin C will not be absorbed properly. We stress that this means no sugar and no carbs, at all.

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service

---

UNIQUE FUNCTION OF VITAMIN C – Dr. Robert F. Cathcart, M.D.

Vitamin C is a reducing substance, an electron donor. When vitamin C donates its two high-energy electrons to scavenge free radicals, much of the resulting dehydroascorbate is rereduced to vitamin C and therefore used repeatedly.

Conventional wisdom is correct in that only small amounts of vitamin C are necessary for this function because of its repeated use. The point missed is that the limiting part in nonenzymatic free radical scavenging is the rate at which extra high-energy electrons are provided through NADH to rereduce the vitamin C and other free radical scavengers.

When ill, free radicals are formed at a rate faster than the high-energy electrons are made available. Doses of vitamin C as large as 1 to 10 grams per 24 hours do only limited good. However, when ascorbate is used in massive amounts, such as 30 to 200+ grams per 24 hours, these amounts directly provide the electrons necessary to quench the free radicals of almost any inflammation.

Additionally, in high concentrations ascorbate reduces NAD(P)H and therefore can provide the high-energy electrons necessary to reduce the molecular oxygen used in the respiratory burst of phagocytes. In these functions, the ascorbate part is mostly wasted but the necessary high-energy electrons are provided in large amounts.

DEFINITION AND QUALIFICATION

In this paper, the words, vitamin C, will refer to the substance C6H8O6 used in tiny doses as a vitamin and an electron carrier. The word, ascorbate, will mean the same substance but when used in massive amounts for its high-energy electrons themselves.

This paper is not meant to be an exhaustive review of the subjects of oxidation-reduction reactions, free radical scavenging, electron-transport-chains, or oxidative phosphorylation, etc. Many of the biochemical processes are deliberately simplified. Some intermediate steps are omitted. Certain generalizations are made so that the importance of a very simple but overlooked idea can be described in terms a non-biochemist can understand.

The overlooked idea is that massive doses of ascorbate can actually be the source of high-energy electrons used in the process of free radical scavenging and not just an electron carrier used repeatedly in an electron-transport-chain resulting in free radical scavenging.

INTRODUCTION

Clinically, a few physicians have found massive doses of ascorbate to be effective in the treatment of a wide variety of diseases. It was apparent to those using ascorbate in these doses that there is some physiologic or pharmacologic action much different from what might be expected of a mere vitamin. Nevertheless, most physicians remained critical of these treatments and remained convinced that the usefulness of ascorbate is only as vitamin C.

Many had recognized that one vitamin C function is as a free radical scavenger. In this function, vitamin C donates high-energy electrons to neutralize free radicals and in the process becomes DHA (dehydroascorbate). DHA is either further metabolized, releasing more electrons, or is rereduced back to vitamin C to be used over and over again. This regeneration and repeated use of the vitamin has led to the thought that it does not take much to do its functions.

Other nonenzymatic free radical scavengers such as glutathione and vitamin E function in a similar manner. The purpose of taking the nutrients making up the free radical scavengers is ordinarily to replace the small percentage inadvertently lost. Much of the original work with large amounts of ascorbate was done by Klenner who found that most viral diseases could be cured by intravenous sodium ascorbate in amounts up to 200 grams per 24 hours.

Irwin Stone pointed out the potential of ascorbate in the treatment of many diseases, the inability of humans to synthesize ascorbate, and the resultant condition hypoascorbemia. Linus Pauling reviewed the literature on vitamin C, particularly its usefulness in the prevention and treatment of the common cold and the flu.

Ewan Cameron in association with Pauling described the usefulness of ascorbate in the treatment of cancer. In 1970 I noted an increasing bowel tolerance to oral ascorbic acid with illness. In 1984 I wrote, “Based on my experience with over 11,000 patients during the past 14 years, it has been my consistent observation that the amount of ascorbic acid dissolved in water which a patient, tolerant to ascorbic acid, can ingest orally without producing diarrhea, increases considerably somewhat proportionately with the “toxicity” of his illness.

A person who can tolerate orally 10 to 15 grams of ascorbic acid per 24 hours when well, might be able to tolerate 30 to 60 grams per 24 hours if he has a mild cold, 100 grams with a severe cold, 150 grams with influenza, and 200 grams per 24 hours with mononucleosis or viral pneumonia.

The clinical symptoms of these diseases and other conditions previously described, are markedly ameliorated only as bowel tolerance dose levels (the amount that almost, but not quite, causes diarrhea) are approached.

This amelioration of symptoms at a high dosage threshold combined with the knowledge that ascorbate functions as a reducing substance suggested that the beneficial effect was achieved only when the redox couple, ascorbate/dehydroascorbate, became reducing in the tissues affected by the disease. It is a characteristic of oxidation-reduction reactions that their redox potential is determined by the logarithm of the concentrations of the substances and certain constants.

The logarithmic effect would explain the threshold; the redox potential would suddenly become reducing in the diseased tissues only when a large amount of ascorbate was forced into those tissues sufficient to neutralize most of the oxidized materials in those tissues.

FREE RADICAL SCAVENGING

Radicals are molecules that have lost an electron. When a radical escapes its normal location, it becomes a free radical. These free radicals are very reactive and will seize electrons from adjacent molecules.

Inflammations whether due to infectious diseases, autoimmune diseases, allergies, trauma, surgery, burns, or toxins involve free radicals. Cells injured by free radicals will spill free radicals onto adjacent cells injuring those cells and generating more free radicals, etc.

The body must confine these free radical cascades with free radical scavengers. Some free radicals spontaneously decay and others are destroyed by enzymatic free radical scavengers such as superoxide dismutase and catalase that act on free radicals in such a way that they neutralize themselves without the addition of extra electrons.

The remainder must be destroyed by the high-energy electrons carried by the nonenzymatic free radical scavengers. Free radicals that escape all the above mechanisms cause symptoms and damage. It is helpful to remember through all the following descriptions that technically it is the high-energy electron that is neutralizing the free radical, not the free radical scavenger. The free radical scavenger carries the high-energy electron that does the neutralizing.

HIGH-ENERGY ELECTRONS THE LIMITING FACTOR

The energy of the electrons which neutralize free radicals comes ultimately, like all energy used by living things on Earth, from the Sun. Plants store this energy by photosynthesis in carbohydrates, fats, and proteins which are then eaten by animals.

As animals metabolize these substances, this energy is past from one molecule to another in the form of high-energy electrons which often, but not always, are in association with hydrogens. Together with a high-energy electron, one such hydrogen can be called a hydride anion. As glucose is metabolized, NAD+ (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide) is reduced to NADH (the bolded H is to emphasize the included high-energy electron).

The high-energy electron in the hydride anion (H) is added to the NAD+. The most critical but generally unrecognized fact here is that NAD+ can be reduced to NADH only at a limited rate by the addition of the hydride anion with its high-energy electron derived from the metabolism of carbohydrates, fats, or proteins.

Therefore, this NADH is not without cost. Moreover, the energy it carries must be shared among several other critical functions. Most must be used in the process of oxidative phosphorylation to make ATP (adenosine triphosphate) which is used as a source of energy by the various tissues of the body.

When phagocytes engulf pathogens into its vacuoles, NADPH (nicotinamide dinucleotide diphosphate, reduced form) provides the high-energy electrons the phagocytes need to make the oxidizing substances (radicals) with which they kill various pathogens. The process of making the necessary oxidizing substances is called the respiratory burst.

Paradoxically, the first oxidizing substance, superoxide, (O2+), in the respiratory burst is made by the reduction of molecular oxygen (O2) by NADPH. NADP+ is rereduced back to NADPH in the hexosemonophosphate shunt. Glucose is metabolized for the source of the high-energy electron.

This process is also rate-limited and the glucose comes from the metabolism of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. Therefore, NADH and NADPH have a common source of energy and can be made available only at some limited rate.

Remaining NAD(P)H can be used by the body in regenerating free radical scavengers so that the body may protect itself from free radicals. As NAD(P)H is used in these various processes, it gives up the hydride anion with its extra high-energy electron and becomes NAD(P)+ again. When the limited rate of availability of these hydride anions is exceeded by the formation of free radicals, then symptoms and damage caused by the free radicals occur.

RESPIRATORY BURST LIMITED BY ACCUMULATION OF FREE RADICALS

As these high-energy electrons are used up within the phagocytes, the phagocytes are unable to produce more oxidizing substances within their vacuoles to kill pathogens. Some of the previously made oxidizing substances leak from within the vacuoles into the cytoplasm thereby becoming free radicals.

With the exhaustion of the high-energy electrons, the nonenzymatic free radical scavengers cannot be rereduced. The free radicals damage the phagocytes and interfere with phagocytosis. The phagocytes bog down in their own oxidizing substances.

REDUCED GLUTATHIONE

To understand the unusual function of massive doses of ascorbate, let us follow the most important pathway whereby the extra electrons are passed off to the free radicals thereby neutralizing them. Follow the high-energy electron in the hydride anion through all this process.

Certain nutrients that could be limiting factors in all this will be mentioned along the way. NAD(P)H reduces oxidized flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD+), to reduced flavin adenine dinucleotide (FADH2), and becomes NAD(P)+ again. FADH2 reduces oxidized glutathione (GSSG) to reduced glutathione (GSH). (Part of NAD(P)H is from vitamin B3, and part of FADH2 is from vitamin B2).

The high-energy electrons of reduced glutathione (GSH) can directly reduce some free radicals. But also, some reduces dehydroascorbate back to ascorbate. In the process the GSH is oxidized back to GSSG. Two hydride anions are added to the dehydroascorbate reducing it back to vitamin C. (The enzyme glutathione peroxidase and its coenzyme selenium catalyze these reactions).

Ascorbate (C6H8O6 or C6H6O6H2, the bolded and separated H2 is to emphasize the hydrogens containing the high-energy electrons) differs from dehydroascorbate (C6H6O6) in that it has two extra hydrogen atoms with two high-energy electrons in its molecular structure which it can donate to reduce free radicals. The high-energy electrons of ascorbate, C6H6O6H2, can directly quench free radicals. But some may reduce tocopheryl quinone (an oxidized form of vitamin E) back to à-tocopherol (vitamin E).

Some high-energy electrons are passed to the à-tocopherol and then quench free radicals. The point I want to emphasize is that these free radical scavengers cycle from the reduced form carrying the hydride anion with the high-energy electron back to the oxidized form lacking the hydride anion. Although there is a little loss, most of the free radical scavengers are rereduced and used over and over again.

This repeated use with only a little loss is why it ordinarily takes a small amount of these substances to do their electron carrying function to the maximum allowed by the availability of the hydride anion. The limiting factor in all this, in a well nourished person, is this rate-limited availability of the hydride anion with its high-energy electron.

The body can make NAD(P)H available for this purpose only at a limited rate. When the need to scavenge free radicals exceeds this rate, then symptoms, damage, and ageing occur. Adding more vitamins and other nutrients, even the ones noted as being free radical scavengers, notably vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin A (especially á-carotene), cysteine, selenium, etc. do not, under ordinary circumstances, add much to all this.

All these free radical scavengers are cycled several times an hour when a person is sick. The NAD(P)H keeps rereducing these free radical scavengers so they are used repeatedly. Taking of the usual amounts of nutrient free radical scavengers only assures that there are no critical deficiencies that would limit this free radical scavenging electron-transfer chain described above. Still there is a normal limit to the free radical scavenging ability of this system…

ASCORBATE TO THE RESCUE

Except, ascorbate, C6H6O6H2, used as the source of electrons, not just as the electron carrier, can change all this. The C6H6O6H2 used in massive doses substitutes for the limited availability of the NAD(P)H. The C6H6O6 part of the C6H6O6H2 used this way is thrown away; the C6H6O6H2 is only used for the electrons it carries.

Amounts of 30 to 200+ grams of C6H6O6H2 provide ample high-energy electrons to directly scavenge the large amounts of free radicals generated in disease processes and provide enough high-energy electrons to rereduce NAD(P)+, FAD+, GSSG, tocopheryl quinone, etc. back to their reduced forms.

Lewin pointed out that although the C6H6O6H2/C6H6O6 redox couple is usually reduced by GSH at the concentrations in which these substances are ordinarily present, when C6H6O6H2 is present in large concentrations, it will reduce GSSG to GSH.

The usual direction of the redox reaction is reversed and the C6H6O6H2 supplies the high-energy electrons reducing the GSSG. If there was some substance that was cheaper, better tolerated by the body, and had fewer nuisance problems associated with its administration than sodium ascorbate, NaC6H6O6H, intravenously and intramuscularly, or ascorbic acid, C6H6O6H2, orally, I would use it.

So far, C6H6O6H2 and NaC6H6O6H are the premier sources of high-energy electrons and therefore the premier free radical scavengers. The dehydroascorbate, C6H6O6, part of the ascorbate, C6H6O6H2, used this way is excreted rapidly in the urine or metabolized further by the body. Although the complete pathway has not been described and involves some uncertainty, it is known that certain breakdown products of dehydroascorbate supply even more high-energy electrons.

Bearing in mind that it is the high-energy electron that is doing the free radical scavenging, one can see that animals which can synthesize ascorbate within themselves have a higher amount of the electron carrier available and will not ever suffer from scurvy. However, the high-energy electrons ultimately come from the same sources as in humans.

Ascorbate producing animals still must make the ascorbate and the high-energy electrons available by various metabolic steps using glucose. This process is rate- limited. Comparing the ability of a human to make C6H6O6H2 to a dog is like comparing a human’s ability to fly in a Concorde with a humming bird. The human can make enormous amounts of C6H6O6H2 in his chemical plants. Humans just have to learn to use it properly.

The usefulness of ascorbate in treating diseases involving free radicals bears no relationship to how much vitamin C animals make or consume unless one is satisfied with achieving only the level of health of that animal. We are using a natural substance in an unnatural way to achieve these effects. It is the high-energy electrons, not the ascorbate, that is most important here.

The mechanism I am describing is a pharmacologic effect of the high-energy electrons carried by the C6H6O6H2 that transcends the normal ability of any species of animal to ameliorate or conquer diseases involving free radicals. Any disease process that involves free radicals can be ameliorated by the high-energy electrons carried by ascorbate when used properly in massive doses.

It is true that there are certain logistic problems involved in delivering the massive doses of C6H6O6H2 containing the enormous numbers of electrons sufficient to quench the excessive free radicals of certain severely toxic diseases but it is surprising what massive doses of ascorbate will accomplish.

RAPID UTILIZATION OF THE HIGH-ENERGY ELECTRONS

Calculations of the total amount of ascorbate in a healthy person (pool size) with an intake of about 100 milligrams of vitamin C per day is roughly 2-3 grams and the turnover half time is about 20 days (28).

When a person who when well can ingest only 15 grams of ascorbic acid per 24 hours before it causes diarrhea, can take over 200 grams in 24 hours when ill with mononucleosis, one obtains a suggestion of the numbers of extra electrons involved. If 185 grams (200 minus 15) extra is used, whatever the amount of high-energy electrons carried in that divided by the amount in 3 grams means that if ascorbate was the only carrier of electrons (which it is not), that 3 grams of ascorbate would be rereduced about every 23 minutes.

There are so many facts such as the amount of high-energy electrons carried by the other free radical scavengers that this number is almost valueless. Still, it makes one think in terms of minutes to a few hours for the rereduction of all the free radical scavengers of the body when one is seriously ill. This emphasizes the futility of using vitamin free radical scavengers in the doses described in the RDA (29) to provide the necessary high-energy electrons.

A SIMPLE ANALOGY

Suppose you had a house out in the country that had a water well about 300 yards away. Between the house and the well are two high fences. Your house catches on fire and your neighbors come running with their buckets. One group sets up a bucket brigade between the well and the first fence and pours the water through a hole in the fence into the buckets of the second bucket brigade. The second bucket brigade runs to the second fence to pour the water through a hole in the second fence into the buckets of the third bucket brigade who throw the water on the fire.

Unfortunately, the fire goes out of control and it is not possible to pump the water out of the well at a rate fast enough to put out the fire. The arrival of more neighbors does no good because there are already enough for the three bucket brigades. A couple of neighbors run from their homes with their buckets full of water but that does not help very much. Then the fire engine roars up and puts out the fire with hoses that draw water from the fire engine. The firefighters do not rely on the water from the well. We have to stretch the analogy here a little but imagine microscopic buckets with C painted on their sides carrying the water out of the fire hose. The little buckets are wasted. Their only function is to carry the water.

CONCLUSION

Free radical scavenging is a very dynamic process. The nutritional free radical scavengers in the diet, including vitamin C, are not for the purpose of providing the large number of high- energy electrons necessary to meet the rate with which free radicals are made. The purpose of dietary free radical scavengers is to replace those scavengers incidentally lost. The process of reducing a free radical does not destroy a free radical scavenger if it is rereduced before being further broken down. The free radical scavengers are intermediaries.

It is up to other metabolic processes to provide the high-energy electrons with which the free radical scavengers reduce free radicals. The rate at which free radicals are formed becomes excessive and causes symptoms when it exceeds the rate of reduction of those free radicals. Part of the reduction is spontaneous and part is enzymatic. The remainder must be reduced by the high-energy electrons carried by the nonenzymatic free radical scavengers.

Ascorbate in massive doses can perform an unusual function. When doses of 30 to 200+ grams per 24 hours are used, the high- energy electrons carried in on the administered ascorbate adds significantly and decisively to the actual electrons doing the reducing. The ascorbate is not used as the vitamin C where it is rereduced by NAD(P)H and used repeatedly; it is used for the high- energy electrons it carries.

In high concentrations ascorbate reduces NAD(P)H and provides the high-energy electrons necessary to reduce molecular oxygen used in the respiratory burst of phagocytes. In these functions, the ascorbate part is mostly wasted but the necessary high-energy electrons are provided in large amounts.

The opportunity to reduce the human suffering from the free radicals of infectious diseases, autoimmune diseases, allergies, trauma, burns, surgery, toxins, and to a degree ageing, etc., which could be neutralized by high-energy electrons carried by high doses of C6H6O6H2 is immense.