Q&A Webinar from May 20th, 2026

Tom opens this week’s webinar with updates from the Homesteading Life Conference in Missouri last week, where he met attendees and spoke alongside Doug and Stacy. He also reminds viewers that early bird pricing for the New Biology Experience at Polyface Farm ends on May 21st, 2026, and mentions that Cowan’s Community Corner is continuing to grow as a place for connection and discussion.

New Biology Experience link here.
Sign up for C3 here.

Highlights from this session include:
-Tom reviews several “doomsday” science headlines predicting the destruction of Earth, including collisions with Andromeda, black holes, and the sun swallowing Earth, questioning the assumptions behind long-range scientific predictions.
-A discussion of the “Boltzmann brain paradox,” where scientists speculate that memories and reality itself may be random illusions.
-Tom answers a question about water testing, suggesting testing for contaminants such as pesticides, glyphosate, arsenic, and coliform bacteria.
-A critique of the alpha-gal/tick narrative and Lyme disease theory, including comments on genetics, antibodies, and Borrelia.
-A discussion of leukemia and white blood cells, where Tom frames elevated white blood cells as the body’s response rather than the disease itself.
-Tom explains why he prefers fermented dairy products like kefir over plain raw milk, emphasizing traditional practices and personal experience over nutrient analysis.
-A discussion of high altitude and breathing, where Tom questions the oxygen explanation and references atmospheric charge differences.
-Tom revisits his critique of genetics and hereditary disorders, arguing that genes coding for proteins remains an unproven assumption.
-A discussion of artificial blue light and electromagnetic fields, emphasizing observational effects over reductionist explanations involving photons or melatonin.
-Tom critiques the concept of gain-of-function research, arguing that virology relies on manipulated cell culture experiments rather than isolated viruses.
-He closes with a discussion about fats and food quality, emphasizing whole food experience and traditional observations rather than isolated vitamins or nutrients.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Okay, welcome everybody. Today is another Wednesday webinar. I think today is May 20th, 2026. And thank you everybody for joining me. Uh so I was just this past weekend at the homesteading conference in Missouri with Doug and Stacy. It was great to meet them. Uh looked like a nice event. And I did a bunch of speaking and met a whole bunch of new people. So hopefully some of you may have been there, and I think it all was good, and we're grateful for all their support. And it was nice to connect in person. Uh, this is also the last chance. I think the early bird um pricing for the new biology experience in a few weeks at Polyface uh ends tomorrow, Thursday. So this is the last call for getting uh your early bird pricing for the new biology experience in June. And I uh after this last conference, I'll now be starting to put together what I want to say in my talk, and there'll be a bunch of other talks by the New Biology Clinic practitioners and uh enrichment specialists, and lots of good music and good food, and we hope to see everybody there. Um we're also uh s taking members for the um Collins Community Circle, and we'll put that uh how to sign up for that in the show notes, and that's all about trying to form connections between people and getting to know people and having talks at question and answers, which I'm already involved in, and uh more things as time goes on. So a lot happening here, and a lot of uh planting and garden mowing and weed whacking and weeding and all those things, and everybody otherwise as well. Okay, so today I just wanted to do a few um uh there's a theme for today's science news. These were sent to me by a friend, and uh I think you will see the theme, so uh let me share this. And I don't think I need to share the sound. So these are basically just some headlines that uh I was sent. And you'll see they're all on the same theme, and I have to open the link. So I'm just gonna read the title and you can probably guess what's right. So uh Earth's doomsday collision with the Andromeda Galaxy would happen later than we thought, but the Milky Way is still doomed. Uh so now it's it's believed it will happen in four point five billion years instead of I think two point five that they previously thought. Uh so that's the first headline. Uh the second headline is the doomsday clock, however, moves closer to midnight, threats from imaginary nuclear weapons, climate change, imaginary climate change, and AI. So they moved the clock that we're doomed uh closer to when we're all doomed. So that's the second headline. Uh is this the end? Earth will be swallowed by the sun? Scientists say it's only a matter of time. Um this is will happen in about five billion years. The earth will be pulled into the expanding sun and destroyed in a fiery blast. Uh this one is doom day scientists predict exact year Earth will turn into a giant black hole and warn of diesing rising dark energy levels. And this one I think says um it will happen sooner than we think. So one was later. And maybe it was this one. Yes, this one scientists revealed when life Earth will stop supporting life and it's sooner than you think. Uh so if you thought it was in three weeks, you're wrong, because it's in approximately two hundred and fifty million years. So this is way different than the four point five billion years of the previous one. So there you go. I guess my question is uh what person in their right mind would get into this as a research or pro uh a venture that they would spend their life studying exactly when in 2.5 or 4.6 or 3.3 billion years the earth is going to explode, burn up, uh, congeal into a black hole, or you name it, or blow us blow it, blow ourselves up. And one of the things that's so interesting about this is that all of these people in their models assume that the conditions on earth will be stable for the next two two or whatever billion years, which we know even from the last thousand years or 10,000 years or whatever has not been the case. I mean, we have trees that have quartz in their interior that they must have been growing like that, they didn't form after, like they say. So the conditions must have been very different. Uh, but none of that is taken into account. They assume that everything will be more or less the same, all the conditions. And interestingly, when you go into some things that have actually been dated, like there was some uh this story about the dating of a uh picture on a cave wall in South Africa, they happen to know that the drawing was made like 30 years ago by some art students, and the scientists came in and they dated it at something like 3.4 billion million years or so. So we know that all that carbon dating and radioactive dating, which all has so many assumptions built in that of how things decay and how atoms work, and that the conditions are always the same, it's all basically nonsense. Uh and then in the category of if you believe this, you'll believe just about anything. Uh what if your memories never happened? Scientists take a new look at the Boltzmann brain paradox. Uh, what if your entire past never happened? This is a uh unsettling idea by a new study by SFI professor and fractional faculty member Carlo Rivelli and physicist Jordan, whatever, and they revisit the Boltzmann brain hypothesis, which of course is a thought experiment. Uh that means they just made it up, that challenged physicists for over a century, and it comes from the work on entropy, a measure of disorder, and that if the universe exists for an extremely long time, random fluctuations could, in entropy, produce highly organized structure. In principle, of course, nobody has ever seen this, so it's all in their own mind. That could include something as complex as functioning brain, complete with detailed memories and perceptions. If that is the case, then what we experience as a coherent past might not be real. It could instead be a brief random event that only appears meaningful. Uh this stems from a deeper conflict within statistical uh physics, and that that is the time moves in only one direction. And again, I only ask what kind of person would spend their life thinking about stuff that obviously doesn't exist, and it's just the absolute height of nonsense, and so again, if you believe this, you'll probably believe just about anything. Okay. It seems like there's an endless supply of uh things that if you it's the scientists and the doctors and the physicists tell us if we believe that, well, you should believe just about anything. All right, so getting to the question and answers, I have 13 here. I'm not sure if we'll get to them all. I'm gonna try to be a little briefer this time. So the first one is a person is wondering what they should test for in the water. And I can't say I'm an expert on that. I know the Ophora Water Company uh looked into that a lot. And I think I've sort of changed my opinion about this as time goes on, like just about anything, or just about everything. And so the main thing that I would be interested in would be testing for contaminants, i.e., poisons, i.e., things like pesticides and glyphosate and stuff like that. Um, if you test for bacteria or coliform counts, then they might tell you that the coliform count, that is, the E. coli, is high, and therefore the water will make you sick. And I would say there's some truth in that, um, not because the E. coli themselves will make you sick, but that is a sign that the water has been contaminated with feces, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that you shouldn't be eating water that has been contaminated with feces. So I guess I would test them for uh bacteria or coliform count, and I would test for uh, you know, any kind of toxicology that they do, and I know that's what O'Forah did. And then you could say, should you test for things like minerals? And I think there's some interesting things with drinking silica water. I tend to do that uh a little bit on and off, but one of my favorite is the expensive one called Antipodes. And I alternate that between between that spring water, which is high in silica, and uh local spring, which I, as far as I know, has never been tested, at least that I know of. So I would probably do simple tests. I would do uh toxicology would be the first one, looking for any obvious uh pesticide, glyphosate, contaminant, uh any arsenic, any you know, known uh toxin in the water, then probably coliform, and then the mineral content, particularly looking at the silica content, which is sort of the only one that I really look at, um, and because I like drinking silica-rich water. Okay, the next question is about uh alpha gal and ticks. And the main thing I want to say for that is I uh that Sam Bailey, Sam and Mark Bailey, I have done a number of shows on ticks, Lyme disease, and specifically on Alpha Gal. Alpha Gal means that uh that basically there is a IgE, which is one of the so-called immunoglobulins, uh, or another word for antibodies, that causes uh when you have a IgE high level to the sugar that's in meat, uh alpha, gal, galactus, something or other, um, then you can get an anaphylactic reaction to eating meat. And this is somehow caused by being bitten by a tick. And I believe that the mechanism is the tick somehow modifies your genome or uh causes a alteration in one of the genes, which creates a different protein, which then makes you make antibodies to meat, and then you can have an uh anaphylactic reaction. And they uh very clearly dissect every one of those claims and shown them all to be basically nonsense. Uh, I would only point out that the whole idea of modifying the genome is never been shown to be the case. Uh in fact, it's even basically nonsense on the on its on the face of it, because nobody can propose a mechanism where you somehow inject some gene product or enzyme under your skin or into your skin, and somehow that finds its way into the tissues, into the cell, into the nucleus, splices itself into the DNA, creates an alteration in the expression of the DNA, which creates an abnormal protein, which creates an abnormal immunoglobulin, which creates the anaphylactic reaction. And each one of those steps has actually not been shown to happen, including the fundamental one of the genes actually coding for specific proteins or specific antibodies or antibody specificity, meaning that this antibody is specific to this one carbohydrate only found in meat. And so the whole thing is basically molecular uh nonsense. So, and a lot of this, of course, is a big subject in the whole subject of ticks and Lyme disease, and people are always asking me uh about Lyme disease. So, to be clear, uh, there is the possibility of getting sick by being bitten by a tick or by any venomous insect or animal that should happen to bite you. Usually what happens is they inject certain substances into you, particularly that have an anticoagulant effect, which is why you get essentially bleeding into your skin and the kind of rash. Uh, that is interpreted as an infection with an organism called borelia, and then the people are given an antibiotic, and that starts them off in a lifetime of being sick. There's also the psychological uh you know fear and gaslighting that's involved in that, uh, telling people they've been affected by a weaponized tick that somehow modifies your genome and has been organized so that it can make you sick. Uh, and like I pointed out many times, as far as my uh looking into it, there's not one study that shows that the borelia organism or babesia or any of the other things that are the so-called co-infections have ever been isolated and shown to cause disease in any living human or animal. So the whole thing is basically a house of cards and just another fear narrative that they use to control the population. Okay, this is an interesting question about what is the role of white blood cells in particular, and maybe red cells, and this is especially in reference to leukemia. So, leukemia is defined as the situation in which there is an elevation and usually a dramatic elevation in the number of white blood cells found in the person's blood. And they're categorized as to the so-called genetic mutation or the alteration in the chromosome, which gives rise to these particular kinds of white blood cells or the particular characteristics of the white blood cells, and each of the different types has a different prognosis and often a different treatment. And what's interesting about this is that any doctor or anybody who knows anything about this subject, if you ask them, so why do we have white blood cells? They would make the claim that the white blood cells are part of your immune system. They're actually part of your, they say, your innate immune system, which is the part that you're born with, and they're basically nonspecific, and they act like sort of garbage collectors, and they uh they identify and enzymatically and physically destroy invaders such as fungus and bacteria and imaginary viruses from our blood and from our tissues. So everybody agrees that the function of the white blood cells is to help protect you mostly physically, by it's sort of like the Pac-Man image of the Pac-Man, the little things that gobble up the debris and the garbage and the stuff that shouldn't be in your blood and cells and tissues. And they're uh non-specific as opposed to the specificity of the antibodies. Now, we all know that all that is uh basically not true, but there is the the part that's not true is the specificity of the antibodies. But it is possible that we have these garbage collection systems and we have these uh specialized structures, which are called white blood cells, whose job it is to uh identify and digest and eliminate the unwanted stuff from our blood tissues and cells. So that's where it gets interesting because if you say, okay, so now you have instead of 10,000 per cubic centimeter, I think it is, you have a hundred thousand per cubic centimeter. In other words, you've got a lot more of these white blood cells than a normal person. So that then is interpreted as a disease, and the disease is called leukemia. Uh, one could very well ask the question well, uh, if you have a lot more white blood cells, maybe that's because you have a lot more garbage. So your body, in its wisdom, decided to make many more garbage collection systems, and that's why you have a dramatically increased white blood cell count, hence the diagnosis of leukemia. In other words, like everything that we talk about, the thing that we see and the thing that we test for is not actually the disease, it's the body's creative and wonderful response to another situation. In other words, you were poisoned by what? So that could be a whole lot of things, you know, metals and vaccines and pharmaceuticals and emotional toxicity, psychological fear, bad food, bad water, no sun, no earth, no all that stuff. So you didn't get what you needed. Uh so you're Uh starving, and then you're also poisoned. I would say usually from the injections like vaccines, but it also could be food and pesticides and lots of other things, pharmaceuticals. And so now you've got all this toxic debris in your blood. So a reasonable response would be to uh produce more white blood cells, which are the garbage collection system. That's certainly not a disease, that's the therapy for being poisoned. And then if you just stop being poisoned and you let the white blood cells do their job, they will naturally come back to normal. And that seems to be in many cases what happens provided you can identify the poison or the situation, or you could even say, in our terms, the story that your white blood cells are responding to. The main point I want to make is that the white blood cell elevation, i.e., the leukemia, is not the disease, it's the therapy, it's the response. And once you see it like that, you end up with a whole different way of thinking about it and a whole different course of action. Uh, one of which I think will end up having a much better outcome than the typical treatments for leukemia, which is basically just poison you worse, and you poison the ability of your body to actually make the white blood cells. So you essentially give bone marrow poisons, which is supposedly the site where we make these, and so then the numbers come down and then you're cured, and then it comes back and you're not cured because the problem has not been dealt with. And again, the interesting part of this is all the doctors agree and acknowledge that the white blood cells are the response. You know, if you're if they if you have a if they wonder whether you have an infection, they check your white blood cells. If it's high, that means it's you're infected. Nobody in that situation thinks that you have what elevated white blood cell disease. You have a response. If you have pain in your right lower quadrant of your abdomen, they're wondering if you have an appendicitis. They check your white blood cell count. If it's elevated, they say something's happening in your appendix and you have an inflammation or slash infection. Nobody says you have elevated white blood cell disease in your belly. But somehow when it gets high enough and they don't see what the poison is or where the quote infection is, then they switch without any explanation, and now they call it the disease. Okay, next one. Uh what is the uh cost-benefit of ferment uh consuming fermented versus raw milk? So I've often uh said that I basically don't drink raw milk, but I eat a lot of raw milk products, uh, and that mostly it's because I make my own kefir. And the way I do that is I make kefir and then I put about a quarter of that uh old kefir into a new uh jar, and then I pour raw milk on top of that, either from a goat or from a cow, and then often I'll put some raw cream in there and stir it up just to thicken it, and I drink probably a couple cups of that, and I eat raw cream and raw butter and those sort of things, but I don't uh consume just plain raw milk. So why is that? Uh for me it's just that I like it better. That makes uh that means a lot to me. I have learned to trust how it feels and how it seems, so I like the taste and the sense of drinking pretty thick raw milk kefir. And by the way, you can do uh make kefir out of raw milk, whereas I know some people say you can make yogurt, but that's never worked for me. I think yogurt you is uh a a much less hardy culture, so you need to heat treat the milk first to make the best yogurt. I know some people disagree with that, but that's been my experience. Um so I like the taste, and I sometimes don't feel as good drinking plain raw milk as drinking fermented milk, and it basically goes back to the idea, which is at the heart of traditional diets, which is use the bowl as your first stomach, as the first way to digest things. So I do that with a lot of foods. I do it with cabbage and I ferment it and make sauerkraut. So that's just breaking down the cabbage before I have a chance to eat it, which to me makes it taste better and makes it more nutritious and just makes it easier to digest so I can do other things like doing webinars. Uh, I do that with sometimes meat and uh sometimes other foods. And I think the more foods um you can pre-digest, the less energy you have to take, you have to use to digest your food, and the more energy you have to do other things in life, which is kind of the point. And so that's why I choose to uh use fermented instead of raw milk. Uh, the other thing is I think most traditional diets, particularly adults, not so much children, children seem to do better with raw milk and don't necessarily need it fermented. But as far as I can see, like the Maasai and most of the milk drinking really traditional cultures that uh Price studied, I think it's fair to say that most, if not all, of them pretty much exclusively only drank fermented dairy products. I mean, it was their way of preserving and storing uh food. And having lived in Africa for two years, I know that no African that I met ever drank raw milk, they said, or any kind of milk. They said it was bad for you, but they certainly drank emasi and other fermented cultured milk products, which they thought was great for them. And so that's how I evaluate things. What did people do? How did it work for them? What do I like, and how does it work for me? I don't bother to get into whether there's lactoferin or this bacteria or that bacteria. None of that means anything. It's just uh who did it, how did they do it, what happened to them, and then same with me. Do I like it? How do you do it? Where do you get the milk from? What does it taste like? What happens when I drink one or the other, and I go from there? So it's all about uh not stuff, it's all about experience and observation, not about making a story up in your mind. Okay, next question, also I think an interesting question. Uh I've talked about that we don't uh the reason we breathe is not to get oxygen from the air. So this question goes uh along with that. If we're not getting oxygen from the air, what happens at high altitude? Or why is it uh different and sometimes more challenging to catch one's breath at high altitude? Um so this is also a good example of the thing that I keep harping on with people, which is what do you see versus what did you conjure up as an explanation in your mind? And so we have a lot of stuff that we're told, but what is it that you see? So I think it's fair to say that people often, unless they're have adapted themselves or you could say got used to living or being at high altitude, feel more short of breath and maybe more tired, and they have the sensation of struggling to catch their air, to catch their breath, and this happens more at high altitudes than it does at say sea level. So that's that's the observation that you see. Now, at no point in that observation did you actually see oxygen or have any experience of oxygen. That's a story that you've been told. Um and one of the principles of good thinking and good reasoning and even so-called science is if there's more than one explanation for something, you can't use that as proof that you've discovered the cause. And the example I give is if your spouse is late for work, coming home from work, and you say, well, they must be having an affair, which of course could be, but they also could have had a flat tire, they could have gone out with a friend to have supper, they could have needed to stay late at work, they could add an emergency at work that made it so everybody had to stay. You could make 20 or 30, probably other reasons why somebody would come home. So that doesn't prove that um that they're having an affair, and that should be obvious to anybody. So the fact that you're struggling to breathe short of breath, even maybe lightheaded or don't feel so good, does not prove that the mechanism is oxygen. That would have to be proven in some other way. Uh, and one other possible explanation, and I'm not necessarily claiming that this is correct, but the whole point that Jerry Pollack was making is that what we really get from the air is this charge. Now he would call it a negative charge, or you might even call it an electron, but we know there's no such thing as electron. But there is a charge which we have in the air, and the charge is actually has a downward direction. And so there's a higher charge at the ground level at sea level than there is 10,000 feet up uh altitude, say up in a mountain. Uh you can measure that, it's a simple measurement with a voltmeter, and that gives a so-called downward bias to just about anything, because everything is charged. Now, what that means is there's less charge to um absorb at higher altitudes, and since what we're saying is one of one of the, if not the most important reasons, or certainly one of the reasons you feel tired, etc., is that your battery is low, you're running out of charge, that at higher altitudes it would be harder to extract that charge from the air, hence all the symptoms that you see. Now, I don't want to make that as a claim, and therefore everybody will um who wants to do it will critique this. This is another possible explanation, and maybe there's many more possible explanations, but certainly uh we know that the oxygen thing has not been demonstrated. There's a lot of reasons to say that we don't um absorb oxygen uh and that we do absorb a charge, and that is a perfectly plausible explanation for all the phenomena that you see. Uh but I'm also very comfortable with saying, uh, well, we know it can't be oxygen, that's been falsified, and so we don't exactly know, and so we don't want to make an alternative claim, and then people say, Well, I uh evaluate which claim is more likely because it's possible neither are more likely. That doesn't mean it's oxygen. Just like people say that uh when we say there's no evidence of a chickenpox virus, next thing they say is, so what causes chicken pox? You could easily get that part wrong. That doesn't mean there's a virus. Uh hopefully that's clear to everybody by now. Uh next question people ask is what about a genetic disorders? And I've said many times that the whole genetic thing is basically uh a bunch of hooey. Um and the reason I say that is there's a lot of reasons which I've been over, but the one I mostly am harping on now is that the whole way you would get a disorder from a change in the a gene. So let's define our terms. A gene is a segment of nucleotides that lives as part of the long molecule string called DNA. Uh now people in the genetics world are arguing about what a gene is, where it stops and starts. Then they figure out, well, let's call it this, and then they say there's 10 to 20,000 genes and 200,000 or so proteins, which means the whole principle of genetics, that the genes code for individual unique proteins, has essentially been falsified because there's 180,000 or 80,000 or some huge number of proteins which seem not to even have a gene. And the second one, as I've said many times, is that when I looked for the original paper that proved that these segments of DNA, i.e. genes, code for specific unique proteins, I kept getting referred back to a paper by Crick, uh, who uh that was one of the titles of the paper, and I could get it there in a minute if you want. Um and he clearly says in there that this theory uh that genes code for specific proteins is purely an assumption. And if they started with that assumption and then made the whole thing about the amino acids and the redundant code, and they had to uh jigger it so that they could get it to work because there was too many combinations for the amount of amino acids they said they could find. And, anyways, they've never actually isolated or found a nucleotide. And so the whole thing is just another example of make-believe science. So uh again, if you stick to the question, what do you see? You see somebody who doesn't seem to conform to the normal healthy human pattern. And this could be for a lot of reasons, or there could be a lot of variations on that. Could be a congenital heart abnormality, it could be a facial deformity, it could be an intellectual thing, it could be a whole lot of things. Uh, that's what you see. You don't see anything to do with genes or genes coding for proteins or mutations. Now, they can find those in some cases, but it's never 100% of the people with this have this mutation. There's also always, and I've been through many of these, some of the people have it, some people have the variations, they then they have to make up the reason why, if it's caused by this mutation, some of the people with the exact same symptoms don't have the mutation, so then they get into the variants, and the whole thing uh goes down so many different permutations where they do these post hoc rationalizations, just trying to squeeze this story into the box. Uh, it's much better to say we don't really understand the mechanism of heredity. Nobody is saying that people don't get born with things that are so-called abnormal or at least different, and that they may not even run in families, and there you may look like your father and even act like your father or mother, etc. And there's all kinds of things that seem to run in families about uh attitudes and behaviors and physical appearances, and that is a hugely complex subject, which as far as I can see, nobody really understands, and it just is one of the mysteries of what it means to be a human being. I can tell you that even I think one of the reasons why it's so hard to find this, and this is just a suspicion that I have, is that I don't think the information for uh who you are or your appearances or anything to do with you as a human being actually can be found inside the in the physical substance of the organism. I think the information is in the surrounding area, the sort of the field, whatever that is, and we actually uh download that information and it interacts with uh the water and the minerals and the air and the fire to create what we call you. And there can be all kinds of reasons why there's something didn't happen properly in that downloading process, and that is what we call genetic diseases. Uh again, I can't prove that. That's just uh me making up a story, but I think the one of the problems is we keep looking for the origin of the sound in the radio, and we've dissected the radio until down to every last piece, and we just cannot find the sound, and the reason is because the sound doesn't come from inside the radio, and it doesn't seem like we're ever gonna get that, but some of us probably will. So, why is artificial blue light harmful if not melatonin and photons? Uh so it seems like we're developing a theme here. So again, uh we can uh have observations that sitting in front of a computer or being exposed too often too long, too intensely to the light from a screen uh has been at least correlated with certain negative effects. And that's something you can also observe sometimes, and you can sometimes feel it. And so there is something about uh screen uh exposure and exposure to any uh non-native electromagnetic field, including lights, and I think we know that light has a huge impact on who we are and how we feel and all kinds of things. But we don't see photons and we don't see melatonin. These are the stuff that we conjure up in our mind. So I would go, and even though again I don't know the proper explanation, all I can say is the observation is that non-native electromagnetic fields and non-native artificial light sources seem to be associated with things that you would rather not happen. Why is that? Um, you know, it seems like we have grown and we are sort of created to be consumers of the light that's in our natural world, which means sunlight and moonlight, which are different, um, and the light that emanates from plants, and just the ambient light and the light that emanates from people, and uh incandescent lights, which are sort of mimicking sunlight. And what they all have in common is they're very complex. They're not like single frequencies. There's not a single frequency that comes from moonlight. Or we actually emit light too, and there's not it's not like you're emitting a single frequency. Uh this light emission. From living beings can be uh photographed, it can be analyzed, it can be measured. So I think we could say that it's a real phenomena, but again, it's a complex mixture of different types of light. You could use the word frequencies, and maybe that's appropriate, but even that may be too analytical. It's just it's not a single sort of frequency or wavelength of light. But the more you get into so-called artificial light, the more uh single frequency, high intensity you you're being exposed to. And that creates physiological pathological effects based on who knows what, maybe the interaction with water and maybe the excitation of the structure of the water that's different and abnormal and unusual and actually not healthy for you. So again, uh, if we stick to what we can see, we see that natural light, sun, moon, other living beings seems to have a uh health-restoring, health-giving beneficial effect. Artificial light seems to have the opposite effect, and I think the difference lies in the complexity. Uh this question is sort of like the genetic. Why do we resemble our parents if not mutations or genetics? Um and again that what we see is a resemblance and what we see is a family connection. Uh, we don't see the genetic part. That is a uh conjured up scientific theory which has lots of flaws, including the foundational flaw of do genes really code for proteins? And how come there are so many proteins and and not the genes? So we don't really know and I get uh why people resemble and have similar traits, uh, why unicorns create unicorns and frogs create frogs and humans create humans. Um, but I think it's something to do with the information that comes from outside of us, and it's not something that you could actually find physically, even if you dissected yourself down chemical to chemical, atom to atom.

unknown 46:46

Okay.

SPEAKER_00 46:48

Uh next question is what about gain of function? Uh is that real? And obviously, we've been over this uh also many times, we've been over most things. Um one of the just to try to think of something different to say about it, one of the things that's so interesting to me about this conversation because particularly that's become the alternative narrative. In other words, whenever you want to sell people on a story, you have to sell them the normal story, and then you have to sell them the uh alternative story. Otherwise, the people who are skeptical of the normal story start looking into it and they find they may find out what's real. So that's the virus story. It's either a naturally occurring virus like COVID, the SARS-CoV-2 from the bats or something, or it's an engineered virus, and so the health freedom community picks up the engineered virus, and they say they caught them red-handed and they got them, and they uh caught these uh nasty people creating viruses that are going to kill us, and so many people, the pandemic and Martin and all those people sold us that story for many years. Uh everybody knows that. Uh, what's interesting, and I've had the opportunity to ask many of these people because I've run into them at various types of meetings or email, and I always ask the same question. So, how did they do that? How did they gain the function of a virus? Uh, can you explain the methodology, the method section? Because again, I don't want to know what anybody thinks about anything pretty much anymore. Uh, I want to know what they did. So if you say that guy, uh, what's his name from North Carolina, um, Ralph Barrick, created this gain of function or Wuhan Institute of Virology, how did they do it? What did they actually do? There's some guy with the tweezers and he found and isolated some coronavirus, and then he got the tweezers and he took out the vet the DNA from the coronavirus or the RNA from the coronavirus. Sorry, they don't have DNA, the RNA, and they stuck a piece of RNA in there with the tweezers, and then they put some scotch tape and some glue, and they got it to stick together, and that caught that took and that became the genome of the new virus. Is that how they did it? And to every single person that I've asked, the answer is I have no idea. Now, some of them don't like to admit it because uh it's obviously embarrassing to not know you've spent you know so many uh so much of your political capital and your storytelling and your movies and everything you're doing is based on this gain of function, catching the bad guy's red-handed narrative, and you can't even come up even with a with a bogus story about how they did it. Uh so they don't know how they did it. And so when you go back to looking at actually what did they do, which you would think they would all do, it's very simple. Uh they took cell cultures because that's how they, quote, grow viruses, and that's how they quote isolate viruses, which we know is neither isolation nor growing of any virus. There's no virus in this story. So, anyways, they take the cell culture, in other words, they take snot from somebody or or some tissue or fluid from somebody who they say has a coronavirus, and they put that on a cell culture, and then it breaks down, and they say that's the co that's the coronavirus. When they gain the function, they add some extra segments of what they're calling uh RNA or DNA into the culture medium, and then they add something they call plasmids, which they say uh take these pieces of RNA or DNA and go into the uh virus and somehow splice them into the genome of the virus. Now they can't identify the plasmid, they can't identify this process, they just claim that this is what's happening. Uh, but that's not what's happening. All they're doing is putting some extra chemicals into the cell culture, and surprise, surprise, they get different results when they don't than if they didn't put the chemicals in. And so they have a different quote, genome because they have a different result, because they put different uh material that they call nucleotides, which they then align into the genome. And obviously, if you put different words on a piece of paper, you'll get different sentences. And that doesn't mean you spliced or did any of that genetic stuff. It just means that you put more chemicals or different chemicals in than the normal people, and that's called gain of function. So it has nothing to do with viruses, has nothing to do with making people sick, it's just uh virological nonsense. Uh, and the other dead giveaway of this is if you ask any of these people, and I've asked many of them, so how did they uh uh spread this around the world? They don't know. And it's an amazing how it didn't work so well, right? Because not, you know, if they had an effective gain of function virus, they should have been able to kill everybody or something. Uh, but it didn't work that well. They don't know how it's spread, how they introduced it into the population, they don't know how it's made, and so it's all just a distraction. It just to get you to think here are the two possible narratives. You get to choose one. Uh chicken pox are either caused by a virus or it's caused by an engineered virus. Never mind whether there is chicken pox or whether there is a virus, that's the question you're not allowed to answer or sorry, to ask, and that's the only question that actually means anything. Uh okay, maybe last one. Why are fats good if not fat-soluble vitamins? So it's the same thing. You don't see any vitamins, you don't see any vitamin A. You know, people say, Oh, I uh I ate or I ate a lot of cholesterol today, or I ate a lot of saturated fat today. So being the smart alec that I am, I always ask him, so what does saturated fat taste like? And then you see the blank look. What do you mean? Well, you said you ate saturated fat. Usually, if I eat a food, I can say, Well, this egg I mean tastes like an egg. I don't know what it tastes like really. Uh, but they don't know. And they say, Well, obviously, I didn't I didn't eat saturated fat, I ate butter. And so uh we know what butter tastes like, although it's probably hard to describe. So you don't see the saturated fat, you don't see the cholesterol, you don't see the vitamin A. All you see is there's fat, uh, and you can sort of have a sensory impression of what fat is as opposed to uh some other kind of food. Um, you can also burn fat, which you can burn uh non-fatty foods too, but uh there's certain qualities that distinguish that are readily uh apparent to you know to anybody, and so that's what you're eating. Now you have certain fats like our current chickens who seem to be great at foraging, and they get really orangish yellow eggs, and so isn't that fat-soluble vitamins? And I would say again, you don't see the fat-soluble vitamins. What you see is when uh chickens eat grass and worms and bugs and insects, they make yellow-orange eggs, which seem to be really tasty and seem good to eat, and they hold together really well all the characteristics that you would call a good food. Uh, and that's because they seem to eat more eggs and grass and uh worms than other chickens. Uh, how why is that good for you? Uh, because people have been eating food grown by the healthiest animals, and that's when they do better, and then when they eat food that's grown by uh putting chickens in cages and never feeding them grass or worms, and they have very pale egg yolks and they're sickly, then the people or the animals who eat that uh don't do very well. And what is it in it? Uh, we don't even go to the question of what is in it. Uh you don't even know there's something in it, something that's made, it's a part of it. That's already you're uh you're in a reductionistic, materialistic mindset. Uh it's like uh again, the question: what is a banana made of? It's got a peel, it's got a banana stuff, and sometimes some strings, and you eat them because that's a traditional food and you feel good and you like it, or you don't eat it because you don't like it, and it doesn't make you feel good. That's the strategy of how to use food as a therapeutic healing device. Uh, so I don't I would say eggs are or chickens that lay that eat good food, like I just described, uh, they the people who consume them seem to have healthier, stronger, more active lives, and that's a good thing. And I'm just gonna sort of leave it at that. Okay, thanks everybody for listening, and I hope you have a great week, and hopefully, I will see you in a few weeks.