not the enemy of health. We need to realign our understanding of vaccines--that we're not trying to kill bacteria and fungi any more. We should not even have that mentality. We should be fostering bacteria and fungi and biodiversity. Resilience and biodiversity are ultimately the result of cellular communication, and it is done by the bacteria and fungi over and over again. I couldn't be more excited for human nature to wake up at this moment and be like, My God, why are we trying to create a vaccine against something we already survived so well? Why are we trying to block a genetic update that we probably desperately need? Because we are under the same toxicity that those bacteria, fungi and other multicellular mammals are in in Hubei province under the toxicity they're suffering under. We are resilient. We are healing machines. There is no fear to be had here. There's only opportunity to adopt a new biology for the planet and adopt a new biology for humankind as we embrace the microbiome--and importantly, embrace the virome as the source of life, not its enemy.
Jefferey Smith (40:46):
That was a beautiful message, especially because it also becomes an antidote to the fear that's being pushed out through every channel. The fear sells and the fear sells vaccines, but it also sells news, and it also can justify policies--whether those policies are justified or not--by creating that impression. So thank you so much, Zach, for taking time to give us your unique insight. The whole way of looking at the microbiome and looking at the viruses as genetic information and seeing the demand for more genetic information as one of the outcomes of being exposed to antibiotics, particularly glyphosate, and how that actually sets us up for viral infection in ways that we wouldn't be if we hadn't been exposed, is very, very telling. And I also know that some of what you've discussed can be researched. We can look at treating patients with the COVID-19 symptoms by giving them things for hypoxia and seeing if there's cyanide-related recoveries. We can potentially check for cyanide poisoning. This was one fascinating aspect of another interview that you had, where in the Hubei province, when the deaths started going down, people were saying it's because of the
Dr. Zach Bush:
Social distancing…
Jefferey Smith:
…isolation, and you had a different interpretation of what might be happening. Can you share that?
Dr. Zach Bush (42:29):
Yes, you can actually go online and actually watch PM0.5 levels in real time in Hubei and many other parts of the world. There's a group that was founded by the UN that tracks global toxicity in different ways. You can see in real time--day to day, actually almost hour by hour--the amount of PMT2.5 in New York City, or Wuhan. Go there, pull that up and then look at the trajectory of the PM2.5 between the end of December and the middle of February. Their explosion of disease happened over the course of January. Between January 5th and February 5th they launched in those 4 weeks 8 new hospitals with thousands of new beds and everything else, none of which ever filled up.
Dr. Zach Bush (43:04):
In fact, they had to close the first one within 3 weeks of opening it because there were no patients. And what happened between that 3 to 4 -week period, you see this vertical increase in a very huge population. You're looking at tens of millions of people in Hubei province there. You've got this potential for a massive explosion of data [that] suddenly went flat, and it did it like…sharp! And everybody said, Well, China's lying about its death toll. It actually had, up until that point, been the most transparent that we'd ever seen them be. I'm in gratitude for that. That was the only explanation they could come up with. But if you look at PM2.5, suddenly between this trajectory and this trajectory was a drop low 40 microns per cubic meter of air pollution in Hubei province. They didn't do a social isolation-- they stopped driving, they stopped the trains, they stopped the energy production--PM2.5 drop, and everybody stopped dying. If we're not poisoning ourselves, we won't die from this viral update.
Jefferey Smith (44:06):
I found it so fascinating that the same information that was being used as an example for the success of social distancing, actually in your eyes was showing that it wasn't the virus. It was the environmental toxins that were being empowered and smuggled into the system by the virus and the ACE2 receptors that allowed it to be so deadly. Then after I saw that interview with you when you described that, I read a New York Times article about a mysterious link between high levels of air pollution and high death rate. They didn't have the explanation that you offered, but there it was. I live in the Bay area now, and Richmond has an oil processing plant--terrible air pollution, and their death rate was way higher than the other areas in the Bay. They went around the country talking about the areas that had high particulate matter were having high death rates, and it was a mystery. You may have solved the mystery and they're not reporting on it.
Dr. Zach Bush (45:40):
No, they haven't reported on it, but it has been proven. The first study came out of China brilliantly done. Again, this whole thing that China's lying all the time--I have less trust in the U S media right now than I do with the Chinese public health sector right now. I think we're actually getting an inordinate amount of honesty from them, which is maybe unusual, but I think we've got incredibly good data. It's really interesting, very cohesive scientific data, meaning that you can look at it from lots of different angles and it holds up, which means they're not lying to us. We're seeing too much cohesive scientific evidence that the data we're getting is actually good data, whereas in the U S we have nothing remotely similar to good data.
Dr. Zach Bush (45:53):
It doesn't make sense on any scale as to the data that we're seeing around the number of COVID infections, the number of COVID deaths. It doesn't fit any other country in the world. The UK is starting to match itself to us. Canada is starting to match itself to our data, but outside of those three countries, no other country experienced the data that we've put out there as true. I think the only scientific suspicion surely has been cast on U.S., UK and Canada. Everybody else's numbers look pretty solid. And that's as diverse of governments as Iran, Russia, China, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland--these countries are giving out some very coherent data. South Korea, Malaysia--all of them very consistent. Three major outliers: U. S., Canada…we have the wrong algorithm going in our head in this country.