In this explanatory video, Dr. A outlines how biofilms have been identified by the CDC and other health agencies as a top public‑health threat, even before the COVID‑19 pandemic. He explains that routine medical procedures can introduce pathogenic biofilms into patients, contributing to drug resistance and chronic illness. The response from the medical community focused on developing protocols and solutions rather than publicly highlighting the problem, which kept the issue out of public awareness. Dr. A then contrasts modern dietary habits—characterized by processed foods, chemical preservatives (e.g., glyphosate), and reduced exposure to traditional herbs and spices—with historic, native diets worldwide that naturally contain anti‑biofilm compounds used for preservation, flavor, and health. He argues that the loss of these dietary practices, along with increased chemical exposure, has allowed highly pathogenic biofilms to become a modern epidemic. The video suggests that re‑integrating traditional anti‑biofilm foods and reducing harmful chemicals could mitigate the growing threat.
Chapters
Before COVID actually, the CDC and other organizations had biofilms as one of the biggest threats to human health. It was number one at one point. Wow. And you say, well, why didn't we hear about that? Because the story gets darker. It's— they, they didn't say that just because they picked biofilms, you know, that year. They said it because they know that every person who goes to the hospital and has any procedure comes home with a pathogenic biofilm. They know that the reason drugs are not working as well as they used to, well, one of them is biofilm formation at these big pathologic levels. Wow. They also know from research where we mentioned you can do testing. So a lot of it is, you know, they do endoscopies and biopsies and they microscope be them and stuff. So it's not something everyone's going to have done. And even if you go to your gastro and get, you know, a scope, unless they're doing biofilm research, no one's going to be looking for that. So it's kind of like testing— yeah, you can, but it's a research thing. These are big problems. They're big problems for general overall health outcomes. They're huge problems if you have people getting wounds during a war. And we've, you know, been actively involved in war for 20 years at you know, just this go-around in my lifetime. We've been involved a lot, and there's all these things. So it was like, well, we're going to put this near or at the top of the list of threat to human health, but we really— that's sort of bad PR if we go out and say, well, biofilms are bad and we're giving them to you at the hospital. We're, you know, it's like, yeah, uh, you know, how is that going to go over, right? So what happened and what really led to a lot of the research that really shifted my thinking around biofilms was CDC and the other, you know, government folks say, this is a big problem. Uh, hey researchers, we need solutions. We don't need this to be something we talk about before we have a solution. So tons of research was done into, oh, there's these giant biofilms that are real bad and they're causing big drug resistance and all sorts of nasties. Decades of research go into that, right? Well, then they come up with solutions and these become a part of the way you're prepared for surgical procedures, other procedures. They become a part of the protocols you do so that we are less likely to send you out of the hospital with, you know, this sort of a nasty biofilm. And the logic behind it was this way we don't have to tell everyone what a problem it was. We've just shifted public health to not do this to people, right? Well, the problem is, That's fine, you know, if you're in a hospital. As soon as you though extrapolate that to what if I never had to go to the hospital, but I've been sick for 10 years, or what if I've been sick for 5 years, but I've had 18 rounds of, you know, antibiotics and steroids and all the other, or, or some biologics, which can also, some of them can do that same problem, right? It's not a secret, but it's just not something anyone was publicizing. And so that's why we know what we know about it. is because the government realized what a threat to human health this was. They needed a solution no one would talk about. Now, later I can tell you how I know all that, but that's the— that's sort of the basis. But there's one piece I really want to say, uh, out loud that is the counterpoint to that, because I've had this, uh, question come up a lot, and it's a really legit question. And it's like, okay, obviously we do more research and we find more problems, right? So we know more about biofilms. Why didn't people 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago— you know, we have biofilms. Why didn't they develop these super pathogenic biofilms? Why is this a modern problem? Well, one of the things, uh, and in looking for answers to that was if you look at the native diet of anywhere in the world— and here's the important part, the part I'm going to tell you that is biofilm preventive— is different in every culture, but it has certain things in common. But what you will see is if you look at the native diets in any part of the world They have a core of their dietary practices, which might be part of their, you know, cooking and eating. It may be part of preservation of food. And we're talking about traditional, you know, before refrigeration and stuff. Yeah. But it's somewhere around what we put in our mouth in that culture. And there's not a culture I've ever found that doesn't have this. There are anti-biofilm constituents that were either used for preservation or for flavoring or for stabilizing or all of the above. And so if you look at the spectrum of mixtures of herbs and spices in curries, or if you look at the spectrum of even some tree parts and other stuff like that that my people from the very northern cold part of Europe and Russia used, you know, they used like a lot of, you know, pine needles and other stuff. And you go to Asia, there's different stuff, and Native Americans, different stuff. Every culture has And they, of course, that wasn't why they did it, but that stuff, as we eat it every day, is part of it. It just doesn't allow biofilms to get very bad. Of course, it's just more than biofilms. There's prebiotics and there's all sorts of good gut stuff, you know, and good immune stuff. But that was just sort of the way either we do this in our, you know, evolution as a tribe or a community and we live, or we don't do it and we don't do so well. So it's just sort of how people developed. But think of the last 100 years and how far away from the way that we— and I— we're not talking a century, you know, 75 to 100 years ago, people ate dramatically differently. And their food wasn't full of chemicals and all this other stuff, you know, that makes it sterile and takes— you know, by the way, most of those chemicals are not good for your body. Destroy your microbiomes. Yeah. So— Glyphosate. Yeah. So it's like, so there is this balance. It's like, well, we have this big big mean modern monster, you know, and the reason we didn't have it before is because we used to live very differently and, you know, all of that. So I think that is an important thing to keep in mind.
