All Episodes
Previous Next
March 14, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
52:51
Viruses and Evolution: Do Either Exist? Tom Cowan Webinar from March 12th, 2025
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, so those are a few just updates.
Let me just check.
I think that's good.
So, as always, you know, people are always sending me things, and that's where I get most of the ideas for the next webinars.
I want to try to keep responding to people's questions.
This week, a number of people sent us a Substack piece.
I don't know what you call Substack things.
They're not articles.
A Substack piece that was written by a longtime vet who's apparently active in the health freedom movement in Europe.
And he set about to debunk the No Virus movement, which, like all of them, he says is divisive and toxic to basically the goals of health freedom.
So I was sent this Substack piece and I read it.
And I must admit that when I read it, one of my first reactions was to, I got a little worried, I would say.
Maybe that's the right word.
And so I'm going to go through this piece, but I first want to tell you why I got worried.
And as I've said many times, I think, on my webinars, you know, one of the duties or roles of doctors Is to be on the lookout for different syndromes, different diseases, different symptom patterns, which are previously not recognized.
That's how a lot of our famous, quote, diseases have been recognized.
And so then if you're convinced there is something new that's happening, or at least a symptom picture, Which has not hitherto been recognized, then you can make the case that you have actually identified a new disease or a new syndrome or something like that.
And of course, I did that a number of years ago.
And as far as I know now, it's part of the official diagnostic manual for physicians.
And some of you probably will remember it.
And the diagnosis is called the Syndrome of Insufficient Thinking.
And the, I think you call it an acronym, is S-I-T or SIT. Now, the reason I was worried when I read this article was because I had thought that SID is a very, I would say, contagious illness or syndrome, but I thought it was confined mostly to people in the United States.
But to my shock, and this is the reason I was worried, when I read this piece, it was clear to me that Full-blown sit, or in other words, a person who was full of sit, had actually spread to Europe, where the person who wrote this article, this vet, lives and works.
And then I investigated further, and it does seem like it's actually sit is rampant in Europe.
And this is just one example of that.
So I thought I would go through it, and so you could get an idea of what full-blown or full of sit actually looks like.
So let me bring up the piece.
Hopefully you can see this.
I know there's been some issues with that.
Not that I want to advertise his substack, and apparently his name is...
Mies Bayesian.
I'll call him Mies.
So Mies has this, he's got a subset of predators versus the people.
So virus or no virus, germs or terrain.
And so he, you would think he's...
Quote, on our side.
You know, he's all about recognizing the evil deeds of the predators who want to do harm to the people.
But somehow he decides to, and he's a vet by profession, decides to weigh in on the virus argument.
And so he goes down here, describing a little bit.
But then he actually mentions me and Andy.
But he says the no germ theory is completely at odds with my 50-year experience as a vet and farmer, and I would like to tell you a few stories.
So these are stories that are meant to convince us that viruses are real and are the cause of illness.
20 years ago, before cell phone, I was a vet, and I was in Costa Rica, and there was a bunch of people there, and a few days later, they became ill and had high fevers and joint and muscle pains and sweating.
After 20 years, I suspected first-time dengue infection, spectacular but not dangerous.
Second day, one of them felt so bad he wanted to die.
Then he suddenly recovered.
Quite typical for dengue.
The fever returned, but only a night.
There the story ended.
They happily continued their stay.
And then he talks about some other people who had similar stories of people with symptoms.
And then you hear these stories in over 100 tropical countries, but not in cool places.
And apparently, good old me, that's the kicker here.
Because obviously we know that that proves there's a virus.
So then we know that because tiger mosquitoes, the principal vector for the dengue virus, they don't live in these tropical or in these cool climates.
So that's how we know that it's a virus.
Now, the main reason I'm bringing this up, besides to...
Make fun of the person a little bit, which is probably mean of me, is I want to hammer home a few things.
So basically, what did he see?
He saw a bunch of people get sick.
And maybe he saw a bunch of people with the similar symptoms in the same time, in the same place.
And basically, all of his examples are...
Like this, foot and mouth.
This one is something where he injects some pus into some animals and then they seem to do better later on in life.
So that's his proof that bacteria do cause infection.
Periodically, I injected the blood intravenously in the young dairy calves to multiply the germs.
And the peak of the fever, I would draw some infected blood, making it non-clotting, then inject it as a live vaccine into the vein of young beef calves, which I also gave an ear tag, and they seem to do better, he thinks.
And here we have the same thing with the foot and mouth disease.
So a bunch of people have the same symptoms at the same time in the same place, and that proves it's a virus.
And then we have measles parties.
So we have a bunch of people, children, get sick at the same time in the same place with the same symptoms.
So that proves it's a virus.
We have the flu experience where people all over get the same symptoms at the same time in the same place, and that's contagion written large.
So that's really proof.
And then we have the same thing with plants.
And so based on his own and others' experience, I conclude that pathogenic organisms like viruses are real and bacteria cause infection, and that's the proof.
The main point I want to make to Mies, if he happens to listen to this, is that one of the hallmarks of scientific literacy, which this is an example of scientific illiteracy, is when somebody makes a claim, in other words, A virus exists and is the cause of an illness called dengue fever.
There is no responsibility to provide an alternative explanation.
Science is not a process of comparing different models and then sort of guessing which one is correct.
Or which one makes more sense?
Because obviously, they both could be wrong.
And again, the example that I keep using over and over again is...
The boy who's 18 finds out he's adopted, goes to his best friend.
He was adopted out of China.
And the friend says, so who are your real parents?
And he says he doesn't know.
And he says, until you tell me who your real parents are, I don't believe you were adopted, which is the height of irrational thinking.
The issue of whether he was adopted or not stands by itself.
The issue whether these symptoms prove that there is a virus that caused these symptoms has nothing to do with whether anybody can give an alternative explanation for why these people 20 years ago, these three guests in Costa Rica got sick.
Let me give you an example that will demonstrate that.
So if you say, so what we're seeing here with every one of these examples is a bunch of people got sick at the same time, in the same place, with the same symptoms.
That proves it's a virus.
That's what he's saying.
Be very clear about that.
There is no looking for a virus.
There is no isolation of a virus.
There is no experimental method here.
There is just the claim that if you see a bunch of people getting sick at the same time, in the same place, with the same symptoms, somehow that proves it's a virus.
Or even that that proves it's a contagion.
So apparently by that logic, If you have rats in a basement and you put rat poison and then the next day all the rats are dead from bleeding to death, that proves it's a virus because they all had the same symptoms at the same time in the same place, so they must have had a contagious disease and it must have spread from one to the other, killing them all with the same symptoms.
And that is scientific illiteracy and nonsense.
In order to say it's a virus, you would have to define dengue or the flu or ehrlichia.
That's a bacteria syndrome, he claims.
He would have to define exactly what the disease you're talking about.
Then find a bunch of people who have those exact same symptoms or very similar.
Then you have to take some fluid or tissue from them.
And then you have to find the virus in them.
You have to then isolate, purify the virus.
You have to characterize the virus to make sure that all of the proteins are coded for by the genetic material of that organism.
You have to find out that that is an independent entity different from all the other entities.
In other words, you have to prove that this is a specific entity particle that you're dealing with.
Once you've done that and you've characterized it, then you take the purified virus and you expose it to people in the way that you claim makes them sick naturally, either through drinking it or spraying it or injecting it with a tick or something, and show that they get the same symptoms.
That is how you prove that there is a virus and that the virus is the cause of this syndrome.
You have to prove it is a replication-competent particle with proteins and genetic material capable of infecting and making other organisms like animals and people and plants sick.
And in no case in this paper is there even one mention of any of those steps.
This is purely a story.
And then the ridiculousness to claim that some other theory, so-called terrain theory, Couldn't possibly explain this.
How do you know that they didn't get some sort of poisoning?
Or how do you know it's some sort of psycho-emotional thing?
Or how do you know it's not some nutritional thing?
You have no idea from any of these stories that there isn't some other explanation which we don't know about because we didn't investigate.
In any case, no matter whether anybody can actually find out what happened to this or that person, has no bearing on the existence or the pathogenicity of a virus.
None.
And if that isn't clear, then this is a full-blown case of sit.
Full of sit.
This person is scientifically illiterate because they haven't understood the very first principle of what it is that you're trying to prove.
And by the way, just because you inject some people or animals or calves with some pus and then some of them do better...
Does not prove that the Ehrlichia was the cause of their problem otherwise.
In order to prove that this bacteria that you're claiming exists, called Ehrlichia, is the cause of a disease, It's very simple and straightforward and has nothing to do with whether anybody can find the explanation, a different explanation for why these calves or cows got sick.
It's very simple, logical, reasonable, and scientific.
All you do is you isolate this bacteria from somewhere in nature.
If it's a bacteria which do exist, that should be easy to do.
So you have a pure culture of bacteria taken from a bunch of animals, people, or plants who have identical symptoms.
You isolate it, purify it, expose other animals to the only pure...
Bacteria doing all the appropriate controls so that even the act of injecting something or the act of spraying something you control for.
But in that case, you only put all the other ingredients besides the bacteria.
So you might put saline or you might put growth medium in the control.
And then you prove that it is the ehrlichia that causes this disease.
Now, Mies, I will wait for you to send me that study.
I will wait for you to send me the study with dengue or with the flu or with foot and mouth disease showing that these animals or people with the same symptoms You were able to isolate and purify and characterize the identical virus from all of these people or animals.
Once you characterized it, you were able to create the same symptoms in...
A different animal or person, showing that it in fact is the particle that causes the disease.
And if you can't do that, I hope you have the integrity and the good sense to say, you know what, this has never been shown, proven to any scientific standard that these so-called viruses exist.
Or bacteria cause disease.
Show me the study that shows that Ehrlichia cause disease, only Ehrlichia.
It should be easy to do and obvious, but like always, you won't do it because it doesn't exist.
And this is a huge problem.
Because if it's the predators that we're trying to...
They keep using especially this virus story on the people over and over again.
So, in fact, by writing this kind of nonsense, you're actually taking the side of the predators who made up this story to bamboozle the people and basically put them in a, you know, biosecurity prison based on...
Pure nonsense.
Now, if this doesn't convince you, maybe this one will.
Because that's what we're talking about here.
Isolating a virus is pure science fiction.
Okay, hopefully that's...
I just want to jump to one of the questions before I go on with what I was going to say.
One of the questions was, it might make sense to include discussing the method of cryo-electron microscopy, cryo-EM, which supposedly allows for the visualization of viruses in their near-native state.
Without the need for staining, it is the latest debunk method to the no-virus crowd.
What are my thoughts?
So what's happening here is they take fluid.
Let me get back here.
Either directly, I've actually seen that, from the fluids of a sick person or the tissues of a sick person or a sick animal.
Or from a cell culture.
That's the more usual.
So let's say they take it from a cell culture.
They take the supernatant, the liquid part.
They spin off the cell part.
So they don't have a pure virus.
They have all the liquids that would be from a cell culture.
And then they do their high freezing technique, or cryo-EM, and they see particles which they claim to be viruses.
And some of the particles look like the same particle, and some of the particles look completely different.
And they say those are the viruses.
And then they show you different cryo-EM pictures.
From a person or an animal who has completely different symptoms and you see different looking particles on this freezing technique and you say, you see, that's a different virus.
But let's think about that for a minute.
The proof of the virus would be you take fluid directly from a sick person.
Which sometimes they at least attempt to do.
And then you purify the material so that you purify, isolate out the thing that you're calling the virus.
Right?
So then you have pure virus, and then you freeze it, and then you get a picture of this virus.
And then because it's now a pure virus, you can characterize it and find out what proteins it has, what genetic material.
One of the definitions will have to be all the proteins are coded for by that genetic material.
And then you have to show that that pure sample that you have...
That purified particle is able to be replication-competent, in other words, cause disease in another animal or person.
And that is a much different process than just taking fluids from somebody who's sick with an alleged viral disease and then saying, yes, see, that particle, that must be a virus.
That's nowhere near sufficient.
How do you know, especially because they don't show you the rest of the field, which has all kinds of other particles, and they don't tell you how come if there's 10 to the, I don't know how many different viruses, how come you can't see them all in the cryo-EM pictures?
What happened to the other?
20 gazillion different viruses that are supposedly living in our lungs and mucus and blood and urine and everywhere else.
What happened to them?
How do you know that this thing that you're getting a picture of Is in fact what we're calling a virus?
In order to do that, you would have to also check that.
Can you see the same picture from a kidney biopsy, from a lung cancer, from a normal person, and from people who have totally different, allegedly non-viral diseases?
So there's a whole lot of controls that would have to be done.
And all of them would have to be done with the same procedure, and then you would have to be able to blindly say, this is the virus and these rest of them aren't, including characterize it.
All of them have the same proteins.
All the proteins are allegedly coded for by that genetic material.
And importantly, those particles purified.
With, again, appropriate controls, are able to make other animals or people sick in the same way.
Once you send us that study, then we will have something to talk about.
But just having a picture of something without control, so you don't know whether, because every time we do this with electron microscope pictures, we've done many webinars on this in the Baileys and Mike Stone and Andy and Alec, showing that you get indistinguishable particles.
In other words, you cannot tell these...
Pictures from a kidney biopsy or a lung cancer versus what they're calling virus.
So there's no difference if you just freeze it versus if you stain it.
You still get particles which could be coming from the kidney biopsy or the lung cancer or normal people.
So that actually tells you nothing.
So hopefully that clarifies it.
It's really just always going back to the same thing.
If you want to prove there's a virus, you go to nature, find people who have the same symptoms, purify out the particle, characterize it, show that it causes disease in the normal way.
Again, purified from the next person, and then you have a logical, rational, scientific method of showing that something exists, and of course, that has never been done, and probably, well, not probably, it will never be done, because nobody has even got to the first step of showing that the particle actually exists.
Okay, let me just...
Say another reason before I get to a little piece on evolution, why this is important.
So here, probably a lot of people have seen this.
So they keep running this same story out to us over and over again.
So Gene Hackman's wife died from a rare...
Hantavirus killed his wife, officials say, and she was lying dead on the floor for seven days, and apparently he didn't notice.
And so what are the symptoms of the Hantavirus?
Spread by rodents through droppings, so apparently this very wealthy woman was busy cleaning up rodent crap all the time.
The virus can cause disease called Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome.
And what are the symptoms of the virus include fever, aches, and cough.
And sometimes include diarrhea and vomiting.
And then you can get shortness of breath and lung failure.
That sounds exactly like the flu or COVID or RSV. So these are nonspecific symptoms that...
Don't tell you anything.
You cannot make any specific claims about the cause of this person's illness from these kind of nonspecific symptoms.
And as Mike said, so what do we mean by a specific symptom?
So like if you had the flag of Costa Rica pop up on your abdomen, that would be a specific symptom which, as far as I know, doesn't happen.
And if that did happen, you would probably have that new syndrome.
But cough, fever, tiredness, shortness of breath, cough, etc.
That's nothing new in that.
And so that is, there's...
Doesn't tell you that it's some sort of new or different disease.
And so then you have to go through the same process.
Has the hantavirus ever been isolated?
Answer, no, except in a cell culture, which means it's never been isolated, which means it's never been found, which means it's never been characterized, which means it's never been shown to exist, let alone cause anybody to be sick.
And so it's just a psyop.
Why they're doing this, I don't know.
But they keep running this out, the bird flu, the hantavirus, over and over again, which is why anybody who's really on the side of freedom knows that unless we get past this virus nonsense, we're never going to be free of the predators.
And I just wanted to show you, because somebody sent me this this week, There was one court case, and people often misinterpret this, and they say this is a synopsis of the court case that Stefan won,
where he asked if anybody could prove that a measles virus existed in the German courts of law, and this guy, David...
Bardens took him up and he told Stefan to pay him a thousand euros and Stefan refused because he said, you haven't proven that this thing exists.
And so he showed him these six papers and then Stefan said, this does not provide adequate evidence.
And then, interestingly, if you go to the minutes of the court proceedings, page 7, first paragraph, there is the testimony of this guy who's the head of the Department of Medical Microbiology.
You see, people often will say, well, the only reason he won this was a technicality, because he said you had to show me one paper that shows the measles virus exists, and Barden's had to show six, none of which show that it actually exists.
And so that was the technicality that he won on.
But that's not true because this guy was one of the appointed experts at the trial, stated that even though the existence of measles could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens, none of the authors had conducted any control experiments in accordance with internationally defined This professor considered this lack
of control experiments explicitly as a methodological weakness, which is code for crappy studies of these publications, which are, after all, the relevant studies on the subject.
Thus, at this point, a publication about the existence of the measles virus That stands the test of good science has yet to be delivered.
And they also at the trial noted that the Robert Koch Institute, the highest Germany authority in the field of infectious disease, has failed to perform tests for the alleged measles virus and to publish these.
They said they made internal studies, however, refused to hand over the results.
And all this is basically meaning that there is no scientific evidence because nobody did proper scientific studies to show that the measles virus even exists, let alone could be characterized, let alone could be causing any disease.
Ruling of the court, which is the only time we've actually had such a ruling, which means at this point, nobody has had to pay anybody who's claiming these awards.
There's another one with, I think, a guy named Eckert giving...
1.5 million euros for anybody who proves SARS-CoV-2 exists.
And nobody is able to claim that.
Maybe Mies, you could try to do that and tell them about the, you knew somebody who got COVID and they got sick and then their wife got sick and that should prove it as far as you're concerned.
So I think you should submit that and see if you can get the 1.5 million euro claim, and hopefully that would help in your retirement.
So, yeah, that's...
The reason that this...
Again, I want to keep going back to this.
You know, I keep hammering this because it's such an important...
Aspect of what we're going through, and this leads me to the final thing I'm going to say about viruses, is I do have an update about the situation with the child, and now allegedly there's two children, maybe, who died of measles in the southwest United States.
So in talking, I actually was able to communicate with a doctor who personally was able to speak to the parents of this child.
And so I have, I would say, absolute confirmation that these were, you know, relatively not, let's just say, not wealthy people.
And the child was not doing well just in general and had chronic respiratory disease in general.
And a number of times had been to the hospital to get breathing treatments to help them out of their breathing dilemma.
And then once again, the child got sick, and then they were taken to the hospital, had a fever and a cough, and it sounded like their usual respiratory problems.
But this time, in spite of four requests by the parents to please treat them, the child with the breathing treatment, the hospital refused to do that, and eventually then the child died.
This, again, is a very tragic situation.
And I was not able to confirm yet, although we're still working on this, that during the hospitalization, the child was treated, so-called, or given a MMR or measles vaccine,
which then would have pretty much guaranteed that when they do tests for measles particles, Or measles genetic material they would find it, thereby being able to blame the child's illness on the fact that they got measles, which is about the worst case of a fraudulent medical situation I think I've ever heard.
In other words, they had a child who was sick.
Who needed some emergency treatment.
They refused to give it to them.
Instead, they gave them a toxic measles injection so that they would test positive and they would be able to blame the death on measles.
That, again, is one of the most tragic and sick situations that I think I've ever encountered.
Now, again, I just want to be clear, we have not verified for sure, and I think it's going to be very difficult to do, to verify that the child was, in fact, given a measles vaccine, which is against all common sense and protocol.
But I would point out, though, that, you know, in my continual talking about what I would do if I was HHS secretary, I would be all over this case.
I would be talking to every single person involved, every nurse, every orderly, every doctor, and I would get to the bottom of this and find out if, in fact, that is what happened.
Because if you're able to document this entire sequence, including the measles vaccine, You have evidence of an unbelievably cruel kind of fraud that I think would wake up so many people to the intentions and fraud committed by our so-called medical system.
I cannot think of a more powerful example.
And the fact that this is not done simply boggles my mind.
And I can only think of two reasons why you wouldn't do this.
I mean, you must know that there are people out there who are saying this.
It's not hidden.
So you obviously would know.
So one reason would be that you're in on the gambit, and you therefore don't want them to find out.
And I'm not saying that's the case, but that could be one reason.
In fact, I don't know if that's the case or not.
So I'm not saying that's the case.
The other reason, though, would be it's just incompetence.
I mean, that is the obvious thing to do.
If there's a case where they willingly, deliberately harmed this child, With a toxic injection in order to further a narrative, if it's me, I'm getting to the bottom of it.
I don't care what anybody thinks.
I'm getting to the bottom of it and I'm telling the world.
And the fact that that's not happening is beyond bizarre to me and heartbreaking.
So, again, this is not a secret.
Pretty much everybody, I think, knows about it, and this needs to happen as soon as possible.
Okay.
I don't know if I... It's hard to get into a sort of lighter note after that, but I did say that I would further my talking about...
What we call Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution, meaning that essentially what it means is that as a result of random mutations of the DNA, in other words, the theory says we have this DNA, which is the code of life.
It codes for the proteins.
It's a string of letters, A, T, G, and C. And they have a normal sequence for the organism or for the individual in the organism.
And then if one of the base pairs, the A, T, G, or C, gets mutated, i.e.
changed because of random factors or toxic factors or just so happens.
That's like random factors.
Then you have a change in the gene, and you have a change in the protein that's coded for by that gene, and then that protein creates a different phenotype or expression of the individual, and that individual may have a better survival advantage.
And therefore they reproduce more and then you get a new changed organism which is more evolved than the previous ones as a result of this process called natural selection.
And so that's their theory as to how all of the things that we see, all of the living beings that we see, bacteria, plants, fungi, animals, humans, That's how we all evolved one step after another of these genetic mutations, basically random, and then some of them create an adaptive advantage called natural selection.
They get selected for, they reproduce better, and create a new organism.
So the question then is, where's the proof of that?
And obviously...
The proof should be you take one organism and you transform it step by step into another organism.
Then you would have proven this through a process of maybe induced mutations in the first organism.
So you can speed up the process.
You can induce mutations, which would give you more raw material to select from.
Then you get new organisms that they get selected for because they have a reproductive advantage.
One thing leads to another.
One step leads to another.
And then you get...
The new organism.
So, researchers at MIT, here's the article, are trying to do this process and recreate woolly mammoths, the animals on land who are said to be the largest Land mammals, I believe, that have ever lived.
And they're doing this at MIT using these genetic selections, starting with mice, one step after another, creating the woolly mammoth.
And so I thought I would show you a picture of how far they've gotten so far.
So here's the woolly mammoth.
I don't think this is a picture.
I think this is a computer-generated image, but never mind.
And so they start with a mouse, and they've gotten pretty far into it.
So here you go.
You can then see a picture of the mouse who's well on his way to becoming a woolly mammoth, and there he is.
And they said in the paper that...
It should take not so long.
They're estimating, I think, 112,364,284 years, six months, and four days of this process of induced mutations and then natural selection.
So that would put it on a Tuesday, which is good, because then they'll be able to keep track of the woolly mammoth for the rest of the week before they go away for the weekend.
So as you can see, they've almost got it, and then at the end of it, they're going to try to mate the woolly mammoth and the mouse.
They're going to keep this mouse going.
They're going to try to mate it and create a hybrid mouse-mammoth.
And I can tell you, I don't want to be around when the mating session of the mouse and the woolly mammoth, especially if I was the mouse.
So that's where we stand with evolution.
And I don't know if I'll be around in 112 million years, but good luck to them.
And I'm sure they can use all the federal funding they can get to continue this exciting project.
Okay.
Okay.
I have time for a few questions.
It's like the theater of the absurd here.
But we all try not to just break down and cry.
Sometimes you just have to laugh and try to make fun of it and just make some sense out of this because otherwise it's just too awful and too crazy.
So this is a person, and I won't read, it's a whole page of a question, but they're wondering what it is that people are often asking.
If DNA isn't real, Or isn't what we're told it is.
And so the technical way to say that is nobody has actually scientifically proven the existence of a chemical called DNA intact in a living system.
And nobody has proven...
That this chemical, which has yet to be shown, is actually present intact in living systems.
Therefore, how could you prove that it actually is the code for life, i.e.
proteins?
So the question is, what is a GMO food?
I've seen...
People say DNA isn't real, then a moment later say GMOs are bad, frankenfood, which doesn't make sense if there's no DNA to modify into the new creature.
So, this is, again, I would really encourage people to...
Consider the thing that I started with.
You do not need a replacement model in order to falsify a claim.
That is such an important point of our evolution development of thinking.
In this case, evolution is correct.
Your thinking has to evolve and get more rational and logical and precise.
I can only just encourage and urge everybody to stick with this process, find the claim, and find out if it's true.
That way you will be able to discard almost all the claims of modern biology and physics and economics and politics and a whole lot of other things.
So find the claims, discard them, and then you will see a certain kind of magic happen in your life as you start to realize the actual way that living beings work and have been created and actually function and operate.
You will start to see inklings of that.
Diluted into the false claims, it's like there's a cloud over your thinking and you can't see it.
So I think we can say the idea that you can put one gene from a fish into a plant, into a tomato...
And splice the gene in with some sort of tiny little tweezers or a plasmid that's going to somehow magically insert it into this new genome and then create a whole different organism.
That has been falsified.
That doesn't happen.
But there are ways of using bacteria and using good old-fashioned hybridization and good old-fashioned plant breeding and selection and animal breeding and choosing things that you want and mixing them with different bacteria that make different proteins that you can actually create different proteins made by organisms that don't seem to make that protein naturally.
And so just because the mechanism of GMO isn't what we say it is, doesn't mean it's a healthy food.
In fact, in our garden and what I buy for my own food, it's almost all, if not all, either open-pollinated plants and old-fashioned heritage breed animal food.
Or maybe one hybridization, which is basically just old-fashioned plant breeding.
And when you're starting to get into mixing it with bacteria and mixing it with different proteins and trying to breed it to create organisms that make something they don't usually make, that is not the kind of food that I would want to eat.
I don't know the mechanism, but I can imagine it's very unhealthy and toxic food.
And so I would never eat that, even if it's a different mechanism.
It is a different mechanism.
But it doesn't mean it's good food.
Just because you don't know the mechanism of how this works, because they don't actually reveal how all these things were made.
A lot of it is proprietary information.
So it's very hard to piece together how each of these individual...
Foods was actually made, but as far as I can see, none of it is worth eating, and none of it has to do with splicing genes and using plasmids or tweezers or so-called viruses to shift a gene from one organism to another.
That's not the way it works.
And again, that's not a...
A formal debunking proof of that.
For that, you'd have to go to all the different talks we've done on DNA and Tam's articles and looking at whether DNA is really the code for the mRNA and how does the mRNA get out of the nucleus and all the things that we said.
So the whole thing starts to look very shaky.
that's not the mechanism.
So I think that's probably good for today.
There's a few other questions, but none of them really...
Are pertinent to today's information.
So I think I'm going to stop there.
And as always, I welcome people's comments.
And I hope I hear from Mies with the information that I requested, which is a formal evidence for the existence of viruses and that viruses are pathogenic.
And again, I hope this is the last time he will use, well, a whole lot of people got sick at the same time in the same place with the same symptoms.
That must prove it's a virus.
As if the virologists go to work, they get their hazmat suits on and say, we're looking for a new virus.
Has anybody seen a bunch of people get sick at the same time in the same place?
Somebody says, yeah, my Uncle Harry and Aunt Wilma and all my cousins, they got sick.
Guy says that proves it's a virus That's how we do it That is the height of absurdity.
Do that.
You will be ended up with a formal diagnosis of full of SIT. Thanks everybody.
▲
Export Selection