All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
01:15:31
Interview With Dr. Tom Cowan, Author of The Contagion Myth
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome everyone to the first episode of Health Freedom for Humanity podcast with your hosts, Alex Zek, Dr. Joe Yee, aka StreetMD, and Dr. Tommy John.
How's it going guys?
Boom!
Let's do this.
I'm excited.
Dude, out the gates.
HFFH.
Here we go.
Yeah, dude, this is, uh, I mean, we have a banger for our first episode here, um, with our guest being Dr. Tom Cowan and we just finished up recording.
I don't know what you guys thought about that but I was I left feeling very very pumped up and you know the other thing is like the amount of times I had to mute myself because I was laughing so much because the way he articulates things in the most simple form to to sort of show some of these mainstream narratives to be unbelievably ridiculous like just ridiculous.
You know his analogies I want to know like where how he comes up with those analogies like the castle Like, we know that.
Like, the unicorn.
Like, I want to know if he sits down and he's like, I'm gonna go with an analogy right now.
Dude, I think they just come off the top of his head, like, as he's saying them.
Like, he just pops in, but then he, like, came up with, like, the turret and the moat and the flag.
And it's like, dude, you've done, like, castle research, bro.
Or the Legos.
And it was just like, what?
But the last 10 minutes were like the most powerful.
Were you guys nervous at all?
You know, my daughter's into Shawn Mendes and Billie Eilish and shit like that, right?
But like for us, this guy's like our Michael Jackson, you know what I'm saying?
I was really nervous.
If the 2020 celebrities are these health Mongers, you know?
Like, these light warriors are the new celebrities.
Like, the celebrities are off, right?
I mean, they've, like, fallen off.
I don't care about them at all.
Gone, gone.
Athletes, movie stars, musicians, gone.
Gone.
So... No, but for our audience, like, they may know you guys, right?
But they may not know Dr. Tom Cowan.
But for us, like, this guy's, like, man, we...
Super respect this man for what he knows and he's also taught a lot to Kelly too, right?
Kelly and Sarah.
Dr. Kelly Brogan.
Yep.
Yep.
And his extent goes out and his respect though across the board.
You know those people that like there's respect and then there's a couple of those like well, yeah, but he or she it's just like Tom Cowan.
Across the board is just like authentic.
It's everything we stand for to be totally honest with you.
Think about it.
Like it's integrity.
It's authenticity.
He hasn't changed his stance.
He's taking on all this and he continues to evolve and adapt and put it out there.
Like I... What a better representation for us to... He knows his shit though.
He's an amazing representation of humility too because he says in the few conversations I've had with him and I'm sure he said this to you as well TJ.
Your conversation that like I understand that the information I put forth is just what I am bringing into awareness based on my experience.
I'm not trying to like prove or disprove or I'm not claiming that I'm the expert that's always right.
I'm just putting out information as I come across it as I am a practicing physician.
Right.
Right and that's what I love about him is he's so clear in that even in his book which if you haven't read for the people that are only going to be listening to this the contagion myth I highly recommend reading it and for the people watching this book is unbelievable.
It truly just shifted my whole paradigm and I like to say that there's conditionings that have been impressed upon us that that is necessary for us to dissect and break through some of it may be good conditioning some of it may be bad.
This made me question so much of my conditioning.
in such a good like positive way and I view the world differently now because of this book and again he doesn't have anything he's trying to he's not trying to come from a position of oh I'm right you're wrong he's just presenting the information as he has come across it the evidence that he's come across it For our listeners here, if you're not interested in Dr. Tom Cowan, at least listen to the last 10 minutes of this.
That was crazy, you know, how he broke it down.
Yeah, TJ, what are some of the things that we talked about in this?
My gosh, so we got in the 5G, we got in the nutrition PCR test, the problem with the 94 success rate of the vaccine they're talking about.
Which was... I didn't know.
I read the email he sent.
I did not know.
I couldn't read.
I didn't get out what he said to us then.
At the comparison of the... That was phenomenal.
I mean, pull back the veil on that one.
You know, nutrition.
You're...
Talks a little personal stuff.
Covid-iots.
A video that went viral.
I mean... There was a Hitler quote in there and it's scary.
It's scary but it should wake a lot up.
It woke me up even more than I already am when I wake up.
We got into some racial stuff too.
I mean we got... The last 10 minutes is where it's at.
I want people to listen and watch this whole thing.
I am gonna go back to the last 10 minutes and make it for my own.
I'm gonna like keep it for myself.
Yeah, that was...
The whole thing was just unbelievable.
I mean, every time I'm afforded the opportunity to hear him speak or have a conversation with him, not that I'm putting him on this pedestal, but it's just like the man is just unbelievable at breaking down very complex thoughts like there's a lot of doctors and scientists that I've talked to where I'm like okay I need you to say that again like a hundred more times because in order for it to stick I like he uses analogies so well to describe what he's trying to say like the whole coffee bean thing when it comes to viruses we get into
Yeah, that'll be funny for the people listening right now.
How do coffee beans relate to viruses?
Well, you'll have to find out.
Great analogies.
Yeah.
Well, I think this is enough of that, enough of the first intro.
Let's go ahead and get into the episode with Dr. Callan.
Gentlemen, we are here.
The inaugural podcast, for sure.
Let's get going.
Let's get it.
Tom Cowan's time is valuable, so let's get started.
I'm going to come out of the gates blazing.
Tom, when you were on my podcast, we didn't really do a deep dive into this topic, per se, and it keeps getting censored.
The article that hit the internet was quickly pulled down.
The role in EMF with possibly an admission of viruses and what you've considered to be viruses or exosomes.
How is 5G?
Because 5G is an absolute thing in our lives that we need to adapt to.
It is a new variable.
We've seen nothing like it.
I just want your details on exactly how strong it is.
And what it's capable of doing to the human and how what's going on right now might be an effect of 5G.
Yeah, I mean that's starting pretty far down the road here.
So let me just reiterate a little bit just because I think it's important not to get this out of context.
Okay.
So essentially, the sequence of events is people have epidemiological observations.
In other words, a bunch of people are getting sick in a bunch of different places.
And the, you know, as I've said over and over again, the role of epidemiology is not to prove causation, but to generate hypotheses.
In other words, because of a number of people getting sick, it could be infection.
It also could be, you know, pollution, it could be glyphosate, it could be fear, it could be electromagnetic fields.
There's a lot of possible things that cause people to get sick.
So the first step in this is, you know, 99 plus percent of the research and budget has been in only one cause, which is this is caused by a virus.
And the fact of the matter, and I don't, I guess we shouldn't go into this a lot right now, Is it's pretty much been demonstrated, I'd say, conclusively, and I would also say maybe use the word without a shadow of a doubt that a there is no virus.
And so it can't possibly be causing a new disease.
Right?
So that's the first step.
And I know to throw that out without having gone through the proof of that is a little bit out of context.
Sure.
But that's the first step.
Now, since that's true, and you know, I'm not saying that, like, lightly.
Obviously, the CDC says there's no virus.
The Canadian Health Ministry says there's no virus.
The people who came up with the PCR test, Christian Drosten's group said there's no virus.
The Pfizer vaccine company said they don't have a virus.
So nobody has the virus, so it can't be that.
So the question is, is there a new disease at all?
And that's an interesting question because I think the vast majority of the people
who are sick now are sick in what I would call the normal way.
You know, they have whatever it is that causes pneumonia, which I would say is basically you get a toxic exposure and you're weakened because you eat crappy food and all that.
And then you have an elimination of the toxins, which we call being sick, and that's what pneumonia is.
So most of the people who are sick now, that's their problem.
But there is something which, to me, and I'm basing this on first-hand, well, second-hand experience with people who are actually working with people who seem to be sick in a new way.
And to summarize how they're sick in a new way, in other words, this way of being sick is not something that people have experienced before.
And it's basically characterized by two main things.
One is they're hypoxic, which means they have low oxygen.
And two, they have this thing that we now know is called a cytokine storm, which is a very intense inflammatory reaction.
And so that that's basically the symptoms of this new disease.
Now, I just want to emphasize that the vast majority of the people who are sick now who are being called COVID do not have this disease, but some do.
And so the question is, what is this?
And I would say the epidemiology of it is that mainly there have been in places like Wuhan, places like New York City, cruise ship, bunch of nursing homes, northern Italy, and a few other places.
And there are a bunch of factors.
There's air pollution and maybe cyanide and maybe too many vaccines.
But one of the things that is known, and it's been known since the 70s, because A, the Russians did studies on this, and B, the Naval Intelligence Service did studies on this, is the effect of millimeter waves, which is otherwise known as 5G frequencies, I have basically three effects, which we have documented.
One is they interfere with the bioavailability of the oxygen in the atmosphere, which then makes you exposed to lower oxygen concentrations.
Therefore, you might become hypoxic.
Second of all, they interfere with the ability of your mitochondria to use oxygen to generate ATP, which is mischaracterized as fuel, but it's certainly an important substance.
So that's the second way that exposure to millimeter waves makes somebody hypoxic.
This is similar to putting an animal or living being in a microwave oven, and it interferes with the ability of your mitochondria, which is essentially where you make this energy substance.
It interferes with that, so you again get hypoxic.
The other thing it does is it damages the tissues and it even damages the, it basically works by by melting the water.
We are basically made of structured water.
It melts the water that interferes with the integrity of the DNA.
And then you get an inflammatory reaction, which we call a cytokine storm.
And then, and one of the papers you're alluding to, is then the body excretes these degraded pieces of DNA, we call those exosomes, and they have been mischaracterized as viruses.
They're not pathogens from the outside, they're degraded genetic material from the inside.
And so we have epidemiology and we have a mechanism of how these millimeter waves actually cause exactly the symptoms called COVID-19.
Now, I'd be the first one to say, that's not exactly proof.
But it certainly would make, if I was in charge, I'd spend, I'd be done with the virus thing, because we already did that.
We found out there is no virus, and it doesn't cause disease, because how could it if it's just a theoretical virus?
Which is basically interesting, the word that they used for it.
We have the theoretical genome of a theoretical virus.
That's what Christian Dostrand's paper said.
And, you know, I like to say to people when they say, what does that mean?
I say, this is a spoon.
Right?
And a virus is a thing and a spoon is a thing.
And I can eat soup with this actual spoon.
But I cannot eat soup with a theoretical spoon.
And I'm sitting on an actual chair.
And I can't sit on a theoretical chair.
And you cannot make somebody sick with a theoretical virus.
Because another word for theoretical is imaginary.
No, we know that's not the case.
So we should investigate millimeter waves because they make people sick.
We have literally hundreds of studies showing that, and they create exactly the symptoms.
We know the mechanism.
And the thing that I fear the most here is, you know, however this is coming about, What my main worry is that it was rolled out in a way so that the main complaint that people like us have, not me, but a lot of these so-called critics of this, is this is just a bad flu.
We know it's a virus, but it's just a bad flu.
The numbers don't add up.
Now, I would agree that up until now, they don't add up to a bad pandemic.
Problem is, there's two factors that are entirely controllable.
One is the number of cases.
Because all you have to do is turn up the PCR cycles and you get as many cases as you want.
And then if you want to prove that some intervention helped, like a vaccine or masks or whatever, you just turn the cycles down and you end up saying there's a lot less cases now.
Right.
Either of those have anything to do with reality.
They are entirely controllable by the purveyor of the test.
The other thing is if you want to, you know, we have to remember that Bill Gates in 2015 predicted publicly that in this pandemic, which is, he said, about to come, 600 to 900 million people will die worldwide.
That's what he said.
I think we should take him seriously because I think he may know something about this.
That means 20 to 40 million Americans will die.
Now, how would they die?
Well, not the flu and not a viral infection, but they could die of radiation sickness, which is another thing that's entirely controllable by whoever has their hand on the switch.
Now, I don't know that that's going to happen.
And I hope it doesn't.
And I hope if that is even the plan, we stop them.
But one of the things I'm so worried about is, is those people who are criticizing this going all in on it.
It's just a virus.
It's just the numbers are not good.
You know, there's no nothing bad happening here.
Because frankly, I'm not buying that.
And I know I went on for a while, but that's my opening.
What a way to start off the podcast, man.
Holy cow, that's some deep stuff.
I wrote down like five questions.
We're not messing around on this show.
Holy Lord.
Wow, thank you, Tom.
So, Dr. Cowan, my question is... Tom, it's Tom.
Okay, Tom, my question is, when you say that there is no virus, I have the, I guess, the context to understand what you're saying because I've dove into the papers that you reference often in discussing this, but for a lot of the people listening, what is it that you mean by that exactly?
I know you touched on the theoretical portions of it, but I know some people send me papers and be like, hey, they have done an intense genetic sequencing of the virus.
What do you mean there's no virus?
So what exactly do you mean by that?
So in order to say there's a thing like a spoon, remember, we're not talking about a thought or a feeling, right, which you cannot isolate, but everything can be isolated.
And if it's a fork, I can say this is an isolated fork, and this is two isolated forks.
So when the CDC says there are no quantified isolates of the coronavirus available, that means they've never seen the thing, and so they can't count it.
Now, the question I think you're asking, so what are they seeing here?
So the best way to describe this is to understand how human beings actually isolate anything.
And if somebody wants to be my foil here, I think I can explain this so people understand it.
Okay?
So, I'm going to ask you a series of questions, and then you try to give me your best answer.
And just pay careful attention to the wording that I use.
Okay?
So, we're going to do an experiment to see if the caffeine in coffee beans causes high blood pressure.
That's our quest.
So I take coffee beans and I grind them up and I put them in a capsule and I give 10
people the ground up capsule coffee beans and 10 people I give an appropriate placebo
and all the controls are appropriate.
Everything, have I now proved, and they all get high blood pressure.
None of the placebo, all 10 of the people I give the ground up coffee, all 10 of them
get high blood pressure.
Have I proven that caffeine in coffee beans cause high blood pressure?
No, you haven't because you have an isolated caffeine.
You've done a coffee bean that's ground up and given it to the people.
Right.
In other words, there's more things in there than just caffeine.
There's fiber and caffeic acid and aromatic oils and maybe a hundred other things.
Okay, next step.
I put some water in it, put it through a filter paper.
I tell you in my study what the size of the holes in the filter is.
And I end up with coffee, right?
That's how you get coffee.
I give that to 10 people.
I give the other people the same water so there's control.
Have I now proven that the caffeine in coffee beans causes a high blood pressure?
No, you haven't.
Because?
Because you still have coffee that is like being used in place of caffeine itself.
Right.
In other words, there's more things than just caffeine.
Right?
Yeah.
So, okay.
I'm with you.
So, let's do a centrifuge, and it separates things by weight.
I know the weight of the caffeine.
It comes out in a band.
I suck the band out.
I do an independent chemical analysis, and it tells me there's only caffeine in this sample.
I put it in a capsule.
I give 10 people the same capsule, but it has nothing in it.
And 10 people with the caffeine get high blood pressure.
Have I now proven it?
I would say yes.
I would agree.
Okay.
Because we know the steps.
We've isolated the caffeine.
We can then characterize the caffeine.
We can say how much it weighs and everything.
And that is how you do science.
And then you publish the independent chemical analysis so that anybody can see they got just caffeine.
There's no There's no fiber, there's no catheic acid, there's no
anything.
And then usually somebody repeats that experiment and does the same thing and gets the same
result.
Got it?
Yeah.
So here's how from 1930 to 1954, they did the exact same thing with viruses.
They took somebody with chicken pox or measles or something and they took the secretions or the snot and they ground it up like the coffee beans, right?
Now that's not the virus any more than that's the caffeine, right?
They put it through a filter paper, and they got the liquid part where the virus supposedly lives, and they got rid of the cells and the fungus and the bacteria, and so now they had a bunch of, they had liquid, a supernatant they call it, and it has viruses and a bunch of other things.
So then they did the next step, which is they centrifuged it in a gel electrophoresis.
They pull out the molecular weight and they show with an electron microscope that it's pure virus.
Now with measles, they couldn't find the virus.
There was no virus.
With chickenpox, there was.
With herpes, there is.
The next step, they give that purified, isolated virus.
Then you can characterize the genome, right?
You can sequence one end to the other.
You can give it to an animal.
None of the animals got sick.
None of them.
They could not, for 20 years, doing this properly, make any animal or person sick with a purified virus.
And as I like to say, that was the end of virology.
They were going to be plumbers then.
Except somebody said, there's another way to do this, which is what they do until today.
They take snot, right?
Respiratory secretions.
They do a little bit of filtering.
They take that filter stuff, like that's like the coffee.
They inoculate that on a tissue culture, like monkey kidney cells.
And lo and behold, nothing happens.
It doesn't kill the kidney tissue.
So then they figured out that if they starve the tissue, it's called minimal nutrient medium, that that would help, but it still doesn't work.
So then they figured that they had to put in antibiotics like genomicin and amphotericin, which are happened to be kidney toxins, and that then the tissue would break down, and the tissue would release all these particles.
And they said, that means the virus grew and formed all these particles.
That is how we prove to this day that the virus causes disease.
Now, if you think about that, first of all, nobody pulled out the virus from the beginning.
And just like you said, that the coffee doesn't prove it's the caffeine.
And the second of all, we now know that when you poison any tissue, it defends itself by packaging up the genetic material.
These are called exosomes or intracellular vesicles.
And they detoxifies itself by secreting these vesicles, otherwise known as exosomes.
In fact, if we stop the tissue from doing that, the tissue dies.
So this is a fundamental way that the tissue detoxifies itself and then communicates through resonance to other organisms.
Here's what happened.
I've been poisoned by Genomycin.
So every single one, and I mean this because people have sent me, literally hundreds of people have sent me, title of the article, Isolation of the Coronavirus.
Every one is done this exact way.
They take snot, and even in the Christian Drosten paper, they not only didn't have the virus, they were making a test for a virus They had no examples of the virus and they had no samples from any person with COVID-19.
Now think about that.
That's like, you know, Tom, I want you to make a unicorn, a test for a unicorn, but you're not allowed to see a unicorn first.
All you can see is a picture of a unicorn on the internet.
Then you find a piece of a hoof and you say, this must be from a unicorn.
Now, the fact of the matter is, there could be a buffalo or a pig.
I don't know if pigs have hooves.
I think they do.
I think so.
It's a zebra.
You don't have any idea whether it's coming from this so-called outside virus.
And, you know, for people who don't believe me, here's a quote from a magazine, July 2020, on extracellular vesicles and viruses.
The quote is, to date, there is no reliable method that guarantees a complete separation from viruses from exosomes or, you know, endocellular vesicles.
And I can tell you, There's a thing called a fork, and this is a different thing called a spoon.
And the only reason you can't separate a fork from a fork or an exosome from a virus is because they're the same thing.
All of these things we're calling viruses are excretions of the cell.
And that's why in my first video, I said, you poison a cell and it poops out viruses.
Wow, thank you for that.
Because I've had so many people, I mean I can't even imagine, at this point you've got to be almost like just like irritated at how many people try to... What about this one?
Yeah, go ahead.
Joe is going to ask that.
That's actually a nice lead-in to Joe's angle.
No, no, but just piggybacking on what you just said Alec and Tom.
Oh my god, lost my train of thought here.
Tom, what exactly is lighting up on this PCR test then, this genetic sequence?
How are they linking this to the virus?
So, it turns out that they're linking it to the virus because they have what they call, and the word is exactly, a theoretical genome.
of a theoretical virus that was based on the theoretical genome of a theoretical SARS virus in 2003.
So even the first SARS virus, they didn't have an example of that either.
So basically, they're assuming that these two snippets that they're using in the PCR test must come from the theoretical virus.
Now, how do they make the genome?
They basically, they take people who have a certain sickness, and they say, we make these snippets of these genetic sequences.
And they interestingly have some wobbles in them, so they don't even know the exact snippets that they're using.
And then they see if that matches something in the secretions of that person.
Now it turns out a guy I know did a BLAST study, which means you can go to the Human Genome Project website and actually put in the sequences that they're using that they say have come that are unique to this coronavirus, right?
You can put them in and you can see if there's any matches in the human genome.
It turns out there are 93 examples in the typical human genome of exactly those sequences.
In other words, these sequences are not unique to any coronavirus.
First of all, if you don't have the coronavirus, to isolate and then characterize, you can't possibly know that that's coming from them.
So how did they do it?
So how did they, why did they say they have the whole genome?
So they say these two sequences must have come from the coronavirus, even though now we know that there's 90 of the identical sequences in the human genome, and approximately 91 that come from microbes.
fungus and bacteria.
On the BLAST search, it lights up 90 plus sequences from bacteria and fungus, many of which might be living with us that have these same sequences.
So but what they do is they take these two pieces of a total of eight, say eight or nine different genes.
that are the whole genome. So they have two of them which they say must be coming from this virus
even though they're not and then they put that in their computer and the computer fills out the rest.
Now here's an example of that. It's like I say I want you to make an exact Lego copy of King
Beauregard's castle from 1200 and then I spread all the Lego pieces out and the first thing that
any rational human being would say is can you show me a picture of the castle?
Yes.
No.
Why not?
Because that's not, we're not doing that.
Okay.
So you say to yourself, this is nuts.
But then you say, I'll give you a million dollars this year if you do it.
So, okay, you do it.
And so then you start looking and you find a moat and a turret and a flag.
And then you say, I know that turrets and moats must be from castles.
So this must be from King Beauregard's castle.
And then you have a moat and a turret and a window and a soldier, and then you put that in a computer, and it generates the whole castle.
That's exactly what they have.
They have snippets of DNA.
They don't know where they're coming from.
It turns out they match With 93 segments from us, 90 from microbes, and then the computer fills in the rest.
And that's what they mean by the whole genome.
And it's a fraud.
Tom, you know what you know, and you've known this for quite a while now.
Are you surprised by how blinded by the truth people are?
No.
I mean, I talk about this all the time, but it's just like, I wake up in disbelief with like basic clinical stuff out there, information out there.
You know, our good friend Sarah G is always posting on that kind of stuff.
And it's just like, almost like it's easier for people to just turn their eyes away from that kind of information and just follow what the CDC and Fauci are saying.
I mean, are you surprised at all in humanity and the fact that they're not willing to see basic information like this?
No, I'm not surprised at all.
It's typical.
And there's many other examples.
And partly it's because one of the strategies that's used to do this is they keep saying very confusing things.
And then a typical human being has one of two responses.
One is, this stuff is crazy and I don't believe it, or this stuff is so complicated, I'm gonna stop thinking,
because I can't make any sense of this.
So here's an example, it's in our book, but the head, so we're told that if you have
a viral infection, you make antibodies, and the antibodies protect you from life,
for life against that virus.
Now, never mind that we then got told that if you have antibodies to HIV, that means you're sick with the virus.
So that's weird, because they just told you that if you have antibodies, you're immune.
And now they just told you that if you have antibodies, that means the virus is going to kill you.
But anyways, so they asked this head of infectious disease at Wake Forest, what do antibodies mean in the coronavirus?
Since that's ostensibly the whole purpose of a vaccine is to make you make antibodies.
And here is an almost exact quote of what he said.
So antibodies against coronavirus mean you either had the virus or you didn't have the virus.
You were either sick or you weren't sick.
And you're either immune or you're not immune.
Now, some people hear that and they say, man, this is complicated.
But think about it.
You go to buy a refrigerator, you walk into a refrigerator store and you say, what do you think about this refrigerator?
He says, it's a good refrigerator.
It'll either keep the food cold or it won't.
And you'd say to yourself, this guy's a friggin' idiot.
You know, I'm not buying this refrigerator.
Because, you know, if he doesn't even know if it's going to keep the food cold, there's something really wrong here.
And, you know, I'm going to do this at my peril, but I want to read a quote that may explain some of this.
You can all guess who might have said this quote.
Oh this is great.
It's very interesting and it's a little long so bear with me but it's kind of interesting.
Quote, in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily.
And this in the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more readily fall victim to the big lie
rather than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little
matters, but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths,
and they would not believe that others would have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.
Honestly.
Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think there must be some other explanation.
For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down.
A fact which is known to all expert liars in this world, and all those who conspire together in the art of lie.
In other words, everybody tells little lies, so we think, yeah, you might tell a little lie.
But everybody would be ashamed to say such a whopper, and so you cannot believe that anybody would say that.
You know who said that?
Orwell or Seuss?
No.
Oh, man.
Someone from the Nazi Party.
Yeah, Adolf Hitler.
Oh, wow.
Wow.
He was brilliant at this.
And I don't want anybody to say that means I'm a supporter of Adolf Hitler.
That was your peril.
That's your own peril.
That means he was describing how this is done.
Because he was good at it.
Wow.
Geez.
Geez.
All right.
Guys, we got 25 more minutes.
We're good.
This is easy.
I have like 18 more questions.
I'm sure you guys do too.
I know.
I have an eight on its side.
It's an infinite number of questions.
No, but I want to bring it back to something.
The reason we started Health Freedom for Humanity, the reason Alec started, like the whole point was to, part of it was to give people action, to give people hope, to empower the population.
Headed towards their version of new for them, whatever they're going to make of it.
And Tom, I love, I always have loved, I'm an advocate for your books, your background.
Your nutrition approach, I've been doing for 17 years, the group you're involved with, traditional methods of preparing foods and growing foods.
I know you are very passionate about your land and your gardening.
I wish I will be getting into that.
But I would just love you to break down some of the politically incorrect methods and some of the ingredients per se that we've been kind of bastardized over the years as being unhealthy or bad for your heart or bad for your brain or bad for the system.
That whether it's if somebody believes it's a virus or it's not a virus or Bill Gates has some really crazy stuff coming or 5G or anything else that we're not even sure of nutritionally.
What, where, where can people look to Prince from the principles of the traditions of how to nourish the human cells or nourish the human body?
What's your makeup or what's your kind of 10 point solution or whatever you would say from a nutritional standpoint?
Because I love, I love when you talk nutrition.
So, you know, for me, the important point is to put this in context.
And also, by the way, I'm not a big fan of hope.
Hope, I like to say, is for suckers.
And that means you hope for the best.
And there's no room right now for hoping for the best.
Because if we don't do something, this isn't going to go well.
It's not going well now.
You can't sit around hoping for the best.
Like, I hope they won't I hope that, whatever, there's just this action and yeah.
You're not hoping that Joe Biden's going to turn this around?
I am not hoping anybody's going to turn this around except us.
I'm glad you said that.
So the next thing that really is the crucial turning point for people is Human beings, you know, we're different than animals, but we're also, in a sense, a kind of animal, right?
We're a living being.
We share certain things with plants, certain things with animals.
We're different, but the bottom line is, like wild animals, like wild plants, living in an unspoiled natural habitat, When human beings live in unspoiled natural habitat and are free to carry out their lives as they see fit, they have no disease.
And this has been proven over and over again.
They live long, healthy lives.
Weston Price, in particular, studied people who were not that different than us.
They were Swiss Highlanders and or Swiss mountain people and Scottish Highlanders.
And they lived into their 80s, 90s, etc.
with no disease.
And I mean no disease.
That's normal.
Right.
And So we actually have a blueprint of how they did it.
I read something just last week where a guy actually came up with an interesting name for modern humans, which he called, we're the same species as those people because we can reproduce, but we are now Homo sapien domesticus fragilis.
Which means we are fragile and domesticated.
In other words, sickly.
And the reason is because unlike those people who, you know, so it's not just food, but what did they do?
They moved all the time.
They were out in the sun all the time.
They were on the earth all the time.
They ate animals, and they ate the heart, and the bones, and the testicles, and the ovaries, and the brains, and everything.
And they ate, you know, wild plants, and they crushed berries, and ate pine nuts, and they even sort of cultivated things.
And they probably ate some grass seeds.
And, you know, it's not even against grains.
You know, grew rye berries and they, they ate everything that a human being can eat in the proper way.
And if you want to know what the proper way just go to nourishing traditions.
And when that happens, there is essentially no sickness.
I mean, occasionally you fall off a cliff or get gored by a, you know, an animal or a snake bites you or something.
And you know, they either had ways of dealing with that or they didn't.
That's normal.
And I can't emphasize that enough.
This business that, you know, 50% of the children have a disease and every, you know, one out of two people get cancer and one out of one and a half get die of heart attacks.
This is an a unbelievable anomaly for any living being to have that level of sickness.
And it isn't just food, but the answer to what to eat is just go back and see what those people ate.
None of them were vegans. None of them were vegetarians.
They ate, you know, wild food and cultivated food in its natural state.
They did certain kinds of processing, like they fermented stuff, you know, that is a kind of processing.
Or they would break the grains or they would, you know, roast meat, you know, or put it in a vat and, you know, bubble it up or, you know, they did stuff.
But it's really as simple as that.
And, you know, there's all kinds of rules, and I don't necessarily want to get into all the rules of what they did.
But that's the principle.
The thing that really is important for people, if you're out there thinking there's a modern-day technological solution to this problem, you are sorely mistaken.
There is no such solution like that.
The only solution is to live like human beings are meant to live.
Just like you put an elephant in the wild eating elephant food, they live a hundred years, they never get sick.
There's no elephant doctors.
There's no elephant cancers.
They don't need, you know, and you put them in a zoo and you feed them glyphosate and they all get tumors.
What's so complicated about this?
Right.
Tom, when Weston A. Price was traveling the globe, noticing these cultures, there were radio waves correct like there was exposure to all these things and these people still like adapted to that global environment yes okay so we can adapt we could in theory anyways right i don't know what will happen i mean the more that the problem is you know
Electrical influences, EMFs, are meant to create, you know, normal electromagnetic fields like from the Sun and the Earth and the planets and all that, is A, broad spectrum, and B, it's not pulsed.
So, the problem is, if you want a radio, it has to be tuned to a certain frequency, right?
98.6.
Otherwise, your radio doesn't work.
You can't have it a broad spectrum of frequencies like normal, you know, native EMF exposure.
Otherwise, it doesn't work.
And all that's happening is they're getting more and more intense pulsed frequencies because they want more
and more bandwidth.
And they want more and more devices and more and more things connected to that.
So you have to use higher intensity specific frequencies.
And that's not something that human beings were ever exposed to.
So it basically breaks down the water, and your DNA is embedded in the water.
So it breaks down your tissues, breaks down your water.
Your water is structured so it is the radio receiver of the universe.
And we all are walking around with out of tune radios.
And that's why, you know, when somebody asked me, am I surprised that people can't think properly?
No, because they don't even have the mechanism to receive the impulses.
It's like, it's no different than I would expect if I took a transistor radio and bashed it with a hammer and then you said, are you surprised that it doesn't play the songs?
The answer is no, because he broke it.
Hey Tom, before Alex gets to his question, just asking about the frequencies here.
I have a very young audience, mostly like 18 to 25 year old young guns.
And I think what I do is I explain to my audience in a very simple, basic manner.
And depending on the medical personnel, different people have different frequency ranges of 5G, which is dangerous and which is okay.
Can you just break it down in a very basic way?
What's safe and what's dangerous?
None of them are safe.
None of the 5G frequencies is safe.
I'm no expert on electrification stuff and which millimeter waves are which, so that's really a question for somebody else.
But as far as I can see, now I do think there may be mitigation strategies.
There are, you know, I don't know how many 10, 20 different things people have sent me to try to mitigate the negative effects of EMFs.
But, you know, you can do that with biogeometry.
You can do it with a number of different devices, I think.
But I haven't said anything publicly like use this one because none of them have the level of proof that I'm looking for.
But as far as I can see, there is no possibility of non-native frequency exposure being safe.
Now, that doesn't mean we can't go on and sort of live with it like we do with radio waves, and maybe it's not even a big deal.
But if you're talking about non-toxic, that I do not believe.
It's they may have a level of toxicity, which we may decide is acceptable, like radio waves, because actually what's happened is the exosomes have helped us adapt, right?
Radio waves create a certain kind of, you know, genetic debris, which is picked up in PCR tests.
I'm sure if they had them in 1918, And you know, they would have said there's this new virus, but there isn't there's just genetic debris from radio wave toxicity.
And that sent out a signal all the other people and animals resonated with it.
And they learned how to adapt to it.
I wouldn't call that safe.
It's basically foolhardy to try to make human beings live like that.
I'm to the point, I don't see the benefit.
I don't see that we're happier or healthier or live more connected or meaningful lives than your typical Swiss Highlander or Native people.
They had better lives.
Just how it is.
And there may be evolution of consciousness reasons why we had to go through this.
There's that story which I sort of get it.
There are no mistakes in the universe.
So I could say that we had to go through this in order for us to get to the point where we make the conscious decision that this is not how human beings are meant to live.
And right now we're at the cost of that.
We got a choice here.
Are we going to merge ourselves with computers and be transhumanist in this quest for immortality?
Or are we going to be human beings and actually, as I like to say, realize that we actually are immortal anyways?
That part of us that's real, it's this thing we call our body, it's just a coat anyways, it's an illusion really.
And so we don't need to have a quest for immortality because the big secret is we already got it.
Love it.
Damn, I love that so much.
Love it.
So, Tom, my next question for you is a little change of pace.
So, there seems to be a lot of narratives because we have quite a degree of vaccine hesitancy right now like we've had no time before.
Because people are able to see how the sausage is made.
But the new narrative now on why the vaccine is sped up is because, oh, this is what happens when you direct funding at something properly.
That's why these vaccines are being developed so effectively.
What is unique about an mRNA vaccine?
And what are the implications of forcing an entire population or coercing an entire population of people to receive this vaccine?
Well, so I would say this is a bit of a lack on my part, because at this point, and I may try to remedy this, I can't say I'm an expert on either what's in the vaccines or how they're going to function.
But what I can say is, number one, if there's no virus and the Pfizer and others have admitted there's no virus, What are they putting in these vaccines?
Now, the other thing I can tell you is when they do the trials of the vaccines, they are only looking at symptom reduction on, say, day 14.
They're not looking at anything to do with a virus or anything to do with transmission or infectivity.
There is no antibody test done.
There's no PCR tests.
There's no viral cultures.
There's no attempt to assess transmission.
So these are not actually vaccines.
When you think of a vaccine, you think I'm giving a measles vaccine, even though measles has been ruled by the German court to not even exist.
But let's say it does just for sake.
I'm giving this vaccine so you become immune to the virus.
And so you don't pass the virus to other people.
But they Moderna and Pfizer freely admits that they're not studying either one of those.
They're only studying reduction of symptoms.
Now here's where it gets interesting because they say they're 94.5% efficient.
Does anybody know where they got that number from?
I've seen Dr. Tina Moore on Instagram talk about it quite a bit, but aside from that, I can't speak to it well, so I'd love for you to.
Here's how.
Everybody needs to know this.
Let's do a simpler example.
You guys can all try to answer it.
Again, properly done trial, drug X for heart attacks, right?
I do 10 people, I give them the drug.
10 people, I give them placebo.
The end of the year, two people, Joe's your turn.
didn't take the drug have a heart attack, one person who did take the drug has a heart attack.
One out of 10 in the drug, two out of 10 in the placebo.
What is the benefit of the drug?
Joe, it's your turn.
Pretty minimal.
No, it's 10%.
It should be, yeah, it should be 10%, but would they compare the one to the two?
Yes, they say it's 33% because the total is 3 and 2 of 3 is 66 and 1 of 3 is 33.
Now what if you did a million people?
A million people you gave the drug, a million people you didn't.
At the end of the year, one person in the drug had a heart attack and two people in the placebo had a heart attack.
What's the benefit?
33.
33%?
Yeah.
Even though a normal human being would say it's .0001% benefit.
Right.
So, when they do a Moderna trial, they do 15,000 in the vaccine, 15,000 in the placebo, 90 in the placebo get symptoms of cold, flu, muscle aches, which they say that must be COVID.
Now only five in the in the vaccine got those symptoms on day 14.
And so that's a difference of 0.6% versus 0.03% which is 0.57% improvement.
versus 0.03%, which is 0.57% improvement.
But they say 94.5 because 90 plus five and 90 is 94% of 95.
Now here's where it gets really interesting.
In the side effect part of it, it was approximately 400 people in the vaccine who got the same symptoms.
Fever, chills, myalgias, etc.
So 400 of the vaccine and basically none of the placebo.
So that was about 2% of the vaccine got a side effect.
The same side effects as they're calling COVID, right?
And so what's the benefit?
2%.
So in the positive one, they do it by the risk reduction.
In the side effect, they do absolute numbers.
And they say 2%, that's nothing.
But if you think about what happened, if you got the vaccine, you were four times as likely to be sick in those 14 days as if you didn't get the vaccine.
That's the facts.
Because it's 90 versus 400.
That's a 400% increase in symptoms.
And that's the only thing they measured.
They didn't measure whether it would make you immune.
They didn't measure whether it would transmit.
Now, I can even tell you there's very interesting ways of making people have less symptoms at day 14.
So, for instance, you could put steroids in the vaccine and then you'll have less symptoms at day 14.
I don't know if they did that, but they could.
Here's another way they could make less symptoms at day 14.
You know, typically if you stimulate somebody to have a cold or a flu type
symptoms, right, as soon as they're done and it takes a week, most people don't do that again, right?
If you get a cold or a flu like symptoms, you usually get over it in a week and then you're better after that.
So you could stimulate these symptoms in the first week in people with a vaccine.
And then you can guess that they probably won't get sick in the next week.
And then it looks like the vaccine worked.
This this is is scientific fraud.
And they do this with every trial.
If you look at statin drugs for heart attacks, they say it reduces the risk by 57%.
Now think about that.
If it was an actual number, that would mean 57 out of 100 people who didn't take the drug got a heart attack And none who took the drug got a heart attack.
And the problem is 50%, 7% or 94.5% don't get anything.
You're never gonna have a 30% reduction because nobody gets 30% of rheumatoid arthritis.
And when I was in medical school and I asked them, how come you report the benefit in risk reduction, which is the percentage, and the side effects in absolute numbers, they said one of, I think, the three things I still agree with from medical school.
The guy said, because nobody would take the drugs if we didn't do it.
Oh, wow.
He was correct.
If you said to somebody, the benefit of this vaccine is 0.57%, nobody would do that.
But that's the facts.
Tom, were you someone who was very frustrated going throughout medical school?
I went to an allopathic medical school as well, brainwash school, but I was pretty frustrated having to be forced to learn the structure of a triglyceride molecule instead of them teaching me how to eat healthy fats and so on.
For someone like you going through allopathic medical school, were you pretty frustrated with what they were teaching you?
No, because I decided before I went to medical school that I was doing this to learn essentially what I needed to learn from them and then just get out.
Oh, you can only be frustrated if I had the expectation that they were actually going to teach me something of value.
So I was fine.
I would say that every single comment I had, you know, the way I did it, they would, I would be in clinic and they'd say, you know, I was a pretty good student.
So, you know, what's the treatment for strep throat?
I'd say penicillin.
What's the dose?
250 milligrams QID.
And they would look at me like they'd say, you didn't say that with a lot of enthusiasm.
And I would say, yeah, but I'm correct, right?
Yes, you're correct.
And they would write on my reports, this guy is not fun to teach.
I agree, I wasn't fun to teach.
But they couldn't flunk me because, you know, I could pass.
Hey Tom, you heard of this lady Kelly Brogan, MD?
I know Kelly well.
Yes, yes.
So I've been trying to get her attention for two and a half years and finally with this outbreak we somehow connected, right?
And she shared with me the video where you were in a, I think it was a college class you were teaching and then you gave that little talk about Wuhan and the 5G there.
Yeah.
That video was the one that went viral that I think everyone saw and kind of put you on the map.
I was always wondering for you, when that happened, did you get a tremendous amount of backlash on that?
Yes.
And how did you handle that and what was that experience like?
We've had videos that kind of went big on Instagram and like Alec just messaged us about some troll that was like trying to disprove everything that he was saying and I can't imagine what it was like for you because that video went everywhere.
I heard a hundred million people saw it.
I got some calls from The irony, first of all, I was at a conference, the other speakers didn't show up, and I almost left, and I didn't even know it was being taped, really.
I knew there was a guy with a camera, but I thought I was talking to 20 people in a room.
Not 100 million.
Yeah, not 100 million.
And the irony of it is, You know, I heard probably in 1988 that viruses don't cause disease.
And I'm good friends with the guy in the early 90s who put up the money for anybody who could, $100,000 for anybody who could show him an HIV virus from somebody with AIDS.
And I can tell you, he's a very savvy investor because he's invested in our companies.
And you don't put one over On this guy and he still has his money as he knew he would because there is no such thing So I I have been aware of this whole thing since the early 90s and the problems with the whole viral theory but When I made that video I could not describe What virologists do to so-called isolate viruses
Or even how a vaccine was made.
And I say that with a kind of, it even shocks me that after all those years, I was still, I would say, at least partly delusional about what I was seeing.
Because I never really had an occasion to look into it.
I mean, that's weird, because I just said I had 20 years of occasion and I should have looked into it, but I just didn't want to have anything to do with it.
At that point, then, I said to myself, Tom, you better be fluent in virology in one month, because I knew what was coming.
And so, you know, I basically taught myself how to be fluent in virology.
because I didn't know anything about that, which makes me also realize your average doctor has no clue.
No clue.
I didn't know, even me, and I don't say that like I'm some great guy.
I just, even as much as I was steeped in the whole controversy,
and I know Dewsburg, and a lawyer that I was friends with
was the guy who defended people who were accused of murder for HIV.
So if anybody should have known this, it should have been me, but I didn't.
But then, you know, with help of Stefan Lenka and a few other people, I could teach myself this to the point where I knew what I was talking about.
So I didn't say anything for a month.
I didn't do interviews, you know.
The Canadian broadcast tried to interview Rachel Maddow.
I heard did something about what a kook I was.
And I didn't do any interviews, I didn't say anything.
Once I knew what the gig was, once I knew what the story was, then I could start speaking.
And then I met Andy Kaufman, because he heard me say this, and he really filled in the details.
And then we started talking, and the two of us, I mean, mostly Andy, frankly, we could figure this out.
And now I think I got it.
We had a party with Andy Kaufman.
He was trying to give me a drink.
I was trying to explain to him that I don't have a liver enzyme that breaks down alcohol properly and he was still pushing that on me.
Very unprofessional actually.
Yeah, it's a true story.
And we were having a good time, Kelly and Sarah's house at the Thank You Body Rally in Miami.
And Andy went straight for the champagne, popped it, and Joe's like, no, no, no.
We were cheering everybody and celebrating life.
And Joe's like, I have an enzyme, I can't digest alcohol.
And Andy listed the enzyme exactly.
He's like, yeah, here, drink up.
I know.
Don't get in an argument with Andy.
No.
He was the biggest bully at that party, seriously.
That guy's bad ass.
So Tom, as one of the two final questions, against the backdrop of what we are experiencing right now,
and this will be a loaded one.
Why is health freedom, and the freedom to choose, and the freedom to say no, and the freedom to discern for the individual what health looks like, so important?
Because if you don't, you're gonna get basically chipped and transhumanized, and the life that you're gonna have is not a human life.
Simple as that.
There is no future in In the plans that are being laid out for us.
To be a human.
To be a human being.
There's no future in it.
That's so bluntly, perfectly stated and scary, you know, and I like it because then that leads us to take action.
And Tom, this is something, you're our first podcast for Health Freedom for Humanity and we're going to end all the podcasts with this question and I'm, you touched upon it earlier, you just hit it now.
If you were to walk through a door, of the new earth and you said like we're ascending you know
our consciousness is leveling up we need to take action now hope is is something but if you were to
walk through that door and we did ascend We did take action.
What do you see in the new earth?
Like what do you see after all these maybe systems break down and everything?
What do you see?
What's your vision?
What do you see us doing, acting, saying as humans being humans to that new level?
What do you see if you could fantasize about that?
You know, let me take it back a step, because it may be just a cop out, but it's easier for me to say that there actually is a very well documented way out of this problem.
That would be the first step.
And it comes in the fairy tale of Sleeping Beauty.
Because in that story, the The princess essentially had a spell put on by the witch of materialism.
That's what the stepmother represents.
Materialistic thinking.
Thinking that only matter exists.
And as a result, then she got injected, right?
Pricked her finger, which is a kind of injection, and the whole kingdom went in lockdown.
Right?
And the kingdom was engulfed in toxic thorns, just like we are.
We're in lockdown, under the spell of materialism, and we're in lockdown and asleep, and nothing good can happen.
And then a bunch of people tried to rescue the kingdom and rescue the princess, and they were all killed by the thorns.
And then one day a prince heard about this and he said, I'm going to rescue the princess and restore the kingdom to health and prosperity.
And they said, no, you can't do that because you'll get killed like everybody else.
And he said a very simple thing.
Does anybody know what he said?
I'm not afraid.
And he went there and because he had no fear in his heart, The thorns dissolved, they had no power over him, and the kingdom was restored to health and prosperity.
All he had to do was obliterate the experience of fear from his heart, and then it's simple after that.
There's nothing to be afraid of.
So what does that world look like?
It looks different for everybody.
There is no blueprint.
You don't need a blueprint.
You have certain agreements like nobody in their right mind would poison the water or the air or spray glyphosate or chemtrails or put electromagnetic fields and all that sort of technical stuff.
But if you have a world where there's no fear and people are free to do as they please without coercion, then we'll sort it out.
And it's actually the moral of that story is it literally can happen overnight.
This is not a difficult problem to solve.
The only difficulty is just finding a place to not have fear.
And the only way to do that is to realize that the thing that's driving this is the quest for being immortal.
That's the basis of the transhumanistic agenda.
We want to live forever, so we're going to download our mind into a computer, and we're going to make all you people do it too.
And like I said earlier, the interesting thing about the quest for immortality is I, at least, am totally convinced that we already have it.
The part of us that's real is immortal anyway, so we've got nothing to worry about.
There's nothing to be afraid of.
There's nobody to bow down to.
It's easy.
But we're under a spell, just like the princess was.
And that's why we can't see it.
Tom, you're amazing.
Thank you.
What a great way to end it.
▲
Export Selection