Interview with Mark Gober

Exposing the Fraud of Virology and the True Nature of Health

Mark Gober's journey from Princeton-educated investment banker to consciousness researcher represents one of the most compelling intellectual transformations of our time. After building a successful career in New York finance and Silicon Valley tech partnerships, Gober's world shifted dramatically in 2016 when he stumbled upon research suggesting that consciousness extends beyond the brain, that psychic abilities are real, and that our understanding of reality itself might be fundamentally flawed. This discovery launched him into an intensive exploration that would ultimately produce seven paradigm-shifting books, including his groundbreaking work on medicine that challenges the very foundations of virology and germ theory. His mainstream credentials and systematic approach to examining evidence make him uniquely positioned to present these controversial ideas to skeptical audiences who might otherwise dismiss them as fringe theories.

Of all Gober's contributions to the paradigm shift in human understanding, his work on virology stands out as particularly vital for our current moment. His book An End to Upside Down Medicine, especially Chapter 2, provides what many consider the most accessible yet comprehensive dismantling of virology's core assumptions available to lay readers. Through clear, logical analysis, Gober exposes how the "gold standard" of virus isolation established in 1954 doesn't actually isolate anything—it merely observes cells breaking down in a toxic soup and then infers a virus must be responsible. He reveals how virology lacks a true independent variable, making it a pseudoscience by definition. By walking readers through the logical fallacies, the telling responses to Freedom of Information requests from health agencies worldwide, and the historical development of viral theory, Gober makes complex scientific fraud comprehensible to anyone willing to question what they've been told about disease causation.

Beyond exposing the flaws in virology, Gober's work opens doorways to understanding health through entirely different lenses. His exploration of terrain theory reveals how symptoms might actually represent the body's intelligent detoxification processes, with bacteria and other microbes serving as helpful cleanup crews rather than attacking invaders. He examines how consciousness itself plays a fundamental role in health, citing cases like Anita Moorjani's spontaneous remission from cancer following a profound near-death experience. From German New Medicine's psyche-brain-organ connections to biofield interactions that might explain disease clusters without invoking contagion, Gober presents a revolutionary framework where physical health cannot be separated from consciousness, emotional states, and energetic factors that mainstream medicine systematically ignores. His research suggests that what we call "contagion" might actually be resonance between human biofields, and that collective fear during health scares could literally manifest as physical illness through consciousness effects.

This interview represents a crucial resource for anyone seeking to understand the massive deceptions underlying modern medicine and the revolutionary alternatives emerging to replace them. Having recommended Gober's book on medicine to many people, I've witnessed firsthand how his work serves as a gateway to awakening—helping readers quickly grasp concepts that might otherwise take years to understand. The detail and effort Gober put into answering these questions reflects his deep commitment to truth and his recognition that humanity stands at a critical juncture. As orchestrated health crises continue to be weaponized against populations worldwide, his insights into recognizing patterns of deception and maintaining sovereignty over our own consciousness become not just intellectually fascinating but practically essential. This conversation with Mark Gober offers both an exposé of one of science's greatest frauds and a roadmap toward reclaiming our understanding of what it truly means to be healthy, conscious beings in an interconnected reality far more extraordinary than we've been led to believe.

With thanks to Mark Gober.

Mark Gober - Speaker, Author, Podcast Host

An End to Upside Down Medicine: Contagion, Viruses, and Vaccines—and Why Consciousness Is Needed for a New Paradigm of Health: Gober, Mark

1. Mark, you've gone from investment banking in New York to Silicon Valley tech partnerships to writing about consciousness and medicine. What sparked this dramatic career shift, and how did your Princeton education in economics influence your current perspective on health and science?

My journey into these domains started unexpectedly in 2016. I was listening to podcasts and stumbled across research on the nature of consciousness and the nature of reality more broadly. I learned of science suggesting that the soul is real, that we all have innate psychic abilities (even if they’re often subtle), that our consciousness continues after our bodies die, and many other concepts traditionally regarded as “spiritual.” Prior to that point, I had rejected these notions as superstitious rationalizations that people believed simply because they didn’t want to think they live in a random and meaningless universe.

I began devouring books, peer-reviewed scientific literature, lectures, and anything I could find. The more I learned, the more I realized that my education had kept me in a box of falsehoods about who and what we are.

Initially, I had no plans of writing books. But after about a year of intense study, I felt that others might benefit if I summarized the science in one place. I hoped that my mainstream background might make the information more palatable to skeptics.

To make a long story short, I’ve since left my firm in Silicon Valley and have written a series of seven books published by Waterside Productions on a wide variety of paradigm shifts—not just about the nature of consciousness but also politics, economics, cosmology, health, and more. My personal journey is discussed in further detail in my book An End to Upside Down Living (2020).

With regard to health in particular, my sixth book, An End to Upside Down Medicine, was published in 2023. During my initial explorations in 2016, I had become interested in alternative medicine, energy healing, and related concepts. In 2020, I began looking more closely at vaccines, given all that was happening in the world at the time. In 2023, after watching and participating in a comprehensive virtual event titled “The End of COVID,” I began examining arguments against the germ theory of disease. My book on medicine ultimately blends these varied explorations in an attempt to understand the determinants of health and disease. The book documents the many ways in which the allopathic approach to medicine often fails.

2. Your chapter on virus isolation presents compelling evidence that virology might be fundamentally flawed. For readers new to this concept, can you explain what's actually happening in those cell culture experiments that virologists claim prove viral existence?

People get sick. Sometimes people get so sick that they die.

Yes, those are basic statements. But they need to be made clearly upfront. All too often, those new to a school of thought known as the “No Virus” position get confused about what’s being argued. The “No Virus” position does not question sickness and death. Instead, it questions whether viruses exist as the cause of illness, or, in the alternative, whether sickness and death can be explained by a myriad of other reasons that have nothing to do with an alleged virus. Those causes might deal with environmental toxins, malnutrition, various forms of radiation, psychospiritual factors, and many other possibilities (including ideas that are not understood or even contemplated by modern science).

Thomas Cowan, MD, often asks a simple question to start this exploratory journey: “How do you know a virus exists and causes disease?” I asked this question to a friend recently and the response was, “Science says so,” to which I responded, “And how does science know this to be true?” The response was: “Scientists have conducted research.” The question then becomes: What was the research that scientists conducted to demonstrate that viruses exist and cause disease?

Before diving into the details, it’s important to establish what a virus allegedly is. Basically, we’re told that a virus is a tiny intracellular parasite: it gets inside of a host cell of an organism, replicates, bursts out of the host cell and goes into another cell and does the same thing. In this process, it causes physical disease symptoms in the organism. Then it jumps from one organism to another one, does the same things, and causes the same symptoms.

If we wanted to know that a virus exists and causes disease, we’d want to observe a virus doing all of the things viruses allegedly do. Right?

The problem is that this has not been directly observed. The belief in a virus is based entirely on “indirect” evidence. Viruses are merely inferred to exist. No one has seen a virus doing all of the things it allegedly does inside of an organism, let alone being a contagious entity that goes from one organism into another.

By now you might be very confused. You can conduct a search on Google and find many images of viruses taken with electron microscopes.

But how do you know with certainty that those images are of disease-causing, contagious viruses rather than something else?

Electron microscope images show a static, dead thing rather than a moving, living thing. A virus is supposed to be actively moving around and causing disease as an intracellular parasite. That’s not what an electron microscope image shows.

More broadly, electron microscopes are problematic because in order to view the sample, it is tampered with in various ways—leaving us with images of something that might be very different from its natural state. And more generally, as noted by Harold Hillman, PhD, analyzing microbiology in a laboratory setting outside of the organism’s body doesn’t necessarily tell us what’s happening inside the organism—which is what we really care about.

So we’re told to believe that electron-microscope images of unmoving, dead things from a sample that’s been tampered with—outside of the organism’s body—are the very things running around an organism’s insides and wreaking havoc. Dr. Samantha Bailey calls electron-microscope images of alleged viruses UVOs: “Unidentified Viral Objects.”

There’s an even deeper question about these images, however: “What is the sample from which the electron microscope image has been taken?” If the sample just had viruses, and nothing but viruses, then we’d know that the electron microscope images are…just of viruses (even if they’re dead viruses). But if the sample had other material in it, then might the image be of some other structure—possibly one that has nothing to do with a virus?

Thus, we’d ideally want to have a truly purified sample of just the virus by itself. Put another way, we’d want to “isolate” the virus. We’d want to separate the virus from all other things. Dr. Cowan often gives a simple analogy: If you wanted to isolate a hammer from a toolbox, you’d take just the hammer out so that you can study and characterize it.

That’s never done in virology. Never.

Why? Because the “gold standard” method of virus “isolation” comes from a 1954 study by Enders and Peebles which does not result in a truly purified sample of just the virus by itself. To simplify the method in layman’s terms: They took fluids from people sick with measles and put them into a soup of material known as a “cell culture.” The cell-culture soup contained antibiotics, monkey kidney cells, and much more. If cells broke down after fluids were added from measles patients to the cell-culture soup, they concluded: “We isolated the virus.”

Is that really “isolating” a virus? No. They changed the definition of isolation. Isolation means separating one thing from all other things. In the “virus isolation” method used since 1954, scientists simply observe that cells break down, and they then infer that a virus was the cause—because they presuppose that the people with allegedly viral diseases like measles must have had a virus in their body that caused the symptoms.

Might there be other reasons that cells would break down in the cell-culture soup? Could toxic substances in the cell-culture soup cause cells to break down, even without the addition of fluids from a sick person? Could there be nonviral substances in the fluids of a sick person that cause cells to break down? Many possibilities exist that have nothing to do with a virus.

It is true that if a virus existed in the manner postulated by scientists…cells would break down in the cell-culture soup. But observing cells breaking down in the cell-culture soup doesn’t necessarily indicate that a virus caused it.

This speaks to a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent: If x, then y; y, therefore x. As an example: “If it rains, then the grass outside will be wet; I observe wet grass, therefore it rained.” The second statement is the problem. It ignores other reasons why the grass could be wet such as dew, sprinklers, or many additional possibilities. More generally, a model might indeed be able to explain an observation, but that doesn’t mean that model is the correct one. The gold-standard virus “isolation” method is based on this very logical fallacy.

Ironically, Enders and Peebles acknowledged in their 1954 paper the possibility that cells broke down in the cell-culture soup for other reasons. They wrote that there could be “unknown factors.”

Yet this quiet warning was not heeded, and an industry has been born based off the inference that cells breaking down indicates the existence of a virus. From a scientific perspective, this is problematic because it implies that virology studies lack an independent variable. An independent variable is the thing that’s introduced into a study to see its effects. If we wanted to study the effects of a virus, we’d want to introduce just the virus itself into a study. But if there’s never been a sample of just the virus by itself, we can’t know if “unknown factors” are involved. Certainly virologists filter samples obtained from sick people, but existing filtering methods do not leave them with a sample of just the virus by itself.

It's quite mind-blowing to consider: Virology studies lack a truly independent variable. Without an independent variable, proper controls are inherently problematic because a control would exclude the independent variable. And furthermore, scientists would want to consistently run trials with the cell-culture soup in which no fluids are added from the sick person (among other variations such as adding nonviral substances to test whether cells break down anyway).

This is just a brief summary of one of the core critiques of modern virology: it lacks a truly independent variable and proper controls. Following the scientific method entails having an independent variable and proper controls. So, if the scientific method is not being followed in virology, then there is no choice but to label virology as a pseudoscience—by definition.

If you’re new to this, you might find it too hard to believe that virologists have never worked with a truly purified sample of a virus. I felt the same way. However, the work of Christine Massey and her colleagues is eye-opening. They have submitted detailed Freedom of Information requests to health organizations around the world asking for evidence of a truly purified viral sample for many, many alleged viruses. Repeatedly, the health organizations say they don’t have it. With regard to the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus (the virus that we’re told causes COVID-19 disease), roughly 225 health organizations in 40 countries have responded to Freedom of Information requests stating they have no records of a truly purified sample. The Public Health Agency of Canada even stated explicitly in its December 2021 response that the “gold standard” method “is viral isolation in cell culture” and “the isolation of a virus cannot be completed without the use of another medium.” In other words, they admitted that the gold-standard method used in virology is not true isolation, it’s not separating the virus from all other things. Therefore, there is no independent variable.

Many detailed Freedom of Information requests and health-agency responses—with regard to SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses—are freely available at https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/.

The implications here are deep. We’re forced to conclude that anything using the term “viral” is based off of an inference of the existence of something that’s never been found. “Viral” proteins, “viral” morphology, “viral” antibodies, “viral” antigens, “viral” tests, “viral” genomes, “antiviral” drugs…they all might have explanations that have nothing to do with a virus. In fact, referring to something abstract and unestablished over and over again is known as the reification fallacy. Is the notion of a “virus,” and the entire field of virology based on the reification fallacy?

Let’s look at a few of the above examples quickly. If scientists find a protein, how can they know that it’s tied to a virus if the virus has never been established first? If they see a structure that they claim is a virus, how can they know that it’s a virus rather than something else? How can tests related to antibodies or antigens be definitively linked to a virus rather than something else? How can a genome be definitively tied to a virus if the sample has nonviral material in it? Scientists would want to have a sample of just the virus so that the alleged viral sequences can be catalogued, without the risk of mixing in nonviral material. And finally, can an “antiviral” medication be known to alleviate symptoms because it’s targeting the virus versus some other mechanism? For instance, radiation therapy might help with cancer symptoms, but not because it’s anticancer, per se. An antiviral drug might stop the body from producing symptoms by interrupting metabolic activity, for example, and not because it’s targeting an alleged virus.

The point is that there might be other explanations for all phenomena allegedly tied to a virus—even if we don’t know what those explanations are. It’s possible to say “I don’t know” while also demonstrating that the viral theory has not been established using the scientific method. Dr. Mark Bailey’s A Farewell to Virology dives into these technical matters in much greater detail.

While this subject has garnered significant attention since 2020—especially thanks to work of classically trained doctors Andrew Kaufman, Thomas Cowan, Samantha Bailey, and Mark Bailey, among others—it’s important to recognize that questioning virology is not new. Around the HIV/AIDS era there was an organization called The Perth Group that asked similar questions. In particular, their detailed paper “HIV – a virus like no other” has 383 endnotes and concludes: “On the basis of the presently available data in the scientific literature, one has no choice but to conclude that whatever ‘HIV’ is, it is not ‘the virus that causes AIDS,’ or even ‘a real virus’.” Along similar lines, Dr. Stefan Lanka, a classically trained virologist has been outspoken about the problems with virology for many years.

But long before these critiques, the virus issue was mysterious. Historically, the word virus referred to a poison, not an intracellular, replication-competent parasite. Doctors observed sickness and often assumed that a tiny, transmissible agent must have been responsible (even if they couldn’t see it). Many of these assumptions were held long before the advent of technology that could see things as small as viruses are alleged to be (i.e., the electron microscope wasn’t even invented until the 1930s).

Moreover, Watson and Crick’s “double-helix” structure of DNA paper, published in 1953, made way for the possibility of a genetic, disease-causing parasite. When combined with the 1954 Enders and Peebles “virus isolation” study, and also the discovery of the bacteriophage (often inferred to be a parasite infecting bacteria), there emerged a new model to try to explain why people get sick: the modern-day virus.

In July 2022, a “Settling the Virus Debate” statement was issued by twenty MDs, PhDs, and researchers—including Michael Yeadon, PhD, a former high-level Pfizer executive. The document lays out experiments with specific methodologies that would follow the scientific method in an effort to determine whether the viral theory is “factual.” However, thus far, the challenge appears to have been unmet.

It’s incredibly risky for scientists and doctors to consider the “No Virus” position. They risk losing their licenses and being called crazy. Even worse, there’s potentially risk to their personal safety. So perhaps it’s not surprising that many credentialed individuals sit on the sidelines.

One final note: While the “No Virus” position contends that a virus hasn’t been established using the scientific method—and many in this camp would claim more strongly that viruses simply do not exist—it’s not possible to prove a negative. In other words, we can’t prove that a virus does not exist because it’s always theoretically possible that it will be discovered in the future. Similarly, as many virus skeptics would also contend, we can’t prove that a thirteen-headed flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist. Maybe one day we’ll find it.

3. When you researched the "No Virus" position, what common objections do you encounter, and how do you address the question "but what about contagion - we all see people getting sick together"?

Some argue that truly isolating a virus is impossible because a virus is an intracellular parasite. Therefore, it exists inside the host cell that it’s infecting. The virus can’t be separated from the host cell. That’s certainly a convenient answer.

But it’s also inherently problematic based on the way viruses are supposed to work. A virus would need to get inside the host cell. And later it would burst out of the host cell before traveling to other cells to infect. In theory, a virus could then be captured before or after it goes into the host cell.

The HART Group in England, an organization full of credentialed scientists and doctors, even claimed in 2023 that perhaps “there has never been a pure isolate of SARS-CoV-2 virus” because no one “has tried hard enough to carry out this work.”

Another common argument uses epidemiology—patterns of sickness—to claim that viruses exist. The problem is that observing something doesn’t necessarily reveal its cause. Just because people got sick doesn’t mean a virus caused it. Just because rain results in wet grass doesn’t mean that observing wet grass proves that it rained.

For instance, if people went to a party and got sick afterward, they might claim they “caught” something at the party. The word “caught” implies that they believe an intracellular parasite jumped from another person into their body and got inside their cells and caused disease. They never saw any of this but assumed that because they got sick, a contagious virus must have caused it.

However, why else might they have gotten sick? Were there similar toxins or poisons they were exposed to at the party—in the food, drinks, air, or even the building materials? As Dr. Cowan often puts it: If a bunch of rats went into a basement full of rat poison, and you went downstairs to find dead rats, would you conclude that they died because of a contagious virus?

That’s not the end of the story. There are many other possibilities to consider as to why people in the same place got sick afterward. Could there have been EMFs, electricity, or radiation that caused sickness? What about emotional stimuli that they were exposed to that caused their bodies to produce physical symptoms? What if there are energies or aspects of science that medicine doesn’t currently acknowledge that can cause disease? The point is that symptoms can emerge due to shared exposure to things that have nothing to do with an alleged virus.

Even if we don’t know the factor or factors that cause symptoms, that doesn’t mean we should default to the virus model. “I don’t truly know why people got sick after the party” is an acceptable answer, as unsettling as it might be.

Furthermore, because the viral hypothesis is so deeply entrenched in medical thinking, there’s far less funding toward these alternative hypotheses. Those hanging onto the mainstream narrative can claim that “there isn’t good enough evidence for these alternative hypotheses.” Again, that’s a convenient response given that alternatives are studied far less often. Scientists would have to put their careers at risk to challenge the pharmaceutical industry’s paradigm. Not everyone is willing to do that.

4. You mention terrain theory as an alternative to germ theory. How do symptoms actually serve us according to this perspective, and why might suppressing them be counterproductive?

So far I’ve addressed the basics of the No Virus position, but it’s important not to confuse alleged viruses with other microbes. For example, bacteria, fungi, and large parasites can be clearly observed because they are much larger than viruses are alleged to be. The question is whether those other microbes cause disease.

Certainly they are correlated with disease. Someone very sick might have an overgrowth of bacteria, for instance. We can clearly see the bacteria, so there’s no question about whether they exist. And perhaps those bacteria emit endotoxins that can be harmful in very large quantities. But does that mean that the bacteria caused the sickness?

Do firefighters cause fires? No. Firefighters appear at the scene to put out fires; they’re a clean-up crew when there’s a problem. Similarly, what if bacteria and other microbes appear in large quantities when the body needs to be cleaned up? That would mean these microbes are falsely accused. The terrain perspective holds that position. It considers microbes to be helpful and symbiotic to the organism.

Under the terrain perspective, if we want to understand the root cause(s) of disease, the underlying bodily environment needs to be examined. That means studying the toxins someone is exposed to, their diet, and so on. Arguably a person’s “terrain” could be expanded beyond their physical body. It could be applied to their mind and psychospiritual “terrain,” which would involve examining the role of the psyche on one’s health. All of this is akin to making sure the soil is healthy so that plants can grow properly.

From the terrain perspective, symptoms are the body’s attempt to detoxify and/or adapt. Microbes assist the body in this process. On the contrary, the germ theory of disease says that microbes cause disease; that is, they launch attacks on otherwise healthy tissue. These are very different points of view.

Within the terrain perspective, symptoms are a necessary part of healing. Suppressing symptoms prematurely might then stop an otherwise adaptive process, leading to worse symptoms at a later stage. But in some cases, symptoms might be so severe (because the person’s terrain is toxic) that a traditional medical intervention is needed to avoid death. Each situation is unique and requires a nuanced view on treatment. Hopefully more healers with a terrain perspective will emerge in order to help patients manage these nuances.

5. Building on terrain theory, what are your thoughts on pleomorphism - the idea that microorganisms change form based on the body's internal environment? If bacteria are actually helping rather than harming us, how should we rethink our use of antibiotics, which are designed to kill these potential helpers?

I’ve heard about this concept but have not studied it deeply enough to make a judgment.

The basic idea, as I understand it, is that there aren’t distinct microbes in the way that mainstream medicine claims. For instance, doctors identify different types of bacteria as distinct entities; whereas, from the perspective of pleomorphism, those apparently different bacteria are just different manifestations emerging from some primordial organism—known as microzyma—that can “morph” into the type of microbe needed to help the body in a certain situation.

I hope more research dollars will be devoted to studying this idea. It would revolutionize the way we think about germs and biology more broadly. However, that will remain challenging if mainstream medicine stays within the paradigm of germ theory.

6. In your book, you discuss biofields and electromagnetic aspects of health. Could you elaborate on how human biofields might communicate with each other, potentially explaining disease clusters without invoking contagious pathogens?

As Shamini Jain, PhD, writes in her book Healing Ourselves: Biofield Science and the Future of Health (2021): “We are bioelectromagnetic beings.” Mainstream medical thinking is biased by its physicalist perspective, which views humans as material beings while often ignoring potentially “energetic” aspects to our existence. The energetic or metaphysical components are typically ignored or dismissed as superstition—even though ancient traditions have consistently contemplated subtle energies.

Notions of “energy healing” deserve discussion in this regard. Dr. Jain conducted a 2011 study, published in the journal Cancer, in which energy workers provided biofield healing to breast cancer survivors and reduced their fatigue. By placing their hands on the patients, the healers claimed that they cleared stuck energy in the patients’ biofields. Along similar lines, Eileen McKusick has become well-known for her work using tuning forks for biofield healing.

One might wonder if, when people are in the same space, whether one person’s biofield can interact with another person’s biofield. Would that mimic the phenomenon of alleged microbial contagion? In other words, is it possible for a sick person’s biofield to interact with a healthy person’s biofield and cause symptoms of disease?

Much more research on this topic is needed, and until then many conjectures will remain hypothetical. The Emerald Gate Foundation has published a number of exciting initiatives, including peer-reviewed research, and hopefully others will follow suit.

7. The resonance between people you describe is fascinating. Do you think what we call "contagion" might actually be a form of energetic synchronization between people, similar to how women's menstrual cycles can sync?

Related to the notion of human biofield interactions is a broader notion of “resonance.” For instance, the HeartMath Institute has uncovered heart-rate synchronizations among emotionally close individuals.

Similarly, Larry Dossey, MD, has chronicled “telesomatic events” reported in roughly thirty percent of identical twins. As Dr. Dossey summarizes the phenomenon: “They simultaneously and at a distance have the same thoughts and even the same physical symptoms as their twin. This is some of the most dramatic evidence that we are connected through space and time at the level of consciousness.”

While additional research is certainly needed, the mere possibility of resonance between humans naturally raises questions about allegations of “contagion.” Could the emergence of similar physical symptoms be explained by a hidden interconnectedness between individuals?

8. If virology is indeed fraudulent as your research suggests, what happens to our entire understanding of vaccines, antiviral medications, and pandemic preparedness? What are the broader implications?

If viruses don’t exist and cause disease, then why would we need a vaccine? Why would we need an antiviral drug? Why would we worry about pandemic preparedness to stop something that doesn’t exist?

The demise of virology would be the demise of all of this. Therefore, while it’s important to study the toxicity of vaccine ingredients, for example, that’s more of a surface-level issue. The real issue is whether vaccines even make sense as medical treatments if they’re fighting an enemy that doesn’t exist.

Since 2020, there has been more widespread questioning around the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Scientists should be welcoming this because the scientific process is inherently one of challenging paradigms. But the next step for vaccine skeptics—among doctors, scientists, citizens, and politicians alike—will be to examine the underlying premise behind vaccines: that microscopic organisms are making people sick.

9. You write about consciousness playing a central role in health. Can you share specific examples of how shifts in consciousness have led to spontaneous healings that you've researched?

Consciousness is typically regarded as something that magically pops out of our brain. In other words, the reason you have awareness in this very moment is solely due to chemical and electrical activity happening within the mass inside your skull. However, no one has ever witnessed consciousness popping out of a brain. Nor does science understand how this could even occur. How could something abstract and intangible like consciousness emerge from a physical, biological structure like a brain?

Scientists assume that consciousness comes from the brain because consciousness is correlated with brain activity. But correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation. If consciousness existed beyond the body, and the brain/body system were like an antenna/receiver or interface/filter of consciousness, then we might also see such correlations. For example, if you broke the antenna on your television set, the show you were watching would be scratchy on the screen. But that’s not because the signal was damaged. Rather, the apparatus responsible for processing the signal was damaged.

If this notion were true, then we’d need to rethink what a human being is. The body could then be regarded as a vessel or vehicle of consciousness.

Some have gone as far as to suggest that consciousness is the substrate underlying all of reality—and the entire world we observe, including our individual bodies, is a manifestation of consciousness itself. As Nobel-prize winning physicist Max Planck famously stated in 1931: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.” I discuss this notion further in my first book, An End to Upside Down Thinking (2018) and my podcast series, Where Is My Mind? (2019).

Let’s consider this possibility—that consciousness plays a fundamental role in our reality. It would then logically follow that a shift in consciousness entails a shift in our (apparently) material reality. In other words, reality is to some degree malleable.

This is observed in the science of psychokinesis, in which one’s mental intention or state of mind alters the physical world. The phenomenon has been established with statistical significance by researchers at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (such as Dean Radin, PhD) and by others like former Princeton researcher Roger Nelson, PhD (including his work with the Global Consciousness Project).

If the science of “psychic” abilities sounds too crazy to be true, consider Dr. Jessica Utts’s statement—she was the 2016 president of the American Statistical Association: “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well-established.” Or see Dr. Etzel Cardeña’s 2018 paper published in American Psychologist and his 2025 paper published in the International Review of Psychiatry discussing the statistical evidence for psychic phenomena. It’s quite significant that two prominent, peer-reviewed journals published his analysis.

So if we accept that the mind can impact physical matter, it logically follows that shifts in one’s consciousness could then shift the physical body. This idea is accepted in mainstream science to some degree through its acknowledgment of the placebo effect. But the more mystical elements of shifts in consciousness are typically ignored or dismissed as science fiction. That’s because modern science operates from a physicalist metaphysics that prefers to impute physical causes to physical changes, while often not considering potential nonphysical influences such as consciousness.

A famous example of a consciousness shift that resulted in physical healing is that of Anita Moorjani. She was dying of cancer and had tumors all over her body. While in a coma she had a profound, mystical experience of lucidity within her consciousness, known as a near-death experience (NDE). During her NDE, she encountered her deceased father and realized that she had been too critical of herself during her life. Upon being resuscitated, her tumors disappeared. Her doctors were stunned. Perhaps her shifts in consciousness, and the associated conflict resolutions in her psyche, resulted in physical changes in her body that saved her life.

Spontaneous healings like this pose a major challenge to mainstream medical thought because one would think an explicitly physical change would be needed to make tumors to disappear.

Moorjani’s case is not the only one, however. The Institute of Noetic Sciences published an annotated bibliography of spontaneous remissions, which should cause modern medicine to reconsider many of its assumptions.

10. The section on German New Medicine suggests that symptoms are actually the resolution phase of conflicts. How does this change how we should approach illness when it arises?

German New Medicine is a fascinating area of study that I’d like to learn more about. It’s a highly nuanced subject, and often it’s mischaracterized or oversimplified. For those interested in learning more, see the work of Dr. Melissa Sell (such as her video, GNM 101: Introduction to the Five Biological Laws). Also,

https://learninggnm.com/

is a helpful, detailed resource.

My simplified, novice overview of GNM is as follows: There is a psyche-brain-organ connection. In other words, when someone is faced with a “conflict shock” to their psyche, a lesion in the brain can be observed in CT scans, and those brain lesions correspond to diseased organs and related symptoms. After observing enough of these patterns, GNM practitioners can help patients uncover the conflict shock(s) that might be related to their health problems.

But in GNM, a conflict shock isn’t just any trauma. It’s a dramatic, distressing event that is also unexpected wherein the person feels isolated in dealing with it.

Moreover, a key understanding in GNM is that the conflict shock relates to the person’s perception of the event. The same event can be experienced very differently by different people. To some people, an event might be completely benign, while to others, it’s a major conflict shock.

Even though GNM focuses on the psychic roots of disease, it acknowledges that poison, malnutrition, and physical injury can also cause sickness.

In some cases, symptoms within a GNM framework occur when a person is in the “conflict active” phase, meaning the conflict shock is ongoing. In other cases, symptoms occur when the conflict has been resolved. So symptoms in these instances are part of the “healing phase”: the person’s body had built up defenses to manage the conflict, and once the conflict was resolved, the body could then flush it out. In these cases, symptoms can be viewed as a good thing because they indicate the resolution of a conflict.

Depending on a person’s symptoms, a GNM approach to health would be to ask: “What happened in your life around the time of these symptoms?” Similarly, a GNM approach would inquire about whether there are things in a person’s life that remind them of a past conflict shock. These are known as tracks—scenes, smells, tastes, etc. that the psyche associates with the original conflict shock.

Studying the psyche, and consciousness more broadly, is a challenging endeavor from the perspective of the scientific method. Because consciousness is abstract and intangible, we can’t fully grasp it or characterize it in the same way that we can study a hammer, for example. It’s nonphysical. Therefore, using a state of consciousness as an independent variable within the scientific method is problematic for modern science.

But this isn’t just an issue for GNM. Every scientific experiment in every discipline is problematic because it would need to control for the impact of all forms of consciousness that could impact the study—not only the consciousness of the participants and experimenters, but also others who might be affecting the study with their consciousness. Recall that the study of psychokinesis suggests this is possible. Consciousness thus renders the scientific method itself problematic as a method of inquiry.

All that said, continued research into GNM is critical. If practitioners can correlate the psyche with brain lesions and disease—and suggest treatments that are safe and helpful to their clients—then there’s huge value in this approach.

11. Your research into pesticides and polio is eye-opening. What other major diseases might have environmental rather than viral causes that we've overlooked?

In my book An End to Upside Down Medicine, I cite the work of Jim West and his research linking pesticide use to symptoms typically labelled as polio (assumed to be caused by a contagious virus).

While it might sound blasphemous to think that polio symptoms are not caused by a contagious virus, let’s look at the situation objectively. The first step in trying to demonstrate that it is a contagious virus would be to truly isolate the virus itself. We’d want to have a sample of just the virus and then introduce that purified sample into healthy organisms.

The CDC’s June 2021 response to Christine Massey’s Freedom of Information request asking for studies/records of a truly purified sample of a virus that causes polio symptoms was as follows: “A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request.” A host of other health organizations in other countries gave similar responses (as mentioned on pages 73-74 in chapter 4 of An End to Upside Down Medicine). Given my prior discussion about the “gold standard” method of virus isolation, these responses make sense.

The alleged demonstration that polio is contagious came from research in 1909 by Drs. Simon Flexner and Paul Lewis. They took ground-up spinal cord fluid and injected it into a living monkey’s brain. The monkey became paralyzed. Then, to demonstrate the “transmission” of the “virus,” they injected fluids from the sick monkey’s brain into other monkeys, and those monkeys got sick. In other words, they used unpurified samples (that is, samples presumed to have a virus in them). And furthermore, they claimed to demonstrate transmission by using a totally unnatural method: the injection of material into the brain of a living monkey.

That’s not the way that polio is allegedly transmitted in the natural world. People aren’t injecting each others’ brains with unpurified samples. One might wonder if the mere act of injecting anything into a brain can cause illness.

This is emblematic of problems with alleged “contagion” studies more broadly—even beyond polio. The scientists don’t ever truly purify the virus (because that’s not the gold standard). Filtering a sample is not the same as having a truly purified sample, either. So they don’t have an independent variable in their studies. And they often introduce unpurified samples into animals in cruel and unnatural ways, claiming that the resulting symptoms demonstrate contagious transmission.

All of this suggests that alternative explanations need to be considered when symptoms arise in a population. As mentioned earlier, in the case of polio, pesticide use has been linked to the incidence of polio symptoms. That doesn’t require the existence of a virus.

The bigger point here is that doctors often jump to causal explanations of symptoms when they see patterns of disease. They assume that a microbe, such as a contagious virus, caused the symptoms. And they ignore the many other possible causes, including toxicity and malnutrition, or even more abstract concepts like the biofield, resonance, and consciousness.

Any alleged microbial illness can be reevaluated in this manner. We have to ask the question: How was it established that a microbe causes specific symptoms? Dawn Lester and David Parker review example after example in their seminal book What Really Makes You Ill? (2019), and in chapter 4 of An End to Upside Down Medicine I include several examples beyond polio: SARS, Spanish Flu, Avian Flu, Smallpox, Chicken Pox, Hepatitis, Rabies, and Black Death. In every case, a narrative can be created in which symptoms arose from factors that had nothing to do with a tiny, contagious microbe.

However, I’m hesitant to definitively state “this is what causes disease X” because there are many possible factors at play. For now, much of this exploration remains a creative exercise to develop hypotheses.

On the other hand, the germ theory of disease can be shown to be problematic. That leaves us in an uncomfortable position of saying, “I’m not sure precisely why people have these symptoms, I just know that scientists haven’t shown it’s a microscopic organism.”

For instance, in the case of the Spanish Flu, if there were such a highly contagious virus it should have been easy to devise a study in which healthy people were exposed to sick people. Clearly, the healthy people would have gotten sick…right?

This study was in fact conducted by Milton Rosenau, MD, and the results were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The researchers tried everything they could to try to make healthy people sick. They even injected fluids from sick people into healthy people and had sick people cough in the faces of healthy people. None of the healthy people got sick.

Another important resource on this topic is the book Can You Catch A Cold?: Untold History & Human Experiments (2024) by Daniel Roytas. He examines over 200 studies trying to demonstrate that a cold is contagious. His basic conclusion after analyzing these studies is that “the cold” has not been established to be caused by a contagious virus.

12. When approaching illness from a terrain perspective, what are the most important physical factors people should address first - nutrition, toxin exposure, EMFs, or emotional stress? Can you give concrete examples of how to support the body's detoxification processes?

I’m hesitant to make clinical prescriptions given how much is unknown about the human body and how little we understand the exact mechanisms underlying health and disease. Each person’s situation is unique, as well.

However, my general bias is to start by focusing on matters involving consciousness: examining one’s thoughts, beliefs, traumas, life circumstances, stressors, dissatisfactions, relationships, and more. This can be an uncomfortable process and is often best assisted by mentors, coaches, and/or trained therapists.

Additionally, metaphysical concepts can be incorporated into one’s thinking. Here is one example to stimulate ideas: The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has examined over 2,500 cases of young children who remember a life that is not their own. In the most compelling cases, the researchers found historical records validating what the children claimed. As discussed in Ian Stevenson, MD’s book Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect (1997), there are instances in which a child has birthmarks or physical defects that correspond to the way the child claimed to have died in another life—and in some cases the researchers found medical records to validate what the child said. These cases are particularly striking because they suggest that something metaphysical, and totally unrelated to the current life, is affecting the physical body of the child in this life. If that’s true, one would be well-served to seek spiritual guidance to try to unlock such factors that might be (quietly) impacting one’s current life.

The notion of “other lives” is just one area of consideration. Another is the notion of ancestral trauma—particularly Bert Hellinger’s family constellation work.

Beyond these nontraditional angles, there are many professionals examining optimal forms of nutrition, lifestyle patterns, alternative medical treatments, and methods of preventing toxicity. Dr. Tom Cowan’s New Biology Clinic is one such cutting-edge organization, and hopefully similar groups will emerge.

13. The book discusses how collective fear during health scares might actually contribute to illness through consciousness effects. What practical techniques can individuals use to maintain their own energetic boundaries and health when surrounded by widespread panic?

As discussed earlier, the state of our consciousness might impact our physical health in ways that traditional medicine currently ignores. This can be weaponized to keep people in a state of fear, thereby negatively impacting their physical health. But for those who understand the power of their own consciousness, there’s a big opportunity to harness that power.

For example, developing a practice that calms the mind is critical. For some people, meditation helps. For others it’s breathing techniques or movements such as qi gong or magical passes (from the Toltec tradition). For others, it’s somatic practices that tune into the body’s sensations. The key is to find what works for you and identify what enables your mind to remain in the present moment—without being consumed by fear about the future or ruminating about the past.

This can be challenging when social pressures encourage states of fear, blind conformity, obedience to authority, and disempowerment. One’s inner strength and conviction are then paramount.

14. Your research suggests that past medical deceptions like HIV/AIDS served as templates for recent events. What patterns do you see being repeated, and what can we learn to avoid falling for future orchestrated health crises?

There seems to be a pattern in the narrative: We’re told to believe in an invisible enemy that only experts can truly identify. That enemy is presented as the cause of our problems. Rather than considering many possible causes of those problems, the public is encouraged to believe that a specific invisible enemy has already been established as the cause. Those who ask questions are censored on social media and called crazy conspiracy theorists.

A way to fight this pattern is to ask a basic question: How do we know that the claimed invisible enemy exists and is as dangerous as it’s said to be? If the authorities won’t answer the question thoroughly, or if they rely on a mountain of inferences, one would be wise to be skeptical.

But ultimately, we cannot rely on the authorities as our only source of truth. We need to evaluate the claims ourselves and conduct our own research. The more people that adopt this attitude, the more unlikely it will be that the authorities can mislead the public.

15. As we close, what projects are you currently working on, and where can readers follow your ongoing research and insights into consciousness, health, and human potential?

The topics discussed here are covered in much greater detail in An End to Upside Down Medicine which contains hundreds of endnotes and was kindly reviewed in detail prior to its publication by Drs. Andrew Kaufman and Mark Bailey.

All seven of my books are available on Amazon in hard copy, Kindle, and Audible formats (I narrate the Audibles). My website, https://www.markgober.com/, has more information. You can also follow me on my social media accounts (Instagram, Twitter/X, Facebook, and Telegram), which is where I typically announce any new projects.

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.