➡ On December 3, 2025, a webinar was held discussing three main topics: nuclear weapons and power, a simulation for the next pandemic, and a reading from an unpublished book about gratitude. Two important announcements were made: a price increase for new members of the New Biology Clinic starting January 1st, but existing members’ fees will remain the same for two years; and a New Biology Experience gathering will be held on June 4th-6th at Polyface Farm in Virginia. The speaker also emphasized the importance of proving scientific claims, using the existence of nuclear power and weapons as an example, and encouraged skeptics to read a specific book to understand the arguments against their existence.
➡ The author recounts their aerial tour of Japan, observing the aftermath of intense air attacks on various cities. They were surprised to find that Hiroshima, a city hit by an atomic bomb, looked similar to other cities that had been bombed conventionally. The author questions the narrative around the power of atomic bombs, as the damage they observed did not align with the descriptions they had heard. They also discuss a recent pandemic simulation in the UK and question the methods used to diagnose diseases like polio, suggesting that changes in diagnostic criteria can significantly affect disease statistics.
➡ The article discusses the difficulty in diagnosing acute flaccid myelitis, a disease that causes sudden limb weakness. The author argues that the current diagnostic criteria are vague and can lead to both false positives and negatives. They also question the existence of a specific virus causing the disease, suggesting that the methods used to identify it are flawed. The author concludes that there is no new disease or virus, and that the symptoms could be caused by various factors, such as vaccines or electromagnetic frequencies.
➡ The text discusses the fear and uncertainty brought about by COVID, especially concerning children. It then transitions into a lesson from the author’s cat, Pumpkin, who shows gratitude before eating. The author connects this to a concept called ‘coherence’, a state of calm and ease that is beneficial for health and happiness, and is often achieved through thoughts of gratitude. The author concludes by encouraging readers to find joy and gratitude in life, despite any challenges they may face.

Okay, welcome everybody. Today is another Wednesday webinar. Today is December 3, 2025, and thanks for joining me as always. I always appreciate everybody’s interest and good wishes. Today I there’s going to be three parts. The first part is I’m just going to wrap up the stuff on nuclear weapons and nuclear power and then I’m going to go into the thing that we talked about as the title of this, which is we’re told or there was a simulation for the next pandemic. So I’m going to take a look at that and see if there’s any validity to that.

I’m sure you can guess on the answer to that. And then third, because I didn’t do anything about Thanksgiving and usually I make some comments about being thankful and gratitude, I thought I would read the seventh chapter, which is very short, it’s probably less than 10 minutes in my lessons from Pumpkin book, which is not published, which is entitled Gratitude and hopefully that’ll be my post Thanksgiving message. Before I do that, I have two very important announcements. The first is there will be a and I don’t know, I’m not sure if this has been announced yet, there will be a price increase for new members of the new biology Clinic starting January 1st.

But this part is extremely important, so I’m actually going to say it twice. For those people who are current, you know, up to date existing members of new Biology Clinic, there will be no in you will not have your membership fees increased as of January 1st, and in fact the grant, the fees will stay the same for the next two years. This is for all existing members, people who are current with their membership as of December 31st. I would guess this also means that if you’re thinking of becoming a member, it would be actually good for you to sign up between now and December 31st, because then you will lock in the membership at the current rates and you will also lock in no price increase in your membership for the next two years.

So it’s very important if you’re thinking of becoming a member, and I mean we’re always happy to have you join whenever you do that. But if you’re looking for the best price, which I would say think you should, now is the time between now and December 31st, first sign up for your membership, the membership there. Then that will be you’ll your price will be locked in for two years just like every other existing member. So this is really important that everybody hear this now so that there’s enough time to initiate a membership. So again, for New members starting after January 1st, there will be a price increase because just what we need to do to, you know, make it all work.

But for existing members, current members, or for anybody who becomes a member by January 1st, there will be no price increase as of January 1st and the current membership amount will stay the same for two years. So in other words, sign up now. That’s the take home message of that. The second announcement is, and we’re going to be announcing this and maybe even launching a website or a section on the website. In January 4th through the 6th at Polyface Farm, which is in Virginia, where I’ve spoken before, that’s the Joel Salatin Polyface Initiative. There will be a new biology experience gathering of people who are interested in understanding, learning about, sharing about and experiencing things from the new biology perspective.

And the theme will be cultivating community. There’s going to be more details coming as the days go on, so look out for that, but we just want to give you a heads up. That’s June 4th through the 6th, Poly Face Farm in Virginia, launching community or cultivating community. And I hope to see as many of you there as possible. Okay, so those were the two announcements. The main thing I wanted to. Let’s get into the, the content now. I just wanted to wrap up pretty briefly the issue of the nuclear power and nuclear weapons. And the main thing I want to say, because this comes up, it comes up with virology, it comes up with the heart, it comes up with what causes heart attacks, it comes up with the genetic stuff, it comes up with the immune system.

Science is a process of that somebody making a claim saying, here’s the way it works. And then if the claim can be falsified, it, it counts as a scientific issue. If the claim cannot be falsified, it’s a belief. And again, I have nothing against beliefs, we all have them. But we should not fail to distinguish between those two things. One is a science, logic, rational, scientific discord, and the other is in the realm of beliefs. So what? Typically, there’s another way to approach this, which is essentially what Steve did, which was to say, okay, there is a claim that there is such a thing as nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

And that claim has a number of components. The components include but are not, but there’s more components, but they at least include the idea that the nuclear atom has been proven to exist, that the nuclear atom consists of a nucleus which has neutrons and protons. And the neutrons are neutrally charged, protons are positively charged. And then there’s some sort of spinning electrons which are negatively charged, orbiting the new the nucleus. Now that’s the first part of that. If that claim hasn’t been proven, then obviously the whole thing about nuclear power is, and nuclear weapons has, is disproven.

Now, once you approve that claim that those things exist, then you get into the claim of what a nuclear power, the source of the power is, which is essentially, as far as I understand it, the splitting of the. Of the nucleus and the liberation of neutrons, which starts a chain reaction which unleashes an enormous amount of power or energy that is otherwise stored in this tiny nucleus. So basically that is the claim. Now what Steve. The other way to approach a scientific issue or argument is whatever the issue is to prove that there is a better explanation for the phenomenon that you’re observing or seeing.

And that’s what Steve tried to do. So he was essentially not leave leaving the disproof of the nucleus and the atom, the nuclear atom and the mechanism of how nuclear power is generated, and instead saying, here’s a better way to look at it. Now, I would say that the second way is always fraught with problems because it’s very difficult to get any of these claims in these complex subjects completely right. And so you leave yourself open to. Well, you say there’s not a virus, so how do you get sick? And so I say it’s because of residents.

And then people forget about whether there’s a virus or not. They just start picking at inappropriately so because then you’re making the claim whether illness is caused by residents. So typically I like to stay with the first approach, which is to disprove or look at the facts around the claim. Now, what I notice is that nobody who’s writing in the comments who’s saying that Steve is wrong or that nuclear power or nuclear weapons exist, actually goes through the trouble to prove the existence of the nuclear atom, including the neutrons and the protons, and prove that this is the mechanism of how this energy is unleashed.

Nobody does that. And to me that’s a real problem because that is the way it should be done. And the reason for that is, if you really think about this, the idea that, that you can take something that’s say, a millionth of the size of a head of a pin, right? So that’s what the nuclear atom is allegedly. That’s its approximate dimensions. If you want to say that that somehow has enough energy through liberation of, you know, the neutrons that collide with the other neutrons and so on to blow up a building or a city or even the entire world.

Now, I’m not saying that that’s proof that it doesn’t happen, but I am saying that that is an extraordinary claim. And if you’re going to make an extraordinary claim, there is a saying that extraordinary claims need extraordinary amounts of proof or evidence that they’re true. And so the. The burden of proof is on all the commenters and anybody who wants to say this isn’t true to show the nuclear atom exists and the mechanism of fission that they’re talking about is the only possible way that this event could have happened. Because we actually have many reasons to doubt that.

And in the realm of nuclear weapons, again, I’ve talked about this before, but I think everybody who wants to refute this debunking and say that these nuclear weapons or power exist as claimed needs to read this book beforehand. You need to read this book and understand the arguments. And I’m going to just read one by a guy named Alexander Severus Seversky, who’s a Russian guy who was sent to investigate what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and apparently he was maybe one of the world’s experts on this. And this was published in Reader’s Digest 1946. And I think you’ll understand that this puts grave doubts into at least whether that event had anything to do with any extraordinary or unusual weapon.

So this is quoting after visiting the major areas of Pacific, I arrived in Japan. I began the study to which I had been assigned by making an aerial tour of the islands of Honu and Kyushu, which encompassed the main portion of industrial Japan. I flew over Tokyo, Yokohama, Yokosuka, Nagoya, Osaka, Kobe, Akashi, and dozens of other towns and cities which had been subject to intense air attack. Some of these towns are so close together they seem almost a continuous industrial sites. All the areas of annihilation presented approximately the same visual pattern. The smaller towns were totally burned out.

Seen from above, the prevailing color was pinkish, the effect produced by the piles of ashes and rubble mixed with rusted metal. Similar pinkish carpets were spread out in the larger cities, except that among them stood large and small modern concrete buildings and factory structure, unscathed bridges and other objects that had withstood the impact. Many of the buildings, of course, were gutted by fire, but this was not apparent from the air. I was keyed up for my first view of an atom bomb city prepared for a radically new sites suggested by the exciting descriptions I had read and heard.

But to my utter astonishment, Hiroshima, from the air, looked exactly like all the other burned out cities I’d observed there was a familiar pink blot about two miles in diameter. It was dotted with charred trees and telephone poles. Only one of the city’s 20 bridges was down. Hiroshima’s clusters of modern buildings in the downtown section stood upright. It was obvious that the blast could not have been so powerful as we have been led to believe. It was extensive blast rather than intensive. I had heard of buildings instantly consumed by unprecedented heat. Yet here I saw the building structurally intact and what is more, topped by undamaged flagpoles, lightning rods, painted railings, air raid precaution signs and other comparatively fragile objects.

At the T bridge, the aiming point for the atomic bomb, I looked for the, quote, bald spot, where everything presumably had been vaporized in the twinkling of an eye. It wasn’t there or anywhere else I could find no traces of unusual phenomena. When I did see was in substance a replica of Yokohama or Osaka or the Tokyo suburbs. The familiar residue of an area of wood and brick houses raised by uncontrollable fire. Everywhere I saw the trunks of charred and leafless trees, burned and unburned chunks of wood. The fire had been intense enough to bend and twist steel girders and to melt glass until it ran like lava.

Just as in the other Japanese cities, the concrete buildings nearest to the center of the explosion, some only a few blocks from the heart of the atom blast, showed no structural damage. Even cornices, canopies and delicate exterior decorations were intact. Window glass was shattered, of course, but single panel frames held firm. Only window frames of two or more panels were bent and buckled. The blast impact therefore could not have been unusual. So we have reason to think they were lying about that. We have reason to think the nuclear tests were faked. And so given that, again, we need extraordinary proof that this whole thing exists as shown.

And so that’s what I’m looking for. Not so much a criticism of Steve’s proposed mechanism, because even if that isn’t correct, the rule in science is if you can prove, you know, it’s like the saying, if, if the claim is all you, all, whatever swans are white and you see one black swan, you’ve disproven the claim. The claim no longer is valid and you have to move on to another explanation. So that’s what I’m looking for in the comments and hopefully now we’re done with that subject. Okay, so the next subject, we are told there was a new exercise similar to, I think they called it the exercise 201 or something like that.

That Was happened before the COVID fiasco. So apparently in England I was sent this by a listener. They just did another simulation. And so let me pull this up and show you what I was sent. Okay. So I guess this is from a disclosed TV exercise. That’s what they call it. A new UK concludes Exercise Pegasus. They always have funny names. The largest pandemic simulation in nearly a decade with the simulated virus enterovirus EVD6.8, thought to originate from pigs and primarily killing children. So similar to the event 201, apparently there was a new exercise or simulation of a pandemic and this time the they tell us what the virus is.

It’s an enterovirus which is similar to a polio virus and it’s called EVD 68. And it comes from pigs and it mostly targets children. So that’s what we hear. Let me get out of this. Okay. And then the next one is they show us conveniently a picture of it looks just like the coronavirus and there you see a nice globe. So they’re telling us that the globalists are behind this. So they just showing you pictures for those with eyes to see. And this again saying that this is a virus they’re going to now next one target children.

And then I just wanted to talk about just show for a minute because I’ve talked about this. This enterovirus is similar to a polio virus. And I’m going to show you how they determined that this virus exists. Show you the isolation papers and the disease that it allegedly causes, which is similar to what’s called acute flaccid paralysis. But first I want to show you. This comes from a quote I got that talks about the polio virus and I’ve talked about or polio. I’ve talked about this before, but I just wanted to re emphasize it. So this.

And I don’t know exactly where I got this from, but it’s similar to what I’ve been saying. So within days of Salk’s inactivated polio vaccine rollout, cases began emerging across America of children who had become paralyzed in the limb. They were injected with the new technology vaccine which had known live virus issues. That’s obviously incorrect, but it was basically again, it’s a process. What I keep talking about is separate what you see from what you’re told. You see bombs, you see power coming. You see children getting paralyzed in the arm that they were injected with something it’s called a vaccine.

You don’t see a live virus. That is not what you see. Stick with what you See, you know that in some of the children who are injected with this stuff, this new so called vaccine, they got paralyzed and whose mass produced formulation had not been tested in humans, called the cutter incident. Later formulation problems also with Wyeth Manufacturing, now Pfizer, but the CDC covered this up. But the polio case definition was then adjusted. And this is the thing I wanted mostly to emphasize the practice among doctors. Because why? Because this is how you create a pandemic or epidemic.

And this is the same story they roll out time and time again. And it was particularly dramatic with the rollout of the polio vaccine. So the practice among doctors before 1954 was to diagnose all patients who experience even short term paralysis for 24 hours. With polio in 1955, the year the Salk vaccine was released, the diagnostic criteria became more stringent, that being if there was no residual paralysis 60 days after the onset, the disease was not considered to be paralytic polio. Thus providing an immediate sharp decline in polio cases even without a vaccine, because many things can cause transient paralysis.

So the point of this is that as I think it’s pretty easy to understand, before 1954, if you had any acute illness and respiratory gastroenteritis, you know, diarrhea, vomiting, anything like that, any of the flu symptoms, and then you had any kind of paralysis or even, you know, significant weakness that was called polio, and then they rolled out the vaccine and, and then as soon as that happened, then the criteria for being called polio became different and you had to have paralysis after 60 days, two months. And if you didn’t have residual paralysis after 60 days, then you didn’t have polio.

Now since something like 98, 97% of children who go through a transient episode of weakness or paralysis completely recover in 60 days, therefore the incidence of paralytic polio went from whatever it was to 97, 98% less just because they changed the diagnostic criteria. And again we see this happening over and over again. And so this, this new virus which they’re going to possibly use to target children, is a causes what’s called pediatric acute flaccid myelitis. So the first thing I did then was go look at the recent papers. Let me just move this to see. Okay, here’s a paper from the European Journal of Pediatric Neurology, certainly a well respected, peer reviewed journal.

And it’s recent May of 2023, and it’s called Evaluation of the Diagnostic Criteria and differentiate from other causes of Acute Flaccid Paralysis in Other words, this is the, maybe the definitive paper, certainly the one that I found. How do we know this disease is acute flaccid paralysis? Because if that’s what this new virus causes, then there’s going to be a whole lot of cases of acute flaccid, sorry, acute flaccid myelitis. So how do we know that that is the proper diagnosis? So that’s what the paper reports to demonstrate. And so you can see, here’s the various authors and then the summary, the abstract and what I wanted to mostly focus on is this chart.

So this is the application of diagnostic criteria in this study. We further describe and analyze. So here is the current state of how do we know that this disease, acute flaccid myelitis, is what it is. And what was so interesting about this is, so here we have a column so that children who have these symptoms, they have definite acute flaccid myelitis. And then the ones in this column, if they have these symptoms, they then it’s uncertain whether they have it. In other words, they don’t have it. Now, that may not be exactly what they mean, but they either definitely have it or it seems like they don’t have it.

Or at least we’re uncertain whether they have it. And the main point I want to emphasize here is, is these are the only two possibilities. There are they either have it here or they don’t have it here. And so then you go and look at, so they have acute onset of limb weakness. In other words, suddenly one of your arms or legs doesn’t work. That means you definitely have acute flaccid myelitis. Or it means you don’t have acute flask, acute flaccid myelitis. So you have a prodromal meaning before the paralysis, fever or illness. So any fever, any illness, cold, flu, get, you know, vomiting, diarrhea, then you may have it or you don’t have it.

Weakness involving one or more limbs, neck, face, cranial, either you definitely have it or you definitely don’t have it. Decreased muscle tone, definitely have it, definitely don’t have it. Decreased or absent tendon reflexes, definitely have it, definitely don’t have it. Then I’ll skip over so that you have white blood cells in your cerebral spinal fluid. Definitely have it, probably don’t have it. And the only one that says the in the mri, the spinal cord lesion with predominant gray matter involvement with or without nerve root enhancement there you definitely have it or you probably don’t have it.

So this is the Only one where they can actually say that there’s a difference between whether you have it or whether you don’t have it. And what’s so interesting to me about this is having heard this kind of stuff for all of my medical education. So a sign like, well, you have decreased muscle tone in one limb, that, that folks, that students, that means you got acute flaccid myelitis, or it means you don’t have acute flaccid myelitis. And those are the only two possibilities there are. And nobody, including me, raised their hand and said, you know what, this doesn’t make any sense at all.

And so all they’re going to say is if you do an MRI apparently on every child and you see a spinal cord lesion with predominant gray matter involvement, that may mean you have it and it may mean you won’t. And so anyways, never mind because this whole thing is obviously nonsense. In other words, there is no diagnostic criteria for this illness. So we’re going to again have an illness that nobody is going to be able to say who has it and who doesn’t. Just like Covid, just like polio, just like measles, just like chickenpox, and just like all the other so called viral diseases and in fact just about every other disease.

Because the whole phenomena of disease categorization is basically make believe. People get sick in individual ways. It’s the way their body is expressing something, the way their body is trying to heal. And this business of categorizing these symptoms into specific diseases has no basis in biology or should have no basis in medicine. Okay, so now we’re left with, well, but at least we have a virus so called. So then I thought, well, let’s go find the paper where they isolated the virus, right? So that’s the only thing they have. Just like with polio, well, the diagnosis is the same whether you have it or not.

Or measles. You can’t tell the difference between child with measles and any other disease. The only way you can is by finding the virus, because the virus tells you so. This is how they found this new EB dash whatever 68. So this goes back all the way to the American Journal of Epidemiology from the renowned Johns Hopkins University, published July 15, 1966. So this is the paper where they found this new coronavirus is a, I think a subgroup of the category of enterovirus, which is what this EB68 is. So of course we don’t take any, we don’t even listen to what they say, because we don’t want to know what they think about it, we only want to know what they did.

So we go to the materials and methods because we’re going to make our own conclusion. So they take some swabs from, From the oropharynx. The mouth was swabbed with a dry cotton immersed in a tube containing some chemicals. The tubes were put on dry ice and then they were inoculated with antibiotics. And so they got some penicillin and streptomycin and amphotericin B in there. Okay, and now we’re going to find out how they found the virus. So of course, it’s the same old story over and over and over again, because since 1954, this is the only way they could find the virus.

So they do a cell culture and they get their monkey kidney cells when they’ve repaired in the tubes and they put the growth medium and then they put some cell cultures of human fetal kidney with probably from aborted fetuses. And they were used, they were initiated in passages according to this method. And they were seeded with the stuff in this. And then they used the minimal essential medium with the usual fetal bovine serum and some bicarbonate. And then they were fortified with 2% in this different kind of medium. And they all had antibiotics, penicillin, streptomycin, neomycin, bacitracin and amphotericin, all of which are known to be nephrotoxic, that is poisonous to kidney cells.

And then we get to the virus isolation. And again, it’s the same old story, because this is the only way that a virus has been isolated, which you should switch the word isolation for found and shown to exist. And they replaced the medium and they put it on the low nutrient medium and they put the antibiotics treatment in there. And then they saw the cytopathic effect and they did this for a number of cycles and they examined for a cytopathic effect. After seven days, they don’t mention anything about doing controls and they find the cytopathic effect.

And that tells them they isolated a virus and that tells them the virus is real, even though they didn’t see any kind of virus anywhere in this experiment at all. But now they supposedly have the virus, and then they can do all these studies with antibodies which are known to be nonspecific, and put it in ether and see what the buoyant density is and how stable it is in acid. All of this stuff comes with the assumption that this is how they found the virus, which as everybody knows by now, the cell culture, viral isolation cytopathic effect experiment has been thoroughly disproven to have anything to do with the virus.

There is no virus as the independent variable in any part of this experiment. You can never say without that that the cytopathic effect was caused by the virus because you didn’t do an experiment with and without the virus. They can’t do that because there is no existence of something that then would allow them to do an experiment on something. First you have to show it exists and then you have that as the independent variable, take that out of the control. And they can’t do that. And so this is all the usual pseudo scientific stuff. So there is no evidence that there this virus exists.

So there’s no evidence of a specific disease, there’s no evidence of a virus. Therefore all the tests of the virus are anti scientific and invalid, including antigen tests, PCR tests, antibody tests and any other tests which only assumes the existence of a virus. So I think you can therefore conclude that. I don’t know if we’re in for a round two, this time targeted at the children, but there is nobody home here. There is no new disease, there is no new virus. It’s the same exact procedure of making non specific symptoms into specific diagnoses, which is invalid, and then using anti pseudoscientific procedures to claim they found a virus.

So as to somebody asked me, so if children are going to get sick, what is it from? And obviously I don’t know the answer to that and I don’t want to make any positive claim because I don’t even know if this is going to happen. But we would of course look for the same old culprits of vaccines and different electromagnetic frequencies and fear and poisoning and starvation and all the usual things that we were exposed to with COVID possibly this time directed at the children. So I hope that clears that up and I hope therefore nobody has any reason to fear the illness.

And you might have be worried about whether they’re going to roll out a new situation for us or not. But that I think remains to be seen. And so we’ll just wait to see what happens. Okay, so that was part two. And then I’m going to just finish with a. Just a short passage. And again, this is from a book that I wrote longhand. That’s my new technique, has seven chapters. And this is the seventh chapter of the. I’ll say the guy who’s become one of my main teachers in life and that is Pumpkin. He’s a Very wise being.

And this chapter is called Gratitude. Okay, 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 quote, 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 Quote 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 is a large body of research that suggests that the more we are in this coherent state, the healthier we will be and the happier we feel.

What is particularly interesting is that the HeartMath Institute central premise is is that the single most important determination of whether or not we are in this 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 thought that produce thoughts produce this. This coherent states our thoughts of gratitude. 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 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 or in your life, remember 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. Okay, that is the final message from Pumpkin and I want to thank everybody for listening. We’re finishing a little early today and that’s probably okay. Remember again, sign up for the new biology clinic before the year’s end and thanks everybody for listening and I will hopefully see you next week.
[tr:tra].

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