Who is testing the tests

Hi, this is Dr. Daniels and you're listening to Healing with Dr. Daniels. This is the Sunday, August 2nd edition, and boy have we got a show for you. Today's topic is who is testing the test? So today I'm going to follow the testing trail and see where it leads. As always, think happens.

One question people used to ask me, and I was just always puzzled at this question, but now with this present situation, I'm getting a better understanding of it. How do we know? How do we know? And of course, they complete the sentence with "How do we know what to believe?" That is the wrong question because the answer is: believe nothing. I mean nothing. But the question then, if we don't want to know what to believe because now we know to believe nothing, is: how do we know? And then, how do you know that something is what it's represented as being? So that's really what we're going to kind of get to the crux of today, but first, we have to take our turpentine.

Got our sugar. My label is worn off, but it's white sugar, and then we have our turpentine. Yeah, I didn't get all the letters in there, but it is so important to label your turpentine so other people don't accidentally swig it down and drink it.

When you take a proper dose or a small dose, it's actually literally a miracle. I'm 63, and I'm telling you, this is the fountain of youth, or at least that's what I've found. All right, so why am I working with this pipette like this? Well, it turns out that from the tip all the way up to here, the neck is a half a teaspoon, and that's the amount that I try to take every day. Honestly, I miss about one or two days a week, but it still works out. I feel great. A little bit of sugar falling off is not a problem. A little bit of water. A little more water. Yay.

All right, that's turpentine sugar. Now we have Shilajit. Yeah, Shilajit. If you can keep your Shilajit bottle clean, you are awesome. So I live where it's pretty darn hot all the time. Temperature outdoors right now is 91, and so this is quite, quite soft. Those of you in colder climates might find that it's a little stiffer. All right, so here we have our remaining water. This goes in, and as you can see, it does not easily dissolve. So we're just gonna let it sit here. Check that later and we're gonna clean up this. Put the top on that. Yay.

All right, so back to "how do we know?" Oh, wait, Shilajit. Shilajit is an awesome trace mineral material, and they just scoop it right out of the ground, slap it in a little jug there, and send it to you. Yep, unprocessed. But it's the result of centuries of decomposed matter that has resulted in an ultra-high mineral concentration with a profile that is especially nourishing to the regeneration of life. Some countries call Shilajit the "destroyer of weakness," and it has many other amazing names because it really is great. So Shilajit helps build you up, and the turpentine helps run out all the bad guys. For information on this, you can go to vitalitycapsules.com and get your free report, the Candida Cleaner, which tells you everything you'd ever want to know about turpentine.

All right, so moving right along. How do we know? Well, first I want to give an example of just in everyday life, like how do we know? And then I want to move into medicine. So in medical school, what did they tell us medical students, future doctors, about how do we know? And then we'll take a look at the present situation. So let's just say when a crime is committed, we have to establish the presence of the perpetrator and that the perpetrator was alive and capable of the crime. And that's the minimum. So if the person was alive and capable of the crime, which is basically they were alive and that they were there, that still does not mean they committed the crime. But at least they must be present and alive.

Let's just go for those two things. The third thing, which is "Did they commit the crime?" is still actually not established. But let's just say for the sake of our present environment, it is now July 2020. How do we know? So let's go for the human example. So let's just say an apple is stolen from a store. We have to establish the suspect was present and was alive. So if the suspect was present, but it's a dead body laying on the ground, then they probably did not take the apple. Okay, we know that. So only then can one establish if the suspect committed the crime.

So two things have to be present and alive. So, I mean, for example, if the person was in the packaged food aisle at the time of the crime or the act, or the camera shows they never entered that part of the store, then they couldn't have committed the crime. You get the idea. So it's the same with microorganisms, only it's on the microscopic level. So there's a little bit of abstract thinking, and so there's an opportunity for obfuscation. What does that mean? That means confusion and deception. So you're in luck. I went to medical school, and so I'm going to tell you in medical school what they told us about how we know if an organism is, uh, if a person even has an organism.

And so how did we figure it out? The gold standard. That's what they said in medical school. The gold standard. And yep, just like money, there is a gold standard. So let's take a look and see. So I started with the test. The test itself. And did I go to some alternative conspiracy theory website? Um, I went to the FDA. Yep, FDA. Now this says EUA authorized serology test performance.

And so basically, it says serology tests detect the presence of antibodies in the blood when the body is responding to a specific infection like COVID-19. So they're talking about antibody tests. In other words, the tests detect the body's immune response to the infection caused by the virus rather than detecting the virus itself. Okay, so the presently used tests do not detect the virus. It detects antibodies.

What's an antibody? I went to medical school. I had this top-of-mind definition. It is a protein manufactured by a human. It is not a protein manufactured by the antibody. For example, if you have someone who's committed a crime and a strand of their hair remains at the site, or if there's some semen as there always seems to be in these detective things, those things were produced by the individual, by the suspect. So in this case, a protein not even produced by the suspect is what's being measured.

So we already have a little bit of a slip here, right. So for example, let's say you have a situation where someone breaks into your home and they leave and maybe they take something with them, but then you say to yourself, "Huh, I'm going to put some extra locks on the doors." Of course, there's extra locks on the doors, but can we attribute those locks to the robber? Of course not. He didn't have anything to do with the locks. He didn't put the locks on the door. Nothing to do with him, and you might put locks on the door in response to many different robberies. It doesn't indicate in any way the identity of the robber.

Now you could say, "Well, this robber was this, so I'm going to put that kind of lock or the other kind of lock," but you can see that there's not a lot of specificity. There's a little bit of a slip, all right. Okay, and another person might decide, "No lock on my door. I'm getting the gun. I'm loading it." So responses are different. Another way of looking at it is again you have your house. You're defending your house. Think of it as your body. Someone, a robber, might come, and they'll make a lot of noise and honk a horn or something, air horn, and the robber will run away. To then go to that house and say, "Hmm, there's an air horn. There must have been a robber," and then you attempt to draw conclusions about the perpetrator based on the reaction of the homeowner.

So this is what we're talking about. These are antibody tests. Okay, so in the early days of an infection, when the body's immune response is still building, antibodies may not be detected. This limits the test's effectiveness for diagnosing COVID-19, and this is one reason serology tests should not be used as a sole basis to diagnose COVID-19. Whoa, so in other words, if an antibody test is positive, that is not enough to diagnose COVID-19.

All right, so let's fast forward and see what else they've got to say first. Well, they're using samples from people confirmed to have antibodies present, and they're using those antibodies to validate other serology tests. So in other words, we have a person who has symptoms, let's say symptomatic, and they have a positive antibody test. Their antibodies are now used to calibrate other antibody tests. Now remember, we still have not got the virus in any level involved in this testing. Okay, so these estimates of sensitivity and specificity—for the sake of discussion, you don't even need to know those terms—we'll call it accuracy. It's just that—estimates. So these are estimates. In other words, the accuracy is...can we do this? Shoulder shrug. Let's solve that together. Shoulder shrug.

Okay, so the FDA says the accuracy of the tests are estimates. Okay, they include 95 percent confidence intervals. Now this you need to understand. So some things you can say, "Well, I'm 95 percent confident that it's between here and here." Other things you say, "I'm 95 percent confident that it's between here and here." Like, so you can have a wide range or narrow range. Narrow range, wide range. Wide range obviously is like, "Hmm, that's not a very accurate measurement." Okay, so you get the idea. Tests are also described by their positive and negative predictive values. Now we're talking. Now we're talking. So we really want to know: is a positive predictive value. That's the probability that if a test is positive, the person actually has the disease that you're looking for. Again, we have not yet involved the virus in this process.

So every test returns some false positives and false negative results. Whoa. So if the test determines—shows false positives and false negative results, how do we determine which of the positives are false positives? There's a question. Okay, because all tests will return some false positives and some false negatives, including tests that detect antibodies. Broad use of the test, when not appropriately informed by other relevant information such as clinical history or diagnostic test results, could identify too many false positive individuals. In other words, if you have an antibody test and it's positive but you have no symptoms or history of disease, then that's a false positive. That's what this is saying. So 80% of the people in the United States who tested positive for this COVID and have never had symptoms, those are all false positives.

We do not currently know the prevalence of antibody-positive individuals in the United States population. Again, that's prevalence of antibody-positive individuals. Now they are saying SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positive individuals. That's a very—this is an important nuance. So what is going on here is antibodies are being detected, but maybe they're not SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Don't know. Moreover, prevalence may vary widely between locations and between different groups of people, such as healthcare workers, due to different rates of infection. Now they've done these tests, by the way. Did you know that healthcare workers have a lower prevalence of COVID antibodies than the general public? How can that be when they have a higher exposure rate? Wait. So here we go.

They're going to help us out with this. For this page, the FDA has summarized the expected performance of the tests it has authorized based on the information FDA reviewed when deciding whether or not to grant these tests an emergency use authorization. This is important, and they've assumed a prevalence of five percent in order for their calculation. So to calculate positive predictive value, you need to understand what the true frequency is in the population, and they don't know that. So they just pulled it out of the air, made it up, and this is important because it's going to affect the final numbers, but that's okay. We're going to believe in it. Faith. Yes. Faith. Okay. As you will see, if we look at these data, we don't need faith because the doubt is already introduced by the data.

All right. So this is the Abbott Alinity test, and the only thing that we care about is a positive predictive value. If it says you've got it, do you got it? And they have a 95% confidence range, which is pretty broad. So for the sake of protecting the public, we're going to take the lower end of that confidence range. Are you ready for this? Drum roll. Drum roll. If you get this test done and it says you have COVID antibodies, the probability of you actually having it is 46.7 percent, and the FDA approved this test. Hey, I kid you not. This is the FDA website. I don't make this up. Abbott has another test. Its positive predictive value is 83 percent. Remember, this is being calibrated based on antibodies from a person they believe had COVID, and that person—the virus was never isolated from their body.

Okay. So right now we don't really have, like, a direct link to the virus. All right. This one is—uh, what is that PPV? Oh. AssureTech 40.9 percent. So if this test says you've got COVID antibodies, there is a 40.9 percent. We'll round it up to 41 percent. 41 percent chance that you actually have it. In other words, a 60 percent chance that you don't have it. So this test actually has a negative predictive value. So if it says you have antibodies, chances are more likely than not that you don't. Okay. But it's been approved by the FDA to be used as a test. So you can see here then, if we use this particular test, it's going to inflate the positives by two and a half fold. Just saying. It continues to stay pretty good here. We have an Autobio test. 64.6 percent positive predictive value. We have a Babson Diagnostics. 55.7 percent predictive value. We got Beckman Coulter. They are really high. Their predictive value is 85.2 percent. Then we have Beijing Wantai Biological Pharmacy Enterprise. 40.9 percent. You're getting the idea here. These are all pretty darn low.

So I said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, this is—this is not good. You can't have an epidemic with a test that inflates the number infected by two and a half fold. Why, that would suggest that there was never even a first wave. But wait, let's dig deeper." I said, "Well, wait a minute. Well, this is The Guardian. So it says, 'How accurate are antibody tests and is it worth getting one?' And so, well, we're gonna—we're gonna take another step. We're gonna go for the National Science." Okay, so here we have—oh, this is my favorite. Okay, this is the National Science Institute Bookshelf. This is screening for—now this is—this is an analogy. So you just need to understand what is—what's going on here. So how do we know if an antibody test is accurate? The answer is we do a PCR test.

Well, what the heck is a PCR test? Well, a PCR test is a DNA genetic amplification test. And that's how we calibrate these things to be accurate. And so let's take a look and see what they say about these tests. Okay, a note about the performance measures calculated. In some cases, there may be minor differences between the numbers on this page and those in the package insert. Confidence intervals for sensitivity and specificity that appear on this page were calculated per a score method described in another manual. Confidence intervals for positive predictive value were calculated using the values for 95 percent confidence intervals for sensitivity and specificity. Okay. Now what then happens to me is—is really shocking. Okay, so I said, "Well, let's take a look at the DNA test because this antibody test is like really bad."

So the DNA test is considered to be the gold standard. So I went and looked up, like, what is the gold standard. The gold standard is the most accurate available test. Now in medical school, they were very, very clear about this—that the organism which is causing the illness must be isolated. That means if you have a person who is sick, you should be able to find that organism that's making them sick in their body. The actual organism, not a piece of the organism, not a strand of hair, not a fingernail. The whole organism—one whole organism needs to be there. It needs to be isolated. Okay. Then, in order to establish it has the ability to cause disease, it then gets put in culture. And they've studied these organisms. They know it's their favorite culture, their favorite temperature, their favorite food, their favorite humidity, and they grow it in these circumstances. They have blood agar, they have serum agar, they have all kinds of special food they feed the suspected organism, and they always feed it its best and favorite food. So we take COVID, and we give it its best and favorite food. Got that. Next, they give it its favorite temperature, which we know what that would be, right? Body temperature, if it likes people. And then it gives it its favorite humidity and lets it grow, and then it has to have babies, babies, babies, and yay, that lets us know that it was alive and it was present. It does not give us any evidence that it caused the infection. So we know it's alive and present.

Okay, so diagnostic accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests for screening for—in this case chlamydia, but again, this is the best we could find, so we're going to check it out. But the thing here to take a look at—so the definition of a positive screening test. So it's a positive result for more than one specimen in both urethral swab and at two sites. So in other words, even with the gold standard, and now we're taking a DNA fragment of what we're trying to identify, it takes two specimens at two different sites to be positive in order to get a positive. So none of these, using the DNA amplification, which is an even higher level than the antibody test, none of these rely on just one specimen. And even this one says you need more than two specimens. Every last one relies on at least two specimens, if not three.

And so if the PCR test is what they're doing here, the next question is—and the PCR test, we still have not got to the level of the virus. So I said, "Well, okay, so PCR—the PCR test, which is—you get a piece of DNA, and you amplify it, amplify it, amplify it, and eventually get enough of it. How do we know that that's accurate? What's our gold standard for that?" So it says reference standard, which is gold standard, and it says TMA and SDA. What's a TMA? Well, it turns out that these acronyms are just too much. So they even have, thank God, a key at the bottom of the page saying what those abbreviations are. I tried to look up this thing, and I got a lot of really outrageous, like, government agencies and stuff. So the TMA is a transcription-mediated amplification. Well, wait a minute, that's a PCR test. So using a PCR test to test a PCR test, not a gold standard.

That's like me using a mercury thermometer, or more precisely, I have an alcohol thermometer. I'm using an alcohol thermometer to calibrate an alcohol thermometer. That makes no sense. At least use a mercury thermometer to calibrate the alcohol thermometer. So basically, this is circular confirmation or circular accuracy determination. So that's like me asking you a question, and you give me an answer. In order to determine how accurate it is, I'll ask you if you're telling the truth. So what are you going to tell me? Of course, you're going to tell me. So it doesn't give me any increased validity. Okay, but hey, there's hope. They use a TMA, which is just a transcription-mediated amplification. But wait, they use the SDA. What's the SDA? Here it says it's a strand displacement assay. Strand is DNA. Displacement means you move the DNA. So we have to go look this up, right? Yeah, stick with me here. Strand displacement is what? It's DNA detection by strand displacement amplification.

Another PCR method. So using a PCR method to test a PCR method. How long do you have on this one? How accurate is strand displacement amplification? How accurate is it? This is where we have, you know, the game show where you have to do music. Write down how accurate you think it is. Just any number. Pull a number. It's got to be between zero and a hundred. How accurate is it? The sensitivity, which means its ability to detect what it says it's detecting, is between zero percent and fifty percent compared with culture. And culture is what I described before, which is you isolate the virus, put it in its favorite environment, give it its favorite food, feed it, and see if it has babies. If it has babies, yay, it's there. If you do a strand displacement test on the same specimen you got the virus from, and you did indeed isolate the virus, the actual test is going to say yes anywhere from zero percent of the time to fifty-five percent of the time. And this is the test being used to calibrate PCR.

But wait. So then I said, "So now we're getting some gold standards that are pretty flimsy. Pretty flimsy. Yeah, diagnostic value of the strand displacement amplification method compared to culture for detecting, in this case, tuberculosis." Again, COVID is too early on in the game, so we don't have the ability to do that. Okay, so sensitivity here, 82 percent, but again, now we have specificity issues. So yes, it can detect what's there, but does it also detect a whole bunch of other crap too? And we see here because the sensitivity is—well, they don't give us the specificity, so we can't even go backwards to calculate this. But what we know is this has an accuracy rate at or even less than the tests authorized by the FDA because they have these numbers here, you know, 80 percent, whatever. So that's—the SDA is not looking too good.

But wait, now we have the NAAT. So the FDA site says, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, we have the NAAT." So our next question, well, okay, what's the NAAT? So it turns out that the NAAT is a nucleic acid—that's DNA, excuse me—amplification test. More PCR, more amplification. So what they are saying here—result and interpretation. So it's very—so what we have then is we have one imprecise test of the same category and type to interpret another inaccurate type. So what we're looking at here is when we have a test where the FDA—this is FDA talking—the FDA has determined that the positive predictive value is, say, 40 percent. They are using standards that are even less accurate. So scientific evidence—we know what scientific evidence is. Scientific evidence is: you have a culprit, call it a suspect. In this case, it's called a virus, COVID-19. Has it been isolated at the site of infection? No. So the presence has not been established, and if the presence is established, has it been established that the virus is even alive and capable of doing anything at all? The answer is no.

So we have at this moment in time no scientific evidence that a virus is present in anyone tested for antibodies. In fact, even in anyone tested for PCR because all these—the antibody test only tests for human-made proteins, number one. Number two, again, the accuracy—as I'm calling it accuracy because that's the common term in conversation—that is not—there's a different scientific meaning of accuracy, right, which is not the same as the meaning when we are talking. So when you ask me, "Is a test accurate?" what you really want to know is if you get a positive result, what are the chances that you really have the disease? That's what you really want to know. And so, with our present testing methods, the answer is: we don't know. And yes, there's a probability that it's zero. So that's the antibody test.

The next thing is: what about the PCR test, which has DNA fragments that it measures? Again, even when you're looking for a dog, you can't use the dog's excrement, call it dog poop, as evidence that the dog was there and that the dog bit someone. All right, this is not going to work. A dog could have pooped there a week ago or a few days ago, and the person walked by, and maybe they sustained an injury, but the dog, of course, is long gone. So that's the reality of the PCR test—that it does not indicate, although it does purport—the word is pretend—to measure DNA from the virus. It's a very small fragment of the DNA from the virus, and that fragment does not mean that the virus is present here, now, and today, which would be a necessary condition to then deduce that it was causing any illness. So we have zero evidence that the virus causes any illness, and we don't even have probable evidence of its presence. So all the PCR testing—and this has been a discussion in the medical literature—these viral fragments can be just random viral fragments that have nothing to do and have no indication as to whether the virus is there today while the person is ill, and then it certainly can't even give any information about causality.

So presently, in our present situation, we have no evidence that a virus is causing it, number one. Number two, we don't even have evidence the virus is present. So this explains why a concerned testing center—I believe in Texas—tested the tests and found them to be less than accurate. Why? Well, the FDA is authorizing tests that it says are 40 percent accurate using data, of course, provided by the folks who make the tests. And then recently, the FDA even said, "Just start selling tests. We don't need to certify them." And their certification was loose enough, so this is why the tests are being found to be totally inaccurate. And using tests that are 20 percent accurate, we can easily explain the second wave again, even if the antibody tests were 100 percent accurate.

They're not being calibrated to the presence of the virus, so the antibody tests in no way indicate the virus is present. And again, it's being calibrated—each test is being calibrated to another test, to another test, to another test. It's kind of like having a double-blind controlled trial and using Benadryl, which is a drug known to cause drowsiness, as a placebo to prove the drug in question—this being compared to—does not cause drowsiness. Well, you're not going to get an accurate read because what you're using as a comparison standard, in this case, Benadryl, is not a neutral standard. Or, rating the flavor of New York cheesecake using an apple pie as a comparison standard—it's not going to work out. So when a false standard for comparison is being used, the results are false, always. And so, what we have going on with the COVID testing is fundamentally a false, fake standard is being used. A fake standard is not capable of communicating the information people believe they're receiving. So people believe when they get a COVID test that they are receiving information that, one, they have been infected with the virus, and two, they might be able to transmit that virus, when actually the test doesn't indicate that at all. It has not been designed to.

So according to scientific rules of evidence, there is no evidence of a virus. So the scientific rules of evidence have been suspended. Suspended. Yes, it's like in court when the rules of evidence are suspended, you start admitting hearsay and all kinds of crazy stuff to create this pandemic. And so, that would explain totally why this week is mass, next week is no mass. This week, it's social distancing, next week it's not. This week, it's lockdown, no, it's not. The virus only spreads when you're protesting this and not protesting that. So of course, once you realize that the rules of evidence have been suspended, then it makes a lot of sense.

So what should you do? Well, I don't know what you're gonna do, and I think you should do whatever you want to do, but let me tell you what I think the data indicates. The data indicates that you should move along. Move along. Don't loiter in the COVID-19 parlor. Live your life and ignore any recommendations based on the presence of a virus. Any information you receive based on the presence of a virus should be ignored. Why? Because there's no evidence a virus is present. Vaccine? Forget about it. Herbal or pharmaceutical remedy? Forget about it. Are people sick? Of course they are. It's just not a virus. There are those who believe it's 5G, but even if you believe it is 5G, that's not a virus. And the protection against that would not be hand washing; it would not be distancing; it wouldn't be quarantine. There are those who believe it's air pollution, but even if you do believe it's air pollution, again, it's not a virus, and social distancing and quarantining yourself in your house and washing your hands is not going to protect you from air pollution.

So whatever it is, it is not a virus. You can explore other possibilities, but one thing we do know epidemiologically—in other words, who is dropping dead—people who are in government custody are dropping dead. So that means you need to avoid government custody. Very important. So what government custody am I talking about? Well, nursing homes—those are all government-certified, controlled facilities. Hospitals—government-controlled, certified facilities. Emergency rooms—government-controlled, certified facilities. So this raises the other question: Is it safe to send your kids back to school in the fall? I would say absolutely not. Why? It's a government-controlled facility. Simple. And even the zero to one-year-old, major drop in death rates. Why? Mothers are not taking their child to their well-baby visits, and those kids, apparently, thousands are now alive because they did not have control—I mean access rather—to government-controlled facility or government-controlled healthcare.

So take precautions that address whatever you think might be the cause, but I'm just saying it ain't a virus, and it ain't contagious. That much we absolutely know. How do we know it's not contagious? Well, some people—unauthorized people—did a study. So there's two studies that give us information. One study is Wuhan, China. Yay, Wuhan. They had an asymptomatic person who tested positive for the virus. He was exposed to 455 people. Not one, not one, developed a positive COVID test. Okay, that's one case.

Then we had two symptomatic and COVID-positive hairdressers who decided to go to work, and they had 155 clients, and nobody, nobody caught it. Now the hairdressers and the clients were all wearing masks. However, the point is: social distancing, not done, no transmission; quarantine, not done, no transmission; small business open, no transmission. So you can mask up if you think you want to do that—that's fine—but the point is this condition—there is no evidence of person-to-person spread. In other words, in cases where they have checked—now we have a case—30 residents went to a party, and they all turned up positive. Excuse me, were any of the residents COVID tested before the party and after the party? Okay, that'd be one measure. Nope, that wasn't done. Well, were any of the patients who came in contact with those residents—did they convert? No, they didn't. None of the patients and none of the co-workers. So again, this is not a highly contagious situation.

So only your actions determine your health and your outcome in this one. Mask, hand washing, distancing, quarantine, vaccine, medications—all irrelevant. So that should give you a starting point for your search. We've eliminated a lot of places you don't need to look. Don't need to look for masking. So masks—get the flimsiest mask you possibly can. I don't have my mask—my mask has tons of holes so I can breathe freely. So if I have to wear a mask, I can pull it out of my pocket and put it on, and it has lots of holes so I can breathe. Hand washing—I don't wash my hands any more than I ordinarily would, which is as little as possible because I love beautiful skin and I don't want hand washing to mar my complexion. Quarantine, social distancing—I don't bother. Vaccine—I'm afraid of needles, haven't had one in a while, don't plan to. Medications—not druggy, even over-the-counter stuff, forget it. And all these are irrelevant to the present situation. Again, there is no scientific evidence of the virus.

If the virus was present—especially, you know, this has been going on for quite a few months. Why don't we just say February, March, April, May, June, July—six months, and we have no evidence of the virus. None. So just to let you know how totally bogus this thing is—it's been going on for seven months, and those of you who have been watching the— I try not to—there have been clinical guidelines your doctor is getting, right? So I—I looked this up: clinical guidelines for COVID-19. This is what your doctor is being told to do. But here's the deal—these guidelines have not been updated since April 29th, 2020. Really? If there's a fast-moving epidemic that's changing from month to month, don't you think somebody would tell your doctor? Don't you think they'd update the guidelines from April 29th? That's no update for May 29th, June 29th, July 29th—three months, no updates, no change in what your doctor is being recommended. Still recommending deadly ventilators, so your doctor is not even being updated.

So here we have guidelines—this is the Infectious Disease Society of America, ISDA. And Infectious Disease Society—they should be in charge of this, right? We're not experts. Guidelines for management—consensus statement on chest x-rays, guidelines on breast cancer, radiation therapy during COVID, managing newborns of mothers with COVID, guidelines on hypoxic COVID-19 patients, lung ultrasound and COVID-19, enforcement policy for sterilizers, disinfecting devices, and air purifiers, OSHA guidance on preparing the workplace for COVID-19. Again, none of these have been updated since April 29th, and some of them not even since April 7th and March 25th. Even guidance on containing the spread of COVID has not been updated since March 23rd. And we've been getting conflicting changes in what citizens ought to do—quarantine, no quarantine, social distance, small gatherings okay, no restaurants, restaurants with masks, take your mask off while you eat but not while you walk to your table. So we've done all these different changes in guidelines, but there's been no change in instruction to your doctor. Why is that? Again, because there's no scientific basis for any of it because there's no evidence the virus even exists.

Yeah, some people say, "Well, Dr. Daniels, what about this hydroxychloroquine thing?" Just because giving a drug is helpful does not mean a virus is present. You know, there are a lot of sinister things one can hypothesize, but the most benign thing is that people are sick, the illness is mild, it is not contagious, and it is easily treated. What treatments? You can decide what you want about that, but the point is, all I'm trying to communicate is: there is no virus. Now you can do your own research and find out what you think the problem is—I have my own opinions—but the point is, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a virus. So based on presently available testing, the PCR test, and the antibody test, there is nothing to scientifically indicate that there is a virus active in people's bodies that is causing illness. In fact, we won't even go that far—they have not—they have failed to prove, one, the presence of the virus, and two, the ability of the virus—that the virus is even alive or able to exert an influence over the human body, this particular virus.

All right, that brings us to the questions.

Okay, so here we are. This person says, "I work a nice job that I truly do love. However, the company is starting to get paranoid with all the COVID hype, and they're asking us to get more strict with mask requirements, even though I don't agree. Watch for this—I have played along and asked people to wear a mask just because so I don't lose my job." Okay, we're with you. "And the business does not get shut down. We have a cafe that's, I think, a restaurant, so it's necessary to act protective in the food industry. Although today they told us that each morning we check in, we had to scan our foreheads with an infrared temperature reader and write down our temperature. It feels very invasive, but I'm most worried about the possible effects of using one of those infrared thermometers. Obviously, people are overreacting, and I don't have to be in this environment, but any job right now will ask for similar things. My question for you, Dr. Daniels, is: do you think these thermometers are dangerous to use every day? And I like to say, what would Dr. Daniels do?" Okay, so there's a lot of things going on here. But first of all, at some point, somebody somewhere has got to stand up or sit down or lay down and just live their truth. So if you think that wearing a mask is not appropriate, then it's not appropriate for you to accept a job telling other people to wear a mask. The other thing to realize is maybe you don't need a job—maybe you just need a way to earn money. The two are not necessarily the same. So what I would say if it were me, I would quit the job. I certainly would not accept a job telling other people to wear masks.

And as for the infrared thermometer, definitely don't let them shine it in your eyes—that's, you know, this eye, that eye—in your eyes, because it can blind you, destroy your eyesight. However, on the actual skin, it's probably not of much harm. Now what they've done in Panama is they hit you with the beam on your neck, not your forehead. The brain is here, right? Problem. So they hit you with the beam on your neck. Now, with their checking the temperatures, I think the reason they're doing that is because people have been accidentally—the beam has hit them in the eye as the person is moving the thermometer towards the forehead. So now they're measuring it on the neck. So while you think of your strategy, your exit strategy, I would say, have them check your temperature on your neck. They can't object to that because it is a very warm part of your body. So I think there have been problems with people accidentally getting lasered in their eyes, and that can blind you, and it is not a good idea.

So Dr. Daniels, I want to know, why does the medical-industrial complex keep creating these epidemics? Dr. Daniels, you were so right on in one of your previous shows titled "The Next Epidemic." Thank you for being such a bright light in the midst of the darkness. Okay, so why does the medical-industrial complex keep creating these epidemics? It does not. The medical-industrial complex is not creating these epidemics. These epidemics are being created by people who want to control you and exploit your faith and belief in the medical-industrial complex. So the medical-industrial complex is just a tool, like a fork or a spoon or a hammer. That fork, the spoon, the hammer, does not get up and do stuff—there is someone behind it. And it's the same thing with the medical-industrial complex. The medical-industrial complex—individual people and as a whole—does not have free thought. And that's why at the beginning of this epidemic, doctors were told to shut up, to not speak to the media. They were told that they would be morally challenged. They were told that they would be asked to do things that were against their moral ethics, and this was before the first quarantine or shutdown. Doctors were warned of this. And so we have these doctors now who are speaking out, and apparently they did not get the memo, but we'll see how that goes. But the point is the medical-industrial complex does not act independently. With every good hoax, you need cooperation.

And we'll just take a look at the HIV hoax. In order for the HIV hoax to really work or even begin to work, the courts had to get in and hold people financially responsible for spreading HIV, even though we know that that's not possible. The insurance companies had to get in on it and agree to pay out life insurance policies while the person was alive if they were diagnosed with AIDS. So these epidemics, when they're launched, they put all their ducks in a row. You have to get the legal—the courts have to be in on it, the lawmakers have to be in on it, the hospitals, the insurance companies—everyone has got their marching orders, and it's a very top-down thing. So the medical-industrial complex is not creating these epidemics. The people who want to control you and rule you and enslave you are creating them. And again, they're taking advantage of your faith in the medical-industrial complex. And the only way for you to not be victimized by this is to simply eliminate your faith in the medical-industrial complex. You should treat the medical-industrial complex the same way you treat the six o'clock news. And if you're not that enlightened, then you should treat the medical-industrial complex the same way you treat the Easter Bunny.

Okay, this virus is airborne. How do we use the pure gum spirits with the virus being so aggressive? All right, so I say play this show back from the beginning. If the virus does not exist, then that would mean it's not airborne. Now the next question is, what's causing the illness airborne? So is what's causing the illness—is it air pollution? Is it rays or whatever? So I think what you need to do is take a look at what you think is the cause and take what you think is reasonable action. For example, I noticed in my home in the United States, it was a high-tech home. It had air conditioning, it had heating, it had central air controls, it had lights, outlets, all kinds of high-tech features. And oh, it had cell telephones. Back then it had home phones, and I had the cordless phone, but I noticed every time I picked up the cordless phone, I felt kind of weird—it didn't feel very good. So I got rid of the cordless phone. Similarly, if you feel that 5G is the issue, then you should relocate to a place that does not have 5G, just saying. Or eliminate or remove it from your life. Whatever you feel to be the issue, you need to take action to remove yourself from the hazard.

Now again, if we look at the epidemiology of the situation, all of these people dying—more than half have been in government custody. So that's, I think, the key: avoid government custody. Yes.

Okay, we are out of time, and as always, think happens. If you want to submit questions for our next episode, it's jdani@appointmentsvitalitycapsules.com. To purchase Vitality Capsules, the cleanser that is safe for everyday use, visit vitalitycapsules.com. Yay. Okay, we will see you next week. Until then, be healthy. For God’s sake, don’t be safe. Enjoy your life.