➡ In this webinar, the speaker discusses the importance of independent thinking, especially in the field of biology. They also mention a debate about the existence of viruses and the growing attention it’s receiving from mainstream scientists. The speaker then talks about genetically modified foods, questioning the common understanding of how they’re made and expressing doubt about the healthiness of such foods. Lastly, they argue against giving the government the power to regulate what we eat, suggesting that personal responsibility and direct involvement with food sources would be a better approach.
➡ The speaker discusses two main topics: the authority of governments to mandate health decisions and the existence of vitamins in our bodies. They argue against the idea that governments should have the power to dictate what we put into our bodies, such as vaccines. They also question the scientific proof behind the existence of vitamins, suggesting that the process of identifying these chemicals in our bodies is flawed and uncontrolled. They believe that a healthier approach is to consume natural fats from sources like grass-fed butter, rather than relying on vitamin supplements.
➡ Blue tongue disease is a viral illness affecting animals like sheep and cattle, causing symptoms like swelling and damage to blood vessels. It’s spread through insects, not directly between animals, and can range from mild to severe, with a wide range of death rates. The process to isolate the virus involves complex procedures and tests, but there’s doubt about the validity of these methods. The author suggests that the mass culling of animals due to this disease might be unnecessary and harmful, and questions the authority of the government in making such decisions.
➡ The text discusses doubts about the theory of evolution, suggesting it’s a scam with no evidence for intermediate species. It also questions the common belief that symptoms relieved by antibiotics are proof of bacterial infection, arguing that this isn’t necessarily true. The text suggests that symptoms could be caused by various factors, including emotional stress, exposure to toxins, or lack of nutrients. Lastly, it mentions skepticism about the foundations of DNA and genetics, hinting at alternative theories about where genetic information is stored.
➡ The speaker discusses the concept of heredity, challenging the traditional belief that it’s solely based on genetics. They suggest that our characteristics might be influenced by an ‘electromagnetic ether field’ we exist in, as theorized by Rupert Sheldrake. They also touch on health topics like tumors, heart function, and the consumption of raw milk, offering alternative perspectives. Lastly, they encourage listeners to question established beliefs and keep exploring new ideas.

Okay, welcome everybody. Thanks for joining me in another Wednesday webinar. Today is Wednesday, February 12, 2025. And yeah, so today I’m going to finish the questions and then there may be a few new questions that were left over from last time. I probably went on a little bit too much with some of them. But you know, my goal here I think is pretty obvious is not just to say here’s the answer to this or that question. Some of the times I don’t know the answer, but to just describe a thinking process. Because I think once we understand the thinking process and what’s really the essence of what we’re calling new biology or new biology thinking, then you can sort these things out for yourself.

And that’s to me where freedom and you know, sovereignty and autonomy come in when you know how to think about these things. So you don’t need to have somebody else walk you through how to do this. So that’s really what I’m focused on. The other thing I want to say is somebody happened to send me or send somewhere that I look a. I guess you call it X exchange. It’s hard for me to say X instead of Twitter, not that I had it have never been on Twitter or X myself. But between a. Somebody who posted something about rabies being not a virus and not even an actual disease and a rebuttal from I guess the head of epidemiology or in public health or something, chairman of the department at Harvard Medical School or something, I’m not 100% sure on all the details, but somebody like that who was also a big player and virology and Covid who actually responded and of course he responded derisively and negatively.

But there is an old saying in advertising that all publicity is good publicity. And to me what it means is regardless of what he said and how, what nonsense he was speaking and of course he didn’t say anything quote scientific is that now we’re getting to the point where more and more mainstream virologists and more and more mainstream doctors and epidemiologists and public health people are having to respond to the. These questions about the non existence of the virus. And there’s more and more people who are on different platforms who are actually can articulate the model and guy no Mark Gober, he, he chimed in, he wrote a book about the upside end to the upside down medicine which everybody should take a look at.

And so from a scientific point of view it’s. It was obvious that you know, the no virus proponents had the better argument. And of course then he stopped responding. But my point is, the more of us out there, the more of us responding on different platforms and different forums, in different chat groups and different public events and different conversations you have with people, the more this is going to become known and the better that will be for all of us. Because there’s even an example today, the virus model and the tyranny of the virus model is by no means finished.

And it’s going to be by no means finished because of what’s happening politically now. So we still have a long way to go with that. So we still need everybody who really understands it, involvement and help and all that. All right. So with that, I don’t think there’s any other announcements about our business or websites. So I think we ended with the question, is it intelligent to put the request upon the Congress to make the production of genetically modified foods punishable under the law? So I, I have two things to say about that question. The first, of course is has to do with genetically modified foods, which I actually doubt if that’s what’s happening.

Genetically modified food. So that is a specific claim. The claim is that the genome of whatever organism, whether it’s a plant or an animal or a person or an insect, determines the phenotype, which means the morphology, by coding for the proteins. And then if you put a foreign sequence of nucleotides into another organism’s genome, you will force it to code for a different type of protein and therefore change the morphology. In other words, you’ll turn it a different color or you’ll make it make a different protein. You may not see the effects visually of the different protein.

And that’s we call genetically modified food. And they’re saying that that’s possible. And what I’ve been talking about for a fairly long time is that there are so many assumptions and unproven and maybe even disproven information in that scheme. Number one, that we have a DNA in the first place that codes for proteins, that these distinct segments of nucleotides, which even the existence of nucleotides I’d say is a hypothesis at best, but that they code for specific proteins. And of course then we have the obvious problem of, you know, 100,000 proteins and only 20,000 so called genes or sequences of these nucleotides.

So I don’t think that’s what they’re doing. Now just to be clear, that doesn’t mean that this kind of inbred and mixed with bacteria and manipulated plants and animals are in Any way healthy either. Healthy for themselves, like that’s not healthy for a crab or a mouse or a sheep to be manipulated in that way. Nor is it healthy for a corn to be manipulated in that way. And it’s certainly not healthy to eat that food because it’s sickened and manipulated. So I’m not in any way suggesting we eat so called genetically modified food. What I’m saying is that’s not the mechanism.

So that’s the first thing. The second thing is the request upon Congress. And I’ve talked about this some, but try to make myself even more clear. To me the assumption and the problem with that way of thinking is to me, as soon as you say request Congress to pass a law regulating the type of food that you can or are allowed to eat, to me you’ve then lost. Because what you’re admitting to is that this group of people has the right and the power and the authority to regulate what you should and shouldn’t eat. And that is clearly a separate issue of whether the food that you’re talking about is actually good for you or good for the soil or whatever.

The issue is whether you want to give the authority to this group of people to decide on your behalf and on decide of the so called country’s behalf what is good and what isn’t. Because if you do accept that authority, then there will come a time where different people will be quote, in power or you will accept. You will then have to accept that now it’s their turn. And they might say that this so called genetically modified food is good. And since you’ve already accepted that they have the authority to do that, you therefore have to accept the authority that they now have the right to tell you it’s good and therefore it’s on the market.

The far better way from my point of view, is to realize that they have no such authority. Even in the limited framework of accepting the so called constitution as a framework, I don’t think there’s any mention of the authority to regulate what type of food people can and can’t eat. But I would not, and personally never. To me it feels like begging these people who basically know nothing and are corrupt and make decisions based on anti scientific principles to quote, do what I want or do the right thing. And of course they never actually do. And if they do, it’s temporary.

And you know, I don’t think that’s the way to go. I think the way to go is far more based on personal responsibility, like I am not going to eat genetically modified Food. And I think that if we don’t outsource our ability to, if we don’t, the, the, the two principles of how to form a tyranny are you have to absolve the people who make this stuff from personal responsibility and then the people who it’s affecting, you have to outsource their ability to monitor that to an agency like it’s not your responsibility to, to know what the food is, it’s the EPA’s.

Whereas if there was no EPA and there was no so called regulatory agency looking out for you, you would have to look out for yourself. And then there would be businesses form that help you and some of them would be corrupt and then other people would mention that and then you would eventually find sources you can trust or you would go directly to the farmer and say, you know, I don’t trust you, but I’d love to visit your farm and see what you do. And we would have a much more personal and realistic and effective monitoring system.

And as far as I can see this begging for somebody to do that for you, the authority of the government actually has never worked and will never worked and all it does is lead you astray. Now, I perfectly understand that there is an argument, but some of these things are so egregious. And wouldn’t it be better to have somebody that we like who says no more GMO stuff for the next five years? I mean, maybe, but ultimately then if you agree with that, then you have to agree that in five years if there’s a different group of people in authority and they say you have to do something, then you have to agree with that.

And this obviously is to do with the whole thing about mandating vaccinations. To me, no government, no group of people has the authority to dictate what you can and can’t put into or inject into your body. So fighting to stop mandates is agreeing that they have the authority. You may win a temporary victory. So you may not have mandate for certain people or pilots or be able to go on planes or something. And then the next group comes in and you’ve already agreed that they have the authority. And so they say you have to. And so then you have no choice really morally but to accept that.

And I’m not going down that road. Other people do, but that’s not any road that I think is the way to go. Okay. Hey Tom, what is vitamin A? Well, sorry, why is vitamin A called a vitamin? When it becomes retinol and retinoic acid in your body as it gets detoxed. So this is a whole thing which all these things I have mentioned before, but again, it’s good, good to go over them. And so what is the new biology position, or maybe better put, what is my position on this? So I have come to ask the question of myself and the people in the clinic and the people around me that I communicate with.

If you say there is such a thing as so called vitamin A. So what is a vitamin? Is a, apparently a nutritional source, used to be a vital factor that was an amine, but then it became more broadly defined than just a certain kind of chemical that we need in order to live healthy lives and that we get from food. So the question for me is how do we know we have this chemical called vitamin A in us when we’re alive? And how do we know it breaks down into retinol and retinoic acid as the question suggests, as it gets detoxed? And so for that you have to actually find it.

And then you have to go to the method section of how they found it. And what you find is that in all cases you take living tissue and you take it out of its living matrix and then you mix it with chemicals and do a whole lot of unnatural processes like filtration and centrifugation and heating and drying and freezing, or it’s different with every particular chemical. And then if you use a different set of chemicals and you find a different product, you say you’ve now isolated a new chemical and that you say that that chemical was found in the body.

And to me there’s a whole lot of steps in that that are unscientific, uncontrolled and therefore assumptions. So you don’t know if mixing it with acetone or hydrochloric acid or sulfuric acid or phosphoric acid doesn’t take blood and make something appear which what wasn’t actually there in the first place. So for me, the existence of so called chemicals called vitamins in living systems I would say is a unproven hypothesis. I can’t say that for sure that I know that they’re not there, but my guess is that they’re not. And I can say that they certainly haven’t been proven, at least to my satisfaction, at least scientifically.

And I think the reality is we don’t need to think like that. And I think the other part of that reality is we become much more effective and effective and be able to actually do better in the world, not only with ourselves. But if you’re a practitioner with clients if you stop thinking like that. In other words, with vitamin A, you hear vitamin A has a lot to do with so called immunity, which doesn’t even exist, has a lot to do with fertility. But that’s not what you’re seeing. You’re seeing that women particularly who eat very low fat and deficient diets have trouble with their fertility.

And then you do a whole lot of so called science and say that the element that is responsible for that is this so called vitamin A. But I don’t see why you need to do that. And rather you should stick with the observation if that’s true, which I think it probably is. Women who are on very low fat diets who have trouble with their health as a result, have trouble with their fertility in accordance with that. And they’d be a lot better off eating real butter from cows that are actually healthy and eating grass. And you don’t need to know any more about any chemicals than just that.

Or they could eat lard, or they could eat ghee or a whole lot of other things that are in the same category. And all that would effectively solve the infertility issue and be a lot more straightforward, honest, realistic and accurate. The trouble with going down the vitamin A path is that eventually somebody will say, right, but so it’s hard, you know, it’s expensive or I don’t have access to, to ghee. And the cows around us, they don’t eat grass. So the butter, it doesn’t have, it’s not very yellow and it doesn’t taste very good. And so I’m going to take a vitamin A supplement and then that causes troubles because we don’t actually have a use for that chemical.

It’s not a food. It may do something to us, but certainly it’s not nourishing us in the way that the good fats do. And so it’s the thinking of making something up which wasn’t there in the first place that led you down the path of thinking that synthetically made vitamin A might actually be a way to substitute. And that thinking is not something that I’m willing to do. I don’t think it’s accurate, I don’t think it’s been controlled and scientifically validated, therefore there’s no need for it. And all the benefit you can get from so called consumption of so called vitamin A you can get from eating cod liver oil and grass fed butter and ghee and lard and tallow and all the rest of the stuff that we eat.

And there’s no need for any of that. So that’s what I think about that. Is it possible to live without artificial testosterone for people that are ex transgender? I’m not sure I know what this. I know what transgender, I think, means, but I think that means somebody who has maybe been castrated and used to be a male and now is because they’re castrated and maybe had surgery and maybe had hormone blockers, they’re essentially functioning or something like as a woman. And so if you want to reverse that. Not sure if that’s what they mean by this question.

Do you need testosterone? Again, the same thing with vitamin goes for the hormones. I’m not convinced that we actually have what we typically call hormones in our living selves. Doesn’t mean we have them in our dead cells either. And I don’t think that’s the way to look at them. I think we have energy centers in our body. They’re typically historically called chakras. There’s a root chakra that has to do with sexual health and potency, I guess, and so called sexual characteristics. And that energy center is necessary for healthy life. Now, we boil that energy center down and claim that it only works through the production of this hormone called testosterone.

But again, I’ve been over this, and if you try to find testosterone in the living person, you end up again in an uncontrolled experiment. Now, you can substitute some of the effects of a healthy first chakra energy center with giving chemical testosterone. But just because you can give a chemical and reproduce some of the effects. I said this also a million times now. Doesn’t mean that chemical was in you. You can certainly give chemical insulin and affect people’s blood sugar. That doesn’t mean that it was insulin from your pancreas that was doing that. It’s probably complex and having to do with the energy center that is centered around the area of the pancreas.

So if you’re in that sort of very desperate situation, it sounds awful. I would first use test, sorry, testicular extracts. Either eat them or, you know, the one that we carry, which is. Would be the extract of a grass fed, you know, testicles of an animal. So at least you’re getting something that has a connection with the living being. It’s just essentially ground up testic testicles. And that’s what I would do before I would try any synthetic chemically made hormones and see if that is Good enough. Okay. Dr. Cowan may ask you to speak about the blue tongue disease in sheep and cattle.

There was a major outbreak in Europe last summer. It started in the preceding year in Holland and spread progressively southward to France. The damage was considerable in some farms and actually looked into this. I never heard of blue tongue disease before. So I saw this question. So I looked into it and I came up with this. So let me share my screen. So this was the first article. I don’t know where this professional version was but it was I think from the Merck manual. So it’s a. So this was me trying to figure out what is this blue tongue disease.

So it’s a viral disease they say of ruminants worldwide. Clinical symptoms in sheep result from vascular endothelial damage to the blood vessel including edema, swelling of the muzzle, tongue and coronary bands. It’s the heart bands. Diagnosis made on clinical suspicion and viral identification. Control and prevention consist of vaccination and vector control. So then I started looking a little more into it because obviously I’m suspicious of the whole viral thing and that’s an understatement. First thing I saw was interesting non contagious infectious arthropod. I guess that’s an insect borne viral disease predominantly, primarily of domestic and wild ruminants.

It’s interesting because an infectious non contagious. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard that before. So if it’s infectious and there’s a virus, it should be able to be spread between animals. But apparently what they mean, non contagious means it has to go through an insect. So that’s an interesting thing there. And then they talk about the geographic distribution and that most infections are subclinical, meaning you don’t see anything, which is also interesting. But particularly the recorded in cattle and some wild ruminants and then they list the types that it is. So you keep going here.

So what is this? You know, so they talk about the virus and the type of the virus, etc. The other thing that caught my attention here, so it’s spread through some sort of an insect primary way. The viral concentrations and secretions and excretions are minimal, making direct, indirect or aerosol transmission unlikely. So you don’t see much virus here. It does a huge amount of harm but you don’t really see it. We’ve heard that story before. Here’s another interesting thing which I find. The course of blue tongue and sheep can vary from per acute to chronic. I haven’t heard the word acute.

I guess that means sort of acute with a mortality rate between 2 and 90%. So that’s between like 0 and 100%. Which means they have no idea. Which is weird because so if it’s between 2%, that means basically nobody dies. And, and if it’s 90%, that means basically everybody dies and supposedly it’s the same virus. So if you get in a quote, infection you have anywhere between a 2 and a 90% chance of dying. And that can’t possibly be meaningful. So then they, some recover and some don’t and it’s always like this. There’s, there’s always a huge, you know, range of possibilities of what happened.

So then they say that how to diagnose it and you have to find the virus. So there’s some clinical symptoms but these are not characteristic because sometimes they’re mild or in convalescent. But the lesions that they say are pathognomonic, but they occur in other diseases, heart, water, pulpy, kidney disease and Rift Valley fever. So there is no actually specific, that is pathognomonic sign of this, which we’ve heard before, which means it’s a non specific illness. So then of course I go on to look, so how did they actually isolate this virus? And here I found something very interesting.

So here’s the paper, it’s from 2000 Journal of Virological Methods. And there you see the Canadian researchers and of course you go down to the method section and it was actually fascinating to read this. So here’s the materials that are needed. So all these are the materials you need to isolate it because obviously they’ve never taken a sample from the saliva or the blood or the kidneys or the semen and found the virus directly from that. That has never happened. So how did they isolate this virus? And this is something that I’ve actually never encountered before.

So they take the preparation of, they mix blood with heparin to keep it from clotting and then they centrifuge it and they remove the fluid and then they suspended and then they remove the red blood cells. They resuspend them, resuspend them again and they wash them at 4 degrees and then they sonic vibration to disrupt the red blood cells before inoculation. They disinfect it with ethyl alcohol and finally dpbs. So that’s on the, that’s how they disinfect the sonic thing. Then they clamped the plastic tube, they immersed the red blood cells in a bath of ice water to prevent overheating during this sonication.

And then they repeat this sonication twice. So this is basically taking some blood and centrifuging it, taking out some part and doing a whole lot of things to it. And then they take this from each tissue sample, they trim the specimen to remove the tissue and the fat and the muscle, and then they injected into chicken embryos. And so this embryos are. They’re prepared by pooling tissues of dead embryos and separating the tissues of the live embryos. And then they inject this inoculation onto that. They wash them, they put them in a tissue grinder with this nutrient solution to make a 10% suspension.

They add some gentamicin, that’s the antibiotic to the supernatant, and then they sonicate it again with the sound wave thing. And then they centrifuge it and they take some samples from that. And then, and only then do they take some of this stuff and they incubate that on a cell culture, they put it on viable eggs. And they have a whole thing about using the drill and injecting it into the blood system directly, this inoculant, into these eggs. After they’ve drilled out a triangle, they put some mineral oil on top of it and they make an egg, sorry, a window in it.

And then they inoculate the egg in the window and they close it with surgical tape. And this is all considered the isolation, the separation of one thing from all other things. And then they see if the eggs die and they refrigerate the dead eggs, disinfect them, they remove the embryos. And this isn’t even the isolation. This is the preparation for the isolation. Then they are suspended, and then they inoculate them onto a cell culture and see if they get a cytopathic effect. And that’s called the separation of one thing from all other things called isolation, which is obviously totally bogus nonsense.

They just did a whole lot of procedures to make stuff happen in a total. There’s no mention of any controls until this final inoculation step. So they just basically put a whole lot of chemicals and did a whole lot of things to the blood to see whether they could get something to happen in eggs. And they did, and they call that isolation. So there is no evidence for any virus. And all the tests, the PCR test and the antigen test and the immunohistochemical tests are therefore all nonsense, because if they never isolated a virus, you could never say what components it has, that it has this protein that would react with this antibody, and it has this genetic segment, because you have no idea where the genetic segment came from.

So all that is to say, this whole blue tongue disease in sheep and cattle, which I found somewhere where they Killed millions and millions of cattle and sheep, most of whom were asymptomatic, but were found in a flock that was allegedly infected with this blue tongue virus. So to me this is a horrible tyrannical tragedy that I just can’t even hardly imagine. To just kill all these sheep and cows for no reason except a non specific bogus PCR or antigen or antibody so called test that there’s nothing wrong with these cows and sheep and therefore just basically torture not only the animals, but ruin the livelihood of the farmers and interfere with the food supply is exactly why I don’t see why we would give the government any authority or power to decide on these public health measures.

Because if they can’t understand that there’s no evidence for a virus, how can we possibly give them the authority to decide what to do with our bodies or our animals or our cats or our plants or anything else. Now you may be then wondering, so what is this blue tongue disease? And obviously seeing as how I never heard of it, I have no idea. But I would certainly look at all the usual culprits. You know, did they start so called vaccinating these cows and sheep in a way that they hadn’t done before? Did they feed them something different? Did they put them near cell towers or do chemtrail spraying on them? There’s just always the usual culprits.

How are they being fed, how are they being cared for? And in particular what kind of medical interventions are they being subjected to? Because that’s almost always the case. And then we finally have to realize that most of these animals were not even sick at all. They were just exposed to a test which has no meaning and therefore didn’t need to be culled or killed or tortured in the first place. And this is just all another example of the kind of false conclusions that come out of people who cannot understand the basic scientific principles. They’re basically scientifically illiterate and so they make all these tyrannical and diabolical schemes that end up torturing animals, ruining the livelihoods of people, interfering with our food.

Okay, are there good scientific reasons to doubt the theory of evolution? Does it belong to the group of the atomic bomb virus germ theories or is this the real one? There are many reasons to doubt the theory of evolution. In fact, I’m currently reading a book all about the history of radioactive dating and carbon dating and dating, the history of the earth and all the the so called scientific hypotheses that have gone into Darwin and the discontinuities of the fossil record, etc. And I think you can pretty much say that the whole Darwinian evolution is basically a scam and that there is no evidence for intermediate species as is required by the Darwinian theory of evolution.

And even these uniform huge time frames is not actually how it works. And there are many reasons to doubt that that’s the case. I can’t actually remember off the top of my head the name of the book, so I will get it to Trisha and we’ll put it in the show notes. There’s a lot of things I don’t agree with in this book. But anyways, it is a good debunking of the whole Darwinist theory of evolution. So it, yes, it belongs in the group of the virus and the atomic bomb and the germ theory. It’s not the real one.

Okay, next. Possible mechanisms involved developing dysuria, that means painful urination and purulent discharge, that means pus symptoms 24 to 48 hours after sexual intercourse, relieved with IM penicillin. So this is a question that suggests that the cause of the painful urination and the pus discharge from the penis was a bacterial infection, which is what we’re told. And again, this goes to what I was talking about in the very beginning, that what I want to try to communicate is not an alternative theory about what might have happened here. But let’s go through the thinking once again of how you would know whether this is caused by a bacterial infection.

And again, you can make a lot of assumptions and say, well, if you have a symptom and it’s cleared up with a antibiotic, that proves it’s a bacterial infection. And obviously that isn’t true because the bacteria could be part of the restoration process or the antibiotics could be doing something else, which we know they do. So that is not proof because it’s not exclusive evidence that the only possible mechanism could be the killing of bacteria. Now, just to say I’m not questioning whether this person had painful urination or pus coming from their penis, the question is why? And at the end of the day, and if somebody wants to say that I’m wrong about this, they’re going to have to show me how and why.

The only way to prove this would be to take an isolated bacteria. So in this case could be syphilis bacteria, the spirochete could be the gonococcus bacteria, could be chlamydia, but here it was probably either syphilis or gynecoccus. So you take the isolated bacteria, which you can grow and you can isolate, meaning separate from everything else. And then you have the person’s penis be exposed to just this bacteria and then you show that it causes these symptoms in a whole bunch of people. And then you do it with a control. So instead of putting the penis pure culture of the bacteria, you put something else inert that maybe looks and smells like it and you dip your penis in that and see if you get the same symptoms.

And that study, as far as I know, has never been done with any kind of sexually transmitted bacterial infection. If you think I’m wrong, you have to send me the study or put it in the comments to this video. And as far as I know, it hasn’t been done with any bacterial so called infection ever. Therefore the thing, the mechanism, the way that we would prove this to be the case has never been done. So at best this is a unproven hypothesis. And I would go so far as to say every time that study has been attempted they get nothing.

In other words, doesn’t cause disease more than placebo. Which means I would actually put it in the category of a disproven hypothesis until somebody can come up with a study that proves that this is how things work. And this is important because at that point you now cannot go back to the theory of no matter whether I’m correct or know what happened to this person, you can’t fall back on, well then if I don’t know what happened, it must be a bacteria. No, we know that it’s not a bacteria, it’s not a virus. So now we trying to figure out what might have happened.

Now I would first of all say that I don’t know what happened. And I, nor do I even know whether the same thing would have or must have happened to everybody in this situation or whether there’s different things that could have happened in individual cases. And so it’s not something generic that happened to everybody. Now if you said no, well Tom, give me something to go on here. I would say the things that I would go on are for instance, we know with the case of syphilis that women treated with mercury to so called to kill the bacteria, that the mercury concentrates in the vaginal secretions and that men who have intercourse with women who have have taken mercurial pharmaceutical products actually get symptoms of irritation and lesions on their genitals as a result of exposure to mercury.

Now could it be mercury? We don’t use mercury so much. Could it be things in spermicides so that maybe the woman was using a diaphragm or something. And there was also using it with chemical spermicides. And maybe that created a chemical irritation and inflammation which then broke down the tissue which the bacteria then lived in, which then caused the symptoms. I don’t know if that’s the case, but that’s something that should be investigated. There’s also the whole psycho emotional component of simply having intercourse and whether that was felt like, and seemed like the right thing to do.

Was this a affair? Was this with a prostitute? Was this with somebody in a new relationship? Was this somebody that, you know, there’s a whole lot of factors that get into how your body might react to that encounter. So we have actually the psycho emotional part, we have the physical contamination. So there may be vaginal products or chemicals or drugs that the woman is using that you may have been exposed to or that you might have taken. Maybe the person used some sort of pharmaceutical product to help them have erections. You know, again, this is why this whole model of treating illness as if it’s generic and not individual to the person, everybody has a story.

And I can almost guarantee you that if you spend some time going into what happened here, there is some other factor besides the disproven bacterial infection hypothesis that would probably at least give you a clue as to what happened here. And to me, that’s the whole point of this new biology way of thinking is if you say it’s a bacteria, you have to prove it. There’s a simple, straightforward scientific way to prove it. People have done that. They haven’t not found that. That’s been proven. In fact, just the opposite. Therefore, you have to look somewhere else.

There you look in the individual story knowing that the things you’re looking for are mental, emotional, psychic conflicts, starvation, you’re not having enough nutrients or you’re missing something, whether it’s a physical or emotional component or there’s some toxic exposure that in this case could be from products or mercury or, you know, things in the. On the condoms or whatever. There’s a lot of possible exposures that could account for this. And that’s my whole point, is that is the new biology way of doing science and medicine. Okay, do you or other researchers in your circle intend to work on a detailed, critical examination of genetics double helix, since this discipline also seems to rest on flimsy foundations.

And I mean, I’ve done a lot of stuff on that. I did a whole conversation with Alex, Zach on the way forward about what I found about DNA and genetics. So I would look there and in particular, I Would look at the critical. What is it? The work by the woman named Tam the critical. Look at DNA that she just wrote and I’ll try to put that in the links. I think we have that article that I referenced not so long ago and did a whole webinar on that. So yes, there are many reasons to question the whole foundation of DNA and double helix, all of which I would put in the either unproven or disproven category.

So, Tom, do you think that the genetic information is stored in the electromagnetic, sorry, electromagnetic vortices, as Constantine, my me thinks M E Y L not sure how to say his name. Or that we live in a panpsychism world where we are antennas or there are morphogenic fe. Morphic fields, as Rupert Sheldrake thinks. So the first thing is I would change this. Do you think that the genetic information. Change that word, genetic? There is no genetic information. Or at least the genetic information is not what we think. I think what you mean is, does the hereditary information, is that stored in the electromagnetic vortices or in the panpsychism world? I don’t know what panpsychism means.

Or in the morphic fields. So what I would say, again, going back to basics here, nobody is saying, or at least I should say, I’m not saying, that there isn’t such a thing as heredity. As annoying as it is, sometimes we look like our parents. And the annoying part is we sometimes act like our parents. There’s some good comedy skits on this and even commercials. I think as we get more and more like our parents as we age and we tell the same stupid jokes, there’s a lot of things that are, you know, cats. Pumpkin Jr looks a lot like Pumpkin, although he doesn’t act like him sometimes.

So there’s a lot of things to hereditary which seem clear and obvious. What the claim here is that these are because of genes and that all the things that we talk of as heredity are results of DNA genetics, genetic sort of combinations and determinism. And what I would say about that is that mechanism is far from proven and I would even go so far as to say actually disproven. So then the question, then again, nobody is saying there isn’t heredity that you don’t. That, you know, animals and plants and people don’t look, act and have the morphology and some of the even characteristics of our.

Of our ancestors. There’s certainly a huge influence that our ancestors have on our lives. This was clear in every traditional culture, in many different Ways physically, psychically, emotionally, worldview, etc. Now, the question is there are all those things because of genetics, and I would say no. So where are they from? And I’ve certainly, I don’t know the work of this Constantine Mile, I don’t think, but I certainly know that there is an ether. And there we live in an electromagnetic field. And the ether is sort of the mother substance out of which we were born and out of which we live.

And my guess is, and this probably sort of joins together these three theories, if we think like that, that we are like a fish is swimming in a watery ocean or lake. We are living and swimming and existing in a electromagnetic ether field. And all the information and all the energy and all the healing and all the life that we need actually comes out of that ether. And then it goes through these basic four elements that they talk about in old alchemical circles. And that creates the. Creates our physical and psychic and emotional and spiritual bodies.

And Sheldrake, to his credit, has given some models and some information as to how changes in that field can actually have a effect on what we call heredity. And I do give him credit for trying to actually make controlled scientific models, studies showing how the information in this field, I don’t think he used the word ether, but he calls it the morphic field or morphogen genetic or morphogenic field, actually determines a lot of the characteristics of animals and plants which we otherwise attribute to genetics. So I would say, fundamentally, I don’t know how it works, but it has to do with the fact that once we get clear that the information for us and our lives is stored in this field, it will become a lot easier to study and to find out how the field works.

Okay, just a few more things. If tumors, cancer, tumors are bags of garbage, then why do they sometimes shrink when additional toxins are added to the body? Just like the reason why, if you have a bag of garbage and you burn it, the bag of garbage is gone and now it’s ashes. And sometimes it could even be helpful, except then when it’s with the body and because then you have to process this burning that you just did, it may come up in another place at another time. And typically now it’s worse because you’ve have the residue from the garbage that you just burned, plus you haven’t dealt with the reason for the garbage, plus you’ve added another bit of garbage in the therapy.

And that’s why exactly what you see, you quote, get rid of the tumor, you burn it, or poison it out, stop the body from putting it in a certain place and then it comes back with a vengeance somewhere else. And essentially that’s what conventional medicine is all about. If the heart is not pumping, what is it doing? It creates a vortex so that as the Sufis say, so God can enter into the physical or electromagnetic being of the organism through this vortex created in the heart. And through this vortex that’s spinning iron. It also creates the toroidal field or the biofield around the human being, which I called in the fourfold path to healing.

We called it the personal space, which is your six foot field that surrounds you, which is fundamentally created by the vortex of iron in the blood, creating this electromagnetic field around your body just quickly. Butenko breathing I think is good. He says it’s CO2 deficiency. I don’t think the gas thing is right. But controlling your breathing and learning how to breathe in a more healthy way of controlling the out breath seems to help with just about everything. What is your view on consuming raw milk with mycobacterium in it? So mycobacterium, like any bacterium, has never been shown to be the cause of disease.

But on the other hand, you know, if you have like E. Coli in your milk, that means the milk has been contaminated and is breaking down and so it’s otherwise not that healthy for you. So it’s not that the mycobacteria or the E. Coli or the listeria are the actual issue. What they mean is that the milk is not that healthy, it’s been contaminated, it’s breaking down and therefore is growing bacteria that otherwise shouldn’t be there. And finally, so I got through them all, what exactly are heart murmurs from a new biology perspective? And I’m not sure there is a different view.

They seem to be abnormalities in the movement of the valves. And as far as I know right today, there is no other explanation for that. I don’t know that we need a different explanation. The valves do open and shut. We do have valves. And when they don’t open and shut properly, they create abnormal sounds which we call murmurs. And so it seems like that’s pretty much the same reason as we’re taught. It may be the significance is different, but the origin of the murmur is the same. Okay, thanks everybody for listening. As always, I welcome your comments and suggestions and keep in touch and keep looking into places where you can help people to understand the viral delusion.

And hopefully we can end that as soon as possible and buy common sense. Child rearing from Amazon. Thanks everybody.
[tr:tra].

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