All Episodes
Previous Next
May 12, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
57:42
Tom Cowan Explains Stefan Lanka's Study Showing "Isolation" of Viruses is NON-Science
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, it's two o'clock.
I think I'm ready to go.
I saw some comments there.
So unfortunately, I guess this is not with either Andy Kaufman or Stefan Lenka.
Maybe there was a misconception.
I said I was going to go over The new study that Stefan organized, but he's not actually joining us on this call.
So I hope that's not a misunderstanding.
And the other thing I just want to thank everybody for joining me on subscribe star and thank you for supporting us.
It means a lot to us and It's an interesting thing.
with people who are very knowledgeable, interested, and so we can sort of keep in touch,
even though, you know, it's an interesting thing.
I don't know how many years ago, but say the time in 1860, which isn't really that long ago when you think about it,
but during, at that time, and more or less, as far as we know, every time previously for human beings,
every single thing you heard from another human being, you were actually in the physical proximity to that person.
In other words, you had more input than just, you know, Like audio, although I suppose you could say we have visual input here.
But my point is, every single encounter, every single word you heard was from a living human being.
And then there became radio and then television.
And I don't know what the percentage is now.
But I would say probably well over half, maybe some people it's up to 80-90% of all the words that they hear are coming from somebody who they're not in physical connection with.
And interestingly, the words previously, any word you heard, any language you heard, was actually directed towards you, right?
You know, you were talking to somebody and they were speaking to you.
Now, whenever you hear somebody on the radio or the television or any other online event, they're not actually speaking to you in particular.
I mean, in some, quote, Zoom encounters, There, there you are speaking to somebody.
And I just would say, it's an interesting change in consciousness and change in the way we see the world.
Because we all know that we say things differently, we talk differently, and there's a lot of things that we simply wouldn't say that you feel comfortable saying them anonymously, say in an email.
And most of them are things that I think you would call contentious.
Like you wouldn't say that to another person who you were actually speaking to them one-on-one and they had a chance to question you or even punch you in the nose or something like that.
But given the anonymity in the distance that happens when you're not speaking to anybody in particular and you're not actually in the physical proximity.
It actually changes everything.
But that's not really what we are here to talk about.
So that was a little bit of a diversion there.
Right.
And it's not even my real voice.
It's a sort of voice.
But anyways, we could go on with that.
But I wanted to get to the point, and I'm a little worried about sounding like a broken record here.
But I don't think I can do much about that because this is such an important study that I want to give a little bit of context so that it becomes clear just how important this study actually is.
So, the study in the background is, I'm sure most if not all of you already know the name Stefan Lenka.
He was a biology graduate student and ended up discovering a virus living in a sea algae in the ocean.
It was the first free living virus that was discovered in the ocean.
And then he started looking more and more into viruses and what he found shocked him and he didn't say anything for a while.
And then he realized that what he had discovered was actually correct.
Once he became sure of that, he was able to go public with it, which is that viruses, most of them actually don't even exist and they're not pathogens.
The next important thing that happened with him is he was instrumental in offering a €100,000 prize.
For anybody who could demonstrate the existence of a measles virus in the German court system.
And it was important that it was in the German court system because they have stricter rules of scientific inquiry, I think, than any other court system in the world.
And so he offered that prize and somebody took him up on it.
They won in a lower court, which I think he knew was going to happen because They don't have such strict rules.
And then the case actually went to the German Supreme Court, and they appointed a scientific master and they went through the science of the case.
And the ruling was that there was no evidence that this measles virus actually exists.
And we're not even talking about whether the measles virus causes measles.
We're talking about whether it actually exists.
So the ruling was there was no evidence of that.
And then he became kind of famous or maybe infamous because of that.
And he's continued to look into virology and life and biology and what went wrong.
And he was the one who actually told me about Harold Hillman.
And he's sort of kept in touch with this whole thing.
And then we come to the current situation of what Stefan calls the Corona crisis.
And so Stefan commissioned a study with a apparently well known, very professional tissue culture, cell culture, or so-called viral culture expert, I believe in Switzerland.
And he supervised the study.
And that's what we're going to talk about today.
So that's a little bit of the background.
Now the other part of the background of this study, because I think if I don't tell you the background, you won't understand just how important this study is.
So this gets into the question, which we've gone over a million times.
And this is the part of sounding like a broken record and maybe forgive me, but the question of the day should be, unfortunately it isn't, but how does a virologist know that a virus exists or maybe a new virus exists?
And then the second part of the question is, Once they find this new virus and show that it exists, how do they demonstrate that this new virus causes such and such a disease?
And I would contend that if you know the answer to that question, you will never believe in pathogenic viruses again.
Pathogenic means disease-causing viruses.
If you don't know the answer to that question, you will be confused and waffle and sometimes you may think it does exist and sometimes you may think it doesn't, but you really will not feel that you're on firm ground.
That's why I keep pushing that question.
And I also would say that It's there's two part answer to that.
There's the part of how a virologist should prove the existence of a virus and show that it causes disease.
And then the second part is how they actually do.
So that's what we're going to be going over, and that's what Stefan's study interfaces with that question.
So just to rush through this a little bit.
The other thing I would say is I would strongly encourage those of you who have, say, family doctors or connections with other medical doctors or medical professionals, that you ask them this question, at least after today.
And I just want to remind you that the answer to this, you're looking for the steps, similar to how if you asked a baker, how do you make a cake?
They wouldn't say, well, you go to the cake store and buy a cake.
They would say you mix certain amount of flour with water and then you do this and then you need it or don't need it or put in baking soda and you put in this much and then you end up with a cake.
You bake it at 325 or whatever it is.
I'm talking about the actual steps.
And you will be shocked that my guess is that not one person, not one medical professional that you will encounter will actually know the answer to this question, which should be the question that everybody knows.
So the first answer that many people, if not most people, I would say the vast majority of lay people and most of the medical professionals give Which again, I've gone over is, well, they say that a lot of people got sick in the same place, so it must be a virus.
Or a lot of people got sick here, and then it spread to this place, so it must be a virus.
Or there was nobody who was sick in this prison, and then there was somebody who tested positive, and then somebody went there, and then they got sick, or a bunch of people got sick, so it must be a virus.
Or my Aunt Bessie went to church and there was somebody who tested positive there, and then she got sick.
And so that must be a virus.
And as I've said over and over again, these are epidemiological observations.
And the only role for epidemiological observations is to generate hypotheses that can then be tested.
And there is no medical professional or virologist who thinks that any of these observations prove the
existence of a virus. That would be naive and unscientific to think that, and so please do not think that.
All they tell you is you should look and see if there's anything that's being passed between
people, and I agree that should have been looked into. Okay, the next thing they say, and now we're
talking they meaning some layman and most medical professionals, is you take a bunch of people
who are sick, presumably sick in the same way, and
And then you look through some bodily fluid, like bronchial alveolar lavage, that just means lung fluid, or sputum, or snot, or blood, or urine, or feces, or cerebrospinal fluid, or any other fluid you choose, and you should see hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of copies Of a particle because remember we're looking for a particle, not a feeling or a thought.
And this particle has a protein coat and a piece of genetic material either RNA or DNA inside.
So we should see identical particles.
And they should have the same size, the same shape, the same morphology.
And then you should, there should be essentially no other kinds of particles from that fluid.
And that tells you if every hundred of those people with the same symptoms That doesn't prove that it's causing the disease, right?
But it proves that there is an identical particle coming from people with identical symptoms, and it's the size, shape, morphology, and genetic characteristics of a virus.
Now, the next thing I'll say is doing that, and I've gone through the steps, you macerate, filter, centrifuge, look at it under an electron microscope.
This has been done hundreds of times for things that are the same size, shape, and composition of viruses.
As soon as we invented the electron microscope in the 30s, we could see bacteriophages, which come from bacterial cultures which are dying.
And we could find them in this way, macerate, that means put it in a blender, filter it, centrifuge it, you get a band, you suck the band out, you see thousands of identical particles.
Those were called bacteriophages or particles that eat bacteria, although now we know they don't
actually eat bacteria, they come from the bacteria. Stefan saw them, so-called giant viruses,
living in the ocean, in the sea algae.
And we've also, I was just given a paper yesterday, which is a number of papers like this,
we can do this with exosomes, which are particles that are generated by our own tissue when we're
sick or stressed, that are the same size, shape, morphology, and composition of a virus.
And we have isolated them from tissues of people sick or otherwise.
It's a very easy, simple thing that any virologist could do.
So this is not a technical problem.
Now, I can tell you that there is no disagreement with what I'm about to say.
Because, as I've said, a few weeks ago I had a conversation, because Andy Kaufman and I were asked to present in front of the group, and they invited a fellow who was introduced to us as a former senior virologist in Wuhan for the Chinese Center for Disease Control, and an expert in laboratory virology At Yale University.
And he agreed with the following statement.
There is not one reported case in the medical literature where any such identical particle has been found in any fluid of any sick person.
Not once.
We have looked for a year.
There is not a reported case of that.
And nobody disagrees with that.
When we asked him, has this ever been done?
He said, that is not possible.
Why?
Because you first have to concentrate.
And so it was actually Andy who asked him, if you took 100 people with COVID, Uh, who have been diagnosed with COVID and you mix their sputum together, would that be enough to find the virus in their sputum?
And he said, no.
If you mixed a hundred, sorry, a thousand people and took their sputum, all who had COVID, mixed it together, would there then be enough to find the virus?
And he said, no.
And then we asked him, what about 10,000 people?
And he said, no.
That is simply not the way that any virologist finds a virus.
As shocking as that is to hear, it's never been done and it cannot be done.
And it's not for technical reasons.
So the question then is how does a virologist?
So that's the answer to how they should do it.
They should look through the fluid, the bronchial fluid or snot or blood or somewhere, macerate it, filter it, centrifuge it, take the virus out, look at it under an electron microscope, characterize the genome, and then Take that purified virus and spray that onto an animal in the usual way that you think the virus has passed, and that will prove that the virus exists and that it causes disease.
Period.
That's how it should be done.
That process has never been done.
So now we get to the next step.
How do they say?
Because I'm just going to take a wild guess here.
There's probably 10,000 papers in the medical literature since 1954 with the title, Isolation of Such and Such a Virus, including I've seen maybe 30 of them about the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
So why are they saying this?
Or one, what justification?
And here's the important point.
Here's the way they do it.
They take one person, now I'm talking particularly about a study done out of Australia, which was the first, quote, isolation of SARS-CoV-2 outside of China that I know of.
So they took one person who was sick.
They took some bronchial alveolar lavage fluid, meaning they did a bronchoscopy, and sucked out some of the fluid and then they washed it in a saline buffered solution to get rid of some of the debris and then they filtered it and they took the resultant liquid.
Now, nobody would say, no virologist, no logical, sane, rational person would say that that is purified virus.
That's fluid taken from a sick person with proteins, DNA, RNA, maybe viruses, and maybe toxins and whatever else is coming out that's soluble in the lungs of a sick person.
Okay, that's the first step.
Now this is called their inoculant.
They then took that And remember, we're looking for a protein coat with a genetic interior piece of genetic material in the inside.
They then mixed that with fetal bovine serum, 10%, and mixed it with gentamicin and amphotericin, two kidney nephrotoxic antibiotics, antifungals.
Then they withdrew the nutrients from the medium and inoculated that on monkey kidney cells, otherwise known as virocells.
Now here is the part that every virologist agrees on.
The definition of the existence of the virus is when the Vero cells break down in a characteristic way called a cytopathic effect, otherwise known as CPE.
That CPE, that cytopathic effect, is considered proof of the existence of the virus and proof that the virus has been isolated.
Period.
That is the definition.
Now, then the Vero cells break down because of this cytopathic effect, and then they do an electron microscope of the resulting breakdown products of this so-called viral culture.
That process I just described is called a viral culture.
And they see little particles of many, many, many different sizes and shape.
Some are bullet-shaped, some are rod-shaped, some are cocci, circular-shaped, and some have little dots in them.
And if you put trips in, which digest the coating, some of them look like they have spikes.
And then you say, you pick out one, and you say, that is the virus we're looking for.
And that is how they identify, characterize, and prove the existence of the virus.
That should be very clear.
They are very clear on that.
There is no other way to prove the existence of the virus.
Then, after they do that, they do genetic analysis, which I won't get into, on the resulting brew from the breakdown products of the fetal bovine serum, the virocells, and whatever was in the inoculant, and the genomycin, and the amphotericin, and the nutrient media.
So they do a genetic analysis on that, and then they do a PCR test on that resulting brew, or they take segments that they get in that genetic analysis, and those become the primer sequences for the PCR test.
So, the question of the hour, which we went into before when I described the Enders paper, So this process called the viral culture started with John Franklin Enders in 1954 when he, quote, rescued virology because they had spent 20 years and couldn't find any pathogenic viruses.
And so he said, I have a new way to find these pathogenic viruses.
And he did exactly what I just said.
And then he said the monkey kidney cells broke down.
That proves the existence of a virus.
Now, interestingly, Enders at the time did a kind of control.
So in his paper, he says, I did the exact same procedure, although he doesn't actually outline the procedure that he did for the control.
So we don't really know it was the exact same, but let's say it was.
The only difference is he didn't start with anything from any person with measles.
So remember, the virus supposedly came from the bronchial lavage fluid of the patient who's sick.
In Ender's case, he took some fluid from somebody, a child with measles, and he inoculated that, and that was the source of the virus.
And then he did the entire experiment, but he didn't put anything from anybody with measles.
And he says in the paper, the breakdown product that I got was indistinguishable one from the other.
And then he put some stains in and he thought he could see some differences, but he wasn't sure about that.
And basically said, you know, somebody should check this at some point.
Because I'm not sure that what we're seeing here is a result of a virus from measles, or the procedure that we're doing calling it a viral culture.
And he put a quote in his paper from a guy named Ruckel, who said, you know, we don't really know whether these particles that we're seeing are from the Vero cells or from the child with measles.
Now, shockingly, nobody has really repeated that study with that control until last month.
So, what Stefan did was hire a viral culture laboratory And he did the following.
He grew a tissue culture, in other words, cells.
He grew them with normal medium and normal 10% bovine fetal serum.
The reason they put bovine fetal serum is it helps feed the cultures, the cells, so that they grow.
And then he put, well, Then he put them in normal nutrient medium.
And so I didn't, I can't show this right now, but you see a two series of boxes.
And then they show the results in the top and we will somehow get this to you.
So don't everybody ask me for the study.
We will put the study out there.
The top box is what happens at day one.
There's four of them.
The second line of boxes is what happens on day five.
So the first step is normal cells grown with 10% fetal bovine serum, normal nutrients, and very small amount of antibiotics just to get the culture used to being exposed to antibiotics.
No cytopathic effect on day one.
No cytopathic effect on day five.
So that's, in other words, a normal culture.
Let me just look at the slide here.
Then he changes the culture, and so he does step two.
Same culture, growing with 10% fetal bovine serum.
The first one, I think he didn't add antibiotics.
The second one, he added antibiotics in a very small amount.
So normal nutrient medium, normal fetal bovine serum, 10% on culture cells with a small amount of antibiotic.
And as you can see, and you can't really see this, but here's the first day one, day five control.
Same control, adding a small amount of antibiotics, no cytopathic effect.
And I know you can't see it.
Then he changes the culture medium and puts a reduced nutrient medium.
Now, every study that I've ever read, when they do these experiments, they say they grew the culture in minimal nutrient medium, In other words, they take away the nutrients from the culture.
They reduce the fetal bovine serum, which provides the growth factors for the growth of the culture
from 10% here to 1% here. And then they add three times the number of antibiotics as the control,
which is the exact same amount of antibiotics in every viral culture that I've ever seen.
Thank you for listening.
Some exceptions, they sometimes use two times, sometimes two and a half, but it's anywhere between two and three.
And that's to essentially, they say, keep bacteria and fungus from growing, even though they already filtered them out.
Again, so all they did was change the nutrient medium, reduce the fetal serum, add antibiotics, exactly like they did in the Australian study.
There was no addition of any fluid, any particles, any viruses, anything from any sick person.
And as you can sort of see, but not see, they got the characteristic cytopathic effect that proves the existence of a virus.
Now think about that.
It proved the existence of a virus because under the influence of withdrawing the nutrients, withdrawing the fetal bovine serum, and adding the normal dose that they use of antibiotics, you got the very thing, the CPE, that is used to prove the existence of the virus.
Yet, there was no virus added to this sample, this experiment.
There was no fluid from any sick person added to the sample.
Proving that the cytopathic effect came from the way they did the culture, not from any virus.
And then the fourth column, day one, day five, is the same thing as they did in the Step three, which is reduce the nutrients, reduce the fetal bovine serum from 10% to 1%, add antibiotics, but this time they added pure RNA from yeast.
No virus, no DNA, just a pure stock of wide variety of RNA pieces derived from a simple yeast.
No virus, no fluid from any sick person.
And they got the exact same CPE breakdown of the tissue culture cells as they got in step three.
The reason for doing this addition of the RNA is that in the next part of the experiment, which isn't finished, they will then show that because of the addition of RNA, no virus, they will prove that SARS-CoV-2 is in this final Final mix, even though nothing from anybody with COVID or any other sick person or any other virus was introduced.
All of this particles, all of this genetic material is coming from either the fetal bovine serum The culture cells or the yeast RNA, no virus added, yet they will show that you can find SARS-CoV-2, measles virus, poliovirus, or any other RNA virus you want, even though they are clearly not there.
It's just a function of how they do alignment of the genome.
And so that is the answer to how they do find it.
And I think if anybody really understood what I would say, what I just said, they would see that the whole foundation of virology, which is this viral culture producing the effect called CPE, cytopathic effect, is basically a house of cards.
I got through that in 30 minutes.
And so now I will try to answer some questions.
Hang on one second.
OK, the first question, I'm not surprised, is really about shedding.
And I'm going to talk about this more on Friday.
So I'm going to, I'm going to defer this question for now, because it could take up the whole rest of the time.
And I think I need to do it more justice.
So I'm going to defer the question.
The question is, is it possible for a non injected person to get sick?
by being around people who are injected.
And it's a very difficult question to answer.
And it requires a whole lot of background information to also to really understand that.
So I'm going to wait on that and get into that a little bit on Friday.
Next question just says, yep.
And I can hear you.
So this is what I just talked about.
From your article in March, why do virologists skip the first step of examining the fluid taken from sick people under an electron microscope?
What reason do they give?
The reason that the virologist from China gave to us is there's not enough virus to find.
The other reason I've heard is viruses are obligate intracellular parasites.
Therefore, they don't come out of the cell.
Therefore, you can't find them out of the cell.
Now, again, with the first one, there's not enough virus to find.
We asked him if you put 100,000 people.
Well, we asked him 10,000.
We asked him 100,000, but he wouldn't answer that.
We asked him 10,000.
him $100,000 but he wouldn't answer that. We asked him $10,000 and he said no, there's
not enough virus to find. You have to concentrate the virus.
Concentration of the virus means put it through a culture like I just described, which I would submit is scientific fraud.
The answer that it's only intracellular inside the cell, because then I asked him, well, how does it get from one person to another?
And they said, well, it buds out of the cell.
So you'll see, you see pictures of these little particles, quote, budding out of cells.
But you don't know whether, first of all, it's just a piece of the entire field.
And if you looked at another part of the field, you would see completely different particles.
And, of course, they're not budding off the cell, the cells are breaking down.
And some of these particles are still apparently stuck to the walls of the tissue.
So the problem, so the answer, well, it never gets out of the cell.
So how does it get from one person to another?
Then they say it gets out of the cell.
And I say, why don't you catch it then?
And they stop answering them.
Next question.
In case you're taking questions today based on your current understanding of our detox system,
Do you have any new thoughts or ideas as to what might be the actual mechanism for the anaphylactic reaction to peanuts due to vaccine injury in the mid-70s when peanut oil was used as an adjuvant?
So, as I've explained before, we have a sort of five-step detoxification process.
The first three are the sort of normal three.
So in other words, if you get a toxic exposure, you increase liver activity and you poop it out.
So you may have increased bowel movements or even diarrhea.
And that's why people have done coffee enemas and enemas and all that when you get sick.
If that isn't enough, then you increase urine flow, which helps if you drink more clean water.
And if that doesn't work, you sweat it out, which is essentially the main rationale for using saunas and using sweating as detox.
If that doesn't work, then you recruit bacteria to eat the diseased tissue or the toxin that you were exposed to.
So then we say you have a bacterial infection.
And if that doesn't work, mechanism of last resort is to make antibodies to neutralize that usually protein based toxin.
So if you inject somebody with peanut oil, or which probably has some proteins as part of it, and you put that you mix that with a toxin like aluminum or mercury, You're going to make antibodies to neutralize that peanut protein.
And then it's possible, maybe even likely, that every time you see peanut oil or peanut protein after that, you remember that this is a toxin.
And so you make antibodies, they neutralize the toxin, and then you can have even up to an anaphylactic reaction.
The next is on shedding, so I'm gonna...
So, since a lot of money has been spent on, quote, gain of function of viruses,
What do you think is actually being explored from the understanding that viruses are not what is commonly understood?
Do you think they don't know what we know?
Seems unlikely.
So it's always difficult to speculate.
And I can't say I'm an expert on what they're doing with their, quote, gain of function research.
But my guess is they're learning or trying to learn how to make sequences of genetic material that code for proteins which act as toxins.
So this is not anything like what we understand as a quote live virus, whatever that means.
This is just taking sequences and making them make toxic proteins.
Because after all, a lot of proteins, especially when injected into you, can be very toxic.
You know, snake venom is a prime example.
I believe it's some sort of protein or enzyme toxin.
And once injected into you, can cause lots of trouble, even death.
I don't know that you can spray it through the air and have it cause problems that way.
I doubt it.
So a lot of the proteins are either ingested or they're injected into you.
So on the one hand, I've spoken about the usual DNA codes for RNA codes for protein is only a very small part of the story.
And in fact, most proteins are actually Not even made like that.
But some are.
There are some coding genes that code for maybe 10,000 or so, like collagen, which you can find the sequence in the genome of DNA, and that codes for RNA, which probably makes collagen proteins.
So essentially what they're doing is Trying to reproduce that process.
And in a sense, they're working against nature, because your body doesn't want to do that with, you know, any other sequence, but those 10,000 or so that are sort of an integral part of our genome.
Anytime you're otherwise exposed to an RNA or DNA sequence, you don't keep it around, you don't keep making proteins out of that.
mRNA lives for nanoseconds, so you get rid of it quickly, so as to avoid that problem of getting stuck in making one protein over and over and over again, particularly if it's a toxic protein.
So, the technology around this is to try to circumvent that and somehow get it to stabilize.
That's what I think they're talking about, gain of function, so that you end up Like it or not, making more and more of this protein.
And apparently they found out that, and this has to do with the next question, that a toxic protein is the so-called spike protein.
So they get the sequence that codes for that particular protein.
They try to stabilize it with all their technology of nanoparticles and pegs and all this stuff, trying to keep you from breaking it down.
So that you will make more and more and more of this spike protein, maybe forevermore.
And that I think is the best explanation I can come up with for what gain of function is.
And they blame the whole thing on a virus, which has nothing to do with it.
The self-disseminating vaccines.
I'm going to talk about that on Friday.
They show that the viruses are in the fourth sample using a PCR test or fluorescent antibodies.
So this gets into the question, you know, sometimes when you order a viral culture, Interesting, it comes out positive or negative.
So, how does that happen?
There's a number of ways, but one of the things that I found out just this week is, so if you take a sample from somebody with, say, herpes, and you want to know whether they have a herpes virus, so they do the whole thing with, you know, washing it and filtering it, And then they inoculate that on some tissue culture, and they see if it has the cytopathic effect.
And if it does, they say it's positive.
And if it doesn't, they say it's negative.
That's at least how you would think they do it.
But that's not how they do it.
What they do is they take the fluid from the herpes lesion, they wash it, they filter it, They inoculate that on Vero cells or some other tissue culture cells.
They put the antibiotics in, they starve it.
They add fetal bovine serum or some other growth medium.
And then it always gets the cytopathic effect.
And then they do an antibody, a fluorescent antibody test on the resultant breakdown product.
And that determines whether the test is positive or negative.
So it's not in that case whether there's a CPE, it's whether there's an antibody.
Now, I've been through this before.
antibodies do not prove anything except possibly the existence of some protein,
which has nothing to do with anything we call a virus.
So, we're going to go ahead and get started.
So, there's a question of do I think most virologists know this?
I think it's a process of what I would call self-fooling and that they don't want to go
back and do rigorous controls and proper scientific experiments because I think they know what they
would find. So here's a question.
I have a question about the four channels of elimination.
What did the lungs respiratory system play as an elimination organ?
I always thought it was one of the main elimination detox organs and systems of the body.
I also thought mucus was a vital detoxification mechanism.
What are your thoughts on this?
I think those are very good points, and we do eliminate toxins and waste products, certainly through the breath, which is the main reason why nobody should wear a mask, amongst other reasons.
And yes, I've talked about this, particularly in the vaccine book.
So basically, the mucus is definitely a system of elimination.
So the way it works is you basically, as I've described many times, I think the water in our cells is in the form of a gel.
And the gel is organized like a living crystal to be a receiver of outside influences, be they hormonal or chemical or electromagnetic fields or radiation from the sun and the moon and light and all kinds of energies seen and unseen, known and unknown.
So insofar as we're a perfect living crystal, which is also changeable and evolving, that's what we call good health.
And I picture this like Jell-O.
And then if you dissolve a poison grape in your Jell-O, there has to be some mechanism of getting the grape out of your Jell-O.
So being the ingenious device that it is, What we do is we first heat up the gel so that it becomes liquefied.
And then we make it flow out, which is what we call mucus.
So first comes the fever that liquefies the gel.
Then the toxins are able to be flushed out through the mucus.
And then our lung coughing reflex happens.
And we expectorate the mucus.
And that's how we get rid of the toxins that came in, particularly in our lungs.
So yes, that is one of the main pathways of detoxification.
So I'll have to work that in like 2B or something.
So whenever we get to the question of what is the transmission of chlamydia work like
under the assumption the person in a monogamous relationship doesn't get this disease,
who would seem that is transmitted by contact with an infected person.
I asked this question because it was posed to me by a proponent of the germ theory.
So the question, let's rephrase the question.
It may be that there's something transmissible.
The question is whether it's the germ.
Now, in order to answer that question, you have to, like we do with anything, you would have to take out the germ part, right?
You can't prove that a ping pong ball knocks down brick walls by putting the ping pong ball in a bucket of stones and throwing them at the brick wall.
Every normal human being would say the only way to prove that the ping pong ball is the thing that knocked down the wall is to take the ping pong ball by itself and throw it at the wall and see if the wall falls down.
If somebody can show me one study that they took out chlamydia By the way, chlamydia, we're almost getting into sort of parasites.
So I haven't looked into chlamydia once, but it's sort of a higher organism than normal bacteria.
So parasites can cause troubles.
So it's possible that that's what's happening here.
But I mostly doubt it.
So the only way to prove that would be to take the chlamydia out.
And somehow expose the person to only chlamydia and see if they got sick.
And as far as I know, that has never happened.
If that hasn't happened, then there is no experimental proof that it's the chlamydia that was the agent.
So then you start thinking of all the other things that could be transmitted through some sort of sexual contact.
Because there's obviously a lot of proteins and a lot of enzymes and a lot of other things that are in vaginal secretions and semen and sperm.
And then not to mention emotional, psychological connections and a whole lot of other things.
So to be truly scientific about it, You would have to isolate each factor and see if you could come to an understanding of exactly what it is that caused the disease, if in fact that transmission is real.
And I would love to see the research on that, because at this point we don't really know, because we've never actually done that.
We jumped to the conclusion that it must be this microorganism And we can't even prove that the microorganism isn't there because there's some toxin in the vaginal fluid that the microorganism is trying to actually help us to get rid of, because that is the role of microorganisms in nature.
So we just want to be as clear and scientific and precise as possible.
And it goes to just to demonstrate that what we have is a essentially a scientific failure of not exploring in a truly rational, logical, scientific, controlled way, all the various possibilities, because if we did, we might find out what the answer to this.
One more question, which I just want to get into.
Wouldn't the maceration rip apart the viruses?
Or are they so small it wouldn't even be touched by the blades?
The answer is they're way too small to be touched by the blades.
The maceration is just to break apart the big cells and the fungus to allow the filtration to be to essentially allow the viruses to go through.
and keep the bacteria and the debris out.
So I'll just finally say I've read a little bit of Robert Young.
He seems like he knows a lot about what he's talking about and So he's a guy worth paying attention to.
And I think I'm going to stop there.
And again, thanks for listening.
Thanks for being part of our subscribe star.
And I know I haven't gotten to all your questions, but we're going to keep doing this and keep joining me.
▲
Export Selection