Corona Virus The Good The Bad and the Ugly

(0:02) Hi, this is Dr. Daniels, and you are listening to Healing with Dr. Daniels. This is the Sunday, March 8th edition, 2020. Oh my god, we have got to talk about coronavirus. Today’s show is titled "Coronavirus: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."

(0:29) When I was a child, I would talk to my grandmother, and I would say, "Ma, Grandma," and she would respond, or I would be telling her a story about something that happened. I was so excited. "Oh my god, Grandma, that's so amazing." And Grandma would lean back and say, "Child, just keep living. You're going to see some things." Of course, as a little child of four or five years old, I would think, "Grandma, this was really amazing." But she would just say, "Just hold on, there's more to come." So, coronavirus might be what she was talking about. Oh my god.

(1:19) But as always, before we get started, we have to give the Vitality Capsules update. We have a missing ingredient in the Vitality Capsules, which is CAPLO. What we have found is that the classification of CAPLO has changed. The part of the plant that has been predominantly shipped has changed, and it is now the part of the plant that is not biologically active.

(1:57) We have located biologically active CAPLO, and we hope to get into production with Vitality Capsules soon. I’ll be giving you an update again on that next week.

(2:03) Meanwhile, it's Sunday. So, we're going to take our turpentine. We have our turpentine.

(2:12) Now, I have this in a dark bottle just because I happen to have a dark bottle. It’s not really necessary. It can be clear.

(2:18) All right, and we have what's called our pipette. These are plastic pipettes. You can buy them at Amazon for pretty cheap. This pipette has 2.5 cc or half a teaspoon at the neck. So, just before it becomes fat, filling it up to that point is half a teaspoon.

(2:39) So, here we go.

(2:47) Almost up to the neck, but not quite. So, we're going to get a little more air in there and we’re just going to get a little bit. That's enough. That's enough. I don't want to overdo it.

(3:01) Do not want to overdo it. And we have white sugar. As Mary Poppins says, "A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down." Well, not in a delightful way, but it does help the medicine go down.

(3:14) Now, also, the white sugar helps with the distribution of the turpentine. And there we go. Just go like that all down. Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep. Okay.

(3:30) And it always makes it more fun when you get a nice decorative fancy glass. Yum, yum, yum.

(3:54) Oh, get that all the way down there. Okay. Move that sugar out the way.

(4:01) Now, it's time for our Shilajit. This is a little scientific spatula, and it picks up small amounts of things, which is very handy when you're working with Shilajit. This is

gooey stuff, and you can see it kind of gooes and stands up on its own like some of those fancy hair gels.

(4:28) And this is convenient for us because we're just going to take a little scoop here. All we need is 200 milligrams, which shakes out to about a sixteenth of a teaspoon.

(4:44) You can see that little piece of black. And we have here our glass of water. I'm going to pour out some of it because I don't want to drink a whole lot. And you put it in here and let it dissolve. Later on, I'm going to stir this up and drink it.

(5:06) Okay, so we're going to let that percolate right there for a while. All right. Pow, pow, pow. Coronavirus.

(5:21) First of all, we need to understand there's a lot going on here. And the problem is we have at least one, two, three, four, five things going on here. Five. And people are conflating all of them to be the same thing. Very bad, very bad. So what we're going to do today is demystify coronavirus by separating out these five things, explaining what they are and their relationships to each other. This will help you get a grip.

(6:03) So why am I even talking about this? I was on the phone talking to someone who's in the land of plenty up there, first world country. I said, well, geez, how are things going? Did you go to this? Did you do that? And how'd your day go? You know? And she says, "Ma, everyone's being asked to work from home because of coronavirus. They don't want it to spread." I said, "Oh, okay." And then it just got crazier and crazier and crazier. I said, "Really?"

(6:43) So today I'm going to bring you up to speed so your coronavirus level of expertise will rival that of the, well, experts. And then you can decide how you want to handle, I'll call it the situation. And we'll call that number six: the situation. And the situation is something that only you can make a decision on. It’s a very personal decision. So I can't tell you how to proceed. I can tell you how I would proceed, but hey, I'm not even there.

(7:22) Let’s talk about the five pieces to the puzzle, the five things that are happening. First, you have the coronavirus illness. Then you have the coronavirus test. Then you have people who are sick, and you have dead bodies. These are all things that are out there. Okay. So, and then finally, there's the policy and the reaction to it. I'm just going to throw in the mix, for the sake of discussion, old people. What's old people? That's somebody 65 and older. This is not to put anybody down, but we just need a definition so we can understand going forward, and we can assign known information to these categories. So we'll just say for the sake of discussion, people 65 and older exist.

(8:12) So objectively here, we have a coronavirus illness. And just for your understanding, an illness is something that a group of people with common physicians or different committees will look at a bunch of symptoms and put them together and put a label on them. That’s the coronavirus, that’s in any illness. That’s the way it's done. Illness definitions do change over time. The thing to understand is the definition of an illness is in many cases arbitrary and capricious. Yes. Look that up. Legal term, important.

(8:55) So what we have is a list of symptoms that have been put together and labeled coronavirus. All right. Then we have a test for coronavirus. Then we have people who are ill. With what? We will discuss that. Then we have people who are 65 and older, and then we have dead bodies. And so we're going to cover each part of this.

(9:25) So first, we have the coronavirus illness. Now, we have a lot of illnesses, okay, like diabetes, for example. Diabetes is an illness defined by having a certain set of symptoms and laboratory findings. These are unique to diabetes and are not shared by other illnesses. That’s why we have a unique category, and we've given it a name—say, diabetes. Arthritis, again, has a unique set of symptoms: pain in the joints, swelling in the joints, difficulty moving, stiffness. This is a set of symptoms that define an illness.

(10:05) So if I say a person has arthritis, boom, you know that. If I say a person has pneumonia, you know it’s not arthritis. They don’t have pain in their joints. They’re coughing and maybe they’re making sputum, and maybe they have a fever. So, you have a category of symptoms that are organized and called an illness. This is because it distinguishes the condition from, say, another condition. So, if you have two conditions that have exactly the same symptoms, then they are, you guessed it, the same condition. Yes.

(10:55) Now, from time to time, there are symptoms that are identical but have different laboratory testing results. That’s an advanced category of things. Even within the medical industrial complex, there is disagreement as to whether or not those conditions should really be merged into one condition. That’s an ongoing discussion. So what I’m trying to say is, one, we’re not going to settle that here today, and two, you don’t have to because, hey, the experts haven’t figured it out. So let’s not put ourselves under undue pressure.

(11:34) What we want to do with the coronavirus is we want to understand what the symptoms are. So what are these symptoms of coronavirus? I want to find a good definition here. Oh my God, there’s a whole lot going on in the United States. Okay. And now they’re even trying to put...so the coronavirus is a respiratory illness, and it is defined as a cough, fever, and difficulty breathing. Yep, fever, cough, and shortness of breath. That’s it. Fever, cough, shortness of breath.

(13:17) Now, those of you who’ve been around the block a few times—maybe you’re over 40—that sounds a lot like asthma. Yep, fever, cough, you know, asthma with an infection. It could be bronchitis, and it could be pneumonia. So, this is a very broad category, and there would not be, again, in medical terminology, a need for a new name. Okay, it’s a respiratory illness. So, we’ve got a definition of a condition, which sounds a lot like many other situations.

(14:01) So our definition of coronavirus is, let’s say, non-specific. It’s not specific or unique to any particular illness. It actually is very similar to bronchitis, similar to pneumonia, similar to a common cold, even. All right. And so the following symptoms may occur 2 to 14 days after exposure. Okay. And in this case, what they’re saying is exposure is required. You must be exposed to it. All right. We’re understanding that, and that’s our definition. And like they say in the famous country song, "That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it." Got no witnesses. I can’t prove it, but that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. So they’re sticking to this definition, and that’s okay. We’re going to stick to it as well. So, that’s the definition of coronavirus.

(15:00) Next, we take the next step, which is a positive coronavirus test. Hmm. Well, we can’t really talk about a positive coronavirus test until we talk about the coronavirus test. So, let’s talk about the coronavirus test. This is from the CDC. So we want to, you know, take a look at what the authority figure is—what, you know, what is the gold standard. And when you want to know what’s going on, you can’t just start with the six o’clock news because by the time the six o’clock news gets the information, it has passed through many sensors, filters, publicity departments, and marketing departments. So, let’s just go back to the CDC. What’s going on? Can you tell me? Can we buy a vowel here? What can we do?

(16:16) So, the CDC works closely with state and local public health departments, travel industry partners, and others to identify and test people who may be infected with coronavirus, COV. The CDC conducts several different laboratory tests to detect this infection. In general, these lab tests fall into two categories. Two categories: one, molecular tests, which look for evidence of active infection, and two, serology tests or antibody tests, which look for previous evidence by detecting antibodies to the coronavirus. So, serology tests are for surveillance or investigational purposes, not for diagnostic purposes.

(17:03) So, what’s the serology test? The camera is facing me, and I’m looking at something. Let’s say I’m looking at a dog, and that dog is a dangerous dog that could bite. And I go, "Okay." So, what the serology test does is it takes a picture of the person’s blood. If it sees the face, it’s like, "Oh my God, that vicious dog must be nearby." Yeah. You figured it out. That face of surprise and fear could be from anything, anything. But what serology tests measure, then, is your body’s reaction to something, not to something itself. And that something may have been long gone. Okay. So, a serology test is not, and cannot indicate that you are presently harboring a virus or that you have the ability to spread the virus. All right. This is important.

(18:10) And so, a lot of times people say, "Oh, I did an antibody test. Oh, I did an antibody test." An antibody test is simply a serology test. It doesn’t mean active infection. All right. Then you have molecular tests. And so, I’m thinking, "Molecular tests, oh my God, this is great. We have a test for active infection." Hold on, hold on. But as my friends would say, "Wait for it, wait for it."

(18:47) Okay. So, molecular tests are used to diagnose active infection. It's like, "Wow, great." But, wait, let’s break it down. So, molecular tests are supposed to identify the presence of the virus in people who are thought to be infected based on their clinical symptoms and having links to places where it has been reported. Now, this is a very important thing to understand. They’re limiting the test to people who are thought to be infected based on clinical symptoms and having links to places where it’s been reported. So, a person without symptoms or who has not been in a place where it’s been reported would not be tested.

(19:39) When I was in medical school, I was 22 to 26, and I was gullible. I said, "Well, that makes sense." No, it doesn’t make sense. If the test was accurate, then you should be able to test anybody and everybody, even if they have no contact with the virus, and the test would accurately indicate that they had no contact with the virus, right? Because we’re checking for active infection. So, the test should detect no presence of the virus because the test is accurate. So, you shouldn’t need to limit your testing only to people who have symptoms and are likely to have the disease. This is your first red flag that the test may not be accurate or reliable.

(20:20) Uh-huh. Okay. So, the next one, this is the next piece. So, listen and remember, we’re going to get the English translation. So, real-time—that means like right now, today—reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays. What does that mean? That means that they have to add a chemical to the sample that amplifies, multiplies, and creates more copies of something. In this case, RNA. Now, if you’ll remember Koch's postulates—K-O-C-H, look it up—Koch's postulates. So, Koch's postulates say that in order for something to cause a disease, it must be present in plentiful amounts. In other words, it doesn’t require amplification. Okay. So, this molecular test relies on amplification. So, they are detecting something that right off the bat we know is not present in large enough amounts to cause disease.

(21:32) Okay. So, the CDC’s current case definition for laboratory confirmation of infection requires a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test result for at least two genomic targets. So, you have a virus, call it the coronavirus, and it has a DNA sequence. Let’s say the sequence is the alphabet A to Z. And we have a bunch of targets on that A through Z. Let’s say one target is B, one target is Q, and there are a few others. But the point is, the assay only has to detect two of the targets on that DNA sequence. See a problem with this? If you had the word "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious," for example, that might come up positive for the alphabet, just because there are so many letters, and two targets in the alphabet might be identified in the word "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious." See?

(23:00) Uh-huh. So now we’re getting into a serious cross-reactivity issue, right? So, only two target genomes need to be present. There are a lot of genomes out there and a lot of shared genomes. Okay. Most state laboratories in the United States are approved to test for coronavirus by using this molecular test technology developed by the CDC. This test is done under the authority of emergency use authorization because there are no FDA-cleared approved tests available for this purpose in the United States. So, in other words, the test for the coronavirus has not passed FDA approval. Whatever the rigorous low-bar FDA standards might be, this test has not passed it.

(24:01) The success of this testing depends on several factors. Whoa. So, we’ve already got several reasons why this test is not going to be reliable. One, it’s detecting organisms that are not present in a large enough amount to cause disease. Number one. Number two, it only detects two genome targets, and those same two genome targets could be present in many other places where the virus has never been and is not present. So, another reason for false positives—indicating that there’s a problem when there isn’t. And now we find the test is not approved by the FDA, has not gone through FDA rigorous evaluation. And we know how rigorous their evaluation is. We can see by the drugs they are approving, which are deadly, but the FDA has declared them safe and effective.

(25:08) All right, next it gets worse. The success of the testing depends on several factors, including the experience and expertise of laboratory personnel. Whoa. The coronavirus test is brand new, right off the press. So, what’s the expertise level of the personnel? Very low. Okay. So, failed that in terms of the success of the test and the laboratory environment. Good luck with that. We all know those hospital environments are filled with cross-contamination. And so, they’re saying avoidance of contamination will…they admitted it right off the bat…and the type and condition of specimens being tested. The CDC recommends collecting multiple specimens. Listen carefully: lower bronchial alveolar lavage.

(26:17) Whoa. That means if you want to know if you’ve got coronavirus—I mean, you want to know, know—according to the CDC, you have to go under heavy sedation. I would recommend general anesthesia for this one. Put a tube in your mouth, back down your throat…we’re not there yet…in your trachea and into one branch of your lung. That’s bronchial alveolar lavage. But wait, the tube is just there. It hasn’t done anything yet. Then we want to spritz some saline in there, rinse it up, mix it up, loosen up any virus specimen that might be there, and then suck the specimen back up and pull the tube out. Just the trauma, my God, could kill a few people.

(27:02) Okay. So, bronchial alveolar lavage, which I just explained to you. Sputum. That means spit. And tracheal aspirates. So, tracheal aspirates are not quite as bad as alveolar lavage, but it’s pretty bad. So, that means there is a tube attached to suction—usually wall suction—and then there’s a little aspirator, which is a skinny attachment. They take the skinny attachment, thread it up your nose and back, or put it in your mouth and back, and then turn the suction on and suck up some sputum. And it doesn’t stop there. Upper nasopharyngeal, that means they can take a swab, put it up your nose, and all the way to the back of your throat. And oropharyngeal, that means through your mouth all the way to the back of your throat. Respiratory samples, blood, and stool samples go up your butt—or maybe they’re nice, they’ll let you poop in a cup. It’s a lot of specimens.

(28:23) The CDC considers a person under investigation to be negative—that means they don’t have the virus—following one negative test on the recommended specimens. Now, I don’t know if it means one negative test on each specimen or one negative test on any specimen. And what if the first specimen is positive, but the second specimen is negative? Would the second specimen have been tested first, and that would have been the end of it? This is getting pretty sketchy. Pretty sketchy.

(29:14) So, one negative specimen does not completely rule it out. Really? Really? You’ve just asked them to get about 20 specimens. They usually get at least two or three specimens from each area. I mean, when you go all the way down there into the lung, why just get one specimen? So, we’ve got nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, sputum, tracheal aspirate, blood, and stool. All right, so we have seven places in ways that are being tested. At least two specimens for each, two or three. We’ve got easily 20 specimens per person to test. All right. Since a single negative result does not completely rule out MERS infection or co-infection or coronavirus infection, in some circumstances, additional specimens may be tested. That means additional as in you do the first one negative, but you keep testing until you find a positive.

(30:30) Okay. The CDC considers no patient to be negative for active infection following two consecutive negative tests on all specimens. So, once you’ve tested positive, now you have to go through the whole target of all 20, of all seven body cavities, samples taken and tested. And all those tests have to be negative once you’ve tested positive. So, what we’ve got here going is random. Even if a person is positive for the virus, and let’s say all these specimens are taken, it is possible for a person to be positive for a virus and one of these specimens to be negative. If by random chance that specimen is the first one tested, then that coronavirus-positive person will be classified as negative. So, the test is fraught with false negatives.

(31:40) Obviously, let your mind wander a little more. This person who’s positive for active, live coronaviruses in their body somewhere, they might have all negative nasal throat specimens, but the tracheal specimen might be positive. And maybe the nasal specimen was tested first. So, if the person has 20 specimens collected, only one of them is positive. If you randomly pick which one to test, you literally have only a 4% chance of detecting a positive. So, you have a 96% chance of missing a person who actually has coronavirus and can transmit it. And this is just the sampling and testing process. This is an inherent error, which is unreliability built into the sampling process. We haven’t even mentioned the other issues. Once you get the specimen, let’s call it a positive specimen. Positive for what? Positive for an organism not present in enough quantity to cause disease. Positive for two genomic markers that could signify any of many organisms. So, now what we’re getting down to is a positive molecular test, which is the most reliable test, which is the one that confers or communicates or measures active infection. We’re getting down to a reliability factor here of around 2% maybe. It’s getting pretty low.

(33:38) So, what does a positive test mean? If you look at these testing criteria, the answer is not a lot. Okay, so we’ve exhaustively evaluated what a molecular test is. You now know on the level of a PhD what a molecular test is and how it’s interpreted. And we have serology tests. So, all you know about serology tests is the other word is ELISA. Is a serology test, if they are positive, do not indicate that you have the organism at this moment in time. It at best indicates that the organism was in your body or came into contact with your immune system. Your immune system successfully dealt with it, and it is no longer here. That’s a serology test. Why would anyone submit to a serology test? It makes no sense, right? Because it’s here, it’s gone, you’re healthy, everything worked out. So, serology tests cannot tell you if the organism is present and the cause of your disease. You might be sick, but the disease, but the organism might not be the cause of this. I’ll give you an example.

(35:07) So, my husband was sick and dying from interruption of the blood supply to his intestines. He had a serology test because he had terrible abdominal pain—a serology test for salmonella. It was positive. Well, of course, he traveled internationally for decades. His body had encountered salmonella and dealt with it. But that serology test was interpreted to mean that he was actively infected today with salmonella, and he was given antibiotics, which of course did nothing to help his condition. So, serology tests—never, ever rely upon them as indicating the cause of your present misery. Okay, so if you’re getting a SARS test, it is a molecular test, or it is a serology test. And so now we know we’re on pretty thin ice here with the testing, but let’s not start there. Let’s say we have sick people. Yes, they’re sick people. They’re people who are coughing and who have a fever. And guess what? They were here long before SARS and they will be here when SARS is gone. But the question is, is their condition caused by SARS? There’s a question right there. I won’t say SARS because they’re conflating, by the way, SARS and MERS and coronavirus. The testing and the viruses are very similar, but we’re talking about coronavirus. So, let’s take a look.

(36:46) So, what we’ve determined is this test is, as my daughter would say, “Mom, that’s pretty sketchy. That’s pretty sketchy.” So, we’re driving down the road. This is in Panama. Driving down the road and I said, “Okay, pull over, pull over here, right here, pull over.” So, we pull over. I roll the window down. The person throws in a bunch of garlic, and I pass them a dollar and we pull off. My daughter says, “Mom, that’s a pretty sketchy way to get garlic.” So yeah, the coronavirus test is pretty sketchy, but let’s just see what the latest update is for your doctor and see what we can deduce.

(37:31) This is from the CDC. Outbreaks of, says the headline, CDC expects eventual community spread of coronavirus in the United States. Well, with tests like that, I guess they would be. Just give that test to everybody. Pretty much, you’ll see disease everywhere. Just saying. But let’s see what they say. Outbreaks of coronavirus in a wide range of countries have officials at the CDC believing it is now a matter of when, not if, there will be a community spread in the United States. We have for many weeks been saying that while we hope this is not going to be severe, we’re planning as if it is, says the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease.

(38:25) The doctor noted that the coronavirus is now showing signs of community spread without a known source of exposure. Red flag, red flag, red flag. So, you’re catching an infectious disease without being exposed to it. Can anyone say cooties? Yes, you’ve got cooties. You’ve got cooties. We all got cooties. Well, no, some of us don’t. So, now they’ve let the cat out of the bag. People are getting coronavirus without ever being exposed. Now, what does it mean to get coronavirus? This test is showing up positive in people who have never been exposed to the virus. And once you examine the test, you can see, of course, it’s going to be positive in people who’ve never been exposed. A test like this? You kidding me? Yeah. And so, the only thing needed to create positive tests for coronavirus is simply to test everybody. And there will be people who test positive.

(39:45) Okay. She relayed the number of actions being taken to slow the potential spread in the United States, including detecting, tracking, and isolating all cases. So now, detecting—the only way to detect it is by this test, this very sketchy test. And so, this very sketchy test is going to be randomly positive. It is a random number generator. What’s that mean? You go to the casino, and you have a roulette wheel. Half the numbers are red, and half the numbers are black. You spin that wheel. Half the number, the people who spin that wheel will get red, and half will get black. So, if you have a hundred people walking into the casino, two of them—let’s say ten of them—have coronavirus, and you spin this wheel, it will randomly assign those coronavirus people to either sick (it will be red) or healthy (it will be black). So, this test is the same way. It does not have the ability to detect disease.

(41:06) Now, you know that just by reading how the test is performed and what the test is measuring. You can see that this test will not detect who’s sick and who’s not. It will not do that. And that’s why they tell you only to test people who have symptoms because at least they’re already sick. So, the validity of the test will not be immediately challenged. Okay. What other evidence do we have that the coronavirus test is a random number generator? One criterion here is that people are getting positive test results, and they’ve never been exposed to the virus. So obviously, the test is detecting something other than coronavirus illness, but we can go even further. We’ve got better information than that.

(42:13) It’s something called a case fatality rate. That means if you test people for coronavirus, what percent of people who are tested go on to die? We have that information. So, it turns out that the number of people outside of China who test positive for coronavirus and go on to die from the coronavirus is now hovering at 0.9%. And these people who are dying are elderly. What’s elderly? Elderly is 65 years of age or older—just a definition. So, it’s important to know this 0.9% number. Why? What’s the death rate in the United States? If you go into the United States and randomly round up a hundred people—just random you, you, you—until you get a hundred people and you track those people for a year, how many are going to die? Answer: 1%. So, having a positive test for coronavirus does not in any way increase your probability of death. And that is the tip-off that it is simply a random number generator. It randomly assigns a positive value to whoever is tested. What other evidence do we have? Let’s look at people who are 65 in the United States. And for this, we go to the actuarial tables. I love actuarial tables.

(43:49) What is the actuarial table? An actuarial table is a table used by insurance companies to predict if you’re going to die, how soon you’re going to die, and what you’re going to die of. And they use these tables to place bets and set their health insurance rates so that they are health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance rates, so that they always make money. Okay. So, if you look at these actuarial tables and you look at age 65, what do you find? There’s a 1.5% chance of death in the next year of life if you’re 65 years of age. And if you’re older, it gets higher and higher and even higher. So, the death rate of 1% in people who are 65 and older is like no news. If a death rate of 1% in someone 65 and older from coronavirus, that suggests that coronavirus is totally not deadly. In fact, it may even be protective, right? Because this person’s probability of death was more than 1% even without coronavirus.

(45:05) So, while yes, there’s a test, yes, people are testing positive. Does that testing positive indicate an increased chance of disease or death? The answer is no. The answer is no. So, we have a list of symptoms, call it an illness. This list of symptoms is in no way unique or distinct, like say diabetes, which is characterized by sweet-tasting urine, sticky urine, tiredness, and a laboratory test and a blood sugar higher than a certain number. That is different, distinct from arthritis, which is aches and pains in your joints. A person can have both, but these are two separate conditions with distinct and different descriptions. So, the description for coronavirus is a vague description that could fit almost everybody over the course of three to five years who isn’t going to get a cough or a fever, right? It just happens. You get a cough, it goes away. Get a fever, it goes away. So, you have a vague description that could fit anybody and everybody over a period of time. Got that.

(46:10) You have a test that shows positive, unrelated to anyone’s symptoms, and unrelated even to exposure to someone else with a positive test. So, this is clear that the coronavirus—whatever the coronavirus test is measuring—is not contagious. It is not spread person to person. How is it spread? There are a lot of ways to spread. So, the classic ways to spread are for the fecal-oral route. That means your mouth ingests someone else’s feces. That’s the fecal-oral route of spread. How do you eliminate that? Get your own private toilet. That’s it. Use your own private toilet. If you’re using your own private toilet and you wash your hands before you eat, you will have zero chance—zero, zero, nada, nothing—zero chance of being exposed to other people’s feces. It’s just not going to find a way into your mouth. So, another way of spread is the water supply. Drinking distilled water with your own distiller…you’re not going to get it. It’s going to clear out the situation. So, since the coronavirus seems to only affect old people or mostly old people—the death rate is 1%—then we can see here that testing positive for the coronavirus does not cause any increased frequency of death.

(48:02) And there are sick people. There will always be sick people. But again, because the coronavirus doesn’t cause an increase in sickness, we can pretty much say that’s it. And dead bodies—again, people are always dying. But with the coronavirus, we can see that the chance of death is not in any way increased by testing positive for the coronavirus. What is the coronavirus really testing for? I’d have to say, really nothing. It’s testing for fragments, protein fragments that are randomly distributed in the bodies of the human population. That is what is being detected.

(48:46) Okay. So that brings us to the point of the matter. The real matter is, what should you do? Should you get tested for coronavirus? No. I mean, that’s like getting tested for two eyeballs. First of all, I can just look at you and tell, or you can look in the mirror and tell if you have two eyeballs. Got that. But what is the predictive value of having two eyeballs? Does having two eyeballs mean that you’re sick? Does it mean that you’re healthy? No, it has no predictive value. So, the coronavirus test has zero predictive value. So, it makes no sense to get tested for it. What about treatment? The medical industrial complex is very clear. They have no treatment for it. So, since the test is not reliable and the treatment is not effective, then definitely one to stay home for. Sit this one out. Don’t even participate. Do not get tested.

(49:41) No. So, what about all these meetings that are canceled? I mean, I just got an email from Wharton. They’ve canceled the alumni meeting of the Wharton Alumni Healthcare Association members. That’s nice. So, I say treat all these canceled meetings like a day off from work. Enjoy yourself. I know. Declutter your closet. Get yourself organized. Meditate. Plan the rest of your life. Do some things that you’ve always wanted to do, maybe privately in your home. Maybe you’ve been meaning to do a few sit-ups or plank exercises, or maybe there’s that recipe you haven’t got around to making. Whatever it is, do something around the house that you haven’t really had a chance to get around to. And while the madness clears, that would be my recommendation. Should you get a mask? Clearly not because it’s not spread by person-to-person contact. There is no evidence of a contagious origin for coronavirus.

(51:01) So, people now are testing positive who have not been exposed at all to other people who have tested positive. So, this is something that’s called sporadic. Yes, sporadic. I even took the time to look up the word sporadic. It means occurring at irregular intervals or only in a few places scattered or isolated. So, it’s occasional, infrequent, and irregular. That’s what the testing shows. It shows occasional, infrequent, irregular positive results randomly in whoever gets the test.

(51:43) Now, government policies surrounding this testing…hey, I’m not a member of the government. Nobody asked me. I don’t know how they arrive at these policies or whatever. It’s up to you to decide how you plan to participate. If you want to make an impressive fashion statement of, “I believe,” then hey, put a mask on, put a mask on, you know, do it up. But don’t take any precautions to reduce exposure to the virus because there’s no evidence that causes any disease. Now, what about, hey, China, China? All those people in China are dying. Yes, they are dying. They’re not dying of coronavirus. What they’re dying of, I don’t know. I’m not in China. I wasn’t there. I can’t say, but I can say very firmly, they are not dying of coronavirus. We know this because testing for coronavirus is being done around the world. People who are testing positive do not have any higher probability of death than people who have not been tested at all or people who have tested negative. So, yes, people are dying. What are they dying of? Don’t know. What are they not dying of? Coronavirus. So, there you have it.

(53:14) Oh, here we go. This is cute. So now, we have people who are trying to piggyback on the coronavirus hysteria, and they’re saying something far deadlier than the Wuhan virus lurks near you. And of course, it’s a flu shot, and you should get your vaccines. But wait, we have another headline: Pediatric influenza deaths in the United States—second highest on record, CDC says. So, we started vaccinating kids against the flu, and now they’re dying in higher numbers of the flu. Sounds to me like the flu shot, we have to say it is certainly not helping. Might be hurting. We don’t know, but it’s definitely not helping. So, yes, anything is deadlier than the Wuhan virus because, well, it’s not deadly. Trick question. Trick question. Trick question.

(54:06) Okay. So let us see. I hope I’ve answered questions that people might have about the virus.

(54:31) All right. Oh, we’ve got questions. Okay. Unfortunately, we only have six minutes, but let’s go for it. Hi, Dr. Daniels. Love your show. Yay. Thank you. I need encouragement. I’m getting old and ready to retire. I am 63 and really am having a great time.

(55:00) Okay. I consider you the greatest doctor in the world. What advice would you give an older couple trying to get pregnant? Food recommendations. Male is 50, and female is 43. Trying to get pregnant. You know, I am not a fan of the medical industrial complex, but this is one case where I might need to make a referral. I would suggest it’s very important that the male get a sperm test. You can go on Amazon, and you can actually do your own home sperm test and make sure his sperm test is positive. And people are so conditioned by the educational system: A, B, C, D, F. No, no, no, no, no, no. This is a pass-fail test. If his sperm turns out okay, then that’s it. His sperm is okay for impregnation. He does not need to do anything more. He can get a person pregnant.

(56:02) All right. See, it has dissolved. I’ve been nervously stirring it off-camera. Let me just take this. We’ll finish this. Okay. So, let’s say that he passes the fertility test. That’s it. Done. There’s nothing more for him to do. The lady, on the other hand, she needs to keep a basal body temperature chart, and you can Google that online. It’ll tell you how to keep the chart, and you need to note on the chart—you can use circles, you can use squares, you can use dots, whatever you want—but you need to note the days that you’re bleeding. You need to note the temperature. Day one of the chart is always the first day of your bleeding, and then it ends, and you start a new chart on the next first day, the first day of your next period. Okay. So, you need to keep this chart. You need to note on the chart your temperature, the days that you’re bleeding, how heavy your bleeding is. You can then, you can just use plus signs, plus maybe spotting, plus plus is a pad, plus plus plus is usual heavy flow, whatever. And you need to put some kind of mark. I usually do X and circle the days you have sex. With that, you can easily see why you’re not getting pregnant. You will not get pregnant because maybe you’re not ovulating. The chart will tell you that. You’re not getting pregnant because you might have a polyp in your uterus. Believe it or not, your chart will tell you that as well. You might not be getting pregnant because you’re having sex on the wrong days. Your chart will also tell you that.

(58:04) The next thing you can do to make this even more precise is those ovulation predictor kits you can now buy on Amazon. Thank God for Amazon. I love Amazon. Ovulation predictor kits, and you should start checking for the ovulation about three days before your temperature rises, and then that way you can tell. And then you also chart the results of your ovulation predictor. So, with all that information, you can figure out the precise time of the month you should have sex. For your information, you can only get pregnant about three days out of the month at most. Since you have a male partner of 50, probably you can only get pregnant for six hours. Oh, we’re looking. It depends on how long his sperm will live for. Just joking. But that’s what you have to do.

(58:51) Is it true a woman should not drink alcohol at all if she’s trying to get pregnant? You know, you’re 43. Owen’s 43. The guy’s 50. This is probably going to be your last pregnancy. So, you just want to have the best baby you can possibly have. Do a lot of women drink while they’re pregnant and before they’re pregnant, and they have perfectly healthy babies? Yes, they do. Do a lot of women drink, and they have messed-up babies? Yes, they do. The real correlation is the guy. He should not have any alcohol to drink for at least a week before he has sex because it is the alcohol intake of the male that causes fetal alcohol syndrome. Go figure. Go figure. And that’s unfortunately all the time we have today for questions.

(59:50) So, you can send your questions to J-D-A-A-N-I-E-L-S for us to consider or possibly answer on future broadcasts. If you have questions, your questions don’t get answered, you can always make an appointment. You can go to VitalityCapsules.com, schedule an appointment. Nope, they’re not cheap, but guess what? It’s effective. It works. It helps. Okay. Oh, oh, you can decide what your question is worth. And so, if you think it’s not worth all that, then that’s okay. Just don’t make an appointment. But that is another option for getting questions answered. And also, of course, there’s Vitality Capsules at VitalityCapsules.com. All right. We’ll see you again next week. And as always, THINK HAPPENS!