All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 18, 2020 - Jim Fetzer
51:15
Conversations with Dr. Cowan and Friends Episode 12: Jon Rappoport
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, thanks everybody.
Welcome to another edition of Conversations with Dr. Cowan and Friends.
And I know most people announce which number edition it is, but I actually have no idea.
So whatever number it is, that's what we're on.
And we have a friend, John Rappaport.
And I just want to say that One of the very first things I read about this, probably people have heard me say, was, and I must admit, John, because I stole it from you, but when I steal things, typically at least I tell people where I stole it from.
So maybe there's a slightly different word than stealing, but John wrote a brilliant piece on what should have happened with this, with understanding the How in a rational scientific universe this would have been done and it was the most clear and concise depiction of this that I think even to this day I've read.
So I am personally grateful to John and I think anybody who's really interested in understanding this would hopefully feel the same way.
So that's the first thing.
The second thing is I just ran this by John, and I think we have a very clear agenda here, at least I do, which is we, meaning John and I, and not the only ones, but other people now, and it's a little bit of a sort of burgeoning choir, I would say, have said that the coronavirus has never been isolated, purified, characterized, which means its genome has never been
Uh, properly, you know, described.
And if that's the case, then there's no possible way to do a surrogate test to find a virus which has actually never been found.
It's simply impossible.
So that means, as I've said over and over again, PCR tests don't have false positives and false negatives.
They have falses.
And that's different.
And so I don't like even people referring to false negatives and false positives.
I think John probably would agree with that.
And then the final thing is, if you don't have an isolated virus, then you can't possibly demonstrate that the virus is the cause of any disease.
And that's essentially where we're at.
You know, just to reiterate that, there was a very good expose of the first paper that really described this, how to do a PCR test for this new coronavirus.
And I've read this a million times.
And they said, you know, quote, this is the Christian Drosten paper.
We aim to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings.
Without having the virus material available, which means they don't actually have the virus.
The CDC, as John also has pointed out on page 39 of their June bulletin, said they have no quantified virus available.
That's virology talk for, we don't ever have the virus, we've never isolated it.
So people, I don't know, unfortunately, but they keep sending me papers claiming isolation. I assume they probably do with
John. And there's even been some people who have tried to debunk at least what I'm saying and say, how
could anybody say that it hasn't been isolated? Here's 10 papers that show, or at least in
the title, claim isolation.
And as I just said to John, I'm a little bit tired of this.
And so I thought I would have John on, and we would actually go through, starting with John, what
does it mean to isolate a virus?
and And I know that's a little bit of a long winded introduction.
And if there's anything you heard, John, that you didn't, you would disagree with or like to change, I'm happy to hear it.
But if not, if you could say whatever you want, and then literally tell us What we mean by isolating a virus.
First of all, it's great to be here talking to you, Tom.
And I would say isolating the virus means that you separate it out from all surrounding material.
In other words, it's a dictionary definition.
You isolate somebody in a room.
What does that mean?
It means you take them away from all other people and you put them alone.
Well, in this case, that's what people would think scientists mean when they say we isolated the virus.
It's maybe involved in some kind of soup of material and we somehow managed to extract it from everything else.
From other genetic material, from other germs, from chemicals, from contaminants.
It's pure, alone.
Here it is.
We could take an electron microscope picture of it and show it to you.
It would be very clear.
And in fact, when you referred to one of my initial articles on this subject, What I said was, why didn't they do this with say 500 people at the very beginning?
We say these 500 people are all suffering from the pandemic disease.
So we line them up and we take tissue samples from each one and we go through a process of purification, isolation.
We spin this material in a centrifuge.
We know that different density gradients settle out at different levels.
We find the layer where we think the virus is.
We go through all of this very meticulous procedure and we end up with 500 side-by-side, very clear electron microscope photographs, one from each patient.
And we compare them.
Three burning questions.
Before we get into that, John, let's go through exactly the steps of how a virologist has isolated and should isolate.
They're the same thing.
Can we do that before we get into the next step?
Okay, well, why don't you take that up?
Go ahead.
Okay, because this is exactly what we mean.
So I think it's best to also compare it to another kind of isolation.
And I would encourage all the listeners to pay very close attention to the words that I use.
So the quest we're on, right?
We're like King Arthur.
We have a quest.
Our quest is to see whether caffeine found in coffee beans causes high blood pressure.
That is our quest.
So we take a coffee bean and we grind it up and we put it into a capsule.
We give it to 10 people.
We do an appropriate control.
Their blood pressure goes up.
Have we proven that the caffeine in coffee beans causes high blood pressure?
Every sane human being says no, because there are more things in the coffee bean than just caffeine.
Right?
We have not isolated the caffeine.
Okay, so we do the next step.
We take that coffee grounds, the ground up coffee.
We put water through it.
We make what we call coffee.
And then we discard the grounds.
Now, then we give that to 10 people.
We give appropriate control of water or something.
They get all get high blood pressure.
Have we now proven that the caffeine and coffee beans causes high blood pressure?
The answer is no, because again, there's aromatic oils and, you know, caffeic acid.
There's a lot of things in coffee besides just caffeine.
So then we take the coffee and we do something called ultracentrifugation through a gel electrophoresis.
And that separates things because they're spinning around real fast into a band and things of one molecular weight come out in a band.
And so we then know this band has only caffeine.
We suck the band out.
We send it to a lab or we do the lab ourselves and say, this is only caffeine, right?
Only caffeine.
And you can actually repeat the experiment, grind the coffee, put it through a filter.
We tell you the size of the filter paper and spin it at a hundred RPMs for six minutes.
You get a band, you suck the band out, you show with a chemical analysis, it's only caffeine.
Then we give that to 10 people, we give a control.
Then we know that caffeine causes high blood pressure.
Now, here's how that translates into virology.
You take some snot from people who you think have COVID, right?
Then you grind it up or macerate it to liberate the stuff from the tissues.
That's like grinding the coffee.
Nobody thinks if you gave that to somebody, you would prove that it's a virus.
Then you put it through a filter, you know what the size of the filter paper is.
And then you have coffee or the liquid called the supernatant and you discard the bacteria and the fungus and the dead tissue, etc.
Now that has a lot of things in it, a lot of genetic material, a lot of toxins, maybe who knows what, That is not a pure virus.
Then you ultra centrifuge it at a certain RPM.
It comes out in a band.
You know what this virus band molecular weight is.
You suck it out.
You then show with an electron microscope that I have now proven that there is only a virus.
There is no cellular material, no tissue, no toxins, no nothing.
And that's what you're talking about.
You isolate this virus from everything else.
You know, I tell people, this is a fork.
It's a thing.
You can separate a fork from a knife, because they're different things, right?
And you can count it, as you pointed out in that article, this everything can be counted.
This is two forks.
Now, the next step Once you've now cared, you can then pull out the genome of this only the virus that you have.
And then you can expose that to animals and see if it makes them sick.
That is the only way to isolate a virus.
And people say, can you do that?
And they did that for 20 years.
And there's picture after picture of certain viruses like chickenpox virus, and herpes virus.
Now, measles, HIV have never been found like this because they don't exist.
But some viruses have.
That's what we mean by isolation.
Is that square with?
Yeah, that squares.
That's very good.
I like that.
So let's suppose then that we did that with not just one piece of snot from one person
but 500 or 1000.
Because we want to make sure that this is not just a little bit here and a little bit
there.
It's sort of like the theory of how do you do a clinical trial on a drug?
Do you just give it to one person and see what the result is and then say well we approve
this drug for use on a billion people?
No.
So we want to take 500 or 1000 people that supposedly have the pandemic disease.
Right.
And we want to isolate the virus from all of them.
Right.
In exactly the way that you described.
And then we want to line up the electron microscope photographs side by side from each of them and see whether they all match up.
Right.
Are we seeing many virus particles in each photograph?
Are they the same virus particles in all the photographs?
And is this a virus that we've never seen before?
Correct.
Because that claim is being made as well.
Yes.
Now, if you answer any of those questions, no, you go back to the drawing board.
Right.
And if you answer all of them, yes, by the scientific method, you're not done.
You're not done.
That's just one team of researchers with One group of volunteers.
Now you would have a whole new team of researchers come in with new volunteers and try to replicate what the first team did using their methods and so forth.
Do they come up with the same answer?
This is how the scientific method is supposed to be done.
And from what you're saying and what I'm saying.
In none of these so-called studies, Do we see these processes being carried out?
Right.
So they can say isolation, but that's not the same thing as proving isolation.
Right.
So when people send you or me, well, here's a study from Outer Mongolia where they isolated the virus.
No, the study claims they isolated the virus.
They say they did.
That's, I mean, I can say, you can say, you know, I own five million Cadillacs in a garage in New Jersey.
That doesn't mean that I do.
So you can say whatever you want.
It's whether or not you've actually proven it and they haven't.
Right.
And again, let me describe, in fact, what they do do into the detail.
And then again, please tell me whether you, I think I got any part of this incorrect.
So now there's differences depending on which paper you read.
Some of them actually don't even start with somebody with SNOP.
They start with stock virus, but let's forget about that one.
Let's say because some of them have started with somebody who they think has COVID, right?
So that's the coffee.
Then they grind it up.
That's the grinding the coffee.
And then they put it through a filter.
That's the same.
So, so far, so good.
At that point, though, they stop.
And they use this liquid that they got, which we already agreed, everybody agrees, it has more things in there than just a virus, right?
Just got coffee in it.
Then they put that onto what are called Vero cells.
Now, virocells are monkey kidney tissue.
Now, here's the important point.
The genetic material of the so-called virus is exactly the same as the genetic material found in humans, monkey cells, fungus, yeast, bacteria, and everything else.
There is essentially one genetic code.
So it's essentially like Taking the coffee, right, that's not purified virus, and putting it in a vat of chocolate, tea, yerba mate, and 10 other things that have caffeine in it.
I don't know what 10 other things that have caffeine, but let's say there are.
And then you mix it up and stir it around for a couple days.
And then it, then you, so Then you would never know whether the caffeine that you're testing came from the coffee beans, because you've now mixed it with a few other things that have the same exact genetic material.
In fact, we now know from people doing what are called BLAST searches that the spike protein and these so-called characteristic segments or primers of the coronavirus have been found in 93 different human chromosomes, 93, and over 90 different fungus and bacteria.
So there is nothing unique about this.
There's nothing unique about the caffeine in coffee versus the caffeine in tea.
So anyways, going back, so they take this unpurified liquid, Inoculate that onto monkey kidney cells, and it doesn't grow.
So they have to starve the monkey kidney cells, which is called minimal nutrient medium, which means starving it.
And then they poison it with nephrotoxic, meaning kidney toxic drugs, meaning genomicin and amphotericin.
And then the tissue breaks down.
And it breaks down in all these particles, which are called extracellular vesicles and exosomes and probably the original exosomes and genetic material from the original snot.
And then there's a lot more of it because you mixed it with all these tissue.
And so then you said you've now cultured and cultivated the virus.
And so now you can find it.
And then you do a genetic analysis and say, this proves that it was only from this coronavirus.
And anybody who sends me a study that has the word virocell or culture, and it doesn't do this procedure that we just outlined, is simply not what a normal human being refers to as isolation.
Yes.
And the cell killing.
It's just Orwellian.
It's crazy.
It's like I say, I know that I've isolated the virus because it is killing the cells.
Now, first of all, that makes no sense because that's not what the word isolation really means.
It's not the same as killing.
But then if you can get past that, It's sort of then, really?
As you just described, you know that these cells, the monkey cells, whatever cells, are being starved, that the virus is killing the cells, and it isn't just the starving that's killing the cells, or the toxic drugs or chemicals in the soup that's killing the cells.
Of course you don't know that.
Right.
You've actually biased The whole procedure to make sure that something is killing the cells.
Right.
And I ran across this back in 1987-88 when I was writing my first book, AIDS, Inc.
Right.
At that time, I was looking into the so-called viral cancer project at the National Institutes of Health, where Robert Gallo and other retrovirologists were trying to prove That virus has caused cancer and in the animal experiments where they were injecting whatever soup into these animals.
They went.
I mean, insane is the only word I can use to try to destroy the health and the immune systems of the animals first before injecting the soup, which they claimed had the virus in it.
They would try to destroy the immune systems of these chimps and so on with chemicals, with drugs, with mixtures of all kinds of germs, with everything they could imagine in order to then say, we carried out a very pure study here that showed that the virus is causing cancer, which was a total fabrication and a lie.
And on top of that, they couldn't prove that what they were doing caused cancer at all.
That's a version of what you're talking about and what we're both talking about.
This has nothing to do with isolation.
Right.
So let me even put you on the spot.
This is not your first rodeo.
No.
Right?
So you've been doing this for 35, 40 years.
Have you ever seen a single study Where they actually isolated the virus and showed it caused disease.
No.
Not one.
I haven't.
No.
In fact.
In my first book, AIDS Inc.
87, 88.
That's how I got into this.
Yeah.
I was sort of traveling in the dark.
What is this thing they're calling AIDS and HIV and all of this?
And it was quite confusing for about Five or six months until it began to come clear.
So what I did first in a fumbling way and then very systematically was I took all the supposed groups that the CDC said were at high risk for AIDS.
Haitians, Africans from certain areas, gay men, transfusion recipients, hemophiliacs.
And I said, well, the hallmark supposedly of AIDS is destruction of the immune system.
That's what they're talking about.
Right.
So in each group, could I account for that destruction of the immune system by factors that have nothing to do with the virus at all?
Yeah.
And in each case, the more research I did, the more obvious it was.
Right.
That yes, the answer was yes.
There was no need to invoke a virus or the existence of a virus.
In fact, the virus was being used as a cover story for corporate and government crimes, which is a whole other issue to talk about another time.
But yet I still believed that HIV existed in 1987-88.
existed in 1987-88, I just proved that you didn't need to refer to it in any way to show
all of these clinical signs of so-called AIDS.
Then three years later, I began to become aware of yet a new and even more profound argument, which was nobody's proved this virus even exists.
And how did you start even thinking about that?
Was there something that tipped you off?
Christine Johnson, brilliant independent Journalist in Los Angeles interviewed Eleni Papadopoulos of the Perth Research Group.
Right.
And they had been in a firefight, which I don't know all the legalities of it, but their opponents were people at the National Institutes of Health.
Because what Eleni Papadopoulos was saying in the interview in great detail was, The researchers at NIH did not complete all the steps of isolation and purification that you talked about just a few minutes ago in claiming that HIV exists.
Therefore, they never proved that it exists in any rational terms.
And the more that I read that through, the more it clicked for me.
Then I read another interview by Celia Farber with Etienne de Harvin An expert on electron micrographs, electron microscope photographs, similar conclusion and I began to see the picture emerging here.
The reason that HIV was not necessary to account for all of the clinical signs in these high risk groups was HIV had never been proven to exist in the first place.
Right.
And once I saw that, when Swine flu, SARS, and others came along.
I was attuned to that.
And when COVID occurred, it was like, well, here we go again.
Right.
It's the same playbook over and over.
And, you know, to just give a little sociology about this.
John, before that, I just want to say one thing, if I can.
Okay.
Folks out there, this is obviously John and Tom talking.
But there is a very clear paper from the Pasteur Institute called the 1973 Consensus Agreement on the Isolation and Characterization of a New Virus.
And they outlined the steps.
And while I would admit it's a little more complicated than I just said, it's essentially identical to what I just said.
I just made it into a little bit more simplistic language They say macerate, filter, ultracentrifugation, characterize the genome, make sure it's unique, test it against other genomes of other, quote, viruses, and then you have to take electron micrographs to show that that's the only thing you have.
It couldn't be clearer, and again, it has not been done this time.
So anyways, yeah.
And Papadopoulos pointed out about HIV, those steps.
Yes.
She referred to that paper and said, these these guys at National Institutes of Health were there at the conference when the paper was, you know, presented.
Everybody agreed this is what you do.
And then they didn't do it later.
Right.
OK, so the little piece of sociology.
Wuhan.
2019.
People show up with pneumonia.
Well, I've looked at studies.
They vary, but the estimate is 300,000 people a year die of pneumonia in China.
This is no mystery.
But this is a mystery.
They said, OK, we don't know what's causing this.
And in record time.
They say we found the cause.
You know, in a month or two.
Now, what people have to understand is if somebody presents with pneumonia or a lung infection, I mean, there's probably, you know, 15,000 different ways you could go in trying to understand what's going on here in conventional terms, medical terms.
Is it this bacteria, that bacteria, this virus, that fungus?
Is it something to do with the environment?
You know, et cetera, et cetera.
But magically, Not only do they know to go for a coronavirus, where did they get that?
Right.
But they find it, the one, the new one that no one has seen before in record time.
Yeah.
I mean, if this doesn't set off alarm bells about fraud, then nothing will.
And if the Wuhan researchers in their labs had simply looked out the window, they would have seen The obvious and most likely cause of pneumonia, which was the deadly air pollution hovering in the air in Wuhan all year round, that had provoked protests on the streets the summer before in Wuhan and other Chinese cities, where you don't protest unless you're desperate because the government can disappear you and you will never be found again.
So this isn't like 60 people show up in Washington D.C.
waving signs.
This is like you taking your life in your hands.
That's how desperate the people of Wuhan were.
So that's just a little bit of background here to show people that from that point of view, it makes no sense.
Right.
We figured it out.
Really?
Gee, can we get into the lab and look over your shoulder?
To see exactly what you're doing and film the whole thing from the beginning as to how you came to this conclusion.
Well, no!
This is the Holy of Holies in the Church of Biological Mysticism.
We don't let people in here to see what the hell is going on.
Right.
We do our work and we announce the result.
We are the priests and you take our doctrine and the canon of faith and you follow it.
Right.
That's the story.
So, I mean, Christian Drosten announced that this coronavirus, which he's admitted, was based on a, I think the word is pronounced insolicito virus, and in an insolicito genome.
And I looked up the word insolicito, and it means theoretical.
And a synonym for theoretical means imaginary.
So he said this the genome that they were using to make the primers was an in solicito genome.
In other words, an imaginary genome of an in solicito.
And I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that right.
So don't hold me to that.
But in an in solicito virus, an imaginary genome of an imaginary virus.
And to this day, Christian Drosten, who's the essentially the Fauci of Europe, has not come up with a actual virus or an actual genome.
And I like to tell my people, you can eat soup with a spoon, but you cannot eat soup with a theoretical spoon.
At least not as far as I know.
Now, here's another thing people say, there's three questions they asked me about this procedure.
So the procedure is clear, macerate, filter, Centrifuge or flow cytometry, suck out pure virus, show a picture of it, have some other lab reproduce, get exactly the same results.
The first thing I would point out is that doesn't even prove it's the cause.
It doesn't even prove it's an exogenous pathogenic virus, meaning from the outside, because you would have to have Determine that it didn't come from the breakdown of your own genetic material.
Because there is no way, and let me read something.
It was an article in Viruses, July 2020.
It's talking about exosomes, which come from the inside, versus viruses that come from the outside.
And they say, nowadays it is almost an impossible mission to separate exosomes and viruses by means of conical, vesicle isolation methods such as differential
ultracentrifugation. Then they say a few more things and then
they finish with, however, to date a reliable method that can
guarantee a complete separation of exosomes from viruses does
not exist, doesn't exist. We can't tell you, virologists, whether this thing is coming from the outside and is a
pathogen, or it's coming from the inside and it's a detoxification message mechanism.
So in order to do that, and as I tell people, the only reason I can't separate this fork from this fork is because they're both forks.
I can separate a fork from a knife because they're different.
I cannot separate things if they're identical.
And it turns out that all these things that they're calling pathogens are our own tissue breaking down, just like in the culture.
And so how do we know this?
It's very simple.
You isolate the virus in the way we describe.
You then expose animals to a pure virus, or humans, which they say they can't because it's unethical.
So, and then you make them sick in exactly the same way you were talking about.
Did they do that?
As far as I know, and you could correct me, they haven't done that with one person, not even the 500 people that you were calling for, not one.
Now, let's say, let's get to the final thing.
When I asked virologists, medical doctors, why don't you do it like this?
Right?
This is common sense.
This is how human beings isolate a chair from a clock.
They take the chair and put it in a different place, and then if you want to know what the chair is made out of, you break it down and see.
And they say one of three things.
One, this can't be done.
Right.
And it turns out it was done for 20 years.
As soon as they invented an electron microscope.
That's like checking your work.
Like a third grader, like show me how you did this math problem.
Show your work.
So I show you my work and I got an electron microscope.
Here is a herpes virus.
We don't know whether it came from inside you or a pathogen, but we know we isolated that virus.
We can pull out the genome.
We did that for 20 years.
You can do it with exosomes.
You can do it with bacteriophages.
Stefan Lenka did it with a CLG virus.
This is like a car mechanic changing your oil.
This is not a difficult thing for a virologist.
So that argument is, excuse my French, BS.
Second, they say something very interesting.
The reason we can't isolate it from snot, like you said, is there isn't enough of it in there to isolate.
I heard that and I think, so if there isn't enough of it to see, How the heck is it killing us all?
Well, we don't know.
The third, the third thing they say is, um, uh, well, wait, hang on a minute.
So first thing is we can't do this.
Second thing is, um, there's not enough to see.
And I'm blanking on the third thing.
Um, Well, I can give you a third thing.
I don't know if it's the one you're thinking of.
We don't need to do it.
Yeah.
Because we can sequence the genome.
And this is, I was going to say, we need to cover this too, because this is the other thing people say.
Well, maybe they isolated, maybe they didn't, but they sequenced it.
And here's 10,000 papers again, where they say we've sequenced SARS-CoV-2.
We didn't need to isolate it, because we sequenced the genetic structure, and here it is.
Now, I'm going to say one thing and then turn the floor back to you.
Because I remembered what the third thing is.
Okay.
And the thing I want to say is, show me how you sequence something that you don't have.
Yeah.
You know, another miracle from the Church of Biological Mysticism.
Yeah.
We don't have it.
We didn't isolate it, but we sequenced it.
Well, you've got to confer sainthood on somebody for doing that because, you know, this is a miracle, right?
And I want to know how that's possible.
But you've made some very excellent points about how they actually do this sequencing operation, which is sort of like Yes, I got the third thing.
They say something very interesting.
this and we'll take this from there and that data and jam it
together, which I think you need to talk about. But you remember the third thing. So what?
Yes, I got the third thing is, they say something very interesting. They say, Well, Tom, that's baloney, because
viruses are intracellular pathogens inside the cell. And so you obviously can't isolate it because it's in the cell.
And so you would only be able to isolate it along with the cell.
So then I asked this virologist, I said, well, how does it go and affect somebody else?
Well, it buds out of the cell, and then you cough it up and spit it on somebody else.
So I said, So during that time when it budded out of the cell, right?
It takes over the genetic machinery, makes a million copies, buds out of the cell, and then it goes to the next person.
Why don't you catch it then?
Well, it's too short a time.
You're not supposed to ask questions like that.
That's too... Like what?
10 seconds?
3 minutes?
Like 4 hours?
Give me a time frame.
Well, we don't know.
Well, then how come it's too short?
No.
So here's how they do this whole genome sequencing.
Somebody says, I want you to make a exact replica of King Beauregard's castle from 1200 out of Lego.
And they throw all the Lego pieces on the table, all of them.
And they say, OK, here's a million dollars.
Make the castle.
Now, most sane people would say, OK, if you want me to make an exact replica, show me the castle.
No.
Can't see the castle.
And you say, well, how am I going to make an exact replica?
No.
You have to do it.
Now, the guy just gave you a million dollars.
So you don't want to say, like, you're in a nut case.
I'm not doing this.
But so you go looking, and you find a moat, and a turret, and a flag, and then they give you a prize for finding a scary-looking turret.
And then you know that a turret must be part of a castle.
So then you put the turret and the moat into your castle genome sequencer, and it spits out a picture of the castle.
And then everybody starts arguing because everybody has a different mode and turret, which they say is the genetic mutations of the virus.
So everybody has a slightly different mode and a slightly different turret.
And then they put their that into their new improved genome sequencing software, and it spits out its own version of the castle.
And then you do that for 50 years.
And then you have a conference and the original guy shows up and he says, Guess what?
Beauregard, he didn't have a castle.
He was afraid of snakes.
He lived in a townhouse in London.
That's you.
You show up and say, it's all fake.
It's all fake.
So they take this soup of genetic material.
They have primers, which match to 93 human segments, 93 microbes that they got from the theoretical virus of SARS 1 in 2003.
And that they got from the theoretical coronavirus of 1991.
And that one the guy made up, which he made up the rest too.
And then so you have 10% or 2% or 1% of the entire genome, you put it in your sequencing thing, and it spits out the genome, except some places it says instead of CGAT, It says S. And you say, what the hell is S?
There is no S in a genetic sequence.
And apparently S means we don't know.
So you have a partially theoretical sequence of a theoretical virus, which is not actually finished because we don't even know what some of them might be.
And that's what we call science.
And then you kind of, you know, Gloss it up, polish it, you know, like an old car, sort of do a little restoration and you say, this is it.
And then people think, people think that you kind of had a cosmic kind of microscope hovering over the virus.
And, and you were looking at the genetic sequence inside the virus as if they were like, Rows of parked cars in a supermarket parking lot.
Oh yeah, AQV, write it down.
No, because, and this was a revelation to me recently when I read it from you and heard you talking with Andy Kaufman about it.
The software that you refer to.
What's in the software?
Because the software has been made.
To construct these, you know, chimerical fabrications of sequencing when you don't have anything.
What do we do?
You plug it into the software and it'll give you the picture of the castle.
Don't worry about it.
Just make sure that nobody questions the software because that's where we got the fairy tale from in the first place.
So this is essentially what you're pointing to here is that The sequencer is software that, you know, has its own algorithms and decisions that are pre-set up to refer to past library data, fakery, guesswork.
And it's all just kind of stitched together.
And then we smooth it out and we say, here's the Ark of the Covenant.
Right.
And they're all a little different, which is hard to explain.
So you, you postulate that the wily virus is mutating to escape detection and kill us all.
Exactly.
And this is why we have to have the vaccine.
And there's on the news last night, there's four different strains.
Right.
So-and-so is infected with a heavier strain.
You know, they're just, I mean, talk about riffing and making it up wholesale.
You know, why don't they just say, well, There's 5,000 strains we just discovered that we didn't know about yesterday.
And if we don't all take the vaccine by next week, we're going to die.
Yeah.
The only thing I disagree with when you refer to this as a fairy tale, because the fairy tales are deeply elements of truth.
Like I've talked about the fairy tale of the Sleeping Beauty, where they suggest that the entire kingdom is under a spell.
And the only way out of the spell is for the prince to recognize that he has to obliterate any sense of fear from his heart, and then he can restore the health of the kingdom.
And I happen to think that that fairy tale is a profound understanding.
Even to the details, because in the fairy tale, this is the Sleeping Beauty one, they say, The spell was if the princess pricks her finger on a spindle, she'll die.
But then the country will go into lockdown.
And so the goal was to get rid of every spindle in the kingdom.
And that's what we're doing.
So you have to put a mask over your face.
You have to not see people.
You have to not go to the bar.
You have not go to see your friends.
Get rid of any spindle there is, and then you'll be safe.
And you know what?
There's always going to be another spindle.
Yeah.
It doesn't work like that.
You cannot protect yourself against life.
It's just not part of the program.
So apart from that, I've been struggling to find a different word that refer to this as a fairy tale, because they have some profound truth in them.
It's a superstition, I think, is a better word.
Yeah, a superstition.
Yeah.
It's superstition software.
Yeah.
Ink.
Let's have a company.
Yeah.
Superstition software, ink.
What do you need?
We will provide it.
You know, what superstition do you want to float and propagandize?
It doesn't matter.
We'll give you a piece of software and the very word software immediately has a hypnotic effect.
Everybody goes, well, okay.
Must be true.
Must be true.
Superstition software, Inc.
Right.
Genetic sequence, anything.
Potatoes, buildings, clouds, whatever you want.
Right.
And then people show me a picture on the cover of Atlantic and say, here's a picture of the virus.
How can you say it's not true?
I have this file and I show them a picture of a unicorn and I say, here's the genetic mutations of a unicorn.
Some are purple and some are white and some have a big horn and some have a little horn and that's because they're all mutated because the unicorns don't want us to find them.
I'm thinking of doing that with Sasquatch, but I'm not sure whether Sasquatch is real or not.
So yeah, I'm going to hold off on that one.
Yeah, that's great with the unicorn. Well, I showed you a picture. So we know the unicorn exists.
Yeah, I showed you a picture of the virus. So we know it exists. You know, right?
Must be.
All right, John, anything else you want to share with us? I'm happy to hear it or any other thoughts.
I think this is great.
This is a conversation.
I've been waiting to have this conversation.
Great.
And we've had it.
And, uh, you know, this is a, if you take this out, you know, the virus exists.
That's superstition.
Just move it a little bit over here.
Talk about Lego.
Everything falls down.
Everything falls.
That's why I keep on this exact topic.
If there's no virus, then Something is really wrong here, and we better figure this out.
Right.
John, I just am so grateful, and I just want to express my gratitude again.
Hang in there, be well, and we'll talk again.
You too, Tom.
Thank you so much.
▲
Export Selection