Dr. Tom Cowan Insists We Show Him Covid-19 |472|

Sorry to hear about your wife’s in law.
All the kooky descriptions of our enemy are ending up true. They’re so un-creative that we’re literally about to have another war against “The Commies”.
Here’s hoping we achieve herd immunity to both viruses.
Cheers
Thanks for the kind words. I'm wondering if we do get into a WW III, it may be the deteriorating climate & extreme weather that will bring it to close. Combined w/ rising & falling fight w/ COVID, the combination may be too much to sustain global war.
 
Of course, there is research and development of bioweapons. The predator class has weaponized everything, including consciousness itself, just ask Whitley Streiber.

However, contagion is a less reliable means of waging war. (since it's never been proven to ever work)

Hypodermic injections are a reliable and well tested delivery vehicle for whatever bioweapon you have in mind. They can be targeted to specific populations, with the injection batch numbers recorded and adverse reactions cataloged.

Injections go directly into the blood and bypass the human body defense systems against toxins.

My intuition lead me to Jon Rappoport's blog early in the declaration of the pandemic. His writing has served me well in seeing through the bullshit.

I read this post by Jon in February of 2020. (wow! - almost 2 years ago now)

The bio-weapon theory of the China epidemic « Jon Rappoport's Blog (nomorefakenews.com)
Thanks for Rappoport's blog link. Of course, that explains it: it's a toxic chemical that's being released somehow (colorless, light-weight powder, perhaps, dusted over a busy area would disperse it quickly). The ppl spreading it wouldn't be noticed b/c so many wear gloves & masks all the time everywhere. It also explains how the 'virus' went from China to Italy to the USA so quickly. After appearing in Washington & Oregon rest homes, inside of 10 days, it was detected practically in every state.
This tends to explain that odd case in China. A man traveled back from an area having an outbreak. He went into quarantine for 21 days & was tested practically every two days. He was negative the entire time. Then, he went home for home health monitoring for 7 more days. That's when he tested positive! The explanation was he picked it up OFF AN OBJECT or SURFACE.
The CNN report didn't say he got a cough & fever first, but I bet that's what happened. Then, of course he would test positive after the fact. That's what they did in Bogo City, Philippines. At the beginning of the plandemic, if you got 'COVID' symptoms & went to the hospital, you were given a scan test, not a PCR, & then you were declared positive. You stayed in the hospital or another isolation location until your health returned. EVERYONE who reported fever & cough were positive.
Ppl stopped going to the hospitals, stayed home, & treated it themselves b/c they feared being locked away & the hospital costs.
 
ok, so we can move past the "there is no virus" and "they never isolated the virus" stuff.
Kudos to Alex for giving Cowan the time of day. But I guess I expected 'very interesting Tom, so maybe virology was complicit in creating an environment of fear, mistrust, isolation, and cultural breakdown by emphasizing ideas such as "You are dirty and infected" "You might kill me or grandma"'. Is there an ulterior motive for 'contagion hysteria'?

I wonder what Alex's take is on research showing chickenpox reduces certain types of later brain cancer. Is this a signal that viruses have a cellular communication function?

Cowan cant be 100% correct. Where do we draw the line?
 
Last edited:
EXCLUSIVE – 100% of Covid-19 Vaccine Deaths were caused by just 5% of the batches produced according to official Government data – The Expose

For me, this confirms the notion that most of the injections are saline or placebo.

If all those who got injected got what's in the 5% of the batches that resulted in death, the death count would be 20 times higher and the cause of death would be obvious.

The VAERS death count is over 17 thousand as of October 22nd. If that represents 1% of the actual, which is what prior analysis of VAERS reporting history indicates, then there has been almost 2 million deaths from injection since the COVID injections began.

1.7 million times 20 would be 34 million deaths.

COVID Vaccine Data (openvaers.com)
 
Is it your contention that viruses (i.e. viral overload) can't cause illness and death within humans animals?
Yes, Alex, it is my contention that it has never been scientifically demonstrated, and the evidence is weak to non-existent, that any virus is contagious or infectious, or that viral infections cause illness and death, in humans, or in animals.

And, now that I've heard you tell your most recent guest Scott Shay that you think that those of us who believe that the virus has not been isolated are conspiracy theorists, the same as flat earthers, I guess you're not budging from the position that you held when you interrupted Dr. Tom Cowan and stopped him from presenting his ideas on your show almost a year ago.
 
I think this kinds side steps the question. the evidence suggests that we/they engineered a bioweapon... that's the whole gain-of-function thing.

this either happened or didn't, what's your opinion?


(and then there's the whole thing with moderna and how they got a head start and we're allowed to file a patent on the virus. I'm not an expert but you can look at whitney webb's stuff.)



If you agree that it did happen, then where does the " there is no virus, they never isolated the virus" thing fit?

Please do me / us a favor and ask cowan ( or you can invite him back on Skeptiko and I'll ask him) or ask someone else from this camp to answer the above. I'm not being cynical or snarky... I'd like to know what their answer is. I really don't think they have much of an answer... I'd like to hear it.
Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research (newsweek.com)

3.7 million dollars over 6 years? That's not even lunch money for military weapons R&D!

Whatever they spent on developing the 'bioweapon', they should get a refund. The survival rate of 'COVID infection' is like 99.95%. A kill rate of 1 out of 2,000 targeted is a pretty poor weapon, a bit unreliable, I'd say.

Here's a helpful little video detailing the silliness of bioweapons. It stars that kooky anti-virus conspiracy theorist Stafan Lanka.

Immanuel Project - O.R.I., No. 01: bioweapons - the myth of man-made pathogens (bitchute.com)

Lanka is great, "how do you make an artificial virus, when you can't even find a natural one?" LOL
 
I don't doubt that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated in a lab, but that is very different from isolating it in a live patient. I imagine it can be done via some kind of biopsy, but that's not something that many people are going to opt-in for, and so far, there are very few cases where death from COVID-19 has been definitively matched with the presence of the virus, because that requires autopsies and specialized lab procedures. So what we're left with are unconfirmed "cases" based largely on PCR tests, and we all know the problems with those.
 
What's the problem with the PCR tests? Are they real problems, or are they coming from the CT/flat-earther crew?
PCR tests don't test for COVID-19, but positive results are branded as COVID-19 "cases". That's just the start. Then there's the whole issue of standardization with cycle counts and the controversy over how many cycles produce the most accurate results. The answer ranges from between 12 and somewhere in the neighborhood of 38.
 
PCR tests don't test for COVID-19,
What do you mean by "don't test for COVID-19"? They are near 100% specific for COVID-19.

but positive results are branded as COVID-19 "cases".
Why wouldn't they be?

That's just the start. Then there's the whole issue of standardization with cycle counts and the controversy over how many cycles produce the most accurate results. The answer ranges from between 12 and somewhere in the neighborhood of 38.
But that's just quibbling over whether someone is infectious vs. recovered, and how many false-negatives are acceptable.
 
What do you mean by "don't test for COVID-19"? They are near 100% specific for COVID-19.
Actually, PCR tests aren't specific for COVID-19 at all. Bear with me here, because it's important. COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 are two different things. COVID-19 is the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. COVID-19 doesn't happen until a person is infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and it begins replicating and shedding from within the body.

However the PCR tests do not test for infection and replication within the test subject's body. PCR tests only test for the presence of viral fragments matching the SARS-CoV-2 virus that have been gathered from a swab of nasal passages. So if a person happens to breathe in some dead viral fragments that are picked-up by a swab, they will test positive, and then they become a "COVID-19 case" — see the problem?

Now if that person happens to also be dying of heart disease, and ends-up in the hospital and dies, the WHO protocol is to list them as a death from COVID because of the positive test.

So while PCR tests for viral fragments can be very accurate, it's a leap in logic to assume that a positive test means that the test subject is infected and shedding. From what I've been able to tell, very few cases are ever confirmed to be infectious via autopsy and lab analysis following death. This means that there must be a portion of hospitalizations and deaths that are not "from" COVID-19 that are arbitrarily being added to the stats because of positive PCR tests.

This also means that the "fact checkers" have either been unwittingly baited and switched, or they are themselves doing the baiting and switching. It's not necessarily a lie to say "PCR tests are 98% accurate" ( for the presence of the virus or viral fragments ). But for those who don't get the science behind the test, it's easy to make that leap in logic and assume that a positive test automatically means a person has COVID-19 ( when they don't ).

But that's just quibbling over whether someone is infectious vs. recovered, and how many false-negatives are acceptable.
If you get what I said above, then you'll realize that cycle counts and false positives are completely separate from whether or not someone is infectious. PCR tests will yield positive results for the complete virus as well as non-viable ( dead ) viruses, and any matching viral fragments. None of those results means that the test subject is actually infected and replicating.
 
Last edited:
Actually, PCR tests aren't specific for COVID-19 at all. Bear with me here, because it's important. COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 are two different things. COVID-19 is the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. COVID-19 doesn't happen until a person is infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and it begins replicating and shedding from within the body.

However the PCR tests do not test for infection and replication within the test subject's body. PCR tests only test for the presence of viral fragments matching the SARS-CoV-2 virus that have been gathered from a swab of nasal passages. So if a person happens to breathe in some dead viral fragments that are picked-up by a swab, they will test positive, and then they become a "COVID-19 case" — see the problem?

Now if that person happens to also be dying of heart disease, and ends-up in the hospital and dies, the WHO protocol is to list them as a death from COVID because of the positive test.

So while PCR tests for viral fragments can be very accurate, it's a leap in logic to assume that a positive test means that the test subject is infected and shedding. From what I've been able to tell, very few cases are ever confirmed to be infectious via autopsy and lab analysis following death. This means that there must be a portion of hospitalizations and deaths that are not "from" COVID-19 that are arbitrarily being added to the stats because of positive PCR tests.

This also means that the "fact checkers" have either been unwittingly baited and switched, or they are themselves doing the baiting and switching. It's not necessarily a lie to say "PCR tests are 98% accurate" ( for the presence of the virus or viral fragments ). But for those who don't get the science behind the test, it's easy to make that leap in logic and assume that a positive test automatically means a person has COVID-19 ( when they don't ).



If you get what I said above, then you'll realize that cycle counts and false positives are completely separate from whether or not someone is infectious. PCR tests will yield positive results for the complete virus as well as non-viable ( dead ) viruses, and any matching viral fragments. None of those results means that the test subject is actually infected and replicating.
Ah, I see. So it's Flat Earther stuff. Some Random Dude on the Internet came up with "nobody thought to do viral cultures and all the other stuff they've been doing all along to figure out whether or not somebody is really infected and what they are infected with" and "people with hypertension have always been suddenly dropping dead from Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome", and the CT/FE crew passes around these little nuggets without ever finding out whether or not they are bogus.
 
Tom Cowan Insists We Show Him Covid-19 |472|
by Alex Tsakiris | Nov 17 | Skepticism
Share
Tweet
0SHARES

Tom Cowan’s has some wacky ideas, but in what world can Amazon ban a Simon & Schuster book?

Audio Clip: 0:02 ‘Hi, everybody, Hi Dr. Nic. Dr Nic this malpractice committee has received a few complaints against you.’
Alex Tsakiris: 0:12 – That’s of course the Simpsons and today’s show does dive into what some people see as medical quackery and what other people see as cutting edge conspiracy science. Here’s a clip:
Published in Nature three years ago, again in 2016. In 2016 he was on this. He can give you all the stats on the camels and how many of the camels had the virus and how many camels had the, the antibodies and then, you know, so he’s been doing that work for 10 years. So he just –
Dr. Tom Cowan: 0:49 – Show me the picture.
Alex Tsakiris: 0:46 – Show you the picture. Here’s the-
Dr. Tom Cowan: 0:49 – Your name is Alex right? Alex, right now show me the picture of the isolated virus.
Alex Tsakiris: 0:55 – Show, (Laughs)-
Dr. Tom Cowan: 0:58 – Show it to me.
Alex Tsakiris: 0:59 – Flat earth-
Dr. Tom Cowan: 1:00 – You said you believe this guy? Show me the picture.
Alex Tsakiris: 1:02 – Flat earth science. That’s what the flat earth guys do. They say, Hey, I can’t see the rest. Show me, show me.

Alex, you know about evil, you wrote the book on it. I wonder what you think about the evil of eugenics genocide and the disinformation that is leading to it.

Who is more evil, the eugenicist who is intentionally spreading disinformation about the virus, or someone who is confused and angry and sharing the same disinformation leading to the intended genocide?
 
Alex, you know about evil, you wrote the book on it. I wonder what you think about the evil of eugenics genocide and the disinformation that is leading to it.

Who is more evil, the eugenicist who is intentionally spreading disinformation about the virus, or someone who is confused and angry and sharing the same disinformation leading to the intended genocide?
With the caveat that who knows what the CT/FE "Evil Rules" consist of once reason is abandoned...but surely the person who knows they are lying is worse? After all, they had the bigger hill to climb (or pit to dig?) to convince themselves what they are doing is "good".

I don't know who that is...these seem like good candidates, though.

https://swprs.org
Mercola
 
Last edited:
With the caveat that who knows what the CT/FE "Evil Rules" consist of once reason is abandoned...but surely the person who knows they are lying is worse? After all, they had the bigger hill to climb (or pit to dig?) to convince themselves what they are doing is "good".

I don't know who that is...these seem like good candidates, though.

https://swprs.org
Mercola
EllisR, What do you make of all the “mysterious” heart problems surging in the last few weeks among otherwise healthy people (world class atheletes, children, concert goers, etc)?
Regarding Evil:
Is the infantry soldier in combat at war “evil” for killing his enemy with his bayonet? If no, then how is the oligarch who believe Earthlings are destroying the planet by overpopulation?
 
EllisR, What do you make of all the “mysterious” heart problems surging in the last few weeks among otherwise healthy people (world class atheletes, children, concert goers, etc)?
Why are you asking me? That sounds like a medical/public health issue.

Regarding Evil:
Is the infantry soldier in combat at war “evil” for killing his enemy with his bayonet? If no, then how is the oligarch who believe Earthlings are destroying the planet by overpopulation?
You really don't see a difference between the two? And for the record, I'm not one of the believers in Good and Evil.
 
Ah, I see. So it's Flat Earther stuff. Some Random Dude on the Internet came up with "nobody thought to do viral cultures and all the other stuff they've been doing all along to figure out whether or not somebody is really infected and what they are infected with" and "people with hypertension have always been suddenly dropping dead from Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome", and the CT/FE crew passes around these little nuggets without ever finding out whether or not they are bogus.
You're grossly oversimplifying my post and misrepresenting my point. So either drop the flamethrower or out or stop being obtuse. To reiterate for the other readers out there ( if any ).

I'm confident that that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated and mapped all the way down to the molecular level. For that matter, it was probably mapped all the way down prior to the pandemic in the lab where it came from ( but that's another discussion ). I'm also perfectly fine with the idea that samples have been taken from COVID-19 patients and that those sample cultures have turned-out to be the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Where you're missing the point is that creating viral cultures to determine the cause of death isn't the routine process for assigning the cause of death on death certificates. Instead, the rely largely on PCR tests, and PCR tests don't definitively determine that the test subject has been infected. It only determines exposure to the virus or viral fragments.
 
You're grossly oversimplifying my post and misrepresenting my point. So either drop the flamethrower or out or stop being obtuse. To reiterate for the other readers out there ( if any ).

I'm confident that that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated and mapped all the way down to the molecular level. For that matter, it was probably mapped all the way down prior to the pandemic in the lab where it came from ( but that's another discussion ). I'm also perfectly fine with the idea that samples have been taken from COVID-19 patients and that those sample cultures have turned-out to be the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Where you're missing the point is that creating viral cultures to determine the cause of death isn't the routine process for assigning the cause of death on death certificates. Instead, the rely largely on PCR tests, and PCR tests don't definitively determine that the test subject has been infected. It only determines exposure to the virus or viral fragments.
You missed my point. Who cares what you think? If Random Dude on the Internet thinks he's capable of identifying a problem, then why on earth would you assume that all the people who have way more knowledge and experience than RDotI, and work with this every day, aren't 1000 times more capable of identifying and addressing it? Just because you repeat some "problem" (that seems to be easily debunked by people who know what they are doing), doesn't mean you can claim that "we all know the problems with PCR tests." What you really mean is "we all know what bogus complaints will be unchallenged in the CT/FE echo chamber."
 
Generally speaking,
I find depressing the lack of steel-manning of the Gloabalists’ narrative by otherwise genius thought leaders.

(Off the top of my head, me steel-manning the Globalist perspective)
Capitalism is steering the ship(Earth population) which is headed for an iceberg(global cataclysm). The ship is too big and to close to miss it by turning, so all who will survive must transfer to a smaller ship(build back better).
If the iceberg would otherwise kill ALL passengers, then the Globalists feel justified in whatsoever means is needed to shed those who won’t be transferring to the smaller ship.

Once you realize this is their perspective, it becomes silly to battle with them in semantics about the long term welfare of current ship.
 
Last edited:
Top