No Beating Around Zach Bush

What is the "Microbiome Messiah" Selling Us?

I feel the need—the irritating compulsion (like having particles of grit stuck in my oyster-brain)—to write something about Doctor Zach Bush, a former oncologist who has become a major speaker and leader in the alternative / transformational culture since the Covid pandemic. I have heard about Dr Bush for years now, while admittedly skirting around his online material. A number of my friends believe deeply in his work.

I intuitively suspected that Bush wasn’t exactly my cup of tea, but I still believed he might offer a valuable contribution to alternative / post-hippie culture. Bush not only lectures and podcasts; he puts his ideas about regenerative farming and the importance of the microbiome into practice. He runs a few companies and is Chairman of the Board of Farmer’s Footprint, a nonprofit which seeks “to accelerate regenerative food systems as a means to restore human and planetary health.” I don’t know how effective this organization is. As of now, I have heard mixed things.

Through his website, Bush sells a supplement, Intelligence of Nature(TM) Gut Support, for $52 a bottle. The liquid supplement is made from “humid extract” — soil, or dirt — and “purified water.” It apparently strengthens the “gut lining.” The supplement industry provides a popular avenue for alternative thinkers to sell products — even Alex Jones makes a fortune this way — because the sector is largely unregulated by the government.

In the past, Bush has argued that viruses and bacteria are not the central cause of disease, as modern Western medicine believes. Instead, he focuses on the health of the mytochondria — smaller organelles within cells that generate energy and possess their own DNA (mtDNA) which is distinct from the nuclear DNA we inherit from our parents — and on the microbiome as a whole. As Jonathan Jarry writes in “The Droning Preacher of Mitochondrial Ecstasy”:

In Bush’s grand hypothesis, malfunction of the little energy factories in our cells called mitochondria is responsible for all chronic diseases. This statement is not complete hogwash: as we learn more about mitochondria, we realize they play significant roles in a myriad of human diseases. And this comes from the mouths of scientists reviewing the link between mitochondria and disease for prestigious journals like Cell, Science, and Nature. But while our little factories’ malfunction can be tied to many diseases, it does not mean they cause them. To cast only mitochondria in the role of chronic disease supervillain is to commit the fallacy of the boogeyman, disturbingly common in alternative medicine. There’s always one cause to every disease and your favourite influencer has the cure-all.

Bush argues that the DNA we receive from our parents, our genome, is constantly changed by our environment and the mytochondria in our cells. He told Charles Eisenstein on a podcast: “We're starting to realize that the massive variations of genomics within the mitochondria are constantly swapping information with the nuclear DNA that was received by Mom and Dad human, that nuclear DNA is being changed and transformed by the mitochondrial DNA that's responding to its environment second to second. And so we're starting to realize that even the phenotype of a single cell or therefore a whole human body is not determined by Mom and Dad's DNA very well.” But Bush’s statement that environmental influences on mitochondria and the microbiome override the genetic template provided by parents is scientifically inaccurate. While environment and epigenetics play significant roles in gene expression, the nuclear DNA from parents remains the foundational template for an individual's genetic makeup. The mitochondria doesn’t “swap” information with our nuclear DNA as he describes.

Bush is a proponent of regenerative and organic farming. He calls the pesticide glysophate an “antibiotic,” which is, as far as I understand it, not accurate. Glysophate has anti-microbial properties, but is not, strictly speaking, an antibiotic. As we will see, Bush has a tendency to make all kinds of claims that fall outside of the traditional scientific paradigm — sometimes very far outside of it.

I agree with Bush in many ways. For instance, I agree Western medicine neglects the importance of the microbiome and the general health of the organism to hyper-focus on the agents causing illness. While I still think that bacteria and viruses cause diseases, I agree that the health of the entire organism has a great impact on how disease manifests. I also agree with Bush that we should return to regenerative farming practices and move away from chemical pesticides such as Glysophate.

I often find it best to discover what I actually think of someone by seeing them speak — present their ideas — in person. I may feel skeptical about someone online, but change my mind when I encounter them viscerally. This happened to me, years ago, with Bashar, the extra-dimensional off-planet entity channeled by a Hollywood set builder, Darryl Anka. I still don’t know what to make of Bashar, but I find the putative ET’s vision of reality thought-provoking and fantastically entertaining. Bashar’s live presentations are virtuoso performances. I hope Bashar is, indeed, the genuine article — but I just don’t know.

We just launched “The Future of Consciousness” last Sunday, with a wonderful session featuring Bernardo Kastrup and Jude Currivan. You can sign up and participate in the next six weeks of live sessions, plus access recordings of ones you miss. Here is a link for 10% off. Those in financial need, please message me with scholarship requests.

So I was delighted to learn that Dr Bush was a headliner at Medicine Festival — a recent gathering in Reading, UK, which I attended — where he was given many opportunities to present his ideas. Generally, I found the curation of speakers at Medicine Festival to be excellent. They featured many thinkers and authors I deeply respect. This included Satish Kumar, Helena Norbert Hodge, David Luke, Alexander Beiner, and Vandana Shiva. Unfortunately, unlike these other presenters, I found Dr Bush’s speeches to be strange: Disorienting, rambling, full of false information, and either unintentionally or intentionally manipulative.

I suppose part of what must make Bush exciting and special is the emotional connection he makes with his audience. Many find him a charismatic, appealing figure. Perhaps there is something parochial or limited about my worldview which makes me insist that speakers need to make logical sense: When we explore more esoteric ideas or ineffable subjects, I believe we need to be particularly careful and discerning. For many reasons, I find myself allergic to fuzzy or murky thinking in these areas.

Bush’s first talk was a collaboration with Gene Keys author Richard Rudd.