Summary
➡ The text discusses the need for ethical behavior in the medical field, particularly regarding vaccines. It criticizes the 1986 vaccine indemnity law, which protects vaccine manufacturers from being sued for any harm caused by their products. The author suggests that doctors and pharmaceutical companies should be held accountable for any harm caused by their products. They also propose that all pharmaceutical drugs should prove their safety and effectiveness, and that patients should be fully informed about vaccines before receiving them.
➡ This text suggests that people should take more responsibility for their health and food choices. It encourages questioning the safety and efficacy of medical treatments and food production methods. The author believes that this will lead to more transparency in these industries, and a healthier society overall. They also predict the rise of new businesses providing accurate health and food information, and an increase in good farming practices.
➡ The author writes about life lessons learned from observing his cat, Pumpkin. He notes Pumpkin’s unique behavior of expressing gratitude before eating, which he interprets as a sign of the importance of connection. The author also discusses the concept of ‘coherence’, a state of calmness and ease, which is linked to thoughts of gratitude. He suggests that Pumpkin’s behavior may teach us to appreciate life and find joy, despite the world’s challenges.
Transcript
And we are extremely grateful for everybody’s support and best wishes and just the fact that you’re willing to be our customers. We are extremely grateful. All the people who work for all the various Dr. Cowan businesses, the new biology clinic, the new biology curriculum, Dr. Tom Cowan, and Dr. Cowan’s garden. So again, thank you very much. Check out our sales. And I think that’s it. Meaning I can stop now and I’ll see you later. But no, I’m not going to stop now. That would be having been a waste of your time. So how did this come about? I was contacted earlier in the week, maybe the end of last week, by a friend who has been very intimately involved with the Kennedy campaign, first for president and now in his parent nomination for hhs, whatever you call it, director, secretary, or whatever it is.
And so he told me that I don’t know if he’s in charge or is collecting policy ideas that they that he’s hoping to present to the larger Kennedy contingent. And these are ideas which various people who they know and respect would like to see implemented in the coming weeks, months, and years. So let me just try to be as clear as I can. First of all, this is not about personnel. This is about policy issues, things that we or I in this case, would like to see happen. And I just want to be very clear about a few things.
First of all, this doesn’t mean an endorsement of any particular person or agenda. That’s clear. Second of all, I was told that I shouldn’t worry about whether things like these things are realistic or likely to be implemented or even whether HHS has the jurisdiction to implement some of these proposals. And I also want to be very clear that I have no idea with some of these whether if I say HHS should do this and then somebody comes back and says, but that’s the department of who’s its face. And I didn’t know that. Fair enough. I don’t know that I was not asked to comment on those things.
I don’t know about those things. I know nothing about those things. I don’t know whose bailiwick these things are. But I was asked just to present ideas around health, agriculture, farming, medicine, health that I would like to see implemented. And again, I want to emphasize that I was not asked to see, to offer suggestions of things that would be acceptable to be implemented. So the argument that, well, nobody’s going to do this. I mean, maybe they will and maybe they won’t and that’s not up to me. And that was not what I was asked to comment on.
So these are simply things that I would like to see. Now, in thinking about how to present this, I actually came to the decision that I was going to present two options. The first option, as you’ll see, is more in line with what I was asked, which is what proposals, policy decisions would I like to see HHS implement. So that’s. So option one is sort of based on the standard model of government. And then option two is a different way of looking at it. And I think it’s probably fair enough for me to say I’ll leave it to you folks to figure out which one I have my heart more in, option one or option two.
But I was strongly encouraged by friends and other people that I should give a fair response. Just, you know, if I was HHS or suggesting policy to them, what would I like to see them implemented? Again, I just want to emphasize the criticism that they’ll never do this or whatever is irrelevant here. What would I like to see done? Now the first thing I want to mention, and I have notes here because these are like lists. And so I wrote lists when I was thinking about this and I thought it would be better to have it written down so I didn’t forget any of the items on my list.
So that’s why I’ll be looking down or looking, putting my note cards up. But the first thing is a, in this first option, I’m relying heavily on what I understand to be the precautionary principle, which is basically the idea that when you’re talking about things to do with health, and I’m not sure this is exactly the meaning of the precautionary principle, but it’s anyways how I’m interpreting it, in a sense, it’s guilty until proven otherwise. So with regard to food, I thought, well, one way to say it is if the food wasn’t in common use, say a Hundred years ago, like 100 years ago, people ate meat and carrots and butter and cream and things like that.
If it was in common use 100 years ago, then it’s probably okay. But Froot Loops and Doritos and lots of things were not in common use anywhere in the world. And so anything that was not in common use has to be evaluated based on the precautionary principle, meaning it’s unsafe and guilty until proven otherwise. Essentially, that means that the burden of proof is on whoever is making, manufacturing and selling that product to prove that it actually is safe and with medicines, safe and effective. So that is a, just to say a guiding principle in this option one section.
So let me give you the list and I might say something along the way. But the first thing is I would ban glyphosate. And again, just let me re emphasize we could talk about whether banning is the right way to go or whatever. That’s not what I’m talking about right now. We’re just talking about assuming HHS does what it supposed to do according to the rules right now. What would I do? So, number one, I ban glyphosate. That means nobody’s allowed to use it, sell it, or anything else. And let me just say one other thing.
I’m not going to get into now what the consequence of breaking this dictate is, or whether this is a law or an edict or a presidential order or any of that stuff. None of that is relevant for this conversation. So you just banned glyphosate. And I’m not sure what happens if you break that dictate, but it’s gone. Number two is I would ban all vaccines. All vaccines. So I don’t need to get into that. And only thing I would say about that is that means for humans and animals, rabies shots, MMRs, Covid shots, DPT, you name it, gone, banned.
Number three is I would ban stents and coronary bypass surgery. They’ve not been proven to be safe nor effective. And there’s a lot of reasons to think that in spite of the fact that they make billions of dollars for the pharmaceutical and hospital industry, they are not good for the patients or the people in the United States. Number four, I would ban statin drugs. They have no use and they’re extremely toxic chemicals that should never be ingested by any person. Number five, I would ban all cancer screening tests. None of them have been shown to improve the health outcomes of anybody.
And they all engender fear. And just people being consumers of the of more Medicine also when I say ban. So I would ban until the makers of whatever the statin drugs or the bypass surgeons, or the bypass industry or the vaccine manufacturers. Of course, if they could demonstrate that the theory upon which these interventions are based are sound and that the interventions are safe and actually improve people’s lives, then we would lift the ban. As far as I can see right now, that’s not the case. And having looked for evidence that they are safe and effective and should be part of a medical system, I don’t see it now.
So the burden of proof is on them. The next thing is I would ban financial incentives to doctors to prescribe any drug, vaccine or order any test there’s recently circulating from somebody, I don’t know that she was a pediatrician, but has looked into pediatricians practices. And they are highly incentivized financially, depending on the percentage of children in their practice who are fully vaccinated and how many vaccines they give. And they get a certain amount of money per each antigen in the vaccine. And all that is frank corruption, which should never happen. Doctors should have a financial relationship directly with the people who choose to come to them.
And nobody should be incentivizing them. They should consider that being bribed. So no doctor morally or ethically should accept a bribe to do something to that patient that is not in their best interest in order for financial gain for themselves. That is the essence of poor ethical behavior and should never be tolerated. So that’s number six. Number seven is I would certainly repeal the 1986, I think it is vaccine indemnity law. I know that is even being discussed. And interestingly, that law came about because at that point there, as far as I know, no product in the United States has total indemnity.
In other words, if somebody makes a product that doesn’t work the way they say, or is defective or causes you harm, you can have, you can sue the manufacturer and attempt to, you know, get compensation for the harm that they caused you. Except with this 1986 vaccine law. And so from then on, neither the doctors nor the pharmaceutical industry is able to be held liable. Instead, the government, meaning our money, is used to compensate certain victims according to certain rules which make it very difficult for anybody to get compensated. And that should never happen. If a company makes a product that harms people, they should be held liable.
And you might even say the actual people who made Those decisions, the CEOs and the science advisors and all the rest of it, they should be held personally responsible, including the doctors who administrate the vaccines or any other pharmaceutical product that causes harm. And I would say with none of these people should ignorance be an excuse. Like, oh, I was told that the CDC said it was safe, so I didn’t look into it. And so I didn’t know. You know, it’s, that’s your job. Your job is to look into it. If you’re not willing to bother to do that, then you should pay the consequences.
So that’s number seven. Number eight was make all current pharmaceutical drugs, including chemo, prove they are safe, effective and better than common natural medicines, herbs, fasting, homeopathy, et cetera, for that condition. Number nine, it’s a little bit like the previous one, but pass a quote law stating that if any doctor administers a vaccine to any patient without the patient stating in writing that they have watched and understood a 30 minute video on vaccines, and I will publicly offer to make that 30 minute video and I’ll try to get Steve Falconer and Mark Bailey to help me.
The administering doctor and nurse can be held personally and financially responsible for any damage that occurs as a result of the administration of the vaccine. Obviously if the vaccines were banned, it wouldn’t be much call for this, but essentially what I mean is, so if they’re not banned and you can still do it, then you would make it pass a, whatever rule that says, okay, you want to take a vaccine, so you got to watch this video for 30 minutes, then you have to sign that you watched and understood the video and only then will I give you the vaccine.
And just to help everybody out, I’m offering with Mark and Steve. They haven’t agreed to this or heard about this, but I think I can twist their arm to make the video. And so that, that’s how we would do that. And then finally, I would defund all virology research. Call a symposium that demands that virologists prove the existence of the virus using the scientific method. And if they fail, the money saved be used to facilitate the purchase of small farms by young farmers who pledge to grow food using organic and regenerative farming practices. And again, I haven’t run this by them, but I will nominate myself, Andy Kaufman and Mike Stone.
So we will voluntarily serve as the judges on the symposium. So in other words, the virologist would have to convince us that viruses are real and therefore something that should be vaccinated against and all the different mandates. And if they fail to do that by, let’s call it, unanimous consent of the three judges, that’s us, that basically all the Money going to virologists in any form be stopped and that money be used as seed money to buy land for young farmers who want to grow food organically and regeneratively. And I think that’s it. So that’s my start for option one, what I would do if I was put in charge of policy.
Those are my policy implementation guidelines for hhs. Okay, now switching tracks here. This is option two. So now we’re again, what would I do if asked by the head of hhs? So what do I want to see happen? So, right, first thing is I would give 30 days notice and then I would fire all the employees of hhs, stop all government funded medical and biology research and stop all regulatory activity by hhs. So in other words, I would basically close the department and I would give everybody 30 days notice so they would have 30 days of pay and then they would be out their job.
Number two, I would sell all the buildings and equipment currently owned by HHS and its subsidiaries. So in other words, they have a lot of branches that are under the HHH umbrella and buildings, et cetera. I would sell all their equipment and get rid of their buildings and I would return all the funds saved from decrease in the salaries and the sale of the equipment in the buildings to the taxpayers from whom this money was originally confiscated. So in other words, people, taxpayers were originally had their money taken from them to fund these projects. So I would stop doing that and return the money that had already been taken.
And of course that would require coming up with some sort of formula to figure out which person paid a certain amount. And I’m sure some good accountants and actuaries could do that. Now, the next thing is, I would have Kennedy read publicly the explanation for this action and I will now publicly offer to write the draft of this public statement that he would read. Importantly, the explanation will make it clear to the American people that there will no longer be a, quote, Big Brother attempting to regulate medicine and farming. This strategy of regulating medicine and farming has been tried for at least 60 years and as far as I can see has clearly failed.
In other words, doing some of the things I talked about in option one, let’s ban this and regulate that and make so this can happen and that, that we’ve been doing that. In fact, the Kennedy family here was largely responsible for starting the CDC and helping to fund or start or initiate a regulatory system to create safe medicines and safe farming practices. That’s what I hear. I may have gotten that wrong, but that’s what I hear and if you actually look at are we better off with safer medicines and a healthier population and better soil and better farmland.
Now, after spending maybe hundreds of billions of dollars on this regulatory industry, I would say that anybody really examining the situation would say, in fact, we’re not better off, we’re worse off. We have more vaccines, more sick people, more toxic drugs, farmland is getting worse and more chemicalized, et cetera. There, of course, are counter movements to that, but overall, the whole regulatory approach seems to have failed. And so of course one could say, well, we have to do it better or we have to weed out corruption. That of course never actually happens. So why not try a different approach, which is to get rid of the whole thing.
It’s time for everyone to realize this is part of the statement that your safety, health and well being is and must be in your hands. Therefore, taking. Before taking any product of the pharmaceutical or agribusiness industries, you, the consumer, the person, the actual person involved, you need to find out what is in it, what is in these things, what is in these vaccines, what is in these pharmaceutical drugs? What was the theory behind creating them? You need to know the theory behind them and how have they been proven safe, or if they’ve been proven safe and so on.
In other words, it’s time to be adults and grow up and accept that the responsibility for evaluating all of these products, these vaccines, et cetera, is on you. And if the reason that doesn’t happen now, there’s of course a lot of reasons, but one of them is people are under the mistaken idea that, well, the FDA is looking at it and so they wouldn’t approve this medicine or this vaccine unless they knew it was safe. So therefore I don’t have to look at it or people think my doctor, that’s his job, you know, he has thoroughly evaluated all these vaccines and these medicines and he’s making the best choice for me and so that I trust him or her, and so I don’t need to worry about this.
And we all know that that’s simply not true. So as I going on, if your doctor can’t supply you with this information, I would leave their practice. If you can’t get the answer from your doctor, what is the viral theory? How was it proven? How do we know that these bacterial toxins cause disease? How do we know that cancer is what we say and that screening tests work and that chemotherapy is safe and effective? How do we know that? Show me the research. And if they can’t do that, you need to find another doctor. If a food doesn’t provide you with the information about how the food was grown and processed, rather than having the FDA say, well, this food may or may not be safe, and all the levels of corruption and graft that went into that decision, which I would say are basically impossible to eliminate, you should say to yourself, I don’t know how this food was grown.
I don’t accept these guidelines that the producer put on there because they’re not telling me who grew it or how they processed it. So you would then stop buying that food and grow. Either grow your own food or buy it from a farmer who will provide you with this information. You would realize that your health and the health of your family and children is in your hands, where it has needed to be all along. So I thought of some of the repercussions that I expect to see as a result of these changes. So now we’re in, as some people would say, the wild west of regulation.
There’s nobody watching the fort, and that scares a lot of people. How am I going to know if something is safe or not? Now, remember, there is a whole lot of people now who are out of the job, who. You. Who are familiar with how to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various products. So what I think will happen is that there will be an explosion of initiatives by people to say, look, I’ve looked into this and this vaccine. Here’s what’s in it, here’s the theory that’s behind it, here’s the safety profile, or no safety trials have actually been done, and here’s.
Here’s the information. If you want the information, you know, give me $10 or sign up as a member and I will provide you with the information. So not everybody has to go looking for all this information by themselves. There will be people then who are unscrupulous, because that always is the case. And they will be paid by the pharmaceutical industry or the agribusiness industry to say, no, I’m an independent business and I’ve looked into glyphosate, and it’s perfectly safe. So everybody can use it and you can choose who to believe. What I think would happen as a result is that people would scrutinize intensely and actually each other and each other’s businesses, and they would blow the whistle and they would demand, where does your funding come from and who’s supporting you? So we would have a lot more vigorous and open and healthy and active debate.
And people would then have to choose who do they find the most credible, which arguments make the most sense. And where do they want to go with this? Okay, my guess is once all this information is out there, that rather than forcing people not to, you’re not allowed to take vaccines, which will create an unbelievable donnybrook and culture war, et cetera. In this scenario, option two, people obviously have the choice, but you. But they will also have to realize that it’s their responsibility, their grownups. Now, they’re the ones who have to decide whether this is safe for their children or not.
And the manufacturers and the doctors would no longer have immunity under this system. So they would be worried that if they harmed you, that their butt is on the line. And to me, that would make it a much different world. My guess is the uptake of vaccines would drop dramatically without using violence to coerce anybody to do anything, as would the uptake of screening for disease, which has never been proven to be effective, or the intake of pharmaceutical drugs. My prediction is that many doctors and pharmaceutical companies will actually go out of business, just like they would have in 1986, unless they were shielded by the government from the repercussions of the harm they were doing to people.
That is a good thing. And instead, new companies will sprout up to give people accurate information about all things health and food related. And we would end up having a world, a country, of people who say, I want to go to that farm to see how you’re growing food before I’m willing to give you my money. And so then you would have all kinds of people going to farms and seeing how they grow things and how they take care of the animals and whether the animals seem healthy and are actually out in the sunshine and grass.
And if a farmer refused to do that, I’m not saying they have to do it all the time. They could obviously set up systems that make would make it work for them. But if a farmer is not willing to be transparent about how they grow things, or a pharmaceutical company is not willing to be transparent about the theory and production of their products, I wouldn’t buy it. And that will change everything. Not out of coercion or violence, but simply out of the natural consequences of people realizing that their health is where it has always been, in their own hands.
Another thing that I think would happen as a result of these changes in option two is that there would be all kinds of new, like, urgent care, privately owned facilities that would actually sprout up in each community. These would be staffed by EMT people and ER doctors and surgeons who get the program and who are willing to do things that are actually useful for people. Like if you get stabbed by a knife, they can take the knife out and clean the wound and maybe stitch it up. And there’s about maybe 2 or so percent of conventional medicine, mostly emergency care, that actually is helpful to people and would be nice to have around and would be nice to have in every community.
And these would be great business opportunities for doctors and surgeons and EMTs and er, people who actually want to help, people who actually want to have a good business and don’t want to have to coerce people to do all the things that otherwise make them sick. So we would have sprouting a whole new economic activity of new urgent cares, along with of course, every kind of holistic practitioner, people who become experts in fasting and in castor oil packs and in turpentine and in cell salts and homeopathy and herbs and regenerative moving and primal movement and biofield tuning.
All these things would be fertile fields for people to get into to create their own businesses. Because once people know that they need to look into it for themselves and figure out what works and they investigate the safety and track record of, you know, all the fasting and all these other things that have been working for hundreds, if not thousands of years, then there would be an explosion of real medicine happening in this country with the resultant improvement in our health. There would also open up the area for all these people who were otherwise kicked out of their job to look into what is real healing.
So we would start looking into harvesting electromagnetism and using that in healing as was done in the old world. There would also be an explosion in good farming practices because if you’re a farmer and nobody wants to buy your food unless you allow them to visit your farm and see how you’re growing it, that would make it so that you have no choice and you would be completely incentivized. You would have a tremendous business growing food that people, you would be transparent in every step of the way and that would be a great thing. And eventually we would make not America healthy again.
That’s not the goal. We would make the people who live in this place, who live on this land, they would be sovereign, healthy, self regulated, adult people who finally know that their responsibility for their lives and their health and the health of their children is in their own hand. Okay, so that’s option number two. And again, as always, I welcome any questions or comments. And again, I’m not claiming that this is doable or is going to happen or is even you Know, I don’t know the, like, the logistics of whether you have to wait six weeks to fire people or three months or who owns the buildings and where the money could go.
I’m just saying it’s what I would do. All right. And now, because it’s Thanksgiving and I want to finish on a slightly different note, because this is obviously a time when we reflect on gratitude and what we are grateful for in our life. And as I said, I, for one, am extremely grateful to everybody who is our supporter, customer, friend, follower, commenter. Even if you make nasty comments, I still appreciate that you’re willing to engage. Now, over the past couple weeks, I don’t know exactly how I got this, but partly out of explaining my original Pumpkin story of what would happen to Pumpkin if you convinced him that there was an unseen danger.
I decided to write a book. And when I write books now, I write them long hand in a binder like this. This is a little bit better, although the back just fell off. And then I have somebody type it up for me. So I decided to write a short book, maybe even you could call it a booklet called something like the Lessons Pumpkin has Taught Me. Pumpkin has been with me. Pumpkin, my male orange cat, first animal that I ever really connected to in my life. He came to us about four years ago. And since then I’ve been interacting with him pretty much every day and watching him.
And I decided that as a result of watching him, there’s some things that I’ve learned about life that I thought might be valuable for people. And so that’s what I wrote down. So this is the seventh and final chapter. It’s called Gratitude. And the way that I organize this is I would first take an observation that from Pumpkin, in other words, something that I consistently regularly saw, a behavior he does or something. And I would describe the behavior, in other words, the observable. So now we’re telling the story of what Pumpkin does. And then I would take a guess at the interpretation of what that behavior means.
Now, obviously, I don’t know because Pumpkin can’t talk to me, but he talks to me in his way. And so I obviously could misinterpret these gestures, but this is my, you could say best guess at what these gestures mean. So again, in the first, we’ve now had six chapters that are describing something that I see with Pumpkin. And then I’m going to interpret what the lesson is for me. And hopefully this booklet will be done. I’m guessing January or February. I hope everybody checks it out. I think it will be a valuable contribution to your life.
Just to hear what we can learn from somebody who seems to me in some ways pretty wise being so. This is the chapter seven called Gratitude and I’m just going to read it as is. So as I mentioned in chapter five, Patience for the past four years, every time without exception, when I put Pumpkin’s food bowl down before he eats, he rubs against my hand. While I’m guessing that many will say this gesture is instinct, whatever that is, or just something that cats or animals do, whatever that means, but for both Linda and I, it is an unmistakable way of expressing gratitude for his food.
Cats clearly interact with their food in funny ways before they eat. All our cats throw mice and birds up in the air and jump around many times before eating them. This is a different gesture, though. It seems to be saying food is important, but connection is even more important. Recently I had a conversation with a like minded doctor whose primary tool in her practice was using the HeartMath Coherence app. Coherence is defined as the optimal heart rate variability state somewhere between a rigid metronome and a chaotic fibrillation. It is also a state of parasympathetic nervous system dominance, the state of being calm, relaxed and at ease.
There’s a large body of research that suggest that the more we are in a coherent state, the healthier we will be and the happier we feel. What is particularly interesting is that the Heartmath Institute’s central premise is that the single most important determinant of whether or not we are in a coherent state is the nature of our thoughts, not our feelings, as one might suspect our thoughts. Furthermore, they have found that the most powerful thoughts that produce this coherent state are thoughts of gratitude. Gratitude is an expression. Sorry. Gratitude is an experience of connection, safety and joy.
It is the recognition of the beauty of simply being alive. To feel the sun on our faces, the earth under our feet, and the joy of sharing our lives with those we love. It is the experience of being home. Pumpkin somehow feels this. He must experience this coherence. His final lesson may be that regardless of all the stuff going on in the world, in your town, in your life, remember that you are alive and there is still joy in the world. If you can find this gratitude place inside you, maybe, just maybe, the joy will increase.
So thank you very much everybody. I wish you a wonderful next few holiday days and I will look forward to seeing you next week.
[tr:tra].
See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.
Author
