All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:13:32
Debunking Virology & the “Virus” Narrative w/ Dr. Tom Cowan
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
- Hello, this is Saul Luckman.
It's my pleasure to welcome you to Conversations on Saul Luckman Uncensored, sponsored by Snooztowaken.com, resources for lucidity.
For more information about my work, including a lot of wonderful free content, check out www.crowrising.com.
I'm also now on Telegram, where I'm sharing daily truth bombs at my little address, which is the funny Telegram address, which is t.me slash Saul Luckman.
Today, for the first time, I have the great honor of having the illustrious Dr. Tom Cowan with me.
Please check out his website, including his really amazing online store at drtomcowan.com.
I'll put that in the show notes, and I'll also put in my affiliate link To Dr. Tom's garden, which is a fantastic line of nutritional products that are designed to support you in maximizing your health and your potential.
So I'll add that to the show notes.
Dr. Tom is one of my heroes.
I hope before our conversation is over, he'll be one of yours too, if he isn't already.
He's a renowned alternative medicine doctor, author, and speaker.
With a common sense, I would even say sometimes folksy, holistic approach to health and wellness, he has given countless lectures and workshops throughout the U.S.
on a variety of subjects in health and medicine, and is the author of six best-selling books, and at least one that's been heavily censored, including The Contagion Myth, I think that was the one, co-authored with Sally Fallon Morrell, He is also author of Cancer and the New Biology of Water, and a book I really liked years ago, Human Heart, Cosmic Heart.
He's also written on vaccines, autoimmunity, and the changing nature of childhood illness.
He recently published Breaking the Spell, the scientific case for ending the COVID delusion.
From which I've taken the liberty of excerpting certain key passages on my blog.
I'll share that link in the show notes, but to get us started today, I'd like to read three what I consider to be hard-hitting passages from this little book.
This is the first one.
If the fact that a lot of people getting sick in the same place proves viral causation, then we could logically conclude that Hiroshima must have been a virus.
If we claim that a disease that spreads is also proof of viral causation, then the Chernobyl disaster could have been caused by a virus.
For more than a hundred years, people observed that one sailor after another got sick on ships.
Their teeth fell out and many went into heart failure and died.
For many, it was obvious that something was being passed, a contagion, from one sailor to the next.
At some point, however, a sailor ate a lime.
The whole thing went away because, in fact, the sick sailors were suffering from scurvy, a disease caused by vitamin C deficiency.
So that's quote number one.
Here's the second one.
It's clear that no virologist has ever isolated any pathogenic virus from any bodily fluid of any sick person.
How then can virologists claim in thousands of papers, including scores on SARS-CoV-2 alone, that a virus was isolated, characterized, and shown to cause illness in animals?
There are hundreds of claims that the genome of SARS-CoV-2 has been sequenced.
and that variants of this genome have been discovered.
Understanding how virologists have felt justified in making this claim is the key to understanding how virology lost its scientific integrity.
That's a really big point.
And the third quote is, The existence of SARS-CoV-2 has never been scientifically proven.
If the virus hasn't been shown to exist, and if the main researchers who came up with the tests for the virus admit in writing that they never worked with or had possession of an actual virus, what actually is a COVID test looking for?
This question also points to an important corollary, which is to understand how COVID testing has been manipulated to implement governmental measures that have done great harm to the peoples of the world.
And this is back to my voice now.
I think it's no exaggeration to say that, along with his colleagues, Dr. Andrew Kaufman and Dr. Stefan Lonfa and others, Dr. Tom is one of the great thinkers and true scientists of our generation.
He's also, understandably, one of the most controversial figures in today's viral climate, controlled by pseudoscientific thought beliefs posing as scientific experts.
So, welcome to Solut and Uncensored, Dr. Tom.
Thanks for being here today.
Okay, thank you.
I thought I would just get us started with something that a lot of people have been talking about.
I've watched your last video, your conversation with Dr. Andy, and that's the whole Dr. Mercola-Jeremy Hammond firestorm.
I put this on my blog and I'll put this in the show notes and you can go watch what you had to say about that.
But I was wondering if you might give us a little synopsis of this and just to share, you know, any recent thoughts on this.
I've had a lot of my own and I could chime in, but I just wanted to get your take on this because it's kind of blown up and it's been all over the place and I see people kind of choosing sides and doing this whole like, you know, divide and conquer thing.
But I'm also of the opinion, as are you, according to your video with Dr. Andy, that this is not a fight that we can just not fight.
This is an important thing to stand up for.
So, back to you.
I mean, I don't know what else to say.
There's the saying, I think, Martin Luther King, the truth will set you free.
And I sometimes say there was one time in my life where I decided not to tell the truth and, you know, fudge it so that it would work better.
And I got so confused halfway through that I didn't know what I was talking about anymore.
So I decided I better not do that because it's just so complicated to do that.
So for me, the only issue there is, is there any science in virology?
And I would say no.
It's obvious to anybody who actually looks At what I would call the three pillars of virology, all of which have been, you know, clearly and robustly disproven.
I can go over them if you want.
And so a lot of people, they're not the only ones, for whatever reason, just don't get it.
And all we were doing is pointing out the science And so if it's true, I mean it is true, there is no virus.
Viruses, the whole idea of a pathogenic virus is a misconception.
I mean, that's frankly what it is, and I can explain that in detail.
Could you give us the kind of Reader's Digest explanation of that?
A lot of listeners will be aware of some of the context for this conversation, but just for those who are a little new to this, how do you know that viruses are a misconception?
So one way to say this, and you know as people who've listened to me they know I like to speak in analogies here, so let's do it like this.
Imagine you have a rotting house and you want to know why the house is sort of rotting and breaking down.
And you've heard of termites, although somebody said I should call them vermites.
And so you justifiably wonder whether there are termites eating your house, right?
You with me?
Yep.
So you call the termite company and they come and look and they don't find any termites.
They use a microscope and a magnifying glass, don't find any termites.
And then you call 150 other termite companies all around the world, all of whom are experts in finding termites, and none of them find termites.
And then one of them says, you know, termites are hard to find.
So I have a way to find them, which is that I take a piece of the wood from your house and I grind it up in a blender and I put it in a vat and I put some termite eggs in there and a solution that makes termite eggs hatch.
And we'll see if we can find termites there.
Now, most people hearing that would say something like, Are you kidding me?
That's not right, because how do you know the termites came from your house?
That's the question.
Are termites eating your house?
My point is, if you use basic, simple logic that all human beings agree on, And you find, let's just say, the negative.
If you're going to dispute that, you as a scientist or virologist, you better make sure that every step of the way that you dispute that is validated, controlled, and scientifically accurate, right?
If you say, everybody looking at that situation would say, there's no termites there.
Right?
Everybody.
Right.
Now, and if you're going to say, I have another way of finding termites, you better make sure that that's real, because otherwise, it's nonsense.
So let's apply that to, to virology.
And here I'm going to make some claims, which I know are 100% accurate.
Number one, nobody in the history of published science has ever found a particle.
Remember that a virus is meant to be a physical particle with a protein coat, piece of genetic material on the inside.
It's a thing.
It's a thing the size of which is easily identified, isolated, and found You know, if it's in some other medium like blood or snot or tissue or anything.
Can I interject that the way so many people talk about viruses in general and SARS-CoV-2 in particular, it's almost this like, this is sort of what you're getting at, it's this almost this spiritualized etheric concept that somehow cannot be produced Right, exactly.
But that's not what they say.
They say it's a thing.
Okay, so let's see if we can find the thing.
Number one, and you know, Mr. Hammond claimed otherwise.
Well, you can't find the thing.
Well, for 70 years we've had the technology of finding bacteriophages and mini spores and other particles, exosomes, which are the size, shape, morphology, and consistency as what we're calling a virus.
And we can easily find them in snot, in blood, in tissues, etc.
This is not a technological problem, period.
It's a technological problem, i.e.
you can't find it, then you just don't know the field.
It's like you don't know how to find a termite.
So one of the things that Jeremy Hammond was saying, which was a real weak statement, or kind of a strange way of putting it, is that that's just not how it's done.
Right, but here's why.
So they did do that for years, but in the quote, old virology, they took, you know, people with chicken pox, they took the sores, the vesicles, they look for a virus.
Meaning they look for a uniform morphology, size, shape, composition that you would call a virus.
Or rabies, they looked in the cerebrospinal fluid.
Or measles, they looked in the blood.
Or smallpox, or all of them.
And I would defy anybody to say here is a published paper where they found this particle.
In fact, I just did an interview with Christine Massey.
She now has approximately 165 governmental institutions, the CDC, the NIH, Ontario Health Department, Australia, et cetera.
She asked them, do you have any possession of any study, SARS-CoV-2, any other virus that has been found, meaning identified, in any biological fluid of anybody who's sick?
And they say, we have no such record.
So if you think that has happened, you are simply mistaken.
Now, I had the opportunity to present this to, you know, the world's most influential lawyers and doctors and journalists, activists, etc.
So I said, let's let's have Andy and I do it together.
So I presented basically that there is no virus.
Andy talked about the same thing.
And interestingly, they invited a guy who was introduced to us as 20 years senior virologist at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, 20 years head of virology laboratory at Yale University.
Wow.
And I say that because presumably he knows something about viruses or how to find them.
So I said, we've never found a virus in any biological fluid.
Is that correct?
He said, yes.
I said, why not?
He said, there's not enough to find.
Now, think about that for a minute.
Supposedly, this thing is gonna kill us all.
It's ravaging us.
You can't even find one of them in any biological fluid of any sick person.
So, Andy had the presence of mind and said, okay, if there's not enough, what about if you mix the fluid, like the snot or the blood or the lung fluid from 10 people, would there be enough to see?
And he said, no.
What about 100 people?
Not enough to see.
What about 1,000 people?
Not enough to see.
What about 10,000 people?
You mix their snot, their bronchial fluid, would you then have enough virus to see?
And he said, not enough to see, and then he wouldn't answer any more questions.
So my point is, 165 termite companies said there's no termites there.
Every virology institute in the world, every virologist says you cannot find this particle in any biological flu.
There is not one published article that contradicts that.
And if anybody finds one and contradicts me, I will say I'm wrong and I will retire from this A unicorn business of debunking virology.
Because it just doesn't happen.
Now, like the termites, they knew that, and they were all going to be plumbers and electricians, but maybe they weren't good at stuff like that.
So the virologist said, I know another way to find the virus.
Okay, just like I know another way to find the termite.
Okay, how do you do it?
You put the snot, you don't purify it, you don't find anything, you put whole snot in a culture with monkey kidney cells and fetal calf serum or horse serum or a bunch of other things, all of which have these particles in them.
And then you starve it and poison it, the thing breaks down, and you say, that proves it's a virus.
In other words, you don't take anything from the wood, you put it in a vat with termite eggs, you grow out termites, you don't know where the termite eggs came from, or the termites, and you make this ridiculous claim, which in the original papers by a guy named Enders,
Said, you know, I'm not sure that that's really a measles virus because I did the same thing but I didn't put any any snot in there from anybody with measles and I got the exact same results.
Now that should have told you right then that that method of finding termites, i.e.
these particles called viruses, is bogus.
Completely anti-scientific.
And, you know, we proved it.
We being me, Andy, and Stefan Lenka.
Mostly Stefan, we were just the cheerleaders.
I was actually helped fund it.
And we proved that you can take kidney cells, starve and poison them, and they break down, proving the virus was there, except we never put any virus in there.
So, I mean, you know, Lanca's experiments are so important here.
There was phase one, right, where he looked at the idea that you could get the cytopathic effect, the death of cells in a test tube, without actually having a virus present.
Correct.
Now here's the interesting... Second and third phase is, you know, just to give people the overview of that, he also got into the second phase, he got into this whole idea of viral genetic material, and then the third phase, that was the second phase, the third phase is fascinating because that's what he's in the process of completing, it's my understanding, and it's basically where you can just take yeast samples, yeast genetic material,
And use that to construct any virus, quote-unquote, that you like.
Correct.
Not only that, I was just sent a paper just this week proving, and I used that word, you know, with some thought, proving that if you add fetal calf serum, which they all do, all of them, all these culture studies, that
The genetic material, the RNA in fetal calf serum, will allow you to align any RNA virus in existence.
Wow.
That is in the medical literature, without a doubt.
Hang on one second.
That is why they switched this Hoax to RNA viruses instead of DNA viruses.
Bingo.
Because they knew that if you add fetal calf serum it's this published virology literature.
Um, that if you add fetal calf serum, the resulting genetic material will allow you to align it to make any virus genome that you want.
Now, let me just say a little bit for the listeners.
You know, it's interesting that Mr. Hammond said, well, so let me just be clear.
In this culture result, or in the fluid that you pull from somebody's lung, there is no 28-29,000 base pair sequence that you call a genome.
Let me say that again.
That doesn't exist.
So the question is, how do they say, or on what grounds, that we have the whole genome?
So, and interestingly, Mr. Hammond said, well, it's clear how they do it.
It's like making a puzzle, right?
You have, you know, 56 million little pieces and you put them in the computer and it matches them up end to end.
And that makes the genome.
Now let's think about that for a minute.
Okay, it's like making a puzzle.
Everybody listening should think to themselves, if I gave you a puzzle with 28 million pieces and said, make the picture, right?
Think about that.
Do you have any questions for me?
You might think and say, can I see the picture?
No.
Yeah.
No, you can't see the picture.
Well, how am I gonna make the picture if I don't know what I'm making?
Too bad, you can't see the picture.
We don't have the picture.
Not only that, a lot of the pieces are virtually interchangeable.
Well, there's 28 million of them.
So here's what inevitably will happen.
You know, I used to use the example of, okay, the picture, I'll give you a hint, the picture should be of a castle.
And by the way, if you find the castle, I'll give you $1,000,000.
If you don't give me $1,000,000, I'm not looking for that castle, because there ain't no castle in there.
But if you give me $1,000,000, I'll look.
So you look, and you find a moat.
And you say, well, I know moats are part of castles.
And then you get a prize for finding the moat, otherwise known as the spike protein.
And so you found the moat, and you know that that must be part of the castle.
And so then you go through it, and you make up some pieces, and you find some, and you make a castle.
Now, everybody who does that obviously will make a slightly different castle, right?
Because there is no picture, there's no blueprint, there's no actual, you know, castle.
So you make up whatever castle, and that's why we have a million variants.
That's why we have variants, because every time you do it, you make a new castle, because there is no castle.
And so you could imagine if you were making a puzzle like that, you would make a different picture every single time, because you have 28 million pieces, and only 10,000 of them or 1,000 of them actually need to be used.
And besides, you can make your own pieces if you want, which is actually what happens.
Remember back to, if you want to say there's termites some other way, you better make sure that every step of the way is scientifically valid.
And this isn't even close.
Because as you said, we did this culture, we put some yeast RNA in there, therefore there's no virus, and we made the measles virus genome.
It's not in there!
Amazing.
But we made a puzzle and all the pieces are there, because all the yeast and all the RNA from the fetal calf serum, it's all in there.
Anyways, it transforms and goes back and forth and all that stuff.
So you can make any genome you want.
And that's proof that it exists.
The third proof is, well, that culture breaks down and you see these little particles that have spikes on them, and you say that's the coronavirus.
Let me say two things about that.
There's a paper in a kidney journal called Kidney 360.
I've talked about it a lot.
They said they found identical particles back in the 70s in kidney biopsies.
In fact, they did a series of 16 consecutive kidney biopsies, and every one had pictures that are identical with the coronavirus.
But this was before the coronavirus was, quote, invented or discovered.
Now, the other thing is, the guy who, you know, guy named Kayleigh, an Australian guy who showed us the absolute pictures of the coronavirus, says in his paper, So we did the culture, and we found the coronavirus.
But it didn't look like a coronavirus, so we added trypsin, which digests the proteins, and then it looked like a coronavirus.
In other words, I went out in my yard and I saw this kitten, and I really wanted a chicken, so I put some feathers on it, and what?
There it is, a chicken.
That's just amazing.
I wanted to share this in light of where you've gone here because I wrote this back in November and Dr. Cowan responds to critics of his position that virology is pseudoscience and makes them look as insane as the quote-unquote scientists in Gulliver's travels.
And so what I did is I quoted from Gulliver's Travels, and this is one of the great works of literature, and this is an 18th century piece of literature, right?
Map this onto present day virology and it is astonishing how similar some of the insanity is.
I just want to read a couple of paragraphs from this.
So Gulliver says, I went into another chamber but was ready to hasten back being almost overcome with a horrible stink.
My conductor pressed me forward, conjuring me in a whisper to give no offense, which would be highly resented, and therefore I durst not so much as stop my nose.
The projector of this cell was the most ancient student of the academy.
His face and beard were of a pale yellow, his hands and clothes daubed over with filth.
When I was presented to him, he gave me a close embrace.
His employment from his first coming into the Academy was an operation to reduce human excrement to its original food by separating the several parts, removing the tincture which it receives from the gall, making the odor exhale, and scumming off the saliva.
It goes on from there.
I saw another at work to calcine ice into gunpowder.
Who likewise showed me a treatise he had written concerning the malleability of fire, which he intended to publish.
There was a most ingenious architect who had contrived a new method for building houses by beginning at the roof and working downwards to the foundation, which he justified to me by the like practice of those two prudent insects, the bee and the spider.
So it goes on and on, and all these people doing the most bizarre experiments, proving and accomplishing absolutely nothing.
You know, it also reminds me, there's a clip I'm going to play on my webinar on Friday.
It's by a Ted Talk by a guy named Rupert Sheldrake.
I think I've seen this one.
And it's the only, I think it was the first maybe, I'm not sure, banned Ted Talk because they didn't like what he was saying.
But there was a two minute segment in there where he was talking about Constance.
Now, those of us who've studied any biology or physics, chemistry, know there are many so-called constants in the world, like the gravitational constant, and in particular, the speed of light, right?
There's a number, and that's the speed of light, and it's constant.
Now, he was wondering... What?
Except when it's not.
Well, so he goes back, 1928, So there's a place called the Institute of Metrology, which is the study of constants.
And they have the old records.
So 1928, he goes and finds the constant for the speed of light, you know, like a thousand meters per second or whatever it is.
And that all the studies done on the constant were within like 0.1%.
So everybody was sure that was it.
And then he goes to 19, something like 40 or so, and the constant was different by about 20%.
And then everybody was doing studies, and they all agreed within 1.1% that the new constant was correct.
And then he goes to 1972, and again it changed, I think the first one they changed it up or down and the other way, and it changed by like 10%, which is way more than anybody said it varied in their experiments.
And he goes to the head of the Institute of Metrology and said, what's the deal here?
Did you just not know how to do this?
He said, well, that's a very embarrassing, you know, we got different results.
And he said, did the constant change over time?
Well, no, because it's constant.
And so how do you explain this phenomenon?
And he said, was it fudging?
Did you guys like fudge the data?
He said, no, it's called intellectual phase lock.
That's amazing.
And so he said, well, how do you know the one in 1972 is correct?
He said, well, because we did studies and we all got the same number.
And then we decided, well, We have to fix this one.
So we fixed the number to the units, to the, you know, the meters per second.
So if anybody ever gets a different number, they won't notice.
So there it is.
That's how we do science.
So, it's interesting to me that if you look at the biological sciences in particular, I mean, not in particular, but just if you just choose to look at the biological sciences, and you've discussed a lot of this, whether it's the existence of ribosomes, or the nature of the heart muscle, what it's actually doing, what its action is, or the existence of the blood-brain barrier,
There's just so many things that appear to be flat wrong in the biological sciences and here we are again with the notion of viruses and the entire field of virology but there's also this troubling backstory here that has to do with why this is the case and it's easy to say that people are just stupid or that they are using
science as a kind of religion and they're blindly believing and maybe a lot of people are but then there seems to be something rather more nefarious going on when you choose to use bovine fetal serum to have the RNA available to have endless variants that then allow for endless lockdowns etc etc etc so i think there is There are sort of two kinds of actors here.
There are followers who are maybe rather dumb and who just don't penetrate the fallacies of the so-called science, but then there are other actors who appear to have been engineering virology, dating all the way back to Pasteur, maybe beyond that.
in the suppression of Baychon and terrain theory.
And here we are 150 years later or whatever, and we are in what appears to be a planned situation with a fake virus that only the existence and the promulgation of germ theory would allow for.
So it seems deeply kind of planned.
And I have my own thoughts on, like, who might be planning it or how that might be going.
But, you know, I would love to hear your thoughts.
I mean, you know, I don't have any special insight into who's doing what.
I don't mean names necessarily, I just mean maybe in general concepts, like what's going on here?
Yeah.
I mean, it's, you know, so now we're not talking science, we're talking speculation.
We are, yes.
And all I can really say is, as far as I can see, when it comes to believing in viruses, like I say, When you go through the three pillars of virology, A, that the, you know, cytopathic effect proves virus, that's called isolation, which is nonsense.
Two, the particles are actually these viruses, which has been proved that they're not.
And three, that the genome exists.
It doesn't, and you can create the genome de novo just by putting RNA in.
So, here's the answer to your question.
There's three reasons people believe that.
A. They don't know any better.
So, you could make up a lot of words for that, you know, like ignorant or something.
But that's the one reason.
The second reason is they do know better, but they have evil intentions, so they want to hurt people.
So even though they know that it's bullshit, they want to do you harm, and so that's why they do it.
And the third reason is they're cowards.
And that's an interesting one, because what I think is going to happen here is... So those are the three reasons.
Either ignorant, evil, or cowardly.
I like that.
And it could be a combination.
You could not know and be cowardly or you could be evil and well, then you would know.
Now, here's what I think is going to happen and how this is going to be resolved and why the powers that be, including the people like you mentioned, who are sort of gatekeepers to keep everybody still believing in the
In these viruses, and so there's a lot of people in the sort of quote pro freedom or, you know, alternative health community, who, who essentially are still promoting this theory, even though it's, you know, there's no science behind it.
But what I think is going to happen is it's growing by leaps and bounds.
And this is the only thing that I think worries the powers that be.
And what I think is going to happen is more and more scientists, virologists, microbiologists are going to say to themselves, you know, and not that they're going to say me, but I think that Cowan is right.
But they're not going to say anything because if they say anything, they lose their job and they get ridiculed, etc.
But what they will do is a study.
And they'll study what happens when you add fetal calf serum to a culture, and they'll prove that it creates every RNA genome that you want.
And they won't say that this proves there's no viruses.
But they'll publish it and essentially give people like me and the smarter people after me ammunition so that I can use that and, you know, sort of stick my neck out.
But I couldn't do it without them doing that, right?
So they know that they're helping the cause at the same time they keep their job and their wife does or their husband doesn't say, you know, well, what are you going to do next?
I'll grow carrots or something.
You don't know how to grow carrots.
Because all you know is to be a virologist.
And more and more people are going to find that if they don't really understand this, nobody's going to interview them.
Nobody's going to talk to them.
Nobody's going to listen to them.
They won't be able to sell their stuff.
They won't go to rallies.
The court cases won't win.
Because if you go in there and admit there's this nasty virus, you know, they'll eat your lunch.
And so there will be no other choice but the truth.
And more and more people will understand, whether overtly or not, they may just do studies or they may help fund it or something.
And so that we create a different world, which is really what this whole thing is about.
This whole thing is about creating a world based on reality.
Because any other world doesn't work because it's make-believe.
Yeah, what's that Steely Dan line?
Any world that I'm welcome to is better than the one I come from.
Well, I don't know about any world.
You know, the truth will set us free.
And, you know, not to get all sort of biblical, but when I hear, you know, when two or more are gathered in my name, so what's the name?
The name is truth.
Then I, the truth, will be there.
And then you can build a world that works for everybody.
Well that's beautiful.
You know, not too long ago you were a little more, I want to say pessimistic about where all of this is going.
And even though there's more and more levels of absurdity coming out, what I'm hearing you say is rather more hopeful.
I don't use the word hopeful.
You know, hope is interesting.
Because hope was in Pandora's box, so it got in with all the other evils of the world.
And why is that?
Because hope paralyzes you.
That's why some of the worst charlatans in recent times have sold us on hope and change, right?
You hope that it will get better.
When you hope it gets better, like I remember hoping they wouldn't put a 5G pole by my house, but I didn't do anything about it.
Sure enough, they did, so I moved.
And there's no room for hope.
You just, you have to see the reality.
Now, here's the problem.
None of us can see the truth or reality by ourselves.
We all get delusional.
But if I talk to you, and then we form a group, and then it's 10 people, and we get together, and so if there's anything, not that you asked me this, but if there's anything everybody out there should do right now, it's form a group where you meet in person, and your only goal is to find the truth.
And if somebody says something you don't like, you say, what do you mean by that?
So, and you just keep going because if you're by yourself, you won't find the truth.
Doesn't matter how smart you are.
Then you go away, think about it, come back to the group.
Well, you said something about this.
What do you mean?
And you challenge each other and you keep fighting and searching for this truth.
If everybody committed to do that, we would change the world.
Well, you're definitely putting your money where your mouth is because I've seen you model this with Dr. Andy and Stephan, you know, where it seems that that's been a very productive interaction where you've gone away, you've thought about things, you've done experiments, you know, you've written books, you've, you know, had interviews, come back together, more information coheres once again, and then there's like a kind of a step up in the clarity of the evidence and the presentation.
I do it with groups of people where I live.
We meet, you know, right now I'm moderating.
We'll talk about something.
Somebody will say, you know, this is all about love.
And I say, what do you mean by love?
The problem is people use these words and concepts, but nobody actually knows what they're talking about.
Right?
You don't know what I mean by love.
I mean, maybe you do and maybe you don't.
Or somebody says, well, this is not what this country stands for.
Well, maybe it is what this country stands for, and it always has been.
And so maybe we need a different country or a different model.
In other words, here's another example I used, you know, just the other day.
Like, I asked people in the beginning, how many of you brush your teeth once a day?
About half raised their hand.
How many of you brush your teeth twice a day?
The other half raised their hand.
How many of you never brush their teeth?
Nobody raised their hand.
And it's something like that.
We all take it for granted.
You know, you become a human being, or a man, or a woman, or a child.
You eat, you poop, you pee, you brush your teeth, right?
That's how life is.
So it turns out the only dentist I know who can prove that you can heal cavities, right?
You have somebody you show a cavity on an x-ray, you do something to them, and then the cavity heals.
Rule number one, never brush your teeth.
Why?
Because, well, it's like a scam.
You know, your teeth actually secrete minerals which will protect and heal your teeth.
And if you had a scab on your arm, and every day you rubbed it off, it would never heal.
Do you brush your teeth?
Well, it's a good question, but let me just finish, because Weston Price found a bunch of people all over the world, Who never had any dental problems, any cavities.
As far as I can see, the only thing they had in common, besides they ate good food, is none of them brushed their teeth.
Now, here's the answer to your question.
This is an interesting thing.
My only point is, everything should be up for grabs right now.
Right?
Everything.
Including whether you should brush your teeth.
Now, I'm not saying I know for sure that it's better not to brush your teeth.
I don't.
Doesn't mean you have to have an answer.
But my point is, you should have the question.
And if you don't know the answer, you should have the integrity and the honesty and the intellectual ability to say, I don't really know now.
So that's where I am with this.
So sometimes I brush my teeth because I'm not sure.
And you don't have to be sure.
My guess is I'll figure it out somehow.
Yeah, that's beautiful.
And you know, the other thing that it'd be nice for people to have is just some childlike curiosity to find out answers to questions that naturally occur.
I feel like we get so busy, we're so distracted, we have all this social media, and people feel like they simply don't have time to do what you do so well, which is ask questions, Think about potential answers and move forward in your consciousness in that pursuit.
I think, you know, I sort of see you in this, you know, I do a lot of painting and I have this idea of doing these portraits of people in the movement that I respect, you know, and so I would put you kind of in a thinker pose, you know, a Rodin pose and, you know, it wouldn't look like that sculpture, it would look like you to some extent.
But that's how I envision painting you if I ever did that.
I mean, I guess that's a compliment, but I can tell you, you know, I spent the first 18 years of my life essentially doing nothing but playing sports.
You know, I was the, you know, the guy on, the only white guy in an all black basketball team in Detroit that was very good.
And, and so, you know, and I garden and I do all, I don't just sit around and think.
In fact, I don't think that works very well.
The only thing, the only, the trick.
You run around and think, right?
I mean, the trick here.
A lot of my thinking is when I'm actually doing things, which is ironic.
But if there's any secret that I learned or I came to naturally, the only thing is, first of all, you have to be comfortable with not knowing.
Like, I don't know whether I should brush my teeth.
And it doesn't bother me, because I don't know.
So I have to make a decision one way or another.
The other thing is, you cannot be wedded to the outcome.
That's the problem with virology and a lot of other things.
No.
If viruses aren't real, my whole worldview is torn apart.
And I never got that.
I thought, it is viruses or not, who cares?
I'm not wedded to any outcome here.
If there's no viruses, there's no viruses.
If you shouldn't brush your teeth, I won't brush my teeth.
What's the big deal?
But you almost never find anybody who is like that.
You know, if there's termites eating your house, then you get rid of them.
Right now we have a situation, nobody can find the termites, and you have to spray everybody's house with termite gas, which by the way kills you, or they're gonna do some nasty stuff to you.
That's crazy, and it's It's partly because all these people are wedded to the outcomes.
It's the same with this recent debate you talked about.
Those two people and all these other people are absolutely wedded to the outcome.
There has to be an engineered virus.
Can't find it.
Can't show that it exists.
I don't even know how they got it into you know, how it transmits or anything.
I don't know anything about it.
I don't even know how you would know there's a virus or not.
And yet I stake my career on that it's true.
I mean, you're sunk.
Wow, that's a really great observation.
I It reminded me of this comment that Dr. Amanda Vollmer wrote recently, and I had published an article of hers, and then I appended this comment to the article.
I'll put that in the links, but this is what she had to say about this whole military lab leak, you know, and I'd love your thoughts on this.
Ah, the military lab leak and Fauci stories.
Trying to keep the fake virus theory alive while playing the masses, continuing to confuse, distract, and divide.
They can only make their pretend viruses in a lab gain a function, but they cannot infect anyone.
The only way they can make people or animals sick is via forced injection with other tissue products and chemicals or by repeated forcing into nasal passages with said chemicals to trigger bodily detox processes.
Also, the animals are generally already sick, vaccinated, and stressed, and if you look at the studies, it's really challenging to make them respond.
They have to work hard at it.
They mess around with DNA and RNA pieces to create chimeras.
Directed evolution.
Fancy term, but evolution is also false.
Unnatural to life, and then using enzymes, spike proteins, to force entry into cells to prove their virus exists.
This is via angiotensin converting enzyme 2, a common enzyme in the body used to gain entry to cells.
It's all a magic show.
They are going to throw Fauci under the bus.
That was always the plan and anyone focusing on him in the media is either controlled opposition or taking the bait to waste loads of time.
I feel sorry for Project Veritas.
They are being used hard.
Distracting the partially awake long enough for them to make their next moves and to throw some meat to the angry masses, bread and circuses, so they feel that some justice is being done.
It's all part of their playbook.
Don't fall for it.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
I've described it.
Every story needs a Patsy.
And so that's the Patsy.
So he's playing a role, you know, it's obvious that either he knows that he's going to be thrown under the bus or he's, you know, he doesn't know one way or the other, but he's playing this kind of director's role in this psychodrama that's being played out.
But you have other people who appear much less connected to the deep state, people who maybe have gotten some things right.
I'm thinking about Mike Adams, who did a really good interview with you and Dr. Andy a few months ago.
And then he turns around like this is a note from him today.
Whatever hit me last Thursday has moved to my throat and has temporarily wrecked my voice.
I won't be able to record my situation updates or interviews for at least a week, possibly two.
I don't think this is Omicron, Delta, or any regular strain of COVID.
Because for the last two years, I've repeatedly been around very sick people, in some cases, taking care of them.
Yet I never caught anything and never showed any symptoms at all.
I strongly suspect this is a new strain or I was hit with a toxic nanoparticle attack like what happened to Steve Quayle and it goes on from there.
How do you how do you do the math on this kind of whiplash whipsawing that that so many people do like Mike Adams?
I mean, I don't want to get into ascribing motives to people because I don't know.
I don't know other people's motive.
You know, people ask me about people's motives and I say, Look, do you want me to tell you Fauci's motive?
Get him on the phone and I'll ask him.
Are you doing this on purpose or because you don't know?
And if he says I'm doing it on purpose?
I think of it as an example, just that we have a lot of people who do this ballet between admitting that there's no virus and then talking about the virus.
And they go back and forth and back and forth.
And if you just listen to a lot of people in the alternative community, it's this constant yo-yo.
And I find it bizarre.
It's not a constant yo-yo with me, I can tell you that much.
Oh, certainly not.
I mean, you've been on it from the beginning.
It's amazing.
My yo has yo'd.
Your yo has yo'd.
I mean, certainly the same thing with, I mean, I remember watching that, it was that, it was that little video clip of yours that you were talking about.
I think maybe you were at some Steiner conference or something.
I can't remember now.
It was just this accidental clip that got out there that kind of, it sort of got the ball rolling on this entire discussion about viruses and what's going on and that kind of thing.
Yeah, so I don't want to spend a lot of energy on why they're doing who's doing what.
All I can say is I didn't hear anything with what Amanda said that I disagree with.
One of the things that she pointed out that I hadn't realized so much, these mouse studies that they do.
I happen to I was dissecting something that this Dr. Malone, and he referred to a mouse study.
So I ended up looking at the mouse study, and to my surprise, it turns out that the line of mice that they're using have been continuously inbred since 1937.
My goodness.
Now think about that.
I just got recently these two kittens.
They were brother and sister.
And to my surprise, because I didn't know anything about kittens, it looked like Pumpkin, the boy, has a romantic interest in his sister.
And so that kind of freaked me out a little bit.
Because I thought, uh-oh, they're going to be inbred baby kittens.
And that's one generation.
We're talking about thousands of generations of inbred mice.
That's what they're doing experiments and using those experiments to tell us what's going to happen to us.
Now, I understand that the reason they say they're doing it is that, well, they don't want the genetics of the mice to be different because that ends up putting another variable in.
But when you go over these studies, you know, the antibody-dependent enhancement or the pathogenic priming, it's just total nonsense that has no relevance to anything that happens to a human being.
You know, there's somebody did a debunking me who said, oh, that Coke proved TB was transmissible.
So I go back to the study, and it turns out they take some bacteria, some pus, they do purify it, they grow it in beef broth, and then they inject it into these, I think guinea pigs or hamsters or something, into their eye.
And then they got lesions in their eye, and that proved that TB was transmissible.
Now I thought about that, you know, after 37 years of doing medicine, how many times did somebody come up to me and say, and I say, you know, how you doing?
Well, I was doing fine there, and then these guys in white coats, they came up, grabbed me, they put me in a cage, solitary confinement for a year, fed me GMO food, took some pus, injected it right into my eyeball, and man, ever since then, I feel like shit.
Right?
You know how many times that happened?
Oh, that's amazing, yeah.
None!
This has nothing to do with You know, and the whole antibody dependent enhancement, there's a lot of very well known, you know, Anti-vax people who are telling people this.
They inject these ferrets, they so-called vaccinate them, and then they squirt high-pressure cell cultures up their nose, and then they see what happens.
And you read it, and it says, what happened to the ferrets?
Answer, nothing.
They weren't sick at all.
Then they killed them and said, Oh, look, they got antibodies.
Well, yeah, because you squirted, you know, poison up their nose.
These studies have nothing to do with, you know, anybody, any situation of any human being, person, man or woman that we know, and yet they're trotted out as somehow scientific evidence for theories, which are Irrelevant.
I completely agree.
I wanted to get your just your take and maybe this would be helpful to people hearing the news if you're anyone out there is actually still listening to the mainstream media but on you know we touched on it earlier but on these on these variants and you know I know you did a you did a very nice Webinar that I blogged, and I'll put that link in on the subject of the Omicron Variant Psi Op.
John Rappaport had a beautifully titled blog that I reposted, The New African Virus Mutation Right on Time, A Kindergarten Covert Op for the Ignorant.
You know, John has a way with titles.
I would just love to get your thoughts on kind of, you know, what's going on with these variants, and yet we seem to be at the quote-unquote end of the pandemic, or things seem to be kind of waning.
I just wanted to get your take, you know, if you could just give us a temperature reading on what you think is going on here, because it seems to be that there are two things happening that are sort of mutually contradictory.
So number one, there's no virus, therefore there can't be a variant.
Why do they have all these, you know, approximately a million different genomes, which are what they call variants, is because if you make a puzzle and you don't have the picture, every time you'll make a different puzzle.
And those are called variants.
And if you keep making the same, you know, different types of puzzles, they say, oh, that's the same variant.
But there is no test for an Omicron or Delta variant.
There's just different puzzle pieces.
And of course, when people are poisoned, they break down into, you know, little pieces of genetic debris.
That's what a virus, so-called, is just garbage.
You poison somebody with all different kinds of stuff, thoughts, oxygen deprivation, fear, masks, electromagnetic fields, glyphosate, bad food, you know, inject poisons in them and graphene, maybe, and a whole They break down and they call those viruses.
That's it.
And they're a little bit different, so they call them variants, because everybody is a little bit different and the whole process makes them different.
There are no variants, there's no virus.
Now, what's happening?
What I fear is happening is they can only run this playbook out so far and people start saying, you know, that idiot Tom, maybe he's right.
This is a joke.
So they're probably going to run a new Boogeyman out.
I don't know what it'll be, like a A cyber attack or financial crisis or something and we'll just be on to the next thing and there you go.
So I think there's just to a certain extent this is where we're dealing.
I've said this all along.
We're playing against chess masters here.
These are grandmasters.
They have a very good sense of how to play this game, how to keep people in fear and all that.
And they put all their marbles in the table, all their chips in the middle of the table.
So the only way out is finding the truth when we gather in the name of the truth and help each other through this, not compromised by believing in nonsense.
You know that's the only that's the that's the recourse we have.
Well and truly stated that was that was uh inspirational despite it all.
I tend to think you know there's um there is evidence of an awakening going on and it's on multiple levels and I would like to see that spread to yet additional But you know, there's a lot of good things happening.
More and more people getting into some rudimentary knowledge of what the plan is here with the Great Reset, for example, and other shenanigans they might try to bring against us.
But, you know, there's a lot of good things happening.
One of my years, long, decades, pet peeves, because I'm a big fan of Yvonne Illich and John Gatto and others.
One of the biggest monsters that we have to face is school.
all.
Not a school, or not certain kinds of school, but the phenomena of schooling.
In other words, in order to learn things, you have to go through a set program that somebody else decides, and then you have to have a degree, or else you can't do anything.
And it's, it's, you know, you can't even be a so called garbage man in New York City unless you have a high school diploma, which I would love to know how that relates to picking up garbage.
Right.
And, and you hear more and more young people saying, I'm not going to school.
In fact, in a funny sort of way, I'm like a pro mandate guy.
Because the reality is, the more they do these things, and they may even be in a funny sort of way on my side, whoever they is, because the more there's mandates, the more people are going to say, I can't be part of this system.
I'm not going to school.
I'm not paying $120,000 in debt to learn nonsense, right?
in debt to learn nonsense, right?
I'm out of there.
I'm not going to get a religious exemption.
I don't need to ask them for anything.
You know, whereas they wouldn't have done that if they hadn't made the mandate.
And now they're going to go learn to build a timber frame house and plant their own garden and make a fiddle and play music and talk to their friends and be out in the sun and read Dostoevsky or anything.
And they don't need this $120,000 debt School nonsense, right?
And that wouldn't have happened without the mandates.
Same with people quitting the medical profession.
I say, let's do more of that.
Let's put them so that I'm not so insensitive, right, that I know it doesn't hurt people.
You know, I get that.
But at the end of the day, if they're going to tell you, you can't work here without poisoning yourself, why on earth would you want to work there?
I totally agree, and I've asked that question, and, you know, it's a very difficult thing to understand.
Because I would just be up there.
I mean, I would just be gone.
That's my personality.
I would be gone.
And it comes out, it tells, it belies the fact that you don't have trust in the spiritual world, in the universe, or God, or whatever you call it, to help you out.
Because I can tell you, everything in my life has taught me, if I align myself with the truth as best I know it, doesn't mean it's actually the truth, but the best I know it with all my good intention, every single time something happens that furthers my understanding and my evolution.
And every time I compromise or don't tell the truth, I take a step back and I get trapped in the mud.
It's interesting just to look at your biography and the books that you've published and to tell oneself a story about how you got from one subject to another because you must have been having this process that you were describing now where you were responding, you were following, you were pursuing the alignment because you kept changing your subject matter but it all kind of fits together at the same time.
I would just say, you know, I don't know what to make of this.
They say the heart is a pump, but when you push the blood, the aortic arch squeezes in.
That can't be a pump.
And you can see that, right?
You were able to see that as a resident.
Is that true?
I heard about it, and yeah, I saw it when I was in a cath lab.
I said, why does the arch bend in when you push the blood through it?
Well, because it does.
Oh, got it.
So, everywhere you look, whether it's constants, you know, like I talked about, or the heart, or virology, or there's ribosomes, except it can't possibly be, or the blood vein barrier, although nobody has a picture of it.
Like, what is there, some cellophane over your brain?
You know, you look at a picture of the liver and the blood, liver cells, blood vessels, and compare it to a brain and blood, besides that the liver cell looks different than the brain cell, there's no barrier.
They made that up to convince you that, well, these drugs don't get into your brain because there's a barrier, so they're fine.
Right, just like the vaccine stays in your arm.
Yeah, right.
They made it up!
Wow, wow.
Well, you know, before I let you go, I would love to ask you if you have any additional information about the vaccine lots since I brought up vaccines here.
You did a really, and I can put that link in as well, but you did a very nice webinar on a troubling subject.
It has to do with the idea that some of these vaccine batches were the harmful ones and other ones appear not to have been very harmful.
Right.
Like I say, we're playing with chess masters here.
So it's very clever.
You make most of them, probably some of them have nothing in it, and some of them have a little bit of whatever they're putting in there, and some of them are really bad, and then you get to A.C.
what the lethal dose is, or what the bad dose is, and B, you get all these people saying, yeah, me and my friends, we got the injection, nothing happened to us.
It's because you didn't get anything.
And if that isn't one of the most cynical moves ever, that they tell people that you're going to be protected and then they give you a nothing.
And you need a passport for it.
Yeah, I mean, this is outrageous.
And by the way, one of the evidence of this is All of the batches that essentially had very few side effects were distributed to 12 or fewer states.
Whereas all the batches that had lots of side effects, I mean lots, were distributed to over 35 states.
I believe that's the number.
Meaning that you don't want to send a bad batch to just one town in Arkansas because then everybody dies or gets sick and they say, hey what happened?
You send them all over the place.
And that's very clever.
It is very clever.
You're right.
We are playing against very gifted chess masters.
That's for sure.
Don't underestimate the adversary.
Right.
That is a very good piece of advice.
I wanted to give you an opportunity to let our audience know what you're up to next.
What are your upcoming projects?
Any webinars or seminars outside of your weekly Friday webinar series?
Any new book projects?
I know that Blanca is working on his third phase and all of that.
I'm sure you will have a lot to talk about where that's concerned.
And there's also some rumor out there that you might be debating virologists soon?
Oh yeah, I've heard.
Yeah, we've established the conditions and We'll see if it works.
Do you have any takers yet or would-be takers?
I'm not sure exactly where that stands.
That would be interesting.
That would be.
I mean, I was thinking of writing another little booklet on ribosomes just because it's such interesting.
Ribosomes are the place where we're told RNA is made into protein.
In other words, the substance of our body is made, meaning proteins, are supposedly made in the ribosomes, right?
Right.
Now, do you know what the word ribosome means?
I do from you, but I'll let you share that.
Yeah, it means the rib from the soma, i.e.
the rib from the body.
If you think about where have you heard rib from the body?
Well, that's the story of Adam and Eve.
In order to sort of mock us, they say that the substance of life was made from the rib of the man.
That is a trip.
Hey, I've got the spelling.
Who would do that?
Well, here's this.
Here's what you need to have in your title.
This spelling of ribosome.
W-R-Y.
W-R-Y, yeah.
Yeah, because it gets into the idea that they're being completely disingenuous about titling it that way.
Yeah, so I don't know.
I hope I'm gonna garden more and stuff, but I keep getting sucked back into this nonsense.
I remember hearing Dr. Andy say not too long ago, you know, I'm really tired of talking about viruses.
I hope to just have a normal conversation again one of these days.
There's nothing to say.
They never found them.
The way they say they exist is nonsense.
Move on.
Move on.
That's it.
That's advice.
There's no termites.
How many more termite companies do you need to tell you, you know, bud, there's no termites there?
Yeah, I thought about that when Christine was saying, yeah, I'm up to 155 or 160 responses to my Freedom of Information request.
I'm like, I think that's probably enough, don't you?
That's enough.
Let's move on and do some more interesting stuff.
Right on.
Well, I'm sure whatever you do will be very interesting, and I look forward to it.
I'm always eagerly following your career path and your insights, and I really, really appreciate you coming on the show today.
All right.
Well, thanks for all you're doing here.
Okay.
It's my pleasure, and maybe we'll get to chat again one of these days.
Okay.
Thank you.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection