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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.



  1. 1. Coleman RD. What is circular reasoning?, 2006. http://www.
  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. article
  6. Rubik B. The biofield hypothesis: its biophysical basis and role in medicine. J Altern Complement Med. 2002;8(6):703-717.
  8. 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://
  14. “The history of remote viewing.” International Remote Viewing Association (IRVA), n.d.
  22. Fitts CA, Betts C. I want to stop CBDCs—what can I do? Solari Report, Feb. 1, 2023.
  23. Lynn C. Inside Codex with Scott Tips: new global food diet—insects, rats and dogs. Corey’s Digs, Oct. 13, 2022.

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