All Episodes
Previous Next
May 5, 2022 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
46:37
The Contagion Myth: Sally Fallon Morell, Thomas Cowan, M.D. and Mike Adams debate the plandemic
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, folks, welcome to Brighton Conversations.
I'm Mike Adams, your host, the founder of brighteon.com, and today we're joined by two special guests.
We have Sally Fallon Morrell, who is the president of the Weston A. Price Foundation.
You're familiar with her work, no doubt.
We've covered it many times at naturalnews.com.
We're also joined today by the vice president, Dr.
Tom Cowan, and his website is drtomcowan.com.
And also part of this mix is nourishingtraditions.com.
And joining us today to talk about viruses, pathogenic diseases, the COVID pandemic, and other aspects of all of this.
So welcome to the show.
It's great to have you here.
Thanks for having us.
Thanks, Mike.
Good to meet you, finally.
Well, absolutely.
It's an honor to have you on.
And you also have a book out called The Contagion Myth, which is why viruses are not the cause of disease.
I think that's a summary of the subtitle there.
That book, I understand, Sally, starting with you, that book is banned on Amazon.com, is that correct?
Yes, that's kind of a badge of courage for us.
We think that's wonderful.
Just shows how dangerous they think this book is.
But people can get it on BarnesandNoble.com.
Okay, it's on Barnes& Noble.
They haven't banned it.
Okay, great.
Also, can they purchase it directly from you at the Westin A. Price Foundation website?
They can get it from Tom, drtomcowen.com.
Okay, all right, fantastic.
So, how about this?
Let me ask you, for audience members who aren't familiar with your work, I think most of them are, but how about just a quick introduction from each of you about the Weston A. Price Foundation, your work, Sally, which has spanned many years of really important work about nutrition and the links to wellness, and then Dr.
Tom Cowan's introduction as well for those who don't know him yet.
Okay, so the Weston A. Price Foundation makes a lot of shocking statements such as the cholesterol is good for you, You don't have to worry about your cholesterol.
Saturated fats are not only nutritious, but important for your health, essential to good health.
We promote raw milk.
We promote the consumption of salt, plenty of salt.
We have warned people about the dangers of soy foods.
So people recognize our foundation as a group that makes shocking statements and backs them up with the science.
Ah, okay.
Now we're making another shocking statement, which is there's no such thing as contagious disease, that bacteria and viruses are not the cause of disease, and that every disease that we look at as contagious, we can go back and find better explanations.
Okay, so you're right.
That's a pretty shocking statement.
You're throwing out the whole germ theory of disease.
I know our audience is going to have questions.
I'll try to be their proxy today and ask you questions that I think they might have that come to their mind and so on.
It's going to be fascinating.
So, Dr.
Tom Cowan, go ahead, please, and introduce yourself.
My training was I went to college, went to medical school, was in the Peace Corps, taught gardening, started a family practice, and I looked into a lot of different kinds of medicine.
But the main thing about me was For whatever reason, I just didn't ever believe things because I was supposed to or told they were true.
So I started looking into whether the heart pumps the blood or is the reason the blood moves around the body, and I found that it actually wasn't.
And there's a whole other mechanism that moves the blood around the body.
So I wrote a book about that.
And then I wrote a book about cancer has nothing to do with genes or it's not a genetic disease.
It doesn't even reside in a problem of the nucleus where the genes are.
And then over the years I gradually, and I would say almost reluctantly, even though I've been involved in this for 40 years, looked at the evidence to see whether viruses in particular are pathogens, meaning they cause disease.
And I found, to my shock and surprise, I guess, that there is actually no evidence for that.
And I can describe exactly the steps that I went through to get to that, if that's of interest.
That is actually what the clear science shows.
And all I can say is, I mean, I can't help what I find.
I mean, it is just, it is what it is.
And I wouldn't actually care whether it was true or not, because I had no skin in the game when I started looking into this.
But I ended up knowing how to look into it, and that's the issue here.
Okay, alright.
Thanks for the introduction.
And what you just described, and what you're talking about, Sally, there are a number of prominent health analysts and journalists and so on, such as John Rappaport, I believe, who...
I don't know if you're in touch with him, but I'm a friend of his, and he's been analyzing a lot of this information for a while as well.
But let's start with the basics, and of course I ask this with respect, but how can you say that there are, are you saying there are no Are pathological viruses in existence or that they just don't cause disease?
Where do you begin on that?
Well, let's start with the bacteria.
All right.
As you can see those in a microscope, people understand those a little bit better.
And the idea that bacteria cause disease was formulated by Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch back in the 1800s.
Well, when you actually look carefully at Pasteur's notebooks, his private notebooks, you find that he actually could never make just a plain old bacteria make an animal sick.
If he mixed that bacteria with strong antibiotics or strong disinfectants, which are poisons, of course, and then he would inject that into an animal And then take the animal's blood and inject it to another in another animal he called that passage and then finally and every time with disinfectants and poisons and finally he would take that mix you know
kind of poisonous mix and inject it into the brain of an animal and yeah it would make them sick they would foam at the mouth or whatever and you know He made them sick by what he called virulent bacteria, but this is not what happens in the real world.
Now, sometimes we know that on certain conditions, bacteria can produce poisons, very potent poisons.
The best example I can think of is tetanus, where the bacteria produce terrible nerve poisons because of the condition they're in.
Same with something like a root canal, no oxygen.
You get terrible poisons.
But this is the terrain.
This is not the bacteria.
Anyway, in working through this, there were a lot of diseases where he couldn't even find a bacteria.
And he said, well, there must be something smaller.
And he called it a virus.
Virus means poison in Latin.
And he said, we'll find these later.
Well, they found them in the 30s when they developed the electron microscope.
They found these tiny little things inside the cell or outside the cell, and they said, ah, this is the virus that we've been looking for.
So they were prejudged.
You know, they were guilty before they were even discovered.
They were considered guilty even before they were discovered.
Okay, so I think one of the questions that would come to mind to people then, how do you explain, say, tuberculosis or bacterial pneumonia or E. coli, food poisoning types of infections or salmonella, things like that, that I think are pretty common in the dialogue of, let's say, food safety.
In fact, in our lab, you know, we test for those things in the food.
You know, I think the FDA requires companies to do that, and most companies don't, but we actually do it.
So how do you explain that?
You always find bacteria when there's dead and dying tissue.
That's one of the roles of bacteria, is to clean up dead tissue.
In the case of tuberculosis, you have degeneration in the lungs, and not always, but usually you find these tiny little creatures, they're really very small, which are then accused of Causing the tuberculosis.
It's just like a dead dog.
If you see a dead dog in the road, it'll be covered with maggots.
But no one would ever say that the maggots killed the dog.
The maggots are just there cleaning up the dead tissue.
And it's the same with the bacteria.
Why do we presume that the bacteria is the cause of the disease when they're just innocent bystanders?
By the way, Weston Price wrote a lot about tuberculosis.
And he noted that it never came into populations until they started eating Western foods.
It didn't come in the first generation because they had originally healthy lungs.
It always came in the second generation.
And his theory was that TB was basically, the basic cause was malformation of the lungs due to poor nutrition of the child growing up.
And that when they started to degenerate, That's when you got these little organisms in there.
Well, that is fascinating.
Can I interrupt for a second?
Please jump in.
Go ahead.
You know, I've had a lot of experience with trying to explain this, and I think if I can use you as a foil here for a minute, I think you and your audience will exactly understand how to go about logically, clearly, and scientifically understanding this issue.
Is that okay?
Yes, go for it.
I'm happy to participate.
So what our quest here, if we want to call it that, is to understand whether, let's say, a virus or a bacteria cause disease, right?
That's the issue.
So let's do a simpler example so we can see the logic here.
If we wanted to say, and be careful of the wording here, that the caffeine from coffee beans causes high blood pressure, right?
That's our quest.
So if I took coffee beans and ground them up and gave them to 10 people, And did controls, you know, appropriate controls.
Would you then be able to say that caffeine from coffee beans causes high blood pressure?
Well, no, you couldn't isolate it because there's more things than just caffeine in coffee beans.
So then if I put it through a filter paper and made coffee, and then I gave it to people and did a control with water, would you then be able to say that it's the caffeine from coffee beans that causes high blood pressure?
No, you still couldn't say it because you don't know what else is in there.
Right.
This is simple logic.
So then if I did the next step and I put it through a centrifuge and electrophoresis, and then I proved that now the only thing I have is caffeine, right?
And the only thing I started with was coffee beans.
And then I gave that to 10 people and they all got high blood pressure.
Then I think you would say I have now proven that the caffeine from coffee beans causes high blood pressure.
Yes, if it's isolated and you have a sufficient sample size, then you could make that conclusion, yes.
Right.
So here's what I found, and by the way, my friend John Rappaport, who I did a whole interview on this, we found that in the history of virology, That not a single pathogenic virus was isolated and then shown to cause disease.
And I've said repeatedly that if somebody shows me a study that demonstrates that, I will retract the book.
And John has looked for 30 years, and I've looked for decades.
We can't find it.
So here is actually what they do.
And by the way, when I made the coffee, right?
If I put that in a big vat with yerba mate and tea and chocolate and all the rest, you would never, after that, be able to say that the caffeine came from coffee.
Right?
Because they're all the same.
So here's what they do in virology to prove viral causation.
They take snot from somebody with measles, and then they either centrifuge it or filter it, and so it's not purified anything.
And then they inoculate that onto a kidney tissue, which has, by the way, identical type of genetic material as the virus.
Then they mix it with bovine fetal serum, another source of DNA and RNA. They mix it with horse serum or fetal tissue, etc.
And then they add nephrotoxic, meaning kidney poison antibiotics.
And then the tissue breaks down, as you would expect, because they also starve the tissue.
And then as the original guy who came up with this so-called viral culture experiment said, we have no way of distinguishing whether these particles of genetic material came from a virus or from the breakdown of the tissue.
In fact, I can read you a quote from May 2020 of a journal called Viruses, and now they're calling them extracellular vesicles or exosomes.
And they say, quote,"...however to date, a reliable method that can guarantee a separation of EVs or extracellular vesicles from viruses does not exist." In other words, they're telling us that we can't tell whether this mess that we have is actually simply the breakdown of the fetal tissue,
the horse serum, the bovine serum, the kidney tissue, all starved and poisoned, or a pathogenic virus.
And amazingly, when the original guy who was given a Nobel Prize for discovering this said, we can't tell the difference.
And that's where we're at.
And then they do their isolation experiments on that mass, and the whole thing is just, it's a misconception, somewhat, you know, maybe a fraud, but it's certainly a misconception.
Okay, alright, that's fascinating.
So let me...
Let me get back to the E. coli or so.
It's the same thing.
If you separate E. coli and show that causes disease, not a poison from E. coli, then you've proven it.
But the thing is, if you have a sore throat and your tonsils are breaking down, then the bacteria come to eat the dead and dying tissue.
That's their role in nature.
Nobody says, you know, that, you know, it's a misconception, like saying firemen cause fires.
So, Tom, one question would be, using the metaphor, if we combine a bunch of things, coffee and different herbs, and we have this mass of something, and we don't know exactly what's in it.
We give it to 100 people to drink, and 50 of them get sick.
Can't we say that there's something in there that's making these people sick?
We may not know what it is yet.
Maybe we haven't isolated it in this case.
But there's definitely something making them sick.
And then the other question is...
By the way, I would totally agree with that.
Okay, great.
The transmissibility.
I mean, isn't there...
Aren't there enormous numbers of scientific studies, published studies, real-world experience, level 4 biohazard facilities dealing with Ebola strains or Marburg viral strains that shows, yes, these are transmissible.
They move from a person to person.
There's not one, Mike.
There's not one?
Not one.
And by the way, the best study that was ever done on this, the best in world history, 1918, done by the Boston Health Department, with the most dangerous, most transmissible virus in history called the Spanish flu virus.
And we have the reference in our website.
And the reason this was a real-world experiment, not mixing, you know, you talk about Ebola, they mix it with certain chemicals and, you know, and then you don't know what the problem is.
So here they did an experiment where they took, you know, prisoners And I don't know how they got them to do this, but they...
It was sailors.
It was Navy people, sailors.
Yeah.
So they then exposed them to sick people who had bona fide symptoms of the Spanish flu at all stages.
And they had them cough right in their face.
They had them open their mouth together like they were kissing, and then they would blow in their mouth.
They would transfer secretions and squirt it up their nose.
They did this with scores of people, and the conclusion of the study was not one got sick.
And they said, the only thing they said, the conclusion, because the delusion of this is so thick that they said there must be some more aggressive way to make these people sick to transmit the virus.
And I remember when I first read that, I thought, like what?
Do a lung transplant and see if that makes them sick?
The problem is, when you're talking about biohazards and all this stuff that they...
Again, it's all about...
There probably is something that's making people sick.
That's not the issue.
But it's a whole different story to say...
It is the virus, period.
In order to make that scientific claim, just like if I want to know what this fork, you know, I have a fork and a knife and a spoon.
If I want to know what a fork does, I separate it out from the knife and the spoon, and I see if I can eat spaghetti.
I don't mix them all up and grind them in a blender and then see if I can still eat spaghetti.
That's not science.
That's propaganda.
But don't we know that hand-washing, for example, prevents the spread of infectious disease?
Don't we know that in a surgical theater, when a surgeon opens up your body, if they don't cover their face, they're probably going to breathe oral bacteria into your wound and infect that wound?
I mean, are you saying that...
Put these on that, Mike.
There have been studies on wearing masks in surgical theaters, and what they find is when they wear the masks, there are more infections.
They get more infections in the patients when the doctors are wearing the masks and when they aren't wearing the masks.
And I think the explanation is that what's behind the mask is so depleted of oxygen that bad, you know, Toxin-producing organisms can grow there.
What about handwashing?
Let me answer that in another way about the handwashing.
Is that okay?
Yes, please.
Go ahead.
So this came from a guy named, I think, Ernst or Ein Semmelweis, right?
Famous guy?
Well, that's the story that people hear, yes.
But I mean, we practice this in daily life.
Here's the story.
Semmelweis, like all doctors then, also did autopsies on people who just died.
They used formaldehyde in the autopsy procedures.
Here we had a bunch of doctors who were doing autopsies on sick people.
Using formaldehyde and other poisons to embalm the body.
And then they went right from the autopsy suite and stuck their bloody tissue-laden hands into the open cervix of delivering women.
And as you might expect, those delivering women got sick.
Now, again, if we're going to be scientific about it, we could say it is not good to stick dead people's diseased body parts in an open cervix, nor is it good to stick formaldehyde or other toxic chemicals.
But if you're going to say that the problem was bacteria and only bacteria, then you have to actually isolate the bacteria and show that that was the problem.
And then I'd be perfectly happy to say it was the bacteria.
I have no horse or skin in this game.
Well, I think that the difference between chemicals and bacteria or viral strains is that bacteria and viruses and mold spores are self-replicating, right?
So a chemical molecule does not self-replicate.
It doesn't make more of itself.
But a bacterium contains its own genetic material, at least according to the mainstream science, I suppose.
But we can experience this ourselves.
We get infected with bacteria.
People can have infections, and then there's, you know, from a scratch.
Well, we have microscopes.
You know, we can look at it.
We can see them.
The maggots are on a dead dog, Mike.
You would never say the maggots killed the dog.
In order to prove that the bacteria did it and are not just scavengers, you would have to do a proper controlled scientific experiment to show that isolated bacteria caused this disease.
And if you show me that, I'll agree.
Let me interrupt.
What you're saying, though, I mean, you know, with all due respect, I think even the audience is going to say, so in food handling, it doesn't matter if people wash their hands, doesn't matter if the food gets bacteria.
I make cheese on our farm.
We're inspected monthly by the health department.
And we are very clean.
And why?
Because that milk and the cans of the milk and everything are coming from a barn where there's cows that poop and stuff.
And there can be toxins in there, just like you wash your hands after you go to the bathroom.
That's what civilized people do.
Because there's toxins in there.
There's also bacteria and maybe viruses, but they are secondary to the toxins.
A perfect example, if I can give one, is anthrax, which Pasteur worked on.
He actually had a vaccine for it, which never worked.
He actually couldn't find the organism, but he had this vaccine, and nothing seemed to work.
And anthrax killed lots and lots of sheep in those days.
It was a huge economic problem.
So Pasteur's vaccine didn't work.
Nobody could figure this out.
And yet in the early 1900s, anthrax just disappeared.
Except for a few cases from Africa.
Why?
Because they stopped making sheep dip out of arsenic.
They stopped putting arsenic in the sheep dip.
And the symptoms of anthrax and the symptoms of arsenic poisoning are identical.
Interesting.
Let me give you another example.
You know, for 100, 200 years, you would have the experience of sailors on a ship, one after another, their teeth would fall out and they would go into heart failure and die.
For 100 years, they said that was an infectious disease.
It was contagious, yeah.
Because the problem is you cannot prove viral or bacterial causation by epidemiological observations.
That's not scientific.
Because what happened then is somebody ate a lime, and then the whole thing went away because that was scurvy.
And we had the same thing happen with beriberi and pellagra.
And we've had the same thing happen over and over again.
The only way you can prove viral or bacterial causation by any sense of logic is to isolate that factor, do a control, and show that that causes the disease in question.
And all I can say is once somebody shows me that, I will agree.
Okay, fair enough.
But to use the limes example, people can see citrus fruit.
If you leave it out too long, one of the fruits may begin to mold.
So there are fungi, spores, that we can see under a microscope.
We can isolate them, and then they will spread from fruit to fruit if you keep them together.
But if you isolate fruit away from that, then they won't develop those.
They will eventually.
We know that...
But there are fungal spores that are transmissible from fruit to fruit.
Is that not true?
This is what happens in nature.
If we didn't have fungus and bacteria, nothing would ever break down, and everything would just stay the way it was.
It's their role in nature, and just like maggots do the same thing.
So there is...
We're confusing...
The sort of after effects with an actual cause.
But if mold can be transmissible...
There's bacteria or fungus.
There clearly are.
And as Sally rightly pointed out, they have a vital role in nature.
So just imagine that you went to a forest and you said, I don't want any bacteria or fungus in this forest.
So then you cut down a tree and And it never breaks down.
Within a few years, the forest would be dead.
Because without the recycling, rejuvenation role, then life dies.
Now, interestingly, when the bacteria, like the strep bacteria, come to eat your dead and dying and diseased tonsils, they actually do cause symptoms.
You get pain and redness, which is why if you give the person an antibiotic and you stop the growth of the bacteria, the symptoms will abate.
But the dead and dying tissue is still there.
And so the prediction is it will come back, which is what I saw in 35 years of doing medicine.
You see, when I realized that these bacteria were just living on dead and dying tissue, That they're not the problem.
Then you switch to helping the tissue be healthy, and then the bacteria simply go away because there's no food.
And if you just kill the bacteria, I just saw it over and over again.
The people would get sick over and over, and then they would take their tonsils out, and then they would get pneumonia, and then the whole thing would just go on.
And that's how acute diseases become chronic.
And that is the story of Western medicine.
And the promise of the germ theory is that you can have a quick fix.
You can have antibiotics or attenuated vaccines or whatever.
Promising the quick fix and a lot of money to be made by a few people.
When you start looking at the terrain theory, then the solution is much harder.
It's not glamorous.
It doesn't make a lot of money for people.
It has to do with a better diet.
Putting sewers in, cleaning up your water supply, getting rid of toxins in the environment, getting the horses out of your city so your cities aren't stinking cesspools of horse manure.
That's the hard part that requires a lot of patience and hard work.
Yes, well, the subtleties of it, I mean, you're exactly right.
The terrain theory, it makes more sense, but even in the terrain theory, I think how it's understood by most people is that it requires a pathogen plus a terrain vulnerability to create that disease.
Pathogen is the afterthought.
Here's another example, Mike.
If you had a splinter in your finger and you didn't take it out, you would make pus with bacteria.
The question is, is the pus the therapy or the disease?
And most people would say the splinter is the disease and the pus is the therapy.
Now, here's another example.
You put a certain kind of debris called cigarette smoke in your lungs, and then you make the same pots and bacteria to come and get the debris out of your lungs.
Now, the interesting thing, we know from very clear scientific studies that if you go through this process of debris in your lungs, stop people from getting it out, they end up more likely with lung cancer.
We even know that, for instance, people who have surgery for lung cancer who get an infection before antibiotics lived much longer than people who didn't get a, quote, infection.
The bacteria, like the pus, are there to get the splinter out of your finger.
And we have a huge misconception that somehow these are agents of disease.
It's simply not true.
Well, how can you explain then, you know, there are more bacterial cells in our body than human cells, right?
And many of them live in our gut.
And different strains live in our gut.
The whole paradigm shift we've seen.
In a hundred years we've gone from bacteria attack us and make us sick and now we see bacteria much differently.
Bacteria are our friends and without bacteria we'd be dead and we want to create the right terrain so we have the right kind of bacteria in our gut.
Well said, but it depends on whether the bacteria that are in our gut are friendly or toxic, because there are well-documented reports of people, for example, that have bacteria that create alcohol as a byproduct of their metabolism, right?
Bacteria, when they don't have the right food, are going to produce toxins.
Or if they're the wrong strain.
So there can be bacteria in your gut that produce toxins that are then absorbed by your gut, correct?
And this is a really good question.
Do these bacteria actually morph into a different species that creates the alcohol or the nerve toxin or whatever?
Or do different bacteria come along or start to grow because you have a different terrain?
Well, but you do agree that there can be bad bacteria in the gut?
There can be bad conditions that attract bacteria that make certain substances or that encourage them or just encourage the same bacteria to make these substances.
Mike, I hate to sound like a broken record, but if you have certain poisons because you're breaking down in a particular way, That will obviously lead you to create different bacteria.
These bacteria are always around, so then different bacteria will grow, and they will essentially biodegrade whatever dead and dying tissue you have.
If you want to say that these are the cause of disease, you have to do what I said.
It's like a broken record.
If you say they're pathogens, then you have to isolate them, expose a healthy animal that doesn't have dead and dying tissue, and show they cause disease.
That's what logic, common sense, and the scientific method dictates.
Well, yes, but by the same logic, we know that bacteria engage in metabolism, that they produce waste products, and the waste products exit the bacterium cell and go into, in this case, the gut.
And we can't just automatically say that all waste products of bacteria metabolism are friendly.
That would not be a logical statement.
Nobody said that.
In fact, as Sally said, many of the waste products of bacteria In fact, are not good for you.
And that's because we have created the conditions that abnormal, not pathogenic bacteria live.
So again, it's like a forest.
Or another example I use, if you put dead squirrels in your compost pile, you will get certain bacteria that produce funky smells.
Nobody says the compost pile has an infection.
And interestingly, if you take those bacteria from the compost and put them into a healthy compost pile, They don't grow because they're the wrong conditions.
Well, what if you eat them?
It's all about the food and the terrain.
But if you eat bad bacteria that then live in your system, and then they're poisoning you from the inside, and you're absorbing the chemical byproducts, that could result in symptoms of sickness or illness or disease, as it's typically called.
And then if you...
Show me the study that shows that you've isolated these so-called bacteria, right?
It's all about the bad bacteria.
And in an otherwise healthy person, they grow and they produce toxins then that make people sick.
I would love to see that.
With all due respect, I've never isolated the sun, but I know it's there because it comes up every morning.
No.
It's a question of the difference between infectious and contagious.
Now, infectious, if you look it up, they say it means caused by bacteria, okay?
But are you saying that somebody who has bad bacteria in their gut can transfer whatever they're suffering from to a healthy person?
Well, absolutely.
Through sewage systems, you know, fecal matter goes into the sewage system and then the city uses that as fertilizer on the crops so the bacteria go on to the crops.
That's different.
All the chemicals and all of that.
You've got so many variables in there.
Now we're not talking science, Mike.
No, but that's what's happening in every city in America.
They're taking the bio sludge and they're putting it on crops.
We agree with you.
It's bad to do, and it causes disease.
But it's the bio sludge causing the disease.
Yeah, you know what's in that bio sludge is glyphosate and all kinds of heavy metals and all kinds of crap.
I'm very much aware of that.
You see, here's the thing.
When people have the experience of, I got sick, And then they transfer that to say, it must be the virus or the bacteria that made me sick, which is not a, that is a laboratory experimental conclusion.
Nobody sees bacteria or virus getting them sick.
All they see is, I got bit by a snake and now I got sick.
If you want to find out what the component in this snake venom that got you sick, then you have to do an experiment.
You have to isolate it just like we...
That's how human beings think about life.
I understand that, but even if we don't know in one example of what made us sick, what you're saying is that bacteria can never make anyone sick.
That's what you're saying.
And that's a very different threshold.
When the terrain is wrong, the bacteria will produce poisons.
And we don't think it's fair to blame the bacteria.
That's what we're saying.
Okay, well what about the transmissivity of pathogens?
Are you saying that all the level 4 biohazard facilities should take off their suits, take down the shield, stop the vent hoods?
There's biohazards in there.
There's toxins, there's poisons in there.
But then doesn't that mean they're transmissible?
I mean, you can catch it?
Yeah, but the bacteria will show up because you're breathing in or touching the same poisons as somebody else.
You can go through every disease that's considered contagious, that you can give from one person to the other, and find perfectly good explanations that don't need bacteria.
And just going back to the Spanish flu, it was not contagious.
They proved it was not contagious.
What caused it?
We agree with Arthur Furstenberg that it was the rollout of A worldwide radio exacerbated by the treatment, which was aspirin, and of course these people have been vaccinated to the hilt, so they had, you know, weak bodies.
And we're saying the same thing today.
This illness, we are not denying that this illness exists, and it's dangerous.
It's killing a lot of people.
We don't want to minimize that.
People slander us when they say that we say this doesn't exist.
It does exist, and our theory Based on good biology and epidemiological observations is that it is deployment of 5G that is making so many people sick.
Well, no doubt that electromagnetic exposure is a factor in this.
There's no question about that.
It alters blood chemistry, peroxynitrite production, and all these other things.
I agree that that can be a factor.
And if you blame it on a virus, you're never going to find the solution.
Well, maybe so.
That's an interesting point.
We're just about out of time, so let me set some context here and offer you some concluding statements.
So number one, I think the viewers can tell we disagree on this.
That's okay.
We're here to explore ideas.
You have a...
A revolutionary difference in the theory, and you're here presenting, I think, just an introduction to it.
I would say people should read your book to learn more, because we can't cover it all right here, obviously.
I would say that I do disagree with what you're saying, but I'm open to learning new information.
I'm absolutely open to it, but in this conversation, I There's nothing in this conversation that has convinced me that there aren't transmissible viruses or bacteria.
But again, I'm open to learning more.
So that's my stance, and I support free speech, and I support your exploration into what's happening in the world.
So I welcome this conversation in the spirit of free speech.
So I really appreciate you being here.
I'll turn it over to both of you to kind of wrap up how you think people maybe should walk away from this interview.
Well, I think if we don't know what's causing this disease, we're not going to treat it properly and people are going to suffer.
So a lot of our solution, and we do present solutions, is minimizing your exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially in your home and in your bedroom.
And secondly, what we call a wise traditions diet, which strengthens your cell membranes, prevents the breakdown of the water in your cells, which is what happens with EMF. The question is, what do we do about this?
We certainly don't agree with the vaccines.
We don't agree with social distancing.
We don't agree with the masks.
These just make the situation worse.
I would agree with what you just said there.
I think the masks and the social distancing and the experimental faked vaccines are a total quack science.
And that's what we don't agree with.
Okay.
Really good point, Sally.
Tom, go ahead.
So...
You know, all I can say is science, logic, and common sense dictate that if you want to claim that something causes something else, you have to separate that from everything else.
So I'm going to read you what a representative of the Robert Koch Institute said when asked whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus was ever isolated and characterized.
So this is essentially the CDC in California.
I am not aware of a paper which purified isolated SARS-CoV-2.
Essentially, that's the end of the story.
Because if you haven't isolated it, there's no way to say that this piece of genetic material, which you're doing a PCR test, could possibly have come from that virus.
And so the whole thing breaks down.
It's very simple.
It's very clear.
It's very logical.
It's pure common sense.
And it's about time we really woke up and see what's happening.
And I really appreciate you doing this, Mike.
Well, you too.
It's not about necessarily that we have to agree on everything.
I'm really impressed with your spirit of inquiry, your great questions, and just your open-heartedness and open-mindedness to allowing us to have our say.
Well, thank you so much.
You said it very well.
And I would add that the spirit of human knowledge and progress in understanding does involve revolutions where from time to time we throw out the past.
The whole model, the whole paradigm gets thrown out, right?
So these have happened throughout human history and will no doubt happen again.
Is this one of them?
Well, I'll leave it up to the viewer to decide for themselves.
And I'll mention your book, The Contagion Myth.
And that's available at barnesandnoble.com.
And the main website, again, for both of you, westonaprice.org, drtomcowan.com, nourishingtraditions.com.
And I want to thank you both for putting up with a little bit of pushback from me on this.
And by the way, we're not against washing your hands.
Okay, okay.
All right.
Fantastic.
Okay, yeah.
No, I mean, we're brainstorming arguments back and forth, that's all.
So that was just one of the topics.
But I appreciate you being here.
I appreciate you putting forward your arguments and backing them up and putting up with me asking some questions about it.
Thank you.
Thanks for the opportunity, Mike.
Thanks, Mike.
So thanks for watching the interview today, folks.
I hope you find it fascinating.
Definitely check out Sally's book and website and ask your own questions.
You know, ask questions about the universe and observe things for yourself as well.
I think one of the big faults of our whole science-based, news-based system is that people defer reality to some other expert that tells them the way it is instead of exploring reality for themselves.
So I encourage you to explore, read, learn, understand, share information, and maybe we'll all get closer to the truth.
Thank you for watching.
This is Mike Adams here, brighteon.com.
Survival Nutrition is our new free audiobook that you can download right now from survivalnutrition.com.
In this nearly eight-hour audiobook, you will learn life-saving secrets of how to use food, nutrients, plant molecules, trace minerals, and chemical compounds to save your life, even in a total collapse scenario.
I'm Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, and I'm the author of Survival Nutrition.
I founded and run a multi-million dollar food science laboratory, and I'm the author of the best-selling science book, Food Forensics.
I'm also a prepper, a patriot, and a survivalist.
I can teach you how to survive what's coming by growing your own food, medicine, and antibiotics that can help keep you healthy and alive even during the worst of times.
At survivalnutrition.com, you'll be able to instantly download the full free audiobook as MP3 files.
▲
Export Selection