All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 22, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
55:52
A Response to Dr. Mercola's Statement on if SARS-COV-2 is a Real Virus with Dr. Andrew Kaufman
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, here we are again, another Friday at 2 o'clock.
And as far as I remember, I've done my Friday at 2 o'clock solo, but today I have the very special opportunity to do a Friday at 2 o'clock unnamed webinar with my friend Andy Kaufman.
So Andy, thanks for joining me on this.
My pleasure, Tom.
I was wondering if you would ever invite me.
Oh, yeah.
And by the way, Andy, I always update people.
Not always, but I am now up to being able to do all the Tommy Johns for five minutes, five minutes, two minutes and two minutes of a plank.
Up from about a minute, I can stand on one foot now for five minutes.
I told people I would update them.
And for now, five straight days, I've stood willingly under an ice-cold shower for exactly two minutes, singing Tis a Gift to Be Simple.
Well, Tom, if you can do that, now the next step is to make an ice cold tub and submerge yourself completely.
Yeah, I know.
I'm taking it one step at a time here.
Anyways, I'm getting my lazy ass in gear here.
So anyways, so today we're, obviously people know because I got about 50 to 70 emails all at once on some day this week.
With the article from our friend Dr. Mercola, and we thought we would craft a response.
Now, I also Send out a few things for people to read before this, one of which was Andy's response to Jeremy Hammond, which hopefully everybody had a chance to see.
There was also Christine Massey, who I just did a recent interview with, and she actually wrote a response to Dr. McCullough.
And also, Andy actually sent this to me.
I don't know the guy's name, but some.
It looks like Tersh.
Was that who the Indian guy?
Oh, no, I'm sorry.
No, yes.
What's his name?
I'm going to be talking to him soon.
But yeah, that's an excellent video.
Yeah, I don't think it was Steve Kirsch.
No, no, no.
I thought you were mentioning something about Christine.
Sorry.
No, this guy, I don't know who he is.
I don't know if he's a doctor or a plumber.
Anyways, I know he's smart and looked into it.
And so I don't really care what he is.
But, so we sent that out to people to really see a perspective on what a, you know, how virologists use an electron or misuse electron microscopy.
So hopefully everybody has a chance to look at those because really, there's not a whole lot new to say here.
So if you've seen those you've probably heard it all.
So because of that, I actually thought I would go spend the introductory time maybe 15-10 minutes or so.
Just talking about how we know things.
And as always, I invite Andy to correct anything that he thinks he hears that may not be exactly right, because I do that every once in a while.
Don't worry, there'll be no interferometry.
Yeah, right.
So, I have basically three things to say about this.
So the first is, whenever you're trying, whenever I, let me speak for myself, whenever I'm trying to understand something, particularly a complex subject, I always, and there's nothing new about this, I'm not saying things that I don't think people have thought about, but maybe I'm putting it in a way that maybe makes it a certain context.
The trick is to always find that essential, which one can use as a compass.
Because once you find that, then essentially everything downstream from that finding, you can relate back to this compass.
Now, I will admit that sometimes it's difficult, maybe even impossible to find the compass.
And sometimes you can think you found a compass and you turn out to be wrong and then you have to modify it.
But that really is the key here.
Find the compass, everything then revolves around that.
And I thought of three very simple examples.
from my life and my work that probably most of you have heard about.
But one is, you hear all the time, humans should be vegans, right?
We should only eat plant food.
And of course, like most things that are complex subjects, there are arguments on both sides.
So you can look at the teeth or the physiology, and you can say one way or another.
And of course, we all have opinions about that.
But the trick is how can you find what is the compass to say, yes, human beings should or shouldn't eat any products from animals or even grains.
Now, the way that I've done it, the compass I use is partly based on the work of Weston Price.
But it's been very clear to me that there are people like, I remember reading about Buffalo Bull Backfat, who was a famous Native American chief on the plains in the United States.
His people and him were well studied, no health problems, lived long healthy lives.
Incredibly vigorous, even spiritual people.
And I would hate to be the one giving a lecture to Buffalo Bull Back Fat on why he should stop eating buffalo and eat bean sprouts instead.
Because I don't think he would buy it, and if I were him, I wouldn't buy it either.
In other words, the compass is, it turns out there are very clear examples of people who ate animal products, in this case buffalo.
Or how about giving a talk to the Inuit people in the Arctic about why they shouldn't eat fish.
No, fish is bad for human beings.
Human beings shouldn't eat anything from Animals or fish?
Or how about giving a lecture to the Native Americans in the northwest of the United States who basically lived on salmon and they had a whole culture revolving around catching salmon, drying salmon, salting salmon, etc.
I can tell you I would be the last, I would not look forward to giving them a talk on why fish is bad for them.
Another group of people that was found is the Swiss people in the Lowenshaw Valley.
They were like prized people for protecting the king because they never got tuberculosis.
They always had perfect teeth, basically perfect health.
They were studied up the wazoo for that.
And they ate mostly, you know, rye bread and cultured dairy products.
Now, I will admit that, you know, it's not just any grains or any dairy products or any meat or any fish.
There's a context.
But the point is, I use that as my compass to say, That cannot be true that human beings can't eat or can't be healthy eating animal products.
And so then you can shoot, you know, use everything else weighing against that compass.
So that's one example.
I wrote a heart book saying the heart doesn't pump the blood.
And the drilled down example that I used for that is the aortic arch, which comes out of the left ventricle, is shaped like this.
An arch.
That's why they call it the aortic arch.
If you have a pressure propulsion device, which creates pressure, it inherently, if you push, it makes the arch straighten out.
You can do that with a garden hose, you can do it with any hose.
And yet, I remember seeing when I was working in a cath lab in medical school, that every time there's a, quote, pushing or systole, the aortic arch bends in.
And there is simply no possible way that that could be as a result of pressure propulsion.
And then, so you know, based on that, if that's correct, which you can see it, you can see it over and over again.
That there has to be a suction.
That's the only way you can do that.
Now, then when you get into well what about swan GANS catheter readings and pressure things, all those have multiple kinds of explanations.
So you can't use those to determine pump versus suction device.
So, but you can drill down, get back to this, you know, based on this simple experiment, it has to be a suction, cannot be a pump, i.e.
pressure propulsion.
And a third example I thought of was this one that I talked about in my cancer book of the sodium potassium pump.
It's a primary part of science.
We know that's, you know, biology is it's one of the crowning achievements of how the cell or tissue collects potassium and gets rid of sodium.
And so they postulate that there's a pump in the membrane.
So a guy named Gilbert Ling comes along and he does a very simple experiment.
He takes tissue or cells and he takes off the membrane of a cell and he sees whether you get the same gradient of sodium potassium.
And it turns out Without the membrane, you get the same concentration of sodium outside, potassium inside, and if you put the cell membrane in something, it doesn't concentrate it.
In other words, what it tells you is the place that's doing that concentration of potassium has to be inside, i.e.
the cytoplasm, and it can't be the membrane.
In other words, everything else from that you can refer back to.
It's like you know the answer to the question before you take the test.
So that's basically what I'm talking about.
And then we're going to try to apply that, which we have, to virology and say, you know, what is the basic thing that we have to drill down to?
The second basic principle I want to get to is when you come to trying to understand something, there's a couple possibilities.
There's one, something that you can see, and everybody around you can see, and everybody agrees on this, and it basically comes out of a shared understanding of the phenomena.
Now, an example that I've been recently using is if you want to see whether termites are eating your house, everybody would go and look, you know, and you call the termite company, and you see if there are termites.
And if they say, yep, there's termites, and then everybody who goes and looks, 10 people, three termite companies, they all agree that there's termites, you can be fairly sure that there's termites there.
Now, that doesn't mean the termites are eating your house.
You might have to take the termites out, put them in another house, and see if they eat them.
But you can certainly say, based on that, that there's agreement, and I would say it's a fact that there are termites.
Now, the problem in virology comes because everybody involved, and I mean everybody, Has agreed that you can't find these particles called viruses in the tissue of animals or humans who are sick.
They just they they can't find them.
And so that's like going to the termites and you can't find the termites.
And then you say to yourself, well, we need to figure out another way to find these termites.
So I'm going to take some wood and I'm going to put it in a vat and I'm going to mix some termite eggs from some some other source and put termite growth stimulant in there and then termites will hatch and I proved that there are termites.
My point here is, if you're going to make a claim that you can't verify by your experience and by the shared understanding, in other words, we see termites, we see viruses at the lungs of everybody who's sick.
We see only this virus.
We see it in thousands, millions of quantities.
If you can't do that, and you're going to try to prove it in some other way, you better make damn sure, and I mean damn sure, that every step of that proof is validated with proper controls, and there's no way you made a mistake.
Because it's incredibly easy.
Like in the termite example, people would say, well, yeah, but if you put termite eggs from somewhere else and made them grow, then obviously they weren't there at your house.
And everybody would see the fallacy of using that.
It's a little bit more difficult to see the fallacy of, even though, as Andy pointed out in his video, an infection should be a viral culture.
Right?
You're growing the virus.
So they say the viruses come in, they get in your cell, they multiply, they make millions of copies of themselves.
You should be able to see it, but you don't.
And so then they have to figure out how can you see it when you can't see it.
And they come up with this way, which then, well, you could see it on an electron microscope.
But we know that the electron microscope makes artifacts.
And they've never validated that it's making real things.
And they say, well, it's a viral culture.
And we know that the viral culture breaks down into particles, which with SARS-CoV-2 have been found since 1973, in kidney biopsies and lung cancer.
And so it turns out, that's just not true.
And if you make those mistakes, and you don't have this compass, you will be continually led astray.
Now, the third thing I'm going to say is, those of us who are dealing with this issue, and I'm specifically talking about Mr. Hammond in this case, you know, we have a responsibility to not make very simple factual mistakes.
And one of the things I'm talking about is the claim that you cannot find viruses in tissue.
is simply, as Andy pointed out, or you can't find things the size and complexity of viruses, is simply not true.
For 60-70 years since the invention of sucrose density gradients and filtration and electron microscopes, even though they're all artifacts, they say they can see these things.
They can see bacteriophages.
They can see exosomes.
So to claim that the problem with why you can't see them is that can't be done, to me, makes it so you're not part of the conversation.
Because you haven't actually got the basic facts.
At that point, there's nothing to talk about.
Because you can't agree on the basic facts of what we're talking about.
I think with that introduction, Andy, I'll let you say any intro you want or comment on what I just said.
And then we can go over some of the actual studies that were outlined in the Mercola piece.
And with this framework, we can show how they just don't hold water from a scientific point of view.
Absolutely, Tom.
So let me just add one thing about what you were saying, the issue of, you know, that there is a cell culture right there in the host.
And not only, you know, is it Equivalent to the cell culture, but actually, you know, it's the preferred if there is a real virus, right?
That's the preferred living conditions and growing conditions for that virus.
So that would be the richest source of it and to just, you know, ignore that would be kind of foolish if you're acting under the framework, which they say how viruses, you know, live essentially.
But, you know, in talking about the recent criticism, I just want to say, you know, like that Tom and I and others, you know, Sam Bailey and, you know, I'm sure I'll forget people, but our problem has been all along with the way they do the experiments.
Really what we're doing is we're criticizing the experimental procedure and saying it doesn't prove what they say they prove.
The recent criticism that's come is not really addressing that issue.
And I think there has been a total wave of criticism of the truth that viruses don't exist and cause disease.
And we see that seemingly at the same time that the pandemic seems to be drawing near an end, right?
We see suddenly lifting restrictions all over the world.
And even Bill Gates predicted in 2022 that it would be the end of the pandemic.
The Wall Street Journal printed an editorial saying that we're essentially the three weeks, last three weeks, major drop in cases and it signifies, you know, what do they call it?
The herd immunity, right?
Which is another thing we can debunk.
As they're kind of ending out of this, and I'm sure that there's more planned in the future, and I don't know if it's going to be a health crisis or not, but if this does peter out, they want to make sure that as we get this relief and come out of it, and probably they want us to look at them in a favorable light, but they want to make sure that we still believe in deadly and dangerous viruses.
And they want to make sure that we still believe that there are safe vaccines, even if we question the safety of these particular genetic injections, that we retain those important beliefs so that they can still continue to profit and manipulate and, you know, run operations in the future.
So it's really important, you know, not that Tom and I want to keep talking about this issue, But it's important that we kind of, you know, amplify this message right now, because this is, you know, an opportunity to actually understand the truth about health and disease.
And that is just a much stronger position to be in down the road.
And so that's kind of what's at least driving me for sure.
So let me just comment on that too, because I can assure everybody out there that Well, let me speak for myself, but I'm pretty sure Andy agrees with this.
I actually know he does.
It's not just viruses that we disagree about with the scientific process or method.
We don't disagree with doing science or understanding or trying to find the truth.
But whether it's ribosomes or cell membranes or heart, this is the beginning.
And this is actually kind of an easy one.
And if we can't get the no virus thing correct, which happens to be the one that's being manipulated mostly right now, or weaponized is maybe a better way to say it, we're not going to get the harder ones to come.
And we have a lot more things to say.
That's really at the beginning of, you know, a whole process which has been co opted in a way that's working against us.
Absolutely.
All right, so just to talk generally about this article from Dr. McCullough, you know, and this is true of most of the criticism that we've been getting is that there's really no discussion at all about Why the experiments that they do actually prove a virus instead what we really see is outsourcing opinion to other people and some of those people haven't even necessarily talked about the actual science they've outsourced it to other people.
And so it's a combination of that and then just listing how many articles have isolation or genome in their title and not realizing that they're all doing virtually the exact same experiment.
And if we don't talk about that experimental procedure itself, we're never going to get to the bottom because Tom nor I have never heard any One give a rational argument about why those experiments should be the requisite proof of their claims.
So that's all we would like to see.
And what's really particularly disappointing about Dr. Mercola's article in general is really in the last paragraph.
Because, you know, one thing is that numerous times throughout this paper he writes his belief, his belief, his belief.
And I never state that.
I mean, I do believe in myself, but it's my scientific opinion is what I'm talking about that I've come to through, you know, learning factual information and through my own reasoning process.
And it doesn't require any belief one way or the other.
And if I turned out that I get new evidence that gives me, leads me to a different scientific opinion, I have no attachment to the current opinion.
I can, you know, if there turns out that there's a subatomic particle that makes people sick that's different from a virus and it's discovered and there's good evidence, I'm okay with that.
Right, because I just want to find out what the truth is.
And the other thing is he's discouraging people from doing their own investigation.
You know, he says, quote, I would strongly discourage anyone from engaged engaging in this highly unproductive narrative.
Now, how can trying to find out what the truth is about the world we live in be unproductive?
So it's really unfortunate because we should be promoting is actually the opposite that everyone should be questioning everything learning as much as they can with a very discerning eye and, you know, coming to their own conclusions and then debating other people to help get to the bottom of it, you know, collaboration.
Um, and, uh, debate is a very healthy way to get closer to the truth.
And that's what, you know, we want to encourage for everyone in the audience today.
Moving forward is that and I know you guys already do that, but you know, you can encourage your peers and friends and children to do the same thing.
All right.
How about if we look at some of the studies that he talked about?
Do you want to?
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, sure.
Well, so the first study that you had asked me to look at was this paper by Hazan.
And so this is another genome sequencing paper.
So I think probably most of you have heard me and Tom talk about this in silico genome sequencing procedure.
That essentially what happens is they usually take a bodily fluid from someone who is identified by having a PCR result.
So we know that that is kind of meaningless.
They usually have some clinical type of pneumonia.
So we could just say that these are from people with some kind of pneumonia.
And then they extract all of the RNA that's present in that body fluid or tissue sample, which includes, you know, a number of different sources of genetic material, including our own and including non-coding DNA that has been transcribed and spliced and recombined and makes all sorts of novel sequences.
And then, all of those fragments, if they're short enough, they throw out the long ones, and that's really important because the longer the sequence, then you know that it came from one source.
Whereas if you have little bits, and then you put them together in a longer sequence, parts of it could have come from different sources, so it's more reliable to have longer sequences, but they can't do it as fast, so they only use short sequences.
And then they use a procedure to actually get the sequences of those.
I'm skipping some steps here just for the sake of time.
And then they put all those sequences into the computer and have various computer software, put them together, map them to the reference standard genome, which has been done in the same way, and then give you a result, which is a little bit different each time.
And that's why they have over 2 million variants, because essentially every time they perform the experiment, it's slightly different results.
So this paper, Essentially does that process but it does a few little twists and turns that I'll get into and you know, I just want to comment again about this trend in the scientific publishing where
They put the procedures at the end of the paper or in some supplemental material so it's hard to read.
It used to be always standard.
You read the method section first, then the results, then the discussion.
So you can understand the experiment, the direct results, and then how they interpreted it.
But these days they don't want you looking at the procedure because then you might question the results and the conclusions.
So if we go to the end of this paper and it's this one.
I'm sure that we can put the reference somewhere and in the method section it describes that they took samples from fecal material.
So this is the one of the twists and then you know they said it was the same as a swab that they put in the nose.
on the PCR testing.
Okay, but they didn't do the full sequence.
Interestingly, in this case, they did use a control group, which is very unusual.
So they actually had a bought heat inactivated SARS-CoV-2 toxic cell culture fluid product, and then they had a negative or a null control.
But so aside from taking it from fecal material, the other twist is in this case they did even shorter strands of RNA than normal.
Usually they go up to 150 base pairs, but in this one they limited it to 76.
So this means that there's even more error that's going to be introduced in terms of the source of each particular little strand.
And then they also skipped another step, so they didn't make contigs in this case.
So usually what they do is they take all those little sequences of short strands, they're often over 50 million of them, and they put them into usually more than one software number crunching programs that try to Pair up overlapping sequences on the end and make longer and longer strands that they call contigs and then they pick the longest contig and use that as the base genome and then they do more stuff to it.
In this case, they didn't do that.
They took the sequenced strands and then they just templated them right away against the reference standard from the database.
So in other words, Um, they chose the pieces that would fit on the puzzle and put them in.
And then the software filled in the gaps and rearrange things as necessary.
So it, they made sure that it looked like how they wanted it to look because, because they, you know, held up the, the, uh, template like a, you know, imagine if they held up a, um, a needle point, right?
And then they took little bits of yarn and wherever that color was on the needle point, they put it there.
And then when they used up all the little pieces of yarn, whatever was left, they found that right color and put it in, right?
So they made a replica of what they were looking for.
And this is, you know, a little kind of parlor trick, a tautology, because they basically expected to find something there and
then they design the experiment to use what they found as proof that it was there.
So they list other genome studies, but essentially they're all done the same exact way, that it's a computer
simulation and not a real genome where they take it from a real organism that's intact and they only take genetic
material from that organism and they take it out in its totality, which they say in a virus would be in one strand.
So there'd be one single strand with all the three or more virus genes and then they could say that it was a real genome.
So, let me just say this in another way, because this was another error that was made, I think, in the Hammond video, when the questioner asked, and I keep referring to the Hammond video because Dr. Mercola referred to that.
So, the woman asked him, so there is the genome is in that mixture, right?
And he said, yes.
That is incorrect.
Here's the point, and I'm going to say this twice so everybody really hears this.
This genome that they say, this 28,000, 29,000 base pairs, it does not exist in the fluid.
Right?
It does not exist.
They never found it in the fluid.
Just like they never find anything they could call a virus.
They never found a strand of 29,000 base pairs.
Just looking through it, find the termite, find the strand, say, is it the same as the other strand?
Yes or no?
They didn't find it.
They created it in the computer by matching these pieces together based on that template.
In other words, it can't but find that that sequence, because that's the sequence you're telling it to find.
And that's what I mean by that's not science.
That's that is somebody not checking every step of the way to know that it's accurate.
All right, let's go to a few more.
And let me pull up The paper.
Now, Tom, you know that the other paper you asked me to look at is in Spanish only.
I did not know that.
Well, I thought maybe I didn't know.
Well, that's all right.
I still gave it a go.
So but just wanted you to know that what kind of workload you put on me.
I'm going to quickly look at two of the other ones.
Can you see my screen?
Yes.
Yeah.
All right, so here's the Italian paper.
Now, we've all been through, you know, so here's what he uses as how they did this.
And I didn't actually, I'm lazier than Andy, so I didn't even go and look for the paper because here is essentially the methods section.
The beginning of March 2020, the first nasopharyngeal swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2, etc.
Let me just say again, a PCR test is a short sequence of the virus.
In order for it to be valid, you first have to have the virus, you then have to know that the sequence came from that virus, and then you have to know that no other organism, the human bacteria fungus, could possibly have
that sequence.
And then you have to validate it against another standard.
And none of those four steps were done.
So a PCR is not a test.
It's an amplification process.
You can't say anything about the PCR.
They didn't actually look for virus in the swab.
They didn't.
The first thing they did was they put them on virocells and monitored for cytopathic effect and then did a PCR protocol on the results of the cell culture.
Now, again, as soon as you put the swab, the nasal, an unpurified. So one of the one of
the points I need to make here, they say they were often referred to this as the virus or made the
virus. They have unpurified snot with all kinds of genetic material in it.
They seed that on virocells with fetal calf serum.
So now you have many, many different kinds of genetic material.
You have no idea, there is no scientific reason for saying that anything that comes out of that came from the virus.
And so at this point, the experiment is over, and then they do their sequencing and find and put it through the templates and all the rest of it.
And none of that means anything, because you have no idea where those genetic sequences came from.
They could have come from unpurified snot, fetal calf serum, or the cell culture.
So the whole rest of this is basically nonsense.
And then another paper, same exact thing.
This is from Annals of Internal Medicine, August 2020.
Isolated the virus from the ocular eye secretions of an Italian COVID patient.
So, what did they do?
The patient, a 65-year-old woman, traveled from Wuhan to Italy on 23 January, admitted on 29 January, one day after symptom onset, mission to isolation unit.
She had a non-productive cough and conjunctivitis, no fever.
Infection was confirmed by PCR, which we know is nonsense.
Assay on sputum sample, so we know that's not true.
Followed by viral genome sequencing, which we've already described, and virus isolation on Vero E6 cell line.
So at no point did they find a virus in her eye goop.
And then we're again off to the races.
Vero cells.
So we have everything that could come out of your eye, which includes lots of genetic material and bacteria and fungus, and maybe other pieces of exosomes and apoptotic bodies.
All that's mixed in together, and then they start the sequencing nonsense.
So, again, we go over this again and again and again.
It's the same process over and over again.
Nobody looks for a virus.
Nobody isolates the virus from the patient directly.
Nobody takes that virus.
And then says, we know the genetic material in that virus.
Nobody takes that virus and exposes somebody else or an animal's eye to it and show that it causes disease.
All the things that every person listening would do if I said, I think termites are the problem.
You'd say, first, find the termites, take the termites out, put them on the next house.
If they eat the next house, we know we have a problem.
Okay, next one.
Columbia.
Well, I'm not volunteering my house for that termite experiment though, Tom.
Me neither.
Termites are real!
Yeah, I used to live in South Carolina and we had them down there, so I've seen the damage.
Yeah.
Alright, so I'm going to talk about the Columbia study, and this was actually on the Columbia government website, is where you can download it from.
I'm not going to show it because, like I said, it's all in Spanish, so I did, you know, give it a good try, but, you know, reading virology in Spanish is a challenge enough in English.
So I'm going to stick to what's in the article quoted and and, you know, as Tom lamented, it's this essentially the same exact.
experiment again, a nasopharyngeal specimen.
So, you know, a nose swab.
And of course, in this time, they didn't just use virocells, they use different cell lines.
And then, of course, they did their toxic cell culture experiment once again, and then, you know, repeated the PCR, which they did in the first place.
So it's not surprising that it was positive again.
And then they did the microscopy on it, of course.
And then they did also the sequencing again, pretty much the same way.
In this is really telling that a couple of words from the text so I want to read basically it says that the electron microscopy images obtained from infected cells showed the presence of structures compatible with SARS-CoV-2.
structures that are, but that are compatible. So, you know, that tells you quite a bit of
uncertainty. Now, we know these structures are also compatible with kidney failure at a minimum
and probably many other things. And they also said that the genetic composition of their isolates was
consistent with the predominant variant, but also once again, not saying it was the predominant
So these authors at least had some realism behind their conclusions that they had to use
those kind of hedging words you know to say hey we we we just did what everybody else
is is done but we're not sure that it's exactly right. Got it. All right so just let me
ask Andy if you have any more particular because I have a little bit of a closing thing I
wanted to bring up but if you had any well just just as briefly as I can because he brings up
the antibody dependent enhancement issue at the end you know pathogenic priming and
And you know that I I want to make sure that everyone knows that there's absolutely no scientific evidence to support that and that that seems to me to be something to that induces a lot of fear which might you know make people listen but you don't want to add fear to the situation but in every I reviewed.
Virtually every single study going back to the 1960s related to that issue and in not one experiment that was done were any animals actually clinically ill.
So they might've had this or that after they killed him and looked at him under the microscope, but that doesn't correlate to real illness because they didn't have a runny nose, a sore throat, a fever, hypoxia, difficulty breathing, diarrhea, zero symptoms.
So that's all I'll say about that, Tom.
Yeah.
I wasn't gonna bring this up because I actually hate using False virology to prove that virology is false.
But I think I am going to bring this up just to finish.
I can screen share.
Yeah, so I know this is a little weird how I'm doing this, but this was a paper I found,
a guy who was the, I think the head virologist in somewhere.
And they were asking, so this pathologist had been doing some of the very few biopsies on people who died allegedly from COVID.
And I don't remember the country, but sort of head of the European Pathology Association or something like that.
And I just want to point out, she asked the same question about antibodies.
And they replied, meaning the pathologist, there is no monoclonal antibodies found in any of the people who they say died of COVID.
In other words, according to the pathologist, no one has died from COVID.
Because they didn't find antibodies.
Here's the guy.
He's president of the Bulgarian Pathology Association, chair of the Center for Protection of Citizens' Rights, etc.
And just one other quote from him.
They say that this antibody, which would give them evidence, they being the virologist, that, you know, if you have a virus, you make an antibody.
If it's one virus, it should be the same antibody.
This is related to this antibody-dependent enhancement.
They say we have never found a monoclonal antibody that has never been isolated.
We don't know of the existence of such an antibody at this moment.
So, in other words, using their own criteria of you have to find a monoclonal antibody to prove that the patient died of this virus, they say in no autopsy study did they ever find evidence of a monoclonal antibody, meaning there was no virus present or at least no virus caused the disease.
Now, Tom, do you know, was that like an antibody test that they would perform on the cadaver, or are you talking about using antibody-labeled stains for the pathology?
I believe it was on the cadaver.
Okay, so just like an antibody test, they all came up negative for it?
They all came up negative.
Okay, so let's finish then by, so why, you know, and Andy talked about this at the beginning, why is this, why do, why are we talking about this?
Why is it a big deal?
Why is it important if somebody says that, well, you know, why are we talking about this?
Like this is dividing the movement.
We hear that all the time.
Andy and I are dividing the movement.
And we'll never get anywhere like this.
We'll be arguing, we hear, you'll be arguing about germ theory from the Gulag.
And you're spoiling our efforts by the lawyers and by the other scientists to garner support for the so-called freedom movement.
And my response to that is similar, like I guess Martin Luther King said, The truth will set you free.
And I would also put a rejoinder, I think that's the part at the end, and only the truth.
You cannot lie your way or misunderstand your way to freedom.
It just isn't possible.
And when I hear, when I look at these sites, And I see the comments of people over and over again.
Why don't you look at this, the possibility that these viruses don't exist?
You know, I see them on Dr. Mercola's site.
If Andy and I weren't here, in particular me, this would still go on.
There's now thousands, there's millions of people who are demanding to know whether this whole thing with viruses is just nonsense.
If Andy and I somehow decided, oh, well, we won't talk about it, it wouldn't make any difference at all.
It's still going to happen.
People are going to demand to know.
And, you know, I just also want to finish with something our good friend Stephan says.
I like to quote Stephan.
He says, you have to help people save the face, which I think he means save face.
But that's how Stephan- That's a good impression, Tom.
Yeah, that's a good, yeah.
So I'm going to give it a try.
So, about four to five years ago, something like that, I wrote a book, this second in a series of three, called Vaccines and Autoimmunity, or Changing Nature of And in there, so this is not that long ago, four years ago.
This is after somebody who was part of the so-called AIDS dissident movement.
HIV has nothing to do with AIDS.
And in that book, I wrote that polio had nothing to do with the virus.
It was lead arsenic and DDT and maybe some other things.
And yet, as hard as it is to admit, I've talked about measles virus and chickenpox virus.
And, so not even me, also me, writing a book about vaccines, I did not know how to make a live viral vaccine.
I did not know that a live viral vaccine is essentially just a toxic viro-cell culture.
They clean up a little bit and inject.
And how could I have possibly written a dissenting book on vaccines without knowing how they even make a vaccine or what was in them?
Now, in my defense, I would say there were some good things in that book, and I've heard a lot of people say that book really helped me understand some things about medicine, and I decided not to vaccinate my children.
So, all that's good news, but if you ask, if I ask myself, how did I get it so wrong after all those years of Right in my face.
I mean, my friends and people I knew.
And all I can say is, I just didn't look into it.
Why?
I have no idea.
I've said over and over again, every mistake I made was because I didn't question the dominant narrative enough.
I sometimes had a little piece in my mind saying, you should do it, and I just didn't do it.
My point is, I say this because even though I'm a little embarrassed and it's sheepish to say it.
It actually, you know, I didn't do it out of malicious intent.
I just, I was wrong.
And what happens then is it sort of clears the air, it clears the space, and then I could learn something else.
I kind of hoped for a while nobody would notice and ask me, but eventually they did.
And so I had to fess up.
And And I'm not saying that people shouldn't look into this.
Of course, like Andy says, they should do their own study.
Look into it.
Don't believe us.
Don't believe them.
Don't believe anybody.
But more and more people, the world will leave you behind if you don't start to understand that there is a whole new way of looking at health and illness.
And one of the most gratifying things that I hear from so many people now is when I finally understand what you and Andy and Stefan and other people are saying, It's like this weight, this relief off my shoulders.
I can go out into the world.
I have no fear.
I'm healthier.
Life is better.
And no matter how many times you tell us not to say it, People are going to seek that experience.
They're going to go after it.
They're going to find it, whether it's Andy or I or anybody else.
There's nothing you can do.
There's no lawsuit.
You can't win these things except by telling people the truth.
And that's why we're doing this.
The effort to squash this movement is absolutely futile.
I don't know if Andy had any final words here before we sign off.
Well, I'm just I'm glad that you're feeling so optimistic and you know, even though we may not be necessary to carry things forward, I don't think we have any plan of of shutting up at all about this, so.
And in fact, we might even finally get the opportunity to have a debate with some virologists, so stay tuned for more on that.
All right.
So once again, everybody, thanks for joining me, and I hope this helped.
And look into it and keep your eyes open, because it's really a freeing experience to know for yourself.
All right.
Thank you, everybody.
▲
Export Selection