Understanding Our Current Health Crisis

🖨️ Print post

Note: This article is adapted from an episode of the Wise Traditions Podcast with host Hilda Labrada Gore and guest Dr. Tom Cowan (episode 235; April 3, 2020). Please be sure to read Tom’s post-podcast insights and comments included in an addendum at the end of the article.

I’d like to begin this article with a few disclaimers. First, I want to be absolutely clear that my comments are my personal reflections only. I am not speaking on behalf of any group, not even the Weston A. Price Foundation. Second, I am neither a virologist, immunol­ogist nor epidemiologist. I’m simply a general practice medical doctor who has thought about, studied and read about the world in relation to health and medicine almost every day for the last thirty-six years.

I am not privy to knowing what is going to happen with this Covid-19 situation. I don’t know how many people are going to die or how long this is going to last. I’ve never treated anybody in my practice with this. So, while I have comments about what may be helpful, I don’t have any treatments or prescriptions. I’m just explaining how I see the world, for those who may be interested. The world I want to live in is a world where people can say things without fear of attack—some will be correct and some will be incorrect, and that’s just life.

People who know me know that I’m no stranger to controversial topics—controversy is sort of my middle name. In my 2016 book, Hu­man Heart, Cosmic Heart,⁷ I tried to demonstrate that the heart cannot possibly be a pump, even though everyone thinks it is. One of the things I looked at was the quality of water. I would submit that the person who knew the most about water—probably ever—was Viktor Schauberger. A quote from Schauberger that I included at the beginning of my book may be even more appropriate now: “People may say I’m crazy; perhaps they are right. In this case, it is not so important that there is one fool more or less in the world. But in case I am right and science is wrong, Lord have mercy on mankind.”

ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS

The first question to ask when the medical community or the human race—or both—are confronted with a new set of symptoms is, “How do we know that this new set of symptoms is from an infectious disease?” That is a fundamental question and what I refer to as the first layer.

Some people say, “If a bunch of people have the same symptom(s) in one place at the same time, that proves it’s an infection.” I would submit that that’s not true. Consider two examples. In 1945, the U.S. dropped a bomb on Hiroshima. About half a million people died from the same symptoms—and that was clearly not an infection. Something similar happened with Chernobyl. There was an explosion, and then a kind of “disease” started to spread across Europe. People got sick, and some died, yet I think all would agree that people were poisoned by radiation, not an infection.

Sometimes people ask, “Why did three people in my house all get sick with the same symptoms?” There could be hundreds of different explanations for that, and perhaps an infection is one of them. My point is that the same symptoms in the same place and time are not scientific proof of infection.

The question then becomes, “How do we prove that it is an infec­tion?” German physician and microbiologist Robert Koch offered an answer to this question—Koch’s postulates—over a century ago. Koch developed his postulates in the late nineteenth century to explain how to determine whether a given microbe is the cause of a given disease.

To illustrate the postulates, let’s look at an example. Let’s say you have symptoms such as high fever, rash and a stiff neck—you’re sicker than you’ve ever been. If nothing is done, you die in two or three days. That’s the classic symptom story for something called meningococcal men­ingitis, a kind of meningitis caused by bacteria called meningococcus. [Note: For additional reflections on Koch’s postulates, please read the addendum at the end of this article.]

Koch’s first postulate says that everyone has more or less the same symptoms and that any reasonable doctor could diagnose that ill­ness based on those symptoms. The second postulate says that if you examined the blood of five hundred people with those symptoms, 100 percent of them would grow out the menin­gococcus bacteria in their blood. Not 30, 80 or even 99 percent—but 100 percent. Otherwise, they don’t have meningococcus. It turns out that having meningococcus growing in your blood is not compatible with walking around, so postulate number three says that people who are walking around can be presumed to be fine. People with meningococcus growing in their blood don’t walk around, so, zero percent of those walking around would have meningo­coccal bacteria growing in their blood. Finally, postulate number four says that if you take that meningococcus, purify it, inject it into another person (which you wouldn’t want to do) or into an animal (which the animal wouldn’t want you to do), 100 percent of those injected will get sick and will have the same symptoms. If you then grow the meningococcus out of their blood and transfer that to another animal, the same thing happens and so on. That’s how Koch said we prove infectious etiology—an infectious cause and effect.

VIRUSES AND KOCH’S POSTULATES

What is a virus? A virus is a piece of DNA or RNA and a few other proteins, encapsulated by a piece of your own cell. A virus is a billionth of a centimeter—too small to be seen under a normal microscope. To look at a virus, one needs an electron microscope, which was not invented until the early 1930s.

Consider a common viral disease like chick­enpox. More or less everybody with chickenpox has the same set of symptoms—fever, feeling crummy but not horrible and getting vesicular rash (which means oozing bubbles). After seven to ten days, the person gets better. One hundred percent of those people will have literally mil­lions of copies of the virus in their blood. They will also have thousands and maybe millions of copies of the virus in their vesicular fluid. Applying Koch’s postulates to the chickenpox virus, the steps would involve obtaining a puri­fied culture of the virus, exposing an animal, producing chickenpox symptoms, obtaining more chickenpox virus from that animal, expos­ing the next animal and so on.

That’s what should have happened in this current coronavirus situation but, as far as I know, didn’t. First, there are no particularly characteristic symptoms. People may have a low-grade fever and a dry cough. However, lots of people—who might have the flu, a cold, asthma or a reaction to air pollution—have low-grade fevers and dry coughs. Unlike with meningococcus or chickenpox, that vague set of symptoms doesn’t really help with diagnosis.

Let’s say you have five hundred people with these symptoms in a city somewhere in China and you say, “Okay, we think this is a different kind of dry cough and low-grade fever.” Know­ing about how one proves infectivity, you might reasonably assume that scientists examined the blood of these five hundred people and demon­strated that they all had millions of copies of this new coronavirus in their blood or lung tissue. As far as I know, not only did that not happen with five hundred or one hundred or ten people—I’m not sure it happened with anybody.

Instead, they took people’s respiratory sputum and examined it under an electron microscope, but if you look at someone’s respiratory secre­tions, there will be a lot in it. I’ve seen the pictures, which show a coro­navirus but also all kinds of other things—viruses, debris and proteins. They essentially looked at that coronavirus under a microscope and said, “This has different genetic material than usual,” and knowing that the genetic material of coronaviruses is RNA instead of DNA, they said, “we think this is a new coronavirus.” Fair enough. They may have seen a new virus. In fact, they probably did—but they didn’t demonstrate that this new virus is present in millions of copies in everybody with the disease.

If I were the disease investigator, I would next have said, “Show me five hundred symptom-free people of approximately the same age and the same health status.” In other words, you have to have a group that is similar to the five hundred people who are sick. Once you have your control group, you want to see how many of them have an example of this coronavirus in their respiratory secretions or blood. According to Koch’s postulates, it should be zero. But as far as I know, not only was that not done with five hundred controls, it was not done with one hundred or even ten controls. Again, it was not done with anybody. That’s a problem.

I’ve read the original articles postulating that this coronavirus was a new infection. The articles say, “We did not attempt to purify the virus.” What does that mean? It means they took the respiratory secretions con­taining this new coronavirus—but also possibly ten or a million other viruses and a whole lot of toxic stuff—and they injected it down the throat or in the nose of some animals, and some of the animals, not all, got sick. In fact, in one study they couldn’t get normal mice sick—so-called “wild mice”—so they used genetically defective mice, and those mice got sick when injected with this unpurified snot. That doesn’t sound like proof to me.

DIFFERENT CONDITION, SAME STORY

Let me give you another example (and you can find meticulous ref­erences for this in Virus Mania; see sidebar below). In the late 1800s, a new disease involving paralysis of the limbs started showing up par­ticularly in children but sometimes in adults. Nobody knew what it was. It appeared at the same time that people started spraying orchards with a chemical called lead arsenic. When scientists did pathology exams and autopsies, they found that a certain part of the nervous system (the anterior horn cells of the spinal cord) was affected and was leading to the paralysis. Lead arsenic is a specific toxin for that part of the nervous system, but—because this was the heyday of Pasteur’s germ theory—they said “this must be an infection” and called it polio.

---

KEY REFERENCES
When I give talks or answer questions, I typically do not provide citations as I go. Thus I’m providing a handful of key references up front, particularly for the health care professionals and medical doctors who want to dig deeper. These pivotal books and resources contain the references that have informed my thinking.
• Virus Mania (translated from German) by journalist Torsten Engelbrecht and internist Claus Köhnlein.¹
• The Silent Revolution in Cancer and AIDS Medicine, written by another German author named Heinrich Kremer, who provides literally thousands of references to exactly what I discuss.²
• The Invisible Rainbow by Arthur Firstenberg, is the history of electricity and human health; the book’s extensive one hundred thirty-six page bibliography offers a wealth of resources on that topic and notably about the 1918 Spanish flu.³
• My book Cancer and the New Biology of Water⁴ contains numerous relevant references.
• Water Codes by Carly Nuday is another good reference.⁵
• David Crowe’s website, theinfectiousmyth.com, contains lots of information about the current Covid-19 situation.⁶

---

Because they didn’t find any bacteria in either the polio cases or people without polio, they decided it must be something smaller than bacteria. However, this was prior to the invention of the electron micro­scope. So, they tried to transmit the disease to a healthy animal to see if the animal would get sick. They took brain tissue from people who had died or spinal cord material from people who were paralyzed, and they essentially ground them up in a blender and had monkeys drink it. None of the monkeys got sick. Next they tried injecting the mixture subcutaneously in the arms of monkeys. None got sick. But these folks were determined—I’ve heard that later in the twentieth century scien­tists used over five hundred thousand monkeys to try to prove this!

In the early 1900s, using two monkeys, researchers took the diseased spinal cord of a paralyzed child, ground it up, drilled holes in the monkeys’ skulls and injected one-quarter cup of this unpurified, diseased spinal material in the monkeys’ brains. One died, and one became paralyzed—and this became the proof that polio was a transmissible disease. My conclusion is that if you’re a monkey and someone wants to drill a hole in your skull and inject a quarter cup of diseased spinal material in your brain, your best bet is to run away.

Interestingly, there’s another poison that affects that same part of the brain called DDT. Chemical companies introduced DDT in the 1940s. Subsequently, there was an increase in polio, with the biggest outbreak ever occurring in 1952 in Detroit (which happens to be where I was growing up in the late 1950s). By this time, the electron microscope had been invented. However, when scientists examined people who got polio, only 51 percent had evidence of a virus while the other 49 percent didn’t. What happened to that 49 percent?

Obviously, the whole thing is a bit crazy, yet the same scenario has played out with many other diseases—hepatitis C, SARS, H1N1, Ebola, Zika and so forth. For none of these have scientists carried out the steps for or proved Koch’s postulates.

The polio story illustrates a fork in the road. Scientists essentially said: “We know it’s an infection, but we can’t find it, so we have one of two choices. We can either acknowledge that we can’t find it and can’t provide it, or we can say that the rules of engagement—that is, those postulates—are wrong.” Despite the fact that the postulates provide a very specific technique that all virologists and infectious disease people agree with, they said, “We can’t prove it’s an infection; therefore, we’re going to discard the way we prove it.” And they were off to the races.

COVID-19 AND THE PCR TEST

Obviously, there’s something happening now, some kind of illness, and it may even be something new—some say yes and some say no. Let’s say it is new. So again, my first ques­tion—the first layer of the story—is whether there is even an infectious etiology. Someone might say, “Well, if it’s not infectious and it’s not a virus, what’s the cause?” However, that would be the wrong question to ask.

Here’s why. Imagine that I go running around the track every morning, and the inside of the track is grass. One morning, I show up and a five-story-high boulder is lying on the grass covering half the track, but underneath, the ground and grass is perfectly normal—no hole, no crater, no nothing. I would think, “That’s weird.” Then imagine I hear on the news that a meteor fell from the sky and landed on the foot­ball field, and that’s why this boulder is there. I would say to myself, “I don’t believe that, be­cause if a meteor fell from the sky, there would be a big hole or at least it would have bothered the grass.” In other words, my first step would be to say, “I don’t believe that story.” Now, it isn’t up to me at that point to think, “Well, Tom, how do you think the boulder got there?” I don’t know. Maybe the fairies put it there, or maybe someone with a forklift put it there. I don’t know because I wasn’t there, but I can still tell you that I don’t believe this story.

There’s another part of the Covid-19 story that needs to be addressed. People are told there’s a test and they’re saying, “All right, Tom, we didn’t use Koch’s postulates, but we have a test that proves that Covid-19 is from this coronavirus.” However, if you ask people what the test is, most cannot answer the ques­tion. The test, called an RT-PCR test, is a “sur­rogate test” (see sidebar, page 45). The PCR test was invented in 1983 by Kary Mullis, who received a Nobel prize in chemistry a decade later for inventing it. To perform the test, you use a swab to get a piece of DNA or RNA (if it’s RNA, you have to use an enzyme called reverse transcriptase (RT) to turn the RNA into DNA). Coronaviruses are RNA viruses, so that’s why an RT-PCR test is used. They turn the RNA into DNA, and they postulate that if you have evidence of a certain type of DNA, you have an infection of that organism.

There is one problem, however. If you have never proved—by Koch’s postulates—that you have an infection with that organism in the first place, you can’t use a PCR test to show it. In fact, Kary Mullis explicitly said, “You can’t use this test to diagnose infectious disease.” Later, Mullis became a so-called AIDS dissenter. He was furious and said, over and over, that you cannot use the PCR test to prove viral causation. The book The Silent Revolution in Cancer and AIDS Medicine has the whole story.

The PCR process is somewhat complex, but it is important to understand it. Here’s how it goes: We found a new coronavirus. It’s in some of the people who are sick. We don’t know what percentage, and we don’t know if it’s in people who are not sick. We’re not going to purify it, but we know what the RNA is, so we can take a piece of that RNA, which is unique, and we can turn it into DNA. We can then amplify it through cycles. The amplification is needed because if you have one piece of DNA (or ten or one hundred), it’s not enough to see it. But if you make one piece become two, and two become four, and four become eight—and if you do that twenty or thirty times—you will have a million copies of this original RNA.

However, all biological tests have false-positives (a result telling you that you have the condition when you don’t) and false-negatives (a result telling you that you do not have the condition when you do). When you skip the first step that proves an infection, there’s no way to know how many PCR test results are false-positive or false-negative.

Here’s what happens with the PCR test amplification. You go through thirty-five amplification cycles, and you don’t find the DNA because thirty-five cycles do not create enough to detect it. So, you amplify it thirty-seven times, and then you start to find it. Then you want to find it more, so you amplify it forty times, and you find it more, but then you start getting positives—a lot of them. And then, interestingly, if you amplify it sixty times, everybody is positive. So, you have to find the sweet spot between finding some positives and finding all, which makes the test meaningless.

Now let’s say you do the test and you set the number of cycles at thirty-nine cycles. Perhaps you have a low number of false-positives at thirty-nine cycles: 1 percent. That means that if you test thirty million people, you’ll get three hundred thousand positives—and you have an epidemic. If you then want to demonstrate that because you gave them wheatgrass juice or a vaccine or told them to drop a book on their head there are no more positives, all you have to do is put the cycles down to thirty-six, and then everybody tests negative.

CAUSES VERSUS VIRUSES

Now we can turn to what is a cause and what is a virus—and this is the second layer to the story. For this I want to refer health professionals and medical doctors, in particular, to a lecture given by one of the most prominent virologists in the world, “Skip” Virgin (Herbert W. Virgin IV, MD, PhD). You can find him on YouTube and on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) website giving the NIH’s 2015 Annual RE Dyer Lecture on the state of infectious diseases.⁸

First, let me point out that when I was in medical school, we knew nothing about the microbiome—the bacteria that live in our gut and ev­erywhere in our body—so we tried to sterilize people who were sick. We gave them lots of antibiotics and irradiated them with X-rays. Of course, it never worked. Fast forward to the present day when we have the theory that viruses are these “wily” attack things that come from outside us. Dr. Virgin may not agree with me about everything I am saying, but he pointed out in his talk that we actually have millions of viruses in our virome—which is the equivalent of the microbiome—and at least 20 percent of our DNA is viruses. Millions of different viruses live in every orifice of the body and in our blood and cells. In fact, it’s very difficult to know what is virus and what isn’t.

Dr. Virgin describes viruses as “messages.” They are a rapid response team. If you encounter danger, your body essentially liberates a piece of genetic material—which is what a virus is—and pumps it out through your cell membrane. The name for this is messenger is “exosomes.” They then go to other cells and tissues and send them the message: “I’ve been poisoned. Something bad happened.” It’s very similar to what a tree does; if a tree in a forest gets eaten by beetles, it sends out messages through its roots telling other trees to make an immunological reaction against the beetles. It’s our natural way to protect ourselves, and it’s how communica­tion happens between cells, tissues, organisms and even between species.

The DNA—the genetic material—is encased in crystalline water (see my book Cancer and the New Biology of Water). When something happens to disturb it, the crystalline water changes the DNA, makes a new genetic material and it gets packaged up and sent out as messengers telling the other organisms “there’s something happening here.” That is what we call “viruses,” and this is why it looks like contagion. You’re sending a signal—a message—to another organism that something happened and you need to make an immunological reaction. Dr. Virgin says that at the end of his talk someone said to him, “Man, Skip, this is incredibly complicated.” And he said, appropriately enough, “Don’t blame me, that’s how life is.”

Let’s consider the theory that viruses are “wily.” That is, you’re just going around minding your own business and a virus attacks you and makes millions of copies of itself inside you, and then you’re sick. That’s the theory. Over the last forty years, knowing about the “wily virus” theory, I’ve often asked myself, “I wonder which part of that is the ‛wily’ part.” “Wily” means that piece of RNA is thinking, “I’m going to escape detection.”

Consider five viral diseases: chickenpox, measles, German measles, mumps and hand, foot and mouth disease. Those are classic viral diseases that everyone has heard of and that, before the 1950s, “attacked” millions of people who then got symptoms. Here’s a question: Have you heard of anyone having all five of those—or three or even two—at the same time? As far as I know, it’s never happened or been reported.

If it was simply a virus attacking you, why couldn’t two viruses attack you at the same time? I would submit that there are two possible explanations. First, there’s something really wrong with the virus theory. The second—and frankly impossible—explanation is that, in the last two hundred years, not once has a human being been exposed to two viruses at the same time. People may say that illnesses like chickenpox and measles attack largely the same tissues. But what about mumps? It attacks your parotid gland. So, why couldn’t one virus attack your parotid and another your respiratory and another your skin? The whole thing doesn’t make any sense.

Let’s go back to the virus-as-messenger theory. People are poisoned and send out a dis­tress signal because we are a unified system. I would say we are a living, breathing crystalline water being, which—at any one time—has one response. The response is, “I’ve been poisoned in this way, I’m going to send out the signal to my friends and relatives in the world, and that’s going to alert them.” You can’t do two unified responses at the same time, so you do one.

One might ask, “Why does this happen to everybody?” In the past, every child got chickenpox. It could be—as many have not only suggested but also essentially proved—that all children need to go through certain elimination phenomena, like this messenger phenomenon, to become healthy. In other words, it’s part of the maturation process. Here’s the message that gets passed along: “Okay, I’m going to do that, too. It’s a pretty harmless event, and then I’m going to have a physical antibody produced, which is the physical marker that I’ve had chickenpox. Not only will I never get chickenpox again but I will have less glioblastoma and less arthritis for the rest of my life.”

This explains why these diseases look con­tagious. It perfectly explains all the observable phenomena of the history of viral diseases.

ANOTHER LAYER

To summarize thus far, we can view layer one as “virus as infection”—but they didn’t prove it. Layer two is, “virus as messenger”—that is, “there’s more happening here.” At this point, people may say, “But it spreads all over the world, how can that be?” Whether they say, “How can that be if it’s a virus?” or “How can that be if it’s a message?” they are asking the same question.

Here we get into more esoteric questions What is the nature of any physical substance? What is a virus? What is any molecule? We get the answer that “Molecules are made of atoms.” Well, what’s an atom? We are told “It’s a nucleus that’s here and then there’s an electron over there, way far away.” And what’s in between? Space—that is, “nothing.” And then, to make it even more complicated, we’re told that viruses are made of atoms and we are made of atoms— that is, 99.99 percent space. If you ask, “Why does a virus look solid?” nobody knows.

Mind-bogglingly enough, physicists then tell us that sometimes it looks like a particle (which is 99 percent space), but other times, it’s just a wave—an energy form that somehow crystallizes (we don’t know how) into an atom, a particle and then into stuff we call a rock or a human being. This is how physicists describe the nature of reality. If that’s true, then we have these energy forms that presumably circulate all around the earth. We’re all connected—that’s what the physicists are telling us. We’re all crystallized energy. That’s the only way to say it. It’s like the “hundredth monkey effect” or like proving that prayer in one place affects the outcome of physical events in another place. (See books by Larry Dossey for references.⁹)

This, then, is the third question or layer: What is this energy form that is circulating around the planet that’s causing people to be sick? Admittedly, that’s a big question, but if we are all crystallized energy, that makes things a lot more fluid and flexible (versus saying “you have to spew out a virus” or “you have to spew out a messenger”). Think about it. In 1918, they couldn’t even guess why people on a boat and people in South Africa and in Chile all got the Spanish flu at the same time when they had no contact. (If you want to investigate that one, read The Invisible Rainbow.)

Currently, there is something that’s poison­ing us and causing DNA degradation, which is being seen as this “novel virus” or a “new mes­senger” that in itself is a kind of crystallized or physical manifestation of an energetic impulse. The question is, what is the toxic influence that’s hurting us?

I fully acknowledge that I can’t know the answer to that question right now, but here’s what I can say. We know that people are hav­ing an immunological (that is, febrile) reaction. They have a cough, and some of them are even having hemorrhages or bleeding in their lungs. And now they’re even blaming heart attacks on this. What is happening to people’s lungs that is creating this new toxic insult?

First, I should point out that it isn’t neces­sarily the same set of factors causing the toxic insult everywhere, but let’s look at Wuhan. First of all, Wuhan is one of the world’s most polluted cities—you can barely see the ground. Second, they hypervaccinated the people in Wuhan in the weeks and months before this all started. In other words, they were shooting residents full of metallic aluminum, which by the way causes an immunological reaction—a cytokine storm—which is what we’re told is happening in this current epidemic. You get a cytokine storm from the injection of aluminum, and there is also aluminum and all kinds of other toxins in the air. And then, as far as we can tell, there was the introduction of a novel electromagnetic field called 5G. I have talked to people who seem to know the most about this topic, and everybody has a different take on how much 5G and whether it is 5G and so on. I don’t know the answers, but I do know that they say they rolled out new energy forms.

So, we have the following situation. First, we have an air-polluted-up-the-wazoo city (which, by the way, is exactly the same situa­tion in northern Italy). Next, people are injected with substances whose goal is to produce an immunological cytokine reaction. Third, they introduce a new electromagnetic field impulse into these people. What does this new 5G en­ergy form do? One body of evidence indicates that these new electromagnetic fields interfere with oxygen bioavailability. (We already know that the entire planet’s oxygen has decreased by at least 1 or 2 percent in the last one hun­dred years, which isn’t good.) A second thing that 5G—and all non-native electromagnetic fields—do is degrade DNA and RNA (again, read The Invisible Rainbow). These fields cause degradation of genetic material, which the body packages up as these novel messages. Third, and somewhat more controversially, there is evidence to suggest that these fields interfere with the distribution of calcium in and across the cell membrane. I’ve seen the evidence both for and against this assertion, and the reason I think there’s something to it is because if you introduce a new electromagnetic field and that causes the calcium to be pushed into the cell, you will end up with toxic cells—which is what we are seeing. Moreover, calcium is part of the coagulation pathway, so if you lower the calcium in your blood, you will start bleeding.

This is exactly what happened to people in 1918. New radiowave technology rolled out in 1918, and the soldiers who were often described as some of the Spanish flu’s main victims were at the vanguard of using the new technology. Most of the deaths were ascribed to hemor­rhages. I don’t exactly know why, but I think they got DNA damage, which shows up as a viral infection. That pushed the calcium into their cells, they had lowered ionized levels of calcium in their blood and that caused failure of the coagulation pathways and bleeding. That is a perfectly acceptable explanation for every observable event then—and now.

AN EPIDEMIC OF FEAR

A lot of brilliant people have tried to ad­dress the esoteric third-level question. What is this energy form being put out when people are poisoned in this way? They all come up with the same answer: It’s fear and hatred. That is the energy form that is the spiritual root of contagion, and we know that it has physiologi­cal effects. If you frighten people or make them hate other people, they get sicker more easily. I don’t think it’s a coincidence. I’m not ascribing motives, and I don’t know how this happened, but this rollout of fear has been one of the most intense experiences that any of us has ever seen.

The way I conceive of this is that the dam­age is to the water in our tissues. The water is the part that absorbs this electromagnetic field. The water is the basis of life. Essentially what we’re experiencing is a message from the water: “If you keep poisoning me like this, if you keep degrading my ability to lead a happy, fulfilling life, then I need to put out a message that some­how accentuates that we need a different way of life.” But it’s not quite as simple as that, which is why I go through the whole viral theory, message theory, esoteric theory and energy theory. If you get into the physics of this, it starts looking very complicated. It’s far beyond my ability to comprehend, but I know that we can’t live the rest of our lives in this state of fear and hatred. This is not good for us. It is not good for people to be isolated, with their only contact with life being through a screen. That is not the world that I want to live in.

Remember, I have no experience treating this, so I have nothing to say about possible treatments. However, I do have a lot of things to say about the world I want to live in, the water I want to see, the electromagnetic fields I want to live in, the kind of harmony I want to see among people, the kinds of activities I think people should do. And I have things to say about not putting metals and chemicals in the air or glyphosate (which also degrades DNA) in the water.

When I was a child, I had such a bad speech impediment that I couldn’t talk. Eventually, my parents took me to a child psychiatrist. He said, “Don’t worry about Tom. Some day he’ll have something to say.” So, my parents didn’t put me in therapy or do anything else. They left me alone, and it was around that time that I started thinking about how the world is organized. Over time, it has felt like I’ve been given insights—things that I should at least try to communicate to other people. I never know whether they’re right, but some people have said that I have an interesting ability to communicate certain things. At any rate, it’s as if I can’t live unless I say what I feel and how I see the world. I don’t know why that is.

One thing I would like people to do right now if they are so inclined is to find a version of the beautiful Leonard Cohen song, “Hallelujah,” on YouTube. This version is sung by the children of a New York City public school (PS22),¹⁰ and it’s the most amazing thing to see. There are children who are fat and children who are thin; who are black, Hispanic and white; with and without glasses; with funny hair or no hair—and they all come together to sing “Hallelujah, We’re Alive.” That’s the world I want to live in. An amazing boy starts the song and later also sings the verse that says, “I did my best, it wasn’t much” and “I’ve told the truth, I didn’t come to fool you.” I don’t know how much of what I am saying is the truth, but I’m trying my best. That’s all I can say. And I hope people go out and sing that song.

ADDENDUM

This is a particularly painful piece for me to write. The reason is not so much because I am going to admit I was wrong about a number of things in my podcast interview, but because this was staring me in the face for decades, and for some reason I simply missed it. Like most people, I’ve been wrong about many things before, so that is not such a concern to me. The thing that rankles me is that in some ways this is the central delusion of our culture—and I missed it for decades. That just shows how deeply ingrained in all of us this insidious myth of contagion really is.

The reason that it has not been shown that this coronavirus is causing this current disease is simple. No virus or bacteria has ever been shown to cause any disease, so there is no reason to expect that this coronavirus would be any different. The amount of “deprogramming” that it took for me to realize this simple fact has been perhaps the most challenging intellectual quest of my life. Yet, in the end, this is the only reasonable conclusion anyone who looks at the facts can come to. When I said that Koch’s postulates had been met for some illnesses, such as meningococcus or chickenpox, I was mistaken. The fact of the matter is that in no case—in spite of over one hundred fifty years of trying—has anyone shown that either a purified bacteria or virus can cause any disease. It is simply not in nature’s plan for this to be so.

Here is what I mean. Imagine you have milk, and the cow from which the milk is obtained is poorly fed and handled. You notice that people drinking the milk often come down with a case of diarrhea—in many cases, severe and even bloody diarrhea. As the medical person involved, you decide to investigate. You examine the milk and find the bacteria called campylobacter. Problem solved, as it is well known that campylobacter is a bacterium that causes diarrhea in people.

There is, however, another possible explanation for these events. As I said, the cow was being misfed, possibly even poisoned. We know that whatever poisons any mammal consumes inevitably show up in the milk. It is quite possible that the campylobacter are present in the milk not as an “infection” but because, in all of nature, bacteria biodegrade toxins and other debris. In other words, if there are poisons in the milk, the campylobacter bacteria, which are always present in small quantities in any milk, find their food source and grow and flourish. Rather than being disease-causing, the reality is that the bacteria are remediating a bad situation.

As I have pointed out for many years, this second explanation is more in line with how nature operates. If you put nasty stuff in your compost pile, you will grow certain bacteria and fungi to eat that inappropriate stuff. No one with any sense says the compost pile has an “infection.” The microorganisms are just fulfilling their normal role in nature, which is to grow where and when they are fed. If you feed a system poisons, you will get certain microorganisms growing.

It all boils down to this question: How can we prove which of these two explanations are correct? Is it the bacte­ria (or virus) causing the disease, or are they in some ways the remediators of the situation and are just being blamed because they are at the scene of the crime? The answer to this question is very logical, simple and straightforward. All you have to do is simply isolate a pure culture of either the bacteria or virus, give that to the person in the normal way it supposedly caused the disease (in our example, give it orally) and see what happens. This has been done, famously by Louis Pasteur, in experiments dating back over one hundred fifty years.

Believe it or not—as shocking as this may be for some to hear—not once was Pasteur ever able to transmit disease in this manner, nor has anyone else ever been able to do so. Pasteur said he did, but in his personal diary (that he said was never to be published) he admitted he was never once able to transmit any disease in this manner and had to resort to putting poisons in his samples in order to prove the germ theory. When he died, it is said that his final words were “the germ is nothing, the terrain [i.e., the condition of the person or the poisons in the milk] is everything.”

I encourage all to ponder this deeply. If I am correct, this changes everything. It is not a simple issue and it would take an entire book to describe the ramifications of this new understanding. But I have come to the conclusion that if we don’t begin to see nature as it is—and instead persist in seeing the world through this delusion called germ theory—we will be subjected to and will fall for more and more “pandemics.” Conversely, if we can somehow wake up, turn off the Wi-Fi and stop polluting and poisoning our only home, then a new dawn will come, and we can create a world that will work for all of us and all God’s creatures—including our dear friends the bacteria and viruses.

---

SIDEBAR

THE PCR TEST: EXPLAINING SURROGATE TESTS
To explain what a surrogate test is, let’s say you want to know how many feet are in a particular town (not feet like inches, but feet at the end of your legs). Obviously, one way to find that out is to gather everybody in the town square and count the feet. Next, you want to know how many feet are in the next town over, so you assemble everyone and you count their feet. You keep doing that, and you get a 100 percent accurate reading of how many feet are in each town.

Then you say to yourself, “This is too tedious, I don’t want to do this. I’m going to use a surrogate test, and that’s going to tell me how many feet there are.” So, you make some assumptions: (a) everybody who has feet has shoes; (b) everybody who has shoes has only one pair of shoes; (c) everybody who has shoes has shoelaces; and (d) there’s only one shoe store in town that sells shoelaces. You decide that you are going to make this easy for yourself by going to the shoe store and asking how many shoelaces they sold this year—and that will tell you how many people have feet. It’s nonsense, of course, because some people may not have shoes, some have many pairs of shoes, some have shoes without shoelaces and some shoelaces may come from other stores. Nevertheless, that’s an example of a surrogate test—and a PCR test is a surrogate test.

If you first establish that everyone in town has one pair of shoes and they all have shoelaces, then you can count the shoelaces and make your counting job easier. But if you don’t know the first critical piece of information, you can’t do the second thing. In the case of this coronavirus, they didn’t do the first thing—for whatever reason—but they are using the surrogate test anyway. To me, that is a monumental mistake.

REFERENCES

1. Engelbrecht T, Köhnlein C. Virus Mania: Avian Flu (H5N1), Cervical Cancer (HPV), SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio – How the Medical Industry Continu­ally Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense. Trafford Publishing, 2007. [Translated from German]
2. Kremer H. The Silent Revolution in Cancer and AIDS Medicine. Xlibris Corporation, 2008. [Translated from German]

3. Firstenberg A. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. Santa Fe: AGB Press, 2017.
4. Cowan T. Cancer and the New Biology of Water: Why the War on Cancer Has Failed and What That Means for More Effective Prevention and Treat­ment. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing; 2019.
5. Nuday C. Water Codes: The Science of Health, Consciousness, and Enlightenment. Water Ink; 2014.
6. https://theinfectiousmyth.com/.
7. Cowan T. Human Heart, Cosmic Heart: A Doctor’s Quest to Understand, Treat, and Prevent Cardiovascular Disease. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing; 2016.
8. Virgin HW. The mammalian virome in genetic analysis of health and disease pathogenesis. The Annual RE Dyer Lecture, National Institutes of Health, April 22, 2015. https://videocast.nih.gov/summary.asp?live=16028&bhcp=1.
9. Dossey L. Reinventing Medicine: Beyond Mind-Body to a New Era of Healing. HarperOne; 2000.
10. PS22 chorus “HALLELUJAH” Leonard Cohen, December 2, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCLI7ewjvBo

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Summer 2020

🖨️ Print post