All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 8, 2021 - Jim Fetzer
59:13
Dr. Tom Cowan: The PCR Tests Are Being Replaced with Something EVEN WORSE!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everyone.
Welcome to another Friday afternoon webinar.
Thanks, everybody, for joining me.
And I don't think I have any announcements that I know of.
I think Tricia will be if there is any announcements or anything that we need to communicate.
If people could look at the chat, they should be there.
I think I wrote this in the chat, but Tricia, when I get to do the screen sharing, it's a little bit different, so if you could let me know in the chat whether it's working or not.
Okay, thanks.
All right, so the theme of today, it's going to be just a brief talk and then there'll be question and answer like usual.
Oh, this is another one.
It's not the worst example.
But an example, nonetheless, of what I'm calling they whoever they are, are playing chess.
And most of us are most people don't know there's a game.
And some of us are playing checkers.
But if they're playing chess, we need to play chess too and understand the motivations and the real rationale behind some of the moves we're hearing.
And this is particularly in the case of things which seem to be what I would call small victories, sometimes even fairly larger victories.
And upon closer examination, They don't all turn out to be as victorious as we might think.
So the example I'm going to use today, some of you probably heard this because it's circulated a fair amount in the whatever, you know, freedom, anti-vax, anti-COVID narrative community.
which was the CDC very quietly announced, I believe this week,
maybe end of last week, but I think it was this week, that they were no longer going to use PCR tests
as of January 1st, 2022.
Now, the question is, what motivated this change?
And I read their announcement and they didn't say why they went to this change.
Now, of course, there has been a lot of discussion about the invalidity of PCR tests.
So, Many people saw this as a kind of capitulation by the CDC, as if to say they had finally saw the light, or perhaps the pressure was enough on them that they knew they had to quietly back down from the PCR test.
And so they were going to essentially, people didn't say this exactly, but they were going to therefore end testing.
They didn't say they were going to end testing, but that's sort of what the victory implied.
So they were going to end the testing, at least with the PCR test.
And so, insofar as this pandemic, so-called, is really a pandemic of testing, That should go a long way towards ending the pandemic.
After all, if they stop doing the test, nobody will test positive.
So this was hailed again as a victory for quote our side.
Because perhaps the pressure and the evidence and the proof that a PCR is not a test, it's a manufacturing tool and does not test whether anybody has any virus or not.
And they finally saw the light and quietly capitulated and said, so we're no longer going to be doing the tests.
So that is hailed as a small victory.
Not a huge victory, but a small victory.
Now, let's just go through why a PCR test is not valid.
So, PCR means polymerase chain reaction.
It was, quote, invented, if you want to use that word, by a guy named Kerry Mullis, who many of you know.
We've gone through this.
He said it's not a test, it's a manufacturing tool.
But the simplest way to understand this is there's two premises of a PCR test.
So what they look for are short sequences of either RNA or DNA.
The idea being that this sequence, which are called primers, So they they put in a short sequence of either RNA or DNA.
These are called the primer sequences.
And they stick to a complementary RNA, DNA sequence in the sample.
And then, because that wouldn't be enough to see, they get amplified through these cycles until there's been 20, 25, 30, 40, or whatever number of cycles, which means that you'll eventually have enough so that you can see it.
See it means it creates a color change.
Again, the premise is that we know that that sequence came from that virus.
That's number one.
Number two, we have to know that no other Let me say that again.
that could be in that sample.
So for instance, microbes, bacteria, fungus, or a human being has that same sequence.
Let me say that again.
The premise of a PCR is, you know what the sequence of the virus is,
and you know that this primer sequence is one of the pieces of that entire genome
of that particular virus.
And no other virus, no other bacteria, fungus, human, frog, etc.
has that same sequence.
Now we know that both of those are not true with PCR COVID tests.
So the COVID PCR tests are called RT-PCR, which means reverse transcriptase, which means they take the RNA and they convert it into DNA, because you can only amplify DNA, not RNA.
So they say that this primer sequence came from this SARS-CoV-2.
Now, as I've said many times before, the people who came up with the original primer sequences, these are Christian Drosten, he admitted in the paper that they never had a copy of the virus.
Now, just think about that for a minute.
If you never had a copy of the virus, how can you possibly know that this piece of the genome, piece of the virus, came from the virus?
If I give you a paragraph and say, tell me whether this sentence or this paragraph came from this book, The obvious question that any common sense rational human being would say is, I need to see the book first in its entirety to know whether that paragraph or that sentence came from the book.
From that book.
If you see a piece of a hoof, You and I say, did this come from a unicorn?
You need to say, I need to see a unicorn first, analyze the unicorn, and then I can find out whether this piece of the unicorn hoof or this piece of the hoof came from the unicorn or not.
There is no universe, there is no world where you can find out or conclude that something is a piece of something if you've never seen the something first.
There's just no way that makes any sense at all.
And since they admit they didn't have the virus, everybody says that, there is no way they could know that this piece came from the virus.
The second thing is, how can you prove that no other living being has this same sequence?
In fact, probably the best way to try to prove it is to do a BLAST search, which is the database of all the genome sequences of all the organisms that have been sequenced.
And this was done for the primer sequences, and they found out that this same sequence that are being used in the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 So the second premise, which is that this sequence is unique to the virus, which they never found, is not true.
It's also found in humans.
It's also found in bacteria.
The relevance of that is you're taking a sample that comes from humans that has bacteria and fungus in it, and so you have no way of knowing whether the positive match, the sticking of the primer to a sequence in the sample that will then amplify, comes from a virus, the person, a bacteria, a fungus, or maybe something else.
So both of these premises are incorrect, clearly, and without a doubt.
And therefore, the premise of a PCR test is wrong.
The test is invalid.
As I've said, there are no false positives.
There's no false negatives.
There are just falses.
So shouldn't we applaud that the CDC has finally acknowledged that they were not going to do a PCR test anymore?
Maybe because they realized it's no good.
But the question, it's always in the fine print, is so what are they going to replace it with?
And I would admit it took me a while to figure this out, but I finally figured out what they're going to replace it with.
And so I would like to share what I found with you today.
And now I'm going to try to screen share so I can see help you see what I found.
So, let me, I guess I can't figure out if you can see that.
So, let me, I guess I can't figure out if you can see that.
I think you can.
In order for me to, I'm going to do that again.
I'm gonna stop this share.
Yes, it's visible.
Okay, I'm gonna assume you can see that.
It was working.
I'm going to do that sequence again.
Share.
Here we go.
Participants can now see your application.
Good.
So, what did the CDC propose to substitute instead of a PCR test for coronavirus?
Here's what they said.
They were going to use a quote, higher throughput and multiplexed assay with biotinylated primers.
Let me repeat that.
They're going to use a higher throughput and multiplexed assay with biotinylated primers.
Now, if you're like me, you have no idea what I just said.
I have an idea what I just said, but when I first read it, I didn't know what that said.
So now I'm going to read you another bunch of nonsense.
So I'm looking right here.
So this is what that means.
This LLNL developed invention is multiplexed and uses the Luminex bead-based liquid assay, which contains 100 different unique beads.
Oligonucleotide probes with sequences complementary to the target sequences are covalently coupled to these unique beads.
These capture beads are mixed with viral samples obtained from the patient via cheek swabbing or a throat wash and subjected to PCR in a conventional thermocycler.
The amplified target sequence is then hybridized to complementary capture oligonucleotide probes via forward biotinylated primers.
If this bead probe amplicon unit contains the target nucleic acid, it will be bound by the reporter molecule and fluorescence will be detected by a flow cytometer.
This multiplexed assay would thus be able to detect and identify respiratory pathogens present in hospital and clinical settings.
And I won't read that again.
What this, in the English translation of this, is that instead of the old PCR test, they are going to use 100 different unique beads.
These beads contain the primer sequences, and they're all attached to these beads.
These beads are mixed with viral samples from the patient, and then they are put into a PCR amplification cycles.
Now, the only difference really between this and what a normal PCR test is, is that there's more of these primer sequences, like a hundred, And they attach it to a chemical called biotin.
I'm sure most of you have heard that it's in your hair growth formulas.
And apparently biotin, which is what biotinylated primers mean, makes the primer sequences stick more avidly to the sequences in the sample, which then get put into the old fashioned PCR thermocycler to be cycled so that they can be caught.
And then you get a result.
The upshot of this is now you will be able to say, oh, you have 10 different viruses all at the same time, or you have 10 or 20 or 100, all different viruses at the same time.
We can amplify every small sequence found in your sample.
And now we're going to be able to say you have any number of viruses Which of course may be making you sick, which of course you may need a vaccine for each one of these viruses, because after all we found a new virus that sticks more avidly the sequence to our primers, and so what's going to happen next is checkmate.
We now are able to find that not only do you have The SARS-CoV-2, you have the Delta variant and the Lambda variant, and a new one and a new one, because we found that you have eight different sequences, they all amplify, because we figured out a way to make our primer sequences stick more readily to whatever is in your sample.
And this is not a single plex.
This is a multiplexed assay, which means you can find any number you want.
And Checkmate, they got us.
So they replaced this with something that will make the whole thing even worse.
People who are interested in stopping this madness don't keep getting fooled by these false leads or false minor victories that they throw our way because that's not necessarily good news.
All right.
I think that's enough of that. So let me get to the questions.
What is your opinion of routine high dose melatonin?
That is an interesting question.
Because on the one hand, I don't like ever giving somebody an exogenous meaning, outside hormone, because of two reasons.
One, it's not the same as what you make yourself.
There is no such thing as a bioidentical hormone.
There may be a identical chemical, but if you're stuck in that all there is in life is chemicals, then you would think it's identical.
But if you realize that there's, you know, That their chemicals are only the end stage of an energy process.
That is not the same substance.
That is not the same entity as what you make yourself.
Anything that you take from the outside.
So that's the first worry.
The second worry is anytime you take a synthetic chemical, you make less of it yourself.
And so at the end of the day, You become more and more dependent on whatever that hormone or substance is, which means you're essentially become like an addict.
And so then you have to take it in order just to maintain and higher and higher doses.
But there is another side, which is it seems to be the case.
That as we age, we make less melatonin and melatonin has many effects at protecting us from various illnesses and inflammation and degeneration.
And there is some evidence that EMF exposure and particularly to millimeter waves lowers your ability to synthesize melatonin.
And there is some rationale for sometimes you just can't keep up, you can't maintain a normal production of whatever it is.
And so you may have to take something in order to make yourself do better.
So, I wouldn't say that there's no rationale.
And I know there is a significant amount of research, and I even wrote about it in the cancer book, of taking very high doses of melatonin that clearly produces a better outcome with people with such things as cancer and heart disease and pretty much any other disease of aging.
And so I wouldn't want to not say that, that that seems to be the case.
There seems to be very clear evidence even of taking synthetic ones.
You just have to know that there's a potential downside, and it eventually may be worth it to you.
So, I would appreciate you discussing the Delta variant and the drop and now increase in reported illness.
There is no variant of something that doesn't exist.
That is very clear, since we now know that the SARS-CoV-2 does not exist, that the Genome is a computer in silico genome, which then as Andy has said, when you repeat the experiment, you get a slightly different result.
And you get a slightly different result in different places, depending on The exposure, the toxins, what the people are subjected to, and what you're testing for.
There is no evidence that there is a variant of anything that doesn't exist.
That's simply just another scare tactic.
So, the other thing is I simply don't believe any reports of any illnesses.
They're all based on erroneous PCR tests.
So, you can't trust that PCR test does not measure anything relevant to any viral infection at all.
So, we don't know whether there's more people or less people.
And my suspicion is that we're now hearing that These injections don't protect you against the so-called Delta variant, which means that they're blaming the sickness that the vaccinated people are getting on a new variant, which they're not protected against.
And instead of saying, that's just what happens when you inject yourself with poison.
So that's my take on that.
I wanted to ask you about how agglutination might work if there are no
antigens proteins on red blood cells.
I didn't say there's no proteins on red blood cells.
I said there's no proteins embedded in the cell membranes.
There's no receptors on the cell membrane.
If you dispute that, I would love to see a picture of a receptor on a cell membrane.
Um, so that's it.
But there are proteins and there are, uh, the proteins probably create binding, which is what agglutination is between red blood cells.
And there's probably also a lot of other reasons why red blood cells stick together.
Most of the reason why, uh, blood or any kind of cell sticks together is the cell loses its charge.
So a healthy normal cell has essentially a halo of negative charges around it.
And so two negative charges, depending on their strength, will keep their distance, sort of like this.
Just like if you bring two positive magnets together, they maintain a certain distance.
So that's how cells keep their coherence to form larger structures.
They have a charge which is generated by the dipole nature of water, which creates a charge around the cell.
Two negatively charged cells come together and they keep their distance.
The strength of the charge determines how far apart they are.
And so each different tissue or organ has a different strength of charge and therefore a different distribution of the cells, if they even have cells.
And so the organization of the tissue as a whole is determined by these electromagnetic fields of the constituent parts, which is generated by water.
Has very little to do probably with any agglutination of any proteins.
And then if there's no synapses, how do neurotransmitters work?
So the first thing is, how do you know they do work?
But what I would say about that, It's the analogy of, you go to a place and you look for footprints, and you see these square footprints, and you say, what caused the footprints?
And you do a whole bunch of learned studies and you go to a university and they have a department of footprint allergy.
And the learned professor says, I know what caused the footprints.
It's the unique combination of soil and water in that location.
That's why you get square footprints.
Everybody would think that guy was a lunatic because there's no way that's true.
But he would prove it and say, you see, if I put this square piece of wood on the gymnasium floor, I don't get a footprint.
That's proof that it was the soil and water that caused the footprint.
If I put the square piece of wood in a lake, you don't get a footprint.
Because it doesn't have the right composition of soil and water.
Therefore, I know it's the soil and water that caused the footprint.
But you would still think he's a lunatic.
Because it's true you need soil and water, but clearly it's the square hoof that made the footprint.
And it just needs soil and water to be manifest.
So when the electrical activity goes through a nerve, which has no breaks in it that you can see on a light microscope, no breaks in it called synapses that you can see under dissection, as it goes through, chemicals are released.
And we call these neurotransmitters.
And so they are the result of the nerve flow, not the cause of the nerve flow.
And so they are present, just like bacteria are present in your throat, but they're there to bioremediate your dead tonsils, not to give you problems.
And the neurotransmitters are there as released as a chemical offshoot or chemical consequence of an electrical impulse, not the cause.
And if you think you can prove that by giving somebody more serotonin or dopamine or something, that proves they were the cause, then you must think that giving somebody cocaine or heroin or LSD or mescaline or a whole lot of things, I won't know what I'm talking about, those things determine how your brain works or how your neurological
function works because they clearly have an effect, that's crazy. Lots of chemicals, lots of
substances have an effect. That doesn't prove that's how it works. Nobody with any sense would
think that.
Okay, Moderna is calling for a third shot to protect from the new strains.
Do you know if this is the same shot or something new?
I don't know the answer to that.
But it's, yeah, I don't know.
It would certainly be ironic if, well, the first two didn't work.
So let's give you a third one of the same thing and see if that one works, which we know it won't.
Because it's the shots that are creating the people who are sick.
And then the virologists are finding variants by putting those variant
sequences in as the templates and the primers. And so by golly, we found what we're looking for
because that's how this game works.
So the next question is about shedding, which I've gone over and, you know,
As I've said, there is research that the manufacturers were interested in this shedding phenomena going back decades.
They were tasked with the job of figuring out whether there's any reality to it, whether there's any truth to it, and they never did.
So we don't know if that's true.
We have a lot of experiences and a lot of people say things, but we don't really even know what these things, whether they work, whether they make you make spike proteins, whether the sequences can be transferred out of you in their lipid nanoparticles intact, And then make somebody else make spike proteins or other synthetic sequences.
We just don't know the answer to that.
We don't really even know for sure whether the whole thing works and whether the mRNA sequences, as much as they try to stabilize them and get them to have you make spike proteins, as I've said over and over, that's not how biology works.
That whole gene theory is incorrect.
The central dogma of genetics is incorrect.
Most of the proteins, which is what this whole thing is about, you are a mixture of proteins.
Whoever controls the proteins you make controls you.
The proteins are mostly made de novo out of the interaction from energy, wavelengths, being essentially captured or received by the water and by the antennas called chromosomes.
They're essentially transferred to the crystalline water and out of that de novo proteins are made based on your unique individual and human blueprint.
They're trying to say we are going to be the ones determining which proteins you make.
But the good news is that's not how it works.
The bad news is it works a little bit like that.
So they may be able to do that.
And we don't really know which where this is going to fall.
All right, next, can you go over what actually causes the rupture of one's appendix?
Is it the use of toxic herbicides like glyphosate?
That's an interesting question.
One of the interesting things about the appendix is when even, you know, I've often said, I went to medical school a while ago, 1980 to 1984.
So it was a while ago.
So on the one hand, you could say nothing that we learned was relevant.
But on the other hand, it wasn't like that was in 1803 or anything.
So it wasn't like I'm that old.
Sometimes.
Well, anyways, so we learned the appendix was a vestigial meaning useless organ, which had no no function.
Now we know that the appendix is like a savings bank, and it's a savings bank for all the different microbes that are meant to live in your gut.
In other words, you have a hundred different microbes, actually it's probably billions, And it's like Noah's Ark in you know Noah's Ark took a copy of two of the each of the animals, so that if anything happens, you like a flood.
Then the animals could propagate once that situation was over.
So the same thing is with your appendix.
You keep a copy or two or ten or a hundred or I don't know how many, so that if you have diarrhea or God forbid take an antibiotic or something happens to you, you can replenish your stores.
It's like a seed bank.
So now we know that's the function and people who have their appendix removed basically can't replenish and that causes them troubles.
Now, it can happen that you have an inflammatory situation basically because of some toxin, doesn't have to be glyphosate, could be a lot of things.
I think combined usually with irritation and usually combined with constipation, And so then you can get a weakening of the walls.
And if there's a particular aggressive inflammation of the tissue, and particularly constipation where there's pressure, then the appendix can burst.
And it is not a good thing to have the contents of your bowel spewed out into your peritoneal cavity.
So that is a true emergency, which probably legitimately needs surgical treatment.
I hate to say it.
I've seen people recover from ruptured appendix, but not everybody.
So that's something I would be very cautious about.
Next question.
Do you consider Ayurveda to be a legitimate system of thought regarding holistic diet and constitutional healing?
Generally, yes, although I can't say I'm an expert on it.
But I would also say, just like everything today, there is probably, and I'm no expert on Ayurvedic medicine, so let's be clear about that, there is probably a There is a difference between the system of thought and the medical philosophy called Ayurveda and how it's practiced today.
The same thing is with homeopathy, the same thing with anthroposophical medicine, the same thing with Chinese medicine and herbal medicine.
Most of those people who practice those still believe in the same nonsense as everybody else, and they just treat it differently.
But in truth, Ayurveda, like Chinese medicine, like homeopathy, is an entirely different way of seeing the world, seeing medicine.
It's entirely from an energetic perspective.
And one of the hallmarks is none of them thought there were diseases.
No Chinese medicine person should say you have hepatitis or strep throat or cancer.
They should say the energy flow through your large intestine meridian is weak,
and this is for whatever reason, and that's what they should be evaluating and treating,
not strep throat or anything.
And if they aren't doing that, they don't understand and are not doing
what the kind of medicine that they think they are.
How to draw the line with what we can do to control we get to eat or
Organic foods, even with graphene oxide.
So, I'm not aware that it's true that organic foods have graphene oxide in it.
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.
I just don't know anything about that.
I mean, all I can say is, as I've said many times, When people say to me, so Tom, I should read labels, I say no, because if it has a label, don't eat it.
Number two is, this is a situation where just like you need to be very careful about any medical practitioners of any stripe, functional medicine, regular medicine, Chinese medicine, whatever, you need to know where they're coming from.
And you need to know where your food is coming from.
Organic means almost nothing.
I mean, it's step one of many more steps.
So insofar as possible, grow your own food or find farmers who you know and trust, who you can actually go to their farm and look for yourself.
And I would also say, when I was at Joel Salatin's Polyface Farm, He did a whole booklet and talk, which you might want to listen to, on how to know whether your farmer is legit.
And it was a very good way of evaluating, even based on the packaging they use, because real farmers will use the cheapest non-toxic packaging they can find.
Because they're trying to put all their resources and money into making the best food, and they can try to get away with whatever is the most non-toxic packaging they can find.
So he had a whole list of things like that, and I would check that out.
This is something that everybody needs to take really seriously.
I did not see the interview that Andy had with Karen Kingston.
I would be interested in seeing that.
So if anybody can send me a link to that, I would appreciate it because I would like to see that.
So if bacteria don't cause disease under healthy conditions and can become aggressive in response
to the use of antibiotics, That is the use of so-called antibiotic hand soaps unnecessary or harmful.
It is harmful.
There is no reason to do that.
You should not wash off the bacteria from your skin.
They're there for a reason and they form colonies and you'd be better off taking a bath in cow manure than with antibiotic soaps.
Is washing hands with purified, structured water enough?
If you can get the dirt off, yes.
And the mud.
I'm not sure I want everybody to go slopping around in cow manure.
Although, interesting, in Swaziland they make your floors out of cow manure.
But so it actually is, it would probably be a really good idea, but not sure everybody should do that.
At least you should know the source of the cow.
So this means we should avoid this new test at all costs.
You should avoid any test that has anything to do with COVID at all costs.
How long do you think they will be able to carry on with this crap agenda?
I I don't have any idea of the answer to that.
The only thing is my fear is that we're in the beginning, not the end.
It's easy to think, oh, this has got to end someday soon, but I don't think so.
I think we're at the beginning.
And again, there's a lot of good things that are happening.
People are making new friends and doing things they've never done before.
And a lot of them are being human, which is really what you want to think about.
But I think you have to see it that the changes that you need to make are changes that you should be doing for the long haul.
You know, we were talking in a group the other day, the question of, is it paranoid to be putting up food for the winter in case there are food shortages?
And my answer to that is always, and has always been, so the reason I make Pickles.
I make tomato sauce.
I make sauerkraut.
I make leek salt powder.
Yesterday I made charred eggplant powder.
I make all kinds of things that I store for the winter.
The reason I do that is because, for me, I grow them and I really like eating my ginger carrots and sauerkraut and pickles and leek powder that I made and tomato sauce and pesto from my own basil.
I like eating that in the winter.
And even if they said to me, Tom, there will be no food shortages, you'll be able to get whatever food you want, all winter long, I would still do it.
Because the worst thing that can happen to me is I get to eat my pesto this winter, which I hope to do anyways.
So I can't possibly lose for this.
Now, if there is food shortages, that's this, I'll be glad I had it.
If there isn't food shortages, I will be glad I had it because I get to eat it anyway.
If you think like that, you know, it's cheaper to buy a quarter of a cow.
It's sometimes better because then you can find a farmer, you can check out how they do it, do they really feed their cows grass, you know, etc.
All those things.
So it's less expensive.
You don't have to go to the store as much.
There's also, it's a feeling of being human to have a well-stocked larder.
That's what humans and animals, I think, some of them anyways, that's what living beings do because they've been through this before and they know what's coming and they would rather eat their own food.
This isn't rocket science.
By the way, if somebody could send me the link to the Andy's interview or with Karen Kingston on my email, not on the chat, because I don't think I'll be able to transfer it.
I should be able to.
But so if somebody could do that, Tricia or somebody, if you could look at that and yeah, thanks.
All right.
Advice for treating cataracts.
We talked about how turpentine, and I mean orally, might work.
It was in the Merck manual.
I've seen other things touted for treating cataracts, but I've never actually seen them work.
But I think cataracts are just depositions, and so if you essentially go on an anti-deposition program.
So what does that mean?
So if you think about generally why you get sick, or what aging is, as you age, you get more and more dehydrated, and you get more and more concrete.
And we call that mostly calcified.
So your joints get calcified and therefore they don't move well.
Your lens of your eye gets calcified and so the light doesn't get transmitted well.
So that's essentially what aging is, is you're getting too calcified, too stone-like, too material, too soon.
Now, there is a process that we become, essentially we come from a watery, almost like 100% water, and then you incarnate on Earth, and as you get approached to dying, you get more and more physical.
That's normal.
But accelerated aging, or increased biological aging, means that's happening too soon.
And so one could say that's the primary illness there is.
So in order to combat that, you want to reverse that aging process, which means make yourself more soft and flexible, which also means getting rid of any of these deposits.
Now, interestingly, these deposits are called different diseases.
They're called gallstones, they're called kidney stones, they're called cataracts, they're called osteoarthritis.
The depositional process is called different diseases depending on where it ends up happening.
But it's really the same process, just a different site.
And so, when you're doing this, you know, being human program, eating real food and sunlight and water that dissolves things and, you know, fasting.
And by the way, I did a really fun interview today with a young man who knows a lot about fasting and we'll put that on our podcast in a A week or so.
And I would encourage everybody to think about incorporating at least some type of fasting into their daily life.
Not daily life, into their regular life.
Because it really just means giving your body a break from eating all the time.
And that's a very human thing.
And it's a very good thing.
And it's a way of letting your body go through the process of accumulating stuff, and then depositing stuff.
And then if you've deposited too much calcium, too much protein, then you can go through a dissolution and reconstruction phase.
And that's what needs to happen with glaucoma and needs to happen with cataracts.
So all these things we're talking about, they're all towards that end.
Is there any books or articles on the concept of ley lines that you mentioned in the previous webinar?
All the books on biogeometry go into that in some detail and those are the ones I know the most about.
What do I know about Jerry Tennant's research?
I know a little bit and it seems Interesting.
I don't know that I agree with all of it, but he certainly has realized that we're all about energy, not about substance.
That's sort of step one in the transformation to being a rational human being.
Certain cultures believe you should only prepare your food when in a positive mood
full of gratitude and love.
You might say you should only do your life when you're in a positive mood full of gratitude and love.
Although I would say that life happens and one of the things I'm not a fan of is you should always be in a positive mood.
Because what if you're not?
What if somebody is being a jerk?
Or what if something that you don't like is happening to you?
A better way to say it is you should allow your emotions, your feelings to be whatever is true.
I would much rather have somebody have feel what they're feeling than feel something they're not feeling because they should feel that way.
And I think out of that comes the gratitude that you actually are a human being who can feel things and then integrate them.
And out of gratitude comes love for being allowed to participate in this world.
Anyways.
They believe that it's transferred to the meal and those who eat it.
They often sing while they cook.
The food absorbs energy from where it came from and who's in contact with it.
Thoughts.
Sounds right to me.
Might this help those who cannot afford the best food?
It certainly can't hurt.
So I think that's a great idea.
Have I seen the live blood analysis of a person who was taken the jab by Dr. Jane Ruby?
I have not seen that.
If somebody wants to email them to me, I'll take a look.
The blood cells look terrible, I'm not surprised, all stuck together with microtubular structures, which suggests, if that's true, that they can make you, at least temporarily, make certain proteins.
The proteins structure the water in an abnormal way, and that makes the blood cells lose their charge and they stick together.
So that's sort of what I've been talking about.
If one lived in New York City, how could one avoid the mandate that you can't go anywhere, do anything, or buy food if you can't document a jab?
I have no idea, but there's people who are working on these, like Children's Health Defense and Leslie Mnookin's group, to try to help people in this situation.
Some people are refusing, some people are suing them.
It seems like if you take action against the individuals or the individual businesses that are trying to carry out these so-called mandates, that may be more effective because nobody wants to be sued.
Nobody wants to be threatened with a suit.
It's expensive and it's not fun.
So the government you may not be able to do anything about, but mom and pop store where you buy food, they probably don't want to hear this, especially if you name them personally.
So they may be more amenable to changing their ways.
The idea that some people say they had COVID with all the symptoms,
if there's no virus, how can their sickness be explained?
You have to watch probably 10 previous webinars and YouTube things and read the Contagion book
because we go into great detail about that.
The questions about what about universities and jobs requiring the vaccine to continue
with your education or job.
Thank you, Bob.
The first thing I would say is you're mistakenly, what's the word, equating, that's the word, equating university and education.
Which I would say there are two different things.
University is schooling.
Schooling is not education.
Again, I wrote a whole book about this, which didn't get published.
Or as Ivan Illich said, if you do well in school, then you get the dubious privilege of being able to consume more school.
And once you've consumed enough school, then you find yourself in a position of only being able to talk to those who have consumed a similar amount of school.
So, I understand that you may think you need a university education, so-called, university schooling to get a job.
Or you may need this job to pay your bills.
But I would really encourage everybody, particularly about universities, as my friend Trauger Grow used to say, college is the devil.
And there's a lot of reasons for that, which I won't necessarily go into right now.
But when you think about how much it costs, and what else you could do with that money, and the lies that they teach you, What more and more people are saying, I don't need to do this.
I'm going to figure out what I need to know, what I want to learn, how I want to learn it, and use that money to start my homestead, start my business, start my entrepreneurial life, start something that will actually make you your life better.
not this nonsense that we call university.
And the final question, is there a ballpark time frame in your experience
that you are able to walk someone through an active listening into their right brain knowing
of what is at the root of their health concern?
You should be able to do that in 20 to 30 minutes with just about everybody.
And I think let's stop there.
And again, thanks for listening.
I know I didn't get to all your questions, but
▲
Export Selection