I apologize if I seem to be obsessed with this, but I am very troubled by it, and not just because of the tragedy of it all but because I am truly baffled by what we are being told. Yesterday, I learned that a nurse in Florida started having symptoms of Covid last Tuesday, and she was dead by Saturday morning. To go from A to Zed that fast, meaning from A to Dead, seems impossible. How can you start coming down with this and then be dead from it in less than 4 days when most people experience either no symptoms or a mild cold symptoms and that's it? Plus, she was home, where she lived alone, and if she was deteriorating that fast, why didn’t she get herself to the hospital? She was a nurse, so she had to know the trouble she was in. Why did she just stay home and die?

In Iceland, they have tested a lot of their people, and among those testing positive, there are just as many who are asymptomatic as symptomatic. And there is so much faith in that Corona test, that they assume that those who test positive without having symptoms are just as infected and dangerous to others.  

But, I have to wonder: what is going on in the bodies of those who are infected without getting sick? How are they fighting the virus? It’s the body’s fight against the virus that produces the symptoms, such as fever, inflammation, and mucorrhea, right?

So, I have been looking into this about what they think is happening in the bodies of the "asymptomatic infected," and it is that these people are experiencing some reaction, such as some inflammation, but they just aren’t aware of it. They’re just not feeling it, even though there is a struggle going on inside. But, wait a second; that is entirely presumptuous. If it’s true, then there has got to be some evidence for it. For instance, do they have higher levels of inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein? They can’t just claim that that is going on. They have to prove it. If the person looks well, and feels well, and is reporting no symptoms, no one has the right to claim that they are actually in the throes of a struggle with a pathogen  If there isn’t SOMETHING concrete, such as an abnormal blood test or perhaps an abnormality on physical examination, then there is no basis to make that claim. And the one thing they refuse to consider is false positive test results, even though the Chinese concluded that most of the asymptomatic positives are false positives.

Iceland has tested a larger percentage of its population than any other country, and they found that, among those testing positive, that 50% were symptomatic and 50% were asymptomatic. To me, that suggests the possibility that the test is producing noise. However, it depends on what percent of those tested were symptomatic.

But, there is a town in Northern Italy, Vo Eugenio, with a population of 3300, and they decided to test everyone in the town. They got a 3% positive rate; so right around 100 people infected. “But, the majority of them were asymptomatic.” The majority. 

So, what are we supposed to make of this situation where a deadly disease, with a fatality rate that is said to be many times higher than the flu, affects a lot of people without causing any sickness at all?

I dare say that the widespread occurrence of all these “asymptomatic positives” should be making people question the accuracy and validity of that test.






This is a very succinct telling of the loopholes that exist in the current world response, and I find it refreshing because David Crowe voices something that few voice: the possibility of false positives. In fact, false positives have been DEFINED out of the picture because if they test you, and you're positive, but you don't have symptoms, and you don't develop symptoms, then they just say that you are one of the lucky ones who gets infected but doesn't get sick. But, if we were going to assume that every time, then if we, hypothetically, had a faulty test, how would we ever know?
David Crowe suggests testing 1000 people who are certain not to have it to see if any positive results follow. You could use 1000 healthy people from a part of the world that is completely untouched by this. I realize that that is a tall order now, and some will say that it is impossible, that no place is untouched. But surely a month ago there were plenty of places that were untouched, and it could have been done then. And even now, the population of Antarctica, mostly scientists, varies from 1000 in the dead of winter to 4000 in the summer. Has the virus gone there? If not, then you swab all the Antarcticans and see if you get all negatives results on them, as you should. But, you don't tell the labs. It's got to be done blindly.
Right now, we are waiting to see if Senator Rand Paul gets sick. What if he doesn't? How are you going to rationalize it? Is he Superman? We are in a situation where it's not the symptoms or the progression that defines the illness. It is only the test that defines the illness, and that test has instantly become sacrosanct.

What troubles me most about the Corona crisis is the assumption that the new PCR test that they whipped up to detect the virus is infallible. By symptoms alone, the disease is indistinguishable from flu. You can't tell the difference, and neither can your doctor. That sputum test is the ONLY thing that makes the call. So, the accuracy and reliability of the test is crucial. 


But, nothing is being said about possibility of the test failing. The possibility of false negatives has been suggested, but not on the basis of the test failing, but rather, on the basis of it being too early for the infected person to have enough virus to show it. The implication is that, in time, the person will test positive. 


But, what about the possibility of false positives? The guy who invented the test and won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for it, Kary Mullis, denied that the PCR test can be used to determine "viral loads" at all. He objected to the use of the PCR test to determine who has HIV and Ebola. Unfortunately, Kary Mullis died last August of pneumonia at the age of 74.  


The test involves taking a single strand of RNA, converting it to DNA with the enzyme "reverse transcriptase" and then applying  the enzyme "polymerase" to cause billions of duplications.  But, Mullis said you can't use it to quantify, since you're only taking one nucleic acid strand from the person, and others besides him have questioned using the PCR test this way.


It's being reported that for the vast majority of people (80%) the illness from Corona virus is mild and short. And for some reason, children are largely not getting sick from it. In China, less than 2% of the victims have been children.  It's been suggested that children have more "innate immunity" but that is just a rationalization because children tend to get respiratory infections very easily. 


And it also appears that plenty of adults can contact the virus without catching it. The wife of Prime Minister Trudeau tested positive, and I presume she was tested because she showed symptoms. But, they have insisted that she is not terribly sick and mostly fine. And he isn't sick at all. So, either he didn't catch the virus from her despite being in an intimate relationship with her OR he caught it, and it's just not making him sick. 


Texas Senator Ted Cruz shook hands with people who had it, and he immediately went into self-quarantine. It was on February 29 that he interacted with persons who went on to test positive, and this is March 17.  So far, he hasn't gotten sick. Has he even tested positive?    


The British actor Idris Elba announced yesterday that he has tested positive, and he is not sick. He has no symptoms.  So, why did he test? It's because he shook hands with somebody who apparently has it. But, he is not sick so far, and his wife, who lives and sleeps with him, is not sick. 


So, the idea has been raised that the symptoms of Corona virus infection are sometimes nothing, that some people simply don't get sick from it, even though they have it. And that's not a new idea because it's reported that 80% of Americans test positive for Epstein-Barr virus, even though very few of them have mononucleosis or other conditions attributed to Epstein-Barr. So, Epstein-Barr makes you sick- except when it doesn't. 


Let's note that the Epstein-Barr test is an antibody test, and that is very different from the test they are using to determine Corona, the PCR test. The following is by Jon Rappaport, and it was written in regard to using PCR to detect Ebola. 


However, as I’ve written, the PCR test has problems. It is open to errors. One of those errors occurs right at the beginning of the procedure:

Is the sample taken from the patient actually a virus or a piece of a virus? Or is it just an irrelevant piece of debris?

Another problem is inherent in the method of the PCR itself. The test is based on the amplification of a tiny, tiny speck of genetic material taken from a patient—blowing it up billions of times until it can be observed and analyzed.

Researchers who employ the test claim that, as a result of the procedure, they can also infer the quantity of virus that is present in the patient.

This is crucial, because unless a patient has millions and millions of Ebola virus in his body, there is absolutely no reason to think he is sick or will become sick.

So the question is: can the PCR test allow researchers and doctors to say how much virus is in a patient’s body? Let's ask Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR:


‘Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron. PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral-load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to the virus. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.'

Kary Mullis is a biochemist. He is also a Nobel Prize winner (1993, Chemistry)  for inventing PCR.

RC: Despite these concerns about the PCR test, which preceded the Corona crisis, the possibility of false positives is not being raised at all. It's not even on the radar. And what's worse is that the possibility of false positives is being defined out of the picture. By admitting that some people just don't get sick from corona virus, they have given the test an out. Instead of considering test error, they just help themselves to the conclusion that every non-sick person who tests positive is just someone who doesn't get sick from corona virus. In other words, they are infected, no doubt about it, but for them, the symptoms are zero. Well, isn't that convenient. 

So, here's what needs to happen. The test needs to be tested. And the most efficient way to do it, in my opinion, is to send a sputum sample from an asymptomatic and presumably unexposed person in 10 times under 10 different names and see if they all come back negative. And keep in mind that there could also be false positives among symptomatic people as well. People still get the regular flu, don't they? So, it could also be done with someone who is afflicted with respiratory symptoms because that person too should get either 10 yehs or 10 neys for Corona.  If it's a mix, then all bets are off. 

It's time to start testing the test, and we, the people, could do it.  


In the movie, No Country For Old Men, the monstrous killer Anton Chigurh, played by Javier Bardem, has his latest victim, Carlson Wells, played by Woody Harrelson, at gunpoint, and before he shoots him, he asks, “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?”

I am reminded of it because I got a call from a man who said he is in heart failure, and his cardiologist prescribed three drugs for him to take, but for quite a few years, he’s been seeing this cardiologist who has been treating his high blood pressure with drugs. So, after placing the care of his heart with this cardiologist, the outcome after some years is that he wound up with heart failure.

So, my question is: “If the medical advice you followed brought you to this, of what use was the medical advice?”

Am I saying that the way the cardiologist has been treating his hypertension caused his heart failure?  I strongly suspect that that is the case, yes.  We know that some of the drugs used to lower blood pressure do so by weakening the heart, such as beta blockers and calcium channel blockers. And other drugs that are used likely contribute to it as well.

Unless his blood pressure was so high that he was on the verge of a catastrophic event, he never should have agreed to take any of this man’s drugs. He should have sought to bring the pressure down by improving his diet, cutting out all bad habits, including caffeine, shedding any excess body fat he may have had, and then taking perfectly safe supplements that may help coax down blood pressure, such as magnesium, CoQ10, resveratrol, Vitamin D3, and more. None of that is disruptive. None of it involves causing abnormalities to fix an abnormality. And even if it took a while to work, such as many weeks or even a few months, it would have been worth it because he would have fixed his problem right. There’s a right way and a wrong way to do everything, and  the stuff Medicine prescribes for high blood pressure is the wrong way to go- even if it works.  


And this guy was athletic his whole life, a weight lifter. He was used to being physically active.  I’m sure that the situation he is in now is a nightmare for him.

But, what is the doctor thinking? He treats this guy for years for blood pressure, and then the guy winds up with heart failure, and he doesn’t feel responsible?

Conventional cardiology, occasionally it does some good things, such as fixing holes in kid’s hearts, and when valves go bad replacing them. But, most of what it involves, especially drug-wise, is counterproductive, in my opinion, and that’s putting it mildly. I wouldn’t want it even if it were free. 

First, it’s very strange that they are calling the disease “corona virus disease.” A disease is a pathological manifestation, and even if you think a virus is the cause of it, the cause isn’t the disease. The symptoms, the departures from normal in structure and function, that’s the disease.

So, what are we talking about here? It seems to me that we are talking about a respiratory flu. Symptomatically, it’s the same as the flu, and like the flu, it occurs in all different degrees of severity. I began to wonder why they aren’t calling it SARS, a sudden acute respiratory syndrome. But then I saw that in communications to doctors, they are calling it SARS. Be aware that the original SARS was a corona virus. The full name was SARS-cov.  So this one, they are calling SARS-cov19 to doctors, but the 19 just refers to 2019.

So basically, it’s the same thing. It’s SARS which started in 2019.  

So, why don’t they call it SARS to the public? Because: they want to frighten the public.

Have you seen the movie V for Vendetta? In it, the High Chancellor of the UK tells his Cabinet that they need to make the citizens realize “how much they need us.” And that led to news broadcasts about the spread of deadly viruses. So, life is imitating art.

They have swiftly developed this reverse transcriptase test for the cov-19, but the truth is that all these reverse transcriptase tests, including the one for HIV, are notorious for generating false positives and false negatives.

So, what’s happening is that people are getting flu symptoms, and they are seeing their doctors, and the doctors are taking swabs and sending them in to the CDC, and then a result follows saying whether they have the flu or corona virus. But, some people who are having no symptoms, who don’t appear to be sick, are testing positive for the cov-19.  And there are also people who are only mildly sick, and who seem to be recovering spontaneously, who test positive for cov-19.

Reportedly,  we were already in the midst of the worst flu season in years, with 14,000 Americans killed by the flu so far this season.

Now, I want you to think about something. Have you gotten the flu this season? I haven’t. And if you haven’t, what do you think the reason is? Do you think it’s because you were lucky enough not to come in contact with the virus? I don’t think that. Why should I? I’m around people. I wait on lines at the post office and in the supermarket. I attend my grandson’s soccer games where I am in close proximity to adults and children. And I operate a retreat where people come from all corners. I don’t assume I haven’t contacted the flu virus. I assume that I have. And I assume that the reason I haven’t gotten sick is because my nutritional state, my immunological state, and other aspects of my general health have protected me.  It’s already established that many people who were exposed to the corona virus have not gotten sick from it.

I didn’t react to the first SARS outbreak, or to Ebola, or to MERS, or to Swine flu. And what I mean is that I didn’t get sick, and I also didn’t react mentally- I ignored it all. To me, personally, it was just noise. I don’t engage in viral paranoia.  

So, what am I going to do? I will not get vaccinated- no matter what. I don’t have any travel plans outside the U.S., but I am planning to fly to California in July, and I am going to make that trip, unless they shut down the flights. Will I wear a face mask? Who knows, they may require it. They may say you can’t go out in public or enter a store without one. And if so, I’ll wear it because that isn’t going to hurt me. You have to pick your battles, and I am not going to fight over that.

I’ll leave you with this: the whole paradigm of: you contact a virus, and because of its virulence, it makes you sick, is nowhere near the whole truth. I am sure the etiology of acute illnesses is never as simple as that. And in this case, you and I have no ability to determine the validity of anything they are telling us about this, and I am wary of everything they are saying. I am not saying that I don’t believe there have been real deaths. But, there are deaths from acute respiratory infections each and every year.  And I will tell you, honestly, that the Brave New World reaction to the corona virus scares me more than the corona virus.  









I tell you, the world has gone crazy. This panic over the corona virus is absolutely nuts. People are going nuts over a lab test.

From a practical standpoint, the illness appears to be very similar to the flu. Symptomatically, they say it entails, fever, cough, and shortness of breath. That's true of the flu, isn't it?. I’ve been searching, and so far, I can find nothing to definitively distinguish the two by symptoms.  What distinguishes them is the lab test.

Now, this is from the CDC as of today, February 28, 2020.

The global death toll from corona virus they put at 2800, but they put the death toll from the common flu at 14,000 this season, and that’s in the United States alone. So, if we’re going to start panicking, shouldn’t it be over the flu?

But with corona, that’s 2800 deaths out of 83,000 cases worldwide. They say that 36,000 people have completely recovered. But, what about the other 44, 000? I presume they are still wrestling with it.  But, even if they all recover, 2800 deaths out of 83,000 is, admittedly, a much higher death toll than from the flu. But, they admit that that number is probably “skewed.”

Let’s say you get sick; you have flu-like symptoms; you go to the doctor; he tests your sputum, and on the basis of that test, he tells you that you have the flu, or he tells you that you have corona virus, but that distinction depends on the accuracy and validity of the test, and what basis do you have to know that? You have no basis. Does it really  make sense to alter your perspective because of their lab test?  

And don’t you think there are a lot of people who when they get the flu just go to bed? Not everybody rushes to the doctor. I have had the flu, but I haven’t had it in a long time. It’s been years since I’ve had it. I may have had it 7 or 8 years ago.  But, I have NEVER had it in a deathly way. I never ever thought that I was dying from it, and I have never gone to a doctor for it.  And why should I when I know I wouldn’t be interested in taking anything he might prescribe- not the flu vaccine, not Tamiflu, nothing.  I would rather suffer through it.  I really would. I don't care about relief, and I don't care about the speed of recovery; I care about the quality and soundness of recovery.  And I have always recovered spontaneously and without anything lingering.  And since flu symptoms and corona symptoms are practically the same, who knows how many people have had corona and just waited it out and recovered spontaneously without seeing a doctor at all?

What reason do I have to panic over this? I didn’t get the Swine flu. I didn’t get Ebola. I didn’t get SARS. I didn’t get MERS. So, why should I go ballistic over corona, especially when it is symptomatically so similar to the flu and distinguished mainly by an arcane lab test that means more to them than it does to me?  

There is a lot that Medicine doesn’t know about flu-like illnesses, which corona is. They have no explanation for the fluctuations in susceptibility. I realize that they say the elderly and the immune-compromised are more vulnerable, but that is glib, and it doesn’t go far enough. Outside that, there are still unexplained differences in susceptibility. I watched a Youtube video by an ER doctor who said that he is treating flu patients all day long, and he has not gotten the flu, and nor has he gotten the vaccine. And he says a lot more than that about “herd Medicine.” I don’t know his age, but he’s a grandfather, and you should listen to him, and to his wife who is a nurse.


So, how do you account for that? Obviously, there are other factors besides exposure to a virus that affect and determine whether or not a person is actually going to get sick- even among those with average risk.  And undoubtedly, these factors include one’s nutritional state.


But, the point is that susceptibility to flu is poorly understood, and the model or paradigm that they go by, that you get exposed to the virus, and it makes you sick, is so obviously flawed  and inadequate (considering how many people are exposed and don’t get sick)  and the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine they offer is so woefully unproven and untested, that it makes this whole area of medical science very suspect, in my opinion. To me, it’s more like medical religion than medical science. And what’s likely to come next in the Corona saga? Probably, a vaccine, and then, Heaven help us.












There seems to be quite a bit of panic being generated by government and media lately over the Corona virus, with trillions shaved off the stock exchanges in the last few days because of it. I realize that people have died, and that’s tragic. I am paying attention to it, but I am not in a panic, and I do not fear that I am going to succumb.

I’d like to remind people that we have been through this before and many times. I recall 1976 with the Swine Flu epidemic. They quickly came up with a vaccine. Millions took it, and many wound up with Gullain-Barre Syndrome- from the vaccine, not from the disease- and tied to iron lungs for the rest of their lives. I didn’t take the Swine flu vaccine. And guess what? I’m not going to take the Corona vaccine either, if they come up with one.

I want you to realize that fear sells. And it’s also good for business, the government business, including the CDC business.  I am reminded of the line from V for Vendetta, when the despotic High Chancellor tells his Cabinet, “They (the people) need to be reminded, again and again, why they need us.”  And you should also think about the fact that every time there is an outbreak, some people get sick and some people don’t. And that was true even in the worst pandemic of the 20th century, the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918. Back then, there were so many people who were traumatized, depleted, and malnourished from World War 1, that they had no resistance. I have to think that the state of your nutrition, the state of your vitality, and just your overall health has a huge bearing on whether or not you get sick. And frankly, I feel vigorous. So, I am not losing a wink of sleep worrying that I am going to succumb to this virus. 

But, let’s talk about the people who are probably going to be more vulnerable than I am, and it consists of millions of people. For instance, there are the millions of people who take drugs every day to destroy their stomach acid. Do you realize that stomach acid is meant to be a sterilizer? That one of its purposes is to kill microbes and to protect your system from infections? So, all these people who take Nexium or Prevacid or other acid-blocking drugs are tampering with a powerful protective mechanism. The truth is that stomach acid is something that you need. I realize that when it rises up into your esophagus and throat that it’s a problem, but it certainly does belong in your stomach, and to solve the problem of acid reflux by destroying your stomach acid is the wrong approach. Doing that has unintended consequences, and increased susceptibility to infections is one of them.

Do you realize how much energy it takes for the body to concentrate acid in the stomach? It takes a lot of energy, and that’s why young people, who are more energetic, have more stomach acid than old people.

You should think of your stomach like a battery. What happens when your car battery runs out of acid?  You have to get a new battery; that’s what happens.

Saliva is another protective agent. There are anti-microbials in saliva, and plenty of people take drugs that cause “dry mouth” as a side effect, and that increases their risk of infection too. Taking mucus blockers does the same thing because the mucus that lines the respiratory tract, from top to bottom, is also protective. And then people are taking a lot of other drugs that are immune-suppressive, including steroids, plus all these new “biologics” that are prescribed to treat auto-immune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Then there are the cancer chemotherapy drugs that are also immune-suppressive.

So, there are a lot of vulnerable people out there, but I am not one of them.  I’m not doing anything to hurt my immune system, and I’m doing plenty to support it, nutritionally and otherwise. I apologize if that sounds cocky, but I am just telling you honestly that I am not worried for myself about the Corona virus.   And I am going to be 70 years old on my next birthday.

And, there is a very important point here, and it is that susceptibility arises from weakness, and weakness results from what people do to themselves, and what doctors do to them- with their prescription pads. And there is plenty more of the latter going around than most people realize.



When benzodiazepine tranquilizers came along in the 1960s, they were hailed as a big improvement over the heavy-duty barbiturates that they replaced, such as the ones Marilyn Monroe took.  Benzos were easier to take, and they really seemed like kinder, gentler drugs. But, it was a delusion. Benzos are a trap. They are so highly addicting. They are physically addicting as well as psychologically addicting. And getting off of them can be shear hell. And the irony is that they seemed to be less toxic. But, we know now that there are people who, even after a short course on a benzo such as Xanax and Ativan, never get completely over it. They are left with an edge of anxiety or panic that lingers permanently. The cerebral and neurological axis that it affects remains permanently damaged.

It often starts casually. The patient sees their doctor complaining of stress, anxiety, and difficulty sleeping. So, the doctor suggests they take a low dose of Xanax or Ativan. It’s bad advice. Its bad medicine. It’s bad everything. It is a road you don’t want to go down, and that’s true even if it seems like a godsend at first. What’s likely to happen is that, at first, a tiny dose seems to work wonders. It eases you into sleep at night, and you bask in it for a while. But then, you get so used to it, you have to raise the dose to get the same effect. And then serious psychological dependency sets in, where you can’t wait until it’s time to take it again. It’s as strong as any drug addiction that is out there. Then, at some point, you realize that you need to get off this stuff,  and that’s when you discover how trapped you are because even lowering the dose causes in tolerable withdrawal symptoms.

The track record on these drugs is well known. The danger that they pose is well documented. So, why does any medical doctor today prescribe them? Now, to be fair, not all do. There are doctors who won’t give them, who prescribe newer drugs with less dependency. But, there are still plenty of doctors who dispense these “brain candies” as though they are harmless. And I really think that it constitutes malpractice. I think the only ones who should be given benzos are perhaps people who are dying, who are terminal, who are nearing the end of their lives, and the only consideration is to try to make them comfortable. But, anyone who has a prospect for living should not be given these drugs. And there really is no excuse for giving them- with all that we know about their harms and dangers.

And frankly, I’m not enthused about the drugs that followed the benzos, such as the z-drugs (Ambien, Lunesta, etc.) for sleep and BuSpar for anxiety, and I don’t care for SSRIs and the SNRIs either. I like SAM-e for depression. I like some of the stress-relieving herbs, such a lemon balm. I like L-Theanine, which is an amino acid from green tea which makes it relaxing. I like the amino acids glycine and taurine, which act as inhibitory neurotransmitters. These things are all safe.  But, whether a person takes them or not, the most important thing is: don’t get started on benzos because you are sure to regret it. It’s like the Pied Piper, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Here are some videos on Youtube by regular people who got caught in the benzodiazepine trap. It’s just a bad decision to start taking them, and I hope you believe that.



More Articles...