Video Transcript: Important Questions Regarding the Current Health Situation

Video Transcript: Important Questions Regarding the Current Health Situation

So welcome, everybody. I happen to be somebody who likes to be punctual, so I tend to start on time. So again, I welcome everybody and I appreciate all the kind words and support, and we're just going to move a little bit forward here. There's a few housekeeping items I wanted to talk about. The first is we will have a YouTube channel, which will start sometime soon. And so, there'll be more things posted on that. So, people who want to hear more about things that I have to say and maybe other relevant subjects, please consult the YouTube channel. The second thing, as far as this webinar goes, there's two functions, I'm told. One is a chat group, which is for people to communicate with each other, which I won't have anything to do with, and then there's a Q&A part. And once I'm done with my initial presentation, I will look at the Q&A and pick some of the relevant questions. So, those are the two main housekeeping things.

I also want to emphasize, as I've said before, that when I'm speaking here, I'm speaking for myself. I'm not speaking as a representative of any foundation, or any community, or any society or anything else. This is Tom talking about how I see the world. This is also not meant to be medical advice. It's not meant to diagnose, treat or tell people what to do. As always, we should always consult with our trusted medical care provider. So nothing in this is to be construed as giving specific medical advice to anybody.

So, the next thing I wanted to say is, and it's become common in medical circles for doctors and other people doing medicine to disclose conflicts of interest. And so in the second part, which is really the main part of this talk, when I'm going to talk about things you can do, there's a whole lot of different things that I'll be talking about, and I have different financial relationships to some of these things. Some of the things I have no financial relationship to and others of them... I went for the first 30 plus years of my practice essentially looking for things that could help people and sometimes I would find them and they were either not available or very difficult to be available. And in a sense I just said, "Well, that's what I think you should use, but I can't help you find them."

As a result of my family getting involved and we making these new businesses, Dr. Cowan's Garden and Human Heat, Cosmic Heart, we now have the possibility of helping people to get some of these products. And some of the things, the water, people have sent me water, people are letting me try out their water. People are letting me try out some of the other things. There's a whole different arrangement of financial relationships. Most of the things, if they're things we sell in our store, it's because they were either difficult to get or we couldn't find them otherwise, and so we felt like we could do a service by helping provide them to people. The next thing I want to say is I'm told by my technical advisory people that this talk will be posted into the clouds. And so as a result of that, I decided to bring my umbrella, you could see this here, just in case if we put it into the clouds, that might mean it will rain. So if it does rain, I will have my umbrella and I will be able to keep going.

And finally, I hope and expect in a way that people have actually seen my previous webinar or maybe some of the interviews, and in particularly the 40 minute presentation by the doctor Andy Kaufman that I will probably be referring to. Because, I'm not going to go over all that stuff. I did that, and I'm expecting people will have heard that. And so, they really are wanting me to move this forward as far as what we can do. So, I will give a brief synopsis of my understanding of our current health situation, but I intend to devote most of the time to describing what I do. And, yeah, so that's that. And finally, for those of you who saw my Weston Price or Wise Traditions Podcast, you know that I have a tendency to tear up a little bit. And basically, I tear up at pretty much every funeral or wedding and apparently now I tear up during my own webinars. So, I will try to keep track of that, not let that happen. So, I think that's all my housekeeping issues. And so, that took about five minutes, so let's move on.

So, I have come to understand that not everybody understands what I mean by the problem of the testing for the coronavirus and the accuracy of the test. And this got particularly driven home to me because I'm part of a number of physicians' groups who are interested in these issues. And recently a physician sent me an email, not specifically to me but to the group, saying she has run upon a test for the coronavirus that she knows is 84.6% accurate. It could have been 86.4. The important point was it was 84.6 or some number in the 80s point something percent accurate. And then I received another email from another doctor saying he had a test that was 100% accurate, and they were telling us this because they said, "If you want to get ahold of this test you could go to this place," and we could order the test, so we could presumably use them with our patients.

Now of course, my first response to the 84.6 offer was I would only want to do a test if it was 84.7% accurate, 84.6 is not good enough. But the interesting thing about that offer is it actually explains the entire problem of the testing. And let me try to go over this once more because I realize how complex it is, and this is so key to understanding this whole situation. So as I said, virologists, infectious disease people, immunologists, etc , internists, anybody involved in this, has agreed for the last 100 years that there's a certain strategy that we use for understanding whether a disease has an infectious etiology or not. And those agreements are called Koch's postulates. Now, I do know that Koch's postulates have some issues, but that's way too complicated to get into right now. Basically, everybody agrees that that's how we prove infectious disease and they go essentially like this.

Number one, everybody has the same or very similar symptoms. Number two, if you test all of those people with symptoms, 100% have the organism that you're looking for. Number three, if you take 100 normal people, none of whom have those symptoms, then none of them have that organism that you're looking for. And number four, if you take that organism from the sick people and purify it, so that you have nothing else in there but that particular organism, and you inject that into another person, which you wouldn't want to do, but into an animal, then they will become sick with the same disease and they will have the organism in them and then you can keep it going.

And so, an example of that would be strep throat. Almost everybody who has strep throat has a sore throat, they have a fever, they have swollen glands, more or less the same symptoms with everybody. Now, if you take those people, 100% of them will grow strep in a throat culture, not any other organism, only strep. And then if you take 100 normal people, none of them have strep growing in their throat. Then if you purify the strep and you inject it into an animal or expose it to an animal, they will also get sick, the animal has to be susceptible, and then you've proven that strep is the cause of this person's sore throat. Now again, I understand that there is more to it than this and someday I will get into the more to it part of this, but that's not germane to this situation.

The same thing works for viral infections, and I gave the example of chicken pox. Everybody has more or less the same symptoms. All of them have millions of copies of this virus in their blood. None of the people who don't have the chickenpox symptoms have the virus. And if you purify it, meaning you only have that virus, you expose an animal that's susceptible, they will get sick with whatever their version of chickenpox is. Now that technique, those postulates, that way of seeing the world, is how we prove infectious etiology, and I would say period.

And for the people who say, "We don't use Koch's postulates anymore," that is actually true. But the reason for that, it's partly true, because there are papers now about the coronavirus that say they are attempting to prove Koch's postulates. So, it hasn't been totally abandoned. But my point of it was this started with the whole polio thing where they couldn't prove Koch's postulates, and so they came to a fork in the road and they said they had one of two choices, either abandon that polio was caused by a virus or discard the rules for how we prove infectious etiology. And unfortunately, in my opinion, for humanity, they decided to discard the rules and then it was off to the races.

Now again, this test is called a gold standard. Once you have a gold standard test, then you can do a surrogate test, which is what the PCR or RTPCR test is, which is the test they're using to say that people have an infection with coronavirus. And the way this works is they basically isolate or take a purified virus, they try to find out a unique part of the RNA in this case, and they essentially amplify it. And so then they say, "If we can find this unique piece of DNA, that proves that the symptoms, the disease, was caused by the coronavirus." But as I've said over and over again, the founder of this test said, "You can only do this once you have a gold standard for proving that that virus fulfills Koch's postulates."

Because, here's what happens. So, you have people with strep throat and you prove that their symptoms are strep throat. Then you could take a unique piece of the strep, do this PCR test, and then you could take 100 people with strep throat and you could do the PCR test and you would find something like 96, 97, 98 of the 100 have a positive PCR test at the number of cycles that you went through. That tells you that the false negative test is three or 4%, so then you know the false negative rate. Then you take 100 people who have no symptoms and they have a negative strep culture, so you know they don't have strep, and then you do the PCR test and a number of amplification cycles, and you find, as happens with all biological tests, as happens with all PCR tests, that say two, or three, or four, or 10, or whatever the number is, are positive. That's your false positive rate.

The problem here is nobody did the Koch's postulates part. Nobody did 100 or 500 people who have symptoms, have purified coronavirus from them, shown that the coronavirus is not in the normal people and then put it through an animal and proved sickness. Therefore, you have no idea, and I can't emphasize this enough, you have no idea what the false positive or false negative rate is. So, all these numbers are completely bogus. So you could say, "Well, Tom, how do you know that?" Well, I know it because when they publish this, they say that and they'll say, for instance, "We proved Koch's postulates," showing that they still believe in Koch's postulates, "because here's what we did. We took some snap from somebody who was sick, we incubated that in lung cancer cells. Then it produced all these particles." Which, as I will talk about in a minute, we know that lung cancer cells, because they're poison, they produce these exosomes which are actually identical to the virus. That's what Andy has proved in his talks.

So then they purify the virus. They take some of the RNA. They try to make an animal sick, in this case it was a mouse. But it turns out they couldn't make normal mice sick with this purified virus, so they had to use genetically altered mice who are susceptible and essentially immunocompromised, and only then could they make them sick. So, that proves nothing, folks. That's not how you prove infectious etiology. All that proves is that if you incubate snap with lung cancer, you'll get a whole lot of debris, some of which has some RNA segments which will light up on a amplified PCR test.

Now, the interesting thing about this is, so if we go back to this doctor offering me this test that was 84.6 or 86.4% accurate, it's obvious that if you say something is 84.6 that means you must have done 1,000 people and you must have purified the virus, these whole Koch's postulates, on 1,000 people. So that's your gold standard, and then you can do the PCR test and find out that it's only negative or only positive and you have to do both. You have to show the people who are sick and certain people don't light up, that's your false negative. And if certain normal people, a certain number of people light up, that's your false positive.

But because they never did the first, they never did the gold standard, not only didn't they do it on 1,000 people... Because, if they only did it on 10 people then the best you could say is it's 10% or 20%. If they did it on 100 people, the best you could say is it's 93 or 94% accurate. But to say the statement that it's 84.6 means that you must have done this comparison to the gold standard with 1,000 people, which is simply ridiculous. There is no science in this at all. Now, people then could ask me, "Well, how come they do this?" And all I can say is I am determined not to get into motives of other people, or economics, or politics. But all I can say is this is exactly the situation with vaccine issues and vaccine research, and here's what I mean by that.

Every drug, every medical device that we use, we have a very particular way of finding out how much toxicity, how much side effects there is to this drug or device. What we do is we take 1,000 people, or 10,000, or however many people, and we give one set the drug and then we give a matched set of a thousand people or whatever the number, matched as closely as possible, and we give them an inert placebo. And then we run the trial for as long as it would take to see if any side effects show up, any negative consequences show up. It could be a month, it could be 30 years. Because, if you're doing a vaccine that you give at birth whose side effect is ADD or ADHD or at least you're worried about that, you may have to wait for seven years before you know.

So, that's how we test medicines. That's how we test devices. Everybody agrees on that. Except with vaccines, they don't do that. They do a tap, they do a new vaccine and they test it against a different vaccine. And for those of you who want the facts on this, I would go to the ICAN document where they documented exactly which vaccine. So I'm just going to make up, because I don't remember which vaccine they tested against which one. So these are not accurate examples, but they show the point. So you test chickenpox against the Hep B vaccine and then you say, "How can you test it against Hep B?" And they say, "Well, we know that Hep B doesn't have any side effects, it has no toxicity, therefore we can use it as the control."

And then you say, "Well, how do you know that?" "Well, because we tested the Hep-B against the placebo." "What was the placebo?" "That was the MMR vaccine." "So, how do you know that the MMR vaccine is safe?" "Because, we tested it against the placebo." "So, what was the placebo?" "The placebo was the DPT vaccine. And so, that we know is safe." "So, what was the placebo with the DPT?" "That was the chickenpox." Which, all we're asking is do proper studies. Don't do this circular argument. And that's exactly what's happening with the PCR test. They tested against another PCR test. That wasn't tested against the gold standard, so you have no idea how accurate or specific that was. Then you keep going and then everybody forgets that the original one was tested against another PCR test. And then you basically have propaganda, not science. That's the problem here.

Now, over the last few days and weeks, people have come up with all sorts of other arguments to me trying to demonstrate that this must be an infection with the virus, even though it's very clear that there is a way, and I would actually say there's only one way, and that is to use the gold standard to demonstrate infectious etiology. So people say things like, "Well, there's 2,000 people who died in the same place of this, so it must be an infection." Which is, of course, ridiculous because unless you think dropping the Hiroshima bomb was a virus or an infection, what I'm told is 500,000 people died more or less the same day or week, or I don't exactly know how soon. So a large amount of people dying in a certain proximity has nothing to do with proving infectious etiology. And then they say, "Well, but this is spreading all over the world."

Say, well, but this is spreading all over the world as if something that's spreads proves infectious etiology, because of course it doesn't. And an example of that was apparently they had a nuclear explosion in Chernobyl, and then over time it spread all throughout Europe I'm told and made people sick all over Europe. Unless you think the Chernobyl accident was a virus, it's very clear and I could give you many other examples, and Andy went through the entire problem with the whole 1918 flu pandemic where they literally proved that you could not transmit this so-called virus. They did it by having people, one person who was sick and another person who was not sick and they did this with a hundred people. They did it at the Boston Health Department and they both held their breath and then they put their lips almost touching as if they were going to kiss.

They opened their mouth and then after they held their breath, the person who was sick exhaled into the mouth of the person who wasn't sick and not once in the hundred people could they transmit the virus. They did a bunch of other studies on this and essentially demonstrated this could not possibly be an infection. So even the transmissibility all over the world does not prove that it's infection. Again, the only way to do that is to do it the way we're told is the only way, which is the Koch's postulates way. And then the final thing that I get from people is, which is in some way surprises me in some ways doesn't, is but how could the entire medical profession be wrong about this? And I mean in some ways that's a good point. But last night, I decided to list 10 things which I think we could all agree on the medical profession in the last approximately 150 years or so apparently got wrong.

So let me just read this. And by the way, people say, "Tom, you should take notes and write things down for your talks." I did. See, I can't really read it because I can't read my own writing. But I did write it down. So in the 1870s, there was a treatment for schizophrenia run by the Quakers called moral therapy where they basically took the worst of the schizophrenics and they put them in houses. And the rules were you had to take a hot bath and wear clean clothes and the people had to eat three meals a day and the staff had to be nice to them. And they stayed there for about a year, and they reported in the medical literature something like a 60 or so percent remission rate. And it was a durable remission, in other words, they looked like they were cured. So anybody who wants to learn more about this, I would read book Mad in America by a guy named Whitaker. And eventually the psychiatrist took it over and they started doing their lobotomies and their chemotherapy.

And as of now, their cure rate for schizophrenia is now about 0%. So that's one place. Even in the 1918 flu pandemic, there's probably many factors responsible for that. There's certainly the possibility of the radio wave new exposure. But another one was that was the advent of a medicine which we all know called aspirin which was created by the Bayer Company. And it was the new wonder drug, especially for treating flus. And many of the people, if not most of the people died from hemorrhage or bleeding. So they were giving people the medical profession and just lay people, giving people 20 to 30 aspirins per day to treat the flu. Now, I think all of us realize that the main side effect from aspirin, especially an overdose like that is bleeding or hemorrhage. So I'm sure that had something to do with it.

And then we had smoking, which was promoted for decades by the medical profession as something to calm your nerves, and then we go into x-raying of people's feet for fitting them for , that was considered safe. And then we go into the thalidomide, which was a medicine used to treat morning sickness, which resulted in thousands of birth defects. Then we go into bone marrow transplants for treating breast cancer, which never worked. Then we did, which I talked about the last time we had such a poor understanding of the microbiome that even when I was in medical school, we were still attempting to sterilize people's gut flora as a way to help them, which of course never worked.

Then we move into treating women with estrogen, which now we know caused them to get breast cancer and uterine cancer. And then finally we have the Vioxx debacle, which resulted in giving a headache medicine people that resulted in at least 50,000 deaths and some people say a lot more. And then the final one I'll say is even when I had to get my license in California, we were required to take a course or do an online program to learn how to prescribe opiates to people because we were told we were under prescribing opiates. And now I don't know how many years later, and I don't know how many deaths, we now have to take a course to maintain your license teaching you how not to prescribe opiates because we realized we killed thousands if not more people.

So I'm sorry, I just can't buy the argument that just because this is conventional wisdom or the medical profession believes it that means it must be true. So then we move into, and there's a whole lot more I could say about the testing and the isolation and all this stuff. But I would encourage people who are interested in that to again go to the work of Andy Kaufman who's much more of a molecular biologist not by official training, but by interest than I am. And he will explain the whole thing. So if that's the case, then the next obvious question is, so what is the problem here and why are people dying?

I'm not going to get into, is it true that so many more people are dying, is it not true? Is it overblown or whatever? I have no inside knowledge of that. All I can say is it appears that there are a lot of people sick from something that seems fairly new. Now, one of the basic source of information that we have as to what is actually wrong with them are two major things. The first is they have a hyper inflammatory or so-called cytokine storm reaction in their lungs. In other words, their immune system is overstimulated for some reason and is basically making an attack on the lungs. So that's one thing we need to explain.

The second, and this was very succinctly, and I'd say brilliantly revealed by the New York City critical care doctor who said, we are not seeing a pneumonia, we are not even seeing a viral pneumonia, even though I would admit, he walked back from saying this can't possibly be a virus because my suspicion is that might've been the end of his career. But he's saying, we're not seeing pneumonia, we're not seeing anything that looks like a viral pneumonia. We're seeing something that looks like hypoxia or altitude sickness. In other words, something is interfering with the bio availability of oxygen, and essentially they're suffocating.

So those are the two facts which we have to explain. Now, the first thing I would say, and also the reason I'm going into this again is when I talk about what I think we should do, not particularly about this particular situation, but in general because I think this isn't just an accentuation of what was happening before, we have to account for those two things. So let's talk about the first, why would people have a hyper active immune response? So the first thing I would say is I wrote a whole book about that. That's what happens when you inject aluminum in a person. That's why they put aluminum in vaccines to make you have a activated immune response, period.

Now, we have very conclusive evidence, and I'm not going to get into that how I know that, but then if you put inhaled nano particles of aluminum in the air, if you have intensely air polluted environment, which was certainly the case in Northern Italy and Wuhan and a lot of other places, then you will have inhaled therefore lung based hyper active immune response. That should be no surprise to anybody. That is exactly what we're talking about. Now, other people, and I would say the causation here could be and certainly actually is multi-factoral and complicated. So there's researchers who are attempting to document that some of the hardest hit places have a new onset of glyphosate exposure or vaporized into the air because of biofuels and other crops that are being used even as heating fuel, etc.

So we have yet another reason that glyphosate is essentially genotoxic, so it breaks down your genes. It creates different forms of RNA, which is exactly what we're talking about when we see the expression of exosomes. As Andy points out, many, many things will increase the body's production of these messengers called exosomes. So toxins will probably glyphosate probably having metal exposure. All of these things have a substantial literature basis for saying this is the basis of this hyperactive immune response. So then the next question is, well, what about the low oxygen? Did somebody do something to the oxygen levels in the air in these places? And again, even though I would admit, and I think have always said, we have no particular proof of this in the medical literature for the very simple reason that similar to vaccines nobody has studied it.

But we do know that number one, electromagnetic fields probably accentuated 4G and even possibly 5G electromagnetic field radiation has two effects. One is it's toxic to the genes. So when you get degraded genes, the cells of your body will package them up, they're called exosomes. And they will look like a novel gene product. And the second is it seems to, in particularly accentuated 4G and other electromagnetic fields and 5G seems to interfere with the oxygen bioavailability. And so that could be the direct reason for seeing the hypoxic lung damage. And when you put those two together, I would submit that you have an explanation for this which fits all the observed facts and observations that we're seeing. Now, would I like this to be proven? Do I say that this is proven by double blind studies right now? The answer is clearly no. But do I think there's enough evidence just like I think there's enough evidence with vaccines that we have urgent need to do these double blind studies so that we know once and for all? Absolutely.

It should be an urgent concern for everybody, is this really safe? And the reason I bring this up is because it does seem like there's something new happening here and this could be the explanation. And obviously, it will change in different situations, and that provides the explanation I think as I said, it fits all the facts and observations. So that's what I called in my previous webinar level one. Well, level two gets into more sophisticated virology. And again, I would refer people to Andy Kaufman's brilliant talk where we now know that if you poison a cell, and the poisons can be such things as toxins, electromagnetic fields, having metals. And one of the things that he showed that has apparently been demonstrated is simply fear. And I want to emphasize that again, fear causes cells to release these exosomes, which are messages which look exactly like these so-called Coronaviruses, which have all of these proteins in them, which we're shown in the New Yorker or whatever magazine that was, all of those are found in the exosomes.

This has been demonstrated. And the exosomes I propose are the rapid response team that tells other organisms, other cells, other tissues that we have encountered a new danger, we should respond. Now, if you think about this, if you use the normal model of how we adapt to environmental influences, meaning the survival of the fittest genetic model, here's how that would work. So you have a hundred people exposed to a new toxin. One of them makes a mutation, which makes a protein that allows them to handle this new toxin. In order for that to spread throughout the population, you would have to have that person reproduce, wait for their children to grow up. Their children would have to have the same mutation, then they would have to have children, and that would have to eventually spread all over the world where this toxin is present.

And so I don't know exactly, but my estimate is that would take about 10,000 years, in which case there would probably be a new toxin. And so all I can say is that model is frankly ridiculous. So nature is not ridiculous. So it says, okay, I'm going to have a rapid response team, it's called exosomes. If I'm poisoned with a new toxin, I'm going to package that up into a message, which then I can send to all my friends because we're actually living in a cooperative world, not a everybody for themselves world. No matter what we're told, that's just not the way nature works. So this is a simple example of spreading the message, it gets people to react.

We've actually done experiments, not we meaning me, but scientists where they poison a rat with Tylenol, which is, everybody knows, a serious liver toxin. Those rats or mice, they excrete exosomes, which are essentially acetaminophen, Tylenol packaged up gene toxins. I'm not sure if that's the correct way to say it, but I think everybody knows what I mean. And then they expose other mice or rats to those exosomes, they also have a reaction in their liver. So this is telling us that this is one way that nature has learned to spread the message similar to how trees spread the message we've been infested by beetles, all you friends of mine, all you other people, you make a reaction.

And then unfortunately if the other people who receive this message also have an overactive immune response because they too have been breathing aluminum dust, and they too have been injected with aluminum, and they too have been exposed to glyphosate and they too have the oxygen in their air lowered because of electromagnetic fields. Then you could have trouble, and it looks like the whole thing spreads. So that's level two. And then if we want to be very realistic about this, we have to, even though it gets into more esoteric stuff, we have to talk about level three which is, there's no other way to say this, the physical matter which we're told by the medical profession and scientists is the only thing that exists is clearly nonsense.

How do I know? Because the physicists say that these things that were made out of called Adams, they're 99.9% space. So the question of how something that's made of entirely space creates a chair or my foot or a virus is simply unknown and unanswered. And then as I pointed out, it actually gets worse because half the time these particles, which are space, they're not even present. And this substance is made only of waves. And so what is a wave? A wave is essentially an energy form or you might even say an energy being like fear, like hatred, like lying. And so these energy forms, which we know actually on a physical level, at least we know about fear actually express exosomes.

So we're starting to put this together and then we could see as has happened, that fear, hatred, and lying have spread all over the world. There's not a single person or living being who is not living in the environment of fear, hatred, and lying. And so that's simply another way that this could spread and could 'infect' people all over the world. So to summarize, that's my theory now that this is a multi-factoral thing, the causation. The virus theory has not been proven. The PCR test is wildly inaccurate, has never been standardized, and we have multiple ways of envisioning how this could actually happen.

And the final thing I'll say to this is, as most people know, I wrote a whole book about the relationship of water to this problem because after all we're talking about degraded DNA. And then we have to realize that this structured or some people call it coherent water that the actual DNA is embedded in this coherent water, and the coherent water determines the expression or the integrity of the DNA and therefore the RNA. And I realized people would like me to have references on that. And believe me, I do in due time, maybe with the next book, if that's the way this goes, I will put all the references to show how I know that.

The other thing I would say is I demonstrated in the vaccine book that when you get degraded cellular water, when the structure of the water degrades, it's like putting a poison grape in jell-o. Your body has no choice but to create an immune reaction, a inflammatory reaction to dissolve the gel, excrete the poisoned grape so that you can reconstitute a new gel. So all of these influences fundamentally, in my opinion, have to work through a degradation of the water, which then sends out what can only be described as we are dealing with a message from water. That's how it is, we're dealing with a message from water. If people, you keep poisoning yourself, poisoning yourself physically, emotionally, mentally, that this is not going to go well. And the poison of the water is all the things I just said.


Comments 0

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published