Shifting Vantage Points: A New Lens on Health and Science

Interview with Gander Joy

About the Author

During the night on November 27th, 1944, residents of the small town of Freiburg in Germany were woken by the noise of their farm geese, who sensed the approach of allied bombers and began honking alarm and warning. The townspeople just had time to shelter in cellars before the bombs fell.

Not one person died.

Geese do not hold back when voicing danger.

In the wake of Operation Lock Step, a period that jolted many, including myself, into questioning the foundations of modern medicine, I found a resonant voice in Gander Joy, a longtime reader of my Substack. Her book, Electrical Health: A Pathway of Rational Thought, and this interview, articulate a rigorous critique of mainstream scientific paradigms, particularly the unproven hypotheses of germ theory and virology. Joy’s journey, sparked by personal experiences with alternative healthcare modalities, led her to reject the mechanistic allopathy that dominates Western medicine. She argues, with compelling clarity, that disease stems not from pathogens but from disruptions in the body’s terrain—poisoning, starvation, injury, or delusion. Her childhood anecdote of finding chocolates by shifting perspective, detailed in the book’s foreword, mirrors her methodological pivot: to see clearly, one must stand in a new place, unencumbered by conventional assumptions. The pandemic, which exposed the fragility of scientific consensus, underscored for me the urgency of such re-evaluations, making Joy’s work a vital contribution to our community’s ongoing discourse.

Joy’s framework, centers on bioelectricity and oxygen as the animating forces of life, challenging the chemical-centric models of mainstream biology. She posits that cellular voltage, delivered by oxygen, maintains health, while disruptions—often from toxins like aluminium, as noted in her analysis of neurodegenerative diseases—precipitate ischemia and dysfunction. Her advocacy for chlorine dioxide, a gentle oxidizer that supports cellular respiration, aligns with terrain theory’s emphasis on restoring the body’s environment. These ideas resonate deeply with me, where I’ve questioned the pathogen model and its lucrative offshoots, like the auto-immune narrative. Joy’s assertion that “the body does not make mistakes” dismantles the fear-driven rhetoric of self-attacking disorders, offering instead a view of symptoms as intelligent detoxification efforts. I endorse her work wholeheartedly, as it provides a grounded pathway to rethink health, rooted in the pandemic’s revelations.

With thanks to Gander Joy.

Electrical Health: A Pathway of Rational Thought https://a.co/d/3k99ned

Electrical Health: A Pathway of Rational Thought: Amazon.co.uk: Joy, Gander

1. Gander, let’s please begin with your personal journey—what experiences or turning points led you to question mainstream models of science and medicine?

Compassion. Compassion for the foibles of human kind, for the doctors in mainstream medicine and for scientists, in acknowledging that for a myriad of reasons, they might be mistaken. This came gradually, after personally experiencing other modalities in healthcare which were profoundly effective and where the mainstream had failed. It occurred to me how small the aperture had become in modern healthcare and science, trying to squeeze all the complexities of life into a predominantly one-dimensional, mechanistic allopathic model. I simply wondered why… what was it that appeared to have frightened this mostly well-meaning cohort away from curiosity and from exploring the larger dimension of what makes something ‘alive’.

2. What originally sparked your interest in exploring electricity and oxygen as core components of human health?

If we dwell somewhere between the materialist’s and the vitalist’s perspectives and that our biology is a living example of these two perspectives in one, I wanted to investigate the point at which they meet. Why for example, of all factors required for life, breathing oxygen is the number one priority and therefore, what exactly it is doing and more specifically, how? This led to understanding the necessity of an energetic charge in all living cells to afford them reception, resonance and vitality and that it is oxygen which delivers this charge.

3. In the foreword to your book, you describe a moment from childhood about finding chocolates without using your hands. How does that metaphor reflect your broader approach to inquiry?

This was a clever suggestion of my father’s. I was one of four children and once a week, he would hide little chocolates in the lounge room for us to find. To prevent the inevitable mayhem, this was his only instruction: “If you stand in the right place you will see it”. This became a principle of mine; to step outside an obvious, standard viewpoint in examining any topic. Sometimes, in order to see better, one needs to practise moving one’s own outlook or expectations to an entirely different angle. The brain will naturally want to fill in gaps by making misleading assumptions so to disengage from this, like an artist in a drawing class, the brain is compelled to see what is in front of it, not what it thinks is there. Then such assumptions might be caught, identified and if necessary, discarded.

4. How would you define the current state of "science" in healthcare, and where do you believe it has gone astray?

I would say that the answer here lies first with defining proper science as a law or principle outside of human inclinations like those of jumping to conclusions, ego, etc and then identifying who the audience is for whom the ‘science’ is supposedly serving. Consensus or the acceptability of a mode of thought for example, is not science. In healthcare today, the science which has gone astray is that where it has become a vehicle for selective outcomes and more pertinently, selective investment and where scientists, their results and even their peer reviews can be bought. Higher noble sentiments of discovery about life or nature are often left to one side when funding is largely dictated by financial interests. Not only is this off track for science in healthcare from a moral perspective, it is similarly off track in the choice of directions it is instructed to make, adhering to limited mechanistic paradigms when we are anything but a bag of parts. No other health modality in all cultures, other than the western one, dismisses a non-material aspect as central, like chi in acupuncture or the vital force in homoeopathy and yet our professionals who do dismiss it, regularly concede they are stumped for answers.

5. You critique the foundational claims behind germ theory and virology. What specific evidence or lack thereof led you to reject these frameworks?

As for many, the covid era was for me an eye-opener. I was interested to learn more about this supposed ‘killer pathogen’ and, considering this claim was the basis on which the whole world was held to ransom, I went to the scientific literature to find out more. This led me to the work of Dr Stefan Lanka, the German ex-virologist who discovered that the Scientific Method, the gold standard in science for establishing evidence for cause and effect, had (bizarrely) never been part of any experiment with regard to any virus, ever. This meant that the whole field of ‘virology’, despite the impact this concept had worldwide, was still in fact, no more than an unproven hypothesis. I had to smile. Not for the first time in my life did the trajectory followed come into view, where an historical fork in the road had sent excited, ignorant and sometimes arrogant ‘scientists’ down the wrong path, inventing justifications with imagined results which are the foundation for where we are today, unquestioned in all these years. So if you back a dead horse, what are you going to do? Do you persist with the idea regardless because you can’t admit it? Here is the human condition at play; insecurity, reputation, reward, etc.

Dr Lanka, a scientist with principle, had the means and credentials to carry out once and for all, this fundamental qualifying procedure himself and proved, with evidence, that all viruses as we understand them today had never been shown to exist whatsoever. This did not mean we did not get sick, but it did mean that it was never because of a virus. I discovered for myself the highly flawed methodology sections of historical papers on which the whole charade was built, which were confirmed by FOIs to the Centres for Disease Control worldwide admitting to having no such qualifying papers for any virus ever existing. The investigation with ‘germ theory’ was a natural progression from this, realising that the fancy of pathogens per se and contagion similarly, were not necessarily as we were told. I learnt that bacteria (germs) are not specific or disease-causing but the opposite; they change function and identity depending on their task at hand, which is to clean up any toxic site or diseased tissue. Never has bacteria been shown to cause a disease state; instead, when they are seen gathered at diseased sites, it is in order to help them heal.

6. Could you explain how the concept of "terrain" offers a more coherent explanation for disease and healing than the pathogen model?

Again, history provides the answers as the invention of the pathogen model is only relatively recent in time. If the idea of a scary bug could be promoted, investors in the early 20^th century could use fear as the main influence to encourage people to spend money protecting themselves from it, even if it is only imagined. One favourite marketing story they employed was that diseases disappeared with the introduction of ‘protective’ vaccines, for example. Except that actual statistics show that these diseases disappeared before their associated vaccines were given. The truth was that these illnesses disappeared because of what is referred to as improved terrain; better hygiene, plumbing, flushing toilets, transport bringing fresh food, child labour laws, cleaner air and water, improved living quarters and work conditions, etc. But the pathogen model was already too lucrative and today the general population, including professionals in the medical mainstream, have long been groomed to believe it. Nevertheless, to restore a withered, diseased plant, all that is necessary is that it has its needs met in its correct environment and immediately its innate evolutionary program towards optimal homeostasis will begin and it will flourish. We are no different.

7. You mention four root causes of disease: poisoning, starvation, injury, and delusion. How do you see these manifesting in modern life?

These four root causes were quoted by Dr Tom Cowan and I agree. Any destabilisation from an organism’s best energetic vitality can be allocated to one of these four.

Poisoning occurs through the introduction of detrimental substances to the body. It can also be the introduction of poisonous thoughts like fear.

Starvation may come in various forms of detrimental deprivation; nutrient, water, love, restful sleep, purpose, oxygen, sunlight, exercise, etc

Injury may be physical or psychological trauma.

Delusion is the belief in ideas which enable detrimental behaviour.

8. In your view, what role does fear play in the way people understand health and disease?

Generally, I see that people have lost confidence in their own ability to right themselves when ill. It has been eroded by a constant reminder to be afraid, being the most primitive, powerful tool to coerce a population to a desired behaviour. It has enabled one’s autonomy and confidence to be replaced with the outsourcing and responsibility of one’s health to another individual, often a total stranger and usually a doctor in the western system, in the belief this person is better qualified and has one’s wellbeing at heart. Possibly, this is indeed the case. Given the model of indoctrination at the heart of the system however, often it is not. Often too, one’s symptoms require no doctor at all and more often still, it is the doctors themselves who are driven by fear. Indeed, they can be the most fearful of all, not only due to having witnessed extreme cases as a benchmark, but also by a possible fear of their own incompetence in a particular case or the fear of litigation. Fear is the very foundation on which our so-called health system today is built. It saps energy and vitality constantly, which reduces resilience… not the best premise in any health setting.

9. Electricity and voltage play a central role in your explanation of health. How should we understand these in biological terms?

If you think of voltage as charge or frequency, like the analogy of a lightbulb, you have the image of the cell and its surrounds as more than just packets of chemicals; they are illuminated, receptive, humming entities. If they are overcharged, they will burn out. If undercharged they will dim or switch off. If supplies are constant, metered and there is no impediment, those cells and organs have ready reserves of energy to continue purring along, to provide their respective functions, to clean themselves, to replace old ones, to communicate with others within the organism and to communicate even beyond to the wider world of frequencies. The whole cell, organ or organism is maintained by the supply of cellular electricity as a bright, vibrational entity of nature, fully equipped to function as evolved.

10. How does oxygen influence our cellular voltage and pH, and why is this so critical for well-being?

Oxygen is merely the deliverer of voltage. In our cells, oxygen atoms create a steady difference of electro positive (+) charge and electro negative (-) charge. This can also be regarded in terms of pH, or acidic (+) and alkaline (-) and the transference of these charges work like an energy battery. Our cells are made up of electro-negatively charged structured water, the charge of which is spent in its cellular respiration to keep the cell’s metabolism going. This is replenished each few seconds with every breath we take like a mini perpetual recharge. Haemoglobin in red blood cells happily accepts the negatively charged oxygen atoms through the membranes of the alveoli, the little air sacs in the lungs. These oxygen atoms are then delivered by the blood via arteries, veins and capillaries to maintain the positive-negative dance within all tissues for cellular charge and in doing so, they also spend a little puff of alkalinity selectively wherever they come into contact with an acidic molecule to neutralise it. Given that diseased tissue and any introduced foreign matter that the body has no use for is more acidic than our own ideal pH, the oxygen atoms will automatically oxidise this matter on the spot. This is easily seen when comparing arterial (freshly oxygenated) blood which is bright red to venous (spent) blood which is much darker. When the charge of our cells is optimal, it means that we are vibrant, both physically and mentally. It means we have energy and resilience when stressed and recover from challenges easily. To use the light bulb analogy again, we are in our best state and we glow.

11. You advocate for the use of Chlorine Dioxide. What makes it distinct from other oxidizers, and how does it support cellular health?

Chlorine Dioxide is unlike other oxidisers in a cellular setting as its voltage is safely below that of our own cells. Other such oxidisers which have higher voltages than our own can cause cellular stress, oxidising faster than the cell’s own optimal rate. As a soluble gas, Chlorine Dioxide can be ingested in water, releasing oxygen atoms interstitially, which means these atoms are not reliant on the blood to deliver their charge and vitality to problematic sites where there may be reduced blood flow. In this way Chlorine Dioxide aids cellular respiration in any oxygen-depleted area and any sites where there is cellular anaerobic fermentation are able to be reversed, like turning the lights back on, restoring healthy aerobic cellular function. The protocols with Chlorine Dioxide use are specific, dependent on an individual’s own oxidative propensity.

12. Structured water and zeta potential are terms many people may not be familiar with. How do these ideas change our understanding of the body?

The understanding of structured water is where the mainstream still has difficulty as it requires the acceptance of fields, resonance and receptivity in a biological setting. Water is not just a few H2O molecules randomly flowing around as fluid. It is the basis of all life, able to communicate and record information and it is no surprise or secret that we are mostly water. Unlike fluid water however, the state of the water that makes us up is in a slightly different configuration, a substance not unlike a gel, where the molecules are interconnected as a circuitry. This is why we can be electrocuted if touching a live electric wire. At each point where our water molecules connect, which can be imagined aligning in a structured lattice of hexagons of oxygen and hydrogen atoms, an instant receptivity occurs like a tiny antenna; a shared resonance of frequencies allowing the whole organism to communicate and function as one, similar to an orchestra. This whole resonates to the wider field as well, receiving information from outside sources, like for example, when you know you are being stared at. Animals are all finely tuned this way. Zeta potential is more accepted as a concept in the mainstream, being a physical charge separation in living organisms. When examined in the context of structured water, it is zeta potential which allows neighbouring organs and cells to smoothly glide alongside each other while retaining their integrity and identities. If zeta potential is reduced, it means that the structured water of our cells and organs becomes incoherent, breaking this molecular alignment, circuitry and communication, possibly then causing cells and tissue to clump together.

13. You challenge the notion that antibodies and antigens function as described in conventional immunology. What implications does this have for vaccine science?

Once again to history. It is interesting how recently the premise of antibodies and antigens were invented and even more fascinating how quickly these concepts were adopted as fact. It is a brilliant business model for vaccine ‘science’ so no wonder. In lock step with these are the closely associated inventions of the immune system and of immunology, where what they actually mean is just a detoxification system, no library of antibodies hooking up to past antigens at all. A so-called antibody is actually just a variety of enzymes or healing proteins, called up to address an area needing to detoxify. When required repeatedly and harvested, we call these proteins an antidote. But like bacteria, they change type and function depending on the task at hand, ie, they are not neatly pairing up with their antigen partner so conveniently as the antibody industry wishes us to believe. What started off as the package deal: to accept that we have an ‘immune system’ which is ’learning’ and building ‘protective’ ’antibodies’ for life, then blew its cover when the illnesses kept recurring, a quick retool was required to say we suddenly needed top-ups and boosters. When in fact all along it has been very simple: introduced foreign material in our bodies just elicits a detox response to eliminate it, end of story. But the vaccine ‘science’ is fabricated entirely on this fantasy thought-construct of immunology, the more complicated, the more spin-offs for treatment possibilities. Therefore, these implications are a death knell for it, at last exposing it as having been built for the gullible on highly fraudulent notions.

14. What is your perspective on “auto-immune” conditions and how should they be reinterpreted?

The term ‘auto-immune’ suggests that the body has decided to hurt itself. This is not nature and never was. It is yet another clever marketing ploy, thought up to disempower our self regard, our inherited strengths and to promote helplessness. What better premise on which to train patients that they are about to self-destruct unless they submit to medical intervention or costly and preferably ongoing medication. This is not to dismiss those with serious chronic health issues, the discomforts of which are greatly relieved by such treatments or pharmaceuticals. However, the bigger picture remains, how did they get to that state? And where might that be addressed? What might reduce the need for this medical approach? Not forgetting, the third highest cause of death in the western world is iatrogenic, ie, caused by treatment. For this parasitic aspect of the industry, the advent of the ‘auto-immune’ deceit meant permanent sales rather than the financial problem of patients recovering. When poisoned in an unnatural way, like having toxic compounds injected into the blood stream for example, the body’s own program to detoxify it will always look for ways to render it less harmful. This can indeed be an ongoing effort by the body to cleanse, given that it came in through the back door so to speak and is then misinterpreted as auto-immune. Depending on the insult to the equilibrium, the direction of an individual’s inherent energy and strength will either cast the problem outward and onto the skin, it will pull it inward and hide it in a remote corner or it will encapsulate it, for example, as a tumour. None of these natural reactions are coming from an evolution of auto-immunity, they are just examples of the body finding its optimal way to survive.

15. Your book suggests that many chronic diseases are not diseases per se, but symptoms of detoxification or dysfunction. Could you elaborate on this idea?

The body, as with all of nature, has only ever evolved to rebalance its energies, to regain a healthy equilibrium. Anything may knock it off balance. If it hasn’t the energy or environment to right itself quickly, it will put out continued signs of the effort to do so, which is what we see as symptoms and what is termed as chronic disease. These symptoms show how the body is compensating dysfunction as best it can, which may be due to an inherited weakness in a particular area, various other avenues of destabilisation or it is just exquisitely identifying, detoxifying and eliminating any introduced material that it recognises as ‘non-self’. This is its one program: the quest to right itself and everything we see is its best efforts to do so. The problem for the mainstream approach is classifying a wide collection of similar symptoms which fit easily into any number of supposedly unique ‘disease’ pictures. Regarding them as distinct diagnoses is applying a behavioural inclination to group, package and label things, like a collector’s hobby. This is not only unhelpful in categorising a patient’s unique symptom expression, it distracts from reading such signs as clues about the best and preferred way their individual bodies are trying to regain optimal health.

16. What do you mean by the title, ‘a pathway of rational thought’?

Steps that lead to an outcome each have specific relevance to the next. If we start at the beginning of a process, it can go any which way but if we start at the outcome and work backwards, the pathway taken is clear to see and its specific progression is logical and rational. In our western society’s current state of poor health and specifically, the neurodegenerative epidemics we are witnessing of Autism and Alzheimer’s, we start with the outcome: a profound and recent phenomenon of brain dysfunction. One step back and we see mass micro-strokes or ischemia has occurred within the brain tissue. Next step back and we see that these areas have been poisoned by various unnatural compounds but mostly by aluminium, an extremely neurotoxic metal due to its very acidic, high positive charge and that the recent introduction of it in a biological context coincides by date with the first such neurodegenerative cases ever seen in history. Back one more step and we see that this compound has been unnaturally introduced into human biology in many ways but most devastatingly via vaccination adjuvants along with other contaminants. Another step back to understand the importance of charge separation in cell health and how this can be derailed. This includes how cells remain smooth to avoid clumping (zeta potential) and the concept of structured water that makes up our cells and maintains their negative charge. Then we see the action and necessity of the charge itself, its pH and that its delivery is the sole purpose of the oxygen we breathe. So, then we’re back at square one, rethinking the concepts underpinning today’s science and mainstream medicine and investigating their validity. And ultimately the question, why inject any very real and utterly devastating neurotoxin in the first place, in a vaccine against a supposed ‘virus’ for which there is no reliable scientific evidence that it even exists whatsoever.

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.