All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 31, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
37:12
Dr. Tom Cowan - The Age of Science - Jan. 29, 2021
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
My plan was to talk for maybe 20 or so minutes, and then we'll have, again, question and answers for the rest of the hour.
And there you go.
So the way I'm going to start today is a friend of mine suggested that I would be interested in reading a book that he was, he, I guess, liked or something.
I had never heard of the author.
The author is a guy named Eugen Rosenstock Hussey.
I basically don't know anything about him.
The book is called Out of Revolution, Autobiography of Western Man.
And I'd never heard of the guy before.
And anyways, I started reading it probably last week.
My impression is he has some interesting things to say, and then also a lot of the book, I don't think I understand really what he's talking about.
So I'm not necessarily recommending that everybody go out and read this book.
But I am going to read first a passage from this book, which I think is very appropriate.
As far as I know, this book was written in the late 30s, 1930s.
So we're talking now about 200 page 231 on the book Out of Revolution by Eugen Rosenstock Hussey.
And I'm going to read from this book.
He says, scientific research undertaking in the same spirit in all the civilized countries forms a great fatherland above our nationalities.
limited, diverse, and often hostile as they are.
And in this high fatherland, not stained by any war, not threatened by any conqueror,
men's souls find the refuge and the unity which the city of God gave to them in former days.
I could read it again so you understand it, but let me give you what I think is my translation of that.
It's basically that in former times, and I'm not sure exactly what times he was referring to,
the world was composed of somewhat independent nations, tribes, groups, communities, et cetera,
All who had their independent way of looking at the world.
And I think this is what he's called, uh, the city of God.
So, uh, some of them believed one thing and some of them believed another.
And so this is in the thirties again.
So starting, let's say some time ago, there became a bigger and in fact, worldwide entity, which interestingly united all these diverse tribes and nations, communities.
into one believing world.
In other words, everybody believes in the same thing and that thing they believe in is called science.
Now let me read a follow-up passage from this.
And now we're on page 252.
This sensation of novelty is sanctified by campaigns carried out in our laboratories
into the unknown.
Thank you.
But like any sacrament, this one is stained by terrible superstitions.
No one wishes to minimize the miracles performed in the laboratory, but we must overcome this appalling destruction of family, discipline, faith, By curiosity and by the growing paralysis of the rest of our senses.
Because everybody has been trained in curiosity, most people have neglected their other senses.
Our deeper, wiser, better, and more important links with reality have degenerated under our system of newspapers, radios, phonographs, movies, with their organization of novelty.
They are the bane of modern life.
The prohibition of news would restore the peace of many families.
Truth will die if the masses see it as based on nothing but novelty.
Truth is not new.
It is all around us.
It was before we were.
The original thinker knows that true originality consists in being as old as creation.
And again, my interpretation of this is this thing that has united all the nations into one world, which is exactly what we're seeing now.
All the nations, communities, groups, tribes, etc.
are united in one world under the banner of science, and in fact, under the banner of COVID.
And one of the reasons for this is that instead of humans connecting with their other senses, sense of life, et cetera, they're only interested in novelty.
And when he said novelty, he was talking about like newspapers and radios.
Can you imagine what he would think about cell phones and apps and live, you know, social media, all those things.
That's like novelty to the nth power.
But one of the reasons I got interested in this or was so fascinated by this section,
this way of looking at it, is if we're gonna be united under the religion,
so to speak, and not that I have anything against religion, right?
That's not the issue.
I don't have anything as anybody who's heard me know.
It's not about spirituality or a connection to the divine.
In fact, all those diverse communities were intensely affected, influenced, and affected by their relationship with the divine.
That was the whole point.
Instead, we have thrown that all away The first thing that struck me about that is two things, really.
One, that's not a religion that I want to be part of.
thing that struck me about that is two things really. One, that's not a religion that I want
to be part of. And I don't want to be united under any single banner of anything particularly. I
think there's strength in diversities and I'm more than happy to let each community, each tribe,
each nation, each group of people decide for themselves how they want to see the world.
I'm going to go ahead and close the video.
I don't see any benefit in unifying us under the banner of so-called science.
But the second thing, and the thing I really wanted to get into today a little bit more, was If, in fact, we are united, which we are more than ever probably in the history of humanity.
Right now, January 29th, 2021, 20,021, we are united under the banner of science.
2021, we are united under the banner of science.
And the unfortunate problem is science is often profoundly incorrect to the point
of not even being scientific.
It's a great way to get in touch with us.
And so you could say, or at least I will say, that at least if we were going to be united under the banner of something, I would hope that something was actually sound and correct.
Now, I don't expect anybody to believe me about this, and so I wanted to take in depth a very specific example of how science is so profoundly incorrect, or at least what we call science today.
If we're calling science the spirit of inquiry, then obviously science can't be incorrect.
So I'm actually talking about the way science is practiced.
And one of the reasons I'm bringing this particular example up is it's obviously relevant to today because it's about so-called viral cultures, but You know, in all the ways that I have been criticized and papers written about me and that I don't understand virology or all these things, it all comes down to, is my conception of how we understand the presence of viruses, the isolation of viruses, and whether viruses cause disease, is that correct?
Or as some people suggest, Essentially using a straw man and saying they've never isolated it, but I don't understand that there are a thousand or 125,000 papers that claim isolation.
So the papers, the science that I'm going to go over today is the scientific papers, which I'm sure many of you have heard of and read about.
That actually started this whole thing.
And these were papers written by a guy named Embers in the John Enders, sorry, in the 50s.
And he was given a Nobel Prize for the discovery of what we call today a viral culture.
And so I'm going to just dissect in depth what Embers did.
And I hope to show you that His work is very problematic to the point of being, I would say, completely unscientific.
So, the first thing is, here is a paper from, not sure what the date is, it's called Propagation in Tissue Cultures of Cytopathogenic Agents from Patients with Measles.
The paper is John Enders and Thomas Peebles.
And I don't know where the journal was, but I'm sure people can find it.
So the idea was he wanted to find a way to propagate the measles virus so that then they could study it.
And of course, he thought that this disease we call measles, which is a real entity, was caused by a virus called a measles virus.
And they couldn't isolate it in the way that I have described isolation many times.
And so Enders is the one who came up with the technique, the exact technique that is still used to this day to propagate viruses and claim that they have then been isolated and that they exist and cause the diseases they say they do.
So basically what he did was he went to a ward of measles patients, children with measles, and he took some nasal swabs or throat swabs.
And then comes the first quote from the paper.
Before I do that, though, I would say, just to describe this sort of game that we're playing here, the game that they were playing then is Take somebody with measles and find this very small particle, which is basically a package of DNA with a protein coating on it, or sorry, DNA or RNA.
So in other words, it's genetic material with a protein coating on.
So as we get into this, the problem that they faced is that The things, the tissues and the cells that you would want to propagate these viruses on have the exact same type of DNA and RNA as do these viruses.
There is only one type of DNA and RNA.
There's many different types of sequences, but they're all made of the same material.
So this is clearly and obviously a conceptual and experimental challenge to separate just the particles of DNA that you call viruses from the particles and pieces of DNA that may have come from the medium that you were culturing on.
So, in order to do this, one has to be very precise and rule out all confounding factors.
So, he takes throat swabs from children with measles and then reading here, quote, after swabbing the throat, the swab was immersed in two milliliters of milk, penicillin, 100 micrograms per milliliter and streptomycin, 50 micrograms per milliliter were added to the throat specimens, which were then centrifuged at blah, blah, blah RPMs.
So the first thing to note is we're talking about taking throat swabs.
And then interestingly, the first thing they did was mix these throat swabs with milk.
And already now we've introduced a A substance into our experiment that has foreign DNA in it, or has DNA which will complicate the experiment.
Therefore, one would absolutely expect that you would do a control experiment and take a throat swab and put it into normal saline or water or something So you would know that any subsequent genetic material that you get could not possibly have come from the milk.
However, enders did not do that.
So this is called the inoculant.
This swab of the throat of children with measles immersed in two milliliters of milk, and then two antibiotics were added to that.
Now, Then he goes on to say, and I quote, quote, the culture medium consisted of bovine amniotic fluid, 90%, beef embryo extract, 5%, horse serum, 5%, antibiotics and phenyl red as an indicator.
And then they added some soybean trypsin inhibitor was added later.
Now, here's the second problem.
The culture medium consisted of bovine amniotic fluid, one of the richest sources of genetic material, RNA and DNA, beef embryo extract, the same, another source of DNA and RNA, and horse serum.
So now we have the addition of four different additions to the culture medium Which have foreign DNA, which were done without controls.
In other words, they didn't put this in a culture medium that contains no genetic material to see whether anything that they get subsequently actually came from the original sample, which was the snot from the measles people, children, or whether it came from milk.
same DNA, RNA, horse serum, same DNA, RNA, beef embryo extract, and amniotic fluid.
All those have identical genetic material as this so-called virus.
Later on in describing the results of the experiment, he says, quote, a second agent was obtained
from an un-inoculated culture of monkey kidney cells.
The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparation could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles.
This is an extremely important point, so I'm going to read it again and then explain it.
A second agent was obtained from an un-inoculated culture of monkey kidney cells.
The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparation could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles.
And so what does that mess mean?
It means they actually did do a control.
In other words, they took this culture medium and they inoculated that without the original sample of snot.
So in the second experiment, in this one, there was no snot used, just the culture medium.
with the beef embryo amniotic fluid horse serum and the antibiotics and the results that they got were quote indistinguishable from the experiment that they did with the snot from the measles children.
In other words, this is direct proof that the breakdown of the tissues Into these particles of DNA and RNA came not from the snot, not from any virus in the measles patients, but from the breakdown of the monkey kidney tissue as a result of being inoculated with horse serum, etc.
And then exposed to minimal nutrient medium and antibiotics, etc.
So this gets into the question of Which is the central point here.
How did they know that these particles that they're seeing actually came from a measles patient, not from the breakdown of the tissue?
And what they're saying is they're indistinguishable.
And now we move on to the other paper, which Enders did.
This is in 1957, American Journal of Public Health and the Nation's Health, March 1957.
The title of which is, Measles Virus, A Summary of Experiments Concerned with Isolation Properties and Behavior.
So this is the exact same isolation procedure that is used to this very day that many of you have sent me articles, isn't this isolated?
That articles have been written about the virus of now we're talking SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated 10 times, 100 times, 129,000 times, or that somehow I'm misinterpreting how we should or do isolate viruses.
But this is the exact paper and the exact procedure where the current definition and procedures for isolation have come from.
So basically he did what I just said.
He took a snot from a patient with measles, a child with measles, mixed it with milk, didn't do a control, mixed it with antibiotics, didn't do a control for that, mixed it with horse serum, beef embryo, etc.
Didn't do a control with that.
Inoculated that on monkey kidney tissue.
The stuff broke down as you would expect because these are nephrotoxic drugs.
And then they get all these particles and now they're wondering whether these came from the breakdown of the tissue or from an original virus in the original snot sample.
So let me quote what this paper actually says about their results.
So now we're on page 279 and here I'm quoting, quote, Ruckel has lately reported similar findings and in addition has isolated an agent from monkey kidney tissue that so far is indistinguishable from human measles virus.
The problem, however, of the origin of the agent responsible for the presence of these antibodies.
In other words, what he's saying is somebody named Ruckel, who he puts a reference, has reported That these identical pieces of genetic material, which Enders eventually called the measles virus, are identical to what you would get from the breakdown product from just the culturing of kidney tissue with nothing added from a measles patient at all.
Identical.
Which leads you to think that these are simply breakdown products of the kidney tissue.
Now, Enders goes on to say, and now we're talking page 281 of the same article, and again quoting, quote, there is a 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.
In other words, there is no method in the mid-50s, 1957, that you could differentiate a measles virus from simply the breakdown product of the kidney tissue and cells.
Now, one could say, yes, but this was 70 years ago.
So certainly now we can differentiate the breakdown product from an actual virus.
And let me finish this by quoting an article which I've quoted before.
So now we're talking article in the journal called Viruses, May 2020, 12, parenthesis five, So in other words, this is a paper about extracellular vesicles, sometimes called exosomes, which are breakdown products of our own tissue.
So in other words, this is a paper about extracellular vesicles, sometimes called exosomes,
which are breakdown products of our own tissue. So they're wondering what the role of these breakdown products are.
They're wondering what do we know in May of 2020 about how to differentiate a breakdown product coming from us versus an exogenous or outside virus that's an infective agent coming from somewhere else.
So let me read you the conclusion of this paper, which it gets a little wordy and then I'll explain it.
And I'm again quoting, quote, the remarkable resemblance between extracellular vesicles and viruses has caused quite a problem in the studies focused on the analysis of EVs, that's extracellular vesicles, released during viral infections.
Nowadays, it is almost an impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means
of conical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation,
because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension.
To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs
from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity
in a density gradient, or using the presence of specific markers
that can distinguish EVs from viruses.
However, to date, a reliable method that can guarantee a complete separation does not exist.
rest.
Bye.
I'm going to say that again.
As of May 2020, a reliable method that can guarantee a separation in a process of distinguishing that which comes from the breakdown of Our own tissues or monkey kidney cells or any culture medium from a virus that is in so-called infecting it.
There is no way to distinguish these and I would contend the reason is is because they are all coming from the breakdown products of our own cells and tissues and none of them are actually coming from the outside.
I actually predict that we will be able to prove this.
And that in 20 or 30 years, this will be essentially a settled science, so-called, in virology.
That we were misled.
This whole thing was a misconception based on people not doing proper control experiments, not doing real science.
So I come back to my original point.
If we are going to be united into a worldwide I would at least hope that there is something scientific in the method about this new religion of science because I don't really want to have anything to do with a worldwide religion that we're all forced to obey no matter what we think in any case.
And I certainly don't want to be forced to obey a worldwide religion of science that is so unscientific as not to do proper experimentation.
So that's my rant for today.
And now I will see if I can open the questions and see if I can try to address some of your
concerns.
So I can move this out of the way.
This is an interesting question.
Playing devil's advocate.
Okay, so you can't isolate the virus, but could it be that the combination of the virus plus other things cause contagion?
It's an interesting way to put the question.
So if you have a example of say, mucus.
And this was caught, this was obtained from a sick person.
And the sick person became sick because you poisoned them in some way.
Now, you would expect that you have all kinds of things in there.
You have these breakdown products, which we erroneously call viruses.
You have toxins, you have maybe fungus and bacteria.
And maybe a whole lot of other things.
It would be very interesting to find out exactly what's in there.
If somebody was exposed to this, it certainly is possible that they could also get sick.
It depends on what the nature of the toxin is.
So for instance, if this was some toxin that was toxic, if you breathed it orally, and you breed that on another person, I could imagine you could
make that other person sick. In fact, there is some theories that it's actually the smell that
emanates from a sick person that is the thing that makes other people around them sick.
So what I would say about that is it's an interesting concept and of course we've all noticed that
we get sick when we're around other people who sit who are sick.
At least we think that's the case.
Like I keep saying, we used to think that was the case with scurvy, and now we know that wasn't the case then.
But it certainly is an interesting possibility, and something that we should investigate, because it's certainly possible.
I would only say, then, Uh, that if you want to say it's the virus or some living thing that can replicate, uh, you better be able to isolate it.
Otherwise we should stick with saying something from a sick person seemed to make another person sick.
And then there's a follow-up question to this.
Would this include things like herpes and chickenpox?
The answer is yes.
And this actually gets into one of the things that people have asked me, you know, am I the famous story of Semmelweis, who is the, I think, Austrian or some Eastern Europe doctor who was famous because he told the doctors at the time They should wash their hands after they did autopsies before they went to the delivery room.
Because at the time, they these same doctors were doing autopsies, obviously on dead people using formaldehyde.
And obviously the people died of something.
So they did dissections, and then their hands apparently were full of blood and tissue and formaldehyde.
And then they would go and stick that right into the That was has been used for centuries as a proof that washing the hands was important because it got rid of some bacteria that was passed through the failure to wash their hands into the cervix, the open cervix of the woman.
All I can say about that is nobody ever isolated or proved that it was the bacteria part, and I would imagine that putting dead tissue, dead and diseased tissue, and formaldehyde itself in an open cervix could lead to huge problems.
Now, it's the same thing with chickenpox.
Is there something, you know, in the secretions of chickenpox?
And we could be talking about a physical entity, we could be talking about an energy, a sort of resonance between people.
Because remember, chickenpox is a maturation or learning experience.
And so it's possible that one child communicates to another in some ways, That now it's time to do this maturation process.
And the same thing with herpes.
There's probably no more intimate act or act where energy can be transferred from one person to another than the sexual act.
And so it would be interesting to find out exactly what could be communicated between people in that situation.
I would only again point out that if we want to say it's the herpes virus, then we have to go through the same process, the proper isolation of the herpes and the exposure of that, just that herpes virus to another person in the usual way, maybe in the vagina or something.
And show that that causes the same disease.
As far as I know, and my friends who are looking into this, that has not been shown.
I'm not sure if there's any more questions.
Here's one.
The Boston Health Department experiment from the Spanish flu refute the combination of virus plus other stuff.
Whoever's asking these questions is doing a great job, I would say.
Yes, because here we have an experiment, probably the best experiment of the type done on this, and so now we're talking about not isolating any virus, but just exposing well people to the breath and the mucus, etc., of unhealthy people, people who had clear evidence of this disease, And the fact of the matter is the Boston Health Department said that none of the people who were well got sick from the sick people.
There was nothing transmissible about this Spanish flu.
And I would say that as hard as that is for all of us to imagine, that seems to be the case.
And all I can say is, again, It's one thing to say there is something transmissible in the fluids of a sick person.
That is certainly possible, but not a thing like a virus.
If you want to say that, you have to go through the same isolation, etc., to show that it's simply just the virus.
Otherwise, that's basically a meaningless conclusion.
I don't know if there's more questions.
Questions?
I think probably not.
And again, I apologize that this wasn't the live session we intended.
So I think I'm going to stop there and we're going to keep working on this and see if we can figure out a way to do this live in the way we want to.
And again, I thank everybody for joining me.
Please see at the bottom where we will post these.
I also just put a, a video up of a conversation I had with Dr. Andy Kaufman yesterday, where we talked about some of the issues around the so-called engineer virus.
So again, please send us your feedback.
Thanks for joining me.
▲
Export Selection