HWD Deadlier than What

(0:00) Hi, this is Dr. Daniels, and welcome to Healing with Dr. Daniels. This is the Sunday, July 26, 2020 edition, and welcome.

(0:12) Today's topic is "Deadlier than What? Deadlier than What?" So I think in order to say something is deadly, it would have to be more deadly than life itself. Yeah, more deadly than life itself.

(0:35) So we have to have a grown-ups talk here. This is for adults only. So if you're not an adult, it's okay. Just click away. You know, go watch something else.

(0:46) So we're all going to die of something. If you're a plant, if you're an animal, even if you are a simple piece of paper or plastic, your existence in your present form is going to deteriorate and go away. Now, what happens after that is a matter of your religion, and I leave that to you.

(1:08) But what we're talking about today, what I am saying is each and every one of us is going to cease to exist in our present form in a state that we call life or living.

(1:21) Yeah. And so if we want to say something is deadly, then we have got to first understand what our probability is of dying just because we're alive.

(1:35) So if everything goes well and you live a full life, what does that look like? What is the probability of death this year? And that's an important thing to understand because once you understand that, then that is how deadly life itself is.

(1:59) So just because you're alive, you're going to die. And the question is, what's that probability of death today? We're going to calculate that for you.

(2:06) If you're on U.S. soil and if you're on Nicaraguan soil, uh, Nicaragua, I've been taking a look at that lately. And then what we can do is we can compare the present pandemic and how deadly is it compared to life itself?

(2:26) So if something is less deadly than life itself, it's reasonable to say that that thing is not deadly. And that thing is not worthy of your attention if what you're trying to do is live a long and fulfilling life.

(2:45) Okay. So now you can peg this number at whatever you want for you. So I'm saying that for me or for this show, we're going to calculate how deadly is it just to be alive and sitting on this soil or that soil. And then we're going to compare how deadly is the situation depending on which soil you're standing on.

(3:19) And so what I'm saying is, for the sake of definition, anything less deadly than life itself, it's not deadly. You need to put your attention someplace else. And I'll even tell you where to put your attention.

(3:33) Yeah. Okay. So we have a present panic. I think it's a panic going on. And I think the basis of the panic is trying to understand and get a grip on information.

(3:48) So whenever you are examining something, especially information, you are making a lot of assumptions. There are two sets of assumptions. One set is just in examining the data. You need some assumptions. We're going to go over that.

(4:06) And the next set of assumptions, which are your assumptions, it's private. I can't comment on that. It's like, what is your life? Where are you at in your life? Are you getting ready to have children? Do you have children and you're trying to raise them? Are you done raising your children and you're just trying to live the rest of your life? Are you presently working and having to earn money to support yourself or not?

(4:25) So all these are considerations that you need to make for your evaluation of data and decision-making process. So today, what I'm really going to cover is what are the underlying assumptions our present data is filled with? And how do we know if these assumptions are valid or not?

(4:52) It turns out that we're enough into the situation where we can examine every one of these assumptions. This is way cool. What this means is we can pretty much banish uncertainty. And then with the certainty, at least considering the situation, you can make decisions about your life.

(5:18) When I was, well, I'm 63 right now. But when I was younger, I had the answers, baby. If you had a problem, I had the answers. I knew exactly what you should do.

(5:32) But now being older and wiser, I realize that what might be clear cut, straightforward, obvious for me might not be the right thing for you. And so I think the best thing I can do for you is to give you a framework of analysis. So you can then overlay your value system, your life situation, and really plan going forward, what you want to do so that you can have the best life possible.

(6:03) Yay. Okay. Oh, wait a minute. Got to take our turpentine.

(6:09) First, we're going to take some water, just a little bit dry. Got my favorite spoon here. This is a dessert spoon. Those of you who are not in the States, this is a dessert spoon. And it just happens to be my favorite.

(6:25) So take the top off the sugar, take the top off the turpentine. Now this is granulated white cane sugar. When you're spooning it up, you want to make sure not to get any lumps. It's super humid here, so it's easy for me to get lumps. There we go. We've got all the lumps out.

(6:50) And I have this little plastic pipette. It just happens to be my dose that I like, which is half a teaspoon a day. And that's all the way up right to the top of the neck. We're going to dip it into our turpentine bottle. Bam. Yep. And there we go. And we're going to squirt it on the sugar. Bam.

(7:10) Not every granular sugar will be covered, and that is okay. In fact, that's just the way it ought to be. So I put a little bit of water in my mouth so that when I put the spoon in, the sugar is elevated up. I can swallow and bam, it goes straight down, and it decreases my unpleasantness.

(7:48) Okay, we've got that down. I'm practicing neatness. I'm putting my turpentine top back on and my sugar top back on.

(7:58) All right, next we have Shilajit. Shilajit is awesome. Yay. It's tar. This is an incredibly rich and bioavailable trace mineral material. It is straight out the ground. They just scoop it out the ground, put it right in here, and bam, ship it to you.

(8:23) So we just take our little scientific spatula and scoop up a little bit here. That's about 200 milligrams. Yeah. And we put that here in our water. As you can see, it does not readily dissolve. Yep. Let's let that sit. I'll probably drink it after the show. I might drink it at the end, but I usually drink it after.

(8:42) All right. So part of analyzing data is, well, having data. In the United States, the keeper of the data has been moved from the CDC to HHS, which means it's basically barely available. And when available, it's out of context, it is not in chart form, and not easily comparable.

(9:09) But I did manage to find it quoted by the New York Times. Yes. So we have a New York Times article that has listed the data that we need to sort out a few things today. All right. Here we are.

(9:28) What are the basic assumptions? So the basic assumptions now that we're operating under is that there is something new. There's something dangerous. Whatever the something is, is spread person to person. And the something is causing death.

(9:45) And we're also making an implicit assumption that people will live forever and all death is to be avoided. That's an implicit assumption in the present environment. And also that the government enforcing rules governing our lives can stop the deaths. In other words, can create immortality.

(10:04) These are basic assumptions. And I'm just telling you this upfront, so you can kind of have a framework for understanding where I'm going with today's show. So if at any point you don't like it, you can just, you know, click away. Yeah.

(10:16) So each and every one of these assumptions is false. There's enough data to show this. In other words, there is nothing new. There is this thing represented by testing that is not dangerous. This thing represented by testing is not spread person to person, and it is not causing death.

(10:47) And the next two are religious or political views. People will not live forever in this human body. And it is not possible to avoid all death. And once you set yourself up to avoid all death, you're essentially signing up for exploitation. In other words, you're setting yourself up to be lied to, deceived, and taken advantage of.

(11:17) And then I'm going to talk about government enforcing rules governing our lives and that improving our health or extending our lives. I have inside information on that, so I will share that with you. All right, so here we go.

(11:33) As always, for every show, there's something that happened that prompted the show. So today, what really prompted the show was an email between two of my friends, and they happened to just copy me on their email exchange back and forth, back and forth. I said, "Oh my God, there is something here that definitely needs to be addressed."

(11:57) So we have an older gentleman who's about 77 years old, giving wise advice to a younger man of 52. And this is what the older man says. He says, "Hey, thanks for the update. The update from here is simple. He's in Costa Rica, Costa Rica is doing okay. But that is largely due to the draconian measures in place to contain the virus. Yes, yes, yes."

(12:35) So the country has the best record in Latin America for containment and recovery of the virus. Panama, mostly in Panama City area, is a complete disaster. Just for your information, the writer of this is not aware, but Panama City has had the heaviest lockdown. The rest of the country, which is where I live in the jungle, pretty much, yeah, and we're doing fine. It has 10 times the virus cases and 10 times the deaths.

(13:03) I'm happy that I made it back to Costa Rica before they closed the borders. Like you, I am headed to Nicaragua. Your information about the virus in Nicaragua is wrong. The situation there is almost unimaginable. I am in day-to-day contact with several sources in Nicaragua, and they tell me what is really going on. I was on the phone with someone when your email came in.

(13:32) I do not want to dash your fantasy, but I want to give you the correct intel so you can make plans based on the truth. You are indeed correct about prices there. So he says, "I have found prices so low that I've had to ask two or three times to make sure I'm actually understanding them. That is now also true in Costa Rica. So many people are in need of cash here, and they are willing to deal on everything. Sad for them, but good for investors."

(14:04) Now, he says things are great in Costa Rica, but the Costa Rican economy is trashed, just like the Nicaraguan economy and just like the Panamanian economy. So in his mind, things are better, but economically apparently the same. I'm in a very good position, but it's like being in prison. When was the last time you heard that from a prisoner?

(14:29) This past week, Costa Rica was closed, whatever that means. I guess nothing was open, but tomorrow everything is opening back up. Stores, banks, restaurants, and other services will be open. The borders are still closed. It will be a few more weeks before all major airlines start flying as before. Costa Rica has built a special medical facility at the airport to test everyone upon entry. There's also a 14-day quarantine period for everyone, virus or not. So coming here is not an attractive proposition.

(15:03) People with permanent residency can leave on any of the flights currently operating, but we cannot reenter until the pandemic is declared over. If we would try to return before then, we would lose our residency. I leave you with a link you might want to consider.

(15:25) Over 30 doctors have died treating others, so they gave their ultimate sacrifice to honor their oath. Reading the following, read the following and get up to speed on the truth about Nicaragua.

(15:50) So hey, I clicked the link. What does the link show? To summarize it, they have a COVID-19 citizen observatory, an independent initiative made up of an interdisciplinary team involving medical communication and research professionals. And they estimate that as of July 1st, and so let's just, yeah, as of July 1st, let's keep the cumulative numbers. 7,400 people have been infected with COVID-19. 2,087 with suspected COVID, so we have to add those two together. That's 9,126 infected and 91 deaths as of July 7th.

(16:37) Let's do a ratio of 91 divided by 9,126, and that is nine deaths per thousand infected.

(16:43) A quick look on the internet shows the prevalent death rate for the population of Nicaragua is five per thousand. Hmm, that's pretty well, but wait, 91 deaths over a three-month period, that would be 91 deaths divided by 12 weeks, right? Or eight deaths a week. The weekly death rate in Nicaragua, we took their annual death rate divided by 52 is 622 expected deaths in a week.

(17:16) So eight deaths per week could be COVID. So fewer than 1% of the deaths just from being alive, just from being alive in Nicaragua could be COVID. So in other words, this is not a significant cause of death. In other words, if ignored and deaths continued at the present rate and the whole population got infected, total deaths for the year could be at best expected to increase by 1%.

(17:48) It's shocking, isn't it? What about the case fatality rate? Well, it's two times the death rate for the population. As we've seen, that number is not reliable. It depends on the accuracy of the number in the population that tests positive. Early in any disease, the number of actual positive individuals or cases is always way underestimated, and that's what we're seeing in the United States.

(18:14) So the reasonable response to the situation with these numbers in Nicaragua from this link, which has the truth as told by this older man, is that there is no danger. There's no evidence of any new danger to the health of the population.

(18:34) The reasonable response will be simple observation, but that's not what's happened. What's happened is a total shutdown, a crash of the economy, and shutting down borders. But I mean, that's what they choose to do, and that's really perfectly fine. However, what I really want to point out is the lack of assessment of the data. And if you want to throw in that 30 of those 91 were healthcare professionals, we got an occupational issue.

(19:04) This is not, you know, a countrywide issue. It's an occupational issue. That means that the total population risk is far less. So what we've got to take a look at, we have to understand, is that tyranny disguised as benevolent coerced concern for health is easily seen. For example, when a wife is telling a spouse that he has to eat this or eat that, has to get up at this time, go to bed at that time, not ride a bicycle, it's too dangerous at his age. You know, this is simply using health as a baseball bat to terrorize, coerce, and manage individuals.

(19:45) I went to medical school from 1979 to 1983. And so you get to medical school, you're all excited. And you learn about all these different diseases and scientific techniques. You're like, wow, why don't we have laws making everyone do all of these things that the medical industrial complex has scientifically proven to be effective?

(20:03) Well, the professor's like, whoa, slow down. And he was very firm. He said, never allow government to dictate compliance with any health regimen. It would only be a tyrannical dictatorship. As scientific as all of our stuff was, it should never be codified into law. This is what we were told in medical school. Never, it should never be codified into law, any health practice.

(20:32) As 50% of medical information is false at the time it is published. Now, I looked and looked and looked, where is this information? Where does that number come from? It comes from the fact that 50% of all scientific papers are known to be falsified. Right? That's just a flat number. You can ask the New England Journal of Medicine, you can ask Harvard Medical School, you can ask any authority figure, they'll say, yeah, it's true. Or if they want to argue about it, they'll say, well, but you say, is the data reproducible? And that's a euphemism for, is it true? And they'll say, well, you know, in 50% of cases, the data is not reproducible.

(21:18) Okay. So doctors are operating with at least 50% of fake data. Therefore, every person should have the freedom to decide what the risk is and what action they want to take. The role of government and of doctors should be only to inform and advise.

(21:56) This is what we were instructed in medical school, of the extreme danger, the extreme danger of codifying any medical, anything into law, because the data in medicine is simply not true. And since half of it is false or fake, any tyrant can just manipulate that half of the data. And before you know it, they got you eating your own kids, because it's scientifically proven to be healthy, you know, so don't do it.

(22:20) So the role of the government and doctors should be only to inform and advise, and the population and individuals, people must be allowed to choose as they wish, just because of this very high inaccuracy and error rate in the research.

(22:49) In other words, this 50% of data, I just cannot stress this enough, that is false. These are research. This is research that is biased, that is untrue, that is politicized. So if half of all medical research is of a political nature, whose conclusion is determined before the research is even done, then it's really important that science as we understand it to be, at least from 1979 forward up until now, never ever be codified into law.

(23:23) I'll give you an example. When I entered medical school in 1979, having a syphilis test was a requirement for marriage. And in most cases, they dropped that as a requirement. Now there's a lot of reasons, but let's just say something as basic as that they found not to be valid and not to be reasonable.

(23:41) So let's back up and let's calculate for the United States what is the baseline death rate. I guess I should say let's go forward.

(23:58) Okay, so to really drive this home even more, because this cannot be overstated, things have gone terribly wrong. Terribly wrong. If you're debating if the government should mandate masks or not, things have gone terribly wrong. Terribly wrong. If you are just debating whether or not the government should resume stay-at-home orders, or which businesses should open or should not open. If this is what you're debating, you have totally missed the boat. You have totally missed the boat.

(24:26) The real debate is not what the government should decide, but does it even have the right to decide? Does the government have the right to shut down an economy, to make prices for people's businesses, for their land, for their property fall so tremendously that capital-rich individuals, who may even have plans to crash, can just buy up everything, pennies on the dollar, as super monopolies can be created?

(25:16) So what's really happened, if we look at these different countries, whether it's Costa Rica or Nicaragua or the United States, is what we are seeing is an economic situation in response to a perception. As we'll see as we progress, what the numbers show is something very different from the perception.

(25:35) And we have more numbers, and so I can put a few more brushstrokes on the painting here. And again, we don't have the final picture, but I can show you what the numbers are.

(25:48) Okay, so historically, if a restaurant is selling deadly food, maybe the government should have the authority to shut the restaurant down. But historically in the United States, we can see that doesn't happen. You know, many fast food chains have served food that has actually killed people with E. coli infections. Have they been shut down? No.

(26:11) So to give the government that authority, we can see that they are not going to use it to protect the health of citizens. The only way to protect the health of citizens is to let them know, hey, there's an outbreak, you know, someone dropped dead at that restaurant, and that will probably spread word of mouth anyway, and the restaurant would, of course, close.

(26:27) So usually the customers shut the restaurant down long before the government does. For example, if a bottled water company is distributing water that's sickening people, again, people will just stop buying the water. But unfortunately, the government has been notoriously poor from a regulatory standpoint defending citizens.

(26:55) And even as a kid, I'll never forget, the government every now and then, about twice a year, would issue a boil water advisory. I'm like, boil water advisory? You mean the government can't even pump clean water to the house? We gotta boil it? And so here I am, a grown-up, and what do I do? I distill my water. All of my water is boiled. I don't have to wait for a boil water advisory.

(27:18) And I did this when I lived in the United States as early as the 1990s. All right, so let's look at what's the baseline death rate in the United States. In other words, just because you're living in the United States, what's your chance of dying? So what we're going to do is we're going to go back to 2018. We're going to calculate the chances of dying in 2018, just because you were born. And in 2018, the economy was not shut down. There were no health precautions being taken.

(27:41) And so we can say that with this particular baseline death rate, just from being alive, we're going to call it acceptable and not in need of action. What is the baseline death rate? Well, it's 327 million people, which is a population back then, divided by 2.8 million deaths, or 8.6 deaths per thousand individuals every year.

(28:20) This is the case fatality rate for being alive in the United States for the present infection, case fatality. In other words, how many deaths and how many positive people, how many people testing positive for it, and how many deaths.

(28:38) So in order for us to understand this, I am going to assume that the test is 100% accurate. So this is very generous. I'm going to assume that every single death represented as a COVID-19 death, by golly, COVID did it. So we're not going to discuss the accuracy of the test. We're going to accept it as 100%. We're not going to impugn the accuracy of the death certificates. We're going to accept it as 100%.

(29:19) Now for the cases, if we have a positive test, we're going to say it's a positive test. We're not going to discount anything. It's a positive test. Okay.

(29:32) So here we are. How many cases in the United States? 3.5 million. Now we do need the experts have weighed in on this. They have weighed in and the experts say that the real case number is 40 million. So for every positive test we get, we really have 10 positive people.

(29:47) All right, fine. 40 million. How many deaths? 144,000, which is 0.144 million. You do the math and the case fatality rate is four per thousand, four per thousand.

(30:04) So the case fatality rate for testing for being positive, according to the present test, is less than the case fatality rate of just living. Okay. So that tells us, suggests, there's a pretty big suggestion that this virus is not deadly, but wait, we got more information for you.

(30:40) So I said, well, wait a minute, what's a virus? So if a case fatality rate, that means if we take a certain number of people, infect all of them with the virus, a certain number are going to drop dead. Got that. All right.

(30:54) And because it's the same virus, that death rate is going to be consistent, going to be consistent. Certain number of people get infected, a certain number of deaths. All right. And that's, we've been hearing this from the local information sources. So we're going to go with that.

(31:14) So we have a place called the United States. That means there are 50 different States and they are United. Yeah. But if we take the case fatality rate for each state, let's see what we get. Well, first of all, we have to, I'm going to tell you right now, just out the gate, the lowest case fatality rate represents the baseline fatality for this situation.

(31:51) The highest case fatality rate difference between the two is the amount of death, not from the virus, but from the environment the virus is in. Maybe from the treatment doctors give for the virus. Maybe it's from something else like the ventilators in New York. We know, for example, easily created a lot of death from the virus. We know that the nursing home practices, the nursing home took a 2% death rate up to 98%.

(32:21) In other words, although those people were positive, we know absolutely that the presence or absence of the virus was not what caused their deaths.

(32:30) Okay. So let's take a look around the country. And this is going to tell us a lot now because they've, I won't say cook the numbers, but we can no longer for each state get the cases and the fatality. All they're publishing now on the different sites I'm able to track down is the number of recovered cases and the number of deaths.

(33:05) So we're just going to do simple, take the ratio of deaths divided by recovered cases. And that's the case fatality number because that's just all the information we have. So it's going to be pretty close estimate.

(33:18) So what do we have? Well, in Florida, it's 1.4%. In Utah, it's 1%. In New Jersey, it's 50%. And in Pennsylvania, it's 9.1%. As you can see, your chances of dying from this, the presence of this virus as measured by the test is determined more by whether you're in Utah or whether you're in New Jersey. I would say this makes a really strong case for just simply relocating to Utah.

(33:58) That's going to give you a much better mortality outcome than any amount of masking, social distancing, hand sanitizer, or putting your head up your butt or whatever is recommended by any authority. This is a phenomenal thing.

(34:27) Now, what is the difference? Well, we can take 50%, subtract the 1%. So the 49% range. And we then take the 49%, which is the amount of death that cannot be attributed to the virus and divide it by the highest infection, which is 50. So 98% of the death measured from this virus, the presence of this virus is not due to the presence of the virus at all.

(34:58) It's due to what governmental jurisdiction you're in. So there's something going on with the administrative practices in Utah compared to New Jersey compared to Pennsylvania that is causing this variation in death, not the virus.

(35:27) So we've now examined the data and we found that one, there is nothing new. How do we know there's nothing new? Because the marginal death rate is so low. It's point, I'm sorry, it's four per thousand. So there is nothing new. There's nothing more deadly than just being alive in this particular case.

(35:58) Now, if the deaths per thousand were 30, 40, 50 deaths per thousand, and our baseline population death rate is only 8.6, oh my God, this is an increased risk of death, right? But the baseline death rate of being alive in America is 8.6. The case fatality rate for this virus using national data, this is national averaging, is only four per thousand.

(36:30) So there is nothing new. Is it dangerous? No, it is not dangerous. We know for a fact this is not dangerous. How do we know? Because again, the case fatality rate is less than the death rate of just being alive and breathing.

(36:42) Is it spread person to person? There, there. That is a question. Now there was one test done, a study done in Wuhan where they tested 455 contacts of people. This one person who, he tested positive. I think he was asymptomatic. Yeah, he's asymptomatic. He tested positive and not one of those contacts became positive. Not one of those contacts became positive.

(37:24) So we've got even better data than that. We've got some data from the United States trying to find it. Airborne transmission. So how is it being spread?

(38:05) Um, so what they do is they took this, um, hair salon and the hair salon opened up and the owner wore a mask and her customers also wore masks and the transmission rate was zero, zero, zero. There was absolutely no transmission. So there's no transmission in the asymptomatic positive person who, uh, contacted 455 people.

(39:12) And there was absolutely no transmission in the case of the salon owner. So is it transmitted? Well, here is what the World Health Organization is saying. New World Health Organization guidance calls for more evidence on airborne transmission.

(39:18) In other words, it's not clear this is airborne transmitted by air. Shocking, isn't it? As long as this has been going on and the World Health Organization doesn't want to come on the wrong side of this. We're saying, Hey y'all, we know 50% of all the data is fake. Bring us all your fake data. And we'll just kind of just weigh this and see if we can't make a decision that's going to be, you know, the best for our contributors.

(39:43) But the World Health Organization is on the serious fence on this one. The World Health Organization on Thursday released new guidelines and transmission of the novel coronavirus that acknowledges some reports of airborne transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19. But stop short of confirming that the virus spreads through the air.

(40:16) So if you look at these two real-life examples, the positive person in Wuhan, no spread. The hairdresser, no spread. As far as real-life examples of spread, really not any. What about these mega dissemination events? Those are not resonant measures. Why? They didn't test the people before they went to the event and then retest after they went to the event.

(40:31) So those so-called mega transmission events are not evidence. They're not compelling. So in this latest transmission, that World Health Organization acknowledges some outbreak reports related to indoor crowded spaces, have suggested the possibility of aerosol transmission, but more research is urgently needed to investigate such instances and assess their significance for transmission.

(41:16) So based on this review of the evidence, World Health Organization said the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, which is a positive result in the test, let's be clear, spreads through contact with contaminated surfaces. That was by the way, just disproven. That's okay. Or close contact with infected people. Close contact is like close contact, like you and me, baby, should we get married? I mean, you know, what do you want to do?

(41:52) So when I say close contact, it's close contact. It's not, you know, three feet away even. So respiratory secretions or droplets released when an infected person coughs, sneezes, speaks, or sings.

(42:19) So, and here we have Fauci saying, although incomplete, Fauci said the evidence so far is the fundamental basis for why we are now so intent on getting people, especially those without symptoms, to wear masks, to be able to see if we can mitigate against it.

(42:44) And he said there is not a lot. So Dr. Fauci says there is not a lot of solid evidence on airborne transmission of COVID. There is not a lot of solid evidence. Can we say no evidence? Yeah, no evidence of airborne transmission, but this is in a Fauci. I think it's a reasonable assumption that it does occur.

(43:13) We are working on assumptions here, folks. There's no science. There's no science that it's even transmitted. Now, all these things about masks, no mask, and does the mask shield against this particle, that particle, those were all thought in the lab. Those are not in vivo tests where you have a person with no mask and other people with no mask.

(44:02) The test is between the mask and no mask. Those tests are not being done. So just to be clear.

(44:21) So before World Health Organization guidance only acknowledged airborne transmission of the novel virus during specific medical procedures. If you have never been in an operating room, I'm telling you, you got to be there to believe it. They are sawing bones. They got high-pressure air devices, spraying this, spraying there. I mean, dispersing stuff everywhere. So it's a highly contagious contaminated environment. It is nothing like walking down a street, let's say.

(45:00) So if you're in an operating room and they're doing surgery, they have an electrode where they're burning, frying blood vessels. So you have the smoke or fried blood in the air. You have the dissemination of cut aerosolized body parts. It's a mess. It is a mess, just saying.

(45:34) So they don't have the research to say, and let me give you a date on this, July 10th. As of July 10th, the World Health Organization did not have the research to determine if COVID-19 is even spread person to person in an aerosol fashion. So anything based on the aerosol spread of COVID-19, there's no research for it.

(46:03) Okay. So is it spread person to person right now? The evidence they have done suggests, well, it doesn't suggest, it indicates no. Is it causing death? Absolutely not. We can look at the geographic variation in the United States and see that 98% of the death is caused by whether you live in New York or New Jersey or Utah.

(46:40) It takes us back to medical school in 1979, where medical school students who are now doctors like myself, who are of retirement age, we were admonished, never allow the government to dictate compliance with any health regimen or codify any health practice into law. It would only be a tyrannical dictatorship.

(47:05) As scientific as all the medical information is, it should never be codified into law as 50% of all medical research is false at the time it is published. And it's false to defraud just the political nature of human beings and funding. Therefore, every person should have the freedom to decide what the risk is and what action they want to take.

(47:56) The role of government and of doctors should be only to inform and advise. Now, this kind of began with children. We have parents who were smokers and kids with asthma. And so we were told as medical students, those kids have asthma, their smoking parents are killing them, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, are endangering them.

(48:00) And so, of course, we enthusiastic students said, wow, well, shouldn't child protectors just take those kids away from those parents? And shouldn't they be raised? And wouldn't they be better off if they were just in the hospital 24/7? Whoa, the professor said, whoa, whoa, calm down. No, no, no, no, no.

(48:12) And the professors even went so far to say it's that experiment has been done, that those kids are better off in the homes with their smoking parents, with their cigarette-smoking parents. They are safer, they are healthier, and they have better lives than they would have either in foster care or in a hospital. And so it is with COVID positivity as well.

(48:43) But again, back in '79, there was enough restraint that the medical profession actually restrained itself and said, we will not allow ourselves to be used in that manner as a tool to undermine parents to that degree. Now we undermine parents in other areas, but when it came down to that, like now, cigarette-smoking parents, asthmatic kid, don't touch it.

(49:01) Now, if 98% of all COVID deaths is location dependent, not virus dependent, then the important thing to figure out is where you're located. And an even better thing to figure out is what are the practices going on in New York and New Jersey that are not happening in Utah that are creating this death disparity. So that would be the thing to look at.

(49:51) The infection rate for the virus, irrelevant. How is it transmitted? Irrelevant, because it's not new or it's not causing any deaths. So there's something else causing those deaths. It is not the virus because in a case where the presence of the virus is held steady, it's a constant. We see all kinds of variations in the death rate.

(50:10) And then you look at the overall death rate from positive tests and deaths. It is less than the death rate for just being alive. So there is death happening, but the death that's happening is not due to the virus. It may be acceptable. I don't know how to use that word.

(50:45) But if you understand that four per thousand is the death rate, overall death rate of the virus, even throwing in the 98% of the deaths are due to location only and not the virus. Now you have the death from the virus being just about zero, just about zero.

(51:11) Let's do that math. I'm talking about 0.004, which is four per thousand times 0.02, which is a 2%. 98% is not virus related, whether you're in New York or Utah. So the true death rate is at most eight per 10,000. Eight deaths per 10,000. This would have to be the immortality virus. Yeah, the immortality virus.

(51:49) So based on the math that we have all the data, it's right here. It's on the internet. This is New York Times and the Florida death rate.

(51:59) And my analysis, this might be worth listening to twice, but you need to do your analysis. You need to take a look at your situation and figure out what your problem is. What's your problem? If you're feeling perfectly healthy, then that's what you are, perfectly healthy. No need for a test to tell you that.

(52:23) But if you're having an economic situation, what you need to take a look at is, how do I navigate through and solve my economic problem? So you have to look at your situation dispassionately. I am focused on what your problem is and solve that going forward.

(52:43) In other words, what you really want to do is say, okay, I'm a human being where I'm here today in my life, wherever I am, and looking forward either a week, a month, a year, what do I want my life to look like? And how do I get there? That's it. Very, very, very simple. And again, I will repeat it.

(53:08) There is nothing new. The thing that is tested for in the COVID test is not dangerous. It is not spread person to person. It is not causing death. And you're not going to live forever. You're going to die of something.

(53:19) Even if they put COVID on your death certificate, the present death rate is at best four per thousand. And of that four per thousand, 98% of that is due to how you were treated, not the presence of the virus. And government enforcing rules governing micromanaging your behavior has never been shown, never been shown to improve people's health.

(53:55) That is it. You are on your own. And where we go one, we do not go all. You're on your own. And I hate to say it, but it really is.

(54:05) Each person, I hate to say every person for themselves. It just sounds so negative. But your future is going to be determined by what you do, not what your neighbor does. It's going to be determined by whether or not you do certain things. And you know what you have to do because you know what your goals are.

(54:22) But whether your neighbor wears a mask, doesn't wear a mask, social distances, doesn't have social distance, has nothing to do with whether you die prematurely in the present situation. Because whether you die prematurely has to do with something other than the virus.

(54:42) We know that because the death rate in one place is 50 times more than what it is in another place. In people who test positive. So there you go. There you have it.

(55:08) And that brings us to question... Oh wait, I'm getting better with my technology. I think this is the one. Yay. Okay.

(55:21) Abe sends a question in. Abe says, Hi, my name is Abe. I've been referred to you by an old patient of yours from Syracuse in Europe. That's more than 20 years ago. I'm reaching out because I'm in severe pain, and my doctor has been unable to help me. It is pain from multiple recurrent mouth ulcers that show up and stay for two weeks. The doctor gives me steroids almost immediately, and then that makes me sick in other ways. And then it just keeps going on and on and on.

(55:58) So I've quit using a vaporizer. I've lost 35 pounds on some drastic diet. I've submitted to a lot of blood tests, all negative. And I have been scheduled for a colonoscopy. Those of you who don't know what that is, this person is having sores in their mouth, and they have agreed to allow a doctor to put a tube up their butt to figure out what might be going on in their mouth.

(56:36) If you have any idea what could be the problem, how I could treat this issue, I would be eternally grateful. All right, Abe, this is going to be a lot for you to swallow, but you are the problem. Your faith in these doctors who are torturing you is, is really, uh, well, it's admirable, of course, but if you have sores in your mouth and someone says, uh, let me take some chains and whip you across your back. And I think we'll get to the bottom of it. It's not a good idea.

(57:01) And so there's no way putting a tube up your butt is going to reveal what's wrong with your mouth. That's number one. So I say, if you haven't already skipped a tube up your butt, the colonoscopy is not going to show anything. 35 pounds that you've lost. You've got to understand that if you're doing something and you have not got better, then you're not doing the right thing. So like it's a huge personal responsibility thing here.

(57:38) So, uh, yeah. So probably Abe, to get to the bottom of this and sort out everything, you probably need an appointment and you go to vitalitycapsules.com for that. But let me suggest that you stop, at least stop the, uh, torture. Vitalitycapsules.com and click on appointment.

(58:00) Jonathan says, Is your weekly video being removed? Yes, Jonathan. If so, are they posted elsewhere? Yes, Jonathan. You can find my videos on Vimeo.

(58:20) Lorraine says, My partner, so not Lorraine, Lorraine's partner, has had constipation for 10 weeks. Ouch. He's been told that he has a blockage just above the entrance to the anus. Doctor doesn't appear to be too concerned that he is in pain constantly and not able to open his bowels. He's tried everything. What would you suggest, please?

(58:44) Vitality Capsules. In fact, get the extra strength. Go to vitalitycapsules.com, get extra strength, get the three-bottle package. The per bottle price is less expensive that way. Also, he's got to increase his hydration, drink a lot more water, and drink less of whatever other beverages he might be drinking. That actually is to solve his problem, Lorraine. Okay.

(59:00) Maja says, Dear Dr. Daniels, can you help me? I am so sick. I think I have mold, bacteria, and leaky gut. Cannot eat without making so much ammonia in my body and it is killing me. My doctor in Denmark can't find anything.

(59:36) Hmm. Okay. So again, if the doctor can't find anything, cease and desist. Not to say you're healthy, just to say he can't help you. Right.

(59:45) So, you're in Denmark. I think I passed through Denmark one time on the way over. So, Maja, I'm going to take a stab in the dark guess that you're drinking dairy. I would say stop, stop your dairy and eat some liver, uh, chicken liver, four to eight ounces. I would say at least once a week, possibly more.

(1:00:14) That is going to, uh, get your eating better. The first thing is to stop the dairy. And if you have any fermented products, um, stop those fermented products as well. And as always, appointments at vitalitycapsules.com.

(1:00:42) Marsalette says, Could the C virus be in tap water? Since it has malarial symptoms and antimalarials work against it, could it be in tap water?

(1:01:13) So, to be really honest with you, I have settled that question in my life a long time ago by switching to distilled water. What this means is all of my water is boiled and filtered. So, if there is a microbe being transmitted by water, guess what? I won't be getting it. I suggest you do the same. Just switch to distilled water.

(1:01:23) Um, there are so many, um, things being, um, transmitted by tap water. It's alarming that in a country, we'll call it United States, first-world country, that there are so many people dying from the water. Um, the thing that really hit me hard in terms of my understanding of how unsafe the water was, was in the 1990s. I was in medical practice and, um, there were these people with compromised immune systems and they were dropping dead like flies. And they were dropping dead from cryptosporidium. And it was determined that the cryptosporidium was in the water. It was a normal contaminant, uh, in New York state water, which was not being filtered at the time.

(1:02:09) New York state started filtering this water and no more cryptosporidium deaths. And to me, this was just unimaginable. How could a municipality be getting water out the ground and not even filtering it? So, what we believe about our tap water is actually usually not true, just simply not true. So, switch to distilled water and you don't need to worry about the coronavirus or cryptosporidium, um, or even the, um, virus that causes stomach ulcers. Okay.

(1:03:00) Patty says, I believe there is a consciousness to candida that creates the cravings for foods that feed it. Of course, I'm taking vitality capsules regularly, but not the turpentine because I've been unable to make it through a day without some sort of minimal sugar or grain. Would daily turpentine help me get over the cravings?

(1:03:38) Absolutely. So, as long as you're pooping three times a day and drinking plenty of water, um, you should do just fine with the, uh, with turpentine. Okay. That is it. That covers our questions. Actually, it doesn't cover our questions. We have a lot more questions, but we're out of time. So, we will see you again in the future.

(1:04:00) And, as always, think, happens, and remember, you're on your own. Will we go one? We do not go all, and only you can decide where you're going.