Okay. Welcome, everybody. Today, see June 19, is that right? 2024. And thanks, everybody, for joining me. Another Wednesday webinar, as probably most of you or some of you know, that this was, I was going to do a show with Jamie, who I think most of you know was on Alex Zechs show, and we decided, due to scheduling issues, to put it off for a while until we get things a little more settled. And so I decided to do a recap of where we’re at with the virus. No virus conversation, let’s call it, because there’s been a lot happening in the past week or so.

So I thought I would just try to put my two cent in about where we’re at with this. So before that, I just want to thank everybody who’s sent me their cover letters and resumes for applying for the new biology positions, whether as a sort of lead practitioner or one of the enrichment service providers. We I, and we really appreciate that your interest. And I know I haven’t gotten back to everybody yet, but I’m going through them. There’s some really amazing people and it would be great to have everybody, but that can’t be what’s happening right now.

So unfortunately, we’re going to have to pick and choose who I, you know, have a conversation with and who is able to join the clinic. But again, we really, and I really appreciate everybody’s interest. Things are going great for us and I think we’re building a whole new model for how medicine can be done going forward. There was another announcement. Oh yeah. The new biology clinic, I think, has a new website. So we would love everybody to go check that out and even give us some feedback. I’m told it’s newbiologyclinic.com. that’s newbiologyclinic.com. so check it out.

Tell us what you think. We hope you sign up and become a member and then tell us what you think about what happened. And it’s really an exciting proposition for all of us. And we’re really enjoying our little doctor practitioner meetings that we have so we all get to learn from each other. It’s been a really amazing experience for me personally and hopefully for the rest of the practitioners. And at the end of the day, we hope that these kind of meetings are fruitful for our members. As we learn more, we know more, and we can do more good in the world and help more people with, regain their health.

Okay. There’s also, let me share my screen here. There’s a rumor out there that I wrote a book under a pseudonym or I think they call these avatars these days. And I can assure you that’s not the case. I don’t need to share my sound. Here’s the book, and it’s apparently from Penguin books. I know I’m wasting my life, but I’m not sure how to stop a guide for virologists. And like I say, I can assure you this was not me who wrote this. So I don’t know who did because there’s no name on the front of the COVID here.

I haven’t read the book, but sounds like an interesting book. Okay, so now. Oh yeah. The other thing I was wanting to bring up is a lot of this conversation reminds me of one of my favorite authors and favorite quotes, which I’ve also brought up a number of times. And that is Ivan Ilitch. And he, I think my absolute favorite quote, and there’s probably a hundred that are in contention, was something to the effect, this is a paraphrase, not a quote, that said, let me just stop this share here for a minute. So he said, the function of school is to have people, the children, who then do well in school, who then get the dubious privilege of being allowed to consume ever more school.

And as they keep consuming more and more school until after they’ve consumed so much school that the only people left they can talk to are people who’ve consumed a similar amount of school. We see that dynamic play out in a number of fields. Virology is certainly a prime example where the only people who, and this is also sort of by design, this gets into the WC fields quote about, if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. So at some point, nobody understands what the virologists are talking about. Nobody understands the Federal reserve people and what they’re talking about with derivatives and all their stuff, with the markets and negative this and economic jargon that they use.

And that’s by design. And the design of it is to make you think, well, these people must know something. I mean, I don’t understand what they’re talking about, but it must be something or they wouldn’t be able to use these big words. And that’s one of the strategies that is used here. And it’s used in economics and used in medicine, it’s used in virology, it’s used in pretty much any field. You know, an example of this was, I happen to see a recent video, I think it was in England, where they were having a meeting and they invited the guy named Higgins, who was the founder or the originator of the theory of the Higgins boson particle, which I believe they also called something like the God particle.

And so the guy up. And so Higgins was in the audience. He’s an old guy, and he had came up with this something 30, 40, 50 years ago. And the guy got up and announced that we have an important announcement that we may have found some evidence for the existence of this Higgins boson particle. Those were the exact words. We may have found some evidence for the existence of this particle. And what was so interesting about it is Higgins, they then panned to him in the audience, and he started to weep because it was such an emotional experience for him, because clearly, he must have made this up, hoping that someday somebody would actually discover whether it was real or not.

He obviously didn’t. And so these people were, for the first time, publicly announcing something confirming that they may have actually validated his theory about the existence of this particle. But I’ve mentioned this before. If you look at the exact words, they may have found some evidence, and even that little statement was enough to bring this man to tears. And obviously, if you say you may have found some evidence, that means you also may not have found any evidence. And so, actually, they said nothing. And the situation has got so ludicrous with how people hear information and use words or misuse words that they don’t actually even hear the meaning of what was actually said, which was, we got nothing here.

And it was such an emotional experience that the guy broke down and cried. And so that brings me. So we’re going to be looking at a little bit today of how we know things and the words that people use, because as we’ve gone over many, many times, the devil is in the details. And you’re not allowed to change the meaning of the word to fool people. Well, let me say that a different way. You are allowed to do it. But those of us who are listening would be better served to not fall for it. If somebody changes the meaning of a common word, we shouldn’t let them get away with that, especially if we’re wanting to somehow learn to think properly.

So, as far as I can see, where we’re at right now, after the conversation that Andy and Kirsch had and the substacks, many of them and all different people weighing in and hundreds, if not thousands of comments, and the conversation that Alec and Jamie had about the end of virology. So here’s where we’re at right now. As best I can see, the people who are still arguing for virology at this point have two main arguments. The first is, and we’ve again gone over this many times, but to put it into clear language as best I can, this is the.

How do you explain that Aunt Bessie went to church and her friend Joe was sick and then Aunt Bessie got sick and she came home and then Uncle Harry got sick with similar symptoms in a few days. And that example is magnified to the, you know, the hundred of people at the concert and the Grantham thing and, and all different examples, basically the same. And let me give you another written example of exactly this. This is the first and main argument for the existence of viruses. So this is by Suzanne Humphries. And again, I can’t say that I know for sure that she wrote this, but I guess it was on her thing.

So I got a thing in the way. Don’t be so open minded that your brain falls out. I’ve been down this rabbit hole a decade ago regarding measles and influenza. There’s, I don’t know what that says. Do not exist are not transmitted. Yes, they don’t infect and cause disease in everybody that’s exposed. This does not mean they don’t exist. I think it would be great if viruses didn’t exist because then we could take the argument about vaccines and throw it out the window. This is a very important point because this is correct. Once we get rid of the viruses, we throw the entire vaccine argument out the window.

That is a huge reason to keep going with this. Once you throw the virus existence out, the vaccine argument gets thrown out the window. Everybody can see that. Everybody can also see there is no other way to throw the vaccine issue out the window. But the fact of the matter is there is overwhelming evidence not of existence, but the transmission of existence of different viruses. I’m right smack now in the middle of a COVID infection. I know exactly where I got it from. A house concert event where more than half of the people there became infected and sick.

I know exactly who I gave it to. Later, some of the people I gave it to were completely unaware that I was sick. So it wasn’t their expectation or fear that made them sick. I only had mild symptoms in the beginning but then got knocked over by it. And then there’s some sort of reference here, okay, Aunt Bessie got sick and then Uncle Harry got it. That proves the existence of viruses. Let’s back up a little bit and talk about how we know stuff. So there’s basically two broad categories of ways we know stuff. I know there’s a pencil here, because I can see it and hold it and feel it.

And if I have any question about it, I can ask my wife and my friends and I can get a whole party of people over for dinner and say, you see this thing here? What does it look like? Do you think this thing exists? And everybody says, yes, and they describe it exactly the same. It feels exactly the same. We have direct observational evidence that there is a pencil. And then once we have only the pencil, not a whole bunch of things like this, then we can see what the pencil does. And it turns out if we have only the pencil and it goes like this pencil writes marks on pieces of paper.

If we took all four of these, which is called pens and markers, and we did it, we wouldn’t know which one did it. So we have to separate the pencil, called isolation, from all the other ones and see what it does, and then we can find out what it’s made of. Now, sometimes that isn’t possible. You don’t have an observation. In that case, you have to do science, because then you have to use all the appropriate controls, because we don’t have a direct experience even that the thing exists. And so if you want to find out whether the thing exists, you have to somehow have some sort of clarification, observation, some sort of method that is controlled by every possible way you can imagine to know that that thing exists because you don’t have a direct observation.

Now, again, as I’ve said many times, sometimes your observations can lead you. Lead you astray. So, for instance, you can say, I saw a flying saucer flying over my yard, but then it turns out there was a frisbee tournament at the park next door, and so it wasn’t a flying saucer. So you need to check yourself with other people and even sometimes investigate your observations. So that’s true. And it’s also true that you can sometimes extend your observations by improving the way you observe and the way you think and the way you notice things. Artists can see more colors than I can, musicians can hear more tones than I can.

That just because I don’t hear them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. But people can train themselves and teach themselves to hear and see and observe things that some of us can’t do. So taking that all into account, then, let’s look at this story by doctor Humphreys. What did she actually observe? And this comes up a lot. Chickenpox, parties, measles, et cetera. You’re observing something. So the question is, can we put that into very clear words. And I would say that the clear words that that observation is, is what we see is multiple people or sometimes animals, could be even plants, who have the same symptoms at the same time, in the same place, one after another.

That’s what you see. So that means that this is not an observation about viruses. Let me say that again. There’s nothing about this observation that has any relevance to the existence of viruses or not, can’t be used one way or another. All you’re trying to, all you’re observing here is that multiple people in this case, with all the cases that were mentioned, get similar symptoms, often not identical. Same time, same place, sometimes one after another, same symptoms, same time, same place. That is what, that is what you observe. Again, nothing to do with viruses. Now, the principle then is, is there a transmission phenomena happening? So then you have to go through and ask the question, if two or more people are animals, let’s keep it to that.

Get the same symptoms at the same time, in the same place. Does that mean that something was transmitted from one person or animal to the next? LeT me say that again. What the claim is, what doctor Humphrey’s claim was, was she observed multiple people, same symptoms or similar symptoms, same time, same place. She concluded from that. That that means there was a transmissible phenomena. Is that a reasonable conclusion? The answer clearly is no. Why? Because you can put 100 rats in your basement, unbeknownst to you, or be known to you, if that’s a word, you can put rat poison, one after another of the rats will have the same symptoms, bleed to death, same place, all in your basement, same time, in the next few days.

And so, unless you want to say that feeding rats rat poison is a transmissible event, you have to conclude. You have to conclude that this is not evidence that ANytHiNg was transmitted from one person to another. Let me just say this very starkly. If you don’t get that point, point. There’s one of two reasons, and I’m going to say this again later. There’s one of two reasons. One is you have essentially rescinded your ability to think properly. In other words, you have chosen, and I use that word advisedly, to not think, not use rational, logical, critical, scientific thinking in order to understand this situation.

There’s no other explanation except you could have nefarious intentions. In other words, you could be lying and saying you think one thing when really you think another, to sort of fool people. Now, I. Sorry, I don’t know which it is in any particular case. My guess, and it’s really irrelevant, which it is, is that the second example rarely happens. People are not lying for nefarious reasons, although I can imagine that there are times that that does happen. So let’s throw that one out. And saying a person who thinks that that proves transmission has decided, chosen not to think.

Now, that’s a real problem, I would say, because one could make the case that the defining feature of people, men and women, is our ability to reason critically, think, and use rational thought. That’s what defines us as a species, in a sense. Now, a person who decides not to do that, who chooses not to use this faculty, is choosing to essentially go on a different path than this human path. One could even say that is a transhumanistic path. And so it’s not surprising that people who choose to not use their logic and their critical thinking facilities are actually easy prey for people who want a more intense, intensified transhumanistic path.

Okay, getting back to our example. So the best we can say is we have this observation that these people or animals, many of them, same symptoms, same time, same place, has nothing to do with the virus. Nobody observed a virus. Nobody saw a virus. That would have to be a whole different set of experiments. But now we can actually design experiments to see. We have no idea whether something was transmitted or a common exposure or something in the air or something in consciousness field or some other explanation we haven’t thought of. We have this claim. She made this claim that that proves it’s a transmissible event.

In order to make that claim, you would have to do formal transmission studies where you. You control for every other possible variable, so that the only variable there is the independent variable, would be you expose well, people to sick people. And we have looked at all of the studies, the Rossineau study, Daniel Reuters, 200 studies with the colds and the flu, and we can’t find a single study that corroborates that mechanism. We have asked repeatedly. I have asked everybody I could think of. That’s the first step in this quote, virology debate. Send me a properly controlled study that shows that sick people or sick animals make well, people or well animals sick, and nobody has been able to do that, period.

Therefore, that conclusion that this reflects a transmissible event has been falsified. Period. Again, if you don’t understand that what I just said, and that that conclusion has been falsified, then there is something actually wrong with your ability to think. And that’s a big problem, because that is what makes you human. So, on the other hand, we have, as Daniel’s book can you catch a cold? We have 100 plus studies that show that’s not the way it happens. You cannot transmit a cold. We can’t find any illness that’s transmitted, that’s proven to be transmitted in a properly controlled trial.

Therefore, again, it stands at this point as a falsified hypothesis. Therefore nobody should use those examples ever again. We don’t need more, more 100 people got sick or any of that stuff ever again. What we need, if you still think that that’s the case, that this observation reflects a transmissible event, we need a study proving that. And we have been waiting four years to find it. It doesn’t happen. So that is the first and major argument that people have been using. What about the Aunt Bessie and the church and the COVID and everybody got sick at the same time.

That proves it’s a virus. Just to recap one, there’s no virus part of that equation. There’s not a test of a virus, there’s no observed phenomena of a virus. All you can say is we’re wondering if this, this phenomena is a reflection of transmission of illness. We’ve studied it. It’s been studied for the last hundred years. The conclusion at this point is this is not a transmissible event. This is for complicated reasons. And just to say the only times that it seemed to be transmissible was when it was with a heavy dose of nocebo, you know, negative programming.

And the occasional time when somebody with a snotty nose was making a lot of histamine and the next person inhaled or drank some of their histamine and they got a snotty nose too, which doesn’t, it’s, that is a, some kind of transmissible event. And those are the only kind of examples we can find. If you disagree with that, we don’t need another story, we need a study showing it at this point. We haven’t seen it at this point. That is a, a falsified argument, period. Okay, so then we get to the next thing, which is the whole, uh, you know, Jamie Andrews and Alex Zeck studies.

And this has been done many, many times before. And this involves the cell culture or the so called viral culture. Now this is very interesting because one of the people in the debate, this Mister Kirsch, actually wrote a summary of his criticism of those studies. So let me bring that up now and show it to you. So if there, and this is from, I think, his substac, if they’re going to criticize virology, they should be using a scientific method with controls. They didn’t do that. They never compared virus versus no virus. That’s why they have not convinced a single virologist with their experiment.

They’re expecting that people who are not trained in virology will conclude that they have exposed the fraud. It proves nothing. At no time did they add a real virus to the mix and measure the differential cell death to quantify the level of CPE. That’s the cytopathic effect, the breakdown of the cells. So there was no true independent variable that was manipulated to see if there was a change in the dependent variable. That’s the breakdown of the cell. This is basic science. If there is no differential cell death, when a virus which would have been had to have been previously demonstrated to grow aggressively in the chosen media is added, then you’ve got something to talk about.

Bold letters. But they never did that. They never added any virus at all. Why didn’t they? Just skipping down. Why didn’t they do that? You can’t cut corners in science like this with no virus and claim this is game changing results showing viruses don’t cause CPE. So, to summarize the argument, he says the problem with these control experiments that Jamie did and that Stefan did and that have been done many, many times, starting with enders, etcetera, is nobody. Stupid people, none of you stupid people ever did the experiment of putting the control group the same exact ingredients, same nutrients, same antibiotics, same fetal bovine serum, same viral transport medium, everything the same as the experimental group.

The only difference was that they should put the virus in the experimental group and no virus in the control group. Everything else has to be the same. That is the only way to do a true scientific experiment. That’s the point of what he said. And you know what? I agree. Now let’s look at this. A comment that was made in this chat, I think it was a few weeks ago, apparently there was a virologist and somebody said, the problem with virology is there’s no independent variable, okay. In this control cell culture experiment or anything, but in the control cell culture experiment, and the virologist piped in with a very interesting quote, he said, and we have this recorded so we can actually show it to you, the sample is the independent variable.

Let me say that again. The sample is the independent variable. So what is the sample? The sample is bronchial alveolar lavage fluid or snot or spit or something taken from a sick person. Now we have to go back to the days, this is the method. This is the method. And I’m going to say that one more time. This is the method that the existence of the virus is proven, not one of the methods. This is called the isolation of the virus. That means this is the method where we see the pencil, isolate it, therefore can study it, find out what it’s made of and what it does.

This is the method that all virology uses. So what did this virologist say is the independent variable, the snot, not a virus. How do you know the snot has a virus? You don’t, because you don’t look for it. It’s not enough to see, can’t find it, can’t show a virus in the snot. So you put it on a culture, you do a sort of control. A mock infection is defined as one arm. You put a virus or a bacteria, the other control, you do everything the same, except not the bacteria or not the virus. This is not a mock infection because they never put only a virus in the experimental group, and no virus and everything else the same in the control group.

In fact, between us, they cheat with the control group and don’t put so much antibiotics and don’t change the nutrients and do a few other things which they never record, because actually between friends doesn’t matter. But anyways, let’s forget about that for a minute. So even on their own terms, they fudge the results. So why don’t they put, as Steve suggests, to make this a truly scientific experiment, one group with the virus, one group, everything else the same. No virus, as he pointed out, that would make it a scientific experiment that has never been done once in the history of virology.

That quote, that the independent variable is the snot, the sample, which is a complex mixture of proteins and enzymes and who knows what other kind of molecular stuff, genetic material, who knows, rna, DNA, maybe toxins. Nobody looks. All they do is they put unpurified stuff, which has never even been looked for, whether there’s a virus in there, except with tests, which are invalid, as I’ll say in a minute. So how can the virus be the independent variable? Which is why anybody looking at this would have to conclude that they have never done a virological experiment. This cell culture experiment, at best, if it’s done properly, is a test to see whether an unspecified brew of snot and viral transport medium breaks down cells, monkey kidney cells, more than if you don’t add this unspecified snot and viral transport medium, which breaks down more.

That is the purpose of that experiment. Again, it has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with proving the existence of a virus. The only way that could happen is if you had proven the existence of a virus first and had the experimental group with the virus, the control group with no virus, just like Kirsch said, that has never been done in the history of virology. All that Jamie did was recreate what they do, which has nothing to do with viruses. Let me say that again. It has nothing to do with viruses. They’re not testing viruses. They’re testing snot or bronchial alveolar lavage fluid.

There is no evidence of a virus in there. If you go back to the original days, they’re testing to see whether snot facilitates the breakdown of the cells. And what Jamie found in this case was it didn’t have anything to do with it. The cells break down because of the way you starve and poison them. Now, going back to this, we also have evidence that many other things we have. They took the cerebrospinal fluid of people with schizophrenia, and they found, as this article says, back in 1983, British Journal of Experimental Pathology. Yes. If you add the cerebrospinal fluid of people with schizophrenia, then you have increased cytopathic effect from this.

So we know. We know. We have studies. Gentamicin increases the cytopathic effect. Amphotericin increases the cytopathic effect. Many other toxins and stuff that could be in bronchial alveolar lavage fluid increase the cytopathic effect. This experiment has nothing to do with proving the existence of the virus. Yet it is the experiment that they claim proves it. I’m going to say the same thing I said before. If you can’t follow the thinking of what I just said, there’s only two reasons. One, you have chosen not to think. And that means you have chosen a different path than the human path, which is one based on using our mind to think and reason and use logic, and then use the scientific method to assess the realities of our world.

And you have chosen not to use those faculties in your understanding of the world. The other one, of course, you have nefarious reasons. In other words, you’re lying. And I don’t think that’s the case with most people. There’s also maybe a third reason, which is you couldn’t care less. And so you can think about some things, but you can’t think about this. And I suppose that’s fair enough. But then you have no business being part of this conversation. You should just say, I couldn’t care less about this. I’m not spending any effort thinking about this. So I’m just, you guys think whatever you want, I don’t care.

But if you’re weighing in and you think that after hearing this very clear explanation of the issues, exactly what Kirsch said, in order for this to be science, you have to have an isolated purified virus in the experimental group, no virus, everything else the same, and you show CPE happens in the experimental group, not in the control group. We will all admit we were wrong. If you can show us one study, the virologist, including this guy, who says the independent variable is not the virus. That’s the end of virology, folks. The independent variable is not the virus.

It is a complex mixture of snot and sample, et cetera, and the transport medium, etcetera. So they have never done an experiment with the virus because they can’t find it. They’re only doing experiments with different kinds of snot and fluid, other chemicals and other stuff. They mix in there, never with the virus. Now, because that is their definition of isolation. In other words, that is the way that they separate the pencil from everything else, the virus from the host, genetic material, proteins, enzymes, and who knows else what, God knows else what’s in there, because they have never isolated it, obviously, because they’ve never worked with a virus to isolate it and have it in a pure form.

If you disagree, you’re going to have to send us the study where the virus was, the independent variable. It doesn’t exist, folks. It doesn’t exist. Therefore, and this is crucial, you have no idea where any of the components in this broken down cell culture or the bronchial alveolar lavage fluid came from. You don’t know whether the so called genetic material came from fungus, bacteria, humans, nothing. You have no idea the origin, the provenance of this proteins or genetic material. Every time it’s been tested with the HIV studies, they find the lymphocytes have the same proteins infected, so called or not infected.

So that theory that there is proteins which are only found in the virus or genetic material that are only found in the virus has been falsified. It’s not true. So therefore any test of genetic material is irrelevant because you don’t even have the particle to know that exists and to know that it has genetic material in it. If you don’t have the pencil, you can’t do a test to see if it has lead or graphite in it. If all you have is these things mixed up together and you find a little piece of plastic in it, you have no idea where that came from, since the pencil, that is, the virus has never been separated because that cell culture experiment is the isolation experiment, period.

You’ve never isolated, you’ve never had it in pure form. You’ve never shown any convincing evidence with any virus that you have it. Therefore, you don’t know that the virus exists. You don’t know that it has any components. You don’t know that it has genetic material or proteins or anything because you don’t know that it even exists. And if you don’t get that, that’s because there is something wrong with your thinking or you have nefarious intentions. That’s the only two options there is. Or I guess you don’t care. But if you do care and you’re listening, those are the only two options there is.

So the question we keep getting asked, well, how do you explain that you get the same PCR tests all over the world with sick people? So let’s dissect that. A PCR test means you test for a piece of the genetic material of this organism, this particle. But we just showed, as everybody has agreed, that you’ve never isolated this because, as he pointed out, you’ve never done an experiment with or without a virus. So you don’t even know whether this quote particle has rna, DNA or any other so called genetic material or not. You’ve never separated it from the genetic material of whatever bacteria, fungus, flies you ingested, bananas you inhaled, or the human tissue.

You’ve never separated the thing in order to test what it is. The, the whole rationale for a, using a test, which is a piece of something to prove something exists, you have to have two conditions. One, you have to have purified, isolated in pure form, the thing you’re looking for. First, you can’t say this pencil has lead until you have the pencil first show that it has lead. Since they never had a pure virus first, they never show that it has genetic material or any particular kind of genetic material. Therefore, it fails the first evaluation of whether a PCR is even a test of a virus or anything.

You don’t even know that it has genetic material, let alone that particular genetic material. You don’t know where any of its rna or DNA in that mixture actually came from because you’ve never separated things out. And again, I will say if that doesn’t make sense to you, then you have a serious problem with your ability to think. The second principle of a PCR as a test would be not only have you proven that that piece of sequence came from that organism, which is impossible if you never had the organism. But you’ve also proven that it couldn’t possibly have come from any other organism, like a bacteria or a fungus or the person.

And we already know that that’s not the case. And particularly if you do enough cycles and you amplify these sequences over and over again, you can find anything in anybody. And that has been shown over and over again. So this isn’t testing for anything. You don’t know the origin of that sequence. You don’t know whether it came from a human or a bacteria. And every time we evaluate whether that sequence can be found in a human being, this has been done. They find it do enough cycles, you get enough errors in the replication, you will find it in the people.

That’s why they found it in pawpaws, they found it in goats, they found it in motor oil. They found it in distilled water, which proves that this is not a unique to any so called virus. And in fact, when you put those two together, a, the sequence has never been shown to come from a virus. B, it’s not unique to a virus. Therefore, the test is meaningless. So any argument that, how do you explain that you get sick? People all over the world who test positive to the same sequence cannot possibly be the answer, is because they have the same virus can’t possibly be the answer.

So what is the reason? Because those sequences are found in sick people. And if you amplify the material, the sequences enough, you’ll find them, for whatever reason, for some people make these sequences. Some people make different sequences for probably unknown reasons that we haven’t teased out yet, because it’s completely irrelevant, because the test is meaningless. And the third principle of a test is you have to compare it to something which you know is true. So, for instance, you want to do a blood test for pregnancy. You standardize it by testing it against people, women you know are pregnant.

So you take 100 pregnant women, you could feel the baby. Then you do a test, it tells positive. And 99, you have a 1% error rate. You take 100 men who are not pregnant and one is positive, the rest are negative. You have a 1% negative error rate. Since there is no gold standard in virology, you cannot standardize the test. You can’t find out what the error rate is. So the test is completely meaningless because it fails to meet all three criteria which would define a test. A, you’ve shown that that sequence or that antigen or that antibody is specific to that organism.

You cannot possibly have done that because you’ve never had an example of the pure organism. The second thing is, you’ve shown that it doesn’t exist in any other life form that could be in that sample. We already know that’s not the case because we found it in humans positive PCR tests, and in monkeys, or in goats and in pawpaws and motor oil and distilled water. So we already know you can find those sequences if you just amplify the cycles enough in many other things that couldn’t possibly have a virus. And since there is no gold standard, because there is no way to be sure you have a virus in the first place, or that somebody has a viral illness, you can’t possibly compare it to anything you know is true.

And so it’s a meaningless test. And so to use that as well, how do you explain that people test positive or have the same sequence, or even the same genetic sequence all over the world? It has nothing to do with proving there’s a virus. And again, if you don’t get that, there’s a serious problem with your thinking capacity. And the way I look at it, this is not Klaus Schwab’s fault, or Fauci’s fault, or Biden’s fault, or Trump’s fault, or Kennedy’s fault or big tree’s fault for bamboozling you and telling you nonsense. If you’re not willing to think, then that’s their job, is to bamboozle you.

If you’re not willing to think, then somebody will come into that void and tell you nonsense to think, and that’s not their fault. There will always be the next person to do that, and they will keep doing it until you stand up and say, no. I am a logical, rational human being. I have a mind. I can think for myself. This is very easy stuff to understand. I am not going to allow myself to be fooled and to lessen myself as a human being by choosing not to think. You are choosing the path of lessening yourself as a man or a woman, as a functioning human being, because that is our say, our gift that we’ve been given, that we can begin to understand the world if we just get ourselves together and learn to think properly and stick to that and not be swayed by all the people and all the emotions and all the traumas and all the conditioning and all the punishments and all the rewards that have convinced us that we better not think, because all kinds of bad things will happen.

That cannot be the way to build a healthy world. And we’re seeing that whole agenda play out before our eyes. And I know I said I was going to do question and answer, but I went on for while here, I want to finish with something which I don’t actually have permission to show publicly, except you gave permission to somebody else, which I think summarizes it exactly what I’m trying to say in one short paragraph. And this is from our friend Michael Bryant. And I just happen to see this today. And again, I hope he doesn’t mind, but he gave permission to somebody else.

So they operate on the level of ancient superstitions, snatching at imaginary dib bucks that can only be seen through the lens of super duper techno marvel machines that are pre programmed to point towards motes and mites as evidence of the haunting. And then they create magical elixirs that an insane world would be understood for what they are. Industrial poisons that will exercise these submicroscopic demons from the mortal body, makes for a good show and big business, but has nothing to do with biological reality. I think that sums it up. We’re looking for imaginary unicorns and demons and exorcising them.

And the only people who can see them do so with jargon and their super duper techno marvel machines, which nobody else of us can understand because we all know they consumed enough schooling. So the only people left they can talk to are people who’ve consumed a similar amount of school. And the rest of us are, unfortunately, in the dark. Except, folks, we’re getting the hang of this. We’re getting the hang of this. And we figured out what these machines are doing and how they programmed them and how it’s just a big old magic show. And you can see that with every comment section and more and more questions and the desperation that they keep their techno marvel show going to smaller and smaller things.

Because once we prove that the genome is a hoax, then they’ll say, well, it’s not the genome. It’s the subset of the epitope of the positive strand going negative backwards on the highway and more baffling. And at some point, you have to just say, you know what? I got this. Enough of this. I’m going to think for myself. I’m going to reclaim my humanity and think for myself. I’m not going to let these people bamboozle me with their engineered viruses and scary viruses and lab created nonsense. No more of that. I’m thinking for myself. So thanks, everybody.

I hope you’re not suffering from the heat as much as we have here, but hopefully it will end soon. And thanks for listening and onward, because we’re doing a great job of making our collective voices heard in a way that hasn’t happened in the last 50 or so years. Thanks, everybody, for helping with this, and I will see you next week. Bye.
[tr:tra].

See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.