School is appropriately named 'cause you, I, I don't know,
you're from Australia, is that right?
South Africa. South Africa.
Sorry. So I yeah, I was in South Africa
for a while, but I don't know if they use the same word.
But when you school somebody, it that's not a positive thing.
Yes, right. You're abusing them or
something. So it's not an accident that
they named the prison place that they sent children to school.
And what they learn in there is is how not to think.
And they've been at it for a long time, you know, at least
150 years of mandatory school. And they're very successful.
You know, people often talk about schools are failing and
blah, blah, blah, right? We hear that a lot.
It's not true. It's just that their intention
is to keep people thinking illiterate, or what I like to
call it, scientifically illiterate.
So when you when you have a scientifically illiterate
population led by scientists and medical doctors who are equally
scientifically illiterate, then this is what happens.
Let let me just give you an example, which I've given many
times. I stole it from somebody.
The example is in science is a is a in logic.
So we're not just talking about science, we're talking about
thinking is is not a matter of competing theories.
It's a matter of somebody makes a claim and then you try to
falsify the claim. So first step is if you can't
falsify the claim, it's a belief and there's nothing wrong with
believing things, but one shouldn't call it science or
thinking. So like if you say God created
the earth in seven days, like I don't know if that's true or not
and I don't know how to falsify it.
And so some people believe it and some people don't, and
that's fine, but that's not science.
And so, and another one is, you know, I've used this a lot.
Asian guy, 18, his parents are Caucasian, looks at his parents
closet, finds adoption papers, realises he never saw his
parents picture of his mother pregnant, goes to them and said,
is it true? And say, yeah, we got you from
an orphanage in China and you were adopted and we didn't want
to tell you because upset you and all that.
So that's very clear. So he goes to his friend, says
I'm a little shook up because I just found out I was adopted
from China. And he says, so who are your
real parents? He says, I don't know.
He says until you tell me who your real parents are, I don't
believe you were adopted. That's crazy.
How many doctors I've said there's no evidence that measles
as caused by a virus or there is a measles virus.
And you know what they say, So what causes measles?
Who are your real parents? They don't know how to think.
There is a claim, measles specific disease, which itself
isn't true and it's caused by a particle which has been found,
identified and characterised and shown to be the cause of this
problem. That is the claim, and that
claim has been falsified. Therefore, whether I or anybody
else knows why somebody gets a rash is irrelevant if they're
not adopted. And I was a doctor for 40 years.
At year 35, I didn't know that rule.
Why? Because you hadn't been
thinking. Yeah, I and I wrote A and here,
here's here. So this may sound like touting
my own horn, but I would say I was in the elite of questioning
things, right? So how do I here?
What's the evidence? I wrote a book the heart doesn't
pump the blood. I wrote a book that blocked
arteries don't cause heart attacks.
I wrote a book that cancer has nothing to do with genetics and
DNA has nothing to do with heredity.
I wrote a book about vaccines are neither safe or effective.
I eventually wrote a book that there's no such thing as a
virus. All that time I didn't know the
basic fundamental rules of logic and science.
Why I was schooled are stupid. One of the two I don't know.
Do you regret being in medicine in the established sense for so
long? Do I regret it?
No. I don't regret most anything in
my life. I mean, you know, I got married
and divorced and, and that was like, horrible, but I don't
regret it. I learned a lot about who I am
as a person. And you know what a father and a
husband should be and isn't. And I mean, I've made all kind
of mistakes in the world. And the problem is I have the
paper trail to prove it. So I could try to fool people
into thinking, oh, I didn't make any mistakes.
And then they'd show me the thing and I'd say, oh wow, it's
the problem. But Tom, if you were able to
change your perspective, your paradigm while being a doctor,
that means anybody can. But what triggered that change?
In me you mean? Yes.
You know, it's interesting because many people who get into
alternative medicine or so called alternative or whatever
often have a story of they were sick and they couldn't get
better and then they fasted or ate bananas or whatever and they
got better. I never had any story like that,
but I, you know, I got this following from, from Mr. Rogers.
I don't know if you know Mr. Rogers, but he, he was talking
and talking to somebody about why they were so interested in
finding the truth and not believing authority.
And it turns out that their father was basically a jerk.
And so they learned at a young age that people in authority who
supposedly tell you the truth are full of it.
And I had a similar story. And not only that, but I grew up
in a an environment of very prestigious doctors, like the
guy who started laser surgery and gynaecology was he delivered
me and he was one of our best friends.
And this guy who started immunotherapy for cancer till
they threw him in gaol for Medicare fraud.
But he was he was also in our circle of friends.
So I was very familiar with people in authority, especially
men and especially scientists. Doctors are full of it.
And so it wasn't unusual for me to think that, well, let's look
into it. So it wasn't anything except it
didn't make sense. You know, if somebody says, you
know, there's a virus, I say, how do you know that?
And then they told me, and I think you got to be kidding.
Like that's, that's irrational, illogical, anti scientific
thinking. So I don't believe it.
It's nothing more than that. What is a virus?
They say, right. It's like asking what is a
Unicorn? A virus, they say.
So here's the claim. A virus is an obligate
intracellular parasite that has a certain size, you know, like
10 microns, but up to 200. It has a protein exterior.
It has a genome, either RNA or, or DNA and it's, it uses the
cell. That's why it's it to, to
replicate. And then as it emerges from the
cell, that's how it causes disease.
That's the, that's the claim. So, you know, the, the, the way
to break that down is so there's a claim of a physical particle,
right, that you can photograph and has certain characteristics.
That's the claim. Remember I said, so we don't
need to know what causes measles.
We're just investigating that claim now.
The, I think the best way for people to understand it is if
you claim there's a hammer, right?
What do you do to prove? I say, Jeremy, how do you prove
there's a hammer? I'll show it to you.
Yeah. So let me see if you agree with
this. You go to the place where you'd
expect to find it like a toolbox.
You open it up, take out the the thing that you've identified as
a hammer and say here it is. And then you can characterise
it. Here's what it's made of.
And you can hit a nail with it and see if it knocks in the
nail. That's correct, yes.
OK, let's do a frog. How do you do a frog?
Well, we'll go to a pond and we'll look for it and we'll
point it out because it has those characteristics.
Right. And except probably you have a
net and so would you agree that the difference is how you
actually isolate it? Yes, because if it's mixed with
other weird fish and animals you would need to take the frog out
and say well this is the frog. Yeah.
And so the difference with that and a hammer is a hammer, you
just see it and A and a frog, you have to get a net, right.
But it's otherwise the same step.
You go to the ecosystem where you expect to find a frog.
You have a definition of what you think it is.
You isolate it with a technique like a net and then you can
characterise it and see if it eats flies.
If I said, OK, I I'm going to prove that hammers knock in
nails. So I'm going to go to a toolbox
and I'm going to hit the Dale with the toolbox without seeing
if there's a hammer in there or not.
What would you would that prove that there's a hammer?
No, you you need the hammer. You need the hammer.
If I say I can prove that frogs eat flies and I can put some
flies in the pond, I don't know whether there's a frog in there
or not. And I come the next day and
there's fewer flies. Does that prove that frogs eat
flies, right? That's obvious, right?
That's how people think. It's the same with bacteria,
same with nanoparticles. The only different you go to a
mouth, find some bacteria, isolate it, see what it's made
of, see what it does, right? So if you get, if you're talking
now about a virus. So the only difference is the
technique, right, of isolation. So if you take, if you go to a
person who you claim has a viral infection, COVID, measles,
chicken pox, smallpox, hoof and mouth disease, whatever, and
look through all their bodily fluids and the chicken pox
lesions and the blisters and the mucus and the snot and
everything, the urine, the blood, can you find that
particle? Because there are easily
techniques of finding things of that size, right, That any
analytical chemist will tell you that the answer is no, can't
find it. Now that's weird, right?
And I'll, I'll probably say the words, that's weird many times,
'cause if somebody said, Jeremy, there's a bunch of frogs in this
pond and you look through the whole pond and nobody ever has
ever found a frog, you would be hard pressed to be convinced
that they were right, Right. So the CDC, the NIH, Pasteur
Institute, Robert Koch Institute, everybody says
there's no evidence of any particle that meets our
definition directly in the fluids of any sick person or
animal or plant. That's clear.
Everybody agrees. If you ask them why can't you
find it? Like we have the the tools, they
say there's not enough to find, which is weird because like if
there's not enough frogs to find or hammers, you might be
suspicious that they're not actually there.
OK, but then let me play devil's advocate because the counter
argument is always the same. Well, that's why you have PCR
for example. Well, we'll get to that, OK,
Because we just to say we don't want to do reification
fallacies, which means, you know, unicorns are gentle.
In order to say that, you first have to have a Unicorn.
True. Right.
Otherwise you're reifying, meaning putting properties on
something you haven't shown actually is real yet.
So we'll get to the PCR. So, OK, so we haven't, we can't
isolate the thing, right? We're not talking about a
feeling or an emotion or a conception.
We're talking about a thing from the ecosystem, unlike just about
everything else that we say is real.
So then the question is, so how do they isolate the virus,
right? Because that's the key point,
because there's at least 10,000 papers called the isolation of
such and such a virus. So let's do polio 'cause that
was one of the first. So they took a child who died of
paralysis, right? They said that was a disease
called polio. They saw that their spine was
diseased, right? Not right and they ground it up
in a blender, put it through a philtre, injected that into a
brain of 2 monkeys, mixed it with some chemicals. 1 monkey
died and one monkey got paralysed and they said they
isolated the virus. They did it for 50 years,
probably 100,000 monkeys. And then in 1953 some guy, I
don't remember his name, decided to take a normal person's spine.
Died of car accident or something.
Do the same thing, grind it up, philtre it, inject it into this
brain of 2 monkeys. You know what happened to the
monkeys? They died.
And he said, well, that means it wasn't actually a virus, it was
just in monkeys don't like having stuff it chemicals and
dead spine injected into their brain, which which I could have
told them that anyways, right? So that was 1953, so 50 years
almost. That's how they isolated the
polio virus. And then it's an interesting
time because the next year they had a new way of isolating a
virus, which has been done ever since.
Let me repeat that because every isolation of every virus since
1954 has been done in the way I'm going to describe.
It was started with a paper by a guy named Enders.
Got a Nobel Prize. He took somebody with measles,
took their mucus, filtered it a little bit just to get rid of
some debris. Added that to growing culture of
monkey kidney cells. Added kidney poison antibiotics,
took away the nutrients. Added trypsin.
Waited 4-5 days, the kidney cells died.
He said that proves the kidney cells were killed by a virus.
Then interestingly, he did the same thing, except he didn't add
anything from anybody with measles.
The kidney poison, antibiotics, take away the food, the trips
and all the other chemicals. You know what happened?
Same thing, he said. It's indistinguishable.
In other words, he proved that it wasn't even anything from
anybody with measles, and that became the isolation of the
virus. Until this day.
Until this day, every SARS COV 2, every smallpox, every polio
virus, every Hanta pneumonia virus, every bird flu virus has
been isolated using that exact same technique.
Sometimes they change the cell line, sometimes they change the
antibiotics, sometimes they change, you know, the nutrient
broth, etcetera. But it's basically the same.
And we proved we being Stefan Lankin us, we did experiments
doing these, taking cell cultures, mixing them with the
same antibiotics, taking away the nutrients.
They all broke down the same as if you added a sample from
somebody who's supposedly had a virus.
Now let's get to your to the next thing.
But Tom, you idiot, they have pictures of it, right?
So they take that broken down cell culture and they mix it
with, they freeze it and they dehydrate it and they powder it
and they put heavy metal stains on it and then they show you a
picture of it. That's the herpes virus.
That's SARS COV 2. That's the polio virus.
There's 20 papers in the medical literature of taking a kidney
tissue, no virus from before 2000, doing the same thing,
grinding it, freezing it, heavy metal stains, exact same picture
proving those pictures are not something from the outside,
they're from broken down kidney tissue.
Or they now know that foetal bovine serum, which is added to
every cell culture, every cell culture has foetal bovine serum.
They all have particles which they say are indistinguishable
from viruses, meaning nobody knows that those pictures are
anything. In fact, we've proven those
pictures are broken down either from the cell culture, the
kidney cells. Or from foetal bovine serum,
which has lots of little particles stuff.
OK, so there's no pictures of that are proven to be viruses,
by the way, that broken down cell culture, right, With the
antibiotics in the foetal bovine that is then injected into
people under the name of a vaccine.
That's what a measles vaccine is.
I mean, now here's the PCR. So they take the broken down
cell culture. They've never found the virus,
right? In fact, they've disproven that
the breakdown of the cell is from a virus.
They've disproven that the pictures are from a virus and
they've got 56,000,000 little pieces of RNA or DNA that come
from what the cell culture, the foetal bovine serum, the the
host contamination from mosquitoes that flew up your
nose, whatever, right? They don't know where any of
this comes from. So they put, take it, chop it up
into little pieces. Then they tell the computer to
align that into a long string. It's like giving a computer
56,000,000 words and say make war and peace.
And the computer, if it has any sense, I don't know if computers
have sense, but it would say, can you show me war and peace?
And then I can make sure I get it right.
No, you have to come up with War and Peace without ever having
seen a copy of War and Peace. Like how would you do that?
It's not possible. It's not possible.
So in in the case of SARS COV 2, they came up with 1.2 million
possibilities and then they chose the longest one and that
is the genome of Cyrus COV 2. Then everybody after that takes
that one, that long genome, that long string, they pretend that's
actually War and peace. And then they tell the computer
with the next culture to make it as close to War and peace.
That one is possible. So it does, but it gets some of
it wrong. And that's called a variant.
And then they take some of those little pieces and that's called
PCR primers. And they say if we find these
pieces, that means it's from War and Peace.
And then to top it off, and this is really important for your
listeners, and I don't know if even you know this, when they
did SARS COV 2, they, they made a genome which had pieces in it
which actually didn't even come from the 56,000,000 words.
It's this takes a little bit of thinking.
So imagine you have 56,000,000 words and you arrange them into
a book, right? And you, now you have a book.
You don't know if that's a real book or not, right?
You just made up the book. And then in chapter 3, are the
words or the sentence to be or not to be?
That is the question. And yet you can't find those
sequence of words in the in the data.
And so anybody looking at that would say, wait a minute, how
did you get a piece from Hamlet in War and Peace?
Somebody must have put that in deliberately.
And that was the original Wuhan Fan Wu paper.
They put a sequence in there that they took from the from the
imaginary HIV virus. They inserted it into the final
genome. So it's a double fraud, first of
all, or triple. There's no HIV genome, there's
no SARS COV 2 genome. And they deliberately put it in
there to make people think it was a lab created virus.
Now how do I know that? Because we actually were the
only ones who said, OK, let's take the original data and and
run it and see if you can get the to be or not to be part and
you can't. In other words, they put it in
deliberately to scam people. And then they got Kennedy and
Sax and Big Tree and Malone and Kirsch to sell that Turkey to
the to the world and. Now Trump.
And now Trump and all the rest of them.
So there was no SARS COV 2 genome, they that was that was
made up. There is no HIV genome that was
made up. And then they inserted the one
into the other to make that. Any virologist looking at that,
just like any English teacher, if they see here's a book about
here's War and Peace. And then chapter 3 it says it
was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
I think that comes from Dickens. He would say, wait a minute,
this isn't the right, this isn't just a natural variant of war
and peace, like this is a deliberate insertion and I
caught you red handed doing it. And and they wanted it to be
caught so that we would then think, oh, look at these
dastardly people, their gain of functioning viruses, which is
like gain of functioning unicorns.
You can't gain a function, something that doesn't exist.
So getting back to your question, there is no, you can't
prove you can't test for a segment of something if you've
never had the something. If I say, Jeremy, I went out in
my field and I found these toenails and I know that proves
there's a Unicorn because unicorns have toenails.
It's. Ridiculous.
Why not I I just showed you the the toenail you don't have.
You have a problem with that? Are you saying that PCR doesn't
have a real world application? Because I I don't understand it
entirely, but isn't it an amplification of genetic
material? Isn't that what they used?
They they alleged genetic material.
They they supposedly make more of certain segments than were
there originally, but the the question of APCR or any test has
to be validated. In other words, how how do you
know that that came from the virus?
In order to answer how do you know the toenail came from a
Unicorn? Tom, show me the Unicorn with
the tail with the toenail on it. No, show me the virus.
They OK, I'll isolate the virus. How do you isolate the virus?
I already told you that you put snot on a cell culture and it
breaks down. That's called isolation of the
virus. Even though you can do the same
thing without adding snot and it still breaks down, proving that
it has nothing to do even with the snot, let alone a virus.
And then you have to prove that no other Organism in the world
has those chemicals in it 'cause if you do and you got the sample
from you, how do you know it didn't come from you?
How do you know that toenail wasn't from a cat?
Well, you better have a Unicorn and a cat and show that they're
different. But if you don't have a Unicorn
because you've never isolated and you don't have a picture of
it, and you don't have a genome of it except it was made in a
computer. Random selection of a certain
one out of 1,000,000 possible sources, and you have no way of
knowing which one is correct because you don't have anything
to compare it to. Again, the counter argument is
what? What happens when people get
collectively I'll? We already know it's not a
virus. Right.
So it's something else. Yeah, it's something else.
Now, once you So if a person is still using that to evaluate
whether there's a virus, then there's nothing to talk about.
They're all they're telling you is they're scientifically
illiterate and you should. You need to go through the
rules. But if they say, OK, I
understand there's no virus, now do can you help me understand
why people get sick or how people get sick?
So the first thing I would say about that is what I learned in
35 years of doing medicine is what we call sick is incorrect.
So let me give you an example. You get a splinter in your
finger and you don't take it out.
What happens next? It gets infected and it gets
worse. And not infected.
How do you know it's infected? Just when you when you.
I always tell people when they talk to me, think like a six
year old. You don't know You just what do
you see? Red, swollen pots, Right.
You agree? Yeah.
OK. And then what happens?
The splinter comes out right? So is the red pus swelling pain?
Is that the therapy or is that a disease?
It's your body trying to remove the splinter.
It's the therapy for the splinter.
That's how your body gets rid of splinters, right?
It's not an infection. That's an abstract concept.
So what about if we put debris in your lungs like smoke and
particulate matter and chemtrail dust, and you know what happens
next? I'll definitely feel terrible.
And you get a cough, right? Yes.
And mucus. Yes.
And you try to cough up the mucus.
Yes. And they go to the doctor and he
says you have bronchitis. Yes.
Is the cough mucus feel terrible?
Is that the therapy for the debris or is that a disease?
Yeah, I see what you're saying. So your body is trying to get
rid of that toxin. Right, so it coughs it out.
Yes. So only a fool would try to keep
it in your body or a medical doctor so you can see that what
we call disease is actually your body's attempt to heal.
So a lot of people have houses. I don't know if you have a
house. Yes.
And a lot of people have a like a entrance or a foyer to their
house. So what if somebody comes and
puts a whole lot of stinky garbage in your foyer?
What do you do next? Whenever.
You're 6 year old. I'll, I'll, I'll take it out.
How I I want details? OK, so I'll go to it.
I'll, I'll pick it up and I'll take it outside to the to the
bin or whatever. Yeah, you put it in a bag.
Yeah. Or a can or something.
Yeah, right. Again, I don't want to put words
in your mouth. You scoop it up, put it in a
bag, take it out to the garage, and then when the garbage people
come, you, you take it out to the curb and they pick it up.
Right. OK.
What if somebody puts garbage in the house called your body?
What do you do? Well, you would you would do the
same thing in a sense. Put it in a bag called the
tumour right? And that's stinky garbage and
then you would take it out to the curb.
That's called detoxification, sweating, pooping, diarrhoea,
coughing, etcetera. But what if they keep putting
garbage in your house and then your garage gets full, Then you
put it in the spare bedroom and then you can't take it out fast
enough. And then you put it in the
living room, and then the kitchen and then the master
bedroom. And then your wife leaves you
and then you then you have to move, right?
So same thing. You put it garbage in your body,
your house called your body, you put it in your breast or your
prostate. And then you get that gets full.
And then you put it in your liver and your brain and your
bones. And then you can't live there
anymore. And we call that dying.
And it's all because you kept accumulating garbage and because
people call doctors try to keep you from getting out the
garbage. So every time you coughed and
sweated and had heat to burn it off, they stopped you from doing
that. And so then you accumulated more
garbage. And then they say, well, you now
you have cancer, so we have to put you more garbage in.
You called chemo and then then you die.
Now, I started thinking about this in medical school because I
asked an oncologist, so how does the cancer get from the breast
to the liver? And he said it goes through the
bloodstream, right? That's what they say.
So I said, can you show it to me in the blood, the cancer cells?
No, Why not? You just said it goes through
the blood. We can't show it to you.
There's not enough to see. It's same with the virus thing.
So how did the how did the garbage get from your garage to
your spare bedroom? Obviously it crawled through the
the hallway. No, it didn't.
Your you chose because the one area was full to put it in
another area. Same with your body.
The breast or the prostate got full, so you put it in the next
organ, which may be your liver or your bones, and then the next
organ because you you don't know how to get rid of it, just like
what happened with your house. And so the whole idea we have of
why did I get sick means somebody poisoned you or you're
starving, or you have toxic emotions or psychological stress
or you fell off a horse or you have delusional ideas.
That's the main one. Like there's viruses.
I remember last year I was in Asia and I flew back.
Now this was the first time I actually thought about this.
When I flew back, I got a bit of a respiratory illness about one
or two days after getting home. And then I suddenly realised my
whole life I would have been told, well, you picked up a bug
from somebody on the aeroplane, but I thought, no, it it's so
obvious that I literally come from a different part of the
world. Different climate, different
temperature, different hemisphere, different season,
lack of sleep, different food. The the list of variables goes
on and on and on and. These straights really toxic
stuff in the aeroplane. Yeah.
That you breathed in. Yes.
And that your body said, let's try to get rid of this because
we're smart. You know, when people say, Tom,
didn't you learn anything of use in medical school?
I say, yes. I day one of medical school, a
guy got up and said, everybody remember that the dumbest kidney
is smarter than the smartest nephrologist.
And I've always remembered that because it's true.
Your body knew. I don't like this aerosol shit
that they sprayed on the plane. So I'm going to put it in some a
flow device called mucus and cough it up and make sure I rest
for a day or so. So I get rid of it and now
you're fine. That's why when you know, here's
some suggestion for people you know, even though I'm talking a
lot, I guess because maybe that's my job.
If I'm in a conversation with somebody, I never tell them what
I think. I just ask them questions.
My goal is to get them to hear themselves say nonsense.
How do you know somebody there's a virus?
Well, the consensus of scientists is there's a virus.
So I ask them what percentage of scientists have to say there's a
there's a virus before it's true?
98%. So if 3% say it's not true, then
it's not true. Well, that's ridiculous.
Or I say, how do you, how, what is a virologist?
How do they go in and prove there's a virus?
So they say, well, there's a consensus of virologists.
So in other words, a virologist goes to work, puts on his hazmat
suit, and they all sit around a table and they say, how many?
You think there's a virus? They all raise their hand.
There we go. We got a new paper, new virus.
That's how they do it. Well, no, they do an experiment.
OK, what's the experiment? I don't know.
So in other words, you believe that they're doing so, but you
have no frigging idea what they did.
That's like going to a car mechanic and saying, you know, I
come to the red light and my car doesn't stop and I don't want
wonder what's wrong. You think it could check my
brakes? And he says to you, what's a
brake? And you think, I think I'm going
to go to a different car mechanic?
So again, if you say, OK, Tom, I, you know, I, Uncle Harry went
to church and there was people who were coughing and then he
got sick and then, you know, Aunt Hilda, she got sick and
then the cat got sick and then we all got sick.
So it must be a virus, right? That's what they say.
So I say to them, so you mean if two or more people or animals
get same symptoms, same time, same place, that means something
was transmitted from one to the other, Is that right?
Yes, they say, OK, you put 100 rats in the basement, somebody
puts rat poison in there. Next day, all 100 rats bleed to
death. Same symptoms, same time, same
place. That means rat poison is a
contagion. Well, no, that's because we know
it was rat poison. So if you didn't know that they
put rat poison, then you would know that it was a contagion.
So in other words, if they did it and didn't tell you they were
putting rat poison, then you could say it was a contagion
instead of just rat poison. So what happens then, do you
think, in a situation like a chicken pox party?
Right. So Daniel Reutus, a friend of
mine, has written a book Can You Catch a Cold?
So people have for 100 years looked at do well people or
sorry, sick people or animals make well people or animals
sick. Because obviously you can't
tell, right? That's why, say the rat example,
you can't. You don't see a virus, you don't
see transmission, you don't see one child making another child
sick. All you see is same symptoms,
same time, same place, and you don't know what the cause of
that. So you can do it.
An experiment where you can take 100 children and then put ten
children who allegedly have chicken pox, whatever that is,
in the room. Same room, same teacher, same
yelling at them, same food, same air, same everything.
And then put ten well children and see if they get sick.
And as far as I know, there is no study that shows that that's
how it happens. And when I tell people that they
say well, but I got my, you know, and, and Hilda got sick
and then I, I don't want another and Hilda story.
I want a, a scientific demonstration that the only
variable was the sick animal or the sick children making well
animals or human sick. And as far as I know, that
doesn't exist. Now, I think it's true that, you
know, being around other people, like, you know, women menstruate
the same and we, we yawn. So animals and people
communicate with each other in all kinds of ways, but
transmission of contagious germs has been disproven.
Disproven. So if you still believe that,
it's not because it's because you're scientifically
illiterate, basically. This entire discussion has
focused on viruses, and people often ask yes, but what about
bacteria and other germs? We can see them under a
microscope. So right, they they actually
exist, which because again, if you go back to how do you find
out a frog in this case, you go to a mouth or or skin and you
can find bacteria, right? Simple.
Now the next question, how do you prove that the hammer knocks
in the nail? You take only the hammer and you
hit a nail and see if it goes in the wall.
And then you go like this with your hand, right?
Because maybe it was just the hand doing that.
And then maybe you think nail go in doesn't go in, right?
At least as far as every time I've tried that doesn't go in.
And so it's only the hammer hitting the hammer, the nail
with the hammer. So you do that with bacteria.
It's very simple. You take only bacteria, not
bacteria and arsenic like Pasteur did, not stinky air with
TB bacteria like Coke did, you know right?
Not other stuff. You don't hit the nail with the
toolbox, you hit the nail with the hammer.
OK, so you take bacteria, any bacteria, expose those to, you
know, healthy people, make them sick.
Here's again a challenge for all your listeners.
We don't know one study where that's been shown to be true.
Doesn't happen. There is no study of an isolated
bacteria making otherwise well people or animals sick.
If you don't believe me, show me the study and I will come back
on your show and say Yep, I was wrong.
What was that whole story then about that?
What? Well, anthrax in an envelope or
something. First of all, it was a story,
right? And here's, you know, the
anthrax. The interesting thing because
they have normal anthrax, which is just spores of the bacteria.
And then this goes even back all the way to Pasteur.
They have enhanced anthrax because normal anthrax spores
don't make anybody sick, but enhanced anthrax spores are
mixed with arsenic and, and Jeremy, that's just, it's just
normal. That's just 'cause that helps
the anthrax spores be healthy and grow and don't like, don't
worry about it. It's not that arsenic does
anything to you, even though you can actually show that you could
powder arsenic and have the same thing happen without the
anthrax, but don't worry about that.
So they they put enhanced anthrax spores and lo and
behold, people get sick. That's because it's the anthrax.
Somebody asked me a few days ago on X.
OK, but will you let yourself be bitten by a dog with rabies?
Well, firstly, no, I don't want to get bitten.
But rabies? What do you make of that?
I, I, I like rabies because all the medical doctors bring up
rabies. So I, I happen, if you're can
indulge me, I have my rabies facts 'cause I, I want to get
the numbers, right, right. So here's the facts about
rabies. So according to the CDC, right?
So the authoritative source, in the United States between 1980
and 1996, there was 32 patients who had rabies.
Forget about is it a specific disease and all that which it
isn't, but let's just say it is. Seven of those had an animal
exposure. 25 of them have no recollection of being around or
in any contact with any animal. In other words, 78% had nothing
to do with an animal. Now then they looked from 1996
until 2024. I think it was maybe 2023, I'm
not sure. 37 human cases. 30 acquired in the US, 30 acquired
in the US. Of those, 3028% said they never
were exposed to an animal. So what the hell happened to
them? Then they talk about if an
animal drinks, you know, animals who are, have rabies allegedly,
don't they? They are afraid of water.
But if you put like arsenic or mercury in the water and it it
burns their throat, they will be hydrophobic, right?
So that's another thing. Now in the 1900s there was a
Philadelphia dog pound. 6000 vagrant dogs annually came to
this dog # thousands of bites. Over 25 years over 150,000 dogs
went through this place. 0 cases of rabies.
In 1900s in the Hospital in London there was 2668 people
bitten by dogs. 0 cases of rabies.
Zero death, zero treatment in the 1900s Saint George Hospital
in London, over 4000 dog bites were registered in the emergency
room. 0 cases of rabies the. The pathopnemonic hallmark in
the brain of animals is called Negri bodies has been shown to
be associated with many different conditions.
Now the Pasteur Institute says there were 3000 cases of death
from rabies. Every single one of them was
treated with the vaccine. So what causes rabies?
The vaccine? Well, they, they take an animal
that's been poisoned, they take their saliva, essentially make a
cell culture and inject that into you numerous times.
Now, what do I have to say about people who are bitten by angry
dogs? First of all, I, I have once
been bitten by an angry dog. It is not fun.
That is the most, maybe one of the most terrifying experiences
of my life. Not only that, but dogs, like
cats and lions have amazing digestive powers.
How do I know that? Cause I've seen my cat eat the
head of a squirrel and I've seen it poop out basically nothing.
And so somehow it, it knows how to digest the skull of a
squirrel, which is pretty strong digestive enzyme.
So you take this dog that can digest ahead of a rabbit, right,
if you let it and they inject their digestive enzymes in you.
And that's, and it's a terrifying emotionally charged
experience like you've never had in your life.
That's going to cause some problems like breakdown of the
tissue and you know, necrosis of your skin and muscle, etcetera.
And then the bacteria are going to come to clean up the mess.
They're not causing an infection.
They're just helping resorb the dead tissue.
And so it's a problem, right? And you have to manage it and
suck the poison out and etcetera.
You know, and that's take some skill, but there is no rabies
virus. Rabies has never actually been
associated even with animal exposure, according to the CDC.
And as far as they know, historically nobody has died of
rabies bite who wasn't treated with the rabies vaccine,
especially the vets. They poison the animals with
rabies shots. And I've seen healthy animals,
you give them rabies shots and then a month, six months, a year
later they're dead from usually neurological problems, seizures,
brain tumours, etcetera. It is a you know I didn't used
to be an animal lover but now that I moved here and I have 4
cats and four goats, the what they do to animals is just makes
me pissed off. But don't you sympathise a
little bit because you were in that space for decades?
I I should, but I don't. Yeah, I I know what you mean,
right? I I was just as stupid and
bamboozled as everybody else. We all were.
So I should. Let's say that.
Based on what you're saying, Tom, therefore there is no such
thing as an immune system. There is no such thing as an
immune. You know, that's what's called
in. I'm not an expert in logic, but
I think it's called post hoc reasoning.
In other words, you make a claim and then the claim gets
falsified and then you have a fork in the road.
You can either say, yeah, the claim was wrong and I got to
look for something else, or you can make up another rationale to
keep the claim going. So originally with this, they
said everybody who's exposed to a person with the virus gets
sick. You get exposed to somebody with
chicken pox, you get sick, right?
Well, it turns out that's not the case.
Everybody can see that. Some people maybe do and some
people, most people don't. So why is that you falsified
that claim? Well, that's because, Jeremy,
you have an immune system, so it protects you from getting the
the virus. And then you say, So what is the
immune system based on? It's based on antibodies, right?
So you get chicken pox, you make antibodies to the virus, you
never get the virus again. You never get chicken pox.
You get measles, you get antibodies to the virus and you
never get the measles again, right?
We all heard that, so let me make that a principle.
See if you agree. If you make antibodies, you're
immune to the illness, IE immune to the virus.
OK, that's what they say. So then then you get the flu and
you make antibodies, but then you get the flu next year.
But that's because the virus was smart, unlike the measles one.
That's a stupid virus. And the measles virus is smart,
and it knows how to evade your antibodies.
OK. And then 1984, the year I
graduated medical school, I'm walking down the street.
I hear Robert Gallo get on the television, say we found the
cause of AIDS, right? It's an HIV virus.
How do we know? Because we found antibodies to
the HIV virus in the blood of some people with AIDS.
In other words, Jeremy, we all know that if you have antibodies
to a virus, that means the virus is going to kill you.
And I remember thinking to myself, wait a minute.
I just spent four years learning that if I got antibodies, I'm
immune for life to the virus. And this bozo gets on the horn
and says if I have antibodies that means the virus is going to
kill me. Wait a minute, those both can't
be true. Either it means I'm immune or it
means the virus is going to kill me.
No explanation of how come now antibodies mean you're going to
get the virus is going to kill you, whereas before it meant you
were immune for life. In other words, the whole thing
is nonsense. Do antibodies fall under the
same problem as viruses that can't be seen?
They've never been isolated, never been characterised, never
been shown to do anything. So that's theoretical.
They are theoretical molecules that were made up in order to
convince people that in the beginning that you were immune
and then the HIV thing turned that on its head.
And so now it's turns out, Jeremy, you can either, if you
have antibodies, it means you're either immune or you're not
immune. That's how that's that's makes
sense, right? Because those are the only two
options there are. If you if you touch fire, you'll
either burn your hand or you won't.
When somebody says I'm going to take more vitamin C so that I
can get rid of this cold, I mean, what's going on there?
Has anybody ever isolated vitamin CIE ascorbic acid from
the biological fluids of any living person?
I I don't know, I suppose not. Well, see, that's the question
now here's the here's the answer they say they have, just like
they say with viruses and antibodies.
And but then if you're a a savvy person, you ask them how did
they isolate it? Right, 'cause people say all
kinds of things. Same with hormones.
Do you know how they isolate? You think you have testosterone
in your body, of course, right? How did they isolate it from
your from your body? You don't know.
No. So they took your blood or your
testicle and they mixed it with some acids and then they ground
it up and then they filtered it and then they centrifuged it.
And then with testosterone, they washed it with acetone 7 times
because when they wash it 6 times, they don't get anything.
I, I'm very interested in the guy who decided to wash it 7
times instead of 6 times. He got a Nobel Prize for doing
that, by the way. And then I would ask him, how do
you know that thing was there without washing it and
centrifuging it, mixing it with the acids, etcetera.
You know what the answer is? He has no idea.
That's the same with Solskov too.
I mean the patient #1. Yeah, you don't.
How do you know it's there if you don't mix it with the acids
and the acetone and all the rest of it?
Same with vitamin C. You take blood and you mix it
with different acids and then alkalize and bases and buffers
and then philtre it in, centrifuge it and then you get a
powder and then you rehydrate it and then you've got ascorbic
acid. And then if you ask them, how do
you know that that thing was there in that form in the
original person, right? Without, they have no idea.
And then of course, they say, well, right.
But Tom, you dumbass, you know you can't.
That's only way you can find it. I know that's the only way you
can find it, which means you don't know whether it's there.
It's a belief system, right? Because you can't control the
experiment. You can't say, OK, I did it
without mixing it with this acid and I got I got the same thing.
You can't do that. So the only thing you could say
honestly is I have no idea whether any of these hormones or
vitamins or proteins are actually there while you're
alive. I just there's no way to know
that. Fair enough.
Now you can make a belief system and tell yourself a story that
you do know it, but the fact of the matter is you don't.
Now that's a problem. Now, just let me say I'm not
saying that chemicals made in the laboratory don't have
effects, right? But you can take somebody who's
like sad, right? And you give them cocaine,
that's a chemical made in a lab, and they feel better.
Or an antidepressant. Or, well, that's complicated.
Let's say cocaine. They feel happy.
And Jeremy, that proves that the reason people aren't happy is
because they're cocaine deficient.
Go back to the antidepressants bit.
Well, there are no neurotransmitters like serotonin
and dopamine. Same thing.
Nobody has ever isolated them intact.
There's not even any synapses in nerves.
Those are the gaps where the neurotransmitters breach the
synapse. And Hillman went through this in
detail. The only way they can prove
there's they can't take a picture of a synapse.
There's no way to do that. So they take a nerve, which is a
tube. You can see a nerve and they
dehydrate it. It's like taking a thread,
right? And you dehydrate it and it
breaks, and then it rolls up at the edges and there's a gap.
And you say that's a synapse. And you say, let me see the
synapse without dehydrating the tube because it's made of
basically water. Well, no, you can't see it then.
Well, how do you know it's there?
I mean. But of course, antidepressants
are highly toxic, there's no doubt about that.
No doubt about it, because there's no evidence that
serotonin has anything to do with, quote, a disease.
I mean, the whole disease categorization is, is
antibiological. They say somebody who is
persistently depressed. So I say, how long do you have
to be depressed before you get a diagnosis of depression?
Six weeks. So if you're sad for five weeks
and 23 hours, then you're fine, But if you're sad for six weeks,
then you have a disease and you need Prozac.
Like, that's not real. That is a arbitrage.
It's like, you know, autism. That's a big thing.
Now, how do you know somebody's autistic?
Well, they flap their hand. Yeah.
How? How often do they have to flap
their hand? 10 * a minute.
So if you flap your hand 91269 then I don't do it anymore
because I don't want to be diagnosed with autism.
Like that is not a biological entity.
That's an arbitrary designation, usually for political reasons.
We have a very impoverished view of illness.
Of life and thinking. We are bamboozled, actually
schooled to learn how to obey and not to think.
And it was very successful. And we believe authority even
though we have, we don't know how to ask them, you know, I
mean, you can do this with nuclear weapons, for God's sake.
How do you know there's a nucleus?
I have no idea. Well, I do, and I looked at the
study that they proved there was a nucleus and it's total
nonsense. So how do you split something
which doesn't exist? And, you know, on the face of
it, they say these things that are infinitesimally small,
right? Like an atom.
It can you, you, you blow it up or somehow, you know, manipulate
it and it can blow up a city. I mean, if you think about that,
on the face of it, you would say, I'm not sure I'm buying
that. Like the only things I know that
can blow up a city are like really big bombs, you know, and
like hundreds of thousands of them.
And I know that that works because I've seen it, but not
something that's, you know, smaller than the smallest thing
you can imagine. It's the same thing.
You know, they've got us believe it.
You know, a lot of this all starts from physics.
They, they have people believe in quantum physics right now,
right? And they believe in what they
call quantum duet by location. In other words, things are in
two places at the same time, right?
You've heard that. Yeah, like my house, right,
'cause I have a house. So I wanted to be in two places
at the same time. That way I don't have to build a
second house. So I asked a physicist.
He said, no, it's too big. OK, what about my dog?
No, it's too big 'cause my dog is only in one place at the same
time. I don't actually have a dog, but
a cat. What about a bacteria?
No, they're too big. They're only at the same place
one place at a time. So when does it become the size
that it it exists at two places at the same time?
The answer is when it's too small to see.
In other words, invisible. So how do you know it's not at
10 places at the same time if it's invisible?
Well. How can I follow your work?
That's good, 'cause you know, it's, I mean, I, I try to make
it into like a comedy show, but it's not really funny.
I mean, it's a serious problem because you cannot build a
healthy culture on a illiterate society.
So the answer to your question, so Doctor Tom cowan.com and we
have a new biology clinic where we actually treat people, not
me, because I'm too far gone for that.
We treat people based on these principles with with doctors who
know what they're talking about. So because when you go to a
doctor, they're treating you based on disproven theories.
You have an autoimmune disease. OK, show me the antibody that
causes disease. No, we can't do that.
I mean. All right, Tom Kahn, love
chatting to you. Thank you for joining me in the
trenches.