EP 43: WTH ?!? Things that make us go Hmm, Interview with Dr. Nigh

And then PCR is a method for replicating the strip of DNA in between those two primers. So if you had one copy of a virus, you bind the primers to it, you, you replicate what's between the primers. And now you've got two copies. And now you primer again replicate, now you got four copies. And you run that through, you know, for Covid, usually they would do it for 40 or 45 cycles. And you can see that you have now done this exponential amplification of the original one copy. And so that is what is now being used to say that somebody is or is not infected with the virus. Because you take the swab and you throw in your primers in the sample, and if the thing it binds to is there, it will amplify, and you can say, yep, it was there and it's causing this disease. So there are lots of problems around this. But I'll just start with the most basic. If your primers happen to bind to anything other than the thing that you want it to bind to, then you're going to amplify stuff that you don't want to amplify. You don't know what it's amplifying. You can only assume that it's amplifying what you intend it to amplify. But ultimately you just end up with a bunch of stuff. And so if your primers are not specific, absolutely specific, to the one thing you want to amplify, you have a potential for a false positive. So when you look at how they came up with these primers, they tell you the different types of other viruses that they tested the primers on to see if they would bind to those primers. And they didn't bind to any of them. However, they only tested about, I think it must have been about 20 different kinds of other viruses to see if the primers would bind some other coronaviruses, influenza and HIV. And so 20 other viruses they tested, the primers didn't bind to any of them. And thus they conclude that, well, these primers seem to be specific to this new coronavirus. Well, there are a whole lot more than 20 other kinds of viruses than this coronavirus. In fact, there are probably more than 20 kinds of coronavirus. I'm sure there are. And so unless you've tested these primers against every possible other coronavirus, you can't know that it's not going to amplify another kind of coronavirus. And here's why I think this is important. Have I lost you yet?

Yeah, you're still there. And that is, like, super problematic. I mean, there is. So that can lead to multiple. Multiple magnitudes of false positives.

Yes. To give an example, it didn't make sense to me that for some reason, workers in pork plants were coming up testing positive in such high numbers. Now, the story was that while they're working in such close quarters, and it's because of the close quarters that it would have spread so rapidly through this, through these factories. Maybe that's true. I mean, there are certainly. Pork plants are not the only kinds of industry where you work in close quarters, but maybe. So in order to see. Well, okay, how do I get into this? I did a little research, and there is a coronavirus called a. It's called the porcine respiratory coronavirus. So this is a respiratory coronavirus. It just happens to infect pigs. Now, it can be passed to humans, but it doesn't cause any disease in humans, but it definitely causes a respiratory disease in pigs. And so I went to the online database where you can plug in, you know, genetic strings of genetic material and you can compare them to find out if they have any homology. And so I put in the full genome of the. The pig coronavirus. And then I, one by one, plugged in the primers, which are just a series of about somewhere between 10 and 20 specific nucleotides are the primers. They're just small strips. So I have the full pig genome in one box, and I paste in each of these primers individually in another box. And lo and behold, I got homology. I got sequence homology between the primers that are being used in COVID testing and the genome of this pig respiratory virus. Now, that seems problematic. And especially if these workers in a pork plant, who would be, you would expect, exposed to this pork respiratory virus, which, by the way, that virus infects over 90% of all pigs in the United States, all industrial pigs. So it is pretty much ubiquitous in the pork industry. And so workers in the pork industry would be expected to be exposed to this respiratory virus that the pigs carry. Now, it seems to me relevant that we have this high rate of positivity among workers in pork plants when we're using primers that, according to my. I mean, it's pretty straightforward. Just plug this stuff into this. It's called the BLAST B L A S T database. And I just did a nucleotide comparison between that virus and these primers, and it came up with matches. And so that's just one. One little example of how we might be getting false Positives on this. Now, there's another issue that's even more important to understand about pcr, and that is to say that somebody is positive by PCR for this coronavirus does not mean that they have an infection with that virus. PCR cannot tell you that. So the full length of this coronavirus is just under 30,000 nucleotides in length. The whole genome. When you run PCR using the PCR kits, what they are doing, so you bind the primers to two spots on that full 30,000 nucleotides. You bind two spots, and those two spots are right almost exactly 70 nucleotides apart. So what is being amplified by PCR is a strip of that full genome that is actually only 70 nucleotides, or approximately 0.7% of the entire genome is being amplified. And the assumption is that the whole genome is there. If we find these 70 nucleotides. Now, there's actually not a good reason for that assumption. I mean, if you have half of the full genome and that half contains those 70 that you're trying to amplify, then you're going to get a positive result and it's going to say, oh, you are infected with this virus, when in fact the person does not have any infectious virus in them. They just happen to have a piece of the virus that can't cause any disease, but it's causing them to test positive.

So a question on that. I mean, so like in those pig pork plants, these workers that are exposed to this virus, that doesn't infect them, it's just in their body or in their nasopharynx, in their nose, they don't exhibit any illness from that. What, I mean.

That'S a.

Quite frankly, that's a train wreck. Why did they pick PCR testing over antibody testing for this one?

Well, yeah, that's another good segue because antibody testing is hard, it's difficult. It takes time to develop antibodies. PCR is automated. And so they're just machines that will crank out genomes. It's really a very fast process. And so my belief is that the advent of PCR into medicine has made an absolute travesty of medicine and diagnostics. And we will never get out of it because they're never going to do away with pcr. But the problem is PCR can find, you can find genetic sequences anywhere. I mean, swipe it, wipe down any surface and test it. You're gonna, you'll find genetic fragments there. And now that we're looking, we could never look before, but now that we're looking, we're like, oh, my gosh, this virus is carried on air pollution particles and it's carried on all these different surfaces. Well, every virus ever has always been there. It's just that now we have PCR and are looking in these places and we're finding it.

So that's the component. Like what is now different with the masks and the social distancing is. Well, now we're looking at. These viruses have always been there, but now all of a sudden, we got freaked out about it. That's an accurate read there.

Totally. Yeah. It's like PCR has made us think that, oh, these viruses are just. They're all around us, they're covering everything. And like, yeah, duh, like one cup of ocean water has something like 10 to the 30th viruses in it. I mean, it's insane. These viruses are all over the place, right? And so now, like, PCR just makes everything, you know, these bad viruses out there. And it's so crazy. But the problem is that if somebody tests PCR positive, they are called, by definition, they're called a case. And so regardless of whether or not they actually have a full infectious virus in them, PCR positivity means they are a case, which gives this wildly inflated number of people who are actually affected by. By the disease. A study was just published by scientists in Italy who. He did a study of 3,000 positive case, you know, test positive people. And he came up with somewhere between 50 and 75% of people testing positive exhibit no symptoms whatsoever. None.

So, yeah, yeah. So they, they don't really have, like. Is this the asymptomatic carrier that we're seeing now?

See, that's what PCR allows us to do. We call those people asymptomatic carriers, which is this. That is a status that. That is. It's like everybody becomes dangerous now because we can use PCR to find these tiny snippets of DNA. When we find them, we label the person a case. And then it's like whenever there's a manifestation of disease or respiratory disease, it can now always be associated with somebody who is positive by these tests that are looking for these little snippets of DNA. Like, as long as you've got DNA as in your toolbox, you can make anything you want look infectious because you will always be able to find these snippets of DNA wherever you want to find them, essentially.

You know, I try not to get infuriated about this. It's really hard not to get upset around, like, you know, I'm talking to my kids and they're worried about, like infecting somebody and causing their death. And, and it's like, kids, this is called life. Like, we enter at our own risk. Like, that's what we're here doing. This stuff is everywhere. And it really ultimately becomes the responsibility of the individual to kind of raise their vitality. Like, you know, like, I'm going to eat my crappy, you know, corn syrup filled food. And now it's your responsibility to stay away from me because you could kill me.

Like, yeah, it is. I mean, it really. I have thought, like, you know, it's been said that this whole thing is like a failure of the healthcare system. And the actual failure of the healthcare system is in allowing for things like heart disease and diabetes and obesity to not become primary focuses for actually preventing and reversing those kind of conditions. Because those are what people are dying of. Yeah. Like, I mean, or even something as simple as adequate vitamin D. I mean, it is shocking. You can lower the risk of severe or critical illness in this by almost 30 times simply by having adequate amounts of vitamin D. Now, if we were to lower the number of hospitalizations right now by 30 times, nobody would be talking anything about this disease because we would go from about 145,000 down to about 5,000 people in the country who are hospitalized with this. Nobody would be talking about this as a critical illness if 5,000 people in the country were hospitalized with it.

Yeah. So there's almost an outright witch hunt going on, though, when you bring that up. Like, we have colleagues that have been censored, They've been attacked by the Department of Justice, by the Federal Trade Commission, by suggesting that you can raise and improve your own immune system to help avoid the negative consequences of this. So, you know, like, what, what do you make of that?

Yeah, nothing good. I mean, it's. I mean, it is, it is. I think it's a whole new ball game.

It really is. And one of the things that I wanted to highlight here, there for folks listening, if you don't understand that censorship is definitely afoot, at least minimally from the summer in July, it started on Google, on their search engines, on, you know, on searching for information. Like, there's a big opportunity from some entrepreneurs with a social conscious to get into this game because there's a whole big segment of the country that is looking for an option, for an ethical search engine option, but they're yanking stuff, you know, off of YouTube. You know, I'm I was almost hesitant to even bring it up. But you know what, I'm going to just say effort. We're going to talk about it because this is really important. Like we don't talk about it, then nobody knows. And this really should be shared. So I really want folks to tune in. This is what the Health Dr. Greg Eckel, my esteemed colleague and guest is Dr. Greg Nye today kind of should have titled the show segment Lies, Damn lies and statistics censorship for that matter. But so I don't want to take us totally overboard there because that's a, that's a big.

I do want to just add as a footnote and certainly there is enormous crackdown on, you know, naturopaths and alternative practitioners. Even the hydroxychloroquine, you know, that has been in the news. And oh, how crazy this is untested and crazy crazy. And I just, this morning I was like, you know, let me just check that out. I was shocked by how many studies have been done using hydroxychloroquine and essentially every one of them finds substantial positive result. I mean it is particularly for COVID 19. Yeah, these are all tests done on COVID 19. They've been done all over the world.

So what in the world? I mean, you have to think the emperor wears no clothes and these institutions are totally losing credibility every day.

It really is that the media can hold to that line that there's no evidence in spite of. I mean, this is, it's not even said this is publicly. Anybody who can look in the research literature can see that there is abundant evidence of hydroxychloroquine. I didn't even look for, you know, there's the trio of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin and zinc and that is apparently kind of the optimal trio. Now, I didn't have time to do studies for that trio, but it certainly would make sense to me that those three together would do better than just hydroxychloroquine. I think that Covid, the disease process of COVID has a very substantial bacterial component. And I think that in fact underlying tuberculosis or non tubercular mycobacterial infections are kind of the silent, you know, lurking in the background, which would make, you know, why adding in an antibiotic would make sense if there is a bacterial component.

So those are co infections that folks. Right. If that trio is effective, looking at it as that is a co infection or an opportunistic rider with the virus.

Yeah, those would set the stage for this inflammatory process in the lung. And I don't think that is enough. I think that there are many really compelling other elements here. One of the, you know, of course, Stephanie Seneff, many people are familiar with her and her work around glyphosate. And so. And we've had just ridiculous amounts of communication around all of this stuff. And she has, she has, I think, a very compelling, put together a lot of things here around. There is an odd concordance between the most severe outbreaks of coronavirus and the utilization of biofuel either in transportation or in home heating, which they have that in Seattle, they have that in New York, Louisiana. Los Angeles airport was the first airport to require biofuel in all the jets flying in and out. The reason that's relevant is because biofuel is made from soybean. Soybean is one of the most heavily glyphosated plants that we have. If you make biofuel out of soybeans that have residue of glyphosate, you aerosolize glyphosate. I know of one study in particular that looked exactly at this, at what happens in the lungs when. And that study was rats or mice, when they breathe small amounts of glyphosate in the air. And it causes this, of course, it causes respiratory inflammation and, you know, fibrosis and has a whole pathology in and of itself to have glyphosate. And of course, you've also got diesel particulate and, you know, all of that that's also hanging out in the air that has its own consequences. And so it's not like any one thing. It's just that when it all. When it all comes together in the way that it has, and especially in particular areas. I mean, really, in terms of data, we should not even count New York as part of the rest of the country because they were such a radical, radical outlier in terms of the number of hospitalizations and deaths. Like, if you have a, you know, if you run lab data and you run labs on somebody and everything looks normal, but their blood sugar comes back as like 300. Well, you run it again, you don't run that because it's an outlier. It doesn't make sense. Let's run the same is true of New York. Like, when it first started happening, you know, the rest of the country was saying, oh, we're two weeks behind. What's going on in New York? Well, nobody was two weeks behind New York. That didn't happen anywhere. New York had unique things going on they had a million pounds of pork were burned in New Jersey last year and at a time when the winds would have carried it over New York, which I have no idea, but we can be pretty positive that that pork, which was imported from China, so it would have had tuberculosis, because all the pork there does that would have been. You incinerate that, you're going to have spores of, from mycobacteria that then drift over New York and. Huh, that's interesting. And then on top of that, you have the, the state then had mandated the use of biofuel in home heating oil. I, I forget Stephanie told me when that happened, but it was all kind of not all that long ago. So anyway, it's this confluence of many.

Things, kind of perfect storm speak into that.

So you did bring up the pork plants and. But what's this, the component about TB and Mycobacterium? Because I have seen you write about that as well. That happened in Wuhan, that happened in northern Italy and that happened in New Jersey. And those three cities or areas seem to be the highest, most severe deadly outbreak of what we're seeing right now. I mean, you know the other title.

Oh, are you still there? I can't hear you. I lost you. Are you there?

Yeah. Oh, did you not hear me on that?

Yeah, that you just went blank for a long time.

Oh, sorry. So here on, I was bringing up on the components of the mycobacterium and it just happened to break out in those three areas, Northern Italy and New York. I was going to title the show Things that would Make Doctrine Go. Hmm, you know, not that we have a smoking gun, but it is very interesting that. Hey, well, what, what is this correlation and this link here?

Totally. And it really, you know, any of these things can be discounted by saying that, well, that doesn't explain it over there. And it's true. It doesn't explain everything, but it does, I think it adds some very compelling information to how we come to interpret what happened in Wuhan, what happened in northern Italy and New York. And so to briefly describe it, and I was initially put onto this by a researcher named Lawrence Brucksmeyer, who has written lots of really compelling things that every naturopath should read everything that he's written because he's really a very innovative thinker. But so he was the first to say, and he's a mycobacteria researcher. That's his gig. So he pointed out that in 2019, summer and into the fall, swine flu was sweeping through China, and they have an astoundingly huge number of pigs that they raised there. And swine flu was moving through quickly. And so then it was getting very bad in the fall. And in October, November, it was horrendous what they did, but they burned hundred million pigs. I mean, it was crazy how many pigs they burned and literally just plumes of smoke going into the air. Now, pigs in China, they have tuberculosis. That's been studied. They carry tuberculosis. And so if you incinerate them, you will essentially just put aloft all of that spores from tuberculosis, from mycobacteria, which can exist in a spore form. And so. Well, that's interesting. You waft a bunch of this stuff and then right in that area, you end up with a severe respiratory illness happening about a month later. Now, what's interesting about it also is that. So China was selling, you know, they would sell pork to different places around the world. Most places weren't buying it because of the swine flu that was happening. But Italy had purchased £10 million. I'm pretty sure it couldn't have been a ton. Yeah, £10 million. They had purchased that and had it. And this is in northern Italy.

Right.

Where outbreak was going to happen. And so they have this pork in storage they're not using, not distributing yet. And then swine flu becomes a big, big deal in China. So Italy decides to incinerate their pork from China. And this is exactly in the middle of where it happened that the outbreak came up. So in Italy, they incinerated that pork on January 20, and the first case was diagnosed on February 1. So it was a really close correlation there. Then the burning that happened in New Jersey was actually in March of 2019. So it wasn't like an immediate correlation on that one. But I think it just kind of set up the tinderbox so that anything would be more deadly. And certainly the. I mean, Covid was significantly more deadly in New York than it was in many other places.

Yeah. So that is so. Right. You're not saying that. Oh, well, it's not Covid. You're saying these coexist and having this exposure potentially made those areas worse.

Totally. I mean, clearly Covid by itself is not sufficient. It takes Covid plus obesity, Covid plus heart disease, Covid plus cancer, Covid plus tuberculosis, Covid plus, you know, who knows? But Covid itself, in most people who are exposed, it causes no symptoms at all. Zero. It's not random. Who does get symptoms? I mean, duh, it's. I mean, the risk groups are so clearly defined now. Like, this notion that we're all at risk is, is just. It's crazy.

It really is.

I actually know that people will come back and say, no, it's not, you're not. It's not that I'm at risk. It's that I go out and I spread it to somebody who spreads it to somebody who gets in contact with somebody who is at risk. Yeah, I mean, there's so many things that need to be said about that. So the finding by the Italian guy who said that 50 to 75% of people that test positive have no symptoms, that was across all age groups. It wasn't like just the young and healthy and. And in fact, there were studies in nursing homes where. In a nursing home, I remember where 17 people became ill, but they had tested everybody in the nursing home. And the one that I'm recalling, It was like 30 or 35 people had tested positive. Now, the other ones didn't have any symptoms. And this is. In the nursing home, like, this is pretty much about as high risk as you can get. And so clearly it's not just testing positive that is causing the problem. So what this means is that we need to be attending to the health of those who are now at risk, so that it is not the risk. We need to get them vitamin D, we need to get them vitamin C. We need to, you know, that's just so many things that we can do to improve people's health rather than this impossible task of making sure that nobody comes in contact with somebody and somebody and somebody who ends up contacting a high risk person.

Yeah, I mean, that component.

It'S a bit absurd because what we're saying is the PCR testing is way more sensitive. It may not have even been picking up the coronavirus. And if we tested for all of these other viruses, by golly, guess what? We were swimming in them in this world, Right?

Yes.

It's almost as if they are us. Right. So, I mean, one of the things I'm advocating for is a new understanding of we need to stop battle against them because they are us. Like they're in us. It's our ecosystem. And if we can come into a harmony of understanding our terrain, you know, like very naturopathic principle, right? Like this is basics for what we grew up on here. But what I would like to get out to the listeners of the show and to their families and the communities of like, no, these, they've always been here. Like, this isn't new. And this idea that you're you're out there spreading, you know, it's all, you know, wearing the mask for the other person. And it's like, no, this is totally bass ackwards, you know.

Yeah, it is. You know, there's, I'm looking at my bookshelves right now because there's a great book by Carl Zimmer who writes a bunch of, he's, you know, he writes a bunch of medical oriented stuff and it's about, I think it's called like Planet of Viruses or something like that. And it's really fantastic. And that's where I got that number of 10 to the 30th virus in a cup of ocean water. I mean, I might have made that number up. It might be like 10 to the 15th or something, which is a big difference. But, but the point is that there's oodles and oodles of viruses in the ocean. And in fact, this was interesting. Viruses are necessary for the bacterial population of the ocean because the viruses are constantly infecting, quote, and killing bacteria in the ocean and the bacteria die. And there's this constant recycling of the bacteria in the ocean, which is thanks to the viruses that are in the ocean. And so another thing I remember out of that book, I'm a little shaky. I read it about five, six years ago, maybe longer than that. Maybe they took aspirate from like a bunch of healthy people, like 26 healthy people. They got them to cough something up and they looked for viruses in there and they found on average, in healthy people, they found on average something like 147 different kinds of virus in their lungs. And the majority of the viruses that they found had never been characterized before.

Wow.

Which, I mean, you're right, we're just, this is just part of who we are. And this notion that they are out there and trying to get in here is just, is so, so. Well, it's so profitable. That's what it is.

It is so profitable. Right. It is like to make ourselves or pieces of us as other. And it's absurd to me, like to say we're going to stop the spread of a virus. Right. Like when they started saying that at the beginning of this, I'm like, oh, we have lost this. Because if people are focused on that, that will never. There's no way to stop a spread of a virus. Like that's what they do.

Yeah, yeah. They circulate the globe in very predictable patterns. And yeah, that's just part of our ecology. They're like little flash drives that move around and, yeah, anyway, it's interesting.

So, I mean, actually, just on that.

Topic, we have receptors for viruses on our DNA.

Receptors on our cells.

On our cells, on our cells.

That.

These viruses do run programs on our cells. And. And sometimes those are very positive outcomes, correct?

Well, yeah. I mean, you know, it's like, you know, so common cold is, you know, associated with the rhinovirus or coronavirus, some other kinds of virus. And I remember. I've told this story before, but I'll tell it right here. I remember when I was just a kid in school and I would go. I would always, for lunch, I would go grab Dr. Zeff out of his office and I'd just buy him lunch and pick his brain just because I loved hearing what he was going to say. And I remember one time as we were walking, I said, how do you cure a cold? And he looked at me kind of stern and he said, a cold is not the disease, it's the cure. And the point is, well taken. Like that virus, that flash drive plugs into our cells, it runs a program, it flushes our membranes, it maybe cranks up our temperature. It reduces the amount of food we're eating. It cleans us out. And then when we don't need it anymore, we eject the flash drive and. And it's done. And so the thought that we need to cure or somehow prevent infection with a rhinovirus is like saying, don't put a flash drive in your computer because it'll run the program.

Right. It's gonna ruin it. So on that front, then, we're talking about. I mean, I guess we're coming down to the home stretch at the end of the program. So we have 15 minutes. No, 15 minutes. But I'm going to open up a larger conversation around kind of the new vaccine. Right. So everybody's been primed to think you're at the mercy of this other, which is truly you. We're going to save you. So there's nothing you can do until you get this vaccine that has never been made before.

Correct.

It's like the world has gone mad. Like, wow.

Yeah. Yeah, it's so. I think. Yeah, it's so many layers on that topic, really. So the first thing that I think needs to be really widely understood is that two things. This kind of vaccine has never been attempted. As you just mentioned, this is a totally new way of generating antibodies in people. What they used to do back in the old days of last year and before, they would basically introduce antigenic material like weakened virus, attenuated virus. They Inject it. And they depend on your body's immune system to generate antibodies against it. They throw in a little aluminum just to really piss off your immune system, to crank up more antibody production. But that was how vaccines used to be done. Then Moderna is the company, they had this idea that. Wait a minute.

So.

Instead of injecting the antigen, so like for coronavirus, everybody now heard about the spike protein, which is one of the antigenic proteins associated with this virus. Instead of injecting that into people, instead what we'll inject them with is a snippet. So in order to generate the spike protein, you have to code for that with a little genetic instructions, a piece of RNA that ultimately runs through the ribosome and that generates the protein. That's how a virus would do it. Well, why don't we do it that way? So what Moderna is doing is injecting people with RNA that codes for the spike protein. Now, it's an engineered rna, it's not natural rna. They've engineered this and they have modified it in a way that they believe will make it more antigenic. And so they also have a. Some proprietary way of. So if you were to just inject that into your bloodstream, your cells would not take it up because there are no receptors for these little pieces of rna. But Moderna, that company, has developed some kind of proprietary something that will essentially make the cells take up this little snippet of messenger rna. Once the cell takes it up, it goes to the ribosome. The ribosome will then generate this modified spike protein and then secrete it into the system, causing our own immune cells to say, whoa, that ain't right, and then attack it. It's using our own cells as the factory of these viral proteins that are antigenic. It's a. It is just so crazy that we would even consider something like this. Now, this is what is called in the lingo, it's called an unprecedented vaccine. And that simply means that the type of vaccine that it is has never been done before. There are simple vaccines, complex vaccines, and unprecedented vaccines. And depending on which of those three it is, they require different amounts of research and development. Now, people in the industry, I mean, many have probably seen interviews with some vaccine developers who will tell you that it takes about 20 years to get a vaccine to the market. You know, going from concept to production, about 20 years. This vaccine entered stage one. So the research apparently had been done, leading. It was being done prior to Covid showing up. Moderna had been working on this Technology before research. The phase one clinical trials started in February. So phase one for an unprecedented vaccine. Phase one clinical trials typically last somewhere between three and five and a half years. Phase one started in February. Phase two trials started at the beginning of May. So phase one, instead of three to five and a half years, it lasted for three months, which is crazy for a vaccine. Now keep in mind, phase one is to figure out if it's safe. Now, you can't possibly, you cannot possibly determine if this vaccine is going to be safe. Only having three months to try it out, you would have to do, I mean, you would have to be testing it in enormous numbers of people. Let's say it has an injury rate or, you know, it causes a problem in one out of 500 people. Well, their phase one trial is not nearly 500 people. So you may not see an injury, but if you then say, oh, no injury in these 120 people we gave this to, must be safe. And now you give it to a million people. Well, if you, if 1 in 500 out of those million has an injury or even death, that's a pretty shockingly high number of people who would be injured by it. But you, you can't see it if you don't do an adequate phase one safety trial. So anyway, now we're already in phase two and they're already, now reports in the media. There are these reports that, you know, the antibodies are somehow, you know, protective or. That looks promising. I mean, it's just ridiculous that we have squashed a 20 year process down to a handful of months. So anyway, awesome.

I super appreciate that. I kind of got booted off the line for a minute. I am appreciative that you finished that thought. We are coming down to the final three minutes. I mean, you know, obviously each one of these pieces that we've just unpacked today, we could go on for hours.

On each one of them.

What would you, what are the part, what's the parting message here for folks?

What the health. For them as individuals, for them as.

In their family unit and for them in their community.

For what?

You know, what is going on? Like, we have this whole slew train wreck of numbers and testing and, you know, potential, you know, mandatory vaccination is coming on the table on a new unproven technology that could go for generations down the line.

What are we to do, Dr. Nye?

I got this new thing on Netflix I've been watching. No, I would say what are we to do? We are to. First of all, we have to understand that human bodies are really good at keeping themselves well if we do the right things. And we know very clearly in this particular situation that we stay well if we have adequate amounts of vitamin D, vitamin C and zinc, predominantly. There are other things, but those are very important. Oh, and selenium. Selenium is another that you lower the risk of death by about 37 times if you have adequate selenium. So there is that aspect of keeping ourselves healthy, then in terms of our social networks. This is a very contentious topic. And I won't even go to it, go into it right now because it's too big to cover in a minute. But I would recommend that there is an interview with Zach Bush, which I suspect you've seen and others I know have seen. But it is. Is absolutely fantastic. It's with Del Big Tree. But Zach Bush articulates many of these topics so well. And the third thing I would say is that we have to be very vocal with elected people that we absolutely would not allow them to get our vote if they support these kind of coercive measures. I mean, there's so much more that we didn't talk about in terms of invasion of privacy and biomonitoring and all of that.

Yes. Yeah.

Yeah, those are big.

Thank you so much, Dr. Nye, for coming on. Everybody, this is what the health Tuesdays from 2 to 3pm Pacific Standard Time. Please share this with your loved ones. This is the information we got to get out to people. Really it is. It's world changing. And really I want people to be.

Educated about what their options are out there.

Thank you all and we will see you next week.