Dr Cowen Transcripts

Read Transcript of 68min interview VACCINE CHOICE CANADA, Ted Kuntz - Everything is a LIE! Dr Tom Cowan, Doctor of Reason, May 2, 2024
https://www.bitchute.com/video/80qAYxEXDJcm/
You can you can say what your evidence you know, what has moved you in your life and the feelings and your experiences and what you how you see the world. And that's that's great. I mean, we all do that, and we should do that. But you don't lock everybody down and you don't, like, harass them if they don't believe the same thing you do. I mean, that's tyranny.

And you don't call it science. You don't Vaccine Vaccine Choice Canada was established in 1982 and is Canada's oldest and most trusted authority in assisting individuals to make an informed decision with regards to vaccination. This information is not intended as legal, health, or nutritional advice. It is provided for information purposes only. Vaccine Choice Canada does not endorse or accept responsibility for statements, views, and opinions presented by its guests.

So let's get started. I wanna take, advantage of every minute that we have with doctor Cowen this evening. So first of all, welcome. Thanks for joining us this evening. A special welcome to those joining us for the first time, and a welcome to to the members from Canada Health Alliance with whom we collaborate on these meetings.

For those that I haven't met yet, my name is Ted Koonce, and I'm the president of Vaccine Choice Canada. So I'm delighted to have, our guest this evening. I suspect for those that are here, doctor Thomas Cowan needs no introduction. He's a renowned physician, now retired, a prolific author, and and, some of his books that I've got on my bookshelf include the 4 fold path to healing, vaccines, autoimmunity, and the changing nature of childhood illness, human heart, cosmic heart, and the contagion myth. The last time we had doctor Cowen as a guest was was in October of 2021, and a lot has changed since then.

Doctor Kam has been one of the more outspoken critics of the, COVID narrative. More than that, he's challenging all of us to reconsider what we think we know about health and illness. In his book, The Contagion Myth, doctor Cowan writes, the entire world of medicine virology and immunology is mistaken in believing that many of our common diseases are viral in origin. And in his book, Vaccines, Autoimmunity, and the Changing Nature of Childhood Illness, Cowan writes, I I have already come to the conclusion that vaccination and mistreatment of acute illnesses were the primary causes of chronic disease. These are pretty strong statements and statements that often get people reactive, but, I I think that this is exactly the kind of conversations that we need to have.

And what I can see is that more and more people are beginning to ask the same kinds of questions. So welcome, doctor Cowen. Thanks for joining us this evening. It's okay. Thanks for having me.

Well, we can wait into a whole bunch of different directions. But I I I wanted to start with you you came to a different understanding about health and disease early in your career. And I'm wondering, how did you come to question the old paradigm of health and disease? I just looked I just kept looking at it, and it didn't make any sense. And and at some point along the way, I decided, unlike the culture that I live in and particularly the medical doctors and the scientists, to attempt to not be scientifically illiterate.

And here's an example of that. The the process of science and and also logic and reason is to find the the claim. In other words, the statement that is claimed to be so and investigate whether there's evidence to demonstrate that or not. And here's the important thing. And if there's anything anybody listening to me should remember, you do not have to know what is true to know what isn't true.

And let me give you an example so everybody really gets this into your minds. Imagine somebody who's 18 who looks a little Asian and his parents are Caucasian, and he rummages through his parents' closet and he finds adoption papers. And he never heard that he was adopted. He goes to his parents and says, look, I found these adoption papers, and I always wondered why I didn't look like you. And, yeah, well, we didn't wanna tell you, you know, you'd get upset and all that, but you were adopted.

We got you from China and, you know, all that, and it's true. So then you go to your friend and you say, man, I just found out I was adopted. And he says, so who are your real parents? He said, I don't know. You know, I just found out this just today.

He says, I don't believe you that you were adopted until you tell me who your real parents are. That's ridiculous. Everybody can see that. That's illogical, anti scientific. So if if we have this conversation and I say there is no evidence that any so called viral disease exists, people get sick, but they're not there are no specific diseases.

And there's no evidence of a virus that there's no evidence that a virus even exists. If you respond to that by saying, so what causes people to get a the flu? You're asking me, who are your real parents? And I can tell you right now, and I'm not pulling any punches. What you're really saying is that you're scientifically illiterate.

And 95% of the doctors I talk to, I say there's there's no evidence like that measles is actually a specific disease. There's certainly no evidence that there's a measles virus or any other virus. And they say they don't investigate that claim as they should. Right? What is the evidence that it's a specific disease?

What are the symptoms that make it unique? What is a lab test that you could reliably verify this is a specific phenomena? What is the evidence that there's a so called, particle that we identify as a virus in the fluids of somebody who's got measles? They don't ask that question. Right?

That would be the scientifically literate approach to investigating that claim. Instead, they say, so so how so what caused my child to get sick at a party? I mean, that's ridiculous. Tell me who your real parents are or I I don't believe you're adopted. So we've bought into this virus paradigm for when did this start?

I I don't even know when it started. It started in the late 1800 when they were they had to you know, basically, everything changed around 1850 when they decided there were cells of which, by the way, there's very little evidence that that's true in in, you know, in people or any other mammal. And they decided that the only thing that existed was material substance, and they decided that the way to investigate what was true was to dissect it into smaller and smaller pieces, and somehow that will tell you what something is made of. And they also then decided that that the reason people got sick were these invisible particles, that were originally said to be bacteria, which they then could find. And then they said, well, we have some illnesses like polio, which, they said had specific symptoms, which it doesn't.

And they said, we can't find a bacteria, so there must be something smaller than a bacteria, that we can't see because we don't have the tools to see it. And that's called the virus and that's must be making them sick. I I wanna say too, it's around that time, that a fellow named Einstein and a bunch of other physicists came along, and they changed scientific thinking forever, which is a really important part here. And I don't have the quote in front of me, but Einstein allegedly said he's supposedly the smartest guy who ever lived. He said, and this is like 1905, science is no longer based on experimentation and observation.

It's based on true science is based on the free inventions of the mind. In other words, making shit up. So so he and what happens when you make shit up is that it's always wrong. Right? Because we're all limited beings.

And and so they say things like, if you contact a virus or a person who has a virus like chickenpox, you will get sick. And then they started to do observations, and they said, well, not everybody who gets sick who is around somebody with so called chickenpox gets sick. Right? So they falsified the claim, which means the claim is done. But but at that point then, you have a choice.

You can go back and say, no. That we falsified the claim. That's not how it works. Right? Or you can make up a next principle to keep the story going.

And that's what they did. So first, if you contact somebody with the flu, you get sick because you get the virus. Not everybody gets sick, so they falsified the claim. So then they say, well, that's because you have a good immune system. Right?

So they make up a new story. There is no such thing as an immune system. They made that up to explain the fact that they just disproved that if you get around somebody with a, quote, viral infection, you will get sick because you don't. So it's gotta be an immune system. And so then they say, well, the immune system is based on antibodies.

Right? That's we've heard. And if you get antibodies, then you're immune to the virus. So you get measles, you get antibodies, you're immune to the virus. You get flu, you get antibodies.

Well, then you're not you you you get it the next year so the antibodies wore off. Right? So that's the next level. And then if you get, if you have AIDS and you get HIV, then the antibodies mean the virus is gonna kill you. You say, wait a minute.

You just told me that the if I get antibodies, I'm protected. Well, yeah, but this is a different virus. Right? So you gotta make up a new story. And so this story is if you get antibodies, you're good.

And, basically, they're just making up stories. There's no and then as soon as it gets disproven, they make up a new story to keep the whole thing going, and that's how we got to where we are now. So I wonder about these people that are virologists who spend their whole career supposedly dealing with viruses. What what do they spend their day doing then? So it goes like this.

They take mucus or some fluid from somebody who's sick. So here's how they quote, you have to isolate something in order to study it. Right? If I said, what is a hammer made of? You don't just take a toolbox and grind it up and see what's in there.

Right? You take the hammer out of the toolbox, isolate the hammer, and then you can see what it's made of and what it does. Right? So here's how they isolate the virus. They take snot from somebody who's alleged to be sick with a viral infection.

They don't they don't look for a virus in it. They inoculate that on monkey kidney cells or some other cell line. They put kidney poisons in. They take away the nutrients. They add some other chemicals, and they see whether the kidney cells die.

If they do, they claim that means there was a virus, and that's called the isolation of the virus. That is pure unadulterated nonsense. And so that's the first thing. The next thing is they look for genetic sequences in them broken down kidney cells. And they claim that they if they found ones they haven't seen before, that that means there's a new virus.

And so then they start looking at the genetic sequences and this one's different, and so it's not the same as the old virus and it chickenpox family or whatever. And so that's the they spend the rest of their time looking at sequences, never knowing once because they never purified anything. They never knew the origin of that sequence, not even once, not even one paper, not ever. It's completely smoke and mirrors. Wow.

And when you have these conversations with your colleagues who are still believing the narrative, how does that go? They say what causes chickenpox because they're scientifically illiterate. And there's nothing you can say to move them off that position. Because any general colleague that I have doesn't if you ask them, and I would encourage everybody listening, go to your doctor tomorrow and say, doc, tell me how a virologist proves that there's a virus and shows that it caused disease. Some of them have been doctors 40 years, 30 years, 20 years, alternative doctors, natural doctors, internal medicine, pediatricians, they tell people 20 times a day you have a virus.

They cannot tell you how you know there's a virus or not. I guarantee that. In which case, they're not part of the conversation. They don't know what I just said. I never learned that in medical school.

I didn't learn that at all until the last 5 years. So for most of your career, you grew up the understanding there were viruses. Yeah. Because I was delusional and didn't look into it. Well, you said before we got started here.

What did you say? Going to medical school is a thought disorder. You acquire a thought disorder to the point where even the ability to ask simple questions. So let me give you another example. I don't and here's the here's the problem that I have.

Unlike some people, I leave a paper trail so people can check that I was pretty much of an idiot 6 years ago. So let's talk about autoimmune disease. The theory of autoimmune disease is that there's an antibody that you make. We don't know why. And the antibody attacks your own tissue.

So you got rheumatoid arthritis, your joints are just swollen, bilateral, etcetera, And then you make this antibody rheumatoid factor, and that destroys your joints. Right? That's the basic theory. So first question, what percentage of people who are told they have rheumatoid arthritis actually have rheumatoid factor? Right?

That's the defining characteristic of the disease. Turns out it's 40% don't have rheumatoid factor. So how the hell do you know they have rheumatoid arthritis if that's the definition of the disease? Because you could have a whole lot of other things that cause joint pains and whatever. Well, never mind.

Alright. I looked for almost a week, find one study that that takes an isolated antibody, like rheumatoid factor, and show that you inject it or expose an animal to it or a person and it causes a disease. Right? That's how you would do it. If you're telling me that a bacteria causes disease, you better have a study that takes only a bacteria, expose it to a person in a normal way, and show that it makes them sick.

Otherwise, I ain't buying it. You know how many studies there are that show isolated bacteria causes disease and exposed to a healthy person in a normal way? 0. You know how many that show that rheumatoid factor, Epstein Barr antibody, you know, like, ANA, lupus antibody, or any antibody causes disease in one person, there is not one study. 0.

And that's why the CDC will say or the rheumatoid, well, we don't really know that it's the antibodies that are the causative agent. I mean, yeah, that's right. Because you don't have a single evidence that actually demonstrates that. And that's what I mean. I wrote a book on autoimmune disease.

Total it's total nonsense, and I didn't see it. So what how did you shift? How did you lose that narrative? I looked into it, and I had some friends. And and I read Harold Hillman, and he said, you better look into this because I don't think I don't think you got this right.

And by that time, I had figured out how to think about this. If you wanna tell me that something causes something else, you better have that thing and then do an ex a control so everything else is the same but that thing and show that it causes that effect. If you wanna say a hammer knocks in a nail, you better take only a hammer and show that it knocks in a nail, and you better go like this with just your hand to show to tell me that it's not just your hand moving or think, nail go in, because who knows? Might be your mind. And if you do that, because your first rule as a scientist is to try to prove yourself wrong.

You've gotta think of any possible way that this independent variable, this hammer is not really the thing that makes the nail go into the wall. And if you can falsify it, it's done. And if you can't falsify it, it sticks. You so so I started doing that. Okay.

You think bacteria cause strep throat? Isolate a strep, spray it on a healthy person, show me to get sick. There's not one study that does that. If anybody wants to prove me wrong, I'd be happy to see it because I've looked and I have 20 friends who've looked and they can't find it. So we've got an entire medical paradigm that's built upon a lie?

A lie. It's a hoax. Florence Nightingale said, there's no such thing as specific diseases. All symptoms are your body's attempt to heal. That, by the way, is the biggest SIOP of all in medicine.

If you have symptoms, either it's a sore throat or mucus or a cough or swollen joints or you're demented, that's your body attempting to heal. And the cause is a previous deficiency or poisoning. Period. It's all there is to it. And the the medicine is all about stopping the healing.

You put debris in your lungs, you cough it up with mucus. The medicine stops you from coughing it up, keep it in your lungs, and then you get lung cancer. And by the way, cancer is not metastasizing cells growing cells growing too much. That's pure fiction. So how would you practice medicine now compared to 6 years ago or 7 years ago?

Well, I was already practicing in a in a reasonable way, which is, okay, you forget there's no such thing as diseases. Right? What there are are people's story. I woke up every day for a month, and my wife hit me with a hammer on my foot. So what do you feel now?

I have a pain in my foot. What do you think happened? Well, I think it's because your wife hit you with the hammer. I got an idea. Tell your wife to stop hitting you with the hammer and see if it goes away.

Call me in 2 weeks. She does, it goes away. I doctors would say, oh, you have unilateral swelling in your foot. You must have sublunar tendonitis of the microbial process in the in the hallux valgus, thingy, and that's probably because of a viral infection that we can't see. So here, take steroids and and they don't even ask what happened.

So I I get into the story. What happened to you? How were you poisoned? How did you how do you think about life? What's happening?

What how do you feel about life? What are you eating? What are you you sucking on a cell phone all day long? You know? Have you ever been out in the sunshine?

Do you ever move your body? And then when I find the problem, we re we try to remediate it. There's no diagnosis, no lab tests, no X rays, no suppressive medicine. It's actually based in reality, not what you get today is theories. You get mucus, it's caused by the viral theory.

You have it, joints hurt, autoimmune theory. You have cancer, you have growing cell theory because you have a mutation in your DNA, which by the way has nothing to do with coding for proteins. It has nothing to do with heredity. That's a story too. Easily disproven.

Boy, you wreck a lot of stories, Tom. I know. It's all about the story, and and it's this is from Einstein. These are free inventions of the mind. Let let let me show of hands.

What's the shape of DNA? Is it a double helix? Yes or no? Yeah. Raise your hand if you think yes.

Well, that's what I've been told. I don't know what it is. Who came up with the idea that DNA is a double helix? Anybody know? Watson and Crick.

You've heard that. Yes. Raise your hand if you read Watson and Crick's paper in Nature that got them a Nobel Prize 1953. Any hands up? Nobody nobody read it.

Ask your doc. Did you read the paper? I read the paper. There's not a measurement in the whole paper. Watson and Crick say, we assumed a rotational angle of 7 angstroms, which is the definition of a double helix.

And therefore, it's a double helix. That's like saying, we assumed we had a shape that had 4 90 degree angles. Oh my god. We found it's a square. Like, that's for dick there's not a a measurement or an experiment.

This was a free invention of their mind. Had not nothing to do with reality, And we all believe it. Wow. So we have a an entire medical system based upon a series of stories that are not true. We have a whole scientific establishment.

We also have, by the way, a economic and political and a whole lot of other things that are based on stories, which are not true. What's the native saying? He who tells the stories rules the world or something? Yeah. Right.

The victors tell the story. You can get into a lot of people who said that, you know, Tolstoy and Karl Marx. He was a great storyteller, to yeah. Anyways. So, Tom, what should we know about being healthy?

Well, number 1, don't go to a doctor because they also hex you. Right? They tell you you they give tell you how long you're gonna live. And, actually, they found that the number one thing that determines whether someone will have symptoms of a cold is whether they believe it or not. And by the way, the people who run this world, they know this really well.

They know that if they tell enough people enough times that there's this horrible thing out there, that people will start getting sick. They they've even shown that with when they find a drug that has certain side effects, it'll have, like, 10 side effects, and they'll pick out 3, like bad breath and and your foot hurts. And they'll talk about them on the television all the time. And that the incidents of people coming to the doctor with their toe hurting and bad breath skyrockets, and the side other so called side effects don't increase. So there so the the rulers of the world, they know this gig really well.

So that's the first thing is unless you get you got a knife in you bleeding to death, stay away. 2nd, You mentioned poison a few few minutes ago. My my senses were being poisoned in a hundred different ways. Yes. So you've gotta know what how you're living and compare it to some sense of how a actual healthy living human being would live.

Like, walking on the earth in bare feet, connect in being out in the sun, and doing regular movement, and being part of a family and a community and having good relations and eating food from your environment and knowing where the food comes from, and if it's got ingredients in it, don't eat it, and I could go on and on and on. But the the the thinking process is, you know, I we were talking before. It's like my cats, you know, They they live, as far as they can, a natural life, and they don't get sick. And most people, even today, as poisoned as it is, if you really make a real serious and honest attempt to live like a a actual normal person would live, you'll probably do fine. So that's my second suggestion.

When did you come to the understanding that vaccines are significant cause of chronic disease? If you find value in the kind of conversations we have here at Vaccine Choice Canada, I invite you to support our work by becoming a member of Vaccine Choice Canada. When did you come to the understanding that vaccines are significant cause of chronic disease? Well, my oldest child is 41, and she didn't get any vaccines. So this is 40 at least 42 years ago.

I mean, even back then, I was I had some sense of literacy in trying to actually understand the root of how this they came to this. And so all I had to see was a graph of the death rate from measles showing that the introduction of the vaccine had nothing to do with it. Mhmm. Nothing. There's no there's no possible way that injecting somebody with a broken down cell culture that you can never find a virus in there because it's doesn't exist, could possibly prevent somebody from getting a sickness.

There's no possible way. And you can go through all of them, tetanus, whooping cough, you know, they're not contagious. The whole contagion thing is basically disproven for over a 100 years. And so I was willing to, you know, look and it was not as easy as it is now, you know, that I didn't have a computer and there's, you know so it's information was harder to come by, but, you know, I was a natural skeptic. I I I credit my father with that because he was such a buffoon that he taught me don't trust authority figures.

Mhmm. Because he was, you know, a young boy's authority figure, and I could see that he was, you know, full of it, basically. And so that was a gift because I realized that he and his friends who were all these famous doctors and all this, they were full of it. So I I credit that for my interest in not believing that stuff. That was the gift from your father is to become become skeptical of many things.

And I think Yeah. I mean, he was a he was a good, you know, honest I mean, he's honest, but accurate sort of guy. I probably would have thought, you know, well, probably these that what I'm learning is right, but I never thought that. Well, I think that's one of the things we've learned over the last 4 years is we have to be a whole lot more skeptical about what our government tells us our public health, our media, our pharmaceuticals. You haven't learned that, then you're not paying attention, like, big time.

How has your perspective shifted over the last 4 years? Well, like I said, I I was I was it's interesting word schooled by living colleagues that we have to figure out how to think, and some were better at it than I. And so we sort of formed a group to try to figure this out with history, with everything. Mhmm. You know?

How does it work? I mean, you know, there's a in our group, there's a guy who's a he has a PhD in theoretical and nuclear physics. Now this is way off the subject, but I can tell everybody there that there is no evidence that a particle called an a atom actually exists. The idea that there's a neutron and a proton in a nucleus and an electron orbiting around is pure make believe. And interestingly, you can go to a guy like Erwin Schrodinger, who's one of the fathers of nuclear physics.

Right? One of the most, legendary, theoretical physicist, 20th century. And he will tell you flat out, yeah, if you looked at an atom, you'd never see an electron. And that means that they have never split a a nucleus or split an atom. That means that there's no such thing as an atomic bomb.

Now think about that. There's no such thing as fission based nuclear power. There are nuclear power plants, and they make power, but it's not because they're splitting an atom. And so we we go through all that, and we do it the same way. Not you know, what is the evidence for this?

Like, raise your hand if you know the evidence that there that atoms exist and there's a nucleus in an atom. There's a very specific experiment that actually is credited with demonstrating that. How many people know what that experiment is? I don't see any Nobody. So that goes to show that you have this you've been carrying this belief.

Ted, you look like you're 70 or so. I don't know. 60 or some 60. 69. Carrying this around for 50 years, 60 years.

There must be an atom. Somebody must have proved it. They can split the atom and blow up Hiroshima. Right? You've been walking around with that, and you don't even know how they how they act the experiment that actually showed whether an atom exists or not, which means you're not part of the I'm not picking on you specifically.

But I because I was like that too. I didn't know. That's what I mean. Scientifically illiterate. So in this group, we say, okay.

We're gonna read the paper. Read the experiments called Rutherford's experiment. I I can describe it, but it takes a while. And there is more than one conclusion you can draw from that experiment. And then you go further into it and you realize it's not true.

And then you go investigating, you know, Hiroshima and nuclear explosions and weapons. It's not true. It's not. Now I know that's way a field from what we're supposed to talk about. But here's the thing, that I think if the the powers that be are always claiming, like, abilities and skills that are extraordinary.

Right? And and incomprehensible. Blow up the world we or we can genetically create GMO, change the organism because the DNA is the central code for life. Mind you, DNA is supposed to code for proteins. Right?

The genes code for proteins, then they go and find there's 200,000 proteins and 10,000 genes, which means geneticists apparently don't know arithmetic, because there's a 190,000 proteins that have no code. So how does that work? Well, they don't know. Then they make up a story. Well, the genes flip around and then you got enzymes, which they can't find that cut and splice the g I mean, who's doing the splicing?

And then they take a worm, and they cut off the head of the worm, and they expose it to a electromagnetic field, and the worm grows no heads. In a different field, and the worm grows 1 head. In a different field, and the worm grows 2 heads. I can show you the experiment. And then the progeny of that worm have 0, 1, or 2 heads, which means the hereditary substance, right, or hereditary influence is not even in the worm.

It's not just not in the DNA, which can't possibly do be hereditary substance because it changes all the time. That's been proven. It's different in every cell unlike what we're told. The whole thing is just a made believe story. The it's it's like you get this pile of bricks and and and screws and nails and 2 by fours.

And so what science is today, they wanna look in the bricks to see how to make the house. Where's the blueprint for the house? It's gotta be in the bricks. So they dissect the bricks down to the the dust. And what do they find?

Nothing. There's no blueprint in the bricks. It's in the mind of the architect. And that's that's where we're at now. There is no the whole genetic there's no genetic diseases.

It's all nonsense. So just but just to summarize this process that you went through. So you and a group of colleagues just began to ask questions and look for the evidence. And as you did that, you started to come to the realization much of what you had been told as being true is is a false narrative. It's a story.

It's a free invention of somebody's mind often for nefarious purposes, but not always. And so we didn't have and I don't have any axe to grind. If DNA is a double helix and it's the code for proteins, so be it. But I can tell you, you better prove that to me. And now I know how to prove things, and I didn't before.

That's the difference. And if I get stuck, I have nuclear physicists and other people I can say is did they prove this and they can help me out? And I didn't have that before. And is there a story now that you've come to know is true? Yeah.

But that's I'll let you guys figure that out for yourself. Okay. Because you don't have to know what is true to know. That's the wizard of Oz. You you you debunked the whole thing.

That's also Sherlock Holmes. He said, you go and look at the evidence. You discard all that's not true. At the end of the day, what's true is standing before you. Mhmm.

It's the the statue of David. You get this marble brick, you cut away everything that's not part of it, and there's David stand standing in the marble. I like that answer. David, you had a question about 5 childhood illnesses that you wanted to ask Tom about. Yeah.

I guess, what I see as, you know, as a doctor in practice is it does there there are stories of contagion and stories of noncontagion. But that means sometimes you'll find people all in one family get colds, but they're all of different variations. It's some kind of a sickness. I'm not saying necessarily caused by a virus, but you do seem to see things No. It's not caused by a virus.

There's no evidence that the virus is I didn't say that, Tom. No. I just wanna say, whether it's caused by a virus or not, that wasn't the issue. It's more to do with the fact that it seemed to be clumping of cases. And, and you remember the story of, chicken pox parties, that sort of thing where parents would take their kids off to to that because they would then get a chickenpox like illness?

And, now the cause of that seems to be unclear. So my question about the 5 childhood illnesses, which I could only remember some of these. I think some of them maybe we don't get anymore, but there's measles, bovine. Let me let me stop you for a minute. So, Steven, are you saying that if if more than one person or animal gets sick in the same time with the same symptoms in the same place, that means there was a contagious event.

No. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying So how do you know whether a a event where more than one person gets sick with the same symptoms in the same time in the same place is a contagious event or not since you can't tell. Right? No.

You can't. They could be both poisoned from the same well. It's possible. So Right. So how are you gonna tell which is which?

Well, that's my question for you, Tom. It's simple. You do it ex a scientific experiment. You put 10 people with chicken pox in a room with controls with 10 people who are not sick, and you see what happens. And a guy named Daniel Reutas just wrote a book called Can You Catch A Cold?

Looked at over 500 studies. There are almost none and no controlled study that shows that any sick person made any well person sick. And if you disagree with that, it's up to you to send me the study that proves it. I just see that that in that though, you have any sick person making a healthy person sick. Now what about a sick person making a partially sick person sick?

Now there's a person who's predisposed if they're in a weakened condition. Predisposed is a that's already a sort of a reification fallacy. What do you mean by predisposed? I would say someone who has a tendency to the similar type of weaknesses. What does that mean?

That means that people are similar in some way. So they're they both have heads. No. No. No.

No. No. I don't think it's so like that. I think it's that people may have, let's see, a predisphen. Let let me see if we can find example.

Some people have a maybe a predisposition of getting they get a haircut, they go out in the cold wind, and they get a headache from it. Now there may be 2 people in the same family who seem to have that tendency. And, so I would say that's that's what I mean. In other words, you don't have to predispose genetic makeup. You don't have to say, anything other than that they have a similar, weakness.

So what I'm saying is that it may be difficult to All that is just a story to cover up the fact that if you do a actually careful, controlled, scientific experiment to try to make sick people get make healthy people sick or what we or people who don't have that illness, it doesn't work. Full stop. And anybody who's scientifically honest will say that proves that theory that sick people make healthy people sick, and it's up to you to give me a study that shows that that is a real phenomena. And, Steven, I can guarantee that study doesn't exist. No matter what you say about chicken pox parties, you're gonna have to show that that is actually what happens.

Because every time it's been looked at carefully and with controls in a scientific manner, they get nothing. And that's a fact. We've got a few more hands here. I'm gonna jump to them. Chris?

Thanks, Tom, for all the information. I was just curious to see what is what was the energy that was coming from the atomic bombs and such? What what are they doing if the these things are not true? Well, there's no atomic bombs. Atomic bombs is a very specific process of splitting a nucleus.

It's a fission based process. So that doesn't exist because there's no nucleus. And in a nuclear reactor, there is radioactivity, which means, substances naturally decay and they give off heat, and you can make steam and power a city. Just like you could do it where you can burn coal, and the coal can heat up water and make steam and make power and electricity and all the rest of it. You could do that with a lot of things.

You can burn wood or coal, or you can use radioactive decay. But that's not what they're talking about with nuclear fission reactions. They're talking about a specific process which doesn't exist because, a, it's never been shown to exist, and, b, in theory, it can't exist because nobody has even shown that a neutron or a nucleus of an atom or even an atom actually exists. And I know how they claim they proved it, and it's just pure nonsense. Yeah.

But still the it is a tremendous amount of energy coming from something. Well, bombs are scalable. Okay. If you if you think there's a nuclear fission reaction which causes, this tremendous explosion, you're gonna have to send me the paper that just that proves that that's that is possible, and that's what happened. Because I can tell you from this nuclear physicist and our whole group looking into it, we see no evidence that that claim is true.

That's that's not my question. I agree with that. I don't have a problem with that. My problem is that there's tremendous amount of energy coming from something. And, if that you know, I'm not saying it's coming from or any of that stuff.

I'm just saying that somehow they would able to produce that kind of energy doing what? There's ways of making very powerful bombs. Okay. There's I mean, the if that's the question, how do you make a powerful bomb? I don't know the answer to that question, but I know you can do it.

Okay. And then if you wanna make a bigger effect, you put some napalm and mustard gas in it like they did in Hiroshima. Oh, okay. Thanks. Karen, what question have you got for Tom?

Hi, Tom. Always a delight to listen to you. I'm wondering how we make people aware of the fact that they don't know so much, and I think part of what's happened is people have outsourced responsibility to determine the truth. And so how do we, a, convince them that what they think is not true what they think is true is not true, and then convince them that they have the capacity to discern truth? So you could probably, gather from the way I speak now, which is a little different than 4 years ago, that I am out of the convincing business.

Mhmm. I don't give a damn whether people are convinced or not. I'm just gonna say what I think and why I think that and how I see it. And the other thing that's, I think, really important here is to live a life of of inquiry, search for the truth, and joy. And so I have spent a lot of time, and I was we were talking about this before, building our homestead and having relations with my 4 cats and my 4 goats and my 4 chickens and a huge garden, and I spend most of my time doing that.

And what I hope happens someday, if anything, I mean, is somebody says, you know, I'm in, like, getting these shots and following the medical disorders, and I feel like crap, and I'm broke, and I hate my life, and I hate my look at that schmoe over there. He's like he hasn't been to the doctor in 50 years. He's just eating his food, and he seems to be really happy, and he's getting along with his his wife. And he's got these, cats, and he's growing his food. I wonder what he does.

Then he comes over and says, you know, what are you doing over here? I'm just growing turnips. You know? You wanna play with June by? Because he's actually really fun to play with.

He likes his nose scratch and everything. And that's what I hope happens. As far as convincing people, I could I don't give a damn. Our journeys are old. Right.

Thank you. Convince yourself. That's hard enough. Right. But my takeaway here, Tom, is that you you began to ask questions and you you insisted on evidence and you recognize that much of what we've been told is true is actually a story.

It's a belief system. It's a fabrication and much of it is that is probably done for financial reasons or control reasons or other reasons. But it sounds like you've been on a journey of discovering truth or discerning truth maybe. I mean, but, you know, I have nothing against beliefs. Like, we all have beliefs.

But We should we should know their beliefs. We yeah. Here here's how you know. It's actually you know, there are actually rules to this game. If you make a claim and the claim is not falsifiable, then it's a belief.

It's not science. So some people say, I believe in God. And you say, well, what's your evidence? You know, can you prove that there is a God? No.

So why why do you think that? I because I believe it. And that's fine. I I mean, I actually think that's good. And you can you can say what your evidence you know, what has moved you in your life and the feelings and your experiences and what you how you see the world.

And that's that's great. We we all do that, and we should do that. But you don't lock everybody down and you don't, like, harass them if they don't believe the same thing you do. I mean, that's tyranny. And you don't call it science.

You don't say there's an engineered virus. You know? If you don't even know how anybody knows there's a virus. That's what Kennedy does. He doesn't even know how they're whether there's a virus or not or or Rand Paul or any of these other people.

They don't even know how you would know whether that belief is true, and yet they go around saying it as if it's science. That's what I don't like. Mhmm. Just say I have this belief system in in in in imaginary unicorns that they they engineered so that they explode and fly up your nose. Fine.

If you wanna believe that, you can believe it all you want because I can tell you that every one of those beliefs, it it it the message is be scared. There's something out there bigger than you that's gonna get you. Nuclear weapons, engineered viruses, you know, blah blah blah. It's all it's all fear and scare tactics. And and, again, they don't even know how you would know whether it's true.

That's what I don't like. So I don't do that. Gary, have you got a question for Tom? Yes. Hi, everybody.

Hi, Tom. Hey there. Thanks for all your thanks for all your great work. I got turned on to you back in 2020. A friend of mine sent me a video by Kelly Brogan.

Sitting in her backyard, she picked up a glass and said, when my kids are sick, I drink from their glass, and I don't get sick. And that began my journey. It took me a month to make the paradigm shift, and then I realized, so by 2021, I started ordering your books, especially The Contagion Myth in the booklet. And I probably bought $500 worth of books in the course of a year, and I was trying to get the word out to people. And I purposely ended up buying more booklets than the books because people just didn't wanna read a whole damn book or whatever.

So, I ended up giving a lot away and loaning a lot out. And finally, after a while, I realized that, you know what? I'm not gonna try to convert anybody here. So the people that I was able to help were the ones who they would read the Contagion meth. But then a lot of times, they'd read it, and then they start asking me questions like, well, what about measles?

And what about smallpox? And what about the Spanish flu? And I said, read the contagion myth. There's an index in the contagion myth. That's the best one of the best things about it.

And all you have to do, you can read the book. I had to read it 3 times because I got a background in social sciences or whatever. But, like, if everyone would just read the contagion math, and then if you wanna go back to something, go into the index, and you can look up any any any of those major pandemic type thing pandemic type things, and it explains it all. So I would recommend everyone read The Contagion Myth if you gotta read it. I read it 3 times, and then you can just go on the index.

And when people say, well, what about the Spanish flu? I say, with the contagion method. What about measles? And I was reading in the measles part in the contagion myth. You talk about energy resonance too, which is really interesting because I noticed since I started following you, you started to get more deep into the whole aspect of our psyche and how we actually we manifest everything in our life, and we either create sickness or we create health.

So that's that's my blurb, and thanks a million for all your work. I met you at the convention back in 2022, and I'm so grateful to you and your all your all your, contemporaries, Andy and Kelly, you're there I can just tell everybody I met all of them at the convention. They're not only brilliant people. They're great people. They got great hearts, and we're winning this.

We're win we're gonna win this. Yeah. I mean, thank you for that. That's why I don't have to work because I got, Terry buying my book, so I can make a living. But I would also anybody Mark Bailey because they have looked into this and are more articulate about this than all the rest of us.

Mhmm. And Kelly Brogan is a superstar, so we should pay attention to what she says. Yes. Tom, I know we need to let you go. Is are are you still writing?

Is there a a place people can go to see what you're writing? Or I mean, everything is in the doctor Tom Cowan dot com website. I can take a few more questions if you want. If you're good with that, we've got a few hands here. So, Barbara, got a question for Tom?

I do. Just hopping on. Tom, what what do you think about this whole concept now about detoxing? It's a it's a huge industry. There's so many different protocols.

There's, you know, the whole seasonal kind of thing. I've been really wrestling with this given given everything and I've been following closely the last 4 years, huge shifts in my paradigms of all kinds. Just curious what you think about that notion. If we're living well, we may not need to or do we need to? And if so, I can't see how all these supplement that cost fortune are are really need necessary to be part of that.

But I'm wondering what what you've discovered. Thank you. Mainly, every so called symptom that we think we have, like cough and mucus and fever and and swollen joints and every those are those are elimination symptom. Those are your body's attempt to heal without exception. And so, you know, if you don't wanna go through that process, if you need to, you can circumvent it by doing things that get stuff out of your lungs before you have to get mucus to do it.

So we call that detoxification. But that's what your body's gonna do anyway. So right. If you just, you know, live the way I described, you know, get in the sun and earth and eat good food and have good relation, you don't need to do any of that stuff. Take care of it.

I love you. Thank you. That's awesome. Thanks so much. Karen, what question have you got for Tom?

We'll do Karen and Dan, and then I think we'll call it a night. We will. Good. Thank you. Great.

Thanks. I'm I'm loving what you're saying. It's wonderful. My question is, I have a number of friends who, they're, you know, fairly athletic. They've had some bad bone breaks, and so they've ended up with, often with metal implants to hold the bone in place.

And I'm I'm really curious if you have an opinion about, how having this metal, I'm I'm guessing it's usually stainless steel inside the body is affecting human health. Yeah. Sometimes it's titanium also. Mhmm. You know, the the real thing is here's the real tragedy of medicine these days.

So there's there's an old biology and a an old old biology, and now there's a new biology. In the old old biology, they had a realistic view of the composition of of of the world and living beings, which was we were both we were we're basically different forms of electromagnetic waves that essentially emerges from the ether. Right? And so and and then they saw that a body as a as a different form of that wave. And then in particular, they saw the bones as frozen music.

And because they saw things realistically, not atoms and all this nonsense, you know, these stories that we made up. They realized that if you broke your bone, it was a problem of the frequency was now disturbed. And so they actually, like, would sing or put people in, you know, in cathedrals that these buildings that are, you know, all over the realm, these are not churches and cathedrals. These are healing devices that concentrate different electromagnetic energy. And even though I can't prove what I'm about to say, my guess is they could heal a broken bone in a day.

Wow. Because they knew that they knew the the origin of the disturbance was a disturbed frequency because that's all there is. So then we get to the old biology, and they don't know anything. And so the bone doesn't heal, and then it gets weird, and the bacteria come to digest it, and and it's all a mess. Right?

And then they put rods in, which further disturb the electromagnetic frequencies and wavelengths, and then you're sick for the rest of your life. And it's all because we're we we are in a a transition period. And, you know, if there's anything I would like is to know like, I don't know how to do what they used to do. I wish I did, but I know that I know the base I know the outline. I know the thinking behind it, but I don't know I don't have the device and I don't have the strategy of making that work, nor do I know anybody who does.

And I don't know if it's true, but if I anybody would know, I would because I'm looking hard. And I don't think we're there yet because we're still in this delusional space of we're bait we're made of bouncing particles that are randomly colliding with each other and somehow form a monkey. Right? That's the story. And so then if you break it, doesn't work.

You stick a rod in, and that disturbs the the whole flow, and then you get worse. But anyways, you can still walk. It's pathetic medicine based on a misunderstanding of what a living being is and how it's, can get sick and how it can heal. So it sounds like they'd be better off to get the metal out and and maybe do a lot of singing. Not necessarily.

The problem is we don't know how to do that. And if you take the metal out, then the bone collapses because it's already weak. And so, you know, what's one thing one problem compounds the next. And so, no, I'm not saying just get it out because they might be they they're so compromised because of, basically, ignorance. Right.

And I can't tell the person how to go about healing that. I mean, I have I'm working on it, and I have things, but, you know, we're not there yet. Great. Thank you very much. Tom, that reminds me when I was in Egypt, they explained to us just what you've described is that the healing there was done through vibration.

Yeah. And they would say that the various beliefs were different heights, different, compositions, and you they they would strike it and then have the person back have their back up against it and absorb the vibration. At least that's what they told us how medicine was practiced then. Yes. The word was made flesh.

The word is a vibration. It's a frequency. And the word in some way that I don't quite get yet, but it condenses somehow and becomes actual physical substance. And we flipped that whole thing around and said, we're just bouncing atoms that have no consciousness, nothing, and they just happen to collide and make a frog. And it's just a bogus nonsense story.

If you could recommend if you could recommend one book for this group, what would that be? Depends what you're interested in. But if you're interested in biology and you haven't read Harold Hillman, then you're biologically illiterate. Because The contagion math. The what?

The contagion math. Yeah. There you go. Thanks, Derek. Alright.

Thomas, a fabulous conversation. If you find value in the kind of conversations we have here at Vaccine Choice Canada, I invite you to support our work by becoming a member of Vaccine Choice Canada. The importance of preserving our right to medical choice was never so clear.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Read Transcript to 60min interview DR. COWAN - NUCLEAR WEAPONS DON'T EXIST, MAY 5, 2024
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Bwr19knsozuH/
Okay. So today's title, don't remember exactly what the title was, but it has to do with, nuclear weapons. Are they the, curse of humanity as we've heard? Although I guess even most people wouldn't even say that. Some people would say they've a huge benefit.

But let's just say, nuclear weapons, curse of humanity versus a big old hoax. Meaning there is no such thing as a nuclear or atomic weapon. So the question of course is why did I get into this? Why is this even something this is supposedly, a webinar or series or whatever we're doing here. I guess web a series of webinars, educational webinars that have to do with health and healing and food and medicine.

Why get into whether there's actually such a thing as a nuclear weapon? And how did I get into this? The first thing, and let me just say this. I'm gonna go a little bit out of order to what I had written down. Just to be very clear here, we're talking today or I'm talking today about nuclear or so called atomic weapons.

I'm not talking about nuclear power plants and I'm also not talking about what are sometimes called dirty bombs or whether the phenomena that we refer to as radiation, also exists. Those are completely different subjects because obviously they're making power from the so called nuclear power plants. And there are bombs that have been exploded that have some kind of radiation component in them. But what we're talking about, is whether in the usual sense of the word, there is something called a nuclear or atomic bomb. One of the first reasons I got interested in this, was I started, some time ago, probably years ago, to have my doubts as to whether the atom exists in the way that we think it does.

Again, I'm talking about specific mechanisms and models here. So we have this conception of what an atom is and therefore it has a nucleus. And one of the things about models is one of the ways of knowing whether they're accurate or not is whether they have, useful out useful properties. In other words, whether you can make them into things or use the model to create something that's actually useful. And I started and still have my doubts as to whether our conventional theory of the atom is correct and whether our conventional theory therefore of a nucleus of an atom is correct.

And if they're not, then we would certainly have to change our view of what we mean by nuclear power or nuclear bombs or explosions or any of that stuff. So that was the first, part of my interest in this. The second thing, and, well, I'm going to skip around here again. So the other thing I want to say off the bat is it should be obvious and clear that I am no expert in this subject. I am not a physicist.

I even will probably have trouble with the words. I don't really even know, any sort of working idea of the difference between fission and fusion and the whole terminology of nuclear weapons and nuclear things, all things around nucleus and atom, I have, what I would call a passing familiarity with. Which is why I'm going to spend most of today reading stuff. And then if I have anything to comment on that, I will. But I can't give anybody a convincing talk about whether they're nuclear weapons or not.

But hopefully I can point us to some information that sheds light on this. The next reason why even get into this again on a webinar supposedly to do with health is I've said over and over again, I have a hypothesis, which means it may or may not be true that you cannot build a healthy anything, person, society, culture, world based on a foundation of lies. And if it turns out that there are no nuclear weapons, then one of the fundamental tenants of our scientific and political establishment is based on, on a foundation of lies. So that alone should get us interested in, in the subject. But that's not the only reason.

The second reason is, and this has come up more probably in the last few years, although it's been going on to some degree almost continuously for 75 years, ever since the children hiding under their desks at school as if that as if that would do anything in the case of a nuclear attack. And now we hear this, over and over again, the fear about the situation in Ukraine. You hear particularly the dissenting vote voices, and I won't mention any names here, say these bumbling idiots are going to drive us into a nuclear war. And that's the worst catastrophe we could imagine. I've heard this from friends and other people, that they're we're heading towards a nuclear war or we're going to have a nuclear accident and somebody's going to be forced into a position where they have no choice but to explode another nuclear weapon.

So there's a huge fear based component to this and anything that generates fear generates ill health. We certainly all know that by now. The other thing is there was recently a movie, which I confess I haven't seen called Oppenheimer or something. And again, I haven't seen it, so I have no comment on the movie. And I have a feeling that that was, the response to a apparently growing movement to question the whole existence of nuclear weapons.

So in some ways, the nuclear weapons situation has many similarities to the situation in virology. There are most of the people who's saying we have to have treaties and we have to do this and we have to spend 1,000,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars managing our nuclear weapons or getting rid of them or something. And then there's a very small minority who are saying, these things don't even exist in the first place. The third basic reason is this, fear of nuclear weapons has been used as a major source of controlling the people. And in fact, creating this sort of one world, unifying government for the last 70 years.

In fact, one could argue that it was the entire rationale or at least a large part of the rationale for the foundation of the United Nations and we all know about them by now and all their umbrella organizations, because the threat of nuclear annihilation from these weapons was so profound that the only solution was to create a one world government. And so that was the solution to the problem of nuclear weapons. It's also used to control people in many other ways. And so that is another reason why this is an important subject. A 4th reason that I came up with, and I would actually like to add this to my list of any requirement to, for me to endorse a presidential campaign.

Hopefully after you do what I am going to suggest today, everybody listening will have serious doubts as to whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually, nuclear weapons. And then secondarily or along with that, whether these things called nuclear weapons or atomic weapons actually exist. And so therefore, since there is this serious question, and this is such an important issue for all of man and woman kind to get to the bottom of, There simply is no excuse for any classification or classified information about what is known by the various people and agencies in the government about the situation in Japan and the situation with nuclear weapons since then. In other words, in in order for me to endorse somebody for president, they would have to agree in writing to declassify any and all information that has any relevance to what happened in Japan. And then ever since what we know about nuclear weapons.

Now, I can hear the argument for that, that that's crazy because if we declassify and make public the information on what what, how these weapons were made and what we know about them and all the things around procurement and testing and so on. That is absolutely crazy. They'll say then people will start making them and I will have inadvertently unleashed this huge terror on the world. I can only say that that is a invalid complaint. For the reason, and I'll say a little bit more about this later, apparently there was and I actually remember this, I believe from the late nineties or maybe early 2000s, when all the blueprints and the directions for making a nuclear weapon were published on the internet, the so called Coster Mullen model, and they used all declassified or unclassified public information to deconstruct, essentially reverse engineer how the, I believe, Hiroshima bomb was created.

And so you can get all the blueprints and all the specs and all the testing guidelines. It's all freely available. There is no possibility of releasing anything that isn't already in the public domain, except for what the government actually knew about this situation. And I can only say that anybody who says they're against censorship, who refuses to release any and all of this information is simply being hypocritical. Because we need to know everything that is known that the government knew about this situation to find out whether or not they were lying to us all along.

And again, there is no risk for releasing things that shouldn't be known because the entire directions and blueprints are already public knowledge. There's nothing to hide anymore. So we should, just release what we know so we can get to the bottom of it. Again, I just wanna be clear that, this is a talk about weapons, has nothing to do with nuclear power or even whether an atom or a nuke nucleus actually exists, in the way that we think they do. It's simply, nuclear weapons.

Now I have two sources for this. And in fact, I, I wanna say, I, if I was to say my entire goal for doing this presentation is to get people to do 3 things. The first is to go to you can easily find this by Googling a fellow named Michael Palmer. Here is his book called Hiroshima Revisited by Michael Palmer. I've had some communication with him.

He's apparently a mem he's a medical doctor from Germany and a member of, doctors for COVID ethics, which we shouldn't hold that against him right now. And he has spent a number of years looking into specifically the situation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to see whether or not there is evidence that the destruction in those cities was a result of nuclear or atomic weapons. He is very clear. He has no opinion right now as to whether since then nuclear weapons have been made. So he's not saying there are nuclear weapons or aren't.

He's not saying anything about nuclear power. He's simply giving pro and con or examining the evidence, the facts as to whether there was, a nuclear bombs exploded Hiroshima and Nagasaki as we have all been led to believe. So I thought also rather than have him on my podcast, which I may at some point do, but he gave a very clear presentation for this on, germ warfare's podcast. So it's about an hour long with his, slideshow and he lays out his very clear and specific case that all the evidence is very clear. There were no nuclear weapons in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, And that all of the damage done in those cities and all of the other 67 cities that were essentially annihilated in Japan were done by conventional bombs and mixed with napalm and mustard gas.

So that's the first thing everybody should do who's watching this, who's has any interest in this subject, is to go watch that, presentation he made on germ warfare. It's very easy to listen to. And then I would get his book and called Hiroshima Revisited. If you want all the references and, all of this more details of the specific. Now the second thing or third thing, second thing is read, get the book.

It's easily available. The third thing is, and the source I'm going to use mostly today, is another book called Death Object. And the name of the author is Akio Nakatani, although I've heard that is not his real name, although I don't know that. It says here he's a professor of applied mathematics statistics, and he's got a whole lot of other research interests, including simulations and neural networks and a whole lot of things. This book has a little bit different focus.

Not only does he go through the Hiroshima and Nagasaki stories, but he makes the very clear and precise case that there is no such thing as a nuclear weapon. It's simply not scientifically feasible or possible. And so most of what I'm going to rely on in the next 40 minutes are from these two books. And again, because I'm no expert, I'm going to mostly read actual passages from these books. I'll put my 2¢ in where I think I understand enough to do that and where I think it's appropriate.

And the final thing I want to say is, maybe the final straw for me. Obviously I've had a lot of experience looking into the hoax of virology. So I have a little bit of experience looking into hoaxes in a scientific domain. And as we know, we always have to ask, you know, not only how did somebody arrive at this, but does this information actually make sense? And so this is one of the images from one of these books, I believe the death object, that when you look at this, you just have to shake your head and say, how was I such a sucker for this story?

So let me show you this because this really got me interested in looking into this deeper. So this seems like a pretty innocuous picture. This was I believe from, Hiroshima. And they talked about the blinding light that, emerged from the explosion that was brighter than I think a 100 or maybe a 1000 suns and temperatures of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit and winds 5 times stronger than, category 5 hurricanes. And this, explosion and release of this nuclear radioactive material that was so intense that near the what's called the hypocenter, which is the near the center underneath the bombs were supposedly exploded in the air.

And the hypocenter is the area underneath the area of the the point of the explosion. The light and heat and radiation was so intense that, some of the people or the people in that area were so called vaporized. Although I think the proper word is carbonized. And all you all that remained of them was this shadow on this, wooden wall, that was behind the person who's nothing more than just, gas and vapor. And so that's a pretty horrendous story.

It's a horrendous image. You you, you are confronted with the power of these weapons. And until it occurs to you to ask, well, if this was a category 5 times 5 hurricane with that much light and that much heat, how does this rickety old wooden wall survive? And when you start asking that question, you start realizing that something smells rotten here. This is sort of the electron microscopy picture of nuclear weapons.

That cannot be the full story. Okay. So let's start, with the issue. What is the issue here? And again, I thought I would just read from him.

This is reading from the book, the death object by Akio Nakatani. And so what do we mean by a nuclear weapon? So let me just, read this. I'd love to drag you into the weeds with me at this point. We could have a serious geek fest crunching through all the technical data on the exact specs of the explosive fission process.

So I think, what he means there tech. So I'll give some comments. Technically, we're talking about not nuclear explosion, but a fission process. We, but we now hit a technical and conceptual stonewall. The graffiti scrawled across that wall names the problem, Explosive fast fission.

Ignoring a huge mass of detail, the situation is that for explosive fission to occur, again, the mechanism of action of these weapons is called explosive fission. A, enough fast high energy neutrons need to b, hit enough targets, fissionable nuclei within c, a short enough time. There are many levels of neutron speed energy in many ways in which the speed can be affected or controlled and many ways the targets may be presented or arranged. The result is a large combinatory space, which spans various kinds of nuclear reactive technologies and atomic bomb configurations. An explosive process by definition requires speed.

For that, you have to work with high energy fast neutrons. The downside is that fast neutrons are all else equal, less likely than slow neutrons to hit a target nucleus in the fissionable material. So you have to tweak other levers and switches to retain the advantage of fast neutrons, speed of resulting reactions, while minimizing their disadvantage, which is less likely to hit anything. And this is a quote from a professor Richard Mueller from UC Berkeley. Quote, it's not easy to get a neutron to hit the nucleus.

Think of it. It's like shooting a bullet into Memorial Stadium and trying to hit that mosquito. Most of the time you miss. And so then he gets into, all of the issues revolving around the tweaks and all of the concerns that were part of the so called Manhattan project of essentially people, the physicists there, interesting using very primitive, tools like doing calculations. They had hired a bunch of women.

Each who had a particular mathematical calculation like squaring numbers. So one woman would do that on a flashcard and then another woman would do something else. And so they were using very primitive instruments to make all these calculations that had to do with the shape of the container and the speed of the, neutrons and all the rest of these things. And so at the end of the day, and he's questioning whether, this actually was a technology that could even work. And what's interesting about it is even at the time, if you actually get quotes from physicists then and later, you hear things such as quote, this is from a guy named Emilio Segre, apparently a physicist working on this or nuclear physicist later.

In an enterprise such as building of the atomic bomb, the is paramount. All the committees, the politicking, and the plans would have come to naught if a few unpredictable nuclear cross sections had been different from what they are by a factor of 2. Other luminaries also had their doubts. This is a physicist named Philip Morrison. Very often we kept saying maybe we'll come across some insup insufferable physical obstacle which prevent its it from working.

You can easily imagine those things. For example, a little delay in the emission of fast neutrons after fission. And so then he goes into a number of pages describing the difficulty they had making the science work, and essentially came to the conclusion that the science likely wouldn't work. That was the conclusion that they came to in the Manhattan Project. So then we get into this, model that I talked about, which is called the coaster Mullen model and they came out with a manual.

And they looked at the, the data, the information that was unclassified and tried to see if they could essentially reverse engineer something that would be, a workable nuclear atomic bomb. So let me just read you a couple sections of this. So they were also doing simulations and I'll get to more, say something more about simulation in a minute. The Centimeters manual, that's the Coster Mullen manual totally covers 1 and 2, which is the components and the spatial arrangement of the components. And most of 3, which is the process model of temporal, temporal observations.

Certainly for the little boy uranium gun type bomb, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki were different types of bombs. The combination of the Centimeters manual with essential theory of explosive fission, basic level, only what the Manhattan scientists began with, specifies the required parameter types. A starting list of parameter types for core nuke process would include environmental characteristic and control factors like these usual subjects and these mixing BOM types up just to give you an idea. The type, amount, quality, density, geometry of the fissile mass, including figures for the likelihood of fission, neutron capture, average neutrons released per fission, etcetera. Specifications for the initiator, that's the neutron source, if any.

Specifications for neutron reflector, if any, speed and required force of critical assembling mechanisms, and many more. In a practical simulation, there might be hundreds of components and processes, each with dozens of parameters in a vast interaction space. All these would be embedded under a physics model specifying all real world stuff that might affect the reactions, such as gravity, temperature, magnetic or electric fields, moisture, anything that affects or constrains the intended process. This that support piece would be like the high end physics model used in sophisticated video games. Embedded within the BOM model would be the critical assembly stim simulator.

I'm not talking about a graphical simulator. The graphics of the simulation don't matter. We're building a good enough proof of concept where all the numbers play well together, reflect to the perfectly smooth match between theory and practice demonstrated by the Manhattan Project and add up to boom. So, what I'm talking about here is expressing the theoretical elements of explosive fission thoroughly and accurately enough in our parameters such that the models process when run yields the same explosive numbers that would be reflected in a perfect instrument capture of an actual event such as Trinity. That was the test for the Hiroshima bomb.

To do that, you just can't just provoke, provide some inputs and not worry about the real world accuracy of the inputs, nor can you set desired outputs and blithely assume the real world feasibility of the generating process in initial conditions. Both ends must match up. Any simulation based on input of good theory expressed in realistic parameters that yields output of the observed value of a real world explosive would qualify as a good simulation. So then he talks about this story. I won't read this, but they tried to do this simulation and actually he actually was able to do this simulation.

And instead of what they usually do, which is make the assumption, that this will work. He did it with no assumptions. He put all the parameters in and got, no ability to create a nuclear explosion. This was from a Washington Post article in 2011, then came a surprise. So a bunch of physicists did the simulation themselves.

So he did it and it was a failure. And then a bunch of physicists did it and they say, quote, the computer simulations show that a certain point from stockpile to target, the weapon would fail catastrophically. According to Bruce Goodwin, principal associate director at Livermore for weapons program. Such a failure would mean that the weapon would not produce the explosive yield expected by the military, either none at all or something quite different than required to properly hit the target. So essentially what he's saying there that when this simulation using the exact parameters of the Hiroshima bomb were put in even with the sophisticated, tools that they had in 2011 and that he used more recently.

Nobody was able to recreate this, this boom, this nuclear explosion. Okay. So that's, that's some of the basic science and probably like you, you may not have gotten all that. But let's look then at some things that may be easier for us to understand, which is what did people say about this, the situation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who actually investigated the areas after these so called bombs were, were blown up. And the most important one was a guy named, Alexander Seversky.

He's a Russian American aviation pioneer inventor, influential advocate of strategic air power, and he was the lead of the inspection tour of Hiroshima and Nagasaki soon after the war's end. And interestingly, he was a believer that there would be such things as nuclear weapons. And so we can take that into account. But, let's see what he said. Now the background of this is at that point, something like 65 other cities in Japan and other places all around the world at Germany, etcetera, had been essentially leveled to the ground by conventional bombing.

And some of them had also apparently used things like napalm or mustard gas, or at least those were, that's the theory that Michael Palmer has being used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And so, he was used to seeing areas that were devastated and essentially annihilated. So it wasn't the fact that they were essentially, annihilated or devastated. He was looking for something different. That would be the hallmark that this was a bomb unlike any other bomb.

So here's what he said. It's kind of lengthy. After visiting the major areas of Pacific, I arrived in Japan. I began the study of which I was assigned by making an aerial tour of the islands of Honshu and Kyushu, which encompass the major portions of industrial Japan. I flew over Tokyo, Yokohama, bunch of other names, and dozens of other towns and cities which had been subject to intensive air attack.

Some of these towns are so close together that they seem like almost continuous industrial sites. All of these areas of annihilation presented approximately the same visual pattern. The smaller towns were totally burned out. Seen from above, the prevailing color was pinkish. The effect produced by piles of ashes and rubble mixed with rusted metal.

Similar pinkish carpets were spread out in the larger cities, except that among them stood large and small modern concrete buildings and factory structures, unscathed bridges and other objects that had withstood the impact. Many of the buildings, of course, were gutted by fire, but this was not apparent from the air. I was keyed up for my first view of an atom bomb city, prepared for the radically new sights suggested by the exciting descriptions I had read and heard. But to my utter astonishment, Hiroshima from the air looked exactly like all the other burned out cities I had observed. There was a familiar pink blot about 2 miles in diameter.

It was dotted with charred trees and telephone poles. Only one of the city's 20 bridges was down. Hiroshima's cluster of modern buildings in downtown stood up right. It was obvious that the blast could not have been so powerful as we had been led to believe. It was extensive blast rather than intensive.

I had heard of buildings instantly consumed by unprecedented heat, yet here I saw the building structurally intact, and what is more, topped by undamaged flagpoles, lightning rods, painted railings, air raid precaution signs, and other comparatively fragile objects. At the T bridge, the aiming point for the atomic bomb, I looked for the bald spot where everything presumably had been vaporized in the twinkly of an eye. It wasn't there or anywhere else. I could find no traces of unusual phenomena. What I did see was in substance a replicate of Yokohama or Osaka or the Tokyo suburbs, the familiar residue of an area of wood and brick houses raised by uncontrollable fires.

Everywhere I saw the trunks of charred and leafless trees burned in unburned chunks of wood. The fire had been intense enough to bend and twist steel girders to melt glass until it ran like lava just as in other Japanese cities. The concrete buildings nearest to the center of the explosion, some only a few blocks from the heart of the atom blast, showed no structural damage. Even cornices, canopies, and delicate exterior decorations were intact. Window glass was shattered, of course, but the single panel frames held firm.

Only window frames of 2 or more panels were bent and buckled. The blast therefore could not have been anything unusual. Here's another one, that the United Nations Institute For Training and Research. A bomb trees are trees that survived the atomic bombing of August 6, 1944 45. Sorry.

A 170 trees in 55 locations within the roughly two kilometer radius of the hypocenter are officially registered by Hiroshima Municipality as a bomb trees lovingly cared for over the years by authorities, botanists, various citizen groups and individuals. They are identified by a nameplate and unique reference. The survivors carry a significant message for all of humanity. Not sure as he says what the significant message is, except they couldn't possibly have been bombed in the way that they say they were. Okay.

So that's the essentially, the most expert, witness to what had happened says it was the same as everything else. Mind you, we're not saying that the area wasn't devastated or bombed to the hilt. And even as Michael Palmer makes the case, there were used napalm and mustard other things. But there was nothing different at all. Now let's look at what happens.

Did they actually measure the uranium? So now I'm reading from Michael Palmer's book, Hiroshima, revised. And the traces left by the black rain were analyzed for uranium using mass spectrometry. He goes into the details about that which I won't get into. But he says later, the highest ratio of this black rain, this is the rain that supposedly was soaked with this nuclear fallout, was observed from a sample taken from the upper edge of the plasterboard that had been wiped down by the house's resident residents, the ratio observed was exactly what you would find in any natural uranium.

So, there's many, studies that he refers to that apparently there isn't a single study documenting that the uranium content or the plutonium that was found by the experts who were allowed to examine the evidence was anything different than background radiation, with maybe a little bit of a so called dirty bomb mixed in. And what do I mean by a dirty bomb? So you can actually get radioactive uranium or apparently plutonium and put those in a conventional bomb, and that will spread some of the so called radiation fallout in the area. And you will get this slight blip, slight increase in the in the number of radioactive materials found. But that is a completely different process and method and a completely different scenario than what we're referring to as an atomic weapon.

And again, like, many of the things that we've seen when they go when he went looking for experiment for the evidence of the, the records that were kept of these 2 bombing missions, the one over Hiroshima and the one over Nagasaki. Here we read something from the official records, on what happened in these places. If there are need interest in credentials, information about bombing missions in World War 2 can be obtained in great detail from air force records. For a given mission, the aircraft identification numbers, names or crew members, types of bombs, bombing altitude, winds aloft, approach direction indicated in true airspeed can be found. There are, however, two exceptions to this.

The records for the 2 most important bombing missions in history are incomplete and inaccurate to a degree beyond comprehension. In other words, they got rid of the evidence. Here's other evidence that the Americans prevented the Japanese from actually doing proper studies on either the victims or actually the nuclear fallout. So all this is very reminiscent of things like what happened at 9:11. And I could go on a whole long time about this, but let me skip to another point, which made a big impact on me when I read this.

So page 191. So we're told, and I would say over and over again, that the worst thing that could happen is a nuclear war and exploding these nuclear weapons because then we would have nuclear winter and the annihilation of all life on Earth and all humans and all animals and all plants. And it would possibly never recover. That's the scenario we're told. That's why these nuclear weapons are never to be used or so we're told.

The interesting thing about that is when you go looking like these two people did for, why given the fact that the Hiroshima bomb was never like tested in any way, The components were never tested. They were unable to do simulations because they didn't have the technology and they simply couldn't actually do any tests or run specs on the components. They sort of put it together ad hoc, was very, essentially simple, device for a so called nuclear weapon. And in spite of all that, shipped all all over the world, it worked perfectly the first time. So we had a simple, essentially easy to manufacture, didn't need much product product testing device that the only time it was used, it worked perfectly well.

And then they said, we're never gonna make this again and threw away the plans and that type of weapon, that type of bomb was never supposedly made again. It may have been an exception or 2, but I think that's basically the case. Which itself is odd if you have a any kind of device which works perfectly well without any testing or anything and is relatively cheap to make, why would you scrap the plans, get rid of them so that this thing would never be made again? So the obvious answer is, well, we're, you know, the wise and compassionate leaders of the world and particularly the United States, they were so by the devastation of these bombs that they didn't ever want to make such a horrible device again. That of course is pure nonsense because they went on to make, 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars and I don't know how many 100, 1,000 or more, bombs that were supposedly more effective, more powerful, more destructive than anything that anything close to what the Hiroshima bomb was.

So that cannot be the answer. There's gotta be something else. But interestingly, these next generations of bombs, which used different types of mechanisms, but all based on similar principles. We have an interesting case study of what's called the Bikini Islands, which, depending on whose, numbers you listen to were subjected. This is a tiny island, I believe, in the Pacific, sort of series of islands to somewhere between 23 and 67 nuclear explosions live, all of which were allegedly more powerful than what was exploded at Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

So if you think about that and the scenario of nuclear winter and annihilation of the planet, first of all, who would do that if they thought this was going to annihilate life on earth. So that's already a problem. And second of all, if you can only imagine what this poor island would be like, 23 to 67, apparently nobody's sure of the numbers, times over the last 50, 60 years, this poor island was bombed into oblivion by a bomb more powerful than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. So interestingly, 1997, we see this article from the New York Times. And I'm quoting here.

And since it's from the New York Times, we know it must be true. After the 23 nuclear explosions, apparently they use that number, that the United States conducted on the remote coral atoll in the forties fifties, one almost expects to visit today and find just a few charred eyelets surrounded by brackish water emitting an eerie glow. So the amazing thing about bikini is how alive it is. A white sand island full of coconut palm swaying over a perfect perfect turquoise sea, fish and sea turtles swimming languoriously by the beach. There are only also a few tourists and many more are expected because bikini is now once more open to the public.

And in fact has become a, a exclusive tourist destination. So apparently there wasn't this huge nuclear winter there. In fact it appears that nothing much has happened and life is simply going along just fine. At least it will until the American tourists come back. So, let's finish by saying, there's and obviously there's so many unanswered questions which is again why my goal of this talk is simply to get you to read these 2 books and watch, Michael's presentation for germ warfare, where he did an hour, talk with all his slides, going over the details, anybody who's really interested in this.

But we're left with the final question. And, each of these two gentlemen have apparently different, slightly different views as to why they did this. So what was the point of trying to fake a nuclear blast and fake the fact that they came up with nuclear weapons, which were the end of of life as we know it on on earth. Why would they go to this trouble? And finally, apparently, and how they got the Japanese government to go along with this hoax.

And so how did they do that? So both of them have theories And obviously they're just theories because they don't really know why, what was in the intention for doing this. Essentially to boil it down, Michael Palmer's argument is that this was essentially is a terror campaign. And it was on the heels of an overall terror campaign for all of Japan. And the Americans wanted the Japanese government to go along with this hoax, under the, they said under the threat of annihilating them even further.

And there's some parts of that that don't make sense, but why would they do that? It was to essentially bring in this one world government and to create this fear based terror that has been successfully perpetrated for the rest of time since then. So 75 years, we've lived under this threat of nuclear annihilation based on these two events, which again may or may not be true. But again, the question is, how did they get them to go along with it? And I wanna read you, the the explanation that, Nakatani gives in his book because this may be close to the truth.

He said at the time, what the story, and I remember hearing this from my father that the nuclear bombs got the Japanese to surrender. So that's the sort of cover story. And it was a convenient cover story for the Japanese leadership, particularly the emperor, because even after this disastrous devastation of their entire country and their infrastructure and 1,000 or 1,000,000 of deaths, they still, well, they seem to be willing to surrender, but the Americans seem to be holding out for their acquiescence to go along with this hoax. So what finally got them to, to capitulate? And here's, the quote.

Therefore neither atomic bombing was the event that really spooked the leadership into considering surrender. So what was the urgency? It was this. At 11 PM trans, Bacall time on August 8, 1945, Soviet foreign minister, Molotov informed Japanese ambassador Saito that the Soviet Union had declared war on the Empire of Japan. And that from August 9th, the Soviet government would consider itself to be at war with Japan.

At 1 minute past mid midnight trans Baycal time on August 9th, 1945, the Soviets commenced their invasion simultaneously on 3 fronts to the east, west, and north of Manchuria. That's from Wikipedia. His his comment is Japan's leaders knew there were no position to fight a 2 front war. They understood the immediate proximity and strength of the Russian forces. It was obvious to them that Japan would be invaded and end up partitioned at best or entirely occupied by the Soviets at worst.

This would have been intolerable consequences on both the practical and ideological levels. Under the Soviets, there would be little chance of retaining the status of the emperor or any semblance of traditional life, the wartime leaders would be blamed for prodding the nation forward to absolute ruin, and all would be summarily executed, including the entire imperial family. Remember the Romanov family. Soviet attack, not the Hiroshima bomb, convinced political leaders to end the war by accepting the Potsdam declaration. The war was a complete failure.

The glorious empire of the sun lay in smoking ruins, not one stone atop another. Meanwhile, the leadership had been feeding the people bullshit all along about how there were still hope and glorious victories still lay ahead. The concept of face, honor, reputation, shame is big in Japan. It would be humiliating and dangerous to admit openly that it was time to surrender because we, your divinely infallible leaders, seriously screwed things up by ever starting this in the first place. But a science fiction weapon that nobody could withstand that had no strategic genius could have possibly predicted.

The very wrath of heaven descending on them out of nowhere like a thunderbolt. There's an ideal made in Hollywood escape hatch and cover story. Attributing the sudden about face towards surrender to the a bomb would also generate sympathy for Japan as a victim of demonic forces rather than a cruel imperialist hegemon. It would also curry favor with American vanity, not to mention the USA's post war international PR plans. Accepting and centralizing the bomb's role as the trigger for the end stage served everybody's interest, And so it came to pass.

Okay. Hopefully I've given everybody a lot to think about. I in no means intended this to be a scientific, exploration of nuclear fission or fusion, because as I said, I'm not capable of doing that. But hopefully, I've wedded your interest to, as always, go find out for yourself. And wouldn't it be nice to realize that this is another one of those, Lucy and Charlie Brown things.

This next time we're going to do the, you're going to let us kick the ball the next time they're going to do the nuclear weapons. And you know what people, maybe we don't have to live under that threat anymore. One less fear based hoax to, live under. And we can start basing our lives on truth, reality, the beauty of nature, and trying to find out what's actually real and true. Wouldn't that be a change?

So thanks everybody for listening and I will see you next week.