Summary
➡ The author criticizes a scientific paper, questioning its validity and suggesting that the researchers may have had ulterior motives. They then discuss a theory of why animals get sick, using their cat, Pumpkin, as an example. The author suggests that if Pumpkin was made aware of a danger he couldn’t sense, it would cause constant fear and stress, leading to poor health. This theory is used as a metaphor for the fear and stress caused by invisible threats like viruses, which the author suggests can lead to poor health in humans as well.
➡ The text emphasizes the importance of focusing on factors we can control and sense in our lives, like food, movement, relationships, and our reactions to emotions, to improve our health and well-being. It warns against living in fear of things we can’t sense or control, like viruses or genetic mutations, as this fear can harm our health. The author encourages skepticism towards information from authorities that we can’t personally experience or verify. The overall message is to prioritize personal autonomy and self-improvement, focusing on what we can directly influence and assess in our lives for better health and peace of mind.
Transcript
Cowan’s Garden and Dr. Tom Cowan websites. We will be there with all of our stuff, answering questions, trying to help you out, getting to meet our wonderful people who’ve been supporting us for these years. So as I always say, if you do end up going, please introduce yourself to me and say hello and we can talk for a few minutes. And I would love to meet as many people as possible. And as I’ve been preparing for that, I didn’t have much of a chance. It’s a little bit of an excuse, I would admit. But anyways, to prepare for this webinar.
So I thought I would just do a really short webinar where I have two main points and I guess so this will be shorter than most. I don’t intend to go for the whole hour, although I never actually know how long I’m going to talk. But I think this one will be fairly brief. So I’m going to get to the point and hopefully leave you with some something to think about and then again, see you hopefully next Friday. This Friday, a few days. Okay. I don’t know any other business. So the first thing was an interesting thing.
I don’t know if even I’ve been over this. I wasn’t aware of this before. So I thought I would briefly share it and let me just pull this up and I can’t. I know people sometimes complain, why don’t I make these things bigger? And I don’t think I can with this. So again, this is not my original work. This was from. I don’t know if it’s a website or a substack or something. And I don’t even really know how to access it. I think the person’s name, or at least the name they use is A R, C, H, I, T.
Not sure how to even pronounce that. But this is clearly his work, not mine, and it’s a great way to do things because basically I don’t even know if he’s a doctor, a scientist or what his profession is. It doesn’t really matter to me. But he’s contacted a lot of the people like virologists who do studies. They often will put their email or their contact information anyways somewhere at the end or the beginning of the study. And it’s pretty much expected in medical circles that if you have a question about the paper, you can ask them questions about the paper.
So this person who goes by the name of Arkit, again I don’t know if that’s his name or just some thing he uses, has taken upon himself to ask virologists questions. So this is the author or at least one of the authors of this paper. A pneumonia outbreak associated with the new coronavirus of probable bat origin. And as he says, as of February 2024, this pseudoscientific paper has 1.46 million accesses and 13,140 cross references. And here’s one of the main authors, Chinese guy. And you can go and check this email thread on his website or substack or whatever it is.
And again, I don’t know exactly how to access it, but I think if you just use A R, C H I T you’ll probably be able to find it. So this they cannot be over emphasized how important this paper was to the whole Covid narrative and the coronavirus SARS COV2 narrative. This is the so called index patient, in other words the first patient who was alleged to have pneumonia from this new coronavirus. And these are the people who quote, isolated and sequenced this new virus. And so this became the reference virus, reference genome. And the fact that it was isolated came directly from this paper.
So there is no more important paper in the whole SARS cov2 Covid narrative than this paper. And so he’s communicating with the one of the principal authors of this paper. So first of all, this is an easier way to see it. He asked them for the details of the isolation, of course, that this was not really an isolation, but he took some unpurified bronchial alveolar lavage fluid, that’s stuff from the guy with pneumonia’s lungs and plated it, in other words inoculated it or put it on this cell line, that’s the monkey kidney cell, this is some liver cell line.
And there was 24 wells, so 24 different inoculants. And here’s the nutrient medium. Here’s the fetal bovine serum, here’s the amount of antibiotics and antimycotics. It’s 1% and no trypsin. That’s the control group. First control group, second control group, same thing. Then he gets to the experimental group. So they didn’t inoculate this with anything from the person with pneumonia. So the so called independent variable, if there is one, is not a virus. Because they actually of course didn’t look for a virus in the snot, it would be the bronchial alveolar lavage fluid. So in the experimental group, where everything is meant to be the same, you see the same 24 wells, same Vero E6 cells, same amount of nutrient broth, same amount of fetal bovine serum.
But here they doubled the concentration of antibiotics and antimycotics, at least in the first pass. And then in the subsequent pass they did back to the original and they did the same thing here. So we now have two variables. So they had double the amount of antibiotics in the experimental group, antibiotics and antimycotics, amphotericin and gentamicin, I believe, both of which have been shown to cause cytopathic effect. And there was double the amount in the experimental group as in the control, meaning that even the sputum was not the independent variable because they varied another crucial factor which actually has been shown to cause the very effect they’re looking for.
So he asked him about this and I don’t think you can see his response, but you can go and read it. The response, the answer that he give for why that he used more antibiotics in the experimental group, thereby negating this as a scientific experiment, was that antibiotics don’t affect the growth of the cells, which is wrong. And they used the higher concentration of antibiotics and antimycotics in the sample cell, the experimental group, because they had a sample which could possibly have contained bacteria or fungus, which they didn’t have in the control group. So there would be no reason to put the increased amount of antibiotics in the control group.
That is a ridiculous reason. It may be the reason they used, and it’s possible there may have been bacteria or fungus in the experimental group that weren’t in the control group, which even then confounds the whole experiment, because how would you know whether the bacteria or the fungus actually caused a cytopathic effect even if they were dead? And the answer obviously is you wouldn’t. And so that’s a ridiculous explanation because obviously that since we do know, and there are clear papers showing amphotericin and gentamicin cause cytopathic effect that negates the whole experiment. So this is a fraudulent pseudoscientific experiment.
But the thing I didn’t know is that he asked him how many of the wells in the control group and the experimental group actually showed the cytopathic effect. Now, I hadn’t. Either I didn’t know this or I forgot about it. I would have thought that none of the control group experiments wells showed cytopathic effect, and essentially all of them in the experimental group did so you would see a clear difference. But in fact, according to his response, they used 24 wells for each culture. In the control group, none of them show the cytopathic effect. And in each of the experimental groups, only one well demonstrated CPE per group.
Think about that for a minute. 24 different experiments. So out of 48, 24 for the vero, 24 for the who cells in the control group, no cytopathic effect. In the experimental group, two demonstrated cpe, which is basically almost nothing. Which means there are so many other possible reasons besides an alleged virus that could have caused 1 out of 24 of these wells to show some breakdown. They didn’t even tell you how they assessed whether it was a cytopathic effect or not. But even if they assessed it properly, you would have to at least consider there may be some other factor.
Maybe something fell in that well, or maybe they stirred it wrong or something besides the fact that that somehow proves there’s a virus that is so beyond scientific and so ridiculous, it actually makes me wonder when you hear things like this. Nobody would believe this. Of course, they don’t tell you in the paper how many of the wells in the experimental group actually showed cpe. You have to go and ask them yourself so they don’t divulge this information because nobody, nobody with any sense would believe this. It actually makes me think, you know, when I talk about the reasons people say things like this, they either don’t care about this at all, so they’re not interested in the subject, which is obviously not the case because you’re doing a paper on it, you’re obviously interested in the subject and it’s your profession.
B, you’re just incredibly stupid. And you can’t figure out that changing the conditions in the, in the experiment negate it being a scientific study. And if only 1 out of 24 show the effect you’re looking for, essentially you didn’t get the effect. And there was no isolation of anything even on the, on their terms. So you just cannot believe that these people are that stupid to fall for this. Which gets into the third category of they have nefarious intentions. And I’m not necessarily saying that’s the case, but it’s almost to the point where I hope so, because otherwise they are actually that anti scientific and that stupid and that is actually hard to believe.
So I’m hoping they had nefarious intentions and they carried out what they were told to do. And they, even though they had to actually tell us on some level what they did, it just boggles the mind that they would consider this a scientific experiment and essentially the whole world bought it, including, as always, the truth and freedom crowd who still use this as the reference genome and say that this paper shows that they somehow isolated a virus in a paper that is really the poster child for anti science. So hopefully this is very clear and that’s enough of that.
And again, you can check it out for yourself. Okay, the second thing, and I think we build this talk as I was going to give a brief picture of one way of understanding why people or animals actually get sick. A sort of unified field sick theory. And you know, I thought about, well, maybe I don’t need to do this because it’s so obvious that everybody would have thought of this for themselves. But sometimes I hear from, from feedback that it’s helpful for me to say these things, put it into words just to make it clear and then it sort of crystallizes it for people.
So even though I know that this probably will sound like almost ridiculous or so simplistic that you can’t believe anybody would actually go online, talk about this, I’m going to do it anyways. And as with many things that you’ve heard, you know, I’ve learned an incredible amount from Pumpkin. So this is really a story that I think Pumpkin has taught me, or at least I’m going to use what I’ve learned by observing him to try to understand why we get sick and is sort of the essence of COVID because that’s an example, a prime example of this.
So here’s Pumpkin. He’s a little cat, he’s a little boy, he’s about three. And Pumpkin can go in and out of the house whenever he chooses. There’s always a cat door open during the day and at night he just kind of knocks or meows at the, at our bedroom door and we let him in. And so he’s basically free to go wherever he wants. We are, our place is surrounded by a big garden and there’s a Pasture with some goats in a goat barn and there’s greenhouse and there’s a cat barn which Pumpkin rarely goes to because he likes sleeping inside better.
And there’s woods and other places that he can go and he kind of roams wherever he wants. There’s also other animals in the area that we somewhat see, but a lot of them we hear. We’ve heard there’s bears, we definitely hear coyotes, we’ve seen with a video camera. Somebody put a guy who haunt center, properly put property put a video camera saw the about a week ago or so, a huge bobcat very close to our property that we see hawks circling overhead. So there’s obviously a significant numbers of dangers for somebody the size of Pumpkin. There’s also, even though we feed him twice a day, he does like to catch birds and sometimes rabbits and, and mice and sometimes he eats them and sometimes he just plays with them.
So my point, my first point is it’s interesting to watch Pumpkin because he’ll be inside and then so for whatever reason he chooses to go outside. And typically, and this happens more often than not, he’ll sit on this sort of deck which is right outside the cat gate, cat door for somewhere between two and even 10 to 15 minutes. And if you watch him, he’s. His ears are sort of circling back and forth and he often sniffs the air and his tail goes up and sort of twitches. And I remember reading a book by a guy named George Lakovsky who tried to make the case that animals tail is sort of like an electromagnetic sensing device.
And they sense things like birds and mice and also danger. If they, you know, sense a coyote in the area, they don’t want any part of that. And he also scans the area, just looking. So he’s smelling, he’s looking, he’s electromagnetic sensing and he’s trying to hear things and he’s assessing probably the dangers and the potential food out there. Then it seems to me, and again, maybe I’m projecting here a little bit, but he has the sense that now things are okay and he sets off in one direction or another. Sometimes he’ll go to the greenhouse and sort of climb on the hay bales.
Sometimes he goes to the garden, sometimes he goes more towards the road where the rabbits are. He goes different places depending on something, something that he sensed. And in general he seems pretty relaxed and calm and he just kind of saunters off where he wants to go. And then we see him sometime later when he decides to come back to either sleep or eat. And so if you look at that situation, my assessment is life is good for Pumpkin. Now imagine, and this obviously I haven’t done and pro and you can’t do, but imagine the scenario where you could somehow tell Pumpkin that, okay, I just got a beep, but I think we’re okay.
So you could somehow tell Pumpkin and convince Pumpkin that there is another danger out there. Let’s call it like a Frugal or a Yardle or something. And this danger is something that Pumpkin will have no sensory impression of. He won’t see it, he won’t smell it, he won’t taste it, he won’t hear it. He won’t have any electromagnetic sense of its presence. There is nothing that he can do that will tell him whether this potentially even. Let’s even up the ante. Deadly danger is present in his environment. So that’s the scenario. So what would Pumpkin do? I obviously don’t know because that has never happened and could never happen because he wouldn’t understand that, obviously.
But I’m going to take a guess. And my guess is he would run back in the house and go and hide under the bed, which is what he does when he senses, like, danger, like if I’m riding on the lawnmower or people come that he doesn’t know or he hears something he doesn’t. Like he might run off somewhere and even climb a tree or hide somewhere. But my guess is he would go and hide because he would be scared. Now the. If you keep thinking about this, you say, when would he stop being scared? Because unlike the things that he’s used to in his life, like the coyotes and the hawks and, you know, rotten food that he can smell and, you know, bears, he has no sensory input for the.
For the frugal or the other danger or like the virus. And so he would have nothing to tell him that now the coast is clear, he can relax and go on about his usual Pumpkin life. Again, I don’t know this for sure because I’m speculating, but my guess is that would dramatically change Pumpkin’s whole life. That it would start to feel a. Like a very different life to him and not for the better. He would be scared. It would be hard for him to relax. If you want to put it in sort of medical, physiological terms, he would be have his sympathetic fight or flight system on act activated almost all the time because he would have no way to know when the coast is clear and the danger is past.
And now it’s time for him to relax and eat and play and snuggle with people and just be his usual friendly self. And again, I don’t, I’d never done this experiment, although in a sense this is the entire history of modern animal experimentation, that this would dramatically set him up for worse health and diseases that he would never otherwise have. That basically the part of us that can heal, the part of us that sleeps and digests and relaxes and in a sense makes life worthwhile except for some very specific times when we sense something or we want something, when our sympathetic system gets activated.
The more that we live in this parasympathetic rest, digest, life feels good. We feel safe, protected, fed, nourished, happy, playful, loved. All that. The healthier and the better our life will be. And the linchpin in this story is as soon as you introduce a factor which you have no ability to have any feedback or, or sensation that this factor is present, then you will immediately go into this sympathetic dominant, fight or flight, fear based mode which will eventually, in I would say every case, basically undermine your health. And I would say that is probably the root cause of most, if not all disease.
Now I made a short list of if you put this analogy into humans, the things that we have that are exactly like that in our lives. So we have viruses, nobody sees them. You don’t have any sensory input. The only reason you think that there are a danger, even a grave danger like Covid to you is in your mind because people have told you, even though when you examine how they came up with it, as we just did, it’s total nonsense. So not only did they make something up of which you have no sensory input at all, which necessarily means you can only live your life in a fear based health destructive mode.
But it turns out that thing doesn’t even exist. Or bacteria. Bacteria exist, but the idea that they cause disease. And again, you have no sensory input when you’re being quote, attacked by a bacteria. Same with fungus, same with parasites, same with genes. You have no sensory input that tells you that you have a mutated gene which is making an abnormal protein. Never mind that whole theory is actually nonsense, like the virus theory. But you’re told that you’re being attacked by this mutated gene, it’s creating the outcome that is your health. You have no say in it.
And even though you may try to do like the virus, you may think, well, I’m going to eat turmeric and keep my quote, immune system strong or I’m going to do something to help my epigenetics, the reality is you have no ability to have a feedback of whether that’s happening or whether that mechanism that you’re saying that you have been told is the cause of your poor health A is actually true or B, you have no experience of anything you do, whether it changes that picture at all. There’s other ones, obviously that I’ve talked about. It’s the same with nuclear weapons.
It’s the same with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, so called. It’s the same with overpopulation. It’s the same with so many things in our life. We are told, often erroneously, almost always erroneously, that these are grave dangers to you. So pumpkin, be scared, but you can’t. You have no sensation, no hearing, no seeing, no electromagnetic sense. There’s nothing in your feedback mechanism that tells you whether that factor is present. And so your only possible reaction is fear and a decrease in your overall functioning and your decrease in your parasympathetic tone, which of course leads to further health, health and what we call disease.
Now, if you contrast that with the list and I came up with a few things that you can actually have, that you actually have a sensation or a feedback that whether or not this is, whether or not you did this or this factor, and then have some sense of how you feel depending on your exposure to this factor. So, for instance, food. Everybody knows what food is. They know that if they eat certain food or they can find out, they do better. And if they eat other food, they do worse. Certain food may give them a stomach ache, other food makes them feel good.
Sometimes it’s hard to know. But if you persist at actually sort of trust that there may be something in food, you at least have something that you can control and work with that has feedback. The same with water, the same with movement. You can assess if you move more, walk more, hang on a bar more, do more primal movement, do more push ups, sit ups, whatever, yoga, tai chi, Zion. If you do that more, do you feel better? Do better. If you do it less, do you not. Pumpkins can see whether if he hops the fences more, whether things are better.
He obviously is not thinking about that, but he has clearly a sense. Does more movement help or do I get too tired? Where’s the. Where’s the balance there? You can even have this with your thoughts and your reactions to your emotions. You will have emotions, but you can react to them in different ways. You can observe how you react to them and see whether if you react in certain ways, life is better or worse. Same with sun exposure. Same with exposing your feet to the ground. You can walk barefoot or not, or walk with leather soled shoes or not and see how you feel.
You could do the same with water quality. You can do the same with relationships. If you’re in a happy, healthy, communicative relationship, how does life feel? If you’re in one that’s contentious and fighting and you’re not getting along, how does life feel? So these are things. They may not be, quote, physical things, but things that we have an experience of and we can assess. You can assess what it feels like to have animals in your life or not, the quality of your dwelling. If you make a house out of just wood or a house out of drywall and put all sorts of wireless devices, how do you feel? You can sometimes use devices to help you.
But basically the bottom line, what I’m saying is, even though we may not see the wireless signal, the wave, you have some assessment of how it feels. You can try it with or without it. You can do sort of a controlled experiment and see what your life feels like with or without it. You can do that with whether you tell the truth or not. You can try not telling the truth and hiding and not saying what you really think. And then you can start telling the truth and see how does life seem to you? How does your joints hurt or not, depending on that.
Do you sleep better? Do you feel more relaxed? Does life feel better? You can do that with economics. Once you know the rules of the game, you can see whether you spend money or save money this way or that way, or give money to the government or not, whether you life feels better or worse. The point is there’s so many things that we can actually control that affect how we’re doing that. Basically what I’m suggesting is we make those our priority. And we are extremely skeptical, and I mean extremely skeptical of things that we only have to take because the quote, authorities say so you have no experience of that whatsoever? Because I think most of us would end up like pumpkin, hiding under the bed, scared, unable to relax, and on a road towards ill health, which is exactly where you don’t want to be.
So this is a kind of philosophy of taking control of personal autonomy based and all of it based on the things which you can actually assess of your own free will, so to speak. Mind you, you can improve your ability to assess. You can become more sensitive to thoughts and emotions and the quality of the water. That’s called education. And improving yourself and improving your diagnostic capabilities. And my guess is even cats do that. Some can smell for longer distance or better sensing devices, and they do better. By all means, do that. But my point is, stick to the things that you can actually assess by your own human device, and that will make your life much more calm and put you on a clear road to better health.
So with that, I want to thank everybody for joining me again and again, I hope to see you this weekend in Orlando, Florida.
[tr:tra].
See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.
Author
