Dr. Tom Cowan What We Have Learned in the Past Four Years | Jim Fetzer

Okay. Welcome, everybody. Today is another Wednesday webinar after taking about a month off and doing a little bit of traveling and a lot of food processing, freezing and freeze drying and fermenting, dehydrating, you name it. So I’ve been doing that. I hope everybody’s had a good summer and somehow managing the heat. And thanks for joining me again. Today is August 7, 2024, and I thought that today would be a good chance, after having a little bit of a break, to look back over the previous four or so years. I’ve often said when people asked, if you think the same things in the same way that you thought four and a half years ago, then you’re not paying attention.

I certainly know that. I don’t. I’ve learned a lot. I probably learned more in these past four and a half years than certainly any four year period in my life, and maybe more than the entirety of the rest of my life. Although, looking back, I would say I was on the path, but there was a lot of holes in the path. And so I wanted to start with that, which is, I’ve used this word or concept before, which is that we live in a profoundly scientifically illiterate culture. And I would include in that most of the so called lay people.

But unfortunately, I would also include in that many, if not most, of the scientists and many, if not most of the medical doctors. Now, not, uh, just so you know that I’m not, uh, this sort of person in the glass house throwing stones. I would also include myself in that scientifically illiterate group five years ago. And unfortunately, I have a paper trail to prove it. And I wrote books about that included viruses and autoimmune disease. But more importantly, I didn’t have really understand, even though, again, I was sort of on the path to understanding it, I didn’t really understand the essence of logical, rational, scientific thought.

Now, here comes a hypothesis on my part, which is. And so, again, this is not something that I could prove or that I would expect anybody to accept, because I have come to this conclusion myself. But I’ve come to the conclusion that you cannot build a healthy society, a healthy culture, or even a healthy life if you are unable to think properly about the essentials of your life. In other words, if you give up or are not interested in the essence of how to think properly, what I think happens is you’ve given up something that makes us essentially human.

As a result of that, you will encounter troubles that come because you’re thinking process is not accurate or proper, and you don’t know where those troubles come from, but they all stem from your inability to think properly. And that’s what happened to me, because I didn’t know how to think properly. I kept making mistake after mistake, and in a way, still do. But I’ve decided to focus a lot of my attention on what does it mean to think properly and properly. I mean logically, rationally and even scientifically. Now, let me give you just two examples of that.

The first one, these are pretty much everything I’m going to be talking about today are things that I’ve gone over. Because, again, this is a. What have we learned in the past four years? So this is going to be a summary of that, but it’s really focused on the thinking process. And I would say the most important thing that I’ve learned is very short. And you can encapsulate it in the following, which is the essence of logical, rational, scientific thinking is there are claims made, in other words, positive statements, such and such is true. Or here’s the way such and such works.

And you do not have to have an alternative hypothesis or theory in order to investigate that claim. And a corollary to that is, if the claim can be falsified, then it will qualify as being scientific. If there’s no way to falsify the claim, in other words, show that the claim is incorrect, then it’s a belief. Now, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with believing stuff. We all do it. But it’s important to differentiate those two, that the first is a. Is the first being something you can falsify. You can do an experiment and show whether that’s true or nothing, that would count as a scientific inquiry, and that’s using logic and rational thinking.

If there’s a situation where the claim cannot be falsified, then we’re talking about a belief, and it’s important to distinguish between the two. And just the very simple example that I’ve used over and over again and took from a friend of mine. If there’s an 18 year old guy and he just found out he was adopted and it was from China, and he looks asian, his parents are caucasian, and that he is convinced that’s true, all the evidence points to that. He goes to his best friend. His friend says, so who are your real parents? He says, I don’t know.

And he says, until you tell me who your real parents, I don’t believe that you were adopted. That would be the essence of anti scientific, irrational, illogical thinking. Nobody would do that. But I don’t know how many times I’ve heard from particularly alternative and holistic doctors when I say there is no evidence for the claim that there are exist these things called viruses. Almost always the first thing they say is, so what causes Covid? Or what causes chickenpox? Or why did my friend get sick? Or why did my wife get sick and then I got sick? In other words, that is the essence of anti scientific thinking, because you don’t need to know what makes somebody sick to investigate the claim of whether there’s a virus or not.

So that should be very clear. And if you stick to that principle, it will change your life. I can guarantee it. Stick to that principle, find the claim. If there’s no way to falsify it, file it under belief. If you can falsify it, then you attempt to falsify it. If you can, then that’s not true. And it’s. You’ve essentially discarded that hypothesis. And if it, everything points to it being true. In other words, it cannot be falsified or it shows up to be true. Then it’s been something that, at least for the time being, has been logically, rationally, scientifically shown to be true.

Now, the second principle is when you’re investigating something, you look for the experiment that actually tells you the answer to that issue. And so again, an example will show you what I mean by that. If you’re investigating the issue of whether these dots are on a straight line, you make a definition of a straight line, and then you find the experiment that shows you whether the dots are on a straight line. Now, in this case, you don’t need a debate. You don’t need to consult with the head of straight line ology at the NIH or the local hospital or scientific institution.

You need a ruler. You put the ruler up here. That is the defining experiment that will show you the answer. You understand that these dots are not on a straight line, then you’re done with that issue, and then nobody should be able to use, well, we don’t know whether those line dots are on a straight line or not as supporting evidence for any further claim, because you’ve already proven that they’re not. So that hypothesis is out the window and that simple rule is violated over and over again in so called science, and particularly medicine and even more particularly virology.

So those are the two principles. There are, of course, many more. And then there’s the hypothesis that I have that we cannot build a healthy world, a healthy culture, a healthy individual life based on lies, misconceptions, and the inability to distinguish between beliefs and knowledge, that that’s the foundation of a healthy human life and healthy human culture and healthy world. And if we don’t get that right, we’re giving up our, the primary thing that makes us actually human beings. And the final thing I’ll say before I get into the details here is that as far as I can see, there’s three reasons why people are unable to do this about any particular subject.

The first is they’re simply not interested in the subject, which I would say is fair enough. I’m not interested in carburetors. I don’t know whether there are carburetors or how they work or what they’re made of, but I can tell you that I’m never going to make pronouncements or make people in the world do anything because there is or isn’t carburetors. So if you’re not interested in whether they’re viruses or not, or any of the other things I’m going to talk about, fair enough. Just say that you’re not interested. I don’t know how many, again, alternative holistic doctors I’ve said who’ve told me they’re not interested in this.

It’s an irrelevant subject. Whether there’s viruses. Forget about the fact that it’s the entire basis right now of the biosecurity state. Forget about the fact that they’ve been telling probably thousands of people in their career, and forget about the fact that I would say it makes them incompetent as doctors because they don’t know one of the fundamental philosophical principles of their own profession. In other words, it’s like a car mechanic who doesn’t know what a break is. But fair enough, if you’re not interested, just say so. But then don’t even weigh in on the subject because you’ve got nothing to say about it.

The second one is you have nefarious purposes, and I think this one is rare. But there are people who know the truth, who know the real story, but have some reason or another, political or economic, or could be a whole lot of reasons why they attempt to bamboozle and lie to people. And again, that doesn’t come up very much. The first one does come up. A lot of this one doesn’t come up, but it is possible. And the second one is, or the third one, sorry. Which is the bulk of the people, including the scientists and the medical doctors, is simply that you have a thought disorder, that you have not actually learned how to think properly, and therefore you can’t sort your way through this.

And to me, that’s a real problem. So those are the three reasons why people, in my view, don’t get these things. They’re not interested. They don’t think, they haven’t learned the rules of thinking, or they’re not willing to apply them for some other, usually emotional or trauma or psychological reasons. And the third is they have nefarious interests. So with that, let’s look at some of the subjects that we’ve been over in the past four and a half years. And I just want to say, I’m going to go over this really quick because this is not intended to, like, prove any of these points.

It’s just to recap some of the things. And you can go back to the, to our presentations that I’ve given on pretty much any of these subjects. So I don’t expect anybody to be convinced by what I’m presenting today. This is just a recap of the subjects that I’ve been through and the sort of highlights. So let me share my screen here. And I’m going to go to a PowerPoint that I used a while ago because it has most of the points. Okay? So hopefully everybody can see this. So here’s a quote. Once a person steps on the path that is no path, they will always be tempted, challenged.

Unless you have an unshakable commitment to this work, you’ll get sidetracked by everything that comes along. And there are lots of pretty illusions out there. The path to truth is very simple. You make a commitment for truth, and then whenever you come to a crossroads where you have to choose between the truth and something else, you choose your commitment to truth. That’s all. And I want to say that I don’t really know much about Richard Rose, but the next one, in order to be effective, the truth must penetrate like an arrow. And that is likely to hurt.

That is the experience. Because we’re going through a unlearning and then a reawakening here, and mostly a shedding off of old beliefs. And my experience is the only way to keep it from hurting too much is just to decide in the beginning whatever it is. If I think it’s true, that’s what I’m going with. Not well, it has to fit in with my worldview or something else. You just choose between the truth and something else. You make that commitment and let the chips fall where they may. And that’s the way to get it from hurt, from hurting to a intolerable degree.

Okay. The next one which is going to come up. History is a pack of lies about events that never happened, told by people that weren’t there. And that seems to me a very true quote. Here’s from Tolstoy. Progress consists not in the increase of truth, but freeing it from its wrappings. The truth is obtained like gold, not by letting it grow bigger, but by washing off everything from it that isn’t gold. In other words, find the claim, falsify the claim. Falsify, falsify, falsify, falsify. One thing after another. Don’t worry so much right now about what is true or why do people get sick, or who made those buildings, or.

So what are the. How did they do, though that explosion, whatever it is that we’re going to talk about, just investigate the claim. That’s how you find the golden. Here’s another one. Our supposed knowledge today of what life is on a microscopic scale is based on observations made on dead tissue, which are subject to an astonishingly harmful preparation protocol. This was some doctor. And we will talk about this a little bit. This is really the essence of Harold Hillman, his work. And it gets into the idea that somehow medical doctors and scientists have forgotten this very important principle, which is how you look for something, to a large extent, determines what you find.

And you always have to keep that in mind. How did you look for this? And that will largely determine what it is that you find. I, and I was a big reader of Sherlock Holmes in my life, and I tried to get the method, which is, I think, encapsulated here. How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? In other words, find the claim, eliminate it. This is impossible. And then, even if you don’t know what, what is true, however improbable it may seem, that’s got to be the truth.

Okay, so then we looked at, is there such a thing as contagion? So, first we’re going to start with some biology, medicine and virology. And we investigated the claim, and we found the Rossineau studies with the spanish flu. Those are the first two. And again, I’m going to go over this quick, so if you want to go back and look at these slides, and then another study in 1920, all of which found that there is no evidence that sick people make. Sorry, well people make sick people sick people make well people sick. And our friend Daniel Reuters has done a book called can you catch a cold? If you want to look into it more, there’s been at least a couple hundred studies showing that it has been falsified, that sick people make, well, people or animals sick.

That theory has been falsified. We don’t know of a single proper controlled study in the medical literature that shows otherwise. So that hypothesis, like I say, has been falsified. So it should be referred to as the disproven contagion theory. That is the proper way to say it. It’s like we found out these are not on a straight line. We don’t need to refer to contagion ever again, because until somebody does a proper study proving these are on a straight line or that contagion is a real thing, it’s finished. Okay? And then we talked about the isolation of the virus.

And here are six responses from four of the most important papers having to do with SARS Cov two, all of which say they’ve never purified the virus, they never isolated the virus. In other words, they never separated what they’re calling a virus from the host tissue. Think about that for a minute. They never separated the virus from the host tissue. They admit it openly in emails, which means, because according to their own theory, that virus, so called, and the host tissue are made of the same material, that is to say proteins and DNA and rna. If you’ve never separated them, you have no idea of which piece DNA, RNA protein came from which source.

Therefore, that eliminates the possibility of investigating the DNA or RNA of a alleged virus and claiming that it came from an alleged virus, because you’ve never separated the two. So you have no basis for that claim. And all I can say, three reasons why you don’t understand that. That if you never separate something from the material that it’s embedded in and they’re made of the same thing, from then on you can never say where that part of it came from. And if you don’t get that, it’s either that you’re not interested, you have nefarious purposes, or you have a thought disorder.

Therefore, until you isolate, separate, purify the virus and show that it exists, any study of the so called genetic material will never be able to separate where the source, the origin, the provenance of the genetic material came from. And so it is an invalid study. And I would say, period on that. Again, if you don’t, if that doesn’t make sense to you, it’s because you have a thought problem. This was our friend, Vince Raccanelli. I think that’s how you say his name. One of the foremost virologists in the United States. And I won’t play this clip, who’s trying to teach us what isolation means, which is a prerequisite for saying something exists and that it can be studied.

If you want to study this pencil, you have to separate it, isolate it from the. From the marker, and that way you can study it and find out what this and this alone is made of. And the. The clip I have here says, well, we don’t really have a definition for isolation, but the best one is the isolation of a virus means the virus has been isolated. And if you think that’s a reasonable approach and not the real definition of isolation, which means the separation of one thing from all other things, then you have a thought disorder like Vince does.

Okay, never mind. And then we looked at, over and over again, the claim that the way, like Vince says, the way you isolate a virus is to take unpurified material, which, interestingly, a recent virologist said, the unpurified material, that is the snot or the balf fluid, that is the independent variable, which means they’re studying snot, not viruses. Obviously, if that doesn’t make sense to you, again, it’s because you have a thought disorder. So they say that you can take unpurified snote, put it on a. On a culture specially bred to break down of monkey kidney cells, and then you add antibiotics and take away the nutrients.

And if the tissue breaks down, the so called cytopathic effect, that proves it was because of a virus. And that’s called the isolation of the virus. And that is pure nonsense, because the only thing you could possibly say is that it’s a result of putting snot on a culture. But actually, here’s the results that Stefan did, and this has been done over and over again, now that the cytopathic effect happens, like you see in column three, because of taking away the nutrients and adding the antibiotics. And it’s worse if you add yeast. And so it has nothing to do with the virus.

In fact, the idea that the cytopathic effect is because of a virus has been disproven. So it’s actually been disproven that any so called virus has been isolated. Therefore, there’s no evidence that they exist and they cannot be studied. And I ran across this quote, unfortunately, I don’t remember the woman’s name, but virologists in 1959. So this fact that the cell culture, the so called viral culture, is specific for isolating viruses has been disproven since 1959. It was even disproven by enders. So she says, quoting in addition to foamy viruses, other agents that are identical to measles virus in terms of their serological relationship, cytopathological effects and range of tissue culture susceptibility have been found in uninocculated cultures.

In other words, the blood markers, the cytopathic effect, and the tissue cultures are identical even if you don’t inoculate, even if you don’t put anything that could have a virus in it. In view of these complications, cultures of monkey kidney cells cannot be considered a suitable tool for the isolation or propagation of measles virus. Do you hear what she said? And these are the same monkey kidney cells that are used to isolate and propagate pretty much every virus, including SARS Cov two, every ever since they are not a suitable culture. Even if by careful serological and cytological tests, one identifies an agent grown in monkey kidney cells as a measles virus, there can be no certainty that it did not derive from the culture itself.

In other words, we have no idea, according to even in 1959, that all these tests, all these proteins, all these markers, all this cytopathic effect is not deriving from the culture process itself. Finished. That culture process as a mode of isolation has been falsified, and it should never be used as an argument that a virus has been isolated, because it’s simply not true. Okay? And then people say, well, we’ve seen the virus like this. This was a project, I think, by Sheffield University or something, graphic arts. Or how about this one? And if you believe those are, then you believe these, that these show unicorns, or even this one.

But Tom, what about this? Isn’t this a picture of the virus SARS cov two? Here’s another one. Now, you remember my pumpkin challenge test? That’s pumpkin when he was a little guy. He’s a lot bigger now. And I showed him the next ten pictures. They were either from viruses, SARS Cov two, or broken down monkeys. Sorry, kidney biopsies from before 2000, therefore, couldn’t possibly be a virus. And pumpkin got six out of ten, right. How about this one? Compare this one to that one. Looks identical. That one is from, is from a kidney biopsy from before 2000.

How about those? There? We see a cluster of SARS Cov two, right? Well, turns out those are monkey. Those are, sorry, kidney biopsies. How about that one with the arrows? You see the spike proteins, turns out also kidney biopsy. And we go on and on. These are all kidney biopsies. And then we pointed to articles that say in the literature, you cannot distinguish endogenous mimickers. They’re morphologically indistinguishable from SARS Cov two. Never mind. All these electron microscope pictures actually are just broken down kidney cells. They even have the electron dense appearance of the vesicles, giving the appearance of a viral corona.

Who would have thought? And the CDC has known about this at least since 2003, and we even know what the protein is, etcetera. So, virology has been falsified. Nobody should refer to it ever again except as the falsified viral theory. Okay? And then we went on to look at bigger issues in cell biology, trying to find out what of this stuff that we see under the microscope, because we don’t have any sensory input telling us what our tissue is made of. We don’t see any of these things, we don’t hear them, we don’t feel them, we don’t taste them.

So this is the theoretical diagram of the cell. We all learn this, every biology student, every medical doctor, every scientist. These are the things that the cell contains. Just take a look at some highlights. Here we have the nucleus in purple. In the middle we have the endoplasmic reticulum, the snake that connects the nuclear membrane with the cell membrane. We have the circular ribosomes, the mitochondria, the Golgi apparatus. Which of these are actually true? We took a look at some of these, and one of the things we found out is that you can never see a ribosome except with an electron microscope.

And a ribosome is an important part of the whole theory of biology, because it’s where they say the mRNA is translated into proteins. So if there’s no ribosomes, then that’s a problem, because the whole genetic theory then breaks down. And so here we see pictures of ribosomes. You see them lining the endoplasmic reticulum like this. And just like in this picture here, all the ribosomes are perfect circles in this two dimensional view. Now, the interesting thing about that is if you realize how you got to this view, you realize that they took tissue and they put it in a blender, and they macerated it and extracted it with acids and other chemicals, and then froze it to -100 and some degrees, and then embedded it in resin, and then put some dyes on it.

And interestingly, the only inclusion, or the only part of this picture here that actually you can see under a light microscope is the mitochondria. Of course, when you do this process, or you do it with a electron microscope, in the process that I described. Now, you see the mitochondria in all different orientations. Sometimes you see it like flat on, sometimes head on, all different arrangements. Just like if you put an orange in a blender, you would see it as little slices, big slices, all different orientations. With ribosomes, you only see flat circles. And here’s another view, and that automatically tells you that that cannot be an actual physical structure that was there in the original tissue, because there’s no way you could take that tissue and do all those things to it and come out with perfect circles.

And Hillman spent a long time proving that there can’t possibly any, be anything in our tissues or cells called ribosomes, and that they’re basically gas bubbles and an artifact of the entire process. So no such thing as ribosomes, and basically no such. You can do the same sort of process with all the other things you do. The endoplasmic reticulum. And it’s a supposedly, that’s a picture of it there. A cord that binds these, that connects the nuclear membrane with the cell membrane. There’s many of these cords. When the cell is alive, the tissue is alive. You see the nucleus doing these 360 rotations.

Then you have to ask yourself, how come the cords don’t get all mixed up when it’s rotating 360 degrees? And that also tells you that that cannot possibly be an actual structure in a living tissue. And also the fact that you always see them in this sort of longitudinal section, never in the orientations that you would see in an actual thing that existed in the actual tissue. Again, we have something else that’s not really. That’s an artifact. Here we have one of the important parts of modern neurology and modern psychiatry, which is the existence of synapses, which are gaps in nerves through which the neurotransmitters, uh, dopamine and.

And serotonin, they. They travel. So these are little gaps. You can see the gap between one end of the nerve and the other. And I I’ve talked about how there can’t possibly be these gaps. They’re never seen except in electron microscopy. I spent a number of days looking for a picture of synapse in an actual nerve. And what I realized years ago is that the nerve impulse, which is basically instantaneous, the time between thinking, move my finger, and moving it, is almost nothing. And if there’s 20 synapses in the nerves between my brain and my finger, that would take at least 1 second.

And that’s got even not accounting for the movement down the axon of the nerve. This cannot actually be the anatomy of the nerve. Hillman again, went through this and showed that it’s because of the dehydration of the nerves and the processes that they use to get this picture that the nerve breaks. The ends roll up, just like if you cut a piece of woolen, the ends separate and they roll up. And that’s why you see this. And all these chemicals are released not to propagate a nerve impulse, but as they’re released as a result of the function of the nerve.

So they have nothing to do with the functioning of the nerve. They’re just the dead chemicals. The excretion of the nerves, just like the so called viruses, are just the breaking down of the tissue. And apparently, medicine keeps being unable to differentiate between the breakdown, the chemicals that are made when something has a function and the actual function of the tissue. And fundamentally, that’s because modern biology and medicine is fundamentally materialistic. And they keep looking that the reason for the function of anything must be the substance, must be the chemicals in that substance. And as I’ve said over and over again, it’s like looking for the blueprint for the house by dissecting the bricks.

And you can dissect the bricks until one so called molecule is left. Look at each individual molecule, and I guarantee you will never find the blueprint for the house. All you’ll find is the components of the bricks, because the blueprint is within the mind of the architect. So again, I went looking for some picture that would show me that there is actually a synapse in the nerve. Spent a whole day looking for this, and you can see the thing in the middle. Sydney, that was the best picture I found for what a synapse is. And I am completely unconvinced that that represents anything that would possibly be a transmission gap in a nerve.

That’s just another electron microscopy stained tissue of God knows what. Again, I would say the idea that there are synapses in nerves and therefore neurotransmitters, which is the basis of modern psychiatry and neurology, has been falsified. And unless somebody can demonstrate anatomically by clear dissection with controls so you know that you’re not creating artifacts, that theory should be discarded. And then just to pick up one more thing, I looked at the idea, which is commonly heard and even gets into the vaccine issue, that there is a blood brain barrier, in other words, an anatomic barrier between the blood vessels leading to and into the brain and the actual brain tissue.

And so I did the thing, which I think is the experiment that would show it just like this. I measured. So I went looking for pictures of the relationship, the barrier, between, say, a liver and the blood vessel. And so here you see it, and there is no anatomical barrier. Liver and blood vessel, so there is no liver blood barrier. But here’s the nerve, and you see the blood vessels in the circular thing. You see them in different orientations. That’s what you see when something is actually real. If something is completely uniform in every slice, every possible view, then that thing is an artifact, because there’s no way you can cut an orange or a banana or anything else real randomly or put it in a blender and have every orientation look like a perfect circle.

Simply doesn’t happen. Here’s the brain blood barrier, and it looks exactly the same. There is no cellophane. There is no anatomical barrier. So again, unless you have a thought disorder or some way to prove this, to show this, which I have not seen, there is no blood brain barrier. Things obviously get selectively absorbed due to the different qualities of different tissue. So some things show up in the brain more than the liver or kidneys. That’s not what’s in dispute. The positive claim is there is an anatomical barrier, and I would say that has been disproven. And so here is a partial list of all the things that are said to exist are either unproven or incorrect.

Blood brain barrier, endoplasmic reticulum receptors, opiate receptors, a huge part of medicine. Synapses, neurotransmitters, lysosomes, and immune system autoimmunity. DNA is the mechanism of heredity. The central dogma that states that proteins are coded by a single gene. One gene makes one protein, and the direction is always from DNA to rna to protein. That was disproven by finding out there’s approximately 200,000 proteins and approximately ten to 20,000 genes. And so there’s no way, if you know, arithmetic, that 20,000 genes can code for 200,000 proteins. So that central dogma and the whole genetics, and therefore epigenetics has been falsified.

Even the idea that the DNA is identical in all the cells of the body, that has been falsified. There are no cristae or inner membranes in your mitochondria. The mitochondria is a collection of a different kind of water. And then the government associated foundations care about your well being. We all know that isn’t true. And human beings can use logic or reasoning, and that apparently isn’t true either. What is a tissue made of? Or a cell even. We’ve questioned whether there really are cells. There are some types of little compartments called cells. So let’s just say for now, they have a membrane, they have watery cytoplasm, they have these mitochondria, which, again, you see in all the orientations.

And then they have a circular nucleus in the middle. That’s all there is. And then how do the proteins get made? And we looked at the work of Veda Austin, who shows that if you put a message into water, like in this case, showed the water a wedding invitation, and then put it in a freezer for a few seconds or a few minutes, I guess the water will create an image that here looks like a wedding ring. So it seems like the system is information coming from the outside gets downloaded, so to speak, into the water.

The water has a kind of intelligence and even a memory. And that intelligence and memory, by some way that we don’t really understand, can create something meaningful out of that information through the water. The water, of course, uses various proteins and probably fats and probably minerals to do that. And that is how the creation of living substance seems to happen. That, at least, is a hypothesis that I’ve been working with. And here we showed the water, or asked the water the question, what is falling down? So the water seems to even be able to think in a kind of humorous, abstract way.

And it showed us London Bridge. And then we have some quotes about that. Water is the essence of life. It’s from Sven Gorky, and Meiwan Ho is a geneticist, and that it is called a liquid crystal or a mesophase. And that’s the remarkable and unique differentiation that is water. And it’s structured with mind and thought. So it’s a fluid crystal, and that’s also the basis of its being able to be interacted with various crystals in so called crystal healing. And we also now know that you can, that MRI machines actually measure the crystal formation of the water, and you can tell, based on the structure of the water, whether the tissue is abnormal and even whether there’s cancer there.

Because the cancer cells don’t have this normal water. It becomes more like liquid water or actually hardened water instead of the normal mesophase, living crystal water. And then we saw the remarkable correspondence between what we actually know is present in the living tissue, which is a circular structure in the middle called a nucleus. And then it has some sort of antenna to collect the information from the outside, and then it’s embedded into water, just like the Taj Mahal. And so you can see an image of that. And I would then ask the question, so who built this? And how did they know that this is the structure of living beings and the way to harvest the electromagnetic energy and then essentially download it into the water to be used probably to power and create life for the people? And was this really made by ignorant peasants who were actually moving around with donkey carts with square wooden wheels? And if so, how did they make such a thing? And we see this again in the Vatican, same, same formation, dome, antenna on pillars, which then act like capacitors downloaded into this moving water below.

And we see it, I think, St. Petersburg there. You don’t see the water. I won’t get into this, but we’ve talked about the heart, and we even talked about the heart is not a pump. And coronary artery disease has nothing to do with or. Or blockage of the coronary arteries, has little, if anything, to do with heart attacks. And here was the trial in the Lancet from, I think, 2018, showing that doing stents has no effect on the length of time that a person lives or with whether they’ll have a heart attack. And even compared to a placebo dummy stent procedure, there is no change in the amount of exercise time or pain that the person has.

So there’s basically no indication for doing a stent. In other words, unblocking one of the coronary arteries because it doesn’t help you live longer, doesn’t prevent heart attacks. And compared to a dummy procedure, it doesn’t even help you live longer. Okay, let me just check where I am for a second. With time, 250. Okay, I’m going to just go through the rest of these really quick. And again, this is not meant to convince you of everything, but just to give you an overview of some of the things we’ve talked about and to hopefully stimulate you to really look at what in our world is true.

So that we took a look at mostly biology, and here’s a look at history. And it’s a great quote from Mark Twain. What you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. How many of us have got into that? And so here’s an interesting look at some of the buildings. And this is a look at the history of Australia. And the official history is, in somewhere, 1788, the first so called civilized white men. Before that, there were natives there who had no technology and built nothing. That’s what they say.

They were convicts. They knew nothing of farming or building. They didn’t even remember to bring tools. That’s 1788. Then 1790, another fleet arrives. And by the way, I got almost all, well, I got all these slides from other websites. This is not my original research and I’m not going to go into all where I got it from, but you can research these things yourself. And we’re just looking at the claim about what’s true about the history. So here we see some australian first free settlers arrive and then 1850, the population is apparently 400,000 and they were living in thatched huts.

And then you have a gold rush, and interestingly, you see some primitive structures, but some interesting with the arrow, you see some other structures that are nearby which are a little bit out of step here for this. So 1869, years later, the population is a million, still not that many people living in very primitive conditions. And here you see from the 1850s or so, the photos of the conditions that the people were living in. And this is about what you would expect from people who, without many skills and without many tools, what they could actually carve out for themselves in a just a unsettled, primitive wilderness, so to speak.

And so you hear, see things like this, and this makes a lot of sense that that’s what you would expect people would be able to make using hand tools and no machinery and no power. Tools weren’t invented until 1890, etcetera. No roads, no nothing like that. So you see things like this and you see the guys, and they have probably clothes that they either made themselves or imported from England, and then you see things like this. 1837. So this is when hardly anybody was there. I mean, who built this thing? Where did they get the bricks? Where did they get the road? How did they build the road? Who built this structure? Why did they build it? A government house in Sydney, Australia.

18, 37, 20,000 people in the whole continent, and they’re building this castle and this is Tasmania nearby. 1840, that was hardly even settled. Here’s another amazing structure. Where did they get the bricks? How did they build this thing? In 1841, they’re actual photographs. 1854, you see amazing sort of glass and steel structures. 1854, supposedly people who were riding around in horse drawn carriages with practically no tires and anything. How did they build such a thing? 1879, how did they build such a thing? So, for those of you who still believe in normal history, we need answers to the questions of how, why, what was the actual mechanism of building these ginormous structures in 1879, before there was any transportation, before there was any engines, before there were any glass factories anywhere in sight.

Who built these? Why did they build them? And more importantly, how did they build them? And then we see the same thing at the Chicago World’s Fair. This is, I think, in the late 18 hundreds. So again, we see this amazing architecture and these buildings that were made before power tools, before there was any engines or paved roads. And there were some even. This is a pure gold statue of some roman deity. Why would they do this? How did they carve these. These channels, etcetera, with no. No machinery? It just boggles the imagination. And so we really have to ask ourselves, is history what we’ve been told? And I will leave that again here.

I went over this in some longer things, and you can look into the whole history of this. And why were they also demolished? There’s evidence, I think, in London, of a 23 acre glass and steel, or the Philadelphia structure with no glass factory anywhere in sight. And anyways, how would you build a 23 acre glass and steel beamed structure without the ability to use cranes or move anything by any kind of locomotive except train. So you mean they put the train next to the imaginary factory and made all these glass structures to cover a 23 acre facility, which was magnificent, only to be torn down and destroyed by a fire a few years later.

And again, you see these unbelievable structures made in a time where the technology to make something like this simply doesn’t exist. Then we looked at the history of the vegetation that existed in the period. Now, here we’re talking 1880 to 1920, these enormous trees, trees the likes of which we don’t see anymore. And here’s some other versions of them. And you see just how enormous these trees are. And then you get into this anomaly, which is the petrified forest, which is that some of these trees, when you cut them, they’re actually made of quartz, or they’re made of.

They have a silica based crystalline structure. And, of course, that gets into. How did that happen? Aren’t we told that all trees, all living things are carbon based? Isn’t that the basis of carbon dating? And our whole history of the timeline of our world and the basis of evolution is that we’re all carbon based. And yet when you cut down these old trees, you see that they’re made of quartz, they’re made of silica. And so then you go looking, so how did these carbon based trees become petrified, become made of silica? And they give you this ridiculous answer.

Well, the tree fell in a lake or a stream, and the stream had a lot of silica in it. And then the silica embedded into the tree, and that ended up crystallizing. And then you get these crystallized trees. Of course, we’ve never been able to see anything like that, but trust us, that’s how it worked. And frankly, I don’t buy it. And I think the world must have been or may have been a very different place made out of very different things not so long ago. And here you see a close up of the inside of a tree, and how could that possibly happen? And then you see these structures that look like living things.

That’s the structure of a living thing. And so was that actually a living being? And here you see another enormous aspect of these columns that look like honeycombs of bees, and you see just how enormous this is. And is this possibly a living structure, in which case, our whole conception of the earth and what it was made of and what living beings were made of needs to be reevaluated. And again, we don’t need to know what is true to know that. That story doesn’t seem to hold up now when they tell us, well, this was volcanic eruption, and that’s how the lava coagulates into this.

But that’s actually what happens when there’s lava that coagulates, not this. This is the structure of a living being. And then you see other views of this, and just see, is it possible that the earth was a really different place, which negates made of, and living beings were actually not carbon based, which then negates the whole principles of carbon dating, which negates the whole understanding of the age of the earth and even of evolution? And then you see what a cut tree looks like. And these are from various places. This is, I think, Italy and Namibia.

And so is it possible that these were actually what living things were made of back in some time before? So let’s stop with that. I don’t want to go through that right now. And so it looks like we’re out of time. I just wanted to say that the other two things that I wanted to get into, which I’m just going to briefly mention, we looked at the whole phenomena of the nuclear atom, and therefore nuclear weapons. And for those of you who want to look into this more, I would look at this book, death objects exploding, the nuclear weapons hoaxed by Akio Nakatami.

And then another book which recently came to my attention, which explodes another myth, which is the myth that we need something called government in our lives. And I would look at a book about the most important superstition, I think, is the name of it by a fellow named Larkin Rose. And again, when you start looking into these and you go into it, I care nothing except finding out what is true. I don’t need to find out what is true, but I can falsify the claims that I’ve heard and that create the foundation of my, the thinking that I’ve been brought up with.

We can actually look at which of those are actually true, and you can discard them one by one, whether it’s viruses, neurotransmitters, the history of the earth, living beings, nuclear weapons, whether the need for government, etcetera. And in the end, the hope is that you will find gold in that process and you will become a much freer, happier person who’s really doing, finding out, finally, what is true in your life. That can be the true foundation for a healthy, active, free life, which I would argue is what we’re here to do. So thanks, everybody, for listening, and I will probably continue on this theme next week, and I hope everybody can join me.

And again, thanks for listening, and it’s good to be back and hearing from my friends again.
[tr:tra].

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