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:
- Kevin McKernan Bio
- Medical Doctors For COVID Ethics International Full Video Interview: Kevin McKernan
- Medical Doctors For COVID Ethics International Video Interview: Dr. Mark Bailey
- Medical Doctors For COVID Ethics International Video Interview: Dr. Kevin Corbett
- Airborne-transmission-of-SARS-CoV-2: The World Should Face The Reality
- Baric, R et al. SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Genetics Reveals a Variable Infection Gradient in the Respiratory Tract
- Consensus Statement: The species Severe acute respiratory syndromerelated coronavirus- classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2
- Follow Dr. Tom Cowan here
Connect with Drs. Samantha and Mark Bailey
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:
Truth Comes to Light highlights writers and video creators who ask the difficult questions while sharing their unique insights and visions.
Everything posted on this site is done in the spirit of conversation. Please do your own research and trust yourself when reading and giving consideration to anything that appears here or anywhere else.
