The Importance of Zero

(0:00 - 5:18) Hi, this is Dr. Daniels, and you are listening to Healing with Dr. Daniels. And I tell you, you cannot make this stuff up. This is the Sunday broadcast, and our title today is The Importance of Zero. Yes, we live in a very advanced society, as many of you may recall. Hundreds, if not thousands of years ago, there was no concept of the number zero, but it's a very important number. So today we're going to talk about the importance of zero, and I'm going to review the latest study released on the person-to-person transmission of COVID, and how even more lives can be saved going forward. Absolutely, I am all about the good news. But first, a message from our sponsor. So our sponsor is Vitality Capsules, and Vitality Capsules, as always, can be found at vitalitycapsules.com. This is the internal cleanser for everyday use to rid your body of toxins. And that brings us to our next thing, which is turpentine. Turpentine is an amazing healing agent, which as recently as 1910, was known to cure every single disease at that time known to man. That was then. So during the course of my medical practice in the 1990s, I uncovered the healing properties of turpentine, and wrote a report, The Candida Cleaner, which is available at no charge at vitalitycapsules.com. So what we're going to do today, right now, is take some turpentine. And let me move my screen here. By the way, we are dealing with new technology. So there are a few glitches, but I think the overall quality, especially with sound, is going to be much, much better. So let me know about that. We are constantly working to improve everything really we can about communication. So here we are. This is white sugar. Yep, it's exactly what it looks like, white sugar. And we have here a nice little plastic pipette. Turpentine dosing is very, very important. I like half a teaspoon a day, which happens to be this whole pipette up to where it gets fat. So right to the neck there is the amount that I take. You might want to take more or less, but to help you decide, get your free report at vitalitycapsules.com. So I have my bottle of turpentine, and you'll get yours too. You should make sure that it is clearly labeled. I missed a little letter there, but that'll, it's still, you got the idea. All right, squeeze all the air out, suck up the turpentine. All right. And when I get that right at the neck, I don't want to take any more turpentine than what is the amount that works for me. And same thing. So this is not the medical concept of more the better. This is a natural healing concept of just the right amount for you. Not one size fits all. All right, so squeeze right here and empty this pipette right here on the sugar. All of it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Then I have my glass of water at the ready. I could put a little water in my mouth. That way it elevates the turpentine off the spoon and it's a much more pleasant experience. All right. Give that a little tracer. Then I also drink distilled water because I do not trust the cleanliness of my water to any public situation or government or municipality or anything. I take personal responsibility for my water just as I do for my health. All right, here we are. This is Shilajit, also known as Momio for the mountains of Siberia in Russia. Okay. The amount is 200 milligrams. That is the dose. I just want to show you. Yeah. Now I'm in the tropics, so this is like really fluid and gooey. If you're further north, it might be stiff and more like a plastic. But that's just a temperature thing. And I take the same water, bam, in there. And as you will see, it does not readily dissolve. If it readily dissolves, you do not have Shilajit. I'll tell you that right now. All right. So we're going to sit this right here and I'll take it later during the show if I remember. And if not, I'll take it after the show. I generally try to take the Shilajit and turpentine every single day. Truthfully, I miss about one or two days a week. That's just the way it is. I will not allow myself to miss a third day though because if I miss three days, I start feeling my age, which is 63.

(5:18 - 16:34) Okay. Oh, today's show. You will not believe this. But as I say, truth is stranger. And I guess that's what keeps life interesting. Now, I just have to tell you my sources for today's show are the medical-industrial complex itself. So I don't believe in making up things or even doing research myself. Medical-industrial complex has pretty much cornered the market on that. So I just rely on data from the medical-industrial research combined with my personal observations and experience. At the end, we'll also do an update on my mother's situation. Continues to evolve. All right. So our focus today is the importance of zero and the latest study released on the person-to-person transmission of COVID and how even more lives can be saved going forward. So I'm all in favor of that. I'm going to move this. Yeah. Okay, great. Now, this is from the World Health Organization. They did a study, the World Health Organization, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a very respected medical journal. So we are sticking with total mainstream, high credibility, totally credentialed, government-approved sources. They might not be Twitter-approved. They might not be Facebook-approved. They might not be YouTube-approved, but they are approved by the medical-industrial complex. And so these are all, unlike me, licensed individuals. All right. So this was published August 14th in Medscape. And let's see when it was published. It was published August 13th in the Annals of Internal Medicine. Okay. So as always, we'd like to start at the beginning. It says, and the title, you have to understand the title. So if you don't understand the title, then all is lost. And I have to honestly say, I had to look up every single word in the title to determine the precise meaning of the title. And unfortunately, the precise meaning of the title is nowhere communicated in the document, which is unfortunate. So this was a risk of secondary COVID-19 transmission low in most settings. Well, first of all, if you don't know what secondary transmission is, then you're immediately behind the eight ball here, right? And then what does the word low mean? We don't know. We have to find that out from the article. So we're going to find that out from the article. And in most settings, we don't know what most settings are. Fortunately, the definition of low in most settings does become clear from the article. All right. Secondary transmission means transmission from one person to another. All right. As we say in Hispanic culture, yeah, that means that's it. So what are the chances of one human being spreading, one human being who is COVID positive, spreading that COVID positivity to another human being? That's what we are talking about. All right. So the risk of one person spreading COVID-19 to another person is less than 4% overall among close contacts of people diagnosed with COVID-19. Whoa, stop right here. What's a close contact? Now, I'm going to give you a precise definition that they used in China and Wuhan. Close personal contact is face-to-face contact without a mask of a distance of about two feet or less for a continuous uninterrupted 15 minutes, at least three times a day. Okay. Most Americans, aside from sleeping with someone, don't have per quote that level of contact really with anybody. I can certainly say that for myself. I'm either walking down the street or maybe there's a store clerk, I'm making a purchase, or even the standing in line is not face-to-face contact. So you have to understand, standing in line is not face-to-face contact. And so therefore, even standing in a line, if you are two inches apart from someone, because the contact is not face-to-face, it doesn't fulfill the definition of close personal contact. Okay. So close personal contact, face-to-face, no mask, 15 minutes, three times in a 24-hour period. That is close personal contact. So I invite you to review your day and see how many people you contact in this manner. And once you have established that number, multiply it by 4%. And that's the number of people you could infect if you were COVID positive. Okay. But we have more information here. So they say new research shows. Okay. So some PhDs from the Guangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention in China and colleagues, that means other people with similar credentials, use contract tracing, spying, that's okay, it's fine, to test 3,410 close contacts of 391 COVID-19 cases between January and March. This is over a three-month period. They follow 391 contacts. These are all close personal contacts. So this is not some, I walk by the street, this is face-to-face, no mask, you and me. Right. Pretty intense. Researchers identified cases through surveillance testing, screening people with symptoms who came to a healthcare facility, or tracing and screening people in close contact with those diagnosed with COVID-19. So in other words, they tested people who had symptoms and did not have symptoms who were COVID positive. Okay.

(16:34 - 32:45) Now, among close contacts, and we told you what close contacts were, right? Face-to-face, no mask, 15 minutes, three times during a day. Among the close contacts, 3% became infected. Of those, 6% had no symptoms. Of the symptomatic cases, 20% were mild, 73% were medium, and 10% were severe or critical. So these numbers are difficult to grasp, but they give us a little bit of help with a chart. So what can I get done in it? To learn how risk varied by contact locations, they stratify contacts. What I just read you, pretty much meaningless, because what people really want to know is where am I going to catch COVID, and how am I going to catch it, and who am I going to catch it from? That's what you really want to know. But thank goodness, they give you enough information to sort that out. They stratify contacts according to where they interacted with the index patient. The index patient is the human being who tested positive. And the locations they included were household contacts. This is people you live with, people who are in your space overnight. So this is, you're living in a house, and these are the people who sleep there and live there. And if there's a quarantine, they're the ones you're going to be with 24-7. Including household contacts, got that. Public transportation. Now, let's talk about public transportation. So depending on where you live in the United States, public transportation could be, I don't know, a cab, which means there's only you and the taxi driver. Or public transportation could be a subway, which is crowded and packed. People are packed like sardines. But this is China, so public transportation means you're packed like sardines. Not necessarily face to face with anyone, but you are packed like sardines. Very close contact. Okay. And healthcare settings. Healthcare settings means you are an employee in a hospital or clinic, or you are visiting the hospital or clinic for treatment. So those are pretty much, or maybe you're visiting the hospital or clinic as a vendor. Maybe you're delivering supplies to the hospital or clinic. So that's a healthcare setting. And entertainment venues. That would be a concert or movie theater, something along those lines, or bar, or workplaces, and multiple settings. Okay. So here's where we get the information. I'm going to guess by now, if you're in the United States, either you know that everyone in your house is COVID negative, or you don't really don't care. Okay. So let's say that. So the highest infection is for household contacts at 10.3%, which means 10% of the household contacts of someone who's COVID positive could possibly be infected, followed by those exposed in healthcare settings. So if you're in a healthcare setting and you're exposed to someone who's COVID positive, and this is all lumped together, whether you're an employee, whether you're visiting the hospital, whether you're admitted to the hospital, all those people, the transmission rate is on average 1%. Now they have something called a 95% confidence interval. We've got to explain this. And on public transportation. So public transportation, again, in China, public transportation, that's pretty tight. I mean, you're like, I know, I've been to China and I've taken public transportation. Pretty much every seat is full and generally standing room only in many cases where you're really squished together. So it's very, very tight. Okay. So on public transportation, it's 0.1%. So one 10th of the probability of being in a healthcare setting. So we have to understand in order to interpret this information, we need to understand what is a confidence interval and why do we have a confidence interval and what is the purpose of it? So a confidence interval reflects the fact that you cannot be 100% certain about anything. And so when scientists measure data points, 95% confidence interval means that 95% of all the data points measured fall in that range. And they are 95% confident that within that range, they can make certain predictions about the data. Now that means the truth lies in that range. For reference, they give you a number, a hard number, which is just generally an average of that range, which falls in between there. So when they say the probability of transmission on public transportation is 0.1%, that's kind of in the middle of the confidence interval. Now, so all values in the interval are equally likely for a particular event. Generally, it is accepted that any value in this interval is equally valid. So to have an average value that is reliable, the confidence interval should be as narrow as possible. So obviously, if I tell you it's 10 o'clock, you have a 95% confidence that it's maybe two minutes before 10 or two minutes after 10. In your mind, what you're thinking is, I can be reasonably confident that it's two minutes either way. And this is an unspoken confidence interval, but everyone in their brain has a confidence interval when someone tells you something or gives you a number. Like when you say, oh, my child is three years old, you pretty much figure he's maybe three years plus three to six months. So if someone says their kid is three years old, there's a 12-month confidence interval there. So you know this kid is not 10 years old. You know he's not one year old. He may be three years and six months or three years and eight months, but you have in your mind a confidence interval. And this allows us to communicate and understand each other. That's important. Okay, so in other words, if I ask you how much milk is in the refrigerator and you tell me that according to the method you're using to measure milk in the refrigerator, there could be anywhere in this range from between zero and one cup of milk. Okay, let's say one cup is one cup of milk. Then I would be correct to decide that there may be, oh, and tell me the confidence interval is plus or minus one cup of milk. Well, so if I tell you then there's one cup of milk in the refrigerator, my 95% confidence interval, so I'm 95% confident that it's one cup plus or minus a cup. So one cup plus a cup is two cups, could be two cups in the fridge, minus a cup is zero. So it could be no milk in the fridge or two cups of milk in the fridge. Could be. Then I would be correct to decide that there may be no milk in the refrigerator and I should get some milk the next time I'm at the store. So you've told me the truth. There's anywhere from zero to two cups of milk in the refrigerator, right? So that's true. Now, it is my fault if I decide to make a recipe needing two cups of milk and later check the refrigerator later only to find there's no milk, right? So you didn't lie to me. You told me the truth that there's one cup of milk in the fridge, plus or minus a cup. And in many households, this is actually a reasonable thing to say, right? There's one cup of milk in the fridge and, you know, I'm telling you right now it's one cup of milk, but in the next 15 minutes, I might come and just drink it. So truthfully, there's anywhere from one cup of milk plus or minus a cup.

(32:45 - 46:20) But if someone took that information and decided to make a recipe needing two cups of milk and later check the refrigerator only to find there's no milk, then the person receiving the information is at fault for the misunderstanding because they receive accurate information. Or worse, if that person decides to throw a party and invite two million people and not everyone can get milk, not enough milk for everyone, right? We find out there's really zero milk in the fridge. So there are two errors of interpretation that are made here. First, ignoring that zero is in the range of possible values. That's a major, major oversight. Second, ignoring that there's not enough milk for the attended use, even if the estimate of one cup is believed. So you couldn't serve beverages, say hundreds of people using one cup of milk. So in medicine, as I said, all measurements or tests are reported like this. So the normal range, for example, I'll give you an example. For hemoglobin, for men, is 13.5 to 17.5. Units irrelevant, points to numbers. Now, this means every man whose hemoglobin is from 13.5 to 17.5 is considered to be healthy. So for all values in the range, a person is considered equally healthy. So a man with a hemoglobin of 13.5 is no sicker or healthier than a man with a hemoglobin of 17. So all values in the range are equally important and have the same meaning. This is important. So now you understand what this means, we're going to take a look at this situation. So this is the data from the World Health Organization. Not me. I don't do studies, don't make accusations, only take confessions. And here is the thing. So in settings, they're telling us 0.1%, the confidence range, the confidence interval, they're 95% confident that if you're on public transportation, your chances of transmitting to someone are anywhere from 0% to 0.4%. Wow. That means one per thousand. So one person per thousand that you encounter on average, you might spread COVID to, but it might really be like zero. So in other words, what this study says is the probability of person-to-person transmission of COVID in public settings. In other words, you're not living with the person and you're not at the hospital is zero. Yep, yep, yep, yep. So we can go through this logic even on a more microscopic level. So let's go to, let's take a look at the issue of the person you're encountering. Do they have symptoms or not? I don't know. So we go further. So the authors know that the 10.3% household transmission rate was consistent with previously reported secondary infection rates among household members of 11.2% in other cities in China and 10.5% in the United States. So in the United States, a household transmission rate is 10.5%. That's if you're living with this person in quarantine 24/7. Okay. Researchers found the risk of secondary transmission increased with the severity of index cases. Increased to what? So you're going to think it increases from 10%. No, it doesn't get any higher than that. So let's see what they say. So if we start with a person test positive for COVID, how much symptoms do they have and how can they transmit it? All right. So if you have no symptoms, the transmission rate is three per thousand. That's the highest or not the highest, but the mid-range. So this time they've just done it, not by location, but by how symptomatic a person is. So a person has no symptoms. They can transmit at a rate of three per thousand, the 95% confidence interval, the 95% confident that the real transmission rate is between zero and 10 per thousand. Now, whenever you have a confidence interval that includes powerful numbers like zero, as they say in the song from the seventies, nothing times nothing is nothing. And so what's going on here is the study is showing the transmission rate from asymptomatic people is zero, nothing. Okay. What if the person has mild symptoms? Well, then the transmission rate is three per hundred confidence intervals, somewhere between two per hundred and five per hundred per hundred. So then the person has symptoms, moderate symptoms, moderate symptoms means they may or may not consider, well, moderate symptoms means they're sick enough where they're going to miss a day of work and maybe they want to go see the doctor. That is still only 6%. Again, confidence range somewhere between four and 7%. Severe critical person is on their back in the hospital, maybe on a ventilator, about to need one and still the transmission rate is what? Six per hundred, between three per hundred and nine per hundred. If we take the low end of the range, it is amazing to see that someone with severe critical symptoms in healthcare, in the hospital, lying in a bed is actually in the lower end, less infectious than someone with medium level symptoms. Yeah. Interessante. Now, so in an index case, when a person is coughing, a productive cough with sputum, they were linked with 13% transmission. So if you're around a person who is COVID negative and coughing, you can't get it. If you're around a person who is COVID positive and coughing, then there's a 13% chance of getting it. Now, this person has to be coughing and you have to be face to face. So the person is coughing and they're next to you, or they're coughing and they're facing away from you, then this number does not count. China is able to trace close contacts of people diagnosed with COVID-19 through cell phone database. So this is like tight surveillance here. Based on the movements of users, system is also able to measure proximity between people when cases are confirmed. So this is pretty accurate in terms of degree of contact. Now, what else do we know here? So let's do some math here. If a person is asymptomatic, that's three per 1,000 times, and we're going to use 0.8, which means 80% of the folks that they infect are going to have no serious problems or be asymptomatic. So if a person is asymptomatic, their infection rate, again, it could be zero, but the highest it could be would be 2.4 per 1,000. And that's the number of people that they're going to infect who will have no symptoms, whatever. Then we have the other number, which is 15%, which is, again, just three per 1,000 times 15%. 15% is the number of people, if infected, would miss a day of work. That's 4.5 per 10,000. That's impressive. So 4.5 per 10,000 might miss a day at work. That's 0.45 per 1,000. Let's use 4.5 per 10,000 because we're going to go someplace with this. And this same person with no symptoms, 5% of the people they infect, or 1.5 per 10,000 will be hospitalized. So the highest risk group that could be infected, and this could be, again, science has shown it could be zero, but this, so we're going from, again, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, zero, or this is the measurable amount that could happen. So the highest risk group has less than a .1 per 1,000 chance of making someone else severely ill. I'd like to point out that eight people per 1,000 is the rate of death for COVID-negative people. So what we have established here is the death rate for COVID-positive people for being infected by an asymptomatic COVID-positive person, the death rate is .1 per 1,000. If a person is COVID-negative, their death rate is eight per 1,000. So being COVID-positive and becoming infected by an asymptomatic COVID-positive person, the death rate is .1 per 1,000.

(46:20 - 1:00:57) So one could argue that it's healthier to be COVID-positive than it is to be COVID-negative, or it's healthier actually to be sneezed on by someone. Well, again, these are COVID-negative carriers. I'm sorry, COVID-positive people who have no symptoms. So it's better to be infected by that person in public than not because your chances of death are actually lower. All right. Okay, so there's a range of transmission for people who have no symptoms. Remember, every value in the range is of equal meaning. So if we can clearly determine the meaning or appropriate response for any point in that range, it is also the appropriate response for every other value in that range. This is an important medical concept. And they spent in medical school so much time drilling this into our brain that the whole 95% confidence interval is equally as equal implications. So you wouldn't put forward any therapy for a person at the high end of the range, then you would at the low end of the range, all the values in that range receive the equal medical scientific intervention. Okay. So what does that mean? Well, clearly, if you have no symptoms, the probability of you spreading it to anyone is somewhere between zero and 1%. So that means, so now we can clearly figure out what to do about zero. So let's take a look at that one point in the range of the probability of an asymptomatic person spreading COVID. And again, because of the way science is developed, that response is appropriate for every value in the range. And so this is really super important to grasp. And again, you know, hey, you guys didn't go to medical school and I'm telling you, I went to medical school and it took the medical students who had passed all their exams, who were especially intelligent and bright, it took them a tremendous amount of, you know, drilling into their brain to understand that when scientists come up with a number that's normal, that number is not set in stone accurate. Instead, we have a range of values that we're 95% confident that number represents. And that every value in that range should receive the same clinical therapeutic response. So in other words, if you have zero in that range, that means whatever you would do for zero, whatever is appropriate for zero, you know, and you can be confident, is appropriate for every other value in that range. And this is a serious situation because that's how we help us understand the accuracy of science and the limitation of science. And this is a concept that's not very well understood or shared with the public. Okay. So we have a range between zero and another number. So we know that is a pretty high possibility. What we're measuring, the true value is indeed zero. And we need to understand how would we respond to zero, plug it into our whole reasoning situation. And then from there we can extrapolate and understand the appropriate therapy for every value that's in that 95% confidence interval. Okay. So let's take zero and plug it into our mental machinery here. So clearly if you have no symptoms, the probability, again, we're plugging in the word zero, probability of spreading it to anyone is zero. What would be the proper response for zero? Well, if you do not want to get COVID, avoiding living with someone who is symptomatic makes no sense, right? So if a person's COVID positive, has no symptoms, the probability of spread is zero. But let's just take a look at the rest of the data. If you don't want to get COVID, the way to get COVID from this data is only two ways to get it. One, associate with someone who's in a high risk contagion group, that would be a healthcare worker or someone who is a positive symptomatic household contact. So avoid hospital settings or someone who's a household contact and positive. Then the other high risk group for transmitting it to you is someone who's COVID positive and symptomatic. So avoid hospital settings if a patient or as a worker or as a visitor, if you do not have COVID and you don't want to get it. So this is what the data says. You're not going to be able to spread COVID to someone, even an at-risk person with comorbidities, if you have no symptoms. Now, if you're in a low slash no transmission group and you don't want to catch it, don't associate people in a higher transmission group. So if you have no symptoms and you don't want to get symptoms, then you want to avoid people who are COVID positive and symptomatic or COVID positive and work in a healthcare setting. And so we have these charts. It's super easy to sort out. You can find it at Medscape. The title is risk of secondary COVID-19 transmission low in most settings. So the word low is zero. And the most settings is all public settings except hospitals. So people without symptoms cannot spread the disease in settings outside of healthcare and household members. So wearing a mask in public will not stop the spread because there is no transmission in public. Closing any settings other than healthcare setting facilities will not stop the spread of virus because it's zero spread in those settings. Since it's spread in households, the question then is, does the government have the obligation to separate adults who choose to live together? Or does the government have the authority to coerce human decisions in cases where the disease is less deadly than not having the disease? Another question is, do authorities, should authorities remove children from the home if one or both parents are COVID positive? Well, let's take a look at this. There's no reason to remove children from a home with symptomatic adults. Why? Because we know that the kids have no risk of dying from it. There's also no reason to remove children from the company of other children because children, children to children illness is documented not to happen. And therefore, there's no need to test children because in children, this disease is not deadly. So if a vaccine is available, who would it have any possibility of benefiting? Well, certainly it would be of zero benefit to children since they have no risk and they can't spread it. So the children already fit the definition of the condition we want to create by a vaccine. So with a vaccine, you want to stop the spread. Well, children don't spread it, so don't need to vaccinate them. So who should get the vaccine? The answer is anyone who wants to take the vaccine should get it. I am totally, totally, totally in favor of healthcare freedom, but it should not be compulsory. Herd immunity is not necessary since person to person spread in public places like restaurants, gyms, harbors, stores, amusement parks, or staying out after a certain hour a day of the week does not, these things do not cause the spread of the virus according to scientific study, if we're using science. So the conclusion is whether you believe there's a virus or not, there is no action anyone can take or precaution anyone can take to reduce your vulnerability. Only you can avoid hospitals, healthcare settings, and living with someone who has symptoms. If you feel wearing a mask, social distancing, quarantining, not going to work is what you have to do, then I think you're free to do so and you should do it. However, there is no benefit to you or anyone else for the government to force anyone to take similar measures. It's just not necessary. Should the government pay you to stay home? If you believe so, then someone has to go to work to pay the taxes necessary to allow you to stay home and collect government money. At least let those other people do so, so that your choices can be indulged. So that check that you want to receive from the government for practicing your beliefs of wearing a mask, social distancing, and quarantining can be honored. So when you get the check in the mail from the government, it can at least be spent on something because there will be other people going out there and producing the something that you're going to be spending your check on. Personally, I decided a long time ago that I'd rather be paying taxes to support people who choose welfare than to be on welfare. And then just no judgment, no judgment, just a personal decision. And so those of you who would rather receive government checks, that is totally fine. I understand it. Not a problem. But let other people go to work so that you can receive those checks. And so they can support your decision to do what you feel is the right thing. So there's plenty of room for all views, but it's important to yield their freedom to others so they can go to work and produce the food, the transportation, and all the goods and services that you prefer to consume from the privacy and safety of your home. And these other people who choose to go to work can support you in your choices. So I hope that that communicates the science that we now have available as of August 14th and helps everyone feel totally comfortable in their personal decisions. And I think this is really, I think this is so, so important to allow people who want to wear masks to do so, to allow people who want to stay home to do so, to allow people who want to self-quarantine, who want to social distance to do so. That is so, so, so important because that's the only way that we can really expose going forward gaps in knowledge that the scientific information may not have addressed. For example, the Princess ship, which has been quarantined for some time now, and the cruise industry is showing us that there is no deadly spread of the disease. And so the best knowledge that we have is the ongoing knowledge of seeing how the health of individuals who choose to do this one thing is compared to the health of who people would choose to do another thing. And so I think it is important for each person to do what they feel is the right thing and to have government not make compelling regulations in this arena. And then over time, we can see what appears to be the best course of action and people can reevaluate their decisions and change their minds. Nothing's set in concrete. You may ask someone who decides they want to wear a mask and says, you know what, I'm done. You may ask someone who's not wearing a mask who decides, you know what, I think I'll wear a mask. So it varies and it should vary. And that's a freedom that people should have. All right. That brings us to question answer. But wait a minute. We're going to look at our Sheila jet. There we go. As you see, it has dissolved. We're going to stir it up. Yeah. It's pretty dark. This is a trace mineral complex, which is quite superior to all others for a couple of reasons. One, broader spectrum of minerals. But two, the minerals are biologically conjugated slash attached to organic molecules and more readily assimilated. So down the hatch here. Wonderful. I feel great. All right. All right. So yeah. So I want people to know that personally, me, no judgment. I think it's super important for each person to do as to do what they think is best and have that freedom to do that. And I think really that's going to give us the best outcome and the best information. As you can see, it is August 14th and it has taken science several months to even sort it out this much to realize that the probability of transmission in asymptomatic people is zero.

(1:00:57 - End) I'm starting a candida cleaner protocol, but did not want to purchase the wrong sugar cubes. Okay, then don't. Read the candida cleaner document again, or you can get the updated version at vitalitycouncils.com. And you can use granulated sugar just like I use here on my program. This is granulated sugar, not sugar cubes. So back when I discovered the healing benefits of turpentine, I recommended sugar cubes because sugar cubes made it easy to quantify the amount of sugar. And I had a lot of scientific people, PhDs, master's degree people in my medical practice. And if you tap on a spoonful of sugar, it was like totally lost on them. So yeah, use granulated sugar and use pure cane sugar is what you want. I was watching your interview online and you mentioned that you have been, have been, the words would be had been vegan for 26 years. Yes, that's true. Could you tell me why you changed your diet? I changed my diet because I became extremely exhausted and bedridden. I no longer had the energy to get up out of my bed and walk down the street. I was literally confined to bed. I could get up quickly and use the bathroom, but I, even while sitting on the toilet, I started to see totally exhausted and I would have to run right back to bed. And I decided I could not live my life that way. And I laid in bed thinking what could be wrong? And I firmly believed in natural healing and I firmly believed that anything could be healed with diet. And so I said to myself, well, if diet can heal anything, then there must be something missing from my diet. And so I thought, I thought, I thought, I thought, and I thought, and I finally deduced, must be an animal product, right? Because I'm vegan. So I said, okay, let's try eggs. I tried eggs and I went up to eight eggs a day. At eight eggs a day, I was able to get around. It wasn't totally normal because I had to spend so much time cooking eggs and eating eggs. And then I, so, you know, when I was a kid, I was like really healthy at tons of energy. What was it, was there anything mom fed me that was not like muscle meat, but was really different and might have caused the energy benefit. And I said, aha, liver. And so I cooked up some liver and bam, up out of bed, full energy all day. And so that's what really clued me into the fact that being vegan was part of the problem. Now, a lot of vegans might say, well, but Dr. Daniels, and they have told me this or asked me, aren't there some supplements I can take that would mimic the effect of liver? And looking at that question, I found that a person would literally have to take more than 20 supplement capsules to begin to mimic the effect of liver. And then there were some vegans that said, okay, okay, okay. I can take liver, but I can't eat it. I'm only going to take the desiccated dried liver in the capsules. I said, well, you know, hey, try that and maybe that'll work. And they tried it and they felt better. They had more energy. That's true. But then finally, when they decide to actually eat the liver, wow, the benefit. So if I could rate the benefit of desiccated liver capsules compared to the benefit of eating liver, the capsules are literally about one-tenth the benefit of actually eating liver. It is, it's really phenomenal. So I still believe that a vegan diet is a powerful diet. It's a positive diet. It's a healing diet, but its proper position is a temporary reprieve to clean out any accumulation of toxins or parasites that might come from the ingestion of animal products. And the other thing I learned, as I experimented with different types of animal parts and pieces, is that the benefits of animal organs, such as liver, bull testicles, animal brains, absolutely cannot be in any way mimicked by vegetables, the vegetable or plant world. So the nutritional benefits are simply not, they're just not there. So the plant and vegetable world is mainly a cleansing, protective domain, very necessary, very important. And it's just like a football game, basketball game, soccer, whatever, you cannot score in defense. And so fruits and vegetables are very important defense, in other words, they defend your body, but the animal products actually build your body. It's more of the offense. And so your body needs a balance between defense and offense. It's like what we are experiencing now in many economies around the world. Staying at home, locking down is very defensive action. But in this defensive posture, you can't prosper. You know, who's going to plant the crops, harvest the crops, package the crops, transport them to where they need to be so people can have food? Who's going to man the energy or power plants? So you cannot prosper on defense. And a vegan diet is a defensive diet. Now, beneficial, because, you know, if you have a situation and you're eating meat, then retreating and stopping meats for a period of time is definitely beneficial. So if you're vegan for six years or so, you have a wife, you have three kids. So what I did when I was vegan and I had kids was we were vegan at home and I had no processed vegan foods allowed. But whenever they went to a restaurant or to a relative's house, blank check. They could order whatever they want, eat whatever they want, however much they want. And sometimes they would get sick. But when they came home, they would go back to eating their fruits and vegetables and whatever it was would just clear up. And then they could make a decision about what they wanted to eat. And my kids, all three of them, extremely healthy. No one was ever sick. And they all excelled in athletics. And nobody had a broken bone or any health problems. So it worked out really well that way. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your reports on Candida and have urged my husband to start on his steps. No, no, no, no, no. Can't do that. So what you have to do is you have to read the report and do it for yourself. So only then can you, as an example, expect to influence others. So maybe you can share the report with him. But really, I would not put any pressure on him. I would really leave it open-ended and respect his decision to decide if it's something that might fit into his life and if he wants to do it and how he wants to do it. And that way what's going to happen is your relationship is going to be stronger. Your relationship is going to grow. And then he may or may not use trepantine. You know, yeah. So no need to push it on him. I have a question for you. Have you done any case studies on mothers who are breastfeeding? Okay, so I don't do case studies. Because Candida is something that breastfeeding mothers suffer through quite frequently. Okay, so again, we're just going to dispense with that. Get to the point here. Our babies develop Candida in the mouth and we develop it on our breasts. Newsflash, it's your diet. So I work with a lot of women who are pregnant or who are breastfeeding or whatever and they have Candida problems. Babies have Candida problems. The real problem is the mother's diet. And so something as simple as a healthy sugar like maple syrup or honey or brown sugar, all of these things, once eliminated from the diet, boom, mom's Candida goes away and baby's thrush goes away. So that's the cause. I would suggest removing the cause. But for the baby, you can just put a drop of trepantine on your finger and just rub his tongue, bam, done. Recently I've had a brush of both vaginal and breast Candida overgrowth. Now, the question at this point might be, what can I do? And by the way, I've been vegan for over nine years. So that's really all the relevant information here. Everything else is irrelevant. But I'll give you all the irrelevant information and explain to you that this is why I don't do mail-in follow-up questions after appointments. Because after appointments, people give me a whole bunch of stuff that's not relevant in terms of information and often fail to give me stuff that is relevant. So it's really not possible to answer their questions. But this person says, I've been vegan for over nine years. I recently had vaginal and oral yeast. I'm certain it's in my intestines. Okay. So we have a lot of information here. Since this person's been vegan for over nine years, they have another problem. They have a lack of connective tissue and they just had a baby which depleted their connective tissue. And so it's the connective tissue that protects your mucous membranes from getting yeast. And so this person's true cure, if they choose to reach for it, would be to eat animal tendons, lots and lots of bone broth, or animal feet like chicken feet or pig feet. That would be the cure which would go to the root of the problem. Now, if the person took turpentine, it would help with the symptoms and the symptoms would probably come back. So the real crux of this person's problem is the dietary deficiency. But I guess that's all the questions we can answer today. We're at the end of our time. People who would like appointments, also the appointments are available at VitalityCapsules.com. VitalityCapsules.com. They're generally 30 minutes and most people will agree, pretty comprehensive. I get right to the point and focus on solving the problem. I used to make myself available for longer term recurrent programs but time does not allow for that. So instead, I just allow people to schedule however many appointments they want to, however often they want to. All right, awesome. As always, mmm, think happens and please, please, please, please, please think about the importance of zero, nada, nothing, no transmissibility in the asymptomatic. And we'll see you in a bit. Think happens and hopefully I'll do another recording for next week.