➡ On April 22, 2026, a webinar was held discussing various topics. The host thanked customers for supporting their business, Dr. Cowan’s Garden, and announced an upcoming event, the New Biology Experience. The host also shared concerns about a new rabies vaccine, criticizing the lack of long-term testing and potential side effects. Lastly, the topic of Group B strep in pregnant women was discussed, questioning the necessity of testing and treatment.
➡ A group of scientists, including a microbiologist, have taken legal action against major health authorities in India, arguing that there’s no evidence that viruses or other microbes cause diseases. Their case reached the Supreme Court, which ordered top virologists and health officials to provide clear scientific evidence that viruses exist and cause diseases. However, no response has been received from these officials yet. The case aims to challenge the conventional understanding of diseases and could potentially change the way we approach health and medicine.
➡ The article discusses how modern economic policies often seem disconnected from reality, with governments relying on models and simulations rather than real-life experiences. This approach is compared to how health and illness are often understood, with medical professionals relying on models and theories rather than individual experiences. The author argues that this disconnect from reality can lead to problems, as it ignores the individual and constantly evolving nature of both economics and health. The article concludes by suggesting that a better understanding of these fields can only be achieved by staying connected to reality and human actions, rather than relying on abstract models and simulations.
➡ Physicist David Gross, who recently won a $3 million prize, has been working on a theory to unite all forces in physics. His research focuses on the behavior of protons and neutrons in an atom’s nucleus, specifically how they stay together despite their positive charges. He discovered that the forces between these particles, known as quarks, weaken as they get closer and strengthen as they move apart, a principle called asymptotic freedom. This counterintuitive finding, which is part of a larger model called quantum chromodynamics, has contributed to the standard model of particle physics.
➡ Have a fantastic week.

Okay, welcome everybody. This is another Wednesday webinar. Sorry about that. Hope I won’t get too many phone calls. Hope the sound is okay. And thanks for joining me. Today is April 22, 2026, and the first thing I wanted to say is we just finished our annual spring sale partly to celebrate our another year of the Dr. Cowan’s garden being in business. I believe it’s 10 now. And so I just wanted to express my thanks and gratitude to everybody who shops with us, all of our customers, and hopefully you’ve got some things that make your life a little bit better from our sale.

So just thanks everybody for participating and just being part of our family here. The other thing, of course, is that the New Biology Experience is still open for registration. It’s happening in June at Polyface Farm. And we’re really excited about what’s going to happen in the music and the dancing and the lectures and meeting new people and the food and the environment that we’ll all be in. And so I hope to see as many people as possible there. And we’ll put some links to the how to sign up for that in the show notes. And I think that’s all the announcements today may be a little bit of a different webinar because I’m.

I have just a bunch of short things that I wanted to present and I try to think of like, what’s the unifying theme of this? And I, I guess all I could say is I’m trying to present a different way of thinking, a different point of view. Not that this is the point of view or a point of view everybody should adopt, but it’s a point of view that is meaningful to me. And so my goal is to share it and to stimulate people to think about things in a different way. Those, some of the ways that I’ve learned to think about economics and government and physics and biology and medicine over the years.

And so these are some clips or some short pieces, all that shed some light on some of those subjects. So the first one I’m going to share my screen and this one I have to share the sound. Hopefully people can hear it. This is about a new rabies shot. And just to say that I don’t necessarily agree with everything this person is going to say, but I think the, the idea of just how awful the this shot really is and how sloppy and what’s the word, unprofessional the research around vaccines and immunizations actually is. And so hopefully you’ll get the point of that.

So let’s Take a look. So I have to open the link. Get rid of this. Enough now. Really taking it up a notch. Take a listen to this, guys. You gotta avoid this stuff at all costs. What’s new in the news? It just keeps getting better. The USDA quietly approved Merck’s self amplifying messenger rna. The USDA has not conducted any long term testing and consequently has not warned the public. Merck has launched a new rabies vaccine called NOBAVAC nxt which is based on SA RNA and veterinarians are now rolling it out across the United States. The Sarna replicates in your dog or cat’s body and spreads throughout its organs and brain.

Long term effects, Unknown side effects? Oh, increased aggression, excess salivation, seizures, vertigo, paralysis and death. There was no long term safety research by an independent lab. Instead, research was conducted by Merck’s own intervet lab over 14 days. That’s right, 14. And the results were neither peer reviewed nor made available to the public. 38 dogs and cats were used for the experimental study and 35 of those test pets were euthanized after the two week research period. And there are other vaccines in the Merck SA RNA lineup such as Novavac nx. Okay, I think we can stop there.

So just to say there’s a lot of this that I don’t agree with, that I think is basically pseudoscience, like the self amplifying nature of these vaccines. I don’t think that they’ve shown that they can make anything self amplify. I think what they’re doing is injecting a different kind of poison and then the damage just gets worse over time and they call that self amplifying. The other thing is I’m not necessarily wedded to the idea that the so called studies or science have to be peer reviewed because that’s like the old boys network. But what I do want to point out and what I think was made clear is first of all, there is no specific disease called rabies.

There’s a collection of symptoms which have probably a variety of causes and we don’t necessarily need to go into what’s causing them, but one of the causes is certainly being poisoned by experimental injections. The other point that I really want to emphasize here is this unprofessional, amateurish way and I think that’s probably, if not certainly deliberate of doing these studies and doing these so called long term studies. We’ve seen this with Hep B shots and many others where they take these, they do these horrible experiments. This basically torturing you know, innocent dogs and cats, which is itself horrible.

This should never happen. There’s no dog or cat or any animal that needs to be used for human studies. There’s nothing to be gained from that. It’s just basically a bunch of psychopaths torturing animals for no reason. They torture them, inject them with poison, give them all these horrible symptoms, then they euthanize them in 14 days. And that’s called a long term study of the safety profile of this injection. And that’s a scientific joke. So the bottom line is there is no evidence that there is a disease that they’re treating. There’s no evidence that this works to prevent any, any kind of disease.

All they look at, if they look at anything, are whether the animals develop antibodies, which all that means is they’ve injected them with poison and their bodies make non specific proteins which they’ve never actually done. Clear enough science to say that they’re actually, these antibodies are specific to anything. And I’ve been through that many times, so that is a meaningless finding. And then they euthanize them and prevent long term effects from being seen. And I have had personal experience with friends of mine, people I know having think they’re forced to give rabies shots because it’s the law or because of whatever and then have a horrible, very unfortunate outcome.

I’ve seen that myself. And so the main reason I wanted to play this is to reinforce the idea that you or anybody you know who cares about the animals in your care and if you don’t care about the animals in your care, then you shouldn’t have animals. Anybody who has animals should make sure that they are treated in the absolute best way for that animal possible. And the rule of thumb is give them no vaccines, not the old ones, not the new ones. If they say there’s a newer one and it’s safe, don’t believe them. There is no vaccine that is useful to give any child or any animal in any circumstance.

And you should take that absolutely to heart. And this is just one more example of how these people do their so called science and what a joke it all is. Okay, so that’s the first thing. The second which is very short topic I wanted to get into was somebody in one of the terrain telegram groups that I’m when is about to give a webinar on group B strep and I think we can put that in the show notes so how you can actually get access to this webinar and I don’t think it’s very expensive and I think that the woman who’s giving it is very accurate and trustworthy.

And I’m bringing this up not to give a talk on Group B strep, but this is a hugely important issue. This never. This was not an issue when I was in medical school or residency. We never heard about anybody having Group B strep. But Sometime, I’m guessing 20, 30 years ago, we started to hear that all pregnant women had to have a culture done of their vaginal fluids. And if they had this type of bacteria called Group B strep, which they say is a specific species or subspecies of the strep organism, which it’s not that all of the women who test positive need to take antibiotics or their baby, when the baby goes through the birth canal, will swallow the Group B strep and have a bad outcome.

And so you see a huge amount of fear. And all of the midwives seem to buy into this, and all the natural birthing people seem to buy into this. And even the women who deliver at home seem to buy into this. So everybody is now testing for group B strep and doing antibiotics or doing, you know, herbal stuff, herbal antibiotics, or doing something to try to get rid of this Group B strep. And it’s basically all for nothing because this is a meaningless finding, like all of the microbial findings in conventional medicine. There’s no meaning to this test.

There’s nothing that can be done. And I think that she’s going to go into this in very clear detail so that you will be very confident if you’re a pregnant woman, if you’re about to have a baby, if you have friends who are pregnant or thinking of getting pregnant or about to have a baby, if you have children or grandchildren who are pregnant or thinking of getting pregnant or about to have a baby, or any category of people who are currently worried about Group B strep, that you can absolutely put that one aside. There’s nothing to it.

And hopefully she will go through it and make that very clear. So anybody in those categories, I would encourage you to take a look at that webinar. And it will be time and money, I think, well spent in educating yourself and putting that canard to rest. Okay, so that was the second one and the third topic I wanted to get into, which I’ve heard about directly from the people who are participating in this. And then Sam and Mark Bailey did a great one of their weekly webinars, or whatever you call it. They did a show on this topic, which is that.

And I thought People should know about it and maybe get involved and they may need some financial support. I don’t know about that. Maybe they don’t, or just, I think just your knowing about it and your thoughts and prayers and sending them best wishes is probably all they’re actually interested in and looking for. But what I’m talking about is a group of people, some of whom are so called scientists or they are actually scientists, some of them I know, or at least one has a degree in microbiology. And they decided and did the legwork and groundwork to sue the, the major players in India on the basis of there’s no evidence that any virus has been shown to exist and there’s no evidence that any of the various kind of microbes, including parasites and fungi and bacteria, are actually the causative agent in disease.

They ran a few of their papers by me just to take a look and they basically had everything right. I maybe suggested a few words. So this has been going on for a while and I’m not sure how long. But the big news and the reason why the Baileys I believe actually did a piece on this is that they actually made it to the Supreme Court in India. And what, what they’ve actually done is they’ve actually petitioned like the head of virology at the equivalent of the CDC in India and the head of whatever their sort of NIH is and different virology, you know, sort of big wigs in India.

And I don’t know all the details of who exactly, but I know there was at least three and they, they outlined their evidence for the fact that viruses have never been shown to exist and all these different so called pathogens have never been scientifically proven to cause disease. And they made it all the way to have a hearing in front of the Supreme Court in India who heard their case and then actually ordered these three top virologists and CDC or NIH type officials to respond within four weeks and show the clear scientific evidence in common English terms that viruses have been shown to exist and that these various organisms are the causative agent in disease.

And apparently at this point the four weeks has passed and nothing has been heard from any of these three conventional scientists, virologist, government official types. Now I, as everybody I think knows who listens to me, I’m not a big fan of changing the world through the court system or through the government. I think fundamentally that doesn’t work because you’re asking the perpetrator to essentially solve the problem that they’re actually perpetrating and so I have my questions about whether this is going to lead to anything different. But on the other hand, I think it was an incredible, determined and valiant effort, if for nothing else, to get these people to respond because they generally their strategy, which is exactly what I would do.

I would ignore it if I were them. I would not respond, I would not engage because I know that I have no cards to play. They have all the truth and all the cards, that is the no virus, no pathogen people. They are correct. And my best strategy would be to say nothing, which seems to be exactly what they’re doing. And so the benefit of this is. And we will see, and I must say I don’t have much hope myself, but you never know. And we’ll see if the Indian High Court has the integrity to actually do something about this and demand that they respond, demand that we see their best evidence, which would be a real benefit to all of us.

Because then we could say these are the top level virologists and this is their best evidence as demanded by an actual court system in India. So you can decide, here’s our case, here is the best evidence. Because right now we can’t get them to respond, which again is exactly what I would do if I was in their position. I wouldn’t respond and just hope that the court doesn’t do anything and everybody just forgets about it. And if I have enough propaganda it’ll just go away. But maybe we can get them to have to respond so we have their official response and then we can comment and dissect that.

And I have no doubt who would win this conversation. So let’s see if we can do it. And so this is an effort that we really, that deserves our support and our interest. And again, hopefully we can link to the Bailey show and they can tell you how to hear more about this and how to get in touch with these people, if you have anything you want to add. But this is a great effort. And so again, even though I’m not a big fan of going through the courts, at least we might get the response we’re looking for.

So that was the next item. The third is on a totally different subject. But I know that a lot of people have heard me and others in our crowd refer to the fact that we call ourselves voluntary is whatever that is. And I was sent a interesting little clip. I think it’s about five to seven minutes, which I think actually describes what this term actually means. And what does it mean to be a voluntarist. And I think they did a really good and simple job. And so this is something you can watch and you can think about whether you agree or disagree or how it strikes you and maybe share it with your friends if they want to know.

What do you. What do you mean when you say you’re a voluntarious. So let me just play this in the entirety so we get it out there and you can take a look and see what we mean. So I’m going to share up. I’m going to stop the share again because I didn’t share the sound. Share the sound. Here we go. Seven minutes. Sa. Okay. You know, it’s. What’s so interesting about that and I thought it was very well done actually is these ideas seem so obvious that one can’t designate somebody to do something that you have no right to do yourself.

But that’s the nature of government. And don’t initiate violence against other people. Don’t steal their life, their liberty or their property. That just seems so obvious. And yet it’s such a incredibly hard lesson for us to realize. And I think if we really, really thought about what. What that what is meant by these concepts we would certainly change inwardly and certainly the world would be a different place. So I hope you like that and maybe if you want it’s something you can share and I’m not. I think there’s a link or you. There’s a thing somehow you can see where that came from.

So if you want to be follow their work or something you could probably get it yourself and not from just this webinar. Okay. Following along that I happen to. The next thing I wanted to get into was that one of the themes that I obviously keep talking about is what’s happened in so called science in particularly medicine and biology, but it also happens in physics and it happens in chemistry. It happens all over the place. And I’m going to extend that a little bit is somehow humans people have substituted theory and models and simulations for reality.

Now I would grant that sometimes it’s hard to know what reality is and what is real and what isn’t real. But I think there’s some simple cues we can use. Like we all know that the pencil is real and your foot is real and we have sensory experiences in this realm and a sort of a shared understanding of the basic framework of reality. And even though I certainly have heard and understand that there’s other whole other realms out there and there’s realms that some of us maybe see more clearly than others and etc. But still there’s a framework of reality.

And what’s happened is the scientific community in particular, but I’m going to extend that a little bit, has veered from that and instead has substituted models, simulation and theories for reality. And one of the things that the next thing I want to bring up is the, is that I wanted to extend this even into economics. And so this was a piece that really struck my attention. It was from a website called Mises, I think it’s M I s e s.org or.com and it’s basically the main website of what’s called Austrian economics, which is the, I would say an attempt to be the economics of freedom and the economics that goes along with the, with the concept of a voluntary libertarian, true libertarian, not the fake libertarians that we have today, society.

And I don’t know who this guy is, but he wrote this paper and I thought it was interesting because he talks about the very same concepts we talk about in biology and medicine and physics, and he talks about them in the economic realm. And so I just wanted to share a little bit of what he wrote to help people get people stimulated to think about. This is the, maybe the problem we’re having in the world now, how we think and that we’ve substituted simulations, models for reality. So let’s take a look here. So I can put that down here.

So the title of this was the Hyper Reality of the State. And this is the guy’s name, Philippe Lemu, and it was published on 4, 2026, so pretty recently. And I’m just going to go through some of this and then maybe make some comments. And again, the point of this is to see how much similarity there is between say, this view of economics versus as compared to say, the virus model or the DNA model or the vitamin model or the hormone model or many other models. So modern economic policies increasingly give an impression of unreality. Governments announce reassuring indicators while individuals experience something entirely different.

Persistent inflation, housing shortages, stagnating purchasing power. And let me just comment here. So again, just like we hear like viruses, so there’s a virus and everybody’s going to get sick. That’s what we’re told from the government and from the official medicine and doctors and virologists. And the reality is you don’t see people getting sick. This is obviously a different situation. But you’re told something is the way it is, but it doesn’t square with your actual felt and perceived reality of your life. So this gap is not merely an analytical error. It reveals a Deeper problem. The state no longer reacts to economic reality as it is lived, but to a reconstructed version built from models, indicators and abstract categories.

Just like viruses, just like DNA, etc. The market, by contrast, does not rely on representation. It emerges directly from human action. As soon as individuals exchange, evaluate, choose and adjust their behavior, a market order appears. And just to point out, these are all based on voluntary exchanges, based on the understanding of each individual acting on their own as to what’s meaningful in their life. The resulting prices are not theoretical constructs, but signals arising from countless real decisions. They condense dispersed information that no one can centralize. This is precisely what Austrian economics has always emphasized. Economic knowledge is fragmented, subjective and constantly evolving.

And I couldn’t help but think this individual nature of economics that he’s describing is very similar to the individual nature of illness. So we tend to think so. This illness, we’re told, is from all these million people got a virus. All these million people have their rheumatoid factor antibody destroying their joints. When the reality is the actual causes of disease are very individual and very much dependent on the circumstances of the person’s life and constantly evolving. Just like he says, the state operates differently. In order to act, it must simplify this complexity. Just like happens in medicine, you have to simplify that there’s many different reasons why you would have this rash and fever, etc.

So they simplify it and say it’s all because of the measles virus, which they can’t find. It transforms a rich and dynamic reality, just like lives of people, into aggregates. Average inflation, unemployment rates, gross domestic product, et cetera. These indicators claim to represent the economy, just like they say. These viruses in the sewer, in the wastewater, represent the illness factors in a community, but they end up replacing it. Political decisions are no longer based on real individual actions, but on these representations. And this was a great line. The map replaces the territory, the map of the virus, the genome in the computer of the virus, replaces the actual experience of the person.

Take inflation as an example. Central banks announce precise targets, often around 2%, and adjust their policies accordingly. Yet individuals do not experience, quote, average inflation. They face concrete and differentiated increases. Housing, food, energy. When official inflation appears under control, but the cost of living continues to rise. This is not merely a statistical divergence. It is a sign that monetary policy is reacting to abstract indicators rather than lived reality. Just like the government immunization programs and public health programs, they react to their perceived way of measuring different things and not to the actual reasons that individual people get Sick.

So I think I’m just going to let people take a look at the rest of this. It’s just two pages and just, Just finish just by reading the. The. The final thing. So, by contrast, the market cannot afford this kind of disconnection. In other words, the market or the actual reality of illness can’t afford to be this disconnected from reality. A firm that ignores price signals or consumer preferences incurs losses. These losses are not anomalies to be explained away, but correction mechanisms. Just like disease, when you ignore the principles of life, good food and grounding and fresh air and loving relations, you incur correction mechanisms which we cause, which we call illness.

The market or your body adjusts its errors in real time precisely because it remains grounded in real decisions. This is exactly how I would describe illness. Your body adjusts in real time because it has to. It’s actually based in reality, not in a perceived or imagined cause of disease. However, the state does not correct its errors in the same way. It adjusts its models, just like virology. Concrete consequences such as shortages, inflations and resource misallocation may be acknowledged, but they do not necessarily challenge the framework that produced them. Responsibility dissolves into indicators. Again, this is the same when the models don’t work and the people are not experienced what they predicting, which we saw so much with COVID They don’t actually change the framework that they’re working on, the whole foundation of the model.

They just change the model and tweak it and come up with variance and all that. So the problem then is not simply the state makes mistakes or, or that virology or medicine makes mistakes. It is that it operates within a reality. It has constructed itself. Again, this is exactly what I’ve been trying to say. It’s not that your doctor made a mistake and gave you too much of the vaccine or the wrong antibiotic. He or she is operating in a reality that they’ve constructed which has no actual relationship to reality. By progressively replacing human interactions with abstract representation, it loses the ability to understand the very processes it seeks to direct.

Again, exactly the same as medicine. When you wander through the realm of abstract representation, you lose the ability to understand health and illness, why the body is doing things, and you lose the ability to actually correct things or help the person. The market, or I would say the body has one essential property. It remains connected to reality because it is constantly corrected by human actions themselves. Any attempt to replace it with a system based on models and indicators runs into a fundamental limit. An economy cannot be administered from a simulation Nor can medicine or biology, an actual understanding of health and illness, be administered or understood through a simulation.

And this is exactly what I’ve been trying to say. And you can see that the same applies so not only in chemistry and physics, but also in economics and politics and many education. It’s all a simulation, a model that has lost touch with reality. Okay, and the final thing, I wanted to inaugurate a different segment. I don’t know if I’m going to do this every week, but it sounded like fun because I end up saying this fair amount to different people. It I think annoys them and probably pisses them off a little bit. But the, the saying is if you believe this, you’ll believe just about anything.

And so one of the links or feeds that I saw ended up this article which I wanted to show you. I don’t think I need to share the sound here. So this is this. Now let me give you some context here. So there’s a theoretical ex physicist who explains why humanity likely won’t survive to see all the forces unified. It doesn’t. The part I was interested doesn’t have much to do with this, but it has to do with a the findings of this Nobel Prize winning physicist, David Gross, who apparently recently received a 3 million dollar special breakthrough prize in fundamental physics.

About the quest to unite all the forces and why humanity might not live to see the fruits of his and many other people’s labor. They give you a little bit of this. The quest to unify gravity with other forces has long plagued physicists and whether we will eventually get a testable unified theory remains to be seen. So again, what is the problem that they are trying to address or solve? And it basically as far as I can see, and again, I’m no physicist and I may be getting some of this wrong, but I’m trying to give a.

Is a simple common sense way of looking at this. When the physicists came up with the model of the nuclear atom, which as probably everybody knows means there’s a neutral charged neutron which has mass and a positively charged proton which has the same mass as the neutron. They are the two things that are located in the nucleus of an atom. And all of the mass of the atom is, is found in this neutron in the proton. And then there’s a negatively charged electron which is spinning around the nucleus. But the electronic is a charge which they say is negative, but it has no mass.

So all the mass is concentrated in the nucleus of the atom in the neutral charged neutron. That’s why they Call it that and the positively charged proton. So the question that has been plaguing physicists and all these people who spend their lives thinking about these things is the nucleus of an atom is in a very compressed state, and then the electrons are far away. And so how do you get a positively charged protons? And there could be anywhere from one to, I think, hundreds of different protons, all compressed, essentially smushed together into the nucleus of an atom with no negative charges to balance them, because those are far away.

And so how do these positively charged protons not repel each other and essentially cause things to fly off into somewhere? Rather, they stay together and form this compact nucleus. So this has been a problem that has, I think, been a conundrum and vexed physicists for as long as this nuclear atom theory has been around. How do you keep these positively charged protons all squished together in the nucleus from repelling each other? How do they keep together? So this guy Gross apparently has something to say about this and goes through that. So he goes through he. Where he eventually helped answer a question that bedeviled particle physicists for years, whether the constituent parts of protons and neutron, called quarks, could be broken apart.

So this is the part I wanted to emphasize. The resulting principle of asymptotic for freedom, which he developed in concert with these two guys, revealed that the forces between quarks, so a quark is a component of the protons and neutrons, waned as they got close together to each other and strengthened as they moved apart. Asymptotic freedom became part of a larger model called quantum chromodynamics and paved the way to unifying the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces, which completed the standard model of particle physics and gave them a Nobel Prize for their work in 20 2004. So let me try to break that down as best I can.

I can stop the share. What they’re saying is, okay, we got this problem, which is that he’s got these positively charged things all smushed together. And we all know that if you put two positive poles of a magnet, they push each other apart. So how come these guys stick together? And so what we found is that there’s constituent or smaller parts and that they have something called asymptotic freedom or something like that. And what that means is for these particles, the closer they get together, the weaker their interaction. And the further apart they get, the stronger their influenced interaction on one another is.

Let me say that again because that’s. This is the point I want to Make. The further these two things are together, the weaker their interaction becomes. And the further apart they get, the stronger their interaction becomes. Now, interestingly, in this little article, they did have the decency to point out that this is a counterintuitive finding. That’s putting it mildly. So. But they do have experimental data that supports this. That’s where they got this from. Because I would actually call it not just counterintuitive, but, let’s use a word, batshit crazy. So I tried to think of what kind of experiment would you.

Could you use to prove that when things get closer together, their interaction between the two gets weaker? So let’s say you had an interaction of a hammer and a nail. And the closer and closer you get. And finally the hammer hits the nail and the nail goes in, which shows there’s an interaction between the hammer and the nail. What they’re saying is that’s not how it works, that the closer the hammer gets to the nail, the less impact the hammer will have on the nail. And if you want to knock the nail in, you put the hammer as far away from the nail as possible.

And that will cause the greatest impact on the nail and the nail will go in. Obviously, that’s crazy. So then I thought, well, maybe it has to be in living beings. So I actually did an experiment with PJ and Fluffy. PJ is Pumpkin Jr. That’s Pumpkin’s son. And his mother is Pete, is Fluffy. And PJ looks a lot like Pumpkin. That’s why we called him Pumpkin Junior. And Pumpkin is the sweetest guy. And he likes to cuddle. And he’s particularly likes to cuddle with his mother, Fluffy. And so you see him often. He’s standing. They all come inside and he comes and he’s far away from Fluffy.

And then he comes closer and closer and closer. And finally he gets right up next to her and the interaction and he puts his nose right in her face. And inevitably she whacks him over the face because she doesn’t like that. And what that teaches me is this is not an example of asymptotic freedom, because clearly the closer PJ gets to Fluffy, the stronger their interaction, including to the point where Fluffy will actually swat pj. But what he’s saying is, the further PJ gets away from Fluffy, the stronger their interaction, which is not at all what you see.

In other words, this is not at all what anybody experiences. I thought of another one, which is when you make sauerkraut, you have some salt and you have some cabbage, and you put it in a crock. And what he’s saying is, if you want to have a strong interaction, you should put the salt as far away from the cabbage as possible, like in your next door neighbor. And I haven’t tried that, but my guess is that wouldn’t work. Whereas if you bring the salt closer and closer and actually put it in the crock with the cabbage so it’s actually right up next to each other, then it will make sauerkraut, proving that this asymptotic freedom is pure nonsense.

So I of course, am not a physicist and maybe I’m wrong about this and I would love to see the experiment. So this is again, we, in our new biology world, we don’t really care what any of these people, scientists, virologists, physicists say about the world. We want to see the method section. What experiment did he do that, in common sense, normal terms, showed that the closer things get, the weaker the interaction, which by the way is the exact opposite of what we’re told of gravity, which is the closer things get, the stronger the interaction. So how they’re possibly going to, quote, unify these two is beyond me.

But I would love to have this Dr. Gross explained to us and I’d be happy to interview him and have him come on explain in real world terms how he did an experiment that showed that the closer things get together, the weaker the interaction. And I’m guessing that he made some contraption and had some lasers and some magnets and shined some lights with some mirrors and put it through a computer simulation. So here we have a model and a simulation that the computer interpreted as this. And so that becomes the fundamental basis of the new physics of reality and how we’re all supposed to think about it.

And it’s all of the same, which is basically substituting models and simulations for what we all know to be true. And we seem to not have the courage to tell people like this, like, why don’t you get a life and do something that’s actually meaningful and relevant? And, and can you imagine spending 40 years of your life trying to prove this kind of nonsense? But apparently that’s what he did, and apparently it paid off because he got $3 million prize out of it. And that’s the world we’re facing. And you can see it in every sort of realm of our modern life.

Okay, so I think that’s good for today and I think. Thank everybody for joining me and I’ll look forward your comments and hopefully everybody has a great week.
[tr:tra].

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