More Important Than Zero

(0:02 - 0:44)

Hi, this is Dr. Daniels, and you are watching Healing with Dr. Daniels. This is the Sunday, August 30th, 2020 edition. Our last episode, The Importance of Zero, got lots and lots of comments and lots of questions. So, this is a follow-up, and today's show is more important than zero. Syllogism. Yep, you can look that one up. So, this is, I'm telling you, you cannot, you just can't, you can't, can't make this stuff up. It's just too amazing.

(0:44 - 2:04)

Before we get into today's show, we must take our turpentine. Alrighty, we got a spoon, my favorite spoon, dessert spoon, you can pick your favorite spoon. And white sugar, there's nothing like white cane sugar granulated. And you want to get a nice spoonful here without chunks because you can choke on chunks. Alright, now I have a turpentine and you should always, always, always label your turpentine bottle. And we're gonna fill up our little pipette. My little pipette is 2.5 cc at the neck. And what we're gonna do is squirt the turpentine on the spoon, trying not to get any on my computer. Alrighty, down the hatch. A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

(2:04 - 3:18)

Alrighty, now we're gonna take our Shilajit. Yay! Okay, Shilajit, gooey, gooey, gooey. Because I live in the tropics, it's, yeah, 200 milligrams is the dose. And that's more or less 200 milligrams. And we're gonna put that right here in our glass. As you can see, it does not readily dissolve. So we're gonna let it sit a while, then drink it. Alright, so today what we're gonna do is we're gonna talk about Shilajit, then do an update on the situation, and then an update on my mother. Last time I forgot to give you the update on mom. I tell you it's a thrilling story, certainly like an adventure situation, if not a murder mystery in progress. Either way, we will definitely update that one.

(3:18 - 5:37)

Alright, so last show I looked at the importance of zero and its implications. So this study, which we're going to take a look at, was done by the World Health Organization, really the CDC, the CDC, Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Guangzhou, China. And this involved 3,410 close contacts of 391 COVID positive people between January and March. So it's over three months, and it involved, you know, more or less 3,800 people. So that's a lot. And in that study, they basically determined that the person-to-person contact spread, the person-to-person spread rate for asymptomatic people was zero. You can listen to my last show to explain the data, the interpretation, the different scientific conventions and mathematical manipulations. And the bottom line is, if you're not having symptoms, even if you are COVID positive, your ability to transmit it to other people is zero. Right. Now there are other studies showing up here, there, whatever, 10 people, 20 people. So this is the definitive study. So what I do for my shows is I stick to the main propaganda sources. I stick to, well, I'll say propaganda, but base numerical data sources. So what is the data that the World Health Organization has? What is the data that the CDC has? And I go from there. Now the rest, of course, I use my interpretation of it, but that is the data. So no, this is not based on any network news or social media news or anything like that. So everything that I'm telling you, numerically speaking, has been validated by the World Health Organization, the CDC, or writing ancillary syllogistic information that came from the National Institute of Health. And this is informed by my years in medical school. So in other words, because I went to medical school, I said, Hey, wait a minute. Uh-uh. They told us this in medical school, it doesn't match with what we're hearing today. Let me go check the NIH and see if there's been updates or changes. So that's kind of the reasoning process. So a lot of people say, well, Dr. Daniels, how do you analyze this data? Again, a lot of the analysis of the data is informed by understanding the mathematical conventions and definitions that were given in medical school, but are not included in the article. And then what happens is you have the spin doctors getting involved and spinning this in ways that are not consistent with the data and with what it says. So we're going back to the baseline data and analyzing simply that data.

(5:37 - 8:03)

Okay. So we're going to use the same article because there is so much information here. It's really shocking. And a lot of it, to give you a little bit of context, it's kind of what hit me and tying it in to my prior experience. Alright. So this was published August 14th, 2020, the risk of secondary COVID-19 transmission low in most settings. We figured out secondary means person to person transmission low means zero. I mean, just look, just lay it out there. Okay. So it is zero in most settings. However, the shocking thing here is they compared close contacts, but close contacts is not a very good way of looking at it. What makes much more sense is the location because all of us can say, okay, I'm here or I'm there. You can easily identify where you are, whether your contact is close, personal, intimate, you know, we get into all kinds of like vague definitions, but if we can narrow it down to location, like where were you, then it makes it super easy to say, okay, I'm here. What are my risks? I'm there. What are my risks? And then you can make a decision about, you know, where you want to go and how much time you want to spend there. So that would be the best way to go. So we handled the asymptomatic situation, but let's take a look at the location. Like where are you? And based on where you are, what is your risk?

(8:03 - 13:25)

Okay. So the important thing here to look at is we established that the risk for secondary infection, if you're asymptomatic is zero. What about location wise? There's only two places where person to person transmission is statistically greater than zero. So public transportation is zero. Household exposure is more or less 1%. Hospital exposure, 10.3%. So let's look at the 10.3% for hospital. I'm sorry, household contacts is 10.3%. We're going to look at the 10.3% exposure, not exposure, but contagion rate for household contacts. And we're going to look at the 1% exposure for a hospital setting. Okay. So there are two, so in medical schools, this is where syllogism comes in. So syllogism is reasoning or sorting things out by comparing three elements that have something in common. And so you compare something with three elements have something in common in order to make some type of conclusion. So what we're going to do here is the element in common is transmissibility rate. And the difference is hospital spread for COVID versus hospital spread for other organisms. And the case fatality rate for COVID versus case fatality rate for other hospital-based situations or infectious disease. So this is really super important. Now, give me some background. In medical school, we were taught that hospital acquired infections are so bad, they are so deadly, that the best thing you can do for your patient is to keep them out of the hospital. That's number one. Then if he absolutely has to go, minimize the time in the hospital and do as little as possible while he's in the hospital. Now, I did not understand this. Like, excuse me, I'm going to medical school to be a doctor to learn how to treat patients with drugs in the hospital. And you're telling me that the hospital itself is a separate, clear and present danger? Really? That's not right. So the question to ask in our syllogistic reasoning is, if somebody comes into the hospital, what is their probability of getting a hospital acquired infection? And once they have that infection, what's their probability of dying? Okay. And then we will make the same comparison with COVID. So we're going to say that as we have a hospital, the hospital has a basic level of deadliness. A certain number of people, because they've admitted to the hospital, are going to die. They're going to die. Not because of the illness. No, no, no, no, no. Just because they were admitted to the hospital. And what we want to really understand is, does COVID add to that risk? Or how does COVID risk compare to that risk? Alright. So that's what we're looking at.

(13:25 - 16:01)

Now it turns out that the COVID risk here is 1%. So healthcare setting, they don't say what a healthcare setting is, but I'm going to help and say it's a hospital. Okay. So their risk is 1%. So if you bring in a COVID person into the hospital and they, a hundred people, one person is going to get infected. One person is going to get infected. What if, or another way to look at it, is if you have a hospital that's filled with COVID, oh my gosh, and you bring in a hundred people to that setting filled with COVID, and then you bring them out, one of those people is going to be infected. So however you want to look at it, the infectivity rate is 1%. One in 100. The easier way to look at it, I think, and possibly more accurate, is if a person with COVID enters the hospital, he's going to infect. And he's expected, he was exposed to a hundred people. He's going to infect 1%. So 1% is the infectivity rate. Let's say you take a general, get this hospital test pool going on here, and you bring in a hundred people who are healthy. What percent are going to get a hospital-acquired infection? How about 10%? How about 5% to 10%? Let's call it 10%. So we have COVID that's only infective at the rate of 1%. But the average hospital infection rate with everything that goes on in a hospital is 10%. So let me give you a little just primer on this. So when you bring someone in the hospital, what do you do? You take off all their clothes and put on this gown. The person's basically naked. So now the skin is totally exposed. Then you take a needle and you puncture their skin here or in the hand. You stab them full of holes. Maybe they can put a needle up here, put a tube up their bladder. So you've invaded their immune system several different ways. This person is a sitting duck. I mean, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. This person is the easy target for infection. And COVID can only infect these people at a rate of 1%, not 10% like a regular hospital infection. Really? Yeah. One-tenth the infectivity rate. So once you get infected with COVID, then what's your death rate? I would have to honestly, unfortunately tell you it depends on where in the United States you are. If you are in New York, it's 98%. And if you are in Atlanta, Georgia, it is 2%. So let's just say, let's remove the geographic variability from it and it's 2%. So this 1% is going to get infected and of the 1%, 2% are going to die.

(16:01 - 18:01)

Alright, you with me? So now we've got another issue. I don't have a handy-dandy calculator here. So we've got the 1% and of that, 2% are going to die. So this is one or two per 10,000. So two per 10,000 is a death rate, hospital death rate for COVID. And I just want you to know that death rate is less than the death rate for a healthy person walking down the street. So actually if you're in a hospital and you're waiting to die from COVID, your chances of death will be less than if you were in perfect health. But let's see what the regular hospital death rate would be. So a person going to the hospital has a 10% chance of getting a hospital-acquired infection. And what is their chance of dying from that infection? I had to look this up in several cases, several different places. The number was so high. I just, I said, oh, they've got to be wrong. This can't be true. 31 to 38%. Let's take the 38% number. So basically is a four per 100 death rate or 380 per 10,000 compared to two per 10,000. Yeah, this is a shocking. So let's see what we get here. You're 190 times likely to die of just being in the hospital than you are to die of COVID. So a 190 fold difference. So what we have to say then is the hospital transmissibility rate or hospital fatality rate of COVID is zero. Two per 10,000 is a pretty low number. Now, the other thing to know about the hospital is the average hospital stays only four days. So if the hospital has a death rate of 38% every four days, holy cow, you could depopulate the planet just putting everyone in hospitals. I mean, just saying that if depopulation is truly your agenda, then putting people in hospitals is the best way to depopulate them.

(18:01 - 22:39)

Now, the other thing this brings up is if, so the question is how contagious really is COVID? The answer here would have to be zero, not at all contagious. You take the bug, put it in an opportunity, target rich environment, call it a healthcare setting, and it can't spread even as well as the average run of the mill hospital infection. So COVID, the virus, is less deadly than MRSA, an infection that people have been okay with in hospitals forever, even though it is deadly. Yes, a lot of people die. It's real. So we have to say that as far as hospital goes, hospital setting, the presence of COVID does not represent a significant additional risk above and beyond what is already in the hospital. So a person's chances of dying in a hospital, and according to this transmissibility data of 10%, and the death rate from COVID, we'd have to say it's not a measurable cause of death in hospitals. And even more shocking is that it represents the person's chances of dying from COVID in a hospital, this is just COVID, is less than had there been a healthy person walking down the street. So a healthy person walking down the street in the United States has a death rate, a death rate, of 0.9%. That would be nine per thousand, almost one percent, almost one per hundred. So we can only understand, excuse me, the hospital transmissibility rate by syllogism, by comparing it to transmissibility of other things in the hospital. And it is basically 190 times, 190 fold or 200 fold less contagious than your regular staff or other hospital-acquired infections. So this is shocking. One way to think of it, another way to think of it, is for every one person that might die of COVID, at least 190 people in the hospital die of another hospital-acquired infection. Now, if you look at it that way, certainly COVID would not be a reason to wear gloves or a mask or a gown or anything, or even isolation. It just doesn't have the ability to spread. Okay, so that's hospital settings. So with the person-to-person setting, asymptomatic, we've calculated out last episode, it is zero. And actually the number is zero. It's what the researchers came up with. And so we look at the hospital setting, and again, the spread rate is zero. But wait, that's one percent in the household. What about this 10% spread in the household setting? That's a pretty high number, 10%, I think. I mean, it's bigger than one percent, right? So let's take a look at that. And again, since I went to medical school, I have a context for this. What's the context? Hepatitis B. So back in 1979 to 83, that's when I was in medical school, there was this new kid in the block, Hepatitis B, and it was caused by a virus, which was highly contagious. And so then it's, okay, it's a sexually transmitted virus. And they said, okay, good, good, good. Sexually transmitted, sexually transmitted. And so, okay, fine. Well, what about household spread, right? And then it's like, well, hmm, sexually transmitted, household spread. Wait a minute, are parents having sex with their children or what's going on there? How's this happening? So the final verdict on Hepatitis B in medical school, again, this is what I was taught. This is not me making up. Hepatitis B, it's not really contagious. Even in close quarters, household spread is only a 40% spread. And then back then they even had people in the household who caught Hepatitis B, caught it, I don't know how they caught it, who were not sexually active. And so there was no understanding of how this Hepatitis B virus was really transmitted. So to this day, it's believed, here we have faith-based medicine, believed that Hepatitis B is transmitted by sexual contact and by needles. So we're not going to get into questioning does Hepatitis B exist? What about the virus, the antibody test? It sounds a lot like the COVID conversation. We're not going to do that. Instead, what we're going to do is accept Hepatitis B as a benchmark. So Hepatitis B is considered not contagious within households, only with sexual partners, and then, yeah. And it's recommended that the sexual partners of someone with Hepatitis B get vaccinated. But the point is, the spread within the household is considered to be negligible. And therefore, not really to worry about it. So I said, okay, all right, because medical school, right? They tell me, I believe it. So you have to ask yourself, what is the household spread? So this is a virus, it is contagious, it's considered to be not contagious. And when you are in public, people with Hepatitis B do not need to be quarantined. They do not need to wear masks or gloves for that matter. And they can eat at restaurants and work out at gyms and attend concerts and baseball games. These Hepatitis B people. How contagious is it in the house? Wait for this. We need a drum roll. 40%. 40%. Oh my God, 40%. But wait, this is a benchmark. So if something spreads within among household members with only a rate of 40%, it's considered, nah, shoulder shrug, just shrug it off. Nah, not important. So the household spread with COVID is 10%. 10%. Yeah, 10%. So for Hepatitis B, which is spread by virus, which is believed to be, it's accepted now to be very poorly contagious, poorly contagious. The household transmissibility is 40%. So we're now dealing with a virus. We're trying to determine how contagious is it? It's one fourth as contagious as Hepatitis B, which is considered non-contagious. Again, we're reasoning by syllogism here, by comparison, because we need to understand what these numbers mean, how they are presently being interpreted for other diseases. Now, another thing to look at is, well, Dr. Daniels, you know, Hepatitis B is probably not as deadly as COVID. Well, let's ask Dr. Google.

(22:39 - 27:19)

Alright. So 2% of everyone who gets Hepatitis B will die. 2%. So that is 100 times, 10 to 100 times more deadly than COVID. And so with this Hepatitis B that is this deadly, they're saying, ah, household spread, household members don't worry. We don't need to take children out of the home. We don't need to keep children from going to school because their parents are positive for Hepatitis B. None of that. None of that. Now here's another issue. If person to person spread in hospitals is less than person to person spread in home, we've got to make a decision about this. I'll put it to you this way. If the person to person spread in the hospital is the highest person to person spread anywhere on the planet, and we have to believe that because people are dropping dead in hospitals from these infections, then we have to say that in order to be person to person spread, that was casual, it's got to be less than the hospital rate. How do we apply this knowledge? Well, the hospital rate is 1%. Household rate is 10%. You subtract it. So the household rate, 1% spread is person to person. The 9% is something else. What else could it be? Oh, I'm so glad you asked. So it could be a lot of things. It could be food. They could be eating contaminated food. It could be fecal oral spread, use of the bathroom. Maybe the infected person has their own bathroom or they don't, and that might infect the spread rate for COVID as well as hepatitis B. So what we're talking about here is common source outbreak. Food, shared bathroom, the heating, ventilation, air condition system might not be cleaned every season, like every fall and every spring, like it should be. So these are some basic things. Maybe there's some kind of contamination going on in the house. Maybe they have radon. So there's all kinds of environmental issues and common source outbreak type things going on that you would see in a household setting, and that would make the household setting much more contagious than, say, the hospital setting. The hospital setting is not a common source outbreak. If it was a common source outbreak, infect the whole darn hospital. But it's more of a person to person thing. So in other words, the fact that the household infection rate is different, more precisely less than, I'm sorry, the hospital rate is less than the household rate, means we have to look at common source outbreak. We have to look at cultural practice. Could it be all the people in this particular household got flu shot? And so this household is going to, so that is the cultural practice associated with the being COVID positive. So there's all kinds of possibilities. But what it does suggest is if we're serious about understanding COVID better, then the person to person route of transmission is not what we should be looking at. That people who are interested in research, which I'm not, should be looking at other modes of transmission. So if hepatitis B, the medical industrial complex has decided that it is transmitted via sexual contact, it is transmitted via blood transfusion. It is not transmitted by droplet nuclei or COVID. So it sounds like the hepatitis B transmission route might be something that should be looked at. In other words, it has a lot of things in common with COVID. It's a virus. The antibody test is used. The government has seemed to make a few laws controlling behavior around this issue. So the COVID, so this particular research study shows that COVID is not highly contagious. It's a lot of things, but it's not highly contagious. It can't be spread by asymptomatic people. And even symptomatic people in the hospital have a very limited ability to spread it. And among household members, which are cooped up, remember quarantine, the best they can do is 10%. So this is not a highly contagious organism. We know that. We also know it's not very deadly. So it's not deadly and it's not contagious. I know a lot of are wondering, when are we going to get the vaccine? Well, I think that's the wrong question. The question is, do we need a vaccine? If something is not contagious and it's not deadly, then no vaccine would be needed.

(27:19 - 34:06)

So meanwhile, back at the ranch, the researchers are finding more ways to make money on people who are worried about disease, as opposed to people who have disease. And so this came out August 25th, 2020, two days ago. Boy, hot off the press here. And this says more mixed results for remdesivir, moderate COVID-19 patients. Now, you need to know the update on the results for remdesivir and how effective is it and what's good for it. So bottom line, the FDA okayed it after studies showed it does not in any way improve or diminish the death rate from COVID. It doesn't do that. But if you're having symptoms, it reduces the duration of your symptoms. So remdesivir is not going to save any lives, cannot save any lives. That's the evidence. Okay. So I thought that was subtle, right? Okay. We have something, it can improve the symptoms. It's not going to save any lives. We get that. Fine. It's been approved. You would think they could leave well enough alone, but no. So a five-day course is associated with statistically significant improvement among patients hospitalized with moderate COVID in comparison with standard care. Well, now we know standard care, we know, includes intubation and other deadly things. So the best comparison would have been doing nothing, but okay. We're going to accept their study design. That's their study design. We're going to go with it. And this is in a comparison with standard care. And this is a research study paid for by the makers of remdesivir. So we have bias here. However, experts said the clinical benefit of the drug for these patients is ambiguous. So the experts are saying that the definition of improvement used by the remdesivir manufacturer in its research was not the right definition. And furthermore, there was such a small difference between the trial groups that the difference, while it may have been statistically significant, like let's say I'm going to pay you $9.50 for something. And you say, no, no, no, no, I want $9.75. Now the difference between those two is statistically significant. It's not the same thing, but on a dollars and cents issue, it might be of no relevance to 25 cents in terms of its impact on a purchase of basically 10 bucks. So that's what we're saying here. And so a doctor from Munich, University in Germany led the trial in the United States. Now they only did 584 patients. So this study done by the CDC in China, again, 3,800 people, just saying. So the number of people in the study you would take into account in terms of how much weight you're going to get the study. Additionally, so he's saying, it wasn't any really effect from the drug. Alright. So I'm like, hey, sour grapes, be quiet. Remdesivir improves some people and so what the heck, make it available. So that's what I say, hey, relax, relax. But wait, then someone else shows up and says, whoa, we did a 10-day remdesivir study and showed no improvement compared to standard care 11 days after treatment started. So I have another study showing no improvement. The results with this trial and two other trials raise the question of whether the discrepancies are artifacts of study design choices. I'll bet they are, including patient populations or whether the drug is simply less effective than hoped. Well, it's certainly less effective than hope because even the study done by the company making the drug conclusively shows, hey, no lives saved here. Don't expect it. So now they're saying, well, wait a minute, we don't want to expand the emergency authorization. We think there really needs to be further evaluation of remdesivir in large scale, randomized controlled trials, adequately empowered to understand in which patients, at which dose, at which point in the course of illness leads to what concrete and tangible improvement in clinical outcomes, he said. That guy's going to lose his job. At this point, remdesivir definitely holds promise. Less like someone promising to marry you, but it really wears the ring. But given the cost to produce and distribute the drug, it seems crucial to know with more certainty how to use it. So they have no research on how to use it. So according to the newspapers, Gilead, I guess that'd be the company, has priced it at $2,340 for five-day treatment in the United States and some other developed countries. Oh, that's nice. At least they're going to make it available. So he says, it's also unclear whether the same patients would benefit from inexpensive, widely available corticosteroids or whether remdesivir can play a complementary role. So should they use something else instead of remdesivir or should they use remdesivir with other existing interventions? Those questions have not yet been tested in remdesivir trials, he said. And although the FDA would likely say that randomized controlled trials investigating such questions were still welcome, even with an expanded emergency use authorization, it's a bit like getting the genie back in the bottle. Once a drug becomes available for prescribing, clinicians and patients are less willing to participate in a trial in which only some of the patients receive the therapy, he said. Second, the company itself may be unwilling to pay for trials at this point since if they have the emergency use authorization, why risk testing the drug? Yeah, got the revenue coming in at that rate. Sounds good to me. I appreciate the pressure that the FDA is under, says the doctor. But I also understand why such a company would want to expand the emergency use authorization. But I think we're in a quagmire of uncertainty, largely because we probably issued the emergency use authorization too soon in the first place. And we'll only compound the problem if we expand it. If everyone leans in to getting the right trials done right now, we could get the answers we need quickly. And the primary endpoint was how the person was doing on day 11. Can I just say? So even for hospital-acquired infections, the endpoint is day 30, just so y'all out there know what the standard is for research concerning survival of an infection. The newly reported trial, the average age of the patients was 57 years and 61% were men. All had moderate COVID, which was defined for this study as having pneumonia as evidence on lung scans and oxygen saturation more than 94% on room air. So some of us are breathing pretty well. The chest x-ray was not normal. They didn't mention other symptoms. More than half the patients, 56% had heart disease, 42% had hypertension, and 40% had diabetes. Nearly all patients, 91% completed the trial. Remdesivir was administered intravenously, a dose of 200 milligrams on day one, 100 milligrams per day in the remainder of the treatment course. The endpoint was clinical status on day 11 as determined using a seven-point ordinal scale in which one indicates death and seven indicates hospital discharge. On day 11, patients in the five-day Remdesivir group had statistically significantly higher odds or better of clinical status than those who received standard care. Odds ratio of 1.65, but whoa, 95% confidence interval, is 10% improvement on the low end, which is pretty low percentage. Clinical status on day 11 did not differ between the 10-day Remdesivir group and the standard care group. Uh-oh. On day 11, there's a better clinical status. However, clinical status on day 11 did not differ between the 10-day Remdesivir group and the standard care group. Interesting. By day 28, two patients in the five-day Remdesivir group had died compared with three in the 10-day group and four in the standard care group. There's no significant difference between the Remdesivir group and the standard care group in any of the pre-specified secondary endpoints. So in other words, although the death rates were different, there was no difference. They were all 2% death rate. So they did have a moderately sick group here, but the death rate was not affected by use of Remdesivir.

(34:06 - 46:00)

Alright, there you go. There you have it. So what's going on here? Why is it in this particular situation that we find ourselves in, they say it's a pandemic, whatever. It's yes on Monday, no on Wednesday, yes on Friday. Why is that? Well, it's because people are basing a lot of information on something other than research. In other words, they're making it up. So basically, this trial shows as far as the outcome of living or dying, Remdesivir has no effect. And they think that on the way to the grave, you might feel better for a few days if you're on Remdesivir. Does that mean Remdesivir should not be approved? No, hey, not my job, I don't know. But it does mean that people who are taking it, that that's what they're getting. They're getting a different scenery along their experience, but it doesn't alter the experience. Okay, so that brings us to, oh, first of all, let's just summarize what our findings are. So our findings are asymptomatic spread 0%, hospital transmission infinitesimal, look up that word. Infinitesimal means it's so small and minuscule as to not be measured. However, if we calculate out the death rate for the hospital, if you're COVID positive, the incremental increase in death rate is less than just being healthy. So it has no health impact in a hospital setting, which is stunning, stunning. That means the transmissibility, by the way, is one-tenth that for regular hospital as compared to regular hospital-based infections, and the fatality is much less. So it seems that this virus is not contagious. The spread in the household setting is 10 times the spread in the hospital setting. There's a problem with this. What this suggests is that the spread is not person-to-person, but environmental or common source outbreak. And if it is environmental or common source outbreak, then that would also explain why there's no person-to-person spread and why there is also no substantial hospital spread. So what does this mean? What this would mean, again, if we are looking just at the numbers and the numbers coming out of the CDC and the World Health Organization have been very, very consistent, very consistent. If all you've been watching is the data, then you would have seen in the CDC data as far back as February and March, a pattern where COVID deaths and COVID infections were not correlating or tracking with excess deaths in the United States. And so that's enough to let you know that whatever's out there was not deadly. Then what we found was the testing was not reliable. Of course, it never was reliable. And again, if you track that back, the testing methods used are not reliable at all. They're notoriously unreliable. So we don't have any evidence of communicability. And again, we have people who were dying of the disease and never had a contact with anyone who had the disease. So there was a tremendous amount of information as far back as April indicating we were not dealing with anything contagious. And also they were not dealing with something that was deadly. So what I would say to anybody is you need to, moving forward, you're a real problem, issue or challenge. It's just what are you going to do with your life? And so with respect to COVID, I think you need to treat it as you would anything that is neither contagious nor deadly. So that is whatever you do with things in your life, they're not contagious or deadly, then that's what you should do about COVID. Okay.

(46:00 - 58:06)

And that brings us to the update on mom. Okay. So let's, I'm not sure where everyone is with the story, but I'm going to give you a quick summary. So mom is 88 years old. That's an important piece of information to understand, 88 years old. And she was doing just fine until about, I guess, two months ago, she fell off a stool in her kitchen while folding clothes. I said, mom, how'd you, how'd you fall off the stool? Do we need to get you a lower stool? Yeah. Oh no, no, no. You know how you're just sitting down and you just kind of fall asleep. Mom, that is not okay. But anyway, that's how it happened. She kind of drifted off and just slid down to the floor. So she had a little pain in her legs. She could not walk after the fall, whereas before she could walk. So I said, oh my God, take her to the hospital, which they did, x-rayed everything she owned and found nothing broken, which means then that she had a bruise. I said, okay, mom, you have a bruise. Go home. Oh no, no. They want to take me to rehab. I think that rehab is going to help me. So mom went to rehab. This is where mom got the soup that tasted like dish soap. The food that, that tastes like it was canned food expired from a food bank. And they would only give her tap water. So we got her rescued out of that. She finally decided that she wanted to come home. So she came home. But while she was in the nursing home under the difficult draconian malnutrition situation, her skin broke open massively on her good leg. And so she came home, barely able to walk, couldn't make it up the stairs, but we had relatives helping that carried her up the stairs. So that was good. So mom decided she wanted to go to the doctor for her ulcer. And she said, oh, by the way, there's maggots growing there. And the doctor says, oh no, you're not coming home with some maggots in an open wound. Oh no. So he called in a prescription for antibiotics. How do antibiotics kill maggots? I don't even know. So eventually mom did get to see the doctor. The doctor says, well, you know, I think you need to go to the hospital and just get this checked out. So she goes to the hospital and the wound is about this big. It's about this big. A wound that was not even there before she went to rehab. Okay. So now she goes to a hospital and she thinks that they're going to magically figure out what to put on this piece of non-existent skin and get it to grow back and bam, it'll all, all will be well. Cause by now she's having pain and she's having swelling and it's really uncomfortable. And I'm getting phone calls telling me she's up all night screaming. This is at home. And so now she's in the hospital and the doctor comes by to see her and says, Hmm. Yep. Yep. You need surgery. We're going to do surgery or we're going to do a bypass graft on your leg and get some more circulation to that leg. So mom thinks about this and she already had surgery on the other leg, by the way. It just didn't work. And so she says, well, you know, I don't think I want surgery. And so the doctor then writes the orders to take away all of her water and all of her food. So I mean, while calling mom every day, how are you doing? How you doing? Okay. So meanwhile, uh, I've already called the grandkids and they've got the email thing going. And, um, everyone understands mom's 88, the end is near and we need to get together everyone on a rotation to visit mom and kind of sit with her and keep her company. So she doesn't have to, uh, leave the world unaccompanied. Okay. So, you know, all the grandkids on alert, everyone's, you know, looking at your schedule trying to figure out, okay, I can come these weeks. I can come that week and we're getting all this, you know, everything settled out. Meanwhile, the doctor, uh, storms in the room, starts yelling and screaming at poor mom and telling her that she'd better get this surgery. She's going to lose her leg. That's my mother looks at him and says, well, I can lose my leg when I, when I die. Is there anything else that's going to, you know, what can you do for me? It's well, we need to do this surgery. And so he couldn't really tell her like how it was going to help, but he, he, she needed the surgery. And so she said, well, what's, what's wrong with me? And he says, he says, well, you can lose that leg. She says, well, I'm 88. I'm gonna die. What else is new? So mom was really upset that the doctor wasn't very nice to her. And so I was talking to her on the phone, uh, on the next day and her speech was slurred. It was really slow. It's kind of like, you know, let me give mom two more hours. She'd probably have a stroke. So I said, well, mom, what about some water drinking some water? Well, you know, I can't really reach it and they're not giving me any water. Well, what about food? Mom get any food? No, they're not really giving me any food either. Uh, okay. All right. Bye mom. So I call up her daughter-in-law who's in the same city with her and say, Hey, you know, they're starving mom to death and she's about to have a stroke. Let's scoot out over there with some water for her. And by the way, bring a little bit of food. She says, okay, I'm on it. Hangs up the phone, scoots over there. Now at this point they are allowing visitors. It's a hospital. And so she brings in a water and food. Mom starts drinking. And about an hour later, I get a phone call from mom's hospital bedside saying, Hey, everything's okay. And mom gets on the phone. She's talking no more slow speech, stroke averted. So, uh, by now mom's been revived and she's got no more energy and pep. And she says, well, I want to go home. I said, okay, mom, we'll, we'll send you home. Not a problem. And so, um, somehow discharge. So my mother tells my daughter-in-law, well, just make arrangements for my discharge. And so the discharge planners, uh, somehow communicate to my sister-in-law that, oh yeah, yeah. We're sending her to a nursing home. So those of you who are familiar, hospitals have an affiliate nursing home and they often, the profits continue when you go on to the nursing home. And so mom did not want to go to the nursing home, but by now we've mobilized the grandkids. And she had at least two grandkids, uh, at her home waiting for her to arrive. And they were all ready and set to take care of her. So I'm not aware of their nursing home plans. Apparently either is, is my mother. And so they, uh, next morning, I get a call from my mother and, uh, she says, they're, they're going to take me to the blah, blah, blah, some nursing home name. And they had some papers for me to sign. I said, well, don't sign any papers. Well, they're asking me this, they're asking me that. So give me the phone. So they handed me the phone right there in the hospital room, handed me the phone. And so I gave a little speech. I said, Hey, look, you know, um, we've mobilized the grandkids. We have two of them at home. Her daughter lives with her. We have round the clock coverage at the moment, and we need her to go home. Well, we've already got everything set up for her to go to the nursing home. And, um, her, her daughter-in-law has paid all the bills. I said, wonderful. Can we apply those payments and bills towards transportation to her house? Oh yes, of course. I said, great. Well, send her home and, uh, everyone will be waiting. I will let them know to expect her. And so, uh, mom said, wow, after you talked to them, they started treating me so nice. And so we got mom home and, um, moms had one shift of grandkids, uh, who came and then they went and another shift of grandkids has arrived. And, uh, I gave my daughter the, the, uh, assignment to coordinate the different shifts of grandkids. So we have, uh, one or two there and one or two coming so that they're, they keep the time frame covered. So now our issue is, so I said to mom, I said, look mom, how about we have someone come every day for five hours and they're going to clean you, they're going to give you a bath, they're going to clean your house and they'll cook a little something for you and they'll help you drink water. And so, um, she says, no, no, I'm not ready for that. I, I, my 67 year old daughter can wipe my butt just fine. Of course, nobody asked her 67 year old daughter, who is my older sister, how she really felt about this task. Uh, also she was sent home with medications. So, um, she was sent home with, um, a floxacin, uh, a fluoroquinolone antibiotic. The significance of that is mom's trying to walk and this antibiotic is notorious for dissolving tendons and crippling people. So I sent her home with one antibiotic that would cripple her. And then they sent her home, it was levofloxacin. And then they sent her home with, uh, Augmentin, which is amoxicillin clavulanic acid. What does that mean? That means it's amoxicillin, which doesn't work for anything and clavulanic acid, which causes diarrhea. I said, mom, all you need to do is poop and drink more water and you'll be, you'll be fine. And so she actually started pooping and drinking more water and all of her pain went away. And so, uh, now we're, have, uh, one shift after another of grandkids, but the grandkids are, well, you know, grandkids. We really need an orderly and mom is totally not agreeing with that. So that's where things are right now and we are working on it.

(58:06 - End)

Which brings us to questions, questions. Oh, I have two computers and two screens and this is seriously, uh, challenging. Oh, no. Okay. What's the question here? I have worms in my eyes and flukes. Okay. I see someone here in Colorado who uses natural therapies. Any help you can offer is greatly appreciated. I'm 64 years old. Thank you, Sally. Okay. So Sally says that the diamond G, uh, that turpentine works, but not long-term. So if anything works briefly, but not long-term for your parasite situation, then you have a constipation situation. So increase your bowel movements and increase your water and continue with your turpentine. Based on the information I have, that would be the best I could offer. Appointments are available, uh, by going to vitalitycouncils.com. By the way, also, um, for those of you who have not yet read it, there is a report called the Candida Cleaner, which talks about how to take turpentine. So that's important to read that report. Yeah. It looks like you need to read that report. So read the report, the Candida Cleaner at vitalitycouncils.com. It is free. So I do get that. Uh, let's see. This person says, what kind of meats do you eat? I eat mostly organ meats, um, and extremity meats. So I eat, um, heart, liver, testicles, brain, um, animal feet, ears, belly, and face. Pretty much. Occasionally, um, some ground meat, but very high fat content. So if something has a low fat content, like 90% lean, I will mix it with bacon or something. It turns out that your body needs, uh, saturated animal fat structurally in order to heal and maintain itself. Oh, does turpentine expire? The answer is no. Turpentine does not expire. Mmm. All right. That is it for questions and we'll be answering more questions next week. As always, I tell you, think happens and let it happen to you.