Dr. Tom Cowan Responds to Derrick Broze and Dr. Peter McCullough Re McCullough’s Claim That Viruses Must Have Been Isolated Because They Use Them in Vaccines

video by Dr. Tom Cowan
March 8, 2023



Video available at Dr. Tom Cowan Odysee, BitChute & Rumble channels.

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Partial transcript provided by Truth Comes to Light. The video covers a number of subjects. This transcript is only of the first half of the video where Dr. Cowan addresses the comments made by Dr. Peter McCullough and Derrick Broze.

The introduction to this video includes a bit about Tom Cowan’s work with coherent water. He mentions dancingwithwater.com and will be doing additional interviews related to this topic in the future.

At approximately 4:58 marker he begins talking about the recent interview between Derrick Broze (founder of The Conscious Resistance and writer for The Last American Vagabond) and Dr. Peter McCullough.

At about 6:60, Tom Cowan plays a clip from the interview (find the interview here):

Transcript

Derrick Broze:

“…opinion on another topic that’s related to COVID that has become the hot button issue in some corners. I’m sure you’ve come across it. But folks who believe that there are no viruses, or particularly that the COVID virus, hasn’t been isolated?

I’m not sure how much time you put in your energy into that. You know I’ve interviewed Andrew Kaufman and some of the folks who are kind of promoting that idea.

Personally, I’m not 100% sold on this idea. You know, I think there’s there’s some research needs to be done.

I do think there’s some interesting data out there about FOIA requests that have been put out trying to get governments — ‘Can you provide me proof of isolation?’.

But in general, what are your thoughts on this? Is this distraction? Division? You know? What do you think about that topic?

Dr. Peter McCullough:

I think it’s distraction. And it may even be intentional distraction.

There are standard virology lab techniques that have been used for decades, that have been used — viruses are transferred into one cell culture versus another.

They’re isolated in order to be able to make vaccines. So of course they’ve been isolated.

We can see them on electron microscopy, so we can actually physically see the viruses and we we can basically determine the entire genetic sequence of the virus. We can understand every single protein within the virus.

So the viruses clearly exist. They have clearly been isolated because we make vaccines out of them.

If they couldn’t be isolated, we could actually never make a vaccine.

The Chinese actually have — the SinoVac corona vaccine is the isolated SARS-CoV-2 virus killed and given as a vaccine.

So these claims are just, they’re not useful, claims. I don’t think they’re helping us get to any solution and they’re just, I think distractions of people who just honestly don’t understand standard virology and vaccine techniques.

Derrick Broze:

So when someone says — this is one of the arguments I’ve heard — when their argument is, when you look into the word isolation and the way virologists use it, they don’t use it in the same sense that… So if I say I’m gonna isolate the coins out of your pocket, all I have in my hand is coins. And they’re saying that the the process that’s used to isolate viruses is not as clean cut as that. And that there’s other material in there. And this is their argument. Would you say that comes from a place of total lack of understanding?

Peter McCullough:

Yeah, it’s a lack of understanding. They’re clearly isolated. I mean, the viruses are isolated and it’s actually purified in order to give us a vaccine. So they have to be isolated.

Derrick Broze:

OK. Well, thank you. Thank for addressing that.

Dr. Tom Cowan:

OK. So I made a little bit of mistake here. Derrick Broze did not ask for more tests. He called for more research so that he could verify that the ‘no virus’ so-called claim was accurate. And so again, I asked him what research or testing he would like to see. And I haven’t heard back from him.

So as you heard, Dr. McCullough made the claim that I hadn’t heard before, which is that the Chinese are making vaccines. (I’ll tell you in a minute how they’re making them.) And that this proves that the viruses have been isolated and, in fact, purified.

So even though in all our requests and all our looking at papers, we’ve not come across one example of a purified pathogenic virus including SARS-CoV-2.

So maybe Doctor McCullough can send us the reference showing us a purified virus.

But again, we’ve gone over the electron microscopy evidence for the virus.

We’ve gone over the sequencing of the virus.

And we haven’t gone over this new claim, that because the Chinese are making a vaccine of SARS-CoV-2, that must prove that the virus has been isolated and purified– or else, how could they possibly have made the vaccine?

So let’s take a look at this claim. So I pulled this from somewhere but I think it’s sort of standard stuff. So I think we can basically rely on it because it’s pretty much accurate for the standard response.

[Here Tom reads from a paper by Anne Moore, a senior lecturer in biochemistry and  cell biology at University College Cork.]

So are all vaccines the same? So the answer is no.

And then they go on to say, the Chinese vaccines, which are ones he’s referring to from Sinovac and Sinopharm. Not sure if it’s Sino or Sino are the main ones using this platform.

This platform means they’re using an inactivated vaccine because it “contains a dead virus”. The virus is still whole. It has all its parts in the correct shape that can stimulate a response from the immune system, what we call antigens. The immune response can be against multiple antigens.

And so that is the platform that he’s referring to. It is an inactivated viral vaccine.

They say it’s a great technology. It works for human and veterinary vaccines, used for the seasonal flu vaccine some years ago.

And then they go on to talk about other types of vaccines. So we’re not so interested. And then of course, there’s the obligatory computer pictures.

So then we get down to the important point, which is how do you make these vaccines? And I’m going to read most of this.

It depends on the platform.

So we we’re not talking about the viral vectored vaccines. But let me just go over this because they say it’s the same for inactivated vaccines. The process is similar.

So then you have — you’ll have this bulking up of the virus over course of a few days, anywhere from four liters of cell culture to maybe 20 to 30 liters. Really high-scale production can be carried out in steel tank. The manufacturing environment can look a bit similar to super clean, sterile brewery. You have to make sure that your cells are in the best environment possible for them to live and to allow the virus to grow. This requires monitoring many environmental factors in and around the cell culture, temperature, oxygen, CO2 levels, acidity, and so on.

You end up with this liquid that is full of the virus you’re interested in, but it’s also full of materials you don’t want. So then you have what we call downstream processing, where you’re purifying the virus vaccine away from all the components that you’re not interested in.

This downstream process is very important and highly controlled and evaluated. It involves a lot of filtration and chromatography. In the end, you have a very safe and sterile product that contains only what you want.

There are multiple steps and in each step you’re taking samples and running experiments to show that you’re purifying your product as you go along. Even though it can take a few days to grow a batch of virus it can take a long time to purify it, and it’s pure, sterile and that’s what you say it is. The vaccine will only be released when you can prove that it’s the exact purity, sterility and composition you’re claiming.

So here we get to the inactivated vaccines. The process is similar. You grow up liters of the virus itself, and then you kill it in a specific way so that you maintain the structure of that dead virus. And then you take that and you inject it into people.

So again you grow liters of the virus. Then you kill it in a specific way.

As far as I can tell, the two usual ways that the “virus” is killed is by heat iactivation. In other words, you heat it up. Or they use a chemical called formaldehyde, which they say kills the virus, but it maintains the structure of the now dead virus.

And then you take that brew, that culture material, and you inject that into people, sometimes with some amount of filtration or centrifugation or so-called purification.

Now let’s go through these steps again.

And the question that I want to ask is:

At which step in this process did the people who are making the inactivated vaccine prove there was a virus in this and then prove that it was the virus that was growing in their cell culture?

That is actually the only question that we’re interested in right now.

At which step, which part of this method was there the proof, or even I would say the possible proof, that you’re dealing with an actual virus.

So let’s go through all the steps very clearly, and with that methodically, with those questions in mind.

Which step is showing us the virus?

So they take a person who is sick and they say this looks like whatever illness they’re talking about. In this case, we say that they have COVID.

Now you could say that the proof that they have COVID is — because we all know at this point that COVID has no particular pathognomonic symptoms.

Let me just show you that just to make sure everybody is on the same page. These are the symptoms of cold, flu, COVID and RSV. And you can see they’re basically identical. I won’t spend a lot of time on this.

Here’s another one that says from the CDC. No particular set of signs or symptoms can reliably discriminate COVID-19 from other respiratory viral illnesses, such as the flu.

So there is no possible way by looking at a person, examining the person, that you can say they have COVID.

Even if you could do that, which you can’t, that certainly doesn’t demonstrate that the reason they’re sick is because they have a virus.

I certainly hope everybody would agree with that. All you know at this point is this person is sick with a non-specific respiratory illness.

OK, so then you take a sample of liquid or fluid from that patient, either a bronchial sample or mucus from their nose, or maybe something else. But those are the usual ones.

And let’s look at that. So there’s no examination done on that specimen. So there’s no possible way that could show you that there’s a virus there, because actually nothing is investigated.

So then they put it through some, I would say not purification steps, but they clarify it by putting it either through a filter that filters out the dead cells and the bacteria. And so all you have then is whatever is liquid from the person’s mucus or lungs.

And I would think that there is nobody who knows anything about this who would say that is a purified virus or it even shows you the existence of a virus.

Sometimes they do a different clarification process which is called centrifuging it, again not looking for a virus but just to get rid of the cells and the bacteria.

And then they have the supernatant, the liquid part. And importantly, and this is a crucial part of this analysis, there is no test done on this that could demonstrate the existence of a virus.

They might do a PCR test, which is not a test. But we have to remember that these are PCR processes that can never show the existence of a virus. And the PCR process that is being used for SARS-CoV-2, we all remember was made by Christian Drosten who said “We made this PCR without having access to any viral material.”

So nobody could possibly claim that the PCR examination of this centrifuged or filtered fluid could possibly prove the existence of a virus.

There is no ultracentrifugation done at this step. There’s no electron microscopy analysis of the fluid. So we have no idea whether or not there’s a virus, a particle that you could call a virus, in this supernatant or filtered fluid.

And importantly, nobody at this point is looking for a virus or claiming that somehow these steps have found or demonstrated the existence of a virus.

So that should be clear.

So now let’s say they filtered it. So we have all the liquid parts that come from the mucus or lung fluid of a sick person.

We don’t know why they’re sick. We haven’t seen any virus. We have the liquid, which contains probably hundreds, maybe more types of things. It has proteins, nucleic acids, minerals, lots of maybe poisons, toxins if they’re in there.

Lots of things are in there. I dare say nobody would claim that is a pure virus.

So they take this fluid and they mix that into these big vats that contain cell cultures, mostly some type of Vero cells. Then they add antibiotics, like usually gentamicin, antifungals like amphotericin, both of which we have presented papers that are showing both of these are toxic to kidney cells and other types of cells. Therefore could be the reason for the breakdown of these cells.

They change the nutrient blend and they also add fetal calf serum to this. They change the temperature a little bit and maybe the pH. So they add some other chemicals. And then to this they add this mixture of many different substances, which may or may not include a virus — but the virus has never been seen.

Now, if you’re doing a scientific experiment, as we all again know by now, you have a dependent variable, which is the effect you’re looking for.

Which in this case then you’re looking for: Do these cells die? That’s called the cytopathic effect. And then you’re testing an independent variable, which is meant to be one thing that you’re trying to investigate whether it caused this effect that you’re looking for.

So if we’re trying to prove that only a virus caused the death of these cells, only the virus grew in this culture and caused the death of these cells, then by definition, the virus would have to be the independent variable.

But in fact, what is the independent variable here?

So the independent variable is a combination of antibiotics, change in nutrients and all the things that are soluble from the bronchial fluid of a sick person.

There is at no point up till now any even attempt to establish that there’s a virus. All we can say is that some component of that of that mix — the soluble part of what’s in somebody who’s sick, the antibiotics, antifungals, change in nutrients, fetal bovine serum — some part of that broke down the cells, made it so that these broken-down cells created, essentially, cellular debris, which as we’ve said over and over again are then misinterpreted as viruses. So the cells breakdown into all this debris.

No attempt is made by these Chinese manufacturers then to identify any virus or prove that any virus is in that vat of broken-down-now cells, antibiotics, filtrate from the person who is sick, et cetera. No attempt.

They put that into vials and that’s the vaccine.

So the question for Doctor McCullough is:

Which step in there proved the existence of a virus?

Which step in there was the so-called isolation of the virus?

Now let’s define isolation. As Derrick Broze said, isolation means to take something out of its environment so that you only have that single thing.

If I have a bunch of things on my desk and I take the pencil, I have now isolated the pencil and only the pencil from my desk.

In which step up till now did they “isolate” the virus?

Because, as far as I can see, not only did they fail to isolate the virus. At this point nobody has even attempted to demonstrate there’s even a virus in this process — at any point in the process.

The importance of this is, if you haven’t isolated and, therefore, seen and proven the virus to exist, any further evaluation — such as pictures with an electron microscopy or evaluating parts of it like proteins or nucleic acids — you have no idea the origin of those nucleic acids, proteins, antibodies or anything else in there, because at no point in this process did you obtain a pure sample.

So let’s be very clear what we’re asking you.

We’re asking you to present proof, evidence, that at some point in this process, you have obtained a pure virus. You’ve seen it on an electron microscopy. There’s nothing else in there but the virus. You’ve proven that that virus came from the original person. You’ve then proved that all of the nucleic acids come from that particle, which you have purified. That there’s no chance those particles came from the cells or the fetal bovine calf serum, or anything else part of that mix.

That’s what we’re asking you.

Not whether they say they isolated it. Not whether they say there’s electron microscopy pictures. Not whether they say that the PCR proves that there’s a virus even though they got the PCR test, essentially without even having an isolated or purified virus, which is their own words.

We are asking for validating the methodology of that vaccine production process which you stated should be considered proof that they isolated the virus.

I’m hoping that this is very clear. And in any future discussions we have about the existence of the virus, it has to start with:

Did you find the virus in its natural ecosystem?

The answer, of course, is no.

And then, if you isolate the virus, as you say, through the cell culture process, how did you prove that the virus existed in the first place in order to do an experiment with it?

And how have you proven that the cytopathic effect could have only come from the virus? 

Because every experiment that we’ve looked at has shown just the opposite.

See Related:

Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Tom Cowan: How We Got Into This Mess — The History of Virology & Deep Medical Deceptions

Dr. Tom Cowan With Dr. Mark Bailey: “SARS-CoV-2 Virus Could Never Have Been Leaked From a Lab Because No Such Particle Has Been Proven to Exist. Ever.”

Chaga Mushrooms: Nature’s Blueprint for Cancer Prevention

Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: In light of the recent environmental disaster in East Palestine, Ohio that has contaminated skies, residential areas, farmland, forests, rivers and smaller waterways and has already killed wildlife and domesticated animals, many are looking for ways to avoid getting cancer.  My own family is affected by this dire situation. The drift of these carcinogenic chemicals is already shown to cover an area of several hundred miles. Research on the chaga mushroom has shown potential for helping us survive this type of disaster. If you do a web search on the healing properties of chaga mushrooms you will find additional information. The following article was written by Dr. Tom Cowan in 2016. ~ Kathleen

“This is truly, again, yet another example of the ways the natural world speaks to us.  If we are afflicted with a potentially dangerous, black growth (like many cancers) either on our skin or our organs, nature puts a black, cancerous growth out in the forests, which contains substances that can counteract these growths.   It’s as if nature is giving us a blueprint to read, if only we have the eyes to see and the heart and mind to be open to its wonders. “

---

Chaga Mushrooms: Nature’s Blueprint for Cancer Prevention

by Dr. Tom Cowan
originally published December 29, 2016

Two of the things I probably loved the most as a teenager were sports and Russian novels.  My favorite novelist was Dostoyevsky, and at one point my sister claimed that I had morphed into the underground man.

Another favorite was Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who wrote the supposedly autobiographical account  The Cancer Ward, in which the main character had been sent to Siberia by the Soviet state and contracted an aggressive skin cancer.  As a result of the cancer, he was exiled to the cancer ward, a gruesome place where Siberian prisoners were sent to die with essentially no medical care, not even pain medications.

Understanding the desperate situation he was in, he escaped from the cancer ward and found refuge in an isolated Siberian village, where he was miraculously nursed back to health.  The main medicine that resulted in this profound healing from what was clearly a case of metastatic melanoma was a tea made from a fungus growing on birch trees.  This was my first exposure to the chaga mushroom.

any years later, during my training in anthroposophical medicine, I learned that Rudolf Steiner spoke about the healing properties of birch trees, especially on malignant skin cancer.   Steiner, using the principles of something we refer to now as the Doctrine of Signatures, which states that herbs resembling parts of the body can be used to treat ailments of those body parts, claimed that the peeling bark of the white birch trees was an image in nature of the properties of healthy skin.

We all know from the many uses of birch bark that it is impermeable to water (hence, birch bark canoes), strongly anti-microbial (which is why many traditional food containers were made from birch bark) and extremely durable (birch containers, like the salt container on my counter, last for decades).   These properties are clear images for what the skin should be – an impermeable layer that is strong, durable and protects us from water loss and infection.

The properties of the birch tree are relevant to a discussion of chaga mushrooms because chaga is a polypore (a type of mushroom) that almost exclusively grows in the wild on birch trees.

Chaga mushrooms are large, black, fungal-looking growths on the birch trees of the northern Siberian and Canadian forests.  They are the spitting image of what an untreated melanoma would look like if left to grow. Again, as suggested by the Doctrine of Signatures, chaga extracts and teas have been used for millennia by traditional peoples to treat both growths on the skin and the internal organs.

Interestingly, medical science has become interested in the healing properties of the chaga mushroom and the birch tree as well and has found many active ingredients that might account for these effects.

The main effects of chaga mushroom tea and extracts are regulating the lipid profile in the blood, reducing blood pressure, normalizing blood sugar and, most important, preventing and treating malignant growths, in particular, melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. 

Research in the past few decades has shown that birch trees produce a chemical called betulinum (“betula alba” is the botanical name for birch trees), which is a potent anti-cancer medicine, particularly active in preventing the growth or spread of melanoma cells.  Betulinum is concentrated by the chaga mushroom, which takes it into its body after extracting it from the birch tree.

This is truly, again, yet another example of the ways the natural world speaks to us.  If we are afflicted with a potentially dangerous, black growth (like many cancers) either on our skin or our organs, nature puts a black, cancerous growth out in the forests, which contains substances that can counteract these growths.   It’s as if nature is giving us a blueprint to read, if only we have the eyes to see and the heart and mind to be open to its wonders.

For many years I have given all of my melanoma patients and most of my other cancer patients some sort of chaga preparation to take essentially for the rest of their lives.  Some of the best results I have seen with cancer patients have been in those who made the consumption of chaga as much a part of their lives as brushing their teeth.  As a preventative, chaga tea is the best form to use. For those with cancer, it is best to combine the tea, which contains the water-soluble components, with a few dropper-fulls of an alcoholic chaga extract, which concentrates the fat-soluble components of the chaga.  I have been so impressed with the health-maintenance properties of chaga that for years I have consumed a chaga tea drink as a part of my daily diet.

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Dr. Tom Cowan Challenges Dr. Peter McCullough’s Statements on The Last American Vagabond & Answers “Why Does It Matter That People Come to Realize That There Are No Viruses?”

video by Dr. Tom Cowan
commentary by Truth Comes to Light
February 15, 2023



Video available at Dr. Tom Cowan Odysee & Rumble channels.

In this video, Dr. Tom Cowan addresses the question “Why does it matter that people come to realize that there are no viruses?” He addresses comments made by Dr. Peter McCullough in an interview with The Last American Vagabond.

Excerpts:

“This is a historical misconception that, in a sense, has been weaponized or used against us – us being the people of the world — to our detriment.

And to put it another way, the virus theory, which is a subset of the whole germ theory, is a basic component of a worldview that is a domination worldview — that was espoused by such people as the Rockefeller medicine cabal.

And I, more and more, have come to the opinion that unless we get rid of this misconception and this whole domination worldview, that we cannot live the lives that humans were meant to live and create the world that we know we can create — because it’s based on a worldview which is a) wrong, and b) toxic.”

~~~

“So those of you who think this may be over and that we are done with the virus narrative, that is far from the case. We are as far away from that as you can possibly be. And that’s why I think I need to keep going here.”

~~~

“And the only thing I’m going to say in the beginning is one would think with the name like Last American Vagabond. I’m not sure exactly what that means, but it connotes, at least to me, a kind of rebel organization populated by rebellious people who are not falling for the dominant narrative. And all I can say is the virus narrative is about as conventional domination, mainstream narrative as you can get.”

~~~

“So are blood clots a unique symptom to a virus? First of all, there is no evidence that the virus exists. So how would you know that the virus is causing the blood clots? I would love to hear Dr. McCullough trace those two and say that that is a new and unique symptom that couldn’t possibly be caused by something else.

In other words, if you don’t know why those buildings got bombed, then the default position is it must be the invisible exploding unicorns. That’s the thinking that’s going on here.

And we heard this in a debate the other day. ‘If you can’t tell me what else is causing people to get sick, then my default position is I go with the dominant narrative, which it therefore must be a virus’. That is magical thinking.”

~~~

“So is there any other possible reason why people have blood clots? Well, here’s two articles just on a cursory look that show that radiation sickness has all the symptoms, including damage to the endothelial lining and blood clots. You can see this in an article called The Commonalities between COVID-19 and Radiation Injury.

Forgetting about the fact that they had no way of knowing whether anybody had COVID-19 or not, so the paper is obviously flawed. All they can say is both conditions initiate a cytokine storm and both conditions have symptoms of blood clots.

Here’s another paper. Again, even though it’s very flawed paper, I’m sure some of you have seen this Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications 5G — even though there is no coronavirus disease-19. So the paper is flawed, but what they can tell you is that wireless radiation is a ubiquitous environmental stress, and it creates all the symptoms.

And they go on to say, including blood clots and all the rest of the symptoms, which we erroneously ascribe to — here’s hypercoagulation impairs the microcirculation.

So all this is clear. There is a clear correlation between a variety of environmental toxins such as pharmaceutical drugs, including some of the ones that apparently Dr. McCullough is recommending to those who he claims have the first infection, even though the test and the symptoms that he’s using to claim first infection have never been validated and are not even approved by the FDA except under the bogus emergency use authorization.

So the whole argument falls apart. There is no new symptom called blood clots, which is unique to a new “disease called COVID”. None of these tests, none of these studies have ever been correlated to an actual virus that is easy to demonstrate and easy to prove. And so the whole narrative just falls apart.

Now, what was the other part of this?

One of the things that is becoming more and more clear to me is that one of the biggest problems we’re having is that people who are in the “freedom community”, who go on to shows, podcasts, interviews, events, et cetera, and nobody seems to question them about the basic science.

I don’t know whether it’s a matter of politeness or whether they don’t know the science. They don’t know how to ask the questions. They don’t know how to ask a simple question. ‘Dr. McCullough I’m a rebel and a vagabond, and therefore I don’t believe in the normal narrative. I know that the current scientific paradigm is used to enslave people and tyrannize people and separate people. And I don’t buy it. And my whole show is based on we look at things in a different way here. Dr. McCullough, can you please explain how you know these people got infected with a virus? Can you follow that whole chain of events?’

Rather than nod and say they need pharmaceutical antivirals. ‘And by the way, how did you demonstrate that these so called nutraceutical antivirals or over-the-counter antivirals, how did you demonstrate that they actually kill viruses? And kill viruses in you?’

Because I know how they demonstrate that. They basically put it in a cell culture and the cell culture doesn’t die as quickly. And they somehow say the increased length of time before the cell culture dies somehow means they’ve actually killed a virus. This is crazy thinking.

But this should be the responsibility of all ethical, responsible, informed journalists and podcasters and interviewers to ask these people every single event. How do you know these things you are saying? Because I know this paradigm, this way of thinking, this victim mentality — that you’ve been dominated by this unseen virus and, therefore, have to separate and not go to events and not be around your loved ones and wear the face diaper thing, and the whole bit. And take toxic drugs. How do you know this is based on good science? And they never asked that.

…My call for help is– this is where I need all the people who listen to me, who also listen to various podcasts and interviewers and other things that they may also respect for different views on different things. They need to know that it’s time they start holding everyone, myself included, everyone’s feet to the fire and start asking the hard questions.

Because as I said in the beginning and the Marburg hoax is just one more example of that, as they’re now going apparently to target the African people who didn’t fall in line so much with the COVID thing.

We cannot build the world that we want while still believing in that domination-inspired paradigm of the germ theory. It just won’t happen.

We need to change the way we see the world. We need to change the way we think.

And everybody that we encounter who is is in the public sphere, who is speaking out of that paradigm, needs to be challenged. And the only way that’s going to happen is if all of you get involved and say to people — in a very cooperative, friendly, polite, respectful way — ‘Hey, Last American Vagabond people, here’s the science. It’s time for you to ask all these people who come on here, how do you know this is a virus? How do you know this is a first infection? What are the steps that they used? How do you know something is an antiviral? We need you to be our mouthpiece and our questioner and ask people this over and over again so that we finally see if they can stand up to scientific scrutiny. Because at the end of the day, we know that they can’t.’

That’s when things are going to change, people are going to realize that this emperor has no clothes and we don’t need an emperor in the first place.

We’re heading towards a kind of voluntary freedom society, I hope, or I think, or I’m expecting that to happen. And want to participate in the birth of something like that, which maybe we’ve never seen before. And these old ways of thinking, they just have to go.”

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Dr. Tom Cowan & Howdie Mickowski: On Our Hidden History & the Mystery of the World’s Fairs

 

“So we’ve got two avenues that we can discuss. There’s the avenue that most everyone looks at, which to me is actually the smallest part of the story and that is the buildings themselves. How are these buildings constructed? How is it possible in the time frame what’s supposed to be there? And how could they be so ornate, so beautiful, so spectacular and then be destroyed?

So we have the one side of it which is the buildings, which like I say, that gets the most of the attention.

To me it’s the other side of it that it should get more attention and that is: What was actually going on at these fairs? What were the exhibits, what was being presented? Because to me now, I see these fairs as like indoctrination centers. That they were literally indoctrinating a complete concept, a complete idea, complete structure of thinking — before movies, before television, before — this was it. And you put these all over the world. And lo and behold you can get a story into people’s minds.

And I think that’s what they were doing because, as you dig into what was actually shown at these things, it’s beyond bizarre. On one level it’s sick and on another level it’s showing our whole world for the next 120, 140 years. Where we are now was built actually at these fairs. And scary enough, I use the word ‘reset’ in my book before any of this started. To me these fairs were literally like portals from the end of the last world, however that last world ended — looks like destruction — and this was resetting in a new idea.

And then all of a sudden here we are with all of these controllers of the world throwing out the word “great reset” again.

And now I see that, hey, these fairs are like an important marker to where we are now, to telling us what we’re maybe going through and what we’re headed for. So that’s why to me it’s so important to study them, not just asking the questions of how did these buildings get built. Was there a civilization prior to this? Was there a technology we didn’t have? That’s question one we can talk about. But the other one, the bigger one, is what was really going on there?”

~~~

“That means that all the history we have prior to this period of the world’s fairs is not only questionable, it’s highly likely completely wrong.”

[…]

“And now this has helped show me how much we are so in the dark about history, which is so important. Why is history important?

Well, history is important because it explains our present. We can explain here’s where we are, and the story of history is how we got here.”

[…]

“But if we find that history is absolutely wrong, that it’s just a story that’s been used to explain a particular method of control, now all of a sudden, we would have to say, well, why are we doing anything the way we’re doing it then?

Because if the history that brought us here, that supposedly brought us here is wrong, then we don’t have to stay here. We can change it.

So the historical narrative is important for the overall control mechanism, because it explains why we are where we are.”

~ Howdie Mickowski

“And essentially the thesis here is that they implanted this narrative in this time, in this way, in these buildings, in these exhibitions, in these simulations, and that became our reality. And we’re actually still dealing with the consequences of that, even more so in the last three years.

And I can tell you it’s the exact same thing and the exact same time in medicine and biology.”

~ Dr. Tom Cowan

Conversations with Dr. Cowan & Friends | Ep 59: Howdie Mickoski

by Dr. Tom Cowan
January 12, 2022

Howdie Mickoski is a researcher who has spent the past decade-plus investigating such subjects as the philosophy and teachings of ancient Egypt, the philosophy and teachings of the Cathars, Gnostics and other historical groups, as well as the works of Carlos Castenada, among others.

Howdie has also written books about the fascinating history of the world’s fairs and expositions of the late 1800s and early 1900s, and postulates what these events can tell us about our history. Please join me for this interview in which we discuss all aspects of these fairs and expos and wonder about what these investigations have to tell us about our current world situation.

Bring your most open mind and questioning habits to this interview, and enjoy the ride.

Best,
Tom



Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan — website — BitChute — Rumble

Connect with Howdie Mickowski at his YouTube channel

Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: Howdie mentions a website where all World’s Fairs are listed and where links are provided to a vast amount of information. Find the page here:  http://www.studylove.org/worldsfairs.html

Cover image credit: The World’s Columbian exposition, Chicago, 1893 — (public domain)

Tom Cowan on Why There Is No Immune System

If Viruses Don’t Exist Then the Concept of an Immune System Becomes Redundant.

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
January 5, 2023

Tom Cowan, who was previously on my podcast in which he discussed his book The Contagion Myth and why germs don’t cause disease, is a doctor and author of multiple books challenging current medical paradigms, specifically relating to illness and optimal wellbeing.

His approach is sensible and logical and he has a wonderful way in simplifying complex concepts.

In terms of the discourse around viruses and germs in general, I’ve had numerous conversations with great thinkers including

• Sam Bailey and her husband Mark on their medical journeys;
• Andrew Kaufman on virus isolation;
• David Rasnick on HIV not existing and rethinking cancer;
• Anthony Brink on why the former South African president was right about HIV;
• Steve Falconer on the death of Germ Theory;
• Mike Donio on pharmaceutical propaganda; and
• Mike Stone on questioning the entire field of virology.

There are more but the aforementioned discussions cover a lot of ground and well worth listening to.

Tom joined me on my radio show to chat about similar talking points, but gave some superb analyses into the differences between contagion and infection as well as the absurdity of the currently established virus isolation claims.

The cherry on the top was his takedown of the immune system and why it can’t exist if there is nothing against which to be immune.



Connect with Jerm Warfare

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

 Partial transcript prepared by Truth Comes to Light

Jerm:

Tom, you are one of the biggest influences on my life in the last year or so — yourself, Andy Kaufman, Sam Bailey and a handful of others. And I never in my life thought that I would have taken this road in challenging my own paradigm, particularly around viruses and germs in general…

And holy cow, Tom, how is it possible that we have all gone down this wrong road? …

Tom:

How is it possible? I don’t know. That’s a speculative question, I would say. My role in this, I think, is not to speculate on so much why it happened, but documenting that it did happen…

[…]

Because one thing that I’ve learned in these past three years, and I try to be as rigorous about this as I can, is that the road to — I’m not sure what you call it, freedom or health or liberation — is not so much finding the truth as finding out what’s not true.

Because at the end of the day, once you extricate all the things that we think or believe or hope that are not true, you end up, like I say, back home as a place that you are always looking for.

Jerm:

That’s very true, Tom. It does feel like I’m home… There’s a sense of liberation that comes when you realize that you don’t need to outsource your health to the pharmaceutical industry…

Tom:

Right. Again, it’s all about questioning fundamental assumptions. And you can get into this with things to do with actions of the government.

And interestingly, the fundamental assumption when you’re dealing with actions by the government is that the government is there to help you. Right?

That’s why these elected officials, we put them there and their job is to help the population. And of course, they have different ideas how to do that. But the fundamental assumption there is they’re there to help. And I would submit that there’s actually no evidence for that. They’re not there to help you at all. They’re there for a whole different reason.

And once you realize that, then you stop looking to them to help you because you realize that’s not what they’re meant to do.

And the reason I bring that up in response to what you said is it’s actually the same thing with doctors and pharmaceutical industries and health organizations like the CDC and the NIH and whatever you have in your country, in the world.

We think they’re there to protect and foster health. But that’s an assumption which I would submit is actually not true. Now, it doesn’t mean that the individuals who work for the CDC may think that’s what they’re doing. I’m sure a lot of them do.

But as an institution and as an endeavor — like the pharmaceutical industry is there to make money off you. And one of the ways they do that is to get you to buy their products by making you sick.

And if you think like that, which I would submit is actually closer to reality, then it makes sense of everything they do. It’s just obvious.

If that was your goal, then you would give people things, otherwise known as vaccines, to make them sick, and then they would get asthma, and then you sell them this drug, and then they would get bronchitis, and then you sell them this drug. And it all makes sense…

Once you realize that and you realize those are not the people that you should even be asking the question to, because they’re not interested. They have a different agenda, basically.

Jerm:

I was one of those people about two years ago. I remember when I first came across some of your work and I knee jerked. And I thought, no, come on. And there was something in me that said, no, just keep on go down this path and see where it goes.

And I have to say, Tom, I now have the converse view. I think ‘how can people think like I did three years ago?’…

[…]

So, okay, Tom, where does the story start? I mean the contagion myth. When we talk about contagion, what are we talking about?

Tom:

Well, there’s also a difference between contagion and transmission. Transmission is likely a real phenomena. Contagion is not a real phenomenon…

So what we mean by that is classically — I mean, you can get into semantics here, but contagion refers to the fact that microorganisms, in particularly viruses and bacteria, are spread between organisms like people or animals or maybe plants, and they cause disease.

[…]

If you drop a bomb on somebody with napalm, somebody meaning a city, and a lot of people burn to death and asphyxiate or whatever, does that mean that napalm bomb was contagious? So obviously no.

So then at that point, you have to do something called science. Which means you have to actually do an experiment. Which means if you think that a virus is contagious, meaning spread from one person to another, you have to do an experiment in which you take the virus, and the virus only, and introduce that to a number of people or animals in the usual way…and see if they get sick.
Right?

It’s like the example I use. If you say ping pong balls knock down walls, the only way to prove that is to take a ping pong ball, and only a ping pong ball, and throw that at the wall and see if the wall knocks down.

You can’t put a ping pong ball in a bucket of stones and throw it at the wall, and if the wall knocks down, say it’s because of the ping pong ball…

[…]

Now, let me just say transmission means sure that organisms can communicate with each other. And that actually is a real phenomenon.

Like, you put 20 menstruating, women in a cabin for a year and they all start menstruating, more or less at the same time. Is that a virus? I mean, nobody thinks that. Is it some sort of communication between people? Apparently. How does that work? I mean, I don’t know. Nobody has actually studied it. Is there chemicals called pheromones? Maybe, but I have my doubts about that.

So that gets into a whole realm of how do biological organisms communicate with each other?

Trees do it, frogs do it. Presumably people do it. If one person starts laughing, other people start laughing…

[…]

Jerm:

Tom, before I ask you about the alternative vectors to illness or the expression thereof, obviously I have to ask you the elephant- in-the-room question which everybody always asks.

‘Okay, but these scientific journals say that viruses have been isolated.’ SARS-CoV-2 was apparently isolated, if you read that substack by Steve Kirsch. All those comments keep coming up.

So what is it that they are seeing?

Tom:

So the problem with that question is you have to get into the definition of what isolation means…

When you ask somebody like Steve Kirsch, ‘has there been a paper that claims isolation of SARS-CoV-2’, he says yes.

In fact, I would say there’s let me guess, 10,000 papers in the medical literature claiming the isolation of a virus.

So the question is not ‘do they say that?’, it’s ‘how did they do it?’.

[…]

So you would think they would take a sick person, and doing very well-known and easily-performed techniques, they would purify the virus out of the snot or the blood or the cerebrospinal fluid, and then they would show you the pictures of the pure virus and that would constitute an isolated virus.

That has never been done. And they agree that that’s never been done. So no organism, no particle that’s “a replication competent protein coat, DNA or RNA on the inside, infectious particle” has ever been isolated using the definition that we all use — from any plant, animal or human being. And I will stake my entire career on the fact. And everybody agrees with that.

So because they couldn’t do that, and because you can’t study something that you haven’t isolated, they made a new definition of isolation.

So what they do is they take snot from a person who’s got a cough for unknown reasons. They do certain techniques, either centrifugation or filtration, which does not end up with a purified virus. It’s just to get some of the debris out of the sample, right? So that is not a purified or isolated sample. That’s just the liquid from your snot.

And then they put that on a cell culture, which means growing kidney cells from African green monkey, called verocells. And then they take away the nutrients. They add nephrotoxic, kidney toxic antibiotics. They add fetal bovine serum. (They suck the serum out of the heart of a newborn calf.) They add trypsin and usually some other things. Then they don’t do an appropriate control. They do what they call a mock infection, sometimes, but they always change the parameters.

So, for instance, they don’t add antibiotics. They never do what a mock infection is meant to. The definition is to do the same thing without a virus. Obviously they can’t do that because they can’t find a virus in the snot.

And then when the tissue breaks down — so we take monkey kidney cells that are growing, we take away their nutrients, we poison them, we add other genetic material and growth factors, we put in pancreatic enzymes — and when that cell culture breaks down, that is called isolation in the medical virology literature.

So if you ask Kirsch or any of those people, ‘has it been isolated?’, they say yes. If you say, ‘how is it isolated?’, they don’t know. He doesn’t know. Some of them know, but they won’t tell you because everybody who can think knows that, like Vince Raccanello, that’s not isolation.

And if it’s not isolation, that means you never actually found the virus. Which means there’s no evidence that the virus exists, Which means you can’t study it. You can’t find what genetics it has because you don’t even have it in a pure form.

So all they do then is essentially assess the genetic material in the broken down kidney cells and fetal bovine serum and all the rest of it. And then they make a hypothetical model, which they match up with the previous hypothetical model to say they have a new virus. This is simply madness.

You cannot have a more unscientific procedure than what I just described…

[…]

Jerm:

Now, your book basically states that, I think, there are about four vectors to what would be defined as illness or the expression of illness, one of them being toxicity or poison, another being mental wellness or mental state. What’s the other one? Physical injury and I think starvation of the cells. I think those are the four major vectors, am I right?

Tom:

Yeah, not quite. It’s simple.

Number one, injuries, i.e. fall off your horse, right? Because that can give you a broken leg.

Number two, starvation. I wouldn’t say of the cells, because even the whole cell theory is an unproven theory. But you don’t have good food. Now, food includes — like stuff we eat and stuff we drink, and also mental, emotional food. If you’re fed lies and BS all the time, you’re starving for the truth.

The third one is poisoning. And we have varied and creative ways of poisoning other people and animals and plants.

And the fourth one, which I didn’t used to emphasize so much, but now I think is the most important, is: people are delusional. In other words, they believe in nonsense. And because they believe in nonsense… typically when you believe something, that becomes the basis for the actions of your life. And the actions then have consequences.

And I can give you an example that really hit this home. There was a guy I knew who was an anthroposophical doctor, and I met him 20 years ago, and he worked at a community clinic in San Francisco treating so-called AIDS patients with HIV drugs.

I told him HIV has never been proven to exist, and the whole thing is nonsense. And of course, he didn’t believe it. And he spent his life treating people for imaginary viruses, right? That’s what he believed in.

So then, of course, because he believes in imaginary viruses, he got four COVID shots — the two normal ones, whatever normal is, and then the two boosters. And I think it was four or five days after this second booster, he was found dead in his bed. And he was otherwise a healthy guy, supposedly.

So why did he die? You could say he died because he was poisoned, and that’s true. But the real reason he died was because he believed in viruses, because that led him to self inflict this poison, and that killed him.

So it’s huge what you believe…

[…]

Jerm:

The thing though, Tom, is then what is sickness? Or what is illness? Is it an expression of something?

Tom:

The whole concept of illness is misinterpreted by doctors and medicine.

Again, I’ve given this example a million times. You get a splinter in your finger, you don’t take it out. That’s like a toxin, so to speak. And then you make pus to get the splinter out.

And in medical school you learn pus means infection, means bad, means give the person antibiotic.

But it’s obvious that if you get rid of the pus, the splinter will stay there and you’ll get pus again and again and again. And then you’ll encapsulate the splinter, unless you take it out, and then you’ll have a tumor, which means a new growth. And that’s exactly the sequence of events of what happens to people.

So another one. You put debris in your lungs. People do that with smoking and breathing crappy air like Wuhan and Italy and places all over the world. And then you get a cough to get the crap out of your lungs. Well, you go to the doctor and he says, because he doesn’t understand medicine, he says you have bronchitis. So he gives you cough medicine and antibiotics to keep the debris in your lungs. And then you do that twice a year for 20 years. And then you get a bag of debris in your lungs and we call that lung cancer. And we say, I don’t know how you got lung cancer. You must have smoked or something. Right? But your body kept trying to get it out.

And the doctors, because they don’t understand how medicine works or how every symptom you have is your body’s attempt to heal and we don’t understand that. So every encounter makes things worse.

Jerm:

I suppose, by extension, Tom, I have to ask you, does the immune system exist in any meaningful way?

Tom:

There is no immune system. They made that up to make you think there were viruses. What happens — there is no immunity to imaginary viruses. There has never been any proof of any chickenpox, smallpox, measles virus in any living human being or animal, period.

And so you can’t get immune to something that doesn’t exist. In fact, what happens if you have a situation in your life of toxicity or exposed to mental stress or a child who’s growing too much too fast essentially, and they don’t have the collagen in their diet to keep up, they break down a little bit and they excrete that through their skin.

We call that measles or chickenpox and we can’t even really tell the difference between measles and chickenpox.

If you go back to the historical literature, they knew that these were just different manifestations. And so then you make white blood cells to clean up the debris. That’s like garbage collectors. And then you make these proteins called antibodies to repair the tissue. They’re not killing off or remembering any viruses. And so obviously, if you’re breaking down more like you have AIDS, you’ll have more antibodies because you have more tissue to repair. That has nothing to do with anything called immunity.

It has to do with if you break somebody down because they smoke and take amphetamines and poppers and you don’t eat and all that stuff and their tissues break down and they’re psychologically terrorized. They break down and they make antibodies to repair. And we test and see if they have antibodies and then they say they have a virus. This is absurd.

It’s like nursery school thinking.

Jerm:

But yet it’s 150 years, or thereabouts, old. I mean it’s crazy to think that it’s been so established.

Tom:

Well, it’s not the only thing, I can tell you that.

Jerm:

…Going into the year 2023, what advice could you give people?

Tom:

Don’t believe anything coming out of mainstream media or your doctor or health authority. And don’t let anybody put stuff in you that a) you don’t know what it is, b) if it came from a carrot, that’s okay. If it’s the chemicals that supposedly are in a carrot, don’t eat it because it’s not good for you. That’s not how we’re organized. Don’t inject anything into yourself. And think for yourself.

I think the most important thing I’ve learned is focus on understanding what’s not true and give yourself a break from saying therefore I must know what is true. You will find out what’s true at the end of the day once you’ve cleared out all the stuff that you believe that wasn’t true.

There was a quote from Mark Twain that I sometimes show. He says, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you. It’s what you know for sure but just ain’t so. “

That’s the problem. You have a lot of things that people, including myself, we think we know for sure: There’s cells, there’s immune system, there’s viruses. The medical profession is there to help you. The government is there to protect your well being.

There’s no evidence for any of that stuff. So once you get rid of that, then you will be left with ‘so how does this all work?’. Then that becomes fun.

Cover image credit: silviarita

Dr. Tom Cowan With Drs. Mark & Samantha Bailey: In Response to Kevin McKernan’s Statements to Medical Doctors for Covid Ethics International Group

Baileys & Cowan Respond to Kevin McKernan

by Drs. Sam & Mark Bailey with Dr. Tom Cowan
December 8, 2022

Recently, the CSO of Medicinal Genomics, Kevin McKernan spoke to the Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International group. He was challenged by journalist, Eric Coppolino, about the lack of evidence for SARS-CoV-2 and pathogenic viruses. McKernan made various claims that we believed needed to be addressed.

Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Mark Bailey join me to demystify the virological and biotechnological nonsense.



References:

1. Kevin McKernan Bio
2. Medical Doctors For COVID Ethics International Full Video Interview: Kevin McKernan
3. Medical Doctors For COVID Ethics International Video Interview: Dr. Mark Bailey
4. Medical Doctors For COVID Ethics International Video Interview: Dr. Kevin Corbett
5. Airborne-transmission-of-SARS-CoV-2: The World Should Face The Reality
6. Baric, R et al. SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Genetics Reveals a Variable Infection Gradient in the Respiratory Tract
7. Consensus Statement: The species Severe acute respiratory syndromerelated coronavirus- classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2
8. Follow Dr. Tom Cowan here

Connect with Drs. Samantha and Mark Bailey

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Referenced in the video:

• Mark Bailey’s essay “A Farewell to Virology“.
• Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense by Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, Stefano Scoglio

Excerpts from video transcript (prepared by Truth Comes to Light):

Introduction by Sam Bailey:

In this video. Mark and I are joined by Dr. Tom Cowan to analyze the claims about “viruses” made by Kevin McKernan. Kevin is the CSO and founder of Medicinal Genomics and is a specialist in the areas of genetic sequencing and PCR technology.

He made the claims in a recent talk he gave to the Doctors for COVID Ethics International Organization.

This is the group headed by Dr. Stephen Frost and Charles Kovess, and I’d like to give credit to them for allowing all sides to the arguments to be presented through this forum. In fact, Mark spoke on their platform about the virus existence issue in October, as did Kevin Corbett a few weeks earlier.

Kevin McKernan has been promoted by Steve Kirsch as one of his proof of virus knights. So let’s find out if he is riding a horse or an imaginary unicorn.

The no-virus group has previously dismantled the claims of Sabine Hazan and Dr. Sin Lee, Kirsch’s other virus champions.

Kirsch has admitted that he doesn’t know the intricacies of virology and relies on “expert opinions” about where the viruses have been shown to exist. That’s not a wise move in my experience, because if you don’t understand what the so-called expert claims to understand, you are still in the dark.

Those promoting the virus narrative may want to reconsider where their plotlines are coming from.

Tom Cowan:

So the problem with all of this is, in a sense, it’s a philosophical problem. A sequence is a part of a whole, right? There’s this whole particle, which is a replication competent DNA or RNA encased in a protein which replicates in a cell and that causes lysis of the cell or cytopathic effect and therefore causes disease.

So they never found that whole, right?

They never referenced they find the whole. In fact, this guy actually says you cannot find that whole particle. So we’re going to skip that and we’re just going to take a piece of it and we’re going to say that represents this entity called a virus.

But as I said, you can’t say a piece of something belongs to a whole unless you had the whole first. You can’t say a paw is part of a cat unless you’ve had a cat first. They don’t have the cat first. So they say this sequence matches up to the sequence that has been published before that says it’s a coronavirus.

Well, where did that one come from?

That one came from the sequence that was published before that was said to be a coronavirus.

So where did that one come from?

That came from the sequence before. And that guy made it up.

Mark Bailey:

And once again, we’ve followed the trails back. So for coronavirus, specifically “coronavirus”, we followed the trail back to the 1980s when they claimed to have sequenced the very first “coronavirus genome”.

And I looked at all of those experiments, which were done with chicken embryos, and at no point did they demonstrate that they had anything that fulfilled the description of a virus.

They just started sequencing what they found in these experiments and then said, ‘well, we think there’s a virus in there’.

One of the experiments was fraudulent and said that they had purified the sample of variants and there was absolutely no evidence.

But unfortunately, since the 1980s, these genomes have just been put onto databases, And now we have people like Kevin McKernan saying it’s valid because we can check the sequences against what we find on a database.

And if we find them again, that means that we’re finding “viruses”, when absolutely no evidence that that’s what they’ve got.

Tom Cowan:

In some ways, after this two and a half, three year odyssey we’ve all been on, I almost wish we had never got into the thing about exosomes because the reality is, what they claim to be the proof of the existence of a virus is they take unpurified samples and inoculate those onto mostly vero cells, which are monkey kidney cells. And if it breaks down, they claim that is the proof of the virus.

Now, I was going to show you, and I think Sam will put up there’s the study of Enders, there’s three more studies from the 50s showing that vero cells break down without having any virus in the sample, any sample that could possibly have a virus.

So that’s a total of four from the 50s. Then Stefan [Lanka] did a study showing the same thing. You don’t need any sample with the virus to have the cells break down.

…Now, what, what happens when the cells break down, whether in a culture or in us, is it makes basically breakdown products, which is like garbage. And unfortunately, we started calling those exosomes as if they had some special importance, like messengers around the body or something. But the fact of the matter is, as far as I can see, while there may be something called an exosome, it’s just garbage. The cells break down, they make little things that you could see on an electron microscope, which are just typical normal cellular breakdown products.

So there are no exosomes circulating around the world. That’s nonsense. There are no viruses.

Now, the other thing that he doesn’t seem to understand, which is mind boggling, is the reason you get the same sequence all over the world is because you put this library of RNA into a computer and you give it a template which says ‘make SARS-CoV-2’. So, by God, it does!

It’s like ‘make a Volkswagen all over the world’. So they have Volkswagen plants all over the world. And oh, my God, the Volkswagens are traveling all over the world. No, they’re not. You’re telling each factory to make a Volkswagen. That’s the template. Each virology sequencing lab, it puts in the template to take these letters and make it into SARS-CoV-2 sequence. So it does. That’s not traveling all over the world. That’s just making Volkswagens at different factories all over the world. Nobody’s traveling anywhere.

Mark Bailey:

Well, exactly, Tom with his claim that something is traveling around the world. I mean, we were trying to point this out in 2020, and Sam’s co-author Claus Köhnlein was one of the first in the world to point this out. He said there’s nothing passing around apart from a PCR protocol. And he pointed out, he said, wherever you take the PCR protocol, you’ll find this “COVID-19” or the “virus”. It’s not something that’s necessarily passing around. It’s just — it’s literally a PCR pandemic. And if you set the protocols to find a certain sequence, you end up finding them.

Now, the other thing is that we’re not always saying that these sequences don’t change over time. So they might say, well, we got some samples from ten years ago and we couldn’t find these sequences. But that’s not how nature works. We know that genetic sequences have variations over time. I mean, our own genomes are not fixed, as we know if we take it from different parts of our bodies at different points in time, we’ll find different sequences. But the problem is, with this form of indirect evidence, they’re trying to say that if we find these sequences and at some stage someone declared that they’re viral, and if we find them again, that’s our evidence that we’re finding a virus that’s spreading around.

The other aspect that Kevin introduced there was the cycle threshold. Now, what he’s saying there is, he’s saying that if the cycle threshold is set too high, then it’s invalid. But if the cycle thresholds set at an appropriate low level, then it is valid. This is problematic because it comes back to our first point that these particular sequences that the PCR is amplifying have not been shown to be viral. So the cycle threshold is not an issue. I mean, that’s a technical issue and it relates to good laboratory practice. And we know that once you get to thresholds at about 35, it’s basically an artifact result. And we know they’re doing that a lot. But I think he misses our point. We’re not saying it’s a cycle threshold issue, we’re saying it’s a provenance issue and it’s a proof of these sequences actually belonging to a virus.

And it is difficult because for a lot of lay people, when they get presented with epidemiology or a news story and they get a headline that this thing is spreading around the world, they don’t understand that simply all that spreading is a PCR protocol.

And I think the other issue is that someone like Kevin would say, well, everyone in the household, we detected the same sequence. And again, that’s evidence of nothing in particular.

I mean, it would be like saying that you isolated strep pneumonia from someone in the family and then a week later you’ve found that you could isolate it from every member of the family. But it doesn’t mean anything. That’s just particles. In this case, that would be bacteria, something that we can actually see passing around between people, but it’s not a pathogenic process.

So again, to claim that we can use the protection of sequences to claim that there’s a virus spreading, it’s simply that’s a logical fallacy, pure and simple.

See related:

Getting to the Truth About “Viruses”: Drs. Sam & Mark Bailey, Andrew Kaufman & Tom Cowan Respond to  Del Bigtree’s Statements in a Recent Interview With The Conscious Resistance

‘The End of Germ Theory’ Documentary: An Easy-to-Understand, Step-by-Step Analysis of the History of Germ & Virus Theory, the Erroneous “Science” Behind Vaccination & a Close Look at What Really Makes Us Sick — The Big Pharma Cartel & the Deep Deception of Viral Pandemics

Jon Rappoport With Dr. Sam Bailey: The Virus Cover Story

Jim West: The Toxicology Taboo

Bioweapon BS — The Lab Leak Narrative & Virology’s Ongoing, Cruel, Pointless Torture & Massacre of Animals

Mary Holland of Children’s Health Defense Leads Discussion of the Documentary “The Viral Delusion: The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV2 & The Madness of Modern Virology”

The Path Paved by Dr. Lanka: Exposing the Lies of Virology

Dr. Tom Cowan: Lab Created Viruses? Gain of Function Research? Bio Labs? — Smoking Gun or Bad Science?

The Viral Delusion (2022) Docu-Series: The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV2 & the Madness of Modern Virology

Why Nobody Can Find a Virus

Dr. Tom Cowan & Dr. Andrew Kaufman: A Challenging Response to Dr. Mercola’s Article “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 Is a Real Virus”

The Emperor Has No Corona

Dr. Tom Cowan With Dr. Mark Bailey: “SARS-CoV-2 Virus Could Never Have Been Leaked From a Lab Because No Such Particle Has Been Proven to Exist. Ever.”

by Dr. Tom Cowan
September 22, 2022

Dear friends,

As many of you know, economist Jeffrey Sachs, the head of the Lancet Covid-19 Commission, dropped a bombshell recently when he announced his support for the theory that the origin of SARS-CoV-2 was most likely a leak from a virology lab in Wuhan, China. His assertion follows years of speculation — within the health-freedom community, the halls of Congress and in the popular and scientific press — that such an event took place.

After making this announcement, Sachs was interviewed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., about the circumstances and evidence for this lab-leaked virus. Kennedy is also releasing a new book that purports to lay out the evidence for this theory, and how it proves the duplicity of government officials such as Fauci, who they allege are accomplices in unleashing this plague upon the world.

Other prominent lawyers, doctors and researchers have also publicly endorsed the lab-leak hypothesis. Del Bigtree of the Highwire podcast has even claimed that it’s settled fact that SARS-CoV-2 was created through so-called gain-of-function research, largely funded by Fauci-led government labs. This act, they say, is allegedly the smoking gun, the proof that Covid was and is a “plandemic” organized and funded by the elites to create the conditions to enact the World Economic Forum’s The Great Reset.

While it is not my intention to denigrate the good work done by Kennedy and others in exposing the horrors of the Great Reset agenda and speaking out against restrictions on our freedoms, I strongly encourage them and anyone else to listen to today’s podcast with Dr. Mark Bailey. In doing so, they will hear that a SARS-CoV-2 virus could never have been leaked from a lab because no such particle has been proven to exist. Ever. Not only that, the alleged claim that SARS-CoV-2 is a chimeric virus made from portions of HIV mixed with previously discovered coronaviruses can’t possibly be true because, as you probably already know, neither HIV nor previous “coronaviruses” have themselves been shown to exist.

The most interesting question of all is not the science, as that is easy to demonstrate: No natural, chimeric, lab-created or any other type of SARS-CoV-2 has been proven to exist. The question is, why this story? The answer might have come from Sachs himself, who in a long follow-up article essentially came to the conclusion that, as a result of discovering this lab leak, whether purposeful or accidental, it is no longer possible to trust national governments or virology labs to police themselves. They have been proven to be corrupt, sloppy and untrustworthy. His solution? We must put the oversight of all virology labs and, perhaps someday, of all “science” labs under the gentle and careful guidance of the World Health Organization and related supranational bodies.

I was absolutely shocked to read this purported solution. To centralize control of scientific experimentation in the WHO, an unelected and unaccountable body that pushed the effort to vaccinate most of humanity and drove the disastrous lockdown policies worldwide, would create an even bigger monster to battle. It now feels urgent for the health-freedom community to rigorously investigate the whole story of SARS-CoV-2 in particular and virology in general. As Mark and I point out in this podcast, the health-freedom promulgators of the lab-leak theory now have two options. First, they can demonstrate how they know that HIV, the original coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2 exist, and then show how this chimeric lab-created virus was spread throughout the world. Or, they can investigate further the scientific evidence of virology’s catastrophic and obvious lies.

Their response to this request will help demonstrate whether a “unity conference” as proposed by Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense is a real possibility. My sincere hope is that those in the medical-freedom community have simply misunderstood the science of virology.

All the best,
Tom

 Video available at Dr. Tom Cowan BitChute channel. [Mirrored copies available at TCTL Odysee, BitChute & Brighteon channels.]

Read and download at the Bailey’s website (Mark & Samantha Bailey): https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Dr. Mark Bailey

Getting to the Truth About “Viruses”: Drs. Sam & Mark Bailey, Andrew Kaufman & Tom Cowan Respond to  Del Bigtree’s Statements in a Recent Interview With The Conscious Resistance

“I think realistically, we’re talking about the state of the science in virology. And these are facts that we can check within their own publications. So, we’re not presenting a philosophical view about how biology works necessarily. What we’re saying is that when we go to the scientific literature,  we can see that they’ve not established that there are pathogenic particles called viruses.”

~ Dr. Mark Bailey

“…The way I see it right now is — the goal, I’d say, is to stop the tyranny… And the good thing, I would say, is that whoever is the perpetrators of this… in a sense they gave us a gift. And the gift is, they made this particular tyranny — focus of it — to be about a virus. And it turns out that if you actually go into how do you know whether these so-called pathogenic viruses exist, it’s very simple…

…With viruses, there’s no technical problem of finding them. We’ve been able to do this for over 70 years. And the fact of the matter is… you can’t find them in the habitat that they say they are. And so this becomes such a scientific truth — logical, rational way of understanding the world. And it becomes clear to just about everybody that they can’t prove that these viruses exist.

And since the goal is to stop the tyranny… if you show that there’s no evidence that they do exist, which is very easy to do, then all of the things in the tyranny — so-called vaccines, injections, social distancing, masking, closing businesses, restriction of travel — all that makes no sense. No sense. So you don’t have to fight about all those things…” 

~ Dr. Tom Cowan

“Viruses” – Baileys, Cowan & Kaufman Respond to Del Bigtree

by Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey, with Dr. Andrew Kaufman & Dr. Tom Cowan
September 3, 2022

In a recent interview, Del Bigtree suggested that the world is not ready for the “no virus” conversation.

We take a different view, which is why the “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement was launched.

Dr Sam and Mark Bailey are joined by Dr Tom Cowan and Dr Andy Kaufman to analyse Bigtree’s strategy. We discuss why we believe the COVID-19 situation should be used to unravel not only the virus model, but the fraud of germ theory as well.



References:

1. Del Bigtree Interview
2. The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement
3. Dr Tom Cowan
4. Dr Andrew Kaufman
5. Dr Sam Bailey – Virus Debate Statement Video

Connect with Drs. Mark & Sam Bailey

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

cover image credit: kalhh 

The Path Paved by Dr. Lanka: Exposing the Lies of Virology

The Path Paved by Dr. Lanka

by Mike Stone, ViroLIEgy
August 16, 2022

I remember early on in 2017, when I first started unraveling the “virus” lie through the examination of HIV/AIDS, to being introduced to the work of Dr. Stefan Lanka. If memory serves me correctly, my first encounter was through the brilliant House of Numbers documentary by Brent Leung. I was simply amazed that Dr. Lanka, an ex-virologist, was actually calling out the methods of his own profession. His testimony, along with that of Kary Mullis, the inventor of the misused and abused PCR technique, carried much weight with me in those early days. Their words lent credibility to the argument that the evidence for the existence of HIV and other “viruses” was entirely absent and fraudulent.

During that time of intense research where I was desperately seeking out any and all information that I could find, I fortunately stumbled onto a few of Dr. Lanka’s articles through the VirusMyth.com website. I was engrossed in his work and absorbed much of what he had to say on the subject, especially in regards to the lack of purification and isolation of any “viruses,” the faults of the cell culture method, and the problems related to electron microscope imagery. As it did for many others, Dr. Lanka’s work formed much of the foundation for my understanding of the lies of virology. It is rare to gain such critical insight from someone who was involved in the industry. It is even more rare for someone in his position to set out and actually prove what he was saying correct yet that is exactly what Dr. Lanka has done numerous times.

Without Dr. Lanka’s enormous contributions to unraveling the lies of germ theory, many of us speaking out today may not have been doing so. As his work was instrumental in helping me along on my own journey towards uncovering the truth, I want to highlight what I consider Dr. Lanka’s three biggest contributions to proving the fraud of virology along with many of the papers he has written on the subject. My hope is that you will be able to come away with a greater appreciation for Dr. Lanka’s monumental work as well as a clearer understanding of the deceptive practices used by virologists.

1. The Measles Trial

Early on in my journey, I found my way to the infamous measles trial saga while researching Dr. Lanka’s work. Back in 2017, it was difficult to find out much accurate information on what had really transpired. For those who are unaware, Dr. Lanka set forth a challenge in his own magazine calling upon anyone to come forward with a single paper providing the scientific evidence which proved the existence of a measles “virus.” If this challenge was met, the person would receive a $100,000 financial reward. A physician named David Bardens came forward with six papers spanning six decades which he claimed together proved the existence of the measles “virus.” Dr. Lanka refused to pay as he specifically requested one publication providing the entire proof necessary. Dr. Bardens sued and while Dr. Lanka lost the initial case in the lower courts, he won on appeal in the higher courts. At the time I originally came upon this story, the internet was (and still is) full of stories claiming that Dr. Lanka lost the case. However, to anyone interested in the truth, it is obvious that those lies do not hold up under scrutiny. Presented below is a great overview of how the events actually played out:

“On November 24, 2011, Dr. Lanka announced on his website that he would offer a prize of € 100,000 to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus. The announcement read as follows: “The reward will be paid, if a scientific publication is presented, in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, the diameter of the measles virus is determined.

In January 2012, Dr. David Bardens took Dr. Lanka up on his pledge. He offered six papers on the subject and asked Dr. Lanka to transfer the € 100,000 to his bank account.

The six publications are:

1. 1. Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277–286.
   2. Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85
   3. Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.
   4. Nakai M, Imagawa DT. Electron microscopy of measles virus replication. J Virol. 1969 Feb; 3(2): 187–97.
   5. Lund GA, Tyrell, DL, Bradley RD, Scraba DG. The molecular length of measles virus RNA and
      the structural organization of measles nucleocapsids. J Gen Virol. 1984 Sep;65 (Pt 9):1535–
   6. Daikoku E, Morita C, Kohno T, Sano K. Analysis of Morphology and Infectivity of Measles Virus Particles. Bulletin of the Osaka Medical College. 2007; 53(2): 107–14.

Dr. Lanka refused to pay the money since in his opinion these publications did not provide adequate evidence. Subsequently, Dr. Bardens took Dr. Lanka to court.

On March 12, 2015, the District Court Ravensburg in southern Germany ruled that the criteria of the advertisement had been fulfilled ordering Dr. Lanka to pay up. Dr. Lanka appealed the ruling.

On February 16, 2016, the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) re-evaluated the first ruling, judging that Dr. Bardens did not meet the criteria since he failed to provide proof for the existence of the measles virus presented in one publication, as asked by Dr. Lanka in his announcement. Therefore, Dr. Lanka does not have to pay the prize money.

On January 16, 2017, the First Civil Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) confirmed the ruling of the OLG Stuttgart.

Critics of the judicial verdict argue that Dr. Lanka’s victory is solely based on how he had formulated the offer of reward, namely to pay the € 100,000 for the presentation of a single publication of evidence (which Dr. Bardens was unable to provide). This argument, however, distracts the attention from the essential points.

According to the minutes of the court proceedings (page 7/ first paragraph), Andreas Podbielski, head of the Department of Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene at the University Hospital in Rostock, who was one of the appointed experts at the trial, stated that even though the existence of the measles virus could be concluded from the summary of the six papers submitted by Dr. Bardens, none of the authors had conducted any controlled experiments in accordance with internationally defined rules and principles of good scientific practice (see also the method of “indirect evidence”). Professor Podbielski considers this lack of control experiments explicitly as a “methodological weakness” of these publications, which are after all the relevant studies on the subject (there are no other publications trying to attempt to prove the existence of the “measles virus”). Thus, at this point, a publication about the existence of the measles virus that stands the test of good science has yet to be delivered.

Furthermore, at the trial it was noted that contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG) the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the highest German authority in the field of infectious diseases, has failed to perform tests for the alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on the measles virus, however, refuses to hand over or publish the results.”

Click to access Lanka_Bardens_Trial_E.pdf

For an even more in-depth analysis of what really occured during the trial, I always recommend this article by Feli Popescu, who was actually present during the proceedings:

https://feli-popescu.blogspot.com/2018/09/still-no-proof-for-measles-virus.html?m=1

When I think of Dr. Lanka’s work, the measles trial stands out as the most significant moment and the most pivotal accomplishment. We had an epic head-to-head clash between he medical establishment and an ex-virologust taking place in a court of law over the legitimacy of the evidence for the measles “virus.” It was determined through this trial that the foundational paper claiming the existence and isolation of the measles “virus,” the 1954 paper by John Franklin Enders, was unworthy by itself for proving the existence of the “virus.” As all other papers and virology itself owe their evidence to the cell culture methods developed by Enders in that paper, it is an astonishingly damning admission that the evidence presented by virology is invalid.

2. The 7 Steps Proving “Viruses” Don’t Exist

More recently, Dr. Lanka put together what he felt were the main points that bring the house of cards known as virology tumbling down. These 7 steps were formulated over many years of painstaking research into the faults of virology. As he did with the measles trial, Dr. Lanka compiled a very convincing case for why “viruses” do not exist and why virology is a pseudoscience built upon fraudulent foundations.

The 7 steps to prove “viruses” do not exist:

1. Virologists interpret the death of cells in the laboratory as viral. Due to the lack of control attempts (experiments), they overlook the fact that they kill the cells in the laboratory themselves and unintentionally by starving and poisoning the cells. This misinterpretation is based on a single publication by John Franklin Enders and a colleague from June 1, 1954. This publication was ruled by the highest court in Germany in the measles virus trial that it contained no evidence of a virus. This publication became the exclusive basis not only for measles virology, but for all virology since 1954 and corona hysteria.

2. Virologists mentally assemble the shortest pieces of so-called genetic information from dying cells to form a very long genetic strand, which they output as the genetic strand of a virus. This conceptual/computational process is called alignment. In doing so, they did not make the control attempts, the attempt to conceptually/computationally construct the desired genetic strand even from short pieces of so-called genetic information from non-infected sources.

3. For the alignment of a virus, virologists always need a given genetic strand of a virus. For this, however, they always use a genetically/computationally generated genetic strand and never a real one, one found in reality. In doing so, they never attempt to check whether or not so-called genetic information could also be constructed from the existing data set, including “viral” genetic material strands of completely different viruses.

4. Virologists have never seen or isolated “viruses” in humans, animals, plants or their fluids. They only did it seemingly, indirectly, and only ever by means of very special and artificial cell systems in the laboratory. They never mentioned the control attempts or documented whether they succeeded in depicting and isolating viruses in and from humans, animals, plants or their fluids.

5. Virologists have never isolated, biochemically characterized or obtained their supposed genetic material from the supposed viruses that they photograph using electron microscope images. They have never conducted or published control experiments as to whether, after isolating these structures, it was actually possible to detect “viral” proteins (the envelope of the virus) and, above all, the viral genome, which is supposed to be the central component and characteristic of a virus.

6. Virologists report typical artifacts of dying tissue/cells and typical structures that arise when the cell’s own components such as proteins, fats and the solvents used are swirled, as viruses or viral components. Here, too, there are no control experiments with cells/tissues that were not infected but were also treated.

7. The so-called transmission attempts that virologists make to prove the transmission and pathogenicity of the suspected viruses refute the entire virology. Obviously, it is the experiments themselves that trigger the symptoms, which animal experiments provide as evidence of the existence and effectiveness of the suspected viruses. Here, too, there are no control attempts in which exactly the same thing is done, only with non-infected or sterilized materials.

 https://nateserg808.wixsite.com/my-site/post/the-controls

Dr. Lanka explained the 7 steps himself in this short excerpt from an interview with Dr. Tom Cowan where he offered additional insight:



3. The Control Experiments

During this current “pandemic,” Dr. Lanka decided to carry out and recreate for “SARS-COV-2” the control experiments he had done during the measles trial. The experiments were conducted in three phases:

Phase 1 – The cytopathic effect

In the first control experiment, Dr. Stefan Lanka showed that what virologists attribute to the presence of a pathogenic virus can be achieved without infectious material.

Phase 2 – Construction of the SARS-CoV-2 genome

In the second control experiment, Dr. Lanka showed that what virologists call “viral genetic material actually comes from a healthy human tissue.

Phase 3 – Structural analysis of sequency data in virology

In the third control experiment, we show that with the same technique that virologists use and using nucleic acids, which are not from supposedly infectious material but from healthy human tissue, animals and plants, can construct the genome of any “virus.”

Kontrollexperiment Phase 1 – Mehrere Labore bestätigen die Widerlegung der Virologie durch den cytopathischen Effekt

Phase 1: The Cytopathic Effect

Phase 1 of Dr. Lanka’s experiments was designed to show that the cytopathogenic effect, the very criteria used to determine a “virus” is present in a cell culture, can be caused by the experimental conditions themselves without “infectious” material present. The article linked above contains the study by the independent laboratory testing the cytopathogenic effect for Dr. Lanka. It is in German but it can be easily translated into English. However, as it is a rather long study, I wanted to provide my favorite breakdown of the CPE experiments from Dr. Tom Cowan’s excellent book Breaking the Spell:

“Here is the essence of Lanka’s experiment, done by an independent professional laboratory that specializes in cell culturing. As seen in this series of photographs, each of the four vertical columns is a separate experiment. The top photo in each column was taken on day one, and the bottom photo was taken on day five.

In vertical column one, normal cells were cultured with normal nutrient medium and only a small amount of antibiotics. As you can see, on neither day one nor day five was any CPE found; the cells continued their normal, healthy growth.

In vertical column two, normal cells were again grown on normal nutrient medium and a small amount of antibiotics, but this time, 10% fetal calf serum was added to enrich the medium. Still, the cells in the culture grew normally, both on day one and day five.

The third vertical column shows what happened when Dr. Lanka’s group used the same procedures that have been used in every modern isolation experiment of every pathogenic virus that I have seen. This included changing the nutrient medium to “minimal nutrient medium”—meaning lowering the percentage of fetal calf serum from the usual 10% to 1%, which lowers the nutrients available for the cells to grow, thereby stressing them—and tripling the antibiotic concentration. As you can see, on day five of the experiment, the characteristic CPE occurred, “proving” the existence and pathogenicity of the virus—except, at no point was a pathogenic virus added to the culture. This outcome can only mean that the CPE was a result of the way the culture experiment was done and not from any virus.

The fourth and final vertical column is the same as vertical column three, except that to this culture, a solution of pure RNA from yeast was added. This produced the same result as column three, again proving that it is the culture technique—and not a virus—that is causing the CPE.”

For Dr. Lanka’s own breakdown of the phase 1 results, please see this interview with Dean Braus:



Phase 2: Construction of the “SARS-CoV-2” genome

Phase two of the control experiments looked to show that the “viral” material in the “SARS-COV-2” genome actually comes from healthy human tissue. Dr. Lanka joined Kate Sugak to discuss the findings in the below video:



Phase 3: Structural analysis of sequency data in virology

Phase 3 was designed to show that by using materials from many different sources (healthy humans, animals, plants, and synthetic nucleic acids), the PCR amplification process can create the genomes for any “virus.” I’ve provided the abstract from the study performed by the independent researchers working with Dr. Lanka to give a short overview of what was found:

Structural analysis of sequence data in virology: An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example

“De novo meta-transcriptomic sequencing or whole genome sequencing are accepted methods in virology for the detection of claimed pathogenic viruses. In this process, no virus particles (virions) are detected and in the sense of the word isolation, isolated and biochemically characterized. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, total RNA is often extracted from patient samples (e.g.: bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) or throat-nose swabs) and sequenced. Notably, there is no evidence that the RNA fragments used to calculate viral genome sequences are of viral origin.

We therefore examined the publication “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China” [1] and the associated published sequence data with bioproject ID PRJNA603194 dated 27/01/2020 for the original gene sequence proposal for SARS-CoV-2 (GenBank: MN908947.3). A repeat of the de novo assembly with Megahit (v.1.2.9) showed that the published results could not be reproduced. We may have detected (ribosomal) ribonucleic acids of human origin, contrary to what was reported in [1]. Further analysis provided evidence for possible nonspecific amplification of reads during PCR confirmation and determination of genomic termini not associated with SARS-CoV-2 (MN908947.3).

Finally, we performed some reference-based assemblies with additional genome sequences such as SARS-CoV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Hepatitis delta virus, Measles virus, Zika virus, Ebola virus, or Marburg virus to study the structural similarity of the present sequence data with the respective sequences. We have obtained preliminary hints that some of the viral genome sequences we have studied in the present work may be obtained from the RNA of unsuspected human samples.”

Download PDF: structural_analysis_of_sequence_data_in_virology (1)

To hear Dr. Lanka’s explanation of this phase, please see this excellent interview once again with Kate Sugak:



Drs. Sam and Mark Bailey’s Tribute to Dr. Lanka

For an even greater in-depth look at the brilliant work of Dr. Lanka, please see this excellent video tribute by the Baileys. From an outline provided by Dr. Mark Bailey, in this 30 minute video they cover:

• Dr. Lanka’s early discoveries that bacteriophages and giant “viruses” are able to be truly isolated but are not pathogenic
• Dr. Lanka’s path as a virologist and the realization that the model was wrong
• How Dr. Lanka spoke out from the very early stages against the HIV/AIDS dogma
• Dr. Lanka’s discovery that the germ theory and disease entity models are incorrect
• A look at Dr. Lanka’s 7 points that refute virology on their own terms
• The 3 phases of the “SARS-CoV-2” control experiments performed in 2021 that were used to refute the “virus” hypothesis
• And the optimism for the future as many of us are now standing on his shoulders to spread the knowledge he has given us



Stefan Lanka: “Virus, It’s Time To Go.”

 The Road Less Traveled

Sadly, it is often a lonely road for anyone willing to break away from tradition and speak out about the troubling state of their chosen profession, especially in a field with ties to a highly lucrative pharmaceutical conglomerate. More often than not, anyone who is willing to sound the alarm has their work smeared and their reputations tarnished by colleagues and the mainstream media in order to discredit the information and the charges that have been brought forth. We are fortunate enough that there were a few brave men and women who were able to see through the indoctrination of their training and push through the often painful cognitive dissonance which comes with having to change long held beliefs ingrained from birth.

Dr. Lanka helped to pave the path against virology and many of us are walking in his footsteps today. His refutation of the germ theory paradigm using their own history and methods was highly influential to myself and others. His status as an ex-virologist not only gave him an invaluable insiders look at the fraud the field is entrenched in but also the clout necessary for those hesitant about the information shared to actually listen up and to start asking the hard questions themselves. We are greatly indebted to Dr. Lanka for his trailblazing work. Without his herculean efforts, I highly doubt that we would be able to attack this fraudulent field as successfully as we are able to do so now.

Essential Reading:

I wanted to provide a list of Dr. Lanka’s work which I consider essential reading for anyone questioning the germ theory lies and/or looking to gain more knowledge of the foundational problems that the field of virology is built upon. Many of these were sources I read initially in my own journey which I found extremely helpful in broadening my own understanding. I am positive that this list will be a benefit to others as well:

Dr. Stefan Lanka Debunks Pictures of Isolated “Viruses”

HIV Pictures: What They Really Show

HIV: Reality or Artefact?

INTERVIEW STEFAN LANKA: Challenging BOTH Mainstream and Alternative AIDS Views

Virologists

The Virus Misconception Part 1

The Virus Misconception Part 2

The Virus Misconception Part 3

The Misinterpretation of Antibodies

Connect with Mike Stone

cover image is screenshot from Kate Sugak video

The Great Covid Virus Debate

Drs. Andrew Kaufman and Thomas Cowan respond to their critics

by Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Weston A. Price Foundation
April 17, 2022

During crises, people ask questions, and the Covid crisis is no exception. People are asking, “Is there any real or new illness called Covid-19—apart from vaccinations and the treatments themselves?” We are not alone in proposing that we must take a cold look at the viral theory touted as the cause of this alleged disease.

Journalist Jeremy Hammond has been the most outspoken critic of our contention that the SARS-CoV-2 “virus” does not exist and therefore does not cause Covid. In a video posted in March 2021,¹ he outlines the follow­ing arguments for the existence of the “virus.” We answer his arguments, point by point.

Definition of Isolation

Hammond states that people in our camp have changed the definition of isolation, but we use the actual definition of the word “isolation” in the English language. It’s the virologists who have changed the meaning of the word from “separated from other things” to meaning “com­bined with other things in a foreign cell culture.”

Isolation Technology

Hammond claims that scientists do not yet have the technology to purify viral particles. Actually, scientists have been able to purify particles equivalent in size to so-called viruses for decades. The traditional method, in use since at least the 1940s, involves what is called density gradient ultracentrifugation. It uses different densities of a sucrose solution spun into layers at high speeds with an ultracentrifuge, so that the densest layer ends up on the bottom. The sample will separate into bands based on different den­sities, and one of those bands could contain the so-called viral particles if they existed.

For example, a 2015 article published in Methods in Molecular Biology,² provides electron microscopy photographs of purified exosomes (see Figure 1). Exosomes are roughly the same size as that of claimed viral particles, around fifty to one hundred nanometers, and they have the same morphology and character­istics of alleged virus particles.

If you can purify exosomes, you can purify viruses using the same techniques. Scientists take exosomes directly from a body fluid; they don’t take the exosomes and put them in a cell culture. One of the chal­lenges the authors discuss is the fact that the exosomes are present in low numbers; also, there are many different types of extracellular particles in the bodily fluid from which to separate the exosomes. These are some of the problems that have been put forth as a reason why it’s difficult to purify virus particles, but the researchers have overcome these problems with exosomes.

Bacteriophages, known as “the viruses of bacteria,” can also be purified, as shown in a 2018 article (again published in Methods in Mo­lecular Biology)3³ (see Figure 1). Bacteriophages are particles of similar size to viruses, and they also can be purified by chromatography and other methods. Mr. Hammond alleges that you can’t get a pure sample—a sample where you see only one thing in a vacuum. However, as you can see in the photos of exosomes and bacteriophages, all the objects are the same—they are the only thing in the microscope field because these have been isolated and purified, and there is nothing else in the sample, just exosomes or bacteriophages.

FIGURE 1. Isolated exosomes, isolated bacteriophages and “isolated” viruses

So, biologists clearly have this technology, and it’s been around for quite a long time. It’s just that when they tried to do isolate viral particles, back in the 1940s and 1950s, after they had electron microscopes, they were actually unable to find any particle in the tissues or fluids of anyone who was ill. The problem is that they are unable to find the viral particles, not that they don’t have the technology to isolate and purify.

Cell Culture is the Gold Standard

Hammond admits that you need a cell culture to “isolate” a virus, because the virus needs cells in which to replicate in order to have enough virus to detect. According to the viral theory, the virus causes an infection in the lung, for example, when it invades the lung cells and then reproduces in the lung tissue, right in those cells, and then produces more viral particles. So, all we would need to do is go right to that tissue culture in the sick person, not one that we create in a laboratory with other conditions that are not natural.

In other words, why would we do this kind of indirect experiment when we have a cell culture right in the host—namely, virus-invaded lung tissue—from which we could extract the virus? Why can’t we do a proper isolation, where you go to the host, the natural source of the virus, which is a sick person with an infection, and purify the viral particles right out of that person’s bodily tissues or fluids?

Cytopathic Effects

Virologists claim that the pathogenic nature of viruses is evident in light microscope images of tissue cultures showing cytopathic effects (meaning cell breakdown). But what the images of “viruses” from an electron microscope show is a mixture of cellular material from the cell culture and a variety of different types of particles (see Figure 1, third image). How can we know what any of those particles actually are? And how do we know the particle didn’t come from the foreign cell culture, such as the kidney cells it was cultured in? How do we know it’s not an exosome, a particle produced inside the cell? How do we know it’s not an apoptotic body (from cellular breakdown)? How do we know it’s not another type of extracellular vesicle? How do we know it’s a virus (since it doesn’t have a label and has not been isolated and purified)? While virologists can show images of small particles, they have no way of identifying the nature or identity of any of those particles.

Genetic Sequencing

Hammond claims that scientists can do genetic sequencing of the particles found in tissue cultures. There are actually two ways of doing genetic sequencing. One way is to extract genetic material from only one organism, and then sequence the genome in its entirety. That’s how you can discover the genome sequence of a new organism.

But for viruses, scientists use a differ­ent technique, variously termed “genomic” sequencing, “next generation” sequencing or “in silico” sequencing (meaning carried out in a computer). Whatever they call it, this kind of sequencing is just piecemeal.

Hammond describes the method accurately, in that they start with lots of pieces of genetic material, and then a computer does sophisti­cated calculations and simulations to put them together. The problem—which Hammond does not describe—is that the starting material for these experiments is not a pure organism; it’s not just a virus. What they’re starting with is, in most cases, the lung fluid from a patient diag­nosed with Covid by a PCR test. (And we know the PCR test is invalid. See sidebar page 20.)

The fluid they start with has genetic ma­terial from many different organisms—from a variety of bacteria species, probably some fungal and yeast species, as well as all of the human genetic material from the host and then anything that happened to be in the air that this person inhaled for the few breaths before they took the sample. In other words, there are many sources of genetic material. When they put those little bits of genetic material into the computer, the computer doesn’t know which organism they’re from—since they are not starting with a pure virus, there’s no way to tell.

When the computer runs the simulation and tries to fit these little strands of sequences together by overlapping ends, they don’t know whether the computer is making a real sequence of an organism, or if it’s putting little bits from different organisms together into some kind of mishmash or chimera. They have no way to check it against a reference standard, because there’s never been any true sequence of these vi­ruses. What we end up with is just a simulation.

To give an idea of the problem, in the first sequence that they did this way with SARS-CoV-2, they actually had over fifty-six million little pieces or sequences, and they had not one but two different software programs indepen­dently take those pieces and try to construct them into a longer strand that they said was the size of a typical coronavirus genome. With one of the software programs, they just threw out the data because it didn’t give them what they wanted. So, they’re picking and choosing at each stage: “We think this is good. . . we want to use this.”

The other software program came up with over a million different possible sequences, but they just picked one. And there was no rhyme or reason to how they picked it. It was just an arbitrary selection. With all of the uncertainty about the origin of each individual piece of DNA, they just randomly select one of millions of possible combinations spit out by a computer. How could anyone believe these results repre­sent the real genome of an actual organism? It would be impossible.

Lack of Proper Controls

Hammond states that virologists do a control experiment when they do the tissue cultures. That statement is not quite accurate. In a proper control, you have only one variable different, and as far as we know, virologists have never actually done this. The proper way to do it would be to take lung fluid from some­one who is sick, but does not have Covid—sick with influenza or pneumonia, for example—or even lung fluid from someone who is healthy. Then, they would continue the experiment using the exact same methods, the same cell cultures, the same concentrations of antibiotics, the exact same nutrients, and any other additives or environmental conditions such as the same temperature, the same amount of agitation, the same protocols all around—that would be a proper control. No one is doing this type of proper control for virus identification.

Some of the papers about SARS-CoV-2 have mentioned what’s called a “mock infected culture,” but this is not the same as a control. In fact, we don’t know exactly what they do with these mock infected cultures. They’re not reported on in every paper, but in a couple they are. And curiously, they don’t describe these mock infected cultures at all. If you go to the methods sections, you don’t see any explanation of what a mock infected culture is. And they don’t mention the word “control.”

If they’re doing a true control experiment, why wouldn’t they call it a control culture? They have to use different words because they’re not really doing a proper control, but they’re trying to pass it off as one, which is why they change the words. We have read hundreds and hundreds of scientific papers on other subjects, and they always refer to the control group; they don’t say the “mock treatment group.” So, the mock infected culture is some kind of trick. We even tried to communicate with a couple of the corresponding authors on these publica­tions. We asked an open-ended question: “Can you tell us the procedure for the mock infected cells listed in this figure?” In most cases, they didn’t reply at all.

In one case, we were unable to get a clear answer. The reply we received was, “They’re treated the same.” But what does that mean? “Can you tell us the exact conditions?” We even put our queries into a yes or no question like, “Did you use the same antibiotics at the same concentration? Did you use the same nutrition at the same concentration?” But we could not get a clear response, which suggests that they are probably hiding something.

We do have two examples of studies that included a control sample. The first comes from a 1954 article published in Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine by Enders and Peebles.⁴ This was the first pub­lished paper to use the cell culture technique, which later became known as “virus isolation.”

In this study on measles, the authors put the patient specimen in a foreign culture of monkey kidney cells and then they got cytopathic ef­fects—meaning they were able to show some damage to the cell culture.

An interesting quote in this paper describes the results of the control experiment. “Monkey kidney cultures may therefore be applied for the study of these agents [referring to measles] in the same manner as cultures of human kid­ney. In doing so, however, it must be borne in mind that cytopathic effects which superficially resemble those resulting from infection by the measles agents may possibly be induced by other viral agents present in a monkey kidney tissue or by unknown factors.”

In other words, they saw a cytopathic effect in the cell culture that was alleged to be a result of damage from the measles virus itself—but it might not necessarily have come from the measles virus; it could have been caused by something in the kidney cells themselves, which they call viruses, or from unknown factors.

Continuing, the two authors said, “A second agent was obtained from an uninoculated cul­ture of monkey kidney cells.” Now, that means they did not put any sample from a measles patient in the culture; they ran the cell culture without a source of virus—just the cell culture with no patient sample in it. According to the authors, “The cytopathic changes induced in the unstained preparations could not be dis­tinguished with confidence from the viruses isolated from measles [emphasis added].” In other words, the sample with nothing added to it produced the same results as the sample containing fluid from the measles patient.

Since the control was positive, that means that the experimental procedure itself, and not the measles virus, caused the cytopathic changes.

An important recent control experiment was carried out by Dr. Stefan Lanka, who is the only virologist we are aware of who has recognized the truth about the nonexistence of a virus—and who left the field. What he did was carry out just the control experiment. There is no possible source of virus anywhere in this experiment. As you can see in Figure 2, the top row of panels is Day One and the second row is Day Five of the experiment.

Day One is when they changed the cell culture conditions. Previous to Day One, all of these cell cultures were kept healthy with normal cell culture procedures; then, on Day One, they changed the condition. In the first column, they used the full nutrition (GlutaMAX plus 10 percent fetal calf serum) and antibiot­ics at the normal concentration. In the second column, they reduced the nutrition and kept the same concentration of antibiotics. There was no change on Day Five for either of these two procedures, no cytopathic effects.

The third column simulates what they do in virus cell culture isolation experiments, using reduced nutrition while increasing the antibiotic to three times the normal concentration. (The protocols use either two times or three times the normal concentration.) You can see that on Day Five, there were cytopathic effects—the cells developed vacuoles and started to break down. Normally, virologists would give this as proof of the existence of a virus, except that there’s no virus in this experiment.

In the fourth column, Lanka added yeast RNA, which doesn’t contain any viruses—it’s a pure yeast RNA specimen bought from a laboratory supply company with good quality control. You can see even more cy­topathic effects on Day Five in that culture.

So, both these control experiments show that the experimental procedure itself produces the cytopathic effects. If you took the culture materials from the two dishes with cytopathic effects and looked at them under an electron microscope, you would see particles in there that you could call a virus.

Coronavirus Fringe Pattern

According to Hammond, virologists can see the characteristic coro­navirus spikes on the particles they are calling viruses. Let’s review a couple of studies to see what is going on. The first was published in 2020 in Kidney360.⁵ In this study, researchers were looking at biopsies of people with kidney disease, mostly from before the Covid era. In the electron microscope photographs, they saw particles with the character­istic coronavirus spikes (see Figure 3). The researchers said that these were indistinguishable from coronavirus particles, which was a source of confusion for virologists. The authors pointed this out, and they even referenced a previous paper from the CDC that found the same thing.

They also said that they identified the protein that made up the spikes, and it was not the spike protein, but a protein called clathrin. So, seeing the characteristic spikes is completely meaningless; it doesn’t identify something as a coronavirus. Remember that these kidney biopsies were from people who had no disease that anyone thought was related to a virus, and it was before even the “discovery” of so-called SARS-CoV-2.

The second example comes from a “virus isolation” paper published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 2020.⁶ A very interesting quote occurs in this paper: “Electron micrographs. . . showed cytoplasmic membrane-bound vesicles containing coronavirus particles. Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin into the cell culture medium immediately im­proved virion morphology.” In other words, they didn’t see any spikes so they added the diges­tive enzyme trypsin, which breaks or cleaves proteins at a certain sequence, and then looked at it again under the microscope—and then saw the spikes! (See Figure 4.)

Now, isn’t that convenient? In other words, they put a spike suit on the particles so they could look like they’re supposed to look, instead of saying, “Hey, maybe there is no coronavirus in the sample.” If we have to digest a protein to make it look a certain way, then how could we say that’s what it is? It’s like having a cat but really wanting a dog, so you put a little microphone around the cat’s neck that makes a barking sound and then call it a dog. We would call this cheating.

Genome Sequencing

As Hammond and other adherents of viral theory have often stated, genome sequencing has been repeated thousands of times, and the results are published in international databases, so they can’t be a hoax. Actually, the in silico genome-sequencing procedure that we have described has been repeated over two million times—far more than Hammond claims. And of course, each time they get different results, because they can’t repeat results in an invalid experiment, so the different results are all published.

As described earlier, the way they do this is to take a bunch of pieces of unknown origin, which they run through different software simulations, and then pick out the one they like. And then they do some further magic on it by just popping things in or taking things out somewhat arbitrarily to make it look more like what they think a coronavirus genome should look like. Then they claim that this sequence is a “reference sequence” and against all of those couple of million experiments that they have repeated, they can template a reference genome. So, of course, the computer is able to put things together in such a way that it matches the so-called reference sequence somewhat closely, because the sequences that make this up are probably mostly just human sequences of non-coding RNA. (A recent analysis shows this and will soon be published.) Thus, you should be able to have similar enough sequences that you can put something together that’s close, but not exactly identical—which they then call “variants.”

Now Hammond claims that if the proce­dures were fraudulent, then tens of thousands of scientists all over the world would be par­ticipating together in a conspiracy; but that’s not the case at all because almost none of these scientists realizes that what they’re doing is not good science—they never question it. Doctors rarely question the things they’re taught; they just learn them and accept them as true. That’s why I (Andrew Kaufman) was recommending vaccines and using antibiotics earlier in my career, because I also just accepted those things and did them without question. Now I realize that they’re quite lethal, so I don’t do them anymore. There was a kind of individual process that I went through for that.

But the scientists involved in “virus isolation” don’t realize that they’re doing fraudulent science because they’ve never looked at it carefully. And one of the ways that science allows this kind of thing to happen is by a high degree of compartmentalization, where they don’t collaborate or talk with other people in different fields. They don’t learn how other scientists do their experiments and also how they do control experiments. And they don’t seem to talk to exosome scientists, often because they would then see that exosome scientists are able to extract and purify exosomes right from the source. And then they would try to do that and fail, because there aren’t any viruses, and then they would have to have a different conclusion and change their opinion.

But the truth is, it doesn’t matter whether all of the thousands of scientists doing “virus isolation” are in a conspiracy, and it doesn’t mat­ter whether they’re completely ignorant, because the only thing that’s important is to look at the actual science itself—the experiments—and ask the question, can you learn something from this? Can you conclude anything from this experiment? And if the answer is no, it doesn’t matter how many people think you’re wrong, it only matters that the answer is no. It shouldn’t be terribly surprising that the virologists have gotten this wrong, because in medicine this happens frequently. Take the example of beta blockers and heart failure. For many decades, it was an absolute contraindication to prescribe a beta blocker to someone with heart failure, because beta blockers make your heart beat less strongly and less rapidly. So, that was seen to make your heart weaker. But then research showed that actually, adding a beta blocker slows the progression of heart failure and allows people to live longer. It took some time for that scientific finding to be integrated into medicine, but there was no truth to the notion that doctors everywhere were in a conspiracy to hasten the death of heart failure patients. They were just ignorant to the truth of the scientific relationship between that drug in that condition. We could interpret “virus isolation” as a similar phenomenon; virologists who are doing these experiments are not able to actually show the re­sults or provide the conclusive evidence because they are just ignorant of that fact, because they haven’t looked at it. It’s quite as simple as that.

Response to Mercola

Entering the virus debate on January 17, 2022, Dr. Joseph Mercola published a “fact-checked” article entitled, “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 is a Real Virus,”¹ in which he insisted that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated, photo­graphed, genetically sequenced, and exists as a pathogenic entity.

Mercola cites studies from Italy, Germany, India, Columbia, Canada, Australia, Korea and the U.S., which claim to have isolated SARS-CoV-2 and characterized it by genome sequencing. However, none of these stud­ies isolated any virus from the fluids of the patient; all of these studies used culturing techniques that can lead to tissue breakdown and the creation of exosomes (identical in form to “viruses”); none of these studies had a meaningful control; and all used questionable computer techniques to generate a genome in silico. Remember that these tissue cultures would also contain genetic material from the kidney cells of the culture and the bovine serum used as a nutrient medium. Even if the tissue cultures did contain viral particles, how can anyone know that the DNA the computer is analyzing comes from the virus?

As Mercola states, “Another sticking point for some is whether or not SARS-CoV-2 has ever been isolated from a human subject without passing it through animal cells, as such media could be contaminated and therefore the source of the virus.”

Indeed, this is the “sticking point!” All of the studies that Mercola cites as proof passed the sample through animal cells—cultures contami­nated with fetal bovine serum and toxic antibiot­ics, and starved with a minimal nutrient medium.

Furthermore, no paper has proven that an isolated or pure virus obtained from a cell culture has ever made an animal or human sick in any way. Therefore, it is illogical, irrational and anti-scientific to claim that the “virus” is a pathogen.

According to Mercola, “At least part of the confusion appears to be rooted in how the term ‘isolated’ is defined. Some insist a virus is not isolated unless it’s also purified, while others say a virus doesn’t have to be purified in order to be ‘isolated.’” Actually, as we have pointed out, the confusion—deliberate confusion—results from virologists using the word “isolated” to mean “not isolated,” and insisting that “purified” and “isolated” do not mean the same thing.

More Genome Sequencing

One study Mercola highlights is a “genome sequencing” study published in January 2021 in Gut Pathology.⁷ In this study, the genetic material (RNA) was extracted directly from stool samples of a patient identified as having Covid-19 using the meaningless PCR test.

This paper relies on an in silico genome-sequencing procedure whereby they extract all of the RNA that is present in a body fluid or tissue sample, which would include a number of different sources of genetic material, including the person’s own. The material would include non-coding DNA that has been transcribed, spliced and recombined to make all sorts of novel sequences.

They then throw out the long fragments and just look at the short ones. This is a really im­portant point, because the longer the sequence, the more you can be sure that it came from one source; whereas if you have short sequences, when they put them together in a longer sequence, parts of it could have come from different sources. It’s more reliable to have longer sequences, but then they can’t do the se­quencing as fast. So, they put all those short sequences into the computer and let various computer software programs put them together, mapping them to the “reference” standard genome—which has been done in the same way—and then give you a result. The result is a little bit different each time, which is why they have over two million “variants.”

In this 2021 paper, they used fecal material, which they said con­tained the same genetic material as that extracted from the nose using a nasal swab. And interestingly, in this case, they did use a control group, which is very unusual—they actually used a purchased heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 toxic cell culture that served as a negative control.

The other unusual procedure was that they used shorter strands of RNA than normal. Usually, they look at strands of up to one hundred fifty base pairs, but in this study, they limited the length to seventy-six base pairs. This would result in even more error in terms of the source of each particular little strand.

They also skipped an important step, which they call making “con­tigs” (from the word contiguous). Usually, what they do is take all those little sequences of short strands—there are often over fifty million of them—and put them into software number-crunching programs that try to pair up overlapping sequences on the ends to make longer and longer strands—this is what they call “contig.” Then they pick one of the longest strands and use that as the base genome.

In this case, they didn’t do that. They just took the sequence strands and templated them right away against the reference standard from the database. In other words, they chose the pieces that would fit into the puzzle and entered them into the program, and then the software filled in the gaps and rearranged things as necessary. In this way, they made sure that the genome looked the way they wanted it to look.

All of the studies Mercola lists as proving the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are done in similar fashion to come up with a computer simulation, not a real genome taken intact from a real organism.

When Hammond talks about finding a genome of twenty-eight to twenty-nine thousand base pairs, it’s important to understand that they have never found this genome in any bodily fluid, just like they have never found anything they could call a virus. They have never found a strand of twenty-nine thousand base pairs; instead, they have created it in the computer by matching pieces together based on a template. In other words, they find the sequence only because that’s the sequence they’re telling it to find. This is not science!

More Covid-19 Virus Studies

Another paper cited by Mercola comes from Italy, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in August 2020.⁸ The researchers took a sputum sample from a sixty-five-year-old woman and diagnosed her with Covid-19 using a PCR test. Then they cultured the sample in kidney cells, followed by genome sequencing as described above. It’s the same in all the studies that Mercola cites. Nobody isolates the virus from the patient directly; nobody takes that virus and determines the genetic material in that virus; nobody takes that virus and exposes somebody else to it and shows that it causes disease.

Mercola cites a study from Colombia that is the same exact experiment—a nose swab cultured in a toxic cell culture, followed by genetic sequencing and electron microscopy.⁹ According to the researchers, “Electron mi­croscopy images obtained from infected cells showed the presence of structures compatible with SARS-CoV-2”—not structures that are, but that are compatible.

These structures are also “compatible” with kidney failure and probably many other things. The authors state that the genetic com­position of their isolates was consistent with the predominant variant—not saying it was the predominant variant. In other words, they are hedging at every turn.

At the end of his article, Mercola mentions “antibody dependent enhancement (ADE),” but there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support something called ADE. Virus theory posits that we make antibodies against viral diseases. In July 2020, the head of the Bulgar­ian Pathology Association stated that they had found no monoclonal (coming from the same cell) antibodies in any of the people said to have died of Covid.¹⁰

This is like saying that no one has died of Covid, because since they haven’t found an­tibodies, they must conclude that the patients didn’t have Covid.

Does It Matter?

Hammond dismisses those who question the viral theory of disease as his “pet peeve” and “divisive” of the health freedom movement. According to Mercola, “Getting too far into the weeds of theories that refute the existence of viruses altogether will only slow down and ham­per the truth movement rather than aid it along, and I would strongly discourage anyone from engaging in this highly unproductive narrative.” In other words, if you question the viral theory, you are the bad guy, hindering the movement for health freedom. One virus advocate has referred to “virus-deniers” as domestic terrorists!

And yet the virus debate has immense im­portance to the health freedom movement. All the objectionable “public health” measures— masks, social distancing, isolation, testing and above all toxic vaccines—are predicated on the belief that we are threatened by a virulent, contagious virus. If there is no virus—not for Covid-19, not for any disease—then the justifi­cation for forcing these measures on the public disappears.

SIDEBARS

Electron Microscopy

Scientists use an electron microscope in order to see the structures inside a cell. To view a sample under the electron microscope, they must prepare it using special procedures. One reason is that the beams of the electron microscope are extremely powerful and can heat the sample up to 150 degrees C. The preparation method requires the following steps:

FIXATION: The sample is placed in some kind of chemical fixative, such as formalin, glutaraldehyde or osmium tetroxide. This preserves the structure of the tissue.

DEHYDRATION: This step requires bathing the tissue many times in alcohol (ethanol or acetone) to remove all water from the tissue.

EMBEDDING: The tissue is put inside a small mold that is filled with paraffin wax or epoxy resin, which is then cooled to harden.

SLICING: The hardened resin is sliced into extremely thin pieces.

STAINING: The tissue is stained with some type of heavy metal, such as uranyl acetate, another name for uranium, or lead acetate, so you can have more contrast when you’re viewing the tissue through the electron microscope.

These methods will obviously have effects on biological samples. For example, formalin in the staining process is formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen and neurotoxin; glutaraldehyde is specifically dangerous for the gastrointes­tinal tract and the lungs, and osmium tetroxide causes pulmonary edema. Ethanol used in the alcohol baths can cause severe liver damage, and acetone damages the kidneys, the lungs and the brain. Paraffin wax and epoxy resin used for embedding can also affect biological tissues.

Most toxic are the heavy metals uranium and lead used for staining; they are bound to have toxic effects on biologi­cal samples. The result is that what you see using the electron microscope has little resemblance to living tissue—it is an artifact and a distortion, from which no conclusions about cell structure can be made.

A Mouse Study

Recently, Dr. Robert Malone stated that the omicron variant is not as dangerous as the others and that we should rethink our vaccines. One of the papers he cited was “Age-associated SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and changes in immune response in a mouse model,” published in December 2021 in Emerging Microbes and Infections.¹¹

In the abstract of this paper we read, “Older individuals are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes, but the underlying mechanisms are incompletely understood. In addition, how age modulates SARS-CoV-2 re-infection and vaccine breakthrough infections remain largely unexplored. Here, we investigated age-associated SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis, immune responses, and the occurrence of re-infection and vaccine breakthrough infec­tion utilizing a wild-type C57BL/6N mouse model. We demonstrated that interferon and adaptive antibody response upon SARS-CoV-2 challenge are significantly impaired in aged mice compared to young mice, which results in more effective virus replications and severe disease manifestations in the respiratory tract. Aged mice also showed increased susceptibility to re-infection due to insufficient immune protection acquired during the primary infection.”

Now, when well-known spokesmen such as Dr. Robert Malone comment on the importance of a study like this, it works to convince the public that SARS-CoV-2 is real and the omicron variant is real. Maybe omicron is not so bad, maybe it is worse in the elderly, but in any event, the new “variant” is real.

According to Malone, the reason this study is important is that it explains the significant adverse event profile of the vaccines. We would agree that these adverse events combined with a milder disease profile of omicron raise the possibility that boosters may not be good medicine, even for the elderly, but the suggestion that viruses have anything to do with this only perpetuates the kind of misinformation that justifies everything that is wrong with how the health authorities have handled the pandemic—masks, social distancing, isolation, hand sanitizing and vaccinations.

According to the authors, the antibody response was severely impaired in aged mice leading to more severe disease. In the Materials and Methods section, we see that the SARS-CoV-2 variant was “isolated” from a confirmed Covid-19 patient in Hong Kong and that the virus was cultured in Vero (kidney) cells and stored at negative 80 degrees C.

Now, the important part: they expose the mice to a “variant” of the “virus”—to what they think is the omicron variant. One would expect that what scientists would do is take purified virus and expose the mice in the way that humans are exposed, by breathing it in the air. But what did these scientists do? They did a standard viral culture, meaning they inoculated monkey kidney cells (Vero cells) with fetal calf serum and an unpurified sample from a per­son with alleged “Covid.” (Fetal bovine serum, by the way, is taken from live aborted slaughterhouse calves whose blood is sucked directly from their hearts.) So, they didn’t, in fact, use a virus—that is a flat-out lie. Instead of a virus, they used a culture of kidney cells that contained some of the primers allegedly from a variant strain, a variant that has never been isolated.

Now, you would think that they must have sprayed this culture onto the mice, or gently into their noses, but that’s not what they did. Instead, they anesthetized the mice with toxic drugs—essentially poisoning them—and then squirted a mixture of phosphate-buffered saline and the toxic kidney culture under high pressure down their noses through an intranasal cannula directly into their lungs. No rational person would say that this type of experiment has any rela­tion to what happens in old or young people or to anybody exposed to a “virus.” It’s ridiculous to call this science.

And then they found out whether the young mice did better than the old mice. Upon intranasal inoculation, the young mice transiently lost a maximum of 5 percent body weight for a short period. In contrast, the older mice lost 12 percent of body weight, and they didn’t recover. Moreover, the young mice did not show any sign of disease. The older mice showed hunched postures and labored breathing, which was more severe at higher doses of toxic cell culture injection into their lungs.

If you wanted to be precise in your language, you would say that young mice—injected, anesthetized and sub­jected to high-pressure squirts of toxins directly into their lungs—seemed to be okay; they just lost a little weight. That’s probably the definition of a bad day for a mouse. But they seemed to recover, whereas the older mice didn’t do as well. That’s what they found.

And then they did all kinds of biochemical histological genetic studies, analyzing the tissue after they ground up the nasal turbinates, the lungs and so forth. They then concluded, “Yep,” these mice have a lot more antibodies than they should—which means they are trying to protect themselves against being poisoned with toxic cell cultures injected right into their lungs.

The authors found that the staining of the nucleocapsid protein was more intense at higher doses of the stuff squirted up the mice’s lungs. Later, they say these findings indicate that SARS-CoV-2 “replicates more effectively in the respiratory tract of aged mice than young mice upon virus exposure.” We would submit that they never actually took out any virus and never saw any replication of any virus in any lung of any mouse.

In other words, the researchers essentially said, “This study does not prove what we thought it was proving, but is just another way to convince us that there is a virus and that the virus is the cause of disease.” When in fact, all this study really tells us is that older, poorly-fed mice do worse when exposed to poisons than younger ones.

Does it matter whether this disease is caused by a virus or not? When the Chief Medical Officer of the World Health Organization predicts that half of the United States is going to get sick in the next six to eight weeks, yes, it does matter. The problem with all this talk about viruses is that it completely obscures the reasons why people are getting sick. We know that a lot of people are getting sick from the injections, but they are not the only people getting sick. Unfortunately, as long as we stick to this nonsense called the viral narrative, we will never ask the right questions, and we will never get any answers as to what otherwise is making people sick.

Rapid Tests for Covid-19 Virus

Recently, the CDC announced—quietly and without explanation—that as of January 1, 2022, they were no longer going to use PCR tests for “diagnosing Covid.” Many people saw this as a kind of capitulation by the CDC, as if to say they had finally seen the light; or perhaps there was enough pressure on CDC that they realized they had to back down quietly from the PCR test. Many people interpreted the CDC’s move as an end to testing, and since this pandemic is really a pandemic of testing, they believed this would go a long way toward ending the pandemic. After all, if they stopped doing the test, nobody would test positive. However, the CDC didn’t say they were going to end testing.

The problem is that these people are playing chess, while the rest of us are playing checkers—if they’re playing chess, we need to play chess, too, and understand the motivations and the rationale behind some of the moves we’re hearing about. And this is particularly true in the case of things that seem to be small victories—sometimes even fairly large victories—because upon closer examination, they don’t all turn out to be the victories that we imagined.

The PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) is not a diagnostic test, it’s a manufacturing tool, and it does not test whether or not anybody has any virus. Rather, the PCR is a method to rapidly make millions to billions of copies (complete cop­ies or partial copies) of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it (or a part of it) to a large enough amount to study in detail. The inventor, Kary Mullis, was emphatic that his test could not be used to diagnose or determine disease.

The PCR amplifies the DNA sample anywhere from twenty to forty cycles in order to get enough genetic material to detect—the test does this by showing a color change. To use the PCR as a diagnostic test requires two assumptions. The first is that you know that the genetic sequence you are amplifying comes from the virus you are looking for; the second is that there are no other biological organisms in the sample—no microbes, bacteria, fungi or human DNA. To repeat, the premise of using the PCR for diagnosis is that you already know the sequence of the virus, and you know that this primer sequence is one of the pieces of the entire virus genome, and that no other biological organism has that same sequence of DNA. We know that both these premises are not true with PCR Covid tests. Actually, one of the people who came up with the original primer sequences was Christian Drosten, who admitted in a paper that they never had a copy of any virus.¹²

Now, just think about that for a minute. If you never had a copy of the virus, how can you possibly know that this piece of the genome is a piece of the virus, that it actually came from a virus? If we gave you a sentence and asked you whether this sentence came from a certain book, the obvious common-sense question that any rational human being would ask is, can you show me the book? How can you know whether a sentence comes from a certain book if you don’t have the book?

Furthermore, how can you prove that no other living being has this same sequence? You can determine this by doing what is called a BLAST search, which searches the database of all the genome sequences of all the organisms that have ever been sequenced. Scientists have done this and found out that the same sequence used in the PCR test primers for SARS-CoV-2 is found in at least ninety human sequences and ninety microbial sequences (meaning bacterial or fungal sequences).

Thus, the second premise, that a sequence is unique to a specific virus, is also not true. The sequence is found in humans and in bacteria. If you start with a sample that has sequences that come from humans and that has bacteria and fungus in it, there is no way of knowing whether the positive match—the sticking of the primer to a sequence in the sample that will then be amplified—comes from a virus, the person, bacteria, fungus or maybe from something else.

So, the PCR test is invalid—there are no “false positives,” there are no “false negatives,” there are just false results. So, shouldn’t we applaud when the CDC finally acknowledges that they are not going to do a PCR test anymore?

The question is, what are they going to replace it with? According to government announcements, they are going to use a “higher throughput and multiplexed assay with biotinylated primers.” To explain further: “This developed invention is multiplex and uses the Luminex bead-based liquid assay, which contains one hundred different unique bead oligonucleotide probes with sequences complementary to the target sequences covalently coupled to these unique beads. These capture beads are mixed with viral samples obtained from the patient via cheek swabbing or throat wash and subjected to PCR in a conventional thermocycler. The amplified target sequences then hybridize to complementary capture oligonucleotide probes via forward biotinylated primers; if this bead probe amplicon unit contains the target nucleic acid, it will be bound by the reporter molecule and fluorescence will be detected by flow site cytometer. This multiplex assay would thus be able to detect and identify respiratory pathogens present in hospital and clinical settings.”

English translation: Instead of the old PCR test, they are going to use one hundred different unique beads. These beads contain the primer sequences, and they’re all attached to the other beads. These beads are mixed with viral samples from the patient, and then they are put into PCR amplification cycles.

Now, the only real difference between this and the normal PCR test is that there are more of the primer sequenc­es—like one hundred more—attached to a compound called biotin. These biotinylated primers stick easily to the sequences in the sample, which then get put into the old-fashioned PCR thermocycler, so that they can be amplified. And then you get a result. Now, instead of a PCR test for Covid, one test will test for all the “viruses.”

The upshot of this is that now they will be able to say that you have many different viruses, all at the same time. Since all these viruses can make you sick (so they will argue), you may need a vaccine for each one of them.

This is a checkmate: They now are able to find the code for the original “virus” as well as the delta variant and the lambda variant, right on through the Greek alphabet, because they can make it look like you have multiple different sequences. These sequences amplify more easily because they figured out a way to make the primer sequences stick more readily to whatever is in your sample. And this is not a single-plex test. This is a multiplex assay, which means they can find any number they want, just by increasing the amplifications. And checkmate, they got us.

So, they replaced the old-fashioned PCR with something that will make the whole thing even worse. The lesson is that we should not be fooled by false minor victories, because they are not necessarily good news.

The Seven U.S. Government Payoffs to Kill You in Hospitals

by Dr. Peterson Pierre¹³

If you have Covid, and you end up in the hospital, you’re put on a rigid protocol. There’s a high mortality rate in the hospital, and your family is kept in the dark about what is happening. So, what’s going on here?

The CARES Act is providing bonus payments to hospitals whenever they have a diagnosis of Covid, while the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is waiving patient rights. This is a deadly combination.

The hospital gets the first payment when they offer a free Covid test in the emergency room, and they get another payment if they can come up with a diagnosis of Covid. Number three, they get another bonus payment if they admit a patient with Covid. Number four, they get another bonus payment if the patient is put on remdesivir. Number five, another bonus payment if the patient is put on a mechanical ventilator. Number six, another 20 percent bonus if the diagnosis on your death certificate says Covid, even though you may not have died from Covid. And then number seven, there are bonus payments for the coroners.

Does the public understand the gravity of what’s happening right now? The government is literally paying hospitals to kill you. That’s what’s happening. These are real human lives we’re talking about, priceless human lives. It’s estimated that about one hundred thousand dollars per patient is what the hospital is getting. Think about that.

References

1. https://amos37.com/mercola-yes-sars-cov-2-is-real-virus/
2. Rai A, Fang H, Fatmous M, et al. A protocol for isolation, purification, characterization, and functional dissection of exosomes. Methods Mol Biol. 2021;2261:105-149.
3. Vanderheuvel D, Rombouts S, Adriaenssens EM. Purification of bac­teriophages using anion-exchange chromatography. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1681;59-69.
4. Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954;86(2):277-286.
5. Cassol CA, Gokden N, Larsen CP, et al. Appearances can be deceiving – Viral-like inclusions in COVID-19 negative renal biopsies by electron microscopy. Kidney360. 2020;1(8):824-828.
6. Caly L, Druce J, Roberts J, et al. Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia. Med J Aust. 2020;212(10):459-462.
7. Papoutsis A, Borody T, Dolai S, et al. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 from patient fecal samples by whole genome sequencing. Gut Pathog. 2021;13(1):7.
8. Colavita F, Lapa D, Carletti F, et al. SARS-CoV-2 isolation from ocular secretions of a patient with COVID-19 in Italy with prolonged viral RNA detection. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(3):242-243.
9. Díaz FJ, Aguilar-Jiménez W, Flórez-Álvarez L, et al. Isolation and character­ization of an early SARS-Cov-2 isolate from the 2020 epidemic in Medillin, Colombia. Biomedica. 2020;40(Supl. 2):148-158.
10. Frei R, Corbett P. Bombshell! “No one has died from the coronavirus” says leading pathologist. James Fetzer, July 11, 2020. https://jamesfetzer.org/2020/07/bombshell-no-one-has-died-from-the-coronavirus-says-leading-pathologist/
11. Chen Y, Li C, Liu F, et al. Age-associated SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infec­tion and changes in immune response in a mouse model. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2022;11(1):368-383.
12. Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M, et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):2000045.
13. Pierre P. The seven US government payoffs to kill you in hospitals. Jan. 16, 2022. https://www.bitchute.com/video/rzcEVrVaA9jY/

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2022

Connect with Weston A. Price Foundation

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

cover image credit: geralt

Dr. Tom Cowan: Lab Created Viruses? Gain of Function Research? Bio Labs? — Smoking Gun or Bad Science?

Truth Comes to Light editor‘s notes:

Below you will find a video presentation by Dr. Tom Cowan.  The questions Dr. Cowan raises, the facts he presents, and the clarity he brings to the discussion of “viruses” and the field of virology  are essential to our global conversation and quest to understand the truth. Truth Comes to Light has provided a basic transcript and added links to references for added clarity.

Over the past few years, we have shared many articles on this site related to this inquiry into the truth about “viruses” and the whole field of virology, including information on terrain theory vs germ theory. Find links here:  Viruses, Vaccines & the History of Modern Medicine. At the end of this post you will find a selected list of related articles.

A few quotes from Dr. Cowan’s video:

“Is there actually a SARS-CoV-2 virus? And, if there is, what is the genome? And how was it found?”

“They never found a genome of this alleged virus. And so there is no possible way they could say that the Moderna patent was found in this virus. Because the virus simply doesn’t exist.

“Therefore, any attempt to say that this was a lab-created, engineered virus is simply anti-scientific because there is no genome that was actually found that it could have been made into.”

“So we have this published genome, fraudulent as it is, by a bunch of Chinese virologists. Right? They come up with this fraudulent, irrational genome. And, lo and behold, it matches a patent taken out by a company called Moderna in 2016.

“So I ask myself how did they do that?”

“What in the heck are these guys doing in these labs? What is gain of function research?”

“Do we really know if mRNA is in these vaccines?

“Where is the paper? Where is the evidence that there actually is mRNA in these injections?”

Lab Created Viruses: Smoking Gun or Bad Science?

video presentation by Dr. Tom Cowan
March 25, 2022



Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Transcript provided by Truth Comes to Light:

Dr. Tom Cowan:

Okay, so before I get into talking about the question that so many people keep asking me: What about gain of function, lab-created viruses, bio labs now allegedly in the Ukraine?

So what is the science behind that?

So we’ll get into that in a minute. And before that I have a very short, little clip to play.



So that clip pretty much sums it up. That was from our friend Dr. Sam Bailey and our other good friend Stefan Lanka.

So on that note, the reason I wanted to talk about this subject is there was a recent paper that was put out by Dr. Mercola…

The title is ‘Moderna Patented Key COVID Spike Protein Sequence in 2016 — A recent study claims to have discovered something that matches a modified mRNA sequence by Moderna in 2016‘ by author Dr. Joseph Mercola.

[…]

So let’s just read the first couple paragraphs there. So this is a summary:

“A study published February 21, 2022, (so very recently) in Frontiers in Virology claims to have discovered that a sequence of the virus’ spike protein is a 100% match to a modified messenger RNA (mRNA) sequence patented by Moderna in 2016.

The genetic sequence patented by Moderna is part of a human DNA repair gene called MSH3. This patented sequence is found in SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site in the spike protein — the part that gives the virus such easy access into human cells.

According to Moderna’s patent application, the gene sequence was modified “for the production of oncology-related proteins and peptides,” ostensibly for use in cancer research.

According to the researchers, the chance that SARS-CoV-2 would have randomly acquired this furin cleavage site through natural evolution is 1 in 3 trillion.”

Okay, so why is this important? So obviously, there’s been a lot of attention in the political sphere and in the anti-vax community. There have been movies written about this.

There are many lectures, many prominent people in the “freedom” or “anti-vax” community who are investigating these patents, and saying that these patents — and as Dr. Mercola said, this study in Frontiers in Virology is literally the smoking gun proving that Moderna patented a sequence, which ended up in SARS-CoV-2, “the virus”, and the only way it could have gotten there is, not through natural evolution (that is a one in three trillion chance) but if it was introduced into the virus by some laboratory technique.

This theory is crucial to our understanding, not only of whether there were crimes committed, but the whole theory of virology and gain-of-function research and all that.

So, obviously, and this should go without saying, that the most important part of this is: Is there actually a SARS-CoV-2 virus? And, if there is, what is the genome? And how was it found?

The rest of the article goes on to talk about what we know about this MSH3 sequence and the protein that it allegedly codes for.

But I want to emphasize again and again and again — the whole point of this is: This sequence which was patented by Moderna in 2016 is identical to the sequence found in SARS-CoV-2.

That is the point.

If we can demonstrate that there is no SARS-CoV-2 and this is not the genome of this alleged virus, then none of the rest of this has any validity or is of any use at all.

It’s all just a sort of smokescreen or a way to throw us off the track about finding out what really is going on.

I cannot emphasize how important this is.

So for the next few minutes we’re going to actually look at how the authors of the article in Frontiers of Virology — what were they claiming was the SARS-CoV-2 genome?

What were they claiming was the evidence that there is a SARS-CoV-2 virus that they could then compare the patent to?

Again, if there’s no virus and there’s no genome then they can’t possibly have put this sequence into a virus or a genome. And it can’t possibly be the thing that’s affecting the world.

So, now let’s be clear about the next step. There is no mention in this story by Dr. Mercola of how the Frontiers in Virology authors found the genome or found the virus.

[…]

In other words, there is no information in here of how Dr. Mercola actually knows there’s a SARS-CoV-2 genome.

But the authors of the Frontiers in Virology paper said that they were comparing the sequence, the mRNA sequence patented by Moderna in 2016, to the genome found in our old friend paper by Chinese virologist Fan Wu.

So it isn’t that we picked this paper by random. It isn’t that I picked this paper to investigate how they found the genome or what their evidence for the virus was. This is the paper that the authors of the Frontiers in Virology use to compare the Moderna patent to.

So we’re using their information and this is their evidence, their proof that the virus exists.

So, let’s look then at that paper and see what they found.

So this is about: Did the paper by Fan Wu prove that the virus existed — the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists — and that this is the genome of the virus?

Again, in order to say that the patented sequence matches 100% to the genome of the virus, obviously, obviously, you have to know that this is actually a virus.

So, this is an old friend, we’ve been through this many times, but let’s see what they say.

So here is the paper, published in the prestigious journal, I believe, Nature — February 3, 2020.

“A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China”. The lead author, his name Fan Wu.

So this is the paper, again, that was cited by the authors of Frontiers in Virology paper that is used as the reference genome.

So how did they do it?

So first we have a summary.

So how did they identify the “virus”? So I’m gonna run down the steps that they used and then we will show the clips, the actual wording from the paper, so that you know that this is actually the facts.

Okay, so we’re looking to find a virus and then find the genome of that virus — a virus that had never been found before.

So first thing they take lung fluid from one person. That’s a huge sample size (that’s a little tongue-in-cheek). That’s obviously just one person. That is a kind of ridiculous experiment to find a new virus.

Then they isolated the RNA, which is a genetic material, from the fluid in that person’s lung. They did not attempt to purify any particles that they could say you were a virus. They did not do any pictures of any virus. They did not do any maceration, filtration, ultracentrifugation to see if they had any such particles. None of that.

They took RNA from the lung fluid, of which we have many possible sources. We have bacterial sources, fungal sources, human sources, possibly viral sources, exosome sources, multivesicular body sources — many sources of RNA. We have no idea the source of that RNA.

Then they create what’s called an mRNA library, which is a catalog of all of the RNA pieces that are in that lung fluid.

This requires that they amplify these pieces of RNA with the process called RT-PCR. And, as we have demonstrated over and over again. and is completely substantiated in the literature, doing PCR amplification of RNA cycles inevitably creates new sequences of RNA which weren’t there in the original sample.

In some cases, if you do enough amplification cycles — up to even 80% of the sequences — after 45 cycles are made de novo, or anew, by the actual PCR process itself.

So now we have yet another source of our RNA. Not only do we have potential viruses, exosomes, multivesicular bodies, apoptotic bodies, human lung tissue, human epithelial lung tissue…, fungal RNA, bacterial RNA — we also have new pieces of RNA generated by the test itself.

Then they performed pair and sequencing that generates 150 base pair reads. That means they matched the sequence by pairing the ends. And you end up with sequences that are basically 150 base pairs long. That’s a fairly small amount. And this results in 56.5 million of these 150 base pair sequences known as reads.

So to be clear, they take this mass, not knowing any idea the origin of these mRNA, they chopped them up into sequences that are 150 base pairs (that’s fairly short) long by pairing the ends. They have 56.5 million of these reads. And then they start doing what’s called de novo assemble.

So there is no sequencing here. There is assembly. And, as it says, you can make a lot of genomes with that many reads.

So they put these 56 million, 150 base pair, reads in aa assembly computer program and… they actually put it in two different computer programs. And one of the computer programs generated 384,000 different sequences. The other one generated over a million sequences.

So now these sequences — all 384,000 of them — are meant to be the possible genomes of this virus. For some reason, they threw away the program that made over a million of these sequences and said the one that made 384,000 — I think that was Megahit — one of those must be the right sequence, the actual sequence of the virus.

Just to be clear, at no point did they ever find a particle. At no point did they purify or isolate a particle.

At no point did they find in any particle… an entire string of RNA, which they then sequenced one by one to find out the sequence of the genetic material of this particle.

None of that was done. All they did was chop up RNA from many different possible sources, put that in a computer program, generate 384,000 and a million in another, and then they went hunting for infectious agents and performed a search of those sequences.

The two longest sequences were a close match to a bat SARS-like coronavirus genome, found 15 years ago or so, that was made in exactly the same way — never having isolated or purified a particle, never having found an intact genome, never having sequenced the genome.

They just did the same sort of assembly, no sequencing of RNA from God knows where. And, this one, the longest one was a 89% match to the previous SARS coronavirus that they did in the same way.

And, as we say: Boom! There is the new novel human coronavirus — even though, as we’ve said over and over again, humans and chimpanzees are about a 96% match. So to say it was an 89% match is essentially like saying there’s no way this could have been anywhere similar to the previous bat SARS-like coronavirus.

In other words, they never found a virus. They never found a genome of this alleged virus. And so there is no possible way they could say that the Moderna patent was found in this virus. Because the virus simply doesn’t exist.

Therefore, any attempt to say that this was a lab-created, engineered virus is simply anti-scientific because there is no genome that was actually found that it could have been made into.

And that are simply the facts.

Now, I just want to say I’m going to read from a pre-publication article from the Lancet Respiratory magazine.

The title is Exosomes in False-Positive Covid-19 PCR tests: non-specificity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Vivo Detection Explains Artificial Post-Pandemic Peaks.

This is a manuscript draft and I don’t know when it will be published.

When I read this, just remember that all these articles that go into The Lancet have to pay homage to the virus god. But I will explain what they mean here.

So this is the interpretation of the entire article. I won’t go through their methods.

“The RNA code counted in PCR tests, previously attributed to SARS-CoV-2, belongs instead to a respiratory-virus-induced immune system response by human cells that liberate exosomes, and that vitiate PCR test results. PCR tests have zero specificity in vivo due to the exosome RNA.”

[…]

And they go on in this article, just as we’re saying — the reality is all of these RNA sequences, all of these reads which were assembled into a viral genome, actually when you do careful analysis, come from human epithelial lung cells.

In other words, just as we’ve been saying all along, these are not viruses. These are breakdown products of our own tissue. And the misconception in calling them a virus needs to stop.

And this idea that they put this patented sequence into a virus can’t possibly be true because, simply, there is no virus.

And all the rest of the article is for not — because nobody put a RNA sequence, patented or otherwise, into a virus.

Now just to show you that we got this from the article — so here is the one patient presenting with cough, etc. So that’s the evidence that we were correct about the one patient.

Here is the evidence that the paired and 150 base pair reads sequencing of the RNA library was performed on this computer platform. So the sequencing yields reads of only 150 base pairs. The whole SARS-CoV-2 genome is supposed to be 30,000.

That means they had to stitch it together using a computer program. This was an assembled genome, out of little bits from God knows where.

And here we see the 56.5 million reads were assembled using Megahit and Trinity. Trinity, they got over a million. They generated a total of 384,000 contigs (that’s sequences).

Trinity generated 1.3 million. They don’t like those because they weren’t long enough. They compared those with the database and compared and found that it was somewhat, although not really similar to a previous bat coronavirus. So, as he says, sequencing results in more than 56 million reads.

How can you possibly differentiate what is from a potential virus from everything else? The answer is you can’t.

And finally… The longest contig is generated by Megahits. The longest one by Trinity is 11,000. How come they didn’t use this one?

Both showed similarity to bat coronavirus. They were found at high abundance. It was only 89 percent similar. That means 11 percent didn’t match. That is a huge amount.

Then they just moved on to develop primers all from this one assay without isolating anything, and from one patient.

And, my friends, that is not science; that is propaganda, as is the entire story of a lab engineered virus.

Now, the real issue here and one of the reasons why this, to me, is so important, is if you go by this unscientific theory that there’s a lab-created virus, you actually miss what I would say are the three most important questions to be asked, and then answered, about this situation.

And so now I’m talking — I would say theory. Where everything else was what I would call simply facts.

So the question that should be asked (and it would be nice to have answers for, and which I don’t have the answers for, but I have some theories) is, to me, the most interesting thing is —

So we have this published genome, fraudulent as it is, by a bunch of Chinese virologists. Right? They come up with this fraudulent, irrational genome. And, lo and behold, it matches a patent taken out by a company called Moderna in 2016.

So I ask myself how did they do that? How did they make — like there’s two theories, there’s two ways of looking at this.

One is: They don’t want that to happen and so it was a mistake.

But, if we think, which I’m inclined to do, that “they” (meaning Moderna and other people) wanted this to happen so that they could throw people off and essentially create a kind of patsy out there, how did they do it?

So I have three possible theories as to how they did it.

Now, let me be clear.

What I’m trying to figure out is these guys Fan Wu and others, Chinese virologists, having, I don’t think, any connection with Moderna, come up with a bogus, anti-scientific genome and for some unbelievable coincidence — let’s say for now — it actually matches exactly one of the patented sequences from the Moderna patent of four years prior. How did that happen?

So possibility number one: It was dumb luck. They just made this sequence and it just so happened to match the Moderna patent. And, frankly, I don’t think that’s actually the right answer.

The second possibility: … Somebody from Moderna or somebody — I don’t know who — calls up Fan Wu and says ‘I want you to make a genome out of nothing and I want it to have this particular sequence in it so some day people will find this out and say “you see, they genetically engineered this sequence”‘. Got it? In other words, there was collusion between the patenters (that’s Moderna) and Fan Wu and his team.

Now I gotta tell you, I actually don’t think that’s true. I would actually love to find out if it is true and if there is a phone call from doctor head of Moderna saying, you know, ‘Hey Wu, would you put this sequence in there so that we can — people find out that it was a genetically engineered sequence?’ But I just don’t think that happens.

And then I came up with a third possibility which is: Once I discovered all these people who are looking into all these patents, that there was at least 70 different patents taken out, of different sequences of RNA, that could end up in a genome. Now, my guess is … I would think it’s a good possibility that one of those sequences may end up in the final genome. And then you would then implant the story that this was a genetically engineered organism and there you go.

So you wouldn’t have to rely on luck, you wouldn’t have to actually have collusion, you could just patent a whole lot of different sequences, for instance, that came in the SARS-1 genome. You could patent all kinds of sequences knowing that, at the end of the day, when somebody makes up this new fraudulent genome it’s bound to have one of them in there. Somebody will find it some day, say it’s the smoking gun and you then implanted the story of the century which does nothing but throws people off.

So those are my three options. I’d be happy to hear about any other possible options. But those were the only three that I could come up with.

Now, the final question then is: What in the heck are these guys doing in these labs? What is gain of function research?

And, I must say, I don’t know what they’re doing in the labs and I don’t think really anybody knows — including in the Chinese labs or Ukrainian labs or North Carolina labs or any other labs.

So again, I have some possibilities.

One is the following …

They’re doing this.

In other words, what the virologists do is they dress up in hazmat suits and they go on to their computer and start making sequences. And the hazmat suits are crucial, because, as we all know, it’s very possible for the sequences to jump from the computer into their eyes. So it’s very important, as you can see, that they wear goggles and protective head gear to prevent the computer sequences from jumping directly in their eyes.

In other words, they may be just doing nothing and it may be just a whole lot of hooey to get people to worry about things. And to implant in their minds that there is this horrible engineered virus, that we should all be scared of viruses, etc. So that’s one possibility.

Another one is they’re making some sort of proteins or genetic material which can be injected into people. In other words, they’re making toxins. And that is certainly possible.

So those are the two main categories that I came up with. Either they’re just doing nothing and they’re just a front, or a smoke screen, or they’re actually making stuff which isn’t good for people.

And that gets into my final thing that I want to point out.

… This section right here. this is something I’ve been very interested. So this is again from the Mercola article:

“For clarity, this may have nothing to do with Moderna’s patented MSH3 sequence specifically, because the RNA code in the jab is not identical to the RNA code of the actual virus. (I’m not going to get into that.) The RNA in the jab has been genetically altered yet again to resist breakdown and ensure the creation of abundant copies of the spike protein. ¹¹“

Now, I have been asking the question now for months: Where is the paper? Where is the evidence (a) that there actually is mRNA in these injections? They say there is. That’s the whole point. But when people look there either seems to be not there or in variable amounts depending on which injection and which batch.

So it could be that even the whole mRNA in the jab is a actual smokescreen or cover for what’s really in these injections –which is a lot worse stuff like self assembling nanoparticles which we’ve heard about a lot.

And the Baileys, Mark Bailey just did another show on that.

So I was very interested to see that this was… stated as fact, because I can’t find a paper, and my friends can’t find a paper, that confirms that abundant copies of this protein are actually made when you inject this sequence.

And this would be like saying — if I wanted to get investors for my new pencil factory, my investors might ask me to see the pencils that we make. And so it would be natural for me to produce copies of the pencils — maybe tens or hundreds or thousands or millions of them — to show that my technology for making pencils actually works.

One would think that if the whole point of these jabs is to make you make spike proteins that, therefore, “confer immunity”, there would be scores, hundreds, thousands of papers showing here’s the amount of spike proteins in an unjabbed person. And then you jab them and then 10 minutes, half an hour, three hours, two weeks, six months, 12 years later, here’s the amount of spike protein. That would prove that the concept is real and that you can actually genetically alter a human being.

Because I have my doubts. So I’m looking for a reference to show this is true. And, lo and behold, here is the reference. Number 11. [see page 3 of Mercola article] So where is the reference from? CBS News.

Now, I could say — I would say if it was from Fox or MSNBC then I would be skeptical. But the fact it’s from CBS, that must mean it’s true. And obviously I’m kidding. Let’s see the reference.

If the whole point of this is to put RNA into injections, make you make a spike protein which is allegedly from the virus, let’s actually see that it works. And here’s a quote saying there’s at least 73 patents.

My guess is one of them was bound to show up in the imaginary sequence. Bingo! We’ve got proof that it’s there, that it was a genetically engineered virus.

And the whole thing, hopefully you now see, comes crashing down like a house of cards if, as we showed, there was no virus genetically engineered or otherwise in the first place.

[At this point in the video, Tom takes questions from the viewers.]

Question: So this one is related, but it has to do with Dr. Bush‘s reference to 10 to the 30th power of viruses within our blood, as well as in the oceans, in the soil. His purpose is to provide constant flow of updated genomic information that we need to in order to adapt and survive. And they’re not pathogens. That we need not fear, etc., etc.

Answer: So he also has said that, of course, viruses are pathogens. The real issue here is how did they find these 10 to the 30th power viruses? And I’ve gone over this, especially in reference to a paper, and I don’t remember the name, but it’s called the ….something to do with the renaming or the re-evaluating of viral…virome…viral world or something like that.

The reason people say this is because they don’t realize that they’re not talking about actual organisms or particles called viruses. They’re talking about liberated pieces of either RNA or DNA — little snippets of RNA or DNA which then get amplified in what’s called metagenomics sequencing and so there are billions and billions and billions of these breakdown products. None of them have anything to do with a virus. They’re simply little bits of genetic garbage that are coming off of our cells and tissues all the time. They have no particular meaning or function that anybody has been able to prove. They’re just little bits of garbage. And the misconception that they’re somehow actual particles and could possibly hurt you or could possibly help you is just a misunderstanding of how they found viruses in the first place.

They don’t find particles. They don’t purify particles. There haven’t been 10 to the 30th purified particles. We’re talking about little pieces of DNA or RNA that get amplified, called viruses, which is a misconception big time.

[Additional questions include speculation about the patent links to the Fan Wu team “discovery” as well as a question about allergies.]

 Articles mentioned in this video presentation:

Moderna Patented Key COVID Spike Protein Sequence in 2016 by Dr. Joseph Mercola [originally published March 7, 2022 at this link — https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/07/moderna-patented-spike-protein.aspx — and was mirrored around the web. It can still be found at Dr. Mercola’s paid archive membership.] Dr. Cowan has provided a pdf file of the article here: https://brandfolder.com/s/fv2q4h7fp84bm5vb3ppn37

Frontiers in Virology paper: MSH3 Homology and Potential Recombination Link to SARS-CoV-2 Furin Cleavage Site

Chinese virologist Fan Wu‘s paper published in Nature: A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China

Lancet Respiratory magazine article: Role of Exosomes in False-Positive Covid-19 PCR tests: non-specificity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Vivo Detection Explains Artificial Post-Pandemic Peaks

Related articles:

Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Tom Cowan: How We Got Into This Mess — The History of Virology & Deep Medical Deceptions

Dare to Ask: Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman on Freedom, Fear, and False Science About Viruses and the Nature of Reality Itself

Dr. Stefan Lanka 2020 Article Busts the Virus Misconception

Dr. Tom Cowan on the “Spiked Protein Toxin” & “Virus Created in a Lab” Stories

The Contagion Fairy Tale

The Non-Existent Virus; an Explosive Interview With Christine Massey

The Contagion Myth: No Virus Has Ever Caused Disease

The Fraudulent Use of PCR / RT-PCR Techniques for the Manipulation, Harm and, Ultimately, the Destruction of Humanity

Warning Signs You’ve Been Tricked by Virologists

Jon Rappoport: My Bottom Line on the Existence of the Virus, Its Isolation and Sequencing

Exposing the Lie — Hippocratic Hypocrisy: A Tale of Two Snakes [A collaborative film by Spacebusters and Dr. Andrew Kaufman about how authentic medicine was hijacked by the power elite and turned into a deadly, sickness-for-profit industry.]

Dr. Tom Cowan & Dr. Andrew Kaufman: A Challenging Response to Dr. Mercola’s Article “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 Is a Real Virus”

A Response to Dr. Mercola’s Recent Statement on if SARS-Cov-2 Is a Real Virus With Dr. Andrew Kaufma

by Dr. Tom Cowan with Dr. Andrew Kaufman
January 21, 2022

“…I think there has been, you know, a total wave right of criticism of the the truth that viruses don’t exist and cause disease. And we see that, seemingly at the same time, that the pandemic seems to be drawing near an end. Right?

We see suddenly lifting restrictions all over the world.

And even Bill Gates predicted in 2022 that would be the end of the pandemic.

The Wall Street journal printed an editorial saying that…essentially last three weeks a major drop in cases, and it signifies, you know, what do they call it — the herd immunity. Right? Which is another thing we can debunk.

So, as they’re kind of ending out of this — and, you know, I’m sure that there’s more planned in the future. And I don’t know if it’s going to be a health crisis or not. But if this does peter out, they want to make sure that as we, you know, get this relief and come out of it — and probably they want us to look at them in a favorable light.

But they want to make sure that we still believe in deadly and dangerous viruses.

And they want to make sure that we still believe that there are safe vaccines, even if we question the safety of these particular genetic injections.

That we retain those important beliefs, so that they can still continue to profit and manipulate and, you know, run operations in the future.”

~ Dr. Andrew Kaufman



Video available at Dr. Tom Cowan BitChute channel.

See Dr. Mercola’s article “Yes, SARS-CoV-2 Is a Real Virus” here.

Here are the additional links referenced during the discussion:
– Virus Isolation – Is It Real? – https://www.bitchute.com/video/UnpfmjmXNH0O/
– An Open Letter to Dr. Mercola – https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/open-letter-to-dr-mercola-january-17-2022/
– What is a Virus? – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thsDCmtkcOA

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

See related:

Virus Isolation…Is It Real? Andrew Kaufman, MD Responds to Jeremy Hammond

Christine Massey: An Open Letter to Dr. Mercola in Response to His Claim That SARS-CoV-2 Has Been Isolated

Questioning ‘The Science’: What Is a ‘Virus’? How Is a ‘Virus’ Seen & Isolated?

The Contagion Myth: No Virus Has Ever Caused Disease

by Jeremy Nell, Jerm Warfare
October 20, 2021

According to Dr Tom Cowan’s website, he is

a well-known alternative medicine doctor, author and speaker, with a common-sense, holistic approach to health and wellness.

But here’s the exciting bit.

Following my heart led me to a conception of science, medicine and the world at large that was radically different from anything I was taught in school. My ideas, such as the heart is not a pump, blocked arteries are not the main cause of heart attacks, vaccines are ineffective and unsafe, cancer is not a genetic disease, and the “war on cancer” has been an utter failure, have been the subjects of three of my books.

Recently, because of current events, I turned my questioning gaze on the widely accepted theory —so accepted that it now lives in our culture as truth — that germs (bacteria and viruses) cause disease.

Tom’s views echo those of Dr Andrew Kaufman and Dr Sam Bailey, and Dr Stefan Lanka who won a massive court case upholding his claim that there is no evidence linking measles to a virus.

I find their arguments fairly convincing because they’re based on evidential, observable science; not speculation. And once you realise that SARS-CoV-2 does not cause any disease, let alone “COVID-19”, a new paradigm of critical thought and interrogation emerges.

As the inventor of PCR – Kary Mullis – said, science is not about being right; it’s about being wrong.



Video available at Jerm Warfare Odysee channel.

Dr. Tom Cowan on New Biology

Download PDF

Measles virus put to the test. Dr. Stefan Lanka wins in court…

Since the early 1990s, German biologist Dr. Stefan Lanka has been at the forefront of challenging the medical theory stating that viruses are the cause of infectious diseases such as hepatitis, AIDS, the flu, polio, herpes, or measles. Caroline Markolin has presented Dr. Lanka’s activities in her lecture video “Virus Mania” in great details (watch Part 2 of the recordings on this website – starting at 08:08).

Based on his studies in virology, Dr. Lanka discovered that viruses are vital components of simple life-forms that do not exist in complex organisms such as humans, animals, or plants. His research shows that the viruses believed to cause “viral infections” are in reality ordinary cell particles that have been misinterpreted as constituents of the viruses in question. Dr. Lanka also determined that viruses don’t have a destructive effect on the host, as commonly believed. These findings are in full accordance with the discoveries of Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer who demonstrated already in the 1980s

that contrary to the standard theory, microbes do not harm the organism but play instead a supportive role during the healing process of diseases (see Fourth Biological Law of the New Medicine).

The “measles virus trial” between Dr. Stefan Lanka and German medical doctor David Bardens has by now received international attention (see the 2015 reports in CTV News Canada and BBC News). The court case has not only heated up the ongoing “virus debate”. It also fuelled the discussion about the justification of childhood vaccination and of vaccination in general.

Here is a brief overview of the court proceedings:

On November 24, 2011, Dr. Lanka announced on his website that he would offer a prize of € 100,000 to anyone who could prove the existence of the measles virus. The announcement read as follows: “The reward will be paid, if a scientific publication is presented, in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and in which, among other things, the diameter of the measles virus is determined.”

In January 2012, Dr. David Bardens took Dr. Lanka up on his pledge. He offered six papers on the subject and asked Dr. Lanka to transfer the € 100,000 to his bank account.

The six publications are:

1. Enders JF, Peebles TC. Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1954 Jun;86(2):277–286.

2. Bech V, Magnus Pv. Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand. 1959; 42(1): 75–85

3. Horikami SM, Moyer SA. Structure, Transcription, and Replication of Measles Virus. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1995; 191: 35–50.

Connect with Jerm Warfare

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

The Emperor Has No Corona

by ThoughtCrimes7
August 11, 2021



Available at ThoughtCrime7 BitChute and Odysee channels.

An investigation into the “Isolation” of the SARS-COV2 “virus”.

SOURCES:

Dr. Andrew Kaufman:
https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

SOVI – Statement on Virus Isolation – Add your name:
https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/sovi/

Dr. Tom Cowan:
https://drtomcowan.com/

Only Poisoned Monkey cells Grew the Virus, article by Dr Tom Cowan:
https://drtomcowan.com/only-poisoned-monkey-kidney-cells-grew-the-virus/

Virus Mania, by Dr. Sam Bailey and Torsten Engelbrecht:
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/virus-mania-1

Torsten Engelbrecht:
https://www.torstenengelbrecht.com/en/virus-mania-in-the-media/

Isolate the Truth Fund, 1.5 Million Euro Prize:
https://www.samueleckert.net/isolate-truth-fund/

Christine Massey, Global FOIA Requests:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/

Dr. Stephan Lanka – CPE Produced without Virus:
https://odysee.com/@CosmicEvent:5/CPE—Control-Experiment—21-April-2021—English-version:0

Dr. Vincent Racaniello:
https://microbiology.columbia.edu/faculty-vincent-racaniello

Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article

GenBank:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/

In-Silico PCR:
http://noncode.org/cgi-bin/hgPcr

See related:

Turning Virology & Modern Medicine on Its Head: Dr. Andrew Kaufman w/ Brian Young

Drs. Tom Cowan, Andy Kaufman & Stefan Lanka: On the Myth That Virology Is Real Science & What We Don’t Yet Know About These Highly Toxic Covid “Vaccines”

Virus Mania: Corona/COVID-19, Measles, Swine Flu, Cervical Cancer, Avian Flu, SARS, BSE, Hepatitis C, AIDS, Polio, Spanish Flu. How the Medical… Making Billion-Dollar Profits At Our Expense by Torsten Engelbrecht, Claus Köhnlein, Samantha Bailey, Stefano Scoglio

The Truth About Contagion: Exploring Theories of How Disease Spreads (2021) by Thomas S. Cowan MD and Sally Fallon Morell

cover image credit: Dieterich01 / pixabay

Drs. Tom Cowan, Andy Kaufman & Stefan Lanka: On the Myth That Virology Is Real Science & What We Don’t Yet Know About These Highly Toxic Covid “Vaccines”

Truth Comes to Light editor’s note:

In the video below Dean Braus brings together Dr. Stefan Lanka, Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Andy Kaufman to discuss mRNA vaccines, nanoparticles in vaccines and related topics. Dean begins the conversation with discussion of the following quote:

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”
~ Heraclitus of Ephesus

There is an audio issue with much of Dr. Lanka’s contribution to the conversation, which included some discussion of Dr. Lanka’s CPE (Cytopathic Effect) experiment and ongoing research, as well as the refusal of mainstream medical science to give his research consideration. To understand more about his work, please see links to related articles, videos and pdf files that I’ve provided at the end of this article.

Below are a few brief excerpts from the wide-ranging conversation:

Tom Cowan:

 …The theory that we base our entire science and our entire medicine on — which we are only made of substance — it is simply incorrect.

…We are forced into a way of seeing the world — forced into saying that must be true. And yet we all know it’s not.

…At some point we have to acknowledge that the theory of medicine science is just wrong and we should abandon it.

Andy Kaufman:

…We are living in a time when science is not interested in finding the truth. It’s basically motivated by…political goals and and other purposes — financial incentives.

…As Tom alluded to, we’ve known that virology is not a valid science for a long time. And it’s very important — the control experiments — because they provide the empirical evidence that disproves the dogmatic virology theory.

…An average person can understand the significance of this control experiment because we’re saying that the alleged proof of the existence of a virus, and everything that is based upon that, comes from the experimental procedure itself — and not from the presence of anything real.

…I think there are a lot of unknowns right now. Like, we certainly know that these so-called vaccines — or these gene therapies — that they’re quite toxic. And we have incredible numbers of people experiencing very serious adverse effects and we have incredible numbers of people dying. But the truth is that we don’t really even know what’s in these injections.

We know from the past that undisclosed ingredients make it into vaccine products… We know that there is recent evidence that has perhaps not been validated but it’s still out there from La Quinta Columna about graphene. We know that in the past there has been DNA from fetal cell lines that’s been added to vaccines without being disclosed. And then we have observed some unusual phenomenon with respect to magnetism. And then if you look in the literature you see that there is an extreme amount of research published on nanotechnology for biomedical applications. And many of those are specifically for infectious disease and specifically for vaccine technology.

…And then we have this story about you know the gene therapy. And we know that this is been unsuccessful so far in other clinical pursuits.

…What we have seen as an explosion in GMO technology in other industries — in manufacturing, nutraceuticals and pharmaceuticals and, as well, in agriculture and food especially, where we know that they alter the genotype and phenotype of organisms. So we know that they can hack our system in some ways that can change our physiology.

…So we don’t really know if this product actually integrates into the genetic machinery of the host or the protein manufacturing machinery of the host. And we don’t really know if the spike protein is actually made in our body. So, in other words, there’s evidence that the spike protein is toxic .. You can buy a commercial preparation… it’s an actual substance. Now whether it’s found in nature or not is a separate discussion. But it has been bought from those manufacturers and sold for research studies and shown to have a certain toxicity. But we don’t know if the toxicity from these products is from that spike protein because we don’t even know if it’s really made.

…We also don’t know with certainty if there is nanotechnology in addition to the lipid nanoparticles that are said to deliver the mRNA or the so-called adenovirus vector that’s in the Johnson & Johnson product. But we don’t know if there’s other nanotechnology. Like are their magnetic nanoparticles? Are there graphene nanoparticles? Is there hydrogel?

Tom Cowan:

…An RNA vaccine is trying to take over that which is basically the interaction of the human being with the world of light and sound and spirit and thoughts and emotions — and translate that into a living being.

Who’s ever doing this wants “them” to be the ones who determine what protein you make.

…The bad news is they’re trying to make us make what they want. The good news is — it doesn’t work like that, so they may not ever be able to do it.

…Like Andy said, nobody even has measured really whether they actually can get them to make spike proteins. My guess is they can’t really.

Freedom Talk 3

by Dean Braus, @DeansDanes Odysee channel
July 14, 2021

Impact of CPE Control Experiment. mRNA Vaccines, nanoparticles, outlook on projects.



Original video available at Dean’s Danes Odysee channel.

Also found at Dean’s Danes Odysee channel, see a brief video on Dr. Lanka’s CPE experiments.

 See related:

Documents

Dismantling the Virus Theory by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

The Causes of Corona Crisis Are Clearly Identified — Virologists Who Claim Disease-Causing Viruses Are Science Fraudsters and Must Be Prosecuted by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

How Dead Are Virus Anyway? All Claims of Virus Existence Refuted by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

A Serious Indictment of Modern Cell Biology and Neurobiology by Harold Hillman (download PDF)

Video on Dr. Lanka’s work mentioned by Dean Braus

The Final Refutation Of Virology by Dr. Stefan Lanka

Related articles

Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Tom Cowan: How We Got Into This Mess — The History of Virology & Deep Medical Deceptions

Dare to Ask: Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman on Freedom, Fear, and False Science About Viruses and the Nature of Reality Itself

Dr. Stefan Lanka 2020 Article Busts the Virus Misconception

Dr. Tom Cowan on the “Spiked Protein Toxin” & “Virus Created in a Lab” Stories

The Contagion Fairy Tale

Connect with Dr. Stefan Lanka: http://wissenschafftplus.de/

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan: http://drtomcowan.com/

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman: https://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

Connect with Dean Braus: https://odysee.com/@DeansDanes:1

Dr. Andrew Kaufman & Dr. Tom Cowan: Healing Properties of Pure Gum Spirits of Turpentine

by Dr. Tom Cowan with Dr. Andrew Kaufman
June 29, 2021



Video available at Dr. Tom Cowan BitChute channel.

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

cover image credit: manfredrichter / pixabay

Dr. Tom Cowan on the “Spiked Protein Toxin” & “Virus Created in a Lab” Stories

New Findings on the Spike Protein Toxin- Live Webinar 6/4/21



Original video available at Dr. Tom Cowan BitChute channel.

This presentation with Q&A included:

• a basic discussion of virology theories and stories
• spiked proteins
• “gain of function” research
• PCR Tests
• what we actually know about antibodies
• autoimmune disease
• what might be happening with all the anecdotal stories about “shedding”
• Stefan Lanka’s virology study
• pathogenic priming

References:

The video mentioned by Dr. Cowan related to Stefan Lanka’s virology study

The peer-reviewed study mentioned by Dr. Cowen on COVID-19 vaccines  that suggests why heart inflammation, blood clots, and other dangerous side effects occur

A Serious Indictment of Modern Cell Biology and Neurobiology by Harold Hillman

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Tom Cowan: How We Got Into This Mess — The History of Virology & Deep Medical Deceptions

“I think the bottom line here, Stefan, if you agree, is that the chemistry and the
structure follows consciousness. Not the other way around.”
~ Dr. Tom Cowan

My Discussion With Stefan Lanka About Virology

by Dr. Tom Cowan with Dr. Stefan Lanka
March 24, 2021



Original video available at Dr. Tom Cowan BitChute channel.

On Wednesday I had an hour-long discussion with German biologist and virologist Stefan Lanka.

Stefan spoke about the history of virology, helped us to understand the many wrong turns virologists have taken over the years, and updated us on his ground-breaking study that will disprove the basic tenets of virology.

Stefan Lanka’s papers on the virus misconception:

The Virus Misconception — Measles As an Example Part I

The Virus Misconception — Measles As an Example Part II

Stefan Lanka’s interviews and articles: 

How Dead Are Virus Anyway? All Claims of Virus Existence Refuted

The Causes of Corona Crisis Are Clearly Identified — Virologists Who Claim Disease-Causing Viruses Are Science Fraudsters and Must Be Prosecuted

Interview: Measles Virus Process:

http://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/wissenschafftplus-won-measles-virus-process.pdf

https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/Dismantling-the-Virus-Theory.pdf

Stefan Lanka’s website: http://wissenschafftplus.de/

Dr. Tom Cowan’s channels:

https://gab.com/DrtomCowan
https://rumble.com/c/c-568333
https://odysee.com/@Dr.TomCowan:8

Tom Cowan’s website: https://drtomcowan.com

Support Dr. Tom Cowan at SubscribeStar: https://www.subscribestar.com/dr-tom-cowan

Dare to Ask: Dr. Tom Cowan, Dr. Stefan Lanka & Dr. Andrew Kaufman on Freedom, Fear, and False Science About Viruses and the Nature of Reality Itself

by Dean Braus, Dean’s Danes YouTube channel
March 4, 2021



Freedom Talk 1 – 4 March 2021 

Original video available at Dean’s Danes YouTube channel.

Tom, Stefan, Andy & Dean talk about individual responsibility and personal commitment.

[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, Lbry/Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]

See related:

The Misconception Called Virus by Dr. Stefan Lanka (download PDF)

Statement of Virus Isolation | Conclusion: The SARS-CoV2 Virus Does Not Exist

Dr. Tom Cowan w/ Dr. Andrew Kaufman: We Have No Scientific Proof That Viruses Cause Disease — A Response to Dr. Judy Mikovits

The Contagion Fairy Tale by Dr. Tom Cowan and Sally Fallon Morell

Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI)

Add your voice to show support.

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Dr. Andrew Kaufman

Connect with Sally Fallon Morell

Dr. Tom Cowan w/ Dr. Andrew Kaufman: We Have No Scientific Proof That Viruses Cause Disease — A Response to Dr. Judy Mikovits

Response to Judy Mikovits with Tom Cowan and Andrew Kaufman 

by Dr. Andrew Kaufman in conversation with Dr. Tom Cowan
September 29, 2021

This content features a discussion of the (lack of) scientific evidence for the proof of viruses alleged to cause disease in the context of a recently aired debate between Judy Mikovots, Ph.D. and Andrew Kaufman, M.D.



Video available at Dr. Andrew Kaufman’s Lbry channel and at Dr. Tom Cowan’s BitChute channel.

[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]

The original discussion between Dr. Kaufman and Dr. Judy Mikovits may be seen here:

https://rumble.com/vd4c17-special-event-roundtable-with-dr.-judy-mikovits-discussing-the-magic-virus-.html

Dr. Cowan’s website:
https://drtomcowan.com/

Dr. Kaufman’s website:
http://andrewkaufmanmd.com/

The Contagion Fairy Tale

by Thomas Cowan, MD and Sally Fallon Morell
November 10, 2020

Our book, The Contagion Myth, is now available (banned on Amazon but sold on other outlets) and has already generated dozens of comments, many of them challenging our contention that the corona “virus” does not exist and that the illness attributed to this virus is not contagious—one referred to our book as a fairy tale!

However, unlike most coronavirus skeptics, we are not arguing that the illness is just a bad case of the flu, with deaths due solely to pre-existing conditions or inappropriate hospital care; rather we postulate that the illness can be very serious and that the likely cause is radiation poisoning, probably from the worldwide deployment of 5G, starting in Wuhan, China and followed by major cities throughout the world.

Comments we have received include the following:

• Okinawa does not have 5G but people are getting infected there;
• Some friends went to a wedding in Kirkland, Washington and got Covid, so it must be infectious;
• There’s 5G in New Zealand but very few cases of illness;
• A school in our neighborhood has opened for in-person classes and there has been an outbreak—two people have tested positive;
• A lot of people “got the virus” after a big no-mask motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota;
• What about rabbits getting myxomatosis, a known viral disease.

With the exception of the rabbit comment (a subject to be explored in a future blog), these observations are just that—epidemiological observations, which are certainly interesting and deserve further exploration, but these in no way disprove our main contention that this virus does not exist and the illness attributed to it is not contagious.

Why take our word for the shocking claim that no scientist has found the so-called coronavirus?  Of course, you shouldn’t take our word for it, you should listen to what the experts are saying.  In July 2020, the FDA posted a CDC document entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), Real-Time RT-PCR diagnostic Panel. For Emergency Use Only. Instructions for Use.” Buried in the text, on page 39, is the following statement: “. . . no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available.”

In other words, our government is telling us that there are no purified isolated samples of this “novel coronavirus,” which means that the virus has never been isolated and purified.  What they are finding in the RT-PCR tests are fragments of genetic material, which actually come from human chromosome #8. This means that the results of all RT-PCR tests are invalid—the only thing they can tell us is that we are human beings.

A January, 2020 paper on testing tells us the same thing: “The ongoing outbreak of the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) poses a challenge for public health laboratories as virus isolates are unavailable. . . [emphasis added]” Nevertheless, even without knowing what this virus is like, the researchers aim “to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.” A challenge indeed!

Here is an analogy to describe what is going on.  Let’s say you are a paid Lego specialist and someone offers to reward you if you can construct an exact replica of King Beauregard’s Medieval castle.  The referees put all the known Lego pieces out on a table and promise to pay you well to do the reconstruction. Naturally, you ask to see a picture of what the castle looked like or at least some sort of architectural plan so you know what to build.  But the referees say that you must reconstruct the castle without having access to any information about the original castle.  You think this is downright bizarre, but since a job is a job, you start looking.  You find pieces for a moat; you know that castles have moats and think that this must be part of the castle.  Then you find windows, turrets, soldiers, etc.–with each new finding you are given a castle-building Lego award and an increase in salary.  You write some software that fills in the rest of the castle from the fragments you have. Then you publish a peer reviewed paper on the “completed” castle for all the world to see.

Unfortunately, a child appears who looks like he has time traveled from the Middle Ages.  You show him the castle.  “Everybody knows that Beauregard didn’t have a castle.” He says.  “Beauregard was an impoverished aristocrat who was afraid of moats; he lived in a garret in London.”  But the show must go on, so his remarks are never published, while the Lego expert (who knows the child is right) keeps quiet and enjoys his hefty salary.

A number of readers have sent us studies “proving” the existence of pathogenic viruses.  In fact, one virologist claimed that “thousands of papers” show that isolated bacteria or viruses cause disease. (He also tried to convince us that one could sterilize one’s hands, cover them and they would remain sterile “indefinitely.”)

One was a link to a study with the promising title “Koch’s postulates fulfilled for SARS virus”, published 2003 in the prestigious journal Nature. We discuss this study in The Contagion Myth. The researchers claim that Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) is also caused by a coronavirus. The title itself is misleading, not to say fraudulent, because the researchers did not satisfy Koch’s postulates—which is the common-sense way of proving that a microbe causes disease. They did not satisfy River’s postulates either—River’s postulates are for proving that a virus causes a disease. These methods involve isolating and purifying a specific microbial organism from a number of individuals suffering from a specific disease and injecting the isolated, purified bacteria or virus into healthy organisms (animal or human). If every sick person has the organism and every test subject becomes ill, then you know that the specific microbe causes the specific disease.

Let’s focus on the process of isolating and purifying a virus—it’s hard to do but not impossible.  In 1973, the Pasteur Institute published guidelines for doing this. First the virologist takes mucus or secretions from a person with the disease.   The secretions are diluted and then put into a kind of blender. The resultant liquid is then passed through a very fine filter—fine enough to keep out bacteria and fungi but let the viruses through; the resulting liquid is called a supernatant. It contains the virus but also lots of other stuff as well. The supernatant must then be centrifuged in such a way that you get bands of particles of the same size and weight.  The scientist can determine which band is the virus using the known size and weight of viruses.  This band is removed from the supernatant with a pipette. This is the properly isolated and purified virus.  The virus is then transferred to some tissue to grow and multiply.

An important point is that when the virologist has finished the purification process of macerating, filtering and ultracentrifugation, he must then take an electron micrograph of the final, purified virus to show his colleagues that he has in fact successfully purified and isolated the virus.  Virologists have done this many times and for many different viruses.  Without an electron micrograph picture showing purification, no reputable journal would publish this work. The reason is simple: scientists are essentially told not to believe each other because someone says so.  If you say you isolated a virus you must show the picture to prove it, period.  Absent the picture it could be a total fabrication.  The way science is supposed to work, after you have isolated and photographed the virus, other scientists in other labs follow the exact steps that you outlined in your paper and show pictures of the same isolated virus.  Once a number of labs have done this, you have real proof that the virus exists.

In the case of the novel corona virus, every single published photograph we have seen showing the “isolated” virus shows no such thing.  Instead, it shows tissue with a number of dots, usually with an arrow pointing to the so-called coronavirus.  If you see tissue in the photograph, by definition, it’s not isolated.  An example of such a photograph comes from “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea,” published February 24, 2020 in the Journal of Korean Medical Science. Although the authors claim to have isolated the virus, the photographs they publish show “virus” structures inside and outside a cell (indicated by arrows), not isolated.

You can see a properly isolated “virus” in the electron microscopy image of the chicken pox “virus,” below. (By the way, although health officials claim that chicken pox is “highly contagious,” no studies have shown that exposing people to isolated chicken pox virus makes them sick.)

What virologists do today is use the liquid—called the supernatant–after either filtration or centrifuging to get rid of the bacteria, fungi and other larger material.  This is what they refer to as “purification.” This is like filtering the grounds out of coffee to get caffeine so you can study its effects.  But there are hundreds or thousands of other compounds in the coffee, so you still need to isolate the caffeine.  What the researchers should then do is put the supernatant in what’s called a sucrose density centrifuge column, which spins out the various compounds into bands.  One of these bands will contain the pure virus, which can then be photographed and analyzed.

Instead of working with pure virus, researchers use the supernatant, which contains all kinds of molecules and particles. Instead of doing a genetic analysis of the isolated virus, they do genetic analysis on the mess of compounds in the supernatant.

Now to get enough “virus” to use experimentally, virologists must grow it in a biological medium such as an animal or at least cells from an animal.  Unlike bacteria, which can be grown in petri dishes, viruses are not alive and can only “grow” in other living cells.

So they transfer the supernatant not to healthy tissue, but to tissue that has been starved of nutrients and poisoned with strong antibiotics—to make sure that what is left is only viruses and not bacteria and fungi.  The main type of tissue they use is kidney cells from various species, often monkey kidney cells (called Vero cells), and lung cancer cells. The “viruses” seem to multiply.  The resultant mess of “viruses,” particles, poisons, dead tissue and cellular debris—called “cultured” virus– is then sold to researchers as samples of “purified virus” for them to use in studies.

By the way, the CDC has published guidelines on “transport medium” for viruses.  This is what they use to inoculate the starved tissue which then grows the “virus.”  The three main ingredients are fetal bovine serum (extracted from still-living fetal calves and preserved with anti-fungals, among other poisons) along with two highly toxic antibiotics, amphotericin (affectionately called ampho-terrible) and gentamicin.  This ungodly mixture is then grown on monkey or fetal kidney cells.  Interestingly, all doctors know that the main organ affected by gentamicin and ampho-terrible is the kidneys.  So you poison the kidney, the kidney breaks down and then the virologist claims that the virus killed the kidney—without performing any controls. Don’t look behind the curtain, folks!

This practice is fraught with obvious problems for proving it is the virus and not the cancer cells or poisoned kidney cells that are causing disease when these viruses get injected into healthy test animals.

Remember that to prove that a specific virus is making humans or animals sick, they need to find the identical virus in many subjects who are sick with the same symptoms—and then make healthy humans or animals sick by exposing them to this virus.  But when researchers try to grow the purified virus on healthy cells, they don’t get a lot of viruses; and when they subject healthy tissue, healthy animals or healthy people to these “viruses,” illness does not result—and this is the wily virus that is going to kill us all!

Why do “viruses” multiply in the starved and poisoned kidney or cancer cells? Because when cells are starved or poisoned, they produce exosomes, which are identical in appearance and characteristics to what are called “viruses.” These tiny particles are helpful, not toxic.  They do not attack the cells and then multiply; rather, they are produced inside the cell, often in large amounts, when the cells are stressed by poison and starvation.

Viruses and exosomes are indistinguishable, as we learn from a study entitled “The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS viruses,” published in the journal Viruses, May 2020.  To quote from the paper, “The remarkable resemblance between EVs [extracellular vesicles, that is, exosomes] and viruses has caused quite a few problems in the studies focused on the analysis of EVs released during viral infection.  Nowadays it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimensions.  To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs.  However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist [emphasis added]. “

In other words, researchers can’t distinguish viruses from exosomes—that’s because they are the same thing and in reality, all viruses are exosomes.  Scientists are discovering that all of these “viruses” originate in our own tissues—they don’t attack us from the outside.

With this background, let’s then look at the study, “Koch’s Postulates fulfilled for SARS Virus.” The researchers took unpurified sediment from the snot of sick people, grew that in lung cancer cells until they got a sufficient quantity of cellular material to work with.  Then they centrifuged this mess again, not even attempting to purify any virus from the mixture.  Finally, they took this unholy mixture of snot sediment, lung cancer cells and who-knows-what-else and injected that into two unfortunate monkeys.  They didn’t do a control group by injecting saline into other monkeys or injecting lung cancer cells into monkeys or even injecting the liquid from the centrifuged material into monkeys. They just injected the cellular-debris-laden goop.  One of the monkeys got pneumonia, the other got a rash. That, claim the researchers, is the proof that a “coronavirus” can cause disease and that Koch’s postulates have been satisfied.

“The Coronavirus Unveiled,” appearing in the New York Times, gives the impression that researchers are working with a genuine isolated coronavirus. Nevertheless, the article tells us that “In February, as the new coronavirus swept across China and shut down entire cities, . . . the best pictures anyone had managed to take were low-resolution images, in which the virus looked like a barely discernible smudge.”

How did the researchers isolate the virus?  They “doused the viruses with chemicals to render them harmless. . .” In other words, they poisoned them.  Then they somehow “concentrated the virus-laden fluid from a quart down to a single drop” after which they flash froze the drop. Then in the microscope they saw structures they called viruses.

This is not the proper way to isolate and characterize a virus, either.  Proper isolation involves ultrafiltration and centrifuging–not dousing with chemicals and flash freezing–and then performing various physical, biochemical and immunological analyses.

After seeing these particles—most likely helpful exosomes responding to the poisonous chemicals–the researchers state that “its intimately twisted genes commandeer our biochemistry [and] wrenches into our cellular factories, while others build nurseries for making new viruses.” This is highly imaginative horror-movie speculation, not science.

Virologist have three “hosts” they can use in their attempts to prove that viruses cause illness.  After “isolating” the virus, they can expose humans to the virus; they can expose animals to the virus; or they can use tissue cultures taken from various animal or human sources and expose the tissue culture to the virus.  Leaving aside the fact that they never actually isolate and purify the virus, which they openly admit, let’s assume that the unpurified fluid they are using does contain the relevant virus and therefore should be able to transmit infection.   I

In the history of virology, most virologists have decided not to do their experiments on human subjects as this is considered unethical.  In the case of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we know of no published study that used humans as the test subjects.

Virologists also admit that in the case of most viral infections, there are no studies available proving infection in animals.  How a virus can infect and kill humans but not animals is left unexplained. Researchers get around this obvious biological conundrum by saying, “there are no animal models on which to test such-and-such a virus.” In other words, “We know that the virus infects and kills humans even though we’ve never tested the virus on humans because that would be unethical.  Therefore, we do our tests on animals, even though when we test animals. they don’t get sick, because they are not proper “hosts” for the virus. So, you’ll just have to trust us.”

In the case of SARS CoV-2, we know of two studies that used unpurified “virus” on animal models, one with hamsters and one with mice. In the hamster study, researchers took the unpurified, lung-cancer-grown, centrifuged animal secretions and squirted it down the throats and into the lungs of a group of unfortunate hamsters.  Some but not all of the hamsters got pneumonia and some even died.  We have no idea what would have happened if they had squirted plain lung cancer cells into the lungs of these hamsters, probably not anything good.  Even more perplexing, some of the hamsters didn’t even get sick at all, which certainly doesn’t square with the deadly contagious virus theory.

In the mouse study, researchers infected both transgenic mice and wild (normal) mice with unpurified virus.  None of the wild mice exposed to the “virus” got sick.  Of the mice genetically programmed to get sick, a statistically insignificant number either lost some fur luster or had an insignificant weight loss.  Thus, scientists have not been able to show that the Covid-19 “virus” causes harm to animals.

The third choice for virologist is to infect human and animal tissue with a “culture” of the virus to see what happens.  This is what they did in a study entitled, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease,” published in the CDC Bulletin, June 2020.

The purpose of the study was for a group of about twenty virologists to describe the state of the science dealing with the isolation and purification, and the biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.

First, in the section titled “Whole Genome Sequencing,” we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence. . . “ This means they actually looked at a mere thirty-seven primers out of the approximately thirty thousand base pairs claimed to be the genome of an intact virus.  They then took these thirty-seven segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the genome.

This computer-generation step—called “whole genome sequencing”–constitutes scientific fraud of the highest order. Here is an equivalency: a group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a sliver of a horn. They then put that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, claiming that this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they have never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.

The researchers claim they decided which is the real genome of SARS-CoV-2 by “consensus,” sort of like a vote.  As different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary “unicorn,” they come together as a group and decide which is the real imaginary unicorn. (By the way, this is how scientists characterized the measles “virus”—by consensus!)

But the real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, a finding so shocking that it’s hard to believe what we are reading.  “Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T).  In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells . . .  Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection.”

This is the third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity — the method they usually rely on—namely, the inoculation of solutions they say contain the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures. As we have pointed out, such inoculation has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first poisoned and starved (grown in a “minimal-nutrient medium.”)

In the Results section, the authors state: “Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T) . . . Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post infection.  No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells.”

Note, CPE means “cytopathic effect,” which refers to structural changes in host cells that are caused by “viral invasion.” The infecting virus is said to cause lysis (breaking up) of the host cell or, when the cell dies without lysis, an inability to reproduce. Both of these effects are said to occur due to CPEs.

So did this viral material with its “intimately twisted genes commandeer the cellular biochemistry [and] wrench into the cellular factories, while others build nurseries for making new viruses?” Nothing of the sort!

The shocking thing about the findings is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions claimed to contain SARS-CoV-2 (as well as poisons)—even in high amounts –were not infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested.  In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this “new coronavirus” is not infectious to human beings.  It is only infective to monkey kidney cells, and only when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.

Interestingly, in their conclusion the authors don’t mention this important fact. Only virologists reading the whole paper will find out that if you want to grow the virus, don’t bother to use human cell lines.

Meanwhile we have worldwide lockdown predicated on the idea that something called coronavirus causes disease.   As you can read, in all three of the human cell lines no CPE (no cell death, no infection) was observed.  Only Vero cells (monkey kidney cells) were adversely affected—and remember, the material injected into these cells contained kidney toxins.  So basically, they proved that the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not infect human tissue.

Another study sent to us comes with the fancy title,  “A Novel Chimpanzee Adenovirus Vector with Low Human Seroprevalence: Improved Systems for Vector Derivation and Comparative Immunogenicity.”

The researchers used “The wild type chimpanzee adenovirus isolate Y25 [which] was originally obtained from William Hillis, John Hopkins University of Medicine. The virus was passaged in HEK293A cells (Invitrogen, Cat. R705-07) and purified by CsCl gradient . . . Viral DNA was phenol extracted for genomic sequencing and cloning.”

The researchers purchased some material (not properly isolated even though it is called an “isolate”) which they then “passaged” through human embryonic kidney cells (called HEK293A), and then they “purified” it by CsCl gradient.  You can read about this technique here. It separates DNA molecules (not viruses) after mixing them with cesium chloride (a heavy metal salt) and ethidium bromide (a mutagen that can affect DNA biological processes, like DNA replication and transcription.)

This is the same smoke and mirrors—not true separation and isolation but “surrogate” techniques that use various poisons.

Another  study sent to us is entitled, “SARS-CoV-2 structure and replication characterized by in situ cryo-electron tomography,” published June 23, 2020. The authors begin with the creed of the faithful: “β-coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-1 and Middle Eastern Respiratory Virus (MERS-CoV) are highly contagious pathogens that can cause severe lower respiratory infections. At the end of 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the city of Wuhan, China, likely through zoonotic transmission via a bat reservoir and a still unidentified intermediate host that subsequently led to a pandemic, accumulating to date to over 8 million cases and close to 500,000 deaths worldwide.”

The article provides no references for the statement that the SARS virus is “highly contagious” but does contain a lot of fuzzy electron-microscope photographs of tissues and cells whose genetic material they determined using PCR tests—the equivalent of finding moats and turrets in a bunch of Lego pieces.

The researchers did not isolate and purify the virus but instead used “monkey kidney derived VeroE6 cells” and “human pulmonary cell lines.”  In other words, they used cell lines grown in starved and poisoned cultures.

Later in the paper the authors state that they get different “morphologies” of the virus depending on which cell line they use.   In other words when grown on monkey kidney cells the virus looks one way, grown on lung cancer the same virus looks different.  That is like saying that if you plant some seeds in one garden you will get tomatoes but if you plant them in another garden you will get turnips.  What this observation tells us is that what they find comes from the tissue not the source “virus,” that is why they are different.

According to the authors, “Our report provides the first in situ cryo-ET analysis of coronaviruses at high preservation levels.” Wait a minute—this study was published on June 23, 2020. You mean they had no analyses of this virus before health officials called for universal lockdown?

By the way, Stefano Scoglio, PhD, from Italy, has come to the same conclusions that we have in a talk entitled “THE INVENTED PANDEMIC, the lack of VIRUS ISOLATION and the INVALID COVID-19 test.”

Says Scoglio, “At the center of the pandemic project stands the Covid swab test, which is based on the RT-PCR (Reverse Transcriptase- Polymerase Chain reaction): a sample of organic material is taken from the throat, or more rarely from the broncho-alveolar fluid, of the individual, and then the presence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus in the sample is tested. This is done by using the same RT-PCR methodology used to originally “isolate” the virus from patient zero. Thus, the Covid test depends essentially on the original isolation, or lack thereof, of the SARS-Cov2 virus, the original PCR isolation of the virus constituting the golden standard necessary to validate any subsequent Covid test. The problems with the original virus isolation, and thus with the ensuing swab test, are many, and they all point to the truth that the SARS-Cov2 virus has never been isolated and never tested for its pathogenicity.”

One argument we hear is that Koch’s postulates are irrelevant, out of date, useless or even “wrong.” If so, why do researchers claim to have satisfied Koch’s postulates, not only for Covid-19 but for other diseases like HIV/AIDS and Lyme’s disease.

For example, in 1997, scientists announced that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does fulfill Koch’ postulates and hence is the proven cause of AIDS.  The study involved taking the blood from an HIV-positive person and injecting it into one chimpanzee. They didn’t purify or isolate anything, just injected the blood into one chimpanzee. They kept the chimp for ten years–who knows what they fed it or anything about its conditions of confinement. After ten years the chimp developed an “opportunistic infection” (which could even be a yeast infection) and tested HIV-positive (a test result that occurs in at least thirty-three other conditions).  The study had no controls–like injecting the chimp with blood from someone with cancer or with blood from a healthy person.  This was the proof that HIV causes AIDS!  This is not science, but it keeps the grant money flowing.

With Lyme’s disease the “proof” that Koch’s postulates were fulfilled comes from a paper published in 1983, which reported detection of spirochete [spiral-shaped bacteria] in the blood of two patients with Lyme. The researchers then examined some ticks in the neighborhood and found the same spirochete.  That’s it, that was the “proof” of Koch’s postulates.

As we have explained, finding bacteria at the site of an injury or in a person with a disease in no way constitutes proof of causation any more than finding firemen at the site of a fire means they caused the fire.  Among other roles, bacteria act as scavengers in nature, they “eat” dead or diseased tissue.  Maggots play the same role; if you see a dead dog crawling with maggots, it would be crazy conclude that the maggots killed the dog. So why do scientists assume that the presence of “viruses” in a cell means that the cell has been attacked from the outside and taken over by hostile compounds?

If anyone can show us a properly done study in which the “coronavirus” from many sick people was isolated, purified, photographed and characterized according to the consensus agreement of the 1973 Pasteur Institute guidelines, and then shown to cause disease in healthy organisms (animals or humans), we will gladly withdraw the book. Meanwhile, we contend that the idea of a contagious coronavirus is a fairy tale.

 

The Contagion Myth is banned on Amazon but available at:

Dr. Cowan’s website https://drtomcowan.com/products/the-contagion-myth/

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan

Connect with Sally Fallon Morell

The Belief That Viruses Are Pathogenic Invaders Is Crumbling

New Study Says ‘Exosomes’ Can’t Be Distinguished from Viruses

by Dr. Tom Cowan
October 26, 2020

In the world of science, beliefs typically die a long, slow death.  Such is the case with the germ theory, which really took off in the late 1800s.

At that time, the main proponents of the germ theory, including the Frenchman Louis Pasteur and the German Robert Koch, ardently believed that all the bacteria in living organisms, including human beings, were invaders from the outside.  In other words, from our skin inward, we were sterile, except if we had been invaded by a pathogen.  Today, 150 years later, this idea seems laughably incorrect and naïve.

Almost everyone now knows that trillions of bacteria live in and on every surface of our bodies.  Some people have even attempted to demonstrate that most of our genetic material is bacterial rather than human in origin.  We now have conclusive evidence that these trillions of bacteria living in us help digest our food, synthesize crucial nutrients, participate in detoxification functions, help regulate and control our emotions and, in some ways, participate in every normal human function.  The early proponents of the germ theory were not only completely inaccurate in their conclusions about the role of bacteria in the human organism, but, more important, they established a framework that postulated that human beings were somehow separate from nature.  This insidious and unscientific conclusion, which continues to the present time, has caused grave harm to all living systems.

In the case of viruses, a similar shift is just beginning to happen in the scientific community.  The old paradigm about viruses is that we are essentially “virus-free” in our healthy, natural state, and the only viruses that are inside us must be pathogens that came from the outside.  This belief was, of course, never proven; it was just stated as dogma, and it dovetailed nicely with the narrative of “nature is out to get us.”

If we fast forward to modern virology, we now know that these particles called viruses can be exosomes, also called extracellular vesicles (EVs), which are generated from the tissues as a way of detoxification and communication.  The way it works is that when a tissue is exposed to a certain toxin, especially one that breaks down the genetic material (i.e., EMF poisoning), the tissue packages this broken-down genetic material into vesicles so they can be excreted from the body.  This is what I mean when I say a virus is the body’s way of “pooping out poisons.”

This excreted package of poisons is not only a vital detoxification strategy, but it also serves as a communication vehicle that can be sent out to the world. Through a kind of resonance, exosomes  communicate from one part of the body to another, or from one organism to its community of friends, that a poison has been encountered, so prepare to make a defensive response.  The conclusion, then, is that these internally generated exosomes (EVs) are the agent of adaption for living beings. They are not pathogens. Unfortunately, the medical/scientific community has mistaken these detoxification-communication messengers for pathogenic viruses.  But that narrative is starting to crumble.  Consider this quote from a recent paper published in the journal Viruses 2020 May; 12(5). 571.  The paper was written by Gianessi, F et al and is titled:  “The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses.” Here is a quote from Section 3 of the paper:

The remarkable resemblance between EVs and viruses has caused quite a few problems in the studies on the analysis of EVs released during viral infections.  Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension.   To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs.   However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist.

Read the final line again: A way to distinguish external “pathogenic” viruses from particles generated from our own tissues to help us adapt to a novel toxin does NOT exist, period.  Perhaps the reason virologists can’t find any method to distinguish these particles from each other, in spite of the fact that they can pull a single molecule out of virtually any complex solution, can only be because there is nothing to distinguish.  I submit that all viruses are exosomes/EVs. They are all generated from our tissues. None are pathogens.  See you later, close up shop, it’s time to get honest work.

This change in how we view viruses (exosomes) will happen, but possibly only when the old guard dies out. Paradigms are hard to change.  This one, however, is threatening to destroy the world, and we don’t have time for the virologists to fade away. We must understand this shift ourselves.  It’s not that complicated once you remove the veil.  It’s obvious: We humans are part of the joyous dance of life, viruses and bacteria are our dance partners, and without them we will trip on our own two feet and fall flat on our collective faces.

All the best,

Tom

Connect with Dr. Tom Cowan