Select Page

This post was originally published on this site

Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai discusses Immune System, Technology, Healthcare and Systems Approach with Dr. Scott Jensen.

  • Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD – Inventor of Email, Scientist, Engineer, Educator – discusses Immune System, Technology, Healthcare and Systems Approach with Dr. Scott Jensen.
  • Dr.SHIVA explains how insurance layers disconnect the direct relationship with your family doctor. Dr. Jensen agrees that the 3rd party equation does not promote good quality care and the relationship is fractured.
  • When the Mansfield Amendment was passed, there was a consolidation and centralization of science, education, and many fields. No more Grand Rounds where problems were solved and the scientific method was applied with discourse.
  • Dr.SHIVA and Dr. Jensen share their knowledge on the Oral Microbiome and how Oral Health is a factor on how disease and inflammation are introduced to other subsystems from the oral cavity.
  • Our body waits to be stressed – that actually turns on a set of genes – and when you get exposed to a virus through the innate, the interferon can up-regulate 1000 different genes which makes us disease resistant, long before antibodies even kick in.

The original research in this video is made possible by generous contributions from supporters of the Dr.SHIVA Truth Freedom Health® movement. Please contribute so we may continue to bring you such original research, valuable education, and innovative solutions.

Dr.SHIVA:  Good morning, everyone this is Dr.SHIVA Ayyadurai with Dr. Scott Jensen. Scott and I are going to talk about the immune system, medicine, and it’s probably going to be the beginning of a set of discussions Scott and I will have. Scott, I think what would be interesting is if we educate the audience on your background, my background in technology – we were just talking about doctors and technology, and maybe we’ll just start with that. My first job was working at a medical school when I was a 14-year-old kid. But go ahead, Scott, you were just sharing your background, your introduction to technology. Go ahead.

Dr. Jensen:  Well, you were challenging me, Dr.SHIVA, with Stream Yard and Facebook and going live and all that. I was going to tell you that it was the early 1990’s, and I was in a clinic that had several offices, and our office did not have fax machines. We were at a board meeting and the administrator said, “we’ve got an extra fax machine, we’re not using this office. Do you want one in your office, Dr. Jensen?” And I said, “Oh, heavens, no.” I said, we’ve got more than enough technology, we would never use it. They went ahead and put it in our office a couple of weeks later, just because they didn’t have any use for it at all, and we started to use it. And within two months, I couldn’t fathom not having the fax machine anymore. That’s a little bit of my history, I’ve not necessarily been the quickest to embrace technology, and then once I do, I say, gee, there really is a lot of value here.

Dr.SHIVA:  What year was that?

Dr. Jensen:  That was… I’m gonna guess, 1990.

Dr.SHIVA:  That’s interesting. When I was 14, and I was one of those kids who liked to work a little bit, I started working full time as a research fellow at a medical school at what’s now known as Rutgers Medical School, in the heart of North New Jersey, and I was doing some of the early work applying computers to look at SIDS data, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome data at that time. The Martland Hospital and UMDNJ, which became Rutgers in New York, had some of the best time series data of 48 hours sleep data of babies. I was doing analysis to try to predict if you could correlate sleep patterns with apnea. But I also got recruited with another challenge. In those days, you remember in the 70’s, most doctors’ offices had a secretary, and she had the typewriter. She had the inbox, the outbox. They would write these things called memos, you remember them? The interoffice mail system, it was the bulwark of office operations. So anytime you wanted to put a proposal together, the letter was the medium of communication. But all the things we see in modern email systems came from that physical archetype. I was asked to convert that entire system to the electronic version. This is in 1978. They did simple text messaging on those computers, but not converting that entire desktop. I remember that was a challenge that was given to me. My customers were the secretaries.

And I remember a doctor coming over to me goes, why do we want to do this thing called email? He said, everything works fine. I just go over to my secretary; I dictate a letter. She types it up, she puts it in the drafts folder, I redline it, and she sends it out for me. But that was the state of the medical profession, even up until I think 2000, medical doctors were the last to really adopt technologies and interesting psychology of why that occurs. But I think the unfortunate thing is all of us have become secretaries. Now, we all have to read our emails, we all have to process it. Before we sort of outsourced it to somebody. But I think technology is an interesting thing. Do you practice family practice medicine, Scott? I think it’d be valuable. I was just asking you to do practice today, and you still do. You’re not just someone running for Governor. I’m not just a guy who ran for Senate. I also do science every day.

Dr. Jensen:  Yeah, I’m full time. I practice medicine full time. One of the things that happens to a physician is as you age, your patients age as well. So my practice has certainly shifted more and more to internal medicine with a lot of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, a lot of those things and then because I did a Bush fellowship and dermatologic surgery, I do a fair amount of surgery on lumps and bumps and melanomas and basal cells and squamous cell cancers. So it’s a wonderful practice, but I do work full time, as a doctor.

Dr.SHIVA:  Scott, most of your patients you’ve had from, I don’t want to say cradle to grave, but you’ve had them for a long time as a family practice doctor.

Dr. Jensen:  Correct.

Dr.SHIVA:  We wanted to talk about a couple of topics today, I think when we connected,  one is the immune system. But before we go there, I think it will be interesting to talk about healthcare. I know you’re running for Governor, when I ran for Senate here, one of the models that we proposed was that when you look at the entire healthcare model. I live in Belmont, Massachusetts here, I had a doctor for many, many years, I’d go to him, and me and my family had a direct relationship. Basically you had me and my doctor, there weren’t all these intermediaries, I paid out of pocket for some copay. And now with insurance, there’s so many layers that’ve been built, that relationship, probably that you offer to your patients is probably rarer now than it was before. Because of all the layers that people have to go through.

Dr. Jensen:  Very much so, Dr.SHIVA. In fact, I wrote a book and published it about 5 years ago called Relationship Matters, and this was the basis. Basically, healthcare is fracturing because the relationship is fractured, and with the third party being introduced into the equation it doesn’t promote good quality care.

Dr.SHIVA:  Well, it’s interesting, Scott, because the reason why I got interested in medicine, I’m a Systems Biologist, but I got interested because when I was a kid in India, my Grandmother lived in one of those small villages in India that had no running water, no electricity, my grandmother was a so-called healer. People would come to her. She practiced a traditional form of medicine, where she would observe your face, would actually look at you, talk to you, to figure out what was appropriate. In those days, I used herbs and different formulations, etc. But one of the things that I got fascinated by was in a field, you may know this, called Narrative Medicine, which is the healing that emerges between the doctor and the patient relationship. And there’s been quite a bit of work, some people call it the placebo effect, but I don’t think it’s really that but there’s something that emerges when the doctor connects with the patient and builds that relationship. And I think, at the heart of it, that’s where 80 to 90% of the healing should take place, forgetting the awful things that could occur. Obviously, if you get involved in an awful accident, and you need surgery, which I think modern, sort of the conventional advances in medicine are phenomenal for. But I think the guts of most of the healing comes from what you do, it’s a family practitioner connecting with the patient, and having this sort of relationship with them.

Dr. Jensen:  I agree with you completely, and we have studies that have gotten at that. The immune system for one. The immune system works differently when it’s not stressed. When a person I mean, there was a study done many years ago about what happened to people in the U.S. military when they were undergoing change, and what they found was change, either good or bad, change influenced the immune system such that people were more susceptible to illness while they were being disrupted. When they are, if you will, at peace, comfortable with their environment, comfortable with the routine that they chose, they seem to stay healthier, at least in regards to respiratory infections, like influenza and colds and things like that. And I think it doesn’t really give us any definitive information as much as it gives us a little bit of insight into something that stress and anxiety and those kinds of things do matter in a very real physiological way, even if we can’t necessarily create a sequence of causation.

Dr.SHIVA:  What’s interesting, Dr. Jensen, one of the interesting things is, there’s a paper, there’s a systematic review that was done, I think, in 1988, published I think, in Science, which looked at the history of what happens when people are stressed by isolation, social isolation, and the results showed that your body will actually create inflammatory compounds and then in the end, the conditions that create social isolation, depression, when you’re under that kind of stress, worse and high blood pressure worse than obesity, and worse than smoking. That was in 1988. And I think in the mid 2000’s, the work of Steven Cole actually looked at it at the genetic level, from a Molecular Systems level, with humans and primates. And it showed that the body will actually up-regulate in those conditions, inflammatory compounds, and will down regulate antimicrobials, which your body is essentially a pharmaceutical factory in some sense. You basically compromise your immune system under those stress conditions. And I think if we look at what’s happening right now, with policies that were imposed top down, we’ve created a very, very, I mean, I don’t think probably 50 years from now, probably some PhDs and MDs will get together and they’ll do the research of the devastation it actually caused people’s health. And maybe there will be an economic analysis done with the lockdowns. What the benefits were from a health standpoint versus not locking down on the immune system.

Dr. Jensen:  I think you’re absolutely right. Again, I did not read that article in Science in 1988. But I think there’s some value there, because one of the things that would have come out of that study is, it would have been done within the context of unbiased interest. I’m afraid that over the last 15 months, so much of the quote, “research,” I hate to speak so strongly, but it almost resembles garbage. Because physicians and scientists were pretty skilled at understanding how research works. And if we want to end up at a certain endpoint, we can make that happen. We can dry lab experiments; we know how to craft an experiment so that it gets us what we want. And I’m so afraid that a lot of what we’ve been bringing forth over the last 15 months, it’s really been sort of almost pre-determined. And I think that a study from 1988, or you mentioned Steven Cole, I think I have not read this work as well. But this is one of the big flaws of our policy determination over the last 15 months is we’ve been willing to throw out all that we were leaning on for the prior 10 to 20 years, in favor of some sort of rush job experiment that says, “See, masks do a tremendous job of knocking down respiratory virus.” But we’ve been doing these studies for years, and that wasn’t the conclusion that had been reached. I mean, we did swine flu in 2009, we had SARS in 2002. We had plenty of motivation to do studies. And it wasn’t like 18 years ago, or 10 years ago, we were sitting on our hands. So that’s been a big concern of mine, Dr.SHIVA is that what we’ve come up with over the last 12 to 15 months hasn’t really been our best work.

Dr.SHIVA:  Well, Scott, I think since we’re having a conversation about one of the things we built here as a Movement we call Truth Freedom Health, meaning that without the freedom of open discourse and conversation, debate, which is the foundation of science, you can’t practice the scientific method, and therefore you get garbage, you get scientific consensus, which leads to sort of the fake science, which then essentially eludes what’s really right for our health. Dick Lensin, a professor at MIT, did a lot of the work, great applied mathematician. Dick was one when I did this video in exposing the climate change nonsense. That it’s really about increasing carbon credits to make a few people trillionaires that it really has nothing to do with fundamental science. When Dick came out with that, as the only professor at MIT and wrote to I think Trump at the time, 140 professors at MIT lambasted him. Now here’s a guy who got accepted into the National Academy of Engineering, I think the youngest guy, great guy. So Dick and I were having a conversation, he said what’s happened is that science has become now the oldest profession in the world. And only someone only needs to read the Bible to find out what that is.

But the interesting thing is, what he shared with me was that a big change in science occurred in 1970, when the Mansfield Amendment got passed. The Mansfield Amendment was an interesting amendment. We had a huge military budget prior to that, let’s say, during the Vietnam War, and a little piece of that was given to some crazy scientists just to go do work without any restrictions, pure basic research. After the passage of the Mansfield Amendment, what ended up happening was that little sliver, which was small relative to the military budget, but it was a lot, which they gave to really good scientists was sort of open science whoever was good, not just focused on grant writing. Well, all of that money went under the NIH and NSF. And in the 70’s, I think, was a turning point, in many, many things in the United States was a consolidation and centralization of science, centralization of many, many different fields, education. And so Dick pointed out that a lot of that money, when it went there, the NSF and NIH became highly political institutions, and science essentially. So if you wanted to succeed in academia, you had to, all the really great scientists were looking at radical stuff or out of the box thinking, they all got thrown out. And what you ended up getting today’s you have lemmings who essentially if they don’t tow the party line, literally the party line, you’re out. And I think that’s what’s happened. And I think we’re where unfortunately, in the last 15 months, we’re seeing sort of the culmination of all of that, that started in 1970.

So when you take something like masks, which is one of the areas we want to talk about, we just finished, and I’ll send this work to you, but in 2000, I went back to MIT 2007. I created a technology for modelling molecular pathways on the computer so we could mathematically do some large scale mechanistic on standing of different phenomena. For three years prior to this, we actually had modeled all the molecular pathways of periodontal disease, and we looked at 700 of the microbes in the mouth. So we have a beautiful mapping of all the molecular pathways that are involved in periodontal disease, and we know that there are three microbes, P-Gingivalis, including one of them, and these three microbes up-regulate what are called virulence factors. And those very linked factors, if they’re at high levels, you will get inflammation of the gums, you will get tooth decay, and you will affect the immune health of your own internal systems. So what we did was we mapped out all the steps, it’s a very nice piece of work on showing the etiology of periodontal disease at the molecular level.

More recently, when this stuff started happening with, sort of this dictate that everyone should wear masks, we said, well, what happens when you put on a mask? So in the mouth area, which is a very sensitive area, where we have the most number of thermoreceptors, when you put the face mask on, in this area, temperature will rise. That’s one phenomenon. And the other phenomenon that happens is pH will go down because you start mouth breathing, saliva gets reduced or more acidity develops. Well, those two phenomena are very powerful forces that manipulate the microbiome in your mouth. And guess what happens? Those three bacteria have a higher likelihood of increasing. So we have the molecular systems understanding now, by the way, No, you won’t see this coming out of MIT, Yale or anywhere, because none of those guys they publish it whatever probably get, they’re probably all get axed, and probably called on by the university presidents. But when you connect that causal thing to what dentists are now seeing, and I’m sure you’re probably seeing this where people are coming up with increases, people never had gum inflammation, people never had tooth issues. What we’re trying to do is to educate people. Forget, yes, there’s a civil liberties issue on masks. But even if you apply science, the masks have a direct effect on Oral Health damage. And  the Oral Health, maybe you can speak to this, how important it is to the rest of the body, the oral system connects to your, known relation to cardiovascular disease, brain health, etc.

Dr. Jensen:  Interestingly enough, before I went into medicine, I was in dental school, I was president of my dental school class. I spent a fair amount of time dissecting head and neck and gross anatomy as well as studying the physiology of the Oral Microbiome. This was funny when I was listening to you start talking about, well, this is in an area I can speak to, but there’s no question about it. We oftentimes don’t glamorize the oral cavity, like we do the heart transplant or the bone marrow transplant, or replacing a joint. But if we’re not healthy in the oral cavity, we introduce diseases in not just diseases, but as you mentioned, we introduce inflammation. And I want and I think a lot of people don’t realize that they may not realize what a medical or physiologic cascade of events is. But if people just think about it as sort of a domino effect, where you’ve got a bunch of dominoes that up and you just tip one, they all ripple along and they all fall. That’s sort of the way the physiology works for us in our bodies. And so if we introduce something that’s going to be adverse to either our immune system, or our overall level of inflammation in the oral cavity, it’s going to have consequences in places we can’t necessarily recognize and are subtle, so we’ll miss it. Because those aren’t going to be the things that are going to be glitzy glamorous, if you will, Grant ideas for money. So we will trundle along in this murky area of the unknown and we won’t necessarily recognize it so I think you’re absolutely right, Dr.SHIVA.

Dr.SHIVA:  I think one of the interesting things, Scott, is maybe I can find it here. I’m trying to I didn’t prepare for this but the oral cavity, so I think what we’ve tried to do is to educate people and this is where I think you as a Family Practitioner, and I as a Systems Biologist, I think we can serve to, we can do a whole follow up on this but I just wanted to share with you. I gave a talk on this just, looking at the different areas and I’ll just get this up right here. So we can see that the mouth directly affects many, many different diseases from Alzheimer’s, so we can look at these and these are the two bacteria in the mouth that have been shown to affect Alzheimer’s, periodontitis, caries, diabetes, pancreatic cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, colorectal cancer, esophageal cancer, cystic fibrosis. And obviously, I think most cardiologists know this when you’re getting a lot of tooth work done or what’s going on your mouth throat directly affects cardiovascular disease, but it’s unfortunate that the mainstream media doesn’t talk about this, the role of what happens around the mouth.

In our research, we literally mapped out all of these molecular pathways. But we also showed the actual mechanisms of how all this works. So, when this bacteria P-Gingivalis goes up, which can occur when you have high acidity in the mouth, high temperatures, this difference directly affects bone tissue, which then affects bone loss. In addition, the bacteria P-Gingivalis also affects the immune system, which can perturb it, which you get the cytokine storm, which means you’re perturbing, you’re creating inflammation conditions in the mouth. And then this bacteria at high levels will also affect your soft tissue, which leads to gum tissue loss. And this is directly related to what many of these folks are starting to see from dentistry, where they’re seeing this phenomenon in patients that they have never seen before. I think one of the ways that we can educate people, Dr. Jensen, is to move this discourse to the science from a Systems Approach, because I think we’ll have an unfair advantage in talking about this. And I look forward to doing more, getting deeper into this, because I think one of the critical things that we’re finding is, when you take a reductionist approach, which is what modern science has unfortunately become, they don’t want us to look at the whole elephant, they just want us to look at a part. And I think that’s how they create garbage science. So you can look at one little part, and you can say, Okay, if you put this covering here, it’s gonna solve a public health issue, forgetting that you may actually be creating a cascade of new public health issues. That was purposely never even discussed in the discourse before you’ve been imposed something like that.

Dr. Jensen:  To that point, I’ve oftentimes spoken to different audiences, and I have said that one of the most fallacious policy drivers for politicians and bureaucrats, was when they chose to elevate one illness above all other problems. And I think we saw that with COVID was no advanced recognition of the unintended consequences, and even the perverse incentives that we create from a societal and a payment perspective, in terms of overdoses and suicides, and the number of people that interrupted their chemotherapy for their cancers, the number of undetected cancers that when they were detected were later in the game, because the typical screening processes were abandoned. This idea of elevating one illness, above all other problems, and literally ignoring the issue of collateral damage, is the ultimate reductionist. You’re simply reducing everything to one thing. It’s all about COVID. Nothing else matters. That’s why we’re not diagnosing flu, because we’re not looking. That’s why we’re not diagnosing this, this or this, because it isn’t this, this or this. It’s all COVID. I just got done seeing a patient that broke his elbow a couple hours ago. And I looked at him and I smiled. I said, “Well, if you don’t mind, my saying, so I think we can confidently say that this is not COVID disease.”

Dr.SHIVA:  What did he say?

Dr. Jensen:  He laughed and loved it. And you can’t see that very often these days, can you? No, but I said, I think we can honestly say that here.

Dr.SHIVA:  Well, I had a friend of mine, in the National Guard, and he was sent to New York to go into apartments to get people out. He said everyone has been labelled as COVID, there was a guy in the alleyway who’d been shot in the head. He goes, that’s COVID. That’s what was occurring. And in March of last year, Dr. Jensen, in March of 2020, when I saw this, and I have a lot of colleagues of mine at MIT who are these esteemed guys in the immune system, and I looked at this, and in November of 2019 I had just given a talk at the National Science Foundation up in Indiana on the Modern Theory of the Immune System, because those people who study the immune system, they know that the reductionist way we looked at the immune system goes back to 1915. It’s all about white blood cell count, so only if you have the antibody, everything’s fine. And it’s and it’s almost like they’re looking at an orchestra and the conductor only plays the oboe. And if you play the oboe, you’re saying it’s a great piece of music. The immune system is a much more complex system. There’s interferons, there’s the microbiome. There’s many, many pieces of this orchestra. And I think part of this reductionism that’s been pummelling on since probably 1970. Again, since the acts that were passed for national immunization, it’s all been about the antibody.

But the reality is, we have many of these other subsystems that support the immune system. I think part of the entire aspect is medicine needs to move from this area of reductionism to the aspect of looking at the body as a system. When we start putting something here, what does it do to the entire infrastructure here? And I think, what you just shared, given this over emphasis in 2020, when I saw this occurring in March, I did a tweet, been thrown off Twitter recently when I started exposing the the election issues, but in 2020 I did a tweet, which said, “This fear mongering will go down in history, intended to push mandated medicine, to destroy economies, and to essentially suppress dissent.” That was in 2020. Once when I did that, I started doing some videos, I realized people didn’t understand the immune system. I got a call from a senior White House, one of the leading people that was advising Trump, he goes Shiva, please keep doing more videos. He goes, people don’t understand the immune system. He goes, right now Trump is following Fauci unilaterally and health policy is going to get destroyed, he says, I believe we’re headed for grand depression. So that’s when I started doing those videos to educate people.

But I think to your earlier point, there’s been a deliberate model to do garbage education of fear and to not educate people, and to put the entire model on fear. And the only line that I could draw from Dr. Jensen, when I connected it was to, if you look at the economic model, since 2012, Pfizer alone, one company, lost $25 billion in revenue. So in 2012, they made 65 billion, in 2020 they’re down to 41 billion, so they’ve lost around 24 billion in revenue. Because the old pharmaceutical reductionist model, the single molecule drug, is failing, they’re not able to find any more. So there’s a huge incentive for these guys, because they spend at least three times on R & D on marketing. They need this next marketing model, which is fear, uncertainty and doubt, which is what we’re witnessing, or so my analysis leads me to, follow the money. And we’ll see that there’s a huge monetary incentive just by one company because they have to increase revenue. And what better way than the jab, because the jab is reported, just in 2021, to increase Pfizer’s revenue, just one jab, $15 billion. So there’s a huge monetary incentive right now, because Big Pharma has actually been failing for the last 20 years, because their single molecule therapies no longer, even the FDA is not even allowing a lot of the drugs that are coming up because of side effects.

Dr. Jensen:  To that point. I think another thing happened in the 1970’s, in the 1960’s too that did impact. I don’t disagree with Dr.SHIVA, that dollars and government grants and government intervention has a profound impact. But I think the other thing that happened is medicine became more arrogant. I think this idea that if you didn’t have an MD behind your name, you really weren’t qualified to understand it or speak to something scientific. Some of the best voices that I have listened to over the last 12 months, I’m sorry, they don’t have the MD behind their name, but they’re very bright people. We’ve seen people just clamor to go into medicine, to get into medical school to get an MD behind their name. They get there within 10 years. They’re disenchanted, disillusioned and burnt out. I think when Christian Barnard did the heart transplant, right around 1960 and we started to move to, in 65’, In the US, we had Medicare and medical assistance, we got an influx of dollars, medicine pretty rapidly moved from what might be called a “calling” to a high status, high paying job where you didn’t necessarily have to earn trust or demonstrate scientific thought processes. You got it automatically. And so I think that physicians are part of the problem this year like, I never would have guessed, we’re entrenched. We’re divided.

When I used to go in the 1980’s to Grand Rounds, Grand Rounds was not where we would sit around and have a Kumbaya moment to hold hands. Grand Rounds was a vicious process of let’s dig in and figure out what’s causing this problem. My wife was the subject of Grand Rounds, during one of her pregnancies. We’ve abandoned that willingness to have the discourse. Now it’s, you said the wrong thing, you use the wrong word, you dare to say mask, you dare to say hydroxychloroquine, it doesn’t matter what we’re talking about, and you are going to be punished, you will be re-educated. To me, this is a big part of what’s happened. And I don’t know how we walk that back. So I have a little bit of pessimism about what the future is going to look like.

Dr.SHIVA:  Well it’s really interesting you say this Scott. When I saw my grandmother, no degrees, tattoos all over her arms, healed people she practiced a very different form of medicine, and that’s what got me interested in a Systems Approach to medicine. And I always wanted to be a doctor, it was fascinating Scott. As I went through high school you have to apply for your MCAT and all those things. I saw this in 1976-77, I saw this and my parents and I lived in Paterson, New Jersey, one of the poorest cities and then to Clifton and then to Parsippany. In the last three years of high school, my parents moved to a very wealthy neighborhood, because they wanted to get the better public education system. And in that neighborhood, and I think I was one of the top first or second kids in the class. But what I noticed was, there were kids who were way at the bottom, and their parents would just push them to go into medicine, because it was a career. So I remember this transition. And I remember when I got to MIT, I thought I wanted to do medicine, I was dissuaded, because I found that medicine didn’t take the body as a Systems Approach. But I saw many of the push in medicine was to just get that MD behind your name. And it sort of really got me really revolted.

And you’ll see this not only in the United States, around the same time in countries like India, I had cousins there whose parents would push them to get and to go to medical school, these kids weren’t even qualified. Because the MD degree, I think, to your point, had this stature, that you were essentially seen as a God. But I remember friends of mine, few of them at MIT, one of my friends, Mike McHugh, who ended up becoming a great, he’s in your neck of the woods up in Minnesota. But Mike was a hardcore engineer, and he would talk about Grand Rounds. And I think he was in the earlier part how he was a serious guy. I mean, he would go through problems and hash it out. But it was about solving a problem. And I think you’re, you’re hitting on a very important cultural point, because what happens is the arrogance took over. And the problem solution thing went into the background. Even I have friends of mine, who I consider reasonable friends or MDs. But if I start critiquing them, “hey, what about the fact that we don’t treat the immune system? What about this,” you can see their quills go up, because something deep in them has been trained to have this deep level of arrogance as though they’re better than everyone else.

Dr. Jensen:  But back to your point, what you just said about science, you can ask a lot of physicians to define science, and they should be able to give something that they may not, but what people should recognize about science is, you’re talking about observation, measurement, hypothesis, create an experiment, are you right or wrong? Back to the drawing board. That’s what science is. It’s this thing. But anyway, you mentioned before about this reductionist view of the immune system. Here’s something I wanted to introduce while you’re talking, two diseases that I was perplexed by. I’ve always been fascinated by them. And I think it has to do with COVID-19 is the whole concept of it’s not just about B-cells, it’s not just about T-cells. It’s not just about vaccines. There’s this other thing called disease resistance. Somehow it’s embedded within our genome. And the two diseases that I talked about that if you go try to read about it, there’s an absolute dearth of data about right now we’re discussing. One of them is how Afro Americans can be susceptible to sickle cell disease. But if they’re not, if suffering from sickle cell, but instead of carrier, they’ve got some sort of intrinsic disease resistance to malaria, this is the same thing with leprosy. If you go back to the days of Jesus, and you look, you wonder, why didn’t the whole society, the whole population have leprosy? Well, studies indicate pretty clearly that for probably 90% of people, there was an intrinsic disease resistance, where you couldn’t get leprosy. If you put it on your cereal in the morning. What does that come? Where is that? That’s what our minds have to question about the immune system, like you said that it’s incredibly complex. If we reduce it down to B-cells and T-cells, we’re missing the big picture, we’re missing all this.

Dr.SHIVA:  Scott, did we lose you?

Dr. Jensen:  Just briefly, I think. I was just finishing up my remarks. I’m afraid that this reductionism is allowing us to ignore these, these big picture things like, what does intrinsic disease resistance do? Why is it embedded within the Genome? How does it work? Are we looking at surrogate markers, and we’re missing the critical intermediaries along the way? I don’t know that.

Dr.SHIVA:  Yea, in 2018…. So the current model of the immune system, many people in the emerging field of Systems Immunology, say it’s based on a 1915 model. Basically you have the innate system, and you have the adaptive just as the two box model. That’s it. And that most MDs, unfortunately, because they haven’t, either because of the training or because of what’s going on in the Medical System, there’s a whole system called the interferon system, which now we know is the missing link between the innate and the adaptive. Then we have the microbiome, the virome, and the gut brain access, it’s a very complex system. But to your point on this concept of disease resistance, I think it’s very closely related to, over evolution, if you believe in evolution, or grand design, it doesn’t matter whatever designed us, evolution, or otherwise, embedded in us the concept of resilience to be able to resist things long term, and any system in nature man made system. If you’re an engineering systems person, you embed in that system the concept of resilience, which means it’s supposed to be able to take a hit, and come back stronger, and it has features in there that were designed to resist certain things.

A bridge if it’s just constructed purely straight, or stiff, it’s going to fall apart. If the wind hits and it starts moving, it has a certain amount of resilience to it. Skyscrapers in Japan, they build them on rollers right now. And the body has the same concept of resilience. There’s a very interesting paper I’ll send you called Stress Inoculation. And what the paper says is there are three phenomena which determine your ability to handle stress and the immune system. One is genetics, one is epigenetics, and one is stress inoculation, that your body awaits to be stressed, in a way, a certain amount of stressors, because that actually turns on a set of genes. So what some great work in Japan shows that when you get exposed to a virus, as it goes through the innate, the interferon system actually can upregulate about 1000 different genes, which remodels your DNA, which means that disease resistance, as you point out, is embedded in there to protect you against many other viruses long before antibodies even kick in. I think that’s why I think the System’s Approach to the immune system is extremely important.

Getting back to your earlier point about I think, last year, when I was running for Senate, I was going to talk and some guy said, Hey, Shiva, come meet this guy, he’s one of the leading guys at Harvard on something. I go, great. And he goes, Oh, Shiva was talking about the immune system and da-da-da, he goes, there’s many things he also goes, You don’t believe in antibiotics, you don’t believe in this? I go, look, what I’m saying is there’s many things involved. And this guy started freaking out. I go, look, I go, you know what, you’re pretty arrogant. Just because you come from Harvard and MD, you think you know it all. And it got into a pretty vigorous thing. But he got really angry that I did not bow down to him. I didn’t have an MD, PhD. Okay, so I had a little bit one up on him. But still the level of arrogance there was supreme, because I think it’s, it’s sort of like Intel Inside, it’s put into people that once you get that MD degree, it actually hurts the medical profession. Because people, they lose their openness to, like you say when you did Grand Rounds beyond the prior to that people actually were like engineering. You try to solve a thing. It was an exciting thing. You looked at every patient in a unique way. It wasn’t, it was about the right medicine for the right patient at the right time. I think we’ve moved away from that. And it’s unfortunate.

But that’s why I was excited that we connected Scott and a bunch of people across the internet saying we should connect, but I think these kinds of discussions, taking a Systems Approach. I think this area of disease resistance is fascinating, because when you look at Indians, for example, the explosive amount of diabetes. Never heard about it when I was growing up. Everyone, I mean, I used to remember my grandfather would eat rice like this tons of rice. But he used to work out in the fields. He got up at four in the morning, the 93-year-old man he’d work. So, John Esemeg, one of my former professors at MIT, said, “Shiva, diabetes is not a disease. It’s because people have changed their complete dietary habits. And it’s in fact the gene that exists and people from your population actually is for slow burning of food.” So now when you eat, Indians are now in India for example, you have dominoes, you have highly refined carbohydrates. He says India’s probably gonna have 300 million people with cardiovascular disease. So the gene that we call a disease gene is a reductionist way, was actually a gene that was created because when people used to migrate, they had less amount of food, it actually helped them burn stored fat very slowly. So, I think the notion of these phenomena that we call genes in the context of when they were created by evolutionary demands, we’ve taken them out of context.

So what we think is that something called sickle cell anemia, it may have been profoundly valuable to protect you against malaria, and it’s a necessary piece of evolution that people needed. But I think the bottom line, Dr. Jensen, I think when we want to talk about the interventions that people have proposed, one size fits all medicine, everyone should get the same medical approach, everyone should start putting on these things. And if as though these things are going to protect you, I think, in whether we are Pro-Mask Anti-Mask, Pro-Vax Anti-Vax, whatever that is, I think, in fact, that theater is actually hurting even the discourse, because it’s not getting to the heart of, because you have the the Kennedy guys over here who’ve been talking about Anti-Vax and they make money off of it. And over here, you have the Big Pharma guys, but that entire theater there has never got at the real issue about boosting the immune system about looking this as a system.

And I think, unfortunately, in every area, everything becomes black versus white, left versus right, right, pro versus anti. And I think people are tired of that. In a very fundamental way, I think people are worn out by it in some ways. There’s hope there because I think people are looking, I think people want a Systems Approach. Dr. Jensen, I think they’re looking for it,

Dr. Jensen:  I think that’s interesting that you chose that moment in time to use the word hope. If I were going to build on top of your use of the word hope, I would say that it’s important for us to recognize it’s really only been the last 60 years that physicians have become these demigods. And that we become so, if you will, certain of our rightness. Because if there’s one silver lining to this COVID-19 pandemic, it may well be that we will press reset, because we’re going to see that policymakers and bureaucrats and in a variety of people that weighed in, we’re not looking at it from any kind of a bigger perspective, they were very much reductionist. I mean, you look at Neil Ferguson, and what he did with his modelling, I think there’s hope that we can encourage the masses, don’t be so reliant on the political appointed bureaucrat, don’t be so reliant on the person that’s got MD behind their name. Bust through those walls, realize that we’ve all got the ability to think, cogitate and come up with our own conclusions. I tell my patients every day, physicians are very good at biology and chemistry and physics. But we can be pretty stupid when it comes to common sense. And we exhibit that all the time. And we need to remind our patients that it’s really only been a 60 year phenomenon across the span of human existence. We’ve never done this before, it’s probably not the right way to do it. Maybe now in 2021, we can be bursting forward and saying we can’t let this narrow myopic focus be the way we move forward because we are stymieing our potential for bigger understanding. We really are.

Dr.SHIVA:  I think I think you nailed that, Dr. Jensen. I know you’re running for governor, by the way everyone should know you’re running for governor in Minnesota. And let me tell you, whatever I can do to help you. When I ran for Senate, typically people like us scientists, doctors, physicians, or people who want to look at things differently, we’re not supposed to run the world of, quote, unquote, “politics,” again, in a very reductionist way. In the last probably, I mean, it wasn’t true when the founders were there, many of them actually knew math, and they knew what different things meant. They knew how to there were blacksmiths, all different kinds of backgrounds, particularly founded and doing real stuff with their hands or looking at people interacting. But I think when I ran we ran against someone called Elizabeth Warren. Here’s your typical Harvard professor who used race to get in. And then more recently when we ran, we had a great campaign but the reason I bring that up is that over I think this was not always true. The notion was, if you did this, the idea, this reductionism also tries to bucket people, right. And it’s a very powerful way of control. So in March of 2020 when I put out that tweet, and I started doing all those videos, I wrote to Trump, I said, Look, please don’t shut down the entire economy take a Systems Approach. Obviously, the people who are affected here, yeah, you follow normal things, quarantine is like grandmother’s advice. But the other people, if you really want to help them, there’s things called vitamin D3, there’s vitamin A, there’s things that boost the immune system.

And that letter his former wife delivered to the head of public policy had a long talk, I said, you need to get rid of this guy, referring to the bureaucrat we know we’re talking about. And Trump never did anything, because I think this is a problem with a quote unquote, a “billionaire.” And I supported Trump, gave money to him. And this is what’s happening. Now, the problems of the world are becoming so complicated, that when you start outsourcing, even like Trump did to a bureaucrat, you don’t really know what’s going on. And in 1960 John Kennedy gave a very interesting talk at the National Academy of Sciences. He said, look, the problem with democracy right now is the problems of the world are becoming so complicated. And millions of people elected me, and I’m sort of paraphrasing what he said. And when it comes to decision making on complex things, I outsource it to you guys, a small set of people, and you can think about it now. So if you look at something like the immune system, you look at weapons, whatever the systems are, a person in charge, or is outsourcing it, that decision made to maybe today on any one of these big decisions in academia, probably five university presidents can move the entire focus of anything in the world right now. That’s a consolidation of science that’s taking place, that a very finite set of people are making major decisions.

And so what came out of our campaign, Scott was we had this theme, Truth Freedom Health. And it really was very powerful, because we said, the movements for even from a Systems Approach, the “nerds” were the ones who were into science and innovation, the truth seekers. And over here were the people with the 1A and the 2A people, call them quote, unquote, “rednecks” with wanting the Second Amendment or the First Amendment. And over here were the “yoga” people, the earthy, crunchy granola people for health. And the point is that we have been educating people, and when you take a Systems Approach, whether it be your body or politics, we have to integrate all these movements, the movement for freedom, protecting the First Amendment, Second Amendment is directly related. So we can actually have public discourse to do great science. And from great science, we can actually get to real health but without health, we can’t fight for our freedom.

Dr. Jensen:  So your point, Yeah, it’s interesting. You quoted John Kennedy talking in 1960. Months later, Dwight Eisenhower was giving his farewell address. I will paraphrase him, but he said, there may come a day where our public policy is held captive to a scientific, technological elite. So here we are. We have this scientific elite that literally was in a moment, can discard someone is nothing but noise or distraction. We’ve got this technological elite that can shut you down, take you off this platform, that platform. We are seeing what Eisenhower said. And that even takes me back 200 years before when you look at Benjamin Rush, talking about the need for a health freedom amendment, because people need to have a freedom ensured in the Constitution, because Dr. Rush was concerned that there would come a day where people would lose their health. We’ll have to have another conversation in regards in regards to my campaign, if people would be willing to go to my website and just watch our launch video, because I think it’s an unusual political launch video that tries to create a very stark contrast between what was done and what could have been done. And the best way to get to our website is DrScottJensen.com. That’s how we’re going to do it. If we’re going to flip a blue state like Minnesota, it’s going to have to be a very granular groundswell approach. And we’re going to have to blow open the doors of group-think and say no more. We’ve got to let real science overwhelm political science.

Dr.SHIVA:  Definitely Scott, I know you have to get going and it’s almost 12 but everyone go to DrScottJensen.com. And Scott I think in closing, those in power do not want guys like us who came from the establishment speaking out against the establishment because people like us are supposed to fall in line by now and have been arrogant, been part of their system. This is great. Let’s do it again Scott, but I wish you well. Let’s keep in touch.

It’s time we move beyond the Left vs. Right, Republican vs. Democrat. It’s time YOU learn how to apply a systems approach to get the Truth Freedom Health you need and deserve. Become a Truth Freedom Health® Warrior.

Join the VASHIVA community – an integrated EDUCATIONAL, COMMUNICATIONS – independent of Big Tech -, and LOCAL ACTIVISM platform to empower YOU to actualize Truth Freedom Health in your local communities by employing a SYSTEMS APPROACH.

The platform we are building for Truth Freedom Health® provides the infrastructure to take on Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Academia. Many of you have asked how you can help. You can contribute whatever you can. Based on your level of commitment to get educated, I have also created some wonderful educational gifts to thank you for your contribution.

To get the education you need and deserve, join Dr.SHIVA on his Foundations of Systems course. This course will provide you three pillars of knowledge with the Foundation of Systems Thinking. The three pillars include: 1) The System Dynamics of Truth Freedom Health, 2) The Power of a Bottom’s Up Movement, and 3) The Not So Obvious Establishment. In this course, you will also learn fundamental principles of all systems including your body.

Course registration includes access to his LIVE Monday training, access to the Your Body, Your System tool, four (4) eBooks including the bestselling System and Revolution, access to the Systems Health portal and communications tools – independent of Big Tech – including a forum and social media for you to build community with other Truth Freedom Health Warriors.

This course is available online for you to study at your own pace.

It’s time to Get Educated, or Be Enslaved.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This