Busting Medical Myths With Mark Gober

Pills for every ill. Viruses that we must inoculate ourselves against. Treating the body as a machine. This is the allopathic model of medicine and it completely inverts and subverts who we are as conscious human beings. Today, Mark Gober, the author of the “Upside Down” series of books, busts many modern medical myths. He tackles many of our assumptions about contagion, who we are as human beings, and how we heal.

Visit Mark’s website: markgober.com
Join our Nourishing Our Children Facebook group
Check out our sponsors: New Biology Clinic and MASA Chips

—

Watch the episode here

Listen to the podcast here

Episode Transcript

Within the below transcript the bolded text is Hilda Labrada Gore and the regular text is Mark Gober.

Our scientific paradigm suggests that humans are comprised of only physical parts that wear out, break down, and when we turn them off, i.e., die, we’re done. There is certainly more to us than that, isn’t there? This is Episode 550 and our guest is Mark Gober. Mark is the Author of the Upside Down series and he’s a former investment banker and Silicon Valley advisor. Mark explores in this conversation a variety of topics related to well-being, including the need to shed that materialistic, simplistic, allopathic framework for understanding our humanity and our health.

In other words, Mark suggests that we look at the bigger, even deeper picture when pursuing health. What are we suppressing, for example, that is impacting our health either psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, or mentally? This conversation covers areas we have actually never traversed before on this show. We discuss everything from consciousness to near-death experiences, past lives and past-life regression for healing. German new medicine too. Read at the risk of expanding your understanding of what plays a role in your health.

Before we get into the conversation, I want to tell you about Nourishing Our Children. Are you a parent, a would-be parent, a grandparent, or an adult interested in children’s health? Nourishing Our Children is a project of the Weston A. Price Foundation, and it was launched in 2005 with a focus on timeless principles for supporting learning behavior and health through optimal nutrition.

Nourishing Our Children has an active closed group on Facebook that offers support on how to nourish and not merely feed your children. If you join, you’ll also have complimentary access to the group focused on adults for a donation of only $5 for the calendar year. The moderators ensure that no question goes unanswered. Go to NourishingOurChildren.org/groups to learn how to join.

Here is a testimonial. “I am a first-time mom of a soon to be nine-month-old and a member of the Nourishing Our Children’s Private Facebook group. I began with The Nourishing Traditions of Baby & Childcare, but I felt that I needed encouragement and support implementing some of the recommended food practices.”

“Joining the group became instrumental in helping me navigate the barriers that I had to giving my baby his first nourishing foods. I’ve had so many questions and have been so grateful for the clarifications and answers. My questions are always answered and I’d say rather promptly as well. Thank you, Nourishing our Children.” This is a testimonial from Catherine Jimenez.

—

Challenging Materialistic Views Of Humanity And Health

Welcome to the show, Mark.

Thank you so much for having me, Hilda.

Your book, An End to Upside Down Medicine, threw my world for a loop, even though I’m in this alternative health space because you touched on so many things that modern medicine may be overlooking. Let’s start with a story of someone whose life you studied who actually had tumors disappear, and she also had a near-death experience. Tell me about that and what that has to do with modern medicine.

The story you’re referring to is one from Anita Moorjani who had terminal cancer and she had a profound experience while she was in a coma. She was on her way to dying and had what’s known as a near-death experience, which has been reported throughout history, but they’ve become more and more prevalent since resuscitation technology has improved within the last several decades.

In her instance, she was on her way to death, basically, and her consciousness was in a very expanded state where she experienced unconditional love. She claims she encountered her deceased father who she had issues with during her life, and also had realizations about her own issues in her consciousness and perhaps belief systems that were not in alignment. When she had these realizations upon being resuscitated, her tumors disappeared. This is someone who should have died and she had a shift in her consciousness and/or energy and then she was healed.

I think in that section of the book, if I’m remembering correctly, the doctors were like, “Cancer doesn’t just disappear like that.” They were aghast and surprised and astounded.

Astounded, yes, and this is really a key part about health. We think about the body as something that’s purely physical and that really is a metaphysical presupposition about how reality works. If we are more than just the physical, then what does our consciousness have to do with our body and our health? That’s really where I’m headed with this story and that’s something I discuss in the book.

Wise Traditions | Mark Gober | Medical — Medical: If we are more than physical, what does our consciousness have to do with our body and our health?

You also mentioned spontaneous healing, healing with intent. Things that modern medicine really doesn’t take into account.

We think about the human being as just a physical entity that arose through 13.8 billion years, basically, of a random evolutionary process and that our consciousness, meaning that our capacity for experiencing our subjective inner awareness, if that’s all just a product of the physical, that gives us a view of what a human being is and what a human body is.

If the human being and the human body are more like we consider ourselves to be vessels for our consciousness that’s beyond the body, then we might regard the body and our health to be very different. Therefore, these things that scientists might call “anomalies” like the Anita Moorjani story or you mentioned spontaneous healings. The Institute of Noetic Sciences has put out an annotated bibliography of many well-documented cases of things that don’t match the conventional model.

Also, I wanted to touch on what are known as mind-matter interaction experiments. These are very profound when we think about the implications for health. Basically, the studies show that the human mind has an impact on what we call the physical world. One of the classic studies, these have been done with random number generator machines. These are machines, physical machines, and the experimenters, including the former dean of engineering at Princeton University, they would ask people to try to affect the machine with their mind alone.

The machine will generate zeros and ones in a random fashion, meaning that over time the machine generates 50% ones, 50% zeros because it’s random. When the experimenters say, “Hilda, I want you to try to make the machine produce more ones and zeros, but you can’t touch it,” what they find is that people are able to alter the behavior of the machines with their mind alone.

The effect is typically small, but it’s highly statistically significant. It’s in the category that Dr. Dean Radden calls six sigma, meaning the odds that this occurs just due to chance is more than 1 billion to 1 against chance, meaning that something real is happening, meaning the mind is affecting matter. If our body is made of “matter,” what does that tell us about health?

The Power Of Belief: Why Modern Medicine Ignores The Placebo Effect

This reminds me a lot of the conversation I had with Dr. Cassie Huckaby and she said if doctors know for example, that the placebo effect is a thing, in other words they give you something and say, “This will be good for you,” and people believe it, and then it is, if they know that’s true, why don’t we use this? In other words, leveraging the idea that our minds can impact our wellbeing, why don’t we use it in our favor, but somehow, we don’t. Why do you think that is, Mark?

I think our paradigm in science and just in society in general, likes to look at things from a materialistic perspective. Meaning we see things almost like billiard balls. One ball hits the next, hits the next. We see this linear progression in the physical, whereas there might be these other elements like our consciousness that we don’t actually see the effects because we can’t see it and yet it does affect the physical.

Our paradigm in science, and society generally, tends to view things from a materialistic perspective.

Think about it this way. The body is something you can touch and you can see, whereas our consciousness is something we’re all experiencing right now, it’s the part of us that’s experiencing, but we can’t point to it, we can’t touch it. It’s very difficult for the mind in these days because of the materialistic bias to say, “That thing you’re calling consciousness, we can’t see it or touch it or feel it. That’s affecting the thing that we can touch and feel and see, like the body, that’s a big leap for many people. Our scientific paradigm doesn’t account for that very well.

I come from a faith background and I know a lot of people in faith do understand this element that you’re describing, that without touching someone, I can make an impact on them and without touching myself even, I can make an impact on my spirit and my wellbeing through prayer and things like that. The Holy Spirit.

This is really all in the same category of intention, the non-physical, and it goes back to the earlier point is what is a human being? Are we essentially spiritual vessels or are we just a physical entity that is like a computer that it shuts off? When that happens, your consciousness is done. That’s a fundamentally different way of looking at reality one way or the other. The modern allopathic paradigm is much more in this materialistic view that we are just bodies and it’s lights out when you die. There’s nothing, there are no psychic phenomena. That’s all just superstition.

It’s so funny that modern medicine would look at it that way when they see case after case. I know it’s a rarity, but still, they see spontaneous remission or healing or something happening that baffles them. “Last time we did your scan, cancer appeared on the lungs and now we do the scan and it’s not there.” They see it, but there’s some level where they have disbelief.

I think there’s this bias toward a paradigm that works pretty well, whereas what we really need for a paradigm in science is something that can accommodate all phenomena. One of my favorite examples is like the black swan. If there’s a law that says all swans are white, and every swan you see is white until one day you see a black swan, your law that says all swans are white is incorrect because all means all. That’s what modern medicine is doing. They’re not acknowledging those anomalies and they say, “We’re just going to sweep it under the rug.” That’s really a problem.

I can understand why that would happen. Their financial interests certainly, but also the egos of people that have spent a career based on a certain paradigm and to say, “There are these few anomalies like tumors disappearing based on a near-death experience or other spontaneous remissions. We just don’t not quite understand them. We’re not going to just throw away our current paradigm because that would just be too much.”

Beyond The Brain: Exploring Consciousness And Psychic Phenomena

What made you, Mark, want to do a deeper dive into these different healing modalities, if you will?

It started for me, in 2016. I was working in the financial world first in New York in investment banking, and then I was in Silicon Valley. At the time, I had a very materialistic worldview. I wasn’t into anything that you call the supernatural. I started listening to podcasts at the time, which led me to then read books and scientific papers.

I realized that there’s an entire body of science and it’s very significant that suggests that our consciousness is not just confined to our body or to our brain. In fact, the brain might be more like an antenna receiver of our consciousness or a filter or an interface for consciousness, not the producer. Therefore, phenomena like psychic abilities or the survival of consciousness after the body dies. All of those sorts of things are not actually paranormal. They would be expected.

I was blown away by the amount of science, whether it’s in the near-death experience space or the mind matter interactions or telepathic abilities in things like peer-reviewed journals like the American Psychological Association’s official peer-reviewed journal, it’s called American Psychologist published a paper in 2018 by Etzel Cardena at Lund University.

Many examples like that. The US government running psychic spying programs, where there are declassified documents that say explicitly that this is a real phenomenon. Since then, I’ve interviewed some of these people for my own podcast, whereas my mind and spoken to many people in the space. Can you can imagine for me what a paradigm shift that was back in 2016 and then just to apply it to other things like health because initially it was just what’s the nature of reality? I was somewhat interested in health, but really, like you said, what a profound shift to think you can shift your consciousness and maybe your health will change.

You said there’s a whole body of science and you’ve quoted a few studies here and there. Can you give us some more for the person who’s maybe more left-brained and reading right now, who’s like, “Let’s get back to modern science versus some of these more esoteric topics.” I guess what I’m asking for is do you have more data that you can provide about the healing ability of the body from the mind or the spirit?

Let me give one example that will tie to healing, but it gets to the notion that our biology might be influenced by things that modern science doesn’t typically talk about. The University of Virginia has a division of perceptual studies at the medical school. This was started by Dr. Ian Stevenson in the late 1960s. It continues now by Dr. Jim Tucker, Dr. Bruce Grayson, Dr. Ed Kelly, who’s a Harvard PhD. Very credible people in this space.

They’re studying near death experiences, but they also have been studying over 2,500 cases of young children who speak of a life that is not their own in very explicit detail. Sometimes, the children have fears that don’t make sense based on their upbringing or things that they’re drawn to that don’t make sense based on their upbringing, like they might crave tobacco or very strange things.

As it pertains to medicine in particular, there are instances in which the children have birth marks or physical deformities that align with the way they claim to have died in the “past life” when they were some other person. The researchers, in some cases, have been able to find medical and historical records that validate what these young kids are saying. They’re between the ages of 2 and 6 often.

This is a very strange thing. Dr. Ian Stevenson from UVA said, “Traditionally, in modern science, we believe that genetics and environment are the two things that will affect the physical form, which is very important for health. Now we have something. If there are these birth marks and physical deformities that don’t align with genetics or an environment, there’s a third factor.” He calls it a third factor. To me, that was completely mind-blowing. If there’s an entire factor that modern medicine is not considering, what are we missing in terms of our paradigm?

Unlocking Your Inner Healer: Trauma, Past Lives, And German New Medicine

I want to ask for the reader and myself, how can we tap into that healing or realm if we’re unfamiliar with it? Any suggestions for how to get started?

Yeah, for each person it’s different. It’s hard to give general recommendations. I’ll refer to you to a story that I actually heard early in my journey. This was probably in 2016, of a woman who had horrible TMJ, jaw pain. She went to a top dentist in New York City and they were going to do a surgery to basically break open her jaw and fix it. She said, “I don’t really want to do that. I want to try alternative things.”

She went to a past life regression hypnotherapist to try to see maybe there’s a past life explanation that could help me heal from this. She had a memory when she was under hypnosis that reminded her of some life apparently in the past where she was a slave and had a chain around her neck that was up against her jaw. When she had this memory, her TMJ went away and she didn’t need to have surgery.

She was able to heal from this by somehow accessing a memory that she didn’t even know she had, which is quite remarkable. This woman ended up pursuing past-life regression hypnotherapy herself, even though she had a background in law. She switched things very dramatically. I don’t mean to imply that every instance of past life regression hypnotherapy works for every person, but in this case, it did.

The broader question, though, is trying to think within ourselves of what trauma or what stressors do we have in our lives that perhaps we’re suppressing or even subconscious beliefs and being very aware of what’s going on in our mental state as it potentially pertains to our physical state. You’re reminding me of an area that I’ve been looking into known as German New Medicine, which attempts to tie the psychological to the physical through brain scans effectively looks at emotional shocks or conflicts that pertain to problems with our organs, for example.

When this data is looked at over long periods of time, practitioners can say, “This emotional shock relates to this lesion in the brain, which translates to this problem in an organ.” Therefore, if you have a certain health problem, they can tell you, “This is the emotional problem you probably should look at in terms of your healing.” The broader question for all of us really is what are the emotional issues that perhaps we’re suppressing? It’s an exercise that requires us to go within rather than relying on an external authority.

We’re all of a piece. Our conversation is taking me back to an interview I had with Dr. Kelly Brogan and she said depression is a symptom of something going on with us. I guess in modern medicine, we want to quantify and get all the data, but what if there’s something going on psychologically or like you said, a trauma that has happened or a conflict that needs resolution that’s causing us to limp?

I have a friend who had a goiter on her throat and she also had trouble expressing herself because she had a very difficult childhood with some kinds of abuse and so forth. There’s definitely a relationship there. I think, sometimes, like you said with the billiard ball analogy, we are material people, we expect one thing to follow the next, and we think if there’s a goiter here, maybe I’m not eating the right food or I’m missing salt or whatever. Actually, it could have a root and a psychological issue or concern.

Even a step further, under some schools of thought, such as German new medicine, when there’s a symptom, that’s often a sign that the body is healing or has resolved a conflict. We also have to just question what is a symptom more fundamentally. In the allopathic approach, the goal seems to be to get rid of the symptom. That’s understandable because symptom can be uncomfortable, but maybe the symptom is just the body’s way of processing something that has been resolved. That’s a new context as well.

I’ve heard Dr. Tom Cowan and others say, yes, our symptoms are actually pointing to the fact that the body is working, like you’re suggesting, but I hadn’t heard someone say it actually means something is resolved.

Yeah, that’s the German new medicine perspective. It depends on the condition because sometimes during the conflict active phase, there can be symptoms too. Let’s say, generally speaking, the idea is that whether there’s an active conflict that’s causing emotional stress, the body builds up ways of dealing with it. When the conflict is resolved, the body flushes that out and that can manifest as many different types of symptoms that you see.

When there’s an active conflict causing emotional stress, the body builds up ways of dealing with it. When the conflict resolves, the body flushes that out, manifesting as various symptoms.

From that perspective, it might actually reduce stress when someone feels sick because you could say, “Actually, I’m just in the healing phase. I’ve resolved this thing. Let me just now manage these symptoms and get through it,” and then the body will flush out all the things that were built up during the conflict active phase.

Questioning Contagion: Alternative Explanations For Illness

COVID just now came to my mind because it hit me hard, whatever it was, and I don’t believe in contagion and viruses, but I was laid out flat and I wish I had thought, “This is my body already having dealt with this and this is just the resolution phase.” Speaking of COVID, I want to ask you this. How did this mind bit or this consciousness bit play a part in what appeared to be contagion during the COVID pandemic in 2020?

Let me take a few steps back. This notion of contagion is often an assumed cause that’s used to explain observations, epidemiological observations. In other words, a bunch of people went to a party and then they got sick with similar symptoms. They were in the same place around the same time and they got similar symptoms. We often say, “They caught something,” meaning that there was some microscopic organism that no one saw there that got inside our bodies and somehow created the symptoms that everyone’s experiencing.

That is certainly one hypothesis, but it’s not the only one that could explain what happened. What else could it be? What toxins were people exposed to? Were there toxins in the building at the party, in the food, in the drinks, in the air? Were there EMFs? Was there something with electricity? There are many possible explanations from a physical standpoint, but even from a metaphysical standpoint. If we view the bodies to be much more energetic and if we view consciousness to be involved, could there be a resonance between people whereby their frequencies are, are almost contagious on an energetic level?

Could there be something like that? We know there are instances like yawning where one person yawns and another one yawns. It’s not a physical contagion, but something seems to be happening. Women whose menstruation cycles seem to synchronize when they’re in a similar living environment. Is there something going on that’s not a microbe or are people in a similar place at the same time? Could they have been exposed to the same psychological trauma or a similar one? Did they and did they interpret that trauma in the same way and then they had similar symptoms?

The point is, there are many explanations that are possible. I don’t claim to know what happened. For each person, it might be a little bit different because we’re such complex organisms. I also should add that there was a lot of fear during the COVID time. What does that do to our ability to just heal and handle things in the world? If we’re coming in with this baseline fear and, in some cases, terror, are we then more susceptible to some of these things that I just mentioned that could then lead us to have symptoms?

I know in your book you go through a lot of data actually because you’ve done your own homework on Koch’s postulates and the work by the Baileys and so forth, Stefan Lanka, Tom Cowan, and Sally Fallon Morrell, to do a deeper dive into what we now call the contagion myth here at the Weston A. Price Foundation.

Yeah. I was shocked by this. When I started writing the book, I wasn’t even sure I’d be able to publish it. I said, “There’s a lot here that I’ve researched, but it’s so hard for me to believe that contagion is not a real thing.” It’s so built into our belief systems. I said, “I’m going to try to write it and see if I can convince myself when I actually go through piece by piece,” because I had seen enough where I was interested enough to say I’m going to try this. I wasn’t convinced. What shocked me and still shocks me is that this should be the easiest thing ever to prove, contagion. Take a sick organism with a bunch of healthy ones and make all the healthy ones sick with the same symptoms. That’s so simple.

What do they do in these studies? Many of them are about a hundred years old, if not older. They take an un purified sample and inject it into animals and the animals have some symptoms and they say, “We just proved contagion.” First of all, it’s a totally unnatural way of doing things, but they don’t even do controls in most cases. They’re injecting an animal, let’s say injecting them in the brain or the skin. If you inject them with water, you might make them sick because you’re doing this unnatural thing.

That’s just shocking to me that they’ve complicated the process so much. Those initial early studies that were done a long time ago are used as the basis for demonstrating that contagion exists. What happens is we run into logical fallacies everywhere where they assume based on some study a long time ago that contagion has been established for this illness and then a bunch of people get sick with similar symptoms and they say, “Obviously, they caught something and then we ran a PCR test and therefore they were sick with this virus, which runs into issue other issues with viruses too.”

It’s known as affirming the consequence. That’s the logical fallacy where basically if you walk outside and you see the grass is wet, you conclude, “For sure it rained.” Maybe there was a sprinkler system that was on, or maybe someone came in with the hose and was spraying the water and you didn’t see it. Many other ways to explain the observations.

What’s happened is contagion has stuck. There’s a microscopic thing. No one’s seen it do these things, but it hops from person to person and it gets inside your cell somehow and causes these symptoms that we can see. If you think about it, Hilda, we don’t have a video of any of that happening, ever. It’s like there’s a movie in our mind where we imagine it but we’ve never seen it.

Yeah, and even I think Cowan, you quote him in your book where he says, “Some people say the virus moves from one cell, becomes externalized from a cell in the body and then it’s able to transport and go into someone else’s body, then they give the justification, scientists say, ‘It’s stuck inside the cell so we can never get an image of it,’ but if it comes out,” again, it’s one of those fallacies.

The Virus Debate: Deconstructing The Scientific Method In Virology

Exactly. The broader issue you’re relating to now, so if we think about contagion in two ways, let’s say with bacteria and viruses. I haven’t heard anyone question the existence of bacteria. The question is whether they cause disease, whether they initiate something on healthy tissue versus being a cleanup crew that arrives at the scene when there’s an underlying toxicity and the bacteria are actually there to help.

In nature, bacteria are known to be saprophytic, meaning they help to decompose dead and dying tissue. What we call a bacterial infection under this alternative perspective is actually just like the firefighters arriving at the scene to put out the fire and then the firefighters get blamed because there are a lot of firefighters. That’s what it is under this note as the terrain model. That would be bacteria. It’s not denying the existence of bacteria. Certainly, if you have a lot of them, there could be endotoxins, but they’re not the root cause of illness and they’re not going from person to person in a contagious manner the way many people think. That’s bacteria.

Viruses are a separate story because viruses under this terrain model and I’m sure you’ve looked at this in depth as well, many people are saying they do not exist at all. This notion of a virus, which, by the way, is much smaller than a bacteria is believed to be. Bacteria can be seen easily under a normal microscope. A virus needs, allegedly, an electron microscope which was not even conceived until the 1930s and became more popular until afterwards.

People were talking about “viruses” before that like Pastore was working with rabies and he saw these symptoms, sure there are symptoms with rabies, but he couldn’t find something that was going from disease to animal to the person and basically concluded we can’t see it, but it must be there. That’s the basis for all this stuff. It’s curiosity and lack of understanding of we see symptoms, we don’t know why, there must be something transmitted.

It wasn’t until the 1950s, 1953 in particular, this was the Watson and Crick double helix study which brought genetics into mainstream thinking. That gave, as Stefan Lanka says, it gave an ability to say maybe there’s this toxic genetic thing that could explain symptoms that we don’t fully understand. In 1954, it was really the study that everyone should know about. I was shocked about it and very few people do, considering what we just went through with COVID. The Enders and people study. Enders was a Nobel Prize winner. He won a Nobel Prize for something else later that year. This was the methodology that’s been used. It’s the gold standard model to “isolate” a virus.

I want to pause there because the word isolate in virology has a different meaning than the way most of us use the term isolation. Most of us think about isolation as separating one thing from all other things. That’s how it’s defined in the dictionary. That’s not what happens in these studies. The isolation is, I’m going to just simplify this. You take fluids from someone who’s sick and in the study 1954 study, it was measles. You take fluids from someone who’s sick with whatever it is, measles, and maybe you filter those fluids. You take those fluids and put them into a soup of material. It’s called a cell culture. The cell culture has monkey kidney cells, antibiotics and a whole bunch of other things.

What do the scientists do? They want to see whether cells break down in the soup when you add the fluids from a sick person. The presumption being that if the cells break down, there must have been a virus in the fluids from a sick person. That’s why the cells broke down in the soup and that’s what they conclude. They say when the cells break down, it’s known as the cytopathic effect, therefore there was a virus in the sick person.

Even if it’s invisible to the electron microscope.

What they do next is they look at that cell culture under an electron microscope and they might find something there and say that’s the virus. The problem with that is what else is in there that it might be? When you do look at something under an electron microscope, it’s a static image, meaning it’s not moving. Whereas a virus is supposed to be moving and it’s supposed to be alive and also an electron microscope, it’s dead because you have to do all sorts of things in order to see something under this electron microscope.

You’re looking at something. They point an arrow to it and say, “That’s the virus.” Certainly, that’s a structure that they found in the soup. What’s in the soup? You’ve got unpurified fluids from a sick person. There’s a lot of other stuff in those fluids if it’s not just the virus and you’ve got all the stuff from the cell culture soup.

If I’m not mistaken, Stefan Lanka did some studies where he did all the same procedures without inserting any “virus” and the cells still broke down. It wasn’t something that came from this supposed virus. He was able to replicate the results is what I’m getting at.

He was able to find cells breaking down without adding fluids from a sick person. There are some other studies that are going on right now. Jamie Andrews is leading them. There haven’t been that many though of just looking at what happens in the cell culture and what happens if you vary the amount of antibiotics and vary the different the other substances in there.

The real problem fundamentally, just from the perspective of the scientific methods, it’s very basic. In a scientific study, you need an independent variable. You need something that you’re adding into the study and to see the effect on it. If you don’t have a sample of just a virus, if you have this basically mystery substance, because you don’t have just the virus from the sick person, you have other stuff in their body, how do you know that any effects you see in the study are from a virus? If you don’t have just a virus first, you don’t have an independent variable. Very basic.

The problem with that is if you don’t have an independent variable, then how do you know what a control is to control against it? The basic scientific method is violated in the virology method that comes from 1954. This is the gold standard. The problem with this is that it’s been used since then and it’s assumed to be accurate and now people are starting to question it.

I didn’t realize this until I started researching, because I heard people talk about this with COVID, but I didn’t know with HIV-AIDS. This was a question, too. The Perth Group, there are many highly technical papers called HIV. A virus like no other, for example. ThePerthGroup.com has a lot of this stuff. This has been a question for a little bit.

Stefan Lanka, a former classically trained virologist, has been asking this. Really, what it comes down to is are they following the scientific method. It doesn’t seem to be the case that they are. Now it’s actually being verified by health organizations around the world like the CDC and others because Christine Massey and her colleagues are submitting freedom of information requests to these health organizations.

They say, “Please, anyone can read on their website what these requests ask for, but show me a purified sample of just the virus. We’re not talking about a cell culture. We need just the purified virus.” Repeatedly they say, “We don’t have that.” Sometimes, they’ve even said, I quoted one in my book, I’m paraphrasing, “That’s not possible because this is violating the gold standard of how virology is conducted.”

We have interviewed Christine Massey and actually Jamie Andrews and some others who are in on this project putting an end to virology. What’s interesting to me is we’re not saying, to be clear, that there isn’t sickness. What was interesting to me as I was looking at virus mania and some of these other resources is that, for example, with AIDS and HIV, were people sick? Yes.

According to what I understand, it was they were taking a bunch of symptoms and saying, “This is AIDS-HIV,” but actually they were symptoms that could be of someone who has malnutrition or another condition. We were just saying if they have diarrhea, let’s say yellow in the eyes and a bloated stomach, then it means they have AIDS. Am I right? Is that what the science is pointing to?

Yes. Basically, HIV is believed to be this retrovirus and then a category of symptoms that accompany a positive test with HIV virus are called AIDS. It becomes very complicated in terms of categorization. Nancy Turner Banks actually wrote a book about this and she’s, I believe, a Harvard trained MD. The beginning of her book starts with something like 60 things that can cause a positive HIV test and it can be vaccination, things that have nothing to do with HIV.

These tests are often nonspecific. They’re always non-specific, actually, because if you don’t have an isolated virus first, how do you create a test that’s testing for just the virus? Let’s just take one hypothetical example. If people are having similar symptoms, isn’t it possible that their body’s producing similar things that might not be viral things that something could pick up on a test?

It’s the same issue with any genetic test. If you don’t have a purified sample of just a virus, how do you know what the genetic sequencing is looking at? If there’s other cellular or molecular material, it could be picking that up first. Really, it all comes back to you need an independent variable, you need a sample of just the virus and not other stuff. You can do everything afterwards. Basically, that foundation has not been established properly.

Upside-Down Medicine: A Call For Holistic And Root-Cause Healing

I’m so grateful for your work and the work of these colleagues of Stefan Lanka and Jamie Andrews and Dr. Tom Cowan and so forth who are trying to really make clear that we may have, all these years, been jumping to conclusions about what’s making people sick and really helping us rethink it. I know it’s a lot for people to wrap their heads around.

I wanted to ask you, as we start to wrap up, you’ve helped us understand why medicine is upside down when it comes to our understanding of viruses and even when it comes to understanding consciousness or God or healing in alternative ways. Why is medicine upside down in general, would you say? Worldwide, even.

To me, it’s the approach to health, which is reductionistic and it’s focused on symptoms rather than the root cause of illness. What I mean by reductionistic, this goes to the materialist view that everything’s like billiard balls. Everything is fundamentally material. I think there’s way more than that. That’s what we talked about earlier in terms of consciousness and energy and beyond.

Also, this focus on symptoms rather than the root cause of why the symptoms are there. Modern medicine is often like a Band-Aid, which in some cases, that’s a great thing. I don’t want to say modern medicine is all bad, but it’s become like the rule, this approach, this reductionistic approach that just wants to get rid of symptoms and just put a Band-Aid on rather than saying, “Why is this person fundamentally exhibiting these symptoms? Why does the person not feel well?”

Getting to the root cause of it is not where many people are thinking. It’s almost like there’s a desire just to put out fires and just handle things like it’s an emergency, which in some cases, again, we need to do, but especially with more chronic issues, to just put a Band-Aid on something rather than figure out what’s actually going on, that seems to be an error.

The way a friend of mine put it, he’s like, “Hilda, my wife and I are playing health whack-a-mole.” It’s like boom, knock that symptom down, then it pops up somewhere else and boom, knock that one down. I wonder if our tendency to have these like specialization, you’ve got your gastroenterologist, you have your nose and throat doctor, you have these specialists. We’ve compartmentalized our body when it’s much more than a machine with all these different bits and pieces. There’s so much going on.

Actually, this relates to virology and anything in the realm of this cellular exploration where we’re studying things in a laboratory setting and trying to draw conclusions about what’s going on in the complex system of the body. Harold Hillman did a lot of work on this as well, where modern medicine will see things happening in test tubes and then try to make conclusions about what’s happening in the body.

However, think about how potentially erroneous that is when there’s so much going on in the body just from a physical perspective, and then when you throw on the consciousness element of it and the psychospiritual element as well, what’s going on in this body versus what’s going on a test tube? Can we really make conclusions based on the test tube? I think that’s another big error too.

Absolutely. I would love to talk to you further, but our time is coming to an end. I do want to pose to you, Mark, the question I love to pose at the end here. If the reader could only do one thing to improve their health, because a lot of folks reading are like, “I have this issue or that issue.” If they could only do one thing to improve their health, what would you recommend that they do?

Write down all of the negative and/or painful beliefs that you have about yourself or about the world and try to examine where they might not be true. Reconfigure those beliefs after evaluating what the errors are. This is almost like the work of Byron Katie, for example, where you look at any statement and you say, “Is it true? Can I absolutely know that thing is true with certainty?” Where you end up always is, “I’m actually not sure that’s true. I’m making some assumptions there.” When we let go of those beliefs, especially the negative ones, that might have a greater effect on our health than we realize.

Write down all of the negative or painful beliefs you have about yourself or the world. Examine where they might not be true, and then reconfigure those beliefs.

Wonderful words to end on. Thank you so much. It’s been a pleasure, Mark.

Thank you, Hilda.

—

Our guest was Mark Gober. Check out his website, MarkGober.com, to learn more. For a review from Apple Podcasts. Lonnie Greener Pastures said this. “Great show, interesting topics, and well hosted with an even and gentle tone. Thank you for all the great episodes.” Lonnie, it is our pleasure. You, too, can rate and review us by going to Apple Podcasts, click on ratings and reviews, give us a bunch of stars and tell people why they should check the show out. Thank you so much for reading, my friend. Stay well and remember to keep your feet on the ground and your face to the sun.

About Mark Gober

Mark Gober is the author of “An End to Upside Down Thinking” (2018), which won the IPPY award for best science book of the year. He is also the author of “An End to Upside Down Living” (2020), “An End to Upside Down Liberty” (2021), “An End to Upside Down Contact” (2022), “An End to the Upside Down Reset” (2023), “An End to Upside Down Medicine” (2023); and “An End to the Upside Down Cosmos” (2024); and he is the host of the podcast “Where Is My Mind?” (2019).

Additionally, he serves on the board of the Institute of Noetic Sciences. Previously, Gober was a partner at Sherpa Technology Group in Silicon Valley and worked as an investment banking analyst with UBS in New York. He has been named one of IAM’s Strategy 300: The World’s Leading Intellectual Property Strategists.

Gober graduated magna cum laude from Princeton University, where he wrote an award-winning thesis on Daniel Kahneman’s Nobel Prize–winning “Prospect Theory” and was elected a captain of Princeton’s Division I tennis team.