Jason Prall: Dr. Jay Davidson, welcome to the Immune Resiliency Summit. How are you?

Jay Davidson: I'm great. It's great to be here Jason, excited to chat today.

Jason Prall: While we were kind of chatting offline about some of the things that we could talk about today and really dive deep in because I know you and I have had great conversations in a lot of different topics and you're one of those doctors that likes to just explore topics, right? And with the idea that there's always something more to learn, there's always a way to modify our existing perception of these things. So, I really want to do that with you, I want to explore this idea of germ theory and where this idea came from, that there's these outside invaders that we need to protect against, and they are the enemy and we have this immune system that's there to defend us. And that's sort of the end of the story. And it seems to me there's so much more.

So, maybe you can take us back a little bit with this idea of germ theory because it's still pervasive, we still talk... People are still using the word germs, which I think is such a funny word and I don't even really know what it means because we now know that... We talk about probiotics, we talk about this idea of commensal organisms that work within us for our benefit and for their benefit. So, where did this idea of a germ come from and maybe where are we off track with it?

Jay Davidson: Yeah, that's a great open up Pandora's Box question. And I would say with what's happening right now too, it's very easy for the human mind to be like, "Hey, when are we going to get through all this? Can I just move on? I'm sick of this, these problems that are happening. Can we just get some calm still waters for a little bit?" And I would tell you, it's going to keep coming until you awaken to realize that this isn't a problem, it's a challenge. And the challenge is to open the mind up to see things that you hadn't seen yet. Whether somebody's already done a lot of research in the germ theory going back in history or somebody's brand new and wondering, "What is going on? Something just doesn't feel right." You're in the right spot. You're right where you need to be in your journey at this moment. And the worst thing to do is just to shut down and say, "Ah, I'm done learning." It's like, "No, no, none of us are."

I thought I was pretty solid Jason, in understanding and when this C virus, I won't even say the full word, happened, I was just awestruck in the world's response in what happened. And what I realized was there's a lot of censorship happening and still is, all the platforms YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, you name it basically, there's censorship, Amazon, basically modern-day book burning, getting rid of books on Amazon Prime videos disappearing, going on websites and the websites changing and tweaking and unless you know how to access the way back machine and crawl back and start comparing. You pretty much get lost in whatever they want to change the story to

Page 2 of 16

it's going to be and that's when I sat back I'm like, "I wonder what the books back in the day said." From somebody that never read a book, I would do cliff notes and it would be a struggle in high school and college even to the cliff note, I just had no interest.

And then something clicked when I was in chiropractic school and going through that brutality. I would literally walk out of class, go in the library and just scavenge and read things and then my fiancé and then wife in middle school, Dr. Heather would text me right when still, earlier days of cell phones, would text me, "Hey, you got to get in class quiz." I'd run in and do it, but that was where my interests was. And then it opened something up where I started to actually read, I started to research and the oldest book I think I've read is probably the early 1900s, just in the last couple months, it was Bechamp or Pasteur and you can get it on Amazon or you can get it for free on archive.org where they archive all these old books and you can even hit audio and it'll play it to you, you can pick your speed to read it to you, or you can flip the pages and read.

The access we have to information is amazing, but I feel if we only are trying to access what's out there today, being put out today, there's such an agenda and there's so much censorship happening, that it's harder for them to crawl back in time. And if we can find the stuff back in time that helps to give us a better platform, because I've really asked this question. It's like, what is science if we don't ask questions, Jason? That was the fundamental basis of science, was to ask questions. Even if you think you understand a theory or principle, you can still question it to then say either I'm more solidified in that belief or you know what? Something isn't adding up. Maybe it's not all coming to fruition, it's not being put together.

Jason Prall: And you're pointing to something. I'm going to interrupt you there. Sorry, because you're pointing to something really important I think, that I think is overlooked or is really not even understood that the idea of science, we have this concept in our mind I think, that science moves in one direction, that it's always moving forward. And if there's something I've learned, we actually take wrong turns in science, right? So if we make a wrong turn in 1960, then in order to self-correct, we've got to go back before 1960 to learn, "Okay, where did that wrong turn take us? And maybe where did they have it right back in 1958." And that's really interesting, because you're questioning the modern paradigm. And once you take a wrong turn and then everything is built upon that wrong turn, then boy, everything can get lost. And so going back is very, very interesting in that regard. And one thing that I will add to this that I've done myself, has gone back to those same things. And what's fascinating is that they use different language.

So, they might not even have like... Weston Price is a great example, where he used this term activator X. And really what we think he was describing is vitamin K2. And so, it's fascinating but even beyond that, the basic language is different. So they actually sound a little more eloquent, they have a bigger vocabulary, they use different words. And in doing so, they get across different ideas, different concepts and you can form different conceptual frameworks in your mind. So, I just really want to highlight what you're talking about here. I think it's really, really important to understand that idea that science could have taken wrong turns, could have got things wrong. And questioning the

Page 3 of 16

modern paradigm allows us to perhaps go backwards and find out where that mistake happened.

Jay Davidson: Yeah, absolutely. And it's so easy for the human mind to say, "Well, why? If it's not really accurate right now, why?" And it's like, that's not even the right question to ask, why? Who could really dictate that and does that even matter? But what I found is that if your lenses are looking for the germ that is causing disease, then everything you read in research is relating to that. And it doesn't matter what the article says or what its challenge or looking at, it's through that certain lens. And if we get the lens wrong, everything steers off in the wrong direction. I really believe we have going back to Pasteur and Bechamp back in the 1800s. Pasteur, basically a chemist and when he got his degree, they said he barely got his degree, nothing spectacular.

And then you look at somebody like Antoine Bechamp, and this guy had a couple different doctorates and professors and... Brilliant, right? But what's the difference? I think, Pasteur was a modern-day public relations marketing, "Look how amazing I am." Gets a whole set of cronies to follow him to then propagate this legend. And you can see this in different people like Einstein and Thomas Edison, Louis Pasteur. Why are they so revered as only they've done perfect things and these legends because really, we've created that or people have allowed it to be created, while people that really discovered the whole silkworm and discovered fermentation like Bechamp, never got any credit because he never boasted about it and we kind of took a turn. So if you go back in history and read, I liked that book, Bechamp or Pasteur, 1923 I think they did further printings in 1932 and stuff like that.

That was very interesting to then even read about Edward Jenner, who was the guy that basically did the smallpox vaccine, paid 15 pounds for his medical degree, never went to a school, never passed any examinations. It's like, "Wait a minute!" And then you go on Wikipedia, "Oh, physician that went to this and this school." It's like, "What?" Things aren't adding up. And so I'm very open to just questioning the status quo, because I feel like something isn't right. Something isn't right, I'm going to get to investigate. And I'm okay with thinking in a different opinion now than I did two months ago, two years ago. But as I look at things, back in the day when I was working with clients in the Lyme disease space, people would be like, "Well, how do can I create Kill all the Lyme in of my body?" And my response was always, it's not about just annihilating the bug, it's about bringing the body back into harmony. It's about bringing the levels down when infection and pathogens are going nuts. It's about bringing the levels down, it's not about eliminating.

We tried to sterilize the body in the 80s, that didn't work. We still are on this antibacterial, antibiotic, still using this stuff and really all this, is antibiotics are poison. They create exosomes, they create viruses because they're a poison. And it's like we need a different framework to look at, but I didn't fully get how profound that idea was, it's not about to eliminate all the parasites in your body. It's not about eliminating every single strain of borrelia burgdorferi, the Lyme bacteria in your body. Because I don't think that was ever what it was about. And as I went back in the literature to look at the germ theory, I realized so much is just built on, like a sand foundation. And I'm like, "Wait a minute, everything is built on this, modern day school then teaches from that."

Page 4 of 16

And it's easy for the human being to be like, "Well, wait a minute, if my doctor doesn't tell me this, there's no way that some dude on the internet on an interview, Jason, Dr. Jay, they're going to be right." But that's the mistake I think we've made for so many different years. And the other thing that has really clued me in and I'd love to get your take on this Jason is, if it's being censored, wiped from the internet, you bet your butt, "I'm going to look at what that is." Because if it is so ridiculous that there's no way it should be, why wouldn't they leave it up there so that people could ridicule it? But when you completely wipe something clean, not even allow for a conversation about it. Now, I'm starting to think that that actually might be more truthful than other things.

Jason Prall: Yeah, I'm 100% with you. And that's sort of been my MO I think, as I uncovered. Because my health journey really took me down that path, which was that I went down the standard route and I was getting these answers that didn't really seem to fit. So, I had to go look for all these other things to explain what was happening and to hopefully find solutions. And as I did that, that flipped all my thinking. I was like, "Okay, well, all the things that they're giving me don't work and yet these things over here do work." And the farther I went down that path, I came into the same realizations as you. That there's these things that... There's these people that are vaulted throughout history that don't really deserve it. I wouldn't say deserve it, it doesn't make sense. And then we have these other people like Nikola Tesla, is one of those other ones that I love to look at, that people... They don't teach him in high schools and colleges very much and yet he is responsible for the technology that we're using today.

And so, there seems to be information collections out there that they don't want you to look at. I don't know who "they" is. But generally speaking, "they" I would term as the people that are making a lot of money and that have created businesses and research labs and there a genuine interest in continuing to promote this paradigm. Whereas these other theories, these other people that have discovered amazing things, it seems to come down to the fact that if you followed this advice, that if you really looked into this, then all these other income streams, these businesses, these whole categories of science start to fall apart, and the money is gone. And so, I completely agree in it and it's the thing that I actually look for a lot of times, is what is being censored? What is being hidden? What is being not talked about? And to some degree, I want to say that the research that you have done undoubtedly has been very good research. But you and I are not the only ones thinking this way.

And this whole idea of Bechamp and Pasteur and Bernard even, this isn't new, right? There are lots of people talking about this idea that I want you to further elaborate on, but this is not fringe stuff anymore. There's a lot of people questioning the paradigm. And there's a lot of other people that are done questioning it, that are just going the other direction because it doesn't make sense to them anymore to follow the germ theory, right?

Jay Davidson: Yeah. And you can go back in history on many things. You can go back to different viruses, supposed viruses like polio and what was the history. You can go back to... even go back farther and look at Darwin, the guy in science which things are based off of. And it's not whether you agree or disagree because obviously there's spirituality, there's religion, there's philosophy that's going to come up. But going back to even the mid

Page 5 of 16

1800s when this guy, Alfred Russel Wallace, basically sent his theory to Charles Darwin. Darwin was an upperclassman, Wallace was not an upperclassman, so a commoner. And essentially, Darwin's like, "Oh, wow, this is a lot more advanced than where I was at, let's partner up and let's take your theory and let's bring it to the world." So they met 1858, I think it was with Linnean Society and presented that. And it was like, "Wow, okay, great."

And then they published Origin of Species, 1859. And the thing was, is Darwin, upperclassmen put his name first. And whoever puts their name first as the author is the guy. Wallace is second, but pretty much just pushed off to the side. Well, Alfred Russel Wallace, just a side note on him, he always believed in pleomorphic. There's different theories, maybe we'll come back to that monomorphic and pleomorphic and things like that. But essentially, Russel Wallace, his original theory was that there is this unity, there's the environment, pathogens, we're all lockstep together in this cohesive environment. And when things get out of balance, then that's when pathogens and things basically go nuts. Well, Darwin... And it was all about the weakest organism was not going to survive. So, it was about working together collectively just to not be the weakest and you're going to be fine.

Darwin spun it, right? Being an upperclassman, he's like, "No, no, no, it is about survival of the fittest, only the fittest will survive." And what happened with that little shift, was it all became about competition. And I believe that shift also changed how we look at pathogens and bugs, that the bugs are out to kill us, that the bugs are going to only do harm. It's like, what's the purpose of a virus? Have you ever asked that question? Because all we've been assumed on is that viruses are deadly, viruses are dangerous, but we have 10 to the 31 digits. So, that's a one with 31 zeros after it of different viruses that exist on this planet. And we're going to say that every single one of them is dangerous? It's like, "Well, you better not go swimming in the ocean, you better not breathe the air in." Viruses are everywhere. So, if we go back to the question. "Well, what's the purpose of viruses?"

If we go after Darwin, it's about competition of the fittest, meaning they're trying to take us out. If we go back to Wallace and what he originally had, but got spun in the whole Origin of Species, it was about lockstep together, that they're there as signaling molecules, they're there as solvents or soaps, they're there to help with breaking poisons down that even bacteria, fungus, parasites can help with. And as we start looking at that, it starts to give us a different framework of where to go. And I'm very... I would say, I was joking right before we got on, I'm like, "I wish I just had one solid year where I could just research this not be bugged and then I'd come out and I'm like, here's what I believe." But it doesn't work like that. That's the journey.

We're all on this journey in trying to research it. But when you go back to history, there's just so many pieces that don't add up from what I was taught. I went to undergrad, I got a Bachelor of Science in biology with a biomedical concentration and it's like I was never taught to even ask these questions. I wasn't even taught that there was this other view that we don't believe this because we believe this. It's like, "No, it's just this one lane highway. This is all you've got. In order to get your degree, you got to answer the test questions right, be indoctrinated and on you go." I'm like, "What happened to science?

Page 6 of 16

Where did questioning come from?" And anytime you question, and you get ridiculed and you're like, "How dare you question what things are built off of?" I'm like, "That's just manipulation tactics." That's fear, that's anger, to really push an agenda. So, it almost makes me even more, like, "What else are you hiding? If you're hiding this, what else?" And diving into it.

Jason Prall: Well, and that's the other part of this too. Is that the people that are teaching us at the high school or university or post doctorate level, they may not have these answers, right? So when we question the science, we're questioning them and what they're teaching, they often get stuck because they don't know where to take that answer. There's this whole idea of the science is settled. And that's really never the case. In fact, this is a fundamental aspect of science itself, which is that nothing is really proven. You only disprove and you just hold something is true until you can disprove it.

But there's an idea that it can always be disproven. Right? And so I think that's such an important thing that we've lost track of in this whole quest for truth. And maybe you can give us a... Candida maybe a good example or E. coli. These are things that we have in our body and yet there are also things that we're taught, or we learn to fear when they become out of balance. So maybe you can just take me to a really classical example that maybe people are familiar with or dealing with. How does that apply in a case like Candida?

Jay Davidson: Yeah. Well, let's look at H. pylori for instance. There was a scientist that said, "You know what? I think it's a bacteria that's responding for causing ulcers." And they're like "You're crazy, no way, no way." "Look, I'm going to drink this and I'm going to cause myself an ulcer and then you're going to believe that it's H. pylori in this drink and that's what's giving me an ulcer and I'm going to take some medicine and cure it." And this scientist did this and it was very long after where they're like, "Okay, it's this bacteria that's causing the ulcer." But if you look at literature now, there's this thing called pleomorphism or pleomorphic. And this was talked about in the 1800s, this was talked about in 1900s.

I went back, I just looked on PubMed and some other reference sites in the scientific literature, streptococci or streptococcus bacteria in pleomorphism, in back in 1917, 1919, 1921, 1934, all these years, they were like, "Yeah, it seems as if these bacteria's morphine change and Louis Pasteur was this big component of monomorphism, meaning the bug only has one job, that's it. It's pathogenic. And what I'm trying to process is the H. pylori thing. It's like, "Okay, so he swallowed it, caused an ulcer, so it seems as if the bacteria supported that theory." But then in literature when you read H. Pylori, H. pylori has different forms. And here's where I'm at right now in my understanding and belief, is I believe we always have bugs all the time inside of us and I don't think that's much of a stretch.

But the difference isn't about catching something from outside of us inside of us and then get a sick. This whole theory of, "Oh, you're going to catch a virus, what are you going to do to kill the virus?" It's like, "Well, first of all, viruses aren't alive." So, we need to get our foundation right. But I really believe that everything is already inside of us. We already have the bugs, we already have the fungus, we already have the viruses and

Page 7 of 16

it's only when the environment primarily through a poison, a toxin, that then the bugs morph and change. So if we naturally, because the thing was, "Oh, H. pylori is causing stomach ulcers, we need to kill H. Pylori." And then later on science is like, "Wait a minute, I think the H. pylori is there for some reason, so maybe it's not a good idea to annihilate it." And it's like, "Why?" Because it morphs.

When there is an environment, let's say there's a poison in your stomach. H. pylori will morph and change forms that could potentially lead to an ulcer, but I would also wonder, is it the poison that leads to the ulcer and the bugs just show up? It's like all the research with viruses, they never have purified a virus ever. They've never purified it and then use Koch's postulates to show that it was infectious. There was even a gentleman that put a wager out there, I think it was $100,000 to show me something on measles. We went all the way to the court, I think in Germany. He won. Nobody ever proved or isolated measles that it was infectious. Oftentimes, they're injecting other things with it. And same thing with the bug. It's like "Okay, so bugs in the milk caused me to get sick. So therefore, I'm going to pasteurize it." Pasteurization, Louie Pasteur. "I'm going to kill the bugs and that's going to protect me." But it's like, what if the bugs were only there... They're always there. But what if they only morphed or change because the environment of the milk got bad?

Now all of sudden, it's like, "Well, I don't think actually killing the bugs is important because I don't think you ever really can kill the bugs." You can still pasteurize milk and milk can still go bad and you can still get sick from old milk. It's such an interesting topic. This is an interesting interview Jason, because I'm really caught in this processing phase and I really appreciate your brain too to think outside the box. And I'm just really at... As I look at Lyme disease fast forward a little bit, Lyme disease has been shown to be pleomorphic. It can be in the spiral shaped, spiral keep form, it can be cyst, round body type form, it can go intracellular as well too. So it's got all this stuff and yet all these other bugs have been shown to be pleomorphic, but what we're taught, if you type in on Google, purpose of bacteria. Vast majority of bacteria are communal and helpful, but there's a small fraction that are pathogenic and we're not quite sure why.

It's like, "What?" Just the foundation of it. I'm like, "What if bacteria was there to break down poisons or break down debris that poisons caused? And when we check out somebody getting sick and we're like, "Oh, there is the bugs, that's what caused it." What if the bugs are just the cleanup crew? It's like if I had a pipe blown upstairs in my kitchen and I run upstairs, I see the water dripping through the floor, I run upstairs and I see a plumber under the sink and my wife's there and I start yelling at the plumber, "What are you breaking my pipes for? The houses leaking." That's the same thing we're doing with bacteria. That the plumber is there actually trying to fix, and remedy and I believe the bacteria is doing the same thing. It's like the whole cholesterol myth, which I feel is outdated but people still believe in that. And I think that's the same thing with the germ theory. So, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Jason Prall: Yeah. I love that. And I think you're onto something. And I love that you're caught in this. Like, "God, I'm not quite sure how this story ends, I don't know where it goes, I don't know the answers." And I think I'm in the same boat. And my thoughts are, is because we don't have the answers scientifically. What you're describing to me makes a

Page 8 of 16

ton of sense. And the way I think about this is, we talk a lot about epigenetics. I have human genes and based on the environmental conditions they turn on or turn off or express or down regulate or up regulate. We have histones, we have acetylases and deacetylases and we can explain this. We actually have science that can explain how our genetic function is occurring. But to me it doesn't stand a reason that this is what's happening in the bacteria and the viruses and the fungi. And they have genes too.

They have RNA, they have DNA. And in fact, they're so much simpler structures of RNA and DNA, that their expression logically speaking, should be able to shift and change with very little environmental shifts. So, this to me makes a ton of sense and I don't think we have it knocked out. I don't think we know how this is all playing out. But what you're describing, I think is in my opinion, 100% right on. And even though we don't know where this goes, the simple idea of this framework, I think is super important. And I think if we think about a tree in the forest, it has certain conditions, it might have moss growing on it. Of course, it's got viruses and bacteria and fungi and there's commensal mushrooms growing on it and all kinds of things that are working with the tree, with the roots and with the ground.

And then all of a sudden, if the tree falls down for whatever reason it gets cut down or for whatever it dies and it falls on the floor, now you have all these new organisms growing on it, that are decomposing the tree. So the question is, why don't we have those same organisms growing on a living, healthy, robust tree? Why aren't they breaking it down to such a degree that when it's on the ground and it's devoid of it life force energy, you have these decomposition organisms growing in such a rapid rate? Well, to me, that seems like what happens in our body, if we have food in our digestive tract that's sitting in there, it's putrefying, it makes sense that we're going to have more fungal species growing in there to decompose that dead matter. And I'm guessing that that's part of the reason that we experience symptoms, is that in that process, they're giving off metabolites, they're spewing out things in that process that then give us symptoms.

So, it seems to me that you're speaking very, very poignantly on a reality that we're experiencing, we're in a state of dysfunction and disharmony that we're going to get these things. Is that what you see as well when you have patients that come to you that you're working with that have, whether it be Lyme, co-infections or mold overgrowth or just an excessive body burden of various toxins, which of course they go hand in hand. But is that what you're seeing in that process? Is the decomposition or the consumption of these things that then create all these metabolites and various things that cause us as harm?

Jay Davidson: Yeah, a couple things there with... So I have a friend Dr. Ellen Lindsey, who you've heard speak and stuff as well too. He's been in the trenches with Lyme disease for many years. He's tested over 25,000 different people for Lyme disease, treated over 5000. He's in the trenches, most people haven't heard of him. And one of the things that he's recently been finding is he's like, "Huh, it's very interesting when I test, I find Lyme loves the joints in different areas, organs." But then he had this idea of checking glyphosate and in the same exact spots, that Lyme was thriving, glyphosate was there. And he's like, "What came first, glyphosate or the Lyme in response?" And as we've begun to further

Page 9 of 16

test things out, Dr. Todd watts, my good friend and you obviously know him as well too, just brilliant guy. Finding that industrial and environmental chemicals and toxins seem to be an underlying cause of why Lyme co-infections like the PCR bartonella show up.

And this all came from this idea of Dr. Lindsay working with thousands of people, would have people come back in, he'd treat them, he'd give them his herbal concoction that would just bring Lyme down, wipe the co-infections out, on they'd go, life was changed. But then, the next fall, they'd come back, or in the winter, six months later or a year and a half later like, "Oh, I think the Lyme flared back up. I think I got it again." "Okay. Yep." He's testing for it, bring it back down and he's like, "But why does it keep showing up? I don't think we're going far enough. What's the source? What the source of this?" And that led us into this mixed category of these industrial toxins, environmental toxins, these solvents, pesticides.

All these different chemicals that then the bugs show up in these environments and reading back on the Pasteur versus Bechamp, they said in the book, this 1923 book that they had somebody that lost a limb, fresh lamb and granted this is the early 1900s, if not before that. And they're like, immediately preserve the limb... They didn't try to put it back on back then, they preserved it, they're like, "We're not going to let any of this bacteria in the air get to it, this thing is going to be fine." And what happened? Same thing. It started decaying, it started breaking down, even though they tried to prevent. And as I think about your tree example, I'm at least in my brain, the bugs and everything are already on the tree, it's not until the tree dies or changes or the environment of where the bugs are, which is the tree or for our human body until the environment changes where then the bugs change.

They morph, they pleomorph, they change forms to do a different job. And we look at it as, "Oh my gosh, I'm infected, I caught this bug." No, no, no. You've already had all these bugs, all these pathogens, it's the fact that your environment changed they responded. So we're like, "Kill the bug, kill the bug." "Oh, well, the bug's not dying it must be viral." That's the medical thing. It's like, "But what are we missing?" And I really believe it's the toxicity. So as I look at today, I think there's many things that we need to open up to considering that we don't know even about the genetics. You mentioned the DNA. "We did the Human Genome Project, we're going to identify every gene, we're going to figure out that there's one gene per protein and that we just fixed this gene, we're going to fix diseases."

And what they figured out is, no, there's like 100,000 proteins, 25,000 genes and as research keeps coming out they're whittling it down to maybe 19,000 genes. You're like, "What's the difference here?" That's when this idea of epigenetics happened, but there're certain scientists and these are things on my list to continue to research. So these are early thought process, but I'd love to get your process on it Jason, because I appreciate how your brain works. There's researchers like Dr. Ling, I think it's L-I-N or L-I-N-G. He's passed on now, but he said the math doesn't add up for the amount of ATP we have, for the ATP to solely be used for the sodium potassium pump. That it really seems like it comes back to Gerald Pollack's work on the fourth phase of water that inside of ourselves, it's actually a gel, that then is where the energy is actually created. ATP is used primarily. And Dr. Thomas Cowen, talks about this as well. I really appreciate

Page 10 of 16

his thought process. He talks about how the ATP is actually used to create heat to form the gel. It's like Jell-O.

Is Jell-O a liquid, is it a solid? Well, it's not really either, it's in this gel. Yeah, it's in this fourth phase of water, which we've shown from a science standpoint, how fluid moves in the body. It's not the heart pumping, it's the actual fourth phase of water. And so, as we take a step back, there's these moments where it's, "Wow, how far off basis have we gotten?" And there're some awesome stuff that has come out that I think people are really grasping on to the whole cell danger response and the role of mitochondria with the immune system. And this is a classic with anybody with immune system dysfunction, is their cell danger response.

They're in cell danger response phase one, two or three, they're stuck, they're not healing, they're not optimized, they haven't rolled into hormesis and stepping it up. So I'm really excited as we move forward, but at the same moment I'm like, "Do we have to scream really loud? What do we have to do to wake everybody else up?" I do remember somebody told me a few years ago, they're like, "You can't wake somebody up that chooses to stay asleep." I'm like, "Okay."

Jason Prall: That's very true. And you pulled in insane amounts of research. For those people who are listening and want to go follow these trails, he's just given you about five years’ worth of research just to scratch the surface by the way, because Gilbert Ling is... I think he mentioned, and he is... His research is biophysics and I've read some of his stuff and it goes deep so fast and you get so lost so quick that you almost have to pull back and go, "Okay, there's something here, but I'll get lost if I go too far down that track." But I love what you're pointing to here because it's highlighting the fact that the body is so insanely complex, that we are still learning so much about what we thought we knew about and you have people like Mae-Wan Ho, Gilbert Ling, Gerald Pollack. And they're all looking at basically the physics of water in the cell and how it all works and then how mitochondria tie in.

And then Robert Naviaux work on cell danger response, pulls in another element to this which is the signaling mechanism of the mitochondria and we have heat and light and water and structure and electric charge being created. And you're just talking about inside one cell. And maybe just the extracellular space. And we're not even at the organ level or the system level. And so I think what's cool about what you're pointing to here is that, there's so much going on at such a micro level, that for the average person and even people like you and I who love to dig into the research, there comes a point where you just have to go, "That's research and it's fun and it can help my understanding." And let's pull back into the practical nature of what we're talking about because I think the huge takeaway that you've shared so far, is that life has this harmonious way of behaving. And there's death and life constantly in this cycle.

And we see this even at the mitochondria level, at the cellular level. We need death to occur to mitochondria, death to occur to cells in order for new life to spring up and maintain balance and harmony. And so we see this in the gut, we see this in the joints, we see this all over, that life is taking care of these things for us. And this idea of something like Lyme disease borrelia or bartonella or any of these other co-infections,

Page 11 of 16

but they may be our allies. They may not feel like it, they may not present as if they're our allies, but they seem to be our allies. And you described this idea of toxins and these industrial chemicals and metals and things and now we have Wi-Fi and cell signals that are in there as well. I read a book that was actually the first book that opened my eyes to a new paradigm, this was years ago. That was by Hulda Clark, called The Cure For All Diseases.

And she had her own approach to this, but it was the first book I thought, "Man, this lady makes a ton of sense." She's talking about industrial chemicals and metals and things that are in our food supply and that are in our environment and our products. Those are the things that are inviting in these infections or pathogens, as we like to call them. And yes, the infections or pathogens can in and of themselves cause problems with all the things that they do. With their activity, overabundance of activity. And also it's the chemicals that are really there inviting them to grow and change and express in different ways. So, we have this layered effect I think, by the time somebody comes to see you and work with you, they've got the toxins and the metals and the chemicals and the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth and cell signals that are causing the bumps and they have, let's just call them infections. These bugs that have changed their expression, that are then of course adding to this whole allostatic load.

And then we have the lifestyle conditions, whether they be the thoughts and the emotions and the belief systems and the sleeping patterns and all this stuff. So, it's like this is building and building and building and at the same time even amongst all that chaos, there're some semblance of harmony playing out. And I think if we can just work with that harmony and figure out how to swim with the current, it's really about that, isn't it? Instead of fighting the current like some people are saying, "Kill this thing and get rid of the chemicals and just kill, kill, kill." There's a way that we can harmonize with this.

So, how... That's a really long-winded way of setting up my question here, but how can we... When we're in this state and we feel like we have this allostatic load built up so high, we've been told we have infections, our tests are showing infections, we may even know that we have a high body burden of toxins and chemicals and metals. How do we start to unwind that with this new framework in place that it's all working in harmony and now what? Okay, you've sold me, I'm down with Bechamp, I'm down with this idea of pleomorphism, what do I do?

Jay Davidson: So, we also have to look at the foundation. So, if I'm concerned about a test result, I have to look at what was that test. Because are we using PCR, polymerase chain reaction that was invented in 1983 by Kary Mullis, who won a Nobel Prize in 1993, who was quoted on saying that PCR technology granted the inventor and the dude that won the Nobel Prize or a Nobel Prize, said PCR should never ever be used to diagnose infection, pathogenic bacteria and yet there's these companies out there that are like, "Oh, I'm doing quantitative PCR, I'll tell you the amount." And he's like, quantitative PCR is an oxymoron because you're taking one little snippet of DNA or RNA and you're multiplying it one to two to four to eight to 16 to 32 and on you go, and if you run it 60 cycles, everybody will be positive, if you run it only 25 cycles, everybody's going to be negative.

Page 12 of 16

And so first of all, we have to look at just to take a step back, that... And it's not to question everything, but it is the question everything. Like, "Wait a minute, okay, I got this test, but what do I even know about this test and its accuracy?" Can I trust it?" Where I'm at right now, is there's no reason to be fearful. There's no reason to have animosity to hate or be angry to like, "Why did this Lyme disease bacteria take my life? Why did this or that happened to me? How dare it? Why God? Why did this happen to me?" This all happened to you as a wakeup call.

This wasn't happening to you, this happened for you. And the moment that we shift in our stand that this was for us, everything changes. And I've seen in research, just a side note, because I was like, "Huh, I wonder what physiologic stress and even fear will do." It creates exosomes in the literature. I was like, "Wow!" So, if we're in this fearful state, we can create our own viruses, we can create our own exosomes. And I'm yet to really hear a great explanation of what's the difference between exosome versus virus other than, one's pathogenic and one's not.

Jason Prall: So, I was actually going to ask you to dive into that. So, according to the consensus science right now, when it comes to an exosome, what is the consensus saying about an exosome? Because I know it's sort of a branch that's being studied more and more, what is an exosome? How do they work? So, what is out there right now about exosomes?

Jay Davidson: Well, generally, my understanding and I'm going to continue to research this. So, I would love for you not just to trust everything I'm saying but you'd be engaged to do research yourself and to question the status quo. Maybe I'm saying something wrong or my belief is wrong. Great. Let's all navigate this journey together rather than let's collaborate in Alfred Russel Wallace's terms versus let's come like Darwin's terms. So, I'll just maybe tie that back in. Exosomes, generally in science, they say they're anywhere between 50 to 150 nanometers. They basically use part of our membrane, they bud off, they call it budding. So, if we have our cell, they'll basically come out, they'll use part of our membrane to make their own little membrane.

Same thing as an envelope virus, same size, same function, it'll affect similar receptors, ACE2. Exosome as virus, et cetera. Exosomes can have RNA, they can DNA, they can have mitochondria, RNA, DNA, all this stuff in them, same thing that viruses can. So, this is where, as I look at it, I'm like, "Okay." As I'm reading literature right now, obviously have been for a while, as I know you have too. I've taken this challenge. I'm like, "I'm going to replace the word virus, I'm going to put exosome in there. I'm going to replace exosome in literature and put virus in there. What's the difference?" And I have yet to find one other than to hear debates and people saying, "Well, viruses are pathogenic, how dare you? We've already shown there's a difference."

I'm like, "We're either giving facts or we're pushing fear or we're trying to drive emotion." And I really believe that there're so many similarities between exosomes and viruses. My question has been, what if all viruses are actually exosomes? Plants produce exosomes, trees produce exosomes and communication. It's how we communicate with one another. Like, "Hey." If I'm around you, my exosomes could communicate to your exosomes to say, "Hey, we've been just detoxing the cells from this toxin, we think it

Page 13 of 16

might be a good idea for yours to detox too." "Oh, okay." Maybe be exosome communication is more of the path than, "You shared your virus with me now I'm getting sick." Well, if I was in a room with 10 other people but only two other people started showing symptoms similar to mine, how can everybody else wasn't when something was really infectious. We always say, "Oh, somebody had a really strong immune system." Well, maybe those people didn't need to clear out the same toxins that the other... You know what I mean? So-

Jason Prall: And even that premise is funny, because what you're saying is what we've all been taught and what people continue to say. "Well, this person has a good immune system or I've a weak immune system," or whatever it is. Overactive or underactive. And I've always said to them, "Well, how do you know that? Has this been researched? Is that studied? Is this..." Or are we just continuing a talking point because it seems to make very simple logical sense? So, it goes back to the thing we started with, which is, we're starting off with the wrong premise perhaps, then we're going to start drawing the wrong conclusions because they make sense based off that faulty premise. So, it's always funny, "They must have good immune systems." Why are we even thinking that? There's no real information that suggests that that's the case. It's the only logical explanation that we can draw based on the premise that we were given, right?

Jay Davidson: Yeah. Just to summarize all this, because we're really talking theoretical and there's so much to shake up the foundation. I can only imagine the listeners right now are like, "Well, what do I do with all this information? Do I have anything actionable?" And my action is, don't live in fear. Don't live in fear. What if the germ theory is 100% incorrect? What if germs or pathogens or bugs in your body only changed form based on your environment? So, if you keep your environment clear or relatively free of toxins and your body can handle the onslaught, what is there really to fear? But if we're constantly in a state of fear, we know through research when you take an antibiotic, exosomes are released, when you have physiological stress, mental emotional stress, "Why is this happening? Why am I..." Why, why, why. You're creating your own stress with your own thoughts. So, I was thinking, thinking as I was about to say. You're creating exosomes, flip exosome with virus.

You can always get a viral response if you take a piece of tissue and wash it with some antibiotics in a Petri dish. "Oh, look, there's viruses being released here." Yeah, because you just put a poison, an antibiotic in there and you're causing that. So, I believe we just need to really take a step back and start evaluating where your belief structures come from and then start digging back into the history or listening to talks like this that really... Or obviously all the individuals that you mentioned. The lady with the rainbow and the worm. She's now passed on too. Kary Mullis has now passed on. So many of these great people aren't with us physically anymore, but their work is still there. And diving into that can give us a better framework that if we're not living in fear, oh my goodness, what will the world look like? That's all this world's in the year 2020 and we're recording this, that's all this year has been based off of, keep you in fear. Keep you in fear.

"Don't worry Jason, just sit on the couch, watch Netflix, it's going to be okay, we've got this, we'll let you know when it's safe to come back out." What? That doesn't make any

Page 14 of 16

sense. Are we moving in the right direction? Are we moving forward to awaken our conscience? Are we moving forward to awaken the fact that our bodies have this amazing ability to heal itself? As long as we can remove the interference. And what I believe it always came back to was toxicity and infection. And I still believe that, but I believe the infection is now there really because of the toxicity. We're creating toxins from a chemical state, from a mental emotional state, that then is triggering these bugs that are already there to morph and change to then grow in number, to then say we have infection. But then we got to go to the next level of why is it there in the first place? And that's really why I believe detoxification is so flipping important.

And what are we doing to pull out glyphosate that is robbing our bacteria in our gut, it kills the good bugs and it allows bad bugs to propagate. It stops bile flow. It literally shunts the bile flow in our body, it damages collagen. How many injuries are happening now on the sport's field or somebody goes in twists and also they blow knee out non-contact, nobody touched them? "Oh, well, they're just stronger now." It's like, "No, they're more toxic." The glycine is getting replaced with glyphosate and it's weakening the collagen. As we start to understand this, we start to realize it is really important to look at my environment not to be worried about it and freaking out, like, "Oh my gosh, don't use that. Don't spray the perfume by me." But to look at it and say, "You know what, I'm going to make the best choices for myself and if I'm exposed to something, because I make the best choices, my body's going to be able to handle it."

But when people are in this chronic illness state that they can't handle anything, they've ignored so many signs and symptoms leading up to that point, that their body had to go in crisis mode to awaken you, the listener to say, hey, you've got to take a different path. And I believe it's about detoxification, I believe it's about bringing the pathogens back more into harmony. But you got to remove the source of either there. I think mitochondrial function is really important, drainage, opening up the drainage pathways, liver, bile duct, the skin, the colon, all that's important. So, the protocols that I've recommended... Dr. Todd Watts and I recommend still work. I'm really interested in why they're working. And I feel like as we start to question what science is built on... And it's not to ridicule or make fun of people, it's more just, I want to know what the truth is, or I want to know what the actual facts are. Because then we could advance this so much further than just this dogmatic look of, "This is the way it's been, this is the way it's going to be.

I'm going to trust this person, because you know what? They've got more education than I do." And it's like, "Who cares more for your health than you?" It's only you. And if there's anything I can leave this interview with, is take responsibility, don't hold animosity because where in your life have you acted the same way that you're holding anger or animosity towards somebody else, as soon as you can identify that, Dr. John Demartini, his whole breakthrough experience talks about that. Somebody cuts you off in the row and you're like, "Oh, now I'm mad, my whole day is wrecked." You can instantly nullify that and you're like... Whenever I cut somebody off. And it's like, "Yeah, I remember that time or you know what? I don't even remember it, but I bet you I've changed lanes and not even realize somebody's coming up and I've cut them off." And as soon as you do that, you're like, "Oh, life's going to be okay." Because you know what? We're humans, we all do the same stuff.

Page 15 of 16

Jason Prall: Well, there're so many comments, I wanted to interject, he's hit on so many powerful things. And one of the things that came to me as you were speaking about that was, I think in science some of the most important discoveries and the most brilliant people that I've noticed, they stumble across things and then they go, "Huh, why did that work?" Or "Huh, that didn't work. Why?" So, it's not that they're brilliant people and they figure out something and they apply it and it works. No, no, it's actually the opposite. It's they accidentally see something or see something in nature, and they ask questions and figuring out what actually is happening there, that leads them to a deeper truth. And I love what you're pointing to here because so much of the health space in the scientific space and the mainstream medical space is telling us that the environment is fine, the body is the problem or life is the problem. Whether it's the virus or the bacteria or the mold or whatever, but life. Life is the problem, the environments fine.

But what you're saying here, as I'm hearing it is, "No, no, life is fine. Life is always going to be imbalanced, seeking balance and finding harmony, but it's the environment that is becoming the problem." And to me that is an amazingly empowering message because it teaches us not to... Fear is an okay thing. Fear can actually propel us into a good state. You don't want to be stuck in fear and you want to ensure that your fear is placed in the right things. But if we're understanding that the environment needs to change and that that's where the benefit is going to come from, whether it's my local environment, my thought environment, my emotional environment or the greater environment as a whole then I can start to affect change there and trust that my body, that the viruses, that the bacteria, that the exosomes, that the mold, that the fungi, that everything that makes the parasites that all make up this life biome, this holobiont, that they're going to be fine, they're going to take care of things, then it starts to shift everything in a huge, huge way.

And the actual fear of... The irrational fear, let's say, starts to go away and then I start to really take action in a place of alignment and harmony. That's just so powerful. And it starts to allow you to affect change in a real way in your environment, in your world, in your health. So, I just kind of want to recap a few of the huge messages here. A, don't trust anything blindly, question everything. And I think that's a powerful one. Because even if I say something like the sky is blue. That's true. And also, sometimes the sky is gray and sometimes it's night and the sky is black or dark blue. And sometimes we really want to get to the next level of truth, the sky is actually not blue, it's just that perception that is blue as the light enters the atmosphere, right? So, there's layers of truth to things. So, I think it's one thing to think that there is this one truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But really, there's layers and there's levels and there's perspectives.

So, really questioning is an important thing, because it doesn't mean that you immediately deny, it just means you question. "Is what's being told to me true? Okay, as far as I know and as far as I can investigate. Yeah, it's true." Or for now, it's true. Or, I don't know. So, that's a really important one. Number two is this idea of harmony. Everything is working in harmony, that's really the key to life as opposed to competition. Competition has a place, it has value, but it's not the only thing. And there's perhaps more important aspects to harmony. And then this idea of toxins in the environment and cleaning those things up. And then of course, the last one, which is don't get caught

Page 16 of 16

in fear. In these cycles of fear and what we're being told. So, Dr. Jay, this has taken a turn, I didn't know it would, we went off into all kinds of topics that I love you brought us into, because they're so relevant right now with the current state of affairs on a number of levels.

And it brings us to I think, a closer view of reality when it comes to biology and what we are starting to understand, what we may be used to understand and also what we still don't know. So, there's so much there for people to unpack and I really want to encourage people to listen to a lot of those key points again, because you hit on so many things. But as we wrap up, please tell us where we can find more of your work and what you've got coming up.

Jay Davidson: Yeah, I guess going on to the unity comment you had. I was thinking coherence. To be coherent means unity or it also means to form a whole. And then if you look at the word community, it's common, unity. And this in this collaborative nature that, you know what? Everything is coherent, everything's coherent, everything's unified. When you are disruptive to that, it'll be disruptive back to bring that harmony and balance in. So, yeah. Those people that are interested in checking out, my main website is Drjaydavidson.com, doctors, D-R and then Jay, J-A-Y. So, Drjaydavidson.com. Otherwise, I host summits as well like the Chronic Lyme Disease Summit number four and where's life going to be in a year? I don't know. That's the best part. If there's one thing I can leave listener with right now, enjoy the experience. It is not the result, it is the experience. I so enjoy the experience of 2020 this far, because it's helped to solidify and also opened me up to so many different things. And it's not because of the result, it's because of the experience.

Jason Prall: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Beautiful. I think that's such a powerful message and one that we can all really align to no matter what we're going through, that's really all we can do. We can either dislike our experience or we can enjoy it. And I think it may be a process for some of us to get to that point, but this pointer is so important to enjoy that experience and to enjoy the ride because this is all we got. So, Dr. Jay Davidson, thanks so much for taking us on this fantastic journey today and I wish you the best. Keep researching, keep finding new stuff and next time we talk to you, I'm sure we'll go on a couple of different journeys with you.

Jay Davidson: Sounds great. I hope everybody has an amazing rest of your day.