All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 2, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:09:25
What DOESN'T Make You Sick - Tom Cowan at the Weston A. Price Conf. Oct. 21, 2022
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So I just want to, first of all, say thank you to everybody who's come up to me the last day.
And just, I mean, it's incredible.
Just the well wishes and what I've heard.
Even my grandson AJ came up to me and said, Grandpa, do you know you're famous?
I'm not sure.
I don't know what to say to that, but anyways.
So I want to thank everybody who's come and expressed that.
I also want to thank all the people who are working with Dr. Collins-Garden and Dr. Tom Cowan, because I'm incompetent in a lot of areas, including this.
This is the first time in my life that I've ever done a talk, live talk, with a PowerPoint.
So without them, there's no way I could do this.
I want to thank my amazing wife.
And I have another group of people that I want to thank right now, besides the Western Prize Foundation.
I always forget.
And that is my critics.
And as some of you know, I have a lot of them.
And the reason is, If it weren't for the critics, I don't think I would be 100% sure that what I'm going to tell you is correct.
And so it's really been an incredible gift to work through this with my friends and colleagues so that I don't just spout things that I don't really know.
So with that, this is called what doesn't make you sick, and then part two will be what does make you sick.
And so we could summarize the first part in one word, which is called virus.
I know most of you have heard this before, but I'm going to try to put it into So that when you leave here, nobody can tell you anything that will throw you off.
And then maybe we can be done with this.
That probably won't happen.
So, the first thing, which I think is crucial, is to step back a little bit and to say, how do we know anything?
How do we, and it's interesting wording here because I like to say human beings, some people prefer men and women, and I don't really want to get into that right now.
I don't know if I'll say people or humans or men and women or whatever.
You know who I mean, like us.
How do we know something?
Because once you've got that compass figured out, how you know something, then the rest is actually easy.
So, what I would submit is there's two plus fundamental ways.
The first way is we have a thing, right?
A thing is something that exists.
As opposed to an idea, which may exist, but it's in a different category.
I'm talking about a physical thing, and without getting into metaphysics about that, everybody knows this thing is real, and I have pants, and all the rest of it.
So, the question is, what is the principle behind that?
And I think the principle is fairly simple.
You make a definition of the thing, And then you go to the natural habitat where you expect to find the thing.
And then you see if you can find the thing.
And then if you want to know what the thing is made of and what it does, you take the thing out of its habitat.
In other words, you isolate the thing according to the definition of isolation.
And then you can figure out the parts of the thing And then you can study what the thing does.
Now, you can also study what the thing does without isolating it.
And that's pretty much the method.
Now, there are things that you have no sensory experience of.
Right?
The sensory experience I'm talking about, you hear it, you see it, you feel it, you touch it, you taste it.
And there's probably many other sensory experiences.
that tell you this thing is real.
Like nobody doesn't believe there's chairs.
Because if you did, you would have a hard time explaining why your butt isn't on the floor right now.
So, you make a definition, you go to the Habitat, which is a conference room, That definition of a chair has got, you know, three or four legs, it's got a seat, etc.
You go find it in the habitat, and then you've got it.
And if you're uncertain, you can ask other people, did you see that chair?
Yes.
If you ask everybody in the room, everybody agrees there's a chair.
You know the chair exists, it's real, you can study what it's made of, you can find out what it does, it does a bunch of things.
And then you know the chair is real.
Now, there are some things, admittedly, that you have no sensory experience of, because they're too small or too soft, the noise.
That doesn't mean they don't exist, right?
So at that point, you have to do something called science.
And this is probably the most important thing I'm going to say and something that I hope everybody really gets this.
When you do science, meaning look for, to show the existence of things which you have no sensory experience of, then you have to make sure that every single step of the process that you find that thing, you haven't altered The nature or even brought that thing into existence.
100% every single step of the way.
And I've talked to analytical chemists about this, and they tell me that in their line of work, which is finding things that you have no sensory experience, if you don't, quote, control every step of the way, in other words, validate that taking something out of its habitat didn't create the thing, Or shining a light on it didn't create the thing.
Or putting chemicals in it didn't create the thing.
And so you have to do somehow figure out a way to know that every step of your process didn't result in the creation of the thing or you have no idea that thing exists.
That's how human beings think, and that is the essence of this thing called the scientific method.
So, in other words, that process is essentially isolating what we call an independent variable, that thing which you're changing, and then you have a dependent variable, which is the thing it causes.
And you have to make sure you're testing just for that thing at every single step of the way, and really that's what I'm going to be talking about today.
Because if you don't, you will end up with illusions, delusions, and in the world of make-believe.
Finally, there is also the case that you can get to the point where there is no possible way to do this experiment.
And then you have to rely on something like faith.
And so you just are in a situation where whatever has happened in you, whatever has gone on in your life, you've come to the point where you believe this thing exists or this experience.
And one of my points is you should then acknowledge that.
This is what I believe to be true, and I'm going to commit a significant part of my life, if it's an important thing, to figuring out whether this is true.
Finding out if, in fact, I can validate this belief.
And so maybe you can switch that from a faith-based belief into, I know.
Because that's what we're looking for.
I know.
Not I believe, but I know.
No.
Okay.
Just to give you some examples of that quickly.
If you want to know whether trees exist, you make a definition of a tree.
It's got a trunk and leaves and branches.
And you go to the natural habitat, the forest, you see if there's trees.
If you want to study what a tree is made of, you pull out the tree, you analyze it, then you can watch the tree and see if it makes fruit or birds or whatever it does.
You can do that with things like frogs.
You make a definition of a frog.
It's got four legs.
It goes ribbit.
It's got two eyes.
It lives in wetlands.
You go to the wetland.
You see if there's any frogs.
If you do, and you're a mean person, you pull out the frog, i.e.
isolate the frog, and you kill the frog, and you find out what the parts of the frog are made of, I would suggest that you don't necessarily want to do that, but you could just watch the frog for 20 years, and you will know a lot about how frogs live, and what they like, and their whole ecosystem, and whether they eat flies or whatever.
And then you can check that with all your friends and neighbors, and you know there are frogs.
You can do that with bacteria.
You can't see them.
You have no sensory experience that they're such a thing as a bacteria.
But we're told they are.
So you go to the natural habitat of the bacteria, like your mouth, or a forest, or a log, or something.
You make a definition, single cell, it's got some things in it, moves around, they're rod-shaped, circle-shaped, etc.
You look for the thing.
If you want, you can pull it out, study it, what it's made of, find out what it does.
Then you know there's bacteria, and you know what it's made of and what it does.
You can do that with things smaller than bacteria called bacteriophages, which, interestingly, are the same size and consistency of what we call viruses.
But they happen because you have a bacterial culture and you stress the culture, meaning you starve it or poison it, and it forms these little spore-like forms to wait out for a better day.
And then when better days happen, they re-emerge as the bacteria.
That's not a virus.
That's a bacteriophage.
But the point is, it's the same size and consistency, composition, has the same material as what we call a virus.
You can do that with your credit card.
You say, I have a definition of a credit card.
It's a little plastic thing.
You can find it in your wallet and you know that it exists.
Find out what it is.
So, that's the foundation here.
Now, let's do that with viruses.
Right?
Because that's what we're looking for.
The definition of a virus is clear.
Pathogenic virus.
The virus that causes disease.
That is a protein coat with a piece of either DNA or RNA in the middle.
All of the proteins of the virus are coded for by that genetic material.
In other words, there's a code in the RNA or DNA that codes for those proteins.
It is self-replicating in a host.
So it gets into the host, replicates, makes more of itself, and then causes disease by bursting open the cells.
A mechanical disruption of the cell.
Right?
That is everybody's agreed on definition of this particular organism.
We do the same thing that all human beings do, which we go to the expected natural ecosystem habitat of this organism, like your lungs, or your blood, or your lymph nodes, or your urine, or your cerebrospinal fluid, etc.
We have this definition.
We know that it's not a technical problem to find it.
Right?
Because we can find things of that size, shape, complexity easily in other similar things or nanoparticles.
And here's the second thing that I think probably all of you know, but to take home here, there is not a single study in the published medical literature going back a hundred years Period.
has found such a particle in any biological fluid of any plant, animal, or human being.
Period.
And nobody disagrees with that.
Nobody disagrees, whether you're talking about a herpes lesion, right, The vesicle.
Whether you're talking about the lungs of somebody with, quote, COVID.
Whether you're talking about the snot from somebody with measles.
On and on and on.
The blood of somebody with Ebola.
The lymph nodes of somebody with AIDS.
There is not one published study in the scientific medical literature that shows that you can find that particle in any one of those fluids and nobody disagrees with that.
Nobody.
Which already should make you suspicious.
If that doesn't make you suspicious, I don't know what does.
And this was one of my favorite quotes.
There's another one which I didn't put up.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.
It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
That's Mark Twain.
The other one which I didn't put up was W.C.
Fields, which is, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.
And I think he was talking about virology.
Now, I'm sure most of you also know that we now have over 210, I think the number is, questions to various health departments around the world, the CDC, NIH, Canada, England, Russia, Germany, etc.
Do you have any published study that shows that you found SARS-CoV-2 in any single human being on the planet?
And then we have probably 40 or 50 for Ebola, measles, Zika, HIV, etc.
And they all say, we have no record of SARS-CoV-2 having been purified.
Purified means we looked at the sample and we took out the pure particle, just like you would take out the pure frog.
Or the pure fork from your utensil drawer?
There's nothing esoteric about this.
We all know what it means.
They've never found it.
And no analysis whatsoever about any kind of variant.
And they've said this about all the other pathogenic viruses.
And then, when you go to four Of the most important papers written about SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-2 is the virus, COVID is the alleged disease.
If you look in the answer, we asked them, not me personally, did you isolate, find this virus in your study?
By the way, the title of the study was often the isolation of the virus.
Right?
That's the baffling part.
And did you find it?
Answer A, no.
B, we didn't try to find it.
In none of them.
There is no paper where they even attempted to find this SARS-CoV-2 in any biological fluid of any person who was sick.
They did do this in the early days of virology when they got an electron microscope so they could see it.
And after 20 years, they were never able to find such a particle using a tool that would allow them to find it, and so they abandoned the ship.
There's nothing to this, they said.
And then it got resurrected.
So you can see, and you can read this later maybe, there is no example of that.
Now, the question is, why?
Right?
If you ask a virologist or somebody who believes in this, why do you think this exists?
Why do you think it's in your lungs if you can't find it?
Just to give you an example, here is one of the things they say.
These are classic virology isolation methods and techniques.
There's nothing idiosyncratic here.
And to isolate a virus by density gradient, you're basically, you would require somebody to be incredibly virulent, just shedding very, very large amounts of virus.
And you would have to have a body fluid that has that large amount of virus.
And even then, I don't think it would be possible.
Okay, what did he say?
By the way, I should have said that.
He mentions isolated, find it by density, sucrose, gradient, centrifuge.
That is the way you would find it.
That's the way.
So he said, the reason you can't find it by making a column of sugar and spinning it around real fast, and then the viruses would form in a little band, and then you would suck it out, and then you would prove that you have a pure virus, is because there's not enough to find.
So think about this for a minute.
This is supposedly the perfect culture medium, your lungs.
They say you are teeming with viruses.
They say the viruses get in and they reproduce in the perfect 37 degree temperature environment.
They reproduce, they mechanically kill millions and billions of cells, and that's how they cause disease.
And there should be, and I will show you in a minute, there's supposedly 20 million in a sneeze.
Why can't you find it?
There's not enough to see.
Not enough to see.
Now, the question then is, how is it causing disease if it's supposedly exploding the cells?
If you think about it, okay, it's incredibly tiny.
Like, how tiny?
Like a thousandth of a pinhead or less, because if it was a pinhead, you could find it easily in the ultracentrifuge, in the density gradient.
So it's way less.
Thousandths of a pinhead, if you think about it in human scale value.
So in other words, these viruses exploded the size of a hundredth of a pinhead of your lungs.
You can take out a baseball-sized piece of people's lungs, and that's called having a bad day.
But you don't die, and you don't make an abnormal, excessive immune response to losing a pinhead size of your lungs.
That would be a crazy body.
Why would you do that?
So, this is crazy.
Now, the other reason they give is, well, it's only in the cell, right?
So it's an intracellular, inside-the-cell parasite organism.
It doesn't go outside the cell, and that's why you can't see it in a density gradient.
Right?
You've heard that.
So how does it get to the next person?
Bursts out the cell, comes out of the cell, goes in the sneeze, in the snot, goes to the next person.
Why don't you catch it then?
Well, it's not there for like more than about six hours and we don't have enough money to pay somebody to look every six hours to find the organism in the snot.
Why don't you pay somebody with a net and he can catch everybody's snot and then he can find it?
You see, that's like nuts.
And so you go and look, and you see... That's why I don't use... So here's a study that says how many virions, that's number of individual viruses, up to 10 million.
And then I heard yesterday, 20 million in a sneeze.
And you can't find it.
And then they say it infects 100 virions or 10,000 cells, so we die because 0.0001% of our cells are affected by this virus, and somehow that's enough to kill us.
You see, this starts to strain credulity here.
Like, I don't think that's the way it works.
The other thing that's part of this is they say, well the evidence is there's nothing you can see in the beginning and then it explodes the cell and there's a whole lot of these pieces which they can't find.
As if in the principle of that is if you start with a few things and you end up with a lot of things And you don't see what happened in the middle.
That means it reproduced.
Right.
Like, you start with no paper outside your house, and then you blow up your house, and then you have millions of bits of paper scattered on the lawn, which means Dostoevsky got into your house, reproduced, and blew up your house.
That's not the only way you get more stuff.
It is one way, but that's not the only way.
And like I said, our goal is to make sure every step of the way is proven.
So, then we can go to some of the luminaries in virology.
So how do they find this virus?
so-called isolate the virus.
How do they claim they found the virus?
Because we know they didn't find it in any biological fluid.
So let's see what David Baltimore, Nobel Prize-winning virologist, who discovered reverse transcriptase, the enzyme that converts, allegedly, RNA into DNA, and therefore gives a mechanism for RNA into DNA, and therefore gives a mechanism for RNA viruses like measles and SARS-CoV-2.
Well, you isolate a virus by... Never mind.
That's why you isolate a virus.
All right.
OK.
Luke Montagnier, discoverer of HIV, Nobel Prize winner.
Just died recently.
Very prestigious.
Father of virology.
Again, discovered HIV.
Asked in The Emperor's New Virus, how do you find the virus?
How do you prove the virus exists?
Okay, I think I was taught wrong then.
I was taught that the purification part was to get all the proteins from the virus.
No.
Well, what's the purpose of the purification then?
Well, to make sure you have a real virus.
To make sure you have a real virus!
Come on, people!
In 2006, the person who did his electron microscopy for 20 years, 20 years, says, well, turns out we never saw a virus.
All we saw was junk.
We never once saw the virus, even though he said, that's the only way you know you have a real virus.
And to his dying day, he never fessed up and said, we don't have a real virus.
By the way, if you say, how did he show, because he never found the virus, what was his claim based on that he had found a virus?
It's very simple.
He took lymph nodes of a person he said had this disease called AIDS, he stimulated them to grow with a chemical called PHA, and then when the lymph nodes, lymphocytes, sorry, lymphocytes grew, he assayed for this enzyme called reverse transcriptase, said he found it, said that proves the existence of a new retrovirus, and called it Eventually, HIV.
And the proof that HIV was transmissible to other people was he took this culture of lymphocytes stimulated with PHA, and he put it in a culture of lymphocytes from a normal person, and that culture also got reversed.
They assayed and found reverse transcriptase in that culture as well.
And that was the proof, the proof, that HIV is a transmissible disease.
Even though the other person who did this, Robert Gallo, wrote a paper ten years before saying every single culture from anybody with lymphocytes stimulated with PHA, you will find reverse transcriptase.
Ten years before they wrote that paper, Montagnier knew it, Gallo knew it, they all knew it.
That had nothing to do with proving that there was a retrovirus or any kind of virus in there at all, because every single lymphocyte culture has PHA.
Later in the movie, David Baltimore fesses up and admits that's the case.
That's how they proved that HIV exists and remains so to this day.
Okay.
Now, the next question is, okay, so how does a virologist, because this is the question when you talk to anybody that you have to ask them.
How does a virologist prove the existence of this virus and show that it causes disease?
You can't find it in any fluid.
We know that.
The reasons they give are frankly ridiculous.
So how do they do it?
Because there are something like 10,000 papers in the medical literature that are called the isolation of such and such a virus.
And they will show you the title of the paper.
And they'll say, see?
How can you say this isn't true?
But you have to know, what did they do?
And did they validate every step of it?
So here is what they did.
And remember, this is not a proof of the virus.
This is the proof of the existence of any so-called pathogenic virus as we earlier defined.
So, they take... There's two ways, but the main way.
They take snot from somebody who they allege has a certain disease.
Measles, or in this case, COVID.
Just to be clear, everybody knows what I mean by snot, right?
It's snot.
They take that snot and sometimes they centrifuge it, not ultra centrifuge it to purify it, but just to get rid of the big stuff, cells and fungus and debris.
That is not purification and that has become a sticking point because people have said, but they purified it.
They purified the snot a little bit.
They didn't purify out a virus.
That's the important point.
Or sometimes they filter it.
But again, that is not a purified virus.
If you claim that, you have to show pictures of the purified virus.
There is no example of that.
They say it can't be done.
So they take that unpurified snot, And they put that on a culture, cells of monkey, green monkey kidney cells that are highly inbred, aneuploid, sick, and have a tendency to break down.
Right?
And then they mix in antibiotics specifically that are kidney toxic, genomicin and amphotericin.
Kidney toxic to a culture of kidney cells.
Then they take away the nutrients of the medium.
So it was growing on good food, like nourishing tradition's diet, and then they put it on the standard American diet, took away the nutrients, and then they mix in fetal bovine serum, which is sucked out of the heart of a newborn cow.
They mix that in a culture.
They keep it at the same temperature.
They watch it grow.
Five days later, the cells break down, called cytopathic effect, CPE.
And that is the proof the virus exists and causes damage and breaks down the cells.
Everybody got that?
Not a proof.
Not one of the proofs.
That is the proof for the existence of all pathogenic viruses.
It's called the cell culture, started by a guy named Enders, who got a Nobel Prize, not for this, but for something else, but sort of like for this.
Never mind.
And in 1954.
Ever since then, that was the rejuvenation of virology, and that's how they do it.
Now, if you ask them, but how do you know it's not the genomicin, it's not the amphotericin, it's not starving it, it's not the fetal bovine serum, it's not something else toxic in the snot of a sick person?
How do you know that?
Well, we do a mock infection.
So the definition of a mock infection Having to write it down.
A control used in infection experiments.
Two specimens are used.
One that is infected with the virus of interest and the other is treated the same way except without the virus.
A. How do you know a virus is in there if you haven't found it yet?
And B. We already know they never took the virus out of the snot.
Right?
They said that.
You can't find it in the snot.
So how did they take it out and so the virus was the only thing that was different?
Answer.
If you go to all the hundreds and thousands of papers that we've read over these past two years, there is not one actual mock infection, there is not one actual control ever been done on this procedure.
Never, because they can't.
They can't take the virus out, so that can't be the independent variable.
They just do all kinds of things.
Generally, they don't even write down what they do in this experiment.
You have to pull their teeth and write them, and then you say, well, we did it the same.
Except sometimes they don't put the antibiotics in.
Why?
Well, because we didn't put any snot in, we just put saline in the control.
So instead of snot with all that stuff, we just put saline in the control.
And because there was nothing from a biological specimen that could be infected, obviously we don't need to put antibiotics in!
Right?
So how do you know it wasn't that you didn't put the antibiotics in by the way that are poisonous to the kidney, that that wasn't the reason?
Well, we didn't put them in to kill the cells.
We put them in to kill the bacteria that might have been in the snot.
It doesn't matter why you did it.
It's just that you didn't.
And therefore, that is not a controlled experiment.
And there is no way that experiment could prove the existence of the virus.
And yet, that is the proof for all of them.
All of them.
Now, we, and when I say we, just to be clear, this is Stefan's experiment, Stefan Lenka, you probably all know about him, but we helped fundraise it, and Andy and I sort of talked with him about it.
Stefan doesn't need our help to talk about it, but anyways, he thought we should say we, so I say we.
He decided to run this experiment, and so, to see what they would get.
So he got a lab, and in the first column, they just took the cell culture, and they put a little bit of antibiotics, kept the nutrient medium the same, and no snot, nothing from anybody who could or would be sick, and five days later, it was perfectly normal growth.
You can see in the column.
Then you put some fetal calf serum.
It's nasty, but you've got to do it.
So 10% plus the same amount, a small amount of antibiotics.
Five days later, no breakdown of the cells.
Then, you take away the nutrient medium, exactly like all of the cell culture experiments.
All of them.
Minimal nutrient medium, still a little bit of fetal bovine serum, and the usual amount of antibiotics.
Nothing from anybody who's sick.
Nothing that could have a virus in it.
Nothing.
And what do you get?
Cytopathic effect, proving the existence of the virus.
Right?
End of story.
And then, when you do the same thing, and you add some yeast RNA, RNA from just a normal yeast, it makes it worse.
And then, because you added RNA, I'll get to this in a minute, you can then sequence the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
Or any other RNA genome that you want is in that mix because none of them are in the mix.
It's just sticking little pieces together and making them into one long piece.
And if you stick little pieces of yeast in there and you put it into the computer, it will make the long piece that tells you you found the virus.
Proving that there is no genome in there.
This is just little bits of RNA which are made more of by the PCR process and you added them with yeast and so there is no sequence.
There is no genome.
So the cytopathic effect, the proof, happens because of the experiment and if you add nasty stuff To the culture like yeast, apparently inbred monkey kidney cells don't like yeast.
Just like monkey kidney cells don't like snot from toxic people.
That's not their preferred diet.
So they break down even more.
There's no virus at any part of this process has been isolated.
Is that clear?
Good.
And by the way, essentially our viral challenge is to try to expand on this and prove it again once and for all.
Now, people say, yeah, but silly Tom, we've seen, never mind, we've seen the virus.
Right?
How can you say, we don't have this virus, the virus doesn't exist?
We've seen the virus.
See?
Never mind that it was a Sussex University graphic arts competition, etc.
Never mind.
But, not only have we seen the virus, we've seen multiple versions of the virus.
Like that one.
And all I can say is if you believe these prove the existence of a virus, then you believe that proves the existence of a unicorn.
Or that.
I missed one.
Never mind.
All right, Tom, get real.
We're not talking about these pictures.
These are drawings in computer.
We're talking about that.
You've seen this.
This is an electron microscope from a cell culture, proving the existence of the virus.
You see, that's the right size, protein coat, stuff in the middle, spikes.
Spike protein, those dots.
And it kind of has a corona.
That's it.
Never mind that the steps, this is from a cell culture, never mind that the steps are macerating, freezing to a hundred and some degrees below zero, staining with heavy metal dyes, shooting a high-intensity electron beam that gets rid of all the water, etc., etc.
Never mind.
This is a real, this is the proof.
Or, that one.
Thank you.
Even better.
See these?
The coat, same right size, spike protein, etc.
Wait a minute.
I think my cell phone went off.
Yeah, it did.
Just a minute.
I got a call.
This is from the person who does my PowerPoint, so she's calling.
You mean you put in the kidney biopsy one here?
That's not actually SARS-CoV-2?
Oh.
Because you thought I was doing the kidney toxic talk.
No, yeah, yeah, okay.
You know, friends, we all make mistakes, right?
So this is not from a journal that says it's SARS-CoV-2.
This is from a kidney biopsy in before 2000, where there was no possibility that it was SARS-CoV-2.
And, as I'll show you, they say there is no way that anybody can tell the difference between electron microscope pictures of kidney biopsies, lung biopsies, or the alleged virus.
For those who don't believe me, I have what I call my pumpkin challenge, because I know my wife is going to think, he's not going to be up there telling pumpkin stories, is he?
But anyways, no, except one.
So, I have 11 electron microscope pictures.
Some of them are SARS-CoV-2, some of them are kidney biopsies or lung biopsies.
So I taught Pumpkin to say yes or no, he's a cat.
And he says yes, mostly times he says yes, especially if he wants to eat.
And he got 6 out of 11 right.
And I have offered to show it to any virologist, can you beat Pumpkin?
Because they look identical.
They look identical.
There is no way anybody can tell the difference.
And you can see this has been in the medical literature.
So we have observed morphologically indistinguishable inclusions within podocyte as part of the kidney and epithelial cells negative for coronavirus in renal biopsies from pre-COVID.
These are morphologically indistinguishable.
They even tell you the size is the same, etc.
I won't read that whole thing.
They even tell you that that protein called the spike protein is actually a typical human kidney protein called clathrin.
It is not a spike protein.
It is clathrin.
And they make it look like that by putting an enzyme called trypsin in it to digest the outer piece so it looks like a corona.
They also say that they've known about this since the 1970s.
The CDC has known that there is no way you can tell the difference between kidney biopsy junk, cellular debris, lung cancer junk, cellular debris, and what they're calling SARS-CoV-2, or any so-called pathogenic virus.
It is simply not possible, and there's 20 other studies that demonstrate this.
Pumpkin will be unbeaten.
So, they go on to this, they give them different names, exosomes and multivesicular bodies, and they try to make fancy names so they get more grants, etc.
But they're just cellular debris junk.
And then the final proof, which I alluded to in Stefan's studies, is... Okay.
So we can't find the virus in its habitat.
That's because there's not enough.
By the way, we asked this one eminent virologist, if you put 10,000 people together and collected their sputum all together, would that be enough to find it?
He said no.
10,000 people.
They're not enough to find.
Can't find it like that.
You put it on a cell culture, cell culture breaks down, that proves the virus.
We know that's not true.
You see the pictures of it.
We know that's not true.
Tom, you find the sequence in the cell culture stuff.
So, number one, there is no entire sequence called SARS-CoV-2 genome in any fluid from us or any cell culture fluid.
What they do is they take all the genetic pieces, in this case RNA, chop them up into little bits, put it into the computer, and in the first case, The computer gave them over a million different possibilities.
And in the other software, 342,000 different possibilities.
This is exactly like if somebody put 56 million pieces of Lego in front of you and said, make King Beauregard's castle.
And you say, what did it look like?
Not telling you.
This is de novo, anew, unbiased, I'm not telling you, synthesis of the castle.
Yeah, but how am I supposed to do it?
I don't even know what it looks like.
I give you a million dollars, you do it.
All right, I'll do it.
So, what would you do?
You take these 56 million, and you would arrange them, you'd find something that looks like a moat, and a flag, and a turret, because everybody knows castles have turrets, and then you would give the person a million different options.
And he would say, which is the right option?
The biggest one.
How do you know?
Because it's the biggest one.
How do you know it was the biggest one?
I don't.
But it was sort of like the previous version of King Frederick's castle that was made in 2003.
It's 89% similar.
It's 89% similar.
Meanwhile, we are 96% similar to chimpanzees.
So it's not similar at all.
Anyways, by consensus, that became the SARS-CoV-2 genome.
Every subsequent analysis, they put that genome and tell the computer, make it along that lines.
That's King Beauregard's castle.
Ever since then, you make it to look like that, but you make some mistakes, and you have your own ideas, so you make it a little different, and that's called variance.
And by the way, I should have said this in the beginning, every single thing I'm saying now applies to so-called natural viruses and so-called lab-engineered, gain-of-function engineered viruses.
It is exactly, exactly the same.
They no more exist than any natural virus.
Period.
You have to, in either case, find the virus.
So there is no genome.
And again, when we do the studies, like Stefan, you can synthesize, if you put some extra RNA, put it in a computer, it will make the genome, proving the genome isn't there.
And so here you have virologists in their hazmat suit, protecting themselves against a genome from a virus that only exists in their computer.
That's where we're at.
I got done a little bit earlier, so maybe I can have questions.
So, that's the virus story.
Again, I'll see if there's any questions.
But, as I've said, in the last two years, most of the important things I've learned in life, I've learned from pumpkin.
There's pumpkin.
And here's one of them, this story.
The other day we were feeding them.
Pumpkin didn't come, that's not so unusual.
And then we were sitting on our deck and he came later and of course wanted food.
And we were sitting there and we gave him his food.
And it was stormy and not very nice out.
And we could hear the coyotes howling in the woods.
And it was just sort of nasty, and I thought to myself, please, Pumpkin, come with Grandpa, that's me, to the greenhouse.
That's where he has his palace and he sleeps, you know, in his lamb's wool bed and all that.
And so Pumpkin eats, and we start walking, and we walk a little bit, and Pumpkin starts heading for the woods.
And I thought, come on, pumpkin, come with me to the greenhouse.
Pumpkin walks, looks back at me, goes... Grandpa, I have to be free.
And so this song, to finish with, is from Pumpkin and a friend of mine, June Roberts, called Safe and Free.
Because that's what this is all about.
I got up to go to work today.
There was no work for me.
The governor closed my shop, he said to keep me safe and free.
I've had my shop for twenty years.
It feeds my family.
Now we have to stay inside to keep us safe and free.
To keep us safe and free.
Call my dear old mother.
Mother said to me.
Son, I miss you dearly.
But you cannot come to tea.
Children miss you, mama.
They're as healthy as can be.
A hug can kill their grandma.
Keep them all away from me.
Keep me safe and free. .
Giant tech, billionaires, pharmacologies.
Spinning like a top to move the wheels of industry.
Amazon and Walmart, the consumer pedigree.
They can do their business because anyone can see.
Keep us safe and free.
Technocrats, robot gods and blind authority.
Sell your soul and pray to them.
They'll keep you safe and free.
Biotech behemoths say they have a shot to me.
I trust them with my body and forgive them for their greed.
If it keeps me safe and free. .
Keep us safe from terrorists.
Keep us free from germs.
Keep us from the danger of the wisdom we have learned.
Till the books have burned Music by Ben Thede The governor says to wear a mask.
I cannot disagree.
I cannot breathe or speak my mind, but at least I'm safe and free.
I'll wear my mask for you. - Whoa.
Yeah, it's the message from Pumpkin.
If I can't be free, there's no point in being safe.
Because it's not safe anyways.
It's a phony, safe, phony like the phony virus.
The whole thing is phony make-believe.
And we can find a much better way once we explore and learn what we're really made of and how it all works.
And that's what we're going to do in the next session in 45 minutes.
So we have maybe 10 minutes.
And so happy to entertain questions if people want to come up.
You can feel free to pass on this question, because it doesn't necessarily pertain to what we were just talking about.
But people like Malone, and even Kennedy, who are promoting this narrative that there are bioweapon labs, that this virus was created, do you think they're acting out of ignorance, or do you think there is controlled opposition?
I absolutely don't want to get into why anybody says anything.
All I know is it's not true.
There is no engineered virus because you would prove it in the same way you prove this.
And when we ask them, and we've asked all of them, just sign on to our experiment.
And we will do the proper controlled experiments, and we will live with the results.
If you send 20 samples, 5 from COVID supposedly, 5 from influenza A, 5 from lung cancer, 5 from somebody who's well, and you inoculate them all the same on a cell culture, they should only get the CPE with the 10 viral, none with the other ones.
Period.
The whole thing blinded.
We make sure there is an actual independent variable, which means even then it's not an independent variable because there's a lot of factors, but it's at least a start.
The only way to prove this would be take the virus out, test just the virus, test the snot with the virus, test the snot without the virus, then you could validate it to see whether this is a valid experiment.
They refuse to do it, refuse to endorse this, and I have no idea why.
Yeah?
So correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like what they're calling viruses are dead cell debris.
It's all just debris.
There's no function, there's no does this, there's no virome.
There is no virome.
They say there's 10 to the 48th powers of virome, viruses in us.
10 to the 48th.
If you hear that, and you want to be a jerk like me, you say, are you sure it's not 10 to the 47th power?
Yeah, well you can actually talk them down to about 10 to the 5th.
And the way they find that number, there are no 10 to the 48th different particles.
You have to find the thing first to know that this piece came from the thing.
Right?
That's how people think.
That's called reality, folks.
You cannot say a piece like a PCR sequence came from a thing if you haven't isolated, purified, sequenced the thing first.
All of the PCR, it's not false positives, it's false.
The whole premise is nonsense.
You cannot say a piece came from a thing if you never had the thing.
They never found the thing.
There's no... nothing.
Sorry, I interrupted.
No.
So, is this cell debris a result of bacteria?
It's from everything.
It's from putting yeast on a culture.
It's from putting antibiotics.
It's from putting fetal bovine serum.
It's from EMFs.
It's from not eating nourishing tradition diets.
It's from wonky thinking.
Wonky thinking kills you.
That's my ultimate point here.
What do I mean by that?
So, delusional thinking.
Here's an example.
A guy I knew, anthroposophical doctor.
I talked to him 17 years ago about this.
There is no HIV.
He spent his entire career giving AIDS drugs to so-called HIV people.
Why did he do it?
Because he didn't look into it.
He believed in this delusional germ theory.
Then, of course, because he believes in this delusional theory, he takes four COVID shots.
Five days after the fourth one, he's dead of a heart attack or a clot.
Why did he die?
You could say he died from the shots.
I say he died because he spent his entire life thinking, believing in something that is completely make-believe.
What your thoughts have create actions.
What you think will dictate, direct what you do, and actions have consequences.
If he didn't think that, he wouldn't have spent his life doing that, and that's why I have spent these two years.
How do we think?
What is the thinking process?
Because once you get it, you've got it.
Yeah.
So related, so gain-of-function researchers, what are they, in fact, in reality?
They're doing all kinds of things.
They take cultures and mix them together and call it transfection.
And they put engineered, made-up sequences and put that in cultures and all kinds of things, making biotoxins, otherwise known as vaccines.
That's what a vaccine is, is a vaccine, as I said last night.
And this is one of the ironies, and I said this sheepishly last night, because if you ask pretty much everybody in, ask your doctor, go home, everybody, ask your medical doctor, how do they prove the existence of a virus?
He won't know.
What's in a vaccine?
How do they make it?
How do they make a live mumps measles vaccine?
Here's how they do it.
They take somebody who they say has measles, even though it's very difficult to tell the difference between measles and all the other so-called viral exanthems.
The way they make epidemics is they pool them into one diagnosis, and the way they make the epidemics go away is they separate them into 20 different diagnoses.
Very clever.
So, they take somebody with measles, they put their unpurified snot in a culture, fetal bovine serum, genomicin, amphotericin, and then it breaks down.
They call that isolation of the virus.
They put that in a vial.
That is a live viral vaccine.
It's goop from monkey kidney cells and all the rest of that stuff cycled over and over and then grown in huge vats.
And an attenuated virus is they take some of the vaccine, they take some of the proteins out of that, and they say, that's not the whole virus, that's just some of it.
And so that's an attenuated viral vaccine.
At no point did they demonstrate there's a virus in there.
At no point.
How could that possibly prevent people from getting sick?
All it does, it's a bioterrorism.
Engineering stuff to make people sick.
This is nothing new.
There's nothing secret.
This is just what they do.
This is how we make vaccines going back 70 years.
Until now.
Now we're going to make them different.
We're going to do it just putting other stuff in there, which we don't know what that is, and all the rest of it.
Related to what you just said, how is it that this gunk that's called, say, the chicken pox vaccine, seems to interrupt the childhood development of that expression of chicken pox?
Right.
So this, we have to understand, and this is what I'm going to talk about in the next hour and a half, hour and whatever.
So what is a disease?
Turns out, like 20 other things I'll talk about this afternoon, we made up diseases.
We didn't just make up viruses, we made up diseases.
What do I mean by that?
So you get a splinter in your finger, you make pus, because you didn't take the splinter out.
The pus is the infection.
That's what we taught in medical school.
You have an infection by a bacteria.
But everybody here, I could ask you to raise your hand if anybody disagrees, knows the pus is there to get the splinter out.
The pus is the wisdom, therapeutic response of the body to get the splinter out.
How do I know?
Because if you stop the pus, you will never get the splinter out.
So what happens if you put toxic junk in your lungs?
You cough it up.
Why?
Because your body wants to get rid of dead and dying and poisoned tissue.
The bronchitis is the therapy for breathing in Wuhan air.
Right?
It's not a disease.
Chicken pox is children are malnourished, not enough collagen, poisoned, toxic environment, something is wrong, plus a sort of normal maturation process So you come along and poison the child so that they cannot go through that normal cleansing maturation process.
Instead, they have a life of asthma and allergies and eczema and so-called ADD and all these other made-up terms for the process of stopping you from healing and you get worse.
Stop the presses.
And so it looks like you've lessened the incidence of the disease, the cleansing process, and increased all the other chronic things that never go away.
And every single time you do studies on what happens in populations, that is exactly what you see.
No exceptions.
No vaccines are exceptions to that.
They all poison you worse, so you cannot go through normal maturation and healing steps.
And then you end up eventually with cancer and all other kind of chronic diseases because now you're in the chronic phase of deposition, depositing one poison after another through your life, and now you've got a reservoir, a garbage can of poisons, otherwise known as a tumor.
It's very simple.
What would you do if you kept being poisoned over and over, and somebody kept you from getting the poisons out?
You would buy a garbage can, and you would put it in there, and then they would come along and say, we took out your garbage can, you're all better.
A little bit, you know, maybe.
And what happens if I keep putting garbage in?
Well, you put it in your basement, and your garage, and your kitchen, and then your bedroom, and then you can't live, and we call that metastasis, and then you die.
And that's exactly what you see.
It follows every single observation that you can see of what happens with people.
We need to stop thinking of these as diseases.
▲
Export Selection