So everybody, welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International and to today's
discussion with Dr Robert O. Young.
This group was founded by Dr Stephen Frost over three years ago with the desire to pursue
truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health.
I'm Charles Kovest, the moderator of this group.
I am Australasian's passion provocateur and there's lots of passionate people here, including
Robert Young.
I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 31 years ago and I've helped parents
and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine damage and damage from bad medical advice.
Bad medical advice on the latest data off scene is now the number one killer of people
in America.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.
Stephen Frost over the years has been a whistleblower and activist.
His medical specialty is radiology.
We comprise lots of professions here and we're from all around the world.
Many of us thought that vaccines were okay.
Now many of us proudly say, yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers.
I now count myself in that group and if someone accuses me of being an anti-vaxxer, I say,
Yes, I am and I'm proud of it and I would never inject and vaccinate into anybody because
Stanley Plotkin has now admitted that no vaccine ever in history has been properly tested for
safety or efficacy.
I now consider it a badge of honor for all of you who are anti-vaxxers.
It's a badge of being awake, not woke.
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat
and where you're from.
If you publish a newsletter or a podcast or like Glenn, you run a radio or TV show, put
the links into the chat and keep putting you in there in every meeting because different
people come to different meetings.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War III and the medical science battle
is only one of 12 battle fronts of this latest world war.
One of the other battle fronts is the spiritual war that we find ourselves in.
There's no time to be tired.
We're four and a half years into a seven year war in my assessment.
Most of us understand the development of science and that the science is never settled.
The meeting runs for two and a half hours after which for those with the time Tom Rodman
runs a video telegram meeting.
Tom puts the links into the chat if you are able to join.
We listened to our guest presenter, Dr. Robert O. Young, for as long as Robert wishes to
speak and then we have Q&A.
Stephen Frost, by long established tradition, asks the first questions for 15 minutes.
This is a free speech environment with appropriate moderating.
Free speech is crucially important in our fight to preserve our human freedoms.
Just this week, the Australian government has denied a visa to Candice Owens to come
to on a speaking tour to Australia from the States because of some bullshit excuse, literally
bullshit excuse.
Don't let this person in.
And yet at the same time, they're bringing terrorists left, right and centre.
So the misinformation and disinformation bill, the MAD bill, the MAD bill has been being
pushed by the Australian government again so that only authorized news outlets and politicians
are not liable to misinformation or disinformation claims.
We must all push back against this nonsense.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We are lovingly not interested.
We reject the offence industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.
We also reject the triggering industry.
So Robert, don't worry about offending anybody or triggering anybody.
We're not interested.
However, we come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you and enslaves you.
Love, on the other hand, expands you, liberates you.
The great challenge of Christian principle is loving those who disagree with us, in fact,
loving our enemies.
Big challenge.
These twice weekly meetings are not just talk fests.
An extraordinary range of actions and initiatives have been generated from linkages made by
in these meetings.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people put the
details into the chat, Robert, if you can make sure you put your, we've published your
website, but Robert, put your website into the chat and all the resources because you've
got a lot of resources on your website.
The meeting is recorded and is uploaded on the Rumble channel.
And now welcome to our guest presenter, Dr. Robert O. Young, formerly.
And we thank you, Robert, for again being with us and sharing your genius with us.
And for the purposes of the recording, I want to read a short bio of Robert, whose mission
is to do all he can to change and save lives with an alkaline diet and lifestyle.
And Neil Solomon, former head of research for Johns Hopkins University, said, Dr. Young
may be on the threshold of a new biology whose principle, if proven, could revolutionize
the biology and medicine worlds.
Over the past, that's an end quote, over the past two and a half decade, over nearly 30
years, Robert has been widely recognized as one of the top research scientists in the
world.
Throughout his career, his research has been focused at the cellular level, having a specialty
in cellular nutrition.
Robert Young has devoted his life to researching the true causes of, quote, disease, end quote,
subsequently developing the new biology to help people balance their lives.
In 1994, Robert discovered the biological transformation of red blood cells into bacteria
and bacteria to red blood cells.
He has since documented several such transformations.
Robert has devoted his career to the discovery of the missing pieces necessary to complete
the larger picture of health.
His website is in the chat, drrobertyoung.com.
For all of an amazing set of resources, I've visited his website many times.
And thank you, Stephen Frost, again, for creating this group and for organizing Robert to speak
to us today.
Robert, we are all yours.
Well, thank you, Charles.
I hope everyone can hear my voice.
We can.
And it's coming through clearly.
It is.
I'm really always grateful for the opportunities to have a platform to share, you know, my
experiences in the last, you know, four plus decades.
It's gone really, really fast.
I don't feel as probably as old as I look.
But the bottom line is, is that I never thought I would be in this place talking about the
things I talk about, because most of my life was really spent, at least the early part
of my life was spent in amateur and professional sport.
And so I have that that competitive edge.
I've lost it over the years a little bit, but it sparks up once in a while and reminds
me, you know, that it's not such a bad thing to have a little competition.
But my father always always would say to me, I was I was a better doubles player than a
singles player in tennis.
And so I I really enjoy working with others and supporting others and having others support
me in whatever I was doing.
And I've enjoyed that type of relationship, both in sport and also business.
So over the last four decades.
I've had some very unique relationships, one of those, of course, you mentioned Dr.
Neil Solomon. He was at the at the university.
Just trying at Johns Hopkins University at the School of Medicine.
And I don't know if you remember him or not, but those who are old enough to remember
President Nixon, Nixon, he nominated Neil Solomon for the.
For the top doctor of the United States, the surgeon general.
And he he told me this personally.
Because we work together.
And he was the one that got me involved, which back then I innocently didn't know the
outcomes of of what the United Nations had.
But we actually had a program and and and we had a foundation together.
It's called the Interlight Biological Health and Education Foundation.
And its purpose was to educate children on health, to educate children on the needs of
you know, eating the right kinds of foods that would help build strong bodies.
And so he was a great influence early in my career and in in in my 30s.
And. He.
When he was offered this position as the the top doctor of the United States, he told
Richard Nixon that he would do this on one condition.
One condition, and that condition was that choice was allowed for all American citizens,
that they could choose not only.
What was perceived as contemporary medical treatments.
They call them traditional or conventional is probably better than traditional
traditional I associate with natural.
But they would be able to choose the type of care that they wanted, whether they were
going to go to a naturopath or whether or not they were going to go to a physician.
So they were able to choose.
And Nixon said, we can't do that.
You know, there's only one type of medical care that can be offered that we need to
stand back and support.
And that's, you know, Rockefeller medicine.
He didn't say it that way.
That's the way I said it.
OK, I'm not quoting him, but he's he turned down the job.
He said, well, then I don't want to be the surgeon general if we cannot offer the
not offer.
You know, our people a choice and to be educated about that choice.
And so I thought that was that was quite an extraordinary thing that he he chose, but
he he was he believed in natural approaches rather than chemical approaches.
And I think it's important for people to understand.
Even more so now, because of the last three and a half, four years and even before that
and going forward, when we're dealing and looking at the array of different chemicals.
From pesticides, insecticides, herbicides.
You know, going on and on that are now found in our foods, even microplastics.
That are found in our foods, forever chemicals.
You know, this debate between organic and inorganic or non-organic based upon how farming.
How farming.
Was being done, and that was a that was a concern that I had as well, and I I gained
that concern from my father.
And I could I thought we were really strange because we never went to the doctor.
You know, I can't tell you other than when we went to church, I knew there were doctors
there and I knew them by name and called them doctors.
But I didn't know why we never visited them for any type of treatments or medicine.
And we just never were exposed to regular physicals or when anything seemed to be.
Out of balance, you know, running off to the hospital, to the emergency room, or running
off to a doctor to or to what now the box stores that are, you know, dispensing pharmaceuticals.
Just have never done that.
So I've never taken pharmaceuticals and I think my mother, if I had a headache, maybe she gave me
some aspirin, but I don't even remember that.
I really don't.
And so, in fact, it was it was even to the extent that we had no health insurance.
And so, you know, the most tragic thing that happened to me was when I was using a little
hatchet, I ended up cutting my knee, lacerating my knee.
And my dad broke down and says, well, we may need to go to the hospital.
And he took me to the emergency room, said, stay here.
I'm going in.
He walked out saying, we're not going in.
And I said, we're going to have to figure out another way.
I said, Dad, I'm bleeding here.
You know, I'm losing blood.
He says, no, we'll patch it up.
It's no problem.
It's interesting.
We passed it up and where there was a scar, there is no scar because there were no stitches.
I didn't receive those, but it was a deep laceration.
And so I'm not apologetic towards that.
And one of my best friends growing up, who was my scoutmaster, he was an orthopedic surgeon.
And his language was, hey, you know, kid, you're smart enough to go to medical school.
You should become an orthopedic surgeon because there's a lot of money in it.
And I said, well, what do you mean?
There's a lot of money.
And he said, well, I make 250 to 300,000 a year.
And this is in the 60s.
And he had the biggest house and the best cars and the best cars.
And I thought about that and I thought, wow, okay.
You know, so doctors go to medical school, you know, I thought to help people, but I guess
they also go because the pay is good.
And I really wasn't necessarily interested in that.
I swear.
I kind of chose a different path.
And I don't know if what I'm telling you is helpful.
But it kind of rounded me out to why the first doctor I ever saw and the last doctor I ever
saw was when I was born in the LDS Salt Lake City Hospital.
And that's been the extent of my exposure to medical treatments.
Now, I think the first doctor I ever saw was Dr. John H.
Am I opposed to people having their own doctor?
Absolutely.
Do I work with doctors?
Absolutely.
Do I respect, you know, their training?
Yes and no, to a certain extent.
I mean, I think their training is critical as it relates to anatomy.
But I disagree with physiology, their physiology aspects.
And so I mean, for a good argument, you know, this whole theory that we metabolize or generate,
you know, energy through the breakdown of foods rather than the release of electrical energy
is a discussion that really very few people have had.
And I think the most important part of the energy cycle is the electron transport chain.
That's probably the most accurate thing about it.
But our bodies do not run on sugar.
I know the theory of, well, you need sugar because your brain cells run on sugar.
Absolutely not.
Our brain cells are electrical.
Our neurons are electrical.
They run on electrons and they transport those electrons and they use it.
So early in the game in the late 80s, early 90s, I wrote a book called Sick and Tired,
Reclaim Your Inner Terrain.
And I had gone into testing because I wasn't pleased with the breakdown that the FDA was
giving as it relates to, you know, this food has this amount of mineral in it or
this amount of sugar in it.
But I wanted to look at the whole food.
So I would take a food, I would liquefy that food.
I wouldn't burn it off like they do as far as the FDA when they're testing pH or if they're
testing mineral content of the food, it's literally cremated down to, you know,
it's mineral content.
The water burns off, the sugar burns off, and it really doesn't give you a correct picture.
So I came up with a whole new scale that's based upon the electron
concentration of foods and also its pH.
So pH and ORP, pH measuring the hydrogen or hydroxyl, the H positive or the OH minus,
and also measuring its oxidation reduction potential,
realizing that we eat food not for calories, we eat food for energy, life force energy.
And that spark I call the life force energy is the electron.
And that electron becomes very, very important.
And the charge of food becomes very important.
And whether or not it donates electrons or it consumes electrons,
because people would ask me, why are you against orange juice?
I said, I'm not against orange juice.
I grew up on orange juice.
I like orange juice, you know, and once in a while I have it.
But it doesn't provide me any energy.
It tastes good.
But it is an electron consumer and a proton donor.
So orange juice does not provide any life force energy.
It may provide some mineral content, but that's another discussion when you're just looking at
food for its, whether it donates, you know, electrons or protons.
And so that was the case with bananas.
We grew up on bananas.
And it was the case with the opposite of this, which would be like tomatoes.
People would say, well, wait a minute, tomatoes are acidic.
And somebody may say, well, they have, you know, another scientist may say, well,
they're high in lycopenes.
They have a high concentration of antioxidants, you know, and so there's this argument going on.
I was just looking at that time in the late 80s, early 90s, is whether or not tomatoes would be
an electron donor or an electron scavenger.
In other words, you'd lose energy by eating a tomato.
That's not the case.
So if you have a tomato or if you have a lemon or if you have a lime or if you have a grapefruit
and you test its juice, you'll see the test out on a scale of zero to 14, it tests out on the acidic
side.
But the point here is when I developed the scale, I didn't necessarily develop it based upon that
arbitrary zero to 14 pH.
I wanted to know if that tomato or if that lemon or that lime or that grapefruit was going to
create more toxicity, more acidity or more alkalinity.
And the answer to that, it's the net gain for tomatoes, grapefruits, lemons, limes,
etc., actually donate life force energy in excess of their acidic components.
So they have acidic components, but the net effect is alkalizing.
And so I had to create a whole new scale.
If you get my book, you'll see this scale and goes, what is he talking about?
The scale that goes from positive zero to 100 to negative zero to 100.
And I'm talking about this food when it's broken down, it's massacated,
will donate life force energy and whether it's contributing because our cells are electrical.
Our body is electrical.
Cells don't run on carbohydrates, proteins or fats.
They run on electricity, electron, and that's the element.
So that's an oversimplification a little bit, but I just wanted to explain a little bit about
what my thought process is when I'm categorizing food.
I have it in certain categories, which is uniquely different than most, if not all the pH scales,
ORP scales that are out there.
So anyway, whatever your position is on that, I just wanted to clarify some of the early
research I was doing on food sciences since my PhD is in nutrition.
In fact, I remember my coach, Harry James, at the University of Utah, introduced me to
encapsulated nutrition in the form of a capsule in the 60s.
I thought it was very strange.
I thought it was Space Odyssey 2000, where they'd eat their breakfast or their lunch
or dinner and it was in a tablet.
Well, there were few people who were able to do that.
And I was very fortunate to have a friend who was able to do that.
Well, they were feeding us that in the 60s.
So I got an early start in taking nutritional supplements as something that was recommended
by my university coach.
Well, I don't know why I started out this way, but I wanted to just introduce you to
some of the people who are giants in my world.
That I was able to work with or be part of or work in their labs.
And I think it was mentioned.
One of those which many of you know is is Deusburg and who wrote a very, very important
book in the 80s.
It's called Inventing the AIDS Virus.
Are you all familiar with Peter Deusburg's work?
He's a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
So Robert, many of us in this group, I would say most are aware of Peter Deusburg and how
he was hounded.
And actually, I'm extremely interested in what you have to say about Peter Deusburg
because they really did hound him.
And he was, well, as I understand it, they did hound him.
Well, they did hound him and they relegated him from the top floor to the bottom floor.
And the same thing happened to my colleague, Luc Montaner.
And the same thing happened to him.
Yeah, so some of you know part of the story, you know, that story started, you know, in
around 2010 to 2011, 2012.
But he ended up in China.
And he gave up his chair at the University of Paris.
But Deusburg, I mean, had a beautiful lab.
He was focused on cancer treatment.
And that was something that I was focused on.
And he got turned aside here because of Robert Gallo and Luc Montaner, who received jointly
the Nobel Prize for accrediting them the purified isolation of the HIV virus.
Yes.
I think that's pretty much...
We know that.
2008, I think.
That's historically the fact, yes.
Robert, wasn't that 2008?
He won the Nobel Prize.
Yes, 2008.
Montaner for the discovery of the AIDS virus, I think, as I understood it.
Not the AIDS virus, the HIV virus.
I mean, yes, sorry, the HIV, I meant that, yes.
I meant to say that.
It's an important distinction because AIDS is an acronym for acquired immune deficiency,
which is really vague.
Sorry, I made a big mistake there.
But some of the characters were there with Robert Gallo.
His subordinate was Fauci.
And Fauci actually took Robert Gallo's position
when he left.
Well, actually, he was convicted of...
He was actually asked to leave because of scientific fraud.
Here again, I don't know the details of all that, but you don't hear his name much.
But he hasn't been around for several decades.
But he was part of that whole thing that was going down with HIV.
And Deusburg, early in the game, that book was published in 1985.
1985, Inventing the AIDS Virus.
But it wasn't just about viruses, about HIV.
It was also about other viruses like Ebola, Ebola virus or the hepatitis viruses.
And he calls them, or at least I call them, I think I'd have to go back and read the book,
but I call them phantom viruses.
Because as he would state, there has been no purified isolation without contamination
representing the...based upon the scientific method, whether it's Robert Koch or if it's
Rivers procedures as far as identifying, isolating, or purifying, isolating, and then
demonstrating through reinfection or transfection that this entity that you've isolated causes
a specific disease with specific symptoms.
So from his work, I'm talking about Deusburg now, Peter Deusburg.
I was inspired to publish three papers which are available.
These three papers are titled, A Second Thought About Viruses, Vaccines, and the HIV-AIDS
Hypothesis.
And I published these finally in the 90s through the work and inspiration
of Peter Deusburg and his basic theory and what he was proving that AIDS was caused
by chemical poisoning.
Now that's important when I'm telling you because chemical poisoning has been going
on for a very, very long time.
And so back then, of course, the chemical poisoning was based upon the treatment.
And back then, the treatment was a Fauci drug, even back then, that was taken off the shelf
called AZT.
I may be getting in the weeds on this thing, but I'm trying to stay general because I want
to bring this around because there's a history of chemical poisoning.
So I have made the premise within my abstracts and in my conclusions that there are no sicknesses
and diseases.
In fact, the book Sick and Tired, which was a predecessor to a book I wrote earlier, was
called One Sickness, One Disease, One Treatment.
And that was pretty radical in the 80s that these multiplicities of diseases were not
diseases at all.
And so my foundational theory was that there are no diseases, that there's only states
of balance and imbalance, and that what they're calling diseases is not diseases.
What they're calling diseases are symptoms or symptomologies that are then being treated
rather than the underlying causative factors that are related to context or environment,
which includes temperature, ORP, and pH.
If you have any imbalance, i.e. sickness or disease, you can find that very simply by
just testing with the earlier question before we started recording, what is the ideal pH
of the body fluids?
And the low range is 7.2, which is actually, if it's in the blood, it would be called
which is actually, if it's in the blood, it would be called decompensated acidosis,
and it would be an alarming event because it's moved around 0.15 of one point down
because you're in a coma at 7.1 and you're dead at 6.9.
And we're talking about a pH of the blood.
So the regulation of the blood is critical and everything is subject to managing and
maintaining that alkaline design.
But it's not taught at Harvard, it's not taught at Yale, it's not taught at Oxford,
that the stomach is the major contributor of alkalinity that manages the delicate pH
balance of all of the body fluids.
Do I need to say that again?
There is an organ and its main purpose is to manage and maintain the alkaline design
of the body fluids.
And they don't teach this.
It's actually an elective at Oxford University.
When I spoke there in 2007, I gave a very similar lecture.
But the ideal pH to the thousands is 7.365, never above 7 and never below 7.3.
And then I published another paper in 2022, I wrote it earlier than that,
called the blood-jerk reaction.
Because there's procedures that medical doctors do when the pH of the blood goes excess,
compensated alkalosis, where what if the pH goes up to 7.4 or 7.5?
What does that mean?
Well, interpreted directly, it means you're too acidic.
So what do they do?
They do an acidic drip to pull the pH down, which is actually
not helpful.
So I wrote this paper called the Peter Tauter effect.
It's called the blood-jerk reaction because when the pH goes up, it's trying to overcompensate
for all the waste or acidic metabolic dietary respiratory environmental toxins that are being
pushed into what is called the largest organ of the human body called the inner cystidium,
which contains the 80% of the extracellular fluids, 20% in the blood.
It's called the interstitial fluid.
Where does all the waste, how does the blood purify itself?
Where does it get rid of its toxins?
How does it maintain its alkaline design?
Are those things being taught to medical doctors?
Unfortunately, not.
They understand compensated and they understand
acidosis, alkalosis, decompensated acidosis.
And then they react to that number rather than understanding
the effects of dealing with this.
If you're in decompensated acidosis, you're in trouble.
The number one cause of death in the United States, which has never reported
is systemic sepsis.
And systemic sepsis is caused by the overacidification of the interstitial
fluids of the inner cystidium that can't get it out through urination or defecation or
respiration or perspiration.
So guess what?
Through hydrostatic pressure, it pushes it back in the blood and the blood starts becoming
destroyed.
And that's the cause of death.
The blood starts becoming destroyed.
Urine acidosis of the interstitial fluids of the inner cystidium can be measured.
How do you measure it?
Does the doctor do a chemistry of the blood?
That's 20% of the extracellular fluids.
Why don't they do a chemistry of the interstitial fluid, which is 80% of the extracellular
fluids?
They don't know how to do it.
They haven't been trained to do it.
They don't have the equipment to do it.
Why?
I've been doing this testing or having this testing done for two decades.
I kept asking that question.
So I discovered that if you do a urinalysis, that that urine that you're testing is a product of
the interstitial fluids of the inner cystidium.
And that the ideal pH of that interstitial fluid is a minimum of 8.4 in a healthy human being.
Because what did I do?
Do I study sick people?
Yes.
But I also study healthy people.
I want to know what healthy urine looks like.
Not that I drink it.
I don't.
It's a waste product.
But I test it.
And I test it on its electron-proton concentration.
And I test it for its pH.
And people that are healthy have a urine pH running between 8.4 to 9,
never dropping during human experiments when you eat something you shouldn't or drink something
you shouldn't, where it drops below a pH of 7.2.
And I had the eureka experience, the eureka's experience when I realized
that when the blood started losing alkalinity, when the body fluid, the body interstitial fluid,
the body ocean started losing alkalinity, the stomach kicked in and started within its
cover cells, drawing off carbon, which is, believe it or not, 90% of your carbon dioxide
is not excelled.
It's used by the stomach as an element, chloride, not chloride, but the CO2, CO2, carbon dioxide.
90% of the carbon dioxide is not respirated, only around 10%.
90% is used by the stomach in creating by the cells that are responsible for that,
taking water and salt, i.e., why would the doctor ever tell you not to eat salt?
That's crazy.
Salt is a major element in producing sodium bicarbonate to manage and maintain the alkaline
design of the blood, the interstitial fluids, and the intracellular fluids.
So once you have this understanding, you start measuring the pH, you become your own doctor,
you manage it by supporting the alkaline design of the body the same way those who were being
transfected during COVID or in the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic by taking 5 grams of sodium
bicarbonate baking soda in 4 ounces of distilled or purified water.
And those are the people that survived the transfection or the injection
of the so-called phantom virus, the influenza virus. It has never been purified or isolated.
So those are the people that are doing better. What we did when I was growing up, I would take
a Wilson, unfortunately, aluminum can, drop out the tennis balls, put in the water, and add salt
to it. I would drink salt water to replace the salt the body needs in order to maintain its
alkaline design. Why? Because when you're exercising, when you're moving your body,
you're producing an acid called lactic acid. Who's testing for lactic acid levels in the blood?
Who's testing for lactic acid in the interstitial fluid?
That acid is never absent in the presence of cancer. And when you reduce lactic acid,
you eliminate the risk for cancer. Period. The other acid is citric acid. These are the
two acids. So I wanted you just to have a little background, some history.
I'm grateful for the associations that I've had with Luc Montaner. We were keynote speakers in
Milan. He was talking about functionally structured water, alkaline water, and the significance of
that. That's crazy talk from a virologist. You can lose your license if you talk about alkalinity.
You know, as a point, functionally structured water, three to five molecule structures that
can permeate the cell membrane, these are all very, very important. But Charles, I did provide
a slide presentation. You can share your screen, Robert.
So I can share that screen. I hope I'm not creating more questions than I'm answering.
That could be. That's all right. We love this group.
Robert, Rie Montaner, you said you were in Milan with him. That was in February of 2022,
was it? Or 2021? No, no, no, I was with him in 2011. I've known him for many, many years.
Did you know that he went to Milan about a week before he died?
Yeah. Well, before he died, it's very important. And I'll cover that.
And I'll show you a picture of this. I've got this here. I want to show you.
So I think it's important that people like
Duisburg and Luc Montaner be honoured. Absolutely. So, Robert, did Montaner say in Milan
one week before he died or was killed? No, no, no, this was 2011. He was not in Milan. He
actually returned to Paris. No, he was in Milan just before his death.
Yeah, he went from Shanghai back to the university there. He went from there back to Paris.
What I'm trying to get to is the question, did he or did he not say that the unvaccinated
would save humanity one week before he died or was killed?
Well, he said a lot of things, and I think that's one of them. But even more important,
he also said, not only just to me in 2011, but he said this publicly several months before he
passed, that he had never purified an isolation of HIV. That was number one.
Yeah, so how on earth did he win the Nobel Prize officially for the discovery of the HIV virus?
Well, he had to come clean on that. I mean, isn't that what people do when they're on their
deathbeds or near death? I mean, he wanted to clear the slate on that. In fact, what he did say
was that it was not AIDS. This is not an acquired immune deficiency. This is VADES. This is vaccine
acquired immune deficiency or damage or dysfunction. This is caused by the vaccine itself is what is
causing the immune deficiency. You don't take a vaccine with foreign matter. And Bayshopt knew
this. You cannot introduce foreign matter, either animal or human, chemical or otherwise.
It'll immediately be rejected and attacked and provides no immunity whatsoever.
But compromises the body's ability to be able to maintain, which is most important,
because based on my premise, my hypothesis, the body is alkaline by design, but acidic by function
and to maintain the alkaline design of the body fluids, which is the responsibility of the stomach,
and of course, what we eat. So it's contributing to the things the body needs in order to produce
that protection. And that's why those who simply use a natural substance, which cannot be patented
or profit on the way that Big Harm has been profiting,
and that is patent something like NAHCO3 or CAHCO3. These are calcium, magnesium, potassium,
sodium, bicarbonates that are critical to maintaining that alkalinity and that design.
But Robert, what you said about Montagnier, surely the most important point from our point of view
is to understand that on the one hand, Montagnier accepted the Nobel Prize when he knew
that they had awarded him the Nobel Prize for nefarious reasons. Probably he knew that.
And you say that he only admitted on his deathbed, but my understanding was that he was chipping
away at the official narrative way before his death in 2012.
Way before, yes. I mean, he knew. And that's why he wanted to turn the direction of his research
away from virology and into, you know, how do we create an environment that's conducive
to, you know, cell life? Because the cell life, just like fish in a fish bowl,
is only as healthy as the water it swims in. Cells are no different. Cells are only as healthy
as the water that they thrive in. And there's very specific measurements of that.
So, Robert, there's another story, which is very important. So you've raised some issues here.
So Montagnier was approached by Kerry Mullis, no less, the inventor of the PCR technique,
for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize 10 years after that invention or whatever you want to call
it. Yes, discovery. So in 1993, he got the Nobel Prize for chemistry. He wrote a statement,
the HIV virus is the probable cause of AIDS. So this was a state and then he looked as he,
but with his own words, I watched the video myself, he said that he tried to find a way of proving
that. So he started the paper with that statement. He couldn't find it. To his surprise, he couldn't,
or said it was his to his surprise, he couldn't find anything that supported that statement.
So he also commented on that. So eventually he came to Montagnier. So Kerry received the Nobel
Prize. Let me just finish. So he eventually gets to Montagnier. Robert. Yes, go ahead. So he gets to
Montagnier. In Paris, apparently, he was surrounded by his henchmen or whatever, you know, the people,
his colleagues. And he asked him about this statement. Could he provide a proof scientifically
for that statement? And so Montagnier, according to Kerry Mullis, said, well, he said, said, what
about this paper, you know, and Kerry Mullis knew it. He said, no, that's not good enough.
And what about this one? Montagnier said, that wasn't good enough either. This is Kerry Mullis
speaking. And then he said that Montagnier walked away and left the group. And so he was surprised.
I think he said that he was surprised that he walked away with no explanation to his colleagues
or anything. So he was unable to answer the question. And I wonder whether Montagnier knew
then, well, of course, he probably did know then that it was a fraud. But why did he go along with
the fraud and then have a bad conscience later and then start speaking out and then eventually
say, one week before he died? It's a very important story, I think.
Yeah, it's very important, Stephen. And all I can tell you is what he said to me
when I asked him that question. And, you know, why are you no longer at the university?
What happened? And he had changed his position with that, and that was what lost him his position.
They were trying to protect and cover up the fact that we had the Nobel laureate who won the prize
for discovering something that he didn't do.
Absolutely. But also, Robert, he probably understood that he was a central lynchpin,
if you like, in the whole narrative of virology. But he went along with it. And so I think it's
absolutely fascinating.
Well, Stephen, can we let Robert do his presentation?
Stephen, let Robert do his presentation.
Let Robert do his presentation.
I think Stephen is on a good point because, you know, Carey Mollis also came to his confession
that the PCR test is not a diagnostic tool and was never invented for the detailed study of DNA
samples. Consequently, it cannot be used to diagnose infectious disease, period.
Correct.
He absolutely said that.
So those are his words, not my words.
Absolutely.
I can tell you that Luke believed that too. He knew that. That's why later in his life,
when they started pushing this COVID virus, this corona, which stands for
coordinated routing nanotechnology.
Let me say that again. CO is coordinated routing,
corona, C-R-O-R-O-N-A, that's nanotechnology. This was a coordinated effort to literally
inject nanotechnology. It was coordinated. It had routing capabilities.
Therefore, it could be, you know, out of the mouths of other people like Klaus Schwab
and Dr. Noah Harari. They said it themselves, humans are now hackable. No, humans are now
hackable. We are currently, with human consciousness support and their resources, we are studying
we are studying this coordinated routing nanotechnology that has been injected into
or transfected, whether by mosquito, tick, water, air, food, sanitation,
painkillers, what have you, nutraceutical, pharmaceuticals, they've got it in everything.
They don't list it. This coordinated routing nanotechnology is in 90% of everyone that we have
tested. We have the evidence. We're going to have this peer reviewed and published.
So, you know, Judy, Judy Mikovits has come a long way on this as well.
She understands a new word. I want to introduce a new word to you, not infection, but outfection.
Disease is born in us and from us. We have complete control over that if we manage
and maintain the internal environment, particularly the body ocean, and it's simple and it's
inexpensive. So, you know, she's come a long ways. Terry Mollis came a long ways. I don't think his
death was an accident. Absolutely. You know, here again, I think it was a play. Yeah, so he had to
be dead and he did die, was killed, in my opinion, in August 2019. Otherwise, 2020 could not have
happened if he had been alive. Yeah, yeah. So, just this year, I've written six books, and I tell you
that because two of the books are on this coordinated routing technology.
Hey, Robert, share the-
Triforce is deception. Charity. I mean, we're losing our freedom, folks. So, the Truth Book 1,
Truth Book 2, you know, 3 and 4, Let Freedom Ring, based upon, you can figure that one out,
but two cancer books. Because cancer is a symptom of what I'm talking about. The body's inability
to maintain the alkaline design of the body fluids. It's not a cellular problem.
It's an environmental problem. And the two main poisons that cause cancer is lactic and citric
acid. Well, there's other ones, but those are the two main ones. And so, I want to give you as much
information as I can. And so, this paper I did here again helps you to have some of this
information available. Exploring the Alkalarian Lifestyle, a Comprehensive Review of Dr. Robert
O. Young's Health Paradigm. So, my methodology is to look at the last 20 years of my life
and consolidate this, because I've got over 100 books, I have over 3000 papers,
and it's overwhelming. And so, I've limited this down then to these papers. The five most
important peer reviewed, now I have to say the six or seven or eighth most important ones
that I want to give to all those who hear my voice. I'm not looking for money. I'm looking to educate,
not to medicate, but to educate. And so, who had their finger on the magic of life?
Was it Gary Mullis? Was it Peter Duisburg? Was it, you know, Luc Montenay?
They came, they gradually got there, but not really. And that's why the discovery of the work,
especially Lace microzymas from the University of Paris, the medical library there, I wrote this
paper and published it, who had their finger on the magic of life. And what we have is a battle
here between virology and germ theory mentality, which is based upon a false premise, versus the
terrain theory, versus the environmental theory. So, if you look at one of the most important
papers that I wrote then, I told you about it, it's called the Newy-Jerk or Blood-Jerk Reaction,
A Rise in Alkalinity of the pH. Why does the pH go up before it drops drastically down?
No one's answered that. This paper answers this. It's a defensive mechanism
to preserve the integrity of the environment so you don't die.
If you want to prevent neurological problems, those are symptoms. Heart problems, those are
symptoms. You have to protect the environment. You have to protect the fluids of the body.
That's why I have this diagram in here. So people can understand that the largest organ of the human
body is not the skin, it's the inner-stestidium. And that word inner-stestidium was made up of
people in America in 2018, 2019 to describe this organ that is not even known by most people.
We learned it in Germany, thank God, to Dr. Enderlin and Dr. Marie Blecker. We learned about
the colloidal connective tissue of the shot. I learned about that in the 80s.
What was it? That was the largest organ. It's a collection place where the blood can purify
itself, the cells can purify itself and protect the body cells that make up our organs and glands
and tissues. That's what that paper's about. But I had something happen in early 2021. I was
proposed an offering to look at some of the vials that were being injected, the material that was
being injected. And so I was given Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vials.
And I did research and continue to do research up until about June or July of 2021
using different methodology, high resolution, phase contrast,
with phase contrast transition or transmission electron microscopy coupled with EDS, electron
directed energy, x-ray fluorescence. That's the long version of the name of this technology
mirrored together because I wanted to know specifically what was in this. And we're talking
nanos. You cannot see this stuff under a compound microscope.
Anyone that's saying they're seeing graphene in the blood using dark field and phase contrast
that's not coupled to either scanning or transmission electron microscopy
is looking at some greater organization, which we'd only know what it was if we were doing
quantitative testing. So that would be Raman testing or it would be EDS testing, electron
directed energy, DES, directed energy x-ray microscopy testing. And so this abstract then
went in and discussing over 20 plus elements that I found in these vaccines.
That guess what, folks? They weren't disclosed by any of the pharmaceutical companies.
They were non-disclosed. And in fact, when this work came out where they were talking about
a peer-reviewed article that was censored by Lancet, 73.9% of autopsies, they wanted to know,
was there a direct relationship between the inoculation and the COVID vaccine and doing the
autopsy? And of course, they found that, yes, these people were poisoned. They weren't infected.
They were poisoned. I'm not going to get into some of these other details here,
even though they're interesting, such as the doctrine of pleomorphism, that literally,
when you introduce me, this is what I was seeing happening to blood that would actually
transform, biologically transform into E. coli, into anthrax, and evolve into yeast.
You know what I'm going, wait a minute. I thought yeast and bacteria were their own little species.
They're not. They're transformation of anatomical elements that make up our body cells that evolve,
just like the food in the refrigerator, but it's not maintained based on temperature.
It starts evolving and what shows up? It's a transformation or a pleomorphism of that matter
into bacteria, yeast, and mold. And so I described this in 1994 on someone who was diagnosed with
Epstein-Barr virus that has never been purified or isolated. That's just a name for a treatment
that has nothing to do with a virus and everything to do with the environment or the context. That's
how you save lives. Stop treating disease and start paying attention to your internal environment
and your external environment. And that was the basis of all this. So I can show you what that
looks like. If we looked at it, here's a slide of, I did videotape this, so it's not like I
could be accused of.
Here it is right here. See if we can turn up the volume here. But what you're seeing are
codocytes. These are red blood cells. They're targeted red blood cells. And you're seeing a
rod-like bacterium, or could be identified as a bacterium, evolve or transform into
a red blood cell. You see, there's memory here. And it's not directed by genetics. It's directed
by epigenetics. Genetics does not determine your future, does not determine your life expectancy.
It is the epigenetics outside of that environment that determines the life of the cell. And that
was awarded to Alexis Carell a Nobel Prize for determining after 20 years of keeping a chicken
heart alive for 20 years by changing the environment, maintaining the environment.
It was all environmental terrain to keep the chicken heart alive. It was he that discovered
he that discovered that a human cell can live forever if you manage and maintain the proper
environment. That was an important discovery for me to see because I had no comprehension
at that time of Antoine Baillamp. I knew about Enderlin, Gunther Enderlin, the German scientist,
but this was his introduction to when everything is cremated and everything is gone or evaporated,
what is left? Indestructible matter. This is where life is. Not in the genetics, but in the tiny
the tiny nano anatomical elements that make up every living thing.
This is what can organize and disorganize. So on the law of physics, nothing can be destroyed.
Nothing can be destroyed, only organized or disorganized. So there's no death.
There's only transformation. There's only change. There's only change. And when you get that,
then you realize that you are in control of the quality and quantity of your life.
And so when I was in Paris at the university taking and taking out books that have been
down in their archives for hundreds of years and looking at a book that literally brought me to
tears called Lace Microzymas and the actual experiments showing biological transformation
of which Bayes-Champ battled Pasteur on this and failed. No one understood that matter
cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. It could only change its form or function.
The original theory for genetic material is right here.
That's where they developed this cartoon of our helix. Here again, from this to this
to cartoon. This is the original.
So how much did Deusburg know? It's hard to say. In fact, he was moving away from the science or
the so-called science of virology and phantom. Phantom, phantom, they do not exist, viruses.
And we have solicited over 200 institutions around the world, including the FDA, including
the CDC, and asking for any evidence based upon the scientific method where they can show
that they have purified and isolation for any virus. And we've asked them about HIV,
we've asked them about influenza, we've asked them about the cox, the coxes, the monkey pox,
and of course the corona. They have no evidence whatsoever. If you want to see those letters,
if you want to see them speaking that they have nothing, no evidence that validates the efficacy
of virology. It's pretty extreme. Now this is very important. So this came out in October.
At least 55 undeclared chemical elements found in COVID-19 vaccine. And the actual...
So we had AstraZeneca, CanSino, Moderna, Pfizer, Sinopharm, the Sputnik, Russia, China, all of
these. They're all here again using the same technology, the same theory of providing immunity.
And here again, what we have is they identified over 55 countries,
what we have is they identified over 55 compounds that were not declared on the white sheets of
the pharmaceuticals. So we had 55 undeclared chemical elements found in the COVID-19 vaccines
and all of them contained all kinds of things from aluminum. The concerning one was the,
here among them, undeclared elements were detected 11 of 15 cytotoxic lanthanides
that have electronic capabilities and optogenetics capability.
So that's quite concerning. That's why I love the fact that Bobby Kennedy
is heading up, and I hope this happens, to really look at all this
and really change the whole way we deliver health. And take a hard look at the theory that
you're not sick, you don't have a disease, you've been chemically poisoned or you've been radiated.
And so what have you been poisoned? Well, we identified with that. And so in 2021,
I knew that there were over 21 different compounds, elements that were inside these inoculations
at different percentages. And I published this. It was actually peer reviewed, took a year to
publish it, and it was finally published. And these charts are available. How many people have
read this article? Well, before it was published, it was around 1.3 million people. It was a seminal
work that was published in 2021, peer reviewed, and then published again in 2022. But you can see,
if you go down the list, there's aluminum there, there's copper there, there's titanium there,
there's a lot of metals, there's a lot of compounds, polyethylene glycol, etc., etc.
That was one of the disclosed elements, but these were the things that were found.
I'm going to pass through this. And this technology here, if we see its ability,
those lanthanides, if we actually see their capability at the
micro and milli micron and milli micron levels, you can actually see some of this
self-assembly capability. And this was not only my discovery, but Yale University posted
what they had discovered. And I'm going to show that. It's called Tesla-Foresis. And the ability
of these elements that were found in the inoculations to literally self-assemble themselves
into receivers, transmitters, starting out as nanotechnology. They're called nanobots or nanodots.
So using high-resolution scanning and transmission microscopy, we're able to look at
some of these elements. We're able to look at aluminum, able to look at graphene, able to look
at spike proteins. And spike protein, by the way, is a symptom of cellular breakdown.
When cells start losing their surface charge and they start transforming, they become what are
called acanthocytes, and that's corrugated like berry-like cells. But then as the process continues,
they start spiking, and these vescules break off and become what is known as spike protein.
This can happen very easily with chemical and radiation poisoning.
We even have this in 3D. So about six to eight months ago, I was introduced to
a company, because it's one thing to talk about the pollution or to theorize what happened and
how did it happen or why did it happen, but I wanted to find a solution. I'm a solution-oriented
scientist. So I was introduced to a product through a gentleman. His name is Matt Hazen.
He is the head of a company called Human Consciousness Support. I'm not an officer,
I'm not a director. I'm an interested party because I'm interested in myself, my family,
my children, and I'm interested in what they had. Using HR10 transmission electron microscopy and
coupled with directed energy x-ray fluorescent spectroscopy, he was able to do a very interesting
thing. He was able to identify the construct of a mineral called zeolite. I looked at it,
and I said, this looks a lot like graphene. I said, graphene is hexagonal,
has very similar construct, but the difference is the surface charge. It's positive.
The zeta potential of zeolite is negatively charged. It was like a puzzle. I said, oh my
heavens, this is good news. This could be the antidote for chemical and radiation poisoning.
And so I continued to explore this masterpiece it's called. And just recently, after readjusting
the pH and the ORP in a patent that is patent pending right now, I noticed that from the
original formulation here to the changes in pH, it increased the zeta potential,
increased the surface area, which thus increased the surface charge. And so I started testing
other zeolite products out there that were testing positive instead of negative with a low pH
around 2.7 to 3.1. And that was altered when I introduced the technology to be able to alter
the pH, alter the ORP, alter the structure, increase surface area. And that's what you see
here at high resolution. This is high resolution at 0.1 to 0.2 nanometers. This is subatomic,
the resolution. Transmission electron microscopy, phase contrast,
micrograph at a scale of 2.54 centimeters, so one inch equals 50 nanometers. So this stuff is really,
really small, making it transdermal, meaning that you take it under the tongue, it goes right into
the interstitial fluid. And the interstitial fluid is this big ocean that carries it through
everything else. It can go into the blood, yes, it can go into the interstitial fluid.
Then I took the experiment a little bit further. What if I took some aluminum beads or graphene
beads and I introduced that to this material? What would happen? Well, it'd act like any
electromagnetic with a surface charge of negative, with a surface charge of positive.
It literally collected it in its multi-dimensional, you can see it here, its multi-dimensional
construct. It's not just theory. That's an illustration, by the way. This is not an
illustration. You can see here, two-dimensional, you can see the surface area, and you can see
what happens when you introduce a chemical poison.
It attracts that. Now, zeolite is indigestible. So if it locks onto it, it's like a net. It
collected it, it locks it, and the body's going to get rid of it. And guess what? That was the
theory. But it has to be tested. And so we not only tested it, we then published our results,
which were also peer-reviewed. A little higher magnification, a little lower
magnification. It's another micrograph. This is an illustration of what I saw in the collection.
These are graphene or aluminum, titanium. They all look very similar. The only way you can
differentiate them is through spectroscopy, using directed energy, x-ray, fluorescent
spectroscopy, to be able to identify the difference. So I could have put a lot of
bunch of words in there. These are dots. They're nanosides. You can see how small they are
collecting onto this. So this is very exciting, because now you have a solution to the pollutions.
So the question came up, if it will chelate graphene, will it chelate aluminum? Will it
chelate titanium oxide? Will it chelate? And the list went on. And we added up, okay, there's 80,000
poisons. Let's take the ones that most people know are the ones that we're most interested in.
And we started testing for that. And every single case,
masterpiece with this patented zeolite Z, Z standing for zeta potential,
adsorbed and then absorbed the material and took it into his body. And guess what happened to
the levels? What happened to the levels? I'll come down here.
Come back to some of this here in a minute.
So fairly what happened in this published paper here? Here we started seeing these levels go down.
So the baseline, these were graphene oxide. We also tested for aluminum. You'll see it was added.
You'll see it was added. Aluminum here, glyphosate, iron, lindane,
phostene, which is burnt, which is a wartime restricted chemical, was used in World War I.
Phosphorol octane sulfates and acids. These we saw that in our charts that all the levels
started coming down, started coming down after 35 days and after 90 days. Everything that we tested.
And so it was quite dramatic. And so I took that information and I said, well, how much
is these things coming down? So polypropylene, hydrogel, polyethylene glycol,
forever chemicals, microplastics, nanotechnology, titanium, aluminum, etc., etc. How much are they
coming down? And in that case, we were seeing here five substances, aluminum,
over 50% of the aluminum within 45 to 90 days. I mean, who gets aluminum out of the brain?
We're seeing this in hair testing because we're offering hair testing.
Because where does aluminum go? Where does titanium oxide go? It goes out through the pores
and into the hair. So we can take hair, we can test for it, and we're seeing remarkable results
in our beginning testing, in the elimination of the body just throwing away the aluminum.
Beginning testing in the elimination of the body just throwing this stuff out. It's being released
by simply just taking five drops of Masterpiece Zeolite Z under the tongue twice a day based on a
man or a woman who weighs 154 pounds. So if you have a child, it's less. If you have a cat, it's
less. But they're being transfected. So it's not my offer because it's not my company.
I'm just excited to share this solution because I take it. My family takes it. My children,
my grandchildren take this. And it's getting phenomenal results across the board. And so
when we're concerned about turbo cancers, which are based on chemical poisoning,
and I've listed some of those, aluminum, deriterium, phosting, polyethylene glycol,
these numbers are going up because of chemical poisoning. For those who have not been inoculated,
it's being transfected through being around someone who has been vaccinated back to Luc
Montaner, the vaccinated people can pick up nanotechnology from someone who sneezes, yes? And
it could be adsorb and absorbed into the body. But it's now in our water. It's now in our food.
It's now in our air and it's being chemtrailed. So back to this, this is, see,
look, if you want to do, and there's only three or four places in the state of California where I am,
but does this level of testing, not hair testing, we're talking about
HR, TAM, and directed energy combined together, spectroscopy. Just for one thin sample,
you're going to spend between $1,500 to $5,000 for one test, for one metal.
And Los Angeles has a lab, Irvine has a lab, Berkeley has a lab. These labs are there and
they will take your business if you want to know if you've been graphinated, if you've been
illuminated. And I can give you their names and I can give you their websites so you can go.
There are places in England, there are places in Germany. We used a German lab to do a lot of our
intracellular testing. And I'm sad to say that they're no longer doing it because they were
shut down for doing what they did. There's not a clear licensed lab in the United States
that I know of that will do this kind of testing, intracellular testing. But there may be hope.
If an individual contacts a university, the work that was done in Spain was done by the
University of Seville. So universities have the money to do this because the equipment is very
expensive. The combination of that, you're going to spend between $1,000,000 and $1,000,000 and $5,000,000
for the kind of equipment that you need to do this kind of testing. So that's why I like this hair
testing, folks. And this guy's been doing this for 15 years and he's in England.
Okay. And he can take, you just take, you get a packet, you put a little piece of hair, your hair
in there from the back, and you send it and you get this super duper report that's going to show
all of these chemical poisons, not all of them, but the majority of them. And then you can then
retest and see the results of that. Now that would be valuable for someone to have that done. That's
called prevention. And maybe someone's already sick and they said, look, I don't have time,
I don't have the money, I'm just going to start taking the antidote to the poison.
And that's okay too. That's a good way to go. But I just wanted to make you aware of that.
Of course, when we're dealing with 5G, we have some good news. Peru is taking down all their 5G
towers. The United States needs people in power that says, okay, we're not bowing down to the
corporation. 5G is coming totally down, completely. That's important. It's important that you social
distance yourself from a lot of this. If you want to be healthy, and of course, that's something
that you'll need to consider. Because when we look at the technology and the connection,
the cell tower to your brain, why would it be the brain? Because of the nanotechnology,
the coordinated routing nanotechnology that's in your brain, that's in your heart,
that's in your reproductive organs. It's all been directed. Somebody asked me, why is there so little
genetic material in these inoculations? Because it's not about mRNA. MRI is the information to drive
the hydrogel, the lipid capsid, to specific bodies, to specific body parts. And that's what it does.
So you can take the inoculation, you can tag it with MRI from cell lines from specific organs
and glands and drive it to the heart, drive it to the reproductive organs, or drive it to the brain.
And that's what's going on there. I do want to show you some Tesla paresis if I can here.
Oh, by the way, the weight loss products that people are injecting, it's all loaded with
nanotechnology, all loaded with coordinated routing technology. What a way to lose weight.
This is what it looks like under fluorescence when it starts organizing.
So what else did I want to share with you?
Nothing on monkeypox. I mean, that's just another more of the same thing. You may want to look very
closely at some of the questions that I hear. Does the stomach digest food? The answer is no.
What is the purpose of the stomach? I think I've defined that. Does the stomach produce sodium
bicarbonate, potassium bicarbonate, magnesium, calcium in bicarbonate forms? What is the true
purpose of the stomach? What is the true purpose of the intestines? Does digestion and the
simulation of our food ingested take place in the small intestine? The answer to these questions
are no. Is there a digestive system in the human body? Yes, it's called your teeth.
What is the true pH of the stomach? True pH should be no less than 7.2, other than when they're
testing, they're testing the after effect because the byproduct of the cover cells producing sodium
bicarbonate is a waste product called hydrochloric acid, which falls away into the gastric pits and
never even touches the food you eat. So the stomach does not digest food.
So what is the true ideal pH of the stomach? 7.2 or higher. What is the true pH of the stomach?
Well, right now for most people in the way they're living and eating, it's down around 1.5 to 3.
That's why the number one symptomology of acidic toxemia is caused by what you eat,
what you drink, and what you breathe. So here again, the stomach doesn't digest that piece of
meat you eat. And how do we know that? You can do a simple experiment. Eat a piece of corn,
don't chew it, swallow it, and watch what comes out the other end. You can do that with spinach.
Take spinach leaves, eat them, and watch what comes out. They will not liquefy. Nothing liquefies in
the alimentary canal. The stomach doesn't digest it. The pancreas and the gallbladder all secrete
a pH of 8.4. Sodium bicarbonate and bile is at a pH of 8.4, which is the ideal pH of the small intestine.
That's when you start making healthy stem cells, which are made in the crypts of the small intestine.
So that book is called A New Theory, The Physiology of the Stomach. I'm not going to go into it today,
but I just want you to make you aware of this. This is what healthy blood should look like
under phase contrast using a compound microscope. We're looking at electron microscopy,
and I think we just went through this. I wanted to show you Tesla-Faresis.
All this is in a report that's been peer reviewed, that has been published, and
you can find out more of this information on your analysis or in hair testing to help you monitor
the internal environment of your body, which is here again a body of water.
A body of water. Let's see if I can find this.
So here are some of the papers that we talked about today that I'm going to provide with you.
For healthy cats, healthy dogs, any animal can use this solution to the pollution.
There's the pH hydrant paper, 4.5 to 9. Purposely set that low point and high point
because the range is quite dramatic because of the human diet, the human lifestyle.
So for $20, you can get 150 test strips in order to test this out.
Charles, can I go back up here and just see if I can find, since I've mentioned it three times,
Tesla-Faresis and the organization of nanotechnology into larger constructs.
I think it's important for people to see this. This is coming from a major university.
I'll see if I can find it here.
If it's a major university, it must be a woke university.
Yeah. Yeah. So here we go. Here's the Tesla-Faresis video. I think it's important to watch this.
Tesla-Faresis, which is a discovery we made several years ago and we've been developing it.
We haven't got the sound, Romit.
What you're seeing here is activation by frequency, light frequency.
There's a lot of nanotubes around, so we decided to use nanotubes. What we discovered
was that these nanotubes can actually string together and form wires by themselves on this
electric field. This fundamental idea of force acting at a distance that you can have instead of
when you've normally built circuits and things like that, you have to have physical contact.
Now we're talking about the circuits without actually touching.
I realized that a Tesla coil could actually do this if you designed it in a way to create
a very strong force field in front of it. That was the engineering aspect.
And then once I designed the machine, then all sorts of discoveries started falling out.
Tesla-Faresis is one of those things. It's a project that there are just so many avenues,
so many things that I think you can do with it. Not just making conductive wires, but taking it
in so many different places. Not only just biomedical engineering, but taking it into
different industries like silicon ships or exploring different conductive materials.
This also ties in just generally in nanotechnologies that self-assembly is very big.
That is, if you can get things to build themselves, just as in biology, we build ourselves.
When my son saw it, he called them webs. He thought it was like Spider-Man shooting webs out.
And it really is. It's very much like a web stringing out together.
And that was a surprising finding.
So here are some clusters of this nanotechnology that's actually spiking out like antenna,
just like in the video, the Tesla-Faresis. It can self-organize itself, which brings me to this
quote, humans are now hackable animals. The whole idea that humans have this solar spirit,
free will, that's over. Today we have the technology to hack human beings on a massive scale.
Everything is being digitized. Everything is being monitored.
That was reconfirmed by the World Economic Forum. These technologies will operate within our own
biology, our own bodies, within our bodies, and change how we interface with the world.
Smart dust based on aluminum, titanium, copper, a lot of different elements, arrays of full
computers with antennas, each much smaller than a grain of sand, can now organize themselves inside
the body. Here it is inside the body. Here it is inside the body, organizing itself inside the body.
Disease X. Here it is inside the body. And so I'm grateful for those other scientists who just
published in October, validated my work that I had published in 2021 and then 2022.
Really means a lot to the science community because when we're looking at hydrogel,
when we're looking at try Panisoma cruce parasites, which we found in the Moderna and also in
the Pfizer, and when we looked at this using directed energy X-ray fluorescent,
we could actually see this try Panisoma cruce parasite and testing it using
EDS, using directed energy X-ray microscopy, what did we see?
We found graphene, we found iron, we found copper, we found aluminum encrusted on that,
just like barnacles on a boat. This is swimming inside the body. So these are the concerns
that I have that people need to wake up to and realize that very simply that sickness and disease
are symptoms of an imbalance that is reflected by the internal environment that is out of balance,
that can be measured and controlled without taking medications, without taking more chemicals
to deal with a particular symptomology, which cannot resolve the chemical poisoning.
So I'm going to say it very simply so everybody hears it. You are not sick, you've been poisoned.
Very good. Robert, beautifully put, you are not sick, you have been poisoned, and you reinforced
what I learned in 1965 when I went to my first naturopath in Melbourne, a long time ago.
And Lawrence Armstrong, total genius in his understanding of the body, and I consider you
a genius in the understanding of the body, he said the number one cause of, he said disease,
but I understand what you're saying, the number one cause of disease is constipation.
And so he's often said you are what you eat, but you have reinforced again what I learned
in 1965, you are what you don't eliminate. And the fact is that most people are full of crap.
Most people are full of crap. And people don't realize that if you don't get it out from the
interstitial fluid, the blood's going to push it there, the cells push out their metabolic waste.
Anything that's in the blood gets pushed out to that organ. It is an organ.
Very good.
Germans called it colloidal connective tissue of the shot, the Americans now call it a new organ
that they just discovered, really, the interstitium. And here again, we've known about it for 40 plus
years. The interstitium or the interstitium? Is it the interstitium or the interstitium?
Interstitium. The interstitium or the colloidal connective tissue of the shot,
and the fluid that's being compartmentalized and collecting plasma, collecting intracellular
fluids from the cells is stored in this matrix, these compartments that are either pushed out
into the connective tissue. And that's why when you build up a lot of lactic acid, you feel it in
the muscle. The body can't get rid of it, it has to get rid of it through here again, from the
interstitial fluid to the lymphatic system out through the pores of the skin or to the kidneys
out through urination. So hydration becomes a very, very important thing. And alkalizing becomes very,
very important. Yes, you can drink water with your meals. It's the right kind of water. It has to be
functionally structured alkaline water that's donating electrons to neutralize the acids of
the food that you're eating. That's what's happening in your mouth. Your pH does not go down
in the stomach, it goes up. The mouth pH does not go down, it goes up because the salivary glands
are trans, they're literally secreting alkalizing compounds that are made by the stomach. And that
development brought me to the conclusion that this is a whole organ system. So therefore,
I came up with a name. It's called the alko-phile system, alkalizing system. The alko-phile,
it includes your salivary glands, it includes your stomach, of course, is the main one that supplies
the pancreatic duct, the glands in the pancreas, the lubricant glands in the intestines,
the gallbladder is all supplied by the stomach. And this is why upset stomach is the number one
symptomology that is experiencing worldwide. And the last thing you want today is a
a proton blocker that stops the cover cells from operating because that will lead to a cancerous
condition, a degenerative condition. You want to stop eating acidic food, stop drinking acidic water,
start hyper-perfusing alkalinity. The ideal pH of water should be minimum 9.5, ideally between 10 and 11.
An ORP at negative 450 to 750 millivolts. So you have to be conscious of this. In this idea,
you shouldn't drink with your meals, you'll dilute the hydrochloric acid. Boy, you're right on. That's
exactly what you want to do, is dilute the hydrochloric acid in the stomach. That's what
the body's trying to do, is get rid of that waste product. But for every molecule of hydrochloric
acid that's produced, an equal amount of sodium bicarbonate is produced to maintain alkalinity.
And the only reason there's hydrochloric acid in the stomach is because the stomach is working
every second, every minute, every day, every week, every month, every year of your life to maintain
that delicate pH balance of the blood at 7.365 to 7.4 of the interstitium fluids
of the interstitium at 8.4 or higher, or the intercellular fluids, which are at around 7.4,
much like some very similar to the blood. The most alkaline places in the body are in the intestines
and in the fluids that surround all of your 72 trillion cells. And using enzymes destroys
that environment. Using probiotics destroys that environment.
The food that empties out of the stomach should be in a liquid alkaline state,
and that's why you have a gallbladder and that's why you have a pancreas. And the reason why there's
problems with liver and gallbladder and with stones in the pancreas and in the gallbladder
is because people do not understand what they're doing to themselves when they don't liquefy their
food. And so on the pH miracle program that's outlined, the alkaline lifestyle that's outlined
in chapter five, chapter 11, that I taught, you know, a lot of the doctors I worked with, including
the famous Tony Robbins, I had him liquefying his food. He still eats broccoli for breakfast.
So liquefy your foods. You know, start moving more to green. Start building healthy blood,
which is done in the crypts of the small intestine, and start raising the pH level.
You're going to feel so much better. And it's one of the reasons I formulated a product called
four salts, because a lot of people need extra help, but you don't want the caking agents and
the aluminum and the chemicals, the anti-caking agents they put in those to keep them, you know,
so they're in a powder form. You need sodium bicarbonate. It's the simple antidote, baking
sodas, the simple antidote to any symptomology. And that supports the stomach. So I put sodium,
potassium, magnesium, and calcium in bicarbonate and bicarbonate form so people could take three
to five grams in the morning before going to bed or any time their pH of the urine drops below
7.2. You can do this. It's so simple. In a small glass of purified alkaline water.
It's something that anybody can do. And it's safe and it's effective. You don't need to be trapped
into this immunity theory and this antibody theory and this genetic theory. And I'd like to
see more people experiment with the fact that our cells are only as healthy as the water they swim
in and the ideal environment for body cells, for liver cells, brain cells, heart cells,
any cell of the body, except for the blood, and the white cells, if they're in the plasma, is at 8.4.
That's the ideal pH. And it can be measured by simply testing the urine.
Robert, that's a great point. So what we've got now, we've got 37 minutes. And I know you can speak
another four hours. Your website is amazing. You've provoked, I think, all of us and everyone
watching this recording. So Stephen, what if it's, Stephen, if we go the next 10 minutes for your
questions, a few other questions, we'll finish. But gosh, we're going to have Robert back to ask
a bucket load of questions because this is, you know, Robert, your life work has been all about
health. And you are laying out what many of us on this call, Danny, you know, other people, experts on
truly understanding this. And so we'll never get to the end of the questions. But we've only got 37
minutes. So Stephen, you go first. And then, yeah, so let's see how many we can get through by the
two and a half hour mark. And then and then please, everyone save the chat. There's a lot of gold in
the chat. And go to Robert's website and start learning and there's no expense. It's just drrobertyoung.com.
I've got just in the last four years, I've published over 600 articles. Yeah, I you know, I just
finished up an article for peer review today. And I'm trying to get this information out,
you know, before they throw me in jail again, you know, so I, you know, it's just it's just
a common practice of these Luciferians and bad actors, they, they think that they can shut me
up on this. But I've published too much, I've written too much, you know, I have thousands
upon thousands of video presentations, I've lectured all over all over the world, from
University to Stanford to Oxford, those videos are available. I want people to have this information
without remuneration without any strings attached, attached. This knowledge should be available
for everyone to empower each human, each of my brothers and sisters, and all of their children,
how to personally take responsibility back for their own health, and the quality of their health
and the quantity of their health, rather than wholesaling that out to people that have been
educated beyond their intelligence. Beautifully said. And last comment before Stephen starts,
Robert, just as you said, we have 72 trillion cells, we had 72 people on the call and it just
dropped to 71. So there you are talking about synchronistic. Stephen over to you.
So Robert, I think, well, I'm very interested in Peter Duisburg, in particular, why was he attacked?
Because the other person who's been attacked, as you know, is Andrew Wakefield, and of course,
he's being proved right now. And Peter Duisburg, in my opinion, was right. And that's why they were
attacking him. Well, let me ask you a question. So hang on, I'm asking you the questions.
Okay, but let me ask everyone the question to think about.
Based on the information you heard today, is that practicing medicine without a license?
What, you you mean? Yeah. Well, I haven't said that. No, no, no, no, but in the state of
California, we know the whole thing's a fraud, Robert. But yeah, what's the license? Who's
awarding the license? You know, that's the problem. It doesn't matter whether you have a license or
you don't have a license. Yeah, but there's no use complaining about it. The law allows you to
practice medicine without a license as long as you do not prescribe legend drugs. I'm trying to get to
the bottom of what Peter Duisburg was saying. So he was saying that AIDS was caused by chemicals.
I have exactly virus. So that's absolutely essential to understand. You don't let me speak.
Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. I thought you were finished. My apologies. I'm not finished.
So Peter Duisburg clearly was saying things that they didn't like. The question is, you have the
knowledge to know why, or maybe you have the knowledge to know why they didn't like what he
was saying. Well, you told us tonight that he was saying that AIDS was caused by chemicals. Well,
they were saying, and they gave a Nobel Prize to Luke Montagnier for discovering the virus, HIV,
which caused AIDS. That's what they wanted to put about. They were developing virology, shall we
say, at the expense of immunology, let's say that within medicine. But I learned at medical school
that a deadly virus, if one believes in viruses, which I'm not sure I do, kills its host, i.e.
that you can't have a pandemic. So the whole false narrative has been constructed over decades,
it seems, with evidence-based medicine and virology and hiding the immunologists and
people like Gallo and Fauci. So I don't, so Kerry Mullis was protecting Peter Duisburg.
Peter Duisburg was saying that chemicals are causing AIDS, whatever AIDS is.
So it seems to me that AIDS is like COVID-19, the disease doesn't exist. So, and Kerry Mullis
was saying also that his technique must never be used as a diagnostic test for a viral illness.
Luke Montagnier, meanwhile, was not able to answer Kerry Mullis's question.
Could he prove, could he give him a citation for the statement, the HIV virus is the probable
cause of AIDS? These people are all intimately connected, as I understand it. So Gallo
was awarded the Nobel Prize together with Montagnier. And I remember seeing
seeing an interview of the secretary to Montagnier, I think it was,
who was saying that Montagnier was away on holiday and Gallo, and I'm pretty sure I'm
right in this, Gallo rang up the office and spoke to her and tried to get her to send stuff to him.
I'm not sure whether he was, she did send it, but I think that was Gallo and Montagnier and they
end up receiving the Nobel Prize together and Montagnier knows that it was a fraud.
This is really important stuff and we need to put it together.
Well, you know, the reason they can't answer it is because they have no answers.
And that's exactly what we get from the FDA and the CDC when we ask them,
you know, under FOIA request, we say under FOIA request, can you provide us any evidence,
any citations, any published papers, which using the scientific method, they cannot.
The reason they cannot is because it does not exist. But also tonight, Robert, we hear that
you say that Fauci- For managing and controlling the surplus population, as Kissinger said,
of useless eaters, close quote. So we all got Fauci replacing Gallo.
Well, this is a racket, isn't it? It's a racket. It's the anatomy of a racket.
Hey, I didn't have all the pieces of the puzzle. I mean, each piece kind of laid out over a period
of 40 years of being involved in this industry. And, you know, how do you get arrested for
practicing medicine without a license when you're not practicing medicine?
It doesn't matter. Absolutely. Make it up. You know, the main objective here
is censorship. It's censorship. Of course, we know that.
The freedom of speech is taking away the right and control over the human body. That is the
medical model. Yeah, but we know that, Robert, what we don't know and what the public don't know is
the connection between these five men here and someone needs to look at them and dig deep.
I told you what I know. I told you what Luc Montaner said. I told you what
Deusper did. I've been in his lab. I've been at Berkeley. I've been, you know,
asking all the hard questions and being part of that. You know, I understand what he was
up against. I understand that he didn't want any part about it. And he spoke truthfully.
And when you speak the truth and it's not in line with the current protocol,
what happened during COVID? You lose your job or you may even lose your life.
But Robert, what I'm trying to do is draw attention to the connection between these five men,
but it keeps taking his away for some reason. I don't understand.
I'm not taking away. You know, they're all connected. Deusper got out of that connection
in 1983-85. He didn't want any part of it. He spoke out. So his connection was he was actually
an advocate for viral theory and HIV. He was against it. And Luc Montaner, he could not speak
out and didn't speak out and spoke to me in private. I never said anything about this,
this experience of 2011. I mean, I wanted to know why he was at this conference talking about
water technology and alkalization. And he was one of the keynote speakers. I still have the
programs and the evidence that that event actually happened. He was there. 2011, I sat right next to
him. I asked him, I wanted to know how are things going in Paris? I'm not there any longer. You're
not there? The chair of virology at the University of Paris School of Medicine? Where are you? I'm
in China. What are you doing in China? Studying water technology, functionally structured water
technology. As a cure for what? Here again, back to virology again, rather than using chemicals,
using water. But he came off that about two years before he died. And he came out and vocalized
his position on virology and what he had done and what he had not done. And so he confessed
that he had never purified in isolation of HIV period.
So Robert Gallo's gone. So Robert, I'm a medical doctor. So in my opinion,
they had to create virology to do what they did in 2020. It was a construct.
They had to do that for all these so-called
pandemics. Even polio. Polio was another pandemic. There's no polio virus.
So I say as a medical doctor, I hypothesized that actually pandemics are not possible
and that the whole thing about pandemics and gain-of-function research is a fraud. Every
single bit of it. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. You are right. Congratulations. I'm proud of
you. Thank you. I'm proud to know you. Thank you, Stephen, for speaking up. So very importantly,
Robert, not only was there no pandemic in the COVID years, but it's not possible for there to
be a pandemic in the way that they say. And maybe even more so because viruses don't exist. But we
won't get into that now because we'll have to explain to people. We had enough problems
countering people who were saying, oh, I had COVID. I'll take it with me.
So I would say, well, how did you know you had COVID? Oh, I had this and I had that. And I said,
well, the test was, it should never have been using a test. But the test was fraudulent.
Let me take a couple more questions. I apologize. I'm going to have to leave. I don't know if,
because I have another appointment, but I want to continue this conversation, Stephen. It's an
important conversation to have. All right. So the most important thing to understand, Robert,
is that pandemics are not possible. So the WHO is pushing pandemics. We agree. We agree.
Come on. We agree. He's got to go. We have to hands up. Let's go. Mark.
Hi, Robert. Thank you very much. I'm not a doctor. I'll be brief. First of all, in the UK, where can
you get your hair tested? Okay. I can provide that through you. And I don't know if Matt Hazen's
still on the call or not. He could actually give you a link. If he's here, I would want him to
speak up and give you the link of how you can do that. But if you go to DR Robert Young and send
me your email, I will send you the information plus other information concerning plus all of the
references that I spoke about. So you'll get a PDF file for the scanning and transmission electron
microscopy. Okay, fine. Yeah, that will take care of the other question as well. I'll send you that.
The other question is you mentioned CO2. Yeah, thank you. You mentioned that CO2
is actually not being exhaled. Can you just explain that to me? Because my understanding is that the
CO2... I'm saying that it's being exhaled but only at a rate of 10 to 15 percent. The majority of
CO2 is used by the stomach as one of the elements for producing sodium bicarbonate. So the question
is, what are the elements for producing sodium bicarbonate which maintains the alkaline design
of the body fluids? This is a very, very important point. CO2 is necessary. Robert, just one second.
One second. I like figures. My understanding is we're breathing in 0.04 percent carbon dioxide and
we breathe out 4 percent. So I'm a bit confused. Where is that carbon dioxide going? Because we're
breathing out 17 percent oxygen having consumed or brought in 21 percent. So where is this carbon
dioxide? Are you talking about the body produces carbon dioxide through metabolism? It's a waste
product. So it's a waste product metabolism, CO2. So when you're going through the oxygen
process, CO2 is produced. It's a process of metabolism. The majority of that CO2 is being
used by the stomach to produce a compound of NaHCO3. The formula is NaCl plus H2O plus CO2
equals NaHCO3 plus HCl which is hydrochloric acid. You can read the chemistry. The chemistry
has to be balanced. I agree with you. But any excess that's coming out that the body's producing
is coming from metabolism. Thank you. Beautiful. Thank you very much. Albert.
Robert, how are you doing? Where are you? I'm in the upper.
You want to run a statistic on this? A chart? You're the chart guy. I mean, this guy's done,
by the way, he's done some great work. Albert's a star in statistics.
I'm just a medical biller, Robert. But man, I am so happy that you brought up the two stories that
never cease to amaze me. The chicken heart story, how the guy... Yeah, Alex Carell.
That one. But the even better one is the Beauchamp story. I know you didn't go in
deep here, but one of these days you have to come back and tell us the story of
you being there and how the big French security guy... It's a long story, but I can give you the
abbreviated form, not right now, but if I come back, I'll do that. The reason I'm here today,
I think was encouraged by Andrews. I see his face here. So thank you, Andrews. I mean, I'm honored
to be able to speak, share this. Hopefully, you've learned something new today that you didn't know
before. There's a whole bunch more that can be shared. And I need to thank you and carry on.
Andrews knows my work very well. Albert knows my work. Matt Hazen knows my work. I see Tom up here.
Tom Armstrong knows my work. I've got to run, but God bless you all. Thank you so much for allowing
me to express myself freely. And Stephen, keep up your research going here. And if I can be of any
help with what you're doing to come to some of the conclusions, looks like you're doing it all
yourself anyway. So you're heading in the right direction. That's all I can say. God bless all of
you. You know, and go out and vote. Okay. Thank you, Robert. There's one thing. I think one of
your supporters, Robert, Matt Seema, I think, Seena, seems to think that... He can give you
information on the hair testing. Yeah, I'm just trying to make a point. So,
Matt, I think he's helping you. He seems to think that we were pushing the no virus. I was
saying the opposite of that, but I was interrupted by Charles because I was saying... No, no, you're
not pushing that. No, you were perfectly clear. I got it. But I do think there's a strong possibility
there are no viruses, but now is not the time to be arguing about that because all the
people who are chicken pox and lungs... Read my work on it. The second thought is, which I wrote
in the 90s, talks about that whole issue. It's in three parts. I'll provide it to you for free.
It'll give you some more in-depth. God bless you all. I've got to go. Take care. Thank you, Charles.
Thank you, Stephen. Thank you all for being here today. I hope to see you and talk to you soon.
Okay. Thanks, Robert. Thank you. Bye-bye. Oh, okay.
All right. So we've got 10 more minutes. 12. 12 more minutes if anyone wants to
put their hand up and raise anything. Albert has. Go, Albert. Yeah. Hey, I know he's not here,
but I just wanted to tell him and I'll tell you guys that it doesn't pass me that a special
Dr. Robert O. Young is because of what he knows, but his story, he talks in first person,
like Luke Montagnier told me. I mean, that is amazing when he talks in first person like that.
And it's going to be like, how much longer, how many more years are going to pass where we're
not going to have this firsthand account? And in the same token, how much longer,
you know, will we able, will I'll be able to say like, well, Robert O. Young told me,
you know, another 30, 40 years and, you know, we're going to lose that and just have to read
it in a book. So these are. Albert, I think that's called legacy memory and we're going to lose it,
as you say. So before we lose Peter Duisburg, I'm going to try and get him to come and talk to us.
He's shy about doing interviews, but I don't think it's impossible to persuade him.
Yep. So yeah, I'll just wrap it up. I was just going to say that. And that is the bittersweet,
one of the bittersweet things of this whole pandemic is to get to meet these giants,
Robert O. Young and you guys and a lot of people here. So thank you. Thank you guys so much.
Well done. Albert on your work. Winston.
Winston, you muted. Sorry about that. I just wanted to comment. It seems to me that this
issue of Gallo was talked about by Judy Mikovits sometime ago and following which she,
she got into some trouble with Fauci and then lost her job. So perhaps she could put us straight on
what's happened here, but it seems very interesting.
Well, it's very interesting Winston, that Gallo subsequently did lose his position because of
criminal fraud, as I understand it, or some kind of scientific fraud. So, but why would they do
that to someone who's won a Nobel Prize? Or was it to show him who was boss?
I think that point is very interesting because it does seem as though some one of the people
it does seem as though some one or two people got a Nobel Prize when it wasn't you. So,
but I think Judy Mikovits articulated that if I'm fairly certain about it, she went on at length
on what had happened to her and so on. Yeah, but was she speaking about Gallo and Fauci
and all the rest of them? Yes, yes, yes, yes. It's all related to that. We should get her back then.
Yes, all right. Yeah, yeah.
All right. Well, Charles, yeah. Okay, everybody, we'll take this opportunity. Well done,
Anders, for organizing Robert to be here. We've had him before and it's wonderful the work he does.
Big opportunity for all of you to study, me included, his website, vast amounts of
information and I think it reinforces how little we understand of the body when Ian Brighthope was
on here. It just the debates that go on about the functioning of the body stop being so certain
about what you think is going on in the body because, as I often say, to be uncertain can be
uncomfortable. To be certain is ridiculous. I learned that from an old Chinese saying.
Well, maybe Charles, understanding what's going on in the body is like saying we don't know,
we're mere human beings, but it seems to me that knowing what's going on in the body definitively
is like saying we're going to find out how the universe was created and how it, you know,
like Elon Musk says he's going to another planet. I don't know which planet.
Which planet? Yep, agree. All right, everybody. Thank you for your contributions. Thank you for
the chat. Thank you for being here and we will be back with you on Sunday. Thanks, Stephen.
Thanks, Charles. Oh, early finish tonight, Charles. Yeah, miracle. A miracle. Okay.
It's fine. Thank you so much.