School is appropriately named 'cause you, I, I don't know, you're from Australia, is that right? South Africa. South Africa. Sorry. So I yeah, I was in South Africa for a while, but I don't know if they use the same word. But when you school somebody, it that's not a positive thing. Yes, right. You're abusing them or something. So it's not an accident that they named the prison place that they sent children to school. And what they learn in there is is how not to think.
And they've been at it for a long time, you know, at least 150 years of mandatory school. And they're very successful. You know, people often talk about schools are failing and blah, blah, blah, right? We hear that a lot. It's not true. It's just that their intention is to keep people thinking illiterate, or what I like to call it, scientifically illiterate.
So when you when you have a scientifically illiterate population led by scientists and medical doctors who are equally scientifically illiterate, then this is what happens. Let let me just give you an example, which I've given many times. I stole it from somebody. The example is in science is a is a in logic. So we're not just talking about science, we're talking about thinking is is not a matter of competing theories. It's a matter of somebody makes a claim and then you try to
falsify the claim. So first step is if you can't falsify the claim, it's a belief and there's nothing wrong with believing things, but one shouldn't call it science or thinking. So like if you say God created the earth in seven days, like I don't know if that's true or not and I don't know how to falsify it. And so some people believe it and some people don't, and that's fine, but that's not science. And so, and another one is, you know, I've used this a lot.
Asian guy, 18, his parents are Caucasian, looks at his parents closet, finds adoption papers, realises he never saw his parents picture of his mother pregnant, goes to them and said, is it true? And say, yeah, we got you from an orphanage in China and you were adopted and we didn't want to tell you because upset you and all that. So that's very clear. So he goes to his friend, says I'm a little shook up because I just found out I was adopted from China. And he says, so who are your
real parents? He says, I don't know. He says until you tell me who your real parents are, I don't believe you were adopted. That's crazy. How many doctors I've said there's no evidence that measles as caused by a virus or there is a measles virus. And you know what they say, So what causes measles? Who are your real parents? They don't know how to think.
There is a claim, measles specific disease, which itself isn't true and it's caused by a particle which has been found, identified and characterised and shown to be the cause of this problem. That is the claim, and that claim has been falsified. Therefore, whether I or anybody else knows why somebody gets a rash is irrelevant if they're not adopted. And I was a doctor for 40 years. At year 35, I didn't know that rule. Why? Because you hadn't been
thinking. Yeah, I and I wrote A and here, here's here. So this may sound like touting my own horn, but I would say I was in the elite of questioning things, right? So how do I here? What's the evidence? I wrote a book the heart doesn't pump the blood. I wrote a book that blocked arteries don't cause heart attacks. I wrote a book that cancer has nothing to do with genetics and DNA has nothing to do with heredity. I wrote a book about vaccines are neither safe or effective.
I eventually wrote a book that there's no such thing as a virus. All that time I didn't know the basic fundamental rules of logic and science. Why I was schooled are stupid. One of the two I don't know. Do you regret being in medicine in the established sense for so long? Do I regret it? No. I don't regret most anything in my life. I mean, you know, I got married and divorced and, and that was like, horrible, but I don't regret it. I learned a lot about who I am
as a person. And you know what a father and a husband should be and isn't. And I mean, I've made all kind of mistakes in the world. And the problem is I have the paper trail to prove it. So I could try to fool people into thinking, oh, I didn't make any mistakes. And then they'd show me the thing and I'd say, oh wow, it's the problem. But Tom, if you were able to change your perspective, your paradigm while being a doctor, that means anybody can. But what triggered that change?
In me you mean? Yes. You know, it's interesting because many people who get into alternative medicine or so called alternative or whatever often have a story of they were sick and they couldn't get better and then they fasted or ate bananas or whatever and they got better. I never had any story like that, but I, you know, I got this following from, from Mr. Rogers.
I don't know if you know Mr. Rogers, but he, he was talking and talking to somebody about why they were so interested in finding the truth and not believing authority. And it turns out that their father was basically a jerk. And so they learned at a young age that people in authority who supposedly tell you the truth are full of it.
And I had a similar story. And not only that, but I grew up in a an environment of very prestigious doctors, like the guy who started laser surgery and gynaecology was he delivered me and he was one of our best friends. And this guy who started immunotherapy for cancer till they threw him in gaol for Medicare fraud. But he was he was also in our circle of friends. So I was very familiar with people in authority, especially men and especially scientists. Doctors are full of it.
And so it wasn't unusual for me to think that, well, let's look into it. So it wasn't anything except it didn't make sense. You know, if somebody says, you know, there's a virus, I say, how do you know that? And then they told me, and I think you got to be kidding. Like that's, that's irrational, illogical, anti scientific thinking. So I don't believe it. It's nothing more than that. What is a virus? They say, right. It's like asking what is a Unicorn? A virus, they say.
So here's the claim. A virus is an obligate intracellular parasite that has a certain size, you know, like 10 microns, but up to 200. It has a protein exterior. It has a genome, either RNA or, or DNA and it's, it uses the cell. That's why it's it to, to replicate. And then as it emerges from the cell, that's how it causes disease.
That's the, that's the claim. So, you know, the, the, the way to break that down is so there's a claim of a physical particle, right, that you can photograph and has certain characteristics. That's the claim. Remember I said, so we don't need to know what causes measles. We're just investigating that claim now. The, I think the best way for people to understand it is if you claim there's a hammer, right? What do you do to prove? I say, Jeremy, how do you prove
there's a hammer? I'll show it to you. Yeah. So let me see if you agree with this. You go to the place where you'd expect to find it like a toolbox. You open it up, take out the the thing that you've identified as a hammer and say here it is. And then you can characterise it. Here's what it's made of. And you can hit a nail with it and see if it knocks in the nail. That's correct, yes. OK, let's do a frog. How do you do a frog?
Well, we'll go to a pond and we'll look for it and we'll point it out because it has those characteristics. Right. And except probably you have a net and so would you agree that the difference is how you actually isolate it? Yes, because if it's mixed with other weird fish and animals you would need to take the frog out and say well this is the frog. Yeah. And so the difference with that and a hammer is a hammer, you just see it and A and a frog, you have to get a net, right.
But it's otherwise the same step. You go to the ecosystem where you expect to find a frog. You have a definition of what you think it is. You isolate it with a technique like a net and then you can characterise it and see if it eats flies. If I said, OK, I I'm going to prove that hammers knock in nails. So I'm going to go to a toolbox and I'm going to hit the Dale with the toolbox without seeing if there's a hammer in there or not. What would you would that prove that there's a hammer?
No, you you need the hammer. You need the hammer. If I say I can prove that frogs eat flies and I can put some flies in the pond, I don't know whether there's a frog in there or not. And I come the next day and there's fewer flies. Does that prove that frogs eat flies, right? That's obvious, right? That's how people think. It's the same with bacteria, same with nanoparticles. The only different you go to a mouth, find some bacteria, isolate it, see what it's made
of, see what it does, right? So if you get, if you're talking now about a virus. So the only difference is the technique, right, of isolation. So if you take, if you go to a person who you claim has a viral infection, COVID, measles, chicken pox, smallpox, hoof and mouth disease, whatever, and look through all their bodily fluids and the chicken pox lesions and the blisters and the mucus and the snot and everything, the urine, the blood, can you find that
particle? Because there are easily techniques of finding things of that size, right, That any analytical chemist will tell you that the answer is no, can't find it. Now that's weird, right?
And I'll, I'll probably say the words, that's weird many times, 'cause if somebody said, Jeremy, there's a bunch of frogs in this pond and you look through the whole pond and nobody ever has ever found a frog, you would be hard pressed to be convinced that they were right, Right. So the CDC, the NIH, Pasteur Institute, Robert Koch Institute, everybody says there's no evidence of any particle that meets our definition directly in the fluids of any sick person or
animal or plant. That's clear. Everybody agrees. If you ask them why can't you find it? Like we have the the tools, they say there's not enough to find, which is weird because like if there's not enough frogs to find or hammers, you might be suspicious that they're not actually there. OK, but then let me play devil's advocate because the counter argument is always the same. Well, that's why you have PCR
for example. Well, we'll get to that, OK, Because we just to say we don't want to do reification fallacies, which means, you know, unicorns are gentle. In order to say that, you first have to have a Unicorn. True. Right. Otherwise you're reifying, meaning putting properties on something you haven't shown actually is real yet. So we'll get to the PCR. So, OK, so we haven't, we can't isolate the thing, right? We're not talking about a feeling or an emotion or a conception.
We're talking about a thing from the ecosystem, unlike just about everything else that we say is real. So then the question is, so how do they isolate the virus, right? Because that's the key point, because there's at least 10,000 papers called the isolation of such and such a virus. So let's do polio 'cause that was one of the first. So they took a child who died of paralysis, right? They said that was a disease called polio. They saw that their spine was
diseased, right? Not right and they ground it up in a blender, put it through a philtre, injected that into a brain of 2 monkeys, mixed it with some chemicals. 1 monkey died and one monkey got paralysed and they said they isolated the virus. They did it for 50 years, probably 100,000 monkeys. And then in 1953 some guy, I don't remember his name, decided to take a normal person's spine. Died of car accident or something. Do the same thing, grind it up, philtre it, inject it into this
brain of 2 monkeys. You know what happened to the monkeys? They died. And he said, well, that means it wasn't actually a virus, it was just in monkeys don't like having stuff it chemicals and dead spine injected into their brain, which which I could have told them that anyways, right? So that was 1953, so 50 years almost. That's how they isolated the
polio virus. And then it's an interesting time because the next year they had a new way of isolating a virus, which has been done ever since. Let me repeat that because every isolation of every virus since 1954 has been done in the way I'm going to describe. It was started with a paper by a guy named Enders. Got a Nobel Prize. He took somebody with measles, took their mucus, filtered it a little bit just to get rid of some debris. Added that to growing culture of
monkey kidney cells. Added kidney poison antibiotics, took away the nutrients. Added trypsin. Waited 4-5 days, the kidney cells died. He said that proves the kidney cells were killed by a virus. Then interestingly, he did the same thing, except he didn't add anything from anybody with measles. The kidney poison, antibiotics, take away the food, the trips and all the other chemicals. You know what happened? Same thing, he said. It's indistinguishable.
In other words, he proved that it wasn't even anything from anybody with measles, and that became the isolation of the virus. Until this day. Until this day, every SARS COV 2, every smallpox, every polio virus, every Hanta pneumonia virus, every bird flu virus has been isolated using that exact same technique. Sometimes they change the cell line, sometimes they change the antibiotics, sometimes they change, you know, the nutrient broth, etcetera. But it's basically the same.
And we proved we being Stefan Lankin us, we did experiments doing these, taking cell cultures, mixing them with the same antibiotics, taking away the nutrients. They all broke down the same as if you added a sample from somebody who's supposedly had a virus. Now let's get to your to the next thing. But Tom, you idiot, they have pictures of it, right?
So they take that broken down cell culture and they mix it with, they freeze it and they dehydrate it and they powder it and they put heavy metal stains on it and then they show you a picture of it. That's the herpes virus. That's SARS COV 2. That's the polio virus.
There's 20 papers in the medical literature of taking a kidney tissue, no virus from before 2000, doing the same thing, grinding it, freezing it, heavy metal stains, exact same picture proving those pictures are not something from the outside, they're from broken down kidney tissue. Or they now know that foetal bovine serum, which is added to every cell culture, every cell culture has foetal bovine serum.
They all have particles which they say are indistinguishable from viruses, meaning nobody knows that those pictures are anything. In fact, we've proven those pictures are broken down either from the cell culture, the kidney cells. Or from foetal bovine serum, which has lots of little particles stuff.
OK, so there's no pictures of that are proven to be viruses, by the way, that broken down cell culture, right, With the antibiotics in the foetal bovine that is then injected into people under the name of a vaccine. That's what a measles vaccine is. I mean, now here's the PCR. So they take the broken down cell culture. They've never found the virus, right? In fact, they've disproven that the breakdown of the cell is from a virus.
They've disproven that the pictures are from a virus and they've got 56,000,000 little pieces of RNA or DNA that come from what the cell culture, the foetal bovine serum, the the host contamination from mosquitoes that flew up your nose, whatever, right? They don't know where any of this comes from. So they put, take it, chop it up into little pieces. Then they tell the computer to align that into a long string. It's like giving a computer 56,000,000 words and say make war and peace.
And the computer, if it has any sense, I don't know if computers have sense, but it would say, can you show me war and peace? And then I can make sure I get it right. No, you have to come up with War and Peace without ever having seen a copy of War and Peace. Like how would you do that? It's not possible. It's not possible.
So in in the case of SARS COV 2, they came up with 1.2 million possibilities and then they chose the longest one and that is the genome of Cyrus COV 2. Then everybody after that takes that one, that long genome, that long string, they pretend that's actually War and peace. And then they tell the computer with the next culture to make it as close to War and peace. That one is possible. So it does, but it gets some of it wrong. And that's called a variant.
And then they take some of those little pieces and that's called PCR primers. And they say if we find these pieces, that means it's from War and Peace. And then to top it off, and this is really important for your listeners, and I don't know if even you know this, when they did SARS COV 2, they, they made a genome which had pieces in it which actually didn't even come from the 56,000,000 words. It's this takes a little bit of thinking.
So imagine you have 56,000,000 words and you arrange them into a book, right? And you, now you have a book. You don't know if that's a real book or not, right? You just made up the book. And then in chapter 3, are the words or the sentence to be or not to be? That is the question. And yet you can't find those sequence of words in the in the data. And so anybody looking at that would say, wait a minute, how did you get a piece from Hamlet in War and Peace?
Somebody must have put that in deliberately. And that was the original Wuhan Fan Wu paper. They put a sequence in there that they took from the from the imaginary HIV virus. They inserted it into the final genome. So it's a double fraud, first of all, or triple. There's no HIV genome, there's no SARS COV 2 genome. And they deliberately put it in there to make people think it was a lab created virus.
Now how do I know that? Because we actually were the only ones who said, OK, let's take the original data and and run it and see if you can get the to be or not to be part and you can't. In other words, they put it in deliberately to scam people. And then they got Kennedy and Sax and Big Tree and Malone and Kirsch to sell that Turkey to the to the world and. Now Trump. And now Trump and all the rest of them.
So there was no SARS COV 2 genome, they that was that was made up. There is no HIV genome that was made up. And then they inserted the one into the other to make that. Any virologist looking at that, just like any English teacher, if they see here's a book about here's War and Peace. And then chapter 3 it says it was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
I think that comes from Dickens. He would say, wait a minute, this isn't the right, this isn't just a natural variant of war and peace, like this is a deliberate insertion and I caught you red handed doing it. And and they wanted it to be caught so that we would then think, oh, look at these dastardly people, their gain of functioning viruses, which is like gain of functioning unicorns. You can't gain a function, something that doesn't exist.
So getting back to your question, there is no, you can't prove you can't test for a segment of something if you've never had the something. If I say, Jeremy, I went out in my field and I found these toenails and I know that proves there's a Unicorn because unicorns have toenails. It's. Ridiculous. Why not I I just showed you the the toenail you don't have. You have a problem with that? Are you saying that PCR doesn't
have a real world application? Because I I don't understand it entirely, but isn't it an amplification of genetic material? Isn't that what they used? They they alleged genetic material. They they supposedly make more of certain segments than were there originally, but the the question of APCR or any test has to be validated. In other words, how how do you know that that came from the virus? In order to answer how do you know the toenail came from a
Unicorn? Tom, show me the Unicorn with the tail with the toenail on it. No, show me the virus. They OK, I'll isolate the virus. How do you isolate the virus? I already told you that you put snot on a cell culture and it breaks down. That's called isolation of the virus. Even though you can do the same thing without adding snot and it still breaks down, proving that it has nothing to do even with the snot, let alone a virus.
And then you have to prove that no other Organism in the world has those chemicals in it 'cause if you do and you got the sample from you, how do you know it didn't come from you? How do you know that toenail wasn't from a cat? Well, you better have a Unicorn and a cat and show that they're different. But if you don't have a Unicorn because you've never isolated and you don't have a picture of it, and you don't have a genome of it except it was made in a
computer. Random selection of a certain one out of 1,000,000 possible sources, and you have no way of knowing which one is correct because you don't have anything to compare it to. Again, the counter argument is what? What happens when people get collectively I'll? We already know it's not a virus. Right. So it's something else. Yeah, it's something else. Now, once you So if a person is still using that to evaluate whether there's a virus, then there's nothing to talk about.
They're all they're telling you is they're scientifically illiterate and you should. You need to go through the rules. But if they say, OK, I understand there's no virus, now do can you help me understand why people get sick or how people get sick? So the first thing I would say about that is what I learned in 35 years of doing medicine is what we call sick is incorrect. So let me give you an example. You get a splinter in your finger and you don't take it out.
What happens next? It gets infected and it gets worse. And not infected. How do you know it's infected? Just when you when you. I always tell people when they talk to me, think like a six year old. You don't know You just what do you see? Red, swollen pots, Right. You agree? Yeah. OK. And then what happens? The splinter comes out right? So is the red pus swelling pain? Is that the therapy or is that a disease? It's your body trying to remove the splinter.
It's the therapy for the splinter. That's how your body gets rid of splinters, right? It's not an infection. That's an abstract concept. So what about if we put debris in your lungs like smoke and particulate matter and chemtrail dust, and you know what happens next? I'll definitely feel terrible. And you get a cough, right? Yes. And mucus. Yes. And you try to cough up the mucus. Yes. And they go to the doctor and he says you have bronchitis. Yes. Is the cough mucus feel terrible?
Is that the therapy for the debris or is that a disease? Yeah, I see what you're saying. So your body is trying to get rid of that toxin. Right, so it coughs it out. Yes. So only a fool would try to keep it in your body or a medical doctor so you can see that what we call disease is actually your body's attempt to heal. So a lot of people have houses. I don't know if you have a house. Yes. And a lot of people have a like a entrance or a foyer to their
house. So what if somebody comes and puts a whole lot of stinky garbage in your foyer? What do you do next? Whenever. You're 6 year old. I'll, I'll, I'll take it out. How I I want details? OK, so I'll go to it. I'll, I'll pick it up and I'll take it outside to the to the bin or whatever. Yeah, you put it in a bag. Yeah. Or a can or something. Yeah, right. Again, I don't want to put words
in your mouth. You scoop it up, put it in a bag, take it out to the garage, and then when the garbage people come, you, you take it out to the curb and they pick it up. Right. OK. What if somebody puts garbage in the house called your body? What do you do? Well, you would you would do the same thing in a sense. Put it in a bag called the tumour right? And that's stinky garbage and then you would take it out to the curb. That's called detoxification, sweating, pooping, diarrhoea,
coughing, etcetera. But what if they keep putting garbage in your house and then your garage gets full, Then you put it in the spare bedroom and then you can't take it out fast enough. And then you put it in the living room, and then the kitchen and then the master bedroom. And then your wife leaves you and then you then you have to move, right? So same thing. You put it garbage in your body, your house called your body, you put it in your breast or your
prostate. And then you get that gets full. And then you put it in your liver and your brain and your bones. And then you can't live there anymore. And we call that dying. And it's all because you kept accumulating garbage and because people call doctors try to keep you from getting out the garbage. So every time you coughed and sweated and had heat to burn it off, they stopped you from doing that. And so then you accumulated more
garbage. And then they say, well, you now you have cancer, so we have to put you more garbage in. You called chemo and then then you die. Now, I started thinking about this in medical school because I asked an oncologist, so how does the cancer get from the breast to the liver? And he said it goes through the bloodstream, right? That's what they say. So I said, can you show it to me in the blood, the cancer cells? No, Why not? You just said it goes through
the blood. We can't show it to you. There's not enough to see. It's same with the virus thing. So how did the how did the garbage get from your garage to your spare bedroom? Obviously it crawled through the the hallway. No, it didn't. Your you chose because the one area was full to put it in another area. Same with your body.
The breast or the prostate got full, so you put it in the next organ, which may be your liver or your bones, and then the next organ because you you don't know how to get rid of it, just like what happened with your house. And so the whole idea we have of why did I get sick means somebody poisoned you or you're starving, or you have toxic emotions or psychological stress or you fell off a horse or you have delusional ideas. That's the main one. Like there's viruses.
I remember last year I was in Asia and I flew back. Now this was the first time I actually thought about this. When I flew back, I got a bit of a respiratory illness about one or two days after getting home. And then I suddenly realised my whole life I would have been told, well, you picked up a bug from somebody on the aeroplane, but I thought, no, it it's so obvious that I literally come from a different part of the
world. Different climate, different temperature, different hemisphere, different season, lack of sleep, different food. The the list of variables goes on and on and on and. These straights really toxic stuff in the aeroplane. Yeah. That you breathed in. Yes. And that your body said, let's try to get rid of this because we're smart. You know, when people say, Tom, didn't you learn anything of use in medical school?
I say, yes. I day one of medical school, a guy got up and said, everybody remember that the dumbest kidney is smarter than the smartest nephrologist. And I've always remembered that because it's true. Your body knew. I don't like this aerosol shit that they sprayed on the plane. So I'm going to put it in some a flow device called mucus and cough it up and make sure I rest for a day or so. So I get rid of it and now
you're fine. That's why when you know, here's some suggestion for people you know, even though I'm talking a lot, I guess because maybe that's my job. If I'm in a conversation with somebody, I never tell them what I think. I just ask them questions. My goal is to get them to hear themselves say nonsense. How do you know somebody there's a virus? Well, the consensus of scientists is there's a virus.
So I ask them what percentage of scientists have to say there's a there's a virus before it's true? 98%. So if 3% say it's not true, then it's not true. Well, that's ridiculous. Or I say, how do you, how, what is a virologist? How do they go in and prove there's a virus? So they say, well, there's a consensus of virologists. So in other words, a virologist goes to work, puts on his hazmat suit, and they all sit around a table and they say, how many?
You think there's a virus? They all raise their hand. There we go. We got a new paper, new virus. That's how they do it. Well, no, they do an experiment. OK, what's the experiment? I don't know. So in other words, you believe that they're doing so, but you have no frigging idea what they did. That's like going to a car mechanic and saying, you know, I come to the red light and my car doesn't stop and I don't want wonder what's wrong. You think it could check my
brakes? And he says to you, what's a brake? And you think, I think I'm going to go to a different car mechanic? So again, if you say, OK, Tom, I, you know, I, Uncle Harry went to church and there was people who were coughing and then he got sick and then, you know, Aunt Hilda, she got sick and then the cat got sick and then we all got sick. So it must be a virus, right? That's what they say.
So I say to them, so you mean if two or more people or animals get same symptoms, same time, same place, that means something was transmitted from one to the other, Is that right? Yes, they say, OK, you put 100 rats in the basement, somebody puts rat poison in there. Next day, all 100 rats bleed to death. Same symptoms, same time, same place. That means rat poison is a contagion. Well, no, that's because we know
it was rat poison. So if you didn't know that they put rat poison, then you would know that it was a contagion. So in other words, if they did it and didn't tell you they were putting rat poison, then you could say it was a contagion instead of just rat poison. So what happens then, do you think, in a situation like a chicken pox party? Right. So Daniel Reutus, a friend of mine, has written a book Can You Catch a Cold?
So people have for 100 years looked at do well people or sorry, sick people or animals make well people or animals sick. Because obviously you can't tell, right? That's why, say the rat example, you can't. You don't see a virus, you don't see transmission, you don't see one child making another child sick. All you see is same symptoms, same time, same place, and you don't know what the cause of that. So you can do it.
An experiment where you can take 100 children and then put ten children who allegedly have chicken pox, whatever that is, in the room. Same room, same teacher, same yelling at them, same food, same air, same everything. And then put ten well children and see if they get sick. And as far as I know, there is no study that shows that that's
how it happens. And when I tell people that they say well, but I got my, you know, and, and Hilda got sick and then I, I don't want another and Hilda story. I want a, a scientific demonstration that the only variable was the sick animal or the sick children making well animals or human sick. And as far as I know, that doesn't exist. Now, I think it's true that, you know, being around other people, like, you know, women menstruate
the same and we, we yawn. So animals and people communicate with each other in all kinds of ways, but transmission of contagious germs has been disproven. Disproven. So if you still believe that, it's not because it's because you're scientifically illiterate, basically. This entire discussion has focused on viruses, and people often ask yes, but what about bacteria and other germs? We can see them under a
microscope. So right, they they actually exist, which because again, if you go back to how do you find out a frog in this case, you go to a mouth or or skin and you can find bacteria, right? Simple. Now the next question, how do you prove that the hammer knocks in the nail? You take only the hammer and you hit a nail and see if it goes in the wall. And then you go like this with your hand, right? Because maybe it was just the hand doing that.
And then maybe you think nail go in doesn't go in, right? At least as far as every time I've tried that doesn't go in. And so it's only the hammer hitting the hammer, the nail with the hammer. So you do that with bacteria. It's very simple. You take only bacteria, not bacteria and arsenic like Pasteur did, not stinky air with TB bacteria like Coke did, you know right? Not other stuff. You don't hit the nail with the toolbox, you hit the nail with the hammer.
OK, so you take bacteria, any bacteria, expose those to, you know, healthy people, make them sick. Here's again a challenge for all your listeners. We don't know one study where that's been shown to be true. Doesn't happen. There is no study of an isolated bacteria making otherwise well people or animals sick. If you don't believe me, show me the study and I will come back on your show and say Yep, I was wrong. What was that whole story then about that?
What? Well, anthrax in an envelope or something. First of all, it was a story, right? And here's, you know, the anthrax. The interesting thing because they have normal anthrax, which is just spores of the bacteria. And then this goes even back all the way to Pasteur. They have enhanced anthrax because normal anthrax spores don't make anybody sick, but enhanced anthrax spores are mixed with arsenic and, and Jeremy, that's just, it's just
normal. That's just 'cause that helps the anthrax spores be healthy and grow and don't like, don't worry about it. It's not that arsenic does anything to you, even though you can actually show that you could powder arsenic and have the same thing happen without the anthrax, but don't worry about that. So they they put enhanced anthrax spores and lo and behold, people get sick. That's because it's the anthrax.
Somebody asked me a few days ago on X. OK, but will you let yourself be bitten by a dog with rabies? Well, firstly, no, I don't want to get bitten. But rabies? What do you make of that? I, I, I like rabies because all the medical doctors bring up rabies. So I, I happen, if you're can indulge me, I have my rabies facts 'cause I, I want to get the numbers, right, right. So here's the facts about rabies. So according to the CDC, right?
So the authoritative source, in the United States between 1980 and 1996, there was 32 patients who had rabies. Forget about is it a specific disease and all that which it isn't, but let's just say it is. Seven of those had an animal exposure. 25 of them have no recollection of being around or in any contact with any animal. In other words, 78% had nothing to do with an animal. Now then they looked from 1996 until 2024. I think it was maybe 2023, I'm
not sure. 37 human cases. 30 acquired in the US, 30 acquired in the US. Of those, 3028% said they never were exposed to an animal. So what the hell happened to them? Then they talk about if an animal drinks, you know, animals who are, have rabies allegedly, don't they? They are afraid of water. But if you put like arsenic or mercury in the water and it it burns their throat, they will be hydrophobic, right? So that's another thing. Now in the 1900s there was a
Philadelphia dog pound. 6000 vagrant dogs annually came to this dog # thousands of bites. Over 25 years over 150,000 dogs went through this place. 0 cases of rabies. In 1900s in the Hospital in London there was 2668 people bitten by dogs. 0 cases of rabies. Zero death, zero treatment in the 1900s Saint George Hospital in London, over 4000 dog bites were registered in the emergency
room. 0 cases of rabies the. The pathopnemonic hallmark in the brain of animals is called Negri bodies has been shown to be associated with many different conditions. Now the Pasteur Institute says there were 3000 cases of death from rabies. Every single one of them was treated with the vaccine. So what causes rabies? The vaccine? Well, they, they take an animal that's been poisoned, they take their saliva, essentially make a cell culture and inject that into you numerous times.
Now, what do I have to say about people who are bitten by angry dogs? First of all, I, I have once been bitten by an angry dog. It is not fun. That is the most, maybe one of the most terrifying experiences of my life. Not only that, but dogs, like cats and lions have amazing digestive powers. How do I know that? Cause I've seen my cat eat the head of a squirrel and I've seen it poop out basically nothing.
And so somehow it, it knows how to digest the skull of a squirrel, which is pretty strong digestive enzyme. So you take this dog that can digest ahead of a rabbit, right, if you let it and they inject their digestive enzymes in you. And that's, and it's a terrifying emotionally charged experience like you've never had in your life. That's going to cause some problems like breakdown of the tissue and you know, necrosis of your skin and muscle, etcetera.
And then the bacteria are going to come to clean up the mess. They're not causing an infection. They're just helping resorb the dead tissue. And so it's a problem, right? And you have to manage it and suck the poison out and etcetera. You know, and that's take some skill, but there is no rabies virus. Rabies has never actually been associated even with animal exposure, according to the CDC.
And as far as they know, historically nobody has died of rabies bite who wasn't treated with the rabies vaccine, especially the vets. They poison the animals with rabies shots. And I've seen healthy animals, you give them rabies shots and then a month, six months, a year later they're dead from usually neurological problems, seizures,
brain tumours, etcetera. It is a you know I didn't used to be an animal lover but now that I moved here and I have 4 cats and four goats, the what they do to animals is just makes me pissed off. But don't you sympathise a little bit because you were in that space for decades? I I should, but I don't. Yeah, I I know what you mean, right? I I was just as stupid and bamboozled as everybody else. We all were. So I should. Let's say that.
Based on what you're saying, Tom, therefore there is no such thing as an immune system. There is no such thing as an immune. You know, that's what's called in. I'm not an expert in logic, but I think it's called post hoc reasoning. In other words, you make a claim and then the claim gets falsified and then you have a fork in the road. You can either say, yeah, the claim was wrong and I got to look for something else, or you can make up another rationale to
keep the claim going. So originally with this, they said everybody who's exposed to a person with the virus gets sick. You get exposed to somebody with chicken pox, you get sick, right? Well, it turns out that's not the case. Everybody can see that. Some people maybe do and some people, most people don't. So why is that you falsified that claim? Well, that's because, Jeremy, you have an immune system, so it protects you from getting the the virus. And then you say, So what is the
immune system based on? It's based on antibodies, right? So you get chicken pox, you make antibodies to the virus, you never get the virus again. You never get chicken pox. You get measles, you get antibodies to the virus and you never get the measles again, right? We all heard that, so let me make that a principle. See if you agree. If you make antibodies, you're immune to the illness, IE immune to the virus.
OK, that's what they say. So then then you get the flu and you make antibodies, but then you get the flu next year. But that's because the virus was smart, unlike the measles one. That's a stupid virus. And the measles virus is smart, and it knows how to evade your antibodies. OK. And then 1984, the year I graduated medical school, I'm walking down the street. I hear Robert Gallo get on the television, say we found the cause of AIDS, right? It's an HIV virus.
How do we know? Because we found antibodies to the HIV virus in the blood of some people with AIDS. In other words, Jeremy, we all know that if you have antibodies to a virus, that means the virus is going to kill you. And I remember thinking to myself, wait a minute. I just spent four years learning that if I got antibodies, I'm
immune for life to the virus. And this bozo gets on the horn and says if I have antibodies that means the virus is going to kill me. Wait a minute, those both can't be true. Either it means I'm immune or it means the virus is going to kill me. No explanation of how come now antibodies mean you're going to get the virus is going to kill you, whereas before it meant you were immune for life. In other words, the whole thing
is nonsense. Do antibodies fall under the same problem as viruses that can't be seen? They've never been isolated, never been characterised, never been shown to do anything. So that's theoretical. They are theoretical molecules that were made up in order to convince people that in the beginning that you were immune and then the HIV thing turned that on its head. And so now it's turns out, Jeremy, you can either, if you have antibodies, it means you're either immune or you're not
immune. That's how that's that's makes sense, right? Because those are the only two options there are. If you if you touch fire, you'll either burn your hand or you won't. When somebody says I'm going to take more vitamin C so that I can get rid of this cold, I mean, what's going on there? Has anybody ever isolated vitamin CIE ascorbic acid from the biological fluids of any living person?
I I don't know, I suppose not. Well, see, that's the question now here's the here's the answer they say they have, just like they say with viruses and antibodies. And but then if you're a a savvy person, you ask them how did they isolate it? Right, 'cause people say all kinds of things. Same with hormones. Do you know how they isolate? You think you have testosterone in your body, of course, right? How did they isolate it from your from your body? You don't know.
No. So they took your blood or your testicle and they mixed it with some acids and then they ground it up and then they filtered it and then they centrifuged it. And then with testosterone, they washed it with acetone 7 times because when they wash it 6 times, they don't get anything. I, I'm very interested in the guy who decided to wash it 7 times instead of 6 times. He got a Nobel Prize for doing
that, by the way. And then I would ask him, how do you know that thing was there without washing it and centrifuging it, mixing it with the acids, etcetera. You know what the answer is? He has no idea. That's the same with Solskov too. I mean the patient #1. Yeah, you don't. How do you know it's there if you don't mix it with the acids and the acetone and all the rest of it?
Same with vitamin C. You take blood and you mix it with different acids and then alkalize and bases and buffers and then philtre it in, centrifuge it and then you get a powder and then you rehydrate it and then you've got ascorbic acid. And then if you ask them, how do you know that that thing was there in that form in the original person, right? Without, they have no idea. And then of course, they say, well, right. But Tom, you dumbass, you know you can't.
That's only way you can find it. I know that's the only way you can find it, which means you don't know whether it's there. It's a belief system, right? Because you can't control the experiment. You can't say, OK, I did it without mixing it with this acid and I got I got the same thing. You can't do that. So the only thing you could say honestly is I have no idea whether any of these hormones or vitamins or proteins are actually there while you're alive. I just there's no way to know
that. Fair enough. Now you can make a belief system and tell yourself a story that you do know it, but the fact of the matter is you don't. Now that's a problem. Now, just let me say I'm not saying that chemicals made in the laboratory don't have effects, right? But you can take somebody who's like sad, right? And you give them cocaine, that's a chemical made in a lab, and they feel better. Or an antidepressant. Or, well, that's complicated. Let's say cocaine. They feel happy.
And Jeremy, that proves that the reason people aren't happy is because they're cocaine deficient. Go back to the antidepressants bit. Well, there are no neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine. Same thing. Nobody has ever isolated them intact. There's not even any synapses in nerves. Those are the gaps where the neurotransmitters breach the synapse. And Hillman went through this in detail. The only way they can prove there's they can't take a picture of a synapse.
There's no way to do that. So they take a nerve, which is a tube. You can see a nerve and they dehydrate it. It's like taking a thread, right? And you dehydrate it and it breaks, and then it rolls up at the edges and there's a gap. And you say that's a synapse. And you say, let me see the synapse without dehydrating the tube because it's made of basically water. Well, no, you can't see it then. Well, how do you know it's there?
I mean. But of course, antidepressants are highly toxic, there's no doubt about that. No doubt about it, because there's no evidence that serotonin has anything to do with, quote, a disease. I mean, the whole disease categorization is, is antibiological. They say somebody who is persistently depressed. So I say, how long do you have to be depressed before you get a diagnosis of depression?
Six weeks. So if you're sad for five weeks and 23 hours, then you're fine, But if you're sad for six weeks, then you have a disease and you need Prozac. Like, that's not real. That is a arbitrage. It's like, you know, autism. That's a big thing. Now, how do you know somebody's autistic? Well, they flap their hand. Yeah. How? How often do they have to flap their hand? 10 * a minute.
So if you flap your hand 91269 then I don't do it anymore because I don't want to be diagnosed with autism. Like that is not a biological entity. That's an arbitrary designation, usually for political reasons. We have a very impoverished view of illness. Of life and thinking. We are bamboozled, actually schooled to learn how to obey and not to think.
And it was very successful. And we believe authority even though we have, we don't know how to ask them, you know, I mean, you can do this with nuclear weapons, for God's sake. How do you know there's a nucleus? I have no idea. Well, I do, and I looked at the study that they proved there was a nucleus and it's total nonsense. So how do you split something which doesn't exist? And, you know, on the face of it, they say these things that are infinitesimally small, right? Like an atom.
It can you, you, you blow it up or somehow, you know, manipulate it and it can blow up a city. I mean, if you think about that, on the face of it, you would say, I'm not sure I'm buying that. Like the only things I know that can blow up a city are like really big bombs, you know, and like hundreds of thousands of them. And I know that that works because I've seen it, but not something that's, you know, smaller than the smallest thing you can imagine. It's the same thing.
You know, they've got us believe it. You know, a lot of this all starts from physics. They, they have people believe in quantum physics right now, right? And they believe in what they call quantum duet by location. In other words, things are in two places at the same time, right? You've heard that. Yeah, like my house, right, 'cause I have a house. So I wanted to be in two places at the same time. That way I don't have to build a second house. So I asked a physicist.
He said, no, it's too big. OK, what about my dog? No, it's too big 'cause my dog is only in one place at the same time. I don't actually have a dog, but a cat. What about a bacteria? No, they're too big. They're only at the same place one place at a time. So when does it become the size that it it exists at two places at the same time? The answer is when it's too small to see. In other words, invisible. So how do you know it's not at 10 places at the same time if it's invisible?
Well. How can I follow your work? That's good, 'cause you know, it's, I mean, I, I try to make it into like a comedy show, but it's not really funny. I mean, it's a serious problem because you cannot build a healthy culture on a illiterate society. So the answer to your question, so Doctor Tom cowan.com and we have a new biology clinic where we actually treat people, not me, because I'm too far gone for that. We treat people based on these principles with with doctors who
know what they're talking about. So because when you go to a doctor, they're treating you based on disproven theories. You have an autoimmune disease. OK, show me the antibody that causes disease. No, we can't do that. I mean. All right, Tom Kahn, love chatting to you. Thank you for joining me in the trenches.