All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 30, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
47:14
Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman - Why a CV19 Virus HAS NOT been Proven
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Warning!
This video contains the truth!
Hello, and welcome to Medicamentum Authentica.
I'm Dr. Kauffman.
You may have seen last week that I appeared on a roundtable discussion on the Myth is Canada channel with Dr. Judy Mikovits.
And during that discussion, she and I got into a little bit of a debate about viruses.
And I wanted to reflect on that and discuss it at length because the central issue to the current pandemic crisis.
And I think my friend, Dr. Cowan, agrees.
So I brought on Tom Cowan again.
And we were going to give some commentary and go over this discussion again.
So thank you for joining me today, Tom.
Thank you, Andy.
I think it's a very important thing to talk about this and really to get it straight as best we can and give our perspective.
And, you know, it's important to recognize the contributions of Dr. Michovitz, because she has really, you know, been a great example in many ways in what she's done, how she has confronted the government when they were putting impurities into vaccines, and she really suffered for that.
And she's also come out in the recent year to really advocate, you know, for people against this Yes, I also want to echo that and to say that the reason we're doing this is not for any sort of personal attack or personal anything.
It's just to clarify certain very specific issues, which Andy and I think are really at the core to A, understanding the current COVID situation, but at least for me, and I think Andy would share with this, this is such an important thing to get right, because if we don't get it right now, there is an amazing opportunity to really shake this whole sort of viral paradigm down to its roots.
And we've been through this over and over again.
We can't keep doing this over and over again.
And if this is a kind of a war that's being waged on a scientific front, then we need to be scientifically prepared.
And that's really the only goal that I think we have in this is to present our view of the science in this.
Right, that's absolutely correct.
And you know, we we've said this before, and we'll say it again, that we're always open to looking at other people's point of view, as long as it's a scientific argument.
So if people out there have other evidence or they interpret this evidence differently, you know, we welcome hearing about those opinions, but we want to make sure that we keep this discussion to the real issues and not bring in, you know, other irrelevant arguments.
And, you know, perhaps we'll expand upon that a little bit later.
But Tom, I think you had a way to kind of start off this discussion.
So you'd like to take the lead?
Yeah.
And so what we talked about really is when you, it seems to me that when you get to the core of this issue, we're actually talking about whether this virus, meaning the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or really any of the viruses, we're talking about HIV and we're talking about measles and we're talking about Ebola and Zika, et cetera.
have been properly isolated.
Now, we're actually using what I think you could say is the dictionary definition of the word isolation, which is to separate one thing from every other thing.
And the reason this is so important is because if you are going to use a quote test, i.e.
like the PCR test, To say that this virus, this segment of the virus, this essentially this sequence, could have only come from this unique virus.
I think and I hope we would all agree that we would actually have isolated and characterized the genome of the virus Before we do that, because if you haven't actually isolated the virus from everything else, I don't see any way that you could say that this piece came from that virus.
So I've been through this and Andy has also been through this many times, but it's again so crucial.
So I thought I would do it again.
And I'm sure people have heard me say this, but it's very similar because we tend to think these concepts are so complicated, I as a person listening can't possibly understand this.
But I beg to differ because here's how it goes.
So our quest is we want to find out whether caffeine from coffee beans causes high blood pressure.
So naturally we start with only coffee beans and we grind them up in our coffee grinder.
Now if you were to say you put those in a capsule and then you do an appropriate control and get matched subjects and all that and you gave this ground up coffee to 10 subjects and they all get high blood pressure, I think we can all agree that that is not isolated caffeine and so you can't possibly make that conclusion.
So okay, we do the next step.
We take those ground coffee, and we put it through a filter paper, and we make essentially what we call coffee.
And again, we have many things in the coffee, just like we had in the coffee grinds.
We have caffeic acid, we have fiber, we have aromatic oils, and I don't know how many hundreds of things there are in coffee.
Theobromine.
Theobromine, etc.
So if we, again, did a control and gave that coffee to 10 people, I hope and I think we could all agree that nobody could say it's the caffeine in the coffee.
You might be able to say coffee causes high blood pressure, but not the caffeine.
So okay, you do the next step, which is, and these are standard virology techniques.
So you take the coffee and you put it through some density centrifuge, And you spin things out by molecular weight, and then you get a band, and then you suck out the band, and then you demonstrate that the only thing in that band, by hopefully independent chemical analysis.
So, in other words, you send it to a lab, and they say, the only thing you have in this band is pure caffeine.
There's no theobromine, there's no oils, there's no nothing.
That is what we call isolation.
Now, once you do that, you could characterize how many nitrogens, how many oxygens, how many hydrogens are in that chemical.
You could then give that chemical cure to a bunch of people or animals and see if they get high blood pressure.
And that is essentially the scientific logical method of finding out whether a particle In other words, a thing.
As Andy said, we have to remember, this virus is a thing.
It's not a feeling or a thought or an idea.
It's a thing and all things are a computer model.
It's just something.
It's a thing that we can isolate.
So that's how humans think about causation and think about characterization.
Now, to my surprise, and I would actually say shock in In delving into this whole virology debate is, as far as I can see, and I think Andy can weigh in on this, nobody has actually done that, not only with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but with the HIV virus or Zika virus or measles virus.
They simply didn't do it.
And I'm not sure what reason they give for not doing it, because I know with things like bacteriophages, which are Essentially, quote, virus or virus-like particles that come from bacteria, or at least we think they do, or so-called giant viruses.
This isolation project process is standard science.
So instead of that, what they do is they take material from a so-called COVID patient, or sometimes they take stock material.
And they grind it up just like the coffee, they filter it just like the coffee, and then they stop there.
Now that's called the supernatant, and that has all kinds of stuff in it.
In fact, when you go back to the original paper, and I'm going to read from this, they actually mixed this material with milk, and then they mixed it with bovine serum, you know, fetal bovine serum.
Now the trouble is both milk and bovine fetal serum have exactly the same kind of genetic material as does the so-called virus.
So essentially what we're doing is we're adding the coffee to a big vat which contains tea and chocolate and yerba mate and yerba sante and a few other things, all of which are known to have caffeine.
And at that point, forevermore, you will be unable to say, this caffeine came from coffee beans, because it's in a big vat.
So then they take this supernatant, which is unpurified with maybe toxins and all kinds of stuff in it.
They inoculate that onto a kidney tissue called Vero cells.
And interestingly, nothing happened.
So they said, well, we think something quote, should happen.
So we then starve the kidney tissue and nothing happened.
And then they said, well, we really think something should happen.
So they add antibiotics like gentamicin and amphotericin, both of which are so-called nephrotoxic substances, meaning they're poisonous to the kidneys.
And then lo and behold, the tissue breaks down into literally thousands or maybe millions of little particles.
And there is simply no way anybody can know whether those particles have any reflection to an original virus in the person, or whether they're simply breakdown products of the tissue.
And unfortunately, That is what standard virologists call isolation.
Now, the thing that confused me when I watched this video was that Dr. Mikovits said emphatically that she agreed with Andy that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was never isolated.
And then she said, but emphatically, I isolated, meaning she isolated these HIV viruses and viruses that cause leukemia.
But the thing that was so confusing is the process that she used to isolate is exactly the same process.
And I don't see how that makes any, how that's possible.
Now, the other interesting thing is this has a long history.
In fact, this whole process called viral culture It was inaugurated by a virologist, I guess, named John Enders.
I have his paper here.
I didn't get it to Andy in time.
It's from the American Journal of Public Health, March 1957, called Measles Virus, A Summary of Experiments Concerned with Isolation Properties and Behavior.
Apparently, Enders was aware that this viral culture slash method of isolation he was using was not actually proven to be accurate.
And I would say, don't trust me.
Let me read you what Ember says.
So this is page, volume 47, page 279.
And I'm going to quote now.
Quote, Ruckel has lately reported similar findings and in addition has isolated an agent from monkey kidney tissue that is indistinguishable from a human measles virus.
The problem, however, of the origin of the agent responsible is unknown.
So in other words, he doesn't know whether this is a exogenous virus or a Normal tissue breakdown product of the starved and poisoned kidney cells.
And then later on to page 281 he says, quote, There is potential risk in employing cultures of primate cells for the production of vaccines composed of attenuated virus, since the presence of other agents, possibly latent in primate tissue, cannot be definitely excluded by any known method.
Now, you could say, well, that was 70 years ago.
But here's a paper that I found, which was published in a journal called Viruses.
This is May 2020.
It's called The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV, and SARS Virus.
And I won't read this whole paragraph, but the final paragraph was, quote, However, to date, a reliable method that can guarantee a complete separation, meaning of breakdown products from the cell from viruses, quote, does not exist.
So 70 years after doing these studies, we cannot tell you whether these things that the scientists for SARS-CoV-2 The scientists for HIV, the science papers that Dr. Mikewicz did, are actually independent pathogenic viruses, or simply the breakdown products of starved and poisoned tissue, including milk, including whatever was in the original sample, including fetal bovine serum, and including monkey kidney tissue.
I don't know if I can prove this, but my guess is all of these things what we're looking at are basically the products of dead and dying tissue.
They're not isolated at all.
And if they're not isolated, if they don't exist as independent entities, there is simply no way they can cause disease.
There's no way we can characterize them.
There's no way we can take a segment and say that's unique to this, so there's no way you can do a PCR test.
And I think I've probably gone way over my time.
That's okay, Tom.
I didn't want to interrupt because you were really on a roll and you gave a great synopsis of the whole situation.
I just want to add a few or emphasize a few points.
So the paper that you read from Enders is actually kind of a review of a series of experiments that he's done in the 1950s.
And I believe the original experiment was in 1954.
And I have, I want to bring that up as well because I also want to share a quote from that paper.
And so this is the title of the paper here.
It is from a different journal, but it's Propagation and Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with Measles.
And this is, you know, it's a very similar study.
They took secretions from a measles ward at a children's hospital in Massachusetts.
And they mixed it also with milk and other adulterants and cultured it in the same type of monkey kidney cells.
And this is the first time that this process apparently was successful.
But I want to bring your attention, this is in the discussion section here, this highlighted portion.
And what it says here is, there is no ground for concluding that the factors in vivo are the same as those which underlie the formation, blah, blah, blah, in vitro.
And I want to just clarify what that means exactly, because in vivo means in a living organism, and in vitro means outside the organism, like in a laboratory, like a petri dish or a cell culture.
And what Enders concluded in this seminal paper is that what he saw in the laboratory in these so-called culture experiments doesn't have any, there's no ground to say that that's what's happening in the person.
In other words, if they think there's a virus in this culture causing damage to the cells, that doesn't mean there's a virus in the person causing damage to their cells.
So in other words, he recognized that this experiment cannot prove any causation between a virus and an illness.
Okay?
So that's an important point that I wanted to make.
And then the other point that I really want to make or emphasize, It's twofold.
So firstly, you talked about this procedure with coffee where you purify or isolate the caffeine, which is the one of many, many components of coffee that is thought to cause high blood pressure.
And to test that, you have to do the coffee by itself.
So in the experiments based on Ender's procedure of so-called viral culture, which is really, it's not a viral culture, it's a tissue culture.
They're just adding more complexity rather than purifying or separating things away, right?
By adding milk, by adding the bovine calf serum, by adding antibiotics, et cetera, and then adding these foreign cells.
And as you mentioned from quoting that paper, those foreign cells, if there really are viruses, wouldn't they have viruses also that could contaminate your results?
So really an unclean, you're adding complexity rather than separating things, which is what they say that they're doing.
And then the second really important point is that there's no control experiment.
So, for example, in your coffee analogy, really to know that the caffeine caused the high blood pressure, you would also take distilled water and run it through the same process that you ran the coffee through to purify out the caffeine, and then you'd have another group of people, or you'd use the same group at a different time, and you'd give them hot water, and you'd see if their blood pressure went up.
Right?
Because it could just be, for example, that, Tom, that you made them nervous and their blood pressure went up because of your intimidating presence because you're like eight feet tall.
Right?
So we need to do a control to make sure there wasn't another factor, one that we didn't even consider was possible.
Now, when they do these so-called isolation experiments with viruses, they don't do either any control at all or a proper control.
So some of the most recent papers include some slides where they, some pictures where they say that they were mock infected cultures, but what they don't describe, and I know this from correspondence with the authors, is that they actually don't add the antibiotics, and they don't add the bovine calf serum, so all the toxic components, and they don't add, you know, snot.
So in other words, all the things that would cause damage to those cells in the culture, those monkey kidney cells, they don't add in these so-called mock infections.
So when they show a picture of those cell culture, those cells don't show the damage because there are no toxic constituents.
But if they did a proper control, they would do everything exactly the same, except for instead of giving the snot from a person with pneumonia or an illness, they would give snot from a healthy person.
And then the only thing that would be different between those two experiments is the presence of some element of disease in the snot from the sick person.
And then they could say, okay, the effects on the cell culture are a result of that.
It still doesn't prove that there's a virus, but it says that there's some agent of disease in there.
And when they've done these experiments, they have been able to show sometimes damage in the cell culture from People's secretions when they're sick, but this is not also any proof of a virus because we know that basically the secretions from a sick person contain dying tissue and toxins that the body is trying to expel.
So it wouldn't be too hard to reason that if you put that in a cell culture that it might damage the cell culture because it damaged the organism that you're taking it out of, right?
Or it represents that damage.
So, you know, once again, where, you know, it's just like if you take feces and put it on an open wound, you know, you're gonna get, that wound's not gonna heal well, right?
It'll probably get infected.
But it's not because there were viruses in that feces.
It's because it was waste products, toxins, and, you know, dirt, filth, which the body doesn't like, right?
That's why we have skin and mucous membranes to keep all of that out.
Great.
And, and it's also this maybe a little bit of a different perspective on this, but what you hear then and what you see is, quote, viruses budding out of the cells.
And, I mean, first of all, that's, that's as far as I can see a theory of how it works.
And I won't get into because I've spent a lot of time in the last month Actually trying to track down the evidence that this viral theory is actually correct.
Because as far as I can see, the best evidence is that there isn't much of it in the beginning, and there's a whole lot of this debris at the end.
And so the virus must have reproduced somewhere in between.
And I would love to see some sort of video that documents all those steps.
And as far as I can see, we don't have that video.
Now, I appreciate that these are very small things.
So, you know, my sort of phone camera, which I don't even have, that might be able to show it, or it wouldn't be able to show it.
But there has been no documentation, which is why it's called the viral theory, instead of the viral observation.
And the problem then is you, as far as I can see, we have no idea whether these particles budding off the cell, which again, Dr. Majkovic referred to a number of times as proof of isolation.
Right.
And Tom, let me just, like, there's another way to look at that because, you know, if you go back to like intro biology back in even high school, they talk about a process called exocytosis.
Yeah.
Right.
And exocytosis is basically constituents budding off the membrane of cells and that this is a normal function of cells.
Right.
So seeing a still shot or image under a microscope, because, you know, you can't observe these processes taking place in real time using an electron microscope because it can only look at dead things.
Right.
And so when you see dead things, if what you're seeing actually represents what they look like in the real world, You're still only seeing a snapshot in time.
And so you can't even tell actually from a snapshot, are the particles budding out of the cell or are they merging with the cell from the outside and going into it?
Right.
Which is called endocytosis.
Another process we're told is a basic process of cells.
So simply seeing still images of particles on the cell that fit with the normal cell process that we're taught about day one, that really doesn't, Doesn't prove anything.
And if the imaginative microscopists say that just by their vision, they can identify what particles what, that's never been validated in any way, right?
Where they compared it to, you know, something that was proven to be something else.
And you know, like you said, having the thing is of the, you know, that's the utmost importance.
Imagine if you were, you know, a colonial explorer from Europe and you went to South America for the first time and you heard rumors of a great leopard there, right?
And which we now know as the jaguar.
But leopards or jaguars are stealthy predators and you were unable to find one.
But, but instead you had a, There's a collection of 100 teeth that you found in the jungle and you thought that one of them was from a jaguar, right?
And you brought all these teeth back and you pointed out this tooth and you said, I discovered a jaguar.
Do you think anyone would believe you that that tooth represents a new animal that's never been seen before?
Right?
It could, it would be ridiculous.
But, and I know it's hard to make the connection to this microscopic world, but essentially that's really what they're kind of telling you.
They're saying, because we have this tooth, that there's a deadly virus that causes a disease.
Right.
And I think somehow, Andy, I think you're learning from me about how to tell stories.
And I've definitely learned from you about how to do science because I was, I, you know, it's challenging for me to be as precise as, as I sometimes need to be, but I can tell a good story.
And I had another story, which I think goes to the, just the sort of strangeness of the thinking of this viral theory, and I'll be quick about it.
But, you know, I tell this story now that I just, I came upon this discovery that paper It's the paper is actually alive and can explode houses.
And how did I discover that?
Well, I went to a neighborhood houses and I looked around and there was no paper, except maybe a label or two around the grounds.
And then I came back a week later and there was two old decrepit houses and they were, uh, they were totally annihilated.
And there was million bits of paper scattered on the ground.
And I, using my deductive reasoning, I said, this paper must have got inside the house, reproduced itself, and blew up the house, and then emerged with a thousand pieces of paper.
And now I'm going to find, I'm going to look through the paper, and I'm going to find the one I'm looking for.
Right.
Somebody comes to me and says, yeah, but Tom, about three days ago, this demolition crew came and exploded the house.
Do you think that had anything to do with it?
And since I just wrote a paper and got a Nobel Prize for discovering that paper is alive and can explode houses, I ignore that.
And that's exactly what we're talking about here.
You can't find the virus with proper isolation in the beginning.
So you put it on a tissue culture and you blow up the tissue culture by Starving and poisoning and adding other things and then you find these pieces, some of which are attached, some of which are floating around in the brew.
You do a PCR analysis of this and you find what you're looking for and then you lock the whole world down.
And I don't think anybody has documented the process.
You know another important corollary of that story is that You don't look for another possible cause, right?
You just go with that as your only thing that you're looking at, right?
Just like with the first cohort of sick patients in Wuhan, right?
They gave them some antibiotics, they didn't get better, and then that's it.
It must be a virus.
Right.
Never looked for any other possible cause of illness, you know, in those people.
And that's also one of the main points That is a result of not going, drilling down to this level and realizing that these viruses don't even exist or there's no proof that they even exist because then, now you can say, all right, I'm going to look at illness and I'm going to try to find out what really causes it.
Whereas if you continue this false dogma of viruses causing illness, then you're never going to find the real cause and then you'll never be able to do anything about it.
Right.
And this is a story that keeps playing over and over again.
It started playing with, you know, scurvy was, you know, one person after another got it.
They said it was infectious disease for a hundred years or so.
And then somebody ate a lemon or a lime and the whole thing went away.
And I think the point you're making is this actually matters.
And it's about, you know, when people say, well, yeah, but Tom, so what else is causing whatever, um, you know, I mean, one thing you can say is maybe I don't know, right?
And one of the reasons I don't know is because if I'm going to try to be as rigorous as I am with the viruses, and there is literally like no research done to try to figure this out, how can I possibly know?
Now, I think I do know to a certain extent that it's actually in a sort of uncanny way The same thing that happens with viral cultures or tissue cultures.
You starve them.
So if you don't eat good food, you eat, you know, GMO food, you eat, you know, poison food, people tend to get sick.
Like that shouldn't be rocket science.
And then if you poison them with, you know, I don't know, bad thoughts, bad emotions, breathing too much carbon dioxide, glyphosate in the air, aluminum sprays, I mean, You can name a million theaters, Wi-Fi.
Yeah, I mean, and right, the only point I think we would agree on here is let's do some science and find out what's hurting people.
Absolutely.
What could possibly be wrong with that?
As far as I can see, it's not the virus.
You know, it reminds me of the war on cancer, right?
Which was Nixon's huge research effort in the 70s.
And, you know, at least hundreds of millions were spent on that.
Bob Gallo was one of the biggest benefactors.
And the whole thing was trying to find viruses that cause cancer.
And it was a, you know, it was a big catastrophe because they didn't find any.
But they didn't go on and looking for other causes.
Even today, almost all of the cancer research is, some of it is still looking for viruses, and then it's basically finding new toxic therapies.
And, you know, somebody could also ask, so Tom and Andy, why did you do this kind of video?
And, you know, on the one hand, it's just to give our version of the science, right?
That should be good enough.
That's the whole point.
But here's another way to look at this.
If we're going to say, as part of this sort of rethinking biology movement, right?
That's sort of what we're talking about.
And we're told that leukemia is caused by a virus, right?
That's what we were told.
Because it was isolated, even though it was isolated in the exact same way that the SARS-CoV-2 was not isolated.
We already went through that.
But I would just ask our community.
So are we then to assume that like toxins in the food and water don't have anything to do with leukemia?
Are we to assume that that components in vaccines, which are in essentially bioweapons themselves, those are As far as I can see, actually genetically modified bruise of toxic stuff, you know, so are we to assume that had nothing to do with leukemia?
Are we to assume, you know, social, you know, unrest, social, you know, all the lies and everything that we're subjected to?
None of these things have anything to do with the The rapid emergence of leukemia in the latter half of the 20th century, not our agriculture, not our pesticides, not our Roundup, not our you name it.
It's only this virus, which was isolated in a way that makes no sense.
And you know, Tom, when, you know, In the cancer cause arena, you know, another significant factor is that vaccines are not tested for carcinogenicity, right?
They're potential to cause cancer, whereas all other drugs are.
And so this could be, you know, one of the black holes you're talking about.
And we, you know, it is known that certain toxins do cause things like leukemia, like for example, benzene.
Yeah.
Right.
But and people who are exposed to that, or it may be included.
I mean, it's included in things like cigarettes, for example.
You know, so it's not really a surprise, but you know, people expect to be protected against these things when in reality, it's up to us to even know about them.
And, you know, there's much research to be done, really, to get to the full knowledge here, because most of these things are suppressed.
Like for, you know, another example is atrazine, which is a pesticide used in agriculture that's been shown in several studies out of the Berkeley University in California.
To cause disruption to our sexual hormones and causes hermaphroditism and ambiguous sexual expression in amphibians and other animals.
And this data was presented to the Environmental Protection Agency, and they basically said that there wasn't even enough data for them to even look at it.
So that chemical remains unregulated at all in the United States, and we know that it's very toxic and can cause disruption to sexual development.
So these things are all, just for that one thing I mentioned, I guarantee there's 500 other chemicals Yes.
That are out there in the environment, unregulated, that I don't know about all of them.
Right.
And, you know, maybe we can finish too with just a comment, and I would love to hear your take on this too, of, you know, is it possible and is it true that there are labs that are trying to do experiments to develop biotoxins?
I mean, I'm no expert on this.
My assumption is, and again, I'd love to hear, Andy, your take on this.
My assumption is there are.
And they're actually trying to develop, you know, engineered bioweapons of various sorts.
I mean, I don't know the details.
But there's a very interesting point for me, which is, my guess is you can make an individual sick by injecting a biotoxin in them.
I think that has probably been done a lot.
In fact, I would argue, that's actually the definition of a vaccine.
And you might even be able to spray it in the air and make individuals sick.
I don't know if that's been done, but I could imagine.
And I imagine there may be people trying to do that.
But I think nature has protected us because you cannot make this so-called engineered virus
and have it spread throughout the world as some sort of contagious disease,
simply because that's not the way it works.
And I mean, thank God, right?
Absolutely, because these, you know, so I mean, I have looked at this a little bit
and I think I, you know, get the old, I mean, we can't know exactly what's being done, right?
Because this is top secret government labs, right?
We're talking about military technology.
So we can't really know the extent of what they're doing.
But we do know that there's no empirical scientific evidence of contagion, you know, through the air, virus particles, or anything like that.
And what that has been described is that they're essentially using the same exact technology that is in this new vaccine, right?
Which is not really a vaccine in the traditional sense, but it's a genetic technology to co-opt our own cells to make a foreign gene product, right?
Make us a manufacturing plant for some, whatever, Uh, foreign gene or protein that they want to put in there.
And we don't know what it is because it's not a spike protein taken from a virus, but with the gain of function research that they talk about, I think what they're doing is they're taking sequences that maybe are associated with really sick people.
Um, so like they take, you know, snot out of someone who is definitely ill, maybe with Ebola or with AIDS or something like that.
And there are certain toxin elements in there.
And they, I think they take genetic sequences from those things and they repackage them in some way, probably partly theoretical based on the computer model, and put them into, you know, these packages that can merge with the cells, just like the lipid shell in the, you know, AstraZeneca and Pfizer products.
And then it expresses these foreign proteins and then they can be very toxic.
Right, because we know some things like, for example, bacterial endotoxins, right, that can cause shock and high fevers and be lethal to cells.
So what if a gene contained something like that and our own cells made a toxic substance?
Well, that could be very devastating.
But, you know, my opinion is that these could only be done through injection.
I don't think it's even possible through the air because The amount, you know, things get diluted very quickly in the air because of the inverse square law.
So I think it would be really, really difficult.
I think if you did want... I just want to say that I take that and I think I stand corrected because I have no idea whether that's true.
I think it can be done and it has been done with injection, but I have no evidence that it's done through the air.
Right.
So, you know, I mean, and thank goodness because, you know, It would be if, you know, if something that can spread and especially if it can reproduce itself without in the open environment, right, it would, it could change the entire ecology of the world.
And that's why some of the technology where they can modify organisms like mosquitoes permanently and pass it down to future generations.
And we're talking about gene drive technology is the name for that.
I mean, that is really potentially scary.
Yeah.
You know, but it wouldn't be a virus, it would be something else, right?
It would be roaches or mosquitoes or, you know, something like that, that could fly around and go bite person to person.
Right.
And if it was expressing poison and then it put that poison in you, it could make you sick.
Right.
And I think neither of us are saying that Bacteria under certain conditions can't make poison.
Obviously they can.
And the poison can kill you.
I mean botulism, as far as I know, is a deadly toxin.
Even just regular food poisoning with staph toxin.
Yeah.
Right?
That's different than a contagious infectious agent.
That's just, there are a lot, you know, there's snakes and there's bugs and there's There's all kind of toxins out there.
I think the world needs to start investigating these and detoxifying the world so we can all get on with our lives, for God's sake!
I mean, Tom, isn't that how we really stay healthy?
You know, I mean, having intermittent or ongoing detoxification.
Absolutely.
And that includes minimizing our exposure, but you know, we still live in this There's two processes.
Try not to inundate yourself with as many toxins as you can.
That seems to be the opposite of how most people live.
And then, you know, we have elegant detoxification mechanisms.
We have liver, bowels, we have urination, we have sweating, we have white blood cells that Clean up garbage.
We even have antibodies that neutralize toxins.
And they will work, but we shouldn't push it so far.
That's right.
Have to treat ourselves a little bit nicer.
Yeah.
So do we should we even look at the clip and talk about that?
Or do you feel like we've we've covered enough?
I think we've covered enough.
Well, I think I agree.
And, you know, once again, just to Let people out there know that really this is just such a crucial issue.
And, you know, we should spread this message out as far and wide as possible because there are a lot of people in our community who realize that there's not really a pandemic the way that people say it is.
And that everything in the world is changing as a result of false assumptions.
And we really want these people, you people out there, Who are in this category to really consider the truth of what we're saying, that there really is no virus at all and no viruses that can cause disease.
Because until you really look at that level, you're going to be misled and you're going to be vulnerable to, you know, further bad things in your life.
And that's not what we want.
We want everyone to be able to know the truth, So that we can turn this whole thing around.
And like Tom said, you know, bring about sort of a revolution, not a revolution of arms, not a civil war, but one of health and biology.
That we can bring a new level of understanding and a new paradigm and a new major research effort to look at, you know, what are the real causes?
How can we really maximize our health?
You know, how can we live longer?
You know, these kinds of things that we are just prevented from doing now because we're all afraid of, you know, imaginary things.
Couldn't agree more.
Let's get this, bury this once and for all and so they can never do this again.
Amen.
Well, thank you so much for joining me today, Tom.
Thank you, Andy.
And we will be in touch.
All right.
Tom, you want to just remind people where they can find more about you or?
Yeah, drtomcowan.com.
D-R-T-O-M-C-O-W-A-N.
I understand we're sort of off YouTube now, or we were off to YouTube.
Right.
So we have News Stations, BitChute, and I can't really tell you where to get there.
But I think if you go to drtomcowan.com, you'll find it.
Well, what I'm going to do, Tom, is I'm going to put a little bit of an advertisement on YouTube telling the viewers where they can find this video.
And I will link to my LBRY account and to your BitChute account.
And, you know, it's important that everybody, I think people are realizing that, you know, we can't rely on YouTube and Facebook and Instagram and Twitter anymore, that we have to look for alternative, safer platforms.
And so we'll put links where you can see this, but you know, I'm sure that it would be taken down off YouTube very, very quickly.
Just seeing our names together already is a red flag.
So we will do this and please also go visit my website at andrewkaufmanmd.com and please sign up for my newsletter so that I can keep you informed about all the things that will be happening as we move towards a new and better future.
Great.
All right, well take care everyone.
▲
Export Selection