➡ In this webinar, the speaker discusses the ongoing debate about the existence of viruses. He criticizes those who blindly follow the dominant hypothesis without providing scientific evidence. He emphasizes the importance of the scientific method and the need for proof in claims about viruses. The speaker also questions the validity of viral culture as the gold standard in virology, suggesting that it may not conclusively prove the existence of viruses.
➡ The text discusses the concept of rational thinking in science, particularly in virology and cancer research. It questions the conventional belief that DNA solely determines the form and architecture of our body tissues. The author suggests that the blueprint for our body’s form might reside in an energy field, not just in our physical molecules. The text also hypothesizes that disturbances such as toxins or emotional stress could potentially affect our body’s form and function.
➡ The text discusses the idea that tumors are the body’s way of isolating disturbances or toxins, and that true healing involves clearing these disturbances rather than just treating the physical symptoms. It also suggests that chronic health issues can be improved by lifestyle changes and listening to the body’s signals. The text also raises concerns about the potential negative effects of dental implants and antibiotics, and suggests testing for food sensitivities in babies by changing one variable at a time.
➡ The text discusses various topics including food allergies, parenting techniques, dealing with doctors, and gardening methods. It suggests that if you have a reaction to certain foods, like chicken eggs, it’s best to avoid them. It also advises parents to communicate with their children, even when they’re asleep, about any distressing experiences they’ve had. When dealing with doctors, it’s recommended to be clear about what you need and avoid unnecessary procedures. Lastly, it discusses a gardening method involving copper stakes and crystals, but emphasizes the need for more evidence to prove its effectiveness.
➡ The speaker discusses their garden, noting that plants near copper coils seem to attract more insects, possibly due to the plants’ health. They also share their thoughts on the Primal Diet, stating that while it helped a friend, they prefer a mix of raw and cooked foods. They believe insects can make you sick through venom, but this is different from diseases like Lyme. Lastly, they question the existence of viruses, asking for clear definitions and proof of their existence.

Hello everybody. Welcome to another Wednesday webinar. Today, July 2, 2025. And I think I’m going to announce that I just decided I will do one more Wednesday webinar and then like last year, take a break for a month for the summer and let everybody just breathe a little bit about this, all this stuff and recharge our batteries, grow some food and process food. That seems to be what I do mostly around here these days. And then we’ll rejoin in the late summer. So I wanted to get to the questions. We had a lot of interesting questions that I think we could learn a lot from.

And I certainly learn a lot trying to answer these. And I’m appreciative of everybody sending them in and everybody joining me. But probably some of you have heard there’s lots of activity around the critiquing the so called no virus position, which is good. The more critics the better because we can show just how scientifically illiterate most of them are. Most of them is a generous term for what we’re hearing. So the latest one had to do with a interview that a Dr. Sherry Penn Tenpenny did with some guy named Chris Shaw who I think is a.

Some sort of scientist or neurobiologist or something. I’m not sure his credentials. And then interestingly, and he gave of course, his usual. Or they talked about a. The usual thing they do is they critique the no virus position without actually giving any scientific evidence. They don’t ever go over the methods or how virology was come to. It’s just a bunch of they, they don’t follow the consensus and it’s not science and blah blah, blah. Anyways, Christine Massey, our friend, had an email encounter with this guy, Chris Shaw, and I thought it would be a great demonstration of just the way these critics tend to think, or at least him.

So I’m going to share and put that up. So Chris Shaw, you know, forget about the first. If you want to fight the view that viruses don’t exist, use the mess. For viruses, there are things like EM data, molecular biology based on DNA and other nucleic acids, an emerging understanding of the complexity of the immune system and others. Could they all be wrong? Of course. But here’s the key, folks. But the burden of proof lies with those contesting the dominant hypothesis. You should read that again. The burden of proof lies with those contesting the dominant hypothesis.

If you want to contest it by the scientific method, then use the method. If you would rather use spiritual other forms of knowledge, fine. But. But don’t pretend you are doing science. And Christine appropriately responded, no, the burden of proof lies on those making the positive virus contagion claims. And their evidence is illogical, unscientific, and frankly idiotic. Converging lines of idiocy do not add up to science or compelling evidence of a virus or contagion. And Chris the scientist says, nope, the opposite. Yeah, so it’s hard to even know what to say about that. Yo, Chris, if somebody says, if the, if the dominant theory is that there are invisible exploding unicorns, how would you go about designing a scientific experiment to disprove that? Well, you could say, for instance, well, we could look in your yard and see if you see any unicorn poop.

Of course the question would be how do you know it’s from a unicorn if it’s invisible and you’ve never seen it? And then if you don’t find it, the retort would be, well, the unicorns, they know how to use the bathroom, so they have their own outhouse and they don’t poop in your yard. So where’s the outhouse? Well, they used to be over there, but then they moved the outhouse and it would go on and on and on because it’s absurd. So you spent your whole life as a, quote, scientist. It’s like a mechanic who doesn’t know what an engine is.

The rules of science, somebody makes a claim, if it can be falsified, then you try to falsify the claim. If it can’t be falsified, it’s a belief and you just live with it. If you falsify the claim, then you’ve disproven that claim and that’s the end of it. And that’s how we do science. That’s the only logical, rational, reasonable way to think. It’s called thinking. Now that gets to the next thing with all of the critics of the no virus position. It’s never about the method section. It’s all this other stuff of oh, science is flexible and viruses aren’t like this, they’re like this, or on and on and on.

So let me just be very clear about what I care about in this and what I am interested in hearing. And I would say the only thing I’m interested in hearing about this virus existence debate or conversation. First of all, why am I interested in this? Simply because the people of the world are continuing to be terrorized as a result of the belief in the viral theory, so called, or the existence of viruses. If we get rid of the, if we disprove the idea that there are virus or prove that nobody has ever shown that a virus exists.

We are done with the viral theory and that will go a long way towards stopping the tyranny of the world’s people. So the next thing is the entire existence of viruses rests on the viral culture. That is the only way that a virus has been quote, isolated. And that is to this day the gold standard of all virologists is the so called viral culture. The whole foundation of virology rests on the scientific accuracy of the viral culture. Now let’s first define what we mean by a virus. So that’s simple. A virus is an infectious obligate intracellular parasite comprising genetic material DNA or RNA surrounded by a protein coat and, and sometimes an additional lipid envelope that relies on the host cell’s machinery for replication.

That is the common definition of what a virus is. Now we get into the definition of what isolation is. And here there’s a very clear definition. Definition of isolation is outside the request of what is possible in virology. This was a Freedom of Information request asking to see viruses from a biological specimen without adding anything or doing anything that might actually create an artifact or provoke the existence of what they’re calling viruses. As viruses need cells to replicate and cells require liquid food. However, the SARS CoV2 virus may be isolated from a human clinical specimen by culturing in a cell culture, which is the definition of isolation as used in microbiology.

This should be very clear. The definition of isolation is of a virus is growing it in a cell culture. Everybody agrees on that. So we then look at the original. Let’s stop this original cell culture experiment. Ender’s Paper, 1953. And in there he says a quote, page 283, a second agent was obtained from an uninoculated culture of monkey kidney cells. The cytopathic changes it induced in the unstained preparation of could not be distinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles. In other words, what Enders did, remember, we’re talking about the foundational, the foundation of virology.

The foundational proof that viruses exist is they cause the cytopathic effect. So he put some unpurified mucus from somebody with measles. So he didn’t look for a virus he didn’t have. The virus was not the independent variable. So this was not an experiment about viruses. Not at all. It was an experiment to see if snot from somebody with measles would kill a monkey kidney cell culture with some other things added. And it did and then he did the appropriate thing, which is to repeat the experiment without the mucus snot from somebody with measles. And as he says, the results were indistinguishable, which means he proved that it wasn’t anything from the mucus snot from somebody with measles.

End of story. So there, even if there was a virus in there, which couldn’t be proven because nobody, the virus was not the independent variable, he proved that it was nothing in the mucus that caused the death of the cells. This has been repeated over and over again. Mike Stone did a brilliant piece on the myth of the cytopathic effect. So what I am looking for, for any critic of virology, number one, a definition of virus. Number two, a definition of isolation. Number three, since the foundation, the entire field of virology, the gold standard is this viral culture which claims to isolate the virus.

To show me how, since it’s been proven from the get go, that you get the same result whether you add anything that could possibly have a virus or not, how that didn’t disprove the fact that it’s the virus that kills the cells. It’s a bit like this is the scientific method, folks. We use it all the time. We do things like we have our finger and somebody makes the claim the only reason why a finger goes down is there’s an external force that pushes the finger down. So external force, push the finger down. Right. That allegedly proves that the reason the finger goes down is because it’s being pushed by an external force.

But you could do a control experiment and have the pushing down by an external force be the independent variable and the moving of the finger down be the dependent variable. So you could do it again and now this time leave out the external force and, and lo and behold, finger goes down. Proving that it was not only the external force that could make the finger go down. So this could not be used as proof in logic science, rational thinking that it’s only the external force that makes the finger go down. We do this all the time.

We think like this. It’s called being rational and logical. And apparently the critics of virology don’t get it. So I need you to go through the method section of a viral culture, show me how this proves the existence of a virus or admit that you’ve lost the viral culture and it’s nothing but, as Christine said, idiotic nonsense. So I hope that’s clear. And of course they won’t do that. So hopefully we’ll be done with this. Okay? Let’s get on to the questions here. And I think the sound is still good. How would you describe the bodily process of soft tissue sarcomas? Sarcoma is a kind of tumor that grows in, like, the muscles or I think sometimes the bone.

But you get growth of the muscle, and those are called sarcoma. The body is remediated something into those specific masses. What are your thoughts? So this is an interesting question. So a sarcoma is a growth. So it’s a type of cancer. So what do we mean by cancer that we always want to start with a foundational understanding. There could be a lot, one could say, but one place to start is in when you have. What we’re looking for to describe something as a cancerous growth is that the form and architecture that is the makeup of the tissue is different than the normal form and architecture of the organ it’s growing in.

Let me flesh that out a little bit. We all know that we have a finger and it looks like this. And of course, there’s some variations of what a normal finger looks like, and we all sort of get that. But if you have something growing off your finger that’s clearly an abnormal form of your finger, then you could actually feel it. And using just your senses. It doesn’t feel like the normal consistency of your finger. This would be easier to see with something like a breast or a prostate or a liver. So you have a normal breast.

And of course, there’s different forms, but we can all see that there’s sort of normal forms. And then there’s a growth that’s not the normal form of the breast or liver or prostate or muscle in a case of sarcoma. And it also feels different. It usually feels harder. And there’s no mistaking that it doesn’t feel like the normal breast tissue, liver tissue, or. Or muscle tissue. Of course, then you could do histology, meaning you could dissect it and look at it under a microscope. And you could try to do it with the least invasive procedures, almost like just a sort of magnifying glass.

And you would see that the architecture of the mass in the case of cancer is definitely not the same as in the normal muscle or normal breast or normal liver. So that’s what we’re looking for, an abnormal form and an abnormal consistency, or I was calling it architecture. So now the question is, where does that come from? Now, conventional science, because they’re wedded to the theory that every. The form and the architecture are a product of our DNA. So the DNA somehow codes for the form and the architecture through coding for rna, which then gets translated into proteins and that becomes the normal, the blueprint for the architecture of the breast or the, or the muscle or whatever tissue you’re talking about.

The problem is, besides all the problems, which is there really DNA, has it ever actually been found? Has it ever actually been shown to code for proteins, etc. Let’s forget about all that for a minute and just say, is it? The problem with that theory is, as far as anybody knows, we have more or less identical DNA in the liver as the soft tissue, as in the muscle, as in the breast, as in your finger, as in your leg. But clearly we have different architecture and different formed forms in all those different organs. And we see this with a cut.

If you get a cut on your leg, it reforms your leg. Whereas if you get a cut in your nose, it doesn’t reform your leg, on your nose, it reforms your nose. The problem with the DNA theory is the DNA is the same, as far as we know, or at least extremely similar in your nose and in your leg and in your liver and in your soft tissue, your muscles. So how is it that the DNA is controlling this? Of course, when you’re a scientific apologist, meaning you keep making stuff up even though your original premise has been disproven or your original claim, then you say, of course.

Well, there’s epigenetic factors or extra DNA factors that determine which part of the DNA in the soft tissue or the liver or your nose or your finger will be translated coded into protein. That, of course is not seen. That’s just to keep. Keep the story going. So the story, the original story is it’s the DNA that does it. That’s of course been disproven because the DNA is the same and yet you get a different form and architecture. So you have to keep the story going. So you say there’s some other factors so that, that determine which part of the DNA is going to be made into that particular tissue.

So that’s a good way to keep the story going. However, there’s no way to know whether that’s true. And then when you say, well, what is it that’s doing it? You make up another story. Well, it must be enzymes or proteins or something. And so can you show me the proteins and enzymes that do it? No, we haven’t figured that out yet. Give us another hundred million dollars in 20 years and we’ll figure that out because we’ve almost got it. They always throw in the we’ve almost got it, and it must be, because that’s the only story we know.

The problem with that whole way of thinking is the same problem as you’re dissecting a radio to find out where the sound comes from. And we have clear evidence, for instance, the story about the little girl who was born with four parts of her, the last four fingers of one hand were missing. And it turns out her mother had those four fingers chopped off in the same place early in her pregnancy. And it’s hard to imagine how that changed the DNA. And so all the evidence that I can imagine, and this is not something that I’m willing to say, this is, I would say, is some sort of speculation, but we could get into this in greater detail at some other time.

But my speculation here is that the blueprint, the code, does not actually lie in the physical organism, in the molecules, so called, of the organism. They’re in the field, which is where the blueprint resides. And as Eileen McKusick so brilliantly described yesterday, I think we are a resonance being and we resonate with the field. And it’s the field that has the information that actually determines our form and architecture and the different form and architecture of the different organs. So looking for it by dissecting molecule by molecule, if you could even do that, is like trying to find out the source of the sound by dissecting the radio and getting.

And dissecting the wires. And the reality is you’ll never find it now because modern science and medicine and biology has no conception of anything but the physical structure and therefore has a theory which I would say is largely disproven, that everything must come from the physical chemicals of the body. They will never be able to find the problem of why the form and architecture went amiss, because it doesn’t reside in the chemicals. And. And then we get into, so what is this form body? How does it work? How does it create the architecture? And frankly, those are very difficult questions to answer.

In fact, I would go so far as to say I can’t answer them. I don’t know how all that works. And I think it’s about time. We spend as a culture, a lot of our energy, trying to sort of understand how that whole thing works. But we still have to act in the sort of normal, real world. So I have hypothesized, which is different than saying, I’ve proven that what might happen is there is some sort of toxicity or disturbance in. In the person. Could be a physical poison, arsenic or glyphosate. It could be a Lack of nourishment.

It could be a psychological, emotional, you know, situation. It could be an abnormal thought, and it could be somehow connected with how your muscles work. And again, this is very difficult to know exactly how this all works. So this is largely a speculation or a hypothesis on my part to help us try to understand what’s going on. And then once that happens, that disturbs the connection with you and the field, and that creates an abnormal architecture and form. And then we see the appearance of the sarcomas or these tumors. So the body, in a sense, in its wisdom, is recognizing that there’s some disturbance in the organism, and for some reason, it chooses a particular organ or site to localize this disturbance, and then you keep it out of this sort of general being of the person.

And that’s what we call a tumor. And the benefit of thinking like this is this is not something that can be changed by manipulating the DNA or the RNA or the proteins. This is something that has to be addressed by releasing whatever it was, the toxicity or the disturbance or the consciousness that led to this choice by your body that this is the best place to put this, you know, abnormal debris that we’ve been exposed to, to sort of keep it out of the general circulation. If that’s true, then that makes sense of all of the Gonzalez therapy and the Gerson Therapy and the sweat lodges and the Joe Dispenza working with how you think and how you feel and your emotions.

It’s all clearing out the things that are disturbing this connection between you and the field. And then your body can release this buildup and restore the proper form and architecture. And that’s what we call actual healing. Conventional science and biology and medicine has no conception of anything but the physical structure. Therefore, they can’t approach this in any way that makes any sense. So all they can do is cut it out or burn it out or poison you even further. And we all know how that tends to work out. Okay, what would speed up, if possible, chronic healing from a lifetime of antibiotics for the bladder? You know, a lot of times people ask me questions like this, and of course, one does consider how you got into this mess.

But the more important thing is to say, so what is your situation now? And if the person says, well, I figured out a way to not get any more, quote, bladder infections. A bladder infection, by the way, is there’s just toxic stuff being excreted in the urine, and then the bacteria come to help break that down, and we blame the pain and the misery on the bacteria when it’s really just your body’s attempt to get rid of things that are probably water soluble through the urine. And the bacteria are coming to help all these things turn tumors in.

So called bacteria or infections are just the body’s recruiting things to help remediate problems. So if you’ve solved the bladder problem and now you’re not getting any more issues with your bladder because you’ve cleaned up your diet and cleaned up whatever it was that was provoking that and you’re totally fine, in other words, no symptoms, no bowel problems, no nothing, then I would tend to leave it alone. It’s the same thing as anybody came to me and I asked them how they were doing and they said I’m doing perfectly fine. What do you think I should do next? I would say keep doing what you’re doing now because it seems to be working now.

Is it possible that the years of antibiotics have created an abnormal kind of bacteria or some other toxic debris in your body? I mean, I suppose that’s possible, but eventually that will show itself and you will get. The body will attempt to clear that out in some way or because of the abnormal types of bacteria that you will probably absorb things you shouldn’t and then that will create symptoms. So I would just do all the things that prevent, promote health that we talk about over and over again and wait for your body to communicate to you that here’s the next step.

If your body doesn’t feel like it needs to do that, if you don’t feel like when I say your body, I mean the wisdom part of you doesn’t need to do that, then just move on and congratulate yourself that you’ve had the insight and the courage and the willpower to change how you are living. And, and that created a new situation. It probably created the conditions for a new, different kind of bacteria to live in your gut and, and the rest of your body. And so you should be good. Okay. Do you have knowledge about dental implants that you can share with boomers dealing with loss of teeth? So just to remind everybody, we have a new biology clinic and just this week we have.

What’s the word? Onboarded. I think that means we have been joined by a very experienced dentist who has been working in the field of biological holistic, new biology dentistry for 30, 40 years. And he would be the person that I would go to to ask. So if you have dental problems, please sign up. And that would be a much more informed opinion than I can give. The only thing I would say is I would personally be extremely leery about putting any kind of metallic object into the bones of my head and screwing in some sort of an implant.

I think that’s how they do it. I would be very leery of screwing any metallic piece in any bone anywhere in my body because I think it would change the electromagnetic field and change the whole resonance of my being. And since I think it’s becoming clearer and clearer that the resonance, the communication between us and the world and the field around us is basically everything. That seems like a very aggressive move that I would only take if there was absolutely no other options. And I think Ron actually can give you other viable options so that you would never have to do that.

Okay. Is it okay to take a teaspoon of bilberry if I take strip Anthus three times a day? Concerned with potential interactions. You know, as far as I know there is no interaction with Strafanthus with any other medicine or supplement with the possible exception of other so called cardiac glycosides like digoxin and digitoxin. But even there the I would say the interaction is not confirmed. And in the minimal studies that I’ve seen have suggested there’s actually a protection against toxicity of the Strafanthus against dige and digoxin digitoxin toxicity. Otherwise I don’t know of any interaction. So unless you see something that’s funny, which I’ve never seen, I would think you can go ahead and do it with impunity.

Okay. A baby who has been injected only with vitamin K and BCG in exchange for skipping hep B is currently 10 month, yet experiences reddish patches when fed boiled egg. Is it the food coloring additives lead fed to conventional chickens? What gives? So it’s interesting. They gave BCG to a newborn baby in exchange for skipping the Hep B shot. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard of that or why anybody that would occur to anybody. So this is again something that you can actually do science with this. So if you say is the problem, in other words, she gets reddish patches.

So the reddish patches becomes the dependent variable. That’s what you’re looking to see if it happens. And so the hypothesis is that if I feed my baby eggs from conventionally raised chickens, they get reddish patches on their skin. So the independent variable is the conventionally raised chicken. So I would feed them a couple, one or two, you know, cooked eggs from conventionally raised chicken. I would actually never eat conventionally raised chicken eggs. But I guess if you really wanted to know whether that’s the problem, then you could do that and then feed them the same. Everything else the same, same meal, same time of the day, as many variables as you can think and you can never get this perfect in a situation like this, but everything else the same.

And then feed it from a pastured chicken egg of a farmer that you know, who feeds, you know, soy free, healthy chickens are out on pasture. And see if you get the same response. If you do, then it’s not the conventionally raised chicken feed, it’s just probably the fact that there’s something in the chicken that’s making the baby react. Now I think it is true that you can sensitize people, particularly babies, by injecting them with say, chicken stuff. I would say chicken proteins, but let’s just say chicken material when they’re young. So that’s part of the excipients or the foundation of many vaccines and might even be a vitamin, vitamin K and might even be a bcg.

You could look that out up and that would sensitize the child to. Whenever they experience chicken stuff later in life, they think, oh my God, this isn’t good for me. And their body, in its wisdom, tries to get rid of it. And that’s where you see the rash. And that was in fact provoked by injecting them with a similar substance early on, which created a sort of memory and probably an emotional experience of oh my God, I’ve been poisoned, and I’ve been poisoned with something to do with chickens. And then every time you get into chickens or chicken eggs or chicken egg stuff, after that you have the same sort of reaction.

And that’s probably what happens. So I would do the experiment first and see if it’s. Because if it’s just horrible chicken eggs the way they’re grown, then just don’t eat, though that should be easy. I don’t eat conventionally raised chicken eggs, nobody should. And then you’re good. And if it’s any chicken eggs, then I would probably do the thing which I like to do with, with children, which is when they’re sleeping. This I talk about in my Common Sense child rearing book and it’s one of the most effective things I’ve seen parents do. So what you do is you wait for the child to be sleeping because this is an aspect of how it.

How to get on your child’s side. So I said in the Common Sense parenting book that one of the aspects of a parent who’s on their child’s side is under no circumstances will they allow to be Allow them to be stabbed with a needle and have foreign material injected into them. And unfortunately. And it sounds like this was a bargaining chip. So you may have thought you had good reason, and you may have had good reason, and maybe that was what you thought was the only way out. And so maybe it was the best you could do.

But the technique or the strategy that I told parents is when the child is sleeping, you go into their room and you explained what happened, and you explained that you know, that this was not a good thing for them to have experience. And in this case, if it was up to you, you regret that you let somebody stab them with a needle and inject poison into them. And if you knew better at the time that you would have done better, or if you could have thought of a different option at the time, you would have chosen that.

And you just let the child, even when they’re sleeping, hear that. And then I would say you ask forgiveness for the child. But most importantly, you say, as far as I can is in my power, I am not going to let that happen again. And then you mean it, and you do it. And you will often see amazing things happen in the child when they realize that now you get it. And they don’t have to show you that eating eggs is a bad thing, because you get it and they get it, and. And we’re good. So I would also try that out.

Okay. Can you talk about how to talk to cardiologists? As little as possible. But of course, we all do occasionally need cardiologists. I used a cardiologist at one point. My general strategy for how to deal with any conventional doctor, cardiologist, surgeon, ER doctor, pediatrician, or whatever. And the more you can follow this strategy, the better off you will be when you’re forced to interact with the conventional medical system. This is also something you may want to get help from a family member to come with you if you’re not good at doing this yourself. But basically, when you interact with a conventional doctor, you want to be in a position where you tell them what you need done.

So I have this knife sticking out of my back. Could you please take it out? And then if you need to clean it and sew it up, I don’t want anything else. I don’t want to be investigated for Covid. I. I don’t want tetanus shots. I would not actually say that. I would just say, this is what I want you to do. Could you please do it? And that’s the end of it. And in many cases, not All I would admit the doctor will more or less happily do that. So if you go to a cardiologist and you’re worried about whether your heart is acting normally, in other words, whether your heart is participating as it should in the movement of the blood around your body, that’s of course different than pumping.

But there is a good test for that, which is a cardiac, you know, an echocardiogram. And what you’re looking for is the ejection fraction, the amount of blood that exits compared to how much leaves the heart or in one beat. And that gives you a pretty good idea of the efficiency of the heart. So you go in and you say, you know, I’m having such and such a problem. I wonder if you could do an echocardiogram of my heart and then give me the results. And then you might even want to talk to somebody at the new biology clinic about the results.

No, no, the cardiologist says, I, you know, I’ve heard your story, you need to have a catheterization and then we need to put in a stent and all that and say, thank you very much, I appreciate your wisdom and your experience, but right now I’m really interested in getting this echocardiogram. Or maybe you could do a stress echo where you walk and then if you could please give me the results. Well, I don’t know. It’s, you know, in my experience is not the way they do it. And so you may have to sign this waiver saying, I don’t take responsibility, fine, I’ll sign the waiver.

And you also want to sort of negotiate about the price, but that’s a little bit different. And that’s what you do and you get the results and then you find out from somebody else that maybe you trust what those results mean and what you might want to do about it. And you go from there. If you go in in an open ended with the question of what do you think is wrong with me? You’re likely to get tests and procedures which you don’t need or which are irrelevant or which are misleading and you’re going to end up with stents and other, like I say, procedures or tests which do you no good and which you don’t need.

So with all encounters with conventional medicine, the more prepared you are and you may want to bring a friend or a family member to help you with this and with, with politeness and courtesy, just say what it is that you want. Could you do a stress echo? Could you take the knife out of my back? I need you to sew up my hernia because nothing else is working. I don’t need any exam for anything else. I don’t need screening tests. I don’t need to update my tetanus and my rabies shot. I just need you to salt my hernia.

They will typically oblige and get you through that. Okay. Is graphene real or malarkey? I don’t know much about graphene. I think it’s real stuff, as far as I know. I think you can actually manufacture it and demonstrate it with simple evaluation tools. If you mean is graphene the nano component that’s conducting in the shots, that I don’t know. And I have reason to believe that that’s not the case. But I can’t say that I looked into this enough to really know. So I’d be better off just passing on this. The people that I would go to to find out more about this particular are the Biggleson brothers, because I think they have the best handle on how to use microscopy to find out what’s really happening in a sample or in a living being.

Okay. Have you experimented with electroculture in your garden? We made a few stakes and wound copper around them and put a raw rose quartz or clear clear crystal at the top of the stake Garden has gone bonkers. But also we also rolled in rabbit manure this year. I would. I’m taking gone bonkers, meaning it’s doing well. And of course, getting back to our science question, there’s a lot of variables in this, so we don’t have an independent variable. Meaning the only thing different is putting in copper stakes. So without that, you’re of course speculating. And there’s nothing wrong with speculating.

We all have to do it and we all live like that. But we shouldn’t call it proof or even make a claim that electric culture causes your garden to grow really well or grow bonkers. So. Because as I said, I believe that life is about the interaction with that individual or that particular living being with the field around it. And what do I mean by field? I mean the. The ether field, the sun and the moon and all the other organisms and the trees and the birds and the frogs and the people and the thoughts and the emotions and all the rest of it.

All that is the field around us which we interact with. And that becomes, in a sense, the blueprint or the. Yeah, this. The. Yeah, the blueprint for our lives or what we interact with, out of which we create our form and architecture and life. So I certainly think that just like the buildings of old. Downloading more of this electrical electromagnetic energy into the garden sounds like a good idea. And in fact I have actually done that this year. So in the middle of our garden we have a copper tube that has a coil in it and on top of it is a pointed quartz crystal.

And I would say in most beds we have, I think 20 different beds, but 15 of them have a copper coil that is basically screwed into the ground. We’re having a good garden year and I have no idea if it has anything to do with that. I have noticed a few areas where the areas closest to where one of these copper coils were screwed in, there was more insect damage than in some of the other places. But that’s not a uniform across the board. So I don’t know what to make of that. And when I think about unicorn, sorry, unicorn damage, I mean insect damage, I think in the same way as I think of so called infections.

And I did do an interview with a plant biologist, entomologist, I think they call it, an insect guy who was making the case that insects cannot eat healthy plants. And that’s been my experience that if you’re both with people and with plants. So when I say the cucumber beetles or flea beetles were eating this plant next to the tube more than the other ones that were further away, I interpret that as there was something that happened to those plants that made them weaker or to broke down a little bit and therefore the insects started to eat them.

Was it the proximity to the copper coil? I don’t think so. I kind of doubt it. But it could be. In general, the beds are doing great and our yield and flavor and everything is doing great. The weather has been a little bit different, hotter and generally wetter than usual. So that could account. So this would be something. Again, we all know what real science is. We all know what this independent variable, dependent variable situation is. There is no other type of science. There is no expanded, creative. No matter how many people or how many big shot organizations or how many appeals to authority you give, none of that matters.

We all know how to do that. You do as close as you can. Two identical beds, water them the same sunlight, the same seeds are the same. One you put a copper rod in, the other you don’t. Then you assess the growth and the flavor. And that’s how you do a scientific experiment. We all know that. We all do it every day. Appealing to this organization says differently has no, no value, it has no merit on this issue. Okay, what are your thoughts on the primal Diet as proposed by the late Oginous Vanderplantz. Interestingly, the new doctor at the clinic, Chris, who I did a podcast with a while ago, and he’s somebody I’ve known for years, and people should check Chris out.

He actually did the Ogenous diet for, I think, years. And I, as I remember correctly, it actually helped him overcome whatever medical problem he was having at the time. And then eventually he stopped doing that. But it doesn’t appeal to me to eat, like, raw chicken and. And raw. Other things. Although I do eat raw eggs, especially egg yolks. I don’t like eating raw egg whites. I put them in salad. I make mayonnaise out of it. I make salad dressing. I put them in the cat’s milk and make them smoothies. I do eat raw beef, and especially when I go out to restaurants, if they have steak tartare on the menu, I almost always order that.

I eat sushi. That’s raw fish. So I think that raw animal food should be included in the diet. I think it’s actually good food, but I tend to rely on who ate it and how they did. In other words, the Weston Price stuff and nourishing traditions. And as far as I know, and I could not know, or I could be wrong about this, there was no people who were found to have basically perfect health who only ate a raw animal food diet. Maybe the exception of the Inuit people, although I don’t think they only ate raw animal food.

So it could be that there is a precedent for that, now that I think of it. So it could be that that is a historically validated and plausible diet. All I can say is it doesn’t really appeal to me. I like eating plants and I like cooking at least some of my food. Okay. Is it possible that an insect, mosquito can transfer something into your bloodstream and make you sick? I would say absolutely. Ticks and biting insects and scorpions and snakes and all the things that bite you typically put some sort of a poison in you to thin the blood, help them, you know, extract your blood easier and maybe to do other things.

Some of those have been used therapeutically, like bee stings and even venom stings. They’ve also been used homeopathically. You know, lachesis is one of the most famous homeopathic remedies for really sick, sort of prostated people. And that is the bite of some sort of snake, I think a rattlesnake or something. So there is precedent for a. That when you get bitten and injected venom into you, that. That can make you sick. You certainly can have a reaction against that. And your body will typically make rashes and other ways diarrhea, and maybe your blood will thin. And some of that is a toxic reaction and some of that is your body’s way of trying to clear out the toxin.

So absolutely it can make you sick. And so you probably want to avoid as many venomous insect bites as you can. And then there are homeopathic and other natural remedies for when that happens. That’s also different than saying they’re injecting a spirochete and it’s the spirochete that makes you sick. And there’s something called Lyme disease that’s a whole different subject. That’s not got anything to do with whether there is possibility of a insect bite injecting some venom in you that makes you sick. Maybe this is the last one. What is herp Herpes Simplex 1 and 2? So these are the erroneous names that we call the body’s way of doing different rashes.

So there’s different sites of the, quote, viral infection. Of course, no virus has ever been identified that causes any of these or even identified in the herpes lesions. So they’re basically different sites for your body’s attempt to eliminate something. And maybe your body’s has been compromised in some way, either emotionally or physical toxin or through stress or through nutritional deficiencies. And then you have an elimination reaction through the various orifices. And they call these different diseases when actually they’re just different ways of your body dealing with different insults and different disturbances in the field. Okay, I think we can stop there.

And I thank everybody for joining me. And I think I was also clear on what I’m looking for from any of the future. No virus critics. We want a definition of virus. We want a definition of isolation, and we want to a careful assessment of the method section of the viral culture and the documentation and establishment that it is a valid, logical, scientific way of demonstrating the existence of a virus, even though we all know it isn’t. Okay, thanks for joining me and I will see you next week.
[tr:tra].

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