➡ On December 10, 2025, two important announcements were made: a price increase for new members of the biology clinic starting January 1, 2026, and an upcoming biology gathering at Polyface Farm in Virginia from June 4 to 6. Existing members and those who sign up before January 1st will not experience a price increase for two years. The gathering will be a family event with opportunities to meet community members, practitioners, and enrichment specialists. More information about these announcements will be provided in the future.
➡ The text discusses a study where water treated with an analemma wand was used to water plants and consumed by people, and the effects were observed. The results showed that plants watered with this treated water had more light emission and a greater diversity of wavelengths emitted. Similarly, people who consumed this water showed a positive change in their immune system and inflammation levels. The study suggests that the analemma wand-treated water has a beneficial effect on both plants and humans, although the exact mechanism is still unclear.
➡ The text discusses the importance of scientific studies and their impact on our understanding of biology, particularly virology. It criticizes the current method of studying viruses, which involves defining a theoretical entity, associating it with a surrogate marker, detecting the surrogate in a sample, and concluding the entity exists based on the surrogate’s presence. The author argues this method is flawed and should be replaced with direct empirical isolation. The text also discusses the discovery of the Hepatitis B virus, questioning the validity of the methods used to identify it.
➡ The article discusses the complexities and uncertainties surrounding Hepatitis B (Hep B) virus and its vaccine. It questions the methods used to detect the virus and the specificity of the antibodies used in the process. The author also criticizes the pressure to accept vaccines without questioning their scientific basis. Lastly, the article suggests that more research and transparency are needed in the field of virology and vaccine development.
➡ The text argues that there’s no solid proof that a certain virus exists or causes liver cancer. It criticizes the science behind it, saying that the virus hasn’t been properly isolated or studied, and that the tests for it are flawed. The author encourages people to question this and not just accept what they’re told, suggesting that the truth will eventually come out. They also mention an upcoming event and a price increase.

Okay, welcome everyone. Hope you can hear me. All right, we have a slightly different and improved hopefully camera setup and it’s good to see everybody, although I can’t see you, but you can see me. And as always, thanks for joining me. Today is December 10, 2025 and I have the same two announcements because they’re very important ones for everybody that I did last week. Basically what I said was with the new biology clinic, there will be a price increase for new members who sign up after January 1st of 2026. For existing members and anybody who signs up before January 1st, the membership fees will be the same and there will be no price increase for two years.

And the second announcement was there is going to be a new biology gathering in at June 4 to 6 at Polyface Farm in Virginia and most of us will be there. And so you can meet a lot of different community members and the practitioners and the enrichment specialists. And it’s a family event. Lots of fun, lots of interaction, hopefully good talks and good speakers and. And it’s a great time to have make this a real live in person event. There will be some more information about this maybe in the show notes and you will get announcements as time goes on.

But I just want you to be aware of it because we’re actually wondering if it’s going to sell out and we want to make sure that the regular listeners know about it so they can sign up as soon as possible. Okay, I think that’s all the announcements. I had three items on the agenda today. I’m not sure if I’m going to get to all three, but the first one has to do with the analemma wand. The second one has to do with the ongoing fiasco, debate, information, whatever you want to call it, about Hep B and the Hep B vaccine.

I’m sure most people are aware of that, at least in this country. And the third is give a little bit of the history of structure, which I may have done in the past, but it’s been a while. So I thought that would be useful to go over that. Before I do that, I wanted to share a story that will be become relevant with the Hep B comments. That actually was a. A huge influence on the way I saw the world growing up, teenage years and later because I remember this story very distinctly. I saw it in some ways live and then heard about it.

And of course I wasn’t there, as you’ll hear. And so I don’t really know from personal experience whether everything I’m about to say is the True story. But I did hear this from a number of the different players and there was at least some of it that I could vouch for myself. And I think again it will become clear why the relevance of this when I talk about the happy story. So this is a story about a guy named John Wooden who was a basketball coach at ucla. And I was hugely into basketball growing up. I mean I played a lot of sports and was good at a lot of sports and was the shortstop on the high school baseball team and one of the top junior golfers in Michigan.

But I really loved basketball and for a while I was the only white guy on an otherwise all black Detroit area basketball team. So I, I wasn’t that good, but I was good enough to compete with a lot of really good players. Anyways, I loved watching basketball, but particularly UCLA basketball growing up. And UCLA basketball was coached by a guy named John Wooden. And they were unbelievably successful. The kind of successful that you wouldn’t even see anything close to this today. And I don’t know the exact numbers, but I remember they won like 10 out of 11 or 12 out of 13 consecutive NCAA tournaments, which is unprecedented even for a school to repeat now is practically unheard of.

And they won like 11 out of 12 years or something like that. At one point they had an 88 game, I think that’s the correct number, winning streak. And then they lost and then they had another, I don’t know how many after that. And so it was unbelievably successful. But the thing, the story that I wanted to share, that you’ll see will become relevant is according to many of his players and what he said himself. So I think it’s true. Unlike what most people do with basketball today, Wooden apparently never mentioned the other team or any of their players during the practices or the pre game things leading up to the game with another team.

His philosophy was we do what we do. And they had a very distinctive style of playing basketball which was dependent on getting the right kind of people to fit into his system, which he did. And he said we do what we do and we are in control and we make them adjust to us, not the other way around and doing that and playing their very distinctive style. They essentially were on the offensive and they made the other teams play to their style and that seemingly contributed to their amazing success. And then there was one game and I remember distinctly watching this game in television when I was probably 10 or so.

I don’t remember exactly, but apparently before this game it was against A school called Notre Dame and they had a star player by the name of Austin Carr. And amazingly for his players before, in the practice, before the game, he told his players, you know, Notre Dame is pretty good. And they have this guy, Austin Carr, and he’s really good. And so we’re going to have to adjust how we guard him, not the usual way that we guard everybody else. And that’s because this guy is really good. And the players apparently were shocked and surprised that he broke his rule and.

But apparently this guy was good enough. So then I remember watching the game and I don’t remember how many points Austin Carr scored. Somehow I remember it was 51, but it may have been in the 40s or something and Notre Dame won. And I can’t help but think that that was such an interesting confluence of events that the only time that he veered from his we worry about us, not anybody else, which is sort of the watchword of how you have to play sports. And I would submit it’s a good watchword for how to do life, was the only time that they lost and the only other player that they mentioned who could give them trouble by focusing on that other player, at least in practice, led to being defeated essentially by the other player.

The other player essentially became on the defense, on the offensive, and they reacted to him, which is what it looked like to my 10 year old eyes back 60 years ago. So I will get to the relevance of that a little later. But today I wanted to start with the Analemma wand, because in just about every webinar that I do somebody and I don’t know if it’s the same person or the same people, this comes up on Facebook, comments, makes a derogatory comment about the Analemma wand, saying, isn’t it ironic that somebody like me, who says, who goes on talking about science all the time, would recommend this ridiculous water wand that’s hugely expensive and has no science behind it.

So eventually I say I got sick of hearing that and thought I would take a look at the science. Now, five years ago or so we had the one of the, I think the owner of the company that makes the analytical wand or developed it, Dolph Zantiga, and he went over much of the science behind the Analemma wand. So anybody who’s interested can go back and look at that. And this is not only is this a point about the science behind the Analemma Wand, it’s a point about making comments. And my sincere hope that I’ve expressed over and over Again is when somebody makes a negative comment, they do so based on having looked at the science or investigated the issue.

They have a legitimate question or issue with some of the methods or some of the conclusions or something to do with the science of whatever subject we’re talking about. Interestingly, and this is the case with the Analemma Juan debate, that never happens. The people just say, oh, it’s too expensive and it’s a sham and a scam and this guy’s trying to scam you. They never actually look at the science and actually make a legitimate scientific comment or critique of the science. So I thought, well, let’s take a look at that. Now. One of the points that I want to make here is after having spent, you know, many years looking at scientific articles and what I now consider relevant or useful, it pretty much boils down to something that Hillman actually pointed out, that the most useful studies in biology, which is after all, the study of living beings, is to study living beings in as close to their natural habitat as possible with only switching one variable and not changing the otherwise the life or this, the the habits of the living being and seeing what kind of assessment you could make as to any qualitative or quantitative parameters of that living being.

Does it seem better, does it look better, is it bigger, is it stronger, does it live longer, et cetera. And this is one of the reasons why the work of Weston Price is so important. Because even though he may not have had one independent variable to study, he didn’t analyze their blood tests or he didn’t analyze their vitamin levels, allegedly vitamins. He didn’t analyze chemicals. He analyzed what they looked like, how they, the sicknesses they tended to get, their overall level of health and in particular the quality of their teeth, which you can easily observe without interfering or changing the character of the person.

You can just have them open their mouth and look in their teeth. And that has become a time honored and valued approach to understanding what diet is good for people. So that’s the kind of studies that I’m looking for. Now admittedly, those are very difficult with people, but as you’ll see, they’re not so difficult with plants. So again, I’m looking for do an experiment, do it with controls, change one variable, in this case exposing plants to analemma water wand or plants to not analemma water one and then see what you can see and see what you can measure, and hopefully the measurements and what you observe are things that actually you can rely on and don’t change the nature of of what you’re looking at.

So let’s take a look at some of the studies. So these are studies that they published and they’ve I believe, published these all in peer reviewed journals for whatever that means. And this is the effect of analemma water on plants and soil. And here’s a cherry tomato study where basically they take more or less identical tomato plants and one of them they water with water that has been treated by swirling the analemma water wand in it. And the other one is just the same, is just the normal water. So they use the same water, one has been exposed to the analemma product, the other one not.

And they look at the different results of this. You get a different result of the cherry tomatoes. It caused a reduction in pathogenic fungus and a increased diversity in the bacterial composition of the soil. And there’s a whole bunch of other studies on looking at the fungal composition of the soil, whether or not you water with analemma water or not. Here’s one looking at the bacterial composition. But the one that I was particularly interested in is the biophoton emission of tomato fruits. And basically what they do, and you can see the experiment here, so they have a climate controlled greenhouse.

The tomato plants were grown using watered either with untreated tap water or analemma treated water. So the water was the same one treated with stirring with the analemma and the other not. The tomatoes were harvested and then they were analog. The biophoton emission of the tomato fruit was analyzed. So basically what they found, and you can see here, the conclusion was so what is this biophoton? And again, it’s always tricky to know is the mechanism that they’re measuring correct. But what, what they’re measuring is essentially the light emission. Now whether light is actually photons or waves is I think irrelevant here because what they’re measuring is the light emission from different from plants who were watered with or without this analemma water.

And you can see there was a higher energy storage. In other words, what they found was the plants that were watered with the analemma one had a greater diversity of the wavelengths or what they say, a diversity of the biophoton emissions and they had a stronger intensity of the biophoton emissions. In other words, when you water with this water, everything else the same, the conditions are the same, the greenhouse is the same, the climate is the same, the original water is the same. You get more light coming out of the tomatoes that were watered with the analemma wand than the tomatoes not.

So you see you see a clear biological difference depending on whether you expose the plants to an analemma water wand or not. And then you see the same things with measuring the light emission of wheat seeds measured with exposure to Analemma water or not. Everything else the same. You can see the results. Seeds germinated Analemma water have the highest energy storage capacity and they go through the experimental design and then they come to a lot of conclusions about oxidative metabolic processes, etc. But basically what they’re measuring is the light emissions from analemma water one treated versus not.

And that shows that there is a clear difference in these which set which tells you that analemma water, Analemma wand water has a different effect on biological organisms, or certainly at least tomato plants and their fruit and wheat seeds, and they’ve done a bunch of other types of seeds. So there’s a clear difference in the response of biological organisms to water treated with an analemma wand. Whether the mechanism is correct or not remains to be seen, but the fact that there’s a difference seems clear. So you get this in the bacterial composition of the soil, in the fungal composition of the soil, the overall growth of the plant, the nutrient content of the plant is higher in analemma 1 water treated vs non analemma water treated, lawn treatment, et cetera.

So that tells you that there is a clear biological difference on the effect of plants on using the Analemma water, which is a very interesting and important thing to know. Doesn’t tell you about the mechanism, it doesn’t tell you anything about how it works, really. And I would say all that is a matter of largely speculation. But what I want to know is if you, if you treat water with an analema one, does it have a effect on biological organisms? And obviously it does. And you can get into even numbers of different chemicals in the soil, et cetera.

So that’s one. Now, what about with people? And here it’s obviously more difficult because how do you measure whether people are healthier after a month or six months of drinking water stirred with an analemma wand versus people not. And in fact, there are so many variables in that that you would never be able to really do that. So they did something which they take a marker, which is the level of IgG galactose silation, which they make the case that it’s related to your biological age. Now, I obviously have issues with that. I’m not sure that any blood tests actually gives you a, a realistic perspective on your biological age.

But the important Point here is exposing people to drinking. The only difference, their independent variable, the only difference they did was one group of people, as best they could, they drank normal water and then the other people drank water that they stirred the water with, an analemma one. And their conclusion was it seemed to have a positive effect on the state of the person’s immune system and inflammation levels. Looking at the glycosylation patterns of IgG as the primary outcome measurement. And I would change that because there’s a lot of pseudoscience in the immune system and all.

But certainly they’re looking at a marker. And again, that’s not the best way to do it. But they’re seeing a change in the biological activity only depending on whether they changed the water or not. One people drank water that was stirred with the wand, the other people didn’t. They did it in 19 cases for three months. They didn’t change any other lifestyle. And, and the median biological age reversal was almost four years according to this way of doing it. Now, again, I just want to be clear. I’m not saying this is a foolproof or even a reliable marker for biological age, but it’s a very difficult study to do that.

But it seems to be the case, as with the plants and the seeds, and they have other animal studies and using the best kind of human studies they could imagine, that there seems to be clear that stirring water and consuming water or watering plants that has been exposed to an analemma one creates a positive change in the diversity of the organisms. And for me again, most important is a non invasive measurement of the light emission from plants, from tomatoes, from seeds. You get a higher light emission and a higher diversity, a greater diversity of the spectrum of the wavelengths that are emitted.

And that seems to be something that we would all want, we would all want to have more light and a wider variety of light. And whether that happens with people and whether you could measure that, I don’t really know. But it seems to be clear that this is not something that has not been scientifically evaluated. It has, and these are some of the best ways because they’re actually looking at, trying to figure out what is the qualitative effect of, from exposing people to this kind of water. And that’s the way in my opinion, science should be done.

And they seem to be making a good stab at it. And so hopefully that will put the end to people’s just speculating on or criticizing or complaining about the price or whatever. All of that’s irrelevant. As I say over and over again, the only thing I’m really interested is look at this study and show me where the study is wrong or why it’s not relevant. And how you can prove that stirring water with the Analemma wand has no effect on the biology of living organisms. Because I think that this study, these studies go a long way towards demonstrating that that’s not true and that the effects are positive.

And that may be something we want to incorporate in our lives. Okay, so that’s enough of that and let’s go on the next half hour. And I don’t think we’re going to get to Stranthus, but I wanted to take a look at the Hep B debacle or fiasco. And the first thing is I ran across this. And I don’t know who, who came up with this or who made this, but this is a great description of what modern biology and science has become, particularly in things like virology. It’s basically a one big reification fallacy. And so what that means is the reification problem is systemic in molecular biology and virology where sub microscopic entities are studied through assumed correlates rather than direct empirical isolation.

The process follows a predictable pattern. And I want you to really remember this pattern. I’ve been trying to remember it myself. And it’s a consistently repeating pattern over and over. So step one, you define a theoretical entity, for example a virus particle. So you just say this is what it is. You don’t see it, you don’t isolate it, you don’t observe it, there’s no experiment with it. You just define a theoretical entity. Then you associate it with a surrogate marker, for example, antibody binding mass spectrometry fragments. Then you detect the surrogate in a biological sample. Then you conclude that the theoretical entity exists based on the surrogate’s presence.

So this is the opposite of what it should be, which is you actually isolate, characterize and find with empirical direct evidence the entity in question. And then you go from there to find out what it’s made of and what characteristics it has. And only then could you use that surrogate as evidence that that theoretical entity exists. But it’s always done in these four steps and we’re going to see that with the example with Hep B. So the reason this is important is we didn’t learn much virology when I was in medical school, but we certainly learned the miracle of the Hep B story.

The finding of the Hep B and the so called Australia antigen. In fact, I can still remember a sort of Panic in medical school, trying to remember all the steps of how they proved that this so called Australia antigen actually proved the existence of this Hep B virus. Now I certainly wasn’t aware of it at the time. I didn’t really know what I was looking at and I didn’t know how to follow the logic of this or what the game they were playing. But all I knew was that it was one of the miracles of modern science and modern biology and modern medicine to identify this new virus called Hepatitis B virus.

And it was done in a way that was different but than the usual virus. I knew that because it was done by the finding of a protein originally from an Australian Aboriginal person, which is why they called it the Australia antigen. And that’s about all I know, or that’s about all I knew. So obviously I went back to look at. So how did they find this Hep B and what is this Australia antigen? So I tried to find the original papers and I can tell everybody this is a quagmire and there’s a lot of this that I can’t follow and don’t really understand what they’re talking about in some ways.

But I can try to try my best to walk us through that and then give some info, some comments on the relevance of what we just saw. So again, let’s look at one of the original papers, not the original papers, but one of the most important papers. This was from the New England Journal of Medicine, 1987. There’s the citation a serological follow up of the 1942 epidemic of post vaccination hepatitis in the United States Army. And I’m going to go through the abstract here. And this was one of the seminal moments in the history of virology.

So I can’t underestimate the importance of the Hep B story in the whole history of virology. And one of the ways it was found was through this event that happened in the 1942 epidemic of post vaccination hepatitis, which I don’t remember if I heard anything about it, but here’s basically what happened. An epidemic of icteric, that means yellow jaundice hepatitis in 1942 affected approximately 50,000 US army personnel. So in other words, 50,000 US army people in 1942 got hepatitis. So that’s why it was such a big deal. The outbreak was linked to a two specific lots of yellow fever vaccine stabilized with human serum.

This is a key statement here. In other words, they linked this outbreak, this is even in conventional circles, to giving the U.S. army personnel a yellow fever vaccine that was stabilized. That is, they had human blood, pooled human serum, in other words, the liquid part of the blood of many, many different people that was put into the vaccine to, quote, stabilize the vaccine. So in other words, they were injecting people with the usual material, unpurified material, from people with yellow fever. That’s bad enough. But to this mixture, they added pooled human serum, pooled blood from a whole lot of different people.

So to identify the responsible virus. So they were already saying that they knew it was a virus and the consequence of the epidemic. During 1985, we interviewed and serologically screened approximately 600 veterans who had been in the army. These subjects were selected from three groups. Group one consisted of patients who had received the vaccine and had jaundice. Group two had the got the vaccine but were. Well, in other words, nothing happened. Group three had received a different kind of vaccine that didn’t have the pooled blood with no subsequent jaundice. Okay, so groups one and two got the serum vaccine.

Group three didn’t. Group one had got jaundice. Group two got the same injection, the same vaccine with the serum, but nothing happened to them. Group three had a different vaccine, but they didn’t get sick. 97% of group one, 76% of group two, and 13% of group three were positive for antibodies. That’s a surrogate marker to hepatitis B virus. But actually, they were not antibodies to the hepatitis B virus. It was antibodies to the Australia antigen, which is a protein that allegedly is specific to the virus. Only one subject had the Hep B surface antigen for a carrier rate.

So a carrier is somebody who continues to have the antigen years and years later. So this is like 43 years later. And the prevalence of the antibody was similar in all three groups, and no subject had antibodies to a different virus. And we conclude that the Hep B caused the outbreak, and 330,000 people may have been infected and the carrier state was rare, and that they got antibodies that appear to persist for life. So let’s unpack this a little bit and see what it actually they found. So they found 5,50,000 soldiers got sick. They linked this to a yellow fever shot that was mixed with pooled human serum.

So they had a yellow fever stuff mixed with pooled blood, and these 50,000 people got this shot. Now then they look for one protein in these people, and, you know, it never occurred to me before this, but there’s somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 proteins. And so they look for one protein which had never, had never and has never been proven to come from a virus called hepatitis B. They look for the presence of this protein in. In the blood of these people who’d gotten this shot or not gotten this shot, and they find it, and they say that this therefore means it was the cause.

Now, interestingly, 97% of the people who got sick had antibodies to this protein, but 76% of the people who didn’t get sick also had antibodies. And 13% of the people who didn’t even get the shot or got a different shot were positive for the antibodies. And so how do you know that there isn’t some other. Did they look for another protein that was elevated in these people? No, they just look for this one protein. But there’s 200,000 different proteins. How do they know that some other protein or antibody to alleged protein? Even though we know that antibodies are not specific, how do we know that there isn’t some other protein or some other antibody that was also elevated and may be the same? We have no idea because they didn’t test it.

And how do you explain the fact that 76% of the people who got the shot, who got antibodies, nothing ever happened to them? And how do you explain the fact that 13% of the people who didn’t even get that shot, which allegedly it was the blood that carries the Hep B virus, because that’s where the Hep B surface antigen is. How do you explain that 13% of them also had antibodies which, again, are nonspecific to the same protein? This doesn’t make a great case that this. They had found something that was specific to any virus or even related to the cause of this illness, at least as far as I can see.

And then we also have the problem with the lack of specificity of the antibodies, et cetera. So that was one study. And then I looked at some of the other important studies that were done on hep biological. Whoops. And here’s one from a paper, Medical virology of Hep B How it began and where we are now. So infection with Hep B. This is. You can see the virology journal and the citation. So it may lead to a Hep B infection, may lead to acute or chronic hepatitis. And they say there’s 240 million people who are carriers today and 620,000 die of cirrhosis.

They say it was recognized as a disease in ancient times, but the etiological agent was only recently identified. They discovered an enigmatic serum protein called the Australia antigen by Baruch Bloomberg fifty years ago, this was recognized to be on the surface of Hep B. So it’s called the Hep B surface antigen and that it was screened and they went on from there. Now let’s go down a little bit to virus detection. How did they find the virus? It was still a young science in the 60s. They had been successful in propagating viruses in cell cultures, but these were suboptimal for diagnosis.

It usually takes a long time for the cytopathic effect to become known. And what they actually find is that this was too time consuming. And the Hep B virus did not cause a cytopathic effect in cell cultures. And they couldn’t find it with an electron microscope. So they were forced to use antibodies as the way of detection of the virus. And that was eventually what they settled on. So here you can see the detection of the antiviral antibodies. And you can read here how it was difficult because there are so many other components in this. In addition, the viral antigen they use from infected chicken embryos or tissue culture, they need to put in red blood cells from sheep as indicator cells.

They need to put in rabbit antibodies against the sheep, red blood cells for generating an immune complex. And they need to use complement from guinea pigs. And they need to put all these things in there to eventually say that they can find something that they can measure. And that’s the epitome of what I was talking about is using surrogate markers to say they prove the existence of this virus. So let’s get off from this for a minute and go to one more paper. And I know this gets a little tedious. This was the original study by Bloomberg paper describing and got a Nobel prize, the Australia antigen in the biology of Hep B.

And here he describes the virology. And I won’t get into this like I was planning on, but basically he does. He eventually does electron microscope pictures and gets all these different forms and says that those are all the different forms of Hep B, which sort of blows the whole thing because they’re supposed to be all the same. And then he said we can find the surface antigen, but what we can find is that the surface antigen called hbsag, which is the Australia antigen, can be removed from the Dane particles. These are these particles if you add detergents to it and then you see the core and then you get the core antigen.

So we know that the Australia antigen is on the surface because it’s dissolved when we put detergents in it. Therefore it’s fat soluble. Therefore and that’s because we know that viruses have a fatty coating on it and therefore it must be in the coating of the virus. And so that’s the gyrations that they go through. To say that this is a protein that is specific for this Hep B virus, which again has never actually been isolated, found, it doesn’t cause a cytopathic effect in any tissue culture. And so there is no way that it’s actually been isolated or shown that this protein, one out of 100 or 200,000 proteins that may or may not go up in the blood when you’re sick is related to this virus.

So at the end of the day, all they have is when people get sick, they have different and maybe more different kinds of proteins in their blood, at least the ones we can measure. And then they have different so called antibodies that seem to have some relationship to these proteins, although they’re not specific. We know that. And all that’s all we know and that is the story of how Hep B came into being. There’s a whole lot more to this story which we can get into, but I think that’s enough for right now. So the real reason I wanted to get into this and the reason I told the John Wooden story in the beginning, I know that was a little bit tedious to go through this Hep B story.

It’s incredibly complicated and if you want to go through the papers, be my guest and hopefully somebody will put it in a easier to understand like. But the thing that I really wanted to say is what we saw is an interesting sort of socio political experience. And I’m obviously speculating here, this is not the science part of this talk. But if the way I thought of this was if I’m one of the powers that be, the people behind the scam, behind the virus scam, who run these pharmaceutical vaccine companies and if I have any wind that somehow they’re going to catch on to us, or this is a whole thing that we know that we’re hurting people and even if they don’t, but they, they certainly are invested in promoting and keeping this whole virus vaccine agenda going.

And then I think to myself, how would you counter the criticism which you know is coming? You know there’s going to be people who start to actually look at the science of these vaccines, look at the science of viruses. How would you counter that? And again, I also thought of this in relation to my John Wooden story. So the thing that I would do is get on the offensive. And that would mean that anytime anybody criticized any vaccine for any reason, I would have what I would call a major hysterical hissy fit and accuse them not by looking at the science, but of terrorizing or wanting to kill babies and kill children and, and how do they not want to stop the development of cirrhosis and liver cancer? And this is irresponsible and we’re not going to pay any attention to it.

And I would have all my minions and researchers and doctors and institutions and government agencies that I, the people who work in there and the old directors of the CDC and the NIH all come out in force to stop this in its tracks. And my expected expectation of that is that will make the other side, the people who are saying, well, we got to look at this immediately get on the defensive. And they would say, well, all we want to do is make some changes in it or take a look at the science. And so why don’t we start by just saying, well, maybe it shouldn’t be mandatory for all newborns.

And maybe if in consultation with your doctor, the mother, the parents, and the doctor, they can choose to wait for one month. Now, it’s also obvious that waiting for one month is a ridiculous solution. First of all, there’s probably no benefit to the child of waiting for a month as opposed to doing it on day one. I mean, day one is horrific enough, but doing it at a month is equally probably as horrific and as dangerous. And if your whole thing, if you’re agreeing that this is transmitted between the mother and the child, then you would actually have to do it on day one.

And that’s what they say in order to develop antibodies so the baby doesn’t get chronically infected. So it actually makes no scientific sense to wait until a month. But because they get bombarded with all this stuff about how dare you say anything and criticize these holy vaccines. That’s the position they take instead of the John Wooden position, which is, I don’t care what these people say about these institutions and these former directors of the CDC and the heads of Pfizer and, and the senators who say that it stopped transmission. I want to look at the basic science.

I want proof that Hep there is a Hep B virus, which there is no proof of that just like any other virus. I want proof that this surface antigen actually has been shown to come from the virus, which has is impossible, because until you’ve actually isolated, found, purified, and characterized the virus, there is no way you can say that any protein is part of the virus. And then I want to see the Science that shows that these antibodies, which we now know are not specific to any protein or any virus, they change depending on the laboratory conditions, actually show the virus.

And it turns out that all three have been disproven. And all you have to do is do a careful reading of these papers that I just showed, and that will demonstrate that. That nobody ever isolated, purified, characterized the virus, show that it has these proteins, show that the antibody reactions are against this virus, and show that it has any relationship to the cause of the disease, the disease of cirrhosis or liver cancer. And there are many other studies that show that this is not the case. And so it doesn’t matter what they say, it doesn’t matter how good Austin Carr is or how good Notre Dame is.

We’re going to do what we do. That’s how we won 13 titles. That’s how we won 88 straight days. We are confident in our abilities, in our understanding of the science, and we’re not going to compromise on, well, you can take it or not. You can take it in consultation with your doctor, you can take it at a month, you can take it at two months. You can do tests to see whether you have hep B or not. All those become absolutely irrelevant if you stick to doing. You sticking with your own understanding of how the logic and rational thinking of science comes about, thinking of this reification fallacy process that is rampant in virology, that will lead you to the obvious conclusions.

Nobody has shown that there is such a virus. Nobody has shown any of the components. Nobody has shown that any antibodies or any other reactions are against this virus. And nobody has shown that a virus that doesn’t exist obviously can’t cause liver failure or liver cancer. There’s got to be some other reason why some people develop liver cancer and others don’t. And why, even if you look at these studies, it wasn’t just the blood that made these people sick. Some people obviously got sick from the pooled blood. We have no idea, since there’s hundreds of things in injecting people with yellow fever, goop and pooled blood, what made them sick.

And just testing for one antigen or one antibody out of hundreds of thousands is ridiculous, bogus science. So that is the tactic we should take and not this compromise. Always being on the defensive, because as John Wooden found out, if you’re on the defensive, the other side will always win. That’s why they go on the defensive. That’s why they have these orchestrated campaigns to essentially shut the other people up. And then you have the other side, quote, our side, the freedom community, going on about, well, of course we can’t talk about no virus. Of course we can’t talk about the fraudulent science.

Of course we can’t talk about that there’s no viruses that cause disease. Of course we can’t talk about how bad these vaccines are or they have no scientific validity. Look how hysterical they get. If we even want to change it to a month instead of getting this injection on day one. If you take that tactic and whether it’s deliberate, they’re doing it because they’re actually agreeing with the agenda and are just playing along with it so the whole thing doesn’t get anywhere, or whether they’re just sort of suckers for the whole thing. I can guarantee you that this approach that is being taken to counter this vaccine agenda will get us nowhere.

The only solution is, like John Wooden originally said, you do, you. You find out what’s true. You speak your truth and let the chips fall where they may. And when you do that, people will hear you and they will respond. And then the truth, as they say, will set us free and lead us to a better place. This other way will get us nowhere. Okay, that’s my tirade for today, and I hope to do this Trafan this issue next week, and then we’ll take a short break. And remember the price increase January 1st, so sign up now.

And the new biology experience in Virginia and June 4 through 6. So I will see everybody there. Thanks for listening.
[tr:tra].

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