All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 8, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
47:36
Tom Cowan: What The World Would Look Like Without Viruses
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, welcome everybody.
Today is September 7th, 2022, and it's another edition of the Wednesday webinar, not podcast.
Again, thanks for joining me.
So there will not be a webinar on Friday, so I will see you again on Wednesday next week.
And I just also want to thank everybody who participated in our Labor Day sale.
It was a good success for us, and I hope everybody got some things they were looking for, and we appreciate your support.
There's also going to be an event Near us, something in the field.
I'm not sure.
Maybe Tricia has the poster or the flyer for that.
So if you happen, this is a live event.
I don't know that much more about it, except I will be speaking for maybe 20 minutes or so at that event.
So if you're there, please come up and say hello.
And I think that's all the announcements I have today.
So no webinar on Friday, event in the field on Saturday.
Yeah, okay.
So today I wanted to touch briefly on, or start a conversation maybe, that's maybe a better way to put it, on what would the world look like if everybody understood That there was no bacteria or viruses that could cause disease.
In other words, what we commonly refer to now as the germ theory.
Though I tend not to like to talk about germ and terrain theory, but talk about exactly what I'm referring to.
Before I do that, though, I wanted to give one more try to put this in perspective.
This being, you know, same old story.
How do we know if there's a virus?
And I will admit I'm using this a little bit to get me a time check on the 20 minute talk I'm going to give on Saturday.
So please bear with me here.
So the other thing is I'm getting out of the habit of talking to live audiences for the first 30 or so years.
That's all, of course, that I talk to.
And so it's much more fun and interactive.
And so I haven't done that so much lately.
I'm reluctant to travel and there haven't been so many live events anyways.
So I've got used to more this format, which of course I don't like so much, but it has its certain conveniences.
But probably everybody is sitting near a window, and so I'm going to ask you now, and I'm going to say it like, so please raise your hand, even though obviously nobody has to raise their hand, and I can't see if your hand is raised anyways, so it's kind of useless, but it's an easy way for me to say it.
So look out the window.
I have a window right near me.
And so the question right now is, do you believe that trees exist?
So how are you going to answer that question?
So here I am in the field on Saturday.
I look around and I ask everybody, do you believe or do you think or do you know that trees exist?
Probably everybody will raise their hand.
So how do you know that?
What is the process in your mind, let's use that word, that you go through in order to arrive at that conclusion?
So it's fairly simple.
You make a definition of a tree.
So a tree has a bunch of leaves, and it's got this sort of brown thing, but sometimes it's white, so the color of the trunk is variable.
But we sort of know what we mean by a trunk.
You can try to define it more clearly.
It's got branches, it's got leaves.
Sometimes it has fruit, sometimes not.
It's got roots, if you examine it closely, that go into the ground.
And you can make a pretty accurate description of what a tree is.
So first you make a description, a definition of the tree, and then you go looking for it.
And you look for it in its natural habitat.
And pretty much any natural habitat that you can imagine, that you might imagine a tree growing, you'll find it.
And so I think if you ask most people, there would be an overwhelming consensus that trees do exist.
At that point, then, and only at that point, once you've settled that issue, can you then characterize what the tree is made of?
You know, you could do that grossly.
It's got a trunk and leaves.
You could measure, maybe, or analyze what the leaves are made of, what the trunk is made of, if it has fruit, which could be a variable, still part of the definition of a tree.
You can figure that out.
You can even do that down to a molecular level and then you'll get a variation.
Some trees have this much sulfur and others have that much.
And you can make an in-depth characterization of the morphology and the chemistry of the tree.
And at that point, then, you can also ask the question, what does the tree do?
So, tree doesn't do much on first examination, but maybe it communicates with other trees, and maybe it makes fruit, and maybe it makes seeds, and you could get a whole lot of things.
And my point is, that is the process that you go through in order to find out if something is real.
It's very regular, very predictable.
I would say logical, rational, and I would even use the word scientific.
Now, you can then go to something that's smaller, let's say a frog.
So the question is, do frogs exist?
So again, you use the same thinking procedure.
You go to the natural habitat of the frog, which is now not a meadow or a forest, but a pond.
And you say, well, can I find frogs in this pond?
And then, of course, you have to make a definition of a frog.
And you say it's got eyes and a tongue and green or brownish-green skin and little toes and maybe they're webbed.
And they're this big to this big.
There's certain variations.
So you make a pretty accurate description of what the definition of a frog is.
You go looking for the frog.
You find some variability.
And then you look in all the different ponds that you're in your area or maybe in the world.
And you can get the habitat of the frog.
At that point, just like the tree, you can study what the frog is made of.
If you're mean enough to start killing frogs, you can analyze the chemistry of the frog and dissect it.
Although, hopefully, you don't even have to do that.
You could just examine it.
And then you could find out what the frog does.
Frog catches flies.
And again, hopefully, you can do that without disturbing the frogs.
They need to live too, so you just watch them and eventually they start catching flies and swimming and croaking and all the other things that frogs do.
So that's also very simple, and since some of us have done that, you can in some ways take their word for it, even if you haven't seen frogs.
But most of us have, so we actually know, I would use the word know, not believe, that frogs do exist.
This is what they're made of, grossly anyways, and that's kind of what they do.
Now, you can even then go smaller.
And obviously this is very simple.
You could say, what about if something you can't see with your eyes?
So you're talking now about bacteria.
So it's the same procedure.
You go to where the bacteria normally live.
So that could be in any number of places, like in your mouth, or on trees, or in the soil, or on the roots of plants.
There's any number of places.
But everybody has seen or can see what a bacteria look like.
And they have different shapes.
Some are cocci, some are rods.
They have different forms.
So then you can see whether you can find them, and probably you can in all these different places.
Then you could characterize them, see what their shape is, what their chemistry is made of, on and on.
Then you could watch them in their natural habitat and see what they do.
They digest things, and they move around, and all the rest of the things that we know that bacteria do.
So again, you would end up not believing, but knowing there are such things as bacteria.
There are many different shapes and kinds of bacteria.
Here's what they're made of.
Here's maybe if they have what we call genetic material.
So they have some of that.
They have some proteins, maybe some sugars, maybe some fats.
They have certain molecules and they do certain things.
So that's very simple and clear.
Now imagine this scenario.
Somebody says, let's just stick with frogs.
So I think there are frogs.
Here's the definition of a frog.
You know, same as the other one.
But nobody has ever seen a frog.
This is the first time.
So you really don't know what the frog looks like, but you have an idea of what it should look like.
So you know what you're looking for.
Uh, and so then you go to all the different pawns in the world.
And see if some organism that fits this description that you've made up actually exists.
And it turns out, you look at every pond you can find in your area, you get friends all over the world, every pond, every stream, every lake, every place there's water, every place there's not water, and you can't find a single organism that fits this description.
Not a single one.
At that point, would you still believe that there is such a thing as this frog?
I think most of the people's answer would be no.
And then you would say, well, there are some people who do believe there is this organism.
And so, naturally you would say, why can't you find this organism that you've defined?
You say it looks like this, it has this shape, this number of feet, toes, etc., eyes, whatever you define this organism.
Why can't you find it?
Well, there's not enough of them to find in the ponds.
So there's none?
No, you can't find any, because there's not enough to see in any of these ponds, even if you looked in all the ponds put together.
I would say nobody would believe that.
And then somebody might say, well, but frogs are this organism.
Let's say it's not a frog, because you don't know what it is, but you've made an accurate description of what it should look like.
Do you know what you're looking for?
And it only lives under the water, and we can't see under the water.
We can't take pictures under the water.
That's why you can't find it.
Well, it turns out you can see, at least not as well, but somewhat under the water, and you can take pictures, and you still can't find it.
But then you also ask, well, how does this organism, this frog-like organism, get from one pond to the next?
They say, well, it gets out of the pond and it hops to the next pond.
So why don't you catch it then?
Well, because it's very quick in going from one pond to the next, so you might not catch it, and besides, it does it in the middle of the night.
Why don't you hire somebody with a flashlight to stay out in between these two ponds, and you pay him, you know, a certain amount per hour, and he listens, or watches with a flashlight, and see if he can find them crossing from one place to another.
No, we can't do that, because you can't find the ponds, this organism, it only comes out When it wants to, otherwise it hides inside the body of the pond, and so we can't find it.
So nobody would believe that.
Now, there's even more creative answers.
Some people have said to me, well, but Tom, you have to realize that living beings are not actually fixed beings, they're a process.
So, all life is a process of one thing metamorphosing into the next.
And there's a certain amount of truth in that.
You know, the tree used to be a seed, and then it grows into a tree, and then it makes a seed, and it goes through this process of metamorphosis as it changes its form.
Butterfly, or caterpillars into butterflies, tadpoles into frogs, I think, and many other things.
But the problem is, if you've never seen a tree, and you don't know whether a tree exists, it can't possibly be part of a process, because it doesn't even exist.
And so I would say that is a completely nonsense answer, if you haven't first proven the existence of whatever part of that life cycle you're talking about.
Let me say that even more clear.
If you don't know there's a tree, you can't possibly postulate that the tree is part of a cycle.
That is just irrational thinking.
Now, at that point then, because people are convinced that there must be this organism that looks like a frog, so they say to you things like, well, I can take a sample of the pond water, and I can find the sequence of genetics that are in this pond water, and I can compare that with salamanders or other frog-like creatures, And it's a pretty close match, but not exact.
Let's say about 90%.
And that tells me there's a new organism that's close to a salamander, but it's more like this frog that we're talking about.
And so that's a new organism.
And I got that because I did a sample of the pond water and I put it through a whole bunch of steps to amplify it and then rearranged it a little bit and added some primers to add some new pieces and I got the de novo unbiased sequence of this new organism.
My guess is nobody would believe that.
Nobody.
Even if they said, well, I did this on all the other ponds and I took the pond water and I used the original template as the sequence for this genome of this organism, which I never found, and I got them to form this phylogenetic tree.
Because every sequence was a little bit different, because you can't get the same sequence twice.
And they have a sort of pattern, because you're actually putting in a template and telling the computer to make it sort of like this first one, which was make-believe in the first place.
And as I think everybody will see when you bring this down to a real world example, there's nothing else that would convince anybody that these things are real, except find the tree, find the frog, find the bacteria, And once you do that, then you can start looking for the parts, and then you can start looking for what it does.
And I'm here to tell you for the hundredth time that whenever we look into sick people, sick animals, sick plants, nobody has ever published a paper saying that according to the definition of a virus, A protein coat genetic material on the inside.
Self-replicating particle.
That's uniform in morphology.
All the proteins are coated for by those pieces of genetic material.
Nobody has ever published a study finding that organism, that particle, in any human, plant, or animal.
Period.
There is none.
They've all admitted you can't do that.
You can't find the organism.
You have to use these subsequent, you know, these other means of finding it.
Because either the virus is intracellular, like the organism is in the water, so you can't find it.
There's not enough to see, which we already talked about.
Or you take bits of pond water, which contain all kinds of stuff from all kinds of organisms in the pond.
You mix that together, put it in a computer, come out with a sequence, run it 100 times and come out with a tree of sequences.
Nobody would believe that that thing is real, and nobody should believe that these pathogenic viruses, according to their own definition, are real.
Nobody would believe that.
So, once we know that, where does that get us?
Yes.
Well, as I've also said maybe a hundred times, to me this is not a subsidiary or side issue.
This is the only issue that should be addressed.
Because look what happens once we go through that process of showing that there is no organism, there is no particle in its natural habitat that has ever been found, not rabies, not Ebola, not HIV, not SARS-CoV-2,
Tobacco mosaic virus, not human sarcoma viruses, not retroviruses, none of them have ever been found that meet that definition of a virus.
So now we know that.
Now nobody believes it.
And by the way, this also goes for lab-created viruses, engineered viruses.
It's the same thinking process, same steps.
Show me this virus in its natural habitat.
Doesn't matter how it got there, whether it's so-called natural or so-called lab-created.
If it's not there, it doesn't exist.
Nobody has shown that it's there.
All the authorities, all the virologists say we can't find it in its natural habitat.
There's only one reason.
It's not there.
So what happens then when we know that?
So the first thing is All the measures that are done to combat, now let's talk about COVID and SARS-CoV-2, all the measures that were implemented, the tyranny that was implemented to combat this SARS-CoV-2 deadly virus become immediately null and void.
There's no need for masks.
There's no need for injections to protect you against a make-believe imaginary virus.
There's no need for social distancing.
There's no need for anybody to close their business.
There's no need for mandates.
There's no need for on and on and on.
Now, the other thing there's no need for, and this is what's so interesting to me.
So, there's no need, therefore, for any vaccine, so-called, of any sort.
They're all based on these imaginary viruses or bacteria that allegedly cause disease, which also has never been demonstrated that injecting pure cultures of any bacteria has ever caused any disease in humans, animals, or plants.
None of them.
There is no study that shows pure cultures of any bacteria causes any disease in any other living organism.
So, none of the vaccines make any sense.
We don't need to look at VAERS data.
We don't need to get rid of vaccine mandates.
We don't need to March in the streets so that we don't get vaccines.
We don't need any of that stuff.
Once we demonstrate, which has been done, and once people understand, which they should, that these things are not pathogenic, nobody would do a vaccine.
At that point, there's no vaccine mandates, there's None of the other measures which are part of the tyrannical plan to keep us in this sort of fear-based biosecurity state.
And by the way, this has huge implications for all of you listening.
Because if I asked all of you, if you were sitting in front of me, how many of you have had a vaccine in your life?
My guess is, with rare, rare exception, every one of us, including me, not since I was going into the Peace Corps, so that's a long time, but I've had many before that, as we all did, all of us are vaccine injured to some degree.
None of these make any sense.
None of them protected you against any illness which could not have possibly been caused by that virus or that bacteria.
None of them, therefore, make any sense.
So, you were subjected to an introduction into your body of a poisoned cell culture, generally, or poisoned purified cell culture, for no possible benefit.
Now, all that would be gone once we understand that bacteria and viruses are not pathogens.
And by the way, now that I'm an animal owner, which I don't like that word owner, but I help animals.
All of our pets, all of the animals that we care for, all of our livestock, all of our cats and dogs, and I think even a lot of chickens and horses, have been also injected with these toxic cell culture products or toxic proteins for no reason for them, only to make them sicker than they ordinarily would be.
Another thing that would end would be prohibitions on things like raw milk.
Now, there would be some interest in whether the farmer or dairyman put toxins in his milk, or fed the cows proper cow food, or goats goat food, or sheep sheep food.
But as far as protecting us against the bacteria by so-called pasteurizing the milk, That would immediately end, and so the entire fight about raw milk or raw cheeses or raw food products that were safely made otherwise would end.
So, that would be the first step.
Now, the repercussions of that, since a huge amount of our illness
that we suffer from, whether it's childhood illness, autism, allergies, eczema, asthma, mental health problems, are actually as a result of the injection of these vaccines, which would not be the case since we all would know that they're completely useless and toxic products which nobody would choose to inject into their bodies.
So that would have a huge benefit, not only economic, but we would start to have a much healthier, more vibrant, less chronically ill population.
And that itself has huge benefits.
So no mandates, no need for marches, no need for any measures, no need for restrictions on airplane travel, schools, universities, anything like that.
Now, The next thing I would point out is it would start to make people think.
So since this is very clear, rational, logical, and scientific proposition, that these particles, particularly called viruses, have never been proven to cause disease, and therefore all measures taken to combat that are irrational and illogical, everybody would start asking themselves the question of,
If my school, or my hospital, or my employer, or my whoever I work with, or my airline, or my restaurant, or my health food store, or my
High school, or I could go on and on, was requiring me, essentially trying to force me to take some of those measures which could only have the outcome of making me sicker
How am I supposed to trust them that I will get a proper education, or proper food, or proper advice, or proper safety from them, because their judgment seems to be so flawed?
People would start to ask this question.
How, school, did you get this so wrong?
How organization that fights these mandates, but yet refuses to look at the question of whether these viruses exist, how did you get this so wrong?
Since it's obvious that understanding that there's no viruses, there's no SARS-CoV-2 in the case of COVID, ends all the tyranny in its tracks.
How did you get this so wrong?
Why did you refuse to look into this school, or organization, or health promoter, or anybody else who has promoted the virus narrative, but says they're against the COVID measures?
How did you miss this, since the entire tyrannical scheme is based on the existence of a virus?
So, people would then start to make different choices about where they want to send their children to school, where they want to go to school themselves, where they want to work.
Is that really the place you want to spend your precious life working at?
Is a place that was attempting to force you to do something which has no benefit to you and would be detrimental to your health?
Is that really where you want to spend your life working?
More and more, I'm hearing that's not where I want to work, and I'm not going to do that anymore.
And what's amazing to me is I hear story after story of how these mandates actually push people into quitting and finding a life that is much more meaningful, rewarding, and sometimes, and largely, even more financially lucrative.
So, we would end up then with a much healthier population.
They're not scared of any so-called germs.
They don't follow any of these tyrannical measures.
They frequent companies that don't follow them and never have followed them.
They frequent organizations and support organizations that have from the get-go at least So that would be the next thing.
narrative if not understood that this is the key to the kingdom here.
So that would be the next thing.
Now, what happens then if people start questioning the virus narrative is inevitably they start questioning a lot of other things.
In other words, inevitably, the idea will come to you if all of these organizations, which I'm supposed to trust, we're talking the U.S. government, the CDC, we're talking But Google or Meta, whatever it's called.
We're talking about Apple.
We're talking about Microsoft.
We're talking about the Gates Foundation.
We're talking about the United Nations.
We're talking about the World Health Organization.
We're talking about the United States.
We're talking about Canada.
We're talking about England.
We're talking about Russia.
We're talking about the Ukraine.
We're talking about Saudi Arabia.
We're talking about Israel.
We're talking about all of them.
Have supported these measures.
If I can't trust you to get this right and to get to lock us down and harass us based on such flimsy scientific evidence of which there is no evidence, then people will start to ask questions.
In other words, what about the rest of biology?
And anyways, if people were getting sick, sometimes, like they always do, and it may be in a slightly different way sometimes, so what is causing people to get sick?
It's obviously not a virus.
So what does cause people to get sick?
And by the way, now that I'm starting to question things, I'm going to question a whole lot of things.
Like, What about where does the money come from?
And what about nuclear physics?
And what about electrons?
And what about cosmology?
And what about a whole lot of other things that we have been told the science is settled and you have to follow along otherwise you will be humiliated, ostracized, etc.
And so you start to become somebody who believes in what you can find out for yourself.
And to me, that's a really good thing.
Not that we have any answers to this, and some of them are complicated, like the whole financial picture is extremely complex.
But my guess is, once you clearly understand that the world is not as we were told, You will start to question and you will get better and better at finding your own answers and finding things that lead you to make your own way in the world.
And the reason this is important is if you believe in make-believe narratives, you inevitably do things that end up hurting yourself.
Classic example would be, you believe in there's a scary virus, either engineered, lab-created, or natural.
Therefore, you sign up willingly to let people inject toxic stuff in you, which causes all kinds of manner of injury, blood clots and strokes and heart attacks and New incidents of cancer which weren't seen otherwise.
All kinds of things start happening to you, and it all stems from your belief.
There must have been a virus.
I was told there was a virus by trusted institutions whom you no longer trust.
At this point, like I say, you start looking into, so what does cause illness?
Now, not to say that I have a perfect model, but one place to start is, well, let's look at the four things that I've mentioned that cause illness.
One is injuries.
You fell off a horse.
Two is you're starving.
This could be nutrients, fats, proteins, trace minerals, clean water, starving of love, nourishment, emotional support, shelter, clean water.
You name it.
You could be starving of lots of things.
You could be poisoned, and there's a whole long list as long as your arm of glyphosate, electromagnetic fields, etc., etc.
Or you could be delusional, and every time you're delusional, meaning you believe in make-believe stuff, you will eventually act on that and do something that will harm you.
My guess is, once people understand that the old germ model is no longer valid, and this model is valid, they will start to demand, we want a world where everybody gets fed proper food, where they get an emotionally healthy place to live, where they're not inundated with toxins,
So, to put this on a very practical example, when you talk about milk, you go from just worried about whether there's bacteria or listeria or something in the milk, so you just heat sterilize it and essentially denature the entire food, To now we become a culture that cares about the health of the cow and whether the cows are eating toxins.
So whether they spray the fields with glyphosate or put artificial fertilizers or have cows eat dead cow parts or cardboard.
All of that will eventually find its way into the milk and sicken and poison the consumers of that milk.
That is what we would start to care about at that point.
So we would demand some system, maybe something that we create ourselves.
If you want to sell us our milk, we have to know personally some sort of verification system of people we know and trust, not Government agencies which lie to us over and over again, but something more local, something of people you can actually question, farmers you can actually talk to and visit their fields.
How do you care for these cows?
Is there anything toxic in the cow or in the milk?
You may want to do some tests.
So we would have a proliferation of labs that actually do testing to see whether there's any poisons in our food.
And so we would know for sure just citizens, people, men and women coming together to say we understand how this works and we are not going to consume products that were not grown or made in the right way.
This would also apply to, once we understand, because we've now started to question the whole picture of biology that we were taught in school, and we start to realize that most of what we were taught is just make-believe artifacts, and that all there really is, is essentially a tissue made of organized water with some stuff in it, like
Minerals and proteins and nucleic acids and lipids dissolved in the water with a mitochondria to make some stuff that eventually helps with the energetics of the tissue.
It has an antenna.
And it has an antenna and a capacitor called a nucleus, which collects electromagnetic fields it collects information from the outside, from the sunlight and from the earth, and from sound and from song.
And from the birds and the crickets and the wireless devices, and we would demand that we know where all these inputs into our precious transmitter, our precious watery system, which we would then focus our attention on keeping our water clean.
Keeping the number of ions, the minerals that we need, keeping up the right amount of fats and proteins, so we would have a healthy pool of water.
And then we would pay very careful attention to the information coming into the system.
We would all expose ourselves to sunlight, and to fresh air, and to nature sounds, and walk with our bare feet on the earth.
And sit by streams and pet our beloved animals and care for our sheep and chickens.
And we're starting to talk about a whole new world of connection between the living water and the inputs coming from the inside.
Both of which would be of profound impact and interest to all of us.
So we would really care about the structure and the purity and what's dissolved in our water.
Is there glyphosate in the water?
Is there fluoride, which is a neurotoxin in the water?
Do they put toxic chlorine in our water?
All of that helps to destructure our cells and make it so our ability to download information from our world is compromised, leading to sickness.
We're talking about a world where we don't accept this kind of sickness as being normal.
We've gotten rid of the antibiotics.
We've gotten rid of the vaccines.
We've gotten rid of all the chemicals that make us sick.
We have a whole different conception of disease.
We end up with a whole different modes of therapy.
clean our water, care about the inputs that are coming in, and therefore we start to resurrect the time-honored strategies of using sound healing and light healing and warmth and saunas and therefore we start to resurrect the time-honored strategies of using sound healing and light healing and warmth and saunas and sweat lodges and coles toxins and
We use detoxification programs.
We start to relearn about plants and minerals.
And how the animals heal us, and how sounds and light heals us.
Things that have been known about by various human cultures for millennia.
And now we're talking about a whole different world where everybody is concerned about the care and the healing of ourselves and our planet and the animals.
And by the way, all the animal experimentation, most of which is done testing viruses and testing genetic this and genetic that, we don't need any of that.
We can stop this wholesale mass torturing of the animals.
Which has become an underlying part of our culture for decades.
We start to develop a whole different relationship to the animals.
We see ourselves truly as caretaking for the entire natural world, including plants, animals, and the waters, and the trees, and the soil.
And we do it as if our life depended on it, which it does.
Now, once we've gotten all this, so now we have a world without autism, without most of the diseases that come because of the failure to understand how actually biology works, We start to think about this picture of what a realistic tissue living structure is made of.
We start to understand that this is a picture that many, many different people throughout history have actually shared and worked with.
And we start to develop a respect and an ability to learn from people who knew more about sound healing and light healing and the purification through water than we are in our infancy in that.
So we lose this sort of arrogant attitude that we have that somehow we know best.
Because we can do surgery and chemotherapy and antibiotics and vaccines.
And we start with humility to say, what did these people know?
How did they do this sound healing?
How did they use these tuning forks?
How did they use light?
Why did they put organs to broadcast healing frequencies in these so-called cathedrals?
Why did they make these structures with the same components as the human tissue?
With antenna into domes that are then capacitors into the water, which then transmits the energy.
Why did they, how, what did they know in order to do this?
And now we start to build a whole different world of energy generation, of economics, We start to ask questions of, how did this money get created in the first place?
Who controls the money?
Because now we're used to questioning official dogma.
And I could go on and on, but I think you can see that we're talking about a world that's much different than the world we currently have.
And it all starts with Essentially questioning the delusions.
Is this really true?
And then you have to do this process of, is there really a tree?
How do I know?
You don't know that there's a virus because three people got sick on a golf course.
That is delusional thinking.
Nobody actually would think that.
If you don't believe me, if you ask yourself the question, what do virologists do to prove the existence of a virus?
So the answer would then be, so they all go to work, there's 10 virologists, they get their hazmat suits on, they sit around a table and they say, anybody know if anybody got sick playing golf?
Guy says, yeah, I know three people, they all got sick playing golf.
There you go, proof it's a virus.
So that's obviously absurd.
Once you start getting used to thinking like this, thinking realistically, thinking logically, thinking rationally, thinking about what science is meant to be, the whole world will start to open for you and you will choose not to spend your precious life
Subjugated, or working for, or schooling from, people who simply don't want to get it, don't ask the questions, don't know how to get it, or, interestingly, are blatantly antagonistic to anybody finding out the truth.
That's where we're at, and I'm talking about this being the first step, a major step, in unlocking a world which we could only at this point dream of, and it's a world that I hope to see in my life.
So, I would welcome any comments and feedback on this.
And hope to see you on Saturday, and otherwise I will be back next Wednesday for another webinar of a subject to be decided later.
▲
Export Selection